The inspector probably believes that the beam is necessary to support the outward bending moments on the walls from the inclined roof panel sections. The same effect can be accomplished by using a ring beam around the entire periphery of the top of the cylindrical wall elements. A laminated beam or better, an aluminum truss made in sections that could be bolted in place would also do the job. After the deal is done, you could theoretically use it somewhere else, like in your multi-story tractor shed, or maybe a model of the Tower of London where the wife could be kept against her will while she slavishly makes amends for her terrible misdeed. A turret gun mount would be an attractive addition, too.
Engineers in Knoxville?
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Views: 4599
RadarTech
Elite Member
Guys,
I have a little experience with this one..
when we built our house, we had a cantelever 3 ft bay window in the master bedroom.
The code says 2 ft without a support pillar under it.
We floor system was designed by the building supply company as the house plans did not call for a full basement.
When the inspector saw this he failed the general structure in that area.
He told us that if we would get a PE stamp, that would overide his approval.
Took pictures and made measurements of the beams, the floor space, the overhang and all. Sent that to the company that made the floor beams, and in about a week we got a letter back and that was that..
For you, someone had to do the design for that rafter configuration. Either the building supply company, the builder or architect.
I have seen the building supply companies in my area do stuff like this to get business.....
check that out.
As an FYI- Mine did not cost me at all!
anyway let us know how it comes out...
Later,
J
I have a little experience with this one..
when we built our house, we had a cantelever 3 ft bay window in the master bedroom.
The code says 2 ft without a support pillar under it.
We floor system was designed by the building supply company as the house plans did not call for a full basement.
When the inspector saw this he failed the general structure in that area.
He told us that if we would get a PE stamp, that would overide his approval.
Took pictures and made measurements of the beams, the floor space, the overhang and all. Sent that to the company that made the floor beams, and in about a week we got a letter back and that was that..
For you, someone had to do the design for that rafter configuration. Either the building supply company, the builder or architect.
I have seen the building supply companies in my area do stuff like this to get business.....
check that out.
As an FYI- Mine did not cost me at all!
anyway let us know how it comes out...
Later,
J
RonMar
Elite Member
Sorry
A CAD program is nothing more than a electronic drafting board. It makes the process of drawing precisely measured lines between points faster and easier than pencil and paper. It also speed repetitive taske, such as drawing multiple parallel beams in a floor or wall structure. It also makes changes far easier and neater as only the portion of a drawing that needs changes need be altered. Massive changes on paper can require that the entire page be re-drawn. Cad also makes the rendering of the finished product in 3 dimensions, colors, and even animated "walk thru" movies easier.
The knowledge of strength of materials and the codes to which they must be applied rests with the engineer who directs how the lines are to be drawn... There is some software out there that make some of the strength and structural analysis easier, but ultimately the application rests with the engineer. That is why it takes many years of study and application to get that PE certificate.
RadarTech
Elite Member
I forgot to add a few things on my bay window..
It was find for the overhang since the 3 ft overhang was support by 4 times the length by the beams going back into the house. and they had hangers on them- and the beams were blocked where they crossed the concrete wall going outside.
Later,
J
It was find for the overhang since the 3 ft overhang was support by 4 times the length by the beams going back into the house. and they had hangers on them- and the beams were blocked where they crossed the concrete wall going outside.
Later,
J
tommu56
Elite Member
Richard
What is the beam for to tie walls to keep them from spreading?
If so a set of tie rods that would complement the design would work.
Say a piece of 2x3 rectangular tube rolled in to a circle about 1 1/2 times the chandelier diameter and 6 tie rods ( or an number that compliments the rafters) going outfrom it to the outside walls to keep them from spreading.
Sorta like a big wagon wheel with an over sized hub around the chandelier
tom
What is the beam for to tie walls to keep them from spreading?
If so a set of tie rods that would complement the design would work.
Say a piece of 2x3 rectangular tube rolled in to a circle about 1 1/2 times the chandelier diameter and 6 tie rods ( or an number that compliments the rafters) going outfrom it to the outside walls to keep them from spreading.
Sorta like a big wagon wheel with an over sized hub around the chandelier
tom
tommu56
Elite Member
After looking at the picture again how far above the chandelier is the top plates?
You might get away with a piece of 12" heavy wall pipe around the chain with the tie rods out from there paint them flat black and I think it compliment the look of the room and chandelier.
tom
You might get away with a piece of 12" heavy wall pipe around the chain with the tie rods out from there paint them flat black and I think it compliment the look of the room and chandelier.
tom
2manyrocks
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,455
That looks neat. I like it. You don't see much framing like this these days.
My speculation of what is going on here is that you have an inspector who hasn't seen this kind of framing detail before. He is probably accustomed to only seeing a rectangular framed ceiling with ceiling joists that tie the walls together. Now that he sees what it is, he's falling back on his limited experience and in effect saying, "get me a PE certificate that tells me you don't need any cross beams or joists to tie the walls together, cuz I don't know myself and I'm not going to stick my neck out on something I don't know about."
Somebody here may be able to explain why you don't need cross beams to keep the walls or ceiling joists from spreading out with this kind of framing. Small Gambrel roofs, for example, would not necessarily have cross beams. There may be other examples of framing that don't require cross beams.
It's beyond my personal knowledge to say even if you need cross beams for this particular framing. Maybe you do and maybe you don't. I'd suggest checking into it further. There may be something on the internet that might help him understand that it's okay the way it is, but if not, then the PE stamp may be enough to get it approved so he can pass the buck off on the PE.
My speculation of what is going on here is that you have an inspector who hasn't seen this kind of framing detail before. He is probably accustomed to only seeing a rectangular framed ceiling with ceiling joists that tie the walls together. Now that he sees what it is, he's falling back on his limited experience and in effect saying, "get me a PE certificate that tells me you don't need any cross beams or joists to tie the walls together, cuz I don't know myself and I'm not going to stick my neck out on something I don't know about."
Somebody here may be able to explain why you don't need cross beams to keep the walls or ceiling joists from spreading out with this kind of framing. Small Gambrel roofs, for example, would not necessarily have cross beams. There may be other examples of framing that don't require cross beams.
It's beyond my personal knowledge to say even if you need cross beams for this particular framing. Maybe you do and maybe you don't. I'd suggest checking into it further. There may be something on the internet that might help him understand that it's okay the way it is, but if not, then the PE stamp may be enough to get it approved so he can pass the buck off on the PE.
OP
Richard
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 5,033
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Tractor
- International 1066 Full sized JCB Loader/Backhoe and a John Deere 430 to mow with
I don't know if the plot just thickened or thinned...
Talking to the wife tonight about this she essentially sat back and said to the effect of "well... I think the blueprints had crossbeams on them and I told the builder I didn't like that and he said it could be over come" (or some paraphrase of that)
I went and got what I felt is our copy of the blueprints. I might add some comments... the guy who did this is a draftsman, not an architect. (not bashing, just stating what i now belive to be facts)
On my IN HAND copy, I did not see any kind of stamp of approval of anything...
Here's where it gets interesting... I also did NOT see ANY beams called for in these prints. None, zero, nada, zilch.
Then... the wife says "well... I think the builder's blueprints are not the same as ours"
Now I'm totally lost. Why we wouldn't have a copy of the "right" blueprints is beyond my logic. Is she right? Is she wrong?
I won't know that until I see the builder next time and get a chance to ask.
I don't know that I posted a picture (didn't look and don't remember) BUT...
This is not simply a roundish extension. Two of the walls were original house walls and aren't going anywhere. The ceiling (and I'll look to see if I have a picture showing it), anyways, the ceiling has a beam that ties back to my original roof trusses so the horizontal beam in the ceiling is also tied to the house.
I would LIKE to think in the engineering world, that would help provide some lateral and forward support (help prevent the side wall from pushing out perpindicular and the front wall from pushing out in a straight line from this bearm)
You can't really see how it ties in anywhere now that the ceiling is done and the false wall is built. (from the slant of the original roof to this new ceiling, they built a false log wall so the vertical wall would go from floor to ceiling)
Well, it doesn't look like I can find a skeleton version (without shingles covering it)
So, here's an outside picture where you can see how the roof goes back to the original roof and the inside picture, if you can follow the lines, shows the ceiling center beam that is the backbone of the ceiling. This goes back to my original roof and is tied in with my original trusses (as well as the next couple pieces)
I guess I won't know anything until I have an engineer look at this. I was hoping someone here might be in the area and find it intresting to investigate (an engineer).
Fortunately, if I can find him and he's still active, I stumbled onto a professor at Univ. TN several years ago who teaches archetecture and is an engineer. His design passion happens to be log homes so he might find it interesting to look into (or so I'm hoping).
What ever the end game here is, I'll give an update.
Talking to the wife tonight about this she essentially sat back and said to the effect of "well... I think the blueprints had crossbeams on them and I told the builder I didn't like that and he said it could be over come" (or some paraphrase of that)
I went and got what I felt is our copy of the blueprints. I might add some comments... the guy who did this is a draftsman, not an architect. (not bashing, just stating what i now belive to be facts)
On my IN HAND copy, I did not see any kind of stamp of approval of anything...
Here's where it gets interesting... I also did NOT see ANY beams called for in these prints. None, zero, nada, zilch.
Then... the wife says "well... I think the builder's blueprints are not the same as ours"
Now I'm totally lost. Why we wouldn't have a copy of the "right" blueprints is beyond my logic. Is she right? Is she wrong?
I won't know that until I see the builder next time and get a chance to ask.
I don't know that I posted a picture (didn't look and don't remember) BUT...
This is not simply a roundish extension. Two of the walls were original house walls and aren't going anywhere. The ceiling (and I'll look to see if I have a picture showing it), anyways, the ceiling has a beam that ties back to my original roof trusses so the horizontal beam in the ceiling is also tied to the house.
I would LIKE to think in the engineering world, that would help provide some lateral and forward support (help prevent the side wall from pushing out perpindicular and the front wall from pushing out in a straight line from this bearm)
You can't really see how it ties in anywhere now that the ceiling is done and the false wall is built. (from the slant of the original roof to this new ceiling, they built a false log wall so the vertical wall would go from floor to ceiling)
Well, it doesn't look like I can find a skeleton version (without shingles covering it)
So, here's an outside picture where you can see how the roof goes back to the original roof and the inside picture, if you can follow the lines, shows the ceiling center beam that is the backbone of the ceiling. This goes back to my original roof and is tied in with my original trusses (as well as the next couple pieces)
I guess I won't know anything until I have an engineer look at this. I was hoping someone here might be in the area and find it intresting to investigate (an engineer).
Fortunately, if I can find him and he's still active, I stumbled onto a professor at Univ. TN several years ago who teaches archetecture and is an engineer. His design passion happens to be log homes so he might find it interesting to look into (or so I'm hoping).
What ever the end game here is, I'll give an update.
Attachments
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
Nice looking ceiling. I can see why the wife doesn't want a beam across there. Unfortunately, you can either do what the inspector wants you to do, or you can fight him and try to get him to pass it against his will. One way will be fast, easy and cheap. The other way always end up being expensive, emotionally draining and EXPENSIVE. You may or may not win the battle, it's usually up to how much money you want to spend. Did I say it can get expensive to fight with an inspector and what they want?
Like already mentioned, it doesn't matter what your plans say, who stamped them or who approved them. The inspector is all that matters.
I would install the beam just like he wants it and pass the inspection. Then if at some point in the future you want to see if you can remove that beam and hire an engineer to figure that out for you, go for it.
As for who pays for this, it's up to you and your contractor. If it's a screw up on my part, I eat it and do so with a smile and an apology. If it's one of those things that comes up during an inspection that has nothing to do with me, or the job I'm doing, but still needs to be corrected, then it's the clients dime. My most recent issue was a slide on a playground that had been there for three inspections. Then it was wrong. Awhile ago, I had to install smoke detectors in a house that didn't have any. The client paid for that.
Good luck,
Eddie
Like already mentioned, it doesn't matter what your plans say, who stamped them or who approved them. The inspector is all that matters.
I would install the beam just like he wants it and pass the inspection. Then if at some point in the future you want to see if you can remove that beam and hire an engineer to figure that out for you, go for it.
As for who pays for this, it's up to you and your contractor. If it's a screw up on my part, I eat it and do so with a smile and an apology. If it's one of those things that comes up during an inspection that has nothing to do with me, or the job I'm doing, but still needs to be corrected, then it's the clients dime. My most recent issue was a slide on a playground that had been there for three inspections. Then it was wrong. Awhile ago, I had to install smoke detectors in a house that didn't have any. The client paid for that.
Good luck,
Eddie
CurlyDave
Elite Member
You need plans stamped with either an engineer's stamp or an architect's stamp. The building department should have caught this before issuing a permit, but may not have.
The building department always has the right to correct their mistakes. I don't think the inspector is being a hard guy, he is saying that in his opinion, you need a beam. If you can get an engineer or an architect to say you don't, then he will go along with that.
You have to understand that when a professional engineer or architect stamps a set of plans, he is accepting liability in the event they fail. A draftsman is not legally allowed to accept this liability, nor is he trained for it.
I am currently hiring an architect who will do stress calculations for floor loads, but who will not do seismic calculations, even though he is legally allowed to. He doesn't feel comfortable with the liability, and wants to hire an engineer for this part of the job. As a client I am smart enough to see that this is money well spent.
This is not simply a roundish extension. Two of the walls were original house walls and aren't going anywhere.
I would not guarantee that. You removed members which were resisting lateral spreading in order to create this dramatic ceiling.
I don't think this is something the GC should pay for. He agreed to build what the plans showed for a price. His expertise is not in engineering, it is in building. If the plans have to change because some vital component has been taken out and must be put back in, that is not his fault.
I think the best thing is to talk to an engineer. He may be able to devise some aesthetically-pleasing way of performing the function, or a more sophisticated analysis may say it isn't necessary.
The building department always has the right to correct their mistakes. I don't think the inspector is being a hard guy, he is saying that in his opinion, you need a beam. If you can get an engineer or an architect to say you don't, then he will go along with that.
You have to understand that when a professional engineer or architect stamps a set of plans, he is accepting liability in the event they fail. A draftsman is not legally allowed to accept this liability, nor is he trained for it.
I am currently hiring an architect who will do stress calculations for floor loads, but who will not do seismic calculations, even though he is legally allowed to. He doesn't feel comfortable with the liability, and wants to hire an engineer for this part of the job. As a client I am smart enough to see that this is money well spent.
This is not simply a roundish extension. Two of the walls were original house walls and aren't going anywhere.
I would not guarantee that. You removed members which were resisting lateral spreading in order to create this dramatic ceiling.
I don't think this is something the GC should pay for. He agreed to build what the plans showed for a price. His expertise is not in engineering, it is in building. If the plans have to change because some vital component has been taken out and must be put back in, that is not his fault.
I think the best thing is to talk to an engineer. He may be able to devise some aesthetically-pleasing way of performing the function, or a more sophisticated analysis may say it isn't necessary.
