JBI
Registered User
Re: deleted
My guess would be tigerloose deleted tigerloose.
My guess would be tigerloose deleted tigerloose.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
beach
Gold Member
Re: deleted
Is it "Brudgers" or "Grudgers"? :roll:
Is it "Brudgers" or "Grudgers"? :roll:
Re: deleted
Ok, Ya'll
Please come back Tiger; we need you.
How about one of you Moderators putting the Subject back; so we know what the thread is about? Or delete the whole tread? Come on, earn your keep. :mrgreen:
Uncle Bob
Ok, Ya'll
Please come back Tiger; we need you.
How about one of you Moderators putting the Subject back; so we know what the thread is about? Or delete the whole tread? Come on, earn your keep. :mrgreen:
Uncle Bob
Re: deleted
I didn't see the original picture that started this thread, so I am not speaking to that particular issue.
My perspective is, code officials approve compliant prescriptive work, and in the course of our day often come across some type of work that is not prescriptive and therefore must be judged "performance based" (speaking residentially, where there are no stamped drawings), since we have the authority to approve work that is "equal to or better than" prescriptive work and if we have the technical knowledge where we feel comfortable doing so, then we may approve non-prescriptive work.
Seems like this happens all the time where I work.
I didn't see the original picture that started this thread, so I am not speaking to that particular issue.
My perspective is, code officials approve compliant prescriptive work, and in the course of our day often come across some type of work that is not prescriptive and therefore must be judged "performance based" (speaking residentially, where there are no stamped drawings), since we have the authority to approve work that is "equal to or better than" prescriptive work and if we have the technical knowledge where we feel comfortable doing so, then we may approve non-prescriptive work.
Seems like this happens all the time where I work.
beach
Gold Member
Re: deleted
The picture showed a 4X12(?) beam supported on the end by a 4x4 Simpson type hanger that had the nail flanges flattened out in the field. A few of the obvious things was that the hanger was not deep enough for the depth of the beam and the hanger is not designed to have the flanges straightened out. Being an ex framer and not having a Simpson catalog in front of me, I think an HH hanger would have probably worked (I think it's an "HH" hanger...the one where the flanges are reverse bent so they are behind or inside the saddle of the hanger). However, how can an inspector know the loading of the beam, etc. to determine what hanger is required for that particular application? Coming from an area that requires engineering and stamped drawings for everything except doggy doors, the inspectors around here need to see the exact hanger noted on the plans....why should they need to suggest a particular hanger for a load they don't know? I don't see how that is prescriptive or performance based. Technical knowledge is one thing, but there are different hangers for different loads and applications that an engineer must specify.
The picture showed a 4X12(?) beam supported on the end by a 4x4 Simpson type hanger that had the nail flanges flattened out in the field. A few of the obvious things was that the hanger was not deep enough for the depth of the beam and the hanger is not designed to have the flanges straightened out. Being an ex framer and not having a Simpson catalog in front of me, I think an HH hanger would have probably worked (I think it's an "HH" hanger...the one where the flanges are reverse bent so they are behind or inside the saddle of the hanger). However, how can an inspector know the loading of the beam, etc. to determine what hanger is required for that particular application? Coming from an area that requires engineering and stamped drawings for everything except doggy doors, the inspectors around here need to see the exact hanger noted on the plans....why should they need to suggest a particular hanger for a load they don't know? I don't see how that is prescriptive or performance based. Technical knowledge is one thing, but there are different hangers for different loads and applications that an engineer must specify.
Re: deleted
Like I said, I didn't see the pictures, but I can say that modifying something like a hanger that is listed is a "shame on you" without even seeing it.
In most cases, the residential structures where I work do not have construction documents, so instead I do have to use basic knowledge to approve or not. If I feel it is outside of my knowledge base I have no problem asking them for verification of compliance from a stamped professional.
Like I said, I didn't see the pictures, but I can say that modifying something like a hanger that is listed is a "shame on you" without even seeing it.
In most cases, the residential structures where I work do not have construction documents, so instead I do have to use basic knowledge to approve or not. If I feel it is outside of my knowledge base I have no problem asking them for verification of compliance from a stamped professional.
RickAstoria
-------------------
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 531
Re: lots of corrections
If the design for the project falls under the exceptions in ORS 672.060 (Engineer's Law) [it also will fall under the exemption under ORS 671.030 - Architect's Law] - then you should require the original DP (even if the DP is an unregistered designer / person) to make the corrections and submit calculations in accordance with accepted standards. Of course, if the designer is not able to perform the calcs to support the corrective measures, you should request them to get the design and calcs prepared & stamped & signed by an RDP (licensed & registered in the state in which the project is to be built) and have it resubmitted. IOW, Oregon registered Design Professional.
Your local "laws" will triumph over the state laws and codes provide it is stricter and doesn't lessen the required laws of the state and federal level. Very simple.
It is the designer's responsibility not yours. You may make a suggestion if you clearly make a disclaimer. You have to be careful and you don't want to put liability to your employer (the local government entity). You may not be able to be sued but the city/county government itself can be sued AND you can be fired if they don't like the liability you added to them. So be careful, my friend. This is an old response.
Kil..John Drobysh said:
If the design for the project falls under the exceptions in ORS 672.060 (Engineer's Law) [it also will fall under the exemption under ORS 671.030 - Architect's Law] - then you should require the original DP (even if the DP is an unregistered designer / person) to make the corrections and submit calculations in accordance with accepted standards. Of course, if the designer is not able to perform the calcs to support the corrective measures, you should request them to get the design and calcs prepared & stamped & signed by an RDP (licensed & registered in the state in which the project is to be built) and have it resubmitted. IOW, Oregon registered Design Professional.
Your local "laws" will triumph over the state laws and codes provide it is stricter and doesn't lessen the required laws of the state and federal level. Very simple.
It is the designer's responsibility not yours. You may make a suggestion if you clearly make a disclaimer. You have to be careful and you don't want to put liability to your employer (the local government entity). You may not be able to be sued but the city/county government itself can be sued AND you can be fired if they don't like the liability you added to them. So be careful, my friend. This is an old response.
Re: deleted
rick a wrote dec.28 on page 4:
rick a wrote dec.28 on page 4:
I wrote Dec. 19,on page 1:
Rick, if you would try to read (listen) before you jump to erroneous conclusions, you wouldn’t have to waste time making these unjustified threats of people losing their jobs because a non-professional designer didn’t read (listen) to what was posted. Same goes for your trying to read building codes, Oregon administrative rule and Oregon revised statues.
RickAstoria
-------------------
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 531
Re: deleted
Yes it is.Heaven said:
Re: deleted
IBC Section 106.4:
IBC Section 106.4:
Absolutely, we (building dept.) need to approve any changes and have the amended documents for records. If the plans were drawn by a DP, then the DP needs to make the changes. If a non-professional drew the plans than any one can make the changes, but in either case, they still need to be approved by the building dept.
RickAstoria
-------------------
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 531
Re: deleted
The person - (licensed or not) who prepared it should make the changes.
Absolutely, we (building dept.) need to approve any changes and have the amended documents for records. If the plans were drawn by a DP, then the DP needs to make the changes. If a non-professional drew the plans than any one can make the changes, but in either case, they still need to be approved by the building dept.kilitact said:
The person - (licensed or not) who prepared it should make the changes.