• 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

Missing pier footing

Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
470
Location
Lincoln
Thanks in advance to everyone who comments on this post.

Today's situation involves a new shed roof attached to an existing restaurant supported by 6 x 6 wood columns. The permit applicant provided detailed drawings that did not include the concrete pier footings. Instead, the drawings show that that column base is attached to the existing concrete slab. The illustration that I have attached is what I propose as the solution whereas the building inspector is expecting frost-free footings that extend below the frost depth. The part that I have added to the permit application is highlighted in yellow.

Question:
Is there any way that I can justify having the column attached to the concrete slab without something extending below the frost depth?
 

Attachments

  • SectionShed.pdf
    494.5 KB · Views: 36
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
470
Location
Lincoln
The existing building is a big restaurant with typical 42 inch deep footings. Yes, the existing building is frost protected. The frost depth here is 36 inches. Even if the edge of the existing slab had a 12 inch turndown edge, it would not meet the frost depth requirement of 36 inches deep. I am going to require that the contractor install the 18 diameter x 36 deep concrete piers under the existing 6 x 6 posts. Considering that the contractor built this BEFORE applying for a permit, I have very little sympathy for him.

Thanks again everyone.
 

e hilton

Bronze Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
2,444
Location
Virginia
I am going to require that the contractor install the 18 diameter x 36 deep concrete piers under the existing 6 x 6 posts. Considering that the contractor built this BEFORE applying for a permit, I have very little sympathy for him.
That seems like a lot of work for the GC, and a lot of cost. How do you get his attention and compliance? Withhold the CofO and not allow that area of the restaurant to be used?
 

Inspector Gadget

Registered User
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
101
Location
New Brunswick
Question:
Is there any way that I can justify having the column attached to the concrete slab without something extending below the frost depth?

We have folks who want to do this all the time. In Canada, the alternative is to go find a structural engineer to design a load-bearing slab-on-grade. I'm not approving such a thing without engineered design.
 

ICE

Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
10,789
Location
Ca. concrete jungle
That seems like a lot of work for the GC, and a lot of cost. How do you get his attention and compliance?
Doubling the permit fee is a start. Red tag the patio area.....make it a big one.....a huge red tag on the restaurant door to the patio..... and Coroner's caution tape outside. White chalk the outline of a body on the cement. I suppose ketchup stains would be a bit much.
 

TheCommish

Sawhorse
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
1,475
Location
Charlton Ma
Seems to me if the contractor had applied for the permit with proper review and had the issue resolved prior to starting work with a permit, the contractor would not have to go back and do remedial work.

No hall pass for the contractor, go back to go, pay the appropriate fees and fines and explain to the owner wht the Inspections Service Department sent the owner a letter for un-permitted work.
 

Genduct

Registered User
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
297
Location
Philadelphia PA
Doubling the permit fee is a start. Red tag the patio area.....make it a big one.....a huge red tag on the restaurant door to the patio..... and Coroner's caution tape outside. White chalk the outline of a body on the cement. I suppose ketchup stains would be a bit much.
Ice, I hope you are kidding to make the point. It seems if this person wanted a temporary structure, they should have just put up a tent

If you really over-reacted with caution tape etc, then the general public might get the idea that we BCO's over-react, which doesn'thelp our image or effectiveness in that Building safety area

Actually, I thought that helical piles would be a good solution for that short span. Is the connection to the existing wall tied into ext'g structure in a meaningful way. Looks like the sides are open, how about up-lift. seems that is the real disaster waiting to happen
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
421
Location
Minneapolis, MN
We have folks who want to do this all the time. In Canada, the alternative is to go find a structural engineer to design a load-bearing slab-on-grade. I'm not approving such a thing without engineered design.
A load bearing slab on grade that is shallow enough for frost to get underneath will not help. You cannot reasonably engineer enough strength to resist the load imposed by ice lensing. You would need to have enormous uplift anchors which would be below the frost line and then the slab would need to resist the forces between the uplift anchors.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
470
Location
Lincoln
Sometimes getting your paper plans reviewed, denied, corrected and approved BEFORE you do the construction is cheaper than doing the construction first and then going through the permit process. Eventually the work gets done correctly. :cool:
 
Top