Building Codes, Trade Standards and Common Sense trump manufacturers instructions

When ABT channel drain manufacturer installation instructions clearly violate the building codes and accepted trade practices, then common sense should prevail... that is if the contractor has any.

ABT Channel Drains

The installation instructions and components for the ABT Channel Drain system, instructs the installer to drive rebar directly into the soil.  Alternatively, the instructions state that a galvanized U bracket can be used directly against the earth as a brace.

Click on image to view a larger version

These instructions violate every tenant of concrete construction, building codes and accepted trade practices.  Just because a company came up with a "brilliant marketing idea" does not make it acceptable or correct. 

Click on the image to see a larger image of the rebar in direct contact with the earth.

What is a Contractor to do?

First and foremost, the building codes ALWAYS prevail.  The International Building Code (IBC) has adopted and incorporated the American Concrete Institute Standard ACI 318, directly into the building code.

ACI 318 states that reinforcing steel in concrete shall maintain minimum clearances to earth.  Driving reinforcing bars directly into the earth, clearly violates both the IBC and ACI 318.

Secondly, common sense should prevail.  Though it may be fast and easy, a manufacturer's instructions should not be followed when they clearly violate the law.

A Solution?

Had the manufacturer supplied or specified a non-corrosive plastic stake, then all would have been good.

Alternatively, smooth bar dowels could have been used as stakes and removed once the channels were secured with concrete.

The contractors reasoning, "That's what they sell.  Besides, it will be 20 years before the rebar rusts and the concrete cracks," is lame.  

Especially when he knows that he is violating the building code.

Paolo Benedetti, SWD 
Aquatic Artist, Watershape Consultant, Expert Witness, International Construction Management 
"Creating water as art."™ 
Aquatic Technology Pool and Spa©
Contact the author at: info@aquatictechnology.com or 408-776-8220 

©www.aquatictechnology.com All rights reserved.

Reinforcing Steel Swimming Pool Expert Witness

Swimming Pool Expert Witness, Designer, Consultant and Contractor Paolo (Paul) Benedetti discusses the proper installation of reinforcing steel in a swimming pool.


Non-contact Lap Splices
The International Building Code (IBC) specifies that reinforcing steel shall utilize non-contact lap splices in shotcrete (gunite).

IBC Section 1913.4.3

“the use of contact lap splices necessary for support of the reinforcing is permitted when approved by the building official, based on satisfactory pre-construction tests that show that adequate encasement of the bars will be achieved, and provided that the splice is oriented so that a plane through the center of the spliced bars is perpendicular to the surface of the shotcrete.”

Why Non-Contact Lap Splices
The reasoning behind the non-contact lap splice, is due to the tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of pools that contain marginal quality shotcrete.


This marginal quality is the direct result of poor placement, mix design (too much water), utilizing deficient materials (shoveling trimmings, waste and rebound into the pool shell) and inferior workmanship.


Add to the aforementioned sub-contractor issues, the fact that overlapping reinforcing bars that contact each other can create a shadowing effect in the shotcrete.  This shadowing effect can cause linear hollow voids behind the contact laps.  Sure these can be avoided through proper nozzle control and superior workmanship.  But after decades of poor shotcrete workmanship nationwide, the IBC wised up.

Basically, the IBC realized that the swimming pool shotcrete industry lacked quality and superior workmanship.  The City of Los Angeles even went so far as to require a Deputy Inspector watch the entire shotcrete process (a paid babysitter for the shotcrete sub-contractor).


Why some Engineers disagree
After decades of selling marginal to inferior structural designs via mail order, these structural engineers must now defend their prior work product.


Structural failures due to inferior shotcrete placement and workmanship is only a part of the equation.  Coupled with decades of specifying low strength shotcrete, their prior work product instantly becomes suspect.  They find themselves up against the ropes.  The industry is raising the standard that they have degraded for so long.  Attorney's will seize upon the argument....


Because their client base is primarily the inferior to marginal swimming pool contractors, they cannot demand that they operate at a higher standard.  These contractors barely make a profit on each project as it is.


Why would you want a Structural Engineer as an Expert Witness who does not demand soils reports from his clients (contrary to the UBC), advocates weaker concrete (contrary to the ACI/ASA), inferior steel placement (contrary to the IBC) and low quality control standards for an entire industry?


Hardly setting a high bar...


A comment about Paolo (Paul) Benedetti from another pool builder:
"The guy truly cares about this industry and the mark he leaves on it with everything he does.  He is a real professional operating at a real professional's level.  If you want to be great in the pool industry, Paul has set a high standard and has raised the bar substantially.  This is one of the people to follow and learn from, he truly is a ROCKSTAR in our industry." - Kevin Woodhurst