Bemak Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 (edited) Doing a bit of a job on our kitchen at the moment and as part of the work we're removing an existing downstand beam in the dining room. The beam is only supporting a stud partition on the first floor and was installed by the previous, previous owner when they merged the kitchen and dining room into one room. We're replacing the existing beam with a new beam (152UC 37) which will be integrated into the ceiling. The new beam has a plate at the bottom to support the joists which will be cut to allow for the beam to fit into the ceiling. Part of the refurb involves opening up the back wall to put in a slider as the dining room is north-west facing. This ope is 4.2m wide so we have a big steel in supporting the external wall above. (203UC 60). I've attached extracts of the plans to give a sense of what's going on. The smaller beam bears on the larger beam at the external wall side and our intention was to reuse the existing pad that was supporting the downstand beam on the opposite side. However, on opening up the plasterboard we've found that the existing beam was just bearing on 100mm blockwork. We've proceed with the install as we're under time pressure but the smaller beam is still being propped while we let the new blockwork underneath cure. It's also giving us a chance to think about whether we need additional support on this side. I've attached a pic of beam as it is currently installed. The baseplate is making it look far more undersized than it actually is - the beam itself is 154mm wide - so it's overhanging the blockwork by 27mm each side. Not ideal. One solution is to reinforce the blockwork by bolting on a steel U-channel which will run from the base of the steel beam to the subfloor below. See last pic for diagram of this. While the 100mm bearing isn't ideal - is it that big a deal considering that the floor joists are preventing lateral movement? Don't get me wrong, I want to do the right thing here. I'm going to talk to a SE tomorrow in the office - just wondering what you guys think. Edited April 12, 2022 by Bemak resize image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceverge Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 7 minutes ago, Bemak said: One solution is to reinforce the blockwork by bolting on a steel U-channel which will run from the base of the steel beam to the subfloor below. See last pic for diagram of this. Sounds sensible. It'll probably/maybe be fine.......... however in good conscience leaving it like that isn't ideal. That looks like about a 100mm off cut of a 7N block. Normally I thought steels had spreader plates to make sure the load was well distributed over full blocks, not to mind spindly off cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if your SE recommended taking a steel down to the foundations, if the subfloor isn't reinforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bemak Posted April 12, 2022 Author Share Posted April 12, 2022 (edited) contractor ended up using concrete lintels (cut) to make up the difference between the existing and proposed. Probably more robust? will have a SE have a look anyway. I think the U-channel solution is a good fail safe Edited April 12, 2022 by Bemak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bemak Posted April 12, 2022 Author Share Posted April 12, 2022 forgot to say - the existing blockwork that the beam is sitting on goes down to the foundations - it's the remnants of the wall that was removed between kitchen and dining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miek Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 The 100mm block is a very small pad to support a structural steel IMO, its not even a pad stone or lintel, I think if you ask your SE they won't like it. support using a steel column would be a good solution provided the foundation under that column Is adequate for the loads, again you SE will help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bemak Posted April 12, 2022 Author Share Posted April 12, 2022 100mm is the width. It's probably 200mm deep. Still not ideal but it's not 100x100 is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miek Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 Ah OK, that's a better pic. As you say, not ideal, let us know what the SE says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bemak Posted April 12, 2022 Author Share Posted April 12, 2022 2 minutes ago, Miek said: Ah OK, that's a better pic. As you say, not ideal, let us know what the SE says Ya it looked mighty thin before 😅 Think it will probably be fine but will have a backstop! Will keep ye posted. Thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bemak Posted April 13, 2022 Author Share Posted April 13, 2022 just had a chat with the SE on this. He said he's happy with the 100mm wall from a loading point of view - the blockwork is more than sufficient in that sense. his only fear is lateral movement - if the beam was to move slightly because of movement upstairs the supporting wall could move/twist as a result and who's to say one of the blocks/cut lintels wouldn't pop out in that instance. But he's happy that the u-channel solution proposed by the contractor will resolve this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now