Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: ACI 117[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: ACI 117
- From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:42:55 EST
Your point about the IBC and special inspections is a good one. It is worthwhile for engineers to try and figure out the special inspection section ... DC still uses BOCA.
Also if there is inspection as well as testing, yes, it probably is not a good idea for the contractor to be paying. I was thinking about repair projects where there was just testing. Also situtations where the local testing agency is not qualified to do the inspection, so someone is brought in to do the inspection, and the local agency does the testing.
I've not really had any problems with the contractor trying to obtain less vigilant inspectors, though. I have had a lot of problems with really bad inspectors, where bad does not mean overly vigilant. Although it is sometimes because they are doing what they were told to do by an engineer on another job.
In a message dated 2/8/2005 12:52:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com writes:
Please note section 1704.1 of the 2003 IBC requires that the Owner or his
agent must retain the special inspectors. Given that the taking of slump
and air content tests are classified as special inspections (Table 1704.4)
it does not make sense for the Contractor to take the cylinder samples.
When the contractor hires the testing laboratory they can apply economic
pressure on the laboratory in ways that can bias the results. One common
example is complaining about inspectors that are too vigilant so that only
the more reasonable inspectors are assigned to their project.
- Re: ACI 117
- From: Bill Polhemus
- Re: ACI 117
- Prev by Subject: Re: ACI 117
- Next by Subject: Re: ACI 117
- Previous by thread: Re: ACI 117
- Next by thread: Re: ACI 117