info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
wood walls built like brick walls
8 views
Skip to first unread message
richard
Apr 8, 2012, 8:33:24 PM4/8/12
to
Purely curiosity.
Every one knows how brick walls are built and why.
But what if you were to replace that brick with wood?
Kind of like the way they do log cabins.
Would such a wall be as sturdy as brick?
I've only seen a few homes built in this style.
Trying to google for a wood built wall gets zillions of hits on brick
walls.
Every one knows how brick walls are built and why.
But what if you were to replace that brick with wood?
Kind of like the way they do log cabins.
Would such a wall be as sturdy as brick?
I've only seen a few homes built in this style.
Trying to google for a wood built wall gets zillions of hits on brick
walls.
Hot-Text
Apr 8, 2012, 11:57:57 PM4/8/12
to
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:1fobx6473rlvu.l74kzjzz4be2$.dlg@40tude.net...
It's call "Wood Frame Building"
key word: frame
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=wood+frame+building&FORM=AWRE >
key word: frame
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=wood+frame+building&FORM=AWRE >
richard
Apr 9, 2012, 12:11:57 AM4/9/12
to
That's the way 99.9% of standard homes are built.
Hot-Text
Apr 9, 2012, 12:29:23 AM4/9/12
to
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:1wtjr7rxhf5ma.123jd9k9knku$.dlg@40tude.net...
How to Build a Wood Frame Cabin
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=Wood+Frame+log+cabins&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER >
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=Wood+Frame+brick+home&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER >
key word: frame<<
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=Wood+Frame+log+cabins&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER >
< http://www.bing.com/search?q=Wood+Frame+brick+home&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER >
key word: frame<<
richard
Apr 9, 2012, 1:41:53 AM4/9/12
to
timebers to minimize the work.
What I am asking about involves cutting a 2x?? to four foot lengths, then
laying them on each other row by row as you do brick.
The internal framing would be used to help tie things together and for
support. YOu might say, in the way they do a post and beam.
Independent old cuss
Apr 9, 2012, 8:39:52 AM4/9/12
to
interesting. I think they started with 2x6x8s laid end to end and then
more 2x6x8s staggered on top of those and so on. I believe they
eventually decreased down to the 4 foot lengths. The fellow that had
built his house that way had done it all with lumber scraps that he
collected from building sites. Pretty ingenious, very inexpensive and
probably pretty solid. The way the corners were staggered seemed to
make the house into a large one piece box. I guess the thought was
that it would all hold together if it was blown over. I think it would
be a great way to build a house if you had the time to collect what
you needed.
---
Thomas Sowell hit the nail on the head with:
"One of the consequences of such notions as
'entitlements' is that people who have contributed
nothing to society feel that society owes them
something, apparently just for being nice enough
to grace us with their presence."
An independent old cuss
HerHusband
Apr 9, 2012, 9:30:40 AM4/9/12
to
Richard,
> Purely curiosity. Every one knows how brick walls are built and why.
> But what if you were to replace that brick with wood?
> Kind of like the way they do log cabins. Would such a wall be as
> sturdy as brick? I've only seen a few homes built in this style.
You might be thinking of something like the StackedLumber house:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Modern-Homesteading/1983-07-01/Advice-For-
Building-Wood-Home.aspx
I can see a number of problems with this building method, including:
1. Cost. Unless you can get a lot of 2x scraps for free, it would take a
lot of wood to build even a small house.
2. Air leakage. All those gaps between boards would leak a lot of air.
Real log cabins use chinking between logs and most modern log homes also
use tongue and groove joints to better align and seal between logs. I
suppose you could add some kind of sealant between each course of boards,
but then you're back to the cost issue.
3. Potential rot. It would be very easy for water to seep in between all
those boards and start rotting. You could always add siding on the
outside of the building, but that would negate the reason for stacking
lumber in the first place.
4. Insulation. Wood is not the greatest insulator. I don't remember the
R-value, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 2 per inch. A wall made of
2x4's would be less than R8 and a wall made of 2x6's would be less than
R12. Real log homes usually use logs that are 8" or 10" around.
5. Construction Time. It would take a long time to cut, stack, and nail
all those courses to build a wall.
6. Strength. I don't think a bunch of stacked 2x4's would offer much
lateral strength. You could be in real trouble in an earthquake or with
strong winds (tornado or hurricane). Normal log homes are essentially
large beams spanning from corner to corner.
7. Shrinkage. Just like a traditional log home, you would have to
account for shrinkage in the lumber. Leave spaces above windows and doors
for the building to settle and that sort of thing.
8. Utilities. As with a normal log home, it would be difficult to run
plumbing, electrical, and other utilities in the stacked lumber walls.
You might also search Google for "Cordwood construction". This method
basically uses wood logs embedded in mortar. I've seen similar methods
that use bottles, cans, old tires, and just about any other filler
materials. If I were going to that trouble, I think I would use actual
rocks in the mortar. Just be sure to add rebar reinforcement to keep
things together in an earthquake, or due to settling. I've built some
mortared stone retaining walls, and it's a LOT of work. It gave me a new
respect for those Mayan temples and Egyptian pyramids.
Hope this helps,
Anthony
> Purely curiosity. Every one knows how brick walls are built and why.
> But what if you were to replace that brick with wood?
> Kind of like the way they do log cabins. Would such a wall be as
> sturdy as brick? I've only seen a few homes built in this style.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Modern-Homesteading/1983-07-01/Advice-For-
Building-Wood-Home.aspx
I can see a number of problems with this building method, including:
1. Cost. Unless you can get a lot of 2x scraps for free, it would take a
lot of wood to build even a small house.
2. Air leakage. All those gaps between boards would leak a lot of air.
Real log cabins use chinking between logs and most modern log homes also
use tongue and groove joints to better align and seal between logs. I
suppose you could add some kind of sealant between each course of boards,
but then you're back to the cost issue.
3. Potential rot. It would be very easy for water to seep in between all
those boards and start rotting. You could always add siding on the
outside of the building, but that would negate the reason for stacking
lumber in the first place.
4. Insulation. Wood is not the greatest insulator. I don't remember the
R-value, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 2 per inch. A wall made of
2x4's would be less than R8 and a wall made of 2x6's would be less than
R12. Real log homes usually use logs that are 8" or 10" around.
5. Construction Time. It would take a long time to cut, stack, and nail
all those courses to build a wall.
6. Strength. I don't think a bunch of stacked 2x4's would offer much
lateral strength. You could be in real trouble in an earthquake or with
strong winds (tornado or hurricane). Normal log homes are essentially
large beams spanning from corner to corner.
7. Shrinkage. Just like a traditional log home, you would have to
account for shrinkage in the lumber. Leave spaces above windows and doors
for the building to settle and that sort of thing.
8. Utilities. As with a normal log home, it would be difficult to run
plumbing, electrical, and other utilities in the stacked lumber walls.
You might also search Google for "Cordwood construction". This method
basically uses wood logs embedded in mortar. I've seen similar methods
that use bottles, cans, old tires, and just about any other filler
materials. If I were going to that trouble, I think I would use actual
rocks in the mortar. Just be sure to add rebar reinforcement to keep
things together in an earthquake, or due to settling. I've built some
mortared stone retaining walls, and it's a LOT of work. It gave me a new
respect for those Mayan temples and Egyptian pyramids.
Hope this helps,
Anthony
jloomis
Apr 9, 2012, 9:49:49 AM4/9/12
to
I have seen this construction and mainly it is from one who has worked at a
lumber mill or is able to get pieces of material free or at low cost.
Her Husband pretty much sums up the whys and why not's....
Interesting enough though, many are now using recyclables and mortar as
mentioned in another post and stacking the units.
Now for the Building Code, this is another question and how it would "fly"
"richard" wrote in message
news:1fobx6473rlvu.l74kzjzz4be2$.dlg@40tude.net...
lumber mill or is able to get pieces of material free or at low cost.
Her Husband pretty much sums up the whys and why not's....
Interesting enough though, many are now using recyclables and mortar as
mentioned in another post and stacking the units.
Now for the Building Code, this is another question and how it would "fly"
"richard" wrote in message
news:1fobx6473rlvu.l74kzjzz4be2$.dlg@40tude.net...
richard
Apr 9, 2012, 1:59:14 PM4/9/12
to
$4 for an 8 ft board. Delivered. (#2 SYP).
Assume a 60x60 footprint 10ft high.
that's 240 continous feet.
requiring 30 8ft boards.
It takes 16 2x8's stacked on edge to create 10 ft.
16*30=480
480*4=$1,920.
Buy two bundles from the mill and have plenty of lumber for interior walls.
HerHusband
Apr 9, 2012, 4:42:44 PM4/9/12
to
Richard,
> As for cost, I have checked a few mills for prices on 2x8's.
> $4 for an 8 ft board. Delivered. (#2 SYP).
>
> Assume a 60x60 footprint 10ft high.
> that's 240 continous feet.
> requiring 30 8ft boards.
> It takes 16 2x8's stacked on edge to create 10 ft.
> 16*30=480
> 480*4=$1,920.
> Buy two bundles from the mill and have plenty of lumber for interior
> walls.
2x8's on edge might work OK for sheathing (houses were sheathed with 1x
boards before plywood was around), but 2x8's on edge would make for a
VERY weak wall with no other structure.
That's a wall only 1-1/2 inches thick. That's only around R-2 or so for
insulation? Hope you live in the tropics.
And how will you fasten the 2x8's together? Toe nailing? Any sideways
force at all would simply buckle the stacked 2x8's and the whole wall
would come crashing down.
Don't believe me? Go grab three 2x8's, set them on top of each other,
than stand on the top edge. Hope you don't injure yourself... :) Now
image stacking 16 of those and putting thousands of pounds of roof
structure on top. Good luck with that...
If the stacked lumber wall is to have any merit, you would have to lay
the 2x8's FLAT, and nail each course together (overlapping joints and
corners).
A 10 ft wall (120 inches) would take 80 courses (1.5" for each 2x8 laid
flat).
You wanted a 60 foot wall, so 80x60=4800 lineal feet per wall.
Four 60 foot walls times 4800 lineal feet = 19200 lineal feet.
19200 lineal feet divided by 8 (the length you quoted) = 2400 boards.
2400 boards times $4 each = $9600
You would probably use a little less due to window and door openings, but
you would probably make up for that with the gable ends, or interior
walls. And, you would still have all the issues mentioned earlier.
-----
Compare that with a traditional 2x6@16" OC framed wall.
About 46 studs for a 60' wall, 16 boards for the top plates, and 8 for
the bottom. That's 70 studs per wall. I'll round up to 80 for the sake
of corner blocking, window framing, extra studs, etc.
80 boards times 4 walls = 320 boards
Assuming your quoted $4 price per board, that would be $1280 for the 2x6
lumber.
Now you need sheathing. 15 sheets per wall = 60 sheets total. Rough
estimate of $20 per sheet, that's $1200.
$1280 for the lumber, plus $1200 for the sheathing = $2480. That's about
one fourth the cost of the stacked lumber method.
To be fair, you now need to add insulation and interior finish, but you
have an extra $7000 left over to more than cover that. If you use a
textured plywood sheathing (such as T-111 Siding), you could skip the
siding on the exterior of the building.
You also have a nice space to run plumbing, electrical, and other
utilities inside the wall as well.
----
Obviously, the stacked lumber method would only make sense if you had a
source of free or extremely low cost lumber (and could overcome the other
issues mentioned earlier).
Keep in mind, the outer shell of the building usually only accounts for
30-50% of the total cost. Most of the expense comes from the mechanical
systems, cabinets, appliances, and interior finishes (lights, flooring,
etc.).
Anthony
> As for cost, I have checked a few mills for prices on 2x8's.
> $4 for an 8 ft board. Delivered. (#2 SYP).
>
> Assume a 60x60 footprint 10ft high.
> that's 240 continous feet.
> requiring 30 8ft boards.
> It takes 16 2x8's stacked on edge to create 10 ft.
> 16*30=480
> 480*4=$1,920.
> Buy two bundles from the mill and have plenty of lumber for interior
> walls.
boards before plywood was around), but 2x8's on edge would make for a
VERY weak wall with no other structure.
That's a wall only 1-1/2 inches thick. That's only around R-2 or so for
insulation? Hope you live in the tropics.
And how will you fasten the 2x8's together? Toe nailing? Any sideways
force at all would simply buckle the stacked 2x8's and the whole wall
would come crashing down.
Don't believe me? Go grab three 2x8's, set them on top of each other,
than stand on the top edge. Hope you don't injure yourself... :) Now
image stacking 16 of those and putting thousands of pounds of roof
structure on top. Good luck with that...
If the stacked lumber wall is to have any merit, you would have to lay
the 2x8's FLAT, and nail each course together (overlapping joints and
corners).
A 10 ft wall (120 inches) would take 80 courses (1.5" for each 2x8 laid
flat).
You wanted a 60 foot wall, so 80x60=4800 lineal feet per wall.
Four 60 foot walls times 4800 lineal feet = 19200 lineal feet.
19200 lineal feet divided by 8 (the length you quoted) = 2400 boards.
2400 boards times $4 each = $9600
You would probably use a little less due to window and door openings, but
you would probably make up for that with the gable ends, or interior
walls. And, you would still have all the issues mentioned earlier.
-----
Compare that with a traditional 2x6@16" OC framed wall.
About 46 studs for a 60' wall, 16 boards for the top plates, and 8 for
the bottom. That's 70 studs per wall. I'll round up to 80 for the sake
of corner blocking, window framing, extra studs, etc.
80 boards times 4 walls = 320 boards
Assuming your quoted $4 price per board, that would be $1280 for the 2x6
lumber.
Now you need sheathing. 15 sheets per wall = 60 sheets total. Rough
estimate of $20 per sheet, that's $1200.
$1280 for the lumber, plus $1200 for the sheathing = $2480. That's about
one fourth the cost of the stacked lumber method.
To be fair, you now need to add insulation and interior finish, but you
have an extra $7000 left over to more than cover that. If you use a
textured plywood sheathing (such as T-111 Siding), you could skip the
siding on the exterior of the building.
You also have a nice space to run plumbing, electrical, and other
utilities inside the wall as well.
----
Obviously, the stacked lumber method would only make sense if you had a
source of free or extremely low cost lumber (and could overcome the other
issues mentioned earlier).
Keep in mind, the outer shell of the building usually only accounts for
30-50% of the total cost. Most of the expense comes from the mechanical
systems, cabinets, appliances, and interior finishes (lights, flooring,
etc.).
Anthony
richard
Apr 9, 2012, 7:28:41 PM4/9/12
to
significant difference between brick and wood stacked in the same manner.
Log Cabins are built with either square, flat timber, or tongue and grooved
"D" timber.
My version would probably employ T&G for joining.
Or, drive stakes between the rows for side movement support.
Or, use a framing system behind the wall inside the home, which would then
be used for insulation purposes.
From what I've been reading, there is virtually no difference between the
two as to which is better. It's a matter of whether or not you want
termites.
And there are tons of ways to deal with them critters.
HerHusband
Apr 10, 2012, 12:21:53 AM4/10/12
to
Richard,
> I did not detail the joining method as I wanted to know if there was
> any significant difference between brick and wood stacked in the same
> manner.
We don't have much brick construction in my area, but to my knowledge,
brick walls are usually built as a decorative face in front of the
structure that actually supports the wall (concrete walls, concrete block,
wood framing, etc.). In that instance, yes, you could use wood for the
same function as it's not structural. In fact, 2x lumber would be a waste
of material, you could just go with 1x6 T&G boards.
A single row of brick (i.e. 4" thick) as the building's support structure
would not be all that strong either. It wouldn't take much effort to bring
down a single thickness wall. As with the stacked lumber, it would just
buckle in the middle where it is the weakest.
> Or, drive stakes between the rows for side movement support.
Essentially post and beam construction, with the lumber stacked as infill
between posts? I think many old colonial houses were built like that. It
was a way to build log homes using shorter logs.
> Or, use a framing system behind the wall inside the home, which would
> then be used for insulation purposes.
In other words, your stacked T&G 2x8's are just sheathing. The framing is
supporting the structure and resisting the various loads. What is the
benefit of using 2x material for sheathing as opposed to 1x or plywood
sheathing?
Take care,
Anthony
> I did not detail the joining method as I wanted to know if there was
> any significant difference between brick and wood stacked in the same
> manner.
brick walls are usually built as a decorative face in front of the
structure that actually supports the wall (concrete walls, concrete block,
wood framing, etc.). In that instance, yes, you could use wood for the
same function as it's not structural. In fact, 2x lumber would be a waste
of material, you could just go with 1x6 T&G boards.
A single row of brick (i.e. 4" thick) as the building's support structure
would not be all that strong either. It wouldn't take much effort to bring
down a single thickness wall. As with the stacked lumber, it would just
buckle in the middle where it is the weakest.
> Or, drive stakes between the rows for side movement support.
between posts? I think many old colonial houses were built like that. It
was a way to build log homes using shorter logs.
> Or, use a framing system behind the wall inside the home, which would
> then be used for insulation purposes.
supporting the structure and resisting the various loads. What is the
benefit of using 2x material for sheathing as opposed to 1x or plywood
sheathing?
Take care,
Anthony
PeterD
Apr 11, 2012, 11:18:36 AM4/11/12
to
On 4/9/2012 1:41 AM, richard wrote:
> That's closer. But most of what I see are using extremely huge and long
> timebers to minimize the work.
>
So you have like a million 2x4s that are a bit too short? Remember that
> That's closer. But most of what I see are using extremely huge and long
> timebers to minimize the work.
>
many brick buildings are built with two rows of bricks, and were you to
use wood, you'd probably have to do the same.
--
I'm never going to grow up.
richard
Apr 11, 2012, 1:13:22 PM4/11/12
to
PeterD
Apr 11, 2012, 2:32:15 PM4/11/12
to
PeterD
Apr 11, 2012, 2:35:36 PM4/11/12
to
On 4/9/2012 7:28 PM, richard wrote:
> I did not detail the joining method as I wanted to know if there was any
> significant difference between brick and wood stacked in the same manner.
And I said that brick walls are double layer brick, and you are thinking
> I did not detail the joining method as I wanted to know if there was any
> significant difference between brick and wood stacked in the same manner.
(for some insane reason) that you can have a wall that is 1.5 inches
thick...
WTF?
jloomis
Apr 12, 2012, 8:54:52 AM4/12/12
to
There is a "Great Engineering Novel" that has been out for some time.
It is called the 3 little Piggies......
Building with straw, then wood, then brick.......
jloomis
"PeterD" wrote in message news:jm4itl$23v$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
It is called the 3 little Piggies......
Building with straw, then wood, then brick.......
jloomis
"PeterD" wrote in message news:jm4itl$23v$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
richard
Apr 12, 2012, 12:32:03 PM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:54:52 -0700, jloomis wrote:
> There is a "Great Engineering Novel" that has been out for some time.
> It is called the 3 little Piggies......
> Building with straw, then wood, then brick.......
> jloomis
No doubt it was written by a "mason".
> There is a "Great Engineering Novel" that has been out for some time.
> It is called the 3 little Piggies......
> Building with straw, then wood, then brick.......
> jloomis
Long before geodesic domes were known.
I'd like to see you build a geo-dome out of brick.
jloomis
Apr 12, 2012, 8:53:39 PM4/12/12
to
If you look at ancient architecture many domes were built with the arch
form. It may not be a geodesic dome, but it comes very close.
Many Cathedrals were built with this concept also.
Buttresses, flying buttresses, aqueducts,
You know a dome could be built with proper support.
You need to support the archway until all is connected and then pull out the
form.
Look up this....
http://givnology.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/81560593/m/493101668/p/2
Amazing.....john
"richard" wrote in message
news:o2wb1tf2hf6o$.aq0z4zy13ajh.dlg@40tude.net...
form. It may not be a geodesic dome, but it comes very close.
Many Cathedrals were built with this concept also.
Buttresses, flying buttresses, aqueducts,
You know a dome could be built with proper support.
You need to support the archway until all is connected and then pull out the
form.
Look up this....
http://givnology.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/81560593/m/493101668/p/2
Amazing.....john
"richard" wrote in message
news:o2wb1tf2hf6o$.aq0z4zy13ajh.dlg@40tude.net...
jab...@wocky.net
Apr 14, 2012, 9:04:57 PM4/14/12
to
It was built of 2x4s laid flat on top of one another and nailed. Three and a half inch thick solid
wood walls!
(Wood was a lot cheaper in those days)
Richard B
Oct 17, 2021, 10:15:05 AM10/17/21
to
Hi, I am building a single floor cabin by myself in 2022 and was thinking of building a 2x4 frame at 4-ft centers and utilize 2"x4'x8' Halo rigid insulation horizontally on both sides of the 2x4 frame. The wall framing should be light enough to lift by me in smaller sections. Followed by staggered stacking of 2x12x8' simple shiplap on both sides of the 2x4 frame. Essentially, creating a kind of SIP with an air gap for wiring utilizing 2x dimensional lumber as the sheathing. The wall would be 10.5" thick with an R-value of greater than 24 ( wood/insulation/air/insulation/wood)1.88+10+1.01+10+1.88)). The combination of the construction materials glued and screwed would make a very strong wall. Would it cost more? Most likely with today's lumber prices. However, if one is building the building by themself, no heavy materials to lift is worthwhile especially for people with bad backs like me. Plus the bonus of not having to deal with drywall is worth it. Are there any civil engineers on this site that see an issue? Can I get away with using studs at 4 foot centers with such a construction? Or will I have to go to 2 foot centers?
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/construction/wood-walls-built-like-brick-walls-21434-.htm
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/construction/wood-walls-built-like-brick-walls-21434-.htm
0 new messages