# 2009 IRC Rebar in Footings



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

Most cities in Oklahoma the inspectors are requiring four #4 horizontal rebars in the footing, or two #5 stacked.  I find that no rebar is required in the 2009 IRC except that foundation with stemwall one 12 inches from top of stemwall and one within 3 or 4 inches of bottom of footing (R403.1.3.1).

No siesmic requirements here.  According to 2009 IRC I don't find where any rebar is required in the footing accept where a stemwall is added.

Is rebar required in footings and am I missing something?


----------



## Daddy-0- (Aug 12, 2012)

Do you have expansive soil?


----------



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

No expansive soil, just looking for code requirements.  Thought I might be missing something in the code book.  To me the only requirement in my case is with stem wall you must have one #4 in stemwall and only one #4 in footing assuming normal conditions and no extinuating circumstanses.


----------



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

oops, I said extenuating and ment extraordinary.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 12, 2012)

Could be a local amendment.

We require 2-#5 top and bottom of foundation walls as a local amendment.

Ask the inspector for a Code section.

mj


----------



## ICE (Aug 12, 2012)

MJ,

Is that two at the top and two at the bottom for a total of four?


----------



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

Ok, getting off track here.  2009 IRC, I see no, nada, none requirements for rebar in the footing.  Am I missing something?  Without any extraordinary conditions and no local amendments, do you know of any IRC requirements for rebar in the footing? Please


----------



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

ps. I am the inspector and I don't make up my own codes, so I need the actual requirements that I might be missing.  Just a little rusty and in new environment.


----------



## chris kennedy (Aug 12, 2012)

Durant said:
			
		

> I don't make up my own codes


That shows very little imagination.


----------



## ICE (Aug 12, 2012)

*R403.1.3.1* Foundations with stemwalls.

Foundations with stem walls shall have installed a minimum of one No. 4 bar within 12 inches (305 mm)of the top of the

wall and one No. 4 bar located 3 inches (76 mm) to 4 inches (102 mm) from the bottom of the footing.

*R403.1.3.2 *Slabs-on-ground with turned-down footings.

Slabs on ground with turned down footings shall have a minimum of one No. 4 bar at the top and the bottom of the footing.

Exception: For slabs-on-ground cast monolithically with the footing, locating one No. 5 bar or two No. 4

bars in the middle third of the footing depth shall be permitted as an alternative to placement at the footing top and bottom.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 12, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> MJ,Is that two at the top and two at the bottom for a total of four?


Yep. We have some very expansive local soil with many foundation failures. The foundation repair companies keep plenty busy with our older housing stock.


----------



## Durant (Aug 12, 2012)

ICE,

Then where the footing is poured first and the stemwall is added on next pour the only requirement in the footing is for one #4 rebar in the footing.  That's what I read.

Thanks


----------



## ICE (Aug 12, 2012)

Durant said:
			
		

> ICE,Then where the footing is poured first and the stemwall is added on next pour the *only requirement* in the footing is for one #4 rebar in the footing.  That's what I read.
> 
> Thanks


That depends on the engineered design.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Aug 12, 2012)

We have terrible soil here. We require an engineered design for new house footings in most areas of the county depending on the soil report results. We have a county minimum of (2) #4's in footings.


----------



## Durant (Sep 22, 2012)

Just as I thought; without amendments there is no requirement for rebar reinforcement in the footing accept with stemwall one #4 near the bottom; or if monolithic or turndown foot.

Thanks


----------



## Yankee (Sep 26, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> *R403.1.3.1* Foundations with stemwalls. Foundations with stem walls shall have installed a minimum of one No. 4 bar within 12 inches (305 mm)of the top of the
> 
> wall and one No. 4 bar located 3 inches (76 mm) to 4 inches (102 mm) from the bottom of the footing.
> 
> ...


To be clear , your quote is for seismic D's , not other areas.


----------



## peach (Sep 30, 2012)

Durant said:
			
		

> Just as I thought; without amendments there is no requirement for rebar reinforcement in the footing accept with stemwall one #4 near the bottom; or if monolithic or turndown foot.Thanks


that's really for the vertical dowels to have something to hook to in the footing.  Expansive soil is a totally different animal.


----------



## Coder (Oct 3, 2012)

Durant said:
			
		

> Just as I thought; without amendments there is no requirement for rebar reinforcement in the footing accept with stemwall one #4 near the bottom; or if monolithic or turndown foot.Thanks


I don't think I am going to make a public announcement about that. Even though we are mostly siesmic B around here, I will continue to require some rebar in the footing. Besides it makes for a pretty boring footing inspection without it.    Just my two cents


----------



## Mark K (Oct 3, 2012)

Mr. Inspector

By requiring something that is not required by the adopted regulations you are acting illegally.  Your job is to enforce the adopted regulations not to impose your personal preferences.


----------



## Coder (Oct 8, 2012)

Mr.Inspector said:
			
		

> I don't think I am going to make a public announcement about that. Even though we are mostly siesmic B around here, I will continue to require some rebar in the footing. Besides it makes for a pretty boring footing inspection without it.    Just my two cents





			
				Mark K said:
			
		

> Mr. InspectorBy requiring something that is not required by the adopted regulations you are acting illegally.  Your job is to enforce the adopted regulations not to impose your personal preferences.


Let me rephrase. I will continue to allow reinforcement in footings


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

Stick to your guns there in Gunnison.  Whatever segment of this country managed to get plain concrete foundations into the code deserves a good nose twisting.  And then there's that code that only geniuses understand about 2 #4 in the middle.


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Mr. InspectorBy requiring something that is not required by the adopted regulations you are acting illegally.  Your job is to enforce the adopted regulations not to impose your personal preferences.


You know Mark, you have said that quite a few times.  What do you have against innovation?


----------



## Mark K (Oct 8, 2012)

Ice

What do you not understand about complying with the law?  How would you feel if a police officer gave you a ticket for speeding because he did not like the color of your car?

One of the few instances where a building official or inspector can be held personally liable is when he knowingly requires something that is not required by the adopted regulations.

I hear the complaints about government controlling our lives but when regulations are adopted procedures are followed that give us an option to object.  I think it is much worse when individuals such as building inspectors put themselves in a position of imposing their own personal beliefs.

If you believe the building codes are inadequate work to have them changed legally, but until that happens your job is to enforce the adopted regulations.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 8, 2012)

Even the IBC will allow plain concrete without longitudinal bars for one and two family dwellings three stories or less even in seismic zones C,D,E or F

1908.1.8 ACI 318, Section 22.10.

Delete ACI 318, Section 22.10, and replace with the following:


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

123deleted


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> IceWhat do you not understand about complying with the law?


Your entire argument rests on the premise that the code is perfect and so must be the enforcers.  The code is law and the law is all that we need.  Flawed humans have authority to enforce the law but due to the flaw, no authority to ruminate law.  Does that pretty much sum it up?

For lack of an argument you are saying, "Ya well, it's the law ya know"  The refrain is a pronouncement of capitulation.

Reasonable persons will, in the coarse of enforcing codes, find inconsistencies, discrepancies, omissions, arbitrary strictures, etc. all the way to bold faced mistakes.

Pay attention to the meat of the matter before you trot out the "Well it's the law"

And fatboy, quit scratching your head, ruminate has nothing to do with a cow.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 8, 2012)

For the record I do have problems with concrete without reinforcement and as an engineer I will likely have obligations to do more than the minimum required by the building code.  But that is between me, my client, and the courts.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 8, 2012)

Mark, don't you know ICE stands for Imprudent Code Enforcement


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> Mark, don't you know ICE stands for Imprudent Code Enforcement


That's funny...no really, I enjoyed that.  Impertinent fits too..  Hey I know, Let's see how many permutations there are. I've already thought of a few more and none of them are nice.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings; I'll never give you that kind of control....this could be fun...Why did it take you so long to come up with this?

....hit me with your best shot....fire away...sing it fatboy...er..uh...Pat

Well we better take **** off the table right now but everything else is fair game.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 8, 2012)

Wasn't meant to be nice.


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> Wasn't meant to be nice.


I've always known that about you.....and like I said, nice doesn't matter......

I don't figure you to be a one trick pony so let's see where this goes.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 8, 2012)

How about nowhere


----------



## ICE (Oct 8, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> How about nowhere


Well you came out of nowhere only to return.


----------



## bptp32 (Oct 9, 2012)

WE always ask for a soil bearing test in conformance with R401.4 or add 2 # 4 minimum to the footings,  along with the vertical footing dowels that will match the vertical reinforcing required.  In this portion of NY State we mostly see masonry walls, not poured concrete walls, and the reinforcing requirements are spelled out in the Tables.  Most of our soil conditions are clay.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 9, 2012)

Am not clear where the code allows you to substitute added reinforcement for determining the soil bearing strength.

While reinforcing will help mitigate the impact of soft soils it is not clear that this amount of reinforcing will always be effective


----------



## Coder (Oct 9, 2012)

Wow. I opened up a hornets nest here.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 9, 2012)

The hornets nest was always open, you just stirred them up some.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 9, 2012)

High Desert said:
			
		

> The hornets nest was always open, you just stirred them up some.


It is the choice of each individual hornet if they want to get stirred up or not.


----------



## pwood (Oct 9, 2012)

Mr.Inspector said:
			
		

> Wow. I opened up a hornets nest here.


 naw! the beast (code interpretations ) has always been here it just gets fed every now and then!


----------



## jar546 (Oct 9, 2012)

We just need to tone down the personal stuff a bit.

Passion does have a place in code enforcement but delivery can be a bit testy


----------



## ICE (Oct 9, 2012)




----------



## Coder (Oct 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

>


That is hilarious. I especially like "Caution Dance floor may be wet Dance at your own risk" :lol:


----------

