Are there structural (or code) reasons for choosing longer or shorter beam spans (besides bending moments, and ignoring cosmetics)?

Trending 5 months ago

When selecting nan magnitude of beams for a bridge, nan amended attack is to take aggregate full-length beams.

bridge spans

Unless location is simply a compelling reason, 1 would not take aggregate shorter spans.

shorter span spans

An simple workout by sketching nan bending infinitesimal diagrams would verify why nan first is superior to nan second.

Now suppose that said spans are for a backyard patio. (So acold I'm only considering 16-ft agelong spans of earthy wood, but composite/synthetic materials are an option.)

If nan span is somewhat longer than 16 ft, past 1 action is to usage full-length spans, and splice nan remaining part, while of people staggering nan cuts. (Here nan joists—our beams—are not nan subject. We look alternatively astatine nan structural flooring material.)

staggered full-length spans

Another action is to usage 8 ft-long cuts. That would simplify transportation, but let's disregard this convenience factor.

using shorter spans

Are location structural (or code) reasons for choosing longer aliases shorter beam spans (besides nan evident bending moments, and ignoring cosmetics)?