I wonder if someone can make a quick comment on this:

I have some builders (a very reputable local firm) currently removing
a load bearing wall from my victorian house. The structural engineer
has specified two pad foundations and two piers to support the steel
beam.

Problem: the builders have built piers that are much thicker than
specified.

I have contacted the manager; he says his 'men' have told him the
piers match the specification but he is going to come in and take a
look. He said they might have had to enlarge the, because of the way
the bricks keyed into the existing wall.
Specification:
Pier A: 220mm x 220mm (1 brick x 1 brick)
pier B: 220mm x 330mm (1 brick x 1.5 brick)
the 220mm sides are adjacent to the existing wall and keyed into it.

Built:
Pier A: 330mm x 330mm (1.5 brick x 1.5 brick)
Pier B: 330mm x 440mm (1.5 brick x 2 brick)


Any comments from people expoerienced in this kind of thing would be
most welcome.
Is this plainly a mistake, or does the brick-keying sometimes force
you to enlarge piers by 1/2 brick in each dimension like this?

Robert

On 5 Feb, 10:18, RobertL wrote:

Any comments from people expoerienced in this kind of thing would be
most welcome.


Why not get the structural engineer back to take a look?

RobertL wrote:
I wonder if someone can make a quick comment on this:

I have some builders (a very reputable local firm) currently removing
a load bearing wall from my victorian house. The structural engineer
has specified two pad foundations and two piers to support the steel
beam.

Problem: the builders have built piers that are much thicker than
specified.

I have contacted the manager; he says his 'men' have told him the
piers match the specification but he is going to come in and take a
look. He said they might have had to enlarge the, because of the way
the bricks keyed into the existing wall.
Specification:
Pier A: 220mm x 220mm (1 brick x 1 brick)
pier B: 220mm x 330mm (1 brick x 1.5 brick)
the 220mm sides are adjacent to the existing wall and keyed into it.

Built:
Pier A: 330mm x 330mm (1.5 brick x 1.5 brick)
Pier B: 330mm x 440mm (1.5 brick x 2 brick)


Any comments from people expoerienced in this kind of thing would be
most welcome.
Is this plainly a mistake, or does the brick-keying sometimes force
you to enlarge piers by 1/2 brick in each dimension like this?

Why is it a problem? Its going to give a stronger job and only sticks out
by a small amount.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Feb 6, 8:31*am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
RobertL wrote:
I wonder if someone can make a quick comment on this:

I have some builders (a very reputable local firm) currently removing
a load bearing wall from my victorian house. *The structural engineer
has specified two pad foundations and two piers to support the steel
beam.

Problem: *the builders have built piers that are much thicker than
specified.

I have contacted the manager; *he says his *'men' have told him the
piers match the specification but he is going to come in and take a
look. * He said they might have had to enlarge the, because of the way
the bricks keyed into the existing wall.
Specification:
Pier A: *220mm x 220mm (1 brick x 1 brick)
pier B: * 220mm x 330mm (1 brick x 1.5 brick)
the 220mm sides are adjacent to the existing wall and keyed into it.

Built:
Pier A: 330mm x 330mm (1.5 brick x 1.5 brick)
Pier B: 330mm x 440mm (1.5 brick x 2 brick)

Any comments from people expoerienced in this kind of thing would be
most welcome.
Is this plainly a mistake, or does the brick-keying sometimes force
you to enlarge piers by 1/2 brick in each dimension like this?

Why is it a problem? *Its going to give a stronger job and only sticks out
by a small amount.


It might not be a problem, we've yet to decide what to do about it.
yes, it is stronger and that is on the plus side.

Although it is only an extra 100mm on each side of each column, but
it is quite a small room and it does make a visual difference. but
there's also the question of the extra weight (about 16%) placed on
the pad foundations. This is probably OK but i'd need the engineer
to express an opinion.


Are piers are sometimes specified as a size + an extra 100mm, for
example, as "220x220 with an extra 100mm on all dimensions"?



Robert

an update: the bricklayer just rang me from the house. Apparently he
misread the spec and built hollow piers with a voids inside. the
voids are where the pier actually should have been!

He is rebuilding them.

Thanks for people's comments.

Robert

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:11:29 -0800 (PST), RobertL
wrote:



an update: the bricklayer just rang me from the house. Apparently he
misread the spec and built hollow piers with a voids inside. the
voids are where the pier actually should have been!

He is rebuilding them.

Thanks for people's comments.

Robert
If he was such a reputable builder he should have queried before
building anything so ridiculous! Hollow piers???
Maris

Maris wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:11:29 -0800 (PST), RobertL
wrote:



an update: the bricklayer just rang me from the house. Apparently
he misread the spec and built hollow piers with a voids inside. the
voids are where the pier actually should have been!

He is rebuilding them.

Thanks for people's comments.

Robert
If he was such a reputable builder he should have queried before
building anything so ridiculous! Hollow piers???


He obviously is a reputable builder. 'He is rebuilding them'.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article ,
Maris wrote:
If he was such a reputable builder he should have queried before
building anything so ridiculous! Hollow piers???

Can make construction easy if using very hard bricks to an odd size -
the void them being filled with concrete.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

RobertL wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:31 am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
RobertL wrote:
I wonder if someone can make a quick comment on this:
I have some builders (a very reputable local firm) currently removing
a load bearing wall from my victorian house. The structural engineer
has specified two pad foundations and two piers to support the steel
beam.
Problem: the builders have built piers that are much thicker than
specified.
I have contacted the manager; he says his 'men' have told him the
piers match the specification but he is going to come in and take a
look. He said they might have had to enlarge the, because of the way
the bricks keyed into the existing wall.
Specification:
Pier A: 220mm x 220mm (1 brick x 1 brick)
pier B: 220mm x 330mm (1 brick x 1.5 brick)
the 220mm sides are adjacent to the existing wall and keyed into it.
Built:
Pier A: 330mm x 330mm (1.5 brick x 1.5 brick)
Pier B: 330mm x 440mm (1.5 brick x 2 brick)
Any comments from people expoerienced in this kind of thing would be
most welcome.
Is this plainly a mistake, or does the brick-keying sometimes force
you to enlarge piers by 1/2 brick in each dimension like this?
Why is it a problem? Its going to give a stronger job and only sticks out
by a small amount.


It might not be a problem, we've yet to decide what to do about it.
yes, it is stronger and that is on the plus side.

Although it is only an extra 100mm on each side of each column, but
it is quite a small room and it does make a visual difference. but
there's also the question of the extra weight (about 16%) placed on
the pad foundations. This is probably OK but i'd need the engineer
to express an opinion.


Are piers are sometimes specified as a size + an extra 100mm, for
example, as "220x220 with an extra 100mm on all dimensions"?




Sounds like they went to an easy to build size - 1.5 bricks..which
allows a deecent attractive bond going two by two and rotating 90
degrees is possible, but doesn't allow keys into the wall..

Anyway, knocking it down and redoing isn't the end of the world.

Brickies cant read plans anyway.


Robert