Code responsibility of EOR vs Building Department

[woodman88]

This statement has been made in the Structural Engineering forum that "Well, building departments here in California accept the Simpson bracket, no questions. And I believe in applying some common sense to code requirements."

I have always understood that it is the EOR responsibility to meet the requirements of the code and that the Building Departments only does a backup check of the plans. The Building Department check and approval for construction does not means that the plans are totally code complaint. All details are the EOR responsibility in this regard.

Do you think that if a Building Department approves a set of plans, with a detail does not meet the code, that the Building Department is actually approving that detail as code complaint?

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.

 

[msquared48]

No. In fact, some jurisdictions do allow some leeway in code interpretation, as there is much to be locally interpreted. A balanced mindset for interpretation and making a case is allowed as long as it is logical, uses sound engineering principles, and meets at least the general, if not specific intent of the code.

Just like engineers, plan reviewers miss some things too. That is why they reserve the right to make additional plan review comments after the initial review, and we get more changes to make, and more reviews.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[woodman88]

I am sorry but the 2003 IBC (please feel free to check more current ones, I believe this section has not changed) Section 104 "...Such polices and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code."

Now I understand what you are stating in regard to the Building Official responsibility to interpret the code and agree with it.

But they can not waive a requirement of the code and it is the EOR responsibility IMHO to meet the code requirements whether or not the Building Department misses 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.

 

[CELinOttawa]

Is Bognor Regis applied in the US? In most common law countries, thee ultimate responsibility is co-shared by the professional designer and the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Neither can escape liability where a fault is found, and neither can relax a requirement imposed by the other... Though in practice councils tend to be happy to let most works go with an Engineer's letter or seal rather than calculations review.

 

[Ron]

Plan reviewers are not required to be licensed engineers or architects. They review plans for specific target items, some administrative, some technical, but in no case does their review assure compliance with all code provisions. Further, they enjoy sovereign immunity from liability and do not have to be right. They are generally charges with reviewing the same things on all plans and often know nothing of the nuances of the design, either in a positive or negative sense. They also do not know when to ask for additional code mandated backup....as an example, if there is an alternate material or process to be used that is not stated in the code but has been "deemed equivalent" by a compliance review agency, they should ask for and obtain the backup evaluation report and other info to prove equivalence. Many do not understand this and do not ask for it.

A nice clean set of plans with a very informational cover page will go a long way to getting your plans approved! The full competence of the plans is not judged by the reviewers.

As for interpretation, the AHJ is just that...he has jurisdiction and authority. They generally will not lessen the code requirements and usually will not make them more stringent. They will interpret and decide on those nebulous issues that can go a variety of ways.

An engineer or architect can deviate from the code as long as he can convince the AHJ of an innovative material or process, keeping in mind that the AHJ and all involved in the plan review process bear no liability...the engineer or architect bear it all.

 

[charliealphabravo]

What is it about the Simpson bracket that doesn't meet code? The code should not be prohibiting or proscribing manufacturers. A more specific example might help answer the OP.

Most codes including the IBC I think have a clause relating to alternate means and methods. The codes do not prohibit the engineer from providing rational analysis to support unique and one-off solutions to problems. This I think is where the local AHJ has some latitude.

I know that the AHJ has a lot of power relating to code interpretations. Back in Florida it was not uncommon for our CBO to reject the states rulings and file his own suit for re-interpretation. He basically did what he thought was best, usually exceeding the code requirements but not always I think.

 

[woodman88]

charliealphabravo:
One of the pdf that Simpson gives for the DTT2Z being used to support a handrail per their detail states that it is only good for a outward 200 lb force. So it does not meet the code requirement to resist a 200 lb load in any direction.

My point with this OP is that, whether or not an AHJ accepts a detail with no questions being asked,the EOR is responsible to provide a detail that meets the code. Yes or No?

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.

 

[charliealphabravo]

I don't recall any precedent for a building department expressing wiggle room on something related to post anchorage on a handrail. That seems pretty straight forward. Most likely the building jurisdiction is just not fully aware of the implications of their usual approval. They would probably plead ignorance and point to the engineer if there was a review and the engineer would bear the responsibility I believe.

I will say that some Simpson connectors are good for unpublished loads and loads in unpublished directions...loads and directions which do not appear in their product approval. I have used rational analysis in the past to approve the use of a connector in an application. Simpson also has some hard to find technical bulletins for use of their connectors in non-standard ways but this requires site specific engineering by the EOR. It is simply not cost-effective for Simpson to get all the possible loads and configurations approved.

Think about it this way. A Simpson connector is still a manufactured piece of steel with reliable properties and geometry. The code cannot prevent me from using rational analysis and specifying it as part of an engineered one-off design.

Good luck.