Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Proposed Enclosure System [Re: BLAKE1] #23993 07/01/10 06:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 103
D
DKR Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 103
If you don't use sheathing, I don't think you'll get an engineer to sign off on your plans, I'd bet. Why not just make your floor 4" wider than your frame and put a full 2x4 wall outside the frame, instead of infilling? It would permit you to slide your drywall behind the posts, and make your stud layout much clearer and easier for everything from sheathing, to siding, to insulation, to drywall.

Re: Proposed Enclosure System #23997 07/02/10 01:47 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Ya, I was not pleased with how the corners were coming out.

About the posts checking, a possible solution could be to either have the sills come out another 1" or 1/2" and so leaving a gap for expansion, or to just use a smaller piece of foam. I don't want the floor to come up too far past the posts, because I do not want the full width of the posts jutting out into the interior, and I don't want to have to use wider than 2x6's, because the extra costs would defeat the purpose of this whole system. This all makes me wonder, how narrow can one go on the posts anyway?

I suppose if I were to have 2x6's 2' OC for the outside sheathing, and then nail 2x2's on the inside horizontally it would bring my walls in a little more. If I would have the sills out a half inch further, then the walls with 2x2's on the inside would be in an inch further than the previous design. I should see whether 2x6's on 2' c. and 2x2's run horizontal on 16" c. would typically require less total wood than just having 2x6's 16" OC.

About sheathing, I want to use sheathing. Like I said, I despise working on houses that don't have any sheathing, because there is nothing to nail to at times when your really need something. It may save money, but to what extent should I apply this idea of saving money?


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Proposed Enclosure System [Re: D L Bahler] #24026 07/08/10 03:18 PM
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 171
C
Chris Hall Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 171
One minor point - you have used the term 'waddle and daub' several times now. It's not waddle, my friend, its wattle. Waddle is, to quote straight from the dictionary:

1 : to walk with short steps swinging the forepart of the body from side to side

2 : to move clumsily in a manner suggesting a waddle


Wattle, on the other hand, which was the word I believe you were intending, comes from the Middle English wattel, from Old English watel; akin to Old High German wadal: lit. "bandage"

Dating from before 12th century, the word wattle means:

1 a : a fabrication of poles interwoven with slender branches, withes, or reeds and used especially formerly in building

b : material for such construction

c (plural) : poles laid on a roof to support thatch

Hazel switches were a common choice, as far as I know, for wattle in English timber construction.

Please forgive my pedantic language policing, however I am wary of the fact that once that a few people start confusing 'waddle' for 'wattle' in short order everyone will be making the same mistake.

As for your wall system, I'm absolutely with you on the dislike of SIPS. However your system, it seems to me, uses an excess of material to accomplish the structural requirements, given the 2x6 infill studs, and the posts and plates are a major thermal bridge in the wall system you are describing.

Since the wall can be framed entirely with 2x6's and be plenty strong enough to carry the roof, and the timber posts present that thermal bridge, and are only visible on the interior as an inch or three projection, then it seems to me that the timber posts are pretty much superfluous in your system and could be replaced by, dare I say it: trim pieces.

Now, that's not what I would suggest you do, however if you are going to argue for a structural timber frame, then any infill system should be more about providing insulation than about providing structural support - to accomplish that you might consider eliminating the 2x6's and go to some sort of 2x2/2x3 double wall type of infill system, as has been suggested above.

Also, with 9" posts and plates that overhang the posts by 3" or so, as you mentioned above, you end up with pretty massive plates. While I'm not clear on exactly what you are envisioning, if the plate is to be 12" wide then presumably it is at least 8" high? Or are you envisioning a 12x12 plate? That sort of timber is likely to be coming from a halved log at best. or be boxed heart, which will mean that the grain orientation (using green material as you imply) of those sticks will make them prone to cupping across their width, and likely checking pronouncedly as they dry. Such plates would be yet another significant thermal bridge in such a wall system, not to mention a source of air infiltration as they shrink and cup.

Such plates seem, to me at least, a wasteful use of the resource, given that they are excessively large for the structural function of 'wall plate' in a residential application. Wasteful, i.e., 'not economical'.

Since a 2x6 wall by itself would give you that 5.5" cavity for insulation, and would employ dry material with minimal thermal bridging, seems to me the most economical option in comparison to your other plan. All the timber wall elements would add nothing essential in terms of structure, and simply add cost (in terms of labor, materials, and thermal performance losses) - they must be there, it would seem that they do little else than show a few inches of themselves to the interior. Using a 9" thick wall post that is structurally redundant, lowers thermal performance and only reveals 2~3" inside the building seems unwise.

It's good that you are thinking of alternative systems and are considering lots of options and that you are open to critical feedback here on this forum.


My blog on carpentry practice, East and West:

https://thecarpentryway.blog
Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24027 07/08/10 11:45 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
In this system, the 2x6's (or whatever they end up being)
are not structural at all, also the extra wide plate does not necessarily ave to be a single timber. You could have your regular timber plate, with a 'fly' extended out attached to the top of the 2x's. The purpose of these 2x's is to support walls sheathing on the outside and drywall on the inside. The idea is inspired by a traditional infill system and is going for that appearance on the inside of the structure.

The actual load bearing structure is a timber frame, it is therefore stronger and more durable than a 2x stud frame, and you don't have to have 8" or 9" of timber on the inside for it to have the beauty of timber. Remember that infilled houses had plaster right up to the edges of the timbers, and often the timbers themselves were plastered or whitewashed over as well.

Now that said, an idea in its earliest forms is very rarely a solid idea, and it's for that reason that I have put it up here.

I have considered the idea of just having a small 2x2 framework on the inside and on the outside with the large cavity in between filled with cellulose or spray foam, But I am not so certain that the cost to the customer would be reduced as a result of using less wood. The reason I say that is because that would require considerably more labor to install, whereas a 2x stud frame between the posts would supply a framework for attaching both the outside and the inside wall coverings.

There are many old barns in my area that use a system quite similar to this, and it is where I have taken some of my inspiration. These barns are true timber frames, often with bents spaced as far as 15 foot apart. However 2x studs are framed between the posts to support the siding. This system was a very common system on old barns and houses alike. The change here is that the studs are moved out a little in my system so that the posts are insulated from the exterior air temperatures.

I have thought a lot about the plates and sills in this system. To have the plates extend full size out 3 inches is excessive, and overly large. But since the stud framework is not structural, the plates could be extended by way of boards that extend past the edges of the timber posts.

And I researched it, 1/2" drywall is can be used with 24" maximum O.C. wall studs, 3/8" must be 16". So with 1/2" drywall, which around here at least is normal for walls anyway, there is no need to provide additional support to the inside.

This system isn't going to be the perfect insulator. It's insulating performance will not be as high as SIPs, I am trying to find and/or develop another system that can do just that. This system is designed to provide an affordable alternative. It is designed for use on a smaller timber framed home, not a timber mansion, the point of which is to allow normal middle class people to have a timber frame. As I have said before, my dream is to open up the world of timber framing to people who cannot currently afford a huge SIP mansion, and who lack the drive, skill or ability to build their own.

For a more thoroughly insulated structure, at a somewhat higher cost, I would definitely prefer the double wall system, with a single large cavity between all posts. This system would provide far superior insulating properties I know, But I think at this point that the extra labor would make it quite a bit more expensive. This other system is I think a reasonable alternative. That said, I am sure that it would be possible to develop a system where the labor costs involved would not be significantly higher.

I am sorry if you got the impression that the stud framing was in any way structural, I assure you that all of the load is born by the timber frame, which the studs are then attached to solely for the purpose of supporting the walls.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24028 07/09/10 12:11 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
Here is an interesting link......I like how the larsen truss works. Infill with many choices. http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/articles/larsentruss.htm

I like to know how the house will be heated, if it is local wood cut by the owner and handled by them then they can choose to insulate the house to a lesser degree, if they want to. If Oil or other processed fuel is used than the more insulation the better.

Sometimes it just ain't simple, no way around it. Build a well insulated smaller home, and one story tall. The home in the link is to tall.

Tim

Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24037 07/10/10 01:21 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Interesting

Here in Indiana, heating is likely to be Wood/corn/pellet, Propane/Natural Gas, water source, or electric. No one around here heats with oil anymore (though lots of older houses have oil tanks outside yet) Those new outdoor wood boilers are becoming more and more popular all the time...

I was looking at a pol-built garage the other day and thinkin about how those structures are built. They have their post frame with 2x4's nailed horizontally to the outside on 2 foot spacing with the sheathing then nailed to that. It got me thinking a bit more about the double wall system. I got to thinking that I bet I could very easily make a system that maybe even costs less than framing in studs, and would probably even use less wood, and would certainly insulate better

This system would be to nail horizontal 2x4 or 2x2 nailers to the outsides of the frame, possibly with a a foam barrier between the nailers and the framing members. These are put on 2 foot centers.

On the inside you attach 2x4's directly beside the posts, in or out as much as you want for insulation and timber exposure. You would need 1 or 2 between as well, depending especially on post spacing, so that the wall is stable. To this nailers are attached horizontally, once again 2' O.C. Drywall is supposed to be attached perpendicular to the supports, so it would need to be hung differently than on a stud wall. Make sure whoever hangs the drywall realizes that!



Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24038 07/11/10 11:09 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
Wood/corn/pellet is just a step below oil and propane in heating sources. They are a complicated process, one in which if you didn't have the refinery you would be left in the cold, pellet plant included. Outdoor wood boilers are wood hogs and inefficient. Anyone with a $10 dollar bow saw could keep warm in the winter, twice. with a simple wood stove. Even in a drafty, not so well insulated house. So why fancy insulated homes? It is attached to the heating sources. and comfort levels.

Tim


Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24039 07/11/10 05:42 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Several people around use have corn stoves. These folks are farmers who raise the corn themselves and have bins full of the stuff anyway. In my opinion, that is a smart idea. Many others have wood stoves, they go out with a chainsaw and cut the stuff themselves. Again, I like that system.

Gas is convenient, I'll say that for it. But gas can be very expensive too. Here we have a major natural gas infrastructure, because the city nearby was built on a very large natural gas deposit. Here in Indiana heating oil never was all that big.

In the city, I would feel safe to say gas is the number 1 method of heating. Out in the country I'd say it's close between wood and propane.

Outdoor wood boilers are inefficient, but they have the distinct advantage of not driving up insurance costs like a regular wood stove does (fire risk) Personally, I would prefer an indoor wood heating system. I have the advantage of being close friends with a heating and cooling expert that I can consult about all these things.



Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24041 07/11/10 09:52 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 306
C
Cecile en Don Wa Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 306
I know that your talking about feed corn but still, in an indirect way it is still food, or potential food, and it strikes me as a shame to be dumping that in the fire in the same way that it doesn't seem right to be using it to fuel autos. And how much energy went into producing that "heating corn"?

Greetings,
Don

Re: Proposed Enclosure System #24099 07/29/10 09:42 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
OK, fine and dandy. The farmer has the right to do with his corn what he wants. As so the consumer has the right to do with it what he wants as well. There's lots of things that can be put toward food that can also be put toward fuel. Do you like biomass furnaces? Well shouldn't you instead compost your biomass for fertilizer to grow food? If corn can be used as a viable energy source (talking about heat, because ethanol is not viable) than it should be. The USA produces an abundance of corn, and our farmers could really use an increase in demand. Farming is not a walk in the park, folks, and it's certainly not a high dollar proposition.

But this is all off of the main topic, which is enclosure...


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
HFT, Wrongthinker, kaymaxi, RLTJohn, fendrishi
5134 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.040s Queries: 15 (0.011s) Memory: 3.2257 MB (Peak: 3.3977 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 07:19:57 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS