Thanks for the video and good spot. Interesting read of the comments. You mentioned low risk as it appears to be a static issue, it seems it would be reasonable to consider tie beams to mitigate future movement.
The roof may have stabilised but for precautionary reasons I would add some strengthening. After all, a few extra timbers such as collars will not break the bank. Another reason for doing this is to mitigate negative comment from a surveyor when the house is sold on. A future surveyor might not be as relaxed and experienced as Geoff. When buying a property, you should have a future sale in mind.
This is reasonably common roofer dont bother strapping them or using tie beams when reroofing with much heavier tiles .they dont give a shit as they know its gonna take a number of years before the walls start spreading
I'm a structural engineer and have come across quite a few instances of roof spread. Geoff said you could consider strapping and I would use to 30x5 straps used for holding down rafters etc and place at 45 degrees to connect the rafter end to a ceiling joists ad do that every other rafter. I also suspect that the wall plate has a gap underneath it and only part of it is bearing on the brickwork. I would either pack with dry pack mortar or resin injection if the gap is too small.
Hi Craig. As I suggested in the video it is possibly static and to reduce or contain the risk some form of tie beam could be contemplated. I expressed the opinion the evidence suggested it was a low risk overall.
@@geoffhunt6646 Hi thank you for the reply, so possibly CR2, can I ask did you advise that a structural engineer needs to be involved for the specification of the tie beam(s) and although low risk did you give an indication of timescales for remediation ? Apologies for the questions, its a good video and I am interested in this topic.
@craigsmith3954 when I look at these cases when mentoring on line we talk around various scenarios to stretch your thinking. But each case needs to be taken on merit but I was of the view that the situation was static but that any perceived risk could be controlled by a tie beam. I agree with you that if you were using the category system I would put it at Cr2 ( I'm not a fan of ratings so would not put it very prominently). As for structural engineers I wouldn't because a tension tie beam in timber doesn't need too much calculation and the risk is quite low. A good roofer would probably over cook it in any case and a "warranty" would be fairly trivial.
Thanks for the video and good spot. Interesting read of the comments. You mentioned low risk as it appears to be a static issue, it seems it would be reasonable to consider tie beams to mitigate future movement.
Good point!
The roof may have stabilised but for precautionary reasons I would add some strengthening. After all, a few extra timbers such as collars will not break the bank. Another reason for doing this is to mitigate negative comment from a surveyor when the house is sold on. A future surveyor might not be as relaxed and experienced as Geoff. When buying a property, you should have a future sale in mind.
Yes I agree.
I have to confess I was one of your students at Cirencester summer 2022!
This is reasonably common roofer dont bother strapping them or using tie beams when reroofing with much heavier tiles .they dont give a shit as they know its gonna take a number of years before the walls start spreading
Yes, I think roofers might take a number of views.
Good video, so what advice did you give your client in terms of who should do what and when ?
I'm a structural engineer and have come across quite a few instances of roof spread. Geoff said you could consider strapping and I would use to 30x5 straps used for holding down rafters etc and place at 45 degrees to connect the rafter end to a ceiling joists ad do that every other rafter. I also suspect that the wall plate has a gap underneath it and only part of it is bearing on the brickwork. I would either pack with dry pack mortar or resin injection if the gap is too small.
Hi Craig. As I suggested in the video it is possibly static and to reduce or contain the risk some form of tie beam could be contemplated. I expressed the opinion the evidence suggested it was a low risk overall.
Thanks John great insight
@@geoffhunt6646 Hi thank you for the reply, so possibly CR2, can I ask did you advise that a structural engineer needs to be involved for the specification of the tie beam(s) and although low risk did you give an indication of timescales for remediation ? Apologies for the questions, its a good video and I am interested in this topic.
@craigsmith3954 when I look at these cases when mentoring on line we talk around various scenarios to stretch your thinking. But each case needs to be taken on merit but I was of the view that the situation was static but that any perceived risk could be controlled by a tie beam. I agree with you that if you were using the category system I would put it at Cr2 ( I'm not a fan of ratings so would not put it very prominently). As for structural engineers I wouldn't because a tension tie beam in timber doesn't need too much calculation and the risk is quite low. A good roofer would probably over cook it in any case and a "warranty" would be fairly trivial.