Does such a thing exist? Is there a forum topic, blog, or website out there somewhere in the great expanse that has gathered together an exhaustive (if such were possible) list of enclosure methods for timber frames?

If not, would there be any opposition to the idea that we gather here, for the benefit of all of us, such a list?

I'm always in search of the 'perfect' enclosure method, a mythical object I know does not exist, but still I am always looking to innovate and solve the problems inherent with this craft of ours. The thought came to me, gee it would sure be nice if there were some convenient database we could go back to, share with each other, and see what our colleagues are doing in this specific field.

Maybe I'm crazy. Or maybe it's out there and I've just been missing out!

I'll second the motion! I've read some good books on "Green" building, but none that deal with varying options for timber frames in particular. I would be happy to add whatever I am able.

I believe the "ayes have it" if we all waited to vote...Great topic David!!!...

I can start with perhaps some "category breakdown" suggestions...

Within the two primary categories I would suggest:

Thermal Mass Systems (aka "flywheel effect") measured in U Values

Loft Systems (aka trapped "dry" air) measured in R Values

Combination Systems.

Within the above we have the following:

Modern and/or Heavily industrialized:

Spun Glass (virtually worthless in the big picture.)

Foams (Not something I recommend at all anymore except perhaps for roofs

Cellulose (This could be in both "natural/traditional" also, as it has been used for well over 500 years in several applications if not older...

Aircretes

Fibercretes

Mineral Wools (over 150 years old, very good and could be considered traditional because of the longevity of its application and "recycled" material elements...)

(??? I feel I am missing one or two ???)


Natural/Traditional:

Cobb (...and related infill systems of masonry, stone, nogging, chinking, etc...)

Bale Materials

Sawdust (cellulose)

Cotton

Wool

Mineral Wool

Stack Wood (aka "Kubbhus" and related infill systems)

Textiles (felts and related modalities)

Build into a bank/ground, utilize the sun, face the building accordingly. Do away with this idea of a traditional building. Use the earth to stabilize the interior of the building, moderate it with dirt. This removes a lot of infrastructure of a building. Much less insulative material is needed. Less area of windows choices, put them all on the south side. Triple glaze, as in greenhouse with in a greenhouse with in a greenhouse. Timber framed walls between these rooms to accommodate the glazing with minimal framing. Vent the earthen enclosed area so it breaths, this is driven by the heat of the south facing glazing, a self driven engine. Very little siding, low to the ground so no 3 story building to fall off while constructing, low visibility to the surroundings and it is less susceptible to high winds. Low pitched simple roof systems. Did I mention almost nothing to paint year after year.

Yes, Earthship driven. Be creative in your buildings. There are too many choices of insulating or enclosing most building and timber frames are no different. I think we need to rethink how we build, in general.

Hmmm...I can't say I have seen any real improvement in modern methods at all? Different yes, but "better" seldom to never...in the big picture...

As for "fossorial architecture"...Humans have been building "under ground" or into cliffs for about "forever." Some of the systems of architecture are very complex.

Having about 5 "direct builds" of these types of structures and countless consults and observations done over the decades of what folks would call "earth-ships," I can say few last very long (outside arid regions) that don't end up with very serious interstitial moisture issues and related challenges...

Great concept...seldom works...but can be made to work well if "traditional modalities" are implemented...and/or appropriate biome type is chosen for the location...

I have heard about this moisture issue. Most all if not all houses have this same issue, it occurs in the basement where there is not enough exchange of air. Where is the science to counter this moisture issue? This is in part what I would like to see addressed. It should be a simple equation to solve. The other part that will keep this vision I have from fomenting is the colossal cost incurred within the building industry. Right up there with school loans the purchase of your home it right at the top of your financial outlay you will ever incur.

Were these five builds you encountered built with tires? Tires seem far too labor intensive. Concrete is a great replacement.

How many damp daylight basements have you seen? Was the moisture issue due to improper site prep? Built in a swamp with poor or no drainage incorporated? So many question should be asked before blame is placed on a cause/effect.

Today's modern super insulated tight houses will have horrible moisture issues, if air circulation is not addressed. The "earthship" is no different. I actually don't like the term "earthship". I hesitate to use it.

I have a bit of an interesting place in this discussion, as I build and install extremely tight panel enclosures and have done a lot to perfect the system as much as possible, but really have trouble with it on a foundational basis.
To address the moisture issue, I think that it is possible to address it in a modern enclosure, but it really requires an active and well designed mechanical air exchange and regulation of interior moisture levels. This is something lacking in far too many modern builds.
The other issue is that the tighter that you make an enclosure the more catastrophic the smallest air leakage can be. It's like a puncture in a balloon, a little hole pops it. For example, if you have positive indoor air pressure in the winter and moist interior air is able to find even very small pathways to the cold outer face of the enclosure you get condensation which is often not detected until it's far too late.
Things such as cold roof assemblies, rain screens for siding, redundant sealing methods, active ventilation, etc. go a long way to prevent issues, but add a tremendous amount of complexity and cost to a build, magnifying the problem of quality housing being out of reach for too many people. And even if all the measures are taken, it is a very intensive complicated system. One has to ask the question, is there something wrong with the basic concept that it requires such complex solutions? I'm out of time for now and will get back to it later. Great discussion, thanks DL Bahler!

I like this stuff, but it's not exactly what I meant. I hate to be a party pooper, but maybe I'll reign this in a little bit.

I'll just put up a little list to illustrate what I mean:

Note that I'm looking at entire enclosure methods, not simply materials that make up a part of the process.

'Traditional' or 'Natural' Enclosure methods:

Straw Bale
Cobb/brick/wattle-and-daub or other infill (exposed timber inside and out) methods
Just nail some boards to it and call it a day.

Modern or Industrial

SIPs
Wrap and Strap
Larsen Truss
'Exo-framed'

things like that.

I suppose that it did get into the weeds before it even started to get on track! I'll give a run down on what I know.

My background would be SIP type enclosures, tailored to my own special formula.

My panels are typically 5 5/8" EPS for walls 10 3/8" for roof. I use 7/16 ZIP sheathing on the exterior taped with ZIP tape. (I am not sure on the long term viability of the tape, but I am impressed by the durability of the ZIP sheathing coating as well as the tack and weather tightness of the tape. I detest house wrap and the extra material cost of the ZIP system is more than made up in expedited installation time. The OSB used in the panels is also higher quality IMHO.)

Interior facing is typically 7/16 OSB. The panel is shimmed away from the frame to accommodate finished wall covering (5/8" ply spacer for 1/2" drywall for example).

Panel intersections are foamed with Dow high expansion foam, splines and and other structural insets foamed with Dow wall and floor adhesive as well as nailed. One thing that I am aware of is the importance of not relying on spray foam as total seal, it's really more to fill voids. Even if applied perfectly it will crack as a building shifts slightly over time, rendering the seal ineffective. Redundancy is critical here. To that end I also tape my interior OSB seams with Zip tape, which really does stick quite well to OSB. I also use a lot of EPDM gasketing, at major seams such as wall to wall joints, or wall to roof joints. A well planned gasketing system will go a long way toward producing an unbroken seal around the building.

Though not necessarily within my typical scope of work other critical components to make this system work well are:
1. A cold roof system
2. Rainscreen detail for siding
3. Whole house heat recovery ventilation system with humidity controls and well place ventilation at bathrooms kitchens and other potential moisture sources.
4. Make sure the electrician and plumber foams the chases at every box, switch, or penetration in the panels.

That's a quick overview of my method, I'll be interested to see what others have to say.

Thanks for the input,

Have you ever run cost analyses of your systems in comparison to others, like common wrap and strap or 'exo-framed' enclosures (I'm using that to mean, where you build out with 2x4's on the exterior to create an insulation cavity and a framework for attaching siding and drywall)

I like the concept you have there, it's something that will be attractive to a lot of people.

I've always kind of viewed wrap and strap as SIP's unaccomplished little brother. It seems to me to be a lot the same concept when it's all said and done, except that SIP's must be manufactured and need heavy equipent while one guy could wrap and strap by himself.

Most of my efforts have been focused on ways to refine the concept of exo-framing (if there's a better term, please tell me)
It is bothersome for me to have redundancy in my projects, where you essentially build another house around a timber frame. But I've yet to find a very good way around that.

I've worked on systems relating to wrap and strap, exo-framing, and infill-framing, which leaves only a portion of the framing exposed on the interior.

Is it my bad for falling into the weeds? Burdock is some good stuff!

I do apply, for the most part, a wrap and strap system. Most direct and simple system going, from my perspective.

How is the cheese making business going DL? Curious, I now have an interest.... in some aged cheeses and was wondering if you do any aged cheese. This is still on topic, in part, as cheese caves are of two categories, natural underground caves or above ground fully controlled environments. These are like super controlled environments very similar to how our homes are starting to become. One a high tech approach or a more simple natural build.

Hey Tim,

I've got on the schedule some time in early march, depending on the cows and Maple Syrup.

I'll have to go with the high tech route, not a whole lot of natural caves in Central Indiana.

Interestingly enough, I am of the opinion that this is a situation that works best with a very high thermal mass, making it relatively easy to regulate the temperature within a fairly small zone

This spring will be busy.

Hi Tim,

I will do my best to reply, then take a look at "the weeds."



Unfortunately, much (not all mind you) of the "science" is generated by the industries that profit from the methods applied within the "insulation industry." This, in my experience has jaded greatly the data and conclusions draw from what research there is. As for "independent research" there is much, and some of it is good, but more aimed at material science than "application/type modalities."

Interstitial moisture is a problem throughout many "modern buildings" ever since adopting the "airtight" concept for modern architecture. Much of this coming out of Europe (aka mainly Germany at Passivhaus Institut) for the "passive house." Now being strongly reconsidered by many as needing to be "rethought out" in its entirety, since "passive house" was a "concept" not a historically "proven" (or even well understood concept) in "real world" application.

I never did (nor will) buy into the "airtight" house concept. I thought if folly then and still do. I design/facilitate "houses" (mainly natural and/or traditional) and not "space ships or submarines." Secondly, like a submarine, these "airtight" homes MUST rely on technology of all sorts from "plastic foams" to "mechanical lungs" (aka HVAC air to air heat exchangers) to not only to function optimally...BUT!!...at all!!! Like in my other world of "outdoor education" I have adopted and used the much more traditional concept of "draft proof" architecture in place of an "airtight" concept, as it does not rely on whether a "machine" is working to maintain "breathable (or healthy) air. I would also add, I am still a fan of opening a window and not feeling "guilty" about it for some misplaced belief that I a "harm the environment" or being wasteful...

I do agree...the process...(which ever one??) is expensive either in material and/or labor to achieve it in good form...



This subject (I know I am silly...I have too many interests..ha ha) is dear to my heart and my first few "earthships" (by the way I agree...dumb name...but what the heck, that is the vernacular now for them, or "wofati") where rammed tire and/or rammed earth modalities...I am still "tracking" quite a few, and all in all...if not in an arid region, I just do not recommend them AT ALL!!! to folks that do not have a HUGE!!!!!!!!! budget and/or lots of skill and knowledge of architecture of this form...



Great point time...We call that a "horse shoe" basement (and if we ever do "basements"...which I dislike anyway...because I don't use concrete hardly ever) we do a "horseshoe" or "walk out" basement. These do tend to be much drier...when!...well done and the house above is permeable and draft proof...not airtight!



I agree, however even with great drainage, proper location (a swamp would just be plain silly I think all would agree on that) and everything else, most of these "modern" "Earth Dung Out" attempts at fossorial architecture have huge issues in non-arid regions...



Also very true...and...why I don't go down that path at all...

Wofati, or any of the traditional methods of Walipini, Bikooh, or related structures from around the glob built underground do have great potential when well designed and thought out...

Hi David,



Sorry, this is your thread and you take it wherever you like...I think I listed actual "'Traditional' or 'Natural' Enclosure methods:" already and you have repeated some of them hear again.

I will do my best to address/comment on direct questions then...

.

Yes I have, much of it in the material science literature...

Go to LinkedIn and join some of the professional groups that deal with this if you can, or do PDF searches for published works in this area...



Agreed...they are the same, and the "little brother" is actually the better of the two methods in most facilitations...IF...you support the "airtight" house concept, and employ foams for your insulation medium.

SB (aka strawbale) is a "warp and strap" method in many of its iteration...



"Exo-Framing" is as good as any David. I rather like the term, and have read others that used before this to describe any system that not only provides a "thermal diaphragm" for wall and roof, but a method for running wiring and other mechanicals effectively. Wall trusses (aka what some have called Larsen) have been around since the turn of the century in many different forms. It is the system I use and promote, and as far as I know mine (and one manufacture in Germany) are the only "all wood joinery" wall truss systems in use today. They average, at minumum 250mm thick, and go up to 1 metre thick at the largest now in design application. They can rest on a sill or can form a "hung wall" where they are suspended from the rafter tails or the "roof truss" system if one is employed. They also provide easy facilitation for "rainscreen and cold roof" systems which are paramount for longevity in most natural materials.

As for insulation, if I use anything that could be called modern, it would be mineral wool batt or board, and not plastic house wraps or other "retarders" to good permeability and moisture escape from the interstitial zones of "super insulated" structures...

Regards,

j

I must say I also agree with much of your approach here on this topic, Jay. It is refreshing, pun intended.

Thanks Tim!!

I think...all in all...you and I are thinking the same thoughts and are going in the same directions...

Stress Skin Panels (I know the industry disagrees with me...I get emails all the time about that!! ha, ha) is a dead end for timber frames...I don't even like them for "prefab houses."

There are way more "cons" to SIP than there are "pros" when it comes to "actual real world applications." They may be profitable and fast for GC only considering "speed and profit" but the absolutely do not create "better architecture." I know that from watching, and tearing them apart forensically over the past thirty years...

SIPs suffer from so many "ills" I can't even begin to list them all...but heck, what do I know, that's just my experience and opinion...

Blessings,

j

I'm interested in this conversation, if even it's not quite what I was going for, so do carry on.

I'll never use SIPs myself. Some people think they're great, good for them. GC's want to use them, they're free to. I don't care.

A lot of my concern is putting together information to recommend to GC's what they can do, because I'm marketing to a lot of folks that don't have a lot of TF experience.

I hate foam and tight houses, but a lot of homeowners have bought in to the notion that such is the best way to do things, and so sometimes you have to work with what they want (the customer is not always right, but you always have to make them feel like they are)

In such cases, I would try to sell the GC on wrap and strap and dissuade them from the supposed virtues of SIPs.

For GC's working from a conventional framing standpoint, I steer them to exo-framing.

If people are looking for a high energy performance house, I will point them to a larsen truss type system.

If I were more focussed on building complete houses, I'd love to deal with some of the more interesting methods, but realistically when dealing with GC's, I've got to deal with them on their level. I've got to work within the constraints of what they are used to dealing within. My focus has to be on selling frames, I don't have the time to try and educate everyone and persuade them to my way of thinking.

Well.... sips are great for walk in coolers, at least.

Hi David,

I agree...except now, I have stopped making my clients "feel like they are" when I know better or my name is attached to something...

Now...if a client wants me to do something out of context or parameters of design that I know (or feel) is "bad practice," I document it and make them sign a waiver that the "choice" was theirs and not mine...Seldom (if ever now) do I get pushed into this position...

The entire concept of "airtight" as being good for anything that involves natural "healthy living" has been a ludicrous notion to me since day one...I won't stop stating that or writing about...Those who disagree...can debate the point all they care too...most of the humans I know "breath air..." and "airtight" is counter to that little aspect of physiology...Building any architecture that doesn't support simple basic physiology is crazy in my book. Heck...even a well built timber frame that is "super insulated" and "draft proof" with permeable wall systems can be stuffy if you don't open a window or door at least once a day...



If I may...Just call them Wall or Roof trussing...

John did not invent (per se) or really change these to much from original designs from decades ago or the concepts of them. He (during the Carter administration) did examine, publish and understand them better than anyone else around at the time...I have corresponded with John (years ago...now retired) and been examining and employing them ever since...as have folks like Robert Riversong.

Lignotrend Wall Trusses are some of the best in the world for an "industry made" form of them, yet site built forms are just as good for the Timberwright wanting to make them.

In my view (being a traditional woodworker anyway) the "all wood joinery" types are superior to any currently on the market or being made...They just compliment what we do, are strong the anything nailed or screwed together and look really nice all on there own...

Let me know if I can add more to the conversation...

Regards,

j

Tim...you don't know how true and funny this is...

Like "pink insulation" many of these "SIP Systems" were originally intended for application in the manufacture of refrigeration units (often in only hot arid locations.)

Guess what!!???

From all I have seen, studied and examined, they work great in these applications. Which of course, are the applications the original designers and material scientists had developed them for...

It's not until "industry" tries to..."MAKE THEM WORK"...(and of course make big profits on) outside of original context that we begin to see issues. Of course this take decades of "real world" application (and failures in the poor consumer's house) that the issues even begin to become apparent...and...it will take several more decades for folks like us "really looking" and examining them (plus consumer complaint and lawsuits) to ever make a significant impact on the SIP industry or use of the SIP concepts.

In the meantime...I will do my little part to make posts like this, share and exchange info, and not recommend them at all to anyone (except...maybe if I have to or I'm forced to on a project...in roof applications ONLY!!!)

Regards,

j

I got one that may be just as funny if not more. You know that "earthship" I was talking about. Well the glass in the front, needs to be two layers with about 4" between the two, and when the sun sets or gets too hot, a bunch of those little white foam balls, the kind cheap coffee cups are made of, are blown into that cavity, insulating the interior from the heat or the cold. The bulk is stored in a room ready for use. It's on some kind of light sensor and or thermometer. There needs to be something to control the static electricity.

Just putting this out on public record so I get credit when it is put into action.

I was sucking up a bunch of cut blue board when this came to me. Kind of like Tesla.http://forums.tfguild.net/images/icons/default/exclamation.gif

Jay, I highly respect your position and were I in your same position, I would take the same stance.
Like I said, though, I want to primarily cut frames and as such my target for advertising is general contractors. So in that case when things go wrong with the enclosure, it's not my neck on the chopping block. I don't want to say 'I don't care' because I do, but I'm not in the same position as you.

I'll gladly steer contractors away from anything using foam if I think they'll listen, but I don't want to ruin a good professional relationship with a potential customer or sour possible repeat work by telling a GC how to do his own job.
Having been on the other side of the fence, on the end of things that was decided by someone not doing the actual work, I respect the GC's freedom.

Actually, the funny thing is that even I use SIP enclosures I have really moved beyond liking to use them. I don't think that it is impossible to make them a workable system, but they have too many negatives which make them undesirable. They are an extremely dependent, overly complicated system. As it has been pointed out, they are more like space ships than houses. There is a bit of a vacuum for immediate alternatives, so unfortunately I am going to have to stick with it for the next couple years.

I'm really not sure that wrap and strap really takes any of the fundamental problems of SIPS out of the equation. It is a fundamentally similar concept but where it gains in affordability, it picks up issues in redundancy and may be more vulnerable to moisture issues because of more variable quality control. I would really only consider wrap and strap suitable for perhaps an occasionally heated out building, but I really just don't like it.

What I would really like to pursue in the next year or two is a "chip and slip" system of non load bearing wall with lime plaster. My local area has lots of clay and wood resource, so it seems likely. Straw bale has always given me the willies, I think it's sort of like SIPs, perhaps theoretically possible to get right, but riddled with potential issues. The clay slip in the "chip and slip" has the advantage of isolating the organic material, greatly reducing the food, fire, and habitat potential. I'm not sure about the roof, SIPS panels or Larsen trusses may be the easiest system to apply. I would like to eliminate the panels eventually, because the roof is much more vulnerable to problems than the walls.
Does anyone have any first hand experience with chip or straw slip? I would be interested to hear. Although, I suspect I will just have to start experimenting myself. The only thing that I'm a bit dubious of figuring out myself is the plastering. That seems to be the sort of thing better learned first hand.

Many (most?) of us have all been there Sean...as it takes a while to really take a strong position on SIPs. I now have the luxury of such strong convictions, yet as David pointed out (rightfully so) that not all have such ability, but still would like to create and sell great frames...

I would not turn down a contract myself...but I would make them sign a "knowledge waiver" on this topic if they chose a SIP...That way, if the frame was damaged in some fashion by them I am held harmless...and...I have done my due diligence in providing the best info I can as I understand it...



Agreed...

I can think of a number of "make them work" methods, but in the end...compared to other modalities...They simply lose...and lose badly...



On that view, I may not be able to agree...

Timber frames as we actually know them today have been around for over 7000 years...The number of methods to insulated them, be it mass or loft or combination are just as old...Many in the industry have either forgotten this or not really take the time to delve as deeply into it as they should (just a view..)

"Wall Trusses" (not an original concept) and/or infill systems, and the like all lend themselves well to many natural/traditional insulative modalities...Many being quite cost effective not only for the owner of the project but the facilitator as well...



If using foam...I couldn't agree more.

Wiring might have gotten a wee bit easier, but that is about it...All in all, it's a wash between W&S and SIP...



"Light Cobb Infill" modalities (aka clay chip slip forming) again is not a new concept at all...Many are "rebranding it" but the concept of a "light cobb" (aka Clay- Slip Clay Straw/Chip-Cob (Cobb-Clom)-Tabya-Adobe-Bousillage-(Doheki=daub), etc etc) have been with us since the first timber frames in one for or another depending on culture and location...

I think you will love it, and as the system modalities spread and gain in popularity, they will improve even more...These "light cobb" methods are very versatile, and give us the best of mass and loft in one system...I highly recommend them to "natural insulation" inclined folks that wish to "DIY" some of their project. It is also another system the lends itself well to "wall trusses." The list of positives, from all I have seen, consulted on, and examined are bountiful...Bousillage is probably one of the oldest forms of it in this country, with even Indigenous cultural application in architecture...



That's kind of funny... In an odd way...

I call SB the SIP of the "natural insulation...

In the right environment, they work great, and if the structure is designed well (and the bales are close at hand and in GREAT!!! shape) this system works marvelously...Unfortunately, many now (most??) have all types of issues built into them...and the reason I do not recommend them...unless very succinct parameters are available...

Regards,

j

I can more than respect that David...

I know some think the Timberwrights just cutting frames and selling them should take more responsibility than that...

However, I think they (those that may judge this) may miss the daunting aspects of trying to "police" over other people's choices (good, bad or netural.) As such, I see nothing wrong with you "just selling frames" and leaving it to the GC to shoulder the burden of "good practice" (as it might actually be) for how your frames are treated in regards to the "thermal envelope." The best someone in your position can do is share what you know and hope the "timber frame consumer" chooses wisely...That way you have done your "due diligence" but the ultimate choice is left to them...I support you in it...as least they are in a well built structure with great "bones" that can always be salvaged later if need be...

Regards,

j

I have a couple straw bale buildings, one small 8'x14' and another cabin 16'x16' The small one is just storage. The square building is a living cabin. It always smells of old straw, not moldy but just old straw. It also has mice and squirrels in it. they can't make it into the living space just the straw. Due diligence needs to be take to enclose the whole cavity to prevent access of vagrants.I have heard some are dipping the whole bale in a clay slip then stacking. I would give this a go next time.

You nailed Tim...

I don't recommend SB but that doesn't mean I don't like it or would build one for/with the right project and people...

There are just key elments that must be addressed...

NO OPC CONCRETES!! in contact with the straw at all...

EXCELLENT physical pest control measures...

Breathable natural plasters, and/or good ventilation around the bales...

At least 600mm of of the ground in all areas including arid regions...

At least a 800mm roof overhang...

Get those done and it can work, though typically other insulation forms will be less expensive and easier to facilitate (but not always...)

I guess I should have clarified, Jay. I meant not there were a dearth of alternative methods in general, just in my specific location and circumstance. What I meant was that it will take some time of experimentation and building new skills to be able to consider offering customers a viable alternative. Thanks for the input, it's always appreciated!

Hi Sean,

Send an email or give a call anytime...I am glad to be of service and/or help. Tim Rau of Pleasant View Restorations of the Albany New York area isn't that far from you (??) either, so I am around or in the area a fair amount...

I think you will love the "slip form" methods (aka light cobb) the more you learn about them...In the interim, I would look at switching over to mineral wools...It is a great insulation type in general... and has been around for along time...With a well established (positive) track record...

Regards,

j

I save the boring chips from my boring machine for use in light clay woodchip infill. I have a junk car full of garbage bags of them and a few stuffed in the corner of the shop. I also set aside all cedar slabs for chipping for just in case. It needs to be timed right, not something you will want to start in late summer, early spring is the best so it can dry all summer long.

I do make lots of shavings and chips in a year. Last year I took 3 big manure spreader loads out of the shop. Timbeal, do you do the light clay infill for customers or just for your own purposes?

I'm hoarding for my own purposes at this point. I don't collect all chips, such as choppings from the axe or chisel work, just the half circles from the boring machine. Amazing how many of these chips come out of a mortice.