The Limitations of Engineers and Architects in Building Design

[jar546]

Engineering and architecture are cornerstones of the building design and construction industry, ensuring that structures are safe, functional, and up to code. However, the practice of these professions has its limitations, particularly when it comes to adhering to the International Building Code (IBC). These limitations vary by state, country, and even specific building types, often requiring professionals to seek third-party testing and certification when they venture beyond set parameters. This article explores these limitations and the importance of compliance with the IBC.

Rules and Regulations for Engineers and Architects​

In the United States, both engineers and architects must adhere to stringent rules and regulations to practice legally. Each state has its licensing and certification requirements, ensuring that these professionals possess the necessary education, experience, and expertise. For instance, most states require engineers to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, gain relevant work experience and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam. Similarly, architects must pass the Architect Registration Examination (ARE) and meet state-specific requirements for licensure. Additionally, both professions must engage in continuing education and professional development to maintain their licenses.

Internationally, regulations can vary significantly. For example, in the European Union, engineers and architects must comply with the Eurocodes, a set of harmonized technical rules for building and civil engineering design. These regulations ensure that professionals across different countries adhere to a standardized approach to safety and design.

The International Building Code (IBC)​

The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council (ICC). It provides a comprehensive set of regulations for the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings, ensuring public health, safety, and general welfare. Engineers and architects must navigate various limitations imposed by the IBC, which are crucial for maintaining structural integrity and safety.

The IBC specifies design restrictions based on factors such as building type, height, occupancy, and geographic location. For example, the IBC limits the height and area of certain building types to ensure they can withstand environmental and structural stresses. Additionally, the IBC mandates specific requirements for materials, load-bearing capacities, fire resistance, egress, occupancy loads, and life safety measures.

Here are a few specific deflection limits; the IBC outlines clear guidelines:

• 1604.3.1 Deflections: The deflections of structural members shall not exceed the more restrictive limitations of Sections 1604.3.2 through 1604.3.5 or those permitted by Table 1604.3.
• 1604.3.2 Reinforced Concrete: The deflection of reinforced concrete structural members shall not exceed that permitted by ACI 318.
• 1604.3.3 Steel: The deflection of steel structural members shall not exceed that permitted by AISC 360, AISI S100, ASCE 8, SJI 100, or SJI 200, as applicable.
• 1604.3.4 Masonry: The deflection of masonry structural members shall not exceed that permitted by TMS 402.
• 1604.3.5 Aluminum: The deflection of aluminum structural members shall not exceed that permitted by AA ADM.
• 1604.3.6 Limits: The deflection limits of Section 1604.3.1 shall be used unless more restrictive deflection limits are required by a referenced standard for the element or finish material.

Engineers and architects must prove that their designs do not exceed these maximum deflection limits and meet all life safety and egress requirements. They can't simply design something that exceeds those limits and expect the building department to accept the drawings just because they stamped it.

Third-Party Testing and Certification​

When engineers and architects design structures that exceed the limitations set by the IBC, they must seek third-party testing and certification to ensure their designs are safe and compliant. Third-party testing involves an independent assessment of the design, materials, and construction methods to verify their adequacy.

Scenarios requiring third-party testing include innovative or unconventional design approaches, the use of new materials, and unique construction methods. The process typically involves submitting detailed plans and calculations to an independent testing agency, which then conducts rigorous evaluations. Upon successful testing, the agency issues a certification confirming the design's compliance with safety standards.

The Danger of Blind Acceptance of Signed and Sealed Drawings​

One of the most critical issues in building design and construction is the blind acceptance of signed and sealed drawings by some jurisdictions. Many misguided jurisdictions will accept any design, regardless of design flaws, simply because the drawings are signed and sealed by an architect or engineer. This flawed approach can lead to dangerous and negligent outcomes, putting public safety at risk.

Jurisdictions must recognize that a signature and seal do not automatically guarantee compliance with building codes and standards. Rigorous review processes and adherence to the IBC and other relevant codes are essential to ensure that designs are safe and meet all required specifications. Accepting drawings blindly without proper scrutiny undermines the purpose of building codes and can lead to severe consequences.

Case Studies and Real-World Examples​

Consider the case of an engineer who designed a high-rise building exceeding the height limitations prescribed by the IBC. To proceed with the project, the engineer had to undergo third-party testing to validate the building's structural integrity. The testing process revealed areas needing reinforcement, leading to design modifications that ultimately ensured the building's safety and compliance.

Another example involves an architect designing a building with a novel fire suppression system not explicitly covered by the IBC. The system underwent third-party testing to verify its effectiveness in various scenarios. The certification provided by the testing agency allowed the architect to use the system confidently, knowing it met safety standards.

In Summary​

Engineering and architecture within the constraints of building codes like the IBC are essential for ensuring safe, reliable structures. While these limitations can be challenging, they play a critical role in maintaining public safety. Third-party testing and certification provide a pathway for professionals to innovate while ensuring their designs meet rigorous standards. By staying informed and compliant with regulations, engineers, and architects can continue contributing to the built environment's safety and advancement. Moreover, jurisdictions must exercise due diligence in reviewing signed and sealed drawings to avoid the pitfalls of blind acceptance and ensure the highest standards of safety and compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In Summary
Engineering and architecture within the constraints of building codes like the IBC are essential for ensuring safe, reliable structures. While these limitations can be challenging, they play a critical role in maintaining public safety. Third-party testing and certification provide a pathway for professionals to innovate while ensuring their designs meet rigorous standards. By staying informed and compliant with regulations, engineers, and architects can continue contributing to the built environment's safety and advancement. Moreover, jurisdictions must exercise due diligence in reviewing signed and sealed drawings to avoid the pitfalls of blind acceptance and ensure the highest standards of safety and compliance.

I agree with most of what you wrote, with the exception of ensuring the "highest" standards of safety and compliance. In fact, the building codes do not represent the highest standards of anything. The building codes are, as they themselves state, the minimum (i.e. the lowest acceptable) standards for building safety. As for architects and engineers, if a licensed design professional signs a client contract that says they (the LDP) will provide "the highest level" of services -- if there is a claim their insurer will more than likely decline to defend them or to provide coverage. Why? Because professional liability insurance is written to cover the ordinary standard of care, which is loosely defined in laws being the level of care that another hypothetical, reasonable professional in the same geographical area would provide.

I have often commented to attorneys that I would be their best witness in defending a professional malpractice suit, because I can honestly testify that the standard of care I see among architects (especially) and engineers (less so) is abysmal. That opinion was formed years before I started working in my current position as the commercial plan reviewer in a municipal building department. If anything, what I see daily in my current work only reinforces that opinion.

It's not just disappointing, it's absolutely astonishing. When I write plan reviews, I don't write a three word citation. I write a paragraph explaining why I'm citing something, and I list the code section or sections so the design professionals can look it up for themselves without having to guess. More often than not, when we get a resubmittal and go through the list, they generally ignore completely about 50% of the comments. One comment we get a lot on alterations is "That's not in my contract." Well, guess what, Mr. Architect. It's in the code and it applies to the alteration you designed, so it IS in your contract -- whether or not you thought about it when you quoted your fee.

As code officials, we can't ask for anything more than what the code requires -- with an important exception. A designer is always free to design beyond the code minimums. Once we approve the construction documents, what we issue is a permit to construct what's on the approved drawings. Our plumbing inspector recently mention a large job (not a house) on which PEX was allowed under the code but the owner and the engineer had specified copper tubing for domestic water. The contractor installed PEX, and was upset when it was rejected. The contractor lost -- he had a contract that called for copper, and the approved drawings called for copper. He got triple-teamed, by the building department failing inspections, by the design professional not certifying payment, and the commissioning agent not approving close-out.