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]
All of the replies so far look good, but I think Ernie's covers the
situation best. If the "manufactured" steel trusses are catalog items like
rolled steel beams are, and you are the one who decided which ones serve the
needs of the project, then your drawings show their designation and you sign
and seal accordingly. If the manufacturer does no design as to how to build
the trusses, but follows an industry specification like a rolling mill does
with beams, then there is no deferred engineering "design" to be submitted
to the county, and no engineering design work for which California's PE Act
requires a signature and seal.

If however the situation requires the manufacturer to perform or obtain
engineering design for which PE licensure is required, such as evaluating
various loads and determining what stock truss to select, or how to build a
custom truss, or how to custom connect catalog trusses to your designs, then
the engineer in responsible charge of that is required by state law to sign
and seal the engineering documents that pertain.

As for "shop" drawings, this term is used almost carelessly at times. I
think it is important to distinguish between engineering drawings that show
engineering decisions for others to build from, and drawings the builders
use for their own internal, non-engineering purposes in the process of
building. This second sort is the practice of contracting (or
manufacturing), not engineering, and shouldn't have anyone's engineering
seal on it.

But engineered elements that get engineering input from other than you
should have that engineering input documented and signed and sealed by the
engineer who did it. These are the deferred submittals that the county
properly expects to see, and see signed and sealed by the originator, and
endorsed by the engineer of record as being "in general conformance" with
the design of the building, as per UBC Sec 106.3.4.2. I suggest this
endorsement NOT be in the form of your own signature and seal appearing
unexplained on those deferred submittal drawings prepared by others. The PE
Act recognizes "engineering reports" as among the things that can and must
be signed and sealed by the responsible engineer. I regard the endorsement
of a deferred submittal pursuant to Sec 106.3.4.2 as an engineering report
and I sign and seal it with that proviso only.

All this seems obtuse and complicated, but I believe that the UBC, the
county's policy, the PE Act (but not Board staff), and much of prevailing
practice are remarkably consistent with each other. In other words, there is
a well-harmonized method in the madness. Still, it helps to not call PE-done
deferred engineering submittals "shop drawings".     

Charles O. Greenlaw, SE    Sacramento CA