And a bit of no more gaps to stop the roaches living in the gaps
Browse Forums Building A New House Re: ******* roof frame? 22Mar 15, 2008 10:19 am I don't want to go on about this too much since Arc has to live there.... but I am absolutely astounded, horrified and amazed.
In engineering terms the primary role of mortar between bricks is not so much to bind them together, but to ensure an even distribution of load. Those four bricks have no decent load distribution. And we all know that bricks are not made to very good tolerances so far as being perfectly squared. So, depending on the lucky dip of the manufacture of each one of those bricks, they may be already severely stressed in some places. And this is not to even touch upon the batch quality of the bricks' composition, and the fact that the edges are hanging in empty space ! This practice may be within "regulatory limits", but that's not to say that it is either desirable or safe. Re: ******* roof frame? 23Mar 15, 2008 11:16 am I'm still not happy with it but there doesn't appear to be anything I can do about it No doubt there are a lot of houses over here like this... The building inspector told me with a steel roof cover the concern is not really about supporting it as it's relatively light, but rather on keeping the whole thing tied down and stopping it from blowing away. If I was using tiles his advice would have been different. Re: ******* roof frame? 24Mar 15, 2008 2:51 pm Hi Arc. I hope you don't mind,, but I sent one of your pics to some acquaintances in the building trade for comment (though none in WA). One already replied with this:
"a rule of thumb for steel beams in domestic construction is that they need to rest on concrete padstones, with a minimum bearing of 150mm. A standard house-brick is 102.5mm wide, therefore the maximum bearing it can provide is only 102.5mm. The bricks in the pic look like temporary supports to me. I hope that's all they are! " Re: ******* roof frame? 25Mar 15, 2008 3:03 pm Cabinfever Hi Arc. I hope you don't mind,, but I sent one of your pics to some acquaintances in the building trade for comment (though none in WA). One already replied with this: "a rule of thumb for steel beams in domestic construction is that they need to rest on concrete padstones, with a minimum bearing of 150mm. A standard house-brick is 102.5mm wide, therefore the maximum bearing it can provide is only 102.5mm. The bricks in the pic look like temporary supports to me. I hope that's all they are! " Thanks Cabinfever, no I don't mind and welcome any input. How would they use a concrete padstone for a beam sitting on top of the brick walls though? Of course, the walls themselves are only the width of a house brick. And I certainly hoped it was temporary as well but it's not It really does seem the standards in WA are somewhat unique, and not necessarily in a good way... Re: ******* roof frame? 26Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm Good news (I hope), after appealing to my builder they've agreed to add additional support to the beam. Exactly what this means I'm not sure yet but I'll be pleased with almost anything at this point over what is there now.
My ceiling will be going in very shortly so whether I get to see what they do prior to then might be doubtful, perhaps it will be better if I don't know... Re: ******* roof frame? 29Mar 19, 2008 6:41 pm Cookiemonster oznow Good that the builder will at least offer some remedies. Keep us updated! Or the builder says he offers a remedy but doesn't remedy anything and finishing the job without you seeing if said remedy was in fact remedy'd. Try saying that fast I also sent a query to Archicentre (who provide free qualified architectural advice) a few days ago about this and they have given me a contact to discuss the issue with, so I'll be calling them tomorrow. Should be interesting. Re: ******* roof frame? 31Mar 20, 2008 1:09 am I posted one of the pics on another site. The consensus was that it would certainly not pass inspection anywhere in Scandinavia (they were absolutely horrified in fact), nor would it pass in most US states.
One Swedish builder pointed out that a single small treefall hitting the beam supports could cause a huge amount of damage - not to mention the obvious danger. Apparantly treefalls are common in Sweden ( ?! ) and their regulations on roofing are quite strict. One carpenter didn't like any of the framing. He said there were no joist hangers (whatever they are), dismissed the toenailed joins as poor work and was amazed the electricals were installed before the roof. On the other hand several people said that the weight of the beam would be enough to hold it in place and that whatever force was able to dislodge the bricks would probably be enough to take down the whole wall anyway. Arc, your pictures are strong evidence and just "look wrong". If you don't get any joy in your current efforts at a fix I do think you may be able to get some media interest. It's not an exciting "* builder runs down the road with a bag over his head" tale, but approched in the right way you may be able to get some interest. Re: ******* roof frame? 32Mar 20, 2008 10:21 am I dont think scandinavia's construction regulations apply here, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Regarding the electrical its fine as its only wire, not terminated and wont be live, its pre-wired just to make the sparky's life easier. (double brick walls with colorbond, its not like it can be done easily once the roofs installed) The roofing is a standard stick construction used in WA and is built to the standards. Arc has already had it inspected and it passed, but even still the builder has agreed to add additional supports to put his mind at ease. I think this one can be left alone. Re: ******* roof frame? 33Mar 20, 2008 2:44 pm The important factor is whether he's happy, not whether it's "built to the standards". History is full of "acceptable standards" which were found to be severely lacking, or the result of corrupt practices.
I find it interesting that most people in (and out of) the building trade that I've contacted about this are horrified. That means more to me than some ******* WA "standard". Re: ******* roof frame? 36Mar 21, 2008 12:35 am The builder has added some additional timber 'struts' at each end of the beam where the bricks are which I believe should prevent any lateral movement of the beam itself which was my main concern. Given the light weight pine used (for all the roof construction) it may not be much more than superficial but I'm reasonably happy and glad the builder saw fit to entertain me when strictly they probably didn't have to.
I'm still trying to catch up with a technical advisor from Archicentre (the building advisory service for the Royal Australian Institute of Architects), we've been playing phone tag the past few days... On a similar note, I've now had a few people tell me of a friend or relative they know whose metal roof has lifted in strong winds and caused various levels of damage. Not a ringing endorsement for WA building standards! This is 100% true. You can not hang anything on steel frames. very frustrating 8 8033 This certainly doesn't look good. I would be engaging with an independent inspector to have a look at this. As for the unscheduled site visits, most builders are quite… 1 28323 Hi, I have a steel frame house which was built 2 years ago. When you are down stairs you can hear clunking noises when someone is walking around. We were told if you… 0 4461 |