Who designed the fireplace and ignored the clearance requirements? They are the ones who should be on the hook for restructuring the roof structure so it meets code and isn't a fire risk.
Fireplace about done.... Will it draft?
- Thread starter Awshin
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
If a Professional Engineer (PE) "checked" the plans he is on the hook. Sadly folks with and without 4 years of college and lacking the required years of professional apprenticeship and subsequent passing grade on the Professional Engineers 8 hour test sometimes refer to themselves as "engineers". In most states someone passing themselves off as PEs are subject to fines and possible criminal prosecution. Guessing you are in Alabama, go to this site and enter the "engineers" name https://links.bels.alabama.gov/search.aspx If he does not come up on the list then take good notes and think about calling a lawyer. Note PEs in many states can work on any specialty that he/she can prove competency in. Other states require a PE with a specialty like a Structural to do structural work. PEs generally carry expensive insurance that is modified by how many claims they have, if they get a claim it can raise their rates substantially for several years so its to their interest to avoid formal claims.
With the Miami tower in mind, no doubt there are a lot of individuals pulling out their records wondering if they will be the firm or individual to blame. Engineers have codes of ethics and public safety is number one priority. That can put an individual engineer in a tough position where their boss or employer does not want to rock the boat so they instruct the employee to modify their recommendations. Here is a pretty good story on professional ethics on a much larger scale LeMessurier Stands Tall—A Case Study in Professional Ethics (theaiatrust.com) Usually it ends up in court for years but eventually blame is determined long after the victims are buried. Careers are ruined and companies can close.
With the Miami tower in mind, no doubt there are a lot of individuals pulling out their records wondering if they will be the firm or individual to blame. Engineers have codes of ethics and public safety is number one priority. That can put an individual engineer in a tough position where their boss or employer does not want to rock the boat so they instruct the employee to modify their recommendations. Here is a pretty good story on professional ethics on a much larger scale LeMessurier Stands Tall—A Case Study in Professional Ethics (theaiatrust.com) Usually it ends up in court for years but eventually blame is determined long after the victims are buried. Careers are ruined and companies can close.
All very true but only if the engineer signed of on the revised plan after this fireplace was added. If they just "looked at it" that legally isn't on them. Even if they did sign off the blame would also go to who ever designed it and whoever built it. They would all be on the hook.
Something called joint and several liability says that everyone with their "fingerprints" on a possible case gets sued (AKA the shotgun approach) and see who can afford to litigate. Most insurance firms will settle out of court if they run into a strong law firm. What sucks is that the PE may be in the clear but if he gets named and the company settles its still a claim on his insurance company.
In this case there s no harm yet, ideally the lawyer wants a few teary eyed kids in their pajamas standing in front of the smouldering ruins of a home before really going after a case. In this case the house will not burn down right a way its going to take a few years and odds are the beam will char to the point that its no longer structural and fail in some random manner.
In this case there s no harm yet, ideally the lawyer wants a few teary eyed kids in their pajamas standing in front of the smouldering ruins of a home before really going after a case. In this case the house will not burn down right a way its going to take a few years and odds are the beam will char to the point that its no longer structural and fail in some random manner.
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
Absolutely it would take years for pyrolysis to lower the kindling point to a point the wood could ignite. It may happen faster with the glue in a lam beam I don't know. It also may never happen we don't know but what we do know is situations like this have caused structure fires many times in the past. That is why the codes require what they do.
I am sure the original poster paid allot of money to have this designed and built for them by pros who should have known better.
Rob711
Feeling the Heat
Wow! A beautiful, massive, expensive fireplace/ house built wrong! I feel nauseas, I hope OP gets some real resolution. It’s like everyone pissed on your dry firewood! I thought I was the only one this chit happened too! Good luck
BCC_Burner
Feeling the Heat
Without seeing the structural plans, nobody here can ascertain if that is a true ridge beam, or just something put up there for aesthetics. If it is the latter it may very well not continue through the masonry chimney, and even if it isn't code compliant as installed, the fix to bring it into compliance would be relatively straightforward.
Nothing about that photo indicates that is actually a structural member. I see glu-lams utilized regularly as purely aesthetic elements in home construction, that could be the case here.
Before everyone here gives this poor homeowner a stroke, he needs to go over his (signed and stamped by a state licensed Structural Engineer) framing documents to determine how the roof is built. Then he can figure out his next step.
Lastly, this house could have been built in accordance with anything from the 2012 to the 2021 IRC, you don't know for a fact that his municipality adopted the 2018. An adjacent jurisdiction here is still on the 2012, and we are on the 2015. We were supposed to switch to the 2021, but because of COVID, we are skipping that and will be using 2015 codes until the 2024 updates come out.
Nothing about that photo indicates that is actually a structural member. I see glu-lams utilized regularly as purely aesthetic elements in home construction, that could be the case here.
Before everyone here gives this poor homeowner a stroke, he needs to go over his (signed and stamped by a state licensed Structural Engineer) framing documents to determine how the roof is built. Then he can figure out his next step.
Lastly, this house could have been built in accordance with anything from the 2012 to the 2021 IRC, you don't know for a fact that his municipality adopted the 2018. An adjacent jurisdiction here is still on the 2012, and we are on the 2015. We were supposed to switch to the 2021, but because of COVID, we are skipping that and will be using 2015 codes until the 2024 updates come out.
Last edited:
I was just going by the info provided which indicates it is structural. But hopefully it isn't.
As far as the version of irc you are right chances are not under the 2018 version but it really doesn't matter because other than a few minors changes in wording chapter 10 is the same
BCC_Burner
Feeling the Heat
Indeed. I apologize if it sounded like I was calling you out specifically. I'm just pulling for that thing to be an aesthetic feature.
And I'm sure you're right: the code language about site-built fireplaces probably hasn't changed much in my lifetime.
Similar threads
