Exactly as amberm145 states. The building dept if the inspector is paying attention should fail your foundation because the plans and the actual being that much different.

I would call your builder immediately and ask.

It's not usually a load bearing issue but one of resisting the force of imbalanced backfill. Often grouting the cores and adding reinforcing will increase that capacity but only to a certain degree. The design must be approved by an engineer or a building inspector which might have happened without your knowledge. I hope that is the case.

Thanks for all the fast replies.. I actually have a meeting with the builder tomorrow at the job site to go over some things.. I just saw this today so will discuss tomorrow during our meeting.. Just panicked a bit.. Hopefully this was something that was discussed and cleared with the architect.. No one was working today, but would be a shame considering they have most of the corners all done.. So to have to take all that block down is going to be a huge set back..

Just got done with the meeting with the builder.. Apparently this was part of the reason the meeting was even scheduled.. They informed me that there was a mix up in the delivery of the block and the 10 inch block was sent to our project location by mistake.. They said that their guys on site went right to work not realizing that it was supposed to be the bigger block and now they are at the stage of having all corners done.. Anyway, they got a letter from the architect that stated they could use the 10inch block if rebar was used every 16inches instead of every 32 inches and further stated that the block would need to be filled solid with concrete.. They asked if we were ok with them going this route and if we are not they would take down all the block and redo using th 12 inch.. I am going to speak to the architect personally but if he is signing off on it then I think we will be ok.. Any opinions??

If the architect signs off on it I personally do not see how it would cause a problem.

Yes, the architect would be more reliable than internet strangers.

I don't remember anyone here suggesting a design solution in lieu of one from the design professional of record for the project.

No stamp should be required for the building department unless the revised design doesn't meet or exceed the requirements of the masonry foundation table in the applicable building code but any construction contract that names a design professional would require him/her to approve any change. If the revised design does not meet the code table requirements then an engineer's stamp rather than an architect's stamp is normally required. As an architect, I often wish that was not the case.

An architect does have the authority to submit a written proposal to the building inspector for an alternative design with evidence of why it is equivalent or superior to the code requirement. The building inspector would need to approve it. In some jurisdictions that proposal would have to be stamped by an engineer but not in others. In this case, it is apparently not required but I would show it to an engineer anyway.

At any rate, if 12" CMU complied with the code table, filled or solid 10" CMU should be equivalent and since the rebar is already on site, although probably excessive, decreasing the spacing is better than increasing the bar size. I'm not an engineer so my opinion of the design is irrelevant but I can tell you that all of the cores of the block should be filled solid with code approved grout rather than mortar or concrete. If grout is not specified, don't rely on your architect, get an engineer involved.

Renovator8 said: " If the revised design does not meet the code table requirements then an engineer's stamp rather than an architect's stamp is normally required. As an architect, I often wish that was not the case."

Manhattan42 replies:

That depends entirely upon the State in which you live.

In Pennsylvania, a professional Architect or Engineer's stamp has the same and equal 'weight' and 'authority' as the other. One does not 'need' the stamp of an engineer to design or 'sign-off' on residential or commercial plans submitted by an architect or vise versa. Structural...plumbing...electrical...mechanical...or plans can be designed by either.

That said, the issue in this case is really about changing the 'approved' construction documents.

The building department issued permits based on 12 inch block.

There needs to be a re-submission of the plans for review and approval by the building department submitted by the design professional in charge before changes to the original plans can be permitted.

Presuming that 10 inch block with proper reinforcement will still work...this should be no problem and a simple matter of documenting the change to the authority having jurisdiction.

PA law is the same as almost every state: the practice of engineering by an architect is allowed only if it is "incidental" to his/her practice of architecture. The converse is true for engineers practicing architecture. Although there is overlap between the work of these professions, it would be odd if the state building code did not respect state professional registration laws.

And if the architect has specified concrete as the fill for reinforced masonry, it would be a good example of why an architect should not be asked to practice engineering even if incidental to his/her practice.

Renovator8 is going beyond his own expertise and knowledge by trying to characterize Pennsylvania Law as equal...or even similar to.... others States'land Laws... when clearly it is not.

In Pennsylvania, the Uniform Construction Code sees absolutely NO difference in ability or legal standing between an architect or an engineer...or an architect and an engineer and a land surveyor....or a landscape architect and a mechanical engineer...when it comes to design capability.

All are seen as being equal....even if, in reality, they are not.

That said, in Pennsylvania, a Landscape Architect, a Professional Engineer, an Architect, and a Land Surveyor all have equal standing when it comes to structural design....Not one above the other.

All that matters is the 'professional stamp' and nothing else.

Not even ABILITY!

So please do not claim things that are not true!

@manhattan42, there may be some confusion with regard to PA regulations governing the practice of engineering, architecture, geology and land surveying. I do not profess to know how PA regulations compare with other states or Commonwealths in the U.S.

I do not believe that PA regulations give equal standing to the various professionals with respect to structural design/structural engineering. Indeed, PA grants different licenses to geologists, engineers, architects, and land surveyors in recognition of the differences in each profession.

I'm a licensed P.E. in the Commonwealth of PA (PE035664E). PA regulations permit me to practice engineering in any branch of engineering subject to the following regulation:

"The professional engineer may then practice any branch of engineering in which the professional engineer has proven proficiency by reason of education and experience, and in which the professional engineer is willing to accept full legal, financial and professional responsibility. A professional engineer may not be limited to the practice of any one major branch of engineering because the professional engineer has passed a written examination based upon the major branch of engineering, subject to this chapter and the provisions of the act relating to Code of Ethics."

PA grants the same P.E. license to each engineering discipline. However, it's incumbent on the licensee to determine whether they are competent in a particular discipline. I would not, for example, profess to be qualified as a structural or electrical engineer nor would I be willing to accept full legal, financial and professional responsibility for same. Nor am I qualified to practice surveying, geology or landscape architecture.

With regard to changes to residential construction plans, the municipalities in our area would require a plan modification request from the design professional responsible for the original plans. The changes would be reviewed vis a vis the prescriptive building code or a code modification request submitted by the design professional responsible for the original design.

If the construction in question does not comply with the prescriptive design requirements of the building code, that code is likely to require that an alternative design be submitted for the building official's approval. If the IRC applies, the relevant section would be R104.11 "Alternative
materials, design and methods of construction and equipment".

For approval evidence is required that the proposal is equivalent to or meets the intent of the code. That section also allows an alternative design that complies with the performance-based provisions of the IBC. In both cases the proposal must contain convincing evidence and that usually means from a structural engineer. "Usually" doesn't mean "always" but I can say from my own experience that it was required by the Pittsburgh head inspector for the compliance alternative proposals I submitted for a reinforced masonry dormitory and dining hall at C-M Univ.

renovator - I am assuming that you didn't submit the plans for Big Blue....but if you did I want you to know, good job!

No, it was Resnik House

R u using #4 rebar?

Why29 why are you resurrecting a one year old thread? His house is completed