Steel beam that does not add height

[mr.o]

I am planning to remove a part of a load-bearing wall at home and need to replace it with a steel beam. The span will be 3 meters and it will support 3 rafters on the beam. By looking at laminated timber tables, I've concluded that I would need a laminated timber beam that is 66x315. I later found in another table that a laminated timber beam with those dimensions is equivalent to a UNP 160 steel beam.

Now I would like help to find a beam that doesn't add much to the height but is equivalent to a UNP 160. I've been looking at HEB & HEA beams, but I'm unsure which dimension would be equivalent.

 

[Gabbe1]

HEA140, 133mm high

Is somewhat stronger than your UNP 160

 

[mr.o]

Oh, I see, I thought an HEA110 or 120 would be enough to match a UNP 160.
Thanks for the answer.

 

[KnockOnWood]

An idea:
Depending on where the heart wall is located in the house and the span of the trusses, it might be possible to cut the trusses and place the steel beam "in the joist". Then it becomes completely hidden, and you can have the same height on the beam as the bottom chord of the truss.

That's how it is in my newly built house with a width of 7.7 meters and a steel beam with a length of 5 meters.
Might be difficult to arrange in an existing house, though.

 

[prototypen]

Or place the beam on top of the hanbjälken and "hang up" what would have been on the beam.

Protte

 

[jeppeknaster]

Or place the beam on top of the tie beam and "hang up" what would have been on the beam.

Protte

That's exactly what I plan to do with a 6.7 m long glulam beam.

 

[mr.o]

Or place the beam on top of the hanbjälken and "hang up" what would have been on the beam.

Protte

Smart, that's how it will be.

 

[KnockOnWood]

Or place the beam on top of the hanbjälke and "hang up" what would have rested on the beam.

Protte

Protte, Jeppeknaster and mr.o

Do you have any structural calculations for this?

It's not just that the outer roof shouldn't sag.

The mezzanine (= attic floor) must have sufficient load-bearing capacity and stability.
Does it?

As I said, is this calculated by an engineer?

 

[mr.o]

Protte, Jeppeknaster och mr.o

Do you have any structural calculations for this?

It's not just that the roof should not become saggy.

The intermediate floor (= attic floor) should have sufficient load-bearing capacity and stability.
Does it?

As I said, has this been calculated by an engineer?

Hi,
I haven't had an instructor do the calculations, but I have based them on the calculations in this PDF on page 6 http://epi.byggmax.com/Documents/Produktspec/PDF Limträ/Produktinformation Limträ.pdf

so according to that, I should use glulam 66x315

 

[prototypen]

Protte, Jeppeknaster and mr.o

Do you have any structural calculations on this?

It's not just that the roof shouldn't become sagging.

The intermediate floor (= attic floor) must have sufficient load-bearing capacity and stability.
Does it?

As mentioned, has this been calculated by a structural engineer?

I don't know why I would have done a structural calculation, I've only suggested moving a "calculated" beam.

The roof is supported by the trusses, which are either supported by the exterior walls or involve a load-bearing wall. The beam will replace any load-bearing wall.

The beam will be supported by columns that, with my construction, become a bit longer (and a bit thicker in terms of buckling risk).

It may also need to be calculated whether a width of 66 mm is sufficient, as the risk is that the beam bends sideways, but the span isn't that large.

Without responsibility, Protte

 

[jeppeknaster]

Of course, I have a constructor (WSP) calculating the strength since the spans are far too long for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate myself. I initially considered steel, but to be able to do as much of the work myself, I prefer glulam. Then I have a concrete slab where the columns will stand directly above the masonry walls on the lower floor.

Nowadays, we tend to exaggerate the sizing of everything just to have both belt and suspenders. I recently had two carpenters who built a new load-bearing interior wall and created new large window openings in my existing wall. They could hardly believe their eyes when they saw the wall construction.
From inside to outside:
21mm vertical tongue-and-groove boards
70 mm vertical studs spaced 1500mm apart!!
70mm horizontal studs spaced 55mm between the vertical ones.
15mm fiberboard
Battens
Facade

No kind of lintel above the 1500mm wide windows...

This incredibly weak construction has carried the house for the past 55 years without any problem and would probably have supported it for another 55 years if I hadn't decided to completely change the floor plan. This makes one realize how ridiculously we over-engineer today's dimensions with 195 and 220-studs in the frame...