Weight and structural load
The decisive number. A 66% reduction in superstructure dead load — enough to change the foundation type on a typical scheme.
All details · self-weight against traditional equivalent
| Element | Solid System | Traditional | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| D.01 Terrace parapet | 71 kg/m² | 254 kg/m² | −72% |
| D.02 Façade envelope wall | 119 kg/m² | 264 kg/m² | −55% |
| D.03 Internal load-bearing wall | 91 kg/m² | 239 kg/m² | −62% |
| D.04 Internal partition | 62 kg/m² | 89 kg/m² | −30% |
| D.05 Wet-area partition | 80 kg/m² | 129 kg/m² | −38% |
| D.07 Intermediate floor | 159 kg/m² | 513 kg/m² | −69% |
| D.08 Non-trafficable roof | 102 kg/m² | 443 kg/m² | −77% |
| D.09 Trafficable roof / terrace | 130 kg/m² | 481 kg/m² | −73% |
Worked example
Façade, load-bearing walls, partitions, three intermediate floors and roof, over a 1,250 m² footprint. Element self-weights are the published figures from D.02, D.03, D.04, D.07 and D.08; the traditional column is the conventional equivalent build-up for each element.
- Footprint
- 1,250 m²
- Floors
- 4
- Solid System
- 1,169 t
- Traditional
- 3,409 t
- Saved
- 2,240 t
The consequence
2,240 t off a 1,250 m² footprint reduces foundation pressure by about 1.79 t/m² — generally enough on Canarian volcanic and coastal ground to move a scheme from piled or deep-raft foundations to a shallow raft or pad-and-beam.
Foundation type must be verified per project by the geotechnical engineer.
Downstream effects
Shallower excavation. Less spoil to dispose of. Less reinforcement. Lighter craneage and transport.