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]
Anchorage Alaska has robust requirements.  They require the inspectors to be
"licensed" / pre-approved by the city to do the inspections.  If the
inspectors are not doing the job the city can snatch their approval.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope(--nospam--at)] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:10 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Chapter 17- IBC

For the most part special inspections are not being done very well.  Local
authorities having jurisdiction should require a "special inspector of
record" (SIOR) in order to be truly effective.  It is a simple concept that
was intituted in the Special Inspection Program in Kansas City, MO.
The program developed in Kansas City were born more out of the bitter lessons
of the Hyatt Regency walkway failure as opposed to seismic design
considerations of the West Coast.  This program and check sheets requires the
SIOR to verify that all special inspectors were properly qualified, all of
the special inspection discrepencies were resolved with the EOR, and all of
the special inspections were performed.  
The lazy engineer in me likes the concept of going to one piece of paper that
says ALL of the special inspections were done and done properly, and that
paper bears the seal of a PE in charge of special inspections.  It may not be
bullet proof, but it is better than what we currently have.  
Developing the "SIOR" may be yet another windmill for me to tilt.  If nothing
else, the KC manual can be added to any set of specs.  Although it might look
odd to have a KC manual for inspection on a project in Guam.  

Harold Sprague


	Subject: Chapter 17- IBC
	Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:38:07 -0500
	From: mmotchos(--nospam--at)
	To: seaint(--nospam--at)

	How well, or not well, are special inspections being enforced out


	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? 






Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail(r)-get your
"fix". Check it out. <> 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********