Another advanced inspection-related article:Structural Design Basics of Residential Construction for the Home Inspector.
Just added two more images for clarity.
Stated in the report: “Conventional or prescriptive construction practices are based as much on experience as on technical analysis and theory. When incorporated into a building code, prescriptive (sometimes called “cookbook”) construction requirements can be easily followed by a builder and inspected by a code official without the services of a design professional. It is also common for design professionals, including architects and engineers, to apply conventional practice in typical design conditions but to undertake special design for certain parts of a home that are beyond the scope of a prescriptive residential building code. Over the years, the housing market has operated efficiently with minimal involvement of design professionals.”
Are you saying that these structure “do not” have the stamp of an architect, or engineer (when engineered joists, or steel is used) in the structure?
Do you really believe a structure can be “cookbook” approach by “non professionals”?
Please explain where this is being done? When you say “minimal” involvement by professionals do you mean the structure? If not, then how can a non professional inspector doing a “visual” inspection and NOT a “code inspection” know what is adequate structurally?
When you say an engineer applies “conventional practice” to a design are you implying this practice ignores the structural integrity of a given system? If not, could they be using “conventional materials” to “design” a structure that “looks conventional” to the untrained eye? The building code, as you know is a “minimum” requirement that will vary with area. Interpreting the building code to use it “conventionally” and more importantly SAFELY requires the services of a professional engineer, as you know. Drawings are rarely issued without the stamp of the professionals involved in that design. I mention these comments not to undermine your efforts to educate inspectors, but rather to indicate that “structures” require a knowledge beyond that of the inspector since she/he is NOT trained to do a “code inspection”. Without this knowledge, or ability one would not “know” what the “minimum” requirements should be.