I think they are right, it becomes too large and bulky, but it feels a bit strange that they didn't understand this when the construction drawings were made.
However, it is not true that there aren't any glulam beams that suffice. Sure, there may not be so-called standard beams that are adequate, but glulam is also manufactured to order and that is quite common. Just look at all the swimming halls, ice rinks, etc. that have glulam beams in the ceilings with spans of up to 50 meters.
However, it is not true that there aren't any glulam beams that suffice. Sure, there may not be so-called standard beams that are adequate, but glulam is also manufactured to order and that is quite common. Just look at all the swimming halls, ice rinks, etc. that have glulam beams in the ceilings with spans of up to 50 meters.
How many supports are there on the beam?freddemp5a said:
The constructor suggested placing 75 mm of condensation insulation over and around the steel beam to break the thermal bridge - see the construction drawing through the link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EswJ7JeCrgeEVqVVhvdTdHbnBzRk5MYzdjTHZJVE1HSlpn/edit?usp=sharing
They will arrange an air gap above the beam, which will then be 25 mm instead. My inspector believes that this, both the condensation insulation and the air gap, will be sufficient.
Do you think this sounds sufficient?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EswJ7JeCrgeEVqVVhvdTdHbnBzRk5MYzdjTHZJVE1HSlpn/edit?usp=sharing
They will arrange an air gap above the beam, which will then be 25 mm instead. My inspector believes that this, both the condensation insulation and the air gap, will be sufficient.
Do you think this sounds sufficient?
What does "upplag" mean? How many rafters are there on it?
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 229 posts
No, "the other way around," how many support points there are. At least two (otherwise the beam would have to balance on a wall, and we can see in the picture that it doesn't), should there be a few more?freddemp5a said:
Possible problem:
Steel beams can have significant deflection, normally more than glulam, request to know the deflection against design load, likely snow.
Fire, the beam likely needs to withstand at least R 30, not sure how this is resolved, maybe 30 mm gypsum can handle it or "fire gypsum".
Condensation, condensation will form in the air gap, how well is the beam rust-protected painted?
Steel beams can have significant deflection, normally more than glulam, request to know the deflection against design load, likely snow.
Fire, the beam likely needs to withstand at least R 30, not sure how this is resolved, maybe 30 mm gypsum can handle it or "fire gypsum".
Condensation, condensation will form in the air gap, how well is the beam rust-protected painted?
If I had to guess, a glulam beam would need to be more than 70 cm high, maybe more than 1m. But surely you must have seen the construction that went to the municipality? How was the beam specified there?
If I understand you correctly, there are only two support points, at each outer wall.
There are no load-bearing interior walls.
There are no load-bearing interior walls.
No supporting posts should be needed, according to the construction drawings (however, they were included in the architect's original drawings).
Hi there. Steel is the absolute best solution, it can handle longer spans and it doesn't build as much, glulam for equivalent length would become extremely thick and it doesn't look good, we are a bit behind in Sweden and still actually use a lot of glulam, despite the steel's superior properties.
Someone mentioned the fire properties, which is not as big a difference as lobbyists try to imply, add 1-2 layers of plasterboard and it's fine.
Someone mentioned the fire properties, which is not as big a difference as lobbyists try to imply, add 1-2 layers of plasterboard and it's fine.
There you might have the reason why it became steel instead.freddemp5a said:
