saveasteading

As often by those from the South, Scotland is up there and is wet and cold. The reality is of a very varied and large place. 3°C colder on average, in the populated areas. Nobody lives on the mountain tops. The west is generally wet. The east is generally quite dry, except last winter when it reversed. The saved Steading area has rainfall much the same as Kent. But if up high then of course it gets colder. Proper winters with snow. We put a woodburner in. It is in a very large open space, including stair well. There is a lot of outside wall, including lots of glass and exposed, uninsulated walls. And yet the one log at a time principle applies. So for there it was the right decision as it is: 1. Expected, esp for rentals.* 2. Very pleasing. 3. A backup in the highly likely occurrence of power cuts due to trees v cables. * paying guests include the wbs in their incredibly positive reviews, so it is also economically justified. This discusson is very helpul and timely for us. We are (were?) currently planning to fit a wbs in our current family project in the scorching SE. I think we may leave it out for now, but the air intake and flue routes are ready if we change our minds. It can be very cold here... I liken it to Dutch winters of a damp cold that eats at your being.... not so much in recent years though. Question. What is a sensible backup if there are long term power cuts? I'm thinking that winter solar might run the basics and a little ufh. Thick socks and jumpers and buy a gas stove or 2?

I think you may be choosing to reject it. I won't go further into that. What do you favour then as our source of energy? Now and in say 20 years or whenever you consider that carbon fuels will be too diminished, esp if the burning regimes succeeded in banning renewables.

That's another issue than the fire protection, but a chunky beam that is inefficient in normal use can then use that extra stiffness. Next time you're in a big warehouse , reasonably modern, if you look up at the rafters, they are likely to have diagonal struts. They're not for fire but show how stiffness can be provided. Likewise if a floor is built in line with a beam, or a wall into a column it won't distort.

Without referring to documents.. It takes a huge temperature rise for steel to soften and fail. If it was all exposed to fire the heat would rise more quickly than if some is protected. A skinny section of steel conducts the heat more quickly. So a typical example of partial protection is being partly enclosed by a wall or having a concrete plank floor sitting on it. The steel is not being protected in the long term. Continued heat will make it fail. But it is being designed to remain structural for a period of time. Thus we could find that an exposed light column needs lots of intumescent paint while a heavy section needs nothing or a thinner coat. I've dealt with 3 fire damaged steel buildings. An agricultural one was a write-off. One we had built a few years earlier only needed cleaning and painting. The third was within an external fire wall (steel cladding and fibreglass insulaion) .. no damage other than to the paint on cladding and column (fire officer amazed).(the fibreglass was converted back to sand). I don't know if that's a complete or logical answer, so keep asking.

This happened in my uni year one. Tiny portal frames tested to destruction, and thus stuck in my mind thereafter that a frame needs 3 'pins' to form. (You can see that in the photo... top, middle bottom have all rotated.) If it had simply been 10 minutes of a lecture it wouldn't have had the same effect. Dead load becomes dynamic load. Also that the loading of the remaining structure becomes out of balance, and in the RP example the floor collapses are accumulating to be ever increasing loads.

Not a pretty sight. And then there is getting out again. How did I know it would be CT1? Or Snibbo as it used to be called.

" it’s a steel frame building, so it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localised collapse. " Wishful thinking perhaps, or some words to keep the shareholders and banks happy? Steel buildings can collapse. There is an inherent ability for them to crumple and come to some sort of stability if there is a localised failure. But I don't think this was designed for back in 1960. in Europe we have to design to prevent "disproportionate collapse" ie one failed element, eg from a gas explosion, would cause only local damage. see Ronan Point 1968 That's a fire officer...

It's one of these area over perimeter things. So a chunky steel possibly needs no protection, an certainly less... I've had lots of cases, and knowing the principle can save money and also be easier to build. (To the extent of using a structurally inefficient steel because of the fire and geometry benefit... this seldom happens in a linear design process. ) It's the exposed area, so with a fire on the inner face, only that area counts, divided by the whole cross section. Thus a column in a wall is less exposed than one in an open area. The info is provided by manufacturers of protection products.

Understand or know how to use them? I was never very close but have since drifted further away. A few seem obvious statements of fact, but the others? Smoke and mirrors. But if I don't believe them to be true then the world will surely end. Anyway, numbers don't exist.

Thanks all. The feet look better on this (Howdens) than the moving one* (benchmarx) and it is much bigger. I'm just thinking... one chance / shouldn't stress or rely on the plumbing. *It slides when leant on, then the legs snap or break off the base, then the kickboards have no support. I'll add some sticky stuff and have another look at it overall.

Kitchen island going in now, using a fitter. I would like to screw the feet down, as we have one that moves if leant against. But the new one is bigger, heavier and has plumbing so probably won't move. The ufh pipes are omitted at the area. Screw into 40mm screed? Or maybe stick it down with silicon or tape?

I probably wouldn't. You are proposing to lift it 200mm above what you previously thought. But is there anything on the drawings that could be used as a height reference? It sounds as if you can only use a scale rule. Is the height going to be referenced to adjacent buildings, the original (gone) or ground level? You will probably raise ground level to match the higher building. If height was considered sensitive then there would be a condition. Can you flatten the drains by using bigger pipes, or finding a shorter route?

Fortunately for me, the pure maths can be tertiary or whatever comes after that. Of course I did maths up into uni but there is a big gap between what I could ever fully comprehend and what dedicated mathematicians do. Ie I could repeat a formula with new input but not create that formula. Another difference seems to me to be a grasp of what is happening by way of load transfer in real life, which some of the best theoreticians can't. There is room for all, and it is important to have both, but numeracy has to be on a high level ( people who can't do it think it's a trick / smoke and mirrors). Back to the building failure. It will all have been manufactured offsite. Sometimes a building intended to be raised later might have columns cantilevering above the roof. Another cynical thought is corruption. I've seen a few reports over the years of criminals in develoment who threaten supervisors. Big time threats. We will probably never see the detail as this drops out of UK news interest.

they become brick slips or hardcore easily. I agree it is wasteful.

Been reading without comment as I don't know aerogel. But my inclination is to keep it simple and ensure a good, solid and permanent connection. What area of steel are we talking about, relative to the wall area? i.e. is it the biggest deal to get maximum insulation? And what depth is available? There are several makes, too and its available at my local BM (and yours) , Topps and at Wickes, so about £30/m2 and no transport cost. Depending on detail and access, I'd probably stuff the void of the steel to stop that cavity being cold, and also reducing overall heat loss.

It looks to me as if the column is not continuous but has a butt joint at mid height, then spliced ( very badly) and all concealed by sprayed concrete or similar. As such buildings are normally designed in great detail, and fabricated offsite, to slot together I'm guessing there has been damage and a bodged repair.

These temporary props will be supported on a beam, as the one above, which is supported by a column..... as the failed one. Walk gently. And these are empty spaces with previous internal loads removed.

It's a column but supposedly experienced people are calling it a beam. Is that a US thing?

It has been there for years as a corporate office block. Now seems to be a mix of offices and flats. It was on the BBC News website from where I pinched the pic. A clever person can maybe get a link from the pic. Ahh This might be it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c7vygmmdyr8o?app-referrer=deep-link

I think it said that the City was doing emergency work, because bits are falling off it into the road, and the whole thing could collapse. Imagine the desperate shenanigans taking place to divest the company responsible from wherever the money is. Meanwhile in Exeter we have a £31M school that's going to be demolished, having never been occupied because of the threat of collapse. The companies have gone bust, so the state pays more than twice. subsidence, missing bolts..... so who knows what else. Does nobody supervise these days? 3 years since built, so I'm surprised to have only just heard of /noticed the story.

The building failing in Manhattan. A failed column and lots of temporary support. The developer describes it as a "construction mishap". More accurately it looks like a total bodge without site scrutiny. Is that a steel column, made from bits, with a ticky tacky plate pinned on as a junction? It appears to have failed at top, middle and bottom (classic year one engineering fundamentals), which suggests to me... be very scared about the whole building.

Which probably also requires permission from the water company.

ouch. The SE should be able to advise the likelihood of agreement. The purpose is that your design should not apply any weight at all to the pipe or its surounds. Also to allow the pipe to be worked on or replaced without added dificulty. I expect the solution to be to excavate on both sides to below the pipe bedding, and pour concrete bases to above the drain level, and ensure gravel is over the top. Then a layer of polystyrene to ensure no loading from above, and then a bridge of concrete with reinforcement, up to ground level or wherever the post goes. That's all straight-forward, other than being old-fashioned spade work. But I think the next stage is still to get the information you have paid for, and find a builder or two. A good one will give an approximate cost based on gut feeling, or a think about how long it will take his 2 or 3 guys. (labour x 3 will be about the cost.) And if they say £50k or more I assume you can then make your decision easily.

Doesn't have much argument if the instructions say to mix and rotate and dry lay. It's good that the instructions do say that, as I don't think they always do. I hate repeated when products mimicking a natural product have obvious repeats. Tilers, vinyl layers, paving slab layers are not necessarily aesthetes. But it's part of their job so well done for hanging on to that boulder.

Presumably all bills are paid so you have invested deeply. I can see that this very small extra floor could greatly improve the upstairs room. The SE sounds OK. Don't burn bridges but ask for all the work so far and you will " come back to them". Did the architect select them? So may be close, which isn't bad in itself. Ask for all thearchitects's work too, incl any correspondence. Same excuse.. it's on hold but I'll have what I've paid for. I fear it will be surprisingly little. Especially ask for all enquiries and responses re building over the drainage..... I do think that should have been concluded before planning. Talk to the architect ASAP. Then find that builder. The cheapest is unlikely to be best value but you never know. £20k + vat, off the top of my head, to include bco , and that should include all except an SE visit. But do nothing until the drain issue is permitted.