zoothorn

Aha. now I know what the word 'mixed' means then. I assumed it was various sizes of gravel mixed together.. but its one size of gravel plus sharp sand mixed together. I thought it looked quite 'beachy' but thought english pig here just got lumped with last few bags off the huge heap!! I believe 4:1 yes. I've just tried the concrete calculator.. & cannot understand a flamin thing now. All this maths stuff just beats me.. I hate it. It worked before, gave me my 15 bags of cement + 1.54 tons of mixed ballast but now its giving me sand bags, cement bags, & ballast/ or ballast I can't tell what. I need to go back a step & clear my head- this 0.125m3 figure has fried my brain. Ok can anyone help & use this calculator to determine my 2 ingredients, cement no.of 25kg bags & mixed ballast no.of tons: how many needed for my figure of 0.28m3? thanks- zoot

Ok what I wanted to establish, before the 0.125m3 figure emerged & fried my noggin, was whether my remaining bag of ballast (2/3rds of a ton).. will be enough once mixed into concrete, to fill my two 0.5m x 600mm dia tubes. Sand? my ingredients have been mixed ballast, concrete, water, splash of gubbins. No sand. I thought sand + concrete = mortar?

I just don't get it. Its probably bc it was done in school 37 yrs ago.. 0.5m x 0.5m x 0.5m is less than 0.5 x 0.5. My head can't cope as it doesnt make sense. The more I multiply 0.5 the smaller the number gets. But its not a negative number, its a positive number. So how come it gets smaller? its all nuts. maths sucks.

Sympathies @Onoff on headaches.. I get them too/ debilitating. 0.14m3 per cylinder seems an oddly small ammount. I was thinking 0.5m3 was about right actually. Hang on. If it were 500mm x 500m x (500mm H), so lets say square instead of a cylinder.. this equates to 0.5m3 does it not? how come your figures of 600x 600mm (wxd as you innitially thought ) x 500mm H = 0.25m3? Surely it was 0.5m3 per plinth, so 1m3 to do both.

Yes, well 600mm wide x 480mm high to be exact. But they're not cubes.. but cylinders: was that taken into account for your 0.5m3 figure?

Cheers Onoff- then I've done just as you outlined. Just wanted to double-check. Yes thankfully I do have wiggle room being big wide pads. Ok next thing is once my tubes in place, is the mix. My pro chap was winging 1/3rd of a bag of cement into mixer already with water + splash of stuff in.. then as I was labouring ballast continuosly (from tip top of my slope, brought down steeply- hard graft) I couldn't observe exactly the no. of buckets went in too. But I can't wing it. So what's the best method of measuring my ratio? Also as I maybe slightly on the short side re. ballast.. I wonder if I can safely do it with just a wee bit less ballast-per-mix?

Ooh pythagoras.. I like him! thanks Declan. Ok but if I only have two cnr points known, to find the 3rd cnr do I use the 3252mm & the 2300mm arc intersections? then go on to find the 4th easily enough.. if so Ive got my other 2 feet positions marked. Digging tmrw.. urgh/ but only 40cm deep or so in my 47cm or so high tubes, as I've got only 2/3rds of a ton of ballast left to do these two footings. Is there any way of calculating the volume of 'concrete needed' (& specifically how much mixed ballast), for a cylinder with known diameter + height?

Hi @Onoff many thanks for your pics/ it gets me all geared up seeing an Onoff sketch again! Ok done upright wood bits. But not getting the arcs. I read of this 3,4,5 rule.. to for a perfect R-angle. Is this where your 3252mm fig comes from, being the '5' as it were? I don't get how you establish the '4' or the '5' from just knowing the '3' (which I assume is 2300 here, or is it '4'?) I can see how an arc is used @ 2300mm, from this LHS stream foot.. but not getting the 'intersection' of two arcs/ where this other arc is from (it looks like there's another arc originating from way down in the stream out of pic LH edge in your 2nd sketch ^).

@Onoff how could I find my 2.3m points for my upper 2 corners? just thought with the ~1m drop to lower ones.. getting a reference line from A to B isn't so simple.

dpm what I have, is a 2.3m square (& crest H) log cabin/ shed, plus a chap whose day-to-day job is structures like this but on a much bigger scale. If he outlines the footings & the base on which it'll go, & says once all that's done you could park a car on it.. I trust that I've at the least we've gone overkill on my footings: getting an SE involved for a heavy shed & trawling data- seriously? (& this is wales- you just crack on with things here). I think the thing is my photos don't give a good idea of how big/ massive these are. 3/4 of a ton of ballast in each of these lower footings, & that's plus concrete/ water. theyre a full metre high.

I put it in my zoot'puter

Hi Onoff- great link/ thanks. I don't need a structural engineer tho, to build a shed base on my 4x massives. The chap's sketched me the build plan (inc 20% cantilevered extra walky bit, stream-side) & its simple enough. As I said in my translated post, the chap works building big 30 ton(?) hides/ boardwalks.. this project's small beer for him so I just follow his basic idea, even things out via help with a thread = so it should go ok, fingers x'd. But I'll get to this once I've done my other 2x topside feet.. the mixer's looking at me menacingly right now! gotta lotta diggin to do 1st .For the other 2x feet I'm using same tube (we had cut it into 3x 1m tube sections, original idea 3x stream-side pillars you see) the 3rd one now unused.. which I'll saw in half for 2x topside feet. Even if I don't get it perfect, the one thing it will be is solid/ the last thing it'll be is me winging it, or it being a 'raft'.. that's not giving me much credit!

I have translated my post for you: ----------------------------------------------------- "Its only a f**kn shed".. Exactly- the huge (2ft dia) tube feet are overkill so far! I only used these big'uns, cos my chap had them to hand (cheaper for me), & the next-down are only 1.5 ft dia (& 6m long) so too slim tbh: so better overengineer it than underdo it. I'm thinking french oak sleepers going up ~1m on these 4x feet, bc having used oak jobs before I know have nice square ends, surely a better fit into metal brackets > concrete,& give a nicer impression stream-side to my nice new n'bors (my pro chap works for ELM Wales who built the big osprey hide & big boardwalk jobs etc, so knows all about overhangs/ how the build the base/ ideal chap for job. He's sketched the basics for me so I'll ask on here once 4x feet done). My 'shed' is 2.3m cubed.. so not a whopper: the 20% overhang/ countersink idea is great/ I was thinking of going with the idea anyway.. but how do I span the 2.3m + 20%? with what kind of looooooooooooooooooong beam-? [I'm really stoked up on this project tho- gonna be great, stoked up [-still-] on Stokes' 135 not out (vs the crims) providing zoot's 100% pure rocket-fuel too which, no doubt about it, has helped!! wonderfuel]. This, is cricket spiel. thx- zoot

Exactly- its overkill so far hence the 1/2 arsed dublin-wales rebars! I only used these 2ft dia tubular elephant-massives (booyakasha) cos my chap had them to hand (cheaper for me), & the next-down available from jewsons etc are 6m long..... & only 1.5 ft dia = actually too slim tbh: so better go OTT dia, a bit than underdo it. I'm thinking french oak sleepers going upright ~1m on these 2x stream-massives bc they're nice & square edged, to fit in to metal brackets + give a nice impression stream-side (booyakasha, again) to my nice new n'bors. My 'shed' is 2.3m cubed (to peaky top bit too).. so far from a whopper: the 20% overhang/ countersink wtf idea ios great/ going with the idea.. but how do I span the 2.3m + 20%? with what kind of loooong beam-? I'm really stoked up on this project tho- gonna be great, stoked up [-still-] on Stokes' 135no providing zoot's 100% pure rocket-fuel too which, no doubt about it, has helped!! wonderfuel. thx- zoot

O Yup he's such a nice chap (dublin) he's even left me his angle grinder to whip these impalers off whilst off on hols. So if Onoff thinks job1 then I'll do 1st thing tmrw. "Are said re-bars in the picture just bits of straight rod stuck in vertically?" Onoff, my dear chap.. this is Wales ? Yup rebars in vertically- I rammed them home, me: honestly these elephants feet footings -are- overkill for a french oak sleeper upon each to go -up- 1m or so, then meet the beams etc etc.. all for a 2.5m sq log cabin (a fairly small one tbh). So I'm not too concerned rebar or not on my upper fwo footings.. but your opinion I respect the most.

Ok @andyscotland I do see more of what you are trying to do to help- thanks alot. Its innevitable though that from your pov, not knowing me at all, or my builder, that the advice would be waaaaay on the safe side, just to cover your opinions as it were. Its at tricky area of giving advice, from one to another, having no direct face to face communication (actually its the very achilles heel of all forums IMO.. but there's a rabbit hole I aint moseying down for now!). I must disagree though that 100mm block /50mm cavity/ 150mm inner course, for a TF build.. aren't industry std figures. From what I read, these figures cropped up enough times for me to have quoted them 'from the blue' to know they had weight/ relevance = they are often used.

I'm not quite understanding "it's much better if drawings don't exist".. but appreciate the advice. Actually I'm not quite understanding the very rough sketch idea you're outlining here either.. but appreciate the help. I've been told though by builder to do plans, just the very basics, based on the detailed Full Plans [photos #1 provided to me just as a guide] rather than any rough sketch tho. I'm only following orders. I'm not looking to replicate Full Plans, in freehand. No that's not what I've been told to do. But nor is a rough sketch looking 'very freehand'. Its just between the two I'm aiming at. Ive just been in library trying to do a basic box + door (my lower room) with 3 or so free online software things & could get barely anywhere but a big frustating pickle after 2 hrs trying abc xy&z. No fkn way. Its a waste of time.

Perfectly reasonable post Jack. Because I'm getting stressed at folks not understanding, that's all.. & yes I should have thought of just asking my builder instead but thought this the best place for the simple of a basic TF wall + block cladding Q to be answered: I thought it likely a std dim from build to build (& know actually that in fact it is, but for some reason I'm just not being told & left to flounder, prob bc they can see I'm stressed & find some strange comfort in watching me get more stressed). Oddly enough I just ran into my builder in Jewsons.. so thought why not ask him (& why didn't I think of doing so?) > "I'm just doing your plan Dai: wall thickness, 100mm block +? +?".. "50mm cavity & 150mm innerTimber Frame course" he said. This is -not- something we've discussed before, so, therefore 99% likely industry standard TF+block cladding figures I found in my book coinciding with info online etc (& on here probably too). The thing I find incredulous is that someone didn't at the least say 'yes/ possibly 100mm/50/150mm' but instead just chose to argue & pick at my erfforts/ pick at me instead. I don't need this at all.

Mr. Sole we're going round in circles here. I don't need it to be critically correct (but you keep stipulating that's what is needed- why Ive no idea) so I don't need to entertain these various other factors- these are only for my builder to. Its some of what I will be paying him for. Look for eg: I put 100mm (block clad) + 50mm cavity + 150mm (inner TF) on my plan. He sees it. If he knows this isn't either A) correct to BRegs or B) precisely what he was going with he will NOT just blindly follow my dims & build to my dims: he'll just override & build the damn thing to 100mm + 25mm + 200mm, or whatever it is he was going to do, which he knows will be up to BRegs std. In the above two eg's it makes absolutely -no- difference to the outer corner point. That remains fixed. The only thing that changes is I have fractionally less space inside my room than my plan. Its of no consequence; in other words my 150mm (+50mm) figure is of no real critical importance.. in fact its n/a to a certain degree, because I'm not the builder/ the one whose agreed (with me) to build the walls to BRegs std. Now do you understand where I'm coming from? its my last try to explain. 1) B

I give up. You're just not understanding from where I am here. If anyone can give me a typically-used TF inner course thickness figure (for a simple TF house extention).. plus if there needs to be a cavity, what a typical cavity dim might be- I'd be grateful. Afaik the cladding material doesn't alter what thickness the innitial/ structural TF course would be.. so very likely a typically-used inner wall thickness for many builds including extentions (& from amongst the ton of info I've read I think this is indeed the case- its just finding it again that's all). If not I'll just go with 100mm + 50mm + 150mm.. but this is a bit of a stab in the dark. Thanks, zoot.

Yes. Will do. But look all I'm trying to do, is give him a decent impression of what the wall construction is.. not precisely.. surely you could just help me out by saying "just put 100mm (block clad) + 50mm cavity + 150mm for inner TF wall" (I'm just throwing 50mm + 150mm figures in the wind here: they might not be so far off/ might be ok to go with). A certain degree of vagueness is -FINE- for this exercise.. but I'd prefer to be nr'ish on the money tho being a bit of a perfectionist myself. Maybe that clarifies the point of my thread here; do you get now a bit more of what I'm getting at?

@Onoff whadya reckon for my 0.5m upper 2 footings.. rebar or not to rebar? £20 each footing in £rebar, so maybe worthwhile?

Because it'll look a bit sh*te if I just give 4 thin lines for my walls, that's all! You see its nothing to do with me getting the -construction details correct- its is instead everything & only to do with me getting the -critical placements correct- . Its what he himself said/ wants. I just want my plan at the least to look as good as it can be, so A) so he has as much confidence in my critical dims/ placements as I can muster (so he doesn't worry I'll come back on day 5 "ooh can we shift door X along a bit?"), B) it looks like I've made the effort, C) it just looks better esp if he has to hand as a 'guide to build from' daily, D) it makes me feel like I've done my part best I can.

Good Q dpm. Last time we spoke, I asked a layman's version of this question: he said the walls would be constructed off-site (then brought- no idea how) & positioned with one of those tractors-with-long-extendy-arm-on-front things, can't recall what proper name he said was, usually white tho in my head!

No. I am not a builder. This is a builder's remit/ department Mr Sole.. not a customers'.