A lot more information is needed than one image. I suggest you ask your builder to explain it to you or someone local that is qualified to answer your question.

The fact there are columns in your garage is concerning.

Editing.

I see both a broom and a level in the photo. That's more than I can saw for most jobsites.

Can't tell enough from one pic - but the rest of the overall work looks workmanlike and tidy. (even spacing of studs with straight studs, saw cuts in concrete, posts resting on bases, hangers straight, etc)

In our area,  these would typically be done with prebuilt trusses, set 24" apart.  It looks like they may have built this on site and the beams are much closer than 24" apart.  I would recommend asking the builder and the local code office as a start.

In our area,  these would typically be done with prebuilt trusses, set 24" apart.  It looks like they may have built this on site and the beams are much closer than 24" apart.  I would recommend asking the builder and the local code office as a start.

In the US you won't find a side-loaded post detail like this in the building code therefore it should have been designed by a design professional which, in most (but not all) jurisdictions, is an engineer.

Whoever designed it, you should only rely on the opinion of an engineer who has inspected it.

At the very least it will need metal brackets on each side. Perhaps there're just not visible in the photo. Even if they're there I would have the entire house inspected by an engineer. I would also be concerned with splices at the posts and the lack of blocking between the 2x paired beams.

Those are not "joist headers," those 2x's are beams which the floor joists mount to - you know, floor joists carry the floor load which the beam then has to transmit the entirety of it's floor joists to the column. A single 2x isn't going to do it, and as said being mounted to the side is not accepted, especially with butt joints at each column. Even for an outside DIY deck 12" off the ground that is not structurally sound.

It amazes me that people comment and have no idea about what they are commenting on.

The fact that there are metal post bases and metal joist hangars being used suggests a level of knowledge and professionalism being used. That said, the previous posts are correct--an experienced professional's on-site evaluation is required.

You can easily find on the internet how to attach a post to concrete to minimize rot, and most people who cut lumber know about hangers. And you can even be very neat - that does not mean one understands structural framing, especially lateral loads and moment, which always is glossed over on internet forums because people have not been trained that there are other loads beyond gravity. I'd even bet the framer has no knowledge of when and why you use bridging or what kind of fasteners are required for connecting wood members or in joist hangers. Or the new slab doesn't even have footings to spread the point loads from the columns.

And to think that for a garage I don't even care for steel posts on piers welded to a steel beam supporting the joists!

(Not a structural engineer, so I proffer no opinion.)

Either take better photos or hire an independent engineer or both ASAP.

I vote for 'hire an independent engineer ASAP'; but post better photos because I have no idea why anyone would frame it that way.

From what can be seen, that would not be acceptable framing to me. Or point load foundations. But, none of us on this side of the screen have the full picture to really determine anything. You need an in person inspection.

Are the other homes in the development framed the same way? Is this a tract or developer home that you do not have access to the framing plans? Garage doors are in, I assume you had a framing inspection?

The lag bolts are probably FlatLOK screws from FastenMaster or similar.

I couldn't find a detail for a beam to a post but here is the detail for a ledger to a stud:

As constructed the detail appears to meet the above requirements for 3 bolts in a 2x10 (except for the required 6" distance from the end) and might have a capacity to support a load of 805 to 1075 lbs.

I dont know the span of the beams or the occupancy above but a span of 9 ft supporting a sleeping area would probably require S. pine if an engineer was willing to apprpve it.

Perhaps the space above is uninhabitable; that might work, but the detail would still need to be approved by an engineer.

By the way, all structural information and evidence of approvals shoud be on file at the building department or online and there should be an approved set of drawings on the site during construction so we shouldn't need to be guessing.

Is it habitable space on the second story? Joists supported by a single 2x seems to be very undersized and the 2x to post connection looks (poorly) made up. Are there framing plan drawings? I, too vote for getting a structural engineer involved.

Editing.

Side loading of a post is rare especially with no steel clips and, in my experience, not often acceptable to engineers. It's the kind of thing I would expect to see in a pole barn.

Even if the new high strength lag screws are adequate, since they are designed to be installed without pre-drilling, they can be susceptible to splitting when they are so close to the ends of the members.

The approval of the inspector, unless he/she is an engineer, will not protect the OP who is ultimately responsible for the building, but any capable inspector would have required such an unusual detail to be approved by an engineer before it was built so it's probably OK.

But I would look at the design drawings instead of guessing.

Coincidentally, we just received the engineer-stamped three-car garage roof plan for our current build.

Obtrusive posts, adequate or not, are not the only way.

When you use the phrase, "it isn't going anywhere", you should make it clear whether you intend it to be ironic or not. It's the kind of thing you might say sincerely only when you're not responsible for the safety of the users.

Try searching Youtube for "house party floor collapse". When it happens, it happens without warning.

Try "deck collapse" if you have a strong stomach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRDYsNR_jc

If you find this this kind of thing amusing, you'll love the '81 Hyatt Rengency walkway collapse in Kansas City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse

114 people died because of a modification by the builder to the structural engineer's design for the hanger rod connections.

See if you can understand the mistake:

I cannot get over the posts in the way of everything. Even if that is a valid approach to support, it is just terrible design. Spend more for whatever steel or LVL it takes to get rid of the car door bashers.

I had assumed this building was for the storage of farm equipment or antique cars that will not be used frequently.

If this were a game of "Where's the Missing Members", this would be one of my entries:

Another entry would be a 'ledger' board on each side of the column to support the beam in case the three screws fail or the beam splits at the screws close to the end of the beams. The framing shown in the images is contrary to what I learned in my structural engineering classes and my field experience, and not what I would consider as good details.

res2architect:

I suggest you Google the term "stretcheroo". The gross negligence of the skyway collapse isn't remotely comparable to residential framing details. I'm no engineer, but I can gaurantee there will be no deaths related to the framing shown here.

I can gaurantee there will be no deaths related to the framing shown here.

At the very least, someone needs to get a very serious spanking for the framing shown here...

ETA: Just to be clear... My post may be ridiculous, but still not as ridiculous as the posts in that garage.

The point of the Hyatt Regency example was how easy it can be to make a structural mistake and that the safety of a structure can rely on the smallest connection detail.

But we can't judge the potential danger of this structure if we don't even know the occupancy of the space above the beams. It may be an uninhabitable attic or a party barn. Once again, a potential problem has been described on the forum without sufficient information for anyone to offer a difinitive answer.

The general rule for the "end distance" of a bolt at the end of a wood structural member is 4 times the bolt diameter so a 1/2" bolt would need to be 2" from the end. An equivalent strength LedgerLOK screw is only .228" in diameter so the end distance would be .912" but I'm not sure the old rule can be used for a modern high strength lag screw since a LedgerLOK screws is specifically designed for attaching a ledger board to a band joist and the manufacturer doesn't offer guidance for other uses and my Timber Design Manual is from 1966.

a shed thats "still standing,"

Too many damn holes!

We had a framing carpenter who regularly only filled half the holes in joist hangers. When questioned, he growled, "None of my houses have fallen down." True enough.

("Who are you? Mr. Building Code.")

The framing seems skimpy but the single 2x beams are loaded on one side so they should be able to support a residential second floor if they're 2x12 No.1 or Select Structural (depending on the species) and the post spacing is no more than 9 ft.

I would add some blocking between the beams to be safe.

The fact that the parts of this structure all appear to be uniformly barely strong enough makes me think it might have been designed by an engineer instructed to make it as cheap as possible.

But we don't have the information needed to know anything for sure.

I hope they plan to add some interior plywood sheathing beween the doors and at the corners and tie the roof framing to it.

As one reference point,  I went back and looked at how our house was framed.  For a 15' span with no second floor above (just roof load), we have three 2x12 LVL beams (back to back) that sit on top of wood post structures.  The roof trusses then sit on top of the triple LVL beams.  

I'm not saying one is right vs wrong, but I think what we have is more like what you expected to see,  per your original post.  Doing it this way in your garage would likely require more space between the first and second floor,  raising the overall height of your home.

This is how it's typically done, been framing this way for as long as I have been in business.

On a general note beam hangers always be mounted to a DBL.Header.

The images that OP showed with a single header mounted to the side of the post, were always a bad practice.

TT, what you would expect to see with a one third shorter span and a one third lighter load is a very much smaller beam. Don't forget that the 2x beams are paired so its two 2X12's compared to three LVL 12's. And beams over 12 ft are usually designed for deflection rather than bending which explains the triple LVL's instead of just two.

What is unusual about this structure, other than the connections, is the small structural bays in such a narrow building.

@res2architect

"Don't forget that the 2x beams are paired"

They're split, so single ply because you can only use the section modulus of one 2x for moment.

"The framing seems skimpy but the single 2x beams are loaded on one side so they should be able to support a residential second floor if they're 2x12 No.1 or Select Structural (depending on the species) and the post spacing is no more than 9 ft"

Once in a while I will direct or state to someone a max span from a code table, but I'm surprised you're giving specific numbers for a beam. I never do calcs for forums, but I thought it important here not to guide the OP, but to show why I often use the words "about" or "approximately."

Since the OP hasn't given any info whatsoever, let's just say this is a barn they converted to a garage, poured a slab and put a floor upstairs. So picking some easy numbers, garage is a 24' depth split down the middle (12' span each side of this column line), I count 7.75 joist spaces @16"o.c. in the pic, 2x10 are the du jour choice for floors, and 40psf for occupancy above.

Doing the calcs with SPF#2, 10' span, simple 6'x10' tributary area @40psf, 1.4E, L/360:

=> A single ply 2x10 beam fails deflection and bending stress, meets shear stress. The allowable span would fall under 7'. As a table check, using IRC R507.5 says max for a single 2x10 beam span is 7'-0" when supporting a 6' joist span.

=> A single ply 2x12 fails bending, meets deflection and shear. IRC says max 8'-3".

=> Going to DougFir SS still fails bending.

This could be the result of the builder getting a real good deal on 2x12's and a few 6x6's.

I was trying to see if the design could meet acceptable engineering practice and the IRC.

Since it was necessary to assume all dimensions and loads I assumed the beams were 2x12's (Fb = 1000+), the beam span 9 ft and the loading for a residential second floor (30 psf LL + 10 psf DL).

The IRC table for outdoor decks uses 40 psf LL and 10 psf DL which would shorten the allowable span to less than 8ft.