Timberframe. Building it yourself

tootsy70

Just throwing this into the mix here. Here we have a house built just using timber without the ply,breathable felt etc.. and uses mud also. How is it its legal to build a house of this type yet not what im suggesting.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=www.mudandwood.com&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mudandwood.com%2F&ei=Jwi7UezdKPPB7AanjoDwCw&usg=AFQjCNFQOMXXSiOG_GHDE79w0qkBNTPUVw&bvm=bv.47883778,d.ZGU

tootsy70

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Well, this shows just how far you still have to go before you understand exactly what it means to use timber as a framing material for an entire house in our climate. How or what people did as a construction method 80 or 100 years ago on another continent can not be adopted directly for use here as an acceptable modern building technology.

Also attempting to compare the construction of a roof which is very easily ventilated and is generally constructed a distance off the ground and generally have far lower loads that say ground floor walls of a dwelling. Damp proofing, ventilation, insulations, etc., etc., are all very different and have to be treated differently in walls to those in roofs.


Either contribute or please don't comment, it is very easy to see why some people are skeptical given the OP's seemingly very simplistic comparisons and observations. I would think the people who are making the humorous comments actually know what is involved in doing what the OP is asking.


Where to position frame vents, how many? Where to position fire stopping and what kind to use? Exactly what parts of the frame should be ventilated? What size of studs for loadbearing walls to carry RSJ's? or framing large wells? etc.,


Nobody said it can't be done, actually I've done a few. What is being said is that there is a vast amount of work involved it's not just a case of slapping 4" x 2"'s together and working from there.


Yes, that's what you will need to build the house. But you are getting ahead of yourself. The entire frame has to be designed first. That's not just the floor plans, but the entire frame itself.

what about ventilating what you are now making internal timbers? Did you ever stop to consider that there may be a reason why this is not commonly done?

Who is this directed at? Not having a dig at yous but yous come across as being very naive.

Why even say this. The house would be build the exact same way and design as one built in a factory. Im not trying to redesign or do anything different, just construct on site using same building regs,timbers and measurements.



All the same damps proofs,vents etc.. would all be exactly the same if teh house was built in a factory or onsite. Cant see why you even mentioned this.



Can you tell me what can be done in a factory that cant be done on site concerning this construction method.


,

Your asking me questions that i cant answer but when designing a house, an engineer could. All i asked was can it be done, not wanting to know all the regs and why and why nots.



Well you just answered it for me. ?Yes it can be done, thank you




Totally understand this even before i made this thread.


Prob because 1 side of the panel with ply is strong enough. Theres prob no need for an extra side of ply because it will just add cost however it prob would make it stronger. An example of this would be that a 4skin blocked house would be stronger than a 2 skin blocked house but theres no need to build 4 skin because its throwing money away. Have you ever consider this!

tootsy70

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I was in Germany last year, visting a factory and a few site visits of a company which prefrabs the timber frame with insulation leaving the correct conduits in for plumbing, electrical etc.

From what I seen in Germany, the way they do it is.

1. Have the Slab/Basement ready with services such as telephone, waste, water supply accounted for , so theres no drilling or digging afterwards.

2. Hire a mini crane for a day or two. (They liked to get it done in one Day).

3. Arrange all pre-fab components to arrive on site, with a team of about 6 men ready to put them together with the help of the crane.

4. Usually in a standard 2 or 3 bed detached house they would have the house weathertight by the end of the first day all going to plan.

5. Once the house is up and weathertight your laughing, you can tip away at the plumbing and electrical as necessary.

These were available to passivhaus-standards.

Have seen this construction method done on videos on yourtube and even on grand designs on C4. A great way to build house and very quick indeed however they do ask for quite a high costs compared to other building methods, ie- block houses etc..

Outkast_IRE

tootsy70 wrote: »

Have seen this construction method done on videos on yourtube and even on grand designs on C4. A great way to build house and very quick indeed however they do ask for quite a high costs compared to other building methods, ie- block houses etc..

The costs on this end of things are high, but your getting a home which should have excellent airtightness due to being able to do the detailing really well in the factory.
And in a country such as Ireland getting a house weather tight in a day or so onsite is a major advantage.

You will also save costs as you wouldn't need much of a heating system, there can also be conduit etc preinstalled for electrical systems.

Expensive, but I think it should cut back on labour costs in other sections of the build.

sydthebeat

tootsy70 wrote: »

Just throwing this into the mix here. Here we have a house built just using timber without the ply,breathable felt etc.. and uses mud also. How is it its legal to build a house of this type yet not what im suggesting.

no one is suggesting its illegal. look at my last post

what we are telling you is that its not as simple as you make out.
you were the one suggesting things that would cause the structural timbers to rot for gods sake


what do you know of the certification, or lack of, of the build you linked to?
what do you know of the work carried out to provide such certification, if any?
perhaps they used an architect / engineer who specialises in this type of construction for the certification

Of course, methods of construction "outside of the norm" are built, but its up to those building to prove that they comply with regulation. As difficult as it is to prove this to a building control officer, trying to prove it to a financial institution is another matter altogether.


edit:

ps its obvious that build is a one off and not a copy of a factory made timber frame

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Either contribute or please don't comment, .

Thanks for the invite,

A topic not mentioned as yet, accepting the Structural, Certification issues, is cost.

The factory produced product given the computerisation, of cutting lists, maximisation of lengths, and other factors, has to be far superior to your ''Chippie'' cutting on site.

A factory setting to fabricate, given the machinery etc. has to be better, than what you seem to propose

In addition their buying power in purchasing in bulk, as opposed to your buying ''locally'' has to be superior.



One caveat, the last timber frame co, I worked for ( a few years ago ) had a conflict between production, and sales.

The Sales Team did not appreciate, the drip feed of rejected timber product, into production, over time, to save on costs, something to look out for.

yoloc

tootsy70 wrote: »

Another question i have about the inner skin. Would there be much cost difference between paying a chippy to construct the inner skin of a house to using a block layer to build it in block. Labour,materials etc..

Calculate how much blocks needed for the inner skin of block work, lintels, sand, cement,water proofer against the 4x2s,ply,felt and Labour for both and see what you come up with. My cousin did this when building his timber frame in 2005 and im near sure there wasnt much difference. Im sure someone on here could back me up on this.