When we put the plans out to tender, it became clear that we needed a builder to take on the complete job, we have neither the time nor more importantly the experience for such an undertaking.
During discussions, we have now learned to call builders "the contractors", and home "the site".
We were lucky to have been recommended a contractor, firstly through our architect, and secondly, by some happy clients and their neighbours. So the decision to go ahead with the company we wanted was not too difficult
I have to say at this point that I also work heavily on gut instinct, it has served me well in the past.
The first few days were relatively quiet looking from the outside. I was visiting a friend in the street and with the exception of some vans parked in the drive, it was business as usual.
However later in the day, when I met up with the builder I could see that our house, site, was void of some of the internal walls, said walls were now heaped in the back garden.
From this ...
To this ...
Left site very excited, definitely underway now.
One day later the problems are now clearly visible ....
In general, the overall construction of the timber that forms the house is not to the standard that would be acceptable today.
The uprights, which span from the floor to the ceiling and transfer the weight of the roof to the foundations, are constructed from various types of wood, many of them not of sufficient size and / or material - these will need to be replaced / added to.
The lintels around the windows - all of them! are not lintels. There are blocks of wood not properly supported and not doing very much to support the weight above the windows. These will need to be replaced. Luckily, most of the windows will need to be replaced anyway due to layout changes, so this is not a big problem.
There are questions over the fixing of the the plywood to the timber frame which forms the wooden skin of the building. Structurally, these sheets of wood are important to stop the building "racking" (imagine squashing a square to a rhombus shape - this is "racking"). There is no real evidence that the required "nailing schedule" has been followed. A "nailing schedule" defines which type and what distance nails to use to fix the ply to the frame - getting it right ensures the structure, getting it wrong, well ...
There are also questions over how the brick skin is "tied" to the wooden frame. Again, no evidence this has been adequately done.
Given the "standard" of the construction, we are now concerned about the foundations. Likely not a problem, but will need to be checked before continuing. This means creating a hole inside the building and digging a "trial pit" to expose the foundations (if they are there!) to check all is well.
What does all this mean? Worst case, the building would need to be taken down - i.e. start from scratch.
So, work has stopped and the architect / structural engineer has been recalled to review the situation.
One day later the problems are now clearly visible ....
In general, the overall construction of the timber that forms the house is not to the standard that would be acceptable today.
The uprights, which span from the floor to the ceiling and transfer the weight of the roof to the foundations, are constructed from various types of wood, many of them not of sufficient size and / or material - these will need to be replaced / added to.
The lintels around the windows - all of them! are not lintels. There are blocks of wood not properly supported and not doing very much to support the weight above the windows. These will need to be replaced. Luckily, most of the windows will need to be replaced anyway due to layout changes, so this is not a big problem.
There are questions over the fixing of the the plywood to the timber frame which forms the wooden skin of the building. Structurally, these sheets of wood are important to stop the building "racking" (imagine squashing a square to a rhombus shape - this is "racking"). There is no real evidence that the required "nailing schedule" has been followed. A "nailing schedule" defines which type and what distance nails to use to fix the ply to the frame - getting it right ensures the structure, getting it wrong, well ...
There are also questions over how the brick skin is "tied" to the wooden frame. Again, no evidence this has been adequately done.
Given the "standard" of the construction, we are now concerned about the foundations. Likely not a problem, but will need to be checked before continuing. This means creating a hole inside the building and digging a "trial pit" to expose the foundations (if they are there!) to check all is well.
What does all this mean? Worst case, the building would need to be taken down - i.e. start from scratch.
So, work has stopped and the architect / structural engineer has been recalled to review the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment