The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11042004 BSC Agenda Item 7 Draft amendment of the Standard Codes Schedule regarding foundations With revisions through 10-7-04 Standard Codes Schedule Adoption. Subject to the amendments and deletions indicated beneath each code, each of the following codes, including all of its published appendices and attachments, is adopted, ordained and made a part of the Code of Ordinances of the City and of each chapter where it is referenced, except as otherwise expressly provided. Procedure for amendments,etc. The procedure for adopting new codes, updated codes, local amendments and provisions for administration and enforcement of these codes is as follows: (1)proposal by the building official or other appropriate City official, (2)referral to the Building&Standards Commission, (3)consideration by the City Council, after giving required meeting notices, and(4)adoption and publication, as required by Article II of the City Charter. International Building Code,2000 Ed., International Code Council,Inc.. profcssional engineer("RPE"), and the work shall bc- ' . • . • ; • • • • : . • • • • . . .. . . : . 4 •• • • , : • €ar ther- 3. All foundations for new buildings (or additions to existing buildings)with more than one story, or with a gross floor area of 485 square feet or more, must meet the criteria in this section, as applicable. In this section: "A2LA Lab"means a laboratory accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation on the basis of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 ("general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories"). "RLPE"means a licensed or registered professional engineer of the State of Texas who is: Page 1 (1) employed by a registered engineering firm of the State of Texas and (2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits of at least$500,000 per year, aggregate; and "RLGE"means a person who is: (1) either: (a) a registered professional geoscientist of the State of Texas, or(b) a licensed or registered professional engineer who is listed with the State Board of Professional Engineers in a relevant branch of engineering(civil, structural or geological) and employed by a registered engineering firm of the State of Texas; and (2) covered by professional errors and omissions insurance with limits of at least$500,000 per year,aggregate. a. Engineering. Foundations must be constructed in accordance with complete plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed by a RLPE. The plans and specifications must be prepared specifically for the site of the work, and they must meet criteria as to scope, content and form specified by the building official. If there are existing trees (either to remain or to be removed)that could affect a foundation,the RLPE must certify that the trees have been taken into account in the preparation of the plans and specifications. b. Geotechnical Report. The plans and specifications for each foundation must be based on a written geotechnical report prepared, signed and sealed by a RLGE. The report must cover all testing and site evaluation, and all must meet all applicable criteria in"Recommended Practice for Geotechnical Explorations and Reports"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance Association,Houston, Texas (Document#FPA-SC-04-0, Rev#0, 11 April 2001, issued for website publishing), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's office. Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is "structural slab with void space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations,"as described below, the testing, evaluation and report Page 2 may be limited to a determination of the appropriate depth for the deep foundations,but they must meet the other applicable criteria. The minimum depth of borings is 20 feet in all cases. All tests and other laboratory work must be performed by an A2LA Lab. c. Foundation Performance Standard. The plans and specifications for each foundation must be prepared to achieve a foundation soil movement potential of one inch or less, determined by the estimated depth of the active zone in combination with at least two of the following methods: (1) Potential vertical rise (PVR) determined in accordance with Test Method Tex-124-E,Rev. January 1, 1978/December 1982, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Materials and Test Division, "Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise,PVR"(a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Secretary). For this purpose,the "dry"moisture condition(from which little shrinkage is experienced,but where volumetric swell potential is greatest) shall be used for each sample and test. (2) Swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D4546-03, "Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils"as last revised prior to June 1, 2004. (3) Suction and hydrometer swell tests performed in accordance with ASTM D5298-03 "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction)Using Filter Paper"and ASTM D6836-02 "Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using a Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge,"as such methods were last revised prior to June 1, 2004. (Partial exception: If the basic type of foundation is "structural slab with void space and deep foundations"or"structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations,"as described below,neither a PVR determination nor a swell, suction or hydrometer test is required.) d. Foundations, Basic Types. Each foundation must be of an approved basic type. Approved basic types are listed below. In this list, types of foundations are Page 3 defined and described in"Foundation Design Options For Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings on Expansive Soils"published by the Structural Committee of the Foundation Performance Association,Houston, Texas (Document#FPA- SC-01-0, Rev#0, 30 Jun 04,marked"For Website Publishing"), a copy of which is on file in the City Secretary's office("FDO"). (1) Structural slab with void space and deep foundations. (2) Structural floor with crawl space and deep foundations. (3) Stiffened structural slab with deep foundations. (4) Stiffened non-structural slab with deep foundations. (5) Grade-supported stiffened structural slab. (6) Grade-supported stiffened non-structural slab. (7) Grade-supported non-stiffened slab of uniform thickness(approved for one-story buildings--or additions to buildings--containing only garage or storage space,not habitable space). (8) Mixed-depth system for all new building construction. (9) Mixed-depth system for building additions with deep foundations. (10) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h), below. c. Foundations, Deep Support Components. Deep support components must be of an approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list,types of deep support components are defined and described in FDO. (1) Drilled and underreamed concrete piers. (2) Drilled straight-shaft concrete piers. (3) Auger-cast concrete piles. (4) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h), below. f. Foundations, reinforcement. Reinforcement for each foundation must be of an approved type. Approved types are listed below. In this list, types of reinforcement are defined and described in FDO. (1) Deformed bar reinforcing. (2) Welded wire fabric reinforcing (approved for one-story buildings--or additions to buildings--containing only garage or storage space,not Page 4 habitable space). (3) Another type approved by special exception issued by the BSC. See(h): below. g. Foundations, Observation & Certification. Each foundation must be professionally observed and must be certified by an RLPE, as more fully described below: (1) Observations must: (i) be performed either by the certifying RLPE or by one or more persons under that RLPE's direct supervision and control whose professional qualifications are approved by the RLPE(any such person may be an RLGE, with respect to geophysical matters), (ii) include actual measurement of piers, fill, compaction, reinforcement, forms, materials, dimensions, structural elements, stressing, tendons,tensions, attachments, etc. before the work is covered or concrete is placed, (iii) be performed continuously during placement of concrete and any stressing or tensioning operations, and (iv) be documented in a form and manner approved by the building official (which may include photographs). (2) Certifications must: (i) refer to and be based upon the professional observations required by this section, (ii) state that the work complies with the plans and specifications last approved by the building official (with any field changes that are ordered by the RLPE and reported to the building official and that comply with applicable regulations), (iii) state that the work complies with sound engineering practices, (iv) comply with criteria as to form and content as may be specified by the building official, (v) be signed and sealed by the certifying RLPE, and (vi) be filed with the building official. Page 5 (3) Certifications may: (i) rely in part upon an attached certification by a RLGE, as to geophysical matters, and (ii) rely in part upon an attached certification by an A2LA Lab, as to materials testing. Before framing or other work commences atop a foundation(and before the foundation is otherwise covered),the permittee must obtain written acknowledgment from the building official that the certification for the foundation was duly filed as required above. Certifications,plans, specifications and related items may be kept on file by the City, for public inspection, for an indefmite period of time. h. Special Exceptions. The BSC may issue a special exception from any requirement in subsection"a"through"g,"above, but only upon a showing that: (1) the requirement will not affect life safety or the performance of a structure (for its estimated useful life); or (2) an alternate requirement to be imposed by the special exception will provide equal or better protection for life safety and long-term structural performance. In connection with any such special exception,the BSC may require that the applicant provide supporting engineering data and opinion, and the BSC may impose conditions to carry out the purpose and intent of applicable regulations. 4. All concrete piers, footings and foundations must be cured for at least 72 hours before any significant load is placed on them. 5. All walls and ceilings within a R-1,R-2, R-3 and R-4 type occupancy shall be sheathed with Type X gypsum board at least 5/8-inch (15.9 mm)thick. Exception: Where this code(IBC)requires otherwise for moisture protection. 6. Delete: Appendices A (Employee Qualifications), B (Board of Appeals)and D (Fire Districts). * * * Page 6 Guest list, for the Building and Standards Commission meeting hearings & workshops regarding the draft foundation ordinances, amendments & revisions. 2004 year to date. ❑ Adam Costa, General Contractor ❑ Allen Edwards, Builder, Allen Edwards Builders ❑ Charles Bonner, Sterling Homes ❑ Charles Koch, Builder, American Classic Homes ❑ Craig Hughes, Builder, Hughes Building & Design ❑ Dan Scheffer, Builder, Scheffer & Associates ❑ Daniel Gay, P.E., Gay & Loudermilk Engineers ❑ David A. Eastwood, P.E., Geotech Engineering &Testing ❑ Elan Tavor, Builder, Stacy Fine Homes ❑ Elias Fayez Hourani, P.E., ❑ Jennifer Ridgeway, Sterling Homes ❑ Joseph A. Edwards, Edwards Consulting Inc;( Post Tension Slabs) ❑ Julio L. Larguarta, Builder, Forest Homes ❑ Larkin Matthews, Builder, Larkin Matthew Custom Builders ❑ Les Albin, Builder, Lacon Homes ❑ Marie J. Starich, P.E., Solum Engineering Inc. ❑ Martin Gonzales, Builder, Heights Custom Homes ❑ Michael A. Skoller, P.E., National Structural Engineering ❑ Michael Talianchich, P.E., Builder, Resident. ❑ Mike Evanson, Builder, Rockwell Homes ❑ Robert Riquelmy, Bellaire BSC & General Contractor ❑ Ron Kelm P.E., Forensic Engineering ❑ Stan Rosen, Builder, Georgian Homes Annette Arriaga Distribution List Name: Contractor E-Mail Dist List: Categories: Business that request to be e-mailed with updates: Members: Conractor rartz @houston.rr.com Contractor whitleycs @msn.com Contractor wetpoolsinc@family.net Contractor was86son @aol.com Contractor will1023gard @aol.com Contractor trlaird1@aol.com Contractor tosw @swordplumbing.com Contractor strictlyquality @ msn.com Contractor victoriamonreal2002 @yahoo.com Contractor steve @updateconstruction.com Contractor stacey @platinumpools.com Contractor srjr2 @yahoo.com Contractor sthill @hal-pc.org Contractor schefferdm @aol.com Contractor sauachanteau @yahoo.com Contractor sam21 rcc @houston.rr.com Contractor jritchmond @ritchmondconstruction.com Contractor russ @rohewright.com Contractor rockwellhomes @hotmail.com Contractor rtwardowski @houston.rr.corn Contractor S_B_IYER @hotmail.com Contractor roger @rogermartinproperties.com Contractor rickbullard @earthlink.net Contractor rockwellhomes @hotmail.com Contractor ross @rossdumreality.com Contractor rnbmogy @sbcglobal.net Contractor rbuilder@swbell.net Contractor ricecobuilder @aol.com Contractor gilbert @gsgbuilders.com Contractor rescon21@aol.com Contractor pjamea @aol.com Contractor randycz @aol.com Contractor rholgate @uspconnectors.com Contractor quirkmiter @evl.net Contractor gblake @houston.rr.com Contractor office @diamondcustomhomes.net Contractor demproinc @aol.com Contractor mattlundgren2 @aol.com Contractor mollie @raineypools.com Contractor neel @bluewaterfountains.com Contractor charkuck1@aol.com Contractor mgranit @granitbuilders.com Contractor melinda @mnoel.com Contractor mjsmechser @aol.com Contractor Laurie_Lawrence @DWHomes.com Contractor mattland @sprintpcs.com Contractor mattbldg @aol.com Contractor mealy @swbell.net Contractor jsedwards @houston.rr.com Contractor Istar2552 @hotmail.com Contractor LSBC@swbell.net Contractor mattbldg @aol.com • Contractor rpieszchala @yahoo.com Contractor smarrs @bmpllp.com Contractor mmcdaniel7 @houston.rr.com Contractor ditzel @sbcglobal.net Contractor jenny @sterlinghomescorp.com Contractor mlafitte @total1.com Contractor sundancepools @sbcglobal.net Contractor singledba @aol.com Contractor schefferdm @aol.com Contractor LaconHomes @aol.com Contractor hebrow @hal-pc.org Contractor russ @rohewright.com Contractor Great999 @sbcglobal.net Contractor dwcrow @earthlink.net Contractor ksisk @houston.rr.com Contractor dwcrow @earthlink.net Contractor davidh @gillmanrose.com Contractor JULIO @LAGUARTA.COM Contractor britwolf @hotmail.com Contractor daystarelectric @aol.com Contractor DDentler @poolsandlandscapes.com Contractor myerssons2003 @yahoo.com Contractor bcronin @croninbuilders.com Contractor goettee @sbcglobal.net Contractor brave902 @hotmail.com Contractor dianajeske @rockwellhomes.com Contractor mike @platinumpools.com Contractor ROBB @GILLMANROSE.COM Contractor amikass @excite.com Contractor evalot @houston.rr.net Contractor britwolf @hotmail.com Contractor mollie @raineypools.com Contractor dwcrow @earthlink.net Contractor RWcovington @yahoo.corn Contractor abwilson @rbhash.com Contractor Blake @Southlinefence.com Contractor cthuot @houston.rr.com Contractor ddentler @poolsandlandscape.com Contractor ccannell @kilgoremechanical.com Contractor mangelescu @sbcglobal.net Contractor TMATTINGLY @ASI-DESIGN.COM Contractor obatagower @basconcepts.com Contractor chartercustomhomes @hotmail.com Contractor lance @mosslandsaping.com Contractor Karl @dnswiz.com Contractor patsy @palocent.com Contractor ch risfry@dovetailbuil.corn Contractor russopaint @aol.com Contractor liz @covingtonandmccollum.com Contractor LLanham @houston.rr.com Contractor homes @customlivinginc.com Contractor chau3535 @yahoo.com Contractor josephdugas @yahoo.com Contractor crs @bladescapes.com Contractor jimmy @broadoakbuilders.net Contractor poolmaker @earthlink.net Contractor mnwp @aol.com Contractor tracy @mathewselectrical.com Contractor kloper @hannbuilt.com Contractor gandleng @aol.com Contractor landsurveys @probstfeld.com Contractor RWood4231 @ev1.net Contractor abbottcontracting @ev1.net Contractor gary @grcarchitechitecture.com 3 Contractor talian44 @swbell.net Contractor joey @mosslandscaping.com Contractor ckreager @houston.rr.com Contractor CoyLora0902 @aol.com Contrator txcarol@swbell.net 4 FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For EPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 1 of 11 T QUALITY CONTROL CHECKLISTS V FOR FOUNDATION INSPECTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER LOW-RISE BUILDINGS by The Structural Committee of The Foundation Performance Association www.founcmance.org. Houston, Texas Document # FPA-SC-10-0 ISSUE HISTORY Rev# Date Description Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair Members A 02 Oct 01 For Subcommittee Comments Jack Spivey Ron Kelm B 19 Sep 02 For Subcommittee Comments Jon Monteith C 14 Oct 02 For Subcommittee Comments Michael Skoller D 26 Nov 02 For Subcommittee Comments Terry Taylor E 10 Dec 02 For Subcommittee Comments Mari Mes F 24 Jan 03 For Subcommittee Comments Mike Palmer G 06 Mar 03 For Subcommittee Comments Lowell Brumley H 28 Apr 03 Issued for Committee Comments George Wozny I 10 Jul 03 For EPA Peer Review Dan Jaggers Tashi Nobe 0 09 Oct 03 FPA Web Site Publishing FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 2 of 11 PREFACE The following documents are the results of two years of work completed in the late nineteen nineties by the Inspections Subcommittee of the Foundation Performance Committee. Jack Spivey chaired this committee and his fellow members were: MR. MICHAEL SKOLLER P.E. MR. JOE EDWARDS MR. LOWELL BRUMLEY P.E. MR. DEAN EICHELBERGER Meetings took place on a monthly basis and were attended by many interested parties. Special recognition should be given to Mr. Jim Dutton of Du-West Foundation Repair and Mr. Dan Jaggers of Olshan Foundation Repair. Their assistance with the foundation repair sections was invaluable. The topics for discussion have followed a general outline, which was established at the onset of the meetings. It was determined that our basic intent would be to establish a set of standards and procedures for the inspection of foundation construction and foundation repairs. These standards were to be incorporated into an inspection document,which would be thorough in its scope,but also easy to use. It was established early on in our discussions that the best form for our purposes would be a simple checklist,which would fully cover the subject of the inspection. It was also determined that keeping the checklist to one page would afford the most user-friendly instrument for our purposes. Once these parameters were established the subjects of the inspections were taken in the following order: FOUNDATION MAKE-UP -- POST TENSION STRESSING POST TENSION FOUNDATION MAKE-UP -- CONVENTIONAL/REBAR CONCRETE PLACEMENT CONSTRUCTION PIERS REPAIR PIERS SEGMENTED REPAIR PILES These topics were judged to represent the major types of foundation construction and foundation repairs found in the Houston area. They are certainly not inclusive of every inspection situation or construction method in use,but they do offer a basic set of standards for the majority of inspections that would be encountered in typical residential construction. They are also designed to be used by anyone who has some knowledge of foundation construction. It was our intention that they would serve field inspectors,builders,builders' superintendents,municipal inspectors, or anyone with an interest in quality foundations. The first order of business worked on by the subcommittee was to establish a heading format for each inspection. This portion of the form is meant to establish a context for the inspection. The basics of the site such as, the builder, subdivision, address, lot and block, are all set out at the top of the form. The next section is meant to establish the parameters that will govern the rest of the inspection. The most important of these, deals with the plans. No inspection should be undertaken without a set of plans,which should include the name of the engineer,the date of the plans and the detail sheet. Other pertinent details of the site that are covered in this section are the date,the time,the weather, and whether there is a detached garage. FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 3 of 11 The above guidelines were followed on each form, with the following variations dictated by the context of the inspection: • For the Concrete Placement Form there is specific reference to the Foundation Make-Up Form,and the items in need of repair. • In the Stress Form,there is an added reference to the cable count,the concrete placement date,and the post tension construction company. • On the Construction Piers Form,there is a reference to the Geotechnical Engineer, and on the Repair Piers and Segmented Repair Piles Forms,there is reference to the design documentation and the municipal permit. Once the context is established in the heading, the form moves on to sections relating to different aspects of each inspection. In general, these sections are documented by simply checking the item to show that it has been correctly completed. The checkmark(•7 serves to show that the item has been considered and complies with the plans,whereas an x(x)denotes that the item does not comply with the plans.In some sections, direct questions are asked that should be answered. Finally, the lower sections of the forms generally have reference to a drawing of the slab,the piers or piles,or the foundation being repaired. The drawings further document the conditions specific to the site and the foundation and allow the inspector to orient the data being described in the conclusion of the inspection. Each of these forms represents an attempt to document the events related to a specific foundation project or a specific foundation repair. It should be remembered that all the answers and data reported are typically the only documentation of what actually happened during this phase of construction. For this reason,every item is pertinent and should be given careful consideration during the inspection. Though many of the items listed are fairly common knowledge to the typical inspector or builder,it is the sequencing and nuances of certain questions and items listed,which are the greatest advantage of using the forms. The committee felt that all major items such as beam size, tendon counts,plan dates, etc.,were adequately covered in each form. It should be noted that the Repair Piers and Segmented Repair Piles Forms contain information that is not found in any established sources or specifications. This is particularly true of the Segmented Repair Piles Form. It was generally agreed that these items are rarely inspected by an independent inspector. This document is made freely available to the public through the Foundation Performance Association at www.foundationperformance.org so engineers, architects,inspectors, contractors, and other professionals involved in the quality control of foundations systems for residential and low-rise buildings may have access to the information. To ensure the document remains as current as possible,it will be periodically updated under the same document number but with new revision numbers. Please direct suggestions for improvement to the current chair of the structural committee. The Foundation Performance Association and its members make no warranty regarding the accuracy of the information contained herein and will not be liable for any damages, including consequential damages, resulting from the use of this document. FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 4 of 11 QC Checklists 1. POST-TENSION SYSTEM FOUNDATION MAKE-UP 2. CONCRETE PLACEMENT 3. POST-TENSION SYSTEM STRESSING 4. CONVENTIONAL (REBAR) FOUNDATION MAKE-UP 5. CONSTRUCTION (BUILDERS) PIERS 6. REPAIR PIERS 7. SEGMENTED REPAIR PILES FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 5 of 11 CLIENT QUALITYY CONTROL COMPANY — QC Checklist #1 - POST-TENSION SYSTEM FOUNDATION MAKE-UP Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Cable Count Design Engineer Superintendent Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Weather Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Concrete Contractor Detached Garage Yes❑ No❑ Permit#: Check(✓)If Items Comply With The Plans (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans SITE FORMS ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other ❑Forms secure Date Time Lot Description ❑Floats installed Fill on site Yes❑No❑ ❑Proper clearance at floats Compaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer: ❑Garage front closed Yes❑No 00 Date Will foundation make up drain: Yes 0 No LT Trees removed Are trees within 20'of foundation Yes LJ No❑ SLAB TENDONS Thickness (in) Count:L to R F to B Garage Measured: Screeds Describe Pad Material Stringline Other Total Variance Explain Number of tendons le$on site Rebar Level and Firm Yes❑No❑ —1/2"tendons Other —No tendons spaced over 6'-0" BEAMS —20D nails used at castings —Design Depth: in Exterior Interior —Live ends stripped of plastic not over 1"or taped Actual Depth: in (in) (in) (in) —Cathead clamps all tight Design Width: in —All intersections tied —Actual Width: in (in) (in) (in) —All tendons supported at intersections —Average depth into undisturbed soil (in) —Dead ends have 3/4"clearance to forms Clean of soil&debris :All S Hooks crimped Water in beams Yes No,[� Average Depth __(in) Beam tendons draped and secured by#3 stakes or rebar concrete bricks —Will water drain Yes L No u —Ample chairs all tied 0 Plumbing obstructions accommodated Tendon grid secured for concrete placement Yes❑No Pier tops clean POLYETHYLENE SHEETING ❑6-mil.Lapped and Taped ❑Seated in bottom of beams secured at sides ❑Mastic/tape applied at plumbing REINFORCING STEEL SLAB SECTION WWF: Mesh)Size Roll Sheet OR #3 @ m, on center both ways All WWF(mesh)seams lapped 6" 8#3 Lapped per plans DO All edges 2"from forms No rebar or WWF(mesh)touching forms BEAM SECTION Rebar:grade— Clearances per plan: Sides❑ Bottom❑ Top❑ Splices lapped per plan r Corner rebar installed at corners&dead ends Typical Rebar/Exterior Beams continuous Typical Rebar/Interior Beams continuous Corner bars installed at dead ends Yes Li No LJ Bay Windows or Porches Rebar Stirups Extra Rebar Added Diagonal Rebar at Re-entrant Corners ❑No.of Corners Nose Bars @ Construction Joints Anchor bolts on site Yes❑ No❑ Diameter (in)Length (in) Other Fasteners Is FOUNDATION READY FOR CONCRETE? Yes❑No C] Sketch CHANGES NEEDED: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 6 of 11 CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY I QC Checklist #2 - CONCRETE PLACEMENT Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan#: Cable Count Design Engineer Superintendent Q.C.Arrival Time Departure Time Copy of Foundation Makeup Report Provided Yes[] No❑ Date of Copy Items Repaired Yes El No❑ Concrete Contractor Detached Garage Yes❑ No❑ Permit#: Check(✓j If Items Comply With The Plans (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans SITE FORMS ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other ❑Forms secure Date Time Lot Description ❑Floats installed Are there obstructions at the site which would ❑Proper clearance at floats prevent access for concrete trucks Yes❑No❑ ❑Garage closed in Explain WEATHER Weather conditions START: FINISH: Will temperature rise above 40°F for five hours Forty-eight hour forecast: HIGH TEMPERATURE: LOW TEMPERATURE: CONCRETE Concrete Company Batch Plant Tickets on site?Yes❑No❑ Delivered by truck over what distance Was a pump used Yes❑No❑ Pump Co. Mix: psi psi "pump mix"-Pump Prime Placed outside of form Yes❑No❑ Sack Mix: 4 5 6 OR Strength Mix Yes❑No❑ Strength Additives: NO CALCIUM CHLORIDE—APPLWs TO POST TENSION sLAs Fly Ash:Type C?Yes❑No❑ ok Slump as ordered from plant (in) Explain(Discrepancies if slump is different): Was concrete consolidated by vibrator Yes❑No❑ Other❑ Test Cylinders Taken Yes❑No❑ Testing Company Slump Test Taken Yes❑No❑ Testing Company If water is added at the jobsite,show the amounts over ten gallons and give a visual estimate of the final slump Time Draw a diagram of the slab below showing the Poured Gallons Placement Est. Tested locations of each load by truck number Truck# Out Added Location Slump Slump Temp. Anchor bolts on site Yes❑ No❑ Diameter (in)Length (in) Other Fasteners SKETCH Describe provisions for curing ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 7 of 11 CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY QC Checklist #3 POST-TENSION STRESSING Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Cable Count Design Engineer Superintendent Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Weather Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Concrete Placement Date Stress Date Partial Stress Date Post Tension Company Permit#: Check(✓)If Items Comply With The Plans (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans ❑Are there any cracks in the surface of the slab Yes❑ No❑ Describe ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Date Time Estimate size and locate on the sketch below ❑Are elongations specified on the plans Yes❑ No❑ ❑Are the tendons painted at the edge of the slab Yes❑ No❑ ❑What is the predetermined distance between the mark and the edge of the slab (in) ❑Are the wedges placed in a vertical position Yes❑ No 0 ❑Is there evidence of gripper marks on the gripper end of all tendons Yes❑ No❑ (If no show location on sketch below) ❑Arc tendons stressed from two ends Yes❑ No❑ If So, How Many 1/2" Diameter Tendon Elongation Measurements (Min/Max Range Recommended by PTI) 11 gillENIERINERVIMEIBMI Maximum c 10 �� Mg Theoretical l C 9 iffEENIMINVEIBEINIMINIFELMtl Minimum .2 IMBEIENIMEINOMMINIMPEriffilffiriffilill ck 2 WW,MilligniESSIMISIS 1 111011111111111111 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110 120 Tendon Length (ft) Out-to-Out of Concrete USE CHART IF ELONGATIONS ARE NOT LISTED ON PLAN,OR MULTIPLY TENDON LENGTH IN FEET BY 0.08 TO CALCULATE APPROXIMATE ELONGATION IN INCHES FOR LENGTH OVER 30 FEET. SKETCH Draw a simple sketch of the foundation configuration noting all tendon locations and their elongation measurements.Also note any problems which you have observed,particularly blowouts at corners or the garage entry and cracks. FOLLOWING STRESS VERIFICATION ❑Are the tendon ends cut inside the pocket former ❑After stressing are the nails cut ❑Are the tendon ends grouted with a non-shrink grout Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 8 of 11 I CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY I QC Checklist #4—CONVENTIONAL (REBAR) FOUNDATION MAKE-UP Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Design Engineer Superintendent Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Weather Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Concrete Placement Date Detached Garage Yes El No❑ Permit# Check(',I If Items Comply With The Plans ('Q If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans SITE FORMS ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other __ Forms secure Date Time Lot Description ___ Floats installed Fill on site Yes(�No U Proper clearance at floats Compaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer: Garage front closed Yes E No❑ Date Will make up drain: Yes❑No Trees removed Are trees within 20'of foundation Yes❑No❑ SLAB BEAMS Thickness (in) '—Design Depth: in Exterior Interior —Measured: Screeds Stringline Other —Actual Depth: in (in) (in) (in) Describe Pad Material —Design Width: in —Level and Firm Yes❑No❑ —Actual Width: in (in) in —Average depth into undisturbed soil) (m) (in� —Clean of loose soil&debris -Water in beams Yes— No—Average Depth (in) Will water drain Yes— No — Plumbing obstructions accommodated Pier tops clean Yes❑ No❑ POLYETHYLENE SHEETING ❑6-mil.Lapped and Taped ❑Seated in the bottom of beams secured at sides ❑Mastic/tape applied at plumbing CONSTRUCTION PIERS Number of piers Are pier tops clean of debris Yes❑ No❑ REINFORCING STEEL Grade of Steel BEAM SECTIONS Exterior Beams: Steel size Number top Bottom Stirrup size Spacing in Interior Beams: Steel size Number top Bottom Stirrup size Spacing (in� Extra Beam depth Yes❑ No❑ Additional steel required Proper Clearance: Bottom (in)Sides (in)Top (in)Support System Continuity: Splices lapped perplan Yes❑ No❑ Corner bars installed Yes❑ No❑ Rebar clean of mud and excessive rust Yes No Void Boxes in bottom of beam Yes❑ No 0 � Height (in) Condition SLAB REINFORCING Mesh: Size Roll Sheet OR #3 @ in.)on center both ways All mesh seams lapped 6" 8#3 Lapped per plans All edges 2"from the forms _No rebar or mesh touching forms Void Boxes Yes❑ No❑ Height (in)Poly covering void boxes Yes❑ No❑ ADDITIONAL REINFORCING Diagonals: Size Number in slab Fireplace pads: Size of steel Placement Bay windows: Size of steel Placement Other projections: Control joints Construction joints: Anchor bolts on site Yes❑ No❑ Diameter (in)Length (in) Other Fasteners IS THE FOUNDATION READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT?Yes❑ No❑ SKETCH CHANGES NEEDED: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Ste Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 9 of 11 CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY Li O..0 Checklist #5— CONSTRUCTION (BUILDER'S) PIERS Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Design Engineer Superintendent Geotechnical Engineer Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Weather at site Concrete Contractor Geotechnical Report# (THIS FORM NOT APPLICABLE FOR SLURRY PLACED PIERS) Check(✓)If Items Comply With The Plans (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans SITE ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other Explain Date Time Fill on site Yes No Compaction verified by Geotechnical Engineer Yes❑No❑ Date Trees removed Yes❑No nn Location: Are trees within 20'of foundation Yes❑No❑ PIERS Name of drilling company: Can drill equipment access al pier locations Yes❑No El Type of drilling apparatus:Truck Mounted Bobcat: Other: Total number of piers: _ — PIER SIZES Bell Pier No. Rebar Stirrups $haft Dia. Depth Rebar Size Piers Spacing Total (in) (in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) _, (in) (in)( ft) (in) Sketch Typical Pier Showing Depth Describe the manner of measuring the bell sizes: (Bell checking tool required) Boring logs from Geotechnical report on site Yes❑No❑ Describe bearing strata: Pocket Penetrometer reading taken from auger cutting Yes❑No❑ TSF Note locations below Was water apparent in pier hole Yes❑No Depth " Action Taken REINFORCING Rebar placed per plan Yes❑No❑ Rebar grade Does rebar extend above pier top Yes❑No❑ How much above (in)Sleeved Yes❑No❑ Describe CONCRETE Will concrete truck be able to access site Yes❑No❑ Concrete company: Truck numbers: Was pump truck used Yes❑No ❑ Specified strength of concrete: psi Was concrete placed on the same day as the pier drilling Yes❑No❑ Estimated time of completion If not,explain: Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pier placement SKETCH ARE THE PIER HOLES READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT Yes❑ No❑ CHAait ES NEEDED: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 10 of 11 CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY QC Checklist #6 — REPAIR PIERS Owner Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Design Engineer Superintendent Geotechnical Engineer Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Weather at site Permit# Geotechnical Report# Check(✓)If Items Comply With The Plans SITE (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other Explain Date Time Soils Report on site Yes❑No❑ Bearing Soils at what depth (ft) Test hole dulled to what depth (ft) Bearing soils at (ft Underground plumbing test Yes L No❑ Water lines under slab Yes❑No Site obstructions to drillin ,Descnle: Trees removed Yes❑NoUl Location UNDERPINNING Name of repair contractor: Method of repair: number of piers: Interior Exterior PIER SIZES Bell Pier No. Rebar Stirrups ,Shaft Dia. Depth Rehar Size Piers Spacing Total (in) _!(in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (in) Sketch Typical Pier Showing Depth Describe the manner of measuring the bell sizes: (Bell checking tool required) Describe bearing strata: Pocket Penetrometer reading Yes❑No❑ TSF Note locations below Was water apparent in pier hole Yes❑No❑ Depth " Action Taken REINFORCING Rebar per plans Yes❑No❑ Rebar grade HELICAL PIERS Test hole depth (ft) Bearing Data Pier Lo Onsite Yes 0 No❑ Helix Size Bracket Style Shaft Diameter CONCRETE Will concrete truck be able to access site Yes❑No❑ Was pump truck used Yes❑No❑ Concrete company: Truck numbers: Batch Time Onsite Time Specified strength of concrete: psi Slump as delivered Water added Yes❑No❑Amount Was concrete placed on the same day as the pier was belled Yes❑No❑ Projected time of completion of concrete placement If not,explain: ESTIMATED MAXIMUM LIFT INCHES: TO BE GROUTED Yes❑No❑ Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pier placement SKETCH ARE THE PIER HOLES READY FOR CONCRETE PLACEMENT Yes❑ No❑ CHANGES NEEDED: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature FPA-SC-10-0 Quality Control Checklists for Foundation Inspection of Residential and Other Low-Rise Buildings 9 October 2003 For FPA Web Site Publishing Foundation Performance Association-Structural Committee Page 11 of 11 CLIENT QUALITY CONTROL COMPANY QC Checklist #7 — SEGMENTED REPAIR PILES Builder Subdivision Date Time Site Address Lot Blk Sec Plan site specific Yes❑ No❑ Plan#: Design Engineer Superintendent Geotechnical Engineer Plan provided at site Yes❑ No❑ Plan Date Detail Sheet Date Weather at site Permit# Geotechnical Report# Check(✓)If Items Comply With The Plans (X)If Items Do Not Comply With The Plans SITE ADDITIONAL REVIEWS Subdivision Lot Other Explain Date Time Geotechnical Report on site Yes❑No❑ Bearing Soils at what depth ((ft)) Test hole drilled to what depth -((ft)Bearing soils at (ft} Underground plumbing test Yes ENo❑ Water lines under slab Yes❑No ft Site obstructions to drillin Descn e: Trees removed Yes❑No ] Location Were builder's piers present Yes❑No❑ UNDERPINNING Name of repair contractor: Piling system: Total number of piles: . Interior Exterior FIELD OBSERVATIONS (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Distance From Observed Top of Slab Total Depth Measurement Pile Size Segment Number of Pile Cap Pile Cap To Top of From Top of Lift ■ t 1 I 1 -. I ' I • 11 •f 7L' f I ,91_t 1 1 (d) (in) (in) (ft) (in) . (d) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (d) (in) (in) -(ft) (in) (d) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (d) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (A x B)+(C x D)+E=TOTAL DEPTH Total number of pilings observed driven to completion (Minimum five is recommended) Was pile log available at the site Yes❑No❑ Explain Were the piles shimmed immediately upon completion of being driven Yes❑ No❑ If no,explain Is the piling cap horizontal Yes❑ No❑If no,explain Were the piles driven without interruption Yes❑ No❑ If no,explain --- -------------------_---- Were builders piers detached prior to jacking Yes❑ No❑ Were final shims determined to be tight Yes❑ No❑ What is the method of interlock Were interior piles installed Yes❑ No❑If so,were tunnels used Describe Was dewatering system used and maintained in excavating and tunnels Yes❑ No❑ Describe materials used in backfilling tunnels Describe method of protecting tunnel entrance from water intrusion Was jetting required to install piles Yes❑ No❑Explain ESTIMATED MAXIMUM LIFT INCHES: TO BE MUD PUMPED Yes❑No❑ Draw a sketch of the structure indicating the pile placement CHANGES NEEDED: Quality Controller's Signature Superintendent's Signature Background Code prior to 1992 • Minimal mention of foundations in the Codes Proposed Foundation 1992 Code modification Code Changes • BSC recognized need to strengthen Code on foundations • Foundations must be designed by a RLPE • Minimal documentation of design 2004 Proposal to modify Code • 2004 Council goal to review and modify building codes as it relates to foundations Problems Problems, cont. West U is not known for good soil West U promotes trees • Expansive clays • Foundations not designed with trees in mind • High shrink/swell depending on the moisture content • Trees and foundations often conflict • Variations across the city • Foundations need to be designed considering future • Current foundations are designed to address settling -Trees added or removed after occupancy only — Irrigation and drainage systems are added — • Lift or heave of soils are not addressed in the current Decorative vegetation is added foundation design criteria Problems, cont. Problems, Cont. Personal economics have often been the Houses with foundation failures affect the design criteria property values • Foundation risk not addressed • These failures affect property values as a whole • No minimum design criteria on foundations • These failures affect the tax base • Cases of RLPE stamped plans no evidence of actual engineering • There is no clear responsibility for performance or failure • There is almost no risk to an engineer designing a foundation 1 BSC Studies Changes Studied Local problem studied The BSC examined • HCAD list of foundation failures • Texas New Residential Construction Act • West U permit applications issued • ASCE • Plots of newer housing(Post 1990)locations • Their changes became recommendations • Input from CBO and homeowners • These changes are Regional problem studied • eln unenforceable •Cars arry no consequences • Regional studies by professional engineering group • State Board of RLPEs • Houston Foundation Performance Assn • State Board of Professional Geoscientists BSC Goals BSC Goals , cont. Foundation Code Modifications Transfer responsibility from the City to the Structural Engineer via • Protect homeowners from poor construction • Requiring Errors&Omission insurance • Discourage homeowners from choosing the • Dealing through an engineering firm foundation design based solely on economics • Observation reports • Protect second&third owners • Certifications of work done • Protect property values and tax base for the City • Permanent records of foundation design and • Simplify the permitting process for both the builder construction and the City Staff BSC Goals, Cont. New Foundation Code Set minimum design criteria • Incorporates • Relate design criteria to risk and responsibility • Appropriate ASME recommendations • Address lift or heave with 1"PVR design criteria • Pier reviewed recommendations of the Foundation • Allowing minimal risk foundations Performance Assn of Houston Changes in harmony with • Input from soil experts and structural engineers • all state board requirements for RLPEs&RLPGs Input from the •• the new state Texas Residential Construction Commission • the International Building Codes • BSC Commission Members • City Exempt single story garage structures • e U &City s Legal sta • West t U Citizens 2 ,6 r> r� New Foundation Code, cont. Proposed Code Amendment Addresses A. Engineering • the tree ordinance and tree iss ues • Engineering must be performed by a RLPE • minimum risk criteria via definitions • RLPE employed by a registered engineering firm RLPE must carry$500M E&0 insurance • assignment of the risk to the structural RLPE • RLPE must assume the risk for the design&installation • documentation of work done before placement of B. Geotechnical Report concrete • Must be performed by a RLPE or RLGE • inspection and quality of the work onto those building • Employed by a registered engineering firm the house • Must carry$500M in E&0 insurance • Reports with minimal criteria defined by a professional association • Soils Laboratory used must be accredited by the A2LA Proposed Code Amendments,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. C. Performance Standards C. Performance Standards,cont. • Set a maximum allowable soil movement criteria of • Medium risk foundations defined by a professional 1 inch PVR association • Establish the acceptable test methods to measure • Certain medium risk foundation types allowed the PVR Foundation Types • Geotechnical soils report required on piers • • Low risk foundations defined by a professional A rigorous geotechnical soils report for the slab association • Other foundation types must be approved by BSC • 2 low risk foundation types listed on case by case basis • Geotechnical report required on piers only • No geotechnical report for balance of foundation Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. D. Foundation Basic Types E. Foundation Deep Support Components • • References foundations defined by a foundation Low risk supports defined by a professional association association •• Acceptable risk level foundations defined Other support components must be approved by p BSC on case by case basis • Other reinforcement types must be approved by BSC F. Foundation reinforcement on case by case basis • Reinforcement types defined by a professional association • Other reinforcement types must be approved by BSC on case by case basis 3 Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. G. Observation&Certification • All foundation work must observed by G. Observation&Certification,cont. • A RLPE • All foundation work must be certified • A person under the direct control of the RLPE • Based on the professional observations of the work • Minimum criteria of the report • Work complies with all approved plans&specs • Defined by a professional association • Complies with sound engineering practices • Defined by the CBO based on recommendations by a professional association • Form&content of certification specified by CBO • Must contain certain measurements and specific data • Must be signed and sealed • The report must go to the CBO • Must be filed with CBO and acknowledged by • The RLPE or the delegate must be continuously CBO before other work can start present during concrete placement Proposed Code Amendments ,cont. H. Special Exceptions • The BSC can issue exceptions if • No life safety or performance issues • Alternate requirements by the exception provide same or better life safety or performance of the foundation • BSC may require supporting engineering data& opinion • BSC may impose special conditions& requirements 4