Post Tension or Not

[jar546]

Do you require architectural drawings for interior renovations of high rises to include whether or not the slabs are post-tension or not during plan review when there are plans to attach framing or cut holes?

 

[Mark K]

While we would not want to have a PT tendon cut I do not see where there is a code provision to do as you propose. This is something that I envision the owners engineer would be concerned about but most Architects will likely not be sensitive to. From a code perspective if a PT tendon is cut the building no longer complies with the original permit.

Probably the bigger question is what is the role of the building department regards means and methods of construction.. With a possibly rare exception I do not see the building code being concerned about contractor's means and methods of construction. While the concern is well intentioned there is a broader concern that mischief is done when the plan checker/inspector starts imposing requirements not a part of their legal duty. Where do you draw the line? This is why I say the building department can only require what is in the building code. There are limits on what the building department can do.

Can you protect against all risks? Where do you draw the line?

If the building department takes it upon itself to protect people from other risks not addressed by the code, including their own stupidity, and the department is not successful my understanding is that the city no longer has immunity

The building department could provide the contractor with a reminder that if a PT tendon is cut it is your policy to stop work until a repair is permitted. This would put a contentious contractor on notice. On the other hand, if you have a stupid contractor, he will find a way to screw it up no matter what you do.

A more common problem occurs when the plumber or electrical contractor uses a Sawzall to cut a notch in a wood joist rather than drilling a hole for a pipe. Why are you not sensitive to this more common situation?

 

[jar546]

While we would not want to have a PT tendon cut I do not see where there is a code provision to do as you propose.

I don't think anyone wants to see a PT tendon cut. If there are plans to cut a hole in a slab on any highrise building, not only is it within the right of the building official to require the most basic information as to whether the slab in question is post-tension or not, but it is the responsibility of the engineer to submit details as to the detail as to how this will be accomplished. We may not need to see the GPR results, but the PE certainly does as it is their responsibility to ensure that their design is safe and meets current building codes and applicable standards. It is our job as the AHJ to ensure that the design is not just code-compliant but safe. Regardless of your disdain for building departments and their authority over you, these departments have a responsibility to the public just as much as you do as an engineer, although your liability runs a bit deeper and the building department is relatively safe from frivolous lawsuits.

There is a lot more at stake when you compare the notching of nominal lumber to that of a PT tendon being cut. The lumber notching issue is an easy fix and not a safety issue, whereas the PT tendon is typically a $55k-$75k repair, takes weeks to mobilize, is significantly more dangerous, and holds up construction longer. If you are asking where to draw the line, I think the line is obvious.

 

[tmurray]

While we would not want to have a PT tendon cut I do not see where there is a code provision to do as you propose. This is something that I envision the owners engineer would be concerned about but most Architects will likely not be sensitive to. From a code perspective if a PT tendon is cut the building no longer complies with the original permit.

Probably the bigger question is what is the role of the building department regards means and methods of construction.. With a possibly rare exception I do not see the building code being concerned about contractor's means and methods of construction. While the concern is well intentioned there is a broader concern that mischief is done when the plan checker/inspector starts imposing requirements not a part of their legal duty. Where do you draw the line? This is why I say the building department can only require what is in the building code. There are limits on what the building department can do.

Can you protect against all risks? Where do you draw the line?

If the building department takes it upon itself to protect people from other risks not addressed by the code, including their own stupidity, and the department is not successful my understanding is that the city no longer has immunity

The building department could provide the contractor with a reminder that if a PT tendon is cut it is your policy to stop work until a repair is permitted. This would put a contentious contractor on notice. On the other hand, if you have a stupid contractor, he will find a way to screw it up no matter what you do.

A more common problem occurs when the plumber or electrical contractor uses a Sawzall to cut a notch in a wood joist rather than drilling a hole for a pipe. Why are you not sensitive to this more common situation?

Can you provide a reference to case law where a building official or their employer was held liable for stepping outside of their authority?

The only case law I've seen on the issue (admittedly this is all from Canada) suggest the judicial branch respects officials exercising a reasonable degree of judgement.

 

[tmurray]

Do you require architectural drawings for interior renovations of high rises to include whether or not the slabs are post-tension or not during plan review when there are plans to attach framing or cut holes?

While I do not have any high-rises in my jurisdictions, I have worked with some that have, and most do ask for this.

Hard for you to review modifications to something without knowing for sure what it is and what purpose it serves in the building.

 

[steveray]

We are required to get sealed plans for all buildings over 5000sqft.....so yes....

 

[jar546]

We are required to get sealed plans for all buildings over 5000sqft.....so yes....

The question is whether or not you require the design professional of record to declare whether or no the slabs in question being modified are post-tension. Architectural drawings sealed and signed, yes, but what about the declaration of post-tension or not?

 

[ICE]

I say the building department can only require what is in the building code.

Alrighty then...you can only build what we can find in the building code. Check your imagination at the door.

Where do you draw the line

Glad you asked. You acknowledged that the AHJ draws the line. I can't speak for the the rest of the inspectors but I move the line as I see fit. Mostly with regards to safety but to suppose that I am constrained by the codes is just wrong. New code comes from people that recognize a need....sometimes those people get out in front of that need.

The building department could provide the contractor with a reminder that if a PT tendon is cut it is your policy to stop work until a repair is permitted.

How about that! You have advocated that the building department exercise authority that you claim the building department does not have. So instead of asking the designer to determine if there is a post tension slab it is better to threaten them which will achieve the same result? That maintains your world view of us against them.

 

[JPohling]

We always note on the plans that the slab is to be xrayed prior to any coring or trenching and then from those results give proper direction from the structural engineer to accomplish the scope of work based upon what has been found in the images.

 

[steveray]

The question is whether or not you require the design professional of record to declare whether or no the slabs in question being modified are post-tension. Architectural drawings sealed and signed, yes, but what about the declaration of post-tension or not?

If I dealt with a lot of post tension, I guess that would be a standard plan review comment/ requirement...Like construction type and OL and others....Maybe list that as a "special condition" on CO? Or maybe flag them (addresses) in your permit software and let them know when the permit comes in, in case they are not aware....?

 

[Mark K]

Point of fact- it is not common practice for the engineer of record to be given results of ground penetration radar or X-rays of slabs.

I recognize that there is a place for building departments just as there is a place for police departments. We recognize that there are limits on what the police can do so why do we not recognize that there are limits on what the building department can do?

It is clearly documented that the code required loads are not necessarily the maximum that can occur. What is required by the building code reflects compromises that balance a number of competing interests. If you cannot accept this, then you are in the wrong business.

Safe is a relative term that must be interpreted in the context of the particular situation. Building codes promote safety but they cannot guarantee some absolute level of safety. What is safe? Try defining safety without having to deal with probabilities.

Is it safe to drive on the freeway at the maximum speed limit? Is it safe to drive at or below the speed limit when everybody else is driving faster than the speed limit on the highway? In my experience the average speed on the freeway is often in excess of the posted speed limit.

It is clearly documented that the code required loads are not necessarily the maximum that can occur. What is required by the building code reflects compromises that balance a number of competing interests. I was in a committee meeting where we were developing a code proposal where one group said the number should be no less than 2.0 while another group said it should be no larger than 1.7. The number that ended up in the code was 1.85.

If we were to allow each building official to determine what he considers, safe there would be chaos. Instead, we adopt laws (building codes) that reflect a policy made by society not the building official. Are the codes perfect? No but from a societal perspective the inherent compromises appear to work. The building owner and his consultants can decide to do more to reduce their risks but the building department cannot require more than what the law requires.

 

[jar546]

Point of fact- it is not common practice for the engineer of record to be given results of ground penetration radar or X-rays of slabs.

Nor would we ask for it as previously stated.

If we were to allow each building official to determine what he considers, safe there would be chaos. Instead, we adopt laws (building codes) that reflect a policy made by society not the building official. Are the codes perfect? No but from a societal perspective the inherent compromises appear to work. The building owner and his consultants can decide to do more to reduce their risks but the building department cannot require more than what the law requires.

We are asking for the design professional of record to declare whether or not the building they are modifying is post-tension or not. We are simply asking for and in our case requiring that information be placed on the drawings. Mark, do you really have an issue with the AHJ requiring that you declare whether or not the building you are structurally altering is post-tension or not? Asking for this is well within the rights and duties of the AHJ and Chapter 1 of the IBC or whatever administrative section you see around the country has the same verbiage that allows the AHJ to ask for additional information as they see fit. You may not like it but we have that right. We have the legal authority to require it.

I want to know what is so difficult about declaring whether or not the building you plan on structurally altering is post-tension or not?

Do you know how many times, after we required an architect or engineer to declare this simple fact, they changed their details page for attachment to the underside of the slab?

 

[JPohling]

do you really have an issue with the AHJ requiring that you declare whether or not the building you are structurally altering is post-tension or not?

We do very little structural modifications within our tenant improvement projects. But we core significantly for power and plumbing that can obviously impact PT tendons. So I would think if your going to require that information it should not be based structural modifications.

 

[jar546]

We do very little structural modifications within our tenant improvement projects. But we core significantly for power and plumbing that can obviously impact PT tendons. So I would think if your going to require that information it should not be based structural modifications.

Drilling into a PT slab is a structural alteration. Not sure where you think I was taking this.

 

[Mark K]

There is no disagreement that cutting PT tendons should be avoided. I would also be concerned about the cutting of mild steel reinforcing bars.

The question is what is the proper function of the building department? What is safe?

Since there is a lot of subjectivity the government has decided to establish some objective criteria by adopting building codes. In the absence of objective criteria that binds the building department one might suggest that the building official has been arbitrary and capricious I suggest that when we look at our system of laws that a more constrained and nuanced. interpretation of Chapter 1 is appropriate.

We are a nation of laws. While the building official has the authority to interpret the building regulations the "interpretations" have limits and cannot be used to create new laws. This means that the building code cannot give an individual powers to effectively adopt new laws without due process. If a building official was empowered to create new laws by calling them interpretations, we would cease to be a nation of laws.

 

[Mark K]

There is no disagreement that cutting PT tendons should be avoided. I would also be concerned about the cutting of mild steel reinforcing bars.

The question is what is the proper function of the building department? What is safe?

Since there is a lot of subjectivity the government has decided to establish some objective criteria by adopting building codes. In the absence of objective criteria that binds the building department one might suggest that the building official has been arbitrary and capricious I suggest that when we look at our system of laws that a more constrained and nuanced. interpretation of Chapter 1 is appropriate.

 

[jar546]

Since there is a lot of subjectivity the government has decided to establish some objective criteria by adopting building codes. In the absence of objective criteria that binds the building department one might suggest that the building official has been arbitrary and capricious I suggest that when we look at our system of laws that a more constrained and nuanced. interpretation of Chapter 1 is appropriate.

Here is my take on the situation. Construction and permitting is a series of checks and balances. The BD has the authority to require certain paperwork based on the scope of work. Our job is to make sure that the design professionals understand the full scope of the job and make sure that they essentially know what is required. We have to babysit. Essentially, many engineers and architects ultimately want to do as little as possible. When we make them declare whether or not a structure is PT, we now put the liability monkey on their back through public records to ensure that they are taking the PT alterations into consideration and provide details to the BD to make sure that they indeed did take PT into consideration and provided a code compliant alteration design of the PT slab. I've been checking plans way to long to think that every registered design professional out there is competent. They are not.

I've also personally witnessed contractors lead and mislead design professionals by the nose and the DPR's were not keen enough to see it. Often, architects and engineers don't actually know the entire scope of the job and are kept in the blind by the contractor to keep costs down.

One thing you have to remember Mark K is that not every engineer is like you, thinks like you, is as competent as you, or is as ethical as you. Many are not and that is why we have to ensure that our paperwork requirements are consistent for all links of the chain, especially the weakest.

 

[JPohling]

Drilling into a PT slab is a structural alteration. Not sure where you think I was taking this.

I understand what you are attempting to do, and it is not a bad idea. I was simply stating that we do a tremendous number of interiors projects across the country. Most jurisdictions will require that within the scope of work statement on the cover sheet you need to indicate if there is any structural work being performed. 95% of the time we are not making modifications to the structure and the statement is "no structural work will be performed under this permit" and 100% of the time we are coring. So although you may think it is a structural modification to core, it is not treated that way so you may want to adjust your language.

 

[Mark K]

Here is my take on the situation. Construction and permitting is a series of checks and balances. The BD has the authority to require certain paperwork based on the scope of work. Our job is to make sure that the design professionals understand the full scope of the job and make sure that they essentially know what is required. We have to babysit. Essentially, many engineers and architects ultimately want to do as little as possible. When we make them declare whether or not a structure is PT, we now put the liability monkey on their back through public records to ensure that they are taking the PT alterations into consideration and provide details to the BD to make sure that they indeed did take PT into consideration and provided a code compliant alteration design of the PT slab. I've been checking plans way to long to think that every registered design professional out there is competent. They are not.

I've also personally witnessed contractors lead and mislead design professionals by the nose and the DPR's were not keen enough to see it. Often, architects and engineers don't actually know the entire scope of the job and are kept in the blind by the contractor to keep costs down.

One thing you have to remember Mark K is that not every engineer is like you, thinks like you, is as competent as you, or is as ethical as you. Many are not and that is why we have to ensure that our paperwork requirements are consistent for all links of the chain, especially the weakest.

We see the world so differently.

The role of the building department is not to babysit the designers. The role of the building department is to enforce the building code. This enforcement can have a positive impact on the building, or it can be seen as a hurdle.

If you believe an architect or engineer is incompetent, you can report him to the state licensing board.

In my experience in many cases the engineer of record is better aware of the issues than the building departments plan check engineer. This is especially the case when we are dealing with a major building. Too often an engineer becomes a city plan checker early in their career and thus lack experience especially with larger buildings.

There is one state agency which expects the plan checkers to have so many red marks on the drawings. An engineer working on a project where there is a need to get a permit by a certain date can use this to his advantage. The strategy is to submit a 90% set of drawings so a lot of the plan check comments relate to items the engineer had not yet addressed. During the plan checking process the engineer finishes the design thus allowing him to get a permit faster than if the permit set was originally submitted when it was at 100%

My sense is that the building department plan checker is expected to complete his plan check in so many hours. This has an impact on the quality of the plan check especially with the lower quality submittals. In this case you are sending a message that there is no advantage in getting it right in the first place.

I have known some engineers before they went to work for the city where the salary is higher. When this happens a so so engineer can now become the expert. Do not fool yourself some building department engineers are incompetent. Some plan check engineer can be lead by the nose. Have some humility.

The building department does not make the designers responsible. The liability of designers is a function of our legal system. and is defined by state statutes and by court opinions. This liability exists totally independent of what the building department does. The fact that a permit was issued cannot be used as a defense claiming the design complied with the building code. The fact that you "put them on notice" will not change the engineer's liability if a PT tendon is cut. In our system it is not the engineer of records responsibility to monitor the contractors means and methods.

I find it inconsistent that the building department is concerned about making the designers liable while they deny all liability for their actions.

 

[Joe.B]

Hard to see the world with you head...

in the sand.

I was going to say something else, but I'll keep it clean.

 

[jar546]

I find it inconsistent that the building department is concerned about making the designers liable while they deny all liability for their actions.

The contractor and designers are liable by law, not because the building department makes them liable. Building departments don't deny liability, they don't have to because the law protects them unless, of course, it involves wilful misconduct or gross negligence on their part.

Mark, the problem is that you see the world within the bubble you keep yourself. While you may work on and have experience with hundreds or thousands of projects in your lifetime, most building officials and plans examiners see thousands each year, so we have a much better gauge of what is going on in the world of construction. Inspectors are on dozens of different job sites each day, exposed to much more in a week than you will be in a decade. We work with hundreds of architects and engineers throughout the year and learn from our experiences with them. As I said before, not everyone is you, and not everyone is competent, whether a design professional, contractor, inspector or plans examiner. There is nothing that takes the place of experience and variety. So when we (the building department) see mistake after mistake after mistake, over and over again, by contractors and designers, we learn from them and know what we will need to tweak in our plan review to reduce the risk of those mistakes for the safety of the public, even if it costs you time and money and much to your chagrin. The law allows us to do that, and it is adopted right into the law as passed by the state legislatures.

You may not like it, but it is the world and reality that you live in. Embrace it.

 

[Mark K]

Yes there are problems.

I am not naive about the quality of some work that gets permitted.

I recognize my need to produce designs that comply with the law. While I am knowledgeable regarding the building code I also am more familiar than most regarding what state statutes say about building codes and the role of the building official. These state laws inform me regarding how the building code should be interpreted.

Still I do not see where it is the building official's role to unilaterally correct all of these problems. I believe the solutions should be adopted and implemented in accordance with the laws of the state. This will likely entail compromises that the building official does not like.

Because the problems are complex there will be few simple solutions. Not all problems can be solved by a building code provision or department policy.

The best thing that the building official can do is to focus on the enforcement of the adopted building codes. Focus on the basics and work to uniformly enforce the codes.

You can work to modify the legal structure but do not be surprised if there is resistance. We need building codes that are consistent across the state and that are uniformly enforced. Remember building codes are compromises.

 

[jar546]

You can work to modify the legal structure but do not be surprised if there is resistance.

No one is modifying the legal structure when it comes to the administration of the codes. Most of us work well within the confines of the law.

[A] 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

So we can't make stuff up, and we can't eliminate requirements, but you may not agree with our interpretation or the policies and procedures we put in place under the law.

Here is the real good part. If you don't agree with an interpretation, you have options. The word of the Building Official is not the final word. You have the right to appeal his/her decision. I've had people appeal my decisions in the past. Not one of them won their argument because I was working within the confines of the law and following the code requirements, and interpreting the code correctly. There have been times when someone did not agree, we discussed it, and I reversed my decision because I was able to see their point and realize that my interpretation was flawed because I misread the word and for or. We are all human, which is why there is due process for you. When was the last time you had a discussion where you thought the code was misinterpreted, and you filed for an appeal knowing you were right? You can whine about things or you can take advantage of your due process.

 

[Mark K]

There are a number of reasons a design professional will not file an appeal. Most common reasons include.

• It will delay the issuance of the permit. The client is focused on starting construction and the cost of accommodating the building official is less than the cost of the delay.
• There is a perception that the appeal process was biased in favor of the building department. In one case dealing with the City of Oakland the courts found that there was no independent review. In other words, the building department was the judge of the review. This case was rare because normally the owner is not willing to fund the costs of hiring lawyers.

Do not assume that because the designers or project owner did not file an appeal that they agreed with your interpretation.