# When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



## Robert Ellenberg (Mar 17, 2010)

R301.1.3 states "The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventinal elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system."   Obviously an engineers stamp meets this requirement but is it optional?  If the documents submitted "demonstrated compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions", is that sufficient?  Is it up to the local officials as to whether or not a stamp is required?


----------



## Mac (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

"Obviously an engineers stamp meets this requirement but is it optional?"  If you are unable to confirm that the design does indeed demonstrate compliance, then I advise you to require the seal of an engineer.

Unless your state or other regs require the plans to be sealed and/or stamped, I guess its your choice.

Having stamped plans or a detail sheet in the files means that you have provided your  jurisdiction with some protection if something bad happens.


----------



## JBI (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Robert - It will to some extent be found in the enabling legislation for you locale. In NYS for example, State Education Law requires any plans prepared for a project with a cost in excess of $20,000 shall bear the seal and signature of a Licensed/Registered Design Professional. Oregon apprently has no such dollar value limit, but uses square footage for 'exempt' buildings and structures. in between is a mixed bag of State (and local) regulations. The Code does require a seal for some specified items/elements - EIFS for example - and for any non-prescriptive elements in the design, but for the most part the requirements are found outside of the Code itself.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

"The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventinal elements - Engineered;

with other applicable provisions - code requirements;

and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system - won't make the building fall down or damage other structural elements."

When does the code require an Engineer's stamp?

When it does not conform to or is not covered by the requirements of the prescriptive codes.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Code Neophyte (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Or anytime the code says "shall be designed" - read-> "Sealed Engineered Design" (examples:  R401, R502.11.1)


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

On numerous occassions I have had something that was not prescriptive and have always obtained an engineers stamp BEFORE taking it to the code official.  But in reading through the code it occured to me that it is not a REQUIREMENT of the IRC--the IRC requires good engineering practices and local officials are the ones who require the stamp to prove that it is.  Per the code if I am reading it correctly, you cold have a non licensed engineer (apprentice out of college) do all the calcs and if they were sufficient for the local official--it would meet the code.

I am not suggesting it be done that way but on a close look at the code I simply couldn't find any requirement for the stamp unless locals requried it.


----------



## FredK (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> ......When does the code require an Engineer's stamp?When it does not conform to or is not covered by the requirements of the prescriptive codes......Uncle Bob


I'm with UB.  If you can show me it meets the prescriptive requirement ok if not then get an engineer.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

What I find interesting about this thread is that the concern is that the drawings are stamped rather than that the design is adequate.

I guess it's because I've never seen a wet seal hold up a building.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Which is worse...a design that is adaequte with no stamp, or, a design that is not adequate with a stamp?


----------



## Heaven (Mar 18, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> What I find interesting about this thread is that the concern is that the drawings are stamped rather than that the design is adequate.I guess it's because I've never seen a wet seal hold up a building.


There you go again.

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!


----------



## cboboggs (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

I'm with UB and Fred. Prescriptive no stamp. Here are Missouri's exemptions for design professionals:

(a) A dwelling house; or

(b) A multiple family dwelling house, flat or apartment containing

not more than two families; or

© A commercial or industrial building or structure which provides

for the employment, assembly, housing, sleeping or eating of

not more than nine persons; or

(d) Any one structure containing less than twenty thousand cubic

feet, except as provided in (b) and © above, and which is not

a part or a portion of a project which contains more than one

structure; or

(e) A building or structure used exclusively for farm purposes;


----------



## brudgers (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> 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.


"It's not my job" is an excellent approach to public safety.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> Which is worse...a design that is adaequte with no stamp, or, a design that is not adequate with a stamp?


It depends on if your criterion is public safety or a bureaucratic checklist.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Brudgers...exactly.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> Brudgers...exactly.


"There you go again."


----------



## Heaven (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.


"It's not my job" is an excellent approach to public safety.

Nice try but that isn't what I wrote.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice try but that isn't what I wrote.

Get used to it...


----------



## kilitact (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

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.


----------



## Heaven (Mar 19, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.

What is a stamp review?


----------



## peach (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Requesting (and particularly keeping) structural calculations, I believe, puts a building department at more risk than just accepting the structural designers' seal.  Anything that is in the file is public record, and if the calculations are wrong (let's assume the building department doesn't have a structural engineer on staff to review them), negligence can be attached... for not properly reviewing the calcs. :shock:


----------



## Heaven (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				peach said:
			
		

> Requesting (and particularly keeping) structural calculations, I believe, puts a building department at more risk than just accepting the structural designers' seal.  Anything that is in the file is public record, and if the calculations are wrong (let's assume the building department doesn't have a structural engineer on staff to review them), negligence can be attached... for not properly reviewing the calcs. :shock:


I agree


----------



## brudgers (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

I've always believed that minimizing risk to the building department was the best way to protect the public, and that not keeping records helped insure safe buildings.  That way, it's harder to learn from any mistakes and doesn't that mean that you have made fewer?


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

"What I find interesting about this thread is that the concern "

No, that was not the concern.  The question (which still hasn't been answered) is there anywhere in the code where the IRC code require a stamp on a design as opposed to an adequate design.  Adequate designs can be done to engineering standards by an engineer who works for a corp. without needing a license and is moonlighting as an example.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

The stamp makes it easier to sue the A/E if something goes wrong.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Robert,

"is there anywhere in the code where the IRC code require a stamp on a design"

2006 IRC, R106.1 Submittal documents.  "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."

Check your local and/or State requirements.

Are you asking if a "Registered Design Professional" is required to sign and seal plans that they submit?

Uncle Bob


----------



## Heaven (Mar 20, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> I've always believed that minimizing risk to the building department was the best way to protect the public, and that not keeping records helped insure safe buildings.  That way, it's harder to learn from any mistakes and doesn't that mean that you have made fewer?


Making decisions based on a professionals work happens in every phase of life, such as work received from an accountant, a lawyer, a doctor. We rely upon the professional (barring any obvious errors) to provide us with information from their field of expertise. Accepting a stamped drawing (barring any obvious errors) is not negligent and does fulfill a building officials responsibility.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> Making decisions based on a professionals work happens in every phase of life, such as work received from an accountant, a lawyer, a doctor. We rely upon the professional (barring any obvious errors) to provide us with information from their field of expertise. Accepting a stamped drawing (barring any obvious errors) is not negligent and does fulfill a building officials responsibility.


Not being negligent _is_ a pretty high standard of conduct, and I appreciate the way you are able to stay focused on the important part of the process - limiting your risk.

And as you might suspect, I absolutely agree that you ought to rely on the opinion of my lawyer.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> The stamp makes it easier to sue the A/E if something goes wrong.


Um... anyone can sue for anything. You can't sue an A/E any more then you can sue anyone else. You have to have evidence of wrongdoing. Same with an unlicensed person. If the person performs it then he has agreed to perform it. By agreeing and performing an act is evidence that the person claims to have skill & knowledge to perform the task.

This is part of "reasonably expected public demand". It is part of reasonable expectation of the client that you offer, agree or performed the work that you have the skill and therefore claim to have it whether verbally spoken. You thought it and agreed to perform it. It also is illegal to perform a work which you do not have skill & knowledge to perform.

It falls short of what anyone can consider prudent. If you can't do it - Don't do it. Simple.


----------



## peach (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

I didn't say not to necessarily require sealed plans (when the project is of sufficient size to warrant a Design Professional or when required by state law).. having the calculations, if the building official and/or plan reviewer does not understand them, is a liability.  I used to require a sealed statement from the engineer that the calculations were on file in his/her office.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Rick,

Where have you been?  I thought you would never get to this thread.  Now, we have a Design Professional's Opinion.

This is right up your alley, Buddy,

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				peach said:
			
		

> I didn't say not to necessarily require sealed plans (when the project is of sufficient size to warrant a Design Professional or when required by state law).. having the calculations, if the building official and/or plan reviewer does not understand them, is a liability.  I used to require a sealed statement from the engineer that the calculations were on file in his/her office.


I find it interesting that you see possession of design calcs as the important risk rather than not having a person capable of reviewing a design for adequacy on staff.

Out of curiosity, did you also accept a sealed statement that the drawings were on file in the engineers office in lieu of plans?

I think a "the less I know about the building the better I am protecting the public" makes the public safer.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				peach said:
			
		

> I didn't say not to necessarily require sealed plans (when the project is of sufficient size to warrant a Design Professional or when required by state law).. having the calculations, if the building official and/or plan reviewer does not understand them, is a liability.  I used to require a sealed statement from the engineer that the calculations were on file in his/her office.


Inspectors are liable to inspection/code inspection... well.... the government. Government COs have some form of protection built into the law.

Keeping in mind that it is a "finding of the facts and where the liability lies". If it is my fault, it is my fault and I am liable. I believe that if inspection staff does not have an engineer then they can contract with one to review OR it can be passed up to the state authority for review of calculations. Just like getting legal counsel, you are getting engineering counsel.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> > I didn't say not to necessarily require sealed plans (when the project is of sufficient size to warrant a Design Professional or when required by state law).. having the calculations, if the building official and/or plan reviewer does not understand them, is a liability.  I used to require a sealed statement from the engineer that the calculations were on file in his/her office.


I find it interesting that you see possession of design calcs as the important risk rather than not having a person capable of reviewing a design for adequacy on staff.

Out of curiosity, did you also accept a sealed statement that the drawings were on file in the engineers office in lieu of plans?

I think a "the less I know about the building the better I am protecting the public" makes the public safer.

Budgers,

Interesting but nothing in law says the CO (Code Official) is liable just because he/she possess the plans and calcs.

Peach, You don't have to have an engineeer on staff but there is having the calcs reviewed by engineer board to give you an opinion of the calculations and its adequecy or any engineer for that matter under a contract. Based on the report from the engineer, a professional opinion from a licensed professional you can make a decision to approve the plans or not. You provide the necessary documentation as required.

Indemnification clauses can be established in your contract.

If you do what is prudent then you have no problem. The liability doesn't leave me to go to you. You could, if you are not smart and do the prudent thing, become jointly liable.


----------



## kilitact (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Uncle Bob wrote:



> Rick,Where have you been? I thought you would never get to this thread. Now, we have a Design Professional's Opinion.
> 
> This is right up your alley, Buddy,
> 
> Uncle Bob


From Chapter 2, Definitions:  2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code

Design Professional. See the definition of “Registered Design Professional”

Registered Design Professional;  An individual who is registered or licensed to practice their respective design profession as defined by the statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.


----------



## peach (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Hi Rick,

I've been down the slippery slope of having incorrect structural calculations in my files during a lawsuit.

I was not the building official or plan reviewer who requested them...

We didn't have a structural engineer on staff..

Since that wasn't the only issue (but it was indeed an issue), and I could pretty well justify everything else the jurisdiction did.. the case against us was dismissed... but it gave me a good reason to not require that they be submitted.


----------



## JBI (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

brudgers - You're in a good mood this week. Nice to see your sense of humor is still as dry as ever.  

peach - I can't speak to the lawsuit you reference, but generally speaking I want to have as much info as possible about the project in the file.

That the requirement for a seal/signature is not necessarily in the code, is no more an issue, question or problem than not having the authority to enforce the code within the code itself. The authority to enforce the code is in your local laws/statutes/regulations/ordinances. That same local law will dictate when a seal/sig is required, as will your State Education and/or Licensing laws.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> brudgers - You're in a good mood this week.


My sincere apologies.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				peach said:
			
		

> Hi Rick,I've been down the slippery slope of having incorrect structural calculations in my files during a lawsuit.
> 
> I was not the building official or plan reviewer who requested them...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I understand why you were down a slippery slope and having liability merely by having the calcs in your files. Does this mean that if you don't have an engineer, you can't ask for structural calcs? The moment the calcs is in your hands then it is in your file.

Why does the jurisdiction not have a contract setup with an engineer even though the engineer is not a staff employee?

You just don't issue permits until you have the drawings and calcs reviewed properly.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Uncle Bob wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From Chapter 2, Definitions:  2008 Oregon Residential Specialty Code

Design Professional. See the definition of “Registered Design Professional”

Registered Design Professional;  An individual who is registered or licensed to practice their respective design profession as defined by the statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed.

He didn't call me a Registered Design Professional.

Also, the term design professional has meaning outside of building codes.

Well.... I would just say I am a building designer.


----------



## Heaven (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Why does the jurisdiction not have a contract setup with an engineer even though the engineer is not a staff employee?
> 
> You just don't issue permits until you have the drawings and calcs reviewed properly.


Of course  a jurisdiction can hire a consultant, and I do that on occasion but I assume many jurisdictions are like mine in that we issue permits based on conceptual architectural drawings only in many cases for IRC, and have plan review for fire code but no structural review. I know this horrifies some posters on this board but I have to say it is more common than not in the area of the country where I work.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 21, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> RickAstoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course  a jurisdiction can hire a consultant, and I do that on occasion but I assume many jurisdictions are like mine in that we issue permits based on conceptual architectural drawings only in many cases for IRC, and have plan review for fire code but no structural review. I know this horrifies some posters on this board but I have to say it is more common than not in the area of the country where I work.

I have projects in jurisdictions with no building department.

You can imagine the reaction I sometimes get when I tell clients they have to spend money to meet the code.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have projects in jurisdictions with no building department.

You can imagine the reaction I sometimes get when I tell clients they have to spend money to meet the code.

Yeah, everybody is trying to get everything for nothing. It is the religion, haven't you heard?     :lol:


----------



## peach (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Plans were always sealed and reviewed for compliance with the code... where the design varied from the prescriptive code (particularly with structural).. that's when the calculations come in.

If you don't understand things like slenderness ratio, modulus of elasticity, and how to determine whether or not the structural engineer applied his values correctly, having the calculations in your files can be a problem (for the building department/plan review agency).. not so much for inspections.

The court will assume that if you requested and maintained the calculations, someone on the staff is qualified to evaluate them.  If not, the statement from the engineer that the calculations are on file in his/her office is the reassurance the building department needs.

While I have an engineering degree, I really struggled with the structural aspect of stuff (which is why I chose mechancial engineering).  I struggle with structural calculations when I see them even today, since I've been out of college a long time.

It's dangerous to have calculations in your files if you don't have someone to evaluate/question them.

If you don't deal with them every day, it's a liability you don't need.

Sometimes having less in your files is better.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

How about - "We keep them on record for record retention sake and if a problem arises, we have the calcs on record to be analyzed by a contracted engineer on a case by case."

If you can't or don't want to keep the calcs on record then why do you even ask for them? Why don't the office have an engineer on retainer.


----------



## peach (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

I'd never ask for them... that's my point.

The sealed plans and a certification that the calculations are on file in the engineer's office are all that I would require.  Once the engineer says that.. that's the location of the structural records for the project.. let him answer the subpeona.. not the poor building official


----------



## kilitact (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?

Your statement that you don’t review structural submittals doesn’t say if you collect structural plan review fees. How do the field inspectors know which calculation/design they’re inspecting to? This absent of an essential aspect of plan review would be a dereliction of duty in my world.


----------



## Heaven (Mar 28, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Your statement that you don’t review structural submittals doesn’t say if you collect structural plan review fees. How do the field inspectors know which calculation/design they’re inspecting to? This absent of an essential aspect of plan review would be a dereliction of duty in my world.


No, no structural plan review fees. Commercial projects requiring a stamp by licensed professional have third party review and inspection and that is paid for by the client. But residential structural beyond the perscriptive, , , nope.

If I ask for (for instance) truss information, I check the design load, and then during inspection I may verify that they have been placed according to the submittal (such as bearing locations). Actually, I just inspected one Friday where the bottom chord of the last truss was cut out to allow for a stair to access the storage space above a garage : ) . . . so, something big out of whack like that, I am assuming I will see.

As Brudger commented, there are jurisdictions without any building department at all, none of those projects get reviewed or inspected. It is the responsibility of the builder/owner to meet code. Jurisdictions like mine take a small bite and do our best with it.


----------



## RickAstoria (Mar 29, 2010)

Re: When does the Code require an engineers stamp?



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Your statement that you don’t review structural submittals doesn’t say if you collect structural plan review fees. How do the field inspectors know which calculation/design they’re inspecting to? This absent of an essential aspect of plan review would be a dereliction of duty in my world.


No, no structural plan review fees. Commercial projects requiring a stamp by licensed professional have third party review and inspection and that is paid for by the client. But residential structural beyond the perscriptive, , , nope.

If I ask for (for instance) truss information, I check the design load, and then during inspection I may verify that they have been placed according to the submittal (such as bearing locations). Actually, I just inspected one Friday where the bottom chord of the last truss was cut out to allow for a stair to access the storage space above a garage : ) . . . so, something big out of whack like that, I am assuming I will see.

As Brudger commented, there are jurisdictions without any building department at all, none of those projects get reviewed or inspected. It is the responsibility of the builder/owner to meet code. Jurisdictions like mine take a small bite and do our best with it.

Well... it is the responsibility of the owner/builder & designer (regardless of license) to comply with the laws and regulations. In other words, it is my responsibility that the design meets code. It is the builder's job to build to code or according to the plans but never make changes to plans not prepared by them. This becomes a big issue. The Owner responsibility is to make sure all these things happen. The first person the **** hits is the owner then it rolls down to us when their is lawsuit and ultimately, when through the course of legal review of where the fault lies - the party in which the fault lies with ULTIMATELY pays. So if it is my fault then it lies with me and I ultimately get the shaft.

It comes down to the identifying of the party(-ies) at fault and the party(-ies) at fault pays.

This is why there is something called 'Remedy'.


----------

