Concrete Foundation Steel Reinforcement Requirements

[Member]

How do you know they didn't put any rebar at the front of your garage?

These are walls, not flat.

I have pictures and a movie of the inside of the forms before the pour. I used a metal detector after the pour. It's easy to determine what the metal detector is telling me.

Do you put rebar in foundation walls? How much? Is it required by code?

 

[Rustyiron]

Hi,

What reinforcement is required in your locale?

Thanks.

I do not know and the only requirement that matters is your local or state codes. Sorry.
Any concrete work I do for myself has lot's of bar in it. This is a little frost protected shallow slab with a 2' "turndown" @ the edge, there's 2 rows of horiz bar just in that.

 

[downsizingnow48]

OP: what do the approved plans call for?

 

[Member]

OP: what do the approved plans call for?

The only mention of rebar is in the wall section view (see attached for an excerpt of that). It is:

2 #4 at the top of the wall, 2 #4 at the bottom of the wall, 2 #4 in the footing.


This is less than I wanted and is this way because the draftsperson couldn't manage to copy my plan correctly which called for:

2 #4 at the top of the wall, 2 #4 in the middle of the wall, 2 #4 in the bottom of the wall, otherwise, code compliant.


There is 1 #4 at the top of the wall. The rest isn't there.

 

[downsizingnow48]

The builder should have followed the county approved plan.

 

[Streetcar]

How do you know they didn't put any rebar at the front of your garage?

As already stated, rebar is fairly cheap and easy to install. Tell your builder that you want extra and make him do it your way. Code is a minimum requirement. There is nothing wrong with making it better.

Biggest mistakes I see with foundations is not using chairs to keep the rebar in the middle or lower third of the pad. Sadly, too many lazy contractors tell you that they just pull up the rebar while working the concrete, and even do it once or twice for pictures. But then they walk all over it and by the time it's all said and done, your rebar is at the bottom of the pad. Wire is even worse and should never be used for a house.

The other big mistake is allowing them to use too much water. Water creates volume, which takes up space. When the water evaporates out of the concrete mix, you are left with less volume. This is where the cracks come from. Bigger cracks equal too much water. If the soil wasn't compacted well enough, that will take years to show up. If the cracks happen in a week or two, it's from too much water.

Rebar holds the concrete together. All concrete cracks. If you don't use too much water, the cracks are hairline and most of the time, not even visible.

The middle of a slab is the second worst place for rebar. The worst place is in the mud at the bottom of a slab. Rebar should be in the tensile stress zone which is either top or bottom of the slab depending on loading.

 

[RNeumann]

Hi,

Yup, I'm the guy with the crack. In the crack area there's no rebar (across the entire front of the garage). In the rest of the foundation there is one #4 near the top of the wall. That's it.

I contend this is not code compliant. I have this questioni in to the inspector (who is not required to look at the forms and reinforcing before pouring and didn't) but I have yet to hear from him.

What reinforcement is required in your locale?

Thanks.

This is a crazy question and quite frankly shows a complete lack of knowledge by both the OP (understandable) and the contractor (unfortunate). "Industry standard" "code" "what the inspector wants" and "normal" are all meaningless terms for the argument.
The question is did the concrete fail? Yes or no. If it is YES you have a construction defect. Just because is was built to "code" is meaningless. Code doesn't say it has to be square or straight. It doesn't say it can't leak or lean. It doesn't say it has to be smooth or without cracks. The contractor's obligation is to build a product that meets code AND isn't defective. Every state has laws that cover the length of time the contractor is on the hook for construction defects. As an example California is 10 years while Idaho is 1 year. Google your state and construction defect laws.
The law hinges on three things with regards to the property owner. Did the failure occur within the time limit? Is it a defect (bad workmanship, bad concrete, bad design etc)? And how much will it cost to fix?
Hopefully you can work this out with the contractor. Otherwise it's time to lawyer up and work with the contractor's insurance to get it fixed- assuming it's a defect.

My family has been in the construction business for over 60 years. For the last 20 plus we have also done consulting. Most of that was with regards to construction defects. We have worked for contractors, property owners, lawyers and insurance companies. We can and have testified as an expert witness- from depositions to superior court.

I don't list the experience to brag or try and one up someone. I've been in discussions about many topics on here. Most don't have nearly the financial stakes that this one does. As an example- grading with a grading plane vs box blade - the cost is minimal and the time line isn't an issue. In this case the OP could be talking about thousands and thousands of dollars and the timeline is vital. Because of that I wanted to provide some info and what that info is based on.

BTW- the inspector has near zero liability. It would have to be fraud, bribery, etc to pin anything on the inspector or the jurisdiction.

Good luck! You are going to find out if your research before hiring the contractor is going to pay off- is he going to own his work or cut and run- leaving you holding the bag......again assuming it's a defect.

 

[Member]

This is a crazy question and quite frankly shows a complete lack of knowledge by both the OP (understandable) and the contractor (unfortunate). "Industry standard" "code" "what the inspector wants" and "normal" are all meaningless terms for the argument.
The question is did the concrete fail? Yes or no. If it is YES you have a construction defect. Just because is was built to "code" is meaningless. Code doesn't say it has to be square or straight. It doesn't say it can't leak or lean. It doesn't say it has to be smooth or without cracks. The contractor's obligation is to build a product that meets code AND isn't defective. Every state has laws that cover the length of time the contractor is on the hook for construction defects. As an example California is 10 years while Idaho is 1 year. Google your state and construction defect laws.
The law hinges on three things with regards to the property owner. Did the failure occur within the time limit? Is it a defect (bad workmanship, bad concrete, bad design etc)? And how much will it cost to fix?
Hopefully you can work this out with the contractor. Otherwise it's time to lawyer up and work with the contractor's insurance to get it fixed- assuming it's a defect.

My family has been in the construction business for over 60 years. For the last 20 plus we have also done consulting. Most of that was with regards to construction defects. We have worked for contractors, property owners, lawyers and insurance companies. We can and have testified as an expert witness- from depositions to superior court.

I don't list the experience to brag or try and one up someone. I've been in discussions about many topics on here. Most don't have nearly the financial stakes that this one does. As an example- grading with a grading plane vs box blade - the cost is minimal and the time line isn't an issue. In this case the OP could be talking about thousands and thousands of dollars and the timeline is vital. Because of that I wanted to provide some info and what that info is based on.

BTW- the inspector has near zero liability. It would have to be fraud, bribery, etc to pin anything on the inspector or the jurisdiction.

Good luck! You are going to find out if your research before hiring the contractor is going to pay off- is he going to own his work or cut and run- leaving you holding the bag......again assuming it's a defect.

Did it fail? Yes. In what period of time? One day. What do I mean by fail? A crack all the way through, top to bottom, front to back, uncontained or controlled by rebar that moves every day in that it's an 1/8th of an inch wide in the morning when it's cold and less than 1/16th of an inch in the afternoon when it's warm.

I drew the plans. They were copied, incorrectly, by the builder's draftsperson. The draftsperson's incorrect plans were submitted to obtain the building permit. The builder's draftsperson still included more rebar in the wall section drawing than was done. Some areas (for example the area that cracked) had none. The builder's concrete subcontractor also used discontinuous footings between the house and the attached garage. The plans show continuous footings.

It has been helpful to talk through this with all of you. At this point I imtend to ask that the defective foundation be removed and then I'll abandon the project for now.

 

[RNeumann]

The only mention of rebar is in the wall section view (see attached for an excerpt of that). It is:

2 #4 at the top of the wall, 2 #4 at the bottom of the wall, 2 #4 in the footing.


This is less than I wanted and is this way because the draftsperson couldn't manage to copy my plan correctly which called for:

2 #4 at the top of the wall, 2 #4 in the middle of the wall, 2 #4 in the bottom of the wall, otherwise, code compliant.


There is 1 #4 at the top of the wall. The rest isn't there.


View attachment 507645

If this is the design given to the contractor and he was to build to this spec you are hosed. A 9' wall, even with the best soil (non expansive), needs to be thicker than the 8" depicted and contain more rebar- both vertical and horizontal.



Edit- Sorry I didn't see your post with your replied above. I took the time to look at your other post with photos. The concrete job isn't the best. I see several issues in the photos.

If the contractor was also the drafter you are back in the clear. The contractor's design and workmanship are substandard IMHO.

 

[topbuilder]

Did it fail? Yes. In what period of time? One day. What do I mean by fail? A crack all the way through, top to bottom, front to back, uncontained or controlled by rebar that moves every day in that it's an 1/8th of an inch wide in the morning when it's cold and less than 1/16th of an inch in the afternoon when it's warm.

I drew the plans. They were copied, incorrectly, by the builder's draftsperson. The draftsperson's incorrect plans were submitted to obtain the building permit. The builder's draftsperson still included more rebar in the wall section drawing than was done. Some areas (for example the area that cracked) had none. The builder's concrete subcontractor also used discontinuous footings between the house and the attached
garage. The plans show continuous footings.

It has been helpful to talk through this with all of you. At this point I imtend to ask that the defective foundation be removed and then I'll abandon the project for now.

A crack in a foundation of a metal building... I think this is a bit of an overreaction. As far as make-ups go, yours looked pretty immaculate. If the builder did all that was on the engineered plan, and it was pre-pour inspected, rock on.