BP Beam Pockets Market Research
Table of Contents
- 1. Market research results
- 2. Opinion from Ashton
- 3. TODO Clarify
- 4. Summary
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.
1.2.3. 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
- 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:
- convenience
“It looks more like a convenience for the crew in regards to formwork and more forgiving with mistakes.”
- 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”
- 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?
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.
vs
2.5. TODO normalize style
2.6. TODO finish the site
2.6.1. Stuff like the below makes the site look less legitimate
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.
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.
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:
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.