Structural steel work gone wrong

[telnet]

I am wondering what I should do and whether my builder's work has any chance of meeting the building regs. We are in a 4 story tenement with a concrete tile roof. We wanted a structural wall removed and a new doorway opened. The engineers drawing had the steel beam and the concrete lintel at right angles to each other, with the lintel to the right of the steel beam, both sitting on the the brick wall in which the new door way is locate. It sounds complicated but you will get the idea from the pictures.

The builder's first attempt seemed to have the new door opening too far to the left. The steel beam, holding up the floors above, was resting on the lintel with nothing but fresh air beneath. This did not look right to me and I complained that it did not match the engineer's drawing. His next attempt placed the steel beam on top of the lintel which is now supported on a vertical stack of bricks, which he says are tied into the wall. However, it still does not match the engineer's drawing, which has the lintel to the right of the steel beam.

I am also a bit concerned that the new door opening is supported by a single prop which is way off to the side. We were planning to send photos of the work in progress to the council so that they could approve it without coming out to inspect.

Will this pass building regs?

What should I do?

I am a bit afraid of what will happen when he removes the props.

First attempt

• telnet
• 17 May 2014
• 1

This was before I complained

Second attempt

• telnet
• 17 May 2014
• 1

This was after I complained

 

[telnet]

Is there a way to rotate the images the right way up?

Thanks for you help.

 

[noseall]

Deviating from an engineers drawing is silly at best, though not always necessarily wrong.

However, B.C. may view this as a breach and ask for the S.E. to re-draw and/or re-prove the the beams now that one is in shear.

The shear point is close to the bearing so it may be ok.

Why did the builder not do what is illustrated? Is there a practical reason why he has not extended the masonry under the steel junction?

 

[tony1851]

Is the new brick/blockwork beneath the lintel 100 thick, or 215 thick? (can't see from the pics).

Also, it is not bonded into the adjoining (original) wall, but probably just secured with a starter strip.

It's difficult to comment on the adequacy or otherwise because we don't know the load on the steel beam, though it looks to be a fairly hefty section.

I suspect that the council's checking engineer would be concerned that probably the majority of the load from the steel beam is being taken by the new brick/blockwork, which in effect may as well be free-standing. A little of the load will be going into the original wall because of the bearing of the concrete lintel, but this raises the issue of shear stress across the concrete.

Not a particularly good arrangement IMO.

 

[telnet]

However, B.C. may view this as a breach and ask for the S.E. to re-draw and/or re-prove the the beams now that one is in shear.

Why did the builder not do what is illustrated? Is there a practical reason why he has not extended the masonry under the steel junction?

****Thanks for your reply.

Mr Corrigan (the builder) seems to be a bit obscure. He told my 25 year old niece that she told him to put the door opening there. This was despite the fact that the drawing and calculations were provided by the structural engineer that he put us in contact with. So I cant say why he did not do it.

Regarding extending the masonry under the beam: You can probably see from the picture that he used a road saw to make a vertical cut and remove the masonry under the steel beam. I presume he is too lazy to reinstate it.

Personally, as a humble biology teacher, I wold have knocked out every second brick on the left side and keyed off from there. Is this what you meant? I am planning to put this to him on Monday. I have change the locks so he cant come and remove his props before the job is done right.

Its all a bit stressful but the last thing I want is for building control to tell me do do it again after he is gone.

 

[telnet]

Is the new brick/blockwork beneath the lintel 100 thick, or 215 thick? (can't see from the pics).

Thanks for your reply. That's a good question I can find out later, but meanwhile I have posted the SEs drawing below and perhaps you can tell from that.

Also, it is not bonded into the adjoining (original) wall, but probably just secured with a starter strip.

There were a bunch of silver ties lying around the floor but I did not see how they were inserted.

It's difficult to comment on the adequacy or otherwise because we don't know the load on the steel beam, though it looks to be a fairly hefty section.

It is indeed a hefty section and you can see its dimensions in the SE drawing below. This is a Glasgow tenement and those things are not built of ticky-tacky.

I suspect that the council's checking engineer would be concerned that probably the majority of the load from the steel beam is being taken by the new brick/blockwork, which in effect may as well be free-standing. A little of the load will be going into the original wall because of the bearing of the concrete lintel, but this raises the issue of shear stress across the concrete.

As I said, I am not a builder, and it seems obvious even to me that the forces are doing down that vertical stack of bricks, which is holding the upper floors and roof. I don't like it because I can't help thinking what would happen in 50 years time, when we are long gone, and one of those bricks gets knocked out, for whatever reason… somebody could get killed.

The most sensible suggestion I have heard so far is that a longer lintel should be inserted and the masonry under the beam properly reinstated. Do you think this is a good plan? It helps to be forearmed and I suppose the SE must have the last word.

Whatever happens the builder will be upset at not getting his props and away from this job on Monday morning.

Untitled

• telnet
• 18 May 2014
• 1

 

[Norcon]

If a couple of props and a stick pressing down on dodgy looking floorboards are holding it then it can't be too big a load.
Will probably never fail in a thousand years.

A longer lintel would be a better option.

 

[telnet]

If a couple of props and a stick pressing down on dodgy looking floorboards are holding it then it can't be too big a load.
Will probably never fail in a thousand years.

A longer lintel would be a better option.

Sorry, you don't have the full picture. I have added a view of the steel beam below. The props are not on dodgy floor boards, they are positioned directly above humungous ships's pine joists which are about 8 inches broad and 18 inches deep.

Untitled

• telnet
• 18 May 2014
• 1

 

[Norcon]

Still looks like a light load.

The 4" x 2" box would bend like twigs if it was anything heavy.
Box iron placed like that holds virtually nothing. After that all you have holding it is a softwood stick.

 

[telnet]

Still looks like a light load.

The 4" x 2" box would bend like twigs if it was anything heavy.
Box iron placed like that holds virtually nothing. After that all you have holding it is a softwood stick.

Now you have me interested. I know for a fact that there is a 15 ft high brick wall above the section that has been removed and above that the roof of the building. Do you think it would have stayed up there on its own without the 4 x2 box needles? There must be some reason that the SE has put in such a heavy steel beam.

However, I can imagine that the removed wall and the section above is probably tied into the walls on either side. Do you think that that is what was holding it up and that the needles and props were unnecessary?

I am really just aiming to have the SEs drawing and the actual work matching each other. However, the SE did not seem very keen to provide an SER (see https://www.ser-ltd.com/scotland/ClientGuide/ClientGuide.pdf) to match the work and gave a non-committal answer. I will have to hammer this out on Monday and would like to be forearmed with any knowledge this forum can provide.

 

[Norcon]

"Do you think it would have stayed up there on its own without the 4 x2 box needles?"

Most definitely.

 

[tony1851]

Now you have me interested. I know for a fact that there is a 15 ft high brick wall above the section that has been removed and above that the roof of the building.

To be honest, it doesn't matter if the wall above is 15ft high, or 150ft high.

Because of the 'arching' effect of brickwork, the 8x4 steel will probably only be supporting a triangle-shaped piece of brickwork. Any brickwork or other loads above the 'triangle' will not impact on the beam, but will be carried down by the brickwork at the sides.

That's why the box-section needles are not bending.

 

[telnet]

I agree. If it is tied into the side walls it will hold itself up. I suppose a few bricks might fall out if you did not have the props.

Indeed, now that I think about it more clearly, it is as you say... if it was unsupported and you started tapping with a hammer an arch shaped section of the bricks would drop out. This is what the props are holding up. The thin needles are adequate because the span is relatively short. A wide span would require more support.

 

[theoldun]

Maybe to late for you now.
Forget all about your needles and propping as your builder has not installed the supporting non composite lintel or the USB all as the SE drawing and specification.
SE states padstone either end of USB and the concrete lintel also sitting on the pad stone. He does not show the USB sitting on top of the precast concrete lintel.
Whilst a Robeslee type C concrete lintel is approved for taking a point load, ask your self why SE did not show it that way.
If BI has copy of that drawing, then it is doubtful whether he will sign it of.
Regards oldun.

 

[limerockconstruction]

Forget all about your needles and propping as your builder has not installed the supporting non composite lintel or the USB all as the SE drawing and specification.
Regards oldun.

+1

If he can't read the drawing he shouldn't be doing the work - the guy is a donut!