Lintel to support wall and ridge beam

[Bely]

Hi,

I would like to verify if this product

https://www.onesteelmetalcentre.com...lcentre/Brochures/Galintel T Bar Brochure.pdf

is capable of supporting roof load and double brick wall based on the product spec.

I've attached a diagram and spreadsheet showing the working outs.

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...9c2-3a2a2b325496&file=Lintel_Calculation.xlsx

Questions I have are:

1. For Lintel L5, should I assume it to be point load over 1.810m span, so the product is ok for use ?


2. according to this website, the force acting on L6 may not be uniformly distributed:

https://risa.com/risahelp/risafloor/Content/Floor_Only_Topics/Wall Panel Load Attribution.htm

To verify if the product is suitable, should I assume the load to be UDL or point load over 2.260 m or 5.08m ?

Thanks.

 

[EngineeringEric]

Looking at the structural... as i think you can/should analyze the section by hand to develop max moment and shears then compare that envelope to your loads... i would not allow arching action and i would be hesitant to use it to support the wall load (independent timber header required). How is it supported at the ends?

This product is an envelope nightmare, be aware that it seriously screws up flashing and is a thermal mistake.

But i do like the creativity in it! i am concerned but I have never seen it before today...

 

[KootK]

I don't love two of their stated assumptions:

- full lateral restraint.
- equal load each side of the beam.

The first is dubious and the second is highly improbably. + all Eric's concerns.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[JAE]

KootK - I thought I saw that they said it was laterally UNrestrained?

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[KootK]

I agree, thanks for the correction JAE.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[Bely]

Thanks for everyone's responds.

@EngineeringEric

This product is widely used in Australia to support openings in cavity walls. L6 both ends are supported by the load bearing wall and the 350x350mm brick piers.

The ridge beam is 250UB25.7kg.

I'm not a structural engineer (did one subject in structural engineering during 1st year of an electrical degree many years ago) but trying to see if this design is feasible purely based on the product spec guaranteed by the manufacturer.

 

[hokie66]

I like the product. Galintels are widely used in Australia for single brick skin support, and this is another product for use in cavity brick walls. I don't like cavity brick walls, but you didn't ask about that. I would add the uniform and point load together, conservatively use the point load value from the table, and if that works, go for it.

 

[Bely]

Hi @hokie66, if L6 is in one piece across the W4 and W6 and supported by the walls and brick piers, should I look up the table against the span for 2.260 m or 5.08 m ?

 

[hokie66]

I couldn't open some of your stuff, so don't know what W4, W6, and L6 represent. I was just giving you my opinion about the product. You should be able to relate the tables to the conditions of your project. But hang on, are you a structural engineer? If so, I am concerned about the question.

 

[Bely]

here is the diagram.

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...-8a35-463d-b41a-6ead7d92eaa0&file=Diagram.JPG

I'm not structural engineer, but just want to see what is feasible purely based on off the shelf products.

can you open this file ?

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...c=212727627.2.1508644976248&__hsfp=4010071054

 

[BAretired]

L5 is a single span of 1810mm clear. The effective span is, say 2100mm center to center of bearing. It would be conservative to consider the weight of brick plus the concentrated load from the roof taken together as one concentrated load acting on a simple span of 2100mm.

L6 is a three span continuous beam with maximum clear span of 2260mm. To be conservative, you could take it to the center of the piers which would mean the actual span is 2600mm. It is continuous at each end, so the assumption of a simple span is conservative. The reactions from L5 fall only about 250mm from the supporting piers; hence contribute only slightly to the moment. It would seem reasonable to check L6 above W5 using a uniform load equivalent to 2.0m of wall and a simple span of 2.6m.

My concern would be whether or not the 350 wide cavity piers could safely sustain the combined axial load and wind forces. Like hokie66, I am not a fan of cavity walls and would prefer to see the two wythes of each pier tied together sufficiently to cause them to act as a single unit.

BA