Should I ask my builders anything about this steel work install?

[notreadyforthis]

Not really knowing much about building works in general, thought it would be worth posting some pics for you all to see in case anything stood out either in a good or a bad way. Attached should be images of the steel work that has been installed in my living space on the first floor. It's great that we've gotten to this stage as we can see how big the opening will be for the sliding doors. On seeing the gap above the steel (now filled in with brick and cement), I did wonder whether the designers could have pushed the steel up further to accommodate a taller opening but too late for that now!

[Gus Potter]

I would urge you to get this reviewed by an SE say before you go any further. I can't see quite enough from the photos but..

 

That connection in picture two where one beam is framing into the web of the beam that seems to extend outside is highly questionable. It looks like someone has made a mistake and been cutting, altering the connections on site. The bolts look like M12 diameter, possibly undersized.. not just to carry the vertical loads but also to prevent other things from twisting. The beam has an unexpectedly large notch.

 

You have some top plates on the steels but the spacing of the welds looks quite large.

 

Also, you seem to have a couple of beams in the depth of the floor above. This coupled with the steel section sizes suggests you are holding up a fair bit of load and that the load is not always centred over the beams.

 

In picture three the beam seems to extend outside so can't see how it is all supported. I know it's not finished yet but it looks like the works are quite extensive. I would at some point expect to see much more tying together of the steels, timbers and masonry so that the overall assembly is stable and safe globally.

 

The padstone supporting the steels seem to be cast in place. This is often acceptable and can be advantageous at times, have done this on my own house for example as it can really help tie the brickwork below together. However I would also want to have a look at these in closer detail.

 

Sorry about the above but I would get this checked out professionally by an SE for example.

 

 

 

 

[Nickfromwales]

Surely an SE spec'd all this? Has obviously had 'input' to get to this stage.

[notreadyforthis]

10 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

I would urge you to get this reviewed by an SE say before you go any further. I can't see quite enough from the photos but..

 

That connection in picture two where one beam is framing into the web of the beam that seems to extend outside is highly questionable. It looks like someone has made a mistake and been cutting, altering the connections on site. The bolts look like M12 diameter, possibly undersized.. not just to carry the vertical loads but also to prevent other things from twisting. The beam has an unexpectedly large notch.

 

You have some top plates on the steels but the spacing of the welds looks quite large.

 

Also, you seem to have a couple of beams in the depth of the floor above. This coupled with the steel section sizes suggests you are holding up a fair bit of load and that the load is not always centred over the beams.

 

In picture three the beam seems to extend outside so can't see how it is all supported. I know it's not finished yet but it looks like the works are quite extensive. I would at some point expect to see much more tying together of the steels, timbers and masonry so that the overall assembly is stable and safe globally.

 

The padstone supporting the steels seem to be cast in place. This is often acceptable and can be advantageous at times, have done this on my own house for example as it can really help tie the brickwork below together. However I would also want to have a look at these in closer detail.

 

Sorry about the above but I would get this checked out professionally by an SE for example.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to comment. It gives me things to ask the builder about. I'm sure he'll have a good response but I can usually get a good read on whether he's trying to wing it. The beam where there appears to have been a cut is interesting as it didn't get delivered like that. i also note that the bolt holes aren't centred as they are in the drawings.

 

These steels should have been ordered according to the structural engineering specification. I've got the docs which have all the calculations - none of it makes any sense to me though. The building regs guy has also been around to check it out - would he have raised any of the same concerns as you have or do they not check those sorts of things?

[notreadyforthis]

Here's some additional shots. In picture 2 where the steel is resting on some sort of plates - is that good practice?

 

Picture 3 at the end shows the other side of the largest steel beam showing the bolt holes.

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by notreadyforthis

[Gus Potter]

Hiya @notreadyforthis

 

I don't want to cause you undue concern but I would again urge you to get your SE round for a look in the interests of safety and to set your mind at rest. Diplomacy is probably at the top of the list as you seem to be getting on ok with your builder?

 

Interestingy the steel packer plates are probably not a major issue in themselves, but they provide a slip plane that your SE may not have designed for. What it suggests to me though is a possible lack of skill / dilligence in setting out / your builder not reading the drawings. It looks like you are taking a chunk out the corner of the building. When you do this it introduces a lot of overall building stability issues and it is really important to follow the SE's drawings to the letter. If the builder wants to make even what appears a minor alteration it can have a major impact on jobs like this. The builder should always ask the structural designer first if it is ok to deviate from the drawings.

 

"Thanks for taking the time to comment. It gives me things to ask the builder about. I'm sure he'll have a good response but I can usually get a good read on whether he's trying to wing it. The beam where there appears to have been a cut is interesting as it didn't get delivered like that. i also note that the bolt holes aren't centred as they are in the drawings.

 

These steels should have been ordered according to the structural engineering specification. I've got the docs which have all the calculations - none of it makes any sense to me though. The building regs guy has also been around to check it out - would he have raised any of the same concerns as you have or do they not check those sorts of things?"

 

Don't rely on BC to be a Clerk of works.. it's not their job. Also the points I make re the connections and stability are of a more specialist nature that are more in the "wee world" of  SE / steel fabricator / steel contractor types rather than BC. Cut BC a bit of slack as they can't know it all, just as SE's say don't know it all.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[tonyshouse]

Steel plates are fine, padstones exellent, the concrete ‘lump’ between the two steels in the first two pics is horrid. And the notch is in my view unacceptable. I used to make a slot in the web of the steel with the plate on it such that it perfectly fitted over the web. 
 

engineer now needs to sign off the notch 

[Mr Punter]

The end bearings onto the padstones look very generous but the bolted connection does not look very meaty.  Get this looked at by the SE now.

[Nickfromwales]

Get a mobile welder in to fix the bolted leg to the steel it’s bolted too. Nuclear bomb proof……. At least we’re relevant here  

[Radian]

17 minutes ago, tonyshouse said:

engineer now needs to sign off the notch 

 

I wonder why the webbing was cut away so much more than necessary to mate the two beams together?

I just Increased the exposure of this photo to get a better look...

 

 

Taken to extremes (for the purposes of visualising the issue) if the notch had gone all the way down the web then the only element that would resist bending is the flat plate forming the bottom of the "ɪ"

[PeterW]

I don’t like the external right side bearing for the main steel as that is the primary point of load and it is on standard bricks only. There is no visible padstone and it is taking the load from the full beam plus the cross beam (that needs a pair of welded legs adding over that cut out ..!!)

[saveasteading]

14 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

where one beam is framing into the web of the beam

Agreed, that looks very wrong. to cut out so much of the beam rather than just the top flange where they clash, and to have such a small cleat connection at the bottom,

Also the connection being at the bottom puts more twist into the big beam than is necessary.

 

The steels do not look 'under-designed' so it might  be ok but needs checking immediately, before they build it out of sight.

[notreadyforthis]

I attach additional pictures taken from today as well as the architectural/structural engineering drawings of the steel beams. I can't make heads or tails of it but hopefully someone on here can point out how the implementation has differed from the drawings.

 

I queried the cut out with the builder and whether this was part of the original design and he said it was. He said they hadn't made any adjustments to the steels since delivery as they don't even have the equipment to make a cut like that. I'm struggling to find a clear enough photo of that part of the beam when it arrived to confirm this though.

 

Don't know if this makes any difference but the beam with the cutout is joined to a much chunkier beam that sits right across the back of our house and on to the extension. The extension is above the garage and won't have a floor above it, so no weight apart from a pitched roof. But the beam with the cutout is supporting the load of the side of the house where there is a floor of living space and roof+loft space.

 

Attached are also images from the plans. The one showing the layout with the purple lines are for the steel beams. The one with the proposed elevation shows the extension above a garage. We removed from scope the conversion of the garage into living space. Foundations were dug and confirmed by both builders and building regs that they were sufficient for our plans.

Edited March 16, 2022 by notreadyforthis
Added extra image

[PeterW]

So Detail A is definitely not as built ..! It shows a top and bottom flange cut and a pair of L brackets that have 4 No. bolts through the web. That has been done using a welded plate on the end of a hacked out (gas axe most likely) notch that does not meet spec. 
 

Who ordered and supplied the steels ..? They don’t meet your specification. 
 

Do you have another page with Detail 3 on it as I don’t think that is to spec either. 

[PeterW]

Oh and this is about as dangerous as it gets … That is the worst way to load an acro prop, and it could have brought the side of your house down ..!! If HSE saw that they would come down on him like a proverbial ton of bricks ..!

 

[notreadyforthis]

21 minutes ago, PeterW said:

So Detail A is definitely not as built ..! It shows a top and bottom flange cut and a pair of L brackets that have 4 No. bolts through the web. That has been done using a welded plate on the end of a hacked out (gas axe most likely) notch that does not meet spec. 
 

Who ordered and supplied the steels ..? They don’t meet your specification. 
 

Do you have another page with Detail 3 on it as I don’t think that is to spec either. 

 

What's the likely consequence of this? It's one thing if the steel fabricator hasn't taken pride in their work, it's another thing if they've been supplied something that's not fit for purpose in quite an important part of the house. My builder ordered the steels.

[PeterW]

That is not to spec so the joint is not correct and not structurally sound. It means there is excessive stress in the joint and it could catastrophically fail without warning. The notching could have created a stress point in the steel that will also weaken it. 
 

That could be repaired on site with a pair of angle brackets either side but would need the engineer to sign off on it and provide new calculations. The current install also puts load on the bottom flange of the larger beam which is not as designed so this needs recalculating. 
 

@Gus Potter anything to add..?
 

Where are the splice joints too as I can’t see them in the photos .??

 

 

 

[notreadyforthis]

18 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Oh and this is about as dangerous as it gets … That is the worst way to load an acro prop, and it could have brought the side of your house down ..!! If HSE saw that they would come down on him like a proverbial ton of bricks ..!

 

 

I'm not entirely sure if that acro is doing anything at the moment and they just haven't got around to clearing it. A few days after the steel beams went in, they started taking them out and they were leaning like in the picture but they definitely weren't before. I assume they haven't got around to tidying it away?

[notreadyforthis]

2 minutes ago, PeterW said:

That is not to spec so the joint is not correct and not structurally sound. It means there is excessive stress in the joint and it could catastrophically fail without warning. The notching could have created a stress point in the steel that will also weaken it. 
 

That could be repaired on site with a pair of angle brackets either side but would need the engineer to sign off on it and provide new calculations. The current install also puts load on the bottom flange of the larger beam which is not as designed so this needs recalculating. 
 

@Gus Potter anything to add..?
 

Where are the splice joints too as I can’t see them in the photos .??

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but a lot of the language for steel beams is new to me. I don't have even the slightest idea of what you mean when you say splice joints.

[PeterW]

5 minutes ago, notreadyforthis said:

 

I'm not entirely sure if that acro is doing anything at the moment and they just haven't got around to clearing it. A few days after the steel beams went in, they started taking them out and they were leaning like in the picture but they definitely weren't before. I assume they haven't got around to tidying it away?

it is holding up the end of a steel pin (the bit through the wall) that weighs probably 90-100kg. If it slips, it will fall and kill or seriously injure the person it hits. It’s dangerous - to the point I wouldn’t go on site if they were left like that even wearing a hard hat !

[PeterW]

6 minutes ago, notreadyforthis said:

 

 

Sorry, but a lot of the language for steel beams is new to me. I don't have even the slightest idea of what you mean when you say splice joints.

Somewhere in the large front beam there should be a join (unless they have used one very heavy single beam) and it should have a join in it that has a number of bolts in it like in this picture. 
 

 

The top and bottom flat sections should have 20mm thick by 900mm long with 20 Bolts in each plate. Either side of the flange (the upright of the beam) should be a plate with 8 bolts through it. 
 

The splice also should be no nearer than 1m to a wall. 

[notreadyforthis]

I attach more images taken at various points. The last one shows the beam before it was installed. It looks from that last picture the beam was fabricated this way - our builder hasn't tried to cut it for whatever reason. So if it is flawed then it's been done at an earlier stage.

[notreadyforthis]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Somewhere in the large front beam there should be a join (unless they have used one very heavy single beam) and it should have a join in it that has a number of bolts in it like in this picture. 
 

 

The top and bottom flat sections should have 20mm thick by 900mm long with 20 Bolts in each plate. Either side of the flange (the upright of the beam) should be a plate with 8 bolts through it. 
 

The splice also should be no nearer than 1m to a wall. 

 

We had three beams delivered and each are installed in their separate locations as per the earlier image with the purple lines. The only joins as far as I can tell is the one we're currently discussing. The attached image might clear this up?

[PeterW]

Ok so that was a single beam ! That is seriously heavy to move but they have done it. 
 

The end of the beam you have taken a photo of is wrong though and needs correcting. The engineer needs to see that too. 
 

Also, the beam inside that crosses over the room (Beam A on your plan) doesn’t appear to have the plate on the end as described - there should be a 600mm long steel plate to form a “T” at each end but I can’t see it on the photos, just a concrete block. That will create a point load on the steel and on the masonry. 

[notreadyforthis]

54 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Oh and this is about as dangerous as it gets … That is the worst way to load an acro prop, and it could have brought the side of your house down ..!! If HSE saw that they would come down on him like a proverbial ton of bricks ..!

 

 Each pin has a second acro on it if it makes any difference or would you still say that's unsafe? I ask not to challenge but to understand so I can go into a conversation with the builder better informed.