Any SEs in the forum? Looking for a second opinion

[ash_scotland88]

As the title really.

 

Have zero faith in the SE they originally designed a solution that didn't account for coombed ceiling and in a separate room have said that we need a joist that will eat into the head space and is deeper than the coombed ceiling. Meaning a bulkhead solution.

Architects only solution is a) build storage along that wall to hide it, pointless as we have a planned dressing room or make the wall wider, which would mean a wall 233wide + PB to enclose the steel....

That's also forgetting the fact we wanted the wall there to provider a larger space for bed positioning...anyway rant over now.

 

Anyone offering second opinion would be much appreciated.

[Declan52]

@Gus Potter would be the guy your looking.

[ash_scotland88]

21 hours ago, Declan52 said:

@Gus Potter would be the guy your looking.

Thanks. I'll give him a couple of days to come forward before reaching out.

Had a rubbish weekend with the house rearing unplanned maintenance and reviewing drawings and architects answer sent me over a peed off edge.

Edited December 11, 2023 by ash_scotland88

[George]

Me or Gus. Gus is Scottish I believe , so judging by your username he's probably best placed... although the laws of physics remain constant.

 

Although there's always another structural solution, engineers will tend to go for the most economic solution either in simplicity/buildability, materials or time. If you or the architect hadn't given them a clear constraint then they may well not have appreciated the importance of the beam positioning. (Also any opinion we give is only in general terms, if an engineer comments specifically on a project then really they should be engaged and make contact with the original engineer.)

[ProDave]

Perhaps you can tell us what you are building?

 

Being in Scotland and talking of coombed ceilings I am guessing a 1 1/2 storey house with rooms in the roof.

 

What are you building the roof from?

 

Ours was done with a cut roof supported on Ridge beams.  It allowed the entire roof space to be unencumbered by intrusions other than the rafters themself.  A much less cluttered design than say attic trusses.

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> Have zero faith in the SE

 

It may be that the architect overlooked the engineering requirements or didn't think them though. Go back to the SE and ask if there's any other solution. Again, the SE may not have twigged your requirements accurately re look or function and/or assumed that you want the lowest cost solution. There may be other solutions (there often are) which will accomplish both the look, the functional requirements that you have, and the the engineering. A good SE will usually be happy to try and meet all three if they can. Of course, there are sometimes cost and engineering requirements which can't be overcome or only at extreme cost. There was a Grand Design last night where the roof was a bunch of different angles and facets. Fine, it wasn't so crazy that it couldn't be made by actual contractors (although a bit of a bodge in places - the SIPs people were using a sledgehammer and a sabre saw to 'adjust' their work) but it was substantially more expensive.

 

p.s. alternatively define what you want exactly in terms of function and look and feel and point the SE & architect at each other and ask them to come up with a solution. Sometimes they will be able to sort everything a a 5 minute call (or have a 3-way call). That avoids you being the Chinese whispers guy.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Alan Ambrose

[Gus Potter]

On 11/12/2023 at 17:03, ash_scotland88 said:

Thanks. I'll give him a couple of days to come forward before reaching out.

Hello there ash.

 

Happy to have a quick chat with you on the phone if only to reassure.

 

You can pm me or give me a Pm for my number, you'll find me on the internet also. I'm based near Glasgow.

On 12/12/2023 at 08:00, George said:

although the laws of physics remain constant

I hope so!

 

On 12/12/2023 at 08:00, George said:

if an engineer comments specifically on a project then really they should be engaged and make contact with the original engineer.

Agree. It's ok to have a quick chat to understand the background but not ok to judge others / criticise their design without letting them know you have been asked to formally review under instruction from the Client. It's not professional and also basically unfair.

 

It's not a big thing.. my designs get reviewed / checked all the time usually by an in house Council Engineer (or they contract out for checking SE services) on domestic projects, on say bigger industrial stuff ( I often work for the Contractor) by the Clients own Consulting SE.

 

It could well be that the Architect, maybe you, did not fullly communicate to the SE what structural envelope was available to them to fit "their stuff into" and they did their best to fix it at a reasonable build cost vs intrusion into the Architectural space? It may be that the Architect did their best to achieve compliance with the building regs and maybe just did not know about these "structural bits" as they are not SE's?

[SteamyTea]

14 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

You can pm me or give me a call

Can send you message now.

You make want to hide that as it attracts the spammers to the site.

[Declan52]

14 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

Hello there ash.

 

Happy to have a quick chat with you on the phone if only to reassure.

 

You can pm me or give me a Pm for my number, you'll find me on the internet also. I'm based near Glasgow.

I hope so!

 

Agree. It's ok to have a quick chat to understand the background but not ok to judge others / criticise their design without letting them know you have been asked to formally review under instruction from the Client. It's not professional and also basically unfair.

 

It's not a big thing.. my designs get reviewed / checked all the time usually by an in house Council Engineer (or they contract out for checking SE services) on domestic projects, on say bigger industrial stuff ( I often work for the Contractor) by the Clients own Consulting SE.

 

It could well be that the Architect, maybe you, did not fullly communicate to the SE what structural envelope was available to them to fit "their stuff into" and they did their best to fix it at a reasonable build cost vs intrusion into the Architectural space? It may be that the Architect did their best to achieve compliance with the building regs and maybe just did not know about these "structural bits" as they are not SE's?

I removed your phone number @Gus Potteras the big bad world is full of strange people who can cause trouble. If @ash_scotland88wants your number he can PM you.

[saveasteading]

16 minutes ago, Declan52 said:

removed your phone number @Gus Potter

Quite right. PM would be the better contact.

In his case though, it isn't an alias, so his website and number are readily available in a search.

Unless of course, it is all a cover story and that isn't his real name.

 

I don't think it would take MI5 long to work out who anybody on here is.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

I don't think it would take MI5 long to work out who anybody on here is.

I was more thinking about spammers joining and wasting time.

Though we are pretty good at catching them out.

[Gus Potter]

On 14/12/2023 at 09:54, Declan52 said:

I removed your phone number @Gus Potteras the big bad world is full of strange people who can cause trouble. If @ash_scotland88wants your number he can PM you.

Thanks Declan, will not repeat error, appreciate the spamming.

[Kelvin]

On 14/12/2023 at 10:15, saveasteading said:

Quite right. PM would be the better contact.

In his case though, it isn't an alias, so his website and number are readily available in a search.

Unless of course, it is all a cover story and that isn't his real name.

 

I don't think it would take MI5 long to work out who anybody on here is.

 
I can vouch for Gus as I’ve met him 😂