Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IRC Braced Panels

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If the building official has labeled a residence mostly compliant to the IRC
but wants the non-compliant portion designed by an engineer, but the
residence really isn't compliant to the IRC, where is the liability then?
If the engineer disagrees, but only does what the building official says is
non-compliant and that is the only thing the client asks to be designed
where does that leave the engineer?  
J.Grill

Joseph R. Grill, P.E. (Structural)
Shephard - Wesnitzer, Inc.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
1146 W. Hwy 89A Suite B
Sedona, AZ  86340
PHONE (928) 282-1061
FAX (928) 282-2058
jgrill(--nospam--at)swiaz.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis S. Wish, PE [mailto:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:21 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: IRC Braced Panels

Ted Ryan wrote:

>I personally do not stamp IRC houses.  I only stamp if there is engineering
>involved and I produced the plans.  I have reviewed plans and written memos
>describing whether I thought that a house met the IRC, but I would not
stamp
>the plans since in most instances I did not produce the plans, nor were
they
>produced under my supervision, a requirement for stamping here in
>Washington.
>
>Ted Ryan
>
>  
>
Ted,
You are right - I would not stamp them either. I think the point that 
Dimitri or Scott was trying to make was a question of potential 
liability if a failure occurs and another expert comes in an claims that 
the failure was due to the relative stiffness of the engineered portion 
that changed the balance of shear in the conventional construction and 
in his opinion created the failure or induced it.
It is my opinion that we are covered by this in most jurisdictions so 
that we are not held liable in the case of failure as the code (IRC) 
states that a licensed engineer may address only the non-conforming 
portions of the structure and implies that we would not have to redesign 
the entire building to full-compliance methods due to one non-compliant 
portion.

Dennis

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********