Buckingham Hotel
1-2 Burlington Rd, Buxton, SK17 9AS
General Structural Engineers Report
Reference: M422-1017
Date: 08/11/2017
Rev: A
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
1
Contents
Title
Main Report findings
Summary of major Structural work required
Design Loadings
Check existing double beams in Cavendish room
Preliminary size replacement Beams in Cavendish
Check larger existing beam in snooker room cellar
Check existing timber beam in Ramsay bar
Preliminary size replacement Beam in Ramsay bar
Existing Staircase stringer check
Preliminary size replacement stair stringers
Photographs
Limitations of report
Page No
3
12
13
14
17
21
23
25
29
32
36
53
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
2
Reference: M422-1017
Date: 08/11/2017
FAO: Mr S. Barar
RE: Structural Engineer Report – Buckingham Hotel 1-2 Burlington Rd, Buxton
SK17 9AS
Introduction & Clients Brief
We were commissioned to carry out a visual inspection and produce a General
Structural Engineers Report for Buckingham Hotel, 1-2 Burlington Rd, Buxton, which our
client owns.
Mr Paul Davies. B.Eng (hons) C.Eng; M.I.StructE of PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
carried out the visual inspection on the 16/10/2017.
Description of the Property.
The property is substantial detached stone building that dates from 1876. Originally two
large semi-detached houses, the property was converted into a hotel in the early 20th
Century.
We suspect soon after construction, both separate dwellings where extended at their
rear. This created a ‘U ’shaped structure, which in more recent times was infilled with a
rear extension.
The property consists of four storeys above front elevation ground level, including attic
rooms and has a large cellar towards the front of the property. The land slopes towards
the rear elevation and level access into the cellar can be obtained from the rear of the
property through a single doorway.
The external walls are constructed using course gritstone to the outer face with random
rubble core. The external wall thickness measures approximately 450mm thick.
There are four bay windows to the front of the property, each three storeys in height
(measured from cellar level). The bays are constructed using a traditional stone lintel
and mullion design. All the windows have the original timber sash window frames and
single pane glazing.
The upper floors to the property are traditional suspended timber joists and floorboards.
The cellar floor is a combination of ground bearing concrete slab along both gable
elevations and a suspended timber floors towards the middle of the building.
The main pitched roof is covered with traditional blue slate. The infilled rear extension
has a bitumen asphalt flat roof covering.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
3
Find below the key structural items observed during our visual inspection.
Annotations of views are assumed facing the front elevation.
1.0 Front Elevation
Two middle bay windows and central brickwork
1.1 The 3-storey front two middle bay windows have pulled away from the main
structure and rotated on their foundations. The degree of distortion from plumb is
significant, most noticeably at 1st floor level. Above the 1st floor bay, the stone lintels
have dropped notably.
The method of constructing the bays provides very limited tying back to the main
structure. The middle section of brickwork between the two middle bay windows has
also pulled away and has a significant outward lean. Had the party wall not been
removed at cellar and ground floor level, this central brickwork would most definitely
have been more stable.
The degree of distortion is now at the stage where ongoing and progressive movement
is likely to both the middle bays and central brickwork. In our opinion, the two middle
bays and central brickwork need to be rebuilt from cellar to 2nd floor level on new mini
piled foundations. The new bays will also need to be laterally anchored to the main
structure at each floor level.
During construction, we recommend the front wall be tied into a new dense concrete
block wall built along the original party wall line within the snooker room. The
specification stated in H and H Building Solutions report would appear a reasonable
solution.
1.2 Currently within the Cavendish room at 1st floor, there are double beams spanning
onto the front wall between the bay windows. Ideally a nib should have been retained
to provide additional stability at this position. Therefore, we recommend either
rebuilding an 1350mm long nib at time of constructing the new wall, or preferably
installing a steel windpost. The wind post can be bolted to the steel beams above and
fixed to a deep concrete padstone supported off the wall below. This will help provide
much needed lateral restraint to the newly constructed front wall between the middle
bay windows at ground and 1st floor.
2.0 Front Elevation - Two outer bay windows
2.1 There has been structural movement to the two outer bays on the front elevation.
The degree of vertical and lateral movement is less than that observed to the central
two bays. However, we suspect ongoing movement will occur and both the outer bay
windows should be underpinned with a mini pile foundation solution.
The two outer bays can be maintained; however, the longstanding movement has
resulted in cracking to several stone lintels, which will need to be replaced. In addition,
the mullions would benefit from being restrained at each floor level.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
4
2.2 The timber sash windows to all the windows around the property are in poor
condition and will need to be replaced.
3.0 Left hand Gable Elevation
3.1 The bay window to the left-hand elevation appeared reasonably plumb and any
movement has been minor. However, we would recommend installing additional lateral
restraints at each floor level to provide stability to the stone mullions and lintels.
4.0 Right hand Gable Elevation
4.1 The bay window on the right-hand elevation has an outwards lean and has pulled
away from the main gable wall. In addition, the main gable wall to the rear of the bay
has also pulled away, with an outside lean of approx. 20mm over a 1200mm long spirit
level. The movement has distorted the window openings and caused the basement
stone lintels and sills to crack.
Internally within the Ramsay bar at ground floor, there is significant distortion to the
gable wall and cracking has occurred across the ceiling coving near the bay window.
At first floor, there is diagonal cracking to the dividing wall between bedrooms 8 and 10.
There is also cracking across the ceiling in front of the bay window. The walls in both
bedrooms are not plumb and mirror the distortion observed externally.
We suspect there is ongoing movement of the bay window and recommend the bay be
mini-piled and lateral restraints installed at each floor level. The separating wall
between bedrooms 8 and 10 should also be tied back to the main elevation.
4.2 The broken lintels and sills should also be replaced.
4.3 The conifer tree at the rear corner of right hand gable wall will be imposing
considerable stress on the retaining wall. The tree is planted far too close to the
property and is detrimental to the structural integrity of the retaining wall. Therefore,
we recommend the tree be removed as soon as possible.
5.0 Rear Elevation (Right hand side)
5.1 There are several cracks visible externally in the rear right-hand wall. Internally
within the bar area there is clear indication of long-term lateral movement, evident by
the distortion of the wall profile and filler pieces along the skirting boards.
5.2 A large stone buttress has been installed to aid restraint to the wall. The position of
the buttress is not in the ideal location; however, it will be providing some additional
restraint to the wall. There is no clear indication of resent ongoing movement to this
section of wall.
5.3 To ensure integrity of the wall is maintained, the cracking in the wall needs to be
crack stitched repaired. This involves installing 10mm diameter stainless steel crack
stitch bars across the crack at 300mm maximum vertical centre, allowing for a minimum
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
5
of 500mm lap either side of the crack. In addition, lateral restraint bars are required at
each floor level to help prevent further lateral movement.
6.0 Rear Elevation (Left hand side - SW wing)
6.1 The three pattress plates on the left-hand section of the rear elevation are not
effective. The plates are not positioned at floor level and therefore will have no restraint
value.
6.2 There is a diagonal crack above the 1st floor left hand window and above the ground
floor right hand window. Both these windows also have cracked stone sills. There is
evidence of apparent ongoing vertical movement occurring to this elevation. This
includes recent cracking in room 6a.
Mini piling the rear right hand wall would be beneficial, combined with installing lateral
restraint ties at each floor level.
7.0 Flat roof
7.1 The rafters to the 1st floor flat roof appear to deflect significantly when walked
upon. The asphalt is covered with a build-up of moss and we suspect the roof covering
is near the end of its lifespan.
8.0 Main Roof
8.1 The roof was not inspected, as we understand a separate report has been prepared
following high-level access to the roof.
8.2 We have been shown photographs of a crack that has occurred through the party
wall within the loft space. The cracking and its position does appear to confirm the
structure has suffered from deferentially settlement, primarily due to the movement
observed along the front and rear elevations. Either crack stitch repair, or rebuilding the
party wall within the loft is recommended
INTERNAL
9.0 Timber Floors (General)
9.1 The suspended timber floors are uneven in numerous places, at each floor level. We
suspect majority of this movement is associated with long-term differential settlement of
the structure. However, localised distortion within the front middle bedrooms is likely
associated with the movement of the front middle bays and central wall.
10.0 2nd Floor – Rear Corridor / passageway
10.1 The original doorframes, floor and outer wall along the passageway at 2nd floor
are all significantly distorted. This corridor would have been created when the two
separate dwellings where combined to form the hotel. This involved removing a section
of the party wall that abuts the rear wall to form the passageway. By removing the
party wall, this has affected the lateral stability of the rear wall.
10.2 At 1st floor in bedroom 9, a crack has appeared through the dividing brick wall
with room 1. Based upon the position of the crack, we suspect this is due to ongoing
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
6
lateral movement of the rear wall. This is a structural concern and the dividing wall
needs to be crack stitch repaired and tied to the rear wall using Helifix Helibar (or
similar). The bars should extend in a minimum of 2m along the dividing wall at 300mm
vertical centres in accordance with manufacturers details.
The crack in the wall in bedroom 9 and bowing central rear wall suggests ongoing
lateral movement is occurring. Lateral restraint ties are required at 2nd and 3rd floor level
(above the flat roof area). In addition, we recommend installing two more substantial
pattress plates from the rear elevation, right across the building (parallel with the party
wall) into the new front wall at 2nd floor level. This will help further restrain the rear
elevation, as the new front wall will be more stable than the existing.
11.0 Staircases
11.1 Attempts to strengthen various stair flights have been carried out over the years.
On the left-hand part of the hotel, this includes installing steel beams at the head of
some stair flights and various props and brackets along the flight.
Upon close inspection of one of these steel beams, it does not actually support the
stringers and therefore is largely ineffective.
We recommend new steel beams be installed at the head of each stair flight.
Additionally, where steel beams have already been installed, these should all be
checked to ensure suitable fixity has been provided.
11.2 The timber handrailing to all the staircases is very loose and would not provide any
effective safety restraint. Repairs are required.
11.3 Assuming the staircases were originally designed by calculation, the original
staircase would have been designed for domestic loading. However, the imposed
loading once converted into a hotel would far exceed this value due to increase
anticipated traffic, particularly if the staircase is now also used as a fire escape.
The flight of each staircase is approximately 5m in length with typically 21 risers per
flight. There appears to be three 5” x 3” timber stringers supporting each flight.
Calculations suggest these timbers are significantly undersized due to their very long
span, even for domestic use. Therefore, either all staircases should be replaced, or the
existing stringers will need to be strengthened or replaced by installing additional steel
beams, spanning between new landing steel. Effectively this is creating a new staircase
structure, however some original Architectural features can be maintained.
11.4 Corridors and landings alongside the staircases have a significant slope, due to
excessive deflection of the timber support structure which are undersized for expected
hotel imposed loadings. By installing the new steel beams at each landing level, this will
also help strengthen the landings.
12.0 Timber beam spanning across Ramsay Bar
12.1 The dividing wall between bedrooms 8 and 10 is supported on a timber beam
which spans across the bar area at Ground level. The timber beam measures 19 x 7”,
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
7
with a clear span of 4600mm. The beam supports the 1st and 2nd floor joists and single
brick wall above.
Calculations suggest the beam is significantly undersized and should be replaced with a
suitable sized steel beam. Based upon our calculation results, excessive deflection of the
beam is the probable cause of the cracking to the bedroom wall above. The
replacement steel beam is estimated to require a 254x254x89UB section.
13.0 Existing steel beams on the party wall line in the cellar snooker room.
13.1 There are two steel downstand beams running across the cellar ceiling along the
original party wall line. The larger beam was probably installed at the time the two
dwellings were combined to create a hotel. We suspect that the smaller 8x4” beam was
installed numerous years after the larger beam was installed. This accounts for the fact
that the smaller beam is at a lower level and looks like an after-thought. We suspect the
beam was installed due to doubts that the larger 9x7.5RSJ was adequate on its own to
support the ground floor joists.
Calculations for the larger 9 x 7” historic sized beam suggest the beam is capable of
supporting the floor joists within the Cavendish Room without the need for the smaller
beam. This is based upon 2.0KN/m2 imposed loading for hotels, dining rooms / lounges.
However, we suspect excessive ‘floor bounce’ issues were the reason for the second
beam installation. Possibly the Cavendish room was once used as a dance hall, where
the imposed load would be far higher and would cause the larger beam to fail.
In order to help re-establish satisfactory lateral restraint to the front wall, the proposal
to reinstate the party wall within the cellar snooker room will provide additional support
to both beams which can be kept in place. The new wall should therefore be hard
mortar packed tight to the underside of the beams.
14.0 Existing steel beams below the 1st floor ceiling in the Cavendish room.
14.1 There are two steel downstand beams running across the ceiling along the original
party wall line. These beams appear to be 10 x 6“ historic sections and support the
party wall and 1st and 2nd floors above.
Calculations suggest these beams are significantly undersized in both bending, buckling
and overall deflection. The likely reason the beams have not failed is that the party wall
is partially arching over the beam span. However, this will have imposed more lateral
load onto the front wall. We recommend both these beams be replaced with larger
beams. A suitable size would be using two 305x305x118UC sections.
15.0 Underpinning
15.1 The proposed method of underpinning is to install a series of cantilever needle
beams supported on bored or CFA mini piles in the areas affected by subsidence, i.e.
five bay windows, front central wall and rear wall to the SW corner.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
8
Each needle beam is supported by two mini-piles, one acting in compression and one
tension. A pocket is broken out through the existing wall and a reinforced concrete
beam is then cast linking the two piles.
The bearing capacity of the underlying strata will determine the number, diameter and
spacing of piles used. However typically the needles are at 1000 – 1500mm centers and
the needle beams can project up to 2000mm in length from the face of the wall.
15.2 The piling can in theory be carried out from inside or outside a building. However,
regarding Buckingham Hotel, access into the cellar is restricted to a narrow single
doorway at the rear of the property. Therefore, it is unlikely a small mini piling rig would
be able to gain access to the rooms toward the front of the hotel.
Also, the degree of disruption internally would be significant, as the cellar has a
concrete slab alongside the two outer front bay windows. right-hand gable bay and in
the SW corner toilet. Therefore, the concrete floor slab would need to be broken up to
allow access to install the piles and needle beams.
Ideally the top face of the needle beams should be a minimum of 150mm below the
underside of the floor slab, to avoid any hard spots once the slab is re-laid. After the
needle beams have been installed, compacted hardcore will need to be laid, prior to
installing a new concrete slab. The new slab will need to be dowelled into the existing
slab around the perimeter.
15.3 The structural suitability of the existing retaining wall alongside the front elevation
should also be considered. The retaining wall will not have been designed for current
imposed loads for car parking. There is already some indication of structural movement
and degrading of the stone and joints to the retaining walls. Therefore, the long-term
stability of the retaining wall may be an issue in future years.
Installing the piling externally would provide the opportunity and cost benefits to
combine this works with installing a new retaining wall. The new retaining walls can
then be designed ‘fit for purpose’ to suit current car parking imposed design loadings.
We recommend installing either a concrete retaining wall or possibly stone gabion
retaining walls prior to back filling and reinstating the carpark.
There is enough working space to install the piling externally around the perimeter of
the building. This will include excavating approximately 1.5-2.0m depth of the car park
along the front elevation and the soft landscaping along the right-hand gable.
Excavation for the piling to the rear SW corner will be simpler, as the ground level is
already reduced at this location.
Considering the numerous factors mentions in items 15.2 and 15.3, carrying out the
piling internally would be highly disruptive. We also doubt it is feasible due to access
restraints. Therefore, the preferred solution is to pile externally.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
9
15.5 During both the removal and rebuilding of the central bays and the proposed piling
operations, the scale of disruption to the operation of the hotel will be significant. We
would therefore not expect the hotel to be operational during this process.
16.0 Lateral Restraints ties
16.1 The building has suffered from significant lateral movement over its life span. This
is partly due to lack of suitable mechanical lateral restraints being installed at time of
construction.
16.2 Installing additional lateral restraints is essential and will complement the
underpinning specified. In our opinion, lateral restraint ties should be installed along all
elevations at 1st and 2nd floor level to help prevent further lateral movement.
16.3 The preferred method of restraint is to use 12mm diameter stainless steel bars
Helifix Cintec cementitious sock anchors fixed into 3 floor joists and resin fixed to the
stone wall. The bars should be spaced at 600mm centres where joists are parallel with
the wall. Where joists bear onto the wall, Helifix Bowties or cemties should be drilled
into each floor joist.
The ties are inserted into the wall externally, however some floor boards will need to be
removed internally in each room to ensure services are not damaged. Also, due to the
length of the bars, it is expected some physically guidance will be required to prevent
them deviating during installation. This may therefore require further floor boards being
removed, than usually required. Therefore, any carpets will need to be pulled back
during installation and then refitted.
2no. additional larger pattress plate restraints are recommended to help restraint the
rear middle wall and these should extend to the new front wall. Bedroom 23 (2nd
floor) has a tiled bathroom, which may be affected by the pattress plate installation, as
the floor boards may need to be raised. However, an alternative is to gain access from
the ceiling below and then re-plaster.
16.4 The new section of party wall constructed in the snooker room, should be tied into
the new front elevation, as should the new 152x152UC windpost.
16.5 Vertical Cintec cementitious sock anchor ties (or similar) should also be installed
where internal walls have separated from the main perimeter walls and where the
degree of lateral distortion is most significant. These are required in the following
bedroom dividing walls between:
Bedrooms 8 and 10, 16 and 17, 32 and 33.
Bedrooms 2 and 12, 14 and 23
Bedrooms 1 and 9, 5 and 6, 18 and 19
Additional ties will be required to restrain the new and existing bay windows.
17.0 Drainage Report
We have reviewed the CCTV survey and drainage report prepared by County Drains Ltd,
dated 18/10/2017. The survey appears to have uncovered four locations were the
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
10
drainage runs have structural defects. Three of these defects are significant and require
repair.
By reference to the Drainage report, these are as followsSection 1
MH1-MH3 - Broken joint @ 4.9m (appx 1/3 distance along the rear).
Section 18 MH6-Main sewer - Various defects to the pipe run noted.
Section 19 MH8-MH7 – numerous open joints and cracks, but with a significant broken
joint at 12.6m (approximately half way along the front elevation).
The most relevant of these defects that could affect the main structure is the broken
pipe between MH7-MH8. As the pipe has broken at the bottom, there will be greater
discharge into the surrounding ground. If the leak was long-term, it may have
contributed to weaken the bearing strata of the nearest middle bay window. However, it
is unlikely this defect alone would have been the sole cause of the foundation
movement noted to the front two middle bays.
The defect near MH2 is not as significant a break as that between MH8-MH7 and is
unlikely to be the cause of the foundation movement noted to the rear of the property.
The defects between MH6 and the main sewer are further away from the property and
although should be repaired, they would not in our opinion adversely affect the
foundations to the hotel.
The four structural defects mentioned in the drainage report need to be repaired. The
drainage run across the front elevation and that to the main sewer are both in poor
condition, with numerous open joints and medium cracking. Therefore, it may be
beneficial to replace the entire drainage run across the front elevation and right-hand
elevations once piling has been installed and ground excavated. In addition, the
drainage run from MH6 to the sewer could be replaced, as an alternative to sleaving
and localised repair.
CONCLUSION
The property has suffered from long-term foundation movement and lack of effective
lateral restraint to the structure. Foundation movement appears ongoing to 5 bay
windows, the middle section of brickwork between the central bays and the rear SW
wall. In addition, there has been a number of internal structural modifications that have
had a detrimental impact on the properties overall stability and which now need to be
rectified / repaired.
Yours faithfully
Mr P. Davies B.Eng (Hons) C.Eng. M.I.Struct.E.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
11
17.0 Summary of Major Structural Work Required
1) Underpinning is recommended below all 4 of the front bay windows including below
the middle section of wall between the central bays.
2) Underpin the right-hand gable bay window.
3) Underpin the SW Corner / left-hand rear extension wall.
4) Rebuild the two central bay windows and middle section of front wall between.
5) Lateral restraint ties are required at each floor level along all elevations, including the
central rear wall at 2nd floor (above the flat roof area). 2no. additional larger
pattress plate restraints to help restraint the rear middle wall and these should
extend to the new front wall.
6) Where internal walls have cracked, these should be tied back to the main walls.
7) Crack stitch repairs should be carried out to cracking observed on the right-hand side
rear wall.
8) Install suitable steel beams at each staircase landing level and steel stringers to
replace / strengthen existing timber stringers. Strengthen / replace handrails
9) Rebuild the party wall within the front cellar ‘snooker room’
10) Replace the two double steel beams in the Cavendish room, which are positioned
below the 1st floor.
11) Install a steel column along the party wall / front elevation junction within the
Cavendish room. The column is to act as a wind post, which will help restrain the
new wall.
12) Replace the timber beam in Ramsay bar with a suitable steel beam.
13) Window and Roof repair / replacement as stated in Specialist reports.
14) Remove conifer tree at rear right-hand gable corner.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
12
Calculation checks
Loadings
Floor loading
Boards + Joists
=
0.35kN /m2
Ceiling/services
=
0.25kN /m2
Rubble stone wall (480mm)
=
9.60kN/m2
Plaster & finish (2 face)
=
0.50kN/m2
Live Load
=
2.00kN/m2
Live Load
=
0.75kN/m2
Party Wall
Wall abovve Ramsay bar timber beam
Masonry wall (102mm)
=
2.25kN/m2
Plaster & finish (2 face)
=
0.50kN/m2
Slate Tiles
=
0.70kN /m2
Rafters
=
0.15kN /m2
Battens & felt
=
0.10kN /m2
Total Dead
=
0.95kN/m2
Main Roof (plan)
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
13
Check on double beams in Cavendish room
single beam checked with half shared loading, as beams are not combined sections
Analysis for simply-supported single-span beam to BCSA 11/84
TEDDS calculation version 1.0.02
Span length & partial factors for loading
Span
Factors for moments & forces
(mm)
fd
fi
fw
5115
1.00
1.00
Factors for deflection
1.00
dd
di
dw
1.00
1.00
1.00
Load descriptions
Loads are applied normal to the major principal axis (x-axis) of the member.
Ref.
Category
1
"Dead"
"1st floor"
2
"Imposed"
"1st floor"
3
"Dead"
"2nd floor"
4
"Imposed"
"2nd floor"
5
"Dead"
"wall"
6
"Dead"
"roof"
7
"Imposed"
"roof"
Loading data (unfactored)
Ref.
Category
Description
Type
Load
kN/m
Position
mm
Load
kN/m
Position
mm
1
"Dead"
UDL
1.5
0
-
5115
2
"Imposed"
UDL
5.0
0
-
5115
3
"Dead"
UDL
1.5
0
-
5115
4
"Imposed"
UDL
5.0
0
-
5115
5
"Dead"
UDL
45.5
0
-
5115
6
"Dead"
UDL
3.0
0
-
5115
7
"Imposed"
UDL
1.9
0
-
5115
Analysis results - entire span
Ra
Rb
Fvy
Mx
kN (fac)
kN (fac)
kN (fac)
kNm (fac)
Sense
162.1
162.1
162.1
207.3
"Sagging"
Deflection: EIx
kNm3
Direction
564.90
"Down"
Unfactored support reactions
Support A;
Dead load; -131.7 kN;
Live load; -30.4 kN;
Wind load; 0.0 kN;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
14
Support B;
Dead load; -131.7 kN;
Live load; -30.4 kN;
Wind load; 0.0 kN;
Member design checks for a simply-supported single-span beam to BCSA 11/84
HISTORICAL SECTION DESIGN
;Try Beams To BS4 1932 10x6x40;
For LCC Act 1909;
SECTION PROPERTY DATA - I SECTIONS - METRIC UNITS
D = 254.0 mm;
B = 152.4 mm;
A = 75.9 cm2;
Mass = 59.5 kg/m;
t = 9.1 mm;
T = 18.0 mm;
Ixx = 8524.4 cm4;
Zxx = 671.2 cm3;
rxx = 10.6 cm;
Iyy = 905.7 cm4;
Zyy = 118.8 cm3;
ryy = 3.5 cm;
STRESS DATA - METRIC UNITS
pbc = 116 N/mm2;
pbt = 116 N/mm2;
pt = 116 N/mm2;
pq = 85 N/mm2;
SHEAR CAPACITY
;
Fvy = 162.1 kN
;;;
Av = ks  t D = 2090 mm2
;
Pvy = pq Av = 178 kN
Utilisation ratio;
abs(Fvy)/Pvy = 0.913
PASS - Shear check
MOMENT CAPACITY - FULLY RESTRAINED
;
Mx = 207.3 kNm
;;;
Mcx = min( pbc  Zxx , pbt  Zxx ) = 77.7 kNm
FAIL Bending
check;
LTB CHECKS - BS449 1948
;;
;
Mx = 207.3 kNm
Effective length;
Leyy = kyy  Lyy = 5115 mm
Slenderness;
lyy = Leyy / ryy = 148
PASS - L/r
ratio <=
300
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
15
;
Mb = pb  Zxx = 70.0 kNm
FAIL - Lat.
tors.
buckling
check
DEFLECTION
Maximum bending deflection;
 = EIx / ( ES5950  Ixx ) = 32.3 mm
Allowable deflection;;
Lesser of span / 460 (ie 11.1 mm) and 8.0 mm
FAIL - Deflection exceeds specified limit
;
;
;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
16
Preliminary sizing of Replacement Beams in Cavendish room (assuming a lounge /
dining room and not used as a dance hall)
STEEL BEAM ANALYSIS & DESIGN (BS5950)
In accordance with BS5950-1:2000 incorporating Corrigendum No.1
TEDDS calculation version 3.0.05
Load Envelope - Com bination 1
185.518
0.0
mm
A
5150
1
B
Support conditions
Support A
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Support B
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Applied loading
Beam loads
self wt - Dead self weight of beam  1
1st floor - Dead full UDL 3 kN/m
1st floor - Imposed full UDL 10 kN/m
2nd floor - Dead full UDL 3 kN/m
2nd floor - Imposed full UDL 10 kN/m
wall - Dead full UDL 91 kN/m
roof - Dead full UDL 6 kN/m
roof - Imposed full UDL 3.8 kN/m
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
17
Load combinations
Load combination 1
Support A
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Span 1
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Support B
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Analysis results
Maximum moment;
Mmax = 615 kNm;
Mmin = 0 kNm
Maximum shear;
Vmax = 477.7 kN;
Vmin = -477.7 kN
Deflection;
max = 10.4 mm;
min = 0 mm
Maximum reaction at support A;
RA_max = 477.7 kN;
RA_min = 477.7 kN
Unfactored dead load reaction at support A;
RA_Dead = 271.2 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support A;
RA_Imposed = 61.3 kN
Maximum reaction at support B;
RB_max = 477.7 kN;
Unfactored dead load reaction at support B;
RB_Dead = 271.2 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support B;
RB_Imposed = 61.3 kN
RB_min = 477.7 kN
Section details
Section type;
2 x UC 305x305x118 (BS4-1)
Steel grade;
S275
From table 9: Design strength py
Thickness of element;
max(T, t) = 18.7 mm
Design strength;
py = 265 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity;
E = 205000 N/mm2
Lateral restraint
Span 1 has lateral restraint at supports only
Effective length factors
Effective length factor in major axis;
Kx = 1.00
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
18
Effective length factor in minor axis;
Ky = 1.00
Effective length factor for lateral-torsional buckling; KLT.A = 1.00; + 2  D
KLT.B = 1.20; + 2  D
Classification of cross sections - Section 3.5
 = [275 N/mm2 / py] = 1.02
Internal compression parts - Table 11
Depth of section;
d = 246.7 mm
d / t = 20.2   <= 80  ;
Class 1 plastic
Outstand flanges - Table 11
Width of section;
b = B / 2 = 153.7 mm
b / T = 8.1   <= 9  ;
Class 1 plastic
Section is class 1 plastic
Shear capacity - Section 4.2.3
Design shear force;
Fv = max(abs(Vmax), abs(Vmin)) = 477.7 kN
d / t < 70  
Web does not need to be checked for shear buckling
Av = t  D = 3774 mm2
Shear area;
Pv = 0.6  N  py  Av = 1200.1 kN
Design shear resistance;
PASS - Design shear resistance exceeds design shear force
Moment capacity - Section 4.2.5
Design bending moment;
M = max(abs(Ms1_max), abs(Ms1_min)) = 615 kNm
Moment capacity low shear - cl.4.2.5.2;
Mc = N  min(py  Sxx, 1.2  py  Zxx) = 1037.5 kNm
Effective length for lateral-torsional buckling - Section 4.3.5
Effective length for lateral torsional buckling;
LE = ((1.0 + 1.2)  Ls1 + 2  D) / 2 = 5980 mm
Slenderness ratio;
 = LE / ryy = 76.995
Equivalent slenderness - Section 4.3.6.7
Buckling parameter;
u = 0.850
Torsional index;
x = 16.169
Slenderness factor;
v = 1 / [1 + 0.05  ( / x)2]0.25 = 0.827
Ratio - cl.4.3.6.9;
W = 1.000
Equivalent slenderness - cl.4.3.6.7;
LT = u  v    [W] = 54.157
Limiting slenderness - Annex B.2.2;
L0 = 0.4  (2  E / py)0.5 = 34.951
LT > L0 - Allowance should be made for lateral-torsional buckling
Bending strength - Section 4.3.6.5
Robertson constant;
LT = 7.0
Perry factor;
LT = max(LT  (LT - L0) / 1000, 0) = 0.134
Euler stress;
pE = 2  E / LT2 = 689.8 N/mm2
LT = (py + (LT + 1)  pE) / 2 = 523.8 N/mm2
Bending strength - Annex B.2.1;
pb = pE  py / (LT + (LT2 - pE  py)0.5) = 221.2 N/mm2
Equivalent uniform moment factor - Section 4.3.6.6
Moment at quarter point of segment;
M2 = 461.3 kNm
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
19
Moment at centre-line of segment;
M3 = 615 kNm
Moment at three quarter point of segment;
M4 = 461.3 kNm
Maximum moment in segment;
Mabs = 615 kNm
Maximum moment governing buckling resistance;
MLT = Mabs = 615 kNm
Equivalent uniform moment factor for lateral-torsional buckling;
mLT = max(0.2 + (0.15  M2 + 0.5  M3 + 0.15  M4) / Mabs, 0.44) = 0.925
Buckling resistance moment - Section 4.3.6.4
Mb = N  pb  Sxx = 866.1 kNm
Buckling resistance moment;
Mb / mLT = 936.3 kNm
PASS - Buckling resistance moment exceeds design bending moment
Check vertical deflection - Section 2.5.2
Consider deflection due to dead and imposed loads
Limiting deflection;;
lim = Ls1 / 400 = 12.875 mm
Maximum deflection span 1;
 = max(abs(max), abs(min)) = 10.423 mm
PASS - Maximum deflection does not exceed deflection limit
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
20
Larger existing beam in snooker room (cellar)
Analysis for simply-supported single-span beam to BCSA 11/84
TEDDS calculation version 1.0.02
Span length & partial factors for loading
Span
Factors for moments & forces
(mm)
fd
fi
fw
5210
1.00
1.00
Factors for deflection
1.00
dd
di
dw
0.00
1.00
0.00
Load descriptions
Loads are applied normal to the major principal axis (x-axis) of the member.
Ref.
Category
Description
1
"Dead"
"gf floor"
2
"Imposed"
"gf floor"
3
"Dead"
"self wt"
Loading data (unfactored)
Ref.
Category
Type
Load
kN/m
Position
mm
Load
kN/m
Position
mm
1
"Dead"
UDL
2.8
0
-
5210
2
"Imposed"
UDL
9.2
0
-
5210
3
"Dead"
UDL
0.7
0
-
5210
Analysis results - entire span
Ra
Rb
Fvy
Mx
kN (fac)
kN (fac)
kN (fac)
kNm (fac)
Sense
33.0
33.0
33.0
43.0
"Sagging"
Deflection: EIx
kNm3
Direction
88.26
"Down"
Unfactored support reactions
Support A;
Dead load; -9.1 kN;
Live load; -24.0 kN;
Wind load; 0.0 kN;
Support B;
Dead load; -9.1 kN;
Live load; -24.0 kN;
Wind load; 0.0 kN;
Member design checks for a simply-supported single-span beam to BCSA 11/84
HISTORICAL SECTION DESIGN
;Try Beams To BS4 1932 9x7x50;
For LCC Act 1909;
SECTION PROPERTY DATA - I SECTIONS - METRIC UNITS
D = 228.6 mm;
B = 177.8 mm;
A = 94.9 cm2;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
21
Mass = 74.4 kg/m;
t = 10.2 mm;
T = 21.1 mm;
Ixx = 8661.8 cm4;
Zxx = 757.9 cm3;
rxx = 9.6 cm;
Iyy = 1672.0 cm4;
Zyy = 188.1 cm3;
ryy = 4.2 cm;
STRESS DATA - METRIC UNITS
pbc = 116 N/mm2;
pbt = 116 N/mm2;
pt = 116 N/mm2;
pq = 85 N/mm2;
SHEAR CAPACITY
;
Fvy = 33.0 kN
;;;
Av = ks  t D = 2090 mm2
;
Pvy = pq Av = 178 kN
Utilisation ratio;
abs(Fvy)/Pvy = 0.186
PASS - Shear check
MOMENT CAPACITY - FULLY RESTRAINED
;
Mx = 43.0 kNm
;;;
Mcx = min( pbc  Zxx , pbt  Zxx ) = 87.8 kNm
PASS Bending
check;
LTB CHECKS - BS449 1948
;;
;
Mx = 43.0 kNm
Effective length;
Leyy = kyy  Lyy = 5210 mm
Slenderness;
lyy = Leyy / ryy = 124
PASS - L/r
ratio <=
300
;
Mb = pb  Zxx = 94.2 kNm
PASS Lat. tors.
buckling
check
DEFLECTION
Maximum bending deflection;
 = EIx / ( ES5950  Ixx ) = 5.0 mm
Allowable deflection;;
Lesser of span / 360 (ie 14.5 mm) and 14.0 mm
Pass - Deflection within specified limit
;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
22
;
Existing Timber beam in Ramsay Bar
TIMBER BEAM ANALYSIS & DESIGN TO BS5268-2:2002
TEDDS calculation version 1.7.01
Load Envelope - Com bination 1
46.453
0.0
mm
A
4750
1
B
Applied loading
Beam loads
self
Dead self weight of beam  1
1st floor
Dead full UDL 2.550 kN/m
1st floor
Imposed full UDL 8.500 kN/m
wall
Dead full UDL 24.000 kN/m
2nd floor
Dead full UDL 2.550 kN/m
2nd floor
Imposed full UDL 8.500 kN/m
Load combinations
Load combination 1
Support A
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
Span 1
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
Support B
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
23
Analysis results
Design moment;
M = 131.013 kNm;
Design shear;
F = 110.327
kN
Total load on beam;
Wtot = 220.654 kN
Reactions at support A;
RA_max = 110.327 kN;
RA_min = 110.327 kN
Unfactored dead load reaction at support A;
RA_Dead = 69.952 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support A;
RA_Imposed = 40.375 kN
Reactions at support B;
RB_max = 110.327 kN;
RB_min = 110.327 kN
Unfactored dead load reaction at support B;
RB_Dead = 69.952 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support B;
RB_Imposed = 40.375 kN
Timber section details
Breadth of section;
b = 178 mm;
Depth of section;
h = 482 mm
Number of sections;
N = 1;
Breadth of beam;
bb = 178
Load duration;
Long term
Actual depth-to-breadth ratio;
2.71
mm
Timber strength class;
C24
Member details
Service class of timber;
1;
Length of span;
Ls1 = 4750 mm
Length of bearing;
Lb = 100 mm
Lateral support - cl.2.10.8
Permiss.depth-to-breadth ratio; 2.00;
FAIL - Lateral support is inadequate
Check bearing stress
Permissible bearing stress;
c_adm = 2.400 N/mm2;
Applied bearing stress;
c_a = 6.198
N/mm2
FAIL - Applied compressive stress exceeds permissible compressive stress at bearing
Bending parallel to grain
Permissible bending stress;
19.009
m_adm = 6.821 N/mm2;
Applied bending stress;
m_a =
N/mm2
FAIL - Applied bending stress exceeds permissible bending stress
Shear parallel to grain
Permissible shear stress;
adm = 0.710 N/mm2;
Applied shear stress;
a = 1.929
N/mm2
FAIL - Applied shear stress exceeds permissible shear stress
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
24
Deflection
Permissible deflection;
adm = 13.995 mm;
a = 29.819
Total deflection;
mm
FAIL - Total deflection exceeds permissible deflection
;
Preliminary size for replacement beam in Ramsay bar
STEEL BEAM ANALYSIS & DESIGN (BS5950)
In accordance with BS5950-1:2000 incorporating Corrigendum No.1
TEDDS calculation version 3.0.05
Load Envelope - Com bination 1
69.161
0.0
mm
A
4750
1
B
Support conditions
Support A
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Support B
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Applied loading
Beam loads
self wt - Dead self weight of beam  1
1st floor - Dead full UDL 2.55 kN/m
1st floor - Imposed full UDL 8.5 kN/m
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
25
2nd floor - Dead full UDL 2.55 kN/m
2nd floor - Imposed full UDL 8.5 kN/m
wall - Dead full UDL 24 kN/m
Load combinations
Load combination 1
Support A
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Span 1
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Support B
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Analysis results
Maximum moment;
Mmax = 195.1 kNm;
Mmin = 0 kNm
Maximum shear;
Vmax = 164.3 kN;
Vmin = -164.3 kN
Deflection;
max = 10.6 mm;
min = 0 mm
Maximum reaction at support A;
RA_max = 164.3 kN;
RA_min = 164.3 kN
Unfactored dead load reaction at support A;
RA_Dead = 71.2 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support A;
RA_Imposed = 40.4 kN
Maximum reaction at support B;
RB_max = 164.3 kN;
Unfactored dead load reaction at support B;
RB_Dead = 71.2 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support B;
RB_Imposed = 40.4 kN
RB_min = 164.3 kN
Section details
Section type;
UC 254x254x89 (BS4-1)
Steel grade;
S275
From table 9: Design strength py
Thickness of element;
max(T, t) = 17.3 mm
Design strength;
py = 265 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity;
E = 205000 N/mm2
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
26
Lateral restraint
Span 1 has lateral restraint at supports only
Effective length factors
Effective length factor in major axis;
Kx = 1.00
Effective length factor in minor axis;
Ky = 1.00
Effective length factor for lateral-torsional buckling; KLT.A = 1.00; + 2  D
KLT.B = 1.20; + 2  D
Classification of cross sections - Section 3.5
 = [275 N/mm2 / py] = 1.02
Internal compression parts - Table 11
Depth of section;
d = 200.3 mm
d / t = 19.1   <= 80  ;
Class 1 plastic
Outstand flanges - Table 11
Width of section;
b = B / 2 = 128.2 mm
b / T = 7.3   <= 9  ;
Class 1 plastic
Section is class 1 plastic
Shear capacity - Section 4.2.3
Design shear force;
Fv = max(abs(Vmax), abs(Vmin)) = 164.3 kN
d / t < 70  
Web does not need to be checked for shear buckling
Av = t  D = 2681 mm2
Shear area;
Pv = 0.6  py  Av = 426.3 kN
Design shear resistance;
PASS - Design shear resistance exceeds design shear force
Moment capacity - Section 4.2.5
Design bending moment;
M = max(abs(Ms1_max), abs(Ms1_min)) = 195.1 kNm
Moment capacity low shear - cl.4.2.5.2;
Mc = min(py  Sxx, 1.2  py  Zxx) = 324.3 kNm
Effective length for lateral-torsional buckling - Section 4.3.5
Effective length for lateral torsional buckling;
LE = ((1.0 + 1.2)  Ls1 + 2  D) / 2 = 5485 mm
Slenderness ratio;
 = LE / ryy = 83.778
Equivalent slenderness - Section 4.3.6.7
Buckling parameter;
u = 0.850
Torsional index;
x = 14.472
Slenderness factor;
v = 1 / [1 + 0.05  ( / x)2]0.25 = 0.782
Ratio - cl.4.3.6.9;
W = 1.000
Equivalent slenderness - cl.4.3.6.7;
LT = u  v    [W] = 55.658
Limiting slenderness - Annex B.2.2;
L0 = 0.4  (2  E / py)0.5 = 34.951
LT > L0 - Allowance should be made for lateral-torsional buckling
Bending strength - Section 4.3.6.5
Robertson constant;
LT = 7.0
Perry factor;
LT = max(LT  (LT - L0) / 1000, 0) = 0.145
Euler stress;
pE = 2  E / LT2 = 653.1 N/mm2
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
27
LT = (py + (LT + 1)  pE) / 2 = 506.4 N/mm2
pb = pE  py / (LT + (LT2 - pE  py)0.5) = 217.7 N/mm2
Bending strength - Annex B.2.1;
Equivalent uniform moment factor - Section 4.3.6.6
Moment at quarter point of segment;
M2 = 146.3 kNm
Moment at centre-line of segment;
M3 = 195.1 kNm
Moment at three quarter point of segment;
M4 = 146.3 kNm
Maximum moment in segment;
Mabs = 195.1 kNm
Maximum moment governing buckling resistance;
MLT = Mabs = 195.1 kNm
Equivalent uniform moment factor for lateral-torsional buckling;
mLT = max(0.2 + (0.15  M2 + 0.5  M3 + 0.15  M4) / Mabs, 0.44) = 0.925
Buckling resistance moment - Section 4.3.6.4
Mb = pb  Sxx = 266.4 kNm
Buckling resistance moment;
Mb / mLT = 288 kNm
PASS - Buckling resistance moment exceeds design bending moment
Check vertical deflection - Section 2.5.2
Consider deflection due to dead and imposed loads
Limiting deflection;;
Maximum deflection span 1;
lim = Ls1 / 360 = 13.194 mm
 = max(abs(max), abs(min)) = 10.645 mm
PASS - Maximum deflection does not exceed deflection limit
;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
28
Staircase check ( assuming 4KN/m2 imposed loading for hotel / fire escapes)
Load assumed distributed equally to the 3 stringers.
1200mm wide stair flight.
TIMBER BEAM ANALYSIS & DESIGN TO BS5268-2:2002
TEDDS calculation version 1.7.01
Load Envelope - Com bination 1
0.684
0.0
mm
A
5000
1
B
Applied loading
Beam loads
self
Dead self weight of beam  1
dead
Dead full UDL 0.200 kN/m
imp
Imposed full UDL 0.444 kN/m
Load combinations
Load combination 1
Support A
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
Span 1
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
Support B
Dead  1.00
Imposed  1.00
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
29
Analysis results
Maximum moment;
Mmax = 2.137 kNm;
Mmin = 0.000 kNm
Design moment;
M = max(abs(Mmax),abs(Mmin)) = 2.137 kNm
Maximum shear;
Fmax = 1.709 kN;
Design shear;
F = max(abs(Fmax),abs(Fmin)) = 1.709 kN
Total load on beam;
Wtot = 3.419 kN
Reactions at support A;
RA_max = 1.709 kN;
Unfactored dead load reaction at support A;
RA_Dead = 0.599 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support A;
RA_Imposed = 1.110 kN
Reactions at support B;
RB_max = 1.709 kN;
Unfactored dead load reaction at support B;
RB_Dead = 0.599 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support B;
RB_Imposed = 1.110 kN
Fmin = -1.709 kN
RA_min = 1.709 kN
RB_min = 1.709 kN
Timber section details
Breadth of sections;
b = 76 mm
Depth of sections;
h = 127 mm
Number of sections in member;
N=1
Overall breadth of member;
bb = N  b = 76 mm
Timber strength class;
C24
Member details
Service class of timber;
1
Load duration;
Long term
Length of span;
Ls1 = 5000 mm
Length of bearing;
Lb = 100 mm
The beam is part of a load-sharing system consisting of four or more members
Section properties
Cross sectional area of member;
A = N  b  h = 9652 mm2
Section modulus;
Zx = N  b  h2 / 6 = 204301 mm3
Zy = h  (N  b)2 / 6 = 122259 mm3
Second moment of area;
Ix = N  b  h3 / 12 = 12973092 mm4
Iy = h  (N  b)3 / 12 = 4645829 mm4
Radius of gyration;
ix = (Ix / A) = 36.7 mm
iy = (Iy / A) = 21.9 mm
Modification factors
Duration of loading - Table 17;
K3 = 1.00
Bearing stress - Table 18;
K4 = 1.00
Total depth of member - cl.2.10.6;
K7 = (300 mm / h)0.11 = 1.10
Load sharing - cl.2.9;
K8 = 1.10
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
30
Lateral support - cl.2.10.8
No lateral support
Permissible depth-to-breadth ratio - Table 19;
2.00
Actual depth-to-breadth ratio;
h / (N  b) = 1.67
PASS - Lateral support is adequate
Compression perpendicular to grain
Permissible bearing stress (no wane);
c_adm = cp1  K3  K4  K8 = 2.640 N/mm2
Applied bearing stress;
c_a = RB_max / (N  b  Lb) = 0.225 N/mm2
c_a / c_adm = 0.085
PASS - Applied compressive stress is less than permissible compressive stress at bearing
Bending parallel to grain
Permissible bending stress;
m_adm = m  K3  K7  K8 = 9.068 N/mm2
Applied bending stress;
m_a = M / Zx = 10.459 N/mm2
m_a / m_adm = 1.153
FAIL - Applied bending stress exceeds permissible bending stress
Shear parallel to grain
Permissible shear stress;
adm =   K3  K8 = 0.781 N/mm2
Applied shear stress;
a = 3  F / (2  A) = 0.266 N/mm2
a / adm = 0.340
PASS - Applied shear stress is less than permissible shear stress
Deflection
Modulus of elasticity for deflection;
E = Emin = 7200 N/mm2
Permissible deflection;
adm = min(0.551 in, 0.003  Ls1) = 13.995 mm
Bending deflection;
b_s1 = 59.572 mm
Shear deflection;
v_s1 = 0.590 mm
Total deflection;
a = b_s1 + v_s1 = 60.162 mm
a / adm = 4.299
FAIL - Total deflection exceeds permissible deflection
;
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
31
Preliminary strengthening staircases with 2no additional steel stringers per flight.
(exact dimensions of each flight required to confirm beam sizes)
STEEL BEAM ANALYSIS & DESIGN (BS5950)
In accordance with BS5950-1:2000 incorporating Corrigendum No.1
TEDDS calculation version 3.0.05
Load Envelope - Com bination 1
3.613
0.0
mm
A
5000
1
B
Support conditions
Support A
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Support B
Vertically restrained
Rotationally free
Applied loading
Beam loads
self - Dead self weight of beam  1
staircase - Dead full UDL 0.36 kN/m
stair 4kn/m2 - Imposed full UDL 1.78 kN/m
Load combinations
Load combination 1
Support A
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Span 1
Dead  1.40
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
32
Imposed  1.60
Support B
Dead  1.40
Imposed  1.60
Analysis results
Maximum moment;
Mmax = 11.3 kNm;
Mmin = 0 kNm
Maximum shear;
Vmax = 9 kN;
Vmin = -9 kN
Deflection;
max = 5.2 mm;
min = 0 mm
Maximum reaction at support A;
RA_max = 9 kN;
RA_min = 9 kN
Unfactored dead load reaction at support A;
RA_Dead = 1.4 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support A;
RA_Imposed = 4.5 kN
Maximum reaction at support B;
RB_max = 9 kN;
Unfactored dead load reaction at support B;
RB_Dead = 1.4 kN
Unfactored imposed load reaction at support B;
RB_Imposed = 4.5 kN
RB_min = 9 kN
Section details
Section type;
UB 178x102x19 (BS4-1)
Steel grade;
S275
From table 9: Design strength py
Thickness of element;
max(T, t) = 7.9 mm
Design strength;
py = 275 N/mm2
Modulus of elasticity;
E = 205000 N/mm2
Lateral restraint
Span 1 has lateral restraint at supports only
Effective length factors
Effective length factor in major axis;
Kx = 1.00
Effective length factor in minor axis;
Ky = 1.00
Effective length factor for lateral-torsional buckling; KLT.A = 1.20; + 2  D
KLT.B = 1.20; + 2  D
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
33
Classification of cross sections - Section 3.5
 = [275 N/mm2 / py] = 1.00
Internal compression parts - Table 11
Depth of section;
d = 146.8 mm
d / t = 30.6   <= 80  ;
Class 1 plastic
Outstand flanges - Table 11
Width of section;
b = B / 2 = 50.6 mm
b / T = 6.4   <= 9  ;
Class 1 plastic
Section is class 1 plastic
Shear capacity - Section 4.2.3
Design shear force;
Fv = max(abs(Vmax), abs(Vmin)) = 9 kN
d / t < 70  
Web does not need to be checked for shear buckling
Shear area;
Av = t  D = 853 mm2
Design shear resistance;
Pv = 0.6  py  Av = 140.8 kN
PASS - Design shear resistance exceeds design shear force
Moment capacity - Section 4.2.5
Design bending moment;
M = max(abs(Ms1_max), abs(Ms1_min)) = 11.3 kNm
Moment capacity low shear - cl.4.2.5.2;
Mc = min(py  Sxx, 1.2  py  Zxx) = 47.1 kNm
Effective length for lateral-torsional buckling - Section 4.3.5
Effective length for lateral torsional buckling;
LE = 1.2  Ls1 + 2  D = 6356 mm
Slenderness ratio;
 = LE / ryy = 267.744
Equivalent slenderness - Section 4.3.6.7
Buckling parameter;
u = 0.888
Torsional index;
x = 22.560
Slenderness factor;
v = 1 / [1 + 0.05  ( / x)2]0.25 = 0.594
Ratio - cl.4.3.6.9;
W = 1.000
Equivalent slenderness - cl.4.3.6.7;
LT = u  v    [W] = 141.128
Limiting slenderness - Annex B.2.2;
L0 = 0.4  (2  E / py)0.5 = 34.310
LT > L0 - Allowance should be made for lateral-torsional buckling
Bending strength - Section 4.3.6.5
Robertson constant;
LT = 7.0
Perry factor;
LT = max(LT  (LT - L0) / 1000, 0) = 0.748
Euler stress;
pE = 2  E / LT2 = 101.6 N/mm2
LT = (py + (LT + 1)  pE) / 2 = 226.3 N/mm2
Bending strength - Annex B.2.1;
pb = pE  py / (LT + (LT2 - pE  py)0.5) = 73.7 N/mm2
Equivalent uniform moment factor - Section 4.3.6.6
Moment at quarter point of segment;
M2 = 8.5 kNm
Moment at centre-line of segment;
M3 = 11.3 kNm
Moment at three quarter point of segment;
M4 = 8.5 kNm
Maximum moment in segment;
Mabs = 11.3 kNm
Maximum moment governing buckling resistance;
MLT = Mabs = 11.3 kNm
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
34
Equivalent uniform moment factor for lateral-torsional buckling;
mLT = max(0.2 + (0.15  M2 + 0.5  M3 + 0.15  M4) / Mabs, 0.44) = 0.925
Buckling resistance moment - Section 4.3.6.4
Mb = pb  Sxx = 12.6 kNm
Buckling resistance moment;
Mb / mLT = 13.7 kNm
PASS - Buckling resistance moment exceeds design bending moment
Check vertical deflection - Section 2.5.2
Consider deflection due to imposed loads
Limiting deflection;;
Maximum deflection span 1;
lim = Ls1 / 360 = 13.889 mm
 = max(abs(max), abs(min)) = 5.211 mm
PASS - Maximum deflection does not exceed deflection limit
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
35
Photographs
Front Elevation – rebuild central two bays and mid wall on piled foundations
Front Elevation – Distortion to stone bays at 2nd floor.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
36
Front Elevation – Distortion to stone bays
Front Elevation – crack to stone lintel
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
37
Right hand gable elevation. Underpin bay
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
38
Right hand gable elevation. Cracked lintels to be replaced
Right hand gable - Distortion of rear part of the gable wall behind the bay window.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
39
Rear – right hand section of wall
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
40
Rear right hand section of wall – crack stitch repair required.
Rear Elevation Central ‘infill’ extension
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
41
Rear elevation – left hand SW extension. Underpinning required to rear wall.
Pattress plates are not effective as not at floor level.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
42
Rear Elevation – wall above the flat roof has a significant outward lean. Lateral Restraint
required at 2nd floor level and into the dividing wall between bedroom 1 and 9.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
43
Cellar Snooker Room – steel beams at bearing position.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
44
Bowing rear right hand section of wall in Ramsays bar.
Distortion to timber beam in Ramsay bar.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
45
Timber beam bearing exposed in Ramsay bar.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
46
Steel double beams in Cavendish room to be replaced
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
47
Bedroom 10 cracking across ceiling above the RHS gable bay window
Crack in separating wall between Bedroom 1 and 9
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
48
Ceiling cracking across bedroom 12 front bay window
Bedroom 12 – lateral distortion visible to wall.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
49
Bedroom 11 evidence of movement around bay
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
50
Bedroom 23 – crack in dividing wall between bedrooms due to front wall pulling away.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
51
Crack in Bedroom 6a solid wall to bathroom
Crack in Bedroom wall due to lateral movement of external wall.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
52
Limitations of the Report
The contents of this report does not cover the condition of the dpc, possible damp penetration,
condensation or the condition of the timber components with regard to rot and infestation. We will
not inspect building services (gas, electricity, water, heating), manholes and drainage systems,
garages and other outbuildings, the boundary structures, retaining walls, paths and drives, windows,
doors and other joinery items, internal and external décor / plaster / ceiling finishes, rainwater goods,
kitchens and bathrooms or any areas without ready access.
The report should not be construed as a valuation or homebuyers report and is not an inventory of
every single defect, some of which would not significantly affect the use of the property. If the report
does refer to some minor defects, this does not imply that the building is free from other such
defects.
This report is restricted to a visual inspection and no mechanical testing of any kind was carried out,
nor any precise measurement taken. We did not expose any other part of the structure that was
covered, unexposed or inaccessible and this includes pulling up laid carpets etc, or loft areas without
ready & safe access. We are therefore unable to report that any such part of the property that is
covered is free from defect.
Any opinions expressed in this report, as to the likely occurrence of settlement or subsidence cracking
etc is given in good faith in an attempt to assist our client. However, where such opinion is that
further movement is unlikely, this should not be taken as a guarantee. It is therefore important to
understand the opinions expressed in this report reflect the limitations of this type of visual
inspection.
The above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of minor defects. They are purely significant
structural defects apparent from a visual inspection. Further defects may be encountered upon more
extensive investigation, involving exposure of structural elements etc.
Rights of Originator
This report is for the sole use of the client, their Mortgage Company or insurance company and is
only applicable to the property (or part of the property) inspected. It must not be reproduced or
transferred to any other third party without the express written consent of PKD Consulting Engineers
Ltd. The report can be shown to builders/workmen when requiring quotations and for reference
during any remedial works required. All contractors must have adequate Public Liability insurance and
be fully experienced in the type of repairs specified.
We will consider the re-issue of the report in its original form to a third party within 6 months of the
original report date. Upon the lapse of a 6 month period, the report can only be re-issued following a
full re-inspection, which will attract a full inspection fee.
We reserve the right to refuse copies of the report to any third party (other than those named
above). We also reserve the right to amend our opinions in the event of additional information being
made available at some future date.
PKD Consulting Engineers Ltd
PO Box 250, Orient House, Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire, SK7 0BA
www.pkdconsultingengineers.co.uk
Telephone 0161 440 0372
53