Kwality Konstukshun [Archive]

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 08:22 PM

Tell me it's a trick photo!

Or get me the web address of the company that do the joists!! My understanding of hardboard (masonite) is that it may just sag a bit when it gets damp, when it sags it may just cause the flange to fail??

Teejay?? or any other engineer????

Help!

P
:eek: :confused: :eek:

Sorry Midge.
The piccy I took, is what I took, no trickery.
I too think that with moisture, even if the web is water proofed, must sag/bend over time.

Al :eek:

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 08:28 PM

Here is another one.

Al

sol381

19th October 2005, 09:05 PM

They are very similar the the hyne beam which uses plywood instead if masonite. It is much stronger than you think. They can span further than regular joists. are much lighter and can be drilled thru in case plumbing or electrical cables are needed. I have never used those masonite types but all floor trusses are engineer designed. The strength lies in the glue and the way the thickness of the material used, not in the pine plates. Most times its just mgp10.
Try and bend a piece of masonite along its narrow end. Virtually impossible. You`d be amazed what is being used in construction.
That splitting is probable caused by the nails that are driven in to secure it to the top-plate.
stef

RETIRED

19th October 2005, 09:05 PM

http://www.hudsontimber.com.au/ibeams/default.asp

http://www.tilling.com.au/smartframe/htdocs/smartfrProds.htm#Ijoist

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 09:10 PM

Thats it Smart Frame.

I tryed to search it on Google, but got nothing.

Al :(

E. maculata

19th October 2005, 09:15 PM

Crikey, I've heard about them, now there they are, look worse than they sounded..............hmm wonder how they react to deflection or torsional pressure, moving clay soils all that sorta stuff.

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 09:17 PM

If using this crap can save one more tree for me, Im all for them.

Al :D

echnidna

19th October 2005, 09:18 PM

They are engineer designed.
So was
The Titanic
& The Space Shuttle

E. maculata

19th October 2005, 09:22 PM

If using this crap can save one more tree for me, Im all for them.

Al :D

Now Al I know you're tongue in cheek, cause masonite is made from what?
not commenting on the pale crap either side of it tho.

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 09:23 PM

I dont think Id like them in my place.

I used 250x50 Irish pine for my exposed ceiling with a tiled roof at 450mm spacings.
How would these things stack up to that?

How would you like them as an exposed feature? :eek:

Al :)

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 09:24 PM

Now Al I know you're tongue in cheek, cause masonite is made from what?
.

Sweepings off the floor?

Al :D

E. maculata

19th October 2005, 09:35 PM

Mmmm, i believe Hardwood fibres might be present in that there masonite, no glue just shredded hwd liquified, stirred and pressed into board using heat & pressure.
My understanding anyhow :cool:

Driver

19th October 2005, 10:33 PM

You`d be amazed what is being used in construction.

You got that right! :eek:

That splitting is probable caused by the nails that are driven in to secure it to the top-plate.

I'm sure you intended this comment to be reassuring. Why don't I feel reassured? :(

bitingmidge

19th October 2005, 10:36 PM

http://www.hudsontimber.com.au/ibeams/default.asp

http://www.tilling.com.au/smartframe/htdocs/smartfrProds.htm#Ijoist
Well see what happens when a bloke goes to sleep for a bit! The world just keeps getting smarter.

Ply and chipboard I've seen, but now hardboard too!

Why do I suddenly long for the good old days?

P
:eek: :D

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 10:37 PM

Well see what happens when a bloke goes to sleep for a bit! The world just keeps getting smarter.

Ply and chipboard I've seen, but now hardboard too!

Why do I suddenly long for the good old days?

P
:eek: :D

Just wait for the cardboard to come on line...

Al :D

Bodgy

19th October 2005, 10:39 PM

Guys, this is a standard construction technique nowdays. All our neighbours have sold out and subdivided and without exemption all the McMansions going up use this technique for the upper storey.

I have a suspicion that these joists are probably as strong as the traditional. They don't seem to mind getting wet either, as it has rained lately and there's been no attempt to keep the water off. They cant all be shonky builders, can they?

ozwinner

19th October 2005, 10:45 PM

Even though I do work on the McMansions, I cant see them outliving 30 years.
Maybe thats the thing, built in obsolesence.
" Im sorry Sir, but you house has reached its use by date"
"please select from the following new houses ( at your expense of course ).

Al :)

Skew ChiDAMN!!

19th October 2005, 11:15 PM

Built-in obsolescence? Is that what they call shoddy workmanship nowadays?

I managed to take the trend towards laminating treated pine for bearers and joists in my stride, I can even turn a blind eye to the use of sheet ply and a nailgun in lieu of lintels over doors'n'windows... but the latest has me stunned. For a few years a polystyrene cladding has been used in lieu of blueboard for external upper stories, with good reason; but to use lightly rendered polystyrene as the sole cladding on the groundfloor? :eek:

Can you imagine? Your kid flies up the driveway on his bike, comes to a screaming halt throwing the bike up against the wall before belting inside to throw himself on the couch.

Only to find that he can't, 'cos the bike fell through the wall and beat him to it. :D

Seriously, at the latest site I'm working on, a new house of dubious quality sited on high-value beachfront (suitably priced for the rich but stupid, methinks), I leaned a crowbar against the side of the house while chipping some conc away to run a drain. Picked it up again and... uhoh... there's now this permanent imprint. A closer look showed similar marks & worse all around the place, and it hasn't any residents yet!

Tradies may be rough in the initial stages, but most at the finishing stages take at least a modicum of care, far more than a gaggle of kids would anyway.

DavidG

20th October 2005, 12:15 AM

ryanarcher

20th October 2005, 04:10 AM

TJI's (truss Joist incorporated) are used almost exclusively for floor joists here, though the web member is usually OSB, and the chords are usually 2"x2" not 2"x4" like in your photo :eek:. they are indeed very strong if used as intended. i can't see masonite bieng any worse than OSB in the presence of moisture.
their performance under fire load however is alarmingly poor. at relatively low structure fire conditions the glue delaminates the web from the chord causing acute and early floor collapse.

sol381

20th October 2005, 07:46 AM

I doubt whether you`ll find many guys using kd hardwood for joists any more. Even they are never the same width and the do bow as well so you are forever packing or planing to get the levels. With these kind of joists they are dead straight, are the same width, can span much further. They do work and after the plasterboard is on you wont even think about it. I doubt whether they would be used or even get approved if the didnt work.
stef

bennylaird

20th October 2005, 08:46 AM

The basic idea is quite sound, aeromodellers have been using the webbed spars like this for years. Very strong in compression for high loads but we use spruce spars with balsa webbing, call it an "I" beam.

silentC

20th October 2005, 09:20 AM

I don't think it's the I beam idea people are objecting to, it's the use of masonite for the web. I beams have obviously been around for awhile, we're using some in our house but it's LVL, not this stuff. Dunno, I can't see why it would be any weaker than LVL. Similiar principle to a torsion box when you have a heap of them side by side under your floor. As long as they can't tip over, it should be strong enough.

Ryan's point is a good one though. My joists are going to be LVL beams and I suppose they will suffer the same fate in a fire. If the glue lets go it's just a bunch of pine veneers standing on edge. We're only single storey though, so maybe not such a problem as it would be in a two storey house. If it gets hot enough to melt the glue, it's probably going to be a knock down and rebuild anyway :(

bennylaird

20th October 2005, 09:29 AM

Understand but just pointing out we use balsa for the web and get good results.

Auspiciousdna

20th October 2005, 10:10 AM

Should there not be a double top plate on a load bearing wall where the load is not carried directly over the studs. :confused:

Ps
I am not a builder but I think I read it in one of the council requirements. Somewhere....??? :confused:

These prefab frames are usually fab to engineer’s specification with a thicker T/P than the studs e.g.; T/P 90 x 70 or 90 x 90, studs 90 x 45 and you can kind of see it in the first pic posted, the stud dose look thinner. Some can have DTP if the project builder’s customers want to change what’s on their tried and tested plans, to negate the need to re-engineer the whole building or to adhere to council requirements (Not all councils would require DTP’s if any).<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

P.S If some of you guy’s think what they make ibeams out of, are out there as far as building goes, you should watch some of the build show on cable and what they’re doing O/S<o:p></o:p>

echnidna

20th October 2005, 10:23 AM

Hey Al,
Could you measure up the joists , span length and spacing etc.
The dimensions could be handy for making overhead shelves in my workshop.

Andy Mac

20th October 2005, 10:24 AM

Changing subject slightly, I was talking to an engineering mate recently about those support trusses for sheds and carports made from pressed galv steel, zigzag structure between two U sections. He reckons the simple addition of bracing ply(6mm?) tek screwed to the face will dramatically increase their strength. Similar effect maybe as this masonite I-beam, in the direction of load.
Cheers,

ozwinner

20th October 2005, 10:40 AM

Hey Al,
Could you measure up the joists , span length and spacing etc.
The dimensions could be handy for making overhead shelves in my workshop.

I wont be back there until mid next week, Ill get some measurements if I remember. :p

Al :)

ausdesign

20th October 2005, 12:08 PM

David, as you said, if the load onto the top plate is within a distance of 1.5 times the thickness of the top plate from the stud then the plate is not considered load bearing - just holds the studs in position.
If the load is towards the middle of the top plate span then the plate is designed for the load it has to carry. For example a rafter 3 meters long carrying a tile roof may require a 45*70 top plate. A rafter 6 meters long carrying an iron roof may require a 45*90 plate. A rafter 6 meters long carrying a tile roof may require a double 45*90 plate.
With a truss roof often a double plate is used on the outside walls not for strength but to lift the bottom chord of the truss away from the internal walls.

grinner

20th October 2005, 04:48 PM

My joists are going to be LVL beams and I suppose they will suffer the same fate in a fire. If the glue lets go it's just a bunch of pine veneers standing on edge. We're only single storey though, so maybe not such a problem as it would be in a two storey house. If it gets hot enough to melt the glue, it's probably going to be a knock down and rebuild anyway :(

As well as the glue, what about when the heat from the fire causes the gang nail plates to expand and fall out of the timber, such as in trusses!

As part of our structure firefighting training now, there is a module on building construction that covers this type of thing

Grinner:D

silentC

20th October 2005, 05:00 PM

I suppose the question is how often would a house that has been burned to that degree actually be patched up? I'd imagine that sort of fire damage would result in the house, or the damaged part of it, being pulled down and rebuilt, wouldn't it?

So is it really less about whether the house survives the fire and more about what fireys have to watch out for when entering a burning house? In which case, it makes bugger all difference to the home owner because either way it's a rebuild on the cards.

Bodgy

20th October 2005, 05:09 PM

Grinner - do firemen really get to pull more girls?

Driver

20th October 2005, 05:20 PM

Ryan would be able to provide a more informed comment than I can but I have some experience in major infrastructural construction - albeit well out of date (it's over sixteen years since I was involved in that industry).

One lesson I did learn was never to put too much faith in the attitude of the authorities towards new construction methods and materials and the supposed safety standards that are imposed upon them. When it comes to fire, no-one knows how a new material will perform until a major fire occurs. Most of the safety standards are created by committees comprised of a mixture of public servants and industry representatives. These are well-meaning people but they are making decisions based upon data that is frequently theoretical, speculative or empirically gleaned from small scale experimental studies. I know because I spent a bit of time supplying some of the data.

Most of the major changes in fire safety regulation have come about not because problems were foreseen and predicted but because disastrous fires, sometimes with major loss of life, have demonstrated the utterly unforeseen dangers inherent in some new method of construction.

There were examples throughout the 20th century. Some that I can recall (because I had to study them at various times) were:

- Firestone's factory at Akron, Ohio (use of bitumenised roofing material without fire breaks on massive roof spans).

- A leisure centre in the Isle of Man (use of plastic daylighting material)

- A chemical factory in the North-East of England (use of polystyrene insulation in high sidewalls)

One piece of Aussie ingenuity and foresight: the RAAF had an obsolete aircraft hangar (can't remember where). Some bright spark (pun intended!) came up with the idea of burning it down in a controlled experiment to learn how major open structures perfom in fire conditions. A great deal was learned from this.

Unfortunately, most observed wisdom about the fire performance of construction materials and methods is gained expensively and sometimes at great risk to firefighters and others.

Auld Bassoon

20th October 2005, 07:42 PM

I have to agree Al,

The quality (if that's the right word) of that assembly is worse than I've seen in the average-to-poor humpy!

The design principle seems to be alright (I'm not an engineer though, so not really qualified to comment), but it's that way it's been flung together...

Cheers!

boban

20th October 2005, 08:56 PM

Have a guess which one costs more fellas.

You will find that the bodgy guys will be using pine joists.

I beam joists are better than solid timber in so many ways.

The photo you are looking at is called blocking. It stops the joists from falling over. Similar to the function of bracing. You can use metal strapping or solid timber. Not too much wrong with it.

If you want to see the difference, you only have to walk on this type of floor.

ozwinner

20th October 2005, 09:24 PM

Ozwinner
(usually outside walls are loadbearing).

I repeat.

Should there not be a double top plate on a load bearing wall where the load is not carried directly over the studs. :confused:

Ps
I am not a builder but I think I read it in one of the council requirements. Somewhere....??? :confused:

Ok I see the question.????
I was standing in the stair well, no at an outside wall.
I can see where you can be confused by the piccy.

Sorry for any confusion.

Al :o

Markw

24th October 2005, 04:43 PM

One lesson I did learn was never to put too much faith in the attitude of the authorities towards new construction methods and materials and the supposed safety standards that are imposed upon them.

Something that you might note is a number of the Australian Standards Committees seem to be populated by more than a fair number of commercial interests which gives a lop sided bais to monetary interest.

The one I notice most is SF/15 (height safety) which has only a couple of user representatives whilst the bulk of the committee are from manufacturers each with a supposedly different claim to representation but in the end generally making decisions which would seem to benefit manufacture and not necessarily the end user.

Take a look at who ever approves these types of structures in the first place and see if there is a relationship between manufacture and the approval process.

Marc

25th October 2005, 06:12 PM

Wood Butcher

25th October 2005, 07:42 PM

Not forgetting the twin towers. If the I beam had been riveted to the outside structure, the towers would still be standing. Believe it or not the I beams where sitting on the outside frame and held in place by gravity.

Not true. The floor joists were not I beams but webbed trusses and they were pinned to the outside walls. There is a lot more to the collapse of the towers than the attachment of the flor joists. A major factor was the lack of fire retardment material on the joists and the fact that the fire barriers surrounding the internal shaft was obliterated by the force of the impact of the planes.

I apologize now to anyone that this may touch a nerve with.

MICKYG

25th October 2005, 09:38 PM

Fellow Woodies

Have read the whole thread and have come to the conclusion that it may be not a bad idea use the gal metal frames commonly used these days. Son in law built a nice house using a 5 bedroom 2 bathroom kit from a company in Penrith and every thing was supplied down to the last bolt / screw. The house has been up for five years with no faults so it has proven to be a good way to go.

Kind Regards Mike. ;)

Gaza

25th October 2005, 10:42 PM

The best term, i herd at uni to discribe this type of costruction, "lean construction"

hey there is nothing wrong with the product, it meets all the stds etc, but the computer that spits out the beam sizes and exceptable spans choses the one that just exceds the requirements. IN the old days we would get the span table out and select the required beam then go to the next size up to be happy, so we are effectively over engineering by 50% but now its all spot on. I know of frame and truss plants using un-structual grade framing and even F5 where when we do on site cut we do not go under F7 / MPG10.

The solution is when building your own place over desighn the beams, this will aviod the problems faced by project homes such as plasterboard cracking along the top from the floor joists flexing, (BUT the flex is within the allowable movement)

There is no way that in 10 yrs time any builders would think about doing extenstions to project homes as you would have to go all the way though to build from the footings up to take the extra loads.

boban

25th October 2005, 11:16 PM

Gaz I dont think too many people would be extending the MacMansions anyway.

Craig Kay

13th February 2006, 09:47 AM

There is an old saying, "it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

The hardboard web in the I-Joists (8 mm not 6) are fully long term tested under all likely conditions including the effects of moisture. No manufacturer is going to put a structural element into a dwelling without considerable testing and confidence in the materials.

There is thirty (30) year history of hardboard web in I-Joist construction in some parts of the world.

i would recommend that you get some facts before posting items in this manner in the future

silentC

13th February 2006, 09:54 AM

G'day Craig. Thanks for joining the forum. Just a couple of questions: Who are you directing your comment to and you don't happen to work for a company that supplies this stuff do you?

ozwinner

13th February 2006, 04:19 PM

G'day Craig. Thanks for joining the forum. Just a couple of questions: Who are you directing your comment to and you don't happen to work for a company that supplies this stuff do you?

Pull your head in Craig.

We/I, am allowed to talk about these things, like it or not.

Normally ppl who come onto these forums boots first usually get a good kicking.

Al :)

Sturdee

13th February 2006, 04:53 PM

There is an old saying, "it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

There is another old and wise saying here " Only fools and idiots come kicking at everyone with their boots on their first post." So are you a fool or an idiot, can't quite work it out.

But if you are going against accepted practice and quote some obscure statistic it would be better if you were specific as to where, and in what manner, and how this is independantly verified rather than say in some parts of the world.

Peter.

ozwinner

13th February 2006, 05:06 PM

Regardless of whether it is accepted practice overseas.
I would rather see some REAL oregon beams in place, something with some substance, not compressed cardboard.

I pity the ppl who buy these houses.
I was in one today, and the aircon man had been, he had cut out a 150mm dia hole through the the 8mm, not 6mm web, the web is all of 160mm high .
That cant be good for strength.

Al :)

ozwinner

13th February 2006, 07:01 PM

I couldnt help myself.
Red launched.

Al :p

boban

13th February 2006, 07:13 PM

I was in one today, and the aircon man had been, he had cut out a 150mm dia hole through the the 8mm, not 6mm web, the web is all of 160mm high .
That cant be good for strength.

Al :)

Nor is it accepted practice.

I haven't used the hardboard one but have used the 'Silent Floor' type. Also used Oregon and Pine. My choice will invariably be the most expensive, the Silent Floor.

I can't imagine cutting out half of any joist being any good for it's strength.

pharmaboy2

13th February 2006, 09:18 PM

whenever new products arrive in the construction industry, there is always plenty of resistance.

When I built my house a dozen years ago, i specified the new flexible water pipes - hard to find a plumber to do it, but got no end of lectures from old plumbers about "that stuff" - every house i see now, is using it. the next product was ultrafloor - same thing, use timber, use suspended slab etc etc In retrospect an enormously more suitable product for domestic flooring - quiet, heat sink, didnt move, could tile over, limited termite access.

Now living in an older place, and despairing at HW joists, and framing - all over the shop. FWIW I did however choose cfc sheeting instead of chip for my wet area reno's. I'd kill for a dead flat floor now though!

Markw

14th February 2006, 08:21 AM

whenever new products arrive in the construction industry, there is always plenty of resistance.

It quite often not a resistance to new technology per se but the limitations imposed by the new product.

I have hardwood framing in the original construction section of my roof which has given me plenty of storage space for things I don't use often. If I look over at the new section just built with treated pine trusses, I can barely see a passge through to gain access to the electricals let alone use any space for storage.

Back before we had computer modeling, the designs of everything from cars to cathederals used a sledge hammer approach where the design was over-engineered just in case there was some unforseen fault or to provide a factor of safety. Today we know that for instance a bearing will last say 5 million revolutions - not 6 and more than 4 and therefore define the life cycle of a product - this coined the term built in obsolesence as it combine the policy of no spare or user servicable parts. Using computer modeling the design of roof trusses only just meet the standard and don't provide for any additional loads which may be applied at a later date (extensions etc). What can be seen is that while you get less material to build the house you still pay the same cost to the building company, at least intially until the market catches up with the new tech. Then you have to pay more for the older tech which is quite often slower and more labour and material intensive.

DanP

14th February 2006, 08:58 AM

Al,

I hate to be a spelling nasty but your sig line should be spelt, N-U-F-F-Y. :p

thebuildingsurv

14th February 2006, 11:18 AM

Hey guys this is my first post, anyway, much of the strength in these beams is attained from the flanges (timber at top and bottom) thus cutting for plumbing penetrations etc is not a huge drama in most situations. You are better of cutting penetrations into these than oregon floor joists. I realise some of you guys here are from the old school and are probably the same blokes whos work i inspect that go way overboard on things that dont matter and miss the important things that do matter. A building Surveyor / inspector will only usually accept a new product unless is has the appropriate docs to back it up. I find some of your posts quite amusing, especially some of the advice given out by those who think they know it all. I gaurantee i have had more expeirience and education than most of you but still learn new things constantly and there is only so much information one can keep in their head.

Well that my 2 cents worth

silentC

14th February 2006, 11:35 AM

Great first post mate but you wont impress anybody around here by telling them you're a building inspector. I'm glad you're enjoying the forum though. We are here to entertain, aren't we fellas?

Why is this thread attracting these people? Wouldn't be the same guy, would it?

DanP

14th February 2006, 11:53 AM

Not very full of himself, is he?

silentC

14th February 2006, 11:56 AM

Obviously used to builders pissing in his pockets... if he is an inspector. Hey, why aren't you out inspecting building works instead of surfing the net? We don't pay our rates for you to slack off all day you know.

Eastie

14th February 2006, 12:01 PM

Oh- the old school who believed in spending more time to bolster things to achieve a quality structure that would outlive the occupants many times over - not the new way of doing things that result in a 'compliant' building (aka brand new renovators delight) with a life span of 30 years - if your lucky.....

Don't take it as a personal comment - it's just an observation shared by many old timers on the way things have gone and are continuing....

Driver

14th February 2006, 12:07 PM

Well that my 2 cents worth

I reckon you're over-valuing your contributions, pal.

Studley 2436

14th February 2006, 12:53 PM

*LOL* there are some good flames going here

Whats the inspector doing flaming people in his first post?

Especially saying old school is about putting too much into things that don't matter and fumbling things that do matter. Old School was about making sure everything was done right wasn't it? Some things might have been over done resulting in other things having to be overdone to handle increased load etc but those guys were doing the best that could be done with the knowledge available.

Our knowledge hopefully is always improving but that doesn't diminish the work of those before us.

Studley

silentC

14th February 2006, 12:57 PM

Unfortunately, what is driving the development of new products in the building industry is cost. For example plumbers love PE-X because it is quick and easy to put in. You can do the job in a fraction of the time and you don't need to lug around oxy bottles, pipe benders and flanging tools. All they need is a crimper, a stanley knife and a cordless drill. Doesn't mean it's the best product for the end user though. All they know is that it cost them less to get it installed.

TARLOX

14th February 2006, 01:47 PM

At the end of the day it all comes down to 'user pays'. People who engage project home builders to build these Mcmansions want maximum bang for their bucks. They dont care about what type of footings/structure/plumbing pipes they are getting. Most only care about getting the biggest house they can afford and what type of kitchen/bathroom/floor finishes etc they are getting. Most owners would rather spend and extra $10000 on granite kitchen benchtops than on the footings or floor joists. Hence, to compete with each other, project home builders spend as little as possible on all the things that 'arent seen' and put more $$$ into the aesthetic stuff. Unfortunately, most 'structural elements' fall into the 'the things that arent seen' category.

As others have stated, 'Engineered' floor joists are common place in most project home construction. 'I' joists work on the same principles as steel Universal Beams (or RSJ's for you old blokes). The result is a stiffer and stronger member, with less overall cross sectional area than an equivalent rectangular section. That is why most steel beams are flanged sections (I or C) rather than solid steel rectangular sections. Holes can certainly be cut through the webs of engineered joists. However, should only be done so in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.

Structural members are not necessarily designed to the limit these days due to the use of computers or otherwise. As engineers, we can do the same calculations with or without computers. It was just slower without them. It all comes down to the 'bean counters' at project home companies squeezing every last cent out of the structural components of a house in order to build the biggest and prettiest Mcmansions at the lowest possible price.

In my opinion, used correctly the certified engineered joists are a good solution. They are usually stronger, stiffer, and lighter than the equivalent solid rectangular floor joists. Not to mention how many fewer trees are required to build the average Mcmansion.

Thats my 10 cents worth :D

Wongo

14th February 2006, 01:56 PM

I find some of your posts quite amusing, especially some of the advice given out by those who think they know it all. I gaurantee i have had more expeirience and education than most of you but still learn new things constantly and there is only so much information one can keep in their head.

Top that:rolleyes:

thebuildingsurv

14th February 2006, 01:59 PM

Look guys i wasnt flamin anyone. I just that when i hear several times a day. "I havent never done that before" by old school builders, who whinge when asked to do carry out basic requirements noted on a plan they havent even read, i get peed off. I have read through some of your posts and heard some excellent advice and some not so good advice. I regards to why am i not on site ATM, that is because I also check plans as well. I doubt half of you even know what a Building Surveyor is. As hardcore tradies such as yourselves why arent you out there hammering some nails. I am allowed to pump my own tyres up, it is your job to try and flatten them. You caught me on a bad day, I will come back when im in a better mood. RE ABOVE POST I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A SPELLAR. ALL MY PROFFESSIONAL WORK IS SPELLCHECKED

Greg Q

14th February 2006, 02:18 PM

I doubt half of you even know what a Building Surveyor is. ...As hardcore tradies such as yourselves why arent you out there hammering some nails.

Well, not all of us are, some of us make time in our otherwise busy days for a bit of enlightnment. And driving nails? Let's see, I might have a few red ones around here someplace......yep! Here they are, and a big hammer, too.

Barry_White

14th February 2006, 02:21 PM

I can feel the first reddie coming up.

silentC

14th February 2006, 02:25 PM

I doubt half of you even know what a Building Surveyor is.
Can't help yourself, can you?

Studley 2436

14th February 2006, 02:48 PM

Sheeze ease up on the guy fellas. He is one of those typical just got in but gunna be all right soon enough once the rough edges get knocked off him.

Building Surv there are a fair few tradies here, many who know a lot of what they are on about. Look around and you will see the bunch here is a long way from the people you complain about. Check some of the woodies gallery to see the stuff that people here have made. As for nails most of us prefer using traditional joins and glueing, but being more into furniture than construction that is typical enough.

Many here perhaps all are here because it is a hobby they do in their spare time. Some also work in wood related trades. There is a pretty good mixture of people. Some guy earlier posted (not you and it was post #1) about how it is all tested and shut up if you don't know what you are talking about. OH my god. Personally I don't even know what is going on, really I know nothing about the joint in question but it is fun to read might learn something.

Wouldn't worry about pumping my tires up if I was you it is not until they start letting air out that you know you are one of the gang here.

Studley

silentC

14th February 2006, 02:58 PM

I realise some of you ... are probably the same blokes whos work i inspect that go way overboard on things that dont matter and miss the important things that do matter.

I find some of your posts quite amusing, especially some of the advice given out by those who think they know it all.

I gaurantee i have had more expeirience and education than most of you ...

I doubt half of you even know what a Building Surveyor is.

That's four insults in two posts. Would you walk into a crowded pub and start throwing shyte like that around?

if he is an inspector
I take it back, only a Building Inspector could be that obnoxious.

Clinton1

14th February 2006, 03:03 PM

I doubt half of you even know what a Building Surveyor is.

I'm getting a suspicion that it involves being arrogant and rude.

I will come back when im in a better mood

Or try calling 13 11 14. Its free, confidential and 24 hours.

ozwinner

14th February 2006, 04:51 PM

Why is this thread attracting these people? Wouldn't be the same guy, would it?

Wouldnt be Stoppers reinventing himself would it.?? :confused:

Al :D

pharmaboy2

14th February 2006, 05:16 PM

OMG! What is this, a school playground or something! 2 new members post calling a spade a spade (probbaly a little less than subtle) and the place turns into some sort of witch burning.

Granted, its not a thread about advice, but it would be easier for those looking for opinions if people generally commented on things they know about, and perhaps leave obvious engineering points to people vaguely qualified to comment.

On topic;- the worst example of poor building practice on this thread is the use of polystyrene on a ground floor wall - I'd bet money that the builder wasnt a bigtime builder - they might build to a minimum (hidden work) standard - but they arent likely to build so that they get to spend money on rectification; and polystyrene is sure to end up in rectifiction work when used on the ground floor.

Dan_574

14th February 2006, 05:37 PM

Polystyrene on the bottom floor, do you mean the cladding, if so hasnt it got a hard outer shell and is then rendered , so its pretty hard.

pharmaboy2

14th February 2006, 05:42 PM

Yeh, on the bottom story - theres a post about it in this thread. The render AFAIK is usually acrylic and VERY thin anyway so doesnt make it hard when you're talking a cricket ball, or even a footy. Finished more like plasterboard than traditional brick rendering

edit - hardness depends on how it is applied, some require fibreglass re'inforcing which makes a difference - my neighbour used a non glass reinforced version but only on the upper story, the lower story got aerated concrete panelling.