• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

The correction stated "Self-tapping sheet metal screws do not create a bond for the service entrance conduit and hub".

They didn't change anything because "You used the wrong grammar". Naturally I was curious about that so I asked what grammar would be better suited for the occasion. Apparently the correct grammar would have included specific instructions on how to bond the conduit. I thought of some other grammar that I considered using.....but I haven't been in real trouble for weeks so I held back.

46407778155_97119e4783_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
The correction stated "Self-tapping sheet metal screws do not create a bond for the service entrance conduit and hub".

They didn't change anything because "You used the wrong grammar". Naturally I was curious about that so I asked what grammar would be better suited for the occasion. Apparently the correct grammar would have included specific instructions on how to bond the conduit. I thought of some other grammar that I considered using.....but I haven't been in real trouble for weeks so I held back.
Click to expand...

yeah, they will be replacing that panel altogether.
 
jar546 said:
yeah, they will be replacing that panel altogether.
Click to expand...
This is the second panel that they have installed. The first panel was too close to a swimming pool. It is still there as they are waiting for me to approve the new panel. The service entrance conduit is inside the wall. So I have asked them to bond the conduit with a clamp and solid #4 to the ground bus.
I realize that the cabinet listing has been rendered void by the way the hub was mounted. I am convinced that the fix is good enough. Actually, the fix with a clamp provides a more robust ground path than would a myers hub or conduit and lock ring. So, no harm, no foul.

This is not the first time that this has happened......you know, these solar contractors are not all that sharp.

Here is the first panel that is too close to the pool:

33451795188_c9bcb27d29_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Holy crap. My girlfriend is from France and knows nothing about building codes. She was just looking over my shoulder as I brought this picture up and without any prodding whatsoever, she says to "Can I ask you a question?" She then points to the panel near the pool in the post above and says "Is it normal that it is so close to the water?" Even a layperson with zero code experience from another country knows this is a problem. Wow, I'm floored.
 
My girlfriend....wait a minute, I married her...is from China and she wouldn't have a clue. Most of the folks on planet Earth have a misplaced trust in the people that are supposed professionals. I grimace when I hear owners say "I am glad that this is being inspected". I am on the inside looking out.
 
47278904612_4e7d3a03b0_c.jpg

Double the trouble. The disconnects have fuses so working space is required.

The junction box needs help.

46608367974_46e1aec51d_c.jpg

I had permits for one furnace and one condenser. There's two of each. The owner told me that the same company installed them both.....one set six months ago and the other set six weeks ago. I wrote a bunch of corrections and put Xs2 after each one.
 
Last edited:
46608438994_186631e523_c.jpg

46608438294_551cc3601f_c.jpg

The job was raising the footing. The hardware is a pile driven until there is a given amount of resistance. I think that it is more likely stabilizing the footing as opposed to raising it. I asked for a compaction report for the soil that is going back into the trench. I was overruled.
 
Last edited:
ICE - can you explain why you requested a compaction report? If the hardware was already driven into the subgrade the backfill would be non-structural, wouldn't it? I understand that if they don't compact it, eventually it will settle and create ponds or a trench. Just trying to learn here.
 
MtnArch said:
ICE - can you explain why you requested a compaction report?
Click to expand...

Our standard footing is required to be 24" into undisturbed earth. The excavation has removed all of the dirt to the side and from underneath the footing. The building is now supported on the piles that are spaced fairly far apart. There is a square steel tube spanning between piles but it is small in comparison to the footing. Having no support other than loose dirt under the majority of the footing seems wrong. I suggested a slurry (in Florida it's called "flowable fill") to be placed under the footing with compacted soil for the balance of the trench. Nothing is deemed compacted without a compaction report so I asked for a compaction report.

Our office manager decided that none of that is necessary. Beyond that the entire scope of work is a voluntary retrofit which is exempt from permit. A permit is obtained to satisfy an insurance company. I tend to overbuild everything and that's not a welcome trait for a building inspector.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how you get a compaction test performed on soil that is not placed yet. I am also not understanding how the backfill is of such concern since the hardware installed is what's keeping the footer secure. I am assuming the job as engineered, even if by the company that manufacturers the pile driven hardware.
 
The compaction report was to be done after the soil is put back. There is an engineer as well as a special inspector. Apparently I am the only one that's involved that thinks compacted soil under and around the footing is warranted. The consensus is that the piles mitigate all concerns. I just figured that since the soil is going back in the trench it would be a nice touch to provide 90% compaction. ...I get it now....the proof in the pudding is that there's no need for any back-fill at all.....piles of piles.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
The compaction report was to be done after the soil is put back. There is an engineer as well as a special inspector. Apparently I am the only one that's involved that thinks compacted soil under and around the footing is warranted. The consensus is that the piles mitigate all concerns. I just figured that since the soil is going back in the trench it would be a nice touch to provide 90% compaction. ...I get it now....the proof in the pudding is that there's no need for any back-fill at all.....piles of piles.
Click to expand...
Compacted fill is definitely a decent idea, although I would tend to agree, not warranted.

Aside from that, being a former tester, there is absolutely no way to test the compaction in that trench accurately.
 
Ty J. said:
Compacted fill is definitely a decent idea, although I would tend to agree, not warranted.

Aside from that, being a former tester, there is absolutely no way to test the compaction in that trench accurately.
Click to expand...
Please tell me why it is not possible to perform a soil density test after the soil goes back in.

Thanks
 
ICE said:
Please tell me why it is not possible to perform a soil density test after the soil goes back in.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Most conventional way of testing is a nuclear densometer - process is drive a pin vertically into the ground, set gauge over hole, drop arm with rad source into hole, measure resistance, correlate to density.

How do you do this with a footing sitting on top of the backfill?

Here is a conceptual image
images
 
I suggested two sack concrete under the footing and the rest would be compacted soil. It would be cheap redundancy if the piles don’t perform as expected......that and it didn’t occur to me that the soil is window dressing..
 
Last edited:
The last time that I saw this panel it faced the hallway that is on the other side of the wall.

47354217751_f0ff0b9360_c.jpg

When this panel is replaced it will face the hallway.

47301532462_6fa7d71fdd_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
View attachment 3989

View attachment 3990

The job was raising the footing. The hardware is a pile driven until there is a given amount of resistance. I think that it is more likely stabilizing the footing as opposed to raising it. I asked for a compaction report for the soil that is going back into the trench. I was overruled.
Click to expand...

We recently had someone undertake a similar repair due to a footing being undermined from flooding last spring. In researching the product, the piles take the full load of the foundation. So, in this case, the manager made the right call in my opinion.
 
2012 IBC
1804.2 Placement of backfill.
The excavation outside the foundation shall be backfilled with soil that is free of organic material, construction debris, cobbles and boulders or with a controlled low-strength material (CLSM). The backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted in a manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or dampproofing material.
Exception: CLSM need not be compacted.
 
mtlogcabin said:
2012 IBC
1804.2 Placement of backfill.
The excavation outside the foundation shall be backfilled with soil that is free of organic material, construction debris, cobbles and boulders or with a controlled low-strength material (CLSM). The backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted in a manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or dampproofing material.
Exception: CLSM need not be compacted.
Click to expand...
Compacted is different than requiring compaction testing.

Compacted is an arbitrary standard understood by most to mean firm and unyielding.
Compaction testing requires development of a 100% value by means of a proctor (commonly D1557 or D698). Testing would be extreme overkill for a foot of foundation wall backfill. Especially when next week the home owner could plant shrubbery throughout.
 
It’s closer to three feet. The point of it all is to arrest a subsiding foundation. The piles have been forced into earth until the friction reaches a point that is deemed sufficient to support the structure. What are the conditions that effect the sufficiency of that friction? Are those conditions fluid? Has this pile system never failed?
So I asked for support under the foundation in the form of slurry and compacted soil for the balance. The two guys with shovels said that they usually just toss the dirt. I wanted to be sure that the soil was compacted so I asked for a compaction report.

I guess I question an incomplete engineered process.
 
ICE said:
Our standard footing is required to be 24" into undisturbed earth. The excavation has removed all of the dirt to the side and from underneath the footing. The building is now supported on the piles that are spaced fairly far apart. There is a square steel tube spanning between piles but it is small in comparison to the footing. Having no support other than loose dirt under the majority of the footing seems wrong. I suggested a slurry (in Florida it's called "flowable fill") to be placed under the footing with compacted soil for the balance of the trench. Nothing is deemed compacted without a compaction report so I asked for a compaction report.

Our office manager decided that none of that is necessary. Beyond that the entire scope of work is a voluntary retrofit which is exempt from permit. A permit is obtained to satisfy an insurance company. I tend to overbuild everything and that's not a welcome trait for a building inspector.
Click to expand...

ICE - Thanks for the explanation - that makes more sense now, however my question would now be that if you do have piles wouldn't the continuous footings have been designed as grade beams that should (theoretically) span from pier to pier without support? If you so, why would you need a compaction report to be generated?

I really appreciate seeing and hearing your (and others) experience from the other side of the fence. It's so easy for we DP's to focus on our black and white drawings and totally ignore the reality of what really goes on in the field that you IP's ('Inspection Professionals') have to deal with.
 
Alan,
It is not likely that the footing was designed as a grade beam. The engineer that put this together placed a square steel tube under the footing. I assume that is because there is no way to know the strength of the footing.

I believe that compaction is important. I am mostly alone in that belief. The plans and specifications do not mention compaction so I stand on firm ground approving the work without compaction or a report. The owner, contractor, engineer and insurance company are pleased with the outcome....who am I to rock the boat?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top