Engineering Creep

[Energystar]

There is a disturbing trend in our area where plans examiners are requiring more and more engineering. It started with I-beams, then LVLs. Now it is Braced Wall Plans, headers, decks, many concrete footings, etc. Some jurisdictions are requiring an engineer’s stamp on the entire set of plans. Engineers go about this differently than architects. They do not refer to the IRC which is normally of no practical use to them. Often, their requirements can result in significant overdesign. Since their stamp is on the plans, they refuse to compromise. Afterall, they are professionals.

Some examples on one set of plans I am currently reviewing:

• All exterior and interior loadbearing headers must be double 2x12.
• All interior non-loadbearing headers must be double 2x6. (Isn’t “non-loadbearing header” an oxymoron?)
• Many 24” deep, 3’x3’ footings for point loads. Note that this is a single-story slab with a loft. There is one point load that is just over 8,000 lbs.
• Trench footings well below the frost line with lots more steel than is normal.
• Requirement of soils engineering to make sure soil can support at least 2,000 psf.

It is my understanding that the IRC only exists to preclude the need for an engineer as long as one follows the prescribed code. This plan never comes close to stepping outside that prescription.

My question is, where should the line be drawn and/or how do you or your AHJ deal with this issue?

 

[SDS]

The design determines whether an engineer is required.

 

[Genduct]

There is a disturbing trend in our area where plans examiners are requiring more and more engineering. It started with I-beams, then LVLs. Now it is Braced Wall Plans, headers, decks, many concrete footings, etc. Some jurisdictions are requiring an engineer’s stamp on the entire set of plans. Engineers go about this differently than architects. They do not refer to the IRC which is normally of no practical use to them. Often, their requirements can result in significant overdesign. Since their stamp is on the plans, they refuse to compromise. Afterall, they are professionals.

Some examples on one set of plans I am currently reviewing:

• All exterior and interior loadbearing headers must be double 2x12.
• All interior non-loadbearing headers must be double 2x6. (Isn’t “non-loadbearing header” an oxymoron?)
• Many 24” deep, 3’x3’ footings for point loads. Note that this is a single-story slab with a loft. There is one point load that is just over 8,000 lbs.
• Trench footings well below the frost line with lots more steel than is normal.
• Requirement of soils engineering to make sure soil can support at least 2,000 psf.

It is my understanding that the IRC only exists to preclude the need for an engineer as long as one follows the prescribed code. This plan never comes close to stepping outside that prescription.

My question is, where should the line be drawn and/or how do you or your AHJ deal with this issue?

You make a Good Point: Why have all those joist tables and other PRESCRIPTIVE DETAIL AND DATA If you need to get an Engineer, Not to just SIGN OFF but also use the 2 times P ( for Plenty) as the design "STANDARD"

Perhaps the Wind Bracing requirements should be reviewed, especially if you are in a High wind, Coastal Hurricane Area

Where to draw the Line?

 

[TheCommish]

Houses in my area a going beyond the rectangular box which often puts components outside of the stuff we can look up in the tables.

I agree if it is in the table, unless ther is another ordinance they requires engineering, we should stick to the code.

 

[Plumb-bob]

The requirement for engineering has certainly increased over the years, but the basic house has gone from a small box with many interior wall to large open concept resulting in long spans and increased loads.
I live in a small town and we do not require engineering for anything that can be built using the prescriptive solutions in our code.
I get that over regulation is onerous on many stakeholders, and should be controlled where possible. But under regulation is the real fear. Look at Turkey, where 50,000 people have died in buildings that were supposed to be earthquake resistant.

 

[Genduct]

Houses in my area a going beyond the rectangular box which often puts components outside of the stuff we can look up in the tables.

I agree if it is in the table, unless ther is another ordinance they requires engineering, we should stick to the code.

YEP That is where the word JUDGMENT comes in. Where to Draw the Line

 

[Genduct]

The requirement for engineering has certainly increased over the years, but the basic house has gone from a small box with many interior wall to large open concept resulting in long spans and increased loads.
I live in a small town and we do not require engineering for anything that can be built using the prescriptive solutions in our code.
I get that over regulation is onerous on many stakeholders, and should be controlled where possible. But under regulation is the real fear. Look at Turkey, where 50,000 people have died in buildings that were supposed to be earthquake resistant.

Agreed, like my response to Commish
YEP That is where the word JUDGMENT comes in. Where to Draw the Line

 

[Keystone]

Pre ICC a local municipality was notorious for requirements above and beyond code. When you quoted a job you increased the bid 25% for the unknowns. Now on the code side of the equation and a supposed level playing field having the I Codes and the Wild West of Pennsylvania’s UCC the urgency for engineering rose sharply.

Word on the street, this was intentional from top down to slow and discourage building within the township. True or Not one can only speculate based on the actions of that township.

 

[bill1952]

Just curious - basically ant sized one or two family dwelling? I don't know basis - I'll ask next time I see building official - but in this jurisdiction under 1500 sf, straight builder design. Over, registered design professional.

The hard part around here and from what I hear many places, is finding an RDP willing to work on a small project and starting less than 6 or 8 months. It's brutal. I convinced my official my little IRC building - which technically required an RDP for what I did - was ok. Couldn't find a RDP at any price.

 

[Genduct]

Pre ICC a local municipality was notorious for requirements above and beyond code. When you quoted a job you increased the bid 25% for the unknowns. Now on the code side of the equation and a supposed level playing field having the I Codes and the Wild West of Pennsylvania’s UCC the urgency for engineering rose sharply.

Word on the street, this was intentional from top down to slow and discourage building within the township. True or Not one can only speculate.

Given that many of us started out working with the tools, it is understandable that many of those Pre ICC Code people were applying their own "Good Job Standards" when the intent of the Code is to demand a Minimum Safety Standard where the place won't blow up, collapse and kill the occupants.

Just consider the implications of Building Science where you can compost the building from the inside- out if you don't handle the Vapor Barrier,( or is it Vapor Retarder?) aspect correctly. Especially in our Mixed Humid Zone 5 area around Philly.

I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't alert the owners to ask for clarification so that 1-year limited liability for COntractors could be extended
For instance, could you comment:
FYI, although the plans meet the Code Standards, you (owner) might be well advised to ask your Builder / Design Professional about the possible impact of open cell foam insulation on your roof sheathing

I can't wait to hear how you all feel about opening that Can of Worms.
This could get really interesting. Our Moral responsibility vs Our Legal Responsibility HMMMM

Where to draw the Line? Just used that remark earlier

 

[Sifu]

If a plan can be reviewed prescriptively and is submitted that way, I do it that way. If an element of that plan does not meet the prescriptive requirements or is outside the scope of the code I will provide the option of having an engineer evaluate it or provide a design. Often, determining what is or isn't within the scope, or does or doesn't meet the code is the source of the problem, and the person making that determination may or may not have the relevant expertise to make the determination. IMHO, a blind requirement and reliance on engineering is not appropriate. If we aren't careful, we will require ourselves right out of a job.

You mention I-beams and LVL's. Neither of those elements is prescriptive, so it is somewhat justifiable to ask for more information. For me, sometimes that information does not absolutely have to be a sealed design from an engineer, but it is widely accepted. I will take the time to evaluate an issue before I blindly require a design professional. For example, MANY TIMES, I have advised what the code would require for a deck beam. MANY TIMES I will get a design from an engineer with smaller beams of engineered material. What is typically not accepted, again, my opinion, is "we have done it that way for 30 years" or "we do it that way over there". Not because it has been wrong for 30 years or that it was wrong over there, but because things are different over time, and different in other places. These things tend to creep out of the thought process if not careful.

In many instances, using an engineer can be less demanding than the code, if you have not experienced this you may want to have a conversation with the engineers you use. It may not be completely accurate to say the code is based on worst case scenarios, but in order to write an all encompassing code, for use throughout the states, it does tend to be more conservative in some aspects. When I was building, the houses were way outside the square box mentality of the code, and some things simply had to be engineered. It became easier, faster, and cheaper to just have the entire structure evaluated. I often found the beams I was intending on using, or had used in similar situations before didn't have to be as large as I thought. Most of my work was stock plans, with some customization. But, once, just for kicks, I designed, drew and built complete house, 100% prescriptively. It took a long time. I never did it again.

The prescriptive code, in many cases does not cover a lot of what we see today in residential construction. And maybe this does not apply to folks like you (folks that are engaged, interested, knowledge seeking users of this forum) but the knowledge, ability and ambition of many in the industry is not great anymore, and can increase the desire for engineering by an AHJ.

Finally, I must say I believe the code has become it's own enemy in some cases...wall bracing is one of those areas. How many ways are there to skin that cat in the code now? How many do we completely understand? I think the code jumped the shark there, maybe with the good intentions of doing what it is designed to do; preclude an engineer. In this case I think the opposite occurred.

Just my 3 cents.

Why is it always 30 years?

 

[Genduct]

If a plan can be reviewed prescriptively and is submitted that way, I do it that way. If an element of that plan does not meet the prescriptive requirements or is outside the scope of the code I will provide the option of having an engineer evaluate it or provide a design. Often, determining what is or isn't within the scope, or does or doesn't meet the code is the source of the problem, and the person making that determination may or may not have the relevant expertise to make the determination. IMHO, a blind requirement and reliance on engineering is not appropriate. If we aren't careful, we will require ourselves right out of a job.

You mention I-beams and LVL's. Neither of those elements is prescriptive, so it is somewhat justifiable to ask for more information. For me, sometimes that information does not absolutely have to be a sealed design from an engineer, but it is widely accepted. I will take the time to evaluate an issue before I blindly require a design professional. For example, MANY TIMES, I have advised what the code would require for a deck beam. MANY TIMES I will get a design from an engineer with smaller beams of engineered material. What is typically not accepted, again, my opinion, is "we have done it that way for 30 years" or "we do it that way over there". Not because it has been wrong for 30 years or that it was wrong over there, but because things are different over time, and different in other places. These things tend to creep out of the thought process if not careful.

In many instances, using an engineer can be less demanding than the code, if you have not experienced this you may want to have a conversation with the engineers you use. It may not be completely accurate to say the code is based on worst case scenarios, but in order to write an all encompassing code, for use throughout the states, it does tend to be more conservative in some aspects. When I was building, the houses were way outside the square box mentality of the code, and some things simply had to be engineered. It became easier, faster, and cheaper to just have the entire structure evaluated. I often found the beams I was intending on using, or had used in similar situations before didn't have to be as large as I thought. Most of my work was stock plans, with some customization. But, once, just for kicks, I designed, drew and built complete house, 100% prescriptively. It took a long time. I never did it again.

The prescriptive code, in many cases does not cover a lot of what we see today in residential construction. And maybe this does not apply to folks like you (folks that are engaged, interested, knowledge seeking users of this forum) but the knowledge, ability and ambition of many in the industry is not great anymore, and can increase the desire for engineering by an AHJ.

Finally, I must say I believe the code has become it's own enemy in some cases...wall bracing is one of those areas. How many ways are there to skin that cat in the code now? How many do we completely understand? I think the code jumped the shark there, maybe with the good intentions of doing what it is designed to do; preclude an engineer. In this case I think the opposite occurred.

Just my 3 cents.

Why is it always 30 years?

That is what makes the job so interesting

 

[Keystone]

Given that many of us started out working with the tools, it is understandable that many of those Pre ICC Code people were applying their own "Good Job Standards" when the intent of the Code is to demand a Minimum Safety Standard where the place won't blow up, collapse and kill the occupants.

Just consider the implications of Building Science where you can compost the building from the inside- out if you don't handle the Vapor Barrier,( or is it Vapor Retarder?) aspect correctly. Especially in our Mixed Humid Zone 5 area around Philly.

I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't alert the owners to ask for clarification so that 1-year limited liability for COntractors could be extended
For instance, could you comment:
FYI, although the plans meet the Code Standards, you (owner) might be well advised to ask your Builder / Design Professional about the possible impact of open cell foam insulation on your roof sheathing

I can't wait to hear how you all feel about opening that Can of Worms.
This could get really interesting. Our Moral responsibility vs Our Legal Responsibility HMMMM

Where to draw the Line? Just used that remark earlier

We can and do have our own opinion on means, methods, applications and products but if I’m not being asked my opinion and it meets prescriptive or the professional design then the road is not going to be one I’ll travel down. Even when asked opinion, i will craft wording so as not to admonish or tarnish. It becomes a slippery slope and people of all walks in life will only hear and recite what they want to hear and recite. Context in entirety is important.

 

[steveray]

So.....While we are here, anyone draw any kind of hard line on LVL's or beams before engineering kicks in? Certain span (max. on IRC charts?)? certain loading?

 

[Energystar]

Steveray brings up a good point. If your AHJ requires the stamp of a "design professional", do you make them show their work on beam calcs?

The term "tributary area" appears many times in the code. It presumes that readers, (licensed contractors, design professionals) are capable of calculating loads. I must admit, I have seen some that have trouble. Is it reasonable to expect a plans examiner to have the expertise to check the specification of a steel I-beam using an online calculator? Are steel I-beams simply outside the scope of the IRC? Are LVL's?

 

[Energystar]

Sifu said:
You mention I-beams and LVL's. Neither of those elements is prescriptive, so it is somewhat justifiable to ask for more information. For me, sometimes that information does not absolutely have to be a sealed design from an engineer, but it is widely accepted. I will take the time to evaluate an issue before I blindly require a design professional. For example, MANY TIMES, I have advised what the code would require for a deck beam. MANY TIMES I will get a design from an engineer with smaller beams of engineered material. What is typically not accepted, again, my opinion, is "we have done it that way for 30 years" or "we do it that way over there". Not because it has been wrong for 30 years or that it was wrong over there, but because things are different over time, and different in other places. These things tend to creep out of the thought process if not careful.

Sifu and Keystone, have you ever thought about relocating to the midwest?

 

[Sifu]

So.....While we are here, anyone draw any kind of hard line on LVL's or beams before engineering kicks in? Certain span (max. on IRC charts?)? certain loading?

Simple spans, no point loads. And only when tributary loads can be verified and the MFR load charts can be used (including bearing conditions). I used to see a lot of member reports from the manufacturer's but I don't see a lot of them anymore. I consider those as well. I am pretty cautious when doing this. I also look at equivalent span charts in the IRC. For example, if the chart allows 2-2x10's, I allow 2 9 1/4" LVL's. In a lot of cases, there are other problems anyway, so it becomes irrelevant. But I do try.

In a former AHJ, I came in to possession of a lot of very handy documents that the state engineers provided to me, some were even provided within the codes. Things like pounds per linear foot for given structural members. I still use them (conservatively) to try and verify adequacy.

 

[Sifu]

Steveray brings up a good point. If your AHJ requires the stamp of a "design professional", do you make them show their work on beam calcs?

The term "tributary area" appears many times in the code. It presumes that readers, (licensed contractors, design professionals) are capable of calculating loads. I must admit, I have seen some that have trouble. Is it reasonable to expect a plans examiner to have the expertise to check the specification of a steel I-beam using an online calculator? Are steel I-beams simply outside the scope of the IRC? Are LVL's?

Both are outside the scope of the IRC. I personally seldom see a steel beam without engineering, and would be more hesitant to try and determine whether it is designed "in accordance with accepted engineering practice". Then again, where I am, I see very little without engineering anymore. Where I was, it was the opposite, so when I speak I am mostly referring to the old days.

Should a plans examiner understand tributary area? YES. Do they all?......I hope so, but confidence isn't high. Do contractors? Not usually.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

Sifu said:
You mention I-beams and LVL's. Neither of those elements is prescriptive, so it is somewhat justifiable to ask for more information. For me, sometimes that information does not absolutely have to be a sealed design from an engineer, but it is widely accepted. I will take the time to evaluate an issue before I blindly require a design professional. For example, MANY TIMES, I have advised what the code would require for a deck beam. MANY TIMES I will get a design from an engineer with smaller beams of engineered material. What is typically not accepted, again, my opinion, is "we have done it that way for 30 years" or "we do it that way over there". Not because it has been wrong for 30 years or that it was wrong over there, but because things are different over time, and different in other places. These things tend to creep out of the thought process if not careful.

Sifu and Keystone, have you ever thought about relocating to the midwest?

In the state of Kansas, you as a representative of the building department are required by state law to require an engineer's stamp for anything that is not a one or two family structure (mostly, there are a few other exceptions that are so rare I'm not mentioning them here), but you do not have to require an engineer for one or two family structures. My opinion is that you probably can require an engineer's stamp for one and two family if you want to, but it is not required by state law.

Our stance locally is that if we run into an issue that we cannot solve prescriptively out of the IRC, we require an "engineered solution" but not necessarily prepared by an engineer. If a contractor or homeowner can do math and research, there is a lot of things that they can figure out how to do, and show their work in a way we can accept. Obviously, some things are too complicated and you just have to bring in an engineer.

 

[Genduct]

We can and do have our own opinion on means, methods, applications and products but if I’m not being asked my opinion and it meets prescriptive or the professional design then the road is not going to be one I’ll travel down. Even when asked opinion, i will craft wording so as not to admonish or tarnish. It becomes a slippery slope and people of all walks in life will only hear and recite what they want to hear and recite. Context in entirety is important.

Yep! I approached the problem by becoming Dr Phil.
"I HAVE SOME CONCERNS!" THEN I SAY THAT I'M EITHER SURPRISED OR CONFUSED. Then we have a conversation like, one Contractor to another.
Compare Notes and experiences. At No Time Do I insist on anything.

As far Means and Methods are concerned, Completed Operations Liability Insurance is pretty "iffy" as far as coverage since it may infer that the Contractor thinks they are acting as the Design Engineer.

Had a job where the drawing called for removing the 1st floor masonry wall (with 2 floors of masonry above, that was swallowed by a 20 year old, 2 story rear addition.
The "Design Official' showed installing (2) 8WF35#(?) to support the ext'g walls above and NO HINT ON HOW HE WAS GOING TO HOLD IT UP WHILE HE REMOVED THE EXT"G 1ST FL WALL, SO HE COULD SLIDE THE 2 BEAMS INTO PLACE

I asked him If He Was COMFORTABLE taking responsibility for that Decision.
He chose to Put the Permit ON HOLD until he could Clarify that situation.
I told him I thought he was wise to do that.

 

[jar546]

Sifu said:
You mention I-beams and LVL's. Neither of those elements is prescriptive, so it is somewhat justifiable to ask for more information. For me, sometimes that information does not absolutely have to be a sealed design from an engineer, but it is widely accepted. I will take the time to evaluate an issue before I blindly require a design professional. For example, MANY TIMES, I have advised what the code would require for a deck beam. MANY TIMES I will get a design from an engineer with smaller beams of engineered material. What is typically not accepted, again, my opinion, is "we have done it that way for 30 years" or "we do it that way over there". Not because it has been wrong for 30 years or that it was wrong over there, but because things are different over time, and different in other places. These things tend to creep out of the thought process if not careful.

Sifu and Keystone, have you ever thought about relocating to the midwest?

Going back to 2004 we required cut sheets from the manufacturer and stamped by the mfg engineer for all I-Beams, LVL and GluLAMs because they are engineered products. No one said you needed an architect or engineer, simply provide cut sheets for the LVLs based on their specific use in the project.

The more complicated the structure, the more complicated the drawings and the less chance it is prescriptive. If everyone enforces the codes the same way, the market of design professionals will take care of itself.

 

[ICE]

If you look at the past without seeing the present, the future is bleak. There was a time when engineers were kept in a windowless room and only let out to shower a couple times a month. Of course we had simple designs for most dwellings. Customer demands changed as exotic materials crept in. Then one day somebody noticed that we have earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes. In typical fashion, the West coast led the way. We hauled some of those engineers out into the daylight and flogged them until they came up with, what we think is, a solution. Florida was a witness and the ageing population said, "Hey now, we have all of the money. Lets kidnap some of California's engineers." What they didn't know was that we would ship them over for free.

It hasn't worked as well for Florida and the hurricanes but they do have all of the money so they are willing to start over every few years. Tornadoes? The engineers said,"Be reasonable...dig a hole."

 

[steveray]

Going back to 2004 we required cut sheets from the manufacturer and stamped by the mfg engineer for all I-Beams, LVL and GluLAMs because they are engineered products. No one said you needed an architect or engineer, simply provide cut sheets for the LVLs based on their specific use in the project.

Problem is, if you ask them, they are just stamping that the calculator works...Nothing as to the actual use of the beam...

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I don't know about you folks, but I find too many inspectors in my part of the world have held fast to the idea that if an engineer stamps a plan, the inspector should just issue the permit without a plans review because anything that goes wrong is the engineer's fault.
I've seen engineers make a LOT of fire and life-safety mistakes and few of them have a clue about barrier-free requirements.