Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: BORPELS and residential room additions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajendran <rajendra(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Saturday, September 13, 1997 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: BORPELS and residential room additions
>Second, if the city or county or state mandate engineering, the customer
>has no choice.
 In most cases I might agree with city or state mandated engineering
requirements.  However, there is a catch 22 in smaller residential type
projects.  On the west coast, where the uniform building code is the primary
enforceable code, the public is allowed to design and construct based upon
conventional framing standards.  The building official does not have the
authority to deny a homeowner or unlicensed designer from using conventional
framing standards without proper justification and without subjecting
himself to political pressure from higher authorities.  Typically, these are
less restrictive than engineered projects.  It is my belief that there are
inconsistencies within the conventional framing section of the code (section
2326) that would make a structure far more flexible and ultimately more
susceptible to damage.
Therefore it remains a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.
The ultimate solution would yield a lost market for engineers and an
increase in work for unlicensed designers and contractors with far less
control over the finished product.  We are requiring structural observation
to correct construction deficiencies as well as design problems, yet with
increased liability and constant threat of suit, construction standards are
destined to take a giant step backward by the voluntary loss of engineers
interested in this type of work.