Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: "Code Approval" (was big dig structural failure - epoxy anchors overhead supporting gravity)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill:

I was in the middle of do a remarkably similar reply to your post as Tom's
was...until my network connection to my SSH/Pine session crapped out on me
and interrupted the message.  Since Tom did such a good job, I don't need
to wait until I can continue that interrupted message and just add to his.

I have nothing ot add to his comments about ICC-ES.  I agree with him that
COLA is likely in the same vein, but since it is potentially done thought
a government entity (i.e. county/city of Los Angeles), it is possible that
the line might be a little blurry.

As to your question, that may really be a question for one your friendly
lawyers.  <grin>  If I slip into lawyer mode (I have sleep in a Holiday
Inn Express in the last year or so...as the commercial goes), I would
think that approval of a permit/plan check review set that includes such
"alternative materials" such as epoxy anchors, etc (i.e. items requiring a
third party evaluation per the alternative materials code provision) would
construe approval.  But again, I would say that you should get the
thoughts of a real lawyer type, not a pretend one like me.  I could see
that the other possibility would be that if you don't get a letter
specifically approving use of such an item, then it ain't techinically
approved.  This position would be very taxing on the system and does not
seem to be consistant with how things seem to work...but it could be the
true way it should be done.  So, talk with a lawyer type...but I suggest
that you bite your tongue on the anti-lawyer diatribes while you do it!
<grin>

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Polhemus, Bill wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Skaggs [mailto:tom.skaggs(--nospam--at)apawood.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:25 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: "Code Approval" (was big dig structural failure - epoxy anchors
> overhead supporting gravity)
>
> I'm not trying to nit-pick your main point, however it is important to
> note that ICC-ES is NOT an "approving agency".  They have issued a very
> good explanation of their role
> (http://www.icc-es.org/News/code-approval.shtml).
>
> -----/Original Message/-----
>
> Man, I love it when a discussion comes up here that exactly matches a
> situation with which I'm currently dealing.
>
> I went to the page you referenced above and found this sentence:
>
> "Evaluation reports on products have been erroneously construed as
> making the decision for the code official rather than providing an
> independent technical resource from which a decision can be justified."
>
> Now, the great majority of situations where this misconstruing has gone
> on, are faits accompli. That is, the engineer's already specified the
> product's use, the contractor's already installed it, and no one is ever
> going to be one whit the wiser as to whether "proper approval" was given
> or not.
>
> However, in my work I deal with the OTHER side of things: There's
> already been a problem, and now we're digging into the "how" and "why."
> And invariably, I come up with things that were done by my fellow
> structural engineers not quite according to Hoyle (or at least the
> building official).
>
> What I want to know is: Do you ALWAYS have to get approval for "widgets"
> like epoxy adhesive anchors that AREN'T specifically covered in the text
> of the model code? That is the kinds of products that the Evaluation
> Reports deal with.
>
> If so, how maddening--and how unfortunate for the designer who meant
> well all along, but to whom it never occurred to think, "oh, I've got to
> make sure the building official approves of this Hilti anchor..."
>
> Comments please.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********