Originally Posted By: kmcmahon This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This house has been standing for 88 years. The floors are a bit uneven.
I’m not an engineer, so it’s hard to tell, but do you think there should be a post under this beam at this connection?
If I lay it out to you, there are three main beams in the basement. Two go the length of the building from foundation wall to foundation wall supported twice by wood posts. The third beam stretches between the two other beams forming the middle section of the “H”. The middle beam is not supported at all. It just seems to be a fitted joint to the other two.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
My opinion would be that the middle of the H is not designed or placed as a beam. More like bridging to hold the two beams in place.
Look at the photo again, and look at the directions the floor joists run.
That center beam is a floor loaded beam, and may even be loaded with a wall above.
They probably figured (80 years ago) that it would hold like this, and it has ... sort of. However, at this time, and in my opinion, it needs a support at each end where this center beam is connected to the two main beams.
Originally Posted By: Guest This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The mortise and tenon joint in this case, dramatically affects the integrity of the tenon beam, effectively reducing it’s load carrying ability to somewhere near the tenon’s dimension. There is a horizontal crack in the beam that probably originates at the base of the tenon. Stick a post in there with a plate that supports both beams…get er done .
Originally Posted By: Brian A. Goodman This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Just to get a little more general while we’re in this area, I tend to always prefer the most proven, foolproof answer available for any given problem. I think one of the reasons we have so many problems with materials and systems today is that we’ve been moving away from some of the time-honored basics. Ideas like slope for drainage, drainage planes, overhang, overlap, direct bearing, solid materials, and general over-engineering (if a 2 x 4 is “adequate”, use a 2 x 6). We used to believe in these things, before the rise of technology.
Whoever designed EIFS with no drainage plane ignored a long-proven a basic principle. I've seen a few houses here built with no overhang at the eaves. I've seen engineered solutions fail where direct bearing could have been had if anyone had stood up to the client and said "You need a support there, sir! Forget about asthetics for a minute."
Recommend the proven ideas. If they choose otherwise, so be it.