Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Plan check submittals and shop drawings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The problem is typical in residential construction where manufactured roof
trusses are used. The EOR is to assume responsiblity for the entire
structure - including the load path connections from the roof trusses to the
foundation. He is not necessarily held responsible for the trusses if
designed by an independent fabricator. These are generally designed (if wood
plated trusses) using proprietary plates and with special software.
Therefore, the building officials in my area are requiring that the EOR
provide a letter to the building official indicating that he has reviewed
the truss calculations for compliance to his design.
The responsiblity of the EOR should be limited to the structure below the
roof and verification that he has reviewed the truss package. However, this
is a moot issue if a truss fails. The EOR will be pulled into litigation the
same as the Truss Engineer until which point it can be determined (if
possible) if the problem was due to fabrication inadequacies or from an
discrepency in the loading intended by the EOR.
It gets messy regardless of who takes responsiblity, but it is my opinion
that the Building Official requires authority by one engineer who is
responsible for either design or observation of the total structure.

I also understand, from my conversations with WTCA (and possibly Kirk
Grundahl might respond to this) that the 1997 UBC provisions places more
responsibilty upon the truss engineer to provide the physical connections of
roof elements that constitute the roof structure. For example, the truss
manufacturer will now be required to specify all truss hips to truss girder
connections, partial trusses to truss connects etc. This has been resisted
by the truss companies in my area as it decreases their profits by
increasing their cost of design.

Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Karim Hosseinzadeh [mailto:jamkar(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 10:13 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Plan check submittals and shop drawings

I would like to get any opinion regarding the following circumstances.
We have a tilt-up building under construction in the county of Orange,
The county building department requires that all prefabricated and deferred

items be prepared and sealed by a California licensed engineer. The roof
framing of this building consist of manufactured steel trusses and as part

of the plan check correction we have added a general note to our plans
saying that
" Truss calculations and plans shall be designed and sealed by a California

licensed engineer."
The truss manufacturer have submitted signed calculations but refuses to
the plan which consist of a single sheet of erection plan and copies of our
pertaining to trusses.
The plan checker says that all deferred submittals must be sealed.
My questions are these:
When approved truss shop drawings are submitted to the building department,

are they considered deferred submittal? UBC
How would you resolve this problem?
Do you think that it is O.K. or appropriate for the engineer of record to
seal the truss
shop drawings, even if the manufacturer gives permission to use their

I would appreciate your response.

Karim Hosseinzadeh, SE