saveasteading

Is there any history of timber houses there blowing down? I'm a little surprised that 2 Engineers have very different wind loadings, unless one says that local knowledge requires additional precautions. I went on a wind loads course and it was noted by the instructor that the consultant employed among us produced higher loads than the contractor employed, but not dramatically. The consultants rounded up every time there was an in-between number, or off a graph, and the contractors iterated (as permitted). That wind column is very expensive for what it is. Of course it is easy for the SE to spec a standard item, and they are probbaly easy for the joiner to connect to, but they may not be aware of the cost. Column section £50/m plus fabrication of end plates/ connection plates......and some SE design! I would expect to see a big foundation to each post too, or for them to be linked as a goal-post. I put my trust in triangles, and would expect that the walls can be triangulated, either literally with angled stud bracing, or using double osb. Can you find out what any neighbours with a similar construction have got?

I wouldn't, as it may entangle birds. I use bits of wire mesh salvaged from otherwise failed plastic greenhouse, barbecue shelves, bits of expamet. The other attractions are that it can be lifted aside for access, and that when the beans entangle with it they can be ex-tangled easily.

How thick, and what keeps it in place? My concern would be with the adhesive which may not be heat resistant.

I have taken to non-woven over time, as it seems to stand up to punctures and mud better. Woven should be fine. We got 'Type 1, from a granite quarry and some stones would not remotely have gone through a 75mm sieve but would go sideways through a grille....so not complaining....but the term Type 1 seems to be used rather liberally. Mixed size stone would be more accurate.

Is it though? If the rafter is designed as simply supported then bending is nil here., and we are looking at shear and uplift. As the rafter is 225 x 47 there is a lot of shear resistance, and the rafter has been chosen with limiting deflection, before structural failure is involved. The massive glulam beam will just about hold it all down without the rest of the structure. These are hunches though as we have no numbers. Yes we may have to ask the SE but the answers here provide us with more context from people who have done this before. It would be nice to present a solution and make it easy for them. As you may have read, we have already suggested several improvements to their design, and I wonder if at some stage they get the huff and say no. I am probably being unfair saying that, and they will take it on its merits. Gus thinks a notch will be ok. I have sketched it and , because the rafter is so deep, 25% notch out should be feasible. I was rather hoping that someone who has done a stick build or bought a kit with a ridge beam will know how their ridge was built.

Well done and thanks for the blog. This is gutty work, so the big machine must have made a big difference. Are we seeing stone arisings from your excavations in the track? It doesn't look like type 1. What membrane are you using?

A car parking space is generally 2.4m, but a car is less so that doors can be opened. Measurements will now help.

SE has agreed that 600cc is ok. How so, only when we point this out?. I guess on most jobs the client just pays the extra,

Messy. if the boundary is actually the face of their wall then their gutters, provably foundations are on your land, also their extract fan venting onto your land. If the boundary is perhaps 150mm or 300 outside their extension then not so awkward. I you are friendly with the neighbours then it could be readily resolved... but there would be implications for them too. Eg if you built up to their extract fan then it would be useless and they would have to divert it. If not, then it could get legal.

If the face of the wall is on the boundary, then it ix very likely that the footing runs onto your ground. Tgey should not have a gutter or anything overhanging, and the roof should not shed water your way. You can build the equivalent wall, or post etc hard against theirs. On or adding to the same footings is getting tricky though. As ProDave says, a photo or sketch would help, if you don't mind being potentially identifiable.

Inside, as they will reach the string more readily. Add some tiny sticks and they will stand up more readily.

All great info. By the time we add second and third timbers at openings the head is going to be doubled nearly all the way anyway. The proposed joiner is reworking his price after we pointed out the QS errors (better say approximations) and I expect he will do 'his way' only. Re sole plates, I have previously done 2 very large TF buildings over 4 storeys. The first TF contractor asked for a concrete kerb. We gave him a kerb of pc lintels, which quartered our cost, and they said was great but had never seen before. The second one required a timber plate. We had lifts in these buildings and had to leave the building to settle for months otherwise the doors open at the wrong levels. So shrinkage and consolidation (gravity) action downwards was about 100mm. Back to now. Shock horror....the SE has changed the rafters to 400cc by changing a note on the drawing and not telling us. (wall studs remain 600). When asked they replied that deflection 'may be a bit too much aesthetically'.....Seems unlikely to me as 1. the design programme will spit out approved sections for strength and deflection. 2. the next section deeper will add 10% to the material and nil to labour, whereas changing the cc adds 50% to both. 3. the original roof was slate, but we are using metal. Lighter by a distance and snow will not stick at 45deg. 4. we are adding ceiling struts/joists. We are not entitled to calculations so have no check. however they have not referred to the Architect's design much anywhere, so likely they have allowed slates. We are asking if 600cc is ok if we accept that there might be a droop. Such get-outs seems to be what they need The hangers were the one thing under-priced so this solution brings it correct....perhaps the QS knows. Loose infill is my new favourite term as it saves 24 hangers.

It sounds sensible, especially if that is the best location for the drainage field. You should also got moderately warm water from the tank, which will recahrage the ground heat , then have the heat drawn from it before it soaks away. But you say backfill with soil. Doesn't the slinky need close contact with the ground, eg sand? Then likewise, how is type 1 going to interact with the pipes? Maybe Ok, but needs some thought. One caveat, if there was ever a problem and dirty effluent came out, it would not be easy to excavate and clean the drainage field......but with an inspection chamber before the final connection you can monitor as necessary.

The bit that you are so pleased to see rising high, you pinch off. At any stage, now or after the next leaves. Then it will grow 2 like this from down at the leaf node below.

The prices really have fallen. Not great, but not as bad as it was looking for a while. OSB about 40% off list. Timber ditto from a BM. That is still more than the ex-mill price quoted above but getting closer. Next question. These sloping bottomed rafter hangers.... (£17 each probably) Any reason we can't use normal joist hangers with horizontal bottoms (£4), and notch the rafter into it? I am assuming that rafters into glulam ridges are treated as pinned joints, and so this would be a tidy and economical solution. (The Engineer doesn't issue any calculations without a lot more payment so there is no proof. By inspection 225 x 45 over 2.5m horizontally looks plenty for simply supported). Also, as the rafters become shorter in the triangles of the valleys and hips, is there a stage at which we just bang in 4 nails?

That will look good and especially if there are wobbles, chips and scrapes on the timber edge.

But that means £2,000 less per unit to the original landowner, who I think is actually behind most such decisions.

The plant then sends 2 lead shoots up instead of one, and bushes out faster. Probably unnecessary if planting 50 plants. The same applies to sweet peas. Did I mention earlier about planting some sweet peas among your beans? Simple, old-fashioned ones are best for attracting insects which will likely move on to the less attractive bean flowers..........and make beans.

I don't think any creatures would be interested in living behind that, unless the gap is wide. Alternating draughty, damp, freezing scorching . A mesh trim will only close the bottom, so not much point.

No. Effloresence is caused by salts coming out of masonry or mortar, and will only appear on the outer face, and wash off. A gap would fill with all sorts of crud as well as all the water running down the wall.

Sorry i meant (2) and have edited it. It needs to be tied to the blockwork too. I would rather see the top brick inset into the block, otherwise rain runs down onto a mortar joint constantly.

I did some mill buildings for a Finnish timber company, owned by the foresters. They explianed that when prices drop they let the trees grow, then when they rise they harvest. While keeping the business running of course.

(2). But please explain the purpose of the plinth.

Yes Inverness and Elgin. I always found them to be fair so may send enquiry to them. But general merchants are usually very much more expensive than specialist timber merchants from where they obtain it themselves. The timber merchant at the dockside or in the forest should be the one. If ProDave is listening in, Fettes looks a good price, considering that is price each. £420/m3 treated.

A good reference thanks. Heavy straps are good value. But the rafter hangers are £19 each! Maybe big discounts for quantity (50) and for asking?