• 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

Fab-Form Footing/Foundation Wall system

Definitely interesting. The plans are signed off by an engineer but no testing makes me iffy. I’m waiting to hear back from the company in regards to a UL listing but they said the “bag” footing couldn’t get a ICC report because it’s considered a temporary form. ICC reasoning is you wouldn’t get a report on temporary wood forms for footings.
 
I used them on my house in 04. They don't look pretty but they did the job. They system to hold the ICF up and pour all concrete at once was not available back then if it was I do not think I would have gone with it for my house.
 
This product is not addressed in the IBC so the only way they can justify it is if they use the IBC provisions and more specifically ACI 318.

I would want the rebar inspection to verify the concrete cover on the reinforcing steel.

The issue of a bag form is not a concern. What needs to be verified is the design complies with ACI 318 and that the installed concrete dimensions of the base are consistent with the design.

A UL listing is not relevant with respect to the structural issues.
 
It seems a fab form footing meets the requirements and the ICF wall does, so not sure why pouring them together would be an issue. The rebar inspection, if required in the footer, might take some accomodation, but seems it could be done after supports and fab form is in place and before ICFs are set.

Not sure the system appeals to me, since it's savings is in labor and the materials are expensive, but interesting.
 
Just watched the 20+ minute video of an install. Pretty slick, two guys...one or two days?? Definitely worth exploring. Is the ICF proprietary with the bag footings? Is there an ESR report? I like it so far, just not sure how the approval would go. Forms are somewhat codified in the IRC, but without much guidance. As an engineered system with appropriate inspection I like it, although I'm not 100% sure it couldn't go prescriptive, where that is allowed by the AHJ.
 
Just watched the 20+ minute video of an install. Pretty slick, two guys...one or two days?? Definitely worth exploring. Is the ICF proprietary with the bag footings? Is there an ESR report? I like it so far, just not sure how the approval would go. Forms are somewhat codified in the IRC, but without much guidance. As an engineered system with appropriate inspection I like it, although I'm not 100% sure it couldn't go prescriptive, where that is allowed by the AHJ.

No listing required....no ICC ESR required. Beats edge forms hands down.
 
Last edited:
Definitely interesting. The plans are signed off by an engineer but no testing makes me iffy. I’m waiting to hear back from the company in regards to a UL listing but they said the “bag” footing couldn’t get a ICC report because it’s considered a temporary form. ICC reasoning is you wouldn’t get a report on temporary wood forms for footings.
With the engineer's stamp, I would allow it.
 
It looks OK structurally as long as the footing width and depth meet code requirements. My main concern is how to install a footing drain.
 
It looks OK structurally as long as the footing width and depth meet code requirements. My main concern is how to install a footing drain.
I wondered the same thing. I saw in one of the videos, two drains poking out of the bag, so they must have a detail for it.
 
Would the engineer have anything to say about how the footing is formed? Why would anyone tell the engineer how the task will be accomplished.
I was thinking the same thing, engineer specifies that he wants a 24"x12" footing with #5 Bars Cont and #5 transverse Bars @ 24"for example. It's the contractors responsibility to make sure that's what happens! There is no need for the engineer to sign off on the design of the footings as long as they meet his specifications!
 
It looks OK structurally as long as the footing width and depth meet code requirements. My main concern is how to install a footing drain.
I agree, at the end of the day, ignore the "Means and Method" for the forming and the sack for concrete footing and look at the result and we have a concrete wall and footing. Just because it doesn't have staked 2 X to give you a square footing doesn't change it's ability to carry the load.
Probably the same comments made when the ICF system was first introduced
 
I agree, at the end of the day, ignore the "Means and Method" for the forming and the sack for concrete footing and look at the result and we have a concrete wall and footing. Just because it doesn't have staked 2 X to give you a square footing doesn't change it's ability to carry the load.
Probably the same comments made when the ICF system was first introduced
Probably stronger because no cold joint between wall and footing
 
Would the engineer have anything to say about how the footing is formed? Why would anyone tell the engineer how the task will be accomplished.
I was speaking to the entire system, not the method. I don't see where you got there, other than you just love poking me.
 
They would have to poke a lot of holes in the plastic at the bottom of the footing to get enough moisture into the footing to make a Ufer work.

I don't understand this application. If you're already going to the trouble to build wood forms for a footing, what's the advantage to lining them with plastic?
 
Design of formwork is not addressed in the IBC or the IRC. That is part or the means and methods of construction.

I agree that when the footing is wrapped in plastic or other membrane that it is not compatible with a UFER ground. In such a situation install a traditional ground rod.

What is not appreciated is that when a proscriptive provision is created a number of assumptions are made. This means that the proscriptive provision applies to limited number of situations. The problem is that individuals often want a proscriptive solution for a different situation where those assumptions are not applicable. The code could be expanded to provide proscriptive provisions to address other assumptions, but this is a futile task since there will always be situations where the proscriptive provisions do not apply.

When the proscriptive provisions were developed inevitably an engineer was involved in writing or checking the provisions.

So if you do not want to involve an engineer then you should limit your design to the existing proscriptive provisions. This is difficult since many individuals do not want to accept these limitations. In addition the assumptions made in developing the proscriptive provisions are not well documented and many individuals do not have an appreciation of the significance of the assumptions so individuals will apply the proscriptive provisions to situations where they were not intended to apply.

This is why there should be an engineer in each building department who among other things can help the staff appreciate the limits of the proscriptive provisions.
 
what's the advantage to lining them with plastic?
This system cuts out most of the lumber and 80% of the labor cost/time.

The concrete will cure slower because water is not wicking to the wood forms and bare Earth. By how much and does it matter? I don’t have the answer to that….I just know that it will happen.

Where I work, footings are usually dug 24” into undisturbed soil.
 
Last edited:
They would have to poke a lot of holes in the plastic at the bottom of the footing to get enough moisture into the footing to make a Ufer work.

I don't understand this application. If you're already going to the trouble to build wood forms for a footing, what's the advantage to lining them with plastic?
Then, I wonder if the footing were in the dry Southwest Area of country, what effect the dry earth would have on the Ground Wire?
This post has raised some interesting questions
 
The concrete will cure slower because water is not wicking to the wood forms and bare Earth. By how much and does it matter? I don’t have the answer to that….I just know that it will happen.
Containing the water in concrete will allow it to cure faster. It will set up slower but that isn't relevant on footings since there is no surface finishing. Keeping the water in the concrete is always beneficial assuming it was batched with the correct w/c ratio.
 
Containing the water in concrete will allow it to cure faster. It will set up slower but that isn't relevant on footings since there is no surface finishing. Keeping the water in the concrete is always beneficial assuming it was batched with the correct w/c ratio.
Alrighty then.....in my world cure and set-up are the same.....but apparently they are not the same.....so what's the difference?
 
Top