Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis-
Ripping graded lumber is a highly dubious practice (unless you have it regraded when you're done). Both the allowable knot size & the location of the defects change. LSL & LVL shouldn't pose a problem, but I don't allow the ripping of sawn lumber with serious bending loads. In Bill's case it sounded like the lower (shear diaphragm) was left intact & an upper drainage surface was being added above it. It needs to be held down, but shear flow shouldn't be a problem.
C. Utzman,P.E.

Dennis Wish wrote:

Bill,
California laws for roofing differ from Texas and based on the
information you provide, you did exactly the right thing. I hope you
will keep us updated as to what you learn from the state's actions.
The ripped 2x's that you describe are also used here to slope the roof
for drainage. I found that this creates a problem with shear transfer
through the diaphragm and in my projects either require the rafters to
be ripped to the appropriate slope or for the roofer to build up the
drainage above the structural sheathing. The purpose is to protect the
lateral load path whether it is due to wind or seismic. FWIW, Simpson has a clip that to be used for such a purpose as you
describe. It is nailed to the face of the rafter and the ripped strip
above to secure a lateral load path from the sheathing to the ripped
2x's and into the rafters to the blocked bearing connections at the
walls.
I think you stated it very clearly and the state hopefully will do their
duty and act on your report.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:30 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?


I thank you all for your responses.

It seems to me that there are two "incriminating" facts here.

First, this isn't just a "residential job." This is a complex of about
ten two-story buildings with from eight to sixteen residential units
each. State law requires an engineer if you have a multiple dwelling
with more than eight units. And the total contract amount was in excess
of $600,000 dollars. State law requires an engineer if the project size
exceeds $20,000.

Second, they did not just remove the old built-up roof and replace it
with new roofing material. They came in an "scabbed" new, tapered
rafters on top of the existing roof deck and framing, and put down new
deck on top of that. These are structural elements, particularly here
where the design wind speed is 110 mph.

The most egregious thing--at least to me, with my practical mind--is
that the "facility consultant" was supposed to provide construction
management, and they essentially did not. This isn't an "engineering
thing," solely, but it is indicative of the "furtive" nature of their
operation, at least to my mind. They didn't bother going for a
construction permit. This is the contractor's responsibility, normally,
but the "consultant" should have seen to it that the permit was secured,
and not allowed the contractor to proceed without it. Construction
permits are required, even for re-roofing.

Why did they not do this? One possible explanation is they didn't want
to call attantion to what they were doing. They wanted to pretend that
this was "just a reroofing job," and leave it at that. The contractor
kept insisting a permit wasn't needed for "re-roofing." Yet if it was
"just re-roofing," why did the "facility consultant" inform my client
that they had to provide a new, sloped roof in order to comply with the
new building code? (And their advice wasn't even correct as it turned
out).

The irony is, the spec the "consultant" put out was actually pretty
good--a lot better than many engineers I have seen. But they didn't
enforce their own bid document, and they didn't follow through with
proper construction management procedures. No Q.A., period.

So there's the letter of the law, and the spirit. Both violated, IMO.

FWIW, I have sent an email to the TBPE compliance office, and included
the bid documents (including the drawings showing the connection detail,
etc.) I have asked them to investigate and determine for themselves if
the law was violated.

It's going out on a limb, I know, but I am determined to blow the
whistle on this kind of stuff if ever I find it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:43 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?

To me, the "fishy" thing is the inclusion of the new
tapered rafters.  Without out that, it would sound like a basic, good
ol' re-roofin' job,...



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********