Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Stamping Plans - A new question -Reply

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kim <PKIM(--nospam--at)BAS.CI.LA.CA.US>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 2:28 PM
Subject: Stamping Plans - A new question -Reply
>Was manufacturer's engineer licensed in California????  If so,
>the plan and calculation,  should have been complete, including
>foundation.  Perhaps the California Board of PE&LS can
>intervene in this matter.
The steel stud engineer was licensed in California but refused to take
responsibility for anything other than his structure.

>The "new" engineer can re-analyze (with permission of the
>original TX
>designer) then stamp and sign if the analysis shows that the
>complies with the local code.
Not a good plan since the original engineer not only gets paid for the
materials, he gets paid for a design which is not used. The owner gets
charged twice - a real scam as far as I'm concerned.

HOWEVER, this is not an uncommon practice in commercial structures where the
manufacturer provides the calc's for the "Butler-Type" building structure
and a local engineer designs the foundation. In this case, it has been
accepted practice for the building official to accept the stamps of two
Similarly, homes constructed with manufactured roof trusses do not require
the stamp of engineer of record to assume any more responsibility for the
design of the trusses than to have reviewed and confirmed that the loads
used were in compliance with the provisions of the design established by the
engineer of record or by current code. He does not assume responsibility for
the connection designs other than the shear transfer from roof to structure.

Who is really getting the raw deal here? In commercial buildings plan review
and limited stamping with multiple engineers is commonly done. Even the code
allows another engineer to enter the job and design only a portion of the
structure so long as he is responsible for that design.

In defense of the building official, I can understand how difficult it is to
coordinate the finished product when no one engineer takes responsiblity for
the entire package. I have had this problem on a job in Santa Ana where I
designed the structure, another engineer designed the truss repair and new
truss design (through the truss fabricator - heavy bow string trusses).
My point is that it should be reasonable to have one engineer of record as a
coordinator, but only make him/her responsible for the interaction of the
structural elements - not the failure of a proprietary part.

Any thoughts?

Dennis S. Wish PE