![]() For single family dwellings in NJ, the homeowner (must occupy) OR a person with an affidavit from HO saying that they drew the plans, may do all drawings and calculations for permits in accordance with the IRC (and any local subcodes). Now, if you’re asking if I provided accurate calculations in a legal manner- yes, yes I did. You usually only have to do it for flat roofs or super low pitch with poor drainage, I just threw it in as N/A.Īnd you do not have to qualified nor insured to do math. ![]() ![]() But now this guy Hates me.ĭude youre a structural engineer? R = 5.2(ds + dh)…. I ended up getting my permits reinstated. And I had to explain to him that there are no trusses, and a ridgebeam with rafters distributes differently…. He then tried to argue that my point loads were off because trusses distribute the loads differently. And he, the city engineer, didn’t even understand my math! He just uses a pre determined table. As well as the surface area and D of my footings…. I have him the soil data and my point loads. I has every single piece of material listed for my deads on the deck and roof (there is a shared footing). I though he was going to pull some other shit, so I typed out all of the math the night before. He then tried to fuck with me further by saying he needed to see the math for loads which I used in determining footing sizes. I also printed out the the page in the ICC where it states that any engineered lumber that has been inspected and certified by the ANSI/APA can be used in accordance with MFG Spec. I printed out all of the certifications done on the PWT treat LVL’s by the APA and ICC ES, as well as the MFG spec tables. Could someone please chime in as to the legitimacy of this? Thanks LVL beams are covered extensively with load & span tables and anything else you can think of.īTW this is in New Jersey. To my knowledge, this is only true for custom engineered materials as well as materials that are not covered in the IRC. Anyway, their reasoning behind the revocation is that we included LVL beams in the plans which are engineered lumber, and as such require an engineers stamp of approval. This town hates my client for some reason and theyre always breaking my balls over stupid shit. The plans were approved but the roof plans have since been revoked pending “more information”. LVL 2900Fb-2.My client and I drafted plans for a deck with a vaulted gable roof. (Almost 2x what I need)Īgree with my assumption (in bold above)? So a double-ply LVL 3 1/2" x 9 1/2" x 11 ft beam can support 353 x 2 = 706 PLF. Using the Uniform floor load (PLF) tables from LP corp, I see that a single Total weight of supported floor: 55 x 154 = 8470 lbs.Īssuming beam is carrying 50% of this load (and the exterior wall carrying the other 50%) 8470/2 = 4235 lbs.īeam is (nearly) 11ft long. Using standard load estimates from LVL span tables: 40 psf live, 15 psf dead = 55 lb/sqft. Proper blocking will be done in the cellar belowĪrea of floor above the beam: 14' x 11' = 154 sqft.Due to orientation of floor above, only the left area of the floor will be supported by the beam (see sketch no.Interior wall, not carrying the roof load.of the LVL beams) and he wouldn't exactly give me an answer but he did say the key is determining the PLF (pounds per lineal foot) that the beam will carry. I talked to tech support at LPcorp (a mfg. I have the opinions from a couple contractors but I want to verify the size of the beam needed. Removing a load bearing wall and replacing with an LVL beam.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |