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
Well, the contract specifies brick or sand-lime brick for the interior walls, so there shouldn’t be any need to change the structural design since brick works fine.
The only question is whether brick is suitable for interior walls or if the disadvantages are really that significant. Unfortunately, I have never had any experience with brick walls.
The only question is whether brick is suitable for interior walls or if the disadvantages are really that significant. Unfortunately, I have never had any experience with brick walls.
P
pagoni202022 Jun 2020 22:39That is naturally frustrating and would rather sound like an offer for a discount from the person responsible to you.
It depends on your needs regarding sound insulation between the rooms and also on who and how many people live inside.
We currently live in a newly renovated historic building, where sometimes brick and sometimes drywall or OSB panels with stud framing were used. For us, it makes no difference at all, and I personally prefer OSB because I can easily screw something into it. With brick, installing anchors and such can be more complicated, but as I said, it needs to fit your specific situation.
What I also like about lightweight construction is that these walls can be modified more easily if needed, compared to solid masonry walls; we have done this several times ourselves. In principle, I would not let myself be persuaded otherwise, or if I am, I would want to gain a "benefit" from it.
It depends on your needs regarding sound insulation between the rooms and also on who and how many people live inside.
We currently live in a newly renovated historic building, where sometimes brick and sometimes drywall or OSB panels with stud framing were used. For us, it makes no difference at all, and I personally prefer OSB because I can easily screw something into it. With brick, installing anchors and such can be more complicated, but as I said, it needs to fit your specific situation.
What I also like about lightweight construction is that these walls can be modified more easily if needed, compared to solid masonry walls; we have done this several times ourselves. In principle, I would not let myself be persuaded otherwise, or if I am, I would want to gain a "benefit" from it.
Similar topics