# Not loving the basement pole



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

You'd need an engineer to calc the load to determine if you can move the pole
You can't guess on this


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

In a word--NO

As you know any thing can be done if you have enough money.

If you want to give it a go -this is how it's done--

In order to move the pole -first you must temporarily support the house with cribbing and two temporary beams(one on either side of the existing beam.

Next -remove old beam and post(s) Dispose of old beam,

Buy and install new heavier beam ,sized for the longer span. 

open concrete floor-dig and pour new concrete footings..

Relocate column. 

Remove two temporary beams and cribbing.

Rebuild ceilings,walls and floor-paint -tile --now you're ready to set up the pool table!!!! Easy,take a crew of four less than two weeks>maybe--


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks for the replies....Much appreciated...Curious but any idea of the cost of new I Beam ?? I would have no clue...lol...

I realise there is a huge labour cost...But curious as to the cost of the beam.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Dave Clee said:


> Thanks for the replies....Much appreciated...Curious but any idea of the cost of new I Beam ?? I would have no clue...lol...
> 
> I realise there is a huge labour cost...But curious as to the cost of the beam.
> 
> ...


You would first hire an engineer to tell you what size beam you would need. It's cost would be only a small part of the entire cost of the job. Out of curiosity, you could go down to the local iron works and get prices for all the sizes available for your length.
Ron


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

It's been a long time since I bought or hung any steel. With google you can likely find an answer.

I hope you realize I was just joking around,If the day ever comes that you can design and build you own house the cost of long spans is one design feature I'll bet you will spring for.--MIKE--


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

There is no doubt that if I do ever design my own house, there wont be a pole in sight...

So I'll be honest and thought your reply was legit. I am by no means a reno king which is why I posed the question. I figured the 2 weeks of work was way off. But hey I'll admit this isnt my thing..

Really what I am looking for is this sort of mod gonna cost me $1000 or $10000. If its $10k then obviously I would spend my $$ elsewhere. If its 
under $3k then I would think about it..

Cheers

Dave



oh'mike said:


> It's been a long time since I bought or hung any steel. With google you can likely find an answer.
> 
> I hope you realize I was just joking around,If the day ever comes that you can design and build you own house the cost of long spans is one design feature I'll bet you will spring for.--MIKE--


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

What's above the beam ?
One floor, 2 ? Roof loads ?
Prices vary widely by area & by the person doing the work
There is no way anyone can give you anything close to a correct estimate
It could be between $3-10k
Getting the beam in there is usually one problem
In some case the entire house is lifted up to put a new beam in
Or a hole cut in a wall

I needed (3) 16" LVL's to support 2 floors & roof loads - 22' span
And that is with a post in the middle
17' isn't as bad....but still a long span

If you want a correct estimate call a couple local people to come out & look & figure it out


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

main floor above, then a supporting wall that goes up to 2nd floor veranda by stair case..
I'll be getting in touch with someone tomorrow to setup a time to have a look.

Thanks for the reply.

Dave



Scuba_Dave said:


> What's above the beam ?
> One floor, 2 ? Roof loads ?
> Prices vary widely by area & by the person doing the work
> There is no way anyone can give you anything close to a correct estimate
> ...


----------



## Daniel Holzman (Mar 10, 2009)

Before you go too far, you really should find out exactly what the size and type of the existing beam is. There is always the chance that the beam was sized for 17 foot span, not the 13 foot span. Of course, if it were sized for 17 feet, it would be unusual to have put a post in at 13 feet, but the only way to know is to open the beam covering and see exactly what you have.

It is also possible that the existing beam could be made larger by adding to the side of the beam, I did a project like that in a house where the main wood beam had sustained water damage. We added a pair of 2x12 LVL beams to the outside of the existing beam (one on each side), bolted through, and were able to do it without removing the existing beam or even jacking the beam up. A clever contractor can do some pretty good work, but as noted, the sizing of the beam is typically done by an engineer.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Hey Daniel, thanks ever so much for the detailed reply. I went over to the neighbors house, same as mine and figured out why that pole is there. Directly above that ibeam where the support pole is, is another i beam sitting on top of it running right angle to the front of the house. That i beam is directly below my first floor dining room wall which also supports the load of the 2nd floor hallway.
I guess they put that pole directly under where the 2 beams intersect. 

I guess its time to get an engineer in to have a look at my options..

Thanks again.

Dave



Daniel Holzman said:


> Before you go too far, you really should find out exactly what the size and type of the existing beam is. There is always the chance that the beam was sized for 17 foot span, not the 13 foot span. Of course, if it were sized for 17 feet, it would be unusual to have put a post in at 13 feet, but the only way to know is to open the beam covering and see exactly what you have.
> 
> It is also possible that the existing beam could be made larger by adding to the side of the beam, I did a project like that in a house where the main wood beam had sustained water damage. We added a pair of 2x12 LVL beams to the outside of the existing beam (one on each side), bolted through, and were able to do it without removing the existing beam or even jacking the beam up. A clever contractor can do some pretty good work, but as noted, the sizing of the beam is typically done by an engineer.


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

Why not leave it alone and turn the pool table the other way?


----------



## Timberratt (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm gonna take a stab at this one! That beam, because it is offset from center, my guess is that's picking up a point load, as somebody already said talk to an engineer. Dead loads and live loads are tricky enough, point loads are tough to play with in basements where head heights are always a concern, if that is what it is.


----------



## Joe F (Jan 27, 2008)

I recently moved a support column in my basement. My case involved moving it about 4 ft so it could be hidden in a wall. I had an engineer come in
(~$300 bucks) and do all the calculations and tell me what I needed to do to support the new column. It was money very well spent, he even told me where to go to buy the column. He specified a sched 40 column which you can't usually find at the big home stores.


----------



## tpolk (Nov 7, 2009)

I installed tables for awhile you need 5' around perimeter for que length or short sticks. have installed many a table with your problem and our motto is everyone has the same disadvantage. altho not perfect tou are losing only a small corner


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

My guess is the whole job would be around $25K, at least


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks for the insight...I have been trying to contact a structural guy all day.. I guess they are in high demand...

Cheers

Dave



Joe F said:


> I recently moved a support column in my basement. My case involved moving it about 4 ft so it could be hidden in a wall. I had an engineer come in
> (~$300 bucks) and do all the calculations and tell me what I needed to do to support the new column. It was money very well spent, he even told me where to go to buy the column. He specified a sched 40 column which you can't usually find at the big home stores.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

$25k ??? Uh....I would love to hear why u think it would be that much..



Anti-wingnut said:


> My guess is the whole job would be around $25K, at least


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Update, Structural engineer will be coming over next week to have a look and assess.

His cost is $400 which will deliver me a plan of attack.

I'll update this post when I find out.

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

Much appreciated.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

Good Luck! Anti Wingnut--sounds about right,might even get it painted in that cost!(Illinois)


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Could probably have it gold plated at that price


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

For those of you who are interested, I spent a bit of time this evening opening it up for the engineer..

You can see the other beam that rests on top but it isnt directly under the support pole in question. Its actually 1.5 ft closer to the wall. Hopefully that may help.





































Cheers

Dave


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

My guess is 14" was max span on that size beam, if you are determined to move it and since you have already torn it out, I would ask the engineer if you can build your own beam out of either 2x10's or 2x12's using 3 with 1/2" plywood in between glued and nailed. Contractors build a lot of beams this way here. I would think you would just have to go thick enough to carry the load and go ahead and conceal it in the wall and be rid of it. It may be cheaper to build your own. Good luck, let us know what engineer says, I am curious now. lol


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Alright, maybe I'm wrong. Probably less than $25K. I was thinking west coast. I don't know where you are, but siesmic codes probably do not play much of a role in construction there. You are just worried about a plain old simple vertical load, no shaking.

12 to 16K $ ?


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

joan518 said:


> My guess is 14" was max span on that size beam, if you are determined to move it and since you have already torn it out, I would ask the engineer if you can build your own beam out of either 2x10's or 2x12's using 3 with 1/2" plywood in between glued and nailed. Contractors build a lot of beams this way here. I would think you would just have to go thick enough to carry the load and go ahead and conceal it in the wall and be rid of it. It may be cheaper to build your own. Good luck, let us know what engineer says, I am curious now. lol


Generally, when steel is used on a SFR, it is because the loads are substantial. I would not bet that an engineer would replace what looks like a W10 with three pieces of dimensional lumber. You are either going to lose head room, or meet some Ironworkers


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Up here in Ottawa Canada :thumbup:


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

May try strucalc.com and look for free downloads on calculations of load and span to beam size.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Uh....I think I'll leave that to the engineer...Got to make him earn that $400 some how 

Cheers

Dave



joan518 said:


> May try strucalc.com and look for free downloads on calculations of load and span to beam size.


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

*Might not be to bad after all*

Keep us tuned in-The pictures helped a lot-I have some ideas but I think they are best left unsaid.

The engineer should be able to figure this out-Looks like a job that can be done for a lot less than my first guess.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

joan518 said:


> My guess is 14" was max span on that size beam, if you are determined to move it and since you have already torn it out, I would ask the engineer if you can build your own beam out of either 2x10's or 2x12's using 3 with 1/2" plywood in between glued and nailed. Contractors build a lot of beams this way here. I would think you would just have to go thick enough to carry the load and go ahead and conceal it in the wall and be rid of it. It may be cheaper to build your own. Good luck, let us know what engineer says, I am curious now. lol


You won't find wood to support that in its current location
Replacing steel with wood usually will not work, the steel was needed for the load
I thought of steel but went with LVL's, I'd need a crew to install the steel -HEAVY
Strange the post is not right under where the 2 steel beams cross
A friend of mine had steel beam put in, but less span distance, smaller beam


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah the engineer loved the photos as well. He said he has a few ideas that should work in this situation. So looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. 

Cheers

Dave



oh'mike said:


> Keep us tuned in-The pictures helped a lot-I have some ideas but I think they are best left unsaid.
> 
> The engineer should be able to figure this out-Looks like a job that can be done for a lot less than my first guess.


----------



## Daniel Holzman (Mar 10, 2009)

Your support is a telescoping adjustable steel column. According to Arlene Puentes, October Home Inspections 
http://www.octoberhome.com/articles/adjustcolumn/adjustcolumn.html
this type of column is not rated for permanent use as a support in the United States, rather it is intended as a temporary support during construction. You should check with your engineer as to the suitability of this particular column for your house, you may find that

1) The column was installed as a temporary measure and is not necessary
2) You need to use a different type of column to support the load
3) Your particular jurisdiction allows the use of telescoping steel columns for permanent support, and you can reuse the column at a different location.


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

It's hard to tell by the pic's but is there a break in the beam above the post? It seems funny that there is another support post so close (the one inside the wall). If there is no break in the beam above the support column and the beam is continous across this span and if it is a W10, I would ask the engineer if the support is even needed. I looks about like a 20' span or so to the support inside the wall. I'm not sure if this beam will span this, but it would certainly be worth asking, It sure would be nice for you if you find out the beam is continous and will support the load without the post, of course you will also have to let him look at what is above it, could be they thru it in for something heavy directly above. If you find out its not really needed, sure would be a lot easier for you and you could just move it next to the other one in the wall and double the support inside the wall where its hidden. Good luck!


----------



## concretemasonry (Oct 10, 2006)

Dave -

Keep in mind there are really two different criteria used for a good design.

1. The simplest and easiest to use is just the strength.

2. The second and very often is the deflection (static or dynamic), which can reduce the livability, comfort and increase cracks in walls/drywall. This is not as simple as a strength calculation.

You may find that the strength of what is in there is adequate structurally, but modifications may have been done to make the floors system more livable or salable.

I guarantee that is the post is relocated the floor system above will bounce and react differently. Whether the results are satisfactory for you is a different question.

Dick


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

Concrete masonery, you have a good point, all good questions to ask the engineer, that's why he gets the big bucks. I am building a log home and I know a little about running spans with large timbers, so I just throw ideas out there, another one would be beefing up the beam by building wooden beams ( 3-2x10's or 2x12's with 1/2 plywood glued and tacked between) and putting one on each side of the beam for additional support. Easy to drywall over and you leave the steel intact, of course this is assuming there is no break in the steel beam above the pole, If there is a breakl, that is a whole different ballgame. Just ideas to ask the engineer.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Very good points on the floor above/bounce etc
I went to the next higher I-joist in my great room ceiling/attic floor to make sure I had the min deflection
It wasn't a matter of meeting code, I wanted to minimize or eliminate any drywall cracking on the ceiling

So make sure the deflection is taken into account on any changes


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Man there are some really good posts on this and I really appreciate all of them.
The beam is definitely once piece, there is no break in it. Its 17' long and is 8 inches high.

These sort of posts are considered "code" up here in Canada. Every house has them.

The pole is there I believe b/c it supports that upper beam which is directly supporting my dining room wall upstairs which also carries up to the 2nd level veranda off the bedrooms..I would of thought the post would of been directly under where the 2 beams meet BUT it isnt. 

I'll keep everyone posted.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Great detailed reply here, I guess what it comes down to is making sure that if I did move that pole the house isnt going to cave in over time..

I'm pretty sure that if I removed that pole things would be okay...BUT I am also smart enough to realise that decision is out of my league. 

Usually when that is the case, I head to the internet to gain some knowledge. This site looked great and is now definitely in my favourites.

You guys have lead me in the right direction, which was to bring a professional in to assess. You have also given me enough knowledge to allow me to ask the right questions. So thanks for that

I am interested now to see what it will take.

Ever since we bought the house, I hated that pole. But we never used this side of the basement so it wasnt a problem. Now that time has come.

Who will win...?? The pole or the me ?? Well we should find out shortly..:thumbsup:

I was sitting down there last night trying to visualize some of the design I wanted to do and it appeared to be laughin at me..lol..But once I stripped its casing away it knew I was serious...

thanks again

Dave






concretemasonry said:


> Dave -
> 
> Keep in mind there are really two different criteria used for a good design.
> 
> ...


----------



## concretemasonry (Oct 10, 2006)

Keep in mind the "code" is just the minimum to build to and get a permit and approval, but it is necessarily the right or best way.

There are tons of code tables around for strength but they rarely give deflections since it is not just something that a framer or code inspector is qualified to evaluate.

Very often, a plan is approved and is inspected for compliance with the "codes" and standards. In many cases, the builder or seller has experience and is interested in doing it right after discovering that what was approved was not really adequate from a use or saleability standpoint so modifications were made and the inspector would not be concerned since it appeared to be better. No one will argue with something that appears better.

I have seen this in numerous developments where all similar homes were modified.

Dick


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

The pole is awkward, I agree, I forgot to mention, when you build the 2x beams, the plywood is to make them wide enough to set on 3-1/2 x5-1/2 posts inside the walls ( its called a 4x6) I would definitely ask the engineer if beefing up the beam would work, you've come this far. I really want to see you get rid of that pole.


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

O.K. Once again, boy you really got me thinking, today, Hey I can hire the brawn, you can't fix stupid ( as Ron White says lol) Since you said the steel beam is only 8" you could also build the beams out of 2x8's so as not to loose headroom, if you put 2 of them set on 4x 6 posts, one on each side of the steel beam, my guess would be it would take a bomb to blow that down, but again ask the engineer.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

joan518 said:


> O.K. Once again, boy you really got me thinking, today, Hey I can hire the brawn, you can't fix stupid ( as Ron White says lol) Since you said the steel beam is only 8" you could also build the beams out of 2x8's so as not to loose headroom, if you put 2 of them set on 4x 6 posts, one on each side of the steel beam, my guess would be it would take a bomb to blow that down, but again ask the engineer.


You think (2) 2x8's can equal the strength of STEEL?
Are you serious ?? 
Please stop......really


----------



## jogr (Jul 24, 2007)

Dave, I'm so glad you got an engineer in on this. You'll be glad you did. Please be sure to let us know what he says. We all love this kind of stuff.

If his solution to totally eliminate the post ends up too pricy you might ask him about one lower cost option: Can you move the post over two ft closer to the wall (~6" past the 90 degree beam) and place a new post 2ft from the opposite wall. The end effect is that you would keep the beam span the same, your post would be closer to the 90 degree beam and you would have more center area. Enclose these posts in 2' wide 2x4 or 2x6 half high walls with only the posts (wrapped in the smallest possible column) extending above the level of the top of the pool table to the beam. The posts would hardly ever come into play if done this way.

BTW, any new post locations will need a footing installed so you likely will have to pull up the nice flooring in areas.


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

hey scuba dave If you really read what I had to say, you would have seen I did not say remove the steel beam, only beef it up


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

joan518 said:


> My guess is 14" was max span on that size beam, if you are determined to move it and since you have already torn it out, *I would ask the engineer if you can build your own beam out of either 2x10's or 2x12's using 3 with 1/2" plywood in between glued and nailed.* Contractors build a lot of beams this way here. I would think you would just have to go thick enough to carry the load and go ahead and conceal it in the wall and be rid of it. It may be cheaper to build your own. Good luck, let us know what engineer says, I am curious now. lol


2x8's will not add any significant support to a steel beam


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

I know that scuba dave, but it sure will help, you really can never have too much beam and when you may be worried about drywall cracks and such and since the house has probably gotton used to it the way it is, it sure would'nt hurt to give it a little extra support, before you go taking out a pole. Again these are just ideas and you need to ask the structural engineer.


----------



## Daniel Holzman (Mar 10, 2009)

The steel beam may already be sufficiently large to carry the load, your engineer will make the appropriate analysis and determine whether the beam is adequate as is or will require upgrading to handle the load. In the event that the beam does need to be upsized, you have a very reasonable option. Since the bottom side of the beam is exposed, you could have a steel plate welded to the bottom of the beam in the critical moment area, which would be approximately the middle third of the beam. Your engineer will be able to design the correct size of plate, the required size of weld, and the required coverage zone.

This would convert your beam into a built up section, very commonly used on bridges. The cost should be reasonable, certainly compared to installing a new beam, and there would be limited disruption of the basement.

The concept of adding a pair of wood 2x8's to the beam does not work in this particular case because the modulus of elasticity of steel is about 28 million versus about 1.8 million for wood, making the steel about 25 times as stiff as wood. If you were able to bolt on a pair of wood "wings", you would add almost nothing to the effective moment of inertia of the steel beam, because the steel beam flexes so little that the strength in the 2x8 "wings" would never get mobilized. Your structural engineer can explain this to you in detail if you are interested in the theory of composite structural elements. Adding a steel cover plate works because the modulus of elasticity of the cover plate is the same as that of the steel beam, so the two work together, and you gain a large amount of effective moment of inertia.


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

_personal attacks will not be tolerated, even if a generalization_
_I let it go the 1st time_


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Hey guys, lets keep this thread on a positive note...Joan, you have mentioned the wooden solution a few times. Message received loud and clear. 
Some one mentioned the "nice flooring"...Actually they suck..Its cheap laminate that was there when we bought the place..Horrible for winters as they didnt use a sub floor so the floor is cold as hell. The plan is to rip up the floor and put a very nice quality carpet with a plush underlay. Flooding is not a problem here so no worries about going with carpet.

If worst case I could only move the pole 2' closer to the wall that would be a compromise I could live with..I realise now that I would have to pour a new footing but I'd do it...Never done it b4 but hey its something new to try 

The pole must not win.....every time my cue hit it I would feel a sense of defeat..

Thanks again

Dave


----------



## joan smith (Jul 15, 2009)

You are welcome.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

I'm sure the engineer will give you clear structural drawings of what you will need to do. What he may not give you would be the architectural details of what you will need. These are pretty simple: 
1) Protect your steel structure with a fire rated assembly. In other words drywall, probably 5/8 type X.
2) Maintain 6'8" of headroom.


----------



## Joe F (Jan 27, 2008)

Dave Clee said:


> If worst case I could only move the pole 2' closer to the wall that would be a compromise I could live with..I realise now that I would have to pour a new footing but I'd do it...Never done it b4 but hey its something new to try
> 
> The pole must not win.....every time my cue hit it I would feel a sense of defeat..


On mine, the engineer spec'd a 2' x 2' x 2' deep hole. The depth was contingent on undisturbed soil. If the soil was "loose" I would have needed to keep going. I poured 1' of reinforced concrete and let it sit for 28 days. A sked 40 column was then installed with the screw side down (the wings on the jack screw keep it from loosening one it's encased in concrete). The rest of the hole was then filled with concrete. If your engineer OK's the relocation, I suspect his guidance will be along the same lines as this. FYI, everything I got from the engineer was verbal. Had I wanted drawings, the cost would have doubled. 

OBTW: Teenagers make a great "bucket brigade" to haul out the dirt :thumbup:


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Quick update. 

I met with the engineer this afternoon and he took his time with the calculations. Went into the attic to ensure roof load didnt come into his calculations etc etc. At the end it appears I have 2 very workable options.
Option 1 - Run a 2nd beam beside it all of the way, essentially doubling my load capacity. Cost of the beam plus the poles should be under $1000. 

Option 2 - Run 2 pieces of thick channeling on each side of the existing beam and tack weld in place. This option requires no additional poles, a bit more cost in steel but I have a friend who is a welder that would be able to do this for me fairly easily.

He also tackled the math on the floor load and deemed I was well within spec for the 2X2 concrete pad as he took into account that it was clay underneath.

After determing the load on the beam it appears that without that pole it would be VERY close to maximum spec. So the channeling will put me back in the green.

The engineer should have his plans to me in a few days and I can then get to buying what I need. Either way I will have to redo that bullkhead but I dont mind as I was already contemplating redoing the ceiling as I hate the popcorn look. Plus I would take the opportunity to redo the recessed lighting design 

Thank again for everyone's help. It was much appreciated. 

I will also say that the pole looked very nervous this afternoon and it finally believes its days are numbered.

Once I start, I start another thread and keep you guys posted.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

I haven't read all the posts, but has anyone mentioned that you can add a flitch plate on each side of the existing girder bolted spanning the whole length? One side would be on the foundation and the other side would need a footing underneath.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

hey Joe, I have no idea what a flitch plate is BUT option # 2 has me installing these channels the full length of the beam on both sides of it.

Cheers

Dave



Joe Carola said:


> I haven't read all the posts, but has anyone mentioned that you can add a flitch plate on each side of the existing girder bolted spanning the whole length? One side would be on the foundation and the other side would need a footing underneath.


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Dave Clee said:


> hey Joe, I have no idea what a flitch plate is BUT option # 2 has me installing these channels the full length of the beam on both sides of it.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


Dave,

A flitch plate is a steel plate. If you have 3- 2x10's for a girder for example, you can have a plate that's 1/2" x 9-1/2" cut the full length of your girder. When properly sized for what you want, you might only need one, if not you can put one on each side. I do this all the time. 

In your case since you have a dropped girder you could have it cut to length and pre-drilled holes and slap it up against your existing girder and use the holes as a guide to drill thought the girder whether you use one or two.

There's a company called "Better Header" who will make any size flitch plate you need that can be sandwiched between 2x's or lvl's or any size I-beams. This has nothing to do with your project, but the first link shows some good pictures of what the flitch plates look like. Maybe a flitch plate might work since it's so narrow, maybe not.

http://www.betterheader.com/

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-6/D-From Exp Flitch Plates DeStefano-pac-5-10-07.pdf

Sorry Dave, I didn't see or read that you already had an I-beam. Maybe you can get a flitch plate to sit inside of it and bolt or weld?


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

Dave--Bingo-I hoped the channel would be the solution -Add to that a welder in the group---

Looks likes you get to play pool with out using a short stick. Very good--MIKE--


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

I was very happy when I heard the options. There is still a fair bit of work involved but its all doable and the post's days are numbered. I think I am going to take my time on this project and do it right. 

But the end result should hopefully be very nice.

Cheers

Dave



oh'mike said:


> Dave--Bingo-I hoped the channel would be the solution -Add to that a welder in the group---
> 
> Looks likes you get to play pool with out using a short stick. Very good--MIKE--


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Joe,

Dave already has an engineered solution, why all the second guessing of your own specious ideas, unless you have a PE after your name. It is obvious that the real PE is doubling on two channels not only to increase the thickness of the web, but to also make the flanges much more stout. 

A flitch plate only increases the strength in the vertical, parallel to the web. In a flitch, rigidity perpendicular to the plate is provided by the wooden laminations. It could almost be thought of as a I- beam with a steel web and wooden flanges. If the PE had thought that a flat- bar bolted to the web was an adequate addition, he would have designed it so. Instead he has specified a much more rigorous addition.

This kind of second guessing accomplishes nothing, especially when you do not even bother to read all the posts.

Leave the professional engineering to the professional engineers


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Anti-wingnut said:


> Joe,
> 
> Dave already has an engineered solution, why all the second guessing of your own specious ideas, unless you have a PE after your name. It is obvious that the real PE is doubling on two channels not only to increase the thickness of the web, but to also make the flanges much more stout.
> 
> ...


Hey Wingnut, 

I wasn't second guessing anything. I'm also not playing engineer. All I offered was one way to do something like I have done many times. So I didn't read all the posts. I"m not an Engineer nor claim to be. I gave a suggestion that's all. A PE isn't God and maybe his PE didn't think of it and there are more then one way to do something that's all. 

I don't come here and design anyhting for people here. I will suggest things that can be done, but i always end it with telling them they have to get an Archietct or Engineer because no one here can tell them exactly what size piece of steel they need.

I've been a framer for 26 years and have seen many I-beams and flitch plates spec'd many different ways. I don't engineer anything, that's not what I do. I just install them, but I can and will suggest to anyone different ways of doing things no matter what you say. Doesn't take a genius to see that there are many ways of doing something and suggesting those ways isn't causing no harm.

You don't like what I have to say, keep your mouth shut and don't post to me.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Joe,

In an orthogonal stress system, a flitch plate is only effective in the vertical. It requires the "protection" of the wooden laminations to resist stresses parallel to its length, and perpendicular to this. For this reason, they should be used carefully. Flitch plates are almost unheard of in the more seismically stringent areas of the American Cordillera.

That is why when I read that the engineer had specified two "C" channels, I knew that he needed to resist a number of stress vectors which a flitch beam was wholly inadequate to resist.

I hope you are able to use this as a learning experience. When an engineer specifies an involved structural shape, such as these doubled sistered "C" channels, it is likely that simple plates will not have the strength in multiple directions to be substituted for these other pieces of iron.


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Anti-wingnut said:


> Joe,
> 
> In an orthogonal stress system, a flitch plate is only effective in the vertical. It requires the "protection" of the wooden laminations to resist stresses parallel to its length, and perpendicular to this. For this reason, they should be used carefully. Flitch plates are almost unheard of in the more seismically stringent areas of the American Cordillera.
> 
> That is why when I read that the engineer had specified two "C" channels, I knew that he needed to resist a number of stress vectors which a flitch beam was wholly inadequate to resist.


Are you saying that a flitch plate will only work sandwiched in between 2x's or lvl's or bolted on the outside of an existing girder like I've done many times, but it will not work being bolted or welded like I asked on the inside of an I-beam?

I've seen engineers spec something on a plan and when it was questioned it wasn't the best possible solution before. An example was when he had an I-beam across a new kitchen with a column right in the middle of a counter top. The Architect had the column wrapped to make it look good. I thought it was nuts and so did the GC. 

I asked if there was some way we could install a flush beam perpendicular to the beam and get rid of the column. After a few days the engineer came back with a perpendicular C- channel with the I-beam welded and bolted into it. It worked, no more column in the middle of a new kitchen counter top.

My point is that I can suggest something from past experience or question something if I want. I will never question the size of a beam that is spec'd because that';s not my job, I will however question something because of the different ways I've seen steel beams installed.



> I hope you are able to use this as a learning experience. When an engineer specifies an involved structural shape, such as these doubled sistered "C" channels, it is likely that simple plates will not have the strength in multiple directions to be substituted for these other pieces of iron.


I can't say that I have learned something from that because I wasn't told from his engineer that this is the only possible solution. If I heard from his engineer that what I suggested would never work, then I did learn something. Until then I'm not convinced that what I suggest wouldn't work. Are you an Engineer?

It's like framing and using all kinds of structural beams, some big, some small, some having to be a specific height because it has to be the same size as the joists. There are many options both wood and steel.

Also, like I said in my previous post, I will never give anyone sizes of beams to use whether they're using wood or steel. Alot people come here and ask for this and there are people her who respond with answers and sizes which I find ridiculous. No one here can give sizes out without seeing the project. 

I always suggest to people to get an architect or engineer. You could be an engineer, but you're not the person who's asking questions engineer. So spitting out sizes is useless, making suggestions and telling people to seek professional help is nit useless.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Joe,

What I'm saying is that by definition, a flitch plate is a steel flat bar used in a composite with wood. When you propose adding a steel flat bar to the web of an "I" beam, that is refered to as a doubler.

Certainly in the OP's scenerio, a doubler could have been used. I have been on several jobs where we added flat bar doublers. Problem was that they were required to be substantial, like 1"x 8" x 12'. Structural shapes can give you much more strength at a much lower weight. More weight = more material cost + more more manpower.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Here is another update for those that are following this post...

Engineer sent me his drawing this morning, which comes with his official seal. So thats what I needed for the house file.

So he spec'd 2 17.5 ft C9X13.4 steel channels.

I priced around for the channels and best price was $275 each with free delivery. So I have ordered them and they will arrive on Monday.

From there I have arranged a buddy to come over and get the welding done.

So I have learned a ton on this one and thanks to all of the input. I hope someone else can learn from this. My best advice is to hire the engineer and dont waste time with anything else. They know what they are doing and in the end should be able to design a workable solution.

I'll post a few more pics when the post finally loses this battle.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Anti-wingnut said:


> Joe,
> 
> What I'm saying is that by definition, a flitch plate is a steel flat bar used in a composite with wood. When you propose adding a steel flat bar to the web of an "I" beam, that is refered to as a doubler.
> 
> Certainly in the OP's scenerio, a doubler could have been used. I have been on several jobs where we added flat bar doublers. Problem was that they were required to be substantial, like 1"x 8" x 12'. Structural shapes can give you much more strength at a much lower weight. More weight = more material cost + more more manpower.


So your answer to my suggestion is yes, that it can be done. It would cost more material and labor.

That's all you had to say the first time. You never answered me, are you an Engineer?


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Joe Carola said:


> So your answer to my suggestion is yes, that it can be done. It would cost more material and labor.
> 
> That's all you had to say the first time. You never answered me, are you an Engineer?


 

Well, I'm sorry Joe. But it gets to the point that something isn't practical, so why answer to it. Dave could have replaced the lower steel beam with a glu-lam like Joan was shrieking about. Then he would have had to dig out the basement another two feet, maybe three. 

Not an engineer, heavy and commercial construction for more than thirty years. And fortunate be have been trained and taught by some great pipefitters, electricians, carpenters, boilermakers, engineers and even a physicist.


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

*DAVE -Thanks for the update.*

Most of us do this for fun. (some times the competitive juices get going):laughing:

It's always good to know the outcome-Kind of like finding out 'who dun it' 
at the end of a good book.---MIKE--


----------



## walkman (Jan 4, 2009)

Dave Clee said:


> Here is another update for those that are following this post...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave



Thanks for posting your follow through on this topic. I've seen your question come up a lot on the DIY boards. It almost always garners the answer of "forget it". It's nice to see that at least in some cases it's a very doable project.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

walkman said:


> Thanks for posting your follow through on this topic. I've seen your question come up a lot on the DIY boards. It almost always garners the answer of "forget it". It's nice to see that at least in some cases it's a very doable project.


It's just about always doable. It's just that the usual homeowner want to try it with balsa wood and a prayer.
Ron


----------



## joed (Mar 13, 2005)

Is the two channels to be welded to each side of the beam? 
Show us some after pics.


----------



## PTP WX (Oct 28, 2009)

Dave Clee said:


> Here is another update for those that are following this post...
> 
> So he spec'd 2 17.5 ft C9X13.4 steel channels.
> 
> I priced around for the channels and best price was $275 each with free delivery. So I have ordered them and they will arrive on Monday.


Dave, I've been following the thread, I'm glad you got the engineer and the solutions you were looking for. I would love to see pics when you are done.

I have a question for you though, how are you going to get 2 nearly 18' long steel channels into the basement and into position? 

Basement garage? Walk-out? I'm just thinking there is no chance I could get that beam into my basement. Good Luck!


----------



## churchlady (Nov 16, 2009)

I just wanted to thank Dave for posting this thread. I've gleaned some really valuable lessons from your situation. Thanks to Daniel Holzman for mentioning the necessary telepost and posting the link for info. I recently hired a structural engineer to do some drawings up for some work I need done in a similar-ish situation. Anyway, $700 bucks poorer and he NEVER mentioned the correct grade of telepost! (I would have ended up with one of those "temporary" grade posts he warned of) So now I will be phoning this engineer back and asking for more info. 
Thanks again Dave & looking forward to seeing the finished product!


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Well its been a week or so since an upate but we are now well on our way to pulling the pole out of the basement. With engineer specs in hand, 2 17.5 ft 9inch c channels showed up last week. They definitely werent light  On top of that I decided to gut this side of the basement and turn it into a really cool spot. So once I cleared away all of the demo and started working on putting the beams in place. I was able to fit the beams thru a basment window and get them in place on the floor. 

Demo Time









Then once that was cleaned it was beam time










Once the beams were in the right location, I built a support structure that allowed to be "walk" up each side of the beam until it was close to being the right height.









From there it was a matter of me lifting up each side and then having my wife screw the support 2X6's to rest it on. When each beam was within a foot of height, I flipped them to stand on edge and used a bit more shoulder power to put them in place.









Once the beams were in a few inches of butting up underneath the floor joices I used jack posts to adjust them up the last few inches.










So now they are up tight against the joices and are ready for the welder who is coming on Wed..










So at this point the support pole knows its days are numbered 

The support structure I built worked great as it allowed me to do most of the work with only the help of my wife. Which meant I wasnt waiting on friends to get the beams in place. 
I started sat aft and had both of them in place by 10pm that night 

Here is a breakdown of cost to date with regards to this project..

Engineer Design - $350
Steel - $650 (both pieces)
Labor - free 
Welding - $250

Hope this thread helps all future home owners who are sick of looking at that certain pole. We all have em...For me it had to go. Looking forward to removing it this week. 

Will show a photo once that is done.


Cheers

Dave


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Lookin' good
They had a guy on TV the other night that was building a smaller stonehenge
He was moving 10 ton blocks around & up into the air using just blocking & 2x's


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Not sure about 10 tons, but each of the beams were approx 230lbs and I was only lifting one side at a time. Was pretty beat by end of evening. 

I have to say it looks great now, all together it looks like one massive beam !!

Cant wait to get the post out and start working on the rest of the project.

Cheers

Dave



Scuba_Dave said:


> Lookin' good
> They had a guy on TV the other night that was building a smaller stonehenge
> He was moving 10 ton blocks around & up into the air using just blocking & 2x's


----------



## sbmfj (Oct 3, 2009)

cool thread, thanks for sharing!!

the Seinfeld episode with the Maestro came to mind. Remember the no sitting donw on pants so they dont get wrinkled??


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Welding all done, took about 1 hour said and done, here are a few photos..The pole is about to fall.....


----------



## jogr (Jul 24, 2007)

I thought Wow , what great quality B&W photos , you never see that anymore. Then I saw your a photographer - that explains it. There's just something about the contrast in a good B&W photo that puts color to shame.

I gotta ask, did it seem like forever when you were holding up the end of the beam waiting for your wife to get the brace screwed in? If you ever end up having to do something like that again you could make up a T support that you can instantly slide under to hold the beam till you screw in a brace. Then move the T to the other end and repeat. Lengthen the T as you go up.


----------



## Dave Clee (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks, I always love welding shots in B&W, contrast always works well 

So there were definitely a few times where I thought my wife would never get the screws in. But once she slowed down and didnt rush it then it wasnt to bad. I am a pretty big guy so lifting one end at a time was workable. It also got easier the higher it got. The deadlift from the floor was the worst.
For the 2nd one we got better at it and I started to use a vertical 2X6 that was pre screwed. So it was quicker to get in place. Once that was there I could rest the beam on it until I could screw in the 2X6 across.

Cheers

Dave



jogr said:


> I thought Wow , what great quality B&W photos , you never see that anymore. Then I saw your a photographer - that explains it. There's just something about the contrast in a good B&W photo that puts color to shame.
> 
> I gotta ask, did it seem like forever when you were holding up the end of the beam waiting for your wife to get the brace screwed in? If you ever end up having to do something like that again you could make up a T support that you can instantly slide under to hold the beam till you screw in a brace. Then move the T to the other end and repeat. Lengthen the T as you go up.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Dave Clee said:


> Welding all done, took about 1 hour said and done,


Did the top get welded?


----------



## seamus Mc (Jun 9, 2010)

Dave you are my HERO! If you're still out there.... I'm about to embark on a similar project myself. For the EXACT same reason. (Always good to see another billiard purist out there). My other basement had 2 bad spots and using a 48" cue stinks!
I wish my project was more like yours as I can get the steel for free and do all the welding myself. But I have a triple 2x10 to deal with. I had an engineer size it up and I will be sandwiching the existing wood with 2 MC 9 x 23.9 channels. I will be taking out 3 poles and re-pouring and setting 2 of them. I already drilled holes to "find" the existing footers and let's just say they are lacking in size and depth. Not looking forward to more concrete work. 
Hopefully I can continue this post for all interested with another variation on pole removal.


----------

