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.

 

[Aesur]

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.

Wouldn't it be limited by bearing perp to grain on the sill? I would estimate this is about 5.1 kips depending on grade and species of lumber used.

I am in agreement that I wouldn't design something like this, however I have done many custom homes with steel beams bearing on multiple wood studs or 6x6 etc. with steel brackets. One could check seismic uplift forces and see if you have enough weight to prevent uplift, other than that I'm not aware of a provision that says you cannot do this.

 

[Greenalleycat]

That looks like complete shit and I would not accept that in my professional opinion
My typical detailing is either a steel post (common) or a double stud (one jack, one king)
If landing on timber I'll usually drop a 6mm vertical plate and put a double bolt through
Alternatively, I'll weld an end plate on and bolt/screw the end plate to the king stud

I would never accept a beam with only positive seating and no direct fixings
Rotation of that beam is a huge risk

 

[phamENG]

Look closer... there are nails on the edges of the flanges and web. Yikes...

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

Beams are never attached to studs in my locale.

Is that the UK? I had this discussion recently with a friend... We decided it's actually fine because you wouldn't think twice about supporting a glulam/LVL onto timber studs so what's the difference for steel?

However... Triple studs with tie down straps. Not this very short and non-robust single stud arrangement.

 

[DETstru]

We decided it's actually fine because you wouldn't think twice about supporting a glulam/LVL onto timber studs so what's the difference for steel?

I agree with you that it's fine to attach a steel beam to wood studs. But not like in the photo I posted! If it were 2 trim studs and a king, with a positive attachment from the steel to the studs, I'd be totally fine with it.

 

[DETstru]

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.

I believe this is the exact situation my friend is in. The developer is building a whole neighborhood somewhere in suburban Michigan. They offer floorplans you can choose from, customize the finishes, sign some kind of contract (and probably pay a deposit?), then buy the house from them when it's done.

I assume he can get the plans from the city when it's all said and done. Some years ago I got the plans and calcs for my house from the city where I live (it was not a new build when I bought it). I just had to confirm that I was the homeowner and they sent me pdfs after like a month. The fee was pretty minimal. Less than $10 maybe? The pdfs are very legible.

 

[KootK]

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."

That's what I'd be leaning on for code backup. And the low budget, appropriate solution to it would be this:

I would pack it out with jacks and then add a king or two to prevent rotation.

 

[KootK]

But... technically the stud can handle the load

It can handle it assuming that the sheathing braces the weak axis buckling of the stud. As you said, it's hard to imagine that any engineer would spec things this way. It's hard to imagine that a situation worthy of a steel beam would simultaneously be unworthy of any form of stud bracing other than sheathing nails. Although I suppose this is, to some degree, contradicted by the fact that a single stud is capable of carrying that load somehow.

 

[DoubleStud]

The wood header next to it has 2 studs. Yeah, that makes sense .

 

[Brad805]

Owner, put in 2plys + trimmer studs. Contractor, it is correct per dwg. Owner, put in or no more cash.

 

[LittleInch]

The wood header in the left looks to be supported on only abut 2" of timbe via a cut out section which looks equally odd.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[DoubleStud]

It is also missing blocking between joists above the steel beam.

 

[TLHS]

The lintel right behind it in the photo gets a king post as well as the bearing stud. That at least supports things in the weak axis direction. Why does this get less than that.

The lintel to the left is on a doubled bearing post plus a king post. The span of that is likely less than this beam, and it's got less tributary width to pick up.

 

[TLHS]

If you want to push it you can call the building inspector and tell them about it. The inspector will likely agree that it looks unconventional if you point it out the them.

The argument would be that steel beams aren't in the IRC. The element has to be fully designed by an engineer under the IBC or another alternate provision. So they should get that document.

Also, the IRC has king posts for every type of header and similar individual beam type element that it covers.

 

[TLHS]

Also, these are the lateral support, movement and uplift clauses it isn't compliant with.

 

[phamENG]

To play devil's advocate: there are nails holding it down and keeping it from shifting laterally.

(I don't think they are sufficient at all, but good luck convincing the contractor otherwise.)

 

[human909]

It can handle it assuming that the sheathing braces the weak axis buckling of the stud. As you said, it's hard to imagine that any engineer would spec things this way. It's hard to imagine that a situation worthy of a steel beam would simultaneously be unworthy of any form of stud bracing other than sheathing nails. Although I suppose this is, to some degree, contradicted by the fact that a single stud is capable of carrying that load somehow.

That is what has made this post so interesting. The stud by all accounts is suitable (presuming it is weak axis constrained). So in most respects the engineering checks out.... But few of us would even advocate designing something like this.

Even if you get into uplift and lateral restraint. It looks (at a guess) that there is just enough there to realistically resist the presumed loads. So from where I sit it seems to work, but I would never design that and it just looks wrong!

It is most likely the contractor not building to the intended design. However there is a saying that ANY engineer can design a bridge, it takes a GREAT engineer to design bridge that barely stands.

 

[Tomfh]

However there is a saying that ANY engineer can design a bridge, it takes a GREAT engineer to design bridge that barely stands.

They're the bridges that end up making the news.

Our job is to add robustness. This isn't a robust detail.

 

[human909]

They're the bridges that end up making the news.

Our job is to add robustness. This isn't a robust detail.

I know. I'm not advocating that proverb or advocating this detail. (HENCE THE 2nd line in my pervious post.)

I was pointing out why this discussion thread has been popular with a bit of a tongue in cheek nod to designs that work but barely work.

When I wrote that I had in mind a current job I've been working on where the previous engineer has been a little too clever by managing to slim down the effective lengths of 25m tall A-frame supports by tension rods. Pity the rods have snapped in one spot and gone loose in another. It now being held up by hopes and dreams. Rework is being done as part of a new project and the original engineer is fixing his own work as I'm not putting my name anywhere near that!

Same here. That stud might hold that steel beam. But I don't like it.

 

[bones206]

I doubt there was ever an engineer anywhere near this job. More likely some in-house designer-drafter working for the lumber company or the contractor/developer.