Floor support posts

[Karl E. Gerhauser]

The support posts in the crawlspace are debarked and limbed logs and split rail fence posts, it is definitely not common construction for this area but I can't come up with a true problem to call out(a 4x4 post would be the same log with the radii cut off= less support). Am I missing a concept? Does anyone know a reason this would not be acceptable?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Karl;

The de-barked log supports in the picture seems atiquate, but it is everythingelse around it that concerns me. ha. ha.
Can't identify the surroundings.

Were the logs treated? Just kidding. ha. ha.

How many write-ups did you have on this crawl?
Just curious.

Good deduction on your analyisis of the 4x4 post.
Was a common practice years ago but would not meet todays standard of building.
Note what you see, and there seems to be ample items in the surroundings. ha. ha.

Marcel

[Karl E. Gerhauser]

The crawlspace is a disaster, and too many bizarre structures to really go into now. ( Still writing report). Thanks for the input. Logs are not teated but are cedar. You say common practice years ago but home built in 1977.

[dosborne]

The posts supporting the floor structure must be secured to the floor structure (doesn't appear they are in the photo)--and not simply toenailed.

Additionally, these posts should be secured to a concrete footing as well. Depending on HOW they are secured to the concrete, there could be a problem...an elevating support which keeps the log out of direct contact with grade or concrete would be acceptable; however, if the log post is secured in a way that it is in direct contact with grade or concrete, then it should be pressure treated lumber. But then again, if the species can be determined to be cedar or redwood, I would find that acceptable as well, as they are known to be hearty outdoor woods that do well in ground/concrete contact--as long as they are well secured top and bottom.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[klott]

I believe the house had some severe settling issues in the past, as this looks like an attempt to shore up the floor, rather than original construction. CYA

[pdickerson]

Well, for starters, the structural lumber used in a home should be graded. Every set of plans I have ever seen specifies a lumber grade for all the dimensional lumber in the home. I would bet a shiny dime that those logs aren't graded

[cwillick1]

I see a lot of that specially old miner shacks turned into homes. Those have been there 30 years and will most likely be there in another hundred but I will always refer to a structural engineer. I'm not licensed to tell the client that a chunk of tree on dirt or a bolder is satisfactory for holding up their house.

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Karl, I also see it all the time. I mention in my report and verbally that I evaluate older structures in the context of the time period during which they were built and call out any failure I see. A common failure is posts resting in soil. If posts rest on stones and have been for a long time with no sign of problems, it's fine, just like stone rubble foundations are fine if they are doing their job. Old often looks funky, but it's not necessarily bad. If it's bad and it's been there a while, it'll look bad. It'll talk to you.
What I find most important in evaluating old structures is making sure that buyers understand that you can't evaluate old structures using modern building practices as a baseline.
'77 is not that old, but where a home is built also enters into it. The fact that this home has lapped rafters above one of the girders indicates to me that it's original construction.