[Greenbuilding] Sustainable Post & Beam Construction

[Lynelle Hamilton]

Been off line for a while...Rob, I take your comments to heart.  The 
approach you describe is the one I've been suggesting he takes.

Thank you!

Lynelle
On 10/29/2013 1:16 PM, RT wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:20:17 -0400, beatrice dohrn 
> <beatricedohrn at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> SOunds like you are talking about a log home,  which is worse than 
>> post and beam.  Post and beam is not great,  but it doesn't 
>> gennerally connote timber walls....
>
>
> If the comment "Post & beam is not great" is a criticism of post & 
> beam joinery being inferior to timber-frame joinery, then I would agree.
>
>
> However, if the comment was intended to mean that framing that uses 
> large dimension timbers instead of industrially-processed 2x dimension 
> lumber isn't a good idea, then I would disagree.
>
> God (and the Devil) is in the details.
>
> If the negativity re: large dimension timber frames has to do with a 
> notion that they consume more wood, then I would argue "Not necessarily".
>
> My own 30 yr-old home is a timber-framed hybrid -- R-44 exterior 
> walls, R-72 roof .
>
> All of the timber framing is exposed to the interior.
>
> The use of large-dimension framing members is offset by the fact that 
> the members can be spaced further apart so that the total amount of 
> wood consumed is the same as conventional 2x framing. However since 
> the trees were sawn up into little strips, there wasn't the volume of 
> wood lost to sawdust with each saw kerf and less energy consumed for 
> sawing.
>
> The trees that provided the timbers were harvested from with a 100 km 
> radius of the building site. Industrially-produced 2x dimension lumber 
> typically comes from many hundreds or thousands of kms away.
> Less transport energy.
>
> I hand-planed and joined all of the timbers on site, without using any 
> power tools (a conscious choice) and air-dried them in situ, thereby 
> avoiding the energy consumed for milling and kiln-drying of 2x 
> dimension lumber.
>
> Framing that is done with 2x dimension lumber is typically so poorly 
> done that even if Code allowed it to be left exposed, you wouldn't 
> want to be able to see the butt-ugly, disrespectful manner in which 
> the wood was treated by the builders.
>
> I could go on but I won't.
>
> Moving on to log-walled structures, I agree that generally-speaking, 
> they aren't all that great from a Green perspective.
>
> However, in my neighbourhood there are many such structures (including 
> cordwood) which are over a century old and have been inhabited 
> continuously over that time. I am confident that many of the homes 
> built in the last 50 years or even 10 years, will not be able make 
> that same claim.
>
>
> Down the road from my home, in the heart of the village of Carp, there 
> is a log structure built by its owner well over 40 years ago. An 
> inspection of the exterior corners would reveal that it appears to be 
> a genuine dovetail-joined log structure as opposed to one of the 
> pre-fab kit buildings that dot the neighbourhood.
>
> Inside, the log walled interior would do nothing to dis-spell the 
> impression that the exterior gave.
>
> The reality is that the owner ripped the timbers to create an exterior 
> and interior log veneer and put an R-20, air-sealed 2x6 stud wall 
> between the two skins.
>
> That saying about "Generalisations are always wrong (including this 
> one)" would seem to apply.
>
>
>
>

-- 
*/"Life is an experience and an opportunity. The meaning comes from what 
we decide to do with the opportunity that is given to us."--Bernie Siegel/*