• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Need to tie down replacement beam on pier and beam

north star said:
& ~ &

Daniel,

Since none of us on here can accurately assess the condition of the brick
columns, I recommend that you discuss this project with the local
Building Official, if there is one available........He \ she should be able
to provide you guidance on what needs to be done........He \ she [ may ]
require a structural engineer to evaluate the existing brick columns to
determine if they are acceptable to anchor to........If there is no Building
Official available, then you [ may ] want to either go ahead and hire a
licensed structural engineer on your own; for an evaluation, or hire a
registered, licensed & fully competent building designer to design an
approved foundation [ i.e. - to be approved by the local jurisdiction ]
before you proceed with anchoring anything to the brick columns.

Yes, the beams need to be securely attached to the foundation.......We
are simply trying to assist you in options for the anchoring, based upon
the brick columns being in an acceptable \ approved condition.

Again, ...if you have not already, please contact the local BO to discuss.
Their [ official ] guidance is what will matter, not ours !

On this Forum, we cannot really provide you with an accurate assessment.
We can offer options, but your local BO will be the one to determine your
course of action.

& ~ &
Click to expand...
I found the sc building codes online. Maybe I should be a code inspector. The answers appear to be this:

1) The beams will have to be anchored to the footing because it is a class 3 renovation and the changes are structural and they are related to gravity and lateral loads.

2) The pier and curtain are ok to have, but the footing a) must be continuous to tie piers together and footing must meet code. Also, continuous footing to tie piers together between load bearing walls, which may mean interior load bearing as well.

- I could even build a treated 2x6 stem wall for the foundation wall and replace the piers and beams altogether. This would seem to be the cheapest and easiest solution that meets current code.
 
DB- Talk to the local building official, and he/she will tell you what to do. IF the existing piers are in good enough shape to accept fasteners/brackets of some (local building official) approved kind, then you're good to go. The only way you're going to know, is to ask. Get him/her to the site, show them what you've got, and go from there.
 
JCraver said:
DB- Talk to the local building official, and he/she will tell you what to do. IF the existing piers are in good enough shape to accept fasteners/brackets of some (local building official) approved kind, then you're good to go. The only way you're going to know, is to ask. Get him/her to the site, show them what you've got, and go from there.
Click to expand...

I’ve had a discussion with the building inspector at their office. He said that he could not tell me what to do.
In fact, one issue was the length of the potential floor joists. I put on my plan new joists at 16 oc. He told me that that wouldn’t work... looking at the span tables. Then I started talking about alternatives ( I joists, etc) and he said.. “I can’t tell you what to do.. and the only person that can override me is a plan stamped by a structural engineer, etc..
- I looked at the span chart.. problem solved by putting the joists 12” oc.
- I’ve dealt with two different inspection offices in my life. In both, I got different answers to the same question from different inspectors.
- I don’t know what is going on with the inspectors, but So far I am not impressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As previously noted by you above and in order to assure no future issues, replace the footings with code compliant continuous footings with appropriate beam connections but you may still need an engineer given the water table.
Will you be living in it/renting/selling it?
 
ADAguy said:
As previously noted by you above and in order to assure no future issues, replace the footings with code compliant continuous footings with appropriate beam connections but you may still need an engineer given the water table.
Will you be living in it/renting/selling it?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I live in the SC "Lowcountry" so I'm kinda in the same boat as half of the state as far as the water table. A bigger issue than that may be the fact that I live in a seismic zone and reinforced footings will probably be necessary.

I dont know what I will do with the house. I guess that will depend on how this renovation turns out! :)
 
ADAguy said:
So you would be a DIY'r eh?
Click to expand...

Well, If I’ve worked on framing crews for 5-6 years building houses, apartments, etc. and I need to hire someone to make up some beams or build a corner post or a tee or a wall, I’d be pretty sorry, wouldn’T I? :)
 
Ok, You are a "technical" framer but not an engineer. Your issue comes down to "engineering" numbers (and code compliance) vs dollars.
It also comes down to "safety".
 
I wouldn't rely on a string level. Your string level shows the building way out of level. But maybe not because the string starts a ways away from the end of the wall.
 
This doesn't help you with the code questions you're dealing with, but - did you get that house for free, or near it? All I saw while watching that video was dollar bills....
 
JCraver said:
This doesn't help you with the code questions you're dealing with, but - did you get that house for free, or near it? All I saw while watching that video was dollar bills....
Click to expand...

Glad to know I wan't the only one thinking this. Would have appreciated more of the dog in the video:D
 
Code question.. true or false..

The beam needs to be anchored to the footing. (T/F)
If so, then it should be code compliant if I were to:
A. Pour continuous footing between existing piers, then anchor the beam to the footing through a new curtain wall?
 
The beam needs to be anchored to the pier.

No building official/inspector should make you even expose the footings under those existing piers, let alone pour a new one - IF the current piers are acceptable / able to take a fastener, then all you need to do to be compliant is find a way to fasten the beams to the piers.

This is a REPAIR, you're not building new. Find a way to attach them to what you have. And I still think a flat 2x tapconned/bolted to the top of them will get you where you need to be.
 
JCraver said:
The beam needs to be anchored to the pier.

No building official/inspector should make you even expose the footings under those existing piers, let alone pour a new one - IF the current piers are acceptable / able to take a fastener, then all you need to do to be compliant is find a way to fasten the beams to the piers.

This is a REPAIR, you're not building new. Find a way to attach them to what you have. And I still think a flat 2x tapconned/bolted to the top of them will get you where you need to be.
Click to expand...

I was hoping that that was the case, but my interpretation of the code is that this is not a repair, but a renovation class 3. In section 907.3 and 907.4 it appears that for the gravity load what you are saying is true, but for the lateral load (907.4) I would need to have a continuous footer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top