engineer response to building comments.pdfR, TIMXTM�
Todd W. Penbi«<twp@pxbykoonm> Fri, Mar 2Q 2013at11:01 PM
To: Karl VVemterbaoh<hkmemt@ydeacnetx
Ker[
I have reviewed the beams in question. They meet the requirements of the IBC, rather than the prescriptive
IRC: This iaallowed under section R3O1.1.3.
Aoyou know, the IRC isaset ofrules and tables rneant toallow non-professionals tmdesign smaller
structures inan, o[necessity, conservative fashion. The structural portions of the IBC, Of Course, are based
on mechanics and strength of materials. The IBC is, therefore, an engineering document allowing Much
more precise design based on analysis. As R301.1.3 clearly indicates, the IBC trumps the IRC.
Let nneknow |fyou need this ioamore formal letter,
Always here tohelp,
N����
Todd
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:22 PM
To: Todd W. Perbix
Subject: Chase/McLaren
[Quoted text hidden)
of 3/30/2013 9:17 AIM