Keystone
SAWHORSE
Not to go off in another direction but "Inspector Gift" hit on one of my pet peeves, terminology - footer & masonary - footing & masonry
OK, you don't like the word footer, you would prefer footing. No problem, that is the way it is written. I will give you that because if I am being technical then I am wrong and should use the proper terminology. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.Inspector Gift said:While I agree that our codes can use improvements, the word "FOOTER" is not used in any of the codes I have. Which code section is it used in your codes, Jeff? It always puzzles me when builders or inspectors use incorrect terminology, and yet claim they know the code. So, with all due respect, I humbly suggest that they clarify and check their own verbiage before criticizing the model code. Perhaps the word "FOOTER" is the same as "FOOTING" and still part of the foundation system?
Is not the "foundation wall" a system? Does it include reinforcement steel, anchor and holdown bolts, a minimum thickness, and a footing (or point of bearing)? Does a monolithic slab have a footing (or point of bearing)? -- I'd say 'YES" to all three questions!
The answers to my questions often become apparent when I strive to understand the INTENT and PURPOSE of a code section.
I have a similar one since 80% of the electricians and inspectors don't know how to spell "receptacle". Instead we get: recepticle most of the time and other variations such as resepticle, raceptacle, and so on.........Keystone said:Not to go off in another direction but "Inspector Gift" hit on one of my pet peeves, terminology - footer & masonary - footing & masonry
So why not take a position that in addition to foundation walls "other permanent supports of buildings and structures" such as beams, girders, and posts be located below the frost depth as well? That would be consistent with the position that the top of spread footings shall be located at or below the frost line to allow for the bottom of the concrete, CMU or PT wood foundation wall to extend below the frost depth.Therefore, it is our belief and has been since some of our municipalities had the BOCA standard that the foundation wall is a separately built structure and that structure must extend below the frost depth. There are footings, there are foundation walls and there is a foundation which is a combination of the two.
So how do you reconcile the IBC's provision?jar546 said:If the code stated clearly that the foundation had to extend below the frost line, I could understand. It does, however, clearly state that the "foundation wall" which is part of the foundation assembly must extend below the frost depth. It is physically impossible for the "foundation wall" to extend below the frost depth unless the entire footing is below frost depth. You see, that is how it is written. There is no gray area, the code specifies "foundation wall", not just foundation or footing. There is a reason behind it. I have contacted multiple inspectors about this privately and they all have the same opinion. I don't see how you can read those written words in the codebook and not come to the same conclusion.
In an inverted T footing the foundation wall distributes its load through by spreading out into a strip footing. In essence the "foundation wall" does not mysteriously end at the top of the footing, but rather the wall continues through the expanded width of the footing. The issue is ground heave due to moisture laden soils freezing.2009 IBC1809.5 Frost protection. Except where otherwise protected from frost, foundations and other permanent supports of buildings and structures shall be protected from frost by one or more of the following methods:
Yes, but I have to throw myself into it.................gbhammer said:Jar are you just trying to create a hot topic? :devil
LOLjar546 said:Yes, but I have to throw myself into it.................Great responses from many, even though many of you are wrong
I am not familiar with wooden foundation walls without concrete footings. Looks like they made a mistake on the diagrams because it does not match the wording of the code.Papio Bldg Dept said:Jar, you never responded to my post about diagrams R403.1(2) & R403.1(3) where the frost depth is shown at the bottom of the crushed stone layer, which is a minimum of six inches below the footer plate? This would seem to cement, if not set in stone, your argument, that the frost line be below the footing.
I am feeling a bit under the weather today so that actually hurt when I bursted out laughing about who was making the mistake.jar546 said:I am not familiar with wooden foundation walls without concrete footings. Looks like they made a mistake on the diagrams because it does not match the wording of the code.
I think jar did an excellent job getting 4 pages out of this topic myself. Given that I worked on several projects with one of the ICC's consulting engineers for wood foundations, I feel fairly certain jar can only dig his footing hole deeper at this point if he still wants to come out on top.gbhammer said:I am feeling a bit under the weather today so that actually hurt when I bursted out laughing about who was making the mistake.