How to fix this framing?

[Thomas Marr]

I'm building a raised center isle pole barn (see last pic below). The beam holding the loft floor is bolted to the center posts. Normally, I would prefer to "let in" this beam but didn't want to weaken the post because it has to carry shear forces for the roof. Further, due to an error, the IJI's for the loft were slightly shorter than needed and don't extend all the way to the outside beam "A" in the diagram below. So, beam "B" is carrying the loft load, and is only bolted and nailed to the posts. This isn't sufficient in my view. How should I improve beam B's load bearing capacity? I could nail another board to the post under the beam, or attach some type of bracket, to direct more of the load to the post. Hope's this makes sense. Any suggestions?

Framing issue:
https://vgy.me/mASuh2.jpg

Barn
https://vgy.me/HBqm1Z.jpg

[David Gutierrez]

The post should be let in, bad practice to rely on the bolts for a column beam connection. There are no shear loads on the post and if there were they would be resisted by the beam. Neither the shed roof or the main roof impose shear forces on the post.

[Adam Herman]

can you double the a side and leave a single on the b side?

how about adding a beam between the posts using something like this?
https://www.strongtie.com/specialtycollection_architecturalproductsgroup/hcjt_tie/p/hcjtz

looks like about 15 feet of span?

[Thomas Marr]

A little more info. I'm following a barn plan provided by the state of TN. I checked the snow loads and the plan is compatible with where I live.

The plan calls for a "scab" to be placed under the beam on each post (which I did but not shown in my drawing). However, I also understand that proper construction technique usually requires vertical loads not depend on fasteners for load bearing. So, I starting thinking about the issue and it bugged me.

The i-joists span 20' and are on 12" centers. There's a post every 8.' The beam is a doubled 2 x 12.

I do agree with David. I could go back and let in at least one 2 x 12. It's a lot of work though. I'll research the bracket Adam linked (thanks for that).

[Jim Andrew]

Might not look the best but why not glue and screw a scab onto the post? Put one on each side of the post so both 2x12's are supported.

[Bill Dufour]

I think you need to take a long look at the Simpson catalog. Here in California I think you would need steel top to bottom at every corner to hold the roof down. Maybe even at every main post. What kind of wind loads will you have?
I would suggest a shear panel at each corner something like a a vertical 24" 2x4 or 2x6 nailed to the post and a 24" triangle with a proper nailing schedule. Will the gable end walls be a proper shear wall top to bottom?
Bill D.

https://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Documents/2007-08cycle/ProposedChanges/V2_RB144-168.pdf

[John P Clark]

As a professional engineer in Colorado and several other states, I find it very disturbing that you solicit advice from a group of people that do not have the experience, training or education to determine how to solve this problem. Go find a licensed engineer in your state and get the correct way to solve your problem.

[Bill Dufour]

something like this from Simpson might be a idea but I think it needs to be heavier and probably bolted not just nailed. I agree with the previous poster if this structure is going to be inspected or insured you need to get someone in who knows what they are doing.
i also do not like the connection of the joists to the beam. It looks like they are just toenailed? Will there be a rim joist and blocking to prevent rollover? cutting blocks to fit those joists looks a little harder then standard 2x lumber.
Bill D.

https://www.strongtie.com/twopiecepostcaps_postcaps/lce_cap/p/lce

[Mel Fulks]

John, there are lots of engineers here who give good advice. And "professional engineer" is redundant.

[Thomas Marr]

[QUOTE=Bill Dufour;2722043]I also do not like the connection of the joists to the beam. It looks like they are just toe-nailed? Will there be a rim joist and blocking to prevent rollover? cutting blocks to fit those joists looks a little harder then standard 2x lumber.
Bill D.

The joists are toe nailed to the beam and tied in with a standard 1 1/8 rim board (now shown in my quick rendering but can be seen in the pic above). The loft flooring is 3/4 AvanTech glued and rig nailed.

As to getting a professional engineer's opinion, it's good advice. However, this is a fairly simple problem on a barn that doesn't require inspection. It's far more than strong enough currently for my use. However, I want to ensure any future owner doesn't have a problem from this specific . As noted...I'm following a plan from the state of TN. So I didn't just hack this up from my own design. :)

The image below from the TN plan shows the use of "support blocks" on shed posts for the rafters (blue circle). Note...there's no support block shown under the loft floor girders (red circle). This is the area under discussion in this thread. Also, these girders are not let in to the post in the plan. However, I'm wondering if this is insufficient. Of course...it depends on the live and static loads anticipated for the loft. Even so...going from the plan, it would appear this isn't required. Which is surprising...given that a barn is likely to have some fairly large loads in the loft from hay. But maybe I'm over thinking this.

https://vgy.me/3x0i9r.jpg

[Robert Engel]

Notching in beams is always best. If you're worried about it, you can span with a length of lumber.

Use standard joist clips on the rafters if you're concerned. You don't live in a hurricane zone so its not a big issue.

You don't need support blocks under the plates if you bolt them to the posts.

Are you in a big snow area? If so, 3/12 is kind of a low pitch, no?

[Thomas Marr]

Thanks Bill and Robert. Some more details.

All the girders are bolted to the posts with scabs under. Every rafter has Simpson brackets to every girder (four per rafter since the girders sandwich the posts). The top rafters have straps across the top of the rafters plus a collar tie in the bottom third of the rater length. The posts are the CORRECT ACQ rating for direct burial, which is a "special order" here (what does that tell you about what most people use?). The posts have anti-lift sleeves and are set on 12" deep 24" x 24" pads. The walls are paneled with 5/8 ply plus 3/8 siding (also rated for shear itself). There's a 45 degree 6x6 brace bolted on all posts (expect the shed, where it's only on the end posts).

Winds are fairly low here and the snow load is 30 lbs per sq. ft. I over sized the rafters and spacing. The final pitch is 5:12 (agree 3:12 is a bit low). I did look up the proper nailing pattern for various lumbers sizes...which isn't easy since, to be proper, you should consider lumber species too which can vary with each delivery. I tend to like southern pine over douglas fir. The fir is harder but splits too easy on the ends.

I've tried to be thourgh. I've seen local contractors use ground contact lumber for direct burial, put aluminum flashing over treated lumber, skip the termit barrier, use improper nail patterns, skip metal connectors (simpson) where required, provide no attention to possible post lift, undersize pad thickness, etc... The contractor may know proper code and technique but the imported labor frequently does not while the contractor is off bidding the next job. Not a dig...it's just how it works.

That said, I'm no expert and appreciate everyone taking time to reply. This type of post is easy to "skip" for various reasons. In general, I've tried to over build since I'm doing this myself. But the girder for the loft, since it's not let in, was questionable I thought.

I'll post some more pictures later. This barn has a full poly-carbonate roof and some other features that might interest some.

[David Gutierrez]

Thomas
it can be done as shown. Certainly have seen blocks or scabs placed below beams to provide bearing. If you decide to go this route through bolt the blocks with 1/2" galv bolts. it I not good practice to depend on bolts for wood beam connections. Do not rely on nails or deck screws for this connection.
By the way I have been a licensed Architect for many years.

[Malcolm McLeod]

... plan calls for a "scab" to be placed under the beam on each post ...

I am interpreting your 'scab' as a (non-decorative) corbel, bolted to the post. If the scab extends to the floor, I'd call it a jack stud. If you place a jack stud (nailed to the post) under each beam, the beam will never move. Just make sure the beam sits firmly on top of the jack stud; gaps here are an inspection red-tag in this part of the world.

[Peter Christensen]

Split rings with a bolt through the centre were developed a long time ago. You could put the shoulders/scab plates under the beams with them.
http://www.portlandbolt.com/products/others/split-rings/

[andy bessette]

The post should be let in, bad practice to rely on the bolts for a column beam connection. There are no shear loads on the post and if there were they would be resisted by the beam. Neither the shed roof or the main roof impose shear forces on the post.

This. Let them in.

[Brad Shipton]

Lapped connections like this are done all the time. If you have an engineered drawing from the state, look at the design loads and figure out how much load is being applied to the column at the joint. Then go back to the simpson strong tie catalog and find out how many of the SDS screws you need. Those screws are wonderful, and do not require pre-drilling. GRK makes similar ones that seem to be stocked at more stores, but their design tables are far less informative. http://www.grkfasteners.com/products/structural/rss Adding a block below is a good too. That is a common solution when you cannot fit enough nails or screws into the beam, or the quantity of screws reduces the shear capacity of the beam too much. A bit of PL Premium between that board and the column is a good safety measure.

Letting in provides good bearing, but if you did it from both sides you can in many cases do more damage than good. The reason I say you can do more damage than good because of the cross section one removes from the column at the joint. Unless the joint is absolutely perfect (never is), the column loses quite a bit of area at this joint. Even if the joint were perfect, shrinkage of the beam will lead to a small gap above the beam. In commercial construction letting in is rarely ever done because it takes more skill and time. That is not the case for timber framers, but they are in a category of their own because people pay a lot more for those and the spans are usually quite small for the member sizes.

[John P Clark]

Mel - a professional engineer means that you have a PE license and can stamp and seal drawings, be the responsible engineer in charge - in some states such as NV (where I hole a PE license) it is against the law to call yourself a engineer without a PE. My point being that I would solicit advice from some one licensed in your state so it is designed correctly, and most building departments require a sealed set of drawings to issue a building permit, and all changes need to be documented. It is better to get it correct now, rather than fail a framing inspection with the building completely framed

[Mel Fulks]

Thanks for that definition ,regional colloquialisms are always of interest. I have seen too much finger pointing between architects and engineers to believe that anyone accepts responsibility for problems just because they obviously made a mistake.

[Thomas Marr]

Based on the feedback, it's appears some type of scab/support will work. Currently, I have a 2 x 6 temporarily scabbed to the bottom of one of the double 2 x 12's, as shown below. I'd like something more rigid than wood. I can fabricate a weldment from square tubing (second picture). This could be clamped to the beam before drilling to ensure a tight fit. Or...I could create something a little more fancy with some angle and square tubing, as shown in the last picture. This might be better.

https://vgy.me/CCvo8e.jpg


https://vgy.me/6Jr0lk.jpg


https://vgy.me/YZttCB.jpg

[Adam Herman]

the wood will be great. just use more of the structural screws or bolts to attach it. I't not sure the steel will actually provide any additional strentgh over the wood, and may actually weaken the screw/bolt connection unless the holes were sleeved and welded. you are still relying on the sheer strength of the fastener.

i would skip the whole thing and put an additional structural bolt through the post and call it a day.

also... is the bolt going through the butt joint on the 2nd beam? I would feel funny about all the fasteners going through that butt joint. I'm not sure on actual impact on capacity for that point though.


also. the polycarb roof is pretty neat! would love to see some pictures of the inside when its done!

[Brad Shipton]

The steel idea is overkill, but I am getting the idea that is how you like to do things. I get that, I do the same. If that makes you more comfortable, that will work. The important part in this connection is the bolts or screws. You have lots of bearing area between the beams and the scabs. Beams like this are sized on the basis of their bending strength. Shear does not usually govern for the type of spans you mention. Myself, I would likely remove the scab you installed, and install longer pieces under both beam plies using PL Premium, and Simpson SDS screws (https://www.strongtie.com/strongdrive_exteriorwoodscrews/sds_screw/p/strong-drive-sds-heavy-duty-connector-screw) or GRK RSS. If the live load on the floor is 40PSF, and the dead load is 10PSF, it seems to me you need enough bolts/screws and/or adhesive for an allowable load of 4000lb. There are a few other things an engineer will consider in a detailed design, but that is the main part of the load for simple construction like this. You should check with the local building department to see if they have any design tables.

Tech spec for PL Premium: http://www.lepage.ca/content/dam/uac/lepage/canada/1-8/1-8-1-PL-Construction-Adhesive/LePage%20PL%20Premium.pdf You can find this at any hardware store. I posted a Canadian link, but it does have imperial measurements because many of us use imperial measurements.

[John K Jordan]

Thomas, I am not a professional engineer (professional can mean someone who gets paid for the job) and I don't play one on TV. I reinforced similar 2x12 beams when rebuilding my own very old barn by running additional lumber from under the beam all the way down to rest on the concrete in the ground. I fastened the additional boards to the post with screws. I convinced myself it was strong enough, effectively increasing the cross-section of the post.

Looks like that will be a fantastic barn. I leveled and graveled a site years ago for a new barn - feel free to come build another one just like it in your spare time when you get done with yours. Where did you find plans?

JKJ

[Bill Dufour]

I would use a scab of 4x4 not 2x4. teh 2x4 only supports one beam. the 4x4 would support both.
Bill D.

[Wayne Lomman]

Talk about over complicated! Give the OP a break and stop raiding his wallet. With all due respect to engineers, no opinion is required. Malcolm has the answer. Fit jack studs and walk away. Problem fixed in minutes. No building inspector ever complained about extra timber. You can even put a fancy bevel or some other profile on the edges to make them decorative. Cheers

[Mel Fulks]

Talk about over complicated! Give the OP a break and stop raiding his wallet. With all due respect to engineers, no opinion is required. Malcolm has the answer. Fit jack studs and walk away. Problem fixed in minutes. No building inspector ever complained about extra timber. You can even put a fancy bevel or some other profile on the edges to make them decorative. Cheers
I like it. And my flippancy earlier was based on the simplicity of the problem ,and certainly not lack of admiration and respect for engineers. I just don't think you could even hire an engineer for such a small piece of job. And further scope would be expensive overkill.

[John K Jordan]

I just don't think you could even hire an engineer for such a small piece of job.

Actually, you can. I hired an engineer to spec a beam for a long span when adding a roof over an entrance way where I wanted to maximize clearance and view. (If at the barn I'd simply add another post or just overbuild it.)

An architect friend who gave me the name of a local structural engineer he uses a lot for small jobs. The guy was good, quick, and less expensive than I thought.

Small architectural firms don't always have an in-house structural engineer so that might be a good place to start when looking for one.

JKJ

[Mel Fulks]

John, that's good advice. But your job was bigger. Still don't think one would take on op's job without more info than the simple single line drawing ,but the problem was solved here. I predict his building is not going to fall down. If I took op's drawing into an engineers office and asked for quick answer while dropping a hundred dollar bill on desk....I'd get an answer like " I'm not running a shoe shine stand".
Professionals are legally liable, they can't advise without bigger scope.

[John K Jordan]

John, that's good advice. But your job was bigger. Still don't think one would take on op's job without more info than the simple single line drawing ,but the problem was solved here. I predict his building is not going to fall down. If I took op's drawing into an engineers office and asked for quick answer while dropping a hundred dollar bill on desk....I'd get an answer like " I'm not running a shoe shine stand". Professionals are legally liable, they can't advise without bigger scope.

I don't know if my job was bigger than the barn question. It took the guy just a few minutes discuss the issues and study my drawing, look up things in a book, and prepare a response. The cost was a $100 bill.

I'm not going to argue legality and what a professional needs to do his job. Best ask them. This guy wanted a line drawing and the answer I got was another line drawing. We communicated by phone and email.

Personally I would have just fixed the barn issue to my own satisfaction but I think knowing about the possibility of an inexpensive consultation might be useful for someone who was the least unsure, even if the answer was just an educated opinion. I have several friends and a son who are architects who have passed the PE - I occasionally ask an opinion without holding anyone responsible. They all know more than I do.

JKJ

[Mel Fulks]

John, you have demonstrated that a real hundred dollar bill buys a lot more than my imaginary one!

[Martin Wasner]

I'm building a raised center isle pole barn (see last pic below). The beam holding the loft floor is bolted to the center posts. Normally, I would prefer to "let in" this beam but didn't want to weaken the post because it has to carry shear forces for the roof. Further, due to an error, the IJI's for the loft were slightly shorter than needed and don't extend all the way to the outside beam "A" in the diagram below. So, beam "B" is carrying the loft load, and is only bolted and nailed to the posts. This isn't sufficient in my view. How should I improve beam B's load bearing capacity? I could nail another board to the post under the beam, or attach some type of bracket, to direct more of the load to the post. Hope's this makes sense. Any suggestions?

Framing issue:
https://vgy.me/mASuh2.jpg

Barn
https://vgy.me/HBqm1Z.jpg

You need a engineer, not a woodworking forum.

[andy bessette]

A block of wood screwed to the post, and expected to support the beam, is laughable.


...it's appears some type of scab/support will work. Currently, I have a 2 x 6 temporarily scabbed to the bottom of one of the double 2 x 12's, as shown below...

https://vgy.me/CCvo8e.jpg

[Thomas Marr]

A block of wood screwed to the post, and expected to support the beam, is laughable.

Thank you for the comment. However, I didn't expect that small scab to be permanent. Once we established a line around all posts using a transit level, we nailed on a scab so we could sit the 2 x 12 on something for initial nailing.

Despite "just being a woodworking forum," there's a lot of expertise here. Wisdom of crowds. We've already had an architect way in. Plus, I learned about split rings to assist in load bearing (although they look to be a little difficult to install in the field). The suggestion that a fabricated metal bracket might not be stronger than wood because it would reduce the weight bearing area on the bolt (with regard to its resistance to shearing off) was something I hadn't considered but makes perfect sense.

I've about decided on a permanent fix but will get the advice of an engineer because I'm now very curious about the positives and negatives of various options.

[Bob Faris]

Simpson APDJT.

http://www.dhcsupplies.com/Shared/Images/Product/APDJT2-4-Outdoor-Accent-Deck-Joist-Tie/simpson_apdjt2-4.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/6a/47/8b6a47673848b39895c829a1b724d7b8.jpg

https://www.strongtie.com/missioncollection_outdooraccents/apdjt_tie/p/apdjt

[Al Launier]

The post should be let in, bad practice to rely on the bolts for a column beam connection. There are no shear loads on the post and if there were they would be resisted by the beam. Neither the shed roof or the main roof impose shear forces on the post.

I totally agree with David's comment. Lose the bolts & inlet the post. If you are concerned about letting in the post, get a larger post, pressure treated if available.
By the way, what is the span?

[Lee Schierer]

This isn't sufficient in my view. How should I improve beam B's load bearing capacity? I could nail another board to the post under the beam, or attach some type of bracket, to direct more of the load to the post. Hope's this makes sense. Any suggestions?

I concur. I believe that building codes now call for the post to be notched so that the shoulder bears the weight and not the fasteners. You can do the same by adding jack boards under each side of post to support beam "B".

[Bill Dufour]

I can not imagine California ever giving out plans to build anything. This is because someone will hurt themselves building it or it will fall down in 100 years and hurt someone then the law suits will start.
Bill
Modesto, CA

[Thomas Marr]

Guys,

Letting in the beam to the post has some issues. Each i-joist is toe nailed (with a nail gun) to the beam in several place. The process of removing these nails from the joist may do more damage than good at this critical location.

With regard to a jack stud, to be clear, your talking about adding another stud to the bottom of the beam extending all the way to the floor. Correct? However, the post is sitting on a pad 24" under the floor. Therefore, the post and stud would be sitting on different structures as the stud would sit on the floating pad. Further, I'd need to add two studs (2 2x6's) as the beam is double.

What about adding a 6x6 support under the beam, let in to the post, as an alternative? Wouldn't this accomplish the same effect as letting in the beam?

https://vgy.me/F89cCQ.jpg

[andy bessette]

...Wouldn't this accomplish the same effect as letting in the beam?...

No, it wouldn't, as the short grain could easily shear. But a fabricated metal substitute would not have that same deficiency.

[Todd Mason-Darnell]

"With regard to a jack stud, to be clear, your talking about adding another stud to the bottom of the beam extending all the way to the floor. Correct? However, the post is sitting on a pad 24" under the floor. Therefore, the post and stud would be sitting on different structures as the stud would sit on the floating pad. Further, I'd need to add two studs (2 2x6's) as the beam is double."

Given that you cannot transfer the load of the beam to footing by added a jack stud, your best bet would be to look at the Simpson Strong-tie brackets. They are engineered and certified to carry the load.

If you are not aware, Simpson is very proud of their product.