HomeMy WebLinkAbout10072004 BSC Agenda Item 5 jai trl I
The Building and Standards
Commission will be holding a
Public Hearing in the
Municipal Building
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
At
2:00 p. m.
Topic: Foundations
Official notices will be posted
Draft amendment of the
Standard Codes Schedule
regarding foundations
With changes from the "markup"at BSC meeting 8-5-04
(document revised 8-27-04)
Standard Codes Schedule
Adoption. Subject to the amendments and deletions indicated beneath each code, each of the following codes,
including all of its published appendices and attachments, is adopted, ordained and made a part of the Code of
Ordinances of the City and of each chapter where it is referenced, except as otherwise expressly provided.
Procedure for amendments,etc. The procedure for adopting new codes, updated codes, local amendments and
provisions for administration and enforcement of these codes is as follows: (1)proposal by the building official
or other appropriate City official, (2)referral to the Building&Standards Commission, (3)consideration by the
City Council, after giving required meeting notices, and(4)adoption and publication, as required by Article II of
the City Charter.
International Building Code,2000 Ed., International Code Council,Inc..
* * *
•
profcssional cnginccr("RPE"), and the work shall bc:
a: illustrated in complcte plans and specifications signed and sealed by the RPE;
b- based oira soils report from a recognized and-reputable fiiin of agency
less than 450 sq. ft. of gross flaw aiva),aud
• .
further.
3. All foundations for new buildings (or additions to existing buildings)with more than one
story, or with a gross floor area of 485 square feet or more, must meet the criteria in this
section,as applicable. In this section:
"RLPE"means a licensed or registered professional engineer who is:
(1) employed by a registered engineering firm and
(2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits
of at least$500,000 per year, aggregate; and
"RLGE"means a licensed or registered geotechnical engineer who is:
(1) employed by a registered engineering firm; and
Page 1
(2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits
of at least$500,000 per year, aggregate.
a. Engineering. Foundations must be constructed in accordance with complete plans
and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a RLPE. The plans and
specifications must be prepared specifically for the site of the work, and they must
meet criteria as to scope, content and form specified by the building official. If
there are existing trees (either to remain or to be removed)that could affect a
foundation,the RLPE must certify that the trees have been taken into account in
the preparation of the plans and specifications.
b. Geotechnical Report. The plans and specifications for each foundation must be
based on a written geotechnical report prepared, signed and sealed by a RLGE.
The report must cover all testing and site evaluation, and all must meet all
applicable criteria in"Recommended Practice for Geotechnical Explorations and
Reports"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance
Association, Houston, Texas (Document#FPA-SC-04-0,Rev#0, 11 April 2001,
issued for website publishing), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's
office.
Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is"structural slab with
void space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and
deep foundations,"as described below,the testing, evaluation and report
may be limited to a determination of the appropriate depth for the deep
foundations,but they must meet the other applicable criteria.
The minimum depth of borings is 20 feet in all cases. All tests and other
laboratory work must be performed by a laboratory accredited for such work by
the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation on the basis of ISO/IEC
17025:1999 ("general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories").
c. Foundation Performance Standard. The plans and specifications for each
foundation must be prepared to achieve a foundation soil movement potential of
one inch or less, determined by the estimated depth of the active zone in
combination with at least two of the following methods:
Page 2
(1) Potential vertical rise (PVR) determined in accordance with Test Method
Tex-124-E, Rev. January 1, 1978/December 1982, Texas State Department
of Highways and Public Transportation, Materials and Test Division,
"Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise, PVR"(a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Secretary). For this purpose, the
"dry"moisture condition(from which little shrinkage is experienced,but
where volumetric swell potential is greatest) shall be used for each sample
and test.
(2) Swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D4546-03, "Standard
Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of
Cohesive Soils"as last revised prior to June 1, 2004.
(3) Suction and hydrometer swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM
D5298-03 "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential
(Suction)Using Filter Paper"and ASTM D6836-02 "Standard Test
Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for
Desorption Using a Hanging Column,Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror
Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge,"as such methods were last revised prior to
June 1, 2004.
(Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is"structural slab with void
space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep
foundations,"as described below, neither a PVR determination nor a swell,
suction or hydrometer test is required.)
d. Foundations, Basic Types. Each foundation must be of an approved basic type.
Approved basic types are listed below. In this list, types of foundations are
defined and described in"Foundation Design Options For Residential and Other
Low-Rise Buildings on Expansive Soils"published by the Structural Committee
of the Foundation Performance Association, Houston,Texas (Document#FPA-
SC-01-0,Rev#0, 30 Jun 04, marked"For Website Publishing"), a copy of which
is on file in the City Secretary's office ("FDO").
(1) Structural slab with void space and deep foundations.
(2) Structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations.
(3) Stiffened structural slab with deep foundations.
(4) Stiffened non-structural slab with deep foundations.
Page 3
(5) Grade-supported stiffened structural slab.
(6) Grade-supported stiffened non-structural slab.
(7) Grade-supported non-stiffened slab of uniform thickness(approved for
one-story buildings--or additions to buildings--containing only garage or
storage space,not habitable space).
(8) Mixed-depth system for all new building construction.
(9) Mixed-depth system for building additions with deep foundations.
(10) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See (h),
below.
e. Foundations, Deep Support Components. Deep support components must be of
an approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list, types of deep
support components are defined and described in FDO.
(1) Drilled and underreamed concrete piers.
(2) Drilled straight-shaft concrete piers.
(3) Auger-cast concrete piles.
(4) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h)Z
below.
f. Foundations, reinforcement. Reinforcement for each foundation must be of an
approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list, types of
reinforcement are defined and described in FDO.
(1) Deformed bar reinforcing.
(2) Welded wire fabric reinforcing (approved for one-story buildings--or
additions to buildings--containing only garage or storage space, not
habitable space).
(3) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h),
below.
g. Foundations, Observation & Certification. Each foundation must be
professionally observed and must be certified by an RLPE,as more fully
described below:
(1) Observations must:
Page 4
(i) be performed either by the certifying RLPE or by one or more
persons under that RLPE's direct supervision and control whose
professional qualifications are approved by the RLPE (any such
person may be an RLGE, with respect to geophysical matters),
(ii) include actual measurement of piers, fill, compaction,
reinforcement, forms,materials, dimensions, structural elements,
stressing, tendons, tensions, attachments, etc. before the work is
covered or concrete is placed,
(iii) be performed continuously during placement of concrete and any
stressing or tensioning operations, and
(iv) be documented in a form and manner approved by the building
official (which may include photographs).
(2) Certifications must:
(i) refer to and be based upon the professional observations required
by this section,
(ii) state that the work complies with the plans and specifications last
approved by the building official (with any field changes that are
ordered by the RLPE and reported to the building official and that
comply with applicable regulations),
(iii) state that the work complies with sound engineering practices,
(iv) comply with criteria as to form and content as may be specified by
the building official,
(v) be signed and sealed by the certifying RLPE, and
(vi) be filed with the building official.
(3) Certifications may:
(i) rely in part upon an attached certification by a RLGE, as to
geophysical matters, and
(ii) be kept on file by the City, for public inspection, for an indefinite
period of time.
Before framing or other work commences atop a foundation(and before the
foundation is otherwise covered),the permittee must obtain written
Page 5
•
acknowledgment from the building official that the certification for the foundation
was duly filed as required above.
h. Special Exceptions. The BSC may issue a special exception from any requirement
in subsection"a"through"g,"above,but only upon a showing that:
(1) the requirement will not affect life safety or the performance of a structure
(for its estimated useful life); or
(2) an alternate requirement to be imposed by the special exception will
provide equal or better protection for life safety and long-term structural
performance.
In connection with any such special exception, the BSC may require that the
applicant provide supporting engineering data and opinion, and the BSC may
impose conditions to carry out the purpose and intent of applicable regulations.
4. All concrete piers, footings and foundations must be cured for at least 72 hours before any
significant load is placed on them.
5. All walls and ceilings within a R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 type occupancy shall be sheathed
with Type X gypsum board at least 5/8-inch(15.9 mm)thick. Exception: Where this
code (IBC)requires otherwise for moisture protection.
6. Delete: Appendices A (Employee Qualifications),B (Board of Appeals) and D (Fire
Districts).
* * *
Page 6
§133.13 Branches of Engineering
Applicants shall indicate a primary branch of engineering under which experience has been gained.The Board recognizes the
following list of disciplines to assist in determining an applicant's competency although license holders are not designated as a
specific discipline engineer nor are restricted to practice only in the branch designated.The Board recognized branches are listed
below.Those branches in which a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying(NCEES)examination is
offered are followed by the acronym
(NCEES).
(1)(AGR)agricultural(NCEES);
(2)(BAR)architectural(NCEES);
(3)(CHE)chemical(NCEES);
(4)(CIV)civil(NCEES);
(5)(CSE)control systems(NCEES);
(6)(ELE)electrical,electronic,computer,communications(NCEES);
(7)(ENV)environmental(NCEES);
(8)(FIR)fire protection(NCEES);
(9)(IND)industrial(NCEES);
(10)(MEC)mechanical(NCEES);
(11)(MIN)mining/mineral(NCEES);
(12)(MET)metallurgical(NCEES);
(13)(MAN)manufacturing;
(14)(NUC)nuclear(NCEES);
(15)(PET)petroleum(NCEES);
(16)(SDE)naval architecture/marine engineering(NCEES);
(17)(STR)structural(NCEES);
(18)(A/A)aeronautical/aerospace;
(19)(BIO)biomedical;
(20)(CRM)ceramic;
(21)(ESG)engineering sciences/general;
(22)(GEO)geological;
(23)(OCE)ocean;
(24)(TEX)textile;
(25)(SAN)sanitary;
(26)(SWE)software;
(27)(OTH)other.
Page_of_ pages
SUPPLEMENTARY EXPERIENCE RECORD
(Refer to the instructions and example provided before completing this form. Only one copy of this form has been
provided. Please make additional copies as required.)
APPLICANT'S FULL NAME:
DESCRIPTION OF ENGINEERING PERFORMED
ENGAGEMENT NO. FROM: TO: (dates)
NAME OF EMPLOYER AND LOCATION:
ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR'S NAME(S):
Reference's Signature Date Applicant's Signature Date
FORM FB 13: Rev. 8/2001
Page 1 of 1
41PROPRIAT"\E
EXAMPLE PAGE NUMBERS
SUPPLEMENTARY EXPERIENCE RECORD Page no. 1 of 9 pages
REFER TO THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM FOR INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE
SUPPLEMENTARY EXPERIENCE RECORD,
DESCRIPTION OF ENGINEERING PERFORMED:
SAME (Use complete sentences written in first person.)
NUMBER AS
APPLICABLE -ENGAGEMENT NO, • FROM. TO: (dates)
SECTION OF
APPLICATION
NAME OF EMPLOYER AND LOCATION: ABC Engineering Company, Dallas, Texas
ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR'S NAME(S): Samuel J. Smythe, P.E.
GENERAL: My first year and a half of experience entailed being a member of the engineering
WHEN,WHERE, production staff designing Wal Mart Stores. I performed analysis and design on 29 Wal Mart
AND WHAT Stores in 7 different states.
Each project included the design of foundation, walls, and roof and the interface of
TYPE OR each. Occasionally special structures were included. Local codes were considered in each
DESCRIPTION situation.
OFWORK
I designed the roof framing, which consisted of a joist/joist girder system supported by
tube columns, the masonry walls, the foundation systems (spread footing or pier and grade
beam). I also designed a two-way flat plate slab supported by timber piles for the Wal Mad in
Philadelphia, PA,
MP of the mnrP rhallPnninn nrniPnts I firlAinnP.ri is InratP.ri in HallanrlalP FInrida
hiap•/i'vvv-z .tv'e.itate.tx.sas/u v w v a.vaao1ovi JCU_p.1llfi_ 1 0/7/2004
Dennis Mack
From: B. B. Slimp [bbslimp @swbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:16 AM
To: Dennis Mack (BSC): Jim Dougherty
Subject: Kelm's Comments
Jim & Dennis - - -
These are Ron Kelm's comments on the draft foundation ordinance.
We will need to discuss these in BSC.
Thought I'd give you guys a heads up.
I have discouraged him from addressing the BSC.
Dennis - -I'd like your comments on some of the technical issues ( minimum
bore hole depth, soil below the foundation, etc. )
Jim - - -look at his comments on § 3a
He is also against the partial exceptions. Are his comments on § 3B valid?
Talk to you guys Thursday.
Regards,
Bryant
Office: 713 / 839 - 9910
Fax: 713 / 839 - 9920
Cell: 713 / 725 - 7805
Pager: 713 / 602 - 4758
Original Message
From: ronkelm.foren2 @forensiceng.com
[mailto:ronkelm.foren2 @forensiceng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 2:47 PM
To: bbslimp @swbell.net
Subject: RE: West U BSC
Bryant,
If you don't think there will be questions for me, I may skip the meeting.
Let me know later when you want to meet Jack and I will set it up.
Will you set the date for the public hearing in this meeting?
Ron
•
Original Message:
From: B. B. Slimp bbslimp @swbell.net
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14 :29:28 -0500
To: RonKelm @ForensicEng.com
Subject: RE: West U BSC
RE: West U BSCRon - - -
I think it best that I take just the written input that you have supplied to
me into the BSC. The BSC can discuss these specific input points to our
1
draft ordinance at that time. You are welcome to attend, but I suggest that
you not address the group.
I would like to meet Jack Spivey, but not in front of the full BSC. Maybe
the three of us could meet for coffee and visit.
Dennis Mack will be taking the FPA foundation checklist and customizing it
to suit his ( the City's) needs. I imagine that he will generate a West U
"letterhead" for the list, and that he will add a few items. I expect that
he will remove sections that do not deal with the foundation types that we
will allow, or place these particular sections on separate forms, etc.
There is a move to a paperless mode. He may be moving to make these forms
available for electronic completion certification and filing.
Regards,
Bryant
Office: 713 / 839 - 9910
Fax: 713 / 839 9920
Cell: 713 / 725 - 7805
Pager: 713 / 602 - 4758
Original Message
From: Ron Kelm [mailto:RonKelm @ForensicEng.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:00 PM
To: B. B. Slimp
Subject: RE: West U BSC
No problem Bryant. Let me know if you have questions.
I believe you mentioned you wanted me to attend this Thursday's meeting on
foundations? Please confirm.
At that meeting, will you be discussing the QC Checklists that you had me
send Annette in Word format last week? If so, I can have Jack Spivey attend.
Jack owns a foundation construction inspection company (I believe the
largest of its kind in Houston) and he is the one that chaired the committee
that developed those checklists.
Ron Kelm, P.E.
Forensic Engineers Inc.
9930 Shadow Wood Dr. Houston, Texas 77080-7110 USA
T: 713-468-8100 F: 713-468-8184 E: ronkelm @forensiceng.com
From: "B. B. Slimp" <bbslimp @swbell.net>
To: "Ron Kelm" <RonKelm @ForensicEng.com>
Subject: RE: West U BSC
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:40:40 -0500
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
2
X-Processed-By: MX Firewall Rebuild v1.49-1
X-MX-Spam: final=0.0100000000; heur=0.5000000000 (-7800) ;
stat=0.0100000000; spamtraq-heur=0.5000000000 (2004100405)
X-MX-MAIL-FROM: <bbslimp @swbell.net>
X-MX-SOURCE-IP: [66.163.170.80]
X-Loop-Detect:1
Status: RO
Ron - - -
Thank you for your comments. I am printing them and will review them with
the draft ordinance this evening. I have also sent your comments to Dennis
Mack for review before I discuss them with him.
Regards,
Bryant
Office: 713 / 839 - 9910
Fax: 713 / 839 - 9920
Cell: 713 / 725 - 7805
Pager: 713 / 602 - 4758
Original Message
From: Ron Kelm [mailto:RonKelm @ForensicEng.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 5:58 PM
To: B. B. Slimp
Subject: Re: West U BSC
Bryant,
As requested, below are my comments to your commission's attached
foundation draft amendment revised 27 Aug 04:
3 (2) (two occurrences) - Errors and Omissions
Please be aware that errors and omissions (also called professional
liability) insurance will not provide any coverage if the RLPE or RLGE
decides to "go bare" 5 years, one year, or even one month after permitting
his design with the city. I don't have a solution for this, however your
requirement is good as I believe it will weed out a lot of engineers that
would never consider becoming insured, even if just for one year.
3 a. Engineering
Given your narrow lots, a next door neighbor's tree removal can also
affect the new foundation. Further, the RLGE needs to be responsible as well
since he is the one that provides the design movement of the soil due to the
effects of trees. Therefore, I suggest you replace the last sentence with
the following one:
"The RLPE and RLGE must each certify that the planting of new trees and
the removal of existing trees, whether located on the permittee's lot or on
an adjoining lot or property, have been taken into account in the
preparation of the plans and specifications. "
3
3 b. Geotechnical Report
Ref: "Partial Exception, "
I do not recommended relaxing the FPA-SC-04 document for any type of
foundation, especially for the deep foundations with structural slabs which
have been a design challenge for us. Suction testing, swell testing and most
other testing are needed for both slab-on-grade and deep foundations. Also,
often the foundation design engineer and his client will not have decided on
the type of foundation until after the geotechnical report is completed, so
the report needs to cover all the bases. Therefore,
I suggest deleting this "Partial Exception" paragraph in its entirety.
3 b. Geotechnical Report
Ref: the last paragraph which states, "The minimum depth of borings is
20 feet in all cases. " Your sites will normally require one 25 deep boring
per the FPA-SC-04 document because of the presence of trees and expansive
clays. However, today I think 25 feet is not deep enough. I personally
typically specify 35 feet. I suggest modifying the last paragraph to state:
"The minimum depth of all borings is 20 feet except that one boring
shall have a minimum depth of 30 feet. "
3 c. Foundation Performance Standard
Ref: the first sentence of the first paragraph,
I do not know how to interpret, "The plans and specifications for each
foundation must be prepared to achieve a foundation soil movement potential
of one inch or less. " I assume it means that the soil below the foundation
may not move more than one inch, either up or down.
We have found that replacing 3 or 4 feet of soil has done little to
reduce vertical foundation movement, so I doubt foundation design engineers
will specify this much in the future. Also our soil stratigraphy does not
allow us to stabilize soil by injection methods as they do in the Dallas
area. Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, I do not believe this
ordinance can be met as written.
If your goal is to limit foundation (not soil) movement to + or - one
inch, that can be achieved, but on most of your lots a structural slab with
deep foundations and void boxes will be required. Therefore, you may find
that very few slab-on-grade foundations will get built in West U under this
ordinance. You should plan on an increase of $5 to $7/SF (of foundation)
extra for this part.
Stiffened slab-on-grade foundations perform quite well here (whether
4
rebar or post-tensioned reinforced) . The Foundation design engineer does not
worry if his foundation moves up or down several inches on either foundation
type, provided the movement is uniform. He designs for differential movement
only and the movement he designs for is due to flexure of the foundation,
not rigid body tilt. Differential movement that causes bending in the
foundation will in turn cause cracking in the superstructure if the
differential movement is too large (usually 2 or 3 inches) .
In order to have an enforceable ordinance, and assuming the commission
is determined to use some sort of "one inch" criteria, I suggest modifying
this sentence to read:
"The plans and specifications for each foundation must be prepared to
achieve a design differential foundation vertical movement potential of one
inch or less, where the differential vertical movement is due to flexure of
the foundation and is measured as an elevation change between any two points
on the foundation. "
3 c. Foundation Performance Standard
Ref: the last paragraph (partial exception)
These tests are required just as much if not more for systems with deep
foundations. The foundation design engineer needs these tests to determine
the active zone depth so he can determine how much deeper the piers must
extend in order to anchor the upper part. Note that isolating the slab with
void boxes is not enough. Expanding clays will grab the sides of piers and
pull them up as well. Therefore,
I recommend deleting the partial exception paragraph in its entirety.
3 g. Foundations, Observation & Certification
Ref: the last paragraph, be aware that if the foundation is post-tension
reinforced, then, as this paragraph reads, the builder will need to wait
about 10 - 14 days until after stressing is complete before he can start
framing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bryant, that is all I have. I think your and your commission are doing a
great job and have accomplished a lot in the last year. Let me know if you
need anything else.
Ron Kelm, P.E.
Forensic Engineers Inc.
9930 Shadow Wood Dr. Houston, Texas 77080-7110 USA
T: 713-468-8100 F: 713-468-8184 E: ronkelm @forensiceng.com
5
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
6
Background
•
Code prior to 1992
• Minimal mention of foundations in the Codes
Proposed Foundation 1992 Code modification
Code,Changes • BSC recognized need to strengthen Code on foundations
• Foundations must be designed by a RLPE
• Minimal documentation of design
2004 Proposal to modify Code
• 2004 Council goal to review and modify building codes as it
• relates to foundations
Problems Problems, cont.
West U is not known for good soil West U promotes trees
• Expansive clays • Foundations not designed with trees in mind
• High shrink/swell depending on the moisture content • Trees and foundations often conflict
• Variations across the city • Foundations need to be designed considering future
• Current foundations are designed to address settling - Trees added or removed after occupancy
only — Irrigation and drainage systems are added
• Lift or heave of soils are not addressed in the current - decorative vegetation is added
foundation design criteria
•
Problems, cont. Problems, cont.
Personal economics have often been the Houses with foundation failures affect the
design criteria property values
• Foundation risk not addressed • These failures affect property values as a whole
• No minimum design criteria on foundations • These failures affect the tax base
• Cases of RLPE stamped plans no evidence of actual
engineering •
• There is no clear responsibility for performance or
failure
• There is almost no risk to an engineer designing a
foundation
1
•
BSC Studies Changes Studied
Local problem studied The BSC examined
• HCAD list of foundation failures • Texas New Residential Construction Act
• West U permit applications issued • ASCE
• Plots of newer housing(Post 1990)locations • Their changes became recommendations
• Input from CBO and homeowners • These changes are
•Larg ely unenforceable
Regional problem studied •Carry no consequences
• Regional studies by professional engineering group • State Board of RLPEs
• Houston Foundation Performance Assn • State Board of Professional Geoscientists
BSC Goals BSC Goals , cont.
Foundation Code Modifications Transfer responsibility from the City to the
Structural Engineer via
• Protect homeowners from poor construction • Requiring Errors&Omission insurance
• Discourage homeowners from choosing the • Dealing through an engineering firm
foundation design based solely on economics • Observation reports
• Protect second&third owners • Certifications of work done
• Protect property values and tax base for the City • Permanent records of foundation design and
• Simplify the permitting process for both the builder construction
and the City Staff
BSC Goals, cont. New Foundation Code
Set minimum design criteria • Incorporates
• Relate design criteria to risk and responsibility • Appropriate ASrSIE recommendations
• Address lift or heave with 1"PVR design criteria • Pier reviewed recommendations of the Foundation
• Allowing minimal risk foundations
Performance Assn of Houston
Changes in harmony with • Input from soil experts and structural engineers
• all state board requirements for RLPEs&RLPGs
• the new state Texas Residential Construction Commission • Input from the
• BSC Commission Members
• the International Building Codes
• City Staff&City Legal Staff
Exempt single story garage structures • West u Citizens
2
New Foundation Code, cont. Proposed Code Amendments
Addresses A. Engineering
the tree ordinance and tree issues • Engineering must be performed by a RLPE
• • RLPE employed by a registered engineering firm
• minimum risk criteria via definitions • RLPE must carry$500M E&0 insurance
• assignment of the risk to the structural RLPE • RLPE must assume the risk for the design&installation
• documentation of work done before placement of B. Geotechnical Report
concrete • Must be performed by a RLPE or RLGI
• inspection and quality of the work onto those building Employed by a registered engineering firm
•
the house Must carry$500M in E&0 insurance
• Reports with minimal criteria defined by a professional
association
• Soils Laboratory used must be accredited by the A2LA
Proposed Code Amendments,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont.
C. Performance Standards C. Performance Standards, cont.
• Seta maximum allow able soil movement criteria of • Medium risk foundations defined by a professional
1 inch PVR association
• Establish the acceptable test methods to measure • Certain medium risk foundation types allowed
the PVR Foundation Types • Geotechnical soils report required on piers
•
• Low risk foundations defined by a professional A rigorous geotechnical soils report for the slab
association • Other foundation types must be approved by BSC
• 2 low risk foundation types listed on case by case basis
• Geotechnical report required on piers only
• No geotechnical report for balance of foundation
Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont.
D. Foundation Basic Types E. Foundation Deep Support Components
•
• References foundations defined by a foundation Low risk supports defined by a professional
association
ssociation
•Acceptable risk level foundations defined Other support components must be approved by
• P BSC on case by case basis
le Other reinforcement types must be approved by BSC F. Foundation reinforcement
on case by case basis • Reinforcement types defined by a professional
association
• Other reinforcement types must be approved by
BSC on case by case basis
3
•
Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont.
G. Observation&Certification
• All foundation work must observed by G. Observation&Certification,cont.
• A RLPE • All foundation work must be certified
• A person under the direct control of the RLPE • Based on the professional observations of the work
• Minimum criteria of the report • Work complies with all approved plans&specs
• Defined by a professional association • Complies with sound engineering practices
• Defined by the CB0 based on recommendations by a
professional association • Form&content of certification specified by C BO
• Must contain certain measurements and specific data • Must be signed and sealed
• The report must go to the CBO • Must be filed with CBO and acknowledged by
• The RLPE or the delegate must be continuously CBO before other work can start
present during concrete placement
Proposed Code Amendments ,cont.
H. Special Exceptions
• The BSC can issue exceptions if
• No life safety or performance issues
• Alternate requirements by the exception provide same or
better life safety or performance of the foundation
• BSC may require supporting engineering data&
opinion
• BSC may impose special conditions&
requirements
4