Engineering Creep

[jar546]

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

Cut sheets specific to the use of the LVL as located on the plans. So plans will show LVL #LVL4 and the cut sheet will also specify LVL4 so we have verification that the calculation was for that specific use. The engineer cannot do the sheet unless they look at the plans.

 

[jar546]

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.

I agree. This is a common misconception that is outright dangerous and borders on negligence.

 

[steveray]

Cut sheets specific to the use of the LVL as located on the plans. So plans will show LVL #LVL4 and the cut sheet will also specify LVL4 so we have verification that the calculation was for that specific use. The engineer cannot do the sheet unless they look at the plans.

The plans where you are get stamped anyway...Ours do not....One manufacturer told me that any seal they put on an LVL sheet is merely validating that the calculator works...Not that any specific use is approved....Hence the first note on the sheets...

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I agree. This is a common misconception that is outright dangerous and borders on negligence.

My favourite was a design that put the furnace room in the space underneath the (exposed) stairs of an exit shaft.

 

[Sifu]

I review it the same either way. I never blindly accept anything just because it has been sealed. Do I assume a heightened level of knowledge and that I may be fighting above my weight class? Absolutely, but I still adopt the "trust but verify" mentality when something doesn't seem right. I have found that most of the time this is not un-appreciated by the engineers. And I learn a lot when I (we) take the time to do this.

 

[Mark K]

The original posting raised the issue of building departments imposing requirements not required by the adopted laws. This is improper and the applicant should push back but because they do not want the delays and attorney costs the decision is made to accommodate the plan checker. This is extortion. The building department should limit itself to the adopted laws.

Reliance on "good job standards" is not acceptable. These are not adopted laws.

Accepted engineering practice is not defined in the context of the laws related to building permits.

Whether an engineer's/design professionals stamp is required is defined by state licensing law not by the IRC.

This thread reinforces my belief that if there is structural work not covered by prescriptive requirements the building department should have a licensed engineer review the application. I realize this may cause problems for some building departments, but the reality is that codes have changed. Every building department should either have a licensed engineer on staff or on contract.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

Kansas, where the OP is, is a home rule state. The state laws set limits on the cities, and then the cities can make any law they want that is not preempted by the state or the feds.

So, it is entirely possible that the "engineering creep" is caused by local city ordinance, which can be more readily influenced by the building department (and local contractors) than state law can be. The benefit of home rule is that it is a lot easier to get things changed locally than at state level, but it is also much less stable for everyone because things can change quickly.

I know of a couple jurisdictions that require engineers for everything, which is over and above the minimum the state requires, but it is legal given the way the state law is written.

 

[mtlogcabin]

R301.1.3 Engineered design.
Where a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.

Individual walls or wall studs shall be permitted to exceed these limits as permitted by Chapter 6 provisions, provided that story heights are not exceeded. An engineered design shall be provided for the wall or wall framing members where the limits of Chapter 6 are exceeded. Where the story height limits of this section are exceeded, the design of the building, or the noncompliant portions thereof, to resist wind and seismic loads shall be in accordance with the International Building Code.

 

[Mark K]

Kansas, where the OP is, is a home rule state. The state laws set limits on the cities, and then the cities can make any law they want that is not preempted by the state or the feds.

Even in a Home rule jurisdiction the building department can only enforce the requirements that have been properly adopted.

The Supreme court would disagree with your understanding of the law. Refer to "Community Communications Co., Inc, v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et. al

​

 

[Genduct]

Even in a Home rule jurisdiction the building department can only enforce the requirements that have been properly adopted.

The Supreme court would disagree with your understanding of the law. Refer to "Community Communications Co., Inc, v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et. al

​

Seems to me the real challenge is where is the line between Plan Review and subsequent Field Inspection vis a vis Quality Control

For instance, who sees Plans with the nailing requirements for lateral / Wind Bracing?
How many and what size ( also thickness) are nails on the seam and in the field.
Or did the mason follow the Masonry Institute's requirements?

Who knows those requirements by heart. Should our Plan Reviewers insist they be on the Plan. Because if they are Not On the Plan , what are the chances those Carpenters know that info by heart?

When Mark K cited that Court Ruling, this thought came forward.

Mark, Do you have a Court Case fo how thorough we need to be in a 30 minute review?

 

[Mark K]

R301.1.3 Engineered design.
Where a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.

Individual walls or wall studs shall be permitted to exceed these limits as permitted by Chapter 6 provisions, provided that story heights are not exceeded. An engineered design shall be provided for the wall or wall framing members where the limits of Chapter 6 are exceeded. Where the story height limits of this section are exceeded, the design of the building, or the noncompliant portions thereof, to resist wind and seismic loads shall be in accordance with the International Building Code.

Accepted engineering practice may sound nice but it does not provide the specificity that we expect of our laws.

The laws regulating when an engineer is required are separate from those laws related to building codes. The entity adopting the building code, at least in California, does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering. Thus the building code should not be the place to define when an engineer is required

Who knows those requirements by heart. Should our Plan Reviewers insist they be on the Plan. Because if they are Not On the Plan , what are the chances those Carpenters know that info by heart?

When Mark K cited that Court Ruling, this thought came forward.

Mark, Do you have a Court Case fo how thorough we need to be in a 30 minute review?

The building departments obligation is to do a plan review It is left to their discretion of how long they spend. Something is wrong with a building department that ignores their obligation because they do not schedule enough time.

It is a mistake to expect the inspector to provide the rest of the plan checking. The inspector's job is to verify that the constructed work complies with the permit documents not to plan check the project.

If the construction documents do not define nail size and spacing I would expect to see a plan check comment. You need to be explicit and not rely on the contractor to know what is required. It seems that in some jurisdictions. people have adopted some bad habits.

 

[SDS]

Boy you guys must get some awful sets of home plans crossing your desks for plan review.

Very informative reading here for us civvies!

 

[Genduct]

Accepted engineering practice may sound nice but it does not provide the specificity that we expect of our laws.

The laws regulating when an engineer is required are separate from those laws related to building codes. The entity adopting the building code, at least in California, does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering. Thus the building code should not be the place to define when an engineer is required


The building departments obligation is to do a plan review It is left to their discretion of how long they spend. Something is wrong with a building department that ignores their obligation because they do not schedule enough time.

It is a mistake to expect the inspector to provide the rest of the plan checking. The inspector's job is to verify that the constructed work complies with the permit documents not to plan check the project.

If the construction documents do not define nail size and spacing I would expect to see a plan check comment. You need to be explicit and not rely on the contractor to know what is required. It seems that in some jurisdictions. people have adopted some bad habits.

The process is in 2 stages Plan Review and Field Inspection.
The general question was an effort to look at how much info is on Plan for both looks
I used 2 examples 1. Accepted Practice as per Masonry Institute and
2. Nailing req,d for Wind Bracing, to make the point
Although the Code captures some of those requirements It would be impossible to capture All That Industry Info

So, I believe that a Prudent Designer (remember we just had a post about the non-need for an Engineer using the prescriptive aspect of the Code) Would OR Should
put a Note, or reference to remind the Carpenter to nail it to spec. I am sure they don't carry a copy in their back pocket.
On the Masonry question, I was thinking of expansion joint locations that should be detailed but are usually not
These were used as typical examples

With your last answer, you demonstrated a good grasp of the Case Law.
Is there one that addresses this situation to give us guidance other than our personal judgment?
We should not rely on Governmental Immunity

 

[mtlogcabin]

Montana's interpretation when a design professional is required.

https://bsd.dli.mt.gov/building-codes-permits/code-interpretation-request/T1-22---Stamped-Drawings.pdf

 

[tmurray]

This thread reinforces my belief that if there is structural work not covered by prescriptive requirements the building department should have a licensed engineer review the application. I realize this may cause problems for some building departments, but the reality is that codes have changed. Every building department should either have a licensed engineer on staff or on contract.

We have relied on the training and certification bodies for the most part to produce registered design professionals who can exercise reasonable judgement.

Your statement seems to indicate that this is not the case, which I think we would agree that there are some RDPs that would benefit from re-training (just like I would agree that some building officials would benefit).

Another option that is not typically discussed is improved training/certification or stricter penalties to ensure RDPs are properly exercising their duties.

 

[ICE]

The solar industry is an example of engineering creep. The Solar APP+ provides a method of permitting that eliminates a formal plan check. The reliance on stamped plans seems to give the jurisdictions an assurance that all is well. Then the inspectors are tasked with approving what they don't know and can't see.

The engineers have taken over and it's not like they crept up on us. It's a power grab that the government facilitated in the name of climate change. The politicians strive to please their constituents with "One Stop Shops" and eliminating bureaucratic delays.

The creep is spredding. LA County has developed a guide for permitting, inspecting and pushing through ADU projects. It is similar to the Solar APP in structure and purpose. I have seen a copy and I doubt that it will provide the anticipated result...not by a long shot. What it will do is erode the process towards throwing in the towel, which is essentialy what has happened with the solar industry.

 

[bill1952]

I am sure they don't carry a copy in their back pocket.

Just saying I printed the schedules on fasteners and keep it in my toolbox. Just as I keep a print of a spreadsheet for conduit fill and box capacity. Just seems simpler than trying to remember it all.

 

[jar546]

This thread reinforces my belief that if there is structural work not covered by prescriptive requirements the building department should have a licensed engineer review the application. I realize this may cause problems for some building departments, but the reality is that codes have changed. Every building department should either have a licensed engineer on staff or on contract.

We have an engineering firm with several specialists under contract and we utilize them frequently based on designs that are not prescriptive. If they are prescriptive, we don't use an engineer. It is the cost of doing business.

 

[jar546]

Thus the building code should not be the place to define when an engineer is required

The most naive statement yet. It is the building code that determines when something is not prescriptive and requires engineering.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

The Supreme court would disagree with your understanding of the law. Refer to "Community Communications Co., Inc, v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et. al

Petitioner filed suit in Federal District Court, alleging that such a restriction would violate 1 of the Sherman Act.

Kansas, where the OP is, is a home rule state. The state laws set limits on the cities, and then the cities can make any law they want that is not preempted by the state or the feds.

 

[Genduct]

Just saying I printed the schedules on fasteners and keep it in my toolbox. Just as I keep a print of a spreadsheet for conduit fill and box capacity. Just seems simpler than trying to remember it all.

I don't need to tell you, You Me and Monk have a Compulsive Disorder.
The rest of the world doesn't Know, Care, or Care to Know

 

[Genduct]

Accepted engineering practice may sound nice but it does not provide the specificity that we expect of our laws.

The laws regulating when an engineer is required are separate from those laws related to building codes. The entity adopting the building code, at least in California, does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering. Thus the building code should not be the place to define when an engineer is required


The building departments obligation is to do a plan review It is left to their discretion of how long they spend. Something is wrong with a building department that ignores their obligation because they do not schedule enough time.

It is a mistake to expect the inspector to provide the rest of the plan checking. The inspector's job is to verify that the constructed work complies with the permit documents not to plan check the project.

If the construction documents do not define nail size and spacing I would expect to see a plan check comment. You need to be explicit and not rely on the contractor to know what is required. It seems that in some jurisdictions. people have adopted some bad habits.

PS You may find it of interest, that my general SUGGESTION is that I need plans with the same information that the Contractor needs to BID and BUILD the project

 

[tmurray]

The most naive statement yet. It is the building code that determines when something is not prescriptive and requires engineering.

I wonder if we were all to take a step back on this one, if we wouldn't find that both are right; that the body policing engineers can dictate when an engineer is required, and the code can require an engineer for non-prescriptive construction.

Unless the legislation empowering the body regulating engineers is expressly provided with the sole authority on establishing thresholds to require an engineer, others (such as the adoption of the code) can also establish thresholds for engineers as well.

The interesting thing about this argument is that if we agreed that the building code did not establish a threshold to require an engineer, we would also lose our ability to require an engineer on the project. I wonder how many fewer projects would not have an engineer engaged in it if a building official was enforcing the requirement?

 

[ICE]

My hand cramps up whenever I have to write a correction to consult an engineer. Practically every time, it is not the first time the particular issue has presented. Yet an expense gets tossed out there for a piece of paper.