ᐅ Interior finishing with calcium silicate blocks / brick / metal stud framing
Created on: 19 Jun 2020 21:29
R
Robin77
Hello everyone,
I’m new to the forum and hope I’m posting in the right section.
I have purchased a condominium that is currently under construction. Since I come from a different engineering discipline, I don’t have much knowledge about interior construction or structural engineering and have only done some preliminary reading so far. The issue is as follows: the builders sent us a letter with the following message (not quoted word for word):
For structural reasons, the non-load-bearing interior walls cannot be made of calcium silicate brick (the building specification states calcium silicate brick or clay brick). Therefore, the interior walls must be constructed from clay bricks with a bulk density of 0.8 kg/dm³ (50 lb/ft³). Alternatively, a metal stud frame (10 cm (4 inches) W110) is explicitly recommended at no additional cost to us.
My first question is whether this explanation is convincing. According to my research, calcium silicate bricks are slightly heavier than clay bricks, but that should not make a significant difference in weight for these narrow interior walls, regardless of whether they are calcium silicate brick or clay brick.
Assuming this is all correct, what do you think of the recommendation for the metal stud frame in terms of sound insulation, stability, and mounting of upper cabinets and similar fixtures? The letter mainly highlighted the advantages of the metal stud frame over clay bricks (W111 offers better sound insulation, easier mounting, simpler renovations, etc.).
I also found out that W111 is the simplest single-layer design. How does its cost compare to clay bricks and calcium silicate bricks? Wouldn’t clay bricks be significantly more expensive? Are they just trying to save money here? Is calcium silicate brick more expensive than clay brick? Is clay brick considerably inferior to calcium silicate brick?
Calcium silicate brick was my clear favorite, so this situation is rather frustrating. I would greatly appreciate it if an expert here on the forum could advise me on what would be the best choice in my case and how to assess the overall situation.
Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards,
Robin
I’m new to the forum and hope I’m posting in the right section.
I have purchased a condominium that is currently under construction. Since I come from a different engineering discipline, I don’t have much knowledge about interior construction or structural engineering and have only done some preliminary reading so far. The issue is as follows: the builders sent us a letter with the following message (not quoted word for word):
For structural reasons, the non-load-bearing interior walls cannot be made of calcium silicate brick (the building specification states calcium silicate brick or clay brick). Therefore, the interior walls must be constructed from clay bricks with a bulk density of 0.8 kg/dm³ (50 lb/ft³). Alternatively, a metal stud frame (10 cm (4 inches) W110) is explicitly recommended at no additional cost to us.
My first question is whether this explanation is convincing. According to my research, calcium silicate bricks are slightly heavier than clay bricks, but that should not make a significant difference in weight for these narrow interior walls, regardless of whether they are calcium silicate brick or clay brick.
Assuming this is all correct, what do you think of the recommendation for the metal stud frame in terms of sound insulation, stability, and mounting of upper cabinets and similar fixtures? The letter mainly highlighted the advantages of the metal stud frame over clay bricks (W111 offers better sound insulation, easier mounting, simpler renovations, etc.).
I also found out that W111 is the simplest single-layer design. How does its cost compare to clay bricks and calcium silicate bricks? Wouldn’t clay bricks be significantly more expensive? Are they just trying to save money here? Is calcium silicate brick more expensive than clay brick? Is clay brick considerably inferior to calcium silicate brick?
Calcium silicate brick was my clear favorite, so this situation is rather frustrating. I would greatly appreciate it if an expert here on the forum could advise me on what would be the best choice in my case and how to assess the overall situation.
Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards,
Robin
The contract specifies either sand-lime brick or clay brick. They want a signature confirming a deviation from the contract to allow the use of WS111. Alternatively, we could stick with clay brick. So my question is what would be better; if we go for it, I would want at least WS112 with F90 fire resistance. The gypsum boards also sound really good.
The exterior walls are either house exterior walls or load-bearing sand-lime brick walls, 24 mm (1 inch) thick, separating other apartments or corridors. Therefore, noise insulation would only be relevant inside the apartment, but I just get the feeling that sand-lime brick or clay brick is the higher-quality option compared to WS111.
The exterior walls are either house exterior walls or load-bearing sand-lime brick walls, 24 mm (1 inch) thick, separating other apartments or corridors. Therefore, noise insulation would only be relevant inside the apartment, but I just get the feeling that sand-lime brick or clay brick is the higher-quality option compared to WS111.
If using drywall, I would only choose a w112. Especially for fire protection, but also for everything else. The wall itself has more mass, which is better for insulation. If you want to attach something to it, the double-layered version also has advantages. However, with drywall, keep in mind that particularly heavy items should ideally be anchored to the studs using metal cavity anchors.
K
knalltüte21 Jun 2020 01:21Sorry,
maybe I misunderstand the initial situation.
You have a contract for item X at price Y with quality and execution Z.
Afterwards, they want to give you something clearly different for the same? price?
Wouldn't it be the responsibility of the builders to prepare the new building so that the structural integrity is ensured and the bricks specified in the construction scope can be used?
In other words: They should simply fulfill their contract.
maybe I misunderstand the initial situation.
You have a contract for item X at price Y with quality and execution Z.
Afterwards, they want to give you something clearly different for the same? price?
Wouldn't it be the responsibility of the builders to prepare the new building so that the structural integrity is ensured and the bricks specified in the construction scope can be used?
In other words: They should simply fulfill their contract.
Yes, that exactly describes the situation. The problem is that, according to the contract, bricks or calcium silicate blocks are allowed to be used. For some reason (structural engineering was mentioned), they no longer want to use calcium silicate blocks. As a layperson, I don’t really understand this. Are calcium silicate blocks that much heavier?
So bricks would have to be used, alternatively they are offering us ws111. However, I am quite unsure which option to choose in this case.
In the first step, I will personally inquire about the basis early next week and request to review the structural engineering plans. If everything is clear, my preferred solution would be to agree on using calcium silicate blocks for important walls (for example, kitchen and bathroom) and some others in drywall construction.
Alternatively, I would definitely demand ws112 with F90 fire resistance.
My current question is, assuming the structural engineering is correct, whether bricks or metal stud framing (initially ws111, but I will insist on ws112) is better, if one can say that in general. The email only mentioned the advantages of ws111 compared to bricks, including that large pieces break out of the bricks when fixtures are attached. For this reason, it seems like they want to push us toward ws111, which I believe would be the faster, better quality, and more cost-effective solution.
So bricks would have to be used, alternatively they are offering us ws111. However, I am quite unsure which option to choose in this case.
In the first step, I will personally inquire about the basis early next week and request to review the structural engineering plans. If everything is clear, my preferred solution would be to agree on using calcium silicate blocks for important walls (for example, kitchen and bathroom) and some others in drywall construction.
Alternatively, I would definitely demand ws112 with F90 fire resistance.
My current question is, assuming the structural engineering is correct, whether bricks or metal stud framing (initially ws111, but I will insist on ws112) is better, if one can say that in general. The email only mentioned the advantages of ws111 compared to bricks, including that large pieces break out of the bricks when fixtures are attached. For this reason, it seems like they want to push us toward ws111, which I believe would be the faster, better quality, and more cost-effective solution.
N
nordanney21 Jun 2020 18:01Robin77 schrieb:
Yes, that exactly describes the situation. The problem is that, according to the contract, only brick or calcium silicate blocks are allowed to be used. For some reason (structural calculations were mentioned), they no longer want to use calcium silicate blocks.What is stopping the construction company from adapting the structural design to the type of blocks? Don’t let yourself be taken advantage of...Similar topics