I am not sure how to adress these issues I found on an inspection. I would think that these cuts seams should have been bolted or welded.
And the plumbing drain hole is totaly not allowed.
How wouldf you write it up?
Ricky,
It appears that the bearing end of that beam has settled, which caused the V-opening at the abutting seam. Or maybe the temporary jack (which is an improper support for a steel beam) was raised too high.
As for the hole, I don’t see a problem with it.
Restrictions on size and position of openings
Guidance on the size and position of Steel beam web openings:
Horizontal position: Openings should be positioned not less than twice the beam depth or span/10 from a support and not less than the beam depth from any point load.
Vertical position: The opening should, if possible, be positioned at the mid-height of the beam. Otherwise, the depths of the upper and lower sections should not differ by more than a factor of 2.
**
Opening size:** The opening length and height should not exceed 1.5D and 0.6D respectively in un-stiffened sections or 2.0D and 0.7D in stiffened sections (D = o/a beam depth).
Spacing of openings: The distance between adjacent openings should not be less than the beam depth.
Circular openings should be treated by assuming a length equal to 0.9 x the radius of the opening, and a depth equal to 1.8 x the radius. All other openings should have radiused corners.
…and you don’t see a problem with it??
The support should be replaced, the joint should be secured and the drain hole is no problem at all. . .
That plumber, or whom ever had one heck of a holesaw 
I’m having trouble understanding this. I can see how you could have a horizontal opening in a web but how do you have a verticle hole in a web?
Too bad there’s no diagram.
Think location…horizontal is left and right and verticle is up and down.
all I beam seams & or joints must be welded or bolted plates are necessary on this type application. No holes and or alterations are not allowed without consent by a structural engineer.
Holes can be plated on both sides of beam to maintain structural strenth.
Thanks for everyones input.
The holes in the web do not need any reinforcement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the hole as it is pictured, and they do not need engineer approval.
The hole cannot be in the web over a support, but is allowed anywhere within the span.
Looking at the first picture and the way it is painted it almost looks like there was different support there before.
Web hole fine, beam needs to be secured to a permanent support.
Show me how the hole does not violate this provision. The hole is not in the mid-height of the beam, and the depths of the upper and lower sections differ by a factor of about a thousand. (exaggerated somewhat for effect) My guess is that a structural engineer might require this particular hole to be reinforced somehow, if he would not condemn it completely.
That’s how I read that, too, Richard.
Where did you get that info David?..or Jeff, can you address?
Where did that “provision” come from? It’s not anything I recognize. I would like to see it in its entire context.
I got my answer (thanks Barry).
This is information is from a British Agency that publishes information for construction practices. It simply provides a “best practice guidance” for cutting the web of steel beams in the UK.
Having been in “the industry” for nearly 20 years, the hole in this beam wouldn’t even have raised an eyebrow here in CA. That might be due to the fact that everything in our state is over-engineered for seismic design.
Screw jacks are temporary, only, in my area.