• 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

Daniel Boquist said:
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.
Click to expand...
Daniel Boquist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...


R404.1.5.3 piers and curtain wall foundations
- permitted providing the following provisions are met..

All load bearing walls shall be placed on continuous concrete footings placed integrally with the exterior wall footings.
 
tmurray said:
Yeah. Maybe. But you have to understand, the building you showed us would be a tear down in a lot of places.
Click to expand...
The indication is that the foundation of a 70 year old, nondescript house that has seen better days, is failed. Connecting the building to the foundation might serve a purpose that escapes me.
 
In that shaky-cam video, you can see by the string lines that the piers are pretty much all still level. That in itself indicates that they are on at least decent footings, so if they are able to accept a fastener that would allow attaching the beams to them, I would have no problem issuing a permit for him to do that. If he was lifting the whole house and the piers were all falling down it would be different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. From the evidence we've seen, it's a crappy thing to do to make him put a whole new foundation under that house and I'm not sure the code backs it up.
 
JCraver said:
In that shaky-cam video, you can see by the string lines that the piers are pretty much all still level. That in itself indicates that they are on at least decent footings, so if they are able to accept a fastener that would allow attaching the beams to them, I would have no problem issuing a permit for him to do that. If he was lifting the whole house and the piers were all falling down it would be different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. From the evidence we've seen, it's a crappy thing to do to make him put a whole new foundation under that house and I'm not sure the code backs it up.
Click to expand...

From my interpretation of the code, the most that I might have to do is pour a footing between the piers.
 
JCraver said:
I'm trying to help you use what you have - if you dig and pour new footings all the way around that house, it'd be sheer foolishness to not just pour a wall. IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I guess it is time to see if I can get an inspector out here to see where I stand.
 
That is the smartest thing you have said yet.
Do you know for a fact that:
1. The piers are reinforced?
2. Have footings beneath them?
3. We would call this a cripple house in CA if the piers did not have continuous footings connecting them.
4. A Simpson connector at a minimum would be required for the retrofit you are proposing. They would require being drilled and epoxied into the piers but you piers appear to be brick, no?
5. What is your seismic zone?
 
ADAguy said:
That is the smartest thing you have said yet.
Do you know for a fact that:
1. The piers are reinforced?
2. Have footings beneath them?
3. We would call this a cripple house in CA if the piers did not have continuous footings connecting them.
4. A Simpson connector at a minimum would be required for the retrofit you are proposing. They would require being drilled and epoxied into the piers but you piers appear to be brick, no?
5. What is your seismic zone?
Click to expand...


Of course I want to be as informed as possible before I deal with the building inspectors.
1. No idea. It was built around 1948.
2. I assumed that they did but it appears not when I stick a knife down there.
3. Piers are brick, yes.
4. Yes, in a seismic zone. Do I believe.

If this doesn’t work our it will be an awesome barn/workshop.
 
ADAguy said:
No footings, no support.

Free is Free
Click to expand...

I appreciate your interest and your time. This has gotten me to focus in on the the critical issues. I’ll can now get the inspector out here.

The good thing is that there is only 1 guy from our town so I won’t have different people to deal with.

Since 1948 this house has been through a lot. Hurricane Hugo and only God knows what else and the only real damage to the house is termite damage. No earthquake that I know of though.

Next I need to find out what the codes are for making it a workshop/storage, etc. That itself has to be at least worth 20k or something. It even has a septic tank. My estimates for lumber for the beams, new floor joists, and subfloor are less than 2k.

I have 2 acres here and am getting a new well drilled. I’ve had a set of plans for years for a house I’ve aimed to build.

I’ll keep this thread updated. Any comments appreciated.
 
Thank you for the rest of the story, no high water intrusion over the years, lath and plaster interior finish?
 
These are living/dining rooms after tearing the floors up. That doorway is under a load bearing wall and were double doors. No header, if you can believe that.

I had to shore this up with a temporary beam and a doorway opening with a header in order to get this wall jacked up and stable.

Pucker factor was up there.



1ebyZm-YfM5u-p9uRdRM4QUUfhC_ykB_9
 
ADAguy said:
Thank you for the rest of the story, no high water intrusion over the years, lath and plaster interior finish?
Click to expand...

No signs of high water intrusion. A couple of moisture spots in a couple of rooms, but nothing significant. House has a thin Sheetrock only discolored in some seams.
 
Enjoyed this short story DB, please keep us all informed on the project.

Also, might want to seek out a fastener catalog like Simpson Strong/Tie or USP. They have beam to post tie products that sometimes is called out by a RDP.
 
Ok. Went to the inspector’s office today. Very reasonable.

First definitions.
1) Pier and curtain foundation. Pier and curtain foundations of today are constructed on a continuous footer and the curtain wall was part of the load bearing structure. Older ones like the one that I have were not built on a continuous footer and the curtain wall bore no load.
2) Foundation incluedes bolts for tie down, etc., does not include girders.

A. If I am not messing with it I do not have to bring it up to current code, eg. foundation.
B. Recommend to remove curtain walls (not part of foundation), dig and pour a reinforced footer between piers with tie down straps embedded in new curtain wall to anchor girders. Curtain wall does not need to be load bearing. I can do this after new girders are in place.
B. No tapcons, no messing with existing piers in any way.

I’m jazzed.
 
Glad you got the answer you were after!

If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there. Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top. Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

But it's not my money, and you and your inspector are satisfied, so don't pay any attention to me. :D Seriously, I'm glad you figured out a solution that makes everybody happy.

Come back and show us pics when you get it done.
 
JCraver said:
Glad you got the answer you were after!

If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there. Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top. Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

But it's not my money, and you and your inspector are satisfied, so don't pay any attention to me. :D Seriously, I'm glad you figured out a solution that makes everybody happy.

Come back and show us pics when you get it done.
Click to expand...
JCraver said:
Glad you got the answer you were after!

If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there. Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top. Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

But it's not my money, and you and your inspector are satisfied, so don't pay any attention to me. :D Seriously, I'm glad you figured out a solution that makes everybody happy.

Come back and show us pics when you get it done.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. New everything else, why not the piers themselves and just be done with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top