# Authority of Plan Checkers



## conarb (Sep 20, 2011)

Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?

It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?


----------



## alora (Sep 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?


104.11?



> It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?


Do you mean, 'can the plan checker tell the engineer how to design'?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?


  An interesting question.  I would think based upon 104.11 and 106.3, and additional Section 1603 &1604, the PR-SE should be able to ascertain compliance or non-compliance.

In my experience, when the Plan Reviewer is also an SE, they have the authority to call into question the EOR's design and request additional information from the EOR in support of their design.  If it is a difference in structural design philosophy, I suppose the PR-SE could submit the EOR's work and calculations to the governing license board if deemed inadequate, or request a second opinion.


----------



## conarb (Sep 20, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Do you mean, 'can the plan checker tell the engineer how to design'?


Yes, I have a case where the engineer designed in a computerized program, the plan checker was familiar with that program and had used it in the past, the engineer brought the program in a laptop into her office, running the program she demanded that he increase connections by approximately 33% over what he considered adequate factoring in generally accepted safety margins.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

> Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?


He doesn't, he can request additional information calcs and other supporting documentation he may need to assure compliance. Section 107



> can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?


Not if the engineer can back it up with something other than "I am an engineer and I put my stamp on it".


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Yes, I have a case where the engineer designed in a computerized program, the plan checker was familiar with that program and had used it in the past, the engineer brought the program in a laptop into her office, running the program she demanded that he increase connections by approximately 33% over what he considered adequate factoring in generally accepted safety margins.


I think myself that we have more machinery of efficacy than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the computer program...without understanding how those results are actually produced.


----------



## conarb (Sep 20, 2011)

I was present but didn't want to comment not being an engineer, also since the discussion was based upon a computerized program loads were apparently already factored in.  Not once were the Structural Calculations even referenced, they were bound about 1½" thick. The program was animated and I could follow seismic and wind loads being applied, the plan checker just demanded "stiffer" connections to resist loads as opposed to flexible connections transferring loads.  She even brought out plans from a major building recommending that he redesign his column to beam connections as they had done.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

> the plan checker just demanded "stiffer" connections to resist loads as opposed to flexible connections transferring loads.


Different schools of thought. The plans checker is exceeding the authority granted by the IBC if she is requiring loads be used which are above the minimums found in the code and referenced standards.


----------



## conarb (Sep 20, 2011)

JFYI, this is a demonstration of the program in action, it takes a while to load to play but is well worth the time to see where structural design is going.


http://www.risa.com/onlinevideos/3d/seismicdesign/SeismicDesign.htm​


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 20, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Different schools of thought. The plans checker is exceeding the authority granted by the IBC if she is requiring loads be used which are above the minimums found in the code and referenced standards.


That is how it sounds to me too...I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting...thanks for the link.


----------



## Mac (Sep 20, 2011)

Engineer fight! Woo hoo!


----------



## brudgers (Sep 20, 2011)

Having reviewed huge stacks of sealed truss shop drawings during my time behind the counter following the adoption of FBC - I can say without hesitation that:

  1. Using a computer program, don't meandickinmybook.

  2. What an engineer deems as structurally adequate can be reportable to the state engineering board.


----------



## conarb (Sep 20, 2011)

I have to assume from the responses that there is no definitive code section regulating arbitrary requirements of plan checkers?

Another point I might make, here in our Seismic zone more rigid structures can be dangerous, more rigid is not necessarily stronger, in a letter to the editor on the Journal of Light Construction Thor Matteson SE makes this statement (Thor wrote the Shear Wall Construction Guide¹ used by many contractors and architects):



			
				Thor Matteson said:
			
		

> *Don’t Glue Sheathing in Seismic Zones*A letter in the June 2011 issue (“Gluing Sheathing Improves Air Sealing”) suggests attaching wall sheathing with adhesive. This could be a code violation in earthquake country. The “Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic” (SDPWS) governs wood-framed construction; SDPWS Section 4.3.6.3.1 states that “adhesive attachment of shear wall sheathing shall not be used alone, or in combination with mechanical fasteners.”  An exception to this provision allows using adhesives in Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C, but only with a severe penalty (the entire structural system must be designed to withstand about four times the earthquake force required for shear panels attached with nails alone). Almost all construction in California falls into Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F, so using adhesive on shear panels here is completely out of the question.
> 
> Attaching shear panels with adhesive creates a stiffer wall; stiff structural systems “attract” more earthquake loads than flexible systems. Adhesive attachment robs a shear wall of its ductility, which is beneficial in absorbing earthquake energy. This increases the chance of sudden, “brittle” structural failures, which are the most devastating in earthquakes.
> 
> ...


I would say that a more brittle wood framed wood structure is analogous to a more brittle steel framed structure.

¹ http://www.shearwalls.com/products/products.php

²  http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-local/viewnew.pdf/94755d636ec9eac495a3840b37ea8bdc/de53dc808d850553d34c296986469696/www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/4e7925f3024ea74427190a323cb4064b


----------



## mark handler (Sep 20, 2011)

conarb

Is this a CA project?

I hope You are aware that all the Administrative sections in the CBC are different than those in the IBC.....


----------



## brudgers (Sep 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> I have to assume from the responses that there is no definitive code section regulating arbitrary requirements of plan checkers?


Nor is there a section regulating the shenanigans of contractors.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 20, 2011)

In addition to Chapter 1 you needto look at CBC 1603.1.5 Earthquake design data. The following information related to seismic loads shall be shown, regardless of whether seismic loads govern the design of the lateralforce- resisting system of the building:

1. Seismic importance factor, I, and occupancy category.

2. Mapped spectral response accelerations, Ss and S}.

3. Site class.

4. Spectral response coefficients, SDS and SDl'

5. Seis6. Basic seismic-force-resisting system(s).

7. Design base shear.

8. Seismic response coefficient(s), Cs.

9. Response modification factor(s), R.

10. Analysis procedure used.mic design category.

CBC 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 1603.1.9 shall be indicated on the construction documents.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 21, 2011)

Boy am I glad I don't have earthquake or hurricane loads to deal with...


----------



## steveray (Sep 21, 2011)

^  X2 with TJ....although this year we had......4+' of snow on roofs, tornado, earthquake, and hurricane...just about every piece of bad weather you can have.....at least we got it all out of the way now....


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 21, 2011)

100-year/500-year flood...riiiiiiight.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 21, 2011)

I would take a tremor here and there overr the political climate in IL. and poor CA they have both in heaps.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 21, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I would take a tremor here and there overr the political climate in IL. and poor CA they have both in heaps.


:agree Amen brother to the political climate sucking!


----------



## Mark K (Sep 24, 2011)

Any authority resides with the building official not the plan checker.

The plan checker cannot require that the structural engineer do anything that is not mandated by the building code.  If the structural engineer can show that he has complied with the adopted code provisions then the building official must accept it.  Agree with mtlogcabin.

The plan checker should be able to reference a specific code requirement when requiring something.  If he/she cannot provide a code reference it would be reasonable to expect that the plan checker was illegally asking for something she had no authority to require.

The question for the building official is not whether the engineer believes it is adequate but rather whether it complies with the code.  This does not mean that the structural engineer shouldn’t go beyond the code but rather that the building official cannot require it.

The reference to section 104.11 has to do with the building official allowing variations from the code.  It can be used to allow the structural engineer to do something not strictly allowed by the code.  Section 104.11 cannot be used to require that the structural engineer do something in addition to the code requirements.

The plan checker can require documentation to show that the design complies with the code.  An animated computer program may look impressive but the structural engineer needs to be able to show more information to substantiate the design.


----------



## conarb (Sep 25, 2011)

Mark said:
			
		

> The plan checker should be able to reference a specific code requirement  when requiring something.  If he/she cannot provide a code reference it  would be reasonable to expect that the plan checker was illegally  asking for something she had no authority to require.


Thanks Mark but this is steel frame construction, I don't think there are specific code sections for steel frames, are there?


----------



## imhotep (Sep 25, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Thanks Mark but this is steel frame construction, I don't think there are specific code sections for steel frames, are there?


Not Mark, but yes there are specific code provisions found under Chapter 16.



> 1614.3.2 Structural steel, open web steel joist or joist girder, or composite steel and concrete frame structures. Frame structures constructed with a structural steel frame or a frame composed of open web steel joists, joist girders with or without other structural steel elements or a frame composed of composite steel or composite steel joists and reinforced concrete elements shall conform to the requirements of this section.


----------



## Architect1281 (Sep 25, 2011)

CA my trouble with compters is they do EXACTLY what I tell them to do instead of what I want them to do.

a Plan examiner has the responsibility to review the adequacy of the design for compliance with the standards.

In RI we have Wind / Snow etc and then the Importance factors and review to see if properly applied.

rather than make recommendations for increasing factors / constants or whatever the ASCE's are looking for

we ask for

1. Justification then if we disagree; (sometimes happens)

we then require

2. Peer Review as allowed by RI Law.

Peer review depending on scope of project would likely be a more costly option

as opposed to bumping a few factors.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 25, 2011)

Conarb

Steel construction has a full chapter in the IBC.  Chapter 22 references several reference standards that define how the steel members are designed.  Chapter 16 defines the loads and some system factors that apply to different types of structures.

My statement about the plan checker needing to reference a code section or regulatory basis still stands.  The plan checkers are constrained by the regulations not by what they believe should be required.  If the plan checker believes that what is being proposed is not addressed in the code the checker needs to make that statement thus giving the design engineer an opportunity to show how the design complies with the code.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 25, 2011)

The building official has the authority to interpret the building code provisions.  This gives him a fair amount of flexibility but there are limits on what he can require.

When there are differences of opinion the IBC makes provisions for a Board of Appeals in IBC Section 113.  The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to ask for more or waive the requirements of the code.  I would suggest that the "peer review" mentioned by Architect1281 would act in a similar manner.  The peer review should focus on interpretation of the code and not on imposing new requirements.

The observation by Architect1281 that the differences of opinion are often resolved by the designer providing more than what he believes is required reflects reality.  The delays and costs associated with the review could be more expensive than making the changes.  The problem with this practice is that some plan checkers come to believe that they can require whatever they want which has resulted in the abuse of the plan checker's authority and in turn some designers have come to believe the plan checker can ask for whatever he wants.


----------



## conarb (Sep 25, 2011)

Mark:

She made a total of 15 comments, not once did she reference a code section, but verbally requested a sit down meeting.  Not knowing what the proposed changes would entail I accepted the changes, when they ended up costing $44,000 more I accepted that.  Now she challenged removing 1¼" more termite infested wood plates, and at the same time I encountered rock requiring a foundation re-design, if she accepts my engineer's re-design I'll move forward, if she continues to throw objections to everything we do I was considering alleging that she exceeded her authority at appeal, but this appears so complex that I think I better forget it and concentrate on the foundation re-design.  My engineer is Polish and the perspective from another culture is always interesting so I asked him why he thought she was throwing all of this at us, he said that they are making the building of single family as expensive as possible to keep the middle class out of expensive neighborhoods, moving them to transit oriented mixed use developments.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 25, 2011)

I think you are on risky ground implying why she was requiring something and except for very unusual circumstances it is irrelevant to the solution.  There is apparently a move by several jurisdictions in the SF Bay Area to favor transit oriented mixed use developments.  It is my understanding that this is being encouraged by legally adopted zoning regulations.

Just because the plan checker did not provide code references does not necessarily mean that she was asking for something not in the code.  Even when I believe the checker is being unreasonable I have found that some of the comments are appropriate and need to be responded to.

If you find something being required that your engineer does not believe is required by the code you should ask for a code reference.  This will allow you to respond and if the checker is being unreasonable the building departments resonse will be an important consideration.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 25, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The building official has the authority to interpret the building code provisions.  This gives him a fair amount of flexibility but there are limits on what he can require.  When there are differences of opinion the IBC makes provisions for a Board of Appeals in IBC Section 113.  The Board of Appeals does not have the authority to ask for more or waive the requirements of the code.  I would suggest that the "peer review" mentioned by Architect1281 would act in a similar manner.  The peer review should focus on interpretation of the code and not on imposing new requirements.  The observation by Architect1281 that the differences of opinion are often resolved by the designer providing more than what he believes is required reflects reality.  The delays and costs associated with the review could be more expensive than making the changes.  The problem with this practice is that some plan checkers come to believe that they can require whatever they want which has resulted in the abuse of the plan checker's authority and in turn some designers have come to believe the plan checker can ask for whatever he wants.


   The way a city attorney explained it to me when I was behind the counter:  "So long as you are consistent, you are on pretty firm legal footing."


----------



## Mark K (Sep 26, 2011)

Consistency is important and it will protect against certain types of claims but the building official must be prepared to reference the code section or other statute or regulation to justify the comment.

The courts are extremely reluctant to second guess the building officials interpretation so they will accept almost any rational that ties back to the appropriate statute or regulation.  If you cannot provide a statute or regulation reference the courts will support the plaintif.


----------



## conarb (Sep 26, 2011)

Mark:

But back to my original question, where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections?  Where is the Building Official authorized to interpret code?  What prevents a plan checker or Building Official from making arbitrary interpretations of code sections? Does it all boil down to government employees making decisions, sometimes arbitrary decisions, leaving the courts to determine whether their determinations are consistent and/or arbitrary?

When I look at appeals it says:



> *SECTION 112**BOARD OF APPEALS*
> 
> *112.1 General. *In order to hear and decide appeals of orders,decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation ofthis code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The board shall adopt rules ofprocedure for conducting its business.
> 
> ...


Appendix B also has provisions, but it says: *The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance.*

My research shows that in published appeals they are heard by a three member committee of the Board of Supervisors, that appears in conflict with code provisions so maybe they just don't publish appeal hearings.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 26, 2011)

> where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections


I don't think it does in the code, however is has been the policy of this city that when different departments accept or reject a design they have to reference there reason. A code section, adopted design standard, ordinance or resolution in other words something that would be defensible. Perhaps you may want to look at that cities policies. Over the years some policies get lost because staff get lazy.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 26, 2011)

The IBC doesn’t require that the building official reference code sections but I believe that you will find it well established in our legal system that the applicant has the right to know the legal basis for the requirements.  The building official does not have any authority to impose requirements that have not been formally adopted.  My understanding is that this right derives from the US Constitution.

IBC Section 104.1 states that the building official has the authority to render interpretations of the code.  We might find that the authority to interpret the regulations being enforced derives from common law associated with administrative law.

Building officials and plan checkers on occasion do make arbitrary interpretations of code sections.  It has to be pretty bad before a court will overrule a code interpretation.  More often the extreme interpretations are moderated by the appeal process or complaints to the building official or elected officials.  Often the opinion by a third party can help to resolve the differences.  I believe that ICC provides such services.  In some situations professional organizations have offered their insights.

What is an arbitrary interpretation is often a judgment call.  When deciding whether it is an arbitrary interpretation it is useful to look at what other jurisdictions do and positions statements by professional or standards writing organizations.

If the building official requires something but will not provide a code reference I would expect a short discussion with the city attorney would resolve things.  I would expect that the building official would be told to either provide a code reference or let it pass.

Prior to filing a formal appeal I would meet with the building official.  It would help to have an opinion of an other engineer to support your claims.

You are looking at the 2007 CBC in the 2010 CBC Board of Appeals is in Section 113.

I believe that different jurisdictions handle appeals differently.  Appendix B is one approach but the failure to adopt it does not mean that there is no appeal process.

If the project is a residential project I believe that there are provisions in the California Codes for appeals directly to HCD.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 26, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> What is an arbitrary interpretation is often a judgment call.  When deciding whether it is an arbitrary interpretation it is useful to look at what other jurisdictions do and positions statements by professional or standards writing organizations.
> 
> If the building official requires something but will not provide a code reference I would expect a short discussion with the city attorney would resolve things.  I would expect that the building official would be told to either provide a code reference or let it pass.


This sums up hpw we do it for the most part.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:But back to my original question, where does it say in the code that the plan checker has to reference code sections?  Where is the Building Official authorized to interpret code?  What prevents a plan checker or Building Official from making arbitrary interpretations of code sections? Does it all boil down to government employees making decisions, sometimes arbitrary decisions, leaving the courts to determine whether their determinations are consistent and/or arbitrary?


107.3 Examination of documents. The building official shall

examine or cause to be examined the accompanying submittal

documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether

the construction indicated and described is in accordance with

the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.

I am a plan checker and believe this section in the IBC allows people to ask me the reason for my correction.  If I write a correction letter with a sepcific item, it is because I deem that item to be out of compliance with the code.  You need to justify that the item you are noting does not meet the code.  The only way to do this is to cite a specific seciton of the code.

You don't just get a ticket from a police officer that says "you were breaking the law", you get a citation with the applicable statue in violation.

If the design meets the IBC criteria, even if it is the minimums, it should be allowed.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The way a city attorney explained it to me when I was behind the counter:  "So long as you are consistent, you are on pretty firm legal footing."


What if you have been consistenly wrong?


----------



## Architect1281 (Sep 26, 2011)

As Designer; Been there;  had that done to my clients; won the appeal

As CBO; Hand them my interpretation in writing:

if they dissagree I assist in the filling in of the appeal form. and encourage its use.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> What if you have been consistenly wrong?


   That was the point the city attorney was making...that's not the big concern.  The big concern is one set of rules for one group, another you.


----------



## righter101 (Sep 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> That was the point the city attorney was making...that's not the big concern.  The big concern is one set of rules for one group, another you.


I know, I was just joking around with ya.


----------

