# spot footings - posts and bases versus anchored mini-mudsills



## redwood1922 (Aug 24, 2011)

Under existing house, is it any harder/more expensive to form and pour ten 2'x2' spot footings with 2-4 embedded anchor bolts 3/4 inch 16 inches apart, compared to form and pour with 1 embedded post base and no anchor bolts? Along perimeter, clearance is as little as 18 inches from grade to bottom of floorboard, which sits on 5 1/2 in joists, and joists sit on 4x4 girders. Interior posts are taller, up to 15 inches.

I am starting with standard plan set drawings for seismic upgrade of post and beam houses. One of the plan sets allows spot footings plus no house movers, yay. But I've had to use some brain cells and this forum to draw up wood members in a way that there's clearances to get in steel connectors with the right load ratings. On my drawing board I have two details with same same concrete and rebar, one detail with anchor bolts for low-clearance perimeter spots, the other detail with post bases and caps for not-as-low interior spots. But I'm thinking the interior spots should just use anchor bolts too, and delete all posts from a post and beam house! That way all spots would have similar details. Make sense?

House is 1922 single-story 1000 square feet post-and-beam mostly redwood. Drainage and soil OK, local codes normally call for footings 1 foot deep minimum.


----------



## nealtw (Aug 24, 2011)

What happens most times is, 1. you draw the plans  2. the engineer adds things to your drawings  3. you hire the contractor, who has more real building experience than the engineer will call your engineer and discuse and change the plan to use his skill set and get required results.
I would be looking for and engineer and contractor that can and will work together and get them both envolved in the plan.
From a distance I can tell you I would want to lift the house and install a coninuous footing for the hole house and a foundation around the perimiter.


----------



## redwood1922 (Aug 24, 2011)

nealtw said:


> From a distance I can tell you I would want to lift the house and install a coninuous footing for the hole house and a foundation around the perimiter.



There are lots of advantages to using house movers but there's no way I can justify spending the extra $15,000++. Two contractors want house movers, three others are still interested. If it turns out nobody wants the job, I can sell, as a neighbor with post and beam just did, and she only had to knock off $5k from her asking price.

House held for 89 years on post and beam including 1989 earthquake. Standard plan sets for Calif. and Hawaii retrofits do not require continuous perimeter so seismic strength is not an issue. Access will add to cost but not as much as house movers. So issue becomes is a contractor willing to deal with it or are there better ways for contractor to make money. No way for me to predict that but I hear you, things might not go my way.


----------



## nealtw (Aug 24, 2011)

We never see that style of house built up here so my knowledge is limited but some times it is cheaper to buy the new house. After all this you still have a house built in 22 and old wiring and plumbing. You're going about it right, you need all the information before you can make any decisions.


----------



## BridgeMan (Aug 24, 2011)

To answer your original question, my vote would be for using the anchor bolt approach instead of embedded post bases.  It should result in stronger connections, depending on the particular bracket used between the anchor bolts and beams.

If you're willing to spend the coin on a house mover, why not get some real bang for your buck and put a basement under the place?  Double your floor area without changing the home's footprint, nice and cool on those hot summer days, etc., etc.


----------



## redwood1922 (Aug 26, 2011)

"depending on the particular bracket used between the anchor bolts and beams"

BridgeMan, "bracket" and "beam" throws me a little. Do you mean how to tie anchor bolts to concrete bond beams? Or do you mean members that connect to the wood girder (which of course is also called a beam)?

As for a basement, I can dream but I think it would not pass the local planning department's rule of no improvements more than 50% of assessed value. Even if it doesn't surpass 50%, I believe it would count when they apply the 50% rule in any future remodel I can do.



BridgeMan said:


> To answer your original question, my vote would be for using the anchor bolt approach instead of embedded post bases.  It should result in stronger connections, depending on the particular bracket used between the anchor bolts and beams.
> 
> If you're willing to spend the coin on a house mover, why not get some real bang for your buck and put a basement under the place?  Double your floor area without changing the home's footprint, nice and cool on those hot summer days, etc., etc.


----------



## redwood1922 (Aug 26, 2011)

Post and beam is pretty common in Calif and really common in Hawaii, which is just as risky for earthquake. 

Wiring and plumbing were redone. But HVAC is stone age and not worth ducting or wet heating until all the wood posts are off grade. So it's fix or sell.



nealtw said:


> We never see that style of house built up here so my knowledge is limited but some times it is cheaper to buy the new house. After all this you still have a house built in 22 and old wiring and plumbing. You're going about it right, you need all the information before you can make any decisions.


----------

