# Sill Plate Bolt Embedment



## jar546 (Aug 14, 2019)

Where do we even start?  Even the layout is wrong.


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 14, 2019)

right not the layout seems to be wrong, nothing to keep the carpenter from drilling and setting appropriate anchor such as epoxy bolts correctly.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 14, 2019)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 14, 2019)

A "no-super" job?


----------



## e hilton (Aug 14, 2019)

We always jab them into the wet mortar.  You’re the first person to complain, eveyone else says they are fine.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 14, 2019)

Jabbing anchor bolts in wet concrete is not fine and any contractor who says it is ok should have his license revoked.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 15, 2019)

Mark ... sarcasm
And those bolts are in mortar, not concrete, i bet the pullout strength is very low.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 15, 2019)

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.



I'd have to fail every job I see if that were true


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 15, 2019)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 15, 2019)

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.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 15, 2019)

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


----------



## jar546 (Aug 15, 2019)

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?
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 15, 2019)

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.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 16, 2019)

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.





JCraver said:


> I'd have to fail every job I see if that were true




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...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 16, 2019)

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


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2019)

You have to start somewhere to stop the practice JC.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 16, 2019)

That might be one of the reasons why you cannot build an SFR for $100.00 per square foot in that area


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 16, 2019)

So guys what is the fix? Does Simpson make something?


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2019)

where in the USA can you still do a SF for $100 sf?


----------



## Mark K (Aug 16, 2019)

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.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 16, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> where in the USA can you still do a SF for $100 sf?



Almost everywhere except California.  You should travel some..


----------



## JCraver (Aug 16, 2019)

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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 16, 2019)

So where does the money come from to pay the civil engineer?
Does the permit applicant pay? 
Shouldn't the builder get their own engineer?
Does the tax payers pay for an engineer for a private construction project?

Just wondering. I work for a 3rd party private (for profit) inspection company that has mostly jurisdictions that only need a few inspections a week.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 16, 2019)

In "your" state it appears to be a buyer bewary attitude. Not many defect attorneys in your state?


----------



## Mark K (Aug 16, 2019)

Are you trying to make me laugh when you suggest that there are not many plaintiffs attorneys in California that are ready to sue engineers and architects who work for the Owner?  It is often more like the engineer needs to beware.  Of course government employees have total immunity.

There seems to be confusion regarding the engineer working with the building department.  This engineer would be an employee of the building department and he would be paid by the building department.  I assume that the permit fees are adjusted to cover the necessary expenses of the building department.  The City employees are only involved with building code enforcement.  When an engineer is needed to prepare the construction documents that engineer is paid for by the applicant.

Obviously I have hit a nerve.  It is also appears that some individuals have trouble accepting the fact that what I am suggesting is reality in many jurisdictions.  Broaden your horizons


----------



## e hilton (Aug 18, 2019)

Mark K said:


> While I said concrete I could just as well said grout.  For this discussion there is no difference.


Concrete, mortar and grout are not the same.  In this case, we are talking about mortar joints.  

One possible retrofit solution in this case would be Simpson EWS503P epoxy sleeve anchors, which are designed for hollow items like cmu.  However then you are relying on the bond strength that holds the solid cap block to the rest if the wall.  

I dont know if there is a prescriptive design for this situation, but i would think one option would be to use bond beam blocks, properly installed with continuous rebar, and anchor bolts set in place before the concrete is poured.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 19, 2019)

Hilton "gets" it.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 19, 2019)

Mark K said:


> 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.



I assumed you meant that the building permit applicant would be hiring a 3rd party engineer to design the houses.



Mark K said:


> 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.



We have situations where a engineer is required for a component of a house. Recently we had a design for the foundation wall to support a pre-stressed concrete slab. The engineer was chosen because of the cost of design services. The plans we received did not have dimensions for wall thickness, curb height, maximum wall height, size of footings, etc. I don't know how someone could build it, but it was stamped by a civil engineer. So, why would I require a civil engineer to design all houses if this is the level of design I am going to get? What "service" is the applicant getting for their money? True. Some will chose a civil engineer with a higher level of service and gladly pay for it, but not all.

If the jurisdiction employs a civil engineer, and many do, then all applicant pay for the level of service that they receive and, at least here in Canada, that jurisdiction is now exposed to a higher degree of liability because they have someone with that knowledge base. So, all must pay for the increased level of service, even those who are building just to the prescriptive code. 

What do I, a lowly engineering technologist, do when I encounter those anchor bolts with a contractor telling me this is how they do it everywhere? I tell them to show me where in the code it lets them do it that way. Should there be nothing in the code allowing their construction method, they can enlist the services of a civil engineer, probably the one I talked about above, and they can incur those costs and my tax payers are now better protected from liability.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 19, 2019)

tmurray said:


> s. The plans we received did not have dimensions for wall thickness, curb height, maximum wall height, size of footings, etc.


Obviously you missed the note on the plans: "VIF" or "GC to Verify".


----------



## Mark K (Aug 20, 2019)

I never said mortar and concrete were the same.  The major difference between concrete and grout has to do with the course aggregate or the lack of course aggregate.

Proper anchorage of a J bolt or an anchor rod requires either grout or concrete be well consolidated  around  the anchor.  An anchor bolt in a mortar joint is not adequate.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 20, 2019)

I am hearing that because some engineers submit  what are perceived as inadequate drawings it is  a waste of time to for the building department hire an engineer, or have on engineer working on a consulting basis.

In California we do have problems with some engineers and these problems are more prevalent on small residential projects.  Yet I will suggest that in general the quality of designs and code compliance for these projects is better than what I am hearing on this site.

One of the factors that contribute to this is the fact that most building departments in California have an engineer or architect on staff and if the department is very small they contract with a firm that provides that expertise.  I believe that this contributes to what I see as a higher level of code enforcement and a higher quality of engineering services..

My understanding is that  in California any new building officials should be either a registered engineer or architect. 

It is not the job of the building department to decide when an engineer is needed since that is defined by state licensing laws.  But it is the job of the building department to enforce the code, and when the code is rigorously enforced you will find that the quality of the documents submitted will be higher.  You will likely find that owners are more likely to have hired an engineer or architect in the first place.

Why can we do this in California but it is not possible in other states?  

Yes we do have some rural parts of the state where I suspect things are more loose but still I think we are doing better.

Regarding liability of building departments.  In California the building department has essentially no liability.  This is an extension of the legal concept that the state acting as sovereign cannot be sued unless the state agrees to be sued.  This concept was inherited from the British.  Thus I am surprised that this concept does not exist in Canadian law given that you have not declared your independence.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2019)

Mark K said:


> I am hearing that because some engineers submit  what are perceived as inadequate drawings it is  a waste of time to for the building department hire an engineer, or have on engineer working on a consulting basis.
> 
> In California we do have problems with some engineers and these problems are more prevalent on small residential projects.  Yet I will suggest that in general the quality of designs and code compliance for these projects is better than what I am hearing on this site.
> 
> ...



I understand your position or so I think.  Yes, it would be convenient for every building department to have access to an engineer employee or consultant, however, it is not the building department's job to design or redesign.  I would see them as verifying certain situations.  The problem that I can see with your opinion is that you think that every submission is of the same quality that yours is.  Here is a statement that I use frequently.  Not everyone is you.  Just as we have issues with building officials, inspectors and reviewers, we have the same issues with registered design professionals.  You don't seem to think that a building plans examiner has the right to question your design and that is where I believe you are wrong.  Having a license design does not magically make you infallible.  Maybe I am wrong in your opinion, but I am not far off.

You keep designing, we'll keep checking it against the code and questioning you when we feel it is necessary to verify.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Obviously you missed the note on the plans: "VIF" or "GC to Verify".


*IF *there is a competent contractor, and *IF* he/she takes the time.
That "disclaimer" is so the Engineer/Architect/designer can sit in his/her office and assume....with no responsibility.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 20, 2019)

Interesting. Our code dictates when a registered design professional is required, not our province.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 20, 2019)

Mark K said:


> Regarding liability of building departments.  In California the building department has essentially no liability.  This is an extension of the legal concept that the state acting as sovereign cannot be sued unless the state agrees to be sued.  This concept was inherited from the British.  Thus I am surprised that this concept does not exist in Canadian law given that you have not declared your independence.



It's probably because we have not declared independence that we are subject to their more recent case law. Our legal system views authority without responsibility as incompatible with modern tort law.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 20, 2019)

mark handler said:


> *IF *there is a competent contractor, and *IF* he/she takes the time.
> That "disclaimer" is so the Engineer/Architect/designer can sit in his/her office and assume....with no responsibility.


Mark .... that was 1: sarcasm, and 2: one of my pet peeves.  The architect gets some detail close, and the tries to push off the final responsibility onto ths contrsctor with the simple note VIF.  When i see that on plans for one of my projects, i send it back and explain that for the amount of money i am paying, they can finish the detail.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 20, 2019)

May require destructive investigation to verify, who pays for it?.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 20, 2019)

We agree that it is not the building departments job to design.  In fact I find it offensive when they do.

I have never said that the plans examiner doesn’t have the right to challenge whether the design complies with the code.  Similarly I have never said that engineers are infallible.

I do believe engineers are better qualified to understand and identify certain issues that need to be addressed.

Ask the questions but be prepared to show where it is a code requirement.

What I was trying to do is to suggest that other jurisdictions don’t have the problems to the degree reported on this forum.  I was also suggesting that the lack of involvement of architects and engineers working for the building department might be related to this problem.  Maybe I am wrong and our greater number of engineers working for jurisdictions is just a consequence of something else such as an expectation by the government that we need better code compliance.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2019)

Mark K said:


> We agree that it is not the building departments job to design.  In fact I find it offensive when they do.
> 
> I have never said that the plans examiner doesn’t have the right to challenge whether the design complies with the code.  Similarly I have never said that engineers are infallible.
> 
> ...



The underlined, bolt text is where I am in complete agreement.  The rest of what you said, I won't argue with.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 23, 2019)

Rick - YEs, it is not prescribed code thus the engineer kickoff again......... 

also this is obviously not a seismic area...... the stacked block with cap would not be allowed without field inspection of vertical rebar in cells and as has been mentioned before, anchors in place to wet set. Epoxy anchors are a way of life here as very few home builders could accurately layout the anchor bolts to be within 12" of the end of a sill plate....they don't exactly know where the sill plate split seams........ laying them out at 48" o.c. automatically means you short one at the first seam in the sill plate.


----------

