DIYnot
Local | Network
   DIYnot > Forums
Local | Network
DIYnot Network Local DIYnot Network Local  
  Forum IndexForum Index     RulesRules    HelpHelp     Join FREERegister Free     About CookiesCookies     SearchSearch     LoginLogin 

Re-bar and mould oil.

Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    DIYnot.com Forum Index > Building
Search this topic :: View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Norcon

from United Kingdom

Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 7352
Location: United Kingdom
Thanked: 306 times

PostPosted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:29 pm Reply with quote

Thanks for all the advice (its much appreciated) and sorry if I caused any offence.

Fwiw I agree about taking the structure back to the ground entirely.
The cost of this would run well up to 10k. Perhaps more.
Perhaps the SE will lend a hand on the concrete breakers??? Does their insurance cover for mistakes like this?
Before the threaded bar was used quite a number of phone calls were made by the prinicipal contractor to the SE and roofing engineer who both gave the go ahead for these undersized anchors to be used.
God knows why. icon_sad.gif
The ones we have now are 30mm grade 8.8.
Which I believe has a tensile strength of around 150,000 pounds per square inch.
Back to top
 Alert Moderators

If you do not want to see this advert, click here to login or if you are new click here to join free.
geraint

from United Kingdom

Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1710
Location: Hampshire,
United Kingdom
Thanked: 24 times

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:17 pm Reply with quote

regsmyth wrote:
Thats some cantilever!

I'm suprised to hear that standard stud is ok as a replacement for HT holding down bolts. Especially if the stud is no larger than the spec HD bolts. Get it in writing and make sure BCO sees it.
I assume you'll use bolt boxes and washer plates, it gives movement with the full embedment depth.

whatever the strength of the holing down bolts... when they are covered over.. it means very little.. most holding down bolts will only be grade 46. i.e.soft steel...

Nice job!
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
geraint

from United Kingdom

Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1710
Location: Hampshire,
United Kingdom
Thanked: 24 times

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:19 pm Reply with quote

[quote="geraint";p="1670263"][quote="regsmyth";p="1659848"]Thats some cantilever!

I'm suprised to hear that standard stud is ok as a replacement for HT holding down bolts. Especially if the stud is no larger than the spec HD bolts. Get it in writing and make sure BCO sees it.
I assume you'll use bolt boxes and washer plates, it gives movement with the full embedment depth.


whatever the strength of the holing down bolts... when they are covered over.. it means very little.. most holding down bolts will only be grade 46. i.e.soft steel...
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
geraint

from United Kingdom

Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1710
Location: Hampshire,
United Kingdom
Thanked: 24 times

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:23 pm Reply with quote

regsmyth wrote:
Thats some cantilever!

I'm suprised to hear that standard stud is ok as a replacement for HT holding down bolts. Especially if the stud is no larger than the spec HD bolts. Get it in writing and make sure BCO sees it.
I assume you'll use bolt boxes and washer plates, it gives movement with the full embedment depth.

Nice job!


i have never come across ht holding down bolts... and never seen it specified what would be the point when it is encased...
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
regsmyth

from United Kingdom

Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 711
Location: United Kingdom
Thanked: 31 times

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:36 am Reply with quote

I've always used holding down bolts which are grade 8.8, which is a lot stronger than your standard grade 4.6.

The point is that if you use a high tensile bolt, the holes and hence edge clearances on your baseplate can be smaller than if you use grade 4.6, thus reducing overall steel costs.

Encasing them in concrete doesn't make them any stronger, but if they are fully encased, you don't need to worry about corrosion protection.
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
alittlerespect

from United Kingdom

Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 402
Location: Surrey,
United Kingdom
Thanked: 47 times

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:48 pm Reply with quote

Hi

The issue is to do with the design of the canopy being a cantilevered structure, the tie bars will be acting in tension to resist the overturning moment of the canopy and normal mild steel would not accommodate the embedded stress throughout the design life of the structure.
The concrete base/extension to the terrace is being used simply for its mass to resist the overturning moment and the only thing holding the roof in place are the tie bars.

Going by the SEs history he is likely to come back and ask for the 2 concrete pours completed to be demolished and rebuilt.
I would have anticipated costs for remedial works being nearer 20,000 rather than 2,000 mentioned!

Just for clarity the tie bars are not supporting the rear of the roof structure, they are there to stop the front of the canopy rotating and crashing into the terraces.

Regards
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
Norcon

from United Kingdom

Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 7352
Location: United Kingdom
Thanked: 306 times

PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:18 pm Reply with quote

Just an update. Jobs nearing completion now. These were a couple of snap shots I took a while back....


Back to top
 Alert Moderators
geraint

from United Kingdom

Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1710
Location: Hampshire,
United Kingdom
Thanked: 24 times

PostPosted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:40 pm Reply with quote

alittlerespect wrote:
Hi

Not wishing to cause any offence, but 2k sounds a ridiculously low amount of money to cover the reinstatement works.

I assume that in order to guarantee the integrity of the structure that the whole of the affected structure would have to be taken back to 'ground zero' and be rebuilt, rather than simply replacing a section of one or two columns?

As an aside I would like to mention that insofar as this discussion forum is concerned I am only making impartial comments and not providing unsolicited advice in any shape, manner, or form on what should or should not be done, and for these reasons the reader should place no reliance or relevance upon the comments that I make.

Regards


surely that cannot be a get out clause on a forum.... icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif icon_lol.gif
Back to top
 Alert Moderators
Search this topic :: View previous topic :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    DIYnot.com Forum Index > Building All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Similar Topics   Replies   Views   Posted 
Another Mould Problem 3 60 Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:44 pm
Condensation & Mould in Flat 21 220 Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:08 am
Mould on ceiling eaves 9 140 Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:46 pm
condensation & mould formation 5 80 Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:33 am
Mould problem 27 380 Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:28 pm


 
DIYnot
Find an Expert | Find a Supplier | Search DIYnot.com
Network | Advertising | Newsletter
DIY | DIY How To | @home | DIY Wiki | DIY Forum
By using this site you agree to our Terms of Service / Disclaimer.
Please read our Privacy Policy. Copyright © 2000-2014 DIYnot Limited.