Nail together 45x195 instead of glulam beam?

[Earplugged]

We have removed a 4m load-bearing wall in a log cabin that supports the upper floor. We assumed the carpenter would put up a glulam beam but instead, they nailed together three 45x195 in width. Can this really function to replace the log wall and support the upper floor? The cabin is 8x6m, and in short, you could say it’s a cross with four load-bearing walls meeting at the chimney in the middle, and we have removed one of these walls.

Could it collapse, or will it bend over time and the roof start to sag?

 

[petrho]

Not sure, but I would also have glued the reglarna with puretan glue in that case...

 

[Earplugged]

Don't know for sure, but I would have glued the studs with polyurethane glue in that case...

They were not glued but just nailed together.

 

[Thomas_Blekinge]

It doesn't matter how the three parallel beams have been fastened to each other; it doesn't increase the strength. What is crucial is the height of the beam. The bending strength increases with the beam height raised to the power of three.

 

[Andreas_kalmar]

having done a similar project since I don't have the knowledge of these calculations I asked my timber supplier to calculate the beam and it was a 315*95 if I remember correctly for three meters so 195*45 sounds weak even if you take three of them

 

[pelpet]

Ask the craftsman how he did the structural calculation for that beam... sounds doubtful. 195x45 is the dimension usually used for floor joists with a 4m span.

 

[Danne_83]

Ask the craftsman how he did the load-bearing calculation for that beam... seems doubtful. 195x45 is the dimension usually used for floor joists with a 4m span.

Now, this answer is not a professionally serious response, but if you simplify it grossly, a floor structure=1x45x195 + roof with snow=1x45x195 at about a 4m span. Without calculating it, I think it holds excellently at the breaking point. Probably a bit high utilization in the serviceability limit.