Brick shim for concrete pier

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Is it really acceptable to use bricks as shims for a concrete pier supporting a metal beam in a crawlspace? sorry for the fussy pic - spider webs-

btw i want to suggest that additional beam supports are installed.

[ROBERT W. NEWLAND, JR.]

I would say no on the bricks, especially the direction they are laying. And, are you qualified to make the call on adding the additional beams or should you recommend a specialist?

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Well hard to see in the pic, but they line up perfect with the beam. No, your right, and thanks, I am not a structural engineer so i will refrain from recommending additional support

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Here is my DESIRED comment: A concrete pier supporting the metal beam is using bricks as a shim- Consult a Structural engineer to evaluate if this is acceptable. see pics

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Now i'm not so sure why it would be so bad, considering the crawlspace floor is concrete, the pier is concrete - there wont be movement, ( unless Chicago gets more earthquakes)

Acceptable material i am seeing referenced often is steel - wood is not good, but brick seems ok - not commenting on local building code.

I GUESS I'M ASKING MY SELF ( AND MY FELLOW INSPECTORS HERE ) WHY THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT DEFECT?

OR can i consider the brick to be an extension of the pier?

[Randy L. Mayo, PE]

Joseph

From an engineering standpoint brick has a compressive strength in the range of 3000psi to 10000psi. So brick has the strength to support that beam if used properly. The problem with dry stacked (no mortar) brick supports is the brittle nature of brick and point loading. Without mortar to help distribute the load evenly over rough surfaces the load on the brick is concentrated on the point where it actually touches the beam and the concrete pier. This issue of only a few small points on the brick carrying the load could crack or crush the brick. In a situation like this I also look at the bigger picture and ask myself two questions.

• How long has it been in place?

• What happens if it fails?

If failure could result in injury or death I would recommend fixing the problem ASAP regardless of how long the situation has existed. If failure would result in only some degree of physical damage to the house I would take into account how long the brick has been in place and explain what could happen if failure occurred and let the buyer decide.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

The brick has the holes horizontal and the load bearing design of a hollow brick is with the holes vertical. That "shim" is incorrect.

Here is what I require as a building official in my jurisdiction.

http://www.cloversc.info/Forms/Dev_S...rpretation.pdf

[ROBERT V. YOUNG]

No no.
That is a clay brick and will degrade because it will accept water and swell and spall.
I would like to see a saddle cupping the 2/8 joist.
Fastest and cheapest fix.Ceder would work for me or teak shim.
If it is cement or block it will transfer moisture to the wood.

[ROBERT V. YOUNG]

Mr.Funderburk.
You to. To many members looking through the glass window at the InterNASHI members inside.
Hope you become a member in good standing soon.

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Ah, thank you guys. Plus There is an additional consideration - the beam is not continuous- its actually two beams terminating and resting on those bricks. So even worse.

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

The brick has the holes horizontal and the load bearing design of a hollow brick is with the holes vertical. That "shim" is incorrect.

Here is what I require as a building official in my jurisdiction.

http://www.cloversc.info/Forms/Dev_S...rpretation.pdf

so heres some abuguity because contained in that code #4 it reads:

"4. All shims are limited to 4” in height, if over 4” masonry should be extended on pier. "

So am i partially right that it isn't to be considered a shim but an extension?

Now all i can say with certainty is that the orientation of the bricks are not correct with respect to the load design.

I understand the brick can swell and spall, but this was a dry concrete floor crawlspace in a topographically high village. hrmmm

[ROBERT V. YOUNG]

1: Loads are not to be transferred onto brick in that fashion.
They are not engineered to carry load like that.
2: that high is 31/2
I am a mason.
.That is a Metric Modular
Wrong with that being used as shim.

http://www.capbrick.com/bricksiz.htm

[Joseph Tribuzio]

Originally Posted by ryoung7

1: Loads are not to be transferred onto brick in that fashion.
They are not engineered to carry load like that.
2: that high is 31/2
I am a mason.
.That is a Metric Modular
Wrong with that being used as shim.

http://www.capbrick.com/bricksiz.htm

AWESOME LINK... thank you ! best answer i've got yet , very much appreciated

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by jtribuzio

so heres some abuguity because contained in that code #4 it reads:

"4. All shims are limited to 4” in height, if over 4” masonry should be extended on pier. "

So am i partially right that it isn't to be considered a shim but an extension?

Now all i can say with certainty is that the orientation of the bricks are not correct with respect to the load design.

I understand the brick can swell and spall, but this was a dry concrete floor crawlspace in a topographically high village. hrmmm

I don't think my documentation is ambiguous. If the gap between the pier and the beam is > 4" the pier should be extended with another permanent course of masonry (not a loose brick).

That's not a code, but my requirement as a building official.


Joe Funderburk

[ROBERT V. YOUNG]

Thank you.
You have also made me fell good by saying so.