Anyone know a good structural engineer in Utah?
- Thread starter Jetboy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Not to say that people won't do it, but it is against the law to seal plans that are not your own work.
- Thread starter
- #3
I dropped the plans off this morning with an engineer who's going to do the plans for me.
That is an interesting issue with different state laws and/or administrative rules on what is permitted. On a simple square garage I'm not sure there's any meaningful reason to require new drawings of the same thing. Either you're looking at a pre-drawn building or using a computer to draw the same thing. I'm not sure how meaningful the distinction is so long as you actually review the structural details.
- Unless of course you're just relying on the computer to do the calculations. In which case - is that any better to rely on an algorithm that you didn't write? Does the truss engineer actually calculate any of the loads? Probably not.
Either way I don't think the drawings are really a big deal here. I can draw the building framing in about 2 hours (I did). I suspect with better software that uses dynamic components a pro could do it in an hour or so.
The detail drawings I see on garage plans are all more or less copy and paste out of simpson's books. I suppose you could redraw them on your own, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. It's not like you're going to have custom made straps stamped out for a 600 sf garage.
There isn't much real "engineering" work to be done for my project as it all meets the prescriptive code requirements other than the shear load calculations of the front face because I'm in seismic D2 and need a pair of alternate braced wall panels that need an engineer's blessing.
That is an interesting issue with different state laws and/or administrative rules on what is permitted. On a simple square garage I'm not sure there's any meaningful reason to require new drawings of the same thing. Either you're looking at a pre-drawn building or using a computer to draw the same thing. I'm not sure how meaningful the distinction is so long as you actually review the structural details.
- Unless of course you're just relying on the computer to do the calculations. In which case - is that any better to rely on an algorithm that you didn't write? Does the truss engineer actually calculate any of the loads? Probably not.
Either way I don't think the drawings are really a big deal here. I can draw the building framing in about 2 hours (I did). I suspect with better software that uses dynamic components a pro could do it in an hour or so.
The detail drawings I see on garage plans are all more or less copy and paste out of simpson's books. I suppose you could redraw them on your own, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. It's not like you're going to have custom made straps stamped out for a 600 sf garage.
There isn't much real "engineering" work to be done for my project as it all meets the prescriptive code requirements other than the shear load calculations of the front face because I'm in seismic D2 and need a pair of alternate braced wall panels that need an engineer's blessing.
- Thread starter
- #4
What we *should* be doing - if government was actually for the benefit of the people - is have half a dozen stock plans on file with the city that are pre-approved. I'm certain that my garage has already been approved 50 times by the same office. This is a perfect example of pure dead weight loss. Breaking windows to keep the window maker in business.
Engineer of record has to inspect and sign off on the varying stages of construction that code enforcement used to inspect here, yet they still charge the same inspections fees, which were absorbent to begin with.
Defraying liability, minimizing their involvement, yet there's been no reduction in fees, nor staff.
Defraying liability, minimizing their involvement, yet there's been no reduction in fees, nor staff.
- Thread starter
- #6
That's interesting. Here there is no need for engineer at all unless the building is outside the prescriptive code requirements (which of course are very conservative). The city still does inspections at various stages. Of course this is a small residential building. There's no need to have excessive oversight or cost for such a simple project. 99% are done without a building permit.
In retrospect I would probably not apply for a building permit if I were to do this again. Lots of hassle with no benefit.
Were I having a home or larger building constructed, sure. I'd want to be sure the contractor was actually building what was spec'd and that the design was sound. This is like hiring a lawyer to fight a parking ticket.
In retrospect I would probably not apply for a building permit if I were to do this again. Lots of hassle with no benefit.
Were I having a home or larger building constructed, sure. I'd want to be sure the contractor was actually building what was spec'd and that the design was sound. This is like hiring a lawyer to fight a parking ticket.
Last edited:
Easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.
For lack of a better description, I'm a commercial/industrial contractor with a heavy interest in pre-engineered steel buildings.
I was contacted six times, last week alone, by individuals, most residing in the greater metro area ( consisting of several smaller municipalities) that had bought "packages" from any number of the heavily marketed DIY steel building companies, requesting services that began with foundation engineering and engineering oversight, all due to these new procedures.
I've no interest, because they're money loosing propositions, but the minimum fee is $2,500.00 for foundation plans and third party certification. Usually bursts their bubble about the killer deal that got on a cancelled order, which is a BS marketing ploy, anyway.
The last permit I had a vested interest in submitting costs $17k at the city and another $22k in architectural, civil, structural engineering and the total project was $430k.
Edited.
Are not the packages you get from HD and other building centers pre-engineered and approved? They put together custom packages as well.
Anytime I built garages (several) the plans were pre-approved. If they were my own plans, things like LVL over the door and trusses were engineered by the supplier at no extra cost.
Anytime I built garages (several) the plans were pre-approved. If they were my own plans, things like LVL over the door and trusses were engineered by the supplier at no extra cost.
- Thread starter
- #9
Unfortunately not here. My home happens to fall in seismic zone d2. I'm not sure why, but that's the same as LA and San Francisco.
What it means for building a garage is that the first story of a two story building (it's two story if the trusses have room for attic area) needs 13.2 feet of sheer wall (sheeted 2x4 framing) equivalent for a 24' wall. That makes is pretty much impossible to fit anything bigger than a 1 car garage door in if you go by the basic code requirements.
You can build what's called a "alternate braced wall panel", which is basically a wall sheeted on both sides and attached to the foundation with metal straps. Unfortunately they are only drawn in the code as 2' walls and give a 4' wall equivalent. So even if you use one on both sides, that gets you to 8' of sheer wall equivalent. The city will not accept two side by side alternate braced walls. Why? I have no idea. Making the same design wall wider should more than double its sheer value because the tension and compression paths in the materials become more and more favorable as the wall is widened. But that's not the city's engineer's view. Screw all that science and stuff... (I'm not an engineer. I do have a degree in physics. Modern physics = light/electricity/energy. Statics is first year stuff, then more or less ignored after that. I'm not in any respect an expert in material properties of light wood framing. That said - this one is pretty easy to figure out.) Even adding a set of diagonal steel straps in addition to the sheathing diaphragm would be more than strong enough.
If I use a truss without attic space, no engineer needed. Then I only need about 6 feet of sheer wall. That's easy. The attic truss making it two story is what screws me over.
So... I have to hire an engineer to stamp his or her blessing that the same wall design that meets seismic category c with attic truss or d2 without is good enough for d2 with attic storage so I can have a garage door in my garage.
My frustration is that at least half of the garages in my township are two car detached and have similar design. This isn't something new or unusual. It's just a makework program to have everyone go spend $750 for an engineer to stamp a plan - or in the alternative skip the permit process.
Last edited:
Actually, it is all a liability issue. If your township offered four different plans that you could choose from and use without jumping through all the hoops, then the township would assume the liability for the design. If there was something out of the ordinary about your situation that caused your garage to fall down, their insurer would be on the hook for property damage, injury, or loss of life due to that.
My professional liability insurance is over 20% of my annual gross business income. As such, they absolutely forbid me from sealing anything that isn't my own work.
- Thread starter
- #11
In Utah the city would not take on any liability beyond what they might have now. Governmental immunity (at least in Utah) extends to political subdivisions. Any state can pass a law that would waive liability for the engineer if they wanted to go that route. It would be no different from adopting a building code and allowing construction of structures that are within the building code prescriptive requirements. That's what most cities here do now. The only difference is the creator of the pre-approved design set.
I'm sure this varies by state and how broad they have chosen to provide governmental immunity.
It would probably make construction safer because many of the specialty garage builders would then use the plans and the uniformity would make inspection easier and more accurate. It would also reduce costs because everything from the trusses to the headers and beams could be made as a kit and city approval would be quick and easy. Concrete contractors could bid he slab knowing exactly what it needs to be, where the j bolts go etc.
I'm sure this varies by state and how broad they have chosen to provide governmental immunity.
It would probably make construction safer because many of the specialty garage builders would then use the plans and the uniformity would make inspection easier and more accurate. It would also reduce costs because everything from the trusses to the headers and beams could be made as a kit and city approval would be quick and easy. Concrete contractors could bid he slab knowing exactly what it needs to be, where the j bolts go etc.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #12
Got my plans back. All new drawings, wet stamped, $600. Drawings are essentially identical to the stock plans. Back to the planning office... again.
I should note that the engineer was good to work with, finished my plans quickly, and did so for a reasonable price. I recognize that he is a professional and value his time. My frustrations with the process have nothing to do with the engineer. I consider myself pretty fortunate to get them done so quickly considering it is the beginning of construction season when they are probably most busy.
I should note that the engineer was good to work with, finished my plans quickly, and did so for a reasonable price. I recognize that he is a professional and value his time. My frustrations with the process have nothing to do with the engineer. I consider myself pretty fortunate to get them done so quickly considering it is the beginning of construction season when they are probably most busy.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #13
So...
I take my new stamped plans back down to the planning department. A week later I have another list of rejections. Of course they won't tell me on the phone what's wrong, so I have to go sit for half an hour in line on my 6th visit to the planning dept to get them back. I sit down with the review guy (I don't know if he's an engineer or not). He tells me that my engineer forgot to include the live load for the attic space and that he needs to include a live load of 125psf for that area.
Seems really high and I discuss for a minute why that seems unreasonable. Attic trusses are only spec.'d for 20psf, so I'm not sure I understand why they city is asking for 125. Guy claims that I could be storing engine blocks upstairs and I need to have my sheer walls calculated to account for that. I'm fairly certain that 40,000lbs (10 Landcruisers) worth of weight is an unreasonable design load for attic space over a 2 car garage. Doesn't matter because I could conceivably put a pool up there and fill it with 5,000 gallons of water? - so back to the engineer I go.
Engineer pulls out two engineering books and photo copies pages indicating that residential attic space is between 10 and 30psf and he used 30 simply because it was the higher number.
Back I go. Planning office guy finally accepts the engineer's plans (he didn't look very pleased).
So I pay my $880 and now I have a permit!
Also - I will never apply for another permit in my current city. My experience was so much worse this time than I've had in the past in other cities. 5 weeks for first review. And the fee is $880, plus $600 for engineer to approve exactly what I had. The fine for building w/o a permit is $1000, and there's a very small chance of being caught. Every neighbor I talked to said skip the permit process and take your chances. Now I understand why.
I take my new stamped plans back down to the planning department. A week later I have another list of rejections. Of course they won't tell me on the phone what's wrong, so I have to go sit for half an hour in line on my 6th visit to the planning dept to get them back. I sit down with the review guy (I don't know if he's an engineer or not). He tells me that my engineer forgot to include the live load for the attic space and that he needs to include a live load of 125psf for that area.
Seems really high and I discuss for a minute why that seems unreasonable. Attic trusses are only spec.'d for 20psf, so I'm not sure I understand why they city is asking for 125. Guy claims that I could be storing engine blocks upstairs and I need to have my sheer walls calculated to account for that. I'm fairly certain that 40,000lbs (10 Landcruisers) worth of weight is an unreasonable design load for attic space over a 2 car garage. Doesn't matter because I could conceivably put a pool up there and fill it with 5,000 gallons of water? - so back to the engineer I go.
Engineer pulls out two engineering books and photo copies pages indicating that residential attic space is between 10 and 30psf and he used 30 simply because it was the higher number.
Back I go. Planning office guy finally accepts the engineer's plans (he didn't look very pleased).
So I pay my $880 and now I have a permit!
Also - I will never apply for another permit in my current city. My experience was so much worse this time than I've had in the past in other cities. 5 weeks for first review. And the fee is $880, plus $600 for engineer to approve exactly what I had. The fine for building w/o a permit is $1000, and there's a very small chance of being caught. Every neighbor I talked to said skip the permit process and take your chances. Now I understand why.
WTF! I would formally file a complaint with either the city council or Mayor about the excessive and ignorant permit dude telling you to figure 125 psf on the bottom chord of an attic truss.... Challenge him/her to prove why 125psf is required, based on an ''aSSumption of joe q. publik putting - "Guy claims that I could be storing engine blocks upstairs and I need to have my sheer walls calculated to account for that."
As a disclaimer, I practice architecture in an environment where $250 / Sq.Ft. based custom homes are the rule, and we are in seismic zone D1, also have 100 psf snowload.... A robust structure is good to have, if it is 'overdesigned' and does not fall down, evverboddy happy, If it is 'underdesigned' and falls down, noboddy happy, except the lawyers and doctors who'll make $$ from the resulting carnage. Recent lesson in Bangladesh factory collapse comes to mind. (end of rant)
You wouldn't happen to be in West Valley or 'Communist' Heights of SLC?
As a disclaimer, I practice architecture in an environment where $250 / Sq.Ft. based custom homes are the rule, and we are in seismic zone D1, also have 100 psf snowload.... A robust structure is good to have, if it is 'overdesigned' and does not fall down, evverboddy happy, If it is 'underdesigned' and falls down, noboddy happy, except the lawyers and doctors who'll make $$ from the resulting carnage. Recent lesson in Bangladesh factory collapse comes to mind. (end of rant)
You wouldn't happen to be in West Valley or 'Communist' Heights of SLC?
- Thread starter
- #16
The 125 psf came from ASCE 7-98 relating to storage warehouses. I could not convince him on my own that this wasn't a storage warehouse, but a residential construction. The City guy said my engineer just skipped a step and needed to redo his calculations. Technically the book says residential means dwellings. This isn't a dwelling so they consider it a warehouse. Unfortunately I didn't know enough about the code or engineering design guides to call him out on it the first time. - by that I mean the first time after submitting stamped drawings. I didn't understand the problem with my drawings the first 4 times I submitted them, just got back rejections regarding shear wall strength, which I didn't entirely understand why. All I really knew was that the truss designs were for 20psf and just back of the napkin math didn't make any sense for that kind of load and that I didn't think there was a justification for garage attic being 10 times as strong as the same attic over a bedroom. I also argued unsuccessfully that my engineer should have authority to design outside the guidelines - that's part of his authority as a professional engineer.
In the end they still weren't accepting that this was in fact residential not commercial storage (if you read foot notes in IBC 301.5 it seems pretty clear that garages are considered residential, but I'm not sure how that applies to the ASCE). They just realized it was my engineer against them at that point and I was going to appeal the decision to the board if they didn't accept it and gave in rather than going through the appeal process.
In the end they still weren't accepting that this was in fact residential not commercial storage (if you read foot notes in IBC 301.5 it seems pretty clear that garages are considered residential, but I'm not sure how that applies to the ASCE). They just realized it was my engineer against them at that point and I was going to appeal the decision to the board if they didn't accept it and gave in rather than going through the appeal process.
Last edited:
I assume that you have zoning and that your property is zoned residential. If so, I would have pointed to that and told them that per zoning they will not let you build a commercial storage warehouse in the first place...
In Pennsylvania they recently went to a statewide Code based on the International Construction Code (ICC). Used to be that you could build something in one place and be required to build to BOCA (Building Officials Code Administrators) and less than a mile away the same exact building had to be built to UBC (Uniform Building Code) - or even if they were both BOCA, each municipality had their own laundry list of clauses, addenda, and such. And Pennsylvania is divided up by town, borough, township, and such instead of counties or larger governing bodies. From my house, I can drive a five mile loop and pass through four different jurisdictions.
Anyway, the statewide code was supposed to eliminate a lot of this confusion. To some extent it has. Everyone is starting with the same basic code, but there are still some of the clauses, addenda, and all of that. They also required the jurisdictions to either have a municipal employee who is a certified code official or they have to contract out to have a certified code official do the reviews.
One thing that it has cut down on is the small town code officials picking favorites and such as the small towns really cannot afford to have a dedicated code official and end up contracting out to engineering firms. But I have run into some rural areas where the local engineering firm is the big fish in a small pond and decides that he's going to dictate everything.
The downside to all of this is that if you make it more difficult than it needs to be, then people do what you're saying you'll do next time - just don't apply for a permit. In a lot of cases, that isn't going to make much of a difference. But then you'll also get someone in there who has no idea what they are doing that will end up building something dangerous and you'll have a fire, it'll fall down, or something else will happen and there will be injuries.
As an architect, I take my profession seriously. Just as you'll bandage up minor injuries yourself or go before the judge for a traffic ticket on your own or do your own taxes, you'll probably also reach a certain point with these things where you'll go to a doctor, get a lawyer, or get an attorney when you get in over your head. And I see all too regularly when people are in over their head with building issues - mold, leaks, bouncy floors, sagging roofs, and an endless host of other issues.
Ok... I've rambled on long enough...
In Pennsylvania they recently went to a statewide Code based on the International Construction Code (ICC). Used to be that you could build something in one place and be required to build to BOCA (Building Officials Code Administrators) and less than a mile away the same exact building had to be built to UBC (Uniform Building Code) - or even if they were both BOCA, each municipality had their own laundry list of clauses, addenda, and such. And Pennsylvania is divided up by town, borough, township, and such instead of counties or larger governing bodies. From my house, I can drive a five mile loop and pass through four different jurisdictions.
Anyway, the statewide code was supposed to eliminate a lot of this confusion. To some extent it has. Everyone is starting with the same basic code, but there are still some of the clauses, addenda, and all of that. They also required the jurisdictions to either have a municipal employee who is a certified code official or they have to contract out to have a certified code official do the reviews.
One thing that it has cut down on is the small town code officials picking favorites and such as the small towns really cannot afford to have a dedicated code official and end up contracting out to engineering firms. But I have run into some rural areas where the local engineering firm is the big fish in a small pond and decides that he's going to dictate everything.
The downside to all of this is that if you make it more difficult than it needs to be, then people do what you're saying you'll do next time - just don't apply for a permit. In a lot of cases, that isn't going to make much of a difference. But then you'll also get someone in there who has no idea what they are doing that will end up building something dangerous and you'll have a fire, it'll fall down, or something else will happen and there will be injuries.
As an architect, I take my profession seriously. Just as you'll bandage up minor injuries yourself or go before the judge for a traffic ticket on your own or do your own taxes, you'll probably also reach a certain point with these things where you'll go to a doctor, get a lawyer, or get an attorney when you get in over your head. And I see all too regularly when people are in over their head with building issues - mold, leaks, bouncy floors, sagging roofs, and an endless host of other issues.
Ok... I've rambled on long enough...
Building code hoop jumping... simple detached garage ought not be too complex for a permit.
I'd prefer a consistent, predictable set of 'code minimums' standard and we seem to be heading that direction with adoption of ICC, and IBC / IRC dependent on building type / construction type, occupancy, area and height. In my quasi-rural location, there are many rancher - farmers who branch out into construction and DIY types who will question these 'code minimums' and perform less than adequately based on saving $$... not based upon human HSW (health safety and welfare).
With the advent of mixed-use zoning, the building officials have to micromanage the odd combo of live-work designs and depending on the old-boy network cronyism, we could be liable for an inspector not inspecting to verify what was submitted / reviewed and approved, is actually what's being built.
Best wishes on the speedy construction.
another website with similar content: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=345236
I'd prefer a consistent, predictable set of 'code minimums' standard and we seem to be heading that direction with adoption of ICC, and IBC / IRC dependent on building type / construction type, occupancy, area and height. In my quasi-rural location, there are many rancher - farmers who branch out into construction and DIY types who will question these 'code minimums' and perform less than adequately based on saving $$... not based upon human HSW (health safety and welfare).
With the advent of mixed-use zoning, the building officials have to micromanage the odd combo of live-work designs and depending on the old-boy network cronyism, we could be liable for an inspector not inspecting to verify what was submitted / reviewed and approved, is actually what's being built.
Best wishes on the speedy construction.
another website with similar content: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=345236
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #19
I completely understand the need for zoning and building codes. I'm onboard with the idea that we all get together and collectively agree that we're all going to limit ourselves to certain sizes of structures and setbacks to that we can all have nice valuable properties. We can all have similar air light and view when we don't obstruct our neighbors. We can have safe comfortable living situations rather than shanty towns. I'm happy to give up my ability to build a 6 story mansion on my property in trade for all my neighbors also doing the same. And if people in another area want to do that - awesome go for it.
This whole process should really be collaborative. I go in and give them my plans. They say "we see what you want to do, here are the rules for your area, lets see what we can do. - oh I see you want attic trusses on your garage, unfortunately we'll need engineering stamps for this structure because you can't get it in under the prescriptive requirements" Unfortunately it's turned into a very adversarial process in my city where they give me a list of rejections and it takes 4 trips before they finally tell me I have to see an engineer because they won't approve of a combination of alternate braced wall and regular shear wall to add up to the shear requirement without it. (And when you're basing the shear load on 125psf for 300sf of upper level attic, it's understandable why it's so hard to get enough shear plus a garage door in 24'). Then once I do they tell me my engineer is wrong. The cost in terms of both money and time and frustration are high enough along with such a small penalty that it just doesn't make sense to get the permit.
In my last city the permit process was easy. I brought in my plans. They sat down and we redlined them to add what the city wanted. Permit was $200 and I was on my way the same day. That's a lot different from submitting plans and "we'll see you in 5 weeks with corrections".
micruz60 - i'm in unincorporated Salt Lake county. I just call it "the city" because it's kind of what everyone refers to it as.
This whole process should really be collaborative. I go in and give them my plans. They say "we see what you want to do, here are the rules for your area, lets see what we can do. - oh I see you want attic trusses on your garage, unfortunately we'll need engineering stamps for this structure because you can't get it in under the prescriptive requirements" Unfortunately it's turned into a very adversarial process in my city where they give me a list of rejections and it takes 4 trips before they finally tell me I have to see an engineer because they won't approve of a combination of alternate braced wall and regular shear wall to add up to the shear requirement without it. (And when you're basing the shear load on 125psf for 300sf of upper level attic, it's understandable why it's so hard to get enough shear plus a garage door in 24'). Then once I do they tell me my engineer is wrong. The cost in terms of both money and time and frustration are high enough along with such a small penalty that it just doesn't make sense to get the permit.
In my last city the permit process was easy. I brought in my plans. They sat down and we redlined them to add what the city wanted. Permit was $200 and I was on my way the same day. That's a lot different from submitting plans and "we'll see you in 5 weeks with corrections".
micruz60 - i'm in unincorporated Salt Lake county. I just call it "the city" because it's kind of what everyone refers to it as.
Last edited:
I do agree that what you faced was certainly uncalled for. Four trips without giving you a clear understanding of what is wrong is absurd no matter how you look at the process. And that is exactly what I mean about alienating people.