Support post for Beam, is this right?

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by rwand1

It shouldn't be considered as an expensive fix.

If you ask me... it was quite easy to fix.
End of topic. OK?

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by dvalley

If you ask me... it was quite easy to fix.
End of topic. OK?

Ah...not so fast. Someone's got to print the picture and tape it to the column.

[rwand1]

Yes and we don't need an engineer to further assess the situation; okay?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Ditto, Ditto,

Marcel

[Mark R. Long]

Originally Posted by rwand1

As evidenced in the photo and as stated by others the beam should be resting entirely on the plate. It wrong and should be corrected. I would have no hesitation in calling this concern out.

Thanks for all of the replies, guys! Sorry I wasn't on line yesterday, but I was involved in a number of family activities away from home. (wine and music festival at a Maryland vineyard and then beer and crabs at my father's 82nd birthday. I didn't schedule any work for Monday morning ). Anyway, I didn't originally intend to belabor this issue, but it seems that I can't come up with a good consistent, definitive answer.

And even though David Valley did come up with a good easy fix, (thanks David ), I'm still trying to come up with a specific reason why this needs to be fixed. I'm giving this one more shot and then I'll drop it.

For those of you that think that this is "wrong and should be corrected", like Raymond quoted above, why specifically are you saying that and what justification are you using.

Let me give a little more background. First of all, this is "new", original construction. (The home is basically complete except for some final grading and a few odds and ends) This steel post was not added to "fix" a problem as Mike P. suggested. There are 5 or 6 (can't remember the exact number anymore) of these steel columns, same configuration, supporting a laminated beam consisting of 4 - 2" x 10"s. The beam is the support for the first floor joists and runs the entire length of the basement, approximately 40 - 45' or so.

At this point, the local code enforcement inspector "should" have already inspected this area, some time ago. I don't positively know if that's the case, and if it is the case, I don't know what, if anything, was said about the steel columns. My "assumption" is, that if the code inspector had seen these columns back when the foundation was being completed and the first floor started, and thought that they should fixed, the builder would have fixed them by now. But, that's an assumption.

And if the code inspector did see the posts, and thought they were acceptable, I still don’t have any problem confronting him or her about it, but I want to be on solid ground. The IRC, as I interpret the sections that may apply to this, seems to be somewhat vague in this area. R407.3, the section dealing with Structural Requirements for Columns states, "The columns shall be restrained to prevent lateral displacement at the bottom end. (they are). Wood columns shall not be less in nominal size than 4 inches by 4 inches and steel columns shall not be less than 3-inch-diameter standard pipe or approved equivalent." (they are 3").

R606.13 regarding Beam Supports, goes on to say, "Beams, girders or other concentrated loads supported by a wall or column shall have a bearing of at least 3 inches in length measured parallel to the beam upon solid masonry not less than 4 inches in thickness, or upon a metal plate of adequate design and dimension to distribute the load safely, …"

This is the closest thing I can find in reference to the plates on the columns and it seems somewhat vague. How does one determine if the plate is of adequate design and dimension to distribute the load safely? As I mentioned previously, the plate does at least catch all four 2xs. The points of the plate probably catch half of the two outer 2xs.

Of course, as some have mentioned, it would be relatively easy to turn the columns so that the top plates would be perpendicular to the beam, if it's required. But just because it may be an easy fix, I don’t want to request something to be fixed without some sort of justification. I know the builder will want justification, and since this is new construction, I'm fairly certain he's going to want a code reference or something of equal authority. And in case you're wondering, I'm not concerned about pointing out issues that the builder may have to fix. I did, in fact, point out a number of other issues, one of which the only remedy I can envision is to jack hammer out the garage floor and re-pour it.

So anyway, can anyone give me anything concrete and specific for me to hang my hat on in regard to the columns' top plates? You might have surmised that I have already submitted my report for this inspection. I filed it last Thursday evening. When I filed it, I did not mention any issue with the columns. After I had grappled with it for a time and couldn't come up with any specific reason to call it out, I decided to let it out at that time. I'm not opposed, however, to amend my report, if I can come up with a good, defensible reason to do so.

thanks, Mark

</IMG></IMG>

[rwand1]

R606.13 regarding Beam Supports, goes on to say, "Beams, girders or other concentrated loads supported by a wall or column shall have a bearing of at least 3 inches in length measured parallel to the beam upon solid masonry not less than 4 inches in thickness, or upon a metal plate of adequate design and dimension to distribute the load safely, …"

Upon a metal plate of adequate design and dimension to distribute the load safely, There is your answer. The built up beam is not adequately supported to distribute the beam load adequately becuase the bearing plate is undersized, the outer edges of the beam are not carried entirely.

This top plate support with the straps on ethier side is designed for steel I beam use not built up wood beams in my opinion.

[Mark R. Long]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Upon a metal plate of adequate design and dimension to distribute the load safely, There is your answer. The built up beam is not adequately supported to distribute the beam load adequately becuase the bearing plate is undersized, the outer edges of the beam are not carried entirely.

This top plate support with the straps on ethier side is designed for steel I beam use not built up wood beams in my opinion.

Raymond, I see these type of columns and plates used with laminated wood beams fairly frequently. I believe they are generic and can be used for either. What kind of plate do you believe should be used for wood laminated beams?

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by mlong

Raymond, I see these type of columns and plates used with laminated wood beams fairly frequently. I believe they are generic and can be used for either. What kind of plate do you beleive should be used for wood laminated beams?

Mark...I use 1/2 inch steel.

[rwand1]

I agree with Dale. The plate should be fasten to the beam when complete.

Realistically and for discussion purposes, how much do you think it would cost to rectify the problem?

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Personally, I don't think any "code" would apply here.

This appears (as previously stated) to be a repair/fix to a conventionally framed (rather than engineered) system.

Common sense dictates that the beam load be transferred to the column "uniformly," which would mean - reorientation of the plate or bolting/bonding of the beam members, but not necessarily both.

In any event, supports like this (at least here in the Shakey State) are considered temporary and typically would not qualify as a permanent repair/fix or retrofit.

[Mark R. Long]

Originally Posted by jpope

Personally, I don't think any "code" would apply here.

This appears (as previously stated) to be a repair/fix to a conventionally framed (rather than engineered) system.

Common sense dictates that the beam load be transferred to the column "uniformly," which would mean - reorientation of the plate or bolting/bonding of the beam members, but not necessarily both.

In any event, supports like this (at least here in the Shakey State) are considered temporary and typically would not qualify as a permanent repair/fix or retrofit.

Thanks for the response, Jeff and everyone else. Let me reiterate, that this was not a repair/fix. This is a "newly constructed home", never lived in. This should have been inspected by the code enforcement inspector within the past few months and approved. Before I confronted the builder and code inspector, I was looking for something concrete to base my recommendations on. And although, like Raymond says, it's a relatively easy "fix", if in fact it is broken, I don't like recommending that something be fixed, no matter how little expense, if it's not broken.

Anyway, since I'm getting some mixed messages about this (some local builders are telling me that this is acceptable and common place), I think that I have decided to recommend something like this to my client.

"The top plates of the steel support columns in the basement, are basically parallel with the main floor support beam, and not spanning the entire width of the beam. There is a question and concern as to whether or not the steel support columns are adequately and properly supporting the load of the main floor beam. This inspector thinks that the top plates should be re-oriented (turned perpendicular) in order to more uniformly carry the load of the beam, or additional reinforcement for the laminated beam be installed, such as through bolts. In as much as this part of the structure "should" have already been inspected by the local code enforcement officer, that person may have a different interpretation of what is required in this circumstance. Recommend that client ask builder to produce documentation indicating that local code enforcement official has inspected, approved and signed off on the support columns and beam as they are now configured."

So how's that sound?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Real good, and that works for me totally. Believe me, what you see is what will stay, has been there, worked there, and will remain there. Very good deduction on your part, covered yourself and that is all that counts. Since no one has approached the plate to put themselves on the line without a Code backup of some sort, I would have to say that common sense has prevailed. yes it will hold. To point out an additional comforter, most built up beams are of three members only, so the picture might not show the whole picture, if you know what I mean.

Good report.

Marcel
</IMG></IMG>

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mlong

Thanks for the response, Jeff and everyone else. Let me reiterate, that this was not a repair/fix. This is a "newly constructed home", never lived in. This should have been inspected by the code enforcement inspector within the past few months and approved. Before I confronted the builder and code inspector, I was looking for something concrete to base my recommendations on. And although, like Raymond says, it's a relatively easy "fix", if in fact it is broken, I don't like recommending that something be fixed, no matter how little expense, if it's not broken.

Anyway, since I'm getting some mixed messages about this (some local builders are telling me that this is acceptable and common place), I think that I have decided to recommend something like this to my client.

"The top plates of the steel support columns in the basement, are basically parallel with the main floor support beam, and not spanning the entire width of the beam. There is a question and concern as to whether or not the steel support columns are adequately and properly supporting the load of the main floor beam. This inspector thinks that the top plates should be re-oriented (turned perpendicular) in order to more uniformly carry the load of the beam, or additional reinforcement for the laminated beam be installed, such as through bolts. In as much as this part of the structure "should" have already been inspected by the local code enforcement officer, that person may have a different interpretation of what is required in this circumstance. Recommend that client ask builder to produce documentation indicating that local code enforcement official has inspected, approved and signed off on the support columns and beam as they are now configured."

So how's that sound?

The HI is not qualified to evaluate the support coulmn in question. The engineered/design drawings should be consulted to verify proper installation.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Brian;
sometimes Engineered Drawings do not exist and depends alot on the knowledge of the Builder at hand. Most do a good job. Some are adequate and some are out of line, or just plain do not know.

Marcel

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mcyr

Brian;
sometimes Engineered Drawings do not exist and depends alot on the knowledge of the Builder at hand. Most do a good job. Some are adequate and some are out of line, or just plain do not know.

Marcel

Is that true Marcel, you can just build any old thing without a drawing or an engineers/architects stamp ????????????????? Neato

I guess I'll be guaranteed lots a work then.