16' Garage Door Headers

[north star]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

VP,

Because the span tables don't address this conundrum directly, around here, we

typically ask the designer of the plans to clarify their plans for the proposed loads

that will be placed upon them. Most of the time, they will go the the supplier

of the lvl's or lam. beams or glu-lams. and get one designed for that specific

application. We then get a copy of those designed plans and attach to the

originally submitted plans. We typically do not get a design seal & signature

from an architect or engineer on something as simple as your original

application [ the 16' garage door opening ]. When the loads or structural

design warrants it, we then require a DP to provide their input.

This WAS what you originally requested waaaaaaaaaay back 7 pages ago,

wasn't it?

Careful now, this thread could turn into another "stairways-to-the attic"

discussion. :lol:

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

can't expand the tables to include lumber than won't span that far.. we don't see old growth lumber anymore.. a header is not like a girder than you can just keep adding width to... the wall is only going to be a 2x4 or 2x6it's an engineered product.. and you get their specs.

Sure you can. They don't always have to be solid hewn beams but also will give span information needed for built-up beams.

Haven't you heard of lap splicing joints with each ply with staggered joints because of different length lumber being used. There are many lap-splice techniques to make a Built-up beam that spans well over 30-ft. A built-up would have general deflection/shear and section property values similar to that of solid hewn lumber but there is a nailing / glue specification needed to keep a "built-up beam" acting as a singular unit.

There is even some code specifications for Built-Up beams.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

It isn't even a standard garage door and why would a person with an automobile need a 16-wide door. That is why they make two 10-wide doors with a little space between the doors.

A 16 ft garage door is standard here due to the narrow lots.

16 ft door with 2 ft of shear panels on each side equates to a 20 ft wide garage

Two 10 ft doors with a little space between doors and two 2 ft shear panels is more than a 24 ft wide.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Thanks, north star - I'll just tell 'em to slap some structural strap net on it and it's good to go. :lol: (that's almost as good as an old-fashioned attic stair argument!)

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

It isn't even a standard garage door and why would a person with an automobile need a 16-wide door. That is why they make two 10-wide doors with a little space between the doors.

A 16 ft garage door is standard here due to the narrow lots.

16 ft door with 2 ft of shear panels on each side equates to a 20 ft wide garage

Two 10 ft doors with a little space between doors and two 2 ft shear panels is more than a 24 ft wide.

Hmm... they maybe locally common but not industry standard. The code prescriptive path is only good for industry standard norms. Not very good for industry irregularity. This is because IRC is developed on a national level. Industry norm for your site condition you indicated is one car wide garages. (ie. 10-wide to maybe 12' wide garage doors.

 

[Mango]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I have seen houses that were built back in the 30's that do not have any headers above the windows or doors. The framing members are at 24" centers, and amazingly the houses are still standing. They may not be perfectly straight or level anymore but still standing. That is food for thought.

Of course we do not have all of the severe winds and snow loads but we do have very hungry termites that don't care what size beams and headers you use.

Mango

 

[peach]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

We don't do the design.. would I have a 16' garage door? (well, I have had.. but it was heavy as hell, since it was installed, in florida, after hurricane andrew)... do we care why they prefer a 16' door over 2-8' doors? no..

Once they chose to have (I assume) a bearing situation over that big an opening, it's not in the IRC cookbook anymore..

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability.. here's a hint.. it won't really work in a bearing wall.. gable end.. maybe, but it'll sag under it's own weight.. the garage door won't work right after a few years..

 

[brudgers]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..

Amazing.

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

peach wrote:

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability.. here's a hint.. it won't really work in a bearing wall.. gable end.. maybe, but it'll sag under it's own weight.. the garage door won't work right after a few years..

You were joking right? Say it ain’t so. :shock:

rick a wrote:

Identify that.

I’ve already posted all the credential information that’s necessary to review and inspect in Oregon and most other states. If you know of some rule that prohibits a through structural plan review with these credentials post it. :roll:

 

[Heaven]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

If a design is outside the prescriptive in IRC the stamped submittal “rules”. Having said that, the responsibility of the BO with performance based design is to make sure that sufficient expertise is present on the review staff (or third party) to adequately judge the acceptability of the design. I don’t believe this responsibility, or the term "adequately", includes mathematical review of every structural calculation of the design.

What Peach said.

 

[Min&Max]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Why wouldn't the garage door(overhead) work if the header sags? It isn't as though the garage door actually fits IN the opening. In this area 3 stall garages often use a 16' door and a 9' door.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Identify that.

I’ve already posted all the credential information that’s necessary to review and inspect in Oregon and most other states. If you know of some rule that prohibits a through structural plan review with these credentials post it. :roll:

Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion - I don't see (then I still haven't navigated through every page on BCD's website) ANYTHING regarding even one course in engineering. So, how the F*** do you think or remotely can possibly understand squat about engineering calculations without learning engineering (either in class or self-study) in addition to your required education requirement.

So in short, I ask about YOUR education. If it is the minimum then you do not even have the qualifications needed to check calcs. You can check things on a prescriptive level only.

I'm not talking about the minimum education required to be a Plan Reviewer or B.O. Some with a higher degree of education like an Architecture or engineering degree can qualify for those position but it is not the absolute minimum. (Some local jurisdiction may have minimum job qualifications but this is not the minimum for certification qualification.

 

[pwood]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..

Amazing.

i agree with brudgers and disagree with the peach. turning a blind eye to something that you know is wrong is well, wrong!

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

You need some kind of engineered solution (don't do the engineering yourself). If an engineer seals that (2) 2x10 works .. accept it and move on.. it's the engineer's liability..

Amazing.

i agree with brudgers and disagree with the peach. turning a blind eye to something that you know is wrong is well, wrong!

I agree that turning a blind eye to something is suspecting to be wrong is the wrong thing. The B.O. or Plan Reviewer does not have to do everything. Just what is prudent. My statement to Kil, is that he should let the calcs be reviewed by a qualified person to be able to review the calcs in a competent manner if he doesn't have any engineering/architectural background.

It is an education thing. This doesn't me that you are neglecting your duty to review the plans but you are getting professional help to review highly complex mathematical equations. You are ensuring that those matters are reviewed in the most competent and prudent manner possible.

What is more prudent, run the calcs yourself and screw up because you don't understand the mathematic engineering equation OR having someone who knows it check the calcs and report to you under your overall supervision.

The point is having those things reviewed and getting the prudent help you need where needed.

It does not serve to safeguard public health, safety and welfare to not have those reviewed. I agree with Kil in that regard. Kil, I am still waiting for an exact answer to my question.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I don't believe the calcs need to be reviewed at all. The building department should review the design loads used in accordance with the code and agree the engineer used the correct loads, wind, snow, seismic, soil classifications etc. Just like inspections are representive of the work performed so is a plan review. We don't nor can we check everything especially in small departments. Can I question an engineers design without looking at the calcs? You bet! Peach gave a good example we all know it is questionable (no you don't accept it and move on)

Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department

IBC 1603.1 General.

Construction documents shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned. The design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.8 shall be indicated on the construction documents.

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

mtlogcabin wrote;

Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department

I don't see this has a "peer" review, rather just insuring that the work is code complaint. Isn't that our job has code officials??

rick a wrote:

Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion

I've tried to keep it simple for you, but it appears that you don't comprehend, perhaps professional help woulld work for you.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I don't believe the calcs need to be reviewed at all. The building department should review the design loads used in accordance with the code and agree the engineer used the correct loads, wind, snow, seismic, soil classifications etc. Just like inspections are representive of the work performed so is a plan review. We don't nor can we check everything especially in small departments. Can I question an engineers design without looking at the calcs? You bet! Peach gave a good example we all know it is questionable (no you don't accept it and move on)Reviewing calculations is conducting a peer review and that is not the duty or responsibility of the Building Department

IBC 1603.1 General.

Construction documents shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned. The design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.8 shall be indicated on the construction documents.

Wouldn't checking the calcs is to determine if the calcs used and math will result in compliance with code. We have to check if the design will meet the code conditions. Meeting codes means to meet the conditions since building failure is mostly a result of a structural failure under a certain condition. Beams fail because it can not support the load under a particular prescribed condition. This is what codes are suppose to safeguard. System failures under prescribed conditions. This is a pandora's box.

Anyway, I would say simply that it is pertinent that the calcs which the design is almost always based on (with an engineered design) be reviewed and where necessary - by a qualified person. The difference between checking the calcs for code compliance and peer-review is the difference between code compliance and "best practices" of a profession (ie. Professional Standard of Care) which may not always be equal. Code is the absolute minimum. Professional standard of care is equal to or greater then the minimum standard of code. The review is for different purposes.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a wrote:

Let me explain it in the most simplistic fashion

I've tried to keep it simple for you, but it appears that you don't comprehend, perhaps professional help woulld work for you.

Plan Reviewers are not required to take engineering courses for certification (from what I can tell) unless you have some proof otherwise which I would be happy to see. If there isn't an engineering education, then you don't have ANY engineering knowledge and therefore NOT qualified to review engineering calcs UNLESS you attained that knowledge.

You are not giving a straight answer.

You can be a B.O. with only an Associates degree or even a high school diploma. just work with a contractor for a number of years and pass some exams. That doesn't say a lot. You miss the point. Just answer the F-word question.

Do you really want to rely the health, safety and welfare of a 10,000 people in a stadium with a cable-supported roof system to the calculation review of a Plan Reviewer with only a high-school diploma and minimal certification as a Plan Reviewer?

God, hope the Engineer did his/her job right because I'm afraid that Plan Reviewer couldn't check the calcs if his and 10,000 other lives depended on it.

I know this is an extreme example compare to the header of this little garage.

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick A;

Plain and simple, I have the experience, education and certifications to work as a commercial plans examiner and do a through plan review in among other disciples, structural. What you think is enough or not has no bearing.

 

[brudgers]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

If a person can not calculate the gravity loads on a header for a simple garage, they have less business reviewing plans than a homeowner does desiging the beam.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick A;Plain and simple, I have the experience, education and certifications to work as a commercial plans examiner and do a through plan review in among other disciples, structural. What you think is enough or not has no bearing.

What is that education, experience and certifications. Provide full itemize listing.

You have...

You have...

.... what? High School Diploma and hmm.... a number of years as a framer.... doesn't require you to know engineering. Pass some exams that says you can read some blueprints. (technical prints). It doesn't require knowing how to engineer and engineering science.

Hmm... pass some exams that says you understand the code book and how to read blueprints. Ok. Not enough. Doesn't require any knowledge of engineering sciences and the math.

To be able to review engineering calcs will need the requirement of the knowledge of engineering sciences. You think that high school education is enough?

Alright, how do you determine the maximum tensile force on the following cable.

"A cable is supported at points 100-ft. apart. The right support is at a level 5-ft. higher then the left support. The cable carries a concentrated load of 10 kips at mid-span with a final sag of 5-ft relative to the left support. " Report tensile force in units of kips.

Nobody help Kilitact.

 

[rktect 1]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well, this has been a lot of fun. :roll:

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a,

I work five days a week at my job has a commercial plans examiner, for a number of years. Now a non-professional designer wants to test me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Rick after reading your comments here and on the old bb on this subject (reviewing calcs) I hope some day you will come work over on the dark side and realize your ideas on how plan reviews should be conducted are not practical for most building departments. Unless you are lucky enough to work for Kilitact