Cold Joint in basement walls: How Serious?

Discussion in 'Building Construction' started by Don MacKenzie, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. Don MacKenzie, Nov 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don MacKenzie

    John Smith Guest

    Don MacKenzie wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Our recently poured foundation seems to have cold joints in the
    > basement walls. I understand that these are not unsual, however I
    > would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience if ours fall
    > within normal tolerances: (See links to photos below.)
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/6sa7j
    > http://tinyurl.com/4hnm4 (Close up from previous photo.)
    > http://tinyurl.com/5sfwm
    > http://tinyurl.com/6olsn
    > http://tinyurl.com/4pxct
    >
    > Thanks in advance!



    1) Hire a structural engineer who specializes in concrete work to give you
    an opinion in writing.
    2) Local building inspector
    2) Consult a lawyer if either of the opinions are unfavorable.
    3) You may want to consult with your lender if you are financing the work
    via a bank with construction financing - ie. $X paid on completion of
    certain stages of work

    Make sure that the exterior of this foundation is waterproofed. Looking at
    the photos I'd recommend a membrane like Bakor Blueskin WPS200 or W.R. Grace
    Bituthene be applied directly on the concrete. Blueskin is easier/safer to
    apply. Just be sure that the manufacturer's recommendations as to how cured
    the concrete must be before membrane application are followed.
     
    John Smith, Nov 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Don MacKenzie

    Bob Morrison Guest

    In a previous post Don MacKenzie says...
    > Our recently poured foundation seems to have cold joints in the
    > basement walls. I understand that these are not unsual, however I
    > would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience if ours fall
    > within normal tolerances: (See links to photos below.)
    >
    >


    Don:

    From the photos it looks like you have both cold joints and rock
    pockets. Both have the potential to cause leaks, but probably are not
    serious structural issues.

    Another poster has suggested hiring a local structural engineer to
    evaluate and report. I think this is a good idea. Nothing like being
    able to see this stuff up close in order to determine the extent of the
    problem. The engineer should also be able to recommend fixes.

    --
    Bob Morrison
    R L Morrison Engineering Co
    Structural & Civil Engineering
    Poulsbo WA
     
    Bob Morrison, Nov 19, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <>, Don
    MacKenzie <> wrote:

    € Our recently poured foundation seems to have cold joints in the
    € basement walls. I understand that these are not unsual, however I
    € would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience if ours fall
    € within normal tolerances: (See links to photos below.)

    The cold joints aren't a problem, in fact, they look good.

    The rock pocket indicates that the pour wasn't vibrated correctly, but
    they're still pretty minor.

    Emulsified asphalt is what we use for dampproofing, and will probably
    take care of it.

    Best of luck, and let us know how it comes out!

    --
    Lyle B. Harwood, President
    Phoenix Homes, Inc.
    (206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
     
    Lyle B. Harwood, Nov 19, 2004
    #4
  5. (Don MacKenzie) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Our recently poured foundation seems to have cold joints in the
    > basement walls. I understand that these are not unsual, however I
    > would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience if ours fall
    > within normal tolerances: (See links to photos below.)
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/6sa7j
    > http://tinyurl.com/4hnm4 (Close up from previous photo.)
    > http://tinyurl.com/5sfwm
    > http://tinyurl.com/6olsn
    > http://tinyurl.com/4pxct
    >
    > Thanks in advance!


    Thanks everyone for your feedback. This week, I see that they applied
    their standard tar-like spray sealer to the foundation and, as of
    yesterday, have backfilled it.

    I have asked to do a walkthrough of the foundation with the site
    super, so we'll see how that goes. I did try to search for structural
    engineers in my area that would do this sort of inspection, but didn't
    find anything. The builder is actually a major client of mine, so I'm
    not really in a position to play hardball with them.
     
    Don MacKenzie, Nov 19, 2004
    #5
  6. The 'cold joints' don't look like anything at all, and the 'honey comb'
    (rock pockets) are not too bad.

    Overall, it looks like a quality job

    We would butter the area with plastic cement (bituminous) after removing any
    loose rock. ( I am guessing that very few rocks on the face would be able to
    come loose )

    Personally, I would be curious as to the use of 'white lumber' cast directly
    into the concrete. Anything I cast in has to be pressure treated, according
    to my personal standard, though my local authority may agree. (Since I've
    never cast in white lumber, I don't know if they would freak on white
    lumber.) I presume this replaces a plate on top of the wall? and is used to
    attach the house to the foundation? I would also be curious as to what
    secures these pieces to the concrete.

    I've seen some homes in the 50 years or older range that had the floor
    system cast directly into the top of the wall, which now exhibit extreme dry
    rot in the joist ends. I think homes we build should be good for in excess
    of 100 years, and so I find a built in weakness of this nature difficult to
    fathom. On the upside, it would seem that most of your floor system should
    bear on the concrete directly, and only occasionally on those pieces that
    appear to connect the interior and exterior 'rim plates ¿'.

    Where are you located?

    Brian Belliveau

    Northern Forms Co Ltd
    1805 Kamview Rd
    Thunder Bay, Ontario
    P7J 1L9

    (807) 475-0110





    "Don MacKenzie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Our recently poured foundation seems to have cold joints in the
    > basement walls. I understand that these are not unsual, however I
    > would appreciate any advice from anyone with experience if ours fall
    > within normal tolerances: (See links to photos below.)
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/6sa7j
    > http://tinyurl.com/4hnm4 (Close up from previous photo.)
    > http://tinyurl.com/5sfwm
    > http://tinyurl.com/6olsn
    > http://tinyurl.com/4pxct
    >
    > Thanks in advance!
     
    Brian Belliveau, Nov 20, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <zVGnd.282867$nl.100697@pd7tw3no>, Brian Belliveau
    <> wrote:

    € Personally, I would be curious as to the use of 'white lumber' cast directly
    € into the concrete.

    I didn't even notice that. Didn't even occur to me to look for it.

    That's just begging for trouble. It wouldn't pass an inspection, and is
    specifically against code here in Seattle, and the building code is
    such a low standard that anything that doesn't pass it is simply
    pathetic.

    It's hard for me to believe that someone who knew enough to get the
    pour done without a blowout would make a mistake like that. It's such a
    low quality move that it makes me wonder if it wasn't done
    deliberately.

    Best of luck, and let us know how it comes out!

    --
    Lyle B. Harwood, President
    Phoenix Homes, Inc.
    (206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
     
    Lyle B. Harwood, Nov 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Don MacKenzie

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Brian Belliveau wrote:

    > The 'cold joints' don't look like anything at all, and the 'honey comb'
    > (rock pockets) are not too bad.
    >
    > Overall, it looks like a quality job


    You have lower quality standards than I do. :)

    While I agree with others that this is likely a largely cosmetic flaw,
    assuming it can be successfully damp-proofed, it certainly isn't a
    quality concrete job. This is one of the worst looking foundations I've
    seen in some time. I just hope it isn't too far off dimensionally.
    Often a contractor who is this lax on concrete placement is also lax in
    other areas such as initial placement and location of the forms, use of
    non-treated lumber (as you point out below), etc. Whenever I see any
    aspect of a job performed poorly, it makes me suspect ALL of the rest of
    the job.


    > We would butter the area with plastic cement (bituminous) after removing any
    > loose rock. ( I am guessing that very few rocks on the face would be able to
    > come loose )
    >
    > Personally, I would be curious as to the use of 'white lumber' cast directly
    > into the concrete. Anything I cast in has to be pressure treated, according
    > to my personal standard, though my local authority may agree. (Since I've
    > never cast in white lumber, I don't know if they would freak on white
    > lumber.) I presume this replaces a plate on top of the wall? and is used to
    > attach the house to the foundation? I would also be curious as to what
    > secures these pieces to the concrete.


    Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the top
    of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it? And it
    appears that their are short stubs of wood connecting the two outside
    lengths placed every 3-4' and buried in the concrete or whatever is on
    top. Bizarre.

    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Nov 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Hi,

    I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    foundation:
    http://tinyurl.com/67joe

    I am located in Calgary, AB, Canada. I will see if I can get a copy of the
    building code to check the pressure treated lumber issue. We have an
    extremely dry climate here, so it is possible that this is not in the code.
    I will also try to check out neighbouring job sites to see if I can see what
    was done there.

    Thanks.



    "Matt Whiting" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the top
    > of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it? And it
    > appears that their are short stubs of wood connecting the two outside
    > lengths placed every 3-4' and buried in the concrete or whatever is on
    > top. Bizarre.
    >
    > Matt
    >
     
    Don MacKenzie, Nov 20, 2004
    #9
  10. I would grant that the vibration could have been better.

    I would attribute the honeycomb to pouring direct from the truck ... looks
    to me like a 'leading edge segregation' as the concrete flowed, and this
    area wasn't vibrated when the pour covered it from the other direction

    "Matt Whiting" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brian Belliveau wrote:
    >
    > > The 'cold joints' don't look like anything at all, and the 'honey comb'
    > > (rock pockets) are not too bad.
    > >
    > > Overall, it looks like a quality job

    >
    > You have lower quality standards than I do. :)
    >
    > While I agree with others that this is likely a largely cosmetic flaw,
    > assuming it can be successfully damp-proofed, it certainly isn't a
    > quality concrete job. This is one of the worst looking foundations I've
    > seen in some time.


    What in particular 'looks' bad ( other than the OP concerns )

    On closer inspection, I do notice ... on photo2 - a different 'mix' was
    either stiffer or not as well vibrated as adjacent concrete. Assuming each
    placement was vibrated, it must have been some very stiff concrete. And
    something weird poking out at the cold joint line on the top of the wall
    (miss-aligned 2×4?). Photo3 shows similar bizarre pour lines ... I would
    expect vibration to 'flatten out' these lines.

    I'm reminded of one local outfit that has too few trucks ... the turn around
    time often means too much time between lifts ... but they usually look way
    worse than this job

    Personally, we pump virtually all walls, and trucks are almost always
    constant, reducing false set issues. My vibration policy is 12" deep into
    old pour, and every 6" alternating faces


    > I just hope it isn't too far off dimensionally.


    I hope it's level, straight, has quality concrete, hasn't been frozen, is
    placed properly on the lot, has a good school nearby, and the neighbours
    daughter sunbathes in the buff, ... but that has nothing at all to do with
    the original point of it all.

    > Often a contractor who is this lax on concrete placement


    I find the pump is more economical in the long run, but I suspect this
    concreter was pinching in his own way

    > is also lax in
    > other areas such as initial placement and location of the forms, use of
    > non-treated lumber (as you point out below), etc. Whenever I see any
    > aspect of a job performed poorly, it makes me suspect ALL of the rest of
    > the job.


    I find that shit like this happens, and kicking yourself is not going to
    make it go away. So you fix it appropriately, and move on.

    > > We would butter the area with plastic cement (bituminous) after removing

    any
    > > loose rock. ( I am guessing that very few rocks on the face would be

    able to
    > > come loose )
    > >
    > > Personally, I would be curious as to the use of 'white lumber' cast

    directly
    > > into the concrete. Anything I cast in has to be pressure treated,

    according
    > > to my personal standard, though my local authority may agree. (Since

    I've
    > > never cast in white lumber, I don't know if they would freak on white
    > > lumber.) I presume this replaces a plate on top of the wall? and is used

    to
    > > attach the house to the foundation? I would also be curious as to what
    > > secures these pieces to the concrete.

    >
    > Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the top
    > of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it?


    I would expect the top of wall to be somewhat smoother ... this looks like a
    wood float on a stiff mix ... I use a mag (but I don't have to contend with
    those stupid cross pieces every 2 or 3 feet, either)

    And since this work is being completely picked apart anyway ... I would
    disagree with casting over the top of the window as thin as this appears to
    be ... 5"? ... I would venture to guess that the white wood is being left
    behind ... structurally, I feel 8" is minimum concrete to bridge with
    (2×15m @ 2½" above lower face). I trust that the silly cross pieces (stubs)
    do not happen over the windows¿ The one close view of the window indicates
    it was a loose fit in the forms (7¼" in an 8" form?, or more likely 9¼" in a
    10" wall). I do a cast-in-place window frame with a 2×4 or 2×6 set flush to
    the interior, and the rest of the formwork removed, to recess the window.
    (Sloped sill, also)

    > And it
    > appears that their are short stubs of wood connecting the two outside
    > lengths placed every 3-4' and buried in the concrete or whatever is on
    > top. Bizarre.
    >
    > Matt
    >
     
    Brian Belliveau, Nov 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Don MacKenzie

    Noozer Guest

    > I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    > foundation:
    > http://tinyurl.com/67joe
    >
    > I am located in Calgary, AB, Canada. I will see if I can get a copy of

    the
    > building code to check the pressure treated lumber issue. We have an
    > extremely dry climate here, so it is possible that this is not in the

    code.
    > I will also try to check out neighbouring job sites to see if I can see

    what
    > was done there.



    This wouldn't be a "Sterling" home, would it?
     
    Noozer, Nov 20, 2004
    #11
  12. That's an odd detail from my perspective ... would seem more logical to just
    build the floor pan with TJ's and cripples, with or without a parralam style
    rim joist on the parallel to joist sides, but certainly a rim beam on the
    joist ends.

    Is this a tract builder? (the window detail of the house in the background
    looks to be similar to yours)

    My read of the forms suggests that your concrete wall is over 8 ft ...
    perhaps 9 ft?

    Your Calgary Flames haven't lost a game yet this season !!! ;-)



    "Don MacKenzie" <> wrote in message
    news:AnLnd.288023$%k.146536@pd7tw2no...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    > foundation:
    > http://tinyurl.com/67joe
    >
    > I am located in Calgary, AB, Canada. I will see if I can get a copy of

    the
    > building code to check the pressure treated lumber issue. We have an
    > extremely dry climate here, so it is possible that this is not in the

    code.
    > I will also try to check out neighbouring job sites to see if I can see

    what
    > was done there.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Matt Whiting" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the top
    > > of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it? And it
    > > appears that their are short stubs of wood connecting the two outside
    > > lengths placed every 3-4' and buried in the concrete or whatever is on
    > > top. Bizarre.
    > >
    > > Matt
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Brian Belliveau, Nov 20, 2004
    #12
  13. Nope, it's not a Sterling home. I quickly checked out 6 other homes going
    up in our neighbourhood from 3 different builders and they all have the same
    untreated timber configuration. It's possible that they were all done by
    the same cement contractor, though.

    "Noozer" <> wrote in message
    news:AAMnd.280762$Pl.92230@pd7tw1no...
    > > I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    > > foundation:
    > > http://tinyurl.com/67joe
    > >
    > > I am located in Calgary, AB, Canada. I will see if I can get a copy of

    > the
    > > building code to check the pressure treated lumber issue. We have an
    > > extremely dry climate here, so it is possible that this is not in the

    > code.
    > > I will also try to check out neighbouring job sites to see if I can see

    > what
    > > was done there.

    >
    >
    > This wouldn't be a "Sterling" home, would it?
    >
    >
     
    Don MacKenzie, Nov 20, 2004
    #13
  14. Hi Brian,

    Almost all homes going up in Calgary are built by large scale builders. The
    developers here only sell lots to a few major builders, individuals and
    small builders are mostly left to lots from demolitions and building
    "infills." Try looking for vacant lots for sale in Calgary on MLS.CA, and
    you'll see what I mean. Everything is mass produced and so you obviously
    don't get "craftsman quality" work.

    As I mentioned in a previous post, 6 other homes going up in our
    neighbourhood from 3 different builders all have the same untreated timber
    configuration.

    Yes, the walls are 9'. This is the norm in our neighbourhood, so we
    followed the crowd for resale reasons.

    It's a fantastic hockey season for Canadian hockey, no Canadian team has
    lost a single game yet!

    Thanks!


    "Brian Belliveau" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:GMnd.289118$%k.229222@pd7tw2no...
    > That's an odd detail from my perspective ... would seem more logical to

    just
    > build the floor pan with TJ's and cripples, with or without a parralam

    style
    > rim joist on the parallel to joist sides, but certainly a rim beam on the
    > joist ends.
    >
    > Is this a tract builder? (the window detail of the house in the background
    > looks to be similar to yours)
    >
    > My read of the forms suggests that your concrete wall is over 8 ft ...
    > perhaps 9 ft?
    >
    > Your Calgary Flames haven't lost a game yet this season !!! ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    > "Don MacKenzie" <> wrote in message
    > news:AnLnd.288023$%k.146536@pd7tw2no...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    > > foundation:
    > > http://tinyurl.com/67joe
    > >
    > > I am located in Calgary, AB, Canada. I will see if I can get a copy of

    > the
    > > building code to check the pressure treated lumber issue. We have an
    > > extremely dry climate here, so it is possible that this is not in the

    > code.
    > > I will also try to check out neighbouring job sites to see if I can see

    > what
    > > was done there.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Matt Whiting" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > > > Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the

    top
    > > > of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it? And it
    > > > appears that their are short stubs of wood connecting the two outside
    > > > lengths placed every 3-4' and buried in the concrete or whatever is on
    > > > top. Bizarre.
    > > >
    > > > Matt
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Don MacKenzie, Nov 20, 2004
    #14
  15. No, I didn't get a chance to see the work in progress. They snuck in on
    Rememberance Day (a holiday here) to do the pour, much to my surprise.

    See my other message regarding the timbers.

    Thanks!

    "Bob K 207" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > OP-
    >
    > You probably didn't witness the pour but did the concrete contractor

    vibrate at
    > all?
    >
    > Pumped or tailgated one can easily get this type of behavior by too much

    time
    > between trucks and too little vibration. The good news is, that as bad

    as it
    > looks (not quality work by any means, C-) you probably won't have any

    problems.
    >
    >
    > BTW it's a little late for any easy fixes at this point. Walls were
    > waterproofed but rock pockets not fixed, oh well.
    >
    > Make sure your surface drainage is good to keep water away from the house.
    >
    > Others-
    >
    > What's with the wood on the top of the wall? Two boards on edge with

    blocks
    > between them? Not pressure treated?
    >
    > Bob
     
    Don MacKenzie, Nov 20, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <I6Ond.290168$%k.29942@pd7tw2no>, Don MacKenzie
    <> wrote:

    € It's a fantastic hockey season for Canadian hockey, no Canadian team has
    € lost a single game yet!

    uhm...

    oh, never mind.

    --
    Lyle B. Harwood, President
    Phoenix Homes, Inc.
    (206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
     
    Lyle B. Harwood, Nov 20, 2004
    #16
  17. Don MacKenzie

    John Guest

    "Lyle B. Harwood" <> wrote in message
    news:201120040512095154%...
    > In article <zVGnd.282867$nl.100697@pd7tw3no>, Brian Belliveau
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > here in Seattle, and the building code is
    > such a low standard that anything that doesn't pass it is simply
    > pathetic.


    Is this why you choose to build in Seattle?
     
    John, Nov 20, 2004
    #17
  18. Don MacKenzie

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Don MacKenzie wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I believe this is what the plans say regarding the 2x4s embedded in the
    > foundation:
    > http://tinyurl.com/67joe


    Who designed this detail? This is bizarre, especially the galvanized
    strap that appears to start inside the foundation wall, run under the
    sill and then up the outside. I guess this might help provide lateral
    (shear) resistance to the wall moving towards the outside of the
    foundation, but it provides no resistance against inward shear and
    virtually no resistance to vertical loads imposed on the wall. Seems
    like the more conventional method of using achors embedded in the
    concrete and bolted through the sill is much better as it resists all
    three load conditions.

    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Nov 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Don MacKenzie

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Brian Belliveau wrote:

    > I would grant that the vibration could have been better.
    >
    > I would attribute the honeycomb to pouring direct from the truck ... looks
    > to me like a 'leading edge segregation' as the concrete flowed, and this
    > area wasn't vibrated when the pour covered it from the other direction


    I agree. To me, that constitutes poor quality.


    > "Matt Whiting" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Brian Belliveau wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The 'cold joints' don't look like anything at all, and the 'honey comb'
    >>>(rock pockets) are not too bad.
    >>>
    >>>Overall, it looks like a quality job

    >>
    >>You have lower quality standards than I do. :)
    >>
    >>While I agree with others that this is likely a largely cosmetic flaw,
    >>assuming it can be successfully damp-proofed, it certainly isn't a
    >>quality concrete job. This is one of the worst looking foundations I've
    >>seen in some time.

    >
    >
    > What in particular 'looks' bad ( other than the OP concerns )


    The use of untreated wood in direct contact with the concrete as another
    poster pointed out. What appears to be a different mix of concrete,
    either different strength, different amount of water added, etc. The
    color is rather different as well as the poor consolidation.


    > On closer inspection, I do notice ... on photo2 - a different 'mix' was
    > either stiffer or not as well vibrated as adjacent concrete. Assuming each
    > placement was vibrated, it must have been some very stiff concrete. And
    > something weird poking out at the cold joint line on the top of the wall
    > (miss-aligned 2×4?). Photo3 shows similar bizarre pour lines ... I would
    > expect vibration to 'flatten out' these lines.
    >
    > I'm reminded of one local outfit that has too few trucks ... the turn around
    > time often means too much time between lifts ... but they usually look way
    > worse than this job


    I wouldn't use a company like this for jobs then that required more than
    one load.


    > Personally, we pump virtually all walls, and trucks are almost always
    > constant, reducing false set issues. My vibration policy is 12" deep into
    > old pour, and every 6" alternating faces


    Works for me!


    >>I just hope it isn't too far off dimensionally.

    >
    >
    > I hope it's level, straight, has quality concrete, hasn't been frozen, is
    > placed properly on the lot, has a good school nearby, and the neighbours
    > daughter sunbathes in the buff, ... but that has nothing at all to do with
    > the original point of it all.
    >
    >
    >>Often a contractor who is this lax on concrete placement

    >
    >
    > I find the pump is more economical in the long run, but I suspect this
    > concreter was pinching in his own way
    >
    >
    >>is also lax in
    >>other areas such as initial placement and location of the forms, use of
    >>non-treated lumber (as you point out below), etc. Whenever I see any
    >>aspect of a job performed poorly, it makes me suspect ALL of the rest of
    >>the job.

    >
    >
    > I find that shit like this happens, and kicking yourself is not going to
    > make it go away. So you fix it appropriately, and move on.


    And you make sure that ALL of your colleagues in the business hear about
    this contractor.


    >>>We would butter the area with plastic cement (bituminous) after removing

    >
    > any
    >
    >>>loose rock. ( I am guessing that very few rocks on the face would be

    >
    > able to
    >
    >>>come loose )
    >>>
    >>>Personally, I would be curious as to the use of 'white lumber' cast

    >
    > directly
    >
    >>>into the concrete. Anything I cast in has to be pressure treated,

    >
    > according
    >
    >>>to my personal standard, though my local authority may agree. (Since

    >
    > I've
    >
    >>>never cast in white lumber, I don't know if they would freak on white
    >>>lumber.) I presume this replaces a plate on top of the wall? and is used

    >
    > to
    >
    >>>attach the house to the foundation? I would also be curious as to what
    >>>secures these pieces to the concrete.

    >>
    >>Likewise. I can't for the life figure out what is being done on the top
    >>of the wall? Looks like a form with fairly loose stuff in it?

    >
    >
    > I would expect the top of wall to be somewhat smoother ... this looks like a
    > wood float on a stiff mix ... I use a mag (but I don't have to contend with
    > those stupid cross pieces every 2 or 3 feet, either)


    Yes, this is truly a bizarre way to finish the top of a foundation wall.

    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Nov 21, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    419
    Michael
    Jan 6, 2004
  2. Dan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    235
  3. kevin

    cold joint in concrete

    kevin, Sep 20, 2006, in forum: Misc DIY
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    597
    Michael Daly
    Sep 21, 2006
  4. Joe
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    222
  5. Don MacKenzie

    Follow-Up Re: Cold Joint In Basement

    Don MacKenzie, Dec 9, 2004, in forum: Building Construction
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    199
    Don MacKenzie
    Dec 9, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page