Currently my house sketches have a fairly hefty post-and-beam structure exposed internally. (http://edavies.me.uk/2013/09/roof-rethink/) Further re-thinking makes me consider using glulam in this role - e.g., sketches of posts made up of 3 off 44 × 225 mm in a sort of pi shape and beams of 2 off same in L and T form in different places.
Wondering, though, if that's likely to be a problem from the fire-exposure point of view, not having the depth to quietly char the way a solid beam would. Anybody know if it's likely going to be a problem or likely not, or do I have to dig into the building standards a bit deeper?
Single storey (+ loft), Scotland.
(BTW, seems to me that C16 is about £360/m³ whereas the glulam supplier I got a price sheet from seems to work on £850/m³.)
Books 
Comments
Forget intumescents - just beef up a bit.
Glulam won't be using C16 surely - better than C24 I'da thought. Unless they cut all the imperfections out of C16 and finger-joint them together - but that'll cost much more than C24.
Hmm, double checking that I now notice they say a charring rate 0.66 mm per minute. If I understand correctly a single storey house would need 30 min protection (does that sound right?) so if both sides of a 44 mm beam were exposed that'd not leave much (5 mm) left.
My assumption was that considerably less glulam would be needed than standard timber which would go some way to compensating for the extra cost. Combining that with the better appearance and regularity might swing things towards glulam. Fire protection seems to point the other way.
What wd normally be reqd col size say 75x100, after applying normal safety factors, might do at 35x50 without safety factors (holding up just long enough to allow escape). 20mm off ea face of the 75x100 wd give 35x60 - ample! But 75 really is the minimum thickness if exposed to fire both faces.
Looks better a bit fatter anyway - 44w isn't meant to be seen!
But any particular reason why not intumescents?
Were those partitions “structural” then or was it to protect an escape route?
Brings it all back! Excellent standard of incremental improvements over the yrs. Latest is new garden path, curvy with steel/oak handrail and mid-garden sitting out area, awaiting tenders, £12k + VAT! Unfortunately, the LB Officer, having negotiated the path/handrail detail, decided LB Consent not needed, just Planning, so not only did the Trustees have pay an application fee, but we don't get zero VAT as alteration to a LB (now scrapped, but under the transitory arrangements).