Return on internal wall

[23vc]

Not being funny but if you already have building regulations approved drawings why not just build to them and if you have any technical queries ask the person who produced the drawings, that would be the normal practice.
Regards

I had BR approved drawings for mine too, but there was a hell of a lot I asked on this forum, and still continuing to do so! Great community, kept me going through the hardest times lol

 

[noseall]

the drawing specifies an ' internal reveal of min 550mm ' !

...and those internal nibs look a lot bigger than 100mm.

 

[acurachris]

...and those internal nibs look a lot bigger than 100mm.

Oh man, another fair comment, i'm feeling very scrutinised here! To be fair, it doesn't say how big they should be.

 

[acurachris]

I had BR approved drawings for mine too, but there was a hell of a lot I asked on this forum, and still continuing to do so! Great community, kept me going through the hardest times lol

In all honesty, it's been more stressful than i thought it was going to be, sometimes a set of drawings cannot answer a real life scenario. There are some really helpful people on here.

 

[tony1851]

That would speed up the block work a bit (i'm not the fastest!), however that would only give me 100mm bearing for the lintel rather than up to 200mm bearing with the nibs (told to use 1200 x 140 x 100 concrete lintels for internal doors or door width + 150mm either side). Do you think it'd be stronger bonding that block wall together and running the lintels as you said? The rest of the two storey brickwork would then be laid above those lintels.

EDIT: When i say told to use.. i mean my building regs say...

View attachment 158287

You dont need 140 x 100 lintels across a door opening - they are far too heavy. Just use the 100 x 65 pre-stressed lintels.
Also, a 100 bearing on the inner skin of the outer wall is not a problem. Because of the 'arching' effect of brickwork and blockwork, the lintels will be supporting suprisingly little load.
Most pre-War house builders just used 4" x 3" timber lintels across internal doors.

 

[acurachris]

You dont need 140 x 100 lintels across a door opening - they are far too heavy. Just use the 100 x 65 pre-stressed lintels.

You can see where someone might be confused though when the building regs say one thing but it's different onsite. I used 100x65 lintels across drain runs in the foundations although they were only 215mm wide holes. The building regs say 100 x 140 for doorways 900mm (actually says 150 but i guess it means 140!), is this just the guy who drew them covering himself, using standard submission docs?

Should I be using padstones under these doorway concrete lintels or not necessary?

Most pre-War house builders just used 4" x 3" timber lintels across internal doors.

I won't do this, promise!

 

[tony1851]

The loads will be low so padstones not necessary. Neither are 140 x 100 concrete lintels!

 

[acurachris]

Thanks for all your help, mind is at ease .

 

[Leofric]

One or 2 comments on previous comments by others - a) the drawings should at least be to scale if not fully dimensioned b) bldg. reg drawings might specify lintel sizes but that does not mean 'bldg. reg sizes' , bldg regs don't specify lintel sizes for various openings and situations , it is the designer's specification for what should be adequate to do the job but may be 'overdesigned' and more than necessary c) ' You can see where someone might be confused though when the building regs say one thing but it's different onsite' - the drawings should not be different to the situation on site. d) drawings should show what is required to comply with bldg. regs but they can't show how everything is done, which is where this sort of forum helps with many queries.