# Engineering approval required for change?????



## righter101 (May 2, 2011)

I have 2 inspectors that see this one way and I see it differently.  Just wanted to get opinions from the forum...

IRC Residental construciton.  +/- 2000 sq ft. house with an engineered design (typical in our jurisdiction)

Engineer calculation packet checks loads and spans and specifies a specific I-Joist product, specific on center spacing.

Engineer stamps packet and construcion pages.

Framing detail on plans shows I-JOIST on hangars.

Contractor/homeowner elect to change from hangars to placing joists on top of stem wall with a rim joist.  Same I-JOIST series product, same o/c spacing.

Does this change require approval from the engineer??

why or why not??

thanks for the feedback.....


----------



## fatboy (May 2, 2011)

If it's part of an engineered design, then yes, the engineers approval would be required. JMHO


----------



## brudgers (May 2, 2011)

Depends.

Low seismic, low wind area - probably not because the change to the  load path is largely irrelevant for gravity loads so long as the installation is done using manufacturer approved details.

Otherwise yes. Manufacturer's don't do lateral.


----------



## mark handler (May 2, 2011)

IMPO, yes if a design professional designs a building, signs and seals it, any change should be approved by them, there could be issues that the field inspector does not know.


----------



## Mark K (May 2, 2011)

The approved construction documents show the joist hangers.  The building code (IRC 106.4) requires compliance with the approved construction documents and thus the actual construction constitutes a nonconformance.

While, based on the limited availible information presented, it does not appear that there will be a problem in this case it is not always obvious what are the concerns of the engineer.

By letting it pass you are essentially giving the contractor permission to ignore the construction documents.  When the building official allows contractor changes to an engineered design, without agreement by the engineer, there is at  times a fine line between the building official enforcing the code and preacticing engineering.  If the original design required a licensed engineer then why does not the change require an engineer?


----------



## Rio (May 2, 2011)

Stamped plans should have the structural changes stamped.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 2, 2011)

I agree whole-heartedly with Mark K's response.  In addition, if an engineer is not required to sign and seal the drawings, then I would allow the original permit application and permit to be voided, and a new set of construction documents showing the new stem wall proposal to be submitted for review and approval.

Has anyone asked the engineer for an alternative bearing condition detail?  It could be something as simple as a signed and sealed 8.5x11 addendum, and then the whole issue is moot.  You also are not required to have the original engineer provide the addendum, as long as the provided addendum is also signed and sealed by the new engineer (good luck with the fees on that one though).

The only exception to this rule would be if the Engineer's construction documents and packet specified whether or not the project was designed prescriptively based upon the applicable IRC, and permitted alterations by the contractor under the scope of the prescriptive provisions of the IRC.  I would assume not, and that there is probably a note in the drawings that any and all changes/variations should be brought to the attention of the engineer.


----------



## FredK (May 2, 2011)

Bottom line--Yes.  It needs the engineer's ok.

What I think is not on the plans.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 2, 2011)

righter101,

If it's a designed floor by a DP it would require a DP to alter his/her design. Unless the BO declares the R106.1 Exception. But what you describe is a floor system design change.

pc1


----------



## Mac (May 2, 2011)

Yes, I agree with everybody above.  What's riding on the outcome?

The plans are also part of the AHJ's records and should indicate accurately what was built.


----------



## righter101 (May 2, 2011)

Thanks for all the feed back.  The consensus seems to be yes, approval required.

I just want to make sure we are doing things correctly and consistently in our jurisdiction.

The only real issue or stake here is the added cost to have the engineer submit a letter.

I am now questioning allowing people to upsize framing members designed by an engineer.

If they design for a 4x6, but the contractor elects to put in a 4x12, does that need approval from the DP??

It is a change to the engineer design.

There is a real increase in the dead load from the larger member.

I am just trying to establish where inspector discresion should start and stop, when it comes to

1) changes to DP elements

2) common sense and being reasonable.

thanks again for the feedback.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 2, 2011)

Do you allow up sizing of footers?

Example 18" and 24" wide footers are called out. Contractor is to lazy to change the bucket so he forms all footing widths to 24" do you allow it?


----------



## Mark K (May 2, 2011)

The question of inspector discretion is a messy one.


----------



## righter101 (May 2, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Do you allow up sizing of footers?Example 18" and 24" wide footers are called out. Contractor is to lazy to change the bucket so he forms all footing widths to 24" do you allow it?


I do.

I also would allow the upsizing of designed members to a larger size, same grade/species

The floor joist question, my inspectors required engineers approval and I wasn't sure that it was necessary.  Reading the responses and thinking about all the different possible ramifications makes it seem reasonable.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 2, 2011)

> I do.


Would depend a lot on soil conditions for where you are. Differential settlement is not a big deal in some areas in others it can be a real problem. Ask your local geo tech engineers if it is a problem in your area, My current area covers 25 sq miles pretty consistant soils, the previous jurisdiction was over 1,100 sq miles with inconsistant so it was a concern.


----------



## High Desert (May 2, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> The only real issue or stake here is the added cost to have the engineer submit a letter.


If they're making changes to an engineered plan, they should have to pay for it.


----------



## Yankee (May 2, 2011)

Yes, engineers approval. The approval letter doesn't have to cost a great deal, but we don't know what else the change might affect.


----------



## Mac (May 3, 2011)

Building codes are about meeting minimum standards, for safety, structure, etc etc. If a header or joists or footings are upsized, I don't have a problem. On bigger projects with lots of oversight and complex engineering I'd have to get revisions from the design team.


----------



## cboboggs (May 3, 2011)

Engineer review and approval required.


----------



## Daddy-0- (May 7, 2011)

I agree. Engineer will have to sign off on it. As stated earlier, there may be other issues that you are not seeing, i.e. it may have been designed that way for a specific reason.


----------



## mmmarvel (May 13, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Do you allow up sizing of footers?Example 18" and 24" wide footers are called out. Contractor is to lazy to change the bucket so he forms all footing widths to 24" do you allow it?


To me, allowing the upsizing of a footing is different than the upsizing of a framing member.  The footing sits in the ground (duh) and if you allow it to be upsized it means it might be able to withstand other changes later like an additional floor.  Upsizing a framing member impacts deadload, heck it even impacts if your footing is now the right size for the new added load.  Any changes would need to be noted in the as-builts.

For me, if you want to make sure there are no issues - if the structure was designed by a DP then any changes need to be okayed by the DP.  If you don't want the extra costs of having the DP okay a change ... then don't change it.


----------



## dhengr (May 16, 2011)

The owner, builder and BO are quick to hold me responsible for my design if anything goes wrong, and/or to try to hold me responsible even if the fault wasn’t with my design, in which case I get to spend my time and money defending myself and proving it was not my fault.  So, if you require an engineer’s involvement and stamp on the plans, the construction should be in accordance with those plans.  If you or the builder want to change the design, you better be an engineer and carrying O&E insurance, and be willing to assume responsibility for the project.  You are always quick to use a DP as an insurer of last resort when you don’t know how to interpret these damn overly complex codes, and with that goes an obligation to follow those plans unless you can show that something about those plans is really wrong.  And, I don’t just mean that we could argue for days about an extra comma in that paragraph, I mean the intent of that paragraph.

Mtlogcabin is right on the money about footings, they may be sized to control settlement, in which case you assume the responsibility for any future differential settlement.  I-Jsts. in hangers off a beam or wall act quite differently than the same I-Jsts. standing on the beam or wall, and someone has to account for that in the original design, and you assume the responsibility for that if you change my design; I don’t give a damn about what the I-Jst. manuf’er’s. drafter thinks, he just knows how to use their CAD software.  On these engineered floor and roof truss systems I would be charging you for shop drawing time and would expect them to come through my office.  I have no doubt that those people know the little details of their product better than I do and can size and detail it quicker than I could, but they don’t know my design as well as I do, and they didn’t sign the drawings or assume any responsibility except for their product.  Many times on the complex floor plans and roof systems we are dealing with these days, I want to see their connection details, btwn. trusses and the like, and their reactions so I can finally size columns down to the found.  Someone has to assume responsibility for coordinating the whole design, that’s what you hire a good engineer for.  And, that lack of coordination btwn. trades and suppliers is where many jobs go wrong.   I’ve been involved in plenty of litigation on these kinds of issues, in good part because nobody looked at the shop drawings and coordinated them with the original design intent.  No doubt, there are plenty of things which can be changed with little consequence to the final performance of the building, but with all due respect, if you want an engineer involved so you can sue him/her if something goes wrong, you have some obligation to keep that DP in the loop when you want something other than just deep pockets.

Over the years I’ve had very little trouble with BO’s, I’ve usually been able to explain what I was trying to accomplish to their satisfaction.  But, with the turnover in building depts. and the rate of change of the codes, that’s often more difficult these days.  In fact I’ve been called in many times to mediate and design a fix for a problem when a builder and inspector were at odds over the code or a building condition.  They have generally recognized that I value my reputation and licence, and have no reason to stick my neck out a mile to save a builder or supplier a buck if it might come back to bite me.  I think the whole building industry and process would be vastly improved if we got back to working together rather than as semi-adversaries.  If you need a DP on a job, to cover your butt, then you have some obligation to do things in a way other than just use them for their stamp, and to pay for that service.  Because otherwise, you are all too quick to say this is IRC we don’t need a DP.  If you don’t need (insist on) a DP on the job, then you don’t have to call us if you want to make changes to the construction plans.  I actually prefer the call coming from the builder’s attorney after he’s in trouble, you would be surprised how much happier they are to pay for Professional Engineering help at that point in time.  And, to think, only yesterday he knew everything and didn’t need any engineering advice.  We get so soon old, and so late smart.


----------

