BP Beam Pockets Market Research

I don’t typically spec any product that doesn’t have an ICC evaluation report (or equivalent) that indicates it’s code compliant. In rare cases I will approve something if there are test results that I can review.

Personally, I don’t see how this is any better than an embed plate with welded knife plate that the beam is bolted to. Often it’s cheaper to stick with the norm for stuff like this because it’s what the contractor is used to.

What a weird set of drawings. I’ve never seen all the steel details done in isometric before. The plans also do not call out that specific product. They don’t call out anything in fact except for detail x xxxxxxxxxxx which is clearly a placeholder that never got filled in.

That product looks funky to me, but maybe there’s applications for it. Unless I’m missing something, the bolts are just embedded in a couple inches of grout. Unless there were testing and approvals to fall back on, I certainly wouldn’t want my stamp on that

• BP crane times are unrealistically short
• Traditional crane times are unrealistically long
• Crane times are not available in that granularity

I think that this is going to best be done by making a video of a FULL install, there was a lot of noise about if those numbers included “costs for mobilization, time for setup, rigging, lifting, moving”

Basically what I’m getting at here is if you have something disruptive it’s going to require more proof: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Direct feedback was “Would not say its any cheaper to an efficient crew.”

Additionally, I think that something on the site that addresses this directly would be helpful.

based on times to install on your dads building – he said about five minutes to install each beam– but your dad is too fast–the video assembly – he originally put the box together in 2 mnutes– way too fast– had to slow hime down to four mintues

pkresponse: been testing on android phones, need apple review

indicating (to structural engineers) that this device is real and usable; I’m not sure what that looks like, what sort of certification/license would be convincing.

Direct quotes:

anchor bolts are the biggest problem with standard beam pockets - they need to align with holes perfectly before concrete is poured.. no matter how much bracing is used, the concrete wall will move a little or a lot. Then the beam, which is usually pre drilled, will need hole enlargement, ( usually by cutting torch, then inspected by structural , then usually a enlarged plate – like a washer will need to be added.

Are “anchor bolt” applications the same as “embed plate” applications, or are those synonymous?

That’s a problem because we’re pitching something that people think is unrealistically too good to be true. We want the site it add legitimacy, not detract from it.

Blue for links. Purple for previously visited links if you want. The goal here is to make it easy for people to navigate the site and get the information why want. You do not want people to have to hover over something to know it’s a link. The word “FASTER” below is a link, but no one can tell.

There is a ton of wasted space here:

There might be too much information to put there, but in that case a good solution would be to link from the claim “we’re faster” to a detailed section that aims to back up that claim and convince the reader it’s true.

This is a small lift because everything already exists, nothing new needs to be created, just tweaked. These could all be links to existing supporting detail