Load bearing wall removal - purlin above issue

[Cabbyfan]

Hi everyone,

First post so please be kind

Ok, here goes...

The plan - recently purchased dormer bungalow. Idea is to remove part of the existing wall between kitchen and dining room (will be leaving 650mm each side). Span is approx 1800mm. BC has been notified as this is part of an overall plan of works. Steel beam will be going in 178 x 102 19Kg as per BC stated requirement 2.1m in length.

The issue - looking above, where the new beam has been added to support the joists for the pre-existing dormer floor the beam is sat only half onto a block which is itself directly onto the load bearing wall to be partially removed. Also if you look at the 3 vertical blocks that are supporting the purlin the very bottom one is badly crumbled and had a crack all the way vertically down its centre.

The load bearing wall is single skin, sat on 2 course of normal house brick on concrete raft at the base and block solids all the way to top with beams sat directly on top.

My origional plan was 3 x props eitherside, remove 1 course under the beams (leaving 1 course to rest direct on the the new steel ie steel/ 220mm block course/ceiling beam).

My question is - Im not happy about the state of the blocks supporting the purlin or the dormer beam. Any advice other than just replace like for like ? On the 3D plan this is the green block marked.

Also worth noting the blue purlin on the 3D plan will be removed on the section on the very right of the drawing when a new dormer goes in.

Pics below hopefully help

 

[noseall]

The masonry should be re-built as a diminishing triangle of blocks.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FYI to anybody who clicked the photos.

If you saw the images on photobucket's site that means you just allowed the following sites to run scripts on your PC:

glam.com
pbsrc.com
criteo.com
adsonar.com
quantserve.com
amazon-adsystem.com
scorecardresearch.com


Just thought you might like to know.

 

[Cabbyfan]

FYI to anybody who clicked the photos.

If you saw the images on photobucket's site that means you just allowed the following sites to run scripts on your PC:

glam.com
pbsrc.com
criteo.com
adsonar.com
quantserve.com
amazon-adsystem.com
scorecardresearch.com


Just thought you might like to know.

Thanks for the reply. Thought this was a building section not an IT section

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But accessed via IT.

Still - if you are quite happy that you know exactly what all of those sites are doing to and with your PC, and that you trust them (in fact that you trust every single other person in the entire world) to never do anything to or with your PC that you would rather they didn't, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[SimonH2]

And of course, if you didn't trust your browser to do something vaguely sensible you'd never ever click on any link whatsoever - mights as well switch of the computer and stick with a good book. As the OP says, this is the Building section, or do you intend to "police" this like you do the UK Electrics section ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And of course, if you didn't trust your browser to do something vaguely sensible you'd never ever click on any link whatsoever - mights as well switch of the computer and stick with a good book.

If you tell your browser that it's OK to allow every site in the world to run whatever scripts it likes then that's what it will do. It's a program you use and it will operate in the way you tell it to. Or by default let it do.

If some stranger, CD in hand, knocked on your door and asked if he could just put the CD into your computer and run a small program, would you say "Yes, of course, come on in"?

As the OP says, this is the Building section, or do you intend to "police" this like you do the UK Electrics section ?

Don't be stupid - this has nothing to do with any particular forum - it is a generic issue. If, in this Building forum, you became aware that someone was using a tool in a dangerous way to do flooring, would you say nothing?

If someone you knew said that they had allowed a stranger to put a CD into their computer and run a small program, would you say nothing?

How does drawing attention to potentially unsafe internet use count as "policing"? Your mind works in a very twisted way, I fear.

 

[SimonH2]

Well like I say, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the OPs question. If the user is concerned then they'll have applied whatever settings or add-ons to prevent the activity.

It's policing as you imply that using a 3rd party image hosting site shouldn't be allowed. If you have no problem with use of the third party site then just shut up and say nowt. Since you didn't keep your trap shut you must therefore have a problem with it.

Logical extension to your argument would include :
No-one should use DIY-Not since the site pages call up scripts from 3rd party sites.
Every time someone asks about (eg) a building problem then you'll post you boilerplate electrical stuff just in case they might choose to use an electric tool for the job.

Now please crawl back under your rock and leave the grown ups to their building projects.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well like I say, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the OPs question. If the user is concerned then they'll have applied whatever settings or add-ons to prevent the activity.

Will you please explain how you know that every single person in the world has already made an informed choice about whether they ought, or ought not to be concerned about unknown 3rd party sites, cross-site scripting attacks, tracking and so on, and that therefore nobody needs a heads-up about the issue in case they would like to apply settings and install add-ons?

It's policing as you imply that using a 3rd party image hosting site shouldn't be allowed.

No I don't imply that. That inference comes from your mind, which I am coming to realise has a flawed and over-active imagination function.

You would do well to learn to read properly, and to be a lot more disciplined when dealing with what you read. Stopping inventing things you haven't read would be a good idea.

All I did was to flag a warning about what happens when one visits photobucket - nowhere did I say that using it should not be allowed.

If you have no problem with use of the third party site then just shut up and say nowt.

No, because I consider it a valuable service to warn people about what happens with that site. What they do with that information is up to them.

Since you didn't keep your trap shut you must therefore have a problem with it.

No - there goes your faulty mind again.

Logical extension to your argument would include :
No-one should use DIY-Not since the site pages call up scripts from 3rd party sites.

No, that's not a logical extension, it's a stupid statement made by someone who is unable to think properly.

I'll try and explain, but I may not be able to make it simple enough for you to grasp.

Yes, DIYnot invokes scripts from 3rd-party sites. No, I have not said that therefore people should not use DIYnot.

Every time someone asks about (eg) a building problem then you'll post you boilerplate electrical stuff just in case they might choose to use an electric tool for the job.

You've now started to travel (and have made quite good progress) along the road from having poor reasoning ability to being barking mad.

Now please crawl back under your rock and leave the grown ups to their building projects.

Maybe you ought to leave the grown ups to try and act in informed ways, rather than getting all bent out of shape because you are completely unable to understand that "if you saw the images on photobucket's site that means you just allowed the following sites to run scripts on your PC: ... just thought you might like to know" was a warning about something people ought to at least be aware of, not "policing", not a request or instruction not to use the site responsible, and not advice to not use DIYnot.

 

[tony1851]

 

[Cabbyfan]

On the plus side my steel beam is in and plastered over behind fireproof plasterboard with building control sign off, the block work supporting the purlin has also been replaced all by yours truly. Woohoo

 

[SimonH2]

Oh well, another thread hijacked by BAS

Will you please explain how you know that every single person in the world has already made an informed choice ...

If anyone is concerned then they will already have considered it - and either decided to do something, or decided not to do something. If they aren't concerned then they won't.
But quite frankly, I don't give a damn about what you think about it - and it's got dos all to do with the question the OP asked.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh well, another thread hijacked by BAS

No - I wrote a few lines concerning a genuine warning about something which IMO needs to be much more widely known.

You then sort of read what I wrote, decided to invent all manner of "implications" such as I'm "policing" the site, I'm trying to stop 3rd-party image hosting sites from being used, I'm trying to stop people using DIYnot because it uses scripts from other sites, all because, yet again, there is something wrong with the way your mind works.

And yet again, you find you don't like what you alone have invented, and yet again you decide that's my fault, and that you should have a go at me because of it.

And yet again, when I have the temerity to object to your outrageous behaviour, you decide you're going to blame me for hijacking the thread.

Are you ever going to stop behaving like this?

If anyone is concerned then they will already have considered it - and either decided to do something, or decided not to do something. If they aren't concerned then they won't.

OK - fine. In that case will you please explain how you know that every single person visiting this site already knew that by default they are allowing sites other than the ones they think they are visiting to run JavaScript, Java, Flash, Silverlight, and other active content on their PCs, and that by doing so they were exposing themselves to being tracked, to being hacked, to having their security compromised, and that they had all either decided that there were risks in doing that and decided to do something, or had decided there were no risks and that they didn't need to do anything?

In short, will you please explain how you know that everybody already knew that clicking on a Photobucket link would trigger code being stealthily run on their PCs from several sites other than Photobucket?

But quite frankly, I don't give a damn about what you think about it - and it's got dos all to do with the question the OP asked.

Hmm.

Well, maybe this guy:

I am a DIY freak and not frightened of such a product. Had an estimate and they want £4000 plus another £900 for scaffolding. This includes the complete job with brick hearth. He also said that (unlikely) if the chimney has problems taking a 6" fle liner then the job could get expensive or abort altogether!

First I am going to take out the 4" liner already there and inspect the last section of the chimney where it bends towards the stack. This is at least in the chimney area so if I need to chop into it (say to clear) then that would be done in the loft.

One query I have, what stops me from using a 5" liner? I am going to have a <5KW burner and it will meet the DEFRA regs for that.

Another query is, is the LA cert. sfficient authority to finally approve the installation?

Any input welcome for this project.

didn't give a damn about what you thought about the source of the wood for his wood burner, but you still wrote about it, even though it had dos all to do with the question he asked.

So yet again hypocrisy from you. Basically you simply DGAS how rational or justified what you write about me is - you just have to lash out, and then try to blame me for your outbursts.

Are you ever going to stop behaving like this?

 

[SimonH2]

Are you ever going to stop behaving like this?

Funny, that's what people have been asking you for years
If you stop hijacking threads and going off on your tirades then people will stop pulling you up over it. Simples.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Care to provide a rational and intelligent explanation of why this was a "tirade":

FYI to anybody who clicked the photos.

If you saw the images on photobucket's site that means you just allowed the following sites to run scripts on your PC:

glam.com
pbsrc.com
criteo.com
adsonar.com
quantserve.com
amazon-adsystem.com
scorecardresearch.com


Just thought you might like to know.

?


Care to provide a rational and intelligent explanation of why one short warning directly related to a post already made qualifies as "hijacking"?