• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Concrete Foundation Cracks.

Beniah Naylor said:
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.
Click to expand...
If cracks in concrete foundations are by themselves evidence that the foundation cannot transmit the loads to the ground then why are building departments not regularly requiring foundations be replaced? Remember concrete cracks for a number of reasons and in most circumstances tight cracks are not a problem.

Given that concrete cracks I find it interesting that some individuals believe that the IRC means that an engineer need not be involved in designing the building but when cracks are observed that an engineer is required to address the cracks.
 
Mark K said:
If cracks in concrete foundations are by themselves evidence that the foundation cannot transmit the loads to the ground
Click to expand...
They are not.

That is why the "reasonable person" test is necessary. The "reasonable person" test protects the building official from any kind of malice charge, and allows the building official to take reasonable action in good faith to protect the public. If a "reasonable person" would say a crack or other structural deficiency is a violation of R301 or R401.2, the BO need have no concern of legal repercussions for requiring an engineer's review.
 
Do we really need Mark to derail another thread with the supposed legalities of a building officials domain?!

Does the IRC/IBC address cracks - no. But who gets the call and can force an owner to investigate - the BO. Does the BO know if the crack is a significant issue - maybe. A smart BO will not make the determination until presented facts from a reputable source, likely an engineer. That engineer can draw from a wide set of resources such as those published by ACI that a BO cannot (not adopted), including said engineers gut-check guess.

In the end, it is one-person or another making a gut-check decision based upon their own experience. Sure, that experience can come in different quantities and quality, but do we really need to have another thread derailed by Mark droning on about the limits of BO?
 
Mark K said:
Given that concrete cracks I find it interesting that some individuals believe that the IRC means that an engineer need not be involved in designing the building but when cracks are observed that an engineer is required to address the cracks.
Click to expand...
Interesting to you, normal to most. There are prescriptive methods that can be used for code compliance which is why we don't need an engineer for everything. When abnormal observations are made that are structural in nature, you then need an engineer. It may not be the actual design but it may be a methodology by the contractor that caused the problem.
 

Acceptable concrete cracking​


Q. What is considered as acceptable concrete cracking in cast-in-place foundation walls and slabs per ACI documents? My company is the concrete contractor on a large warehouse project, and I want to discuss the potential for cracking with the contractor and the owner.

A. Concrete cracks are possible on any project, so it’s wise to set reasonable expectations for yours. Foundation walls are normally designed as reinforced concrete. Reasonable crack widths for reinforced concrete under service loads are listed in Table 4.1 of ACI 224R-01. However, a footnote warns that, with time, “a significant portion” of the cracks in a structure can exceed these values. Commentary Provision R24.3.1 of ACI 318-19 discusses flexural reinforcement for one-way slabs and beams. That provision indicates that visible cracks will develop under service loads, and crack widths are usually widely scattered and influenced by “shrinkage and other time-dependent effects.” The associated Code provision provides reinforcement detailing requirements for controlling crack widths (that provision applies to the design team, so you should consider including at least one more party in your discussions).

In general, when it comes to slabs, both ACI 302.1R-15 and ACI 360R-10 state in their prefaces that it’s unrealistic to expect crack-free and curl-free floors regardless of the best design and construction practices. Also, those documents state that the designer and contractor need to advise every owner that “it is normal to expect some amount of cracking and curling on every project.” ASCC Position Statement #33 provides similar guidance, stating that:

“ASCC concrete contractors will meet with the design team, construction manager, and general contractor to discuss crack expectations for the project. Concrete contractors want to ensure awareness by all parties that cracking will occur when the structure is built in accordance with the Contract Documents.”
 
I now have a reference point and will purchase and read, ACI 224R.

I’m confident that most foundations cracks I may see in new construction are not structural deficiencies but when a home inspectors report identifies or the homeowner themselves view a foundation crack that was not cited/addressed on one of the other inspectors reports and this owner heads straight to a council meeting or the state the situation then becomes a defense position to which I was not aware of of an ACI that may address this issue despite having conversations with several engineers. Therein was the issue, maybe this ACI will stem some of the issues, maybe not.
 
Keystone said:
I now have a reference point and will purchase and read, ACI 224R.

I’m confident that most foundations cracks I may see in new construction are not structural deficiencies but when a home inspectors report identifies or the homeowner themselves view a foundation crack that was not cited/addressed on one of the other inspectors reports and this owner heads straight to a council meeting or the state the situation then becomes a defense position to which I was not aware of of an ACI that may address this issue despite having conversations with several engineers. Therein was the issue, maybe this ACI will stem some of the issues, maybe not.
Click to expand...
ACI documents that were not adopted as part of the building code are not legal requirements. But they may provide insight.

With regards to individuals expressing concerns to the city council. I suggest the proper response is for the building department and ultimately the city council to state that it does not appear that the problem is the result of non-compliance with the building code and that the member of the public should consult with an engineer to provide evidence of lack of code compliance. Once the department has evidence of code compliance it will take action to require the problem be mitigated. The mere existence of the cracks in concrete is not evidence of a code violation. This should be seen as a civil matter.

It is not the responsibility of the building department to provide consulting services on problems that the building owner may have with his or her project.

Do not expect ACI to address you problem with members of the public.
 
A building inspector would use several methods to determine if a concrete foundation crack is compromising the strength of the foundation wall. Here are some of the key things they would consider:

  1. Size and Location of the Crack: The inspector would evaluate the size and location of the crack. Cracks that are wider than 1/4 inch or that are located near the corners of the foundation wall are more likely to indicate a structural problem.
  2. Shape and Orientation of the Crack: The inspector would also look at the shape and orientation of the crack. Cracks that are wider at the top than at the bottom, or that are diagonal or horizontal, are more likely to indicate a structural problem.
  3. Pattern of Cracks: The pattern of cracks is also important. Multiple cracks in the same area, or cracks that form a pattern (such as a stair-step crack), are more likely to indicate a structural problem.
  4. Visible Movement or Separation: The inspector would look for any signs of visible movement or separation, such as gaps between the foundation and the surrounding soil, or cracks that have widened over time.
  5. Professional Assessment: If the inspector has any concerns, they may recommend that a structural engineer or other professional be brought in to evaluate the foundation and provide recommendations for repair or reinforcement.
Overall, the inspector would consider all of these factors together to determine if the crack is compromising the strength of the foundation wall. If there are any concerns, it's important to get a professional assessment and take any necessary steps to ensure the safety and stability of the building.
 
Mark K said:
Given that concrete cracks I find it interesting that some individuals believe that the IRC means that an engineer need not be involved in designing the building but when cracks are observed that an engineer is required to address the cracks.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point, here. If there is sufficient cracking as to give a reasonably prudent inspector reason to believe that the walls may not be structurally sound, then the only class of individual who can verify the structural integrity would be a licenced structural engineer.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
I think you're missing the point, here. If there is sufficient cracking as to give a reasonably prudent inspector reason to believe that the walls may not be structurally sound, then the only class of individual who can verify the structural integrity would be a licensed structural engineer.
Click to expand...
I agree that a structural engineer is qualified to put the cracks in context.

The question is on what basis would an inspector determine that the concrete member is structurally sound? Given that cracks are common in concrete could this result in an inspector requiring an engineering investigation on all concrete projects even though an engineer would not be concerned?

Larger cracks are typically of greater concern but we need to recognize that there is a need to distinguish insignificant from significant cracks. The significance of a crack is often based on the nature of the crack and where it is located in the building. I doubt that there is any clear criteria. Where do we draw a balance between a reasonable concern and overkill? Sometimes the distribution of small cracks may be of more concern than larger cracks
 
This thread is a good example of the differences between building codes and civil law.

The building code does not address all issues of concern to the owner. I hear no code reason for the jurisdiction requiring an engineer to resolve questions regards the cracks. It appears that the ACI standards referenced are not code requirements and while they may provide insight they cannot be enforced.

When a building official/inspector requires something not required by the building code then the official/inspector no longer is protected by governmental immunity and can be liable for additional costs.

Lacking a code provision it is no longer a concern of the building official or inspector. Thus if the owner is concerned about the cracks the owner's options are to either live with the problem, remedy the perceived problem, or to sue the person responsible for the cracking.

What would you do if a police officer gave you a ticket because he did not like the color of your car? The authority of the building official is limited. Remember building codes do not provide answers to all questions.
 
Mark K said:
When a building official/inspector requires something not required by the building code then the official/inspector no longer is protected by governmental immunity and can be liable for additional costs.
Click to expand...
There is not enough context to this statement as it paints too broad a stroke. How about giving us an example to put more context to your statement?
 
My assumption is that we are discussing significant cracks.

My perspective is obviously skewed to the Canadian point of view but keeping in mind that building officials in Canada do not benefit from statutory immunity, case law in Canada is much more evolved than the US.

Where there are clear issues that impact life safety, the courts would expect a reasonably diligent building official to conduct an investigation into the cause of the issue.

Serious concrete cracking can be from a series of issues: improper mixture, improper placement, improper design of wall, unsuitable soils, unsuitable backfill... all of these are code violations.

Is the cracking concrete a code violation? No.
Is what caused the concrete to crack a code violation? Probably.

We are not trying to address the cracking, which is likely a symptom of a larger issue. We want to address the underlying issue.

There is no statute that tells a building inspector that when they discover a crack in a new foundation that they need to exercise their due diligence to assess if this anomaly possesses a life safety risk. However, the case law in Canada indicates that a building inspector would be required to do so. Failure to investigate is an indication that the building inspector is not discharging their duties to public safety with the expected level of care and places them as a party responsible for damages resulting from the failure to correct any deficiencies. Statutes cannot contain instructions as to what must be done in every situation. It is for this reason that the courts have provided a wide range of discretion to building officials in discharging their duty to public safety.
 
tmurray said:
We are not trying to address the cracking, which is likely a symptom of a larger issue. We want to address the underlying issue.
Click to expand...
I would think the first concern would be what are the consequences of the crack? Is the building going to fall down or rodents etc. enter or water enter where it creates unsanitary conditions?

Of course if warranted to stop the cracking or repair it, the underlying cause is absolutely next.
 
bill1952 said:
I would think the first concern would be what are the consequences of the crack? Is the building going to fall down or rodents etc. enter or water enter where it creates unsanitary conditions?

Of course if warranted to stop the cracking or repair it, the underlying cause is absolutely next.
Click to expand...
True enough. I was not considering cracking so severe that it is a structural defect.
 
tmurray said:
True enough. I was not considering cracking so severe that it is a structural defect.
Click to expand...
I concur it would be unlikely structural, just possibly. It seems the code problem is determining if it threatens structural or sanitation, or otherwise shrug your shoulders.

Seems a feature of ICFs - you don't see the cracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top