Browse Forums Building Standards; Getting It Right! 1 Mar 10, 2015 10:19 am Hi Guys, I'm after a bit of advice here as this isn't my field of expertise. We're having a house built and one of the upstairs windows does not have a top plate above the lintel. AS 1684.2 - 6.3.6 states that "Top plates shall be provided above lintels." Does that mean that a top plate above the lintel is an absolute requirements, or can the builder bypass this requirement if adequate bearing for the lintel is taken in to consideration - as per the span table? When identified and highlighted to the builder, their solution was to fit a metal strap each side of the lintel as can be seen below; Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ Is this an acceptable solution from the builder or are they not meeting basic building standards here? Thanks. Re: Lintel top plate missing. 2Mar 10, 2015 11:24 am One thing a continuous top plate does is restrain the wall from racking (moving in the longitudinal direction). The vertical strapping shown in the photo is to prevent uplift. What is probably required is strapping in the horizontal direction to tie the lintel to the adjacent braced wall. Re: Lintel top plate missing. 3Mar 10, 2015 11:45 am Beetaloo One thing a continuous top plate does is restrain the wall from racking (moving in the longitudinal direction). The vertical strapping shown in the photo is to prevent uplift. What is probably required is strapping in the horizontal direction to tie the lintel to the adjacent braced wall. Thanks, that makes sense. As you haven't mentioned it, does that mean not having a top plate above the lintel is acceptable in the eyes of AS/building codes etc? Re: Lintel top plate missing. 6Mar 11, 2015 11:45 am B STAR it looks like there is no room to have a top plate and a lintel. The other option is to place another top plate all the way around. Yes, the lintel could have been 30mm smaller to allow for the top plate, I understand that. What I'm asking is when AS 1684.2 - 6.3.6 states that "Top plates shall be provided above lintels.", are lintels a 100% requirement and by not installing them is the builder not following a building standard that should have been adhered too? Or is this like the whole waterproofing and alternate solution issue that means the builder can basically do what they like regardless of any standards or codes? Re: Lintel top plate missing. 7Mar 11, 2015 12:11 pm dojrude B STAR it looks like there is no room to have a top plate and a lintel. The other option is to place another top plate all the way around. Yes, the lintel could have been 30mm smaller to allow for the top plate, I understand that. What I'm asking is when AS 1684.2 - 6.3.6 states that "Top plates shall be provided above lintels.", are lintels a 100% requirement and by not installing them is the builder not following a building standard that should have been adhered too? Or is this like the whole waterproofing and alternate solution issue that means the builder can basically do what they like regardless of any standards or codes? Seems the standard is clear. if there IS an alternate solution, the builder should provide proof of it. Her eit seems that there might not be. Your question now should be is whether the code is clear references the standard. If so, and an alternate solution cant be provided, your answer should be clear. I understand the NCC/BCA is now freely available online. Creator of superduperonium, expert at expert things, nobel laureate, can hold my breath for 10 minutes. Re: Lintel top plate missing. 8Mar 11, 2015 12:21 pm It seems that the lintel is too deep to allow for top plate(probably because width of the opening. Builder should have provided steel lintel with a plate over. Standards are there to be followed or we can rename this country Arbitraria Foremost Building Expert in Australia,assisting with building problems/disputes, building stage inspections,pre-contract review advice for peace of mind 200 blogs http://www.buildingexpert.net.au/blog Re: Lintel top plate missing. 10Mar 11, 2015 8:30 pm This is very common practice due to large windows these days. The "adequate bearing" refers to something different and one doesn't trade against the other Personally I don't see a problem with it provided it's connected into the frames either side properly. You also won't find that lintel listed in the 1684 supplement. What you have pictured as a lintel is an "LVL". These are an engineered product and conform to their own testing, spans, and use. I could start referencing manuals but being an engineered beam it has it's own design limits and state It would also be stronger without a top plate as the crushing load would cope better on an LVL than a MGP12 top plate The strap over the top doesn't solve much. It looks to be a tile roof? N1 or N2? If so that strap for uplift isn't required Re: Lintel top plate missing. 11Mar 11, 2015 8:37 pm dojrude Or is this like the whole waterproofing and alternate solution issue that means the builder can basically do what they like regardless of any standards or codes? Manufacturer specifications over ride the standards or code. Waterproofing is a bit different in that there are many brands or products that can be used. It doesn't list any specific brand of bond breaker or membrane for eg so the manufac specs must be followed. The waterproofer must supply a certificate stating it complies and also which product was used To my understanding early saw cuts are to control shrinkage cracks, so doing them now would be pointless. Control joints may reduce ugly cracking during periods of soil… 3 9862 Hey guys building a new place through a volume builder and just wondering if i should complain to the site supervisor as we just had plasterboard installed. Looks like… 0 11273 Yes, the builder is required to finish the wall. What else have you missed? 1 3361 |