BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lawrence Kestenbaum <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The listserv where the buildings do the talking <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:57:52 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:57 PM, deb bledsoe<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Go with the second guy if the I beams are installed on the inside in
> opposing pairs and tied into the joists at top and set in channels in the
> floor at the bottom.

Tied into the joists is part of what he proposes.  Opposing pairs
meaning two I-beams on opposite sides of the house connected to the
same joist?  That would work for the front and back, but what about
the sides?  And what kind of floor channel should we insist on?

> The other process uses I beams on all interior walls, and braces across on
> the INSIDE of the house, in pairs. No disturbance outside.

That's the second guy's plan, except that he didn't mention opposing pairs.

                                              Larry

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
Washtenaw County Clerk & Register of Deeds, http://ewashtenaw.org
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2