Beam damage: is this OK?

[colterphoto1]

I know you can't get out, but this is no way to build your dream home. As I said before, I could never put myself through the process. You're a bigger man than I if you can get through it unscathed and without serious bodily harm to yourself or someone else. I wish you well in the venture.

Michael

[damonrpayne]

Well, and therein lies the key to my mindset. This is not our Dream Home, just a nicer house than we could just go buy somewhere. We'll build again some day, and with everything we've learned here under the belt.

[Gilbert]

OK, I just got off the phone with the building inspector. He seems to think this is a completely acceptible practice (setting the beams on filled blocks) and he has never known of any issues with it. I'll have to put it to bed for now.

What I tell ya!!!

Typical building inspector. It's crying shame, and I hear about it all the time, ALL THE TIME. Most building inspectors have no formal education, and certainly no design experience.

Ask the city inspector what the max. bearing stress is for masonry, or what the min. bear length is for steel beams. I doubt he'll have a clue. Hell, I doubt he even knows what an embed or bearing plate is. Crying shame.

[Malcolm]

Just curious. Where I am, plans for something like this would

have to be signed off by an engineer before the city/county would issue

a building permit. Is that the case where you are?

Ofcourse, having plans signed off by an engineer sometimes does not

necessarily mean much. I had a friend who did some modifications

to his house. Engineer did the plans. The Ukranian guy my

friend hired to do the job, who could speak almost no English, said,

"Won't work." He explained, with great difficulty, the problems

to the engineer who refused to do anything about them. Finally,

the Ukranian guy went down to the county and convinced them to approve

the changes necessary to fix the problems.

[Gilbert]

The firm I work for does projects all over. Puerto Rico, Mexico, Malaysia, US, you name it. Mainly though in the US. We will not work on single family dwellings, unless it's a very special client. And then, we're talking multi-million dollar homes, which will most likely require engineering anyway.

Yes, you have a good point with your Ukranian friend, just because an engineer designed a particular connection or structural member, doesn't mean it's the most economical or easiest to construct. Just like there are quack doctors, and unscurpulous attorneys, you also have the not so good engineers. Though I doubt that's the case, yes I'm bias. Generally the not so good engineer will over design, which serves to drive construction cost up, BUT it is seldom unsafe.

I don't know the specific circumstances for the situation you are refering too, but a typical case will go something like this, A contractor will not be familiar with a particular method of construction that's required to execute what the engineer is trying to convey on the plans. Then the contractor will ask the engineer how to build it....that's when the things can get complicated, because telling a contractor how to perform his job is "Means & Methods", and any struct. engineer worth his weight in salt knows better than to get into that kettle of hot water. The contractor that bid the project ALWAYS reviews the plans before submitting his bid. If the contractor doesn't understand what's being asked for on the plans, that is his opportunity to call and ask. And then decide whether he is qualified to perform the project....or alternatively (like your Ukrane friend) he can inform the engineer that there's a better way to skin the cat.

In anycase, it's ALWAYS best to listen to any alternatives a contractor may have, it's good for the owner, the arch. and the engineer. But that is SELDOM the case with small time contractors, i.e. residential contractors.

[Marvel]

Damon,

Are you rsupposed to be all dried in before snow falls up there? Hope they can move along a little faster (with quality).

Bruce

[damonrpayne]

Yes, they should have the roof on by end of the month. The walls are already factory-built and waiting on them to be done with the basement to ship.

The only other good news is they do not do the 1st construction draw until the roof is on, so right now this is costing them a fortune and me nothing.

[Malcolm]

In my friend's case, the result would not have been unsafe. It

could not be built as designed, at least not so as to get the intended

result. As unlikely as it might seem, the engineer actually

screwed up. He calculated all the loads properly, selected

adequate but not overly strong beams and joists, etc. He just put

some things in the wrong place on the drawing, including making the

garage ceiling a foot or so lower than it needed to be.for the rollup

doors that had been specified. I guess like in medicine, it

always pays to get a good second opinion.

[Gilbert]

Good luck, I'm out of here.

[artto]

First let's keep in mind that this is NOT "beam damage". It appears that there has been damage to the one of the beam " supports", in this case a mortar bed, which is apparently there to support it, on a load bearing wall, in this case more commly known as a "foundation". IMO the beam should be leveled with steel shims (or something similar), not mortar, but then again, every place has their own building codes.

As long as the beam is level and the wall can transfer the load you should have no problems. Much of this is often not as critical as you might think. When my was house being built, a center column supporting one of the main beams was at a 20 degree or more angle. I threatened to not close on the house until it was fixed. I was promptly informed otherwise, that an occupancy permit had been issued and the house was perfectly safe to occupy.

So look at it this way. If the idiot at the Building Department is wrong, you are going to have one hell of a big lawsuit on your hands, probably in your favor, and hopefully no one will get hurt too bad in the process. If the twit is right, then no harm done, proceed as planned. []

And remember what I said? "ARCHITORTURE"? []

F1 RULES.

[IndyKlipschFan]

Talk me through where this beam will not need a pole down the center unless it is connected to another one crossing it somehow? You can't just bolt em together if it is a load bearing wall Damon without support somehow?

I am trying to look out for you with "helpfull suggestions" to ?'s I have looking at your picture. By no means am I critisizing you here. And I have a friend who spells your name Daymon.. Hard habbit to break, most spell mine Rodger too..when it is Roger. Well noted, I will try and spell it Damon.

[damonrpayne]

Rahjur, I'll take a pic when it is in place and post it here, hard to explain.

[formica]

I have a

friend who spells your name Daymon.. Hard habbit to break

Rahjur, I'll take a pic when it is in place

...

Priceless... []

[damonrpayne]

OK, here is the two beams in their respective places and with their supports, they need to mortar them both in place still. Does this clear it up Roger?

[Def Leper]

My house was built by the three stoges in 1921, but beats what I saw in the picture. (Marx Brothers were the architects.)

Block walls are fine (as I said, mine was built in 1921) but you need a pilaster at these load points and a proper footing to support the load. This sure doesn't look up to code, so your inspector needs to nip this in the bud before you have a house on top of it. Didn't they have to file plans with the building inspector and have them approved?

[IndyKlipschFan]

OK, here is the two beams in their respective places and with their supports, they need to mortar them both in place still. Does this clear it up Roger?

Actually no.. To my original understanding you did not have ANY beams with supports going to the center of the floor. You said you paid extra to have a clear view or something? Now there seems to be 2 supports.. (Not that you can't build around them or incorporate them in this way too.) That is what I meant..

Just a confusion over your previous drawings vs my understing of what you meant, I guess. Please re draw the room lay out for me and others..

(Were all just trying to help here, not in any way cut what you have going on down. There is no such thing as a perfect room probably for any of us.) Believe me, after going to CEDIA the last few days... It is appearant EVERYONE has an opinion too. LOL

[formica]

Actually no.. To my original understanding you did not have ANY beams with supports going to the center of the floor. Siad you paid extra to have a clear view or something? Now there seems to be 2 supports..

He's got multiple rooms in the basement... To my understanding, the beam away from the camera is the one which runs over his planned HT. The columns seem to fall in the walls

[damonrpayne]

Actually no.. To my original understanding you did not have ANY beams with supports going to the center of the floor. Siad you paid extra to have a clear view or something? Now there seems to be 2 supports..

He's got multiple rooms in the basement... To my understanding, the beam away from the camera is the one which runs over his planned HT. The columns seem to fall in the walls

Correct, I drew the room in again on the pic in the "Basement with beams in place" thread.

[dkp]

I'm thinking that the building inspector is going to approve this with no problem whatsoever. The load of the entire house does not rest upon a single beam. Rather, the joists rest upon the beam which allows a portion of the load to be shared with the outer walls. Block walls are very common, and in most areas, more desireable than a traditional poured concrete wall. Your home plans were approved by the local building inspector prior to groundbreaking, which should mean that the inspector is already familiar with your basement loading factors and design.

I am no building professional, but I agree with you, damon, that the crumbling blocks are not the result of the weight of the beam being placed upon the blocks, but rather a crane operator that was a tad careless when installing the beam.

All this, of course, is IMHO.

David