Non destructive testing of beam?

[AndyCLondon]

I've been told to that to check if an RSJ is correctly installed I'd have to get someone to hack off the render, check that there is a beam and it's properly anchored, then get some calculations done and check that the RSJ is of suitable dimensions.

However I don't really want to rip apart the house if it can be avoided.

So far I've checked with a hand held metal detector that there is something metal and that it is present on top of the supporting bricks.

What else can I check visually?
What are the symptoms that there is a defective beam in place?

 

[JohnD]

cracks.

What reason do you have to doubt it?

 

[AndyCLondon]

I am not aware of any physical symptoms that would cause me to doubt the beam but I was interested to know if there was anything specifically I could check for.

The reason for asking was that a surveyor told me that the room had previously been two and a beam had been put in place of a wall. There apparently there is no paper work chain for that beam. The beam has been in place for at least 2 years.

The surveyor is happy to tell me how to check if the beam is sound i.e. removing plaster etc. but is not willing to tell me IF it needs to be done.

So basically I am trying to make a decision as if there is any reason to wreck the decorating and spend money or not.

 

[martyc]

X-RAY?
Seriously havent a clue..but the chances are that it is boarded up/boxed in quite snugly so the "box" dimension should be a clue as to its dimension

 

[^woody^]

Who is this surveyor and what is the purpose of this inspection?

If a beam as been in-situ for two years, then if there was any distress then it would be evident in the finishes or parts of the structure supported by this beam.

And I would expect any surveyor to be able to tell you that, and if there is any visible indictaion of a problem to warrant an invasive inspection.

It seems like this surveyor may be trying to cover his r's and not be advising properly

 

[JohnD]

If there are no cracks and no saggy floors above, there is no reason to suppose it is wrong.

If it is where two rooms have been knocked into one, I would expect it to be steel, and covered with plasterboard (not render) in which case it would be quite easy to cut an inspection hole in the plasterboard, which could later be patched and decorated over.

Iwould expect to see brickwork piers at the ends (unless built into a 13" non-party wall) and there should be concrete padstones at the top of the piers to support the ends of the steel. If necessary, a very small piece of plaster could be chopped away to inspect it. This too could be patched up with filler and redecorated.

I take it from what you say that the work was done without approval from the local council Building Control office (which ought to have been done). Otherwise, you could write to them and ask. It is a very common job and any reputable builder would have done it properly.

 

[AndyCLondon]

Thanks for all the comments.

I have checked for wonky or creaking floorboards above.
There are no cracks or discolourations on the beam
The beam appears to be flat on the bottom and sides
The previous owners bought the house just over 2 years ago and the beam was there then.
They don't appear to have recently decorated it.
As mentioned we used a metal detector to check if it was wood, concrete or metal.

The surveyor came with the building society, I'm trying to buy the house and the vendor does not want invasive actions. There is no doubt that the surveyor is ensuring that there is no legal repercussios of his actions hence why he's sitting on the fence with regarding if the inspection needs to be done and only telling me what could be done if I wanted to check the beam.

Not sure if the beam is boxed in with plasterboard but it's very flat.

John's point is quite handy as I don't think we have proved that the paperwork does not exist only that the previous owners do not have it.

The description of how it could be visually inspected is also less than I anticipated so perhaps they could be perswaded if it's not going to be a big deal.

The reason I did not mention that I'm trying to buy was that I wanted an open discussion about building not a legal debate. I'd rather trust in bricks and morter than in paperwork I've already got enough people giving me the legal lowdown.

Thanks again.

 

[^woody^]

I certainly would not allow any buyer to do any invasive testing - you either make an offer or walk away.

Conversely, you as the buyer are taking a risk on an unkown and unapproved alteration to the property.

So you would normally make a reduced offer based on the risk you are taking, and then the seller either accepts or puts it back on the market.

As I said, if after at least two years there are no signs of distress, then it is most likely adequate - and the surveyor just has not got the balls to say it.