Jump to content

Marmox required? Timber plate to steel.


DragsterDriver

Recommended Posts

It's an intriguing design. I modeled it in Therm and came to the conclusion it'll be fine without.

 

A couple of other improvements if you're chasing easy wins.  

 

The sole plate looks like 140x140. 140*45 would be better thermally. 

 

I assume you have 150mm PIR in the floor?  If you were to move the entire floor up until all your insulation was above the steel it would help. Alternatively save some cash by replacing 150mm PIR with 200mm EPS. It'll raise the floor level 50mm further from the steel and improve the thermal bridge. 

 

I would get the best timber treatment I could for the soleplate and especially the vertical timber in the web of the steel. These will be cold and gather condensation.  

 

If you were to glue something like this between the timber and the steel it might help reduce the condenstation risk on the timbers. Someone will be along to tell me off no doubt. 

 

image.thumb.png.ce5a4d5d37008e49ac7cd0ed3812dffa.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Iceverge said:

It's an intriguing design. I modeled it in Therm and came to the conclusion it'll be fine without.

 

A couple of other improvements if you're chasing easy wins.  

 

The sole plate looks like 140x140. 140*45 would be better thermally. 

 

I assume you have 150mm PIR in the floor?  If you were to move the entire floor up until all your insulation was above the steel it would help. Alternatively save some cash by replacing 150mm PIR with 200mm EPS. It'll raise the floor level 50mm further from the steel and improve the thermal bridge. 

 

I would get the best timber treatment I could for the soleplate and especially the vertical timber in the web of the steel. These will be cold and gather condensation.  

 

If you were to glue something like this between the timber and the steel it might help reduce the condenstation risk on the timbers. Someone will be along to tell me off no doubt. 

 

image.thumb.png.ce5a4d5d37008e49ac7cd0ed3812dffa.png

Thanks!

 

it’s probably more like below- I’m just wondering any merit in a thermal break or if it’s not really worth it :) 

C47350F4-09FF-496F-BDE1-571C6335FC3E.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest you're pretty good as you are. I've attached some pictures of the Therm drawing. You can see how significant the steel is. It really is a tremendous conductor. You should aim to keep it as far away as possible from the inside corner. I've done a slight modification in the second two drawings by putting an extra 50mm of PIR between the screed and the wall. and putting 150mm x 25mm of PIR in the bottom of the service cavity. 

 

I reckon this reduces the internal thermal bridge from 0.0124w/mK to 0.0042w/mK or about three times better.

 

However it only would reduce your maximum heating load by 10w if your house had  a 50m perimeter! Like I said your design is fine as it is. 

 

 

image.thumb.png.0db897bc3d89e13e80b57fef009264b3.png

image.thumb.png.47d05e7cd6b62af1f3425e797eb1d262.png

image.thumb.png.0ed445a513d32b581091c7dd07ad0727.png

image.thumb.png.b478ce87a5ddecd2ae846f3d12c47f1c.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest if you were to add a 45mm thermal break under the soleplate it would make it worse. Your internal thermal bridge would go from 0.0124W/mK to 0.0129W/mK.  Hardly significant , about 1/2 a watt extra power peak heating load but really the definition of throwing money away for nothing. 

 

With your existing design (unmodified) the external thermal bridge is -0.02w/mK which satisfies the Passivhaus criteria  <0.01w/mK. 

 

 

image.thumb.png.4f4bd2ec6a5597b12b4d6a47e53e64af.png

image.thumb.png.5ce5714607fd2dd32c0d0ae360020b7b.png

Edited by Iceverge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Iceverge said:

To be honest you're pretty good as you are. I've attached some pictures of the Therm drawing. You can see how significant the steel is. It really is a tremendous conductor. You should aim to keep it as far away as possible from the inside corner. I've done a slight modification in the second two drawings by putting an extra 50mm of PIR between the screed and the wall. and putting 150mm x 25mm of PIR in the bottom of the service cavity. 

 

I reckon this reduces the internal thermal bridge from 0.0124w/mK to 0.0042w/mK or about three times better.

 

However it only would reduce your maximum heating load by 10w if your house had  a 50m perimeter! Like I said your design is fine as it is. 

 

 

image.thumb.png.0db897bc3d89e13e80b57fef009264b3.png

image.thumb.png.47d05e7cd6b62af1f3425e797eb1d262.png

image.thumb.png.0ed445a513d32b581091c7dd07ad0727.png

image.thumb.png.b478ce87a5ddecd2ae846f3d12c47f1c.png


that’s so impressive!

 

I've not really found anybody with a similar build to mine so there’s very little to reference.

 

thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...