Structural engineer costs

[mike]

I need to submit calculation to Building Control for two steels, one (or po ssibly a pair) in a cavity wall and one at right angles in an internal wall .

I've rung a few local structural engineers and the going rate seems to be j ust short of £600. That's the ones who've replied - the rest seem to be as flakily unreliable as British builders.

That's more expensive than I expected. I've heard the argument that you're paying for their insurance, not the calculation, but if it's anything like surveyors insurance, there'd be enough exclusions that you wouldn't be abl e to claim if the entire street fell down and I'd really like to not reach the stage of having to claim on their insurance anyway.

There are also online engineers (with UK contact details) who claim to have insurance that offer to do the calcs at £50 per steel if you send in the details.

I don't want to risk the house collapsing to save a few hundred quid but I also don't want to pay £600 to someone who slaps the details in the sa me spreadsheet the online guys use.

It's a standard semi - bread and butter stuff that's been done a thousand t imes before - and not something that Kevin McCloud is coming round to drool over.

I assume Building Control actually check the calcs. One of the online site s names several councils as clients, which (if genuine) suggests that their work is good enough.

Anyone here been in this position? Any experience to share?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yuu assume wrong.

What building regs want is a document signed by a competent person that says 'this will be OK'

I am surprised at £600. I think I paid £200 for this exact work - specifying steel lintels over French windows.

[Jeff Layman]

When we had a conservatory erected a couple of years ago, the architect requested a structural engineer look at the plans and site as the house had been underpinned. The architect believed the conservatory should have footings the same depth and strength as the house, so if there was any movement both would move together, but wanted confirmation from a structural engineer. The structural engineer drew up plans for the "overkill" footings, and these were submitted under the then "Permitted Development Rules". This didn't involve approval, but rather lack of objection.

What was done by the structural engineer was effectively a hand-drawn diagram on graph paper, with a few notes! For this we paid £550 +vat.

However, we felt this was necessary to get the damn thing through the system. And don't forget that if anything does go wrong, your Buildings Insurance company will try to wriggle out of its commitments in whatever way it can. If you have the signed documents from professionals, it's one less means of escape.

[harry]

possibly a pair) in a cavity wall and one at right angles in an internal wa ll.

just short of £600. That's the ones who've replied - the rest seem t o be as flakily unreliable as British builders.

re paying for their insurance, not the calculation, but if it's anything li ke surveyors insurance, there'd be enough exclusions that you wouldn't be a ble to claim if the entire street fell down and I'd really like to not reac h the stage of having to claim on their insurance anyway.

ve insurance that offer to do the calcs at £50 per steel if you send i n the details.

I also don't want to pay £600 to someone who slaps the details in the same spreadsheet the online guys use.

times before - and not something that Kevin McCloud is coming round to dro ol over.

tes names several councils as clients, which (if genuine) suggests that the ir work is good enough.

Just go out and buy standard lintels. No need for any calculations. They come in all sizes/lengths. Problem solved.

[Peter Johnson]

That's what my builder did a few years ago. He liked them because they are easily obtained and can be cut to length, if needed, with an angle grinder. Catnic is one manufacturer.

[rick]

I recently used a structural engineer for an outbuilding, it cost £550 - Buildings Regs passed it no problems as there was a whole package supplied of physical loading, wind loading, shear strength etc.

It was all run off computer analysis, but I did also get some bespoke drawings for gallows brackets steel, and post anchors - all good value I thought.

I don't think Building control cheek the calcs if they come in from certified source. They will just look at detail of what went into them .. .assumptions, wind loading etc

[PeterL]

I'm a bit late to the party but I am a structural engineer.

The =A3600 fee doesn't seem to be too unreasonable to me. The design of= the =

beams is the straightforward bit. Then there's the connection design, a= nd =

the assessment of the load carrying capacity of the supporting walls and= =

foundations.

Since the CDM Regulations apply, there's also the requirement to produce= a =

'designers risk assessment'.

In similar situations, I have recommended a 'structural goalpost', which= =

amongst other benefits will avoid party wall issues.

[mike]

A couple of the people I spoke to suggested goalposts. They were also the ones who said it was a big job in engineering, cost and installation terms. One of them also said that the beam could be shallower because there were uprights at either end. Perhaps you could explain that as I'm not clear o n how the minor reduction in span would significantly influence the depth of the beam. Is a goalpost two uprights and a crossbeam? There aren't "ga llows brackets" at either end reducing the span are there?

In this case, because the extension wall isn't built along the centre line of the properties, there is sufficient return on the party wall that the be am wouldn't be set into it anyway, so I think party wall concerns wouldn't apply.

I've also been told by one of the chaps that recommended a goalpost, "Some Engineers are more relaxed about the stability issue and just design the be ams." I realise there's more than one way to solve a design problem but I' m not sure whether this means he thinks other engineers are lax and potenti ally designing unsafe structures or if he's very cautious and designing for statistically unlikely events. Surely there are some accepted minimum sta ndards including generally agreed safety margins that the majority of engin eers subscribe to?

Also, does Doc A of Building Regs ("structural wall on four sides: floor ar ea

[PeterL]

[PeterL]

They're service providers, aren't they? You want a beam sized, and =

they'll size it for you. The crucial bit that's missing in this process= =

is 'duty of care'

-- =

Using Opera's mail client: