Lintel Beam Bending

	Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Home| Search | About

Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here.

Page 2 of 2 << first < 1 2 Bookmark this page: YahooMyWeb

Yahoo!

Google

Windows Live

del.icio.us digg

digg

Netscape

Subject

Author

Date

Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Daniel Fenner

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

EXT

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Wayne Whitney

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Daniel Fenner

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

EXT

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Daniel Fenner

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Wayne Whitney

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Daniel Fenner

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Art

05-14-2007

Re: Lintel Beam Bending - Followup

Don Young

05-14-2007

If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

Posted by Daniel Fenner on May 14, 2007, 6:02 pm

> I still find it strange that your builder is allowed to install undersized

> lintels and then lag them to a wooden header. In many areas masonry is NOT

> allowed to be supported by wood only by other masonry or steel. If you have

> a 3" angle iron supporting bricks that is lagged to a wooden header how does

> that allow for the (approx.) 1" space that most codes mandate between the

> bricks and the house sheathing? It certainly wouldn't allow much room to

> support the bricks. This whole job sounds like a "rube goldberg"

> installation. I wouldn't trust it to hold. A ton or two of bricks supported

> overhead by a few lag bolts into a wooden beam. No way, in my mind.

> >> Tell me if I am not reading it right: your lintel is only 3" high on the

> >> vertical leg? If so THAT is your problem. I don't know how wide your

> >> opening

> >> is but for an 8 foot opening I would not use less than a 4" x 6" x 3/8"

> >> thick angle iron. If your opening is 16 feet. you should be using an "I"

> >> beam with a plate welded on the bottom to form a lip for the bricks.

> >> > This is an update to my previous post "Lentil Beam Above Garage is

> >> > Bending". Since then, I've learn the correct spelling of lintel. I

> >> > had some repairs done and still have a concern that it's not

> >> > completely fixed. So, here's an overview of the issue and i'd

> >> > appreciate any thoughts/comments/suggestions.

> >> > Problem: Started with a crack in the brick veneer (gable) above the

> >> > garage door. After having a structural engineer look at the problem,

> >> > he determined that the lintel was torking out and working away from

> >> > the header, causing the bricks to actually move out a few mm and

> >> > resulting in the large, growing crack. He figured that the builder

> >> > did not put in lag bolts to attach the lintel to the header.

> >> > Fix:He recommended two things. First, to take some bricks out (every

> >> > 6th brick) and go in and re-attach the lintel to the header with lag

> >> > bolts. Second, he recommended building a secondary header up in the

> >> > attic, behind the gable, with 1 1/8 inch plywood to attach all the

> >> > studs to one another and take the pressure off of the center studs

> >> > (where it was bending most) and distribute the weight to all the studs

> >> > behind the gable. So, with a masonry's help, we jacked the lentil

> >> > back up, and made the two recommended fixes. There actually were

> >> > bolts attaching the lintel to the header, but they were relatively

> >> > small and the holes were drilled below the centerline of the 3" angle

> >> > iron. We put in much larger bolts nearer the top of the angle iron

> >> > (lintel). When we let the jack out, the lintel barely moved.

> >> > My concern: Is that the brick veneer is not securely tied to the

> >> > studs, therefore the work done in the attic of attaching all the studs

> >> > to one another with overlapping plywood really won't affect the

> >> > movement of the brick. Is that possible? Does the plywood work

> >> > somehow increase the strength of my header? Any other issues/concerns

> >> > you may have?- Hide quoted text -

> >> - Show quoted text -

> > That's what my brick mason said too. Seems a bit small, but I called

> > the city and the building Code is for the size of the header (like

> > Wayne suggests below) and not for the lintel. However, there is no

> > code for how large the lagger bolts should be, where they should be

> > screwed in (not at the bottom of the verticle leg!!!) and how far you

> > should span them. Thanks for your response!!!- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

EXT....thanks for your comments. I just looked in to the BOCA
building code for Tulsa in 1999 (when my house was built) and the
lintel should have be sized at 6" tall by 4" wide, not 3 inches tall!
By the way, after screwing the lentil back to verticle with new lag
bolts, the existing bolts had at least a 4 mm space between them and
the verticle leg. We removed the bolts we could get to and they each
has a significant bend to them. Seems to me that if a 6" verticle leg
was in place the beam would not have torked out like this one did.
Seems like my builder is liable for this one. Any thoughts?

Posted by Wayne Whitney on May 14, 2007, 2:16 pm

> My concern: Is that the brick veneer is not securely tied to the

> studs, therefore the work done in the attic of attaching all the

> studs to one another with overlapping plywood really won't affect

> the movement of the brick. Is that possible? Does the plywood work

> somehow increase the strength of my header? Any other

> issues/concerns you may have?

The load path for the weight of the brick veneer is vertically down to
the lintel, through the bolts to the wooden header, and then across
via the header to the support posts on either side of the opening. So
if the lintel is adequate to span the bolt-to-bolt spacing, and if the
bolts are adequate to transfer the load to the wooden header, it all
comes down to the strength of the wooden header. That is, the bricks
don't need to be tied to the studs above the header, as far as their
gravity load goes.

Now as to whether and how much installing plywood over the studs above
the header (and presumably to the header itself) will strengthen it,
that is a question I will have to pass on. But have you noticed any
sagging of the wooden header? If not, there may not be a need to
strengthen it.

Cheers, Wayne

Posted by Daniel Fenner on May 14, 2007, 3:53 pm

> > My concern: Is that the brick veneer is not securely tied to the

> > studs, therefore the work done in the attic of attaching all the

> > studs to one another with overlapping plywood really won't affect

> > the movement of the brick. Is that possible? Does the plywood work

> > somehow increase the strength of my header? Any other

> > issues/concerns you may have?

> The load path for the weight of the brick veneer is vertically down to

> the lintel, through the bolts to the wooden header, and then across

> via the header to the support posts on either side of the opening. So

> if the lintel is adequate to span the bolt-to-bolt spacing, and if the

> bolts are adequate to transfer the load to the wooden header, it all

> comes down to the strength of the wooden header. That is, the bricks

> don't need to be tied to the studs above the header, as far as their

> gravity load goes.

> Now as to whether and how much installing plywood over the studs above

> the header (and presumably to the header itself) will strengthen it,

> that is a question I will have to pass on. But have you noticed any

> sagging of the wooden header? If not, there may not be a need to

> strengthen it.

> Cheers, Wayne

Wayne, thanks for both of your responses. Makes a lot of sense, which
is sometimes hard to come by. I can't actually see the wooden header,
so I'm not sure if it's sagging. As far as the plywood spanning all
of the studs above the header, it's not clear to me how the studs are
attached to the header. It's my understanding (which may be
incorrect) that the studs above the header are simply setting on the
header, and not actually attached to it. If that's the case, it's not
clear to me how making all of the studs one unit, by connecting them
with plywood, would strengthen the header. Now, if the bricks were
truly attached to the studs and, as they moved the studs would move,
then making all the studs one unit and distributing the weight to the
outside would definitely work. It's just not clear to me how tying
the studs together makes the header stronger. Is the woodedn header
somehow screwed in to each of the studs???

Posted by Art on May 14, 2007, 4:50 pm

The vertical studs are nailed to a horizontal 2 x4 which is nailed to the
header.

>> > My concern: Is that the brick veneer is not securely tied to the

>> > studs, therefore the work done in the attic of attaching all the

>> > studs to one another with overlapping plywood really won't affect

>> > the movement of the brick. Is that possible? Does the plywood work

>> > somehow increase the strength of my header? Any other

>> > issues/concerns you may have?

>> The load path for the weight of the brick veneer is vertically down to

>> the lintel, through the bolts to the wooden header, and then across

>> via the header to the support posts on either side of the opening. So

>> if the lintel is adequate to span the bolt-to-bolt spacing, and if the

>> bolts are adequate to transfer the load to the wooden header, it all

>> comes down to the strength of the wooden header. That is, the bricks

>> don't need to be tied to the studs above the header, as far as their

>> gravity load goes.

>> Now as to whether and how much installing plywood over the studs above

>> the header (and presumably to the header itself) will strengthen it,

>> that is a question I will have to pass on. But have you noticed any

>> sagging of the wooden header? If not, there may not be a need to

>> strengthen it.

>> Cheers, Wayne

> Wayne, thanks for both of your responses. Makes a lot of sense, which

> is sometimes hard to come by. I can't actually see the wooden header,

> so I'm not sure if it's sagging. As far as the plywood spanning all

> of the studs above the header, it's not clear to me how the studs are

> attached to the header. It's my understanding (which may be

> incorrect) that the studs above the header are simply setting on the

> header, and not actually attached to it. If that's the case, it's not

> clear to me how making all of the studs one unit, by connecting them

> with plywood, would strengthen the header. Now, if the bricks were

> truly attached to the studs and, as they moved the studs would move,

> then making all the studs one unit and distributing the weight to the

> outside would definitely work. It's just not clear to me how tying

> the studs together makes the header stronger. Is the woodedn header

> somehow screwed in to each of the studs???

Posted by Don Young on May 14, 2007, 9:54 pm