# Bolting Sill Plate To Existing CMU's



## 123pugsy (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm planning a renovation where by I will knock down my bungalow and add a two story addition.

It's got a 10" block foundation wall. I have siding three sides and brick veneer front. I plan on taking down all 4 walls and start from scratch keeping the foundation and first floor floor joists. The sill is not currently bolted down (built in 66-67). This is a good thing as I plan to cut back the first floor joists to create a brick ledge. The bad thing about it not being bolted down is that the top course of block are hollow and also have closed tops.

Can I core a hole into the cells to fill with grout? I would also need to use Titens or Quickbolt 3's to bolt the new sill plate down as I need to slide it under the existing floor joists. I can not lift it over cast in anchors.

When grouting cells for anchors, does each cell in a block (these have 3) need to be filled?

Thanks for any answers to these questions and any other comments as well.

Pugsy


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 22, 2013)

Hi Pugsy,

Welcome to the forum. I wasn't aware that threaded bolts ( Titens or Quickbolts) are listed for installation into grout. Are you sure you can't suspend the bolts into the cells and place the grout after the sill is in place?

I'm pretty sure the lateral wall bracing requirements are going to call for more than anchor bolts in hollow masonry, however.

Best of luck on your project!

Bill


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 22, 2013)

Welcome to the forum

Contact Simpson, the D53  might be an option depending on your seismic and/or wind loads and if it is still available

Sill Plate to Foundation Connections for High Wind Resistance


----------



## fatboy (Mar 22, 2013)

Welcome to the Forum!

A call to your local building department would be in order, see what their line of thinking is. Or cut to the chase and get an engineer to evaluate it and give you a fix.


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 22, 2013)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hi Pugsy,Welcome to the forum. I wasn't aware that threaded bolts ( Titens or Quickbolts) are listed for installation into grout. Are you sure you can't suspend the bolts into the cells and place the grout after the sill is in place?I'm pretty sure the lateral wall bracing requirements are going to call for more than anchor bolts in hollow masonry, however. Best of luck on your project!Bill


Thanks for the reply Bill.I was under the impression all CMU's were grouted and not filled with concrete or mortar. I've read that the Titens can be used in CMU's, so I thought grouted CMU's would be the only choice.I did come up with an idea to suspend the threaded rods into the grout after the sill was in place but it would require quite a large hole in the sill plate with a good sized rectangular 1/4'' plate washer.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 683


View attachment 683


/monthly_2013_03/572953c701e14_SILLPLATEDETAILS.JPG.5b97aa91aece0bf9d264a93c03eebfe3.JPG


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 22, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Welcome to the forumContact Simpson, the D53  might be an option depending on your seismic and/or wind loads and if it is still available
> 
> Sill Plate to Foundation Connections for High Wind Resistance


Thanks mtlogcabin.

The D53 would require pouring the grout, sliding the new sill plate in and then inserting the ties. It could be done if we worked quick enough.

Looks like a viable method.


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 22, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Welcome to the Forum!A call to your local building department would be in order, see what their line of thinking is. Or cut to the chase and get an engineer to evaluate it and give you a fix.


Thanks for the welcome fatboy.

I have no problem checking with an engineer or the building department. I have found that "steering" people a little in the direction of what you have to work with helps if you have all your facts and options with you when you contact them.

If I'm told the only acceptable method for instance is to grout the anchor rods before dropping the sill plate on, I'm toast.

That's why I'm posting here, to determine all the options available.

I will contact an engineer and possibly the building dept as well next week.

Thanks again,

Pugsy


----------



## TheCommish (Mar 22, 2013)

how about drilling holes and setting boltls in epoxy, the major hardware company can supply those products


----------



## fatboy (Mar 22, 2013)

again, make sure AHJ is going to be on board with that............


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2013)

deleted by me


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2013)

If there is no grout, there is no steel.  If there is no steel, there is no reason to anchor the sill to the occasional CMU.  You need to get to the footing.


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 23, 2013)

TheCommish said:
			
		

> how about drilling holes and setting boltls in epoxy, the major hardware company can supply those products


Epoxy in hollow block?



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> again, make sure AHJ is going to be on board with that............


Anything I use will be approved prior to and inspected afterwards as this is a major project.


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 23, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> If there is no grout, there is no steel.  If there is no steel, there is no reason to anchor the sill to the occasional CMU.  You need to get to the footing.


Thanks ICE.

Your comment is interesting.

I've read about rebar running right through and being grouted. Would this be req'd only in cells where the anchors are or every cell in the particular block that an anchor is located or something like every 4 feet, or...?

Thanks,

Pugsy


----------



## tmurray (Mar 26, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Thanks ICE.Your comment is interesting.
> 
> I've read about rebar running right through and being grouted. Would this be req'd only in cells where the anchors are or every cell in the particular block that an anchor is located or something like every 4 feet, or...?
> 
> ...


Actually, an unreinforced concrete wall still requires anchor bolts in Canada. The requirement for reinforcement of concrete block wall is completely separate from the requirement for anchor bolts. As for reinforcement, it is largely dependent on the wall thickness, height of grade above basement floor and if your wall is laterally supported at the top. Your best bet is to stop by your Authority Having Jurisdiction and asking to see their copy of the Ontario Building Code.


----------



## 123pugsy (Mar 26, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Actually, an unreinforced concrete wall still requires anchor bolts in Canada. The requirement for reinforcement of concrete block wall is completely separate from the requirement for anchor bolts. As for reinforcement, it is largely dependent on the wall thickness, height of grade above basement floor and if your wall is laterally supported at the top. Your best bet is to stop by your Authority Having Jurisdiction and asking to see their copy of the Ontario Building Code.


Thanks.I will check with the AHJ.What do you mean by laterally reinforced? Reinforcement keeping them from swaying in or out? If so, I don't think so, but I haven't drilled holes across the whole wall looking for filled cores either.Does the weight of the house bearing on the foundation wall count? At present that's all that's holding the walls. No anchors. I do have a set of stairs right beside the foundation wall to the basement at present. I was wondering about this as well now that you bring it up.I attached a couple of drwgs I was working on. I know I'm ahead of myself but they can be easily corrected to requirements later. I made them to more easily communicate site conditions.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1596
View attachment 1597
View attachment 685


View attachment 686


EXISTING SILL PLATE AT 3 WALLS.pdf

PROPOSED WALL-SILL PLATE DETAILS AT 3 WALLS.pdf

EXISTING SILL PLATE AT 3 WALLS.pdf

PROPOSED WALL-SILL PLATE DETAILS AT 3 WALLS.pdf


----------



## tmurray (Mar 26, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Thanks.I will check with the AHJ.
> 
> What do you mean by laterally reinforced? Reinforcement keeping them from swaying in or out? If so, I don't think so, but I haven't drilled holes across the whole wall looking for filled cores either.
> 
> ...


Laterally supported usually falls into two scenarios; if your building is slab on grade or if the floor joists are sitting directly on top of the foundation wall. not laterally supported would be foundation walls that have a wood pony wall on top below the floor joists (think split entry). From the drawings you provided it appears as though you have a wall that is laterally supported at the top.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 21, 2013)

Update: I got my drawings back, stamped from the engineer.Will be ready to apply for permit soon.Here's the final solution:

View attachment 968


View attachment 968


/monthly_2013_12/572953d05a71c_ANCHORBOLTS-SLEEVES.JPG.e611e0b43d66a4271673f932dec9efb9.JPG


----------



## fatboy (Dec 21, 2013)

Excellent, should fly through permitting, keep us posted on the results!


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Update: I got my drawings back, stamped from the engineer.Will be ready to apply for permit soon.
> 
> Here's the final solution:
> 
> View attachment 2204


Welcome

Make sure you have the engineer provide an observation report to the building department


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 21, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Excellent, should fly through permitting, keep us posted on the results!


Will do for sure.

Thanks.



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> WelcomeMake sure you have the engineer provide an observation report to the building department


Thanks, but I figure that's the inspectors job. I build, he checks........

or is there something I don't know about regarding an observation report?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

Epoxy is not in the code and requires a deputy inspector to be there when installed

City inspector does NOT normally provide this service

Check with your building department


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 21, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Epoxy is not in the code and requires a deputy inspector to be there when installedCity inspector does NOT normally provide this service
> 
> Check with your building department


Thanks, will check it out.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 21, 2013)

The IRC does not require structural observation and under the IBC it is unlikely that one would be required for this project.  Thus a structural observation report would not be required to be submitted.

Structural Observation as provided for in the IBC is not consistent with a thorough inspection of the work and definitely would not cover the installation of adhesive  anchors.  Think of structural 0bservation as a spot check that will hopefully find major problems but again may not.   In general Structural Observations should be a part of a more extensive quality assurance program that includes detailed inspections.

Many engineers prefer not to perform inspections, which are more detailed, sometimes because of liability concerns and sometimes because they do not have the specialized skills or knowledge to perform certain inspections.  There are independent inspection agencies that can provide these services.

Sometimes the Owner does not want to pay for the engineer’s involvement during construction.  In such cases the Owner often gets what he pays for.

When the building department requires additional inspections by the Owner these would be considered special inspections.  Special inspections are typically provided by independent inspection agencies that specialize in providing such services.

Owners are encouraged to discuss with their engineer the extent of the engineers services during construction and the need to hire additional inspectors.  Some of these inspections may be beyond what is required by the building code.  This is a matter of balancing the additional cost and the owners desire to avoid risk.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

Epoxy is not a perceptive element. If you deviate from the prescriptive elements of the code, ibc kicks in.

As stated before check with your building department and with your engineer


----------



## ICE (Dec 21, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Think of structural 0bservation as a spot check that will hopefully find major problems but again may not.


Think of structural observation as a waste of time and money...but maybe you will get lucky and there will be a major flaw...however, the odds that an engineer will find it are astronomical.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 21, 2013)

How close can this anchor be to the edge of the concrete? Looks like it will be in line with the CMU web and the concrete. May not matter since it is an epoxy anchor, just asking if it should be a concern

I check Hilti site but could not find installation instructions


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Think of structural observation as a waste of time and money...but maybe you will get lucky and there will be a major flaw...however, the odds that an engineer will find it are astronomical.


Required per ICC LISTING

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hilti%20adhesive%20anchors%20icc%20er%20report&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.hilti.com%2Fmedias%2Fsys_master%2Fh0f%2Fh73%2F8913022320670%2FESR-3187.pdf%3Fmime%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26realname%3DESR-3187.pdf&ei=iPy1Us37LY_1oASWu4CYBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhR1PivEgiwlp-0ttFGDE3N7-Wsg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> How close can this anchor be to the edge of the concrete? Looks like it will be in line with the CMU web and the concrete. May not matter since it is an epoxy anchor, just asking if it should be a concernI check Hilti site but could not find installation instructions


1.75 inches

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hit%20anchors%20icc%20er%20report&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.hilti.com%2Fmedias%2Fsys_master%2Fh0f%2Fh73%2F8913022320670%2FESR-3187.pdf%3Fmime%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26realname%3DESR-3187.pdf&ei=2_21UqbeGKqp2QXX6YC4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEhR1PivEgiwlp-0ttFGDE3N7-Wsg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU


----------



## ICE (Dec 21, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Required per ICC LISTINGhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hilti%20adhesive%20anchors%20icc%20er%20report&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.hilti.com%2Fmedias%2Fsys_master%2Fh0f%2Fh73%2F8913022320670%2FESR-3187.pdf%3Fmime%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26realname%3DESR-3187.pdf&ei=iPy1Us37LY_1oASWu4CYBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhR1PivEgiwlp-0ttFGDE3N7-Wsg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU


So it's a required waste of money and there is no requirement that the engineer find any mistakes.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> So it's a required waste of money and there is no requirement that the engineer find any mistakes.


I have been onsite where the workers bored the hole and without cleaning it out started to insert the epoxy.

They say it doesn't matter.  I shake my head and reject the work

Happens all the time


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2013)

Yes Mark, I am sure that it happens.  And then there's the one or two anchor jobs where some deputy grabbed $250.  It's little more complicated than brewing coffee and we can't trust anyone to get it right. How about those jobs where they installed 15 anchors with special inspection and missed three.....that we're on the plans....big as day.... And that deputy missed them. Do you give them a pass on hiring numbnuts for the three they missed?

Some days I'm just feeling special.  So I deputize myself.

When the engineers squeezed their structural observation into the code, somehow, special inspectors for concrete dowels came along for the gravy train ride. Another waste of money. It's a wonder the rest of construction takes place without special inspectors.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2013)

Some think all the HD's, straps, clips and shear walls are a waste of money.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> 1.75 incheshttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hit%20anchors%20icc%20er%20report&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.us.hilti.com%2Fmedias%2Fsys_master%2Fh0f%2Fh73%2F8913022320670%2FESR-3187.pdf%3Fmime%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26realname%3DESR-3187.pdf&ei=2_21UqbeGKqp2QXX6YC4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEhR1PivEgiwlp-0ttFGDE3N7-Wsg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU


Thanks

It will be real hard to maintain that 1.75 inches unless the rim board overlaps the washer


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 22, 2013)

Thanks for all the responses.

Of course, being the home owner, I don't want to pay for an inspection if I don't have to.

I will be watching and or participating in the drilling, cleaning and inserting of the epoxy to make sure everything is just right.

If our AHJ asks for special inspection, I'll have no choice but to comply.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 22, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ThanksIt will be real hard to maintain that 1.75 inches unless the rim board overlaps the washer


Scaled pic attached.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 971


View attachment 971


/monthly_2013_12/572953d066613_sillplate.JPG.680ba69bb68ce6a54c74642ef984cc59.JPG


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Some think all the HD's, straps, clips and shear walls are a waste of money.


I thought that you had a thing about thread drift.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 22, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Scaled pic attached.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am concerned 1.75 edge distance is from the edge of the concrete and does not include the masonry block. The drawing shows 2&7/16 from the edge of the masonry unit which is probably 1 to 1.25 inches thick. Anyway it is close. The engineer did not specify the size of the hold down washer. Code requires a 3" X 3" square washer.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 22, 2013)

Adhesive anchors are addressed in the 2012 IBC for use in concrete and special inspection is  required.

Installation instructions and inspection requirements are produced at the time the adhesive is tested per ACI 355.4.  Since these are product specific they need to be obtained from the manufacturer.  This information is typically included with an evaluation report.  The requirement that adhesive anchors be subject to special inspection is driven by the special inspection requirements in Chapter 17 of the 2012 IBC and not by requirements imposed by the issuer of the evaluation report.

In general adhesive anchors are seen as an engineered item.  The edge distance will have a major impact on the ultimate capacity of the anchor.

I find it interesting that some individuals infer that having made a couple of site visits to the project the engineer is expected to be responsible for having inspected all the work even that which has been hidden by other work.  Inspections take time and this time must be paid for.  Rather than blame the engineer look to the owner who does not want to pay for inspections.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Adhesive anchors are addressed in the 2012 IBC for use in concrete and special inspection is  required.Installation instructions and inspection requirements are produced at the time the adhesive is tested per ACI 355.4.  Since these are product specific they need to be obtained from the manufacturer.  This information is typically included with an evaluation report.  The requirement that adhesive anchors be subject to special inspection is driven by the special inspection requirements in Chapter 17 of the 2012 IBC and not by requirements imposed by the issuer of the evaluation report.
> 
> In general adhesive anchors are seen as an engineered item.  The edge distance will have a major impact on the ultimate capacity of the anchor.
> 
> I find it interesting that some individuals infer that having made a couple of site visits to the project the engineer is expected to be responsible for having inspected all the work even that which has been hidden by other work.  Inspections take time and this time must be paid for.  Rather than blame the engineer look to the owner who does not want to pay for inspections.


That's why I posted #30  above

The workers don't care


----------



## jar546 (Dec 22, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I have been onsite where the workers bored the hole and without cleaning it out started to insert the epoxy. They say it doesn't matter.  I shake my head and reject the work
> 
> Happens all the time


I too have seen the same, hence the requirement.


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that some individuals infer that having made a couple of site visits to the project the engineer is expected to be responsible for having inspected all the work even that which has been hidden by other work.


That must be in another thread.



> Inspections take time and this time must be paid for.  Rather than blame the engineer look to the owner who does not want to pay for inspections.


Usually at $500 a visit.  For that you get a statement that the work "Substantially meets the plans and specifications".  What it should say is the that work "Almost meets the plans and specifications". 1% of structural observations result in a correction yet 100% of my inspections result in corrections.

I have too many stories to tell them all.  So I'll give you two.

A university dormitory.  Wood framed four floors.  Footing inspection.  Hundreds of anchor bolts and all the wrong size.  The plans called for 3/4" and they installed 5/8".  I was still sitting in my truck when I told the contractor....right after he handed me a structural observation form that said "Substantially...blah....blah"

Same job different engineer.  A first floor wing was framed and the engineer was called out to observe.  The studs and plates were 3x.  The plans specified 20d common nails.  They used sinkers and the engineer gave them their "Substantially...blah....blah".

The damnable part about this is that the owners and contractors always say "What makes you think that you know more than an engineer".  Shirley if they don't say it, they think it.  I say things like "Well sir, engineers aren't trained about steel laying on dirt"....."Engineers don't carry tape measures" "12 inches looks a lot like 18".


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Dec 23, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> That's why I posted #30  aboveThe workers don't care


Wrong. I sometimes think senior building officials don't care. But then I stop lumping entire groups together. Imagine that.

Brent.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Thanks, but I figure that's the inspectors job. I build, he checks........
> 
> or is there something I don't know about regarding an observation report?


You should always contact the engineer to do an inspection and record that it was requested (a written signed note will do). the engineer doesn't have to show up, you just have to make the request. That way if it fails because something was not done properly the liability is on the engineer.

The building inspector will verify that the installation appears to be in line with the plans, but realistically, only the person who stamps it can really say if it is right or not.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2013)

Just a note, IRC and ICC are irrelevant here in Canada (where the OP is from). Since he is in Markham he is under the Ontario Building Code (an amended version of the National Building Code of Canada). I just wanted to clarify this so they know it might not be applicable to them.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 23, 2013)

123pugsy,

Like Lee Corso sez "Not so fast my friend!" one story Bugalow?, to a TWO story on existing foundation. Unless this has already been done and is mute, you need to verify the minimum soil bearing, footing depth, thickness and width if the IRC is in use, see: Table R403.1 or check the Ontario Building Code for the same?

pc1


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 23, 2013)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> 123pugsy,Like Lee Corso sez "Not so fast my friend!" one story Bugalow?, to a TWO story on existing foundation. Unless this has already been done and is mute, you need to verify the minimum soil bearing, footing depth, thickness and width if the IRC is in use, see: Table R403.1 or check the Ontario Building Code for the same?
> 
> pc1


Thanks.

Two story with brick veneer also.

18" x 6" footing on 4000 PSF soil confirmed by the soil engineer.

I have the report to submit with my application.

I've checked the OBC 2006 and cannot find a table.

I will check again later.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 23, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> You should always contact the engineer to do an inspection and record that it was requested (a written signed note will do). the engineer doesn't have to show up, you just have to make the request. That way if it fails because something was not done properly the liability is on the engineer.The building inspector will verify that the installation appears to be in line with the plans, but realistically, only the person who stamps it can really say if it is right or not.


I will confirm with the building inspector before I begin.

Thanks.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2013)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> 123pugsy,Like Lee Corso sez "Not so fast my friend!" one story Bugalow?, to a TWO story on existing foundation. Unless this has already been done and is mute, you need to verify the minimum soil bearing, footing depth, thickness and width if the IRC is in use, see: Table R403.1 or check the Ontario Building Code for the same?
> 
> pc1


The way the prescriptive codes work in Canada, we have a specific minimum bearing pressure we look for in all cases and just adjust the footing size to suite multiple stories. I have never seen a footing that would be too small to support a two storey dwelling. Pretty much every footing we see has a width of 20" which allows up to three storey of light wood frame construction. If you have brick or stone veneer you may have to be concerned, but you should be fine otherwise. You could check with your building inspection department to see if they have an inspection report from when your house was constructed that notes the footing size to make sure. Table 9.15.3.4 in the NBCC.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 23, 2013)

"You should always contact the engineer to do an inspection and record that it was requested (a written signed note will do). the engineer doesn't have to show up, you just have to make the request. That way if it fails because something was not done properly the liability is on the engineer."

This statement is in conflict with the understanding that engineers have.

The engineers obligations are primarily defined by contract.  Has the engineer agreed to perform inspections.  What are the scope of the engineers inspections.    Remember the Owner can also hire independent inspectors.

If you have requested an inspection and the engineer does not show up and you proceed with the work this does not make the engineer liable for all of your losses.  Somebody has a distorted understanding of the law.

A professional engineer has certain obligations but he cannot provide a general guaranty that all work was done properly.   Professional engineers like doctors and lawyers are not required to be perfect but rather are expected to exercise the normal standard of care exercised by other engineers in the geographic area.

If you made a doctors appointment and the doctor did not show up is the doctor responsible for your health problems?  The courts will laugh at you if you make such a claim.  Even if the doctor shows up and performs all the right tests the doctor will not normally be responsible for the outcome in most cases.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> This statement is in conflict with the understanding that engineers have.
> 
> The engineers obligations are primarily defined by contract.  Has the engineer agreed to perform inspections.  What are the scope of the engineers inspections.    Remember the Owner can also hire independent inspectors.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you are practicing, but that isn't how the law works here in New Brunswick, and I would assume, the rest of Canada. A engineer practicing in my area assumes when they do a design that there will be an inspection in order to mitigate liability. If you designed something and I built it and it ended up failing you could be held singly liable if I contacted you for an inspection and you either did not come or didn't note that there were corrections (assuming that the work is accessible and the component that failed would be visible during the inspection). There are even cases where the structural engineer was held liable for components that failed but were covered at the time of inspection because they did not ask for them to be uncovered.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 23, 2013)

I practice in the united states but given  that the legal systems in the US and Canada were influenced by the British model I would suggest that cases you referenced were more nuanced.

You should talk with your engineer and make sure that you have compatible expectations.  Better to understand this up front as opposed to after you have problems.  Unreasonable expectations on the part of some clients is one of the reasons why many engineers prefer not to work with certain clients

In spite of the engineers failure to perform an inspection on time if you knew that the inspection was not performed and you proceeded with the work you share some if not all of the responsibility.  The engineers failure to fulfill an obligation is not  an excuse for others to act irresponsibly.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 23, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> The way the prescriptive codes work in Canada, we have a specific minimum bearing pressure we look for in all cases and just adjust the footing size to suite multiple stories. I have never seen a footing that would be too small to support a two storey dwelling. Pretty much every footing we see has a width of 20" which allows up to three storey of light wood frame construction. If you have brick or stone veneer you may have to be concerned, but you should be fine otherwise. You could check with your building inspection department to see if they have an inspection report from when your house was constructed that notes the footing size to make sure. Table 9.15.3.4 in the NBCC.


The OBC has the same table you referenced.I see that it specifies 350 mm (13.78") wide for 2 stories and to add 65 mm (2.56") per floor of brick veneer for a total footing width of 480mm (18.9"). Am I reading this correctly?Anyhow, when I had the floor open for the soil engineer, I snapped a couple of pics with a yardstick against the block wall and a tape measure against the footing. The 1" mark of the tape measure is at the 5-7/8" mark of the yardstick meaning that the footing is 4-7/8" larger than the block wall on the inside. I would assume it's the same on the other side of the 10" blocks for approx 19" footing.Holy Cow.  Am I in trouble here?
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 972


View attachment 972


/monthly_2013_12/572953d07205b_IMG_0222(Medium).jpg.afc3916aca1efefd847d0b86ea273415.jpg


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 23, 2013)

Another pic.Looks like 4-1/2" here. Double that and add 10" block (if it's exactly centered) for 19".

View attachment 973


View attachment 973


/monthly_2013_12/572953d07f3c9_IMG_0225(Medium).jpg.389973efd6994551cd6b393f4208a829.jpg


----------



## tmurray (Dec 24, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> The OBC has the same table you referenced.I see that it specifies 350 mm (13.78") wide for 2 stories and to add 65 mm (2.56") per floor of brick veneer for a total footing width of 480mm (18.9"). Am I reading this correctly?
> 
> Anyhow, when I had the floor open for the soil engineer, I snapped a couple of pics with a yardstick against the block wall and a tape measure against the footing. The 1" mark of the tape measure is at the 5-7/8" mark of the yardstick meaning that the footing is 4-7/8" larger than the block wall on the inside. I would assume it's the same on the other side of the 10" blocks for approx 19" footing.
> 
> Holy Cow.  Am I in trouble here?


It looks like you are. You could enlarge the footing and have an engineer sign off on it (drill and dowel existing footing and enlarge the footing), you could have a geotechnical engineer check the soil to see if the bearing pressure exceeds that assumed by the code (Your foundation would then have to be designed under 4.2 by an engineer), or you could look into alternative sidings with a similar look such as cultured stone. I'm not sure about your scenario or any covenants that you have to comply with (if any), but I would be looking at the siding alternatives. You can get some really nice cultured stone.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 24, 2013)

Thanks.

So, would I be correct about the 18.9"? If so, I'm very close to this dimension.

Cultured stone is out. I live in a Heritage Zone. The only alternative would be real wood siding like Maybec.

All  other tables I've seen for two stories with brick veneer call for a 12" footing on 4000 PSF soil.

Is this just another "bend over Canadian Guy" baloney like practically everything else here?

Sorry, rant over.


----------



## ICE (Dec 24, 2013)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Thanks.So, would I be correct about the 18.9"? If so, I'm very close to this dimension.
> 
> Cultured stone is out. I live in a Heritage Zone. The only alternative would be real wood siding like Maybec.
> 
> ...


Most of the Canadians come here pre-bent.


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 24, 2013)

My engineer says the footing should be fine and he will stamp the drawings.

Something about under Part 4.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 26, 2013)

123pugsy,

Sounds like your going in the right direction. Good luck getting your permit and hope you had a good "Boxing Day!"

pc1


----------



## 123pugsy (Dec 26, 2013)

Thanks PC1.

I submitted the application for a variance on the 24th..... 2 to 4 months I was told.

Hopefully the neighbors don't complain at the meeting and everything will be fine.

Have a good holiday, what's left of it anyways.

What, no "Boxing Day" where you're from?

Pugsy


----------



## tmurray (Jan 2, 2014)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> My engineer says the footing should be fine and he will stamp the drawings. Something about under Part 4.


Yes, Part 4 allows engineers to design a structure outside of the prescriptive requirements of Part 9 (the part almost everyone else uses in house construction). For those of you who are not familiar with Canadian Codes; this would be similar to using the IBC instead of the IRC. The code in Canada allows an applicant to use the more rigorous Parts 3 and/or 4 instead of Part 9. This rarely happens, but it is done once in a while.

Part 3 is for life safety, washrooms, and barrier free (similar to ADA)

Part 4 is structural requirements

Part 9 is for small buildings (residential, stores, mid and low hazard industrial) and includes; life safety, environmental separation, structural, and refers to Part 3 for washrooms and barrier free.

Basically, if your building falls into Part 9 you can use Part 3 to design your life safety elements. The only catch is that if you are using Part 3 you have to use ALL of Part 3. You can also use Part 4 to design your structural elements (this is done all the time for trusses). For this part you can design portions of the building to Part 4 and keep the rest under Part 9 (like trusses) the only thing a designer has to be mindful of is that if the loads exceed the assumed loads under Part 9 the supporting elements would also have to be under Part 4.


----------



## 123pugsy (Jan 2, 2014)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Yes, Part 4 allows engineers to design a structure outside of the prescriptive requirements of Part 9 (the part almost everyone else uses in house construction). For those of you who are not familiar with Canadian Codes; this would be similar to using the IBC instead of the IRC. The code in Canada allows an applicant to use the more rigorous Parts 3 and/or 4 instead of Part 9. This rarely happens, but it is done once in a while. Part 3 is for life safety, washrooms, and barrier free (similar to ADA)
> 
> Part 4 is structural requirements
> 
> ...


Thanks for the great explanation.

Much appreciated.

Pugsy


----------



## ndaniels (Jan 14, 2014)

I agree that you should check with the AHJ but there are many companies that offer products like Set22 that are approved for unreinforced masonry units http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files//ESR-1772.pdf


----------



## George McGerd (Jan 14, 2014)

I have been following this thread.  I can't view the detail drawing showing the final solution.  Did your jurisdiction require you to insert vertical rebar and grout for wall reinforcement or did they allow you to insert the anchor bolts in grouted cells onlY?  Thanx


----------



## 123pugsy (Jan 14, 2014)

My engineer has stamped the final drawings. Epoxy sleeves at 32" centers.

Hilti HIT HY 70.

Waiting for variance before applying for permit. the AHJ has not seen the drawings yet.

I do remember seeing a table for CMU foundation walls, and my height and block thickness showed no rebars req'd.


----------



## 123pugsy (Jan 14, 2014)

ndaniels said:
			
		

> I agree that you should check with the AHJ but there are many companies that offer products like Set22 that are approved for unreinforced masonry units http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files//ESR-1772.pdf


Thanks.

As posted above, the AHJ will get a chance to comment when I submit my drawings. I believe the Hilti is similar to the Simpson product. It's approved for hollow CMU's.


----------



## Alias (Jan 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I have been onsite where the workers bored the hole and without cleaning it out started to insert the epoxy. They say it doesn't matter.  I shake my head and reject the work
> 
> Happens all the time


Ditto what Mark said.  Ive been a third party inspector and I literally watched, 8 hours a day, two laborers drill, clean, and epoxy rebar into brick walls for an earthquake retrofit in San Francisco.  Then there were the anchor bolts in a townhouse complex.

Sue


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 15, 2014)

Would a Simpson Tigen HD anchor that requires no epoxy work,  ICC-ES-AC-193

ICE, "Deputize myself", after a few Guiness last night!

pc1;0


----------



## jwilly3879 (Jan 16, 2014)

like Ice's post #11. Had a garage in town that got hit by an inexperienced excavator operator and knocked the wall in. The anchor bolts held and the blocks they were in were still attached to the sill but about 3 feet from where they should have been.


----------



## 123pugsy (Jan 16, 2014)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Would a Simpson Tigen HD anchor that requires no epoxy work,  ICC-ES-AC-193ICE, "Deputize myself", after a few Guiness last night!
> 
> pc1;0


Thanks.

Nice bolts but I left it up to my engineer and he came up with the epoxy anchors.


----------



## 123pugsy (Jan 16, 2014)

jwilly3879 said:
			
		

> like Ice's post #11. Had a garage in town that got hit by an inexperienced excavator operator and knocked the wall in. The anchor bolts held and the blocks they were in were still attached to the sill but about 3 feet from where they should have been.


I better don't let that fellow drive his excavator around in my basement.  

In my copy of the Ontario Building Code, 10" CMU's are OK up to 70.866" high w/o rebars, laterally reinforced of course.

My finished ground is 68-69". Lots of room to spare.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 16, 2014)

123pugsy said:
			
		

> Thanks.Nice bolts but I left it up to my engineer and he came up with the epoxy anchors.


I've never seen anything but epoxy anchors for this application. We almost always see Hilti products for this application.


----------



## 123pugsy (Jul 17, 2014)

New issue.

I'm putting it here as it's all related to the construction of the foundation wall.

I have a mortar crack about 1/8" open under the 3rd course of block on one wall. A straight edge confirms a bow inwards.

I have a call in to a local company that can install the PowerBrace wall repair posts.

This is now a huge problem.

I'm thinking I should rebuild the whole wall (26' long) using rebar this time. It would be easier to install the egress window which is planned for this wall.

I believe there is a lot of pressure in the soil. Maybe something to do with the 18"-24" diameter pine trees that are 15-20' away from this wall on the neighbors property?

The question is, what's an inspector going to say when he sees 2 stories of brick resting on this repaired foundation? That is if I use the brace system.

Will he start laughing before he says to tear down the whole house? :shock:


----------



## 123pugsy (Aug 1, 2014)

Well, after all this, the foundation wall will be coming down and will be pouring 10" concrete wall.

So much for trying to save the basement.

Mistake right from the beginning.


----------

