If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by bitternut on December 30, 2006, 5:11 pm
Why would you not just add a couple more 2 x 6 to the new post and use 2 x
6 pressure treated under the post instead of that flimsy looking bracket?
Looks to me like the rest of the remaining wall is regular 2 x material
sitting right on the concrete. Also seems like you would be putting quite a
load where that new post is replacing an entire bearing wall. Would there be
a problem there with that point loading?
show/hide quoted text
> In a previous post soboko@gmail.com wrote...
>> So the question is, do I have anything to be concerned about here? If
>> there are issues how should I address them?
> In general, I go along with BobK's suggestions. The only thing that gave
> me pause was the (3) 2x posts and the notches. A couple of additional
> 2x's should fix the problem. I suggest that a Simpson LCE post cap be
> added to connect the beam to the built-up post.
> The 3/8"-1/2" gap doesn't bother me very much. The joist hangers will
> take care of that problem as long as the joist is fully supported in the
> hanger. It looks like a Simpson "LUS" type hanger was used. If the
> situation concerns you, your contractor might consider using an "HUS"
> series which has a longer support shoe for the joist (3" vs 1-3/4").
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
|
|
Posted by soboko on December 30, 2006, 6:22 pm
bitternut wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Why would you not just add a couple more 2 x 6 to the new post and use 2 x
> 6 pressure treated under the post instead of that flimsy looking bracket?
> Looks to me like the rest of the remaining wall is regular 2 x material
> sitting right on the concrete. Also seems like you would be putting quite a
> load where that new post is replacing an entire bearing wall. Would there be
> a problem there with that point loading?
So I talked to the SE on Friday (after he got the photos), and he said
that the 3 2x6's should be OK. I'm having him make a site visit on
Tuesday for another reason, but I'll have him take a look in person
just to triple-check. Regardless, I think I'll still do what you said
and add a couple of 2x6's with pressure treated underneath, and then
I'll have total peace of mind, on this issue at least ;)
He also researched the joist hanger issue and talked to the
manufacturer. He thinks the LU210 hangers should be fine due to the
fact that the calculated load is less than half what the hangers will
handle. He did suggest using 16d nails in the joist for some extra
strength. Looking at Simpson's website, I see that the HUS210 hangers
are a lot stronger... I wonder if I should have him use those instead?
Or could that be a problem (other than increased cost)? We do live a
block away from an active faultline.
Thanks to everyone for your help on this issue.
- S
|
|
Posted by Bobk207 on December 31, 2006, 11:48 am
soboko@gmail.com wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> bitternut wrote:
> > Why would you not just add a couple more 2 x 6 to the new post and use 2 x
> > 6 pressure treated under the post instead of that flimsy looking bracket?
> > Looks to me like the rest of the remaining wall is regular 2 x material
> > sitting right on the concrete. Also seems like you would be putting quite a
> > load where that new post is replacing an entire bearing wall. Would there be
> > a problem there with that point loading?
> So I talked to the SE on Friday (after he got the photos), and he said
> that the 3 2x6's should be OK. I'm having him make a site visit on
> Tuesday for another reason, but I'll have him take a look in person
> just to triple-check. Regardless, I think I'll still do what you said
> and add a couple of 2x6's with pressure treated underneath, and then
> I'll have total peace of mind, on this issue at least ;)
> He also researched the joist hanger issue and talked to the
> manufacturer. He thinks the LU210 hangers should be fine due to the
> fact that the calculated load is less than half what the hangers will
> handle. He did suggest using 16d nails in the joist for some extra
> strength. Looking at Simpson's website, I see that the HUS210 hangers
> are a lot stronger... I wonder if I should have him use those instead?
> Or could that be a problem (other than increased cost)? We do live a
> block away from an active faultline.
> Thanks to everyone for your help on this issue.
> - S
Dear S-
If your house is a block away from an active fault & it let's go, I
really doubt that a heavier joist hanger is going to make a difference.
I like the HU series...none of those silly cutouts just nice uniform
edges
I'm not a huge fan of large nails....in my experience 16d commons are
too large for nearly all commonly used residential timbers.
At .162" diameter & not pre-dillled, 16d commons (IMO) do more harm
than good.
Who pre-drills for joist hangers? Even though there is a buried note
(note J) in the Simpson catalog that comments on nails that split
the wood & suggests considering pre-drilling
IMO the best compromise is the 10d common (.148) or any of the reduced
size 16d's
Bigger ain't always better if you don't pre-dill. In most SImpson
connectors the nails are so closely spaced that you're bound to get a
lot of wood damage esp with the larger nails.
Use the 10d's & be happy.
cheers
Bob
|
Page 2 of 2 << first < 1 2
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Resend:Project Quality Plan (PQP) / Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) | March 7, 2008, 7:57 am |
| Project Quality Plan (PQP) / Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) | March 7, 2008, 7:40 am |
| Truss Calculations again...different issue | August 12, 2006, 3:16 am |
| Vanity top installation issue | September 4, 2007, 8:06 pm |
| retaining wall issue | March 19, 2008, 4:26 pm |
| Concrete guy with issue has an Asphalt question from you experts | April 19, 2008, 10:02 am |
| max header span length | January 27, 2007, 9:44 am |
| Header under a door question | December 1, 2008, 9:09 am |
| Help Needed - Garage Door Header | April 7, 2007, 9:10 pm |
| Increasing size of existing header | February 7, 2009, 12:35 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>> So the question is, do I have anything to be concerned about here? If
>> there are issues how should I address them?
> In general, I go along with BobK's suggestions. The only thing that gave
> me pause was the (3) 2x posts and the notches. A couple of additional
> 2x's should fix the problem. I suggest that a Simpson LCE post cap be
> added to connect the beam to the built-up post.
> The 3/8"-1/2" gap doesn't bother me very much. The joist hangers will
> take care of that problem as long as the joist is fully supported in the
> hanger. It looks like a Simpson "LUS" type hanger was used. If the
> situation concerns you, your contractor might consider using an "HUS"
> series which has a longer support shoe for the joist (3" vs 1-3/4").
> --
> Bob Morrison, PE, SE
> R L Morrison Engineering Co
> Structural & Civil Engineering
> Poulsbo WA
> bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com