Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: More "plan check" stuff ...

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Sounds like a good system, Don, with the MSExcel stuff.  It sounds like
you've adopted a system of providing information based on your level of
comfort in regards to potential issues ... My point is that I believe we
ALL do that.  What one person considers to be litigious does not
necessarily mean the same thing to another.  I would argue that if
materials in a building do not need a "flame spread" or "exit lighting
levels" greater than the minimums established by the code, then you do
not have to specifically note these issues on the plans ... "All
construction & materials shall comply with the requirements of the CBC".
If you want a SPECIFIC type of access door, of course you need to
identify it on the plans.

But what is your response when a plans examiner has you add 100 notes to
the plans that are directly from the building code?  We will usually go
ahead and add these additional notes for a couple of reasons: (1) The
examiner may have had some experience that these issues tend to be
forgotten in the field and are good reminders and (2) it sometimes takes
longer to argue rather than to simply add the provisions to the plans.



-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign(--nospam--at)verizon.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:41 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: More "plan check" stuff ...


You guys cite a bunch of stuff that is pretty commonly included in
architectural sets.  

My test is whether or not a contractor could go down to Home Depot and
find something that does not comply with the code and thereby expose me
to liability.  For instance, an access door into a fire rated partition
can be installed with a piece of masonite and two hinges.  Such cases as
this must be specifically noted on the plans. Likewise, flame spread,
exit light levels, etc, all are specific needs of the building and must
be noted.

Now, rarely will a one hour rated access door NOT pass whichever ASTM
test is noted in the code, so, in the interest of brevity, I don't
usually include such info unless I think the contractor could pull an
end run somehow. I figure that my intent will be clear enough to that
"jury of my peers".

Anyway, over the years I've managed to put most of the relevant portions
of the entire code into a sort of MSExcel grab bag that I will edit at
the conclusion of the schematic design phase and then transfer to the
drawings as design development progresses.  Depending on the design, it
could amount to 2 or 3 full sheets of notes depending on the project.  I
do the same thing for ADA stuff, and that alone could take up another
two pages. Add in energy analysis sheets, zoning and planning COAs,
Health departments, Fire Departments, etc. and my Zero Series sheets can
get pretty fat. --DB

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Adams [mailto:davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:35 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: More "plan check" stuff ...

I believe the "design" stipulation that some people put on their plans
is directed towards prefabricated components that require engineering
themselves, such as trusses or sunshades -- not to instruct the
contractor to review a design.  I would agree that the "best practice is
to clearly tell the contractor what you expect him to do", but I can't
purchase a copy of the code to staple to all of my drawings.  The
"contract documents" must be put together to indicate compliance with
whatever building code applies to that project, whether the state's
adopted code or another code acceptable to the building official,
regardless of whether there is an architect or engineer on the project.

Yes, the IBC & CBC have several sections that state information to be
placed on the drawings ... Is that all?  What about exit illumination
intensity?  What about the maximum pushing force to get a door open?
What about required signage?  I understand that a lot of this
information goes into the specifications, but how much?  Is it
necessary?  A lot of the notes that we put on the drawings are in
response to issues that have come up in the past that we want to
particularly "highlight" so they don't get missed again ... But how much
is truly necessary?

I'm not sure there is a really good answer.




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:m_k_gilligan(--nospam--at)yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:41 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: More "plan check" stuff ...


The 2006 IBC has sections in several chapters that define the
information that must be in the Construction Documents which includes
both the specifications and the drawings.  I have not found any
structural provision that requires something be placed on specifically
on the drawing.
 
Statements to the effect "All design and construction shall comply with
the requirements of the 2007 California Building Code" are problematic.
Are you asking the Contractor to check your design?  Best practice is to
clearly tell the contractor what you expect him to do.
 
In California the Contractors State License Board takes the position
that if there is a licensed engineer or architect  on the project, in
the absence of a design build requirement, then the contractor is only
responsible for complying with the Contract Documents.  If there is no
engineer or architect preparing documents then the contractor is
responsible for complying with the building code.
 
Mark Gilligan

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


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