Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Hollowcore v timber jiosts

  • 11-06-2014 2:54pm
    #1
    mlife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26 ✭


    From a cost point of view which is better value, hollowcore versus timber jiosts taking into account cost of labour also. I'm assuming hollowcore is more expensive but would it be worth the extra cost?


Comments

  • #2
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,581 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    mlife wrote: »
    From a cost point of view which is better value, hollowcore versus timber jiosts taking into account cost of labour also. I'm assuming hollowcore is more expensive but would it be worth the extra cost?

    yes.

    assuming you had 'x' extra to spend above and beyond standard costs... changing from a timber floor to a solid floor is certainly up that near the top of the list for me.

    much increased sound proofing
    much increased fire proofing
    easier to service out
    and solid feel under foot


  • #3
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    I'm a fan of I-joists
    • lower embodied energy
    • better sound proofing than standard joists
    • ducts can run between them, reducing bulkheads &/or saving on ceiling voids


  • #4
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,749 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    BryanF wrote: »
    I'm a fan of I-joists
    • lower embodied energy
    • better sound proofing than standard joists
    • ducts can run between them, reducing bulkheads &/or saving on ceiling voids

    I'm with Bryan on this, but with Open Web joists. Any length, easiest for services, in a huge range of capacities and depths. Comfortably meets any sound or fire criteria including for compartment floors. Will take screed concrete over as well.
    Easier to finish too: no counter battening under or building up to allow for camber over, and lighter means cheaper superstructure as well.

    Fast to install and very accurate.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #5
    Drift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭Drift


    I'm going to go the other way.

    I prefer concrete intermediate floors (hollowcore). I find the reduced sound and vibration properties hard to beat. Definitely well worth the extra cost in my opinion. I have lived in both.


    P.S. - Adding a screed to a timber floor will obviously help as a half-way house between completely timber and completely RC.

    P.P.S. - Air-tightness details with hollowcore must be planned in advance and carefully executed.


  • #6
    kkelliher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    mlife wrote: »
    From a cost point of view which is better value, hollowcore versus timber jiosts taking into account cost of labour also. I'm assuming hollowcore is more expensive but would it be worth the extra cost?

    From a pure cost perspective there is actually very little difference with timber being cheaper but not by much. Its then well outwayed by the benefits of concrete flòors


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    galwaytt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,749 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    kkelliher wrote: »
    From a pure cost perspective there is actually very little difference with timber being cheaper but not by much. Its then well outwayed by the benefits of concrete flòors


    Is not actually. The perceived benefit of hollow core is mass. Every other property you need is available using timber. Plus hollow core also requires more superstructure to support: including cost and is a poorer thermal and airtightness detail.

    You can put hollow core in a timber house too btw.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • #8
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    kkelliher wrote: »
    From a pure cost perspective there is actually very little difference with timber being cheaper but not by much. Its then well outwayed by the benefits of concrete flòors
    The depth required for service below PC slabs is often ignored at planning stage.


  • #9
    kkelliher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    galwaytt wrote: »
    Is not actually. The perceived benefit of hollow core is mass. Every other property you need is available using timber. Plus hollow core also requires more superstructure to support: including cost and is a poorer thermal and airtightness detail.

    You can put hollow core in a timber house too btw.

    We have costed this (and tendered) on a range of different house types and the difference is always in the hundreds of euro.


  • #10
    kkelliher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭kkelliher


    BryanF wrote: »
    The depth required for service below PC slabs is often ignored at planning stage.

    We see most crossing our desk at 100mm void below between underside of slab and plasterslab. Its allowing architects to include a shadow gap with ease......they do love the shadow gap


  • #11
    mfceiling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,969 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    kkelliher wrote: »
    We see most crossing our desk at 100mm void below between underside of slab and plasterslab. Its allowing architects to include a shadow gap with ease......they do love the shadow gap

    I fcuking hate shadow gap detail. We get a lot of it on jobs and it always looks sh*t wherever it is - be that round door frames or under ceiling finishes or above skirting boards.

    It's always a stupid looking thing in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement