"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of Hackney,
the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix of white and
gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s underneath this
cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly different. From the second
floor up, it is constructed entirely of wood, making it one of the tallest
wooden residential buildings in the world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...=1&ref=science

HeyBub wrote:
"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of Hackney,
the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix of white and
gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s underneath this
cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly different. From the second
floor up, it is constructed entirely of wood, making it one of the tallest
wooden residential buildings in the world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...=1&ref=science


How resistant is it to fire and termites?

--
G.W. Ross

If the economy can only get better or
worse, why aren't economists right
half the time?

"G.W. Ross" wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of
Hackney, the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix
of white and gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s
underneath this cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly
different. From the second floor up, it is constructed entirely of
wood, making it one of the tallest wooden residential buildings in
the world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...s-for-cross-la
minated-timber-panels.html?_r=1&ref=science


How resistant is it to fire and termites?

I think the article said that fire was not a really big hazard for 2
reasons. The plywood sandwiches are covered by wallboard of some kind.
Therefore, the wood isn't really accessible for fires, and, moreover,it
has little air inside, so don't really support combustion. The article
showed a crosssection of a charred, but not really burnt piece as
evidence for this.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11 Jun 2012 11:56:44 GMT, Han wrote:

"G.W. Ross" wrote in
m:

HeyBub wrote:
"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of
Hackney, the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix
of white and gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s
underneath this cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly
different. From the second floor up, it is constructed entirely of
wood, making it one of the tallest wooden residential buildings in
the world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...s-for-cross-la
minated-timber-panels.html?_r=1&ref=science


How resistant is it to fire and termites?

I think the article said that fire was not a really big hazard for 2
reasons. The plywood sandwiches are covered by wallboard of some kind.
Therefore, the wood isn't really accessible for fires, and, moreover,it
has little air inside, so don't really support combustion. The article
showed a crosssection of a charred, but not really burnt piece as
evidence for this.

I wonder how it will fare when, not if, the first flood hits it.
People's sinks and tubs overflow quite often in apartment buildings.
And plumbing breaks. When this water hits the edge of the floors, it
goes into the voids in the walls. How will the laminated building glue
handle it when the wallboard holds the water inside the walls,
surrounding the plywood supports? I hope they tested for that.

I'm too much of a realist to want to ever live there.

--
Doctors prescribe medicine of which they know little,
to cure diseases of which they know less,
in human beings of which they know nothing.
--Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire, about 250 years ago

"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of
Hackney, the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix
of white and gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s
underneath this cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly
different. From the second floor up, it is constructed entirely of
wood, making it one of the tallest wooden residential buildings in the
world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...-for-cross-lam
inated-timber-panels.html?_r=1&ref=science

I had a few immediate questions the article did not seem to address:

1. Insulation value. With less than 6" of solid wood, that's under an R8
insulation value. There's probably some thermal mass, but it doesn't seem
like this system would be a good option in cold climates.

2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to build a
secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these (negating the
advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to interior walls. I
suppose you could use surface mount conduit for electrical, but that's not
a good option for plumbing.

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation, and offer at least some ability to route wiring (though I still
question the fire and insect resistance).

The main thing this system seems to have going for it is strength, which
I'm sure there are good situations it could be used for. But I would not
want to build an entire house with them.

Anthony

HerHusband wrote:


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to
build a secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these
(negating the advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to
interior walls. I suppose you could use surface mount conduit for
electrical, but that's not a good option for plumbing.

As an owner of a log home, I beg to differ. Agreed - planning is much more
important with a log home due to the nature of the materials, but utilities
can indeed be run within the logs at the time of building. Not so much
after the fact.


--

-Mike-

HerHusband writes:

2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to build a
secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these (negating the
advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to interior walls. I
suppose you could use surface mount conduit for electrical, but that's not
a good option for plumbing.

It is quite common in the UK for the sewer and water lines to be on
the exterior of the house, in areas not subject to freezing.

The french took it to the extreme with the pompidou center in paris.

scott

On 6/11/2012 9:31 AM, HerHusband wrote:

I had a few immediate questions the article did not seem to address:

1. Insulation value. With less than 6" of solid wood, that's under an R8
insulation value. There's probably some thermal mass, but it doesn't seem
like this system would be a good option in cold climates.

Not an issue that has not already been solved in other types of solid
wall construction.

CLT construction is mostly done using CLT's for exterior walls only.
Most any wooden structure is going to require added insulation and CLT
construction is no different. With CLT construction, insulation is
usually added to the exterior of any "cold wall", underneath the
exterior cladding.


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to build a
secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these (negating the
advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to interior walls. I
suppose you could use surface mount conduit for electrical, but that's not
a good option for plumbing.

Not an issue ... most solid wall construction of any type, concrete
block, etc, exhibit the same service issues.

Service channels for CLT construction in exterior walls can actually be
routed into the CLT at the factory; and/or services can be run between
floors, in crawlspaces, in stick built interior walls, or between
thinner, sandwiched CLT interior walls; and/or in furred out interior
wall coverings, just to name a few methods.

IOW, there are many traditional method's to attack that issue that are
proven, cost effective, and viable.

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation, and offer at least some ability to route wiring (though I still
question the fire and insect resistance).

As long as you buy into using "sustainable" building materials for
structures, "using less wood" becomes much less of an issue.

As noted, insulation is also required in SIPS.

Fire is even less of an issue with CLT's and most other wooden wall
construction due to lack of oxidation and space to allow for flames to
feed on adjacent material ... that's why "fire blocking" is required by
all building codes in traditional wooden frame buildings.

Insects are a problem in most other building methods as well, and for
two main reasons: the building material itself is a source of food
and/or a source for nesting. Remove both reasons with proper measures,
including treatment with solutions like borates, and proper sealing, and
that issue is as easily mitigated in CLT construction as it is in other
construction methods.

The main thing this system seems to have going for it is strength, which
I'm sure there are good situations it could be used for. But I would not
want to build an entire house with them.

Although I have not personally used CLT's for construction, I have built
houses with non-traditional wall construction ("straw bale wall
construction" in particular, which is arguably more difficult to effect
than CLT construction) where many of the same issues you bring up are
easily solved; I've also attended, and done presentations myself, at
many Green building seminars, including use of CLT and SIP construction
methods.

IMO, you will much more of this as time goes on.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" writes:
HerHusband wrote:


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to
build a secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these
(negating the advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to
interior walls. I suppose you could use surface mount conduit for
electrical, but that's not a good option for plumbing.

As an owner of a log home, I beg to differ. Agreed - planning is much more
important with a log home due to the nature of the materials, but utilities
can indeed be run within the logs at the time of building. Not so much
after the fact.

Or between the logs before the chinking is applied, depending on the type
of logs being used (150 year old hand-squared logs generally don't fit
very tightly together).

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Mike Marlow" writes:
HerHusband wrote:


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to
build a secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these
(negating the advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to
interior walls. I suppose you could use surface mount conduit for
electrical, but that's not a good option for plumbing.

As an owner of a log home, I beg to differ. Agreed - planning is
much more important with a log home due to the nature of the
materials, but utilities can indeed be run within the logs at the
time of building. Not so much after the fact.

Or between the logs before the chinking is applied, depending on the
type of logs being used (150 year old hand-squared logs generally
don't fit very tightly together).


And to that point - I have routed utilities between my log courses, and then
re-chinked afterwards. You'd never know it was done afterwards. Where
there is a will, there is a way. It does take a little creative thinking
and even, a little more work, but not all that much. If one really thinks
about the amount of work required to open up and re-seal a traditional wall,
the difference is not as great as it first may seem.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 11 Jun 2012 11:56:44 GMT, Han wrote:

"G.W. Ross" wrote in
om:

HeyBub wrote:
"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of
Hackney, the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix
of white and gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it’s what’s
underneath this cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly
different. From the second floor up, it is constructed entirely of
wood, making it one of the tallest wooden residential buildings in
the world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...ons-for-cross-
la
minated-timber-panels.html?_r=1&ref=science


How resistant is it to fire and termites?

I think the article said that fire was not a really big hazard for 2
reasons. The plywood sandwiches are covered by wallboard of some kind.
Therefore, the wood isn't really accessible for fires, and, moreover,it
has little air inside, so don't really support combustion. The article
showed a crosssection of a charred, but not really burnt piece as
evidence for this.

I wonder how it will fare when, not if, the first flood hits it.
People's sinks and tubs overflow quite often in apartment buildings.
And plumbing breaks. When this water hits the edge of the floors, it
goes into the voids in the walls. How will the laminated building glue
handle it when the wallboard holds the water inside the walls,
surrounding the plywood supports? I hope they tested for that.

I'm too much of a realist to want to ever live there.

Legit question, but seems to show you didn't read the article. These
panels are like prefab concrete, but made of wood. NOT hollow, except
for utility channels. Do read the article. I don't recall what glue is
used, though.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 6/11/2012 9:31 AM, HerHusband wrote:

I had a few immediate questions the article did not seem to address:

1. Insulation value. With less than 6" of solid wood, that's under an
R8 insulation value. There's probably some thermal mass, but it
doesn't seem like this system would be a good option in cold
climates.

Not an issue that has not already been solved in other types of solid
wall construction.

CLT construction is mostly done using CLT's for exterior walls only.
Most any wooden structure is going to require added insulation and CLT
construction is no different. With CLT construction, insulation is
usually added to the exterior of any "cold wall", underneath the
exterior cladding.


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to
build a secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these
(negating the advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to
interior walls. I suppose you could use surface mount conduit for
electrical, but that's not a good option for plumbing.

Not an issue ... most solid wall construction of any type, concrete
block, etc, exhibit the same service issues.

Service channels for CLT construction in exterior walls can actually
be routed into the CLT at the factory; and/or services can be run
between floors, in crawlspaces, in stick built interior walls, or
between thinner, sandwiched CLT interior walls; and/or in furred out
interior wall coverings, just to name a few methods.

IOW, there are many traditional method's to attack that issue that are
proven, cost effective, and viable.

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but
common SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide
better insulation, and offer at least some ability to route wiring
(though I still question the fire and insect resistance).

As long as you buy into using "sustainable" building materials for
structures, "using less wood" becomes much less of an issue.

As noted, insulation is also required in SIPS.

Fire is even less of an issue with CLT's and most other wooden wall
construction due to lack of oxidation and space to allow for flames to
feed on adjacent material ... that's why "fire blocking" is required
by all building codes in traditional wooden frame buildings.

Insects are a problem in most other building methods as well, and for
two main reasons: the building material itself is a source of food
and/or a source for nesting. Remove both reasons with proper measures,
including treatment with solutions like borates, and proper sealing,
and that issue is as easily mitigated in CLT construction as it is in
other construction methods.

The main thing this system seems to have going for it is strength,
which I'm sure there are good situations it could be used for. But I
would not want to build an entire house with them.

Although I have not personally used CLT's for construction, I have
built houses with non-traditional wall construction ("straw bale wall
construction" in particular, which is arguably more difficult to
effect than CLT construction) where many of the same issues you bring
up are easily solved; I've also attended, and done presentations
myself, at many Green building seminars, including use of CLT and SIP
construction methods.

IMO, you will much more of this as time goes on.

+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:58:56 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

HerHusband wrote:


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to
build a secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these
(negating the advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to
interior walls. I suppose you could use surface mount conduit for
electrical, but that's not a good option for plumbing.

As an owner of a log home, I beg to differ. Agreed - planning is much more
important with a log home due to the nature of the materials, but utilities
can indeed be run within the logs at the time of building. Not so much
after the fact.
Pretty difficult in a 6" plywood panel though, unless they come
pre-drilled - which they MIGHT be if they are designed to be installed
with tensioning bars or cables - - - .

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:28:20 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 9:31 AM, HerHusband wrote:

I had a few immediate questions the article did not seem to address:

1. Insulation value. With less than 6" of solid wood, that's under an R8
insulation value. There's probably some thermal mass, but it doesn't seem
like this system would be a good option in cold climates.

Not an issue that has not already been solved in other types of solid
wall construction.

CLT construction is mostly done using CLT's for exterior walls only.
Most any wooden structure is going to require added insulation and CLT
construction is no different. With CLT construction, insulation is
usually added to the exterior of any "cold wall", underneath the
exterior cladding.


2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to build a
secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these (negating the
advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to interior walls. I
suppose you could use surface mount conduit for electrical, but that's not
a good option for plumbing.

Not an issue ... most solid wall construction of any type, concrete
block, etc, exhibit the same service issues.

Service channels for CLT construction in exterior walls can actually be
routed into the CLT at the factory; and/or services can be run between
floors, in crawlspaces, in stick built interior walls, or between
thinner, sandwiched CLT interior walls; and/or in furred out interior
wall coverings, just to name a few methods.

IOW, there are many traditional method's to attack that issue that are
proven, cost effective, and viable.

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation, and offer at least some ability to route wiring (though I still
question the fire and insect resistance).

As long as you buy into using "sustainable" building materials for
structures, "using less wood" becomes much less of an issue.

As noted, insulation is also required in SIPS.

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

Fire is even less of an issue with CLT's and most other wooden wall
construction due to lack of oxidation and space to allow for flames to
feed on adjacent material ... that's why "fire blocking" is required by
all building codes in traditional wooden frame buildings.

Insects are a problem in most other building methods as well, and for
two main reasons: the building material itself is a source of food
and/or a source for nesting. Remove both reasons with proper measures,
including treatment with solutions like borates, and proper sealing, and
that issue is as easily mitigated in CLT construction as it is in other
construction methods.

The main thing this system seems to have going for it is strength, which
I'm sure there are good situations it could be used for. But I would not
want to build an entire house with them.

Although I have not personally used CLT's for construction, I have built
houses with non-traditional wall construction ("straw bale wall
construction" in particular, which is arguably more difficult to effect
than CLT construction) where many of the same issues you bring up are
easily solved; I've also attended, and done presentations myself, at
many Green building seminars, including use of CLT and SIP construction
methods.

IMO, you will much more of this as time goes on.

On 6/11/2012 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:28:20 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 9:31 AM, HerHusband wrote:

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation,

As noted, insulation is also required in SIPS.

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

For those interested, here are some images of CLT:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86pqk6j


There is also an interesting article on page 46 of this html magazine:

http://www.kenilworth.com/publicatio...109/index.html

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:26:12 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:28:20 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 9:31 AM, HerHusband wrote:

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation,

As noted, insulation is also required in SIPS.

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.
Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:27:32 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?
Uncommonly - perhaps. Around here, in Soutwestern Ontario, I've seen
6" SIP construction where that was basically all the insulation used,
and required. (except for the attic)

On 6/11/2012 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:27:32 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?

Uncommonly - perhaps. Around here, in Soutwestern Ontario, I've seen
6" SIP construction where that was basically all the insulation used,
and required. (except for the attic)

And who said otherwise ... insulation is necessary ... "whether it is
the factory built-in insulation between the exterior and interior panels
of SIPS; or added to the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction"?

Perhaps we are separated by a common language?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 6/11/12 6:27 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?


Whatever happens, I sure hope the architects, engineers and planners on
that project stop in here to get our advice, first, to make sure the
thing doesn't collapse, go up in flames, or succumb to oak rust.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
On 6/11/12 6:27 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still
necessary regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory
built-in insulation between the exterior and interior panels of
SIPS; or added to the exterior in the field, as with CLT
construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?


Whatever happens, I sure hope the architects, engineers and planners
on that project stop in here to get our advice, first, to make sure
the thing doesn't collapse, go up in flames, or succumb to oak rust.

PERFECT!

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

"[UK] Among the many apartment buildings in the London borough of
Hackney, the nine-story structure ... stands out, its exterior a mix
of white and gray tiles rather than the usual brick. But it?s what?s
underneath this cladding that makes the 29-unit building truly
different. From the second floor up, it is constructed entirely of
wood, making it one of the tallest wooden residential buildings in the
world."

The wood is kinda a super-plywood, up to 6" thick and 30' long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sc...-for-cross-lam
inated-timber-panels.html?_r=1&ref=science

I had a few immediate questions the article did not seem to address:

1. Insulation value. With less than 6" of solid wood, that's under an R8
insulation value. There's probably some thermal mass, but it doesn't seem
like this system would be a good option in cold climates.

Why does the structure also have to be the insulation?

2. Utilities. As with a traditional log home, where to you run the
plumbing, electrical, and other services? You would either need to build a
secondary wall on the interior to provide space for these (negating the
advantages of the system), or restrict utilities to interior walls. I
suppose you could use surface mount conduit for electrical, but that's not
a good option for plumbing.

Where do you put the plumbing with reinforced concrete?

This isn't intended for ad-hoc house building, it's intended for
prefabricated structures where the panels are shipped to the site precut
and predrilled. The plumbing would have also been designed into the
structure before the first panel was cut.

3. The wood panels are touted as making efficient use of wood, but common
SIPS (structural insulated panels), use less wood, provide better
insulation, and offer at least some ability to route wiring (though I still
question the fire and insect resistance).

So when was the last time you saw a 9 story building made of SIPS?

As for your concerns about "fire and insect resistance" why would those
be any worse than for wood frame construction?

The main thing this system seems to have going for it is strength, which
I'm sure there are good situations it could be used for. But I would not
want to build an entire house with them.

Nor would anyone ask you to unless it was prefabbed.

Swingman wrote in
:


For those interested, here are some images of CLT:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/86pqk6j


There is also an interesting article on page 46 of this html magazine:

http://www.kenilworth.com/publicatio...109/index.html

+1
Neat!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote the following on 6/11/2012 8:06 PM (ET):
On 6/11/2012 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:27:32 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/11/2012 6:23 PM, wrote:

I thougnt that's what the "I" in SIP stood for - - - .

That's true ... the point being that "insulation" is still necessary
regardless of which you use... whether it is the factory built-in
insulation between the exterior and interior panels of SIPS; or
added to
the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction.

Why would you need more insulation with a 6" SIP???

Are you looking for an argument, or are you just being uncommonly
thickheaded on this subject?

Uncommonly - perhaps. Around here, in Soutwestern Ontario, I've seen
6" SIP construction where that was basically all the insulation used,
and required. (except for the attic)

And who said otherwise ... insulation is necessary ... "whether it is
the factory built-in insulation between the exterior and interior panels
of SIPS; or added to the exterior in the field, as with CLT construction"?

Perhaps we are separated by a common language?

More likely, a lack of reading comprehension.



--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

And to that point - I have routed utilities between my log courses, and then
re-chinked afterwards. You'd never know it was done afterwards. Where
there is a will, there is a way. It does take a little creative thinking
and even, a little more work, but not all that much. If one really thinks
about the amount of work required to open up and re-seal a traditional wall,
the difference is not as great as it first may seem.

--

-Mike-



==========

vertical trenching?

--

Eric