How strong are chimney stacks?

[Tim Watts]

I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
including pots.

The reason I ask is tonight we have 63mph winds forecast. I'm not
expecting it to fall down - it's survived worse, such as 1987. When I
had my roof retiled[1], the roofers said it looked in good condition
apart from some bricks have spalled a bit.


But how much margin does a 12ft high stack have against exceptional
winds? I am merely wondering if some time down the line it might be
worth taking it down, either to just above the tiles or even below the
tiles and add the missing tiles back.


I have to admit though, as I sleep right under it, the high winds
whistling around it do make me nervous as such winds almost always come
in the wee hours around here.

Doing some research it seems chimneys falling over is rare, and there
are some ancient houses in our village with really tall and weedly thin
stacks which haven't fallen over although several do have iron bar ties
to the ridge (whereas mine is tall but stout)

[1] A forward thinking person might have elected to shorten the stack
then, but I was really tight on funds so extra jobs weren't really an
option.

[Adam Aglionby]

Does it then create an unventilated void in the lower part of the stack?

Heard of dampness issues after chimneys have been capped, Borders has several buildings with stacks that would put the leaning tower of Pisa to shame, no one seems to panic.

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 15:37, Adam Aglionby wrote:

> Does it then create an unventilated void in the lower part of the
> stack?
>
> Heard of dampness issues after chimneys have been capped, Borders has
> several buildings with stacks that would put the leaning tower of
> Pisa to shame, no one seems to panic.
>

If I did, I'd leave it ventilated on top (the base already has vent grills).


Although right now, I'm only concerned with the structural integrity!

[harryagain]

"Tim Watts" <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:8keiob-...@squidward.dionic.net...

They can fall down (straight through the roof sometimes or on your car) due
to faulty pointing and the cement rotting away on the inside (Due to acid
attack from soot)
Tall ones are especially dangerous, it's only gravity holds them together.
Also if there's been a chimney fire in the past it might be damaged.
(Vertical cracks in brickwork)
Lightening strikes cause similar damage.
They should be examined by ladder) every ten years or so.
So if it hasn't been done, it needs it.
If faulty, fixing it can be a major expense.

Check right away with binoculars for cracks,loose chimney pots, cracked
haunching and bad pointing.
But you can't see all from ground level.
Sooty marks indoors are another clue all is not well.
Out of vertical is usually a demolition job.
Don't attach high TV aerials.

If not in use, you should remove it.
I removed two from my present house. Just went up there and pushed them
over. They were in a really bad way.
I dismantled them down to ground level, created lots of space in four rooms.

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 15:29, Tim Watts wrote:

> I have to admit though, as I sleep right under it, the high winds
> whistling around it do make me nervous as such winds almost always come
> in the wee hours around here.

Managed to answer my own question - hit the right google options after
writing this - typical... Anyway - Part A building regs, page 33:

"The height of stack should not exceed 4.5 times its width."

The height is from the top of the stack or pots (highest) to the highest
point the stack meets the roof.

Found a photo of the house, so can count bricks in the stack (old imperial)

26 brick courses plus pot so about 76mm inc joint times 26 = 2m plus pot
(say 400mm), so say about 2.4m in total.

The width in the thinnest direction is 2 bricks long looking at an old
photo, so about 0.46m (2 9" bricks)

The Part A modern permissible height for my chimney is 4.5 x 0.46 =
** 2.1m ** rounded.

So not far off and the top 0.4m (the discrepancy more or less) are two
round pots with reduced wind load.


Actually goes to show that the 1950's build was pretty good to be this
close to modern standards.


I suppose I will sleep a little happier now. if you don't hear from me
tomorrow, you'll know why :)

[misterroy]

last winter one went through a kitchen extension in a moderate, for here, wind

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 17:14, misterroy wrote:
> last winter one went through a kitchen extension in a moderate, for here, wind
>

Any other info? Was it a very old house or was the stack thin and wibbly
or in poor repair?

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <8keiob-...@squidward.dionic.net>, tw_u...@dionic.net
says...

> Doing some research it seems chimneys falling over is rare, and there
> are some ancient houses in our village with really tall and weedly thin
> stacks which haven't fallen over although several do have iron bar ties
> to the ridge (whereas mine is tall but stout)
>
>

Does thermal expansion & contraction of that iron bar put any stress on
the chimney it is intended to support?


--
Sam

[tony sayer]

>
>Actually goes to show that the 1950's build was pretty good to be this
>close to modern standards.
>
>
>I suppose I will sleep a little happier now. if you don't hear from me
>tomorrow, you'll know why :)

If it was that recent then might be made with cement mortar which always
seems that bit stronger than the olde lime stuff..

Still very rare occurrence collapsing stacks..
--
Tony Sayer

[Tim Watts]

Not sure -

Here's one:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.984149,0.474942,3a,19y,292.71h,102.12t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2xLh6dsFmPMZAIDTOdGfgA!2e0?hl=en

Stuffing that through gimp, I get a height to width ratio of about

8.2 !!!

Not surprised they added ties!

[charles]

In article <Wwe2iYT2...@bancom.co.uk>,

Just before The Wrekin opened a severe gale in Shrewsbury removed many
stacks since the aerial wire round the chimneys had been fitted without
corner spreaders, and they were big aerials using Sutton. The Council,
whose houses they were, were not amused.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[PeterC]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:12:21 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

> I suppose I will sleep a little happier now. if you don't hear from me
> tomorrow, you'll know why :)

Don't sleep under the stack! A house in a village a couple of miles away had
a stack go through the roof, but it was stopped by the galvanised cistern -
and a lot of timber in the loft.
Mind, middle of the night and a load of cold water and crud comes down...
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[John Rumm]

On 14/01/2015 15:29, Tim Watts wrote:

> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
> is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
> including pots.

While 12' is quite a projection, its also a decent girth, so I would not
be worried. As you said, its been there through much worse.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 18:18, John Rumm wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 15:29, Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
>> is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
>> including pots.
>
> While 12' is quite a projection, its also a decent girth, so I would not
> be worried. As you said, its been there through much worse.
>
>

Sorry - I over estimated - more like a 8' projection after I did some
brick counting...

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 18:12, PeterC wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:12:21 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> I suppose I will sleep a little happier now. if you don't hear from me
>> tomorrow, you'll know why :)
>
> Don't sleep under the stack!

Short of the car, I don't have anywhere to sleep! both bedrooms are on
that side - indeed the stack was for bedroom fireplaces.

Mind you the forecast has dropped back to 53mph gusts now...

[Capitol]

harryagain wrote:
> "Tim Watts"<tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
> news:8keiob-...@squidward.dionic.net...
>> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof, is
>> about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles including
>> pots.

I removed two from my present house. Just went up there and pushed them
> over. They were in a really bad way.
> I dismantled them down to ground level, created lots of space in four rooms.
>
>

Get used to the idea, You're going to die. How is indeterminate!

[tony sayer]

In article <5485f5bc...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus

Most all local authorities round this way, Cambridgeshire, absolutely
forbade Aerials on chimney stacks, they had to be in cranked arm wall
brackets to the council spec;!.

However as I 'm sure Bill W will tell you there're quite a few stacks
being held together with aerial lashing wire;!...

--
Tony Sayer

[Tim Watts]

On 14/01/15 20:12, tony sayer wrote:

> Most all local authorities round this way, Cambridgeshire, absolutely
> forbade Aerials on chimney stacks, they had to be in cranked arm wall
> brackets to the council spec;!.
>
> However as I 'm sure Bill W will tell you there're quite a few stacks
> being held together with aerial lashing wire;!...
>

My aerial is on the other stack that comes up mid ridge. It's also the
one that's really easy to work on as it's in the middle of the dormer
flat roof :)

[Bill Wright]

Tim Watts wrote:
> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
> is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
> including pots.

Are you sure? It's hard to tell from the ground. Count the bricks in
each course and the number of courses.

If your dimensions are right the chimney will be 2.5 bricks x 4 bricks.
That isn't very big for a chimney 9.5 feet high plus pots.

Personally I wouldn't sleep under it until it has been checked. And I
think I'd reduce it even if it turned out to be OK. I assume you won't
ever use it as a chimney again.

The check is to get a ladder to it and test the condition of the mortar
(and to a lesser extent the bricks). But to be honest once you get up
there it's usually obvious if it's in bad nick. There's nothing magic
about this. It's common sense.

On the good side, I've seen so many very dodgy-looking chimneys in my
time, and really they do seem to stay up for far longer than you'd
believe possible!

Here are some pics of dodgy mortar etc.

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesgallery/020.shtml

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesgallery/050.shtml#img2

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesgallery/230.shtml

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesgallery/231.shtml

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/loose%20bricks%2002.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/loose%20bricks%2001.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11023364/loose%20bricks%2003.jpg

Bill






Bill

[PeterC]

All the best Tim - might be worth doing some careful checks when the wind
drops.
The chap who tol me about the collapsed stack was rebuilding a similar one -
tall and on the hipped part of the roof - on a house about 25m away. He'd
rebuilt the collapsed one.
With his permission, I went up the ladder for a close look. I'd never
realised how big those things were until I was by the base.

[Tim Watts]

Well it survived. But boy it was windy - forecast was revised back up to
62mph and it sounded like it. +1 to me for having 2 giant leylandii near
the house halved in height a few years back!

Anyway, got all year and it's a zero dependency (on me) external job
with fairly access (though I suspect it will need a scaffold platform)
so I'll look to getting it shortened and capped with vents - ie about
6ft removed.

Looking at it yesterday evening, the bricks are continuing to spall and
a lump of the top corner is missing so it's not going to get any better.

[GB]

On 14/01/2015 15:37, Adam Aglionby wrote:

> Heard of dampness issues after chimneys have been capped, Borders has several buildings with stacks that would put the leaning tower of Pisa to shame, no one seems to panic.
>

We had a house with chimney stacks that leant over. The surveyor said it
was because of prevailing winds, with the rain washing the mortar out
more on one side than the other. We did take them down, to below the
level of the roof. We added air bricks for ventilation, and we never
had any damp problems.

[stuart noble]

>
> Well it survived. But boy it was windy - forecast was revised back up to
> 62mph and it sounded like it. +1 to me for having 2 giant leylandii near
> the house halved in height a few years back!
>
> Anyway, got all year and it's a zero dependency (on me) external job
> with fairly access (though I suspect it will need a scaffold platform)
> so I'll look to getting it shortened and capped with vents - ie about
> 6ft removed.
>
> Looking at it yesterday evening, the bricks are continuing to spall and
> a lump of the top corner is missing so it's not going to get any better.

You're doomed!

We are uncomfortably close to a 60 ft eucalyptus. If we ever get a south
easterly gale, I'm outa here

[Tim Watts]

On 15/01/15 11:33, stuart noble wrote:
>
>>
>> Well it survived. But boy it was windy - forecast was revised back up to
>> 62mph and it sounded like it. +1 to me for having 2 giant leylandii near
>> the house halved in height a few years back!
>>
>> Anyway, got all year and it's a zero dependency (on me) external job
>> with fairly access (though I suspect it will need a scaffold platform)
>> so I'll look to getting it shortened and capped with vents - ie about
>> 6ft removed.
>>
>> Looking at it yesterday evening, the bricks are continuing to spall and
>> a lump of the top corner is missing so it's not going to get any better.
>
> You're doomed!

Just call me Mr Paranoia... In fact I named a new law:

Squidward's Law:

If you do everything possible to prevent all forseeable mishaps, subject
to Sod's Law and Murphy's Law, then something will still go wrong.

It will be something so utterly and ridiculously unpredictable that you
will wonder in awe for weeks as to how it came to pass.



I have witnessed this on several occasions. Mostly work related, but my
employer seems to have *special powers* in this area.

Once in home life.

> We are uncomfortably close to a 60 ft eucalyptus. If we ever get a south
> easterly gale, I'm outa here

I'd start thinking about tree surgery there! But leave it for a few
weeks as they are going to be doing a fair amount of emergency work
right now - at least around here (20 trees down last night in East Sussex).

[tony sayer]

>Well it survived. But boy it was windy - forecast was revised back up to
>62mph and it sounded like it. +1 to me for having 2 giant leylandii near
>the house halved in height a few years back!
>
>Anyway, got all year and it's a zero dependency (on me) external job
>with fairly access (though I suspect it will need a scaffold platform)
>so I'll look to getting it shortened and capped with vents - ie about
>6ft removed.
>
>Looking at it yesterday evening, the bricks are continuing to spall and
>a lump of the top corner is missing so it's not going to get any better.

Why not post a few chimney pix somewhere for further comment ?...
--
Tony Sayer

[Tim Watts]

OK...

Raining at the mo... But I'll nip out when it stops.

[stuart noble]

>
>
>> We are uncomfortably close to a 60 ft eucalyptus. If we ever get a south
>> easterly gale, I'm outa here
>
> I'd start thinking about tree surgery there! But leave it for a few
> weeks as they are going to be doing a fair amount of emergency work
> right now - at least around here (20 trees down last night in East Sussex).
>

The tree is actually on council land and is the only thing stopping them
from building 6 houses next door to us. We got a preservation order on
it a while back, and the bigger it gets the further away the building
needs to be. Needless to say I feed it daily.

[Phil L]

"stuart noble" <stuart...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7NPtw.70310$kH2....@fx32.am4...

I've got the remnants of a eucalyptus in my wood shed.
It was chopped up last year by a tree surgeon near to where i was working
and he gave it to me for firewood.
The trunk is about 9 - 10 inches across and as hard as iron, I've tried
sawing it, splitting it and quite a few other things, not much makes a mark
on it.
It's harder than oak by orders of magnitude.

It was killed by a deep frost a few years previously.

I have managed to burn a few sections of it, burns very hot and for a long
time and it's very heavy and dense.

[Tim Watts]

On 15/01/15 12:04, tony sayer wrote:

Here you go:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timjwatts/sets/72157649889973397/

It's not bad, apart from some spalling. Still seems to have pointing.
But it's going to get worse and it's this year or 10 years down the
line, so might as well be this year.

I think I would (for simplicity) take it down to 1-2 courses above the
highest flashing (which is about 1-2 courses above the "shelf".

And cap it with something decorative, vented and with a bit of an
overhang to encourage rain to fall to the roof rather than keep hitting
the bricks. Not sure what yet. Definitely not a paving slab (unless it's
got something decorative on top).

Whilst it would be "nice" to remove it totally, it's a lot more work for
virtually no gain - and someone else can carry on the good work later if
they want - I don't want any more heavy "internal" works - done with those.

[js...@ntlworld.com]

This is 1950s?
Is the mortar black (ash added) or conventional coloured?

Remember they are very heavy - they lean or twist vs fall.
If the mortar is black it can vary, they end up twisting.

Ours was 140 bricks from gutter and 2 bricks wide, 98 bricks removed so about 2 bricks above DPC on the high side of the roof. It was walking.

Fall risk comes down to how exposed you are.
An opposite neighbour's did fall c.1984-87 but that is exposed to prevailing wind AND faces a field some 0.75 miles long. It fell (rocked) in the direction the wind was coming from surprisingly. Demolished the ground floor lean to because it fell a fair distance onto it. No-one in it at the time.


More of an issue, to be honest, can be water penetration.
UK rainfall is about 72inch - might be wrong - but if that is an open pot you have a lot of water going down it saturating brickwork and underfloor voids. 1950s chimney work depends on the brickie who may be excellent or abysmal - black mortar is hygroscopic and water saturation not uncommon.
If you have water tanks by the chimney, check the floor behind, it may be rotten and often is. Other weakness of 1950s is the quarry skirting tiles bridge the DPC (lower if there are two of them).

Does not cost much to take it down 5-10 courses, slate & side vent the top. It comes down to access and getting quotes. To do it properly, go below roof level, ventilate it absolutely and just retile & batten.

[Tim Watts]

On 15/01/15 15:40, js...@ntlworld.com wrote:
> This is 1950s? Is the mortar black (ash added) or conventional
> coloured?

I only have the pointing to go by but that (and the mortar in the rest
of the house) is the usual stuff - and should be cement based. Are you
thinking of some funky stuff that used fly ash as a filler?

>
> Remember they are very heavy - they lean or twist vs fall. If the
> mortar is black it can vary, they end up twisting.
>
> Ours was 140 bricks from gutter and 2 bricks wide, 98 bricks removed
> so about 2 bricks above DPC on the high side of the roof. It was
> walking.

140 courses for a 2 brick width? Bloody hell - that must have looked scary.

>
> Fall risk comes down to how exposed you are. An opposite neighbour's
> did fall c.1984-87 but that is exposed to prevailing wind AND faces a
> field some 0.75 miles long. It fell (rocked) in the direction the
> wind was coming from surprisingly. Demolished the ground floor lean
> to because it fell a fair distance onto it. No-one in it at the
> time.
>
>
> More of an issue, to be honest, can be water penetration. UK rainfall
> is about 72inch - might be wrong - but if that is an open pot you
> have a lot of water going down it saturating brickwork and underfloor
> voids.

Indeed. And birds plus their nests. The amount of nest material I
removed was insane. I asked the chap who installed my liner in the other
stack to cap them with some clip on pepper pots and that has helped - at
least kepping the birds out!

> 1950s chimney work depends on the brickie who may be excellent
> or abysmal - black mortar is hygroscopic and water saturation not
> uncommon. If you have water tanks by the chimney, check the floor
> behind, it may be rotten and often is.

Used to - that's gone. I have checked the timbers around the stack from
the inside and all seems well.

> Other weakness of 1950s is the
> quarry skirting tiles bridge the DPC (lower if there are two of
> them).
>
> Does not cost much to take it down 5-10 courses, slate & side vent
> the top. It comes down to access and getting quotes. To do it
> properly, go below roof level, ventilate it absolutely and just
> retile & batten.
>

Access is good - though it's about 3m in from the roof eaves so not sure
how they will do it. In the old days it would probably have been a
ladder job, but I expect a limited scaffold tower with a side section.

Fair point. I think I will stick to my plan at this stage to keep works
external - I have many other jobs this year and I don't want to be
monitoring works coming inside the roof. It will solve my main concern.

[GB]

On 15/01/2015 16:01, Tim Streater wrote:

>
>> UK rainfall is about 72inch - might be wrong - ...
>
> You are. More like half that for most of the country.
>

72in may be right for the western part of the country, particularly if
there are hills. The Lake District gets 80in.

[js...@ntlworld.com]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 4:39:27 PM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
> Are you thinking of some funky stuff that used fly ash as a filler?

Cement bonds to the black ash in preference to the sand.
So the strength can range aerocrete <-> OK, all over the place.

> 140 courses for a 2 brick width?
> Bloody hell - that must have looked scary.

No 140 bricks from gutter to top :-)
Width/Depth 2 bricks.
With sodding great big aerial... corner brackets brace the chimney!

[js...@ntlworld.com]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 5:19:44 PM UTC, GB wrote:
> 72in may be right for the western part of the country, particularly if
> there are hills. The Lake District gets 80in.

It is typically 450-1200mm annual average depending on area.

Whatever, an open pot lets a lot of water down and many chimney's have really hygroscopic mortar anyway. I should also add SOME 1950s chimney's have a parge coat outside and even inside of "black mortar", so act like a sponge. The better / what the builder considered "main" chimney got white fire cement parge coat, hard as nails. Often blue glazed cement tiles in the fireplace depending on usage, and people DID often set fire to the chimney burning wood as quite a few severe winters in the following decades.

[Rod Speed]

"Phil L" <neverc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtQtw.67527$CV7....@fx18.am4...

Do you know which euc it is ? They vary a lot.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <37OdnUk0ZqgqJSvJ...@brightview.co.uk>,

Capitol <sp...@wher.eva.co.uk> writes:
> harryagain wrote:
>> "Tim Watts"<tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote in message
>> news:8keiob-...@squidward.dionic.net...
>>> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof, is
>>> about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles including
>>> pots.
> I removed two from my present house. Just went up there and pushed them
>> over. They were in a really bad way.
>> I dismantled them down to ground level, created lots of space in four rooms.

My neighbour took down their chimney ~20 years ago.
He needed hardcore for the kitchen floor, so he just
lifted off each brick and then dropped it down the flue,
where it emerged in the kitchen.

--
Andrew

[Phil L]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:chqmp4...@mid.individual.net...

Not a clue, it had been standing dead in someone's garden for over a year
before they had a tree surgeon come and remove it.
It must have been an old(ish) tree because my sister has had one for about
15 years and the trunk is only about 3 inches across.

If I'd known it was so hard i wouldn't have bothered with it, the hours I've
spent trying to get it small enough to fit in my burner could have beeen
better used on softer timbers.

[tony sayer]

>Whilst it would be "nice" to remove it totally, it's a lot more work for
>virtually no gain - and someone else can carry on the good work later if
>they want - I don't want any more heavy "internal" works - done with those.

Well can't quite say what that will take in terms of windload it is a
tall one for its width and length but I'd guess that if the mortar
joints are good throughout then it doesn't seem to me to be in any
immediate danger.

I've in the past seen a lot worse than that still standing. If it does
give you peace of mind in lowering it a bit I reckon thats a scaffold
job as I very much doubt you'll be able to work up at the top of that
off such as roof ladders etc and I wouldn't want to try and lift them
pots off above my head and I'm 2 metres in height those things are very
heavy!..

If it were lime mortar like then you can almost lift each brick off the
other with a gentle tap, but I reckon that will be angle grinder or
chisel to make them part!.

Rough guess estimate that lot above the lead flashing somewhere around
the 800 KG mark..


Gut feeling?, leave it alone for another few years yet.
--
Tony Sayer

[Tim Watts]

On 16/01/15 15:17, tony sayer wrote:
>> Whilst it would be "nice" to remove it totally, it's a lot more work for
>> virtually no gain - and someone else can carry on the good work later if
>> they want - I don't want any more heavy "internal" works - done with those.
>
> Well can't quite say what that will take in terms of windload it is a
> tall one for its width and length but I'd guess that if the mortar
> joints are good throughout then it doesn't seem to me to be in any
> immediate danger.
>
> I've in the past seen a lot worse than that still standing. If it does
> give you peace of mind in lowering it a bit I reckon thats a scaffold
> job as I very much doubt you'll be able to work up at the top of that
> off such as roof ladders etc and I wouldn't want to try and lift them
> pots off above my head and I'm 2 metres in height those things are very
> heavy!..

I know!

When I had the solid fuel stove installed, the pot on the other stack
was a bit of tin from the gas boiler I'd just removed. However, the
original pot was in the garden being used as a plant pot - so I cleaned
it up and offered it to the stove fitter to put back and terminate his
flexi flue into. Yes, it was not little or light!

>
> If it were lime mortar like then you can almost lift each brick off the
> other with a gentle tap, but I reckon that will be angle grinder or
> chisel to make them part!.

Has teh same problem with a couple of gate pillars which were about 6'
tall and one was leaning like the Pisa Tower and I was scared it would
fall over and kill a kid.

Took 3' off with a bolster and club hammer - couple of well placed blows
sheared each brick's joint. The capstones weighed a bloody ton!

Stopped at 3' as that was clearly the original pillar which had later
been extended and the hollow core at that point was filled with VERY
hard concrete - so I decided, lean or no lean, this bit was unlikely to
fall over.

> Rough guess estimate that lot above the lead flashing somewhere around
> the 800 KG mark..

I can imagine.

>
> Gut feeling?, leave it alone for another few years yet.
>

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll get some quotes anyway.

I did wonder if a cherry picker would be appropriate. I've got a 4'
concrete path there with a further 2' of ground, or a further 8' of
ground if coming back in front of the shed. Seeing as it's a job that a
fit bloke could probably do in 1-2 days, it might be cost effective.

Would need a height of 6.7m to top of cradle sides, and a reach of about
2.5m ...

[Tim Watts]

On 16/01/15 15:30, Tim Watts wrote:

> I did wonder if a cherry picker would be appropriate. I've got a 4'
> concrete path there with a further 2' of ground, or a further 8' of
> ground if coming back in front of the shed. Seeing as it's a job that a
> fit bloke could probably do in 1-2 days, it might be cost effective.
>
> Would need a height of 6.7m to top of cradle sides, and a reach of about
> 2.5m ...

In fact one of these looks like it would do it - if it did not mind
being on sloping concrete:

http://www.hewden.co.uk/media/1769/2011-09-v1-genie-z30-20.pdf

[RobertL]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 3:29:53 PM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
> is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
> including pots.

This (link below, google "chimney height to width ratio" to find it) suggests that a height to narrowest width ratio more than 4.5:1 is dangerous. So your stack at 12ft/2ft is over the limit.

Robert

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KfObGedazCEC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=chimney+height+to+width+ratio&source=bl&ots=jv4LGdpxY7&sig=LOJnw-8BiPZDnPMMVvT9JGlZuRk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RjG5VLLhE4HCywP9w4IY&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=chimney%20height%20to%20width%20ratio&f=false

[Tim Watts]

Yes - I read that figure of 4.5 earlier, it's from Part A of the
Approved Building regs docs.

[tony sayer]

>e.
>
>>
>> Gut feeling?, leave it alone for another few years yet.
>>
>
>Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll get some quotes anyway.
>
>I did wonder if a cherry picker would be appropriate. I've got a 4'
>concrete path there with a further 2' of ground, or a further 8' of
>ground if coming back in front of the shed. Seeing as it's a job that a
>fit bloke could probably do in 1-2 days, it might be cost effective.
>
>Would need a height of 6.7m to top of cradle sides, and a reach of about
>2.5m ...

And a very solid base to work from. I have used such machines in the
past but have never felt that safe or stable on them.

I'd if it were for me I'd see what I could get scaffolding for:).

And of that I reckon it'd be an easy DIY job on a decent summers day ofd
course;)....
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <695008c1-4a46-4677...@googlegroups.com>,
RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> scribeth thus

>On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 3:29:53 PM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
>> I have a defunct stack which goes up through the hip face of the roof,
>> is about 2x3 ft wide/deep and projects some 12 ft above the tiles
>> including pots.
>
>
>
>
>
>This (link below, google "chimney height to width ratio" to find it) suggests
>that a height to narrowest width ratio more than 4.5:1 is dangerous. So your
>stack at 12ft/2ft is over the limit.

12 foot?, around 30 courses from the base worse case is around 7 foot
...
>
>Robert
>
>https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KfObGedazCEC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=chimney+h
>eight+to+width+ratio&source=bl&ots=jv4LGdpxY7&sig=LOJnw-8BiPZDnPMMVvT9JGlZuRk&hl
>=en&sa=X&ei=RjG5VLLhE4HCywP9w4IY&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=chimney%20height%20
>to%20width%20ratio&f=false

--
Tony Sayer