Thread: Exterior wall overhanging Foundation

New construction. The exterior wall overhangs the concrete foundation slab by up to 2.5 inches. 2x4 toe plate. Report comment is to get an engineer to write a document that it is OK or design a repair. Builder wants a code reference that this is wrong. Sheesh. Buyer is after me for a code reference. I told him to get an engineer. Buyer still want a code reference.

502.6 is about Floors bearing at least 1.5 inches on wood and 3 inches on concrete. Technically the issue is the wall bearing on the concrete slab. What I need is a code reference that a exterior load bearing Wall must bear n at least 3 inches of concrete.

301.1 States " shall result in a system that provides a complete load path from their point of origin through the load resisting elements to the foundation."

Neither are specific enough for this situation of crazy builder. Looking for help on a more specific code reference. Thank you.

Similar Threads:

• Urethane insulation on exterior of the foundation
• Slab on grade exterior foundation wall
• Exterior Foundation insulation
• EIFS and exterior foundation insulation
• Exterior wall & foundation

602.3 Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.

Kind of but still not saying the sole plate has to fully bear on the supporting structure.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

602.3 Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.

Kind of but still not saying the sole plate has to fully bear on the supporting structure.

602.3 is a good place to start: (bold and underlining are mine)
- R602.3 Design and construction.
- - Exterior walls of wood-frame construction shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Figures R602.3(1) and R602.3(2) or in accordance with AF&PA’s NDS. Components of exterior walls shall be fastened in accordance with Tables R602.3(1) through R602.3(4). Wall sheathing shall be fastened directly to framing members and, when placed on the exterior side of an exterior wall, shall be capable of resisting the wind pressures listed in Table R301.2(2) adjusted for height and exposure using Table R301.2(3). Wood structural panel sheathing used for exterior walls shall conform to DOC PS 1, DOC PS 2 or, when manufactured in Canada, CSA O437 or CSA O325. All panels shall be identified for grade, bond classification, and Performance Category by a grade mark or certificate of inspection issued by an approved agency and shall conform to the requirements of Table R602.3(3). Wall sheathing used only for exterior wall covering purposes shall comply with Section R703.
- - Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
- - - Exception: Jack studs, trimmer studs and cripple studs at openings in walls that comply with Tables R502.5(1) and R502.5(2).

Provide the above with Figures R602.3(1) and R602.3(2) - neither drawing permits the sole plate to overhang its support.

The studs are effectively only supported, from the foundation up, the equivalent of a 2x2 (half of the stud is overhanging its support).

If they don't want to construct it in accordance with the code, they can go to the building official with their plan to use alternate material, methods, and design:
- R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
- - The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the International Codes in lieu of specific requirements of this code shall also be permitted as an alternate.
- - R104.11.1 Tests.
- - - Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this code, or evidence that a material or method does not conform to the requirements of this code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternative materials or methods, the building official shall have the authority to require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified in this code or by other recognized test standards. In the absence of recognized and accepted test methods, the building official shall approve the testing procedures. Tests shall be performed by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the building official for the period required for retention of public records.


I.e., it's not a slam dunk to approve an alternate design as you describe that construction - in the end, it is up to the building official ... who will likely require one of two things: test per R104.11.1 or signed and sealed engineering (the signed and sealed engineering removes the responsibility from the building official and puts it solely with the engineer who signed and sealed it ... and engineering is a whole lot less expensive than 'tests'.

Bruce,

I didn't add this code section as you can really only use it if you have looked at a copy of the approved construction documents (plans) ... or bluff and let others think you have seen them:
- R106.4 Amended construction documents.
- - Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.

The construction documents are drawn by/for the contractor and are the documents the contractor submits to the building department and says 'this is how I will do the work', the building department looks at those constructions documents and (if they meet code) says 'sure, fine with us' - at that point, R106.4 kicks in when and if the work done is not done as it was approved to be done.

Thus, if the contractor (the builder is the contractor) does not do the work as shown on their own drawings which show how they are going to do the work, the contractor needs to submit amended (revised) construction documents to the building department and say 'we didn't do the work as we said we would, this is how we actually did the work, is this okay', if the building department looks at the amended documents and says 'sure, looks fine too, go ahead' then those revised construction documents are what is approved ... and that is the step most contractors miss and where it is easy to hang the contractor's work as being 'non-compliant' ... because they did not do the work as they said they would and as they had permission to do.

I doubt that the approved construction documents show the sole plate overhanging the supporting slab - which makes R106.4 the 'poke in the eye' which should get everyone's attention.

I didn't intend for this additional information to be so long, it just kind of became the Eveready Bunny ... it kept going and going and going ...

Thanks. Lennar is the builder. Inspected two houses side by side. Both have the left rear corner overhanging the slab. Not sure if it is the framing crew or the foundation contractor. Somebody is having problems.

I am guessing the foundation contractor since they poured the garage door opening the wrong size.

My comment continues to be to get a PE to look at the house and design a repair.

2012 IRC
602.3.4 Bottom (sole) plate.
Studs shall have full bearing on a nominal 2-by or larger plate or sill having a width at least equal to the width of the studs.

Without FULL bearing of the sole plate, the studs don't have full bearing. Without full 4" plate, the studs can only be at best 2x3 And 2x3 studs are not approved for use in bearing walls.

Bruce, any pic's?

Everyone, Thanks for all the code.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

Thanks. Lennar is the builder. Inspected two houses side by side. Both have the left rear corner overhanging the slab. Not sure if it is the framing crew or the foundation contractor. Somebody is having problems.

I am guessing the foundation contractor since they poured the garage door opening the wrong size.

My comment continues to be to get a PE to look at the house and design a repair.

Years ago, also a national home builder, I found some slabs which were formed and poured too small, so the mason laid the concrete blocks up to the correct dimensions and square (the slab was not square either) - the concrete blocks overhung the edge of the slab by 1-1/2" to 2". With concrete block, the face shells are required to be 'fully bedded' in mortar.

I recommended they get an engineer, as you have, and supposed that they might be able to extend the slab out with dowels or pour the first two courses solid to relieve the face shells of the load, but pointed out that there may be problems doing those things and the engineer would need to design the repair.

Some problems with doweling a slab extension to the existing slab would be meeting the minimum concrete cover over the ends of the steel of 1-1/2" to exterior, 3" to earth if there is to be fill.

The engineer's solution was to have them install 6" long #5 dowels (I have forgotten the spacing), leaving 3/4" projecting from the edge of the slab, form out a 2-1/2" extension of the slab, and then pour the first two courses solid.

The 2-1/2" extension provided for the stucco to be 5/8" on the block wall above, with 1/8" extending down over the slab extension. The 2-1/2" extension also provided 1-1/2"+ minimum concrete cover over the 3/4" projecting ends of the reinforcing steel.

The contractor squealed and cried like they were being tortured, but their engineer won out and they made the repairs ... and did not have that happen again. They probably replaced the slab contractor.

It was not an easy fix.

There are not specific code references to cover every stupid think a builder could do. People that write codes sometimes assume stuff like the wall will actually sit on the foundation.

In this case I would not go out of my way trying to cite a code reference that this is wrong. When the wall overhangs the foundation that much then I think the builder should prove that it is correct.

It would seem that 2 ¼ would seem excessive but isn’t that the measurement from the masonry foundation to the exterior surface of the siding. A picture taken looking upward; revealing the thickness of the furring strip required for the first course of exterior siding and the sheathing thickness could tell more of the story that needs to be told . Doesn’t code just weigh in on the exteriors wall framing materials being on the foundation or does it weigh in on the sheathing and furring strips as well?

I am with Jerry, sometimes you just have to recommend a professional engineer devise the cure, you did your part by bringing it to the attention of the buyer. Document and move on.