# Beam splice NOT over post question



## larry squadere (Apr 7, 2018)

Hello.

Here is the situation.  I am building a 26x15 deck.  working on the beam.  
I understand that most beam splices go over posts. 
Lets say i cannot splice over a post.  
Can I overlap the 2 -16ft  2x10 to make a total final length of 26'?  This would create a 5 FT  overlap in the dead center of the 2 middle posts. (middle posts span 8') and each 16' board would have 2 post bearings.
obvoiusly glued, screwed and throughed.

Nutshell.... this would be a 26' double 2x10 overlapped 5ft at the center
I want to use my current lumber.

If that's not code compliant, I'll have to go buy 2 -18ft 2x10 in order to reach the middle of the next post.  But for now...lets avoid making that suggestion and just please answer whether or not my fix with my current lumber is code.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2018)

Sorry, I could not approve it without engineering analysis. Probably cheaper to buy the correct lumber.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2018)

Oh..............

Welcome to the Forum!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 7, 2018)

Larry,
For decks the IRC and the AWC DCA specify "splices of multi-span beams shall be located at interior post locations."
The illustrations for this provision show the splice directly over the post.


----------



## cda (Apr 7, 2018)

Welcome


----------



## larry squadere (Apr 7, 2018)

Not sure of my response took. 
So I was thinking of doing 3- roughly 8' sections of double 2x10, all spliced atop a post. That way I can cut my 16' lumber.  
Any issues you can think of?


----------



## larry squadere (Apr 7, 2018)

Honestly I just thought one long huge beam would show how cool I am.  
After consideration,  the 3 separate sections of beam, all spliced atop a post,  would be to code and would make for lighter pieces to move around. 
Unless someone here throws up a huge flag,  I think I've solved my own problem. Thanks guys.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 7, 2018)

The proposed solution most likely cannot be made to work.  You need an engineer.  

If you proceed as planned do not be surprised if the deck fails or you have to replace the deck because it will likely fail.


----------



## larry squadere (Apr 7, 2018)

Mark K said:


> The proposed solution most likely cannot be made to work.  You need an engineer.
> 
> If you proceed as planned do not be surprised if the deck fails or you have to replace the deck because it will likely fail.


There were three proposed solutions. To what were you referring to?


----------



## Mark K (Apr 7, 2018)

Get an engineer.

In my experience the sort of things you are proposing cannot be adequately described in a few words.  This is why we typically produce drawings to make things clear.  Until what is being proposed can be clearly defined it is not possible to give a definitive opinion.

My fear is that you do not know what you do not know.

Get an engineer or make an application for the Darwin Award.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 7, 2018)

Whoa, wait....don't judge this forum based on one response. 

You got the feedback you asked for in the first couple posts. Not seeing a plan, or knowing the species of lumber you are making the beams from, limit our ability to answer specifically. 

But the first question, where to locate a splice was answered. 

Draw it up, take it to your building department, see if it is approved.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## cda (Apr 7, 2018)

larry squadere said:


> Darwin?. How about F U Mark. I have a 140 IQ.  My fear is that you do not know how big  of an asshole you are.
> Typical dunning-kruger response from these forums,  sorry I signed up.




I am sorry you did also, judging by your occupation, and response


----------



## cda (Apr 7, 2018)

Maybe one of the moderators just wants to delete this whole thread?


----------



## larry squadere (Apr 7, 2018)

I agree about the deletion. I also apologize to the first few responders who actually gave their two cents  and not just some self-righteous BS in an attempt to make people look dumb.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 7, 2018)

larry squadere said:


> I agree about the deletion.  I
> also apologize to the first few responders who actually gave their two cents and not
> just some self-righteous BS in an attempt to make people look dumb.



No one was trying to make you or anyone else look dumb.

Here is the reality.  The code book is for prescriptive construction and what you are
proposing (although it may work if proved by an engineer) is outside the scope of
the prescriptive code and therefore code officials cannot legally approve it.  Unless
you are an engineer that is familiar with "moment", which they use to strategically
put splices in locations where there is neither weight pushing down or lifting up,
you simply can't do it within the prescriptive code.

This is where you need an engineer if you choose not to purchase the correct sized
lumber.  Just please cool your jets on this site.


----------



## tmurray (Apr 9, 2018)

larry squadere said:


> Hello.
> 
> Here is the situation.  I am building a 26x15 deck.  working on the beam.
> I understand that most beam splices go over posts.
> ...



The code in Canada actually permits some mid span splicing provided a list of conditions can be met.

What might work better for you than trying to use another country's code, is to add another ply to your beam. That way you always have the minimum number of continuous plys in any given span.


----------

