Bowing house wall - tie rods?
Grunff
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.
When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.
We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.
The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.
Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.
I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.
I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.
Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.
TIA
--
Grunff
BigWallop
"Grunff" <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote in message
news:blpos8$en44t$1...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de...
Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
collapse.
If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.
Good luck with.
PS. And just another point. Ask your insurance company what they think.
(this came from the little woman sitting behind me, who seems to be up on
that sort of thing)
Grunff
> Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
> an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
> needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
> every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
> collapse.
Well, yes, that's the obvious answer, but I'm looking for more
info at this stage.
TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because
[a] It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this
long, and is supported by a great big stone porch on the
outside, and [b] Even if it did, it really wouldn't be the end
of the world, and would give us a good reason to rebuild the house.
> If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
> is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
> period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.
It's been on the move since at least the 60s, because we found
some 1960s newspapers stuffed into one of the bigger cracks.
> Good luck with.
Thanks. No google link? ;-)
--
Grunff
John Laird
>TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because
>[a] It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this
>long, and is supported by a great big stone porch on the
>outside, and [b] Even if it did, it really wouldn't be the end
>of the world, and would give us a good reason to rebuild the house.
[a] But you say it is still moving... What gives you confidence that the
movement will stop before it eventually collapses ? I don't think "it's
stood this long" is a particularly sound reason, engineering-wise !
[b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
won't come down with it.
I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.
I had a bulging back wall re-tied as part of the mortgage conditions on my
house - the outer leaf had come adrift from the inner (structural) wall.
--
Mail john rather than nospam...
The Natural Philosopher
I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
> other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
> off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
> a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.
Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.
Its really not expensive to put a tie rod through and tighten up the bolts.
Just make sure its as specified by certified engineers with liability insurance.
Then you are covered against mistakes.
Grunff
> [b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
> won't come down with it.
No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
of the world. That's what I'm saying.
> I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
> other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
> off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
> a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.
Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
fully aware of the problem).
--
Grunff
Grunff
> Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
> THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
> the house falls down.
What qualifications should one look for in a structural
engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
pages equal?
--
Grunff
Darren Griffin
> No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
> most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
> of the world. That's what I'm saying.
It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
down.
Grunff
> It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
> down.
I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.
--
Grunff
James Salisbury
Try a Chartered Civil or Structrual engineer, a decent engineer needs C Eng
after her or his name.
BigWallop
Please say your not sure. All it can take is some ground movement or a
heavy lorry passing the building, to take any precarious structure over the
edge. Do you know that the joist are still properly seated on their
retainers ? Have the joists moved out of their original position and are
now sitting on crumbling mortar.
A low flying jet from RAF Leuchars, brought down a cottage in the wilds of
the Ayrshire country side. So please, if you can see that the movement is
continuing at a pretty even rate over short periods of time, then have it
looked at properly. We'd all miss you.
PoP
>I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
>run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
>be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.
As others have said, and perhaps to lend weight as if we were voting
on the next step, I'd consult someone who knows what they are talking
about. And your insurance company should be part of the deal.
It is possible that your insurance company has a get-out clause buried
in the fine print, in so far that at the time you purchased the
property there was a problem. That should have been noted by the
surveyor who inspected prior to purchase. Depending on his description
may be whether the insurance company feel they are liable (and like
all insurance companies their starting gambit will tend to be "not us,
guv!").
Remember that the Titanic didn't sink instantly after coming into
contact with a block of frozen water.
PoP
John Rumm
> supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it
Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with it?
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Grunff
> Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with
> it?
I don't think so. First off, the wall isn't sinking - there's no
movement at ground level. It's bulging out, greatest bulge at
the centre of the wall. Second, I don't believe the porch walls
are tied in to the bulging wall - it appears to have just been
built there, in contact with but not attached to the wall.
--
Grunff
Grunff
> Please say your not sure. All it can take is some ground movement or a
> heavy lorry passing the building, to take any precarious structure over the
> edge. Do you know that the joist are still properly seated on their
> retainers ? Have the joists moved out of their original position and are
> now sitting on crumbling mortar.
Greatest deflection is aout 30mm, over 70 years. The joists are
still nicely in their holes, that was one of the first things I
checked.
> We'd all miss you.
I'm touched...
I will be doing something about it - don't worry. Just getting
the group's thoughts first. I like to understand things. I'm
trying to understand what possible solutions may exist. I like
to have this information before calling in someone who may or
may not know what they're talking about.
--
Grunff
Dave Baker
>From: Grunff grun...@ixxa.com
>Date: 05/10/03 19:44 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <blpos8$en44t$1...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
>footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of.
Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.
Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.
I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.
I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
I'm not at all sure why women like men. We're argumentative, childish,
unsociable and extremely unappealing naked. I'm quite grateful they do though.
Grunff
> Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.
>
> Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.
Ok, it has some very shallow stone foundations. No deeper than a
foot.
> I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
> you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
> castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
> they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
> 1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
> that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.
Sounds reasonable.
> I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
> worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
> attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
> have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.
I know - it's puzzled me too. I concluded that the bowing wall
must be pushing the porch out with it. I think if the porch was
going to sink it would just detatch from the house. I could be
wrong.
--
Grunff
Richard Faulkner
<grun...@ixxa.com> writes
>We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
>years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.
>
>The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
>downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
>increase in size as you go upwards.
What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
.........
Get a structural engineer in fast. It will cost around £175 to £400 or
so, for a visual inspection, initial prognosis and advice for further
inspection and/or cure.
The longer you leave it, the more chance of having to rebuild the wall
than using simple metal strapping.
I would get the engineer 1st - before involving your insurance co.. You
may not need, or want, to bother with insurance.
This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.
--
Richard Faulkner
Grunff
> What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
> ..........
None of the above. I'm ... laid back.
> This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
> surveyor when you sell.
What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.
--
Grunff
Owain
| > What qualifications should one look for in a structural
| > engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
| > pages equal?
| Try a Chartered Civil or Structrual engineer, a decent engineer needs
| C Eng after her or his name.
You want a Structural Engineer who will be MIStructE (Member of the
Institute of Structural Engineers - www.istructe.org.uk but I don't think
they have an online member listing[1]) and CEng as well.
Owain
[1] They do have http://www.findanengineer.com/ but it's a paid-for listing
rather than a comprehensive register of members. You could try a local
reference library for the IStructE Sessional Yearbook and Directory of
Members
Richard Faulkner
<grun...@ixxa.com> writes
>Richard Faulkner wrote:
>
>> What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
>> ..........
>
>None of the above. I'm ... laid back.
>
>
I was being a bit tongue in cheek <g>, but you wont know when it moves
the millimetre from needing strapping to needing rebuilding.
>> This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
>> surveyor when you sell.
>
>What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
>question.
>
A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.
A builders invoice for completion of said requirements
A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
work.
--
Richard Faulkner
Dave Plowman
Grunff <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote:
> What qualifications should one look for in a structural
> engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
> pages equal?
Remind me where you are, Grunff? I have a pal who is a structural
engineer and is distinctly lacking in BS when explaining things to the
likes of me - and is happy to give DIY instuctions. He travels a fair
bit judging by the rate he gets through cars. He's based in west London.
--
*It was all so different before everything changed.
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
John Laird
>John Laird wrote:
>
>> I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
>> other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
>> off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
>> a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.
>
>Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
>fully aware of the problem).
Did you buy this house without a mortgage, out of interest ? I can't
imagine any lender approving a loan without further investigation (nor the
valuer missing a large bulge). Fwiw, the bulge in the outer wall of my
house was of the order of an inch, over about 10' in height. I was informed
that renewing the wall ties was a practical solution up to an inch or so.
Beyond that, it was rebuilding time. Not in itself a huge job as the outer
leaf is non-structural, but as it was above a large conservatory, not
trivial either.
PoP
>Greatest deflection is aout 30mm, over 70 years. The joists are
>still nicely in their holes, that was one of the first things I
>checked.
The leaning tower of Pisa has been moving gradually off centre for
several hundred years. It was only recently that they figured that if
they didn't do something it was going to come down sharpish.
I wouldn't depend on the argument "well it has only moved so much in
so many years". The straw that broke the camels back and all that.
PoP
Gnube
>BigWallop wrote:
>> We'd all miss you.
>
>I'm touched...
Indeed, however we'd still miss you! ;O)
Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}
Grunff
> Remind me where you are, Grunff? I have a pal who is a structural
> engineer and is distinctly lacking in BS when explaining things to the
> likes of me - and is happy to give DIY instuctions. He travels a fair
> bit judging by the rate he gets through cars. He's based in west London.
Hi Dave,
I'm in mid Devon. That would make for an 8 hour total drive,
which is a fair bit. But thanks for the thought.
If your mate is down this way on other business, that would be
very handy.
--
Grunff
The Natural Philosopher
The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.
I am pretty sure that they have some certification. Institute of
structural engineers or summat. Round here ther is just one company, who
everybody uses. The way I had it from everybody was 'if you use X, and
do what they say, then you are completely covered' I did, and it cost me
a measly couole of hundred quid AFAICR to get an aspect of my design
fully qualified and specced out. I have a thick report on loadings and
deflections and so on that is very impressive, and completely
impenetrable, and satisfied the builiding inspector and the architect.
The thing is, it doesn't cost a huge amiount extra to use a big rod
versus a small one, and they overspecify to cover their arses, so
whatever they recommend won't be 'good enough' it will be 'massively
more than good enough' and they make their money from the report and
recommendations, not from installing extra bits at your expense.
Grunff
> Did you buy this house without a mortgage, out of interest ?
No, we have a mortgage.
> I can't
> imagine any lender approving a loan without further investigation (nor the
> valuer missing a large bulge).
Don't know whether they missed it or just didn't care, but it
seemed to make no difference to the lender.
> Fwiw, the bulge in the outer wall of my
> house was of the order of an inch, over about 10' in height. I was informed
> that renewing the wall ties was a practical solution up to an inch or so.
> Beyond that, it was rebuilding time. Not in itself a huge job as the outer
> leaf is non-structural, but as it was above a large conservatory, not
> trivial either.
This is a slightly different situation, because there's no
inner/outer leaf - it's just one thick, solid wall.
--
Grunff
The Natural Philosopher
If you read up on Eulers slender strut/slender column theory, you might
get a shock. The amount of weight a fully supported wall can take,
versus the amount an already bowed wall can take, are vastly different.
The failure mode is catastrophic. I.e. once beyond a critical point, it
happens in seconds.
Without knowing more about the actual loadings and causes, its not
possible to say how dodgy this all is. That's why you need a structuiral
engineer.
Grunff
> The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
> local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.
Just spoke to them, and they're sorry, but they just can't
recommend anyone.
--
Grunff
RichardS
There is an institute, dont have the name to mind at the moment.
At a pinch you could contact the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - a
building surveyor probably isn't what you want, but they shoudl be able to
point you to the correct Institute.
The Institute will most probably have strict rules on the minnimum amount of
PI Insurance that members carry (including run-on after they cease
business), and this shoudl be one of your questions when evaluating
candidates, but not one of the first ones!. If you go to someone and one of
your first questions on the phone that you ask is about their insurance
cover they will probably think that you have some ulterior motive and may
refuse the business.
If you get a spec from them and a certificate of completion or statement of
their satisfaction with the work or whatever then I see no reason at all why
you shouldn't DIY it - don't see that a certificate from a builders would be
necessary.
cheers
Richard
--
Richard Sampson
email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Dave Plowman
Grunff <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote:
> > The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
> > local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.
> Just spoke to them, and they're sorry, but they just can't
> recommend anyone.
Sign of the times, I'm afraid. By recommending someone they could
probably be held jointly liable if things went wrong.
--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.
Dave Plowman
Grunff <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote:
> I'm in mid Devon. That would make for an 8 hour total drive,
> which is a fair bit. But thanks for the thought.
Yes - I'd say so too. ;-) And in any case, a local man *should* be the
best bet as he'll be familiar with the quirks of regional differences in
construction and soil conditions etc.
> If your mate is down this way on other business, that would be
> very handy.
I'll certainly mention it.
--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?
Michael Mcneil
news:8P20fKArFKg$Ew...@estate.demon.co.uk
> >What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
> >question.
> >
>
> A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.
>
> A builders invoice for completion of said requirements
>
> A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
> work.
Boy am I glad this is not my problem. The above advice is all sound.
Don't make a move until you have had good professional advice and don't
do anything until it all agrees.
A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.
If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.
Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Grunff
> A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
> rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
> in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
> have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
> means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
> Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
> damage. I don't know what they are.
It's 70 years old (1930s), no concrete pad, no cavity.
> If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
> ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
> it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
> the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
> walls but just rest in situ.
Not sure about the roof theory. The wall is bulging most at 1st
floor floor level, not 1st floor ceiling level.
> Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
> leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
> you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
> it surveyed ASAP.
As I said, rebuilding wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as
it's justified.
--
Grunff
The Natural Philosopher
Mm. Its not taht hard - acrows remove and replace basically.
Is it timber or brick?
Grunff
> Mm. Its not taht hard - acrows remove and replace basically.
If we did rebuild, we'd build the new house about 20 yards away
from the existing one, then knock down the old one.
> Is it timber or brick?
Stone. Lots of chunks of granite, with *lots* of lime mortar in
between.
--
Grunff
AlanG
>Darren Griffin wrote:
>
>> It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
>> down.
>
>I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
>be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
>very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.
Walls do.
The very first house we bought about 30 years ago had this happen to a
boundary wall 6ft high and about 30ft long. Damp got into the
brickwork. One night we heard a loud bang and looked out to see the
wall totally demolished and lumps of ice sticking to the debris. I
would never have believed it could happen without the experience of
having seen it.
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
The Natural Philosopher
Lovely. If you do rebuild, and need a shoulder to cry on, give us a
shout :-)
I also discovered I can do a good job on design, apart from the
structural bits, which I left to the architect..Someone asked me 'who
designed your house?' and after a lot of thought, I realised that how it
looks and how it works is entirely me, but how its built is 80% the
architect, 5% the structural engineers and 25% the blokes who built it.
Grunff
> Lovely. If you do rebuild, and need a shoulder to cry on, give us a
> shout :-)
Oh don't you worry - you're already on my list :-). Thanks.
> I also discovered I can do a good job on design, apart from the
> structural bits, which I left to the architect..Someone asked me 'who
> designed your house?' and after a lot of thought, I realised that how it
> looks and how it works is entirely me, but how its built is 80% the
> architect, 5% the structural engineers and 25% the blokes who built it.
There's a bit of me which would really like to rebuild - it'd be
nice to get exactly what we want, rather than a big compromise.
However, there's another (bigger) bit of me which would like to
save 80k. So I'm kind of hoping we're forced down the rebuild
route, but unless we have to, it's unlikely we'd do it.
The thing about our place is that the spot is perfect - 16 acres
of south facing slope, with the house slap bang in the middle of
it. That's why we were quite happy to buy it despite the awful
state of the house.
<http://ixxa.com/alchey/hi.jpg>
The blue line is our boundary, and the pink dot in the middle is
the house. We've no intention of moving, so we just have to
figure out how best to use what we have - whether it's
rebuilding or fixing up the existing house.
--
Grunff
John Rumm
> I know - it's puzzled me too. I concluded that the bowing wall must be
> pushing the porch out with it. I think if the porch was going to sink it
> would just detatch from the house. I could be wrong.
I suppose that might prove a cheap solution. Take down the porch and
build a decent foundation under it. Then rebuild it, and it can act as a
buttress to prevent further movement of the wall!
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Owain
Not sure if my posting last night made it through; to repeat myself:
Grunff
> Not sure if my posting last night made it through; to repeat myself:
>
> You want a Structural Engineer who will be MIStructE (Member of the
> Institute of Structural Engineers - www.istructe.org.uk but I don't think
> they have an online member listing[1]) and CEng as well.
Thanks. They appear to be in very short supply around here. I've
spoken to someone who sounds competent, who will come and do a
survey next week. Will keep you posted.
--
Grunff
Christian McArdle
Grunff
> Hope you've got a ride on mower.
You need a graden to use one of them - we haven't made a garden
yet. Just yard and fields.
--
Grunff
The Natural Philosopher
OOh. Can I come and shoot rabbits and fly model planes there please!
Grunff
> OOh. Can I come and shoot rabbits and fly model planes there please!
Model planes - anytime. I do plenty of that. As for rabbits,
SWMBO would have a blue fit. Very animal friendly, and very
gun-unfriendly. Besides, the cat eats most of them.
--
Grunff
Andy Hall
wrote:
>Grunff wrote:
>
<<snip>>
>>
>> The blue line is our boundary, and the pink dot in the middle is the
>> house. We've no intention of moving, so we just have to figure out how
>> best to use what we have - whether it's rebuilding or fixing up the
>> existing house.
>>
>
>OOh. Can I come and shoot rabbits and fly model planes there please!
>
Try a more tempting offer such as taking a model /helicopter and
flying it upside down over Grunff's fields. He doesn't have one of
those sit-on mowers and might welcome the grass being cut. ;-)
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Grunff
> Try a more tempting offer such as taking a model /helicopter and
> flying it upside down over Grunff's fields. He doesn't have one of
> those sit-on mowers and might welcome the grass being cut. ;-)
Hmmm...there's a thought...
--
Grunff
Gnube
Can I come and shoot at the planes then? ;O)
Michael Mcneil
> Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
> footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
> made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
> 60cm thick.
It doesn't take much for me to make a tit of myself. In this case it was
a combination of your writing and my reading.
Where are you living? Germany? (......152899.news.uni-berlin.de) I think
it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.
> When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
> at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
> attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
> partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
> and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.
It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
skin. 8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding? Or is it a town house you
are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
separated, please.
> We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
> years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.
This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?
> The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
> downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
> increase in size as you go upwards.
This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.
> Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
> side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.
If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
go before they come out the wall at the worst part.
> I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
> walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
> outside of the walls using steel plates.
So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.
> I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
> run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
> be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.
I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.
> Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
> offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
> stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
> should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
> kind of thing.
What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
it.
Tamer Shafik
> Where are you living? Germany?
Devon.
> it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
> even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
> would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
> incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.
Not much of a rock bed, but a shallow loose stone foundation.
> It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
> skin.
And indeed it doesn't - just solid stone.
> 8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
> old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding?
Yes - sort of.
> Or is it a town house you
> are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
> separated, please.
Ok, the house has a square footprint. The only structural walls
are the 4 outer walls. But intenally, it's divided up using
block partition walls. The movement of the outer wall is
evidenced by cracks where the interior partition wall (p) meets
the outer walls.
In this diagram, the top wall (which represents the house's
south facing external wall) is no longer very flat - it's
slightly convex.
________________
| p |
| p |
| p |
|ppppppppppppppp|
| p |
| p |
________p_______|
> This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?
Yup.
> This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.
You'd think that - but the greatest deflection of the outer wall
is not at roof level - it's at first floor floor level.
> If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
> whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
> go before they come out the wall at the worst part.
No supporting walls have been removed. The joists have a good
few inches yet.
> So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.
I have no intention of selling up, and every intention of
implementing a fix. I just wanted the group's experiences.
> I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
> cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
> butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
> wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
> the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
> the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.
Exactly.
> What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
> DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
> it.
Eh??
--
Grunff
Grunff
> Where are you living? Germany?
Devon.
> it unlikely that your house would have been built without foundations
> even in the financial straits of the time. I believe the building style
> would have been to find a rock base to put the house on and to
> incorporate a technique of some kind for limiting damp.
Not much of a rock bed, but a shallow loose stone foundation.
> It is unusual for a 2 ft stone wall to have an internal and an external
> skin.
And indeed it doesn't - just solid stone.
> 8 metres is not a gianormous edifice for a country house. Is it an
> old semi derelict cottage you are rebuilding?
Yes - sort of.
> Or is it a town house you
> are struggling to hold together? Describe how the wall partitions have
> separated, please.
Ok, the house has a square footprint. The only structural walls
are the 4 outer walls. But intenally, it's divided up using
block partition walls. The movement of the outer wall is
evidenced by cracks where the interior partition wall (p) meets
the outer walls.
In this diagram, the top wall (which represents the house's
south facing external wall) is no longer very flat - it's
slightly convex.
________________
| p |
| p |
| p |
|ppppppppppppppp|
| p |
| p |
________p_______|
> This crack showed 1mm extra bowing in an outwardly mobile direction?
Yup.
> This sounds suspiciously like the roof is pushing the house out.
You'd think that - but the greatest deflection of the outer wall
is not at roof level - it's at first floor floor level.
> If I were you I should check what supporting walls have been removed and
> whilst you are at it I would see how much the floor joists have got to
> go before they come out the wall at the worst part.
No supporting walls have been removed. The joists have a good
few inches yet.
> So what’s the problem? If you can afford it do it. If not, sell up.
I have no intention of selling up, and every intention of
implementing a fix. I just wanted the group's experiences.
> I don’t know what I was thinking of in my previous posts. A '70's UK
> cavity wall semi, built on a concrete pad with failed wall ties –
> butterfly shaped wire connectors to tie the outer and inner leaves of a
> wall together every 3 or 4 courses. What you are hoping to do is pull
> the house together with steel jacks. I think it is impossible to rectify
> the damage; the metal is to help stop it getting worse.
Exactly.
> What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
> DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
> it.
Eh??
--
Grunff
John Laird
>John Laird <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> writes:
>
>[15 lines snipped]
>
>>I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
>>other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
>>off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
>>a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.
>
>There's no "may" about it.
Well, if the dreaded "s" word is held to blame, you're probably right. (And
I ought to know as I'm in that situation.)
--
People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no
reference to fun in any Act of Parliament.
Mail john rather than nospam...
BigWallop
ROFLMAO !!!!! Well, there you have it. Mr M,M, must be a structural
engineer by the way he's told you off. Or an arsehole who thinks he knows
everything. I know which I'm choosing. :-))
ROFLMAO !!!!!
---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/03
Gnube
The Natural Philosopher
If he waits till I am feeling less impoerished, he can have my old
westwood ride on. Needs a lot of tinkering as its had a hard life, but
it will do about two acres a day.
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> OOh. Can I come and shoot rabbits and fly model planes there please!
>
>
> Model planes - anytime. I do plenty of that.
Oh? Haven't seen you on uk.rec.models.radio-control.air?
> As for rabbits, SWMBO would
> have a blue fit. Very animal friendly, and very gun-unfriendly. Besides,
> the cat eats most of them.
>
I'm animal friednly too. I *love* pigeons and rabbits. Stewed.
The Natural Philosopher
<not a lot>
Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.
The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
bowing centrally. This worries me enough to be glad you have an engineer
on the case already.
If you are not familiar with dear old Euler, just get a playing card or
similar, and place it on edge and press down on the top. Then bend it
vertically and do the same. Euler did the math to show why in the first
case it buckles, and in the second case it doesn't.
One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.
Michael Mcneil
news:3F825776.4000103@b.c
Odd that Tamer Shafik and Grunff posted the same thing from the same
server in Berlin:
"Tamer Shafik" <t...@ixxa.com> wrote in message
news:blst4e$g4sbb$1...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de
"Grunff" <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote in message
news:blst5v$g4sbb$3...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de
> Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
> settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
> only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.
>
> The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
> bowing centrally.
> One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.
Now we have settled that the roof is pushing the wall out and that it is
not a cavity wall. And apparently he has got an engineer on the job, can
we know why he hasn't been able to supply us with technical information?
Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
qualifications of the advisor.
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:3F825776.4000103@b.c
>
> Odd that Tamer Shafik and Grunff posted the same thing from the same
> server in Berlin:
>
> "Tamer Shafik" <t...@ixxa.com> wrote in message
> news:blst4e$g4sbb$1...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de
>
> "Grunff" <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote in message
> news:blst5v$g4sbb$3...@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de
>
Looks like a mistake on the server side.
>
>>Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
>>settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
>>only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.
>>
>>The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
>>bowing centrally.
>>
>
>>One of the few things I can remember form structural engineering lectures.
>>
>
> Now we have settled that the roof is pushing the wall out and that it is
> not a cavity wall. And apparently he has got an engineer on the job, can
> we know why he hasn't been able to supply us with technical information?
>
> Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
> laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
> time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
> attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
> qualifications of the advisor.
>
>
what is your problem? apaqrt from uisng hotmail that is...
>
Andy Hall
<weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
>laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
>time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
>attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
>qualifications of the advisor.
Is it necessary to be quite so rude??
Grunff
> Grunff, if the wall is bowing out in the middle, then apart from simple
> settlement etc, its likely that the weight of the roof is downwards
> only. That is consistent with properly tied rafters and joists.
>
> The Euler criteria for collapse has its first solution as the wall
> bowing centrally. This worries me enough to be glad you have an engineer
> on the case already.
And I would be worried too - if it wasn't for the big stone
porch stuck to the side of it! The porch is about 2m wide, and
central to the wall.
I'll let you know what the structural engineer says (next week).
> If you are not familiar with dear old Euler, just get a playing card or
> similar, and place it on edge and press down on the top. Then bend it
> vertically and do the same. Euler did the math to show why in the first
> case it buckles, and in the second case it doesn't.
Vague memories...
--
Grunff
Grunff
> Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
> laid parallel to the rafters. I rather think that if he'd spent more
> time attending his public library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than
> attending to this thread he'd get as much information and know the
> qualifications of the advisor.
I've said it before, and will probably say it again - Eh??
--
Grunff
Grunff
> Oh? Haven't seen you on uk.rec.models.radio-control.air?
I'm not a serious flyer - just mess around with a variety of
cobbled together machines. I think I may have posted on there a
while back about ducted prop helis, something I'm still working on.
--
Grunff
Dave Plowman
Michael Mcneil <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
> DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
> it.
I'd love to show you the 'professional help' my architect got from a
structural engineer when my roof conversion was under way - it added
*thousands* to the cost. And a back of a fag packet calculation showed
much of it to be unnecessary. And proved so subsequently at law.
It would be an ideal world where simply employing a pro - even with
letters after his name - would guarantee a satisfactory result. Life isn't
like that, though, so getting advice here - and knowing how to act on it -
is not the act of a retard.
Seems to me you are typical of many - you love spending other's money.
--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
fred
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <668665db61f661e3742...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Michael Mcneil <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What sort of inane questions do you suppose belong on a group called UK
>> DIY? You have been told to seek professional help you retard, go and get
>> it.
>
>I'd love to show you the 'professional help' my architect got from a
>structural engineer when my roof conversion was under way - it added
>*thousands* to the cost. And a back of a fag packet calculation showed
>much of it to be unnecessary. And proved so subsequently at law.
>
> It would be an ideal world where simply employing a pro - even with
>letters after his name - would guarantee a satisfactory result. Life isn't
>like that, though, so getting advice here - and knowing how to act on it -
>is not the act of a retard.
>
very, er, average . . . . .
Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .
But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
--
fred
Grunff
> Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
> very, er, average . . . . .
>
> Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .
>
> But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
Asbolutely. I don't have any problem at all with paying people
for their time - after all, people pay me for mine. But that
doesn't mean I don't want to understand what's going on.
I have several friends who just can't understand why it is that
I service/repair my own cars/washing machines/whatever. Doesn't
seem to matter how many times I say *it's my hobby, I enjoy it*.
--
Grunff
Dave Plowman
fred <n...@for.mail> wrote:
> Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
> very, er, average . . . . .
> Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .
> But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *
fred
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
>statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
>Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
;-)
--
fred
Peter Ashby
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Wxm1ARA7npg$Ew0x@y.z>,
> fred <n...@for.mail> wrote:
> > Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
> > very, er, average . . . . .
>
> > Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .
>
> > But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
>
> Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
> statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
> Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
yes, and is very sensibly trying to put himself in a position where a
cowboy is less able to pull the wool over his eyes. Information is power.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Michael Mcneil
news:smt4ovkgg2ksg4a47...@4ax.com
Not really, the pratt is still shepherding the thread like a dolt. If he
is the same anal retentive that kept asking advice about electric saws
some months back, then I consider my reply quite restrained -albeit
unecessary as it will be not so much ignored as treated with abandon.
Nothing wrong with that perhaps. Be a shame to be stuck with him as a
customer though.
The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
have got hold of some books on it by now.
Grunff
> Not really, the pratt is still shepherding the thread like a dolt. If he
> is the same anal retentive that kept asking advice about electric saws
> some months back, then I consider my reply quite restrained -albeit
> unecessary as it will be not so much ignored as treated with abandon.
What the hell are you on about f#<kwit?
> The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
> he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
> have got hold of some books on it by now.
Rich, very rich indeed!
--
Grunff
BigWallop
"Michael Mcneil" <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ba6c4f4381b049e1c5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
I think someone failed their exam in social studies. I think I've found a
candidate for my kill file. Yes !!! The they go. BYE BYE !!!!
Bob Eager
<weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
> laid parallel to the rafters.
Hmmmm.our house is due to fall down then. Half of the house has joists
going one way, and in the rest of the house they're at right angles.
Obviously a design fault 100 years ago when it was built...
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...
Dave Plowman
Michael Mcneil <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not really, the pratt is still shepherding the thread like a dolt. If he
> is the same anal retentive that kept asking advice about electric saws
> some months back, then I consider my reply quite restrained -albeit
> unecessary as it will be not so much ignored as treated with abandon.
What are you on? Whatever, I'd adjust the dose.
--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead
Andy Hall
<weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:smt4ovkgg2ksg4a47...@4ax.com
>
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:28:16 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
>> <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > I rather think that if he'd spent more time attending his public
>> > library -or the one at his nearest Tech, than attending to this
>> > thread he'd get as much information and know the qualifications of
>> > the advisor.
>
>> Is it necessary to be quite so rude??
>
>Not really, the pratt is still shepherding the thread like a dolt. If he
>is the same anal retentive that kept asking advice about electric saws
>some months back, then I consider my reply quite restrained -albeit
>unecessary as it will be not so much ignored as treated with abandon.
Hmmm......
I notice though, Michael, that you do not contribute very often to the
discussions in this NG which is probably fortunate as most of your
contributions follow this style.
Part of the value of UK.D-I-Y is that people can feel comfortable in
being able to raise issues and ask questions without the fear of being
put down even if the points are obvious to others.
We can't be experts in all areas - generally we can contribute
usefully in some but may need help in others. Therein lies the
value.
>
>Nothing wrong with that perhaps. Be a shame to be stuck with him as a
>customer though.
I wouldn't worry too much about that, Michael. It's fairly unlikely
that you would have or retain any customers for any length of time.
>
>The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
>he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
>have got hold of some books on it by now.
That might be true, although we have a whole range of people who are
well qualified on contribute on a spectrum of topics including this
one. It's entirely reasonable that somebody can give help in one area
and need help in another. This represents a source of information
that is as valuable as anything presented in a book.
In general, both newsgroup and literary sources are able to convey
information without the need to introduce put downs and rudeness to
emphasise a point.
One can only assume that since you find the need to do so, you have
little of value to contribute.
BigWallop
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:28:16 UTC, "Michael Mcneil"
> <weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
> > laid parallel to the rafters.
>
> Hmmmm.our house is due to fall down then. Half of the house has joists
> going one way, and in the rest of the house they're at right angles.
> Obviously a design fault 100 years ago when it was built...
>
>
> --
> Bob Eager
>
Now it's got me worried too. The joists in this old (100+ years) are all
over the place. The builder has taken the shortest route between supporting
walls in most cases, so you can imagine, with at least eight internal
supporting structures, that none of the rooms have joists that run in same
direction.
Yes. Very worrying to find out that floor joists should run parallel with
the roofing rafters. :-))
PoP
wrote:
>Hmmm......
Hear, hear. Well said. Wholly agree with everything you stated!
PoP
Gnube
Gnube
<spamguard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:
>Now it's got me worried too. The joists in this old (100+ years) are all
>over the place. The builder has taken the shortest route between supporting
>walls in most cases, so you can imagine, with at least eight internal
>supporting structures, that none of the rooms have joists that run in same
>direction.
>
>Yes. Very worrying to find out that floor joists should run parallel with
>the roofing rafters. :-))
Oh no, I just went and checked, ours are fine, but we're in a terrace,
but I can't really easily check all our neighbours to see if they are
ok too, I'm thinking if they were wrong then they could fall in on us
from either side!
Concerned, Bucks.
Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}
John Rumm
> The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
> he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
> have got hold of some books on it by now.
I am sure I speak for many in this group when I say that I greatly
welcome the ongoing advice and input that has been provided by Grunff
over the years. He has posted many consistently well though out and
polite messages to this group, always ready to help without attempting
puff his own ego at the expense of others - an ability that some people
could do well to learn from.
You seem to have contributed little of value to this thread while
demonstrating a lack of ability to grasp even basic concepts. Why for
example do you find it so difficult to understand the value of eliciting
the experiences of others, who may have experienced similar situations
themselves, is something of great value that you cannot do from simply
"reading a book" or asking a "professional"?
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
The Natural Philosopher
Particulraly if you have a pitched roof, I'd say :-)
>
The Natural Philosopher
> Michael Mcneil wrote:
>
>> The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
>> he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
>> have got hold of some books on it by now.
>
>
> I am sure I speak for many in this group when I say that I greatly
> welcome the ongoing advice and input that has been provided by Grunff
> over the years. He has posted many consistently well though out and
> polite messages to this group, always ready to help without attempting
> puff his own ego at the expense of others - an ability that some people
> could do well to learn from.
>
> You seem to have contributed little of value to this thread while
> demonstrating a lack of ability to grasp even basic concepts. Why for
> example do you find it so difficult to understand the value of eliciting
> the experiences of others, who may have experienced similar situations
> themselves, is something of great value that you cannot do from simply
> "reading a book" or asking a "professional"?
>
>
>
Don't feed the troll, unless you enjoy the mess.
John Rumm
> Don't feed the troll, unless you enjoy the mess.
Couldn't decide if he was a troll or just plain obnoxious...
Either way you are probably right!
Gnube
wrote:
>Particulraly if you have a pitched roof, I'd say :-)
Oh no, don't start with that, we got one of those too now - used to be
flat though, so maybe I don't need to worry over that as well?!
Wonder which I need most, a weather man or a lawyer?
N. Thornton
> In article <4c3da7e5aa...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <Wxm1ARA7npg$Ew0x@y.z>,
> > fred <n...@for.mail> wrote:
> > > Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
> > > very, er, average . . . . .
> > > Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .
>
> > > But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).
> > Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
> > statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
> > Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
> yes, and is very sensibly trying to put himself in a position where a
> cowboy is less able to pull the wool over his eyes. Information is power.
Absolutely. I find if I understand the job I can often get it done
a) at a third the price
b) and know its all good.
c) and play with the design options to make maxiumum use of however
the thing is laid out/constructed/etc.
and d) sometimes do things the pros couldn't.
Knowledge is power in every area of life - yes, that too.
Regards, NT
David
MM... IMM... any connection do we think?
Grunff
> MM... IMM... any connection do we think?
Nah I don't think so, Mcneil makes IMM look extremely
knowledgeable and polite, a bloody good bloke...
--
Grunff
John Schmitt
"Michael Mcneil" <weathe...@hotmail.com> writes:
>The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
>he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
>have got hold of some books on it by now.
I seem to remember making a comment about thinking before posting
before thinking some time back. Nobody heeded it, of course. Way
back when, one Mr. Marks suggested a period of some minutes
sitting on one's hands before posting would be a grand idea. In
the last year the signal to noise (which has become noise to
signal) ratio has worsened to the extent that the newsgroup is in
serious danger of becoming unusable. Unfortunately there are
people on this newsgroup who, having nothing to say, say it.
This, of course, dilutes any vestiges of credibility they may
have, and the astute subscribers to the newsgroup already know
that anyone who contributes more than half-a-dozen articles a day
is a wittering idiot. Quality rather than quantity, please.
Darryl Huff's "how to lie with statistics" is rather less than
150 pages long, but it is one of the best books I have ever read.
It may be coming up to its 50th birthday, but by reading it you
will learn more in a morning than you ever did in a year.
<steps off soapbox>
John Schmitt
--
If you have nothing to say, or rather, something extremely stupid
and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e.
roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically. - Stephen Potter
IMM
"David" <Davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c96c92.03100...@posting.google.com...
---
--
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
IMM
Do you see me in dark corners as well?
The Natural Philosopher
> "David" <Davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44c96c92.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
>>fred <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:<NzRTwEAn5rg$EwW2@y.z>...
>>
>>>In article <4c3da7e5aa...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
>>><dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but
>>>>
> blanket
>
>>>>statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
>>>>Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
>>>>
>>>Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
>>>;-)
>>>
>>MM... IMM... any connection do we think?
>>
>
> Do you see me in dark corners as well?
>
>
Only in my worst nightmares.
IMM
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:3F85A017.6050401@b.c...
> IMM wrote:
>
> > "David" <Davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:44c96c92.03100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>fred <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:<NzRTwEAn5rg$EwW2@y.z>...
> >>
> >>>In article <4c3da7e5aa...@argonet.co.uk>, Dave Plowman
> >>><dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
> >>>
> >>>>Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but
> >>>>
> > blanket
> >
> >>>>statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
> >>>>Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
> >>>>
> >>>Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
> >>>;-)
> >>>
> >>MM... IMM... any connection do we think?
> >>
> >
> > Do you see me in dark corners as well?
> Only in my worst nightmares.
I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made my
day.
The Natural Philosopher
>
>>>Do you see me in dark corners as well?
>>>
>
>>Only in my worst nightmares.
>>
>
> I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made my
> day.
>
>
Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.
The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.
You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
the TV and get 'songs of praise'.
And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
your turgid opinions for eternity...
IMM
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> IMM wrote:
>
> >
> >>>Do you see me in dark corners as well?
> >>>
> >
> >>Only in my worst nightmares.
> >>
> >
> > I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made
my
> > day.
> Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.
>
> The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.
>
> You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
> times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
> the TV and get 'songs of praise'.
>
> And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
> your turgid opinions for eternity...
The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you, and
nothing else will. That is sad. You must read all my posts 4 times each.
Google and
read them all again - 4 times each. This is for your own good.
---
--
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:3F85DF5E.8080104@b.c...
>
>>IMM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Do you see me in dark corners as well?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Only in my worst nightmares.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made
>>>
> my
>
>>>day.
>>>
>
>>Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.
>>
>>The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.
>>
>>You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
>>times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
>>the TV and get 'songs of praise'.
>>
>>And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
>>your turgid opinions for eternity...
>>
>
> The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you,
No, but it helped me learn how to educate myself, and think critically,
nit take it all on trust.
Life then educated me to the realisation that neraly everyone who writes
something does it for a reason. Usually profit, very occasionally altruism.
and
> nothing else will. That is sad. You must read all my posts 4 times each.
> Google and
> read them all again - 4 times each. This is for your own good.
>
Fortunately I find I have been imbued with something approximating free
will. Masochism has its appeal, but senseless masochism does not.
IMM
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> IMM wrote:
>
> > "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> > news:3F85DF5E.8080104@b.c...
> >
> >>IMM wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Do you see me in dark corners as well?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Only in my worst nightmares.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have
made
> >>>
> > my
> >
> >>>day.
> >>>
> >
> >>Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.
> >>
> >>The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.
> >>
> >>You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
> >>times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
> >>the TV and get 'songs of praise'.
> >>
> >>And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
> >>your turgid opinions for eternity...
> >>
> >
> > The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you,
>
> No,
Corect!
> but it helped me learn how to educate myself,
> and think critically, nit take it all on trust.
It never.
> Life then educated me to the realisation
> that neraly everyone who writes
> something does it for a reason. Usually profit,
> very occasionally altruism.
Gasp!
---
--
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003
Martin Angove
PoP <E-62647F66737B7...@anyoldtripe.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, Grunff <grun...@ixxa.com> wrote:
>
> >Greatest deflection is aout 30mm, over 70 years. The joists are
> >still nicely in their holes, that was one of the first things I
> >checked.
>
> The leaning tower of Pisa has been moving gradually off centre for
> several hundred years. It was only recently that they figured that if
> they didn't do something it was going to come down sharpish.
>
> I wouldn't depend on the argument "well it has only moved so much in
> so many years". The straw that broke the camels back and all that.
>
> PoP
>
Can't help the shameless plug, but if you want to see some *real*
structural problems, take a look at Caerphilly Castle:
http://www.castlewales.com/caerphil.html
Particularly the first couple of pictures (the leaning tower is about 10
degrees) and the North dam wall. Both are suspected to be due to
subsidence when the moats were drained when the castle fell into disuse.
Neither has moved for some 300 years. The leaning tower is surveyed
every 6 months just to make sure!
It's a shameless plug because Caerphilly is my home town and I'm working
at the castle at the moment :-) I have absolutely no connection to
castlewales.com by the way, other than applauding it.
Hwyl!
M.
--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
... I'm not a complete idiot 哪 several parts are missing.
mark
<grun...@ixxa.com> writes
>TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because [a]
>It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this long, and is
>supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it
>did, it really wouldn't be the end of the world, and would give us a
>good reason to rebuild the house.
How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)
When was the porch built?
Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very
slightly?
What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also. The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows' as
you have described.
If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall built on
spoil excavated from the back.
I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice; Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.
>
>
>> If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
>> is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
>> period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.
>
>It's been on the move since at least the 60s, because we found some
>1960s newspapers stuffed into one of the bigger cracks.
>
May well be that the porch is still 'settling in' :)
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI ;)
--
mark