# Re: RE: Plan Checking

• To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
• Subject: Re: RE: Plan Checking
• From: "R.P. Mehrotra/engg" <rp.mehrotra(--nospam--at)eil.co.in>
• Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 12:06:22 +0500
```And how much mistaken I was when I thought that the things were brighter
on the other side of the globe!

Perhaps a crow is a crow. A shade less or more - it remains BLACK.

RP Mehrotra

----- Original Message -----
Date: Friday, May 4, 2001 11:41 am
Subject: Re: RE: Plan Checking

> Sid,
>
> You definately prove the point for the need for plan checkers. I
> wish every city ( AND STATE )had someone like you running things.
>
> Let me qualify my statements by saying that most of the plan check
> engineers on this list are excellent (well, at least the ones we
> hear from regularly- Scott Haan, Sid, Ben Yousefi .... a few
> others I am drawing a blank on right now) But there are some in
> your positions who abuse their power and some down right don't do
> their jobs.
>
> Example 1: (I will keep the municipalities anonymous, but will
> identify them as either in house or private agency)  I submitted
> structural calculations for some roof top equipments on a tilt-up
> building that utilitez double cantilever glulam roof framing
> system. I modeled the continuous spans in RISA and placed numerous
> moving loads simulating the weight of the units in an attempt to
> prove that any spacing would work and show the glulams would work.
> I used RISA to generate the moment and shear envelopes and
> reactions. I summarized the results by printing out the force
> diagrams, the load cases, and the reactions. I then, calced the
> glulam capacity based on a positive bending situation and negative
> bending for the various sizes and spans of glulam. I show the
> system works all the way to the foundation. Then I get plan check
> comments: 1) Provide calculations showing the forces in the
> glulam. 2). Complete Special Inspection form signed by EOR.
>
> I call up City Plan Checker and say (politely), here is my plan
> check No., look on calc. page 1, where I state my method of
> analysis (Computer) and all the load diagrams, force diagrams, and
> subsequent checks. I get the response, well how do I know the
> program is working right? I say fine, I'll send you the 25 page
> print out that is represented in the force diagrams.
>
> Week later... Call from Owner mad because Plan Checker states
> "These calculations are not complete". Next ... sit down meeting
> with the plan checker and owner at the city .... I go through
> original calculations page by page, re-iterate that I gave him the
> detailed print out and that the calculations are complete.... Plan
> Checker responds "How do I know the program is working" I tell him
> RISA is a proven program and this is only a beam analysis ... If
> he wants to verify it himself, go ahead. Then plan checker says "
> Oh, I don't remember influence lines and all that stuff... this
> will take me about 2 weeks to go through and I don't have that
> kind of time"  Owner gets pissed, says just make this guy happy, I
> don't care what I have to pay ... I end up doing everything by
> hand and then I get the god damn inspection report comment again,
> even though it was returned at the face to face meeting.... PURE
> FRUSTRATION ! ! !
>
> Example 2: (This One is Shorter)... Same municipality hires an
> outside plan check agency to check 3 tilt-up buildings I designed.
> These buildings were phase II in a 7 building business park. The
> 1st four buildings were designed 8 months previous under 94 UBC
> while my buildings were under 97 UBC. I get the plan check
> comments which number 24 in total. I go to my boss and tell him
> I'm about to start the plan check response, most of it is crap and
> they are not reading the general notes, it will probably take me
> about 10 hours. He asks me who checked it, I tell him and he goes
> Oh.... here you go. He hands me the plan check from phase I. Phase
> one had 24 comments... All of them IDENTICAL to mine, just
> renumbered. Not a single mention or comment on any code changes
> from 94 to 97 ... A total rip off for everyone involved. What do I
> do ... I take the old plan check response letter AND RENUMBER IT
> !!! 1 Revision to the general notes adding an ICBO number for
> powder driven fasteners and that's it.
>
> These two examples should not happen in my opinion. It is not the
> engineer's responsibilty to prove he validity of commercially
> available software and to spend my own time and clients money so
> the plan checker can feel okay. WHat if I gave this guy a dynamic
> analysis or base isolated building in ETABS or SAP. He will send
> it out of course, but I am I supposed to drag the CSI Staff with
> me to a meeting with the plan checker so they can explain gauss
> elimination and bandwith optimization to a guy with a degree in
> sociology.
>
> The 2nd example is simply fraud. No check was performed but I'm
> sure the price was even higher than the 1st check because of the
> new code.City gets ripped off, client gets ripped off because I
> bill for my time responding to garbage.
>
> This kind of crap drags down the good plan check engineers that
> ask good questions. I feel I'm a better than average design
> engineer ... but I make mistakes and plan checkers have found
> those mistakes. They found the mistakes because they CHECKED and
> knew what to look for and what was important. I have plan checked
> a few jobs for cities when they were overloaded. In about an 1
> hour, I picked one god awful design to death ( Like Sid was saying
> ... engineer designed to old code, using ultimate capacities
> against allowable demand forces etc....) simple things. Irs not
> that hard to figure out if the engineer know what he is doing.
>
> Plan checking is something I don;t think I could do because I
> would get frustrated at the amount of garbage that passed across
> my table that was wrong. I know the job is difficult, but perhaps
> the ICBO certification and PE license should be mandatory
> (although my 2nd example was checked by a PE ).
>
> I think that at the very least, all plan checkers should be
> licensed CE's. Seminars should be mandatory for checkers because
> it is not the same reviewing something versus designing all the
> time. Seminars should also be mandatory for all PE's as well.
> Continuing education is important, companies should be active in
> supporting their employee's attendance, just as Palmdale has for Sid.
>
> My 2 cents.
> -gerard
>
>
>
>
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>

*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted