Non continuous foundation pour, something to worry about?
- Thread starter Onewolf
- Start date
I'm not sure what you mean by bond bean on the lower section?
My understanding is that wherever there is rebar in the stem wall there will be a column of concrete poured.
BTW, the foundation/footer guys were back out here this morning to finish the foundation/footer pour. The first thing they did was to apply bright blue "bonding agent" to both ends where the first pour prematurely ended.
Yes, good question. So far their tactic has been to blame to guy who's not there.
I do know that the engineering drawings call for 16" wide footer for the 'low' stem wall section and 24" wide footer for the 'high' stem wall section and it looks to me like the footer was dug about 20" wide for the 'low' section and 26" wide for the 'high' section.
Paultergeist
Active member
Wow.....I am not a professional nor an expert, but I see very scant evidence of there even being a footing under those stacked concrete blocks. I can see -- from the pictures -- what appear to be two spots where the end/corner of the blocks are *floating* unsupported. A proper footing -- in my opinion -- should be cleanly executed (dare I say "nice-looking") such that the dimensions and boundary of the footing are obvious. This footing looks as if concrete slurry was simply dumped into a trench, resulting in a sort of amorphous blend of concrete and earth?
Also -- and again, I am not an expert -- that does not look like much rebar to me. Rebar is very cheap, and I just do not see any reason to skimp on it. Are those vertical pieces of rebar tied to any horizontal rebar within the (now concealed) lower blocks? Is there going to be a piece of horizontal rebar running along the top of the course of block? Is there any rebar wrapping around the corners (corners are more as a common failure point)?
Lastly, are the block cells going to be filled?
Also -- and again, I am not an expert -- that does not look like much rebar to me. Rebar is very cheap, and I just do not see any reason to skimp on it. Are those vertical pieces of rebar tied to any horizontal rebar within the (now concealed) lower blocks? Is there going to be a piece of horizontal rebar running along the top of the course of block? Is there any rebar wrapping around the corners (corners are more as a common failure point)?
Lastly, are the block cells going to be filled?
Paultergeist
Active member
I am curious about your question. I have seen the cells of concrete block left empty (hollow), and I have conversely seen the cells filled with concrete. I have never seen "grout" used in a structural role with regards to concrete block. Can you elaborate?
I also do not understand this statement. In the context of concrete and block construction such as this, I would interpret a "bond beam" to mean a horizontal length of rebar embedded into the block cavities, typically tied in with vertical rebar passing through the block cells. I see absolutely no evidence of such a length of horizontal rebar in any of these pictures. Can you more specifically point out this "bond beam" of which you refer?
paul2112
Well-known member
First job out of highschool('87) I was working for a civil engineering company ,making concrete test cyl on job sites,,soil density etc..I remember a job i was on for a few months was a brand new water treatment facility ( in Mansfield TX)..One day a a ******** got stuck in a 12' deep wall. Well they couldn't get it without taking the forms down, so the pour was stopped midway.. Once out, the next day they applied some kind of epoxy glue material to the previously poured concrete, then continued on with the pour. Guess it held cause its still there today
You can follow the link in his sig for pics of his build.
myredracer
Well-known member
As far as structural integrity goes, the incomplete footing pour I would say is pretty much a non-issue providing the load bearing capacity of the native soil and any fill material is okay and the strength of the mix is okay. Perhaps the batch you got was leftover from someone else's job and you got the leftover? Was it "old" by the time it got to your site? Sometimes they keep adding water to prevent it from setting up and that weakens it.
The footing will crack in places anyway due to shrinkage. Concrete always shrinks - that's just what it does as it cures and dries. If there is a horizontal rebar all the around in the the top course of the block as well, that is a very strong footing/foundation.
As an engineer myself (not structural), I would highly recommend having a structural engineer come and look at it. This should not have happened and should have been supervised by the GC. What else might be wrong already? Is this a sign of things to come?? If you do have an engineer do a visit, it will put the GC "on notice" that you expect the work to be done properly and full comply comply with the specs and code.
Our next door neighbor recently had a 2000 sq ft or so shop built. The GC had someone come in and place backfill all around the approx. 3' high foundation on the exterior only and then compacted it with a plate compactor the next day after the forms were stripped. Wall was completely unsupported on one side and that is an excellent way to blow a wall out or at the least, put a bunch of cracks in it. Idiots. There are lots of things homeowners won't know unless you have a professional around to monitor the work. You want to catch issues as they happen, not discover them years down the road.
Here in BC, on residential construction, you are now required to have sealed and signed plans from a structural engineer (including geotechnical) and the engineer has to do field inspections and sign off on reports at key stages. While it adds cost, it is a good thing. Personally, I would not build a structure like that without involvement of an engineer.
The footing will crack in places anyway due to shrinkage. Concrete always shrinks - that's just what it does as it cures and dries. If there is a horizontal rebar all the around in the the top course of the block as well, that is a very strong footing/foundation.
As an engineer myself (not structural), I would highly recommend having a structural engineer come and look at it. This should not have happened and should have been supervised by the GC. What else might be wrong already? Is this a sign of things to come?? If you do have an engineer do a visit, it will put the GC "on notice" that you expect the work to be done properly and full comply comply with the specs and code.
Our next door neighbor recently had a 2000 sq ft or so shop built. The GC had someone come in and place backfill all around the approx. 3' high foundation on the exterior only and then compacted it with a plate compactor the next day after the forms were stripped. Wall was completely unsupported on one side and that is an excellent way to blow a wall out or at the least, put a bunch of cracks in it. Idiots. There are lots of things homeowners won't know unless you have a professional around to monitor the work. You want to catch issues as they happen, not discover them years down the road.
Here in BC, on residential construction, you are now required to have sealed and signed plans from a structural engineer (including geotechnical) and the engineer has to do field inspections and sign off on reports at key stages. While it adds cost, it is a good thing. Personally, I would not build a structure like that without involvement of an engineer.
Last edited:
sberry
Banned
Its way beyond what the building needs.
tcianci
Well-known member
Roll with it. All the forces are down. You guys are making a big deal out of absolutely nothing. I've read zillions of posts where guys come out of the wood work to crank up the OP while admitting that they don't know jack about the subject at hand. Funny, these seem to be the same guys that are always getting screwed by contractors. Hmmm, see any connection here
I have commented in the past about this place being technically bankrupt. This is yet another example of that
It would benefit everyone on the forum if folks would put on their big boy pants and just stfu if you don't know what you're talking about.
I have commented in the past about this place being technically bankrupt. This is yet another example of that
It would benefit everyone on the forum if folks would put on their big boy pants and just stfu if you don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
nolimits76
Well-known member
I saw where someone mentioned using earth formed sides on the footing. This is perfectly normal and acceptable. Also, it is much cheaper. Otherwise you have to use form boards which drives up cost. The reason for form boards is to keep your 2" or 3" clearance from the forms (earth or wood). You can't get a perfect earth formed side, so to ensure you get your minimum clearance, you have to adjust your rebar cage.
In regards to the footing being poured separately, this isn't a big deal either. What is odd is how they choose to terminate. They should have bulkheaded up and had a plan. When they realized they were going to be short, it would have taken them 10-15 minutes to do it right vs the hack jack they did.
Will it fail? I doubt it. But I would have heads rolling if one of my concrete crews delivered that job for one of my clients. Question: Is your contract based on a set of plans & specs, and if so, does those plans & specs identify structural details?
Some options....
More disturbing is the fact they screwed the pooch on the concrete pour. It may be a different world in residential construction and a small time contractor, but this shouldn't have happened. Simply stated...piss poor planning! There may be additional overtime charges, etc. to dispatch more concrete trucks but that would have been on the contractor not you as they choose the pour time, and had an option to properly bulkhead vs what they did. FYI, I've poured concrete in the evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, early mornings (2-3am), etc. The excuse given was total BS.
In regards to the footing being poured separately, this isn't a big deal either. What is odd is how they choose to terminate. They should have bulkheaded up and had a plan. When they realized they were going to be short, it would have taken them 10-15 minutes to do it right vs the hack jack they did.
Will it fail? I doubt it. But I would have heads rolling if one of my concrete crews delivered that job for one of my clients. Question: Is your contract based on a set of plans & specs, and if so, does those plans & specs identify structural details?
Some options....
More disturbing is the fact they screwed the pooch on the concrete pour. It may be a different world in residential construction and a small time contractor, but this shouldn't have happened. Simply stated...piss poor planning! There may be additional overtime charges, etc. to dispatch more concrete trucks but that would have been on the contractor not you as they choose the pour time, and had an option to properly bulkhead vs what they did. FYI, I've poured concrete in the evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, early mornings (2-3am), etc. The excuse given was total BS.