Gus Potter

Oak shinks less than soft wood. Thus if you have an oak frame it is not "scary" ! All you need to do is identify where the shrinkage will take place and detail for that.

Advise you don't do this.. you'll make more of a mess and it is not worth it. Find a local digger driver who knows what they are doing and is used to working with your soil type. Pay them well and they will give you all sorts of other tips about drains etc.. the founds and with a couple of bacon rolls even more. They could also tell you what ground workers to avoid and who is good locally. I love working with local digger drivers etc as they are doing this day in and out.. they hear what past SE / Goetec Enginners have been telling them and can "feel the ground and see" with their machine. Why not rely / take into account on their local knowledge? It's a no brainer for me! I always want to work with an experienced local machine driver when doing say trial pits or doing founds.. they have saved my bacon on occasions! I know you are thinking you may make a saving getting a machine yourself.. but look at this holistically and the advice you may get.. also you'll get a found in the right place. Digging founds is not easy as you have have a digging strategy.. so you don't box yourself in. Also if you want to have a go yourself then there is a soil bulking factor.. what you dig out grows a lot and if you don't stockpile it properly and seal it ( a skill) then later you'll have a harder job to handle that.

True story and I have the calcs / drawings to prove it. I did this job for a company who renovate supermarket trolleys. They build big new shed and we had to limit run off into the local water course, from memory it was 5 litres per second. We designed some storage capacity (attenuation) to hold the water and let some of the pollutants settle. As they could weld etc we fabricated an orifice plate.. a bit of metal with a hole in it. But for this to pass EA / SEPA you need to screen it.. we used the old trolleys as a screen and put in place a maintenance schedule (also good to present).. it all passed and happy bunnies all round. If you have a look at the cost of a Vortex flow control valve.. you'll see it's a possible cost effective option. Hint.. next time you are shopping take the trolley home.

Worded that the wrong way.. there are plenty competant Contractors.. this was a new one. @joe88 A few things that would help a lot would be to get some gridlines on these drawings so we can see how things line up. I would say this to all budding Architect's.. put some gridlines on your drawings when sending to the SE, the builder, QS etc. If you don't it just wastes all of our time. Your job (Architects) is to communicate essential information in a way that is easy for others to follow, it's a skill that you need to develop, oh and it's good for self checking drawings. On the other hand SE's, QS etc need to reciprocate. A lack of gridlines demonstrates etc that either you don't care or don't know what you are doing. @joe88.. it still looks a mess. Are there some existing walls under the line of B1 and B2? Your image of the existing ground floor plan seems obscured by the side bar? A lot of folk say that a box frame is more expensive.. in terms of steel cost.. it can be but on a job like this it may not be as it adds stiffness that saves beam weights, reduces connection costs, makes it more buildable etc further up. Your SE says you need an extra bit of found.. trench... but.. why the beam B1 & B2 in the first place? To be honest I've not spent the time trying to line stuff up on your drawings and trying to second guess. If you have some existing founds the soil under they will tend to be more consolidated (more bearing capacity).. say each side of a window. The bottom of the box frame in the middle of it's span tends to act to stiffen the structure above in terms of.. in layman's terms the bottom member of a box beam doesn't put that much load on the ground near the middle of the span.. hence we may put crawl holes here for solum space access and ventilation. I mention ventilation as it is a classic bit for getting tripped up by BC. Just glancing again at what you propose.. Column C2 is to be bolted to the wall with resin anchors.. does anyone know how that work will be sequenced and how the steels will be measured by the Contractor so that it works and can be built? Beam B9 spliced at third points.. would be interested in seeing the welding on this connection and associated cost. My gut feeling is 20-25% in from the end of the span so it becomes more of a shear type connection. and thus cheaper. If you see anything like "full strength weld or "full pen weld"" annotated on the drawing then that needs tested. It could add £800- £1500 onto the cost of the steel if a small fabricator has to get the inspector in. The third splicing rule is always a flag.. could be a lazy Engineer and is worth examination.. or could be due to getting say beams into a confined space. A lot of folk say that a box frame is more expensive.. in terms of steel weight cost.. it can be but on a job like this it may not be as it helps stiffen every thing above and reduces the associated stress and deflections. I could go on but you have a complex project that is fraught with difficulty. From experience you could end up paying for things that won't get built on site. It all could end up in a massive argument and spoil the enjoyment for you. Before I was an SE I was a Contractor for 20 years so can see this from both sides. If I was you I would start talking to Contractors and finding the ones that know their stuff. You can then feed back that info to your design team. Even if you offer to pay a Contractor to visit you it will be well worth your while. I'm sorry if I come over as a bit harsh but it's worth grasping the nettle now. On a job like this you will need a lot of details.. fixings./ guidance notes that tie in with the Architectural side... so you get what you are paying for.

We all start out in life / DIY .. being a builder knowing not a lot so you're not alone. I still learn something each time I come on Build Hub. A good wall paper paste that is designed for sticking to say a vinyl wall paper or similar surface is your starting point. In terms of tools. A bucket, sponge, a wide brush and a sharp pair of kitchen scissors.. the most important thing is to read the instructions on the wall paper as the method of applying the glue changes. Don't go sanding it all down in case you later change your mind! Just one last thing. A roll of quality wall paper comes with a batch number on the label inside the roll. Photograph that in case you later want to put more of the paper elsewhere.

Take a pragmatic view. You want to build a house and by doing so you stop the rain from slowly permeating into the ground in a natural way. If you cover the ground with a roof then water runs off quickly and that can flood houses down stream. Thus get your head round the fact that you can't morally, not least, do this. Now 2.0 litres per second equates to 2.0 x 3600 /1000 = 7.2m cube per hour.. which is actutally quite a lot of water off a domestic roof. over say a period of an hour. My question is how big is your roof and how much water are we talking about. You may find that this is easy to comply with. If you can tell us how big you roof is and where the site is then some folk on BH may help you out.. but recognise that it takes a bit of time to do this so a donation to BH may be in order..

I maybe need to take a hit on this one as had no idea that there was so much stuff going on above and the loft is getting converted. I'll eat some humble pie as promised. I'm minded to make a box frame at ground floor level.. after that.. the drawings just show some beams. The box frame at ground floor will help what is going on above. In terms of buildability and cost I can't say anymore other than.. You MUST get your SE to site, let them take their measurements and open some stuff up, your SE needs to put forward a buildable, sequenced and cost effective solution to this. It's not the Architect's job nor the contractor's job. A job like this might need 20 drawings with details on each drawing. You then may want steel fabrications drawings.. a full set of these add another 25 -30 drawings that go to the fabricator. A fabrication drawing package has drawings that show all the beams with the bits welded to them. These are often called Assembly drawings. To make up an assembly you often have a beam ( say called a shaft) so it has its own drawing showing holes ect and then you have plate drawings ( the end plates / stiffeners etc) Thus each assembly has sub drawings. Now all of that may cost you say 6.0k - 10k plus structural calculations. But if you skimp on the design information (that forms the contract) and you lose a week on site for three men (2 skilled + 1 labourer) that could cost you 2.5k.. now you can maybe see the value of the professional service? On the other hand you can produce too much design information. Contractors are people too and if they think they have some nutter of an SE / Architect overseeing the job they will just add on more. It's a people business also. You'll maybe need to pay the SE more and if they don't engage and it becomes apparent that they have no idea on the cost /buildability of things then need you then sack them pronto. Yesterday I went to a job and met a highly competant Contractor for the first time.. say @saveasteading they vetted me (as an SE) just as much as I vetted them! Get a good builder / contractor to meet with the SE and let them fight it out while you watch, listen and learn.

Good advice. You should get an SE to come and have a chat about this as it could really drive the design. It may be that if you add on a bit which will add further sideways wind loading then that could be the straw that breaks the back of the building. On the other hand if you add on something that contributes more to the stiffeness of the building then that could be a good thing. Get an eperienced SE or someone that understands the forces and go from there. An experienced timber frame designer will also know about this and the pitfalls and long term performance.

To refine a bit you can buy tubular beam spacers off the shelf. See link say below. https://esteels.co.uk/structural-steel/universal-beam-twin-chs-spacer-touching-separate/ But often the walls don't have a consistent width of cavity.. good design when say knocking holes in walls is about anticipating some of the things that may not be built the way you think they are and generating as many "get out of jail free cards" as you can. The next stage is to note this on the drawings so the Contractor who is pricing the job can see that someone has put a bit of thought into it and tried to derisk it.

Great tip! Very obvious once someone explains it so simply.

Copy and paste your post to Masons Mortar of Edinburgh and take advice.. these folk know their stuff! Off my own bat. The stone you have looks like much what we encounter down the east coast of Scotland.. not well "sedimented" sandstones or more likely "conglomerate" in other words they tend to not weather well. These houses were built by the gentry for workers, they were not good quality. You need to get your head round the fact that these houses are what they are.. they were built as cheaply as possible for the land / estate owner so they could extract the most they could from their workers.. they are basically shite structurally / in terms of workmanship and let water in! Get it out your head (if you have had that thought) that they are quality buildings...they are not. @Tapster my post is encouraging later. You are trying to now make a silk purse out of a pigs ear!. The Scottish gentry lived say in Edinburgh / Glasgow and built in Ashler commonly ( oh! yes it was the Scots taking advantage of their own! nothing to do with the "English" or the "Welsh" or the "Irish" it was a "big boy" that done it and run away for those who are seeking factual history) .. faced sand stones.. the best.. I'm happy as an SE (and have done so) to convert these Edinburgh Ashler buildings all day long.. You'll see this in most Fife and Ayrshire coastal towns where the middle of the stone has weathered and the mortar is sticking out and that just drives water into the wall. Sometimes with a bit of thought you can recover the situation and live happily ever after. You need lime mortar.. you'll see often recommended a NHL3.5 lime mortar, bin that idea and go for a NHL 2 lime mortar which is supposed to be used for internal work only. But on this type of stone it's the angle of the pointing to shed the rain outwards that matters and acceptance that it needs regular maintenance. The idea is that you use a soft lime mortar that erodes faster than the stone.. you maintain that.. like cleaning your gutters. Eventually the stone will erode and need replaced.. hopefully it won't happen during your tenure.

Great to have you chipping in. You may get a bit of slagging off.. but just stick to your guns. Stick with it. BH can be great fun and rewarding if your are happy to give pro bono advice. Gus

@kelvin is correct. The construction courts / courts recognise that some Clients are experienced, some are domestic (inexperienced) and thus are afforded more protection under the law. Often domestic Clients get into dispute with dodgy builders who have written their own contract. While it can be difficult to argue against the terms of payment it is much easier to hit these builders in their weak spot which can be poor quality work that compromises structural safety. That could be anything from cavity width to incorrect insulation that could cause condensation that could compromise a structural frame. There are lots of ways to tie back bad work to safety considerations.. it's often knowing how you do that and present an argued and reasoned case. I do this with say the NHBC and other warranty providers etc who can be a bit.. (insert your own words) at times to speak. You can often debate to the ends of the earth about the quality of the finish.. but hit them on a structural issues and you often have the upper hand.. you make them rack up defense / consultancy costs and force them to employ their own Consultants.. who often won't touch them with a barge pole.

That is great advice. It also takes the personal element out of things. If you get the support of a good QS it will be good for your mental health not least and you may salvage a friendship.

From what you posted that looks like an expensive mess by the SE. These pads and the disruption look like they will cost you a fortune. It also looks unbuildable at a sensible cost. It's not just the structure it's moving electrics / plumbing, cutting floor joists and making good.. the absolute mess it will make during the works that needs to be reinstated at a cost. From time to time I see stuff by other SE's where I think.. fair enough.. but this is ringing alarm bells. The other big one is the sideways stability of the building and the knock on costs. Can you post a full set of plans. By that I mean the whole lot.. all floors and sections etc. If I'm jumping to conclusions and wrong on this I'll say so and take the flack.

Lots of agreable points here @OwenF To paint a bit of a picture I think Alan has in mind a single storey relatively light weight timber framed structure going on top of a basement, say a formation depth of 4.0m, insulation on that with a concrete box on top. This is a bit different from a heavily loaded raft (basement slab) say where you may want to recognise that the pressure bulb under a raft can be quite extensive and extend to a considerable depth, just say 2 times the maximum slab dimension.. Atkinson et al? Being pragmatic you could take the view that what you are digging out to form the basement is heavier than what you are putting back, thus the stress at formation level is similar or less. Now let's also say that the local geology and superficial deposits are pretty well understood. But due to the natural variation in soils you could end up being unlucky and build on the only rubbish bit. Now if that was to be the case then you could maybe even pick this up during a walk over survey.. notice a depression in the ground say as the soil has been loaded more histrocally than what you are intending to put back. If your formation is a 4.0m then investigating to 6.0m should cover most risks given the loads at formation level in this case. I often lean towards trial pits as you can really get down and dirty with the soil, also you expose a larger surface area of soil that you can "feel", look at, smell (if confident ground is not contaminated) and get a better idea of the strata etc. Also great point for @saveasteading on another post.. you can do some soakaway tests etc at the same time. Jury is out on this one, can only suggest this may be a requirement of a specialist basement designer, best thing to do is ask what they are going to do with the results. They may have a perfectly and sensible reason for doing so on this kind of design. On something like this I would want to try and understand as much as I can about what is lying say up to 2.0m below the formation as a perched water table / local artisian pressure is always a risk. For self builds the cost can run away if you need to indulge in extensive bracing of the excavation and have to manage ground water. If in good ground you could assess the stand up time, and try to mitigate the temporary works cost. With a fair wind you could just batter back the excavation.. simple if you have the space to do so. A contractor pricing this is often going to assume the worst and price accordingly as it is a one off self build. Their mind set is often.. it is a one off so if I lose a bit I'll not get the chance to get it back on the next job. If you plan out the works, sequence and provide the Contractor with good information it should help drive the cost down. There is a risk (will be in the contract) in that if it all goes south you'll have to pay more. But you may not end paying any more at the end if it does go south than if you accept a price from a contractor initially based on the worst case. Also if you have good ground information you'll be in a better postion to push back against a Contractor if they hit for unjustified extras.. you can say.. I gave you the info.. it's your fault for not reading it. I bet you've told so many people so many times.. set aside a meaningful percentage of your budget, give me the resources to do my job properly and I'll probably, nine times out of ten, easily cover my fee and could save you thousands or more.. If you look at the figure mentioned above we are talking a couple of thousand each way.. but imagine what it could cost if you encounter something in the ground that you could have discovered for that small extra amount of 1 - 2 thousand. That difference could get swallowed in a day or two on site with especially if you need a sudden re design.

Sometimes there is an easy way around this. Below is a screen shot of part of one of my designs where I'm strengthening a floor. The additional joists are shown in green hatch. You'll notice that at the top of the drawing that the sistering joists don't extend to the wall head. The roof on this job is a pole plate roof so there were issues around extending the joist to the wall head that I needed to avoid. The sistered joists are well fixed to the existing. The objective is: 1/ The big bending forces near the middle of the joists are resisted by the double timbers, old and new. 2/ A lot of the deflection is reduced by the doubled timbers where the bending stresses (near the middle of the span) are high. To prove this works you: A/ Check the double timbers for strength so they don't snap near the middle of the span. B/ That the deflection is ok.. how much they bend down by in the middle. C/ That where you only have the existing single part of the joist bearing onto the wall that is can take the extra shear loads arising form the extra load you are adding to the floor. D/ That the bearing strength of the existing timber on the wall plate is ok in terms of transferring the extra load to the wall head. E/ That any door / window lintels etc under the wall plate / wall under the joist ends can take the extra loading. You may find this approach works so long as you are not adding too much extra load to the floor... say by using a concrete screed for the UF.. a lightweight overlay UF should be possible. I would ask an SE say to have a proper look at this as they could easily save you more money and hassle than the amount you need to pay them. Given the size of joists you have (40x210mm) you may find the above works. You may need some extra noggings (dwangs) to stop the joists twisting at the ends. The above is one solution but you can often tweek it to avoid having to but a ledger piece to the wall or form extra pockes in the masonry.

Good question. Hope some of it helps someone, especially those designing their own TF in principle and some of the things you need to think about..I make some general comments. The two diagrams you posted look as they do.. but odd in some ways. Starting from the top. 1/ The grade of Glulam 28c.. your TF supplier? They I assume will have priced for this on how they operate / cost / lead times but a 28c often carries a significant price premium in one way or another compared with a 24c or a 24h grade which is less strong but is made from more readily available timber. I would ask the question.. is it cheaper to use a 3 ply in 24c or 24h and can it be fitted in? Ok.. you may ask what is the difference between the suffix c & h? A Gluam beam is built up from layers of timber glued together. When a Glulam beam is subject to bending forces only (usually from a floor) and rests directly on say on a wall head we can make the beam out of stronger timber on the top and bottom and put weaker timber in the middle. This means we combine different strengths (grades) of timber hence the c = combined so more economic. The h grade means that we use the same strength (grade) of timber for all the beam laminations so it is homogeneous = h Now in some cases, say for a beam resting on a wall this is ok.. but it is often NOT ok when we want to connect a glulam to something else using say Simpson Strong_Tie connections or a steel beam unless you design on the weakest bit of wood! and if you do that then why pay for a higher grade of beam when you could make it thicker say. Big heads up.. if you have a separate SE make sure they know what the TF designer is assuming! Nail spacing horizontally (600mm) . This looks a bit far apart to my eye. I would go for 250 - 300mm centres. Now this may seem a bit trivial to the naked eye but it matters when you do your design checks. A closer nail spacing means that you can treat the two Glulams as acting together (compositely) so you get more bang for your buck in terms of performance. The spacing shown looks odd. Ask the question.. basically has the detailer not implemented the SE's design? The nails are all shown with the heads on the same side. This is not good practice. Also the nail length is indicated as 75mm. 75mm less 45 mm only gives you a point penetration into the Glulam behind of 30mm which goes against the principle of nail design. I would specify a 90mm long ring shank nail for this. Ask why they are all from the same side, not opposing and appear to short. The distance of the nail down and up from the top and bottom of the Glulam. If we are using solid timbers nailed together then we often stagger the nails above and below the horizontal centreline of the beam by about 25-35% of the depth of the beam, it varies depending on beam depth so this figure is representative. We do this as solid timbers tend to "cup"over time. In other words the middle bows in or out from the centreline. You can often see this in old solid timber joists where the sides are bowing.. cupping. Cupping happens when the older wood shrinks differently from the younger wood. Now Glulam beams are not supposed to be too succeptible to this type of cupping behaviour when surrounded by air of the same moisture content on both sides. But if not they will cup to some extent. If you nail the beams together in the way shown you could cause them to cup and split the lamination.. now you have a problem! Suggest you go back and ask the TF designer if they have thought about this and can confirm that for your application all is ok given the 30mm nail point penetration which raises an eyebrow. Last but not least.. you are going to be fixing a ceiling and floor to the top and bottom of the Glulams possibly. The floor in particular serves to brace the tops of the joists to stop them twisting sideways and if you stop this you get a good stiff floor. Now the flooring nails will likely compromise the nails you show in terms of code compliance. That is why I sugest earlier that the nails are staggered above and below the horizontal centreline, it keeps them away from the flooring / noggings / ceiling nails. Suggest you go back to TF detailer and query. Check the specification and point penetration required by the flooring manufacture and you may find the TF and flooring spec clash. For all. At the end of the day once you get your head round the principles of how timber works then it's a great material to build a house from. The above is a bit tecky but if you think about it much is common sense!

Your Rockwool is probably a good balance. The important thing is to install it properly, no gaps and not pack the wall tighty.. it needs a residual air gap.... see installation instructions. Following the installation intructions is probably the most eco freindly appoach.

Not a lot, probably less than the door / window handles and the letter box on the front door. Forget it and move on.

If your half landing at the bottom is buttressing the upper set of treads / stringers against horizontal movement then you actually can show you need minimal fixings at the top. Think about a ladder against a wall with someone holding the bottom still. The load at the top of the stringer is horizontal only (as the top of the ladder can slip down the wall) which in your case is pushing against something solid. If you are confident your half landing can resist the horizontal loads then your problem is solved! All you need is a few fixings at the top of the stringer to stop the stair moving left or right in the plane of the top landing. Does this work?

Hiya. Well done you! it seems you are now getting into making big design decisions on the structure and how that interacts with all the other elements of the design. That all sounds great on paper but in practice unlikely to work given the nature of self building. It's your first self build so you have a huge amount to learn. I joists are good for carrying bending loads, say a floor. They are generally less appropriate for compression loads, say where you have openings with point loads from above. My advice is to avoid as the detailing and connection design will be horrendous / costly and unlikely to be "self" buildable. Take the hit on thermal bridging and consider standard solid studs or something like a space frame. @Kelvin has done a cracking job using a space frame and has lots of practical knowledge on how you make it work and the pitfalls.. to avoid.

Ah now I see! Have to say.. you're quick with the representations and thinking on your feet.. do you want a job? The more screws / nails you put into the head of the stringer the more likely it is to split... leave it alone. We have all sorts of rules for timber fixings, edge and end distances, the load direction and how the load is orientated to the direction of the grain. What you propose is messy. Can you.. Using a structural glue and screws (provides clamping for the glue and a bit of redindancy in case the glue is duff) to thicken the stringers on the inside with MARINE PLY not OSB. The grain of the outer ply should run horizontally. Say stringer is 33mm thick + 18 marine ply = 51mm. Make the ply cover a good area of the stringer, may past the next tread down. Bolt a 70 x 50 x 6.0 thk steel angle to the vertical leg of the angle that sits inside the bottom flange of the UB. Suggest 2 no M10 8.8 bolts though the short leg into the angle section you show. The 75mm leg runs parallel to the stringer. Drill the 75mm leg of the angle and fix that through the ply and into the stringer using short M8 x 40 long coach hex head screws. My first guess is that you need 4 coach screws per angle as the stringer length is pretty short I seem to remember from your previous posts. The long leg keeps the fixings away from the end of the stringer. The ply prevents spliting of the stringer end. Below is a screenshot of the edge and end distances you need to comply with based on BS 5268 part 2 2002. Note the load direction.. you have clocked that earlier when you recognised that some of the fixings may not be doing much. If in doubt always assume the worst load direction. d = the diameter of the bolt. Some bits from the table are key.. edge distance.. the top coach bolt needs an edge distance of 4d so it doesn't split the top of the stringer off. The bottom fixing is pushing into the grain (meat of the stringer) so only needs 1.5d. You want to keep the coach screws 7d from the end of the stringer (as the grain is at an angle to the load direction) to be conservative. 7 * 8.0 mm dia = 56mm. For steel with a drilled hole the edge distance is 1.4d = 1.4 * 8 = 11.2 mm... say 12.0mm 12mm + 56 = 68 < the 75mm leg of the angle.. and there you have a compliant connection even once you take into account fabrication tolerances. If push comes to shove we can use more detailed calcs to refine the connection design.. keep it simple and avoid. I mentioned 4 screws. They need to be 4d apart vertically = 4*8 = 32 mm. If you draw that out you may have room for more fixings in the vertical plane if need be so. For all. The above table is a handy reference if your learning about TF construction.

Hiya.. The glue thing is ringing alarm bells here! I'm not saying it can't be done.. just before you do something like this you need to really understand how the materials are behaving. Also imagine you came back to me and said.. Gus can you prove that is ok by calculation? Now that would cost you a lot and it may not be possible without physical testing. Try and seek out an alternative if you can.. do one of your great 3D models as can't quite picture what you intend at your end. Simpson et al have a huge range of bracketry so keep looking and you may find one that fits the bill.. with some load data tables.

Good for you. There is lots to learn, but if your approach it in the right way it can be great fun, personally and financially rewarding. Have you had a look at your permittted development rights? You probably have but that is a good starting point. Even if you don't comply they help you identify where you don't and that leads you to the next step as to what you need to do to remain compliant with the regulations. Where are you in the UK as PD rights differ.