Working on a single family residence in a NJ shore town. We hired a structural engineer, to handle the framing and associated elements. There is a full compliment of details for hold downs & anchors that you would typically expect to see for wind design and this project type.
Before the holiday, the inspector issued a stop-work, because he didn't like the way the sheathing was installed. The sheathing was installed in accord with the engineers details, as shown. Specifically, he doesn't like that the plywood is seamed at the wall plate. I called him, he started talking to me about the fact that we can't generate enough uplift or shear capacity, blah, blah, blah. I had my engineer write a letter to clarify his design.
Despite the letter, the Inspector, while nice and complimentary, is asking for metal straps to be installed over the plywood at 32" oc. Sound like a simple compromise, right? just do it, you say- and the owner very well may.
IMO- Its arbitrary and capricious. It has a financial cost of $3k (more than the engineers fee, BTW) Perhaps i should have had the code official design it.
Should i make more of an issue about it, with the code official? Should I call the State DCA? How have you handled similar?
Let me see. Jersey Shore. Hurricane Sandy. Increased Insurance costs. FEMA. DJT. An increased desire to not let people build on the Shoreline. Governor Christie. Code official is always right.
Yep. You're client is going to pay the bill for the additional request.
Jerome, honestly, if you go to DCA and get a favorable ruling overturning the local, which is possible, not likely, possible. Is the rest of your work going to pass the inspector and his attitude after they get slapped?
I agree with the leader comment. It is imperative that all leaders align. I just now resent a structural grid back to my p.eng because the spacing of their columns was not to an even 5mm number. What the hell is 2237.5mm good for?
... also the lack of insulation coverage at the footing is a big nono for me.
I didn't draw the detail. The detail is ripped straight from the engineer's sheets. Its not intended to indicate insulation. Stay on topic.
If you don't like the detail- do tell, what's wrong with it?
Previous firm, we went before the construction board of appeals more than once. prevailed each time. Inspectors aren't imperial dictators- they do have to answer for their actions.
The inspector has told me that he's not even going to perform a framing inspection- the work looks good. When the framing is complete, he said go ahead to and wrap it and shingle the roof. He told us this despite the fact the roof isn't even framed, let alone sheathed. Almost the very definition of capricious.
Well to me there just doesn't seem to be enough tie back of the wall to the foundation. I kind of agree with the inspector here, especially given coastal and more and more history of storms coming up the coast.
I'm inclined to agree with Jerome. Doesn't matter whether or not it appears like it can withstand the loading. It matters whether or not it actually can withstand the loads. The structural engineer has made the case that it does comply with code. Inspector should simply say ok.
That being said, I wouldn't think the detail you've shown is adequate ... but I'm not a structural engineer. I just know what I've typically seen done in areas with not nearly as high of wind loads as you'll have on the coast and metal strapping is fairly typical. Plus the sheathing wouldn't be spliced like it is shown. Just my $0.02.
If it was my project, I'd put the straps on and call it a day. $3k shouldn't break the budget ... especially if it means getting it to pass inspection.
It would be interesting to hear how the engineer defended his detail. It's possible that he has specified enough holdown hardware that the shear and uplift value of continuous sheathing isn't necessary.
What is the point of an engineer's stamp of the inspector didn't believe him? Doesn't seem right a reasonable response. Is there a relevant code section?
I stated at the outset that our set includes a litany of details, including tie-downs and anchrs, including from shear panels to threaded rod to foundation reinforcing. These are all in place. The shear panels is just that: a panel on the deck designed to resist wind load, tied down to the foundation. The floor diaphragm is not irrelevant to shear panel strength, if adequately anchored. It does not require plywood for its connection to the sill plate.
The inspector is effectively saying that the only way to anchor the shear panel is via plywood to the sill plate and anchor bolts. If you agree, or if you believe this is the best way to anchor you shear panel, god help you.
It's funny I am also doing a house on the shore right now, except that my engineer charged literally 10x that amount!? We have some nice cantilevers but still...
I've found that whether or not you agree with the inspector you just never know in these towns and you have to placate them to a reasonable level. I don't know your budget but 3K doesn't sound bad. I had an inspector not accept a some fire dampers and I had to wrap a significant amount of duct work in a one hour membrane. He said fire dampers can only be used in commercial applications.
That's a pivot point with floor pushing or resisting and the height of that wall moving in the opposite direction, saw it not long ago in a 70s house remodel.
that detail is technically fine...you could talk about leader alignment, kerning, font selection, line weights, scale, proportion, color, and whatever other nit picky shit...but it is a waste of time and doesn't do anything to improve the communication on how to actually build that stem. All consultants details look like that and it is probably a standard that gets repeated 10 times a day in their office....good luck changing it...
Back to the original question...You inspector is wrong. They are not liable for shit, your PE is, you are, and your builder.
Agree with others that fighting it would probably cause you grief in the long run, so you might just want to add the straps to stay in good graces with the inspector in the long run, but you should know you can fight it.
That is my problem in general with inspectors and plan checkers. They have to comment on something to justify their position in the world...if they don't write a list of comments on your project, then what are they sitting around getting paid for? I know it is good to get a second set of eyes on a set of plans and they sometimes will catch stuff you missed, but in the end when the lawyers come a knocking....you are on your own. Just remember that the next time a field inspector insists on doing something his way. end rant.
Jerome, the one thing I haven't read, maybe I missed it, but when I've had a different opinion, or my consultant does, I have the official cite the section of the code requiring the stated correction, so I can become better informed. That usually gets all parties on the same page.
Screw the inspector! He has no authority to require and modify something that has been signed and sealed by an engineer, a professional, and approved by an engineer/professional.
If he does say something is wrong, then he should provide a code section or prove your calculations wrong but no engineer is obligated to show an inspector the calculations and reasons. Those are provided, if requested by the city/state etc. and approved by them, not by the inspector.
Then again, it is your call if you want to piss him off or not. I've had inspectors decertified for bull shit calls and holding up work with no authority.
Beta, valid point. When he disputed my details, my reply of course was that neither he or I were engineers and that's why we hired a subconsultant. His reply was; "I want his calcs". I'm ok with that- that seems within his purview. That's when I have my engineer write his letter. Maybe the lesson here is, I should have asked him to put in writing what he required, citing chapter and verse.
for justification of the engineers design his letter says, in part:
"Our lateral design was completed in accordance with the 2015 NDS Special Design Provisions for Wind & Seismic. Wind uplift has been accounted for on all shearwalls. The provisions of NDS section 4.4; requires for Wood Structural Panels Designed to Resist Combine Shear and Uplift from Wind, were used where advantageous to the design. Although not all shearwalls have been designed for the combined effects. Those that were not designed per section 4.4 have had the uplift resolved through hold-downs at the end of the wall in lieu of transferring uplift through the sheathing splice. Our shear transfer details require the sheathing be spliced over the sole plate and over the double plate and fastened with... These details have been cut as a typical at all exterior walls as a conservative approach and to standardize construction."
Poop says: Then again, it is your call if you want to piss him off or not. I've had inspectors decertified for bull shit calls and holding up work with no authority.
Maybe I make a complaint on his license after the project is over.
Relevance? the dispute is one of engineering not execution. Its not, "well, your framer, missed this or didnt install that". It's "i dont like your detail". No site visit required.
Had a similar situation in the past. Went with firm owner to talk to city reviewer. Owner and reviewer got sideways over this same issue and owner loudly asked for the reviewers engineers license. The reviewer said this meeting is over and stared at the ceiling in silence until we left. WTF
Local tradition? That looks like an Ohio job, no self respecting Joisey guy would ever let feet stick out of the ground. Never happened. I should know.
From the sketch fragment shown, I have some questions about the anchor bolt, which does not seem to be clearly specified.
According to typical dimensioning sequence (dia. x length x hook length x thread) the anchor bolt has 5/8" diameter, 3' length, 3" hook length, and 229"(?) thread length. A 229" (?) thread (or any other part) does not compute here, so whoever wrote 229" probably had in mind 9" (or 229 mm). 9" is a good thread length for 36" long bolts.
If that's the case, anchor bolts that long (3') are usually anchored directly into the concrete foundation, but then they are not matching the anchor bolt layout as visually shown on the sketch.
If that's not the case, the visible bolt seems to be 450 mm or 18" (around 2 block courses high) however that is not reflected in the written part. Perhaps 18" bolts at 3' spacing ?
Can you please elaborate on those anchor bolts a bit more? perhaps that was one reason the inspector got that way?
Curious, what is the maximum height of that hollow masonry foundation wall? If it's 4 courses, then perhaps the engineer can use 36" bolts anchored straight into the concrete foundation? That would seem to be a sturdier system, as hook bolts work at their best when anchored directly in concrete foundations.
I know Illinois passed the law where the plans examiner can request engineering calculations, but that is not the case Inn many states. Plans examiner, but not a certified field inspector.
Jan 16, 17 5:00 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
meddlesome inspector
Working on a single family residence in a NJ shore town. We hired a structural engineer, to handle the framing and associated elements. There is a full compliment of details for hold downs & anchors that you would typically expect to see for wind design and this project type.
Before the holiday, the inspector issued a stop-work, because he didn't like the way the sheathing was installed. The sheathing was installed in accord with the engineers details, as shown. Specifically, he doesn't like that the plywood is seamed at the wall plate. I called him, he started talking to me about the fact that we can't generate enough uplift or shear capacity, blah, blah, blah. I had my engineer write a letter to clarify his design.
Despite the letter, the Inspector, while nice and complimentary, is asking for metal straps to be installed over the plywood at 32" oc. Sound like a simple compromise, right? just do it, you say- and the owner very well may.
IMO- Its arbitrary and capricious. It has a financial cost of $3k (more than the engineers fee, BTW) Perhaps i should have had the code official design it.
Should i make more of an issue about it, with the code official? Should I call the State DCA? How have you handled similar?
There is no way that detail would be accepted, regardless of the straping, in my area so count yourself lucky that's all you need.
Yep. You're client is going to pay the bill for the additional request.
Do you plan on working with this inspections office again on different projects?!? chuck it up as a learning experience and move on.
whats wrong with the detail?
None of the leaders align. That's what's wrong. Stopped reading right there.
my current boss prefers that leaders not align, drives me crazy
I agree with the leader comment. It is imperative that all leaders align. I just now resent a structural grid back to my p.eng because the spacing of their columns was not to an even 5mm number. What the hell is 2237.5mm good for?
... also the lack of insulation coverage at the footing is a big nono for me.
I didn't draw the detail. The detail is ripped straight from the engineer's sheets. Its not intended to indicate insulation. Stay on topic.
If you don't like the detail- do tell, what's wrong with it?
Previous firm, we went before the construction board of appeals more than once. prevailed each time. Inspectors aren't imperial dictators- they do have to answer for their actions.
The inspector has told me that he's not even going to perform a framing inspection- the work looks good. When the framing is complete, he said go ahead to and wrap it and shingle the roof. He told us this despite the fact the roof isn't even framed, let alone sheathed. Almost the very definition of capricious.
Have you stated as much? I'd be interested in hearing their reply.
Well to me there just doesn't seem to be enough tie back of the wall to the foundation. I kind of agree with the inspector here, especially given coastal and more and more history of storms coming up the coast.
I'm inclined to agree with Jerome. Doesn't matter whether or not it appears like it can withstand the loading. It matters whether or not it actually can withstand the loads. The structural engineer has made the case that it does comply with code. Inspector should simply say ok.
That being said, I wouldn't think the detail you've shown is adequate ... but I'm not a structural engineer. I just know what I've typically seen done in areas with not nearly as high of wind loads as you'll have on the coast and metal strapping is fairly typical. Plus the sheathing wouldn't be spliced like it is shown. Just my $0.02.
If it was my project, I'd put the straps on and call it a day. $3k shouldn't break the budget ... especially if it means getting it to pass inspection.
Unfortunately sometimes it doesn't matter that the engineer can provide backup, the inspector just wants to see it done the way he wants it.
^ In practice yes, but in theory ...
I agree with Jerome in theory, but in practice I'd just suck it up and strap it on (take any euphemistic implication you want from that).
It would be interesting to hear how the engineer defended his detail. It's possible that he has specified enough holdown hardware that the shear and uplift value of continuous sheathing isn't necessary.
What is the point of an engineer's stamp of the inspector didn't believe him? Doesn't seem right a reasonable response. Is there a relevant code section?
Thats my point.
I stated at the outset that our set includes a litany of details, including tie-downs and anchrs, including from shear panels to threaded rod to foundation reinforcing. These are all in place. The shear panels is just that: a panel on the deck designed to resist wind load, tied down to the foundation. The floor diaphragm is not irrelevant to shear panel strength, if adequately anchored. It does not require plywood for its connection to the sill plate.
The inspector is effectively saying that the only way to anchor the shear panel is via plywood to the sill plate and anchor bolts. If you agree, or if you believe this is the best way to anchor you shear panel, god help you.
is this detail something like what's pictured in FIGURE R602.11.3?
do you have pictures? they didn't 'seam' the plywood instead of 'splice' the plywood?
It's funny I am also doing a house on the shore right now, except that my engineer charged literally 10x that amount!? We have some nice cantilevers but still...
I've found that whether or not you agree with the inspector you just never know in these towns and you have to placate them to a reasonable level. I don't know your budget but 3K doesn't sound bad. I had an inspector not accept a some fire dampers and I had to wrap a significant amount of duct work in a one hour membrane. He said fire dampers can only be used in commercial applications.
PS has anyone ever heard that about dampers?
That's a pivot point with floor pushing or resisting and the height of that wall moving in the opposite direction, saw it not long ago in a 70s house remodel.
really simple detail. looks like a detail for a temporary backyard shed of sort.
that detail is technically fine...you could talk about leader alignment, kerning, font selection, line weights, scale, proportion, color, and whatever other nit picky shit...but it is a waste of time and doesn't do anything to improve the communication on how to actually build that stem. All consultants details look like that and it is probably a standard that gets repeated 10 times a day in their office....good luck changing it...
Back to the original question...You inspector is wrong. They are not liable for shit, your PE is, you are, and your builder.
Agree with others that fighting it would probably cause you grief in the long run, so you might just want to add the straps to stay in good graces with the inspector in the long run, but you should know you can fight it.
That is my problem in general with inspectors and plan checkers. They have to comment on something to justify their position in the world...if they don't write a list of comments on your project, then what are they sitting around getting paid for? I know it is good to get a second set of eyes on a set of plans and they sometimes will catch stuff you missed, but in the end when the lawyers come a knocking....you are on your own. Just remember that the next time a field inspector insists on doing something his way. end rant.
Screw the inspector! He has no authority to require and modify something that has been signed and sealed by an engineer, a professional, and approved by an engineer/professional.
If he does say something is wrong, then he should provide a code section or prove your calculations wrong but no engineer is obligated to show an inspector the calculations and reasons. Those are provided, if requested by the city/state etc. and approved by them, not by the inspector.
Then again, it is your call if you want to piss him off or not. I've had inspectors decertified for bull shit calls and holding up work with no authority.
Beta, valid point. When he disputed my details, my reply of course was that neither he or I were engineers and that's why we hired a subconsultant. His reply was; "I want his calcs". I'm ok with that- that seems within his purview. That's when I have my engineer write his letter. Maybe the lesson here is, I should have asked him to put in writing what he required, citing chapter and verse.
for justification of the engineers design his letter says, in part:
"Our lateral design was completed in accordance with the 2015 NDS Special Design Provisions for Wind & Seismic. Wind uplift has been accounted for on all shearwalls. The provisions of NDS section 4.4; requires for Wood Structural Panels Designed to Resist Combine Shear and Uplift from Wind, were used where advantageous to the design. Although not all shearwalls have been designed for the combined effects. Those that were not designed per section 4.4 have had the uplift resolved through hold-downs at the end of the wall in lieu of transferring uplift through the sheathing splice. Our shear transfer details require the sheathing be spliced over the sole plate and over the double plate and fastened with... These details have been cut as a typical at all exterior walls as a conservative approach and to standardize construction."
Poop says: Then again, it is your call if you want to piss him off or not. I've had inspectors decertified for bull shit calls and holding up work with no authority.
Maybe I make a complaint on his license after the project is over.
did the engineer go to the site and look at what was built before he wrote the letter?
Relevance? the dispute is one of engineering not execution. Its not, "well, your framer, missed this or didnt install that". It's "i dont like your detail". No site visit required.
Ha! That's hilarious... Stupid plan reviewers...Stupid Inspectors... Or should I say time consuming, irrelevant and worthless.
"when the lawyers come a knocking....you are on your own."
and in most jurisdiction, typically plan reviewers, inspectors are indemnified from any and all resulting litigation.
Jersey, you say? Local tradition may offer alternative methods of conflict resolution...
@JeromeS
From the sketch fragment shown, I have some questions about the anchor bolt, which does not seem to be clearly specified.
According to typical dimensioning sequence (dia. x length x hook length x thread) the anchor bolt has 5/8" diameter, 3' length, 3" hook length, and 229"(?) thread length. A 229" (?) thread (or any other part) does not compute here, so whoever wrote 229" probably had in mind 9" (or 229 mm). 9" is a good thread length for 36" long bolts.
If that's the case, anchor bolts that long (3') are usually anchored directly into the concrete foundation, but then they are not matching the anchor bolt layout as visually shown on the sketch.
If that's not the case, the visible bolt seems to be 450 mm or 18" (around 2 block courses high) however that is not reflected in the written part. Perhaps 18" bolts at 3' spacing ?
Can you please elaborate on those anchor bolts a bit more? perhaps that was one reason the inspector got that way?
Curious, what is the maximum height of that hollow masonry foundation wall? If it's 4 courses, then perhaps the engineer can use 36" bolts anchored straight into the concrete foundation? That would seem to be a sturdier system, as hook bolts work at their best when anchored directly in concrete foundations.
AdrianFGA, a lot of info was clipped off of the right side of the detail. The 3" x 3" x .229" was describing the square washer, not the anchor bolt.
Ok, I missed the decimal and the inch symbol.
What anchor bolt size is that ? Curious.
Back to the original question...You inspector is wrong. They are not liable for shit, your PE is, you are, and your builder.
In the UK, home inspectors carry liability insurance. Wouldn't it be the same in the States?
I know Illinois passed the law where the plans examiner can request engineering calculations, but that is not the case Inn many states. Plans examiner, but not a certified field inspector.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.