A norm is a benchmark that may be undercut. The EKS is extremely poorly and independently edited. The problem is not the content but the form. If, like me, you have almost 50 years of experience with building codes, you understand that. The difference between a beam in a single-span versus in two spans over a support is that in the latter case, there is a completely different distribution of the internal moments that affect strength and deflection. The beam shoes are not a primary issue. I believe that a different design of the support, including more smaller glulam beams, would have given a better result at essentially the same cost. Common construction wood is limited by the fact that it does not come in heights greater than 220 mm.
Construction veteran
· Åland
· 2 077 posts
justusandersson:I have the same experience and feel the same, i.e. another construction should have been considered.
Are you thinking instead of one beam in the middle and 4-meter long joists, for example, three beams with 2-meter joists, as an example?justusandersson said:
Or do you mean that there should have been crossing glulam beams instead of some of the joists?
If you mean the first solution, it unfortunately would never have worked, because below there is a double garage and it's not possible to have load-bearing columns in the middle of the "driving lane," just as it's not possible to have a load-bearing beam above the garage door opening. Now there is a beam in the middle because it's possible to have a column precisely between the cars, where the glulam beams are joined after 6 meters.
If you mean the second solution, the thought never occurred to me.
The optimal solution indeed requires some calculation. One option is to use glulam 42x225 c/c 600 instead of structural timber 45x220 c/c 300. Another option is to use glulam with a slightly larger dimension on a larger c/c and then structural timber c/c 600 perpendicular to these. You can assume that the cost of glulam and structural timber is proportional to the volume required for each type.
A completely different question: Don't you need a larger mass in the house to meet passive house requirements? It would be interesting to get an overview of the entire project.
A completely different question: Don't you need a larger mass in the house to meet passive house requirements? It would be interesting to get an overview of the entire project.
Member
· Västra Götaland
· 1 849 posts
I don't think you need to worry much more about your solution, cc 300 and nogging with screw-glued particle board will give you a stable and good floor. There are always alternative solutions to all technical problems, many of which are "correct". Personally, I usually go with 45x220 and nogging on spans up to 4.20 (with screw-glued particle board). If done carefully, there is no problem meeting the requirements that way.
I don't know if we can meet the requirements, but certain parts of the house should at least be quite good.justusandersson said:
Mass in what sense are you thinking? There is quite a lot of mass in certain parts, at least, roof and walls. However, it is not a stone house, even though there is quite a lot of stone on the lower level, garage, and basement, and cast slabs. Check out etthundratolvan on facebook and you can see all the steps in the whole process and almost all the construction.