Ok, thanks. But since I plan to place the support directly under the existing upper hammer beam on the lower floor, which is 2400 mm above the floor level, this only leaves 2040 mm - I'm afraid there will be a bit of a head-banging risk if you're tall. Therefore, I would prefer not to have anything that adds more than 300 mm in height.
I think HEM140 sounds like an excellent option.
Now it remains to be confirmed that it is sufficient. Since the whole reasoning for dimensioning is based on... :
I think HEM140 sounds like an excellent option.
Now it remains to be confirmed that it is sufficient. Since the whole reasoning for dimensioning is based on... :
.... it doesn't feel fully confirmed yet. Once it is determined, it remains what the beam should rest on. I'm thinking that "a bunch" of screwed together 45x120 on each side should suffice, but it would be nice to get some feedback that is a bit more precise than thatJ justusandersson said:
HEM beams can be difficult to obtain. Tibnor does not stock them in Sweden. When you have reached the stage you are in right now, it might be appropriate to consider whether you can change some of the conditions. For example, reduce the beam's span or place a column under it in the middle. When a solution moves towards an extreme, one has usually made a mistake somewhere along the way.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Oh no - The HEM beam is not good.
A pillar won't work well since the kitchen table will probably stand at least partially where the pillar ends up. Additionally, the space's flexibility is too limited in my opinion.
I would also prefer to avoid reducing the span for several reasons.
However, installing a wider beam, for example, HEA180 or 200, would "only" require broadening the existing walls that remain, so the beam fits in for a neat, hidden solution, which I am open to.
What do you think about an HEA200 - is it "guaranteed" to be such an overdimensioning that it doesn't even need to be calculated?
If I can't fit it within the existing wall's width, I just want to be sure it will hold.
What do you recommend in terms of what the beam should rest on?
Oh no - The HEM beam is not good.
A pillar won't work well since the kitchen table will probably stand at least partially where the pillar ends up. Additionally, the space's flexibility is too limited in my opinion.
I would also prefer to avoid reducing the span for several reasons.
However, installing a wider beam, for example, HEA180 or 200, would "only" require broadening the existing walls that remain, so the beam fits in for a neat, hidden solution, which I am open to.
What do you think about an HEA200 - is it "guaranteed" to be such an overdimensioning that it doesn't even need to be calculated?
If I can't fit it within the existing wall's width, I just want to be sure it will hold.
What do you recommend in terms of what the beam should rest on?
I have done some calculations and it works with an HEB140, provided that the floor starts 2m from the left edge of the opening. Span 3.8m
Thank you so much for taking the time for me!
I'll go with that.
What do you think about the support for the beam? I'm thinking 3 screwed-together studs of 45x140 on each side should be enough?
They will of course stand directly on the sill.
Does the timber need to be graded, e.g. K24 or is "ordinary" stud timber sufficient? I think it's K12 but I don't quite remember...
I'll go with that.
What do you think about the support for the beam? I'm thinking 3 screwed-together studs of 45x140 on each side should be enough?
They will of course stand directly on the sill.
Does the timber need to be graded, e.g. K24 or is "ordinary" stud timber sufficient? I think it's K12 but I don't quite remember...
It certainly works, but shouldn't you fit in a couple of glulam pillars instead?
The pillars should not stand on the sill but should stand on the foundation wall as the sill cannot withstand much pressure perpendicular to the fibers. In load-bearing constructions, C24 timber is used; the gain from reducing material quality is not significant.
The pillars should not stand on the sill but should stand on the foundation wall as the sill cannot withstand much pressure perpendicular to the fibers. In load-bearing constructions, C24 timber is used; the gain from reducing material quality is not significant.
Sure - of course, then I don't have to cut the studs either as the glulam post is 140x140. Two on each side or what do you think? I'm a bit worried about what you wrote about the sill. Unfortunately, I understand that pressure perpendicular to the fibers isn't great, but in my conversation with Leca, he thought it would be good if the sill remained to "spread the pressure a bit over the Lecablock." (He's probably not so knowledgeable about wood properties, one might think) Might have to call them again... Have you calculated any weight that will load each support point if they ask? ...unless you also know Leca strength. If so, it's Lecablock lxbxh 590?x200x190, a bit unsure about the length but the width and height are correct anyway.
Another amateur thought could be to order the beam with an extra 1000 mm length and frame the full 500 mm in each wall. I guess the innermost stud will take the most load due to the bending that will occur in the beam, but if the innermost stud were to "sink" a bit into the Leca block, the second stud will "automatically" take more load, and so on - or will the Lecablock just "explode" if the loads become too large... Gosh - now it got a bit scary... Thank you so much again for your help//Håkan
Another amateur thought could be to order the beam with an extra 1000 mm length and frame the full 500 mm in each wall. I guess the innermost stud will take the most load due to the bending that will occur in the beam, but if the innermost stud were to "sink" a bit into the Leca block, the second stud will "automatically" take more load, and so on - or will the Lecablock just "explode" if the loads become too large... Gosh - now it got a bit scary... Thank you so much again for your help//Håkan
Glued laminated timber 140x140 is more than sufficient, and one per side is enough. On the outside, you should have a beam that sits between the sill and the wall plate to brace the pillar, as it does not reach all the way up to the wall plate. Building in an overly long beam can actually be detrimental as it can create constraint forces at the supports that may crack the wall, so it's good to have as exact a length as possible, 3600+2*140mm=3880mm.
Compression perpendicular to the fibers means you are pressing on a beam that lies on the plate. I would cut the sill locally under the pillar and then cast up with concrete, which would then help distribute the load.
Compression perpendicular to the fibers means you are pressing on a beam that lies on the plate. I would cut the sill locally under the pillar and then cast up with concrete, which would then help distribute the load.
Awesome - then the matter is settled and clear.
I had to pour concrete from the base as you describe up to the existing VKR-pillars that hold the HEA180 beam in the "heart wall". I had hoped to avoid this this time as it gets cramped and tricky to do it when there's already a house on the foundation... but that's how it will be.
We built the house in 1999, and this is the 15th renovation... do it right from the start... or rather... the courage to say no to the wife cannot be overstated.
BigThanks to Bosse and Justus for all the help!!
I had to pour concrete from the base as you describe up to the existing VKR-pillars that hold the HEA180 beam in the "heart wall". I had hoped to avoid this this time as it gets cramped and tricky to do it when there's already a house on the foundation... but that's how it will be.
We built the house in 1999, and this is the 15th renovation... do it right from the start... or rather... the courage to say no to the wife cannot be overstated.
Big
Thanks to Bosse and Justus for all the help!!Hmm, one last question - the lazybones in me wonders if it shouldn't be enough to saw a notch in the Lecawall where the glulam post is placed and set it (With sill paper in between) directly on the footing?
That way, at least, you won't have to cast... but then you'd have organically untreated material in the foundation and we don't want that... a bit troublesome for the load-bearing if they're attacked by something too... I just realized... so that was a really lousy idea... lazybones ideas are unfortunately often like that... thanks again
That way, at least, you won't have to cast... but then you'd have organically untreated material in the foundation and we don't want that... a bit troublesome for the load-bearing if they're attacked by something too... I just realized... so that was a really lousy idea... lazybones ideas are unfortunately often like that... thanks again