[mcrevell]

I have a historic home in Southern California that needed the brick foundation replaced. I'll preface by saying that the foundation work has already passed city inspection. However, I'm having some major apprehension about the quality of work and am waiting on the final payment until I'm satisfied things are correct.

The actual concrete pour seems fine. I watched them build the forms, use rebar, etc. I'm more concerned with the fitting all the wood members to the new poured foundation correctly (both structurally and seismically).

First off my old foundation had a cripple wall and the contract said they would bolt everything and brace the cripple wall with ply. However, with the new poured foundation they actually did away with the cripple wall, so the floor joists sit directly on the sill plate now and are (I assume) nailed to the rim joist from the outside.

On three walls the joist bays have blocking, with the blocking strapped to the sill plate. On one wall however there is no blocking, and the ends of the joists are just floating above the sill plate - no shims even. That can't be right??

Then they replaced all the girders and on some of these there were gaps between the new girder and old floor joists that they shimmed with particle board! I asked them to correct that, and instead of shimming with steel they left the particleboard but then sistered the floor joists on one side of the girder so they are making contact with the girder, but the old joists on the other side are still just shimmed with particle board.

I'm not sure that is an effective fix, and also what I should demand be done about the floating joists. Nothing is specifically spelled out in the contract and it did "pass" so I'm not sure how demanding I can be?

 

[Nealtw]

Doing away with the cripple wall is the best.

If the beams and walls are level and the joists are up. that was the condition before anf the hope would be over a few months that it would settle back to where it was when it was built. Sistering to the side of the joist and or a piece of OSB for a shim is fine.
The city down there would not have passed it with out it being up to your new seismic requirement. Did they have the siding off the bottom of the wall on the outside. Often it is a strap nailed to the wall sheeting behind the siding that goes down into the concrete.

 

[stadry]

osb is sufficiently structural for compressive strength ? ? seems like horsepuckey to me

 

[Old Thomas]

According to your post they did not build it in accordance with the contract documents. I would give them a choice, either come back and build it in accordance with the documents or pay for a licensed engineer to evaluate it and determine whether it is adequate and proper and to put his determination in writing. If they refuse, send them a certified return receipt letter giving them notice that they have 10 days from receipt to do what I discussed or you will use their money to do it. That should keep them from suing you for the money and get them to take you seriously. I give you credit for holding money. Do not pay until you are satisfied, while you have money they have motivation to do something.

 

[Nealtw]

According to your post they did not build it in accordance with the contract documents. I would give them a choice, either come back and build it in accordance with the documents or pay for a licensed engineer to evaluate it and determine whether it is adequate and proper and to put his determination in writing. If they refuse, send them a certified return receipt letter giving them notice that they have 10 days from receipt to do what I discussed or you will use their money to do it. That should keep them from suing you for the money and get them to take you seriously. I give you credit for holding money. Do not pay until you are satisfied, while you have money they have motivation to do something.

In California the city would have called for the cripple wall to be replaced with concrete. It's the seismic deal down there. The plywood he mentioned was the second best down there, they make the old cripple walls into shear walls but if you are repairing the foundation, you are replacing the cripple wall.

 

[ron45]

If the contractor built it according to code and it passed

Everything looks good.

Pay the guy.

 

[Old Thomas]

In California the city would have called for the cripple wall to be replaced with concrete. It's the seismic deal down there. The plywood he mentioned was the second best down there, they make the old cripple walls into shear walls but if you are repairing the foundation, you are replacing the cripple wall.

Yea, seismic. Whole lotta shakin goin on....
Whether it passed or not it was not built in accordance with the contract. It sounds like the contract called for a cripple wall that was not built. If it is ok without it, a credit is due.

 

[Nealtw]

Yea, seismic. Whole lotta shakin goin on....
Whether it passed or not it was not built in accordance with the contract. It sounds like the contract called for a cripple wall that was not built. If it is ok without it, a credit is due.

Half the houses down there are single store with a 2 ft wall on the foundation and then the floor. There is no way that would be allowed now, they would want the foundation brought up to the sill under the floor.
So he still has the wall it is just concrete instead of wood. :biggrin2::wink2:

 

[ron45]

Yea, seismic. Whole lotta shakin goin on....
Whether it passed or not it was not built in accordance with the contract. It sounds like the contract called for a cripple wall that was not built. If it is ok without it, a credit is due.

Everything should be in accordance with the contract

Unless.

It doesn't meet code and changes to the plan must be done before a permit will will be issued.

The contractor should have sat down with the owner and filled out a change of work order to be signed by both.