Author Topic: Pier & Beam Question  (Read 12290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,860
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: Pier & Beam Question
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2011, 11:54:49 AM »
How's this for another pier bracing solution?



If the panel height was no more than 16 to 24 inches there may be no need for any vertical studs other than where panel ends may join.  ???  

3/4" PT plywood, PT 2x6 for a 6 inch pier, 2x4 for a 4x4 pier. Nailed every 6 inches with 6D deformed shank (0.120" shank) nails.

Siding, stone, other materials could be applied for cosmetics to match or contrast with the cabin walls.

Use for both lengthwise and width bracing. Of course going across the width extra framinmg may be required unless there is a beam across as well.

Leave access door/panel and supply ventilation if enclosing the entire space. Panel both sides?


« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 02:09:26 PM by MountainDon »
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

Offline Don_P

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
Re: Pier & Beam Question
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2011, 02:18:42 PM »
Yes, this is excellent bracing. I talked to an engineer about this awhile back. You should still put studs in to keep the plywood from buckling under lateral load so the load stays in plane and doesn't try to buckle and pop the plywood off. The temptation is going to be to run the plywood down to grade or to backfill the grade to seal the gap. This introduces the possibility of frost lifting the brace wall.

Think about this now. A permanent wood crawlspace would have a gravel trench down below frost depth, a treated wood perimeter wall to floor height and the floor system on top. No piers, no girder. I havent done the math but I'm betting if you put pencil to paper it starts looking like a wash and the permanent wood crawlspace is prescriptive and well braced, the floor is uniformly supported.

Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,860
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: Pier & Beam Question
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2011, 02:58:23 PM »



I was looking at this as a method to improve the stability of a pier and beam foundation that was already under way or built.

It is getting close to a PMF sort of thing. I originally drew it with no ground to wood framing contact for reasons you mentioned.  :D

I'm thinking that PWF should be being looked at by more small cabin builders. It could especially be good, easy enough for a home builder in areas with shallow frost depths. And all the lumber for piers and beams would be saved, the money put into PT wood. Crushed stone in a trench instead of concrete.

Maybe I need another building?  ???
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 06:22:14 PM by MountainDon »
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

Offline MountainDon

  • Administrator
  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,860
  • Jemez Mountains, NM; that's pronounced HEY-mess
    • My 15.75 x 30 Jemez Cabin
Re: Pier & Beam Question
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2011, 06:51:03 PM »
....doubtful that this will help in a situation like this...   ;D

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=4029.msg47814#msg47814
« Last Edit: March 12, 2011, 07:17:21 PM by MountainDon »
Just because something has been done and has not failed, doesn’t mean it is good design.

 

Templates: 5: index (default), Ads (default), Portal (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 12: init, html_above, adsheaders_above, body_above, adsindex_above, portal_above, main, portal_below, adsindex_below, body_below, adsheaders_below, html_below.
Language files: 3: SPortal.english (default), index+Modifications.english (default), Ads.english (default).
Style sheets: 1: portal (default).
Files included: 38 - 1132KB. (show)
Cache hits: 12: 0.00141s for 40,955 bytes (show)
Queries used: 30.

[Show Queries]