102 Steel specified to hold up 225 solid wall?

[Busholive]

I'm nocking though into what was an old outside toilet, the two are separated by a solid brick wall. Sent this info off to an SE to get the steel specified and they came back with 178 x 102 mm UB. It's cranked, so a bit more complicated than the standard.

Do you think they missed that it was a 225mm brick wall? I have seen 2 narrow beams fitted in tandem but they have made no mention of this. I don't see how the 102 wide steel will hold up my 225 wall!

 

[^woody^]

There should be two, side by side.

 

[tony1851]

Did you indicate that it was a 9" wall?

 

[Busholive]

I didn't write it on specifically but the drawings were all to scale, and there are internal 100mm partitions shown so the wall was quite clearly more than 1 brick deep.

 

[tony1851]

If it was clear from a simple perusal of the drawing that the wall was 9" thick, then they've not done their job.
Is it possible to post a copy of their figures (with your address deleted) from which it should be clear what load they have allowed for.

 

[^woody^]

Whilst looking at the loading may determine what wall they thought it was, it's just academic, for a beam can't be used on a wall twice it's width.

 

[tony1851]

Whilst looking at the loading may determine what wall they thought it was, it's just academic, for a beam can't be used on a wall twice it's width.

Actually it can be if, for example, a 200 wide steel plate was tack-welded to the top flange and the beam was positioned centrally under the wall (and of course assuming there was no undue eccentricity of the load from the wall itself).
The reason I wondered about the figures was that i was curious to see if they'd assumed it was a half-brick wall and calculated the beam accordingly.

 

[^woody^]

Actually it can be if

If this or that is done, yes maybe.

But a beam on its own can not hold up a wall twice as wide as in the OP's situation

 

[John D v2.0]

If this or that is done, yes maybe.

But a beam on its own can not hold up a wall twice as wide as in the OP's situation

It could if the lowest course of bricks were laid perpendicularly to the beam!
I guess the real consideration is whether it's strong enough. Then it is whether it's achievable on site. Since SEs are responsible under CDM, there could be some method in their madness here that we don't know.

 

[^woody^]

It could if the lowest course of bricks were laid perpendicularly to the beam!
I guess the real consideration is whether it's strong enough. Then it is whether it's achievable on site. Since SEs are responsible under CDM, there could be some method in their madness here that we don't know.

It could not. This is all about the performance of bricks and mortar than of steel beams.

 

[tony1851]

As this is a breakthrough into an external wc, it will be on the rear if the property, and the brickwork could well
be stretcher bond for both skins, in lime mortar.
If there are several courses of stretchers above the beam - and assuming the beam is positioned centrally - then it wouldn't work in terms of stability, even if the steel was strong enough to support the load.