ᐅ Log Cabin Construction: Solid Timber vs. Frame Building – Experiences?
Created on: 4 Feb 2019 21:58
L
Lucrezia
A year ago, it was clear: log house, nothing else (we had an experienced company, but unfortunately no general contractor). Since we got in touch with a general contractor specializing in timber frame construction who convinced us, I have been going around in circles. Since I have already received many helpful ideas and tips in this forum, I would like to invite you to share your thoughts on this. I’ll start with the advantages and disadvantages we have noticed:
Log house:
+ Only untreated wood, so "minimalist" and with very low chemical exposure
+ Short waiting and construction time
- Trades must be contracted separately (we would not take on any work ourselves, except possibly flooring)
- Prices can fluctuate more significantly
- Warranty is "only" 15 years on structural components (5 years on the rest)
Timber frame construction:
+ General contractor, so "worry-free"
+ Accurate price quote (fixed price)
+ 30-year warranty on structural components – waiting and construction time somewhat longer
-/+ Wood only in the “frame”; (eco-friendly) materials can be freely chosen
Log house:
+ Only untreated wood, so "minimalist" and with very low chemical exposure
+ Short waiting and construction time
- Trades must be contracted separately (we would not take on any work ourselves, except possibly flooring)
- Prices can fluctuate more significantly
- Warranty is "only" 15 years on structural components (5 years on the rest)
Timber frame construction:
+ General contractor, so "worry-free"
+ Accurate price quote (fixed price)
+ 30-year warranty on structural components – waiting and construction time somewhat longer
-/+ Wood only in the “frame”; (eco-friendly) materials can be freely chosen
wurmwichtel schrieb:
"Low U-value = less heating = spending less money" But it’s not quite that simple. Actually, fundamentally it really is that simple at first. There is no doubt that more factors are involved. However, if basic principles are unnecessarily complicated, it usually means they haven’t been properly understood.
W
wurmwichtel13 Feb 2019 12:20No, it is not.
Lower U-values do save on energy costs, but they cause significant additional expenses during the construction of a building.
These factors often have an inverse relationship, meaning the extra costs do not pay off or only do so over unrealistically long periods.
Lower U-values do save on energy costs, but they cause significant additional expenses during the construction of a building.
These factors often have an inverse relationship, meaning the extra costs do not pay off or only do so over unrealistically long periods.
No, as you write, "low U-value = less heating = spending less money."
Payback period is something quite different and less straightforward.
What is currently cost-effective is initially based on empirical values, but you can also calculate it.
Depending on the construction method, a U-value between 0.16 and 0.24 is currently economical.
Unfortunately, you don’t really understand this, but that’s not a problem unless you are an engineer.
Payback period is something quite different and less straightforward.
What is currently cost-effective is initially based on empirical values, but you can also calculate it.
Depending on the construction method, a U-value between 0.16 and 0.24 is currently economical.
Unfortunately, you don’t really understand this, but that’s not a problem unless you are an engineer.
Which U-value is economically optimal always depends on assumptions, the available predictions, and the specific construction method.
For someone without expertise, this doesn’t really matter here, because in the assumed construction method — a log house made of SOLID wood in the walls only, the most expensive type with the highest U-value, meaning the poorest thermal insulation — this makes no sense from an economic perspective. For builders who are not strictly rational, the requirement according to the energy-saving regulations would then be approximately 30cm (12 inches) of solid (glued) wood walls.
For log house enthusiasts, the most cost-effective construction would be a double-log wall system with two layers of about 8cm (3 inches) log beams and insulation in between. The insulation can also be made from natural fibers like jute, without chemicals, wood preservatives, or vapor barriers. Of course, it can be made even cheaper with just a single layer of log beams and interior panels, but then you could just as well build a timber frame house.
If you go for a timber frame, I would not combine it with log beams as formwork, but rather use a ventilated façade with a cladding hung in front. This can also be done simply with jute and without vapor barriers. The price difference to a double-log construction shouldn’t be significant — so it’s more a matter of preference.
For someone without expertise, this doesn’t really matter here, because in the assumed construction method — a log house made of SOLID wood in the walls only, the most expensive type with the highest U-value, meaning the poorest thermal insulation — this makes no sense from an economic perspective. For builders who are not strictly rational, the requirement according to the energy-saving regulations would then be approximately 30cm (12 inches) of solid (glued) wood walls.
For log house enthusiasts, the most cost-effective construction would be a double-log wall system with two layers of about 8cm (3 inches) log beams and insulation in between. The insulation can also be made from natural fibers like jute, without chemicals, wood preservatives, or vapor barriers. Of course, it can be made even cheaper with just a single layer of log beams and interior panels, but then you could just as well build a timber frame house.
If you go for a timber frame, I would not combine it with log beams as formwork, but rather use a ventilated façade with a cladding hung in front. This can also be done simply with jute and without vapor barriers. The price difference to a double-log construction shouldn’t be significant — so it’s more a matter of preference.
What is "better" ultimately depends on your personal motivation: for example, is it about the "good feeling" that your house was knitted by free-ranging chickens under a full moon?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
M
Mottenhausen14 Feb 2019 10:37Regarding the wood topic once again: old timber-framed houses, of course, there are plenty of those, but with wood protection applied consistently from the very beginning. This knowledge has existed for hundreds of years, as copper and heavy metal slags were used to protect the wood from biological decay. I just wanted to point out that in the original post it sounded like the intention was to build a completely untreated house. That is not possible.
Similar topics