Steel beam supported by a single 2x6 stud 3

[DETstru]

A friend asked me to look at his home, currently under construction by a builder. One of those pick-your-floorplan type neighborhoods.
He showed me these photos of a steel beam supported by a single 2x6 stud in the basement (walkout basement). The other end of the beam is in a pocket in the concrete basement wall.

I would never support a beam like this. I always show pipe columns at all steel beams. The two other beams in his basement are supported by pipe columns.

I told him to have the builder add another stud or two and find or fab a bracket that can connect the steel beam to the 2x built-up post. The builder refused and said this was done per plans. I don't have access to the drawings, nor does my friend, to confirm. I doubt an engineer would show a single stud supporting a steel beam. And the rest of the house seems overbuilt anyway (triple 2x headers even in non-bearing walls, double trimmers, 2x6 walls throughout, thick plywood sheathing, etc). Doesn't seem like a skimpy engineer, especially for the type of development this is.

But... technically the stud can handle the load (I checked) and I can't seem to find a code provision in the IRC that says you can't do it.

I told my friend to just go and add the studs himself over the weekend but I'd love a code provision to toss at the builder. Any ideas? Located in Michigan, USA.

 

[XR250]

That builder is shit. I would pack it out with jacks and then add a king or two to prevent rotation. Beams are never attached to studs in my locale.

 

[RontheRedneck]

Is it possible that there's a footing there? Maybe the framer didn't have a post available, and just stuck a stud under there temporarily.

I'd suggest going with asking the guy to put something more substantial first. Start out being nice, and only progress to more pressure if necessary. No sense pissing he guy off when he's not anywhere close to done with the house.

 

[kipfoot]

My guess is that the builder is waiting for another steel column to arrive and plans to install it as soon as he gets it. I think the post that's supposed to be there didn't show up, was damaged, or fell off the truck.

He used steel posts at other locations, so there's evidence that that's what he does normally. He left a space for it. Just tell your friend to talk to the builder.

 

[DETstru]

RontheRedneck and kipfoot, Not sure if you read my full initial post but my friend said that he asked for additional studs to be added (per my instruction) and that the builder said that it was already done correctly. I didn't see the communication between my friend and the builder so I don't know if it was hostile or friendly or something in between. I wasn't involved in that part.

I didn't note this in my first post but according to my friend, framing is done and they're working on MEP now.

Per my original post, anyone know of a code reference that specifies minimum bearing? Or a requirement for positive attachment? I don't know of one. I think this is something that no one would do, so there was never a need for a code provision for something as dumb as "don't support a steel beam on one stud".

To reiterate again from my first post: I told my friend to just go out there himself and add the studs if the builder refuses to fix it.

 

[human909]

I'll be the devils advocate here and ask what is so wrong with a steel beam being supported by a stud if it has sufficient capacity.

I must admit is does 'look' a little wrong. Though even those stud dimensions look wrong to me as that is not what we use in this locality. However if the member genuinely checks out for compressive load what is the issue?

Steel beams ARE regularly used with studs around here.

 

[DETstru]

human909,

Yea I checked (based on rough dimensions that my friend gave me) and the load works quite comfortably on the stud. For me it's the lack of positive attachment and just being unsettling looking! Also, I work on the west coast, where everything is attached to everything. This house is in Michigan, where there really aren't seismic requirements and AHJ's are more lax.

If it were a wood beam, it would have one or two trimers and at least one king, and it would be at least end nailed to the king. As-is, it just feels so wrong to me!

 

[kipfoot]

DETstru - that's my poor reading comprehension. Still, something seems off. There are two jack studs at the opening to the left

Take a look at the IRC for minimums: TABLE R603.7(1) and TABLE 602.3(1) These are related to wood framing, however.

 

[jhnblgr]

Lack of bracing at top of stud would reduce axial capacity.
Likely the sill plate is in failure before the stud.
Screw in upper corner of beam is the only thing holding it in place.

Builder also missed the joist with nails into the sheathing.

 

[phamENG]

Yeah, that's not done correctly. Just because he picked a few sizes out of some tables and slapped them doesn't mean it's right.

I'd argue that steel beam installation violates J10.7 of AISC 360, unframed ends of beams and girders:

"At unframed ends of beams and girders not otherwise restrained against rotation about their longitudinal axes, a pair of transverse stiffeners, extending the full depth of the web, shall be provided."

 

[RontheRedneck]

You're correct that I didn't correctly read the entire first post.

What puzzles me at the moment is that you said your friend doesn't have access to the plans. If he paid for them, why would he not have access to them?

 

[dik]

I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it... but if the stud is braced in both directions, it likely has a 'real' load capacity of about 10K... less if not braced properly. I don't know what load is applied... What's it bearing on?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

Top plate splice is also inadequate.

 

[dik]

Double top plate construction helps maintain some sort of continuity... agree. I was only looking at the beam bearing. Our house in Oshawa that was built 100 years back (now) had a similar construction of a steel beam bearing on a single 2x6...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[DETstru]

What puzzles me at the moment is that you said your friend doesn't have access to the plans.

Yea I found this odd too. I agree with you and stated the same to him. But apparently the builder says that the plans are proprietary. I didn't feel like wading into this issue. Not my problem or my forte.

There are two jack studs at the opening to the left

Yea like I said in my initial post, the rest of the house seems to be built totally fine, if not overbuilt. This is just the one weird spot that I noticed.

TABLE R603.7(1)

This would have been perfect but it's in the cold-form section. Also technically this is not an opening, it's just an interior bearing line.

 

[DETstru]

Top plate splice is also inadequate.

Yes I agree.

 

[phamENG]

It's really common around here for speculative developers to not release the plans to buyers. They are buying the house and the land, not the design. I've run into it a few times. A friend who just bought one in North Carolina also didn't have access to his.

If he's desperate, just wait until the contractor goes home for the night. Most jurisdictions require the approved set to be in a tube attached to the permit sign.

 

[BAretired]

A copy of the plans should be non-negotiable. It should not require sneaking around to find them when the contractor is not present.

In the present case, the single stud and the steel beam do not even seem to be connected by anything but friction. Totally unacceptable.

 

[RontheRedneck]

Whenever I tell my Wife that I had a thought, she always says "Did it hurt?"

Anyway - I had a thought - I assume the house was built in a town or city. I wonder if the plans were submitted for a permit. And maybe they would be available for public viewing?

But I rarely deal with permitting, so I may be off base.

 

[IRstuff]

I wonder if the plans were submitted for a permit. And maybe they would be available for public viewing?

Some cities do that, but they digitize them and the quality is terrible, but might be good enough to see what's what. I've been that route, and one useful thing the plans had was the name of the architect, so was able to contact them directly and get better copies from them.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm