Steel beam question.

[Ian H]

As part of a loft conversion I calculated 3 steel beams using www.steelbeamcalculator.co.uk

Building Control just visited and said (to my missus, I'm at work), that although the beams look right, they need to see the calculations. She handed him the print outs from the online calculator and he told her they need the authors name and qualification on them.

I'm assuming I can't put 'Ian H, GCSE maths, high pressure water jetting, confined spaces, abrasive wheels....'

What's my next step? I thought it best to post here for opinions then speak with the people at steelbeamcalculator and see what they suggest.

 

[Ian H]

And look what just popped up on my screen:

 

[tony1851]

Building Control are not allowed to demand the name and qualifications of anyone who submits structural calculations.
Their job is just to check the figures as submitted, which is done either by their own in-house engineer (who is usually part of the Building Control team) or occasionally by engaging outside engineers for more complex jobs.

 

[Ian H]

Thanks Tony, that's good to know.

If he asks anything else about them I'll send him a copy of the calculations and ask that his man look at them.

I think you just saved me a sleepless night

 

[garyo]

As part of a loft conversion I calculated 3 steel beams using www.steelbeamcalculator.co.uk

I'm intrigued. I've always thought that most of the skill is working out what the loading is. e.g. if I have a point load that's holding up a roof, and although I might know that the roof covering and structure is 0.5Kn/m2, the rafters might also be supported at each end, and so the load in to the beam needs to be apportioned. How did you find that aspect of it?

 

[tony1851]

If you have a rafter supported at mid-span by a purlin (and the rafter is continuous over the purlin, ie not in two pieces), the load on the purlin will be
approximately 5/8ths of the total load on the rafter.
As well as the dead load, there is also the live load to consider.
As you say, half the battle is getting the loadings right, and also the distribution/configuration of the loads.

 

[Ian H]

There is a point load on the rear one which puzzled me. I e-mailed the guy who owns the site and he talked me through how to add it onto the calculation.

This was from a prop under the purlin which will eventually be removed but I thought it best to have the beam big enough to take it.

 

[^woody^]

Building Control are not allowed to demand the name and qualifications of anyone who submits structural calculations

They are able to request.

If they dont have a name or a qualification, then they won't have the same assurance that the calcs are correct. Building control are not responsible for checking any calcualtions at all, but rather they are required to be satisfied that the beam is satisfactory for its design purpose. That may be by checking calcs or just checking a name or qualification.

As you know, the council have no responsibility if the beam they approve subsequently fails.

If you don't meet any request, your application can be rejected on the basis of insufficient information.

 

[Ian H]

I wonder if the name of the website and qualifications of the guys running it would be enough? I doubt my missus even knows the name of the website so she wouldn't have been able to tell him.

The website does claim to satisfy building regs:

 

[tony1851]

They are able to request.

Yes, they can request the moon if they want; whether their request would be upheld by a court if they refused a certificate on that alone is a different matter.

If they ask the client for figures, and the client supplies them, it is up to them to satisfy themselves that the figure are correct.
If they are not competent to check the figures themselves, that is not the OP's concern - he has paid them for a service, and they should provide it.

And as you know, unlike 'architect', 'engineer' is not protected; if one's au pair provides figures for one's beams, it is no business of the council's - their
job is to check figures, not letters after a name. I agree that they can wave figures through if they are satisfied of the declared qualifications, but that is a different matter.

 

[tony1851]

If you don't meet any request, your application can be rejected on the basis of insufficient information.

Would you then say that they are entitled to reject plans if they were not prepared by a qualified architect?

 

[^woody^]

Would you then say that they are entitled to reject plans if they were not prepared by a qualified architect?

That's completely different. A building notice does not need plans for instance. And design as an aesthetic (which is architecture) is not design as a standard (which is structural engineering). The building regulations are not concerned with asthetics.

What is pertinent, is the requirement for sufficient information so as to be satisfied or to prove that something complies with any necessary standard. Downloading basic calcs, or diying calcs without any concept of what they mean it's not really satisfying the requirement. Demonstrating understanding via a qualification or suitable experience would.

And yes, it would be a suitable argument at court.

 

[Ian H]

The only other thing he wanted were fire casings on all the internal doors.

One good thing was that he said it wasn't a problem to mirror the landing opening at the top of the loft stairs:

 

[noseall]

@ Tony....
What happens if BC respond with "no good, must try harder" and bounce them back to the client?

I have been involved in a three way tennis match with BC, an SE and myself whereby we have conversations with each other and resolve issues.
How can you do this with a poxy on-line service.

Seems to me like BC are applying a bit of common sense here.

 

[noseall]

Lol's, Just figured out you photo angle 1990. Thought I was viewing the stairs through a cupboard from the bottom to the top! My early morning coffee has now kicked in and I realise you are looking from above.

I did wonder how that bag of plaster was hung there.