• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

I don't care if you put plywood between your built up beam.......

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,051
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
It is not going to effect the fact that prescriptively it does not meet the IRC.

If I use BeamChek it will still not give me that option. Adding plywood does not do anything prescriptively and from conversations with engineers, unless they plywood is without joints, it adds virtually nothing.

I am getting a lot of failed beams lately during plan review and we are still getting arguments that it is stronger because they will sandwich plywood in between.

Anyone else on board with this one?
 
Since plywood is a structural material, one can include it in engineering computations. I believe if one looks at the APA website, one can determine the effect of joints on a built up beam.

But you are not an engineer, so your engineering opinion is worth just about nothing.

"beamcheck" is not an engineer either. Its opinion is worth just about nothing.
 
GHRoberts said:
Since plywood is a structural material, one can include it in engineering computations. I believe if one looks at the APA website, one can determine the effect of joints on a built up beam.But you are not an engineer, so your engineering opinion is worth just about nothing.

"beamcheck" is not an engineer either. Its opinion is worth just about nothing.
Click to expand...
Exactly George, since the plywood is not being specified by a structural engineer with calculations, it is useless. Either meet the code prescriptively or provide engineering.
 
JAR,

Welcome to my world. I have to watch the beam sizing on every residential project. Seems to be the area that all contractors were light on before the codes. It amazes me that the precode buildings are still standing. Anyway I just tell them the beam needs to be X in size for the span they are showing on the plans or they can set more posts or go to LVL's.

Good Luck

docgj
 
Haven't had that problem here. Everybody has gone to glulam or lvl's
 
$ $ $

Table R602.3(1) DOES allow for the ' site built ' beams & headers

[ headers with 1/2" spacers ].

$ $ $
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jar546 said:
Exactly George, since the plywood is not being specified by a structural engineer with calculations, it is useless. Either meet the code prescriptively or provide engineering.
Click to expand...
Your comment was that plywood adds no strength. I gave you a reference that says that plywood does add strength. I would suggest you get new software. Or at least get your software corrected.

I would make a comment about the APA being accepted as a competent source of engineering designs by AHJs and therefor their opinions and formulas need to be accepted, but I don't know how to say that.
 
George - I don't think anyone is arguing that plywood adds strength, he said it doesn't get you anything in the code from a prescriptive design standpoint. Could you direct me to prescriptive design information on the APA website showing increased load carrying capability for homemade beams incorporating a creamy plywood filling?

I'd have no problem accepting an APA document outlining such an assembly, provided the beam was built exactly as specified in the document, but I'm not going to allow it without such documentation. Turn in such information with your plans, and we'll take a look at it...

North star: the table references fastening schedules, but I don't see where it allows increased load carrying capability with the plywood.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
texasbo said:
I'd have no problem accepting an APA document outlining such an assembly, provided the beam was built exactly as specified in the document, but I'm not going to allow it without such documentation. Turn in such information with your plans, and we'll take a look at it...

.
Click to expand...
Technical Topics: Panel Flitch Beam Design Example

Available only as a downloadable pdf file. Updated August 2006.

http://www.apawood.org/pdfs/download_pdf.cfm?PDFFilename=managed/TT-030.pdf

http://www.apawood.org/level_c.cfm?content=pub_tch_libmain
 
mark handler said:
Technical Topics: Panel Flitch Beam Design ExampleAvailable only as a downloadable pdf file. Updated August 2006.

http://www.apawood.org/pdfs/download_pdf.cfm?PDFFilename=managed/TT-030.pdf

http://www.apawood.org/level_c.cfm?content=pub_tch_libmain
Click to expand...
There you go. Turn that in with your beam design for a 12' span with no more than the specified load per foot, and build it exactly per the document, and you're good to go. Note that if joints are in high bending stress areas, max allowable load is to be no more than "without flitch", which is exactly what Jeff had said; it provides virtually no strength increase.
 
A Flitch Beam has a single steel plate sandwiched between the lumber not multiple 8ft lengths of plywood that would be found on a large garage door opening.

I agree if the plywood is a single length then it would add strength but it is not addressed in the IRC and it would be up to the contractor/designer to provide the source of information he is using to design his header from

GHR

What is the difference between using BeamCheck, StruCalc, or some other software program or a table from some association to verify that what was submitted is adequate? Not being argumentative just trying to understand what your objections to the various software progarms might be.
 
You can get some added capacity out of the plywood but you will need to perform some sophisticated calculations, control the orientation of the plywood, and deal with the splices. If you use plywood to resist bending stresses as opposed to shear stresses the joints could be a real problem on longer members.

I doubt that any software program is set up to deal with a combination of plywood and sawn lumber bending members.

Code wise you can get at certain APA documents, listed as referenced standards in the IBC, when engineering is provided and the IBC is invoked. The building official is compelled to accept these documents. Other APA documents legally are only advisory in nature although I would suggest that it would be considered good practice to allow their usage.

Probably the most effective way to solve this problem would be to use an LVL or similar product but this would require engineering unless these products are addressed in the IRC. The reality is that flitch plates are not very effective just look at the APA sample calculations Mark Handler referenced. Cost of engineering, preparation of details, and added installation labor is very likely exceed the added cost of the more expensive LVL
 
jar546 said:
It is not going to effect the fact that prescriptively it does not meet the IRC.If I use BeamChek it will still not give me that option. Adding plywood does not do anything prescriptively and from conversations with engineers, unless they plywood is without joints, it adds virtually nothing.

I am getting a lot of failed beams lately during plan review and we are still getting arguments that it is stronger because they will sandwich plywood in between.

Anyone else on board with this one?
Click to expand...
Right. This solution requires a licensed design professional to sign and seal the drawings as well as calcs. After that, you need to review those and either accept them or show where the licensed DP is in error so that another solution can be provided. If you were to be looking at this prescriptively, then you can only view it as a double 2x member and iether it meets the code or does not.
 
We used to sandwich plywood only to fur out the beam to make it flush with a 2x wall. The added strength of the plywood is minimal. Size the beam with the 2x material per charts. This is the safe and best call to make.
 
GHRoberts said:
Your comment was that plywood adds no strength. I gave you a reference that says that plywood does add strength. I would suggest you get new software. Or at least get your software corrected.I would make a comment about the APA being accepted as a competent source of engineering designs by AHJs and therefor their opinions and formulas need to be accepted, but I don't know how to say that.
Click to expand...
Not what I said but I understand your misinterpretation of my post. It adds no strength prescriptively but as I stated, I will accept a PE stamp with calculations for our records.
 
I'm with Daddy-O-, plywood or OSB helps in making beams flush with the studs and plates, never took it to the calc. stage.

pc1
 
mtlogcabin said:
GHRWhat is the difference between using BeamCheck, StruCalc, or some other software program or a table from some association to verify that what was submitted is adequate? Not being argumentative just trying to understand what your objections to the various software progarms might be.
Click to expand...
You can verify that the design meets code, but there are a large number of cases where the software will reject designs that meet code.

A classic example is a floor sheathed in plywood. The software does calculations without considering the plywood strength and finds the floor not be sufficient. An engineer considers the plywood strength, treats the problem as a diaphragm and finds the floor is sufficient.

In this thread we don't know what type of roof is in place. I could imagine a hip roof design placing no load on the header. And if i was paid to do a design, I could do away with the header completely. Just have to change the load paths.

I am all in favor of giving non-professionals software and letting them design code compliant solutions. The problem is that non-professionals are using software intended for designing code compliant solutions to reject code complaint solutions.
 
The problem is the yahoos in the field with machine guns for hammers won't follow the "engineered" design much less the prescriptive. They wouldn't know a load path from a dirt path. They are not going to pay you for a design in this area of the country. They "...did it this way for 30 years". They are going to badger us with napkin sketches with tomato sauce on them. "Just tell me what you want me to do..."

I'm with Daddy-O.
 
I too agree with Daddy-O;

"We used to sandwich plywood only to fur out the beam to make it flush with a 2x wall."

I have never seen plan that called for a plywood sandwich to be added; for the purpose of carrying a load.

Just say; No. (politely) :D

Uncle Bob
 
GHRoberts

Thanks for your response and I see your point. (We have the deflections on the floors set higher than the code minimums (480) So I guess I am guilty of what you have experienced. The 2 jurisdictions that I have worked for never would reject a set of plans. We would ask questions or ask for clarification as your example pointed out but as a policy we work together with the DP's to keep a project moving and get it to the permitting stage.
 
# # #

TJacobs said:



The problem is the yahoos in the field with machine guns for hammers won't followthe "engineered" design much less the prescriptive. They wouldn't know a load path

from a dirt path. They are not going to pay you for a design in this area of the country.

They "...did it this way for 30 years". They are going to badger us with napkin sketches

with tomato sauce on them. "Just tell me what you want me to do..."
Click to expand...
That's just plain funny! :D Sadly, ...too true also!

# # #
 
Question here....

If plywood does not add any structural value then how do TGI floor trusses work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top