I wonder why would someone use glulam for a small residence with low forces, it doesn't make sense.
I think the client could save more by not using glulam than skim on the connections. Besides why should someone put himself at risk and go against the original design just because the TF wants to save on expansive connectors. By so doing we are digging our own graves.
Regards!
Francis
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Side notches in Glulam
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:27:11 -0400
From: smaxwell@umich.edu
I am not directly aware of any restrictions. "We" have done this on occasion, but we do not have too many situations where we use glulams in timber frame...at least not where we use timber framing joinery. There could be some limitations in the AITC documents. I would have to check.
I would not likely worry too much about changes in the laminations grades...you are removing just a sliver of of material. If you are relying on bearing to take the load, then I might worrying about where the bearing surface is relative to a lamination plane.
In general, I would likely say treat it as a regular timber...thus, you could use the TFEC 1-07 Standard and other typical timber framing stuff. But, verify if there are any restrictions in AITC docs.
Scott
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:12:21 -0400, "Jordan Truesdell, PE" <seaint2@truesdellengineering.com> wrote:
It's a rafter to ridge beam in this case. The original design (stock plans) show lam-to-lam with Simpson hidden hardware. Since the TF has all the shop gear to make the notches, they want to skip the hidden (expensive) connectors and house the joist with GRKs to pin the rafter to the beam. This is a small residence, so the forces are fairly low. All I could come up with is separation of the laminations from bearing stress and possible "changing" of the grade of the top ply if a notch results in an imperfection closer to the edge than allowed (not sure which / if any lumber grades this would apply to). That last part might not even matter if they're balanced since the notch would be in the compression plies.
Jordan
Scott E Maxwell wrote:******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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@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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********What kind of joint are you talking about? A beam to girder connection? Just housing or also a mortise and tenon? Scott On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:44:50 -0400, "Jordan Truesdell, PE" wrote:I have a timber frame client which wants to house some timber joints into glulam beams. When we do this with timber, we simply reduce the section. Provided that the top and/or bottom of a glulam isn't notched any more or less than the inner plies, does anyone know of specific prohibitions against side notches for housing (likely to be 0.5 to 0.75" in a 5-1/8 wide member)?******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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@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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here.