Concrete V Timber Frame

onenightinmay

Hi All,

Am in a dilemma over the Concrete V Timber frame house. I have been advised more towards a concrete house, but the timber frame houses that I have been looking at are somewhat more affordable to be honest.

Basically what are the drawbacks of Timber V Concrete?

Thanks!!

Victor

Moved from Accommodation & Property

FX Meister

Timber frame is easier to heat and keep warm.

kadman

Emmedue ireland have the superior concrete home , better than any timberframe, concrete building. Easy construction, excellent to heat , quick build solution.

kadman

sas

kadman wrote:

Emmedue ireland have the superior concrete home , better than any timberframe, concrete building. Easy construction, excellent to heat , quick build solution.

kadman

I'm from the same end of the country as the Emmedue crowd. Local architects won't touch it. Could be as much about ignorance as anything else but I've seen it up close and toured the factory and I wasn't impressed.

Apart from anything else it just meets the building regs as regards U value and if I'm going with an alternative system it needs to do more than that.

It does have an IAB cert though so I can't be too bad.

The_Conductor

The concrete versus timber debate has been ongoing for a longtime. The Society of Irish Foresters took a case against the Irish Concrete Society, over an advertising campaign on behalf of their members which went on the byline "Concrete Built is better built", and won the case.

Both building techniques have their advocates and their protractors. Timber framed houses tend to be constructed more quickly and at a lower price, and arguably may be easier to heat than concrete houses. On the other hand- people may argue that timber framed houses carry noise very easily and may not have the lasting qualities of a concrete framed house. Another argument along these lines may be the relative perceived sturdiness of the house. Yet another argument may be that modifications on a timber framed house are more readily done than on a concrete framed house...... You could argue these until the cows come home......

yop

Im with smcarrick on this one, it could be an endless arguement which has been had on boards a few times over the years.

On my take the advantages of one probably outway the disadvantages of another.
If you build a simple house then TF can be cheaper than concrete, go mad with design and it will be more expensive.
Sound for TF if not done right is a big issue, builders take short cuts so this raises the sound issue. We have a timber frame and have used rockwool in the walls and fibreglass in the ceiling spaces. between the upstairs and downstairs we had 25mm of insulation and then 25mm of screed, this elimiates any noise issues.
Heated is probably the big plus for a TF, but if you do you concrete build right so could probably achieve the same.

Of course hanging heavy items can be a pain in the head, which give concrete the advantage.

Lifespan, who knows about this but if the right timbers are used in the TF build there should be no issues.

just a summary of my thoughts on the 2.

kadman

sas wrote:

I'm from the same end of the country as the Emmedue crowd. Local architects won't touch it. Could be as much about ignorance as anything else but I've seen it up close and toured the factory and I wasn't impressed.

Apart from anything else it just meets the building regs as regards U value and if I'm going with an alternative system it needs to do more than that.

It does have an IAB cert though so I can't be too bad.

Funny local architects wont touch it, major housing developments are using it. Its been in use worldwide for about 30 years, has also been used for apartment blocks, same method is also used for roof structure , and even staircases.
I'm not too sure that a factory tour of a polystyrene manufacturing plant can tell you much about the finished article. Surely you should have visited a house under construction, thats where it matters

kadman

armchairninja

One of the biggest advantages that TF has over the more traditonal concrete home is that it is far more environmentally friendly, it goes beyond U-Value requirements in certain cases and its easier build.
Concrete manufacture is one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions on the planet, and if you include all stages of the build process i.e. manufacture,transport etc. it is one of the biggest polluters in the world out of all sectors.
Timber Frame, is by far more energy efficient because of the large studs used, these form a large area to put in insulation and they are easier to ensure airtightness, which means less heat loss.
The only reason that concrete conforms to basic U-Values is because of the OHL method of calculation, which uses volume of the building, however the elemental method show concrete up as the disaster it is. This is the reason they used the by-line "Concrete Built is Better Built", because most people believe everything they read. And in this environmentally aware climate that we have today concrete is a dying breed, especially with the speed, accuracy and efficiency of systems like those offered by companies Griffner-Coillte and Century Homes.

sas

kadman wrote:

Funny local architects wont touch it, major housing developments are using it. Its been in use worldwide for about 30 years, has also been used for apartment blocks, same method is also used for roof structure , and even staircases.
I'm not too sure that a factory tour of a polystyrene manufacturing plant can tell you much about the finished article. Surely you should have visited a house under construction, thats where it matters

kadman

We're wandering off topic so I've PMed you.

kadman

sas wrote:

We're wandering off topic so I've PMed you.

Hi sas,

Pm'ed you back there.:)

Hi Yop,

Lot of good points there , regarding if the tf is expertly done. Cost wise the new building solution offered by Emmedue I believe is going to be on a par with tf prices , but thats just what I,ve heard at the moment.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has an Emmedue house , or indeed is thinking of purchasing one

kadman

muffler

Well, to answer the OP my advice would be to go with concrete

I went for an ICF system, the opposite way round the the Emmedue system;)You just need to list what is important to you before deciding on your preferred system.

I went for the ICF system because I could erect it myself, builders (with spare time) are a bit thin on the ground at the moment.

yop

muffler wrote:

Well, to answer the OP my advice would be to go with concrete

You must work for a concrete company then Muffler?

You not going to give us some idea why you would prefer concrete?

muffler

yop wrote:

You must work for a concrete company then Muffler?

Nothing like that at all.

Based on several factors my own personal opinion is that the concrete blocks and mortar house will be a more worthwhile investment in the long run.

I would never profess to be an expert on the housing area but I do have a reasonable knowledge and I think a lot of people are getting carried away with lower U values etc thus deflecting from the original question.

2 years ago I attended a Homebond meeting and 2 very interesting facts emerged. Homebond only started providing their 10 year structural guarantee on TF houses about 3 years ago. They stated themselves that they weren't happy with that type of house down the years.

Second thing was that they stated the average life span of a conc. built house was 70 years but the average life span of a TF house is only 35 years.
Big big statement but bear in mind that it was made by a company who carried out years of research into the TF housing area.

In cases like that I would rather take the word of someone from Homebond than a rep or supplier of TF housing

lastbuilders

I am currently doing a timber frame self build and the reasons I went for it were not financial as to do it right costs just as much as a concrete build. The main advantage I saw was the cost of heating the house. I am going to great lengths to try and ensure that this is as low as possible so I have put in a HRV system, wood pellet boiler, extra insulation in walls and ceiling and a good quality vapour barrier. Regarding longevity of the building there are many timber frame buildings that are hundreds of years old and in almost every concrete built house the roof rafters are timber which last longer than 35 years.

I am not a building expert and naturally have a preference for timber frame but these are the reasons I went with it.

Lastbuilders.

Carb

yop wrote:

You must work for a concrete company then Muffler?

You not going to give us some idea why you would prefer concrete?

Do you not remember that he blessed us with as much information in this thread. (OP - worth a read)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51300971

Viking House

onenightinmay wrote:

Hi All,

Am in a dilemma over the Concrete V Timber frame house. I have been advised more towards a concrete house, but the timber frame houses that I have been looking at are somewhat more affordable to be honest.

Basically what are the drawbacks of Timber V Concrete?

Thanks!!

Hi Onenightinmay

I am a builder and we build both Block built and Timber frame Passive houses using Scandinavian technology.
When you build your 200m2 house with concrete blocks it will cost about €2500/yr to heat it because there are too many problems with the system from Thermal Looping to Cold Bridging.
The standard Irish TF house has the OSB sheeting on the outside which is wrong as it stops any moisture that might get trapped in the frame from drying out. It is warmer than a concrete block house but is noisy and is lined with plasterboard.
There are better ways to eliminate problems with both systems but it is impossible to make a cavity block house energy efficient whereas we can improve our timber frames by putting the OSB on the inside for example.

Mellor

When people compare timber frame houses to concrete, they often used a high spec timber frame and compare it to standard concrete.
"Our timber systems uses first floor floating battens on dampers to reduce sound transfer to the same level of concrete.

"we super insulated out TF house and its better than my previous concrete home."

But obviously a high spec TF will achieve good performance. What about a high spec concrete.

I I was to choose between a Bog standard TF or bog standard concrete, I'd go with concrete, even it it were more expensive.

When you start introducing high stadard of construction and detailing, the decision over which os better blurs.


*My quotes were off the top of my head, and likeness to any person living or dead is purely coincidence

muffler

Carb wrote:

Do you not remember that he blessed us with as much information in this thread. (OP - worth a read)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51300971

Whats your point here Carb.

I posted an opinion which I believe I am entitled to do. Other people have other views but I give mine openly and honestly. I have nothing to gain or loose no matter what type of house anyone builds. But your way to respond because you do not agree with my post is to go and dig up an old thread. And this was done to prove what exactly?

I thought the idea of discussions was to get different opinions. You are now attacking the poster instead of the post.

ardara1

armchairninja wrote:

One of the biggest advantages that TF has over the more traditonal concrete home is that it is far more environmentally friendly, it goes beyond U-Value requirements in certain cases and its easier build.

No it doesn't - typical TF construction is 140mm stud with std fibreglass - this will achieve 0.32 U-value - this DOES NOT MEET THE ELEMENTAL U_VALUES ASK FOR IN THE REGS - THEREFORE TF NEEDS TO COMPLETE OHL ON ALL BUILDINGS - it doesn;t happen.

armchairninja wrote:

Concrete manufacture is one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions on the planet, and if you include all stages of the build process i.e. manufacture,transport etc. it is one of the biggest polluters in the world out of all sectors.

OK - I'll give you that the way cement is manufactured has to change. (And can be)

armchairninja wrote:

Timber Frame, is by far more energy efficient because of the large studs used, these form a large area to put in insulation and they are easier to ensure airtightness, which means less heat loss.

Se above - also there are VERY FEW builders who know how to erect TF - it's during the construction process where the system fails (As with all building methods)

armchairninja wrote:

The only reason that concrete conforms to basic U-Values is because of the OHL method of calculation,

NO - elemental values asked for in regs are easily achieved in concrete (We should be going further than these values tho')

armchairninja wrote:

which uses volume of the building, however the elemental method show concrete up as the disaster it is. This is the reason they used the by-line "Concrete Built is Better Built", because most people believe everything they read.

Most people are a little misled - you for instance should go and do some homework before making such comments.

armchairninja wrote:

And in this environmentally aware climate that we have today concrete is a dying breed, especially with the speed, accuracy and efficiency of systems like those offered by companies Griffner-Coillte

Whre do Griffner get their timber from?

armchairninja wrote:

and Century Homes.

Also supply framing only kits - fill with what ever and erected by who ever -
Buying a TF house does not mean it will perform better than a concrete built house - BOTH CAN PERFORM V. BADLY

ardara1

armchairninja wrote:

One of the biggest advantages that TF has over the more traditonal concrete home is that it is far more environmentally friendly, it goes beyond U-Value requirements in certain cases and its easier build.

No it doesn't - typical TF construction is 140mm stud with std fibreglass - this will achieve 0.32 U-value - this DOES NOT MEET THE ELEMENTAL U_VALUES ASK FOR IN THE REGS - THEREFORE TF NEEDS TO COMPLETE OHL ON THE VAST MAJORITY OF TF BUILDINGS IN IRELAND - it doesn't happen.

Concrete manufacture is one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions on the planet, and if you include all stages of the build process i.e. manufacture,transport etc. it is one of the biggest polluters in the world out of all sectors.

OK - I'll give you that the way cement is manufactured has to change. (And can be)

Timber Frame, is by far more energy efficient because of the large studs used, these form a large area to put in insulation and they are easier to ensure airtightness, which means less heat loss.

Se above - also there are VERY FEW builders who know how to erect TF - it's during the construction process where the system fails (As with all building methods) Also TF framed building according to BRE is almost impossible to prevent from over heating because of the lightweight constuction. One of the biggest problems we are going ot face because of global warming is the higher temperatures in the summer - this is not addressed by the TF industry - have a look at the Air Con systems available the next time you're in B&Q - they are a bloody disaster when it comes to energy consumption.

The only reason that concrete conforms to basic U-Values is because of the OHL method of calculation,

NO - elemental values asked for in regs are easily achieved in concrete (We should be going further than these values tho')

which uses volume of the building, however the elemental method show concrete up as the disaster it is. This is the reason they used the by-line "Concrete Built is Better Built", because most people believe everything they read.

Most people are a little misled - you for instance should go and do some homework before making such comments.

And in this environmentally aware climate that we have today concrete is a dying breed, especially with the speed, accuracy and efficiency of systems like those offered by companies Griffner-Coillte

Whre do Griffner get thei timber from?

and Century Homes.

Also supply framing only kits - fill with what ever and erected by who ever -
Buying a TF house does not mean it will perform better than a concrete built house - BOTH CAN PERFORM V. BADLY

Mellor

ardara1 wrote:

Whre do Griffner get their timber from?

Well to answer your question (even though you know the answer) Griffner get the timber used in thier structural glulam beams and post from scandinavia.
This obviously increases the embodied energy. They use foreign timbers because the slower growing process produces sronger timber. So less material is required in production. But I don't think this reduction equals the increase from transport.


And as for concrete being the unenvironmentally friendly, it defo is. But materials like GGBS reduce the embodied energy. And when they become more common more companys will look to improving on tradition concrete.

mukki

this is getting boring.

lets change the subject to something more exciting like....

which is better a red front door or a blue front door

come on guys argue this one out!


back on topic
regarding timber frame, you need to spend a bit of time in one to know if their any good, we all have experience in a concrete house, and we can't take the opinion of a person who just spent €130,000 building one, he/she might be biased

regarding how long they last, providing its built right, i am sure that will be someone elses problem ( R.I.P.)

Mellor

mukki wrote:

regarding how long they last, providing its built right, i am sure that will be someone elses problem ( R.I.P.)

Oh yeah, thats a great idea. Leave it to somebody else. Might aswel forget about being enviromentaly friendly. We'll all be dead by the time it gets really bad.

mukki

where did that come from

muffler

mukki wrote:

where did that come from

Straight from the forest

The_Conductor

Mellor wrote:

Well to answer your question (even though you know the answer) Griffner get the timber used in thier structural glulam beams and post from scandinavia.
This obviously increases the embodied energy. They use foreign timbers because the slower growing process produces sronger timber. So less material is required in production. But I don't think this reduction equals the increase from transport.


And as for concrete being the unenvironmentally friendly, it defo is. But materials like GGBS reduce the embodied energy. And when they become more common more companys will look to improving on tradition concrete.

Not entirely true. The timber imported from Scandinavia is a different type of Spruce altogether (Norway Spruce) than that grown in Ireland (Sitka Spruce). A lot of the structural timber used in these houses on the contrary is not spruce at all (which is known as White Deal) but Red Deal, the generic builders term, most comonly Pine- most commonly Scots Pine. The speed the timber grows at only anecdotally has anything whatsoever to do with its strength- the strength of the wood being a property determined by the complex manner in which its fibres are intertwined with each other (those timbers such as Poplar where the fibres have only limited intertwining- will even snap in moderate breezes). While we have some ongoing harvesting of hardwoods here in Ireland (and a hardwood mill in Tipperary) the main reason we import timber is due to shortages of the types of timber for which there is the higher demands. Pine, Fir and Larch are the most common imports (with varying levels of imports of a boggling number of other species). White deal- while we do import some, we are more than self sufficient in, and have a thriving export industry in it.....

Mellor

smccarrick wrote:

The timber imported from Scandinavia is a different type of Spruce altogether (Norway Spruce) than that grown in Ireland (Sitka Spruce). The speed the timber grows at only anecdotally has anything whatsoever to do with its strength- the strength of the wood being a property determined by the complex manner in which its fibres are intertwined with each other

Your probably right that the majority of timber from scandinavia is a different type to the majority here. And I agree that the strength of timber is decided by the "by the complex manner in which its fibres are intertwined". But the speed that a tree grows affects the way that they are intertwined. In colder climates where trees grow slightly the annual rings are closer together, and the wood cells smaller. In any tree the darker and harder annual rings are formed by slower growing in the cooler seasons. And the summer wood that grows faster that has larger cells is ligher and softer.

As for different species being imported than that ones readily available here. IS444 is the irish standard for stucural timber. It covers sizing of timbers and were as structural grading.
Take a species that is available as a home grow timber as well as imported. Say Douglas Fir. An irish sample of douglas fir that is visually graded and given a strength grade of GS (General Structural) falls into strength class C14.
An imported sample of douglas fir that is visually graded and given a strength grade of GS (General Structural) falls into strength class C16.
Same species, same grade, different class.

The_Conductor

True- but provenance of the seedstock and its inherrant genetic traits are as important as growth rates, which is where I getting at. I can you show three different stands of Douglas within a 40 mile radius of each other in Co. Cork with extremely different characteristics from each other.

With respect of Douglas Fir- the reason its both a home grown and an import species, is more to do with yesteryear policies of planting Sitka Spruce everywhere- and if they managed to find somewhere Sitka wouldn't actually grow- well toss a bit of Lodgepole pine there instead. Form might be crap- but hell, they might get a finger jointing industry out of it.

We've moved on from that stage- and away from planting Sitka purely because of its short rotation (relative to other species). Discrete mixtures- increasingly of native species, are very much in vogue, and species such as birch which were once considered weeds to be knocked out at any cost- are now grant aided to promote diversity.

Forestry was treated as a farm crop in this country- with output as the sole tangible evidence of success or failure. That extremely insular ideal is dying away too. While Ireland may never produce timber in direct competition with the Spessart or Floret de Blois or any of the other great historical areas of Europe- we are finding our feet and finally beginning to grow timber in a manner that will both produce a very valuable economic crop, but also rejuvenate the countryside and increase biodiversity......

It will be a while before you see home grown solid beech and oak panelling- but we'll get there!

Enough of a rant from me- I need more coffee.....

Mellor

I agree, and I think we are running a little too far with this tangent.
It won't be long before structural timber is purey reconstituted and the natural solid wood is used soley for interior work, panelling and furniture.

Carb

muffler wrote:

Whats your point here Carb.

I posted an opinion which I believe I am entitled to do. Other people have other views but I give mine openly and honestly. I have nothing to gain or loose no matter what type of house anyone builds. But your way to respond because you do not agree with my post is to go and dig up an old thread. And this was done to prove what exactly?

I thought the idea of discussions was to get different opinions. You are now attacking the poster instead of the post.

Its hardly the first time in the history of boards that a link was posted to an old thread where the same question was asked. I posted a link to that thread for two reasons.

1. The OP asked for advice, and there is mostly good information on that thread, which may help them with their decision.

2. I couldn't be bothered typing the same argument against your points again.

Your claims were completely rubbished back then, and you never came back to provide some factual information to back up your claims, or to argue your case. Why do you feel the need to post the same opinion months later. Have you discovered some information source confirming that timberframe homes only last 35 years?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree with it, which I've now done.

BTW, I don't see where I attacked any poster.

muffler

Carb wrote:

I couldn't be bothered typing the same argument against your points again.

Your claims were completely rubbished back then, and you never came back to provide some factual information to back up your claims, or to argue your case. Why do you feel the need to post the same opinion months later. Have you discovered some information source confirming that timberframe homes only last 35 years?

I didnt realise that this was a court of law and that I should have to answer to you Judge Carb. I dont have to back up claims or argue any case.

As I have said already I give an opinion in response to the OP and I stated the source of the statement I made in relation to TF houses having an average life span of 35 years. Thats it, plain and simple.

It seems to bother you that someone has an opinion that does not suit your way of thinking. I have said all Im going to say on the matter and if you persist with this silly poster attacking instead of offering up your own replies to the OP then I will ask for a ban.

Now go away.

kadman

Hi Onenightinmay,

I just popped in to see the verdict on tf or concrete , but this has gone so far off topic, its probably bordering on confusion for you now.

If you need any info on ther best tf constructions or things to watch for, feel free to pm me..

kadman

squire1

Viking House wrote:

When you build your 200m2 house with concrete blocks it will cost about €2500/yr to heat it

There are quiet often some very sensationalised claims bandied about whenever this discussion comes up so I was wondering if you could quote a source for that as it is certainly nowhere near my own personal experience, even at last years highly inflated oil prices. What does it cost to heat the equivalent TF house per year?

Carb

kadman wrote:

If you need any info on ther best tf constructions or things to watch for, feel free to pm me..

kadman

One thing I would suggest if you do go with timberframe is check how straight the walls are vertically before the company disappear from site. We had some of our walls skimmed before we put in door frames and it proved to be a bit of a nightmare on some walls because the carpenters obviously never put a level to the wall. One wall was 20mm out from top to bottom. A timberframe company is only as good as their erection crew (within reason). Things like bay windows can be very frustrating as they can't be completed until the outside skin is built. Also, my experience has been that a lot of brickies don't know how to put in damp course when it comes to timberframe. You should also consider putting in a concrete screed upstairs as its great for deadening the sound.BTW, this is from a self build point of view.

Personally, if I was doing it again, I would build a concrete home. Cost wise, I think timberframe has been more expensive. It hasn't been any quicker for me as we were doing a lot of the work ourselves and the budget was tight. I prefer the solidity of a concrete home. My brother built a concrete home and put insulated slabs on the inside of the exterior walls as well as insulating the cavity and his house heats up very quick and retains the heat well.

Perhaps when I'm living in the house I'll be happier with choosing the timberframe option, but 12 months into a selfbuild, I've yet to experience any benefits of choosing this option.

Viking House

squire1 wrote:

There are quiet often some very sensationalised claims bandied about whenever this discussion comes up so I was wondering if you could quote a source for that as it is certainly nowhere near my own personal experience, even at last years highly inflated oil prices. What does it cost to heat the equivalent TF house per year?

Point taken Squire, it is a bit of an exaggeration,the house sizes should have been bigger, I had two friends from Tipperary in mind when I made the comment who are paying €2500/year on Oil and they live in 2500ft2 houses. I have another friend from Wexford who has a Timber frame house and is paying €1500. All three have young families.
We have a few well insulated low energy houses coming into their first Winter now and it will be interesting to see the heating costs. They are both block and timber frame.

kadman

Carb wrote:

A timberframe company is only as good as their erection crew (within reason). Things like bay windows can be very frustrating as they can't be completed until the outside skin is built. Also, my experience has been that a lot of brickies don't know how to put in damp course when it comes to timberframe. QUOTE]

I think the quote can easily be applied to any off site or on site house construction. The end result is only as good as the experience of the trades people involved in the build. I know there are horror stories associated to all methods of house building, timberframe, concrete , steel framed, modular ect.

kadman

Carb

kadman wrote:

I think the quote can easily be applied to any off site or on site house construction. The end result is only as good as the experience of the trades people involved in the build. I know there are horror stories associated to all methods of house building, timberframe, concrete , steel framed, modular ect.

kadman

That is certainly true, but there are not as many people experienced with timberframe, although that is changing. I was approaching it more from the point of view that one of the benefits put out by the timber frame industry is that timberframe is supposed to be more exact as its produced in a factory controlled enviroment. It doesn't matter how accurate they are in the factory if they are not accurate on site. That said, if I was building a T/F again, I would probably use the same company again. Their sales manager was very helpful, they accomodated every single change I needed at their own cost, delivery was 2.5 weeks after order and there were no huge demands put in for what they needed on site. I just feel their tradesmen let the company down a small bit. If I'd had my door frames in before I skimmed, I'd probably have never noticed.