• 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.

Sill Plate Bolt Embedment

right not the layout seems to be wrong, nothing to keep the carpenter from drilling and setting appropriate anchor such as epoxy bolts correctly.
 
Anchor bolts in wrong locations. Should be 12-inches from each corner, I count TWO corners.

Anchor selection and depth? One appears to be low and may not catch the sill plate material.
 
We always jab them into the wet mortar. You’re the first person to complain, eveyone else says they are fine.
 
Mark ... sarcasm
And those bolts are in mortar, not concrete, i bet the pullout strength is very low.
 
Block construction apparently creates anchor placement issues that conflict with the code requirements. But like someone said, come back and add some drill type anchors to appease the inspector?

On poured foundations and slabs, we don't typically see the blue anchor bolt standoffs used here, L-anchors are wet set here 90% of the time.
 
Setting into "wet" is one thing but into CMU is entirely another.
Do regional methods and means differ, to some degree but to code minimums, debatable.
 
While I said concrete I could just as well said grout. For this discussion there is no difference.

Am not aware of any code that has provisions for anchor bolts or anchor rods in the joints between masonry units. So why are they accepted?

All the concrete block construction that I have sees uses hollow block where the cells can be filled with grout. The bolts are then inserted in the cells before the cell is filled with grout. The picture suggests that there were hollow cell blocks on the project.

Just because it is a regional practice does not mean that it makes sense or is code compliant.

There is a phenomena know as normalization of deviance. This played a significant role with the failures of steel moment frames that we found after the Northridge earthquake. What happens is that if people accept deviations from the code too often the deviations are seen as the new normal. The process repeats itself.

I can hear a lot of screaming and shouting but I believe that a lot of there problems would be avoided if engineers were involved in the design of houses.

I also believe that each building department should have at least one registered civil engineer
 
Mark K said:
While I said concrete I could just as well said grout. For this discussion there is no difference.

Am not aware of any code that has provisions for anchor bolts or anchor rods in the joints between masonry units. So why are they accepted?

All the concrete block construction that I have sees uses hollow block where the cells can be filled with grout. The bolts are then inserted in the cells before the cell is filled with grout. The picture suggests that there were hollow cell blocks on the project.

Just because it is a regional practice does not mean that it makes sense or is code compliant.

There is a phenomena know as normalization of deviance. This played a significant role with the failures of steel moment frames that we found after the Northridge earthquake. What happens is that if people accept deviations from the code too often the deviations are seen as the new normal. The process repeats itself.

I can hear a lot of screaming and shouting but I believe that a lot of there problems would be avoided if engineers were involved in the design of houses.

I also believe that each building department should have at least one registered civil engineer
Click to expand...

I am agreement with your statements. As far as having an RDP/engineer in each building department, that is just not feasible in most cases as some places are just a one man band and there is not budget for anything more.
 
As far as my opinion on the original picture posted, not one bolt would be compliant in any way, shape or form. You can't cap with 4" solid and slip an anchor bolt in between a joint on top of the joint of the block below and think you are anywhere near compliant with the code. If you are the kind to approve this, you are not doing your job.
 
Mark K said:
Jabbing anchor bolts in wet concrete is not fine and any contractor who says it is ok should have his license revoked.
Click to expand...

JCraver said:
I'd have to fail every job I see if that were true
Click to expand...


My reply was just to this sentence, in case there's any confusion. The pic in the OP is obviously wrong, just like the sentence is.

I'm not arguing the engineer thing again...
 
Curious, Why a civil engineer versus a structural engineer.
I would think a structural would be more beneficial to a building department
Also are you thinking a licensed engineer or someone with an engineering degree.

Smaller jurisdiction might be able to afford a person with a degree versus one who is licensed
 
There are as many poor engineers as there are poor contractors and building officials. No occupation is immune from incompetence.

I really doubt that requiring an engineer on each house will result in anything other than a race to the lowest quality of engineering service borne out of the cost of the service.
 
Oh "yee" of little faith.

In LA after Northridge the City required all engineered projects to be "field" inspected by the EOR or his designated representative "before" the city inspector's framing inspection.
 
I refer to civil engineers because in many parts of the country there is no structural engineer license and because in California a civil engineer can perform the engineering on any project where the local building department would have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction hiring the individual can always impose higher qualifications.

The problem is that in too many instances an inspector or building official is put in a situation where he is asked to make decisions about engineering issues when he doesn't have the education or training necessary to make those decisions. The engineer would be better qualified to make those decisions and to help train the inspectors.

The knee jerk response that there are also poor engineers is an attempt to deny that there are problems that an engineer could help address. Remember as an employee of the jurisdiction the jurisdiction is in a position to get rid of a poorly performing engineer. If the comment about cost was about the jurisdiction being unwilling to pay for a qualified engineer then I suggest you have bigger problems because that implies that they would have similar attitude towards the inspectors.

The practice of the City of LA was an illegal attempt to try to make the engineer of record responsible for the constructed work even though he has no control of the work. The building department should focus on performing their inspections and not try to shift responsibility.
 
Mark K said:
I refer to civil engineers because in many parts of the country there is no structural engineer license and because in California a civil engineer can perform the engineering on any project where the local building department would have jurisdiction. The jurisdiction hiring the individual can always impose higher qualifications.

The problem is that in too many instances an inspector or building official is put in a situation where he is asked to make decisions about engineering issues when he doesn't have the education or training necessary to make those decisions. The engineer would be better qualified to make those decisions and to help train the inspectors.

The knee jerk response that there are also poor engineers is an attempt to deny that there are problems that an engineer could help address. Remember as an employee of the jurisdiction the jurisdiction is in a position to get rid of a poorly performing engineer. If the comment about cost was about the jurisdiction being unwilling to pay for a qualified engineer then I suggest you have bigger problems because that implies that they would have similar attitude towards the inspectors.

The practice of the City of LA was an illegal attempt to try to make the engineer of record responsible for the constructed work even though he has no control of the work. The building department should focus on performing their inspections and not try to shift responsibility.
Click to expand...


I'm all for the City hiring me an engineer. You get to be the one to talk them into it.

Also, in trade, every a/e firm that submits plans to me has to have a non-engineer plan reviewer who has swung a hammer for pay at least once on staff to review all plans they turn in first before they get to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top