Cracks under Steel Beam

[noseall]

Your son should ask for the calcs. Publish them here if you like, I'm sure someone qualified or at least experienced could comment.

Chat GPT: make a page full of complicated equations relating to a 10m long beam in a building...

View attachment 421353

It's not difficult to baffle with bull!

610 x 229 x 113

What is the end bearing length and pad stone size?

 

[johnny2007]

BC don't check calculations, they just file them.
Get hold of the calculations and call the SE yourself to check they're genuine.
Then if in doubt have them checked by your own SE.

 

[securespark]

The builder was asked for the SE calcs following the BC visit, nearly 2 weeks ago, and despite regular requests still has not provided them. He has been on-site and commented "I'm dealing with the calcs and am confident everything is OK" We will continue to request the calcs and see what BC say when/if they see them.

There has been no further movement or cracks since.

In the meantime, I think it would be prudent to have another SE do some calcs and see if they agree with the builders version.

The property is in Manchester, and the issues raised relates to the beams & padstones supporting the flat roof extension and full width bifold doors as shown on photos posted earlier and the queries raised.

If any SE on here wants to quote send me a msg, they will need to go onsite to see the beams and padstones currently in place and do their own measurements. The original house walls are still in place, there has been no knock-through yet. Obviously we expect to pay for these 2nd set of calcs.

Why not call back the SE your son engaged so he can look over the work done so far and give his opinion?

 

[catlad]

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

Is this an attempt to hide another short beam?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Is this an attempt to hide another short beam?

Probably. Crikey, that photo looks ridiculous. It's not even new, it's demolition waste.

This builder must not be on site any longer. Do not trust anything he says, get everything checked.

I'm still concerned that billm sounds like he has some remaining respect for this muppet.

 

[stevie888]

Update:
my son has been informed the builder has sent the SE calcs to BC. No idea who the SE is or what the calcs contain / are.
I can only assume the calcs will confirm what the builder has built is correct, otherwise he'd be back changing things.

Will BC check the calcs are "safe" or is it just a tick the box exercise ?

Most of my work over the years has been for 2 LAs. Both had their own in house SEs,

One moved on about 4 years ago (not sure if he's been replaced), the other has just retired. All submitted calculations were always rigorously cheched.

I had a similar kind of situation to yours on one of my jobs where the "builder" altered things (with the client'ssort of agreement but without reference to me. He changed a flat roof support beam to accomodate a wall removal. He did get an SE to design the beam and he did fit the right size. What he didn't do was put in the bigger roof joists now required for one side as thr beam was no longer central.

He only had BC out once to check formation so they were unaware of the issues. The whole thing was like an episode of Rogue Traders.with a massive amount of remedial work required as he had ignored my drawings left and right, mixed up steels etc, etc.

I have to say that BC were really helpful, working with me and the 2nd builder to sort things out as simply and economically as possible.

For this sorry mess of your son's

-IF there are calcs to justify what your idiot builder has done, (must include padstone details)
-IF BC are happy with them,
-IF this SE is properly qualified and properly insured (check what professional body he belongs to)
-IF he inspects the work done and confirms in writing it fully complies

Then it's actually difficult to see what can be done. There would be no contractual basis to terminate his contract because all the work is OK indeed you could become liable for loss of profit.

I don't think for 1 minute, nor ! suspect does anyone else who''s contributed, that all those IFs are going to happen

 

[noseall]

BC don't check calculations, they just file them.

Nonsense.

 

[stevie888]

Your son should ask for the calcs. Publish them here if you like, I'm sure someone qualified or at least experienced could comment.

Chat GPT: make a page full of complicated equations relating to a 10m long beam in a building...

View attachment 421353

It's not difficult to baffle with bull!

Just for interest I ran these numbers through my Superbeam program and for this loading it suggests a 533x210x122kg/m UB giving a 12.6mm max deflection.

The beam quoted here FAILS IN BENDING!!!

I'm not sure why exactly there is a difference in this instance. For one, we don't know what code is used, Suiperbeam uses BS449, old yes but trusted by generations of SEs.. Different codes do view things differently (especially when you look at frames where beams and columns interact.)

What I can say is that as beams get deeper they become more prone to Lateral Torsional Buckling which reduces the loads that a single beam can carry as the allowable stresses are reduced to prevent the buckling.

Probably best to employ an SE rather than a random bot.

 

[tony1851]

Several above have commented on whether or not checking engineers actually check figures, or if the inspector just files them away. Most times we don't know.
Some inspectors know a 'little bit' about structural design. The attached is part of a three-page comments monologue I received two weeks ago from a LA inspector (not a checking engineer) concerning a pier I had designed to carry a 7m beam over a breakthrough.
It reads almost like a punishing comment from a teacher to an errant student; I felt as if I'd gone back many years. No consideration of the fact that these are all factored loads, with a good margin of safety. What a waste of time at Building Control writing out all this rubbish. This inspector shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

 

[stevie888]

Several above have commented on whether or not checking engineers actually check figures, or if the inspector just files them away. Most times we don't know.
Some inspectors know a 'little bit' about structural design. The attached is part of a three-page comments monologue I received two weeks ago from a LA inspector (not a checking engineer) concerning a pier I had designed to carry a 7m beam over a breakthrough.
It reads almost like a punishing comment from a teacher to an errant student; I felt as if I'd gone back many years. No consideration of the fact that these are all factored loads, with a good margin of safety. What a waste of time at Building Control writing out all this rubbish. This inspector shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

That's all pretty gentle Tony: you should see some of the garbage the one of my 2 local LA SEs used to send back from time to time, Got so bad that I actually raised an informal complaint about him on a couple of separate occasions BUT he (and your guy) have at least gone through the calcs in detail.

Coincidentally I had the same comment on my own place a couple of weeks ago. I patiently explained factors of safety and pointed out the conservative assumptions that had lead to the loads in the first place. I prefer to think of it as going back to a previous life as and HE/FE lecturer putting a student right.