# brick and block foundation



## buck33k (Jul 31, 2016)

I am an electrician by trade.  I am having a house built and I am concerned about the foundation.  It started well with  block on the footing but soon 1/2 bricks were used as seen in the photos.  I hope the photos load.  It is a raised slab using 9 rows of brick supported on the bottom row outside by half bricks with the brick holes running horizontally.  Attached are 2 photos.  Does this seem proper and strong?  I was told the bricks are stronger with the holes running vertically, which these are not.  Does it matter in this case?  Any comments would be appreciated.  Thank you.  Buck
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28664628615/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Welcome


I cannot get the pictures to show and not
A building type person

Anyway

Any plans on how the foundation is supposed to be built?

Is it built like the plan?!

Do you live where a building inspector will look at it??

You can have a structural engineer look at the entire thing and advise you


----------



## buck33k (Jul 31, 2016)

I am sorry the photos will not load.  I have them on Flckr and tried to copy the address without success.  A building inspector did sign off on the foundation but I for some reason question it.   I will keep trying on the photos.  Thank you.


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

If you are a paying member you can upload from almost anything

You can call the inspector and ask him nicely to come back and look at your concerns 

Any plans??


----------



## buck33k (Jul 31, 2016)

I think I have the URLs up now for 2 photos.  It took me an hour.  Many thanks for your patience.  Plans show footing and wall only.


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Hum


buck33k said:


> I am an electrician by trade.  I am having a house built and I am concerned about the foundation.  It started well with  block on the footing but soon 1/2 bricks were used as seen in the photos.  I hope the photos load.  It is a raised slab using 9 rows of brick supported on the bottom row outside by half bricks with the brick holes running horizontally.  Attached are 2 photos.  Does this seem proper and strong?  I was told the bricks are stronger with the holes running vertically, which these are not.  Does it matter in this case?  Any comments would be appreciated.  Thank you.  Buck
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28664628615/in/dateposted-public/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Not a foundation person

But seems like the Bricks,,, are facade 

Missing the horizontal part

Talking about the Cmu or red brick??


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Might be weep holes


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

http://m.inspectapedia.com/?url=htt.../Brick_Wall_Weep_Holes.php&utm_referrer=#2838


----------



## buck33k (Jul 31, 2016)

cda said:


> Not a foundation person
> 
> But seems like the Bricks,,, are facade
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response CDA.  The walls sit on top of the bricks.  In the photo you can see the threaded rod coming out of the bricks.


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Do you have complete plans of how they are supposed to built this??

As owner you should.

I see the rods. Not a bricklayer either 

I still say the brick is nothing more than facade.

Not sure why the rods, maybe just a little more stability?

There should be some posters in the next few days that can give a lot better analysis.


You can always hire a third party to look at it and advise you. Would do it soon if you decide to do it.


----------



## buck33k (Jul 31, 2016)

Just an update.  It seems the footing wasn't poured  level so the brick outer wall was shimmed to make it level.  The bottom row of half bricks were cut to act as shims while the inner block wall followed the contour of the footing.  The slab will be poured up to the top of the brick wall which is level, then both walls will support the load. 
   Still at issue is the strength of the bottom row of half bricks.  Had the footing been level, a row of full sized horizontal bricks would have been laid as the first course on the footing.  I will find a structural engineer tomorrow.
   I hope to hear from one of the foundation pros on this forum.


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Sounds like they owe you a new foundation


----------



## Msradell (Jul 31, 2016)

I've never seen a wall built like that using 4" CMU, anyone I've seen used 8" CMU. The CMU with what will be supporting the weight of the floor slab, the brick is just decorative. I'm extremely confused why you have threaded rod coming out of the bricks. I would understand if you had rebar coming out of the CMU, that's something that's normally done. Please keep us informed how this develops and what the threaded rods are used for.


----------



## cda (Jul 31, 2016)

Msradell said:


> I've never seen a wall built like that using 4" CMU, anyone I've seen used 8" CMU. The CMU with what will be supporting the weight of the floor slab, the brick is just decorative. I'm extremely confused why you have threaded rod coming out of the bricks. I would understand if you had rebar coming out of the CMU, that's something that's normally done. Please keep us informed how this develops and what the threaded rods are used for.





If you look at reply     12

It appears the foundation is going on the bricks

And maybe the rods are for the bottom board??


I keep asking about if there are any plans

And if do is this what they show?????


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

Thankyou for the replies.  When I get home I will photo the foundation notes for all to see.  I should have done this.  They show the walls being supported by the bricks.  Please look for my link later.  Thanks again.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28696680655/in/dateposted-public/
Here is a photo of the foundation specs showing the threaded rod up through the bricks.  I hope this url link works out.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

Not a residential person or foundation, just looks strange

1. Wonder how they are going to do the concrete floor?
2. Not sure if 4x8 block is the same as cmu block
3. Seems like a lot of weight eventually on that brick wall.


4. the cmu and brick work, looks like something I would do, just not pretty.   Seems like the joints are missing mortar.

Would ask the structural engineer about that, and can the brick wall hold up the wall.



Are they going to fill the area made by the cmu  wall??


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 1, 2016)

Not an expert on masonry construction and was unable to access the N.C. Residential Code, but if those threaded rods are approved anchors then they should be installed in grouted CMU's in accordance with Section R403.1.6 " Bolts shall be at least ½ inch in diameter and shall extend a minimum of 7 inches into concrete or grouted cells of concete masonry untis."

There's administrative exception in accordance with accepted engineering practice.

I don't see where the brick is laid one it's side but to my knowledge that would not be permitted.





The use of 4 inch brick or CMU is permitted as a multi-wythe wall.  Should contact the inspector about any insulation and approved anchorage seismic considerations for your area.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

Thanks Francis
The threaded rod is 5/8".  They rods were set down into the concrete footing which is below the blocks.  I pasted the photo link below for the bricks laid on their side.  If this link does not work it is in my original post.  I looked for a rule prohibiting the bricks on their side but was unable to locate it.  Do you know where this would be?
    An inspector has given his positive opinion on this foundation  but I feel I need to do my own research.  I just emailed photos to an engineer out of my town and am waiting for a call.  There are close ties between the bldg dept and the contractor which are not to my advantage.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Thanks Francis
> The threaded rod is 5/8".  They rods were set down into the concrete footing which is below the blocks.  I pasted the photo link below for the bricks laid on their side.  If this link does not work it is in my original post.  I looked for a rule prohibiting the bricks on their side but was unable to locate it.  Do you know where this would be?
> An inspector has given his positive opinion on this foundation  but I feel I need to do my own research.  I just emailed photos to an engineer out of my town and am waiting for a call.  There are close ties between the bldg dept and the contractor which are not to my advantage.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/





Great.

You will more than likely not find specific language that bricks can be laid on side.

Would lean more towards is it structurally sound and built to some engineered design.


As far as the inspector, I do not know anything about the inspector,

But,,, an old indpector once told me if you do not know the code,,, you cannot enforce it.


With the many books an inspector deals with and the different methods of construction, an inspector cannot know it all.


But should be able to see something that does not look right,,,   And question it.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 1, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Thanks Francis
> The threaded rod is 5/8".  They rods were set down into the concrete footing which is below the blocks.  I pasted the photo link below for the bricks laid on their side.  If this link does not work it is in my original post.  I looked for a rule prohibiting the bricks on their side but was unable to locate it.  Do you know where this would be?
> An inspector has given his positive opinion on this foundation  but I feel I need to do my own research.  I just emailed photos to an engineer out of my town and am waiting for a call.  There are close ties between the bldg dept and the contractor which are not to my advantage.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/



I would ask the inspector for the code section that provides the exception to R403.1.6

The code references standards which I do not have nor are familiar with their content;

*R606.1 General. *Masonry construction shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this section, TMS 403 or in accordance with the provisions of TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5.

*R606.1.1 Professional registration not required. *When the empirical design provisions of Chapter 5 of TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5, the provisions of TMS 403, or the provisions of this section are used to design masonry, project drawings, typical details and specifications are not required to bear the seal of the architect or engineer responsible for design, unless otherwise required by the state law of the _jurisdiction _having authority.

I don't think you'll find language the expressly prohibits bricks laid on it's side, in my opinion permitted as accepted practice.

The following link may help provide additional information;

http://www.gobrick.com/Technical-Notes


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 1, 2016)

The rods are to far from the corners to meet the 12" max. from the end of a sole plate. Did not see it before the footing was poured, but the all-thread should have had nut and washer and not bent because that would weaken it.  Don't see a problem with it being in the brick if it is tied to the block properly and filled solid. Brick has a high compression strength, with the wire in the slab holding it I would believe it is supported for tension.  Would give it a D for looks lol but other than the anchor bolts it meets the approved plans.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

my250r11 said:


> The rods are to far from the corners to meet the 12" max. from the end of a sole plate. Did not see it before the footing was poured, but the all-thread should have had nut and washer and not bent because that would weaken it.  Don't see a problem with it being in the brick if it is tied to the block properly and filled solid. Brick has a high compression strength, with the wire in the slab holding it I would believe it is supported for tension.  Would give it a D for looks lol but other than the anchor bolts it meets the approved plans.





Are those generic plans pulled off some web site??

Seems like

Not to many measurements

Bad labeling


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 1, 2016)

cda said:


> Are those generic plans pulled off some web site??
> 
> Seems like
> 
> ...



Could be, too many variables to answer that, just assuming that is what the AHJ approved for the permit.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

Thanks to all.  I took a look at 403.1.6 as Francis mentioned...(every 6',  12" from corners, 2 bolts per plate, 1/2" min rod etc.)  The inspector told me 5/8" rod was 2' from corner...exception 1 ???    He is probably wrong after listening to you guys.  Ask me about the NEC.   I will make sure the rods are in there.  Their original spacing was up to 10' until I said something.  
It was 90degrees when they set the blocks so I just looked at the gobrick link above and suprised to see 40 to 100 is considered normal.  I have more reading to do.
Well....so do we think the half bricks on their side in the picture is ok?  Sounds like it may be. If the footing had been level in the first place the 1st course of brick would have been full bricks on block, instead of the modified bricks to adjust foundation heighth.   I built two houses before by myself but we thought it would be really quick if we went with a contractor this time.  I think we got the wrong one.  The workmanship is poor.  I would like to know that the foundation will outlast me and my wife.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 1, 2016)

buck33k

Where not prescribed the code requires installation in accordance with accepted engineering practice.

Exception for other than ½ inch would necessitate "to use manufacturers' data, such as evaluation reports, to document the anchorage shear and tension capacities."

I know this is no consolation but I had issues with the contractor that built my house too. One of our conversations went; "how many houses have you built (with cathedral ceilings)?" My response was "how many are you qualified to design?"
That was the end of conversation, and I'm currently on good terms with the B.O.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

Sounds like they owe you a new foundation

No matter what the indpector said

Have the structural engineer do an onsite


Sounds like you need a third party inspector for the rest of the job

At least a certain phases framing, check electrical hvac before insulating , etc


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 1, 2016)

Footings are supposed to be no more than 1" in 10'  or stepped, for levelness.  My guess is someone didn't do the math right or set forms wrong so it didn't course out properly, thus having to cut bricks to fix, and easier to cut than to rip length wise.  Not all contractors are equal.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

Francis,   cda,  and  my250r11......many thanks for your comments.  The engineer called back about an hour ago.  He said the foundation was "unconventional" at best. .  I will post a few more pictures links.  I wish I were better at that.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28601479992/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28601480492/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28601481012/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28601483302/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28707583605/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28664628615/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28047331364/in/dateposted-public/
Here is a few more photos.  Thanks for looking.  I hope they open.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

I tried to redo about four courses of a small column and it looked better than some of that work.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 1, 2016)

The bottom row of bricks is like a soldier course.  The bricks appear to be the full 4" thickness of the brick wythe.  It's odd, and an expensive way to compensate for an out-of-level footing, but I don't see anything that would scare me structurally for a residence. 

It is true that bricks are stronger with the cores vertical, but residential foundations seldom load bricks to even 10% of their capacity.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

Paul Sweet said:


> The bottom row of bricks is like a soldier course.  The bricks appear to be the full 4" thickness of the brick wythe.  It's odd, and an expensive way to compensate for an out-of-level footing, but I don't see anything that would scare me structurally for a residence.
> 
> It is true that bricks are stronger with the cores vertical, but residential foundations seldom load bricks to even 10% of their capacity.





How about the workmanship?


And you feel this design will handle the load of the house??

Still wonder how they are going pour the floor


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Francis,   cda,  and  my250r11......many thanks for your comments.  The engineer called back about an hour ago.  He said the foundation was "unconventional" at best. .  I will post a few more pictures links.  I wish I were better at that.





I am guessing you will not sell this house, but if you do will a good inspector find problems with the foundation.???


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

cda said:


> I am guessing you will not sell this house, but if you do will a good inspector find problems with the foundation.???


That is one of the major considerations CDA.  I know a great home inspector who would probably find this quickly as it is only a few inches under the ground.   The neighbor across the street knows about this foundation .. and he knows everybody else in the neighborhood...would I have to disclose this upon sale and how would that go over?  Would it hold up as well as full length bricks on block upon a level footing?  Should I be getting a new foundation or a modified foundation to conform to an irregular footing.  Its a big problem for me.  If there is any risk I don't want it.  Whats in it for me?


----------



## ICE (Aug 1, 2016)

I agree with cda....you'll not be able to sell the house.  The work that's been done so far looks awful.  I shudder to think what the rest of the building will look like.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 1, 2016)

ICE said:


> I agree with cda....you'll not be able to sell the house.  The work that's been done so far looks awful.  I shudder to think what the rest of the building will look like.


Yes,  I have thought about that.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

buck33k said:


> That is one of the major considerations CDA.  I know a great home inspector who would probably find this quickly as it is only a few inches under the ground.   The neighbor across the street knows about this foundation .. and he knows everybody else in the neighborhood...would I have to disclose this upon sale and how would that go over?  Would it hold up as well as full length bricks on block upon a level footing?  Should I be getting a new foundation or a modified foundation to conform to an irregular footing.  Its a big problem for me.  If there is any risk I don't want it.  Whats in it for me?




I hate to say it this way, but if it passes all city  inspection and you live in it,,, kind of well it has been blessed and I am guessing it will sell. Do you have to disclose anything, I am thinking no, because it passed,

Now if a good inspector looks at the house they might advise thier client to pass.


----------



## cda (Aug 1, 2016)

Guess you now at a contract attorney to see how your contract reads versus plans versus what they installed


----------



## buck33k (Aug 2, 2016)

cda said:


> I hate to say it this way, but if it passes all city  inspection and you live in it,,, kind of well it has been blessed and I am guessing it will sell. Do you have to disclose anything, I am thinking no, because it passed,
> 
> Now if a good inspector looks at the house they might advise thier client to pass.



 I just can't accept the workmanship.


----------



## ICE (Aug 2, 2016)

I have a problem with the design.  Building on a stack of bricks is something that I have not seen before.


----------



## bhale7wv (Aug 2, 2016)

Buck - not to worry - the brick laid on edge are just to get the masonry courses to the correct level. The load will be distributed evenly along the length of the wall, so these few brick on edge will not weaken the wall.
Your designer may be guilty of a little over-kill on the rods, but I assume that you are in a hurricane prone area & he just wants to make sure that if the house starts to blow away, it will take the foundation with it.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 2, 2016)

ICE said:


> I have a problem with the design.  Building on a stack of bricks is something that I have not seen before.





bhale7wv said:


> Buck - not to worry - the brick laid on edge are just to get the masonry courses to the correct level. The load will be distributed evenly along the length of the wall, so these few brick on edge will not weaken the wall.
> Your designer may be guilty of a little over-kill on the rods, but I assume that you are in a hurricane prone area & he just wants to make sure that if the house starts to blow away, it will take the foundation with it.


bhale7wv.....Thanks for you're input.  I appreciate it.  I'm trying to rapidly satisfy my concerns and I've made good progress.  The last step is the structural engineer inspection which I have requested.  All things usually work out.  I will post how it goes.  Thanks again.  Buck


----------



## cda (Aug 2, 2016)

A lot of info 

From different people across the USA

That have seen things built different ways over many years


Good luck and hoping the rest of the build goes smooth!!!


----------



## ICE (Aug 3, 2016)

ICE said:


> I have a problem with the design.  Building on a stack of bricks is something that I have not seen before.


Am I alone in this thinking?  The drawing that was provided is a wall section detail so there might be more to the foundation story but apparently re-bar is not included.  The airgap between the CMU and brick is huge and the wire reinforcement that was maybe supposed to be a brick tie looks out of place.  There's no way that a building would be on top of that here in Ca. .... well maybe a hundred years ago but then we started having earthquakes and changed it up.

Haven't heard from Brent in a while.


----------



## conarb (Aug 3, 2016)

It's hard to believe that something like that is allowed anywhere in this country, especially with a concrete slab going on the CMU.  It's in North Carolina, they have hurricanes there. 

Brent has to be going nuts, he can't stand the Cankled Hildbeast.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 3, 2016)

ICE said:


> Am I alone in this thinking?  The drawing that was provided is a wall section detail so there might be more to the foundation story but apparently re-bar is not included.  The airgap between the CMU and brick is huge and the wire reinforcement that was maybe supposed to be a brick tie looks out of place.  There's no way that a building would be on top of that here in Ca. .... well maybe a hundred years ago but then we started having earthquakes and changed it up.
> 
> Haven't heard from Brent in a while.





ICE said:


> Am I alone in this thinking?  The drawing that was provided is a wall section detail so there might be more to the foundation story but apparently re-bar is not included.  The airgap between the CMU and brick is huge and the wire reinforcement that was maybe supposed to be a brick tie looks out of place.  There's no way that a building would be on top of that here in Ca. .... well maybe a hundred years ago but then we started having earthquakes and changed it up.
> 
> Haven't heard from Brent in a while.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 3, 2016)

Sorry about the accidental post above.  Here are a couple of footing photos which may clear up some questions.  The contractor ran out of threaded rod so he placed rebar as shown in the photos.  I was told adapters would connect the rebar to threaded rod but eventually the rods were epoxyed in to the footing.  The string is the level of the foundation wall.  So..the CMU wall and the brick wall are on the footing.  CMU started the first course of the wall, but very quickly the CMU blocks were replaced with small sections of brick to compensate for footing variations.  I was told that this was normal practice.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28457911800/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28664971021/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

I would ask your engineer says what was installed matches the plans, which you paid to have installed.

If not I think they owe you a new foundation


----------



## tmurray (Aug 3, 2016)

Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate. 

Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

I wonder if the builder is the inspectors brother in law??


----------



## conarb (Aug 3, 2016)

tmurray said:


> Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate.
> 
> Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.



In one code cycle that included 1975 we had some CMU foundations but they all racked up badly and I haven't seen any sense.

The code tried to deal with them sometime in the early 2000s, the old timers here will remember back in our old UBC Bulletin Board several inspectors went nuts because that's all they used, I forget his name but one from Pennsylvania was particularly vocal on the matter, among other things they required a steel angle be bolted completely around the top of the block.  Eventually the state of Pennsylvania removed it from their code and he was jubilant to say the least, don't others here remember that?


----------



## buck33k (Aug 3, 2016)

tmurray said:


> Are those cracks in the CMU at the grout already? We don't see a lot of CMU here for foundations because they don't do well in our climate.
> 
> Also, is it common there to place a footing without forms? We will sometimes see interior footings formed out of the compacted material beneath the slab and poured at the same time as the slab, but permitted footings are always formed.



What is the advantages or disadvantages of using forms in pouring footings?  I don't know what is common here.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 3, 2016)

Thanks CDA...I will ask the engineer on Friday.  I do see a difference from the plans and the installation, and yours is a good point.  Maybe he will say that mine is an acceptable variation, and this is what I need to know.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 3, 2016)

Unreinforced block foundations are common here in Virginia and other states.  A residence typically has less than one ton per lineal foot of load on the foundation, and lateral loads are low, so even a sloppy wall like this will support the load.

Unformed footings are also common in residential work.  As long as the dirt stands fairly straight in the footing trench you don't gain any strength by digging a trench a foot or 2 wider than the footing, setting forms, then removing the forms and placing compacted fill between the footing and edge of the trench.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 3, 2016)

Paul Sweet said:


> Unreinforced block foundations are common here in Virginia and other states.  A residence typically has less than one ton per lineal foot of load on the foundation, and lateral loads are low, so even a sloppy wall like this will support the load.
> 
> Unformed footings are also common in residential work.  As long as the dirt stands fairly straight in the footing trench you don't gain any strength by digging a trench a foot or 2 wider than the footing, setting forms, then removing the forms and placing compacted fill between the footing and edge of the trench.



Our building code requires those areas excavated and drainage stone placed there to prevent any hydraulic pressure on the footings. Also we will typically see draintile in this area.


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 3, 2016)

See it here all the time, at most they form the slab only and do monolithic.  We don't get much moisture here to require foundation drainage.  Did however when i was working in Colorado we did and that requires over excavating so you would set forms.  As for block don't see many, most are reinforced if they are used, some it's just the Ext. wall/s of the garage.


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2016)

Maybe the engineer is using the wrong terminology....?

R703.7.3 Lintels. Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical
load other than the dead load of the veneer above.

And then...
R606.2.1 Minimum thickness. The minimum thickness of
masonry bearing walls more than one story high shall be 8
inches (203 mm). Solid masonry walls of one-story dwellings
and garages shall not be less than 6 inches (152 mm) in
thickness when not greater than 9 feet (2743 mm) in height,


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 3, 2016)

steveray said:


> Maybe the engineer is using the wrong terminology....?
> 
> R703.7.3 Lintels. Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical
> load other than the dead load of the veneer above.
> ...


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 3, 2016)

I'll figure this new format out eventually, lol

I agree with R606.2.1 (good catch) but R703.7.3 only refers to lintels in the masonry veneer.
I'm not an engineer, but if he will sign off on it it's his ars!!


----------



## steveray (Aug 4, 2016)

my250r11 said:


> I'll figure this new format out eventually, lol
> 
> I agree with R606.2.1 (good catch) but R703.7.3 only refers to lintels in the masonry veneer.
> I'm not an engineer, but if he will sign off on it it's his ars!!



Correct!....I tell people you can build it out of cheddar cheese if the engineer stamps it....What the veneer section says, is that the veneer can only support itself, it can't be bearing structure like in the drawing.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 4, 2016)

Meant to add not sidetrack this discussion; anyone know why the terms _composite_ and _masonry-bonded hollow wall_ were removed from the 2015 IBC?

So would a 4 inch CMU bonded to 4 inch wide brick be a 8 inch _composite_ wall?

As a reminder 4-inch masonry wall not to exceed 4 ft. is permitted to support a 2-story light frame contruction (see next post below).

*WALL. *A vertical element with a horizontal length-to-thickness ratio greater than three, used to enclose space.

*Cavity wall. *A wall built of _masonry units _or of concrete, or a combination of these materials, arranged to provide an airspace within the wall, and in which the inner and outer parts of the wall are tied together with metal ties.

*Composite wall. *A wall built of a combination of two or more _masonry units _bonded together, one forming the backup and the other forming the facing elements.

*Dry-stacked, surface-bonded wall. *A wall built of concrete _masonry units _where the units are stacked dry, without _mortar _on the bed or _head joints_, and where both sides of the wall are coated with a surface-bonding _mortar_.

*Masonry-bonded hollow wall. *A multi-_wythe _wall built of _masonry units _arranged to provide an air space between the _wythes _and with the _wythes _bonded together with _masonry units._

*Parapet wall. *The part of any wall entirely above the roof line.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 4, 2016)

*R404.1.5.3 Pier and curtain wall foundations. *Use of pier and curtain wall foundations shall be permitted to support light-frame construction not more than two stories in height, provided the following requirements are met:

1. All load-bearing walls shall be placed on continuous concrete footings placed integrally with the exterior wall footings.

2. The minimum actual thickness of a load-bearing masonry wall shall be not less than 4 inches nominal or 3 3/8 inches actual thickness, and shall be bonded integrally with piers spaced in accordance with Section R606.9.

3. Piers shall be constructed in accordance with Section R606.6 and Section R606.6.1, and shall be bonded into the load-bearing masonry wall in accordance with Section R608.1.1 or R608.1.1.2.

4. The maximum height of a 4-inch loadbearing masonry foundation wall supporting wood-frame walls and floors shall not be more than 4 feet.

5. Anchorage shall be in accordance with Section R403.1.6, Figure R404.1.5(1), or as specified by engineered design accepted by the _building official_.

6. The unbalanced fill for 4-inch foundation walls shall not exceed 24 inches for solid masonry or 12 inches for hollow masonry.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 4, 2016)

Well .... The engineer just left the foundation and gave the thumbs up for strength.  Cost me a pretty penny too.  I had to get an engineer from well out of the area.  I know the workmanship is not the best but I've been thinking about this way too much.  He said the half bricks on the bottom will last because they are well mortared in and offer good structural support.(although there may be no code reference for that).  My alternative was to remove the foundation, and I would have if I saw no other way.  This foundation taught me a few lessons and I learned quite a bit from you members.  I'm glad I joined your ranks.....and CDA,  " Is the contractor the brother in law of the chief inspector?"  There could be some truth in that.
Many thanks and I will try to contribute in the future.
Buck


----------



## cda (Aug 4, 2016)

Good luck

As long as an engineer you like says ok


Good luck, at least the builder knows you will question him.

Is this a normal foundation design for your area????


----------



## ICE (Aug 4, 2016)

Had I not seen members from back East paying attention to this thread I would have figured it for a setup. Now an engineer blessed it.... He even said that the bricks are well mortared in.  Proof positive that most engineers should stick to engineering.

The eye is drawn to brickwork. It's a focal point that connotes ordered strength.  That is until the emotional side of the brain sits down. The haphazard, slapdash work presented here will engender discomfort to even those that don't consciously notice.  Like a floor that's out of level 2" in 20', you won't notice it while walking but the subconscious knows that something is wrong.  Might even give you diarrhea.


Well then Buck, try not to pay much attention to me when I get going....now and then my mind just runs on.
Let the engineer wipe away your fear and say, "Look out house... Here we come.

Can somebody flush out Brent?


----------



## Keystone (Aug 4, 2016)

Aesthetics, I would not be pleased but the compressive strength of a brick is greater than block.


----------



## ICE (Aug 4, 2016)

Bricks with no reinforcement is rubble waiting to be a pile.


----------



## JBI (Aug 5, 2016)

buck33k said:


> .(although there may be no code reference for that)


The specific provisions detailed in the Code are 'prescriptive' options. The Code still allows engineered design and alternatives to the prescriptive provisions. In other words, the printed Codes are not absolute. As long as the foundation can safely support the loads imposed, then it should be fine.


----------



## north star (Aug 5, 2016)

*@ = @ = @*


Here is a link to the Brick Industry Association ( BIA ).

*http://www.gobrick.com/Portals/25/docs/Technical%20Notes/TN24G.pdf*

In some reading of their Technical Notes & other, ...it appears
as though clay fired brick can be used to achieve high compressive
strength \ load(s) bearing applications.........Type of brick, type
of mortar, mixing ratios, humidity, temperature, and other
variable have a direct influence on the design when using clay fired
brick in an application.

This web site DOES have some interesting reading in their Technical
Notes Section.

The pics. submitted by the OP look like a Train Wreck.......That said,
an RDP HAS signed off on it ( For What That's Worth  ).......

I would not be comfortable with the pics. submitted "IF" it were my
project.


*@ = @ = @*


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

My contract specifies all work to be performed in a good workmanship manner.  
The foundation is aproximately 42' X 54'. 
 How difficult would it be to remove?


----------



## steveray (Aug 5, 2016)

20 minutes with a big excavator.....


----------



## north star (Aug 5, 2016)

*= & = & =*

Not too difficult at all !..........How expensive would it be is
another story !

Also, ...who determines the "good workmanship manner" ?

*= & = & = &*


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

north star said:


> *= & = & =*
> 
> Not too difficult at all !..........How expensive would it be is
> another story !
> ...


Yes, that is a good point.


----------



## cda (Aug 5, 2016)

Well might be cheaper than having to have something done after the house was built.


----------



## cda (Aug 5, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Yes, that is a good point.





*Is this a normal foundation design for your area????*


----------



## ICE (Aug 5, 2016)

I don't know how the footing has been constructed so I can't say if it needs to be removed. Everything above it appears to be worthy of removal.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

cda said:


> *Is this a normal foundation design for your area????*


Sorry CDA...I see now that you have asked this before.  Slabs are very common here, and raised slabs are quite common.  However, mine is raised more than normal... to 28"...to conform with other homes on the street which have crawl spaces.  This makes my foundation a bit out of the ordinary but not much so...really nothing that presents a big challenge.  Truckloads of sand will  be placed in the foundation walls and will have to be compacted prior to the slab pour.  According to the engineer, 12" of fill should be compacted down to 10" ....then another 12" of fill compacted down to 10". and so on in those stages....and then he added, "but nobody does that."
How would the compaction be done on my job?  I don't know based on what has happened so far...maybe adequate, maybe not.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

ICE said:


> I don't know how the footing has been constructed so I can't say if it needs to be removed. Everything above it appears to be worthy of removal.



Ice: Here is a link to the footing picture.  Once again, I hope my link works.    It is a trench in the ground (no forms) with concrete poured in.  In the photo you will see rebar stuck into the footing as they ran out of threaded rod.  The original intention was to use an adapter to convert the rebar to threaded rod.  Later they drilled into the footing and epoxyed in threaded rod.   Seems to me it would be a mess to remove all of this stuff which is fused together with concrete.
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNkXpIfrYJLh5UL-DFWt1uycxx69fbr4dKF7GPa


----------



## ICE (Aug 5, 2016)




----------



## ICE (Aug 5, 2016)

The footing is an unknown.  Considering the work that we can see, there may not be any steel.  Of course I am not familiar with the requirements in your locale and from what I can tell those requirements are less than what I would expect.  Assuming that the footing is sufficient it can be saved.  

There is plenty I could say but you need to reach that conclusion on your own.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

ICE said:


> The footing is an unknown.  Considering the work that we can see, there may not be any steel.  Of course I am not familiar with the requirements in your locale and from what I can tell those requirements are less than what I would expect.  Assuming that the footing is sufficient it can be saved.
> 
> There is plenty I could say but you need to reach that conclusion on your own.



Yes, there is steel in the footing as seen in this photo.  I hope to finalize this soon.  The codes and common practices seem to be understood by professionals nationwide.  I don't like being the exception to the standard. Thanks ICE for the input.

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipO_BCRD08lsrQKmzE0NBn60VHHOT3NwEGvE6jzl


----------



## conarb (Aug 5, 2016)

Buck:

I have hesitated to comment on your situation because our California codes and standards are so much higher, but at this point I would ask if your state has a contractors' license board?  I've volunteered as both an industry expert and arbitrator on cases here, many times work can be code compliant yet it doesn't meet industry standards, I've been assigned to write reports addressing industry and minimum workmanship standards, if you have a license board I'd file a complaint.  Just to give you an idea here is one of my foundations.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 5, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> I have hesitated to comment on your situation because our California codes and standards are so much higher, but at this point I would ask if your state has a contractors' license board?  I've volunteered as both an industry expert and arbitrator on cases here, many times work can be code compliant yet it doesn't meet industry standards, I've been assigned to write reports addressing industry and minimum workmanship standards, if you have a license board I'd file a complaint.  Just to give you an idea here is one of my foundations.
> 
> ...


Many thanks Conarb for your sound advice.  I will take it seriously.  
Your photo looks like it could possibly be a bank vault.  Very good work.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 5, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Your photo looks like it could possibly be a bank vault.  Very good work.


LOL, there's nothing heavy about that rebar mat. A bank fault probably has about 6 or 8 layers of bars spaced at about 6"! It certainly heavier than what you we see in a residential situation in most places but California is much different than most places.


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Many thanks Conarb for your sound advice.  I will take it seriously.
> Your photo looks like it could possibly be a bank vault.  Very good work.





So keep us up to date

Show us the fill

Show us the floor forms

Show us the poured floor


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

cda said:


> So keep us up to date
> 
> Show us the fill
> 
> ...



CDA    I am going to ask for removal of the foundation.  I will update this thread.
Thanks


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

UPDATE:  I spoke with the contractor.  I told him that I was not going to accept the foundation.  He said that was fine.  We meet Monday to discuss resolution.


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

Sounds good

Get it right the first time


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

Got an e-mail asking to please put in writing why the foundation is not acceptable.


----------



## conarb (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Got an e-mail asking to please put in writing why the foundation is not acceptable.


Buck:

Workmanship standards are different in differing areas, even differing areas within a state, you need to hire an engineer in your area to evaluate it and write a report.  As I recall you are in North Carolina?  If so which city?  If you don't have a local source perhaps I can give you a name, if he's out of your area perhaps he knows one who is.


----------



## ICE (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Got an e-mail asking to please put in writing why the foundation is not acceptable.


Show him the pictures.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> Workmanship standards are different in differing areas, even differing areas within a state, you need to hire an engineer in your area to evaluate it and write a report.  As I recall you are in North Carolina?  If so which city?  If you don't have a local source perhaps I can give you a name, if he's out of your area perhaps he knows one who is.


Conarb  Thank you for the reply.  I did hire an engineer but have not gotten a written report back yet.  He did tell me that the workmanship was not good and that the foundation was not "conventional".  One of my big concerns was the small cut down blocks supporting the brick structural wall.  He thought this to be acceptable but agreed that it did not represent  note AA on the plans.  At this point I am afraid to state the name of my town on the web for fear of litigation against me.  This is a very tight coastal community and my two year residence here carries little influence.  That they now want something in writing from me is troublesome.  I wanted a standard well built foundation but as you say, workmanship standards are different in differing areas.


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Conarb  Thank you for the reply.  I did hire an engineer but have not gotten a written report back yet.  He did tell me that the workmanship was not good and that the foundation was not "conventional".  One of my big concerns was the small cut down blocks supporting the brick structural wall.  He thought this to be acceptable but agreed that it did not represent  note AA on the plans.  At this point I am afraid to state the name of my town on the web for fear of litigation against me.  This is a very tight coastal community and my two year residence here carries little influence.  That they now want something in writing from me is troublesome.  I wanted a standard well built foundation but as you say, workmanship standards are different in differing areas.




You do not need to id your city. And like you said not a good idea.

Sounds like your engineer is resnable

You might if you like, send him a link to this thread. He can see some of the concerns and maybe put them in a report.

If you have not, ask the engineer to make the report for removal of existing ,and install of new foundation.

Not just a general report


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Conarb  Thank you for the reply.  I did hire an engineer but have not gotten a written report back yet.  He did tell me that the workmanship was not good and that the foundation was not "conventional".  One of my big concerns was the small cut down blocks supporting the brick structural wall.  He thought this to be acceptable but agreed that it did not represent  note AA on the plans.  At this point I am afraid to state the name of my town on the web for fear of litigation against me.  This is a very tight coastal community and my two year residence here carries little influence.  That they now want something in writing from me is troublesome.  I wanted a standard well built foundation but as you say, workmanship standards are different in differing areas.





This is from one of your responses.

Not sure if it is your observation or builders??


Just an update. It seems the footing wasn't poured level so the brick outer wall was shimmed to make it level. The bottom row of half bricks were cut to act as shims while the inner block wall followed the contour of the footing. The slab will be poured up to the top of the brick wall which is level, then both walls will support the load.


----------



## conarb (Aug 6, 2016)

We are looking at three different issues here:

1) code compliance.
2) structural engineering requirements.
and:
3) community workmanship standards. 

His engineer is apparently saying it meets minimum code and structural requirements but doesn't meet minimum workmanship standards.

If he doesn't have a license board that provides an expert on minimum workmanship requirements perhaps retain your engineer to design a better foundation and negotiate  the additional costs to remove and replace that foundation?  I've seen similar construction in Mexico but not that bad.   What gets me about this is coastal communities there are subject to hurricanes, I thought they had all increased their structural requirements to protect against hurricanes, Dade County Florida has very strict hurricane requirements.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

cda said:


> This is from one of your responses.
> 
> Not sure if it is your observation or builders??
> 
> ...


CDA...The quote was not word for word of what the builder said, but MY observation of what he told me.  A comment he made specifically was, "Not all footings are even.  They can go up and down.  Sometimes you just have to hog it in."   I took this to mean adjustments have to be made to irregular footings.  That I'm fairly sure is true.  The first wall they did was nice with brick laid length wise on CMU (see attached),  but very soon after the 1/2 bricks took the place of the cmu on the bottom row.  
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN8HtmJsbFxtWH0LoRR0-hej4z3UTbEIJxKzJQB


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

conarb said:


> We are looking at three different issues here:
> 
> 1) code compliance.
> 2) structural engineering requirements.
> ...


I will check with the North Carolina contractor's license board in Raleigh to see if they provide an expert on minimum workmanship requirements.  First though, I should meet with the builder on Monday.  He may address my concerns very well.  I want to be open to opinions and confident in the structure.  My untrained instincts are telling me that the half bricks on end offer less lateral resistance to movement then a conventional installation.  I don't know.


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

buck33k said:


> CDA...The quote was not word for word of what the builder said, but MY observation of what he told me.  A comment he made specifically was, "Not all footings are even.  They can go up and down.  Sometimes you just have to hog it in."   I took this to mean adjustments have to be made to irregular footings.  That I'm fairly sure is true.  The first wall they did was nice with brick laid length wise on CMU (see attached),  but very soon after the 1/2 bricks took the place of the cmu on the bottom row.
> https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN8HtmJsbFxtWH0LoRR0-hej4z3UTbEIJxKzJQB




Picture will not open

Not a concrete person, but I see them make adjustments for slope or whatever all the time and it looks very smooth.

Level when needed 

So if I walk around the house I will see some walls with brick layed lengthwise on other walls with half brick??

Does not sound like good workmanship to me. In my opinion all sides should match.


Plus would include his words in the reason to redo


----------



## buck33k (Aug 6, 2016)

I made these two 8 sec videos.  Bricks laid flat may be more naturally stable? 
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMCEGElDWv6lg6swWgf4OCNemH15k1t8hBq1Bi7
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNnxyLw99tIkwwX0cs-lppSciYjtf1K9VyJZYMu
Let me know if they do not open.


----------



## cda (Aug 6, 2016)

Do not open
Goes to google sign in page.

Not sure how you did your prior pictures???


----------



## buck33k (Aug 7, 2016)

cda said:


> Do not open
> Goes to google sign in page.
> 
> Not sure how you did your prior pictures???


Sorry my photos did not open.   Here goes again.  I made these videos last night.  I was thinking....what is more stable to lateral forces...bricks laid flat or on end??  What if there is earth movement?  Maybe this is why buildings are not built like mine.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28537053620/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28744812381/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

Love "field test"

Not a brick person

Only thing missing from your lab test is the mortar. Contractor will argue that with mortar either test will pass


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

How about video or pictures of a good bottom cord versus bad bottom chord at your house.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 7, 2016)

cda said:


> Love "field test"
> 
> Not a brick person
> 
> Only thing missing from your lab test is the mortar. Contractor will argue that with mortar either test will pass


Yes...there are those here who would argue that with motar,  all is good ....but its not their house, they are not taking the risk, they won't be selling it in the future, and if a fix were ever necessary... it could break me..   IMO, start with a good proven, accepted design, then use mortar.  It all started with the footing and went south from there. There was no oversite from the builder and his subs were hacks.  Every day gets worse.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 7, 2016)

Here's a good one.   The mortar cement abruptly changed colors on the front.  I was told "dont worry about it....we'll just spray it with muratic acid."  I went through all the used mortar bags  and found codes for two different colors.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28798930586/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28215630583/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## cda (Aug 7, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Here's a good one.   The mortar cement abruptly changed colors on the front.  I was told "dont worry about it....we'll just spray it with muratic acid."  I went through all the used mortar bags  and found codes for two different colors.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28798930586/in/dateposted-public/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28215630583/in/dateposted-public/




Yea right don't worry


----------



## Msradell (Aug 7, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Here's a good one.   The mortar cement abruptly changed colors on the front.  I was told "dont worry about it....we'll just spray it with muratic acid."  I went through all the used mortar bags  and found codes for two different colors.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28798930586/in/dateposted-public/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28215630583/in/dateposted-public/


While I do agree that
the 2 colors of mortar look rather strange there's nothing structurally wrong with them. The rest of your walls however raise an awful lot of questions. The cracks completely through the interior CMU with certainly be one of the major ones that would concern me.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 7, 2016)

The change in mortar color is likely a mixture change, ex; different brand or quantity of sand or cement, etc....


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

Thank you for the comments on the mortar color and for all comments throughout this thread for that matter.  I appreciate all comments and views.
Thanks again
Buck


----------



## cda (Aug 8, 2016)

Just invite us for the house warming party.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

cda said:


> Just invite us for the house warming party.


I just met with the builder.  I tried to express my concerns.  He said over 50% of his homes are built this way.  I asked him to remove the foundation and restore my lot to how it was.  He refused and stormed off and said,  "I'm  going to put a big fat lien on this property."  
Many thanks to all on this forum for all the insight that you provided me.


----------



## cda (Aug 8, 2016)

Wonder what the other foundations look like??

Maybe if he talks to you again see if he will give you a list so you can compare??


----------



## JCraver (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm going to go against the grain here...  Code is a _minimum _standard.  He met the minimum, and a licensed engineer said it'll work.  I'm writing PASS on my inspection ticket and moving on to the next one.

I agree it looks like $hit.  And I'd be less-than-happy if I paid for it.  But it'll hold up a house.


----------



## cda (Aug 8, 2016)

JCraver said:


> I'm going to go against the grain here...  Code is a _minimum _standard.  He met the minimum, and a licensed engineer said it'll work.  I'm writing PASS on my inspection ticket and moving on to the next one.
> 
> I agree it looks like $hit.  And I'd be less-than-happy if I paid for it.  But it'll hold up a house.




Without being able to see a full set of plans,

What was posted did it meet those plans ?


https://www.flickr.com/photos/11316822@N06/28696680655/in/dateposted-public/


Plus the workmanship clause in the contract


----------



## conarb (Aug 8, 2016)

buck33k said:


> I just met with the builder.  I tried to express my concerns.  He said over 50% of his homes are built this way.  I asked him to remove the foundation and restore my lot to how it was.  He refused and stormed off and said,  "I'm  going to put a big fat lien on this property."
> Many thanks to all on this forum for all the insight that you provided me.



As I'm sure you know your next step is a construction attorney, not just any attorney, but any attorney can give you the name of a good construction attorney.

Have you paid him any money so far? 

State laws are different, so talk to the attorney, but I wouldn't touch that work, don't go tearing it out and destroying the evidence, when he files the lien nothing happens unless you try to sell the property, if you do the lien will have to be removed by a "quiet title" action, after he files he's got a period of time to sue to perfect the lien or it expires on it's own, here that period is 90 days.  If and when he does sue to perfect you can file a cross complaint against him for all the damages you have suffered, but in breach of contract actions punitive and tort damages like emotional distress are generally not available remedies.  Contracts are meant to be broken and cases like this are the reason, the law wants people to be able to get our of bad contracts so there are no punishment damages, good attorneys can get creative with consequential damages though.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

JCraver said:


> I'm going to go against the grain here...  Code is a _minimum _standard.  He met the minimum, and a licensed engineer said it'll work.  I'm writing PASS on my inspection ticket and moving on to the next one.
> 
> I agree it looks like $hit.  And I'd be less-than-happy if I paid for it.  But it'll hold up a house.


Yes you're right.  The code is a minimum standard.  What a mess.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

conarb said:


> As I'm sure you know your next step is a construction attorney, not just any attorney, but any attorney can give you the name of a good construction attorney.
> 
> Have you paid him any money so far?
> 
> State laws are different, so talk to the attorney, but I wouldn't touch that work, don't go tearing it out and destroying the evidence, when he files the lien nothing happens unless you try to sell the property, if you do the lien will have to be removed by a "quiet title" action, after he files he's got a period of time to sue to perfect the lien or it expires on it's own, here that period is 90 days.  If and when he does sue to perfect you can file a cross complaint against him for all the damages you have suffered, but in breach of contract actions punitive and tort damages like emotional distress are generally not available remedies.  Contracts are meant to be broken and cases like this are the reason, the law wants people to be able to get our of bad contracts so there are no punishment damages, good attorneys can get creative with consequential damages though.


Got about  $3K into the builder and $5200 in lot prep.  I don't want this to get legal.  I got a text from him.  He wants a couple days to get his head clear....I said OK.  It would be good to work it out.  Just in case, I found a construction attorney but better to try and resolve it.


----------



## ICE (Aug 8, 2016)

When I ran jobs the office would give contracts to some sketchy subs.  Now and then I would ask the office to buy out a rotten sub and get a new sub.  It makes sense when you factor in the lousy outcome otherwise.

Better to lose $3,000.00 and get a decent building.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 8, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Yes you're right.  The code is a minimum standard.  What a mess.


I've kicked subs off my job site for better work than that. Calling it a "mess" might be too high of credit.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

ICE said:


> When I ran jobs the office would give contracts to some sketchy subs.  Now and then I would ask the office to buy out a rotten sub and get a new sub.  It makes sense when you factor in the lousy outcome otherwise.
> 
> Better to lose $3,000.00 and get a decent building.


Here in NC the foundation subs need no licence.  Seems like they would........or maybe they weren't even foundation guys.


----------



## conarb (Aug 8, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Got about  $3K into the builder and $5200 in lot prep.  I don't want this to get legal.  I got a text from him.  He wants a couple days to get his head clear....I said OK.  It would be good to work it out.  Just in case, I found a construction attorney but better to try and resolve it.


Buck:

You are definitely right, in litigation everybody losses except the lawyers, and if there is money there they'll milk it for all it's worth.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 8, 2016)

Buck,  it shouldn't take a couple days to clear his head. You could do that with a two by!!!  

I'd ask for a meeting ASAP to bring closure, keep a running log of all events but in the end if the Engineer signed off on the structural stability your sole avenue appears to be based on workmanship which would either have to be litigated in a court or possibly an arbitrator or even a third party consumer protection of some type. 

From my view as an inspector, if revised plans are submitted that match what's in the field prepared by an engineer there's not much more one can seek from an inspection standpoint.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> You are definitely right, in litigation everybody losses except the lawyers, and if there is money there they'll milk it for all it's worth.


Yes Conard, I'd better be open to resolution.  I was thinking this afternoon that I could knock down that foundation myself with a sledge hammer....probably have it apart and disposed of in a couple of weeks.  I think the blocks would come apart easily. The hard part would be the footing with the continuous rebar fused into the concrete.  To be honest, it would be a great challenge and the end result would be worth the effort......better follow due process though.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 8, 2016)

If you plan on removal, have a backhoe delivered for a few days and set up dump truck either rental or hauling company.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

Keystone said:


> Buck,  it shouldn't take a couple days to clear his head. You could do that with a two by!!!
> 
> I'd ask for a meeting ASAP to bring closure, keep a running log of all events but in the end if the Engineer signed off on the structural stability your sole avenue appears to be based on workmanship which would either have to be litigated in a court or possibly an arbitrator or even a third party consumer protection of some type.
> 
> From my view as an inspector, if revised plans are submitted that match what's in the field prepared by an engineer there's not much more one can seek from an inspection standpoint.


Good advice on keeping the running log Keystone.  I have it going now.  I sent the engineer some more photos for him to consider along with his own.  I also spoke to him on the phone.  I believe he will be objective and honest.  I hope to get the report in a couple of days.  The workmanship or lack of is my main issue as it has contributed entirely to the problem.  I will stay on track with this thought.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 8, 2016)

Keystone said:


> If you plan on removal, have a backhoe delivered for a few days and set up dump truck either rental or hauling company.


Makes good sense.


----------



## conarb (Aug 8, 2016)

Buck:

The proper equipment to remove that foundation is not a backhoe but a track loader with a 4 in 1 bucket, the loader can open it's bucket and grab large sections, lift them up  drop them in a dump truck.  Some equipment operators own their own dump trucks, other small guys use common carrier dump trucks, either is fine.  A good operator will probably line up a couple of dump trucks and have that foundation out of their in a couple of hours.

As I said above don't touch anything until this is settled, but you can start calling around to get prices from an owner/operator of a loader, he will arrange for the trucks. An excavator    can also do the job a little faster but they are large and more expensive and usually only owned by larger companies.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 9, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> The proper equipment to remove that foundation is not a backhoe but a track loader with a 4 in 1 bucket, the loader can open it's bucket and grab large sections, lift them up  drop them in a dump truck.  Some equipment operators own their own dump trucks, other small guys use common carrier dump trucks, either is fine.  A good operator will probably line up a couple of dump trucks and have that foundation out of their in a couple of hours.
> 
> As I said above don't touch anything until this is settled, but you can start calling around to get prices from an owner/operator of a loader, he will arrange for the trucks. An excavator    can also do the job a little faster but they are large and more expensive and usually only owned by larger companies.


Many thanks for the good information.  I will get things lined up for sure.  Pretty excited about getting started.  I won't make a move until all is settled.  I think things will work out OK.  
Thanks to all.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2016)

Ok buck

Need an update


----------



## buck33k (Aug 17, 2016)

cda said:


> Ok buck
> 
> Need an update



Well....I got the official engineer report back which says,  "At some locations it appeared the motar between the joints was sparse or barely sufficient, which is a concern.  Though knowing during the concrete slab pour, concrete can be placed and should be placed between the brick and CMU block to form a solid bond, the concern is still noted.  From the visual inspection it appeared the foundation is adequate, though lacking in some area to be corrected by the concrete pour." 
It sounds to me like there is a problem with the foundation but the pour might correct it with no guarantees.
I got an exceptional deal when I purchased the lot.  It was the only one available.  The builder has offered to buy it from me (for what I paid) of course.  We would like to keep our lot.  There has been no resolution.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2016)

do you only have 3000 in??

Do you owe the guy any more money??


----------



## buck33k (Aug 17, 2016)

cda said:


> do you only have 3000 in??
> 
> Do you owe the guy any more money??


No CDA, I don't owe him....he has $2K of mine.  He will not remove his foundation.  He only wants to buy my lot and cheap..  Without a lawyer I'm near the end of the road.  A lawyer is expensive.  The builder has deep roots here.  I'm not through yet but my options are running out.  I do have another card to play.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2016)

So can you say to him you go your way and I will go mine??

Or the media always likes a good shoddy contractor story
Especially the tv investigative reporters


----------



## buck33k (Aug 17, 2016)

cda said:


> So can you say to him you go your way and I will go mine??
> 
> Or the media always likes a good shoddy contractor story
> Especially the tv investigative reporters


Its not that easy.  He would claim I owe him for all labor and materials, and has told me this.  I'm not sure I want to end up in a court battle.  The chips are stacked against me here.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2016)

Not a builder or anything

Was his work a seperate contract or part of the entire package??

Sometimes if you bother them enough they go away


----------



## conarb (Aug 17, 2016)

buck33k said:


> Its not that easy.  He would claim I owe him for all labor and materials, and has told me this.  I'm not sure I want to end up in a court battle.  The chips are stacked against me here.


Buck:

You've told us what your private engineer has said, what has your local building official said, has it passed inspection?


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> You've told us what your private engineer has said, what has your local building official said, has it passed inspection?




Yep
# 3 on the thread parade


----------



## conarb (Aug 17, 2016)

Thanks CDA:



			
				Buck said:
			
		

> I am sorry the photos will not load. I have them on Flckr and tried to copy the address without success. A building inspector did sign off on the foundation but I for some reason question it. I will keep trying on the photos. Thank you.



Buck:

Why not print out the pictures you posted here, take them into the building department and ask for the Chief Building Inspector, show him the pictures telling him you posted them here and we all think the workmanship is terrible?


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2016)

conarb said:


> Thanks CDA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Might be a one horse town??

In one of the threads;;;;

Building inspector and builder are close friends, maybe bowling buddies??


----------



## conarb (Aug 18, 2016)

cda said:


> Might be a one horse town??
> 
> In one of the threads;;;;
> 
> Building inspector and builder are close friends, maybe bowling buddies??


Well go over his head, one-horse towns always have a mayor or someone who runs them.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 18, 2016)

Buck, I agree with Conarb on this. If you own lot then move forward with seeking help. Find the food chain of inspector, mayor, county and state officials that deal with this, get your list together of contact information and itemize your thoughts to paper and send em out including the media.

Is there a contract between you two, if so what does it say?


----------



## conarb (Aug 18, 2016)

Keystone said:


> Buck, I agree with Conarb on this. If you own lot then move forward with seeking help. Find the food chain of inspector, mayor, county and state officials that deal with this, get your list together of contact information and itemize your thoughts to paper and send em out including the media.
> 
> Is there a contract between you two, if so what does it say?



Keystone:

I would give the immediate superior a chance first before I go to the press, I'd go to the CBO first, if he doesn't exist or won't help then go to someone he knows in the city structure like the mayor, going to the press is nasty and only a last resort.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2016)

I wonder if North Carolina state regulates inspectors or contractors???


----------



## buck33k (Aug 18, 2016)

This current presidential election cycle has confirmed what everyone knows.  The system is rigged at all levels.  I prefer at this time to be bought out and move on in order to preserve my sanity and relieve the stress on my wife.  The days of Mr Smith goes to Washington are possibly gone.  This builder claims to have built 800 homes and of those, 500 he says were built in this fashion,  there by setting a standard in my area.  All here are used to this, including the county inspectors and home inspectors.  I had best choose my battles wisely.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2016)

Sorry to hear that 

And you ran into some that is not "Professional"

I think I would stir the pot a little more,

Unless you are getting out without losing money or very little !!


----------



## conarb (Aug 18, 2016)

buck33k said:


> This current presidential election cycle has confirmed what everyone knows.  The system is rigged at all levels.  I prefer at this time to be bought out and move on in order to preserve my sanity and relieve the stress on my wife.  The days of Mr Smith goes to Washington are possibly gone.  This builder claims to have built 800 homes and of those, 500 he says were built in this fashion,  there by setting a standard in my area.  All here are used to this, including the county inspectors and home inspectors.  I had best choose my battles wisely.



Buck:

Are you near the coast subject to hurricanes?


----------



## north star (Aug 18, 2016)

*& ~ &*


buck33,

Sometimes you have to decide; as you have stated, "which
battles to chose."

Although not optimal, ...the stress & strains on your wife
and your own sanity [ may ] not be worth the effort.

I do not know, nor do I want to know how much money you
have at stake to [ possibly ] lose.........Only you & your family
can decide if it is worth it to stay.

Try to take "the Higher Ground" if you can..........Consider
this a Learning Experience and part of your Life-Long
Education in to the world of construction.

BTW, ...that %$@*&% Builder; if you want to call him that,
is guaranteed to get his rewards for his actions.........I would
refer you to a particular section in the Holy Scriptures, but
the Forum Owner has graciously asked us to *NOT* start
any conversations on religion or politics.........If you want,
...send me a PM and I will provide you with the Biblical
reference.

I; like you, would not like it one bit, but sometimes to preserve
family & sanity, one needs to fold their cards and simply walk
away.........Besides, now you have this GREAT Forum to come
to.

Going back down in to my bunker now !   



*& ~ &*


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2016)

If you decide to get rid of it

I would still contact the media, after the paperwork is all signed 

And dump both the inspector and builder


----------



## buck33k (Aug 18, 2016)

conarb said:


> Buck:
> 
> Are you near the coast subject to hurricanes?


Yes Conarb...near the coast  and subject to hurricanes.  Earthquake risks are lower here but I checked city data and we have them.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 18, 2016)

North star.  You are right.  This is a great forum with really good people.  I appreciate the privilege to post here and wish to thank the moderators, owners and members.  I recall back in the old days (I'm 69 now) we had no internet forums in the electrical trade and answers were harder to come by.  Then came the internet and people who were inspired to create forums like this.  Its amazing.


----------



## buck33k (Aug 18, 2016)

cda said:


> I wonder if North Carolina state regulates inspectors or contractors???


CDA...I think general contractors must be licensed in NC but no continuing education....don't know about inspectors.  I have worked for years as an electrician in Washington state and Oregon where licensing and continuing education are required.  I always thought that to be a good thing for the trades and a good thing for the public.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2016)

buck33k said:


> CDA...I think general contractors must be licensed in NC but no continuing education....don't know about inspectors.  I have worked for years as an electrician in Washington state and Oregon where licensing and continuing education are required.  I always thought that to be a good thing for the trades and a good thing for the public.





Thought you might either report the contractor to them and or see if they have any enforcement action against him

Or maybe even mediation


----------



## conarb (Aug 18, 2016)

cda said:


> Thought you might either report the contractor to them and or see if they have any enforcement action against him
> 
> Or maybe even mediation


Buck:

That's where I got the handle conarb, originally I was constructionarbitrator and I shortened it when people started calling me conarb, I arbitrated cases against contractors for the California State License Board. if that case came before me you can imagine what I'd award you.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 19, 2016)

I still don't understand this.  I've looked at all the pictures, and read the whole thread, and I can't figure out what you all think the Mayor/City Mgr./CBO/etc. is supposed to do...

The local BI approved the foundation/passed the inspection.  An independent, licensed structural engineer,  after a site visit, has said it'll work.  If you believe even a tenth of what the builder is boasting, then there are ~50 similar homes with similar foundations in this area, all of which I'll assume are still standing.  There's simply nothing for the Mayor/City Mgr./CBO to do, except agree with their inspector that this passes code.

Sure, the inside of the walls look like sh!t, but who cares?  When it's done you'll not see a bit of it.  My advice is build the house, sell it, and hire a different builder to do your next one.  If you sell this builder the lot as it is, there'll be a spec house built on the same foundation and the builder will sell it and make the money.


----------



## cda (Aug 19, 2016)

JCraver said:


> I still don't understand this.  I've looked at all the pictures, and read the whole thread, and I can't figure out what you all think the Mayor/City Mgr./CBO/etc. is supposed to do...
> 
> The local BI approved the foundation/passed the inspection.  An independent, licensed structural engineer,  after a site visit, has said it'll work.  If you believe even a tenth of what the builder is boasting, then there are ~50 similar homes with similar foundations in this area, all of which I'll assume are still standing.  There's simply nothing for the Mayor/City Mgr./CBO to do, except agree with their inspector that this passes code.
> 
> Sure, the inside of the walls look like sh!t, but who cares?  When it's done you'll not see a bit of it.  My advice is build the house, sell it, and hire a different builder to do your next one.  If you sell this builder the lot as it is, there'll be a spec house built on the same foundation and the builder will sell it and make the money.



Two things

If it was your house being built would you accept it?

If the builder that is going to build the rest of the house, that was involved in the foundation build, what craftsmanship do you think the rest of the house will look like??


Might be an idea build the house and sale!!


----------



## conarb (Aug 19, 2016)

Buck:

Thanks for posting this, now we know why every time a hurricane hits the southeast coast we see pictures of 2x4s scattered from Hell to breakfast.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 19, 2016)

cda said:


> Two things
> 
> *If it was your house being built would you accept it?*
> 
> ...




Sure.  A building inspector and an independent engineer have both told me it'll be fine.  

Hard to tell what the rest of the house will look like - maybe this guy is a fantastic carpenter, and the rest of it will be spectacular.

I just think this has maybe got blown out of proportion a bit.  In the pictures we have, the outside of this foundation looks fine.  The inside, which everyone is complaining about, gets backfilled and compacted and a slab gets poured on top of it.  No reason to make it look pretty - it will *never* be seen again.  You ever seen a brickmason point the inside courses of a multi-wythe wall?  Same thing...


----------



## conarb (Aug 19, 2016)

If work like that can pass code, we need new codes.


----------



## steveray (Aug 22, 2016)

conarb said:


> If work like that can pass code, we need new codes.



That's something to get Conarb to say that....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 22, 2016)

conarb said:


> If work like that can pass code, we need new codes.



Best quote!


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 22, 2016)

conarb said:


> If work like that can pass code, we need new codes.



Nope just better contractors.


----------



## ICE (Aug 22, 2016)

I still think that this thread was a set up.


----------



## cda (Aug 22, 2016)

ICE said:


> I still think that this thread was a set up.



Don't think so seems very sincere


----------



## cda (Oct 15, 2016)

Any owner updates???


----------



## conarb (Oct 15, 2016)

my250r11 said:


> Nope just better contractors.


 
You can't get better contractors because you can't license based upon intelligence, Chief Justice Burger said in Griggs vs. Duke Energy that intelligence testing had the disparate effect of discriminating against certain minorities that on average were less intelligent:


			
				NAACP said:
			
		

> In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in _Griggs v. Duke Power_, which transformed our nation’s work places.  As a result of LDF’s advocacy, the Supreme Court embraced a powerful legal tool – now known as the “disparate impact” framework – that has proved essential in the fight to eradicate arbitrary and artificial barriers to equal employment opportunity for all individuals, regardless of their race.
> 
> Shortly after Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, Duke Power stopped expressly restricting African-Americans to the labor department and announced new standards for hiring, promotion, and transfers.  In order to work in positions outside of the labor department, Duke Power now required a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate.  These new requirements were not an improvement, however.  They effectively perpetuated the discriminatory policies that Duke Power had utilized prior to the enactment of Title VII.  Although the testing and diploma criteria disqualified African-Americans at a substantially higher rate than whites, Duke Power never established that they successfully measured ability to do the jobs in question.  Indeed, the white employees hired before the requirements were imposed performed entirely satisfactorily.¹



With the passage of the ADA in 1990 requiring contractors to be more intelligent would discriminate against morons, idiots, and imbeciles. Better get used to seeing some work being performed by some pretty dumb people. 

¹ http://www.naacpldf.org/case/griggs-v-duke-power-co


----------



## tmurray (Oct 17, 2016)

conarb said:


> You can't get better contractors because you can't license based upon intelligence, Chief Justice Burger said in Griggs vs. Duke Energy that intelligence testing had the disparate effect of discriminating against certain minorities that on average were less intelligent:
> 
> 
> With the passage of the ADA in 1990 requiring contractors to be more intelligent would discriminate against morons, idiots, and imbeciles. Better get used to seeing some work being performed by some pretty dumb people.
> ...



We can still test people here. Generally, you see testing that directly relates to the field. Basically, the business sets minimum performance standards on a test for each employee to meet. Generally intelligence tests (IQ or aptitude tests) are still completed, but are not typically used as a determining factor for employment, more to gage where someone is likely to end up in the organization.

The issue with general intelligence tests is that they are adjusted to a certain gender, race and age group. Once you start moving away from the three groups you've adjusted your test for, you start to introduce a margin of error. Sometimes this margin of error can render the test results meaningless.


----------



## conarb (Oct 17, 2016)

TMurray said:
			
		

> The issue with general intelligence tests is that they are adjusted to a certain gender, race and age group. Once you start moving away from the three groups you've adjusted your test for, you start to introduce a margin of error. Sometimes this margin of error can render the test results meaningless.



The best work on this subject was done by Arthur Jensen from *I hate to admit it, Cal Berkeley*, the real problem comes with state imposed diversity requirements, requiring dumber people being mixed in with smarter people, thanks to ADA and Brown vs. Board of Education we now have imbeciles in the same classrooms as geniuses.







You Canucks are as dumb as we are, India is an interesting case since, due to the caste system the  classes didn't interbreed for centuries, yielding a very low average but some very brilliant people.  

The absurd goal of allowing "anyone to be whatever they want to be" is having disastrous results, the last bar results have been the worst ever, and they paralleled the drop in LSAT scores, physicians have become so bad that a friend has closed his law practice to go to the State Department of Consumer Affairs (the same department that licenses contractors) to prosecute incompetent young doctors, I have friends who were corporate pilots who won't fly in a commercial airliner, today's pilots just plug a laptop computer in and go, if something goes wrong they are lost, the same goes for air traffic controllers, we essentially have the blind leading the blind in the air. Our Governor recently signed a bill allowing 60,000 kids to get high school degrees who had repeatedly been unable to pass an exit exam in 6th grade math and 8th grade English, amazingly many celebrated because they had already been admitted to college pending their high school degrees.  Maybe once they get their college degrees they can go to work for Solar City installing solar panels for Tiger to inspect. 

How else do you explain Tiger's pictures?  Why do we license stupid contractors?


----------

