RSJ sizing

[Estrella]

Hi Folks,
I am wanting to turn two rooms into one. In my way is a supporting wall. The wall supports the 1st floor beams and the first floor ceiling beams.

The wall is 3.6 metres wide, and I am planning on having 600mm piers at either side of the room that the RSJ will sit on. This will leave an opening of 2400mm.

For costing purposes could someone give me an idea of what dimension RSJ I'd need and whether, given the large piers , The RSJ would need tying in to the brickwork at either end?

Thanks

 

[themiddleagedun]

Hi,
A 178x 102 would eat it. But you'd need (unfortunately for your wallet) to get the beam sized by a structual engineer.
If you don't it'll only cause hassle when you sell.
The beam won't need fastening to the piers, but should be sat on padstones ( a 900x150x100 concrete lintel cut in half will do)

 

[geraint]

Hi,
A 178x 102 would eat it. But you'd need (unfortunately for your wallet) to get the beam sized by a structual engineer.
If you don't it'll only cause hassle when you sell.
The beam won't need fastening to the piers, but should be sat on padstones ( a 900x150x100 concrete lintel cut in half will do)

build the pier out of engineering bricks and it will not require a padstone...

 

[Estrella]

Cheers fellas.

I was planning on removing the 2400mm middle section of the wall and using the 600mm of original wall left either side as the piers removing the top few courses and installing padstones on top. Is this not feasible ?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Cheers fellas.

I was planning on removing the 2400mm middle section of the wall and using the 600mm of original wall left either side as the piers removing the top few courses and installing padstones on top. Is this not feasible ?

I assumed that's what you were gonna do all along?

 

[Estrella]

Cheers fellas.

I was planning on removing the 2400mm middle section of the wall and using the 600mm of original wall left either side as the piers removing the top few courses and installing padstones on top. Is this not feasible ?

I assumed that's what you were gonna do all along?

It was Freddy, but Geriants post threw me a bit , so I thought I ought to double check that what I was doing was acceptable.

Demolishing the piers then rebuilding would have been a PITA. Padstones option always appeared more straightforward to me

 

[Estrella]

Oh, and while the thought is in my brain, what is the SE for ? Other than to sign off that the beam is the correct size?

From what the middleagedun has said, the 178/102/19 is above minimum requirement, so I literally paying for a signature I'm assuming ?

Trouble is I'll have to get one as we hope to move out within 3 yrs

 

[themiddleagedun]

Aye, You're paying for a signature basically...
You mentioned a RSJ in your post. Which " clouded my thinking" somewhat. You could use a "box section" lintel instead (no SE calcs required then) Google Catnic or IG.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The SE will size the beam and give you a calc to shove under the Building Inspectors nose. The Building Inspector will be the one signing it off. A lintel may possibly be easier although with the cost of Catnics as they are the alternative combined cost of a cheapy calc from an SE and a small beam may be cheaper overall.

 

[geraint]

Cheers fellas.

I was planning on removing the 2400mm middle section of the wall and using the 600mm of original wall left either side as the piers removing the top few courses and installing padstones on top. Is this not feasible ?

I assumed that's what you were gonna do all along?

as you should well know.... never assume....

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

as you should well know.... never assume....

Still got that chip on your shoulder then?

 

[geraint]

not at all. just do not like false information.. one person is giving a beam size on a forum with very little information... if you were professional, surely you should question that....

but the chip friers are on....

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Don't you two start again

I agree with the middleagedun though, a 178 x 102 will be fine (assuming 4" brickwork, 3m high and plastered both sides), and unless they are ultra conservative on their effective lengths, your SE will agree too.

It won't need tying into brickwork...wil be fine as long as it is sat on good pad stones and the masonry above is well supported using dry-pack or similar.

If you can work out the loads then as the middleagedun says, you can use a Catnic. From their brochure I reckon a CN6XC would do it, but it's 219mm high, so you would end up with more of a downstand.

 

[geraint]

Don't you two start again

I agree with the middleagedun though, a 178 x 102 will be fine (assuming 4" brickwork, 3m high and plastered both sides), and unless they are ultra conservative on their effective lengths, your SE will agree too.

It won't need tying into brickwork...wil be fine as long as it is sat on good pad stones and the masonry above is well supported using dry-pack or similar.

If you can work out the loads then as the middleagedun says, you can use a Catnic. From their brochure I reckon a CN6XC would do it, but it's 219mm high, so you would end up with more of a downstand.

its that magic word assume again.............

 

[RonnyRaygun]

Geraint, you're a troll...