An average day

[SCBO1]

Protecting that copper from the concrete I suspect.

Is that a building sewer 10-ft head of water test for 15 minutes?

I've done 4 of those in another city and three failed, that's a PITA, always gotta go back!

 

[Phil]

The wall in the picture is not a bearing wall so the hinge is not a concern.

Dead and live loads aren't the problem. It is the wind and seismic loads. The wall will have a tendency to fold at the hinge with wind or seismic.

 

[Msradell]

Why are all the pipes running down into the slab and looping right back up? Did somebody think that they're what is bracing the wall?

I'm not sure my legs didn't run the pipes from point-to-point inside the wall but I'm sure those loops are so they don't have to have any joints in the piping under the floor. It certainly would have been easier to just come up once and then run through the wall. Another option which is used quite often is to run home runs for each point of use from a central manifold. It takes more pipe but offers several advantages.

 

[ICE]

Dead and live loads aren't the problem. It is the wind and seismic loads. The wall will have a tendency to fold at the hinge with wind or seismic.

Some would say that the wall is a bearing wall by default because it is an exterior wall. The ceiling is vaulted. The wall above the top plate is 8” tall at the left end and 28” tall at the right. The rafters and joists run parallel to the wall. Balloon framing would have been stronger.....

 

[MtnArch]

Not Simpson, hot and cold water plastic sleeves for embedded pipe

I know, Mark! Just tryin' to make a funny!!

(yup ... would starve as a stand-up comic!)

 

[fatboy]

Some would say that the wall is a bearing wall by default because it is an exterior wall. The ceiling is vaulted. The wall above the top plate is 8” tall at the left end and 28” tall at the right. The rafters and joists run parallel to the wall. Balloon framing would have been stronger.....

I missed one just like that, non-bearing, but had the hinge pretty tall, maybe 20', 30' long (long time ago). Got a call from the owner, another city employee, (cop no less) on morning after a windy northern CO night. He swore the thing was flexing six inches at the plate. He had an engineer evaluate it, he ended up removing all the WB on the interior of that wall, so that he could install and attach 6 full length studs in the middle of the wall. Then install 3/4" cdx, prior to re-installing the WB and finishing. A little overkill on the engineers part I think, but given the circumstance, I'm sure it was a CYA.

 

[ICE]

 

[ICE]

They complain when I tell them to remove the stucco patch all the way around the enclosure for inspection.
We let just about anybody obtain a permit for just about anything as long as the word solar is in the description of work.

 

[ICE]

This doesn't happen often.

 

[ICE]

Just a wild guess on my part but I doubt that there's a permit to ruin the look of this property.

 

[JCraver]

This doesn't happen often.

Do you guys out there ever permit your contractors to "float" the anchor bolts in as they pour, or do they all have to have them set like that pre-pour? I've only seen that a couple times around here - even on big commercial jobs, most everybody floats them in.

 

[ICE]

As far as I know, we have never allowed wet setting anchors.

 

[SCBO1]

Their floaters here! and if they forget their drillers!

 

[SCBO1]

This doesn't happen often.

A little grassy and the quarry was closed.

 

[JCraver]

As far as I know, we have never allowed wet setting anchors.

Interesting.

 

[ICE]

Interesting.

I spent twenty minute this morning looking for a code for that. I didn't find it in the Residential Code or the Building Code. Oh well....I'll pencil it in.

 

[Msradell]

I'm not sure if code really prevents wet setting anchors but that's certainly a poor method of doing it. It's hit or miss whether you get them in the correct locations or not and you certainly risk the integrity of the footings. It may not be against code but it certainly isn't good practice. I haven't seen wet set in a long time around here.

 

[ICE]

At footing inspections I almost always find missing anchor bolts. If they don’t get installed a special inspector is required for drilled anchors. That’s $250 or more just for the inspector. If I let them stick them in wet concrete a deputy inspector would be sent to every job. Besides that, there’s a code or ACI rule against it. I just haven’t found it.

 

[mark handler]

I spent twenty minute this morning looking for a code for that. I didn't find it in the Residential Code or the Building Code. Oh well....I'll pencil it in.

SECTION R506
CONCRETE FLOORS (ON GROUND)
R506.1 General. Concrete slab-on-ground floors shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions
of this section or ACI 332. Floors shall be a minimum 31/2
inches (89 mm) thick (for expansive soils, see Section
R403.1.8). The specified compressive strength of concrete
shall be as set forth in Section R402.2.
R506.2 Site preparation. The area within the foundation walls
shall have all vegetation, top soil and foreign material removed.
R506.2.1 Fill. Fill material shall be free of vegetation and
foreign material. The fill shall be compacted to ensure uniform
support of the slab, and except where approved, the
fill depths shall not exceed 24 inches (610 mm) for clean
sand or gravel and 8 inches (203 mm) for earth.

 

[ICE]

Thanks for that Mark. How about a code for the anchor bolts and wet setting.

 

[steveray]

I would say ACI 318, but I can't afford that here....

 

[steveray]

Some info although its IBC and reinforcing, not bolts....

1810.3.9.3 Placement of reinforcement. Reinforcement
where required shall be assembled and tied together and shall
be placed in the deep foundation element as a unit before the
reinforced portion of the element is filled with concrete.
Exceptions:
1. Steel dowels embedded 5 feet (1524 mm) or less
shall be permitted to be placed after concreting,
while the concrete is still in a semifluid state.
2. For deep foundation elements installed with a hollow-
stem auger, tied reinforcement shall be placed
after elements are concreted, while the concrete is
still in a semifluid state. Longitudinal reinforcement
without lateral ties shall be placed either through the
hollow stem of the auger prior to concreting or after
concreting, while the concrete is still in a semifluid
state.
3. For Group R-3 and U occupancies not exceeding
two stories of light-frame construction, reinforcement
is permitted to be placed after concreting,
while the concrete is still in a semifluid state, and the
concrete cover requirement is permitted to be
reduced to 2 inches (51 mm), provided the construction
method can be demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the building official.

 

[steveray]

strength design of anchors installed in concrete for purposes
of transmitting structural loads from one connected element
to the other. Headed bolts, headed studs and hooked (J- or L-)
bolts cast in concrete and expansion anchors and undercut
anchors installed in hardened concrete shall be designed in
accordance with Appendix D of ACI 318 as modified by Sections
1905.1.9 and 1905.1.10, provided they are within the
scope of Appendix D.
The strength design of anchors that are not within the
scope of Appendix D of ACI 318, and as amended in Sections
1905.1.9 and 1905.1.10, shall be in accordance with an
approved procedure.

 

[mark handler]

Thanks for that Mark. How about a code for the anchor bolts and wet setting.

Nothing in the code but this is from the web

http://kimballeng.blogspot.com/2009/11/wet-setting-anchor-boltsholdowns.html

"....vertical reinforcement and other items that are to be embedded in the concrete are often "wet-set" or "wet-stabbed" in addition to anchor bolts and holdowns. This tends to occur more often in residential construction, rather than commercial, as special inspections are often required in commercial construction for these elements.

So why should these elements be tied in place prior to the concrete pour? The Structural Engineer's Association of Utah (SEAU) recently published a letter addressed to building officials addressing this issue. The following text is taken directlly from that letter and includes specific code references and SEAU's explanation as to why wet-setting should not be allowed.

IBC Section 1912 states that anchors shall be designed per Appendix D of ACI 318, where even the preliminary “Definitions” section calls out an “Anchor” as either being “cast into concrete” or “post-installed into hardened concrete”, and not listing “wet setting” as an option. Even more clear is the definition of “Cast-in Anchor” in the same section, where it states “installed before placing concrete” (italics added). IBC Table 1704.4 calls specifically for the periodic inspection of “reinforcing steel, including … placement”, but calls for continuous inspection for “bolts to be installed in concrete prior to and during placement”. IBC 1704.13 also states that unusual “Materials and systems required to be installed in accordance with additional manufacturer’s instructions that prescribe requirements not contained in this code” shall require special inspection. Section 109.3.1 calls out that “any required reinforcing steel is in place” prior to foundation inspections, and section 109.3.2 states that “other ancillary equipment items are in place … before any concrete is placed” below slabs. While none of this states “anchor bolts” or “holdown straps” tied into place, the intent seems obvious.


The IBC does have exceptions to the special inspection requirements in section 1704, primarily for “minor” work or for “Group R-3” residential construction. But even in the IRC, Section R109.1.1, it again requires that “any required reinforcing steel is in place and supported prior to the placing of concrete”. If the reinforcing is required to be in place prior to inspection, it only seems a natural extension that the IRC also intends for anchorages that rely upon the strength of this adjacent reinforcing to also be in place prior to inspection and placing of concrete.


As interpreted from the code, SEAU recommends that all embedded anchors and other hardware for IBC governed construction be firmly supported and tied into place prior to pouring of concrete, or that the placement of these anchors is continuously special inspected as they are being “wet set”. We also recommend this same interpretation be used for embedded light gage straps and other undefined anchors. Light gage holdown straps and other similar anchors are no longer considered “unusual”, but they certainly do carry with them “additional manufacturer’s instructions” for careful installation, and are normally a part of the seismic force resisting system. The action of tying all anchors into place before pouring, rather than allowing “wet setting” of anchors during pouring, helps to insure proper consolidation of concrete around the anchor and thus proper structural action of the anchor as it takes structural loads. Most Engineers, as well as most Building Officials, have seen the voids often left to one side or the other of a “wet set” bolt or dowel or strap – sometimes obviously reducing it’s structural capacity and increasing liability to the Engineer, Building Official, Owner and Contractor. When embedded dowels, bolts and straps are “wet set” we would recommend that a randomly selected portion of these embedded hardware are pull tested to full rated capacity prior to acceptance by the Engineer or Building Official.