Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

steel beam - much bigger than we thought!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Linto
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭Linto


    Gryire wrote: »
    Ask him for his design calculations. The beam should be designed to EC 3 by an engineer. Your house may not be insured otherwise. Also, check the level of PI insurance held by your architect technician.

    Yes, we used an engineer


  • Options
    #33
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 14,546 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    OK, good, we have established you have professionals on the job, you need to sit down with them and establish what happened that you are breaching regulations when there was no need to, and find out what is going to be done to rectify it.


  • Options
    #34
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,300 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Linto wrote: »
    We have an architect technician on the job. Hes now on holidays.... :-(
    When did he go on holidays (in reference to the build work), and when would he be back?


  • Options
    #35
    Linto
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭Linto


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    OK, good, we have established you have professionals on the job, you need to sit down with them and establish what happened that you are breaching regulations when there was no need to, and find out what is going to be done to rectify it.

    What specific regulation did they breach?


  • Options
    #36
    stock>
    Registered Users Posts: 755 ✭✭✭stock>


    minheights_zps6fabeb12.jpg

    Part F of the TGD.
    I am not agreeing with anyone just showing an image of the min heights in the regulations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Gryire
    Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭Gryire


    Linto wrote: »
    Yes, we used an engineer

    You should ask him why he used a deep UB as distinct from a shallow UC. The usual reason is to minimize deflection. Could still have put a lot of the beam within the floor depth.


  • Options
    #38
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Gryire wrote: »
    Could still have put a lot of the beam within the floor depth.

    Not without significant "specification creep" as I described in my earlier post.

    The OP mentions "a vaulted ceiling" to the extension and perhaps in conjunction with that the beam makes sense i.e. it may be set to mask over to the two parts of the building so as you do not see two triangular sections of of the new roof when viewed from the existing house.

    Really the lead designers input is required on site when he returns from holiday
    ( which I hope no one begrudges to anyone)

    When the existing ceiling , the beam , the extensions walls and ceilings are plastered and painted and the windows and veluxes are in light will be reflected around very nicely here. You simply cannot judge damp un-plasterered surfaces like this.

    I do think that it will be necessary to jack the frame up to achieve a min finished clearance of 2100mm to the beam - but done with expert competence and supervision this does not have to be a huge deal.


Advertisement