Wooden beam BSH / Orientation of slats

I see that you mainly need your lawyer’s expertise here so that the court cannot be fed similar nonsense by the expert witnesses as you have been by the so-called experts questioned so far. What exactly is an "own site manager"? — apparently an expert was not involved contemporaneously here, but only "posthumously."

Own site manager, I just answered that, he is also an expert, even in two (!) associations. (Irony)

And what are the foot purlins made of here?

Foot purlins are made of concrete, ridge purlin BSH, upright

Calling the purlins "square" because of their overall cross-section is misleading for BSH.

A square is a square, isn't it? What would be the correct designation for BSH if all sides of the purlin have the identical length?

You have not answered that so far.

The two middle purlins have the same function

Have I sounded rude or disrespectful in my reply? I would be sorry to have done so, I am grateful for any kind of support.

Greetings and thanks to everyone for the help so far

This was already addressed in 2019. Unfortunately, you are not allowed to post a link here. I used Google once.

"Is it a problem if BSH purlins are installed incorrectly?"

First result.

Thank you hanghaus2023,
I found it and it reassures me.

Yes, that is really OUR construction manager, commissioned for LPH 5 - 8 and structural engineering, paid by us.

So also professionally indemnified. Where does the unusual scope of mandate "second half" come from?

That also cannot be compared to a leaf spring. It is so flexible because the layers are loose and shift against each other when bending. BSH should not do that.

Got you – it is a lame comparison in so far as we are dealing here with a fully rigid, "non-springing spring."

Foot purlins are made of concrete, ridge purlin BSH, upright [ / ] the two middle purlins have the same task

... but do they also have the same orientation (that was my question)?

A square is a square, right? What would be the correct term for BSH if all sides of the purlin have the identical length?

"or" is correct. We are not talking about shaped hams where it does not matter how the outer shape is pieced together.

Also also professional indemnity insured. Where does the unusual scope of engagement "second half" come from?

Unfortunately, I do not understand the question. What is unusual about the scope when building with individual trades and not as a general contractor?

... but do they also have the same orientation (that was my question)?

No, they do not, otherwise I would not have noticed it.

No, they haven’t, otherwise I would have noticed

Then one of the two is incorrectly oriented. Because they have the same task to accomplish. This leads – even if one might consider the difference in orientations of minor relevance – to an asymmetrical / skewed distribution of the loads they have to carry, which a planner (with a symmetrical roof) would not have designed. So the workers probably messed up following the "it (supposedly) doesn’t matter for a square" idea and handled it arbitrarily. Since you write that there was also a service phase 5, I would check which orientation the plan presumably provides.
As is well known, in structural analysis there is no "almost doesn’t matter," calculations are made concretely with one or the other orientation.

Unfortunately, I don’t understand the question. What is unusual about the perimeter when building with individual trades and not a general contractor?

Now I don’t understand what that should have to do with individual or overall assignment. What is unusual is to bundle service phases 5 to 8. To carry out service phase 5 as someone who has not at least significantly contributed to service phase 3 is a job for someone who has "killed their parents." Hence my mnemonic "3 + 5 = 8," meaning that the "paternity" of design, detailed planning, and construction management should be in the same hand. "Service phases 5 to 8" is therefore not a good "package," but merely the "remaining unfinished part" if someone previously chose the (also poor) "service phases 1 to 4" package. For more on this, also read (on Bauen jetzt) my "A house-building roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!"

Then one of the two is oriented incorrectly. Because they have the same task to accomplish. This leads – even if one might consider the difference in orientations to be of little relevance – to an asymmetric / skewed distribution of the loads they have to carry, which a planner (with a symmetrical roof) would not have imagined. So the workers probably messed up following the "with a square, it (allegedly) doesn’t matter" thought and handled it according to their mood. Since you write that there was also a service phase 5, I would check which orientation the plan presumably provides for.
As is well known, in structural analysis there is no such thing as "almost doesn’t matter," there will have been exact calculations with one orientation or the other.

Thanks for this insight, I will remember it and bring it up with the commissioned structural engineer.
However, I would now strongly expect that I wouldn’t find this orientation in his plans and not because I wouldn’t recognize it.

Now I don’t understand what this has to do with individual or overall contracting. Unusual is to bundle service phases 5 to 8. To have service phase 5 done by someone who has not at least significantly contributed to service phase 3 is a task for someone who has killed their father and mother. Hence my mnemonic "3 + 5 = 8" to express that the "paternity" of design, detailed planning, and construction management should be in the same hands. "Service phases 5 to 8" is therefore not a good "package," but merely the "still unfinished remainder" if someone previously chose the (also poor) package "service phases 1 to 4." Also read my "A house-building schedule, also for you: the HOAI phase model!" on Bauen jetzt.

Yeah, makes sense… now I understand what you mean.

Unfortunately too late now, but the architect of the design planning did not want to take over the construction execution… then everything probably would have gone better.


off topic
What is actually to be made of the expert associations or clubs?
At the time, we chose our structural engineer because, in addition to the Engineering Chamber, he belonged to two "professional associations" and indicated that he works as an expert and appraiser? A seal of quality for us.

In retrospect, I wonder how one can become this with so little expertise and passion for one’s profession. I can list some of the roughly 40-50 things.
How is one supposed to orient themselves there, where should one look if one is looking for an expert who should just build a perfectly normal house?