|
Nyyen posted:Not entirely sure if this is the right thread for this, but here it is anyway. Something far worse than that other house that shall remain unmentioned... As a structural engineer, this just makes me so very very sad.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
t_violet posted:I'll just throw this out there, I was at a meeting hall that had this construction with some firefighters and they said they are scared to death of that type of construction. It tends to fail catastrophically in a fire, collapsing the roof and killing firefighters. Yeah, you could certainly have an issue with fire rating depending on your code. Anyway, this isn't standard wood construction so, at least in my jurisdiction, you'd need an engineer's stamp on it. I can think of a few ways you could realistically do the connection, but it would involve actually crunching numbers to verify which would work. If this is actually something you want to do, hire a local engineer to size the rod, detail the connection and make sure you meet fire requirements. If you can provide reasonable information and access to what's there, it's probably only a few hundred bucks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:He received AutoCAD files and hand drawings, clearly labeled to the exact dimensions, including the tolerances. He changed the tolerances because he thought fractional inches was too much work. I don't even know. This is why checking exists? Somebody was probably annoyed at the guy the week before for putting pointlessly precise dimensions on a drawing and he figured he was helping out. This is a quick markup on the checkprint and a ten second conversation, not a post on the internet thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
So you have a load bearing bathtub?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Laminator posted:So, who wants to inspect my deck? If you don't have it, download a copy of the AWC Prescriptive Residential Deck Construction Guide. I think you can grab it at their website. It'll tell you what things are supposed to look like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Aoi-chan posted:
If it was primarily holding back lateral earth pressures, it was in fact a retaining soda machine! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Anyone have the website of the home inspector with the hilariously in depth reports and maintenance manual that comes up every once in a while in the thread? He's around Vancouver and I think I'm going to try and convince a friend to use him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:This is the guy you are probably thinking of, we used him for our inspection - http://www.theco.ca/ Exactly that dude. Awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Probably that. People usually don't consider that the weight of humans can kill buildings. This is generally terrifying whenever it happens, because car park design loading actually isn't all that big. It's not even close to what your design for the sort of large gathering you see every one in a while. Also, engineers imagine all this kind of poo poo, you just can't justify designing to the completely crazy edge cases that are always going to happen. I've literally had internet forum discussions with other structural engineers about whether it's justifiable to to design upper floors in parking lots to huge load capacity in case this sort of thing happens.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:It wouldn't at all surprise me if that balcony was intended for like 3 people to fit on, and they were like 'well you know, people are nuts' and then built it to support 10 just in case, and now someone is holding their head in their hands wondering how the hell 13 people got onto that thing and kicking themselves for not building to 5x capacity. Balconies built to code in the US should generally be built to a service load of 100psf. With safety factor, you really shouldn't be able to break that even with people jammed in there. Some people argue that small balconies should be designed to the loading requirements of the room they're attached too. It's a stretch of a code interpretation. That could get you as low as 40 psf... It's not the right way to do it, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
You're paying the general contractor to do that. Check on the work, not the workers, and try to avoid instructing individual contractors. Look at the end of the day, and if it's poo poo talk to the general or tear him a new one, if you want. If that doesn't fix things, fire the guy and hire a good one. If you want to be in charge of all the day to day details, hire the contractors directly and organize it yourself. Otherwise, actually respect people and let them do their jobs. You're undermining the general contractor by going around them. If you're worried about something being covered up, set inspection hold points so you can see things before they're closed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 18:54
|
|