# Bad Concrete Work Pouring Footers & Cinder Blocks? Help!



## concrete_joe

well, i am not 100% sure if that is code compliant or not.

when you put bends into rebar it does change the "strength" of the rebar's purpose, etc. it also leaves the rebar exposed to soil moisture which can cause accelerated decomposition, etc. 

as for mortar fill, not a biggy, but they did compromise some strength of those blocks. it may be acceptable mitigation to core fill (those with the holes) using soupy graded concrete, and to put a concrete cube over any exposed rebar.

new home means town inspectors. what does your town inspector say about it? call them and ask.


if it were me, i would have cut off the rebar that didnt align right, and then drill into the footing in correct place, and then epoxy in some new rebar.

are the footing/rebar folks the same folks doing the block work?


----------



## newhomeguy

Yes same guys doing the work. I was worried about the strength of the blocks as well since they are the very bottom and take all the weight.

How does someone go about contacting the town inspector? I looked online and could only find the town's construction permit office. Can I contact the inspector with this question? Is there a cost? Can anyone just do that or will they think I'm crazy for contacting them about something like this? newbie so I really don't know...


----------



## mako1

It's not ok.The rebar should have ben replaced in the correct location and epoxied in to the footing before laying the blocks.The exposed rebar will simply rust off after backfilling and will add no structural integrity between the wall and footing


----------



## jomama45

I wouldn't worry about the integrity or strength of the block, more that the rebar dowels aren't doing what they were intended to do. 

Do both sides of this foundation get buried in soil? I take it that the ledge in the top course is for a poured slab, which will serve as the homes first floor?


----------



## concrete_joe

call the permit office and tell them you spotted a code issue and need inspector to come look and possibly suggest mitigating actions.

my guess is, probably can be fixed so that no code violations exist.

but to sum it up, block folks were either ignorant of code, or were trying to cheat it by.......

best bet is to have inspector come look and s/he make decision on right course of action. better to do now then later, as later might mean a lot of work to fix/mitigate, etc.


----------



## ddawg16

My concern would be if the blocks are fully supported by the footing. For there to be that much offset, I can't help but wonder if the outside edge is not sitting on the footing.


----------



## newhomeguy

Thanks guys for the insight. I took your advice and fired off an email to the towns "Building Services" and "Code Enforcement" asking for an inspector to take a look and offer mitigation's. So we'll see if anyone get's back to me or not. :wink: Update to come....


----------



## Canarywood1

+ 1 to what previous poster said,those block must be sitting on the very edge of the footing or possibly hanging over the edge, not good.


----------



## concrete_joe

Canarywood1 said:


> + 1 to what previous poster said,those block must be sitting on the very edge of the footing or possibly hanging over the edge, not good.


depends on how wide the footing is. if its 12"w footing, and they stabbed the rebar in center, then from the pics it looks like edge of block is right in edge of footing, but cant really tell unless OP takes some additional pics and pulls away some of the sand around footing so we can see what it looks like.

i would suspect though the footing should be wider than 12".

@OP - do you have copy of the plans? if so what does it call for on the footings?


everything said, also makes me wonder is they are laying the block walls in correct location...... i would at this point be verifying measurements to the plans, etc.


----------



## newhomeguy

They wouldn't provide me with the plans 

But these pic's should give an idea what footers look like before blocks went down...


----------



## concrete_joe

newhomeguy said:


> They wouldn't provide me with the plans
> 
> But these pic's should give an idea what footers look like before blocks went down...


no problem, ask your town folks if their records are public domain, most locales it is. you then have legal right to get a copy from the town folks for non-commercial non-profit purposes, like "_i want a copy for my records_", etc. you will have to pay the town folks a small copy fee, etc.

i had same issue with Pulte, they told me their plans were proprietary,,,, and they were right, but that doesnt mean i cant have a copy 


those footings, i have no idea if they were done right or not. i like monolithic pours, just not sure if what you have there was done to code or not. again, another thing for inspector to look at before things progress too far, etc.


----------



## mako1

That's what we call a trench footing around here .Not acceptable for houses but we use them a lot for garages and outbuildings.Your footing looks to be wide enough but without knowing the area your at the depth would be hard to determine.
Problem with this kind of footing is that there is usually no layout for the dowels.They pour the mud and guys go along and stick them in the center of the pour randomly.Somtimes they string a line on batter boards.Sometimes they don't.This is where your issue started.
Nothing to support the dowels while the mud sets and they go every which way as evidenced in the pics.


----------



## newhomeguy

concrete_joe, 

Do you know what town office I should contact about copies of building plans? I googled "town folks" but that didn't work. lol Seriously, your post rang true, I asked the builder for a "plan" of my house so I could see where it sits on the lot, where electrical items are located (in case of remodeling in the future), and they looked at me like I was CRAZY for asking. And then, they said no because it's "proprietary". I said I'm not trying to sell your plans, I just need a copy for my records. I got nothing.


----------



## concrete_joe

the planning & development folks where permits are filed is where a copy of the plans are. call the permit folks again and ask them to connect you to the right dept, etc.

as long as the town records are public domain you have legal right to get a copy, etc.


----------



## joecaption

Is this a house being built on land you own and contracted someone to build on your land, or one of many homes being built in a development?
I'm not seeing one thing that would ever pass inspection here.
All our footing are flat and level, all are rebar is sitting straight up and in a perfect row in the middle of the footings.
No way would I be wasting time emailing, I'd be on the phone or in his office.


----------



## Canarywood1

They must have been drunk when they set the rebar, it's all over the place.


----------



## newhomeguy

***Update***

I did hear back from the builder today. This is the reply...

"I can definitely see you concerns on the matter at hand, I have requested an engineer’s report on this. I’ll be in touch with you as soon as I hear back from him on an acceptable fix. This type of thing does happen from time to time but its not going to slow things down too much."

I'll update with whatever "fix" they come up with.


----------



## landfillwizard

If you are purchasing this house with a loan for a banking institute, then you should be supplied with plans to give to the bank. I would also want to see who the engineer or architect was that designed the foundation. Those foundations would never get accepted if I were inspecting the footers. There is no way to get proper measurement of footer thickness. The only way I would OK a trench pour if it were for a mud slab and the footers would be built on top of the mud slab! Besides i would have looked at the plans to see if the rebar spacing was done for rebar in the footer and placement for vertical rebar was done properly!


----------



## concrete_joe

town inspectors will either ok it or deny it..... most locales use IRBC as base for building codes..... i am not sure what IRBC says for these specific issues....


----------



## ront02769

You are paying $$ for the home to built and get the plans?? I would personally run the other way. Ron


----------



## Oso954

> I would personally run the other way.


So would I.


----------



## joecaption

Footing and foundations bad, the rest of the house follows.


----------



## ddawg16

concrete_joe said:


> town inspectors will either ok it or deny it..... most locales use IRBC as base for building codes..... i am not sure what IRBC says for these specific issues....


Unless he is taking hand outs.....


----------



## concrete_joe

ddawg16 said:


> Unless he is taking hand outs.....


then the need to call in a favor...... people know people who know people, who know people......

get inspector opinion, have him back his words against building code, if its BS then State's Attorney should be contacted, etc.


----------



## newhomeguy

Ok so here's the actual letter from the engineer with his "fix"....
Basically he say's you could cut, drill, and epoxy (like one of you guys mentioned you'd most like have done) but in lieu of that it's acceptable to encase those bent dowel bars exposed to earth by encasing in no less than 3 inches of concrete. 

What do you guys think, good to go or still not ok? (not that I have an option at this point either way). lol :huh:


----------



## concrete_joe

the mitigation as written i guess is what i was expecting....

builder would need to clean good the area and then pour concrete block around the exposed rebar so that the rebar itself is 3"(min) from any edge of the poured block, etc.

i would ask builder to do an additional step, and that would be to quickly wire brush the exposed rebar and hit it with a heavy coat of spray paint, like a rustoleum appliance epoxy spray paint for added protection (at least a few hrs before pouring concrete over them, etc).

does town inspector have any issue with the trench footing themselves ??


----------



## newhomeguy

concrete_joe, I couldn't get the town inspector after several emails and a call, dead air so far  but as far as having an issue with trench footings I can say that apparently it's typical here in Charleston, SC (keep in mind my house is going to be 3 stories on top of trench footings & stem wall) the builder is doing multiple houses in this subdivision right now, all trench footings. They also completed 120+ houses across town, all trench footings, before starting this neighborhood...It puzzles me because I've read ppl say that trench is ok with certain soil types that will support the trench walls BUT my house is facing water (see pic) and can't imagine the soil on James Island (close to tributaries, waterways) is very hard?


----------



## concretemasonry

The photos of the stem wall look life some reasonable construction with the exception of the "drunken" alignment where the exposed rebar can be covered up.

Those footing surfaces in other photos look like a huge problem potential. - They seem to be unformed and vary in alignment, widthe and probably depth. The photo is only what you see above what you got and the concrete below is never wider than the variable tops and who knows how deep they are and if the have any longitudinal reinforcement that is not laying on bare ground.

Considering that it will be in St. James and some soils I have been familiar with a near miss of a hurricane could be a distorter. I am familiar with the area, having dug a few holes in the ground while golfing at wild dunes and know the soil closer to the river is somewhat different.

Too bad they were not inspected during construction to protect you and future owners. The letter from the engineer after the fact said as much as possible based on what he saw and provide some comforting suggestions to correct/minimize the problem regarding the small area of exposed rebar. - It is still built on very questionable footings. Typical in this are of SC is not a guarantee.

I have been asked to write similar engineering letters, but unfortunately, they had to based on what selected information others provided to get a simple "sugar coated" letter of blessing. There are many things that are usually acceptable, but there is no guarantee that the structure shown fits the mold and the work was done to a "code", which is really the worst you can build and still stay out of jail and not the best way to build.

Just my opinion on the sketchy information provided and assuming is accurate. - Make sure you are protected if the builder goes bad and has not paid everything by now.

Dick


----------



## concrete_joe

in my area, prep of holes for footings is inspected before concrete can be poured to make sure hole is big enough and proper rebar is in place. does your town folks have a record of inspections? did they inspect the prep of the trenches ??

why does something just sound all wrong where you're at, almost sounds like house building back in late 1950's when the home building industry was still learning how to build and codes were being drafted and changed often...


IRC R403.1 says min 23" wide footing for non-brick 3story home on weak soil (~1500psf). from the pics, not even sure all that is 23"min???

i mean, i get a bunch of gool search hits for "IRBC footings for homes" and many locales adopt this:



> _2. _
> _FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DESIGN._
> _ Section R401 - R404 IRC 2009 _
> _Footings and foundations sha_
> _ll be designed and constructed in accordan_
> _ce with Sections R401 through R404.14.11. _
> _Footings and foundations sh_
> _all be built on undisturbed soil or engineered fill._
> _ The top surface of footings shall be level. _
> _The bottom surface of footings are permitted to have a slope _
> _not exceeding 1 unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10-_
> _percent slope). Footings shall be stepped where it is necessary _
> _to change the elevation of the top surface of the footing or _
> _where the surface of the ground slopes more than 1 unit _
> _vertical in 10 units horizontal (10-percent slope). _


----------



## Mort

Wow, that's odd. I've never seen a trench footing for something other than a pier before. Definitely no bueno around these parts.


----------



## Canarywood1

newhomeguy said:


> Ok so here's the actual letter from the engineer with his "fix"....
> Basically he say's you could cut, drill, and epoxy (like one of you guys mentioned you'd most like have done) but in lieu of that it's acceptable to encase those bent dowel bars exposed to earth by encasing in no less than 3 inches of concrete.
> 
> What do you guys think, good to go or still not ok? (not that I have an option at this point either way). lol :huh:


 

If it were mine i'd go the cut,drill,epoxy route.


----------



## Msradell

Mort said:


> Wow, that's odd. I've never seen a trench footing for something other than a pier before. Definitely no bueno around these parts.


It's an item that changes dramatically from area to area. We lived in South Carolina before moving to Kentucky. Foundations like that are pretty much the norm in most of South Carolina. Most of the ones I thought were a little "Prettier" but that really doesn't affect functionality.


----------



## concrete_joe

Msradell said:


> It's an item that changes dramatically from area to area. We lived in South Carolina before moving to Kentucky. Foundations like that are pretty much the norm in most of South Carolina. Most of the ones I thought were a little "Prettier" but that really doesn't affect functionality.


SC locales dont use IRBC ??? that is what seems odd to me.


----------



## BigJim

The majority of foundations in Tennessee are like that. One thing we had to do was tie the standing rebar to the horizontal rebar in the footing, the foot of the standing rebar would be at a 90 degree angle that forms an "L". That would never have passed in this area. I will bet the man pouring the concrete and the man laying the blocks are not the same fellow. 

I feel sorry for who ever had to lay those blocks, there is no telling how thick he had to lay mud to get the blocks up off that rough mess. I would be concerned that there would be some cracks if that is a three story. Keep an eye on the slab as the house is built. I will have to say they laid some pretty blocks.

Is that fellow building for you or is he building a spec house for a developer? I would tell who ever you are buying from you want a set of plans to see if you want to make some changes before the house is built. I would insist on a set.


----------



## jomama45

concrete_joe said:


> SC locales dont use IRBC ??? that is what seems odd to me.


I've honestly never heard of "IRBC". Perhaps you mean IRC or IBC????


----------



## jomama45

BigJim said:


> I feel sorry for who ever had to lay those blocks, there is no telling how thick he had to lay mud to get the blocks up off that rough mess. I would be concerned that there would be some cracks if that is a three story. Keep an eye on the slab as the house is built. I will have to say they laid some pretty blocks.


I'm with you, it took alot longer for the mason than it had to.

First, we'd cast bent dowels into the footing, and slide the full length vertical rods in after we grouted the cells. No sense in hoisting block above your chest all day if you don't need to, and the short dowels plumb much easier in wet concrete.

Second, I'm curious what is the reasoning for such frequent rebar in a 4' frost wall with balanced fill on each side of the wall, with #4 rebar on 32" centers that will eventually be turned down into the slab?? The foundation walls are complete overkill IMO, unless this is for potential seismic activity or something.

The major concern IMO is the walls placement on the footing. Good practice, and most code, requires a minimum of 4" of additional footing on both sides of the wall when completed. If the walls are to close to the edge of the footing, they should fail inspection period.......


----------



## newhomeguy

I'm going to check on the "fix" today and see if they poured 3 inches around all the exposed rebar. I did find online that the city requires inspection after footings have been poured and dowels placed so I guess that answers the question about if an inspector ever had a chance to see how deep/wide the footings are. I wasn't there myself no way for me to know BUT I can keep a close eye on the lot next to me and when they dig those trenches I can see then because it will be the same process down the line for each house, guaranteed. 

Here's a house like mine further along...this is how it'll look before they pour the 1st floor slab....


----------



## concretemasonry

newhomeguy -

The "noble" gesture by the city to require inspections after the footing has been poured does nothing to determine the depth and real with of the guts of the footing. - After the footing is poured is a little too late for a full inspection, but that may be acceptable where you are.

The footing is meant to provide a solid base to build on that distributes the loads to the soil in a predictable manner. Most builders around here will require the contractor that builds the wall to be responsible and put in the footing and rebar to match and eliminate liability since it is his responsibility to get it signed off by the inspector. This eliminates the "dump,cover and run fast" routine used by many builders.

The block work looks very good and the block were the best possible units to use if you ignore the cores not aligning perfectly. There are block shapes made that can provide better/perfect alignment and easy grout and rebar placement depending on the rebar spacing. They might not be available from your local supplier.

Dick


----------



## concrete_joe

post #37, it may look overkill but its hurricane alley, etc. which makes me wonder if IRBC calls for better earth tie of footings and block walls..... ??

i am kinda curious to know how that fill was compacted. typically is also required to have vapor barrier too under slabs (but not in my locale, too darn dry).

as for footing prep, they could have just thrown rebar in the concrete (which if pour was soupy the bar could just fall to the bottom), but technically the rebar there should be tied into place so that it has proper spacing in 3D, etc.


----------



## landfillwizard

If I arrived onsite and saw the inside of a block wall like the first picture, Nothing would be passed on an inspection. How would the material placed inside the wall not be subject to differential settlement? How would the backfill placed next to the walls be compacted evenly? Also I was instructed to never allow backfill of a masonry wall more than 1 foot without an equal amount placed on the opposite side!


----------



## BigJim

concrete_joe said:


> post #37, it may look overkill but its hurricane alley, etc. which makes me wonder if IRBC calls for better earth tie of footings and block walls..... ??
> 
> i am kinda curious to know how that fill was compacted. typically is also required to have vapor barrier too under slabs (but not in my locale, too darn dry).
> 
> as for footing prep, they could have just thrown rebar in the concrete (which if pour was soupy the bar could just fall to the bottom), but technically the rebar there should be tied into place so that it has proper spacing in 3D, etc.


The areas I built in were close to the New Madrid fault so we had to build to earthquake codes. Not only were we required to have 6 mil poly we had to have wire and post holes down to undisturbed soil on a 4 foot grid. 

We had to have an inspection on the footings once they were cleaned, squared and had the grade stakes installed with all the rebar in place, and we had to have rebar chairs to hold them off the ground which were wired to the rebar. The upright rebar was tied under the rebar or it didn't pass. We very seldom built walls that tall on level ground, about two foot was it. We did where it was on a hill though but then usually the low side was real close to the ground.


----------



## landfillwizard

I just read on another site that you had posted on that the engineer wanted a concrete perimeter slab pour around the base of the first block. Was this done prior to backfilling?


----------



## Anti-wingnut

Mort said:


> Wow, that's odd. I've never seen a trench footing for something other than a pier before. Definitely no bueno around these parts.


I don't think so. There is nothing in the code that prohibits earthen formed footings. Where the rub comes in is the feasibility in doing so. In some areas where foundations and footings are particularly scrutinized, it becomes problematic to conform with the engineering details using an earthen form. But is you can keep the depths and locations of the bar and the concrete thickness, there is no mechanism for the AHJ to prohibit the use of earth forms.


----------



## Anti-wingnut

Weird that you are buying a new home and you can't see the plans.


----------



## Davejss

Must be a regional thing. Up in my neck of the woods whoever did those footings would immediately be demoted. He would have to turn in his tools and start over. I might let him start by cleaning the portable toilet, and maybe let him work his way up to carrying rocks. But I'd probably just fire him.


----------



## concrete_joe

Anti-wingnut said:


> I don't think so. There is nothing in the code that prohibits earthen formed footings. Where the rub comes in is the feasibility in doing so. In some areas where foundations and footings are particularly scrutinized, it becomes problematic to conform with the engineering details using an earthen form. But is you can keep the depths and locations of the bar and the concrete thickness, there is no mechanism for the AHJ to prohibit the use of earth forms.


trench (monolithic) seems ok, but the finish is not per IRBC.

also, is there code for hurricane zones where you need to tie the footings into the earth in some fashion?




Anti-wingnut said:


> Weird that you are buying a new home and you can't see the plans.


let me explain this. the builder owns the plans, period. unless sales contract says builder to supplier buyer with copy then builder does not have to supply the plans. however, plans have to be submitted to the locale that governs the development (building, etc). in most locales the records are public domain, which means any local resident can get copies of any docs within that public domain (state and local law may restrict it to residents, or may not and its open to anyone). thus, you simply go request a copy of the plans from the building dept office. in my town i have to check off a few boxes "for non-commercial use" and "yes, i read the state laws XYZ".


----------



## Anti-wingnut

concrete_joe said:


> trench (monolithic) seems ok, but the finish is not per IRBC.
> 
> also, is there code for hurricane zones where you need to tie the footings into the earth in some fashion?


You could do a earthen formed T-footing. 

Regardless, it's really crappy work


----------



## jomama45

concrete_joe said:


> trench (monolithic) seems ok, but the finish is not per IRBC.
> 
> also, is there code for hurricane zones where you need to tie the footings into the earth in some fashion?


What do you see that isn't "per IRBC" when it comes to the finish? I've been doing block foundations for more than 20 years for a living, and I don't see any issue with the surface. Generally, the rougher the finish, the better.

Also, earthen formed footings are far more common than you;re aware in a large part of this country, as Anti-wingnut mentioned. There's nothing inherently wrong with them IF you don't need to set draintile next to them and you don't need the footing height as part of the equation for your total frost depth.

Lastly, I've never even heard of the thought of somehow tying footings into the earth for some kind of hurricane resistance. I think you may not realize that at least part of the exterior of that foundation will get backfilled in the near future. 

ANd once again, what in the heck is this "IRBC" you continue to reference?


----------



## concrete_joe

IRC or IRBC = the same, International Residential Building Code

on post #30 i listed the IRBC section..... i guess i wasnt clear, i meant to say finished level per IRBC, how do you get a level footing w/o forms ????


----------



## Anti-wingnut

concrete_joe said:


> *let me explain this. the builder owns the plans, period*. unless sales contract says builder to supplier buyer with copy then builder does not have to supply the plans. however, plans have to be submitted to the locale that governs the development (building, etc). in most locales the records are public domain, which means any local resident can get copies of any docs within that public domain (state and local law may restrict it to residents, or may not and its open to anyone). thus, you simply go request a copy of the plans from the building dept office. in my town i have to check off a few boxes "for non-commercial use" and "yes, i read the state laws XYZ".


Unless the archy supplies the plans, or a designer, or off the web.

It works just like the library and the TV. I can watch or read the media, but I can't sell it.

Regardless of who owns copyright, the buyer of the house should have access to a full set of plans including engineered details.


----------



## Canarywood1

jomama45 said:


> What do you see that isn't "per IRBC" when it comes to the finish? I've been doing block foundations for more than 20 years for a living, and I don't see any issue with the surface. Generally, the rougher the finish, the better.
> 
> Also, earthen formed footings are far more common than you;re aware in a large part of this country, as Anti-wingnut mentioned. There's nothing inherently wrong with them IF you don't need to set draintile next to them and you don't need the footing height as part of the equation for your total frost depth.
> 
> Lastly, I've never even heard of the thought of somehow tying footings into the earth for some kind of hurricane resistance. I think you may not realize that at least part of the exterior of that foundation will get backfilled in the near future.
> 
> ANd once again, what in the heck is this "IRBC" you continue to reference?


 


"Lastly, I've never even heard of the thought of somehow tying footings into the earth for some kind of hurricane resistance."


I agree, no such animal down in these parts,and this is the hurricane capitol of the country.


----------



## jomama45

concrete_joe said:


> IRC or IRBC = the same, International Residential Building Code
> 
> 
> Why not just call it "IRC" like the rest of the country, so it doesn't get confused with IBC or UBC?
> 
> 
> on post #30 i listed the IRBC section..... i guess i wasnt clear, i meant to say finished level per IRBC, how do you get a level footing w/o forms ????


There's a ton of ways to achieve a "level" footing w/o forms in place. The conventional method is to use height stakes set with a laser or transit before the pour, as well as just using a laser receiver to set the height, along with a myriad of combinations of the two styles. It's really not complicated, more like like Concrete 101.........


----------



## newhomeguy

*After the "fix"*

Wanted to show you guys some pictures of the "fix" they filled in the holes in some places and on the one stretch where there was 4-5 in a row they dumped a bunch of concrete over the holes. Also, the last picture to show the final wall since the masons came back to finish the stem wall.


----------



## concrete_joe

so just for giggles, i would start to chip away off the top of the pile of crud they put over the rebar...... just to see if the rebar is 3"(min) below(inside) the concrete in 3D.

to me that looks like crap, but i really dunno if the inspector would pass that or not?? i mean geeze, a few old shoe boxes cut in half and placed up against the wall as a form and filled with soupy concrete would have been a cheap way to make it right..... or even just make form mound with the dirt.......


----------



## newhomeguy

Well after dead air from the city inspector since this thing started, I finally got a reply to my email and guess what???....the city issued a SWO (stop work order) as of today! :thumbup: I'll be interested to see what happens next. Obviously since I emailed them the "fix" was applied so I wonder what the city inspector will have to say about that fix, as well as the footings, trench, etc. in general. I'll update when I hear something. :yes::yes::yes:


----------



## ron45

Makes you wonder if pot is legal in Charleston, SC..?


----------



## concrete_joe

i would be interested in seeing what the inspection card looks like up until the SWO.


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC

newhomeguy said:


> Well after dead air from the city inspector since this thing started, I finally got a reply to my email and guess what???....*the city issued a SWO (stop work order) as of today! :thumbup: I'll be interested to see what happens next*. Obviously since I emailed them the "fix" was applied so I wonder what the city inspector will have to say about that fix, as well as the footings, trench, etc. in general. I'll update when I hear something. :yes::yes::yes:


Newguy......Good for you .....:thumbsup::thumbsup: (People really should not have to oversee work... but in the practical world... they do.

(Regardless of the final outcome... that builder will be reluctant to cut corners on the rest of your home.)

We're interested to see what happens next also.... Time to get out the popcorn....:wink:

Good luck


----------



## newhomeguy

Update! Here is the actual SWO...

After the SWO was posted the builder went back and *improved* on the original fix, I imagine once the inspector got involved they said to themselves crap let's fix the fix! lol It now looks like this...basically a crap load of concrete got dumped over the exposed rebar...I rode by today and noticed the SWO has been removed. So, I have to assume the inspector had no issue with the type of trench footings, the rebar being bent and then covered in this way, the location of the stem wall (if it was off set and sitting on the edge) or any other issue with the foundation work the builders done so far. I have to assume this because he came out re-inspected and removed the SWO, right? Thoughts anyone?:whistling2:


----------



## concrete_joe

ok, as long as the rebar is covered by 3"min in all directions, should be fine. they used a lot of concrete for that cover, they didnt need to, a spackle bucket full would have sufficed and would have been plenty to cover the rebar in cubes.... this builder seems shady if they dont know that exposed rebar like that will not pass code.

but i am still baffled, what exactly do they inspect down there? is there an inspection card? ask to see what has been inspected, in my neck of the woods the hole for footing is an item, the footing itself is an item, etc etc.


----------



## ron45

Call and ask, don't assume the inspector took the order down.


----------



## newhomeguy

Update: Here's what the foundation looks like now! :thumbup: No further action (in addition to what's see in the last pics) was taken and the city inspector took down the SWO. So, this is where it stands...Guess I'm happy the rebar isn't exposed anymore  but it will always remain slightly bent but who will ever see it now. :whistling2:


----------



## concrete_joe

its not a matter of not seeing it, it is a matter of the rebar not turning into rust and becoming useless, etc.

did you ask to see the inspection card.... you also need to make sure the inspector folks are doing their job too, etc. the site manager should be able to show you the inspection card.

my home was a new build from Pulte, i hired a local guy to watch over the construction for me, was well worth the money.


what do they compact the dirt with ???


----------



## BigJim

Are they going to post hole back down to solid ground on a 4 foot grid?


----------



## landfillwizard

Would have never allowed them to backfill the interior without backfilling the exterior the same amount especially with a masonry wall.


----------



## concrete_joe

landfillwizard said:


> Would have never allowed them to backfill the interior without backfilling the exterior the same amount especially with a masonry wall.


huh? block wall basements are not back filled on interior, walls dont fall in.

i believe the outside will stay exposed as-is.


----------



## landfillwizard

I have seen cracked masonry wall because the contractor backfilled the interior and compacted it without filling the exterior wall.


----------



## concrete_joe

landfillwizard said:


> I have seen cracked masonry wall because the contractor backfilled the interior and compacted it without filling the exterior wall.


i honestly dont know the process. i would think a heavy compact with unfilled cores could break the wall. it looks like the cores will be filled when the slab is poured.

i was asking about the compact because it looks like a hand machine was used.


----------



## Msradell

landfillwizard said:


> I have seen cracked masonry wall because the contractor backfilled the interior and compacted it without filling the exterior wall.


 What you are basically seeing is a stem wall, it will not be backfilled. This is SC low country and their requirements at the floor slab be at a certain elevation in regards to sealevel.


----------



## jomama45

landfillwizard said:


> Would have never allowed them to backfill the interior without backfilling the exterior the same amount especially with a masonry wall.


Apparently, you didn't take notice to the amount of re-enforcement inside of the walls. Actually overkill IMPO, but I certainly wound't be worried about backfilling with the re-enforcement in place, and the fact that the foundation is almost a month old. If this bothers you, you'd have a "tizzy" if you saw what we'll backfill a few hours after we lay the block.............:whistling2:


----------



## newhomeguy

Update showing the final product. What do you think guys is this a sturdy foundation???


----------



## concrete_joe

pictures can be deceiving. but yes, from the pics, looks sturdy.

you really wont know until the load of the structure sits there for some time, etc. my guess though, any issues early on should fall into the builders warranty (is there a warranty?).

in post #63, they filled and compacted before putting in any plumbing? they came back later to re-dig for plumbing?


----------



## landfillwizard

jomama45 said:


> Apparently, you didn't take notice to the amount of re-enforcement inside of the walls. Actually overkill IMPO, but I certainly wound't be worried about backfilling with the re-enforcement in place, and the fact that the foundation is almost a month old. If this bothers you, you'd have a "tizzy" if you saw what we'll backfill a few hours after we lay the block.............:whistling2:


I saw a lot of rebar but no block filler. All the jobs I was on they backfilled the block with 4K PSI grout before they poured the pad. They had to wait at least 1 week to get results back from the lab on the first break (compression test). That is when they were allowed to backfill the wall interior. I guess we have different rules in NYS!


----------



## jomama45

concrete_joe said:


> in post #63, they filled and compacted before putting in any plumbing? they came back later to re-dig for plumbing?


You pretty much need to compact before plumbing, or the plumbing elevations will change drastically after compaction.......



landfillwizard said:


> I saw a lot of rebar but no block filler. All the jobs I was on they backfilled the block with 4K PSI grout before they poured the pad. They had to wait at least 1 week to get results back from the lab on the first break (compression test). That is when they were allowed to backfill the wall interior. I guess we have different rules in NYS!


Obviously, things are different by region. Here, you don't submit grout prism samples for residential work. Only in commercial/governmental/civic/etc... and it's generally limited to something between 2000 to 3000 psi MAXIMUM, not minimum...........


----------



## newhomeguy

They did indeed compact (with a hand machine) before putting in the pluming etc and then they compacted again after. One of the spanish guys I spoke to actually doing the work said the concrete they pour amounts to about +/- 8 inches total poured over the dirt to make the slab. 

Here's another house, same plan, MUCH further along in construction to show what the structure sitting on the foundation will look like...


----------

