Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? Miner99er (Structural) (OP) 8 Jun 11 17:39 I'm evaluating a 70 year old house that is supported by CMU block piers on 2" CMU spread footings. Is this leagal? RE: Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? hokie66 (Structural) 10 Jun 11 02:23 I don't know how a 70 year old house could be expected to "meet IBC 2006". What do you mean by "Is this leagal?" RE: Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? BigHarvey (Geotechnical) 10 Jun 11 03:41 hokie66 : Pretty sure he meant " Is this ligal " ! RE: Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? msquared48 (Structural) 15 Jun 11 11:56 If the piers are solid grouted, attached to the beams and 2" slab to prevent "walking" in a seismic event, and the 2" CMU slabs are buried sufficiently to prevent "walking", being sized for the bearing loads seen, I see no problems with the connection other than untreated wood to concrete contact.From the picture shown, the 2" slab does not see much if any bending, the load from the CMU blocks being distributed to the soil structure through the 2" CMU in shear at a 45 degree plane - no bending. No problem for me.However, the wood beams appear to be another matter. The one on the right appears to be deteriorated. Mike McCannMMC EngineeringMotto: KISSMotivation: Don't ask RE: Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? Robvh1984 (Structural) 13 Jul 11 16:51 Is there a specific defect that brought you to this issue (other than the fore-mentioned unprotected timber) or is it one of those "Id like to have my house inspected for various reasons". Maybe settlement cracks showing up inside? -Robert Miller, E.I.T.KPA Structural Engineers RE: Do CMU piers meet IBC 2006? apsix (Structural) 25 Jul 11 01:03 For a house of that age the better question is; is it adequate?Judging by the apparently more recent packer it barely appears to be adequate (as would be expected with the underside of footing at 3" deep.It's obviously not original as the other piers are the nice looking tapered CIP concrete ones.