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

RE: CODES: Evaluation Reports

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Granted our building inspectors have only been
"inspecting" since IBC was adopted last year...
No, I have yet to have one ask for an ER.  They just
ask for a signed and sealed letter for anything
irregular.  That goes in the file and their job is
done.  And FWIW, this is also for mostly small
building and residential projects.

Jim Wilson, PE
Stroudbsurg, PA

--- "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com> wrote:
> I would be interested in hearing from engineers in
> states other than
> California as to whether building officials
> typically require Evaluation
> Reports on products? 
> 
> A co-worker in California recently told me that the
> Building Official
> would not accept an alternate metal deck supplier
> because an Evaluation
> Report was not available for that product, to
> compare diaphragm shear
> values with. 
> 
> Outside of California, I have not found as much
> attention paid to
> Evaluation Reports, although I do find them useful
> for general design
> information and to compare products on an "apples to
> apples" basis.  But
> outside of CA, it is generally up to me to determine
> if an alternate
> product is an "equal" - not up to the Building
> Official. 
> 
> William C. Sherman, PE
> (Bill Sherman)
> CDM, Denver, CO
> Phone: 303-298-1311
> Fax: 303-293-8236
> email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: bcainse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:bcainse(--nospam--at)aol.com] 
> 	Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:35 PM
> 	To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 	Subject: Re: CODES: Evaluation Reports
> 	
> 	Bill-
> 	ERs are a way that a manufacturer can gain an
> approval that
> there product meets the provisions of the Building
> Code in the view of
> ICC.  A Building Official can, theoretically, refuse
> to accept an ER but
> seldom will.  If a product doesn't have an ER, then
> it is up to the
> design professional if s/he specifies it or the
> manufacturer for a
> substitution (upon approval by the design
> professional) to demonstrate
> to the satisfaction of the Building Official that
> the product meets the
> intent of the code. If the design professional
> objects, it is my
> experience that the Building Official will usually
> back the design
> professional (unless, of course, the manufacturer is
> a large taxpayer in
> the jurisdiction [LOL]).
> 	Regards,
> 	Bill Cain, S.E.
> 	Berkeley CA 
> ____________________________
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Polhemus, Bill Bill.Polhemus(--nospam--at)tyson.com
> 	To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 	Sent: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:06:06 -0500
> 	Subject: CODES: Evaluation Reports
> 
> 	Very elementary question: 
> 	When are Evaluation Reports required to exist for a
> product or
> system before that product or system can be
> specified for a project
> governed by the Building Code? That is, are ERs
> required for any such
> usage regardless of the circumstances, or are they
> simply for the
> convenience of the Building Official (or, looked at
> another way, for the
> manufacturer) so that he doesn't have to spend a lot
> of time reviewing
> products for compliance?
> 	If an ER doesn't exist, but as often happens the
> manufacturer
> has supplied plenty of data such that one can feel
> comfortable in
> specifying it for an application where the loads are
> known, etc., what
> are you allowed to do? May you specify it and hope
> the BO just waves a
> hand at it?
> 	
> 	This email and any files transmitted with it are
> confidential
> and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If
> you are not the
> intended addressee, then you have received this
> email in error and any
> use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying
> of this email is
> strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of
> your unintended
> receipt by reply and then delete this email and your
> reply. Tyson Foods,
> Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates will not be
> held liable to any
> person resulting from the unintended or unauthorized
> use of any
> information contained in this email or as a result
> of any additions or
> deletions of information originally contained in
> this email.
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* *******
> ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********