Good! Please post some photos or put them on a website somewhere.
"und fliesst der Rhein"... superb view from the top of the catheral in Cologne... might I suggest taking a train trip down to Switzerland along the Rhine.... such an interesting journey viewing the river and the towers..
Axel
On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:21:28 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote (in article ):
Genau...
I've done that many times - better than flying. I'm very impressed with the ICE train - does 300kph between Koeln and Frankfurt AM. Smooth, Quiet, Clean, On time.
I am really looking at this from a more fundamental viewpoint.
If we take foundations as an example, typically the BCOs in my area want 600 wide and a 1000 depth. Even if all the similar properties in all directions have foundations at 450 x 600 deep. OK, there may be differing ground conditions, but what I am saying is .... if 500 houses around a particular job have absolutely no probelms with a particular foundation width and depth, then why can't this be proof enough that that particular foundation design can support a structure of similar construction, size and loadings?
With openings, I can see numerous instances of openings near external corners, and slender piers between openings, and these have been in place for decades, with no distress tho the building. But if I want to do something similar I have to prove this by [theoretical] calculations. Why can't I prove this by actual demonstration of an instance previously built and with no problems?
Computer models and scale models are constructed to test designs. So why can't existing buildings be used as models to prove that a design works (in a given set of circumstances) ?
dg
How do you know the design has worked , how do you know that the building has had no remedial works performed on that section Are you aware construction techniques have changed so that roof weight distribution is now different on many new buildings (purling are no longer in general use domestically all the load is placed on the wall plates now through trussed system roofing)
Well yes, it would be foolish to use a design which has obviously failed as an example of how you want to build.
Its a moot argument but what I am saying is, if I can show the BCO 1,
10, or 100 housing estates where a particular design HAS stood the test of time and I want to build THE SAME design, then why is required for me to prove the design works by calculation etc, when it is obvious that the design works by reference to the afore mentioned housing estates?Purlins are still common in extensions. And this is part of my argument
- that extensions are generally overspecified (structurally) in terms of the house which they are attached to.
dg
DG, please, please, *please* will you sort out your posting method and *include context*!
On 21 May 2006 11:42:45 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named "dg" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
Buildings have to be robust enough to withstand all normal expected loads and situations within its lifetime. The particular building you may be referring to may not have encountered that particular set of loads, or may have been close to the limit but not failed enough to exhibit external signs.
A relatively simple set of rules needs to be developed to meet most situations, i.e., a wall of a certain length and a certain height needs to be a certain thickness and buttressed with other walls every so often. Rules of thumb have been developed over the years as a result of some practical experience and some calculation and modelling. These ensure that any building built to this standard can withstand most normal expected situations, without the need to calculate it. Yes, this does mean that they are perhaps over-engineered, but the option exists to prove that a lesser building is adequate to meet minimum standards.
One can never be certain that one building exactly matches another without destructive testing; exactly how wide are the foundations under the most heavily loaded parts, what are they bearing onto, what type of masonry was used in the piers, and what mortar was used?
It is common to use experience of an existing building when adapting it (e.g., to say that the existing building shows no signs of movement, and the adaptations proposed won't add loads and will maintain restraint, etc), but it is dangerous to extrapolate that experience of one building to another, or to say, anecdotally, that building x has remained standing for 100 years, therefore we will slavishly copy it.
As I've said before, the expectations of a building have changed radically since those buildings you referred to were built. No longer would a new house owner be willing to put up with penetrating damp, sloping floors and cracked walls.
Do you use T. Bliar's scriptwriter?
Which is what DG is talking about.
Because it won't prove that in 50 years time when some d*****ad plants a willow tree up against the house, they will still be adequate.
Get this into your thick head..
What stands up is what is aome minimal level above what would fall down. The job of the regulations is to enforce a standard well higher than that, so that the foundations will stand far more..like you get an earth tre,or and YOUR house is left standing etc etc.
Arguing with the BCO is a fruitless waste of time. He has not they power, the time or the inclination to engage in fruitless discussions on changing the regulations, with whinging armchair theorists, and, frankly neither have I.
Put up, or shut up.
Its not a question of WORKING.
Its a question of having an adequate margin of safety.
Oh I see.
So explain why I am dealing with an average of 6 cases a month where trees (including willows) have caused structural damage to buildings which by all accounts have been designed and PROVED to be in compliance with the building regs. Often the buildings are less than 20 years old too, so building regs don't seem to have been to higher standards
Also explain why I deal with failed foundations which have been designed, and PROVED to satisfy the building regs.
Also explain why I have to deal with wall, floor and roof distress on buildings which have been PROVED to satisfy the building regs
What you are saying is that calculation is the only way to prove compliance. I am saying that calculation is not itself foolproof, and proving compliance by demonstrating a design is adequate by virtue of its age and condition is just as valid.
Incidentally, its not fuitless to argue with a BCO. If you know more than the BCO on the point in question then you win. Simple - even for someone with a thick head.
dg
If you are so ruddy clever, why ask here?
Or is it to emphasise your brilliance to us, because the BCO is unimpressed?
I had to have sol samples taken and root hair counts done before the BCO would settle on a foundation depth, and he advised that 'that is provided you don't' plant any deep rooted trees near the lesser foundations.
I was under the impression that usenet and newsgroups were for debate and questions - even for some philosophising. But I apprecaite that some people can't grasp that and try to add something, which turns out to be nothing
I posed a question, that s all. You don't have to be clever to post - as you well know
Thank you for noting my brilliance all the same :-D
dg
Your general brilliance is OK, dg, *but* your use of Google to post without context absolutely stinks. Apparently there is a way to quote, but it's not there by default. I got this from a post (looked up via Google!):
New posters using Google Groups are tempted, quite understandably, to respond to previous messages by using the obvious 'Reply' link at the bottom of a message displayed in Google Groups. There is currently a defect in this link in Google Groups, as this option does not automatically quote context for the benefit of other readers (i.e. it does not allow you to include a relevant part of the previous message, so that other newsgroup readers, using more traditional Usenet handling, can read your response on its own and understand what you are replying to). To do so, using Google Groups, it is necessary to post via the 'Show Options' link and use the reply from there. It's a very rare example of poor Google coding!
HTH. If it doesn't, I hope someone else can help.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.