Failed our form inspection because it was placed on compacted 3/4″ crushed stone. Told to either remove all stone or get engineers report. Obviously the stone wasn’t coming out, so had to get the report. Got the go ahead no problem.
I had called the inspector up and said what’s the deal? Was told as soon as you put stone in it’s no longer considered “undisturbed soil”.
Anyway, that was few weeks ago, it’s done and dealt with. However tonight was spending some time reading the Code book and it read ” Footings shall rest on undisturbed soil, rock or compacted granular fill.” Not that it would have made a difference knowing that, what I thought already to be true was indeed the case, because you know how inspectors can be. But it sure can be anoying for them to look for stupid stuff that isn’t even what’s in the code.
Replies
With the small jobs I do I rarely deal with inspectors, but occasionally there's one involved. One time the inspector had nothing but I guess he had to pick on something. So he pointed out on the existing ceiling framing that he felt there wasn't enough of the joist exposed to secure the ceiling drywall, where it meets the wall, that I had to add some blocking or sister a nailer strip to it. It was toward the end of the day, after he left it took me all of 10 minutes to tack up a 1x2 nailer. He stopped back the next day, saw the nailer and said okay.
I thing the thing is he has to pick on something because no job is perfect. In my case he picked at something he knows is really simple, and was happy I didn't give him any grief about it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cheap Tools at MyToolbox.net
See some of my work at AWorkOfWood.com
when I built my house, the electrician drilled a 3/4" hole in a PLAM, he made me get a engineers report. When I told the engineer he laughed and wrote me up the report with his stamp on it.
I'd also changed out a 2x10 beam to a PLAM, becuase I wanted a better beam. So he made me get a report for that as well. Had I left it as was he would have passed me. Go figure, you make it better than code and they fail you.
View Image View Image
Edited 5/12/2008 9:55 am by alrightythen
The engineers who get equipment UL rated told me stories (maybe true, maybe not) of how they'd always leave some obvious defect for the UL inspector to find, to avoid having the inspector pick a nit that would make for lots of work. (They also told me stories about the "standard finger", though I never saw it.)
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. --Bertrand Russell
this is why wally world wont hire them
I've heard of leaving a pigtail un-connected, that gives 'em something to find that can be 'fixed' instantly, and also a little snipe hunt to look carefully at all the rest.
k
Getting the report was cheaper for you. The report also saved time. I would have made you remove all the gravel! There is land over trash dumps, and the gravel may be covering up loose fill. A logical Inspector would always make sure the bottom of the footing is hard natural ground.
I would have made you remove all the gravel.
Sungod?
Are you an Inspector?
Think you are God?
Little power gone to your head?
As Johnny sez, "Couldn't get on at Walmart"
Joe H
The building code where I live states exactly as I quoted it.
What's underneath is another matter. The inspector made no issue with what was underneath, his point was that crushed rock is "not undisturbed soil". Yet the Code says compacted granular fill is fine.
by what he said, he sees the soil - fine no report needed. But then we put in granular fill over the same soil and compact it with 500 lb tamper - now we need a report.
He did not say he couldn't tell if we went over disturbed soil or not, he said crushed stone is no longer undistubed soil. If he'd don't he simply needed to veryfy what we'd put the stone on top of, that would make more sense to me.
And you would not make me take the Stone out either. I've seen inspectors in extreme cases where they were being over zealous and clearly wrong, and have been put back in line when things are taken up with their superiors. I prefer to be in the good books with my inspectors, and I don't really make a fuss about such things. But I still get annoyed. View Image View Image
So, why did you put the stone in there?
I recently put 2" of 3/4" compacted drain rock in the fotting trenches to drain off seeping groundwater. The footings were gently sloped to sump pits outside the trenches. The engineer approved it's use.
The soil on this job was 50/50 sand and silt. Footings were 2' deep.
Kurt
well I actually didn't, the GC did.
But I approved the idea, rain was on the way, and well....I guess you have to live in BC.
The excavation crew took care of bringing in the rock and leveling it off. They did an awesome job, had the stone raked out to within 1/2" another nice feature of using a granular fill.
View Image View Image
Edited 5/13/2008 12:33 am by alrightythen
I'm having a little trouble figuring out what your role was in this deal.... No matter though.
Anyway, when we run into soft soils we have to get a soils engineer for a prescribed fix and "certification" letter. 9 times out of 10 the fix is to dig down to hard soil and fill the trench to normal footer level with #57 or #67 stone. Then add some extra rebar. Those designations are maybe 1/2 to 1" washed crushed stone. To me, putting stone in the bottom of a footer is just creating a collection point for water - like a big bucket, and I have even had a guy who specializes in foundation repair tell me this too... This is particularly true since generally our soils don't drain very well; very rarely do we see granular soils. I have other issues with this method too. Still the soils engineers are saying this is the way to go... They are the ones with the PE stamp - not me, but I don't like it at all. The reason I put certification in quotes is that if you read these soils engineer's letters closely they are somewhat non committal...
Back to the central thread topic - footer guy was complaining to me the other day - "if the inspector requires a engineer to come look at a footer and the PE says it is OK as is, why should I have to pay a re-inspection fee?"
The purpose of the stone is to enlarge the effective footprint of the footer, and extend its effective depth. Drainage is a secondary benefit.
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. --Bertrand Russell
we here on the gulf coast design out foundation to work in water, we know we can never get rid of the water, so the use of sand and gravels are well uses. I have talk to other from farther north that use clays to seperate their water problems from the foundations.
3 words: "bucket of water"
Bucket of water plus pump equals no problem.
In our clay till you have two choices: put in a pump or run weeping tile out to daylight and have a dry basement, or have a wet basement. Foundation and basement walls make a poor boat! Anything you use as backfill will be more permeable than the native till, so anything below grade is a bucket of water regardless.
A good inspector wants to stand where the footings will go before they go there. Not on top of crushed stone that's been dumped on the soil, but on the soil itself. Crushed stone can be used to hide lots of sins.
As to the bit about leaving mistakes for the inspector to find: it's the same with engineers doing design work as with any other practice. Once you've worked in a field for a while you get to know what the inspectors are looking for. Human nature being what it is, they don't like to feel that they're doing a pointless job. Giving them something to do makes them happier. Giving them NOTHING to do makes them more likely to make mountains out of molehills. In my business, it's check valves- I always leave a few out for them to find. Give them too much to do and they think you're incompetent and then they question EVERYTHING, so it's a balancing act.
I'm subbed to do the forming and framing.
As for "bucket of water." having a big hole to work in that gets filled with rain, which is often the case here in BC, is what makes a bucket, not putting stone in. What happens is it can rain so hard you are working in water. worst site I ever did showed up and the hole was filled 3' high in water. That fact had nothing to do with stone being in it. What makes stone good to have in a climate where it rains a lot is that, you can actually work in an excavation while the pumps work to drain the water out. without the stone you would have to wait half the day sometimes just to stand in the hole without it be like working in a wading pool.
One Season doing form work here in BC and you would get it.
EDIT: just looked at your profile "Sunny Raleigh" I understand your reluctance now.
View Image View Image
Edited 5/13/2008 9:19 am by alrightythen
Edited 5/13/2008 9:21 am by alrightythen
True enough - I'm not used to working in a climate where it rains a lot... we do get some pretty good rains, it's just that we have a lot of blue sky days.
One additional thought - generally we place the footing concrete within 24 hrs of when the excavator first scratches the dirt.... That is here though...
To the others - I neglected to say that generally we don't do basements. Crawl spaces or slab houses (barf) - min footing depth is 12". Not talking basements here. Don't know what the OP is talking....
Most of my experience forming and farming almost always has included basements. and has ranged in various types of soil, and a good deal of formwork pinned to granite on the the West Vancouver mountain side. not a chance for a 24 hour before pour, hardest one we ever did, took a 7 man crew a week just for footings. View Image View Image
What is the minimum required footing excavation depth in your area?
Frost line is 18" where I live. View Image View Image
Alrightythen
You are right! A good Inspector with experience and knowledge should be able to tell from your forms, that you know what you are doing.
You gonna be in trouble when the Inspector is carrying a code book. We need Inspectors who have common sense and knows what the intention of the code passage are, not the letter of the law.
An inspector will have more respect if he verbally give you a minor correction and not hold you up by requiring another inspection.
Inspectors, if contractors argue a lot with you, you hate your job, you enjoy making contractors hurt and your Bosses over-ride you all the time -- your a lousy Inspector.
For the record, I actually know this inspector and also that he is pretty new at the job. He used to be one of the salesmen at mt local lumber yard.
really the whole thing was no skin off my back, I'm merely subbed out to form and frame. I only called him up because I knew him and haven't seen him since he started the new job. I asked him what was up. Since the GC would be getting a report which I knew would pass, it wasn't the end of the world. Just thought it was pretty funny to say all the stone has got to come out, with footing and form work sitting on top of it. View Image View Image
How do you compact crushed stone? Crushed gravel I understand.
Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
That's the quandry. A lot of builders here are using 3/4" clear crushed under slabs where the local sand fill is hard to compact, but if the inspector calls for a compaction test you will fail.
We use crushed stone under slabs but not under footings, that's a different ball game. Footings must go on undisturbed soil or on ledge/rock. Crushed rock is all stones, no sand, you can't compact it, it's used for it's drainage ability.Beat it to fit / Paint it to match
"Crushed rock is all stones, no sand, you can't compact"
I used to think the same thing. But that is actually not true, 3/4 clear crushed does compact and I have worked with many engineers who have approved it's use. I also have seen first hand how it well it can compact on many occasions.
The only type of rock that needs no compacting is pea gravel, as it is like a bowl full of marbles, but pea gravel is not the best to work with with the way it rolls all over the place. View Image View Image
my 2 cents worth. rocl like gravel, 57 stone pea gravel, can be compacted but they cant be tested due to the space void
I know what you're saying, but it does work. View Image View Image
why not compact it? I think I'm missing something here. View Image View Image
Like Brownbag says, you can compact it a bit, and is sure won't settle later, but geo-techs can't test due to the voids.
You can actually compact it a lot. The voids will still be present, but after compacted, crushed rocked gets shifted, to where it settles very well. After years of site after site working in well compacted gravel. you come to see that it does compact.
most interesting experince was on Commercial job last December for Cat the Rental.I had to form concrete footings, pad and walls to make this big tank that was to become a wash pit. A big steel grate would sit on top of the tank that they could drive their big axcavators and machines onto and wash down. They dug the hole for me, then brought in this elborate shoring sytem that had to be placed by big machines. Etentially I ended up working in a steel giant rectangle box. After they excavated, they backfilled, with 3/4" clear crushed. I needed exact heights to work with and at one end they had taken out too much soil, so 3/4" crush brought it back up to height. After Tamping it down with a big tapmer, those of you who have not seen how well clear crush will compact, would be surprised. it was very easy to see how well it settled, because we had marks pianted on the sides of the steel shoring box we were in. came down a good couple inches, and became a very nice base to work on. The engineering was very strict on this job. Yes what was underneath was important as well, but my point is, clear crush works very well when compacted, furthmore it is never affected by water entering excavations, which is perhaps one reason it is so popular her in BC. Nothing worse than working in a hole filling up with water. View Image View Image
with a compactor. View Image View Image