Inspections, Special or otherwise

[theory2code2practice]

As the design engineer, whose responsibility is it to get the construction inspected according to building code?
I am coming across many many many contractors, all of which have been "doing this for 30 years" of course, that have no idea about special inspections.
Clearly they are not having the construction inspected. Is anyone else coming across this problem? How do you deal with contractors either not following the drawings or not following building code?

Any Ideas? Similar experiences?

 

[GaStruct]

I think we have very different ideas of pomp and circumstance. Only difference is whether or not I put the inspection requirement in a schedule during design and whether or not I send the report to the building official after substantial completion of the structural elements of the building. The inspection itself is materially the same - I even use the same form, just check "routine observation" or "special inspection" at the top.

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.

Also, be careful what you inspect. In Georgia, a PE is actually pretty limited on what they can inspect for SI. You need a bunch of different certifications to look at different things and a PE doesn't automatically qualify you for everything structural. Not sure about VA.

It still says as approved by the building official. Meaning the final decision is not with the engineer, but with the building official.

Agreed. This is true for everything in construction and the AHJ can require anything they like. They could make you do pushups for a permit if they want!

Jokes aside, the point of my reply was to point out what is required by the EOR to fulfill our duty. Why start out by requiring an extensive SI if you, as the EOR, deem it unnecessary and it's not mandated by the code? If the AHJ disagrees, then they can require it.

So I'm not on board with letting the plan reviewers waive special inspections by negation (or lack thereof).

EOR can require it, but the AHJ can also ignore it.

I get it, though, and have used that method many times in the past. It's only very recently that I'm starting to question whether or not it's a good model to perpetuate.

My logic is I would much rather see it myself the have the GC pocket engineer approve everything they do.

From the 2021 Virginia Residential Code (2018 IRC, edited) as available on iccsafe.org:
View attachment 7480

Thnx for the snip. First sentence is worded so weakly. If they want you to follow the IBC, why not say it's straight up required? Seems up for interpretation as worded. Nonetheless, the exceptions of IBC noted above would still apply if EOR deems appropriate.

 

[phamENG]

I don't do the tests. I'd love to have a testing lab, but that's just not practical. I do a lot of historic restoration design, so I would like to set up a small testing lab for historic materials - masonry, brick, wood - and get the field tools to do more robust assessments of existing structural strength, but I'm a good ways off from that.

In my area, things are generally broken into "Agent 1" and "Agent 2" (sometimes more agents, if there's smoke testing, etc.). Agent 1 is usually the EOR - this will cover all of the in office reviews - shop drawings, material submittals, pre-screening qualifications, etc. - as well as most visual inspections - rebar in concrete, checking for compliance of steel details, joist hanger installation, etc. Agent 2 is the testing lab - they'll be doing compaction testing, sampling and breaking concrete and mortar, weld inspections, etc. They'll often handle the continuous observations as well because their field techs bill out much lower than junior engineers. So rather than paying for structural engineer to count blows on a pile or monitor concrete placement, the testing lab will do it.

IBC allows a PE to be a special inspector. Things like NDT for welds, you're right - PE isn't sufficient regardless of the code might say. But I don't need to go to a special class to make sure the rebar is as I designed it and that the clear cover is correct.

Independence of the inspector is meant, primarily, to be independence from the contractor. So the contractor can't pay for the inspector. I work almost exclusively for architects employed by owners or by referral from architect to owner, so I'm good there. Design-Build can get tricky, but as long as everyone is aware and there's buy-in from the owner and the building official, it's not too hard. The city still has an inspector monitoring the project for general code compliance - I'm just there to make sure it's being built per my design intent. Not sure anyone else can really do that better, unless I have the most amazing drawings in the world. (I don't.)