Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Connections

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

The definition of shop drawings vs. engineered drawings/design has been previously discussed in this post but I have not seen anything regarding deferred submittals.  Metal building plans and plated roof trusses are NOT shop drawings.  They are both engineered designs and as such should be sealed by a licensed engineer.  Both the UBC and the IBC have provisions for deferred submittals which would cover these items.  They should be listed on the plans as such and then reviewed by the SEOR prior to construction.

The Alaska statute that provides for exceptions is further clarified on page 11 of the REFERENCE MANUAL FOR BUILDING OFFICIALS and specifically lists metal buildings and roof truss systems as NOT being exempted.

I do design work as well as occasional plan review and have found that the majority of engineers whose work I review are not familiar with the deferred submittal requirements of the code.  We should all be familiar with this useful option and be sure to include these provisions when necessary on our plans.

Jim Persing

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:45 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Connections
> 
> 
> Rick:
> 
> It has been the practice to look at metal building drawings and metal
> plated wood truss drawings as engineered plans and require them to get
> sealed.  
> 
> However curtain walls on big buildings, pole signs and other stuff do
> not always get engineered when they are designed by a specialty
> contractor.  There was a pole sign that blew over in a wind storm here
> last year that almost killed a fireman.  I do believe that 
> you are right
> that if a specialty contractor was installing a metal 
> building that you
> could argue that the metal building drawings were shop drawings, but I
> think that it violates the intent of the Alaska statute.
> 
> Scott Haan
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Burch [mailto:rburch(--nospam--at)conterra.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:14 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Connections
> 
> Scott,
> North Carolina has something similar in their law as far as buildings 
> owned by the state or by a local government. I'm going from 
> memory here,
> 
> but I saw a comment once from the state office that reviews 
> construction
> 
> documents for school construction where they objected to some 
> light gage
> 
> trusses where we called for the actual design to be done by the truss 
> supplier, similar to the way prefabricated wood trusses are 
> done.  The 
> reviewer  included a copy of a statute that said something to 
> the effect
> 
> that contractors are prohibited from writing specifications 
> or designing
> 
> parts of projects where the state, a city, a county, etc. was the 
> owner.     So their law prohibited the contractor from engineering 
> anything, as opposed to "exempting" them as in the Alaska law you 
> describe.  Instead of being part of licensing law, I imagine 
> the NC law 
> was probably intended to keep contractors from  writing the 
> specifications so that they had an unfair advantage.
> 
> I wasn't directly involved with that project, so I didn't get to dig 
> into it and fully investigate. It raised tons of questions in my mind 
> though, such as how you could ever use prefabricated wood trusses, 
> precast concrete, or metal buildings on a government-owned project in 
> NC, since these items are designed by the contractor based on a 
> performance specification.
> 
> So let me ask you, in Alaska does the law prevent even a 
> metal building 
> from being designed by the supplier's engineer? Are they 
> prohibited from
> 
> stamping the metal building drawings?  I know that if I had to design 
> metal buildings or prefabricated wood trusses myself and show the 
> details on my drawings, it would be a rare occasion when I would ever 
> use them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rick Burch
> Columbia, SC
> 
> 
> 
> Haan, Scott M. wrote:
> 
> >Alaska state licensing law exempts specialty contractors from the
> >practice of engineering when creating shop drawings. Do other states
> >have similar provisions?  
> >
> >Under this Alaska's scenario the engineer is responsible for showing
> >design intent on the plans and the intent of the law is that a
> specialty
> >contractor can come up with the shop drawings or placing 
> drawings based
> >on the engineers design intent.  
> >
> >Typical details for simple connections on plans show design 
> intent.  If
> >the connections are not detailed on the plans by the engineer then it
> >leaves the design intent to the fabricator who is exempt from the
> >practice of engineering.  If the engineer does not do some typical
> >details showing design intent then the fabricator is left to come up
> >with the design.  This violates the intent of my state's 
> licensing law.
> >In Alaska if the engineer is not going to design the connections then
> >the engineer should make sure that the connections still get 
> engineered
> >by someone else.  
> >
> >1997 UBC 1633.2.3 said it best.  2000 IBC 1603.1.8 has fuzzier
> language.
> >Seismic resisting connections should at least have typical details on
> >the plans to show design intent.  
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********