Main Beam of a Residential House

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get a kick out of architects and the things they put on a print.Like a recessed can, plumbing pipes and a/c ducts in the same exact space.Receptacle spacing not anyway near code,Lighting that can`t possibly be used where it is shown.Many try to say well it`s an approved plan so do it as per plan.That`s when I tell them sign off that they insist that it is done as per plan and they will pay to correct when the inspection fails to make it code compliant.None have signed that off ever.

Here the home can only get a 400 amp service if the actual load calc calls for one to be installed.One poco even supplies for free a 400 amp meter to the EC.The architects usually freak when they see it since it is not one of those smaller 320/400 meter bases but a humongous thing that actually looks like a commercial install,but they insist that this is what will be installed so it is.
 
What the architect draws is a thread to it self that I bet would go on a long time. How many time has it been said "an architect should Have to work in the field for at least 2 years befor he could draw plans!" The quote I love is "we dont worry about what we draw for the electrical, because we no you guys are going to change it anyhow." May favorite is when they draw the switchs hanging out in space, because even on the print you can see it is not going to work but they need to put it somewhere. That is why I like to keep a good relationship with the GC's I work with.If they can trust my decision to move something and I can trust they will be okay with that life is good.Most of my work is for the same people over many years and they give referals to there friends.this is better then any advertising dollar you could ever spend.
 
Um... now I am seeing the light. I thought they are the knowledgeable guys, an Authority and learned these things while in college.
Thanks for the funny side guys but it's true.
 
Last edited:
bencelest said:
Um... now I am seeing the light. I thought they are the knowledgeable guys, an Authority and learned these things while in college.
Thanks for the funny side guys but it's true.
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't, some have lousey tools.

Back in the day, before 3D CAD software was widely available (even if very spendy) it was hard for even skilled architects to "see" where there was interference between two objects they'd drawn.

Also, there is a difference between a person who is an architect, and a person who can drive CAD. Knowing which one you're talking to will help you understand if you're supposed to they are smart or not :D
 
The architect that drew this house plan I can't tell. When I called I had the feeling he was all professional but polite but when I asked if I can drill a 1 1/2" hole in the middle of the main beam third center (which I learned in here); he first asked me which beam I was referringto and the measurement ( and I had to drive from my home to the job site) and when I told him that, he said he'd ask the engineer first.
But then I was able to breath easily when ACRW10 wrote that he does that all the time.
 
bencelest said:
The architect that drew this house plan I can't tell. When I called I had the feeling he was all professional but polite but when I asked if I can drill a 1 1/2" hole in the middle of the main beam third center (which I learned in here); he first asked me which beam I was referringto and the measurement ( and I had to drive from my home to the job site) and when I told him that, he said he'd ask the engineer first.
But then I was able to breath easily when ACRW10 wrote that he does that all the time.
Click to expand...

Well, I've put a lot of Really Big Holes in beams in my lifetime as well. But you're the one doing the drilling, not me. Plus, I don't have the prints (or house ...) in front of me, so I really haven't a clue.

What I can tell you is this -- beams such as that are sized for a very small amount of deflection (bending). That amount of deflection is so far below the point where the beam would fail that I'm guessing a HUGE amount of the web (middle, measured top to bottom) could be removed and the beam would remain structurally sound.
 
What I can tell you is this -- beams such as that are sized for a very small amount of deflection (bending). That amount of deflection is so far below the point where the beam would fail that I'm guessing a HUGE amount of the web (middle said:
I agree that is why we see alot of talk about it but never see them being replaced because someone put a hole in the middle.

I could assume that sence the "architect" said he needed to call the engineer , He may be a "designer" not an architech, this is something I am seeing alot more of lately. Architects have an amount of engineering training that gives them the abillity to answer a question like "can I put a 2'' hole the beam.'' a designer has no licence to engineer and can not, he uses an engineer for calculating these loads.This is not to insult the designer. he to can draw things that will never work just as well as the architech can.
Click to expand...
 
acrwc10 said:
I could assume that sence the "architect" said he needed to call the engineer , He may be a "designer" not an architech, this is something I am seeing alot more of lately. Architects have an amount of engineering training that gives them the abillity to answer a question like "can I put a 2'' hole the beam.'' a designer has no licence to engineer and can not, he uses an engineer for calculating these loads.This is not to insult the designer. he to can draw things that will never work just as well as the architech can.
Click to expand...

This is again an "eye opener" for me.
I plan to do some addition in my house and I can ask just a designer and not an engineer to draw the plan. That way it will be "cheaper".
 
bencelest said:
This is again an "eye opener" for me.
I plan to do some addition in my house and I can ask just a designer and not an engineer to draw the plan. That way it will be "cheaper".
Click to expand...


I did just that, if you are doing a simple addition with nothing out of the ordinary the plans just need to meet UBC reqirements.
 
I finally started wiring and drilling holes as allowed in beams and joists.
But I still don't understand the requirements on Title 24 (This is not in the NEC BTW but exclusively for California residence)
Here is an excerp:
"
Summary Table of 2005 Residential Lighting Standards"

Title 24 Requirements (Effective October 1, 2005)
Bathroom, Garage, Laundry Room, Utility Room
All hardwired lighting must be High Efficacy- This means flourescent lighting, electroonic ballasts rated 13 watts or greater
Application Notes (And this is what bothers me) High efficacy fixtures meet requirements. Low efficacy fixtures may be installed but only if they are equiped with an occupancy sensor that is manual-ON and automatic off.

All other interior rooms (i.e. Hallway, Dining Room, Bedroom)
All Hardwired lighting must be High Efficacy
Application Notes: High efficacy fixtures meet requirements. Low efficacy fixtures may be installed but only if they are equipped with an occupancy sensor that is manual-ON OR if they are equipped wiith a dimmer switch.

OK : Here's the catch:
When I called the building inspector I explained to him that the owner wanted to use low efficacy lighting in the bedroom, and Living Room but we will install the occupancy sensor that is manual-on or I can install a dimmer switch to control those lights but the inspector flatly said that I will fail the final inspection if I do that. He said that I must install high efficacy lights throughout the house.
 
just come in to a 200 mb panel and pull a 30 circuit ml pnl to the attic
why use combination meter sckts and disconnects when there is no need
unless its spec'd that way or you have to pass through half the cellar to get
to the main.....
 
bencelest said:
the inspector flatly said that I will fail the final inspection if I do that. He said that I must install high efficacy lights throughout the house.
Click to expand...

What a knuckle head, You might want to ask him if there is a written city addendem to the code that states that, or is it just his way of rewritting the state code? Try talking to a senior building inspector, I hope this guy isn't it.
 
This guy is just a substitute I guess from another department standing in for the regular building inspector that the HO said he was nice but when I called he won't be in until December 2nd and the answering machine referred me to this guy's number.
Again, thanks for the help Dan.
 
I just want to thank all of you that my job is going along very well because you all answered all of my questions that I have doubts with.
I might finish the rough-in by next week.
Again, thanks!
 
If you have a 100 amp submain which already have a 100 amp disconnect (breaker) installed, do you still need another 100 amp breaker installed to the meter/main panel?
 
bencelest said:
If you have a 100 amp submain which already have a 100 amp disconnect (breaker) installed, do you still need another 100 amp breaker installed to the meter/main panel?
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Sorry English is a second language for me.
In other words, do I need to install another 100 amp breaker at the main panel to protect the feed wire to the 100 amp sub panel if there is already a 100 amp breaker factory installed on the sub panel. The sub panel is 100 amp. and the main panel is 200 amp.
To me I am confused now because before, all I need was a breaker at the main panel to protect the sub panel, now there is already a breaker for the sub panel when I bought it to serve as main breaker. Do I need another breaker at the main installed the same rating as the breaker as the sub main?
I am not familiar with the 2005 NEC book yet and I am still studying it.
 
Yes....one would need an overcurrent device at the service equipment to protect the feeders to the sub panel......the breaker (main) in the sub panel only protects the branch circuit busbar in the sub panel and provide a means of disconnect to the sub panel or having more than six throws to disconnect...does that help?
 
240.21 Location in Circuit.
Overcurrent protection shall be provided in each ungrounded circuit conductor and shall be located at the point where the conductors receive their supply.


the feeder OCP should be at the main panel. If you have a main breaker that is the same size as the feeder you would not need a second breaker.Example if you have a 200amp meter main with distribution and you use a 200a rated feeder the main breaker would be enough , with a 100 amp rated feeder you need to have a 100amp rated protection at the panel feeding it.The breaker at the sub panel is not required since it is in the same building. It is not hurting anything being there either.I just installed a subpanel with a 200amp main breaker in it I am going to feed it with a 100 amp sub feed protected by a 100amp breaker. the reason I am doing this is the 200amp panel with OCP was the only one in stock at the time and was cheaper then going back at a later time to get one without a main breaker in it. Some times thats the way things go."No harm no foul" no extra cost to the consumer, and I can say "look I gave you a second line of protection for you and your family at no extra cost " what a nice guy.:D
 
Last edited:
bencelest said:
Sorry English is a second language for me.

don't worry about it , I was born here and I feel like spelling is a second language.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top