# Pass Code or Not?



## Cory (Feb 28, 2016)

This is a picture of our deck being built.  Beam missed footing by quite a bit.  I know this does not meet quality standards and shouldnt meet code.  Can this be resolved without digging out the footing?  This is in Aurora,Co.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cory (Feb 28, 2016)

Cory said:
			
		

> This is a picture of our deck being built.  Beam missed footing by quite a bit.  I know this does not meet quality standards and shouldnt meet code.  Can this be resolved without digging out the footing?  This is in Aurora,Co.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk











Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## cda (Feb 28, 2016)

Welcome.......

Monday you may get more replies

Guess you are not the contractor???

If not what does the contractor in charge propose as a solution??!

If you are going to live in the house, you have to live with this, and it is not what you paid for.

Plus if you leave it and passed inspection this time, might not pass if you ever sale


----------



## cda (Feb 28, 2016)

Not a structural person , but what does the contractor say about adding to it??

Dig a hole , form it, make footing bigger!! If it will hold and not shift.


----------



## ICE (Feb 28, 2016)

The anchor required is 5/8". If it is there, it was drilled and installed with epoxy. That wouldn't be easy to do without busting out the corner.

I wouldn't accept that because it is pretty much ridiculous.  It certainly doesn't match the plans. They missed the center on all three footings. Although the center post isn't hanging over and is probably within bounds for the loading, it just looks terrible.  There is no patch for that.  The footings need to be done over from scratch.

The violation notice should say that eccentrically loaded footings are not allowed. It is surprising that they didn't fix it before they built on top of them. Now they are going to bugger up stuff doing the work over.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 28, 2016)

*Does not meet code and* *manufacturer** Standards*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 28, 2016)

> The anchor required is 5/8". If it is there, it was drilled and installed with epoxy. That wouldn't be easy to do without busting out the corner.I wouldn't accept that because it is pretty much ridiculous. It certainly doesn't match the plans. They missed the center on all three footings. Although the center post isn't hanging over and is probably within bounds for the loading, it just looks terrible. There is no patch for that. The footings need to be done over from scratch.
> 
> The violation notice should say that eccentrically loaded footings are not allowed. It is surprising that they didn't fix it before they built on top of them. Now they are going to bugger up stuff doing the work over.


Agree with ICE however I would suggest helical piers https://www.piertech.com/products/helical-piers.html for the fix


----------



## Msradell (Feb 28, 2016)

> Agree with ICE however I would suggest helical piers https://www.piertech.com/products/helical-piers.html for the fix


Those are quite good for certain situations but I don't see why you would think they would be great for this application. They have plenty of room to put in basic spread footings, especially after the mess they already have put in.


----------



## Mark K (Feb 28, 2016)

This problem can be fixed without digging out the foundation but that may not be the cheapest nor fastest way.  I am assuming that neither an engineer or architect are involved with the project,  If this is not the case  talk with the engineer or architect.

Tell the contractor that this is not acceptable since it does not comply with the permitted drawings and that he has two options.  Remove and rebuild the footing correctly or implement a repair that you will have designed by an engineer and he will be responsible for the engineers fee.  I would not be comfortable leaving the contractor to develop and implement a fix.

Eccentrically loaded footings are allowed by the building code when properly designed.


----------



## ICE (Feb 29, 2016)

> This problem can be fixed without digging out the foundation but that may not be the cheapest nor fastest way. I am assuming that neither an engineer or architect are involved with the project, If this is not the case talk with the engineer or architect.Tell the contractor that this is not acceptable since it does not comply with the permitted drawings and that he has two options. Remove and rebuild the footing correctly or implement a repair that you will have designed by an engineer and he will be responsible for the engineers fee. I would not be comfortable leaving the contractor to develop and implement a fix.
> 
> Eccentrically loaded footings are allowed by the building code when properly designed.


Smother it in concrete?

You are right about the code not outlawing eccentrically loaded footings. An engineer could design a structure with the post on the edge. An engineer could find a way to restrain the anchor in the last inch of concrete in two directions. An engineer could do that. An architect on the other hand....well an architect would see what a mess it is and ask the engineer to come up with something else.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 29, 2016)

> Agree with ICE however I would suggest helical piers https://www.piertech.com/products/helical-piers.html for the fix


 Really depends on soil conditions.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 29, 2016)

Recommend seek the services of a design professional or do it over.  And if the deck ledger is attached to the brick veneer have it engineered or do it right; if adhered brick check for proper flashing.


----------



## ICE (Feb 29, 2016)

The odds of there not being an engineer for the tract are slim to none. So if they want to waste some money they should ask the engineer if doing it over is okay.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 29, 2016)

Rear elevation Picture angle is Kind of distorted but it looks like all of the bases are "off center" of the bases/footings.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 29, 2016)

*2" Minimum *Side Cover


----------



## north star (Feb 29, 2016)

*& + &*

Cory,

Which Code & Edition are you using in this application ?





> *Does not meet code and* *manufacturer** Standards*


Which Code & sections is this not compliant to ?*& + &*


----------



## fatboy (Feb 29, 2016)

> Really depends on soil conditions.


Soils are lousy in Aurora, extremely expansive, get an engineer or replace it per plans.


----------



## steveray (Feb 29, 2016)

I can't see an issue with pinning and expanding on existing footing.Who is going to be responsible for the design is another matter....


----------



## Cory (Feb 29, 2016)

north star said:
			
		

> *& + &*Cory,
> 
> Which Code & Edition are you using in this application ?
> 
> ...


I am the owner wondering why this passed inspections.  It doesnt seem right that it is hanging off the edge of the footing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Keystone (Feb 29, 2016)

You should contact the building department to speak with a supervisor and forward a pic to him/her.


----------



## conarb (Feb 29, 2016)

Cory:

Are you sure it has passed any inspections?  Something like this isn't usually caught until final inspection, during foundation inspections inspectors don't measure to be sure the piers are in the right location.  I had this happen in the 70s, the engineer had custom fabricated iron post bases specified, drilling in sandstone on a steep hillside the drill bit "wandered"., we poured and set the post base in the wet concrete.  When we came to install the deck posts after the home was framed and inspected it became obvious that we were way off, I called the engineer and he had me "burn off" the post base and drill and epoxy-in a Simpson post base, get the engineer back and I'm sure he'll do something similar.  BTW, I'm a builder not an inspector, thank God.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 29, 2016)

Cory, this is good advice



> You should contact the building department to speak with a supervisor and forward a pic to him/her.


Anchor bolt if installed may not have proper coverage as mentioned.

Also in your description your calling it a beam, you meant to call it a post.

also it's your investment, can or could you ever live with that mistake?


----------



## ICE (Feb 29, 2016)

> I am the owner wondering why this passed inspections.  It doesnt seem right that it is hanging off the edge of the footing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


If this passed inspection I can only wonder what else got by the inspector.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 29, 2016)

It's a tract. Scheduling is tight. The sad truth is that every trade will proceed if at all possible and the swing-and-a-miss will likely be addressed "later". It becomes a priority when it can no longer be deprioritized. I doubt if it has been inspected yet. Notice no footings have been poured yet for the stair landing. The whole thing is still in process.

Brent


----------



## Mark K (Feb 29, 2016)

If the contractor wants to tear something out that is non-conforming and rebuild it per the approved drawings I do not see why the engineer needs to be asked if it was ok to build it per the approved drawings.  The owner and the design professionals should be made aware of the problem so they can more closely monitor the contractor.  The owner should try to understand the cause of the problem in part to understand whether the contractor may make a claim to be reimbursed because he believes somebody else was the cause of the problem.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 1, 2016)

> If the contractor wants to tear something out that is non-conforming and rebuild it per the approved drawings I do not see why the engineer needs to be asked if it was ok to build it per the approved drawings.  The owner and the design professionals should be made aware of the problem so they can more closely monitor the contractor.  The owner should try to understand the cause of the problem in part to understand whether the contractor may make a claim to be reimbursed because he believes somebody else was the cause of the problem.


It's a tract. There is no "owner" yet. It belongs solely to the developer. They may do as they see fit. Technically the prospective home buyer isn't allowed in the building area. But in general they don't care about those rules.

Brent.


----------



## north star (Mar 3, 2016)

*@ ~ @ ~ @*

Anyone, ...which Code section or sections are being referenced to

say this is not compliant ?

I need Code man !......Give me the Code !! 

*@ ~ @ ~ @*


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 8, 2016)

I was always taught that columns and posts should always bear in the center third of the wall or pier, otherwise they would induce tension into the wall or pier.  With all the verbiage the code has on beams, joists, rafters, trusses, and every other structural item, I can't believe something so basic isn't in there!


----------



## Builder Bob (Mar 8, 2016)

*Closest thing I could find..... lateral displacement is not defined by the code, thus I would defer to the manufacture's listing and installation guideline - @ inch diagram thingy somebody posted. The lateral displacement is being prevented by a post anchor system that is listed.*

*R407.3 Structural requirements. *

The columns shall be restrained to prevent lateral displacement at the bottom end. Wood columns shall not be less in nominal size than 4 inches by 4 inches (102 mm by 102 mm). Steel columns shall not be less than 3-inch-diameter (76 mm) Schedule 40 pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM A 53 Grade B or _approved _equivalent.

Blowing smoke, but it may be the only thing to prevent this ......from passing.


----------



## my250r11 (Mar 8, 2016)

Doesn't comply with approved drawings:

*R106.4 Amended construction documents.* Work shall be installed in accordance with the _approved_ _construction documents_, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the _approved construction documents_ shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of _construction documents_.

Doesn't meet manufactures spec. for post anchor:

*R106.1.2 Manufacturer's installation instructions.* Manufacturer's installation instructions, as required by this code, shall be available on the job site at the time of inspection.

*R502.9 Fastening.* Floor framing shall be nailed in accordance with Table R602.3(1). Where posts and beam or girder construction is used to support floor framing, positive connections shall be provided to ensure against uplift and lateral displacement.

*R501.2 Requirements.* Floor construction shall be capable of accommodating all loads according to Section R301 and of transmitting the resulting loads to the supporting structural elements.

The industry in general assumes centered. If not it should be design. If you Read thru sec. 3 it says that in a round about code way lol. Of course these code sections only apply if your satae hasn't amended them.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 8, 2016)

I doubt seriously if anyone is even attempting to pass it off. Somewhere on the drawings it told the concrete guy to put them there, or they laid it out wrong. Since that contractor is probably off that release, they will wait and schedule the correction. It's probably not the only one. Like I said, it's in process.

What happens is a prospective buyer goes nosing around where they aren't supposed to be, then starts trolling sites like this to build whatever case they think they might have. Or they hire a home inspector, which as a superintendent you don't even allow on the jobsite. They are allowed to inspect after final, and that's it.

So one day a pickup guy will go shore it up, a bobcat will arrive and tear it out, it will get formed and 5 dudes will repour and finish it. Like I say, it's a mistake, everyone moves forward as much as possible, the concrete guy whines, it gets fixed.

It is not uncommon, especially if it's the first release.

Brent.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 8, 2016)

Cory, inquiring minds want to know - what's the outcome?


----------



## Mark K (Mar 9, 2016)

The requirement that the post be placed in the center third of the footing is not in the code.  It had some validity when we designed based on working stress 30 plus years ago but even then it was not necessarily an absolute.

My sense is that any prospective buyer can get access for his inspector from the people trying to sell the units.  This should be even easier after they had agreed to buy the unit.  Depending on the concern I would recommend hiring an engineer or architect to look at the work instead of a home inspector.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 9, 2016)

Why should the Buyer hire an Architect or Engineer? The buyer should first exhaust all avenues, contact the builder and if not reasonable explanation/fix or per plan then contact building department. The buyer immediately hiring his/her own design professional may well light a pissing fire contest and unnecessary costs to the buyer when a bit of leg work may bring about resolution.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 9, 2016)

It clearly does not meet code and the manufacturers icc listing.

the inspector should do his/her job and wwrite a correction.

*2012 IBC 2304.9.7 Framing requirements. *

Wood columns and posts shall be framed to provide full end bearing.


----------



## Cory (Mar 9, 2016)

mark handler said:
			
		

> It clearly does not meet code and the manufacturers icc listing.the inspector should do his/her job and wwrite a correction.
> 
> *2012 IBC 2304.9.7 Framing requirements. *
> 
> Wood columns and posts shall be framed to provide full end bearing.


I am in contact with the inspection office and will let you all know the outcome.  The builder said it passed code which is why i even brought this up in this forum in the first place.  Thank you for the IBC code it will make it easier to point it out to the inspector.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## north star (Mar 9, 2016)

*$ @ $ @ $*

Cory,

If you have enjoyed your visit and experience here, and have obtained

information to assist you, ...would you also consider becoming a "paid

subscription member" to this GREAT resource  [  i.e. - A Sawhorse  ] ?

We need "paid subscription members" to help support this Forum, so

that we all can assist others.

Thanks for your consideration !   

*@ $ @ $ @*


----------



## ICE (Mar 9, 2016)

> Thank you for the IBC code it will make it easier to point it out to the inspector.


I'd like to be a fly on that wall.

I imagine myself having a soon to be homeowner show up at my office with pictures of that mess and code sections. I'm smiling.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 9, 2016)

It didn't pass code. It passed foundation inspection. The inspector would not have a clue at that point if anything was the right dimension or not.

Would not get past final.

Brent.


----------



## Cory (Mar 10, 2016)

Discussion with inspector summary-- It will pass framing final.  It will not pass third party foundation inspection.  They need a letter from engineer telling them that this will get fixed and how, with signature before they will allow this house to move forward.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## north star (Mar 10, 2016)

*% = = = %*





> The inspector would not have a clue at that point if anything was the right dimension or not.


That's not necessarily true...........He \ she might have if they had looked at,or even reviewed the construction plans !

*% = = = %*


----------



## JBI (Mar 10, 2016)

> Discussion with inspector summary-- It will pass framing final. It will not pass third party foundation inspection. They need a letter from engineer telling them that this will get fixed and how, with signature before they will allow this house to move forward.Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Not sure why it would 'pass framing final', but at least they are going to insure corrections... Good luck with it. (would love to see more photos when fix is complete BTW)


----------



## ICE (Mar 10, 2016)

> *% = = = %*That's not necessarily true...........He \ she might have if they had looked at,
> 
> or even reviewed the construction plans !
> 
> *% = = = %*


Had I been the inspector I might have pulled a tape to see how far the footings are from the building....and maybe not. What I am interested in is the size/depth of the footing and the steel. I would not be checking the layout beyond noting that there are three of them....just like the plans indicate.

When I got to see this I would say, "Oh you guys screwed ol' Shep on this one".


----------



## tmurray (Mar 10, 2016)

> Not sure why it would 'pass framing final', but at least they are going to insure corrections... Good luck with it. (would love to see more photos when fix is complete BTW)


Agreed. Generally, I think it's common courtesy to point out potential problems as soon as possible to make the repair as cost effective as possible. Yes, many times contractors will tell me they know about the problem and a fix is in the works, which is probably the best case scenario. I guess there are plenty of jurisdictions that wait for a problem to become a catastrophe before addressing it.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 10, 2016)

This is getting better. Who are "they"? Is that the third party,or the inspector saying it will pass inspection once an engineer gets ahold of it? It's sounds like the bo is saying "yes, it will final, once it's fixed".

Something smells fishy in Denmark.

It can't even be finished as is. If inspection goes anything like ours, that house has had a framing inspection, as well as shear, plumbing, electrical, plumbing and rough mechanical.

As for the foundation, the inspector typically runs a tape to the property pin, tape to sidewalk,  hold down spacing between anchors, and all the other concrete related stuff. Inspectors are there for code compliance, not dimension control. Multiple inspections per day, time constraints. Do you guys check for square and level?  

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 10, 2016)

Just found this issue? Simpson should add this to their presentation on how not to install their products (smiling)


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 10, 2016)

Simpson should start designing a new cantilevered post anchor!

Is the footing covered with styrofoam with a concrete skim coat applied, if so bearing is less that assumed!


----------

