Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> Bill, you have come into the BORPELS issue from the Conventional
> Framing side of the argument. The description you gave is the
> guidelines established under Conventional Framing section of the
> code. What it appears is that the Architect simply provided
> compliance with the Conventional framing section of the code
> (something your designer could have done without his professional
> intervention) and applied his stamp for the architectural features
> and as assurance of compliance with conventional framing standards.
> The question is whether or not the homes fall under the provisions
> of "Conventional Framing" with truss or joist spans less than 34 or
> 40 feet (depending upon which code you follow) and no irregularities
> in the shear distribution as defined by code. There is nothing in
> this section of the code that prevents Conventional framing from
> being used in "Tract" developments although it was not intended to
> be used in this manner. The final decision is up to the Building
> Official who is probably pressured by the City Council who has
> pressure placed upon them by the developer of the Tract.
> 
> This is not really an issue as to has the right to perform
> structural engineering when an architect is simply providing
> conformance to a section of the code that explicitly allows it's use
> without a professional seal. I think you need to start attacking
> Conventional Framing rather than BORPELS on this one example unless
> you can prove that the homes will not comply to the definition of
> Conventional Framing - at which point I could almost guarantee that
> the lack of holddowns will become a weak link with the numbers are
> run in compliance with chapter 16 of the code.
> 
> Finally, here is a perfect example of how a developer can maximize
> his profits at the expense of the home owner who unknowingly is
> buying into a timebomb of hidden repair costs.
> 
> Dennis Wish PE
Dennis is probably correct that the conventional framing provisions 
in the code are the primary culprit.  However, I do not think  2'6" 
wide shear panels would comply with these reduced criteria and thus 
there would appear to be some incompetence as Bill suggest
Robert