Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,
Cathy Murphy's article in Structural Engineering Magazine a few months ago
covered this topic (building inspectors and adequate training and field
performance issues). I don't remember the name of the article, but if you
save the issues it discusses the problems with construction in Florida.
Essentially, the building departments need inspectors in the field during
boom times such as now in many areas of the country. Inspectors don't have
the time to complete their training and once they do, they tend to move on.
This creates a shortage for inspectors who really understand what they are
looking for.
I had an inspector hold up a permit on a job because I called for a 30 or 40
bar diameter lap in a property wall which was being extended up two to three
feet. The wall was originally designed for the additional height, but the
builder capped the wall at 3-feet. When extending the wall, I wanted him to
drill in 40-bar diameters and epoxy the bars in place. The inspector told
the contractor he thought that was overkill and that he would accept
7-inches of embedment into existing grouted cavities with an epoxy. The
inspector did not understand the need for the bar laps to lower the hinge
and although I explained this to the contractor, the project was delayed and
I had lost some credibility as the contractor had to pay for the extra epoxy
that the inspector would have accepted if specified at only 7-inches below
top of blocks.
I've run up against conflicts in advice from non-professionals lately and it
is disturbing because it creates an need to justify yourself to clients when
it should not be necessary.

Once this inspector is adequately trained (completing the ICBO Inspection
classes) he will likely seek a better paying job in another city, leaving
the city where he is located to starting over again.

Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:10 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: Aase ruling
>
>
> Maybe if there were building departments are doing adequate
> inspections then
> the "builders" would have to build in accordance with plans or the
> "builders" could not get a "certificate of occupancy".
>
> You have all convinced me not to go back to law school and get
> rich by going
> after disreputable residential contractors.
>
>
> Scott M Haan  P.E.
> Plan Review Engineer
> Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building,
> Development Services Department,
> Municipality of Anchorage
> phone: 907-343-8183   fax: 907-249-7399
> mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Bill Polhemus [SMTP:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
> > Sent:	Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:30 AM
> > To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject:	RE: Aase ruling
> >
> > I should think this has more to do with the permissible
> standards codified
> > in the building codes.
> >
> > While you might be able to argue whether those standards are
> adequate for
> > a
> > given application, the fact remains that people with a stake in
> the design
> > and construction of buildings have put much time and effort into framing
> > these codes, making them acceptable for adoption as legally binding
> > documents, and improving them over time.
> >
> > You can just as well argue that you are not working in your
> clients' best
> > interest if you unilaterally exceed the buidling code design standards,
> > than
> > if you adhere to them where they might be "less stringent" than
> you would
> > like.
> >
> > I think you as the structural engineer of record have that option, but
> > your
> > clients have options too.
> >
> > Remember the article that made the rounds awhile back from some
> local L.A.
> > newsmagazine, that talked about how the REAL opponents to a
> comprehensive
> > program of inspection of structural beam-to-column welds in existing
> > buildings were the OWNERS of the buildings themselves. You'd think they
> > wouldn't want to take the risk of future damage or loss from these
> > problems,
> > but the fact is they WERE willing to take the risk far more
> than they were
> > willing to pay money out of pocket to have the inspections and possible
> > repairs done.
> >
> > It really is all about dollars and cents. You can purse your
> lips all you
> > want, but that's ALWAYS the bottom line.
> >
> > William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
> > Polhemus Engineering Company
> > Katy, Texas
> > Phone 281-492-2251
> > Fax 281-492-8203
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Goodrich [mailto:dang(--nospam--at)karren.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:19 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Aase ruling
> >
> >
> > This brings up an interesting point.  There is a perception
> > out there that commercial projects should be built to a
> > higher standard than residential.  Shouldn't they be the
> > same?  I've designed homes that are significantly larger
> > than some of the commercial projects I've worked on.
> > I realize that there will be differences based on
> > occupancy and other related matters.
> >
> > Are we as an engineering community holding commercial
> > jobs to a higher standard than homes?  One example I
> > can think of would be the amount of reinforcing required
> > in foundation walls.
> >
> > Dan Goodrich, P.E.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neil Moore" <nmoore(--nospam--at)innercite.com>
> > To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:33 PM
> > Subject: RE: Aase ruling
> >
> >
> > > Jason and Dennis:
> > >
> > > On the other hand,  I had a take-over project with 46 townhouses.  23
> > > uphill and 23 downhill, basically two plans, each alike.  The
> > foundation,
> > > framing and exterior stucco completed.  Although every one of
> the  plans
> > > were the same, it appeared to be a different crew on each one.
> > >
> > > Took us three years to complete the project, including putting a
> > structural
> > > designer on the site to straightened out all of the glitches.  The
> > > superintendent,  who was from a central California mountain area,
> > accussed
> > > us of "commercially" engineering the buildings.  Of course the project
> > was
> > > a 1000 feet from the San Andreas fault and was on a high bluff facing
> > the
> > > ocean.
> > >
> > > The sherriff came in one day and took him off the project.  This was
> > > sometime after he had threatened one of my engineers.
> > >
> > > Neil Moore,  S.E.
> > > neil moore and associates
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>