Compare foundation options without choosing by habit

Planning workflow

1. Record known site hazards, elevations, drainage, utilities, and geotechnical information.
2. List building loads, levels, mechanical needs, accessibility goals, and future uses.
3. Compare conceptual foundation types against moisture, excavation, access, and coordination needs.
4. Obtain survey, geotechnical, structural, floodplain, and permit input as applicable.

Formula or decision logic

Use a constraint matrix rather than a universal ranking. Eliminate concepts that conflict with verified flood, frost, soil, slope, access, or building requirements. Compare the remaining concepts on excavation, drainage, enclosure, service access, embodied material, schedule, and local contractor capability.

Worked planning example

A flat concept plan could use a slab, crawlspace, or basement geometrically. If the parcel lies in a mapped flood hazard area and has compressible soil, those conditions dominate the selection. The quantity calculator can still estimate a hypothetical slab volume, but the result cannot recommend that assembly.

Limitations and review boundary

• No bearing capacity, settlement, uplift, lateral, or reinforcement design is performed.
• Mapped hazards and site observations are not substitutes for site-specific investigation.
• The local building official and qualified designers control approval.

Continue in construction systems