ᐅ Solid wood house / partial self-construction, wall structure / differences
Created on: 13 Oct 2013 09:46
R
Ralf-Bux
Good morning,
I am new here... and also new to the topic of “building a house.”
My wife and I have already read quite a bit, but we are not professionals.
We want to build a healthy single-family wooden house for our family of four.
The choice between wood and stone is no longer a question for us. It will clearly be wood.
Until now, we thought it would be a solid wood house. At first, a modern log house, but after further research, we have now settled on Holz 100 or rather “Only Wood” by Rombach.
After several discussions with general contractors, carpenters, etc., we finally consulted an architect (it would then be KfW 40 standard) who told us that we would be better off with a wood frame construction.
We are generally aware of the differences, but we are not really sure and would be very grateful for your opinions.
Especially the technical pros and cons regarding energy efficiency, building ecology, wall construction...
We are planning a 130sqm (1400 sq ft) single-family house with 4 bedrooms plus a spare room... and of course kitchen and other rooms. No basement. The plot is already owned. Heating should be provided only by a masonry heater. Hot water with an on-demand water heater + photovoltaics. (If necessary, infrared heating).
The budget is clearly set at 210,000 EUR for everything. That will be challenging, of course, but we have several craftsmen in the family and plan to do quite a bit of the work ourselves.
Thank you very much...
Ralf
I am new here... and also new to the topic of “building a house.”
My wife and I have already read quite a bit, but we are not professionals.
We want to build a healthy single-family wooden house for our family of four.
The choice between wood and stone is no longer a question for us. It will clearly be wood.
Until now, we thought it would be a solid wood house. At first, a modern log house, but after further research, we have now settled on Holz 100 or rather “Only Wood” by Rombach.
After several discussions with general contractors, carpenters, etc., we finally consulted an architect (it would then be KfW 40 standard) who told us that we would be better off with a wood frame construction.
We are generally aware of the differences, but we are not really sure and would be very grateful for your opinions.
Especially the technical pros and cons regarding energy efficiency, building ecology, wall construction...
We are planning a 130sqm (1400 sq ft) single-family house with 4 bedrooms plus a spare room... and of course kitchen and other rooms. No basement. The plot is already owned. Heating should be provided only by a masonry heater. Hot water with an on-demand water heater + photovoltaics. (If necessary, infrared heating).
The budget is clearly set at 210,000 EUR for everything. That will be challenging, of course, but we have several craftsmen in the family and plan to do quite a bit of the work ourselves.
Thank you very much...
Ralf
K
Kerryman7613 Oct 2013 16:56This is really interesting, Ralf-Bux. My wife and I are facing exactly the same decision. Could you perhaps share some details with me (how much does each part cost with which system?) either here or via private message? We don’t have a quote yet, but we are planning to visit a show home from the Austrian manufacturer next week.
F
friedrich2714 Oct 2013 13:50Hello, I wouldn’t worry too much about the costs at this stage. Get everything calculated in detail first, and then you will see.
A note on the topic of leaving trees in the forest if you want to do something for environmental protection: We still have a well-functioning forestry industry in Europe with sustainably managed forests. We are logging less than before, and the forested areas are actually increasing. Furthermore, young forests (reforestation) contribute much more to our climate than old ones. This is directed at those who romanticize ancient forests.
In principle, I would recommend building with solid wood. Explaining this in detail would take an entire evening.
First, ask your architect why they think you would be better off with a timber frame construction. Do they have solid reasons, or is it just because they are not very familiar with solid wood construction?
What I noticed is that you are focusing only on so-called glue-free products: Holz100 and NurHolz. Educate yourself about products like CLT (cross-laminated timber), KLH (glued laminated timber), BBS (block glued timber), and others. These products have significantly advanced timber construction in recent years and are produced in large quantities by various manufacturers. Glue-free products are a niche and will probably remain so.
Log cabins are a building method for which there are no good arguments today—unless you are a cowboy and want to show it outwardly.
Regards, Friedrich.
A note on the topic of leaving trees in the forest if you want to do something for environmental protection: We still have a well-functioning forestry industry in Europe with sustainably managed forests. We are logging less than before, and the forested areas are actually increasing. Furthermore, young forests (reforestation) contribute much more to our climate than old ones. This is directed at those who romanticize ancient forests.
In principle, I would recommend building with solid wood. Explaining this in detail would take an entire evening.
First, ask your architect why they think you would be better off with a timber frame construction. Do they have solid reasons, or is it just because they are not very familiar with solid wood construction?
What I noticed is that you are focusing only on so-called glue-free products: Holz100 and NurHolz. Educate yourself about products like CLT (cross-laminated timber), KLH (glued laminated timber), BBS (block glued timber), and others. These products have significantly advanced timber construction in recent years and are produced in large quantities by various manufacturers. Glue-free products are a niche and will probably remain so.
Log cabins are a building method for which there are no good arguments today—unless you are a cowboy and want to show it outwardly.
Regards, Friedrich.
Hello Friedrich, thank you very much for your suggestions regarding additional products. So far, we have only dealt with glue-free products (although Holz 100 does use a small amount of glue) because we read that glue affects vapor permeability and is also not considered very healthy or ecological. I noticed that CLT uses PUR adhesive, which contains MDI.
I am still very curious why you would only build with solid wood.
Short bullet points would be fine so you can still enjoy your evening.
The architect and building biologist we recently consulted told us that he would only build timber frame structures, as solid wood construction is not worthwhile (in terms of energy efficiency). He said there is no added value, only higher costs.
Thank you very much and best regards
Ralf
I am still very curious why you would only build with solid wood.
Short bullet points would be fine so you can still enjoy your evening.
The architect and building biologist we recently consulted told us that he would only build timber frame structures, as solid wood construction is not worthwhile (in terms of energy efficiency). He said there is no added value, only higher costs.
Thank you very much and best regards
Ralf
B
Bauexperte14 Oct 2013 22:19Good evening Ralf,
I would suspect that this architect is not able to sell added value and therefore prefers timber frame construction. The houses from the provider you mentioned in your first post already cost significantly more than simple timber frame structures.
Furthermore, I believe that with your budget, only timber frame construction will be feasible, or maybe solid construction for the exterior walls and timber frame for the interior walls.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Ralf-Bux schrieb:
The architect and building biologist we recently consulted said he would only build timber frame houses, as solid construction is not worthwhile at all (regarding energy efficiency).
I would suspect that this architect is not able to sell added value and therefore prefers timber frame construction. The houses from the provider you mentioned in your first post already cost significantly more than simple timber frame structures.
Furthermore, I believe that with your budget, only timber frame construction will be feasible, or maybe solid construction for the exterior walls and timber frame for the interior walls.
Best regards, Bauexperte
F
friedrich2714 Oct 2013 22:52Isocyanate are present in PUR adhesives, but this is only relevant during application. Once cured, which happens very quickly, the glue is emission-free. If you are building a timber frame structure, OSB panels are almost indispensable, and they contain a significant amount of it. Modern adhesive technology is indispensable today. Thanks to this, multi-story wood buildings exist now (9-story buildings have already been constructed), and this is far from the limit—large spans are possible, and so on. Additionally, timber is now utilized much more efficiently than in the past.
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has a vapor diffusion resistance roughly 1.5 times that of raw wood. This is a negligible difference. Of course, it depends on the overall construction, just as with energy efficiency (U-value???).
Why I prefer solid wood construction can be simply explained: professionally, I have worked 25 years in timber frame construction and now 10 years in solid wood construction.
The major advantages of CLT and similar materials truly come into play in large buildings (multi-story buildings, kindergartens, schools, offices, and industrial construction). But it is also interesting for individual home builders:
- Better indoor climate (if you leave the elements visible)
- Much easier and more reliable air and wind tightness
- No membranes or tapes with their uncertainties (follow-up trades)
- Simplest, safest installation (only wood screws)
- Higher stability
- Larger ceiling spans (also much less vibration compared to timber joist ceilings)
- Better structural properties (for example, in bracing)
- Improved fire protection (calculated based on charring, no cavities)
- Thermally a very inert material (heat storage, high summer thermal protection), but then you should also use it for the roof
- Simplest connections and joints
And so on, and so forth.
Note, I am not speaking against timber frame construction. If, for cost reasons, timber frame is the only option, you don’t need to worry—it is still better than anything else available. With smart planning, including assembly and follow-up trades, CLT and similar materials should hardly be more expensive. And here is the catch: based on what your architect said, I assume he is unlikely to be able to design and calculate CLT and similar structures effectively. Often, such projects fail simply due to unwillingness.
Could you tell me which region you live in? Maybe I can give you some good advice.
Best regards,
friedrich27
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has a vapor diffusion resistance roughly 1.5 times that of raw wood. This is a negligible difference. Of course, it depends on the overall construction, just as with energy efficiency (U-value???).
Why I prefer solid wood construction can be simply explained: professionally, I have worked 25 years in timber frame construction and now 10 years in solid wood construction.
The major advantages of CLT and similar materials truly come into play in large buildings (multi-story buildings, kindergartens, schools, offices, and industrial construction). But it is also interesting for individual home builders:
- Better indoor climate (if you leave the elements visible)
- Much easier and more reliable air and wind tightness
- No membranes or tapes with their uncertainties (follow-up trades)
- Simplest, safest installation (only wood screws)
- Higher stability
- Larger ceiling spans (also much less vibration compared to timber joist ceilings)
- Better structural properties (for example, in bracing)
- Improved fire protection (calculated based on charring, no cavities)
- Thermally a very inert material (heat storage, high summer thermal protection), but then you should also use it for the roof
- Simplest connections and joints
And so on, and so forth.
Note, I am not speaking against timber frame construction. If, for cost reasons, timber frame is the only option, you don’t need to worry—it is still better than anything else available. With smart planning, including assembly and follow-up trades, CLT and similar materials should hardly be more expensive. And here is the catch: based on what your architect said, I assume he is unlikely to be able to design and calculate CLT and similar structures effectively. Often, such projects fail simply due to unwillingness.
Could you tell me which region you live in? Maybe I can give you some good advice.
Best regards,
friedrich27
F
friedrich2715 Oct 2013 08:16Bauexperte schrieb:
Good evening Ralf,
I would guess that the mentioned architect might not be able to sell added value and therefore favors timber frame construction. The houses from the provider you named in the initial post already cost significantly more than simple timber frame structures.
I also believe that with your budget, only timber frame construction will be possible, or maybe solid construction for the exterior walls and timber frame for the interior walls.
Regards, BauexperteHello Bauexperte, that may well be true. But in terms of order, I would first build the ceilings with solid construction (the advantages compared to joist ceilings are quite significant). Then—and here I definitely disagree with most—the roof decking (summer thermal insulation, connections, etc.).
Best regards, Friedrich
Similar topics