# triple 2x12 beam with rot and pics



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

Triple Beam supporting second story. It's exposed because I moved the duct on the other side to reframe the soffit smaller. I found damage/rot on mostly the outer 2x12 and a small area on the middle 2x12. The wood is soft and scrapes away easily. I scraped until I got to more solid wood.








The middle 2x12 has a 12-14" section on the bottom that is bad. The rest of that board is OK.








Some of the damage to the outer board.








Several other bad spots








Left side supported by 2x4's in wall

My questions are does this look bad enough to need to replace the 2x12? What causes such damage? I would think if it were insects, that the damage would extend to the walls or the floor joists above. Could it have been a bad board when it was installed? - it hasn't got wet.
If I replace, I would cut out the old 2x12, but to put a new one in place, I would need to cut the 2x4's on the left side so there is room to swing the beam up into place. The other idea I had was to cut the board 3 1/2" short, slip it into the right side against the house sheathing, then there is room on the left to swing it into place, then slide it left 1 3/4' like the picture below. I would use construction adhesive to sandwich the new piece to the existing 2x12's. Is 1 3/4" enough support on the ends since the other boards are still fully supported?
I am thinking of using some epoxy on the middle board in the one bad section as long as it isn't that bad once the outer board is removed.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

That is insect damage, probably had been there since the house was built. I would though call an exterminator to come in and look at it and then go the best route. If it needs replaced, your Home Owner's insurance should pay for costs, so check with your agent.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Looks like powder post beetles or some other borer. Doesn't look like termites. You don't usually see insect damage in the middle of a run like that unless they came with the wood.
Gregzoll, which insurance company do you know of that covers insect damage?
Ron


----------



## Dwoodsmith (Jan 13, 2011)

*no problem*

Those are microlams! Super strong w/vertically oriented support. If that's the extent of the damage, I don't see a loss of strength. A lot of that damage looks like forklift stabs to me. Especially on the center timber. With the vertical support, as long as they are fastened to each other well, you are golden. To make sure, install a pair of 1/2" thrubolts w/ washers every few feet. Before you drill all those 1/2" holes, start with holes big enough to recess the bolt heads and washer so your sheetrock fits tight. Just in case of bugs, right before you get it closed in, put a bug bomb in that soffit. Also, the beam is well supported, but it's supposed to have another stud nailed to the supporting members that goes on up to the top plate. It puts the beam in a 'saddle'. It's code! Also it gives you a nailer for the wallboard that you will need anyway.


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

I skimmed through the policy info I had and it doesn't look like it would be covered. My Father in Law has repaired a lot of termite damage and he said it doesn't look like that. It's winter, but I didn't find any insects - Should I still get an exterminator to look at it before it's repaired?

As to the repair - any thoughts on the 3 1/2" short idea so I can get the replacement piece in place without a lot of demo? or should I just suck it up and cut out the wall on the left?


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

Dwoodsmith said:


> Those are microlams! Super strong w/vertically oriented support. If that's the extent of the damage, I don't see a loss of strength. A lot of that damage looks like forklift stabs to me. Especially on the center timber. With the vertical support, as long as they are fastened to each other well, you are golden. To make sure, install a pair of 1/2" thrubolts w/ washers every few feet. Before you drill all those 1/2" holes, start with holes big enough to recess the bolt heads and washer so your sheetrock fits tight. Just in case of bugs, right before you get it closed in, put a bug bomb in that soffit.


 It definitely was rotted or eaten - I scraped away at all the soft wood with the claw of the hammer, a screwdriver and a chisel until I got to solid wood. 



Dwoodsmith said:


> Also, the beam is well supported, but it's supposed to have another stud nailed to the supporting members that goes on up to the top plate. It puts the beam in a 'saddle'. It's code! Also it gives you a nailer for the wallboard that you will need anyway.


 Good point - Thanks! I think that's a good idea and I will do that.


----------



## loneframer (Mar 27, 2009)

Dwoodsmith said:


> Those are microlams! Super strong w/vertically oriented support.


 If those are microlams, I'm closing up shop after 25 years in the business and going to work at Big Orange.:wink:


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

Thanks for the replies! At first I thought I would have to demo the top plate and 2 vertical studs on the left side to swing the beam into place and have it fully supported on the 2x4 studs. (1st idea in the pic) Then I realized it would be less work to tilt the top of the 2x12 vertically and slip it into place. If I am removing 1 of the 3 2x12's and leaving the other 2 in place, do I still need to build a temporary wall parallel to the beam? I have 3 adjustable steel support columns I could place with a 4x6 beam on top.









If I did the second idea, It would end up like this:


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

loneframer said:


> If those are microlams, I'm closing up shop after 25 years in the business and going to work at Big Orange.:wink:


It's three 2x12's nailed together, no glue as far as I can tell.


----------



## loneframer (Mar 27, 2009)

Just a thought, but is it possible that condensation on the uninsulated duct could be causing a moisture condition within the soffit?

In either case, of rot or insect, moisture is commonly a factor.


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Dwoodsmith said:


> Those are microlams!


Those are not microlams.


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

loneframer said:


> Just a thought, but is it possible that condensation on the uninsulated duct could be causing a moisture condition within the soffit?
> 
> In either case, of rot or insect, moisture is commonly a factor.


I want to say no to moisture from the duct. Everything is dry and the 2x12 closest to the duct is the most sound. 

Any thoughts on the need for a temporary wall when replacing the one outer board? I'm heading out to buy supplies soon.


----------



## loneframer (Mar 27, 2009)

mjzraz said:


> I want to say no to moisture from the duct. Everything is dry and the 2x12 closest to the duct is the most sound.
> 
> Any thoughts on the need for a temporary wall when replacing the one outer board? I'm heading out to buy supplies soon.


 Typically, I would use a temporary screw jack, or a couple 2x4s cut snug and nailed in the shape of a T, with a steel plate on the bottom to spread the load.


----------



## Dwoodsmith (Jan 13, 2011)

When in doubt- rip it out. It's holding up your house. Overkill on temporaries. You don't want to be the underkill


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Dwoodsmith said:


> When in doubt- rip it out.


When in doubt- Figure it out - BEFORE you rip it out.

There's no need for him to rip it out until he figure's out the problem. There are many ways to solve this without ripping it out.


----------



## Dwoodsmith (Jan 13, 2011)

From a labor standpoint, it's easier to take out all three than any one of them. Can you imagine all that time working overhead with catspaws and bending sawzall blades.


----------



## Joe Carola (Apr 14, 2006)

Dwoodsmith said:


> From a labor standpoint, it's easier to take out all three than any one of them. Can you imagine all that time working overhead with catspaws and bending sawzall blades.


To remove the one 2x12 would be very simple and not bend sawzall blades. All he has to do is pry open the 2x12 on the bottom by removing a couple nails with a catspaw and then use a 12" demo sawzall blade straight up. He can cut a wood wedge and bang it in the bottom and pry enough to get the sawzall blade in.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Dwoodsmith said:


> From a labor standpoint, it's easier to take out all three than any one of them. Can you imagine all that time working overhead with catspaws and bending sawzall blades.


I'm curious where you have gotten this information from?
Maybe you can inform the poster, through this forum, exactly how you would approach this project of removing the entire supporting structure of the house.
Maybe include a timeframe and cost breakdown.
I'm always up for a new labor saving technique.
Ron


----------



## AndyGump (Sep 26, 2010)

My question is...is the condition of the beam causing any kind of real world problem other than a bit of angst in the OP?

I have seen a lot of damage very similar to this in my area all caused by differing problems.

IMHO this does not look bad enough to warrant contemplating ripping out the beam.

If it rally causes you grief then get another 2 x 12 and sister it on to the offending beam, throw in a 2 x on either side of the new 2 x 12 and call it a day.

Andy.


----------



## wombosi (Apr 22, 2008)

i agree with andy.
doesn't look bad enough to warrant ripping it out.
find the source of the problem. leave some bug bombs in the soffit.
if you want you can add additional 2X12s with through-bolts and more jack studs.


----------



## SteelToes (Oct 5, 2010)

*BeaM*



Ron6519 said:


> I'm curious where you have gotten this information from?
> Maybe you can inform the poster, through this forum, exactly how you would approach this project of removing the entire supporting structure of the house.
> Maybe include a timeframe and cost breakdown.
> I'm always up for a new labor saving technique.
> Ron



I've got my notebook pulled out ...and  wide open.

I would say to inspect the damaged areas and assure there is no active present damage. If caused by insects...
Right now to me it looks like section where original soffit was nail in to.
Maybe it went down to fast...
Anyhow in my opinion that beam looks just fine, it’s not like there is a 6" hole right in the middle.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

My first instinct was to say pull it all out and replace the entire beam. Now I think I would pull just that one board out and replace it with LVL. It looks easily accessible, so if they're not glued, an hour with a cats paw should get the nails out and another hour of swearing to get the board out. Looks like about 3-4 hours of work for peace of mind.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

That's not a Glulam, as a Glulam rots, it separates into "wafer-like" layers between the plys, here's an example from a recent water intrusion inspection:










BTW, glulams are _very_ susceptible to moisture damage, here's one in a gum that rotted out as a result of high humidity:










and if in doubt you should _always_ use a pressure-treated Glulam.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

I thought these were glulams:









The pictures look like LVL's.
Ron


----------



## Daniel Holzman (Mar 10, 2009)

First of all, those are not Glulams, Microlams, or LVL's, they are exactly as Joe Carola said, simply three 2x12's nailed together, very unlikely there is any glue between them. As to the differences between a glulam, microlam and LVL, they are all laminates of thin lumber, the difference is in the quality of the laminations, the orientation of the laminations, and the type of glue used may vary. Not relevant to this discussion.

Personally, I have seen far worse damage to beams that has not compromised the structural integrity sufficiently to warrant replacement. As I have not personally seen the damage, and the photos are not conclusive, my recommendation is to hire a professional to inspect the damage, and offer an opinion as to the cause of the damage, and what repair (if any) is required. Contemplating replacement of any one of the beams at this point seems to be overkill. Even sistering another beam may be unnecessary.

If the decision is made to repair the beam without a professional inspection, at a minimum I would remove all of the soft, damaged lumber, and fill with epoxy or similarly inert material. I would definitely try to figure out what caused the problem, as the cause may still be active, whether it be dripping water, insects, or some other undetermined factor.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Daniel Holzman said:


> First of all, those are not Glulams, Microlams, or LVL's, they are exactly as Joe Carola said, simply three 2x12's nailed together, very unlikely there is any glue between them. As to the differences between a glulam, microlam and LVL, they are all laminates of thin lumber, the difference is in the quality of the laminations, the orientation of the laminations, and the type of glue used may vary. Not relevant to this discussion.
> 
> Personally, I have seen far worse damage to beams that has not compromised the structural integrity sufficiently to warrant replacement. As I have not personally seen the damage, and the photos are not conclusive, my recommendation is to hire a professional to inspect the damage, and offer an opinion as to the cause of the damage, and what repair (if any) is required. Contemplating replacement of any one of the beams at this point seems to be overkill. Even sistering another beam may be unnecessary.
> 
> If the decision is made to repair the beam without a professional inspection, at a minimum I would remove all of the soft, damaged lumber, and fill with epoxy or similarly inert material. I would definitely try to figure out what caused the problem, as the cause may still be active, whether it be dripping water, insects, or some other undetermined factor.


I was referring to the pictures Michael posted. I thought the structure had been agreed upon already. Just the remedy was in question.
Ron


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

I realize that were are drifting off-topic a bit but: that's actually an LVL in the first pictures posted with a with a knife - I mentioned glulams because that's how someone had (mis)identified the conventional sawn lumber in the OP's picture - glulams deteriorate in a similar manner to LVLs, and neither deteriorate in the same manner as sawn lumber.

I don't t have a close-up picture of a moisture-deteriorated Glulam handy, but both delaminate along the plys when wet (not necessarily because the adhesive fails, but because the wood rots) and LVLs are if anything more subject to water damage than Glulams, in the first picture below you can clearly see the plys in a deteriorated LVL.

Sawn lumber sometimes rots out in sections along the grain, but if so the areas of rot usually end in triangular "points" following the grain, not in "plys" (second picture, below).


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

*Took some video*

I don't know how clear they are, but you can watch in 720P

Overview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlqmTdjSl84

Up close on the middle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2NlK-CT2nM

I got a new 2x12 and 2x4's to build a temporary wall. I have 3 adjustable steel columns. I was going to build the wall on the opposite side of the beam I am working on, where the overlapping joists would still make contact. I Will put one adjustable column on the left side in the wall so when I cut out the stud, there is support for that wall.


----------



## AndyGump (Sep 26, 2010)

Let me go on record to say that this is not something I recommend a non-professioanl to do.

Andy.


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

I'm going back to... I'd replace the entire triple 2x12 with LVL. You should be able to size it somewhat smaller too using LVL.
Looking at what else the OP is up to in that house, I'd say it's within his ability.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Oct 18, 2009)

Dwoodsmith said:


> Those are microlams!


No they ain't!




Dwoodsmith said:


> When in doubt- rip it out.





Joe Carola said:


> When in doubt- Figure it out - BEFORE you rip it out.
> 
> There's no need for him to rip it out until he figure's out the problem. There are many ways to solve this without ripping it out.


Please listen to Joe and Lone. Dwood is just spouting nonsense


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

*A little progress*

Cleared a path to work including moving 10 or so boxes of oak flooring. On the right I notched the lower top plate to get the new board tilted in and for the new stud that will be added to complete the saddle. The 2x12 is cut to length.








On the left I cut out the drywall and put in a steel column. Should I just cut off the top 18" of the king stud to get the new board in place and patch in a new 18" 2x4 or should I remove the entire king stud and replace it with a full length new stud?








I started on the wall till the baby went to sleep and I had to be quiet. I have 2 more steel adjustable columns, but I'm not sure where to put them.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

If you intend to use steel columns as a permanent support and are located in the US, you should not use the telescoping type:

Inspecting Adjustable Steel Columns


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

Beyond that, the new pictures raise additional questions, such as:

Were these joists sistered for some reason? Or did they previously overlap above a beam, an the beam has been moved to the right? 

If the beam has been moved, what are its current end-supports bearing on?


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

AndyGump said:


> My question is...is the condition of the beam causing any kind of real world problem other than a bit of angst in the OP?
> 
> I have seen a lot of damage very similar to this in my area all caused by differing problems.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that's it I wouldn't rip that out from the pictures it don't look like it lost support value. I think the OP should relax and think about this again before starting demolition. But it sounds like some how it's coming down, it's cheaper and easier to call in an engineer or a experienced homebuilder to evaluate the situation before diagnosing the problem. Not all things can be accurately depicted from photographs.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

OPS TO LATE :no::no::no:


----------



## Clutchcargo (Mar 31, 2007)

Mike Thomas, those are just the overlapped joists from the other side.

Since the OP is doing the work himself, I doubt it would be cheaper than calling a pro in to evaluate.
It doesn't seem like that much work to replace one ply of that beam. It's the right move.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

Clutchcargo said:


> Mike Thomas, those are just the overlapped joists from the other side.
> 
> Since the OP is doing the work himself, I doubt it would be cheaper than calling a pro in to evaluate.
> It doesn't seem like that much work to replace one ply of that beam. It's the right move.


"If it needs to be done at all".


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

Clutchcargo said:


> Mike Thomas, those are just the overlapped joists from the other side.


Not so sure... in the photo it looks to me like the short end of joists are toward us, in which case they don't pass over the beam and are supported by their connections to the joists behind them... it which case it's possible the beam has been moved (normally, the joists would overlap the beam from both sides, and both set of joist ends would be supported by the beam).


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Michael Thomas said:


> Not so sure... in the photo it looks to me like the short end of joists are toward us, in which case they don't pass over the beam and are supported by their connections to the joists behind them... it which case it's possible the beam has been moved (normally, the joists would overlap the beam from both sides, and both set of joist ends would be supported by the beam).


If you look at the first picture, you'll see the beam integrated into, what looks like, the original location of the foundation wall. 
Ron


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

Looks to me more like the end of the beam is cut short of whatever is behind it, rather than a beam sitting in a pocket.

However, thanks for getting me to take a second look, in that picture the joists from both sides are supported by the beam.


----------



## WillK (Aug 29, 2010)

Let me also point out, look at the markings on the original 2x12 to ensure that it isn't a stronger species of wood and you don't replace it with a weaker species. We don't have nearly enough info here to say how much design margin you have on 2x12 triple beam of unknown species. 

It might not be an issue, but I'm just cognizant of it because I'm doing rotted wood repair in my house structure - much worse rot on floor joists plus adding beams, and the original 2x6 boards used would be very undersized with what I have available from big box stores.


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

*Daughter's boyfriend decided to "help"*

:furious:
While I was at work my daughter's boyfriend who was off work today decided to "help" and cut out the 2x4 on the left and removed the outer board that was rotted from the support beam - WTF? I wasn't even done building the temporary wall! Then on the right side where I had carefully notched the lower part of the top plate, he hacked out a bigger section through the entire top plate and succeeded in removing a hunk of sheathing and pushed out a bump in the aluminum siding (probably hit it with the reciprocating saw during his butcher operation) He cut the beam in 2 places, but was careless and cut 1/8" into the 2nd board on one and the second cut has a few inches that are 1/4" deep :furious:: I'm not in a good mood.













WillK said:


> Let me also point out, look at the markings on the original 2x12 to ensure that it isn't a stronger species of wood and you don't replace it with a weaker species. We don't have nearly enough info here to say how much design margin you have on 2x12 triple beam of unknown species. .


Good point - The old board is Hem Fir, I thought the new board was also, but I can't read the grade stamp. I thought that the new board was Hem Fir, it's pinker and darker in color than the SPF studs that are more white. I got it at Lowes... $18 for a 2x12x16. It looks an feels nice and is heavy. I would call them and ask for someone to read the grade stamp, but I'm not confident of the competency of the workers.


----------



## Ron6519 (Mar 28, 2007)

Michael Thomas said:


> Looks to me more like the end of the beam is cut short of whatever is behind it, rather than a beam sitting in a pocket.
> 
> However, thanks for getting me to take a second look, in that picture the joists from both sides are supported by the beam.


You're correct about it not sitting in the pocket. The last close up picture shows it clearly.
Ron


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

Can you post a picture of the point-of-contact between the bottom end of the 2x4"s supporting the end of the beam and the floor below them?


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

Michael Thomas said:


> Can you post a picture of the point-of-contact between the bottom end of the 2x4"s supporting the end of the beam and the floor below them?


I took a video 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UsAuZJ6i38 (might still be processing if you click on this In the next 10 min)

The ends of the beam are fully resting on the 2x4's in both walls. The joists above are not sistered and the beam has never moved. In the basement below is is all resting on the foundation wall or the triple 2x12 beam below that is held up by steel poles when the house was built in 1981.

The new board is Hem Fir #2 same as what came out. It's just clamped in place right now. My plan is to use PL Premium construction adhesive and nail the new board to the old. Additionally I got 16 Spax #14 4" screws to use.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

Ah, the wonders of modern technology - that makes things _much_ clearer.

1) In the areas where I inspect, some of that framing method would be "non-standard".

2) I'm not going to tell you that the visible damage to the beam is not structurally significant - IMO no one should play structural engineer on the internet who is not one, nor judge structural adequacy on the basis of a few pictures and a video - *and my advice is that if you are concerned about whether the beam should be reinforced or replaced that you have that call made by a design professional qualified to do so*. 

But based on what I can see, if the initial design of the beam was adequate, _and if it is adequately supported and restrained from movement_, I would be surprised if a SE determined that the beam is structurally compromised by the visible damage (though they might have other concerns about the framing), and considering the amount of work required for replacement, I would have it evaluated by a design professional before doing the work.

Others may have a different opinion.


----------



## AndyGump (Sep 26, 2010)

> 1) In the areas where I inspect, some of that framing method would be "non-standard".


Well that is putting it mildly.

I would worry a lot less about this one specific beam and concentrate more on some of the other framing.

Maybe get some strapping and connectors on some of the other stuff.

Andy.


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

AndyGump said:


> Well that is putting it mildly.
> 
> I would worry a lot less about this one specific beam and concentrate more on some of the other framing.
> 
> ...


Thanks Michael and Andy. Since I came home to find the one board already removed an in pieces I don't have an option besides replacing the one board. 

I like the idea of adding strapping or connectors but I don't know where they are needed most


----------



## mjzraz (Jun 28, 2008)

*New board is in*


























I still have to attach the king stud here:








On this side, because it's a corner I can't add a stud. I was thinking of a metal plate between the 2x12 and the stud below.


----------

