Roof framing standards - new house

[Arc]

Hi all,

I'm currently building a double brick home with timber roof frame and colorbond roof cover in Western Australia. The roof has recently gone up and there is something I'm particularly not pleased with. I've been searching for answers and came across this forum and would appreciate the advice of anyone who might be in the know here, particularly with respect to the building codes.

Refering to the attached pictures you can see a heavy steel "I" beam supported at either end by a stack of four loose bricks on top of the timber roof plates. The walls supporting all this is a single leaf internal brick wall (10cm). The diagonal 'braces' were added by the builder after I told them I was unhappy with the steel beam just sitting on the stacked bricks...

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). And I've recently spoken to someone at Archicentre, after sending them these images, but they were quite vague and said the building codes are also not specific in this area. His main concern was on the bearings being sufficient.

This type of thing appears to be common practice in Western Australia which I find quite astounding. Other people I've conversed with over here have seen similar and been told the same by the builders. I had expected the building inspector to be shocked by it but he practically ignored it for other issues. Unfortunately it seems I have little choice but to accept it at this point...

I'd appreciate some informed advice, particularly with respect to Australian Building Codes.

[DvdHntr]

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.

[echnidna]

Of course you could pay more money and get the builder to support it some other way

You've been told its standard building practise by your own experts

Its Customers like you who make me very happy that I'm retired

[rat52]

arc,I can't make out what the steel beam is supporting.

If it is a live load or supporting a roller door then I would be worried as the vibration could over time cause the bricks or beam to move.

Personally I would prefer to see a timber stub wall under the beam with the whole lot strapped or bolted down to the wall below as expressed in the other post to resist uplifts.

[memphis]

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).

[DvdHntr]

I would ask about tie down.

[ausdesign]

Memphis, I was possibly one of the 'wannabies who dont know there a*s from their face . . .'
I'd be interested in knowing what your qualifications are in stating so emphatically that the construction is ok and canning this guy who obviously has a concern & is looking for advice.
Can you provide the location of any building code documentation that says that the load bearing support for the beam is correct and that the tie down requirements are complied with.

[memphis]

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.

[ausdesign]

If the beam is supporting roof members there is a very big chance that tie downs would come into play.
I find it really annoying that people post to a forum with a genuine concern and receive garbage and get put down.
Besides the tie down issue are you really saying that a steel beam supported by 4 stacked bricks is common & good practice in W.A.
As building professionals we're constantly on a learning curve but I can't handle that this is correct building practice but I'm open to convincing.

[echnidna]

I've had an independent building inspector in who also told me it is ok (prior to the 'braces' as well).

I had expected the building inspector to be shocked by it but he practically ignored it for other issues.

Professional opinion from onsite inspection

[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...

[chrisp]

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?

[memphis]

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...

[Arc]

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.

[autogenous]

The steel is a universal beam or UB. It is standard practice to do this and they are solids which is normal.
Its been done for years. The carpenter has since checked props off the side.
I take it there will probably be hangers checked into the side.
Toms or props will be propped off the top off that.
There is literally thousands of houses done in this manner.
The brick wall will be 90mm. This is also standard for which the UB sits on. I would only be slightly concerned if the UB sat "right" on the corner of a 90mm wall.
The roof is colour bond so there isn't a hell of a lot of weight.
If the inspector was concerned he would say something.

Do you have any images of timber that actually sits towards the middle rather than the ends of the beam? Toms? Under purlins? LVLs?

It looks like a bulkhead or coffit ceiling? Whats its purpose?