KAZAAD
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
KAZAAD's Achievements
New Member (2/5)
0
Reputation
-
BCO have visited and recommended a packer hoisting procedure. He inspected the steel beams, which were okay, but he noted that the spreader plates for the rear steel beams at the loft level were installed on thermal blocks with weak bearing capacity. He suggested replacing one course/layer of thermal blocks with 10 N concrete blocks below the spreader plates. The structural engineer has noted this recommended but the builder did not follow. With the builder's dispute, is it safe to use at least two acrow props with strongboy attachments placed just below the steel beam to insert the 10N concrete blocks without needing a builder? If this is not the best topic to ask this question, I would move this question elsewhere.
-
Do you have examples that shows this procedure?
-
I cannot trust builders nowadays with their quotes. If I am going to add packers, would I need an engineer to check if its okay to place them on the existing josits?
-
Hello all, I need some advice from builders, surveyors, engineers, architects or even self-builders, I am proposing a self-build on raising the floor level after the builder failed to follow the structural engineer's details by wrongfully installing the steel beam and timber joist upside down. You can see the drawings and photos where this has caused issues with the builder, who has refused to do the work as he wants extra money, and the engineer, who has not answered my queries. Building control couldn't provide their answer, so I had to create proposed detailed drawings for raising the floor level. I am so keen to do a self-building project on this issue. Is it worth it? Are these drawings suitable for raising the floor levels? I am open to ideas and suggestions. I have attached my documents just in case. Kind regards SE Detailed Drawing.pdf Sheet 1.pdf Sheet 2.pdf Sheet 3.pdf Sheet 4.pdf
-
Even worse, the client wanted no timber frame structure in the building unless it was a timber frame with brick slips cladding.
-
I attached the section drawing with elevations and this is what the proposals look like where there is a wall which should be a cavity wall not a mansard roof.
-
Hi all, I am involved in a change of use project (c3) to (c2) but started to receive feedback from building control regarding Part L. Under notes 6 for Table 4.2 Limiting U-values for existing elements in existing buildings - regarding the 5% internal floor area of the room, does this mean the internal insulation needs to be applied to a lesser standard eg. If I am proposing to add 100mm internal insulation and does not fit accordingly with the room size, can I use an internal insulation for less than 100mm? The internal spaces have been renovated, but building control has requested internal insulation. The property has a wall thickness of 400mm solid with no cavity. Does that mean we need to add external insulation to achieve Part L compliance from building control? Could we get away with an insulated plasterboard for the inside rooms? • Approved Document L, Conservation of fuel and power, Volume 2_ Buildings other than dwellings, 2021 edition incorporating 2023 amendments.pdf
-
Hi all, I am preparing construction drawings for building control approval for a client who obtained planning permission for a 1 bedroom property in London. He passed these drawings from another architect and one of the features includes a diagonal gradient wall on the side elevation and tried to figure out whether its solid wall or timber frame cladding. I don't think the engineer has provided any detailed drawings but I attached my interpretation of the section detailing between the wall, flooring and parapet wall. It would be great to seek advice on this matter. Detailed Sketch.pdf
