[utmba95]

Hi,

I'm considering removing this column and the arches, but if it's structural and would require posts on the sides and a beam, it may not be worth removing. Is there an easy way to tell if it's structural? I've talked to others who had theirs removed, and they all had contractors put in beams. I have a feeling that if I hired an engineer, he/she wouldn't do any analysis of the existing structure and would just specify a new beam was required. The column in question appear to be made from 2x4s nailed together to make 2x8s.

Thanks

 

[Nealtw]

It looks like it was designed to have a wall there and this already a shoddy change because what you have is not enough to support the floor above.

The question would be for the people that sell the TGI floor joist and the max span for that size of joist.

Is it a beam above the arches?

 

[utmba95]

These are the original plans and the photos are the original construction. The plans call out "sheet rock arch opening with 8" rise". There are two beams above the arch/column. The lower beam supports the kitchen's LVL joists and the upper beam supports the living room's LVL joists. In the composite photo, the kitchen is on the right, living is on the left. The plans are reversed from that.

 

[HotRodx10]

With the joists bearing on it, the beam is almost certainly load bearing. Whether the beam would span the opening without the column is a question for a structural engineer. Most likely, the beam would need to be replaced with a larger beam.

 

[chandler48]

It will totally depend on the thickness of the LVL and what the manufacturer states will be the allowable span considering the load above it, since it is holding up another floor. I only question the need of the central post. The arches are artsy fartsy and offer no structure.

Homework time with the manufacturer.

 

[Nealtw]

These are the original plans and the photos are the original construction. The plans call out SRA w/8" rise, which maybe means "semi round arch"? There are two beams above the arch/column. The lower beam supports the kitchen's LVL joists and the upper beam supports the living room's LVL joists. In the composite photo, the kitchen is on the right, living is on the left. The plans are reversed from that.

So that is the designers plans, do you have the engineers plan that shows the detail of the beams and there support.

Putting one beam above the other doesn't work in my head but there are not enough studs under them The outside wall seems like it has enough but the other end seems to have just one. You might remove the arches if the beams are rated for enough and you might just add another layer to the lower one to make it work.

Regardless of plans we would have moved the beam up into the floor anyway.

Beams should have reached right over the wall, just adding more studs out into the room leaves a question about the footing below in that area,
Do you have the foundation plan?

 

[utmba95]

I attached the foundation plan and the second floor floorplan. I don't have the engineered floor system plans unfortunately. I also uploaded a photo from the kitchen side showing that the lower beam keeps going. I'm not sure how far though. I appreciate the replies! I'm just trying to get to a point where I'm fairly confident it is structural (and I'll likely blow it off) or isn't structural (and I'll pay for an engineer).

 

[dj3]

This is almost certainly a structural wall.
What you want to do requires a plan modification and has to be signed by plan check.
You have to decide if it's cost worthy. It doesn't look that way to me.
Doing such changes this late always screw up your budget and cause construction delays.

 

[utmba95]

The house is 10 years old, so it's much worse than just a plan change. :smile: These were just the photos that I took during construction.

 

[sixeightten]

Looks like that divider between the arches does nothing. The lvl above spans the whole length, and can't be removed obviously.

 

[Nealtw]

The house is 10 years old, so it's much worse than just a plan change. :smile: These were just the photos that I took during construction.

So there is no footing below the floor to support a load and the lower beam is the one doing the work. the one above that will just be like a rim joist at the end of that floor.
I think you can remove all of that below the beam, the arches and the center studs and the extra stud on the interior side. :vs_cool:
Same houses in neighbourhood don't always come with the same engineer or framing crew so comparing two house is not the best idea.

Lucky you have photos.

 

[utmba95]

Thanks. I just mentioned the other houses because of my suspicion that a contractor or engineer wouldn't likely analyze the existing structure and would automatically call out a new beam - which isn't what I want. Is a "structural engineer" who I would need to hire if I wanted to be sure? So far the answers are about 50/50. I was hoping to get closer to 75% sure it's not structural before paying an engineer. :smile: By the way, the foundation is concrete slab if that matters. I'm not sure if a slab needs to call out footings. I know they have integral beams, but I'm not sure if their locations are important or if the entire slab is assumed to be able to support posts. I also found another picture of the column and the steel post that supports the beam at the exterior. My original thought was that a structural column would require 2x8s rather than two 2x4s nailed together on edge to make a 2x8.

 

[Nealtw]

Thanks. I just mentioned the other houses because of my suspicion that a contractor or engineer wouldn't likely analyze the existing structure and would automatically call out a new beam - which isn't what I want. Is a "structural engineer" who I would need to hire if I wanted to be sure? So far the answers are about 50/50. I was hoping to get closer to 75% sure it's not structural before paying an engineer. :smile: By the way, the foundation is concrete slab if that matters. I'm not sure if a slab needs to call out footings. I know they have integral beams, but I'm not sure if their locations are important or if the entire slab is assumed to be able to support posts. I also found another picture of the column and the steel post that supports the beam at the exterior. My original thought was that a structural column would require 2x8s rather than two 2x4s nailed together on edge to make a 2x8.

In your foundation plan I have pointed to a point load square, that is a larger footing for a point load. Beside that is a wall or curb below the floor for a bearing wall.

You would expect to see one or other where your arch is and there is non.

So the floor slab is not engineered to carry any wall weight.

 

[HotRodx10]

Is a "structural engineer" who I would need to hire if I wanted to be sure?

Yes, if you want to be sure.

I'm not sure if a slab needs to call out footings. I know they have integral beams, but I'm not sure if their locations are important or if the entire slab is assumed to be able to support posts.

Footings and integral beams should be called out on the structural drawings, but if the slab is thick enough to support the internal concentrated loads, they may not be needed. Just because a load isn't big enough to require a footing, doesn't necessarily mean it's not consequential to beam, especially if the post bears on a wall, which can distribute the load over a larger area of the slab.

My original thought was that a structural column would require 2x8s rather than two 2x4s nailed together on edge to make a 2x8

Not necessarily. A 2x4, if even minimally braced, has substantial axial capacity. That pair of 2x4s could potentially carry nearly 20,000 lbs. I'm not saying they do; they may not be needed to carry anything. It depends on the bending capacity of the beams and tributary load (how much of the load from, floor, etc. above) that they carry.