saveasteading

I have it on good authority that the stated acoustic performance never happens in real life, and to use the next spec up if you need to pass a test.

Insurance is likely not your Engineers' best subject. It is quite likely that, in the event of a claim, their insurer would try to find that there was no cover and all parties would be in trouble. Alternatively they have conditions in their small print that bat it back to you. While handing out worries..I have often found that small builders' insurances are invalid...they have taken out the cheapest cover they can find and it has conditions that preclude any claim. A roof cladder, working at 8m, who had stated himself to be a pipe fitter, working at max 2m....and so on. You can find the adverts for these "certificates" in the Sun. "Nobody else has cared" is the response.

It is not widely understood by bc or highways so they might accept the porous surface without further consideration. The purpose of the drain is to prevent your rainwater running over the road where it could cause traffic problems if fast flowing or it freezes. Also it could find its way to a drain or ditch that may increase flood risk. In your case the rain will go through the surface, reach the ground and run down to the road, then onto it. In permeably surfaced areas such as retail car parks they put a huge thickness of open textured stone underneath to hold the water until it gets away. A soakaway and gully will be cheaper. But say 100mm of single size stone underneath will help. So that would be up to you to decide. If going for solid surfacing, then you have to allow for about 60m2 of surface (check) . If it was smaller then there is an allowed rule of thumb for soakaway size of 10mm rain (in 5 minutes), so perhaps try that first and see if they accept. That would be 60 x 0.01 = 0.6m3. 600 litres.

I can confirm what Gus says. Had on old house with v skinny joists. Added Plywood with ribbed nails at close centres, and was approved by bc. The difference was huge and deflection matched that of new joists adjacent. All other comments agreed too.

OK, not too bad then. There seem to be 2 different egger products. both specs are vague and don't mention foaming or gap filling. Neither does the Caberfloor one. How do we recognise the foaming/filling material?

Hi to you too. A tip from a Scot in England, you will have to stop saying 'to Scotland' as if it is this little place past Carlisle. A bit bigger than Dartford!. I propose Kent to Central Scotland covers it. We don't much use real names on here, just in case someone is chasing the same plot for example. you have 15 minutes to edit. after posting. looking forward to hearing your anonymous progress.

It really is worth keeping a site diary. May be the best £5 you spend on the project. A day to a page lets you add any info you like, as a rolling notebook, and you will often look back for names and details. Then you can also fill in notes ahead as reminders. Main use though is the names of who is there, times, and what they were doing. Also of deliveries, especially if you have bought it. The weather too. You will likely also record when you have given instructions, and any big decisions made. This all becomes very valuable if there are claims for extras or arguments about progress. Keeps you in the right too, if anyone was to claim an industrial injury at some previous time....it happens, and a site diary can be crucial in any legal case. Some of that may sound negative, but it isn't. You simply keep a record, and it is amazing how some arguments just disappear when you have notes and photo records. Then after the project you can keep it to look back at the difficulties you overcame. re the fire extinguisher suggestion. Agreed. I once bought one on the way to site, and it was used an hour later on a petrol fire on a roller. Next day I bought another on the way to site. My extinguisher saved their roller, but hey...better than not.

The egger page I found was for a litre and said 3 boards including joist interface, and 5 boards without. Suppliers seldom tell you to use less of their product I suppose. Maybe it was bigger boards? 1 bottle will cover 3 sheets if used on the sheet and joists. If not used on joists, it will cover 5.5 sheets. will get 1 pack and try it out.

This foaming glue stuff is news to me. We don't know something until we hear it for the first time so thanks for the update. I have had plenty of occasions insisting on any glue at all, never mind fancy stuff. Looking for a supplier, there doesn't seem to be much of it about. Lots of g4, but without any mention of foaming. Then I see that Egger is £11 for a litre, which does 3 boards!. Hardly surprising that the use of pva continues.

I agree with everything above. Can you tell us what experience you have? There are properties that are too horrible for most people to live in, but won't make enough money for a builder. If you can put up with living in the squalor, putting in most of the hard graft yourself, then staying in that house, then you can make something. Always remember that there will be some horrible surprises, and probably no good ones. Also that , if this is completely new to you, you don't yet know the regulations.

6m is a long way for the beam to span, so a significant deflection is likely and 3mm is going to be tricky. It is very much easier for the door supplier to 'require' it than the SE to design for it, so please be collaborative. 'Impossible to reduce' is not correct. Either there is a misunderstanding, or there is something we don't know, such as a limited space being available for this beam, hence the column section that has been selected. Pre-cambering will not reduce deflection, but control it to some extent. When closing the doors, the runners will be going uphill, requiring effort, and the beam will begin to deflect down to the required level. I think a lot can go wrong with this. A plate welded on the side will stiffen the beam enormously, and even better if done both sides. That then requires a more complex calculation, and I suspect that the programme used will not be able to do it. Presumably this SE or someone else in the office will be able to calculate from first principles. This will take some time and skill so expect a fee for the reworking. The beam is designed as simply supported. (On the calculations see 'rotationally free') If it can be built hard into the walls at either side, or become integral with the posts then this will stiffen it a lot. Costs will apply in steel, opening size and foundations, but this is what happens with very large door openings. Possible solution then, subject to site particulars, using one or more of these: use deeper beam if space allows. or add plates to thicken the flanges add side plates design as an integrated 'goalpost' portal frame.

Partly agreed. Special straps are galvanised after manufacture so ends and holes are protected. Purlins have their ends and holes sheared, which draws the outer galvanising over the steel core. Any cut you make is liable to rusting if the atmosphere is damp. This will usually be local, but for a proper job spray or paint the cut. For proof, look at steel cladding and compare factory cut ends with a site saw cut. (A proper site cut is done with shears). Over a few years the badly cut sheets will have rust spreading from the ends.

DanF. I don't think suppliers do presettlement tanks as such: it is just a watertight manhole or tank, and I designed our own. I thought it was a waste that harvesters diverted 10% of the rain to shed leaves. In ours, nil rubbish or silt reached the cisterns. Sedum or other green roof retains water so reduces harvester quantity. Therefore i disagree with the logic of sedum being priority over harvesting. Agreed avoid sedum filtered or patio water to harvester: much too interesting contents. How sustainable is a green roof is another topic altogether.

Clients often want the contractor to take all the negative risks, then renegotiate when things turn out ok.

I don't agree at all. 1. Inflation. When tendering you have to guess what will happen in between 6 months and 2+ years, or agree a formula. Who's risk? 2. We, the industry have no control of covid or brexit, while those that do talk positively but fail to prepare. 3. An expert in competition with a non expert can be half the price or twice the price, due to this expertise. How the client can tell is only by reference or trust. Choosing mid price, because it is mid price, is often weak and wrong.

Was pleased on one project to show that there was no prospect of finding anything, plus the design avoided any damage even if there was....and archaeologist agreed. A lot of work though.

Thanks. Currently thinking to retain lintels, even where cracked, by forming steel subframes which will suuport and also square up for windows. Re height, planning to have lobbies at current levels with minimal insulation and screed, then step up to new floors. V keen to find a solution to avoid a new roof. I agree with ProDave that it can be kept, but the family not convinced. I am the Engineer, but they have to live there, and builders need to be persuaded.

No, we haven't finished adjusting the room layout yet, as this affects forming openings in the stone wall, levels under existing lintels, strength of the structure, and immediately, whether we need an extra plantroom: we are nowhere near that far. It will be at least a year til we are looking at UFH supply. I had a quick think about the routes of loops, and if we were not to add another manifold at the opposite end, we would have some rooms with pipes for every other room running through, and none for themselves. I think we can run the feeder through the void in the upper rooms, where boxed off to form a sensible wall. Then we will find a way down to the ground again, with a box out. that adds 5m and 4 bends though.. Would you cheekily ask one of the internet suppliers to do a free design, or are you thinking of a consultant or contractor?

No doubts at all about that. I was just worried that some of the tubes of stuff, and pipe sealing rings, readily available seems to be described as fireproof. Have known builders think that can be used round flues when it is only intended as a fire emergency barrier.....2 hours life maximum.

Before committing to grommets, expanding foam etc, please check that it is suitable for a permanent closure for a very hot flue pipe. This will not be the same as a fire blocking material that only has to last for one or two hours. For example the intumescent filler tapes in doors, when a flame is on it it expands and looks like a cigarette end. It fills the small space and stops flames going through but has no strength then falls apart like ash. Similarly the red sealing grommets, as put around vents on industrial roofs, are for very hot fumes, but best check how hot.... a wood burner gets hotter than a gas or oil burner, and also can have chimney fires.

Not so, fortunately. The Scottish requirements are to insulate towards reduced insulation targets 'as far as reasonably practicable'. That includes cost, but in our case would also cause headroom problems. AS ProDave says, breaking out the floor could compromise the building. A local builder* has also confirmed this as being a known problem, so I expect building control to be aware. Otherwise I will be asking urgently on here for details and locations. * he also mentioned (as I had surmised already) that sometimes foundation stones project into the building space, so can be disturbed during the breaking out. Another builder said that ''obviously' you can't keep the old slab', which only tells me how little the designers he has worked under know about structure and cost. I must find this! any more clues about location so I can search for it? Re the cost, among my hats is that of Estimator, so I did a costing before we committed. It is a lot of money. So far there have been savings but there are issues appearing all the time. Commercially I would have added 10% for unforeseens, (and that would not be enough if not watched very closely) but the family vetoed it. I am used to designing my way out of problems, where many others throw money at it. Hence, if we can spend 10k on resolving the big issue here, instead of £50k or more) we are close to target still, and 3 months faster. May need proof though for the family first , then for builders who will do as told. Building control seldom have the final say with me , unless it is approval. Have had many a stand-off ( really only 10 times in 300 projects probably, but I remember them well) and usually find that they don't know the rules anything like as well as they like to think. The good ones agree professionally, the weak ones reluctantly. Sometimes I agree with them, or am happy to modify to tick a box. In this project a lot is new to me, and so sensible discussion with BCO will be welcomed.

I think so, but would have to persuade a builder the same. Unfortunately I cannot be on site to supervise, and my family there are torn between my views and the various builders met so far. We have even bought some hydraulic acros for the purpose, so we can nudge it back up to height. I have seen a roof exactly as you described in a local hptel, recently rebuilt.

Excellent information, thanks. I will read this another twice at least, and save to file! Immediate thoughts. PIR is horrible stuff. The manufacturers claim that they will have a way to recycle it fully, at some time in the future...if you get it to them. I agree that it bends, but I have some in my current timber house walls (retrofit, using second hand panels, and they are staying in place nicely enough. the main issue is gaps, (which obviously are a heat loss issue) as you say, and that wasps and mice excavate into it and live in it very cosily. However, for avoidance of loss of headroom, I think 100mm of it is the efficient way. Re the steading, various builders have said variously 1. the concrete floor obviously has to come out, 2. it is sensible to retain the concrete, 3. never break out the concrete floor. you and I appear to agree with 2 and 3. Vents in the stone, I have never heard of ad hope it isn't standard. I can't see the point. In full contrast to the theory of needing ventilation , I only yesterday read a blog where someone mentioned that they had cool spots in the house from old cross-walls, as there was so much air movement through the wall from outside. Perhaps at the base where theoretical condensation might gather? Perhaps more thoughts later.

A big dilemma. Repair or rebuild? The steading has four sides, with a central courtyard that used to be a cattle area. Three of the wings are unusually solid and require only local repair. The fourth, rear wing is another matter and it is for that I seek your learned thoughts. There used to be a roof over the central area. This was presumably a later addition as was the custom in the area, when cattle became a bigger earner. This canopy was in an awful state, so we have removed it. Already the building is in better order re damp and the leaning of broken timbers. The canopy has been pouring water from its valleys onto the poor rear wing for decades, washing out mortar and causing some failure of the walls. If there was no roof, it would be obvious that the walls be completely removed and rebuilt. However there is a watertight roof, with 95% of the timber in good condition, as are the sarking boards and as is the slate. However to one length of about 10m at the courtyard, the wet has rotted the bottoms of the rafters, the roof has dropped (and rotated?) and rain runs on the walls. If the walls were solid, I think we would jack up the roof trusses, splice on new ends where the bottom has rotted, and lay it down again. Then, concurrently or later, we would remove the dodgy areas of wall and form new openings, retaining the footings and lower layers, and rebuild. BUT with some damaged timber and some broken/leaning walls the local builders all want to take the whole roof and walls down, and rebuild with new materials (They have not the slightest intention of re-using the timber. I think this is because it needs de-nailing and more thought.) The new timber will be about £5,000. I can’t see them being careful with the sarking either so add another £1,000. Strip slates and sarking, cut off roof and dismantle stone walls, rebuild both with new materials wood/ concrete block (to later be timber clad) In my estimation we are comparing a £5 to £10,000 rebuild, with £50,000 new. Against which is the risk that my idea might not work…quite, or be a shorter term solution. Perhaps I am being overoptimistic, or perhaps the builders don’t acknowledge anything out of the ordinary. From inspection of all junctions/ movement etc and some old photos, I don’t think things have got much worse or moved for many years. I am a Chartered Engineer by the way, and would not do this lightly. But this is a new sort of building to me and there may be problems I haven't thought of. If removed, will the Building Inspector require modern calculations, or will he accept my view that it has done rather well for 140 years and can perform again, by inspection? The roof as it is would be impossible to prove to current standards, which would require a lower tie I think, to prevent outward thrust. However, for either way forward, I plan to make every new cross wall as a bulkhead, using plywood fixed to the rafters for strength, and some diagonals to link to the other trusses. Perhaps the ungraded 6 x 2" rafters can be increased to graded, deeper sections. My other aim is to not remove the whole wall as we then might have to build as new, with deep foundations, and I don't like new, deep concrete foundations next to old, shallower lime ones. Photos of the internal area attached . Floor is concrete. Walls are 2.2m high, 600 thick. Roof is A frame with ties at 3.1m and ridge 5m.

Fake chimneys. I am with you in getting rid. It is difficult to budge the planners on this but it can be done. I argued against them on a large development by a Typical Well known company. The chimneys were fibreglass, positioned a random spots on ridges that did not correspond to the fake fireplaces inside. The planners, I think, were a bit surprised at first, not realising that these were fake, and plastic. The initial response was that they reflected the rural style and they like them. (Partial success, as the developer was quite happy to make the saving, and just kept a few) The argument that can persuade is sustainability. Anything fake cannot be vernacular, the word they like. Vernacular makes use of local material to suit local need. No fire, no fireplace. The fake chimney cost £2,000 or more, which of course uses materials which are utterly wasted, and include GRP, with plastic in the title. The fake chimney normally imposes a load (vertical and wind) on the roof and has to be flashed in, creating a need for additional support, and areas of vulnerability. I know from people that have them that there are leaks. So if I wanted rid of it I would make it sustainability. As a champion, which I assume you are, you could not justify the waste of resources for a plastic thing stuck on the roof. Would they like a plastic bird on top while you are at it? You could add that in 30 years the bricks will look like 30 year old weathered bricks and the grp will be either faded to white plastic or bright and shiny...who knows? One little thing. you can probably avoid saying Spanish slates. For example one name, for no logical reason, is Hastings, even though from Spain, so say 'Hastings or similar' or some other good name.