# Need to tie down replacement beam on pier and beam



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 10, 2018)

I am replacing beams on an old house (renovation). I am going to assume that the building inspector is going to insist that I tie the beams to the foundation. No such tieing was done originally. Any suggestions on efficient way to meet this requirement? 
Thanks


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 10, 2018)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1O-Qn-qM_pfwVrovKHDLfpeQ5WnS3k_nF


----------



## JBI (Sep 10, 2018)

Most of the hardware manufacturers produce retrofit connectors for almost any application.


----------



## cda (Sep 10, 2018)

Welcome

Give a day or so for great answers


----------



## JCraver (Sep 10, 2018)

Normally, there would be a sill plate on top of that block wall and the rim joist would sit on that, which your beam would butt into.  What you have there - I have no idea how you're going to fix that if you plan on leaving that beam long / sticking out.  Have you thought about hiring a contractor?

And what are you doing with that asbestos siding you ripped off?  Double-bagging and then notifying the landfill, I presume?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 10, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Normally, there would be a sill plate on top of that block wall and the rim joist would sit on that, which your beam would butt into.  What you have there - I have no idea how you're going to fix that if you plan on leaving that beam long / sticking out.  Have you thought about hiring a contractor?
> 
> And what are you doing with that asbestos siding you ripped off?  Double-bagging and then notifying the landfill, I presume?



No, there is no block wall. There are piers and curtain wall. The way that it was built was with an 8x8 beam resting on the piers.
The beam that is sticking out is a temporary beam under a load bearing wall.
Normally (modern) you would have a continuous footing and foundation wall, and the sill plate would bolt on to the foundation wall. This is an entirely different situation.
I worked on framing crews for about 10 years, so I’m pretty familiar with all of that.
Thanks anyway.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 10, 2018)

..

See below


----------



## JCraver (Sep 10, 2018)

What kind of shape are the piers in, and do you have room for a flat 2x on top of them?  Could cut a treated 2x12 to fit, tapcon it to the top of the piers, then attach the beam to that if the bricks will hold.


----------



## north star (Sep 10, 2018)

*& ~ & ~ &*

Daniel Boquist,

Possibly pour a compliant concrete footing underneath
the house at each of the "[ horizontal ] beams-to-footing
connections, and as ***JBI*** mentioned, ...use a galvanized
strap to wrap over the top of the beams and then secure
the other ends of the strap in to the concrete footing, or
a Hurricane H10S strap.

Simpson Strongtie makes a lot of different straps for
all kinds of applications.







& ~ & ~ &


----------



## mark handler (Sep 10, 2018)




----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 10, 2018)

JCraver said:


> What kind of shape are the piers in, and do you have room for a flat 2x on top of them?  Could cut a treated 2x12 to fit, tapcon it to the top of the piers, then attach the beam to that if the bricks will hold.



That sounds like a possibility. The piers are old so that would be scary. A definite possibility. Thanks


----------



## ICE (Sep 10, 2018)

The piers that support a shot building are shot. What’s not to like here?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 11, 2018)

Suggest that you consult with an engineer. 

In the "ol" days pre-conarb, they some times would use 8x, 10x or 12x solid white oak, dense material in that location, 
termites would have to find something soft to enter. Not sure if a treated yellow pine could be used, may be too soft and the engineer would have to crunch the numbers and supports may need to be evaluated?

A built up stack of solid 2x may be designed.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 11, 2018)

From the photo it appears that this is a precode construction, no?
What you refer to as piers appear to be stacked bricks with concrete infill between, no?
How is the soil and water table in the area?
Age of building?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 11, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> From the photo it appears that this is a precode construction, no?
> What you refer to as piers appear to be stacked bricks with concrete infill between, no?
> How is the soil and water table in the area?
> Age of building?



Correct.. precede construction
Correct on the piers..
Water table is high. 
Don’t know the age of the house.

I’m not sure that they will make me anchor the beams.. but if I had to bet, they will.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 11, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Suggest that you consult with an engineer.
> 
> In the "ol" days pre-conarb, they some times would use 8x, 10x or 12x solid white oak, dense material in that location,
> termites would have to find something soft to enter. Not sure if a treated yellow pine could be used, may be too soft and the engineer would have to crunch the numbers and supports may need to be evaluated?
> ...



I think that I should be able to use 2x8 made up beams. They would conform to code. The problem, I think, is anchoring the beams to the foundation.


----------



## north star (Sep 12, 2018)

*# = # = #*

In the discussion so far, it sounds as though the existing
brick piers & concrete blocks are shot and not an option
for anchorage to them.....If this is the case, can you jack
the house up and install new pier footings, or a continuous
footing around the perimeter underneath the house,
...something with anchorage installed in the concrete that
will tie to the beams ?

We have offered a lot of prescriptive options so far, but it
may be time to call in a structural engineer, ...especially
with a high water table as a factor.

Also, ...I recommend that you contact the local Building Official
to discuss options.........We can offer guesses & "What ifs" all
day long on here.

Please keep us informed of this topic.

Also, if you have benefitted from your visit on this Forum,
would you also consider becoming a regular contributor &
a Paid Subscription Member [  i.e. - a Sawhorse  ] ?

Thanks !   

*# = # = #*


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 12, 2018)

Don't you love it when the requester fails to provide "all" the info necessary to render an opinion but the photo sure says a lot?
Dan, are you doing this as the contractor, owner?
The depth of the water table can be a serious issue, are you near a flowing water source or spring? Area in a flood plain?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 12, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Don't you love it when the requester fails to provide "all" the info necessary to render an opinion but the photo sure says a lot?
> Dan, are you doing this as the contractor, owner?
> The depth of the water table can be a serious issue, are you near a flowing water source or spring? Area in a flood plain?



A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.
I’m doing this as an owner.
As I said in an earlier post, I worked on framing crews for many years. I can replace the beams. No big deal.

My question, to put it more clearly, is..  
1) In a renovation such as this, will a tie down from the beam to the footing (piers) be required? In other words, would I be required to bring it up to current code?
2) Assuming that 1) is yes, is that possible with the current configuration (piers and beams)?

I realize that you guys may be inspectors, and maybe not structural engineers and that 2) is more of an engineering issue.

Thanks


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 12, 2018)

No you may not rely on the footings/piers as shown as they appear to be substandard.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 12, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> No you may not rely on the footings/piers as shown as they appear to be substandard.



How do they appear to be substandard?


----------



## ICE (Sep 12, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> How do they appear to be substandard?


You have already said that the block-work is suspect.  Being there should provide an answer.  

Of course the floor framing must be secured to a foundation.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 13, 2018)

ICE said:


> You have already said that the block-work is suspect.  Being there should provide an answer.
> 
> Of course the floor framing must be secured to a foundation.



The devil is in the details, esp. when people are inclined to make authorities sounding statements (too common on forums) without sufficient cause.

My comment about the piers was in a conversation about drilling down into them. That would be scary because they are so old.

If I were to attach the beams to the piers, I believe the code is an attachment every 6 ft?.. that would work since the piers are <=6 ft. oc.

I found a piece of newspaper in the attic.. Jan 23, 1948. The piers are old with no visible problems.

This house was well built. The entire outer walls are sheathed in 1x6 planks on diagonal, also, the ceilings are 1x6’s nailed on to the joists.


----------



## north star (Sep 13, 2018)

*& ~ &*

Daniel,

Since none of us on here can accurately assess the condition of the brick
columns, I recommend that you discuss this project with the local
Building Official, if there is one available........He \ she should be able
to provide you guidance on what needs to be done........He \ she [ may ]
require a structural engineer to evaluate the existing brick columns to
determine if they are acceptable to anchor to........If there is no Building
Official available, then you [ may ] want to either go ahead and hire a
licensed structural engineer on your own; for an evaluation, or hire a
registered, licensed & fully competent building designer to design an
approved foundation  [  i.e. - to be approved by the local jurisdiction  ]
before you proceed with anchoring anything to the brick columns.

Yes, the beams need to be securely attached to the foundation.......We
are simply trying to assist you in options for the anchoring, based upon
the brick columns being in an acceptable \ approved condition.

Again, ...if you have not already, please contact the local BO to discuss.
Their [ official ] guidance is what will matter, not ours !

On this Forum, we cannot really provide you with an accurate assessment.
We can offer options, but your local BO will be the one to determine your
course of action.

*& ~ &*


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 13, 2018)

north star said:


> *& ~ &*
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> ...


I found the sc building codes online. Maybe I should be a code inspector. The answers appear to be this:

1) The beams will have to be anchored to the footing because it is a class 3 renovation and the changes are structural and they are related to gravity and lateral loads.

2) The pier and curtain are ok to have, but the footing a) must be continuous to tie piers together and footing must meet code. Also, continuous footing to tie piers together between load bearing walls, which may mean interior load bearing as well.

- I could even build a treated 2x6 stem wall for the foundation wall and replace the piers and beams altogether. This would seem to be the cheapest and easiest solution that meets current code.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 13, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> No you may not rely on the footings/piers as shown as they appear to be substandard.



There's no way to tell that from the picture we have.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 13, 2018)

DB-  Talk to the local building official, and he/she will tell you what to do.  IF the existing piers are in good enough shape to accept fasteners/brackets of some (local building official) approved kind, then you're good to go.  The only way you're going to know, is to ask.  Get him/her to the site, show them what you've got, and go from there.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 13, 2018)

JCraver said:


> DB-  Talk to the local building official, and he/she will tell you what to do.  IF the existing piers are in good enough shape to accept fasteners/brackets of some (local building official) approved kind, then you're good to go.  The only way you're going to know, is to ask.  Get him/her to the site, show them what you've got, and go from there.



I’ve had a discussion with the building inspector at their office. He said that he could not tell me what to do.
In fact, one issue was the length of the potential floor joists. I put on my plan new joists at 16 oc. He told me that that wouldn’t work... looking at the span tables. Then I started talking about alternatives ( I joists, etc) and he said.. “I can’t tell you what to do.. and the only person that can override me is a plan stamped by a structural engineer, etc..
- I looked at the span chart.. problem solved by putting the joists 12” oc.
- I’ve dealt with two different inspection offices in my life. In both, I got different answers to the same question from different inspectors.
- I don’t know what is going on with the inspectors, but So far I am not impressed.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 13, 2018)

As previously noted by you above and in order to assure no future issues, replace the footings with code compliant continuous footings with appropriate beam connections but you may still need an engineer given the water table.
Will you be living in it/renting/selling it?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 13, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> As previously noted by you above and in order to assure no future issues, replace the footings with code compliant continuous footings with appropriate beam connections but you may still need an engineer given the water table.
> Will you be living in it/renting/selling it?



Maybe, but I live in the SC "Lowcountry" so I'm kinda in the same boat as half of the state as far as the water table. A bigger issue than that may be the fact that I live in a seismic zone and reinforced footings will probably be necessary.

I dont know what I will do with the house. I guess that will depend on how this renovation turns out!


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 13, 2018)

So you would be a DIY'r eh?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 13, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> So you would be a DIY'r eh?



Well, If I’ve worked on framing crews for 5-6 years building houses, apartments, etc. and I need to hire someone to make up some beams or build a corner post or a tee or a wall, I’d be pretty sorry, wouldn’T I?


----------



## ICE (Sep 13, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> I found the sc building codes online. Maybe I should be a code inspector.



Don't sell yourself short....there's plenty of engineering stuff online as well.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 14, 2018)

Ok, You are a "technical" framer but not an engineer. Your issue comes down to "engineering" numbers (and code compliance) vs dollars.
It also comes down to "safety".


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Ok, You are a "technical" framer but not an engineer. Your issue comes down to "engineering" numbers (and code compliance) vs dollars.
> It also comes down to "safety".



I also minored in mathematics. I can do the math.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

Video..


----------



## ICE (Sep 14, 2018)

I wouldn't rely on a string level.  Your string level shows the building way out of level.   But maybe not because the string starts a ways away from the end of the wall.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

This doesn't help you with the code questions you're dealing with, but - did you get that house for free, or near it?  All I saw while watching that video was dollar bills....


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> This doesn't help you with the code questions you're dealing with, but - did you get that house for free, or near it?  All I saw while watching that video was dollar bills....



Free. Just paid for land. The cost for materials isn’t bad at all.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ICE said:


> I wouldn't rely on a string level.  Your string level shows the building way out of level.   But maybe not because the string starts a ways away from the end of the wall.



I won’t. The string level is a rough estimate.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> This doesn't help you with the code questions you're dealing with, but - did you get that house for free, or near it?  All I saw while watching that video was dollar bills....



Glad to know I wan't the only one thinking this. Would have appreciated more of the dog in the video


----------



## ICE (Sep 14, 2018)

tmurray said:


> Glad to know I wan't the only one thinking this. Would have appreciated more of the dog in the video


I didn't think that free would be a good deal.  The property might be worth more if the building is gone.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ICE said:


> I didn't think that free would be a good deal.  The property might be worth more if the building is gone.



You really have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## ICE (Sep 14, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about.


Nothing unusual about that.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

Code question.. true or false..

The beam needs to be anchored to the footing. (T/F)
If so, then it should be code compliant if I were to:
  A. Pour continuous footing between existing piers, then anchor the beam to the footing through a new curtain wall?


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

The beam needs to be anchored to the *pier*.

No building official/inspector should make you even expose the footings under those existing piers, let alone pour a new one - *IF the current piers are acceptable / able to take a fastener*, then all you need to do to be compliant is find a way to fasten the beams to the piers.

This is a REPAIR, you're not building new.  Find a way to attach them to what you have.  And I still think a flat 2x tapconned/bolted to the top of them will get you where you need to be.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 14, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> You really have no idea what you are talking about.


Yeah. Maybe. But you have to understand, the building you showed us would be a tear down in a lot of places.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> The beam needs to be anchored to the *pier*.
> 
> No building official/inspector should make you even expose the footings under those existing piers, let alone pour a new one - *IF the current piers are acceptable / able to take a fastener*, then all you need to do to be compliant is find a way to fasten the beams to the piers.
> 
> This is a REPAIR, you're not building new.  Find a way to attach them to what you have.  And I still think a flat 2x tapconned/bolted to the top of them will get you where you need to be.



I was hoping that that was the case, but my interpretation of the code is that this is not a repair, but a renovation class 3. In section 907.3 and 907.4 it appears that for the gravity load what you are saying is true, but for the lateral load (907.4) I would need to have a continuous footer.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> I was hoping that that was the case, but my interpretation of the code is that this is not a repair, but a renovation class 3. In section 907.3 and 907.4 it appears that for the gravity load what you are saying is true, but for the lateral load (907.4) I would need to have a continuous footer.





Daniel Boquist said:


> I was hoping that that was the case, but my interpretation of the code is that this is not a repair, but a renovation class 3. In section 907.3 and 907.4 it appears that for the gravity load what you are saying is true, but for the lateral load (907.4) I would need to have a continuous footer.





JCraver said:


> The beam needs to be anchored to the *pier*.
> 
> No building official/inspector should make you even expose the footings under those existing piers, let alone pour a new one - *IF the current piers are acceptable / able to take a fastener*, then all you need to do to be compliant is find a way to fasten the beams to the piers.
> 
> This is a REPAIR, you're not building new.  Find a way to attach them to what you have.  And I still think a flat 2x tapconned/bolted to the top of them will get you where you need to be.




R404.1.5.3 piers and curtain wall foundations
- permitted providing the following provisions are met..

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


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 14, 2018)

On another note, are the exterior planks asbestos?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> On another note, are the exterior planks asbestos?



Yes. Using mask and disposing of properly.


----------



## ICE (Sep 14, 2018)

tmurray said:


> Yeah. Maybe. But you have to understand, the building you showed us would be a tear down in a lot of places.


The indication is that the foundation of a 70 year old, nondescript house that has seen better days, is failed.  Connecting the building to the foundation might serve a purpose that escapes me.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ICE said:


> The indication is that the foundation of a 70 year old, nondescript house that has seen better days, is failed.  Connecting the building to the foundation might serve a purpose that escapes me.



Please go away. Why are you here?


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

In that shaky-cam video, you can see by the string lines that the piers are pretty much all still level.  That in itself indicates that they are on at least decent footings, so if they are able to accept a fastener that would allow attaching the beams to them, I would have no problem issuing a permit for him to do that.  If he was lifting the whole house and the piers were all falling down it would be different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.  From the evidence we've seen, it's a crappy thing to do to make him put a whole new foundation under that house and I'm not sure the code backs it up.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> Please go away. Why are you here?



DB - Don't be a d _ _ _.  ICE can stand up for himself, but for my part that's not cool.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> In that shaky-cam video, you can see by the string lines that the piers are pretty much all still level.  That in itself indicates that they are on at least decent footings, so if they are able to accept a fastener that would allow attaching the beams to them, I would have no problem issuing a permit for him to do that.  If he was lifting the whole house and the piers were all falling down it would be different, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.  From the evidence we've seen, it's a crappy thing to do to make him put a whole new foundation under that house and I'm not sure the code backs it up.



From my interpretation of the code, the most that I might have to do is pour a footing between the piers.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> DB - Don't be a d _ _ _.  ICE can stand up for himself, but for my part that's not cool.



Every comment that he makes is negative and dismissive not supported by anything.. Just negative offhand opinions. Ridiculous.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

Daniel Boquist said:


> From my interpretation of the code, the most that I might have to do is pour a footing between the piers.



I'm trying to help you use what you have - if you dig and pour new footings all the way around that house, it'd be sheer foolishness to not just pour a wall.  IMO.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

JCraver said:


> I'm trying to help you use what you have - if you dig and pour new footings all the way around that house, it'd be sheer foolishness to not just pour a wall.  IMO.



Thanks.  I guess it is time to see if I can get an inspector out here to see where I stand.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 14, 2018)

That is the smartest thing you have said yet.
Do you know for a fact that:
1. The piers are reinforced?
2. Have footings beneath them?
3. We would call this a cripple house in CA if the piers did not have continuous footings connecting them.
4. A Simpson connector at a minimum would be required for the retrofit you are proposing. They would require being drilled and epoxied into the piers but you piers appear to be brick, no?    
5. What is your seismic zone?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 14, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> That is the smartest thing you have said yet.
> Do you know for a fact that:
> 1. The piers are reinforced?
> 2. Have footings beneath them?
> ...




Of course I want to be as informed as possible before I deal with the building inspectors.
1. No idea. It was built around 1948.
2. I assumed that they did but it appears not when I stick a knife down there.
3. Piers are brick, yes.
4. Yes, in a seismic zone. Do I believe.

If this doesn’t work our it will be an awesome barn/workshop.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 14, 2018)

No footings, no support.

Free is Free


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 15, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> No footings, no support.
> 
> Free is Free



I appreciate your interest and your time. This has gotten me to focus in on the the critical issues. I’ll can now get the inspector out here.

The good thing is that there is only 1 guy from our town so I won’t have different people to deal with.

Since 1948 this house has been through a lot. Hurricane Hugo and only God knows what else and the only real damage to the house is termite damage. No earthquake that I know of though.

Next I need to find out what the codes are for making it a workshop/storage, etc. That itself has to be at least worth 20k or something. It even has a septic tank. My estimates for lumber for the beams, new floor joists, and subfloor are less than 2k.

I have 2 acres here and am getting a new well drilled. I’ve  had a set of plans for years for a house I’ve aimed to build.

I’ll keep this thread updated. Any comments appreciated.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 15, 2018)

Thank you for the rest of the story, no high water intrusion over the years, lath and plaster interior finish?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 15, 2018)

These are living/dining rooms after tearing the floors up. That doorway is under a load bearing wall and were double doors. No header, if you can believe that. 

I had to shore this up with a temporary beam and a doorway opening with a header in order to get this wall jacked up and stable. 

Pucker factor was up there.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 15, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Thank you for the rest of the story, no high water intrusion over the years, lath and plaster interior finish?



No signs of high water intrusion. A couple of moisture spots in a couple of rooms, but nothing significant. House has a thin Sheetrock only discolored in some seams.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 16, 2018)

Carry on sir.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 17, 2018)

Enjoyed this short story DB, please keep us all informed on the project. 

Also, might want to seek out a fastener catalog like Simpson Strong/Tie or USP. They have beam to post tie products that sometimes is called out by a RDP.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 19, 2018)

Ok. Went to the inspector’s office today. Very reasonable.

First definitions. 
1) *Pier* *and* *curtain* *foundation*. Pier and curtain foundations of today are constructed on a continuous footer and the curtain wall was part of the load bearing structure. Older ones like the one that I have were not built on a continuous footer and the curtain wall bore no load.
2) Foundation  incluedes bolts for tie down, etc., does not include girders.

A. If I am not messing with it I do not have to bring it up to current code, eg. foundation.
B. Recommend to remove curtain walls (not part of foundation), dig and pour a reinforced footer between piers with tie down straps embedded in new curtain wall to anchor girders. Curtain wall does not need to be load bearing. I can do this after new girders are in place.
B. No tapcons, no messing with existing piers in any way.

I’m jazzed.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 20, 2018)

Glad you got the answer you were after!

If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there.  Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top.  Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

But it's not my money, and you and your inspector are satisfied, so don't pay any attention to me.    Seriously, I'm glad you figured out a solution that makes everybody happy.

Come back and show us pics when you get it done.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 20, 2018)

See, we weren't too far off, were we?
Make it happen.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 20, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Glad you got the answer you were after!
> 
> If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there.  Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top.  Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.
> 
> ...





JCraver said:


> Glad you got the answer you were after!
> 
> If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there.  Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top.  Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying.  New everything else, why not the piers themselves and just be done with it.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 20, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> See, we weren't too far off, were we?
> Make it happen.



For sure. The surprising thing is that the new footers between the piers and tying the girders is optional!


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 21, 2018)

Let me understand, the piers are reinforced with rebar, have footings beneath and don't require continuous connecting footings to prevent racking side to side, "Interesting".


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 21, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Let me understand, the piers are reinforced with rebar, have footings beneath and don't require continuous connecting footings to prevent racking side to side, "Interesting".



No one is saying that.
To me the main point here is that bringing it up to current code is not required. I would not want you as my building inspector


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 21, 2018)

Interesting case study. Eustace Conway, Watuga county,  of Boone, NC was shut down for building buildings that did not meet current code. He won. NC building code was changed. Now has an an exception for "traditional" structures,etc.

How would you interpret "*intended to be occupied for more than 24 hours consecutively.*"
I interpret it to mean does not have a bathroom. I can't think of anything else that could make you go outside within any 24 hour period.

https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=143-138

*Exclusion for Certain Farm Buildings.* - Building rules do not apply to (i) farm buildings that are located outside the building-rules jurisdiction of any municipality, (ii) farm buildings that are located inside the building-rules jurisdiction of any municipality if the farm buildings are greenhouses or therapeutic equine facilities, (iii) a primitive camp, or (iv) a primitive farm building. For the purposes of this subsection:

A "primitive camp" shall include any structure primarily used or associated with outdoor camping activities, including structures used for educational, instructional, or recreational purposes for campers and for management training, that are (i) not greater than 4,000 square feet in size and (ii) are not intended to be occupied for more than 24 hours consecutively. "Structures primarily used or associated with outdoor camping activities" include, but are not limited to, shelters, tree stands, outhouses, sheds, rustic cabins, campfire shelters, picnic shelters, tents, tepees or other indigenous huts, support buildings used only for administrative functions and not for activities involving campers or program participants, and any other structures that are utilized to store any equipment, tools, commodities, or other items that are maintained or used in conjunction with outdoor camping activities such as hiking, fishing, hunting, or nature appreciation, regardless of material used for construction. *The specific types of primitive camping activities, structures, and uses set forth in this subdivision are for illustrative purposes and should not be construed to limit, in any manner, the types of activities, structures, or uses that are exempted from building rules. *

(5)        A "primitive farm building" shall include any structure used for activities, instruction, training, or reenactment of traditional or heritage farming practices. "Primitive farm buildings" include, but are not limited to, sheds, barns, outhouses, doghouses, or other structures that are utilized to store any equipment, tools, commodities, livestock, or other items supporting farm management. These specific types of farming activities, structures, and uses set forth by this subdivision are for illustrative purposes and should not be construed to limit in any manner the types of activities, structures, or uses that are exempted from building rules.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 21, 2018)

Now it gets "more" interesting. Is your intended use: year round, as habitation, as storage only, as other?
Your safety is the concern of all of us Dan.


----------



## JPohling (Sep 21, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Glad you got the answer you were after!
> 
> If I owned it, and I had to dig down and pour new footings/walls almost all the way around it, I sure wouldn't leave the old brick piers there.  Crib the whole thing up on some blocks, pour new footings and a new wall all the way around, and then set it down on top.  Might cost a bit more, but not enough more that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.
> 
> ...


May actually be less expensive than working around the existing piers


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Sep 21, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Now it gets "more" interesting. Is your intended use: year round, as habitation, as storage only, as other?
> Your safety is the concern of all of us Dan.



Not sure yet. 
Safety. Don’t even know what that means...  literally.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 24, 2018)

Safety: fire, structural, trip & fall, do you intend to insure it?


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Oct 11, 2018)

Don’t want to get ahead of myself. Will see how it turns out.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Oct 21, 2018)

Making some progress. All new beams are in and leveled up.
My biggest issue (at the moment) is some rot that has to be dealt with.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 22, 2018)

Do you have a Simpson catalogue? You will find all your hangers and attachments there.
Video explains a lot.


----------



## Daniel Boquist (Oct 22, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> Do you have a Simpson catalogue? You will find all your hangers and attachments there.
> Video explains a lot.



Yes. I have a catalog and have ordered the beam hangars. They are on the way.
The one thing that I still have an issue with is the screws for the hangars. Lowe’s sells the 1.5 inch ones, but I believe that I need to use longer ones to tie these beams together and for the hangars.
The screws that I need are the 3and 4.5 inch ones, at least. (WS3 and WS45), which I haven’t yet been able to find. When I google WS45 screw I get a lot of results from the MiTek site but only see one place to actually but them, Menards, and they only sell them by the case.
Why doe no one sell these screws? I might use the 1.5s temporarily but would need to change them out before I put the subfloor down. 
It’s always something.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 22, 2018)

Have you tried contacting Simpson directly?


----------

