special inspections

[msucog]

i'm curious about others around the country: are special inspections being fully required and enforced? i'm certain most places require the structural engineer to put the requirements on the plans, but is the actual requirement that someone perform the special inspections being followed through? and then does the building official follow through on their part to require someone sign off on the statement of special inspections? also, when the inspections do happen, is anyone actually requiring the people doing the inspections to be icc certified for those particular special inspections or is having their supervisor certified enough?
i'm certain i already know the answer of how it is currently working versus how it "supposed" to work but i'm curious if this is a more local issue or pretty much widespread.

 

[concretemasonry]

What country are you referring to?

There are many different codes and methods of enforcement throughout the world. Generally, the design codes/material standards are oriented toward either the U.S. or European codes/standards. The U.S. is saddled with the politically-oriented ICC that is more concerned with meeting prescriptive requirements than real technical performance.

Internationally, some areas of construction parallel the U.S., while others have shifted the emphasis depending on the local construction methods.

Engineered masonry is a prime example because of the wide use internationally and the relatively low use in the U.S. Internationally, design and material standards follow the U.S., while the engineering and applications are more advanced. This is probably due to the low level (exposure volume, not quality) of masonry education in U.S. universities. Internationally, the requirement of masonry education is dictated by the locally used materials.

What may be "special inspection" in the U.S. may be radically modified and may be routine in some countries. Obviously, for masonry these prcedures are very important and do involve the engineers, contractors and the testing/inspection interests prior to material fabrication and construction.

Dick

 

[msucog]

i suppose my slang term of "my part of the world" might be misleading...referring to where i'm at in the south. special inspections are "required" here but not really. i sort of force the issue if someone wants me to do testing on their jobsite. however, if the EOR or building official says it's not required, then that's on their back and i won't perform the inspections. i have yet to see either say that they're not required when i ask them. there are occassional modifications to the required inspections by the EOR which i have absolutely no problem with. i'm wondering more about how many of you (in the u.s.) are "voluntarily" requiring/following up per ibc or if your local officials actually do their job of requiring the paperwork on the inspections.
the reason for my question is that i personally typical work on construction projects in georgia. however, my company is all over. so, in an effort to better understand what the rest of the company may be experiencing, i'm asking for the remarks of those on this board. any responses would be appreciated.

 

[boffintech]

msucog:

That would be:

1) NO. That would require super lazy government officials to pull their heads out their...ooops, was that out loud?

2) NO. (Reminder: Schedules of SI repeated in/on the plans are for informational purposes only and do not take the place of the Schedule of SI submitted to the BO.)

3) YES/NO The BOs are requiring the letters of completion but from what I have seen they are allowing, through ignorance, all sorts of exclusionary verbiage to be included in the letters: "We inspected everything that the contractor notified us to inspect..." or "We inspected everything contained in the daily reports...", etc..." You'd have to be lawyer-ed up to get through these 1 page letters.

4) YES/NO It depends on the company. Some of the labs, as you know, will throw anyone out there on a job. If no one calls them on it they just keep keepin' on. Then they don't write anything up because they either don't know what to write up or don't want to draw attention in their direction. And having a certified supervisor is NOT enough; the person performing the inspections at the project site is required by code and by contract to be certified.

 

[lkjh345]

msucog:

I'm in Nebraska (USA) and around here we actually do follow proscribed inspection procedures fairly closely.

Most of the inspectors on my projects have been in the business for quite sometime, and know what to look for and have reasonably extensive training and certifications. Inspector certification is taken reasonably seriously around here. Inexperienced inspectors are fairly closely supervised by more experienced ones.

Inpsection reports are frequent and the inspectors do a fairly good job of flagging items that do not meet the design drawings or specifications. If a concrete cylinder breaks low, we usually get a fax or email that day. If steel or rebar inspections do not pass, we usually get a call from the inspector from the job site immediately. If something 'just doesn't look right' the inpectors do a pretty good job of calling the EOR to let them know what is happening.

The city officials usually are not very active in the process around here. It is usually left between the contractor, the inspector and the EOR.

 

[Atomic25]

Midwest here, working in five states.

Requirements on plans? YES, that's easy.

Special inspector on site? YES, anyone can stand there.

Qualified inspector? NO. I have yet to find a SI who can read and understand a set of structural steel plans. We tried requiring ICC certification, and the whole SI community whined like a bunch of babies because they couldn't pass the exams. I've caught SI firms using high schoolers out on site to perform inspections (not testing).

SI statement? RARELY


Nothing will change till either the public becomes aware or legit BO's work their way into the system.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

when i was involved with this a couple of years ago in the south (of the USA)..

some firms would follow-up directly with the BO and some not. We didn't. Here's how i rationalized it. We furnish the SI summaries and field reports and discrepancy notices to the Structural Engineer and the Architect. If the architect is diligent in forwarding it to the BO, don't know, don't care. The architects i know don't want the SI or testing firm to be communicating directly with the BO.

i've worked with High School graduates who passed the ICC tests, and one who's a CWI now. I've worked with college graduates who failed the ICC tests over and over again. ICC steel isn't worth the paper its written on as far as i'm concerned. Steel is hard to get trained into (assuming you don't work for a fabricator or erector).

the companies i knew were sending EIs out to do rebar and masonry inspections, ACI Level 1s for placement, and CWIs for steel. This may have changed now that SI has been in the south for some time now.

I've only been asked to provide a CASE-style final letter of SI completion once. This may have changed in the last 2 years too.

 

[henri2]

msucog,

Since the practice of special inspection in the US is non-uniform across the country, varying from strict adherence to code provisions to essentially none at all, the responses you get will naturally be varied.

In order to evaluate the state of affairs regarding practice of SI NCSEA’s special inspection QA committee came out with this survey questionnaire

http://www.structuremag.org/form_temps/Special Inspection Survey-final.doc

. However, to the best of my knowledge, they have not yet come out with a report based on their findings.

I assume that building departments that meaningfully enforce IBC chapter 17 provisions require SIs to be certified. Therefore, to get an idea of areas of the country where the chapter 17 provisions are enforced and ICC certification of SIs are required, the ICC certification roster is a good place to start.

http://www.iccsafe.org/e/certsearch.html

 

[henri2]

DarthSoilsGuy,


You have raised some valid points which I'd like to expand on.

More likely than not individuals who pass ICC or CWI exams have had some exam preparation training. So it will not surprise me if an 18 year old high school graduate who has had some training passes and a PE who has not had training does not pass.

One good thing about preparing for special inspection certification exams is that it forces the examinee to review blueprints, codes and publications related to the inspection discipline. In areas of the country where SI certification is not required, many inspectors do not own code books and relevant references and have never looked at them.

Employers of certified SIs have an obligation to offer ongoing training to their employee...both in a classroom setting and at the jobsite. Viewing certification as sole evidence of competency is not prudent. This is why some building departments (like LA City)require that applicants for a license in a special inspection discipline, have relevant work experience and pass an oral exam in addition to acquiring and ICC certification.

Regarding ICC certification in structural steel/welding, I do concur that by itself, it is not a good measure of ones ability in welding inspection...one can pass it without knowing how to use a fillet gage or how to identify a welding process. The AWS CWI exam is more rigorous but it does not deal with certain subject matters covered by the ICC exam, most notably the ability to comprehend structural plans. I know many CWI holders who were unable to pass the ICC exam because of the plan reading portion. After training in plan reading their chances increased.

The ICC exam in structural steel and welding is in the process of being phased out and replaced with an exam for bolting (S1) and another one for structural welding (S2). The S1 and S2 exams were introduced last year.

The S2 exam for welding is superior to the welding portion of the soon to be discontinued combined structural steel and welding exam. The quality of questions in the S2 exam is comparable to CWI exam questions. Still, it would be great if ICC and AWS were to cooperate and require passing both CWI and S2 exams for a joint certificate.

 

[msucog]

thanks for the responses. i'm sort of trying to get a feel for what might be coming my way...doesn't sound anything will change soon. as for my firm, we have so many jobs that we utilize our people where we can. seldom does anyone require a certified SI. on the few jobs that they do require it, we supply it. for masonry, i've been pushing hard to get all our technicians certified before it becomes an issue (i'd rather be ahead of the curve) but that also means we have to pay our people more because other firms then try to hire them. i will be glad to see the industry catch up so that the rates will reflect the time and effort we put in to our guys to know what they're looking at. i have a hard time even getting the other engineers to get certifications. my philosophy is that it's hard to oversee your people if you don't have at least a fair understanding of what is technically required. i personally get the certifications just so that i can better manage my projects. i will say that the headache of taking the tests is worth it...when a contractor fusses and gripes, i either have the answer or know where the find the answer relatively quickly. it also makes me look like the professional in the eyes of the structural engineer, architect, or owner if we (testing firm) can be of great assistance to the project team.
i hope to see SI's implemented "uniformally" everywhere...the "uniformally" or even remotely close to uniform is definately the hardest part. thanks again.

 

[archeng59]

henri,

when did that survey appear in the structure magazine? I missed that. Is the 5/04 at the top right corner of the page the month and year?

 

[henri2]

archeng59,

It appeared in the Aug 04 edition.

http://www.structuremag.org/surveysreviews.htm

I assume 5/04 (May 04) was when it was completed by the NCSEA sub-committee....3 months prior to appearing in the August 04 edition of structure magazine.

 

[SSStrPREng]

msucog – you have stated that you work construction projects in Georgia. The 2007 Georgia Amendments to the 2006 IBC state the minimum qualifications required of persons performing Special Inspections in the State of Georgia. The requirements are found in Table 1704.1 on pp 15-17 at this link:

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/constructioncodes/programs/downloads/codespdf/IBC 2007.pdf

You can find the Georgia Special Inspections Guidelines, recommended by the Georgia Amendments, at

http://acecga.org/.

As previous posts have shown, monitoring the Chapter 17 process is hit or miss. However, I’d advise my clients to have a Statement and Schedule of Special Inspections prepared and followed. In my conversations with some Georgia jurisdictions statements have been made such as that they enforce Special Inspections but do not have the personnel to monitor them; if something goes wrong with the project someone better be able to produce them.

 

[msucog]

yes, i'm fully aware of the state requirements. and i do push SI to my clients since it is "required". however make notice of all those that can do certain inspections...it's actually a pretty big range of people and my guys meet those minimum requirements. i would prefer they get more than just the minumum so that they/we will be the "expert" on the job site. it's not easy to convince clients they need this or that but at least with the special inspection requirements, we don't sound like we're simply making up work. we do have occasional jobs that no one wants us onsite checking the special inspection stuff but we attempt to document as best we can and simply tell them that we cannot complete the final report of special inspections...these would be the project where we might send a greener person...and these jobs are typically very small projects. on large schools for example, i push to get the best guys out there that have multiple certifications...the certifications are not that tough to get and are simply a piece of paper so i'd like to make sure my inspector technician has his head screwed on straight and is keeping us out of trouble.