floating beam

[jwelch]

What do you think of this beam? No attachment of any kind...are my senses dulled, or is this really an issue??

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Not great, be better if it were in a pocket or better yet a hanger. Wood often does not do well encased in concrete. If you're not in a seismic zone, it's probably not going anywhere. As long as everything looks stable, I'd probably not mention it.

[jwelch]

Thanks Kent..

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by kshepard

Not great, be better if it were in a pocket or better yet a hanger. Wood often does not do well encased in concrete. If you're not in a seismic zone, it's probably not going anywhere. As long as everything looks stable, I'd probably not mention it.

I hate to disagree, but as the image it a bit too small to see what id really going on my gut feel is that is incorrect as the joist should have at least a minimum of 1 1/2 inch bearing on to the concrete.

Regards

Gerry

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Jason, could you post a bigger picture, this one is unclear.

Marcel

[David P. Valley]

I'd like to see the view from the front side.

[jwelch]

Ok guys, here are the two best shots, and I made them a touch larger... Jason

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Ideally the beam should be be resting on masonry or steel, then again it's bearing on what's basically a short wood post (looks like a treated 4x4 and a couple of treated 2x4's nailed together, and beams are allowed to bear on wood posts, although they typically have a stud alongside tying the post to the beam and fastened top and bottom to framing. It's got 5" of bearing.

The possibility for roatation is another concern, but typically each of those I-joists should have a nail through the bottom flange into the beam (although that doesn't mean they do). I can't visualize how it would fail. If I had to call something... I guess I'd question whether that design/configuration was actually approved by an engineer and wonder whether it was built without permits.

Where poor-quality framing ends and a defective conditon begins is often a tough call.

[David P. Valley]

The builder miscalculated something, but I see no major issues with this beam support. There's plenty of bearing there.

[Bruce M. Graham]

Was the moisture on the beam active?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

I don't know guys, something just dose not look right.

The second picture supplied which is the opposite side, seems to indicate an upright 2"x4" pressure treated nailed in a tee fashion to what looks like a western fir species.

Also, why would the TJI's run continuous over a single member beam support?

How did it get water stained?

Why would the floor system not span the framing width that it is supporting?

I guess my help is directed on more information on this one. ha. ha.
Sorry.

Marcel

[afrost]

Originally Posted by mcyr

Also, why would the TJI's run continuous over a single member beam support?



Marcel

i suspect it may be supporting a bearing wall above which is why there's blocking above the beam. it could also be to take some of the bounce out of the floor. i framed a floor with 36' tji, rated for the span, but didn't like the deflection and ended up with a beam below.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by afrost

i suspect it may be supporting a bearing wall above which is why there's blocking above the beam. it could also be to take some of the bounce out of the floor. i framed a floor with 36' tji, rated for the span, but didn't like the deflection and ended up with a beam below.

Andrew;

36' span for a TJI by Weyerhauser is off the scale except for a 560 series 16" in depth 12" o. c. and would still deflect 47/64" under a 40# live load.

Spans of that magnitude should have had a center beam to begin with.
And I think the same scenario for the above pics. This single member beam was added to supplement an under design of the floor system.

Just my thoughts.

Marcel
</IMG></IMG>