• 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

brick and block foundation

Sorry about the accidental post above. Here are a couple of footing photos which may clear up some questions. The contractor ran out of threaded rod so he placed rebar as shown in the photos. I was told adapters would connect the rebar to threaded rod but eventually the rods were epoxyed in to the footing. The string is the level of the foundation wall. So..the CMU wall and the brick wall are on the footing. CMU started the first course of the wall, but very quickly the CMU blocks were replaced with small sections of brick to compensate for footing variations. I was told that this was normal practice.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28457911800/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28664971021/in/dateposted-public/
 
I would ask your engineer says what was installed matches the plans, which you paid to have installed.

If not I think they owe you a new foundation
 
Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate.

Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.
 
tmurray said:
Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate.

Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.
Click to expand...

In one code cycle that included 1975 we had some CMU foundations but they all racked up badly and I haven't seen any sense.

The code tried to deal with them sometime in the early 2000s, the old timers here will remember back in our old UBC Bulletin Board several inspectors went nuts because that's all they used, I forget his name but one from Pennsylvania was particularly vocal on the matter, among other things they required a steel angle be bolted completely around the top of the block. Eventually the state of Pennsylvania removed it from their code and he was jubilant to say the least, don't others here remember that?
 
tmurray said:
Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate.

Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.
Click to expand...

What is the advantages or disadvantages of using forms in pouring footings? I don't know what is common here.
 
Thanks CDA...I will ask the engineer on Friday. I do see a difference from the plans and the installation, and yours is a good point. Maybe he will say that mine is an acceptable variation, and this is what I need to know.
 
Unreinforced block foundations are common here in Virginia and other states. A residence typically has less than one ton per lineal foot of load on the foundation, and lateral loads are low, so even a sloppy wall like this will support the load.

Unformed footings are also common in residential work. As long as the dirt stands fairly straight in the footing trench you don't gain any strength by digging a trench a foot or 2 wider than the footing, setting forms, then removing the forms and placing compacted fill between the footing and edge of the trench.
 
Paul Sweet said:
Unreinforced block foundations are common here in Virginia and other states. A residence typically has less than one ton per lineal foot of load on the foundation, and lateral loads are low, so even a sloppy wall like this will support the load.

Unformed footings are also common in residential work. As long as the dirt stands fairly straight in the footing trench you don't gain any strength by digging a trench a foot or 2 wider than the footing, setting forms, then removing the forms and placing compacted fill between the footing and edge of the trench.
Click to expand...

Our building code requires those areas excavated and drainage stone placed there to prevent any hydraulic pressure on the footings. Also we will typically see draintile in this area.
 
See it here all the time, at most they form the slab only and do monolithic. We don't get much moisture here to require foundation drainage. Did however when i was working in Colorado we did and that requires over excavating so you would set forms. As for block don't see many, most are reinforced if they are used, some it's just the Ext. wall/s of the garage.
 
Maybe the engineer is using the wrong terminology....?

R703.7.3 Lintels. Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical
load other than the dead load of the veneer above.

And then...
R606.2.1 Minimum thickness. The minimum thickness of
masonry bearing walls more than one story high shall be 8
inches (203 mm). Solid masonry walls of one-story dwellings
and garages shall not be less than 6 inches (152 mm) in
thickness when not greater than 9 feet (2743 mm) in height,
 
steveray said:
Maybe the engineer is using the wrong terminology....?

R703.7.3 Lintels. Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical
load other than the dead load of the veneer above.

And then...
R606.2.1 Minimum thickness. The minimum thickness of
masonry bearing walls more than one story high shall be 8
inches (203 mm). Solid masonry walls of one-story dwellings
and garages shall not be less than 6 inches (152 mm) in
thickness when not greater than 9 feet (2743 mm) in height,[/QUOTE

I agree with R606.2.1 (good catch) but R703.7.3 only refers to lintels in the masonry veneer
Click to expand...
 
I'll figure this new format out eventually, lol

I agree with R606.2.1 (good catch) but R703.7.3 only refers to lintels in the masonry veneer.
I'm not an engineer, but if he will sign off on it it's his ars!!
 
my250r11 said:
I'll figure this new format out eventually, lol

I agree with R606.2.1 (good catch) but R703.7.3 only refers to lintels in the masonry veneer.
I'm not an engineer, but if he will sign off on it it's his ars!!
Click to expand...

Correct!....I tell people you can build it out of cheddar cheese if the engineer stamps it....What the veneer section says, is that the veneer can only support itself, it can't be bearing structure like in the drawing.
 
Meant to add not sidetrack this discussion; anyone know why the terms composite and masonry-bonded hollow wall were removed from the 2015 IBC?

So would a 4 inch CMU bonded to 4 inch wide brick be a 8 inch composite wall?

As a reminder 4-inch masonry wall not to exceed 4 ft. is permitted to support a 2-story light frame contruction (see next post below).

WALL. A vertical element with a horizontal length-to-thickness ratio greater than three, used to enclose space.

Cavity wall. A wall built of masonry units or of concrete, or a combination of these materials, arranged to provide an airspace within the wall, and in which the inner and outer parts of the wall are tied together with metal ties.

Composite wall. A wall built of a combination of two or more masonry units bonded together, one forming the backup and the other forming the facing elements.

Dry-stacked, surface-bonded wall. A wall built of concrete masonry units where the units are stacked dry, without mortar on the bed or head joints, and where both sides of the wall are coated with a surface-bonding mortar.

Masonry-bonded hollow wall. A multi-wythe wall built of masonry units arranged to provide an air space between the wythes and with the wythes bonded together with masonry units.

Parapet wall. The part of any wall entirely above the roof line.
 
Last edited:
upload_2016-8-4_9-51-20.png


R404.1.5.3 Pier and curtain wall foundations. Use of pier and curtain wall foundations shall be permitted to support light-frame construction not more than two stories in height, provided the following requirements are met:

1. All load-bearing walls shall be placed on continuous concrete footings placed integrally with the exterior wall footings.

2. The minimum actual thickness of a load-bearing masonry wall shall be not less than 4 inches nominal or 3 3/8 inches actual thickness, and shall be bonded integrally with piers spaced in accordance with Section R606.9.

3. Piers shall be constructed in accordance with Section R606.6 and Section R606.6.1, and shall be bonded into the load-bearing masonry wall in accordance with Section R608.1.1 or R608.1.1.2.

4. The maximum height of a 4-inch loadbearing masonry foundation wall supporting wood-frame walls and floors shall not be more than 4 feet.

5. Anchorage shall be in accordance with Section R403.1.6, Figure R404.1.5(1), or as specified by engineered design accepted by the building official.

6. The unbalanced fill for 4-inch foundation walls shall not exceed 24 inches for solid masonry or 12 inches for hollow masonry.
 
Well .... The engineer just left the foundation and gave the thumbs up for strength. Cost me a pretty penny too. I had to get an engineer from well out of the area. I know the workmanship is not the best but I've been thinking about this way too much. He said the half bricks on the bottom will last because they are well mortared in and offer good structural support.(although there may be no code reference for that). My alternative was to remove the foundation, and I would have if I saw no other way. This foundation taught me a few lessons and I learned quite a bit from you members. I'm glad I joined your ranks.....and CDA, " Is the contractor the brother in law of the chief inspector?" There could be some truth in that.
Many thanks and I will try to contribute in the future.
Buck
 
Good luck

As long as an engineer you like says ok


Good luck, at least the builder knows you will question him.

Is this a normal foundation design for your area????
 
Had I not seen members from back East paying attention to this thread I would have figured it for a setup. Now an engineer blessed it.... He even said that the bricks are well mortared in. Proof positive that most engineers should stick to engineering.

The eye is drawn to brickwork. It's a focal point that connotes ordered strength. That is until the emotional side of the brain sits down. The haphazard, slapdash work presented here will engender discomfort to even those that don't consciously notice. Like a floor that's out of level 2" in 20', you won't notice it while walking but the subconscious knows that something is wrong. Might even give you diarrhea.


Well then Buck, try not to pay much attention to me when I get going....now and then my mind just runs on.
Let the engineer wipe away your fear and say, "Look out house... Here we come.

Can somebody flush out Brent?
 
Last edited:
buck33k said:
.(although there may be no code reference for that)
Click to expand...
The specific provisions detailed in the Code are 'prescriptive' options. The Code still allows engineered design and alternatives to the prescriptive provisions. In other words, the printed Codes are not absolute. As long as the foundation can safely support the loads imposed, then it should be fine.
 
@ = @ = @


Here is a link to the Brick Industry Association ( BIA ).

http://www.gobrick.com/Portals/25/docs/Technical%20Notes/TN24G.pdf

In some reading of their Technical Notes & other, ...it appears
as though clay fired brick can be used to achieve high compressive
strength \ load(s) bearing applications.........Type of brick, type
of mortar, mixing ratios, humidity, temperature, and other
variable have a direct influence on the design when using clay fired
brick in an application.

This web site DOES have some interesting reading in their Technical
Notes Section.

The pics. submitted by the OP look like a Train Wreck.......That said,
an RDP HAS signed off on it ( For What That's Worth ).......

I would not be comfortable with the pics. submitted "IF" it were my
project.


@ = @ = @
 
My contract specifies all work to be performed in a good workmanship manner.
The foundation is aproximately 42' X 54'.
How difficult would it be to remove?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top