• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Is a Stamp or Seal of a RDP required when you don't have a local ordinance?

Why on earth would you ask for something you aren't qualified to examine? Accept the engineer's seal on the plans (and the engineer is being well compensated for their services to the owner).

Accepting something as part of the official records makes the BO equally liable if it's wrong..

The plans need to have the design criteria on them .. if you're in a D seismic area and the plans say B.. reject them.. truss plans will show the input values for the program.. if it's wrong, reject them. You don't need the calculations. That's the designers responsibility.

If you want them in your files, require them... I wouldn't.
 
Mark K said:
ISection 107.3 of the 2009 IBC states "The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompaning submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examination whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances"
Click to expand...
I cause them to be examined by the engineer. Who then stamps them.
 
The building official cannot transfer his responsibilities to the design professional just as the design professional cannot transfer his to the building official. Hopefully if they both do their own work we will have better buildings.
 
My point is.. it's the structural designer's responsibilty to do the calculations, and seal the plans.

you don't think the designer will TRY to shift the responsibility to the building official? they will... that little bridge collapse in kansas city a few years ago... pops to mind
 
Nobody is suggesting that the engineer doesn't need to stamp and sign his work. This is seperate from the building officials responsibility to examine the documents and enforce the code.

If you are talking about the Hyatt Kansas City bridge the structural engineer lost his license. I do not remember any attempt to shift the blame to the building official.

The reality is that when a problem is found with a building the designers do not even think about trying to blame the building official. The risk to the building official is not legal liability but rather the bad press from the problem. I contend that the best thing that the building official can do is make a good faith effort to fulfill his responsibilities under the code.
 
Mark K said:
I contend that the best thing that the building official can do is make a good faith effort to fulfill his responsibilities under the code.
Click to expand...
The good faith effort is to recognize where one's area of expertise ends, and collect and rely on expertise from others beyond that point. For many (I will say most), reviewing calculations is beyond their expertise. They may turn to a third party or peer review and ALL that is necessary from that agency or person is a written letter to the file certifying that the review has been done and the submittal meets code. The submittal does not contain all the math, there is no reason for it to.
 
The third party would be somebody other than the design professional and the building official. The third party would not be the design professional submitting the construction documents and the calculations. From the building departments point of view there is no difference between truss calculations prepared by the design professional and calculations prepared by the truss fabricator's engineer.

This still leaves the building department with the responsibility to examine the permit submittal. The building department can either perform this with inhouse staff or they can retain somebody else to assist them.
 
peach said:
My point is.. it's the structural designer's responsibilty to do the calculations, and seal the plans.you don't think the designer will TRY to shift the responsibility to the building official? they will... that little bridge collapse in kansas city a few years ago... pops to mind
Click to expand...
Peach, you can NOT ever legally be liable to the calculations performed. Why? You don't have the duty of care to perform the calcs.

You have a legal RIGHT to consult an qualified professional to review the calcs and provide you a report of findings. No court has EVER EVER EVER held a building official liable by consulting a professional to review calcs and provide a findings.

Read 103.3, 104.4 and 104.8 of the 2009 IBC.

There are policies to contract special technical staff in lieu of a standard employment for special circumstances.

It is not malice to accept report and engage technical experts for expert opinion. In fact it is malice or can be considered negligence of duty to NOT collect calcs just because you yourself can not review the calcs itself. Really, how hard is it to get an engineer to review the calcs and provide you a report of findings and getting the expert opinion that you need to make a judgment.

Why do you not have an engineer under contract or employment. In fact, if you are working for D.C., you have NO excuse. You have an engineering department. No city of that size, would not have an engineering department. That is why you have these conditions planned for. Heck, Astoria, Oregon a town of under 10,000 has an engineering dept. and they assist the plan review when calcs are submitted and in some cases, the calcs are taken to Salem for review by engineers there and assists the B.O. when such cases arise.
 
well, yeah.. the building official can hire an outside source (usually the jurisdiction Engineering department is mostly civil engineering.. not structural). If you have a mechanism to pay for it.. terrific.. most don't.
 
That would be the mechanism... you need to provide for it in your local permit fee ordinance...
 
Codes are prescriptive based.

Engineering is performance based.

Therefore, engineered systems/products lie outside the scope of the building codes.
 
The IRC and IBC provides both a prescriptive and performance Engineering approachs. Both are part of the code....

You may not use one, or the other but they are availible for the designer, and in the code.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thread didn't really start out as performance based design vs. prescriptive design, but you have a good point Mark. The designer is responsible for the design; if he/she does structural modeling (and you building department doesn't have that same modeling software), how are you to evaluate it?

It's their work product and they are responsible for maintaining it; just have them certify (which IS public record), that the design product is available for review in their office and call it a day.

If you've never seen structural modeling design, it's pretty interesting (well what happens if I move all my columns to the outside of the building.. ooops, it collapses).. lots of energy modeling being used too.
 
There are a lot of misconceptions around checking of engineering designs.

No checking effort ever checks every number. There is not enough fee for that, it would take much longer, and it may not be effective in finding a number of mistakes. When checking anothers calculations it is easy to accept the false assumptions made by the designer.

Effective checkers will verify basic assumprions as well as perform independent calculations for critical and typical members. Often using a different program is iffective in verifying compliance. When there are questions about the results the checker can always request additional calculations and data from the design engineer. The checking effort is focused on providing confidence that the design complies with the regulations.

The building department checking does not reduce the responsibility of the design professional. Similarly the building department's responsibilities are not reduced by the actions of the design professional.

The idea of having the design professional certify his design instead of having a plan check performed has been tried by New York City. Without some checking by the building department some architects and engineers started to get sloppy. There were some blatant abuses. You could repeat this experience in your jurisdiction if you adopt the idea of substituting self certification for plan checks.
 
You don't need to use any structural modeling software. You simply nee the size and properties of the beams and run the calcs. Is beam sufficiently sized for span or not. If load on span over X span Meets (within 15%) or Exceeds Ultimate Strength conditions then the beam is at failure point. Some thing for the connections. If the connection does not support - failure happens. The computer just visualizes it for the dummy and does the hard work. In the old days, they can predict failure when load is with 15% of Ultimate load condition.

You can request calcs that have been hand calc'd (pencil & paper and the shown math) and verified with a computer under a specified industry standard software. We require the math to be shown. That way, the designer or engineer proves A) they actually done the calcs and not the computer doing all the work for you. and B) It is a double verification.

If you are an engineer and you let the computer do all the calcs then why have a registration process for you. Why don't we just register the computer and let the computer do all the engineering. Computers are infallible. True. But the software programmer is and often don't know squat about engineering.

Check the calcs (even if it means to hire 3rd party consultant), and require calcs that shows the mathematic process. This would show you if and where they screwed up and designers /engineers should be doing the calcs / engineering. Not the computer.
 
By the reasoning below, calculators shouldn't be used either.

Engineering isn't about doing the math, it's about knowing what math to do.
 
Rick, you just made my point.. prove that the engineer did the calculations.. look at them, have them certify that the calcs are available at the designers office, accept their seal on the plans and move on.
 
peach said:
Rick, you just made my point.. prove that the engineer did the calculations.. look at them, have them certify that the calcs are available at the designers office, accept their seal on the plans and move on.
Click to expand...
When the designer does the calcs (where an engineer stamp is not required by statutes of the jurisdiction where the project is proposed to be built - such as an exempt building), the calcs should be prepared in a manner that shows how the designer derived the calculations and that the calcs meets the applicable codes and standards. Who is going to check it IF I done the calcs? I'm liable to the calcs but someone must check if calcs meets the code requirements. That is the job of the building department. Just as they check the plans. Thank goodness the fellow in charge of code enforcement at my local building department requires the calcs be shown in such a manner. The best way is to do the math calcs by hand.

Generally, calculators should not be used other than to verify any mathematical mistakes. It is about knowing the right equation/math to use and how to perform it correctly. Proper engineering calcs also includes proper mathematical procedures including verification procedures to check the math. You learn this in college math. Yankee, yes it is more then math. Knowing the right math to use. Calculators should only be use as a final check. This also proves and demonstrates you know what you are doing and prove it. You should prove your hypothesis (design solutions) by hard cold numbers that are properly and fully executed and verified.

A good designer, architect or engineer goes the full measure. Leaves no guessing behind.
 
peach

Please help me understand your position.

I inform the engineer we will not review his calculations therefore I will accept a certified letter that the engineer did the calcs and they are in his office and that is ok.

However

I inform the engineer we will not review his calculations therefore I will accept a certified letter that the engineer did the calcs and I want a copy to place in the file for future historical records in the building department and this not ok?

Either way the building department acknowledges they do not review the engineered calculations. I do not see the logic.
 
RickAstoria said:
Who is going to check it IF I done the calcs? I'm liable to the calcs but someone must check if calcs meets the code requirements. That is the job of the building department. The best way is to do the math calcs by hand.Generally, calculators should not be used other than to verify any mathematical mistakes. It is about knowing the right equation/math to use and how to perform it correctly. Proper engineering calcs also includes proper mathematical procedures including verification procedures to check the math. You learn this in college math. Yankee, yes it is more then math. Knowing the right math to use. Calculators should only be use as a final check. This also proves and demonstrates you know what you are doing and prove it. You should prove your hypothesis (design solutions) by hard cold numbers that are properly and fully executed and verified.

A good designer, architect or engineer goes the full measure. Leaves no guessing behind.
Click to expand...
Well, that's all news to me and to my associates degree in Architectural Engineering.
 
If we accept engineer's designs without reviewing them (or reviewing the calculations that are the basis for their design), just because they are stamped, then why don't we do the same for an architect's stamped drawings - no review? I recently had a correction letter go out of my office with 140 comments/corrections for the architectural and MP&E sheets... should I assume the structural was perfect?

That's why I always review the structural calcs with the same rigor that I review the Architectural and MP&E... because I am a code professional! (and an engineer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top