16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall

   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall #41  
LD1, I think you are on the right track. You need the extra depth. 4 2x12s, stacked with plywood to give you a 3-1/2 x 22-1/2 beam looks to me like it's still a little under your desired 6K point load capacity. With a quick calculation, it looks like 6 2x12s to give you a 5-1/2 x 22-1/2 beam would give you lots of margin. This is just back of the envelope, I don't have any references with me right now, but I think it's close.
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#42  
Yes trusses are engineered. No I didn't inquire about having them design the header. There is clearly more than one way to do things. If I feel I can make it better/stronger, and for less money, I will. And I think that is the case with the headers.
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#43  
LD1, I think you are on the right track. You need the extra depth. 4 2x12s, stacked with plywood to give you a 3-1/2 x 22-1/2 beam looks to me like it's still a little under your desired 6K point load capacity. With a quick calculation, it looks like 6 2x12s to give you a 5-1/2 x 22-1/2 beam would give you lots of margin. This is just back of the envelope, I don't have any references with me right now, but I think it's close.

I have some calculations. And I don't quitw thing I need 2 by 2 stacked 2x12's. I have a pic of my idea but having issues uploading
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#44  
IMG_20141014_211716_834.jpg

My current idea
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall #45  
TAking a 2x12 and placing it UNDER the first, (thus creating a 2x24), you get 8x's the strength.

...

Really, a 2x12 with a 2x12 under it is enough to hold the 6000#.

That is bad thinking and will get you in trouble. You'd have an awful hard time convincing any engineer/inspector that you can join those two 2x12 members along that teeny small joint to make it equivalent to a 2x24. Consider that the shear in a typical beam is maximum at the center (the "neutral axis"), right where you have zero connection between those two 2x12 pieces. And that center shear is a chicken/egg equivalent to what gives you compression/tension capability at the top and bottom. So get that idea right out of your head, it will never fly. Same can be said for option 1 way up above in your early posts, and the more recent sketches. The (1/3)*b*h^12 formula for beam moment of inertia assumes that the material making up "h" is contiguous or a homogenous composite (the b is not nearly as important for this instance of the formula).

Certainly, two vertical stacked 2x12's are better than one, but nowhere near equivalent to a 2x24. The best we can say is that the top will help distribute the load to the bottom more evenly, thus putting the bottom into a less severe loading. But it won't change the net weight it has to handle overall.

I'd look into LVL beams. They have a higher fiber bending stress than standard lumber, and that combined with the available added height should get you into the ballpark of the loads you need. You can get them from 7" to 24" high, and get exactly the size you need.
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#46  
Now hopefully this will come through understandable.

These numbers are based on a 16' span and mid point load of 6000#. The built up beams are assuming #1 syp lumber and plywood all with a modulus of elasticity of 1.6 million. The engineered stuff assuming 1.9 million.

Option 1: seems highly suggested by many but I believe they are assuming gable end or distributed loads. That's the pair of 2x12's with plywood in the middle. This would give a moment of inertia (i4) of 415, and would deflect 1.33" under the load. Cost is $66

2: (4) 2x12's side by side. Seems another popular suggestion. i4 would be 711, and would deflect 0.778" under load. Cost is $112

3: pair of 1.75x16 Lvl. (3.5x16). i4 of 1194 would deflect 0.389" under load. Cost is $190. This is the first I would consider acceptable, strength wise, but $$$...

4: pair of 1.75x18 lvl. i4 1701 would deflect 0.273 under load. Cost is $226

5: beam pictured previously with several sizes. i4 of 2512 would deflect 0.220" under load. Cost $120

Option6: I had not previously considered this as a 24" lvl only comes in lengths longer than I need. But could cut a 32' board in half. Would also add a 2x4 top and bottom similar to #5 beam to help lateral strength. So a 1.75x24 lvl has an i4 of 2870, and would deflect 0.162" under load. Cost with the additional 2x4's is $188.

So...any reason other than time to make NOT to use the beam I proposed (5). Remember, I will probably add knee braces that will cut the span down a good bit, and will also have metal siding for the 2' depth that adds to strength a bit.

The only thing listed above that is stronger than my design is the 24" LVL. But it lacks laterally. And I don't like the idea of relying on a single member....engineered or not. And still question its use in an unheated, uninsulated building.
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#47  
S219...appreciate your input.

For starters, I have no codes or building engineers to appease. I could do it with a single 2x4 if I wanted and no one is gonna prevent that. (Of course I would never do that)

As to the double stacking the 2x12's. They will be joined with 1/2" plywood. Much the same way trusses were build for years. While you are right that it don't offer the same strength as a single piece that's the idea behind over building it.

My latest design I just posted, do you believe that it would fail under a 6000# load if properly fastened and glued? Do you believe that the pair of (by my calculations weaker),1.75x16 LVL's is indeed stronger?
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall #48  
S219...appreciate your input.

For starters, I have no codes or building engineers to appease. I could do it with a single 2x4 if I wanted and no one is gonna prevent that. (Of course I would never do that)

As to the double stacking the 2x12's. They will be joined with 1/2" plywood. Much the same way trusses were build for years. While you are right that it don't offer the same strength as a single piece that's the idea behind over building it.

My latest design I just posted, do you believe that it would fail under a 6000# load if properly fastened and glued? Do you believe that the pair of (by my calculations weaker),1.75x16 LVL's is indeed stronger?

The problem with the plywood lamination in this particular design is that you only have the thickness of the plywood to transfer the shear from top to bottom boards, and that's not even considering how good the glue/fasteners do. Really, think about how loads are going to be transferred to the plywood to hold it all together, and you'll see that the plywood is now responsible for all the shear connecting top and bottom boards. So your beam is only as good as the shear load a 1/2" thick piece of plywood can handle. The top and bottom boards might handle the compression and tension loads, respectively, but that 1/2" plywood is not going to handle the shear. In the sense, you've made an i-beam schematically, but the web is not as strong as the flanges.

You will gain a little with nails or bolts across the lamination, but they will never compensate for vertically discontinuous material like that. Typically, when laminating 2x lumber into beams, the main purpose of the nails and bolts is to distribute load across all the boards, to make sure none of the individual 2x boards takes the full load by itself if the lumber isn't lined up perfectly, or a bearing is a little off. They are uniting the boards laterally. The fasteners do not actually have the ability to replace vertical continuity of the lumber.

The only good practical example I can cite are cases in typical construction where headers are laminated for 2x6 walls. You only need double boards to carry the load, but to get the 5.5" thickness it's common to laminate (for example) a 2x10, 1/2" plywood, two 2x4 (one top and one bottom with air gap between), 1/2" plywood, and final 2x10. The rating is the same as a double 2x10 in that case. The middle 2x4 boards buy no extra load rating on paper, despite the lamination. They surely add something, but it's not a whole lot and it's not counted.
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall #49  
BTW, I think you could get by with two 14" LVLs (1.75"). They have a considerably higher stress capability in bending and shear than lumber (about 2.4x of SYP).
 
   / 16' opening Door header: on load bearing wall
  • Thread Starter
#50  
A pair of 14's would allow a deflection of .583. Just outside the mark for l/360. But certainly doable. But it don't save me much. They are only $7 less than 16". So still would be $176 per beam.

Since you seem to be a fan of the LVL, how are they gonna be in 30 years being in an unconditioned building?

And I may well be crazy, but I still think I can build a stronger beam out of conventional lumber, and do it for less money.
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

Satoh Beaver Tractor (RUNS) (A50774)
Satoh Beaver...
Husky Tandem Tank Spreader (A50774)
Husky Tandem Tank...
Wolverine Mini Skid Grapple Bucket (A50514)
Wolverine Mini...
2004 Ford F-250 Pickup Truck, (A50323)
2004 Ford F-250...
TRUBILT SKID STEER QUICK ATTACH PALLET FORKS (A51244)
TRUBILT SKID STEER...
40' High Cube Four Multi Doors Container (A47384)
40' High Cube Four...
 
Top