MortarThePoint

I could even beef it up to M20 threaded rod, or larger: https://www.orbitalfasteners.co.uk/products/m16-x-1m-high-tensile-grade-8-8-studding-threaded-rod-steel-bright-zinc-plated-din-975 https://www.orbitalfasteners.co.uk/products/m20-x-1m-high-tensile-grade-8-8-studding-threaded-rod-steel-bright-zinc-plated-din-975

An alternative that comes to mind, but is less substantial is to make the setup below. It's two 10mm plates each 50mm x 90mm with a 16mm hole and a 10mm hole along the centre line, 16mm hole 20mm from one end and 10mm hole 25mm from the other end. The 10mm holes could bolt the plates to the beam flanges and then a length of 16mm threaded rod could be passed through the 16mm holes and bolted to the plates. That would create the third image when attached to the beam (nuts not shown). The plates could be stacked during drilling so the alignment of the two plates would be perfect.

Thanks Gus Shouldn't be as the changes are associated with moving it parallel to the stringer direction so not narrowing the stair flight and the landing is plenty wide enough. It will be all timber (posts, spindles and handrail) 90mm x 90mm with height TBD (whatever gives the right handrail height etc) Nice and strong approach, that hadn't occurred to me. The posts are going to be centred 20mm in front of the beam so if it was 40mm SHS it could simply be welded across the front of the beam's flanges (see image below). Do you think 40mm SHS would be substantial enough I can't weld, but can bolt things together. Should I consider getting a length of SHS fabricated with two bits of plate attached to bolt to the beam flanges? The fabricator would probably struggle to get the spacing of those plates perfect, but as long as they were square to the SHS and less than the flange spacing I could pack it out. As an example, I have sketched up one (bottom two images) with 60mm long tabs of 10mm thick plate with a 10mm hole. I could drill the holes in the beam (or this part) slightly oversize to allow perfect plumb alignment. I am expecting a single M10 bolt both top and bottom be strong enough, does that sound right? Alternatively, if there is anything vaguely standard of a similar shape that could work I guess.

I wouldn't do that, but would have plasterboard in between any posts. Newel post is easier than the balustrade posts (same post shape as newel). It still leaves the challenge of how to anchor the posts since the centre is past the edge of the steel. Some options that occur to me include: Bolt a piece of flat bar to the top and bottom flanges of the beam and then drill holes in that through which I could pass a threaded bar which then goes up into the balustrade post(s) Timber infill in the beam which is bolted to the web of the beam. The post(s) then get screwed to that. Bolting the timber infill to the beam would require tapping the hole in the web as I don't have access to the other side of the beam to use a nut.

This is what that would look like in section

I'm positioning my lower newel posts to have one centre line aligned with the front of the riser and the other centre line aligned with the stringer's centre line. I can't so easily do that at the top since the riser is forward of the steel beam (red) that forms the edge of the landing. The plan is to clad the beam with plasterboard and have a piece of timber above that which then has the balustrade assembly on. That means the centre line of the newel post needs to align with the centre line of the balustrade which needs to be suitably far behind the edge of the timber above the plasterboard. As far as I can tell, that leaves 2 options: Push the newel post back relative to the riser, moving its centreline to above the beam Build out the full length of the beam (could overhang the timber slightly) to provide something for the balustrade to sit on. Option 1 is easier but looks a bit funny (see images below). The size of the move here is 38mm which comes from riser thickness (20mm) minus the plasterboard thickness (15mm) plus half the handrail width (60mm/2) and plus a small margin (5mm). I guess I could lose the 5mm. Option 2 could be made up of double cladding the beam to give and extra 15mm of plasterboard thickness, losing the extra 5mm and then overhanging the timber above the plasterboard by 18mm. @joe90 looks to have had timber extend out from the edge to create something like option 2 (image copied below) @Gus Potter you've had some good ideas on these stairs, what would you suggest? I'm slightly unclear how I would anchor the larger posts of the balustrade if I move it's centre line past the edge of the beam. I have been assuming using something like a zip bolt or threaded bar through the centre of these posts and through the flange of the steel. With the posts moved forward of the beam I would have more meat on them to straddle the front of the beam and perhaps bolt to the web?

This is what I've come up with so far. I was already planning to have 60mm of wood fibre insulation on the inner surface of the beam and 20mm on the outer surface anyway. That needs to be covered with plasterboard inside so battens needed anyway. I could screw the batten to clamp the window frame horizontally but still allow vertical movement if needed. What do you think? What's normally done?

I have baypoles and jack's in the corners with a 2ply 195x45 beam over the centre 5 light window. It's a 3.2m span. I don't want the beam transfering any load to the window. How should I stop the window blowing in and out? I've left a 5mm gap between beam and window. If I put screws going up through the window frame into the beam it would transfer load. Note the beam has another now non-removable piece of wood underneath but that just to narrow the gap so not relevant.

200mm of insulation for the First Floor feels massively excessive to me.The concrete that insulation is sat on is in the heated envelope (unless over a garage) so is already warm. A well insulated house is going to have a low UFH flow temperature (e.g.35C) so thick insulation is a waste of money. Ground Floor sure, but not first floor. Insulation on first floor is only for responsiveness and zoning as far as I can guess.50mm would be plenty for that. Just seen your not the OP so presume you're talking about Ground Floor

How much are we talking about? <300mm? What about eave heights, or are they not relevant?

Interesting, I have been putting DPC under my stud walls, but wondered how overly cautious I was being. They don't extend 25mm either side though, just a 100mm DPC under 4x2. On the first floor, I have timber sole plates under my MF partitions which basically brings up to level with the top of screed. Screed was then poured before framing (MF) and boarding. The DPC rule may be more critical if proceeding at pace and there is a chance whatever the sole plate is going on is still high in moisture. I pressume you don't put DPC under purely MF partitions.

I've already boarded the beam so the board over the MF on the flush side needs to come up to the board already on the beam. That means I either close the 10mm gap with the board or leave a gap that skim won't be able to bridge surely?

I did ponder that but became slightly concerned about thermal movement

Hi nod, the gap is all the way along the length of the beam. are you saying to run the plasterboard up to the beam?

I have a 3.6m opening under a steel beam which is to have metal frame (M.F.) added to make two door openings (each French doors). I am supposed to have a deflection head to avoid the M.F. accidentally becoming load bearing and so buckling. The M.F. is to be flush with one surface of the dressed beam and have a small reveal on the other side. On the side that is flush, I am struggling to work out how to have something that will plaster well. I expect the deflection head shouldn't be subject to movement, but is there just in case. Does anyone have any good thoughts as to what I can do? The beam is dressing in fire proof plasterboard which stands a bit forward of the blockwork, but HardWall can plumb that up. I have included plenty of battens on the underside of the beam during the beam dressing to allow the MF to be attached to the beam. The image above shows a gap above the MF whereas in reality it is normally achieved by using deep track and a c-stud cut short within it.

I think that's one of the keys at installation, don't put the paper on to unpainted plaster

We have young children and it would be fun to have wallpaper that they'll grow out of. I've never stripped wallpaper before. Is there a way at install to make it easier to remove later? It will be going onto Multifinish. I guess some adhesives are a better choice than others and people probably normally spend there time worrying about making it last longer. It would be good if it looked nice right up to the fateful day. Should I look out for anything in the paper itself too? Ideally, I'd like to leave a good paintable surface when the wallpaper is removed.

Neat, I'd wondered about something like that. They're presumably completely hidden to normal eye level

Why won't it work for wet plastered? I agree your suggestion makes it much easier, but I'm not keen.

Wow, 😮 that must have been gutting

Here's a typical example of by back box "handy work"

I keep having a recurring disagreement with my wife over the kitchen. She wants to buy and fit a second hand one but I'd like to make one. I know, we're both wrong 😔.That's the background, but it's now creating issues on site as the plasterer is due to plaster the kitchen tomorrow. We're going with fully plastered (blockwork) behind our imaginary units. We plan to have tiles between worktops and high level units. I haven't cut any back boxes in yet and that makes me twitchy. How worried should I be or should I just chill as butchering the plasterwork under tiles is no biggy. I plan to feed the sockets from horizontal runs in the void behind the cabinets with a vertical chase of about 300mm to the back box, bottom of which to be 150mm above the worktop surface. So I shouldn't have to do horizontal chases. When I cut back boxes into blockwork it looks a bit like Wolverine did it as I use an angle grinder and have to overcut before chipping out. If I wasn't tiling, I guess I'd use EasyFill 60 and a decorators filling knife to tidy up? The plasterer gets it so smooth it feels like a crime to start hacking away at it. @nod how do you feel when people start hacking away at work you're proud of? I should probably wait for the plasterer to leave before I ruin his finish.

A friend dropped a glass bottle on his floor and the bottle survived but has made a hole in the floor. It is on the grout line between to tiles and is about 8mm across on the surface. Though it is small on the surface (entrance wound) it has blown out a large amount of tile under the surface. On that basis, doesn't look like a great tiling job was done as I would expect it to be nigh on full with adhesive below the tile, but you can tap around the small surface hole and feel a large void beneath. Anyway, he asked me how to fix it and I thought squirting some epoxy in the hole would be a good idea and then if he was obsessed enough he could paint the top with a colour match to the tile and grout to make it near invisible. Does this sound a good option and if so can anyone recommend a good epoxy choice. I was thinking low viscosity and use a syringe with wide bore needle. No picture, sorry.

Any joy check this?

That would be brilliant thanks!