BP Beam Pockets Market Research

Table of Contents

1. Market research results

I solicited some anonymous feedback from self identified structural engineers, draftspeople, or other interested parties. The feedback, responses, clarification are all collected and summarized below:

1.1. Feedback on the plans

This was in the context of “concrete designs”, not sure if that’s the right location. I’ve tried to summarize:

1.1.1. Get an ICC eval

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.

1.1.2. Doesn’t spec BP

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

1.2. Lots of feedback that the numbers are overly optimistic about the timeframe for BP pockets

1.2.1. Common themes:

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

1.2.2. TODO refute/prove the numbers shown

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.

  1. TODO address accuracy of BP crane cost estimates
  2. TODO address accuracy of styro crane cost estimates
  3. TODO address accuracy of embed crane cost estimates

1.2.3. pkresponse

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

1.3. TODO review mobile friendliness

A lot of people access sites from their phones, the site is not really usable on a phone and we got feedback that people could not use the site.

1.3.1. DONE Apple review

pkresponse: been testing on android phones, need apple review

  1. Ashton, iphone.

    The site is actually much more readable on a phone (IMO), I had gotten feedback that it was hard to navigate while on mobile, but after checking, it’s my opinion that the current site was designed for mobile first and that’s why it’s wonky on a desktop.

    I’m not sure what the takeaway from that is…

1.4. questions about if the BP pocket is certified/stamped

1.4.1. TODO add certification to the website

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:

  1. convenience

    “It looks more like a convenience for the crew in regards to formwork and more forgiving with mistakes.”

    1. pkresponse

      we need to stress that– your dad gave some engineers a tour last week and that was their major point

  2. crane minimums

    “no one is going to charge for 15 minutes of crane time, would be an hour if the company is generous, but more like half a day”

    1. pkresponse

      i agree but the setup and take-down for standard beam pockets crane time would be about the same

  3. Need stamp/certification“ The device looks ok to me with some questions that an engineer would have to sign off on” (from a drafter)

1.5. missing alternative

Got feedback that it’s the same price as “a beam pocket with anchor rods in there”, so if that’s a real thing, might want to add it to the site.

1.5.1. DONE add “Anchor rods” as a traditional alternative.

1.5.2. pkresponse

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.

1.5.3. TODO Confirm we are addressing all “traditional” applications

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

  1. Spoke to von, he thinks that “anchor rods” is synonymous with “anchor bolts”

    However, I’m still not entirely sure that I’m not missing something. I’d like to get some feedback on the storyboards, that seems like it would clear any terminology up.

    1. TODO Collect storyboard feedback

2. Opinion from Ashton

2.1. DONE Styro numbers and void numbers are identical

2.2. DONE Fix missing image on site

2.3. TODO add info on weight distribution without bearing plate

2.4. TODO normalize website header

When the navigation links “move around” it makes people have to think a little more to navigate the site, that’s not desirable. Ok8ffei.png vs HGSSPEY.png

2.5. TODO normalize style

2.6. TODO finish the site

2.6.1. Stuff like the below makes the site look less legitimate

WRX3bw0.png 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.

  1. pkresponse

    good suggestion - specifics?

  2. Specifics

    Some redundancies here

    1. TODO Normalize website footer
    2. TODO Normalize website header
    3. TODO Normalize website styling
    4. TODO Mobile friendly
    5. TODO Big points all go “above the fold”

2.6.2. TODO Make links “traditional” colors.

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. FPSBv6l.png

2.7. Polish the Why page

Why is the best ranked page (and it’s the one that is the main search entry point); there’s very little information on that page to be found without scrolling down. People don’t scroll down, so anything that’s below the initial load is much less likely to be seen.

2.7.1. TODO Use whitespace more efficiently

There is a ton of wasted space here: Yeaci1X.png

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.

2.7.2. TODO Link claims:

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


3. TODO Clarify

one other point– imagine 60ft long steel beam drilled and cut in a steel plant with laser accuracy, arriving on a job site with anchor blots placed in a wet concrete wall braced by random 2x4s -(hydrostaatic pressure on wall can exceed 500 psf on the upper formwork)

which might be still green ( 1-14 days after the pour -not up to full strenght. and still subject to movement or impact. If the beam does not match the pocket or the anchor bolts, there is no leaway.

With the beam pocket the beam can move sideways 1-2 inches and in out of the 1/2 to 1 inch.( depending on beam size ). So minor variances can be handled easily.

4. Summary

Some details need to be added, but for the most part (and I think that this is in part due to the unfinished nature of the website) if someone takes a cursory look, it all looks “too good to be true”.

4.1. TODO Recommendations:

  • Preemptively addressing the concerns above. Ideally a page that’s short and direct, with no scrolling and that makes claims, with a link to detail that backs up said claim. Should be written for someone who is familiar with traditional installation.
  • Standardize the header and style on all the pages.
  • Move info on “why” hpage “above the fold”.
  • Add a FAQ page.

Author: Ashton Honnecke

Created: 2023-08-28 Mon 14:06