• 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

Bolting Sill Plate To Existing CMU's

"You should always contact the engineer to do an inspection and record that it was requested (a written signed note will do). the engineer doesn't have to show up, you just have to make the request. That way if it fails because something was not done properly the liability is on the engineer."

This statement is in conflict with the understanding that engineers have.

The engineers obligations are primarily defined by contract. Has the engineer agreed to perform inspections. What are the scope of the engineers inspections. Remember the Owner can also hire independent inspectors.

If you have requested an inspection and the engineer does not show up and you proceed with the work this does not make the engineer liable for all of your losses. Somebody has a distorted understanding of the law.

A professional engineer has certain obligations but he cannot provide a general guaranty that all work was done properly. Professional engineers like doctors and lawyers are not required to be perfect but rather are expected to exercise the normal standard of care exercised by other engineers in the geographic area.

If you made a doctors appointment and the doctor did not show up is the doctor responsible for your health problems? The courts will laugh at you if you make such a claim. Even if the doctor shows up and performs all the right tests the doctor will not normally be responsible for the outcome in most cases.
 
Mark K said:
This statement is in conflict with the understanding that engineers have.

The engineers obligations are primarily defined by contract. Has the engineer agreed to perform inspections. What are the scope of the engineers inspections. Remember the Owner can also hire independent inspectors.

If you have requested an inspection and the engineer does not show up and you proceed with the work this does not make the engineer liable for all of your losses. Somebody has a distorted understanding of the law.

A professional engineer has certain obligations but he cannot provide a general guaranty that all work was done properly. Professional engineers like doctors and lawyers are not required to be perfect but rather are expected to exercise the normal standard of care exercised by other engineers in the geographic area.

If you made a doctors appointment and the doctor did not show up is the doctor responsible for your health problems? The courts will laugh at you if you make such a claim. Even if the doctor shows up and performs all the right tests the doctor will not normally be responsible for the outcome in most cases.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you are practicing, but that isn't how the law works here in New Brunswick, and I would assume, the rest of Canada. A engineer practicing in my area assumes when they do a design that there will be an inspection in order to mitigate liability. If you designed something and I built it and it ended up failing you could be held singly liable if I contacted you for an inspection and you either did not come or didn't note that there were corrections (assuming that the work is accessible and the component that failed would be visible during the inspection). There are even cases where the structural engineer was held liable for components that failed but were covered at the time of inspection because they did not ask for them to be uncovered.
 
I practice in the united states but given that the legal systems in the US and Canada were influenced by the British model I would suggest that cases you referenced were more nuanced.

You should talk with your engineer and make sure that you have compatible expectations. Better to understand this up front as opposed to after you have problems. Unreasonable expectations on the part of some clients is one of the reasons why many engineers prefer not to work with certain clients

In spite of the engineers failure to perform an inspection on time if you knew that the inspection was not performed and you proceeded with the work you share some if not all of the responsibility. The engineers failure to fulfill an obligation is not an excuse for others to act irresponsibly.
 
tmurray said:
The way the prescriptive codes work in Canada, we have a specific minimum bearing pressure we look for in all cases and just adjust the footing size to suite multiple stories. I have never seen a footing that would be too small to support a two storey dwelling. Pretty much every footing we see has a width of 20" which allows up to three storey of light wood frame construction. If you have brick or stone veneer you may have to be concerned, but you should be fine otherwise. You could check with your building inspection department to see if they have an inspection report from when your house was constructed that notes the footing size to make sure. Table 9.15.3.4 in the NBCC.
Click to expand...
The OBC has the same table you referenced.I see that it specifies 350 mm (13.78") wide for 2 stories and to add 65 mm (2.56") per floor of brick veneer for a total footing width of 480mm (18.9"). Am I reading this correctly?Anyhow, when I had the floor open for the soil engineer, I snapped a couple of pics with a yardstick against the block wall and a tape measure against the footing. The 1" mark of the tape measure is at the 5-7/8" mark of the yardstick meaning that the footing is 4-7/8" larger than the block wall on the inside. I would assume it's the same on the other side of the 10" blocks for approx 19" footing.Holy Cow. Am I in trouble here?View attachment 972

View attachment 972

/monthly_2013_12/572953d07205b_IMG_0222(Medium).jpg.afc3916aca1efefd847d0b86ea273415.jpg
 
123pugsy said:
The OBC has the same table you referenced.I see that it specifies 350 mm (13.78") wide for 2 stories and to add 65 mm (2.56") per floor of brick veneer for a total footing width of 480mm (18.9"). Am I reading this correctly?

Anyhow, when I had the floor open for the soil engineer, I snapped a couple of pics with a yardstick against the block wall and a tape measure against the footing. The 1" mark of the tape measure is at the 5-7/8" mark of the yardstick meaning that the footing is 4-7/8" larger than the block wall on the inside. I would assume it's the same on the other side of the 10" blocks for approx 19" footing.

Holy Cow. Am I in trouble here?
Click to expand...
It looks like you are. You could enlarge the footing and have an engineer sign off on it (drill and dowel existing footing and enlarge the footing), you could have a geotechnical engineer check the soil to see if the bearing pressure exceeds that assumed by the code (Your foundation would then have to be designed under 4.2 by an engineer), or you could look into alternative sidings with a similar look such as cultured stone. I'm not sure about your scenario or any covenants that you have to comply with (if any), but I would be looking at the siding alternatives. You can get some really nice cultured stone.
 
Thanks.

So, would I be correct about the 18.9"? If so, I'm very close to this dimension.

Cultured stone is out. I live in a Heritage Zone. The only alternative would be real wood siding like Maybec.

All other tables I've seen for two stories with brick veneer call for a 12" footing on 4000 PSF soil.

Is this just another "bend over Canadian Guy" baloney like practically everything else here?

Sorry, rant over.
 
123pugsy said:
Thanks.So, would I be correct about the 18.9"? If so, I'm very close to this dimension.

Cultured stone is out. I live in a Heritage Zone. The only alternative would be real wood siding like Maybec.

All other tables I've seen for two stories with brick veneer call for a 12" footing on 4000 PSF soil.

Is this just another "bend over Canadian Guy" baloney like practically everything else here?

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...
Most of the Canadians come here pre-bent.
 
123pugsy,

Sounds like your going in the right direction. Good luck getting your permit and hope you had a good "Boxing Day!"

pc1
 
Thanks PC1.

I submitted the application for a variance on the 24th..... 2 to 4 months I was told.

Hopefully the neighbors don't complain at the meeting and everything will be fine.

Have a good holiday, what's left of it anyways.

What, no "Boxing Day" where you're from?

Pugsy
 
123pugsy said:
My engineer says the footing should be fine and he will stamp the drawings. Something about under Part 4.
Click to expand...
Yes, Part 4 allows engineers to design a structure outside of the prescriptive requirements of Part 9 (the part almost everyone else uses in house construction). For those of you who are not familiar with Canadian Codes; this would be similar to using the IBC instead of the IRC. The code in Canada allows an applicant to use the more rigorous Parts 3 and/or 4 instead of Part 9. This rarely happens, but it is done once in a while.

Part 3 is for life safety, washrooms, and barrier free (similar to ADA)

Part 4 is structural requirements

Part 9 is for small buildings (residential, stores, mid and low hazard industrial) and includes; life safety, environmental separation, structural, and refers to Part 3 for washrooms and barrier free.

Basically, if your building falls into Part 9 you can use Part 3 to design your life safety elements. The only catch is that if you are using Part 3 you have to use ALL of Part 3. You can also use Part 4 to design your structural elements (this is done all the time for trusses). For this part you can design portions of the building to Part 4 and keep the rest under Part 9 (like trusses) the only thing a designer has to be mindful of is that if the loads exceed the assumed loads under Part 9 the supporting elements would also have to be under Part 4.
 
tmurray said:
Yes, Part 4 allows engineers to design a structure outside of the prescriptive requirements of Part 9 (the part almost everyone else uses in house construction). For those of you who are not familiar with Canadian Codes; this would be similar to using the IBC instead of the IRC. The code in Canada allows an applicant to use the more rigorous Parts 3 and/or 4 instead of Part 9. This rarely happens, but it is done once in a while. Part 3 is for life safety, washrooms, and barrier free (similar to ADA)

Part 4 is structural requirements

Part 9 is for small buildings (residential, stores, mid and low hazard industrial) and includes; life safety, environmental separation, structural, and refers to Part 3 for washrooms and barrier free.

Basically, if your building falls into Part 9 you can use Part 3 to design your life safety elements. The only catch is that if you are using Part 3 you have to use ALL of Part 3. You can also use Part 4 to design your structural elements (this is done all the time for trusses). For this part you can design portions of the building to Part 4 and keep the rest under Part 9 (like trusses) the only thing a designer has to be mindful of is that if the loads exceed the assumed loads under Part 9 the supporting elements would also have to be under Part 4.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great explanation.

Much appreciated.

Pugsy
 
I have been following this thread. I can't view the detail drawing showing the final solution. Did your jurisdiction require you to insert vertical rebar and grout for wall reinforcement or did they allow you to insert the anchor bolts in grouted cells onlY? Thanx
 
My engineer has stamped the final drawings. Epoxy sleeves at 32" centers.

Hilti HIT HY 70.

Waiting for variance before applying for permit. the AHJ has not seen the drawings yet.

I do remember seeing a table for CMU foundation walls, and my height and block thickness showed no rebars req'd.
 
ndaniels said:
I agree that you should check with the AHJ but there are many companies that offer products like Set22 that are approved for unreinforced masonry units http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files//ESR-1772.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks.

As posted above, the AHJ will get a chance to comment when I submit my drawings. I believe the Hilti is similar to the Simpson product. It's approved for hollow CMU's.
 
mark handler said:
I have been onsite where the workers bored the hole and without cleaning it out started to insert the epoxy. They say it doesn't matter. I shake my head and reject the work

Happens all the time
Click to expand...
Ditto what Mark said. Ive been a third party inspector and I literally watched, 8 hours a day, two laborers drill, clean, and epoxy rebar into brick walls for an earthquake retrofit in San Francisco. Then there were the anchor bolts in a townhouse complex.

Sue
 
Would a Simpson Tigen HD anchor that requires no epoxy work, ICC-ES-AC-193

ICE, "Deputize myself", after a few Guiness last night!

pc1;0
 
like Ice's post #11. Had a garage in town that got hit by an inexperienced excavator operator and knocked the wall in. The anchor bolts held and the blocks they were in were still attached to the sill but about 3 feet from where they should have been.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Would a Simpson Tigen HD anchor that requires no epoxy work, ICC-ES-AC-193ICE, "Deputize myself", after a few Guiness last night!

pc1;0
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Nice bolts but I left it up to my engineer and he came up with the epoxy anchors.
 
jwilly3879 said:
like Ice's post #11. Had a garage in town that got hit by an inexperienced excavator operator and knocked the wall in. The anchor bolts held and the blocks they were in were still attached to the sill but about 3 feet from where they should have been.
Click to expand...
I better don't let that fellow drive his excavator around in my basement. :D

In my copy of the Ontario Building Code, 10" CMU's are OK up to 70.866" high w/o rebars, laterally reinforced of course.

My finished ground is 68-69". Lots of room to spare.
 
123pugsy said:
Thanks.Nice bolts but I left it up to my engineer and he came up with the epoxy anchors.
Click to expand...
I've never seen anything but epoxy anchors for this application. We almost always see Hilti products for this application.
 
New issue.

I'm putting it here as it's all related to the construction of the foundation wall.

I have a mortar crack about 1/8" open under the 3rd course of block on one wall. A straight edge confirms a bow inwards.

I have a call in to a local company that can install the PowerBrace wall repair posts.

This is now a huge problem.

I'm thinking I should rebuild the whole wall (26' long) using rebar this time. It would be easier to install the egress window which is planned for this wall.

I believe there is a lot of pressure in the soil. Maybe something to do with the 18"-24" diameter pine trees that are 15-20' away from this wall on the neighbors property?

The question is, what's an inspector going to say when he sees 2 stories of brick resting on this repaired foundation? That is if I use the brace system.

Will he start laughing before he says to tear down the whole house? :shock:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top