Cracks under Steel Beam

[noseall]

The bricks are 100mm wide, maybe the bottom flange was 110/120mm so he had no other choice.
Is it the norm for beams to protrude ?

Poorly designed spec's yes. Looks more like to me that either the wall was meant to be thicker, or the beam is something the builder had lying around. I can't see any point or benefit in a 100mm thick wall having a spreader beam wider than the wall itself.

 

[stevie888]

He's used an odd length of 203x133UB by the looks of it which I'd guess he has picked up cheap. Nothing wrong with the notion of a properly designed steel to be used as a padstone but this one's not an appropriate size and that will make the drylining that bit trickier.

Another red flag for me I'm afraid.

As a matter of interest what did your SE specify?

 

[Koolpc]

Lots of red flags appearing with this job...

 

[billm]

Lots of red flags appearing with this job...

Yes it appears so. Mainly steel oriented. The brickwork is very good. Looks like he has tried to cut corners on the steel side of things.
Your comments are all helping me build a solid case for when BC come to inspect and I will know what to question, what's acceptable and what isn't. Thanks guys

 

[noseall]

Yes it appears so. Mainly steel oriented. The brickwork is very good. Looks like he has tried to cut corners on the steel side of things.
Your comments are all helping me build a solid case for when BC come to inspect and I will know what to question, what's acceptable and what isn't. Thanks guys

As people have said - don't put too much faith or expectation in BC.

 

[noseall]

As Woody said, don't put too much faith in BC. They deliberately limit their liability these days, even more so now that each officer is personally responsible. No harm in asking if the calc's have been through their checking process, though you should have been notified. Did you do the BC application yourself?

 

[billm]

If the Builder hasn't filed Structural Calcs - therefore not had them approved by BC - will BC refuse to sign off the steel work until they have seen the calcs, have agreed them and checked the work complies with the calcs ?

 

[noseall]

If the Builder hasn't filed Structural Calcs - therefore not had them approved by BC - will BC refuse to sign off the steel work until they have seen the calcs, have agreed them and checked the work complies with the calcs ?

Correct. But that's your headache. BC may be of the opinion that the job is sound and just needs SE scrutiny and approval.

Did you apply to BC yourself?

 

[billm]

Yes I believe my son paid for BC and speaks to them directly although the builder has up to now asked BC directly to sign off the various stages of the build as it proceeded, eg trench, footings etc
But I & my son will be there when BC come to inspect the steels to point out these issues.

IF BC see that repaired wall under the beam, and even after showing him the previous failure of the wall, they & the builder are of the opinion it is OK - when the over riding opinion on here is that it is not OK - how best would we proceed to get it made right ?

 

[noseall]

Yes I believe my son paid for BC and speaks to them directly

He will have been notified regards the SE calc's checking process.

although the builder has up to now asked BC directly to sign off the various stages of the build as it proceeded

BC work for the applicant. Who rings them or witnesses the inspection matters not in that respect. Sign off comes at 'completion'.

IF BC see that repaired wall under the beam, and even after showing him the previous failure of the wall, they & the builder are of the opinion it is OK - when the over riding opinion on here is that it is not OK - how best would we proceed to get it made right ?

Independant SE.

 

[mrrusty]

If BC pass it, then probably it is what it is - the builder can carry on, and the BC confirmation would put him in a very strong position to demonstrate reasonable skill and care should you ever try and sue for negligence.

However, if BC don't pass it, they may or may not give any recommendations. My understanding is that since the building safety act BC are avoiding any design liability whatsoever. You need to think very carefully about the contractual relationship, which is between you and the builder. I would put a stop on the work until the builder produces his SE's calculations. Point out to the builder that should there be a failure, you will be claiming against the builder (as that's your only contractual relationship) and hope he has professional indemnity insurance (as he is involved with the design of the building having insisted that he won't use your design), and if he doesn't have any he may be in deep poo. Of course, the builder will (?) have a contractual relationship with the SE, so if you sue him, he might sue them. A lawyer fest.

I have personal experience of design liability and PI. A company I worked for bought in a component from an EU supplier, that our customer actually approved, but it failed because of a design fault. The end user (customers' customer) sued our customer, our customer sued us, our PI paid out ( as we demonstrated we used RSC and hence it was an insurable event) and then our insurance company who paid out sued the EU supplier. Whether they succeeded I know not.

 

[johnny2007]

BC might pass things that are not correct.
They accept no liability for quality of work.
In fact, if you read a completion certificate it says something like "as far as could be investigated".
I don't understand why any builder would throw money away on a second SE when calculations and design have already been done.
In any case, that steel is too short, so either they rebuild that part of the wall and reduce the opening so the steel sits enough on the padstones, or totally replace it.
Padstones laid like that don't distribute the load properly as others have said.

 

[tony1851]

View attachment 420255
Across the middle of the extension is this huge beam which is supported on a steel "I Beam" in the wall. I assume it is OK like that without needing Padstones underneath ?

The bottom of the supporting "I Beam" is proud of the wall on both sides. Should it be flush ? My son thinks it's OK as Dot n Dab plastering will cover it, but I am tempted to tell the builder to angle grind the bottom flush with the wall.

WDYT ?
Thanks

That is a spreader beam and acts as a long padstone. Its OK structurally but is a 152 x 152 beam, which is why it sticks out. An ideal beam for a spreader would have been a 178 x 102 beam which wouldn't have produced that problem.

 

[noseall]

That is a spreader beam and acts as a long padstone. Its OK structurally but is a 152 x 152 beam, which is why it sticks out. An ideal beam for a spreader would have been a 178 x 102 beam which wouldn't have produced that problem.

Bonkers really, when you consider they could have got a 102mm wide off-cut for a few quid.

I can't see any point or benefit in a 100mm thick wall having a spreader beam wider than the wall itself.

 

[mrrusty]

BC might pass things that are not correct.
They accept no liability for quality of work.
In fact, if you read a completion certificate it says something like "as far as could be investigated".

Yes, I know that but that is a fact fairly irrelevant to the point I was making.

If anything goes wrong as a fault of the design the OP will have to sue the builder for negligence - that is the only contractual relationship now the OPs SE is out of the picture.

To succeed in a claim for negligence, the OP would have to prove that the builder has not used the skill and care expected of a professional in his field. That would require evidence. If BC approve the structure, whether it is actually correct of not, it would be a very strong rebuttal by the builder to prove he did use appropriate skill and care (he must have because BC approved it) and was therefore not negligent.

That is why, if BC approve, unless the OP wants to go into litigation on the back foot, he probably only has the choices of either accepting it or getting it changed at his own cost.