How to fix this? 1

[XR250]

W8x67 flush beam w/ 2x10 joists on each side. This is how I showed the beam being packed out....

This is what I got.. Basically, they did not put the OSB in and just cranked the (2)2x8 into the kern of the beam so it is sitting about 3/8" inside the edge of the flange...


Now the hangers are not plumb and are bent. Not sure how to put a number to this. I realize the lower nails are missing but I am not even close to the hanger capacity. I'd like GC to take it down and do the padding correctly if not adding a bit thicker so it sits 1/4" proud of the beam as this will give them the opportunity to clean up the joist cuts. He will be upset to say the least. The entire installation is not great. I mean it is only an 1800 lb beam x 25 ft. long.

 

[XR250]

Is this a remodel job where you are removing wall and install steel beam flush?

yes

 

[KootK]

Are you going to load test each and every case?

I wouldn't. I would load test just the one case that looked the worst on this one particular beam.

Residential structures are notorious for experiencing ridiculously small percentages of their specified loads in service. 6 PSF or whatever. With that in mind, I would feel pretty good about loading up one pair of joists to 60 PSF, letting that sit for a week, and call that good if no problems develop.

 

[Jrit]

So i looked at this more closely and I think you are right. The contractor put a shim on top of the beam - looks to be about 1/2" thick. But the joists are also hanging down about 1/2" below the bottom of the beam. The beam is 9" tall and the joists are 9 1/4" so how is that possible? I asked the homeowner to check to see if there is a big hump in the floor above from overjacking.

Maybe I'm missing something, but are you sure they used the specified beam?

 

[KootK]

See IBC 1708 - which would set the precedent for the requirements of the test. Deformation must be accounted for, as well as load duration, and temporary shoring installed in the event of failure.

Thanks for elaborating. I disagree that meaningful load testing for something of such little consequence has to be so onerous but I at least understand your perspective now.

I'd spend one hour to develop a detail, the contractor eats a day to resolve the issue and they're back making forward progress before the load test has even started.

As I feel you've overestimated the difficulty of load testing, I also feel that you've overestimated the effectiveness of many of the simple repair details being bandied about. I suspect that most of the details that are not wholesale do overs would accomplish very little with respect to actual serviceability performance. Slip of the new fasteners plagues them all.

I don't see any real potential for ULS catastrophe in this. As such, anything that wouldn't meaningfully improve performance in service feels like a waste of time to me.

 

[DoubleStud]

just throwing out ideas. If you use HU210 and redo the connection, you can weld the part touching the steel (bottom and top flange). Perhaps add plywood spacer to make the hanger more flat. HU210 also projects farther so the joists will sit more on the hanger.

 

[KootK]

I have no doubt the hangers will hold that. I am more worried about some weird thing happening that I cannot foresee. Like the nails working themselves loose due to the prying action. That is why I am considering adding screws to the hanger.

If anything, that pushes me further in favor of load testing. As @Tomfh mentioned, you'll never know at structure's capacity like it knows it itself. And, as your situation becomes more complicated, that becomes more true. Load testing is a great way to tease out that which is difficult to predict.

I don't feel that you need to tie yourself in nots with PhD level rigor on this. Apply a significant over load relative to the likely service load, let it sit for a few days while the contractor works elsewhere, and see if any of the "weird stuff" comes to pass. If this doesn't tease out a problem, I feel that your future risk on this will be extremely low.

The load duration thing is always a factor when load testing wood. That said, I feel that load duration is much less of a factor here than it would be in many other applications. Load duration issues are about time dependent creep in wood. So a big deal for bending members etc. Where your likely performance issues are centered around the performance of the fasteners, as they are here, I feel that the importance of load duration starts to diminish.

Yes, fasteners usually bear on stressed wood and, as such, load duration cannot be wholly decoupled from fastener performance. But, in this situation, I would argue that you are not significantly changing the wood bearing condition of the fasteners. Rather, your concerns will be mostly centered on fastener bending and pullout, neither of which I would expect to be heavily influenced by wood creep.

The gap behind the packing actually bothers me much more than the hanger install. If there's a good reason for a redo, I feel that it's that.

 

[LittleInch]

Given the 10" beams are a bit short anyway I would make them add a third bit of 2 x 8 to the outside. or maybe a bit of 8 x 1?

Then screw bolt the living daylights out of it int your existing two beams.