Is the beam load-bearing or not?

[Nilssonskan]

So you want to remove the standalone rule if it is not load-bearing?

If you remove the single stud, the beam is unlikely to collapse, but you should keep an eye on the beam if it starts to give in. I can say with great certainty and from experience that it will hold with just the large post remaining, but remove the post and keep an eye on the beam for a few weeks.

I really hope it doesn't collapse. But the question I'm pondering is whether the rule is part of the originally calculated construction or just part of a standard wall construction.

 

[Nilssonskan]

So you want to remove the standalone beam if it isn't load-bearing?

If you remove the lone beam, the joist isn't likely to collapse, but you should keep an eye on it if it starts to give way.
I can say with great certainty and from experience that it will hold with just the large post remaining, but remove the post and monitor the joist for a couple of weeks.

I really hope it doesn't collapse. But the question I'm pondering is whether the beam is part of the originally calculated construction or just part of a regular wall construction.

Is the glulam post on top of the floor or situated lower?

The post is on top of the strip flooring. It is attached to the house's bottom beams, which in turn rest on a foundation wall in the crawl space.

 

[Nilssonskan]

So you want to remove the standalone beam if it isn’t load-bearing?

If you remove the single beam, the girder is unlikely to collapse, but you should keep an eye on the girder if it starts to show signs of weakness. I can say with a high degree of certainty and from experience that it will hold with just the large post remaining, but remove the post and keep an eye on the girder for a couple of weeks.

I really hope it doesn’t collapse. But the question I’m pondering is whether the beam is part of the originally calculated construction or just part of a typical wall structure.

Is the glulam post on top of the floor or set lower?

The post stands on the plank floor, which is attached to the house's bottom beams that, in turn, stand on a wall in the crawl space foundation.

 

[Nilssonskan]

So you want to remove the independent rule if it's not supporting?

If you remove the single rule, the beam is unlikely to collapse, but you should keep an eye on the beam if it starts to give way..
Based on experience, I can almost certainly say that it will hold with just the large post remaining, but remove the post and keep an eye on the beam for a couple of weeks..

I really hope it doesn't collapse. But the question I'm pondering is whether the rule is part of the originally calculated construction or just part of a standard wall structure.

Is the glue-laminated post on top of the floor or is it lower?

The post is on top of the plank floor, which is attached to the house's base timbers that in turn stand on a wall in the crawl space foundation.

Isn't there a gap? See circled in red. Can you fit a piece of paper or more there?
It looks like there's a nail (green) that might prevent you from fitting something under the whole thing, but it can give a hint of the situation.
Edit: I see there's the same "gap" at the bottom as well.

[image]

Yes, paper gaps both on top and bottom of the rule. Paper gap also at the top of the post

 

[Nilssonskan]

You want to remove the standalone rule if it's not load-bearing?

If you remove the lone rule, the beam is unlikely to collapse, but you should monitor the beam if it starts to give way..
I can say with great certainty and from experience that it will hold with just the large post, but remove the post and keep an eye on the beam for a couple of weeks..

I really hope it doesn't collapse. But the question I'm pondering is whether the rule is part of the originally calculated construction or just part of a regular wall construction.

Is the glulam post standing on top of the floor or lower down?

The post stands on the plank floor. Which is attached to the house's bottom joists that in turn rest on the wall in the foundation.

Isn't there a gap? See circled in red. Can you fit a paper or more in there?
Though it looks like a nail (green) that may prevent you from getting anything under the whole, but it can give a hint of how it is.
Edit: I see there's the same "gap" at the bottom as well

[image]

Yes, paper gap both at the top and bottom of the rule. Paper gap also at the top of the postView attachment 804275View attachment 804276

Based on the photos, the post is load-bearing, but not the joists. They are also standing on the floor plank.

The post is also on the floor plank.

 

[pacman42]

Even the post stands on the floorboard.

I didn't think it looked like that in the pictures, but I understand it now. In that case, there is a supporting joist directly underneath as well (which also seems to have been understood now).

 

[Daniel 109]

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

 

[MrDizzy]

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

No, not at all. It's just that my memory says the opposite... however, as I wrote, it's been 30 years, so I might very well remember incorrectly. I thought you had good feedback; I just haven't had the time to go through it yet as other things have taken my time. It could very well be that when I look at it, I change my mind and say that my memory played a trick on me. It may also be that I don't think it fits (and then I'll look into it even more, but it might take time).

 

[pacman42]

https://www.traguiden.se/konstrukti.../hal-och-urtag/balkar-med-hal/balkar-med-hal/

 

[Kane]

[link]

Seems to apply to horizontal holes in a beam. What about vertical holes?

 

[Daniel 109]

Pacman: I have already linked to that page. As I wrote then, it doesn't address holes in that way at all.

In a horizontal beam with a load from above, there are compressive forces at the top and tensile forces at the bottom. In the middle, there are essentially no forces. That's why lightweight beams work. A hole in the middle from the side therefore has very little impact. A vertical hole removes material over the entire height of the beam. The strength decreases by as much as the beam's cross-section decreases in the hole.

 

[sysmali]

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

Why are you so stubborn. Quote or tag "the gentlemen".

 

[Daniel 109]

Because it was not a response to a specific post.

 

[Kane]

A vertical hole removes material over the entire height of the beam. The strength therefore decreases as much as the cross-section of the beam decreases in the hole.

Does it? That's not what I was taught in school.

 

[Violina]

Pacman: I have already linked to that page. As I wrote then, it does not cover holes in that direction at all.

In a horizontal beam that has load from above, there are compressive forces at the top and tensile forces at the bottom. In the middle, there are basically no forces. That's why lightweight beams work. A hole in the middle from the side therefore has very little impact. A vertical hole removes material across the entire height of the beam. The strength therefore decreases as much as the beam's cross-section is reduced by the hole.

No.. what mostly withstands forces from above (and below) is the upper and lower part of the beam's cross-section..

That's why IPE, HEA, and HEB beams are so effective (despite very little material in the middle)..

Now, wood is a bit more complex than steel (unless we are talking about pre-tensioned beams) because it has fibers and is not completely homogeneous, but the principle is the same..