# Is a Stamp or Seal of a RDP required when you don't have a local ordinance?



## Robert Ellenberg (Jul 7, 2010)

I have read earlier discussion about where plans had stamps but no details as to how the solution was arrived at and remembered those discussions as I was carefully reading R301.1.3 Engineered design today.

In referring to structural elements not conforming to the code, it states, "these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practrice.  The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatable with the performance of the conventional frame system.  Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code."

This says to me that your MUST show the design calculations--not just stamp it.  However, it also seems to say only the design calculations have to be shown--not the stamp.  In the real world, not many nonengineers out there can design and demonstrate compliance but I don't see a requirement to produce the stamp.   I know it is usually required but short of a local ordinance, what is the basis within the IRC for requiring a stamp?


----------



## Yankee (Jul 7, 2010)

In my State, the "practice of Engineering" requires a license. The description of the practice of engineering doesn't leave a lot of leeway.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 7, 2010)

*"Is a Stamp or Seal of a RDP required when you don't have a local ordinance?"*

*"what is the basis within the IRC for requiring a stamp?"* 

I haven't found anything in the IRC that refers to "requiring a stamp".

I believe you will find the requirements for seals and/or stamps are requirements of State Agencies.

Here is an example of Texas Law;

*Texas Engineering Practice Act and Rules*


*SUBCHAPTER I. PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING*

*§ 1001.401. Use of Seal*

(a) On receiving a license, a license holder shall obtain a seal in a design authorized by the board, showing the license holder’s name and the legend “Licensed Professional Engineer” or “Registered Professional Engineer.”

(b) A plan, specification, plat, or report issued by a license holder for a project to be constructed or used in this state must include the license holder’s seal placed on the document. A license holder is not required to use a seal required by this section if the project is to be constructed or used in another state or country.

© A person may not place a seal on a document if the license of the license holder named on the seal has expired or has been suspended or revoked.

(d) A license holder is not required to use a seal under this section for a project for which the license holder is not required to hold a license under an exemption provided by Subchapter B.

(e) A license holder shall not be required to provide or hold any additional certification, other than a license issued under this chapter, to seal an engineering plan, specification, plat, or report.
​and,




*§ 1001.402. Enforcement by Certain Public Officials*

A public official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state who is responsible for enforcing laws that affect the practice of engineering may accept a plan, specification, or other related document only if the plan, specification, or other document was prepared by an engineer, as evidenced by the engineer’s seal.
​Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 8, 2010)

Most states require the stamp, as UB stated above.  Check with your Board of Engineers, Board of Technical Professions, etc. (whatever it's called in your state).


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 8, 2010)

Like Vegas Paul sez: Check with your state board of Arch & Eng.

Our state allows the governing body to require more stringent requirements than state law. IBC section 106 would allow the building official authorization to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a RDP.


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks for the responses.  I was guessing that it got tied in some other way but had assumed it would be through local or state ordinances related to the code.  Hadn't considered the State's engineering laws.


----------



## peach (Jul 8, 2010)

NEVER, EVER accept structural calculations if you are not qualified to evaluate them.

IF some part of the structure falls out of the prescriptive cookbook of the code, require a structural engineer to take the responsibility.

WHEN you get called to court in the event of a failure of the structure, if those calculations are in your files, the jurisdiction will be found with a shared liability.

Rely on the seal..


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Jul 8, 2010)

Peach--I agree anything outside of the prescriptive code should be engineered.  But I'm not sure what you mean by not accepting structural calculations if you are not qualified to evaluate them.  I believe the IRC mandates that the calculations be there in the statement, "The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatable with the performance of the conventional frame system. "

The engineer who is stamping it isn't demonstrating compliance if he does not furnish the calcs and/or references.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 10, 2010)

The statement that if engineering calculations are in your files that the jurisdiction will be liable indicates a mis-understanding of the law.  The jurisdiction and the employees of the building department are covered by the governmental immunity.  While there are few absolutes in the law suits against building officials and jurictions are rarely sucessful.  There are better things to worry about.   Read "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" published by ICC.

If the RDP submits calculations that address code compliance the building department is required to accept them whether they will be checked or not.


----------



## peach (Jul 12, 2010)

governmental immunity does not extend to the feasance brothers (mis, mal and non).. those are torts that the governmental unit does not have to grant immunity for:

If the building collapses due to a structural failure and the calculations prove to have an error in them; if those are in your files, the plaintiff's lawyer is going to ask who evaluated the calculations for errors. It's negligence in the performance of duties.  In this case: non feasance.

And the jurisdiction can leave you hanging on your own.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2010)

I agree with Peach but unfortunately this area is not straightforward, judges have a lot of discretion in some cases particularly with those feasance  brothers. Immunity does not cover the feasance brothers, but it also doesn't make a lot of sense to refuse some submittals. I review truss drawings for design loads, but I am not going to review the mathematical calculations. Does that mean I shouldn't accept the truss drawings and therefore they will have no review at all? It puts us in an impossible position.


----------



## GHRoberts (Jul 12, 2010)

I agree with both peach and Yankee.



			
				Yankee said:
			
		

> It puts us in an impossible position.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 12, 2010)

As an Inspector; I'm way out of my league here.

But, as Yankee pointed;

"I review truss drawings for design loads, but I am not going to review the mathematical calculations."

We are required to accept Truss design drawings; along with all the required calculations per;

2006/2009 IRC, R802.10.1 Truss Design Drawings.

And, (Yankee)

"Does that mean I shouldn't accept the truss drawings and therefore they will have no review at all? It puts us in an impossible position."

It may put us in an impossible position; well, the Building Official anyway; but, we are required to accept them.

R802.10.1 "Truss design drawings, ------, *shall be* provided to the building official and approved prior to installation."

So, that only leaves the question "Are you going to review them?; have a qualified third party review them?; or accept them at face value, with the design professional's signature?"

As an inspector; I will fail the inspection without the layout and design drawings; unless my Building Official instructs me not to inspect them. In fact I cannot inspect them without this information.

Building Officials work between a rock and a hard place. And, as Peach pointed out; "And the jurisdiction can leave you hanging on your own"; and, they will.

Sometimes I love being at the bottom of the Totem Pole.  

Uncle Bob


----------



## Yankee (Jul 12, 2010)

A personal insurance policy owned by yourself for professional liability is not a bad thing to have.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 12, 2010)

This concern by building officials about personal liability has long been recognized to be overstated.  The ICC publication I referenced clearly make that point.  In California the building official is absolutely immune from any action he or she undertakes as long as it is in the scope of his or her employment.

The situations where immunity does not exist are few and easily managed if the building official understands the risk.  The ones that do not educate themselves and respond out of fear are more likely to get into trouble.  The secret is to only enforce the regulations adopted by your jurisdiction and to not be vindictive.  If you have a problem applicant consult with your agencies attorney.

Failure to check calcuations should not be a expose you to liability.  Except for rare exceptions all the submitted calculations are not checked in detail.

Besides the legal immunity there are practical reasons that the building official is not likely to be sued.  Unless the building official is particularly rich most plantifs will not sue the building official because it does not make economic sense.

Check with ICC as to how many building officials are found to be personally liable and how many were not defended by their jurisdiciton.  As you educate yourselves you will find the likelyhood of the building official being found economically liable close to a urban legend.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 13, 2010)

One does not have to be "found economically liable" in order to have a lawsuit ruin their personal finances (assuming, as you say, in the unlikely BUT POSSIBLE chance the juristiction cuts you loose). Overstated concern maybe, but I have never had a car accident that was my fault either, but I still carry insurance.

I think Peach may have some close up and personal experience with this subject that is contrary to the ICC publication. Again, a book is nice, but , , , ,


----------



## peach (Jul 15, 2010)

require the seal; not the calculations (if you want, have the structural engineer give you a notarized statement that the calculations are on file in his/her office)... file that.

You need the plans (include truss shop drawings) in order to do the inspections.  The design (and the liability) belongs to the structural designer.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 22, 2010)

Peach,

In Oregon, actions for damages caused by persons furnishing architectural, design and/or engineering services are brought against those persons.

Review: ORS 12.135.

In Oregon, SFRs are exempt under both architectural and engineering laws and a stamp are not required for such structures in general. However, a person furnishing the building design services and doing the calcs are liable. They are the ones with the legal duty to perform services to the standard of care. The law is, a person who performs a services of any kind are required BY law to perform those services to the standard of reasonable care for those services. That is, "performed to the level of standard that a prudent, responsible, educated & trained person, with the knowledge and skills to perform the work, would have done under same or similar facts, and circumstances and scope & nature of work.

Architects and Engineers sets a tone for us all. Building Designers do not have an exception to this basic civil law rule. No person is exempt unless CLEARLY by statute held indemnified from liability.

IIRC: Government employees are essentially protected from much of this.

If it was prepared by an RDP, then it should be stamped and required to be stamped. If the project is exempt from licensure and prepared by an unlicensed building designer, then it shall not need be stamped but shall be prepared to the same standard as an RDP. (ie. calcs shall be prepared and clearly shown in full detail as to how that designer arrived to the calculated results - in other words, show the math & equation process and the steps. Just like a math instructor requires you to show the math.)

We require this and good judgment on the behalf of the B.O. / Inspector.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 22, 2010)

Peach,

In Oregon, actions for damages caused by persons furnishing architectural, design and/or engineering services are brought against those persons.

Review: ORS 12.135.

In Oregon, SFRs are exempt under both architectural and engineering laws and a stamp are not required for such structures in general. However, a person furnishing the building design services and doing the calcs are liable. They are the ones with the legal duty to perform services to the standard of care. The law is, a person who performs a services of any kind are required BY law to perform those services to the standard of reasonable care for those services. That is, "performed to the level of standard that a prudent, responsible, educated & trained person, with the knowledge and skills to perform the work, would have done under same or similar facts, and circumstances and scope & nature of work.

Architects and Engineers sets a tone for us all. Building Designers do not have an exception to this basic civil law rule. No person is exempt unless CLEARLY by statute held indemnified from liability.

IIRC: Government employees are essentially protected from much of this.

If it was prepared by an RDP, then it should be stamped and required to be stamped. If the project is exempt from licensure and prepared by an unlicensed building designer, then it shall not need be stamped but shall be prepared to the same standard as an RDP. (ie. calcs shall be prepared and clearly shown in full detail as to how that designer arrived to the calculated results - in other words, show the math & equation process and the steps. Just like a math instructor requires you to show the math.)

We require this and good judgment on the behalf of the B.O. / Inspector.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 22, 2010)

At the same time, if you can't adequately review the calcs yourself, you are within your right as a building department to consult a qualified 3rd party to review calcs. In fact, in Oregon, I believe those departments will have the calcs sent into Salem to the BCD itself and their staff to review and report back. This is because the state has a qualified reviewer on staff. The calcs are reviewed and a report is sent back and voila, problem solved and then the local B.O. can then make the approval or disapproval based on the finding.

That is why having this arrangement made, solves the issue for departments that don't have an Engineering Dept. or if it exceeds the capacity of the Engineering Dept. due to complexity.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 22, 2010)

California law provides that persons who are not licensed as architects or registered as civil or structural engineers can design certain types of buildings or parts of buildings, which include:

• single-family dwellings of conventional woodframe construction that are not more than two stories and basement in height.

• multiple dwellings containing no more than four dwelling units that are of conventional woodframe construction, not more than two stories and basement in height, and not more than four dwelling units per lot.

• garages or other structures added to dwellings of woodframe construction that are not more than two stories and basement in height.

• agricultural and ranch buildings of woodframe construction, unless the building official deems that an undue risk to the public health, safety, or welfare is involved.

• nonstructural or nonseismic storefronts, interior alterations or additions, fixtures, cabinetwork, furniture, or other appliances or equipment, including nonstructural work necessary to provide for their installation.

• nonstructural or nonseismic alterations or additions to any building necessary for the installation of storefronts, interior alterations or additions, fixtures, cabinetwork, furniture, appliances, or equipment, provided those alterations do not change or affect the structural system or safety of the building.

*But do to our seismic zones most cities/municipalities require calcs for everything*


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 23, 2010)

It is all different rules from each state. Whoever that did the design, architectural and engineering services is liable for the design services.

As general rule, the very advertisement and offering of services is a claim of possessing the knowledge & skills to perform the service. Any person has reasonable cause to believe a person or business has the knowledge & skill to perform a job when the person or business advertises or offers to perform the task.  By failing to have the knowledge and skills to perform the service, the person or business is therefore offering/advertising to perform a service without intent to provide service as advertised by the person or business not doing whatever it takes to gain/possess the knowledge & skills to perform the work OR by not disclosing, PRIOR to engaging services/work, the limitations of services.

That is violation of laws governing unfair trade & practice acts. In Oregon, that would be ORS 646.605 to 646.652 and related laws.


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2010)

SOME building departments have structural engineers employed as plan reviewers.. good.. review the calculations.

In most cases (and I'm talking almost every jusidiction outside of the west coast), the budget isn't there to have this type of qualification on staff, and most of us can't afford to have an outside engineer to do it.  Rely on the stamp of the engineer in charge of the structural, but don't keep those calcs in your records.

It all goes back to tort law, which can make the plan reviewer liable outside of the jurisdiction... it's probably  going to be misfeasance if the calculations are wrong and you actually reviewed them.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2010)

I find it interesting that building officials will justify the lack of review of the calculations by claiming they do not have enough budget.  On the other hand if the engineer were to try to justify a lack of code compliance based on not having enough fee this would not be accepted.  Sounds like a double standard.

Section 107.3 of the 2009 IBC states "The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompaning submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examination whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances"

If the building official were to have liability because he did not review calculations he would have liability if he failed to examine the permit documents.  I would suggest that review of calculations is necessary to ascertain whether the permit documents are in accordance with the code.  I believe that the strategy of not reviewing and not keeping structural calculations gives a false sense of security.  The building official has a duty and he needs to step up and make a good faith effort to fulfill that duty.

I would suggest that the building official would have less liability exposure by making a good faith effort to comply with the building code as opposed to adopting avoidance strategies.

Risk and liability exposure is a normal fact of life in this business.  Even if the calculations were reviewed there is the possibility, hopefuly smaller, that mistakes could escape the reviewer.


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2010)

Why on earth would you ask for something you aren't qualified to examine? Accept the engineer's seal on the plans (and the engineer is being well compensated for their services to the owner).

Accepting something as part of the official records makes the BO equally liable if it's wrong..

The plans need to have the design criteria on them .. if you're in a D seismic area and the plans say B.. reject them..  truss plans will show the input values for the program.. if it's wrong, reject them.  You don't need the calculations.  That's the designers responsibility.

If you want them in your files, require them... I wouldn't.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 24, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> ISection 107.3 of the 2009 IBC states "The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompaning submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examination whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances"


I cause them to be examined by the engineer. Who then stamps them.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2010)

The building official cannot transfer his responsibilities to the design professional just as the design professional cannot transfer his to the building official.  Hopefully if they both do their own work we will have better buildings.


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2010)

My point is.. it's the structural designer's responsibilty to do the calculations, and seal the plans.

you don't think the designer will TRY to shift the responsibility to the building official?  they will... that little bridge collapse in kansas city a few years ago... pops to mind


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2010)

Nobody is suggesting that the engineer doesn't need to stamp and sign his work.  This is seperate from the building officials responsibility to examine the documents and enforce the code.

If you are talking about the Hyatt Kansas City bridge the structural engineer lost his license.  I do not remember any attempt to shift the blame to the building official.

The reality is that when a problem is found with a building the designers do not even think about trying to blame the building official.  The risk to the building official is not legal liability but rather the bad press from the problem.  I contend that the best thing that the building official can do is make a good faith effort to fulfill his responsibilities under the code.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 24, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I contend that the best thing that the building official can do is make a good faith effort to fulfill his responsibilities under the code.


The good faith effort is to recognize where one's area of expertise ends, and collect and rely on expertise from others beyond that point. For many (I will say most), reviewing calculations is beyond their expertise. They may turn to a third party or peer review and ALL that is necessary from that agency or person is a written letter to the file certifying that the review has been done and the submittal meets code. The submittal does not contain all the math, there is no reason for it to.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 24, 2010)

The third party would be somebody other than the design professional and the building official.  The third party would not be the design professional submitting the construction documents and the calculations.  From the building departments point of view there is no difference between truss calculations prepared by the design professional and calculations prepared by the truss fabricator's engineer.

This still leaves the building department with the responsibility to examine the permit submittal.  The building department can either perform this with inhouse staff or they can retain somebody else to assist them.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 24, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> My point is.. it's the structural designer's responsibilty to do the calculations, and seal the plans.you don't think the designer will TRY to shift the responsibility to the building official?  they will... that little bridge collapse in kansas city a few years ago... pops to mind


Peach, you can NOT ever legally be liable to the calculations performed. Why? You don't have the duty of care to perform the calcs.

You have a legal RIGHT to consult an qualified professional to review the calcs and provide you a report of findings. No court has EVER EVER EVER held a building official liable by consulting a professional to review calcs and provide a findings.

Read 103.3, 104.4 and 104.8 of the 2009 IBC.

There are policies to contract special technical staff in lieu of a standard employment for special circumstances.

It is not malice to accept report and engage technical experts for expert opinion. In fact it is malice or can be considered negligence of duty to NOT collect calcs just because you yourself can not review the calcs itself.  Really, how hard is it to get an engineer to review the calcs and provide you a report of findings and getting the expert opinion that you need to make a judgment.

Why do you not have an engineer under contract or employment. In fact, if you are working for D.C., you have NO excuse. You have an engineering department. No city of that size, would not have an engineering department. That is why you have these conditions planned for. Heck, Astoria, Oregon a town of under 10,000 has an engineering dept. and they assist the plan review when calcs are submitted and in some cases, the calcs are taken to Salem for review by engineers there and assists the B.O. when such cases arise.


----------



## peach (Jul 26, 2010)

well, yeah.. the building official can hire an outside source (usually the jurisdiction Engineering department is mostly civil engineering.. not structural).  If you have a mechanism to pay for it.. terrific.. most don't.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> If you have a mechanism to pay for it.. terrific.. most don't.


Some add to the PC fee for outside review.


----------



## peach (Jul 26, 2010)

That would be the mechanism...  you need to provide for it in your local permit fee ordinance...


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 26, 2010)

Codes are prescriptive based.

Engineering is performance based.

Therefore, engineered systems/products lie outside the scope of the building codes.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2010)

The IRC and IBC provides both a prescriptive and performance Engineering approachs. Both are part of the code....

You may not use one, or the other but they are availible for the designer, and in the code.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 26, 2010)

Performance based solutions require justification by RDPs.

Hence this thread.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> Performance based solutions require justification by RDPs. Hence this thread.


But are a part of the Code.....


----------



## peach (Jul 28, 2010)

The thread didn't really start out as performance based design vs. prescriptive design, but you have a good point Mark.  The designer is responsible for the design; if he/she does structural modeling (and you building department doesn't have that same modeling software), how are you to evaluate it?

It's their work product and they are responsible for maintaining it; just have them certify (which IS public record), that the design product is available for review in their office and call it a day.

If you've never seen structural modeling design, it's pretty interesting (well what happens if I move all my columns to the outside of the building.. ooops, it collapses)..  lots of energy modeling being used too.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 28, 2010)

There are a lot of misconceptions around checking of engineering designs.

No checking effort ever checks every number.  There is not enough fee for that, it would take much longer, and it may not be effective in finding a number of mistakes.  When checking anothers calculations it is easy to accept the false assumptions made by the designer.

Effective checkers will verify basic assumprions as well as perform independent calculations for critical and typical members.  Often using a different program is iffective in verifying compliance.  When there are questions about the results the checker can always request additional calculations and data from the design engineer.  The checking effort is focused on providing confidence that the design complies with the regulations.

The building department checking does not reduce the responsibility of the design professional.  Similarly the building department's responsibilities are not reduced by the actions of the design professional.

The idea of having the design professional certify his design instead of having a plan check performed has been tried by New York City.  Without some checking by the building department some architects and engineers started to get sloppy.  There were some blatant abuses.  You could repeat this experience in your jurisdiction if you adopt the idea of substituting self certification for plan checks.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 28, 2010)

You don't need to use any structural modeling software. You simply nee the size and properties of the beams and run the calcs. Is beam sufficiently sized for span or not. If load on span over X span Meets (within 15%) or Exceeds Ultimate Strength conditions then the beam is at failure point. Some thing for the connections. If the connection does not support - failure happens. The computer just visualizes it for the dummy and does the hard work. In the old days, they can predict failure when load is with 15% of Ultimate load condition.

You can request calcs that have been hand calc'd (pencil & paper and the shown math) and verified with a computer under a specified industry standard software. We require the math to be shown. That way, the designer or engineer proves A) they actually done the calcs and not the computer doing all the work for you. and B) It is a double verification.

If you are an engineer and you let the computer do all the calcs then why have a registration process for you. Why don't we just register the computer and let the computer do all the engineering. Computers are infallible. True. But the software programmer is and often don't know squat about engineering.

Check the calcs (even if it means to hire 3rd party consultant), and require calcs that shows the mathematic process. This would show you if and where they screwed up and designers /engineers should be doing the calcs / engineering. Not the computer.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 28, 2010)

By the reasoning below, calculators shouldn't be used either.

Engineering isn't about doing the math, it's about knowing what math to do.


----------



## peach (Jul 29, 2010)

Rick, you just made my point.. prove that the engineer did the calculations.. look at them, have them certify that the calcs are available at the designers office, accept their seal on the plans and move on.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 29, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Rick, you just made my point.. prove that the engineer did the calculations.. look at them, have them certify that the calcs are available at the designers office, accept their seal on the plans and move on.


When the designer does the calcs (where an engineer stamp is not required by statutes of the jurisdiction where the project is proposed to be built - such as an exempt building), the calcs should be prepared in a manner that shows how the designer derived the calculations and that the calcs meets the applicable codes and standards. Who is going to check it IF I done the calcs? I'm liable to the calcs but someone must check if calcs meets the code requirements. That is the job of the building department. Just as they check the plans. Thank goodness the fellow in charge of code enforcement at my local building department requires the calcs be shown in such a manner. The best way is to do the math calcs by hand.

Generally, calculators should not be used other than to verify any mathematical mistakes. It is about knowing the right equation/math to use and how to perform it correctly. Proper engineering calcs also includes proper mathematical procedures including verification procedures to check the math. You learn this in college math. Yankee, yes it is more then math. Knowing the right math to use. Calculators should only be use as a final check. This also proves and demonstrates you know what you are doing and prove it. You should prove your hypothesis (design solutions) by hard cold numbers that are properly and fully executed and verified.

A good designer, architect or engineer goes the full measure. Leaves no guessing behind.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 29, 2010)

peach

Please help me understand your position.

I inform the engineer we will not review his calculations therefore I will accept a certified letter that the engineer did the calcs and they are in his office and that is ok.

However

I inform the engineer we will not review his calculations therefore I will accept a certified letter that the engineer did the calcs and I want a copy to place in the file for future historical records in the building department and this not ok?

Either way the building department acknowledges they do not review the engineered calculations. I do not see the logic.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 29, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Who is going to check it IF I done the calcs? I'm liable to the calcs but someone must check if calcs meets the code requirements. That is the job of the building department. The best way is to do the math calcs by hand.Generally, calculators should not be used other than to verify any mathematical mistakes. It is about knowing the right equation/math to use and how to perform it correctly. Proper engineering calcs also includes proper mathematical procedures including verification procedures to check the math. You learn this in college math. Yankee, yes it is more then math. Knowing the right math to use. Calculators should only be use as a final check. This also proves and demonstrates you know what you are doing and prove it. You should prove your hypothesis (design solutions) by hard cold numbers that are properly and fully executed and verified.
> 
> A good designer, architect or engineer goes the full measure. Leaves no guessing behind.


Well, that's all news to me and to my associates degree in Architectural Engineering.


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 30, 2010)

If we accept engineer's designs without reviewing them (or reviewing the calculations that are the basis for their design), just because they are stamped, then why don't we do the same for an architect's stamped drawings - no review?  I recently had a correction letter go out of my office with 140 comments/corrections for the architectural and MP&E sheets... should I assume the structural was perfect?

That's why I always review the structural calcs with the same rigor that I review the Architectural and MP&E... because I am a code professional! (and an engineer).


----------



## Yankee (Jul 30, 2010)

If engineers plans are accepted just design criteria may be reviewed. Many jurisdictions do not have the ability to hire someone like vegas paul, or the political will to require third party review (or even the political will to require engineered solutions sometimes). That's life in the boonies. So for those of us that do everything and are generalists, and don't have an armload of code specific certs or degrees, we do what we can. Part of that is not to pretend to have reviewed a submittal if it is not something we are qualified, or have time, to do. The next best thing is to expect to hold the licensed designer responsible (as he is). If your jurisdiction has the ability to take responsibility for the engineering of engineered plans, then, more power to you.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Well, that's all news to me and to my associates degree in Architectural Engineering.


How do you know that you didn't mistype an entry or the calculator isn't malfunctioning? That is why doing it by hand and verifying and leaving no guessing. That was how things were done in the 1920s. They didn't have calculators and they verified their math. Fool proof when you check it not once, not twice but at least 3 times. A calculator or computer can check the calcs to if you want to verify your math. The best engineers did not rely on a calculator. They relied on proven math theory that is infallible.

2+5 = 7

How do we know that it is 7.

Check math by doing the inverse in this case.

7 - 2 = 5......ok

7 - 5 = 2......ok

That proves the math is correct. Proven math theory PROVES your calcs was properly calculated.

Prove the right equation was used by verifying that the equation is right for the job. Proven engineering standards have documented the equations to use. That is proven. Most of the engineering equations we use today are in fact the same equations used back in the 1920s.

Material properties is provided by the material maker. Steel beam has its properties given by the steel beam maker. Many publications are available and you can specify accordingly.

Prove your math. Prove your calcs. Prove your specification. Proves you know what you are talking about. Due Dilligence.

That is my point, Yankee.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> If engineers plans are accepted just design criteria may be reviewed. Many jurisdictions do not have the ability to hire someone like vegas paul, or the political will to require third party review (or even the political will to require engineered solutions sometimes). That's life in the boonies. So for those of us that do everything and are generalists, and don't have an armload of code specific certs or degrees, we do what we can. Part of that is not to pretend to have reviewed a submittal if it is not something we are qualified, or have time, to do. The next best thing is to expect to hold the licensed designer responsible (as he is). If your jurisdiction has the ability to take responsibility for the engineering of engineered plans, then, more power to you.


Maybe then we just going to have to require by statutory law that ALL building/planning departments that reviews building plans to consult a third-party registered professional QUALIFIED to review the calc if they do not have a qualified person on staff.

EVERY political entity will try to skate away from anything that will cost them money UNLESS they waste taxpayers money on remodeling their office. Like MOST human being on earth, if they aren't required to do something then they'll do everything possible to NOT do it. Because doing more then required = more $$$ spent on things other then themselves. Therefore mandate more.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 30, 2010)

The adopted regulations (IBC) already require that the permit documents be examined and that the building official approve those projects found to be in compliance.  The building official has no option.  The only question is the nature of the examination.

The local jurisdiction can impose fees to offset the cost to enforce the building code.

If the jurisdiction is not given enough funding to do this  the building official should so inform the jurisdiction of the problem.  In states that adopt a state building code the local jurisdiction does not have a lot of options.

My understanding is that at one time California notified all local jurisdictions that unless they had a building department and started enforcing the California Building Code that the state would step in and enforce the code.  Needless to say all of the local jurisdictions have implemented building departments.  In California the Department of Housing and Community Development has primary jurisdiction with regards residential properties which they typically delegate to local jurisdictions.


----------



## texas transplant (Jul 30, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Maybe then we just going to have to require by statutory law that ALL building/planning departments that reviews building plans to consult a third-party registered professional QUALIFIED to review the calc if they do not have a qualified person on staff. EVERY political entity will try to skate away from anything that will cost them money UNLESS they waste taxpayers money on remodeling their office. Like MOST human being on earth, if they aren't required to do something then they'll do everything possible to NOT do it. Because doing more then required = more $$$ spent on things other then themselves. Therefore mandate more.


Rick,

You want to make City Building Departments hire a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL to review the calcs???  This thread is about the IRC, not IBC.   Why hire a REGISTRERED PROFESSIONAL to review calcs that you talk about allowing an UNREGISTRERED OR UNLICENSED BUILDING "DESIGNER" to perform.  I'm sorry, that logic seems twisted to me.  I would rather use the money to replace the 50 year old desks that wobble when we try to use them, than spend money on a RDP to review calcs that the law allows an unlicensed person to perform.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 30, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> 2+5 = 7
> 
> How do we know that it is 7.
> 
> ...


But Rick, one can do the same verification with a calculator, and is taught to do so.


----------



## peach (Jul 30, 2010)

structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...

Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> But Rick, one can do the same verification with a calculator, and is taught to do so.


Did I not say that. But you should verify it by proving you verified it.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 30, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.


Bingo.

Some of us are talking about what Peach said, and some are talking about L/360 etc etc.

Now it all makes sense.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> structural calculations are not as simple as 2+5=7 ...Engineering calculations can include slenderness ratios, moments, compression/tension calculations and their assumptions.


Sure. But just as solidly verifiable. EVERY engineering equation is a mathematic/algebraic equation. Every math/algebra equation is verifiable and there is founded mathematic process to verifying ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE math/algebra equation. A valid math/algebra equation is verifiable. It is the Law of Math and like the Laws of Physics, it is Absolutely proven.

"You" used in this is a rhetorical 'you' and should not be interpretted explicitly to you unless I make explicit note.

The mathematics for any engineering equation is just as verifiable as that simple verification for a simple 2x + 5x = 7x. Yeah, its making you work. Is that what you are paid to do. Work. If the computer is working and not you then why don't we give your pay check to the computer?  That is why you should know the math to verify your math. What if your computer or calculator is malfunctioning. What if there is no more batteries and your PV cells are broken. Are you still capable of doing your job? That is why a good engineer knows how to do it by hand. Otherwise, you don't deserve that engineering license. You should know how to do it. Not the computer. That is my point. Show it in your work. If you are paid the same  percentage of construction cost as those engineers back in the 1920s - you should be just as capable of doing the math by hand as those engineers. They didn't have calculators & computers. If the computer does it for you then you are not worth hiring. Why? If the computer can do it but you can't, then you are just a computer operator and not a real engineer. No license is required to be a computer operator. Any bozo can operate a computer.

If I can do it, why can't you?

Peach, this is a rhetorical "you". I'm not claiming you (Peach) to be an engineer or not. Same point for the engineers.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

I used a simple math to illustrate the point easily over a forum. The greek and other funny symbols are not easy to just type over a keyboard over this forum. This is why I don't post engineering equations and then showing the mathematical process. The symbols are not available on the keyboard. I use something simple to illustrate the point in a quick fashion.

I can pencil it out on paper a heck alot faster.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> Rick,You want to make City Building Departments hire a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL to review the calcs???  This thread is about the IRC, not IBC.   Why hire a REGISTRERED PROFESSIONAL to review calcs that you talk about allowing an UNREGISTRERED OR UNLICENSED BUILDING "DESIGNER" to perform.  I'm sorry, that logic seems twisted to me.  I would rather use the money to replace the 50 year old desks that wobble when we try to use them, than spend money on a RDP to review calcs that the law allows an unlicensed person to perform.


Legally, I can design and do calcs for pretty sophisticated SFRs with full-out non-prescriptive design elements.

Ones that can fall into OSSC and many of the engineering standards.


----------



## Yankee (Jul 30, 2010)

I don't know Rick, I have never used a computer to do engineering, and I have never disallowed myself to use a calculator.

So, you're a purist. Ok then. You are getting a little rabid.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 30, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I don't know Rick, I have never used a computer to do engineering, and I have never disallowed myself to use a calculator.So, you're a purist. Ok then. You are getting a little rabid.


Now we know the basic Engineering concept of strain.  Strain = deformation / length

S = Strain, D = Deformation, L = length         S = D/L

You can verification your math -> D x S = L

and the alternate verification-> S x L = D

Simple enough to verify. When you calc it, you verify the math.

I know it goes on to more complex equation with more complex math verification processes matching the equation. And you can validate the equation across the board with the other equations used. Just a process of validating your engineering, math and specifications.

The math here so far is simple. Simple enough for posting with ordinary ASCII keyboard letters, numbers and symbols. Most of the usual symbols takes an ordeal to get it to display correctly.


----------



## peach (Jul 31, 2010)

ok... verify away... what if the equation the structural engineer uses is the incorrect one for the application?


----------



## Yankee (Jul 31, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Legally, I can design and do calcs for pretty sophisticated SFRs with full-out non-prescriptive design elements.Ones that can fall into OSSC and many of the engineering standards.


not in my state you can't


----------



## peach (Jul 31, 2010)

Back when I was in college, I was required to take an electrical engineering class where we were taught the "right hand rule".. ok.. so test time comes along, and since the vast majority of us are right handed, I looked around the room.. almost everyone was using their left hand to help visualize electron flow.. how many of us changed the (-) to (+) sign (or visa versa) when we did that?

Not all engineering "assumptions" or "equations" are appropriate for a given situation.  The math might be right but the assumption or equation isn't right.  That's my point.

Back in the days before computer modeling, I worked in a structural engineering firm and watched the designers make assumptions that didn't work.. lots of hand written calculations with an NG after them... keep working the numbers until they "work"..  shorten a span here.. increase the depth of a beam here..  there's a lot that goes into a structural design.


----------



## peach (Jul 31, 2010)

Oh, by the way.. when the structural engineer has to change the design because the architect didn't know enough to double check the structural input... it can change all the MEP stuff too.. (wow, now the ductwork doesn't fit.. ).   Everything starts with the architect.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 31, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> ok... verify away... what if the equation the structural engineer uses is the incorrect one for the application?


Then disapprove it and report it to the Board of Professional Engineers (Engineer licensing board). If my calcs are wrong and the wrong equations are used then disapprove it.

NOTE on plans that the wrong equation was used. Ok, your third party engineer can give you that on a report of finding and you state that. You have the engineer that backed your claim. You cite the engineering standards manual section like you cite the code section pretty much as they become 'part' of the applicable code by reference. Simple enough.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 31, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> not in my state you can't


Yeah, I follow the laws of the state where the project is proposed. If I legally am not permitted to do the calcs and stuff in your state then so be it.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 31, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Back when I was in college, I was required to take an electrical engineering class where we were taught the "right hand rule".. ok.. so test time comes along, and since the vast majority of us are right handed, I looked around the room.. almost everyone was using their left hand to help visualize electron flow.. how many of us changed the (-) to (+) sign (or visa versa) when we did that?Not all engineering "assumptions" or "equations" are appropriate for a given situation.  The math might be right but the assumption or equation isn't right.  That's my point.
> 
> Back in the days before computer modeling, I worked in a structural engineering firm and watched the designers make assumptions that didn't work.. lots of hand written calculations with an NG after them... keep working the numbers until they "work"..  shorten a span here.. increase the depth of a beam here..  there's a lot that goes into a structural design.


Of course you use the right equation. Verifying your equation and math. That means VERIFY you are using the right equation. That is why you the engineer (or designer where permitted by law) shall cite the equation itself before you plug in the numbers and run the calculations. That is why you show it. Show the equation and show the math.

z= (x-y)+2v(x), where x = 20,  y = 10 and v = 4

(20-10) + 2(4)(20) = z

(10) + 8(20) = z

10 + 160 = z

z = 170

Like most basic math and physics. This same principle can be applied. You show the equation and you show the math. There is algebraic verification processes for the math above.

All engineering equations are similar in this basic regard. Engineering is applied physics and Physics is an application of math/algebra.

PEMDAS rulez

PS: Peach, I know it is more then a single calculation. It is a process. You can determine minimum cross-section. Then you must size to meet loads that requires a certain width or a certain depth and the combination of those loads would ultimately determine the dimensions of the beam. Including beam length (for span). Your columns are often spaced for other design related issues so you need to size the columns to bear the load and the height of the columns to make sure you have vertical clearance from finish floor to bottom of beam for the use of space as required by space function. You name it. Alot of decisions.  Alot more then what can reasonably be enumerated on. Those assumptions for sake of context is implied in all my posts so far.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jul 31, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way.. when the structural engineer has to change the design because the architect didn't know enough to double check the structural input... it can change all the MEP stuff too.. (wow, now the ductwork doesn't fit.. ).   Everything starts with the architect.


Yes. It is a coordination.


----------



## peach (Aug 2, 2010)

Rick.. you may be an engineer.. that's great for the left coast building departments; most other building departments can't afford you.

Knowing if they used the right assumptions and equations is beyond what most BD staffs can do... and shouldn't have to... and shouldn't have to hire out to evaluate.. accept the plans with the affidavit.. even in florida.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 3, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Rick.. you may be an engineer.. that's great for the left coast building departments; most other building departments can't afford you.Knowing if they used the right assumptions and equations is beyond what most BD staffs can do... and shouldn't have to... and shouldn't have to hire out to evaluate.. accept the plans with the affidavit.. even in florida.


I'm not an engineer but I do have knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences. I apply that knowledge in the designing, planning and specifications where the laws allows me to in the exemption provisions under the Engineering laws. I design under the exemption provisions of the architectural laws.

I work within the laws and rules of the state.

Interesting, point you bring. It seems like you are leaving the calcs in the faith of the designer/architect/engineer to have done it right.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 3, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> I'm not an engineer but I do have knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences. I apply that knowledge in the designing, planning and specifications where the laws allows me to in the exemption provisions under the Engineering laws. I design under the exemption provisions of the architectural laws.I work within the laws and rules of the state.
> 
> Interesting, point you bring. It seems like you are leaving the calcs in the faith of the designer/architect/engineer to have done it right.


It is more than "faith" Rick, the stamped engineer or architect is liscensed.


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Aug 3, 2010)

I started this thread to address the requirement for an engineer's stamp and got excellent responses and then it evolved into a discussion of public officials liability and checking the DP's work--great discussion.

I have a different but related question.  In many places the code uses the term "other approved".  The definition of "approved" simply and clearly limits it to "acceptable to the building official".  This says to me that I could have something "different", have an engineer show the calculations and stamp it and if the AHJ didn't like it--he could turn it down.

Do all of you read this the same way and if so, do you know of instances of this happening?


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 3, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Legally, I can design and do calcs for pretty sophisticated SFRs with full-out non-prescriptive design elements.Ones that can fall into OSSC and many of the engineering standards.


Rick,

You are missing a big part of Peach's and Yankee's point.   A REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL has specific duties and liabilities under the law.   And the REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL has passed a test showing minimum competency under the law.   Yes you can do calcs for SFRs legally, but how have you proved competency?

Unless it is passed on to your client as an additional fee, it is cheaper for the administration of my department to require a REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL to do the calcs, prohibit the unlicensed designer, no matter how many calcs they provide.  Bottom line is if I have to hire a RDP to review your calcs, I will either prohibit your work or make your owner pay additional fees for any reviews necessary.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 3, 2010)

> This says to me that I could have something "different", have an engineer show the calculations and stamp it and if the AHJ didn't like it--he could turn it down. Do all of you read this the same way and if so, do you know of instances of this happening?


It would be extremely rare that an AHJ would turn it down because he "didn't like it" a reason would have to be given so the engineer could make changes or provide futher info.


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 3, 2010)

Robert Ellenberg said:
			
		

> I started this thread to address the requirement for an engineer's stamp and got excellent responses and then it evolved into a discussion of public officials liability and checking the DP's work--great discussion.I have a different but related question.  In many places the code uses the term "other approved".  The definition of "approved" simply and clearly limits it to "acceptable to the building official".  This says to me that I could have something "different", have an engineer show the calculations and stamp it and if the AHJ didn't like it--he could turn it down.
> 
> Do all of you read this the same way and if so, do you know of instances of this happening?


Robert,

I have always interpeted that to mean that anything can be built as long as it can be shown it meets the spirit and intent of the code.  Just because the building code wasn't written to cover that particular idea doesn't mean it is prohibited, it means you have to prove to the AHJ that it works.

I wouldn't turn something down just because I personally didn't like it. If the engineering, testing agency reports etc. says it works you better accept it.   Just make sure that the design was done correctly.  When in doubt send it to your own RDP for their review too.  Sometimes you have to do that and its worth it, just make sure you have your fee schedule set up to allow you to pass the cost onto the permit applicant.  If you turn something down that a RDP, approved testing agency or other similar group has said will work, just because you don't like it, better have your attorney on board early.  There are lots of ways to build something out there that the IRC hadn't taken into account.   Besides codes are several years behind technology wise when they finally go into print, considering the amount of time code development takes.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 3, 2010)

I agree with Tt's comment. the statement is there to allow approval of other means as long as the AHJ deems them as "equal to or betteer than"


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 3, 2010)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> Rick,You are missing a big part of Peach's and Yankee's point.   A REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL has specific duties and liabilities under the law.   And the REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL has passed a test showing minimum competency under the law.   Yes you can do calcs for SFRs legally, but how have you proved competency?
> 
> Unless it is passed on to your client as an additional fee, it is cheaper for the administration of my department to require a REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL to do the calcs, prohibit the unlicensed designer, no matter how many calcs they provide.  Bottom line is if I have to hire a RDP to review your calcs, I will either prohibit your work or make your owner pay additional fees for any reviews necessary.


Then bill appropriate fees to allow for the calc review. However, I would be legally liable for the calcs I make. The calcs would be appurtenant to the design services and therefore is covered under ORS 12.135 for actions. If I don't perform to standard of care, the law allows for a very powerful provision called an injunction. A violation of an injunction is called "Contempt of Court" and that can lead to big fines and imprisonment. That is why, if you do something, do it right.


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 3, 2010)

Actually Rick we do have a provision in our fee schedule that if the code official (me) decides that a set of plans needs to be reviewed by an outside consultant, the permit applicant has to pay the estimated fee prior to the review.

I also have a local modification in the IRC that I can require a RDP when a SFR goes beyond prescriptive design.

With that I will leave the discussion and agree to disagree with you.


----------



## peach (Aug 3, 2010)

Hi Tex,

The IRC already has that provision; R301.1.3 "Engineered Design".

Rick, I am an engineer and would never take it upon myself to start with the RDP's assumptions and figure out if they are using the correct equations.  That's why they are licensed and insured for errors and omissions.  If you want their work product in your files.. good.. great even.

IF the calculations have the tiniest mistake and your (or your consultant) miss it, you are guilty of misfeasance.. which is a tort

Most jurisdictions will not make you immune from tort liability.

Buy umbrella insurance.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 3, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Hi Tex,The IRC already has that provision; R301.1.3 "Engineered Design".
> 
> Rick, I am an engineer and would never take it upon myself to start with the RDP's assumptions and figure out if they are using the correct equations.  That's why they are licensed and insured for errors and omissions.  If you want their work product in your files.. good.. great even.
> 
> ...


Bingo! That is why there is errors & omission insurance even for building designers.

Texas Transplant, (and Peach)

R102.2 supersedes ALL other requirements of the building codes. I will have to see it spelled out in your city or county ADOPTED ordinance (LAW). They have to go before the council and adopted.

I do have certain limited provisions within the state law of Texas. As long as I do not advertise myself as an engineer or offer the services as "engineering services" in a manner that would represent myself as an Engineer.

I have read the Texas Attorney General review of the laws that encompasses the exemption. Remember, a government employee or officer may not require something that the LAW does not prohibit. Laws have to be adopted before a public elected body and signed into law by the chief elected official of the governmental jurisdiction.

City government requires the city laws to be adopted by the City Council and signed into law by the City Mayor. In some cases, requires a public vote. State laws must adopted by the State House and Senate and signed into law by the State Governor. Departments / Agency rules or policies do not go through this very PUBLIC process. Therefore, if it isn't in your ordinance then sorry charlie.

Same can be said for anywhere. This is the way ALL government entities work. This is a legal requirement that our UNION of states have adopted and are required to abide by as long as they are part of the union known as the United States.

Peach,

Yes, if I have the tiniest mistake (or my consultant), then I  (and/or my consultant) can face penalties for tort claims (such as misfeasance).

 12.135 *Action for damages from construction, alteration or repair of improvement to real property; “substantial completion” defined; application.* (1) An *action* against a person by a *plaintiff* who is *not a public body*, whether in contract, *tort or otherwise*, arising from the person having performed the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property or the supervision or inspection thereof, *or* from the *person* having furnished *design, planning, surveying, architectural or engineering services *for the improvement, must be commenced before the earliest of:

      (a) The applicable period of limitation otherwise established by law;

      (b) Ten years after substantial completion or abandonment of the construction, alteration or repair of a small commercial structure, as defined in ORS 701.005, a residential structure, as defined in ORS 701.005, or a large commercial structure, as defined in ORS 701.005, that is owned or maintained by a homeowners association, as defined in ORS 94.550, or that is owned or maintained by an association of unit owners, as defined in ORS 100.005; or

      © Six years after substantial completion or abandonment of the construction, alteration or repair of a large commercial structure, as defined in ORS 701.005, other than a large commercial structure described in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

      (2) An *action* against a person by a *public body*, whether in contract, *tort or otherwise*, arising from the person having performed the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property or the supervision or inspection thereof, or from the person having *furnished design, planning, surveying, architectural or engineering services* for the improvement, must be commenced not more than 10 years after substantial completion or abandonment of such construction, alteration or repair of the improvement to real property.

      (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an action against a person for the practice of architecture, as defined in ORS 671.010, the practice of landscape architecture, as defined in ORS 671.310, or the practice of engineering, as defined in ORS 672.005, to recover damages for injury to a person, property or to any interest in property, including damages for delay or economic loss, regardless of legal theory, arising out of the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property shall be commenced within two years after the date the injury or damage is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered; but in any event the action shall be commenced within 10 years after substantial completion or abandonment of the construction, alteration or repair. This subsection applies to actions brought by any person or public body.

      (4) For purposes of this section:

      (a) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109; and

      (b) “Substantial completion” means the date when the contractee accepts in writing the construction, alteration or repair of the improvement to real property or any designated portion thereof as having reached that state of completion when it may be used or occupied for its intended purpose or, if there is no such written acceptance, the date of acceptance of the completed construction, alteration or repair of such improvement by the contractee.

      (5) For purposes of this section, an improvement to real property shall be considered abandoned on the same date that the improvement is considered abandoned under ORS 87.045.

      (6) This section:

      (a) Applies to an action against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a manufactured dwelling, as defined in ORS 446.003, or of a prefabricated structure, as defined in ORS 455.010; and

      (b) Does not apply to actions against any person in actual possession and control of the improvement, as owner, tenant or otherwise, at the time such cause of action accrues. [1971 c.664 §§2,3,4; 1983 c.437 §1; 1991 c.968 §1; 2009 c.485 §3; 2009 c.715 §1]

      Note: Section 3, chapter 715, Oregon Laws 2009, provides:

      Sec. 3. The amendments to ORS 12.135 and 12.280 by sections 1 and 2 of this 2009 Act apply only to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of this 2009 Act [January 1, 2010]. [2009 c.715 §3]

The definition of person is well established throughout the Oregon Revised Statutes to establish a legal theory and principle of definition as well as precedents and common definition. Judicial powers can take whatever legal definition that best applies by context.

In ANY case, by no means am I immune from tort. I can do whatever the law allows me to. I am therefore liable to my actions in anything I do. We ALL are UNLESS immunity is explicitly given and to the scope of that immunity.

In Oregon, PLI / E & O insurance is not a legal requirement to have  (even for an RDP), but it is something of prudence to CYA in case of any action that can and inevitably will arise.


----------



## peach (Aug 3, 2010)

Rick,

Cite whatever state statutes you have; case law is made every day (who has the better attorney).

In ALL of the jurisdictions I have worked, the municipal attorneys have told me (without exception) that structural calculations are the single MOST damning incriminating evidence you can maintain.  (In case of a structural failure, of course).

I've been in this business a few days now, so I have learned to listen to the person who will defend me.

You do whatever you want.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 3, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Rick,Cite whatever state statutes you have; case law is made every day (who has the better attorney).
> 
> In ALL of the jurisdictions I have worked, the municipal attorneys have told me (without exception) that structural calculations are the single MOST damning incriminating evidence you can maintain.  (In case of a structural failure, of course).
> 
> ...


Yes, but the laws explicitly in Oregon, indemnifies you from the liability of the designer/architect/engineer. You are supposingly required to review all submittals required to be submitted including calcs for code violations. Of course, you are not required to engineer or perform the structural calcs. Is not reviewing the calcs in itself a misfeasance or malfeasance?  When I or my consultant performs the calcs, we have utmost liability. You merely need to make sure the calcs derive to result that leads to a code compliant specification. How do you know the beam was properly sized? Do you? If the calcs aren't reviewed then we might have a problematic scenario.

That is what I am worried about not just for myself but for others. A safety net that is full of holes. I would have to assume that we must have some sort of faith at this point that the preparer has done it right. Now, maybe I don't have a whole lot of personal faith in a sheet of paper with a number and a rubber stamp. Just because they are licensed does not mean they are incapable of error. It might be me.

Lets remember this, case law ruling may not be contrary to a statutory law. In general and history, statutes are case rulings that typically have been codified. When it is codified into a statute then it is absolute to how it is written. A Judge can not ignore the statutes. They can make decisions when the area is a grey area but when a statute is clear and a person is found in clear violation then there is no maybes.

vox fatur pro ipsum. -   The word speaks for itself.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 3, 2010)

lex est lex.     - The Law is the Law.


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 4, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Hi Tex,The IRC already has that provision; R301.1.3 "Engineered Design".


Thanks Peach,

I know that section is there, our City Attorney made a couple of small tweaks to make it blend better with the state professional regulation laws and make sure we had (in his opinion) the proper authority to require engineering on the SFRs we needed to.

We are still dealing with the attitude down here, that anybody is smart enough to build and design SFRs (no matter how big and complicated), and it had led to some problems, before I was here, that I have had to clean up.   Like you said, I want the attorney to be happy happy happy with the way the ordinances are written and the way we interput the state statutes. Here if I get called on the carpet, the council asks the attorney if I did it right, if the attorney agrees with me, problem goes away, period.

Thanks for the heads up though.      I like it when people don't assume I know something, cause I know I still have a lot to learn, even after doing this for so long.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 4, 2010)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> Thanks Peach,  I know that section is there, our City Attorney made a couple of small tweaks to make it blend better with the state professional regulation laws and make sure we had (in his opinion) the proper authority to require engineering on the SFRs we needed to.
> 
> We are still dealing with the attitude down here, that anybody is smart enough to build and design SFRs (no matter how big and complicated), and it had led to some problems, before I was here, that I have had to clean up.   Like you said, I want the attorney to be happy happy happy with the way the ordinances are written and the way we interput the state statutes. Here if I get called on the carpet, the council asks the attorney if I did it right, if the attorney agrees with me, problem goes away, period.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up though.      I like it when people don't assume I know something, cause I know I still have a lot to learn, even after doing this for so long.


Anybody is smart enough to do anything. The real question is - did they take the time to learn what they need to learn before doing. Like learning the engineering sciences before using the knowledge of the engineering sciences.


----------



## peach (Aug 5, 2010)

Had a PE "design" an addition using 2x4 SPF rafters.. I asked him for an affidavit that he had done the calculations.. he submitted "revised" plans showing 2 x 8 rafters (which happened to be within the prescriptive code for the span involved).  (He was infact an electrical engineer who sold his seal, and we knew it).

It was his license on the line, not mine or the city's.  I just asked a question and BINGO.. the design changed (to the point that an engineered design was no longer required).

I don't need to see calculations to know that it's not going to work... unless they were using brazilian mahogony or someother exotic species.. then I'd ask for the affidavit anyway, since the exotic species are not included in the NDS tables.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 5, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Had a PE "design" an addition using 2x4 SPF rafters.. I asked him for an affidavit that he had done the calculations.. he submitted "revised" plans showing 2 x 8 rafters (which happened to be within the prescriptive code for the span involved).  (He was infact an electrical engineer who sold his seal, and we knew it).It was his license on the line, not mine or the city's.  I just asked a question and BINGO.. the design changed (to the point that an engineered design was no longer required).
> 
> I don't need to see calculations to know that it's not going to work... unless they were using brazilian mahogony or someother exotic species.. then I'd ask for the affidavit anyway, since the exotic species are not included in the NDS tables.


I can always show you the tables from various sources.

I can run span calcs based on general wood properties of Ipe. In general rule of thumb, in case of Ipe, I would run it the same spans as douglas fir. Ipe (for example) has a Modulus of elasticity of 3.14 Million. This is darn near twice that of #3 grade Douglas Fir. In general, it is generally safe to run Ipe across the same span as Douglas Fir because all the properties are equal to or greater then Douglas Fir or even Spruce because it is one of the strongest wood species on the planet. That is the only species of *exotic* wood that I would use from structural members. Most other exotic wood would be for finish decking and flooring. Ipe comes from big trees and therefore could be available in large sections but it can get quite expensive.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 5, 2010)

OR I will use these values for a basis.

http://www.ipe-wood.com/tech.html.htm


----------



## peach (Aug 5, 2010)

I understand all that, Rick.. I don't do plan review (which is where these issues get flushed out)... although I was a plan reviewer for many years.

Require what you want.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 5, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> I understand all that, Rick.. I don't do plan review (which is where these issues get flushed out)... although I was a plan reviewer for many years.Require what you want.


Are you not a Building Official ?

It is your duty if you don't have have a separate dedicated plan reviewer.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 5, 2010)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Are you not a Building Official ?It is your duty if you don't have have a separate dedicated plan reviewer.


Boy is this ever getting tiresome. Rick, I am tuning you out.


----------



## peach (Aug 7, 2010)

PM from another contributor on this forum:

Peach

I finally got with the city attorney about asking for structural calculations just for the file and not reviewing them. He basically stated what your position is. Don't ask for them unless we are going to have an *outside peer review* done and even then we will not have a copy of the calculations kept on file just a report from the one doing the peer review. The city realizes on the expertise of the engineers for the design.

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit.

His opinion is calculations do not "describe" the design they are used to achieve the structural, mechanical or electrical design therefore our review would be limited to verifying the design loads required for our area and are there enough information on the drawings that the contractor knows what is required. Similar to a mech or electrical design we do not review the design just the installation requirements for the products used.

Thanks for your persistance on this subject and trying to educate the rest of us.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 7, 2010)

Peach

I believe that this attorneys opinion is not universally accepted and such recommended practices are at odds with the practice in many jurisdictions.  Effectively he is promoting self certification.  This practice has contributed to a number of the problems they are having in NYC.

In previous communication with ICC staff I have been informed that they consider calculations to be part of the construction documents.  I suggest you contact ICC staff for clarification as to their opinion on the need  for the structural engineer to submit calculations and on the building officials need to review these calculations.

You might also look in the ICC Plan Review Manual or "Building Department Administration" also by ICC.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Aug 8, 2010)

First;

 "Is a Stamp or Seal of a RDP required when you don't have a local ordinance?"; I believe was answered several pages back, So;

I shall enter the fray of whether the AHJ's Department of Building Safety; is required to review any calculations:

As far as some ICC staffer's opinion is conserned; the ICC emphatically informs us that their staff's opinions are just that, their personal opinions.

Quote from the ICC website conserning Staff Code Opinions:

*"Staff code opinions issued by ICC technical staff do not represent the official position of the International Code Council. **The final authority of code opinions is the responsibility of the code official.** Staff opinion is not intended to influence the code official."*

The *vast majority* of AHJ's Building Officials do not have a staff that is qualified to review an Engineer's calculations; nor, the funds to pay a third party Engineer to review them; and Do Not review them.

There is nothing in the Building Codes that require the Building Official to review any calculations.

"2009 IRC, Section R106 Construction Documents:

R106.1 Submittal Documents. Submittal documents consisting of consturction documents, and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each application for a permit. The construction documents, shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

Exception: The building official is authorized to waive the submission of constuction documents and other data not required to be prepared by a registered design professional if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that reviewing the construction doccuments is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction document shall be drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, *as determined by the building official.* Where required by the building official, all braced wall lines, shall be identified on the constuction documents and all pertinent information including, but not limited to, bracing menthods, location and length of brace wall panels, foundation requirement of braced wall panels at top and bottom shall be provided."

The 2009 IBC, Section 107 Submittal Documents; reads basically the same.

There is nothing in the Building Codes that require the Building Official to review any calculations.



Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Aug 8, 2010)

UB: I agree with your post. There have been many times I have called a DP on a beam or point load and had dead silence after raising the question of do you think you are correct. The silence! The I will get back to you. Most often a revised plan with supporting documents appears.

Next, as far as ICC comments I don't use them anymore. Waist of time. I gave up with BOCO years ago on several issues that their response was just the old round heel on the boots and they left it up to me. With a BB like this one, we are far better off. We have at our fingertips a world of experience. Often willing to give direction and advise. Not always what we want to hear but none the less good code response and direction to how to find the correct answer.


----------



## peach (Aug 8, 2010)

"Designers" alot of times, don't bother to check their structural designs; the only value of even seeing their calculations is to ensure that they have given the design any real thought; whether they are correct is the designers' responsibility.  RJJ is right, if you call them on it - they will generally change the plans so they at least comply with what the code requires in the first place.

The  only way to get a real opinion from ICC is to ask for a formal interpretation; which a committee does (and I sit on one of those), and it gets published in their interpretations.  I don't recall this coming across my e-mail for our committee for comments.

I just know that I've been in the unfortunate position of having to testify about structural calculations (in the file from a my predecessor).


----------



## RJJ (Aug 9, 2010)

Peach: The scary part is that poor design seems to be more common these days. People are just putting a stamp on anything. From what I see in surrounding areas I wonder if plan review is being done.I have had inspectors say well it is stamped that all I need.


----------



## GHRoberts (Aug 9, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> "Designers" alot of times, don't bother to check their structural designs; the only value of even seeing their calculations is to ensure that they have given the design any real thought; whether they are correct is the designers' responsibility.  RJJ is right, if you call them on it - they will generally change the plans so they at least comply with what the code requires in the first place.


But then there is the guy who says "If you think they are wrong, don't issue a permit. I will see you in court." And then he goes off and starts construction. And his lawyer starts legal action against the AHJ's office or whoever.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 9, 2010)

While the applicant can start legal action if the building official has a valid concern the courts will defer to the building official.  If you are not willing to call their bluff why play the game.


----------



## peach (Aug 9, 2010)

GH.. been there too... have a writ of mandamus tossed at you once or twice and you learn to keep proper paperwork in the records. If there is no reason to have structural calculations (in California.. yeah.. most plan reviewers in the big jurisdictions are PE's... or used to be).. no legal reason to have them.. just don't.

In most cases, the plan review fee isn't going to cover the cost of the consultant.. and that's what the city manager is going to look at (been there too)


----------

