# Rebar too close to the outside



## jar546 (Jul 25, 2021)

This is what can happen in less than a year.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 25, 2021)

Yup, I've seen the after effects when missed.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 26, 2021)

The workmen don't get it


----------



## e hilton (Jul 26, 2021)

mark handler said:


> The workmen don't get it


The workers do what they are told, and what is allowed.  Thats the fault of the project manager, foreman, and special inspector.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 26, 2021)

What about the building department inspector?


----------



## steveray (Jul 26, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What about the building department inspector?


Must have moved after I left......


----------



## jar546 (Jul 26, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What about the building department inspector?


That is a great question.  I can tell you that is one of the more common code violations in concrete form work.  Often there are one or two areas and the contractor promises to take care of it, otherwise it is a failed inspection and another delay in the project so we hope that they are professional enough to follow through.  If it is in many areas, then it is a fail.  

Mark, what you are probably not privy to is the amount of phone calls that come into the department after a failed inspection and the arguing because a concrete truck is scheduled and they can't get another truck for a few more days so the failed inspection turns into phone calls to the Building Department and often to a city manager or elected official which gets blown out of proportion.


----------



## Msradell (Jul 26, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What about the building department inspector?


Very true considering most residential construction does not utilize a Special Inspector.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 26, 2021)

Is it in the scope of the building dept inspector to play QC?  Isnt that what the pm or super gets paid for?   You know … even as i typed that i thought … yep, the BI should catch that.  But they shouldn't have to.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 27, 2021)

The thing is, by the time I get there the job's super and the engineer of record should have looked at this. I am supposed to be a safety net to catch things that might get overlooked. What we are finding is that the super hasn't left the job trailer in days and no one wants to call the engineer for the inspection because it costs too much money.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 27, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Is it in the scope of the building dept inspector to play QC?  Isnt that what the pm or super gets paid for?   You know … even as i typed that i thought … yep, the BI should catch that.  But they shouldn't have to.


LOL , what super?


----------



## steveray (Jul 27, 2021)

tmurray said:


> The thing is, by the time I get there the job's super and the engineer of record should have looked at this. I am supposed to be a safety net to catch things that might get overlooked. What we are finding is that the super hasn't left the job trailer in days and no one wants to call the engineer for the inspection because it costs too much money.


Nailed it....Everyone is sooo concerned about the money aspect of construction and rarely does anyone care about what is right...


----------



## tmurray (Jul 27, 2021)

steveray said:


> Nailed it....Everyone is sooo concerned about the money aspect of construction and rarely does anyone care about what is right...


My favorite is walking through apartment buildings for a framing inspection and finding a bunch of the engineered wood floor joists drilled by the electrician. I look at the GC and ask what repairs the engineer has specified for the damaged joists. He looks back at me with a deer in the headlights look and ask "do you think I should get them to look at it?" Do I think you should get the engineer to review the field modification of their approved design? Not only do I think you should, I need their approval before I sign off at this stage and you are allowed to proceed.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 27, 2021)

Use spacer wheels to maintain Structural Engineers minimum required distance to edge of concrete, regardless of height or width of concrete wall


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 27, 2021)

tmurray said:


> My favorite is walking through apartment buildings for a framing inspection and finding a bunch of the engineered wood floor joists drilled by the electrician. I look at the GC and ask what repairs the engineer has specified for the damaged joists. He looks back at me with a deer in the headlights look and ask "do you think I should get them to look at it?" Do I think you should get the engineer to review the field modification of their approved design? Not only do I think you should, I need their approval before I sign off at this stage and you are allowed to proceed.


tm, Let the phone calls begin!


----------



## classicT (Jul 27, 2021)

jar546 said:


> That is a great question.  I can tell you that is one of the more common code violations in concrete form work.  Often there are one or two areas and the contractor promises to take care of it, otherwise it is a failed inspection and another delay in the project so we hope that they are professional enough to follow through.  If it is in many areas, then it is a fail.
> 
> Mark, what you are probably not privy to is the amount of phone calls that come into the department after a failed inspection and the arguing because a concrete truck is scheduled and they can't get another truck for a few more days so the failed inspection turns into phone calls to the Building Department and often to a city manager or elected official which gets blown out of proportion.


Some jurisdictions do not inspect the reinforcing steel when there is Special Inspection. If SI says it is good, then AHJ can accept that.

That said, in my AHJ, we walk with the SI. Any minor violations can be corrected same day and inspected by the SI without canceling a pour. This is a fairly common approach I would speculate.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 27, 2021)

tmurray said:


> What we are finding is that the super hasn't left the job trailer in days


 I was doing an interior full demo and finishout with new storefront of a space in miami beach.  In the summer.  Can you say “hot & humid”?  The gc super, who had dyed his hair bright green, did a quick enclosure of one storage room including a temporary a/c unit, and spent most of the day in there.    That gc had ethical issues too.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

As a building inspector I do look for the 3" minimum separation from steel. My problem is I have a full day of inspections and I'm lucky if I can get more than 30 minutes to look at everything. Then what happens after I leave? It could be a day, or days before they pour. AS a city inspector am I supposed to witness every concrete pour? I wish I could...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 27, 2021)

Last two jobs that had a third party inspector I found the dudes in the job trailer, hope their giving them the report. 

I'm a bit paranoid of this relationship that the contractors have with the third party guys?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 27, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> As a building inspector I do look for the 3" minimum separation from steel. My problem is I have a full day of inspections and I'm lucky if I can get more than 30 minutes to look at everything. Then what happens after I leave? It could be a day, or days before they pour. AS a city inspector am I supposed to witness every concrete pour? I wish I could...


Is California a 3" minimum inside or outside and not relevant to rebar size?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 27, 2021)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Last two jobs that had a third party inspector I found the dudes in the job trailer, hope their giving them the report.
> 
> I'm a bit paranoid of this relationship that the contractors have with the third party guys?


You have every right to be concerned about the relationship between private providers and their relationship with the contractors.  If the inspector upsets who is paying them, they could be replaced.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

jar546 said:


> Is California a 3" minimum inside or outside and not relevant to rebar size?


No, it's not a blanket 3", but that's generally what I'm looking for. CA has not amended R403.1.3.5.3 or 1808.8.2


----------



## Mark K (Jul 27, 2021)

If the inspector is imposing a 3" cover to all situations then he is not enforcing the building code.  Review ACI 318.

This could result in a safety concern in some instances if the engineer assumed the code required cover would be complied with.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

Mark K said:


> If the inspector is imposing a 3" cover to all situations then he is not enforcing the building code.  Review ACI 318.
> 
> This could result in a safety concern in some instances if the engineer assumed the code required cover would be complied with.


I did not say I was "imposing" a 3" cover to all situations. I said that's generally what I'm looking for. I should have specified that's what I'm looking for in foundation footings of standard residential construction. Most situations that involve various different applications of cover requirements also involve special inspections and an Engineer would be supervising the work. 

I don't like to second guess Engineer's who are supervising their own designs, or performing special inspections. Take it easy man, this isn't a battle unless you make it one.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 27, 2021)

The job of the building department is to enforce the building code.  I am not aware of any code provision that allows them to delegate that task to others such as special inspectors.

If the building department inspector does not have the  time to do his work his should not be used as an excuse to try to make it somebody else responsible.

With regards 3rd party inspectors, the contractor is not allowed to hire special inspectors.


----------



## classicT (Jul 27, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I am not aware of any code provision that allows them to delegate that task to others such as special inspectors.


Here you go Mark. Here is the code section that specifically allows an AHJ to delegate to a special inspector.

*[A] 110.4 Inspection Agencies*
The building official is authorized to accept reports of approved inspection agencies, provided that such agencies satisfy the requirements as to qualifications and reliability.


----------



## classicT (Jul 27, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> I did not say I was "imposing" a 3" cover to all situations. I said that's generally what I'm looking for. I should have specified that's what I'm looking for in foundation footings of standard residential construction. Most situations that involve various different applications of cover requirements also involve special inspections and an Engineer would be supervising the work.
> 
> I don't like to second guess Engineer's who are supervising their own designs, or performing special inspections. Take it easy man, this isn't a battle unless you make it one.


Engineers should not be providing Special Inspection on their own projects. Special inspectors should be hired by the building owner.

*1703.1.1 Independence*
An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall disclose to the building official and the registered design professional in responsible charge possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.

*[A] *APPROVED AGENCY. An established and recognized agency that is regularly engaged in conducting tests, furnishing inspection services or furnishing product certification where such agency has been approved by the building official.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 27, 2021)

Mark K said:


> If the building department inspector does not have the time to do his work his should not be used as an excuse to try to make it somebody else responsible.



I guess I'll have to go learn how to weld and get certified to do welding inspections....I sure like giving that inspection to someone who knows what he's doing? 

Wow, I didn't know how incompetent I was and that I was pawning off my job to someone else. Who wrote this code book?

Man this inspection stuff is hard!


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

classicT said:


> Engineers should not be providing Special Inspection on their own projects. Special inspectors should be hired by the building owner.
> 
> *1703.1.1 Independence*
> An approved agency shall be objective, competent and independent from the contractor responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall disclose to the building official and the registered design professional in responsible charge possible conflicts of interest so that objectivity can be confirmed.
> ...


Again, that's not what I said. I was referring to _either_ an engineer who is overseeing the work performed under their design, _or _an engineer who is performing special inspections. Geeze, what's the deal here? Are you here to take out your frustrations or are you here learn like the rest of us?


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> Again, that's not what I said. I was referring to _either_ an engineer who is overseeing the work performed under their design, _or _an engineer who is performing special inspections. Geeze, what's the deal here? Are you here to take out your frustrations or are you here learn like the rest of us?


Sorry, probably taken out of context. You were probably just clarifying.


----------



## classicT (Jul 27, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> Again, that's not what I said. I was referring to _either_ an engineer who is overseeing the work performed under their design, _or _an engineer who is performing special inspections. Geeze, what's the deal here? Are you here to take out your frustrations or are you here learn like the rest of us?





Joe.B said:


> Sorry, probably taken out of context. You were probably just clarifying.


Yup... sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 27, 2021)

Since the building code directly addresses the issue of welding inspections the building code does not contemplate that the building department would do welding inspections but it does have provisions that are assumed will be done by the building department inspectors.

The last paragraph of Section 1704.2.1 makes it clear that there is no  prohibition for engineers doing special inspections.  Remember that the engineer is a consultant or sub-consultant retained by the building owner.  Design build gets a little murky.

The proposed interpretation of Section 110.4 is I believe unduly expansive.  Since Section 1704. addresses special inspections and special inspectors Section 110.4 is not needed.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

Mark K said:


> Since the building code directly addresses the issue of welding inspections the building code does not contemplate that the building department would do welding inspections but it does have provisions that are assumed will be done by the building department inspectors.
> 
> The last paragraph of Section 1704.2.1 makes it clear that there is no  prohibition for engineers doing special inspections.  Remember that the engineer is a consultant or sub-consultant retained by the building owner.  Design build gets a little murky.
> 
> The proposed interpretation of Section 110.4 is I believe unduly expansive.  Since Section 1704. addresses special inspections and special inspectors Section 110.4 is not needed.


Chapter 1 is Scope and Administration, and 110.4 says the BO is "authorized to accept reports" which is the administrative section that allows 1704 to even exist. How is that unduly expansive? Or is that just, like, your opinion, man.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 27, 2021)

So a code provision cannot exist unless the administrative section allows it  to exist?  This I find to be a unique interpretation.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 27, 2021)

"Scope and Administration." It defines the scope of what the code can be applied to, and how to administer it. I don't think that's a unique interpretation, that's just what it is. For a code official, code administrator, authority having jurisdiction, etc. it's probably the most important section to read, understand, and re-read again. But that's just my personal opinion, great topic for discussion though.


----------



## ICE (Jul 27, 2021)

1704.2.1
_The registered design professional in responsible charge and engineers of record involved in the design of the project are permitted to act as the approved agency and their personnel are permitted to act as special inspectors for the work designed by them, _*provided they qualify as special inspectors.*

An engineering/architecture registration is not an acceptable qualification for a special inspector in our jurisdiction.  That's not to say that such would disqualify an individual to function as a special inspector....there's just a lot more to it than that.  There's ICC certification and an interview process to get through....and would you care to take a guess as to who conducts the interviews?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 28, 2021)

For threshold buildings in Florida, an engineer has to be licensed as a threshold inspector or she/he cannot perform inspections.  Just being an engineer or architect does not give you authorization to perform inspections on threshold buildings


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2021)

I gotta say, I am with Mark....With the ICE topper that is....IF...they are qualified, the designer can be the SI....The contractor can not be....The theory being, that the designer is an agent of the owner same as the SI....


----------



## ICE (Jul 28, 2021)

The job was a university library.  The structure was mostly concrete.  The plans steel details were voluminous.  The approved special inspector was an engineer from somewhere in Europe.  He was trying to get a credential as an engineer in the USA but in the meantime he was an extremely meticulous special inspector.  I was thankful to have him.

The first special inspector was a slug.  I showed up for the placing of concrete for caissons.  The workmen were preparing to fill hole #3 of about 70.  It was 45' deep and I cant recall the diameter.  Before they started I dropped a rock....I heard it hit water.  I determined that there was 8' of water.  

The special inspector was sitting in a car.  I asked him if he had a clue....he did not.  The work stopped.  Two caissons were discounted.  The job languished for a few weeks as they waited for the water table to drop...which it did not.  They then brought in massive trash pumps.  As the water came out the walls of the caisson collapsed creating huge void that had to be filled with concrete.

I thought that a tremie and the correct concrete mixture could push the water out.  They did not agree and what with me being a new inspector, I sat back and observed.  It was a localized problem that affected about ten caissons.  They required double and triple the amount of concrete.  The caissons did not reach bedrock.  I asked the engineer to analyze the fact that one corner of the building had such a huge weight compared to the rest of the building.  I was the crazy new inspector....so why not.


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2021)

Didn't think you could drop that far with a tremie.....?


----------



## ICE (Jul 28, 2021)

How about a hose?  They were skeptical and didn't want to get a tremie or a hose stuck and lose that too.

Another foul as I could tell was that there was no vibration.  My SOB provided a CalTrans report where they tested the fc of concrete that was dropped 150' with rebar cages.  The concrete was not vibrated.  The fc was greater than if it was placed gently and vibrated.


----------

