Anybody ever correct this note?

[rktect 1]

All concrete footings are designed to bear on minimum soil pressure of 3,000 psf and shall be placed on firm undisturbed soil to 42" below grade.

I used to but it seems like I am just spinning my wheels here. The note always comes back with the same 3,000 psf. No if ands or buts. Just 3,000 psf, as if......

 

[brudgers]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

All concrete footings are designed to bear on minimum soil pressure of 3,000 psf and shall be placed on firm undisturbed soil to 42" below grade.I used to but it seems like I am just spinning my wheels here. The note always comes back with the same 3,000 psf. No if ands or buts. Just 3,000 psf, as if......

If the existing soil is not capable of bearing 3000psf, then the builder is responsible for doing whatever work is required to provide 3000psf.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

Maybe it is just us here in illinois or maybe even just the areae within Illinois that I am at. The soil bearing capacity of the soil is closer to 2000 psf, as a general rule. So unless you come across something funny in the ground it is assumed to be 2000 psf. Now the difference in 2000 and 3000 by table R403.1 comes down to three story structures, which we (the village) wouldn't allow except for a town house. But every plan (97.3%) that comes in here has a min. footing width of 16" and go up to 24". I have yet to see someone ask for 12" although it is allowed by the table 403.1.

So the question really is, do you keep telling them to change their bearing capacity from 3000 to 2000 and/or provide documentation to proove soil bearing capacity? Or just go with the knowledge that the standard 16" footing being provided on the plans is adequate for the 2000 psf even though 3000 was referenced?

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

I get a soils report on just about every submittal I get, so I merely check for consistency/agreement. Everything over 600 s.f. in Southern NV requires a geotechnical report, due to bad soils.

 

[JBI]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

rk - Doesn't that note go on to say that any unsuitable conditions are to be brought to the attention of the DP? If he specs 3,000 psf soil and it's only 2,000, that would be an unsuitable condition in my humble opinion.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

rk - Doesn't that note go on to say that any unsuitable conditions are to be brought to the attention of the DP? If he specs 3,000 psf soil and it's only 2,000, that would be an unsuitable condition in my humble opinion.

I have seen that and that is probably typical. The one I was reviewing today didn't have that verbage though. :roll: At least that may save the DP, maybe, but like I said, the footings that are provided nearly 100% of the time are good for 2000 psf anyways. So the note says one thing and the design says the correct thing.

 

[SCBO1]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

I seen plans submitted with the wrong city, state, subdivision name, wrong states arch. & eng. stamp. Its because of the last job template they use and lack of oversite review before submittle. Kids! :roll:

 

[brudgers]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

Maybe it is just us here in illinois or maybe even just the areae within Illinois that I am at. The soil bearing capacity of the soil is closer to 2000 psf, as a general rule. So unless you come across something funny in the ground it is assumed to be 2000 psf. Now the difference in 2000 and 3000 by table R403.1 comes down to three story structures, which we (the village) wouldn't allow except for a town house. But every plan (97.3%) that comes in here has a min. footing width of 16" and go up to 24". I have yet to see someone ask for 12" although it is allowed by the table 403.1. So the question really is, do you keep telling them to change their bearing capacity from 3000 to 2000 and/or provide documentation to proove soil bearing capacity? Or just go with the knowledge that the standard 16" footing being provided on the plans is adequate for the 2000 psf even though 3000 was referenced?

Neither.

You require a test report at the rebar inspection if you have a concern.

Again, it's not a plan issue.

If you had a high amount of organic matter in the soil would you require the foundation design to be based around its presence?

 

[north star]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

rktect 1 stated:

All concrete footings are designed to bear on minimum soil pressure of 3,000 psf and shall be placed on firm undisturbed soil to 42" below grade.

I used to but it seems like I am just spinning my wheels here. The note always comes back with the same 3,000 psf. No if ands or buts. Just 3,000 psf, as if......

Why have you quit "spinning your wheels"? A lot of what we do is ' wheel spinning '. If you have questions about the validity of the plans,

I would think that you are obligated to question the accuracy of the information and to obtain; to the ability you are able to, the most code

compliant information. Am I missing something? :?:

brudgers stated:

Neither.

You require a test report at the rebar inspection if you have a concern.

Again, it's not a plan issue.

If you had a high amount of organic matter in the soil would require the foundation design to be based around its presence?

Please explain how this information submitted on the plans is not a plan issue. Requiring a test report at the

rebar inspection is not only ' not prudent ', it is also not a proactive approach in assisting the builder with the project.

The soil(s) report should have been submitted long before the rebar was installed. Actions like that could get someone

disciplined or worse! Also, your statement seems to go against your tag line of "Milton's Rule: Start with, "How

can I approve this set of plans" Using this thought process, I would think that we [ professional code officials ] would

continue to ' spin our wheels ' and be as proactive as we could. Afterall, we ARE in public service, and in todays

politically sensitive climate, some of us simply cannot afford to be hard nosed, or setting aloft an equine.

 

[steveray]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

I call it all the time on SFD and make peoples heads spin when I tell them how little their 10" sonotube will hold of their deck's load!

 

[rktect 1]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

I must be tired of the cut and paste standard notes that never seem to get through to people. I feel much better when I write a review comment for arkitect X and they correct the plans. Then the next time I get a plan from arkitect X I see that he/she has absorbed that previous comment and I do not have to correct them again. But with this note, it never fails to come back with 3000 psf. Probably because ususlaly arkitects keep their title sheet seperate from details and use it as a template. They would have to correct the template. This probably wont be done because most dp's have draftsmen correcting the revision sets and they aren't really allowed to adjust the office templates.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

Please explain how this information submitted on the plans is not a plan issue. Requiring a test report at the rebar inspection is not only ' not prudent ', it is also not a proactive approach in assisting the builder with the project.The soil(s) report should have been submitted long before the rebar was installed. Actions like that could get someone

disciplined or worse! Also, your statement seems to go against your tag line of [/size][/color][/b] "Milton's Rule: Start with, "How can I approve this set of plans" [using this thought process, I would think that we [ professional code officials ] would

continue to ' spin our wheels ' and be as proactive as we could. Afterall, we ARE in public service, and in todays

politically sensitive climate, some of us simply cannot afford to be hard nosed, or setting aloft an equine.

I'm not recommending a soils test report at rebar inspection.

I'm recommending requiring a compaction test report.

There is nothing in the building code that requires the foundation to be designed based on unmodified soil.

A foundation can be engineered as can the soil it rests upon and there are many techniques for doing so.

Being proactive might involve bringing the POTENTIAL issue to the designer's and contractor's attention.

But rejecting the plans is not being proactive, it's being obstructionist...and going beyond the code as written.

In Florida, 2000 psf soil often requires engineering.

In Lousiana, 1000 psf may require it.

 

[peach]

Re: Anybody ever correct this note?

you probably need to presume 1500 psf without a soils report