Structural screening · Building control

Find potential errors in structural submissions before you review them

Upload a calculation package. Spanwise reads the whole package rather than working to a fixed checklist, redoes the arithmetic rather than taking it on trust, and raises what looks worth a closer look.

Request a trial account What it looks for

Arithmetic redone independently, not taken on trust

Works to the code the engineer used, Eurocodes or the older British Standards

Advisory only, every determination stays with your officer

A first pass, not a full check: it may not find everything

Findings (4)

Critical issues (1)
Portal frame connections not designed

The portal frame connections are not designed. The frame analysis gives beam-to-column joint moments of 89.9 kNm and 93.3 kNm, and horizontal reactions at the column bases of 32.1 kN and 18.1 kN. The base-plate sheet records a 35 kN design shear force and shows four M16 anchors, but checks only the weld from column to plate; it gives no resistance or load-transfer check for the anchors, plate-to-concrete interface, or the moment connections at the beam heads. The frame therefore has no designed path for the analysed joint moments and horizontal reactions into the columns and foundations. Please provide the portal-frame connection design.
Comments (3)
B4 padstone load conflicts

The B4 padstone information conflicts with the B4 beam calculation. B4 has factored support reactions of 54.8 kN and 65.4 kN, but page 148 is headed “For Beam B4”, uses a 20.00 kN beam-end reaction and concludes “Padstone Not Required”. On that page’s own 100 mm by 150 mm direct bearing area and 1.75 N/mm2 masonry limit, the bearing capacity is 26.25 kN; the 54.8 kN B4 reaction would give 3.65 N/mm2, about 109% above that limit. Page 149 separately gives a 440 mm long padstone for B4 based on 70.00 kN, but the package does not identify which B4 support each arrangement applies to. Please correct and confirm the B4 bearing details.
Wind post strength not checked

The wind post has no recorded strength or connection design. The analysis applies 2.52 kN/m wind over 2.4 m, giving 6.05 kN characteristic horizontal load and 9.07 kN with the stated 1.50 wind factor. The supplied output gives only a 3.3 mm deflection against the calculation’s own 5 mm limit; it gives no steel grade, bending, shear, buckling, support or fixing resistance check. Please confirm the wind post design.
Column foundation depths conflict

The C1/C2 base-plate and pad-foundation calculations specify different foundation depths. The base-plate calculation uses a 1000 mm foundation depth, while the P1/P2 pad calculation specifies 1600 mm. The load sets identify these as the same support arrangement: the P1/P2 column loads produce 136.55 kN when factored, which corresponds to the 140 kN axial load used for the C1/C2 base plate after allowing for the frame’s self-weight. The final foundation depth must be stated consistently. Please correct the foundation information.

One real screening, shown unedited and worded as it reaches the submitting engineer.

How it works

Upload the submission

Drop in the calculation package as it arrived: PDF, Word document, or a scan of hand calculations. Handwritten sheets and sketches are read as images, not just as text.

Spanwise screens it

It works through the whole package rather than a fixed checklist, redoing the arithmetic itself and looking at the pages that matter. Large packages can take ten minutes or more, and the report is emailed either way.

Review the flags

You get a clear outcome (no critical issues, advisory issues found, or critical issues found) with each concern worded as a query you can put straight to the engineer. An outcome of no critical issues means only that the screening did not raise one, not that there is nothing to find. A PDF report is emailed for the file.

Scope

What it looks for

Approved Document A is the standard building control works to, and Spanwise screens against it. It also works to whichever Eurocode or British Standard the engineer designed to.

Spanwise is not working through a fixed checklist. It reads the package, works out what is in it, and looks at the whole of it. These are the things it commonly raises.

Steel beams & columns

Bending, shear, deflection, lateral torsional buckling, section classification, web bearing, bearing length, steel grade mismatch

AD AEC3BS 5950UK NA

Timber joists & rafters

Bending, shear, deflection with kdef creep factor, bearing length, service class, load duration class, notch capacity

AD AEC5BS 5268

Masonry walls

Slenderness ratio against EC6 §5.5.1.4 limit of 27, compressive stress, partial material factor γM, beam end bearing stress

AD AEC6BS 5628

Strip & pad foundations

Founding depth in clay, bearing pressure utilisation, tree proximity assessment, wide strip reinforcement, ground investigation

AD AEC7NHBC 4.2

Reinforced concrete

Concrete grade and cover, reinforcement specification, bending, shear and deflection checks

AD AEC2BS 8110

The arithmetic itself

Bending moments, load additions, section capacities, deflections and bearing pressures redone independently rather than read off the page, so a stated conclusion that does not follow from the numbers is the kind of thing it raises

Loading compliance

ULS load combinations, snow loading, partition allowances, wind load derivation, imposed load categories, self-weight inclusion

AD AEC0EC1

Multi-element packages

Named elements read from the package as written, and a reaction that one member hands to another followed through so the two can be compared

Handwritten and scanned

Photographed or scanned hand calculations are looked at as images as well as read as text, because extracted text drops sketches and misreads handwritten digits

Find potential errors in structural submissions before you review them

Upload the submission

Spanwise screens it

Review the flags

What it looks for

Get in touch