ᐅ Solid wood house / partial self-construction, wall structure / differences

Of course, you can approach it that way if you have unlimited time, money is no object, you are willing to accept risks, and energy consumption is not a concern. High energy consumption is definitely not environmentally friendly. I think this might be acceptable for you, but not for 99.9% of home builders.

Regarding the topic of free formaldehyde (FF) and the term chipboard, I believe your knowledge is about 30 years outdated. Modern PU adhesives are free of formaldehyde, and chipboards with formaldehyde emissions or reduced E1-grade boards no longer play a significant role in construction. By the way, V100 refers to the water resistance rating of chipboard.

Best regards from Potsdam,
friedrich27

ohneWissen schrieb:
Maybe that was my real problem. I thoroughly researched the traveling exhibition on ecological building and talked to two committed building biologists. They definitely advised me against using PUR adhesives and polystyrene, even in the foundation slab. I also obtained the technical datasheet for PUR adhesives and saw that they are carcinogenic.

One point for you. Maybe I should have left out the word building biologist. There are good and bad ones, and if you encounter hardliners, your only option is really to retreat. As I said, there is always a compromise to be found. You can do without polystyrene because there are enough alternatives. You can also avoid glued constructions because there are alternatives for that too. Whether these alternatives make sense when considered as a whole is another question. Yes, and half-knowledge is a problem. What you read about PU is true but only applies to the uncured part, and as a builder, you don’t deal with that. If you receive a PU-glued product, it is cured and emission-free.

I find it incredibly difficult to make a decision with so much conflicting information. I have nothing against white glue (which is not suitable for construction) and I am not picky about natural insulation materials. That could be hemp, lava rock, wood, or something else. But I don’t know whether to choose a log house, timber frame, or lightweight expanded clay aggregate. Above all, I want to know which house fits our budget, is reasonably eco-friendly, built by well-paid craftsmen, and that we like.

When I read the article about sand that a colleague sent me, I should actually not build with concrete, as it causes resource depletion. I might not even be allowed to build, so I won’t do anything wrong.

Well, you can find a problem with everything. I’m not familiar with the sand issue, shame on me. But the issue with concrete: concrete requires cement and steel, both produced in very environmentally damaging ways. So use them as sparingly as possible; you can’t avoid them altogether. And once again, a compromise, haha.

Oops, that didn’t work out completely, some of my comments are inside the quote.

I just took some time to learn about sand, and I’m honestly quite shocked. I hadn’t really considered this issue before. It’s another reason, besides cement, to minimize the use of concrete as much as possible.

Regarding expanded clay aggregate, it may be true that the components are relatively harmless, but the manufacturing process consumes a huge amount of energy, so it’s not an option for me.

Best regards,
friedrich27

friedrich27 schrieb:
Of course, this is one way to approach it if you have endless time,

In my opinion, you do need to take the time for a proper renovation under historic preservation. Otherwise, you should avoid it and choose other options (e.g., new construction).

friedrich27 schrieb:
If money is no object,

Nobody claimed that. Whether new construction or renovation – neither works without a financial plan.

friedrich27 schrieb:
Risks are accepted

I’d respond with “No risk, no build,” to put it in modern terms. Show me a new construction project that can be planned without any risks.

friedrich27 schrieb:
and energy consumption is not relevant.

That is complete nonsense. Surely you don’t seriously mean that insulation can be done solely with petrochemical products and exterior wall insulation?
Less than 20% energy savings are typically possible through exterior insulation on old buildings. That’s why people talk about “insulation mania,” which hides old, beautiful façades behind hazardous materials (so-called “VWS”). Heat mainly escapes through uninsulated floor slabs and leaky windows, not through the walls themselves (aside from structural thermal bridges). This is a common misconception that insulation panel manufacturers profit heavily from.

friedrich27 schrieb:
High energy consumption is also hardly ecological. That may be fine for you, but not for 99.9% of home builders.

The higher energy use per square meter in a renovated old building is usually due to heating a much larger volume. It makes a difference whether you have 2.20 m (7 ft 3 in) or 3.60 m (12 ft) ceiling height. Also, old buildings are never as airtight as new constructions can be. That is something many occupants of old buildings do not necessarily dislike. Not everyone feels comfortable in an airtight house.
Maybe you misunderstood me — I wasn’t talking about uninsulated houses, but about old buildings insulated thoughtfully and with understanding. It should be clear that nowadays, any renovation needs some insulation.

friedrich27 schrieb:
Regarding the topic of engineered wood joists and the term particleboard, I think your knowledge is about 30 years out of date. Modern polyurethane adhesives are free of engineered wood joists, and particleboards with engineered wood joists or reduced formaldehyde E1 grade boards no longer play a role in construction. By the way, V100 refers to the water resistance of particleboards.

Unfortunately, this is not just my outdated knowledge, but the E1 standard itself is completely outdated. As long as hardware stores and building material suppliers still sell tons of boards and laminated flooring with carrier boards labeled “E1,” the engineered wood joist issue is far from resolved.
Polyurethane-glued boards contain no engineered wood joists but instead have isocyanates, which off-gas carcinogenic diamines even at normal indoor humidity. The skin and mucous membrane irritation known from engineered wood joists also comes with this. It seems that the devil was driven out with Beelzebub...

friedrich27 schrieb:
Greetings from Potsdam, Friedrich.

Greetings from MOL

Time: Correct, I wanted to express that your concept might be fine for you, but the majority of self-builders will not be able to manage it.

Money: When I read about everything you are doing and assume that most self-builders will not be able to do this themselves and will have to hire contractors, I believe it will become quite expensive. That is why new construction is generally more reasonable.

Risks: Where do the risks come from, from the idea that "being cheap is cool"? As long as people building a house believe it mainly has to be cheap, they open the door wide to risks. It starts with trying to save on a proper architect and engineer, continues through the contractors, and extends to the materials — apart from of course expensive fixtures, etc.

Insulation: Not a word about it. I am a convinced timber builder and we never insulate with products from the petrochemical industry. We have excellent insulation materials made from our own resources, if only "being cheap is cool" didn’t interfere again. Our insulation materials simply cost a bit more. Uninsulated floor ceilings do not exist at all, and the houses are built airtight, equipped with efficient heating systems, and the windows also have excellent ratings.

Energy consumption: That an old building uses more energy just because the ceilings are higher I would call a myth. Certainly, you are right that it’s not just about the wall but rather about a comprehensive insulation concept, which also includes the airtightness of the building envelope. Highly insulated building envelopes consume significantly less energy; this is an indisputable fact. Maybe you should have a blower door test done at the end. I really hope there won’t be an unpleasant surprise for you. Perhaps I really misunderstood you, but I read nothing about insulation.

Glue: Again, chipboard no longer plays a role in structural construction. If products like this are still available in hardware stores, it is probably because many DIYers think: “I live in a house and besides, there is Mr. Google, so I am a building expert, and everything is so cheap anyway.” In structural construction, PU-bonded OSB boards are generally used, and floors (laminate and engineered wood flooring) usually have MDF boards as carriers. That doesn’t mean other options don’t exist. Detached single-family homes have been and still are less affected by building materials used, but rather by furniture, floors, and believe it or not, wool carpets. Not everything that comes from nature is ecological.

PU: I have to repeat myself. Modern wood products bonded with PU glue (OSB, glulam, KVH, cross-laminated timber) do not emit any emissions from the PU glue. Of course, great care must be taken in factories to protect workers during processing. In the cured state, and that is all you as a customer receive, there are no measurable emissions, and the testing methods are highly advanced.

Yes, and best regards from P.