I had a similar problem about 3 years ago with a smaller beam. I got an
engineer who does nothing but wood/timber design and he advised me that
it is a check(if I remember correctly) not a crack. A crack goes all the
way through whereas a check is only partially through. At 69, I am still
learning. Any way he said not to do anything about it, as it has been
there for 60-70 years. Rather than suggest that solution to you, I would
determine its age, etc and talk to a wood expert. I wish you the best of
luck with it.
Bill Allen wrote:
>
> I'm working on a small commercial remodel in Southern California. The
> part of the work for which I'm responsible is nearly complete.
> However, when the inspector came out to finalize the framing, he
> noticed problems in an existing beam which is not part of my original
> scope of work. The building is three stories and is rectangular. There
> is a beam line running down the middle of the long direction. For my
> work, I had to remove and replace the existing beam where the office
> is being remodeled. Beyond my work, the existing beam is unmodified.
> What caught the inspector's eye are small holes drilled in the beam
> used to pass electrical conduit. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I
> believe these holes are O.K. What is troubling is that, on one span,
> there is a long crack down the wide face of the beam for most of the
> length. Worse yet, it appears that the beam above the crack has
> rotated slightly. Below is a sketch prepared by my original CAD
> program. I've exaggerated the rotation, but it is obvious. The beam is
> huge. It's 18-3/4"x701/4". It spans about 12-1/2 feet and supports two
> floors and a roof. I'm concerned about two things; the ability of the
> beam to transfer VQ/I stresses through the cracked region and the
> ability of the beam to remain stable if the crack propagates. Maybe
> there are other things I should worry about. There are three methods
> of addressing this problem that I can think about off the top of my
> head and they are:
>
> 1. Do nothing; the beam is still structurally viable.
>
> 2. Add Simpson LTP4s at 12" o.c. or so which would stitch the crack in
> the hopes that it will keep the crack from enlarging/propagating and
> will hopefully transfer the VQ/I stresses by an unknown load transfer
> path.
>
> 3. Don't mess around with it and repair the beam by sandwiching two
> PSLs, one on each side and designed to take 100% of the load. I would
> have the contractor jack the beam as far as he can (there are bearing
> walls above) before he bolted these beams to the existing beam. If I
> could get 100% of the load off the existing beam, it would then act to
> only transfer the load to the PSLs.
>
> What would you do and why?
>
> TIA,
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
>
> ALLEN DESIGNS <http://www.AllenDesigns.com>
>
> Consulting Structural Engineers
> V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********