Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Welcome to John Bridge / Tile Your World, the friendliest DIY Forum on the Internet


Advertiser Directory
JohnBridge.com Home
Buy John Bridge's Books

Go Back   Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile > Tile & Stone Forums > Professionals' Hangout

Sponsors


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Unread 10-11-2014, 06:42 AM   #76
bradesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 32
I've been following this thread and want to confirm/clarify something... Is it true that if I apply the 2x4 cording to the bottom of a joist that I don't have to run this cording the entire length of the joist? If so, what would be the minimum length? I realize I need to be centered on the length of the joist, but is a 2/3 length on the cording enough? how about 1/2?
__________________
Brad
bradesp is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10-11-2014, 07:18 AM   #77
Plainrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 333
The answer to your question is related to the degree of 'curvature' through the length of the joist. (The curvature of the joist is directly 'responsible' for stress on the tile which will cause it to fracture due to floor loads).

Note that the stiffness requirements for tile flooring focus on the weakest area of the joist - the middle which has the highest curvature...

The downward load-induced curvature of the joist would be maximum in the mid-span decreasing to zero at the ends. Therefore, in reality, the stiffness of a joist needs to be greatest at the mid-span and does not generally need to be especially high at the ends.

This simplified explanation illustrates why re-enforcing the 'middle' of the joist is especially important to ensure ceramic tile floor integrity.

Because I do not know the extent to which your present joist does not meet tile stiffness requirements, I can not speculate the area of necessary joist re-enforcement. You should compare the stiffness of a completely un-reinforced joist with a completely re-enforced joist (see Table provided earlier) to answer the question of how much re-enforcement is required. That is, this information should be referenced to stiffness requirements for your tile floor.

I personally would attempt to re-enforce at least the middle 2/3 of the joist...
__________________
Michael
Plainrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2014, 03:57 PM   #78
HDmstng
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 80
When using this technique, should you stay off those joists for 24 hours to allow the adhesive to setup?
__________________
H.D.
HDmstng is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2014, 04:09 PM   #79
PC7060
...unrepentant, detail focused, over-analyzer.
 
PC7060's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,892
I'll avoid loading up the floor for a few hours depending on the complexity of the structural additions. For glued and screwed standard sisters joists no wait is necessary. If I'm building up L or T beams with 3" screws and PL3, I'll let them set up overnight before I release the screw jacks.
PC7060 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2014, 04:50 PM   #80
Plainrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 333
You should wait until the adhesive has effectively stabilized. The adhesive manufacturer's data should state this minimum period. I would expect that a wait of 24 hours would generally be adequate for most adhesives...

Now, the maximum curvature due to floor loads would be at the middle if the joist, if it is supported at the joist ends only. Accordingly, only the 'middle' section of the joists is required to be re-enforced. If there is a relatively small difference between joist stiffness requirements and the present stiffness situation for your joists, then only a 'small section' in the middle of the joists needs to be re-enforced. If there is a larger discrepancy, then a larger section along the middle of the joists must be re-enforced.

I realize that this 'recommendation' may not be as definitive as you would want, but without 'quantitative' data, it is difficult to be more precise...
__________________
Michael

Last edited by Plainrider; 12-06-2014 at 04:57 PM.
Plainrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-06-2014, 04:59 PM   #81
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 93,209
I'll second the waiting, but I'd recommend at least 48 hours. I think that's what PL recommended for their Premium when I researched it for a more critical project.

I recommend the wait time even for sistered joists before removing supports if used.

My opinion; worth price charged.
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2019, 11:02 AM   #82
AggieBill2005
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1
Deep in the weeds...

Hi all. First post, but I have read through this thread and multiple others on sistering techniques (and joist bracing options), multiple times over the past couple of years. I once sistered a 2x10 joist spanning 20 ft (a TRUE 2 inch wide board, termite damage, 1940's home) with three boards, cut with overlapping 2 foot L's, bonded together with epoxy and vertical lag screws, and then glued and fastened (using TrussLoks) to the weak joist - thus creating a full length joist. When the civil engineer came out, he looked at it and laughed - ended up being way over kill. But it did is job... =)

There is a no one size fits every job rec. The option that is chosen depends on WHY you are modifying your joists (reduce bounce, decrease deflection, increase max load strength, increase sheer strength).

Anywho, on this topic, Ive seen the following options (other than full sistering), for lets say, a 2x10x16 at 16oc --- right at the max of how long a 2x10 should run:

- Placing a 2x4 or 2x6 along the entirety of the bottom of the joist creating a bottom T.

- Placing a 2x4 or 2x6 along the top edge of the joist. While going the full length is best, you can do it in sections as long as the smaller sections bump up against each other firmly and are fastened well to the main joist (crap tone of glue and fasteners).

- Sistering JUST the center of the joist with the same width board (in this case), but shooting for at least 2/3 of the distance (so about a 10 ft board on a 16ft span)

- And, similarly, instead of a 2x on one side, doing 1x on both sides of the beam, including the use of ripped plywood sandwiched between the 1x and joist (if there is room), as plywood has little vertical flex.


BUT!!! In reading about the use of plywood as being stiff on end, I noticed another comment earlier in the thread on the use of a 2x4 as an I-beam. It was something about a 20ft 2x4 being like a wet noodle. And this is true, but it is particularly true if you are holding the board with the grain facing up, right? A 2x4 has much less flex if stress is placed on the board going across the grain vs. with the grain. I mean this is why joists are placed on edge instead of laying flat... (duh).

So my while the 2x4 I-beam increases the depth of the board and increases the surface area, it seems that it is being placed with the grain in a direction that has more flex (and thus less resistant to deflection). Would it be better/worse/any different to rip the 2x4 into 2x2s (very carefully - noodles and all) and then join the 2x2s to the bottom of the joist so that the grain runs parallel to the joist instead of running perpendicular?

I guess, simplified, my question is whether the 2x4 I-beam (continuous, full length) is as strong, less strong, or any different than adhering a 2x2 strip with the grain running in the same direction?

Ill hang up and listen...
__________________
Bill

Last edited by AggieBill2005; 06-11-2019 at 11:14 AM.
AggieBill2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2019, 01:06 PM   #83
Plainrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 333
Bill:
While others may be able to understand (and hopefully respond) to your question, I can not envision the orientations of 'perpendicular' etc. If possible, could you provide a simple diagram illustrating these terms?
Michael
__________________
Michael
Plainrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2019, 03:19 PM   #84
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 93,209
Welcome, Bill.

Gotta agree with Michael on this one. The longest span you can get out of a nominal 2x4 perpendicular to the grain would be about 3 1/2 inches, so I'm afraid I can't see where you're going with any of that.
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2019, 07:26 PM   #85
PC7060
...unrepentant, detail focused, over-analyzer.
 
PC7060's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,892
Bill,

In my opinion, your questions falls in the category of unachievable outside of a controlled production environment. The glue joints as typically the most error prone part of field adaptions like this thread discusses. Introducing another set of of joints would reduce the odds of a sound end product.

I know for certain production environments can produce glued up joints that are strong that the original wood. Unfortunately that’s just not where we live.
PC7060 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-11-2019, 09:01 PM   #86
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 93,209
What PC said. I think there is some discussion about that aspect earlier in this thread. Good in theory, lacking in practical application.
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-19-2021, 11:50 AM   #87
oldscool
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 1
Reference recommendations

Hello Plainrider (Michael) and PC7060,

I found this thread when googling for ways to improve load carrying and deflection aspects of a deck with 2x8 joists spanning 12' with 24" spacing that was built by a previous owner. The joists are in good condition and the re-enforcement via glue and screw 2x4 to create an inverted T is attractive. I discussed this with the local building inspector and he'd like some reference material for load carrying and deflection benefits. In addition to this and related forum threads do you have suggestions to support convincing this inspector. I see the 2.4x deflection benefit for 2x8 + 2x4 and mention of load carrying benefit but not specifics. I'd appreciate anything you have available. Thanks! John
__________________
oldscool
oldscool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-19-2021, 06:08 PM   #88
Plainrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 333
John:
There are a number of ways to convince a building inspector for the acceptability of the joist bottom-flange re-enforcement approach. Such as:
1: Glued-up composite ('I-beam') joists are common and approved for building (floor) construction. Such joists are based on the same exact engineering principles and materials and techniques as the re-enforced (bottom 2x4) 'T-beam' approach. In other words, the re-enforced composite joist approach is conventional, commercially available and based on sound principles. So, nothing especially 'new' here regarding the bottom flange approach!
2: A similar bottom-flange joist re-enforcement approach - to remedy severe notches in floor joists - is proven, commercially available and accepted for the requirement of re-enforcing joists by the addition specifically of a bottom flange. Again, an accepted, analogous approach to the general bottom flange approach. (See previous posts).
3: This bottom 2x4 re-enforcement can not weaken a floor. Increases in load carrying capacity can be calculated. But, this generally is not an issue when only floor stiffness is desired to be increased. In other words, the load carrying capability of the floor can be conservatively defined by the original (unreinforced) code-requirements of the original floor. (However, the load carrying capacity of a bottom-flange reinforcement can be 'substantially' increased).
4: Site implementation issues for this bottom flange re-enforcement approach are no different than for ANY site issues regarding the proper application of good construction practices. For example, check out the above-mentioned site remedial approach used for joist notch reinforcement. Same issues. Same resolutions.
Hope this helps.
__________________
Michael
Plainrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-20-2021, 11:59 PM   #89
Tool Guy - Kg
Moderator -- Wisconsin Kitchen & Bath Remodeler
 
Tool Guy - Kg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oak Creek, WI
Posts: 22,772
Welcome to the forum, John.

While I almost completely agree with Michael...and think the results from laminating a 2x4 to the bottom of 2x joists has the potential to be quite good...I think the on-site variables (fitment & surface contamination as two biggies) are too much to obtain free published reference material that would satisfy a building inspector who is competent in their duties.

But if Michael was to draw an on-site assembly and use some published articles or other acceptable reference, the building inspector would be happy with that. At least that’s what I’ve seen done in the States. Don’t know if much changes in Canada.

__________________
Tonto Goldstein... but my friends call me Bubba

Help an awesome summer camp!
Tool Guy - Kg is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-21-2021, 05:22 AM   #90
Plainrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 333
Smile

Well tool Guy, I basically agree with your comments.
Especially: it would be great if there were published, engineering studies available that would substantiate the use of this bottom flange re-enforcement approach i.e. to increase the stiffness (and strength) of floor joists.
But, as this approach would be very difficult to 'monetize' (as it is done locally by the contractor without the need for any specialized hardware), its verification may be a long time coming (unless some University engineering student were to take it on as a thesis project)!
So, considering the present lack of credible documentation studies, I would attempt to convince a building inspector of the acceptability of this bottom flange approach by an examination of the straight-forward theory and particularly by an appeal to logic and 'reasonableness' (although I realize that these last two considerations are often in short supply these days .
First of all, I suggest that, if the approach is NOT to claim any increase in strength, then there are no safety issues (i.e. where the strength of the un-reinforced floor is within acceptable requirements). I would think that most building inspectors would be satisfied at this point?
Now, the notch re-enforcement approach can be considered here because it demonstrates that even where there may be gaps in the adhesion of the 2x4 bottom flange approach, there is no compromise in effectiveness. (In fact, the entire 2x4 bottom flange approach really only requires connection to the joist at the ends. This occurs because the bottom flange is loaded only in tension (generally). However, adhesion all along the board is helpful when the floor may be dynamically loaded (e.g. bouncing up and down).
Regarding site variables: this is an issue with all site construction and so this consideration in itself should not be a show-stopper regarding this approach. Simply, the use of qualified construction personnel, using commercial construction adhesives (along with data documentation), using a simple written procedure (e.g. clean bottom of flange, use construction-grade 2x4s etc) should provide peace of mind to the inspector.
Finally, Canadian and U.S. construction codes, materials, techniques, etc would be identical.
It really all comes down to the willingness of an individual inspector to make a 'judgement' call for the sake of obvious benefits where there are absolutely no safety issues.
__________________
Michael
Plainrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Stonetooling.com   Tile-Assn.com   National Gypsum Permabase


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Sponsors

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC