# Sheathing vs Shear Wall



## MarioA (May 26, 2022)

Entry level plans examiner here. Basic question I couldn't get a clear answer from google.  Difference between a shear wall and sheathing? Is the wall the framing itself supporting the sheathing? Thanks guys.


----------



## ICE (May 26, 2022)

Shear wall is an assembly that includes the foundation, framing and sheathing.  Sheathing refers to a myriad of things from Celotex to plywood and more.


----------



## Mark K (May 26, 2022)

A plans examiner with this question would be well advised to talk to an engineer employed by the building department and should limit his efforts to the most basic sort of permits.

From an engineer's perspective the sheathing that is a part of a shear wall and consists of either plywood or OSB.

The existence of sheathing does not automatically make a wall a shear wall.

The basic concern is that the building needs to resist the horizontal loads resulting from significant wind or rom an earthquake.  To be effective there must be a load path that allows the forces to be transferred to the foundation.  The framing and hardware must allow the shear wall to resist overturning forces.  If not the shear wall will tilt over.

While the IRC provides prescriptive provisions that address these situations for a limited set of buildings in general the determination of whether there is sufficient lateral resistance needs the knowledge of a professional engineer.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> From an engineer's perspective the sheathing that is a part of a shear wall and consists of either plywood or OSB.


You can also have gypsum sheathed shear walls.


----------



## ICE (May 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> A plans examiner with this question would be well advised to talk to an engineer employed by the building department and should limit his efforts to the most basic sort of permits.
> 
> From an engineer's perspective the sheathing that is a part of a shear wall and consists of either plywood or OSB.
> 
> ...


Snarky as ever.  Why can't you be nice to the people that come here for advice.  Mario started out with, "Entry level plans examiner here." and you just couldn't keep your big mouth shut.

Mario,
There was a day when the blowhard was not an engineer.  He didn't know a shear wall from a shitter wall.  Well he does now.  He thinks that he's a big fish in a little pond.  Tigers don't like fish....too boney.


----------



## steveray (May 26, 2022)

Sheathing may resist shear forces...but it may not.....I believe Simpson Strong Tie has some good online classes or maybe even in person....Only a mild plug as I have learned a bunch from our northeast folks....


----------



## Mark K (May 26, 2022)

Gypsum sheathing has very limited values and is seldom used by engineers.  In addition when subject to earthquakes the nails crush the gypboard causing the lateral capacity of the gypsum panels to degrade very quickly.

A plans examiner should know his or her limits.


----------



## ICE (May 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> A plans examiner should know his or her limits.


As well as you should too.  It's not up to you to spank plans examiners.


----------



## bill1952 (May 26, 2022)

Mario - Is this an IRC building? I assumed so but discussion made me wonder.


----------



## redeyedfly (May 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Gypsum sheathing has very limited values and is seldom used by engineers.  In addition when subject to earthquakes the nails crush the gypboard causing the lateral capacity of the gypsum panels to degrade very quickly.
> 
> A plans examiner should know his or her limits.


You might want to dust off your SDPWS.  Gyp sheathing has less capacity than plywood but not that much less.  Also, you're typically counting both sides of a gyp shear wall unlike wood panels where you're often asymmetrical and cannot.  Gyp shear walls are used all the time in wind country, often as you get to higher floors.  
Granted, if you need high numbers you can't reduce edge nailing spacing to get more capacity out of gyp like you can with wood panels.


----------



## Mark K (May 27, 2022)

What I said about gypsum sheathing is still true.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (May 27, 2022)

MarioA said:


> Entry level plans examiner here. Basic question I couldn't get a clear answer from google.  Difference between a shear wall and sheathing? Is the wall the framing itself supporting the sheathing? Thanks guys.


Mario, go to the apawood.org and look for their free webinars on Braced Wall Panels - they will teach you a lot. APA stands for the American Plywood Association, they changed their name to "The Engineered Wood Association" but they still go by APA.

They also have a Youtube channel, but you can get CEU credits if you watch on their website.


----------



## Joe.B (May 27, 2022)

I would note that the term "shear-wall" is not used prescriptively in the IRC. In the IRC it is defined as: 

"[RB] SHEAR WALL. *A general term* for walls that are designed and constructed to resist racking from seismic and wind by use of masonry, concrete, cold-formed steel or wood framing in accordance with Chapter 6 of this code and the associated limitations in Section R301.2 of this code."

If something is being designed prescriptively through the IRC then it will be per R602.10 "Wall bracing" and it should be called a "Braced Wall Panel." If plans call it a "shear wall" then it should be an engineered design and should be accompanied by stamped calculations. 

The IBC definition is:

"[BS] SHEAR WALL (for Chapter 23). A wall designed to resist lateral forces parallel to the plane of a wall.

Shear wall, perforated. A wood structural panel sheathed wall with openings, that has not been specifically designed and detailed for force transfer around openings.

Shear wall segment, perforated. A section of shear wall with full-height sheathing that meets the height-to-width ratio limits of Section 4.3.4 of AWC SDPWS."


----------



## Joe.B (May 27, 2022)

ICE said:


> Snarky as ever.  Why can't you be nice to the people that come here for advice.  Mario started out with, "Entry level plans examiner here." and you just couldn't keep your big mouth shut.
> 
> Mario,
> There was a day when the blowhard was not an engineer.  He didn't know a shear wall from a shitter wall.  Well he does now.  He thinks that he's a big fish in a little pond.  Tigers don't like fish....too bony.


I don't know man, I think his answer was pretty good, and taken at face value I didn't see anything that was rude or not "nice." 


Mark K said:


> A plans examiner with this question would be well advised to talk to an engineer employed by the building department and should limit his efforts to the most basic sort of permits.


I guess that first statement could be considered snarky, but he's not wrong. Maybe it could be "nicer" if he said "An entry level plans examiner..." and "and the supervisor should limit..."

I think you two need need some boxing gloves and a ring. <said with snark and sarcasm> The rest of us can grab some beer or popcorn and enjoy the show! I know I'm newer here and there's probably some history but I will say it's definitely entertaining! And educational, I've learned a lot from both of your posts.


----------



## tmurray (May 27, 2022)

MarioA said:


> Entry level plans examiner here. Basic question I couldn't get a clear answer from google.  Difference between a shear wall and sheathing? Is the wall the framing itself supporting the sheathing? Thanks guys.


Great question from a new plans examiner to make sure you are doing your job properly and some great responses here in this thread to help you out. Welcome to the forum and the industry!


----------



## redeyedfly (May 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> What I said about gypsum sheathing is still true.


Maybe except the part where it's seldom used by engineers.  If I see wood structural panel shear walls on the top floor of a III or V I know the engineer is being lazy.


----------



## ICE (May 27, 2022)

Joe.B said:


> I don't know man, I think his answer was pretty good, and taken at face value I didn't see anything that was rude or not "nice."
> 
> I guess that first statement could be considered snarky, but he's not wrong. Maybe it could be "nicer" if he said "An entry level plans examiner..." and "and the supervisor should limit..."
> 
> I think you two need need some boxing gloves and a ring. <said with snark and sarcasm> The rest of us can grab some beer or popcorn and enjoy the show! I know I'm newer here and there's probably some history but I will say it's definitely entertaining! And educational, I've learned a lot from both of your posts.


Please excuse me.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Mark K said:


> A plans examiner with this question would be well advised to talk to an engineer employed by the building department and should limit his efforts to the most basic sort of permits.
> 
> From an engineer's perspective the sheathing that is a part of a shear wall and consists of either plywood or OSB.
> 
> ...


Listen to him, are you ICC certified yet? Buy Ching's books for graphic clarifications .


----------



## north star (Jun 21, 2022)

*# # # #*

*All, ...we want to encourage people like **MarioA** to come 
to this Forum and learn, share and find assistance, and
NOT be put off by asking basic questions.

We want **MarioA** to go and tell others that there is "positive"
place on the internet to go and ask Code related questions.

If you noticed, he hasn't asked any more questions.

Ya'll play nice & BE nice to our visitors, and regular Forum
members.*

*# # # #*


----------



## Mark K (Jun 24, 2022)

ADAguy said:


> Listen to him, are you ICC certified yet? Buy Ching's books for graphic clarifications .


I guess I am to assume that ICC certification trumps being a licensed engineer with considerable experience with residential structures.  My mistake.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 24, 2022)

ADAguy said:


> Listen to him, are you ICC certified yet? Buy Ching's books for graphic clarifications .


Good advice. I still reference handbooks for the odd thing today.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 24, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Gypsum sheathing has very limited values and is seldom used by engineers.  In addition when subject to earthquakes the nails crush the gypboard causing the lateral capacity of the gypsum panels to degrade very quickly.
> 
> A plans examiner should know his or her limits.


Gypsum is used as part of a shear wall frequently in areas of the country outside of earthquake zones.  There are specific nailing patterns called out by the licensed architects or engineers that design them.  Sometimes we need to step outside of the little bubble we live in and realize that there are both round holes and square holes in this world.  The world's axis does not rotate around the area we live in.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 24, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I guess I am to assume that ICC certification trumps being a licensed engineer with considerable experience with residential structures.  My mistake.


Mark, it seems what you are saying is "being a Professional Engineer" trumps the ICC Certs.  Many of us have spent the first part of our work-life trying to build what Some Puppy Engineer thought was a good idea!  Remember what it was like Before you gained some real experience.  Just like the new guy who asked that basic question
Many of us transitioned to Bldg Code Officials as a second career and brought that real-life experience to the table.

Seems like we should all just understand who we are speaking with ( not to and certainly not at) and then we can figure out how we can take advantage of what the other knows and hence do a better job

Personally, I had 45 years of Commercial Building and Mechanical Construction experience BEFORE I applied  for the job. , For me, it was the icing on the cake since those Code choices were made before I got the plans.  For me it was a way to deal with the boredom of not working job site.

I would be happy to compare notes with you and you can figure out if your PE Status makes me less informed than you

A little humility might be something we can all strive for,  Me Thinks


----------



## ICE (Jun 24, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I guess I am to assume that ICC certification trumps being a licensed engineer with considerable experience with residential structures.  My mistake.


If the ICC certificate is in the possession of a duly sworn plan checker then your assumption is entirely correct. That works with with certified inspectors also. But then you knew that.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 24, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I guess I am to assume that ICC certification trumps being a licensed engineer with considerable experience with residential structures.  My mistake.


Apples & oranges.  The engineer has the skill and authority to apply physics to design a structure, and do so to code, and best construction practices.  The inspector has the authority to approve that design.  The inspector does not have the authority to alter the design, and the engineer does not have the authority to approve it.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 24, 2022)

e hilton said:


> Apples & oranges.  The engineer has the skill and authority to apply physics to design a structure, and do so to code, and best construction practices.  The inspector has the authority to approve that design.  The inspector does not have the authority to alter the design, and the engineer does not have the authority to approve it.


I have like to believe I have humility but I fear many building department personnel do not.  

Referring to a "puppy engineer" is disrespectful and minimizes what the engineer can bring to the table.  Many of the engineers have been around the block more than a few times.  

Many if not most of the code provisions have been developed by engineers.  Maybe this gives them some insight as to why the provision was adopted and what is important?  I had an experience where I participated in a committee that drafted a code provision that was adopted.   Years later I was told by a plan checker that the code did not mean what I understood it to mean.  Remember I helped to write the provision.

You may have experienced situations where what the engineer required was not consistent with your understanding, but you may also not understand why he did what he did.  I have experienced inspectors and plan checkers who did not know what they were talking about and did not read the code so maybe building department personnel should have some humility.

Individuals may have the authority to approve but with that goes the responsibility to consider all the issues when that ability is exercised.  If individuals exercise their authority without considering the engineering perspective then maybe they are not doing their job.  Every building department should either have an engineer on staff or should have an engineer as a consultant.  Is that threatening?

The process of becoming a licensed engineer is more intense than the process of obtaining an ICC certification.  An engineer has studied engineering in college, the emphasis is on understanding why and how things work.  In addition the engineer needs to have some experience working under a licensed engineer and must learn the codes and standards related to his  work before he can  take the licensing exam.  Further an engineer receives feedback with respect to his projects thus making him aware of likely problems.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 24, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I have like to believe I have humility but I fear many building department personnel do not.
> 
> Referring to a "puppy engineer" is disrespectful and minimizes what the engineer can bring to the table.  Many of the engineers have been around the block more than a few times.
> 
> ...


Mark,  Puppy Engineer applies to the new people, the EIT's so, I was being more generous than yourself when you seemed to disparage the New Plan Reviewer who had the guts to ask questions and try to educate himself.

As to your point, Plans Reviewers ARE NOT DESIGN PROFESSIONALS.  I have no problem with that double line that I don't cross so I won't wind up in a head-on collision.  My experience has been the opposite of your premise.  I have seen some of my co-workers defer to the -person with the seal !  
The most challenging jobs I was asked to do  was to review the MAKE SAFE Permits for ID (Inimitably dangerous)  Yep it means our people thought it was close to falling down!  The problem was that the Design Professional provided a plan WITHOUT the Procedure / the means or methods to accomplish the finished Product reflected in the Plan
Contractors have Completed Operations , Liability Insurance that DOES NOT INCLUDE Design Errors and Omissions.  Thererfore, If the contractor takes it upon themselves to try to figure out how to shore up this thing while they are trying to install 2 new 8WF beams and it falls down and hurts or kills one of their workers,  Guess Who Doesn't Have Insurance to cover this tragedy? 
 Because of being a Contractor/ Owner, I know where that double line is.  And found myself, on several occasions, insisting that the Design Professional DO Their JOB,  So I Could Do Mine.  That is why I was there, not to get into a conversation about whose is bigger!  Or who is smarter!  I have an even better story, but it would take too long to write down.  If you would like to hear it Let me know  I have no Doubt that I save some worker's Limbs or their Life on 2 occasions.  Made the job worthwhile 

Best,  Mike


----------



## Mark K (Jun 25, 2022)

I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things. 

The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer.  If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.

If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to engineer and the engineer's client.

Engineers do not specify the means and methods of how to build the project.  To do so would make them responsible for many things over which they have no control.   When faced with a means and methods problem contractors are able to hire a specialty engineer to help sort things out.  The contractor's job is to take responsibility for means and methods.

You raised the question of E&O insurance.  I believe in all states, building department personnel are immune from any liability thus they need no insurance.  As to contractors I will only say that in my experience there has been no push back when we stated that we were not responsible for means and methods.  The result was that contractors safely built the building.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 25, 2022)

Genduct said:


> The problem was that the Design Professional provided a plan WITHOUT the Procedure / the means or methods to accomplish the finished Product


Means & methods is the responsibility of the contractor.  The AoR / EoR is available to review said methods if the contractor requests.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 25, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
> 
> The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer.  If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.
> 
> ...




I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
DON'T WORRY WE WON'T

The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  NO QUESTION
 When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer. If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH THAT STATUS,  IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO CHECK OR SECOND GUESS YOUR WORK.  ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED FOR INFO TO BE CLARIFIED OR CLARIFIED WHEN I AM SUPRISED OR CONFUSED    I KNOW WHERE THE DOUBLE LINE IS

If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to the engineer and the engineer's client.
I CERTAINLY HOPE YOU ARE NOT SETTLING FOR THE CODE MINIMUM AND ARE DOING BEST PRACTICES

Engineers do not specify the means and methods of how to build the project. To do so would make them responsible for many things over which they have no control. When faced with a means and methods problem contractors are able to hire a specialty engineer to help sort things out. The contractor's job is to take responsibility for means and methods.  
DOES YOUR CLIENT KNOW THAT YOU WERE HIRED AND PAID TO DO HALF THE JOB?  IS THAT STATEMENT ON YOUR PLAN OR IN YOUR SPEC?  YOU DO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM,  RIGHT

You raised the question of E&O insurance. I believe in all states, building department personnel are immune from any liability thus they need no insurance. As to contractors I will only say that in my experience there has been no push back when we stated that we were not responsible for means and methods. The result was that contractors safely built the building.  THAT'S BECAUSE MANY OF THE SMALLER GUYS DON'T RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM AND AS JUST STATED, YOU HAVE NOT MADE THAT CLEAR IN YOUR CONSTRUCTION DOCS


----------



## Genduct (Jun 25, 2022)

Genduct said:


> I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
> DON'T WORRY WE WON'T
> 
> The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  NO QUESTION
> ...


ps WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING MAKE SAFE SITUATION NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION


----------



## Mark K (Jun 26, 2022)

The building department is not concerned with means and methods.  Their concern is that the completed structure is compliant with the adopted regulations.

The idea that the designer should be responsible for specifying the means and methods. is contrary to the recommendations of the Errors and Omissions Insurance carriers and the lawyers' representing designers.  It is also contrary to the understanding of design engineers.

The reality is that contracts for construction are consistent in specifying that
the building department is not concerned about means and methods.  They are concerned that the completed structure complies with the building regulations.

If the designers were to become responsible for controlling means and methods, I envision two reactions from Contractors.  First, they would not be happy with what the designers specified.  Second, they would file a claim for a change order because  they would claim what the  designers specified cost them  more money.

The reality is that construction contracts regularly make the contractor responsible for means and methods of construction.  This has been the norm.

The above applies to modifications to exiting construction; as well as, new construction.  The Contractor is responsible for construction means and methods. Contractors have shown that they can manage the means and methods.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The building department is not concerned with means and methods.  Their concern is that the completed structure is compliant with the adopted regulations.
> 
> The idea that the designer should be responsible for specifying the means and methods. is contrary to the recommendations of the Errors and Omissions Insurance carriers and the lawyers' representing designers.  It is also contrary to the understanding of design engineers.
> 
> ...


Mark, please understand that the situation I was referring to WAS NOT New Construction, but even New construction would call out the Benching or soldier Beams and lagging to excavate and support an abutting structure,  WOuld it not?
So, I had an engineer submit a plan to remove the existing first floor 8" masonry wall, of the original 3 story rear wall,  to open up the space with a later addition, and showed an 8WF replacing the wall WITH THE REMAINING @ FLOORS OF EXT"G BRICK ABOVE
The Contractor was supposed to accomplish that HOW?  Are You Kidding Me? Without guidance from the "Design Professional"   Would you have left those decisions up to the Contractor?  Told the Contractor they had to engage another Design Professional to fill-in the blanks.

Of course, the design would not be complete without a shoring plan and some clear indication of what was going to hold up 2 stories of 8" brick 15' X 20' x 80#/ SF so you can install that 8WF
PS there was No Note about engaging another Engineer to give them clear guidance about The Methods to SAFELY accomplish this 

There was no way I was issuing a Permit that would have put that contractor in that situation,  SO I asked for a CLARIFICATION without adding any editorial comments.  That is the benefit of hiring people like me to do the job as a second career.  We bring some practical Experience to the table.

We don't just "Rubber Stamp" it because you sealed the drawing and "Defer" to you and your Insurance Carrier 

How can you disagree with that POV?

Let me know if you would like to compare notes,  off line.  Perhaps we are not as far apart as the posts might suggest
Best,  Mike


----------



## jar546 (Jun 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
> 
> The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer.  If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.
> 
> ...



Our structural plans examiners look at code compliance only.  On more involved projects we send it out to a structural P.E. for peer review.

There were times, however, when simple items such as a built-up beam was not code compliant and further information was asked of the architect or engineer to clarify and prove compliance with calculations since the beam was not prescriptively compliant with the code.  100% of the time when we asked for the calculations for our records, the beam size was changed to a compliant design.  

As a person who owned a third-party inspection agency and was sued twice, yeah, E&O insurance is required and as a BCO for a municipality, we have the required insurance too.


----------



## ICE (Jun 26, 2022)

Reading this thread one can get the wrong idea of what goes on in building departments.  There is no hard and fast rule so it's a crap shoot as to the rigors applied to plan checks and what happens after. The jurisdiction where I worked has close to a hundred engineers of one stripe or another.  Some are top notch and some are...well not so much.  That jurisdiction paid close attention to detail and a huge County right next door approved any stamped plan without looking at it.

A construction project is a group of individuals performing an amalgamation of tasks.  1. Someone puts pencil to paper with plan check being the first hurdle.  2. The contractor is the next link in the chain.  3. Lastly, and most important is the inspector.  If the first two are deficient, the inspector steps up to the plate and clears the bases....or so we have been told.

The truth is that each of one, two and three might be competent or any combination is just as likely.  It is when the inspector is the weak link that the worst outcome is possible.

Ninety percent of the work ninety percent of building departments deal with is residential construction.  Residential construction was hardly complicated.  And then came a need to feed a bureaucracy bent on regulating every nuance of the residential built environment.  Had the train stopped with a National Electric Code, the cost of housing would not be anywhere near the staggering heights of today....awful delays would evaporate...crappy builders would wither.

Apparently Californians have a fetish for licenses.  A license is required for a host of occupations from barber to embalmer.  Anyone not needing the services of the embalmer can get a contractor license, bad haircut and all.  That gives the populace a false sense of well-being.

The same applies to engineers and inspectors.  Okay, not just anybody can get an engineering license....you have to start with an architect and remove the sense of humor... we all know an engineer that should be working for Disney because they’re Goofy.  As to inspectors, oh my what an assortment that is.  The occupation of inspector reminds me of the freeway syatem....since we let anyone in, it's a wonder that it works at all.

The train rolls down the tracks and at each stop a passenger loads up.  Some have a ticket to ride and others are imposters blending in.  They all have a seat and too many of them are seat warmers.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;,',


Keys sticking on the keyboard?


----------



## Mark K (Jun 26, 2022)

The situation being described is unclear and now apparently has to do with underpinning or indirectly providing support of an adjacent structure.  This is both complex from an engineering perspective and from a legal perspective.  Obviously engineering involvement is needed, but without more information I prefer not to comment on whether the engineer should have shown more.  My following comments are focused on more typical conditions

Creating new openings in an existing masonry wall may be almost trivial or could be a major issue depending on the size of the opening and the configuration of the wall above.  If they are contemplating a 15' opening, I would be more concerned with the 8WF and how the completed walls span the opening and possibly the need to modify the foundation.

Temporary shoring is not a building code issue.  I contend that it is governed by OSHA.  Underpinning is not a temporary situation, but the means and methods by which it is accomplished are not addressed in the code.

By refusing to issue a permit not because of a code requirement, but because you did not want to "...put that contractor in that situation" you have taken it upon yourself to create a special duty to protect the contractor.  This act, thus likely voided the immunity you and the building department may claim.

When the building department does not void its immunity, the liability exposure of the building department is minuscule compared with the liability exposure of the design engineer.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The situation being described is unclear and now apparently has to do with underpinning or indirectly providing support of an adjacent structure.  This is both complex from an engineering perspective and from a legal perspective.  Obviously engineering involvement is needed, but without more information I prefer not to comment on whether the engineer should have shown more.  My following comments are focused on more typical conditions
> 
> Creating new openings in an existing masonry wall may be almost trivial or could be a major issue depending on the size of the opening and the configuration of the wall above.  If they are contemplating a 15' opening, I would be more concerned with the 8WF and how the completed walls span the opening and possibly the need to modify the foundation.
> 
> ...


Mark,  I really liked the Ice-man's summation.  And I hope there is some value in this exchange of views.

BUT your remark:, "By refusing to issue a permit not because of a code requirement, but because you did not want to "...put that contractor in that situation" you have taken it upon yourself to create a special duty to protect the contractor. This act, thus likely voided the immunity you and the building department may claim."

The guy was taking the ENTIRE 1st floor wall out and I believe it was (2) 8WFs 
Remember I "artfully" broached the subject so there would be no doubt about where a "Jury of our Peers" would understand the responsibility for this Engineering Concern rested (IMHO)  by asking for a CLARIFICATION. The Engineer was On Notice that there was a question that needed to be addressed.
There was no need to confront the Engineer who clearly subscribed to your Point of View. Just a Nudge in the right direction.  I only had 4 of these issues in 4 years, so it didn't happen that often.

And finally,  I could not review this situation and NOT respond to what I saw as the potential loss of some worker's Limbs or Life with the idea that I didn't have the "Chops" to see the situation for what it was.

Actually, I think an exchange of views like this does have value.  People will have to consider the observation: When Good people standby and say nothing.................  Fill in the rest.
You do need to be "Artful" in how you respond.  I also believe a Mistake is an Error that can't be corrected.  Having someone get hurt or worse because of my lack of a response is not an error and not something Sgt Mike is capable of considering as a Course of Action.

I enjoyed this exchange of views.  Best  Mike


----------



## Mark K (Jun 26, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Remember I "artfully" broached the subject so there would be no doubt about where a "Jury of our Peers" would understand the responsibility for this Engineering Concern rested (IMHO)  by asking for a CLARIFICATION. The Engineer was On Notice that there was a question that needed to be addressed.
> There was no need to confront the Engineer who clearly subscribed to your Point of View. Just a Nudge in the right direction.  I only had 4 of these issues in 4 years, so it didn't happen that often
> 
> And finally,  I could not review this situation and NOT respond to what I saw as the potential loss of some worker's Limbs or Life with the idea that I didn't have the "Chops" to see the situation for what it was.


You did confront the engineer.  You used your position and the potential to cause delays in approval to apply pressure.

The building department is not concerned with establishing responsibility of the design engineer.  That is the providence of the civil courts and potentially the licensing board.  The focus of the building department is on code compliance


----------



## ICE (Jun 26, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The focus of the building department is on code compliance


There was a time when that was true....  Code compliance is merely a part of the outward appearance.  The focus has shifted to "customer service".  It is less obvious during plan check and permitting because the majority of the high paid players on both sides of the counter occupy that space.  They need to look productive and necessary in ever increasing numbers.  

The customer service comes in with ineffectual, hobbled inspectors.  Many inspectors don't have to be told to not write corrections because that creates a negative customer experience....some need reminding.   Writing corrections causes a delay and the consensus is that most corrections are not worth the strife that comes with it.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> You did confront the engineer.  You used your position and the potential to cause delays in approval to apply pressure.
> 
> The building department is not concerned with establishing responsibility of the design engineer.  That is the providence of the civil courts and potentially the licensing board.  The focus of the building department is on code compliance


*104.12 Requirements not covered by code*_. Any requirements necessary for strength, stability or proper operation of an existing or proposed building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this or other technical codes, shall be determined by the building official._

Mark, you see, there is a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the BO which is why means, methods, and safety are important factors.  Replacing a roof on a high-rise?  We want a plan from an engineer showing the distribution of the loads when materials are sent up by crane.  If a job requires underpinning, you bet that the engineer will have to provide details for the job.  Temporary shoring of structures is also something in the purview of the engineer, and we will absolutely be asking for that.  If you are designing for a job that requires underpinning and temporary shoring and you think that is not your responsibility, I assume you sub-contract that out or refer your client to an engineer that does.

Then there is this:

*107.2.1 Information on construction documents*_. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and *show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official*. Such drawings and specifications shall contain information, in the form of notes or otherwise, as to the quality of materials, where quality is essential to conformity with the technical codes. Such information shall be specific, and the technical codes shall not be cited as a whole or in part, nor shall the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information. All information, drawings, specifications and accompanying data shall bear the name and signature of the person responsible for the design._

The key sentence is "......conform to the provisions of this code AND relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,....."

So when I ask you to show me the Coastal Construction Control Line on the plans, reference the DEP number for approval and require a temporary shoring plan for the neighbor's block wall you will be undermining, it becomes part of the requirements.

Maybe in your perfect world, you are free to limit your design so as to limit your liability, in the real world that you live in, that is not the case


----------



## Genduct (Jun 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> You did confront the engineer.  You used your position and the potential to cause delays in approval to apply pressure.
> 
> The building department is not concerned with establishing responsibility of the design engineer.  That is the providence of the civil courts and potentially the licensing board.  The focus of the building department is on code compliance


Mark, we clearly disagree on our Role,  Our Responsibility

I believe that since English Common Law was invented,  Our Job Is PUBLIC SAFETY,  And hence why we have Police Powers.  If you chose to ignore what appears to be a Flawed Design because there is an Engineer of Record, and are afraid to bring that situation to their attention,  how do you live with yourself if the Contractor is hurt or worse trying to execute using their "Means and Methods"

I don't know about your area but locally the majority of our Contractors are "Handymen" and not experienced Contractors.  Even more pressure to do that Safety Thing

This is the end of the discussion for me.  You can get the last word in,  I think we have covered this topic pretty well
I also think the discussion may help others think about what their Responsibilities are before they have to decide what to do when they see a problem 

Best,  Mike B


----------



## classicT (Jun 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions.  When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer.  If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.
> 
> If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to engineer and the engineer's client.


The premise of your argument is tremendously flawed... If a plan checker should limit his/her review to code compliance, then why do they need to be or have an engineer on staff? Per your argument, the engineering need not be reviewed except for code compliance. If review is limited to code, then why have an engineer on staff.

You need to keep in mind that as a Plans Examiner, I know more about Code then you as an engineer do. With that, I also respect that you as an engineer, know more about engineering design then I do. Two way street. For that reason, perhaps building departments should not have engineers on staff. That would keep the lines from being blurred then, right? Let building departments stick to code and engineers to the engineering.

Or let me guess, that isn't good enough for you either Mark?


----------



## Inspector Gadget (Jun 27, 2022)

Genduct said:


> I believe that since English Common Law was invented,  Our Job Is PUBLIC SAFETY,  And hence why we have Police Powers.  If you chose to ignore what appears to be a Flawed Design because there is an Engineer of Record, and are afraid to bring that situation to their attention,  how do you live with yourself if the Contractor is hurt or worse trying to execute using their "Means and Methods"



(coff)
*Champlain Towers*
(coff)


----------



## e hilton (Jun 27, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Replacing a roof on a high-rise?  We want a plan from an engineer showing the distribution of the loads when materials are sent up by crane.


Not arguing but ... I would be less concerned about a high rise roof, and more concerned about a building with a stone ballasted roof (takes too much time to remove the stone, and where are you going to stockpile it anyway).  Or even a residential single family project where they stack all the new shingles on the ridge.


----------



## steveray (Jun 27, 2022)

e hilton said:


> Or even a residential single family project where they stack all the new shingles on the ridge.


The truss manufacturers specs are often violated on this and drywall stacking...


----------



## jar546 (Jun 27, 2022)

e hilton said:


> Not arguing but ... I would be less concerned about a high rise roof, and more concerned about a building with a stone ballasted roof (takes too much time to remove the stone, and where are you going to stockpile it anyway).  Or even a residential single family project where they stack all the new shingles on the ridge.


It is all relevant, however the stakes are much higher with threshold buildings.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 27, 2022)

classicT said:


> The premise of your argument is tremendously flawed... If a plan checker should limit his/her review to code compliance, then why do they need to be or have an engineer on staff? Per your argument, the engineering need not be reviewed except for code compliance. If review is limited to code, then why have an engineer on staff.
> 
> You need to keep in mind that as a Plans Examiner, I know more about Code then you as an engineer do. With that, I also respect that you as an engineer, know more about engineering design then I do. Two way street. For that reason, perhaps building departments should not have engineers on staff. That would keep the lines from being blurred then, right? Let building departments stick to code and engineers to the engineering.
> 
> Or let me guess, that isn't good enough for you either Mark?


The reason the building department needs engineers is because their expertise and knowledge is needed to interpret the code.  You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code.  In California the norm is that the building department either employs an engineer or contracts with an engineer to provide  such expertise.

Within the scope of my practice I suggest that I know more about the code that applies to me than an unlicensed individual.  There are parts of the code that I do not fully appreciate but those provisions deal with issues outside of my scope of practice.  

In response to the provisions of section 104.12 quoted, a building official who does not have the training and expertise expected of an engineer does not have the expertise to make the determinations implied.  More importantly giving the building official the authority to effectively unilaterally adopt new code provisions is in strict conflict with our legal system and thus this provision should be considered to be void.  Our system of laws which supersedes this provision in the IBC, requires that laws be adopted by an appropriately empowered legislative body which the building official is not.  Yes our system has room for the legislature to delegate the adoption of regulations to specific administrative bodies but these administrative bodies, which a building official is not, must follow special procedures when adopting the regulations.  The referenced section 104.12 would negate any due process rights we have and thus must be considered illegal.

It should be noted that there is no Section 104.12 in the 2018 IBC.  Where did this language come from?

The Section 104.12 presented gives the building official the powers of an authoritarian.  Such a provision is in conflict with our legal system.  I am of the understanding that we still live in a democracy.  

The building official is empowered to interpret the building code but there are limits on such interpretations and they do not allow the building official to impose new regulations.  If you do not agree with the decisions made by society then propose that the laws be changed but the language in the quoted section cannot be used to overturn our system of laws and create an authoritarian system.

The reality is that the building code does not remove all risk.  Society by adopting building regulations has decided to accept some risks but apparently some individuals propose that the building official can overturn the decision made by the legislative body because their risk tolerance is different.  For those who want to eliminate all risks this is not possible.  To be consistent such individuals should not get out of bed in the morning but even that strategy has risks.

Champlain Towers collapse was the result of individuals refusing to address the known damage to the structure.  I will suggest that the deteriorated structural members were no longer in compliance with the code in effect when it was originally permitted.  In such a situation the building official would have had the authority to act without invoking the purported Section 104.12.


----------



## classicT (Jun 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The reason the building department needs engineers is because their expertise and knowledge is needed to interpret the code.  You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code.  In California the norm is that the building department either employs an engineer or contracts with an engineer to provide  such expertise.


Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer. Yes, I can turn it over to the State, who will then investigate. But in the meantime, do I approve engineering that is wrong? Do I hold the permit until the State investigates and slaps the engineer on the wrist for an error? What do you propose that I do?

Again, your holier than thou attitude is fully on display here... 



Mark K said:


> In response to the provisions of section 104.12 quoted


I did not refer to Section 104.12. That was Jar.


----------



## redeyedfly (Jun 27, 2022)

classicT said:


> Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer.


Ummm.  If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.  Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine.  The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field.  I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work.  I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing.  I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.  

There's no double standard.  The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official.  The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 27, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> Ummm.  If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.  Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine.  The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field.  I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work.  I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing.  I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.
> 
> There's no double standard.  The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official.  The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.


Red eye, you do understand that ASHRAE seeks the practical input for a great deal of what they do from SMACNA (Contractors)   So like ACI And AISC who establish the standards for how we construct Concrete or Steel Structures, I am sure they value the Practical input from those, just smart enough to construct it BUT clearly Not Smart enough to do the Math.  
WOW since the 1920's the ASM was the basis for sizing structural members.  You know, Max Moment and lateral support and all that good stuff that we are not supposed to understand as the basis of the prescriptive tables.

I can assure you that I understand what holds what up AND Keeps it from Falling Down.  We don't need to do the calcs  we need a Fundamental Understanding to catch the ERRORS before they become Mistakes

I am an Old Guy who had the privilege to apprentice to WW2 or Korean War Guys who not only knew What and How to do the Job  BUT also Knew WHY.  Sorry you didn't get to work with people like that  They knew how to APPLY that info


----------



## redeyedfly (Jun 27, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Red eye, you do understand that ASHRAE seeks the practical input for a great deal of what they do from SMACNA (Contractors)   So like ACI And AISC who establish the standards for how we construct Concrete or Steel Structures, I am sure they value the Practical input from those, just smart enough to construct it BUT clearly Not Smart enough to do the Math.
> WOW since the 1920's the ASM was the basis for sizing structural members.  You know, Max Moment and lateral support and all that good stuff that we are not supposed to understand as the basis of the prescriptive tables.
> 
> I can assure you that I understand what holds what up AND Keeps it from Falling Down.  We don't need to do the calcs  we need a Fundamental Understanding to catch the ERRORS before they become Mistakes
> ...


I know how to swing a hammer too Genduct.  The problem isn't that you don't know what you're doing, it's that you have no context of what the engineers are doing so you imagine what they know, and you're way off.  You can throw out "moment and lateral support" but tell me about lateral torsional buckling, love's theorem, Mohr's circle (none of these are obscure) and throw in a little differential calculus so you actually understand mechanics of materials.  (and no, it's not the same differential from your HS calc course). 

You simply don't know how much you don't know.  

"Any idiot can design a building that won't fall down, it takes an engineer to design one that will barely stand up."- OG WWII engineer


----------



## Mark K (Jun 27, 2022)

classicT said:


> Hold up... "You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code." So what I am getting from you is that engineers can understand code and thereby apply code; however, a code professional cannot understand engineering and thereby cannot question engineering? Double standard perhaps! And a total load of BS. I catch mistakes in engineering every day, and I am not a licensed engineer. Yes, I can turn it over to the State, who will then investigate. But in the meantime, do I approve engineering that is wrong? Do I hold the permit until the State investigates and slaps the engineer on the wrist for an error? What do you proposed that I do?
> 
> Again, your holier than thou attitude is fully on display here...


I am simply stating that in my experience individuals without the training that engineers receive have not been able to understand the engineering aspects of the  building code.  They may understand other aspects of the building code.

The building codes are complex and I do not believe any one individual can be an expert in all of the codes.  The fact that one has a title of a code professional does not bestow total knowledge.

You can refuse to issue a permit if the application does not comply with the building code.  You  are free to file a complaint with the state licensing board but it is not your job  to punish the individual. At the point in time where the application is revised to comply with the code you should issue the permit even if the state licensing board has not resolved your complaint.


----------



## classicT (Jun 27, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> Ummm.  If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.  Trying to compare the building code to the rigors of engineering training and practice is asinine.  The codes engineers are designing to are ACI, AISC, ASHRAE, etc., written and further developed by engineers, most of them with a PhD in their field.  I am fairly certain you don't have the slightest idea how those codes work.  I think you're confusing the very conservative prescriptive engineering found in the building code for the codes he's referencing.  I am certain that without engineering training (or an enormous amount of self study over many years) you wouldn't even know where to begin in those codes.
> 
> There's no double standard.  The standard met to be an engineer is orders of magnitude higher than that of a building official.  The fact that you think they are somehow comparable demonstrates clearly how little you understand of engineering.


Uh, so here is the thing. I do understand engineering. You speaking without knowing who I am, what my experience and education is, or even a remote understanding of my basis of knowledge is unprofessional.

I would care to wager I know ACI-318 better than most engineers. Have a solid understanding of AISC 360, as well as ASCE 7. But no, my degree was not specifically in engineering. That said, I have taken many an engineer back to their own calculations and put them into their own referenced codes to fix their ineptitude.

Oh, and structural engineers... they know very little code. Most are inept at the IBC. Sure they know ASCE 7 and other standards. But ASCE 7 is not code, and the IBC can and does exceed the requirements of ASCE 7 in a number of areas.


----------



## classicT (Jun 27, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am simply stating that in my experience individuals without the training that engineers receive have not been able to understand the engineering aspects of the  building code.  They may understand other aspects of the building code.
> 
> The building codes are complex and I do not believe any one individual can be an expert in all of the codes.  The fact that one has a title of a code professional does not bestow total knowledge.
> 
> You can refuse to issue a permit if the application does not comply with the building code.  You  are free to file a complaint with the state licensing board but it is not your job  to punish the individual. At the point in time where the application is revised to comply with the code you should issue the permit even if the state licensing board has not resolved your complaint.


I agree. No one discipline exceeds another in knowledge. We all have our specialties. Engineers are no better than code professionals.

I am attempting to argue for equality, mutual respect, and teamwork.

I never have refused to issue a permit. I have asked engineers, architects, and other designers to clarify their designs wherein I believe, through a developed set of skills and broad knowledge, that their design is deficient. If I am unsure, I call them and discuss it through to make sure I am not mistaken.

That said, if I do not believe it is correct, I have a duty to question it. So far, never had a engineer or architect formally challenge. Have had many that were very grateful that I caught on to their errors. Particularly engineers that had specified insufficiently sized structural members, thus putting the public in harms way.

I would just say, I'd appreciate it you (Mark) backed off on the anti-building department rhetoric. You have beat that horse to death... and I cant help but wonder how the code professionals that you work with feel about you. I definitely would be less inclined to reach out and work through an issue with you if you were speaking the rhetoric that you do on here. Thus, going against an intent to work together with mutual respect and teamwork. But that is your burden, not mine.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 27, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> Ummm.  If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.  T


Bull sh!t.  If you're not a chef, you don't understand cooking.  If you're not a doctor, you don't understand your body.  If you're not an automotive engineer you don't know how to drive.  

I can't believe you would post that.


----------



## classicT (Jun 27, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> Ummm. If you're not an engineer, then no, you cannot understand engineering.





e hilton said:


> Bull sh!t.  If you're not a chef, you don't understand cooking.  If you're not a doctor, you don't understand your body.  If you're not an automotive engineer you don't know how to drive.
> 
> I can't believe you would post that.


E Hilton - AMEN!


----------



## Mark K (Jun 27, 2022)

ASCE 7 is a reference standard in the IBC and thus has the status of code.   By the way the authors of ASCE 7 are engineers.

Many of the engineering provisions in the IBC were authored by structural engineers.  Before ASCE 7 was developed SEAOC, an organization of structural engineers, literally wrote the seismic provisions in the UBC.  In addition, a number of engineering organizations are involved in code development, review code proposals and offer suggestions.  So a blanket statement that structural engineers do not know the code is without support.

I fear we have exposed the fact that building officials have been given great authority but do not always have the knowledge needed to exercise that authority.  In the past this may not have been a problem since codes and life were simpler.  But the reality is that many of our codes and reference standards have become more complex.  This means that structural engineers need to spend considerable time understanding the changes.  But it also means that building department personnel need to know more, which from a practical perspective means that building departments need to hire engineers.  We can do that in California so why is it a problem in other locals.

If structural engineers are as stupid as has been suggested I suggest that you no longer go inside buildings.

The idea that the path to building official is to start in one of the trades, then become an inspector is no longer adequate.  The world has changed.


----------



## Genduct (Jun 27, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> I know how to swing a hammer too Genduct.  The problem isn't that you don't know what you're doing, it's that you have no context of what the engineers are doing so you imagine what they know, and you're way off.  You can throw out "moment and lateral support" but tell me about lateral torsional buckling, love's theorem, Mohr's circle (none of these are obscure) and throw in a little differential calculus so you actually understand mechanics of materials.  (and no, it's not the same differential from your HS calc course).
> 
> You simply don't know how much you don't know.
> 
> "Any idiot can design a building that won't fall down, it takes an engineer to design one that will barely stand up."- OG WWII engineer


"lateral torsional buckling, vis a vis, love's theorem"
Loves theorem is directly related to the kinky stuff that happens with lateral torsional buckling  RIGHT?
The ASIC handbook's beam table is all I need to do a quick check for the span that needs lateral support 
I remember, I Had a outside commercial deck that I did a quick check on because  the I Beam they chose felt a little slender

As you know, the Allowable Stress Method uses Algebra for the simple Structures we are talking about.  We are Not doing the Tacoma Narrows bridge that went aerodynamic and pulled itself apart. How else do we learn except through our failures
All's I need is a Fundamental Understanding.  I don't have the software or interest to reverse engineer your solution
The situations I have encountered were pretty obvious.
Also,  I I said earlier, there were 4 situations in 4 years.  So, I don't go out of my way to "show off"
Let me know if you would like to hear the story off line and then you can decide if I am full of crap

Best,  Mike


----------



## ICE (Jun 27, 2022)

MarioA said:


> Entry level plans examiner here. Basic question I couldn't get a clear answer from google.  Difference between a shear wall and sheathing? Is the wall the framing itself supporting the sheathing? Thanks guys.


Look what you started Mario.  It has devolved to a pissing match between an engineer and practically everyone else.

There was a threesome on the golf course behind a pair of guys that were swinging and missing.  It was strange.  The threesome was a neurosurgeon, a Catholic Cardinal and a structural engineer.  Well the swingers were holding up the round so a groundskeeper was sought out with the hope that he would bump the pair.

The groundskeeper informed the trio that the swingers were blind veterans that had carte blanch and would not be disturbed so you can suck it up Karen and wait.

Well as educated dogooders are always looking for the spotlight, the doctor said that he has witnessed astounding inroads in restoring sight and he will invite the pair to visit his clinic.  The Cardinal noted that he would be at the Vatican soon and he would ask the Pontiff to say a prayer.  The engineer asked why these blind veterans couldn't just play at night.

For an engineer to state that we mere mortals can't understand the ethereal realm of engineering is such arrogance as to be sinful.  He is selling himself short.  That sounds counterintuitive....allow me to explain.  He is convinced that sitting in a classroom is what it takes for anyone to become an engineer.

I have interacted with engineers in several careers.  There's been a few that I love...Eddie was special, Linda is a doll, Keith is down to Earth.  There are dozens that left me wanting for answers.  I've had aeronautical engineers design Air Worthiness Directives that were impossible to accomplish.  Electrical engineers as an equal participing in a standard making panel. Mechanical engineers that needed a chemistry lesson.  Structural engineers that value engineered the pooch.

I am no genius but please do not tell me that I do not understand what engineers do.


----------



## classicT (Jun 28, 2022)

Mark - it is increasingly apparent that you just like to argue. Perhaps you do so to fulfill some desire to prove that you are smarter than everyone else. But the reality is, you are simply unpleasant and it is no wonder why you struggle to find a cooperative code official. You create your own environment, one where you are not a contributor to a team, but a thorn in the side of progress. You sling insults and accusations like a hormonal teenager who is mad at their parent, fully displaying your maturity, or really lack thereof. I wish you the best in your limited world where engineers are saints, but I am happy to live in a world where I work with engineers with whom I can share a mutual respect.

With that, I am done engaging with you (Mark).

*Mark Twain said it best: Never argue with an idiot. You’ll never convince the idiot that you’re correct, and bystanders won’t be able to tell who’s who.*


----------



## jar546 (Jun 28, 2022)

With the last comment by Classic T and the fact that this thread has drifted way off course, along with the fact that is is becoming contentious, this thread is officially closed but will remain public for reading.


----------



## ICE (Jun 28, 2022)

Well before we go let's invite Mario to come back with his next question.


----------

