• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Best footing forms ever

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,937
Location
Not where I really want to be
What do you mean I can't pour?

IMAG0075.jpg


IMAG0076.jpg
 
My concern would be whether the footing would rest on undisturbed soil, cover on the reinforcement, minimum footing dimensions, and the fact that the dowels for the next pour are not in place.

Tell the contractor that if the forms fail you will assume that the reinforcement has been displaced and will consider the work non-compliant thus preventing you from signing off on subsawuent inspections until the problem is resolved.
 
The reason there is so much steel in this foundation is, ...if you look closely, that

is the San Andreas Fault to the right of the picture. Going right underneath this

foundation. :mrgreen:

.
 
No, the reason is everything must be engineered, and in addition to that the building inspectors challenge the structural engineers at every chance they get, this is the home that had 7 days of continuous framing inspections, not challenging the workmanship, but challenging the engineering.
 
Now that is some fine workmanship. I will say this. Working on what appears to be fractured shale is a real pain. Been there done that. But wow!
 
No, but you can look at the construction of the home here, the good news is that the ICC is starting a campaign next year to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the new Madrid earthquake to bring all of you California style structural codes, no more cinder block foundations with two bars of steel in the footings.
 
Well JP I wasn't invited, I'm reading all of the invitees' comments. I have a hunch that the ICC powers that be hardly knew or cared what was going on, their computer people told them that the site was drastically outmoded and they should upgrade to Microsoft's new SharePoint, when they did it somebody decided to take an iron hand to it thinking that we were just a bunch of nuts wasting our time here while they were out making money.

They came off the NFPA litigation and attempt to take over the code writing business by settling and giving them seats, then they saw all kinds of opportunities with the nascent energy and green people. The NAHB wanted to stop the USGBC from taking over the green and energy code business so the ICC was the NAHB's ideal vehicle to write more user friendly codes. Eventually somebody woke up and said "What ever happened to all those little peons out in the trenches? They disappeared, shouldn't we have some control over the people interfacing with the public affected by our codes? After all, they buy the books and training, let's bring them back into the fold."

(insert picture of the cash cow)
 
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you hired Gordon Liddy to bug their Platinum LEED offices, Conarb! I'd say you hit all of the critical high points on those two paragraphs!!
 
This thread kinda sidetracked, but my inspector went to inspect this residential driveway today and had to send a pic back. I thought of CA's foundation, thought I would share. Not sure what they plan on parking on this...A M1A Abrams Tank?

2010-09-15_07-16-17_758.jpg
 
My guess is that the owner is truck driver and it's for his 18 wheeler. Any chance that they are not allowed per zoning?

Hate to see him spend all that money and not be allowed to park his rig there. Of course after ya'll have permited it and passed it; he might have a good case for the appeals/variance board. Truck driver are pretty smart fellers.

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought the same thing UB, and he can park it there, as long as it doesn't pass the front corner of the house.
 
Uncle Bob said:
My guess is that the owner is truck driver and it's for his 18 wheeler. Any chance that they are not allowed per zoning?Hate to see him spend all that money and not be allowed to park his rig there. Of course after ya'll have permited it and passed it; he might have a good case for the appeals/variance board. Truck driver are pretty smart fellers.

Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
Epoxy coated U-shaped bars.. my thought was that somewhere close there's a bridge missing a whole lotta steel for the concrete guardrails. I'm just sayin..

In all seriousness, I've never seen this U type reinforcement layed out like this. Is there some reason behind it? Is is better than a standard mat?
 
"Nice driveway! You require permit and inspections for driveways?"

Yes, driven by the planning division, too much concrete being placed were they don't allow it.

"In all seriousness, I've never seen this U type reinforcement layed out like this. Is there some reason behind it? Is is better than a standard mat?"

I don't know. I was thinking the same thing about where it might have come from though, maybe leftovers from a big job? Why would you use U-bars, and epoxy-coated to boot?
 
I'm guessing left overs for the same reason as you..... it looks like they mixed epoxy coated with non-epoxy coated

Years from now, I'd hate to be the one to bid on a new driveway for that address.....the demo will be a PIA!
 
There is no conventional reason for that reingorcing layout.

If this was built in California in a jurisdiction that adopted CALGreen Appendia A4 20% of the paving would have to be permeaable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top