Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/26/21 in all areas
-
Hello all. A lot of the following is general info which I hope will be of help if your builder has not done what they should have, or "done what they think is helpful"..some builders do this.. believe it or not. There are a lot of young (still some older ones too) builders that are really keen to please and keen to do the right thing. Their heart is in the right place. Yes it's an interesting subject this..for a good number of reasons. Unfortunately for Loz.. it's Loz's house we are talking about / discussing. Loz.. I was prompted to make the post about the timber grade as for me this takes you back to basics, can take heat out of any potential situation. No point in looking at load span tables etc if you have done something that has changed the intergrity / "provenance" of a component on which the load span tables rely on. Loz.. you mention that the SE is friendly with the builder. This is a normal occurence. SE's / Architect's / Designers / M&E specialists and so on like to work with good builders.. and builders like to work with good designers that can resolve; unforseen on site issues, be able to design and specify easily available materials and so on. That eases the way for everyone.. Also remember that builders can often be members of professional bodies / have extensive professional knowledge. Just because they may wear "shorts to work" does not mean they are unprofessional or lack knowledge! In fact the last few designers I've talked to have all been in shorts! .. COVID you see. For designers and builders (major contractors too) trust and professional respect for each other is built up over time and this has value. In particular, it often drives down the cost to the Client and this is how you get repeat work and recommendation from a Client. Every one is a winner to some degree. In summary don't worry at this stage that the builder, SE, BC officer may have a good friendly relationship. This is far removed from what we would call a corrupt relationship..for which you can not only be stuck off a professional register but also invite a holiday for yourself at a location chosen by our Monarch. Loz and all. Often you find that you know something is not right.. you just know this as a lay person.. you don't need to be an SE say.. trust your gut and ask questions, as you are doing. Loz, the builder may know that too. At one end they may know about the timber grade etc and just tried to pull the wool over your eyes. If they do know about the timber grading it would be a new thing for me though.. Your SE should have some awareness. At the other end they (builder) may have thought they were doing a good thing and solving problems.. helping you out. @saveasteading "Agreed. Mistakes happen and it is sometimes reasonable to find a solution that does not inconvenience the builder. " To add a bit to saveasteading's point. I'll use an example, corollary here. You can often deal with a home warrantly provider who is giving you the "run around". Often you encounter arguements such as "well the cracking you see is visually acceptable" or "some amount of settlement always happens". Dig deep into this and the modern Euro codes introduce a way of designing where deflections and settlements are more open to interpretation provided the structure remains safe! What this means is that often the domestic home owner has an expectation that is not met.. the developer/ builder is off the hook to a large extent unless the home owner is willing to spend a lot making a counter argument. Loz..you could find yourself in the position where the onus falls on you to make the case showing that you may have a "bouncy floor" and or a ceiling that cracks in a few years time for example. One key to unlocking this is to find something that you can point to that has compromised the structural safety. This is non negotiable as it is a UK legal requirement. Nail this and you often find that all the other arguments made become mute. This gives you the big stick as often to fix a structural safety issue you have to strip out and reinstate. Basically you cut the feet from under them. Loz in your case this timber grading thing may be the key to resolving this. Now you have the big stick and you can decide how to use it. But go gentle, particularly if it's been a genuine mistake. Always remember that if you use the stick half way though a project then if you make a mistake later then the builder etc will probably return the favour with a bit extra! Always ask yourself "what is fair and reasonable behavour? Be wise. Loz..Here are a some choices the SE may have. 1/ Be competant to visually grade the timber in it's cut down state (old school stuff but can be done still), recheck the strength / deflection which will now probably fail on overall deflection and look at the vibration. Then produce the calcs and evidence followed by sign off. 2/ Get a certified person from a timber merchants / producer (grade it and then perform the above checks) to do it for them.. the rub will be to make sure that the visual grading will still also be CE compliant.. good luck to the SE on that one. 3/ Chuck in the towel and look for another solution. Loz.. as promised.. here is something worth exploring. If you can accept a small reduction in the ceiling height then bolt onto the sides of the joists you have new 195 x 45 timbers. Alternate which side you bolt the timbers to. Bolt them all the same, say on the left hand side and you will get a rolling effect which is not desirable. Your SE should know this but the builder possibly won't. For the technically minded this rolling effect will happen as you shift both the centre of gravity of the section and the shear centre of what is now a composite section. Loz looking at the floor you have the joist sizing is probably governed by what we call the bending moment and deflection. In other words are the joists strong enough in the middle not to snap under load as they get bent and are the joists stiff enough so that the floor does not bounce too much. Where the joists frame into the supporting walls then you have what is called "shear effects". There is a good chance that the SE can show that at the ends of the joists they will still be ok in shear even though they have been effectively notched on top. Simon mentions this too but unless you have some other loads acting on the floor from above it all may be fine when the SE checks the shear at the joist ends. To expand on other posts on doubling up joists and so on. On the practical side when you offer up the new joists put plenty glue on the top side so they stick to the flooring . Now get the builder to run upstairs and screw the flooring to the new smooth surface of the extra joists before the glue takes up.. this will mitigate the squeeks. Yes, you'll need new noggings mid span (dwangs) but that is a small price to pay. I think you could resolve this fairly easily. It won't cost too much cf knocking holes in the masonry, potential disturbance to the masonry, lifting the floor and so on. Often the key here is to find the big stick. Show you have one and avoid using it, mainly because you often still need to finish the job. Also, if your builder has just made a genuine mistake then it's a fair and moral thing to do. Lastly Loz if your SE comes back and says the joists are failing at the ends due to shear then there are other options open such as using a ledger piece and so on. To finish on a positive note. Many projects encounter problems which can be resolved with a will and in an equitable way.5 points
-
The Bluetooth standard was published in 1998, and the SIG had 1000 backers by the year 2000 *. Yet it didn't really get significant market take up until 2010-15 (with the most significant inflection point being Apple dropping the 3.5mm stereo jack in 2016). Matter have delayed publication of their full SDK until sometime in 2022, so the odds of getting a thriving market of interoperable devices this side of 2025 seems slim. * - (I was at the first "Bluetooth World congress" in Monte Carlo in 2000, when they announced this milestone, just before the dot com bubble burst. It was absolutely nuts).2 points
-
Sound great, but these things take longer than a year to become a widespread standard. (https://xkcd.com/927/)2 points
-
I bought a batch of 10 (later bumped 20) canned DS18B20 thermometers, much as @Adrian Walker pic above. I did however calibrate them against each other by immersing them as a bundle in warm water (~50°C) in an insulated container but without a lid and left this to cool overnight logging the temp every 5 mins. I also did a run in water with melting ice. I discarded a couple that didn't track the herd, the remainder had a spread of less than 1°C. I recorded the temp offset of each device by OW address and my app adjusts all the readings by the device offset. Less the discards, the remaining thermometers (and with this offset applied) tracked within ¼°C over a repeated cooling test run. I didn't run a second reference temperature (e.g. 100°C) to calibrate gradient accuracy. However I felt this was good enough for my purposes.2 points
-
Hello there, Came upon this website trying to do some research for my new build. I still have a lot of items in the air and I'm trying to gain some clarity. Starting my new build in the coming months and the only thing I have nailed down is that the construction will be ICF. I'm also strongly considering constructing the roof from 250mm EPS Panels supplied by Thermohouse. Has anyone used these or similar and how did you get on? As I mentioned I'm trying to gather information on everything from solar PV, to heating systems for hot water and space heating to window sill details. From my brief look at some of the posts, it appears that you are a knowledgeable bunch. I'm looking forward to delving in deeper and adding where I can1 point
-
Depending on the scale of the changes you need to go one of three different routes. Discuss the changes with planning first to see which route they say you need to go down. The first is the easiest.. Non-material Ammendments: If the changes are minor there is a form for "non-material ammendments".. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/faqs/faq/66/where_can_i_find_the_non-material_amendments_form Minor Material ammendments For these you use the Section 73 form which is normally for varying conditions. I've not done one but I believe you cite any condition that refers to the existing approved drawings. (They normally say things like "The house must be built as per the approved drawings"). Then where it says "Please state why you wish the condition to be removed or changed" you put something like "See the attached schedule of changes to the approved drawings". The schedule should list all the changes and the reason why you are requesting them. Include a new set of drawings. Major Material ammendnent I think you need a new planning application.1 point
-
Personally I feel the original elevations are a bit too twee - very 80’s looking and the revised elevations will look dated and be a nightmare to maintain in a couple of years. Personally I’d steer well away from the timber cladding and would take a closer look at the form of the house so that the plan generated the elevations rather than sticking a wracking great pitched roof over the left hand side just to get the roofs to work. It really does look like an 80’s elevation with some “trendy” bits plugged in to try and give it a “contemporary” look making the composition quite fussy with no real base concept - like a pick’n’mix house. Take the elevations back to first principles - use the plan to generate them, use simple geometry for the fenestration, make the entrance “human” scale and use a materials palette that is timeless, contemporary and maintainable.1 point
-
Learn as much as you can here before you start and learn by others mistakes (and mine). Otherwise you end up muttering about how you could have done better, and would the next time (your now an addict). Good luck M1 point
-
they don't, they won't until they either like or dislike the new plan. Good luck! Although given the size of the plot, you should have gone for a mini estate with at least 3 dwellings - you'd have got that no trouble.... Simon1 point
-
Don't get all needy on us! I am not good at elevations but with the SE one I prefer the windows in the approved scheme so stick with those. The slot window looks incongruous. The NW elevation looks OK. Timber cladding I can take or leave and it can often look tatty after a few years and weather differently depending on the elevation. With the covering letter, just say what you have done to address their comments: Entrance door and simplified eaves, contrasting materials and better resolved windows. They are not interested in the eco credentials unless it is policy for you to achieve some set level, in which case you would include visible stuff like PV and external ASHP on your plans. They can see enough from the elevations and plans and will in any case likely condition things like materials. One more iteration may be sensible (unless you have already sent it!).1 point
-
I prefer internal but that’s an awkward drop so put it in the corner outside (B)1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
Does sound like you've made it a bit too wet in that case. If it's that watery it won't set that quick so sling more in I would.1 point
-
Sorry @zoothorn, been away, yes as said above, it will “cure” underwater, but Chuck another bag in, can’t do any harm.1 point
-
1 point
-
If you're concerned of it slipping, perhaps add a brace horizontally near the bottom and peg that in to the ground either side so it can't slip. If you add the water, and pour the 'crete in from the bag carefully you shouldn't disturb it due to the density of what you're adding. How you have it so far is how I would continue. What is that, a 6 foot post? 31" would be plenty for me.1 point
-
Hi dangti6.. yup understood seems sensible to agitate. Ok got it braced ok, popped stones gently round base. Now i have concern here: the btm of hole slushy clay/ got out as best i could, put a red thick tile in, post ontop. Its the base moving/ sliding on the tile putting it out of kilter whilst i pour the mix in Im worried about. If I really push& wedge in big stonesbefore, I might put it out. I think the idea is - not- to do this? My other concern is the depth. Ive only gonna have it 31" at best in the hole, it was collapsing & i was getting nowhere trying deeper. So had to stick here. Is 31" top of hole ok? Maybe 30.5" of mix depth? It does have a bit more width involved, say a good bucket diameter.1 point
-
Fair enough . Tbh I had forgot about matter - read about it a while ago . That’s one of the reasons I choose a HA system that can use all technologies- though Of course Apple etc. May not want you going outside their eco system . Whilst I’m mainly zwave I’d happily add new devices via another method once it’s proven . I remember trying to do stuff with x10 … ??1 point
-
That's not enough insulation in Ireland. Your floor has to be 0.15 if using UFH. The Part L regulations for insulation and energy performance are a lot higher in Ireland. You should have a preliminary BER certificate done. That will say what you need to achieve. Get rid of the screed and put the UFH pipes in the slab. That gives you 70mm extra insulation. Also don't know why if it's a new build you can't just dig down another bit. That will allow you to use cheaper but thicker EPS insulation instead of PIR which is a lot more expensive and currently in short supply in Ireland. UFH pipes are cheap and easy to install but impossible to install later. Put them in everywhere. You don't even have to connect them up in the bedrooms but you can very easily later if needed.1 point
-
surely in the grand scheme of things the design and commissioning of some ductwork (and the VAT on it) is an almost-irrelevant cost? And you could commission it yourself if you wanted to, as well...1 point
-
Hello Rob. There are no daft questions, it's daft not to ask in fact. I hope this helps to add to your research knowledge. To add to the great informative comments from other posts I'll touch on the structural side of things. I'll do a bit of general stuff first (tell a story) and then focus a bit on what you have. A bit of background on agricultural buildings... lets go "back to the second world war" Very roughly.. and there are a good few bits missing from the following but I've written this to take you hopefully on the "Build Hub Journey" When this war started the steel industry were a bit more advanced in the quality of the material they were producing. They went to Churchill (well not him really but it sounds good) and said.. look we need steel for the war effort. We have moved on from making steel in our back garden and now have "quality control" so our steel is more reliable and less varaible in quality. As it is less variable allow us to reduce the factors of safety we need to apply. This way we will use less steel for building domestic structures and there will be more available for making tanks etc. I will stand corrected but the Gov said OK. Now the concrete folk said...hang on that's not fair as we are all at war.. let us too reduce our safety factors..but they were still making concrete in their "back garden". In essence in a war situation Chuchhill said OK although there was no rational safety basis for doing so. The only basis was that we were in a war.. frankly, if we had lost it we would have much more to worry about than safety factors of concrete and steel design. Moving on..Rationing was still in place after the war and for a while folk still had ration cards, eating powdered eggs and so on. Folk wanted to see some improvement.. There was a push to mechanise farms, improve production. farmers made hay. Barns were needed to house grains and live stock. No one gave two hoots about the quality of the barn stuctures as the populase were restless and demanded a higher standard of diet. The demand was immediate not least politically. Over the next few decades the insurance industry clocked that they were having to shell out for barns say that were say "falling down" too often. Maybe they woke up to the fact that farmers are quite canny, were stuffing them and "having a laugh".. One part of the solution was to start to bring agicultural barns into the "building regs" They started to codify the design. One other driver for this was also that a lot of kids / young men were getting killed on farms back then. It was what we would call today "carnage" What then happened to some extent was that the farmers went "mental" and said if you impose these regs on us the food price is going to go up. I think a compromise was reached where the farmers got a half way house and this manifests today in the modern agicultural code BS 5502 part 22.BS EN 5502. A key thing about this code is that agricultural building design is based on lower loadings, a lower what we call "occupancy rate" , and have no proscribed deflection limits..the amount it sways / deflection. Deflection is critical if you want to use the same frame for a house. It may not fall down but it will move so much that it will burst your cladding fixings and the place will leak like a sieve. Have a look at modern cladding systems, they all have caveats on deflection. If that is not enough then go back to the loadings and occupancy rates.. they are often not compatible with the regs for modern housing roof loads and so on. As an aside jump now to 1980's. Here (and it still happens from time to time) we were getting a lot of "fake sections" from Asia. They are hard to spot, they look like a BS standard sections.. put a micrometer on the flanges and they are thin! Also they had a lot of impurities in the steel which compromises the welding. They are a "shoogly peg" to hang your new house off. Rob and for all. In reality nine times out of ten you''ll find that the frames are of no use structurally. If you want to delve down an SE will want to look at the base connections, have to make safe assumptions on the quality of the steel / oak frame / timber / concrete degredation / the size of the founds. Then the SE has to look at whether they can sign off on the fact that what you have will last for another 50 years which is often a lender requirement. Also remember that in the case of timbers when you alter the ground level, moisture content and let in air you can promote decay in timbers. timbers buiried in the ground will last for hundreds if not thousands of years.. look at some of the old oak piles etc found in the Thames.. all good until you let the air get at them. To sum up. I would start out by investigating the ins and out's. It's a pity that the planners in some cases insist on the retention of a building frame that has no historic value and is no longer serviceable. They fail to recognise that by trying to retain a frame that has outlived it's service life is actually bad for the environment, can prevent young folk getting on the housing ladder and so on. Rob. Lastly you have a fair mix of frames and different constructions. If you want post some photos of the concrete clad frames.. would be interested to see what you have to work with. Oh and if you are converting an old barn there were just as many chancers cutting corners in the past as there are now so proceed with that in mind.1 point
-
1 point
-
Interesting thread, especially the implications on the rating of the timber. looks like a massive bodge job, one that even I wouldn't even do. I would be pushing them to redo properly and it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is.1 point
-
Agreed. Mistakes happen and it is sometimes reasonable to find a solution that does not inconvenience the builder. However, this is either a deliberate bodge, hoping to get away with it and never mind the consequences to you, or ignorant of building practices to the extent of worrying about other matters too. For the sake of amicable conclusion to the project, it needs SE and/or BCO to instruct that it is done again. I suggest make a list of the worries expressed above and summarise it to the SE, who works for you. It is not unreasonable to include future squeaking and maintenance, and even worry, in the list. And would the SE warrant for 10 years please against these minor issues as well as failure?1 point
-
Get it ripped out and done right. This is your home, not a commercial unit. you will never feel happy knowing it was bodged.1 point
-
I have a formula for calculating permitted notching merely at the end of joists in one of my carpentry books. When I've used it, I've always been surprised by how little can be notched even over a short span. FWIW it actually makes me feel sick to see this kind of practise, which is just unacceptable. It really should be redone properly and I sincerely hope you get it resolved.1 point
-
What a god point. I once took a surplus huge joist to the mill and had it ripped into 2 useful sizes, and it bent and twisted dramatically. The same principle will apply to yours.1 point
-
Going from 3 core to 4 is pennies. I’d do that just to give you options. I’d Earth the SWA and use a core for dedicated Earth to fittings. I’m a bit OCD so take that with a pinch of salt.1 point
-
1 point
-
I know a little bit about Potton and would use them myself. Worth noting that Potton supply the structure and insulation package (plus stairs, windows, roof if requested) it’s up to you to source a builder that will do the light switches and other finishes. Timber frame doesn’t mean ‘post and beam’, only half of the showhouses even have those because they were popular at the time the houses were built. On the outside, it can have any brick, stone, render, weatherboard you want. Potton is now a bespoke design and build business, they have planners and architects who design to any style or specification. They fully design from scratch for you, and get you planning, then help you self build with project managers. The showhouses get a *lot* of foot traffic, so after 50 or so years it adds up to a lot of new wallpapering. That’s not really the point of the houses there. They are there to show variety and give ideas - and it’s a shame people come away with the idea a Potton house is just a chocolate box with fake beams, if you look at the website it isn’t that at all. Of course at the time it was stylish, but trends move on. It’s also quite sad that planning officers are judging a company on a style the were popular for some time ago, I would say it’s actually prejudicial and not the correct behaviour for a planner! Anyway, in my opinion the timber frame you get from Potton is a good spec for a reasonable price in the market, and there’s really nothing forcing you to have beams anywhere. Check the website, there’s a price list there that breaks down what you might spend on the house and also since you are a total novice, they offer lots of resources and seminars to tell you how to go about it. They are really useful for self builders generally. I found them to be helpful and friendly.1 point
-
I think you could put some Lindab aluzinc gutters on and lose the soffit overhang and it will be fine.1 point
-
0 points
-
0 points