] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>]

Ricardo,

Were you retained not to piss off the other engineer or to give the owner 
your unbiased *professional* opinion about the structural adequacy of their 
proposed residence?

I would explain in the report to the owner that, although what the other 
engineer has done is within what is permitted by the code, you do not design 
to those limits and that you do not recommend that residences be constructed 
using those limits based upon the Northridge experience.


A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Ricardo Arevalo wrote:

For additional quality assurance purposes,a client has requested that we
review plans performed by another engineer for his new residence in Santa
Monica.Personally,since Northridge,we have used City of LA shear wall
requirements for all projects in or near LA County.Our dilemna is that for
this particular project,the engineer specified 3/8 inch Struct I plywood w/8d
@ 2 in o.c. for studs at 16 in o.c. Thus under the 1994 UBC,this corresponds
to a shear value of 730 plf which is almost quadruple that amount allowed by
LA (200 plf).So although the design is legally correct for this
jurisdiction,it just doesn't seem right.Do we have a legal or moral obligation
to inform the owner and piss off the other engineer?Your feedback is
appreciated.Thanks