My New House & Workshop

[Rick W]

Oddly enough, these two outlets are the only ones on that breaker. This is where the microwave should be plugged in. Who wants their microwave next to the sink?

I like to tackle one problem at a time, divide and conquer, but a comprehensive approach to all problems, properly balanced, is always the best solution, even if hard to visualize.

Trust me again. Run a copper wire through the sewer line to the alley from the kitchen, but make it long enough to reach the house crapper. Splice the line into the shop crapper. Extend that line over the addition roof if you raise the roof or frame out a new section. If you go metal, you only have to attach it to the metal frame. Then, place one foot in the commode (either), and with one hand, hold a tin coffee can (or soup can) inside the microwave, press the start button with your member touching the stainless sink or faucet (this part just for a thrill). Then, with the other hand, use a 102” stainless CB antenna whip to reset the GFI breaker (either one). This will set off the methane in the dip under the shop addition.

As your ass passes the moon, look back, you’ll have a perfect vantage point to visualize the shop possibilities.

Welcome to the joys of (old) home ownership!

My 2 cents, hope it helps. New drawings to follow...

 

[Jim Oaks]

I haven't received the estimate yet from the guy that was here last Friday. I sent him a text and he replied with:

"Good afternoon! Not yet! Waiting on my framer to get his bid back to me. I will send it over just as soon as he gets back to me. Have a great weekend!"

I'm having doubts about this guy showing up and getting the job completed when he can't even get me an estimate in a reasonable amount of time.

Monday I'm going to call the plumber that was here and get an estimate to replace the 20-feet of sewer line under the building.

My neighbor gave me the name and number if his cousin that does construction. I may call him as well next week.

I think I may also contact the guy I got the steel building quote from and see what he'd charge to build over the concrete pad in the rear addition. Hopefully that will same me a little $$.

Then I just need to figure out the cost of having that addition torn down.

Not saying that's the route I'm going. Just looking at my options.

 

[Rick W]

I feel I frequently rain on the parade, but another thing to consider.

With the existing block construction, the vertical load is evenly spread all along the slab. The edge all around the slab should be turned down and thicker.

That’s true for a wood framed wall also.

That’s not the case with a metal building. On metal, the vertical loads are transferred to the columns, and the columns create a point load atop a column footer.

We all know the quality of the addition is not as good as the original shop. If you pull the block, and put in columns, you could have the slab fail either by warping and crumbling, or by a column punching through at some point.

There are two possible solutions. Add a horizontal structural member along the the bottom of the walls under the columns to spread out the load. This isn’t just a 2x2 tube, it’s more like a 6” I-beam or junior I.

2nd solution would be, after you take down the block, cut out the right size column footers ( like 2x3x18deep) and pour them where the columns would be. IMPORTANT: I used those numbers so you could visualize the size, but they are NOT CORRECT numbers. These footings would have to be calculated when we know the building size and design.

You could also spread the column load by putting steel plates under the column. These would also be like 2x3, maybe 3/4”. Obviously that would spread into the work space and be inconvenient.

Consider the cost of all three options if you go metal. Your metal guy should be able to specify the footing design. Two thoughts there: first, don’t believe him if he says the existing slab will be fine, and if it is, get a letter from a professional (licensed) engineer. & on that engineer, someone who has a business with insurance.

Sorry, my 2 cents as always.

 

[Jim Oaks]

I know when they build a metal building the bolts to anchor the building are positioned before the concrete is poured. I figure if I did a metal building over this slab I'd make it bigger than the slab to pour the proper concrete footing with the anchors.

 

[franklin2]

I know when they build a metal building the bolts to anchor the building are positioned before the concrete is poured. I figure if I did a metal building over this slab I'd make it bigger than the slab to pour the proper concrete footing with the anchors.

That makes sense. Like I mentioned before, in my area the inspector would want to look at the depth and size of the holes before the concrete was poured. If you tried to put it on the slab he would probably make you dig the edge out so he could see how deep it went. Once he was satisfied, work could continue.

 

[Rick W]

Two kinds of metal buildings. See below.

The I-member style have L-shaped, one piece supports for wall and roof. They lean into each other for stability, which gives them a rotational downforce at the footing. They are pushing down, but also pushing outward.

They are held in place with anchor bolts, but more importantly, there is usually a piece of rebar in the concrete in the shape of a U or V hybrid around the anchor bolts that carries that outboard force across a large area of the slab.

The other style is simply columns that then have either beams across them on top or maybe a truss across on the top. The beam or the truss are static members that do not create any outward force. It’s like putting a pie plate or baking tin on top of columns. The footing required just has to be long and wide and deep enough to hold the weight, there is no rotational or outward force.

You can still use an I-member structure without having to redo all the concrete slab, but the footings usually have to be wider and deeper and heavier to balance that outward force. If there is no rebar U, sometimes these footings look like a pyramid with the top cut off. It acts as a wedge and as the I-member sitting on top of it is pushing outward, it digs in laterally. A rectangular footing would have the tendency of leaning, which creates tremendous stress at the anchor bolts.

Again, you can use footings instead of pouring a new slab with the U-shaped rebar, the footings just need to be much more massive to overcome the outward pressure.

Hope it helps!

 

[Rick W]

Another afterthought. You can reduce the size of the footings under a I-member structure by adding tie rods at the angle points. While that helps you on the footers, it is kind of defeating the purpose of using an I-member structure in the first place. The tire rods are to stop the spreading force at the angle points. You lose the headroom, which is one of the main reasons we use this kind of structure, but you will benefit from smaller footings and not having to re-pour the slab.

The size of these tie rods, and how they fasten to the I-members, is a big deal that has to be designed and calculated properly, Unfortunately not in my wheelhouse. There’s a tremendous amount of force at that point if you’ve got full load of snow on the roof. The tire rods work against the design of the I-members. It all has to be balanced.

This kind of approach becomes rigging it on top of rigging it on top of rigging it. Do you ever watch the TV show “engineering disasters?” It’s rare that something goes bad because one thing wasn’t done right. Things collapse because several miscalculations all add up to a bad total, and gravity takes over!!

We don’t want @Jim Oaks squished!

 

[ericbphoto]

We don’t want @Jim Oaks squished!

Oh.
I thought we didn’t want TRS2 squished.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Oh.
I thought we didn’t want TRS2 squished.

 

[Jim Oaks]

I know the guy that quoted me for a steel building which I think was steel tubing is specific about the concrete guy he uses. I know thos buildings have the anchors in the cement, but they don't seem to be the type that lean in to each other. What footer would that take. The only other thing I'd need to check is the easement. I have some room from the building to the alley. In fact my fence is a couple of feet closer to the alley than the building. I'd just have to ma ki e sure it was ok to bring it out far enough for the new footing.

 

[Jazzer]

Two GFCI’s on the same circuit sometimes fight each other.

If you turn the breaker off, and confirm there is no current at the outlet boxes, you can remove the GFCI’s. If they indeed are on the same circuit, the box closest to the breaker box should have two cables in it, and the farther box only one.

Separate all the wires in the box with two cables so no wire is touching anything, and turn the breaker on. Test across the black and white wires (of each pair in a cable) for around 120 volts. The pair with 120 volts is from the breaker on that circuit.

Turn off the breaker and confirm no power on the cable that showed 120V. That black and white pair will go under the GFCI’s LINE screws.

The other pair will go under the GFCI’s LOAD screws. An ordinary outlet can be installed in the other box, the GFCI’s LOAD terminal protects downstream outlets.

-Jazzer

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

^^^+1
There is only one gfci needed per circuit. Two is redundant. As Jazzer says, make sure it is closest to the breaker and all the outlets after are protected by that one gfci.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Two GFCI’s on the same circuit sometimes fight each other.

If you turn the breaker off, and confirm there is no current at the outlet boxes, you can remove the GFCI’s. If they indeed are on the same circuit, the box closest to the breaker box should have two cables in it, and the farther box only one.

Separate all the wires in the box with two cables so no wire is touching anything, and turn the breaker on. Test across the black and white wires (of each pair in a cable) for around 120 volts. The pair with 120 volts is from the breaker on that circuit.

Turn off the breaker and confirm no power on the cable that showed 120V. That black and white pair will go under the GFCI’s LINE screws.

The other pair will go under the GFCI’s LOAD screws. An ordinary outlet can be installed in the other box, the GFCI’s LOAD terminal protects downstream outlets.

-Jazzer

My guess is that someone thought that they both had to be GFCI since they were on the counter by the sink. They're both brand new and working. Do I really need to remove one and replace it with a regular outlet?

 

[Jazzer]

I thought they weren’t working?
If they cause any false trips, then it would save headaches. The one closest to the breaker box should be GFCI, the next down the line can be a regular outlet. Look for one with the metal running all along the back, known as “spec”, they’re sturdier for the high amp appliances used in kitchens. ~$2.00

-Jazzer

 

[franklin2]

My guess is that someone thought that they both had to be GFCI since they were on the counter by the sink. They're both brand new and working. Do I really need to remove one and replace it with a regular outlet?

You don't need to remove them. Some people like having a GFCI for each outlet, even though they are on the same circuit. What you have to do is hook them up correctly.

The GFCI has 4 terminals on it. 2 are the input and the other two are a output to "slave" outlets down the line. You do not want your other GFCI on the "slave" output of the 1st GFCI.

So on the 1st box with 4 wires, hook the two blacks under the brass screw, and hook the two white under the silver screw on the input only. This will feed that GFCI outlet, and it will also jump the feed directly down the line to the other outlet, without going through the GFCI. The GFCI recept should be setup to accept double wires on the terminals. The other two terminals on the GFCI (the output for slaves) will be left blank.

Then the other GFCI will hook up like the 1st one, two wires on the input, the other two terminals for output will be left blank.