Announcement

Collapse

Plan Review Services

Advanced Code Group (ACG) has been performing plan review services for municipalities, architectural firms, third-party agencies, contractors and code officials for over 10 years with great success and response. We would be happy to assist you with your I-Code plan review needs, whether on a limited or full time basis. Plan review is performed by several experienced inspectors, certified as plan reviewers in different disciplines. We offer expedited plan review services electronically. This has been a well received process that eliminates reprinting of drawings. At the end of plan review, you have the option to accept an electronic stamp on the plans or submit the final, approved drawings for traditional stamping with return via FedEx. Why print, submit then print changes and submit again when this can be done just once?

We will always do our best to work within your budget and allotted timeframe. Feel free to contact our office at 1-877-223-4462 or email us at codes@inspectpa.com for further information or just to discuss your needs.

Thank you,

Jeff Remas
Advanced Code Group
www.InspectPA.com
See more
See less

Splices in girder/built up beam not over vertical support posts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Splices in girder/built up beam not over vertical support posts

    Built up girders/beams with nominal lumber. Let's use a (4) 2x12 for example.

    If the splices are in between vertical support posts, can you allow it?

    Although it has been common building practice not to do this and common sense, the IRC does not truly cover this issue on built up girders/beams.

    502.6 is pretty close to covering this but does not appear to have the correct language. There is language elsewhere (I don't have time to look it up right now) that states ".........sufficient to handle the load imposed" or something like that which is also a stretch.

    What say you.....?
    Admin

  • #2
    We have always required the splices to bear.

    Comment


    • #3
      Over bearing........(is that a pun?)

      We've felt that without direct bearing, then you are having to consider the shear of the fasteners, which then we consider engineering......... JMHO
      Arguing with an inspector is like wrestling with a pig in mud, pretty soon you realize that the pig is enjoying it!

      This response brought to you by one of the paying members of the Building Code Forum.
      You can join the paying members and support this forum, for a small donation at
      http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not sure I follow, are the joist abutting each other over the bearing point and not lapped 3"?

        Comment


        • #5
          From AF&PA Wood Frame Construction Manual: "End joints of the nailed (girder) lumber shall occur over the supporting column or pier"

          Comment


          • #6
            jeffc, no, if I understand the OP, the butting junction is not occuring over a column........
            Arguing with an inspector is like wrestling with a pig in mud, pretty soon you realize that the pig is enjoying it!

            This response brought to you by one of the paying members of the Building Code Forum.
            You can join the paying members and support this forum, for a small donation at
            http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php

            Comment


            • #7
              The girder can actually be stiffer if the splices aren't over the bearing points. In a continuous girder, the maximum negative moment is over the supports, the maximum positive moment is near midspan, and there is a point of inflection, where moment is zero, near the quarter point of the span.

              You can splice all of the plies at this point, as long as you use the proper type of hanger to support the side of the girder that doesn't bear on the support. (http://www.strongtie.com/products/co...CA.asp#gallery) This method is more common in steel or laminated timber construction than in light wood framing.

              In a built-up girder the splices should be staggered so that only one ply is spliced at each quarter point, and each ply bears on at least 2 points. The only problem with doing it this way is that it's a bear to build up a 40 or 50 foot long girder spanning over several piers. It's usually quicker & easier to just throw in an extra ply and put the splices at the supports.

              Comment


              • #8
                If you look at the equations for a beam that is supported at the center and uniformly loaded, the span and max deflection are identical to a beam simply supported at both ends.

                I have no problems with the ends falling near the midpoint of a span.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mac View Post
                  From AF&PA Wood Frame Construction Manual: "End joints of the nailed (girder) lumber shall occur over the supporting column or pier"
                  What section please?
                  Admin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Getting 100% resistance on this one and they are not buying anything I have to say. Little help here please.
                    Admin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      jar I went here:

                      http://www.awc.org/HelpOutreach/faq/...nnections.html
                      and then here

                      WCD#1, Details for Conventional Wood Frame Construction
                      and under illustration 15 shows how a built up beam should be done. Anything else I'd ask for engineering.
                      This is the book and wait for it to download and click on illustration.
                      http://www.awc.org/pdf/WCD1-300.pdf

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is not something that the code specifically allows. Thus engineering calculations are required if they do not want to try to justify what exists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "This is not something that the code specifically allows. Thus engineering calculations are required if they do not want to try to justify what exists."

                          BINGO
                          Arguing with an inspector is like wrestling with a pig in mud, pretty soon you realize that the pig is enjoying it!

                          This response brought to you by one of the paying members of the Building Code Forum.
                          You can join the paying members and support this forum, for a small donation at
                          http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Engineer it or.... maybe additional posts can be added to support the splices?
                            That might be easier than replacing part of a completed floor system.

                            Remember - you are not responsible for this condition. You haven't done anything wrong.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              UPDATE:

                              Just got an engineered fix with a stamp from a PE on it. Called the contractor back and told him thank you and by the way, if what you did was OK why didn't the PE sign off on it as is?

                              We spoke for 30 minutes and have an understanding now.

                              All is well that ends well.
                              Admin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X