• 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

Soils Reports

If the geotechnical engineer can review the structural engineer’s design…why would anyone need the structural engineer? If you’re into value engineering…build in some value.
Think of the bottom of the foundation as a handshake, geotech on one side and structural on the other. Both know enough of the other around that interface to exchange the necessary information. The geotech performs borings and produces a preliminary report (usually the first consultant on a project). The structural engineer produces a schematic design of the building with conservative reactions using the preliminary report. The geotech reviews the structural schematic and makes more specific recommendations. This process continues to the final design.
The geotech doesn't review the column design, they review the types of foundations and reactions provided by the structural engineer.
 
But the question is not what practices the engineer designing a building should follow but rather [A] what can the building department require. I have also asked [B} what ability does the typical building department have to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report. [C] What criteria would the building department use if they attempted to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report?

Mark,

[A] I thought I answered this question in post #14. Please let me know what we're missing.

Depends on the expertise within the building department. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Building and Safety has an entire "Grading Division" full of people with expertise. They also go out and visit the site to verify the accuracy of statement in the report and to look for potential issues - - for example, will an overex+recompact result in needing shoring plans?

[C] for the typical building department, I think they just do a 5 minute cross-check between the structural plans, structural calcs, and geotech report for design values, such as allowable bearing values vs. footing depth, coefficient of friction for lateral design, etc.
 
Last edited:
If the answer is that the building department can only require what is in the adopted regulations I agree. Since with regards the geotechnical report the regulations are minimal there is very limited ability to "review the conclusions of the geotechnical report.

I suggest the City of LA is an exception. My sense is that the vast majority of building departments have no ability to perform a technical review of the geotechnical report.

Checking that the engineer interpreted the geotechnical report correctly is appropriate but that is not a technical review of the adequacy of the conclusions. In my reading of the IBC I do not see detailed criteria defining how the geotechnical engineer reaches his conclusions
 
My sense is that the vast majority of building departments have no ability to perform a technical review of the geotechnical report.
It is true of all engineering disciplines. Many building departments will send forth anything that is wet stamped by an engineer. That places enormous pressure on the inspector that is tasked with approving the construction.

I had the luxury of twenty-five years working in a jurisdiction that had a dozen engineers in every field. Now and then we would herd them into an office building and get real work out of them. From what I've seen lately, it's no wonder contractors preferred to work elsewhere.

When it comes to geotechnical reports,,,well there's just not a lot to them. The "Recomendations" paragraph is where you will find me. The soils technician that verifies the excavation and compaction is to be trusted to know what's what.

I have on occasion caused the geo-engineer to address individual concerns. For example, I found a strata that indicated a substantial amount of fill placed on part of the site which was not mentioned in the soils report. The hubcap gave it away....just kidding about the hubcap but there were signs.

I would much rather deal with the work product of a geo-engineer than an electrical engineer.
 
Last edited:
Plan checkers and inspectors have different skill sets. that hopefully compensate each other. There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to, but I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.

It is easy to cherry pick instances and infer incompetence. We could find instances of incompetent or rogue inspectors, but I forget inspectors are all knowing.

I hear the disdain for engineers. Why the hate?

Geotechnical engineer face unique challenges. They take a limited number of borings and are supposed to find what occurs between the borings. Because of this it is common practice for the Geotechnical Engineer to visit the site and inspect the excavations for the footings. to verify that what they see is consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. In some cases, minor variations in the substrata may not be a concern given the foundation system. It is this process that gives us confidence in the final results.
 
Mark - - In general, I don't think a building department needs to "plan check" the geotechnical report itself, such that they are second-guessing the adequacy of the geotechnical engineer's laboratory results or conclusions. I think they are just looking to see the recommendations were addressed in the plans and calcs.
Other than city of LA, are you encountering a specific situation where the plan checker is second-guessing the geotechnical report?

The report is also used in Low Impact Development (LID) design for stormwater infiltration.

Another thing they check for in LA (and a few other communities) is if the boring logs indicate the presence of methane or hazardous materials.

***

1663525756124.png

Cause of the 1985 Ross Store Explosion and Other Gas Ventings, Fairfax District, Los Angeles​

by Douglas H. Hamilton and Richard L. Meehan​

image5KG.JPG

Late in the afternoon of March 24, 1985, methane gas that had been accumulating ignited in an auxiliary room of the Ross Dress-For-Less Department Store located on Third Street, in the Wilshire-Fairfax District of Los Angeles. The resulting explosion blew out the windows and partially collapsed the roof of the structure, reduced the store interior to a heap of twisted metal and resulted in injuries requiring hospital treatment of twenty-three people. Police closed off four blocks around an eerie scene of spouting gas flames that continued through the night.

In the following days, a drill rig brought to the site was used to test for possible gas accumulations in the alluvial soil beneath the store. A "pocket" of pressurized gas was encountered at a depth of 42 feet beneath the parking lot between the store building and Third Street. Gas was also encountered in several other borings at the site in smaller quantities and at lower pressures. Pressure gauges, control valves, and, on the hole where the high pressure pocket was encountered, a valved flare pipe, were installed. Following a brief period during which gas was flared and bled off into the air, the anomalous gas condition at the Ross Store site gradually declined to the normal gas concentrations characteristic of the local area. In 1989 another venting incident occurred, this time at several sites on the north side of Third Street. This second venting fortunately was detected in time, and did not ignite. In this case, water and silt were ejected from outdoor vents along with the gas, in addition to accumulation of dangerous levels of gas in several buildings. A blow-out crater several feet deep, from which dirt and small stones were ejected several feet into the air was formed during this episode which lasted about 24 hours.

The setting of the accident -- an old-world Levantine market place a few miles from Hollywood; the famed tarry graveyard of the sabre-toothed tigers; pillars of fire dancing in the darkened streets -- these biblical images attracted attention of the press, the bar, and local politicians. And yet, three months later when a hastily convened panel of experts announced that the event was caused by digestive rumblings of an ancient and invisible swamp the whole thing had been mostly forgotten, the explanation accepted as yet another production of Los Angeles' quirky environment. Outside of a lawsuit that was settled quietly in 1990, the possibility that the accident was caused by the knowing agency of Los Angeles' lesser known industry or that the official report of the experts, rather than being a serious statement of the scientific community, was a heavily edited script with a happily blameless ending, was not made known to the public, as we shall proceed to do here.



Excerpt from: Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication No. 4, 1992.
 
There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to.

Certianly there are aspects….but is it “many”. In your mind, if the inspector finds the correct address he’s reached the end of his abilities.

I hear the disdain for inspectors. Why the hate?


I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.

I doubt that you know many inspectors. Your fears are based on unfounded prejudice.

I forget inspectors are all knowing.

I will happily remind you.

I hear the disdain for engineers. Why the hate?

You hear what you want to hear.
 
The geotechnical report for the site and location of the foundation is received during the plan review stage. An engineer cannot properly design a foundation without this report. Additional reports should be submitted as unexpected conditions are uncovered during the construction process and RFIs are sent to the engineer in charge. The geotechnical reports are primarily submitted to the building department not just because they are required but for record-keeping and to ensure that the engineer is basing their design on factual information and they are not just rubber stamping it as some engineers do for quick cash. With the geotechnical report as part of the permanent records, the engineer would have a difficult time justifying their design if it conflicts with the report.
Good Explanation
In addition, it is nice to see where they hit water
 
Plan checkers and inspectors have different skill sets. that hopefully compensate each other. There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to, but I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.

It is easy to cherry pick instances and infer incompetence. We could find instances of incompetent or rogue inspectors, but I forget inspectors are all knowing.

I hear the disdain for engineers. Why the hate?

Geotechnical engineer face unique challenges. They take a limited number of borings and are supposed to find what occurs between the borings. Because of this it is common practice for the Geotechnical Engineer to visit the site and inspect the excavations for the footings. to verify that what they see is consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. In some cases, minor variations in the substrata may not be a concern given the foundation system. It is this process that gives us confidence in the final results.
Mark, after reading the exchange of views, I can only wonder if your reaction is the result of a particularly Over Zealous Plan Reviewer or if you would object to any questions from any Plan Reviewers in general.

As a Plan reviewer, I always understood that I AM NOT THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
That being said, many or most of us have paid our dues in the Field and are Not Uniformed

If an experienced Site Work Contractor was digging at one of your Sites and encountered some inconsistency in the soil or whatever, Would You react to their phone call the same way you are reacting to Plan Reviewers in general? As uniformed people who are not as well trained Or Smart as You?

I read these exchanges and can only wonder what is the real story here

My personal experience is when I saw something that puzzles me, my call to the design Engineer is usually welcome. Even if the problem is confusion vs and Potential Error, my take is, they appreciate a "Fresh pair of Eyes"
My general advice to those submitting Plans is to remind them, The information the Contractor needs to Bid it and Build it is what I need to Review it. Confusion doesn't help anyone

So why the adversarial approach? Why SO defensive? Could it be that we are being of help and not just slowing you down? Perhaps a re-think is in order.

Best, Mike B
 
We require it for the plan review before issuing the permit. Sometimes the BCO (also my boss) tells me to issue the permit without it and review it later.

Understood.

This is what we are trying to clear up on our end. The madness of drop what your doing to review reports so the bldr may proceed with the next stage of inspection.
 
Improper terminology agreed, geotechnical evaluation. I’m glad that was stated.bad habits lead to bad practices.

Requiring a geotechnical report, why would I not have the ability? If it’s not in the IRC the IBC may be referenced. The residential reports we receive are not technical, they identify soils conditions, type and PSF capacity for the intended design.
 
Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously. This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed. I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code. In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance. I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.

I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked. Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.

Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department. Having said that I do not outright ignore any comment.

The question is what I do after I understand the issue.

I had one plan checker who responded to a polite question as to the code provision that I was violating responded by saying that there was no code provision, but we would not get a building permit unless I made the change. This was extortion. This individual should have been fired but I made the decision that it was cheaper for me and my client to humor him. While this was extreme more commonly there have been other plan checker comments that were not code based. Here again the strategy is often to humor the plan checker but I fear that this strategy only encourages bad behavior.

Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations. I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.

We are talking about problems that while not occurring on every project occur more often than they should and problems that building departments do not appear to recognize as problems..
 
Improper terminology agreed, geotechnical evaluation. I’m glad that was stated.bad habits lead to bad practices.

Requiring a geotechnical report, why would I not have the ability? If it’s not in the IRC the IBC may be referenced. The residential reports we receive are not technical, they identify soils conditions, type and PSF capacity for the intended design.
The PSF capacities for the intended design ae technical.
 
Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations. I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.
If you didn’t just roll over when you encounter resistance perhaps you could be part of the solution. Even a reprobate inspectors such as myself respond to meaningful interaction. If not for working with engineers, how would I know when I’m dealing with a bad one.
 
Mark, you participated in the “Ultra Vires” thread last year, and it looks like this is covering similar ground.
To update that old discussion: my client‘s attorney sent a letter to the housing department requiring them to show their legal authority for plan-checking for ADA and UFAS, especially since that department was not providing any funds to the project.
The housing department backed down and determined they would not plan-check anything. They left compliance verification where it belonged - - at the building department, which only checks for the adopted codes.
 
Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously. This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed.
On larger projects, daily site visits and soil testing is the norm as footer forms are being prepared. It is an ongoing process and not just a one time deal as the soil conditions can vary greatly with just a few feet. All of these reports are to be submitted to the Building Department and kept as a permanent record.
 
Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously. This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed. I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code. In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance. I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.

I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked. Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.

Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department. Having said that I do not outright ignore any comment.

The question is what I do after I understand the issue.

I had one plan checker who responded to a polite question as to the code provision that I was violating responded by saying that there was no code provision, but we would not get a building permit unless I made the change. This was extortion. This individual should have been fired but I made the decision that it was cheaper for me and my client to humor him. While this was extreme more commonly there have been other plan checker comments that were not code based. Here again the strategy is often to humor the plan checker but I fear that this strategy only encourages bad behavior.

Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations. I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.

We are talking about problems that while not occurring on every project occur more often than they should and problems that building departments do not appear to recognize as problems..
""Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations."

And here I thought that Engineers only spoke with GOD and then only if GOD had an appointment
 
""Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations."

And here I thought that Engineers only spoke with GOD and then only if GOD had an appointment
And by "God", you mean the Architect, right?

Famous true story, as told in Look magazine, about the time Frank Lloyd Wright was called to testify in court.
He was first sworn in, then asked his name and occupation.
He stated: "My name is Frank Lloyd Wright, and I am the world's greatest living architect."
Afterwards, his wife Olgivanna chided him for such immodesty, to which he replied, "yes, but you forget - - I was under oath".
 
Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously. This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed. I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code. In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance. I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.

I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked. Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.

Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department. Having said that I do not outright ignore any comment.

The question is what I do after I understand the issue.

I had one plan checker who responded to a polite question as to the code provision that I was violating responded by saying that there was no code provision, but we would not get a building permit unless I made the change. This was extortion. This individual should have been fired but I made the decision that it was cheaper for me and my client to humor him. While this was extreme more commonly there have been other plan checker comments that were not code based. Here again the strategy is often to humor the plan checker but I fear that this strategy only encourages bad behavior.

Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations. I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.

We are talking about problems that while not occurring on every project occur more often than they should and problems that building departments do not appear to recognize as problems..

You said "Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department.

How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair.
You do understand that the Contractor has Completed Operations Liability and their coverage DOES NOT INCLUDE DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS which is in your wheelhouse. My experience has been the reverse of what you are suggesting is the problem

I have got a similar problem as we speak and would be happy to share the situation with you off line, if you could bring yourself to speak with a mere Plan REVIEWER / Former Commercial Carpenter as an Equal

Best, Mike B
 
And by "God", you mean the Architect, right?

Famous true story, as told in Look magazine, about the time Frank Lloyd Wright was called to testify in court.
He was first sworn in, then asked his name and occupation.
He stated: "My name is Frank Lloyd Wright, and I am the world's greatest living architect."
Afterwards, his wife Olgivanna chided him for such immodesty, to which he replied, "yes, but you forget - - I was under oath"I
 
In the Last Century, Architect meant Master Stone Builder.
Frank Lloyd Wright was one of those guys whose designs followed the formula : Form, Function AND STRUCTURE!

I think you'll agree that Today's Architects are Interior Designers for the most part .
It is unfortunate that is the case.
But, We all have met and appreciate those few Architects who either "worked with the tools" or paid attention to construction Methods
Those were a pleasure to work with!
 
Top