2nd Opinion on Lintel for Patio Door
Discussion
evo97 said:
Yes it looks just like flat bar by the looks of it? I know they are compromised with the overhang of the lintel due to the conservatory but that should of been spotted on the survey! Surly a full brick length could of been used to sit the lintel on?
Internal picture
Are you sure about that? Maybe it's my eyes but that looks like an angle to me. Can you get a screwdriver up there to check? I can hardly believe that it's a flat.Internal picture
Assuming that it's at least a 100 x 100 angle (I think it would be the next size up) then the lintol section should be strong enough to support a few courses of brickwork and a window.
The bearing is another concern. By and large 2" length of brickwork will take the vertical load and is probably OK BRegs (which used to be 1 1/2" and maybe still is) but the problems are with it resting on a corner in that any slight deflection will crack the corner of the brick. Lintols usually rest on a mortar/granno bed weather struck back to avoid this problem.
Finally there does not appear to be any rust protection either. Steel can expand to 7 x thickness due to rust so you could well have the building lifting!
The about are some of the reasons why catnic type steel lintols have become so popular: thin steel (which fits into brick courses more easily than a steel section) factory corrosion protection.
evo97 said:
I don't think the timber door was the original the house was built in 66 if that helps with design.
You're heading off topic now. That age it's likely to be a purlin design with the purlins spanning onto the end gables so there won't be any load from the roof on the new lintol, assuming a few other bits as well. More importantly is there a window over the new door/lintol? If so any roof load will have been distributed to either side of that window anyway.
If that's a 2 storey wall what has been done is apalling. 125mm min end bearing needed, rust proofing to steel and a larger size angle. I would ask for calculations and if they don't give you them get some done and charge them. It's your property and it WILL start to crack short term as-is.
Honest question.... Do the installers have (any obligation) to make any changes to brickwork when all they are doing is taking out one window / door and swapping it for another of the same size in the same position??
Argument being that the lintel etc was OK for the span originally, why would it not be ok now?
Although I agree that a span of that length should have something more substantial, my quick look at catnic lintels shows longest span available of 2700mm (standard length)
http://catnic.com/products/cn71a
One thing I do know is that to span 2900mm on mine needed more than just a 100mm angle iron.
As to a resolution, I cant see the installer being willing to remove the doors and install a new lintel without further charge, It might be worth a call to the local building inspector for their view on it.
Argument being that the lintel etc was OK for the span originally, why would it not be ok now?
Although I agree that a span of that length should have something more substantial, my quick look at catnic lintels shows longest span available of 2700mm (standard length)
http://catnic.com/products/cn71a
One thing I do know is that to span 2900mm on mine needed more than just a 100mm angle iron.
As to a resolution, I cant see the installer being willing to remove the doors and install a new lintel without further charge, It might be worth a call to the local building inspector for their view on it.
grimmac said:
Although I agree that a span of that length should have something more substantial, my quick look at catnic lintels shows longest span available of 2,700mm (standard length)
up to 4,800mm http://catnic.com/products/ccsTA14 said:
grimmac said:
Although I agree that a span of that length should have something more substantial, my quick look at catnic lintels shows longest span available of 2,700mm (standard length)
up to 4,800mm http://catnic.com/products/ccsC shape as apposed to L.
Spudler said:
TA14 said:
grimmac said:
Although I agree that a span of that length should have something more substantial, my quick look at catnic lintels shows longest span available of 2,700mm (standard length)
up to 4,800mm http://catnic.com/products/ccsC shape as apposed to L.
Hey guys - chill out a little 
Firstly, the load bearing inner skin (assuming it is a cavity wall) will be supported, probably off a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete lintel or maybe an RSJ. Sometimes, with a conc lintel, it is poured in such a way that it actually partially supports the outer brickwork too - I've seen various types of brickwork ties used for this.
But overall, the outer skin brickwork may have only been supported off the existing timber window frame, which will have been built in when the brickwork was constructed. These types of window frames usually had 'ears' which extended sideways slightly to help locate the frame. (You can see the void left by these ears in the internal photo.
Outer brickwork doesn't support the roof, to correct someone from above, or anything other than itself, so the loading is relatively low (that's why they got away with using the existing timber window frames as lintels.
A correctly installed RSA (Angle) say 100x150 would be sufficient for this application, ideally with at least 100mm bearing on each end. I agree in the photos, it doesn't appear that you can see RSA - it just looks like flat plate - but it could be a Tee upside down (although Tees are pretty unusual.
RSA is pretty much the only choice for this application. Obviously a cavity IG/Catnic lintel would be great, but they often aren't compatible with whatever the inner lintel is - the spine wont fit up the cavity, and cavity lintels have to be loaded on both halves to function correctly.
So, to summarise, I'd accept a length of 150x100 angle (150 up the cavity) with 100mm bearings at each end. Please note: The bearing bricks at present are only little triangles (due to the ears thing I mentioned above) so they really need to be replaced. I haven't done the calcs to prove that this solution is in accordance with BR, but it would be superior to the existing wooden frame and pretty much the only practical solution to this situation without complete rebuild of the inner and outer support.
Firstly, the load bearing inner skin (assuming it is a cavity wall) will be supported, probably off a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete lintel or maybe an RSJ. Sometimes, with a conc lintel, it is poured in such a way that it actually partially supports the outer brickwork too - I've seen various types of brickwork ties used for this.
But overall, the outer skin brickwork may have only been supported off the existing timber window frame, which will have been built in when the brickwork was constructed. These types of window frames usually had 'ears' which extended sideways slightly to help locate the frame. (You can see the void left by these ears in the internal photo.
Outer brickwork doesn't support the roof, to correct someone from above, or anything other than itself, so the loading is relatively low (that's why they got away with using the existing timber window frames as lintels.
A correctly installed RSA (Angle) say 100x150 would be sufficient for this application, ideally with at least 100mm bearing on each end. I agree in the photos, it doesn't appear that you can see RSA - it just looks like flat plate - but it could be a Tee upside down (although Tees are pretty unusual.
RSA is pretty much the only choice for this application. Obviously a cavity IG/Catnic lintel would be great, but they often aren't compatible with whatever the inner lintel is - the spine wont fit up the cavity, and cavity lintels have to be loaded on both halves to function correctly.
So, to summarise, I'd accept a length of 150x100 angle (150 up the cavity) with 100mm bearings at each end. Please note: The bearing bricks at present are only little triangles (due to the ears thing I mentioned above) so they really need to be replaced. I haven't done the calcs to prove that this solution is in accordance with BR, but it would be superior to the existing wooden frame and pretty much the only practical solution to this situation without complete rebuild of the inner and outer support.
Muppet32 said:
Hey guys - chill out a little
Firstly, the load bearing inner skin (assuming it is a cavity wall) will be supported, probably off a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete lintel or maybe an RSJ. Sometimes, with a conc lintel, it is poured in such a way that it actually partially supports the outer brickwork too - I've seen various types of brickwork ties used for this.
But overall, the outer skin brickwork may have only been supported off the existing timber window frame, which will have been built in when the brickwork was constructed. These types of window frames usually had 'ears' which extended sideways slightly to help locate the frame. (You can see the void left by these ears in the internal photo.
Outer brickwork doesn't support the roof, to correct someone from above, or anything other than itself, so the loading is relatively low (that's why they got away with using the existing timber window frames as lintels.
A correctly installed RSA (Angle) say 100x150 would be sufficient for this application, ideally with at least 100mm bearing on each end. I agree in the photos, it doesn't appear that you can see RSA - it just looks like flat plate - but it could be a Tee upside down (although Tees are pretty unusual.
RSA is pretty much the only choice for this application. Obviously a cavity IG/Catnic lintel would be great, but they often aren't compatible with whatever the inner lintel is - the spine wont fit up the cavity, and cavity lintels have to be loaded on both halves to function correctly.
So, to summarise, I'd accept a length of 150x100 angle (150 up the cavity) with 100mm bearings at each end. Please note: The bearing bricks at present are only little triangles (due to the ears thing I mentioned above) so they really need to be replaced. I haven't done the calcs to prove that this solution is in accordance with BR, but it would be superior to the existing wooden frame and pretty much the only practical solution to this situation without complete rebuild of the inner and outer support.
Listen to this man - he knows what he's talking about and you can see from the original photo its an angle, not a flat bar. The bearings look too small, and yes the bearing bricks need replacing. It is a bit bodgy looking though with the foam etc. I assume it was a very cheap quote.Firstly, the load bearing inner skin (assuming it is a cavity wall) will be supported, probably off a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete lintel or maybe an RSJ. Sometimes, with a conc lintel, it is poured in such a way that it actually partially supports the outer brickwork too - I've seen various types of brickwork ties used for this.
But overall, the outer skin brickwork may have only been supported off the existing timber window frame, which will have been built in when the brickwork was constructed. These types of window frames usually had 'ears' which extended sideways slightly to help locate the frame. (You can see the void left by these ears in the internal photo.
Outer brickwork doesn't support the roof, to correct someone from above, or anything other than itself, so the loading is relatively low (that's why they got away with using the existing timber window frames as lintels.
A correctly installed RSA (Angle) say 100x150 would be sufficient for this application, ideally with at least 100mm bearing on each end. I agree in the photos, it doesn't appear that you can see RSA - it just looks like flat plate - but it could be a Tee upside down (although Tees are pretty unusual.
RSA is pretty much the only choice for this application. Obviously a cavity IG/Catnic lintel would be great, but they often aren't compatible with whatever the inner lintel is - the spine wont fit up the cavity, and cavity lintels have to be loaded on both halves to function correctly.
So, to summarise, I'd accept a length of 150x100 angle (150 up the cavity) with 100mm bearings at each end. Please note: The bearing bricks at present are only little triangles (due to the ears thing I mentioned above) so they really need to be replaced. I haven't done the calcs to prove that this solution is in accordance with BR, but it would be superior to the existing wooden frame and pretty much the only practical solution to this situation without complete rebuild of the inner and outer support.
Edited by h8tax on Thursday 11th February 14:06
h8tax said:
Listen to this man - he knows what he's talking about and you can see from the original photo its an angle, not a flat bar. The bearings look too small, and yes the bearing bricks need replacing. It is a bit bodgy looking though with the foam etc. I assume it was a very cheap quote.
Yes it was a cheap price.Edited by h8tax on Thursday 11th February 14:06
Maybe I'm thick but the steel used looks straight and not angled??
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff