klarenbeek
REGISTERED
Its about 800 pounds plus associated duct. Up here we also have to deal with thing like snow load also....
-
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.
Retaliatory Building Inspector? How to handle this situation.
- Thread starter jakesktm
- Start date
It’s surprising that the contractor would risk that without an assurance that the structure could withstand that. You should consider a red tag for the restaurant.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Same requirements here. A lot of older buildings were designed with a 35 PSF roof snow load because the heat loss through the roof would help melt the snow throughout the winter. Today it is a 47 PSF roof snow load (not ground). So, if you are adding insulation when re-roofing an existing building or replace roof top equipment an engineer needs to verify the existing structure will support the increased snow loads, including snow drifting for the equipment being installed.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
My point is that in post #117 you used the word "guarantee". That is a much higher standard of liability than "ordinary standard of care".
I have often had lenders and funders ask me to "certify" in writing that the (California) building that I had designed in meets "all codes and regulations". One lender pushed back when I said they needed to be more specific, so I asked them if it needed to comply with the Code of Hammurabi.
I've had others want me to certify that the entire apartment project meets ADA. I point out to them that ADA includes not just physical design requirements but also deals with nondiscrimination in leasing, over which an architect has no control. The legal definition of "certify" in the California BPC limits certifications to an ordinary standard of care exercised by an architect.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Most interactions that I have with engineers are related to clarifying the engineer’s details and instructions. Understand that not all engineers are created equal. Some do a great job and with some it’s hard to tell what they were attempting. In as much as engineers rarely deal with code, hardly ever know the code and look forward to billing for their time, I have no compunctions asking for an engineer to weigh in.
I have seen some things that engineers designed that were ludicrous and impossible. I have assembled the County engineers and the customer’s engineers many times. I suppose that working in an organization populated with engineers took off some of the shine.
There was a case where shear walls were being relocated in a four story hotel. This was being done to create 11B compliant shower stalls. The walls had to move six inches, a few dozen times. The plan showed a new footing next to the original, under the slab, at the new location with epoxy anchors. I added the clarification “under the slab“ for the benefit of the office managers.
Right there was a perfectly scaled drawing. The plan also laid out how to accomplish creating a 24” deep footing. The contractor was supposed to drill a few 1” holes in the slab and inject high strength grout under the slab. The customer’s engineer came up with this, the County engineer blessed it and the contractor was prepared to do it. I actually had to call a meeting of the players, then struggle to convince them that it would not work.
Knowing that the original footing was dug with a backhoe bucket, I determined that there was plenty of extra footing for a new shear wall six inches away.
I’ve upset engineers by telling the contractor that the design was too weak… go back for more.
It was a truck dock at a facility that washed denim pants until they fell apart. There was a canopy that came out a long way and stretched a good 100’. The only thing holding it to the building was joist hangers. As the owner and I looked at it I said, “Some HDs and all thread would help this out…a lot.”
It’s not like it happens a lot … But by the same token, it’s not rare either. Wrong hardware is specified and none of the engineers visualize how wrong it is and that’s forgivable except for the contractor that did it anyway.
Last edited:
Yikes
SAWHORSE
That’s where I probably disagree with your approach, assuming I understand it correctly, and you were acting as the inspector (not the plan checker).
Let’s say, for sake of discussion, that you correctly and intuitively determined that a beam was undersized on an approved, engineered set of plans. There is no specific code section you can prescriptively cite (as compared to something more obviously prescriptive, such as a stair with risers that exceed maximum code height). In this case, there should be both the approved plans and the approved structural calcs on file at the building department. So the first step would be to go back to the records and check the math on the calcs; or if that was not your skill set, force the original plan checker to review it. After that, then you can issue a citation if it turns out to be undersized.
However, I don’t think the appropriate FIRST step is to go to the contractor and say, “I think this design is weak”, unless you already have done the math to back up that assertion. Put another way, in my opinion, during plan check the burden of proof is on the DPOR to demonstrate that the building plans are code-compliant. During construction, the burden of proof shifts to the inspector to demonstrate if/how the approved plans are NOT code compliant.
Furthermore, if an engineer has built something that seems impossible to construct and/or will be impossible to inspect, you can point this out as a courtesy to the contractor, but at the end of the day it’s probably not within your purview to force them to think about how they will build it.
When the day comes that we can hook them up to one of Elon’s Neural Links… perhaps then I could force them to think. When it comes to beams, my comment, if there is one, is in the other direction. If the floor flexes that might get a reaction.
Here is an example: The job was a truck dock canopy. Huge it was and held to the building with joist hangers. I was standing there with the owner/builder. I mentioned that HDs and all-thread every eight feet would be a nice touch. Well excuse me but it was weak. I never heard from the upset engineer… but I heard that he was upset.
The HDs went into the building but not the plans. He took it next level with doubled joists inside the building and out, There was blocking and CS16. I could have talked him into 3/4” roof sheathing. I wasn’t weak after that.
You did catch the part when I said that some engineers are sketchy? I’ve run into all manner of mistake and value engineered structures that lost all of the value. Following a formal procedure as you suggest functions in the professional settings of your workday… not a large helping of professional in mine.
I can always follow your rules, and by your rules I mean society’s rules, well then, by your rules I should have watched the contractor pump grout under a slab and let him and the engineer figure it out for themselves. The professional approach gums up the works. Trust me on this, the victims of my overreach like the time frame.
Last edited:
By asking for verification that that the structure can support the added weight you are addressing a code issue..
There is a difference between a licensed civil engineer, licensed structural engineer, and a licensed architect. For many buildings either could legally provide the necessary calculations. There is a need to distinguish between a civil engineer performing the structural engineering function and a licensed structural engineer.
If engineering calculations are submitted, I would expect the submittal be checked by an individual able to check the submittal
The responsibility of an engineer is defined by case law and a number of state statutes. Thus there is no need for the building department to try to hold the engineer responsible. This is why a building department should have an engineer either on staff or on contract. A building department that does not have somebody qualified to check the calculations and believes that they have fulfilled their responsibility by requiring an engineer sign the submittal is not doing their job.
Engineers are very sensitive to what their liability is. In those relatively rare situations where an engineer has made a mistake clients and others have no difficulty in suing an engineer. When this happens the building department is not involved in holding the engineer responsibility, in fact they hide behind claims of sovereign immunity.
Inspector Gadget
REGISTERED
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Can you provide cases law indicating that a building department has been held liable for not performing a peer review on an engineer's calculations?
Canada does not benefit from statutory immunity, but it is settled law that many jurisdictions do not need to verify the calculations of an engineer.
steveray
SAWHORSE
steveray
SAWHORSE
Same here...unless the building is "newer"...
Yikes
SAWHORSE
When you had this conversation with the owner/builder, was this just given as friendly advice?
Or, acting in the role of inspector for the AHJ, did you state or imply that you would refuse to sign off on the structure built according to approved, engineered plans unless the owner/builder added more structural components of your own design?
I had a good relationship with the owner. The facility was larger than one would expect for a company that distressed blue jeans by the truckload. There were rows of washing machines that were big enough for a Shetland pony. He was a licensed B contractor that specialized in setting up mobile home parks.... so he had construction experience... but I had more. His daughters owned the blue jean business and the Fire Marshall scared them. They insisted that I be there whenever the loony FM showed up.
The plans and engineering were prepared by a former County employee. He was an engineer that had been in charge of a B/S district office. I didn't know that until it came back to me that the engineer was upset. Li is a common last name and seldom do I look that closely at a stamp but there he was. Years later he was a Building Official at a city near me... he offered me a position when I retired. Unfortunately he passed away too soon.
So no, I wasn't holding the owner hostage. Friendly advice is all it takes... especially when they see things like I do.
In all honesty I must admit that I have refused to accept what the engineers have said was good enough.... more than once and less than I should have. I think it's a matter of perspective. The engineers see it on paper and I see it built.
Last edited:
Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,318
I have gone the "friendly advice" route many times in situations like the ones being discussed. They are usually personal discussions that start like this: "There is a good chance I don't understand the design" and "I just want to make sure we are all on the same page". Most of the time I am educated and set straight. Occasionally I have highlighted a condition that needs to be examined more closely. ALWAYS (at least to my face) the DP appreciates the effort.
There is a difference in how you handle a lender asking for something to be certified and a building official refusing to issue a certificate of occupancy until the engineer certifies the project.
That came from the engineers. Greed caused them to invent the structural observation.
You say that.
And also this:
You know, there's all kinds of engineers, civil, electrical, mechanical, soils. Are the building departments not allowed to trust any engineer? Can't they save a buck and roll the dice that the engineers so seldom blow it that the cost outweighs the benefit?
You claim the high ground at every turn yet expect the AHJ to scrutinize every last digit. It's as though you want to rub their noses in it.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
About 20 years ago we had a new contractor in town building SFR's. When we 1st met him, he mentioned he was an engineer and was just getting into the construction business. After numerous issues with his 1st and 2nd builds, I asked as an engineer why we were having these problems. Found out he was a chemical engineer.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
If it's just friendly advice, then good for you, and you may have been of great benefit to the Owner.
But when you say...
Because once the project is under permit, the AHJ has ALREADY ACCEPTED what the engineers said, and now the burden of proof is on you as inspector to demonstrate, using your own code analysis or that of the plan checker, why that previous AHJ approval should be withdrawn.
Yes, you have to "follow the rules that govern society". the rules that govern and limit your authority; otherwise you are Ultra Vires.
My turn to provide an example:
I had an inspector force a contractor to move a wall adjacent to an entry door over almost a foot in an ADA mobility unit to get strike clearance on the push side of the entry door. The contractor, not wanting to delay the project, did as the inspector ordered. No correction was issued, so I as DPOR was not made aware of it until it was too late. I assume the inspector thought he did the owner a big favor.
The contractor then sent the owner a change order saying it was a code deficiency. Now the Owner is spending more money and thinks it's my fault, so they call me and ask how I could have missed this. I show the owner on the plans how this door had spring hinges, not a closer, so the 12" push side clearance was not required by code. Even worse, moving the wall per the inspector's demands shrunk down the adjacent kitchen, so that the storage shelving no longer met the 50% accessible requirement in ADA. It all had to be reframed back to where it was originally, causing delay and yet another expense... as well as a lot of my time just to prove my approved plans were already code compliant.
If the inspector had followed "the rules of society" and written a correction with the applicable code citation, I could have quickly responded/refuted it; or better yet, the inspector would have first been forced to look more closely at the approved plans and the code, and realized that there was no code violation / no correction was required in the first place.
But when you say...
....in that situation, IMO that's when you should go back to the plan checker and have him justify his previous approval, before you "refuse to accept".
Because once the project is under permit, the AHJ has ALREADY ACCEPTED what the engineers said, and now the burden of proof is on you as inspector to demonstrate, using your own code analysis or that of the plan checker, why that previous AHJ approval should be withdrawn.
Yes, you have to "follow the rules that govern society". the rules that govern and limit your authority; otherwise you are Ultra Vires.
My turn to provide an example:
I had an inspector force a contractor to move a wall adjacent to an entry door over almost a foot in an ADA mobility unit to get strike clearance on the push side of the entry door. The contractor, not wanting to delay the project, did as the inspector ordered. No correction was issued, so I as DPOR was not made aware of it until it was too late. I assume the inspector thought he did the owner a big favor.
The contractor then sent the owner a change order saying it was a code deficiency. Now the Owner is spending more money and thinks it's my fault, so they call me and ask how I could have missed this. I show the owner on the plans how this door had spring hinges, not a closer, so the 12" push side clearance was not required by code. Even worse, moving the wall per the inspector's demands shrunk down the adjacent kitchen, so that the storage shelving no longer met the 50% accessible requirement in ADA. It all had to be reframed back to where it was originally, causing delay and yet another expense... as well as a lot of my time just to prove my approved plans were already code compliant.
If the inspector had followed "the rules of society" and written a correction with the applicable code citation, I could have quickly responded/refuted it; or better yet, the inspector would have first been forced to look more closely at the approved plans and the code, and realized that there was no code violation / no correction was required in the first place.
Last edited:
steveray
SAWHORSE
I would argue that spring hinges are a "closer".....
Where can I get that on a hat?
Yikes, I too have examples of wrong corrections that resulted in unnecessary expense and delay. With some of it I can prove that malice aforethought was present. When I turn something down, I am on solid ground and will line up the ducks. I procure validation and proceed with Intra Vires.
Yikes
SAWHORSE
In CBC 11B and ADA, a "spring hinge" (404.2.8.2) is not the same thing as a "closer" (404.2.8.1).
U.S. Access Board - Chapter 4: Entrances, Doors, and Gates
The U.S. Access Board is a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and...
www.access-board.gov
Last edited:
steveray
SAWHORSE
I assume you are talking about closing speed, and even though they are treated differently there, they both close the door and IMO require the better maneuvering...Unless spring hinges exert that much less force and can be quantified somehow..
The additional maneuvering space requirement is based on the fact that the user needs to exert more force and perform a combination of movements to open doors that have both a latch and a closer. A door that has a latch but no closer can be opened by the user disengaging the latching mechanism and pushing with the hand, with the door remaining open during passage. A door that has a closer but no latch can be pushed open by the momentum of the user without requiring additional hand or arm movement. Typically, this is accomplished by pushing the door open with the feet or wheelchair footrest. For a door that has both a latch and a closer, the user must perform all of these movements simultaneously, which requires additional maneuvering space. Figures 404.2.3.2(B) and 404.2.3.2(C) illustrate the requirements for this type of door use.