# 16' Garage Door Headers



## vegas paul

Double garage doors, nominal 16' wide... I often see them on plans for detached garages.  Given that the IRC is essentially intended to allow prescriptive design/building without engineering, how do you address the header span for a 16' garage door?  Do you allow an engineered (LVL) or similar component, based on the spec. sheet for that beam?  Or do you strictly enforce the IRC span tables (which don't address this)?  I hate to require engineering on a 400-500 s.f. detatched garage.

Just wondering how you look at these in your neck of the woods...


----------



## Min&Max

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The vast majority are using engineered wood products for these. Do not require an engineer to sign off. Manufacturer provides span charts and installation instructions in manual. If anal retentive, their is more info for the asking.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Paul,

I see no reason not to accept an engineered (LVL) (gluelam) or similar component, based on the manufacturer's spec. sheet for that beam.  That's all I've seen over the past few years.  It's well within my comfort zone.

Min&Max,

How did you find out my real name?  Anal Retentive.    

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Oh, I agree about using the engineered headers, per the mfg. instructions... maybe I confused the issue with my original question.  What about using dimensional lumber (4 x ?, multiple 2 x ?, etc.) that aren't on the span tables of the IRC?  Anybody allowing this without engineering?  Even if it appears over-designed, do you allow it?


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

We run the numbers thru StruCalc if it passes fine if not they have to resubmit. We DO NOT tell them what size is needed.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

"using dimensional lumber (4 x ?, multiple 2 x ?, etc.) that aren't on the span tables of the IRC"

Get an Engineer for about $150.00.

Absolutely, positively, unequivically, NO!

Uncle Bob


----------



## cboboggs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

We take the same approach as mtlogcabin. We run construction through a program either StruCalc or Plans Analyst. If it checks out fine if not they have to resubmit.


----------



## conarb

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

It's not that simple, almost all garage door headers require portal design, and usually narrow portals integrated with the header, this always requires engineering, listen to your uncle.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> It's not that simple, almost all garage door headers require portal design, and usually narrow portals integrated with the header, this always requires engineering, listen to your uncle.


In areas with significant lateral loads from sesmic or wind, yes.

In areas without such loads, it's not such an issue.


----------



## Alias

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Like UB and conarb, not without an engineers stamp.  As brudgers pointed out, I'm in a high wind/seismic/volcanic area plus I'm in CA.

Luckily, the local contractors know this, it's just the DIY'er who is a potential problem.

Sue, lost on the frontier


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well, Sue, the DIYers is exactly why I posed the original question.  I'm all for helping homeowners that want to improve their homes and I try to guide them through the IRC when they want to do their own designs/plans.  Since detached two-car garage/workshops are a common project around here, I see them a lot, and I see some VERY interesting design solutions - most of them noncompliant.

I often suggest LVLs or other engineered headers along with Hardy Walls or Simpson Strong Walls for lateral/shear on the open end.  However, considering the cost of these vs. dimensional and sheet goods, usually the original design doesn''t include them.

Thanks for the opinions... I keep striving to help out the homeowners!


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The garage  and other window and door openings are prescriptive see

FIGURE R602.10.6.2

ALTERNATE BRACED WALL PANEL ADJACENT TO A DOOR OR WINDOW OPENING

 A minimum 3" X 11.25" net header size is required for opening from 6ft to a maximum 18 ft. That would take care of the wind and seismic shear loads. Correct?

A larger header may still required due to additional floor/roof loads.


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

mt - As long as the walls adjacent to the door are 16" or wider, I've used exactly what you cited above - however, it seems that many want to maximize their openings (16' door) with a building that is limited by lot size, resulting in 12" in. or less by the doors!  I get 18' wide garges submitted often.  Won't work unless a strong wall is used.

2nd point - It is interesting that the header in figure R602.10.6.2 goes up to 18' in length, with "min. 3" X 11.25" , which means that it might have to be bigger, depending on the actual use.  But the table R502.5(1) doesn't go to 18' so how does one determine how much greater than the minimum is required?  (Assuming dimensional lumber is used, not LVL).  I assume the 3 x 11.25 is based on the alternate braced wall panel working for lateral/shear, and is NOT based on the header supporting the load above.  That's why it's minimum for as little as 6' wide and the same up to 18'.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

MtLogCabin,

"A minimum 3" X 11.25" net header size is required for opening from 6ft to a maximum 18 ft. That would take care of the wind and seismic shear loads. Correct?"

Does not state that header (6' to 18') can be "dimensional lumber"; only that the minimum net header size shall be 3" X ll.25".

Maximum length for a "dimensional lumber" header for roof and ceiling only; would require 4-2X12s and be limited to a 14' 1" span (TABLE R502.5(1); which would require a 6" wide wall; provided the building width was not more than 20'.

Now if they put double doors in; they could use double 2"x10"s (maximum span 8' 5"); with support in the center of the 16' foot opening; and your going to need every inch of that 20' building width.  Requires braced walls to be minimum 16" wide each X 3 = 48" should allow two 8' openings (barely).

I think,    

Uncle Bob


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

UB I agree and Under StruCalc what you stated is good by 85% with a .198 deflection 46lbs snow 15 lb dead loads. That's why we use StruCalc to double check submitted design loads that are not prepared by an engineer.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

MtLogCabin,

Thanks,  I don't know that stuff; so I have to either go by the codes or Engineered.  Heck, at 65, I don't want to know that stuff.   

It's good to know that some of ya'll learn stuff beyond the requirements of just knowing the codes.

Uncle Bob


----------



## fatboy

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

We allow and check submitted engineered products, do not do design though. Seismic and winds are not an issue here.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> UB I agree and Under StruCalc what you stated is good by 85% with a .198 deflection 46lbs snow 15 lb dead loads. That's why we use StruCalc to double check submitted design loads that are not prepared by an engineer.


From my time behind the counter, it's probably a good idea to spot check designs submitted by engineers as well.

The Braille method of plan review is not very reliable.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Brudgers,

"From my time behind the counter, it's probably a good idea to spot check designs submitted by engineers as well."

I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that execeed the codes.  In that case, I am required to be able to read the Engineer's plans; in order to insure that the construction is per plans.

"The Braille method of plan review is not very reliable."

As far as plans that are submitted that are within the "Design Criteria" of R301; I also don't consider using the code requirements, to review plans as "the blind method"; and I believe my answer to the original question reflects that.

Would be so kind as to show me what part of my answer that was wrong; or where I used the "Braile method of plan review"?

"A minimum 3" X 11.25" net header size is required for opening from 6ft to a maximum 18 ft. That would take care of the wind and seismic shear loads. Correct?"

Does not state that header (6' to 18') can be "dimensional lumber"; only that the minimum net header size shall be 3" X ll.25".

Maximum length for a "dimensional lumber" header for roof and ceiling only; would require 4-2X12s and be limited to a 14' 1" span (TABLE R502.5(1); which would require a 6" wide wall; provided the building width was not more than 20'.

Now if they put double doors in; they could use double 2"x10"s (maximum span 8' 5"); with support in the center of the 16' foot opening; and your going to need every inch of that 20' building width. Requires braced walls to be minimum 16" wide each X 3 = 48" should allow two 8' openings (barely)."

Thanks,

Uncle Bob


----------



## JBI

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

U B - I don't think brudgers was suggesting you were wrong. I think he was just reinfircing that plans should always be checked, regardless of who prepared them. I agree with that 100%, some of the worst plans I've seen have come from engineers... WITH a seal/signature on them.

Simply looking for that seal/sig (or feeling for the raised seal... the 'braille' method) doesn't cut it.

That's twice in a week I've agreed with brudgers...  







:lol:


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

John,

I check your previous posts; and that's only once this week that you have answered for someone else, instead of letting them answer the question that was meant for them.

I also don't believe that my answer to the original question reflected my "Simply looking for that seal/sig (or feeling for the raised seal... the 'braille' method)".

Thanks,

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Of course I was suggesting that even sealed plans should be spot checked.

There are plenty of engineers out there who will specify the minimum size explicity listed in the code rather than the size required by the loads.

Of course, garage door headers in the gable end don't support any roof or snow load, just the dead load of the wall above, and the minimum size may be acceptable (i'd have to run the calcs.).

And Table 502.5(1) lumps species together.  (4)2x12 SP #2 will carry a 20' roof over a 16 foot opening with 30psf snow load.

See page 8: http://newstore.southernpine.com/images/ref207.pdf

With no snow load it will carry 24 feet of roof.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> John,I check your previous posts; and that's only once this week that you have answered for someone else, instead of letting them answer the question that was meant for them.
> 
> I also don't believe that my answer to the original question reflected my "Simply looking for that seal/sig (or feeling for the raised seal... the 'braille' method)".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Uncle Bob


So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.

Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Brudgers,

"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.

Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."

You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.

I stated that;

 "I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."

I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.

Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.

I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings.  I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Ok, dumb question. but as a BO that processes building permits, how would I know if an Architect is qualified to do the structural or not? If the Architect stamped the plans, and there were structural elements, couldn't I assume that the architect is responsible for the structural elements? Should I need to check more than if the correct code year and design criteria (snow loads for my area for instance) are followed?


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.
> 
> Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."
> 
> You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.
> 
> I stated that;
> 
> "I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."
> 
> I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.
> 
> Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.
> 
> I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings.  I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.
> 
> Uncle Bob


If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it  even meets R301.1.3?

Let alone exceeds it?

Other than by braille, I mean.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.
> 
> Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."
> 
> You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.
> 
> I stated that;
> 
> "I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."
> 
> I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.
> 
> Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.
> 
> I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings.  I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.
> 
> Uncle Bob


This is how it is done... IF the plans and calcs appears to be below the prescriptive requirements of codes then the plans then you have the calcs reviewed by the Engineering department to see if they are adequate or calcs reviewed outsourced to an S.E.

Now, this is a matter of contention and variability between states. Where an Architect may overlap Engineering (and vice versa). In Oregon, if the work is on an exempt building - it doesn't matter. I addressed this matter to both the Architect board and the Engineer's Board of the State of Oregon. Of course, when matters are outside the my scope of competence then I would hire an Engineer. Since that would be the only area I would need an RDP.

Professional Standard of Care would require that the Architect or Engineer (and Unlicensed "Building Designers") will not practice outside their area of competence by education/experience.

There are means to request some sort of education / experience documentation to prove you are experienced in these areas outside that normally taught in your professional education.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Brudgers,

"If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it even meets R301.1.3?"

I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.

If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.

If the beam is a manufactured beam; I check the manufacturer's tables.

I have not had an occasion where an Engineered beam was submitted that wasn't produced by a manufacturer that provided tables that I could use to confirm it was correct.

"Other than by braille, I mean."

I won't comment on the repeated insult.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Brudgers,"If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it even meets R301.1.3?"
> 
> I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.
> 
> If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.
> 
> If the beam is a manufactured beam; I check the manufacturer's tables.
> 
> I have not had an occasion where an Engineered beam was submitted that wasn't produced by a manufacturer that provided tables that I could use to confirm it was correct.
> 
> "Other than by braille, I mean."
> 
> I won't comment on the repeated insult.
> 
> Uncle Bob


What about beams and structural members that are not engineered at the manufacturer site ? Or for example a truss or box header beam (steel or wood). Box truss for example or other systems. How would you or the B.O. be qualified to run the calcs? Or take a lamella roof for example. If the person designing it is capable of designing and engineering the calcs, how would YOU be able to determine the calcs whether you are a Plan Reviewer or B.O.

Only ones that is capable of determining adequately the calcs would be an RDP and only one that can realistically question an Architect is a Structural Engineer (or adequately trained Engineer in structural systems whether he is licensed as a S.E. or a C.E. (Civil Engineer). M.E.s and E.E.s will likely not be adequately trained to this extent where a C.E. is closer but an S.E. (or an Architectural Engineer) would be.

Would you outsource the review of calcs to someone qualified? Then they report their finding to you.


----------



## incognito

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well it sure is re-assuring to see that todays building officials are no longer capable of determing if a 16' garage door header will provide adequate support. We have passed enough code requirements to regulate ourselves right out of a job.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.
> 
> If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.


Building Official is an engineer?


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				incognito said:
			
		

> Well it sure is re-assuring to see that todays building officials are no longer capable of determing if a 16' garage door header will provide adequate support. We have passed enough code requirements to regulate ourselves right out of a job.


Just about anything can span 16-ft. The biggest thing is determining the size of beam to make sure it doesn't deflect too much. Deflection can be critical so that the header beam does NOT jam up the door.

The point is, who is a person that is NOT licensed or qualified to prepare the calcs in the first place qualified to question the decision of a registered design professional and say it is wrong. Do you even know how to even perform the math?

The work around to that is have the calcs checked over by someone who would be equally qualified as the RDP to check the calcs if there is a question. If I was a B.O., I could not lawfully question the calcs of an RDP regarding work on a non-exempt building without literally engaging in the activity and risk of claiming oneself to be duly licensed and registered. In other words, to claim that you know better then a licensed architect or engineer (regarding anything that is not part of the prescriptive path of the codes) is to claim yourself to be duly qualified and therefore licensed and registered. Since you don't want to do that, you can hire/contract or use in-house Engineers (the Engineering Department) to evaluate the calcs and give a professional report of findings and from that findings can make a decision.

You are not out of the job, you just have the calcs that you are not qualified to be able to competently perform because you are not qualified to prepare the plans in the first place - to be evaluated by a qualified professional (expert witness) and give a report. After findings are made, then you can make a decision. This is what a prudent B.O. or Plan Reviewer should do.

Of course, some are duly qualified because of being licensed. If it were me, I would take the due diligence.

Because the OP's original post pertains to a structure that would be exempt in Oregon - I would give a simple suggestion on beam sizing.

I would suggest that the beam size would be a solid timber beam of 12" x 14" (or equivalent Built-Up Beam or Glu-Lam or similarly dimensioned steel beam). I would size the front wall studs to be 2x8 (instead of conventional 2x4 or 2x6. The corners would be a 12x12 built-up is equal size solid timber, laminated column, steel column I-Beam (W12), Steel Tube column (12 x 12 square) with conc./grout fill with reinforcement bars, or reinforced concrete columns.

Connection details, connection systems, anchorage systems and shear wall paneling would have to be spec'd by you to your local codes and load systems. I can not spec any more without detail knowledge. Also, reducing the size any further would need more info. With as little information as it stands, I'm specing a little on the over-built side.

However, a hefty 12x14 beam would be pretty good even on simple beam calculators. It would of course be Douglas Fir - Select Structural grade. If conditions are unusually extreme, I would be going to about 12x18 (built-up made of 2x12s in stack style similar to glu-lam). This would be a reasonably stout header. However, there are a number of detail nuances that exceeds the scope of the general suggestion of sizing but you as the designer will have to decide what is needed and weigh it with the economics and other factors. These specs, I am pushing 900 to 1000 lbs. / ft. of unsupported beam span.

That would be quite a bit on the extreme side.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Uncle Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.
> 
> If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.
Click to expand...

Building Official is an engineer?

Some of them may happen to be an engineer.

Not all of them and not normally required for the job position.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



> Of course, garage door headers in the gable end don't support any roof or snow load, just the dead load of the wall above, and the minimum size may be acceptable (i'd have to run the calcs.).


If a Gable Truss is not designed in triangles such as a Web Truss then they are more related to stud walls and do support roof loads which are transfered along the length of the truss to the garage header below. These loads may be minimal tributary loads but they do need to be accounted for

Next time you look at a truss package check the bearing points on the gable end truss. I bet it runs the entire length of the bottom cord.


----------



## rktect 1

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC.  Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6.  I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening.  As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Delete could not successfully attach locally engineered header chart we use


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a wrote:



> The point is, who is a person that is NOT licensed or qualified to prepare the calcs in the first place qualified to question the decision of a registered design professional and say it is wrong. Do you even know how to even perform the math?The work around to that is have the calcs checked over by someone who would be equally qualified as the RDP to check the calcs if there is a question. If I was a B.O., I could not lawfully question the calcs of an RDP regarding work on a non-exempt building without literally engaging in the activity and risk of claiming oneself to be duly licensed and registered. In other words, to claim that you know better then a licensed architect or engineer (regarding anything that is not part of the prescriptive path of the codes) is to claim yourself to be duly qualified and therefore licensed and registered. Since you don't want to do that, you can hire/contract or use in-house Engineers (the Engineering Department) to evaluate the calcs and give a professional report of findings and from that findings can make a decision.
> 
> You are not out of the job, you just have the calcs that you are not qualified to be able to competently perform because you are not qualified to prepare the plans in the first place - to be evaluated by a qualified professional (expert witness) and give a report. After findings are made, then you can make a decision. This is what a prudent B.O. or Plan Reviewer should do.


Surely, you make this rhetoric up while visiting with the caterpillar that Alice saw in wonderland.

A plans examiner reviews the entire plans, calculations, packet submittal. Any incorrect information on the plans or found within the calculations  need to be sent to the DP and owner for corrections.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you?

I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the _design loading used in the calculations _meets the conditions required?


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:



> A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?


Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp?


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Click to expand...

Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp?    

If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc..

No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).

I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.

If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:



> If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc.. No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).
> 
> I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.
> 
> If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.


*Congratulations on you’re attainment of an AA degree. *

I have always considered it my responsibility has a plans examiner to review each submittal in its entirety. A review of the calculations as you’ve stated that you perform, could miss a calculations for a connection, which would lead to an inadequate connector that’s rated at 4000 LBS instead of 5000 LBS, because of one simple misstep that would have been caught if you’ve performed your duty.   IMO; it appears that you look to see if 1+1=2, than stamp them approved. From other treads, I’ve gathered that other code officials are aligned with you, in that if they see a RDP stamp, the submittal only warrants a “drive by”.

The example that I show above is just one of the many items that could show up while performing a through review. Do you check connectors to ensure that they are rated for the loading called out in the design, that the connections are even approved to be used in the locations called out? The list goes on and on and on. How do you justify not performing a complete review, by stating that you saw the stamp?


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Sorry for the typo, it is a AE degree.

As I have said, I don't believe it is my duty to perform the calculations in plan review. You are welcome to your opinion and may choose to do whatever you'd like in your jurisdiction.

Just as a curiosity, if you are reviewing say a residential 3800sf house that is submitted by a stamped DP, and there are, say, 22 different trusses, and an equal or greater number of engineered beams and columns (both wood and steel), you perform the structural analysis (determine the loads, including the moment(s), bending, slenderness ratio etc etc) for all of those elements to check the DP's calculations?

If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Click to expand...

Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp?    

Do you even know how to do the math? What is the highest math class that you taken?

That would be a critical factor. Do you know or understand enough in structural engineering science to understand how the loads are transferred. Do you know how to calculate a Cable-supported roof system and understand the math and science and principles of Physics to perform competently the math. You need to know the science behind it to the degree of level in which you can design with such a system before you can claim to be able to competently understand the math. There is a number of highly scientific and technical matters that you may not know but the designer (whether licensed or not) may know and understand.

If you don't know it, have someone you do know that knows how to perform the math review the calcs and give you a finding. You can supervise / observe it if you like but you need to know more then the code training courses that you might have obtained at your local community college.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Click to expand...

Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp?    

Sure you can review the plans and if something flags further attention and the math is beyond your training, you should have someone who is trained to run the calcs and explain it to you and their finding. If the calcs are simple enough for you, ok. If not, they are beyond your league then you need to adapt the review process and bring in someone to review the calcs of those portions to assist you but you may supervise/observe the process if you like but you can screw up the math worse then the RDP (or unlicensed designer).


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc.. No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).
> 
> I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.
> 
> If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.
Click to expand...

*Congratulations on you’re attainment of an AA degree. *

I have always considered it my responsibility has a plans examiner to review each submittal in its entirety. A review of the calculations as you’ve stated that you perform, could miss a calculations for a connection, which would lead to an inadequate connector that’s rated at 4000 LBS instead of 5000 LBS, because of one simple misstep that would have been caught if you’ve performed your duty.   IMO; it appears that you look to see if 1+1=2, than stamp them approved. From other treads, I’ve gathered that other code officials are aligned with you, in that if they see a RDP stamp, the submittal only warrants a “drive by”.

The example that I show above is just one of the many items that could show up while performing a through review. Do you check connectors to ensure that they are rated for the loading called out in the design, that the connections are even approved to be used in the locations called out? The list goes on and on and on. How do you justify not performing a complete review, by stating that you saw the stamp?               

I expect you to review thoroughly but I would not run the calcs if I don't know how to perform the calcs. If I was you.

I would do the prudent thing and have the calcs ran through by a qualified person and observe it and have them report and explain to me their finding then I can rule one way or the other. If the math is within area of competence then yes, by all means I would perform the calcs but I would need to actually understand engineering science at least to a basic level. I would have to understand the math process used. If I don't, I would screw up very quickly. I could check if the math numbers are processed correctly.

Of course, I have additional knowledge in the engineering sciences as it relates to buildings BUT I would be very cautious about running the calcs on something you don't understand competently.

What would be the prudent thing to do?

I would expect you to be thorough and get assistance when you need it. I would want you to review everything including the calcs but with professional assistance when you need it. I would want the calcs checked and verified but I would not recommend you do this alone on complex calcs. Have an engineer help you with the calcs on those portions of highly complex level.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:



> If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position


And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
Click to expand...

And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??

I respect your due diligence. The question is the degree you take on yourself.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
Click to expand...

And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??

We don't collect those fees for the department, we collect the standard building permit fee. When a third party review is warranted, we charge the cost to the applicant for a third party review (of our choice).

Now, you may suggest that EVERY project be reviewed by a third party for every aspect of the project. I don't agree. The licensed design professional that submits under his/her stamp is in many cases enough.

And guess what, we don't inspect all the work, either! We inspect a representative portion of the work. Does your department do 100% inspections also?

That's the way it is.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:



> And guess what, we don't inspect all the work, either! We inspect a representative portion of the work. Does your department do 100% inspections also?


We don't do "drive by's, for inspections or plans review. If we sign our name, we've reviewed and/or inspected, won't want it any other way.   

rick a wrote:



> The question is the degree you take on yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.
> 
> What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??
Click to expand...

I respect your due diligence. The question is the degree you take on yourself.[/quote:3thbssr7]

I thought has a code official our job was to review and inspect. Perhaps not in your area??


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

You just can't help yourself , can you.

You have characterized my comment of "partial inspections" as "drive-bys" on top of characterizing plan reviews other than your own as "the braille method".


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> rick a wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your due diligence. The question is the degree you take on yourself.
Click to expand...

I thought has a code official our job was to review and inspect. Perhaps not in your area??   

Sure. I'm not asking you to not review and inspect but you simply are not qualified to perform the calcs if you don't know squat about A) how to do perform the math, B) Understand the science behind the math and if you don't understand A) & B) then C) you don't know what would be adequate or not-adequate in terms of design and the engineering calcs. So you'll totally F--- up. If you don't know engineering to any degree, how can you know what is adequate engineering and inadequate engineering. If you don't know engineering to any degree then you simply will not understand the calculation and math. You wouldn't know what it is adequate engineering from your butt-hole. Get it? Learn some engineering or leave it to the engineers & architects to review the engineering calcs and let them report their finding to you. You see, architects actually do have to learn a little bit of engineering in just about any NAAB accredited degree programs.

What gives you the credential to review the calcs. What measures have you taken to learn engineering?


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC.  Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6.  I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening.  As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.


No, a double 2X12 does not work for a 16' opening if the roof is bearing on it.

And requiring a design professional to read a load table is, in my opinion, asinine.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> rktect 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC.  Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6.  I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening.  As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.
Click to expand...

No, a double 2X12 does not work for a 16' opening if the roof is bearing on it.

And requiring a design professional to read a load table is, in my opinion, asinine.

What would the total load be on the beam. The roof load would be transmitted the beam and that is all it would be carrying except maybe studs between the beam and the roof.

If it is a gable roof - it may or may not have much of a roof load at all. If it is hip roof then it would have a larger tributary area. If it is a gable roof, it depends on the gable roof orientation. It may only have the tributary area of one single roof rafter (ie. 1' to 2' by 16' - or 16' to 32' tributary area). It depends on the tributary area load on the beam header.

At minimum condition, it may work but I would want the beam to be at least as thick as the stud wall bearing it. So if the wall is a 2x6 wall framing then 6" x 12" beam would spec'd. If the wall is a 2x4 frame then 2 ply 2x12 with a 1/2" plywood piece.


----------



## rktect 1

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> rktect 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC.  Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6.  I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening.  As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.
Click to expand...

No, a double 2X12 does not work for a 16' opening if the roof is bearing on it.

And requiring a design professional to read a load table is, in my opinion, asinine.

I thought we were under the assumption that this opening was in a non load bearing, gable ended wall.

I am a bit confused though by your last statement.  Do you, as a DP, not look at load and span tables?  Or do you feel it is just beneath you to do so?


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a wrote;



> What gives you the credential to review the calcs. What measures have you taken to learn engineering?


At a minimum, what the State of Oregon requires now and before they accepted ICC certification without any other experience.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I thought we were under the assumption that this opening was in a non load bearing, gable ended wall.


  That makes sense.



			
				rktect 1 said:
			
		

> I am a bit confused though by your last statement.  Do you, as a DP, not look at load and span tables?  Or do you feel it is just beneath you to do so?


No.

My point is that requiring a design professional to size a typical residential garage door header is asinine.

Any reasonably intelligent person ought to be able to do so safely with modest effort and a wee bit of diligence.

And if a building official, inspector, or plans examiner cannot verify it's adequacy, they should not be in their position.


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

brudgers - I agree with your reference to effort and diligence, but the original question was, "Can it be done prescriptively from the IRC?"  What span table would you apply the effort and diligence to?

Another way of asking this is, "What size beam is sufficient for a 16' gable opening, and what table/section of the IRC did you find it in?"


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

VP there is not a header chart in the IRC or IBC which will allow a span of more than 14 ft 1 inch. You have to go somewhere else.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> rick a wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the credential to review the calcs. What measures have you taken to learn engineering?
Click to expand...

At a minimum, what the State of Oregon requires now and before they accepted ICC certification without any other experience.   

If it was the minimum, it doesn't say a whole lot in the area that matters - understanding engineering sciences and the associated math.

It doesn't say alot. You are good at reading the code book. Whoo Hoo!

Now, it is the other education that you taken that matters.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> brudgers - I agree with your reference to effort and diligence, but the original question was, "Can it be done prescriptively from the IRC?"  What span table would you apply the effort and diligence to?Another way of asking this is, "What size beam is sufficient for a 16' gable opening, and what table/section of the IRC did you find it in?"


Very simple... statististical plot theory of interpolation would give a reasonable answer.

A better thing is buy a book on basic engineering like:

"Structural Engineering for Architects" by Kenneth Lauer

or download some of the ones in PDF format from the late 1800s and early 1900s as the equations are still the same and size it to the current code required loads. The math and engineering formulas hasn't changed in regards to simple beam loads in all this time.

LEARN, STUDY and UNDERSTAND what you are reading. PS: The equation is in the book.

If a person is intelligent and dilligent AND prudent - he/she would do one of the prudent paths - hire a qualified professional or learn how to do it competently before performing the work. There is always two prudent paths. Of course, if the person has already learned how to do it competently, the person would be able to perform the task.


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick & mtlogcabin - you're missing the point of my original question (and after 6 pages, the subject has drifted!)

I KNOW that the span tables in the IRC only go to 14'1".  I also know that you CAN'T interpolate beyond the range of table values, only within that range.  Extrapolation is not allowed.  I also know that you CAN do the load calcs from info in books you mentioned...  BUT my question was for the average applicant/homeowner that has been told that the IRC is a prescriptive path towards designing a simple structure - and that's what he wants to do.  My engineering degree gets me where I want to go... but the applicant is initially being told (by ICC and many jurisdictions) that the answers are in the book.  I don't see a simple one-story detached garage with a double door as being too far "outside the box" for IRC design, and I feel the code should be amended.

Telling a homeowner to apply more effort and be more diligent is not the type of customer service I am aiming for.  But designing his beam from non-adopted (but reputable) references is also not my goal.


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The IRC allows for individual members to be engineered (that's why we can accept trusses.. plain old 2x4's can't span that far)... and we don't require the entire structure to be engineered... LVLs are no different.. it's an engineered component.. (just make sure you get the manufacturers layout for your files).

God, I'm glad I didn't read the whole thread!

R301 .. engineered design


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Paul,

"but the applicant is initially being told (by ICC and many jurisdictions) that the answers are in the book."

That's the first problem; because the IRC is not a how to book; it only reflects the minimum requirements; and allowance for using engineered wood products like LVLs to accomodate longer spans than are in the IRC tables.

If they want a two car single-door garage; they are going to have to have a wall that is at least 18' 8" to accomodate the narrow wall requirement of 16" inch minimum and the 16' opening.  In this case they are simply going to have to use an engineered beam.

I've seen too many swayback garage opening where the beam couldn't support the load (usually load bearing walls).

"I don't see a simple one-story detached garage with a double door as being too far "outside the box" for IRC design, and I feel the code should be amended."

Are you thinking that; if the wall opening is in a non-load bearing exterior wall; that perhaps something like double 2" X 12"s would work?  (Roof and Ceiling not being supported by that wall?)  And, that something like that should be the amended code change?

Or did I just fall off the turnip truck into a pile of horse manure?    

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Nope, UB, you were probably driving the Turnip Truck, if I'm any judge of character!  I was just suggesting that the tables could be expanded to span 16' since it is such a common span for a common use.  Whatever the beam size - or combination of beams, necessary.  I don't want sway-back garages either, but doubling/tripling/quadrupling dimensional lumber is used elsewhere in the IRC, so I simply would like to be used for this common problem.  I guess I can keep wishing...  !!!


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



> I was just suggesting that the tables could be expanded to span 16' since it is such a common span for a common use.


We had a local engineer do just that (16' and 18') based on our local loads


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick A wrote:



> You are good at reading the code book. Whoo Hoo!


Thank you, for the kudos. I find that being able to read and comprehend what one is reading is essential to this line of work.  Even for a non-professional designer, I would think it to be important for you to develop your reading and comprehensive skills.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> brudgers - I agree with your reference to effort and diligence, but the original question was, "Can it be done prescriptively from the IRC?"  What span table would you apply the effort and diligence to?Another way of asking this is, "What size beam is sufficient for a 16' gable opening, and what table/section of the IRC did you find it in?"


R301.1.3

It says "in conformance with accepted engineering practice," not "by a PE."

Looking at span tables for a simple case is both "accepted engineering practice" and something which need not require a PE.

It's also something that any person responsible for reviewing plans or inspecting construction ought to be able to recognize or verify.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> BUT my question was for the average applicant/homeowner that has been told that the IRC is a prescriptive path towards designing a simple structure - and that's what he wants to do.  My engineering degree gets me where I want to go... but the applicant is initially being told (by ICC and many jurisdictions) that the answers are in the book.  I don't see a simple one-story detached garage with a double door as being too far "outside the box" for IRC design, and I feel the code should be amended.


R301.1.3 covers the issue.

The code doesn't need amendment.

It's already got to much prescription.

And too little common sense.


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

can't expand the tables to include lumber than won't span that far.. we don't see old growth lumber anymore..  a header is not like a girder than you can just keep adding width to... the wall is only going to be a 2x4 or 2x6

it's an engineered product.. and you get their specs.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The header table lumps all species together.

It doesn't include SS, No. 1 grade, or machine rated lumber.

It also requires a Ground Snow Load of 30 PSF...that's more than they see in southern Iowa, all of Ohio, and just about everywhere west of the Dakota's per 301.2(5).

And yet there's six friggin' pages of light guage metal stud header tables.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				peach said:
			
		

> The IRC allows for individual members to be engineered (that's why we can accept trusses.. plain old 2x4's can't span that far)... and we don't require the entire structure to be engineered... LVLs are no different.. it's an engineered component.. (just make sure you get the manufacturers layout for your files).God, I'm glad I didn't read the whole thread!
> 
> R301 .. engineered design


The answer is IN the book but in an indirect way. It tells you where to look and what code or engineering standards to use and so on. It would lead on to various resources.

A 16-ft wide garage door is not a prescriptive thing. It isn't even a standard garage door and why would a person with an automobile need a 16-wide door. That is why they make two 10-wide doors with a little space between the doors.

Prescriptive method is only good for average home-owner vehicles and occupancy uses not odd or unusual uses. Those are not the norm. If it does not follow the normal suburban lifestyle then it is not going to be entirely prescriptive. You just have to engineer the component. If the home-owner can not engineer the component because they lack the skill then they should hire a professional who can to do that.

In Oregon, it can be anyone if it is an exempt building but the documents would need to be resubmitted with calcs performed to accepted standards. This will likely be an engineer because a building designer would not be doing a component only deal as that can get messy in legal matters.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Rick A wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are good at reading the code book. Whoo Hoo!
Click to expand...

Thank you, for the kudos. I find that being able to read and comprehend what one is reading is essential to this line of work.  Even for a non-professional designer, I would think it to be important for you to develop your reading and comprehensive skills.   

Sure, I know and have read what you have wrote.

However, you haven't entirely answered the question I asked. What did you do to achieve the knowledge necessary to calculate advance structural calculations and understand the calculations.  How do you know if the beam is sufficient if you don't know anything about engineering sciences and the calculations involved. Do you know how to read the equations and math involved. Do you understand what you are looking at when looking at such calcs. How did you get that knowledge?

Identify that.


----------



## north star

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

*VP,*

*Because the span tables don't address this conundrum directly, around here, we*

*typically ask the designer of the plans to clarify their plans for the proposed loads*

*that will be placed upon them.   Most of the time, they will go the the supplier*

*of the lvl's or lam. beams or glu-lams. and get one designed for that specific*

*application.   We then get a copy of those designed plans and attach to the*

*originally submitted plans.     We typically do not get a design seal & signature*

*from an architect or engineer on something as simple as your original*

*application [ the 16' garage door opening  ].     When the loads or structural*

*design warrants it, we then require a DP to provide their input.*

*This WAS what you originally requested waaaaaaaaaay back 7 pages ago,*

*wasn't it?  * 

*Careful now, this thread could turn into another "stairways-to-the attic"*

*discussion.   :lol:*


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				peach said:
			
		

> can't expand the tables to include lumber than won't span that far.. we don't see old growth lumber anymore..  a header is not like a girder than you can just keep adding width to... the wall is only going to be a 2x4 or 2x6it's an engineered product.. and you get their specs.


Sure you can. They don't always have to be solid hewn beams but also will give span information needed for built-up beams.

Haven't you heard of lap splicing joints with each ply with staggered joints because of different length lumber being used. There are many lap-splice techniques to make a Built-up beam that spans well over 30-ft. A built-up would have general deflection/shear and section property values similar to that of solid hewn lumber but there is a nailing / glue specification needed to keep a "built-up beam" acting as a singular unit.

There is even some code specifications for Built-Up beams.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



> It isn't even a standard garage door and why would a person with an automobile need a 16-wide door. That is why they make two 10-wide doors with a little space between the doors.


A 16 ft garage door is standard here due to the narrow lots.

16 ft door with 2 ft of shear panels on each side equates to a 20 ft wide garage

Two 10 ft doors with a little space between doors and two 2 ft shear panels is more than a 24 ft wide.


----------



## vegas paul

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Thanks, north star - I'll just tell 'em to slap some structural strap net on it and it's good to go.    :lol: (that's almost as good as an old-fashioned attic stair argument!)


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It isn't even a standard garage door and why would a person with an automobile need a 16-wide door. That is why they make two 10-wide doors with a little space between the doors.
Click to expand...

A 16 ft garage door is standard here due to the narrow lots.

16 ft door with 2 ft of shear panels on each side equates to a 20 ft wide garage

Two 10 ft doors with a little space between doors and two 2 ft shear panels is more than a 24 ft wide.

Hmm... they maybe locally common but not industry standard. The code prescriptive path is only good for industry standard norms. Not very good for industry irregularity. This is because IRC is developed on a national level. Industry norm for your site condition you indicated is one car wide garages. (ie. 10-wide to maybe 12' wide garage doors.


----------



## Mango

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I have seen houses that were built back in the 30's that do not have any headers above the windows or doors. The framing members are at 24" centers, and amazingly the houses are still standing. They may not be perfectly straight or level anymore but still standing. That is food for thought.

Of course we do not have all of the severe winds and snow loads but we do have very hungry termites that don't care what size beams and headers you use.   

Mango


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

We don't do the design.. would I have a 16' garage door?  (well, I have had.. but it was heavy as hell, since it was installed, in florida, after hurricane andrew)... do we care why they prefer a 16' door over 2-8' doors?  no..

Once they chose to have (I assume) a bearing situation over that big an opening, it's not in the IRC cookbook anymore..

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself).  If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability.. here's a hint.. it won't really work in a bearing wall.. gable end.. maybe, but it'll sag under it's own weight.. the garage door won't work right after a few years..


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				peach said:
			
		

> You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself).  If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..


Amazing.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

peach wrote:



> You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability.. here's a hint.. it won't really work in a bearing wall.. gable end.. maybe, but it'll sag under it's own weight.. the garage door won't work right after a few years..


You were joking right? Say it ain’t so.  :shock:

rick a wrote:



> Identify that.


I’ve already posted all the credential information that’s necessary to review and inspect in Oregon and most other states. If you know of some rule that prohibits a through structural plan review with these credentials post it. :roll:


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

If a design is outside the prescriptive in IRC the stamped submittal “rules”. Having said that, the responsibility of the BO with performance based design is to make sure that sufficient expertise is present on the review staff (or third party) to adequately judge the acceptability of the design. I don’t believe this responsibility, or the term "adequately", includes mathematical review of every structural calculation of the design.

What Peach said.


----------



## Min&Max

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Why wouldn't the garage door(overhead) work if the header sags? It isn't as though the garage door actually fits IN the opening. In this area 3 stall garages often use a 16' door and a 9' door.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Identify that.
Click to expand...

I’ve already posted all the credential information that’s necessary to review and inspect in Oregon and most other states. If you know of some rule that prohibits a through structural plan review with these credentials post it. :roll:

Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion - I don't see (then I still haven't navigated through every page on BCD's website) ANYTHING regarding even one course in engineering. So, how the F*** do you think or remotely can possibly understand squat about engineering calculations without learning engineering (either in class or self-study) in addition to your required education requirement.

So in short, I ask about YOUR education. If it is the minimum then you do not even have the qualifications needed to check calcs. You can check things on a prescriptive level only.

I'm not talking about the minimum education required to be a Plan Reviewer or B.O. Some with a higher degree of education like an Architecture or engineering degree can qualify for those position but it is not the absolute minimum. (Some local jurisdiction may have minimum job qualifications but this is not the minimum for certification qualification.


----------



## pwood

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself).  If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..
Click to expand...

Amazing.

 i agree with brudgers and disagree with the peach. turning a blind eye to something that you know is wrong is well, wrong!


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				pwood said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself).  If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing.
Click to expand...

 i agree with brudgers and disagree with the peach. turning a blind eye to something that you know is wrong is well, wrong!

I agree that turning a blind eye to something is suspecting to be wrong is the wrong thing. The B.O. or Plan Reviewer does not have to do everything. Just what is prudent. My statement to Kil, is that he should let the calcs be reviewed by a qualified person to be able to review the calcs in a competent manner if he doesn't have any engineering/architectural background.

It is an education thing. This doesn't me that you are neglecting your duty to review the plans but you are getting professional help to review highly complex mathematical equations. You are ensuring that those matters are reviewed in the most competent and prudent manner possible.

What is more prudent, run the calcs yourself and screw up because you don't understand the mathematic engineering equation OR having someone who knows it check the calcs and report to you under your overall supervision.

The point is having those things reviewed and getting the prudent help you need where needed.

It does not serve to safeguard public health, safety and welfare to not have those reviewed. I agree with Kil in that regard. Kil, I am still waiting for an exact answer to my question.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I don't believe the calcs need to be reviewed at all. The building department should review the design loads used in accordance with the code and agree the engineer used the correct loads, wind, snow, seismic, soil classifications etc. Just like inspections are representive of the work performed so is a plan review. We don't nor can we check everything especially in small departments. Can I question an engineers design without looking at the calcs? You bet! Peach gave a good example we all know it is questionable (no you don't accept it and move on)

Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department

IBC 1603.1 General.

Construction documents shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned. The design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.8 shall be indicated on the construction documents.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

mtlogcabin wrote;



> Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department


I don't see this has a "peer" review, rather just insuring that the work is code complaint. Isn't that our job has code officials??

rick a wrote:



> Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion


I've tried to keep it simple for you, but it appears that you don't comprehend, perhaps professional help woulld work for you.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I don't believe the calcs need to be reviewed at all. The building department should review the design loads used in accordance with the code and agree the engineer used the correct loads, wind, snow, seismic, soil classifications etc. Just like inspections are representive of the work performed so is a plan review. We don't nor can we check everything especially in small departments. Can I question an engineers design without looking at the calcs? You bet! Peach gave a good example we all know it is questionable (no you don't accept it and move on)Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department
> 
> IBC 1603.1 General.
> 
> Construction documents shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned. The design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.8 shall be indicated on the construction documents.


Wouldn't checking the calcs is to determine if the calcs used and math will result in compliance with code. We have to check if the design will meet the code conditions. Meeting codes means to meet the conditions since building failure is mostly a result of a structural failure under a certain condition. Beams fail because it can not support the load under a particular prescribed condition. This is what codes are suppose to safeguard. System failures under prescribed conditions. This is a pandora's box.

Anyway, I would say simply that it is pertinent that the calcs which the design is almost always based on (with an engineered design) be reviewed and where necessary - by a qualified person. The difference between checking the calcs for code compliance and peer-review is the difference between code compliance and "best practices" of a profession (ie. Professional Standard of Care) which may not always be equal. Code is the absolute minimum. Professional standard of care is equal to or greater then the minimum standard of code. The review is for different purposes.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> rick a wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion
Click to expand...

I've tried to keep it simple for you, but it appears that you don't comprehend, perhaps professional help woulld work for you.    

Plan Reviewers are not required to take engineering courses for certification (from what I can tell) unless you have some proof otherwise which I would be happy to see. If there isn't an engineering education, then you don't have ANY engineering knowledge and therefore NOT qualified to review engineering calcs UNLESS you attained that knowledge.

You are not giving a straight answer.

You can be a B.O. with only an Associates degree or even a high school diploma. just work with a contractor for a number of years and pass some exams. That doesn't say a lot. You miss the point. Just answer the F-word question.

Do you really want to rely the health, safety and welfare of a 10,000 people in a stadium with a cable-supported roof system to the calculation review of a Plan Reviewer with only a high-school diploma and minimal certification as a Plan Reviewer?

God, hope the Engineer did his/her job right because I'm afraid that Plan Reviewer couldn't check the calcs if his and 10,000 other lives depended on it.

I know this is an extreme example compare to the header of this little garage.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick A;

Plain and simple, I have the experience, education and certifications to work as a commercial plans examiner and do a through plan review in among other disciples, structural. What you think is enough or not has no bearing.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

If a person can not calculate the gravity loads on a header for a simple garage, they have less business reviewing plans than a homeowner does desiging the beam.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Rick A;Plain and simple, I have the experience, education and certifications to work as a commercial plans examiner and do a through plan review in among other disciples, structural. What you think is enough or not has no bearing.


What is that education, experience and certifications. Provide full itemize listing.

You have...

You have...

.... what? High School Diploma and hmm.... a number of years as a framer.... doesn't require you to know engineering. Pass some exams that says you can read some blueprints. (technical prints). It doesn't require knowing how to engineer and engineering science.

Hmm... pass some exams that says you understand the code book and how to read blueprints. Ok. Not enough. Doesn't require any knowledge of engineering sciences and the math.

To be able to review engineering calcs will need the requirement of the knowledge of engineering sciences. You think that high school education is enough?

Alright, how do you determine the maximum tensile force on the following cable.

"A cable is supported at points 100-ft. apart. The right support is at a level 5-ft. higher then the left support. The cable carries a concentrated load of 10 kips at mid-span with a final sag of 5-ft relative to the left support. " Report tensile force in units of kips.

Nobody help Kilitact.


----------



## rktect 1

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well, this has been a lot of fun.   :roll:


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a,

I work five days a week at my job has a commercial plans examiner, for a number of years. Now a non-professional designer wants to test me.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick after reading your comments here and on the old bb on this subject (reviewing calcs) I hope some day you will come work over on the dark side and realize your ideas on how plan reviews should be conducted are not practical for most building departments. Unless you are lucky enough to work for Kilitact


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick A;Plain and simple, I have the experience, education and certifications to work as a commercial plans examiner and do a through plan review in among other disciples, structural. What you think is enough or not has no bearing.
Click to expand...

What is that education, experience and certifications. Provide full itemize listing.

You have...

You have...

.... what? High School Diploma and hmm.... a number of years as a framer.... doesn't require you to know engineering. Pass some exams that says you can read some blueprints. (technical prints). It doesn't require knowing how to engineer and engineering science.

Hmm... pass some exams that says you understand the code book and how to read blueprints. Ok. Not enough. Doesn't require any knowledge of engineering sciences and the math.

To be able to review engineering calcs will need the requirement of the knowledge of engineering sciences. You think that high school education is enough?

Alright, how do you determine the maximum tensile force on the following cable.

"A cable is supported at points 100-ft. apart. The right support is at a level 5-ft. higher then the left support. The cable carries a concentrated load of 10 kips at mid-span with a final sag of 5-ft relative to the left support. " Report tensile force in units of kips.

Nobody help Kilitact.

You can't without knowing the physical properties of the cable.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Just because I am not licensed does not mean I am not professional.

You only have to look at my plans for maybe a few weeks. I may have to spend 9 months to design and spec things out. I design what is to be built. So, I am more qualified on the matters of building design then you are as it appears. You say nothing about your education other then pointing to the minimum. It doesn't say much of anything.

If you simply said,

I got ____________ degree in _____________ at ____________________ college/university.

I self-studied _______________ and studied these following books: (list)

I worked at ___________________ as ____________ for ________ months or years.

Just things that would answer the darn question. Now you got another question to answer, smartass.

You claim you are qualified to review calcs. Then it means you are qualified to answer that question.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If a person can not calculate the gravity loads on a header for a simple garage, they have less business reviewing plans than a homeowner does desiging the beam.


One of the points of this discussion is, even if we CAN (and many of us in fact can,) it is not part of our duties while representing our jurisdictions.

Accepting a appropriate stamped plan is code compliant, assuming we have made a reasonable effort to verify that the stamped DP is qualified in his/her line of work, and that they did or had close supervision over the work that they stamped, and the presumptive loads are correct for the application. That is a BO's due diligence.

There is no way any department in the country recalculates every piece of the engineering in every submitted plan. If you know engineering, and you know plans, that becomes obvious. Who checks the plan checker? The plan checker will also make errors. There will always be errors, omissions and conflicts in building plans.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> You can't without knowing the physical properties of the cable.


Actually you can. What is asked is the tensile force on the following cable. Figure the cable is a standard steel wire rope cable. The question doesn't need to get to that stage of determining size of cable rope.

I'm focusing on a more theoretical engineering science level.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



> You can't without knowing the physical properties of the cable


**buzzzz**

Wrong


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> One of the points of this discussion is, even if we CAN (and many of us in fact can,) it is not part of our duties while representing our jurisdictions.Accepting a appropriate stamped plan is code compliant, assuming we have made a reasonable effort to verify that the stamped DF is qualified in his/her line of work, and that they did or had close supervision over the work that they stamped, and the presumptive loads are correct for the application. That is a BO's due diligence.
> 
> There is no way any department in the country recalculates every piece of the engineering in every submitted plan. If you know engineering, and you know plans, that becomes obvious. Who checks the plan checker? The plan checker will also make errors. There will always be errors, omissions and conflicts in building plans.


I was not suggesting that every calculation be checked.

I was merely saying:

1. members sized by designed professionals should be spot checked.

2. sealed engineering should not be assumed to be compliant.

These comments were specifically made in the context of a single member (header) on a small project (garage).

This led me to:

3.  A person who cannot determine the adequacy of a simple garage door header has no business reviewing plans.

Based on your post, I'll add:

4. A person who won't reject an inadequately sized beam because it was sealed by an engineer has no buisness reviewing plans either.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick and Heaven,

A 100' cable hangs between two supports without an attached external load.

Is it in tension or compression?

Which and how much?


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick and Heaven,

A thread is suspended between two supports 100' apart.

A five kip load is attached at the center.

How many threads do you have?


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Rick after reading your comments here and on the old bb on this subject (reviewing calcs) I hope some day you will come work over on the dark side and realize your ideas on how plan reviews should be conducted are not practical for most building departments. Unless you are lucky enough to work for Kilitact


I know. My point with Kil is if he insists on checking every calc then he should have assistance or be adequately qualified to actually perform anything that maybe placed in his office. The minimum Plan Examiner qualification requirements are a far cry from the mimimal qualifications needed to check every calc.

I dropped a "bombshell" of a question for him. He needs to have the level an degree to design & calc the systems in which he wants to review the calcs for.

If he insist that every calc be checked then he better have an equivalent level of knowledge in engineering as those preparing the plans & calcs or have someone who is equally qualified assist. That is my point.

I asked about his qualification. He didn't give a real answer that shows the neccessary qualification to do so. I then gave him that lovely question regarding cable rope. I have no issue with light-weight systems like header beam over a garage door of a small garage. Kil opened himself up to a pandora's box.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Rick and Heaven,A 100' cable hangs between two supports without an attached external load.
> 
> Is it in tension or compression?
> 
> Which and how much?


In fundamental cable rope system, it is almost always in tension. So assume that when a load is applied, it is going to be in tension.

This is due to the flexible nature of cables. This systems are similar to suspension bridges.

This is a "Single Concentrated Load" system. Assume the cable as a "Free body". In real life, there is more factors often involved.


----------



## north star

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

*O.K. Paul, ya see what you started?  D`OH !!   Almost the same members too!  * 

*This has all the trimmings to resemble the "stairways-to-attics" thread, ...eeeeerrrr*

*rumble, ...eeeeeerrrr battle.*

*Just where is that packsaddle with the popcorn eating emoticon?   :lol:*


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Rick and Heaven,A thread is suspended between two supports 100' apart.
> 
> A five kip load is attached at the center.
> 
> How many threads do you have?


The purpose of the equation is to determine the load. The number of wires in a strand, diameter of wire, number strands in the rope is not necessary for the actual question at this stage. That is determined AFTER you determine the load. You spec those out when you know what the load conditions are.

Don't worry about the number wires. Assume, you have sufficient wire diameter, number of wires in each strand and number of strands in the rope.

10 kips.

Determine the maximum tensile force on the following cable.

"A cable is supported at points 100-ft. apart. The right support is at a level 5-ft. higher then the left support. The cable carries a concentrated load of 10 kips at mid-span with a final sag of 5-ft relative to the left support. " Report tensile force in units of kips.

It would essentially sag 10 ft, relative to the right support.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

North Star,

Popcorn?  If Pack read just read the first few pages of this thread; he probably ran out and bought a case of Old Grandad.

And, you should be banned for three days for cursing; "stairways-to-attics thread".    

Rick,

I was negligent in not welcoming you to the forum when you first posted;

Welcome home.     

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> North Star,Popcorn?  If Pack read just read the first few pages of this thread; he probably ran out and bought a case of Old Grandad.
> 
> And, you should be banned for three days for cursing; "stairways-to-attics thread".
> 
> Rick,
> 
> I was negligent in not welcoming you to the forum when you first posted;
> 
> Welcome home.
> 
> Uncle Bob


LOL... Yeah... I still got it in me.   :lol:

Anyway, blame Kil for opening his big fat mouth... :arrow:      :cry:

Don't cry Kil.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

My local snow loading exceeds the charts in the IRC anyway. Go figure. Somehow we manage to build things that don't kill anybody.


----------



## High Desert

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Actually the answer to Brudgers question on the thread with a 5 kip load would be you have two threads. The thread was not of sufficient strngth to support a 5 kip load so it broke.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> Actually the answer to Brudgers question on the thread with a 5 kip load would be you have two threads. The thread was not of sufficient strngth to support a 5 kip load so it broke.


It is 10 kips in my original question and the question is what is the maximum tensile force on the cable.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				High Desert said:
			
		

> Actually the answer to Brudgers question on the thread with a 5 kip load would be you have two threads. The thread was not of sufficient strngth to support a 5 kip load so it broke.


Oh. ok. I was interpreting things in a wholly different manner on context.

I was reading the whole matters differently. I wasn't reading it as a test question to me. I suppose it was a completely interpretation matters.

This can depend on the diameter of the thread / wire rope.

Brudgers, if you were asking what diameter steel rope is needed if you have a maximum tensile force of 5 kips then I would take a simple approach to this as I have a rope table. This makes life easier.

I would have a factor of safety of 2 at the least. 10 kips = 5 tons

In this case, I would use: 3/8" wire rope with Class C zinc coating which has a Minimum breaking strength of 5.9 tons.

This is based on some tables dating back to 1981. Basically, 30 year old charts.

Idealistically, I would go with 7/16" Class A Zinc coated steel structural wire rope.


----------



## High Desert

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick, I just couldn't resist ribbing you a little.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

It was all in how I interpret his question. As for Kil.... lol, has he figured out the answer yet?

HD: It is just a lovely & fun question for Kil.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well, if I go back to work as a Building Inspector, and pull up to a house for a framing inspection; where there is a cable across the garage door opening; I'm not even going to look at the garage door header.

I'm going to put a stop work order on the site until an Engineer sends me a signed, sealed inspection report on the cable.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Well, if I go back to work as a Building Inspector, and pull up to a house for a framing inspection; where there is a cable across the garage door opening; I'm not even going to look at the garage door header.I'm going to put a stop work order on the site until an Engineer sends me a signed, sealed inspection report on the cable.
> 
> Uncle Bob


Well... duh. These systems would be well-designed and all the calcs prepared but doubt it would be a header piece for a door.

It has specific application of use.

It was a point on regards to "reviewing calcs" and not just for headers.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick,

"It was a point on regards to "reviewing calcs" and not just for headers."

I know, just couldn't resist kidding   

There isn't one plans examiner out 1,000 that is qualified to do engineering calculations and there never will be; and, very few Municipalities that can afford to hire an Engineer to do the job.  When most of us have to do plan reviews we use our experience, the codes, and engineered wood tables; and when something out of the ordinary shows up, we get the appropriate help we need from those who are more knowledgable.

Uncle Bob


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Rick,"It was a point on regards to "reviewing calcs" and not just for headers."
> 
> I know, just couldn't resist kidding
> 
> There isn't one plans examiner out 1,000 that is qualified to do engineering calculations and there never will be; and, very few Municipalities that can afford to hire an Engineer to do the job.  When most of us have to do plan reviews we use our experience, the codes, and engineered wood tables; and when something out of the ordinary shows up, we get the appropriate help we need from those who are more knowledgable.
> 
> Uncle Bob


Absolutely agree. This is EXACTLY the right way to do it. Don't perform work beyond your level of expertise. Hiring/contracting an engineer to do calc review for a specific project(s) that requires that extra help is the best way to do it. I wouldn't want a Plan Reviewer to go over their expertise. It is very bad. This is the point I was trying to point to Kilitact.

I hope he understands that and practice within his scope of expertise.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

well thank you for the advice, I'm well aware of my limitations  rick, but it rings hollow, when I see you, a non-professional designer, submit post that appear to advocate your ability, far beyond your  scope of expertise.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> well thank you for the advice, I'm well aware of my limitations  rick, but it rings hollow, when I see you, a non-professional designer, submit post that appear to advocate your ability, far beyond your  scope of expertise.


I have explain before areas of my expertise. Although I am not licensed because I didn't spend $25K-30K a year to go to a university then x number of years of internships and take some exams.

Since the legal system like in Oregon has been a legal system. To become an architect, you got to get your NAAB degree (spending that $25K-30K x 5 years) and then the 3 years of IDP and then exams and don't forget all the fees. This becomes a financial barrier.

I said to myself, I am not going to be bound by these financial barriers and work AROUND and surmount the barriers in other ways. So I chose to be a building designer (then work my way through these barriers). Learn what I need to learn to design buildings. What is going to be taught in architectural school that can not be learned with all the resources that over 10,000 years of history, documents and resources have became accessible at the click of a mouse button. What do you think we made this WORLD WIDE WEB - the INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY. You I learn what is taught ANYWAY. Get the textbook materials that teaches me about engineering, architecture, drafting & lettering, ect. All of which helps and is a necessary knowledge to be acquired to design buildings.

I'm not critical of a person who self-study to a degree of being competent. Being competent is the key of what it is to be professional. Being competent is the degree of level that gives you prudent credential to do the work.

When you call me a "Non-Professional Designer" then you are calling me an incompetent designer because if you are non-professional then you are Incompetent. Non-professional means that you are not competent. Licensure is NOT the only measure of what makes a person a professional. It only is a legal measure to obtain a title and full practice right.

If a person is incompetent then they have no business offering services to the public.

You keep calling me a "Non-Professional Designer". That is like calling me someone who is not competent to design buildings.

That is what it means to call a person a "Non-Professional". A non-professional is someone who does not have the education, experience or skill necessary to do their work independent of supervision & control NOR the competence to offer the service to public. An average / common home owner is a "Non-Professional". They often do not have ANY education or experience in designing buildings. There is very little if any building designer who doesn't have ANY education & experience in designing buildings. The majority of them do it on a daily basis. Many of them have degrees in architecture and/or related topics.

I am not an architect but that does NOT mean I am not a professional. It is an insult to over 200 college credits and over 7 years of 20-40 hours a week of studying architecture/engineering subject matters on my own in addition to formal college education.

Would you say that 75% of the architects before 1919 (when license laws where enacted in Oregon) where all "Non-Professional". If I recall right, it was most of them that wrote the book on what 85-90% of architecture and engineering that we know today is based on. The very equation necessary to calculate the beam header was written over 100 years ago and is still used today.

We are still working on knowledge created 100+ years ago. We simply addressed minimum acceptable standards and I understand and look to the code for what the minimum accepted load conditions. I know multiple ways to perform non-prescriptive designs.

I'm not going to get into that in this response.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

For your information, the answer to the question regarding maximum tensile force that I gave you is 34 Kips.

With a factor of safety of 2 - you would spec a steel structural wire rope for 68 Kips which is 34 tons.

A minimum of 7/8" diameter steel wire rope with Class A zinc coating would be required as it has a Minimum breaking strength of 35 tons.

I would go with 1" diameter. Of course, this is for a very limited condition based on the given condition of the equation. Real life situation would be more complicated then that. I gave you a more easier question to answer if you knew something about it.

Yet, I am weary of designing a cable-supported roof system without an engineer. It gets into some very hairy stuff.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

In my opinion, a code officials job is to perform through plan reviews and inspections. For those of you who perform and/or advocate for any less than that, such as “drive by” inspections and plan reviews, I implore you to get additional training or step down and let someone, who’s qualified and has the work ethic, to get the job done correctly.


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Isn't this what a plan reviewer is paid to figure out?  Before it ever gets to the field?


----------



## steveray

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

"I thought my submitted plans were just to get a permit!...I wasn't really gonna build it like that!"

  Nobody is perfect, and all of our work should be checked and rechecked, I don't care how many letters you have after your name! And no one should take offense to that. I had an architect on a brand new $30 mil school job draw a firewall detail with a gap between the top and the non-combustible sheathing, with a line and arrow, labelled "airflow" :shock: giving him the benefit of the doubt,(clerical mistake) I asked "What's up with this detail" he said "We have to vent the roof" :shock:  :shock:  :shock:   I have not been doing this as long as most of you, but I do take my job very seriously, and the amount of incompetent people on the other side of the counter is amazing! As long as we can be civil and keep a dialog, no one should ever be offended that someone is questioning anything. Without questions there is no learning.

Now that we are waaaaay off topic....

Off the soapbox!


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> conarb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple, almost all garage door headers require portal design, and usually narrow portals integrated with the header, this always requires engineering, listen to your uncle.
Click to expand...

In areas with significant lateral loads from sesmic or wind, yes.

In areas without such loads, it's not such an issue.

I'm going to fire a few rounds into this dead horse...

I agree with brudgers... :shock:


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> mtlogcabin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UB I agree and Under StruCalc what you stated is good by 85% with a .198 deflection 46lbs snow 15 lb dead loads. That's why we use StruCalc to double check submitted design loads that are not prepared by an engineer.
Click to expand...

From my time behind the counter, it's probably a good idea to spot check designs submitted by engineers as well.

The Braille method of plan review is not very reliable.

I agree with brudgers... :shock:


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Uncle Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brudgers,"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.
> 
> Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."
> 
> You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.
> 
> I stated that;
> 
> "I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."
> 
> I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.
> 
> Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.
> 
> I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings.  I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.
> 
> Uncle Bob
Click to expand...

If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it  even meets R301.1.3?

Let alone exceeds it?

Other than by braille, I mean.

I agree with brudgers... :shock:


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

steveray wrote;



> "I thought my submitted plans were just to get a permit!...I wasn't really gonna build it like that!"Nobody is perfect, and all of our work should be checked and rechecked, I don't care how many letters you have after your name! And no one should take offense to that. I had an architect on a brand new $30 mil school job draw a firewall detail with a gap between the top and the non-combustible sheathing, with a line and arrow, labelled "airflow"  giving him the benefit of the doubt,(clerical mistake) I asked "What's up with this detail" he said "We have to vent the roof"    I have not been doing this as long as most of you, but I do take my job very seriously, and the amount of incompetent people on the other side of the counter is amazing! As long as we can be civil and keep a dialog, no one should ever be offended that someone is questioning anything. Without questions there is no learning.
> 
> Now that we are waaaaay off topic....Off the soapbox!


Right on target! good post


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> In my opinion, a code officials job is to perform through plan reviews and inspections. For those of you who perform and/or advocate for any less than that, such as “drive by” inspections and plan reviews, I implore you to get additional training or step down and let someone, who’s qualified and has the work ethic, to get the job done correctly.


I don't ask you to do anything less then a thorough plan review. It does NOT mean you have to do all the calcs alone. I do believe that getting help as needed would be the prudent thing but perform everything else. The help is for helping you get things done. Yeah, you are supervising the work but no, you are not taking on something pass your limit.

I implore that you continue to do what you do in a thorough and competent manner within your ability and I implore you get help when you need it so your job is done.

Do you know that when an architect or a designer has certain things in a set of drawings performed by a consultant engineer that we are coordinating our documents together with the consulting engineer and is sort of supervising/coordinating this process. We have a thorough review of the engineer's work with the engineer so that we know what is going on in the plans as we bring the stuff together into the construction documents. Although the engineer has done his/her job of review. We are going over the stuff so it can be integrated with the rest of our documents and we the lead designers of the project can make modifications of the plans as necessary. This is a collaborative team work.

This would be a prudent thing to do. It is not prudent for me to tackle on cable-supported roof systems without an engineer at this time. It isn't absolutely legally required. It is that I don't feel that I have it sufficiently understood to be tackling it on in a professional work. It may be possible that I can successfully design the system but I want to study more about the system before I employ it in actual work. The risk is too high to mess up one bit. I agree that I know some stuff about it and the math but it is not something I am going to risk and endanger the public (client and potentially others) without help of someone who is qualified and that usually is an engineer but I look for someone who understands cable-supported structures and roofs. This is what is prudent. Later, after additional studies in cable-supported roof systems, then I may be able to do without a consulting engineer but I have to evaluate it with another professional matter - LIABILITY.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the _design loading used in the calculations _meets the conditions required?


Exactly...I don't check math, I check design loads chosen.  I don't need to be an engineer to reject calcs that use 25 psf snow loads when we have an amendment requiring 30 psf.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> rktect 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC.  Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6.  I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening.  As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.
Click to expand...

No, a double 2X12 does not work for a 16' opening if the roof is bearing on it.

And requiring a design professional to read a load table is, in my opinion, asinine.

I agree with brudgers... :shock:


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> vegas paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brudgers - I agree with your reference to effort and diligence, but the original question was, "Can it be done prescriptively from the IRC?"  What span table would you apply the effort and diligence to?Another way of asking this is, "What size beam is sufficient for a 16' gable opening, and what table/section of the IRC did you find it in?"
Click to expand...

R301.1.3

It says "in conformance with accepted engineering practice," not "by a PE."

Looking at span tables for a simple case is both "accepted engineering practice" and something which need not require a PE.

It's also something that any person responsible for reviewing plans or inspecting construction ought to be able to recognize or verify.

I agree with brudgers... :shock:


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> The header table lumps all species together.It doesn't include SS, No. 1 grade, or machine rated lumber.
> 
> It also requires a Ground Snow Load of 30 PSF...that's more than they see in southern Iowa, all of Ohio, and just about everywhere west of the Dakota's per 301.2(5).
> 
> And yet there's six friggin' pages of light guage metal stud header tables.


Works for us because we have that very snow load...gee, how convenient...     plus we probably need as much guidance with metal studs as we can get around here...


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> kilitact said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, a code officials job is to perform through plan reviews and inspections. For those of you who perform and/or advocate for any less than that, such as “drive by” inspections and plan reviews, I implore you to get additional training or step down and let someone, who’s qualified and has the work ethic, to get the job done correctly.
Click to expand...

I don't ask you to do anything less then a thorough plan review. It does NOT mean you have to do all the calcs alone. I do believe that getting help as needed would be the prudent thing but perform everything else. The help is for helping you get things done. Yeah, you are supervising the work but no, you are not taking on something pass your limit.

I implore that you continue to do what you do in a thorough and competent manner within your ability and I implore you get help when you need it so your job is done.

Do you know that when an architect or a designer has certain things in a set of drawings performed by a consultant engineer that we are coordinating our documents together with the consulting engineer and is sort of supervising/coordinating this process. We have a thorough review of the engineer's work with the engineer so that we know what is going on in the plans as we bring the stuff together into the construction documents. Although the engineer has done his/her job of review. We are going over the stuff so it can be integrated with the rest of our documents and we the lead designers of the project can make modifications of the plans as necessary. This is a collaborative team work.

This would be a prudent thing to do. It is not prudent for me to tackle on cable-supported roof systems without an engineer at this time. It isn't absolutely legally required. It is that I don't feel that I have it sufficiently understood to be tackling it on in a professional work. It may be possible that I can successfully design the system but I want to study more about the system before I employ it in actual work. The risk is too high to mess up one bit. I agree that I know some stuff about it and the math but it is not something I am going to risk and endanger the public (client and potentially others) without help of someone who is qualified and that usually is an engineer but I look for someone who understands cable-supported structures and roofs. This is what is prudent. Later, after additional studies in cable-supported roof systems, then I may be able to do without a consulting engineer but I have to evaluate it with another professional matter - LIABILITY.

Could we PLEASE get off the cable-supported c**p when the OP had nothing to do with it?  Go start a cable-supported thread somewhere else...and while I am at it, stop questioning my qualifications to do plan reviews when you aren't a licensed design professional.  Of all the times I've questioned designs, whether from DP's or contractors or homeowners, I have NEVER had one question my qualifications.  Sometimes they even thank me...  Stop it, PLEASE.  :x


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If a person can not calculate the gravity loads on a header for a simple garage, they have less business reviewing plans than a homeowner does desiging the beam.


I agree with brudgers... :shock:

I especially like when the homeowner is an engineer!


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

By the way, this discussion is located in Residential Structural » Residential Framing, so leave commercial replies out...


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

well.. then get the engineer to sign off on it..

"They" have the magic seal.. so "they" can make it work..

Ask for a copy of the engineer's insurance.. and sign off on it..

Some battles aren't worth winning.. because they aren't worth fighting..

a COI is good enough for me.. the insurance company can pay for the damages (like Chinese dry wall).


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

1982 Cabo Table R-402.6

Allowable span for headers in walls not supporting floors or roofs 2-2" x 12"   12' to 16'

I believe that would be a gable end

No story above 2-2" x 12"   10' to 12'

footnotes

1 Based on 10 foot tributary loads.....

4 Spans are based on No 2 or Standard Grade Lumber.


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I look around me and I see that half the towns in my county don’t even have building departments, never mind “plan reviewers”, and I think about my one person department, and how I intake all the permit applications (half the time, holding hands with the applicant), including electrical, plumbing, gas piping, raze, change of use, , , etc etc, review the applications for everything from the “telephone number” line to the “architect submitted stamped structural plan” (when there is one), issue the permit and record such in the building permit software, print out the darn building permit card, call the contractor to pick it up or put it in a envelope and mail it, all while answering the phone and directing people as to the permit requirements, make the inspection slips and appointments, GO TO the inspections, ALL the inspections, structural, electric, plumbing, gas piping, insulation, etc etc C of O, clean the snow of the truck and gas it up at the town garage, empty the trash, fix the copy machine, order supplies, work on the budget, spank my shared AA, identify and pursue all zoning violations up to and including court hearings, and now I get to come on this board and have my fellow code enforcement ding me for



> “In my opinion, a code officials job is to perform through plan reviews and inspections. For those of you who perform and/or advocate for any less than that, such as “drive by” inspections and plan reviews, I implore you to get additional training or step down and let someone, who’s qualified and has the work ethic, to get the job done correctly.   ”


Well, thanks.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> I agree with brudgers... :shock:


Did you start new years a little early?


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with brudgers... :shock:
Click to expand...

Did you start new years a little early?

Nope.  When you are right, you are right :!:

Maybe a little too much coffee...I won't start on the Sam Adams till after sundown.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

heaven??



> spank my shared AA


 ?? might be fun    if your saying you can only do a half a.. job has a code official, how do you feel??  :?


----------



## Heaven

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> heaven??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spank my shared AA
Click to expand...

 ?? might be fun    if your saying you can only do a half a.. job has a code official, how do you feel??  :?

I do a great job as a B.O., thanks.

Wonderful thing about life is that there are so many perspectives.

Too bad you are unwilling to accept that your perspective isn't the only valid one.

Nuff of this foolishness, I'm done.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I forget; what  is this thread about?   

Uncle Bob


----------



## texasbo

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				RickAstoria said:
			
		

> For your information, the answer to the question regarding maximum tensile force that I gave you is 34 Kips.With a factor of safety of 2 - you would spec a steel structural wire rope for 68 Kips which is 34 tons.
> 
> A minimum of 7/8" diameter steel wire rope with Class A zinc coating would be required as it has a Minimum breaking strength of 35 tons.
> 
> I would go with 1" diameter. Of course, this is for a very limited condition based on the given condition of the equation. Real life situation would be more complicated then that. I gave you a more easier question to answer if you knew something about it.
> 
> Yet, I am weary of designing a cable-supported roof system without an engineer. It gets into some very hairy stuff.


I'm getting a little late to the party here, so nobody may care about my response or my opinions.

Rick, actually there are 3 discrete components, and therefore (in your example) 3 discrete stresses in the cables, and that's very important. Yes, the maximum stress is of course in the cable on the right hand side, and my calculations yielded 34.05K. The cable on the left hand side experiences 33.64K, and of course the vertical cable (or whatever the suspending element may be) suspending the 10K load is not carrying any horizontal load components, so is only under 10K of tensile stress.

And if you, as a building designer, are designing cable roof systems and they are being accepted by any jurisdiction

 in the country, I would like to see the state law regulating the practice of engineering for the state in which you are doing work, and the code amendments for the jurisdiction that is accepting your design. Your statement about "usually" consulting an engineer when designing such systems frightens me to the core.

For anyone who cares, I think it is perfectly acceptable for any building professional to question the design assumptions, the calculations, the drawings, etc.  for any submittal that comes through their jurisdiction, regardless of who designs or submits it. Doing so does not "make you liable for the design", or "responsible for the work"; that is B.S. Questioning any submittal is not only acceptable, but the responsible thing to do if you suspect something is not right.

Of course I also agree with those who say that if the building professional does not feel comfortable or qualified to challenge a design, they are certainly not obligated to do so.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> I'm getting a little late to the party here, so nobody may care about my response or my opinions.Rick, actually there are 3 discrete components, and therefore (in your example) 3 discrete stresses in the cables, and that's very important. Yes, the maximum stress is of course in the cable on the right hand side, and my calculations yielded 34.05K. The cable on the left hand side experiences 33.64K, and of course the vertical cable (or whatever the suspending element may be) suspending the 10K load is not carrying any horizontal load components, so is only under 10K of tensile stress.
> 
> And if you, as a building designer, are designing cable roof systems and they are being accepted by any jurisdiction
> 
> in the country, I would like to see the state law regulating the practice of engineering for the state in which you are doing work, and the code amendments for the jurisdiction that is accepting your design. Your statement about "usually" consulting an engineer when designing such systems frightens me to the core.
> 
> For anyone who cares, I think it is perfectly acceptable for any building professional to question the design assumptions, the calculations, the drawings, etc.  for any submittal that comes through their jurisdiction, regardless of who designs or submits it. Doing so does not "make you liable for the design", or "responsible for the work"; that is B.S. Questioning any submittal is not only acceptable, but the responsible thing to do if you suspect something is not right.
> 
> Of course I also agree with those who say that if the building professional does not feel comfortable or qualified to challenge a design, they are certainly not obligated to do so.


We are talking maximum tensile force which is the most critical thing. As that is the peak load. Nothing is said of specific points because certain points will have higher force and the cable needs to not break at the maximum stress. You numbers agree with my numbers.  I agree and you point out some very good points. I have the answer to the question itself. I do understand that there is potential for all three load stress components to be concentrated to a single point at a "Moment" and other factors including flutter and so on. All of which is outside the scope of the single question. Real life, is much more then that on question such as a complete roof system.

Note: IIRC - Single Concentrated Load System. I think that was what I said.

When I say, I usually "consulting an engineer" for this kind of stuff is that sophisticated calcs like this - I may perform but only if I feel comfortable designing such a system. as I said, I would likely want a "engineer" on-board when designing a system with such a roof system. It isn't an easy system to design for. Something I might do on an occasion might be a fairly simple truss while at other times may have an engineer. Cable-supported roof systems are a bit on the weary side so I am not going to tackle on this without an engineer until I am comfortable with the math involved for an entire roof system where I can competently design the entire system without fear of screwing up any worse then a competent engineer in such system. Point: Same standard of Professional Care.

For clarity of statute that does put such an exemption - ORS 672.060 and I have email records with response from the governing agency - OSBEELS. This doesn't mean I can use the engineer title or conduct the practicing of applying the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences (eg. performing structural calcs) independent of design work involving an exempt building.

In short, if it is incidental to designing an exempt building(s) then it is not a practice violation to prepare structural and infrastructural calculations in accordance with accepted standards of applying the mathematical, physical and engineering science to the design, planning & specification to & of structural and infrastructural systems and components of such building(s).

I do not disagree about a Building Official or Plan Reviewer from questioning a submittal. If you have question and you do not have the education or experience to properly check the calcs for the matter, I would think the prudent thing is to get a professional who is qualified to check the calcs under your supervision/observation and report finding so you can make the appropriate next step. Getting an expert opinion to back your 'gut feeling'. Then you can approach the person responsible for the plans. It is questioning the submittal but in how you do it.

It is a matter of best practices in reviewing plans and applying it. What if your gut feeling is wrong?


----------



## fatboy

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

WOW! Sixteen pages on a garage door header question.........  :?

Did you ever get a definitive answer to your question VP?


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> WOW! Sixteen pages on a garage door header question.........  :? Did you ever get a definitive answer to your question VP?


Yeah, I gave header sizes, appropriate for this span, some pages ago. Another person did too.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I had to moderate this topic.  It was getting out of hand.  I moved all previous posts that had nothing to do with the subject.

If you want to debate what a design professional is, go to:

http://inspectpa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=831

If it does not apply to *16' Garage Door Headers*, don't post it here.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> I had to moderate this topic.  It was getting out of hand.  I moved all previous posts that had nothing to do with the subject.If you want to debate what a design professional is, go to:
> 
> http://inspectpa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=831
> 
> If it does not apply to *16' Garage Door Headers*, don't post it here.


Your post appears to be about moderation and not garage door headers...just saying.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to moderate this topic.  It was getting out of hand.  I moved all previous posts that had nothing to do with the subject.If you want to debate what a design professional is, go to:
> 
> http://inspectpa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=831
> 
> If it does not apply to *16' Garage Door Headers*, don't post it here.
Click to expand...

Your post appears to be about moderation and not garage door headers...just saying.

I guess you zinged me... :roll:


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to moderate this topic.  It was getting out of hand.  I moved all previous posts that had nothing to do with the subject.If you want to debate what a design professional is, go to:
> 
> http://inspectpa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=831
> 
> If it does not apply to *16' Garage Door Headers*, don't post it here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post appears to be about moderation and not garage door headers...just saying.
Click to expand...

I guess you zinged me... :roll:

Ok. That works.


----------



## peach

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The whole 16' opening issue largely depends on if it's a bearing or non bearing opening..

load bearing (like a hip roof).. you need an engineered solution (which can come from the manufacturer without requiring the entire stucture to be engineered)... non load bearing, the biggest issue will be "will the header sag and the door won't open"..   LVL's are an engineered solution to the problem.


----------



## incognito

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Peach,

I suppose if this was something other than a overhead garage door that a sagging header may prohibit the door from operating properly. An overhead door does not fit within the opening, a sagging header would have virtually zero impact on the door operating.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

incognito wrote;



> Peach,I suppose if this was something other than a overhead garage door that a sagging header may prohibit the door from operating properly. An overhead door does not fit within the opening, a sagging header would have virtually zero impact on the door operating.


A sagging header can impact an overheads doors operation by putting stress on the members that are use not only as support of the header, kings, jacks etc, but also as support for the brackets and runners for the door. Additionally this sag can impact other members that are supported by this header.


----------



## jar546

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				incognito said:
			
		

> Peach,I suppose if this was something other than a overhead garage door that a sagging header may prohibit the door from operating properly. An overhead door does not fit within the opening, a sagging header would have virtually zero impact on the door operating.


Incorrect


----------



## conarb

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				Jar said:
			
		

> Incorrect


How is she incorrect?  I'd say 99% of garage doors sit behind the header, both roll up and sliding barn doors, now these outswing garage doors sit under the header, and a sagging header would be a problem, they are becoming popular in high end homes, click the videos down the page, they are really neat.


----------



## RJJ

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

16 pages on a door header! Wow almost up to those stairs to nowhere! :lol:


----------



## jar546

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

The center spring mounting plate to most roll up doors is mounted dead center of the header.  As it sags it throws the door out of balance and sometimes causes binding of the outer rollers.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				RJJ said:
			
		

> 16 pages on a door header! Wow almost up to those stairs to nowhere! :lol:


It wasn't all about  garage door headers :roll:


----------



## incognito

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Sometimes, might, can....blah,blah, blah. Try rarely does a overhead garage door header sag enough to impact the operation of an overhead door.


----------



## conarb

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I went out and looked at mine and I see Jar's point, but I did notice that the springs are on one side and the attachment bracket is one quarter of the way over from the right with a spring on each side.  I wonder if they do that because of Jar's concern?  Obviously there would be half the impact one quarter the way over than there would be at the center if the header did sag.  The next time I talk to my garage door guy I'll ask him if they do that to reduce the impact of any header sag.  I've never noticed that before, thanks for pointing it out Jar.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Incognito wrote;



> I suppose if this was something other than an overhead garage door that a sagging header may prohibit the door from operating properly. An overhead door does not fit within the opening; a sagging header would have virtually zero impact on the door operating.


   Incognito, there are other methods of installing overhead doors and I could see where one could design it to be structurally independent of the garage door header, I haven’t seen this, but in thinking about it I could see where it can be done. The other part of the equation is that the header is part of a lateral force resisting system. This design could use a different method of transferring the lateral force so that the header sag wouldn’t have an overall negative impact. So, thanks for pointing that out, sometimes we need to open or have opened our ears to other possibilities.

mtlogcabin wrote;



> It wasn't all about garage door headers  :roll:


 How very true.  :roll:


----------



## RJJ

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

CA: That is a torques ion bar installation. Not spring tension on the header. Only the weight of the bar and springs. If the header sagged slightly you just adjust the travel distance for the door.

 :roll:


----------



## fatboy

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

"16 pages on a door header! Wow almost up to those stairs to nowhere! :lol:"

But this thread was not nearly as interesting.....  :mrgreen:


----------



## RJJ

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Fatboy: You are right! But the next 7 or so pages my be riveting!


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RickAstoria wrote;



> I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....


Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.


----------



## brudgers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> RickAstoria wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....
Click to expand...

Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.   

My bet:  a design professional is required.


----------



## kilitact

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RJJ wrote:



> Fatboy: You are right! But the next 7 or so pages my be riveting!


RJJ, one can only hope,   

With moderators that moderate with moderation, such as the ones who moderate this section, the possibilities are fathomless. We just need to jettison our preconceived regiment of thinking and be receptive to considering other possibilities.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Let's keep it on topic folks.


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Got to love TJacobs


----------



## RickAstoria

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> RickAstoria wrote;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....
Click to expand...

Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.   

Response to your question found here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=874&start=10

back to 16'ft. spanning headers.

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

Headers could jam the door opening - dependent on the type of garage door - if the header sags too much.


----------



## jar546

FYI, this is the most active topic to date.  We still need an attic stairs to nowhere thread to beat it!


----------



## rktect 1

I'm pretty tired right now from re-reading this.

I might post something useful later.


----------



## GHRoberts

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> UB I agree and Under StruCalc what you stated is good by 85% with a .198 deflection 46lbs snow 15 lb dead loads. That's why we use StruCalc to double check submitted design loads that are not prepared by an engineer.


Engineering software can only be used to say a structure meets the code, it cannot be used to say that the structure does not meet the code. Using engineering software to "check" designs is practicing engineering. You can get into all sorts of problems doing what you say.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Engineering software can only be used to say a structure meets the code, it cannot be used to say that the structure does not meet the code.


????????

I can tell you it meets code but I can't tell you it does not meet code


----------



## GHRoberts

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ????????I can tell you it meets code but I can't tell you it does not meet code


You can tell people they need to submit engineering. You can tell them it does not meet the prescriptive code. You can not tell them it does not meet the code. That statement requires an engineering license. If you had an engineering license, you would realize that your software does not say that the structure fails to meet the code.


----------



## texasbo

That's nonsense, George. A non-licensed building department employee has every authority to say a design doesn't meet code, if they feel there is evidence to support such a position. In the end, they may be wrong, or they may be right. There is nothing that says they are "practicing engineering" to turn a design down if they're acting in good faith.

I have seen non-licensed/registered plans examiners turn down sealed plans on numerous occasions with BLATANT code violations.


----------



## Mark K

The California board regulating the practice of enginering (BPELS) has issued a "Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials"   http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

If the plan checking is limited to "...simple code compliance, non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with clearly mandated code requirements..." then the plan checker does not need to be a licensed engineer.  On the other hand if the "...comments involve the exercise of professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgements..." then the plan checker must be a licensed engineer or working under the direct supervision of a licensed engineer.

This may require the hiring of professional engineers to  perform the engineering reviews.

Non-licensed plan checkers can still reject submittals that do not have required engeering calculations.

What you consider to be a clearly mandated code requirement and what requires engineering judgement may implact what the checker can do.  Does this include simple calculations?  If so where do you draw the line.

One of the points that the Guideline makes is that in California local building departments may not require the applicant retain a structural engineer as opposed to a civil engineer. A number of jurisdictions are obviously in violation of the law.

It would be interesting to understand the rules in other states.  It may be that in some states that there is an exemption for government employees.


----------



## texasbo

More good discussion. I think the wording you've quoted is sufficiently vague to leave it entirely up to interpretation. I can also tell you that in Texas, it is even more vague. To paraphrase Texas law, "you are practicing engineering if you perform creative or service work related to engineering"! And I'm not paraphrasing very much... Since this is all in the residential forum, I'll also tell you that in Texas, most private dwellings are completely exempt by The Engineer's Practice Act from requiring any engineering, regardless of size, span, or construction type .

"Clearly mandated code requirements". If an engineer submits a structural plan that shows that the structural system isn't capable of supporting the code prescribed loads, and my ICC certified, but non-licensed plans examiner turns it down, then in my opinion any rational person would interpret him as being within the scope of "comparison with clearly mandated code requirements", whether he used a pencil, a calculator, or a computer program.

I will concede that the West Coast tends to err on the conservative side for obvious reasons, and usually hire or sub out review to PE's, but that doesn't mean you are practicing engineering if you are reviewing an engineer's plan for code compliance.



			
				Mark K said:
			
		

> The California board regulating the practice of enginering (BPELS) has issued a "Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials"   http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf  If the plan checking is limited to "...simple code compliance, non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with clearly mandated code requirements..." then the plan checker does not need to be a licensed engineer.  On the other hand if the "...comments involve the exercise of professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgements..." then the plan checker must be a licensed engineer or working under the direct supervision of a licensed engineer.
> 
> This may require the hiring of professional engineers to  perform the engineering reviews.
> 
> Non-licensed plan checkers can still reject submittals that do not have required engeering calculations.
> 
> What you consider to be a clearly mandated code requirement and what requires engineering judgement may implact what the checker can do.  Does this include simple calculations?  If so where do you draw the line.
> 
> One of the points that the Guideline makes is that in California local building departments may not require the applicant retain a structural engineer as opposed to a civil engineer. A number of jurisdictions are obviously in violation of the law.
> 
> It would be interesting to understand the rules in other states.  It may be that in some states that there is an exemption for government employees.


----------



## Mark K

What is exercising of engineering judgement and what is not is often subjective but care should be exercised when making the call.

Since the basic formulas in the wood code leave little room for ambiguity they possibly could be checked by a non-engineer.  The selection or review of the design loads would undoutably require engineering judgement and thus would need the involvement of a licensed engineer..  Similarly the selection of the type of connection at the supports and other detailing considerations would be considered to require the application of engineering judgement.


----------



## jar546

Architects routinely submit drawings that do not meet the prescriptive code and since they are not structural engineers and never provide calculations (because they cannot) we use whatever tools are available to use to show them that they do not meet the code.

If we use the IRC or BeamChek or another software program then that is our prerogative.  We are not designing.

A good use for a software program such as BeamCheck is for loads that are not in the IRC such as a ground snow load of 40 psf.  The IRC shows 30 & 50 but not 40.  If a DP submits plans that are for a 40 psf gsl and they meet the prescriptive requirements of the 30 psf column but not the 50 psf column, how else do we know whether or not what is proposed works?  It is nice to be able to verify that something works rather than requiring them to upsize to the beam that works for the 50psf load.

My opinion of course.


----------



## Mark K

It is my understanding that in California Architects are able to perform engineering calculations.  I believe ths is true in many states.  Still architects like outher design professionals is required to only practice in those areas where he/she is competent.

An Architect is preparing engineering calculations when he uses a computer program to size a beam.  The act of designing occrs irrespective of how the calculations are performed.

Using a software program to substitute for knowledge that you do not have is risky.

Part of the tradeoff of the proscriptive provisions of the IRC is that you sometimes have to accept a more conservative design in order to save the cost of engineering.

Just for the record typically many engineers are not looking for work on single family residential projects because often the fees are so low and there are more hassles from owners, contractors, and building officials.


----------



## texasbo

Mark K said:
			
		

> Using a software program to substitute for knowledge that you do not have is risky.


Mark, I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I can't agree with this. Most plans examiners are using tables to substitute for knowledge they don't have. They are not using them to design, they are using them to check. How is a software program any different? Most of my plans examiners couldn't draw a shear or bending diagram, nor could they calculate Mmax for even a simple uniformly loaded horizontal member. That's why there are tools such as tables and computer programs to help them.


----------



## Mac

I review architect and engineer's plan submittals all the time. Most have problems, errors, and are missing required information.

Even plans produced by a senior partner in a long time international award winning firm need correction. So what?


----------



## vegas paul

Funny story:

I recently asked an architect (in my correction letter) to provide the structural calcs from the engineer (all they submitted were the structural sheets).  His reponse was " Why do you need the calcs, everythings stamped by the engineer?  If the engineer stamps it, you can be assured it's compliant."  Of course, this was in a response to a correction letter where I had 6 pages of corrections for the Architect (who had stamped all of his drawings too!).

So... why would I blindly accept stamped engineered drawings, but question stamped architectural drawings?

Short answer, I don't.


----------



## Yankee

An engineered beam design stamped by a liscensed engineer MAY POSSIBLY NOT "meet/match" the tables in the IRC (and/or the "beam programs") but that does NOT MEAN the design is NOT COMPLIANT. The tables are general solutions and the calculated beam is a specific solution.


----------



## texasbo

Yankee, I agree 100%. That does not mean the inspection department doesn't have the right to question it for good cause, and it doesn't mean they're practicing engineering if they do.



			
				Yankee said:
			
		

> An engineered beam design stamped by a liscensed engineer MAY POSSIBLY NOT "meet/match" the tables in the IRC (and/or the "beam programs") but that does NOT MEAN the design is NOT COMPLIANT. The tables are general solutions and the calculated beam is a specific solution.


----------



## Yankee

texasbo said:
			
		

> Yankee, I agree 100%. That does not mean the inspection department doesn't have the right to question it for good cause, and it doesn't mean they're practicing engineering if they do.


I supposed some questions would be valid and some not, but one can't reject the design as being non-compliant without doing the engineering (practicing engineering). Perhaps the design criteria included ere is in error (for instance, if the design snow load for the location is incorrect), and questioning the choice of that number isn't practicing engineering.


----------



## vegas paul

Yankee - if you question (or reject) the architectural issues are you practicing architecture without a license?  Same for mechanical or electrical engineering... When I do the short circuit calcs and they don't work with the proposed design, am I practicing engineering?


----------



## texasbo

Yankee said:
			
		

> I supposed some questions would be valid and some not, but one can't reject the design as being non-compliant without doing the engineering (practicing engineering). Perhaps the design criteria included ere is in error (for instance, if the design snow load for the location is incorrect), and questioning the choice of that number isn't practicing engineering.


Partially agree; however, if the design criteria is in error, then the design is noncompliant, and it should be turned down as such, and it is not practicing engineering to do so.


----------



## Yankee

texasbo said:
			
		

> Partially agree; however, if the design criteria is in error, then the design is noncompliant, and it should be turned down as such, and it is not practicing engineering to do so.


Exactly, I agree.

Vegas Paul. like what type of architectural issue? I'm afraid I don't know enough about calcs that would be included on an electrical engineer's submittal to include an answer on that part of your question.


----------



## Mark K

Texasbo is right in that there is little difference between tables and computer programs.  The difference is that the tables are sanctioned by the code.  Because they are more general there is probably more potential for abuse.  Also would suggest that architects are held to a higher standard of care than non-professionals.

Regarding the architect who said that you didn’t need the calculations and that if the engineer stamps the drawings you can be assured they are compliant, he is stupid.  He has essentially guaranteed perfection.  He has just increased his liability exposure.  In addition this type of arrogance is often associated with a lack of competence.  You should tell the architect that the permit application will be on hold until he responds with the calculations.

I believe that the plan checkers can legally reject an application for cause even if the plan checker practiced engineering without a license.  This does not change the fact that the individual is practicing engineering without a license.  The real difficulty is when the plan checkers lack of knowledge does not allow him to evaluate the engineer’s calculations and logic.  In these situations you either need to have an engineer to assist in the plan review or accept the engineer’s word.

Another problem with relying exclusively on unlicensed personnel is that typically they are limited in their understanding and as a result may be incapable of finding certain types of violations.


----------



## rktect 1

Yankee said:
			
		

> An engineered beam design stamped by a liscensed engineer MAY POSSIBLY NOT "meet/match" the tables in the IRC (and/or the "beam programs") but that does NOT MEAN the design is NOT COMPLIANT. The tables are general solutions and the calculated beam is a specific solution.


When I see this, I ask for the calcs.  This way I know the DP actually looked at it and it wasn't some error.


----------



## Yankee

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> When I see this, I ask for the calcs.  This way I know the DP actually looked at it and it wasn't some error.


And so this is assuming that you are capable of doing the calcs also, and if you were to challenge the engineers results (more than simply asking for him/her to review their calcs) you would be practicing engineering and would need to be licensed.


----------



## rktect 1

Yankee said:
			
		

> And so this is assuming that you are capable of doing the calcs also, and if you were to challenge the engineers results (more than simply asking for him/her to review their calcs) you would be practicing engineering and would need to be licensed.


I'm kinda not worried about it.  I'm a licensed architect.  And even if I were not, I would ask them to prove that their solution worked based on not meeting the min. prescriptive code.  The way I would word my comment would not indicate that I was engineering anything.  I would write, the beam as shown on sheet A-3 spanning 37 feet does not meet the prescriptive path as outlined in section whatever, table whatever.  Provide calculations for this beam or provide a beam within the prescriptive path.  Or something along those lines.

As was pointed out earlier, they may have used some wrong design criteria.  This happens.  In fact, it happened recently tome.  I saw that on the cover page the loads were listed and when the calcs showed up, different loads were used.  I called them on it and they corrected the information.

Usually though, calcs do not come into the office, especially for residential.  They are just signed and sealed.  So if I see some beam that just doesn't look right, I look at it some more.  Maybe I even check it with software, and if I think it isn't right, I ask for the calcs for the beam.


----------



## TJacobs

I do what rktect 1 does, and I am not an architect.  I can read...pretty well.  All I am doing when I look at structural calcs is proofreading them, looking to see if they used the right codes, the loads and other code-required values they used are correct, and that all required calculations are present.  I don't check math, and I don't attempt to re-engineer.  I look for POSSIBLE mistakes and point them out.  Either they are fixed, or I receive an explantion of their reasoning.


----------



## vegas paul

If you challenge the architects "calculation" of allowable area, are you doing Architecture?  Let's not put engineers on a different pedestal (BTW, I'm an engineer!) and put them above questioning.  Of course I review the engineering calcs, and not just within my discipline (I'm an M.E., not a civil/structural or electrical).  It's absurd to take any and all engineering designs without question, then pick apart the architectural issues (like occupant load, egress, etc.)  Using that rediculous logic, lets just approve any drawing stamped by a registered design professional, without reviewing any of them!


----------



## GHRoberts

texasbo said:
			
		

> That's nonsense, George. A non-licensed building department employee has every authority to say a design doesn't meet code, if they feel there is evidence to support such a position. In the end, they may be wrong, or they may be right. There is nothing that says they are "practicing engineering" to turn a design down if they're acting in good faith.I have seen non-licensed/registered plans examiners turn down sealed plans on numerous occasions with BLATANT code violations.


I guess the issue has been beaten to death. Most if not all of the arguments I may have presented have been presented.

And no one has changed their position.


----------



## texas transplant

Exactly what TJacobs does and said.  Amen.


----------



## peach

nothing requires us to accept an engineer's word as law... 16' garage door headers are an issue.. most of them will fail in time.. unless they are an engineered product to start with... (2-2x12 doesn't work.. even in a non bearing wall.. they sag).


----------



## Yankee

No, but if you choose to reject an engineered item and the engineer supports his original design, you (if you are not also a licensed engineer) must refute the design by using another licensed engineer.


----------



## texas transplant

But Yankeee, if I win that fight once, you won't have to fight that fight again and you have made construction better in your city.

You have to pick your fights, only fight the ones you can win and the ones that have to be fought.


----------



## JBI

Asking the engineer to provide the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Reviewing the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Questioning or challenging the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Explaining what, specifically, you are concerned about in the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Telling the engineer HOW to FIX the calculations would, in all liklihood, be practicing engineering.

The engineered beam for the 16' garage door should come with the engineers' calculations and loads used in design; the manufacturer employs engineers for that very purpose. I bought two when I built my house and my PE called the manufacturer, provided the loading, and was sent the calculations to justify the beam sizes. As a practical matter, had I not otherwise needed an engineer for the project, I could have requested the same thing from the manufacturer and submitted their design calculations with my permit application. Those two non-prescriptive elements of my house were 'engineered' and the 'engineering calculations' were provided.

Plan review exists, in part, to keep everyone honest in the process.

Good engineers don't mind plan reviews, most I know welcome them.

Those who can't be bothered to document their design, in my experience, typically have submitted a poor design.

Those who scream the loudest about plan reviewers 'practicing engineering without a license', in my experience, have just been caught submitting substandard plans.

We're all supposed to be on the same side; the owners. The Code Official has a duty to perform; the DP has a duty to perform. Both duties are owed to the building/properrty owner. It's all about making sure these buildings are safe.


----------



## righter101

This thread has been an interesting read.  I haven't been to the forum for a few weeks.  I just want to chime in with my 2 cents worth.

I think those of you who are referring to RickAstoria as Non-Professional, maybe mean to use the word UN-Professional??

Anyway....

Its fun to read these debates.


----------



## GHRoberts

peach said:
			
		

> nothing requires us to accept an engineer's word as law...


I think the intent of the does does.



			
				peach said:
			
		

> 16' garage door headers are an issue.. most of them will fail in time.. unless they are an engineered product to start with... (2-2x12 doesn't work.. even in a non bearing wall.. they sag).


And now you are not only practicing engineering, you are creating engineering requirements that do not appear in the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin

GHR

Can you point to a Table in the IRC that allows a 16 ft opening and what size header is to be used? Bearing or non-bearing wall.


----------



## JBI

George, Having an opinion and first hand experience is not practicing engineering or creating engineering requirements.


----------



## TJacobs

JBI said:
			
		

> Asking the engineer to provide the calculations is not practicing engineering. Reviewing the calculations is not practicing engineering.
> 
> Questioning or challenging the calculations is not practicing engineering.
> 
> Explaining what, specifically, you are concerned about in the calculations is not practicing engineering.
> 
> Telling the engineer HOW to FIX the calculations would, in all liklihood, be practicing engineering.
> 
> The engineered beam for the 16' garage door should come with the engineers' calculations and loads used in design; the manufacturer employs engineers for that very purpose. I bought two when I built my house and my PE called the manufacturer, provided the loading, and was sent the calculations to justify the beam sizes. As a practical matter, had I not otherwise needed an engineer for the project, I could have requested the same thing from the manufacturer and submitted their design calculations with my permit application. Those two non-prescriptive elements of my house were 'engineered' and the 'engineering calculations' were provided.
> 
> Plan review exists, in part, to keep everyone honest in the process.
> 
> Good engineers don't mind plan reviews, most I know welcome them.
> 
> Those who can't be bothered to document their design, in my experience, typically have submitted a poor design.
> 
> Those who scream the loudest about plan reviewers 'practicing engineering without a license', in my experience, have just been caught submitting substandard plans.
> 
> We're all supposed to be on the same side; the owners. The Code Official has a duty to perform; the DP has a duty to perform. Both duties are owed to the building/properrty owner. It's all about making sure these buildings are safe.


Say AMEN!! Outstanding post!  :!:


----------



## GHRoberts

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> GHRCan you point to a Table in the IRC that allows a 16 ft opening and what size header is to be used? Bearing or non-bearing wall.


There is no structural requirement for a header in a non-bearing wall. So there is no need for a table and no need for engineering. (Suggesting that a header is required is practicing engineering.)



			
				JBI said:
			
		

> George, Having an opinion and first hand experience is not practicing engineering or creating engineering requirements.


Peach is an inspector. If she refuses a permit based on her opinion, her opinion becomes practicing engineering.


----------



## texasbo

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> There is no structural requirement for a header in a non-bearing wall. So there is no need for a table and no need for engineering. (Suggesting that a header is required is practicing engineering.)Peach is an inspector. If she refuses a permit based on her opinion, her opinion becomes practicing engineering.


Suggesting that the opening comply with the code is not practicing engineering. Requiring that the designer show me how the 16' span complies with the IRC is not engineering.

If Peach's opinion is that your design doesn't comply with the code, is not practicing engineering. Even if she couldn't show you why it didn't comply, it's not engineering, it's just bad inspecting.

Peach IS an engineer, and she and other RDP's have told you that plan review and inspection aren't engineering, whether the plan review and inspection is regarding engineered plans or not.


----------



## Paul Sweet

There is a structural requirement for a header, even in a non-bearing wall.  It has to support the weight of the wall above it, and a header in a gable endwall of a garage will also have to support a foot or two of roof load.  The total load wouldn't be much more than a floor joist carries per lineal foot, so a double 2x12 would probably be adequate in this case, although as Peach pointed out long-term deflection might be a problem.


----------



## Yankee

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> There is a structural requirement for a header, even in a non-bearing wall.  It has to support the weight of the wall above it, and a header in a gable endwall of a garage will also have to support a foot or two of roof load.  The total load wouldn't be much more than a floor joist carries per lineal foot, so a double 2x12 would probably be adequate in this case, although as Peach pointed out long-term deflection might be a problem.


Long term deflection is a structural failure.


----------



## Mark K

Manufacturer’s provide span charts are not adopted in the code.  Thus engineering is required if they are used.  This is true even when only dealing with vertical loads.

The fact that you use StruCalc to check the size does not change the fact that the applicant needs to retain a registered design professional.

If engineering calcs are required but not provided and you use StruCalc to verify the size then I would suggest that you are providing engineering services to the project which is inappropriate for a building official even if he is a registered engineer.


----------



## Lou Marks

There are Flitch plate tables online as well. What is wrong about 65 and not learning. 68 here, learn something new every day and have been doing digital plan reviews since I was 60. Old dogs can and should learn new tricks.


----------



## GHRoberts

I was out of pocket for the holidays. I had to drive 10 hours on Friday. I thought about this problem.

In under an hour I came up with 5 different ways to produce a gable end without a header. Only one design required any engineering computation - the multiplication of 5 numbers. That design was prescriptive except it had no header.

As an engineer I can only say that there is no math involved. None required. I cannot be required to provided something that does not exist.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Just got this back from the state licensing board for engineers in answer to my questions about "praticing" engineering . Seems we do not practice engineering in the course of our jobs 



Based on your position as a building official and the fact that you review plans for compliance with the International Residential Code(IRC), I do not believe you are engaged in the practice of engineering.  As you state below, you evaluate plans for code compliance and if you find discrepancies you request re-submittal, you do not make recommendations or provide design advice.



With regards to your other questions, as a building official reviewing plans you are free to comment on or question all matters code related.



If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.



Thank you:



Stephen White

Staff for Board of Professional Engineers

406-841-2368 

Example Non engineered Plans

As a local building code jurisdiction we will use StruCalc to *verify* a header size if it is beyond the prescriptive Tables of the IRC. It StruCalc says it is inadequate we notify the contractor and wait for a re-submittal. We do not recommend or provide a correct size. 

Is staff “practicing” engineering without a license?  

What are we as non-engineers allowed to comment on or question with regards to non-engineered drawings during the course of our plan review?

What are we as non-engineers allowed to comment on or question with regards to engineered drawings during the course of our plan review?


----------



## mtlogcabin

Just got this back from the state licensing board for engineers in answer to my questions about "praticing" engineering . Seems we do not practice engineering in the course of our jobs 

Based on your position as a building official and the fact that you review plans for compliance with the International Residential Code(IRC), I do not believe you are engaged in the practice of engineering. As you state below, you evaluate plans for code compliance and if you find discrepancies you request re-submittal, you do not make recommendations or provide design advice.

With regards to your other questions, as a building official reviewing plans you are free to comment on or question all matters code related.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you:

Stephen White

Staff for Board of Professional Engineers

406-841-2368 

Example Non engineered Plans

As a local building code jurisdiction we will use StruCalc to *verify* a header size if it is beyond the prescriptive Tables of the IRC. It StruCalc says it is inadequate we notify the contractor and wait for a re-submittal. We do not recommend or provide a correct size. 

Is staff “practicing” engineering without a license? 

What are we as non-engineers allowed to comment on or question with regards to non-engineered drawings during the course of our plan review?

What are we as non-engineers allowed to comment on or question with regards to engineered drawings during the course of our plan review?


----------



## Mark K

This is definately an issue where the interpretation varies from state to state. California has taken the position that some of the action that a plan checker performs can constitute the practice of engineering.

Plan checkers can comment on any aspect of the code.  This is seperate from the question of whether or not they are practicing engineering.

There is a concern that without sufficient education and training that a plan checker may think that he knows more than he really does.  While this concern also applies to registered engineers it is more likely to be a problem with some one without an engineering education.  If the plan checker lacks an engineering education it will be more difficult to discuss the issues with the structural engineer and to resolve the problem.


----------



## jar546

Since plan checkers are not specifying fixes or designing, they are no where near in the danger zone of architects and engineers licensing laws.  Come on guys, this is the biggest thread and most active on the board!


----------



## DRP

For a solid sawn header, the WSDD manual, why would that be viewed any differently than an engineered manufacturers tables?


----------



## Robert Ellenberg

"Maximum length for a "dimensional lumber" header for roof and ceiling only; would require 4-2X12s and be limited to a 14' 1" span (TABLE R502.5(1); which would require a 6" wide wall; provided the building width was not more than 20'."

I know the tables don't address this, but if it were a gable wall, wouldn't the load be less than roof and ceiling and therefore be allowed a greater span?  Is this addressed in either of the computer program checks referred to?


----------



## GHRoberts

"As a local building code jurisdiction we will use StruCalc to verify a header size if it is beyond the prescriptive Tables of the IRC."

So you are making engineering decisions. 1) That you know the proper engineering calculations. 2) That StruCalc performs the proper engineering calculations.

Does StruCalc treat the wall as a diaphragm? If not you will get a wrong answer. The difference between the right answer and a wrong answer is code compliant or non-code compliant.

(The right answer gives you the actual deflection and stress. Most engineering gives the wrong answer in the wrong direction if to the question as the AHJ asks it, but gives the wrong answer in the correct direction to the question an engineer asks.)


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Does StruCalc treat the wall as a diaphragm? If not you will get a wrong answer.


Do the prescriptive tables in the code assume all walls are a diaphragm?


----------



## Uncle Bob

GH,

I've seen a steel brick lintel bolted to a header.  Would that provide the support needed, if bolted to double 2 X 12s that spanned 16' ?

Uncle Bob


----------



## GHRoberts

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Do the prescriptive tables in the code assume all walls are a diaphragm?


I believe the prescriptive tables ignore the diaphragm effects (strength of the sheathing) except in shear walls. But there are a lot of issues like load sharing between members that depend on the sheathing properties but ignore them.

The proper response to the header in question is to simply say it is not prescriptive. Using StruCalc as a basis for negative comments is improper engineering.


----------



## GHRoberts

Uncle Bob ---

I don't know. I don't know the design loads. I don't have the construction details. I am sure that some size of steel lintel would work. Perhaps one for a 16' opening.


----------



## ggmarch

it comes down to whether the roof above is trussed or stick framed.....i'm amazed at this thread and mostly it's length. there is good information, but the idea of engineering is figuring out an answer by specifics, no wonder the thread is so long, there are no specifics. but from the original post, where is it in the code? i couldn't tell ya, but as an architect it sounds like there's no load on the wall. assuming trussed roof construction.....if this is so, the only real weight is from the truss down to the top of the door frame. a 7 foot door up to a 8'-6 or 9 foot ceiling would amass a load in the neighborhood of 3-4 lbs /sf...a 4in12 pitch over that 16' opening would be (guessing) 61 wopping square feet or a grand total of 195 lbs or 12.2 lbs/lin foot on the header(assuming roof load is taken by the truss). i weigh 195 lbs and wouldn't worry about standing on a 16 foot span of a 2x12. so two 2x12's with a 1/2" spacer to match the wall width absolutely doesn't scare me.  even if we add in the roof overhang to this, it's adding an additional 58 lbs/lin foot. i'd have to look up the beam's carrying capacity to be sure...

but then again,  my house has a central beam spanning 18'6 (3@2x12s hemfir) supporting ground, floor second floor and roof deck-1/2stick framed roof. no spacers either. and in 22 years it's deflected 3/8" at the center and no cracked drywall anywhere. so as for a gabled endwall with no apparent weight on it, i'd say a double 2x12 sounds good......but in the code,  i can't support it from here and understand the trouble with finding it.

adding brick that's another animal, but brick isn't all that heavy +/- 29 lbs/sf additional. as for the steel lintel, luckily they don't hold up the brick except during construction so that weight is just part of the beam anyhow....but it could be possible, once again, i don't know the factors involved to say one way or the other.

fyi, architects can do engineering, however, it typically is only when it's a small part of the overall project and within our abilities. an example being,  if i was asked to design a toll booth  office building for a new toll bridge project, i would not be allowed to design the bridge too. but i could design the structure of the building, i could design the mechanical system and the lighting. likewise an engineer, who's asked to design a toll bridge complex would be allowed to design and stamp an architectural element like a toll bridge office building. i do my own engineering where i'm able and it has worked perfectly fine for many years.  but i've noticed lately, code/building officials and township engineers(usually young kids out of college) have been asking specifically for an engineer's calculations, and many don't understand i am perfectly able to perform these tasks legally. i am not against people asking for more information and i give it, but there are times when i just shake my head and realize the person who's asking for it doesn't understand what's in front of them and i wonder how more information and calculation is going to make them understand it any better. but it does make sense to me and if they truly want to know how things are done, i'm willing to educate. but (to them, not you guys) please refrain from asking for an engineer when none is legally required.


----------



## jar546

Resurrected!  This is the most active thread for a single subject that has more views per post than any other.  This does not take away from An average Day and An Average Day too which is by far the largest of any thread.

It must be good information if it is still getting tons of view, over 20,000 of them.


----------



## fatboy

And yes, 27K+ views is over the top, crazy where this forum has gone............


----------



## RJJ

And the original Poster is no longer with us!


----------



## steveray

fatboy said:
			
		

> And yes, 27K+ views is over the top, crazy where this forum has gone............


Impressive amount of views for something that doesn't have video of somone getting bashed in a sensitive area....


----------



## fatboy

steveray said:
			
		

> Sometimes I miss Brudgers.....


And George Roberts......


----------



## north star

*~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~*



...and ***Papio***,  ...and ***Uncle Bob***,  ...and ***gbhammer***,  ...and

***dcspector**,*  ...and ***raider1***,  and others who were helpful,

...insightful and had some common sense.

BTW,  ...anyone heard from ***peach***  &  ***Daddy-O***  lately ?  :?:

*~ ( ) ~ ( ) ~*


----------



## fatboy

daddy-o posted this past weekend, and peach in the last couple weeks. UB is still out there also, just hit and miss.


----------



## jar546

I moved the post about the header for the steel building to its own thread.

I love how active this thread is with solid content.


----------



## fatboy

jar546 said:
			
		

> I moved the post about the header for the steel building to its own thread.I love how active this thread is with solid content.


I am thinking you meant that in a positive tone, because this one is way OT at this point, good thing you split the new topic off.


----------



## jamzm

Is there someplace in here where I can post an image of a garage door header for opinions on code acceptance?


----------



## mark handler

jamzm said:


> Is there someplace in here where I can post an image of a garage door header for opinions on code acceptance?


Become a member or post it on a web based server like photo bucket.


----------



## jar546

I love when an old thread (that was a good one) gets resurrected.  This is a great topic,


----------



## jamzm

mark handler said:


> Become a member or post it on a web based server like photo bucket.


I am a member


----------



## jar546

jamzm said:


> I am a member



By member he means Sawhorse supporting member.  You need that in order to upload files such as photos.

If, however, you just want to post a link to a photo, you can do that.  

Welcome and I hope we can help you.


----------



## jamzm

Thank you..I have a link.
16' garage door header https://imgur.com/gallery/erq3DzB


----------



## jamzm

Trusses resting on 2x6 on llv on bulkhead.  Many of the homes in our plan have sagging garage door headers installed like this.


----------



## jamzm

btw, what's a sawhorse supporting member?  Is there information there?


----------



## jar546

jamzm said:


> Thank you..I have a link.
> 16' garage door header https://imgur.com/gallery/erq3DzB



What is supporting the corner of the 2nd floor?  Any more photos?


----------



## jamzm

Looking


----------



## ADAguy

How are the trusses attached?
Is this a oneoff or part of a tract of new homes?


----------



## jamzm

Steel beam


----------



## jamzm

New house in an existing plan


----------



## jamzm

It looks like the trusses were nailed to the 2x6 on top of the LVL, sorry


----------



## jamzm

LLV is a long life vehicle from a past life


----------



## jamzm

Did everyone go to lunch?


----------



## jar546

jamzm said:


> Did everyone go to lunch?



Probably or busy at work.  Give it time.


----------



## jar546

Drawings would be nice to see the architectural details


----------



## e hilton

As long as the lvl is sized correctly for the anticipated loads, and the trusses are properly attached to the lvl, and the columns supporting the lvl are correct ... I don’t see a problem.


----------



## jamzm

But if there's not a problem, then why are a high number of these spans sagging?


----------



## jamzm

Not by much, but definitely noticeable from the street.


----------



## ADAguy

What is the span length?


----------



## fatboy

What do the reviewed plans show? Ask the contractor for supporting information.


----------



## my250r11

Is the LVL doubled? Some of the manufacturer specs. require 2 to meet the span.


----------



## jamzm

my250r11 said:


> Is the LVL doubled? Some of the manufacturer specs. require 2 to meet the span.



It is a single LVL. with 2x6's top & bottom and 2x6 wall framing above the door


----------



## jamzm

fatboy said:


> What do the reviewed plans show? Ask the contractor for supporting information.



I do not have access to the plans.


----------



## jamzm

fatboy said:


> What do the reviewed plans show? Ask the contractor for supporting information.



Builder won't provide drawings


----------



## jamzm

ADAguy said:


> What is the span length?



16'


----------



## fatboy

jamzm said:


> Builder won't provide drawings



What is your role in this?


----------



## classicT

It looks like a 3-1/2x12 LVL beam. 

Judging by the fact the garage is at a corner, most likely the garage opening is a portal frame. Minimum net header is 3x11-1/4.

In order to determine if the beam is properly sized, one needs the truss reactions for the imposed loads and the span width/bearing dimensions.


----------



## e hilton

Duh ... the builder slaps up the cheapest header he can find, and has not bothered to get the loads engineered.  The guy at home depot assured him it was the right size.


----------



## e hilton

Ok, went back and looked at the picture again.  First picture shows a 2x4 wall and the lvl is recessed quite a bit.  I wonder if they installed a 1-1/2” lvl but the manufacturer load tables probably called for 3”.


----------



## jar546

There is simply not enough information to make any determination here without more pics, the drawings, span lengths, etc.


----------



## classicT

e hilton said:


> Ok, went back and looked at the picture again.  First picture shows a 2x4 wall and the lvl is recessed quite a bit.  I wonder if they installed a 1-1/2” lvl but the manufacturer load tables probably called for 3”.


Uh, that's a 2x6 wall in the picture.


----------



## TheCommish

Data needed to calculate load on garage door header 
Truss profile
any extra loads such as the corner of the second floor over the garage (photo of this area of the garage ceiling would be good)
photo of the full header from the inside 
photo of the garage ceiling from the garage door look back into the garage
width of garage
depth of garage
how far forward does the garage  jut forward of the house 
width of opening =16'
height of header
stud depth
depth of recess at the header from the interior of the flat plates


----------



## Msradell

A wider angle view of the door opening from the inside so we can see the entire inside of that wall could be very helpful. The pictures you showed were to close up to get a feel for how the entire wall is constructed.


----------



## steveray

I can't get to the pics in the link....Maybe my IT folks....


----------



## my250r11

my250r11 said:


> Is the LVL doubled? Some of the manufacturer specs. require 2 to meet the span.





e hilton said:


> 1-1/2” lvl but the manufacturer load tables probably called for 3”.



Even if it is a 2X6 it appears to have to much exposed to be doubles


----------

