Installing a loft floor

On 21/10/2012 00:37, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

I don't think 2x2 would have been used for the floor of a habitable room in 1924 or at any other time.
Its seems to are engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:07:53 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

That's exactly the point. All Victorian loft floor joists were compliant for habitable use at time of building, but no BCO is going to accept them in a conversion today.
NT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2012 21:42, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

I don't quite follow the line of thought. A loft floor in 1924 was *not* designed for habitable use then, so its no surprise it would not be considered adequate now.
Your point seems to be that the definition of "habitable" did not exist in 1924. However to cut through the confusion, look at what would have been installed in 1924 for a normal 1st floor set of joists, since that will have been designed for what we would today call habitable. If the loft had similar spans but thinner joists, (which which is a safe bet) then its not habitable - then or now.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, October 22, 2012 2:38:42 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

I don't think you've followed what I'm saying at all.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/10/2012 20:28, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

So what is your point then? I thought we had covered:
1) Standards have edged up? Agreed. But not hugely.
2) Skimpy joists in a loft were acceptable as a habitable room floor in the past? Nope, don't buy it for a moment. They were acceptable as a loft floor and that is all - but there was no anticipation that was going to be used as a bedroom of office etc. They were also to a much lower standard than was deemed necessary for all the other "proper" floors in the same building.
3) Joists will survive loadings far beyond those specified in the building regs? Yup agreed. The specs are primarily intended to limit deflection, and excessive deflection occurs long before structural failure.
4) You can still use skimpy timbers if they are short enough? Yup agreed, nothing much has changed there.
5) Joist sizes are specced on sound transmission? I don't believe that really comes into it. Specs on sound transmission have got much stronger in recent times, but joist sizes themselves have not increased as a result. Joist support techniques have changed - reducing wall penetrations, ensuring adequate insulating material is included in floor construction to reduce noise. Eliminating gaps and air paths are all partly related to reducing noise transmission as well as improving thermal performance. Fire protection rules have also tightened, and that has had a knock on on ceiling coverings (i.e. 1/2" PB and skim, not 9mm etc, intumescent covers over ceiling penetrations).
Have I missed any?
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:33:14 +0100 John Rumm wrote :

Our old rule of thumb when I was a BCO which matched the tables pretty well was that for floor joists double the depth in inches and subtract two to get the permissible span in feet; flat roof joists, subtract one (2" joists).
As you say, in most cases practicality requires all joists to be the same depth (you need tops of joists to be level and want them all to bear on wall at one level) so except for the largest span they are generally oversized. There's also more in reserve in that for virtually all joists, deflection governs the size, not bending stress and few floors are loaded to BR design loads (1.5kN/m2 30lb/ft2).
--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Slightly sideways... is it possible that the quality of timber available to the Victorians was better than that of today?
I use a lot of recycled 4"x2" and generally find that the grain is more dense and the knots smaller than that supplied new.

--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2012 08:13, Tim Lamb wrote:

A dense grain means a timber gown in more northerly climes, and I don't think the climate has changed significantly since Victorian times. There has always been, and still is, a great variation in quality and price for what is loosely termed "4x2"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 08:13:13 +0100, Tim Lamb

Most timber Victorians used in buildings would have been imported and Baltic or Scandinavian, slow grown 14 rings to the inch and the snow load knocks off dead suppressed branches.
We were major importers of wood on the global market as our economy grew earlier than others.
Since the 1950s more home grown timber has come on line and it has benefited from machine stress grading where in the past it failed visual grading. Also I suspect much Canadian lumber is second growth nowadays.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2012 11:13, snipped-for-privacy@sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

Interesting about the snow.

Finnish softwood is as good as it's ever been but too pricey for the general market
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:16:39 AM UTC+1, Tony Bryer wrote:

So for a 14ft span (as here), the 8" joists I originally proposed would be about right? I wonder if the tables are constructed from that rule of thumb or from a complex calculation that gives the same result? I guess most of the discussion (now) is about what you might be able to get away with, rather than what should be done, but I'd prefer to over-engineer than under, for the sake of a couple inches. Of course, I'm equally concerned that they are mounted securely, as Mr R outlined......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2012 13:09, GMM wrote:

If you can rule out that the space will ever be converted to habitable, then you can undersize a tad from the tabulated values. As Tony mentioned above, its normally the deflection limits that dictate the size rather than the shear or bending limits. (i.e the floor would be likely to damage decorative finishes, feel to bouncy, and upset inhabitants of rooms below, long before the timber is in danger of actually failing)
For your application (i.e. with the new beams some distance above the existing ceiling, and not ceiling to be mounted on the underside of the new joists), deflection beyond normal limits is a non issue. So it reduces to a problem of what is adequate in terms of bending and shear loading on the timber (assuming you don't mind it feeling a little more bouncy than "normal" given that you know it is still structurally sound).
Perhaps a play Tony's excellent bit of software might be in order (assuming there is still a demo version available for download?)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:25:44 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

Yes John - it may potentially be that 2 x 6 joists (which are significantly cheaper per metre) could do an adequate job in this application, if they are available (my local timber yard couldn't supply that length for the living room when I was costing it: There, the lower spec was due to the wall running along the middle, effectively halving the span).
TBH, I didn't spot Tony's software - I thought he just mentioned the rule of thumb(!). If I did go below spec (say 4m of 2 x 6), it would be great to have some idea of how wobbly such a floor would be. The joist tables just give maximum length for size, as far as I can see.
I'd still feel a little uncomfortable that it would deny the option of making the space habitable in the future though, even though the rest of the house is big enough that it shouldn't be an issue. Although I get the point that BR specs change over time, they surely can't ask for joist that are much deeper than they require now, so I would have thought the current specs won't change much.
(Apologies if my posts are hard to read. Someone told me a while ago they weren't wrapping, whilst in a recent thread someone else told me they had a lot of empty lines!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2012 17:47, GMM wrote:

A timber merchant ought to be able to get 6x2 in 5.3m lengths at least.

I just checked, there is still a demo available. It has printing knobbled - but that won't be a handicap for your needs.
http://www.superbeam.co.uk/sbwdemo.htm
(the usual caveats about it letting you design unsafe structures faster apply, if you don't stick in sensible values!)
It will show you the calculated deflection for whatever load you apply, and also tell you when you are exceeding the safe working limits on the timber.
If you model your longest timber that should let you get a feel for the changes. The loadings to apply for a normal floor appear further up the thread (if you know what you are storing etc you may be able to use lower figures)

Might be worth working out what you could "get away with" and then comparing the cost difference to doing it to full spec.

I would not expect them to change in substance at all really. They may grow to include more on composite joists (i.e. man made beams with struts top and bottom and some sheet material webbing)

Its a combination of not wrapping and all the lines being double spaced. The former is easy to fix in a reply with a quick CTRL + R in thunderbird. That latter takes slightly more editing!
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:33:24 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

Thanks for the link - Now I have to find a Windows PC I can spark up and run the software - should be interesting.
I suspect a narrower joist could be significantly cheaper for these timbers, although it might not make a substantial impact on the job cost overall. I've rather taken a 'do it properly and do it once' approach to this house, rather than being cost-driven.
I did toy at one stage with the prospects for making up composite joists in situ, given the access issues, but decided that would just add another variable (and potential disaster) to the equation (!)
Must have another go at Thunderbird for this group. I had it working, then it wouldn't post for some reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/10/2012 10:19, GMM wrote:

Probably not as "industry standard" or trustworthy, but there are a number of smart phone apps about that will do calcs at least on a single beam. Might be worth trying one of those if you have platform for that.

It depends a bit on the layout and how many joist hangers you need etc. Those will be the same price regardless.

It ought to be fairly painless for newsgroups if you are using your ISPs newsserver. If using a third party one, you may need to turn on the "request authentication" option in the account settings.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/10/2012 14:43, John Rumm wrote:

I should take a browse through the phone apps (without wishing to turn the thread into another debate about which phone is best!) Your comments about ISP newservers made me realise that I set Thunderbird up for home, then might have failed to post over a different WiFi connection, so if this posts, problem solved (ish)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/10/2012 21:48, GMM wrote:

Hence why I did not mention a platform. I have seen them for mine, so I presume they exist for the others... I wonder if Tony is planning on an Android or iOS port of superbeam proper?

Normally if the newsserver accepts authentication then it will allow posts from any network. If it does not, then it will usually only accept them from its "own" network address block.
BTW the quoting looks much better - no double spaced lines anymore ;-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:43:39 +0100 John Rumm wrote :

No current plans. Would it be an interesting project? Probably. Would it make any money, given what people are used to paying for mobile apps? Probably not. If I was looking for an alternative platform, then the most likely route would be a web-based app, accessible via any browser.
--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23/10/2012 06:10, Tony Bryer wrote:

One option would be to only sell/give away the mobile app as an extra for the full PC version - gives you the sales hook for some added value on the main product, stops folks who already use it going to alternative platforms since they can still use the mobile version of the "industry standard", but without cannibalising your desktop sales.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.