Is the beam load-bearing or not?

[Daniel 109]

What in my post is not correct?

 

[Kane]

What in my post is incorrect?

Check the answer key....😎

 

[Daniel 109]

Considering the comments from the writer who referred to education from KTH, I would probably prefer to consult another formula collection.

 

[AG A]

I don't know if the answer has already been given. But as an old designer, I strongly believe that it is NOT load-bearing. Considering its placement, it would have to bear the same load as the other pillar. Even if it would hold, you wouldn't make them different sizes. The fact that an identical stud is placed against the pillar suggests that the studs were only the framework for the wall.
A good way to test such a type of stud is to start sawing it with a handsaw. If the saw binds after a bit, then you can assume it's load-bearing.

 

[Nilssonskan]

I don't know if the answer has already been provided. But as an old designer, I strongly believe that it is NOT load-bearing. Considering its position, it would otherwise take as much load as the other pillar. Even if it could hold, they wouldn't have made them different sizes. The fact that there is also an identical beam against the pillar suggests that the beams were solely the framework for the wall.
A good way to test a type of beam like this is to start sawing it with a handsaw. If the saw binds after a bit, you can assume it is load-bearing.

Ok, sounds promising. But if the beam is not part of the load-bearing structure, can it still be support-”bearing”? Does the saw test help me draw any clear conclusions then? I mean if it binds, should I not remove the beam? Then it is part of the load-bearing structure per se?

 

[GoC]

Is there anyone who has studied even the slightest bit of strength of materials who can explain to the gentlemen how holes in different directions affect the strength. They have decided that I'm wrong, so it probably doesn't matter what I write.

The holes near the beam's support will probably not affect the strength and the purpose of the beam in the slightest.

 

[Daniel 109]

Is it a splice at the support? Otherwise, there could be significant moments there.

 

[BirgitS]

Do you mean if it pinches, should I not remove the rule?

A pinch test is not reliable when the roof load is not at its maximum.

 

[Nilssonskan]

Is it a joint on the support? Otherwise, there might be significant moments there.

No, no joints.

 

[Daniel 109]

Then there are moments in the beam even near the support.

 

[AG A]

Ok, sounds promising. But if the beam is not part of the load-bearing structure, can't it still support-"bear"? Does the saw test help me draw any clear conclusions then? I mean if it pinches, shouldn't I remove the beam? Then it is part of the load-bearing structure per se?

As long as this beam has been in place since the house was built, you don't even need to test it. As I said, it is then as heavily loaded as the main pillar. No constructor/builder would install two different-sized pillars. The fact that electrical conduit runs between the beams is a typical sign that the wall has another function.
If you test sawing a beam, and the saw pinches, you should stop sawing. Then screw a splice/piece of board over the sawed cut. When you saw, you might still find that it pinches, just as it often does when sawing beams. But if you pull/lift/press the beam, it will release. If, however, it's due to being heavily loaded from above, you will notice the difference.
Furthermore, I now see that you tried with a piece of paper, which removes all doubt. Many times you can't even get a piece of paper above a non-load-bearing pillar, then you have to try the saw. But now you have an even clearer test.
The fact that it's not maximally loaded is irrelevant since two pillars next to each other carry the same load.

Note: Anyone thinking about tearing down walls and removing pillars should NOT start sawing indiscriminately to see if it's load-bearing. The reason I can say this now is due to several circumstances that I, as a constructor, can draw conclusions from.

 

[Nilssonskan]

As long as this beam has been in place since the house was built, you don't even need to test it. As I said, it will be as heavily loaded as the large pillar. No constructor or builder would use two different-sized pillars. The fact that there are electrical conduits between the studs is a typical sign that the wall has a different function. If you test by sawing into a stud, and the saw binds, you need to stop sawing. Then you should screw a splice/piece of wood over the sawed cut. If you do saw, you may still feel it binding, just as it often does when cutting studs. But if you pull/lift/press on the stud, it will release. However, if it's heavily loaded from above, you'll notice the difference. Furthermore, I now saw that you tried with a piece of paper, which removes all doubt. Many times you can't even get a piece of paper above a non-load-bearing pillar, then you should try the saw. But now you have an even clearer test. The fact that it's not max loaded doesn't matter as two pillars next to each other take the same load.

Note. Anyone considering tearing down walls and removing pillars, DO NOT start sawing wildly to see if it's load-bearing. The reason I can say this now is due to several circumstances from which I, as a constructor, can draw conclusions.

All parts, beam, pillar, small wall, stud, have been in place since the house was built (1985) If we now dare to remove the stud with your and others' responses here, is this something that requires planning permission? Bonus question, ideally, we would like to get rid of the pillar as well; what is required for this?

 

[BirgitS]

Bonus question, of course we would also like to get rid of the pillar, what is required for this?

Building notification
Stronger and above all higher beam along the ceiling, stronger pillars that the beam rests on.
Possibly reinforcements under the pillars.

 

[Daniel 109]

Now you are giving answers you are not qualified to give.

 

[BirgitS]

Now you are giving answers you are not qualified to give.

And what is your answer to TS regarding removing the pillar (not the beam)?