# Forum Home Renovation Roofing  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  :Confused:  
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?

----------


## barney118

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.

----------


## thebuildingsurv

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.

----------


## madrat

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.)

----------


## autogenous

The Universal beam allows for a greater span of the ceiling once the hangers are beyond their structural span. The universal beam takes the hangers which stop ceiling joists sagging.The UB is also propped or tomed off to take the ridge and under purlins to increase their structural integrity. 
If anything else was done a steel column would be placed from the top of the wall to the UB. If the beam is checked in by hangers and propped to under purlins the weight and the checked in hangers wont let it go anywhere.  
What the max height solids can be used is really a good question but solids have been used to prop UBs for ever and a day in WA. Check just about any home and you will find solid bricks are used to prop UBs to the hanger height usually on solid on edge. 
I haven't been back over to see if any images of the UB for what the purpose the UB serves?

----------


## autogenous

> 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.

  This is done on 99% of houses in Western Australia.   

> 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.

  The roof is a stick roof, not truss. It sounds like the UB has a prop which prevents the ridge sagging. A wider area photo will more than likely demonstrate that the UB does more than just provide a prop to the ridge. 
Theres a LVL next to the UB so I suspect there is a bulkhead or similar not far away but cant be seen by the image supplied.

----------


## rat52

I agree with thebuildsurveyer. The acid test is to get the builder, roof carpenter, engineer etc to sign off on the detail.  
If they won't then it is not acceptable. 
As a carpenter of 30+ yrs I have never left a beam, timber or steel, on loose supports or not tied down.

----------


## madrat

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  :Biggrin: )

----------


## autogenous

> 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.

  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..

----------


## madrat

> 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

----------


## thebuildingsurv

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.

----------


## autogenous

:Smilie:   

> 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.

  Being a building surveyor in your professional opinion what would you do in this situation?  
What have you seen done in the past in Victoria that is better than this? 
What do they do in Victoria to support UB at that particular height?   

> 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.

  Damn those Jerry builders!  :Smilie: 
Who is the builder Arc?

----------


## thebuildingsurv

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

----------


## sports fan

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...

----------


## chromis

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

  And you actually let him say that without a slap  :Biggrin:  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.

----------


## autogenous

> 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.

  The clincher is whats at the other end and what hangers and toms come off the steel? 
Still waiting on further photos of the centre and other end? 
Judging by the diagram drawn by Arc the UB sits on 2 internal single brick walls with stacks of 4 solids at either end? 
If it was stud frame there would be a steel column floor to UB not bricks. 
The builder has supplied the steel without any modifications. The chippie has to make do with whats supplied. Hes not going to argue with the builder who supplies him the work. Its up to the licensed builder to say whether its ok or he will modify it. 
Anything over 450mm then they maybe a need to put in a steel column to the plate but that isn't going to stop lateral roll as much as the 230mm wide solids and struts either side. 
An LVL beam prop will shrink, steel expands and contracts which cracks ceilings.
Bricks in that number don't expand and contact to the same extent under heat. 
"If" anything more there would be a form of collar tie to the struts.

----------


## Japes

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!

----------


## Brickie

Thats the dodgiest thing Ive seen for a long time, :No:  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.  :Smilie:

----------


## madrat

> 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  :Biggrin: 
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)

----------


## barney118

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 :Shock:

----------


## Brickie

> 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.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## autogenous

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

  Thats why Perth has a almost entirely double brick construction because the foundations are more stable than clay soils.
Brickwork is cheaper than other methods of construction.
Less concrete and structural modification is needed for the footings. The sand provides extensive fast drainage.
A compaction certificate is required prior to commencement of construction.   

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

  That would be the collar tie. 
There should be 1200 centres hoop iron all around the cavity nailed over the  rafters. 
The UB has hangers checked in, struts to the side and a toms with the weight of the roof on top with the whole roof strapped down. 
Is the 300 kilogram UB steel going to blow away in the wind?

----------


## Ivan in Oz

This is out of my area altogether, to far over my Head, so to Speak :Biggrin:  
Have you spoken to your local Building inspector for some sort of Conformation. 
I'd stay on his good side :2thumbsup: 
AND
your builder as well :Doh: 
How????? 
I do not know :Confused:  
Good lick and Welcome

----------


## Tools

> 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

----------


## Brickie

> 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.

----------


## Pulse

> 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

----------


## 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

----------


## journeyman Mick

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

  Could do easily in a tropical cyclone. I don't think I could leave a beam like that, even if there wasn't a structural requirement for at least nominal fixing. I'd be worried about getting sued down the track if someone performing work in the ceiling brought it crashing down. There's this thing called duty of care. 
Mick

----------


## autogenous

:Biggrin:   

> Are there no compulsory inspections at all in Perth?

  Baaahaawaa haaa  :Biggrin:   Ive seen 2 BRB inspectors in 25 years. 
Footing inspections are phoned in 24 hours prior. In the current market its rare for them to turn up.  
There is tie down straps at 1200 centres in all cavity walls over the rafters. 
There is hundreds o housands of UBs done like this. They aren't falling through ceilings.
If there was one I would say they'd be onto it quick smart.   

> AS 1684 for a strutting beam... 
> specific fixing for tie down for a steel roof N1/N2. Tile roofs OK to use nominal fixings

  Pfft! Never seen one fo them in 25 years  
The Wild West operates different to the East  :Biggrin:  Were all cowboys over here!  :Eek:

----------


## Arc

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)?

----------


## autogenous

> Should there be drawings for the roof structure or is it just worked out onsite?

  Yeah the chippie will have a roof lay out sheet. There is a lot of steels and LVLs in that job. There will be no engineers detail for the roof. The UBs were delivered as they were. That would be on the order sheet. 
No walls in the living areas by the looks. Open living? 
Theres plenty of hangers checked in and a T joined UB there. 
Ok, the inspectors are paranoid about straps. Its an easy pick. Older houses have lost sheets and tiles.
Anything that results in insurance claims has a crack down. 
You are more than 3 kilometres from the coast I see. With all those tech screws in the sheets Itll be one mighty mother ship leaving the plate with LVLs and the windows will blow out, the ceiling collapse prior to lift off of the whole roof minus the UBs "if" it manages that. 
If he cleared the roof but only picked the straps thats a good thing. Anything else he picked?

----------


## madrat

> 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. :Confused:  
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. :Cry:  
But I attached the pics anyway. 
I couldn't find any steel beam that resembled Arc's. :No:  
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)

----------


## ausdesign

madrat, your roof uses a 'truss' type construction.
As such it is not likely that you'll find steel members within the roof space.
With a 'stick' type construction beams, whether steel or timber, are often used to span large distances and in turn support other roof timbers.

----------


## Arc

These are the issues the building inspector highlighted; 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.Raft Ridge collars not in.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*.*Porch and Garage; Plates are not strapped. No soldiers*.*Under purlins where overlapping and sharing a prop should be bolted together (2x)*.*Alfresco plates on RSJ's are strapped to RSJ (one elevation only!) but rafters are not triple gripped*.*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.

----------


## Brickie

And not a mention of the loose brick stack?  :Eek: 
Must be ok then...?  :No:

----------


## Arc

> 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.

----------


## Brickie

I did have a flick through both the framing standards (non cyclonic) and the brickwork standards but couldnt find anything, maybe its in the steel standards? 
Its still bodgy in my mind though.  :Frown:

----------


## autogenous

> 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.

  You will find 0.1% of houses have triple grips to some areas.  You are not close enough to the coast to justify the Triple grips. 
Are the triple grips compulsory?    

> Raft Ridge collars not in.

  Are you referring to a lack of collar ties?   

> 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*.*

  Ok, maybe a better job could have been done wrapping them tight but wrapping hoop iron over rafters and battens is not the easiest of tasks. If they are flapping with no attempt at tightening then sure get em to tighten them up. 
[quote]Porch and Garage; Plates are not strapped. No soldiers*.*[quote] 
What is a soldier? I assume he means kickers? 
Strapping plates? Does he mean the wall plate?   

> Under purlins where overlapping and sharing a prop should be bolted together(2x)*.* (Alfresco plates on RSJ's are strapped to RSJ (one elevation only!) but rafters are not triple gripped*.*

  Yep overlapping under purlins should have 2 bolts.   

> Props seated on lower flange of RSJ need lateral support*.*

   

> No attempt has been made to tension straps. Not fixed to purlins (battens).

  Yep straps should be pulled up but hoop iron is not something that is easy to get really good tension. The angle they end up on sometimes its impossible in some cases. 
How do you get a hoop iron strap from the cavity up to the under purlin?
They're not even delivered long enough. :Smilie:  
Where was the inspector from? 
This is a Truss with gang nails. Different :Smilie:

----------


## madrat

> madrat, your roof uses a 'truss' type construction.
> As such it is not likely that you'll find steel members within the roof space.
> With a 'stick' type construction beams, whether steel or timber, are often used to span large distances and in turn support other roof timbers.

  Thanks Peter,
I guess I was looking for something that didn't exist-typical. 
(who's an idiot then?  :Rofl: )

----------


## madrat

[quote=Arc;
PS to Madrat - you might want to consider getting some insulation installed.[/quote] 
We were going to get insulation, but we are getting the roof repaired and repainted with insulpaint (apparently this paint will make a massive difference to temperature and air con usage to the point where we may not need it. So we'll see if it is right or whether we have been duped).
Cheers and good luck. I will continue to follow this thread, that's for sure.

----------


## ausdesign

If there were more people who wanted to know & learn it would probably make my work easier overall.
the only 'idiots' are those who don't ask.

----------


## madrat

> If there were more people who wanted to know & learn it would probably make my work easier overall.
> the only 'idiots' are those who don't ask.

  Thanks Ausdesign.
I tend to feel like I waste people's time who are in the know when I ask, but when I do, it's truly to learn and understand, so I will remember that.  :Biggrin:

----------


## thebuildingsurv

Why dont you email the WA institute of building surveyors *wa.admin@aibs.com.au*<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> <!-- document.write( '<span style=\'display: none;\'>' ); //--> </SCRIPT> with some pics, and mention that you have heard this is common practice. See what there comments are.

----------


## Brickie

> and repainted with insulpaint (apparently this paint will make a massive difference to temperature and air con usage to the point where we may not need it.

  Ive got a big bag of magic beans too if you are interested..?  :Biggrin:

----------


## madrat

> Ive got a big bag of magic beans too if you are interested..?

  hee hee. 
That would be nice.. :Smilie:  How much?

----------

