Details Comments for using connectors

[perryh]

It certainly isn't rocket science.

The only problem with that is, your not licensed to do so.

[tmunson]

The only problem with that is, your not licensed to do so.

In this state (WA) at least you do not have to be licensed to do so as long as you are within the prescriptive path of the current IRC code. However, in reality, very few building departments will grant a permit unless the plans are stamped by a licensed engineer. Structural calculations are also usually requiered. If you are a home owner builder you are allowed more leinacy but if you have someone else prepare your plans they will need to be stamped.

Anyone from WA? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[gawdzira]

@Terry - I used to live in Seattle (right after graduation and the start of my internship). I appreciated their prescriptive path leniency at that time. Now, being older and more experienced, I would probably bring in an engineer for a lot more than I would have then. If memory serves me the prescriptive path would allow for no engineering up to a 12' span. That is getting pretty big to my eyes now where my younger eyes looked at that as a joke.

One of my friends/clients on Mercer Island was a big advocate of having earthquake insurance in the Seattle area. A lot of people viewed him as a kook for saying so but his fears were based on his good friends who worked the local seismographs.

[tmunson]

Hi Alan,

True, I almost always work with a structural engineer now on anything beyond the most basic structure, although, an engineer was required on a simple garage design I did recently. Our building departments are pretty strick about prescriptive path compliance, if that is all that is required. Not just with the intial plans but during construction as well.

Once we have a major earth quake (not a matter of if, but when) I'm sure there will be some major changes. Sometime I think I should move back to Montana!

[redwood]

Times have certainly changed. I do a lot of decks and pergolas. Up until a few years ago, I only needed maybe 1 in 25 designs stamped by a engineer. Now it' s approaching 100 %.

I have a structural engineering degree and can do most of the calcs myself. I always try to be conservative and overbuild to a certain degree, but I'm not a licensed engineer and never was, so that means squat.

[dshall]

Times have certainly changed. I do a lot of decks and pergolas. Up until a few years ago, I only needed maybe 1 in 25 designs stamped by a engineer. Now it' s approaching 100 %.

I have a structural engineering degree and can do most of the calcs myself. I always try to be conservative and overbuild to a certain degree, but I'm not a licensed engineer and never was, so that means squat.

Here in the Great State of California................ yep, 99% of the 100% need engineers calcs................ there sure are a lot of 75 year old homes still standing here................ but who am I................ bottom line, homeowners need my services more than ever and that is a good thing. So I complain about these more sever restrictions, but I look on the bright side, it means more work for me, and that is all I care about, me, me, me.

[sutcac]

...... there sure are a lot of 75 year old homes still standing here....

I hear this folksy wisdom quite a lot, but you don't see the ones that weren't well built and maintained because......they're gone. I think there is this general (and false) perception that older homes were better built that comes from the fact that you can only see the ones that have survived. You have no reference to the vast majority of them that either fell down or were torn down because they were crap.

[perryh]

Scott,
Yes, it does and your doing yourself a favor by putting any liability on the Engineer, removing yourself for the structure, liability wise. Of course in court anything can happen. Lets just say more likely than not, The standard in civil cases.

[dshall]

I hear this folksy wisdom quite a lot, but you don't see the ones that weren't well built and maintained because......they're gone. I think there is this general (and false) perception that older homes were better built that comes from the fact that you can only see the ones that have survived. You have no reference to the vast majority of them that either fell down or were torn down because they were crap.

Wow, folksy wisdom..... wow, I have no reference because the poorly built homes have fallen down. I sure do a lot of houses that were built in the early 1900's all the way up to 1965 which is usually the threshold for needing historical review. I bet I have worked on more houses that have been scraped than have fallen down.

However I will not argue that the houses of today are built much stronger than they were 30 years ago. But if the big one hits, well, we will see how many of the new homes that have been built under today's code are still standing. Probably more of the newer built than older built will be standing, but if the big one hits, I believe many of the new homes could take a beating.

[perryh]

I believe many of the new homes could take a beating.

Yes, agree because it depends on exactly where you are vs.the quake. Location, location.

[Joe Carrick]

Scott,

They probably won't take as big a beating as you're going to get the next time we play golf - but it'll have to be at least another week because I'm playing at Newport this Thursday.

[Dave Pitman]

However I will not argue that the houses of today are built much stronger than they were 30 years ago. But if the big one hits, well, we will see how many of the new homes that have been built under today's code are still standing. Probably more of the newer built than older built will be standing, but if the big one hits, I believe many of the new homes could take a beating.

I have mixed feelings on the whole evolution of building codes.

Yes, they generally result in making structures stronger, and thus safer; But at what cost?

Given a choice, would an individual rather own a home because they can afford it, knowing that it is not as strong/safe as current technology affords, if the alternative is not being able to afford it at all?

And, where is the line of what we "must" build based upon what we know. In other words; A reinforced concrete sphere secured to the earth with a flexible membrane would more than likely be much much stronger/safer than traditional building design. Does that mean that building something less should be illegal? Who should decide?

[dshall]

Scott,

They probably won't take as big a beating as you're going to get the next time we play golf - but it'll have to be at least another week because I'm playing at Newport this Thursday.

Brag, Brag, Brag, I had another golf lesson today, learning how to draw the ball............ yeppers Joe, give me another 15 years and I will crush you!

[perryh]

Dave,
always follow the money.

Scott,
I can't believe you need lessons to learn how to "draw a ball", there is one in the lib. I'll do a video for you.

[Joe Carrick]

Brag, Brag, Brag, I had another golf lesson today, learning how to draw the ball............ yeppers Joe, give me another 15 years and I will crush you!

Good Luck!

Then I'll be 85 and shooting consistently 6-8 shots below my age. I'm working hard to get my average below 80. My goal is to be able to shoot my age by the time I'm 75.