Please reinforce footings with rebar
The article in your October/November issue on “Forming and Pouring Footings” (FHB #119, pp. 98-103) was interesting to me because it is so different from how footings are done in the Pacific Northwest. Isn’t it interesting that footings as done in one part of the country would meet with a red tag in another?
Although it is common sense to check local codes before taking on a project such as footings, I would like to argue that the most important part of any footing anywhere and on any home is rebar. The authors argue that rebar is omitted in residential buildings as a matter of cost but also argue the importance of a good footing because it is the base on which the house is sitting. At less than $3 for a 20-ft. piece of bar, the cost of rebar for the foundation in the article would have been only about $50.
In Washington state, rebar is a must, and in this case, I totally agree with the building officials. As a minimum, we must have two continuous #4 bars that are overlapped at least 16 in. and tied together. By using rebar, the footing sizes can be drastically reduced, and the end result is not only a cheaper footing, but in my opinion, also a better footing. The problem in the featured project is that if the footing cracks, there is nothing to hold the concrete together. Once the separation begins, it only worsens with time, and at that point, there is nothing that can fix it.
The authors also use a keyway to tie the concrete walls to the footing, a procedure that makes me cringe at the work involved as well as the lack of strong adhesion between the two. In Washington state, we must tie the two together with rebar. Although this most likely is because of our earthquake problems, it would prevent a separation between the footing and stem wall in any case.
I urge all readers to use rebar no matter what part of the country or what building codes you work under. The authors are correct that the footing is no place to scrimp on cost.
—Steve Ness, Shelton, WA
Co-author Rick Arnold replies: The section about rebar may have been misunderstood. We agree that rebar substantially increases the strength of a footing for an almost negligible price. In fact, we refer to it in the article as “cheap insurance.” What we are omitting in most of the residential applications is the extra labor and materials involved in tying and setting the rebar on chairs prior to the pour, as is done on commercial projects. For us, this is the point at which commercial prices kick in. And although the merits of tying the rebar together can be argued, the important thing is that it (the rebar) is used. However, we would be reluctant to reduce the size of the footing drastically because all that would be saved is some concrete.
As far as the keyway goes, it’s the general contractor’s choice. Some specify a keyway; some want vertical rebar 4 ft. o. c.; and a few specify both. From a safety point of view, we prefer the unobtrusive keyway. But again, the important thing to us is that something is used to tie footing to wall.
Safety concerns about foundation article
I feel compelled to write in regard to your article on foundations (FHB #120, pp. 64-71) and the seeming lack of safety precautions taken by the contractor on the job. I would be extremely interested in finding out how this contractor would answer the following questions:
1. The soil appears to be very sandy. Why weren’t the sides of the excavation angled back or shored up as is required by OSHA standards?
2. When the men were working on the forms, why wasn’t some sort of fall protection provided, either a platform with a handrail or personal fall protection? (They were working over 6 ft. from the ground; therefore, OSHA fall-protection requirements were in effect.)
I am writing this not be picky or to appear superior, just to warn the potential reader who after reading your article thinks, “Boy, this is easy. I can do it myself and save a bundle,” and voilà, falls off the forms and breaks his neck or has a sidewall cave in, burying him under the dirt. When it comes to safety, the phrase should be “Sweat the small stuff!”
—David Ozolins, Iowa City, IA
Co-author and foundation contractor Rick Arnold replies: Admittedly, the excavation was not a perfect OSHA-approved hole, but in my judgment, it was not dangerous. And that’s what I have to rely on. As mentioned in the article, I look for a 4-ft. to 5-ft. overdig with sloped walls. If I don’t like what I see when I inspect a new hole, I ask the contractor to improve it. If he doesn’t, then I walk away from the job and say a prayer for whatever company does accept it. Until OSHA starts enforcing their regulations more frequently on residential sites (I’m sure it’s a matter of resources), there will always be a big question (what makes an “acceptable” hole) among the contractor, the excavator and the forms company. Is this the safest way to work? No. Should I refuse that every hole that doesn’t meet OSHA standards? I may as well sell the trucks and equipment.
As to working above 6 ft., you’ll notice in the photographs that the majority of the work is accomplished standing on the lower rails of the forms. But for those tasks that require working on top, only trained, experienced crew members are allowed up there. OSHA regulations permit this type of risk in certain areas, designated as “controlled-access zones.”
Most commercial formwork includes some sort of staging. But such work usually goes over 8 ft. tall, and the linear-foot price for the labor goes three to four times higher. If I were to start setting up a complete staging system and adjusted the prices accordingly, again I may as well sell the trucks and equipment.
Safety is a daily consideration on our jobs. The crew is never required to do anything they are not comfortable with, and we expect their input on work situations. I stand on our record (knock on wood). This part of construction is definitely not for novices. Anyone venturing into it should have years of experience under his belt before taking on the daily judgment calls. And even then, you should be open to the opinions of all concerned. Along with the criticism, I would welcome any feasible solutions to these safety problems, the key word here being feasible.
Applauds article on danger as a state of mind
Larry Haun’s article “Danger Can Be a State of Mind” (FHB #120, pp. 92-93) brought back job-site memories that have shaped my life. One incident involved my stepson, who was working on another site, cutting blocking on the table saw. It was his last piece. The saw bound up, kicked back and dragged his hand back through the blade. A laborer paged me and then called 911. I beat the EMTs there and was able to assist the emergency personnel in getting him to the hospital. Thanks to some medical training, quick response and a great surgeon, my stepson didn’t lose any fingers, although he did lose some motion in his hand. When I asked him what happened, he replied, “It was the last piece, but I was already going to lunch.”
I also had a great lead carpenter once who had suffered a loss in his family and yet still wanted to work. We decided to take away the power tools for a week and evaluate his progress on Friday. He spent three days nailing joist hangers, blocking and bridging; such work had never looked so good. Ultimately, he resumed his old duties earlier than we agreed on. I have since been much more open to an extra five minutes of downtime to get your head back at work.
Believe me when I say it has saved me a lot of time and money being conscious about not only proper safety precautions but also the emotional well-being of my friends and fellow workers.
—Jay Gammell, Austin, TX
Thinks the new cover looks like a room with no trim
Having a master’s degree in graphic design and 16 years of experience as an art director for a national magazine, I totally disagree that your current cover (FHB #120) is “updated” and “improved,” as stated in your editorial (“Letters,” p. 6). If anything, it is quite the opposite.
Mixing multiple type faces, styles and sizes in both horizontal and vertical directions on the same page has never been the basis of good design. Its only purpose is to lead to visual chaos. I much prefer your previous format. It was cleaner and easier to read. The elegant serif type style used on the cover was consistent with what was going on inside the publication’s table of contents and article headlines.
The added phrase “In This Issue:” serves no purpose. Why draw attention to a single article at the expense of other equally important articles? If it was so important, why was it not used as the cover photograph?
I also miss the intricate double-rule border that surrounded the cover photograph. Its fineness and precise registration emphasized the “fine” in Fine Homebuilding and was in harmony with the underscored logo. Now, the cover looks like a room stripped of its trim moldings.
—Gary Dykstra, Dearborn, MI
Not all women find unions hostile
I read with dismay Victoria Holland’s review of We’ll Call You If We Need You by Susan Eisenberg (FHB #120, “Reviews,” p. 148). I was particularly upset by the references to unions being hostile to women.
I have been a member of the Laborers International Union of North America for more than 20 years. I worked as a construction craft laborer on various construction projects—buildings, highways and utility projects—for 16 of those years. My experience has been radically different from that portrayed in the review.
Training programs were as open to me as to any other member. I was encouraged to learn new skills and to use those skills to better myself. (In fact, our training program was the first in the country to have an all-female class for new entrants into the work force.)
My workplaces varied, of course, but the overall feeling was one of helpful camaraderie. For every male craftsman who was unsupportive (or even obstructive), there were 10 or 12 who were very supportive. They shared their knowledge, offered help or advice when asked, and made me feel a welcome part of the crew.
The fact that the 25% goal for women employed on federally funded construction projects has not been met does not reflect badly on the unions or the contractors. This work is not for every woman. It is dirty, hard work, with unpredictable schedules and much travel. It is also seasonal in most parts of the country, which means the paychecks may stop with little notice. These conditions make the work unattractive for many women, especially single mothers, but that is the nature of the beast.
I will definitely look for a copy of We’ll Call You If We Need You and will read it, but I will also look forward to the day when Ms. Eisenberg writes another book about the good experiences that women have in the world of construction.
—Felicity McFerrin, training director, Laborers ACG Training Program, Helena, MT
Fine Homebuilding Recommended Products
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
8067 All-Weather Flashing Tape
Reliable Crimp Connectors
Affordable IR Camera
