Structural Engineering: 2007-06-17

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Re: Aluminum Lag Bolts

Thanks Bob and Chris!

The project is in San Jose, Ca. The aluminum is not anodized to my knowledge.

I appreciate your help gentlemen!

-gm

On 6/22/07, Robert Kazanjy <rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote:

Where is the job site? Is the aluminum hardware anodized or just plain?

I do not remember the specification or material exactly but in aerospace apps using SS fasteners with aluminum "skins" where the anodizing had been machined away (drilling for rivet or countersinking for flat head screw installation) required the use of a zinc chromate primer ....I'm going from memory of work done in the late 80's

In any case, people have been attaching aluminum objects to other objects (wood, aluminum, SS) for years and most of the time do not spec (like never) aluminum fasteners.

In your particular installation I would suggest you consider good quality heavy hot dipped galvanized steel lag & heavy hot dipped galvanized

OR SS lags with the zinc chromate primer "dance" or a flanged bushing to handle the head & shaft contact.

cheers
Bob

On 6/22/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there such a thing?

I need to fasten some aluminum to the exterior of a wood frame building and don't want to use steel lags or stainless steel lags due to dis-similar metals. Its a wood framed stud wall with plywood sheathing, then the aluminum right up against the sheathing. Need to lag into the wall studs. A 3/8" carbon steel lag about 4" long would work by calc.

I know I can put neoprene washers under the head of the lag, but the bearing of the shaft on the hole in the aluminum seems to be an unavoidable contact point.

I asked something similar a few months back, got a lot of helpful replies, but this project has surfaced again and need to figure out this connection.

I've browsed the web and found places that make aluminum screws of very small diameters but seem to be for sheet metal applications. But this can't be the first time in engineering history someone wanted to connect decorative aluminum to a wood building. :-)

any help is appreciated.
--
-gm

--
-gm

Friday, June 22, 2007

Where is the job site? Is the aluminum hardware anodized or just plain?

I do not remember the specification or material exactly but in aerospace apps using SS fasteners with aluminum "skins" where the anodizing had been machined away (drilling for rivet or countersinking for flat head screw installation) required the use of a zinc chromate primer ....I'm going from memory of work done in the late 80's

In any case, people have been attaching aluminum objects to other objects (wood, aluminum, SS) for years and most of the time do not spec (like never) aluminum fasteners.

In your particular installation I would suggest you consider good quality heavy hot dipped galvanized steel lag & heavy hot dipped galvanized

OR SS lags with the zinc chromate primer "dance" or a flanged bushing to handle the head & shaft contact.

cheers
Bob

On 6/22/07, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there such a thing?

I need to fasten some aluminum to the exterior of a wood frame building and don't want to use steel lags or stainless steel lags due to dis-similar metals. Its a wood framed stud wall with plywood sheathing, then the aluminum right up against the sheathing. Need to lag into the wall studs. A 3/8" carbon steel lag about 4" long would work by calc.

I know I can put neoprene washers under the head of the lag, but the bearing of the shaft on the hole in the aluminum seems to be an unavoidable contact point.

I asked something similar a few months back, got a lot of helpful replies, but this project has surfaced again and need to figure out this connection.

I've browsed the web and found places that make aluminum screws of very small diameters but seem to be for sheet metal applications. But this can't be the first time in engineering history someone wanted to connect decorative aluminum to a wood building. :-)

any help is appreciated.
--
-gm

Re: ICC / ICBO Reports

Actually ICC evaluation reports are items that meet the Alternative
Materials provisions in the IBC (and IRC or UBC) code. Take look at
sections 104.11 and 104.11.1 in the 2000 IBC (or similar sections of the
UBC or IRC). These sections lead to the "third party" evaluation that
a code official can then use to determine if the alternative material that
is not covered by the code meets the "intent" of the code.

Thus, ICC evaluation reports are not necessarily for "lay people", but for
any one that wants to use some material that is not in the code nor can be
realistically consider to be covered by some aspect of the code.

And it is important to realize that ICC-ES reports are NOT code reports.
That is that having an ICC-ES report does not by default mean that they
are "approved" for use. It is strictly an evaluation report that then a
code official can use to determine if s/he will approve the use of that
product. Now, from a practical point of view, if a product has an ICC-ES
report, then the majority of code officials will approve the use of that
product. So, an ICC-ES evaluation report can be considered to some
degree to be a de facto "code approval" in most cases.

You do raise an interest situation thought with ICFs. One could certainly
argue that an ICF is just a forming system (as you state) and that the
design of an ICF wall would just be done by using standard R/C provisions,
especially if it is an ICF system with a solid wall in the middle (as
opposed to the "grid" or "beam and post" style ICFs) of the ICF form.
Yet, the "system" still requires ICFs to have ICC-ES reports...even
considering that the IRC has ICF tables in them. Go figure.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Charles R. Ashley Jr. wrote:

> I am looking for some clarification on ICC (formerly ICBO) reports.
>
>
>
> I will start by stating my understanding: These reports are provided as
> evidence that an item whose manufacturer says is worth X is actually worth
> X. This permits the EOR to use said item without providing calculations
> justifying its use. In fact, they permit the layperson to use the
> accompanying tables and charts to use in the design of their own projects.
> Is this not their purpose?
>
>
>
> Therefore, ICC reports are NOT required in order to use a product or
> material on a project. Just helpful.
>
>
>
> So why does it seem it is getting harder and harder to get bldg. depts. to
> look at new products without ICC approval even though they have engineering
> calculations to back it up? And why should an ICC report limit my use of
> particular product in a manner that I have determined (using engineering
> principles and lots of common sense) is acceptable just because it doesn't
> meet the exact conditions listed in the report?
>
>
>
> Why am I forced to use a factor of safety of 4, when I would be comfortable
> with 3 in certain situations? Who decides these factors of safety anyway?
> It seems ICC is choosing to do that through the reports: is that
> appropriate? Why then aren't these factors of safety mandated in the codes?
>
>
>
> Here's where I think the system has failed: it's the "one size fits all"
> mentality. As mentioned earlier, the ICC reports were intended (as I
> understand it) to permit the layperson to use an engineered product under
> very specific conditions and with significant limitations. By dumbing it
> down to fit that denominator, and then applying those same restrictions to
> engineers, is flawed thinking.
>
>
>
> Here's a great example: Most insulated concrete forms (ICF) are approved
> only for residential use, and only up to 8ft or so. So I recently had to
> argue passionately convince a plan checker that this did not preclude me
> from using it on a commercial project with much taller walls. It's just a
> forming system!!
>
>
>
> Does giving that an ICC # really mean I can't engineer something without ICC
> blessing? I know that is not the intent, but it sure seems that is where we
> are headed. I mean, ICC already gave me a number (PE# 63103 in CA) so
> shouldn't that mean something?!
>
>
>
> Now, to switch hats, I obviously see the value in having a central
> organization to review products on our behalf. I am not arguing the merits
> of the system. I am just asking if it is being used appropriately. And, we
> all have run across engineers who need someone else to think for them.
> Again, the system has its place.
>
>
>
> I am looking for other thoughts on the subject.
>
>
>
> Charles R. Ashley Jr., P.E.
>
> ICC-Approved Professional Engineer
>
>
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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@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

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

RE: Aluminum Lag Bolts

You might consider using enamel or epoxy coated screws. These are commonly used to attach aluminum and other exotic metal roofs to wood or steel roof framing.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Aluminum Lag Bolts

Is there such a thing?

I need to fasten some aluminum to the exterior of a wood frame building and don't want to use steel lags or stainless steel lags due to dis-similar metals. Its a wood framed stud wall with plywood sheathing, then the aluminum right up against the sheathing. Need to lag into the wall studs. A 3/8" carbon steel lag about 4" long would work by calc.

I know I can put neoprene washers under the head of the lag, but the bearing of the shaft on the hole in the aluminum seems to be an unavoidable contact point.

I asked something similar a few months back, got a lot of helpful replies, but this project has surfaced again and need to figure out this connection.

I've browsed the web and found places that make aluminum screws of very small diameters but seem to be for sheet metal applications. But this can't be the first time in engineering history someone wanted to connect decorative aluminum to a wood building. :-)

any help is appreciated.
--
-gm

Aluminum Lag Bolts

RE: electronic signature

I have this difficulty as well.

I have done a couple things....

1. I have written many boards in many states to specifically legislate lanquage that the EOR produces 1 set of documents that is signed and copies of those documents can be made as required for bidding, construction, etc. Idaho has pretty decent laguage regarding this, and many other states should follow suit.

2. For "ccopies" that the building department requires, I have a notice to client statement (which is placed on the calculations and plans) which says that stamping and signing copies is not the intent of practice laws issued by the states, and that signing and stamping copies is done at the request of the building jurisdiction. It is clearly something that building departments should not be doing. I have found clients to be very understanding of this.

At the end of the day, signing and stamping copies, apart from being outside the provisions of the law, is just reflexive and simplistic thinking for building jurisdictions as they are only flexing their policy making muscles. It produces nothing fruitful and defies common sense, amounting to nothing in the right direction and very much in the wrong, not to mention leads to more errors and problems.

I for one, have a difficult enough time getting the single set of plans, specifications, and calculations that come off my printer and plotter adequately coordinated and accurate without having to certify the veracity of all the copies.

The building department will say they are acting in the best interest of the jurisdiction, at which point I hand them a 100 page 8 1/2 x 11 document, tell them to make 3 copies, and verify that each copy matches the original (no page skip etc.). I doubt that they have the time or inclination to do so. The building department needs to fight the fights that need fighting. Apply the fine tooth comb to major, important projects, and be less scrutinizing of the minor structures and projects. (Which is basically the way the code is written anyway).

Unfortunately, the building department operates under the provisions of the 10th ammendment and there is very little that can be done. I do know however, that they can be reported to the boards, if they are licensed or registered, for imposing something that violates the practice acts. It simply depends on how far you are willing to take it. Most parties are only interested in obtaining a permit and do enough placating to acieve that outcome.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Truitt Vance" <Truitt@adVanceEng.net>
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: electronic signature
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:25:34 -0700
>
>
> Hi Mark, so you are not sure we can extrapolate the CBC provisions granting
> the BO higher authority to the BORPELS rules, I don't know either, but that
> is sort of what I am wondering here.
>
> Why does every plan check I get require a wet stamp/sign, when that is not
> legally required and an electronic one is acceptable? It's not like this
> rule is new.
>
> When is the last time you saw a wet sign on truss calcs? I can't remember,
> it doesn't happen often at all. I wonder why it is ok for them...most of the
> time their signatures look like a grainy crayon tracing.
>
> I have started attaching this page to my plan check responses...who knows.
>
> Truitt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:08 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: electronic signature
>
> I think a building official _can_ require that if he chooses. A municipality
> can enforce more stringent _building standards_ than required by the State.
> I am not sure if the same principle applies to BORPELS rules though.
>
> Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
> Structural Engineer
> Burkett & Wong Engineers
> 3434 4th Ave
> San Diego, CA 92103
> P 619.299.5550
> F 619.299.9934
> mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Truitt Vance
> > [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net] Sent: Friday,
> > June 22, 2007 7:58 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: electronic signature
> >
> > Fellow CA Engineers,
> >
> > Section 411, e) of the California board rules
> > states: ".The signature may be applied to
> > the documents electronically." - in
> > reference to signing your seal on plans and
> > calculations. My question is: Can building
> > officials over rule this section of state
> > code and disallow this, or does this code
> > apply at all times?
> >
> > If you want to look at the entire section, you can download it here:
> > http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/boardrules.pdf
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Truitt Vance, P.E.
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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@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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Bart Needham, SE
Principal, nbse associates, inc.
Office 206-780-6822
Office 805-452-8152
Fax 206-780-6683
Fax 208-693-3667
Mobile 206-300-2346

Office locations:
629 State Street #230
Santa Barbara, CA 93101

205 Fairview Lane
Suite 100
Paso Robles, CA 93446

365 Ericksen Ave. NE
Suite 328
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Mail and Deliveries:
321 High School Rd. NE
Suite D-3 PMB 216
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

RE: electronic signature

Be careful with PDF's created from AutoCAD. You can easily convert PDF's
to DWG. using ADOBE illustrator.

Marlou Rodriguez, S.E.
MBRodriguez Engineering Inc.
2355 Oakland Road, Suite 14
San Jose, CA 95131
Tel: (408) 432-4866
Cel: (408) 761-5013

-----Original Message-----
From: Truitt Vance [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:07 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: electronic signature

Mark,

I totally agree, sounds like you and I do the same thing, everything
always
in PDF. Guess what though; someone can easily steal your signature off
of
PDF, if you don't know your way around adobe it might be difficult but
it
isn't that hard, it just makes a little harder to steal (and when you
get
it, its really nice quality, better than a scan!). Its also just as
easy to
steal your signature off a wet sign hardcopy using a scanner, so bottom
line, if someone is bent on using your signature and stamp, it WILL
happen.
Vigorous prosecution like you are doing is the best solution in my
opinion.

Thanks for your input also Bill Cain, I hear you loud and clear about
their
being bigger battles (read Charles Ashley's post, isn't that annoying??)
but
it is so quick and convenient to email plans and calcs, and really nice
for
record keeping. So I am just trying to find out if the plan checkers
have
any legal standing at all, because some are quite adamant about this!
Doesn't sound like they do by responses so far.

I gotta get some work done, HAPPY FRIDAY!!!

Thanks,

Truitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:44 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: electronic signature

We get by with electronic signatures all the time in San Diego. We find
a
few locales that vary but most, in our experience, allow it.
Particularly
when we point out the law.

They *do* have a point, though. If our seal and signature fall into the
wrong hands we can be screwed. That is why we only send out PDF's. If a
DWG
is requested, we remove the seal and signature blocks (or xrefs) without
fail. I have had the experience of an architect submitting drawings that
he
drew gong out with my signature without my knowledge. The complaint is
still
pending.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong Engineers
3434 4th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
P 619.299.5550
F 619.299.9934
mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Truitt Vance [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:26 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: electronic signature
>
> Hi Mark, so you are not sure we can extrapolate the CBC
> provisions granting the BO higher authority to the BORPELS
> rules, I don't know either, but that is sort of what I am
> wondering here.
>
> Why does every plan check I get require a wet stamp/sign,
> when that is not legally required and an electronic one is
> acceptable? It's not like this rule is new.
>
> When is the last time you saw a wet sign on truss calcs? I
> can't remember, it doesn't happen often at all. I wonder why
> it is ok for them...most of the time their signatures look
> like a grainy crayon tracing.
>
> I have started attaching this page to my plan check
> responses...who knows.
>
> Truitt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:08 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: electronic signature
>
> I think a building official _can_ require that if he chooses.
> A municipality can enforce more stringent _building
> standards_ than required by the State.
> I am not sure if the same principle applies to BORPELS rules though.
>
> Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
> Structural Engineer
> Burkett & Wong Engineers
> 3434 4th Ave
> San Diego, CA 92103
> P 619.299.5550
> F 619.299.9934
> mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Truitt Vance [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:58 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: electronic signature
> >
> > Fellow CA Engineers,
> >
> > Section 411, e) of the California board rules states:
> ".The signature
> > may be applied to the documents electronically." - in reference to
> > signing your seal on plans and calculations.
> >
> > My question is: Can building officials over rule this section of
> > state code and disallow this, or does this code apply at all times?
> >
> > If you want to look at the entire section, you can download it here:
> > http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/boardrules.pdf
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Truitt Vance, P.E.
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

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

RE: electronic signature

Mark,

I totally agree, sounds like you and I do the same thing, everything always
in PDF. Guess what though; someone can easily steal your signature off of
PDF, if you don't know your way around adobe it might be difficult but it
isn't that hard, it just makes a little harder to steal (and when you get
it, its really nice quality, better than a scan!). Its also just as easy to
steal your signature off a wet sign hardcopy using a scanner, so bottom
line, if someone is bent on using your signature and stamp, it WILL happen.
Vigorous prosecution like you are doing is the best solution in my opinion.

Thanks for your input also Bill Cain, I hear you loud and clear about their
being bigger battles (read Charles Ashley's post, isn't that annoying??) but
it is so quick and convenient to email plans and calcs, and really nice for
record keeping. So I am just trying to find out if the plan checkers have
any legal standing at all, because some are quite adamant about this!
Doesn't sound like they do by responses so far.

I gotta get some work done, HAPPY FRIDAY!!!

Thanks,

Truitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:44 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: electronic signature

We get by with electronic signatures all the time in San Diego. We find a
few locales that vary but most, in our experience, allow it. Particularly
when we point out the law.

They *do* have a point, though. If our seal and signature fall into the
wrong hands we can be screwed. That is why we only send out PDF's. If a DWG
is requested, we remove the seal and signature blocks (or xrefs) without
fail. I have had the experience of an architect submitting drawings that he
drew gong out with my signature without my knowledge. The complaint is still
pending.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong Engineers
3434 4th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
P 619.299.5550
F 619.299.9934
mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

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

Re: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Christopher-
There is a Chapter 21A in the California Building Code, Volume 2, which is similar to "Chapter 21 - Masonry", also in the CBC, except that it provides the building requirements for masonry as they apply to schools and hospitals.

Also, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which inlcudes all California Building Standards, has a Part 7 entitled "California Elevator Safety Construction Code" available as a free pdf down load at: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/Part7/2001_part7.pdf (175 pages) but this primarily deals with the mechanical design and operation requirements.
Regards,
Bill Cain SE
Berkeley CA

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 8:45 am
Subject: RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Masonry is Chapter 21. In Volume 2. No Chapter A though… Good Luck.

David A. Topete, SE

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

I am using a spreadsheet created by Engineering International that references the 2001 CBC Chapter A for masonry design of an elevator shaft. I'm just wondering what Chapter A looks like. I'm guessing that it must be in Volume 2 somewhere but I'd like to know for sure before I pick it up.

Thx.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

RE: electronic signature

We get by with electronic signatures all the time in San Diego. We find a
few locales that vary but most, in our experience, allow it. Particularly
when we point out the law.

They *do* have a point, though. If our seal and signature fall into the
wrong hands we can be screwed. That is why we only send out PDF's. If a DWG
is requested, we remove the seal and signature blocks (or xrefs) without
fail. I have had the experience of an architect submitting drawings that he
drew gong out with my signature without my knowledge. The complaint is still
pending.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong Engineers
3434 4th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
P 619.299.5550
F 619.299.9934
mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

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

Re: electronic signature

The building Code (to which a local jurisdiction may adopt more stringent amendments per Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5 (b)) and the Board Rules (cited by Truitt) of the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors which carry the force of state law are disticntly different.

I am not aware of any provision allowing a local jurisdiction to regulate the practice of engineering which is specifically assigned to the State under the Professional Engineers Act.

On the other hand, the local jurisdiction can adopt more stringent Building Code requirements as long as they make the required findings under Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5 (b) which reads:
"Neither the State Building Standards Law contained in this part, nor the application of building standards contained in this section, shall limit the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions."

I would think it would be difficult for a local jurisdiction to justify that requiring a signature complying with Board rule 411 e) would be "building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographic conditions." But that said, unless there was a serious reason not to wet sign the drawings, I can think of many battles I would pick with the local building official before I would pick this one. The wet signature seems to me to be protection more for me against someone using my seal and signature than for the benefit of either the building official or the public.

Regards,
Bill Cain SE
Berkeley CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 8:07 am
Subject: RE: electronic signature

I think a building official _can_ require that if he chooses. A municipality can enforce more stringent _building standards_ than required by the State. I am not sure if the same principle applies to BORPELS rules though.  Mark E. Deardorff, S.E. Structural Engineer Burkett & Wong Engineers 3434 4th Ave San Diego, CA 92103 P 619.299.5550 F 619.299.9934 mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com    > -----Original Message----- > From: Truitt Vance [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net]  > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:58 AM > To: seaint@seaint.org > Subject: electronic signature >  > Fellow CA Engineers, >  > Section 411, e) of the California board rules states:  ".The  > signature may be applied to the documents electronically."  -  > in reference to signing your seal on plans and calculations.   >  > My question is:  Can building officials over rule this  > section of state code and disallow this, or does this code  > apply at all times? >  > If you want to look at the entire section, you can download it here: > http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/boardrules.pdf >  > Thanks, >  > Truitt Vance, P.E. >  >  > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** > *   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@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@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  ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

RE: ICC / ICBO Reports

Building Officials sometimes promote bureaucratic sloth. Governmental indolence leads them to ask for ICC reports when first principles are adequate. I get it all the time.

A typical application for a report is where values are based on testing rather than theory. This makes sense since no one wants to do testing every time a product is specified. But, you are right, it makes no sense when calculations will cover the issue. There are also cases where there is no design specification covering the particular product. Corrugated steel deck is such a product when it comes to diaphragm shears (and vertical loads on composite deck.) Of course, even in that case there are empirical equations.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.

Structural Engineer

3434 4th Ave

San Diego, CA 92103

P 619.299.5550

F 619.299.9934

mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

From: Charles R. Ashley Jr. [mailto:charles@advanceeng.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:09 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ICC / ICBO Reports

I am looking for some clarification on ICC (formerly ICBO) reports.

I will start by stating my understanding: These reports are provided as evidence that an item whose manufacturer says is worth X is actually worth X. This permits the EOR to use said item without providing calculations justifying its use. In fact, they permit the layperson to use the accompanying tables and charts to use in the design of their own projects. Is this not their purpose?

Therefore, ICC reports are NOT required in order to use a product or material on a project. Just helpful.

So why does it seem it is getting harder and harder to get bldg. depts. to look at new products without ICC approval even though they have engineering calculations to back it up? And why should an ICC report limit my use of particular product in a manner that I have determined (using engineering principles and lots of common sense) is acceptable just because it doesn’t meet the exact conditions listed in the report?

Why am I forced to use a factor of safety of 4, when I would be comfortable with 3 in certain situations? Who decides these factors of safety anyway? It seems ICC is choosing to do that through the reports: is that appropriate? Why then aren’t these factors of safety mandated in the codes?

Here’s where I think the system has failed: it’s the “one size fits all” mentality. As mentioned earlier, the ICC reports were intended (as I understand it) to permit the layperson to use an engineered product under very specific conditions and with significant limitations. By dumbing it down to fit that denominator, and then applying those same restrictions to engineers, is flawed thinking.

Here’s a great example: Most insulated concrete forms (ICF) are approved only for residential use, and only up to 8ft or so. So I recently had to ~~argue~~ passionately convince a plan checker that this did not preclude me from using it on a commercial project with much taller walls. It’s just a forming system!!

Does giving that an ICC # really mean I can’t engineer something without ICC blessing? I know that is not the intent, but it sure seems that is where we are headed. I mean, ICC already gave me a number (PE# 63103 in CA) so shouldn’t that mean something?!

Now, to switch hats, I obviously see the value in having a central organization to review products on our behalf. I am not arguing the merits of the system. I am just asking if it is being used appropriately. And, we all have run across engineers who need someone else to think for them. Again, the system has its place.

I am looking for other thoughts on the subject.

Charles R. Ashley Jr., P.E.

ICC-Approved Professional Engineer

RE: electronic signature

Hi Mark, so you are not sure we can extrapolate the CBC provisions granting
the BO higher authority to the BORPELS rules, I don't know either, but that
is sort of what I am wondering here.

Why does every plan check I get require a wet stamp/sign, when that is not
legally required and an electronic one is acceptable? It's not like this
rule is new.

When is the last time you saw a wet sign on truss calcs? I can't remember,
it doesn't happen often at all. I wonder why it is ok for them...most of the
time their signatures look like a grainy crayon tracing.

I have started attaching this page to my plan check responses...who knows.

Truitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:08 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: electronic signature

I think a building official _can_ require that if he chooses. A municipality
can enforce more stringent _building standards_ than required by the State.
I am not sure if the same principle applies to BORPELS rules though.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Burkett & Wong Engineers
3434 4th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
P 619.299.5550
F 619.299.9934
mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Truitt Vance [mailto:Truitt@adVanceEng.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:58 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: electronic signature
>
> Fellow CA Engineers,
>
> Section 411, e) of the California board rules states: ".The
> signature may be applied to the documents electronically." -
> in reference to signing your seal on plans and calculations.
>
> My question is: Can building officials over rule this
> section of state code and disallow this, or does this code
> apply at all times?
>
> If you want to look at the entire section, you can download it here:
> http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/boardrules.pdf
>
> Thanks,
>
> Truitt Vance, P.E.

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

ICC / ICBO Reports

I am looking for some clarification on ICC (formerly ICBO) reports.

I will start by stating my understanding: These reports are provided as evidence that an item whose manufacturer says is worth X is actually worth X. This permits the EOR to use said item without providing calculations justifying its use. In fact, they permit the layperson to use the accompanying tables and charts to use in the design of their own projects. Is this not their purpose?

Therefore, ICC reports are NOT required in order to use a product or material on a project. Just helpful.

So why does it seem it is getting harder and harder to get bldg. depts. to look at new products without ICC approval even though they have engineering calculations to back it up? And why should an ICC report limit my use of particular product in a manner that I have determined (using engineering principles and lots of common sense) is acceptable just because it doesn’t meet the exact conditions listed in the report?

Why am I forced to use a factor of safety of 4, when I would be comfortable with 3 in certain situations? Who decides these factors of safety anyway? It seems ICC is choosing to do that through the reports: is that appropriate? Why then aren’t these factors of safety mandated in the codes?

Here’s where I think the system has failed: it’s the “one size fits all” mentality. As mentioned earlier, the ICC reports were intended (as I understand it) to permit the layperson to use an engineered product under very specific conditions and with significant limitations. By dumbing it down to fit that denominator, and then applying those same restrictions to engineers, is flawed thinking.

Here’s a great example: Most insulated concrete forms (ICF) are approved only for residential use, and only up to 8ft or so. So I recently had to ~~argue~~ passionately convince a plan checker that this did not preclude me from using it on a commercial project with much taller walls. It’s just a forming system!!

Does giving that an ICC # really mean I can’t engineer something without ICC blessing? I know that is not the intent, but it sure seems that is where we are headed. I mean, ICC already gave me a number (PE# 63103 in CA) so shouldn’t that mean something?!

Now, to switch hats, I obviously see the value in having a central organization to review products on our behalf. I am not arguing the merits of the system. I am just asking if it is being used appropriately. And, we all have run across engineers who need someone else to think for them. Again, the system has its place.

I am looking for other thoughts on the subject.

Charles R. Ashley Jr., P.E.

ICC-Approved Professional Engineer

RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

There is no chapter "A", per se, that I can find in Volume 2. There are chapters with the letter "A" appended to the section designations but these are the special chapters for DSA and OSHPOD, to State review agencies. The California elevator requirements probably refer to these "A" chapters.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.

Structural Engineer

3434 4th Ave

San Diego, CA 92103

P 619.299.5550

F 619.299.9934

mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

I am using a spreadsheet created by Engineering International that references the 2001 CBC Chapter A for masonry design of an elevator shaft. I’m just wondering what Chapter A looks like. I’m guessing that it must be in Volume 2 somewhere but I’d like to know for sure before I pick it up.

Thx.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Masonry is Chapter 21. In Volume 2. No Chapter A though… Good Luck.

David A. Topete, SE

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

I am using a spreadsheet created by Engineering International that references the 2001 CBC Chapter A for masonry design of an elevator shaft. I’m just wondering what Chapter A looks like. I’m guessing that it must be in Volume 2 somewhere but I’d like to know for sure before I pick it up.

Thx.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Thx.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

You can find the codes for sale here: http://www.iccsafe.org/e/prodcat.html?catid=C-A-CA2&pcats=ICCSafe,C,C-A,C-A-CA&stateInfo=cmdbhbUalRGbiisl8419|4.

Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.

Structural Engineer

3434 4th Ave

San Diego, CA 92103

P 619.299.5550

F 619.299.9934

mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:44 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Does anyone know if Chapter A of the 2001 CBC is published online anywhere? If not, where can it be purchased and downloaded?

It looks like a large part of the CBC is published at bsc.ca.gov but I’m not sure which Volume or Part that Chapter A appears in.

I believe that Chapter A is related to masonry design of elevator shafts.

Thanks in advance.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

RE: 2001 CBC Chapter A

What is it you need? Chapters __A are amended chapters that California uses for public schools or hospitals. I don’t believe there is a Chapter A alone.

David A. Topete, SE

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:44 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 2001 CBC Chapter A

Does anyone know if Chapter A of the 2001 CBC is published online anywhere? If not, where can it be purchased and downloaded?

It looks like a large part of the CBC is published at bsc.ca.gov but I’m not sure which Volume or Part that Chapter A appears in.

I believe that Chapter A is related to masonry design of elevator shafts.

Thanks in advance.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net