Post testing of concrete footings

[jwhitesel]

I have a situation where a contractor installed new footings for a building addition, and did not obtain an inspection from the local building inspector prior to pouring. The contractor did obtain the services of an independant inspection firm (payed for by the owner) to inspect the footing bearing capacity, the reinforcing, and the actual concrete.

The Building Inspector, since he didn't inspect the bottoms, is now requiring the footings to be removed so he can inspect the bottoms.

I think this is a little extreme and I'm wondering if anyone has had this experience in the past. Also is there any post testing that could be done to satisfy the Building Inspector.

Thanks in advance for your input

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

it is extreme because the building official/department will shirk responsibility to the inspection firm and the contractor if there is a problem. many BDs will require a copy of the ITL reports. I don't believe there a discount to the building permit is typically offered for reduced inspection.

this has happened a couple of times on projects i've worked on with the ITL. every time it was in a rural area where the building dept. didn't have anything better to do. in both of the cases, the issue was pushed because the BD worked banker hours Mon-Thurs and nothing on friday and this was not acceptable in the construction schedule. the contractor informed the BD that the holes were open and ready, and then poured them the next day. The buildings i was working with were public and the owner's rep got involved since it was becoming a major beef at construction meetings w/ regards to maintaining schedule. nothing was demo'd on these projects.

your post asks if there is some method to work with the BO on this. if the BO demands the rebar, find some photos or rip the ftgs out. if the BO is interested in the soils, the ITL could, in the presence of the BO, auger next to the ftgs the bearing elevation and test the soils to show consistency with the previous tests. it would be Bull a total waste of money, and should be itemized in billing to go back to the contractor. But, it would "teach the contractor a lesson" without pulling out work.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

rant, rant, rant...

you could let the BO select some ftgs for the ITL to core to show the ftg thickness and previously undamaged rebar placement (ground cover and size) too. maybe you'll end up even load testing the concrete core...

 

[BigH]

jwhitesel: Oh, I empathize with you. It is beyond belief, in my opinion, that a building inspector who is not licensed as a professional engineer could overrule a professional (presumed as such)inspection firm (with PE stamp - presumably) on something like this! Perhaps your lawyer could advise the BI that you will be happy to do it - and if the footings are proper and in accordance with the professional inspection report, the owner will expect the city to pay for the costs. (May be a bluff - but might be a bluff worth trying.) This is one reason I am very very happy not to be involved in such types of construction/design projects anymore.

 

[LKS93]

jwhitesel: I agree with BigH. The BI is pretty far over the line here. A letter needs to be sent to the County/City whatever stating your case (i.e., an ITL inspected the footing and approved it) and that if the footing is removed and everything is as indicated by the ITL, then the city should pick up the tab. As a caveat, offer to do the hand augers and DCP, or more appropriately, do test pits beside the footings to expose the sides of the footing and you can do DCPs at the bearing elevation. The BO can see how thick they are, check projection if a wall is already up and you may be able to pick up indications of reinforcing steel with a Profometer.

I also kind of suspect that there may be more to the story, such as some bad blood b/n the contractor and BO b/c these does sound like an extreme reaction to this.

Good luck with it.

 

[dirtsqueezer]

I, as an inspector, have been called out a few times to inspect a footing excavation for a footing that has already been poured. It's frustrating, especially when all the contractor needed to do was schedule it the day before. To tell you the truth, I could go either way on this one as far as politics go, but the fact is that the BI didn't see that footing base prior to pour.

As a fix, it stands to reason that the soil below the footing would not be that different from the soil right next to the footing. It might be possible just to excavate a planar surface next to these footings so that BI can get in there with his t-probe or whatnot to at least get an idea of things. It seems like a reasonable person might make that leap. I have done this with poorly scheduled inspections in the past.

Aside from all this, if the testing firm has it in writing that that base is ok, it's on them if things go wrong. Sounds like people just need to get along.

 

[emmgjld]

jwhitesel,

Not that I am discounting any of the points above, including the rant, rant, rant...
I would ask the question hinted at by LKS93, is there bad blood or a previous history?
There are a few contractors who are always involved in disputes with the Building Official and just move around between the local engineers, to cover their continual problems, fights and general adolescent rebellion.
There are Building Officials and specific underlings who continue to play the power games.

I had better apologise for the length of this post. My list would be specifically include both contractors and officials:
Ko-Ko.
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat —
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that —
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-á-têtes insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
Chorus.
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.
Ko-Ko.
There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist — I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed — they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she dances, but would rather like to try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist —
I don't think she'd be missed — I'm sure she'd not he missed!
Chorus.
He's got her on the list — he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed — I'm sure she'll not be missed!
Ko-Ko.
And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist — I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as — What d'ye call him — Thing'em-bob, and likewise — Never-mind,
And 'St— 'st— 'st— and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who —
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
Chorus.
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed!

 

[BigH]

emmgjld: Please, pray tell, is that poesy one of your own - indeed, can I nominate you as the geotechnical Poet Laureate?

 

[emmgjld]

Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado - The Lord High Executioner of the realm has a little list. Many of the direct references are over 100 years old and specific people in England were being lampooned.
Sir Sullivan, wrote the tunes, was knighted by Queen Victoria.
Sir Gilbert, wrote the scathing lyrics, had to wait for Victoria's successor to receive his knighthood.
I would give a lot to have the same reputation, with commensurate skill.

 

[BigH]

Mmmm - once in Toronto I went to see a Gilbert and Sullivan play. It was okay. My own interest in poetry is the beat poets (Ferlinghetti comes quickly to mind). But good stuff emmgjld!!

 

[jdmm]

You guys obviously don't deal in the world of building inspection. This is the most common problem in small foundation inspection. It isn't so much a question of geotechnical engineering as a legal question of who will be responsible.

Municipalities (Cities) do inspections and in doing so they accept liabilty for their inspections. I could site legal references to Municipalities that have been sued. As a result when the situation exceeds their abilities, (and remember the inspectors are not engineers) they defer the responsibilty, as they should.

As an engineer, you will do what is necessary to confirm the bearing capacity. If you can't then you say you can't. In these cases the contractor might be required to remove the footing. In my experience, digging a hole down to the foundation level adjacent the footing is sufficient to determine the suitabilty of the footing.

 

[jwhitesel]

Just to update anyone who may have wondered how this turned out; The Building Inspector allowed the footings to remain. He accepted a certified letter from our Civil Engineer of record that the footings met the required design. The CE refered to the ITL report, which luckily was very thorough. The ITL made sure to mentioned in the inspection report that the soils at the bottom of the footings was consistant with the geotechnical report and met the bearing capacity. Thanks for all of your input.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

Easy there JDMM..

it looks like your saying, the most common problem in small foundation inspection is the Building Official not accepting the ITL's inspection (in this case soil, rebar, and concrete) because it wasn't made in his presence. Any additional testing would, as we've said, been done to satisfy the BO ego, and not prove anything new.

jwhitesel has posted that it has been taken care of. But, this would not be the 1st time this would happen on the BO's watch. The BO was firing a shot across the bow B-( , or i guess he could be the new guy but i think it's the latter.