• 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 first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Soils Reports

How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair.
If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work. Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.
 
Frank Lloyd Wright was one of those guys whose designs followed the formula : Form, Function AND STRUCTURE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no.

FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers. His buildings are littered with problems. If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.
 
If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work. Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.
AHHH you make my point, the responsible adult is hard to determine. And I should be aware of the Contract obligations of the Parties. or "Generally concerned at least. May need a DNA test for parentage.
Did the Structural Engineer leave a Note that suggests or requires that a Shoring engineer is also needed?

My point is the Contractors who come for our Make Safe Permits don't understand the limitations of their own Liability insurance.
And hence the remark "By Others" you know that famous Contractor who does everything missed By the Other , By Others don't even know they are in deeper than they know.
It may be beyond my responsibility to mention they should check with their Carrier, but I often Do. I see this as part of my job to protect the Public.

The point was, where an earlier post suggested, it was none of my business.
Alerting people is not intruding into areas beyond my responsibility, IMHO
Personally, I don't like being Part or Party to STUPID When it splashes up, we all get to stink
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no.

FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers. His buildings are littered with problems. If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.
I was led to understand that some of his design details predated material or sealants or details yet to be invented

As to your other point, many of the Architects we review don't seem to understand what holds what up, Or keep it from falling down.
Had a situation that supports that, let me know if you would like to hear details. too long to post
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. no.

FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers. His buildings are littered with problems. If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.
FLW studied at UW-Madison under a special program with a civil engineering professor. He dropped out, shy of his degree. But he learned just enough from that to make him want to design really long cantilevers that caused later structural problems.

The joke at my college was that architects (I'm one) go to school to learn a little about a lot of things, 'til we finally know nothing about everything.
Engineers go to school to learn a lot about a few things, until they finally know everything about nothing.
City and Regional Planners? they know nothing about anything.
 
If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work. Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.
I agree 100%. But the workflow is often like this:
1. SEOR specifies building design at 28-day strength, but is not responsible for means, sequences, procedures.
2. Geotech report states when slot cutting is OK, or says shoring design may be needed.
3. Contractor is responsible for jobsite safety during construction, including means, sequences and procedures. Contractor is thus responsible for shoring, unless their contract says "shoring by others".
4. Contractor either decides to bring aboard their own shoring engineer, or asks the building SEOR to provide a shoring design proposal, or requests that the Owner provide engineered shoring plans. This will occur more often when the shoring is to be abandoned in place, such a soldier piles.

There are exceptions to methods of procurement of course - -I am just describing the generalities. But even if the building SEOR ends up being the shoring engineer, the contractor is still responsible for jobsite safety.

As a plan checker, you can in certain situations require shoring engineering, and the geotech report can help indicate when shoring will be needed; but the shoring engineer does not have to be the building SEOR.
 
FLW studied at UW-Madison under a special program with a civil engineering professor. He dropped out, shy of his degree. But he learned just enough from that to make him want to design really long cantilevers that caused later structural problems.

The joke at my college was that architects (I'm one) go to school to learn a little about a lot of things, 'til we finally know nothing about everything.
Engineers go to school to learn a lot about a few things, until they finally know everything about nothing.
City and Regional Planners? they know nothing about anything.
The only thing we have to go on in PA is Falling Water. Sounds like an Indian Chief.
I'll bow to your clear and extensive knowledge of himself.

As far as Architects and structures is concerned, seems like I had his protégé when I "transitioned" to Plan Reviewer from Contractor / owner about 7 years ago

Imagine an ext'g 1 story 14ft OD, detached, corner garage that they parked 3 floors and a roof on. OK so far?

Now imagine a 3ft cantilever, 14 ft wide for the 2nd floor that then had the BEARING WALL AT THE END OF THE CANTILEVER SUPPORT THE 3RD, 4TH AND ROOF
IMAGINE THE UPLIFT ON THOSE 2ND FLOOR JOIST, OR THE FIRST FLOOR HEADER THAT WAS CARRYING THE CANTILEVER.

WOW. I COULDN;T WRAP MY CARPENTER BRAIN AROUND THAT DESIGN.
This Design Professional clearly didn't understand what holds what up and what keeps it from falling down.
Can You say Vector Diagram

I applied to the City at 69 because I was bored with retirement. So in the first few weeks of "Training", I see this.
I ask, does this kind of thing happen often? Spent next 4 years til Covid then parted company with City.

I enjoyed every day I was there. What a Hoot!
 
I agree 100%. But the workflow is often like this:
1. SEOR specifies building design at 28-day strength, but is not responsible for means, sequences, procedures.
2. Geotech report states when slot cutting is OK, or says shoring design may be needed.
3. Contractor is responsible for jobsite safety during construction, including means, sequences and procedures. Contractor is thus responsible for shoring, unless their contract says "shoring by others".
4. Contractor either decides to bring aboard their own shoring engineer, or asks the building SEOR to provide a shoring design proposal, or requests that the Owner provide engineered shoring plans. This will occur more often when the shoring is to be abandoned in place, such a soldier piles.

There are exceptions to methods of procurement of course - -I am just describing the generalities. But even if the building SEOR ends up being the shoring engineer, the contractor is still responsible for jobsite safety.

As a plan checker, you can in certain situations require shoring engineering, and the geotech report can help indicate when shoring will be needed; but the shoring engineer does not have to be the building SEOR.
I agree for the NEED to have additional info
The Contract Docs need to make clear who is responsible because SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT It IN THEIR BIS SO THAT THEY GET PAID TO DO IT
 
Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.

I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras. Structural engineer was from Los Angeles. He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized. He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."

But there’s more than one way of learning what wood can do, and the intuition that comes with years of framing in the field ought to have at least raised red flags for the engineer. So I called up the engineer’s boss and we went over the calcs together. Turns out he had sized the headers correctly for bending moment, but had forgotten that under really heavy snow loads the governing factor was shear, not bending. He’d stopped checking for that years ago in snowless Los Angeles. The boss fired the engineer, and there was a change order to upsize the headers.
 
If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work. Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.
In my experience unless the temporary shoring modifies the construction documents the temporary shoring is not a deferred submittal.
 
I agree for the NEED to have additional info
The Contract Docs need to make clear who is responsible because SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT It IN THEIR BIS SO THAT THEY GET PAID TO DO IT
It is of great concern to the architect, engineer, and the owner that the scope of the work is clear.

As for the question of who is responsible to do the work the answer is clear. The General contractor is responsible for producing the completed project. It is the General Contractor's job to make sure that each subcontractor knows what they are responsible for.

It is not the responsible for the architect, engineer, project owner, or the building department to define the scope of each sub-contractor.
 
Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.

I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras. Structural engineer was from Los Angeles. He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized. He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."

But there’s more than one way of learning what wood can do, and the intuition that comes with years of framing in the field ought to have at least raised red flags for the engineer. So I called up the engineer’s boss and we went over the calcs together. Turns out he had sized the headers correctly for bending moment, but had forgotten that under really heavy snow loads the governing factor was shear, not bending. He’d stopped checking for that years ago in snowless Los Angeles. The boss fired the engineer, and there was a change order to upsize the headers.
I will add my own story to yours.

I was plan checking a simple new construction ranch home with a basement below. There were no point loads. It was for Habitat for Humanity. The main girder in the basement for this basic ranch with a gable roof was undersized based on the spacing of the vertical support posts. It was specified as a built-up beam with nominal lumber. The width of the home was between prescriptive columns in the IRC so we had to interpolate. It was obvious that the built-up beam was undersized. There are two basic options; you can change the size of the beam (or type) or put the support posts and footers closer together. To give the architect the benefit of the doubt, I ran the calculation with BeamCheck and StruCalc, and sure enough, the beam size failed the deflection limits. I could have just stopped at the IRC and rejected the design but I went a step further just to see if it worked. When I contacted the architect to discuss it, he was adamant that there was no problem. I told him that it does not meet the code prescriptively and that I even ran the calcs in the software to verify and it still failed. He held his position that it was OK. At that point, I asked for his calculations for our records and told him that I was going to have a structural P.E. review them. He opted to change his design to a larger beam that met the code prescriptively.

Fast-forward 3 months to another Habitat house in another jurisdiction and guess who the architect was? Yes, it was the same guy with the exact same non-compliant design. I called him again to tell him about the main design and he continued to argue it was correctly sized. It had to be changed yet again after I once again asked for his calculations as proof the design of the built-up beam was compliant. Is this ignorance or arrogance on the part of the architect?
 
Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.

I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras. Structural engineer was from Los Angeles. He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized. He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."

But there’s more than one way of learning what wood can do, and the intuition that comes with years of framing in the field ought to have at least raised red flags for the engineer. So I called up the engineer’s boss and we went over the calcs together. Turns out he had sized the headers correctly for bending moment, but had forgotten that under really heavy snow loads the governing factor was shear, not bending. He’d stopped checking for that years ago in snowless Los Angeles. The boss fired the engineer, and there was a change order to upsize the hea

This job had 2 large windows that put all the load on the 2 outside and center JOISTS not LAMS this was a complete mess from a lack of even the fundamentals
 
It is of great concern to the architect, engineer, and the owner that the scope of the work is clear.

As for the question of who is responsible to do the work the answer is clear. The General contractor is responsible for producing the completed project. It is the General Contractor's job to make sure that each subcontractor knows what they are responsible for.

It is not the responsible for the architect, engineer, project owner, or the building department to define the scope of each sub-contractor.
The BIG JOBS are not the problem
It is the small modest sized jobs were the contractors are not as well informed
 
It is the small modest sized jobs were the contractors are not as well informed
And this is the real issue. Typically, the larger the job, the more at stake, and the higher the quality of the team. If you are only accustomed to large jobs then your viewpoint is limited because you are not familiar with the problems of the smaller jobs where the budget does not put all of the safety barriers in place, and by safety barriers, I mean layers of quality assurance. Smaller jobs can be a nightmare for the Building Department, especially when there is an architect who wants to do everything and an owner that hires the cheapest contractor, regardless of experience level with the type of job at hand.
 
And this is the real issue. Typically, the larger the job, the more at stake, and the higher the quality of the team. If you are only accustomed to large jobs then your viewpoint is limited because you are not familiar with the problems of the smaller jobs where the budget does not put all of the safety barriers in place, and by safety barriers, I mean layers of quality assurance. Smaller jobs can be a nightmare for the Building Department, especially when there is an architect who wants to do everything and an owner that hires the cheapest contractor, regardless of experience level with the type of job at hand.
AMEN!
 
Sure got a lot of mileage out of a thread about dirt.

Speaking of dirt...you should see the reaction when I find this on a tract jobsite.

20220920_164217.jpg




20220920_164144.jpg
 
Last edited:
So is this the only way we can prove Code Officials have a Heart, is to carry this cold stone heart around with you?

What kind of message is that?
It's a tooth....from a fish....the size of a Greyhound bus.
 
I made the trip to OZ but hearts are on back order.
Yep, the SUpply Chain has been a problem, caused by your LA Port, I believe.

Actually I didn't recognize that as a prehistoric Tooth. Just looked like a rock, Pretty cool find

Maybe we better stop the Puns,

It is fun to Trash Talk on Job Sites. Plumbers are my favorite targets where I suggest they should not be allowed to own or operate Saws-alls My carpenter brain speaking again
 
It is fun to Trash Talk on Job Sites.
When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life. For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment. Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended. Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you. Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.

It is getting stranger out there. The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic. You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate. Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you. I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.
 
Last edited:
When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life. For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment. Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended. Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you. Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.

It is getting stranger out there. The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic. You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate. Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you. I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.
Agreed

When I started Plan Review, one of the more seasoned people warned me about that very thing.

The problem is, written RFIs are not a conversation
So, I would call them to fill in the blanks of what was not on the drawing, then I would immediately send an email that said this is what I called about, this is what they said, and this is what we agreed upon.

I had a little less than 4 years of this (til Covid) but have to report no one tried to game me.

As to my time with the over the counter/contractor conversations, you have to know they were generally not in a good mood having waited about an hour or so before I saw them.
Generally, the teasing/trash talk almost immediately had them forget their "wasted time" and it felt like being out on the job. So my experience was almost 100% positive

My Son is a Mechanical Engineer and we were just talking about this very thing. He picks up the phone and speaks with them and avoids a lot of wasted effort, that is only meant to CYA by documenting the entire exchange. instead of using my approach to document the conclusion

The contractor I dealt with saw me as a Problem Solver, Not a Problem Creator. That is probably the difference as well
 
Top