ᐅ Building with Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) – Who has experience with this?
Created on: 19 Jun 2018 14:30
A
AnNaHF79Hello,
after several meetings with architects, the topic of wood construction—specifically using cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels (Züblin Timber Leno was mentioned)—has now come up.
Until now, we had primarily considered solid masonry (brick) construction but don’t want to completely rule out this option.
We have done some research and found a lot of positive information.
- Very high thermal insulation
- Excellent indoor climate due to vapor permeability
- Very ecological construction method
- Faster construction time
Fire safety does not seem to be a serious concern.
Water damage and pest infestation also appear to be minimal with this construction method.
Does anyone have experience with cross-laminated timber construction, especially compared to building with materials like brick or Poroton?
Thank you.
Best regards
after several meetings with architects, the topic of wood construction—specifically using cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels (Züblin Timber Leno was mentioned)—has now come up.
Until now, we had primarily considered solid masonry (brick) construction but don’t want to completely rule out this option.
We have done some research and found a lot of positive information.
- Very high thermal insulation
- Excellent indoor climate due to vapor permeability
- Very ecological construction method
- Faster construction time
Fire safety does not seem to be a serious concern.
Water damage and pest infestation also appear to be minimal with this construction method.
Does anyone have experience with cross-laminated timber construction, especially compared to building with materials like brick or Poroton?
Thank you.
Best regards
AnNaHF79 schrieb:
After several meetings with architects, the topic of wood—and especially building with cross-laminated timber (Züblin Timber Leno was mentioned)—came up.
Until now, we had mainly been thinking about solid masonry (brick), but we don’t want to completely rule out this option. That would be quite a radical change of direction. A carpenter’s material also means a completely different group of contractors compared to masonry materials. If an architect suggests a building material, I would be cautious about being overly fixated on it. Personally, I expect an architect to plan with an open mind—this can work when switching between red brick, white brick, or gray stone, but not between stone and wood.
I personally can’t see anything ecological about such a wooden house: even if it’s not made of solid timber, it is still largely composed of wood. Essentially, it contains the same amount of wood. But that amount of wood does not grow on the building site within the time the house will stand. From my perspective, this is marketing wrapped in eco-friendly buzzwords.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Looks like our solid wood walls.
Thermal insulation: As far as I know, additional insulation is still needed even for KFW 55 (energy efficiency standard).
Vapor-permeable: This still sounds like marketing to me. Plaster, reinforcement, insulation, wood wall, drywall, filler, tiles, or paintable wallpaper and paint. Where is the breathing supposed to happen?
Ecological: Still sounds like marketing.
Where does the wood come from?
Where are the panels manufactured?
More wood consumption than can regrow.
Which building method is truly ecological cannot be determined. There would need to be detailed information about the production processes, origins, etc.
Building method faster than masonry, slower than timber frame (classic prefab house).
Since windows, doors, sockets, and cable channels are CNC milled, the fit is very precise.
Why is the architect inconsistent?
Does he have experience with this construction method?
Fire protection, water: try putting a piece of wood in water or fire and see what happens.
Thermal insulation: As far as I know, additional insulation is still needed even for KFW 55 (energy efficiency standard).
Vapor-permeable: This still sounds like marketing to me. Plaster, reinforcement, insulation, wood wall, drywall, filler, tiles, or paintable wallpaper and paint. Where is the breathing supposed to happen?
Ecological: Still sounds like marketing.
Where does the wood come from?
Where are the panels manufactured?
More wood consumption than can regrow.
Which building method is truly ecological cannot be determined. There would need to be detailed information about the production processes, origins, etc.
Building method faster than masonry, slower than timber frame (classic prefab house).
Since windows, doors, sockets, and cable channels are CNC milled, the fit is very precise.
Why is the architect inconsistent?
Does he have experience with this construction method?
Fire protection, water: try putting a piece of wood in water or fire and see what happens.
There was no mention of a switch from the architect; he remains open to all options and is still perfectly fine with building using brick or similar materials. He presented the alternative relatively neutrally, which I actually appreciate as part of comprehensive advice.
He has (multiple) experiences with this construction method.
How much wood grows in German forests and how much is used for timber house construction can be easily researched (we have done so as well – if you do, you would argue differently than above *g). Whether the trees necessary for a timber house grow on one’s own property is, strictly mathematically, quite irrelevant. I don’t see any argument against cross-laminated timber (CLT).
Repeated claims of “Sounds like advertising to me” are unfortunately no better than actual advertising; these are pure speculations without any factual basis. Articles and publications from the VDI, for example, provide some solid facts and data on CLT. From a fire protection perspective, for instance, we are at least at d; s2; d0 ratings – but these are all technical values. I was referring to tangible, practical experience (but not to unfounded speculations without professional background, research, or relevant experience).
Thank you.
He has (multiple) experiences with this construction method.
How much wood grows in German forests and how much is used for timber house construction can be easily researched (we have done so as well – if you do, you would argue differently than above *g). Whether the trees necessary for a timber house grow on one’s own property is, strictly mathematically, quite irrelevant. I don’t see any argument against cross-laminated timber (CLT).
Repeated claims of “Sounds like advertising to me” are unfortunately no better than actual advertising; these are pure speculations without any factual basis. Articles and publications from the VDI, for example, provide some solid facts and data on CLT. From a fire protection perspective, for instance, we are at least at d; s2; d0 ratings – but these are all technical values. I was referring to tangible, practical experience (but not to unfounded speculations without professional background, research, or relevant experience).
Thank you.
The general contractor is coming around the corner here. The walls and ceilings were ordered in Passau, and the plans were sent there as well. The truck came from Lithuania. Some of the walls came from Lithuania, some from Austria, and the roof truss from the Spessart region. Lithuania has the most modern factory in Europe, and a large part of the walls come from there. The wood comes not only from Lithuania but also from Austria. This was printed on the building components, not just found by searching online.
You can decide for yourself whether this is ecological.
From experience, if you put the wood in water, not much happens; rain just stays on the surface. If you put it in fire, it also takes quite a long time for anything to happen. Only the surface gets damaged.
Regarding wall construction, what is still vapor-permeable? That is a fact, not speculation. The wooden wall itself is vapor-permeable; it is just nicely packaged on both sides.
You can decide for yourself whether this is ecological.
From experience, if you put the wood in water, not much happens; rain just stays on the surface. If you put it in fire, it also takes quite a long time for anything to happen. Only the surface gets damaged.
Regarding wall construction, what is still vapor-permeable? That is a fact, not speculation. The wooden wall itself is vapor-permeable; it is just nicely packaged on both sides.
Which general contractor is being talked about all of a sudden?
Why is it said that with sufficiently thick CLT there is no vapor permeability, when in that case no insulation would be needed at all to meet the energy saving regulations?
I believe everything has already been said about fire protection and water damage.
I’m just a bit surprised why this option is being portrayed so negatively; has anyone had personal experience—for example, from building with CLT themselves?
Why is it said that with sufficiently thick CLT there is no vapor permeability, when in that case no insulation would be needed at all to meet the energy saving regulations?
I believe everything has already been said about fire protection and water damage.
I’m just a bit surprised why this option is being portrayed so negatively; has anyone had personal experience—for example, from building with CLT themselves?
Similar topics