Browse Forums Building A New House 1 Aug 23, 2010 5:44 pm We have just returned from our PCI today, and hired an independant inspector, for our peace of mind. All went well, apart from the fact that our weep holes are too high From what I understood, weepholes should be at FFL (finished floor level) and our weep holes in our brickwork is one brick higher that that. As you can imagine, we are blaming ourselves as we should have hired the inspectors services earlier. Our inspector has said that the height they are at, could cause major problems, and needs to be fixed. Our SS has said that there is nothing to be concerned about and this is how their construction team decided to contruct their homes now. Has anyone else discovered any problems with their weep holes? Or if anyone would like to share any photos of theirs. We are currently waiting for our report to be sent through. Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 2Aug 23, 2010 5:49 pm I would put a question to the SS: "What is the desined use of weepholes?" Ie: What are they supposed to do? If by having them above FFL the expected purpose of them is negatively impacted upon then they will need to be fixed! So sorry that you've had an issue at PCI BTW. Deemaree Kyndylan Capers: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=46852 My blog: http://www.sufficientlysufficient.blogspot.com/ Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 3Aug 23, 2010 5:57 pm I googled and found this: (it's American... but it kinda helps? will keep searching for the Aussie equivalent...) This is from the 1994 Standard Building Code (SBCCI). - B1403 VENEERED WALLS - - B1403.1 GENERAL - - - B1403.1.1 Veneer refers to a facing of brick, tile, concrete, masonry units, metal, including metal coated with porcelain enamel, glass, wood or similar material securely attached to a wall for the purpose of providing ornamentation, protection, or insulation but not so bonded as to exert a common reaction under load. - - - B1403.1.2 Veneer shall not be assumed to support any load other than its own weight, neither shall it be assumed to add to the strength of the wall. - - - B1403.1.3 Veneered walls shall provide weather protection for the building at the walls. - - - B1403.1.4 Flashing shall be provided as necessary to prevent the entrance of water at openings in or projections through veneered walls. Flashing shall be provided at intersections of veneered walls of different materials unless such materials provide a self-flashing joint and at other points subject to the entrance of water. Caulking shall be provided where such flashing is determined by the building official to be impractical. - - - - B1403.1.4.1 Flashing and weepholes as outlined in B2111.1.3 shall be located in the first course of masonry above finished ground level above the foundation wall or slab, and other points of support, including structural floors, shelf angles and lintels when anchored veneers are designed in accordance with B1403.2.4, B1403.2.5 and B1403.2.6. B2111.1.3 WEEPHOLES. Weepholes shall be provided in masonry veneer and in the outside wythe of masonry walls at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1219 mm) on center by omitting mortar in the head joints. Weepholes shall be located in the first course above the foundation wall or slab, and other points of support, including structural floors, shelf angles, and lintels. Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 4Aug 23, 2010 6:28 pm Thanks so much for your replies girls, and to Erin for the research. I pretty much found the same thing too. Our inspector, who quite a few Homeone members have used, has said basically what Erins search found, that the weep holes are too high in the course of brickwork, and should be on the second course. But our SS has said that it is only a guideline, and not a regulation, and all homes our builder constructs are now with weepholes on the third course. Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 5Aug 23, 2010 10:09 pm Our weep holes are in the second course... I actually thought they were supposed to be in the third! (I was probably wrong though) Building Monaco32 with Carlisle Homes in Alamanda Estate 20/08/2010 - HANDOVER 24/8!! Blog - http://ourmonaco32.blogspot.com/ Thread - viewtopic.php?f=31&t=14415 Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 6Aug 23, 2010 10:33 pm Our weepholes are in the second course. Am pretty sure this is the info you will need (no doubt your inspector will confirm this in the report). BCA - Part 3.3.4.3 Cavity ventilation and drainage.... "Open perpendicular joints (weepholes) must be created in the course immediately above any damp proof course (DPC) or flashing." Do ask you inspector what solution he recommends. If it's in the BCA your builder will have to comply and provide a suitable solution, regardless of what their 'usual practice' is. Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 8Aug 24, 2010 1:52 am Thanks for replies. The inspection report was really detailed, but basically says that the DPC flashings must be set on the second course of bricks or lower. Then just goes on to say: "We also draw the builder‟s attention to AS 3700, clause 12.7.2.4 on page 149 which clearly states that the DPC flashings must be place “as low as possible in the wall and in no case higher than the finish floor level”. We used a laser level that is under current certification to check the height of the DPC flashings and they were higher than the finish floor level in a number of places." I'll try to explain the reason why the builder is apparantly doing this now, not to only our home, but basically anyone else who has built with them this year, or is currently building. What I think they were saying (and will confirm it later) that to have the weep holes in the recommended second course of brickwork or lower, they would have needed to remove parts of the slab, or skimmed off a little of the top of it. And due to that, they have had previous customer complaints, so as a company, they have made the decision (after researching apparantly) that they will now allow for weep holes in the third course of bricks instead and that the clause is only a guideline. And this decision has been made by actual registered company owner, as well as their construction manager. So they dont see it as a defect and I think it's basically due to cosmetic purposes only (i'm hoping i've got that right) I feel sorry for our SS, he's absolutely lovely, and we've only had him on our build for the last six weeks or so. The overall build is said to well constructed and the other little defects apart from this are only little, like the sarking in the bathrooms needing to be replaced, little mortar gaps filled and a few paint defects, and that's about it. It's all so disapointing. Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 9Aug 24, 2010 2:33 am Hi TLM, Sorry to hear of the problem encountered. I think we have the same builder and the weep holes are done on the second brick course for my house and bricking started this year. From my daily observation on site I am sure there was no alteration to the slab. Are you able to go to one of their recently built display house and see where they put the weep holes and if it differ to what the builder is saying than maybe take photo's for reference? Good luck and please keep us updated. Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 10Aug 24, 2010 3:15 am Hey Polo, Nice to see you again Yeah, we have the same builder. Do you have a H class slab too? How is your house going? You must be in or almost in there by now, how has it been? I had to clarify with the other half in regards to the reason to why the weepholes are on the third course, we have a H class slab, and basically the choice to have the weepholes higher than FFL is purely cosmetic. That they are moved due to the site fill to the house, and not wanting any of the slab to be seen. I've actually had a look at two building blogs with the same builder, two next door neighbours, both had problems with the builder. But one has their weep holes on the second course, one on their third. You wouldn't happen to have a photo of your weep holes would you polo? Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 11Aug 25, 2010 1:54 am Hi TLM, We are at completion stage with a few more works to do such as glass splashback, showerscreens, and some more electrical fitouts etc. so hopefully not to long to PCI. Our slab is also H class, I don't understand why it would matter though because the brick is layed on the slab rebate not on the top slab itself. Below is an old photo of when they were doing the bricking, as you can see the weep holes are on the second brick course. Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Contact the director/owner if you are having difficulties, I can provide you his email address if you want it. Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 12Aug 25, 2010 2:29 am Hi again Polo, Thanks so much for sharing your photos, it is greatly appreciated. If you would be able to PM me his details, I would be ever so greatful Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 13Aug 25, 2010 8:50 am I think the DCP and weep holes must be below FFL in all cases. Not sure how high is your H class slab (from the rebate to the FFL), but if it's high enough, flashings above 2nd brick course may well still be below FFL. Normally, an M class slab is 16cm high (from rebate to FFL) - which allows for 2 brick courses on the rebate and the DCP in between them (ie. on top of 1st row). If your H class slab is say 16+8 = 24cm high, then they could put the DCP on top of the 2nd row of bricks and still remain below the FFL. Have a look at your slab plan (sectional) - it will tell you all the measurements exactly. Also, do you have old pics of the slab, before or during bricking? My signature is distracting people from my wise posts ... Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 15Aug 25, 2010 11:26 am Lex I think the DCP and weep holes must be below FFL in all cases. Not sure how high is your H class slab (from the rebate to the FFL), but if it's high enough, flashings above 2nd brick course may well still be below FFL. Normally, an M class slab is 16cm high (from rebate to FFL) - which allows for 2 brick courses on the rebate and the DCP in between them (ie. on top of 1st row). If your H class slab is say 16+8 = 24cm high, then they could put the DCP on top of the 2nd row of bricks and still remain below the FFL. Have a look at your slab plan (sectional) - it will tell you all the measurements exactly. Also, do you have old pics of the slab, before or during bricking? Hi Lex. I cant find the the measurements in our plans, I really can't make sense of them, so will have to ask DP when he gets home, unless a lovely Homeone member can point me to where on the plans I might find them. The inspector said that they are above FFL though, otherwise we would never have known. I certainly do have a photo of the slab before bricking. Not sure if they would be of any use though. Thanks Polo, greatly appreciated. It may come in handy should I need it Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 16Aug 25, 2010 5:02 pm I can't make head or tail of the slab design plans EDIT: The brick rebate tot he residence is 150mm wide X 172mm deep I hope you don't mind Polo, I've borrowed a photo of your slab to compare with mine. Looks the same to me Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 17Aug 25, 2010 6:31 pm OK, so if "The brick rebate tot he residence is 150mm wide X 172mm deep", I'd say that it's at least debatable, but I do trust your inspector and his measuring tools. The rebate needs to be high enough so that the bottom 2 rows of bricks (in your case) still end up lower than the FFL. If your bricks are 76mm high, 2 rows + mortar is about 162-165mm (depends on mortar bed thickness), but there is also the very bottom row of mortar - and this can be much more if they don't take care (normally around 20-30mm, depends). This total height of around 185 mm is higher than the above-underlined 172mm deep - which, in short, brings your DCP flashings and weep holes slightly above the FFL. This "calculation" assumes that they have indeed made the rebate 172 mm high. But, the point is - what can be (and what will be) done about this? I know that everything is possible (almost), but to think that they would fix the DCP height .... My signature is distracting people from my wise posts ... Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 18Aug 25, 2010 6:57 pm As it was a board decision, we expect that they will fight us. Our Inspector has said that it wont stop us from moving in though, but to fix it, they will need to remove brickwork, and that's about as far as I really know. It's really heartbreaking and I'm doing as much research as possible, as I have done throughout our build. I've found a photo showing the weep holes in relation to the FFL Dear J.K. Rowling, Your books are entirely unrealistic. I mean, a ginger kid with two friends? Sincerely, Anonymous Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 19Aug 25, 2010 10:02 pm It does look like the wp is slightly above the FFL. There is no easy way to fix it to be as per BCA, other than removing a few bricks at a time from the second course, inserting additional flashing on top of the first course taking care that the old flashing is sitting in the new flashing which is turned up (I don't think they can nail it to the frames or anything), and then bricking back in the removed bricks (with new bricks). Which looks like a boring job, but who cares. Wouldn't be a bad idea to check their intended fixing plan with the SS and the inspector, and to be there while the guy is fixing it. Otherwise, you wouldn't really know if it was done as per agreed plan and you'd need to remove a section of plaster to random check the fixes. BTW, sorry to hear of this problem, TLM. My signature is distracting people from my wise posts ... Re: PCI Today - Inspector Finds Major Problem, SS Disagrees 20Aug 26, 2010 9:55 am When I read the title, I thought - someone with the same issue as us ! Well almost, except that we haven't got weepholes above our windows, as per the Building Code of Australia. We too had our inspector go through the house, and this has been our sticking point. As for the lower ones I believe they're 2nd course, but for above - nothing.....so if we get rising damp in a couple of years, that'd be why. We're taking it to VCAT, but the SS is steadfastly defiant about not needing them.......it's caused us heartache too I would send it to the certifier who is technically your representative and working on your behalf not the builder's 1 2281 We hired Darbecca to do every stage inspection, and I strongly recommend them to anyone that asks me. They were amazing. Thorough reports with photos at every stage,… 6 7145 i would not be signing anything on the day read your contract about when builder submits final invoice generally, have to meet builder within 7 days of receiving final… 1 4747 |