Reinforcing floor for large safe?

[Barbarosa]

Don't forget you are going to need to reinforce the floor wherever the delivery guys are going to roll the safe or you could have a disaster on your hands. At a minimum you will bust up the tiles. 2100#s is a lot of weight on a wooden floor.

[baih777]

this would be the easiest for concrete pier.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/14-in-x-8-in-x-8-in-Pier-with-Z-Max-Strap-098063/202092200

I would add 2x6 (or 2x8) to the joists. if the safe is 40 inch wide, I myself would make the added joists 72 inch if you can get it under the house.

then I would add cross pieces between each joist. at least 3 or 4.

then below the joists add 4x4 cross bracing with 4x4 pieces going down to the concrete pier.

I would reinforce at least 2 foot bigger than the safe. that's a heavy safe.

[baih777]

I would call deans safe or sunland welding and safes and see if they will give you the safe movers number.

these people advertise here on calguns.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458943

[damngato]

Don't forget you are going to need to reinforce the floor wherever the delivery guys are going to roll the safe or you could have a disaster on your hands. At a minimum you will bust up the tiles. 2100#s is a lot of weight on a wooden floor.

I think I am ok in that regard as it will be going up the brick stairs which are supported by the cement blocks the arrow is shown pointing at. As soon as it gets through the doorway it will be placed where the supports will be. I am going to hire whoever is recommend by where I purchase the safe to move it so hopefully it won't be on anything other than supported area or cement blocks for more than just a few seconds

[pacrat]

Please refer to post 20 for actual [pounds per sq ft load] on the floor. You have 2x6 joists on 16" centers. Sub floor is a 'minimum of 3/4" ply, or more likely 1" thick ply.

I checked the "footprint" to Sq Ft ratio. 11.6 Sq Ft and 1600# load = 138# PSF.

That's not as much as a fat dude standing with his feet together.

What is "required" is to "reinforce" existing floor. So it doesn't sag. Not build a safe, for the safe to sit on. If most people worried about the overall weight of a structure, and how that structure is supported. They would never go indoors, or walk under a tree.

Think of what you need as a pair of "Ts". With the base of the Ts sitting on and attached to, a pier block. And the 2 joists, each sitting on opposing ends of the top.

The Knot MG pointed out is an issue. But only requires "spreading the load" under the knot. Or direct support of same. A 2x4x5' screwed 'flat" to the bottom of existing joist is sufficient to do that. {If needed} Once the 2x4 is then supported from below.

So IMHO, you need [2 pier blocks], with holes in top to accept 3/4" strong tie saddles. Mentioned Below. Use them as "Puddle Piers" by setting them in this. Not the cheapy fence post low tensile strength stuff. If settling does occur in future, it will crack. Use a bag for each pier. Do not disturb substrate. Only dig the size hole you need. And set base of block 1" into puddle to lock them together.

Piers do not need to be "level" with each other. They are 2 separate structures. But the closer to level with the world, each pier is. The straighter "UP" the load will be stacked. So a small 6" "torpedo level" is plenty good.

An 18" stick marked at 0.....8"....& 16". With a string and nut tied at the 8" mark will suffice to locate CL between joists. And transfer that to the ground where the pier will sit.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Quikrete-60-lb-Concrete-Mix-110160/100318478

As close as possible but not critical. Locate your puddle piers between joists. [see stick and string trick above] And spaced at 2 ft and 4 ft from LH wall in pic. If spacing allows close proximity to the knot. You don't need the [2] 2x4s. Just adjust pier location, to knot location.

Two 2x4s x 5' long. Screwed under joists. {IF NEEDED}

As MG suggested I would use 2 of these.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Simpson-Strong-Tie-4-in-x-4-in-12-Gauge-Hot-Dip-Galvanized-Pier-Block-Elevated-Post-Base-EPB44PHDG/100506799

And add 2 of these. To spread the load over 16 sq inches on top of each pier. Click on part # 6818* in pdf.

http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/pole-line/fasteners/washers/square-washers.asp

I think Home Depot sells them but didn't check their web page.

At the TOP of your "Ts" you need [2] of these.

http://www.fastenersplus.com/Simpson-BC4-4x-Post-Cap-G90-Galvanized

Once piers are set, clearance from pier saddle, to underside of T cross. Will be somewhere around 12". So you will need an 8' length of 4x4 added to list. So you can cut to length the 4...4x4 pieces needed to make the [Ts].

I would suggest you do your measuring for location. Digging puddle holes. Pouring puddles, and setting piers on one weekend. And wait until next weekend to do the carpentry.

.................................................. ............

The two times I watched professional safe movers at work in finished houses. Both a tiled and hardwood floors. They used aluminum plates with carpet glued on one side to spread the load and protect floors from damage.

.................................................. ...............

At 1600 # empty. I wouldn't worry about anyone stealing it. But as cheap insurance, a couple of lag bolts into studs high in the back would solve any such problem. If they can't tip it away from the wall. They can't move it.

JM2c

[Metal God]

Yep that will work . My thinking was sistering 4' long 2x6 to each joist making sure the one end went up and over the side foundation area . Then support the other ends as pacrat is describing with 4x4's secured in concrete with the Sampson ties and at the joist with the 4x4 post caps .

Sistering is nailing , screwing or bolting the same size board flush to the existing joist at any length . In this case 4' to cover the width of the safe . If both ends of that 4' doubled up sections are supported , one by the foundation the other by the 4x4's you've turned them from 2x6's to 4x6's creating significantly more support in that area . I am a little concerned with the plywood floor if it's only 1/2" . How ever a few 2x6 cross members in that area should help reinforce the plywood flooring .

In my case I live in an old house that actually has floor joist the measure the full 2"x 6" with 1x6's crossing the 2x6's at a 45*angle with 3/4" oak flooring on top of that . Mine should be strong enough but I'm still going to add one 4x4 support just to be sure .

[freonr22]

handymen don't have to be licensed if the work being performed is under $599

Care to cite the source for your quote?

[freonr22]

Lol. Your mind is on the money of the 1099 of $600/year. Can you explain more of your tax evasion businesses?

[pacrat]

It's all about "Stacking the Load". Adding width to the joist, does not add any significant vertical load bearing strength, to the structure. That is why in modern framed construction, solid lumber joists, are a thing of the past. Everything unseen is TJ-I joists. Google them. Only "open beam" ceilings use real lumber. And the majority of them in order to meet new "R ratings" are made of foam. And serve no structural purpose.

Same with "trussed" ceilings/roofs. No more "big joists" to support the ceiling span. The ceiling is supported by hanging from the trusses, which transfer the load to the walls.

With the two [Ts] located and constructed, as I suggested. The extra load of the safe, is simply transferred "through" the plywood floor and joists, and "stacked" onto the ground.

The plywood deck, and the joists. Become nothing more than "spacers".

JM2c

[The Gleam]

Mmmph. It's really quite simple.

[MrFeetZ]

Some good ideas... you wanna bet your foundation and floor on it? Hire a contractor. Otherwise......

[MrFeetZ]

Mmmph. It's really quite simple.

spoke too soon. That's legit.

[Metal God]

"only" adding the second 2x6 and not supporting either end does not add vertical strength . The way I'm suggesting adds support to one end by adding the 4x4's from joist to the ground while the other end is supported by the existing block foundation . I may not be explaining it correctly but I know what's in my head will add significantly more vertical load strength .

I'll also contend that the only reason new construction is done the way it is , is to save on material cost not because it's better . It's better only because it can handle the same load at half the weight and material . Kind of like fluting . The barrel is more ridged then the same weighted non fluted barrel but not as ridged as a solid barrel of the same diameter . I'll take a 6x12 over one of those cheap *** "I" beam things that use 2x4's and plywood in a fire or earth quake any day . Just ask the 3k people in the world trade center how much they like that new lighter stronger method of construction in a fire ?

[pacrat]

Architects and engineers learn more and more every day. Us old guys are more resistant to change. The structural concepts of "Load Stacking" I'm trying to explain, go all the way back to Frank Lloyd Wright. It's taken the world a long while to catch up.

Adding more or bigger "spacers" between the load and the ground add no structural load bearing integrity. Unless the existing spacers are insufficient. In which case they would be "crushed" between the load and the foundation. The load bearing capacity is governed by the pier blocks/puddles and the existing foundation. Everything between them and the safe. Are just spacers used to transfer the load downward to them. Ergo, unless existing spacers are at fail point from crushing. Adding more or bigger spacers is superfluous. Because the addition of the load bearing supports "under" them changed their role from support to spacer.

"only" adding the second 2x6 and not supporting either end does not add vertical strength . The way I'm suggesting adds support to one end by adding the 4x4's from joist to the ground while the other end is supported by the existing block foundation . I may not be explaining it correctly but I know what's in my head will add significantly more vertical load strength .

I'll also contend that the only reason new construction is done the way it is , is to save on material cost not because it's better . It's better only because it can handle the same load at half the weight and material . Kind of like fluting . The barrel is more ridged then the same weighted non fluted barrel but not as ridged as a solid barrel of the same diameter . I'll take a 6x12 over one of those cheap *** "I" beam things that use 2x4's and plywood in a fire or earth quake any day . Just ask the 3k people in the world trade center how much they like that new lighter stronger method of construction in a fire ?

The TJ-I joist system is better, because it is better. Part of the reason it is better is because it is capable of bearing the same load over a longer span because it is lighter. Which also makes the load it is required to bear less.

Remember that building codes become ever more restrictive in their requirements. They don't make any allowances for cheaper.

The WTC Towers were built in 1964. And were all concrete and steel construction. No Wood involved. No one considered even a remote possibility of tens of thousands of gallons of burning fuel inside them, eight hundred feet up the structure. Once the concrete blew away from heat expansion, and the exposed steel softened from the heat and lost its tensile strength. They were doomed to collapse. That's a whole different animal.

TJ-I joists look flimsy, and like they would go up like kindling in a fire. They are stronger per foot span than lumber. And since the resin that bonds the components together is fire retardant. They actually retain their strength longer in a fire. And take longer to burn than lumber of like size. Unlike steel studs. That will warp and give way even before the drywall covering them burns through. That is why codes only allow their use in Non-Load bearing walls.

Believe me, I had all the same reservations over 30 yrs ago when I first saw TJ-I being used.

[Metal God]

I will admit I did not know the glue in those beams contained fire retardant . Very cool and that has changed my thinking a bit . My guess is they didn't always but when they saw how fast houses burned to the ground they came up with that idea .

And not to keep taking this thread off topic with the world trade center .How ever I know there was no wood used . My point was instead of using giant steal "I" beams they went with a lighter design that would hold the same load while using less material . Kind of like a crane uses . The fact each floor was lighter meant the brackets at the outside columns holding the floors did not need to be very big .


Yes you are correct that the engineers never calculated a large plane hitting the tower with thousands of gallons of fuel burning up inside . How ever they did estimate the towers could with stand a plane impact . What they did not anticipate was that plane crashing into the building would blow most of the insulating foam off those lighter less material support beams allowing them to heat up faster then designed .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1WZ9g1IJ4