Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Plan Review Comments IRC versus IBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I have a quick question over some plan review comments, that I would greatly appreciate a few expert views on.


The peer review firm within their structural comments on an engineered duplex (3 story plus basement wood framed structure being constructed in Seattle, WA) has based much of their commentary on the IRC.  This is a PE (or at least has a PE overseeing the review – would not take my phone call, I was instead referenced to someone who I don’t think was even an EIT and didn’t really have any helpful insight).  I think the IRC is a good reference for general building practice, however, the general consensus here is that we are constricted by the IBC not the IRC.  My understanding is that the IRC applies to prescriptive design.


I generally just do what they want, seems to always be the better approach as if you argue points things seem to get worse.  However this is not one of the usual firms I have grown accustom to seeing peer review from.  It is poorly phrased and unclear on a number of points, I anticipate it will probably get kicked out again.  I have done my best to respond to the cryptic commentary, but without some clarification I am sure they will find something unaddressed.


I do not like questioning PEs, as they are a tier above me and I think the ethics code is pretty specific on what I should and should not do.  Of course I am going through my boss the PE, however I am interested to see how other engineering firms respond to this.


I’d really appreciate some views on this.


Will Blanchard

Project Engineer