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

[Yankee]

If engineers plans are accepted just design criteria may be reviewed. Many jurisdictions do not have the ability to hire someone like vegas paul, or the political will to require third party review (or even the political will to require engineered solutions sometimes). That's life in the boonies. So for those of us that do everything and are generalists, and don't have an armload of code specific certs or degrees, we do what we can. Part of that is not to pretend to have reviewed a submittal if it is not something we are qualified, or have time, to do. The next best thing is to expect to hold the licensed designer responsible (as he is). If your jurisdiction has the ability to take responsibility for the engineering of engineered plans, then, more power to you.

 

[RickAstoria]

Well, that's all news to me and to my associates degree in Architectural Engineering.

How do you know that you didn't mistype an entry or the calculator isn't malfunctioning? That is why doing it by hand and verifying and leaving no guessing. That was how things were done in the 1920s. They didn't have calculators and they verified their math. Fool proof when you check it not once, not twice but at least 3 times. A calculator or computer can check the calcs to if you want to verify your math. The best engineers did not rely on a calculator. They relied on proven math theory that is infallible.

2+5 = 7

How do we know that it is 7.

Check math by doing the inverse in this case.

7 - 2 = 5......ok

7 - 5 = 2......ok

That proves the math is correct. Proven math theory PROVES your calcs was properly calculated.

Prove the right equation was used by verifying that the equation is right for the job. Proven engineering standards have documented the equations to use. That is proven. Most of the engineering equations we use today are in fact the same equations used back in the 1920s.

Material properties is provided by the material maker. Steel beam has its properties given by the steel beam maker. Many publications are available and you can specify accordingly.

Prove your math. Prove your calcs. Prove your specification. Proves you know what you are talking about. Due Dilligence.

That is my point, Yankee.

 

[RickAstoria]

If engineers plans are accepted just design criteria may be reviewed. Many jurisdictions do not have the ability to hire someone like vegas paul, or the political will to require third party review (or even the political will to require engineered solutions sometimes). That's life in the boonies. So for those of us that do everything and are generalists, and don't have an armload of code specific certs or degrees, we do what we can. Part of that is not to pretend to have reviewed a submittal if it is not something we are qualified, or have time, to do. The next best thing is to expect to hold the licensed designer responsible (as he is). If your jurisdiction has the ability to take responsibility for the engineering of engineered plans, then, more power to you.

Maybe then we just going to have to require by statutory law that ALL building/planning departments that reviews building plans to consult a third-party registered professional QUALIFIED to review the calc if they do not have a qualified person on staff.

EVERY political entity will try to skate away from anything that will cost them money UNLESS they waste taxpayers money on remodeling their office. Like MOST human being on earth, if they aren't required to do something then they'll do everything possible to NOT do it. Because doing more then required = more $$$ spent on things other then themselves. Therefore mandate more.

 

[Mark K]

The adopted regulations (IBC) already require that the permit documents be examined and that the building official approve those projects found to be in compliance. The building official has no option. The only question is the nature of the examination.

The local jurisdiction can impose fees to offset the cost to enforce the building code.

If the jurisdiction is not given enough funding to do this the building official should so inform the jurisdiction of the problem. In states that adopt a state building code the local jurisdiction does not have a lot of options.

My understanding is that at one time California notified all local jurisdictions that unless they had a building department and started enforcing the California Building Code that the state would step in and enforce the code. Needless to say all of the local jurisdictions have implemented building departments. In California the Department of Housing and Community Development has primary jurisdiction with regards residential properties which they typically delegate to local jurisdictions.

 

[texas transplant]

Maybe then we just going to have to require by statutory law that ALL building/planning departments that reviews building plans to consult a third-party registered professional QUALIFIED to review the calc if they do not have a qualified person on staff. EVERY political entity will try to skate away from anything that will cost them money UNLESS they waste taxpayers money on remodeling their office. Like MOST human being on earth, if they aren't required to do something then they'll do everything possible to NOT do it. Because doing more then required = more $$$ spent on things other then themselves. Therefore mandate more.

Rick,

You want to make City Building Departments hire a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL to review the calcs??? This thread is about the IRC, not IBC. Why hire a REGISTRERED PROFESSIONAL to review calcs that you talk about allowing an UNREGISTRERED OR UNLICENSED BUILDING "DESIGNER" to perform. I'm sorry, that logic seems twisted to me. I would rather use the money to replace the 50 year old desks that wobble when we try to use them, than spend money on a RDP to review calcs that the law allows an unlicensed person to perform.

 

[Yankee]

2+5 = 7

How do we know that it is 7.

Check math by doing the inverse in this case.

7 - 2 = 5......ok

7 - 5 = 2......ok

That proves the math is correct. Proven math theory PROVES your calcs was properly calculated.

But Rick, one can do the same verification with a calculator, and is taught to do so.

 

[peach]

structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...

Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.

 

[RickAstoria]

But Rick, one can do the same verification with a calculator, and is taught to do so.

Did I not say that. But you should verify it by proving you verified it.

 

[Yankee]

structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.

Bingo.

Some of us are talking about what Peach said, and some are talking about L/360 etc etc.

Now it all makes sense.

 

[RickAstoria]

structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.

Sure. But just as solidly verifiable. EVERY engineering equation is a mathematic/algebraic equation. Every math/algebra equation is verifiable and there is founded mathematic process to verifying ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE math/algebra equation. A valid math/algebra equation is verifiable. It is the Law of Math and like the Laws of Physics, it is Absolutely proven.

"You" used in this is a rhetorical 'you' and should not be interpretted explicitly to you unless I make explicit note.

The mathematics for any engineering equation is just as verifiable as that simple verification for a simple 2x + 5x = 7x. Yeah, its making you work. Is that what you are paid to do. Work. If the computer is working and not you then why don't we give your pay check to the computer? That is why you should know the math to verify your math. What if your computer or calculator is malfunctioning. What if there is no more batteries and your PV cells are broken. Are you still capable of doing your job? That is why a good engineer knows how to do it by hand. Otherwise, you don't deserve that engineering license. You should know how to do it. Not the computer. That is my point. Show it in your work. If you are paid the same percentage of construction cost as those engineers back in the 1920s - you should be just as capable of doing the math by hand as those engineers. They didn't have calculators & computers. If the computer does it for you then you are not worth hiring. Why? If the computer can do it but you can't, then you are just a computer operator and not a real engineer. No license is required to be a computer operator. Any bozo can operate a computer.

If I can do it, why can't you?

Peach, this is a rhetorical "you". I'm not claiming you (Peach) to be an engineer or not. Same point for the engineers.

 

[RickAstoria]

I used a simple math to illustrate the point easily over a forum. The greek and other funny symbols are not easy to just type over a keyboard over this forum. This is why I don't post engineering equations and then showing the mathematical process. The symbols are not available on the keyboard. I use something simple to illustrate the point in a quick fashion.

I can pencil it out on paper a heck alot faster.

 

[RickAstoria]

Rick,You want to make City Building Departments hire a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL to review the calcs??? This thread is about the IRC, not IBC. Why hire a REGISTRERED PROFESSIONAL to review calcs that you talk about allowing an UNREGISTRERED OR UNLICENSED BUILDING "DESIGNER" to perform. I'm sorry, that logic seems twisted to me. I would rather use the money to replace the 50 year old desks that wobble when we try to use them, than spend money on a RDP to review calcs that the law allows an unlicensed person to perform.

Legally, I can design and do calcs for pretty sophisticated SFRs with full-out non-prescriptive design elements.

Ones that can fall into OSSC and many of the engineering standards.

 

[Yankee]

I don't know Rick, I have never used a computer to do engineering, and I have never disallowed myself to use a calculator.

So, you're a purist. Ok then. You are getting a little rabid.

 

[RickAstoria]

I don't know Rick, I have never used a computer to do engineering, and I have never disallowed myself to use a calculator.So, you're a purist. Ok then. You are getting a little rabid.

Now we know the basic Engineering concept of strain. Strain = deformation / length

S = Strain, D = Deformation, L = length S = D/L

You can verification your math -> D x S = L

and the alternate verification-> S x L = D

Simple enough to verify. When you calc it, you verify the math.

I know it goes on to more complex equation with more complex math verification processes matching the equation. And you can validate the equation across the board with the other equations used. Just a process of validating your engineering, math and specifications.

The math here so far is simple. Simple enough for posting with ordinary ASCII keyboard letters, numbers and symbols. Most of the usual symbols takes an ordeal to get it to display correctly.

 

[peach]

ok... verify away... what if the equation the structural engineer uses is the incorrect one for the application?

 

[Yankee]

Legally, I can design and do calcs for pretty sophisticated SFRs with full-out non-prescriptive design elements.Ones that can fall into OSSC and many of the engineering standards.

not in my state you can't

 

[peach]

Back when I was in college, I was required to take an electrical engineering class where we were taught the "right hand rule".. ok.. so test time comes along, and since the vast majority of us are right handed, I looked around the room.. almost everyone was using their left hand to help visualize electron flow.. how many of us changed the (-) to (+) sign (or visa versa) when we did that?

Not all engineering "assumptions" or "equations" are appropriate for a given situation. The math might be right but the assumption or equation isn't right. That's my point.

Back in the days before computer modeling, I worked in a structural engineering firm and watched the designers make assumptions that didn't work.. lots of hand written calculations with an NG after them... keep working the numbers until they "work".. shorten a span here.. increase the depth of a beam here.. there's a lot that goes into a structural design.

 

[peach]

Oh, by the way.. when the structural engineer has to change the design because the architect didn't know enough to double check the structural input... it can change all the MEP stuff too.. (wow, now the ductwork doesn't fit.. ). Everything starts with the architect.

 

[RickAstoria]

ok... verify away... what if the equation the structural engineer uses is the incorrect one for the application?

Then disapprove it and report it to the Board of Professional Engineers (Engineer licensing board). If my calcs are wrong and the wrong equations are used then disapprove it.

NOTE on plans that the wrong equation was used. Ok, your third party engineer can give you that on a report of finding and you state that. You have the engineer that backed your claim. You cite the engineering standards manual section like you cite the code section pretty much as they become 'part' of the applicable code by reference. Simple enough.

 

[RickAstoria]

not in my state you can't

Yeah, I follow the laws of the state where the project is proposed. If I legally am not permitted to do the calcs and stuff in your state then so be it.

 

[RickAstoria]

Back when I was in college, I was required to take an electrical engineering class where we were taught the "right hand rule".. ok.. so test time comes along, and since the vast majority of us are right handed, I looked around the room.. almost everyone was using their left hand to help visualize electron flow.. how many of us changed the (-) to (+) sign (or visa versa) when we did that?Not all engineering "assumptions" or "equations" are appropriate for a given situation. The math might be right but the assumption or equation isn't right. That's my point.

Back in the days before computer modeling, I worked in a structural engineering firm and watched the designers make assumptions that didn't work.. lots of hand written calculations with an NG after them... keep working the numbers until they "work".. shorten a span here.. increase the depth of a beam here.. there's a lot that goes into a structural design.

Of course you use the right equation. Verifying your equation and math. That means VERIFY you are using the right equation. That is why you the engineer (or designer where permitted by law) shall cite the equation itself before you plug in the numbers and run the calculations. That is why you show it. Show the equation and show the math.

z= (x-y)+2v(x), where x = 20, y = 10 and v = 4

(20-10) + 2(4)(20) = z

(10) + 8(20) = z

10 + 160 = z

z = 170

Like most basic math and physics. This same principle can be applied. You show the equation and you show the math. There is algebraic verification processes for the math above.

All engineering equations are similar in this basic regard. Engineering is applied physics and Physics is an application of math/algebra.

PEMDAS rulez

PS: Peach, I know it is more then a single calculation. It is a process. You can determine minimum cross-section. Then you must size to meet loads that requires a certain width or a certain depth and the combination of those loads would ultimately determine the dimensions of the beam. Including beam length (for span). Your columns are often spaced for other design related issues so you need to size the columns to bear the load and the height of the columns to make sure you have vertical clearance from finish floor to bottom of beam for the use of space as required by space function. You name it. Alot of decisions. Alot more then what can reasonably be enumerated on. Those assumptions for sake of context is implied in all my posts so far.

 

[RickAstoria]

Oh, by the way.. when the structural engineer has to change the design because the architect didn't know enough to double check the structural input... it can change all the MEP stuff too.. (wow, now the ductwork doesn't fit.. ). Everything starts with the architect.

Yes. It is a coordination.

 

[peach]

Rick.. you may be an engineer.. that's great for the left coast building departments; most other building departments can't afford you.

Knowing if they used the right assumptions and equations is beyond what most BD staffs can do... and shouldn't have to... and shouldn't have to hire out to evaluate.. accept the plans with the affidavit.. even in florida.

 

[RickAstoria]

Rick.. you may be an engineer.. that's great for the left coast building departments; most other building departments can't afford you.Knowing if they used the right assumptions and equations is beyond what most BD staffs can do... and shouldn't have to... and shouldn't have to hire out to evaluate.. accept the plans with the affidavit.. even in florida.

I'm not an engineer but I do have knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences. I apply that knowledge in the designing, planning and specifications where the laws allows me to in the exemption provisions under the Engineering laws. I design under the exemption provisions of the architectural laws.

I work within the laws and rules of the state.

Interesting, point you bring. It seems like you are leaving the calcs in the faith of the designer/architect/engineer to have done it right.