Inspections, Special or otherwise

[theory2code2practice]

As the design engineer, whose responsibility is it to get the construction inspected according to building code?
I am coming across many many many contractors, all of which have been "doing this for 30 years" of course, that have no idea about special inspections.
Clearly they are not having the construction inspected. Is anyone else coming across this problem? How do you deal with contractors either not following the drawings or not following building code?

Any Ideas? Similar experiences?

 

[GaStruct]

I think we have very different ideas of pomp and circumstance. Only difference is whether or not I put the inspection requirement in a schedule during design and whether or not I send the report to the building official after substantial completion of the structural elements of the building. The inspection itself is materially the same - I even use the same form, just check "routine observation" or "special inspection" at the top.

It appears so. It's definitely a PITA IMO. Have to submit statement of SI, schedule of SI, approved agencies, daily reports, interim reports, final reports - all coord. with the design team, GC, and AHJ. Georgia's SI guide is 35 pages.

Or just conduct your own site visit and call it a day.

Also, be careful what you inspect. In Georgia, a PE is actually pretty limited on what they can inspect for SI. You need a bunch of different certifications to look at different things and a PE doesn't automatically qualify you for everything structural. Not sure about VA.

It still says as approved by the building official. Meaning the final decision is not with the engineer, but with the building official.

Agreed. This is true for everything in construction and the AHJ can require anything they like. They could make you do pushups for a permit if they want!

Jokes aside, the point of my reply was to point out what is required by the EOR to fulfill our duty. Why start out by requiring an extensive SI if you, as the EOR, deem it unnecessary and it's not mandated by the code? If the AHJ disagrees, then they can require it.

So I'm not on board with letting the plan reviewers waive special inspections by negation (or lack thereof).

EOR can require it, but the AHJ can also ignore it.

I get it, though, and have used that method many times in the past. It's only very recently that I'm starting to question whether or not it's a good model to perpetuate.

My logic is I would much rather see it myself the have the GC pocket engineer approve everything they do.

From the 2021 Virginia Residential Code (2018 IRC, edited) as available on iccsafe.org:
View attachment 7480

Thnx for the snip. First sentence is worded so weakly. If they want you to follow the IBC, why not say it's straight up required? Seems up for interpretation as worded. Nonetheless, the exceptions of IBC noted above would still apply if EOR deems appropriate.

 

[phamENG]

I don't do the tests. I'd love to have a testing lab, but that's just not practical. I do a lot of historic restoration design, so I would like to set up a small testing lab for historic materials - masonry, brick, wood - and get the field tools to do more robust assessments of existing structural strength, but I'm a good ways off from that.

In my area, things are generally broken into "Agent 1" and "Agent 2" (sometimes more agents, if there's smoke testing, etc.). Agent 1 is usually the EOR - this will cover all of the in office reviews - shop drawings, material submittals, pre-screening qualifications, etc. - as well as most visual inspections - rebar in concrete, checking for compliance of steel details, joist hanger installation, etc. Agent 2 is the testing lab - they'll be doing compaction testing, sampling and breaking concrete and mortar, weld inspections, etc. They'll often handle the continuous observations as well because their field techs bill out much lower than junior engineers. So rather than paying for structural engineer to count blows on a pile or monitor concrete placement, the testing lab will do it.

IBC allows a PE to be a special inspector. Things like NDT for welds, you're right - PE isn't sufficient regardless of the code might say. But I don't need to go to a special class to make sure the rebar is as I designed it and that the clear cover is correct.

Independence of the inspector is meant, primarily, to be independence from the contractor. So the contractor can't pay for the inspector. I work almost exclusively for architects employed by owners or by referral from architect to owner, so I'm good there. Design-Build can get tricky, but as long as everyone is aware and there's buy-in from the owner and the building official, it's not too hard. The city still has an inspector monitoring the project for general code compliance - I'm just there to make sure it's being built per my design intent. Not sure anyone else can really do that better, unless I have the most amazing drawings in the world. (I don't.)

 

[theory2code2practice]

Interesting. I was under the impression that most structural engineers shy away from performing Special Inspections and tests I(especially of items such as steel and concrete) and generally only perform "Structural Observations" due to issues over inspector qualifications for various types of work, concerns over independence of inspector, scope of services and "who pays for what", etc. Not that all this cannot be navigated, but I would not think it would be the norm.

There are special inspections required by code for certain construction. The question is who is enforcing the inspections. The inspections need to be done by a third party engineer who is qualified.

 

[RWW0002]

@ phamENG - I agree that PE can and sometimes does do special inspections, just not the norm in my experience. Especially with steel inspection. I know PE's that are not CWIs that can design the crap out of a weld group but would not know a slag inclusion from a burn-thru.. But some PE's are definitely qualified for both.

@ theory - Understood.

 

[XR250]

Interesting. I was under the impression that most structural engineers shy away from performing Special Inspections and tests I(especially of items such as steel and concrete) and generally only perform "Structural Observations" due to issues over inspector qualifications for various types of work, concerns over independence of inspector, scope of services and "who pays for what", etc. Not that all this cannot be navigated, but I would not think it would be the norm.

Right or wrong, I def. shy away from all "inspections" or observations for that matter. We can argue the it mitigates liability to perform them but i would argue it increases it as you are now on the hook for basically everything.

 

[phamENG]

I know PE's that are not CWIs

For sure. Which is why I don't do weld inspections. That's for the testing lab's tech. But I do go behind them and make sure that the welds they inspected are in the right spot, the members are arranged correctly, etc.

 

[theory2code2practice]

Interesting. I was under the impression that most structural engineers shy away from performing Special Inspections and tests I(especially of items such as steel and concrete) and generally only perform "Structural Observations" due to issues over inspector qualifications for various types of work, concerns over independence of inspector, scope of services and "who pays for what", etc. Not that all this cannot be navigated, but I would not think it would be the norm.

Would it make sense for an engineer not to inspect the same building they design? .......liability? ..... conflict of interest?

 

[phamENG]

Would it make sense for an engineer not to inspect the same building they design?

No. Who knows better than design engineer what the design intent was? None of us create perfect drawings, and seeing something in the field that you know isn't what you meant for it to be is more reliable than a third party interpreting your imperfect drawings and comparing that to the contractor's interpretation.

Could an engineer fight to be the inspector to hide a mistake they know the made? Sure. But the solution to catch those is third party design reviews.

As for the liability question...meh. I'm liable for my design either way. My inspections are not contractor QC inspections. They are simply making sure they put the pieces in the right places, and used the right pieces. My inspection in no way removes responsibility from the contractor to perform their work or the building official to conduct appropriate permit applications.

Note that I'm talking about special inspections or just engineer-on-site-observing-construction. I'm not talking about third party inspections in lieu of the building official's inspection. I've done those, but won't again. Helped me get some work while I was setting up shop, but not worth it in the long run. Those should be (and in some jurisdictions are required to be) independent third parties with no part in the design. But those are less about design intent and more about general code compliance.