• 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

what's wrong? It's resting on the roof.

B

bgingras

Registered User
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
184
Location
Massachusetts
ummm...yeah, such as easy job to have actually landed the 12' long lvl on a post. 4 plan reviews before a permit and this is the result. Licensed individual says " we have never done any of this before, we are still figuring it out." Trouble with the down economy is that guys that have unrestricted licenses that they got grandfathered way back are now taking jobs for work they know nothing about. He still doesn't understand why the lvl cannot be supported like this.

View attachment 1574

View attachment 1574

/monthly_2011_08/IMG_20110808_144124.jpg.e84a6a096fe369b86d70709e1e678327.jpg
 
That's the best picture I've seen in a long time. I have a newfound respect for the strength of roof sheathing.
 
He just called me to tell me he is now going to notch the end and put a stuf in the notch. He said he has a report showing he only needs an lvl of 7 1/4" wide and the notch will be 7 1/4" from the edge...i told him make sure the report is on site showing he can do what he claims. I'm sure the argument tomorrow is going to start with "what do you mean I can't cut a 14" lvl down to 7 1 1/4 and and use it as a 7 1/4?" and "Why doesn't the notch to 7 1 /4" make it a real 7 1/4" lvl?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The framer, (installer) did'nt have a Lincoln Log set as a kid, did he!

That's just sad!

pc1
 
LVL is not prohibited from ripping the way graded dimensional lumber is. Being comprised of many layers stress reducing defects are well distributed and do not revolve around member depth. They are ripped from large billets at the plant. A tapered cut from a notch to full depth is the best way to reduce the shearing stress concentrating at the notch. It might be ugly but a favorable report would not suprise me on that aspect.
 
The referenced standards in the IBC provide clear guidance on how to derate the member when there is a notch at the support. The provisions were developed for sawn lumber and the LVL is manufactured lumber so the problem will not be as severe so the code provisions are conservative. The bevel will be better than a notch. This is definately not a situation that is covered by the IRC and you need an engineer to evaluate it.

What concerns me more is what the beam is or isn't supported on. It is not clear.
 
Laminated Veneer Lumber... microllam, versalam, etc. Basically structural plywood beams with all the plies running lengthwise. It is a bit over twice as strong in bending, a good bit stiffer and has about double the shear strength of sawn lumber.

As strong as it is, it still need to bear on something capable of supporting the load.
 
Mark K said:
What concerns me more is what the beam is or isn't supported on. It is not clear.
Click to expand...
the beam was specified to have 3" of bearing at the end, it was supposed to be on the corner post of the house. It was to be a solid post, to the floor frame and blocked to the foundation...this is not that.
 
If a 7 1/4" LVL was all that was required to begin with, why did he specify a much larger and more costly piece of engineered lumber? He is making this stuff up as he goes along. Time to tell him to pull the unusable 14" lvl and install either a new 14" lvl or provide the calcs showing the new sized member and install that one. Probably could just go to the span tables for the product on this one.
 
bgingras said:
the beam was specified to have 3" of bearing at the end, it was supposed to be on the corner post of the house. It was to be a solid post, to the floor frame and blocked to the foundation...this is not that.
Click to expand...
Looks at least 3" deep to me.
 
DRP said:
LVL is not prohibited from ripping the way graded dimensional lumber is. Being comprised of many layers stress reducing defects are well distributed and do not revolve around member depth. They are ripped from large billets at the plant. A tapered cut from a notch to full depth is the best way to reduce the shearing stress concentrating at the notch. It might be ugly but a favorable report would not suprise me on that aspect.
Click to expand...
since I'm in the mood to debate this...are you saying that you know for a a fact that this 14" lvl when ripped to 7 1/4" is identical in all ways to a NEW 7 1/4" lvl from the manufacturerer.
 
I was at a fee market last week, I'm pretty sure they had some #5 sky hooks, you could have got them real cheap, I bet they sold em!

Did'nt see any anti-gravity paint!

pc1
 
bgingras said:
since I'm in the mood to debate this...are you saying that you know for a a fact that this 14" lvl when ripped to 7 1/4" is identical in all ways to a NEW 7 1/4" lvl from the manufacturerer.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is my understanding and in fact what showed up on my current job I needed a mix of 11-7/8 and 11-1/4" lvl's. The 11-1/4's had been ripped from wider material.

BUT... I'll ask the APA helpdesk to comment so we all know for sure.
 
Actually, I was opening the contact page and decided to try a search on their site, see if this link satisfies. Read the section on the manufacture of lvl's. I'd be happy to check with the helpdesk if you'd like to check it further.

http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?content=prd_lvl_main

From my understanding, if a 7-1/4" satisfies then he could rip the bottom off. This would not make a stronger beam, the most efficient beam is shaped like a brontosaurus. He's kinda done that to the ugly end.
 
ok, BUT a website discribing the manufacturing process is way different than a manufacturer specifiying that their product may be modified in such a way.
 
Aren't you in a pretty high wind area? Doesn't the beam need to have a 1000 pound strap installed connected to a post and a 1000 pound anchor? How is that going to be accomplished? I am looking at 2009 R602.10.3.2 Method ABW: Alternate braced wall panels. and thinking it should apply to this opening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top