steel beam - much bigger than we thought!

Linto

Hi guys,
We're building a 2m extension across the back of the house and we're using a large steel beam to keep it all open plan. Just been onsite and were really shocked (and disappointed) with the size of it. There is a vaulted ceiling behind it and with this 35mm beam the whole thing looks awful.
And advice? Interior design our way around it or possible get it recessed into the ceiling. I'm so sorry not to have thought of doing that initially.... Probably too late now??

Any help or thoughts?

BryanF

Linto wrote: »

Hi guys,
We're building a 2m extension across the back of the house and we're using a large steel beam to keep it all open plan. Just been onsite and were really shocked (and disappointed) with the size of it. There is a vaulted ceiling behind it and with this 35mm beam the whole thing looks awful.
And advice? Interior design our way around it or possible get it recessed into the ceiling. I'm so sorry not to have thought of doing that initially.... Probably too late now??

Any help or thoughts?

too late probably but if designed right the steel could have been placed in the floor joist zone, joists supported on flang.

Btw quiet a narrow cavity for curren insulation requirements and I can see a few thermal bridges also

topcatcbr

BryanF wrote: »

too late probably but if designed right the steel could have been placed in the floor joist zone, joists supported on flang.

Ditto

Maybe move it outside the wall and weld a steel plate on underside of beam to support wall. Talk to engineer.

Gryire

Linto wrote: »

Hi guys,
We're building a 2m extension across the back of the house and we're using a large steel beam to keep it all open plan. Just been onsite and were really shocked (and disappointed) with the size of it. There is a vaulted ceiling behind it and with this 35mm beam the whole thing looks awful.
And advice? Interior design our way around it or possible get it recessed into the ceiling. I'm so sorry not to have thought of doing that initially.... Probably too late now??

Any help or thoughts?

Surely you would have seen this on the engineers drawing!

sydthebeat

Gryire wrote: »

Surely you would have seen this on the engineers drawing!

Sounds like no architect input into Construction drawings

Poor Uncle Tom

What is the floor to underside of beam height?

captainzero

box it around to look like a massive oak beam?

sinnerboy

What size of beam do you seriously expect to keep half a house from collapsing !

It is always possible in these cases to raise the beam so that the floor joists rest on the side and not the top of the beam but this costs more as the upper rooms become very affected by the required demolition . Rooms that can conceivably remain largely untouched by the works are taken into it in the form of fitted wardrobes to be deinstalled and reinstalled , new / reinstated skirting first floor blockwork course , make good plaster new skirting and more often than not complete redocoration , often affecting a bathroom so retiling in this case. Unlike with new builds reducing this particular downstand adds a heck of a lot in knock on costs in the case of refurbishments .

Besides wait till you see the visual affect lessen dramatically when all is plastered and painted.

sinnerboy

captainzero wrote: »

box it around to look like a massive oak beam?

sinnerboy

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

What is the floor to underside of beam height?

2300mm based on looking at block wall adjacent.

Poor Uncle Tom

sinnerboy wrote: »

2300mm based on looking at block wall adjacent.

Actually I make it at 2100mm but I wanted the actual height.

There is a floor height difference, presumably the higher floor height will prevail throughout, if this is the case then the downstand is likely to breach regulations. Therefore the existing floor to bottom of beam height is actually very important.

heyheyhey1982

The beam should of had a plate welded to the inside to pick up the ceiling joists therefore pushing the beam up higher. Have to say it's a big UB I think the could if used a UC beam which would of helped reduce the height. Is there an architect on the job,? It's there fault for not picking it up as there should be a section shown this.

Love the pic above, oak beam ha ha

heyheyhey1982

BryanF wrote: »

too late probably but if designed right the steel could have been placed in the floor joist zone, joists supported on flang.

Btw quiet a narrow cavity for curren insulation requirements and I can see a few thermal bridges also

The cavity you are talking about looks to be an internal wall? Maybe for sliding doors. Doesn't look like an external cavity.

Poor Uncle Tom

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

The beam should of had a plate welded to the inside to pick up the ceiling joists therefore pushing the beam up higher. Have to say it's a big UB I think the could if used a UC beam which would of helped reduce the height. Is there an architect on the job,? It's there fault for not picking it up as there should be a section shown this.

Love the pic above, oak beam ha ha

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

The cavity you are talking about looks to be an internal wall? Maybe for sliding doors. Doesn't look like an external cavity.

You are making a lot of presumptions here, be careful.

stock>

7' by my reckoning........

BryanF

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

The beam should of had a plate welded to the inside to pick up the ceiling joists therefore pushing the beam up higher. Have to say it's a big UB I think the could if used a UC beam which would of helped reduce the height. Is there an architect on the job,? It's there fault for not picking it up as there should be a section shown this.

Love the pic above, oak beam ha ha

If there was an architect involved...
And the sliding door into wall - I doubt it would be block built both sides, how would you fit /maintain the running gear etc?

Linto

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

What is the floor to underside of beam height?

Its 208cm

Linto

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You are making a lot of presumptions here, be careful.

Its an external wall. Here's a better pic

Linto

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

The beam should of had a plate welded to the inside to pick up the ceiling joists therefore pushing the beam up higher. Have to say it's a big UB I think the could if used a UC beam which would of helped reduce the height. Is there an architect on the job,? It's there fault for not picking it up as there should be a section shown this.

Love the pic above, oak beam ha ha

What's the diff between UB and UC? How much diff would it have made to height do you think?

Linto

BryanF wrote: »

too late probably but if designed right the steel could have been placed in the floor joist zone, joists supported on flang.

Btw quiet a narrow cavity for curren insulation requirements and I can see a few thermal bridges also

Definitely too late? I wonder what would be involved now if we wanted to change it?

DOCARCH

Linto wrote: »

Definitely too late? I wonder what would be involved now if we wanted to change it?

Beam itself looks fine.

Take out beam. Provide new columns (or extend the existing under the guidance of a structural engineer). Additional propping and pinning of the existing external wall and first floor structure. Take out additional section of external wall. Put beam back in. Fix existing first floor joists to beam (either by adding plate to underside of beam to 'catch' joists or by adding wall plate fixed to web of the beam and joist hangers).

Bob's your uncle!

Don't forget fire protection to beam and columns! They need min. 1/2 hour fire protection.

Serious lack of foresight in having a downstand beam that depth!

Poor Uncle Tom

Linto wrote: »

Its 208cm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Serious lack of foresight in having a downstand beam that depth!

Agreed.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad,1647,en.pdf

This is one time I would take the 'suggested' heights as being an absolute minimum for downstands like this as it is possible to comply fully by keeping the beam up.

It should be moved, imo.

heyheyhey1982

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You are making a lot of presumptions here, be careful.

We have to presume when the information isn't provided.

I have worked on many jobs and very rarely would you put such a deep beam in. A UC would of worked. No matter what the size of the UB a UC can be used as an alternative.

The pictures are not great quality, was there an architect on the job?

Poor Uncle Tom

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

.... rarely would you put such a deep beam in. A UC would of worked. No matter what the size of the UB a UC can be used as an alternative.

The size isn't the issue, the placement is. Whether to use a U Beam, an RSJ or a U Column is an on-site engineer's call.

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

The pictures are not great quality, was there an architect on the job?

or an engineer?

wirehairmax

Linto wrote: »

What's the diff between UB and UC? How much diff would it have made to height do you think?

A UB = universal BEAM
A UC = universal COLUMN
They are designed to act in different ways based on their application ie a beam is designed to act in the horizontal and a column to act in the vertical. They have different properties such as flange thickness, internal radii, web depths etc. As regards the difference using either would make to height it could only be mm's possibly depending on their use

heyheyhey1982

wirehairmax wrote: »

A UB = universal BEAM
A UC = universal COLUMN
They are designed to act in different ways based on their application ie a beam is designed to act in the horizontal and a column to act in the vertical. They have different properties such as flange thickness, internal radii, web depths etc. As regards the difference using either would make to height it could only be mm's possibly depending on their use

It can greatly reduce the depth. If you use a larger weight UC. I've used UCs with a composite plate to hold up gable walls. This greatly reduced the depth.

The down stand in the pic looks terrible. Imo the ceiling joists should of been cast into the beam supported on a plate or the flange.

Is there an architect on the job? If so ask why this wasn't picked up.

Linto

heyheyhey1982 wrote: »

It can greatly reduce the depth. If you use a larger weight UC. I've used UCs with a composite plate to hold up gable walls. This greatly reduced the depth.

The down stand in the pic looks terrible. Imo the ceiling joists should of been cast into the beam supported on a plate or the flange.

Is there an architect on the job? If so ask why this wasn't picked up.

We have an architect technician on the job. Hes now on holidays.... :-(
At this stage is it realistic to do anything about it?

heyheyhey1982

Linto wrote: »

We have an architect technician on the job. Hes now on holidays.... :-(
At this stage is it realistic to do anything about it?

It's a reasonably big job. It will cost you. More propping,more demolition of the wall. Who sized the steel?

An architect would of spotted that straight off. I do think when it's finished it will look better than it looks now.

gctest50

Linto wrote: »

Hi guys,
We're building a 2m extension across the back of the house and we're using a large steel beam to keep it all open plan. Just been onsite and were really shocked (and disappointed) with the size of it. There is a vaulted ceiling behind it and with this 35mm beam the whole thing looks awful.
And advice? Interior design our way around it or possible get it recessed into the ceiling. I'm so sorry not to have thought of doing that initially.... Probably too late now??

Any help or thoughts?

Was this the kinda thing you wanted ?

http://www.edgewoodltd.ie/6TheAvenueCompletedExtension006.aspx
http://www.edgewoodltd.ie/6TheAvenueCompletedExtension005.aspx

The way your steel beam is at the moment looks like it will make the (original part) of the room you are extending gloomy and dull

Source: mates house with something vaguely similar

liveandnetural

might be a bit late to say this but was it not showen on the plans what size it was as to let the builder price it?

but anyhows have a look at the detail on page one and two on the link below

firsts one is for a timber i beam but you will get the idea
http://www.strongtie.co.uk/products/type.php?typeID=30&familyID=2

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jji-joists.co.uk%2Fimages%2Finterface%2Fdownloads%2Fhangers%2Fsst-steel.pdf&ei=HbiiUZWaD87y7AbWq4C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNE_vJR4JGvdmyaUy982n5wuNF9rsA&bvm=bv.47008514,d.ZGU

Gryire

Linto wrote: »

We have an architect technician on the job. Hes now on holidays.... :-(
At this stage is it realistic to do anything about it?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

stock>

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

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.

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.