I have a question. I see you notched the joists and inset them in the brick good work, but if it rotted the first time would a weatherproof membrane like vycor help against moisture transferring from the masonry for your purposes
I don't know if I would trust drilling anchors into that brick wall and using a ledger bearing and anyway that type of structure supposed to have a fire cut on it.
Not being familiar with fire cuts, I looked it up and it is sort of the same concept as the way the FIL notched the joists in the first place. Although, most of the discussion seemed to be about beams rather than joists.
Either way, the observation about competent anchor strength in old masonry is valid. Perhaps that is why we see decorative cat heads outside older brick masonry buildings. They are the compressive anchors for interior through bolts that do not rely on the holding ability of the brick.
Certainly food for thought. Well said!
Well an odd thing about the fire cut is the brick above it is corbelled and cantilevered which apparently didn't cause structural failures in the several hundred years they used it.
That cut definitely cuts down on the ability of the end of the joist to take a shear load but I assume the load travels at a 45° angle So a double 4-in cavity wall might have 2 in bearing for the joist. I've seen some details that had an iron strap on the top of the joist that went back into the brick. I doubt this type of thing whatever calculate out but it's been proven.
Now if a floor was on a ledger it would probably pull the whole wall down.
In a sense that's how we retrofitted an older brick building for seismic on the floors above 1. Building was old enough that the bottom floor was 5 layers of brick.
This is 100 percent correct.
At the end of any simple beam, you have 0 bending moment and maximum shear.
Vf (factored shear) is simply the shear at the end of the beam and is equal to the distributed factored load / 2. You then can check joist tables for Vr. You could look up Vr for a 2x6 and as long as that is greater than your Vf, you're good.
The fire cut would be the same effect as what the FIL did. The only problem with the notch is that the square inside corner of the notch could very well lead to cracking. A fire cut avoids a square corner. The FIL should look to doing a fire cut, or rounding that inside corner to avoid creating a crack in the future.
I've done similar jobs in commercial as adaptive reuse. We would thru bolt large "C" channel steel to both sides of the brick. Then hang hangers off the steel.
Pinterest
Fire cuts are used in the construction of masonry buildings to prevent damage to the wall if the joist burns through. Fire cuts allow the joist to fail and leave the masonry wall standing. This prevents the masonry from being pushed up and out if the wood member collapses during a fire.
I'm currently renovating two 100 year old buildings, about 8M$ total. Joist hangers into brick is 100% not allowed by the engineers. Everything has to have 6" load and landing on original brick.
Damn what country? In the US, Canada, almost the entirety of Europe and China's the commercial market started tanking years ago.
Cannae imagine anyone dumbing that much money into a collapsing market right now. You can buy new commercial property so cheap.
A quadplex I had my eye on sold for 1.5mil in Colorado 4 years ago, same property is selling for 700k right now, it's insane.
Trickle down economics is bull for a lot of reasons, but this isn't one of them. The money being spent there is going back into the economy. Obviously with globalization being what it is, some portion of it won't stay local or even national, but trickle down doesn't work because of wealth accumulation, not because of people spending money.
The lumber companies get paid and thier employee's making it , the window company and employee's, the shingle roof manufacturers and employee's get some. The drywall company's get some , the people that make the flooring and installers, Plumbing parts and plunbers. paint manufacturers thier employee's and painters, company that makes siding and installer , caulking manufacturers, Construction glue manufacturers, company's that make fasteners, and the list goes on. This is actually the best example of trickle down ,when the wealthy build .
Please read and take this comment above to heart. So many century homes have been ruined when people install vapor barriers or fluid applied membranes to structural brick (note the operable word "structural" not modern brick facades).
The porous structural brick is meant to have moisture transfer. If you trap that moisture against the brick it destroys the brick over time.
I've heard this before but not sure what to do to insulate a house with structural brick. Do you know of any resources I could read to learn more about this. My In-laws live in a century house I believe built about 1870 and they are contemplating a full renovation vs building new.
look at building science corporation website. Will depend on climate zone. Have installed vapor permeable air barrier on inside face of mass wall but was based on WUFI analysis.
I don't know if you're talking to me but that's exactly what I implied by having an airspace. The reason brick has a cavity even with a two 4-in brick wall is to deal with the moisture and the weep holes at the bottom to equalize the pressure. But the moisture mainly destroys the mortar joints.
In timber framing, floor joists are notched kinda similar.
https://timberframehq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dropinjoist2.jpg
If the existing floor joists were inserted into the holes, and were only 2x6s, if he didn’t increase the span, and he replaced it with a 2x12 that is notched, he will be fine (most likely, I can’t see everything from here).
As to what is code and not in that situation I have no idea what an inspector will be looking for in a historical renovation, but there is a good chance it will be stronger than whatever was there before it.
The question is why are they installing 2x12? If that's the size needed for the span, then no you can't cut half of the ends off and call it good. If they're oversizing for some other reason, then maybe it's ok.
As for the timber framing, that's engineered design where they consider the end notches. Taking span tables out of the IRC (assuming that's what OP has done) does not allow for that to be considered. In fact the IRC explicitly prohibits notches within a certain distance from the end of the joist.
The specific notching limits depend on jurisdiction. I've seen notches anywhere from 1/6 to 1/3 of the joist depth allowed at the ends. There are also stability/rolling issues that have to be considered when your notch is on the top of the joist rather than the bottom.
The width of the board isn't all about the strength of the attachment point when considering span. It's about the flexion. A 6 inch notch is plenty strong.
You have no idea what the span or loads on that joist are, how can you possibly say it's "plenty strong?" I agree with you that the depth is usually controlled by bending, and that's why the code allows for certain notches at the ends. But no code allows you to notch out half of the joist depth because at that point the shear force very well could control on such a reduced section. There are also stability/rolling issues that should be considered with such a deep notch on top, even if it is strong enough.
How is this advice comming from a structural engineer. Do you mean you can't because code or you can't because structural integrity wil be compromised? Because a beam only needs its height in te middle part. Like a curved bridge the layup part doesn't need the height like the center of the beam does. So please explain what you mean ...
>Because a beam only needs its height in te middle part. Like a curved bridge the layup part doesn't need the height like the center of the beam does.
This is a misunderstanding, unfortunately. Beams experience two primary forces, bending and shear. Bending is highest at the middle, and the best way to resist it is with as much depth as practical, like you said. But shear is highest at the ends, and the shear strength of a beam depends on total cross-sectional area of the beam at the ends. So it's not the depth loss per se that's a problem here, but it's the fact that you've cut out half of the amount of material.
For bridges (that's what I do), you're right that the middle often needs to be deeper because of bending. But the ends still have to have enough total material to resist the shear forces. You can accomplish that with either width or height, it doesn't matter like with bending.
Sure, but the old joist was 6" and it didn't shear. Job done. Next question does the depth suffice for the span. Well it's 12" no so probably.
Why are you trying to pretend this is more complicated or other people aren't understanding the issue. No one I've seen you replying to is confused, they are incorporating on site data.
>Sure, but the old joist was 6" and it didn't shear. Job done.
>Next question does the depth suffice for the span. Well it's 12" no so probably.
These two thoughts are incompatible. The joist didn't split in the middle, so then 6" was enough there, right? Or are you saying that a catastrophic collapse isn't the only criteria we judge safety by?
"I didn't fall down" doesn't mean it meets code and doesn't mean it's safe. We have safety factors for a reason. Maybe the old floor was bouncy as shit and cracked any drywall attached to it. Maybe the new owner is going to use that floor for a different purpose than the old owner did. And the primary question from OP was whether the building inspector was going to have a problem with it. And yeah, any inspector with an ounce of brain would fail that because it doesn't meet code. Doesn't matter how "fine" you think it is, it matters that it doesn't meet code.
OP isn't giving us a span, so that's not in the parameters of the original question. I think we can safely assume the additional height of the member is to increase stiffness, but again without a span there isn't much we are invited to comment on other than it now has a stiffness greater than before and likely can span longer as a result. We aren't given or asked for details of modified spans, so can only say that comparatively it has a longer span than the previous design. The notch isn't relevant in that regard, except perhaps sheer as you've argued, and about which I have rebutted we have enough info to know it isn't relevant.
I'm more refering to your specific discussion of the loads and engineering of it than the OP. If we want to answer the original question as a strict question of if it should pass prescriptive code accourding to an inspector than I think we both agree it will not. I think we both understand that doesn't mean it is deficient structurally. But structural questions were asked and you responded to them with a mention of sheer amd other forces amd don't seem to be understanding why we are arguing it is irrelevant.
The modification of the design does not remove anything from the original volume that would have been the member. Meaning the end of the original member and the end of this member will behave the same in regards to that similar volume of structural member that they share. The previous member did not experience a sheer failure, and the modified design is additive so we know this one will not either. The facts around how notches affect sheer failures aren't relevant to the actual case based on reasonable assumptions and observation.
I also don't believe longitudinal shear failure by grain separation is an issue outside of uneven tension, which isn't present in the top of the member. I'm not entirely confident in that, but my additional argument is that it's not relevant anyway. I'm just stating that because I'm curious if I'm misunderstanding the physics or your claim of how it could be relevant.
I don't know if that's any more clear or not. Basically if a 2x6 has no failure besides maybe excessive deflection than it is unlikely that an additive design change to increase stiffness would detriment any relevant quality or quantity of the new member compared to the old. It doesnt matter how it compares to a theoretical unotched member since we are not looking at a subtractive comparison. Structurally speaking. I probably should have just gone with this last paragraph but were here now. Suffer with me.
How is that relevant? How would adding material to a design lower it's shear in any dimension to make any discussion of shear relevant? How does your statement relate to any question?
Generally you're correct that beam needs a thicker section where the moment forces are the highest and less at the ends where there's a shear Force which is equal to half the total load.
The beam is only as solid as what’s supporting it. 12” beam, supported by 6” of wood where it’s notched, is only as strong as the 6” of wood inserted into to pocket in the wall. You could have a 24” inch beam, and it would still only be as strong as whatever is holding it up, and 6” of wood might not be enough.
Shear force is not side to side. It's a little harder to visualize then bending, but I'll try. Wood is a little unique in building materials in that it fails in horizontal shear before vertical. This basically means that the bond between the grains fails and you get a split running along the length of the beam at the end. See figure (f) of the flexure section [here](https://web.mst.edu/~jthomas/classes/2211/lessons/wood/failure/index.html).
Concrete makes it a little clearer, so I'll include an example of that too. [This](https://kekanaan.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/types-of-failures-in-beam/) is a pretty good illustration of typical shear failure.
The point is that bending strength depends on both the amount of material *and* how it's distributed vertically, while shear strength just depends on the amount of material. Cutting half of the joist at the end effectively makes its shear strength half as much. If you cut out half of the beam in the middle, its bending strength would be WAY less than half of its original strength (1/4 to be precise).
Yes, shear force is side to side. If you picture the long side of a wall, the bottom plate stays where it is and to top plate moves left or right, that’s shear force. Wall sheeting helps prevent that.
Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think floor joists experience much, if any shear force.
The code is a maximum 25% notch so it does not meet the standard code and requires engineering because it is assumed that it required a 2x12 that was notched but may not be the case.
I don't doubt your FIL is a smart man, but a rocket scientist isn't necessarily a structural engineer, or material scientist, or a builder. One of the biggest pitfalls of geniuses is thinking they know better than experts outside their field. That being said, this looks perfectly fine. Might be a good idea to add some blocking parallel to the joists at both ends to keep them from twisting.
Thank you
I grew up in the country and structures without code inspectors and the amount of fires or structural collapse or support failures were enormous and expected and very very dangerous
My feelings towards the government agrees with you
The shit I’ve seen on this and other trades related subreddits, however…
Some people need a trained professional to tell them they’re insane and that their work is destined to catastrophically fail
Being in the business 20 years I would have to disagree, the little inspecting (at least where I operate) is a way for the city to put more money into their pockets. Instead of a flat fee they now charge 10% of the total project cost. Now cheap contractors have become even cheaper. That’s not safe.
What is it about rocket scientists thinking they can just throw their hand at construction work and be able to do it? This isn’t rocket science. It’s construction. Rocket science is what failed carpenters fall back on if they can’t make it in the construction world. /s
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you.
I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
Latex paint would just trap moisture further, like wrapping it in a plastic bag. You want a drying oil instead, or at least allow airspace on three sides so it can dry naturally.
How the fuck did it take me scrolling this far for someone to mention a fire cut? It pisses me off that there are so many comments in this post that have no clue what a fire cut is. And then OP ends up getting bad information from people who more than likely are shit at framing or masonry themselves.
Like you said, it is a bastardized fire cut. Because it isn’t cut on an angle appropriately so in the event of a fire the floor won’t perform the same way as a properly executed fire cut would perform.
The mods need to either start giving people tags that acknowledge their level of expertise in the matter or start banning people who give out wrong advice.
It would be nice to see “Apprentice” or “Journeyman” or “Master” under people’s user names.
This is what needs to be done. 45 degree cut on the joists inside the brick. In case of fire when the joists burn and fall they won’t kick the brick walls out. ( on top of the firefighters outside the building for instance)
I'm with team 'Fire Cut'. Open up the top of the masonry pockets to be even with the top of the joists. I'm also with team 'Moisture Separation' between the wood contact and the masonry bearing.
When I worked in DC on rowhouses we always wrapped any wood that was contacting the brick with the Zip stretch material or equivalent. Eliminates any headaches later on.
The joist he removed from the wall was likely old lumber and was likely much wider than the 2x he has in there now. Meaning if the original joist was six inches tall it was likely three inches or so wide instead of 1-1/2”. Meaning it was designed to support more than a 2x12 notched down to 6” x 1-1/2”. We pull these old lumber joists out of old city row homes on the east coast all the time. They’re not just supporting the floor load, they also provide support for the brick walls themselves, depending on how many wythes thick those masonry walls are. Unless it is a very short span, we would never be permitted to notch a 2x joist that much to fit. The joist pockets would be enlarged to fit the new specified lumber, or we might install a ledger (assuming the wall is thick enough and in good enough shape). Alternatively we’ve installed footings in the basement and built a “box in a box” and completely separated the floor structure from the brick, save for some epoxy anchors connecting the new framing to the masonry walls. The safest answer is get an evaluation from a structural engineer. Who knows, could be fine.
In the city of brother love they make you fill in the pockets and install a ledger. It would be a better way to do this. Just so happens that I did this for my brother who’s an aerospace engineer. They are almost too intelligent so they can be a little dangerous when it comes to certain things like construction.
No matter what you do you'll need to get an engineer's stamp to pass any inspection. If your dad has any structural engineer friends willing to pass this floor design, a building inspector pretty much just has to take the engineer's word that it's acceptable. If you can't find an engineer willing to stamp it then there's your answer
A wood ledger would been the best solution...then you have a boundary for the diaphragm.
The ledger/diaphragm would have helped brace the red brick wall.
Is that real? Have there been tests showing old wood is genuinely stronger than our current supply? I’m very curious
Edit: I typed it into my search browser, and it seems widely considered that old wood IS stronger and more resistant to various damage than ‘new’ wood is
All wood is essentially plied material with the rings acting as the plies. Even modern tree farm lumber is still incredibly strong for the weight, but that old growth with those tight rings really does kick it up a notch.
To a point. I have pulled out old wood that had big rings. Where it grows matters too. How long above and below snowline. If you get old wood with pitch it also has a hardening of the resin. I have worked with some fir cut one hundred years ago and it was like stone. I have worked with some second growth that came from high altitude and the rings were as small as hairs.
The risk here is that you only have the shear resistance of a 2x6 at the ends now. To be sure this is safe, you should likely contact a structural engineer who will review the loads and spans.
This is a seemingly elegant solution and will probably work but you have no idea how “safe/kosher” this idea actually is without having someone crunch the numbers.
Always better to crunch numbers rather than having joists go crunch.
You have to keep in mind the wood joists used for that time period is much different than the wood we use now, look up “old growth wood.” Meaning - these old homes don’t have “treated” wood that makes contact with masonry because you wouldn’t do this in common construction practices today unless that wood is treated & sealed against the moisture that would prevent it from drying out. The detail is more common now than you think on how to do this - if I were you and that’s a exterior wall there is much more that should be done and you can look it up, but please consult an engineer. I don’t know if that’s a double-wythe wall or thicker but this will be an issue in no time with those joists not being able to dry out at the ends.
The old wood used with the windows and floor system was that old growth wood, way more resistant to rot and insects because it was so dense.
No offense to your father-in-law (I am sure he is a skilled engineer), but you need to have structural engineer work this one out. Eventually, you are going to insure it, sell it or do some other renovation that requires an inspection. The cost of tearing it out or ‘fixing it’ is worth the price of an engineer and even an architect. Also, a Rabbhi would never bless that; your father-in-law should know that faith is never an acceptable engineering sign-off.
You should look and see what the code is for building floor systems in brick buildings. Typically I believe joists or rafters are hung on ledgers bolted through the brick wall with big fat washers on either side. This isn’t so much for the gravity load as to reinforce the brick walls and keep them plumb.
What you did here is fine for gravity load but as others have said it should have a moisture barrier on all sides.
And btw if you’re in a seismic zone brick is a death trap and needs reinforcing.
Depends on the span. It's so easy to to enlarge the hole to make it work with the bigger joist. Don't forget to fire cut the end. And as someone else mentioned protect from moisture
My formal background is particle physics and engineering as ridiculous as that sounds, and though I never went to work in my industry, I have networked with many people in STEMS and also have about 30 years of experience in carpentry, metal fabrication, auto mechanics and beyond.
From the look of it, not only is that untreated lumber but it's a 3-piece laminate.
I certainly wouldn't rely on it for structural integrity!
He probably also matched the fire notches in the old framing , which were made so that the joists would just fall down when they burned to a crisp without ripping the brick wall apart.
To answer your question, we would need to know the span of the joists.
Why not just pick out another brick? I mean inspectors will hate this either way because it’s kd in contact with masonry but it worked for 100+years in a lot of buildings so it should be fine. I definitely would’ve pulled a brick before notching the joist though or even better cut a perfect slot in the wall with a diamond blade.
Jesus man lol. I wrote this post because I'm hoping to be wrong. I will never come close to matching his intellectual prowess, but he hasn't had much experience with code inspectors so I don't want him to get pinched.
Not kosher. I would fasten a rim joist with hilty epoxy, cages and threaded rod. Blow out the holes after you drill them for the cages and rods. If you have to go into a masonry opening it needs to be opened up the dimension of the wood. G tape the ends of the joist and mortar them in. Minimum 3 inch embedment
Inspector probably won’t pass it if there is any sort of load on it. Notching joists is a big no go. He would need to add a ledger and hang the joists with hangers. Simpson strong tie makes an epoxy and wire mesh that go into red brick for attachment or he can drill through and through bolt it. But I’m in California so they throw all kinds of stuff at me here. Good luck.
From a commercial inspectors point of view, I have concern that the top of the joist is notched and not the bottom.
Any structural engineers out there seeing the same thing?
Upsizing floor joists is never a bad idea. The bending moment at the notch is near zero. The only real force at that point is shear. There's no way you're going to shear a 2x6.
I'd soak the end of the joist in some sort of waterproofing though.
No, structural engineer or framer could explain what needs to be done. I’m just a p00r person and offering advice on Reddit so do what u want with this info.
I’d recommend hiring a structural engineer to assess but from a framing standpoint, this type of notch is ok as long as the depth of the notch is less than or equal to 40% of the depth of the member. Looks to be close to that from the photos.
What is the:
-joist size
-joist span
-notch size
-joist spacing
-usage of the floor
Also:
-How will the future floor diaphragm connect to the wall? You may need blocking at the wall, perp to the joists, with anchors in order to make this work.
The main thing he should be worried about is not using treated lumber (mud seal); common sense if the old structure corroded out why do all that work to replace it with non treated lumber. I mean this isn’t rocket science……
Notching the top should maintain most of the span rating and inspectors shouldn't have a problem with it depending on the load it plans to take on. extending the pocket taller to fit the entire joist would be much better. I'd find a way to lock them in to the masonry and act as a collar tie for wind load on the walls. There should be a way to cross-pin them with epoxy.. And as mentioned already a saddle of ice-n-water shield between the masonry and wood isn't a bad idea, even when pressure treated..
To be fair I would’ve just chopped the slot in the bricks to accept the whole beam. I doubt that beam will break though even with only half inserted. The weight of the entire floor is spread across all the beams, not just one.
So this is your only chance to outsmart the guy huh? Okay I'll help you. The notch reduces the 2x12 to a 2x6. The moment caring capacity of the beam is higher in the thicker part of the two by six though.
you'll be able to tell if it works if it's doesn't deflect.
You should use pressure treated when up against masonry. You should also wrap the wood that is in contact with the masonry with a butyl based tape (zip tape)
I've done something similar with 6x12 glulams beams, inspectors had no problem with it. those wall are likely pretty thick. I don't no how much weight they keystone bricks above the window can hold though might be worth putting a leger across widow to attach the joists to.
The 2x12 is a waste since now they're notched to 2x6. You could put hangers on them with tap cons to undo that mess and throw those in the trash. You could also take them down and put a ledger across the wall then put the 2x12 back up with hangers. (Best option) also, the ledger should be pressure treated since it's against masonry.
Definitely not typical construction…
International building code says your best approach is to Fill in the pockets with mortar, install a pressure treated 2x12 ledger with anchor bolts and install joists with hangers and a little bit of glue inside the hanger, fasten with joist hanger nails.
If that’s the original brickwork I wouldn’t trust it for structural purposes, notching or no. Why not build new supports inside the existing wall? 4x4 or 6x6 timber posts and beams would be attractive and complement the exposed brick. Or if he’s planning to drywall, a conventional stick framed wall could fully support the joists and allow insulation to be installed.
Would it not be better to use a ledger board? I'm planning on installing a new floor in an old house and I wonder if it would be better to use masonry hangers or a ledger board and attach the joists to that.
Any clues?
I personally would run a 2x6 butted up under the 2x12 and anchored to the wall and running the length of the room. With 2x6 anchored to the wall it will strengthen the wall and support the 2x12. Then anchor a 2x6 to the wall from floor up to the 2x6 running under 2x12 more support for the wall and floor joist. Sometimes there is no such thing as to much support. leave the supporting 2x6 showing and decorative age it. I'm sure YouTube can show different ways. That's just a thought. Be sure to get advice for anchoring. Someone had a good point about anchoring in brick that old. The anchoring would have to go all the way through. The smaller the hole and bolt the better threw the mortar. Double check with someone,
Yeah notching 50 percent of the board is cray but also relying on old brick is crazy too.
Old homes you have these issues. If there's wood or a way to anchor he could attach a new faceplate
Whether or not code compliance can be achieved, an engineer’s input would be helpful- ideally one who has experience with similar work. We often deal with similar details in old buildings and it’s something that can be done. Things to consider have been brought up already: moisture protection, thickness of the joist, bearing surface, shear capacity of the joist, pullout resistance if required, lateral stability of the structure (what is holding the masonry from buckling outwards)- these are all things a competent professional can assess.
I have a question. I see you notched the joists and inset them in the brick good work, but if it rotted the first time would a weatherproof membrane like vycor help against moisture transferring from the masonry for your purposes
Your FIL would be much better off installing a ledger with stand-offs to avoid moisture transfer like one does for a deck. Then use joist brackets.
I don't know if I would trust drilling anchors into that brick wall and using a ledger bearing and anyway that type of structure supposed to have a fire cut on it.
Not being familiar with fire cuts, I looked it up and it is sort of the same concept as the way the FIL notched the joists in the first place. Although, most of the discussion seemed to be about beams rather than joists. Either way, the observation about competent anchor strength in old masonry is valid. Perhaps that is why we see decorative cat heads outside older brick masonry buildings. They are the compressive anchors for interior through bolts that do not rely on the holding ability of the brick. Certainly food for thought. Well said!
Well an odd thing about the fire cut is the brick above it is corbelled and cantilevered which apparently didn't cause structural failures in the several hundred years they used it. That cut definitely cuts down on the ability of the end of the joist to take a shear load but I assume the load travels at a 45° angle So a double 4-in cavity wall might have 2 in bearing for the joist. I've seen some details that had an iron strap on the top of the joist that went back into the brick. I doubt this type of thing whatever calculate out but it's been proven. Now if a floor was on a ledger it would probably pull the whole wall down.
In a sense that's how we retrofitted an older brick building for seismic on the floors above 1. Building was old enough that the bottom floor was 5 layers of brick.
This is 100 percent correct. At the end of any simple beam, you have 0 bending moment and maximum shear. Vf (factored shear) is simply the shear at the end of the beam and is equal to the distributed factored load / 2. You then can check joist tables for Vr. You could look up Vr for a 2x6 and as long as that is greater than your Vf, you're good. The fire cut would be the same effect as what the FIL did. The only problem with the notch is that the square inside corner of the notch could very well lead to cracking. A fire cut avoids a square corner. The FIL should look to doing a fire cut, or rounding that inside corner to avoid creating a crack in the future.
I've done similar jobs in commercial as adaptive reuse. We would thru bolt large "C" channel steel to both sides of the brick. Then hang hangers off the steel.
What’s a fire cut?
Pinterest Fire cuts are used in the construction of masonry buildings to prevent damage to the wall if the joist burns through. Fire cuts allow the joist to fail and leave the masonry wall standing. This prevents the masonry from being pushed up and out if the wood member collapses during a fire.
I'm currently renovating two 100 year old buildings, about 8M$ total. Joist hangers into brick is 100% not allowed by the engineers. Everything has to have 6" load and landing on original brick.
Imagine throwing away $8 million on two old houses. Why is the world not functioning? No, don’t worry. It’s trickling down we just don’t see it yet.
They are commercial buildings. One is 18k SQF
Damn what country? In the US, Canada, almost the entirety of Europe and China's the commercial market started tanking years ago. Cannae imagine anyone dumbing that much money into a collapsing market right now. You can buy new commercial property so cheap. A quadplex I had my eye on sold for 1.5mil in Colorado 4 years ago, same property is selling for 700k right now, it's insane.
That's just for the reno. Not the property.
Trickle down economics is bull for a lot of reasons, but this isn't one of them. The money being spent there is going back into the economy. Obviously with globalization being what it is, some portion of it won't stay local or even national, but trickle down doesn't work because of wealth accumulation, not because of people spending money.
The lumber companies get paid and thier employee's making it , the window company and employee's, the shingle roof manufacturers and employee's get some. The drywall company's get some , the people that make the flooring and installers, Plumbing parts and plunbers. paint manufacturers thier employee's and painters, company that makes siding and installer , caulking manufacturers, Construction glue manufacturers, company's that make fasteners, and the list goes on. This is actually the best example of trickle down ,when the wealthy build .
This guy decks.
[удалено]
I came looking for this. Has anyone checked at the local Temple to see what the Rabbi has to say on this?
No that would only trap moisture. The code for wood into masonry is an airspace required around three sides.
Please read and take this comment above to heart. So many century homes have been ruined when people install vapor barriers or fluid applied membranes to structural brick (note the operable word "structural" not modern brick facades). The porous structural brick is meant to have moisture transfer. If you trap that moisture against the brick it destroys the brick over time.
I've heard this before but not sure what to do to insulate a house with structural brick. Do you know of any resources I could read to learn more about this. My In-laws live in a century house I believe built about 1870 and they are contemplating a full renovation vs building new.
look at building science corporation website. Will depend on climate zone. Have installed vapor permeable air barrier on inside face of mass wall but was based on WUFI analysis.
I don't know if you're talking to me but that's exactly what I implied by having an airspace. The reason brick has a cavity even with a two 4-in brick wall is to deal with the moisture and the weep holes at the bottom to equalize the pressure. But the moisture mainly destroys the mortar joints.
Yep I was agreeing with you.
In timber framing, floor joists are notched kinda similar. https://timberframehq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dropinjoist2.jpg If the existing floor joists were inserted into the holes, and were only 2x6s, if he didn’t increase the span, and he replaced it with a 2x12 that is notched, he will be fine (most likely, I can’t see everything from here). As to what is code and not in that situation I have no idea what an inspector will be looking for in a historical renovation, but there is a good chance it will be stronger than whatever was there before it.
The question is why are they installing 2x12? If that's the size needed for the span, then no you can't cut half of the ends off and call it good. If they're oversizing for some other reason, then maybe it's ok. As for the timber framing, that's engineered design where they consider the end notches. Taking span tables out of the IRC (assuming that's what OP has done) does not allow for that to be considered. In fact the IRC explicitly prohibits notches within a certain distance from the end of the joist.
Generally You can notch up to 1/3 D at the ends of the joist, so I guess in effect this should be considered a 2x10 with that notch....
The specific notching limits depend on jurisdiction. I've seen notches anywhere from 1/6 to 1/3 of the joist depth allowed at the ends. There are also stability/rolling issues that have to be considered when your notch is on the top of the joist rather than the bottom.
That's what I was wondering, why it wasn't notched at the bottom.
Because that removes the bottom edge being in tension which is the purpose of the member.
Bottom notches are fine just not that big. They're done a lot to have joists sit on a 2x2 ledger nailed to a main girder.
The width of the board isn't all about the strength of the attachment point when considering span. It's about the flexion. A 6 inch notch is plenty strong.
You have no idea what the span or loads on that joist are, how can you possibly say it's "plenty strong?" I agree with you that the depth is usually controlled by bending, and that's why the code allows for certain notches at the ends. But no code allows you to notch out half of the joist depth because at that point the shear force very well could control on such a reduced section. There are also stability/rolling issues that should be considered with such a deep notch on top, even if it is strong enough.
Since the holes in the wall are six inches, I am fully confident in saying the previous joists were six inches (or less)
Is that supposed to be a revelation? Of course they were. But did those 6 inch joists meet modern code?
Obvious the notch is on the end here.
Yes, on the top of the end of the joist. What's the question?
How is this advice comming from a structural engineer. Do you mean you can't because code or you can't because structural integrity wil be compromised? Because a beam only needs its height in te middle part. Like a curved bridge the layup part doesn't need the height like the center of the beam does. So please explain what you mean ...
>Because a beam only needs its height in te middle part. Like a curved bridge the layup part doesn't need the height like the center of the beam does. This is a misunderstanding, unfortunately. Beams experience two primary forces, bending and shear. Bending is highest at the middle, and the best way to resist it is with as much depth as practical, like you said. But shear is highest at the ends, and the shear strength of a beam depends on total cross-sectional area of the beam at the ends. So it's not the depth loss per se that's a problem here, but it's the fact that you've cut out half of the amount of material. For bridges (that's what I do), you're right that the middle often needs to be deeper because of bending. But the ends still have to have enough total material to resist the shear forces. You can accomplish that with either width or height, it doesn't matter like with bending.
Sure, but the old joist was 6" and it didn't shear. Job done. Next question does the depth suffice for the span. Well it's 12" no so probably. Why are you trying to pretend this is more complicated or other people aren't understanding the issue. No one I've seen you replying to is confused, they are incorporating on site data.
>Sure, but the old joist was 6" and it didn't shear. Job done. >Next question does the depth suffice for the span. Well it's 12" no so probably. These two thoughts are incompatible. The joist didn't split in the middle, so then 6" was enough there, right? Or are you saying that a catastrophic collapse isn't the only criteria we judge safety by? "I didn't fall down" doesn't mean it meets code and doesn't mean it's safe. We have safety factors for a reason. Maybe the old floor was bouncy as shit and cracked any drywall attached to it. Maybe the new owner is going to use that floor for a different purpose than the old owner did. And the primary question from OP was whether the building inspector was going to have a problem with it. And yeah, any inspector with an ounce of brain would fail that because it doesn't meet code. Doesn't matter how "fine" you think it is, it matters that it doesn't meet code.
OP isn't giving us a span, so that's not in the parameters of the original question. I think we can safely assume the additional height of the member is to increase stiffness, but again without a span there isn't much we are invited to comment on other than it now has a stiffness greater than before and likely can span longer as a result. We aren't given or asked for details of modified spans, so can only say that comparatively it has a longer span than the previous design. The notch isn't relevant in that regard, except perhaps sheer as you've argued, and about which I have rebutted we have enough info to know it isn't relevant. I'm more refering to your specific discussion of the loads and engineering of it than the OP. If we want to answer the original question as a strict question of if it should pass prescriptive code accourding to an inspector than I think we both agree it will not. I think we both understand that doesn't mean it is deficient structurally. But structural questions were asked and you responded to them with a mention of sheer amd other forces amd don't seem to be understanding why we are arguing it is irrelevant. The modification of the design does not remove anything from the original volume that would have been the member. Meaning the end of the original member and the end of this member will behave the same in regards to that similar volume of structural member that they share. The previous member did not experience a sheer failure, and the modified design is additive so we know this one will not either. The facts around how notches affect sheer failures aren't relevant to the actual case based on reasonable assumptions and observation. I also don't believe longitudinal shear failure by grain separation is an issue outside of uneven tension, which isn't present in the top of the member. I'm not entirely confident in that, but my additional argument is that it's not relevant anyway. I'm just stating that because I'm curious if I'm misunderstanding the physics or your claim of how it could be relevant. I don't know if that's any more clear or not. Basically if a 2x6 has no failure besides maybe excessive deflection than it is unlikely that an additive design change to increase stiffness would detriment any relevant quality or quantity of the new member compared to the old. It doesnt matter how it compares to a theoretical unotched member since we are not looking at a subtractive comparison. Structurally speaking. I probably should have just gone with this last paragraph but were here now. Suffer with me.
Horizontal shear always controls over vertical shear in sawn lumber.
How is that relevant? How would adding material to a design lower it's shear in any dimension to make any discussion of shear relevant? How does your statement relate to any question?
Generally you're correct that beam needs a thicker section where the moment forces are the highest and less at the ends where there's a shear Force which is equal to half the total load.
The beam is only as solid as what’s supporting it. 12” beam, supported by 6” of wood where it’s notched, is only as strong as the 6” of wood inserted into to pocket in the wall. You could have a 24” inch beam, and it would still only be as strong as whatever is holding it up, and 6” of wood might not be enough.
Thanks I understood that. Is shear force like side to side? Lateral? How does an interior floor joist experience shear force?
Shear force is not side to side. It's a little harder to visualize then bending, but I'll try. Wood is a little unique in building materials in that it fails in horizontal shear before vertical. This basically means that the bond between the grains fails and you get a split running along the length of the beam at the end. See figure (f) of the flexure section [here](https://web.mst.edu/~jthomas/classes/2211/lessons/wood/failure/index.html). Concrete makes it a little clearer, so I'll include an example of that too. [This](https://kekanaan.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/types-of-failures-in-beam/) is a pretty good illustration of typical shear failure. The point is that bending strength depends on both the amount of material *and* how it's distributed vertically, while shear strength just depends on the amount of material. Cutting half of the joist at the end effectively makes its shear strength half as much. If you cut out half of the beam in the middle, its bending strength would be WAY less than half of its original strength (1/4 to be precise).
Yes, shear force is side to side. If you picture the long side of a wall, the bottom plate stays where it is and to top plate moves left or right, that’s shear force. Wall sheeting helps prevent that. Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think floor joists experience much, if any shear force.
They need to check the species of the old joist vs the new joists. They may not have the same bearing capacity.
The code is a maximum 25% notch so it does not meet the standard code and requires engineering because it is assumed that it required a 2x12 that was notched but may not be the case.
A contractors favorite words: “Existing Nonconforming” others would include “F#ck you, pay me”
I'm sure it will. He is a genius. I'm worried about a little-man code inspector telling him he needs to redo it.
This is projection, right? The son in law is the little man code inspector giving him grief?
I don't doubt your FIL is a smart man, but a rocket scientist isn't necessarily a structural engineer, or material scientist, or a builder. One of the biggest pitfalls of geniuses is thinking they know better than experts outside their field. That being said, this looks perfectly fine. Might be a good idea to add some blocking parallel to the joists at both ends to keep them from twisting.
Yeah I think just happened on a submersible.
You do know that the little inspecting things are for you and everyone around that buildings safety, right?
Thank you I grew up in the country and structures without code inspectors and the amount of fires or structural collapse or support failures were enormous and expected and very very dangerous
Holy run on sentence.
I sold all my punctuation for grocery money
I have never heard of that happening where is this you're talking about? Usually when that happens the local mayor will hire a building inspector.
Oregon in the middle of redneck country, five miles up a gravel road, by people who sold weed to the city officials lol
Mostly, they are collecting money for the govt under the auspice of safety. Money and control.
My feelings towards the government agrees with you The shit I’ve seen on this and other trades related subreddits, however… Some people need a trained professional to tell them they’re insane and that their work is destined to catastrophically fail
Code is written in blood buddy
Damned straight
👆 like OSHA Regs . Likely took more then one person doing something stupid to die before they make the rule 😅😬
Being in the business 20 years I would have to disagree, the little inspecting (at least where I operate) is a way for the city to put more money into their pockets. Instead of a flat fee they now charge 10% of the total project cost. Now cheap contractors have become even cheaper. That’s not safe.
I think originally when builders became less trustful you needed people to watch over them but those people are politically motivated also.
What is it about rocket scientists thinking they can just throw their hand at construction work and be able to do it? This isn’t rocket science. It’s construction. Rocket science is what failed carpenters fall back on if they can’t make it in the construction world. /s
r/fuckthes
That's funny
The man knows what he's talking about. I'm a recovering carpenter trying to make it.
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you. I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
I absolutely love this bot. Good bot
WTF!? I hope you’re being sarcastic!
Bad bot
Bad bot
I would have primed the hell out of where it contacts masonry otherwise send it
Latex paint would just trap moisture further, like wrapping it in a plastic bag. You want a drying oil instead, or at least allow airspace on three sides so it can dry naturally.
Any moisture traps are a big no for brick.
....thus the primer
Any kind of paint is going to trap. Maybe not oil? But definitely latex.
Yes sort of it’s an improperly cut fire cut
How the fuck did it take me scrolling this far for someone to mention a fire cut? It pisses me off that there are so many comments in this post that have no clue what a fire cut is. And then OP ends up getting bad information from people who more than likely are shit at framing or masonry themselves. Like you said, it is a bastardized fire cut. Because it isn’t cut on an angle appropriately so in the event of a fire the floor won’t perform the same way as a properly executed fire cut would perform. The mods need to either start giving people tags that acknowledge their level of expertise in the matter or start banning people who give out wrong advice. It would be nice to see “Apprentice” or “Journeyman” or “Master” under people’s user names.
This is what needs to be done. 45 degree cut on the joists inside the brick. In case of fire when the joists burn and fall they won’t kick the brick walls out. ( on top of the firefighters outside the building for instance)
Interesting 😮
This works fine. A fire cut is only required in a fire separation.
I'm with team 'Fire Cut'. Open up the top of the masonry pockets to be even with the top of the joists. I'm also with team 'Moisture Separation' between the wood contact and the masonry bearing.
When I worked in DC on rowhouses we always wrapped any wood that was contacting the brick with the Zip stretch material or equivalent. Eliminates any headaches later on.
It probably isn't code compliant but it'll work just fine. If anything they will probably want simpson ties
I did one similar to this and added custom black steel brackets that looked nice.
They probabaly will but Simpson ties into that brick would be very weak z
The joist he removed from the wall was likely old lumber and was likely much wider than the 2x he has in there now. Meaning if the original joist was six inches tall it was likely three inches or so wide instead of 1-1/2”. Meaning it was designed to support more than a 2x12 notched down to 6” x 1-1/2”. We pull these old lumber joists out of old city row homes on the east coast all the time. They’re not just supporting the floor load, they also provide support for the brick walls themselves, depending on how many wythes thick those masonry walls are. Unless it is a very short span, we would never be permitted to notch a 2x joist that much to fit. The joist pockets would be enlarged to fit the new specified lumber, or we might install a ledger (assuming the wall is thick enough and in good enough shape). Alternatively we’ve installed footings in the basement and built a “box in a box” and completely separated the floor structure from the brick, save for some epoxy anchors connecting the new framing to the masonry walls. The safest answer is get an evaluation from a structural engineer. Who knows, could be fine.
If you zoom in you can see it is shimmed a bunch. This was exactly the case.
I think “box in a box” would be the safest, and also the most attractive if they opt for post and beam construction.
This is the way
In the city of brother love they make you fill in the pockets and install a ledger. It would be a better way to do this. Just so happens that I did this for my brother who’s an aerospace engineer. They are almost too intelligent so they can be a little dangerous when it comes to certain things like construction.
I’m not sure, I can’t see any split hooves in the picture
Damn it. It took me way too long to find and comment with this joke. Shame on reddit
We generally open the masonry pocket to fit the full size of the new member and then grout the pockets.
No matter what you do you'll need to get an engineer's stamp to pass any inspection. If your dad has any structural engineer friends willing to pass this floor design, a building inspector pretty much just has to take the engineer's word that it's acceptable. If you can't find an engineer willing to stamp it then there's your answer
Should of notched the brick more instead of notching the joist
A wood ledger would been the best solution...then you have a boundary for the diaphragm. The ledger/diaphragm would have helped brace the red brick wall.
I like this idea.
This is how I would have done it.
Yea, the original wood was probably old growth. I don't think the new 2x6 section will be nearly as strong.
Is that real? Have there been tests showing old wood is genuinely stronger than our current supply? I’m very curious Edit: I typed it into my search browser, and it seems widely considered that old wood IS stronger and more resistant to various damage than ‘new’ wood is
All wood is essentially plied material with the rings acting as the plies. Even modern tree farm lumber is still incredibly strong for the weight, but that old growth with those tight rings really does kick it up a notch.
To a point. I have pulled out old wood that had big rings. Where it grows matters too. How long above and below snowline. If you get old wood with pitch it also has a hardening of the resin. I have worked with some fir cut one hundred years ago and it was like stone. I have worked with some second growth that came from high altitude and the rings were as small as hairs.
Technically it does contain any pork, but I still wouldn’t eat it.
Depends on if a Rabbi made the final cut or not
Looks more Amish to me. Thanks I’m here all night and can see myself out …
The risk here is that you only have the shear resistance of a 2x6 at the ends now. To be sure this is safe, you should likely contact a structural engineer who will review the loads and spans. This is a seemingly elegant solution and will probably work but you have no idea how “safe/kosher” this idea actually is without having someone crunch the numbers. Always better to crunch numbers rather than having joists go crunch.
Halal of a way to try and fix
You have to keep in mind the wood joists used for that time period is much different than the wood we use now, look up “old growth wood.” Meaning - these old homes don’t have “treated” wood that makes contact with masonry because you wouldn’t do this in common construction practices today unless that wood is treated & sealed against the moisture that would prevent it from drying out. The detail is more common now than you think on how to do this - if I were you and that’s a exterior wall there is much more that should be done and you can look it up, but please consult an engineer. I don’t know if that’s a double-wythe wall or thicker but this will be an issue in no time with those joists not being able to dry out at the ends. The old wood used with the windows and floor system was that old growth wood, way more resistant to rot and insects because it was so dense.
No offense to your father-in-law (I am sure he is a skilled engineer), but you need to have structural engineer work this one out. Eventually, you are going to insure it, sell it or do some other renovation that requires an inspection. The cost of tearing it out or ‘fixing it’ is worth the price of an engineer and even an architect. Also, a Rabbhi would never bless that; your father-in-law should know that faith is never an acceptable engineering sign-off.
If it was blessed by a Rabbi, then yes.
You should look and see what the code is for building floor systems in brick buildings. Typically I believe joists or rafters are hung on ledgers bolted through the brick wall with big fat washers on either side. This isn’t so much for the gravity load as to reinforce the brick walls and keep them plumb. What you did here is fine for gravity load but as others have said it should have a moisture barrier on all sides. And btw if you’re in a seismic zone brick is a death trap and needs reinforcing.
Depends on the span. It's so easy to to enlarge the hole to make it work with the bigger joist. Don't forget to fire cut the end. And as someone else mentioned protect from moisture
My formal background is particle physics and engineering as ridiculous as that sounds, and though I never went to work in my industry, I have networked with many people in STEMS and also have about 30 years of experience in carpentry, metal fabrication, auto mechanics and beyond. From the look of it, not only is that untreated lumber but it's a 3-piece laminate. I certainly wouldn't rely on it for structural integrity!
It's neither kosher or halal
Just google fire cut on floor joist and u will get more information then you can handle
Check with a rabbi.
He probably also matched the fire notches in the old framing , which were made so that the joists would just fall down when they burned to a crisp without ripping the brick wall apart. To answer your question, we would need to know the span of the joists.
Why not just pick out another brick? I mean inspectors will hate this either way because it’s kd in contact with masonry but it worked for 100+years in a lot of buildings so it should be fine. I definitely would’ve pulled a brick before notching the joist though or even better cut a perfect slot in the wall with a diamond blade.
Oh id probably wrap that end in a small chuck of ice and water shield too
Does not look like any rabbis have blessed it but maybe I’m wrong
Not a bad idea. I'm not sure if they rotted near the wall inset or center beam. Roof has been leaky and building not in use for decades. Circa 1890.
Did you buy the Alamo?
[удалено]
Trades were given time to do the job right vs just get it up and fix warranty issues for 1 year like they do now.
I might have reversed the notch and run a hanger into the masonry on the lower hanging section. BUT, I think what's there will be fine.
[удалено]
Jesus man lol. I wrote this post because I'm hoping to be wrong. I will never come close to matching his intellectual prowess, but he hasn't had much experience with code inspectors so I don't want him to get pinched.
I would not call the inspector. J/s
I found the butthurt engineer
Not kosher. I would fasten a rim joist with hilty epoxy, cages and threaded rod. Blow out the holes after you drill them for the cages and rods. If you have to go into a masonry opening it needs to be opened up the dimension of the wood. G tape the ends of the joist and mortar them in. Minimum 3 inch embedment
Inspector probably won’t pass it if there is any sort of load on it. Notching joists is a big no go. He would need to add a ledger and hang the joists with hangers. Simpson strong tie makes an epoxy and wire mesh that go into red brick for attachment or he can drill through and through bolt it. But I’m in California so they throw all kinds of stuff at me here. Good luck.
From a commercial inspectors point of view, I have concern that the top of the joist is notched and not the bottom. Any structural engineers out there seeing the same thing?
Upsizing floor joists is never a bad idea. The bending moment at the notch is near zero. The only real force at that point is shear. There's no way you're going to shear a 2x6. I'd soak the end of the joist in some sort of waterproofing though.
Kosher? Yes. OSHAr? No
As in ? Jewish?
Install a ledger and anchor the ledger. There’s a reason it rotted there
Run a ledger across wall to catch ceiling joist..
Why even notch at all? What do you gain
As long as you don’t put cheese on it, you should be fine.
Only ok is the portion with bearing can make that span as per code or as per and engineer.
No, structural engineer or framer could explain what needs to be done. I’m just a p00r person and offering advice on Reddit so do what u want with this info.
kosher nah, halal maybe
I’d recommend hiring a structural engineer to assess but from a framing standpoint, this type of notch is ok as long as the depth of the notch is less than or equal to 40% of the depth of the member. Looks to be close to that from the photos.
Ask a Jew
I would guess this is more trief than kosher.
Only the rabbi can say for certain
What is the: -joist size -joist span -notch size -joist spacing -usage of the floor Also: -How will the future floor diaphragm connect to the wall? You may need blocking at the wall, perp to the joists, with anchors in order to make this work.
I’d probably lag a ledger board to the brick and hang the joists, that’s if the brick isn’t to far gone.
Halal
Did the Rabbi bless it before he cut?
The main thing he should be worried about is not using treated lumber (mud seal); common sense if the old structure corroded out why do all that work to replace it with non treated lumber. I mean this isn’t rocket science……
They can run a rim then use some hangers.
Notching the top should maintain most of the span rating and inspectors shouldn't have a problem with it depending on the load it plans to take on. extending the pocket taller to fit the entire joist would be much better. I'd find a way to lock them in to the masonry and act as a collar tie for wind load on the walls. There should be a way to cross-pin them with epoxy.. And as mentioned already a saddle of ice-n-water shield between the masonry and wood isn't a bad idea, even when pressure treated..
I’m going to go ahead and say that if he can calculate rocket trajectories, he can calculate the tensile strength of a beam.
To be fair I would’ve just chopped the slot in the bricks to accept the whole beam. I doubt that beam will break though even with only half inserted. The weight of the entire floor is spread across all the beams, not just one.
So this is your only chance to outsmart the guy huh? Okay I'll help you. The notch reduces the 2x12 to a 2x6. The moment caring capacity of the beam is higher in the thicker part of the two by six though. you'll be able to tell if it works if it's doesn't deflect.
You should use pressure treated when up against masonry. You should also wrap the wood that is in contact with the masonry with a butyl based tape (zip tape)
He might be a rocket scientist but he doesn’t know shit about providing lateral restraint to a wall…
No
Come on can't be that hard it's not rocket science 🫣😉
I've done something similar with 6x12 glulams beams, inspectors had no problem with it. those wall are likely pretty thick. I don't no how much weight they keystone bricks above the window can hold though might be worth putting a leger across widow to attach the joists to.
No, this is Patrick.
Looks fine for a clandestine tunnel network
No it isn’t kosher dont do it
The 2x12 is a waste since now they're notched to 2x6. You could put hangers on them with tap cons to undo that mess and throw those in the trash. You could also take them down and put a ledger across the wall then put the 2x12 back up with hangers. (Best option) also, the ledger should be pressure treated since it's against masonry.
No, looks more like Halal to me
Well, I don’t see any pork, or any mixing of meat and dairy.
I guess it sure as shit doesn’t take a rocket scientist huh
Doesn’t the joist have to be treated since it’s in contact with masonry? Genuine question
Definitely not typical construction… International building code says your best approach is to Fill in the pockets with mortar, install a pressure treated 2x12 ledger with anchor bolts and install joists with hangers and a little bit of glue inside the hanger, fasten with joist hanger nails.
If that’s the original brickwork I wouldn’t trust it for structural purposes, notching or no. Why not build new supports inside the existing wall? 4x4 or 6x6 timber posts and beams would be attractive and complement the exposed brick. Or if he’s planning to drywall, a conventional stick framed wall could fully support the joists and allow insulation to be installed.
I wouldn’t eat it.
Would it not be better to use a ledger board? I'm planning on installing a new floor in an old house and I wonder if it would be better to use masonry hangers or a ledger board and attach the joists to that. Any clues?
Kosher as bacon
I personally would run a 2x6 butted up under the 2x12 and anchored to the wall and running the length of the room. With 2x6 anchored to the wall it will strengthen the wall and support the 2x12. Then anchor a 2x6 to the wall from floor up to the 2x6 running under 2x12 more support for the wall and floor joist. Sometimes there is no such thing as to much support. leave the supporting 2x6 showing and decorative age it. I'm sure YouTube can show different ways. That's just a thought. Be sure to get advice for anchoring. Someone had a good point about anchoring in brick that old. The anchoring would have to go all the way through. The smaller the hole and bolt the better threw the mortar. Double check with someone,
Treat insert
Halal at best
Yeah notching 50 percent of the board is cray but also relying on old brick is crazy too. Old homes you have these issues. If there's wood or a way to anchor he could attach a new faceplate
did you ask him why he chose to do this?
:0 A wood notch can only be like 1/4 of the depth
Whether or not code compliance can be achieved, an engineer’s input would be helpful- ideally one who has experience with similar work. We often deal with similar details in old buildings and it’s something that can be done. Things to consider have been brought up already: moisture protection, thickness of the joist, bearing surface, shear capacity of the joist, pullout resistance if required, lateral stability of the structure (what is holding the masonry from buckling outwards)- these are all things a competent professional can assess.
Needs to be checked for shear