Building Square Walls On New Construction Sill Plates

[Tim Daneliuk]

I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level. Over long
runs, they can be off several inches. So, I want to build the wall
to the sill plate with studs of different lengths to account for this
so that the top of the wall *is* level. Because of the long horizontal
runs involved, I want to keep the accuracy of the cuts to 1/16 or
even 1/32 (to avoid accumulation error).

However, measuring and cutting long studs is slow and not that accurate
with just a tape and a chop saw.

My instinct is to mount a laser distance finder on the left side of the
chop saw blade aiming the laser to the right (I am right handed) and
coming up with some kind of easily clamped/removed target that can
be consistently placed on the right hand end of the board. That way,
as the board is slid left and right, the laser would record the
effective distance from blade to board end.

However, this would require the ability to dial in an offset into the
laser distance tool to correct for the distance from the blade to
the actual laser tool mount mount. IOW, the tool has to be calibrated
for the "real" distance from blade to board end.

Questions:

1) Do distance finders allow offsets like that to be dialed in?
2) Is there a better/faster/smarter way to do this?
3) Is there already a tooling system for just this problem?

P.S. This question is actually on behalf of a friend of mine who is
a professional builder. I first suggested mounting a long
auxiliary fence on the right side of his chop saw (with proper
support) and then sticking on a self-adhesive tape to the top
of it. He said he's already doing this but it's too slow for
large projects. You have to run back-and-forth from the end
of the board to the blade to get it right. In some cases,
he's using sticks up to 20' in length so it's a fair walk.

Ideas?

[Electric Comet]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 09:19:45 -0500
Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com> wrote:

> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
> Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level. Over long
> runs, they can be off several inches. So, I want to build the wall
> to the sill plate with studs of different lengths to account for this
> so that the top of the wall *is* level. Because of the long

your solution should be reconsidered as you are only kicking the can
down the road


the can is full of worms


in other words make the footings level

[Scott Lurndal]

Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com> writes:
>
>I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
>Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level.

Knock 'em down and start over.

[-MIKE-]

On 3/17/18 9:19 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
> Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level. Over long
> runs, they can be off several inches. So, I want to build the wall
> to the sill plate with studs of different lengths to account for
> this so that the top of the wall *is* level. Because of the long
> horizontal runs involved, I want to keep the accuracy of the cuts to
> 1/16 or even 1/32 (to avoid accumulation error).
>

> Ideas?
>

Maybe I'm not completely understanding what's going on, but let me throw
out a suggestion.
The current problem is that the foundation wall isn't level and has a
uneven, inconstant slope to it. And I assume there is no deck installed
or floor poured yet.

Normally what builder would do is build the wall in the horizontal, on
the deck/floor, then raise it up into the vertical position.
I suggest doing a modified version of this. Use studs all the same
length. When you lay out the studs, nail them into the sole/sill plate
as you normally would. But instead nailing the top plate to the ends of
the studs, flip it down against the sides of the studs about a foot down
from the tops of the studs. Put one screw through it into each stud,
leaving the tops free. I hope you can picture this.

Once you've done this, you raise the wall into position on the
foundation, like normal, and temporarily secure it in place with some
long diagonal bracing. What you now have is a stud wall with no top
plate, but with the studs held in place with the top plate running along
the side of the wall instead of on top.

Now you can mark a level line across all those studs, using whatever
method is at your disposal. A laser level, a water level, whatever.
All you need is two marks at the correct cut height/length, one at each
end of the wall, then you can strike chalk line. If you have a good
laser level, you can mark each stud individually. Once you're happy
that you have each stud marked, you drop the wall back down and cut the
studs at the marks with a circ saw, fasten a top plate, as normal, and
raise the wall back up into position.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

[dpb]

On 3/17/2018 9:19 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
> Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level. Over long
> runs, they can be off several inches. So, I want to build the wall
> to the sill plate with studs of different lengths to account for this
> so that the top of the wall *is* level. Because of the long horizontal
> runs involved, I want to keep the accuracy of the cuts to 1/16 or
> even 1/32 (to avoid accumulation error).

...

> Questions:
>
> 1) Do distance finders allow offsets like that to be dialed in?
> 2) Is there a better/faster/smarter way to do this?
> 3) Is there already a tooling system for just this problem?
>
> P.S. This question is actually on behalf of a friend of mine who is
> a professional builder. I first suggested mounting a long
> auxiliary fence on the right side of his chop saw (with proper
> support) and then sticking on a self-adhesive tape to the top
> of it. He said he's already doing this but it's too slow for
> large projects. You have to run back-and-forth from the end
> of the board to the blade to get it right. In some cases,
> he's using sticks up to 20' in length so it's a fair walk.
>
> Ideas?

I'm sure there are rangers that do allow for tare but measuring/cutting
each stud individually is the hard way to go about it.

Pull a level string on the foundation and measure the distance needed
for each stud location to make the level. Lay out the studs on the
ground in group and transfer the distance to them. Cut.

--

[Leon]

Exactly! A professional builder should know better to accept poor
workmanship.

[Jerry Osage]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:39:56 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
wrote:

>Normally what builder would do is build the wall in the horizontal, on
>the deck/floor, then raise it up into the vertical position.
>I suggest doing a modified version of this. Use studs all the same
>length. When you lay out the studs, nail them into the sole/sill plate
>as you normally would. But instead nailing the top plate to the ends of
>the studs, flip it down against the sides of the studs about a foot down
>from the tops of the studs. Put one screw through it into each stud,
>leaving the tops free. I hope you can picture this.
>

I saw this being done years ago and had to stop and inquire. Due to
building codes/restrictions a new foundation would have been new
construction, and wasn't allowed. However, using the old foundation made
it a renovation/remodel - or some such - and was grand fathered and
allowed.

I consider this the best solution available - it works. It is still a
real PITA, but not as much as other methods and it is more accurate and
faster. Simple, elegant, and a solution that I would not have thought of
- I'm sure that I would have tried to cut each stud individually, but
framing is not my forte.
--

Jerry O.

[Clare Snyder]

If the footing isn't level and the foundation isn't level and the
sill plate isn't level the floors won't be level either. Level the top
of the foundation. If the foundation pour isn't level, fire the cement
contactor. If YOU poured the foundation, shame on you. Now you know
why you should have hired the job out.

At this point, find the highest point of the foundation and see how
much lower the rest of the foundation is and how much is low.

Or find the low point and see how much higher the rest is, and how
much of it is higher.

Then determine if you are better to cut/grind the high points, fill in
the low points, or use a combination strategy.. Get the sill plates
level and square on the foundation BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE.

I'd crib out the top of the foundation with lumber, carefully leveled,
and fill it with high strength concrete, mixed with a bit of bondfast,
then after stripping the cribbing, lag the sills down

>

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 10:19 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
> in other words make the footings level

Out of my control.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Knock 'em down and start over.

That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.

In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you get.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 10:39 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 3/17/18 9:19 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction. Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level.  Over long runs, they can be off several inches.  So, I want to build the wall to the sill plate with studs of different lengths to account for
>> this so that the top of the wall *is* level.  Because of the long
>> horizontal runs involved, I want to keep the accuracy of the cuts to
>> 1/16 or even 1/32 (to avoid accumulation error).
>>
>> Ideas?
>>

<SNIP>

> Now you can mark a level line across all those studs, using whatever
> method is at your disposal.  A laser level, a water level, whatever.
> All you need is two marks at the correct cut height/length, one at each
> end of the wall, then you can strike chalk line.  If you have a good
> laser level, you can mark each stud individually.  Once you're happy
> that you have each stud marked, you drop the wall back down and cut the
> studs at the marks with a circ saw, fasten a top plate, as normal, and
> raise the wall back up into position.

This is a great approach for the occasional builder but - I fear - far
too slow for a professional framer for whom time is money (which is
why he brought this to my attention in the first place). In this
particular instance, the framer specializes in building large structures
in very remote areas. You get what you get in the way of sill plates
being level and you have to adjust accordingly ... and rapidly when
you're framing hundreds linear feet of wall per project and thousands
per year.

[-MIKE-]

If he's a professional framer, then he's already thought of my suggestion.
It shouldn't take two framing carpenters any longer to do what I
described than it took me to type it. :-) Seriously.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 02:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> f he's a professional framer, then he's already thought of my suggestion.

> It shouldn't take two framing carpenters any longer to do what I
> described than it took me to type it.  :-)    Seriously.

I dunno about that. You have to take it up, tack it in place, measure,
take it down, cut, remove the top, and install it. That's a lot of steps.

[DerbyDad03]

'Splain me something:

Why does the location, near or far, make any difference in how level a
pour is? Is it that only crappy contractors will pour in these remote
location?

'Splain me something else:

If this "professional framer" runs into this all the time (building large
structures in very remote areas is his "specialty", right?) then hasn't he
figured out a solution on his own yet?

You make it sound like uneven pours are a common problem in this guy's
world, so how is that he is just getting around to asking you to figure
out how to do his job?

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-7, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.

> Inevitably, the foundation pours are not perfectly level....

> However, measuring and cutting long studs is slow and not that accurate
> with just a tape and a chop saw.

This suggests a tech solution: an automatic stop for the chop saw
<https://www.tigerstop.com/products/sawgear/>

You still have to have a measurement for each stud, but the cut-to-length
operation is easier, because the length stop is adjusted by the
robot.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:17:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

>On 03/17/2018 10:19 AM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> in other words make the footings level
>
>Out of my control.

No it's not. The "footings" perhaps, but not the top of the
foundation where the ledger board or sill sits.

No excuse whatsoever for not levelling the top of the foundation - as
previously explained.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:17:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

No, when the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. Takes abit of
work, but NO EXCUSE for not starting witha levelled foundation.

Cut it, shim it - do whatever is necessary - but build FROM A SQUARE
FOUNDATION.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:39:56 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
wrote:

Which gives you a level roof but still crooked walls.

SHIM THE SILL. Fill with concrete between the sill and the irregular
foundation.

or better yet, level the top of the foundation, then lay on the sill.

Level and chalk-line and concrete saw, or crib the top of the
foundation and pour a level "cap" on the crooked foundation, or a
combination of the two.

Anything else isjust crappy workmanship, however you choose to color
it

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:35:10 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

really only acceptable if this is a "stick framed foundation" being
built directly on a concrete "footer" andthe first floor will be built
on top of this "stick framed foundation"

Otherwize getting a straight level floor, and walls that don't look
totally "wonky" is pretty well impossible.

It'll look like my kid brother's old place up at Ripley. It looked
like it had been built by a bunch of Irishmen and a case of Jamiesons
over a long weelend.

Didn't dare wax the floors or it would have been impossible to stay
upright walking across the living-room.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:07:25 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
wrote:

You type like I do, do you??? Hunt and peck like a blind chicken.

[Clare Snyder]

Is the foundation straight but not level? Otherwize getting a
straight sill plate to follow the foundation is going to be another
trick.

I still say "level the foundation". Do it right or walk away.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 02:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> You make it sound like uneven pours are a common problem in this guy's
> world, so how is that he is just getting around to asking you to figure
> out how to do his job?

1) Is is common.

2) He has solutions, but wants a faster one.


I find it interesting that the hive mind here largely wants to
talk about the foundation issues instead of addressing the
more general question: Is there a reasonable way to rapidly
determine the length of a chop saw cut *while standing at
the saw* ... this is an interesting question whether or not
this particular use case makes sense to you city/comfortable
farm dwellers :) Trust me, if you are building in the middle
of Hell's Elbow, MT, you do what you have to.

[-MIKE-]

Right. A LOT fewer steps than trying to measure each stud.

You said he was a pro. With an inexperienced helper, it would be done
in an hour, tops. This is something a professional framer would've
figured out by intuition.

I gave you a really good solution to the problem. I'd be setting
trusses by now. :-)

Is this guy a missionary, by chance?

[Puckdropper]

Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in
news:lr1radhk00oplt1m8...@4ax.com:

> No, when the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. Takes abit of
> work, but NO EXCUSE for not starting witha levelled foundation.
>
> Cut it, shim it - do whatever is necessary - but build FROM A SQUARE
> FOUNDATION.

Concrete saw suspended from a level I-beam and pulled along it just like a
RAS to nibble the foundation mostly flat?!

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

[-MIKE-]

My suggestion was an easy way to deal with it.
But your comment gave me another idea.

You could run a tight string line or laser, level, from the highest
point of the foundation wall to a clamped stick at the low end.
You take a pressure treated sill plate and embed it in mortar on the
sloping foundation wall. You just keep tapping down until it's straight
and level. Let the mortar cure and then insert anchors down into the
foundation wall. The anchors could already be there or be installed
prior to setting the sill plate in mortar.

[-MIKE-]

How an earth are the walls crooked?
The studs are plum.

[Markem]

My uncle "remodeled" a house on a lake, basically built a new house,
around an old house and then tore down the old house, in the new
house.

Up upon Lake Beulah, because you could not build new.

[-MIKE-]

I gave you a fairly quick solution that doesn't even require you to take
the studs to a chop saw.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 05:34 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> Is this guy a missionary, by chance?

Nope.

[DerbyDad03]

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 6:10:04 PM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 02:32 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > You make it sound like uneven pours are a common problem in this guy's
> > world, so how is that he is just getting around to asking you to figure
> > out how to do his job?
>
> 1) Is is common.
>
> 2) He has solutions, but wants a faster one.

You didn't address my question as to why "you get what you get" when a foundation
is poured in a remote area. Why is it so common that the foundation sucks?

Is it that the good comtractors would charge too much to make the trip, so you have to
settle for Larry, Darryl and Darryl?

If it's a cost saving matter, has your pro figured out whether he actually saves anything
after spending extra time working around the results of saving that upfront cost?

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:40:52 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
wrote:

>On 3/17/18 4:25 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:17:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <in...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Knock 'em down and start over.
>>>
>>> That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.
>>>
>>> In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you
>>> get.
>> No, when the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. Takes abit of
>> work, but NO EXCUSE for not starting witha levelled foundation.
>>
>> Cut it, shim it - do whatever is necessary - but build FROM A SQUARE
>> FOUNDATION.
>>
>
>My suggestion was an easy way to deal with it.
>But your comment gave me another idea.
>
>You could run a tight string line or laser, level, from the highest
>point of the foundation wall to a clamped stick at the low end.
>You take a pressure treated sill plate and embed it in mortar on the
>sloping foundation wall. You just keep tapping down until it's straight
>and level. Let the mortar cure and then insert anchors down into the
>foundation wall. The anchors could already be there or be installed
>prior to setting the sill plate in mortar.

I'd use concrete, not mortar, for the structural strength

I guess a "portland cement mortar" would work. - (Type "S" - not T"ype
N"

DO NOT try it with type N motar - it is too weak in compressive
strength.

[-MIKE-]

I don't work with it enough to know, off hand, which is proper.
In any case, it would be a good idea to use fiberglass impregnation or a
reinforcing mesh.

I still think my first suggestion is the easiest, fastest method and
yields perfect results above the foundation wall. It's not all that
different from building a stud wall on a stepped foundation.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 08:04 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> You didn't address my question as to why "you get what you get" when a foundation
> is poured in a remote area. Why is it so common that the foundation sucks?
>
> Is it that the good comtractors would charge too much to make the trip, so you have to
> settle for Larry, Darryl and Darryl?
>
> If it's a cost saving matter, has your pro figured out whether he actually saves anything
> after spending extra time working around the results of saving that upfront cost?
>
>

I don't actually know, as I am not there. My suspicion is that there is
not a good supply of contractors that can do it right. You're stuck with
whatever is available ... but that's a guess.

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:59:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

Some questions which nobody has asked which I believe have bearing.

1) You say "large". How large is large? Are we talking a 4000
square foot house or are we talking an airship hangar? Do you have
the approximate dimensions?
2) The foundation isn't level. How far out of level is it?
3) Is it flat and just down at one end or is it out of flat as well
and if so how much?

With regard to the question of how you cut to varying lengths with a
chopsaw, I have no idea, but can tell you how to do it with a radial
arm saw. Two ways. For either you need to make or buy shims or
obtain some precision incremental positioner such as an Incra jig.

One is to cut all the studs to a little over the longest length, being
as exact as you can, then set the saw up with a stop that will result
in trimming the exact amount you need to get to the _shortest_ length.
then for the next one put one shim so a little less is cut off,, for
the next one two shims, etc. The advantage of this approach is that
one person can do it fairly easily, the disadvantage is that you have
to cut each stud twice and have twice as many chances to screw up..

The other way is a similar approach but you put the shims at the other
end, so you make a jig that holds the stud to the _longest_ length
required, then cut one, put in a shim and cut the second one, put in
two shims and cut the third, and so on. The disadvantage of the
second approach is that you really need two people to be able to do it
efficiently, the advantage is that you only cut once.

If this is a very long wall you end up with a lot of shims to juggle
as well with either approach.

If you can get by with increments of 1mm or 1/32 inch the original
Incra jig can replace the shims for about 60 bucks at the cost of
having to be more careful with the adjusting--it's easy to move it one
notch too far and not catch it.

[Leon]

On 3/17/2018 1:17 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Knock 'em down and start over.
>
> That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.

Um, yes it does. I don't believe a foundation should deviate nearly as
much as what your neighbor is stuck with. My parents 40 year old home
had a foundation deviation of about 1" from the front back 65' to the back.

>
> In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you get.
>

That makes no sense at all. So the problem is he could not afford or
chose not to have some one come in that knows how to do it correctly.

[Leon]

On 3/17/2018 5:40 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 3/17/18 4:25 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:17:59 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <in...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Knock 'em down and start over.
>>>
>>> That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.
>>>
>>> In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you
>>> get.
>> No, when the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. Takes abit of
>> work, but NO EXCUSE for not starting witha levelled foundation.
>>
>> Cut it, shim it - do whatever is necessary - but build FROM A SQUARE
>> FOUNDATION.
>>
>
> My suggestion was an easy way to deal with it.
> But your comment gave me another idea.
>
> You could run a tight string line or laser, level, from the highest
> point of the foundation wall to a clamped stick at the low end.
> You take a pressure treated sill plate and embed it in mortar on the
> sloping foundation wall.  You just keep tapping down until it's straight
> and level.  Let the mortar cure and then insert anchors down into the
> foundation wall.  The anchors could already be there or be installed
> prior to setting the sill plate in mortar.
>
>

That seems plausible but I'm thinking that the sill plate may
prematurely rot being embedded in mortar. Maybe not. down here in the
Houston area the sill plate does not sit directly on top of the
foundation, there is an water proof barrier between the wood and the
concrete. I would imagine mortar and wicking might be worse.

[steve robinson]

Very easy method increase the depth of the sole plate by whatever the
deviation is mark it with a string and trim the sole plate
accordingly

[DerbyDad03]

That was exactly my point. He continues to claim that the remote location had something
to do with fact the foundations are continually poured poorly, yet when pressed for a reason,
he doesn't have one.

Seems to me that the root cause needs to be addressed as opposed to trying to come up with
workarounds. I'm not so rigid that I'm unwilling to accept that there is a reason that pours
can't be done correctly. There *has* to be a reason. If the root cause can be eliminated in a
reasonable manner, then it should be.

[DerbyDad03]

Are you suggesting that he re-saw multiple 2 x 6's at an angle to compensate for the
slope? Out in the field?

[J. Clarke]

That'll work too and has the advantage that you end up with level
floors and a constant floor-to-ceiling distance.. Neither method is
very good if we're talking "airship hangar".

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/17/2018 11:40 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> 1) You say "large". How large is large? Are we talking a 4000
> square foot house or are we talking an airship hangar? Do you have
> the approximate dimensions?

I think it's in the 4-6000 sqft range but there are many projects
during the year, so I can't say with certainty.

> 2) The foundation isn't level. How far out of level is it?

I am told he sees foundations that routinely are off several inches
from true level.

> 3) Is it flat and just down at one end or is it out of flat as well
> and if so how much?

Not sure.


I think I shouldn't have mentioned this specific application because it's
kind of derailed the conversation. My larger interest was in coming
up with a cheap/effective way to measure cut length on a chop saw while
standing only at the saw itself.

[dpb]

I keep wondering where's the GC or foreman to ensure the forms are level
_before_ the pour (or more usefully after layout) and who the end
customer is who's willing to ante up for inferior work routinely?

It's pretty rural here and there's no such thing as not expecting
quality workmanship, even on footings for barns, tool or hay sheds, or
the like; what more actual framed construction.

Makes no sense to me either to just have this as a routine problem; how
much does it take to run a level and build forms between points, anyways???

Like once if asked to frame in a homeowner self-contracted place once,
well, ok, but routinely for a large volume production builder???? No
way that makes any sense at all no matter where it is.

--

[dpb]

On 3/18/2018 9:24 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 11:40 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> 1) You say "large". How large is large? Are we talking a 4000
>> square foot house or are we talking an airship hangar? Do you have
>> the approximate dimensions?
>
> I think it's in the 4-6000 sqft range but there are many projects
> during the year, so I can't say with certainty.
>
>> 2) The foundation isn't level. How far out of level is it?
>
> I am told he sees foundations that routinely are off several inches
> from true level.

...

Call in the pumper people and lift it into position...no need to trim
studs!!! :)

--

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:39:34 -0500, dpb <no...@none.net> wrote:

>On 3/18/2018 1:00 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 3/17/2018 1:17 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Knock 'em down and start over.
>>>
>>> That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.
>>
>> Um, yes it does.  I don't believe a foundation should deviate nearly as
>> much as what your neighbor is stuck with.  My parents 40 year old home
>> had a foundation deviation of about 1" from the front back 65' to the back.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you get.
>>>
>>
>> That makes no sense at all.  So the problem is he could not afford or
>> chose not to have some one come in that knows how to do it correctly.
>
>I keep wondering where's the GC or foreman to ensure the forms are level
>_before_ the pour (or more usefully after layout) and who the end
>customer is who's willing to ante up for inferior work routinely?
>
>It's pretty rural here and there's no such thing as not expecting
>quality workmanship, even on footings for barns, tool or hay sheds, or
>the like; what more actual framed construction.

Remember that Tim's in Alaska (unless he's moved). "Rural" to him may
mean "accessible only by helicopter".

>Makes no sense to me either to just have this as a routine problem; how
>much does it take to run a level and build forms between points, anyways???
>
>Like once if asked to frame in a homeowner self-contracted place once,
>well, ok, but routinely for a large volume production builder???? No
>way that makes any sense at all no matter where it is.

The other question is whether this is a permafrost issue. Was it
level when poured but not level the next summer when it became
possible to resume work?

[-MIKE-]

I can't draw up step by step instructions for the guy! :-P

I have to assume this professional framer would know to use
ground-contact PT wood and/or use a sill seal under the wood sill plate.

[dpb]

On 3/18/2018 10:30 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:39:34 -0500, dpb <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2018 1:00 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2018 1:17 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 03/17/2018 10:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Knock 'em down and start over.
>>>>
>>>> That's a nice theory but the real world does not operate that way.
>>>
>>> Um, yes it does.  I don't believe a foundation should deviate nearly as
>>> much as what your neighbor is stuck with.  My parents 40 year old home
>>> had a foundation deviation of about 1" from the front back 65' to the back.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the location is very remote and you get what you get.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That makes no sense at all.  So the problem is he could not afford or
>>> chose not to have some one come in that knows how to do it correctly.
>>
>> I keep wondering where's the GC or foreman to ensure the forms are level
>> _before_ the pour (or more usefully after layout) and who the end
>> customer is who's willing to ante up for inferior work routinely?
>>
>> It's pretty rural here and there's no such thing as not expecting
>> quality workmanship, even on footings for barns, tool or hay sheds, or
>> the like; what more actual framed construction.
>
> Remember that Tim's in Alaska (unless he's moved). "Rural" to him may
> mean "accessible only by helicopter".

Only thing I saw him mention made reference to somewhere in MT on this
and the guy is supposedly doing this by the boku-full, not just
onesy-twosies which doesn't sound _too_ remote as far as having to have
supplies and all...

>> Makes no sense to me either to just have this as a routine problem; how
>> much does it take to run a level and build forms between points, anyways???
>>
>> Like once if asked to frame in a homeowner self-contracted place once,
>> well, ok, but routinely for a large volume production builder???? No
>> way that makes any sense at all no matter where it is.
>
> The other question is whether this is a permafrost issue. Was it
> level when poured but not level the next summer when it became
> possible to resume work?

Well, if that's the problem there's no point in even worrying about it;
if the footings aren't below the heave line trimming studs to make the
walltops level to within 1/16" now will have no bearing on what it is
next week even...

--

[Electric Comet]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:17:20 -0500
Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com> wrote:

> Out of my control.

are you the assigner of blame

if that too is out of your control you may want a plan to extricate
yourself from who ever has control

later on someone will look for the one to blame

nothing may come of it except a name will stick to the shoddy work

[J. Clarke]

In parts of Alaska, going "below the heave line" means digging down a
quarter mile or more.

<https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0678/report.pdf>

[dpb]

True, but there are other techniques than simple footings if going there
and nothing OP's said indicates any such conditions exist here...afaik
MT doesn't have permafrost. :)

All I'm saying if your hypothesis were even remotely the cause, then
there's no reason whatsoever to be worrying about 1/16" precision on a
stud height to try to make a one-time correction.

--

[Tim Daneliuk]

Hello, this is Pumper Inc., how may I help you?

Heya, this is Fred The Framer, I need a foundation pumped up a couple inches.

Where is it?

Well, you fly about 6 hours inland. Then you drive over a "road" built 60 years
ago with absolutely no maintenance - bring an extra couple tires, cuz you'll need
them. Then, you go down a 30 degree pitch with a muddy bottom, cross a small river
... you can miss us. We're the only site in the area, believe it or not.

Click ...

[DerbyDad03]

And what about any of those conditions caused the original foundation to
be uneven? There would be no reason to call Pumper, Inc. if the job was
done right in the first place. Pumper, Inc., just like cutting studs of
different lengths, is just another way of working around around the original
problem.

May we now speculate that it is not possible to get quality foundation crews
to come to the site that you described, therefore "you get what you get"? Is
that the bottom line issue?

It sounds like you got a framer who cares, but what about roofers?
Electricians? Plumbers? Are quality trades available for all other
aspects of the build? Are foundations the only part of the build that
no one knows how (or is willing) to do correctly?

[dpb]

Whoosh!!! Somehow I think you missed the smiley there...

I still don't see how any of that would/should have prevented the
construction of the forming being verified to be at least approximately
level _before_ the pour.

Surely there's _somebody_ in charge; this can't be a cheap build in
those conditions.

What's the end purchaser think when writing the checks or is the plan to
just hide such issues? And yes, I know you're just the messenger here
and all...

--

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/18/2018 02:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> It sounds like you got a framer who cares, but what about roofers?
> Electricians? Plumbers? Are quality trades available for all other
> aspects of the build? Are foundations the only part of the build that
> no one knows how (or is willing) to do correctly?

In remote areas, "correctly" often comes down to "who you can get".
I know this is incomprehensible to city folk or even rural folk not
far from cities, but it is very much the case. An acquaintance of
mine wanted to do some remodeling in rural Wisconsin some years ago -
hardly Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, or the Yukon - and he went through
all kind of backflips finding someone who: A) Knew what they were
doing, B) Was available, and C) Showed up.

[Clare Snyder]

If it's on permafrost the walls will NOT extend to a concrete
foundation - air clearance is usually required to keep from thawing
the permafrost under the building.

Slurried piles are "the standard".
Driven piles are also sometimes used.
Occaisionally even "shallow piles" - for small projects where limited
lifespans are satisfactory.

Sometimes the piles are even "refrigerated" to maintain the frost
(avoid thawing).


Poured foundations???????

Nope.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:59:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

Anybody with half a brain "can do it right". It's not rocket
science.

[dpb]

On 3/18/2018 2:45 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
...

> Anybody with half a brain "can do it right". It's not rocket
> science.

We all know there a many with far less than the required half who still
try...and somehow manage to stay in business, besides... :(

--

[steve robinson]

Yes not that difficult , take them to the local mill or order the
timber in pre cut .

[Jerry Osage]

Well - someone did get the dry Portland cement or the concrete mix into
the site despite all those obstacles...

I find it interesting that the foundation problems were discovered only
after the pour.

This sounds like a DIY job - just how difficult can it be to pour a
foundation? To someone who has never done it, or only poured small
slabs it doesn't seem that difficult, just hard grunt work. However, to
do it right, and precise, is a different story. A sting level works OK
for an 8 x 10 slab but is a poor tool for a 60 x 80 slab.

A question -- If the foundation is/was acceptable being off plumb why
not the rest of the building? Why get picky now? If the owner accepted
the shoddy foundation, 3 or more inches off level, because it was the
best he could get why wouldn't he accept the skewed framing as the best
he could get?

This is beginning to sound like a Trolling Thread.
--

Jerry O.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:43:04 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>

You're assuming that there was budget to do it right.

[DerbyDad03]

Read the OP and then the subsequent "explanation" as to why the foundation
is not level: extremely remote location. It doesn't sound like there is a
"local mill" and it sounds like they don't know what the foundation is like
until they get there. That's why I said "out in the field".

> or order the timber in pre cut.

Even in the city, if the framer doesn't know that the foundation isn't
level until (s)he shows up on site to start framing, ordering "pre-cut"
re-sawn sill plates is going to introduce some serious delays. Toss in
the "remote location" factor with no local mill and you might have a crew
camping out in the wilderness for long time.

[DerbyDad03]

Maybe you should be using the plural: "budgets".

According to Tim, this is a common problem that the framer deals with
often enough that he's looking for a faster way to cut studs of varying
lengths.

Hard to believe that "budgets" are the issue here, unless "doing it right"
in these "remote locations" is ridiculously expensive for just about everyone.

[nailsh...@aol.com]

Wow...

With nearly fifty years in the trades, 3 1/2 years of owning a company that did nothing but framing (not to mention decades of doing it as part of my work) and several years of concrete pouring (from form setting to finishing) I don't think I could have imagined more wrong headed and incorrect information being distributed, or less being known about how the construction industry works.

No care, conern, or regards for building codes. If there are no local building codes, there will be county. If no county, state. If loose state regs, the reference will be SSBC. Those are likely in place anyway. Then if the house is financed, it will be built in compliance with VA, FHA or Conventional loan standards. I did many, many, many inspections for FHA and Conventional loan lenders (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac)and each has their own requirements.

They are stringent in conformity all applicable codes and building procedures.

The first question that should have been asked is "are you building this for yourself with your own funds, and do you have the proper permits". If not, the rest of the conversation is pretty much irrelevant.

Robert

[steve robinson]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:32:34 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

So carry a generator and rip saw Makita 5143r has a 6 inch cut

[J. Clarke]

The thing is, contrary to your experience, there are places where
nobody much cares about permits and codes.

[k...@notreal.com]

If it's permafrost, it shouldn't he heaving. If it is, what's going to
stop it when the structure is on top of it? Bottom line, if it's
heaving the foundation isn't far enough down.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 17:22:52 -0400, J. Clarke

The age old question:
"Why is there ALWAYS enough money inthe budget to do the job again,
but never enough to do it right?"

On unstable permafrost a building on a closed foundation has a
lifespan of approxemately 3 years - and it will be out of square in
about 3 months.

[Clare Snyder]

Permafrost will melt under a closed foundation, or under a building
with inadequate thermal break His problem is not permafrost - and
he's starting to sound like a certain "engineer" who repairs,balances
and installs his own tires, aligns his own front ends and tries to buy
brake shoes and pads based on their friction ratings only.
The one who asks all the STUPID questions then argues with every
answer - - - -

[Clare Snyder]

Everyone THAT far out owns and knows how to use a chainsaw.

Drop a pine, spruce, or cedar and rip a timber to fit

[Clare Snyder]

Then there are 6 day old pedestrian bridges that fall - designed by
engineers and built by "experts".

Just saying,there is no excuse for a crooked foundation, and no
reason NOT to correct the foundation before building on top of it.

Again, the old question - "Why is there always enough money (inthe
budget) to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:31:25 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>

If it's a heated structure.

> His problem is not permafrost - and
>he's starting to sound like a certain "engineer" who repairs,balances
>and installs his own tires, aligns his own front ends and tries to buy
>brake shoes and pads based on their friction ratings only.
>The one who asks all the STUPID questions then argues with every
>answer - - - -

More like one who asks questions that aren't completely specified,
then calls those who are trying to help, stupid. That's the Usenet.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:40:15 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:49:05 -0500, dpb <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>On 3/18/2018 2:45 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>...
>>
>>> Anybody with half a brain "can do it right". It's not rocket
>>> science.
>>
>>We all know there a many with far less than the required half who still
>>try...and somehow manage to stay in business, besides... :(
>
>
> Then there are 6 day old pedestrian bridges that fall - designed by
>engineers and built by "experts".

And there are lawyers who won't be far behind.

>
> Just saying,there is no excuse for a crooked foundation, and no
>reason NOT to correct the foundation before building on top of it.

Or building inspectors.

>Again, the old question - "Why is there always enough money (inthe
>budget) to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"

A trick question, right? It's a physical property of the universe. To
do otherwise might endanger all of humanity. It's just not natural!


That said, I built a garage thirty years ago. The mason did a great
job securing and rebuilding the brick on the front of the house but
totally f'd up the footings for the garage. They weren't level or
square. The floor came out reasonably close to design but it didn't
look like it. ;-)

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:40:15 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:

Sometimes there's not enough to do it twice either, you just live with
the bad result until it breaks badly enough that you can't patch it,
then you decide whether you want to do it over or give it up as a bad
job.

[Jerry Osage]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:34:36 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
wrote:

>On 3/17/18 2:11 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 03/17/2018 02:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> fáhe'sáaáprofessionaláframer,áthenáhe'sáalreadyáthoughtáofámyásuggestion.
>>> Itáshouldn'tátakeátwoáframingácarpentersáanyálongerátoádoáwhatáI
>>> describedáthanáitátookámeátoátypeáit.áá:-)ááááSeriously.
>>
>> I dunno about that. You have to take it up, tack it in place, measure,
>> take it down, cut, remove the top, and install it. That's a lot of steps.
>>
>
>Right. A LOT fewer steps than trying to measure each stud.
>
>You said he was a pro. With an inexperienced helper, it would be done
>in an hour, tops. This is something a professional framer would've
>figured out by intuition.
>
>I gave you a really good solution to the problem. I'd be setting
>trusses by now. :-)
>
>Is this guy a missionary, by chance?
>
This is starting to sound like a Troll.

Solution presented -- Yes, but...

Another solution presented -- Yes, but...

The guy wants to use a Chop Saw with a Laser Rangefinder and he stated
three questions:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions:

1) Do distance finders allow offsets like that to be dialed in?
2) Is there a better/faster/smarter way to do this?
3) Is there already a tooling system for just this problem?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It appears that any answer to question 2 is invalid unless it addresses
the Chop Saw and a laser rangefinder.
--

Jerry O.

[-MIKE-]

On 3/18/18 9:55 PM, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:34:36 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/18 2:11 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2018 02:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

>>>> f he's a professional framer, then he's already thought of my suggestion.
>>>> It shouldn't take two framing carpenters any longer to do what I
>>>> described than it took me to type it.  :-)    Seriously.

>>>
>>> I dunno about that. You have to take it up, tack it in place, measure,
>>> take it down, cut, remove the top, and install it. That's a lot of steps.
>>>
>>
>> Right. A LOT fewer steps than trying to measure each stud.
>>
>> You said he was a pro. With an inexperienced helper, it would be done
>> in an hour, tops. This is something a professional framer would've
>> figured out by intuition.
>>
>> I gave you a really good solution to the problem. I'd be setting
>> trusses by now. :-)
>>
>> Is this guy a missionary, by chance?
>>
> This is starting to sound like a Troll.
>
> Solution presented -- Yes, but...
>
> Another solution presented -- Yes, but...
>
> The guy wants to use a Chop Saw with a Laser Rangefinder and he stated
> three questions:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Questions:
>
> 1) Do distance finders allow offsets like that to be dialed in?
> 2) Is there a better/faster/smarter way to do this?
> 3) Is there already a tooling system for just this problem?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> It appears that any answer to question 2 is invalid unless it addresses
> the Chop Saw and a laser rangefinder.
>

Seems that way, huh?
I'd have the trusses up by now. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com

[Clare Snyder]

even if it is NOT heated, as it will attract solar heat

[nailsh...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 6:28:27 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

> >The first question that should have been asked is "are you building this for yourself with your own funds, and do you have the proper permits". If not, the rest of the conversation is pretty much irrelevant.

> The thing is, contrary to your experience, there are places where
> nobody much cares about permits and codes.

Understand. But try to get a final for closing on a loan if all permits are not in order. Regardless of how backwards, illiterate, ignorant and stupid some of the idiots are in the outlying areas around our city where I have worked, if funding is involved (other than from their BIL) there are standards that have to be met.

That includes and applies to all repairs and reworks needed to get poor work up to some kind of standard. Fanciful flights of woodworking imagination are not allowed. I have built houses out in the country and hated every day or working with "good old boys" and "sombitches that been doin' this shit since they wuz kids" and all the other well practiced baloney. I have gone out to other houses where the banks wouldn't accept the work done by those same glorified handymen just to get them up to acceptability.

As far as accepting a slab that is off "several inches", I can't even fathom that. Industry standard is 1/4", in a certain amount of areas, not one, not several. I understand forms blow out, steel gets shifted, finishers don't get it perfect, etc. But several inches? Not a chance.

Robert

[Tim Daneliuk]

I wish I were there to provide you all with more specifics, but I am not. I am far, far, far away.

For the record, if it were me, I'd demand a level foundation *if I could*. But it may be the case that he's working on an old foundation - either a full rebuild or a remodel of some kind - where the foundation is what it is and has been for 60 years. I know the general area where he is working and I know that there are a lot of old "government buildings" people have converted for other use over the years.

[Jerry Osage]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:34:02 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>

wrote:

>On 3/18/18 9:55 PM, Jerry Osage wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:34:36 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/18 2:11 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 03/17/2018 02:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

>>>>> fáhe'sáaáprofessionaláframer,áthenáhe'sáalreadyáthoughtáofámyásuggestion.
>>>>> Itáshouldn'tátakeátwoáframingácarpentersáanyálongerátoádoáwhatáI
>>>>> describedáthanáitátookámeátoátypeáit.áá:-)ááááSeriously.
>>>>

>>>> I dunno about that. You have to take it up, tack it in place, measure,
>>>> take it down, cut, remove the top, and install it. That's a lot of steps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. A LOT fewer steps than trying to measure each stud.
>>>
>>> You said he was a pro. With an inexperienced helper, it would be done
>>> in an hour, tops. This is something a professional framer would've
>>> figured out by intuition.
>>>
>>> I gave you a really good solution to the problem. I'd be setting
>>> trusses by now. :-)
>>>
>>> Is this guy a missionary, by chance?
>>>
>> This is starting to sound like a Troll.
>>
>> Solution presented -- Yes, but...
>>
>> Another solution presented -- Yes, but...
>>
>> The guy wants to use a Chop Saw with a Laser Rangefinder and he stated
>> three questions:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1) Do distance finders allow offsets like that to be dialed in?
>> 2) Is there a better/faster/smarter way to do this?
>> 3) Is there already a tooling system for just this problem?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> It appears that any answer to question 2 is invalid unless it addresses
>> the Chop Saw and a laser rangefinder.
>>
>
>Seems that way, huh?
>I'd have the trusses up by now. :-)
>

I don't doubt that. However, your solution seems too low-tech, simple,
and quick. You are exhibiting the ways of a Pro - they look for a simple
and elegant solution - implement it, and get the job done and move on.

Meanwhile the amateur will futz around and waste days trying to find a
workable solution much harder than it needs to be. Moreover, the more
difficult, the more high-tech and closer to impossible the solution is -
the better. I have fallen victim to that in the past.

If money is no object I'm sure that there several companies that would
be happy to design and build him a long table Chop Saw positioning
system with an accuracy of 1/32", or better.
--

Jerry O.

[Leon]

If you don't pay until you are happy you could demand level. This is
assuming the Pro in charge has some kind of contract. If he does not,
is this job his firs Pro job?

But it may be the case that he's working on an old foundation - either
a full rebuild or a remodel of some kind - where the foundation is what
it is and has been for 60 years.

In your opening comments did you not say,

I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.

Now it might be 60 years old???

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/19/2018 03:57 PM, Leon wrote:
> In your opening comments did you not say,
>
> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
>
> Now it might be 60 years old???

Yeah, in retrospect, I should not have said that, because I do not actually
know what the case is. I *think* it is new, but at least in some cases,
it may not be. My bad.

[-MIKE-]

On 3/19/18 1:19 PM, Jerry Osage wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:34:02 -0500, -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/18 9:55 PM, Jerry Osage wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:34:36 -0500, -MIKE-
>>> <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/17/18 2:11 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> On 03/17/2018 02:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

>>>>>> f he's a professional framer, then he's already thought of
>>>>>> my suggestion. It shouldn't take two framing carpenters any
>>>>>> longer to do what I described than it took me to type it.
>>>>>> :-) Seriously.
>>>>>

Oh, so have I... so have I.
If there's anything I hate, it's having too long to think about how to
do a seemingly difficult task. Too much stress and worrying over the
solution, when in most cases, were I actually on site dealing with the
scenario, I'd have the problem solved and the solution implemented and
never have to experience the stress.

I've posted in here before, asking for advice on upcoming projects that
I deemed to be difficult, only yo get to the actual job to have it go
much more smoothly and simpler than anticipated.

Anytime I get a project with unknown solutions and anticipated problems,
I really just want to jump into it ASAP to avoid all the anxiety that
usually proves to be unwarranted.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:44:47 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
wrote:

>it may not be. My bad.f

How _did_ you get involved in all of this?

[Tim Daneliuk]

A very old friend asked for a technical solution to this problem.

[Tim Daneliuk]

On 03/19/2018 07:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

[Markem]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:23:05 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>

wrote:

>On 03/19/2018 07:30 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:44:47 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/19/2018 03:57 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> In your opening comments did you not say,
>>>>
>>>> I have a use case where I want to build a wall on new construction.
>>>>
>>>> Now it might be 60 years old???
>>>
>>> Yeah, in retrospect, I should not have said that, because I do not actually
>>> know what the case is. I *think* it is new, but at least in some cases,
>>> it may not be. My bad.f
>>
>> How _did_ you get involved in all of this?
>>
>
>A very old friend asked for a technical solution to this problem.

Honestly watching this thread, making any suggestion with out at least
seeing pictures of the site seems a good way to not really help your
friend.

Mortar and brick, might work to get something level, building a frame
infilling with concrete.

So is this place anywhere near Theodore J. Kaczynski's place?

[Doug Miller]

-MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in news:p8k5hl$628$1...@dont-email.me:

> You could run a tight string line or laser, level, from the highest
> point of the foundation wall to a clamped stick at the low end.
> You take a pressure treated sill plate and embed it in mortar on the
> sloping foundation wall. You just keep tapping down until it's straight
> and level. Let the mortar cure and then insert anchors down into the
> foundation wall. The anchors could already be there or be installed
> prior to setting the sill plate in mortar.

+1

[Doug Miller]

DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in news:4ffb18c2-97f7-48f0-9c0b-
615057...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 7:43:37 AM UTC-4, steve robinson wrote:
>> Very easy method increase the depth of the sole plate by whatever the
>> deviation is mark it with a string and trim the sole plate
>> accordingly
>
> Are you suggesting that he re-saw multiple 2 x 6's at an angle to compensate for the
> slope? Out in the field?
>

No, of couse not. Don't be silly. The proper tool for that is a hand plane.

;-)

[Tim Daneliuk]

I think you mean "Dremel Tool" ...