New roof truss replacement technology

[Confiteor]

Hello

I'm dabbling with the thought of trying to convert the large attic of my 1990s bungalow into living accommodation, and have come across this new technology:

http://www.telebeam.co.uk/index.asp

Basically, they remove the bottom three rows of tiles, lay telescopic steel beams on top of the external walls, and remove the trusses. The beams provide both roof and floor support and can work on any roof pitch.

Could some of the loft conversion experts on here have a look and give their opinion?

It seems like an ideal route for me as it does not rely on any internal support -- and my internal walls are all stud partition.

From what I understand, this system is fairly new, and therefore not widely known about.

 

[Static]

I would ask what the design life is and what maintenance is required. If you need to remove the roof covering every 5 years to paint is it might not be that cost effective.

 

[Confiteor]

What would you need to paint?

I hope the fact they have been granted LABC approval means the design life has been examined and deemed resonable, but I don't see why they would ever need painted.

 

[splinter]

I cannot see any problems with it as floor system quite a good idea in fact.
but I would have thought you will still have major works on your hands with the trusses .You can not just cut out the W sections of a truss roof with out firstly strengthening it ,as a truss relies on it shape for its strength
So the imformation they give is slightly misleading in so much ,that nothing is mentioned about the work that needs to be carried out to strengthen the roof

 

[Static]

The system seems to rely in the vertical stud walls for support. I would still ask what the design life is, even a flat roof only has a 10yr life.

The system is basically the same as installing a new timber roof without the rafter part.

 

[Confiteor]

Hello Splinter.

Does this page here: http://www.telebeam.co.uk/pages/cs_ pop-ups/cs_3.htm not explain that?

Small vertical stud walls are inserted to support the roof.

From what I understand (very little!) the section of the truss that is removed to free up space is actually there originally to support the ceiling below. But the steel beams take on this job. Enough of the truss is retained to support the roof.

 

[splinter]

Confiteor,
I must admit I did not see that bit,Still as a carpenter ,i still have problems with stud walls like that only because the weight of the roof is at 90 degrees to the pitch of the roof and I personally don't think the weight would be tranfered down that stud wall shown ,it probually just me but I would like to see a purlin with the uprights of the stud wall notched over the purlin and 2 bolts into the rafter and a more substantual fixing into the studs and floor plate.
Still like I said I can not see any thing wrong with it as a flooring system ,but you would be able to do the same thing with timber I beams

 

[masona]

I would've have thought it would be cheaper to use timber instead of steel beams.

 

[splinter]

wrong post

 

[Confiteor]

I was misleading: they use aluminium beams.

So why would they be doing this, and what are the advantages of aluminium over timber?

I imagine they are lighter and, since they are telescopic, easier to transport.

Which would handle the widest spans the best? Would timber not require supporting walls below over a certain span?

I'm just trying to work out why someone would go to the trouble of inventing an aluminium system if timber is just as good.

 

[splinter]

1)Ally would have a longer life span than timber ,wouldn't be attacked by inscectsand dry/wet rot
2)Thy would be lighter than tradition timber joists,but not timber I beams
3)Timber has its limitations and I exspect these beams have ,again timber I beams would compere very favourably against these beams
4) why not ,there does not seem to be anything wrong with this system exscept the price maybe.

This idea has no doubt be around for a while,I have used telescopic beams as part of a formwork system where they would more than pay for themselves as they could be used time and time again