question about piers and underpinnings (supports/posts) in crawl space (floors, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our house is 11 yrs old and in great shape (in midwest small town, $330k). Has finished basement with a small crawl space. We are selling and our Relocation Company ordered an inspection (3-hr affair--whew). Inspector says that the 3 support posts in the crawl are undersized (and they're wood)--that they need to be replaced with concrete. How do I find out what Building code was 11 yrs ago to know if our builder skimped on this?
Also, how best/easiest/least expensive way to deal with this? I figure if we hire a contractor, he'll come in and jack up the beam and remove the existing posts and put in a new one--concrete blocks, maybe? OR, maybe we could leave the exisiting ones in place and right next to them place new piers and posts without risking the jacking-up of the support beam with hydraulic lifts. Seems that would be less work?
Any ideas, thoughts, suggestions? I'd sure appreciate it!
Thanks!
Tab
Call the local building dept and ask them. It is possible that the home inspector is incorrect.
Having a wood post may not be a problem at all. Of course, it would have to have the proper footing uner and be secured at the top and bottom, but it should be OK as long as it's sized properly.
A support has to be at least as wide as the beam it is supporting. Usually a main beam is going to be three 2x's fastened together, so the post would have to be a 6x6. It the beam is just doubled 2x's, then a 4x4 would work, IF it's not too high, then it has to be a 6x6 anyway. But the local building official has the last word at any rate. Check with them.
First off, I would call the county and ask them about building codes that were in existence 11 years ago.
I bought a small house to flip 5-6 years ago and we had it jacked with hydraulic lifts and the existing posts were reinforced not removed and replaced...we paid about $1000...
I was just looking at the pics that the inspector took. I guess I see why they are "undersized"--each "post" consists of 2, 2x6s made into an "L". So, that's not a 6x6. I suppose the builder skimped on that! Can't tell from the picture what the beam consists of. They are placed on concrete footings, but soil got moved up next to the wood, over the top of the concrete. The posts are about 4' tall.
Usually if somebody is going to cite some type of non-code compliance event, say from the local building dept, they also include the particular section, paragraph, number, etc of the governing document in question for your reference. Specifically as it pertains to the local code enforcement requirements. Maybe ask this inspector to do the same.
Not as simple as it sounds. A lot of this stuff a Philadelphia lawyer could not understand. Many building dept's it will be on a computer or maybe a CD-ROM and usually you can review it there. Least attempt to look up the reference in question.
Most will answer questions about how it all applies, but don't expect it to be simple. The standard answer is they do not do consulting engineering and you should see an architect if you get too detailed. Draw it up in gruesome detail, submit an application to have an application (I'm not kidding about that, (cost like $70, to have permission to file an application). They also have forever to solve whatever, the wheels of Bureaucracy grind ever so slow.
What is the support size? Is it pressure treated wood? How is it attached to the beams it is supporting? Good pix helps. What type of footing does it have?
Today many of the places will kick back the support columns based on the footings involved. You got to have a cubic yard or so of concrete with rebar, etc, etc, etc. Nothing like over kill.
It is not that big a deal. If they do have to be modified, you do not really have to jack anything up. Maybe some temporary cribbing, jack to take up the column load temporary, either dig it out or sister up whatever is required, depending on what is determined to be exactly required.
Looking closely at those columns that "Passed" might be one good indication of what the fix is. Just ask "If I make these three columns exactly like that other one over there, will that be satisfactory"? Or did no columns pass, is three all there is?? If there are no "Good" columns are there other houses in your neighborhood that have similar construction that you can go have a peek and see what is different. Somebody must have messed up and got it right.
Anywho, best if you can keep it simple, play dumb, get the most simple solution with the least expense and effort. Simply ask the inspector what is required to make them acceptable. Never fight City Hall. Smile and be pleasant, let them tell you how much they know. Go with the flow. Belay my comment about rubbing the inspectors nose in it for a code reference.
There is also another principle involved which is sort of funny. Once a house is built, they go thru all the loops, it gets inspected (at least in theory a zillion times), approved a zillion times and you live in it for 11 years, it sort of is grandfathered in terms of code changes. It only had to meet the requirements of its day, even if there is a mistake, it was approved and if nothing is Earth shattering unsafe you do not have to change. Could you imagine the smiles if every house had to be upgraded to current code in every detail, even if you never sold it. Where exactly and how do you draw the line. We could wipe out unemployment in our own time.
Would you not love it if the airplane industry was run the way the housing industry is? First we build it basically not to spec, with inferior materials, our inspections are a joke, we have a zillion different versions of the same rules, each airport determines. It may or may not fly on any given day but you get to pay top dollar to fix all the defects (real or unreal), however minor or whoever fault they may be. If fixed we still do not guarantee it will fly.
Whatever, I would simply ask around very unofficial like if the inspector does not give you a satisfactory solution. Is he saying, he is too reinspect or are you being thrown into the clutches of the local authority? Best to open as few cans of worms as possible by understanding the process and hoops to be jumped thru. Is it even optional to forget it, kick the buyer a few bucks????
Just go out and dig away the soil down to the footing. See if the column is embedded in the footing or just sitting on the surface.
Maybe as simple as putting in more wood in the form of another L to make it square, maybe even adding enough to make it a solid 6 x 6.
Maybe you pour a tad more concrete to make it look slick and proper.
I hate these threads when it never turns out to be highly complex with impossible solutions.
With that 4 foot of overhead, you might even be able to get in there to do it without a real struggle. Can't buy a decent problem these days. You may have to look at the method of attachment to the beam also. Probably needs a positive securement, not just not be sitting on the support column. Rats you also never sezs the inspection also gave you a glossy photo either. We have been led astray. Did some columns get done right and 3 get short changed? Inquiring minds want to know? If so you would have the best reference of what to do.
H,mmm that still leaves the question is wood totally unsatisfactory as a material? What exactly is required in masonry? The plot could thicken still. Don't tell me they want poured concrete in tube forms? Maybe laid up brick columns like the old dazes.
This still has a chance at getting complex. What about the metal / concrete standard lolly columns so often used for support? Those are different sized steel pipes that are filled with concrete and come with standard methods of attachements. Is that what they really want? Pretty cheap and easy to work with. Can be easily cut to size.
I was just looking at the pics that the inspector took. I guess I see why they are "undersized"--each "post" consists of 2, 2x6s made into an "L". So, that's not a 6x6. I suppose the builder skimped on that! Can't tell from the picture what the beam consists of. They are placed on concrete footings, but soil got moved up next to the wood, over the top of the concrete. The posts are about 4' tall.
Thanks,
Tab
I would sy that either the inspector errored then;the code was different orthere was no code. basically the code should have been enforced by teh county inspector. Happens all the time when you go from no code then have to bring it upto code when selling.
Let's see, I have since learned that there is no code in our village! Sheesh. So, what does that mean for this repair? I've learned that the support needs to be at least as wide as the beam it's supporting--looking at it from the angle of the crawl entrance, it looks big enough--but only because of the angle. If, like Cosmic suggested, add something in the "center" of the 2x6s and add 2 more 2x6s to create a "full" column, then it can't be termed "undersized", can it?
At this point, I'm looking to only "remedy" the remarks in the inspection report which state "undersized posts in the crawl space".
I have lived in several homes that were built with 4x4 posts holding up one 2x6 or two 2x6s nailed together. Never had any problems and never got an "undersized posts" in an inspection report. if the configuration has been there for all this time with no problems, what is the need to suddenly change it? If there is no code, then you do not need to worry about meeting code. Is there a problem? Are the floors sagging? Maybe the sizing issue is becuase this is relatively new lumber which is not very strong. Still I would get a second and maybe a thrid opinion.
"Let's see, I have since learned that there is no code in our village! Sheesh. So, what does that mean for this repair? "
It means that common sense applies! If you are handy, it could be as simple as cutting some 2x6s and attaching them to the existing supports. While lateral support is important, the bulk of those forces are at the perimeter of a building, so I'd be making sure the support was firmly attached, and resistant to insect damage or rot, and leave it at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds pretty hokey to me........
