Special inspections 1

[UcfSE]

What is the extent of the special inspection information you typically put on your plans? A little, a lot, in between, specific sections of the IBC, by reference or repeated?

I'm looking for input as to how and how much others convey this information.

 

[DonPhillips]

Chapter 17 is very clear and gives the minimum amount of spacial inspections required. The issue is the building official may deem the project does not need a full special inspection program but this does not releive the design professional from requiring something.

There is no right answer. For an elementary school of masonry, bar joists, steel column, on a concrete foundation, I, as the building official require a program equal to the code and the designer is welcome to do more.

For a 6000 sf wood framed office building, if the concrete design is 3000 psi, and the soil assumed at 1500 psf (silt and clay aorund here), then I would not require any but the SER may want (and most do) the conrete and soils tested.

As a general rule, any welded or bolted connections - special inspections.



Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[UcfSE]

Are the requirements that are listed on the plans usually paraphrased versions of what's in the IBC? Would you copy the tables, like 1704.4 on to the plans, or just reference the table by number?

 

[DonPhillips]

I have seen it both ways. By reference should be okay. What is important is also identifing who will be performing the inspections. This is not always known at plan review.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[miecz]

On the plans, I simply state that special inspections are required on the project, and refer to the Contract Specifications. I include a Spec Section, and a Special Inspection Form that outlines what needs to be inspected, and by whom.

 

[JAE]

We take the IBC sections and break them down into singular notes for each item, listing whether it is "continuous" or "periodic" inspections. Just referencing Chapter 17 doesn't work well since some items require different levels of inspection and the EOR is the only one who knows what the appropriate level should be.

 

[ARLORD]

Related question regarding special inspections. For masonry design, is there a reduction in allowable stresses when special inspections are not provided. If so where is this stated, in IBC-2006, in masonry code-05?

 

[JAE]

Used to be a reduction in the UBC. No longer exists in the IBC. (added F.S. of 2 if no inspections done)

 

[ARLORD]

JAE,

UBC....OK, IBC....OK,
What are you saying about F.S. = 2? According to what code?

 

[DonPhillips]

I think is what you were looking for regarding engineered masonry design:

1704.5.2 Engineered masonry in Occupancy Category I, II or III. The minimum special inspection program for masonry designed by Section 2107 or 2108 or by chapters other than Chapters 5, 6 or 7 of ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 in structures classified as Occupancy Category I, II or III, in accordance with Section 1604.5, shall comply with Table 1704.5.1.



Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[haynewp]

It used to be that you had to multiply the allowable stresses by 0.5 if there was no "special inspection" being done on the project. It is no longer an option. (A check if there is actually rebar in the cells or not).

 

[msucog]

as an inspector, please put the tables and verbage on the plans and/or in the specs. the statement of special inspections is also very important (which will mimic everything else). if the testing firm does not have clear direction on what to test, how often to test and how to test, we are essentially flying blind and may not do what you want. each designer is different so the more information you can provide, the better. also, it is beneficial to describe to everyone on the project what the expectations are and whether they are periodic or continuous (clearly define that too). much of this can be discussed during preconstruction meetings or during weekly/monthly meetings. either way, keep your testing firm in the loop and remember that they are ultimately looking out for the client and structural engineer of record through their testing/results. the one thing the contractor thrives on is confusion among the owner's team so keep a clear channel of communication open with everyone involved with the project (even if it seems that someone doesn't necessarily need to be involved with a particular conversation).

special inspections can only help lower the liability of everyone involved--owners, engineers, testing firms, contractors, general public etc.--but only as long as they are performed "completely" as practical.

so to answer your question, put them on the plans for the field inspectors. put them in the specs to help the project managers and for documentation's sake. and provide the statement of special inspections to help fill in blanks and for the sake of the building official.

 

[UcfSE]

JAE, do you think it's adequate to reference a specific table in IBC chapter 17 to tell them to comply (rather than just chapter 17 as a broad catch-all note), say Table 1704.3 for steel construction? That tabel lists whether the inspection should be continuous or periodic, so is there a need to reproduce that information on the drawings?

 

[steve1]

We generally use the form provided by B-ASE for special inspections.

http://www.b-ase.org/17guidelines.pdf

 

[JAE]

UcfSE - Our info on our plans appears to track similar to the table at the end of the document that steve1 references.

As far as just referencing the IBC tables, I guess in one sense that would seem reasonable as the general contractor and, more specifically, the inspection firm they hire, should have those documents at hand.

However, in many cases, I worry that the GC doesn't have a copy of the IBC handy and the testing lab will "bother" me with a phone call asking for a list of what tests are required. It doesn't take a whole lot of time to set up a table of notes like steve1's to quickly edit and paste onto your general note sheet.

Some items in the Chapter 17 tables apply or don't apply depending on the actual project and by us editing them down to only the applicable sections is preferrable to minimize confusion.

One example - in the masonry tables there is reference to prism testing of masonry. In most cases, we use the proportion method for mortar and grout and the unit method for determining f'm so prisms aren't required. If you just reference the table, you may get prism tests when they weren't required.

 

[msucog]

"bother"...huh, would you prefer they/we "make an interpretation" of what we think you meant and completely miss the boat? the structural is the one that is on the hook so the testing lab (yes, that would be me) is your best friend on the jobsite. the testing firm is responsible for following the plans/specs so if the plans/specs are vague, incorrect, etc. it's ultimately the structural engineer's problem. i personally prefer to work closely with the engineer so that everyone's liability can be reduced (and plus it's actually less headache for me when there's good communication between the testing firm, engineer, and contractor). and i am most confident that when good communication occurs, the end product is much safer for the public and a better product for the owner...and isn't that really what we as engineers are charged to provide?

if i were the structural, i'd prefer to have the masonry and grout prisms instead of unit testing with additional interpolation. the cost differences are neglible in the big scheme of things. the biggest costs are tied to the onsite time of the inspector/technician and that's a wash regardless of which route you take on the testing.

the statement of special of inspections should mimic the plans and specs. on the plans, i typically see the tables added directly to the plans with the spec verbage providing the crucial details.

 

[DonPhillips]

As a building official, I typically require some sort of document, either plans, project manual, or letter. It reassures me someone looked at Chapter 17 and made decisions on what should be inspected. Sometimes, they go beyond the minimums in Chapter 17.

I understand how some owners do not hire engineers for construction observation. So sometimes, those calls from the field are a bother, in the sense that you are not getting paid. I typically place the burden of getting me information on the applicant or property owner.

I seldom accept "per code" on anything, including relatively mundane things like extinguisher types and locations, finish flame spread and smoke development, etc. Otherwise I would just need a letter stating a building is being built "per code" and we can just do away with detailed construction documents. Inspectors would just have to carry a code book in the truck and spend half the time looking up requirements.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[JAE]

"bother"...huh, would you prefer they/we "make an interpretation" of what we think you meant and completely miss the boat?

Not sure if we are miscommunicating, msucog, but my point was that I prefer to put more info on the plans so the phone calls asking what inspections are required don't have to occur. Good communication is always a plus in a project and this goes for the testing.

Prism tests usually aren't required if you simply specify proportion mixes and ASCE/ACI personnel have typically recommended using that and avoiding prism tests if possible.

 

[darthsoilsguy2]

every project i propose to test/inspect... it's like every SE and ARCh is out doing their own thing. there is no method to the madness. i've got a project where they wrote all the SI out of the project except fireproofing. I've had a project where partition wall masonry, steel, and even the oh-so-ambiguous "Seismic Requirements" were SI but not the concrete. i've work regularly with a SE company that sometimes when i'm still asleep, and just when i'm about to wake up, their schedule of SI makes sense. seriously... you need a captain crunch decoder to figure out who does what. i have absolutely no idea of where the line is on requiring SI for cold-formed steel, wall veneers, and fire penetrations or not. New Rule: If you don't know if you have components with component importance factors... find out... if you don't have it.... get it off the list.