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

Re: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Different parts of the country use different Building Codes with different requirements.  Under our State code you are required to submit calculations unless waived by the Building Official.  Oregon may adopt the 2000 IBC which does not mention submittal of calculations when applying for a permit.  The following are sections cut and pasted from the respective codes.

1997 Uniform Building Code:

*106.3.2 Submittal documents. Plans, specifications, engineering calculations, diagrams, soil investigation reports, special inspection and structural observation programs and other data shall constitute the submittal documents and shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit. When such plans are not prepared by an architect or engineer, the building official may require the applicant submitting such plans or other data to demonstrate that state law does not require that the plans be prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. The building official may require plans, computations and specifications to be prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such even if not required by state law.
EXCEPTION: The building official may waive the submission of plans, calculations, construction inspection requirements and other data if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that reviewing of plans is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.*

1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code: (Modified 1997 UBC)

*106.3.2 Submittal documents. Plans, specifications, engineering calculations, diagrams and other data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit. The building official shall require plans, computations and specifications to be prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. The building official may waive the submission of plans, calculations, construction inspection requirements and other data and related plan review fee if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that reviewing of plans is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.
2. Plans, specifications, calculations, diagrams and other data prepared and designed by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such are not required for the following work, provided the building official determines that the work is not of a highly technical nature or there is no unreasonable potential risk to life and/or safety of the structure:
2.1 The erection, enlargement or alteration of any building, or any appurtenance thereto, where the resulting building has a ground area of 4,000 square feet (372 m2) or less and is not more than 20 feet (6096 mm) in height from the top surface of the lowest floor to the highest interior overhead finish (ORS 671.030).
2.2 A single-family dwelling, farm agricultural building, nonfarm agricultural building, or accessory building to a single-family dwelling, farm agricultural building, or nonfarm agricultural building.
2.3 Alterations or repairs that do not involve the structural parts of the building.*


2000 International Building Code:

*SECTION 106 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
106.1 Submittal documents.  Construction documents, special inspection and structural observation programs and other data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit.  The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction win which the project is to be constructed.  Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.*

SECTION 202 DEFINITIONS
*CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.  Written graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the elements of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit.*



Tarno Coleman, PE
Plan Check Engineer
Marion County Building Inspection
PO Box 14500
(Courthouse Square, 555 Court St. N.E.)
Salem, Oregon  97309-5036
503.566.3964
tcoleman(--nospam--at)open.org
FAX 503.588.5147


>>> "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net> 06/13 11:52 AM >>>
I am assuming that calculations are performed, only not submitted. Is this
the case? How else can you know the demand against the structure laterally
and gravity load. Are gravity load members designed by prescriptive tables?
What about the design of Chords, Drags and Struts - especially in buildings
with re-entrant corners?
Can some explain this to me as I must be missing something of importance
here.

Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Madden [mailto:GMadden(--nospam--at)mplusl.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:04 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
> Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
>
>
> I don't know about the rest of you, but when I go into a public
> building, I would like to able to assume that someone verified
> the design for wind loads, gravity loads ... whatever. As a
> client, I would expect documentation that structural analysis
> took place. I'm not saying it has to be some spruced up package
> made to look fancy, but things should be checked and there should
> be documentation that certain critical things were checked.
>
> Because there is no record of calculations, it would seem
> difficult to build any case against an engineer in court unless
> you hired another engineer to check all the members and connections.
>
> What do you guys do, have a senior engineer start picking beams
> and columns on feel and then not verify their adequacy? Feel and
> eyeball engineering should be taught in our universities now.
> Seems like something contractors or PM's would love.
>
> -gerard
> SF, CA
>
>
>
> >>> scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com 06/13/01 10:43AM >>>
> Neil:
>
> What attitude are you referring to?  Would you have us believe that formal
> calculation submittals and plan checks actually lead to better engineering
> practice?  Do you have any proof of that?  What blown apart structures are
> you referring to on the East Coast?  Would they mostly be single family
> residences, which typically are not designed by any engineer?
>
> Thank you very much, but I don't anticipate needing your help in court.  I
> have been in practice for more than 30 years.  I've been sued twice over
> alleged design errors.  Both suits were thrown out as being wholly without
> merit.  I also was the EOR on a large warehouse that collapsed two years
> after construction.  That led to a $26 million lawsuit, and more than $1
> million of forensic structural testing, but neither I nor my employer were
> involved in the lawsuit (because we did not design the roof drains and
> scuppers).  I have also served as an expert witness in the defense of more
> than a dozen other structural engineers.  Most of those cases
> involved life
> loss and claims in excess of $20 million.  Not once did I ask to see the
> original design calculations, because it was always the design that was on
> trial, not the calculations.  A third party expert witness cannot form an
> independent and unbiased opinion of design adequacy if he/she is
> influenced
> by the original design calculations.  Incidentally, it happens that all of
> the defendants were eventually exonerated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
> Dallas, Texas
>
>
> Stan:
>
> May this attitude is why we see so many blown apart structures in the
> eastern side of the country.
>
> " by such bureaucratic nonsense as formal calculation submittals and
> plan-checks."
>
> I'd hate to have to try to defend you in court.
>
>
> Neil Moore, S.E.
> neil moore and associates
> shingle springs, california
>
>
>
> *
> *   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
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   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 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   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 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org