Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: notched glue-lam

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Before you turn it upside down, verify that the lams are balanced, that is they have same strength top and bottom.

 

 

Bob Garner

 


From: jrgrill(--nospam--at)cableone.net [mailto:jrgrill(--nospam--at)cableone.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:31 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: notched glue-lam

 

Actually, not a bad idea.  The only problem is that it is in place with all the roof framing and roofing in place.  Still cheaper than replacement.  The stresses may be close, I still have to add the weight of the chandalier to the calcs.  Still good suggestion.

Joe



On Wed Sep 6 16:57 , Daryl Richardson <h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca> sent:

Joseph,

 

        This might sound overly simplistic; but is it possible to turn it upside down rather than replace it?

 

Regards,

 

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:46 AM

Subject: notched glue-lam

 

I'm hoping Buddy is out there today checking email.  A client has been tagged by the building department for drilling a hole vertically through a glue-lam beam and also notching 3/4" out of the bottom, both at midspan.  The beam is an 8 3/4" x 16 1/2" glue-lam.  If only the net section is considered (I understand concerns of stress concentrations) the section is still adequate at about 90% of allowabel bending stresses.

I have read both AITC Technical note 19 and APA EWS Technical note on field notching of glued-laminated beams.  Both these publications prohibit notching a beam on the tension side except at the support without any exceptions.

Are there any ways to look at this other than strictly prohibiting and making the contractor replace the beam?

By the way, I tried to send a similar post as this yesterday, but I think we are having problems at the office, so this I am sending through the net through my home provider, so if the last post did go through, I appologize for the duplication.

Joseph R. Grill, PE


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ********


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us.