• 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

Monolithic slab with integral footings

Kish

Registered User
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
11
Location
Blair,Ne
Extending my 18x24 shed to a 24x36 garage with 2nd floor for storage. The plan I submitted showed a monolithic slab with integral footings. BI notes on plan, go down 42 inches(frost line) , and 8 inches wide (?). I asked him if I could use the alternate rebar placements (R403.1.3.2 / 2009 IRC)- one #5 in middle 1/3 of footing instead of 2 #4's (top and bottom). He said NO. Can't use use alternative in a "frost wall" - ???? 2009 IRC - doesn't make reference to a "frost wall", only frost protection requirement to go down to frost line. I don't see an exclusion in R403.1.3.2 , for a "frost wall". And as far as the 8 inches go, the bottom of the footing should be 12 inches wide - right? This is all one big pour. 42 inches down, 12 inches wide.
The BI won't explain. Any ideas ? Thanks!
 
Questions.
  1. What type of framing?
  2. What are the walls made of?
  3. What kind of storage on the 2nd floor?
  4. You are adding a 432 sq/ft. building footprint and and equal amount of 2nd floor?
  5. What is the soil bearing capacity?
  6. What seismic zone are you?
  7. What is the wind speed for your zip code?
You don't qualify for any of the exceptions in 403.1.4.1
You don't qualify for 403.1.3.2 because of the frost requirement.

Never mind the questions above, they are not relevant anymore. You can't do what you want. The BI is correct.
 
Questions.
  1. What type of framing?
  2. What are the walls made of?
  3. What kind of storage on the 2nd floor?
  4. You are adding a 432 sq/ft. building footprint and and equal amount of 2nd floor?
  5. What is the soil bearing capacity?
  6. What seismic zone are you?
  7. What is the wind speed for your zip code?
You don't qualify for any of the exceptions in 403.1.4.1
You don't qualify for 403.1.3.2 because of the frost requirement.

Never mind the questions above, they are not relevant anymore. You can't do what you want. The BI is correct.
I understand 141 - it's pretty straight forward. But , "because of the frost requirement." . Where do you find the basis for that conclusion? Can you give me a hint where to look. I appreciate your help - THANKS !
 
Table 301.2(1) is customized for each jurisdiction. Apparently you have a 42" frost depth declared for your area. In my area we have no frost depth because we no have cold weather. Where I came from had a 42" frost depth and that is why I am familiar with your situation.

Bottom line, you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes.....
 
Table 301.2(1) is customized for each jurisdiction. Apparently you have a 42" frost depth declared for your area. In my area we have no frost depth because we no have cold weather. Where I came from had a 42" frost depth and that is why I am familiar with your situation.

Bottom line, you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes.....
Maybe I didn't ask the question right. Where is it stated that you can't use the rebar exception in 132, if you use option #1 in 141, to meet the frost protection requirement. Is it outside of the scope of the "CODE" ? 2009 IRC
Thanks!
 
The rebar exception is not a frost protection option therefore it is not relevant. Many people get caught up in the codes reading a section they like. You can do that if you did not need frost protection. You don't qualify for any of the frost protection exceptions, therefore you cannot do what you want.
 
The rebar exception is not a frost protection option therefore it is not relevant. Many people get caught up in the codes reading a section they like. You can do that if you did not need frost protection. You don't qualify for any of the frost protection exceptions, therefore you cannot do what you want.
"The rebar exception is not a frost protection option" - why? What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?
 
I have never worked an area with a frost depth to consider. I have always worked in earthquake territory. The bare minimum for any footing has always been two #4 bars in the top of a footing and two #4 at the bottom.

In reading the residential code, I do not find a mention of frost requirement that gets in the way of using the single #5 or two #4 in the middle. I think that such a footing would be weak but I too am not understanding the "you can't do that".
 
"The rebar exception is not a frost protection option" - why? What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?
It is obvious that you don't understand how the building codes work. Your inspector is correct, you are wrong. You just don't get it.
 
It is obvious that you don't understand how the building codes work. Your inspector is correct, you are wrong. You just don't get it.
Can you answer the question "What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?" or not ?
 
It is obvious that you don't understand how the building codes work. Your inspector is correct, you are wrong. You just don't get it.
That's why the public seeks out information on the Internet and forum's like yours, in order to understand how the codes work. "you just don't get it" falls a little short of what we expect.
 
You are required to have a frost protected foundation in your location. 42" frost depth.

The methods for frost protection are laid out for you in the code.

The exceptions to frost depth do not apply to what you want to do and therefore you cannot use them.

You are trying to apply a method that is not for frost protection in a section of the code that is not for frost protection.

You started another thread on the exact same subject to try to get someone to tell you what you want to hear.

If you don't understand the above, no one can help you.

Maybe someone will tell you what you want to hear but the inspector/official in your area will still have the same legitimate requirement for you.
 
Alrighty then, I think I have figured out the disconnect. In post #1 the OP said “BI notes on plan, go down 42 inches(frost line) , and 8 inches wide (?). I asked him if I could use the alternate rebar placements (R403.1.3.2 / 2009 IRC)- one #5 in middle 1/3 of footing instead of 2 #4's (top and bottom). He said NO.”

Now granted, that reads as though the OP is trying to substitute the #5 rebar for frost protection. That is poor syntax. It makes it look like the two sentences are related to one thought when in fact, they are two distinct subjects.

In post #5 the OP said thisMaybe I didn't ask the question right. Where is it stated that you can't use the rebar exception in 132, if you use option #1 in 141, to meet the frost protection requirement. Is it outside of the scope of the "CODE" ? 2009 IRC
Thanks!”


That drives it home that there is a misunderstanding as to the OP’s intent. The OP is not attempting to substitute a #5 rebar for the frost protection and never was.

The OP’s post #7 adds to the confusion: "The rebar exception is not a frost protection option" - why? What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?" That sorta makes it look like he is trying to substitute the #5 rebar as a method of frost protection.

The OP’s BI is apparently equally confused. The OP might rob banks by accident.
 
Last edited:
There ya go, I fixed it for you.

Alrighty then, I think I have figured out the disconnect. In post #1 the OP said “BI notes on plan, go down 42 inches(frost line) , and 8 inches wide (?). I asked him if I could use the alternate rebar placements (R403.1.3.2 / 2009 IRC)- one #5 in middle 1/3 of footing instead of 2 #4's (top and bottom). He said NO.”

Now granted, that reads as though the OP is trying to substitute the #5 rebar for frost protection. That is poor syntax. It makes it look like the two sentences are related to one thought when in fact, they are two distinct subjects.

In post #5 the OP said thisMaybe I didn't ask the question right. Where is it stated that you can't use the rebar exception in 132, if you use option #1 in 141, to meet the frost protection requirement. Is it outside of the scope of the "CODE" ? 2009 IRC
Thanks!”


That drives it home that there is a misunderstanding as to the OP’s intent. The OP is not attempting to substitute a #5 rebar for the frost protection and never was. The OP’s BI is apparently equally confused. The OP might rob banks by accident.
EXACTLY - THANK YOU !
 
It is time to ask the inspector for the code sections that back up his refusal to allow a weak, underdone, STFF (soon to fail foundation).
 
Ah, so the OP has no issue complying with frost protection by going down 42" but wants to change the monolithic slab to comply with R403.1.3.2. Do I have that right? If this is the case and we are confused by the OP 12 posts in, imagine the poor communication between the OP and the BI..........
 

Can you answer the question "What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?" or not ?
You are now asking building science questions and not building code questions. Nothing wrong with that but unfortunately your BI is enforcing the prescribed building code
 
Apparently that's a yes.
I had another post that seems to have disappeared. You responded to that with some helpful comments with regards to STFF. I guess that happens when you ask too many questions.
 
I had another post that seems to have disappeared. You responded to that with some helpful comments with regards to STFF. I guess that happens when you ask too many questions.
That thread was deleted. What I said there was this: Place two #4 bars in the bottom and two #4 bars in the top. With a 42” tall footing I would place two #4 bars in the middle with #4 vertical bars at 24” on center.

STFF is an abbreviation for Soon To Fail Foundation (technical jargon)
 
Last edited:
I had another post that seems to have disappeared. You responded to that with some helpful comments with regards to STFF. I guess that happens when you ask too many questions.
You posted the same situation in another thread that you started, therefore a duplicate thread so I deleted the other one since it was fresh with almost no information. We use to be able to merge threads but apparently not anymore.
 
Alrighty then, I think I have figured out the disconnect. In post #1 the OP said “BI notes on plan, go down 42 inches(frost line) , and 8 inches wide (?). I asked him if I could use the alternate rebar placements (R403.1.3.2 / 2009 IRC)- one #5 in middle 1/3 of footing instead of 2 #4's (top and bottom). He said NO.”

Now granted, that reads as though the OP is trying to substitute the #5 rebar for frost protection. That is poor syntax. It makes it look like the two sentences are related to one thought when in fact, they are two distinct subjects.

In post #5 the OP said thisMaybe I didn't ask the question right. Where is it stated that you can't use the rebar exception in 132, if you use option #1 in 141, to meet the frost protection requirement. Is it outside of the scope of the "CODE" ? 2009 IRC
Thanks!”


That drives it home that there is a misunderstanding as to the OP’s intent. The OP is not attempting to substitute a #5 rebar for the frost protection and never was.

The OP’s post #7 adds to the confusion: "The rebar exception is not a frost protection option" - why? What does the rebar have to do with frost protection?" That sorta makes it look like he is trying to substitute the #5 rebar as a method of frost protection.

The OP’s BI is apparently equally confused. The OP might rob banks by accident.
"That sorta makes it look like he is trying......" - Nope. You got it right the first time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
Top