Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Stamping Calculations & (Plan Checking Effort)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Interesting comment, however with today's litigious climate even minor drafting
slips seem to have devastating consequences. With a well conceived set of
construction documents and calculations one should not be too worried about a
"pesky" plan checker.

I'm not so naive as to think all plan checks are worthy of being considered
"educational", "instructive", or what we might call professional development. does often give us a breather in production, and sometimes results in

My real reason for tagging onto this thread (and modifying the subject line..)
is to pose the question, how much time (effort?) do we think is appropriate for
review for building permits? Do we really want more/better "public" review? Are
we willing to participate in independent, peer level review, and if so who
should/would benefit. How does this get paid for?

Barry H. Welliver
Draper, UT

Dave Meney wrote:

> Chances are you had a faultless set of calcs and drawings.  Some people's
> ego just doesn't permit them to accept another's design without finding
> *something*.
> Regards
> Dave Meney
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Long [mailto:tomlong(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 7:53 AM
> Subject: Stamping Calculations
> I received comments back from a plan checker for a custom house.  The local
> building authority sent the plans out to a company that provides a plan
> checking service.  I will not mention the building department or the plan
> checking company, for reasons, it is in the southern California area.
> The house was a type 5 construction and was fairly complicated.  I provided
> a very nice set of drawings and calculations, there were some very critical
> connections incorporating steel and timber.  The structural comments, I
> received only 2.  One I never heard of and seemed ridicules, the plan
> checker wanted me to wet seal and sign the table of contents of the
> calculations.  I wet stamped and signed the cover of the calculations and
> the calculations were bound when they were submitted.  The plan checker
> seemed to overlook the real structural issues and focused on the cookbook
> method of checking drawings and calculations.  This really bothered me at
> first and then I started to think about if this is the case, it scares me.
> These plan checking companies could be overlooking the structural integrity
> of a building not looking at the whole picture but requiring me to stamp and
> sign the table of contents...?
> Has anybody come across this scenario, and/or has there been some new code
> revision that this is required that I do not know of.