Removing A Load Bearing Wall: Question

C

charliegolf

Joined
7 Jan 2014
Messages
3,328
Reaction score
516
Location
West Glamorgan
Country
United Kingdom
Is removing a Load bearing wall always a building regs issue? Thanks.

Supplementary Q

Can you leave the RSJ 'naked', not boxed in?
 
Last edited:
I'm not a builder but for what it's worth I can't think of an example where it wouldn't be.

I don't think you necessarily have to box in the RSJ but it apparently it has to be protected against fire for 30 minutes... yeah, because a typical house fire is going to deform the RSJ right?.....
 
Last edited:
Yes technically the steel will need to be specified by an engineer and building control approval will be needed. They'll probably want some form of fire protection over the steel so it will end up being encased
 
There are lots of buildings that the building regulations do not apply to, to which you can remove walls to your heart's content.

Pop down to an Asda or B&Q and look up at the steel work.
 
For clarity... Daughter has bought a house with boyfriend, whose dad is a builder, semi retired. He'll be the 'builder' to all intents and puposes. They want a wall down, and it's load bearing. My view and assumption is that this is a BR issue, and will need speccing by an engineer. I just wanted to check. So Woody, in a domestic setting, am I correct.
 
Ha, I thought it was a student trick question.

Yes removal of a structural wall in a house needs consent not just for the replacement support and load transfer downwards, but consideration for fire safety - means of escape and spread, and electrics if that applies.

An engineer is not always required. If it's a simple loading situating, a standard lintel could be used or even timber, or some council's accept a certain sized steel beam without calculations. But someone experienced needs to know if its a simple loading situation and what a suitable support would be.
 
robinbanks said:
Before you scoff, perhaps google for what temperature structurally loaded steel begins to lose integrity, and what ceiling level temperature a house fire runs at..
Click to expand...
You're very right to point this out and address my naiveness. I take the point that it's tehnially possible for the steel to lose integrity after a good while if subjeted to heats of more extreme house fires. Of course any conclusion from a 5 minute google search has no meaning to anyone where fire safety is concerned, but from what google could tell me in 5 minutes is it's unlikely to fail in a typical house fire - even when left "naked". The thing is though, as you allude to it would be very stupid to risk it - and for what benefit exactly? who would want to look at it?
 
I have read that there were a lot of big country house fires when they first started using steel beams because of failure to take into account that steel conducts heat away from fire places so puts other spots at risk, whereas traditional wooden joists are poor conductors of heat.
 
Dontblamethetools said:
You're very right to point this out and address my naiveness. I take the point that it's tehnially possible for the steel to lose integrity after a good while if subjeted to heats of more extreme house fires. Of course any conclusion from a 5 minute google search has no meaning to anyone where fire safety is concerned, but from what google could tell me in 5 minutes is it's unlikely to fail in a typical house fire - even when left "naked". The thing is though, as you allude to it would be very stupid to risk it - and for what benefit exactly? who would want to look at it?
Click to expand...
The concept of disproportionate collapse applies.

There are times to get out, times to be rescued and times for any fire to be attended to and dealt with. And within those times, a little fire in the right place should not bring down say, a multi-storey block because one beam failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top