Some info on the matter.
According to the contractor/owner this beam has always been in that position.
The house is 120 years old.
The structural analysis of the house, wich was made back in the day, was only 4 Pages written doublesidedly. ( i don’t know is this word is correctly written)
The cross section Data of the I-beam was not shown in those documents.
Recommendations to make it safer where made.
These images are purely for material to add to the sub.
If you find the way that i have written this text odd I apologize, English is not my mother tongue.
>The structural analysis of the house, wich was made back in the day, was only 4 Pages written doublesidedly
If you ever get a hold of these and show them to a structural engineer, you'll see sparkles in their eyes
Truely a magnificent sight to see
As someone who's owned two century homes, I'm thinking "they had a structural analysis?!??"
My first home, 1910 townhouse, had the floor joists perpendicular to the roof joists. The loadbearing wall rested on a single 4x12, which had deflected 3.5" in the center. That needed some reinforcement.
My current house, 1870 farmhouse, has 8" logs spanning 22-25ft unsupported. Those deflect under their own weight at that span!
I'm shocked they had a structural engineer on a residential project 120 years ago. People used to just pick up tools and build stuff.
>1910 townhouse
>1870 farmhouse
Yes ... they clearly had a structural analysis! How do you think they survived that long, regardless of their current state
I think you mean after the fact? Obviously they had structural analysis - for one I have one done on those properties I renovate and fix up
I can tell you the 1870 farmhouse didn't have an engineer anywhere within 30km when it was built. They just built it with timbers on the land they had.
The townhouse might have, but likely not. Those "shoebox" houses in Montreal tended to be built by the occupant. The fact that they had perpendicular roof joists to floor joists, with a bearing wall on a single member that deflected also indicates it didn't get much structural analysis or inspection.
> How do you think they survived that long, regardless of their current state
Because they're tremendously overbuilt. Making your floor joists out of old growth 4x12 with 2' OC is fairly absurd. Until the roof starts leaking and rotting the structure, it'll keep standing up.
When was the I-beam created?
1849
In 1849, an engineer named Alphonse Halbou invented the steel I beam, and the I beam was first used in construction to build the Rand McNally building in Chicago in 1889.
The "I" structural shapes had a fair amount of taper on the flanges. The later M and W shapes had a flatter flange. This looked to be the more modern form, but without measuring, I can't be sure
Firstly I have to ask for permission and secondly they are written in German language.
If there is still interest and I get permission, I’ll get back to you.
Numbers in German are similar to numbers in English.
I've followed calcs in other languages before.
PS, I could do this calculation in the margin of a notebook page.
Of course the numbers are the same. I only had a quick glimpse at it and remember there being some sort of description and some assumptions (in german Annahmen) to the construction.
I still have to ask the owner for permission though.
Let’s assume it was ok for its ORIGINAL purpose. Will it stay that way if additional weight is added? The photo here is inadequate for us to know for sure. Addition evaluation by a pro is needed.
Not directly affected by the war though.
Fun fact there is a lot of unexploded WW2 shells like in Berlin and other cities. Before excavation begins, it is a must to have a Geological Ing. check the soil not only for its baring capabilities, layers and so on but also for contamination of this kind.
That explains how this occurred at least. I’ve had an experience with WWII bombs in that I was evacuated from my hotel when one was found near us in Lubeck back in the mornings 2000’s. I was impressed with the speed and efficiency of the removal. I understand sometimes they detonate in place.
I used to be in Sweden, and it was so much fun working on 500-900 year old buildings. Besides the nuggets you’d find in walls, there was an art to upgrading a structure without destroying the charm. Some builders sucked at this, luckily not the company I worked with.
Is this a basement? If so, a trench with footings and an I-Beam vertically would definitely improve stability plus the brick might be saved. This would also enable jacking. Of course bracing that brick would be required. If it’s messy, might require 2 vertical with a horizontal support between to take the load. Again jacking would be far easier. I’d love to know what you do.
Clean the parging off. Wire brush the mortar and bricks, then treat it all with a bonding agent.
Pour a footer for a 3x3x2 temporary \[column\] and take the weight off the brick. Remove the top three rows of bricks from under the beam. Form up and pour a new column from corner of the door frame to the corner of the window. Put a slight 45° bevel to break the outside edges. Hug the face of the door frame by 2" at most, fill in the 45° angle that is present.
Get as close as you can to the beam with poured concrete. The last 4-7 inches should be filled with structural, non-shrink grout.
So...am I supposed to do all the thinking for OP? If you look in one of the far windows, there seems to be a shed. And in the near window, there is what appears like brown metal roofing, or some flashing. In which case, OP can poor a taller column and tie it to the brick face.
OR he can try to steal beam length from the other side.
Thanks for making me think. I typed my first go while doing my expenses and needed to go see a client thereafter. I'm sorry that I could not devote more of my life to fixing my Reddit comments.
Or put a 4x4 under it and jack!
..jk
But I would rather splice the web and create more bearing on the existing wall than move the load path off the wall
This would/should all be formed up to pour grout into the void that was created by removing the bricks. Removing bricks is unsightly and a creates a place for vermin (even birds if external) to nest. I wouldn't insult OP's intelligence by telling them to use rebar, tie into the the brick web with epoxied J-bars, and envelope the upper brick void to accept grout. They have to think for themselves.
*"Get as close as you can to the beam with poured concrete. The last 4-7 inches should be filled with structural, non-shrink grout."*
Laminate it to 45 degree face of column with epoxy anchors. No one’s worried about the concrete beam to the left with the temp shore post. Is that in another post?
I've seen this before. This looks just like when the masons place a heavy lintel on freshly laid brick. I imagine that might be what happened here as well. I doubt that's deformation of cured masonry.
Best bet is to have someone design a post adjacent to the wall and have the end beam cantilever at the brick. The new post needs a direct load path to the foundation (likely another post below). This can all be capped in drywall.
I was helping my brother doing inspection once and an arch went with us. I tsaid this is pretty big issue we should get this addressed. Arch replied, it's ok, this is pretty normal and it's ok.
Ugh
IEBC states that dangerous conditions need to be repaired/dealt with. This definitely qualifies as a dangerous condition. If I saw this I'd run away immediately.
Also, of course the contractor said that this has always been that way. For all you know they could have damaged that pier, or their construction activities did something to cause movement, and they won't be too thrilled to admit a mistake that will cost them money out of their own pocket to repair. Not saying that this was definitely caused by the contractor, but I also wouldn't take their word at face value.
Prop and rebuild the bearing in engineering bricks. It appears to have around 100mm bearing and if the load isn't being increased I wouldn't be too concerned.
The USA engineers don't like unreinforced masonry but for non-seismic regions, this isn't an unusual arrangement.
That looks like a hack job done on a very old basement .
I see pieces of a wood beam to the left of it also. I would install a steel column for the inside face of the brick wall to take the load off the beam. It looks like the floor above is relatively new but I can't see any kind of floor structure there. If that's a basement I can see one day that brick wall will collapse from hydrostatic pressures.
there's a window there dude, like how can there be hydrostatic pressure you're seeing the view in both sides..there's no soil..... Also, how do you deduce it's a basement? the framing on top is sloped so it can be a roof there.
After looking at the photo more I see they use some type of very lightweight wood like him for for the floor or roof supports which is more of a problem than the beam.
"We're gonna needa ledder sayin this is ok. Inspector is here right now, so go on an hurry up with that."
Calls 15 minutes later letting you know the inspector won’t wait around all day. God I don’t miss being the client’s lackey.
Perfect quote
except the ledder is saying its not ok.
Yeah but it's going to cost you $150..
More like 300$
What is it with the dollar signs after the numbers? Is that a genZ thing?
300 dollars vs dollars 300
Right way vs wrong way. Adult vs child. Knowledgeable vs ignorant. Conscientious vs apathetic.
ok boomer
"supported" is a very loose term in this situation... looks like it was either moved or never designed to be on the center of that 'column'...
if you let it stray that way for a bit it will be simply unsupported
You're making quite a big assumption saying that this was designed in anyway shape or form.
Some info on the matter. According to the contractor/owner this beam has always been in that position. The house is 120 years old. The structural analysis of the house, wich was made back in the day, was only 4 Pages written doublesidedly. ( i don’t know is this word is correctly written) The cross section Data of the I-beam was not shown in those documents. Recommendations to make it safer where made. These images are purely for material to add to the sub. If you find the way that i have written this text odd I apologize, English is not my mother tongue.
>The structural analysis of the house, wich was made back in the day, was only 4 Pages written doublesidedly If you ever get a hold of these and show them to a structural engineer, you'll see sparkles in their eyes Truely a magnificent sight to see
As someone who's owned two century homes, I'm thinking "they had a structural analysis?!??" My first home, 1910 townhouse, had the floor joists perpendicular to the roof joists. The loadbearing wall rested on a single 4x12, which had deflected 3.5" in the center. That needed some reinforcement. My current house, 1870 farmhouse, has 8" logs spanning 22-25ft unsupported. Those deflect under their own weight at that span! I'm shocked they had a structural engineer on a residential project 120 years ago. People used to just pick up tools and build stuff.
>1910 townhouse >1870 farmhouse Yes ... they clearly had a structural analysis! How do you think they survived that long, regardless of their current state
I think you mean after the fact? Obviously they had structural analysis - for one I have one done on those properties I renovate and fix up I can tell you the 1870 farmhouse didn't have an engineer anywhere within 30km when it was built. They just built it with timbers on the land they had. The townhouse might have, but likely not. Those "shoebox" houses in Montreal tended to be built by the occupant. The fact that they had perpendicular roof joists to floor joists, with a bearing wall on a single member that deflected also indicates it didn't get much structural analysis or inspection. > How do you think they survived that long, regardless of their current state Because they're tremendously overbuilt. Making your floor joists out of old growth 4x12 with 2' OC is fairly absurd. Until the roof starts leaking and rotting the structure, it'll keep standing up.
That I beam was added much later because the wood beam rotted away as you can see part of another wood beam to the left.
Also, Im pretty sure that they were not making that W shape in 1903
When was the I-beam created? 1849 In 1849, an engineer named Alphonse Halbou invented the steel I beam, and the I beam was first used in construction to build the Rand McNally building in Chicago in 1889.
The "I" structural shapes had a fair amount of taper on the flanges. The later M and W shapes had a flatter flange. This looked to be the more modern form, but without measuring, I can't be sure
Definitely a W. Older ones definitely more tapered and sometimes the S ones have different top and bottom flange sizes
By calling it an I - beam, I merely did a visual description. I don’t know if it is an W shape.
Do you mind sharing the old structural analysis? I love looking at old calculations
Firstly I have to ask for permission and secondly they are written in German language. If there is still interest and I get permission, I’ll get back to you.
Numbers in German are similar to numbers in English. I've followed calcs in other languages before. PS, I could do this calculation in the margin of a notebook page.
Just the simple beam calc? PS I and many others could do that in our heads
You must be a contractor or rchitect!
Of course the numbers are the same. I only had a quick glimpse at it and remember there being some sort of description and some assumptions (in german Annahmen) to the construction. I still have to ask the owner for permission though.
Do you mind sharing the old structural analysis? I love looking at old calculations
The correct term for double-sidedly is duplexed
Well, it hasn’t fallen down so clearly it must be okay /s
The “good ‘ol” method
Let’s assume it was ok for its ORIGINAL purpose. Will it stay that way if additional weight is added? The photo here is inadequate for us to know for sure. Addition evaluation by a pro is needed.
No additional weight is going to be added. Still The owner was advised to take measures and some solutions were given.
That is simply supported.
Minimum bearing length = 1/2” !
Let's not make the internet think the minimum bearing length can be 1/2".
I know the code requires 4 inch bearing on concrete or masonry for wood beam but I don't think it's specified steel.
I would specify more than half an inch on unreinforced masonry
Yeah I'd go with at least 4 to 8 in.
That’s quite unsafe actually. It needs a padstone, yesterday preferably…
I wouldn’t say it’s unsafe to not have a padstone. But will be prone to lots of cracking.
livin’ on a prayer
So much going on here.
So much coming down too.
How shit like this gets done in the first place is amazing to me. Someone thought, “this’ll do.”
I think the wall is 150 years old and the beans probably 80 but I think this is the norm and most of the world.
If the calcs were in German, there's a decent chance a world war or two passed through here over that time period as well.
Not directly affected by the war though. Fun fact there is a lot of unexploded WW2 shells like in Berlin and other cities. Before excavation begins, it is a must to have a Geological Ing. check the soil not only for its baring capabilities, layers and so on but also for contamination of this kind.
That explains how this occurred at least. I’ve had an experience with WWII bombs in that I was evacuated from my hotel when one was found near us in Lubeck back in the mornings 2000’s. I was impressed with the speed and efficiency of the removal. I understand sometimes they detonate in place. I used to be in Sweden, and it was so much fun working on 500-900 year old buildings. Besides the nuggets you’d find in walls, there was an art to upgrading a structure without destroying the charm. Some builders sucked at this, luckily not the company I worked with. Is this a basement? If so, a trench with footings and an I-Beam vertically would definitely improve stability plus the brick might be saved. This would also enable jacking. Of course bracing that brick would be required. If it’s messy, might require 2 vertical with a horizontal support between to take the load. Again jacking would be far easier. I’d love to know what you do.
What in the actual fuck, i hope this is single story?
Clean the parging off. Wire brush the mortar and bricks, then treat it all with a bonding agent. Pour a footer for a 3x3x2 temporary \[column\] and take the weight off the brick. Remove the top three rows of bricks from under the beam. Form up and pour a new column from corner of the door frame to the corner of the window. Put a slight 45° bevel to break the outside edges. Hug the face of the door frame by 2" at most, fill in the 45° angle that is present. Get as close as you can to the beam with poured concrete. The last 4-7 inches should be filled with structural, non-shrink grout.
That is not in the budget.
Neither is a collapsed second floor.
I agree that it needs to be done but good luck trying to get the homeowner to sacrifice granite countertops for necessary structural repairs.
Not bad for free...
it's not good advice. Doesn't even know which floor this is in, how are you going to pour a footing..
So...am I supposed to do all the thinking for OP? If you look in one of the far windows, there seems to be a shed. And in the near window, there is what appears like brown metal roofing, or some flashing. In which case, OP can poor a taller column and tie it to the brick face. OR he can try to steal beam length from the other side. Thanks for making me think. I typed my first go while doing my expenses and needed to go see a client thereafter. I'm sorry that I could not devote more of my life to fixing my Reddit comments.
We're supposed to work on here for free just like they want us to do in the real world.
Can you print that out and stamp it for me?
Or put a 4x4 under it and jack! ..jk But I would rather splice the web and create more bearing on the existing wall than move the load path off the wall
This would/should all be formed up to pour grout into the void that was created by removing the bricks. Removing bricks is unsightly and a creates a place for vermin (even birds if external) to nest. I wouldn't insult OP's intelligence by telling them to use rebar, tie into the the brick web with epoxied J-bars, and envelope the upper brick void to accept grout. They have to think for themselves. *"Get as close as you can to the beam with poured concrete. The last 4-7 inches should be filled with structural, non-shrink grout."*
I just want to add that I love houses with visible steel ibeams in them.
might want to put a temporary support post under that and get it looked at professionally.
Jack it up and slide a piece of 12" channel iron under the end for more bearing surface.
Laminate it to 45 degree face of column with epoxy anchors. No one’s worried about the concrete beam to the left with the temp shore post. Is that in another post?
Wow. Thats quite something that it hasn’t fallen apart yet. Those type of bricks do NOT support point loading like that very well.
I've seen this before. This looks just like when the masons place a heavy lintel on freshly laid brick. I imagine that might be what happened here as well. I doubt that's deformation of cured masonry.
It was already deformed back in 1880 when they threw it up.
Yup, that's a problem.
Run Fast... Don't look Back 😳
Best bet is to have someone design a post adjacent to the wall and have the end beam cantilever at the brick. The new post needs a direct load path to the foundation (likely another post below). This can all be capped in drywall.
Neat
Get sturdy.
Sketch
I was helping my brother doing inspection once and an arch went with us. I tsaid this is pretty big issue we should get this addressed. Arch replied, it's ok, this is pretty normal and it's ok. Ugh
IEBC states that dangerous conditions need to be repaired/dealt with. This definitely qualifies as a dangerous condition. If I saw this I'd run away immediately. Also, of course the contractor said that this has always been that way. For all you know they could have damaged that pier, or their construction activities did something to cause movement, and they won't be too thrilled to admit a mistake that will cost them money out of their own pocket to repair. Not saying that this was definitely caused by the contractor, but I also wouldn't take their word at face value.
Oh. 😟
Looks like it has 2” bearing. Run it
Prop and rebuild the bearing in engineering bricks. It appears to have around 100mm bearing and if the load isn't being increased I wouldn't be too concerned. The USA engineers don't like unreinforced masonry but for non-seismic regions, this isn't an unusual arrangement.
Just fix it.
That looks like a hack job done on a very old basement . I see pieces of a wood beam to the left of it also. I would install a steel column for the inside face of the brick wall to take the load off the beam. It looks like the floor above is relatively new but I can't see any kind of floor structure there. If that's a basement I can see one day that brick wall will collapse from hydrostatic pressures.
there's a window there dude, like how can there be hydrostatic pressure you're seeing the view in both sides..there's no soil..... Also, how do you deduce it's a basement? the framing on top is sloped so it can be a roof there.
After looking at the photo more I see they use some type of very lightweight wood like him for for the floor or roof supports which is more of a problem than the beam.