• 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

What could be in store for me.

MASSDRIVER

MASSDRIVER

Registered User
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,532
Location
Esparto, CA
I have a good chance to frame a house starting next week in the CA. foothills.

This will be a little different for me, as the stepped foundation was completed and inspected about 2007, then it went dormant until the current owner bought it. So apparently I am being told it will be inspected to the 2006 code standard. My bid is to frame it to plans done back then associated with that permit. But my concern is not the framing, as it really is typical and strait-forward, but the existing foundation. It's built typical of the time, with 1/2" raw steel foundation bolts, etc.

My concern is the pier blocks that were placed. Typical block in concrete, but as you can imagine they have deteriorated from exposure and the wood block is toast. Also, the plans have a typical detail of just toe nailing the 4x4 posts to the pier block, but notes pb44's on the floor framing plan.

So, I have no problem installing the pb's, and 6 years ago I would probably just plop some construction adhesive under a new block on the piers. However, I have a feeling that won't fly now.

What would you CA. inspectors expect to see in case?

Thanks,

Brent.
 
I can not answer your question. But , the building was probably permited under the 2001 California Building Code that is based on the 1997 UBC. The next California code is the 2007 based on the 2006 IBC. But the 2007 CBC did not take affect until 1/1/2008. The current code is the 2010 CBC; the 2013 CBC is in the works and scheduled to take affect 1/1/2014.
 
I would suggest a sitdown with the "approved" plans with the CBO/Plans Examiner, followed by a site visit to make sure that everyone is on the same page.
 
I found a vague reference in my 2010 code book, in section r407 columns it says in seismic zone abc are exempt from bottom end lateral displacement as long as the length is less than 48 inches and in a fully enclosed stemwall.

Under r502.9 fastening it states where posts and beam is used to support floor framing, positive connections shall be provided to insure ugainst uplift and lateral displacement.

I read that to mean the bottom post can be nailed conventionally, but the post to beam connection has to be secured by gusset or hardware. Even if I use pb44's at the pad/post interface, what about the pad/pier connection? Maybe what is called for is ditching the wood pad altogether and just connecting the pb direct to the pier.

Also a little worried about the non-galv. anchor bolts going through treated lumber.

Brent.
 
At 1/2" dia and up anchor bolts are not required to be galvy... I believe this is still true?

If the lateral load gets through your perimeter walls and the house is depending on those post connections, there are bigger issues on the horizon.
 
Do not assume that the 2001 CBC governs. Usually when the work is stopped for considerable time the permit will expire. Verify this with the building official. If the permit has expired you will probably need a new permit and the work will likely have to be performed in accordance with the current building code. If this is a residential building you will likely find that the 2010 California Residential Code is the default building code.
 
1/2" anchor bolts of raw steel are fine. I would require an engineer to stamp and date the existing plans and require a new permit for the remainder of the construction. Have an engineer evaluate the integrity of the existing foundation while you're at it. I agree with the Fat one 's advice!
 
fatboy said:
I would suggest a sitdown with the "approved" plans with the CBO/Plans Examiner, followed by a site visit to make sure that everyone is on the same page.
Click to expand...
Ditto that.

As it was permitted in the past, the building department should have the original plans for the project. This is where I would start.

Sue
 
2x4 and 2x6 sill plates that are normally available at lumber stores are for interior dry locations and are treated with SBX/DOT or Zinc Borate; these types of sill plates don't require galvanized Anchor bolts or other specially treated nails like hot dipped galvanized. Pressure treated wood that is ACQ and other similar treatments do.
 
I find that interesting. I have not used a non-galvanized AB in maybe 12 years, and my education came from pulling anchors ready for pour. As a matter of fact, my last foundation in Dec. I got a minor reaming because I had some old sstb's that were not galv. on the job and was again told no raw steel. I ALWAYS have to show galv nails in the shear at sill plates. I don't even want to talk about Simpson crap.

But, back to topic, thanks for the advice. I have a copy of the stamped approved plans here with me, so I see what they saw (which surprises me it got through imho.

But, the owner is also a GC, I'm just the framer dude on this one. To much prying, calling, and asking can be interpreted as sabotage, so I will probably have to go with what's written, and let the inspector see things on underfloor plumbing and see where it goes. You start causing too many negative questions and you don't get the job. You know, "no pro'lem".

Brent
 
I'm not in CA but here your permit is expired and so are your "approved" plans. We would do what Fatboy and Mark K said, plus your plans would need to be revised to today's code.
 
TJacobs said:
I'm not in CA but here your permit is expired and so are your "approved" plans. We would do what Fatboy and Mark K said, plus your plans would need to be revised to today's code.
Click to expand...
Same thing here but we might be able to resurrect the foundation.
 
If you are concerned with the quality or state of the conditions as they exist today. Another avenue would be to contact a materials testing agency. Get a scientific opinion.
 
Well, this became hypothetical today as I didn't get the work, but I would still be interested in the result I would get had I gotten the work.

What I wonder about is the following: 5 1/2" concrete stepped stemwalls with 2X6 pony walls built on top, from 0- 100" high. The aformentioned steel bolts. Is the consensus I DO NOT need galvanized anchors? Even through common treated lumber? Also, the sorry state of the peirs and blocks, as well as the almost immediate drop off the hillside at the back of the home, around 6 feet from the foundation.

I won't get into the shear walls, just that the embeds where in place pretty much where they were supposed to be, but just seemed inadequate to the standards I am used to, as well as using 3/8" ply throughout.

Like ICE said, I can see the foundation getting blessed, but not without some kind of pier-work.

Brent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top