Why would the design by your SE be unsuitable? There is generally more than one way to provide a design solution to a problem. He's chosen timber, presumably as a result of discussions with you about what you wanted to see. Maybe he's like me and hates the thought of steel beams encased in faux oak cladding to try and make it look like a timber beam and which never works. Either way, I bet his design stands up, no pun intended.
If you want the timber exposed, there are two ways of dealing with it: paint it with a clear fire retardent such as Albiclear (which some LAs don't like, as it becomes a maintenance issue - and, as Woody say, it's expensive); or check the reduced section size allowing for charring for half an hour in a domestic situation. With the factored up allowance in stresses and the far less onerous deflection requirements under fire, I'd be surprised if timbers of that size did not work quite happily.
And, Woody, you're off on one again! It is not the case that timber beams don't need padstones, whilst steel ones do....
If you want the timber exposed, there are two ways of dealing with it: paint it with a clear fire retardent such as Albiclear (which some LAs don't like, as it becomes a maintenance issue - and, as Woody say, it's expensive); or check the reduced section size allowing for charring for half an hour in a domestic situation. With the factored up allowance in stresses and the far less onerous deflection requirements under fire, I'd be surprised if timbers of that size did not work quite happily.
And, Woody, you're off on one again! It is not the case that timber beams don't need padstones, whilst steel ones do....
