palmettoinspect Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 I've seen this being done a few time recently where instead of a traditional ledger strip or hanger the contractor uses a flat 2x8 between foundation piers to support the floor joists. Each time the flat 2x8 is starting to separate near the middle as seen in the second and third pictures. There is a double perimeter beam that the joists are also toe nailed into. Has anyone ever seen a floor system built this way? Is it okay? Thanks, Kiel Click to Enlarge 52.47 KB Click to Enlarge 40.53 KB Click to Enlarge 42.14 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brric Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 If that is a header or beam in the photo it should have joist hangers attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 Ledger attached joists are fine. That's not what you have. That's a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baird Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 ...all I can think of is Bubba's way to prevent rotation where joists meet end to end. Do not see any support role for that flat board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMedich Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 If the "double perimeter beam" you mentioned is the one we can see above the flat board, that would be the proper point of support for these joists. As already mentioned, they should only be supported with joist supports (properly sized, I would add). Relying on toenailing is a defect. Relying on the flat supporting member is a defect. Combining them in an assembly does not improve their status as such. Notching the joists at their point of support also decreases their structural value. Their span would determine whether or not they are still sufficient for the load they carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmettoinspect Posted November 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 My thoughts too guys, thank you. I just needed some reassurance as this is about the fourth house I can remember seeing recently that was done this way! I've called it out as wrong each time, but it got me thinking after seeing so many. I don't think it would be to hard to cut out some of the flat 2x8 to add the proper joist a hangers, just a lot of work. I think the framers are so used to framing a continuous stem wall and not individual foundation piers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmettoinspect Posted November 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 If the "double perimeter beam" you mentioned is the one we can see above the flat board, that would be the proper point of support for these joists. As already mentioned, they should only be supported with joist supports (properly sized, I would add). Relying on toenailing is a defect. Relying on the flat supporting member is a defect. Combining them in an assembly does not improve their status as such. Notching the joists at their point of support also decreases their structural value. Their span would determine whether or not they are still sufficient for the load they carry. Yes, another good point. The Joist are 2x12 and the double perimeter beam are 2x10. The span of the joist are pretty small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 It's just another couillon. What I don't get is how do all them couillons qualify for a contractor's license? Send them back to the sandbox! Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmettoinspect Posted November 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 It's just another couillon. What I don't get is how do all them couillons qualify for a contractor's license? Send them back to the sandbox! Marc LOL! I had to look up what couillon meant, it's French for "turd". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Marc has been down this road once or twice before, but (as best I recall) in Cajun territory it is slightly different. Click to Enlarge 33.87 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Marc has been down this road once or twice before, but (as best I recall) in Cajun territory it is slightly different. Click to Enlarge 33.87 KB Yeah, the word has a much more colorful connation in Canada, as John lamented a while back. I generally describe it's meaning here as 'dimwit'. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCHI1434 Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 The first thing I noticed was the joists are notched at the bottom which seriously takes away from there strength and secondly a board laying flat on its side like that is a ton weaker that up and down on hangers. In northeast Ohio I would be documenting that one and suggestion further evaluation by a structural engineers just to be safe for myself and my customer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 Ya know, I didn't think of it until now but the span of those joists might be so short that the support needed from that flat 2X8 might be minimal. The span tables would answer that question. I just don't get why that couillon would do that in the first place. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baird Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 Up here in the piney woods they call "couillon", "bubba". Often you see him with a goatee and a ball cap. I think I see now from the views we have that the flat board is incidental to the joists. Main function of the flat piece is to cap the pier. The cap should be masonry, but here it is commonly done with a treated board. Incidentally I don't know when I have seen joists with more depth than the band joists they meet. In fact, that pier row looks unnecessary anyway. I have almost never seen an overbuilt deck. Usually they are underdone and bouncy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.