Energy saving perhaps but not floodproof

Sonnenblumen

Giving the exceptional poor weather of recent weeks and in particular the serious flooding incidents in UK, I would be very sceptical about the ability of timberframe construction to withstand such persistant and high water levels
(1500mm).

muffler

Good point. This should generate a few comments from the TF brigade

Sonnenblumen

muffler wrote:

Good point. This should generate a few comments from the TF brigade

Perhaps they cannot hear us/they're very busy?:rolleyes:

smashey

They are all out enjoying their boathouses.

CJhaughey

I don't think it is in the best of humour to laugh at others misfortune, especially with the news that there may be outbreaks of infectious diseases.
Cynicism is the lowest form of humour.

smashey

CJhaughey wrote:

I don't think it is in the best of humour to laugh at others misfortune, especially with the news that there may be outbreaks of infectious diseases.
Cynicism is the lowest form of humour.

Oh look. It's the moral police.

I have seen the news coverage of the flooding in England and I haven't seen too many timber frame houses.

If anybody is offended then I apologise.

Difficult to tell from the outside which are TF...

I believe that 80% of houses built in the UK in the past 20 years are B&B
I lived in Northampton in 2000(I think it was that year) when the town flooded almost all the houses affected were older Brick built.

All were repaired afterwards, don't see why TF should be any different.

muffler

Deleted User wrote:

All were repaired afterwards, don't see why TF should be any different.

Are you saying that timber framing/studding can be left immersed in water for several days without any loss of structural properties?

Here is an interesting article on repairing flood damaged TF houses, basically the property needs to dry out completly before any repairs are done.

This article has suggestions on how to make houses flood resistant, the bottom line is don't use TF construction in flood plains.:rolleyes: (should be "don't build in flood plains. full stop)

dj01

Well said CJhaughey, and agree making a joke out of someone's serious misfortune is just a little petty. I think the simple and obvious answer is that concrete more structurally resilient to weakening from long-term water exposure. But like everything there are pros and cons, but if you live in a flood prone area, allot of build considerations need to factored into the equation before anything is built. Having said all that, timber is easier to replace than concrete, and concrete also absorbs water, albeit in smaller amounts, but it's still a porous material. So with both situations structural assesment and repair works will be required, that's what insurance is for.

galwaytt

muffler wrote:

Are you saying that timber framing/studding can be left immersed in water for several days without any loss of structural properties?

never liked that 'oul studwork anyway....

DJ01 .....most sensible comment yet...............


p.s. because of this, certifying bodies in the UK are now looking beyond simple product and process accreditation, etc, and are looking for systems to the new LPS2020 - Loss Prevention Standard.

DAMHIK.................:o

Sonnenblumen

dj01 wrote:

Well said CJhaughey, and agree making a joke out of someone's serious misfortune is just a little petty. I think the simple and obvious answer is that concrete more structurally resilient to weakening from long-term water exposure. But like everything there are pros and cons, but if you live in a flood prone area, allot of build considerations need to factored into the equation before anything is built. Having said all that, timber is easier to replace than concrete, and concrete also absorbs water, albeit in smaller amounts, but it's still a porous material. So with both situations structural assesment and repair works will be required, that's what insurance is for.

Well dj ! If you read carefully you will not see any attempt to make light of someone's misfortune. On the contrary the post was to take the unfortunate but unprecedented UK flooding disaster to highlight what I expect is a considerable disadvantage of TF construction.
Much hype is made of the apparent energy saving attributes of TF construction, but all I've seen so far is an substantive dilution of house specifications and finishes at a rather mioniscule discount.

IMO TF sucks and in a climate changing environment sch as we see in UK, one would be mad to choose TF. Finally, to merely compare the water absorption capabilities of timber and concrete is meaningless. In fact concrete relies on moisture level for optimum strength, a sudden flooding will do no long term damage, the same cannot be said for TF etc.

Anyway better to read before you write!!

CJhaughey

Practice what you preach

smashey wrote:

They are all out enjoying their boathouses.

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Well dj ! If you read carefully you will not see any attempt to make light of someone's misfortune.
Anyway better to read before you write!!

smashey

CJhaughey wrote:

Practice what you preach

CJ. I have explained my post already and I have apologised if anybody was offended. My intention wasn't to make light of the situation in the UK either. It was more a light hearted remark about timber frame and water.

muffler

CJhaughey, you have posted twice in this thread and have contributed nothing in relation to the topic at hand. If you are not happy with any of the posts then report them. Otherwise leave the modding of this forum to the people appointed.

There was a lighthearted comment made by smashey which wasn't "laughing" at anyone's misfortunes. Stand up comedians make a fortune out of taking the piss of people involved in the most terrible of happenings. I doubt if smashey will ever make it on to a stage though.

You are way wide of the mark in relation to Sonnenblumen who has posted strictly in accordance with the charter. You are bordering on the point where your comments can be deemed personal attacking and trolling.

If you wish to comment on the topic then please do so. If you are not happy with the content of the posts then report them as I said or PM me in relation to them if you wish. Im not going to allow this thread to generate into a slanging match.

Now lets get back to talking about the wood/water scenario.

sesswhat

muffler wrote:

Are you saying that timber framing/studding can be left immersed in water for several days without any loss of structural properties?

Everyone has seen the footage of logs floating down N American rivers on their way to the timber mills. Would you say none of this could be suitable for structural timber?

As long as timber is exposed soon after the flooding and allowed to dry out properly I don't see why the structural properties would be affected.

Even if it was the case, it would only be a 'considerable disadvantage of timber frame' as Sonnenblumen says, if it applied to a location that was at risk from flooding.

Sonnenblumen wrote:

'...in a climate changing environment such as we see in UK, one would be mad to choose TF'.

If it gets to the stage where my house is submerged to a depth of 1500mm, Ireland and Britain will be a series of very small islands:)

CJhaughey

From talking to friends that have been personally affected by the flooding in the UK, the situation is as follows.
The majority of houses are single block/brick construction the flooding has damaged all the plaster and electrical work to a depth of 1500-1800mm, To rectify this all the plaster has to be removed from the walls to this height, all wiring has to be removed from the walls to allow it to be rewired, this means that in most cases it will have to be chased out as conduit was not commonly used in these dwellings.
The wall has to dry out either from natural means if the weather permits or by running a industrial dehumidifier 24/7.
After this and all the floorcoverings are removed the process of rewiring and replastering can commence.
For timberframe construction the process is to remove the plasterboard and vapour barrier and insulation and leave to dry or run a dehumidifier 24/7.
Possible problems with cavity walls are that silt and fine aggregate have penetrated the wall through the wall vents and possibly made a bridge for moisture to creep from the outside to the inside leaf, and any wall ties that are not stainless may be subject to corrosion.
There may also be issues with insulation depending on what type has been installed and how resistant it is to water penetration.
In any case the damage is severe with all internal woodwork and floorcoverings destroyed.
I see little difference in repairing a water damaged wall be it block or timber.

galwaytt

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Well dj ! If you read carefully you will not see any attempt to make light of someone's misfortune. On the contrary the post was to take the unfortunate but unprecedented UK flooding disaster to highlight what I expect is a considerable disadvantage of TF construction. what you 'expect'. So, an opinion, then, no substantive support of this sweepeing statement....?
Much hype is made of the apparent energy saving attributes of TF constructionyou mean actual. A standard masonry conc cavity wall with 65mm of insulation, the standard concrete build in this country for years, yields a u-Value of 0.34. This doesn't even meet the current standard Building Regs in this country. This is the figure on the website of the Concrete Block Association. I know of no TF model that is that poor, or fails to meet building regs., but all I've seen so far is an substantive dilution of house specifications and finishes at a rather mioniscule discount. First, who said TF was cheaper?? Secondly, if your logic is true, than conc construction in this country would be a model of quality, reliability, performance and value. I'm not even going to mention the con-job that is the cavity concrete block predominant in the Pale..........and if it was all those, neither TF nor any other alternative method of build would get a look in. This obviously is not the case.......

IMO TF sucks and in a climate changing environment sch as we see in UK, one would be mad to choose TF.Again, an opinion. Finally, to merely compare the water absorption capabilities of timber and concrete is meaningless. In fact concrete relies on moisture level for optimum strength, a sudden flooding will do no long term damage, the same cannot be said for TF etc.Still waiting for your evidence. As posters above have pointed out, all methods of construction suffer with submersion - all that differs is the remedies for when it happens.

Anyway better to read before you write!! Paraphrase: wise words, indeed......

my comments in Red.

And finally, your comments regarding the resilience of concrete may well hold true in homogeneous concrete structures (actually, I'm banking on it....I have a basement ) , but not of concrete blocks. The issues with concrete failure and degradation generally, by ingress of water, frost (heave) or other, is generally at cracks or joints. In the case of concrete blocks, however you have 4 joints: two every 225mm and two every 440mm, and a different medium between....(mortar). Loads of places there for that process to begin, then........... If that concrete block were as resilient as you believe, we'd have no need to plaster them, now would we........??

And whilst I'm in the 'not concrete' business, it does have it's uses. My own TF house is over a (homogeneous, remember...) concrete basement, and I built my garage under a part of my TF in conc, on the flat. Don't believe me......?? http://galwaytt.smugmug.com/photos/97882755-M.jpg

Biased, who, me?? perish the thought.........:p

Sonnenblumen

The Irish build regs are far from ideal standards, much I feel to the public servant inertia that are resonsible for development, implementation and policing. Anyways that's off topic.

There is a huge difference between thermal insulation and durability. IMO concrete built structures are much more resilient, be it in the clime sof sunny spain or the harsher winters of eastern europe (where incidentally there is a huge abundance of raw material for TF construction.

Sure they have chalets in CH and A and also D but most buildings are concrete based and despite the availability of the best TF construction techniques.

I'd rather take my chances with solving moisture penetration problems inb concrete structures than TF. That said if anyone has firsthand experience of tackling flooding problems in TF housing then I and many others would be interested to hear more. In the meantime, everyone can express an opinion, menawhile if anyone can point to durable and habitable TF housing > 80/90 years then I'd be interested to find out more.

Since when is Galway a 1 car county?