# OSHA requirements - Anchor Bolts



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

OSHA requires 4 anchor bolts at columns per Section 1926.755.  This is for stability during construction.

However, if a structural engineer has designed steel columns (not steel posts) to have 2 anchor bolts per column, would/should there be any building inspection issues with having the base plates extended--beyond what the approved drawings detail--to have the OSHA-required 4 bolts (2 bolts in line, on either side of each column)?

I would imagine that a Structural Engineer's Supplemental Instruction form would suffice -- maybe along with an architect's, correct?

For some background information, the plans have been approved/permitted by AHJ.  During the second plan review submittal -- when construction bids were coming in -- it was noted by an erector that the above requirement exists.  The plans were approved during the 2nd plan review submittal.  Hence, my question.  I would like to avoid starting off with a revision to the permitted drawings.

(Interestingly, the regulation doesn't specify if the required four anchor bolts can be in-line or spaced evenly around the column.)


----------



## Mule (Aug 2, 2010)

Why does OSHA have anything to do with the building code as far as  design? I would take the design professional any day ove a OSHA spec. Now maybe for temporary structures......but not permanant.


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

Mule said:
			
		

> Why does OSHA have anything to do with the building code as far as  design? I would take the design professional any day ove a OSHA spec. Now maybe for temporary structures......but not permanant.


I didn't say OSHA had anything to do with building codes and/or design.


----------



## vegas paul (Aug 2, 2010)

You didn't indicate whether you were the builder, designer, plans examiner, inspector, etc....  So if you are with the ahj (plans examiner, inspector), ignore it, you don't enforce OSHA.  If you are the designer, work with the local OSHA rep to determine if you need to increase the # of anchor bolts beyond your calculated # to meet their requirements.  If you are the builder, follow the approved plans!


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2010)

I would say that this is a change to the documents.

This requirement was the result of an effort by the steel fabricators and errectors to shift responsibility for temporary construction bracing to the design engineers.  What was originally proposed was much worse.

The OSHA requirements only require that the anchor bolts be able to resist a load of 300# located 18  inches from the column.  My contention is that the base plate, anchor bolts, and the foundation could comply with this but still not be able to resist reasonable errection loads.  These other loads could be from other pieces of structure attached to the column or from wind forces.  The contractor may still have to temporarily brace the column during construction and should be notified of that fact.  The OSHA reuirements can give a false sense of security.

There is a weight limit that exempts many light columns from this requirement.

There is nothing that dictates the AB arrangement as long as there are 4 and they can resist the specified forces.  People will be more likely to accept your solution if the bolts are arranged in a rectangular pattern.

There are a number of situations where 4 anchor bolts are not feasible because of space limitations.  In such situations I have shown a temporary fixture that allows installation of the 4 AB but that can be removed after the column is fully braced by the structural frame.


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

vegas paul said:
			
		

> You didn't indicate whether you were the builder, designer, plans examiner, inspector, etc....  So if you are with the ahj (plans examiner, inspector), ignore it, you don't enforce OSHA.  If you are the designer, work with the local OSHA rep to determine if you need to increase the # of anchor bolts beyond your calculated # to meet their requirements.  If you are the builder, follow the approved plans!


I hope you and Mule don't read plans as bad as you read posts.

It doesn't matter what I am.  The question pertains to "building inspection issues".  What is Advanced Code Group?  "...A multi-inspector firm..."

http://www.inspectpa.com/about.html

Let me put it in a very simple way:

Will a building inspector care (enough to require a revision to a permitted set of drawings) if there are steel column base plates installed that are BIGGER and with MORE anchor bolts than what is called out on the plans?


----------



## vegas paul (Aug 2, 2010)

Well, it DOES matter what you are, since we were trying to HELP you.  Anyway, a building inspector requires the building to be build in accordance with the approved plans.  ANY changes require a revision.... that's why they are called PLANS (because that's what you planned to do) and why you were issued a PERMIT (that's what you are PERMITTED to do).  Any deviation from the approved plans is not acceptable... and will either need to be changed in the field, or revised plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved prior passing inspection.

Clear?


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I would say that this is a change to the documents.This requirement was the result of an effort by the steel fabricators and errectors to shift responsibility for temporary construction bracing to the design engineers.  What was originally proposed was much worse.
> 
> The OSHA requirements only require that the anchor bolts be able to resist a load of 300# located 18  inches from the column.  My contention is that the base plate, anchor bolts, and the foundation could comply with this but still not be able to resist reasonable errection loads.  These other loads could be from other pieces of structure attached to the column or from wind forces.  The contractor may still have to temporarily brace the column during construction and should be notified of that fact.  The OSHA reuirements can give a false sense of security.


Interesting.  Out of curiosity, what was originally proposed?

In the general structural notes, it is indicated that the contractor will need to install temporary bracing as directed by "other regulatory agencies" (e.g., OSHA).  Obviously, the exact form of bracing can be regarded as falling under a 'means-and-methods' category.  But after thinking about this a bit, though the extended base plate & the two extra anchor bolts are permanent in nature, wouldn't they really also be a 'means-and-methods' of how to support the column during construction -- since that is OSHA's supposed reasoning?



> There is a weight limit that exempts many light columns from this requirement.


And there are definition differences of "post" versus "column".  Posts are not required to have four anchor bolts.



> There is nothing that dictates the AB arrangement as long as there are 4 and they can resist the specified forces.  People will be more likely to accept your solution if the bolts are arranged in a rectangular pattern.


These are columns placed on an exterior wall with the face of column matching the face of concrete toe down/stem wall.  We can't form a "T" either as this is for an indoor running track -- the interior bolt(s) would pose a serious tripping hazard;  and, we're pretty tight on space in many areas to create some type of aesthetic covering.



> There are a number of situations where 4 anchor bolts are not feasible because of space limitations.  In such situations I have shown a temporary fixture that allows installation of the 4 AB but that can be removed after the column is fully braced by the structural frame.


It may seem too costly to have some additional steel if it's temporary.  There are about 4 dozen columns that are in this situation.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 2, 2010)

I have one very meticulous commercial inspector that has driven design professionals nuts by requiring corrected drawings when details changed even as described (bigger & more AB's) . We only require a simple letter from the designer that the change was minor and the reason for the change, (in this post a requirement by a different enforcing agency) and does not negatively effect the original building design/loads


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

vegas paul said:
			
		

> Well, it DOES matter what you are, since we were trying to HELP you.


So I have to be an architect or a contractor or a plans examiner to ask questions?



> ... and will either need to be changed in the field, or revised plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved prior passing inspection.


That's what I'm asking.  Which is it -- revised plans or a letter?

wow


----------



## vegas paul (Aug 2, 2010)

So I have to be an architect or a contractor or a plans examiner to ask questions?

No, but the answer varies depending on your position.  As I stated earlier, if you're the builder, simply build to the approved plans.  You are not permitted to deviate from the approved plans without permission from the permit grantor (city/county, etc.)  What they need to give permission (revised plans or simply a letter) depends on the AHJ in question.  There is no standard answer, although by STRICT interpretation of the code, revised plans are required.

If you are the designer, ask the AHJ what they need to allow you to build something that you are not currently permitted to build...


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 2, 2010)

alora,

I would ask the question why the extra bolts and base plates, when the plans showed just two bolts.  My mind would run in the direction of what was missed at plan review that the steel provider, fabricator, erector, engineer or somebody caught during steel fabrication, and what else changed.  Probably ask for a letter from the engineer explaining the revision and a statement that it did not adversly effect the design of the structure codewise.

Another part of the question would be is there room to accomodate this without effecting the means of egress etc.   It seems that in one of your posts you stated that there wasn't enough room to hide these bolts in some instances.   So better to ask questions early on than have a finished builidng with exit corridors two inches too narrow or something, since one component usually effects another.

Field modifications to the steel to accomodate that OSHA rule would require a supplimental plan, signed and sealed by the engineer of record.

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2010)

It may be inconvienient to produce a change order but where do you draw the line?  It is not as if this is a new requirement.

The OSHA regulations do not give an option they require 4 anchor bolts.  The only way that I have found not to have 4 bolts in the final structure is is several of them are temporaty

I forget most of the details but the essence of it was that the steel industry was proposing that the engineer of record make recommendations for errection safety.  Besides the fact that this would shift liability to the owner and his consultants it would have a negative impact on errection safety.  The engineer of record does not have information about how the errector plans to errect the structure and thus cannot know the loads.   In addition I believe that when the cubcontractor doing the work is involved in developing the erection plan that we will see fewer problems.

If you want to blame somebody for the cost and inconvenience then you should look to the steel fabricators and errectors who were pushing the effort.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 2, 2010)

Seems a note on the plans: *Additional bracing: OSHA Section 1926.755 may require additional anchor bolts for stability during construction.* would solve the problem. Maybe I am to simple.


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

texas transplant said:
			
		

> ...  My mind would run in the direction of what was missed at plan review that the steel provider, fabricator, erector, engineer or somebody caught during steel fabrication, and what else changed.  Probably ask for a letter from the engineer explaining the revision and a statement that it did not adversly effect the design of the structure codewise.


Good point.  I've already contacted the engineer and he's preparing some sealed/signed field sketches which, along with a letter and possibly an A.S.I. form from me (I guess that answers V.P.'s irrelevant question), should (hopefully) be able to address the issue to the inspector's satisfaction.  The contractor has also indicated that it's easier and less costly to lengthen the base plates than to provide the temporary bracing with two anchor bolts.



> Another part of the question would be is there room to accomodate this without effecting the means of egress etc.   It seems that in one of your posts you stated that there wasn't enough room to hide these bolts in some instances.   So better to ask questions early on than have a finished builidng with exit corridors two inches too narrow or something, since one component usually effects another.


Yup ... good old dominoes.



> Field modifications to the steel to accomodate that OSHA rule would require a supplimental plan, signed and sealed by the engineer of record.


See above.



> Hope that answers your question.


It definitely gives some direction ... thanks.


----------



## alora (Aug 2, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Seems a note on the plans: *Additional bracing: OSHA Section 1926.755 may require additional anchor bolts for stability during construction.* would solve the problem. Maybe I am to simple.


Live and learn.  This definitely would work prior to permit issuance, and will be a regular note for similar projects -- whether from me or the engineer.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2010)

A note delegating this requirement to the contractor is tempting but I believe that the OSHA language is fairly explicit on how thiw is handled.

Remember we are dealing with OSHA regulations and not a building code.  There is no building official who can issue an exemption.  You may get away with delegating it but when there is a problem they will determine your liability based on your compliance with the OSHA regulation.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 2, 2010)

Mark

I think the note would be a heads up to the inspector or plans examiner that there may be additional anchor bolts installed during the erection process that are not part of the building design. That is what the OP was about. The designer did not want to go back thru the plan review process. As a building official or a plans examiner I would not approve, reject or comment on any details used for bracing during construction.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 2, 2010)

Architects and Most engineers exclude any "construction bracing, forming, methods etc." of construction. It is a prohibited function by my E&O provider. It is the contractors responsibility. And I do not know of any Building Inspector that enforces OSHA requirements.


----------



## texas transplant (Aug 2, 2010)

That is one point I didn't make in my post above.   My response was in regard to construction not following the approved plans only.   I run when the four letter word  OSHA is mentioned.  As an inspector and code official it ain't my job and I have been on the other side to have OSHA cut me to pieces for weird rules that made no sense, the hurry to get something done and done now and laziness on my part.  Live and learn


----------



## Mark K (Aug 2, 2010)

Point made mtlogcabin.  If the solution were to install an errection aid then building department approval would not be needed.

On the other hand ther Contractor might require documentation of what he is being asked to do so that he could request a change order to be paid.


----------



## Mule (Aug 3, 2010)

alora said:
			
		

> I didn't say OSHA had anything to do with building codes and/or design.


The way you asked the question you were leaning toward the building code. That is why I stated what I did.



			
				alora said:
			
		

> would/should there be any building inspection issues with having the base plates extended--beyond what the approved drawings detail--to have the OSHA-required 4 bolts (2 bolts in line, on either side of each column)?


Building inspection issues deal with the building code.


----------



## alora (Aug 4, 2010)

Thanks all for the responses.  I had an idea of how to proceed -- just needed some others' points of view.


----------

