i've been thinking a lot about CLT floors of late.
i've always struggled a bit with how we do it here - thin floor plates w/ CLT panels, and it hit me in a discussion w. hundegger's wolfgang piatke - the US puts CLT in floors, the EU puts CLT in walls
i've always struggled a bit with how we do it here - thin floor plates w/ CLT panels, and it hit me in a discussion w. hundegger's wolfgang piatke - the US puts CLT in floors, the EU puts CLT in walls
and it's not just that we put CLT in floors - we also do it wrong.
in the US, nearly everyone is trying to do the thinnest floor plate they can w/ CLT. they do this by adding a layer of acoustic insulation and a concrete or gypcrete topping.
this sets up a couple of issues
in the US, nearly everyone is trying to do the thinnest floor plate they can w/ CLT. they do this by adding a layer of acoustic insulation and a concrete or gypcrete topping.
this sets up a couple of issues
1. the approach is not the best from an acoustic standpoint. yes, it can meet the bare minimum of the code, but performance isn't ideal.
2. it's not circular (and again, concrete...)
3. it's not service/infra friendly
4. it's not flexible/futureproofed
2. it's not circular (and again, concrete...)
3. it's not service/infra friendly
4. it's not flexible/futureproofed
however, i would posit most german floors don't take this approach.
they tend to have much thicker floor insulation layer, using something like a lightweight dry screed several inches thick v. a 1" acoustic mat. and often w/ several layers of insulation for better sound perf.
they tend to have much thicker floor insulation layer, using something like a lightweight dry screed several inches thick v. a 1" acoustic mat. and often w/ several layers of insulation for better sound perf.
this does a couple of things.
1. better acoustic performance.
2. lighter weight
3. space to run MEP
4. perhaps more importantly - MEP space that can be more easily accessed and reconfigured
you can see here
1. better acoustic performance.
2. lighter weight
3. space to run MEP
4. perhaps more importantly - MEP space that can be more easily accessed and reconfigured
you can see here
inverted floor also does another thing that i think is really smart.
it makes zero/low threshold access to roof terraces over heated space, or balconies feasible. even w/ low energy buildings (a la passivhaus).
the US approach makes this much harder. sim to this, but w/ wood
it makes zero/low threshold access to roof terraces over heated space, or balconies feasible. even w/ low energy buildings (a la passivhaus).
the US approach makes this much harder. sim to this, but w/ wood
returning to circularity because this is more and more making inroads into my brain...
the EU approach allows for pretty much the dumbest panels possible. no routing, not much drilling. if properly planned, all your services can effectively be routed in floor to a central chase
the EU approach allows for pretty much the dumbest panels possible. no routing, not much drilling. if properly planned, all your services can effectively be routed in floor to a central chase
this is the direction that the incredibly smart folks at @openbuildingnl are going. tom frantzen talked about his approach to this recently. also related to circularity and flexibility - they set floor load to commercial, so could do office or housing:
and it's a floor system that can avoid the use of concrete topping altogether, utilizing a steel plate system (a la patch 22) or floating wood floor (this is how it can be lighter than the concrete topping approach)
however, in a lot of instances, CLT may not even be the best way to go for floor systems - especially if you're dealing w/ services in the same layer. it's a lot of fiber, and it's not inexpensive. and there aren't a lot of folks w/ experience using it.
there are several box/cassette systems that have sim look, but much less wood, and can incorporate thermal/acoustic/services within them.
some of them even have profiles that look even better (personally, i'm not a fan of CLT for a number of reasons, mostly aesthetic)
some of them even have profiles that look even better (personally, i'm not a fan of CLT for a number of reasons, mostly aesthetic)
one is lignatur's box beam elements that can be used for floors and roofs, with acoustic, fire, thermal etc incorporated
really stunning projects it's been used on here: lignatur.ch/en/references/…
really stunning projects it's been used on here: lignatur.ch/en/references/…
lignotrend's wall/floor/roof elements also uses waaaaay less fiber, and likely way more cost effective (with better acoustics) for small-mid-scale projects v. CLT (at least in EU). also more adaptive for MEP runs.
lignotrend.de/produkte/konst…
lignotrend.de/produkte/konst…
and beyond that, simple systems that are likely more adaptable to how we build in the US than w/ CLT decks...
wood floor cassettes like the tra8 by moelven, which was used in the 18 floor mass timber tower, mjostarnet, in NO
wood floor cassettes like the tra8 by moelven, which was used in the 18 floor mass timber tower, mjostarnet, in NO
CREE's floor panel system is wood beams with a concrete floor poured integral to it. mechanical is installed on site in the framework of the wood beams. it's really stunning and pretty effective from a fire standpoint.
sidewalk's floor cassette systems, with fully integrated MEP and acoustic insulation, as described here: sidewalklabs.com/blog/how-to-de…
and there are a number of other firms who are exploring breaking out into this space as well, utilizing various approaches sans CLT. while i lament how far we are behind the EU quite a bit on here, i think we'll start to see some really interesting stuff within the next year or 2
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
