# Sagging floors, over spanned joists, load bearing walls without support and more



## technique

I don't know if this is the proper forum for this, but I am undertaking a project in a 1927 Bungalow to fix a number of issues with the first floor of the house and thought I'd document it here and invite comment along the way. Hopefully it will help others out in the future and help me out if I'm doing something that could be done "better".

Problems:
1) Floors are sagging
2) Joists are 2X8 spanning 13"11 and 14'1" and bending downward
3) Under the 4 load bearing walls there are no columns or extra support (only a double 2X8 joist)
4) Joists are notched and hanging on by a thread in the center beam of the house (3 2X8's sandwiched together) on a ledger strip that's about 2X2 at best. (On the other side they are properly resting on a sill plate on the foundation.

Interesting Fact:
1) Approx 10 years ago (who knows in reality) a second floor addition was built with no additional support on the first floor. My PE informed me that all the weight is coming down on two load bearing walls of the house and below these load bearing walls are 2 2X8 13'1" joists sandwiched together. Woah!
2) We discovered through some detective work that the existing lally column under the main beam of the house has no footer, they are just on the concrete slab.
3) We also discovered that there USED to be columns under the load bearing walls, but they were removed and there are no footers there either.


So, the PE ran all the numbers and the plan is:

1) Install proper (24X24X12 with 3#5 each way rebar) footers under every 4" column to be installed. (6 in total)
2) Jack all joists to level with lots of 20-ton bottle jacks and lots of 8X8 lumber
3) Sister every existing 2X8 with machine graded SYP #2
4) Install 4" lally columns under the load bearing walls to split the span in half
5) Install 4" lally colums under the main beam of the house
6) Sister the existing joists under the load bearing walls with LVLs on each side
7) Remove the existing ledger strip and replace with joist hangers
8) Clean up all the horrible electrical/plumbing mess over the years

Turns out that the existing 2X8 floor joists are 1.75" wide actual width, so the new width once they are sistered with the new 2X8 SYP#2 joists will be 3.25" wide which is requiring custom made joist hangers.


OK, I think that's enough for now, I'll post a few pictures of the main beam, and floor as we're going to be cutting out the slab today to prepare the ground for the new footers.


----------



## jlhaslip

this will be fun to watch. post pictures please.

I think most of us have been on a job like this. good luck. have fun.


----------



## technique

jlhaslip said:


> this will be fun to watch. post pictures please.
> 
> I think most of us have been on a job like this. good luck. have fun.


Crap, I can't post pictures because of the 15-post rule. Let me go contribute a bit and I'll brb...


----------



## genecarp

Please complete your profile, and continue to the intro page and tell us a little about yourself and your professional experience, thankyou and welcome to ct"
gmod


----------



## technique

Picture of the existing floor joists and ledger strip:














The existing center lally just sitting on the slab:










Existing Center Lally:












Picture of one of the existing double joists supporting a load bearing wall:












Closeup of how the existing top of the lally is supported:


----------



## technique

The water cooled diamond cutting saw:











First Footer cut out (2'X2'):











I dunno, maybe 2" thick? Great slab:










Rest of the cuts in the center:


----------



## technique

genecarp said:


> Please complete your profile, and continue to the intro page and tell us a little about yourself and your professional experience, thankyou and welcome to ct"
> gmod


Done!


----------



## Ayerzee

Another engineering marvel


----------



## plazaman

how did you lift that section out in 1 piece?


----------



## Cole82

Cool project. 
Keep the pics comeing.


----------



## jlhaslip

plazaman said:


> how did you lift that section out in 1 piece?


looks like the one on the right has anchor drilled into it. probably pulled on a bolt in the anchor.

got the shovel warmed up?


----------



## technique

jlhaslip said:


> looks like the one on the right has anchor drilled into it. probably pulled on a bolt in the anchor.
> 
> got the shovel warmed up?


Correct! Drilled a 3/4" hole with a masonry bit, anchored it, eye hook bolt to pull it out. The two we did not pull out still have columns on top of them, but the ground underneath is sufficiently compacted so they did not move hardly at all after being cut.


Shovels are ready to go for Monday. We're doing our final rundown of materials today, picking up some last remaining items and double checking all our numbers before we move forward. I'll post some more pics of the materials later today.


----------



## KennMacMoragh

Cool, did you have a question?


----------



## technique

KennMacMoragh said:


> Cool, did you have a question?


No. Just documenting the project and inviting comments/suggestions along the way. Hopefully serving as a model/reference for others doing similar projects in the future


----------



## technique

Actually, I would like to open this question up to the group: Now that I have the concrete cut out to pour the footers where the 4" pipe columns will be resting, what's the suggested method for doing so? We're doing 24X24X12 footers, but there are several options (I have marked with a "*" the option I was planning to do):

1) Expansion joint? (yes/no*)
2) ACTUAL footer depth:
a) Should the footer be 12" deep measuring from the top of the slab?
b) Should the footer be 12" deep measuring from the bottom of the slab? (Effectively 2" extra since the slab depth is 2")
c) Should the footer be 12" deep measuring from 6" below the top of the slab?* (Effectively 6" extra)
3) Pipe column attachment to footer?
a) put the pipe column attachment plate in the footer while the concrete is wet then bolt the pipe column to the plate after the concrete is dry
b) put the pipe column attachment plate in the footer with bolts protruding upwards while the concrete is wet and then attach the pipe column to the bolts after the concrete is dry
c) pour the footer 6" below the top of the concrete, put the pipe column attachment plate with bolts in the concrete while still wet, then after it dries attach the pipe column, then pour the rest of the concrete to level with the slab.*

Comments welcome.


----------



## jlhaslip

slab depth - 12" plus the slab thickness.
expansion joint - yes, keep the footer/slab pour separated from the existing slab. it can be all one pour inside the cut-out
column - to avoid a second pour, I would pour and finish the footer/slab, then place the column foot onto the slab after it has cured. Time for 85% strength is 7 days if I remember correctly. 
Is there an Engineer involved? Ask them for details.

if you can do a second pour (schedule wise) pour the footer, place the column and bear weight after 7 days and then top up the slab would look better, IMHO.

poly under the footer? rebar pattern? how are you supporting the floor after removing the other posts?

don't rush it.


----------



## technique

jlhaslip said:


> ...
> 
> poly under the footer? rebar pattern? how are you supporting the floor after removing the other posts?
> 
> don't rush it.


We've got plenty of time here ($$$), so the goal is to go slow and do it right. We're going to do 2 pours.

Wasn't planning on doing poly under the footer, but that's a good idea even though our soil is pretty moist, I think I'll add that to the plan.

Yes, rebar, 3#5 each way for ALL footers. (Should have mentioned that)

As for supporting the floor, right now it's NOT supported in 4 places where we are adding columns  Where the other 2 columns are we will be jacking up the entire floor, so we will have multiple floor jacks with 4" columns supporting it. I was planning to use 8X8 lumber in 12' lengths both beneath and above the jacks, so the configuration will look like this:

On the floor - 8"X8"X12' lumber with two 20 ton bottle jacks about 2 feet from either end sitting on 1/2" thick steel plates.

On the bottle jacks themselves - 4" steel column

On top of the 2 steel columns across the floor joists - 8'X8'X12" lumber

Then SLOWLY (1/8" in the morning, 1/8" at night) jack the joists to level.

Sort of like this picture here, except only one 8X8 on the floor, well, actually, exactly like this picture:


----------



## KennMacMoragh

Did you cut your squares exactly 24" x 24"? Or did you cut them bigger? Curious because if you cut them the size of the footer, then how are you going to build your form? Or were you just planning on pouring them into the dirt?


----------



## jlhaslip

forms would not be required. pour to the dug sidewall. 

You could likely get more aggressive with the jacks early in the program.

Problem with your approach is that Hydraulic jacks have been known to loss their oil over time, so I would suggest that you have a look at another approach to maintaining the elevation throughout the day/night. Maybe place a screw jack beside each hyd jack, or another lolly post the can be snugged with a screw adjustment? or a shimmable set-up? Wedges?

Also, set the jacks on some 2 x material with 3/4 " plywood pieces on top of and under them so the load gets transfered across both bottom beams equally. make the plywood and 2 by's at least as wide as the pair of 8x's. (Sandwich the 2x's with 3/4 ply top and bottom, set the length of the 2x's across the beams). 

Another thing, drill holes into the 6x6 steel plate and loosely screw them up on the beam. It will be easier to deal with something screwed in place and it won't come crashing down. 
Try to nail up some sort of frame to place around the 6 x 6 steel plate so the lolly post gets trapped up top in case something goes wrong. (Not that anything will.) or use plumber's strap to hold that lolly post up?

I've done this a few times... :lol:


----------



## technique

KennMacMoragh said:


> Did you cut your squares exactly 24" x 24"? Or did you cut them bigger? Curious because if you cut them the size of the footer, then how are you going to build your form? Or were you just planning on pouring them into the dirt?


Cut them exactly 24"x24". Plan is to pour them with NO form. At most I will line the walls with some blue-sill foam, or poly sheets. Maybe a combo, poly on the bottom, foam on the sidewalls.


----------



## technique

jlhaslip said:


> forms would not be required. pour to the dug sidewall.


That's the plan, maybe some foam or poly sheets.



jlhaslip said:


> You could likely get more aggressive with the jacks early in the program.


You mean starting off with 1/4" instead of 1/8" at a time? Ya, I am hoping this is the case, I guess I will let my eyes and ears be the judge of when enough is enough for the day 



jlhaslip said:


> Problem with your approach is that Hydraulic jacks have been known to loss their oil over time, so I would suggest that you have a look at another approach to maintaining the elevation throughout the day/night. Maybe place a screw jack beside each hyd jack, or another lolly post the can be snugged with a screw adjustment? or a shimmable set-up? Wedges?


Hmmm, I was hoping that by using plenty of 20-ton bottle jacks (hopefully overkill) I would not run into that problem. But, I guess I could pick a couple of adjustable lally columns and place them next to the bottle jacks.



jlhaslip said:


> Also, set the jacks on some 2 x material with 3/4 " plywood pieces on top of and under them so the load gets transfered across both bottom beams equally. make the plywood and 2 by's at least as wide as the pair of 8x's. (Sandwich the 2x's with 3/4 ply top and bottom, set the length of the 2x's across the beams).


You prefer a 3/4" ply + 2x10 (or 2X12) + 3/4" ply sandwich over an 8X8? Please elaborate.

Like so? (Caution, I am an expert at using MS Paint):












jlhaslip said:


> Another thing, drill holes into the 6x6 steel plate and loosely screw them up on the beam. It will be easier to deal with something screwed in place and it won't come crashing down.
> Try to nail up some sort of frame to place around the 6 x 6 steel plate so the lolly post gets trapped up top in case something goes wrong. (Not that anything will.) or use plumber's strap to hold that lolly post up?


We're definitely planning on fastening the steel plates above to the beam. Had not planned on framing it or using a plumbers strap to secure the lolly, although that couldn't hurt. I think the plumbers strap is the way to go. Thanks.



jlhaslip said:


> I've done this a few times... :lol:


Good, because this is my first time doing this with load bearing walls above. :whistling


----------



## AustinDB

if you've cut them 24" square and you need 24" square of concrete...there is no room for foam.

can anyone provide clarification for the depth of the footing being below the slab or level with the slab (16" vs 12")? I would have been inclined to think a single 12" deep pour would have been sufficient in this case.

earlier you mentioned 1.75" joist hangers-the Simpson HU7 may be just the ticket, it's 7.25" high and 1.75" wide. The Simpson Strong-Tie book w/ all of the connectors offered is a great resource tool to have on your shelf.


----------



## AustinDB

I prefer to use large beams or built up 2x12 beams for jacking to spread the force. Ensuring the jacks are under point loads, which it sounds like the PE did. As far as multiple jacks, It would depend on the number of point loads and beams and deflection in the beam as you're jacking it up. Always have something for the 'fall' onto-the lally columns could be in place and snugged as you go. I've used a string before to determine how much I've taken out/need to go up still and it can aid in helping you to chart the movement (one end tied to either side of house)-choose a good nylon string and keep it taut.


----------



## technique

72chevy4x4 said:


> if you've cut them 24" square and you need 24" square of concrete...there is no room for foam.
> 
> can anyone provide clarification for the depth of the footing being below the slab or level with the slab (16" vs 12")? I would have been inclined to think a single 12" deep pour would have been sufficient in this case.
> 
> earlier you mentioned 1.75" joist hangers-the Simpson HU7 may be just the ticket, it's 7.25" high and 1.75" wide. The Simpson Strong-Tie book w/ all of the connectors offered is a great resource tool to have on your shelf.


I'm fine going from 24" square to 23.75" (or so) square with the foam. The PE overengineered everything by a decent margin, so if we have to make the footer a bit smaller, we're good.

I always poured my footers 6" below the slab, and sometimes right below the slab if necessary, but never flush with the slab. Just the way I've done it, so I'd like some clarification on the pros/cons as well.

As for the 1.75" joist hangers, the EXISTING joists are 1.75", so once we sister with 2X8 (1.5" actual width), we'll need 3.25" joist hangers.

FWIW, I just checked and the HU7's are $7.25 each!  Looks like they are heavy gauge for LVLs.



72chevy4x4 said:


> I prefer to use large beams or built up 2x12 beams for jacking to spread the force. Ensuring the jacks are under point loads, which it sounds like the PE did. As far as multiple jacks, It would depend on the number of point loads and beams and deflection in the beam as you're jacking it up. Always have something for the 'fall' onto-the lally columns could be in place and snugged as you go. I've used a string before to determine how much I've taken out/need to go up still and it can aid in helping you to chart the movement (one end tied to either side of house)-choose a good nylon string and keep it taut.


Good advice. I'm still debating about a large beam (8X8) vs stacked 2X12's on the floor under the jacks. I think they are both fine although the 2X12 "seems" like it would spread the load better.

For the top, I'm actually thinking about using 2 or 3 LVLs sandwiched together against the floor joists on top instead of a single 8X8. Never done it that way before though. That would certainly reduce any deflection in the beam as I'm jacking up I would think.


----------



## AustinDB

built up 2x12's may in deed be 'stronger' than a single 8x8 and a doubled 10" LVL may be stronger than the 2 12's...

just to nit pick: "I'm fine going from 24" square to 23.75" (or so) square with the foam." don't get caught in a trap here. If the PE specs 24" square and you fail to deliver and the structure fails down the road, you did not build to spec by reason of the PE or IRC, it may be up to you to pick up the pieces. a PE is like an insurance policy-don't let your coverage lapse by not building to his spec. if changes are made, get a paper trail 

"FWIW, I just checked and the HU7's are $7.25 each! " suck it up man, the Simpson stuff is expensive. last job I bought 4x4 post connectors for (heavy duty versions) they were around $25/each.


----------



## technique

72chevy4x4 said:


> built up 2x12's may in deed be 'stronger' than a single 8x8 and a doubled 10" LVL may be stronger than the 2 12's...
> 
> just to nit pick: "I'm fine going from 24" square to 23.75" (or so) square with the foam." don't get caught in a trap here. If the PE specs 24" square and you fail to deliver and the structure fails down the road, you did not build to spec by reason of the PE or IRC, it may be up to you to pick up the pieces. a PE is like an insurance policy-don't let your coverage lapse by not building to his spec. if changes are made, get a paper trail
> 
> "FWIW, I just checked and the HU7's are $7.25 each! " suck it up man, the Simpson stuff is expensive. last job I bought 4x4 post connectors for (heavy duty versions) they were around $25/each.


I think I will go with doubled up 2X12s and plywood. Dunno about the LVLs though...

Ya, I agree with you on the PE's specs. I remeasured the 24" square after they dug them out today and it's 24 3/8", so we've got room for foam, but I don't know if I want to go that route, I am tempted to just pour over a sheet of poly on the bottom.

Ya, Simpson stuff is expensive, in fact, the job is going to require having to pay $9.50/hanger for custom made 3.25" wide ones from Simpson. :glare:


----------



## technique

Couple of pictures from digging today.

Right in the center of the basement slab, what do we find? A live tree root, no doubt from the large 80+ year old oak in the backyard!











Footer hole dug out to 15" total depth (12" below slab):











We stopped at 15" below the top of the slab because the dirt (red clay) is incredibly well packed. I think going 6" below the surface of the slab (18" total depth) is not necessary, so we're going to pour the footer 12" deep from the bottom of the slab (approx 15" below the top of the slab).


----------



## technique

Picked up some materials today to begin pouring the footers tomorrow. Got 5000 psi concrete, rebar, and placed the order for 4" steel columns and 8" square 1/2" thick plates to put both below and above the columns once they are in place. (One plate on top of the footer, one plate bolted to the joists above.

Of note, we had 2 days of straight rain and one of the footer holes started to fill up just a little with water. I guess the water table is pretty high around here. Anyway, I don't think this will alter the plans, but I will put in about 1/2"-1" of pea gravel on the bottom before putting the poly down.

Pics of the pouring and other stuff tomorrow.


----------



## Vrooman

Is it a Canadian thing to install a telo-post with the threads at the top? I've seen lots of pictures from the states with them "upside down".....I dunno, maybe i have been holding the instructions upside down


----------



## loneframer

Vrooman said:


> Is it a Canadian thing to install a telo-post with the threads at the top? I've seen lots of pictures from the states with them "upside down".....I dunno, maybe i have been holding the instructions upside down


 I'm required to pour the threads in concrete so as they cannot be tampered with. Code Enforcement will not allow threads up in my municipality.:thumbsup:


----------



## katoman

Looking good :thumbsup: Keep the pics coming.

We install posts with the thread down as framerman has said.

FYI - If you ever come across 'helical gear jacks' at a good price, snap them up. Bottle jacks come down all at once, where as the gear jacks are jacked up and jacked down.

I believe they are used by the railroads for jacking railcars. Mine is a 25 ton jack and love it. Sometimes it's nice to jack down just a hair.


----------



## katoman

Sorry, Loneframer, not framerman.

Too many framers :laughing:


----------



## Warren

You got lucky and only had a slab that was 2 inches thick. Anymore, I rent a jackhammer to remove the slabs. Often times we find them to be 5 or 6 inches. We use an sds with a 5/8 bit and drill holes around the perimiter. Then bust out the jackhammer. No dust and actually quicker than the partner saw on the thick slabs. You can also use the jackhammer to break up the compacted soil. We recently did a remodel that required the installation of 2 beams that weighed over #1000 each. One of the bearing loads was more than #30k. I think that footer pad ended up being 30x30x24. Man I miss the new framing. When is this recession gonna be over so I can get back to that?


----------



## AustinDB

technique said:


> pea gravel on the bottom before putting the poly down.


I would skip the pea gravel and instead dip out the water then pour in enough dry concrete to soak up the wetness. Did the PE spec 5000 lb mix? if you've got money to burn pick up the early strength mix


----------



## technique

72chevy4x4 said:


> I would skip the pea gravel and instead dip out the water then pour in enough dry concrete to soak up the wetness. Did the PE spec 5000 lb mix? if you've got money to burn pick up the early strength mix


No pea gravel huh? I was just thinking about getting some sort of drainage under the footer.

PE did not spec out any specific type of concrete. My concrete guy said he likes quik-crete 5000 psi even though it's overkill. I believe that is the early strength stuff


----------



## Vrooman

loneframer said:


> I'm required to pour the threads in concrete so as they cannot be tampered with. Code Enforcement will not allow threads up in my municipality.:thumbsup:


I have never heard of that, up here they want the thread accessible for adjustment when the beam shrinks


----------



## Warren

Vrooman said:


> I have never heard of that, up here they want the thread accessible for adjustment when the beam shrinks


Code here says threads go in the concrete too!! I think its to make sure no future idiots tamper with or try to remove the post. If the beam shrinks, wont the rest of the wood in the house shrink too? Wheres the adjustment for that?


----------



## technique

Vrooman said:


> Is it a Canadian thing to install a telo-post with the threads at the top? I've seen lots of pictures from the states with them "upside down".....I dunno, maybe i have been holding the instructions upside down


I've seen the threads welded, buried in concrete, or otherwise mutilated to prevent tampering. In my jurisdiction that is optional.

Also, threads on top or bottom doesn't matter in my jurisdiction.

That being said, I always put the threads on the bottom and bury them in the slab.


----------



## Ayerzee

I would think the pea gravel would be important because the clay is very poor draining and the gravel would give you a nice even base for the concrete to float on. Maybe not, whatever the engineer says.

The jack posts in our basement have the threads up, I always thought it was for future adjustment.


----------



## technique

Ayerzee said:


> I would think the pea gravel would be important because the clay is very poor draining and the gravel would give you a nice even base for the concrete to float on. Maybe not, whatever the engineer says.
> 
> The jack posts in our basement have the threads up, I always thought it was for future adjustment.


Engineer said to drain the hole, and pour the concrete in directly, no pea gravel, no poly anywhere. Go figure.

We've poured the first 2 footers, crew is taking a break then we'll pour the last two. We're saving the one with the water for last in case someone has an epiphany and realizes we should do it differently.

Of note, we drained the hole, but water came back about 20 minutes later (not much, maybe 1/8" in one section of the hole). We're not expected to get any more rain for at least 48 hours so if we can keep it dry and it stays dry for a few hours, I think we're good. Otherwise I may go against the engineer and put some poly down to keep the concrete from staying super-saturated and not curing properly.

Here are some pics, oh, the electricians are here today removing all the wiring from the joists, it's such a mess. They are temporarily reconnecting everything so we have hanging wires, once the jacking, sistering and columns are in place, they will put everything back nice and neat and as close to code as possible.


Here's a pic of the wiring as of this morning just after they started:











Pouring a footer:











Added the rebar:











Finished footer after checking proper level:











Picture of the overall basement for perspective:


----------



## technique

OK, we finished the pouring early so we decided to remove the existing wooden beam now so we can get that footer poured sooner rather than later.

We used two 4X4's and added 2 temporary supports and a new permanent support on the stairs as the original framers did a terrible job and there was no support on the main landing:











After we broke open the slab, which was already cut, we found something quite surprising inside:










Some sort of drainage tube with slits in it to absorb water. Unfortunately, my concrete cutters cut through it on both ends when they cut the slab. Also, we are not sure where the tube runs, or if it is even still intact in other places because the sump pump is mostly dry. And there is a similar looking tube going into the sump pump, but from the other side of the room, and that one is BONE dry and full of rocks.

Here's a bigger picture of where this footer/tube is located:










You can see it runs alongside the footer/benching of the basement. Anyway, tomorrow we are going to dig the hole out and see exactly what's going on. There's water around/under the tube, so I think the tube is carrying water, and it was definitely cut by the concrete cutting, but we'll confirm all that tomorrow and then think about the best way to patch/repair the cuts on this tube.


----------



## loneframer

If the cuts are only on the top of the tube, it shouldn't pose a problem, assuming that is a perimeter drain system. Perimeter drain systems typically use perforated tubes anyway. I'm a little surprised that they didn't cover it with a filter fabric to prevent silt from entering the tube through the perforations. They are generally laid in a bed of crushed stone as well, in this neck of the wood anywho.:thumbsup:


----------



## technique

loneframer said:


> If the cuts are only on the top of the tube, it shouldn't pose a problem, assuming that is a perimeter drain system. Perimeter drain systems typically use perforated tubes anyway. I'm a little surprised that they didn't cover it with a filter fabric to prevent silt from entering the tube through the perforations. They are generally laid in a bed of crushed stone as well, in this neck of the wood anywho.:thumbsup:


I think you nailed it on the head, it's a perimeter drain system.

Agreed on if the cuts are only on top of the tube, but I suspect the saw cut the tube almost (if not entirely) all the way through. We'll know tomorrow for sure. I actually hope it did cut all the way through, otherwise I am concerned that water is pooling just below the slab.

Oh, the tube appear to be lying in a bed of river jacks (1-2"), you can sort of see it in the second picture. Again, we'll see 100% for sure tomorrow.


----------



## loneframer

technique said:


> I think you nailed it on the head, it's a perimeter drain system.
> 
> Agreed on if the cuts are only on top of the tube, but I suspect the saw cut the tube almost (if not entirely) all the way through. We'll know tomorrow for sure. I actually hope it did cut all the way through, otherwise I am concerned that water is pooling just below the slab.
> 
> Oh, the tube appear to be lying in a bed of river jacks (1-2"), you can sort of see it in the second picture. Again, we'll see 100% for sure tomorrow.


 I'm sure they make some sort of splice to join ends together on that product. It may require some ingenuity with some plastic sewer pipe and some no-hub fittings.:whistling


----------



## j_builder

Quick fix with a 4" coupling...

http://www.klsupplies.com/images/drainage/drainfit4coup.jpg


----------



## loneframer

j_builder said:


> Quick fix with a 4" coupling...
> 
> http://www.klsupplies.com/images/drainage/drainfit4coup.jpg


 Now all you have to do it get 2 of them there by 7 AM.:laughing:


----------



## j_builder

loneframer said:


> Now all you have to do it get 2 of them there by 7 AM.:laughing:



If there's another tornado later tonight that might be possible:no: loneframer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100119/ts_alt_afp/usweathercalifornia


----------



## AustinDB

Lowes usually stocks the connectors...isn't the bigger question whether or not the hole will have to be moved to miss the drain pipe? what's up with that little 2' knee wall behind the pipe? 

when a 24"x24" pad is specified, I 'assume' that is for a centered post. what about an off centered post? Seems there is a requirement for footings for pole barn construction where it's 16" diameter if the post is centered and slightly larger (18" maybe) if it may be off center. not sure I'm recalling the specifics correctly.


----------



## technique

72chevy4x4 said:


> Lowes usually stocks the connectors...isn't the bigger question whether or not the hole will have to be moved to miss the drain pipe? what's up with that little 2' knee wall behind the pipe?
> 
> when a 24"x24" pad is specified, I 'assume' that is for a centered post. what about an off centered post? Seems there is a requirement for footings for pole barn construction where it's 16" diameter if the post is centered and slightly larger (18" maybe) if it may be off center. not sure I'm recalling the specifics correctly.


The wall behind the pipe runs all the way around the perimeter of the basement. It's either the footer or benching, we had two engineers agree to disagree on what exactly it is, one said it was the footer, the other said it was benching. It's about 2 feet high and 2 feet deep. It's composed of about 2" thick concrete and appears to be filled with dirt/rocks, but the engineers only broke a small hole in it to check and only went 2.5" deep.

As for the footer, we may bring the engineer back depending on what we find and have him spec a smaller footer. We found a tree root right by the pipe so for all we know the drain pipe is clogged with tree roots/silt and doesn't even function properly, in which case we may just remove the drain pipe in that location since it's in the high corner of the basement (opposite corner of the sump pump, basically, it's a few feet from where the pipe would start).

Ah, the joys of a nearly 80+ year old house :whistling


----------



## Vrooman

Warren said:


> Code here says threads go in the concrete too!! I think its to make sure no future idiots tamper with or try to remove the post. If the beam shrinks, wont the rest of the wood in the house shrink too? Wheres the adjustment for that?


Assuming you were using all dimensional lumber, if the joists shrunk they would shrink equally along their length. but if they bear on a concrete wall on one side, and on a 12" wood beam in the center, the center of the floor would be lower once it shrinks up. 
Usually only about a 1/4"-3/8", but it has been enough to make a telopost fall out on one house about a month after the house was all closed in out of the weather.


----------



## technique

OK, so we dug out the last footer location where the drain tube is, and no big surprises there. However, the hole has now (predictably) filled up with water up to the bottom of the tube (About 7"). My plumber is working at the house today and told us to drain it and just fill the entire thing with concrete and forget about it. He says we'll just lose the drainage for that small section and not to even worry about that 2' section of tube. (BTW, the saw did NOT cut all the way through, just the top 1/2, so no repair necessary)

Thoughts? Other approaches?


----------



## WarriorWithWood

Can you cut a pocket into the block wall instead of digging that footer?


----------



## technique

WarriorWithWood said:


> Can you cut a pocket into the block wall instead of digging that footer?


Not sure I follow what you are suggesting. Can you elaborate? (NOTE: The location of the column that the engineer spec'd is dead center of the hole we cut for the footer.)


----------



## technique

OK, now things are starting to get interesting/fun. All the lumber, columns, and plates arrived today so we officially started.

Carpenter removed the ledger board as it was not doing anything.

All wood cut to length and nailed on each end to keep in place during jacking.

LVL's cut to length and placed and nailed on each end to keep in place during jacking.

Woah, there was a lot of piping, plumbing, electrical wires, etc, to deal with, even after the electricians and plumber finished, good thing they were back on hand today. Electrician had to re-run 4 lines to allow LVLs to sister.

Here are some pics.

8X8 on the ground on top of the 2X12's in the work area, we're going to jack the house in 2 sections, each side of the girder, this is the first side:










Pic of the sisters in place against the main girder composed of three 2X8's, ledger strip REMOVED - Note the LVL sandwich under the bearing wall which was originally supported by sandwiched 2X8's:










Pic of the overall area after sisters placed and nailed on each end:










Check this, the other load bearing wall, with LVL sandwich, not much room to nail the LVL in after we jack up (where the *********** line is running up):











Jacking starts tonight or tomorrow morning, that's when the real fun starts. My carpenter wants to jack 1" per day, I told him 1/8" max once we hear noises, so probably 1/4"-1/2" the first day, then 1/8" each successive day (1/16" in the morning, 1/16" at night). Each pump of the bottle jack is 1/16".


----------



## loneframer

Awesome project.:thumbsup: I got out or renovations and repairs many years ago. If there were more jobs like yours back then, I probably would have stuck with it.:laughing:


----------



## Warren

Vrooman said:


> Assuming you were using all dimensional lumber, if the joists shrunk they would shrink equally along their length. but if they bear on a concrete wall on one side, and on a 12" wood beam in the center, the center of the floor would be lower once it shrinks up.
> Usually only about a 1/4"-3/8", but it has been enough to make a telopost fall out on one house about a month after the house was all closed in out of the weather.


Seems like doing it my way they would be less likely to "fall out". Mine are at least partially imbedded in the concrete where as yours are not! Not to mention we always secure our tops as well. I have never heard of the situation you describe. I know that wood shrinks. I assume that the wood at the middle of the house will shrink at an equal rate.


----------



## technique

loneframer said:


> Awesome project.:thumbsup: I got out or renovations and repairs many years ago. If there were more jobs like yours back then, I probably would have stuck with it.:laughing:


Hah! Thanks man  Projects like these are only good if you have a client that understands the costs involved. For example, not only did I have to use an extra 4 hours of 2 electricians time today, I'm bringing my HVAC guy in tomorrow to run a new exhaust pipe from the Jenn-Aire downdraft and also switch the kitchen register pipe to 6" oval. The Jenn-Aire downdraft as it was before was 6" flex tube (You can see it in the last picture in my last post, just hanging down from the ceiling) run under a joist from one side to the other which is a big no-no for downdraft/grease usage. This also means we need to punch a new hole out the side of the house, new shingles on the side of the house, repaint those shingles, etc. Will probably do side by side 6" oval pipe for both now that I think about it. Pictures tomorrow...


----------



## Vrooman

Warren said:


> Seems like doing it my way they would be less likely to "fall out". Mine are at least partially imbedded in the concrete where as yours are not! Not to mention we always secure our tops as well. I have never heard of the situation you describe. I know that wood shrinks. I assume that the wood at the middle of the house will shrink at an equal rate.


The instance where the post fell out, there were full length TJI floor joists 36' long, and two main beam which were dimensional 2x10. When the beam shrunk up, the joist did not settle probably because it was such a short span and having two beams. 

The plates for the telopost were secured to the beam at the top and were going to be embedded in the concrete at the bottom. (the floor had no yet been poured)

If we use dimensional solid lumber...we laser the beam back level after it shrinks up. We normally use only LVL or steel for beams now.


----------



## Warren

Vrooman said:


> The instance where the post fell out, there were full length TJI floor joists 36' long, and two main beam which were dimensional 2x10. When the beam shrunk up, the joist did not settle probably because it was such a short span and having two beams.
> 
> The plates for the telopost were secured to the beam at the top and were going to be embedded in the concrete at the bottom. (the floor had no yet been poured)
> 
> If we use dimensional solid lumber...we laser the beam back level after it shrinks up. We normally use only LVL or steel for beams now.


Earlier you said the post fell out. How did it fall out if it was secured to the beam?


----------



## jlhaslip

Vrooman said:


> Is it a Canadian thing to install a telo-post with the threads at the top? I've seen lots of pictures from the states with them "upside down".....I dunno, maybe i have been holding the instructions upside down


Maybe you got shipped Aussie teleposts???:w00t:


----------



## Vrooman

I don't know what type of teloposts you use...but on the ones that we use for smaller span beams, the threaded section just has a tip on it that rests in a hole on the plate...the plate it attached to the beam, not the actual telopost sorry for not being clear on that


----------



## technique

*Let the cracking of plaster begin!*

Started jacking today. Did 1/8" at a time, checking upstairs for cracked plaster and listening for wood sounds. Very little wood creaking sounds. Went up to 3/8", all was good. Hit 1/2" and got some minor plaster cracking. Decided to push it and go up another 1/8 to 5/8" and boom, nice big crack so we stopped for the day, will let it rest for 48 hours, then resume at 1/16" at a time.

Got a touch of bulging on one of the load bearing walls as well.

Anyway, here are some pics:


The setup with 3/4" ply, then 2X12, then 1/2" thick steel plates, then 20 ton bottle jacks, then 1/2" thick steel plates, then 4" lally columns, then 1/2" thick steel plate, then 8X8 lumber. The 2 center 4" lallys are in case the jacks start to drop after time.











Top view of the jack setup:











Bottom view of the jack setup:











Damaged plaster upstairs:











More damaged plaster:











We also dropped in the sisters on the other side of the house as well. The project continues next week.


----------



## Warren

Vrooman said:


> I don't know what type of teloposts you use...but on the ones that we use for smaller span beams, the threaded section just has a tip on it that rests in a hole on the plate...the plate it attached to the beam, not the actual telopost sorry for not being clear on that


Yes I have seen those occasionally. If you set them with the threads on the bottom, the top can be secured and the post will not fall out. Right??


----------



## Vrooman

Warren said:


> Yes I have seen those occasionally. If you set them with the threads on the bottom, the top can be secured and the post will not fall out. Right??


the un-threaded side of the ones I have used are held on the plate by three bumps, unless it was somehow welded on there..there is no way to secure


----------



## orson

I have a tele-post sitting in my basement that has seperate plates for both ends with no way to attach them(other than welding, obviously).


----------



## technique

The more I look at the situation, and think about it, the more I think I will put the thread-end of the column on TOP instead of on the floor as usual.

Two reasons for doing this:

1) The slab depth is only going to be approximately 2-3", so the threads will NOT be completely buried.

2) Future adjustments by the homeowner can be made if necessary if the screws are on top. If the homeowner decides to sell the house, he can contract to weld the threads so they are permanent and meet code.

I've never done it this way before (I always bury the threads in the slab, but normally the slab is 4"+ thick) but after seeing the discussions in this thread, it seems completely acceptable have the threads on top. The manufacturer's specs also allow installation either end up.


----------



## Warren

technique said:


> The more I look at the situation, and think about it, the more I think I will put the thread-end of the column on TOP instead of on the floor as usual.
> 
> Two reasons for doing this:
> 
> 1) The slab depth is only going to be approximately 2-3", so the threads will NOT be completely buried.
> 
> 2) Future adjustments by the homeowner can be made if necessary if the screws are on top. If the homeowner decides to sell the house, he can contract to weld the threads so they are permanent and meet code.
> 
> I've never done it this way before (I always bury the threads in the slab, but normally the slab is 4"+ thick) but after seeing the discussions in this thread, it seems completely acceptable have the threads on top. The manufacturer's specs also allow installation either end up.


Why not pour the area where the post goes to 4 inches? Just pour the footer pad lower at the top. Why would you wan't the homeowner making any adjustments later? How is he qualified to know when this is necessary? Why would it even be necessary? I think part of the reason for burying the threads is to prevent adjustments by people who have no business messing with it. Further adjustments are still possible, although it will require a professional to jack up at the appropriate areas, and install steel shims.


----------



## technique

Warren said:


> Why not pour the area where the post goes to 4 inches? Just pour the footer pad lower at the top. Why would you wan't the homeowner making any adjustments later? How is he qualified to know when this is necessary? Why would it even be necessary? I think part of the reason for burying the threads is to prevent adjustments by people who have no business messing with it. Further adjustments are still possible, although it will require a professional to jack up at the appropriate areas, and install steel shims.


Can you elaborate? The footer is already poured. The top of the footer is currently 1/2"-1" below the bottom of the existing slab. So, between the top of the footer and top of the slab, we've got about 3". Need at least 4"+ depth to totally encase the threads. (BTW, after looking closer into ICC, seems as if they require screw DOWN and encased in concrete. Question is, is partial encasement sufficient.)

Homeowner would contract to make future adjustments, and yes can shim in the future, just reading other posts in this thread it made sense so I have been thinking about doing it that way.


----------



## Warren

I think partial is ok but for sure total would be best. You can order those posts to whatever range you want. Order them so that you only have about 1/2" of screw out and you should be good to go. You can also order them without any adjustment. We often have a variety of different posts spec'd out on each job. Certain areas with bigger loads often require bigger posts. For smaller loads, an adjustable post is adequate, but larger loads can not be carried by that type of post.


----------



## technique

Warren said:


> I think partial is ok but for sure total would be best. You can order those posts to whatever range you want. Order them so that you only have about 1/2" of screw out and you should be good to go. You can also order them without any adjustment. We often have a variety of different posts spec'd out on each job. Certain areas with bigger loads often require bigger posts. For smaller loads, an adjustable post is adequate, but larger loads can not be carried by that type of post.


Yes, we were thinking the same thing so we ordered the columns so that our target height is going to be within 1" of the minimum size, but still I don't think they will be completely encased. But, worst case, only 75% or so will be encased, which should be "enough".

As far as load, these columns are rated to just under 20,000 lbs, which the engineer said was sufficient. The permanent columns seemed to be rated around the same load, 10 tons.

Also, we were planning on putting a 1/2" thick steel plate on top of the footer as the plates that come with the column are only 1/4" thick. Maybe that's not really necessary in this case?


----------



## AustinDB

sorry if this was mentioned, but a great reason for mounting w/ threads down would be so that the tube would not rust w/ contact w/ the concrete. I have seen instances of this style column that were installed and the bottom was (slightly) rusted and even to the point of 'shrinking'


----------



## technique

Still jacking each day, slow and steady. Had complaints about the cracking of the plaster, so we're being told "1/16" per day MAX. I delicately mentioned that even if we do 1/16" per MONTH (and took 1 year to do this) the end result will be the same (cracked plaster walls) since we have 1" to 1.5" of sag to jack up under load bearing walls that are made of plaster. But, we will do it slowly as requested, so it looks like another week or so of SLOWLY jacking things up.

The custom made joist hangers from Simpson came today, they will sit patiently while we continue jacking 

Finally, we decided the following regarding the columns to be installed:

1) Screw-side will be put facing DOWN and screws & adjustment pin will be encased in the slab (even if not completely encased, most will be, including the adjustment pin)
2) Screw side will be directly on the footer. We decided NOT to put a 1/2" thick steel plate on top of the footer
3) 1/2" steel plate will be placed on top of each column to spread the force coming from above and will extend slightly beyond the edges of the joists above


----------



## jlhaslip

This argument over the threaded portion of the columns is bugging me, and I need to comment.

Back in the early 80's, The Mrs and I bought a 1 year old home. Since then, I have gotten rid of both the home and the ... sorry, I digress... :lol:

The screws were up top. Because of that, I was able to adjust them so the doors worked. I don't recall exactly, but it was about an inch of settling had occurred in the main beam of the house, as per a tight string line and an optical level. The ends were good. 
The yard was mostly a sandy clay and I suspect some shoddy backfilling/tamping of the column footers or generally a crappy cribbing crew handled the project. 
Particularly in a case where the basement is being jacked, like this Topic, I would have the adjustments up top. Of course, if your code does not allow that, I understand.


----------



## technique

jlhaslip said:


> This argument over the threaded portion of the columns is bugging me, and I need to comment.
> 
> Back in the early 80's, The Mrs and I bought a 1 year old home. Since then, I have gotten rid of both the home and the ... sorry, I digress... :lol:
> 
> The screws were up top. Because of that, I was able to adjust them so the doors worked. I don't recall exactly, but it was about an inch of settling had occurred in the main beam of the house, as per a tight string line and an optical level. The ends were good.
> The yard was mostly a sandy clay and I suspect some shoddy backfilling/tamping of the column footers or generally a crappy cribbing crew handled the project.
> Particularly in a case where the basement is being jacked, like this Topic, I would have the adjustments up top. Of course, if your code does not allow that, I understand.



I agree with you in theory, but the manufacturer of the columns we are using (Akron Products Company), in their ICC report states:


"Monoposts (adjustable columns) must be adjusted to the desired length. The Monoposts are installed with the adjustment screw at the base. After installation, the adjustment assembly must be encased in concrete to prevent movement after installation."


So, we decided to do that even though our local code does not specify which end must go up.

Here's a link to the ICC Report for reference:
http://www.akronproducts.com/pdfs/ESR-1767.pdf


----------



## BuildersII

technique said:


> Still jacking each day, slow and steady. Had complaints about the cracking of the plaster, so we're being told "1/16" per day MAX.


The plaster's already cracked, might as well go for it now 

Now you know what the first thing you'll bring up to the next homeowner on a job like this:thumbsup:


----------



## AustinDB

have you 'asked' permission to jack 1/16" twice per day...once in the AM and second time as late as can be done in the PM? the additional time between jacks allows pressure to relieve and you may be able to advance the schedule more quickly.


----------



## technique

72chevy4x4 said:


> have you 'asked' permission to jack 1/16" twice per day...once in the AM and second time as late as can be done in the PM? the additional time between jacks allows pressure to relieve and you may be able to advance the schedule more quickly.


Funny you mention the AM/PM routine, I was thinking about how best to push that method! You've given me the last push I need to make it happen. I think I'll just act like that's what is agreed when I check in tomorrow morning:

"OK, we're good to go with the morning 1/16", he'll be back tonight to do 1/16" again before bedtime"... And see if that slides :thumbsup:

FYI, I have no other new jobs until late February though, so either way me and my carpenters will be sitting idle, just better to get this one wrapped up I guess in case something pops up. I am debating whether or not to tackle the plaster (my painter wants the job but I don't know if he's up to properly repairing the cracks) or just sub it out.


----------



## AustinDB

I was thinking like 5:00 PM


----------



## technique

Good news. We're doing 1/8" per day. Maybe even a little more. We agreed that once in the morning and once in the evening is good. Time to rock and roll :scooter:


----------



## technique

*Setback #1*

OK, discovered something today. Check out these pics of the joists on one side where they meet the main girder:










In the picture above you can see the joists are bending downward, this is happening with each pump of the jack. And check out the picture below:










The old joist is separated from the subfloor on top. It's like this only on one side of the house, and for about the first 6-9" or so leaving the main beam.


Our plan is to jack those ends up so they are flush with the subfloor and put the joist hangers in now. Not ideal, but I've never encountered this before, even the LVLs are doing this, which is really strange. Thoughts?


----------



## technique

loneframer said:


> Looks like things are coming together nicely.:thumbup:


Thanks buddy!



Ayerzee said:


> You gonna paint the new concrete red to match the rest of the floor? lol. Nice to see everything come together...


Actually, yes, repainting the floor was in the scope of work 



72chevy4x4 said:


> I'm not sure you could compare a 10g galvanized hanger nail to a screw
> 
> edit: check out the knotty size of this 8d galvanized nail-no comparison at all to a 2 1/2" deck screw
> 
> edit, edit: I have not seen any test with the 8d galvanized nail sticking out of a board by 2" get knocked off, but I'm sure it would be solid!
> 
> edit, edit, edit: seriously now, just havin' fun. real world info...ever try pounding 'regular' uncoated 16d's into a LVL and compare that to some 8d or 10d galvanized joist hanger nails? when you have to pull the bent ones out, the joist hanger nails are much more durable and less likely that the head will shear off. It's not a real world test, but I haven't experienced screws with that much holding power on the head after torquing them down. :laughing:


We used Simpson brand 10d and 16d HDG nails and I tell you, they are not going anywhere! They are even more "knotty" than the picture of the one you posted, lol


----------



## Pappas

*Technique can you contact me Northern VA*

571 220 1319


----------



## technique

OK, here are some pictures of the finished project.


Good pic showing overall what was done: how we re-did the HVAC under the main girder, the new 4" steel columns which replaced the old hollow masonry ones, sistered joists, sistered LVLs, joist hangers, removal of ledger strip, and new plumbing/electrical chases in the background.











Another good overview picture:










Closeup of the new electrical chase (raceways):











One more of the raceway and sink drain:











Last one showing the main girder run:











Overall, a good project and a good learning experience. I'd say we got the house to about 80% of where we wanted it to be, but the goal was not to make it perfect, just significantly better than where it was before and to prevent any further deterioration. I say we exceeded our goals.

This is the 2nd such job and it was damn challenging. Thanks to everyone for the input and hopefully this thread helps others tackling an old neglected house such as this.


----------



## AustinDB

nice job-thanks for keeping us abreast of the challenges throughout the project and sharing the pictures!


----------



## tyler durden

looks like fun, time to over engineer


----------

