• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

R104.9 Joist hangers

TimNY

TimNY

REGISTERED
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
1,133
Location
Charleston, SC
I don't think this is according to their approval

IMG_0739.JPG
 
They should talk to an engineer. They can probably fix this without too much work if the loads are not large
 
The span from the beam to the top of the photos is about 16 feet. Then the Microlam (which they ripped down to make flush) is spanning about 12 feet. It is like a trampoline upstairs.

If there weren't so many other things wrong, they could have installed the new joists in the center of each existing joist bay and used appropriate joist hangers on each. But this is a reportedly a designed solution (no plans on site, and not reflected in the approved plans)
 
TimNY said:
The span from the beam to the top of the photos is about 16 feet. Then the Microlam (which they ripped down to make flush) is spanning about 12 feet. It is like a trampoline upstairs.
Click to expand...
I've never seen one but I think they are called MiniMicrolam.
 
Hello Mr. engineer, I request your presence on site at the corner of incompetance Ave. and Fruitcake Drive
 
Why did they "sister" along side the original floor joists? It appears that the original framing is at least 24"o.c. Might have worked if the new floor joists would have been installed midway between the existing floor joists.
 
incognito said:
Why did they "sister" along side the original floor joists? It appears that the original framing is at least 24"o.c. Might have worked if the new floor joists would have been installed midway between the existing floor joists.
Click to expand...
That's the same thing I thought. They thought it was stringer if they were nailed together. Maybe so, maybe not. I'm just an inspector.
 
Add a shim under the existing joist and then the way the hangers are used wouldn't bother me. Ripping the Microlam is a fatal flaw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Add the shim, if the spacing block was in the middle, I might have ignored it. But it still isn't going to fall within the listing for the hanger. Sure, it will work, but???????
 
Were you riding along with ICE today? That's one of those messes that keeps on messin. How do they feel about columns?
 
fatboy said:
Add the shim, if the spacing block was in the middle, I might have ignored it. But it still isn't going to fall within the listing for the hanger. Sure, it will work, but???????
Click to expand...
I do see your point of putting the shim in the middle so that the nails at the side of the hanger hit a joist, but a longer nail should suffice.

I have never read a listing for a hanger but I would be surprised if it included the material that is hung.

Mark Handler might have a copy of the listing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ripping this LVL might have been a fatal flaw but ripping an lvl is acceptable , it does not suffer the same prohibitions as dimensional lumber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top