# Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



## rbrunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Do you require lateral calculations for, what is typically referred to as a carport?

I have done some research on these type of building and have found that if the structure is properly attached to a home, the roof sheathing acts as a horizontal diaphragm and provides the lateral resistance.  But what about the freestanding proposals that will be site built?  Should these types of structures always include plan sets with structural calculations?

I just made our local fire marshall go get some engineering for his proposed maintenance vehicle parking structure and he thought it was a bit much for such a simple structure.

Any input will be helpful.

Thank You


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

It should be designed according to the building code using either prescriptive provisions or ASCE-7.

At least that's the requirements as I read them.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

sounds like a commercial building, S occupancy. requires stamped and seal engineering. for residential, pole buildings required stamped and sealed engineering in the Stae of Oregon.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Yes it needs to be engineered. It is not a simple structure. what seismic zone, wind loads or snow loads and if it houses fire fighting vehicles then it is a Catagory IV under TABLE 1604.5 and needs to be designed accordingly

IV

Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities, including but not limited to:

Ÿ	Hospitals and other health care facilities having surgery or emergency treatment facilities.

Ÿ	Fire, rescue and police stations and emergency vehicle garages.

Ÿ	Designated earthquake, hurricane or other emergency shelters.

Ÿ	Designated emergency preparedness, communication, and operation centers and other facilities required for emergency response.

Ÿ	Power-generating stations and other public utility facilities required as emergency backup facilities for Occupancy Category IV structures.

Ÿ	Structures containing highly toxic materials as defined by Section 307 where the quantity of the material exceeds the maximum allowable quantities of Table 307.1.(2).

Ÿ	Aviation control towers, air traffic control centers and emergency aircraft hangars.

Ÿ	Buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions.

Ÿ	Water treatment facilities required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression.


----------



## rbrunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

A little more information on the structure to clarify:

1.  It is accessory to the fire department.  (Should have posted this under commercial category)

2.  It is approx. 480 square feet with 4, 6x8 posts located at each corner.

3.  Two parking bays for fire department maintenance vehicles only.

4.  Seismic zone D

5.  Total height approx. 15'-16' to ridge of a 4/12 roof built from engineered trusses.

6.  Clearance under beams from finish grade is 8'.

Do the maintenace vehicles proposed to be parked under this structure still meet the intent of IBC table 1604.5 for emergency vehicles?  I do not believe they do.  Nobody ever takes the maintenance vehicles to an emergency aid call.

I appreciate the responses.  Please keep them coming.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Which prescriptive requirements are they complying with?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Your seismic zone and height of this structure require engineering look at section 1613.1


----------



## rbrunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

"It should be designed according to the building code using either prescriptive provisions or ASCE-7.

At least that's the requirements as I read them."

Brudgers,

At the risk of sounding like I missed a page in the IBC, which prescriptive provisions do you refer?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Many codes contain prescriptive design provisions regarding lateral loading.

In IBC 2003 and 2006, you can find such provisions in section 2308.


----------



## brat (Nov 8, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

In our jurisdiction all post frame structures require an engineered design.  They aren't as simple as they look. MTlogcabin is right on that it is a category 4 structure which adds to the mix.  It needs to be designed out of the IBC and the relevant referenced standards, and sounds like a commercial structure as well.

If I understand correctly the OP describes it with just columns and a roof.  Picture a bowling ball supported by a dowel in the thumb hole.  Now throw some wind on the assembly and see what happens.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 8, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

If it is going to be S1 then he will love it when you tell him it needs a bathroom.  

How close to a bathroom will it be?


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> sounds like a commercial building, S occupancy. requires stamped and seal engineering. for residential, pole buildings required stamped and sealed engineering in the Stae of Oregon.


A pole building designed to be used as a single family residence is a single family residence (or an exempt commercial building) and is exempt under ORS 672.060 and R102.2 and 102.2 says that no provision of code is to be deemed to nullify the provisions of any local, state or federal laws. It means that the provisions of code may NOT nullify and the building official may not nullify the provisions of any adopted laws. This is called "over-stepping legal authority" and "making up laws that do not exist". ORS 672.060 is a provision of state law. There is NO state law (Oregon state law is called "Oregon Revised Statutes". The Oregon Administrative Rules and Regulations adopted under Administrative Rules are not laws but rules and regulations to enforce state law.)

There is very little Federal laws governing single family residences.

Under a local law, it is called an Ordinance. In Astoria, it is the "Municipal Code of the City of Astoria, Oregon" that is the municipal ordinance which may not be a department/agency rule or regulation / policy but part of the adopted laws of the city which encompasses all the laws of the city not just the building codes.

Counties have a similar system as well but for county lands.

So, you have to show me an ordinance of your municipal law of the city that explicitly says such.

106.x does not over-rule the laws. You are to enforce the laws not add to them without them being adopted. It is illegal to do such. If a police officer can't without risk of severe reprimand so can you.

If you have an issue of title violation or "practice of engineering" violation concern, you are to report it to OSBEELS and OSBEELS takes over the investigation and determine whether or not it is a violation of law or not. BTW: Don't rely entirely on the Reference Manual that is published. Rely on the statutes. The Reference Manual does contain errors and is not the official source to base law matters. The statutes is the source to rely on and actual minutes of cases.

In the case of architecture, it isn't OSBEELS but OBAE. They (OBAE and OSBEELS) are the ones in charge of the licensing, practice, title laws regarding architecture and engineering. The only thing a building official or plan examiner is to require a stamp for is for buildings that are not exempted under ORS 671.030 and 672.060.

With all that is said, the plans shall comply with the building codes and accepted standards used for structural/infrastructural systems calculations used for those prescriptive and non-prescriptive systems. A B.O. may require the designer/homeowner/architect/engineer to have certain drawings to be prepared by a qualified design professional (and bear the stamp of that professional where required by statutes).

If your local jurisdiction's ordinance (local law) requires a stamp/seal then so be it. Don't speak for the whole state or prove your qualifications to speak for the whole state and all jurisdictions. You will need to identify your first and last name and the jurisdiction in which you are B.O. / Plan Reviewer of.

Pole Buildings will need to be designed in accordance with the provisions of code and all structural calcs prepared to accepted standards for preparing pole building structures to resists all applicable load forces required in your jurisdiction and type of building or structure. It shall bear the stamp of an architect or engineer where required by the laws of the jurisdiction (state and local - if local law explicitly requires it) for the type use/occupancy or type.

Nothing in the above statement shall be construed to apply to mean that a person shouldn't get an engineer (even if it isn't required by law). In fact, you should if you can not prepare the construction documents to acceptable standards.

You may suggest them to get an engineer. That is acceptable. You may require it if current designer or home owner fail to prepare it properly and fail to make the corrections. 2 or 3 attempts, ok. After that, requiring it - ok, I can accept that.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				rbrunk said:
			
		

> Do you require lateral calculations for, what is typically referred to as a carport? I have done some research on these type of building and have found that if the structure is properly attached to a home, the roof sheathing acts as a horizontal diaphragm and provides the lateral resistance.  But what about the freestanding proposals that will be site built?  Should these types of structures always include plan sets with structural calculations?
> 
> I just made our local fire marshall go get some engineering for his proposed maintenance vehicle parking structure and he thought it was a bit much for such a simple structure.
> 
> ...


It may require lateral calculations. Simply put, it shall be designed/spec'd and calculated and by compliant with the adopted codes and accepted standards. It shall bear the stamp of a registered design professional (architect or engineer) where required by the laws of the state and local ordinances (local city or county "laws").

You should have an engineer prepare the structural calcs if you can not prepare it yourself competently even if it isn't required by law.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

If you could legally engage in the business of the practice of engineering, than we would look at your engineering submittals. Other than that we wouldn’t accept a non-professionals, engineered design and or calculation for single family or commercial. You apparently have gotten your stuff accepted in Astoria and from that appear to think it’s an accepted and or legal practice in the State of Oregon, it’s not. Perhaps one day you'll step up and pay your "dues" and joining the ranks of professional designers as defined in the 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty code chap. 2, .definitions.


----------



## brat (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Thank goodness in Idaho it is not legal to practice engineering without a license.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Same as Oregon


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> If you could legally engage in the business of the practice of engineering, than we would look at your engineering submittals. Other than that we wouldn’t accept a non-professionals, engineered design and or calculation for single family or commercial. You apparently have gotten your stuff accepted in Astoria and from that appear to think it’s an accepted and or legal practice in the State of Oregon, it’s not. Perhaps one day you'll step up and pay your "dues" and joining the ranks of professional designers as defined in the 2008 Oregon Residential Specialty code chap. 2, .definitions.


Ordinarily so.

 672.005 Additional definitions. As used in ORS 672.002 to 672.325, unless the context requires otherwise:

      (1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following:

      (a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.

      (b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.

...

672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying. (1) Within the meaning of ORS 672.002 to 672.325, a person shall be considered practicing or offering to practice engineering who:

      (a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;

      (b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or

      © Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.

      (2) Within the meaning of ORS 672.002 to 672.325, a person is practicing or offering to practice land surveying who:

      (a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a land surveyor;

      (b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is a land surveyor; or

      © Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any land surveying service or work or any other service that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of land surveying. [1971 c.751 §3; 1981 c.143 §3; 2003 c.14 §427]

*672.060 Exceptions to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325.* ORS 672.002 to 672.325 do not apply to:

(10) A person making plans or specifications for, or supervising the erection, enlargement or alteration of, a building, or an appurtenance thereto, if the building is to be used for a single family residential dwelling or farm building or is a structure used in connection with or auxiliary to a single family residential dwelling or farm building, including but not limited to a three-car garage, barn or shed or a shelter used for the housing of domestic animals or livestock. ORS 672.002 to 672.325 do not prevent a person from making plans or specifications for, or supervising the erection, enlargement or alteration of, a building, or an appurtenance thereto, if the building has a ground area of 4,000 square feet or less and is not more than 20 feet in height from the top surface of lowest flooring to the highest interior overhead finish of the structure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In technical legal terms ORS 672.060 nullifies ORS 672.005 and ORS 672.007. Simply put, preparing structural calculations and applying the knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in the process of making specifications for EXEMPT buildings is NOT considered practice of engineering. OSBEELS has already affirmed that preparing so called "engineering calcs" for exempt buildings are not practice of engineering UNLESS the words "engineering" is used to purport the person as an engineer by title use.  They are not going to prohibit the preparations of such calcs by an unlicensed person on EXEMPT buildings as long as the person is not referring to himself or herself as an "engineer" or "registered engineer" or offers such service on non-exempt building. Preparing such calcs is considered incidental to building design and would be treated similar to architects practicing engineering to extent incidental to practice of architecture. Such activity by an architect is not considered "practice of engineering" as far as OSBEELS and the law is concerned. In performing such calc work for EXEMPT buildings, it is considered part of *"making plans and specifications for..."*

. OSBEELS has affirmed this.

If OSBEELS has affirmed this stance then why are you requiring something that is not required by law?

The problem lies when the unlicensed person advertises "engineering services" and uses the "engineer" title. It is considered offering "engineering services" when the words "engineering services" are used in the listing of services. As it would be offering the service to any and all buildings and structures. If it isn't clear that such service is for exempt buildings then it would be a problem.

The question for you is - Am I offering to perform the service of applying my knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences as part of making plans and specification for EXEMPT buildings only OR am I offering this service to ALL buildings and structures?

This is the big point to determine.


----------



## Alias (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Here in CA, DSA requires that all commercial stuctures be engineered.  Couple this with the seismic zone D and it would definitely trigger an engineered set of plans.

Sue


----------



## kilitact (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Oregon Revised Statue 672.005 Additional definitions;

 As used within the meaning of ORS 672.002 to 672.325, a person shall be considered practicing or offering to practice engineering who:

(1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following:

(a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.

Oregon Revised Statue 672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying.

(1) Within the meaning of ORS 672.002 to 672.325, a person shall be considered practicing or offering to

practice engineering who:

 © Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.

24 OBAE and OSBEELS

10. May anyone other than an architect or engineer prepare plans for submission to building officials?

Yes, but only when the building falls into the exempt status. However, even though the general public is allowed to prepare plans for submission on exempt structures, the building official has the authority to require drawings, calculations, and other related documents of an exempt structure to be prepared by a registered architect and/or engineer if the building official establishes that the work is of a highly technical nature or there is a potential risk to the life and/or safety of the structure. However, the building official cannot dictate the actual design.

The selection of structural members or components of a building does not always require a Professional Engineer or an Architect. There are numerous tables, graphs, computer programs etc., that are listed in the building code or in ICBO reports that require modest technical skills to select an item but do not require a PE's special talent. In the structural field, those modest technical skills include being able to select an element span, spacing and load. From this information, a non-licensed person can make a selection without doing any calculations from the numerous publications/programs, codes, manufacturers' data etc these types of selections are really a "prescriptive approach." Embedded in the tables, programs, etc. is the use of engineering skills and calculations, but these skills are blind or hidden to the user. The use of tables, graphs and computer programs that lead to a prescriptive selection is not engineering. ..." Based on the above, information submitted for exempted structures based on the use of tables, graphs and programs that provide prescriptive results is acceptable. Data or calculations for any structure requiring the use of engineering skills etc. must be done by an engineer registered by the Oregon Board of Engineers.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Same as Oregon


Not entirely so. Idaho doesn't have an exception/exemption to the practice of engineering like Oregon.

First off, in Oregon, if an unlicensed person may only perform prescriptive design then we would not need or have ORS 672.060 (10). Because with prescriptive paths, it wouldn't even be practice of engineering as applying mathematics would not constitute practice of engineering as mathematics can not be required to have a license to use. But mathematics (not physical and engineering science knowledge) knowledge would be all that is used on PRESCRIPTIVE only design.

In Idaho, a person may only do prescriptive-ONLY design unless an engineer is on-board. In Oregon, ORS672.060 is an exception to the "practice of engineering" not "practice of architecture" (That is what ORS 671.030 is for).

Do you understand what the meaning of the words "EXEMPTION" or "EXCEPTION" ?

Do you understand what it means in a legal context to the statutes in which they are part of ?


----------



## brudgers (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Insisting on a seal is often evidence of the braille school of plan review.

Mathematics is objective.

Either a person can perform the calculations correctly or they cannot.

Either a plan reviewer requesting calculations can determine their correctness or they cannot.

The presence of a PE's seal doesn't make the calculations correct, nor does it endow a plan reviewer with otherwise absent mathematical competence.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Oregon Revised Statue 672.005 Additional definitions; As used within the meaning of ORS 672.002 to 672.325, a person shall be considered practicing or offering to practice engineering who:
> 
> (1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following:
> 
> ...


From the Reference manual. But to extent the Building code allows you. What does 102.2 and R102.2. say? (Read below and check your code book)

*102.2 Other laws.* The provisions of this code shall not be

deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.

*R102.2 Other laws.* The provisions of this code shall not be

deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.

This applies entirely for everywhere within the code book. You will next try to use 106.1/R106.1. 102.2/R102.2 is above the rule of 106.1/R106.1 as it is required that the B.O. may NOT apply or exercise his/her powers to the point which will nullify the provisions of local, state and/or federal law. You may exercise 106.1 or R106.1 as long as it does not nullify the provision of any local, state or federal law.

State law says that Architects and Engineers are not required for exempt buildings such as single-family residences. There is nothing from the federal laws in this regard. Now you have to have a local law that says it.

Remember, 106.1 may not be exercised to the point of nullifying the provisions of a local, state or federal law. Because the code is adopted sub-ordinate to the adopted laws of the state and local governments. It is deemed by the code that the laws trumps code or any rules or regulations adopted to enforce laws.

This is the limitations of your powers. You must do it in the confines of the provisions of the laws in your local government, state government and federal government. You will have to show me a local law that says so. I will tell you to show me the law in accordance with public information act.

In regards to your last part, when we apply things like ASCE 7 and ACI 318 and other standards that uses more calculations, NOTHING in law says that I may not perform the calcs as incidental to building design for EXEMPT buildings.

You technically can not require something that nullifies any law because of 102.2 / R102.2. You may not exercise the provisions of 106.1 / R106.1 and violate 102.2 / R102.2 (which applies to the entire adopted code). You would be violating the rules of enforcing the code by doing so.

All you have to do is deny the application because it fails to meet code standards. Not because it doesn't bear a stamp when it isn't required. But because it doesn't meet the structural requirements. Beam to small. Beam spanning too far. Lack proper connections. That would be reasons to deny plans. Calculations are improperly calculated would be reasons.

I bear responsibility for any decision I make in my design. That is outlined in ORS 12.135.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Insisting on a seal is often evidence of the braille school of plan review.Mathematics is objective.
> 
> Either a person can perform the calculations correctly or they cannot.
> 
> ...


Thanks brudgers.

To Kilitact:

In the end, what matters is outlined quite clearly in ORS 12.135. Licensed or not, you are NOT exempt from actions that results from negligence because of bad calcs. I am responsible for my design and calcs under ORS 12.135.

*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, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, arising from such person having performed the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property or the supervision or inspection thereof, or from such person having furnished the design, planning, surveying, architectural or engineering services for such improvement, shall be commenced within the applicable period of limitation otherwise established by law; but in any event such action shall be commenced within 10 years from substantial completion or abandonment of such construction, alteration or repair of the improvement to real property.

      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) 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 from the construction, alteration or repair of any improvement to real property shall be commenced within two years from 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 from substantial completion or abandonment of the construction, alteration or repair.

      (3) For purposes of this section, “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.

      (4) For the 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.

      (5) This section:

      (a) Applies, in addition to other actions, to actions brought in the name of the state or any county or other public corporation therein, or for its benefit; 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]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be under "design & planning" services. Preparing calcs would be under design services when it comes to exempt buildings. So it does matter when my butt can be on the line for a huge claim if I fail to perform according to standard of reasonable care. It is my understanding that it is no different regardless of license or not.

The point is, the B.O. and Plan reviewer shall review the plans and if law doesn't require a stamp then the calcs shall be reviewed. If the calcs fail to meet the standards of code then the calcs and plans are rejected and corrections be asked. If corrections are made and yet still fails then I can see requiring certain drawings to be prepared by a qualified design professional and that you would be wanting to see an Oregon registered design professional's stamp at that point. 2-3 tries and then requiring it. Ok. I would accept that. I would expect you to require an architect to get an engineer or competent person to prepare those certain drawings after 2 to 3 failed attempts.

I can accept that. I expect the B.O. / Plan Reviewer to review the plans. Of course, if the words "engineer" or "engineering" is used as a title of the person or title of the documents prepared by the unlicensed person then it can be rejected. Example: "Engineering Calculations for...." as the title of the document. Words have to be carefully used. However, if the words used does not contain the words "engineer" or "engineering" to describe the preparer or the title of the documents (including sub-titles or chapter titles or anything like that) then it isn't an issue.

It is acceptable to say calcs made in accordance with ASCE 7-05. Mere use of the words engineer and engineering does not constitute violation. How the words are used may.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Rick; as a non-professional designer, you would not be part of the permitting process, no debating that point, you’re not a design professional or contractor, so bottom line I wouldn’t have to explain anything to you. It appears that you’re trying to blow a lot of smoke to attempt to cover your non-professional status?   

Brudgers; the non-professionals in your jurisdiction must like your take. No justification for any design, lol.

As a plans examiner, it would take way too much time reviewing to ensure compliance without the calculations justifying the design.


----------



## JBI (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

It's GOOD to be HOME!  :lol:


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Rick; as a non-professional designer, you would not be part of the permitting process, no debating that point, you’re not a design professional or contractor, so bottom line I wouldn’t have to explain anything to you. It appears that you’re trying to blow a lot of smoke to attempt to cover your non-professional status?    Brudgers; the non-professionals in your jurisdiction must like your take. No justification for any design, lol.
> 
> As a plans examiner, it would take way too much time reviewing to ensure compliance without the calculations justifying the design.


Simply put, I am part of the design/permitting process to the same extent as would an architect on exempt buildings. First, the contractor HAS nothing more involved in the permitting process of a design as I because the contractor is NO more a design professional as I am unless licensed as an architect or engineer. Secondly, I would technically be a contractor but not a construction contractor which can be made any time any moment I decide to deal with that. The contractor (construction) license is for construction not designing. We are talking Plan Review not construction inspection. When it comes to plan review, it is me that is involved on exempt buildings on plans prepared by me on exempt buildings. The contractor is not even involved in the design until bids are made. So it is me, the designer who is ultimately liable for design not the home owner or the contractor. Who has to make the changes to the plans? Me! In fact, architects don't have to supervise the construction of single-family residences. So, I'm involved because A) it is my name on the plans and it is required that the preparer of the documents is identified. B) I'm LIABLE for my design decisions and C) The plans are copyrighted to me which means by federal law, the plans may not be altered by anyone other than the copyright holder.

The building code generally do not use "design professional" except in definition. They use the words "registered design professional".

But for all legal matters beyond your little office - I am still the design professional of responsible charge over the preparation. The word professional is not limited to "licensed".

http://www.diydoctor.org.uk/projects/bu ... naryd5.htm

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/civ ... ofessional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional

Design professional

A term used generally to refer to architects; civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning engineers; interior designers; landscape architects; and others whose services have either traditionally been considered "professional" activities, require licensing or registration by the state, or otherwise require the knowledge and application of design principles appropriate to the problem at hand.

A Building Designer is required (in order to perform the work of building design) to and or possess the following:

   1. Academic qualifications - A college level degree or self-study education or combination thereof that provides the knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, Art, Drawing/Drafting and CAD skills and other architectural/building design subject matters including form, layout, ect.

   2. Expert and specialised knowledge in field which one is practicing professionally.

   3. Excellent manual/practical and literary skills in relation to profession.

   4. High quality work in (examples): creations, products, services, presentations, consultancy, primary/other research, administrative, marketing or other work endeavours.

   5. A high standard of professional ethics, behaviour and work activities while carrying out one's profession (as an employee, self-employed person, career, enterprise, business, company, or partnership/associate/colleague, etc). The professional owes a higher duty to a client, often a privilege of confidentiality, as well as a duty not to abandon the client just because he or she may not be able to pay or remunerate the professional. Often the professional is required to put the interest of the client ahead of his own interests. [ There is a point where reasonable efforts are exhausted and a client needs to be abandoned/dropped. ]

   6. Reasonable work moral and motivation. Having interest and desire to do a job well as well as holding positive attitude towards the profession are important elements in attaining a high level of professionalism.

   7. Is a individual who does not require supervision.

Most building designers that I know of possess all of these. A formal NAAB degree is not absolutely required but it is applicable. The most important thing is the person possess the knowledge and technical experience to competently design houses and other exempt buildings to any degree of level. Of course, professional ethics also would mandate that a person does not practice beyond ones level of competence.

Under various other Oregon laws, I would fall in the definitions of profession and my services relate to design. A design professional would be a professional of a design occupation.

In the end of the day, I'm the one that is responsible for the plans and any corrections have to be made by me. I'm the one that would be making corrections to the plans. Because the plans are not copyright ownership of the client. Because, I am not the client's employee. I also am still a design professional whether the building codes refer to me as such or not.

When it comes to permits and permit process, the person that you be dealing with is the Owner or Owner's Authorized Agent. The Construction Documents will contain the designer of responsible charge over the project. This is required regardless of license. ORS 671.025.

* 671.025 Certain plans to carry stamp; identification.* (1) Any person applying for a license or permit required under the laws of this state or the ordinances of any jurisdiction in which the person proposes to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove or convert a building shall submit an original or reproduction of the plans and specifications for the work proposed. The plans and specifications shall bear the stamp of a registered architect, or of a registered professional engineer, where the services of a registered architect or of a registered professional engineer are required by the provisions of ORS 671.010 to 671.220, and shall be drawn to scale with sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and that the work proposed conforms to ORS 671.010 to 671.220, State Building Code and to any other applicable laws and ordinances.

      (2) The plans and specifications shall bear identification which shall include, but not be limited to:

      (a) The project name and location;

      (b) The name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for the preparation of the documents;

      © The name, address and telephone number of the owner; and

      (d) The date the documents were issued.

      (3) Each jurisdiction which requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement or repair of any building or structure shall require the signature and registration stamp on the plans and specifications from a person allowed under the provisions of this section to prepare the plans and specifications.

      (4) The registration stamp and signature on the plans and specifications of a person registered under this section to prepare the plans and specifications shall constitute compliance with this section.

      (5) The provisions under this section shall not apply to the issuance of permits where the preparation of plans and specifications for the construction, alteration, improvement or repair of a building or structure is exempt from the provisions of this section except that the person preparing the plans and specifications for others shall be so identified. [1961 c.585 §3; 1977 c.803 §3; 1991 c.910 §1]



Subsection (5) requires that the preparer of the plans and specifications by me (since I am preparing the plans for others as referred to above) by identified. So it would be clear that the name, address and telephone number be identified. Most jurisdiction would still require the other information required by R106.1.1 (106.1.1)

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents 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.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> It's GOOD to be HOME!  :lol:


True indeed. Now we get this diatribe onto this forum record. We all know we have fun.  :lol:

Kilitact, we know....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Rick and kilitact you two have been disagreeing on this subject for over a year now. Rick you started this exact discussion on another post that you are repeating here. Agree to disagree and grow up and quit acting like lawyer wantabe's. It's not the type of home I grew up in nor want to live in

Both of you have a lot of proffessional knowledge to share from your different backgrounds that all of us can learn from and your constant arguring over liscensing requirements detracts from the original post.

It is a commercial IBC structure and a pole building by its nature is out of the scope of 2308 for light frame construction. rbrunk will decide who can submit the design in accordance with HIS local or state laws.

Rick without designing it you could have been more helpful by giving advise to rbrunk on what to ask for from the designer for this structure

1. It is accessory to the fire department. (Should have posted this under commercial category)

2. It is approx. 480 square feet with 4, 6x8 posts located at each corner.

3. Two parking bays for fire department maintenance vehicles only.

4. Seismic zone D

5. Total height approx. 15'-16' to ridge of a 4/12 roof built from engineered trusses.

6. Clearance under beams from finish grade is 8'.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Rick and kilitact you two have been disagreeing on this subject for over a year now. Rick you started this exact discussion on another post that you are repeating here. Agree to disagree and grow up and quit acting like lawyer wantabe's. It's not the type of home I grew up in nor want to live inBoth of you have a lot of proffessional knowledge to share from your different backgrounds that all of us can learn from and your constant arguring over liscensing requirements detracts from the original post.
> 
> It is a commercial IBC structure and a pole building by its nature is out of the scope of 2308 for light frame construction. rbrunk will decide who can submit the design in accordance with HIS local or state laws.
> 
> ...


Ok. I haven't read all rbrunk's posts.

From the information given here:

First question, would be is this accessory attached or detached. If attached, what is the combined sq.ft. of the fire-department and the accessory and all usable areas under (that includes walk-ways - generally areas of 3x3 and larger would be usable area) roof projection and common roof.

This would have an 8' clearance from finished grade (or slab) to bottom of trusses?

What I would expect to see in seismic zones like here in Astoria, Oregon, I would expect to see lateral force resistance. This can be achieved a number of ways but I would expect the designer to prepare drawings, calcs and graphical diagrams showing how the systems and bracing systems will be able to resist lateral forces and the size, type and details and specs on how these systems are connected at all the posts, beams, trusses and bracing. I might expect to see some sort of continuous grade beam footing system under the posts with piles/caisson or a deep footing pad to help secure foundation and this continuous system would help. I would expect to possible see some form of hold-down mechanism tied into the 6x8 posts to a continuous foundation/footing system.

I would ask questions regarding these systems being applied to this structure. If it were me, I would use some diagonal bracing and strong fastening system to lock in the posts. Using a Tendon & Mortise connection joint and pin dowels and brackets and nails. Or something in this ballpark. There may also be an in-fill 2x6 stud-frame shearwall used with 1/2 to 3/4" plywood sheathing.

The intricacies of this would determined by the designer in charge. Which code speaks of pole-buildings would be interesting.

This would be Type IV construction Occupancy/Use Group S or U building.

The code provisions for Type IV would be a good start on the requirements.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Brudgers; the non-professionals in your jurisdiction must like your take. No justification for any design, lol.As a plans examiner, it would take way too much time reviewing to ensure compliance without the calculations justifying the design.


These days, I don't have a jurisdiction in the sense that your response appears to assume.

When I did, I didn't ask for calculations as a CYA method.

If I got calcs from a design professional, I reviewed them.

When I just got a seal, I spot checked areas of concern by running my own calcs.

The adequacy of the design was typically a function of the quality of the individual, not their particular license.

As I said the math is objective.

Many people in the construction industry can adequately design common building components for a simple structure using basic engineering principles and calculations.

How long it takes you to evaluate it is beside the point.

The point of the code is safety, not plans examiner productivity.

An exempt building is exempt.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 9, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Brudgers; the non-professionals in your jurisdiction must like your take. No justification for any design, lol.As a plans examiner, it would take way too much time reviewing to ensure compliance without the calculations justifying the design.


These days, I don't have a jurisdiction in the sense that your response appears to assume.

When I did, I didn't ask for calculations as a CYA method.

If I got calcs from a design professional, I reviewed them.

When I just got a seal, I spot checked areas of concern by running my own calcs.

The adequacy of the design was typically a function of the quality of the individual, not their particular license.

As I said the math is objective.

Many people in the construction industry can adequately design common building components for a simple structure using basic engineering principles and calculations.

How long it takes you to evaluate it is beside the point.  

The point of the code is safety, not plans examiner productivity.

An exempt building is exempt.

Like Brudgers said, exempt means exempt. I do and would support Kilitact requiring an individual (licensed or not) to get a registered design professional that is competent to prepare the plans correctly IF the person attempted to prepare such plans and failed and failed to make corrections. 2-3 attempts is reasonable. 3 strikes - your out. First attempt is the initial submissions. You can always deny the plans as failing to comply until its correct. Besides, your office is getting richer.  :lol:

I think a 3 strikes policy would be acceptable for a particular project in most cases. The number of attempts can be adjusted based on complexity of project but I think for most projects 5 attempts on certain drawings would be the limit. In a deferred submission, these number of attempts would be based on each submitted portions. So, if it is submitted in 3 portions then 3 attempts per portion would be reasonable on complex projects.

Of course, non-exempt projects MUST bear the stamps of an RDP.

In the end, you are safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare by not approving plans until properly designed and by reviewing the plans for calculations to be correct. Calcs maybe reviewed by the city/county engineer and based on engineer's review the plans maybe approved or denied. If calcs and everything else on the submitted documents are done correctly and stamp seal is not required by statutes then approve the plans.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

brudgers wrote



> These days, I don't have a jurisdiction in the sense that your response appears to assume.When I did, I didn't ask for calculations as a CYA method.
> 
> If I got calcs from a design professional, I reviewed them.
> 
> ...


I require calculations to justify the design, thats a given, on exempt or non-exempt buildings, all engineered calculations will be stamped and sealed. I don't base my review on the quality of the individual nor do I spot check calculations. When I complete my plan review and sign my name on the plans, I will be assured that I've reviewed the complete submittal for code complaince, not just spot checked, thats my CYA.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> I require calculations to justify the design, thats a given, on exempt or non-exempt buildings, all engineered calculations will be stamped and sealed. I don't base my review on the quality of the individual nor do I spot check calculations. When I complete my plan review and sign my name on the plans, I will be assured that I've reviewed the complete submittal for code complaince, not just spot checked, thats my CYA.


Wow, you have time to run complete calcs?

Or do you just check a box on a form?


----------



## rktect 1 (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

I have time to check load paths.  I can generally squeeze in checking to see if someone is licensed to do the work or not.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

budgers wrote



> Wow, you have time to run complete calcs?Or do you just check a box on a form?


What do you do? Spot check and spot charge for plan reviews, that seems like a half-a.. approach. A plan review IMO means reviewing the entire submittal.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

First I check my plans.

Then I sign them.

Then I seal them.

Then I enjoy personal liability until repose.

Back when I reviewed plans, I endeavored to follow the law.

If a building was exempt, I checked it based on the law not my personal views about what ought to require a licensed professional.

My goal was safety, not bureaucratic abuse of the public trust.

Exempt buildings by unlicensed designers were generally more trouble to review.

Because I took my job seriously, I enjoyed the challenge.


----------



## RickAstoria (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> First I check my plans.Then I sign them.
> 
> Then I seal them.
> 
> ...




Clearly a good point.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 10, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

brudgers wrote



> Back when I reviewed plans, I endeavored to follow the law.If a building was exempt, I checked it based on the law not my personal views about what ought to require a licensed professional.
> 
> My goal was safety, not bureaucratic abuse of the public trust.
> 
> ...


That’s sounds like my mantra, except for the sentence, "that exempt buildings by unlicensed designers were generally more trouble to review". I’ve had homeowners submit calculations that were as good,  if not equal to a design professional’s calculations.


----------



## rbrunk (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Rick and kilitact you two have been disagreeing on this subject for over a year now. Rick you started this exact discussion on another post that you are repeating here. Agree to disagree and grow up and quit acting like lawyer wantabe's. It's not the type of home I grew up in nor want to live inBoth of you have a lot of proffessional knowledge to share from your different backgrounds that all of us can learn from and your constant arguring over liscensing requirements detracts from the original post.
> 
> It is a commercial IBC structure and a pole building by its nature is out of the scope of 2308 for light frame construction. rbrunk will decide who can submit the design in accordance with HIS local or state laws.
> 
> ...


Thank you for steering this topic back to my original question.  All responses were appreciated and many were quite entertaining as well.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

rbrunk wrote in the op



> I just made our local fire marshall go get some engineering for his proposed maintenance vehicle parking structure and he thought it was a bit much for such a simple structure.Any input will be helpful.


me thinks you need to reread your original post  :roll:


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: Lateral Calculations for Freestanding Pole Buildings

Why is this topic in Residential???


----------

