Posted By dmaceld on 15 May 2011 05:34 PM

Posted By BrucePolycrete on 15 May 2011 02:59 PM
However, the building inspector is responsible for inspecting the formwork. That's why they have them. If there's not enough reinforcing steel in the wall, shame on that inspector.

No, shame on the contractor. The only reason we have inspectors is because many contractors, just like many manufacturers, deliberately choose to not build according to accepted standards, or better, except in the presence of penalties if they don't. The best one word description for what an inspector, in any business, really is, is historian. By the time the inspector sees the work, it is done. It is history. All the inspector is doing is recording history. He has zero responsibility for the quality of the work. The best manufacturers in the world do not use inspectors. They control the process so as to avoid errors. They absolutely do not rely on inspectors to assure the quality of their work. Two good examples; Honda and Harley Davidson (after the AMF ownership fiasco).

The building inspector was out twice . First inspection was of the forms for the footings with the rebar in place, prior to the pour. The second was after the ICF forms were set up prior to the pour.   I have contacted the inspector but have not heard back .

the rebar laying in the mud, no stools , bricks etc above . Is this normal practise?

No it is not normal practice, but I see a lot of guys doing it and claiming they will lift it as they pour...yea right, it never gets lifted and if it does it sporadic at best.

There should be some form of chair, dobie, whatever name you want to call them holding it in place. Where are the dowels in this pic? Let me guess...wet set right? That's another funny one, usually not placed in the right location and when set if the mud is really wet they get pushed to the dirt below to stabilize them!

Engineering inspections are so well worth their cost, eliminates this sort of thing.

Is there no building inspection at your site? The inspector in my city is really picky and makes sure that the rebar is placed as per the engineer's plans.

This is how the footings for my house looked like before the pour (the water was removed before placing concrete):

What's all that funny-looking ribbed stuff in the picture?

Posted By gorden on 19 May 2011 01:50 PM
the rebar laying in the mud, no stools , bricks etc above . Is this normal practise?

it is not code compliant

ICFHybrid,

Are you asking about the ribbed rebar?  Do you not use ribbed rebar?

I think ICFHybrid is practicing his stand-up routine.. Maybe he has a gig coming up in Atlantic City...

Although I won't argue with the experts on this, it seems like post tensioning with less steel and concrete would be more cost effective.

Post tensioning does allow a reduction in the use of rebar but does not replace all of it.  Post tensioning can actually cost more in a lot of cases than the offset from savings in rebar and concrete.  It depends upon the application and the engineer.  If post tensioning was always less expensive then a lot more spec builders would be using it.

Post tensioned slab/footers do cost more, but cost varies  regionally. In Louisiana where they are frequently used because of silt and expansive clay soil the cost is about $1.00 per sq. ft. more, but in Florida where post tensioned slabs are used where sink holes are suspect,  but are not commonly used the up charge is about $2.50 per sq. ft.


Post tensioning slabs does not prevent a bad ICF install

I think ICFHybrid is practicing his stand-up routine.. Maybe he has a gig coming up in Atlantic City...

Needs work, huh? :-)

Really it was just more of a reaction to the differences in the construction quality between the two pictures above....

I will try  to talk to the building inspector to see what he was there to inspect , and what he saw etc Thx .