How would you write this up?

These pictures show non-uniform horizontal support beams. They are not supported in a pocket in the foundation, there is some wood rot at the end sections about 1" deep. Concrete supporting structures are stacked concrete sections without a concrete base. There are some settling cracks in the plaster and lathe lin the room above, less than 1/8". This addition was built 40 years ago.
Thanks, in advance



That is so ugly. I can’t imagine that it actually does anything.
Good luck with that.

Non-conventional structure support underneath the house. Recommendation for a licensed foundation contractor and/or professionally licensed civil/structural engineer to further evaluate the structure. Moisture or insect damage was observed in several location on the support girder.

Non professonal repairs used to support the crawl beams. Also the beam has been cut and compromised. All repairs in this area should be designed by a structural engineer. Once the repairs are completed, the engineer should issue a statement that the repairs were done in accordance with the plans.

How far away would you have to go to get a structural engineer to Harvey, ND?

I would write it up as being non-standard. If there are any immediate problems have a contractor correct them, otherwise let them know it should be monitored and not to be suprised if it needs to be shored up in the future.

If it has lasted 40 years, there is no reason it will not last another 40.

I see stuff like this all the time.

“Framing and structural supports appear to have been installed by persons not familiar with modern building practices. They (did/did not) appear to be adequately supporting the structure at the time of the inspection.”

As Jeff mentioned, let them know if it looks like it’ll need to be checked periodically.

Thank-you for your comments. It has been there for 40 years with apparently very little settlement. It should be monitored… And it should be evaluated for stuctural integrity. I see alot of this type of building practice in these older homes. Alot of humps in floors, and waviness. Apparently if there was a sag, they would place a horz. beam under the joist, add vertical support and call it good.

Judging from these photos, my guesstimating of the age would be more of 60 years old minimum.
I have been in construction for over 40 years and foundations built with boards and logs squared on two faces with Ade’s and wane peeling off the sides would indicate to me that this framing and improvised floor support system with what is available to correct floor sag and tapered piers is of the era of the 1940’s or earlier.

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Marcel, this may be so…How would you write this up for the buyer in the report? Again it seems in this area, support for flooring members appears to be an after thought. Or with so many older homes this settling is normal and corrective measures are done without permits.
Thanks, gwilcox

Gerald, do they have permits where this is at? My guess is that this was done in an area without a lot of skilled labor, so the family got together and put an addition on the house. They built it to the best of their ability and when problems arose, they compensated. You see alot of it outside of the cities around me, also.

Deciding how it should be reported would all come together for me once I had seen the whole picture.

In the meantime, I can only comment on what I see in those two Pic’s.

The first picture seems to indicate that there was an add on due to the blown out demo of the foundation in the background, and the fact that the foundation is showing some sort of parging or coating on the foundation.
It also tells me that the broken foundation pieces were used to properly support the rough sawn lumber used that seems to be spaced way over today’s standards, and would indicate to me that it was done in the same era of the 40’s or later while the rough sawn lumber and beams were still available.

What throws me off is the evidence of the bisquene installed on the dirt floor. and in between the concrete remnants. That would indicate that it was done most or more recent that the speculated age of the structure.

Where did they get the old lumber to duplicate the existing, would be my question at this point. Take down an old Barn built at the same time frame of the house??

The second Pic, seems to indicate the original framing and supplemented with additional support at mid span of the joist due to the spaceing.

The report would also have to indicate or worded for any WDI that might have been noticed or wood rot, and excessive moisture damage.

Not seeing the whole picture would be hard for me to tell you how it would be worded.

Marcel :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Caveman dwelling construction method is substandard and should be evaluated by a (present day) licensed engineer and repaired by licensed foundation contractor…

You just did write this up.

You need to re-set your camera. The date on those pictures is 2003