All Activity

I'm not sure I follow. Item 2) Details from a reputable non-government database containing independently assessed thermal junction details precludes using data from a manufacturer directly but does not prevent the use of manufacturer data via a reputable non-government database, for example LABC constructions details, BRE certified thermal details etc . These should only contain independently assessed details. What is also prevented is the use of ACD's which had, to some extent, been hijacked by manufacturers. I'm also not sure I understand your (block, insulation etc, etc). These sort of elements will be used in a table K1 assembly (corner, jamb etc) but these element have U-values not Psi-values. The use of manufacturer declared thermal resistance, permeability etc are not affected it is just the table K1 assemblies that I have been referring to. Having clarity about this is clearly very important as the consequences for a build that fails are potentially highly significant. I am not trying to be difficult or obstructive. Building is an increasing difficult and red tape filled world that is horrendously expensive. Recent work done shows that the Future Homes Standard which has spawned SAP10.3 and HEM, will add £000's to the regulatory cost of any build. Getting U values is easy and free but getting psi values is not. If you have specific objections that would make psiclops unusable for SAP10.3 I would really genuinely like to know. BTW I have read the SAP10.3 document top to bottom many times. I'm also a chartered engineer and have a degree that covers thermal dynamics, thermal physics, finite element analysis and fluid flow and the work behind psiclops, which can be viewed on the verification page and in the FAQ, looks to be well beyond THERM in terms of meshing lets alone it's ease of use. I have also used Flixio on a 30 day trial. It knocks THERM into a cocked hat but it doesn't know about BR 497 and the rules and boundary conditions it demands, although it is ISO 10211 verified. Incidentally psiclops passes the exact same verification standard used to verify both THERM and Flixio.

Cold mains “potable” or “wholesome” water needs protecting to prevent it being early to mid 20 degrees. It’s a major health and safety risk due to legionaries disease etc. Any volume of stored potable mains will inevitably acclimatise to the immediate local ambient temp, so this is a thing you can’t avoid, it can only be slowed by insulating the pipe as well as is practicable. If the temp of the plant room housing the accumulator can be insulated then this will pay huge dividends, plus the accumulator itself should be insulated also to maximise the time taken for the local ambient to affect it. What is the temp at the accumulator location? Length of pipe feeding the house?

Mains linked smoke detectors specced throughout the build with fire rated protected escape route through to the ground floor. games room originally had two doors via the internal corridor which are removed there are also large dormer windows in the games room but can’t be classed as escape windows due to being over 4.5m in height.

In my daytime role I provoke discussion, rake over everything robustly, and most of the time this is done inoffensively, to get all the options and possibilities on the table. Some of my clients don’t know what they want because they don’t know their options; pros cons and caveats included. You’ve been a member since 2016, so are either benefitting or are suffering in silence here. 🤷‍♂️. Peoples hunger for inaccurate quick fixes (aka AI) is the sum of modern day society, and even when they see a statement saying the information may be inaccurate they still bank their life on it. After a decade on here, it’s a joy to hear you dismiss all the hard work, time, and effort that the volunteer staff have put in (for free) in some stupid attempt to help some folk out whom we’ll likely never meet or hear from again. 75mm of poor insulation over a cold ventilated block and beam substructure is crap, which is the truth. It is a part of an attempt to provide comprehensive feedback to allow you to amass these responses and form an opinion and take the project on admirably for the best outcome possible. If these digressions offend you so, then that’s an issue your side, as we don’t post here for popularity; facts are facts, take them or leave them, or ask AI which is the best, impartial website that is free to join is. Let me save you asking “it”. PS, thanks for the ridicule. Much appreciated.

Hi all So having done some reading, document B refers to a cavity as a sealed entity, vs what I would call a ventilated void behind my cladding as it isn’t sealed. I understand strips would be useful preventing fire spreading from first to second storey for example, but, if my cladding or the timber frame catches fire, no intumescent strip sealing the ventilated area is going to stop it; and given the soffit is 10mm above where the cladding finishes, it won’t stop that catching fire either. My front extension is TF with brick veneer, and drawings for that clearly advise fire proof closures at the top of the cavity and around the windows / doors which makes sense.

Sorry i was having a bit of a melt down over this yesterday as in hindsight i just didn't have the spare brain capacity for it 🤣 Its just a plain old 1980's brick outer block inner mass produced housing estate. Nowhere near as grand as some on here but it could be alot worse. the walls are brick outer block inner, no cavity closers. no check reveals. How to measure the width of the opening is what is throwing me. For a normal window i would measure the width externally top/middle/bottom then subtract 5mm from the narrowest. But i cant measure these externally as there is a roof/ bay window in the way, I could measure the bottom easily enough then use a spirit level to gauge on how straight the edges are. Measuring it from the inside and adding a bit on to compensate just seems wild to me. I know folk do it this way but i guess i don't have the balls. The window closest with the flashing tape roof would have been a flat window initially. the other is externally glazed. The end goal is a full width mono-pitched tiled canopy. new bays. redecorate living room, sort the front garden then i will be ...Finished.. 😁

I'm surprised honestly as the games room still looks very separate, you've essentially just taken the door off. Other BC officers might have viewed that differently I think as the escape path is quite long and via another furnished space, potentially tricky when filled with smoke. The plans don't show smoke detectors either but you'll definitely need them

Bit like this

I see, I thought the aluminium was a trim over the glass which was bolted directly to the timber.

I did block n beam with standard concrete block and insulation on top, I looked at all these insulated types and concluded that they had two many faults. harder to construct being a major one, standard block n beam is very fast and easy. cost also, if buying a large quantity of blocks you can get the price right down. the only upside I can see to these insulated systems is the height you gain, if you only need to put a 75mm cap sheet on then you save 75mm in floor build up, but that’s hardly a big issue.

I guess they don't worry about the WC which is good.

The glass sits in a robust aluminium channel, the channel is bolted to the wood. So glass and wood are completely isolated from each other.

Looks great. Is there no concern that conventional timber will move as it dries and transfer stress to the glass panels? O don't suppose that's an issue with Glulams though.

Thanks all my second design has been accepted by BC as all rooms now have direct access to the stairwell

Just got around to ordering the internal balustrade that we need. Sod's Law has dictated that the Fischer screws listed in their certification document (Fisher FPF-WT YZP) are no longer available. Does anyone know what the logical Fischer replacement for these would be?

When the plans are submitted to BC they will do a plan check to let you know if they comply. I think that to comply each room either leads directly to the protected staircase or is on a corridor that is part of a protected escape route.

+1 for talking to prospective installers. I had a very fixed view of our system (I’d been to a self build show so therefore I was an expert!) but that view changed for the better after a couple of discussions with installers. Sometimes I find myself caught up in the enthusiasm of a solution, so much so that I drift away from the actual requirements. I then talk things through with J and that helps me return to what I’m actually trying to do.

So nothing stopping manufacturers (block, insulation etc, etc) generated psi-values being used. Until recently I was Elmhurst accredited so know the process, been through the program, trained in 2D & 3D calcs along with consultancy for insulation manufacturers. If I received a set of psi-values from a self builder and random website I'd be back to using the SAP defaults to protect myself. Manufacturers have normally invested in their technical people to undertake these calculations. Sorry Robin but please check SAP and supporting documents for thermal bridging.

You are very unlikely to get a definitive answer. The fire regs are set out as principles and red flags. That has to be interpreted by someone. Different people on different days will give different answers. We had an issue with two rooms that were considered "inner" rooms - ie no escape window. One was upstairs one downstairs. Our architects had come across the problem before and suggested that they had overcome it before by installing a sprinkler system. I really didn't want to do that, but in the absence of a better idea I commissioned a fire specialist to design a "minimal" compliant system. That was put forward but turned down by Building Control - no other feedback. So I went back to the specialist and got him to do a full blown design - much as you might have in a block of flats. That too was turned down by BC - no other feedback. In a fit of pique I suggested just leaving out the walls so that both rooms were effectively just wider bits of the corridor they were on. That was allowed.... on the basis of access to adjacent room's escape windows. So extrapolating that reasoning, the architect put forward the original design but with doors added to the adjacent rooms. That was passed. Another Building Controller on another day would almost certainly have responded differently as evidenced by the acceptance or not of sprinklers. But while frustrating at the time, I feel lucky to have gotten away with a couple of extra doors and not the huge expense and maintenance of the sprinklers. My advice would be just put forward your the next idea hopefully knocking off at least one stated issue each time. Sounds like you're at least getting some useful feedback on why, so keep that conversation going ...

OK, I can’t help feeling I should know this, but how does a steel strip stop the ventilation behind the cladding act like a chimney during a fire whilst still allowing the chimney effect to dry the cladding under normal conditions?

The intumescent strips seem to be accepted practice. Alternatives are 0.5mm steel / wood of a given thickness (I forget how much). There’s a fair amount of discussion on this on ‘t ‘ub. My BC seemed to be more open-minded - I forget his exact words. We used the steel strip as it was cheaper, but it did take a while to put up.

Maybe. I have two of them and have measured both, each across two diameters, so I think they're pretty much round. NOTE: the invoice lists both as 600mm. For now I am assuming that they are classified as 600mm. Its a bit like when you buy wood - nominal vs actual size 😀

Could they have got a bit oval? I had a problem exactly like that way back.

Checks... Yes I uploaded the documents via the portal. Given HMRC exists to serve* us all, why do they make it so bloody difficult to claim what is legally due with regard to self-build VAT? (On other matters, income tax, IHT, I have always found HMRC staff very helpful.)

If your architect is telling you it now complies, what makes you concerned that it doesn't? Your instructions to the architect should be to produce a compliant design so whether it complies or not shouldn't be a question. I certainly don't know enough to tell you it complies and even those here with more knowledge likely wouldn't want to confirm it now meets regs (none of us know enough about your situation). People will happily highlight flaws if they see them. From my limited knowledge of the regs I don't see anything obvious (but I'm no expert on the regs and last read them well over a year ago). If you have a specific concern maybe highlight it so people can give their thoughts. As far as improvements go, it's very difficult to say without knowing and awful lot more about what you want out the space and the restrictions you are dealing with. It does seem like a compromise design but everything in building is a compromise and maybe that's the best given the constraints you are under.