I have a small question about the framework in villas. We are going to build a 1.5-story house with a footprint of nearly 400 sqm. All construction companies I talk to build either wooden houses or stone houses (Leca, Lightweight concrete, or prefab concrete).
When I drive around and look at all the office and commercial buildings being constructed by Skanska, NCC, PEAB, etc., they are built with a steel frame... the question I have is why don't they do that for villas? It must save a lot of construction time, be cheaper, and even allow for more flexible construction...
Does anyone have any good explanations why? And any arguments for why I shouldn't look into this?
A
When I drive around and look at all the office and commercial buildings being constructed by Skanska, NCC, PEAB, etc., they are built with a steel frame... the question I have is why don't they do that for villas? It must save a lot of construction time, be cheaper, and even allow for more flexible construction...
Does anyone have any good explanations why? And any arguments for why I shouldn't look into this?
A
A question I've also been asking myself. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer, but will it be cheaper? I suppose you have to build with the big giants in such a situation, and are they really interested in a small project, like a villa? Hmm, I saw you were going to build 400 m2, and that's a bit bigger, of course. 
Then one preferably avoids steel from a fire safety perspective, right?
Hardly worse than wood from a fire safety point of view in a house.... Or one of those cozy polystyrene houses with wooden studs embedded. They burn nicely...cheetah1 said:
In a house fire, you don't have to worry about when the steel loses its strength. It happens just long after you......
It is probably more common in Denmark, there were a few articles about a construction in Denmark where they used a steel frame... then I've seen some Grand Designs from England where they often use steel frames...
From a fire perspective, the idea is that when a steel beam gets hot, it bends, while a wooden beam burns on the surface first and slowly inward, so it takes much longer for a wooden house before the roof collapses...
Then a house made entirely of steel doesn't burn at all...
From a fire perspective, the idea is that when a steel beam gets hot, it bends, while a wooden beam burns on the surface first and slowly inward, so it takes much longer for a wooden house before the roof collapses...
Then a house made entirely of steel doesn't burn at all...
No, but you have interior decorations that can burn and deform the steel instead...Snailman said:
It's also partly about raw materials...?
If we were to build all houses in steel, it would cause some chaos in the steel market, wood is renewable.
Wood is an easy material to work with, both for professionals and amateurs.
Easy to screw/nail instead of weld.
Not everything is about time in this world... =)
If we were to build all houses in steel, it would cause some chaos in the steel market, wood is renewable.
Wood is an easy material to work with, both for professionals and amateurs.
Easy to screw/nail instead of weld.
Not everything is about time in this world... =)
Carl G. Strandlund, who was born in Sweden in 1899, attempted after World War II to build inexpensive homes in enameled steel in the USA. Unfortunately, it didn't go so well...
More can be read here: http://strandlund.tripod.com/index-5.html
More can be read here: http://strandlund.tripod.com/index-5.html
Fire protection is hardly what governs the choice. Gypsum, etc., on the inside provides sufficient protection. As mentioned, the problem with house fires is not the collapse of the house. All steel in public spaces is hardly fire-painted either. It can be completely bare and only protected by a low utilization rate or interaction with concrete filling.
Large, heavy steel frames of rolled profiles are avoided in smaller constructions because they are heavy and require cranes and other assembly aids where one can manage with manual labor with a wood frame construction. However, there are complete building systems for smaller buildings with thin plate studs. See for example: www.lindab.se
It is probably largely the case that wood is used for construction because it is a cheap material, there are plenty of carpenters who know how to handle it, and it is a flexible and forgiving material. For example, if you snap the edge of a steel stud, it essentially bears nothing afterwards.
Steel, of course, has other advantages. It is relatively insensitive to water and does not mold or rot (although it rusts over time), it can be very quick to assemble, and is also considerably easier to carry around and handle on the construction site (better work environment, therefore).
Large, heavy steel frames of rolled profiles are avoided in smaller constructions because they are heavy and require cranes and other assembly aids where one can manage with manual labor with a wood frame construction. However, there are complete building systems for smaller buildings with thin plate studs. See for example: www.lindab.se
It is probably largely the case that wood is used for construction because it is a cheap material, there are plenty of carpenters who know how to handle it, and it is a flexible and forgiving material. For example, if you snap the edge of a steel stud, it essentially bears nothing afterwards.
Steel, of course, has other advantages. It is relatively insensitive to water and does not mold or rot (although it rusts over time), it can be very quick to assemble, and is also considerably easier to carry around and handle on the construction site (better work environment, therefore).