I saw something unusual today. There was a but joint on a micro-lam girder that was not supported by a column. It was within 2" of the edge of the plate and 5 inches from the centerline of the column. Home was build in 2004. The joint at the other end of the girder was over the column. Any creative writing out there to describe this without using profanity?
have an se design & competent contractor complete corrective repairs to the floor framing & non-supported girder
check the codes for bearing and fastening that apply
Thanks Barry. It just amazes me that problems like this do not get called out when the AHJ provides the COE. I end up finding these things and then I’m the bad guy for doing my job.
Can you imagine how bad it would be if you did not find them? We get blamed if we find them or not.
Does anyone have an applicable code?
JJ
plan a
all i-codes or irc are free view online
all i-codes $$-$$$$ to order
codechecks for $$
plan b
i do
starting a new service with you
accurate info send hekel
i do great research ;~))
International Residential Code(IRC) R502.6 Bearing. The ends of each joist, beam or girder shall have not less than 1.5" of bearing on wood or metal and not less than 3" on masonry or concrete except when supported by a 1 inch by 4 inch ribbon strip and nailed to the adjacent stud or by the use of approved joist hangers.
Additionally, construction does not meet design as described in approved architectural drawings.
How does that code apply? This isn’t the end of a beam or joist. It’s the middle of a built up beam. Even if it did apply. That one member of the beam has the required bearing. I’m not saying its not a defect but where is the applicable code?
IMO… does not apply to this application.
Juan… I am searching… but… I recall somewhere reading that a properly “glued and nailed” built-up beam may be offset from the post a few inches. It has been a while, so hopefully I can find it. I will post the source if and when I locate it.
EDIT…
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/dmerrick/164/framing/ah73chapter3.pdf
Page 41… within 12 inches of the post.
Thanks Jeff. That’s what I was saying. Does anyone have an applicable code or publication even that would prohibit this installation?
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/dmerrick/164/framing/ah73chapter3.pdf
Page 41… within 12 inches of the post… and Figure 31.
I searched all night (to the dismay of my wife ;)) and all I up with is that this is an acceptable condition. The ends should be staggered 16" apart and within 12 inches of the post. I’m not 100% sure though
Looks like we posted at the same time. I read that last night but what makes me question this situation is that the built up beam is 2 members. That publication defines a built up beam as 3 or 4 members. Would the same rules apply?
Juan, This code 502.6 absolutely does apply! These are two separate beams incorrectly spliced together with toe nails. Look at the picture. It is not a factory spliced beam. What are you looking at? These ends must meet over a column.
As Greg says it is a butt joint of two ends. Must be over a column! No if and or BUTTS!
They don’t need to be spliced at a factory. Those aren’t toe nails. Nails are acceptable to attach built up beams together as long as they are the right size.
However, that code is for the ends of the joist and beams. This is the middle of one. How does that apply to this application.
Thus Barrys’ recommendation for an SE. I suspect that due to the fact that the beam is actually glued and nailed properly, (at least what can be seen in the pics) an SE will give his thumbs-up, but that is his call and responsibility, not Greg’s.
I see what you are saying. You see the image as two beams toe nailed into each other. I see it as a built up beam with the ends staggered and one joint directly over the column as the OP suggested. If it is as you describe, the obviously that’s a defective condition. I’m not sure that’s what we have here though. Can we get more info from the op.
I completely agree that if we aren’t sure we should defer to the appropriate specialist. I was hoping to find something definitively defining this application as acceptable or defective.
Greg asked for “creative writing”
i used the 4-Cs used for assessing gemstones
thus my reply
“competent contractor complete corrective”
regardless at my attempt at late-nite humor let’s focus on the girder/joists install
here’s my spin/assumption based on the pix furnished
it’s apparent that whether the girder was constructed out of alignment or deflection/movement has occurred some joists are possibly now only properly bearing on a single m-lam, doubt the original design specd this
if i’m correct about the single m-lam support
ask yourself: would this now be an adequate installation?
only Greg knows what to specifically address