1. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Sill Plate Bolt Embedment

Discussion in 'Residential Structural Codes' started by jar546, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    383
    where in the USA can you still do a SF for $100 sf?
     
  2. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    143
    I refer to civil engineers because in many parts of the country there is no structural engineer license and because in California a civil engineer can perform the engineering on any project where the local building department would have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction hiring the individual can always impose higher qualifications.

    The problem is that in too many instances an inspector or building official is put in a situation where he is asked to make decisions about engineering issues when he doesn't have the education or training necessary to make those decisions. The engineer would be better qualified to make those decisions and to help train the inspectors.

    The knee jerk response that there are also poor engineers is an attempt to deny that there are problems that an engineer could help address. Remember as an employee of the jurisdiction the jurisdiction is in a position to get rid of a poorly performing engineer. If the comment about cost was about the jurisdiction being unwilling to pay for a qualified engineer then I suggest you have bigger problems because that implies that they would have similar attitude towards the inspectors.

    The practice of the City of LA was an illegal attempt to try to make the engineer of record responsible for the constructed work even though he has no control of the work. The building department should focus on performing their inspections and not try to shift responsibility.
     
    jar546 likes this.
  3. JCraver

    JCraver Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    240
    Almost everywhere except California. You should travel some..
     
  4. JCraver

    JCraver Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    240

    I'm all for the City hiring me an engineer. You get to be the one to talk them into it.

    Also, in trade, every a/e firm that submits plans to me has to have a non-engineer plan reviewer who has swung a hammer for pay at least once on staff to review all plans they turn in first before they get to me.
     
  5. Rick18071

    Rick18071 Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    279
    So where does the money come from to pay the civil engineer?
    Does the permit applicant pay?
    Shouldn't the builder get their own engineer?
    Does the tax payers pay for an engineer for a private construction project?

    Just wondering. I work for a 3rd party private (for profit) inspection company that has mostly jurisdictions that only need a few inspections a week.
     
  6. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    383
    In "your" state it appears to be a buyer bewary attitude. Not many defect attorneys in your state?
     
  7. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    143
    Are you trying to make me laugh when you suggest that there are not many plaintiffs attorneys in California that are ready to sue engineers and architects who work for the Owner? It is often more like the engineer needs to beware. Of course government employees have total immunity.

    There seems to be confusion regarding the engineer working with the building department. This engineer would be an employee of the building department and he would be paid by the building department. I assume that the permit fees are adjusted to cover the necessary expenses of the building department. The City employees are only involved with building code enforcement. When an engineer is needed to prepare the construction documents that engineer is paid for by the applicant.

    Obviously I have hit a nerve. It is also appears that some individuals have trouble accepting the fact that what I am suggesting is reality in many jurisdictions. Broaden your horizons
     
  8. e hilton

    e hilton Bronze Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    142
    Concrete, mortar and grout are not the same. In this case, we are talking about mortar joints.

    One possible retrofit solution in this case would be Simpson EWS503P epoxy sleeve anchors, which are designed for hollow items like cmu. However then you are relying on the bond strength that holds the solid cap block to the rest if the wall.

    I dont know if there is a prescriptive design for this situation, but i would think one option would be to use bond beam blocks, properly installed with continuous rebar, and anchor bolts set in place before the concrete is poured.
     
  9. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    383
    Hilton "gets" it.
     
  10. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    462
    I assumed you meant that the building permit applicant would be hiring a 3rd party engineer to design the houses.

    We have situations where a engineer is required for a component of a house. Recently we had a design for the foundation wall to support a pre-stressed concrete slab. The engineer was chosen because of the cost of design services. The plans we received did not have dimensions for wall thickness, curb height, maximum wall height, size of footings, etc. I don't know how someone could build it, but it was stamped by a civil engineer. So, why would I require a civil engineer to design all houses if this is the level of design I am going to get? What "service" is the applicant getting for their money? True. Some will chose a civil engineer with a higher level of service and gladly pay for it, but not all.

    If the jurisdiction employs a civil engineer, and many do, then all applicant pay for the level of service that they receive and, at least here in Canada, that jurisdiction is now exposed to a higher degree of liability because they have someone with that knowledge base. So, all must pay for the increased level of service, even those who are building just to the prescriptive code.

    What do I, a lowly engineering technologist, do when I encounter those anchor bolts with a contractor telling me this is how they do it everywhere? I tell them to show me where in the code it lets them do it that way. Should there be nothing in the code allowing their construction method, they can enlist the services of a civil engineer, probably the one I talked about above, and they can incur those costs and my tax payers are now better protected from liability.
     
  11. e hilton

    e hilton Bronze Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    142
    Obviously you missed the note on the plans: "VIF" or "GC to Verify".
     
    jar546 likes this.
  12. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    143
    I never said mortar and concrete were the same. The major difference between concrete and grout has to do with the course aggregate or the lack of course aggregate.

    Proper anchorage of a J bolt or an anchor rod requires either grout or concrete be well consolidated around the anchor. An anchor bolt in a mortar joint is not adequate.
     
    jar546 likes this.
  13. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    143
    I am hearing that because some engineers submit what are perceived as inadequate drawings it is a waste of time to for the building department hire an engineer, or have on engineer working on a consulting basis.

    In California we do have problems with some engineers and these problems are more prevalent on small residential projects. Yet I will suggest that in general the quality of designs and code compliance for these projects is better than what I am hearing on this site.

    One of the factors that contribute to this is the fact that most building departments in California have an engineer or architect on staff and if the department is very small they contract with a firm that provides that expertise. I believe that this contributes to what I see as a higher level of code enforcement and a higher quality of engineering services..

    My understanding is that in California any new building officials should be either a registered engineer or architect.

    It is not the job of the building department to decide when an engineer is needed since that is defined by state licensing laws. But it is the job of the building department to enforce the code, and when the code is rigorously enforced you will find that the quality of the documents submitted will be higher. You will likely find that owners are more likely to have hired an engineer or architect in the first place.

    Why can we do this in California but it is not possible in other states?

    Yes we do have some rural parts of the state where I suspect things are more loose but still I think we are doing better.

    Regarding liability of building departments. In California the building department has essentially no liability. This is an extension of the legal concept that the state acting as sovereign cannot be sued unless the state agrees to be sued. This concept was inherited from the British. Thus I am surprised that this concept does not exist in Canadian law given that you have not declared your independence.
     
  14. jar546

    jar546 *****istrator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,324
    Likes Received:
    576
    I understand your position or so I think. Yes, it would be convenient for every building department to have access to an engineer employee or consultant, however, it is not the building department's job to design or redesign. I would see them as verifying certain situations. The problem that I can see with your opinion is that you think that every submission is of the same quality that yours is. Here is a statement that I use frequently. Not everyone is you. Just as we have issues with building officials, inspectors and reviewers, we have the same issues with registered design professionals. You don't seem to think that a building plans examiner has the right to question your design and that is where I believe you are wrong. Having a license design does not magically make you infallible. Maybe I am wrong in your opinion, but I am not far off.

    You keep designing, we'll keep checking it against the code and questioning you when we feel it is necessary to verify.
     
    tmurray likes this.
  15. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,402
    Likes Received:
    797
    IF there is a competent contractor, and IF he/she takes the time.
    That "disclaimer" is so the Engineer/Architect/designer can sit in his/her office and assume....with no responsibility.
     
    tmurray and jar546 like this.
  16. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    462
    Interesting. Our code dictates when a registered design professional is required, not our province.
     
  17. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    462
    It's probably because we have not declared independence that we are subject to their more recent case law. Our legal system views authority without responsibility as incompatible with modern tort law.
     
  18. e hilton

    e hilton Bronze Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    142
    Mark .... that was 1: sarcasm, and 2: one of my pet peeves. The architect gets some detail close, and the tries to push off the final responsibility onto ths contrsctor with the simple note VIF. When i see that on plans for one of my projects, i send it back and explain that for the amount of money i am paying, they can finish the detail.
     
  19. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    383
    May require destructive investigation to verify, who pays for it?.
     
  20. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    143
    We agree that it is not the building departments job to design. In fact I find it offensive when they do.

    I have never said that the plans examiner doesn’t have the right to challenge whether the design complies with the code. Similarly I have never said that engineers are infallible.

    I do believe engineers are better qualified to understand and identify certain issues that need to be addressed.

    Ask the questions but be prepared to show where it is a code requirement.

    What I was trying to do is to suggest that other jurisdictions don’t have the problems to the degree reported on this forum. I was also suggesting that the lack of involvement of architects and engineers working for the building department might be related to this problem. Maybe I am wrong and our greater number of engineers working for jurisdictions is just a consequence of something else such as an expectation by the government that we need better code compliance.
     

Share This Page