A couple of pieces don’t fit, concrete truck is on the way, need to finish up right now! What are you going to do? Tell the boss somebody ordered it wrong? Somebody bent it wrong? Nope … Bubba can fix it!
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Pouring the 2nd floor slab on a SFR
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
ICE
Oh Well
There they go assuming that there’s an acceptable excuse.
Last edited:
I am not biased against code officials although I have a problem when they exceed their authority.
My point was that if the engineer said that something was not allowed and the building official tells the contractor that he can ignore the engineer's construction documents because the building official believed what the contractor wanted to do complied with the code, the building official crossed a line. It is assumed that the construction document do not conflict with the code. The code is clear that the building departments job is to enforce that approved construction documents not to create or modify the construction documents. When the building department does that, they are practicing engineering.
California has strong laws giving public officials immunity when performing their job but there are exceptions. A major exemption is when the building department creates a special relationship with say the owner or the contractor, such as telling the contractor that he can ignore the construction documents, the immunity no longer exists.
In California when the Contractor licensing board is disciplining contractors and there is no architect or engineer on the project, they expect the contractor to comply with the code. But when an architect or engineer is involved the licensing board expects the contractor to comply with the construction documents.
Hopefully contractors have a familiarity with the code but the reality is that contractors do not have the training or project specific knowledge to know either what the code requires in many cases or why the engineer required something. If the building official or inspector believes that the engineer asked for something not in the code but not prohibited by the code, he may convey this observation to the engineer leaving it to the engineer to decide whether to modify the construction documents. The building official and inspectors need to stay in their lane.
If the contractor has a question regarding whether field bending is permitted, he should direct that question to the engineer. Yes, if the inspector observes a code non-compliance, he should note it, so that it can be corrected. But it is not the inspector's job to bypass the engineer.
My point was that if the engineer said that something was not allowed and the building official tells the contractor that he can ignore the engineer's construction documents because the building official believed what the contractor wanted to do complied with the code, the building official crossed a line. It is assumed that the construction document do not conflict with the code. The code is clear that the building departments job is to enforce that approved construction documents not to create or modify the construction documents. When the building department does that, they are practicing engineering.
California has strong laws giving public officials immunity when performing their job but there are exceptions. A major exemption is when the building department creates a special relationship with say the owner or the contractor, such as telling the contractor that he can ignore the construction documents, the immunity no longer exists.
In California when the Contractor licensing board is disciplining contractors and there is no architect or engineer on the project, they expect the contractor to comply with the code. But when an architect or engineer is involved the licensing board expects the contractor to comply with the construction documents.
Hopefully contractors have a familiarity with the code but the reality is that contractors do not have the training or project specific knowledge to know either what the code requires in many cases or why the engineer required something. If the building official or inspector believes that the engineer asked for something not in the code but not prohibited by the code, he may convey this observation to the engineer leaving it to the engineer to decide whether to modify the construction documents. The building official and inspectors need to stay in their lane.
If the contractor has a question regarding whether field bending is permitted, he should direct that question to the engineer. Yes, if the inspector observes a code non-compliance, he should note it, so that it can be corrected. But it is not the inspector's job to bypass the engineer.
Msradell
Sawhorse
Msradell
Sawhorse
That's assuming you don't have a inspector or an engineer on-site during the pour! Whichever is stricter, code or the engineered instructions are what should be followed! It's like a device's instructions supersede the codes in most cases.