# deleted



##  (Nov 2, 2009)

deleted


----------



## JBI (Nov 3, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

tiger - The pics are a little too close to really grasp what is going on with the job, but seems like you have some real winners working in your jurisdiction. Does anyone there read up on products before they use them?


----------



##  (Nov 3, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

deleted


----------



## slash (Dec 18, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Nice overlap of the top plate.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 19, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Tiger,

What's really scary is that; because most inspectors don't have the training and/or support of the AHJ; most of this suff gets built and covered up.  It's a national disaster that is being ignored.

One way to "help" aleviate this problem, is for the Inspectors to have an organization that represents them, provides education and training, and backs them up when they "attempt" to enforce the codes; like the Police and Fire Services do.

Uncle Bob


----------



## kilitact (Dec 19, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Uncle Bob wrote;



> Tiger,What's really scary is that; because most inspectors don't have the training and/or support of the AHJ; most of this suff gets built and covered up. It's a national disaster that is being ignored.
> 
> One way to "help" aleviate this problem, is for the Inspectors to have an organization that represents them, provides education and training, and backs them up when they "attempt" to enforce the codes; like the Police and Fire Services do.
> 
> ...


I agree, and a lot of so called inspectors wouldn’t have a clue has to recommending options for a code complaint fix.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Dec 19, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

UB and Kilitact,

*What would you gentlemen recommend?*   Please give a realistic suggestion or idea that we can get behind.  :roll:

I believe there is sufficient support on this Message Board to get something going.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Inspector Gift (Dec 19, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

UB and Kilitact,

*What would you gentlemen recommend?*   Please give a realistic suggestion or idea that we can get behind.  :roll:

I believe there is sufficient support on this Message Board to get something going.  :mrgreen:


----------



## vegas paul (Dec 20, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

My recommendation:  Any time you exceed or deviate from the prescriptive elements of the IRC, then an engineered design with calculations is required.  The whole point of the IRC (and following the IRC!) is to provide a method for constructing one and two family dwellings WITHOUT requiring an engineered design.  That's why everything is prescriptive, i.e. look-up tables, etc. in the IRC.  When you don't support a beam prescriptively (as in the original photos) then you need an engineered design solution.

Now, it is doubtful that any self-respecting engineer would sign off on the design pictured above, however it is NOT the inspector's responsibility to suggest or recommend a fix, it is the designer's job.  The inspector simply notes non-compliance, and awaits the revised solution.  I can only ASSume that this method of beam support was not depicted on the approved plans...  When the revised plans are submitted with either a prescriptive or engineered solution, then construction may continue.

My $.02.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 20, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

I totally agree with the VP, if it does not meet the prescriptive requirements of the code, engineering is required, and the solution does not come from the inspector.  JMHO


----------



## kilitact (Dec 20, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

I agree that if the design is outside the parameters of the prescriptive code for SFR, engineering. If the design is prescriptive and the approve drawings didn’t call out a hanger size, then IMO, a inspector should be able, to look at the beam cals and see what the loading is and pull out the s ….. Catalog and give the framer some options that would allow the job to move forward, instead of stopping the job and requiring a redesign and or requiring that this be resubmitted.


----------



## JBI (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

"Now, it is doubtful that any self-respecting engineer would sign off on the design pictured above..."

V P - They're not the ones I worry about.

Kil - If you choose to take on design responsibility in your jurisdiction, that is your choice (and ultimately your liability). My personal opinion, and the opinion of every trainer I've ever had, is that a Code Official not only doesn't have to, but should not assume any design responsibiltiy. It's a slippery slope, and a fast slide into a bad place. That's not to say that I won't help guide a homeowner in making good choices. I just can't/don't/won't make the decision for them.

If it doesn't comply with the approved plans there are two options:

1) Make it comply, or

2) Get a redesign from the person who prepared the original plan.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

jd I agree with you in part, giving them some options and making a decision for them are different.



> 1) Make it comply, or


 How would you make it comply


----------



## JBI (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Kil - 'I' wouldn't make it comply... 'they' will have to.

It must comply with the approved plans or be redesigned.

IF a DP prepared the original plans it's going back to the DP.

IF a non-registered individual prepared them, default to prescriptive parameters OR have the non-registered individual propose a corrective measure.

_Tell_ them how to fix it? Not me. Not my job.


----------



## beach (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

That is a good example of why you should always require a set of clear, concise plans stamped by an engineer, architect and plans examiner.


----------



## jpranch (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Install a post under it. Footings??? We don't need no stinking footings!


----------



## JBI (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

Back in the day, our local bungalow colonies were all privately owned, usually by year round residents (locals).  They rented to 'city folks' that wanted a summer place cheap, and the owners kept them nice.

Over time, they've been bought out by seasonal residents who don't have a clue about maintenance or construction. Can't tell you how many of these people have hired guys to 'repair' or 'do a little work on' their bungalows, only to have them jack the place up and set posts right on the dirt, and only charge about double what the cost would be to do it right.

Of course the schuysters never pull permits, and almost never do a job visible from the road...


----------



##  (Dec 21, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

deleted


----------



## kilitact (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

tigerloose wrote;



> Jpranch you win. It took a post and there was a footing. A close look at the picture and one can see that no hardware would work.


you got to be kidding? thats your professional opinion.


----------



##  (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

deleted


----------



## beach (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

I would have had Simpson custom make a hanger to my engineers' specs, we used to do that all the time when I was framing.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

beach wrote



> I would have had Simpson custom make a hanger to my engineers' specs, we used to do that all the time when I was framing.


or if not engineered, give other options that are found within the catalog, which by the way is available in spanish  :lol:


----------



##  (Dec 22, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections

deleted


----------



## kilitact (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

who deleted tigerloose?


----------



## JBI (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

My guess would be tigerloose deleted tigerloose.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> My guess would be tigerloose deleted tigerloose.


Someone must have forgotten to say "please."


----------



## beach (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

Is it "Brudgers" or "Grudgers"? :roll:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

Ok, Ya'll

Please come back Tiger; we need you.

How about one of you Moderators putting the Subject back; so we know what the thread is about?  Or delete the whole tread?  Come on, earn your keep.   :mrgreen:

Uncle Bob


----------



## Heaven (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

I didn't see the original picture that started this thread, so I am not speaking to that particular issue.

My perspective is, code officials approve compliant prescriptive work, and in the course of our day often come across some type of work that is not prescriptive and therefore must be judged "performance based" (speaking residentially, where there are no stamped drawings), since we have the authority to approve work that is "equal to or better than" prescriptive work and if we have the technical knowledge where we feel comfortable doing so, then we may approve non-prescriptive work.

Seems like this happens all the time where I work.


----------



## beach (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

The picture showed a 4X12(?) beam supported on the end by a 4x4 Simpson type hanger that had the nail flanges flattened out in the field. A few of the obvious things was that the hanger was not deep enough for the depth of the beam and the hanger is not designed to have the flanges straightened out. Being an ex framer and not having a Simpson catalog in front of me, I think an HH hanger would have probably worked (I think it's an "HH" hanger...the one where the flanges are reverse bent so they are behind or inside the saddle of the hanger). However, how can an inspector know the loading of the beam, etc. to determine what hanger is required for that particular application? Coming from an area that requires engineering and stamped drawings for everything except doggy doors, the inspectors around here need to see the exact hanger noted on the plans....why should they need to suggest a particular hanger for a load they don't know? I don't see how that is prescriptive or performance based. Technical knowledge is one thing, but there are different hangers for different loads and applications that an engineer must specify.


----------



## Heaven (Dec 23, 2009)

Re: deleted

Like I said, I didn't see the pictures, but I can say that modifying something like a hanger that is listed is a "shame on you" without even seeing it.

In most cases, the residential structures where I work do not have construction documents, so instead I do have to use basic knowledge to approve or not. If I feel it is outside of my knowledge base I have no problem asking them for verification of compliance from a stamped professional.


----------



## RickAstoria (Dec 27, 2009)

Re: lots of corrections



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Kil - 'I' wouldn't make it comply... 'they' will have to. It must comply with the approved plans or be redesigned.
> 
> IF a DP prepared the original plans it's going back to the DP.
> 
> ...


Kil..

If the design for the project falls under the exceptions in ORS 672.060 (Engineer's Law) [it also will fall under the exemption under ORS 671.030 - Architect's Law] - then you should require the original DP (even if the DP is an unregistered designer / person) to make the corrections and submit calculations in accordance with accepted standards. Of course, if the designer is not able to perform the calcs to support the corrective measures, you should request them to get the design and calcs prepared & stamped & signed by an RDP (licensed & registered in the state in which the project is to be built) and have it resubmitted. IOW, Oregon registered Design Professional.

Your local "laws" will triumph over the state laws and codes provide it is stricter and doesn't lessen the required laws of the state and federal level. Very simple.

It is the designer's responsibility not yours. You may make a suggestion if you clearly make a disclaimer. You have to be careful and you don't want to put liability to your employer (the local government entity). You may not be able to be sued but the city/county government itself can be sued AND you can be fired if they don't like the liability you added to them. So be careful, my friend. This is an old response.


----------



## Heaven (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: deleted

IBC2006 106.4 Amended Construction Documents is pretty clear.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: deleted

rick a wrote dec.28 on page 4:



> Kil..If the design for the project falls under the exceptions in ORS 672.060 (Engineer's Law) [it also will fall under the exemption under ORS 671.030 - Architect's Law] - then you should require the original DP (even if the DP is an unregistered designer / person) to make the corrections and submit calculations in accordance with accepted standards. Of course, if the designer is not able to perform the calcs to support the corrective measures, you should request them to get the design and calcs prepared & stamped & signed by an RDP (licensed & registered in the state in which the project is to be built) and have it resubmitted. IOW, Oregon registered Design Professional.
> 
> Your local "laws" will triumph over the state laws and codes provide it is stricter and doesn't lessen the required laws of the state and federal level. Very simple.
> 
> It is the designer's responsibility not yours. You may make a suggestion if you clearly make a disclaimer. You have to be careful and you don't want to put liability to your employer (the local government entity). You may not be able to be sued but the city/county government itself can be sued AND you can be fired if they don't like the liability you added to them. So be careful, my friend. This is an old response..


I wrote Dec. 19,on page 1:



> I agree, and a lot of so called inspectors wouldn’t have a clue has to recommending options for a code complaint fix.


Rick, if you would try to read (listen) before you jump to erroneous conclusions, you wouldn’t have to waste time making these unjustified threats of people losing their jobs because a non-professional designer didn’t read (listen) to what was posted. Same goes for your trying to read building codes, Oregon administrative rule and Oregon revised statues.


----------



## RickAstoria (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: deleted



			
				Heaven said:
			
		

> IBC2006 106.4 Amended Construction Documents is pretty clear.


Yes it is.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: deleted

IBC Section 106.4:



> Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.


Absolutely, we (building dept.) need to approve any changes and have the amended documents for records. If the plans were drawn by a DP, then the DP needs to make the changes. If a non-professional drew the plans than any one can make the changes, but in either case, they still need to be approved by the building dept.


----------



## RickAstoria (Dec 28, 2009)

Re: deleted



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> IBC Section 106.4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Absolutely, we (building dept.) need to approve any changes and have the amended documents for records. If the plans were drawn by a DP, then the DP needs to make the changes. If a non-professional drew the plans than any one can make the changes, but in either case, they still need to be approved by the building dept.

The person - (licensed or not) who prepared it should make the changes.


----------

