Concrete footing

[Canvasman]

Looking at photo you can see that the post has settled @ ¾ of an inch since last fall. This happened after the frost left the ground last week. The sono tube is in 5 feet of fill, supposedly they put deep enough tube in.  I'm being told that tube did not have to reach virgin ground, just 4 feet deep for frost. I always thought footings needed to be on original soil.  And if it is on virgin soil should settling occur? Lastly carpenter used 4*4 pressure treated post to hold 8 foot wide deck and trusses for the covered porch, is that strong enough, Or should it have been a 4*6 post? Also could the post itself have shrunk ¾ inch?
Thanks, Eric

[umtallguy]

fill could well have settled, especially if they did not compact it well

[rick91351]

Couple thoughts and I am not a pro at this so anyway take it as such.

One timbers, boards and lumber does not shrink in length because of the cell structure of the wood.

Not knowing your soil type nor its compaction.  But sound as if the back fill was not compacted.  I would think the weight of the 4X4, the sono tube, concrete and rebar assuming rebar was used settled into the loose fill.  If you pencil in the amount of weight there standing on end.  Even without the pressure of the deck below, all standing on a little tiny surface of the bottom of a sono tube if not abutted in to something solid it is just going down. 

Almost forty years ago I was around concrete work all the time.  This would have never been allowed back then here.  It would have been required set up and inspection, poured and inspected before the back fill.  I am surprised the building inspector allowed this.  Today I am around a different type of building inspector over in the next county where I experience most construction now days.  Over there they went from the friendly get way with anything to a over night real building inspector one with real teeth.  I can tell you this would never have flown there with Builder Bob as we affectionately call him.  (We call him other things as well.)  Also where the post and beam join that would have been 'red tagged' as well. 

Not knowing how the deck above is constructed and amount of load below.  This also is coupled with the roof above.  I would think that an engineer would required a much bigger post than a 4X4.  Most likely steel and a real footing.  Also           

[John Raabe]

A post can shrink somewhat in length but shrinks more in width. That is unlikely to be shrinkage.

Was the fill compacted in "lifts" and/or structural fill? If not, that is the most likely cause. Foundation footings should always be on undisturbed soil. I once asked my engineer how long do you have to wait until regular fill can be considered to be "undisturbed" - he said, after you run a glacier over it.  

You have probably already seen the largest settlement but there may be a bit more over the next few winters. Find the best location and shim it. See if you need to do it again next year.

This might also be a contributing factor.


I would have made those posts 6x6 and you should add some simple brackets to tie the posts and beams together. The Simpson "Rustic Collection" looks good for this. Consider the OHA, OT and OL.

[rwanders]

At the post to beam connection where we see the gap-----was that joint really only 1 or 2 nails?  If these problems are representative of the rest of the craftsmanship of your builder I'm afraid this is just the beginning of your problems.  What has been done (or not done) where you cannot see?  If your county or city required permits and in-process inspections you may have a few bones to pick with them too. Were formal drawings made and stamped by a design professional and were they followed?
Depending on that answer, you may have additional grounds to pursue remedial work by either builder and/or designer.

If no drawings or specs or no permit or inspections you may just have to live with the house for a while and address issues as they come up.  If your builder was unlicensed or not bonded or uninsured it is doubtful you will be able to obtain any relief from him. In my experience the only assets he will be likely to have is some tools and a pickup truck.   

[Canvasman]

The fill is sand, not compacted. The post is not continuous, rests on deck. Inspector called all good. The builder was licensed and insured.
Formal drawings where made by a building Inspector, followed! Yes after some discussion, with the carpenter.
Thanks

[rwanders]

   wow---I'm rendered speechless (almost).  I worked in quality assurance and quality control for many years.  All those systems i.e. professional designers, documented design documents, permits, inspections etc are intended to deliver structures that are safe and meet design requirements----all I can say is----sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.

Did the inspector really produce the drawings and specs?  Never have seen that before----sure he wasn't the builders brother-in-law or his silent partner?  Seriously, was the inspector an architect, qualified residential design professional or civil engineer? I don't think I have ever met a county or city inspector with those kind of qualifications. I inspected only large commercial and industrial projects and all aspects except electrical and HVAC---but I was not qualified to issue the formal design documents. My knowledge of many of the industrial codes was sometimes greater than some of the engineers but I couldn't pose as one.  If additional serious deficiencies are revealed you may want to spend a few $$ consulting an attorney experienced in construction laws in your jurisdiction for options.