Does the windpost location look correct?

[flanagaj]

I just want a second opinion on the below as the implications are significant and I'm struggling to understand the proposed wind posts locations and also the excessive amount of ladder reinforcement at 225mm centres.  The internal block leaf is 7N medium density.

 

 

 

[Redbeard]

Hi @flanagaj, I am sorry you have had no replies, and I am aware that you have already consulted 2 SEs, but I think any reply would have  had to refer you back to whichever SE spec'd the windposts. They will, I think, have ad more information than we have. Sorry!

[-rick-]

You have two differing opinions, both by people who are professionally registered and insured (I assume that you have verified their credentials and insurance).

 

My first thought is that the second opinion is working on incomplete information/different assumptions. For example, the first SE specified OSB bracing and the second is specifying windposts. Is the second fully aware of the OSB bracing? Are they planning to require both the windposts and the OSB or is the OSB redundant in their scheme?

 

Fundamentally, you should be able to go to the second SE and say 'I have a design from a registered and properly insured professional (who are standing behind the design) that you are calling inadequate, please explain precisely why you think that? Also if you think the design is inadequate will you be raising this with professional bodies for investigation?' That might be seen as a bit confrontational and I'm sure you could soften that somewhat, but they need to be able to explain to you in detail why they are right and the previous SE is wrong.

 

Another way to potentially resolve this is to either engage a third SE to explain this to you or potentially query the discrepancy with the professional body ("I'm being given conflicting information from two registered professionals - how do I resolve this?").

 

Having said all this, my feeling in this case is that you have a design from the first SE who has heard the criticism from the second SE and still stands behind their design (ie, they have confirmed they have not made a mistake and are happy for you to proceed with their design as-is). As long as the BCO is happy to proceed with the design I would continue on that path.

 

Edit to add: I wouldn't tell the BCO about the conflicting advice. Just review the first plan with the BCO to confirm they are happy.

Edited 3 hours ago by -rick-

[-rick-]

I know what I've said above is a bit off topic from your question @flanagaj but I think it's relevant. If you've already satisfied yourself that the second SE is right and the first is wrong then why are you questioning the seconds proposal? If you have not satisfied yourself about who is correct then I feel you need to resolve that first.

 

22 minutes ago, -rick- said:

For example, the first SE specified OSB bracing and the second is specifying windposts. Is the second fully aware of the OSB bracing? Are they planning to require both the windposts and the OSB or is the OSB redundant in their scheme?

 

Clarifying this, it's likely you need bracing anyway. So the OSB is required in any case. But my point is that maybe the first SE specified heavier OSB than normal or other details about that to deal with the situation that has been missed by the second.

 

If you look at their calculations are they basing them on the same wind load or have they started from a different base? If so, why?

Edited 3 hours ago by -rick-

[Mr Punter]

Just go with the original SE design.  Send the drawings to Keystone or IG for a take-off and quote for the lintels.

[Oz07]

1 hour ago, Mr Punter said:

Just go with the original SE design.  Send the drawings to Keystone or IG for a take-off and quote for the lintels.

Thats what I do.