Sheathing vs Shear Wall

[classicT]

The reason the building department needs engineers is because their expertise and knowledge is needed to interpret the code. You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code. In California the norm is that the building department either employs an engineer or contracts with an engineer to provide such expertise.

Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer. Yes, I can turn it over to the State, who will then investigate. But in the meantime, do I approve engineering that is wrong? Do I hold the permit until the State investigates and slaps the engineer on the wrist for an error? What do you propose that I do?

Again, your holier than thou attitude is fully on display here...

In response to the provisions of section 104.12 quoted

I did not refer to Section 104.12. That was Jar.

 

[redeyedfly]

Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer.

Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering. Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine. The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field. I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work. I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing. I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.

There's no double standard. The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official. The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.

 

[Genduct]

Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering. Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine. The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field. I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work. I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing. I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.

There's no double standard. The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official. The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.

Red eye, you do understand that ASHRAE seeks the practical input for a great deal of what they do from SMACNA (Contractors) So like ACI And AISC who establish the standards for how we construct Concrete or Steel Structures, I am sure they value the Practical input from those, just smart enough to construct it BUT clearly Not Smart enough to do the Math.
WOW since the 1920's the ASM was the basis for sizing structural members. You know, Max Moment and lateral support and all that good stuff that we are not supposed to understand as the basis of the prescriptive tables.

I can assure you that I understand what holds what up AND Keeps it from Falling Down. We don't need to do the calcs we need a Fundamental Understanding to catch the ERRORS before they become Mistakes

I am an Old Guy who had the privilege to apprentice to WW2 or Korean War Guys who not only knew What and How to do the Job BUT also Knew WHY. Sorry you didn't get to work with people like that They knew how to APPLY that info

 

[redeyedfly]

Red eye, you do understand that ASHRAE seeks the practical input for a great deal of what they do from SMACNA (Contractors) So like ACI And AISC who establish the standards for how we construct Concrete or Steel Structures, I am sure they value the Practical input from those, just smart enough to construct it BUT clearly Not Smart enough to do the Math.
WOW since the 1920's the ASM was the basis for sizing structural members. You know, Max Moment and lateral support and all that good stuff that we are not supposed to understand as the basis of the prescriptive tables.

I can assure you that I understand what holds what up AND Keeps it from Falling Down. We don't need to do the calcs we need a Fundamental Understanding to catch the ERRORS before they become Mistakes

I am an Old Guy who had the privilege to apprentice to WW2 or Korean War Guys who not only knew What and How to do the Job BUT also Knew WHY. Sorry you didn't get to work with people like that They knew how to APPLY that info

I know how to swing a hammer too Genduct. The problem isn't that you don't know what you're doing, it's that you have no context of what the engineers are doing so you imagine what they know, and you're way off. You can throw out "moment and lateral support" but tell me about lateral torsional buckling, love's theorem, Mohr's circle (none of these are obscure) and throw in a little differential calculus so you actually understand mechanics of materials. (and no, it's not the same differential from your HS calc course).

You simply don't know how much you don't know.

"Any idiot can design a building that won't fall down, it takes an engineer to design one that will barely stand up."- OG WWII engineer

 

[Mark K]

Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer. Yes, I can turn it over to the State, who will then investigate. But in the meantime, do I approve engineering that is wrong? Do I hold the permit until the State investigates and slaps the engineer on the wrist for an error? What do you proposed that I do?

Again, your holier than thou attitude is fully on display here...

I am simply stating that in my experience individuals without the training that engineers receive have not been able to understand the engineering aspects of the building code. They may understand other aspects of the building code.

The building codes are complex and I do not believe any one individual can be an expert in all of the codes. The fact that one has a title of a code professional does not bestow total knowledge.

You can refuse to issue a permit if the application does not comply with the building code. You are free to file a complaint with the state licensing board but it is not your job to punish the individual. At the point in time where the application is revised to comply with the code you should issue the permit even if the state licensing board has not resolved your complaint.

 

[classicT]

Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering. Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine. The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field. I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work. I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing. I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.

There's no double standard. The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official. The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.

Uh, so here is the thing. I do understand engineering. You speaking without knowing who I am, what my experience and education is, or even a remote understanding of my basis of knowledge is unprofessional.

I would care to wager I know ACI-318 better than most engineers. Have a solid understanding of AISC 360, as well as ASCE 7. But no, my degree was not specifically in engineering. That said, I have taken many an engineer back to their own calculations and put them into their own referenced codes to fix their ineptitude.

Oh, and structural engineers... they know very little code. Most are inept at the IBC. Sure they know ASCE 7 and other standards. But ASCE 7 is not code, and the IBC can and does exceed the requirements of ASCE 7 in a number of areas.

 

[classicT]

I am simply stating that in my experience individuals without the training that engineers receive have not been able to understand the engineering aspects of the building code. They may understand other aspects of the building code.

The building codes are complex and I do not believe any one individual can be an expert in all of the codes. The fact that one has a title of a code professional does not bestow total knowledge.

You can refuse to issue a permit if the application does not comply with the building code. You are free to file a complaint with the state licensing board but it is not your job to punish the individual. At the point in time where the application is revised to comply with the code you should issue the permit even if the state licensing board has not resolved your complaint.

I agree. No one discipline exceeds another in knowledge. We all have our specialties. Engineers are no better than code professionals.

I am attempting to argue for equality, mutual respect, and teamwork.

I never have refused to issue a permit. I have asked engineers, architects, and other designers to clarify their designs wherein I believe, through a developed set of skills and broad knowledge, that their design is deficient. If I am unsure, I call them and discuss it through to make sure I am not mistaken.

That said, if I do not believe it is correct, I have a duty to question it. So far, never had a engineer or architect formally challenge. Have had many that were very grateful that I caught on to their errors. Particularly engineers that had specified insufficiently sized structural members, thus putting the public in harms way.

I would just say, I'd appreciate it you (Mark) backed off on the anti-building department rhetoric. You have beat that horse to death... and I cant help but wonder how the code professionals that you work with feel about you. I definitely would be less inclined to reach out and work through an issue with you if you were speaking the rhetoric that you do on here. Thus, going against an intent to work together with mutual respect and teamwork. But that is your burden, not mine.

 

[e hilton]

Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering. T

Bull sh!t. If you're not a chef, you don't understand cooking. If you're not a doctor, you don't understand your body. If you're not an automotive engineer you don't know how to drive.

I can't believe you would post that.

 

[classicT]

Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.

Bull sh!t. If you're not a chef, you don't understand cooking. If you're not a doctor, you don't understand your body. If you're not an automotive engineer you don't know how to drive.

I can't believe you would post that.

E Hilton - AMEN!

 

[Mark K]

ASCE 7 is a reference standard in the IBC and thus has the status of code. By the way the authors of ASCE 7 are engineers.

Many of the engineering provisions in the IBC were authored by structural engineers. Before ASCE 7 was developed SEAOC, an organization of structural engineers, literally wrote the seismic provisions in the UBC. In addition, a number of engineering organizations are involved in code development, review code proposals and offer suggestions. So a blanket statement that structural engineers do not know the code is without support.

I fear we have exposed the fact that building officials have been given great authority but do not always have the knowledge needed to exercise that authority. In the past this may not have been a problem since codes and life were simpler. But the reality is that many of our codes and reference standards have become more complex. This means that structural engineers need to spend considerable time understanding the changes. But it also means that building department personnel need to know more, which from a practical perspective means that building departments need to hire engineers. We can do that in California so why is it a problem in other locals.

If structural engineers are as stupid as has been suggested I suggest that you no longer go inside buildings.

The idea that the path to building official is to start in one of the trades, then become an inspector is no longer adequate. The world has changed.

 

[Genduct]

I know how to swing a hammer too Genduct. The problem isn't that you don't know what you're doing, it's that you have no context of what the engineers are doing so you imagine what they know, and you're way off. You can throw out "moment and lateral support" but tell me about lateral torsional buckling, love's theorem, Mohr's circle (none of these are obscure) and throw in a little differential calculus so you actually understand mechanics of materials. (and no, it's not the same differential from your HS calc course).

You simply don't know how much you don't know.

"Any idiot can design a building that won't fall down, it takes an engineer to design one that will barely stand up."- OG WWII engineer

"lateral torsional buckling, vis a vis, love's theorem"
Loves theorem is directly related to the kinky stuff that happens with lateral torsional buckling RIGHT?
The ASIC handbook's beam table is all I need to do a quick check for the span that needs lateral support
I remember, I Had a outside commercial deck that I did a quick check on because the I Beam they chose felt a little slender

As you know, the Allowable Stress Method uses Algebra for the simple Structures we are talking about. We are Not doing the Tacoma Narrows bridge that went aerodynamic and pulled itself apart. How else do we learn except through our failures
All's I need is a Fundamental Understanding. I don't have the software or interest to reverse engineer your solution
The situations I have encountered were pretty obvious.
Also, I I said earlier, there were 4 situations in 4 years. So, I don't go out of my way to "show off"
Let me know if you would like to hear the story off line and then you can decide if I am full of crap

Best, Mike

 

[ICE]

Entry level plans examiner here. Basic question I couldn't get a clear answer from google. Difference between a shear wall and sheathing? Is the wall the framing itself supporting the sheathing? Thanks guys.

Look what you started Mario. It has devolved to a pissing match between an engineer and practically everyone else.

There was a threesome on the golf course behind a pair of guys that were swinging and missing. It was strange. The threesome was a neurosurgeon, a Catholic Cardinal and a structural engineer. Well the swingers were holding up the round so a groundskeeper was sought out with the hope that he would bump the pair.

The groundskeeper informed the trio that the swingers were blind veterans that had carte blanch and would not be disturbed so you can suck it up Karen and wait.

Well as educated dogooders are always looking for the spotlight, the doctor said that he has witnessed astounding inroads in restoring sight and he will invite the pair to visit his clinic. The Cardinal noted that he would be at the Vatican soon and he would ask the Pontiff to say a prayer. The engineer asked why these blind veterans couldn't just play at night.

For an engineer to state that we mere mortals can't understand the ethereal realm of engineering is such arrogance as to be sinful. He is selling himself short. That sounds counterintuitive....allow me to explain. He is convinced that sitting in a classroom is what it takes for anyone to become an engineer.

I have interacted with engineers in several careers. There's been a few that I love...Eddie was special, Linda is a doll, Keith is down to Earth. There are dozens that left me wanting for answers. I've had aeronautical engineers design Air Worthiness Directives that were impossible to accomplish. Electrical engineers as an equal participing in a standard making panel. Mechanical engineers that needed a chemistry lesson. Structural engineers that value engineered the pooch.

I am no genius but please do not tell me that I do not understand what engineers do.

 

[classicT]

Mark - it is increasingly apparent that you just like to argue. Perhaps you do so to fulfill some desire to prove that you are smarter than everyone else. But the reality is, you are simply unpleasant and it is no wonder why you struggle to find a cooperative code official. You create your own environment, one where you are not a contributor to a team, but a thorn in the side of progress. You sling insults and accusations like a hormonal teenager who is mad at their parent, fully displaying your maturity, or really lack thereof. I wish you the best in your limited world where engineers are saints, but I am happy to live in a world where I work with engineers with whom I can share a mutual respect.

With that, I am done engaging with you (Mark).

Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You’ll never convince the idiot that you’re correct, and bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who.

 

[jar546]

With the last comment by Classic T and the fact that this thread has drifted way off course, along with the fact that is is becoming contentious, this thread is officially closed but will remain public for reading.

 

[ICE]

Well before we go let's invite Mario to come back with his next question.