It appears so. It's definitely a PITA IMO. Have to submit statement of SI, schedule of SI, approved agencies, daily reports, interim reports, final reports - all coord. with the design team, GC, and AHJ. Georgia's SI guide is 35 pages.
Or just conduct your own site visit and call it a day...
Huge difference between just saying it's a special trip to inspect it and actually following the IBC SI pomp and circumstance.
"..... OR as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official." To me this leaves it up to the EOR and the latter is acceptable...
You are correct that the IRC says if something falls outside its scope, it needs to be designed in accordance with engineering practice or per the IBC. However, designed per the IBC doesn't equal inspected per the IBC in my very literal interpretation of the code (does it say otherwise...
For me it's:
1. Insane roof designs with bearing points floating in mid air that would require steel rigid bents to make work.
2. Massive L shaped floor plans requiring either a deep LVL beam (greater than floor thickness) or steel beam - always a shock for them to see.
3. Absolutely nothing...
Whenever I look at anything in the field, I have that general compliance note on my report but also include that not everything was looked at (worded more sophisticatedly). I also call everything structural observations - not inspections.
Annoying how much CYA we are forced to do but thus is...
I had this battle a year or so ago with a client wanting to use the 2.5" panel for the walls. The shear values weren't even close to working. I contacted Huber and they acknowledged this common issue and didn't have much to say except they recommended sheathing the walls with 1/2" OSB/Ply first...
I vote bearing. What does the floor plan look like? If that interior wall is continuous through the length of the building without jogs, I'd say it was an intentional bearing point.
For the floor below I often see LBW supported by perpendicular joists. What does that floor plan look like? Is it...
This is the key right here. In my world of logic and ethics, there's nothing wrong with telling the homeowner your concerns and still doing the project since it doesn't affect what has already been done. The homeowner is responsible for getting it fixed if they choose. However, what I deem the...
In most states the IRC is the adopted code and therefore IS the letter of the law. So, you can rest assured that following it satisfies your morals where the residence falls under the IRC provisions.
When the IRC applies, you can and absolutely should use it where applicable. Lateral being the...
I don't see anything ethically wrong with it. The owner could hire someone else for an opinion if they wanted. The contractor is also allowed to hire someone to check their work and give an opinion too. Similar to how supplements are often third party tested even when they don't need to be.
If...
