Cracks under Steel Beam
- Thread starter billm
- Start date
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.
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.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 47,019
- Reaction score
- 4,052
- Country
Why not call back the SE your son engaged so he can look over the work done so far and give his opinion?
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.
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
Nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
Attachments
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.
Sale
I'm NOT suggesting that anyone uses ChatGPT instead of an SE!
I'm pointing out that if a cowboy builder wants a page full of guff to throw at someone from Building Control admin then it's very easy for anyone to instantly get a page full of complete cobblers that may tick the box for having produced some calculations.
Don't trust anything this builder produces, the photos of his workmanship tell you that this is definitely not someone who has consulted an SE at any point.
We needed a new home sewage treatment system a few years ago. I got two companies who do this work to quote for it. Both stated they would surround in gravel rather than the concrete that the manufacturers insist you must use, so it wouldn't be done correctly and would be likely to get distorted and end up leaking.
One of them said he gets building regs approval based on emailing them a photo after he's installed it, basically showing a hatch in the ground.
The system's a joke, and seems to be mostly about getting fees from people rather than regulating anything.
I ended up DIYing, together with a groundworks company I got to dig the hole and stick it in. I don't have official bits of paper but at least I know it's all been done properly.
One of them said he gets building regs approval based on emailing them a photo after he's installed it, basically showing a hatch in the ground.
The system's a joke, and seems to be mostly about getting fees from people rather than regulating anything.
I ended up DIYing, together with a groundworks company I got to dig the hole and stick it in. I don't have official bits of paper but at least I know it's all been done properly.
Update:
well quite a bit has happened since my last post:
1. BC were asked to inspect the steels/blockwork and commented they would not sign it off until the SE said it has been built according to his design/plans
2. We paid another SE to do some calcs for a couple of small internal beams and at the same time to give us his opinion on the big beams & blockwork. We're still waiting for his report but verbally he said those big beams/bearings/blockwork do not look right but he did not want to get involved
3. My son wrote a lengthy email to the SE the builder used, who is MICE, MISE registered (I checked and he is registered and apparently a 1-man SE Ltd Company) cc to the builder & BC, with photos and asked about steel length, bearings, padstones & blockwork. It has taken a while but he has just replied "due to confidentiality reasons he cannot answer any of the questions as the Builder is his client and not my son" and all questions must come through the builder.
4. the builder is saying he doesn't understand the questions being asked of the SE so is effectively blocking those questions being asked of the SE
5. As the SE the builder used is a member of MISE, I checked their Code of Conduct and I believe he has a duty of care to anyone involved in the build which I interpret that he should answer those questions directly my son posed - being the end user .. is that right ?
In summary, the builders SE appears to be covering for the builder using "confidentiality" as an excuse and the builder is now throwing his toys out of the pram raising other issues in an attempt to get my son to accept what has been built probably knowing what he built is wrong and is using a tactic he has used many times before.
So my question is: can we write again to the builders SE insisting he answers the questions under the MISE Code of Conduct, or risk a complaint to that body if he refuses. At some point the builders SE is going to have to cut the builder lose and chose which side to be on, my sons or the builder, or risk dealing with a MISE complaint.
Once we have his official answer, be it the build id OK or not OK then we can move forward to getting the beams resolved by the builder or by a 3rd party.
well quite a bit has happened since my last post:
1. BC were asked to inspect the steels/blockwork and commented they would not sign it off until the SE said it has been built according to his design/plans
2. We paid another SE to do some calcs for a couple of small internal beams and at the same time to give us his opinion on the big beams & blockwork. We're still waiting for his report but verbally he said those big beams/bearings/blockwork do not look right but he did not want to get involved
3. My son wrote a lengthy email to the SE the builder used, who is MICE, MISE registered (I checked and he is registered and apparently a 1-man SE Ltd Company) cc to the builder & BC, with photos and asked about steel length, bearings, padstones & blockwork. It has taken a while but he has just replied "due to confidentiality reasons he cannot answer any of the questions as the Builder is his client and not my son" and all questions must come through the builder.
4. the builder is saying he doesn't understand the questions being asked of the SE so is effectively blocking those questions being asked of the SE
5. As the SE the builder used is a member of MISE, I checked their Code of Conduct and I believe he has a duty of care to anyone involved in the build which I interpret that he should answer those questions directly my son posed - being the end user .. is that right ?
In summary, the builders SE appears to be covering for the builder using "confidentiality" as an excuse and the builder is now throwing his toys out of the pram raising other issues in an attempt to get my son to accept what has been built probably knowing what he built is wrong and is using a tactic he has used many times before.
So my question is: can we write again to the builders SE insisting he answers the questions under the MISE Code of Conduct, or risk a complaint to that body if he refuses. At some point the builders SE is going to have to cut the builder lose and chose which side to be on, my sons or the builder, or risk dealing with a MISE complaint.
Once we have his official answer, be it the build id OK or not OK then we can move forward to getting the beams resolved by the builder or by a 3rd party.
IFF the builder is on the level then all he needs tp do is say to this SE is "Please answer the questions raised by the homeowner: you have my consent as I have built things exactly to your design".
You should write to the builder requiring this forthwith. I trust no more work is being done until this is resolved
I assume you mean MIStructE.
You should write to the builder requiring this forthwith. I trust no more work is being done until this is resolved
I assume you mean MIStructE.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
