From what I can see there is no space between two rows of bricks and all the top has mortar in the knock outs. There is normal expansion when mortar and bricks are mixed. If moisture does get into that wall it may crack at each knock out in the area of negative pressure. This would be a problem here but I am not sure if it would be a problem where you are.
Anchor should be embedded a min. of 8" which would be 2 courses of brick I would not think there would be a issue with freeze thaw but I do know for sure that the straps were not nailed properly by the carpenter it should be wrapped around the plate only starting from the center
Correct
Straps may or may not be OK… manu depending.
I’ve used 8 8 16 a bit here and there, but most poured foundation/stem wall.
Is brick acceptable there? Never seen or used that one. Would have thought a 8 or 10 inch poured or CMU wall with veneer would obv. be OK.
But brick?
Show me *any *manufacturer what allows straps in brick.
I think some of you are missing the point. Straps (or bolts) CANNOT be used in BRICK.
I agree Joe
Straps… in of themselves may be OK depending on type. Hence, the reason I separated the response and didn’t muddle it with the brick/type portion.
Brick, as mentioned… I’m not aware of it’s use as a currently used foundation material. Upon your inspection Joe, was someone told that day, “Nice Job, but wrong materials”? 
Embedment and other issues come to mind. Brick foundations here in CA would be an item of interest when performing an inspection.
You don’t have pier and curtain walls in CA? (The illustration comes out of the IRC. I’ve never seen straps or anchorage like the ones shown.)
Yes, the builder was told his inspection failed. He’s not a happy camper, having to hire a structural engineer to design the fix. No other inspector has ever mentioned foundation straps before, according to the builder. There’s a new sheriff in town. 
Correct. But just because a manufacturer doesn’t list values for a anchor in brick (because they haven’t done that testing) doesn’t mean it can’t be used for that. It would have to be shown on the plans.
I have used many simpson anchors in brick, even though they didn’t have published values (some of the anchors are not commonly used in brick, and there are many variables that doesn’t justify the testing they would have to do in order to list values)
The anchors should not weave through the bricks. It’s difficult to tell from the pic if thats the case. But that would be a concern. If the anchor straps are installed correctly they can be placed in holes/joints that line up. Thats easier to do with straps than with anchor bolts. And I think an embedded anchor is better than a drilled in anchor.
JMO & 2-Nickels … 
If the manufacturer hasn’t listed values for an anchor in brick, how can you determine they are satisfactory? Do you have your own testing laboratory? ESP?
I think you meant 3 courses of brick …
That is NOT true
An analysis has to be done
Sure, I have one hanging on my wall … its called a PE License (see IRC R301.1.3) … 
R301.1
The construction of buildings and structures in accordance with the provisions of this code shall result in a system that provides a complete load path that meets the requirements for the transfer of all loads from their point of origin to the foundation.
The above cited also includes wind loads. As the brick veneer in the original pictures does not appear to be structurally connected to the foundation then a load path to transfer wind loads is incomplete and therefore renders the strap question a mote point because it is serving no purpose
I have to agree with Mark on this one. Even with that straping embedded, you are relying on a mortar joint to hold that wall together. Any movement of the floor or frame wall system will take the brick wall with it. If the builder insists on a double wythe brick foundation, then the hold down should be at least tied into the slab/footings with a threaded rod system or continuous strapping into the pour. JMHO
Using that logic, then unreinforced concrete block also would be unacceptable.
IRC R404.1.1 and ACI-530 both have provisions for unrienforced masonry foundation walls, which includes both block and brick walls.
I also agree with Mark. I do not care about stress loads and proper attachments with strong tie; if they are not connected to proper foundation they are useless.
You are completely wrong again, and don’t even know what the model code requirements are for foundations and the anchors, or anything about the design of structures. You really shouldn’t be posting about stuff you have absolutely no clue about … it just makes you look bad.
The IRC is whats called a prescriptive code. It specifies exactly what the construction requirements are for a typical residence (no unusual loading, shape, size, framing, soil conditions, etc.) without requiring a job specific engineering design. When the prescriptive provisions are not or can not be followed, then the performance based provisions of the IBC must be followed.
R404.1.1 has the requirements for plain (unreinforced) masonry foundation walls made of either brick or block (yes BRICK). R404.3 specifies a minimum 2x4 sill plate, and R403.1.6 requires the sill plate be anchored with 1/2" bolts spaced 6’ apart and embedded at least 7" into grouted cells of the masonry (yes the holes in bricks are CELLS).
If you get the brick holes to line up perfectly, you can grout in the 1/2" bolts and you have met the IRC provisions … end of story. But it’s almost impossible to perfectly line up the holes to fit a 1/2" bolt with enough grout space. There are then two options: (1) use manufactured straps grouted into the holes that have an ICC-ES Report as an approved equal to the anchor bolts. or (2) have a PE design an anchors under the provisions of IRC R301.1.3, which then must be shown on the plans.
To get an ICC-ES report manufacturer’s need to perform testing to develop allowable loads, and then submit documentation to get the approval. If a manufacturer doesn’t have products tested and approved for an application, then you are forced into a special design by a PE who would have to do calculations (including pullout load calcs … see attached example). An engineered design does NOT require testing, but some may do testing if it’s a very unusual situation (not the case here).
Those strap anchors may or may not be acceptable. If it’s shown on and installed in accordance with the approved plans, thats the end of the story. If it’s not on the plans then a PE should first do an evaluation, and if it’s not acceptable (e.g. improper installation, or high wind/seismic loading areas) then a repair design would need to be prepared.
Oh wait, you dont do codes … it all about safety. Those foundations should have been designed like a bomb shelter with 18" wide concrete walls reinforced with #6 bars EW/EF, and the anchors should have been 1-1/2" diameter high tensile strength bedrock anchors drilled 58’ into igneous rock … :roll:
This is directed at you Robert Occonner.
The more you mention Code the less I respect you.
I have never ever followed code and have seen people hurt and killed by codes. You are the one on the wrong path. Some PEs are absolutely not respected by me and the reason is just how pompous they are like yourself. I have had battles with so call professionals and exposed thier flaws right in front of them. You will never accept that nor will you have respect. Your PE is about as important as the piece of blank paper on the wall. You can’t even get it into your head that the codes are bare minimum. Yet you follow it like it is the authority. I don’t know nor do I care to know you. When you start acting like a Home Inspector that cares about people instead of yourself then I will respond to your messages.
I don’t think that was the point at all. Unreinforced masonry can be used provided that it is in an area with a wind load of less than 100 miles per hour and that it meets the requirement of 404.1.1.1 (8"x8" grouted cap or bond beam) with not less than one No. 5 bar continuous and 404.1.1.2 No. 4 bars at 8’ o.c. vertically extending into the footing 3" with standard 10" hook or 404.1.5.1 which is masonry curtain walls with piers that include straps continuous into the foundation that anchor the floor system.
Or as you said the designer of record could produce calculations for the drawings demonstrating that a continuous load path is not required and the home does not need to be connected to a foundation. (wonder what the liability on that one would be)?
You are more than welcome to prove me wrong on this issue, and include authoratative references to substantiate your position.
I will help you to try and prove me wrong too … :shock: … You can start with the 2009 IRC Building Code and Commentary (excellent discussion of the requirements), “Masonry Designers Guide”, by The Masonry Society, ACI-530R-05 “Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and Commentary” (I have a pdf link for that one … email me), and “Structural Masonry Designers Manual” by W. G. Curtin