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.

 

[JAE]

woodman88,
I'm not sure I follow your issue with the city.
Are you saying that this particular city adopted the IBC but somehow didn't adopt the ACI which it references?

Can you set out more logically what the disagreement is? Thanks,

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

 

[rowingengineer]

Sounds very complex and difficult to follow. I would suggest that if you think that the city PE's have conducted themselves unprofessionally than you need to followup with their boss if they have one. However this seems to be a case of interpretation of the ACI and whom has the right, this is a very grey area in most PE body's and I would suggest that the body would not have the capacity or want to deal with this issue.

Basically is the structure safe/unsafe with the cities PE input, if unsafe than you may get some people interested, if safe I doubt anyone cares.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

 

[cvg]

of course an engineer may interpret the ACI code in a number of different ways and that is not a violation of board rules. simply asking a building official to side with them is not prohibited either. so not sure what the issue is with that. If you disagree with the (city development services engineer's) interpretation of ACI code, than contact ACI for clarification of the code.

 

[woodman88]

JAE

The problem (as I see it) is that the city PE's should do the work of an engineer by finding out how and when the ACI (etc.) are to be applied per the Engineering Rules. Not just asking the Building Official to agree with them.

In AZ a "code" must be part of the public record. The City only has the IBC/IRC as part of the public record. The IBC/IRC both clearly states that the state laws over ride any provisions in the IBC/IRC (see 2009 IBC Section 102.2) and the city did not change this section.

My problem here is that I may have cause the meeting to occur by telling and showing the EOR the State and City Laws. Then we went to the meeting with the EOR, his clients, other interested PE's and the City, just to have the City state the ACI is part of the Building Code (to be interpreted by a non PE) and not an Engineering Standard (to be interpreted by a PE's).

rowingengineer

May be, but I do not feel that I should allow this to be done until someone gets hurt before trying to 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]

cvg
In this case the ACI does not applies, even through the City PE's kept on bring the ACI up.

Per the ACI 318 08 "1.1.6 — This Code does not govern design and installation of portions of concrete piles, drilled piers, and caissons embedded in ground except for structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F. See 21.12.4 for requirements for concrete piles, drilled piers, and caissons in structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F."

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]

what city?

 

[JedClampett]

woodman88, I also live and work in Phoenix. The most the plan reviewers have ever done with my calculations is to lose them, sometimes multiple times. Other, non Arizona cities, sometimes goes through the calculations.
But I wouldn't go to the Board. I don't think they're equipped to referee disagreements. And whatever the merit of your complaint, these city PEs are almost for certain going to take it the wrong way.

 

[JAE]

Maybe I'm just totally dense here but if the IBC is adopted by a city, and the IBC references out to the ACI and makes it a part of the code provisions, then the ACI is a part of the code.

What is then the disagreement? The city doesn't have to formally adopt every reference found in IBC Chapter 35.
Or am I not seeing what the real issue is?

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

 

[woodman88]

JedClampett
I have gone to the Board and now I am trying to go over the Board.
This is not about an engineering disagreement, it is about applying the Arizona State Laws.
As for rocking the boat, I hope I will be able to.

JAE
The issue is that in Arizona ALL referenced codes have to be part of the public records. See the original post for the Arizona law that applies. For this reason the ACI, etc. are not in the building code, they are an engineering reference that only applies as stated in the building code.

The real issue here, as I see it, is that the city PE's can not give an engineering reason for what they are requiring. So they are running to a non-PE to approve 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.

 

[stevenal]

The model suggested doesn't work. The code making bodies fund their work through sales of that work; so governments adopt them by referencing the copyrighted codes. This has been tested in the courts. By my read of 9-802, the adopting reference, not the code itself are to be in the public record. And the "or" in the three copy part means they don't need to have a copy of the code in question as long as they keep three copies of the public record. But I'd leave all these legalities to the lawyers and focus on the engineering. If you fail to make your case to the city, ask the code making body for an interpretation.

 

[IRstuff]

"9-802. Procedure for adoption by reference"
"may enact the provisions of a code or public record theretofore in existence without setting forth such provisions"
"At least three copies of the code or public record shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the municipality and kept available for public use and inspection. A code or public record enacted by reference may be amended in the same manner."

So, they adopt a code, or public record, "by reference," which means they only need to say, "use Code XYZ, section IJK, without the body of that reference. Given that some codes are copyrighted, that's the only they can do it. If they do so, they need to have 3 physical copies of the code, or public record, available for the public to use, again, due to limitations imposed by copyrights.



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[woodman88]

stevenal
IRstuff

Per the above link "A municipality may enact the provisions of a code or public record theretofore in existence without setting forth such provisions, but the adopting ordinance shall be published in full. At least three copies of the code or public record shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the municipality and kept available for public use and inspection. A code or public record enacted by reference may be amended in the same manner." The bold part is mine and not per the link.


If what you are saying it that they do not need to have copies of the ACI, then why do they have copies of the IBC and IRC available?

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]

woodman88,

If the ordinance is referencing the ACI directly, then they need to have three copies of the ACI available, but what you've highlighted is not relevant pertinent, since all that means is they the publish, "Adopt ACI Para XYZ," etc., in full.

If it's not referenced directly, then they don't need to have the ACI available.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[msquared48]

But how can any agency back-check or comment on any set of structural calculations without an applicable code or approved standards (based on the codes) to reference? Whether or not the ACI code is applicable in this particular case is really totally irrelevant. A physical copy should still be available for other projects that do need it...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[woodman88]

My issue is that the Building Official has the authority to enforce the Building Code. As shown below (per the Arizona Revised Statutes) we the people have a free right to see these codes. So where is the public copy of the ACI?

Per the ARS
"9-832. Regulatory bill of rights
To ensure fair and open regulation by municipalities, a person:...
...7. May inspect all ordinances, codes and substantive policy statements of a municipality, including a directory of documents, at the office of the municipality or on the municipality's website as provided in section 9-837..."

"9-837. Directory of documents
The municipality shall publish, or prominently place on the municipal website, at least annually a directory summarizing the subject matter of all currently applicable ordinances, codes and substantive policy statements. The municipality shall keep copies of this directory and all substantive policy statements at one location. The directory, ordinances, codes, substantive policy statements and any materials incorporated by reference in the documents shall be open to public inspection at the office of the municipality or the municipal website..."

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]

So its an issue similar to this:

https://public.resource.org/index.html

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

 

[woodman88]

JAE

NO!

We have a Building Code and we have engineering standards. I want the Building Official to enforce the Building Code and let the Engineering Profession to enforce the engineering standards. I do not want the engineering standards to become part of the Building Code for each Building Official (whether they are a PE or a non-PE) to decide how to apply them for their own AHJ. How the engineering standards are applied should be by the States PE's.

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]

I guess I don't see the distinction between the IBC itself and its referenced codes and standards indicated in Chapter 35.

IBC 2012, section 102.4 states: [blue]Referenced Codes and standards - The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference and as further regulated in Sections 102.4.1 and 102.4.2.[/blue]

Its commentary states: [blue] A referenced code, standard or portion thereof is an enforceable extension of the code as if the content of the standard were included in the body of the codes...[/blue]

Section 104 is pretty clear that the Building Official has the responsibility and authority to render interpretations, etc.

So from the above, I don't see the difference between the IBC and its referenced standards with respect to a building official making judgements. You can perhaps have a point that some (many?) elements of ACI 318 might be above the head of the BO, but this language in the IBC is pretty direct.



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

 

[woodman88]

JAE

2012 IBC Section 102.2 Other laws
"The provisions of this code shall not be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law."

If the state says copies must be made available then the copies must be made available.

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.