Originally Posted By: ecrofutt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Paul, If you posted your photo as a link instead of inline, we wouldn’t have to scroll back and forth to see it, and the dial up guys wouldn’t have to wait for awhile for the picture to load when they clicked on the thread.
I'm no expert at it, but I'll bet if you check with the code gurus and engineers that hole in the web of the steel, in that location directly over a steel post, is allowed.
Originally Posted By: psabados This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Sorry guys, I knew better than that. I changed it around and its a link now.
All of the dwellings in this small development that had rear bathrooms, ended up with this configuration. Front side bathrooms went straight down the front foundation wall.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
dedwards wrote:
It would probably make more of an impact if they just printed on the paper. "If you can read this you are installing this wrong you imbecile."
Hmmmm ... pretty funny ...  ... but it might not work to well for walls ...
ecrofutt wrote:
Paul ... I'm no expert at it, but I'll bet if you check with the code gurus and engineers that hole in the web of the steel, in that location directly over a steel post, is allowed.
Well, actually that is a bad place to put a hole in the web. At support/load points ya want to keep the web intact as much as possible. Similar to I-Joists, where any web holes must be a certain minimum distance away from the ends/supports. Not sure if that steel I-beam web hole would be okay ... it would be a judgment call given the loads, span, and web thickness ... or ya do a quick calc.
Joe ... what is that metal component cut out around the rafter/chord? Don't tell me it's a flue pipe ...
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jhugenroth This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Yeah, it IS a flue. Can you believe it? It’s an oval double wall for a wall furnace. You can even see the charred wood if you look real close. What amazes me even more was the phone call from the seller’s agent, wanting to know what the fuss was about when I put this in my report! She said it was that way for many years, blah blah blah ad nauseum. Same old sad story of us being “deal killers”
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jhugenroth wrote:
She said it was that way for many years, blah blah blah ad nauseum.
I love when people say that. The great Roman amphitheater was perfectly fine until a sudden collapse around 27 AD killed about 50,000 people ... and Chicago was perfectly fine until the 1871 fire burned down about 17,000 buildings ... I guess people never learn ... 
jhugenroth wrote:
Yeah, it IS a flue. Can you believe it? ... Same old sad story of us being "deal killers"
I have to agree with the real estate agent on this one. You are such a "deal killer" writing up such an "insignificant" thing as a cut flue gas pipe that is scotching the rafters and allowing dangerous combustion gasses to vent into the attic. Shame on you ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: mcyr This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi. Guys, hope you are all fine:
Don't' you agree the best invention of tools for the plumbers, was the Saws-All, and the excetelyne torch. If something is in the way of their work, watch out, I am going through.
You would think sometimes, a little planning would eliminate all these abortions of the prime structure, but it happens everyday. All you can do is report it.
Marcel
I tend to agree with ecrofutt:
The hole through the web of the beam at the column line might not affect the integrity of the structure, but calculations would have to be run to confirm that. It could have been worse, and run at mid-span of the beam.
In the past, Structural Engineers have allowed me to make a 4" diameter hole in a beam, but had to be within the first third of the span. This was allowed a lot easier, due the fact it was caused by design conflict. When it is their coordination of design that caused the problem, it is a lot easier to get permission.
If it is your fault it is a lot harder.
I have learned that it is a lot easier to ask forgiveness, that to ask permission. That has worked a few times.
Originally Posted By: ecrofutt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Marcel,
I understand the "first third" but have to agree with Robert's point that you don't do it at the "very end" of the beam, directly over a support point..