One of the local contractors lists in his “advantages” of his houses is 3×6 pressure treated sills.
the other day we had an inspection so I asked the local building inspector what the advantage of that would be
he siad none that he cold think of other then maybe spanning a wavy foundation.
Using the 3×6 would then require switching to a 5/8 x12 sill bolt, instead of whats required with 2×6 here which is 1/2 x 10
can you think of or know any real advantages???
also check my thread on new valley framing ?
Replies
higher basement ceiling?
Other than jacking up basement ceiling, no other advantage I can think of.
What are his other "advantages," since this first one is suspect?
I can't think of any others, and agree that the extra 1 1/2 inches isn't THAT compelling. Bill.
I can't think of even one benefit....but I'm guessing maybe we are all missing something obvious.
Hate to admit it.....but here in MA anyway....I've never even seen a 3X anything. What size is it actually dimensionally.....? 2 1/2"?
In some instances our Building Codes require a thicker sill for close nail spacing of a plywood shear wall. Typically if the wall exceeds 350# per foot load (lateral) or nail spacing is 3"oc or closer then this size of material is required. With a 2x sill plate and plywood shear on each face of the wall you can imagine what the sill will look like. If a 2x plate will work with the loads then a 3x plate does not afford you any better structure. Its like pouring a conc. footing (footer for those in the east) if a 12" wide footing will do the job what will a 24" wide footing do for you?
(footer for those in the east)
Always called it a footing here. Thought "footer" was western !
uhuh, and people around you don't say 'masonary' either, right?
;-)
LOL. Ive heard that one around here but had a gentleman of southern persuasion refer to my adjustable bevel as "that fancy square of yours". JoeG
I use 3x6 PT for mudsill for the same reason. With the thicker piece it's easier to put in the plywood nails with some staggering, and hopefully less trauma to the sill. The nails in the sill are what's holding down the house in a seismic event.
I'm not going to say they're uncommon or common, but doubled up 2x6 mudsills wouldn't raise an eyebrow around here (CT).
The extra height in the basement is a plus. I've seen anchor bolts that held both layers, I've also seen the second 2x6 used to cap the anchor bolts.
Never seen a true 3x6 used.
But if we are willing to run an extra lineal of 2x around the foundation perimeter, why stop there?
How about double bottom plates everywhere?
I don't see the logic.
In My area a single 2X6 would raise a few Eyebrows. If only because it's mostly double 2X6.
Advantages? Hard to say. Maybe the same as double top plates? Staggared joints and easier to straighten. I prefer not to count on concrete nails to hold them straight, and it makes me feel better to see the joints lapped. I prefer to shim between plates as opposed to between the plates and the foundation I'm sure it's all in my mind.
I build using Superior Walls precast concrete foundations, and my framing sub uses a PT 2x10 as the mudsill. With the dead-straight precast panels having been set to line and grade by the crew using a surveyor's total station rig, and things very precise, the mudsills are easily bolted tight to the top flanges of the precast panels, using the formed bolt holes, and no shimming has been required.
Bob,
You should give that guys name to anyone who will listen. My experience with that foundation system has been dismal at best.
I know a big part of it is who sets it, but It has come to the point of strongly advising against it based on past experience.
Glad to see someone cares how they turn out.
Can you elaborate on your bad experiences with precast foundations? Every homebuilder I know around here who has gotten started with them will never do a poured foundation again.
But, we have very professional dealer/installers doing the jobs, guys who are also in the poured foundation business, and capable of doing complicated work with precision.
I'll not mention any names as I hope it they were isolated problems but here you go.
First Job. guy came highly recommended. Very proffesional appearance, everything looked good. Until it came time to frame on it. Front wall, 40' long 1 1/2" dip in the middle. Kinks at every joint. Cutouts for garage doors look like my kid did them with an old hacksaw.
After many return trips by the contractor, framing goes on. house gets finished, foundation still sucks. The owner is a friend. we work together often. he had asked me repeatedly if i thought his foundation should leak. One day it was raining and he asked me to stop by and look at it. The corners looked like Drinking fountains. Water was coming through as a steady stream. Now a year later, the front wall is sinking.
Second one was just the most out of square/out oflevel/ out of plumb piece of cr## I have ever framed on.
Never will that system sit under even a dog house I build. I hope everyone else has a different experience.
Almost forgot, Thank god all I did was frame on them. Glad someone else has to stand behind the whole job.
I've never used or even seen these foundation systems, but I'm skeptical about joining a bunch of precast walls together and calling it a foundation. Hopefully they'll have them on show at JLC Live in Portland this fall and I can check it out. The website shows them sitting on a crushed rock base, and it seems that the foundation would only be as level as that base. Also hard to imagine doing without the continuous rebar, and using caulk or some other sealant to keep out water at the joints.
The joins get a sealant. They SHOULDN'T leak. I've heard good things from others who use it but my experience has not bee the same. I don't trust the whole gravel thing either. But, smarter men than I have said it will work.
I need to know exactly what makes them smarter.
Are they using the new/improved/faster/cheaper/better/more profitable building materials and driving nicer cars than you?
And how long does the sealant last? How long does any sealant last? Until you've retired and moved to Arizona?
Edited 4/12/2004 2:37 pm ET by davidmeiland
Well they must be smarter. After all, having never picked up a hammer, they know more about how to build it than I do. and if I ask them, they'll tell Me how much smarter they are.
Brb,
Don't have precast in my home but I've seen plenty manufacturered and installed in my area. Owners have usually been happy, at least short term.
I think that the reason that there are mixed experiences with them is because they are manufactured at regional franchises. Some are really good, some not so good. They pay a royalty for the forms and tech.
In addition, the homeowner is responsible for basic site prep, then the local franchise fine tunes the base and handles the sets. Again, some good, some not so good. I've seen call backs that were trued up with a long crow bar. Seems weird but I guess with the weight of the house on top, it shouldn't go anywhere.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the stone foundation if prepped correctly. The instructions are pretty detailed and clear.
Depending on the sealant over the long term is another story.
Todd
It may well be a regional thing. I think a system like that is dependant on the setup. And I think a bad setup has greater effect than it would on a block or pourd foundation. Not sure where you are but in my area work like setting the foundation is almost always done by a truck full of illegals.
Hell, the other day I watched a guy use a twig to tie a line to while laying out curbing.
I
Interesting how a thread can lead elsewhere.
A firend of mine has been preesured into trying the pre-cast. He starts next week. Ill have him check this info out
he was/is reluctant to try it , but that is what the "architect" spec'ed and what the onwer wants.
there is the first step in the road to disaster. " the Architect wants"
There's not a whole lot of logic to it. I don't think it's a make or break, nor do I really consider it a selling point.
If the foundation is poured and it looks like you might want to squeeze an extra bit of headroom out of it, double the mudsill.
Sometimes basement slab issues arise and a few extra inches of stone or sheet insulation need to be tossed under the basement slab, thus raising the slab elevation.
Sometimes the homeowner takes a walk in the freshly poured foundation, sees the bottom of the beam pocket, envisions future forehead-to-beam collisions, and asks if there's a way to squeeze a bit more headroom.
Sometimes the foundation guy screws the pooch and shorts you an inch or two in wall height.
If you need an extra bit of headroom in the basement after the walls are poured, double the mudsill.
Not really sure how "double bottom plates everywhere" fits into the scheme of things. You can raise a framed ceiling height with longer studs. But in the basement, regarding basement headroom, once a foundation is poured, your wall height is set in concrete. Literally.
All that said, I know a few guys that feel that keeping non-pressure treated lumber (rim/joists) another inch-and-a-half off the 'crete to be a good thing.
For guys that are advertising it from the get-go as extra headroom, and do it solely for extra headroom, as long as the foundation forms aren't the limiting factor, just pour higher walls. Concrete is usually cheaper and faster than PT mudsills.
I do remember the inspector telling me of a screw-up where the engineer made changes that didn't make it to the foundation guy's plans. The engineer spec'd a 12" deep main beam, the old plans showed 10", and that's what the beam pocket was sized for. Instead of chiseling out the pocket and lowering the beam 2", an extra 2-by was set on the mudsill and they only lost a half-inch of height.
It's just another way of doing business I suppose.
Definitely. The footing example was a generalization to make a point.