• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Did Builder Cut Corners w/ Pier & Beam on Clay Soil?

K

Kevin Stokes

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
15
Location
Austin TX
Hi all,

Quick Rundown:
  • Home was purchased in late March 2018
  • Began to see cracking in walls in April
  • Multiple cracks on walls around door frames, cracks in ceiling, several interior & exterior doors won’t open/close

What we’ve done:
  • Hired structural engineer
  • Engineer report was non-invasive, limited to visual inspection of home and crawlspace, measured home for level
  • Engineer report stated the spacing of piers was too wide and recommend that pier spacing was reduced to a max of 8’ oc. Measurements showed the house had sank roughly 1” down the center when the engineer inspected in early June

What we know:
  • Expansive/shifting soils are present onsite (soft, sticky, clay)
  • No soil testing was performed prior to foundation design/install
  • Foundation plans were done in house
  • Foundation plans were not engineered
  • Piers are spaced roughly 10’ OC (girders) X 14’ OC (floor joists)
  • Pier depth to a max of 2’
  • Signs that the sonotube piers were not constructed according to manufacturers specifications (does not appear that vibration was performed as the concrete is not compacted)

To the best of our understanding, IRC 2009 R401.4 requires the builder to perform soil testing or removal/fill if the building official deems it necessary based on quantifiable data that indicates expansive, shifting soils are present.

  • Builder said he had no knowledge of shifting/expansive soils until after construction of the foundation. (Sure, right)
  • City had no building official at the time permits were pulled
  • Plans were reviewed by 3rd party company and approved with stamp on them stating "Follow I-Code for Foundation"
The builder hired his own engineer who took measurement of the home inside, but did not access the crawlspace. The engineers report states he accessed the crawlspace for a visible inspection (he didn't, we were present during the inspection and it was pouring rain). The report states the sinking of the home is due to expansive soils (we know this), but the builder did everything correctly and to code. His recommendation: gutters and level the home, which contradicts what our engineer determined.


Is it possible that the builder did this correctly and to code? Logically, it seems like the first step to designing the foundation is to determine the bearing capacity of the soil so that you can determine the correct pier spacing and number of piers to adequately support the load of the structure....is this correct? The builder is adamant that the pier spacing is sufficient (he said he used a calculation app on his iPhone to determine this), and that the 2' deep piers are sufficient for the site.

We've been trying to get information from the city but haven't gotten anywhere yet. We're on the verge of lawyer up, but fear that the legal cost if we lose could exceed the cost of fixing it ourselves.

Any opinions on what we should do and if this sounds like standard practice?
 
Is this in an incorporated city in Texas

Or in county area??

Is this in a kind of subdivision ,, as in did this contractor build other homes in same area,,, or kind of by itself
 
The home is in Bastrop, TX. We are within city limits and the home was built on a vacant lot on the city grid that had a previous home that was tore down 30 years ago. It's not in a subdivision, no HOA. He has built several homes in the area but all are recently built with ours being the first. There are 2 other homes within a .5 miles of the same spec and floor plan, but the builder did reveal to us that the city required him to obtain engineered foundation plans for the most recent build of our floor plan due to new regulations that require engineered floorpans for all new builds.
 
Do Texas contractors have a minimum warranty requirement? Was this a design/build by the contractor? Was he also the developer/seller?
 
See 2012 IRC Sections R401.4, R403.1.8 and note b of Table R401.4.1. It doesn't seem to be good enough to say "I didn't know." Texas has many areas having expansive soils.
 
ADAguy said:
Do Texas contractors have a minimum warranty requirement? Was this a design/build by the contractor? Was he also the developer/seller?
Click to expand...

I believe there is a minimum warrant requirement, but I'm having a hard time finding a definitive answer on this from a valid source.

Yes, it was a design/build by the contractor and he is also the developer/seller.
 
Kevin Stokes said:
The home is in Bastrop, TX. We are within city limits and the home was built on a vacant lot on the city grid that had a previous home that was tore down 30 years ago. It's not in a subdivision, no HOA. He has built several homes in the area but all are recently built with ours being the first. There are 2 other homes within a .5 miles of the same spec and floor plan, but the builder did reveal to us that the city required him to obtain engineered foundation plans for the most recent build of our floor plan due to new regulations that require engineered floorpans for all new builds.
Click to expand...



Good I guess

So do you have copies of all the building inspector’s reports ??

And a city stamped copy of the plans??
 
cda said:
Good I guess

So do you have copies of all the building inspector’s reports ??

And a city stamped copy of the plans??
Click to expand...
I have a copy of the pre-pour foundation inspection report that was provided by the city. Here in Bastrop, the builder is required to hire the inspector for the 3 construction inspections. The foundation report simply says "pass." and that's it.

I have a hard time believing the foundation inspection *should* have passed. One look at the soils on our property and its clear there is a high clay content. I also have a neighbor who witness an employee of the building trying to straighten a pier that had shifted several days after the concrete was poured by attaching a chain around the pier and pulling it straight with a truck. It doesn't sound like the forms were properly braced before the pour. On top of that, I suspect the point of "non movement" is somewhere in excess of 8' below grade. Piers sitting 2' deep in heavy clay really concerns me.

Yes the plans were stamped by Bureau Veritas, who reviewed them in absence of a city building official. They are stamped "FOUNDATION: Comply with the I-Code for all foundation/slab work"

I'll try to get some photos uploaded tonight of the piers and plans.
 
These are the plans we received from the city.
yz6uQ1n

b6Rwn4B

8AvOKbj


This is the foundation inspection report provided to the city.
yWtuk1k
 
Talk about "minimum" plans, I've seen more complete from high schoolers!
In CA a builder must provide a warranty on products such as this, not so in Tex?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Looks like the city at minimum

Would have to approve third party


And

Not someone not directly related to the contractor
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
I'm not sure about liability in the US, but here in Canada, stamping a set of plans with a disclaimer provides next to no liability mitigation. Stamping "must comply with the code" on the plans makes no sense because they must comply with the codes anyway and if we could rely on people to do that, us inspectors would all be unemployed.

That inspection report is next to useless.
 
The basic problem is that the contractor designed the building. This was compounded by the failure to hire an engineer to at least design the foundation and a failure to obtain a geotechnical report.

If the problem is related to expansive soils the spacing of the piers will not solve the problem. Three strategies are typically used to address this problem.
1) Locate the footings at an elevation below which the moisture in the soil does not change during the year.
2) Remove the soil under the building to a level below which soil moisture content will change during the year and replace it with non-expansive soil.
3) Install a post tensioned concrete mat foundation that will minimize the differential foundation movement.

Note 2015 IBC Section 1803.5.3 which requires consideration of whether there are expansive soils. 2015 IRC Sections R401.4 and R403.1.8 also recognize this concern. Texas is known to have expansive soils.

Building inspections will not address these concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Did your engineer comment on the size and span on the center support beam or the perimeter beam? The plans do not list a species or grade of the (3) 2 x 8 beams so it is impossible to size but they look way overspanned or way undersized.
 
jeffc said:
Did your engineer comment on the size and span on the center support beam or the perimeter beam? The plans do not list a species or grade of the (3) 2 x 8 beams so it is impossible to size but they look way overspanned or way undersized.
Click to expand...
He has not. The only thing he said when questioned about how he determined the spans is "I have span calculator app on my iPhone that I use to determine the proper span"

I know the girders are pine but do not know the grade or any other details. All framing is pine from what I can see.
 
Texas Construction Attorneys | Construction Defects‎
Adwww.loveinribman.com/‎
(888) 368-2483
Commercial defects, Residential Defects throughout the State of Texas-Call Today.
Experienced Lawyers. Free Consultation.
 
I'm not an enginer but I played one on a web site user forum. This is my very rough approximation of the proper beam size:
According to the Southern Forest Product Association, 2 x 8 SP (southern pine) #2 has an Fb of 925,
upload_2018-11-6_9-4-37.png
The 1986 Wood Structural Design Data with 1992 Revisions list 2 x 8 SP spanning 11' can support 65 lb per foot.
upload_2018-11-6_9-10-47.png
65 lb per foot with 3 members gives you 195 lb of beam capacity per foot. (Could get a slight increase due to redundancy)
The center beam over the kitchen and living room should have 775 lb. of capacity per foot. [31'/2 x 50 (40 live load and 10 dead load) = 775 lb. per foot]
I think over stressed and sagging beams are contributing to your situation.
 
I appreciate the fact that most posters are not engineers and that individuals will focus on the things, such as joist span tables, that they are familiar with but suggest this ignore the more likely problem.

Piers two feet deep in expansive soils is asking for trouble. When they install the floor they protect the soil around and under interior footings from any rain and allow the soil under the central piers to dry out with respect to the outer piers. In expansive soils this could result in significant differential pier elevations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top