That's a poxy design and work. Who wants massive piers and deep downstands.
Anyway, you can cut your hole in the top corner of the steel above the sensor. Difficult but do-able
Or if the joists are running in your favour, up and over in the ceiling void.
Why you are saying that it would be a bit disruptive is beyond me, surely it's better than living with the alternative eyesore for ever.
What does that actually mean? And I thought I knew a bit about this stuff.
Here's what I mean. If the beam did not need a 300mm pier, it wouldn't have one.
But the pier is 300mm. If it didn't need to be, then it wouldn't be. It's that simple.Let's say the pier is 3m high. If it is 300 x 300, its' 'slenderness ratio' is 3000/300 = 10. With this SR, the allowable compressive stress
must be reduced by a factor of 0.89.
If the pier is 200x300, the slenderness ratio increases to 15, for which the allowable stress has to be reduced by a factor of 0.75.
Therefore, the load-capacity of the pier is dependent not just on its' sectional area, but on its' slenderness as well.
You've got at least 300mm of head to the ceiling, then a wallplate then the rafters and joists. Is that steel really over 500mm deep?steel couldn't go any higher as the top of it meets the end tiles of the sloping roof of the house.
I think you're missing the point about how slenderness affects load-bearing capacity.But the pier is 300mm. If it didn't need to be, then it wouldn't be. It's that simple.
So the op can't effectively reduce it to 200mm by drilling a 100mm hole.
im not sure where the cooker is going -it seems to me the duct wants to be in the top corner where the PIR is hanging?
Unfortunately its a design error not thinking about the extract duct.
You've got at least 300mm of head to the ceiling, then a wallplate then the rafters and joists. Is that steel really over 500mm deep?
What I'm saying is that the steels invariably go up in the floor/roof void. That's the basics of design and you get a nicer job and no problems.
Too late now I know, but it's annoying to see stuff like this, and those massive piers being done by supposed designers.
I think you're missing the point about how slenderness affects load-bearing capacity.
A pier 300 x 300 only 1m high will support - say - X kN before it fails by crushing.
A pier 300 x 300 30m high will fail by buckling long before it would fail by crushing alone.
In design of masonry piers, the greater the slenderness, the lower the permissible load for any given cross-section.
The steel took the place of the wall. For it to go further "back" (I assune you mean to be a continuation of the still extant external wall) we are talking chopping into the top of the wall in the next room (behind where that sensor hangs). That is a tiled bathroom so pita finishing off.The external cavity wall!
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local