LINTEL BEARING

[pin3]

just trying to get round an emerging problem. In the middle of a build and have a situation where two lintels converge on a pier. One is a UB and the other over a garage door is a Catnic cavity lintel due to the fact that the long UB has had to be repositioned on the pier to square up with the existing house, I no longer have 150mm bearing on the pier that the catnic was going to sit on. Is there any problem with installing the catnic and then sitting the UB bearing on top of the Catnic inner flange? Both bearings will be directly on the pier/padstone so should not be an issue?
Hope this makes sense. This is all under BCO but deviates slightly from what's on the approved plans. Any probs?

 

[^woody^]

You can bear the UB onto the horizontal bit of the Catnic (ie not the inner box bit, but the outer horizontal bit which normalyl goes on the external wall) as long as you still get the 100mm bearing - ie move the Catnic back a bit.

Standard lintels only [normally] require 100mm bearing though

 

[noseall]

As Woods says really, but lintel bearings vary according to load, location, type of lintel, etc.

We are currently building an unusual first floor extension off masonry columns. The two corner columns each bear the weight of two (adjacent) lintels which require a minimum bearing of 200mm. The structural steel (u beam) however, only requires 100mm bearing, plus padstones.

 

[pin3]

Thanks guys, sounds positive, but just to confirm, I think I will be using a catnic CG50/100 lintel bearing on a padstone over the garage opening sandwiched between another padstone sitting on the inner leaf and inner lintel flange which then bears the 254x146UB. The masonry column is already specified by the structural engineer to bear the combined loads but the inner catnic bearing will be under the adjacent UB bearing rather than alongside. If I can't do this then I think it will mean rebuiding the pier, which I'd rather not do appreciate any further thoughts.

Untitled

• pin3
• 5 Sep 2009
• 1

 

[noseall]

That pillar seems rather busy and is taking some load! I would do as the s.e. says. Are the found's beneath the pillar adequate?

 

[pin3]

yeah, foundations beneath are pad 1200x1200 all been inspected by BCO. I guess I'll have to run all this by the BCO before we proceed, just wondered in principle about the proposed new arrangement. Thanks vm

 

[Shytalkz]

It's fine. The steel flange of the lintel is somewhat stronger than the brickwork it's sat on.

 

[pin3]

Yeah, thanks guys, the BCO was round yesterday and was ok with the arrangement. Basically repeated you word for word Shytalkz Thanks again, another panic over!