Multi-Level Footings and the Baffled Building Inspector

[bigd99]

I was hoping someone here could point me in the right direction. Our company has built a walkout residential foundation. The site was stripped of native soil and filled with gravel (compacted in lifts). The gravel base was built with two steps with a 4' difference in height. This allows us to pour the foundation / frost walls in one pour. The frost wall extends 16' in the long wall of a 24 x 40' foundation. The problem arises with the footers (which puzzles me because the bldg. dept. inspected the footer forms and gave an ok to pour!) which are essentially two separate footer units on two levels. An 6" gap was left in the frost wall where it meets the footer of the upper wall. The inspector hates this gap in the wall but can't point to anything in the code that prevents a small gap in a frost wall. The foundation was over-engineered for a residential strucure: 24 x 40', 10" wall, 3000psi 3/4" aggregate, horizontal # 5 continuous bars every 2', vertical # 5 bars every 6'. It seems like this would be similar to the gap left for a bolt on bulkhead. Can anyone give me a good (or bad) justification for the inspectors month long investigation?

 

[fndn]

Even though your walls have small gap, you'll find that the footing is butted next to the bank. So your footings are continuous and with that amount of rebar you're fine. Sometimes getting a stamped letter from a structural will be needed if the above explanation doesn't pass with the inspector.

Your last option is to cut away the 4 foot drop of soil for 1 foot length and pour a short wall in the gap area. I had to help client do this in similar case.

 

[bigd99]

Is there anything that I can point to in ACI or similar code that would say the cement poured to fill the gap would act "continuous" and transfer the load? Should pins be inserted in the footer and wall and then reinforced with rebar? I found an interesting article in Concrete Homes Magazine that contends that there can be a maximum of 4' gap in non-continuous footings without violating code. It says the wall is then treated as a concrete beam on two footings. Anyone have any thoughts? I have a structural engineer on the case but the officials will take alot of convincing...

 

[BigH]

Just a simple question - is the inspector a registered engineer?

 

[bigd99]

The inspector is not a registered engineer. I question if he is capable of reading the english language as well. Rather than reading the appropriate code he called several other "resources" ie. building dept. friends to validate his opinion.

 

[BigH]

Isn't it sad that non-engineers can over-rule registered licensed engineers who are putting their reputation on the line by signature/stamp? This is something that state/provincial licensing boards ought to check-up and stamp out.