mjr6550

From a structural standpoint engineers typically use the (conservative) rule that the center of gravity of the wall should be withing 1/3 of the thickness of the wall. You would measure how far the wall is out of plumb at the center of its height. What this rule means is that the wall should not be out of plumb by more than 1/6 its thickness at mid-height. I see a lot of retaining walls that are still standing and are way more out of plumb than that. I have also seen retaining walls suddenly fail or shift significantly. Monitoring a wall is not of much help. It may not more significantly until the backfill is saturated or frost heaving occurs and then fail suddenly. It really comes down to design. Is the wall built to withstand typical design forces-most are not.

It looks like fiberglass.

If you cannot find a way to redirect the water away from the house using a swale I would walk away. Drainage work can be expensive and does not always work due site limitations, dumb contractors, etc.

I look at Metal-Fab. This is the closest thing I could find: "10. When installing exterior vent, not enclosed by the structure or a chase, consult local gas utility, appliance manufacturer, and/or authority having jurisdiction." I did not see any requirements to enclosed at the interior. I agree that it is not code required, other than if the manufacturer requires it, then it becomes code required.

I interpreted the last sentence where it says provide repair options as saying that repairshe were needed. Maybe I am being picky. Overall, I don't have a problem with how the inspector reported raise concern?

I have never, ever seen a stone foundation from that period extend more than an inch or two below a dirt floor or an added concrete floor. Not until quite late in the 19th century do they set the foundations deeper. I think you are correct about the foundation not extending below the slab in a house of that age, but I still would not jump to that conclusion when writing a report.

Looked at a bank owned property today for a contractor hired by the bank. He wanted to know what to do to fix the floor system. Here are a few photos, and this was not was the worst of the problems. Maybe if they attach the 2x4 to the slab it will be ok. Click to Enlarge 44.46 KB Click to Enlarge 43.96 KB Click to Enlarge 34.46 KB Click to Enlarge 37.66 KB Click to Enlarge 42.21 KB

It is a valid concern, but you seem to jump to the conclusion that it is a problem. Depending upon the soil type and depth of the foundation wall, it may not be a problem. I have seen stone foundation walls extend quite a bit below the basement floor slab. Recommending further evaluation is proper in this case. As a structural engineer, I have concerns recommending a foundation contractor. Companies that repair foundations for a living may recommend a solution that is not needed. Personally, I think footing is more professional. Footer is a slang term. For those not familiar with stone foundations, it is common that they do not have a true footing. Recommended practice was to place large stones on the ground as a type of footing. They may or may not have been wider than the width of the foundation walls. Where I have seen the bottom of the foundation walls I don't recall seeing any that were significantly wider at the bottom.

I was recently reading a book on framing (1909 vintage) and came across a reference to block foundations. It mentions using 8x12x24 block. Download Attachment: Concrete Block-from book titled Framing-1909.pdf 363.2 KB

You must get a lot of time for lunch.

Chad, I was reading some old publications about block the other day. From what I read, some blocks were being produced on a very limited basis as far back as about the 1850's, but not much as all until at least 1900. Seems like about 1906 was the real beginning of the industry. I save a few references to blocks about 8 to 10 inches by 24 to 32 inches long. The standardization came about in the 1920's. Click to Enlarge 49.85 KB Here are a couple of good references: Concrete-Block Manufacture-Processes and Machines the manufacture of Concrete Blocks and their use in Building Construction both published in 1906, written by H.H. Rice. Copies are on the web.

Bill, I think the specific distance is a utility company requirement. I thought PECO used 15 feet, but I have never confirmed that.

More often than not, the conditionsame you are seeing relate to sagging floor joists or beams, but foundation settlement is a possibility. At most areas the amount of movement does not appear to be a concern. Someone knowledgeable would need to determine what is causing the movement. Deteriorated framing in crawl spaces can be an expensive repair. BTW, settling relates to foundation movement and can be a serious concern. I have heard inspectors refer to movement as "just settlement". In my opinion that is a bad choice of words. Perhaps they mean that the movement is typical deflection (i.email. sagging) of joists or beams.

By the late 1920's block was pretty much standardized as 8x16. As Bill said, there were forms to produce block in the late 1800's. Sizes varied quite a bit, and odd stuff was not uncommon. In 1895 it is still common to see some cut nails used for framing. I look for construction features (gas piping, nails, etc.) to try and get an idea of age.

I view Zip sheathing as a good air barrier and more forgiving if water gets past the WRB(s). I would not use it as a WRB. I have no evidence to back that up. Just my opinion. Its could be a very expensive mistake to trust it as a WRB. I would wait about 20 years or so before I would trust it.

I don't disagree with much of what you posted, but when you look into it, most of the "structural adhesives" are not rated for true structural use (as in load carrying applications as specified in codes) or do not have code-approved load ratings. As an engineer, I have to deal with numbers even in cases where common sense may be enough. My point about engineers approving things that they should not approve relates to engineers approving things because they are not familiar with what is required. Your point about engineers and old buildings is right on. I only understand old buildings because of performing thousands of home inspections. You do not learn that stuff in school or sitting in a office designing new structures.

Quality control and adhesive use are part of the same equation. Construction adhesive works fine for sistering. It's just a house, with minimal loads. And it's sistered fer chrissakes, which is about as anemic a repair as I've ever done and it works fine. We've built boxed beams and boxed damaged truss with plywood and construction adhesive. The repairs were designed by us, and approved by a structural engineer. It works fine. Some of this gets a little rarified when the engineers get hold of it. It's just a house. "Typical" wood glue isn't anything I recognize as a material. I don't know what typical wood glue is. Elmers? Titebond? Gorilla? The builders of cold molded boats...that rely completely on adhesives to hold together wildly complex compound curves and structural components that experience shattering loads and perform for decades... would be amused at the idea of adhesives creeping. Resorcinol and epoxies are the primary adhesives. They don't creep. Angled bolts move, no doubt. There's a local architectural firm that only builds institutional projects (schools, hospitals), specifies carriage bolts for a lot of structural applications. Where's it say carriage bolts aren't approved for structural use? Kurt, Some engineers approve things that maybe should not be approved. I agree that loads are generally small, etc., but when I approve something I am concerned about liability. If a product is not rated for structural use I would not use it. I recently saw a structural repair spec by an engineer that called for deck type, or general purpose, screws. They may work, but again, are not approved. The typical wood glue I was referring to is polyvinyl acetate (PVA), Titebond, Elmers, etc. I can't picture this creeping, but they say it can. Remember, unless a manufacturer publishes reliable strength specs and does not limit use in structural applications an engineer should not be specifying it (unless they want to do their own testing to show that the product will work). The carriage bolt statement was from a Simpson seminar. I have not researched that. but I believe that the issues are crushing of wood at the bolt head (maybe smaller than a washer?). Also, I believe that there are not strength specs that apply to typical carriage bolts, so they could be made out of any kind of steel. That may not seem like much of a factor, and it probably is not with sistering, but could be at times. Bolts can be over-stressed by over-tightening.

Maybe a typo, but residential steam boiler relief valves are 15 psi.

I will try to respond to several posts. Glue can be strong, but quality control is a concern. Also, the type of glue is important. Most glues are not approved for structural use. Construction adhesive and typical wood glue can creep under load. Polyurethane glue does not creep and can be used for structural purposes, but it is a mess to work with. Carriage bolts are not approved for structural use, and my concern with the angled installation is that there may be more movementbetween boards. Plywood is a poor choice when bending is involved. Half the thickness is not effective because it is oriented the wrong way. Also, it is not graded or rated for bending. Full length sisters are always best, and the fastening pattern does not really matter if the sister joists is in contact with the subflooring. However, it is often not practical. When the damage to a joist effects and significant length of the joist it can be the only way to go.

Many people have an opinion as to the best way to sister floor joists. However, I have never found any reliable information regarding the subject. I have performed calculations, but they usually result in using an excessive number of fasteners. I don't like to over-engineer things if not needed, or fail a contractor's work without good reason. Last winter when things were slow I set up a somewhat crude test rig and ran some tests on floor joists and sistered floor joists. I did not run many tests, and I am unsure about the accuracy. I suggested running similar tests at a university testing lab, and it seems like I have some interest. I need to develop a testing program and was looking for any input. In general terms, I am thinking about sistering for a joist damaged near mid-span and for a joist damaged near a bearing end. I would like to test nails, lag bolts, Simpson SDS bolts or similar, and bolts with nuts. If time or budget permits, it would be nice to test some improper options, like fewer fasteners than needed, deck screws, and maybe carriage bolts installed at an angle. Any input? See attached for some background. Download Attachment: floor joist testing-TIJ.pdf 530.01 KB

] Yes. I have never seen one hidden. However, on very old boilers they are in the piping and not on the boiler. That would be about 1950's? or older.

You are assuming that the brick veneer will not move during the process, or will be supported. Then you are creating many holes in the zip sheathing to install the (very expensive) fasteners. Anything is possible, but almost nobody would get the details correct. If they found a way to do this properly it would probably cost way more than just rebuilding it correctly.

You tear off the veneer and start over because with damage like that the WRB and flashingsee need to be replaced also. Anything less is a bandaid.

I think this forum should ban discussions of personal hygiene of its members. At this point I know more about Kurt than I ever wanted to know. Despite how hard I try, I'm afraid I will never get certain images out of my head.

This is one of the best sentences I have read in a long time. I'm glad to see some sense come into this thread. I would ask permission to move them if someone was around, but otherwise I would carefully move them (I grew up around shotguns and rifles). I though about posting that sooner, but was not looking forward to being called an idiot.