LVL cut in half?

[Midge82]

IMG_1276.JPG (92.35 KiB) Viewed 933 times

IMG_1271.JPG (99.11 KiB) Viewed 933 times

I have an old house built on a rubble stone foundation that has some sloping floors. Some of the joists in the basement had been compromised by having been cut into and sistered improperly. A couple of lally columns had been removed by a previous owner, etc.

We hired a contractor to increase the support - replace some of the joists, add ledgerlocks and joist hangers, etc. Additionally, he added an LVL to a beam that runs through the center of the basement, perpendicular to the joists. It's about a 14' run. Yesterday, I noticed that he notched through the top 1/3 or more of it, to accommodate a plumbing pipe. Today i looked again and saw that he cut the LVL in half, to fit it in, instead of waiting for the plumber to arrive to move the pipes that were in the way. Am I correct in my assumption that cutting the LVL in half defeats the purpose? Each half of the LVL is bolted to the beam, and the joists are attached to the LVL.

Also, how would i proceed? He did not inform me that he would cut or notch the LVL. Should I Ask him to replace it with a full LVL that has not been cut in half? He did not pull a permit for this job because he said it was unnecessary for a repair

IMG_1270.JPG (134 KiB) Viewed 919 times

[SkipW]

I cannot tell what is going on the bottom picture except to see that the LVL is cut in two. It looks as though it is also modified to fit around a stone?

The notch for the plumbing on a 14 ft run concerns me less than the cut. The cut absolutely diminishes the purpose of the 14 ft LVL if in fact the full length was required for continuous support.

If the LVL was just a way to add a place to terminate the joists and is fully supported elsewhere/otherwise, then maybe it is less of an issue, but I would certainly ask the contractor to show/explain why he could not install the LVL in a continuous solid piece and prove the support has not been diminished by his modifications.

[Midge82]

Thanks, SkipW for your response. I guess the photo was a weird angle... that object that looks like a stone is a top plate for a lally column. The beam that the LVL is attached to with lag bolts is supported by a lally column, but the LVL is in front of the column.

I asked the contractor why he cut it. He said he couldn't get it past the gas pipes that are nearby. (Not sure if this is true.) He is suggesting removing the existing lally column and putting in a new one that will be large enough (with a large enough top plate) to go under the cut spot on the LVL. Wondering if that seems adequate?

[Midge82]

p.s. I added one more photo that might be clearer. Thanks.

[Casey]

If the steel column pictured under the joint is real and load-bearing, cutting the LVL above the post poses no loss in strength.
Casey

[Midge82]

Thanks, Casey. The steel column is old and hollow (not cement-filled). I don't know if that means it is or isn't load-bearing. Does it matter that the column is under the beam that the LVL is attached to, but not actually under the LVL? Thanks for your help.

[vvzz]

Thanks, Casey. The steel column is old and hollow (not cement-filled). I don't know if that means it is or isn't load-bearing. Does it matter that the column is under the beam that the LVL is attached to, but not actually under the LVL? Thanks for your help.

It's hard to see from the single picture that is loaded, but I also do not see a lot of fasteners connecting the LVL to the beam. There are specific requirement's how it should be secured.

Also is the LVL resting on the foundation walls + the lolly column? Or is it just attached to the beam?

I'm the last person to suggest getting a permit, but in this case I would either do that or involve a structural engineer to take a look. You really want another set of eyes on this.

[Casey]

It's load-bearing if it sits on a proper footer. If somebody threw it in there sitting on a 2" thick slab of concrete, it would not count as structural.

[1850Farmer]

If engineered for the span, LVL’s normally never get notched. The cut joint is not supported at all and needs a column with a saddle that go under and up the side of the LVL. You should also address the attachment bolt pattern, because it doesn’t look like it’s close to meeting code.

[Midge82]

Thanks for the further responses.
1850 Farmer, might you have any info on what attachment bolt pattern would meet code?

Vvzz, I believe the LVL is just attached to the beam, not resting on foundation walls. The Lally column is not really bearing the weight of it, as the LVL is in front of the old beam - and only the old beam rests on the lally column.