DRAWZILLA Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Guys, for me, the sections do not have to be exact, because I direct all of the footings to a detail which explains it all. It would be nice to get it all exact but Chief isn't there yet. Anyway, sections are just a representational drawing for floor, ceiling heights, I don't detail those, its the details that really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridge_Runner Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It really doesn't matter how it's done - the reality is that the Stem Wall portion of the foundation is almost never as wide as the footing.. Joe is correct. In my area, block is the typical stem wall choice due to the forming required for a concrete wall. This example was used because of the existing grade for this project. We do not have a frost line in Florida. The footing is designed for the psf required for the perimeter based on the soil load capacity. Same would apply for a mono-slab. From an engineering standpoint, Jim has mentioned the key. I am one of the ones who has never seen this type of footing used. Here in southern Middle Tennessee we see all kinds of soil conditions but only have a 12" frost line. Every builder I know will use the (I call it) standard "T" spread footing with either block or formed concrete; most of our foundation walls will be block. That gives us a wider bearing area without making the stem wall thicker for less-than desirable soil conditions. Mike [edit] - We almost never use slabs here for Residential; crawlspace or basement areas with slab for garage poured over block or inside notched top block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's very interesting to me that there's anyone that hasn't seen this. It's been done this way for as long as I can remember. In fact, if you look at a full Stem Wall Foundation detail you will find a similar condition - but on both sides of the wall. The Footing itself is wider than the Stem Wall. It really doesn't matter how it's done - the reality is that the Stem Wall portion of the foundation is almost never as wide as the footing.. I don't know about the others, but I for one was only saying I have never seen or done mono pours that way. For standard stemwalls, you are correct...footer is always wider. We usually do those in 2 pours though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glennw Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Isn't the real question here "can we build and display these foundation variation types in Chief" - and the answer is yes. Although I still haven't figured what trouble Joe is having as he still hasn't explained the problem fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Isn't the real question here "can we build and display these foundation variation types in Chief" - and the answer is yes. Although I still haven't figured what trouble Joe is having as he still hasn't explained the problem fully. I think the bottom line is that with a Monolithic Slab foundation, the slab is on the slab layer and can be turned on or off in a framing overview. With a Walls With Footings foundation, the slab is not actually considered a slab and is not on the slab layer. It is simply considered a floor surface and put onto the Floor Surfaces layer and cannot be moved to another layer. Floor surfaces is not the logical place to put a slab. If Joe (or anyone else) want to display his full mono slab (built using Walls With Footings) in a framing overview he must also turn on the Floor Surfaces layer which then displays unwanted items (i.e. subfloor). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Downunder Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 This is amazing. With the collective brain-power of significant users this subject still goes around and around. This highlights a software engineer vs the real world. I too have issues with foundations / mono slabs / floors & floor surfaces. Like everybody when it works - it works but then after a while something seems broken. Maybe one day Chief will take a post like this one and listen to the frustrated collective wisdom of experienced users and realize that with all this depth of knowledge of both the real world building practices and extensive use of the software there is something wrong. This subject of building foundations is not new but very interesting and showing that layers are an important factor. It's true that most floor systems can be built. My most complicated used mono slab - foundation walls - timber framing and retaining walls from a lowered level that had a garage with limestone walls on a stip footing and the slab poured at a later date.. Complicated but doable. If I could draw like I think it should be built I would not have to decipher if the foundation is supplying the floor for the room above or this room gets it floor from the floor below!!! Even on a plan with a second floor and mono slab selected there is a box for 'Floor supplied by the foundation room below. This might make perfect sense to someone..but not to me and it seems to be that way for many. I remain vigilant for a future foundation re-design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now