LVL Beam to Short

[Steve Hanson]

Lvl beam was cut roughly 1-1/4 inches to short. The LVL beam runs perpendicular to a steel beam and is attached to the steel beam via a ledger board. The LVL beam run about 8 feet long and connected to the sub floor with the appropriate engineered nails. One side of the LVL is attached to floor joists via hangers. The other side of the lvl has floor joists with blocking. One side of the lvl is connected by hanger to wood beam running perpendicular to the lvl (this connection is fine and is flush to the other wood beam) I have attached a photo which shows the lvl in hanger with the 1-1/4 inch gap.

Questions.

1. Can I leave this as is and be ok?
2. What other options for repair exist without removing and replacing the lvl? I don't want to remove flooring and drywall to make the repair.
3. As an option, could I remove the subfloor from above and run 2d nails into end of lvl and ledger board and fill void with an engineered epoxy structural adhesive? This would fill void and not allow beam to slide towards steel beam and help to keep connected. Picture attached below.

 

[XR250]

That does not look like 1 1/4" short to me - look like 1/2" . How is the hanger attached to the I-beam? Was the eccentric load ever checked on the I-beam?
This is a hard thing to fix.
Maybe weld a long flag plate to the I-beam and bolt it to the LVL to resolve the eccentricity.

 

[Eng16080]

Can you temporarily support the LVL, remove the hanger, provide a new ledger/nailer to fill the gap, then reattach the hanger?

Or do the same but use a top mount connector instead?

Or two steel angles (one to either side) with thru bolts at the LVL and thru the wood ledger/nailer and beam web?

As noted above, be careful with the eccentric load.

 

[Steve Hanson]

That does not look like 1 1/4" short to me - look like 1/2" . How is the hanger attached to the I-beam? Was the eccentric load ever checked on the I-beam?
This is a hard thing to fix.
Maybe weld a long flag plate to the I-beam and bolt it to the LVL to resolve the eccentricity.

You are correct, the separation is 7/8". The hanger is attached to a ledger board which is bolted to the steel beam. This is a residential application.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Can you temporarily support the LVL, remove the hanger, provide a new ledger/nailer to fill the gap, then reattach the hanger?

Or do the same but use a top mount connector instead?

Or two steel angles (one to either side) with thru bolts at the LVL and thru the wood ledger/nailer and beam web?

As noted above, be careful with the eccentric load.

Thank you for the insights! On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best quality job, 1 worst) how would you rate the work and risk?

 

[SWComposites]

Is this a DIY home project?
Was this engineered?
Can I leave this as is and be ok? > No.
Could I remove the subfloor from above and run 2d nails into end of lvl and ledger board and fill void with an engineered epoxy structural adhesive? > No.
How is the hanger attached to the beam?
As above, get a couple of large angles to connect the LVL.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Is this a DIY home project?
Was this engineered?
Can I leave this as is and be ok? > No.
Could I remove the subfloor from above and run 2d nails into end of lvl and ledger board and fill void with an engineered epoxy structural adhesive? > No.
How is the hanger attached to the beam?
As above, get a couple of large angles to connect the LVL.

Residential project - removal of two load bearing wall. One had a 19 foot steel beam, the other the 8 foot lvl. Yes it was engineered. the hanger is attached to the beam via a ledger board that runs the length of both sides of the steel beam. Can you elaborate on the large angles to connect to the lvl? Would not a structural epoxy product that fills the void improve eccentricity?

 

[SWComposites]

the LVL is too short for a proper connection with the current hanger. epoxy filler will "fill the void" and have some minor effect but does not restore the connection strength. you need a much larger hanger or angles on each side bolted/nailed to the LVL and bolted/nailed to the ledger board.

 

[KootK]

When one considers the natural curvature of a simple span beam at its support, I doubt that the eccentricity on the hanger or the steel beam is much worse than it would have been in the LVL were the intended length.

So long as the bearing length on the LVL is not a problem, my only concern here is whether or not the steel beam can rotate away from the LVL at the bottom of the LVL. And my guess is that there is some stuff at play here that we don't yet know about that probably restrains that.

If it is really the case that such rotational restraint of the steel beam does not exist, then I would seek to create it. Some basic plan and section information would be useful in working out the best way to do that. For starters, how close are the bottom of the steel beam and the bottom of the LVL to being at the same elevation?

Because this has me twitching with deja vu, I'll recommend that you check out this thread: How to Fix This. Different problem but highly relevant discussion on how different engineers approach risk and the managing of contractor relationships.

 

[KootK]

Just an idea to throw on the heap. And this would kind of be a nuclear option for me after I'd already explored:

1) Other sources of beam rotational restraint that naturally exist and:

2) How much I really expect the steel beam to rotate under full load even with no bracing. I routinely hang precast plank systems from the sides of steel beams that are carrying an order of magnitude more load that you're going to have here. And yeah, some of those do have problems with twist. But most don't. Steel is, after all.... f'ing steel. It's pretty skookum stuff relative the squooshy materials derived from organic sources.

 

[Steve Hanson]

When one considers the natural curvature of a simple span beam at its support, I doubt that the eccentricity on the hanger or the steel beam is much worse than it would have been in the LVL were the intended length.

So long as the bearing length on the LVL is not a problem, my only concern here is whether or not the steel beam can rotate away from the LVL at the bottom of the LVL. And my guess is that there is some stuff at play here that we don't yet know about that probably restrains that.

If it is really the case that such rotational restraint of the steel beam does not exist, then I would seek to create it. Some basic plan and section information would be useful in working out the best way to do that. For starters, how close are the bottom of the steel beam and the bottom of the LVL to being at the same elevation?

Because this has me twitching with deja vu, I'll recommend that you check out this thread: How to Fix This. Different problem but highly relevant discussion on how different engineers approach risk and the managing of contractor relationships.

Koot,

Thank you for your response! I did read your lengthy "How to Fix This Thread" and took from that thread perhaps for every five engineers that suggest repairing something similar to my issue, their are five other engineers that say don't bother.... At least that was my read.

I apologize for not providing more clarity, so I'll do that now. I've attached a few more pics which illustrate the overall engineered final product which should provide some more detail to offer a more concrete opinion. I understand the motivation to suggest a fix, but am not looking for 100% fail safe final product. FYI, the final product was approved by city building officials.

1. The steel beam has ceiling joists with blocking on either side of the beam, the subfloor was nailed with 2d nails (if I recall) into the blocking between the joists. The blocking is attached to the the ledger board. The joist hangers are attached to the ledger board. The steel beam rest on a large post on one end and a Simpson strong wall on the other end. Both the Simpson strong wall and post rest on engineered approved large anchored concrete footings.

2. The steel beam has two other beams connecting to it on opposite sides. Both of these beams are nailed into the subfloor (above) have joists connected (with approved hangers) on one side and blocking on the other. The long glulam beam sits on a new anchored concrete footing. The long Glulam beam is connected to the steel beam with a welded hardware connection. All of the posts and Simpson wall are anchored to concrete floors well with solid connections with no gaps to beams above.

3. The one beam I am concerned about is the shorter beam (8 feet in length). I've attached a few more pics which show the layout of that beam from below to give you more clarity. I'm just really trying to figure out if I should leave it or do the repair. If I do the repair, I'd like to have that repair be as non-invasive as possible due to recent work and not wanting to have significant rebuild of finishes. If I have to get more aggressive, I will.

The PIcture first picture below is the beam which is to short as well as pic 0297.

 

[Eng16080]

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best quality job, 1 worst) how would you rate the work and risk?

I don't normally think of these sorts of things in terms of a rating scale. I simply don't like that gap. I think it's potentially problematic, and I would have it fixed. While it's perhaps not simple to do so, I also don't think it so difficult that's it's worth excessive contemplation. There are plenty of good repair options noted above.

Risk is a really difficult thing to assess in this profession, especially with residential construction. It's relatively rare for there to be serious consequences for even low quality work. Still, if there were to be a problem later, I think most engineers would look at this connection and conclude it's no good. I also doubt a builder could successfully argue that they did an acceptable job.

Just my take.

 

[sdz]

At least it's not too short.