• 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

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:
ICE
I might be over thinking the need for compact from a different need
Considering the seismic zone you are in I would think compaction should be required for this repair to prevent a lateral shift of the house in a seismic event the week after the job is complete
 
mtlogcabin said:
ICE
I might be over thinking the need for compact from a different need
Considering the seismic zone you are in I would think compaction should be required for this repair to prevent a lateral shift of the house in a seismic event the week after the job is complete
Click to expand...
That should have been taken into account by the engineer of record. Not a bad thing to ask and make sure of though.
 
ICE said:
This equipment doesn't really fall into any code other than the electrical ...... we don't regulate it. So I wrote a correction to support the plastic pipe.

View attachment 3976

The monkey made me do it.
Click to expand...
Are you enforcing the Pool and Spa Code...are there requirements for support there? Otherwise....you are out of bounds.........non-pot, re-circ water, unless you have local amendments, you have no jurisdiction. My neck of the woods........
 
Well no fatboy we don't enforce the Pool and Spa Code. So I don't know if there is a code for pipe support there.

Take a look at the pipe. Do you see how easy it would be for a rambunctious kid or bichon frise to snap the pipe?

32453776767_f9fd558161_c.jpg


You are correct....I am out of bounds. But hey now, somebody had to pay for a permit....am I to be faulted for giving them a little extra?
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Those cracks look excessive. Maybe not a code issue, but certainly not done with quality in mind.
You said the permit was to add a kitchen, bedfoom and bath ... is it becoming multi-family? Is the old kitchen remainjng?
 
e hilton said:
Those cracks look excessive. Maybe not a code issue, but certainly not done with quality in mind.
You said the permit was to add a kitchen, bedfoom and bath ... is it becoming multi-family? Is the old kitchen remainjng?
Click to expand...
The new kitchen is the only kitchen.
 
MtnArch said:
Did you require compaction reports? (sorry ICE .. couldn't resist!!) ;-)
Click to expand...
Ya know, I don't want to get a worse reputation. With that in mind I figured it might be a bit too much to ask for a compaction report. Then I noticed that the supports sit on concrete....that made me feel much better.
 
Last edited:
46533688705_dec7679909_c.jpg

The label states that the clearance from the top to a "ceiling" is 12". After repeated cycles of heating the framing the wood will dry out and become easier to ignite. It appears that the soffit is getting plenty hot.

Well I was there for an electrical service upgrade and had to see the jumper between the hot and cold water pipes at the water heater. The work was performed by a solar contractor that became visibly upset when I declined an opportunity to approve the work.

There was an issue with the electrical.

47449000541_8cb2566c48_c.jpg

Recently there was some discussion regarding T&P relief valves for tank-less water heaters. This unit has an entire paragraph on the label devoted to pressure relief valves. No mention of temperature relief valves.

47396212972_54847d2938_c.jpg

An odd feature of this label is that the verbiage regarding clearances indicates that the heater is allowed indoors. However there is a statement that it is for outdoors only.

47449222411_ccf344fd2a.jpg
 
Last edited:
There’s nothing wrong with the switch location and it’s the same switch that I have throughout my home....indoors
 
ICE said:
What about the use outdoors. The switch is a generic indoor switch. Does an in use cover allow an outdoor use? That doesn’t work for a receptacle unless it’s rated WR so I have always assumed that a cover doesn’t change the location where such a switch can be used.
Click to expand...

406.4 & 406.9 are specific to receptacles and not switches. So other than 404.7 which requires marking of on and off, as reminded by Chris Kennedy, that is not a problem. Switches are used legally on roofs and all over the exterior on a regular basis in a code compliant method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top