Pier supporting steel

[Dereekoo]

Slenderness ratio?

small-area reduction?

Partial safety factor?

Characteristic compressive strength? (Won't be 7)

You can be so pedantic at times

 

[tony1851]

You can be so pedantic at times

Pedantic!? No; it's called not being reckless when it comes to applying safety factors

 

[Dereekoo]

Pedantic!? No; it's called not being reckless when it comes to applying safety factors

Fortunately I didn't apply any safety factors so I cannot be accused of being reckless of applying any, now being accused of being reckless for not applying any safety factors now thats a different storey. Pedantic or what

 

[tony1851]

Fortunately I didn't apply any safety factors so I cannot be accused of being reckless of applying any, now being accused of being reckless for not applying any safety factors now thats a different storey. Pedantic or what

 

[jeds]

Well it's it's our own house so I'm not sure if Pl is any good. Although it would help with the hire in plant insurance. I was thinking of starting a thread on another forum for suggestions as to what insurances are suitable.The house insurance is is about £150 extra as I declared there's building works going on. I don't think that covers us from the start of this wall down business until it's signed off by the BCO. And I doubt any damage caused during works is covered either.

The PI reference wasn't aimed at you. In order to specify a pier - or know if a specified pier is sufficient - I would normally start at the load it is expected to take + factors for safety and design etc.
Maximum load for your particular pier might be 50 or 60kN. If your load is close to that then the actual construction of the pier becomes more important. If your load is, say, 15kN, then you have some latitude. (note that control of the construction - mortar, blocks etc. is a standard factor in the design.)

 

[^woody^]

So, its not an isolated pier but attached, and so needs to be bonded to the wall it's attached to.

However you need to check if the engineer was high on red oxide, as it seems to be a completely pointless pier never mind attached

 

[davidmiller]

So, its not an isolated pier but attached, and so needs to be bonded to the wall it's attached to.

However you need to check if the engineer was high on red oxide, as it seems to be a completely pointless pier never mind attached

Do you mean its pointless because the beam can just sit on the wall thats just behind where the pier/column/post is going?

I know now after a dig that wall on on a 300mm wide foundation. Not sure how deep as Ive only gone down 200mm ish. And the foundation was about 200mm below the oversight. The S/E doesnt know that bit yet.

 

[^woody^]

He's designed a massive pier to support one of the smallest beams you can get, and there just seems no logic to it when there are wall there which can hold that beam and any loads that will be on that beam.

 

[tony1851]

If the short wall next to the 'X' is load-bearing - is it possible to use that? You could get a longer beam and padstone, and use the whole of that length (is it around 900mm long?) to support the beam, though you'd need to slip a loose steel plate underneath the beam to centralize the load on the wall.
In this way, you would be spreading the load over a greater area of foundation and so avoid building a pier and pad. If the short wall is bonded into the main wall going across, so much the better as the load will be spread more widely.

 

[davidmiller]

If the short wall next to the 'X' is load-bearing - is it possible to use that? You could get a longer beam and padstone, and use the whole of that length (is it around 900mm long?) to support the beam, though you'd need to slip a loose steel plate underneath the beam to centralize the load on the wall.
In this way, you would be spreading the load over a greater area of foundation and so avoid building a pier and pad. If the short wall is bonded into the main wall going across, so much the better as the load will be spread more widely.

He's designed a massive pier to support one of the smallest beams you can get, and there just seems no logic to it when there are wall there which can hold that beam and any loads that will be on that beam.

Ok thanks. I was going to have the beam a little bit longer to go over that wall. (the wall is about 900mm) as extra security. I think i'll have to question the engineer.
I dont really want to as ive got other points to raise regarding other areas of the build. I dont mind doing a pier in blocks as it wont take long and Ive think ive worked a bond out, it'll mean having 15mm perps though. My main issue with the pier is having to break up the existing foundation which is 300 wide by 220 deep. Just to pour a new pad thats wider.