This is more than a notch; the load carrying capacity of the beam has been reduced by about half. It should be modified only with the approval of the design engineer but even with that approval it should not have been over cut with a skill saw.

Our building inspector would not pass this.

while it does not look good it might still be functional depending on the load it carries. what is the load above it?

This is on par with the foundation guys who are always wanting to water down the concrete so it's easier to work with.

I would also question the vertical support of the compromised Microllam. Two 2x4s (or even 2x6s) don't usually constitute a post. Check your plans or be sure the building inspector looks at this.

Don't accept the carpenter's (sic) line of "we do this all the time. No problem!" as the decisive answer.

Thanks for your help. The load above is a 750 sq. ft. attic that we will use for storage. This is a new 3 car garage addition and the cut beam is over the two car side. We are investigating this as it sure didn't look right to us. The contractor & framer said that it would be just fine. They cut them all the time. Sounds like we should have ran for sure.

The max. live load capacity of a double (1.9E) 14" LVL beam spanning 18 feet is about 370 lbs./lin. ft.

If the beam is cut down 2 3/4" to 11 1/4", the max. live load capacity is reduced to about 200 lbs./lin. ft.

If the roof rafters are perpendicular to the beam and their span (to the ridge) is 12 ft., the maximum live load/s.f. for the roof (plus any attic loading) would be about 32 psf and 17 psf respectively.

If you added a third 11 1/4 LVL (with thru-bolts) the capacity would be about 313 if an engineer will accept the sloppy saw cuts.

The square footage of the attic is not relevant. You need to tell us the clear span of the beam, the clear span of the attic floor joists and the clear span of the rafters (if they rest on the wall above the beam) and any snow loading.

I doubt the current beam would support even a 12 ft attic joist span much less a roof.

Most large span beams (over 12 ft) are sized not for strength but to limit the deflection to L/360 which would be about 5/8 inch for an 18 ft span. That's "accepted engineering practice" and required by every national building code in the US since they started writing them. If your beam supports an attic and a roof it would have twice the required strength in bending but would deflect at max. loading, 2 or 3 times what is allowed by law.

Who designed the structure? It's time to get a professional involved.

I hope you are able to see this. If you need more of the plan, let me know. I appreciate all of the help.

Wow, neither of the headers were installed according to spec _to begin with_! The smaller one on the right was also supposed to be LVL, doubled up, in a 9 1/4" depth. The big one, that has now been irreparably compromised by ill-advised trimming, was supposed to be 18" deep. You have been taken by the builder, who substituted smaller, cheaper structural members, and ill-used by a stupid framing carpenter who cut them and perhaps gravely reduced their load-carrying capacity to a point of possible failure.
Casey

We have a few huge LVLs that have only roof load over them (and they "appear" to be on the non-load-bearing side of the garage), the large size was required because of the roof design and where the weight bears down. It was designed by an engineer. Who sized the LVL, if it was an engineer I'd have him/her review this situation. If it is a stock plan, I'd hire an engineer to review this.

The only way someone can tell you on here if the LVL is sized correctly even with the notch is for you to post all the plans, including roof plan and elevations, and they would also have to review if your builder actually built per the plan exactly. My bet is he didn't, based on the bonehead move with the LVL.

This sort of carpenter cobblery goes on all the time. Houses don't fall down. But it explains why you see inexplicable sagging, drywall cracks etc.

Check the overcuts noted by macv. If trimming like that were approved in the first place, you use a reciprocating saw such as a Sawzall.

I know an infill "luxury" builder here who asked his framers to remove a steel beam after inspection so he could return it and save money. They refused--and lost all future jobs with him.

Is there no roof?

The dimensions seems reversed at the doors. Did the plan get flipped and the dimensions not? The note "block down at door" should go at the small door.

It's odd that the 16 ft big door is supposed to have 16" LVL's and the 8 ft door is supposed to have 14" LVL's. 14" seems too big but in the photo the smaller beam seems way too small. Who designed, reviewed and approved the structural drawings? They seem poorly drawn.

This morning when the OP posted the framing specifications above, I _swear_ it read "2.0E LVL", which would be an 18" deep member. Now, it doesn't say that at all. My mind is going or my eyes are. Still, it's pretty compromised, though not to the point of failure.
Casey

Modulus of Elasticity (E) of a material is the ratio of tensile stress to tensile strain and is a measure of stiffness but it is not affected by the size of the beam like the Moment of Inertia (I) would be. For LVL's E is commonly 1.8, 1.9 or 2.0 (actually 1,800,000, etc.). For typical No. 2 SPF lumber the E would be 1.4 (1,400,000).

This beam is probably not going to fail but it might sag. The builder is taking advantage of the fact that the garage door does not sit under the opening but behind it and can therefore tolerate almost any amount of deflection and still work. The issue is how straight the head will be in 10 years. Only a structural engineer would be able to help you with that issue and he would need to know all loads especially snow (and how it might drift on the roof).

If a builder is allowed to design an LVL beam in your state and you agreed to let him do it, you will probably not be able to get a straight answer regarding this matter. I guess you could ask to see the design calculations he or some lumberyard did or the loading per lin ft and the manufacturer's chart he used.

He certainly owes you written evidence that the beam is adequate since the contract documents show something considerably stronger.

mario....are you building in an area that requires inspections? If so, once the inspector sees this s/he will probably require you to get a letter from an engineer approving this LVL that has been modified. If an inspection is not required, get an engineer on site and get their opinion.

Why doesnt the 16 and 8 foot opening dimensions match up location wise to the dotted line garage door openings?

It appears that there are 2 different sets of LVLs in the 8 foot door? 2 9 1/4 for the door header, and one 14 inch that appears to stack on top of the plate.

As noted earlier by macv, something here isnt matching up on the plans very well.

Don't depend on the inspector catching everything--ours gave rather quick cursory inspections and didn't catch a major structural mistake the framers made that DH discovered later. We were owner-builders and several times when DH had a structural question he went over to our local building dept and asked them (they didn't seem to like returning phone calls), but he always referenced the code book which we had a copy of. Things weren't busy there, and DH always went with the attitude that he wanted to do things right, so they were pleasant about it. A couple of times they made us get a drawing from a structural engineer (not an easy person to find for residential home owners, we found). We had to do some slightly convoluted plumbing and heating to avoid a couple of LVLs, and I remember DH watching the plumbers to be sure they didn't cut the LVLs.

So, if you have a building dept/inspector, call and find out when he is in and take the pictures to him and ask him what needs to be done. I can't imagine that he'd accept the cuts. If no inspector, start looking for a structural engineer.

Anne

jim....I agree that all inspectors don't catch everything but that LVL cut would stand out like a huge red flag attached to it.

mario.....I forgot to mention in the other post but if I called in an engineer to inspect this, I would deduct his charge from is owed the GC. IMO....the GC is NOT an engineer and shouldn't make decisions like this.

The design of engineered lumber structural elements like LVL (laminated veneer lumber) beams are not specified in prescriptive residential building codes so a building inspector would not normally have the legal capacity to offer you specific LVL design advice but he could ask the builder for evidence of adequacy.

But you can do that as well since the builder owes you what was shown on the contract documents. Force the builder to provide a letter from an engineer or provide the original beam.

Be careful, going to the building inspector without first discussing the matter with the builder may create some bad feelings.

Wow what a mess! The garage doors were flipped, the single is on the right side and the double on the left. I have some good & bad news. This did pass inspection because by the time he saw it, the framer had covered it up with the exterior cedar. Our builder was fired by us for doing shoddy work and the framer never got paid by the GC, so he has leined us. We did pay the GC 23,000.00 the day the framer started, but our GC never paid him. What a mess to say the least. I am glad that we took many pictures and we have hours of video of the mess before it was covered up. Out plan is to get an expert opinion here in out city for future court documentation. This nightmare has cost us so much in lawyer fees and the GC is a liar. We are marching forward and trying to repair his mess and get on with living in this house. The garage was an addition and he also did a 10 x 10 bump out on the back of the house to expand our kitchen. I wanted to get some views from you guys about the butchering job on the LVL. I appreciate all of your input.

Who designed the structure? Was no engineer required to stamp the drawings? The engineer of record should always be the first person to review changes in the design. If possible don't bypass the original line of responsibility; it could make the mess even worse.

Where I live, the structural engineer who stamped the design drawings (any LVL would be required to be designed by an engineer) is required to sign an affidavit at the end of the project saying the building had been built according to the drawings. In general, the state doesn't want building inspectors, builders, or owners making decisions about structural issues not prescribed in the residential building code.

Since there are three LVL beam notes on the drawings for the two beams and some of the CAD layers were flipped and others were not, it is quite possible that the final design only called for a pair of 14" LVL's over the large door. If a 16" beam was installed by mistake then cutting it down to 14" so the door would fit shouldn't be a problem.

We had 2 different archethics work on this plan and yes it was stamped by an engineering firm. As far as I remember none of them were ever told that the deign had been modified. We just trusted the GC & framer that they new what they were doing. Now that so many other problems have have surface, we are doubting everything that they did. I am so glad that we have video and pictures, at least we can show someone and find out what will need to be fixed and where.

The first step is to ask the engineers for a drawing that corrects the layout and redundant structural notes that are on the copy you have. It might just be a matter of printing the drawing with the right CAD layers turned on.

The most important question is what the note "(2) 1 3/4" x 14" LVL" is referring to. If the note is for the large beam then the carpenter only corrected an error in the field by cutting 2" from the bottom of an oversized beam.

Always go back through the path of contractural responsibility. Don't create short circuits; they can create unnecessary trouble and expense.

Why is the architect not assisting you in this matter? Maybe he/she has the correct drawing or knows the intent of the engineer.

If it doesn't match the plans, do not accept it. My builder put in a 14" truss system between floors and I refused to accept it. We agreed he could add a 2X4 across the whole top.The plans were developed and paid for for a reason.

If you look closely at the structural drawing for this garage you will see that there is no way to determine the correct beam size from that drawing. There are three beam size notes for two beams. Also, the architectural layout was flipped left for right but the dimensions and structural notes were not.

The owner needs to go back to the source of the structural design to get the correct beam sizes before assuming the framer has made an error. It is quite possible that the framer corrected an error caused by sloppy drawings.

Stop guessing; the only opinion that counts is that of the engineer of record.

Thank you to all who have responded. We will definitely go back to the engineer and architect. As I said, we had a bad feeling about this, but never investigated it until now. I am starting to get the feeling that no one can be trusted and just like in the medical field, you need to be your own advocate in order to get to the truth. What a shame. Again, many thanks to you all.

My experience in MD and now NY was the only inspection required by anyone other than the local building inspector is for electrical. Any design/structural change requires an architect or P.E. stamp but if a builder doesn't tell you he's changed something you won't know it unless it's as obvious as this one. Having said that, a commercial job I supervised included a P.E. to both assure proper construction and to be our advocate when the local inspectors would try to require something outside of code.

Technically, the bldg inspector is only supposed to make sure construction is completed according to the listed plans and to code. But obvious issues such as unconventional notching of beams and joists should be questioned. Of course, that assumes the inspector bothers to come out when called. Mine came out just 3 times in 1-1/2 yrs and never when called for.

I don't recommend a lawsuit unless the engineer disapproves of the notching, or any other structural changes, and the builder refuses to make the necessary corrections. Unless you've already talked to the builder, use the engineer as the bad guy and say he/she stopped by and said fix it. The builder won't like it any better but he knows he can't argue with the engineer of record.

You should never cut or notch a engineerind lvl or glumlam or micolam it will weaking load it cant handle the weight

Ryan Henderson, sage advice 12 years after the fact.

Too many top plates.