Roof framing standards - new house

A few things to make sure of:

The stud wall has adequate studs under the beam location.
The steel beam is tied down to the wall frame.

It does look messy but as long as there are no lateral loads on the beam, it will stay in position. I would be more worried about the uplift forces not being catered for than the bearing of the beam.

You have posted this exact same question on another forum and you got baised information by a bunch of wannabies who dont know there a*s from their face so now you are concerned

1: Your roof is fine, it will not fall down by itself, the bits of timber dont do anything but might make you feel better. Nice of the builder to humour you. I would have told you to stick it.

2: You have had it independantly inspected and it passed no probs

3: the beam is not the sole item holding your roof together, it quite possibly has no significant structural load against it anyway.

4: ideally it would be best sitting on 1 brick instead of 4, but this isnt the case and wont change

5: it appears you just posted here to have a whinge, as you said yourself you cant do anything about it anyway

Seeing the walls are solid brick the beam obviously has sufficent support from below.

Supply some photos of anything the beam is supporting and maybe my opinion will change, but for the moment my suggestion is to stop stressing about it and move on in life.

This is not opinion, this is fact, and you need to look at the facts not everyones personal thoughts (saying "I wouldnt be happy with it", does not mean that its a problem).

I would ask about tie down.

The beam in mention has nothing to do with roof tiedowns

I was a roofie in WA for 12 months at one stage of my life. and my comments where not aimed at you, more the general opinion that if it looks sus, it is sus.

A few, shall we say, interesting responses.

Yes, I posted on another forum a few weeks ago and got mixed views there, coming across this forum recently I thought I might get some more experienced and knowledgeable responses given the forum and topics I browsed through.

Anyway, I was hoping someone in the know here could provide something specific from the building codes to confirm or allay my concern. If not, so be it, I was asking, not demanding. Personally, I just don't want to be the poor sucker that has to have something bad happen to me or my family for the practices to be changed...

Originally Posted by Arc

The builder has told me this is fine (prior to the 'braces' being added). I've had an independent building inspector in who also told me it is ok (prior to the 'braces' as well).

It would be interesting to know just how many bricks they would accept as "fine". Would 10 bricks stacked on top of each other be considered "fine" too

To get a better idea of the situation, how is the other end of the beam supported? Can the beam move laterally?

Originally Posted by Arc

A few, shall we say, interesting responses.

Yes, I posted on another forum a few weeks ago and got mixed views there, coming across this forum recently I thought I might get some more experienced and knowledgeable responses given the forum and topics I browsed through.

Anyway, I was hoping someone in the know here could provide something specific from the building codes to confirm or allay my concern. If not, so be it, I was asking, not demanding. Personally, I just don't want to be the poor sucker that has to have something bad happen to me or my family for the practices to be changed...

I will PM you a copy of the building code for framed construction in WA tomorrow, I had to get a copy of it when I added my second story

I dont think it mentions a acceptable number of bricks though..

But if possible, can you get a photo of anything else attached to the beam? All we know is its supporting air...

That would be great Memphis, thank you. I think the attached crude drawing I've knocked up illustrates things reasonably well (from what I can recall) - prior to the additional diagonal bracing. I don't think I have a photo that clearly shows the whole setup. Btw, the ceiling has just gone in so maybe it will be out of sight, out of mind now...

I've had other people tell me of similar things in their own homes here in WA so I'm not expecting anything to be changed now, but I'd still like to know more about what is considered proper and professional building practices. There was an article I think linked from this forum about gutters not being made to Australian Standards, yet the majority of homes since the early 90's are using these gutters. Just because it's considered normal practice does not make it right.

It is hard to tell from the info provided and pics supplied what the beam's role is in regards to what it is supporting and what it is supported by and if it is a permenant fixture. Arc/Mephis have indicated it is supporting a ridge board which i would find it hard to believe, it appears you have roof trusses so why would you need something to support a ridge board? The roof truss design anyway you obviously use a steel beam in places where timber wont span the distance given the load it is required to carry.

So you need to understand (by some use of common sense and gravity) if it is a live or dead load or even point load that this beam is being used for otherwise it could have been used for temporary use only? (which it doesnt look like it is comming down soon) the use of more than one brick suggests they are merely packing the beam to the correct height until the rest of work is finished. either way if there is some load that could cause it to shift (laterally or by other means others have suggested) then at some point in time it would have to be tied down to resist uplift forces in your wind category in Perth.

The tie down method is what you should be looking in to as its is not that simple to join steel and wood. and sitting on 4 bricks suggests that the tie down method is going to be messy.

I would be asking for the design engineer to document a detail and that it is satisfactory. As a building surveyor and inspector in vic (we all use the same standards and codes auswide) I would not accept this. Just as you would not allow a UB to be supported on single skin brickwork. It is not even fixed. You could not even support 1 bearer taking floor loads like this.

I think the big problem with perth is that no one is qualified in what they are doing, from the tradesman especially the roofies (that are probably on roofies ie rohyponol) to site supervisors to the building surveyors.

I think those angle props have been put the for lateral restraint but tie down wise, I doubt it has been considered.

I can not see why it has to be done like that anyway, there are better and cheaper ways. Anyway I can see a whole big wave of claims aginst builders in the next 10 years if this is the type of thing that is acceptable these days in perth.

At the risk of sounding like a ditsy female, (but who really wants to understand this), what is that 'construction' supposed to do/achieve.

I am a little confused, so if someone could explain it to me, it would be appreciated.

(sorry, i am unable to contribute to your query Arc, but I am definitely interested.)

Curiosity killed the cat, but i am taking the risk and getting in my roof on the weekend to have a look (can't help myself...).

Guess I am one of these annoying people who need to know 'why?' with everything.

Hubby keeps telling me 'too much knowledge can be dangerous' (especially for a female )

Originally Posted by autogenous

Take a camera then take a picture of the end of the UB. What state are you in? You have brick walls?
The brick elevates the UB to hanger height to allow check in just above the ceiling joists..

Will do!
Western Australia (formerly NSW & VIC).
Double brick walls.
Just bought the house last October. It's about seven years old, but we have found some very interesting 'building processes' whilst we have been renovating.
Will take the pictures and get back to you (not at home right now).
cheers

So in perth it seems that its perfectly acceptable to stack bricks on a timber top plate. A collegue of mine worked in perth for a while and he said anything goes, so I guess he was right. I think you should email the relevant authorities (who control building legislation) for an opinion. They need to bring in mandatory building inspections in perth. If that brickwork gets knocked by someone the beam might drop the whole cieling. I think you would struggle to find a strucural engineer that would draw up a detail showing 4 unmortared bricks stacked on a top plate supporting anything (especially a UB) and then certify it. Let us know what happens.

In vic if there was no details on the plans I would ask them to justify it via engineer, I have never seen a situation like that, however i would imagine a short steel column welded to some type of steel plate that is fixed to the top of the double skin brickwork with some chem set bolts or a couple of rods extending up through the cavity. At the very minimum cut out the timber top plate, then use double brickwork instead of single skin and strap over the ub with hoop iron, the hoop iron should extend down to the into the wall cavity. Or the bove method with a couple of threaded 12mm rods. Easy

i work in sydney when we put a UB in a ceiling we pack it off the brickwork using 100mm oregon and 2/90 X 45 pine plates to pack it up... if its a stud wall same thing plus extra studs.. just the way its done over here. il ask our engineer if he would pass the frame if we had the beams packed on loose bricks...

Originally Posted by madrat

Hubby keeps telling me 'too much knowledge can be dangerous' (especially for a female )

And you actually let him say that without a slap I must be a less saintly female then you madrat.

PS Arc..I would have looked up and thought wtf when I saw that. I hope some of your concerns have been answered.

I'm of the same opinion as madrat and chromis, i'm of no help but i would question is as well. Looks odd to me - though i don't understand why or what i'm looking at!

Thats the dodgiest thing Ive seen for a long time, surely some arrangement to actually tie the steel to the buildings top plate is needed, and something better than bricks to sit it on, say more steel designed to fit at least.

Originally Posted by chromis

And you actually let him say that without a slap I must be a less saintly female then you madrat.

Hee hee.

If I slapped him, he only would have taken it as some form of foreplay
He's a little warped that man of mine....

But things like this to learn, someday I want to be in a position where I know more than him...(I can only but try)

never heard of a stick roof, you must mean conventional roof LOL, I could have sworn I seen a timber member in the photo horozontally coming from the rafters.

Anyway its a bit weird to use a steel support for this (obviously dependent on the span/load width, given 4 bricks being used for packers. There must be a ceiling constraint to use what looks like a ~180 welded beam.

My house is a conventional roof and they are obviously quite different to design and more work for the builder to calculate spans and section sizes. Physics/statics is quite a fascinating subject.

Still dodgy tie down which ever way you look at it.

I am more worried as everywhere in Perth is built on sand, hence more chance of shifting foundations

Originally Posted by barney118

I am more worried as everywhere in Perth is built on sand, hence more chance of shifting foundations

Not so, clay is a lot more reactive than sand, sand is very stable.

Originally Posted by thebuildingsurv

They need to bring in mandatory building inspections in perth. .

Are there no compulsory inspections at all in Perth?

I have never seen or installed steel in this fashion. Ideally there should be a column all the way down to its own footing. This provides proper support,fixing and tie down.

Was the UB designed by an engineer? If so there should have been some end support details for the beam.

Tools

Originally Posted by autogenous

Is the 300 kilogram UB steel going to blow away in the wind?

Could do, we dont get anywhere the wind that other parts of the country gets, but 300kgs is nothing in a strong wind.

Is the 300 kilogram UB steel going to blow away in the wind?

Its called tie down... couple of hundred pages of Australian standards on the subject.

I'd be worried with that construction.. surely structural elements need at least "nominal fixings" if the uplift loads are sufficiently small (eg N1/N2).

Pulse

AS 1684 for a strutting beam...

specific fixing for tie down for a steel roof N1/N2. Tile roofs OK to use nominal fixings

Someone mentioned there was likely a bulkhead in the area and that is correct, it essentially runs parallel with the steel beam. I've attached various photos which some of you may be able to make sense of...

Autogenous; the building inspector I had out, and who did not have an issue with this stack of bricks either, was much more concerned with ensuring the roof was tied down properly. As you say, it should be securely fixed with hoop iron straps around the external walls however the inspector told me the straps were not fixed to the rafters properly and it looked like no attempt had been made to tension them. He said it was one of the worst jobs he had seen in a while.

The inspector also picked up on a number of other installation problems with the roof so you can perhaps understand why I have some concerns over the quality and professionalism of the work in general...

BTW, I asked my builder for the engineering drawings and all I got was a drawing for the slab and footings, nothing for the roof. Should there be drawings for the roof structure or is it just worked out onsite?

Also, anybody know what authority is responsible for this sort of thing and I can get definitive information from (in WA)?

Originally Posted by autogenous

Take a camera then take a picture of the end of the UB. What state are you in? You have brick walls?
The brick elevates the UB to hanger height to allow check in just above the ceiling joists..

OK, I just came down from our roof with pictures.

I don't know if our roof is a different 'type' to Arc's or whether I just had no bloody idea what i was looking for.

But I attached the pics anyway.

I couldn't find any steel beam that resembled Arc's.

All the beams seemed to be supported by steel connection/clip thingy's???
(Please excuse my ignorance with this, I'm still trying to get a grip with it all)

These are the issues the building inspector highlighted;

1. To comply with BCA AS1684; Bolt or shot fire at max 750mm C/CS WBN / Structerre Concession (at present Tek Screws used) - this is for timber plates on top of UB's.
2. Raft Ridge collars not in.
3. Hoop iron straps are loosely nailed to rafters. No attempt has been made to tension straps. Not fixed to purlins (battens). Suggestion to disconnect straps and 2 x nail to the top plates plus triple grips to fix rafters to plates.
4. Porch and Garage; Plates are not strapped. No soldiers.
5. Under purlins where overlapping and sharing a prop should be bolted together (2x).
6. Alfresco plates on RSJ's are strapped to RSJ (one elevation only!) but rafters are not triple gripped.
7. Props seated on lower flange of RSJ need lateral support.

The wind rating is N1, interestingly someone a few blocks away is rated N2 though there is a lot of variation in elevation in the area which I guess makes a difference.

PS to Madrat - you might want to consider getting some insulation installed.

And not a mention of the loose brick stack?
Must be ok then...?

Originally Posted by Brickie

And not a mention of the loose brick stack?
Must be ok then...?

This was the primary reason I had the inspector out and I specifically highlighted it to him onsite and discussed it. He told me it was ok and acceptable.

As I said earlier, I don't expect this to be changed in this case (unfortunately) and accept that this is the sort of thing that is being done in WA. However I do not believe this should be acceptable practice or allowed by the building codes, as it appears it is (possibly because it is vague in this area) then those codes need to be changed or clarified.