jar546
CBO
Concrete. Worth the watch.
-
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.
Concrete
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
I saw that, Grady is cool
Last edited:
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
And yet the ancient Romans built with concrete that's still holding up. Newer isn't necessarily better.
steveray
SAWHORSE
No….it’s the installer…. I had 2 commercial projects in the last 2 weeks pouring concrete at a 7+ slump when the specs call for max. 4 slump…. And neither SI brought it to anyone’s attention…
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
This is why I hate special inspectors. Too many of them are just going through the motions. Did their reports indicate the deviation?
steveray
SAWHORSE
Yes…..? They called no attention to it, just what I saw when they sent me the typical emails…
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
Time to call the owner of the company in for a "Come to Jesus" talk. Either their special inspectors follow the codes, standards, and specifications, or you don't approve them for any more special inspection work in town.
They will do what they are getting away with. It is up to the inspector to correct the SI's bad behavior.
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
[A] BUILDING OFFICIAL. The officer or other designated
authority charged with the administration and enforcement of
this code, or a duly authorized representative.
authority charged with the administration and enforcement of
this code, or a duly authorized representative.
In my neck of the woods, that would be me.
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
Ice, I don't know how it works in your end of the country, but around here the field inspectors (the ones who work for the building department) don't see the special inspection reports unless it's a one-man town and the building official is also the field inspector. The special inspection reports are submitted by the inspection agency to the building official -- they don't pass through the inspectors' hands. Even if they did, the (building department) field inspectors have no authority to "correct" special inspectors. The building official is who approves special inspection agencies, so it would be the building official who has the authority to UNapprove them if they fail to perform.
I take it the SI never meets the field inspector. It seems that finding out after the fact was satisfactory.
Not the case here.
At pre-construction meetings, with every trade, architect, engineer and surveyor present, I made it clear that the SI was me when I was not there. The SI was instructed to call me immediately if such a circumstance transpired. I would have been notified as soon as the slump test failed and the contractor determined to place the concrete.
My instruction to the SI was that he was to call me for any reason. If he was suspicious, concerned or just wanted to talk. There was no room for error and several SIs were replaced.
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
I had a SI, stop the pour last week that was an 8 and the spec was 7 max. He also checked for air entrainment to be sure it was not as none was specified, internal slab being pumped. I am the BO and the inspector in the field and I am copied on all SI and test reports, ann I review them. If it was my local inspectors project he would be doing the same.
Last edited:
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
I have never seen a pre-construction conference where the special inspector -- either the head of the company or any of the actual field technicians -- attended.
Give it a try, you might like it. It was a big deal for me. Everybody had to sign in. Rule #1 was that nobody is allowed to assume anything. That came from my years in the private sector.
I remember one large project that had a certified safety officer. He went on for twenty minutes. After he got done I looked at the assemblage and asked them if they still wanted to do this.
Last edited:
steveray
SAWHORSE
Here is how it is supposed to work:
As they cannot take the water out, Ideally they would dump the truck or get approval from the designer that the soup will be fine prior to pouring....In this case it got poured, did make the 7 day break, but I am still unsure if the designer is going to accept it...
1704.2.4
Approved agencies shall keep records of special inspections and tests. The approved agency shall submit reports of special inspections and tests to the building official and to the registered design professional in responsible charge. Reports shall indicate that work inspected or tested was or was not completed in conformance to approved construction documents. Discrepancies shall be brought to the immediate attention of the contractor for correction. If they are not corrected, the discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of the building official and to the registered design professional in responsible charge prior to the completion of that phase of the work. A final report of inspections documenting completion of all required special inspections and tests and correction of any discrepancies noted in the inspections or tests shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Interim reports shall be submitted periodically at the frequency agreed upon by the permit applicant and the building official prior to the start of work.As they cannot take the water out, Ideally they would dump the truck or get approval from the designer that the soup will be fine prior to pouring....In this case it got poured, did make the 7 day break, but I am still unsure if the designer is going to accept it...
Last edited:
Yankee Chronicler
SAWHORSE
We had a similar situation on a major Department of Transportation vertical construction project on which I was the Special Inspections Coordinator. I had BIG problems with the special inspections agency. For every single category of testing -- soil compaction, concrete, spray-applied fireproofing, welding -- on EVERY single category the first reports that came in didn't provide the information specifically called for in the ASTM standards that were specified for the tests. There was a major elevator/stair shaft that was about four stories up when the concrete testing blew up. The contractor had to tear it down and start over because the engineer declined to approve it.
Spray-applied fire-resistive materials was my special favorite. The initial reports said everything passed ... but they didn't include the actual test data. Getting the actual test data nearly required an act of Congress. We finally settled on the lab just sending me the technician's field sheets. I created a spreadsheet that tracked the test results against the required minimums, and automatically flagged any that failed. There were a lot that failed, because the lab was only looking at the overall average but the ASTM protocol also says that if any individual sample at one location is more than 25% under the nominal required thickness, that test is a fail.
So the lab didn't really do their job. I took on more than what my role should have entailed, but it seemed like the only way we would have been able to move the job forward. In actuality, I was happier doing it that way because I felt more comfortable using my spreadsheet. I didn't trust the testing lab to transcribe the field results into a report objectively and honestly.
In fairness to the field technician, even though the way special inspections is supposed to work he should have informed the contractor immediately if any test failed -- with SAFRM the guy in the field couldn't determine that immediately. For a given level of fire resistance (1-hour or 2-hour) every size and weight of steel beam calls for a different nominal thickness to generate that rating. Each individual test includes checking the tips of the upper flanges, the undersides of the upper flanges, both sides of the web, the tops of both lower flanges, the tips of both lower flanges, and the bottom of the lower flange. The average of all those readings can't be below the design thickness for that member size, AND no individual reading can be less than 25% under the design thickness. It would have been unrealistic to expect the field technician to calculate all that on the site.
Did I mention that I hate special inspectors? Testing labs always lie. Even though nominally they are retained directly by the owner to [supposedly] avoid a conflict of interest, they still seem to think their allegiance lies with the contractor and they'll do anything and everything they can to NOT fail a test.
Spray-applied fire-resistive materials was my special favorite. The initial reports said everything passed ... but they didn't include the actual test data. Getting the actual test data nearly required an act of Congress. We finally settled on the lab just sending me the technician's field sheets. I created a spreadsheet that tracked the test results against the required minimums, and automatically flagged any that failed. There were a lot that failed, because the lab was only looking at the overall average but the ASTM protocol also says that if any individual sample at one location is more than 25% under the nominal required thickness, that test is a fail.
So the lab didn't really do their job. I took on more than what my role should have entailed, but it seemed like the only way we would have been able to move the job forward. In actuality, I was happier doing it that way because I felt more comfortable using my spreadsheet. I didn't trust the testing lab to transcribe the field results into a report objectively and honestly.
In fairness to the field technician, even though the way special inspections is supposed to work he should have informed the contractor immediately if any test failed -- with SAFRM the guy in the field couldn't determine that immediately. For a given level of fire resistance (1-hour or 2-hour) every size and weight of steel beam calls for a different nominal thickness to generate that rating. Each individual test includes checking the tips of the upper flanges, the undersides of the upper flanges, both sides of the web, the tops of both lower flanges, the tips of both lower flanges, and the bottom of the lower flange. The average of all those readings can't be below the design thickness for that member size, AND no individual reading can be less than 25% under the design thickness. It would have been unrealistic to expect the field technician to calculate all that on the site.
Did I mention that I hate special inspectors? Testing labs always lie. Even though nominally they are retained directly by the owner to [supposedly] avoid a conflict of interest, they still seem to think their allegiance lies with the contractor and they'll do anything and everything they can to NOT fail a test.