"stupid builder" sounds like he had a "stupid" specification given to
him (if anything at all?)
technically it sounds like you need a new wider lintel.....Doesn't
holding a wall up with a door frame sound a bit iffy?
if you wanted a gamble can you not take 1.5inches of each side?
leaving a rather slim 1.5inches each side of the lintel (remaining in
the wall)??
If you get away with it the wall won;t fall down :>))
How do you propose to cut the slivers of brick/block from each side?
JimK
dave
Yes, I did not specify the required door width, I assumed, wrongly,
that he would put in a 30" door. I shall have to cut out the width,
and the lintel, with a angle grinder. Cutting out the old lintel I
assume will be more difficult and involve more plastering and possible
cracking brickwork above it.
Thanks
or if you need a longer lintel
use acro props and 'strongboys'
which are easy to hire.
http://www.ejhire.co.uk/strongboypic.html
maybe best to do it properly like this.
[g]
A lintel seems a bit of an overkill for only a 30" opening.
Assuming usual brick sizes and stretcher bond, there's about 6 bricks
unsupported above...
Phil.
[g]
I'll knock em up, you pop em in :>)
I know I get called pedantic *but* in this case the error causes
misunderstanding, it's a doorway, all one word.
"Making a door way wider" means (to me anyway) making a door *much*
wider, i.e. making it "way wider".
--
Chris Green
dave
Well you may be grammatically correct, but you are incorrect with your "in
this case the error causes misunderstanding" - I know what he means, and I
presume that all those reading the post understands what the OP is saying.
> "Making a door way wider" means (to me anyway) making a door *much*
> wider, i.e. making it "way wider".
Being a pedant myself, would *YOU* explain the differences between making an
opening wider, much wider and way wider, as to me, they all mean exactly the
same?
Keeping the subject in context: if you increase a "door way" or "doorway" by
1mm or 1000mm - you simply widen the damn thing!
Now a question for *you* - do you know how to resolve the problem stated in
the OP [1]?
[1] Original Post[er] if you are unsure of the acronym.
comp.zrch.embedded,
Ignoring the fact that you did not specify the opening size - and the
builder is not a mind reader *and* has a choice of several sizes of doors,
and the apportionment of blame may be resting in the wrong place.
1 Lintol bearings -- 3" of bearing on either side is the absolute minimum
(and it should be at least 4")
2 Door frame -- If the wall really is non-load bearing, then I would
suspect that you really have a door lining rather than a 'frame', and if
that is the case, then it is inadvisable to use this to support any
brickwork and the lintol should be replaced with one of the correct length
and size - and this should be done before any attempt is made to widen the
opening.
3 Lintol replacement -- There are several ways to do this safely.
4 But before any method of replacement can be suggested, more
information is needed from you as to the height of the brickwork above the
lintol, and is the opening near any corners or other obstructions - the more
(relevant) information you can supply the better.
This information is needed to ascertain as to whether the bricks above the
lintol need supporting with needles and props - or to simply remove a couple
of courses of bricks and replace them after the lintol is renewed
Hope this helps
Cash
> Yes, I did not specify the required door width, I assumed, wrongly,
> that he would put in a 30" door. I shall have to cut out the width,
> and the lintel, with a angle grinder. Cutting out the old lintel I
> assume will be more difficult and involve more plastering and possible
> cracking brickwork above it.
Are you happy to have an archway? in which case leave the lintel where
it is (but not a serious suggestion!)
If the bricks were in NZ or other countries that have earthquakes, the
bricks would not be load bearing because they are not allowed to be.
Necertheless, I have a door without a lintel where the door frame has
bowed enough under the weight of those bricks to cause the door to jam.
One of my round tuit moments will be to jack them up and fit a bit of 1"
equal angle iron under them and against the door frame. However, as the
door is not really essential, that is some way down the list.
Colin Bignell
Are you really absolutely certain that the lintel has no serious
supporting role (other than a very small number of bricks above) and
is unnecessary?
If so, a modest timber beam/plate should be sufficient.
But then why would your builder have gone to the trouble of installing
a concrete lintel in the first place?
You can see it in old properties where the lintel has failed and the
brickwork has needed to be repaired. The lintle only directly supports a
triangle of bricks above it. In the case of a 27" gap ina stretcher
bond wall, a maximum of three bricks lie on the lintle. Because the
bonding holds the outer bricks in the row above that in place, those
three bricks support two in that next row. They, in turn support one
brick above them.
> If so, a modest timber beam/plate should be sufficient.
That is often what was used and later failed in buildings that have
needed the brickwork above to be repaired.
> But then why would your builder have gone to the trouble of installing
> a concrete lintel in the first place?
They are cheap and readily available and do keep the weight of the
bricks off the door frame.
Colin Bignell