Time soon to put new floor down in lounge, but it is a bit more involved.

This floor has to support a substantial dead weight or two - A Steinway
Concert Grand Piano that weighs in at 480kg, or about half a tonne. The
weight is, according to Steinway, evenly distributed over the three legs
i.e. 160kg per leg.

The other dead load is a lighter but still heavy - Boston upright piano
that is probably half the weight or less and with weight on four feet,
although centred on a much smaller overall area. .

The remaining "live" load will be furniture etc. - normal things :-)

The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by sleeper
walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10" with no noggins.

I plan to increase the number of joists by about two, depending on
arranging things to suit the Caberboards that I think will do the job.
Running double joists where the dead weight will be centred.

This will, obviously, make it harder for noggins if they are needed to
be fitted, but the close spacing between joists should make them
unnecessary I think?

Am I on the right track here? Any ideas or information would be most
welcome before I do it and find that our beloved piano has crashed
through the floor!

Thanks

Steve

On Sep 20, 4:30 pm, Steve wrote:
Time soon to put new floor down in lounge, but it is a bit more involved.

This floor has to support a substantial dead weight or two - A Steinway
Concert Grand Piano that weighs in at 480kg, or about half a tonne. The
weight is, according to Steinway, evenly distributed over the three legs
i.e. 160kg per leg....


Would you be worrying if six people (each weighing 80kg) stood on your
floor in three groups of two? That would give the same weight
distribution as the piano but you probably woul dnot even give it a
thought. Maybe nothing needs to be done.

Robert

Robert wrote:


Would you be worrying if six people (each weighing 80kg) stood on your
floor in three groups of two? That would give the same weight
distribution as the piano but you probably woul dnot even give it a
thought. Maybe nothing needs to be done.

Robert


Thanks and that was one of the scenarios we considered!

This is to do with protecting a very valuable item of ours and as it has
to be standing in the same place for years (because it cannot easily be
moved), I was asking whether the idea's I had put forward had any merit
or not.

If not, and while the floor is open, I would prefer to do the best thing.

As you say, maybe nothing needs done.

Steve

In article , Steve
scribeth thus
Time soon to put new floor down in lounge, but it is a bit more involved.

This floor has to support a substantial dead weight or two - A Steinway
Concert Grand Piano that weighs in at 480kg, or about half a tonne. The
weight is, according to Steinway, evenly distributed over the three legs
i.e. 160kg per leg.

The other dead load is a lighter but still heavy - Boston upright piano
that is probably half the weight or less and with weight on four feet,
although centred on a much smaller overall area. .

The remaining "live" load will be furniture etc. - normal things :-)

The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by sleeper
walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10" with no noggins.

I plan to increase the number of joists by about two, depending on
arranging things to suit the Caberboards that I think will do the job.
Running double joists where the dead weight will be centred.

This will, obviously, make it harder for noggins if they are needed to
be fitted, but the close spacing between joists should make them
unnecessary I think?

Am I on the right track here? Any ideas or information would be most
welcome before I do it and find that our beloved piano has crashed
through the floor!

Thanks

Steve




Dunno about the stress .. but will it affect the sound;-?....







--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:33:38 UTC, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Steve
scribeth thus
Time soon to put new floor down in lounge, but it is a bit more involved.

This floor has to support a substantial dead weight or two - A Steinway
Concert Grand Piano that weighs in at 480kg, or about half a tonne. The
weight is, according to Steinway, evenly distributed over the three legs
i.e. 160kg per leg.

The other dead load is a lighter but still heavy - Boston upright piano
that is probably half the weight or less and with weight on four feet,
although centred on a much smaller overall area. .

The remaining "live" load will be furniture etc. - normal things :-)

The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by sleeper
walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10" with no noggins.

I plan to increase the number of joists by about two, depending on
arranging things to suit the Caberboards that I think will do the job.
Running double joists where the dead weight will be centred.

This will, obviously, make it harder for noggins if they are needed to
be fitted, but the close spacing between joists should make them
unnecessary I think?

Am I on the right track here? Any ideas or information would be most
welcome before I do it and find that our beloved piano has crashed
through the floor!

Thanks

Steve

Dunno about the stress .. but will it affect the sound;-?....

Depends if one uses gold plated, oxygen free cut nails! :-)


--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

You probably have a very good idea where each foot of your grand will
be positioned.

You could consider independent masonry pillar supports topped with
timber plates pressing up against the underside of the floor boards at
these locations.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:15:03 +0000, Steve wrote:

Robert wrote:


Would you be worrying if six people (each weighing 80kg) stood on your
floor in three groups of two? That would give the same weight
distribution as the piano but you probably woul dnot even give it a
thought. Maybe nothing needs to be done.

Robert


Thanks and that was one of the scenarios we considered!

This is to do with protecting a very valuable item of ours and as it has
to be standing in the same place for years (because it cannot easily be
moved), I was asking whether the idea's I had put forward had any merit or
not.

If not, and while the floor is open, I would prefer to do the best thing.

As you say, maybe nothing needs done.

Steve

==================================
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests very
localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of load
spreader made from material other than wood which can't be
easily penetrated or indented by pressure.

Cic.
--
===================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================

Cicero wrote:

==================================
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests very
localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of load
spreader made from material other than wood which can't be
easily penetrated or indented by pressure.

Cic.

Indeed, the load is on castors and that would amount to considerable
point load as you suggest. The piano is presently standing on castor
cups recommended by Steinway that spread out the load to 6" circles.
They are, I believe, made of some sort of plastic.

Thanks

Steve

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:33:38 UTC, tony sayer wrote:


Dunno about the stress .. but will it affect the sound;-?....

Depends if one uses gold plated, oxygen free cut nails! :-)


LOL Which are best...?

Steve

wrote:
You probably have a very good idea where each foot of your grand will
be positioned.

A very good idea! We have a triangle made from lengths of wood that show
us where the the piano will sit more or less exactly.

You could consider independent masonry pillar supports topped with
timber plates pressing up against the underside of the floor boards at
these locations.

This is something that I had considered. The existing sleeper walls seem
to be built on top of the rough floor concrete so extra support should
be easy to add as you suggest. I had it in mind to provide to provide
that additional support under the joists in these areas if necessary.

Thanks

Steve

Steve wrote:
Time soon to put new floor down in lounge, but it is a bit more
involved.
This floor has to support a substantial dead weight or two - A
Steinway Concert Grand Piano that weighs in at 480kg, or about half a
tonne. The weight is, according to Steinway, evenly distributed over
the three legs i.e. 160kg per leg.

The other dead load is a lighter but still heavy - Boston upright
piano that is probably half the weight or less and with weight on
four feet, although centred on a much smaller overall area. .

The remaining "live" load will be furniture etc. - normal things :-)

Couldn't you play the mouth organ instead? :-)

The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.

I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12" centres
supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.

I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12" centres
supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!

Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

"Steve" wrote in message

Am I on the right track here? Any ideas or information would be most
welcome before I do it and find that our beloved piano has crashed
through the floor!

Thanks

Steve



Metal 1/4" x 3" plate both sides of the intended joist

wrote:
The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.

I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12"
centres supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!

Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.
I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12"
centres supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?


Take an engineering degree.?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.
I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12"
centres supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?


Take an engineering degree.?

Bit OTT for a handyman with a thirst for knowledge?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:33:51 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?

Strength is proportional to Z = BD^2/6 for a rectangular section

Stiffness is proportional to I = BD^3/12

Most timber beam (joists, rafters) sizes are governed by deflection
limits rather than strength - you could drop most floor joist sizes
by 25mm without any risk of the floor collapsing but it would be
unacceptably bouncy.

Compare (imperial units more manageable)

Strength: 8 x 2 Z = 21.3 7 x 2 Z = 16.3 - 23% less strength
(but probably still within limits for most floors)

Stiffness I = 85.3 I = 57.2 - 33% less stiff
(= 50% more deflection for same load)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:33:51 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?

Strength is proportional to Z = BD^2/6 for a rectangular section

Stiffness is proportional to I = BD^3/12

Ok great, so what do Z, B, D & I stand for?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.
I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12"
centres supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"
I didn't know that - where could I find out more?


Take an engineering degree.?

Bit OTT for a handyman with a thirst for knowledge?

Download the demo of superbeam from Tony's site, and have a play with
some different joist sizes and loads.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:38:15 +0100, Owain wrote:

Cicero wrote:
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests very
localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of load
spreader made from material other than wood which can't be easily
penetrated or indented by pressure.
------------------------------------

I'm slightly more concerned about the point loading too. I think I'd be
inclined towards thickening the floor rather than the joists.

If belowfloor supports are used, it might be worth recessing polished
metal plates into the finished floor to (a) spread the load, and reduce
indentation into a soft floor, and (b) indicate the correct location of
the piano feet.

Owain

==================================
I, too thought of inset metal load-spreading plates, but the hard plastic
castor cups mentioned by the OP (and recommended by Steinway) seem to be a
sensible compromise. It gives the OP an option to move the piano to an
entirely different position if he should decide to do so without having to
re-work the whole of his floor. Of course the OP, if he wished, could
prepare a fixed location with inset plates and use the castor cups for
occasional use in other locations.

Cic.
==================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:33:51 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"
I didn't know that - where could I find out more?

Strength is proportional to Z = BD^2/6 for a rectangular section

Stiffness is proportional to I = BD^3/12

Most timber beam (joists, rafters) sizes are governed by deflection
limits rather than strength - you could drop most floor joist sizes
by 25mm without any risk of the floor collapsing but it would be
unacceptably bouncy.

Compare (imperial units more manageable)

Strength: 8 x 2 Z = 21.3 7 x 2 Z = 16.3 - 23% less strength
(but probably still within limits for most floors)

Stiffness I = 85.3 I = 57.2 - 33% less stiff
(= 50% more deflection for same load)

Thanks for that Tony. I will download the demo and have a play with
various options.

Steve

On Sep 20, 8:38 pm, Owain wrote:
Cicero wrote:
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests very
localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of load
spreader made from material other than wood which can't be
easily penetrated or indented by pressure.

I'm slightly more concerned about the point loading too. I think I'd be
inclined towards thickening the floor rather than the joists.

If belowfloor supports are used, it might be worth recessing polished
metal plates into the finished floor to (a) spread the load, and reduce
indentation into a soft floor, and (b) indicate the correct location of
the piano feet.

In fact I face a related problem. I plan to put an upright piano into
our 1960s house and the position it will occupy means that all the
weight will be one two joists running parallelto the piano. the
joists in the house are inadequate; I have alrady had problems with
the floor moving when I piled a lot of books on it, so I plan to add
some supports under the floor first. i was going to support the
centres of all the joists by wooden struts up from the ground each
standing on long planks placed on damp-proofing membrane placed on the
ground. Adjustment would be by carpenters wedges hammered together
and then nailed. I woul ddo the whole floor, to reduce the
pringiness, not just the two joists under the piano.

In my case it is the springyness that is the problem, not the danger
of collapse.

R

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:54:33 -0700, Robert
wrote:



In fact I face a related problem. I plan to put an upright piano into
our 1960s house and the position it will occupy means that all the
weight will be one two joists running parallelto the piano. the
joists in the house are inadequate; I have alrady had problems with
the floor moving when I piled a lot of books on it, so I plan to add

How many books? Thousands?

some supports under the floor first. i was going to support the
centres of all the joists by wooden struts up from the ground each
standing on long planks placed on damp-proofing membrane placed on the
ground. Adjustment would be by carpenters wedges hammered together
and then nailed. I woul ddo the whole floor, to reduce the
pringiness, not just the two joists under the piano.

In my case it is the springyness that is the problem, not the danger
of collapse.

R


--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Cicero wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:38:15 +0100, Owain wrote:

Cicero wrote:
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests very
localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of load
spreader made from material other than wood which can't be easily
penetrated or indented by pressure.
------------------------------------
I'm slightly more concerned about the point loading too. I think I'd be
inclined towards thickening the floor rather than the joists.

If belowfloor supports are used, it might be worth recessing polished
metal plates into the finished floor to (a) spread the load, and reduce
indentation into a soft floor, and (b) indicate the correct location of
the piano feet.

Owain

==================================
I, too thought of inset metal load-spreading plates, but the hard plastic
castor cups mentioned by the OP (and recommended by Steinway) seem to be a
sensible compromise. It gives the OP an option to move the piano to an
entirely different position if he should decide to do so without having to
re-work the whole of his floor. Of course the OP, if he wished, could
prepare a fixed location with inset plates and use the castor cups for
occasional use in other locations.

Cic.
==================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================


The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help
with the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there
is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement
with the oak floor.

It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!

Steve

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The existing joists are 4" by 2" and are at present supported by
sleeper walls at 5 foot centres, the spacing between joists is 10"
with no noggins.
I built a deck for 2000kg hot tub last year. 6 x 2 joists at 12"
centres supported every 4'. Not a millimetre of movement!
Remember the depth cubed factor though - 6" is more than 3 times
stiffer than 4"

I didn't know that - where could I find out more?


Take an engineering degree.?

Bit OTT for a handyman with a thirst for knowledge?

Stick with the half the span (in feet) + one for the depth in inches rule
its much easier.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote

Ok great, so what do Z, B, D & I stand for?



Z is called the section modulus (b*d^2)/6 for a rectangular section as noted
earlier
B is the width of the section
D is the depth of the section
I is the second moment of area of the section (b*d^3)/12

The key starting point is that the stress due to bending (f) = [Bending
Moment (M)] / Z

To understand how this lot relates, you would need information on basic
structural engineering either steel or in the case of this thread timber.
Timbers a bit nasty cos there's dodgy variables which affect strength like
moisture content, grain direction etc.



HTH

Phil

"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...

The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help with
the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement with
the oak floor.

What will stop the piano marking the floor?
160kg on most castors is going to put grooves in a wooden floor IME.


It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!

I wondered what the acoustics will be like and if it will hold tune if the
floor sags unevenly.
Is there a mechanism to level the piano or doesn't it matter?

Have you considered casting some concrete pads under the floor and building
some small supporting piers in the correct places?
It is probably easy if you are going to cover the floor.

BTW you can get some nice electronic pianos these days that play like the
real thing and don't need maintenance every six months, take up less space
and are cheap(er).

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:01:35 +0000, Steve wrote:

Cicero wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:38:15 +0100, Owain wrote:

Cicero wrote:
Google pictures suggest that it's on castors which in turn suggests
very localised loading. It would be worth considering some kind of
load spreader made from material other than wood which can't be easily
penetrated or indented by pressure.
------------------------------------
I'm slightly more concerned about the point loading too. I think I'd be
inclined towards thickening the floor rather than the joists.

If belowfloor supports are used, it might be worth recessing polished
metal plates into the finished floor to (a) spread the load, and reduce
indentation into a soft floor, and (b) indicate the correct location of
the piano feet.

Owain

==================================
I, too thought of inset metal load-spreading plates, but the hard
plastic castor cups mentioned by the OP (and recommended by Steinway)
seem to be a sensible compromise. It gives the OP an option to move the
piano to an entirely different position if he should decide to do so
without having to re-work the whole of his floor. Of course the OP, if
he wished, could prepare a fixed location with inset plates and use the
castor cups for occasional use in other locations.

Cic.
==================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================


The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help with
the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement with
the oak floor.

It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!

Steve
==================================
Seems like a good example of 'Hobson's Choice' then!

If you like the idea of metal plates you might consider three rectangular
plates (rather than circular) which could be the exact width of your t&g
flooring but each plate long enough to bridge two joists. Short sections
of the 15mm t&g could be planed down sufficiently to accept the plates
(about 3mm thick) which wouldn't be too visible as t&g is quite normally
laid randomly. This would effectively take almost all the weight off the
floor boards and put it on the underlying joists.

You could keep a few offcuts of the flooring to make good when / if you
eventually move or dispose of the piano.

Cic.



--
===================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================

dennis@home wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...

The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help
with the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there
is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement
with the oak floor.

What will stop the piano marking the floor?
160kg on most castors is going to put grooves in a wooden floor IME.

Hopefully the cups will do that. It is presently sitting on a laminate
floor on those cups at my sister in law's , who is piano sitting for us
(350 miles away) and they report no damage to the floor.


It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!

I wondered what the acoustics will be like and if it will hold tune if
the floor sags unevenly.
Is there a mechanism to level the piano or doesn't it matter?

Yes, this is also a worry... tuning is not cheap and any settlement
could put it off tune. Hence the need to stiffen the floor as much as
possible.

Have you considered casting some concrete pads under the floor and
building some small supporting piers in the correct places?
It is probably easy if you are going to cover the floor.

Thanks this option looks to be the best so far and would be relatively
easy to do while the floor is open.

BTW you can get some nice electronic pianos these days that play like
the real thing and don't need maintenance every six months, take up less
space and are cheap(er).

Tell my wife ;-) We did have a Yamaha electronic piano for several years
but even to my untrained ear it was not a touch on a proper piano. A
concert grand is in a different league yet again.

Steve

"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...
dennis@home wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...

The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help
with the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there
is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement
with the oak floor.

What will stop the piano marking the floor?
160kg on most castors is going to put grooves in a wooden floor IME.

Hopefully the cups will do that. It is presently sitting on a laminate
floor on those cups at my sister in law's , who is piano sitting for us
(350 miles away) and they report no damage to the floor.


It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!

I wondered what the acoustics will be like and if it will hold tune if
the floor sags unevenly.
Is there a mechanism to level the piano or doesn't it matter?

Yes, this is also a worry... tuning is not cheap and any settlement could
put it off tune. Hence the need to stiffen the floor as much as possible.

I am not a music man but I would suggest that, for a steel framed piano of
that size, the lack of complete temperature control will detune the piano
more significantly than any settlement (which should happen straight away).
Thermal cycling found in a normal house with the central heating system
would ensure it was never in tune, I suspect! I believe, from what I have
been told, that such pianos are tuned prior to concerts and can be heard
drifting off (quite frequently) during the performance.

In other words, if the structure stands up, I shouldn't worry about detuning
due to physical movement!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...
dennis@home wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
. uk...

The finished floor will be thickened by a further 15mm as we have T&G
engineered oak floor to go on top of the Caberboard. This should help
with the point loading but will not help much with any bounce if there
is any.

Metal plates would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement
with the oak floor.
What will stop the piano marking the floor?
160kg on most castors is going to put grooves in a wooden floor IME.
Hopefully the cups will do that. It is presently sitting on a laminate
floor on those cups at my sister in law's , who is piano sitting for us
(350 miles away) and they report no damage to the floor.
It is unlikely that the piano would be moved from the spot. There just
isn't the room!
I wondered what the acoustics will be like and if it will hold tune if
the floor sags unevenly.
Is there a mechanism to level the piano or doesn't it matter?
Yes, this is also a worry... tuning is not cheap and any settlement could
put it off tune. Hence the need to stiffen the floor as much as possible.

I am not a music man but I would suggest that, for a steel framed piano of
that size, the lack of complete temperature control will detune the piano
more significantly than any settlement (which should happen straight away).
Thermal cycling found in a normal house with the central heating system
would ensure it was never in tune, I suspect! I believe, from what I have
been told, that such pianos are tuned prior to concerts and can be heard
drifting off (quite frequently) during the performance.

Yes they are tuned prior to concerts. Thermal cycling is a worry as is
changes in humidity. I think Sister-in-law has had it re-tuned two or
three times in the couple of years that it has been at her house.

We are putting TRVs on all three radiators to start with as an attempt
to prevent wild temperature excursions but it may be that extra work is
needed in this area.

In other words, if the structure stands up, I shouldn't worry about detuning
due to physical movement!



It will probably drift in and out of tune in a cyclic manner which may
give us an idea of what to do. My ears don't notice these subtle changes
but my wife is pitch perfect so she does. One case where ignorance is bliss!

Steve

Steve wrote:

Thanks for that Tony. I will download the demo and have a play with
various options.

I just did a quick calc in SB with a 1.3m 4x2" beam. Assuming a uniform
floor load of 0.8kN per joist, plus a worst case point load in the
middle of the span of 1.6kN (i.e. one piano leg), your current floor
fails to meet the spec in bending and deflection - but not by a huge
margin. Doubling up the exiting joists with another the same size sat
beside it (and nailed too it would probably be simplest at that size),
seems to make it stiff enough.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:08:32 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
Ok great, so what do Z, B, D & I stand for?

Sorry, drifting into shorthand

B = breadth (width) D = Depth

Z = elastic modulus (put simply, relative strength)

I = moment of inertia (relative stiffness)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

BTW you can get some nice electronic pianos these days that play like
the real thing and don't need maintenance every six months, take up less
space and are cheap(er).

Tell my wife ;-) We did have a Yamaha electronic piano for several years
but even to my untrained ear it was not a touch on a proper piano. A
concert grand is in a different league yet again.

Steve


No comparison!..

Lucky you having one of them in your living room, and someone who knows
how to drive it)
--
Tony Sayer

John Rumm wrote:
Steve wrote:

Thanks for that Tony. I will download the demo and have a play with
various options.

I just did a quick calc in SB with a 1.3m 4x2" beam. Assuming a uniform
floor load of 0.8kN per joist, plus a worst case point load in the
middle of the span of 1.6kN (i.e. one piano leg), your current floor
fails to meet the spec in bending and deflection - but not by a huge
margin. Doubling up the exiting joists with another the same size sat
beside it (and nailed too it would probably be simplest at that size),
seems to make it stiff enough.


Thanks very much for that John.

I have downloaded the software from Tony's website and had a quick play.
But it is clear that I need to follow the advice on there and print
out the instructions! It does seem a very nice piece of software that
has the potential to teach me a lot more apart from this question... but
I need to learn how to drive it! Also I was very impressed that the only
feature 'nobbled' in the demo was the ability to print out the results -
fair enough. Nice not to have a time limited demo with lots of features
disabled as so many are.

So thanks also to Tony for generously making the software available to
non professionals like myself.

Coming back to the joists, I had a gut feeling that deflection would be
more than desired and your results back this up although you have quite
rightly taken the worst case with the load in the centre of the span. In
our case most of the load will be near to a sleeper wall for each leg.
But I would rather be conservative and use worst case!

One idea was to double the joists up i.e. putting extra joists in
between but in the areas of high load to have double joists joined, but
I had thought of glueing them together and bolting through the neutral
access. Any problems with glueing and bolting?

I also had an extension to this idea...I thought of cutting 8" strips of
18mm WBP, glueing two together and then sandwiching that between two
joists, all glued and bolted. In effect a 'T' beam. Obviously the ply
can't extend the total length because of the sleeper walls but that
would probably not matter as shear is unlikely to be a problem, I think.
Any comments on this idea?

Cheers

Steve

18mm ply glued and screwed to the top of the joists (instead of unglued
chipboard) , forming a T beam was a solution proposed by a structural
engineer and adopted by me when I did a loft conversion some years ago. We
didn't put a piano up there, but the purchasers of the house did install a
water bed and there have been no adverse reports from neighbours whom I have
remained in contact with. The increase in strength over the unglued floor
was impressive, confirming in practice what the Moment of Inertia
calculations indicated. We were able to jump up and down on the floor and
detect very little spring.

Our joists were 6x2 inches, at 16inch spacing and spanned 12 feet, to give
you an idea of our configuration. The resulting stiffness was, if I remember
correctly better than what would have been achieved with recommended joist
depth for that span. Sorry I can't remember if 8 inch joists would have been
sufficient for that span. I remember that the addition of the ply to form a
T beam gave lots more improvement over doubling up the beams. Where our span
increased to 14 ft . the solution was to double up on the 6x2 beams

I'll try to find my own calculations which I did to "prove to myself" the
efficacy of the scheme, and perhaps substitute your 4x2 beams.

regards
Ian




"Steve" wrote in message
.uk...
John Rumm wrote:
Steve wrote:

Thanks for that Tony. I will download the demo and have a play with
various options.

I just did a quick calc in SB with a 1.3m 4x2" beam. Assuming a uniform
floor load of 0.8kN per joist, plus a worst case point load in the middle
of the span of 1.6kN (i.e. one piano leg), your current floor fails to
meet the spec in bending and deflection - but not by a huge margin.
Doubling up the exiting joists with another the same size sat beside it
(and nailed too it would probably be simplest at that size), seems to
make it stiff enough.


Thanks very much for that John.

I have downloaded the software from Tony's website and had a quick play.
But it is clear that I need to follow the advice on there and print out
the instructions! It does seem a very nice piece of software that has the
potential to teach me a lot more apart from this question... but I need to
learn how to drive it! Also I was very impressed that the only feature
'nobbled' in the demo was the ability to print out the results - fair
enough. Nice not to have a time limited demo with lots of features
disabled as so many are.

So thanks also to Tony for generously making the software available to non
professionals like myself.

Coming back to the joists, I had a gut feeling that deflection would be
more than desired and your results back this up although you have quite
rightly taken the worst case with the load in the centre of the span. In
our case most of the load will be near to a sleeper wall for each leg. But
I would rather be conservative and use worst case!

One idea was to double the joists up i.e. putting extra joists in between
but in the areas of high load to have double joists joined, but I had
thought of glueing them together and bolting through the neutral access.
Any problems with glueing and bolting?

I also had an extension to this idea...I thought of cutting 8" strips of
18mm WBP, glueing two together and then sandwiching that between two
joists, all glued and bolted. In effect a 'T' beam. Obviously the ply
can't extend the total length because of the sleeper walls but that would
probably not matter as shear is unlikely to be a problem, I think. Any
comments on this idea?

Cheers

Steve

tony sayer wrote:
BTW you can get some nice electronic pianos these days that play like
the real thing and don't need maintenance every six months, take up less
space and are cheap(er).
Tell my wife ;-) We did have a Yamaha electronic piano for several years
but even to my untrained ear it was not a touch on a proper piano. A
concert grand is in a different league yet again.

Steve


No comparison!..

Lucky you having one of them in your living room, and someone who knows
how to drive it)

She is an amazing woman. Carol originally trained as a concert pianist
in Edinburgh and that is where she fell in love with this actual piano
that was brand new then (c.1979). As a keen student and with a new piano
that needed to be 'broken-in', she was allowed to play it whenever it
was not in use. Apparently, she made a resolve that one day she would
own it. She gave up music, I'm not quite sure why, and learnt to fly
instead. Nowadays she is an airline pilot.

However, she never could never get this particular piano out of her mind
and a couple of years ago had the urge to find out what had become of
it. My suggestions that it would have been sold on by now were brushed
aside and she started making enquiries. Blimey! it was in Steinway's
showroom in London, refurbished and for sale! I won't say how much it
cost but it was a lot of money.

The next day, or it might have been the day after, we were on a train to
London and she bought it. We had nowhere to put it in a ground floor
flat! Her sister Elaine, also a concert pianist and piano teacher,
kindly agreed to give it a home near Glasgow, in her new extension.
Elaine has fallen in love with it too and now has plans to get one of
her own.

When I finish the floor in our new house it will be making the long
journey South to Crawley to be finally and fully reunited with Carol. A
dream that slowly is coming true!

Apart from the fantastic sound when I get the chance to hear it, I just
love to look inside it and marvel at the workmanship and incredible
engineering.

Steve

Ian G wrote:
18mm ply glued and screwed to the top of the joists (instead of unglued
chipboard) , forming a T beam was a solution proposed by a structural
engineer and adopted by me when I did a loft conversion some years ago. We
didn't put a piano up there, but the purchasers of the house did install a
water bed and there have been no adverse reports from neighbours whom I have
remained in contact with. The increase in strength over the unglued floor
was impressive, confirming in practice what the Moment of Inertia
calculations indicated. We were able to jump up and down on the floor and
detect very little spring.

Our joists were 6x2 inches, at 16inch spacing and spanned 12 feet, to give
you an idea of our configuration. The resulting stiffness was, if I remember
correctly better than what would have been achieved with recommended joist
depth for that span. Sorry I can't remember if 8 inch joists would have been
sufficient for that span. I remember that the addition of the ply to form a
T beam gave lots more improvement over doubling up the beams. Where our span
increased to 14 ft . the solution was to double up on the 6x2 beams

I'll try to find my own calculations which I did to "prove to myself" the
efficacy of the scheme, and perhaps substitute your 4x2 beams.

regards
Ian

Thanks very much Ian, that is very encouraging.

If you do come across the calculations, I would be very interested indeed.

My email address is not valid so try g8izy_ @ _ blueyonder.co.uk,
obviously minus the underscores.

Thanks again

Steve

Steve wrote:
Ian G wrote:
18mm ply glued and screwed to the top of the joists (instead of
unglued chipboard) , forming a T beam was a solution proposed by a
structural engineer and adopted by me when I did a loft conversion
some years ago. We didn't put a piano up there, but the purchasers of
the house did install a water bed and there have been no adverse
reports from neighbours whom I have remained in contact with. The
increase in strength over the unglued floor was impressive, confirming
in practice what the Moment of Inertia calculations indicated. We
were able to jump up and down on the floor and detect very little spring.

Our joists were 6x2 inches, at 16inch spacing and spanned 12 feet, to
give you an idea of our configuration. The resulting stiffness was, if
I remember correctly better than what would have been achieved with
recommended joist depth for that span. Sorry I can't remember if 8
inch joists would have been sufficient for that span. I remember that
the addition of the ply to form a T beam gave lots more improvement
over doubling up the beams. Where our span increased to 14 ft . the
solution was to double up on the 6x2 beams

I'll try to find my own calculations which I did to "prove to myself"
the efficacy of the scheme, and perhaps substitute your 4x2 beams.

regards
Ian

Thanks very much Ian, that is very encouraging.

If you do come across the calculations, I would be very interested indeed.

My email address is not valid so try g8izy_ @ _ blueyonder.co.uk,
obviously minus the underscores.

Thanks again

Steve

Reading your post again, I wonder did you put the ply on top of the
joists to form a T beam or did you sandwich them between joists as I
proposed to form a T beam.

Just that I cannot afford the extra floor height.

Steve

The ply was glued and screwed to the top of the joists substituting for, but
perhaps a couple of millimetres less deep than the more conventional
chipboard. I think a difficulty in sandwiching between joists might be in
maintaining the strength at the joints. Presumably glue & screw battens to
the joists then glue & screw your inserts to these battens?
Now if you could somehow get access to the underside of the joists with
sheet plywood and complete the box, you are talking about a MAJOR increase
in stiffness ;-)

Kerching !! how about making up a timber box beams? A pair of new joists
say 65mm deep by 50mm wide. glue & screw 18mm ply top & bottom & slot into
inter joist space screwing through existing joists into new ones, or resting
onto existing dwarf walls. then replace your original flooring on top of the
lot.
Could be quite a soundboard you make though ;-)

Another alternative you may be able to consider is known as A "Flitch Beam"
I think, constructed by sandwiching a plate of steel between a pair of
timber joists and bolting right through.the lot.

If you have the depth between the support walls, add 6 inch deep joists and
notch the ends at he support walls ? (I seem to remember that notching to
about one third of a joists depth is considered acceptable )
rgds.
Ian


"Steve" wrote in message
k...
Steve wrote:
Ian G wrote:
18mm ply glued and screwed to the top of the joists (instead of unglued
chipboard) , forming a T beam was a solution proposed by a structural
engineer and adopted by me when I did a loft conversion some years ago.
We didn't put a piano up there, but the purchasers of the house did
install a water bed and there have been no adverse reports from
neighbours whom I have remained in contact with. The increase in
strength over the unglued floor was impressive, confirming in practice
what the Moment of Inertia calculations indicated. We were able to jump
up and down on the floor and detect very little spring.

Our joists were 6x2 inches, at 16inch spacing and spanned 12 feet, to
give you an idea of our configuration. The resulting stiffness was, if I
remember correctly better than what would have been achieved with
recommended joist depth for that span. Sorry I can't remember if 8 inch
joists would have been sufficient for that span. I remember that the
addition of the ply to form a T beam gave lots more improvement over
doubling up the beams. Where our span increased to 14 ft . the solution
was to double up on the 6x2 beams

I'll try to find my own calculations which I did to "prove to myself"
the efficacy of the scheme, and perhaps substitute your 4x2 beams.

regards
Ian

Thanks very much Ian, that is very encouraging.

If you do come across the calculations, I would be very interested
indeed.

My email address is not valid so try g8izy_ @ _ blueyonder.co.uk,
obviously minus the underscores.

Thanks again

Steve

Reading your post again, I wonder did you put the ply on top of the joists
to form a T beam or did you sandwich them between joists as I proposed to
form a T beam.

Just that I cannot afford the extra floor height.

Steve