Genduct
Registered User
I disagree, I think the General Public PROFITS from our involvement in the process
Or maybe Benefits? HMMM one of those things
-
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
Engineering Creep
- Thread starter Energystar
- Start date
Or maybe Benefits? HMMM one of those things
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
That's why our office has a policy that if we require something in a drawing or at a site inspection that we provide the code/standard reference.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Sooooo.....lets go about this another way....Should I let the design/build PEMB company put in a foundation for a car dealership when they cant tell me that they designed it for any particular building? It's an email thread, so you may want to start at the bottom:
######,
This is a typical foundation/PEMB design and similar to many other dealerships & buildings **** has done. After receipt of the reactions from the PEMB manufacturer they will check the design and modify if necessary.
The full submission for the permit will include the Structural Steel drawings. They would address it then, if any modifications were required.
Subject: Dodge - Foundation Permit
Yeah…sort of….If they don’t have the building structure, how do they know the design values for the foundation to accommodate? At a minimum, at some point I would need something tying the as-built foundation to the building plans/ design if that makes sense….
Subject: Dodge - Foundation Permit
Hi ......,
We are planning on submitting an application for a foundation permit. We have the Foundation and Architectural plans ready. Is this all you need for drawings for review to issue this permit?
The building is a Pre-engineered metal building so we won’t have these drawings for a while.
######,
This is a typical foundation/PEMB design and similar to many other dealerships & buildings **** has done. After receipt of the reactions from the PEMB manufacturer they will check the design and modify if necessary.
The full submission for the permit will include the Structural Steel drawings. They would address it then, if any modifications were required.
Subject: Dodge - Foundation Permit
Yeah…sort of….If they don’t have the building structure, how do they know the design values for the foundation to accommodate? At a minimum, at some point I would need something tying the as-built foundation to the building plans/ design if that makes sense….
Subject: Dodge - Foundation Permit
Hi ......,
We are planning on submitting an application for a foundation permit. We have the Foundation and Architectural plans ready. Is this all you need for drawings for review to issue this permit?
The building is a Pre-engineered metal building so we won’t have these drawings for a while.
There we have it. All of your posts railing against code officials and now you finally post the true reality. Most code officials are professionals. Of course, as with any group, there are always outliers - good and bad. However, as you acknowledge (finally), the preponderance of code officials will find resolution with the designer by reviewing the code and commentary together - a cooperative effort.
The single pitfall, as you identify, is designers who lack the wherewithal to actually go in and have a discussion with the code official to find resolution. They take the easy way out and make the change arguing that it is preventing delay.
Now, I will note, this is a BS excuse. It takes time to make edits to plans, particularly if multiple disciplines are involved. However, and I can personally attest to having done this, sitting down with a code official takes hardly any time. Perhaps an hour or two. I will acknowledge that it may take a week to get an appointment, but really, are plans being redrawn that fast? Unlikely!
If the code official and the designer sit down and discuss, one of two things will happen. One - code official will be swayed to agreement with the designer, and thus can either then approve the plans or can remove the discussed item from the list of corrections. Two - the code official will disagree, provide the code justification, and the designer will have to return to the office and proceed with the corrections, but will know exactly what the code official is looking for in addressing the non-compliance.
Either way, forward progress is made. All it takes is the designer to have a bit of humility and have a discussion instead of throwing their hands up and muttering some excuse about project delays.
And just one casual note from my experience as a code official - architects typically have no problem doing this. It is engineers that largely do. Never have I had an architect ask if I am a licensed architect as if that is a prerequisite for reviewing his/her work. Now engineers on the other hand, it is not the same story. And man, do they get touchy when you point out basic mistakes it arithmetic - I mean 60psf is not the same as 6psf when calculating a uniform load on a beam. Sure, after revising the beam calculation, the selected beam may be fine; but do the work correctly, without typos, and actually demonstrate that the calculation works. (Real world example I fought dozens of times with dozens of engineers)
I've dealt with the same... I never let it go forward without the PEMB load summary calculations. How else can the foundation be designed?!
ICE
Oh Well
If you think they are touchy when it's engineer vs. engineer....when an inspector says no to an engineer some are downright distraught. Then there's meetings with hand wringing. And it's not just civil engineers...I've seen it with electrical engineers, aeronautical engineers and domestic engineers will throw stuff at you.
Genduct
Registered User
Sounds like you are looking for a generic layout and are open to allow them to accept Risk I think you are saying that could be allowed
So, a 60x100 ft metal bldg with bents on 25ft centers, corner columns carry roof 12.5x30 other roof columns carry 25x30 times dead load plus snow load, wall with purlins
soil 2500 PSF sketched out on a piece of drywall with NTS (Not To Scale) on it.
An extreme example, I know But the approach seems valid for below example
If they needed a generic permit to get the concrete in before the winter and were willing to get permit FOR FOUNDATION ONLY subject to Confirmation design with Calcs Why should you not give them a Permit when it is clear they are accepting the RISK. If they are prudent, they'll use a nice safety factor and their foundation will be more than enough to do the job.
Just like giving a Permit for a Vanilla Box, they don't get a CO until you get the fit-out plan and review it
Mark might be annoyed that I am pretending to be qualified to suggest these design parameters
From your comment, I will take it that you are not too familiar with PEMB design calculations and reaction summaries. Being well familiar with them, I would inform you that the simple gravity loads you calculated, are likely much less than the total reactions when considering shear loads and uplift restraint. You are painting a very simple picture, but you might as well use Crayons. Please tell me you are not seriously approving PEMB foundations based upon your expressed level of understanding.
**EDIT** To be clear, I would never permit a PEMB foundation without the proper engineering - I am saying the opposite of what you suggested.
Genduct
Registered User
You are correct, I don't have extensive experience with Metal Bldgs I am sure there are wind loads and other areas that need attention
I also suspect that people who do this all the time can anticipate a generic design that should suffice
I would like to pick your brain about this area. I would like to understand what you know so I won't make foolish remarks in the future
Or at least reduce the number of dumb statements
Message your tele number
You can send me a PM on here if you want, but not sending my phone number.
For anyone else reading this thread, do not presume that basic gravity load calculations are sufficient for foundation design of a PEMB. Careful attention to load combinations via engineering calculations is absolutely necessary. Do not accept a generic design.
Quick google search to find this image... but here is an example why you do not do "generic" design only looking and dead plus snow load.
On the right side, highlighted are the different load conditions to be reviewed. The vertical column highlighted specifies which load combination is controlling for each column. Note that in most cases the dead + collateral + live is not the controlling load combination.
On the right side, highlighted are the different load conditions to be reviewed. The vertical column highlighted specifies which load combination is controlling for each column. Note that in most cases the dead + collateral + live is not the controlling load combination.
Genduct
Registered User
Thanks for sharing info
But at the end of the day, it seems that the real variables are the structural steel loads, Max moment or how the load might shift or be absorbed by the adjacent members, Does that sound too simplistic
But my uniformed brain suggests to me that the concrete foundation that anchors this very complex, optimized steel structure doesn't have as much complexity.
Sure, those moment connections might put some lateral loads/ thrust on the column connection but for someone like you who has seen a number of these Does the foundation plan really vary as much as the steel design? I understand that with wind loads, it is not just simple gravity that determines the foundation design
ICE
Oh Well
There was a time when builders would look at a failed structure and decide to make the next one stronger. Now we have charts such as this and a headache. Well I suppose that there are people out there that wake up every day looking forward to this stuff ... and good on them for taking that load from us.
If you think about it, the Titanic had to sink for progress to happen. I wonder if it was "value engineered"
Last edited:
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I once had an engineer say they needed to talk to my boss "engineer to engineer" because I did not have the ability to comprehend what he was talking about. It did not go well for the engineer.
My boss' position is that if an RDP cannot explain it so that we can understand, then they don't understand it well enough to be proposing it as a solution.
And on the "throw stuff at you" my boss has a term for that as well "baffle, belittle, and bullshit". It's what RDPs do when they don't actually know what they are doing.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
One of the things I had to learn as a building inspector is that sometimes, engineers make mistakes.
Or don't know what they are doing.
I find in particular, that engineers aren't as solidly informed on fire separations as they ought to be. On more than a few occasions, I have had to steer engineers to ULC-listed assemblies, only to have the engineer ask which one I would recommend.
Dude - I don't have a p.Eng after my name... YOU are supposed to tell ME. Yeesh.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
My favorite is when they pick one that was originally from the UL catalogue before UL and ULC combined their catalogues and the structural evaluation was not done under limits states design and the gypsum specified in the design isn't even available in Canada.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
Oddly enough, I ran into a UL assembly that clearly stated it wasn't done to Canadian limit states design just the other day.
The other one I've had to explain is that some assemblies are proprietary. Which leads to some interesting discussions.
ICE
Oh Well
I have had all manner of mistakes and "it can't be done" show up. I don't usually interact directly with engineers. I write a correction that is handed to the contractor....well not anymore, now it is emailed.
Some were real head scratchers like the time a plan called for drilling a small hole in a slab and injecting grout to create a footing for a shear wall. My comment was this will not work and the engineer requested a conference call. I had to convince the County engineer, the contractor and the customer's engineer that it's just not going to happen. This was to be done dozens of times in a major hotel remodel. Beyond the fact that it was not possible, there was no rebar.
The kicker was that I was there to replace an absent inspector for just that one day and I wasn't there for the footing. While perusing the plans I saw the strange idea.
Some were real head scratchers like the time a plan called for drilling a small hole in a slab and injecting grout to create a footing for a shear wall. My comment was this will not work and the engineer requested a conference call. I had to convince the County engineer, the contractor and the customer's engineer that it's just not going to happen. This was to be done dozens of times in a major hotel remodel. Beyond the fact that it was not possible, there was no rebar.
The kicker was that I was there to replace an absent inspector for just that one day and I wasn't there for the footing. While perusing the plans I saw the strange idea.
Yes, yes it does. That is my whole point. PEMB foundations are as unique as the PEMB frame.
Fire separations are typically going to be outside an engineer's expertise. Fire separations are typically going to be within the architectural design scope.
Again, we have to get engineers off of the high horse and realize that they have a defined scope. Not any different from other disciplines or roles within a project. Everyone doing their own part will lead to success. Engineers are not the answer to every problem.
Let the structural engineer focus on making sure the building stands up.
Let the architect focus on making the building look good while providing form, function, and safety for the occupants.
Let the civil engineer focus on how the site lays out both above and below ground.
Let the mechanical engineer focus on getting the desired temperature, airflow, and fresh air where it is needed.
Let the code officials focus on compliance with the adopted regulations.
Etc. - Let every member of the team focus on their own roll.
But more important that staying in your own lane, it is critical to communicate what you are doing in your own lane to the team so that the whole project comes together to meet the client's needs and wishes. It is about cooperation and cohesive design decisions.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Genduct
Registered User
I like your image of staying in your lane
Thing is I think that our Code Review responsibilities are separated from the Design Professionals by a bright double line. Go out of our "Lane and it is a Head-On Collision. They are welcome to do the calcs and figure if it is 3 #4's or 5-#6's in the piece of concrete. We just get to ask them to confirm that non are shown on the drawing
Joe.B
Registered User
Builder Bob
Sawhorse
alot of it depends upon seismic design category - If you exceed the four foot offset or place a window or door within four feet of a corner, or have a non box shapped house --- it really limits what you can do without involving an engineer -