-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
An average day
- Thread starter ICE
- Start date
Mech
Registered User
Yup
.............Combo wye/1/8 (long sweep)
Got it. Two things: without saying "because its code" can someone explain why the T is not allowed. Dorsnt appear to be a whole lot of difference. Yes i see the physical diff, but not the functional diff.
2. I think your pic of the combo y is actually 1/4 not 1/8 ... it turns a full 90.
Mech
Registered User
Because Ice said so.
I assume it is because the T forces the sewage to make an abrupt 90 degree change in direction and will lose flow velocity (clog potential) while the San Y provides a smoother transition from vertical to horizontal, retains flow velocity, and keeps the debris moving down the pipe.
I assume it is because the T forces the sewage to make an abrupt 90 degree change in direction and will lose flow velocity (clog potential) while the San Y provides a smoother transition from vertical to horizontal, retains flow velocity, and keeps the debris moving down the pipe.
It is a combination, as in constructed as one piece, wye and a 1/8 fitting. In total, the fitting is equal to a 1/4, but not described as such.
Problem with sanitary T on their side or back is that they clog. Flow is disturbed at the intersection and solids build up on the fitting.
ICE
Oh Well
That and because I said so.
linnrg
Sawhorse
also the san tee on its back makes it difficult to snake thru
ICE
Oh Well
Solar company:
Last edited:
ICE
Oh Well
Here you can see the drilled holes in the footing.......the dowels.......and the epoxy.
Here you can see the special inspectors report that the work has been completed. The special inspector had been gone from the site for an hour.
The contractor told me that the special inspector assured him that it was okay to not be there during the work.....and here's his report to prove it.
I'm probably not the inspector to treat that way.
Here you can see the special inspectors report that the work has been completed. The special inspector had been gone from the site for an hour.
The contractor told me that the special inspector assured him that it was okay to not be there during the work.....and here's his report to prove it.
I'm probably not the inspector to treat that way.
Last edited:
conarb
Registered User
What do you care? You have the Special Inspector's signed certificate, that's all you need for your file. I do that all the time, drill the holes, have the compressor sitting there with a nozzle on the end of the hose, the epoxy tubes in the gun, and even the stupid brass brush sitting there, I've never had a Special Inspector turn me down. If a city inspector came by and complained you better bet I'd be on my way to City Hall giving the CBO Hell for having a nit-picker driving prices up. Is this all you care bout doing exercising your power to drive prices up?
Sorry conarb, i have to agree with Ice on this one. The inspectors report indicates that he saw the dowels epoxied in place ... but they were not. An unethical contractor could save the epoxy and dowels for another job.
I was managing a project, gc was incompetent and unethical, the special inspector was lazy. Inspector could not / would not make the concrete pours and allowed the gc to submit false delivery inspecyion reports, and the PE in the inspectors office would sign off on them. I saw reports where the slump was recorded as one inch, and the air temp as one degree F. Should have said n/a or not observed. As a result, all break strength psi reports were suspect.
I was managing a project, gc was incompetent and unethical, the special inspector was lazy. Inspector could not / would not make the concrete pours and allowed the gc to submit false delivery inspecyion reports, and the PE in the inspectors office would sign off on them. I saw reports where the slump was recorded as one inch, and the air temp as one degree F. Should have said n/a or not observed. As a result, all break strength psi reports were suspect.
ICE
Oh Well
A dishonest inspector and a crooked contractor walked into a bar........
Considering the simplicity of epoxy bolts I doubt that special inspectors are there to help the contractors get it done correctly. There may be a few that would benefit from a functioning brain but again, it's pretty straight forward. So why then do we require a special inspector? It comes down to trust. You see, we must have faith that the epoxy bolt will be there when it's needed. As you have demonstrated.....well I'm sure that you understand.
Knowing that it's all about the money I am curious if the savings of hiring a special inspector that will lie is significant. And if not, what's the motivation? I don't think I would be willing to pay big money for a piece of paper. Perhaps it's, Here's $10, send over a fax. Now that's a savings. Did a bulk purchase ever come up?
You ask, What do you care? You and I are far apart as human beings.
Considering the simplicity of epoxy bolts I doubt that special inspectors are there to help the contractors get it done correctly. There may be a few that would benefit from a functioning brain but again, it's pretty straight forward. So why then do we require a special inspector? It comes down to trust. You see, we must have faith that the epoxy bolt will be there when it's needed. As you have demonstrated.....well I'm sure that you understand.
Knowing that it's all about the money I am curious if the savings of hiring a special inspector that will lie is significant. And if not, what's the motivation? I don't think I would be willing to pay big money for a piece of paper. Perhaps it's, Here's $10, send over a fax. Now that's a savings. Did a bulk purchase ever come up?
You ask, What do you care? You and I are far apart as human beings.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
If he is approving something based on a report from a consultant that is obviously false, he now introduces liability for the municipality he represents. The report did not say they were in the process of installing it. It said it was installed. How can I rely on a report that is completely fabricated? I'm sure my tax payers wouldn't like me gambling with their money like that.
The reality is that the contractor paid this third party inspection agency for services that they are not receiving.
Last edited:
Because it is a falsified report.
The report is not accurate, whether created by SI firm or by the contractor, it does not matter. Might as well have no SI report. And the SI, if turned in, would be stripped of his/her ICC SI Certifications for this.
(FYI, I'm familiar. Did SI for 5yrs before joining an AHJ and have the MSI tag)
Maybe they are receiving what they paid for.
conarb
Registered User
First of all the ICC, in it's wisdom, has assigned epoxy bolting to the special inspector, not to both the special inspector and the field inspector. The AHJ does have the right and responsibility to approve the special inspector, the way I read Chapter 17 is that Tiger doesn't have the right to second guess the special inspector, but he does have the right to disqualify the special inspector. I'm now quoting from the 2013 CBC (I'm retired and don't now if changes have been made, but be aware that the code shows that many changes have been made to the IBC by the CBC, but of course Tiger is in California):
One of the biggest complaints I get from owners is the additional cost of Special Inspections, as one guy asked: "Why all these multi-layers of inspection?" The way I read it is Tiger either accepts the special inspection reports, or goes the the CBO and reports the special inspection firm suggesting their approval be withdrawn. I would call this "minor" and Tiger could try to get the SI's approval pulled and do the inspection himself.
1704A.2 Special inspections. Where application is made for construction as described in this section, the owner shall employ one or more approved agencies to perform inspections during construction on the types of work listed under Section 1705A. These inspections are in addition to the inspections identified in Section 110.
Exception: Special inspections are not required for construction of a minor nature or as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction, as approved by the building official.
One of the biggest complaints I get from owners is the additional cost of Special Inspections, as one guy asked: "Why all these multi-layers of inspection?" The way I read it is Tiger either accepts the special inspection reports, or goes the the CBO and reports the special inspection firm suggesting their approval be withdrawn. I would call this "minor" and Tiger could try to get the SI's approval pulled and do the inspection himself.
The report was falsified.... an unethical situation has occurred. The code does not provide direction for everything.
If this were my job, this would be close to enough justification for a red-tag and stop-work order. At minimum a failed inspection and call to the SI firm with a firm notice that the inspector will be reported.
ICE
Oh Well
The solar industry has become more competitive. As a result, the workforce has become less capable.
There is a junction box at the upper right hand corner. It is in a place that is difficult to reach. It appears to have no support.
There's a bunch of these clamping devices. Clamping devices are what it's all about for a solar racking system. The clamping devices serve to secure the module as well as provide a low impedance ground path. I'm not convinced that they are aware of that.
There is a junction box at the upper right hand corner. It is in a place that is difficult to reach. It appears to have no support.
There's a bunch of these clamping devices. Clamping devices are what it's all about for a solar racking system. The clamping devices serve to secure the module as well as provide a low impedance ground path. I'm not convinced that they are aware of that.
Last edited:
ICE
Oh Well
Is there anybody else out there that would vote c-taps off the island.
Last edited:
ICE
Oh Well
The inspection was for a Tesla battery system that was added to an existing solar system. I asked the person that met me to "Walk me through the system". He pointed at the battery and said, "That's the battery". I said, "What's the rest of it all about". He said that this is the first inspection that he has ever been on and he knows nothing about anything that's electrical.
Correction number two had to do with a clearance issue. There's little doubt that the solar company will call the manager to complain about correction number one.
Correction number two had to do with a clearance issue. There's little doubt that the solar company will call the manager to complain about correction number one.
Last edited:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Also signage (labels)?
ICE
Oh Well
At the first inspection I found that the stucco had been completed. I asked for the stucco to be removed for inspection. At the second inspection I found that the stuuco patch had been removed but the lath had been reinstalled. This is the third inspection. The extruded lath has been removed and the paper has been reinstalled. Well it is a solar contractor doing their best.
I was finally able to get to the j-box on the roof.
I was finally able to get to the j-box on the roof.
Last edited: