• 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.

destructive testing

tbz

tbz

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
1,361
Location
PA/NJ - Borderlands
Need a little help clarifying if the code allows a building inspector to preform destructive testing as part of their inspection?

I have always been under the mind that an inspector can request that a destructive test be preformed by an engineer, but could not do the testing themselves.

Example:

Guards installed on a building feel loose or lets say not stiff or flimsy to an inspector.

Inspector can request that the permit holder get a certified / Licensed engineer to preform testing and then submit a report for compliance and I would also guess request to be on site for that testing.

However,

Is an inspector allowed to bring a force gauge and apply 200lb point loads thus indenting woods or marring products? In other words do destructive testing on inspections?

Comments please and if possible cite code section within the 2009 IBC & IRC for direction.

Thanks

Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"In other words do destructive testing on inspections?"

Only if nobody's looking....... ;)

JK, I never have...don't know about others.
 
tbz said:
Is an inspector allowed to bring a force gauge and apply 200lb point loads thus indenting woods or marring products? In other words do destructive testing on inspections?
Click to expand...
Who pays for the repairs if the install proves compliant?

And to those of you falling off your seats please be careful.
Click to expand...
What is the point of this statement? Building department has now taken responsibility for any damages.
 
Purposefully bending something until it breaks? Bad policy. You should have stopped before it got there, and written it up if you felt it was a problem.

Accidentally breaking something that shouldn't have broken? I'm unsympathetic. Fix it and call it back in.
 
I wouldn't do it......... I once had a contractor "prove" that a pane of glass in a french door was tempered by hitting it with a hammer, it appeared tempered! (I wrote a correction for the "bugs" to be visible, so he thought he'd prove that it was tempered)
 
Would you ever require that a floor be loaded to its design load?

It is either prescriptive or engineered. You accept prescriptive because the code says you do. You accept engineered because the code says you do.
 
I guess I need to explain, don't have a current problem.

Was presenting a class to some RDP's and was questioned with the example listed.

They one person asked were in the code does it say an inspector can't show up with testing equipment and put full loads on guards and handrails installed in the field.

I noted not sure, but in my history it is because they are not certified engineers with state lic. and then someone said what if they have the certs,

I then said is this part of the role within the code for inspectors to do.

Thus tried to give simple example for question and I guess I blew it.

But here in lies the question does the code allow the inspector to do destructive load testing?

Or

Are they just allowed to request it to be done?

And if some where in the codes it does or does not allow for the testing to be done by the inspector? where?

Thanks

Tom
 
110.3.8 Other inspections. In addition to the inspections specified above, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety.

In terms of actual code language, that's about as specific as you're going to get on the topic.

Edit: To clarify, destructive load testing is generally performed in a laboratory to test an assembly or a material. It involves purposely loading something until it breaks to see how strong it really was so we get a baseline for comparison of like assemblies and materials in the field. If you're testing something in the field, it shouldn't be purposefully destructive. In the given example, if the rail fails at 100#, then you destroyed it; however, your intention was to verify code complaince, not to see how strong it was before you broke it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GHRoberts said:
Would you ever require that a floor be loaded to its design load?It is either prescriptive or engineered. You accept prescriptive because the code says you do. You accept engineered because the code says you do.
Click to expand...
George,

See 2006 IBC Section 1712 through 1714 for load testing.
 
"1714.1 General. Whenever there is a reasonable doubt as to the stability or load-bearing capacity of a completed building, structure or portion thereof for the expected loads, an engineering assessment shall be required....If the structural assessment determines that the load-bearing capacity is less than that required by the code, load tests shall be conducted in accordance with Section 1714.2...."

"1714.2 Test standards. Structural components and assemblies shall be tested in accordance with the appropriate material standards listed in Chapter 35. In the absence of a standard that contains an applicable load test procedure, the test procedure shall be developed by a registered design professional and approved...."

"1714.3 In-situ load tests. In-situ load tests shall be conducted in accordance with Section 1714.3.1 or 1714.3.2 and shall be supervised by a registered design professional...."

Unless the inspector can perform the test in accordance with recognized testing standards (or standard developed and approved by a registered design professional), and perform it in front of a registered design professional, I would say they should not do it. I think inspectors may have the right to request testing based on "reasonable doubt" that performance meet requirements, but they don't have carte blanche to request tests just because they want performance demonstrated.
 
The IBC does not give the building official the authority to perform destructive testing.

If the building official has reason to believe that the structure is not in compliance with the building code he can request evidence of compliance from the Owner in accordance with IBC Section 1703.4. The Owner may propose a testing program to show compliance.

The provisions of IBC Section 1714 addresses the rules by which testing would be performed. I agree that the inspector needs to have a probable cause for requiring additional evidence of compliance.

If the inspector does anything to damage the existing construction he will likely be responsible for the cost of repair. The Owner may claim that he could have resolved the issue without inflicting damage.

If the inspector were to “slip” and grab a hold of the railing he could perform an informal proof test of the railing but he would be stupid to do so. If the inspector believes that the railing does not have enough capacity and proof tests the railing he could get hurt if he is right. If this were the case the inspector could potentially qualify for a Darwin Award.
 
It is the applicants responsibility to demonstrate compliance. If they need testing let them go get it, and review the info produced.
 
If the inspector does anything to damage the existing construction he will likely be responsible for the cost of repair. The Owner may claim that he could have resolved the issue without inflicting damage.
Click to expand...
It is the applicants responsibility to demonstrate compliance. If they need testing let them go get it, and review the info produced.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the quandry - how would the owner or applicant have known there was an issue to resolve in the first place? After all, they thought it was compliant and ready for inspection.

I've had co-workers break guards on inspections a couple of times, but have never seen them held responsible for the cost of repair. One was on a poorly constructed set of deck stairs, the other was a blatantly poor attempt by a builder to put in something temporary to get a CO because the real product was back-ordered.

Once again, if we go to Chapter 17, we are basically saying that engineering is required for guards. If you've got the support for that in your jurisdiction, then great! Most don't. Grabbing the top rail and giving it a shove is the best these people will get. It isn't scientific, and it doesn't truly ensure compliance. It boils down to inspector judgement, and most juries would probably find it reasonable and prudent.
 
Let's get back to a real world example - the guard rail test. I always check the strength of a guard rail on final - the informal grab test. You know almost instantly if its rock solid - but what about the questionable ones?

I recently wrote up the entire guardrail system on a small apartment building. I "felt" that the guard had way too much movement, but knew as I wrote it up I might get challenged on this one.

I use my hands, and hip, to get a feel of the quality of construction, but when it comes right down to it - I'm going on opinion and feel - no true testing.

Others?
 
Since the focus here is testing of construction that is already complete (i.e. in-situ), then Section 1714 is the primary location of requirements for such testing. It is interesting that this section does not require that in-situ testing be performed by an approved agency; nor does it state that a representative of the building official cannot do the test (there are other locations in Chapter 17 where it states that "the building official shall make, or cause to be made, the necessary tests...").

However, it is important to note that destructive testing isn't always necessary. In the cases of guardrails or handrails, only the required loads should be applied. If the item fails, most construction contracts require the contractor to replace any work that fails to meet inspection or testing. If you apply loads beyond what is required to the point of failure, then somebody other than the contractor would be liable...generally the individual or firm that performed the test.

Performing an impromptu load test (e.g pushing or jumping on the item) without knowing what "load" you're imparting on the item is questionable and leaves it open for scrutiny. Performing tests in a controlled and standardized manner ensures acceptance of the results regardless of the outcome.
 
RLGA said:
Since the focus here is testing of construction that is already complete (i.e. in-situ), then Section 1714 is the primary location of requirements for such testing. It is interesting that this section does not require that in-situ testing be performed by an approved agency; nor does it state that a representative of the building official cannot do the test (there are other locations in Chapter 17 where it states that "the building official shall make, or cause to be made, the necessary tests...").However, it is important to note that destructive testing isn't always necessary. In the cases of guardrails or handrails, only the required loads should be applied. If the item fails, most construction contracts require the contractor to replace any work that fails to meet inspection or testing. If you apply loads beyond what is required to the point of failure, then somebody other than the contractor would be liable...generally the individual or firm that performed the test.

Performing an impromptu load test (e.g pushing or jumping on the item) without knowing what "load" you're imparting on the item is questionable and leaves it open for scrutiny. Performing tests in a controlled and standardized manner ensures acceptance of the results regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...
ditto! common sense at work!
 
My point exactly. If the testing only applies the loads for which the item was designed or required to resist and nothing happens, then it passes--no need to destroy it. However, if it deflects beyond what is permitted or collapses, breaks, falls off, etc., then it fails the test; and the contractor is required to replace it at his cost.
 
If a moderate push or pull on a hand rail or grab bar causes it to fail it was not adequate to start with. The 200 pound point load in any direction is difficult to generate by hand so a moderate pull pulling it out the wall is a gross fail.

Suspect grab bars in toilet rooms have pulled out I dont know haw many times when improperly fastened -- IE plastic inserts in dry wall. And I doubt that the inspector was putting anywhere near the required 250# load on it with one hand.

If it is compliant there should be no failure--if defective it is better to have it show up when the inspector puts weight on it then when a disabled person is transferring and falls.

If my foot goes through the floor on a CO reissue inspection it is a fail.
 
Okay,

Let me back up a second and remove the word destructive, that's what we do in house so we know were are max is, I should have just said load testing.

But, as inspectors does the code as adopted in your jurisdiction require you to test the loads?

If so would not a full load test be required, or are you best guessing and if concerns arise, request testing by an outside firm I see as the norm.

But, back on point the code requires an inspection, as an inspector what are the limits or are there none?

Tom

The reason I ask, in 1607.7.1 & 1607.7.1.2 the code now says "shall be designed to resist", and 1607.7.1.1 says "shall be able to resist"

Where does one figure resist to?
 
But, as inspectors does the code as adopted in your jurisdiction require you to test the loads?If so would not a full load test be required, or are you best guessing and if concerns arise, request testing by an outside firm I see as the norm.
Click to expand...
Required inspections are specifically listed in the administrative provisions of the code, but they aren't all a good inspector will consider. Your questions involve matters of civil law as much as they do code application. If an occupant encounters harm from a guard failure, one question will be "were the inspectors actions reasonable and prudent?". If the answer is no, then an important step in establishing negligence has been accomplished.

So, is it reasonable and prudent to require full load testing of every component on every structure? Probably not. As George said, if something meets the prescriptive or engineered detail, then we have followed an established standard of care and have a legitimate defense.

Is it reasonable and prudent to completely avoid checking the stability of guards because there is no prescriptive method of building them and you don't have the AHJs support to require engineering for them? Again, probably not. Most would probably expect guards to be checked for stability by a building inspector during construction.

This isn't black and white. Similar incidents occuring in two different places on the same day and under the same conditions could have two completely different outcomes for the inspectors in question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top