• 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.

Post Tension or Not

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


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.


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.
Click to expand...
Good Summary
Seems to me we have the Responsibility (established by Common Law ) for Public Safety, therefore we have the AUTHORITY to insist that the Design Professionals provide or Confirm that the Plans have all the information for the Contractor to build or Alter the Structure. Of course, we probably wouldn't know that the structure was PT Concrete unless the plans made that clear.

There have been a number of posts on this Site that seemed to have suggested that the design Professionals don't have responsibility for Means and Methods. It is like the 3rd rail. It seems to me that if they want to exclude that responsibility the Design Professional wants to remain SILENT
Don't they need to point out where that line gets blurry and insist the Contractor engage a 3rd Party since Contractor Liability Insurance usually doesn't cover design Errors and Omissions.

The Contractor should have the info they need to Bid and Build the Project. For the Design Professional to Know and not communicate important Structural information ( if any demo or modification might be required or anticipated) seems to make them part of the Problem. Just like if the Bldg dept might be familiar with the project and not say anything. Perhaps some long in the tooth Inspector was the original Inspector for the project. Are we really going to not say anything?

Seems like we can get into more trouble by ignoring situations than asking for a clarification
 
Mark K said:
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.
Click to expand...
You said:
"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."

I think the tone of the responses from the Code Officials is that we see ourselves as part of the Team that gets it done.
Can you not accept that offer and see our involvement as a Positive?
 
Genduct said:
You said:
"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."

I think the tone of the responses from the Code Officials is that we see ourselves as part of the Team that gets it done.
Can you not accept that offer and see our involvement as a Positive?
Click to expand...
An engineer will always make use of information from any source, but our current system is based on different individuals performing separate roles. What is apparently being proposed is giving the building official an expanded role without appreciating the implications.

In our current system the project "Team" is selected by the project Owner. The building department is not a part of the Team. The referee is not part of the football team.

The building department has a role but to expand this role would cause a lot of mischief.
  • Are the building departments willing to give up their immunity?
  • Will the building department staff be able to differentiate between issues of code compliance and issues where they are "helping"? Would this create conflicts of interest? Will the building department accept responsibility for the consequences of their advice? Would the design team have the ability to ignore the advice offered by the building department?
  • The implication is that the building owner would no longer have the ability to select their advisors during the design process but instead would be forced to deal with individuals assigned by the building department.
What we need are clear rules that the construction documents must comply with. This is what the building code and the building department should be concerned about.

The project team is also concerned about many things not addressed in the code and thus are not a concern of the regulators. If there is a belief that problems occurred related to these issues, not in the code, the problems are resolved by civil law and the civil courts. Not all problems can be addressed by the building code and by the building department.
 
Mark K said:
The project team is also concerned about many things not addressed in the code and thus are not a concern of the regulators.
Click to expand...
You want the building official in a box. You would seal the box tight.

Not all of the many things not addressed in the code are discovered by the "team". The "team" should pay heed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Having been a team member, team leader and team owner I can attest to the fact that I appreciated advice from the laborer to the engineer and I always listened to the Building Department. I didn't care where it came from....I didn't care if it was good or bad advice.

Your lament is always focused on a capricious official with an arbitrary request. You see daylight getting in the box and want to suffocate the official.

Occasionally you will encounter a building official that is more than an uneducated crossing guard. I have run into engineers that need help getting from one side to the other.
 
Mark K said:
An engineer will always make use of information from any source, but our current system is based on different individuals performing separate roles. What is apparently being proposed is giving the building official an expanded role without appreciating the implications.

In our current system the project "Team" is selected by the project Owner. The building department is not a part of the Team. The referee is not part of the football team.

The building department has a role but to expand this role would cause a lot of mischief.
  • Are the building departments willing to give up their immunity?
  • Will the building department staff be able to differentiate between issues of code compliance and issues where they are "helping"? Would this create conflicts of interest? Will the building department accept responsibility for the consequences of their advice? Would the design team have the ability to ignore the advice offered by the building department?
  • The implication is that the building owner would no longer have the ability to select their advisors during the design process but instead would be forced to deal with individuals assigned by the building department.
What we need are clear rules that the construction documents must comply with. This is what the building code and the building department should be concerned about.

The project team is also concerned about many things not addressed in the code and thus are not a concern of the regulators. If there is a belief that problems occurred related to these issues, not in the code, the problems are resolved by civil law and the civil courts. Not all problems can be addressed by the building code and by the building department.
Click to expand...


ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN SEE MY RESPONSE
An engineer will always make use of information from any source, but our current system is based on different individuals performing separate roles.
YEP, WE ALL HAVE A PART TOPLAY
What is apparently being proposed is giving the building official an expanded role without appreciating the implications.
YOU ARE READING TOO MUCH INTO THIS
OUR ROLE IN PUBLIC SAFETY IS IN COMON LAW
WE HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEREFORE SOME CORRESPONDING AUTHORITY ( DON'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBITLITIES)


In our current system the project "Team" is selected by the project Owner. The building department is not a part of the Team. The referee is not part of the football team.
TEAM WAS A LOOSE TERM
FUNNY YOU MENTION REFEREE, I CONTINUE TO BE A ROWING REFEREE SINCE 78" AND BELIEVE MY LONGSTANDING APPROACH OF APPLING AND NOT INFLICTING THE RULES PREPARED ME FOR MY TIME WITH THE CITY A;ONG WITH45 YEARS IN COMMEERCIAL BLDG AND MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION

The building department has a role but to expand this role would cause a lot of mischief. NO ONE IS SUGGESTING EXPANSION, WE HAVE ENOUGH
  • Are the building departments willing to give up their immunity?
  • WE REVIEW AND APPROVE , WE HAVE NO UNRESOLVED CHILDHOOD ISSUES THAT WOULD LEAD US TO NEED TO BE THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
  • Will the building department staff be able to differentiate between issues of code compliance and issues where they are "helping"? I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, BUT AS OTHERS HAVE TRIED TO SHARE WITH YOU, MANY OF US KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE IS
  • Would this create conflicts of interest? NOPE Will the building department accept responsibility for the consequences of their advice? WE ARE NOT HERE FOR AN INTERVENTION WE DON'T GIVE ADVICE Would the design team have the ability to ignore the advice offered by the building DO YOU CONSIDER IT ADVICE IF THE PLAN REVIEWER POINTS OUT YOUR NON COMPLIANCE WITH A CODE REQUIREMENT? department? IF YOU HAVE FAILED TO CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS, YOU WON'T GET YOUR PERMIT
  • The implication is that the building owner would no longer have the ability to select their advisors during the design process but instead would be forced to deal with individuals assigned by the building department. WE HAVE NO NEED TO BE INVITED TO THE COMPANY HOLIDAY PARTY
What we need are clear rules that the construction documents must comply with. This is what the building code and the building department should be concerned about. NOW YOU ARE SPEAKING OUR LANGUAGE

The project team is also concerned about many things not addressed in the code and thus are not a concern of the regulators. YEP, THE CODE ISN'T BEST PRACTICES OR SOME LEED GOLD LEVEL, IT IS THE BARE SAFETY MINIMUM If there is a belief that problems occurred related to these issues, not in the code, the problems are resolved by civil law and the civil courts. Not all problems can be addressed by the building code and by the building department. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SUGGESTING THAT THE BCO IS NOT TO DECERN THE INTENT OF THE CODE

IN CLOSING, I CAN'TBELIEVE YOU HAVE NOT AT LEAST ONCE FOUND A BCO's FRESH PAIR OF EYES HELPFUL WITH SOME MISSING OR CONFUSING CONSTRUCTION DETAIL WITH YOUR PLAN SUBMITTALS

TOUGH TO BELIEVE
 
Building codes were adopted as laws because when the issues were adjudicated under common law the results were inconsistent and did not give those impacted clear direction on what was or was not acceptable. We are operating in a system where if you comply with the written law no more is asked at least by the government.

While written laws constrain individuals, they also protect individuals by constraining the government.

The intent of the code can be used to understand how to interpret the written requirements but there are limits on how creative the interpretations can be. When the written code is clear and unambiguous the intent is not needed. You do not enforce the intent rather you use the intent to understand how to interpret the written law. Further in this system if something is not clearly prohibited or clearly required it is not a concern of the building official.

Under common law there is not a role for the building official to be a judge. Rather you wait to see if there is a problem and then the party at fault is sued in a court. Common law does not give the building official the ability to require what he wants.
 
Mark K said:
Further in this system if something is not clearly prohibited or clearly required it is not a concern of the building official.
Click to expand...
You have an unrealistic, unfounded esteem for the building code.
 
Mark K said:
Building codes were adopted as laws because when the issues were adjudicated under common law the results were inconsistent and did not give those impacted clear direction on what was or was not acceptable. We are operating in a system where if you comply with the written law no more is asked at least by the government.

While written laws constrain individuals, they also protect individuals by constraining the government.

The intent of the code can be used to understand how to interpret the written requirements but there are limits on how creative the interpretations can be. When the written code is clear and unambiguous the intent is not needed. You do not enforce the intent rather you use the intent to understand how to interpret the written law. Further in this system if something is not clearly prohibited or clearly required it is not a concern of the building official.

Under common law there is not a role for the building official to be a judge. Rather you wait to see if there is a problem and then the party at fault is sued in a court. Common law does not give the building official the ability to require what he wants.
Click to expand...
MARK, QUITE TO THE CONTRARY,
YOU APPEAR TO BE MISUSING THE CODE AND THE COMMON LAW UNDERSTANDING OF THE BCO's RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY AS PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS AS A WAY FOR YOU TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING US OF DOING.
WOW, IN WRESTLING, I THINK A REVERSAL IS 3 POINTS. NOT SURE THAT IS FAIR UNDER THE WRESTLING RULES, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN OR WILL ARGUE THAT SPORT AS WELL

I GIVE UP. IT IS CLEARLY NOT AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS THAT MOTIVATES YOU.

GOOD LUCK, I AM ADDING YOU TO MY PRAYER LIST
 
Mark K said:
Under common law there is not a role for the building official to be a judge. Rather you wait to see if there is a problem and then the party at fault is sued in a court. Common law does not give the building official the ability to require what he wants.
Click to expand...
Smart people fix issues that lead to problems before they happen. Ethical people do the same. Those who want the problem to happen lack ethics and are not team players, possibly sadistic, especially if it involves a safety issue. I am surprised that you can even function in today's construction industry with your disdain towards building departments and the legal process they are given. This last statement you made and I quoted above tells me everything I need to know about you.
 
jar546 said:
Smart people fix issues that lead to problems before they happen. Ethical people do the same. Those who want the problem to happen lack ethics and are not team players, possibly sadistic, especially if it involves a safety issue. I am surprised that you can even function in today's construction industry with your disdain towards building departments and the legal process they are given. This last statement you made and I quoted above tells me everything I need to know about you.
Click to expand...
I agree with your remarks
I find it interesting that our friend Mark is allowed to exercise "JUDGEMENT as a Design Professional BUT he denies Our Responsibility to discern the text and Intent of the Code as State Certified Bldg Code Officials.
Of course, he should be referencing ACI and Other Standards in his deliberations, or does he think that, they too are not equal to his preferences?
 
Mark K said:
If you believe an architect or engineer is incompetent, you can report him to the state licensing board.
Click to expand...
And you can do the same for building officials & plans examiners. This street goes two ways. Not only can you do this but you can always appeal the decision. Of course you stated why people don't appeal AHJ decisions but that is your choice. Contrary to your beliefs most appeals board are required to have a certain percentage of architects and engineers as members.
 
I have said that there is a role for the building official. The authority of the building official is defined by the laws adopted by the entity having the authority to adopt the building code. not by common law. Here the emphasis is on written law and the commonly understood principles of how the meaning of laws is constructed.

In California it is clear that the applicable building codes are those codes that were in effect when the permit application was filed. The building official is empowered to interpret the building code but here are constraints on how creative an interpretation is before it becomes a new requirement.

We have a system of written laws that both constrain the owner of the building and limit the building official. I recognize my need to comply with the building code, but I also expect the Building Official to comply with the adopted laws.
 
"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?"

A few additional thoughts:

A note that slabs are post-tensioned isn't a code requirement but is probably prudent. However, what is the use of a note saying slabs are not post-tensioned? What if the slabs are pre-tensioned?

Why only architectural drawings? Mechanical/electrical contractors are often the worst hole cutters. They might look at their trade's drawings, but never at any others.

A requirement to locate tendons before cutting probably belongs in the Cutting & Patching section of the specs (although who actually reads them except for the lawyers after something goes wrong?)
 
This is all i have to say:

2015 IBC:

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.

Our state law takes it even further:

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC)

14.5.2.10 SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS:

A. Submittal documents.

(1) With each application for a permit, two sets of the following documents (collectively, submittal documents) must be submitted:

(a) type, occupancy including occupant load and kind of structure;

(b) plans;

(c) specifications;

(d) engineering calculations;

(e) diagrams;

(f) soil investigation reports;

(g) exterior wall envelope; submittal documents for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall envelope in sufficient detail to enable the plan review to determine compliance with the NMCBC the NMRBC and NMECC; the submittal documents shall show the exterior wall envelope in detail as required, including flashing, intersections with dissimilar materials, corners, end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves, or parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane, and details around openings; roofing systems and manufacturers specifications are required to be submitted;

(h) mechanical design criteria for all buildings must be included with the submittal documents; and

(i) any other data or document required by the AHJ’s plan review official.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top