Thread: brick piers??????

Attachment 70890 This is a subfloor i inspected that was owner built.

hello,

and so the owner-builder gets told to rectify, I just hope the same processes are followed thru for builders,

the court case I highlighted was also at a time whereby many thought the "builder" had total responsibility for anything, and as people took things to court they questioned the surveyor

a similar case went through with burbank homes whereby the surveyor also was held responsible

thankyou

myla

Originally Posted by thebuildingsurv

Attachment 70890 This is a subfloor i inspected that was owner built.

See, Mick said it is easy.....

Hi Bingo, If it were me, with the benefit of many OB and renos behind me, I would go for the slab onground option.

I've checked out your other posts and looked at your pics on other sites.

My reasoning for suggesting this is that deep footing stumps and associatted subfloor construction uses up about 3 times the labor of putting down a slab (on level ground). If you can lock in a slab price about what you stated then with only 25% of the budget you get the foundations, plumbing sanitaries, concrete floor, wall frames, and maybe roof trusses as well. that sounds pretty good to me!

A timber type floor is going to take about 2 months to get done if just one or two people are working on it - it will also require some pretty precise setting out.

So many times new builders , renovators underestimate the most vital resource needed for building work - Their own ENERGY. At the start most of the energy comes from enthusiasm and eagerness for the project. But as things start to drag and the muscles get sore, then the emotions kick in and energy levels drop off. Minor injuries, things like minor back problems, hammerers wrist, repetitive strains and minor ailments like a simple cold all begin compounding to make the work physically tiring.

And so I suggest the slab option will advance the project dramatically and preserve energy levels further into the project. You'll get out of the ground quickly and into the air and shapes and spaces will happen fast.

Originally Posted by thebuildingsurv

This is a subfloor i inspected that was owner built.

Don't you mean sub-standard floor?

Mick

Originally Posted by Dirty Doogie

Hi Bingo, If it were me, with the benefit of many OB and renos behind me, I would go for the slab onground option.

I've checked out your other posts and looked at your pics on other sites.

My reasoning for suggesting this is that deep footing stumps and associatted subfloor construction uses up about 3 times the labor of putting down a slab (on level ground). If you can lock in a slab price about what you stated then with only 25% of the budget you get the foundations, plumbing sanitaries, concrete floor, wall frames, and maybe roof trusses as well. that sounds pretty good to me!

A timber type floor is going to take about 2 months to get done if just one or two people are working on it - it will also require some pretty precise setting out.

So many times new builders , renovators underestimate the most vital resource needed for building work - Their own ENERGY. At the start most of the energy comes from enthusiasm and eagerness for the project. But as things start to drag and the muscles get sore, then the emotions kick in and energy levels drop off. Minor injuries, things like minor back problems, hammerers wrist, repetitive strains and minor ailments like a simple cold all begin compounding to make the work physically tiring.

And so I suggest the slab option will advance the project dramatically and preserve energy levels further into the project. You'll get out of the ground quickly and into the air and shapes and spaces will happen fast.

yeah thx doogie trust me if we had the money that is definately the option i would go for the next house will definately be done this way and by more tradies.unfortunately we dont so we have to do it the hard way i know everyone has said it will save time not to mention the physical aspects but time is a luxury we do have money isnt.so many fights with hubby coming up lol thx for your help

Originally Posted by thebuildingsurv

Attachment 70890 This is a subfloor i inspected that was owner built.

thats beyond bad but not all owner builders are like that most go above and beyond the australian standards ive seen the same results with builders doing the job.i think its up to the individuals standards on wether they want to do a perfect job and as i said im not interested in jepordising peoples lives by cutting corners

."so many fights with hubby coming up"

- another energy draining activity.

I just ran a few figures through my estimating tables. You are trying to build about 127 sq mtr of house.

materials only, 1 bathroom 1 kitchen, alum siding,steel roof, 30% alum window, gyprock lining.

Slab on level ground construction @ 550 mt2 = $69850

Stumps and treated timber subfloor with chip floor @ 740 mt2 = $93980

Every calculation I make indicates a timber subfloor with stumps is significantly more expensive on materials only basis.

most go above and beyond the australian standards

That assumes they know what they are

I don't think anyone is suggesting an owner builder would be deliberately negligent. It would be through ignorance of building practices that things will go wrong.

Its amazing what people will do when they start running short of money.

So many jobs end up unfinished when there is not a solid strict budget + an unforseen margin.

Guessing is not an option. Know every little cost before you start.

Tracking a budget daily is absolutely compulsory.

Bingo, all the input should be taken as constructive. Most of the members replying have vast experiences in both new & reno work.
If you feel you can handle the project, I would press on.
The main thing to remember is at the end of the day the buck stops with you so make sure you research each stage & get qualified advise.
I take it from your posts that you've had the plans drawn professionally & that the 'stump' issue was an item that you were not sure of.
I'd be concerned that your designer did not point you in the direction of using timber or concrete stumps, but I assume that the idea of brick piers was yours to try & cut down on costs. I am equally concerned that you mention, I think it was 150mm of concrete past the pier, for the footing. The concrete needs only to provide full support under the bricks - & meet the required pad dimension for the load. [ less concrete]
You mention, if I read it properly, that the designer could get design comp's for the piers which also worries me as this is not necessary unless I'm interpreting the project incorrectly.
At the end of the day if you feel you can manage, then give it a go.
I for one, & i'm sure many others, will give assistance as you progress - as long as your seen to have done your homework & don't ask questions that show you haven't - & then you'll be crucified.

From my design manual - stumps placed into reactive clay or expansive silts must be round or ovoid and have a smooth non porous surface. The footing must also be round in plan view.

Rough surfaced materials like in situ ground formed concrete, rough sawn timber,brick or block are not recommended as they provide a friction grip for expanding earth. site soil only backfilled to half the stump depth and the remainer filled with 20mm gravel. the footing also sits on a 300mm depth of 5mm compacted gravel.

I'd like to read that manual.
Can you give details.

Originally Posted by ausdesign

Bingo, all the input should be taken as constructive. Most of the members replying have vast experiences in both new & reno work.
If you feel you can handle the project, I would press on.
The main thing to remember is at the end of the day the buck stops with you so make sure you research each stage & get qualified advise.
I take it from your posts that you've had the plans drawn professionally & that the 'stump' issue was an item that you were not sure of.
I'd be concerned that your designer did not point you in the direction of using timber or concrete stumps, but I assume that the idea of brick piers was yours to try & cut down on costs. I am equally concerned that you mention, I think it was 150mm of concrete past the pier, for the footing. The concrete needs only to provide full support under the bricks - & meet the required pad dimension for the load. [ less concrete]
You mention, if I read it properly, that the designer could get design comp's for the piers which also worries me as this is not necessary unless I'm interpreting the project incorrectly.
At the end of the day if you feel you can manage, then give it a go.
I for one, & i'm sure many others, will give assistance as you progress - as long as your seen to have done your homework & don't ask questions that show you haven't - & then you'll be crucified.

thx ausdesign i havnt got plans back yet or been to a engineer yet i was just trying to see what options i could use within our budget ive looked in the australian standards before posting on here and searched the net too but couldnt find what i wanted.granted some questions may seem stupid to most of you guys but im sure everybody on here at one time or another had no experience in their fields until they either went to school done it themselves or asked a million and one silly questions.what i mean is the answer to my origanal question was relatively easy eg:hey bingo its not that easy without seeing plans or having a soil test if you get an engineer to do your footing details your question would be answered by him good luck:ive noticed on several posts in here not just mine that if you dont have experience or some sort of knowledge then a few dont give you a break maybe those few should remember that they too didnt know it all when they started.sometimes i may not have explained myself properly and for that i apologize.but id rather spend hours searching this site to find my answers before i post one and cop the negativity