Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?
kilitact said:
Heaven wrote;
A Building Official is not required to do engineering calculations to verify if the structure is adequate. The stamp of an engineer is the verification based on appropriate design criteria. You seem to have no faith in your brethren and lots of faith in the building official : ), thanks!
I disagree, the stamp of a registered design professional is verification that this person is registered, licensed, bonded and insured with the states regulatory agency. The stamp is not verification of the adequacy of the design, that’s the code officials job. I think that NY allows a stamp review to verify code complaince.
I'm not sure if this is suppose to be a bait but I want to bite the bait and pull Kilitact into the waters not far from a suburb of Portland.
First off, there is NO requirement for bond & insurance as far as licensing laws are concerned. It is not a requirement.
registered/license in practically the same thing except for paperwork details. It all just boils down to having a number and being authorized to perform work on non-exempt buildings & structures. None of the education and examinations is proof that the person is a good designer.
For the other person who said, which is better - an unlicensed person or a licensed person. More direct context is needed.
First there is Building Designers (Unlicensed Designers), Home Owner (for sake of conversation, those doing the design and specifications themselves and are neither of the other category), Architect (Licensed Designer), Professional Engineer and Construction Contractor.
Then we have to architectural/building design & specification project categories (Exempt and Non-exempt)
Then we have two categories of work ( Design & Structural/Infrastructural Calculations & Analysis [s/I-CA])
Ranking 1 (low quality) to 3 (High Quality)& NA
Designer Category____|Exempt Design||Exempt S/I-CA||Non-Exempt Design||Non-Exempt S/I-CA||
Home Owner..............|____1_______||_____1______||______NA________||________NA______||
Building Designer.........|____ 3 _____||_____2______||_______NA_______||_________NA______||
Architect..................|_____ 3 _____||____ 2 _____||_______ 3 ________||_______ 2 _______||
Engineer....................|_____ 2_____||____ 3 _____||_______ 2 ________||_______ 3 _______||
Contractor.................|_____ 2_____||____ 2*_____||_______ NA _______||_______ NA ______||
Note: This is a loose general average. There are exceptions to this general ranking of quality.
Engineers are not much focused in the "Design" end but are really good in Structural/Infrastructural stuff.
Contractors are often not really the greatest designers because they are more focused in construction that they really don't get into the design. They also don't get into calculations. * Contractors are more closer to 1.5 but some are better then others. Alot of contractors do not spend alot of time in the academic studies in design and calculation. Often not to the extent Architects and Building Designers do. Geez, you are more into working with your hands not sitting at a desk for crying out loud. Building Designers are often gone through the same education as an Architect but not taken the exam. Many have IDP completed or equivalent experienced covered. Most others have substantially equivalent level of experience & self-study and class study to be on par. These people are often very knowledgeable about designing homes and light commercial. They specialize in this. This usually is on average equal with Architects in this area. Architects are more design oriented then structural/infrastructural calculation/analysis oriented or engineering.
NA is noted because it would required RDP. It should be noted that Home Owner and Contractor is labeled NA but if any of them are Architect or Engineers as well then they would be probably equal Architect or Engineering category, respectively.
Most any Building Designer can & do perform to the same degree of level as an Architect on exempt buildings.
This is a rough ranking of the median average of these people. There are exceptions to this.
So in other words, architects & building designers would perform equally on exempt buildings. If it is highly complex that most architects won't do without engineering consultants then that is also about the level most building designers would get engineering consultants. It all boils down to liability as a building designer is equally liable as anyone else. Oregon law is clear and if an action can be made against a person then they are liable. There is NO ranking of liability. If it was your fault then you are liable to the full cost and all court expenses regardless of the person. There is no lawful favortism or leniency or extra burden beyond the license being a prima facie evidence of education/experience. The penalty for a screw up is the same and that is - the rule of the Judge complying with maximums/minimums set out by law. A Judge may not issue a lower penalty against an unlicensed person just because he is unlicensed or overtly penalize a licensed person just because they are licensed.
The worse folks in the category tends to be home owners doing the work themselves.
In my opinion, it shall bear a stamp of an engineer where required by law AND not otherwise exempted. If it really is highly complex then the designer is taking it at his legal liability. You just need to make sure the calcs are correctly calculated (having engineer department look over the calcs and numbers and they are compliant with code and accepted standards) and that it demonstrates that it meets the requirements.