RSJ looks unsafe?

[Series]

Some of my relatives have decided to get a new kitchen fitted and as part of this they wanted the kitchen wall knocked down to create one large room for the kitchen and dining room.

I haven't been too heavily involved with the process but now I've seen the work the builders have done I'm a bit concerned about its safety, I know absolutely nothing about DIY so hopefully I'm wrong but I've attached some photos of the work.

Untitled

• Series
• 28 Nov 2013
• 1

Untitled

• Series
• 28 Nov 2013
• 1

Untitled

• Series
• 28 Nov 2013
• 1

The RSJ is about 4 meters in length, the original wall had a frame for a door way, bricks and 2 wooden columns which have been removed. Am I worrying over nothing or what steps should I take next if it's unsound?

 

[Infoelec]

As to regulations, I remember there must be at least of 15cm or more overhang on each side of the rsj. Also I have noticed there is NO padstone under it, this is potentially dangerous. I'd reccomend to put a padstone under each side, for safety and stability of the rsj and above. Also did they ensure adequate footings were in place?. A wedged rsj with wood will not provide stability.

 

[Blagard]

I keep looking at those photos and it is almost as if there is some illusion going on because I can't make sense of what is going on there. It is almost as if the left hand end is in line with an old wall and lines up with the ceiling plasterboard edge but the other end seems displaced to one side

The only sure thing is that you don't support an RSJ on bits of timber or leave one end less than half on a brick ledge and the other half on timber stud. There is no sign of any other temporary supports.

If there is a structural load on that RSJ it requires immediate propping.

Speak to the builder to find out just what is going on! - Any structural alteration must be approved by a building control officer, so find out who it is and get in touch with him/her yourself if you don't get any sense out of the builder. If the builder gives excuses go straight to the building control department and tell them what is going on as they may not have even been informed.

 

[Johnmelad]

That looks frightening!

 

[Static]

As said above, you need to advise them to get Building Control or a structural engineer out asap and re-prop the wall above.

 

[Jasonm1790]

Building control will need to inspect it to pass it off before it's covered over anyway, and by the looks of that they'll tell you to take it out and do it properly. As blagard said, if there's any load above it you should be concerned. Get the builder in ASAP to support it properly. 150 mm bearing surface on a concrete or engineering brick padstone of suitable size is the minimum requirement, and looking at your pics I don't think your rsj is long enough.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Building control will need to inspect it to pass it off before it's covered over anyway

I admire your optimism, that BC are involved ......

 

[jeds]

Looking at the photos it's not obvious what work the beam is doing and without knowing that it's not really possible to give definite advice. But the bearings are certainly wrong, just for the fact that wood is not an appropriate material for bearing a beam. So that needs checking out. But then again it's incorrect to say that the bearings should be 150mm. What they should be is properly calculated and designed by somebody who knows what they are doing.

So my advice is firstly to make sure a building regulations application has been made and the work is being inspected. And secondly find out who calculated and designed the beam and bearings?

 

[Jasonm1790]

Building control will need to inspect it to pass it off before it's covered over anyway

I admire your optimism, that BC are involved ......

True Freddy lol, but if they're not they should be now!

 

[Jasonm1790]

Looking at the photos it's not obvious what work the beam is doing and without knowing that it's not really possible to give definite advice. But the bearings are certainly wrong, just for the fact that wood is not an appropriate material for bearing a beam. So that needs checking out. But then again it's incorrect to say that the bearings should be 150mm. What they should be is properly calculated and designed by somebody who knows what they are doing.

So my advice is firstly to make sure a building regulations application has been made and the work is being inspected. And secondly find out who calculated and designed the beam and bearings?

Quite right jeds, except I said 150mm 'minimum' bearing, I don't think anyone would pass off any less than that on what looks like a 7" rsj 4m long? My point was that it's definitely not right regardless of what's above it, therefore, as you quite rightly point out, SE and BC need to be made aware. Someone, the builders perhaps, has felt the need to install a substantial beam, albeit poorly measured for length, so you would assume there's something heavy above it? As Freddy said, I doubt bc are involved at this point but at least op has some info to present to the builder regarding the work carried out so far.

 

[Series]

Thanks for the replies, the builders have assured us they're going to properly support the RSJ but if it's a load bearing wall why would they leave it in such a state and if it's not why have they installed an RSJ at all?

I'll see if I can find a structural engineer to come take a look, it's all rather depressing though.

 

[jeds]

Not saying this is the case here but it is common to find substantial beams doing absolutely nothing. Builder removes a wall so assumes he needs a beam. He goes to steel supplier and say's I need a beam x long. The steel supplier knows nothing about the site so supplies a beam he knows will cover any situation for the span. And 4m would make that quite a big un. It happens all the time.

Jason, I don't know where you get the 150mm minimum bearing from. Wherever it is it's just a generalisation probably aimed at the diy market.

 

[tony1851]

How do we know that the beam is actually supporting anything? The top right-hand pic seems to show a black void, with just a wire hanging down. The thing on top of the beam might be a piece of timber intended to cover the gap. Is there actually a wall above the beam? Do the floor joists run parallel?

I have come across a couple of occasions in the past where builders have put a beam in when it wasn't necessary, just to bump the cost up. The householder doesn't usually know any differently.

 

[JackieJackson1]

All new beams should be in accordance with structural engineers calculations and should first be passed by building control then, assuming that it is a load bearing wall and for a span that big it would need to sit at least 200 mm bearing each end on a padstone, personally I would use 500 H x215 W x 300 D, also it needs to be encased in either Gyproc Fireline board or Intumescent Fire Proof Paint, Nullifire S or Jotum are the best. Have you seen the approved plans ? If not cease all work, get some acrows underneath, ring building control and find a reputable builder to do the job correctly, looking at it I wouldn't trust it, a simple rule is belt & braces every time. Jackie

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

for a span that big it would need to sit at least 200 mm bearing each end on a padstone, personally I would use 500 H x215 W x 300 D

Fantastic!

500 deep & a 200 bearing for a 4m span! Awesome advice!