I'm currently having a wooden garage built by a construction company. I've noticed a couple of things that I believe are incorrect, but the builder insists they are right. I want to be clear on what's required before the final inspection.
1. The wall is not plumb in the middle of one of the long sides, leaning about 15 mm/m, is this OK?
2. The same wall as above is directly against the concrete slab, i.e., the wooden panel is in contact with the slab, how much space should there be between the wooden panel and the concrete slab?
1. The wall is not plumb in the middle of one of the long sides, leaning about 15 mm/m, is this OK?
2. The same wall as above is directly against the concrete slab, i.e., the wooden panel is in contact with the slab, how much space should there be between the wooden panel and the concrete slab?
According to Hus AMA 98, the following applies;
For waviness, a deviation of ±5 mm is allowed at a 2 m measurement length (±2 mm at a 0.25 m measurement length).
For inclination, the tolerance is ±5 mm at normal room (wall) height.
The panel should be released 1-2 cm up from the slab and have a "drip nose," meaning it should be cut with a mitered cut so that the panel is longer on its front side than the back side. This is to ensure that water "releases" more easily from the panel and is not absorbed into the end grain.
The sill/bottom rail should rest on a sill paper or equivalent to prevent capillary absorption from the slab.
For waviness, a deviation of ±5 mm is allowed at a 2 m measurement length (±2 mm at a 0.25 m measurement length).
For inclination, the tolerance is ±5 mm at normal room (wall) height.
The panel should be released 1-2 cm up from the slab and have a "drip nose," meaning it should be cut with a mitered cut so that the panel is longer on its front side than the back side. This is to ensure that water "releases" more easily from the panel and is not absorbed into the end grain.
The sill/bottom rail should rest on a sill paper or equivalent to prevent capillary absorption from the slab.
Exactly, the sill should align with the base/slab so that the panel goes freely.
I think the same rules apply for a garage, but I'm not 100% sure.
Hus AMA must be purchased, and it's expensive. Last time I checked, it was about 2000:-.
Could it be a good idea to hire an inspector who knows everything, if you think there will be discussions with the builder?
I think the same rules apply for a garage, but I'm not 100% sure.
Hus AMA must be purchased, and it's expensive. Last time I checked, it was about 2000:-.
Could it be a good idea to hire an inspector who knows everything, if you think there will be discussions with the builder?
I'm curious, is the slope due to the bottom plate being placed too far in or what? 15 mm/m is really a lot and solely indicates that they've completely missed it and that it will mildly speaking be a bit tricky to fix now. The panel should obviously not touch the base as mentioned before.
/Kent
/Kent
A 3 cm inclination on a newly erected wall and exterior panel lying against the slab cannot be considered professionally done at all. Such basic mistakes simply must not occur.
However, perhaps the issue of what applies regarding AMA should be addressed in the legal forum? It is more than interesting.
Then there's the question of whether it's a total contract or a divided contract? There are quite a few question marks here about where demands can be directed.
However, I hope no one considers it okay? Unless, of course, the buyer specifically ordered walls with such an inclination and for the panel to end flush against the footing *S*
/Kent
However, perhaps the issue of what applies regarding AMA should be addressed in the legal forum? It is more than interesting.
Then there's the question of whether it's a total contract or a divided contract? There are quite a few question marks here about where demands can be directed.
However, I hope no one considers it okay? Unless, of course, the buyer specifically ordered walls with such an inclination and for the panel to end flush against the footing *S*
/Kent
It started with the entire wall leaning in equally along the entire long side. The guy who was supposed to install the garage doors discovered the error, when he set the doors plumb, the error on the wall was clearly visible. The construction company then released the wall from the roof truss to adjust it. This was done only a few meters in from each gable end. Therefore, the wall still leans in the middle. The sill was incorrectly installed from the beginning. The garage is on two contracts, the concrete foundation on one and the rest of the construction on another. In the contract with the builder, it states, among other things, that for exterior walls, one should follow HusAMA98 according to table 27.C/37, class A. Does anyone know what this table specifies?
My personal comment is that one should apparently not cease to be surprised.
Anyway, make sure to have written documentation on the errors, also check how the placement of the sill aligns with the drawing so they can't pull the idiocy that the sill should be placed there due to the drawing.
I slightly wonder why they didn't release the entire wall?
Unfortunately, I have no idea what that table indicates, but I would be very surprised if it specifies such tolerances as in this case.
/Kent
Anyway, make sure to have written documentation on the errors, also check how the placement of the sill aligns with the drawing so they can't pull the idiocy that the sill should be placed there due to the drawing.
I slightly wonder why they didn't release the entire wall?
Unfortunately, I have no idea what that table indicates, but I would be very surprised if it specifies such tolerances as in this case.
/Kent
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I remember it, the slope in Hus AMA should be read as follows (reference table 27.C/37): H/600 should be within the range of 5 - 20 mm where H=wall height in mm. This means that a 3m high wall can have a maximum tilt of 5mm (3000/600=5).
Could it be that the concrete slab has become a few cm too large, and that they cut and mounted the sill strictly according to the drawing, without regard to the size of the slab? Which could perhaps be justified by the fact that otherwise the garage would be larger than what the building permit allows?