Despite glulam’s use increasing across UK commercial and leisure projects, several glulam construction specialists have told TTJ they are still frustrated at getting large numbers of knockbacks at the tender stage – especially in leisure centre/swimming pool projects.
John Spittle, UK sales director for Austrian glulam specialist Wiehag, said he didn’t mind losing a contract as long as he could easily understand the client’s decision-making process and he had an opportunity to counter any arguments against using glulam.
Often he has been told glulam had been "value engineered" out at the first stage of tendering in favour of a "cheaper" steel option and that was the end of the matter.
"But if the beams are longer than 9m clear span, steel has to be more expensive when you consider corrosion and fire protection measures and factoring in something to visually hide the steel," he said. "Curved steel beams are also more expensive."
Mr Spittle said steel obviously had a large position in the construction industry and the glulam industry was smaller with a smaller marketing budget to promote itself.
Syd Birnie of Glulam Solutions, a new member of the Structural Timber Association, believes there is a lack of education among many construction professionals, with too much emphasis on a comparison of just the structural material costs – glulam vs steel – and not enough focus on the project cost implications of the chosen material.
"We find that ignorance on price is a challenge on a daily basis," he said. "The successes we have are because people are willing to get into the detail."
"Value engineering", he added, was nearly always synonymous with steel replacing glulam, but rarely represented value for money in the long-run.
TTJ gave the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) nine days to give its views on these concerns, but it said it was too "busy" too respond.
