Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Chapter 17- IBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Michelle,

ASCE 7-05 Chapter 17 is the left coast's revenge for the east coast's Section 1609 for wind loads (sorry, but I just could not resist yet another wind complaint)  <;-)

For Special Inspections the building official does have some leeway as stated in the exceptions as shown in Section 1704, especially Exception #1.  Did you provide a list of special inspections as required by Section 1704.1.1 and 1705?  If so, then you could document the lack of inspection in your Structural Observation report as required by Section 1709.  Also, if the building official asks for a final Structural Sign Off before issuing the occupancy permit, then you could be a real stinker and say you will provide it once all the deficiencies of the Structural Observation report are resolved.  You are certainly correct and prudent to make sure you document everything!!

Just some thoughts.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor



"Michelle Motchos" <mmotchos(--nospam--at)sw-sc.com>
02/20/2008 10:38 AM
Please respond to seaint
To
<seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
cc
Subject
Chapter 17- IBC





How well, or not well, are special inspections being enforced out there?
 
We have a situation in which the Owners Rep and local Building Code Official are of the opinion that our requirements regarding tests and qualifications are “excessive” (i.e. they have probably never done them before, and they are tight on money). The SSI is directly based on the CASE documents which have been used as baselines for enforcement in other county building departments in the state. As reference, the project is in a rural county and is a 42,000sf 2story special concentric steel braced frame in a SDC D. In particular the CBO is allowing a local architect (actually the Owners Rep), who does not meet the qualifications in the SSI, to perform “inspections”. Some of the inspections are simply not being done and others not done thoroughly.  We have been repeatedly documenting this to the owner and those involved to no avail other then raising tempers. The CBO believes he has the discretion to implement the SSI as he sees fit, but we are not of the same opinion. To further complicate a bad situation, the building is a county building, so they have a vested interest. We are clearly concerned for the quality of the project as well as fulfilling our own professional and legal obligations to the public.
 
Has any one come across this before? Any opinions on how to move forward? Is this really up to the CBO?
 
 
Michelle
 
------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person 
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.  
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are 
hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, 
distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon 
this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.  

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.  
------------------------------------------------------------