Engineer vs/ Desigh Professional

[Glennman CBO]

2006 IBC. Seismic zone C. (Sorry..."Design Professional")

In Washington State we have a provision that allows DP's to design buildings over 4000 sq ft, and calculate "gravity and lateral" loads with out the use of an engineer (apparently).

I looked at some footings the other day for a 36000 sq ft concrete tilt up warehouse. The plans are stamped only by a registered design professional, and yes, they were approved by our plans examiner.

When I asked her about this, she quoted this section from the state law that states that an architect can provide calculations for gravity and lateral loads.

Isn't there more to a concrete tilt up building than lateral and gravity loads (structurally)?

 

[brudgers]

2006 IBC. Seismic zone C. (Sorry..."Design Professional")In Washington State we have a provision that allows DP's to design buildings over 4000 sq ft, and calculate "gravity and lateral" loads with out the use of an engineer (apparently).

I looked at some footings the other day for a 36000 sq ft concrete tilt up warehouse. The plans are stamped only by a registered design professional, and yes, they were approved by our plans examiner.

When I asked her about this, she quoted this section from the state law that states that an architect can provide calculations for gravity and lateral loads.

Isn't there more to a concrete tilt up building than lateral and gravity loads (structurally)?

In general there's nothing more to the design of a typical building.

There should be specialized engineering for the design of the individual panels. This is typically handled in shop drawings by the vendor.

 

[Glennman CBO]

Thanks Brudgers.

I'll see what they have when they start calling in for panel inspections.

 

[brudgers]

In my opinion, the panel inspection should be in the list of special inspections...only if you think it warranted - a simple one story warehouse building is one thing. A tilt up multi-level assembly occupancy is another.

 

[Mark K]

The reinforcing in the tilt-up panels necessary to resist lateral and gravity loads should be included in the permit drawings. The specialized design of the panels is to deal with the loads during lifting and is not governed by the building code. Thus it is not clear that the reinforcing added for lifting is part of the city inspection.

If the permit drawings do not show the reinforcing steel for gravity and lateral loads then you have a deferred approval situation.

Special inspection of the reinforcing steel and concrete placement for the panels is required by the IBC.

Exception 1 in IBC Section 1704.1 states that special inspection is not required for work of a minor nature when approved by the building official. Most engineers would not consider this tilt-up to be minor construction.

 

[brudgers]

Most engineers would not consider this tilt-up to be minor construction.

The building official can require the inspection by law. An engineer can specify the inspection but does not have enforcement powers...although in this cease there does not appear to be one involved at the permit phase.

 

[Mac]

A "deferred approval" - I like that!

 

[righter101]

Just my 2 cents worth, from Washington. Here are two good links, from the Dept. of Licn. the first is a guide book that has an explanation of the laws and who can do what. the second is the acutal laws regarding engineering. read carefully the "significant strucutres" portion of the RCW. this explains where an acutal Structural Engineer is required to do the design, vs. a Civil Engineer or Licensed Architect.

FYI

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/architects/dolguibk.pdf

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineerslandsurveyors/laws_eng.pdf

 

[Mark K]

The special inspections being discussed are the default and can only be omitted if the building official determines that the work is of a minor nature. While the building official has a fair amount of flexibility ultimately he has to enforce the building code.

2009 IBC Section 1705.2 item 1 allows the design professional to designate additional special inspections. These special inspections need to be performed before the final report required in section 1704.1.2 is submitted. If this is not done the report will be incomplete. The building official is charged with enforcing these special inspections.

 

[MarkRandall]

righter101,

Your first link references an older document. If you are not aware, the state passed considerable revisions to the Architect law this year. New laws take effect July 1, I believe.

As far as your second link, no where in that document does it say an Architect's services are limited on significant structures. I believe you'd have to reference the Architect laws as to whether an Architect can or can't provide services (I did not look back at them). As an Architect in the State of Washington, it's a moot issue for me. Earlier in my career, I did do my own engineering on smaller projects, but it became obvious a long time ago, it's much more efficient to hire a structural engineer who engineers 100% of the time than it is for me to provide the services who maybe spent 5% of my time doing engineering. I don't even think of doing engineering anymore.

 

[Glennman CBO]

MarkRandall,

I came to the same conclusions regarding the links. After looking into the situation more, even the shop drawings do not have an engineer's stamp.

I wrote a correction on the project early on regarding the field bending of their rabar that was sticking out of the footings at places where they would need to access the inner portions of the building footprint. Per 2006 IBC 1907.3 regarding bending of rebar, it refers to ACI 318, sectin 7.3, which states that rebar that is partially imbedded in concrete may not be field bent except as shown on the design drawings, or permitted by the engineer.

I got an approval by the RDP for them to bend the rebar, but not from an engineer, because there isn't one. When I brought this up to the plans examiner that there does not appear to be an engineer involved in the project, they said that one isn't required, since a, RDP can (supposedly) provide calculations for lateral and gravity loads.

If an RDP can structurally and architectually design a 34,000 sq ft concrete tilt up, then what is the purpose of an engineer? I'm still researching this issue.

 

[Mark K]

In this discussion we need to differentiate between having the expertise and having the legal authority to make certain decisions.

In general Architects and other non-engineer design professionals do not have the expertise to perform any semi sophisticated engineering. On simple structures these non-engineers might know enough to make reasonable decision but some times they are in over their head.

For reasons having more to do with history and power states generally allow a registered architect to stamp and sign engineering work. In reality most architects understand their limitations and retain an engineer to do the work.

The building department is constrained by both the state licensing regulations and the building code with the state licensing regulations governing if their is a conflict. In this context the building department cannot require an engineer to perform the work instead of an architect if the architect is allowed to do the work by the state licensing regulations. The building department can reject submittals from either an architect or an engineer if the submittal does not comply with the provisions in the building code.

The term Registered Design Professional (2009 IBC Section 202) includes both architects and engineers and leaves it to the state professional registration laws to say what they can or cannot do. I believe that it was legaly appropriate to interpret reference in ACI 318 refering to an engineer as also including an architect.

 

[Glennman CBO]

Mark,

Thanks for the reply. I cannot find anything that states that the RDP connot structurally design this building. I've basically left it in the hands of the plans examiner.

 

[Gene Boecker]

The ICC wanted to stay clear of all the various licensing requirements expressed by each state. that's why they used the term Registered Design Professional. Marl's point is what the ICC decided, that it is up to each state to decide how to address this issue. Some states grant the plan reviewer the ability to address areas of expertise. Most do not. In most states it is the up the licensing boards to enforce the provisions of areas of expertise. This gets muddy when a reviewer also has a design license. In that case, professional obligation dictates that if they suspect that a design professional is working outside the bounds established by the state, that reviewer has the legal responsibility to report such to the licensing board.

Bottom line, unless the state authorizes the review for it, areas of expertise are generally outside the purview of the plan reviewer's responsibilities. If it's signed and sealed by a RDP, that's the end of it - at least as far as the ICC is concerned.

 

[brudgers]

If an RDP can structurally and architectually design a 34,000 sq ft concrete tilt up, then what is the purpose of an engineer? I'm still researching this issue.

It depends on the state and it's laws. In some states architects can seal anything they are competent to design. Others, they can seal any engineering incidental to the architectural design and the tilt up walls might fall under that. Other states severely limit the structural design an architect may do.

The real question is regarding the actual suitability of the design.

 

[righter101]

MARK RANDALL..... to reply to your previous comments.

You state that new (washington) laws have been passed that will take effect July 1st. I am quite aware of it, however, the ones i posted are the ones in effect at this time.

also, reread the 2nd link, further in the RCW's, and engineering work on "significant structures" (see definition)is regulated, stated in the following subsection:

(iv) An engineer must be registered as a structural engineer

in order to provide structural engineering services for

significant structures.

This would preclude an architect, or even a civil engineer from performing work on something deemed a "significant structure", without approval via the process spelled out earlier in that chapter.

 

[righter101]

Also, to clarify my notes, i was presenting general material, regarding RDP's and the State of Washington, an it would not apply specifically to the project described, unless the use was determined to be a "significant strucutre".

 

[atomahutna]

Bottom line, unless the state authorizes the review for it, areas of expertise are generally outside the purview of the plan reviewer's responsibilities. If it's signed and sealed by a RDP, that's the end of it - at least as far as the ICC is concerned.

I agree, but the true bottom line is that it's the resonsibility of the building department to review the design, instead of just looking for a professional's stamp. If you're uncomfortable with it and don't have an engineer or other qualified person to review the design, then it should go out to an engineer or a consultant.

I think we're pretty good at knowing when the designer isn't really qualified to do the design, but how often do we really look at ourselves and say "maybe I'm not really qualified to look at this smoke control system . I think too often we rely on "the stamp."

I realize that can be tough on the budget, so I'd suggest adopting an ordinance that states when the review of a building permit requires the retention of professional consulting services, the applicant shall pay the cost.

Now's the time...