From what I've read, there's a bit of a borderline measurement between the supports. In the documents I find, the limit for 300cc is at 3.6m between the supports, which is the case here, but the beams here are thicker than those in the documents. However, they should place noggins between the beams, as I understand it?M Mawe85 said:
I would actually think it's quite common to do so. Looking at the pipes in the ceiling of the basement, they have definitely routed the pipes in a similar way at our place. (Was renovated in 2014 before we moved in)
There's only one pipe from the toilet, not separate ones for the sink/shower/toilet. It's significantly easier to route it that way than to drill down through the concrete, I suspect.
There's only one pipe from the toilet, not separate ones for the sink/shower/toilet. It's significantly easier to route it that way than to drill down through the concrete, I suspect.
If they do not want to correct the errors, you can bring in an inspector, e.g., from the trade organization (BKR/PER, GVK) they are affiliated with.
Thank you! Yes, the problem in this case is that we're not sure it's wrong, but I'll try to do as I wrote earlier in the thread about asking them to explain why they think it's okay. Maybe (not likely) they thought it through before sawing, and if so, they should have calculations on how the load-bearing capacity is affected.BirgitS said:
Thanks! Do you mean as a precaution in case something happens afterward, for an inspector, or did you want to see more pictures?M Mortsken said:
Yes, I've been using voice recording when I've been there and talked to them, and the rest I handle via text messages to have everything written down.
Is the drainage to the toilet really 110mm? Looks smaller in the picture.
When it comes to cc, it should always be 300 if you're going to have tiles on top. Regardless of the distance between supports. As far as I know, the thickness of the beam doesn't matter much either. But someone else is welcome to confirm this.
When it comes to cc, it should always be 300 if you're going to have tiles on top. Regardless of the distance between supports. As far as I know, the thickness of the beam doesn't matter much either. But someone else is welcome to confirm this.
If they can't move it, the toilet will either collide with the bathroom cabinet or have about 1 cm clearance to the bathroom cabinet, so... The risk is that they come up with an unattractive solution where the plumbing becomes visible, which we really don't want. The plan is to have about 15-20 cm to the bathroom cabinet, and on the other side is the shower door which will fold in when not in use.M Mortsken said:
I based it on the table in safe wet rooms from GVK, but haven't found any other good list. The thickest beam they have a table for is 45 wide, and this one is 70.Dr Benz said:
No, the drain is not 110. They said it couldn't be solved. So there will be a macerator toilet there instead of a regular one. There hasn't been a toilet there before. Only a sink and shower/bathtub.
but the width of the beam does not replace the cc measurement…Lity said:
Everywhere I read it should at least be cc300.
Regarding the drain, I looked again, and it seems to be 110 in the floor but a narrowing up to 70? Or is it 70 in the floor and even smaller up? Yikes if so…..
No, perhaps it is just the height of the beam that affects it? Here is the table I was looking at anyway.
No, it's probably a large pipe coming from the kitchen. The one going to the shower is 75, and I would guess the one to the toilet is the same. The diameter when you have a grinder toilet could be quite small, so I don't think they've made a mistake there. Possibly they took a shortcut if it was actually possible to have a regular toilet, but it's a bit irrelevant as long as it works well. As mentioned, there hasn't been a toilet there before, so anything is better than nothing. (There are toilet rooms in two places in the house, and a shower room, but no complete bathroom.)
Last edited:
Interesting. Then I might have to back off on this.
However, I would never dare to take a chance without considering cc 300 or sealing it again.
Then there are the drillings that don't seem good at all if you read a bit in "säker vatten." But someone who really knows should probably comment.
This is what LK writes when it comes to their underfloor heating.
Thank you! No, the holes don't look good wherever I read, but I'm not an engineer and can't swear that it's wrong... So I was wondering if someone knows for sure that what they did is wrong. At least it should be supported. I really don't understand why they don't just reinforce it so we don't have to argue about it. Surely it wouldn't be time-consuming or expensive to do.
Thanks for the tip! I completely forgot to check what the underfloor heating manufacturer says, so I'll look into that. But is it possible to place it with 300cc now that there are lots of drains between the joists?