Arizona State Board for Engineers not doing their job. 7

[woodman88]

What happen is I attended a meeting where the City was redlining an engineer calculations over an interpretation of the ACI. The two city PE's was asking the Building Official (a non PE) to back them up. I pointed out the Arizona laws (ARS 9-802) required all referenced codes to be adopted by the AHJ and three copies to be made available to the public. Also that the City only did this with the IBC/IRC. So that the interpretation of the ACI must meet the Engineering Rules of applying the ACI as other qualified PE's would and not the Building Official. The city PE's and the Building Official stated that the City sees the ACI as under the Building Official authority to interpret and that was that.

The Building Official did side with the EOR and not the City PE's in this case.

Now I contacted the Arizona Board about this. The one person I seem to only be able to talk to keeps on stating that the Board has no authority over the City. I have mention and e-mailed that it is the City PE's that need to be properly dealt with regarding this. I am now trying to find out who to complain to about the Board.

I was wondering what other PE's on the forum thinks about what I am doing?



Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[cvg]

I'm just not sure what your intent is with this. I seriously doubt that the city is required by the ARS to provide three copies of ACI for public use which happens to be referenced in addition to the three copies of the IBC. And even if they do, so what? you should have your own stinking copy of the ACI and not rely on the city being a lending library. shell out the money and buy one, or is there some other reason this has become such a big deal?

 

[msquared48]

This would be a good string for the Engineering Writers Guild...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[Ron]

woodman88....read chapter 1 of the IBC. It says that reference standards (ACI 318) are as if fully contained within the code. If the code is adopted by the City, so is ACI 318. Not severable by the AHJ

 

[woodman88]

Well I am starting to understand the ASCE's Raise the Bar Initiative. It would be nice to have some PE's who can actually read the codes and standard regarding engineering.

cvg

I have the ACI, IBC, ASCE, NDS, AISC, etc. in my home library. In my garage I have engineering books going back to the 70's, when I was at school.

Ron

I have read the IBC Chapter one. As noted above in one of my posts (if you bother to read them) you should read the section on Other Laws.


Now for anybody who is willing to read and comment on following laws. (and I feel that in the United States that the people have a right to see the laws that are being enforced by the government) The intent here is that I feel that a non-PE should not be making engineering interpretations.

2012 IBC

Section 102.2 Other laws

The ARS

9-802 Procedure for adoption by reference

9-832. Regulatory bill of rights

9-837. Directory of documents

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[JAE]

The IBC clearly states that the referenced standards, codes, documents, recipes, etc. are a part of the code itself.
If a building official, who is not a PE, is indicated as the AHJ, then they have the authority to interpret the codes. This is explicitly stated within IBC.

The idea that they don't have that authority because they aren't PE's isn't an established fact and that seems to be your contention.

I would agree with you, woodman88, that some building officials who are not PE's may not have the full education, experience, etc. to fully understand the referenced standards.
But that fact doesn't diminish the fact that they still have that authority.

If Arizona has a law that says that "copies should be made available" then that STILL does NOT nullify the building official's authority.

I still fail to see the validity of your point here that a PE has some inherent transcendent authority above the building official due to their status as a PE .
I'm trying - really I am. But its not that complicated.





Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[woodman88]

JAE

It is not that complicated.

You just have to be willing to read and understand the sections of the laws I pointed out above.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[IRstuff]

I think you are over-reaching on the law. Almost all complex codes and standards reference other codes and standards. I don't see how the law as cited requires that the city is required to maintain copies of those codes and standards. They are only required to maintain copies of the codes directly referenced by the law. What the code itself says about other codes it references is not a legal mandate relative to the city's law.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[woodman88]

Very good IRstuff
As the ACI etc. are not a legal mandate relative to the city's law they are not under the authority of the city.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[zelgar]

Woodman88, considering you came here for help, your attitude isn't helping matters.

In regards to your OP, I first fail to see why this is an ethics problem. It appeared that you were the EOR who performed some calculations per ACI and the city engineers disagreed with your calculations or interpretations of the ACI. The city engineers ask the Building Official (BO) who isn't a PE for assistance, but they sided with the EOR. You feel that since the city engineers wanted to get support by the BO that they should be punished, because the BO isn't a PE? Depending on the goverment agency, many times the person signing a permit or in a position over the city engineers will NOT be an engineer. That doesn't mean that their input is not valid, however.

It now sounds like you want the State board to go after the city engineers (what you want them to loose their license?). It sounds like your plan of attack against these engineers is the fact that they don't have 3 copies of ACI for public view. Did you make certain that the city didn't adopt some of the State rules without any changes which may have included the ACI? If so, then the State would be required to have the copies, not the individual cities.

All in all, however, this seems like a petty lame attack on the city engineers who were just trying to do their jobs. You had a disagreement with the city engineers, they were over-ruled and the EOR won, GET OVER IT AND QUIT WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.

 

[woodman88]

Look at it this way.

You have a client who used joists in a residential sleeping area design for 30 psf live load. Which is allow in the IBC and the ASCE 7. These joists will not work with a 40 psf live load. Would you seal the calculation for the 30 psf live load even if the AHJ (Per the IBC Section 102.2) has an amendment changing the required live load in sleeping areas to 40 psf?

Now let's say the Building Official (a PE) at the AHJ interprets that as the IBC and the ASCE allow the 30 psf live load they will allow it as long as a PE seals it. Would you seal it?

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[woodman88]

Okay the ACI is part of the Building Code and I apologize.

Now can someone explain to me my misinterpectation of the Arizona State Laws

The ARS

9-802 Procedure for adoption by reference

9-832. Regulatory bill of rights

9-837. Directory of documents

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[IRstuff]

I'm losing the bubble here. The city is under no obligation under state law to keep copies of the ACI, since it is not directly referenced by their adoption by reference of the Building Code. They are only obligated to keep copies of the Building Code itself.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[woodman88]

I am not saying they have to have copies of the ACI. I was saying that to say that the ACI is part of the Building Code (so they would have authority to interpret) they would have to have copies.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[jayrod12]

I would agree with you that IF they were attempting to interpret the ACI then yes they would need to have copies (at least one) elsewise what would they be interpreting.

 

[woodman88]

jayrod12

We all have a copy of the ACI. It is whether the Building Department is required to have three copies of the ACI available to the public (per the ARS) because they are stating the ACI is in the Building Code for them to have the authority to interpert.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[IRstuff]

There's nothing in the cited statutes that say they need to have 3 copies.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[stevenal]

Don't need a paper copy to know what the code is. When I buy a pdf from IHS Global, it comes with the condition that it not be shared outside my organization. How does one know for sure what the inspectors have access to internally?

 

[woodman88]

IRstuff

I am sorry but are you saying that the ACI is not part of the Building Code. Or are you saying it is part but they do not need to have three copies available per the ARS 9-802?

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[IRstuff]

The latter.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[zelgar]

You have a client who used joists in a residential sleeping area design for 30 psf live load. Which is allow in the IBC and the ASCE 7. These joists will not work with a 40 psf live load. Would you seal the calculation for the 30 psf live load even if the AHJ (Per the IBC Section 102.2) has an amendment changing the required live load in sleeping areas to 40 psf?

Now let's say the Building Official (a PE) at the AHJ interprets that as the IBC and the ASCE allow the 30 psf live load they will allow it as long as a PE seals it. Would you seal it?

The answer to your question depends on what is required by the building code for the city/State, but remember they can only enforce the least stringent requirement. I'd agree that a 40 psf live load gives a higher factor of safety than 30 psf, but is it required? If you personally think that 30 psf is not sufficient, then you need to tell your client that even though the building code only requires 30 psf you will not certify the design unless they use 40 psf joints.