Concrete Foundation Cracks.

[Keystone]

How do you handle concrete foundation cracks?

Do you seek design professional review?

If you allow for shrinkage cracks, what reference material code/section do you use?

 

[Mark K]

Concrete Cracks. If you don't allow any cracks you would not allow the use of concrete.

What code provision would the building official invoke? While the building code has provisions to minimize cracks it does not explicitly address sizes of cracks.

How concerned I would be would depend on the circumstances. What caused the crack? How big is the crack? But this would not be a code issue, rather I would see it as a performance issue. The cracks would have to be large enough to suggest a structural failure.

 

[Keystone]

Concrete Cracks. If you don't allow any cracks you would not allow the use of concrete.

What code provision would the building official invoke? While the building code has provisions to minimize cracks it does not explicitly address sizes of cracks.

How concerned I would be would depend on the circumstances. What caused the crack? How big is the crack? But this would not be a code issue, rather I would see it as a performance issue. The cracks would have to be large enough to suggest a structural failure.

I agree, concrete can and may crack.

What parameters or metrics are you using to determine the circumstances?
How bid the crack is, not always a clear indicator of a structural or non structural issue, example, a crack that’s a 1/16” inch extending from foundation through footing. Again what reference are you using to make that determination?

So am I to assume, if your an AHJ you leave it up to your inspectors to make the call or the BO or???

I’m seeking to elicit how AHJ’s and 3rd parties address foundation cracks and there own requirements. There’s no right or wrong answer, just information to become seek some clarity one way or the other.

 

[steveray]

If it is just a crack then it is just a crack.....If there is some displacement or other movement, that is different....

 

[TheCommish]

concrete cracks, sometimes in the control joint, and the problem is?

 

[Mark K]

I agree, concrete can and may crack.

What parameters or metrics are you using to determine the circumstances?
How bid the crack is, not always a clear indicator of a structural or non structural issue, example, a crack that’s a 1/16” inch extending from foundation through footing. Again what reference are you using to make that determination?

So am I to assume, if your an AHJ you leave it up to your inspectors to make the call or the BO or???

I’m seeking to elicit how AHJ’s and 3rd parties address foundation cracks and there own requirements. There’s no right or wrong answer, just information to become seek some clarity one way or the other.

I do not believe that the building code answers your question. As a result I do not believe that except in the most extreme situations that this is something that the building department should worry about. My sense is that building inspectors are not qualified to determine when cracking is significant.

Third parties such as engineers working for the owner may impose requirements beyond the code. These requirements may be based on ACI publications.

AHJ are only empowered to enforce the properly adopted regulations and thus should not try to impose their own requirements.

 

[ICE]

My sense is that building inspectors are not qualified to determine when cracking is significant.

We are always the first to be asked to evaluate cracked concrete. Inspectors decide if cracked foundations/slabs are serviceable when garages are converted to an ADU.....often....like every time.

The most asked question is why did the concrete crack? There's the width of the crack to consider. .... How many cracks are there? In the corners? Oh but you can hire an engineer with his silver ball and then hear, "If you'll give me $500.00 I'll be pleased to tell you that concrete cracks and I haven't a clue as to why your concrete cracked."

 

[Paul Sweet]

I would be very concerned if one side of the crack is offset from the other, if it is getting wider over time, or if there is water entering through the crack.

Concrete cracks are generally irregular in all 3 dimensions, so much of the aggregate should still be interlocking inside the wall unless the crack grows to be wider than the irregularities.

 

[Mark K]

I still have not heard a code based reason.

When there is no code based reason then the inspector is likely practicing engineering without a license. Such issue is not protected by government immunity which would mean that the inspector could be personally liable.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

I agree, concrete can and may crack.

What parameters or metrics are you using to determine the circumstances?
How bid the crack is, not always a clear indicator of a structural or non structural issue, example, a crack that’s a 1/16” inch extending from foundation through footing. Again what reference are you using to make that determination?

So am I to assume, if your an AHJ you leave it up to your inspectors to make the call or the BO or???

I’m seeking to elicit how AHJ’s and 3rd parties address foundation cracks and there own requirements. There’s no right or wrong answer, just information to become seek some clarity one way or the other.

If we see something that scares us, or something that is actively failing, we will pass it up the chain to the BO. If the BO thinks it is an issue, then we start moving into the unsafe structure phase and get an engineer involved.

We don't have metrics. What simple metrics could you use? You can't tell if concrete is going to fail just because it looks ugly, you have to get out special equipment and do a deep analysis.

 

[Mark K]

If we see something that scares us, or something that is actively failing, we will pass it up the chain to the BO. If the BO thinks it is an issue, then we start moving into the unsafe structure phase and get an engineer involved.

We don't have metrics. What simple metrics could you use? You can't tell if concrete is going to fail just because it looks ugly, you have to get out special equipment and do a deep analysis.

It would be misleading to give simple metrics. The significance of cracks would depend on the context and location of the cracks. Typically only engineers have the knowledge of how to determine the significance of the cracks.

California statutes, not the building code, address the concept of "substandard buildings" but the definition will not provide you with simple answers.

While special equipment may be useful in some situations, in the vast majority of situations a visual evaluation will be all that is necessary to make an initial diagnosis.

 

[Keystone]

In reading the replies I am not seeing a reference to a code or standard that could be utilized, does something like this even exist? Or are some just exercising judgement from experience, being that we are all lumber graders too...

Add to that Mark K’s last reply above, “It would be misleading to give simple metrics. The significance of cracks would depend on the context and location of the cracks. Typically only engineers have the knowledge of how to determine the significance of the cracks.”

 

[Keystone]

Concrete Cracks. If you don't allow any cracks you would not allow the use of concrete.

What code provision would the building official invoke? While the building code has provisions to minimize cracks it does not explicitly address sizes of cracks.

How concerned I would be would depend on the circumstances. What caused the crack? How big is the crack? But this would not be a code issue, rather I would see it as a performance issue. The cracks would have to be large enough to suggest a structural failure.

I do not see a specific code in 2018 IRC or ACI 318, so that would lead to R104.4 from 2018 IRC.

 

[jar546]

My thoughts.

1) I don't understand the context of the OP's question. Under what circumstances is the BD involved?

2) I have to agree with every single post by Mark K. (yes, really) There are no prescriptive code sections that cover this so an engineer is required.

 

[Keystone]

My thoughts.

1) I don't understand the context of the OP's question. Under what circumstances is the BD involved?

2) I have to agree with every single post by Mark K. (yes, really) There are no prescriptive code sections that cover this so an engineer is required.

New SFD, final insp foundation crack discovered.

I concur, engineer required. I want to see how others address the coming across permitted construction that develops a crack before or by final inspection.

 

[Mark K]

To be somewhat repetitive what authority does the building department have to require the owner of the building retain an engineer to explore something that the building department does not understand? Remember the building department has already performed a plan check and issued a permit. Unless there is an answer to this question, I suggest that the building department has overstepped its authority.

 

[ICE]

I have to agree with every single post by Mark K

That's a road less traveled for sure. Perhaps the oxygen level was low on the flight back. Well not to worry, it won't last long.

so an engineer is required.

For what exactly? There's a crack.... so what!

 

[jar546]

To be somewhat repetitive what authority does the building department have to require the owner of the building retain an engineer to explore something that the building department does not understand? Remember the building department has already performed a plan check and issued a permit. Unless there is an answer to this question, I suggest that the building department has overstepped its authority.

Oh boy. I stick up for you and publicly agree with your posts then you post this. Ughhhh Mark. The Building Department has liability and responsibility to the public and when a result is out of the norm, it is not uncommon for us to have the contractor provide a letter from an engineer. We have that right whether you agree with it or like it.

First you say a BD is not qualified to make a judgement on the cracks which I agree then when we require an engineer, you say we are overstepping our boundaries. What eutopia so you want to live in? Conflictistan?

 

[Mark K]

Oh boy. I stick up for you and publicly agree with your posts then you post this. Ughhhh Mark. The Building Department has liability and responsibility to the public and when a result is out of the norm, it is not uncommon for us to have the contractor provide a letter from an engineer. We have that right whether you agree with it or like it.

First you say a BD is not qualified to make a judgement on the cracks which I agree then when we require an engineer, you say we are overstepping our boundaries. What eutopia so you want to live in? Conflictistan?

I am making a legal argument. Where is your legal authority and what is the limits of that authority? Are we a country of laws?

What is the nature of the building departments responsibility to the public? If this responsibility is to assure there are no problems, then based on the civil actions against engineers, building departments as a group are not fulfilling that responsibility. I believe the role of the building department is to enforce the written laws related to building construction.

We should keep in mind that building codes are compromises that in general satisfy the needs of building owners and the public as a whole. It is not the role of the building official to second guess the entity adopting the building code and decide that those compromises are not appropriate.

The way I understand it a governmental entity only has immunity when acting within the legal authority of the entity. Thus, to suggest you have liability is suggesting that you are acting outside of your governmental function.

 

[ICE]

Ughhhh Mark

Welcome back.

 

[jar546]

I am making a legal argument. Where is your legal authority and what is the limits of that authority? Are we a country of laws?

What is the nature of the building departments responsibility to the public? If this responsibility is to assure there are no problems, then based on the civil actions against engineers, building departments as a group are not fulfilling that responsibility. I believe the role of the building department is to enforce the written laws related to building construction.

We should keep in mind that building codes are compromises that in general satisfy the needs of building owners and the public as a whole. It is not the role of the building official to second guess the entity adopting the building code and decide that those compromises are not appropriate.

The way I understand it a governmental entity only has immunity when acting within the legal authority of the entity. Thus, to suggest you have liability is suggesting that you are acting outside of your governmental function.

It is imperative to recognize that building departments possess the legal authority and an obligation to enforce building construction laws, including the building codes adopted by the entity we serve. The role of building officials is defined by state statutes and Chapter One of the International Building Code (IBC). Our primary responsibility is to ensure that buildings are constructed in accordance with the laws and codes, with the ultimate goal of safeguarding the public's health, safety, and welfare.

Building codes are not mere compromises; they are comprehensive sets of requirements established based on extensive research, expertise, and industry best practices. As a building official, I do not question the entity that adopted the building code and deems the compromises unsuitable. Rather, my duty is to execute the code's provisions in a manner that is applicable to each project and circumstance.

Concerning liability, it is essential to note that building officials are granted immunity from liability for actions taken in performing our duties, provided that we act in good faith and comply with the laws and regulations governing our work. This immunity is vital to our ability to execute our responsibilities efficiently and guarantee that buildings are constructed safely and in conformity with the law.

 

[Mark K]

It is imperative to recognize that building departments possess the legal authority and an obligation to enforce building construction laws, including the building codes adopted by the entity we serve. The role of building officials is defined by state statutes and Chapter One of the International Building Code (IBC). Our primary responsibility is to ensure that buildings are constructed in accordance with the laws and codes, with the ultimate goal of safeguarding the public's health, safety, and welfare.

Building codes are not mere compromises; they are comprehensive sets of requirements established based on extensive research, expertise, and industry best practices. As a building official, I do not question the entity that adopted the building code and deems the compromises unsuitable. Rather, my duty is to execute the code's provisions in a manner that is applicable to each project and circumstance.

Concerning liability, it is essential to note that building officials are granted immunity from liability for actions taken in performing our duties, provided that we act in good faith and comply with the laws and regulations governing our work. This immunity is vital to our ability to execute our responsibilities efficiently and guarantee that buildings are constructed safely and in conformity with the law.

I generally agree with this statement. Thus given the existence of governmental immunity and you are acting in accordance with the laws there should be no liability. Note that the design professionals do not share in this immunity.

Having been involved in some code development efforts It is my observation that there are more compromises than you believe. The legal adoption of the codes turns them into something different. This adoption process transforms them into mandatory requirements. So while the goal of the building code is to protect the public the responsibility of the department is to enforce the laws as opposed to protecting the public. Enforcing the laws is the way to protect the public. The end product is a compromise that balances a number of competing interests.

Protecting the public does not mean that each individual is protected from any and all problems. The public includes the totality of the public to the degree that the government finds acceptable. We could reduce the likely hood of problems but either the added cost is more than acceptable or political considerations get in the way.

Safety is largely subjective.. The commentary from at least one of the reference standards referenced from the IBC discusses the probabilities of failure. How do you think they came up with some of the magic numbers in the code.

The adopted building code also establishes some rights for the building owner. In this context it is improper for the building department to require something not in the adopted code. This does happen some times.

 

[steveray]

Well I guess it is remove and replace the foundation then.....That's prescriptive.

To be somewhat repetitive what authority does the building department have to require the owner of the building retain an engineer to explore something that the building department does not understand? Remember the building department has already performed a plan check and issued a permit. Unless there is an answer to this question, I suggest that the building department has overstepped its authority.

 

[Beniah Naylor]

R301.1 says that the structure shall be capable of transmitting all loads to the foundation. R401.2 says that the foundation shall be capable of accommodating all loads in accordance with R301.

If the foundation shows evidence that would make a "reasonable person" believe that the foundation is not in compliance with R401.2, it would be completely legal for a building official to require an engineer to evaluate the concrete cracking if it is in a structural member or foundation.