Cost of 2x6 exterior walls
Gerry Goodrich
walls vs 2x4? For the sake of it consider a 28x50 "box"
There clearly can be energy savings but do they offset extra costs of
construction. Do widows and doors increase much in cost?
I've got reasonable methods to estimate energy conservation but no
source yet for construction costs. Clearly it varies with location but
there muse be some guesstimate out there.
gerry
.......
* It is hard to fit reason into a narrow mind *
NO_SPAM added to my email address to confuse robots
Brant Addy
to be of interest. In it, it mentions that a fairly standard 2,000 sq ft
home costs an average of $1907 more to frame than a similar home
constructed of 2x4s, and that the energy savings even in the coldest
climate tested (Mineapolis) the savings was only about $30 a year. At
current energy rates, that would mean it would take 78 years to pay for
the upgrade.
For more information, contact PIMA at www.pima.org.
--brant
Vernon & Helga LeCount
http://www.askthebuilder.com/cgi-bin/column?217
In the article he quotes some research from the Univ.of Illinois that helps
you calculate fuel savings vs. increased cost of insulation and wall
materials. Evidently it appears that the decision is dependent on the number
of windows, number of degree days, altitude, location, fuel costs, etc.
Personally I went with 2x4's with two inches of extruded foam over the entire
wall and 4" fiberglass between the studs. I do not like the way that 2x4's or
2x6's act as a conduit for cold (this house is in Maine).
>Gerry Goodrich wrote: (sip)
> Are there any general guide lines on the added cost of 2x6 exterior
> walls vs 2x4? For the sake of it consider a 28x50 "box"
> There clearly can be energy savings but do they offset extra costs of
> construction. Do windows and doors increase much in cost?
Gerry Goodrich
<vernon...@cityweb.de> wrote:
Thanks for the tip - that seems like a great site to assist my planing
- I'll be building a new home in 3-5 years.
I like that the site uses DATA not just "do it this way"
gerry
>Ask the Builder by Tim Carter has an excellent discussion about this at:
>
>http://www.askthebuilder.com/cgi-bin/column?217
>
>In the article he quotes some research from the Univ.of Illinois that helps
>you calculate fuel savings vs. increased cost of insulation and wall
>materials. Evidently it appears that the decision is dependent on the number
>of windows, number of degree days, altitude, location, fuel costs, etc.
>
>Personally I went with 2x4's with two inches of extruded foam over the entire
>wall and 4" fiberglass between the studs. I do not like the way that 2x4's or
>2x6's act as a conduit for cold (this house is in Maine).
>
>>Gerry Goodrich wrote: (sip)
>> Are there any general guide lines on the added cost of 2x6 exterior
>> walls vs 2x4?
mike graham
big question here. I too, like the idea of using 2x4's with two layers
of extruded polystyrene insulation 1" thick. Cross laminated to very the
seams. You will, however, still need to include extension jambs for all
of your windows and doors.
KLawre6338
cost could be that much more.If i use 2x4 const. i would space 16 in 0/c if i
go with 2x6 24 0/c
Gerry Goodrich
<brant...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>You may find the article in the June 1998 Journal of Light Construction
>to be of interest. In it, it mentions that a fairly standard 2,000 sq ft
>home costs an average of $1907 more to frame than a similar home
>constructed of 2x4s, and that the energy savings even in the coldest
>climate tested (Mineapolis) the savings was only about $30 a year. At
>current energy rates, that would mean it would take 78 years to pay for
>the upgrade.
>
>For more information, contact PIMA at www.pima.org.
>
Thanks for the info - I was really thinking this might be a case of
dismissing returns.
Walls are #3 in the list of heat loos/gain, behind ceiling and
windows.
When I ran sample energy calculations at http://eande.lbl.gov/cbs/vh/
I didn't see much change!
I really don't want to wait 78 years to recover my investment...
gerry
John
If you plan to use plantation shutters on the interior, 2 x 6 makes
the shutter disappear into the wall, whereas in the 2 x 4, the shutter
protrudes like a picture frame. I did 2 x 6 on my large picture
window walls and 2 x 4 on the ones with little or no windows.
CharlieDIY
I think the primary difference comes in things like extra insulation, paying
for extra window and door jamb thickness, etc.
With 24" OC work, too, there's a difference in sheathing thickness needed, and
a similar difference in drywall thickness.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
FNO Toolman
all living areas! Garages and such can still be of 2x4 construction, but
all houses are 2x6 by code.
I disagree strongly with the 70 some year payback theory, and
believe that it is much more in the 7-10 year range. This of course
depends on which part of the world you live in, and the difference in
prices between the two materials. With so many variables involved, how
can ANYONE give a generic answer based on someone's tables in a book? I
would talk to a good HVAC company in your area and they can figure heat
loss for your particular house design based on both types of
construction. They can also quote you heating costs based on these
figures for all the different heat sources. You must factor in the
heating costs per BTU for your area and particular house to even think
about a REAL answer to this question. I think the above posts have no
bearing on the real answer to your question!
As far as cost factors lets figure it on a 8 foot section of wall
just for kicks, based on prices in the Pacific Northwest...
7- 8' studs
1- 8' sole plate
2- 8' top plates
Now figuring an average of 3.50 per 2x4 and 5.00 for 2x6 studs I see a
difference of 10.50 per 8 foot section of straight framed wall. An
average house of 1500 sq.ft will have an average of 160' of exterior
walls (ok 1468 sq ft) times this 10.50 per 8' figure adds up to a total
of 210 dollars more for 2x6 over 2x4 for the whole house. This of course
does not include any doors or windows that will add to the total number
of studs needed, but still lets say no more than 300-350 dollars to
frame this house with 2x6 studs over 2x4's.
Next is insulation costs. Lets figure it on fiberglass just for the
heck of it. Average cost of r-11 is 20 cents a sq.ft. and r-21 is 44
cents a sq.ft. in my area. again based on 160 lineal feet of exterior
wall this add up to 1280 sq.ft of insulation needed. The difference
between the two insulation's is 307 dollars. So the way I figure it, the
basic difference in framing a 1500 sq.ft house would be a total of $650
dollars.
The average of around 1/2 higher r-value in the 2x6 wall will
provide at least a 1/8 savings on your heating costs so lets base this
on a 350 dollar a year heating budget (very low for most parts of the
country). 1/8 of $350 is $43.75 in heat savings per year. This factors
into less than a 15 year payback time for the 2x6 walls...... How in the
heck does anyone figure 70+ years? I think someone is trying to sell
someone a load of crappies for dinner, and in no way reflects the real
world...I would guesstimate much less than the 15 year payback myself...
FNO Toolman
--
FREE Online Help & Advice Covering A Wide Variety Of Subjects
PLUS Loads Of Great Family Fun! Check Us Out...
www-familynews-org
Your Connection To North American Family Life
Gerry Goodrich wrote in message
>Are there any general guide lines on the added cost of 2x6 exterior
coles
even?
gary
Vernon & Helga LeCount wrote in message <36CF3C29...@cityweb.de>...
>Ask the Builder by Tim Carter has an excellent discussion about this at:
>
>http://www.askthebuilder.com/cgi-bin/column?217
>
>In the article he quotes some research from the Univ.of Illinois that helps
>you calculate fuel savings vs. increased cost of insulation and wall
>materials. Evidently it appears that the decision is dependent on the
number
>of windows, number of degree days, altitude, location, fuel costs, etc.
>
>Personally I went with 2x4's with two inches of extruded foam over the
entire
>wall and 4" fiberglass between the studs. I do not like the way that 2x4's
or
>2x6's act as a conduit for cold (this house is in Maine).
>
>>Gerry Goodrich wrote: (sip)
>> Are there any general guide lines on the added cost of 2x6 exterior
>> walls vs 2x4? For the sake of it consider a 28x50 "box"
Matthew Whiting
>
> Actually, the feds run a darn decent energy estimator site (url
> previously posted). At the location I input the data for (WV Eastern
> Panhandle - weather much like DC) I was surprised that the wall made
> very little difference.
I didn't catch the url. Was it mentioned in this ng?
> Now the Pacific northwest is lumber central, hard to compare the costs
> elsewhere. Also, with 16" OC, up to 25% of the wall is just wood.
How do you get that figure? With 1.5" nominal width studs, seems like
9.4% is more like it and this is quite a way from 25%. Adding in double
studs around windows and doors doesn't get close to 25% unless the wall
is all window and door!
> Studding is only part of the costs, doors and windows go up
> significantly in some areas.
>
> > The average of around 1/2 higher r-value in the 2x6 wall will
> >provide at least a 1/8 savings on your heating costs so lets base this
> >on a 350 dollar a year heating budget (very low for most parts of the
> >country). 1/8 of $350 is $43.75 in heat savings per year. This factors
> >into less than a 15 year payback time for the 2x6 walls...... How in the
> >heck does anyone figure 70+ years? I think someone is trying to sell
> >someone a load of crappies for dinner, and in no way reflects the real
> >world...I would guesstimate much less than the 15 year payback myself...
> >FNO Toolman
>
> I'm sure folks are trying to sell things, including lumber.
>
> Walls are #3 on the list of heat loss so you are hitting diminishing
> returns fast.
>
> As far as I've seen so far, the highest R values per buck come with
> 2x4, fiberglass bats and 1" rigid foam under the siding..
>
> You are very correct - number costs, fuel costs and insulation costs
> vary dramatically around the country.
The paybacks are considering only energy costs, but there are other
intangibles such as less noise, etc. that may be important even though
you can't put a price on them to calculate a payback.
Matt
FNO Toolman
You are the original poster to this question and I seem to see
almost as much argument coming from you as advice from other people.
When you post your questions in this and other NG's, the idea is to seek
answers from others and make your judgements from those answers. You are
entitled to your thoughts of course, but don't try to change my thoughts
by what other people have told you. I CAN read the other threads in this
group, in fact my response is from watching for the last 2 days before I
even responded. Nothing to your post under my thread states anything
that has not been covered in the other replies. If you are going to
argue with everyone who responds to your question, you won't find many
more responses.
One more thing, what is the cost of installing 1" ridged foam on a
1500 sq.ft. house? I do believe it is $5.29 a 2x8 sheet here, or $0.33
cents a sq.ft. Based on the 1280 sq.ft. wall surface space, this comes
to $422 dollars just for the foam. My money is on 2x6 walls for the
extra 200 dollars spent over your 2x4 wall any day. If for no other
reason than strength of framing.
I also think you are RIDICULOUS when you say 25% of the wall is
solid framing members. If this is your figure, you may want to take a
framing course to learn how to frame a house. At 25% solid studding in a
wall, you are probably right in your 70+ year return rate for 2x6
studs... You got enough to frame the White House that way!
FNO Toolman
--
FREE Online Help & Advice Covering A Wide Variety Of Subjects
PLUS Loads Of Great Family Fun! Check Us Out...
www-familynews-org
Your Connection To North American Family Life
Gerry Goodrich wrote in message
>
>I didn't see any generic answer - the post referred to a web site with
>a specific location, specific size and local costs.
>
>Actually, the feds run a darn decent energy estimator site (url
>previously posted). At the location I input the data for (WV Eastern
>Panhandle - weather much like DC) I was surprised that the wall made
>very little difference.
>
>Now the Pacific northwest is lumber central, hard to compare the costs
>elsewhere. Also, with 16" OC, up to 25% of the wall is just wood.
>
Brant Addy
> heck does anyone figure 70+ years?
only quoting the experts in the magazine, bud! And their figures were for
the average 2000 sq ft house- not a box
> I think someone is trying to sell
> someone a load of crappies for dinner, and in no way reflects the real
> world...I would guesstimate much less than the 15 year payback myself...
I guess your 2 cents and my two cents bring the total to 4 cents. BTW- I
like crappies!
--brant
Brant Addy
> extra 200 dollars spent over your 2x4 wall any day. If for no other
> reason than strength of framing.
If it only costs $200 more to use 2x6's, I'll eat my shorts. (grin)
gotta agree w/ the toolman on the strength part of it. 2x4 walls sure have
a lot of deflection. Add 1" of foam, and they STILL have a lot of
deflection!
The only thing that foam has going for it is that it provides a nice
thermal break. - a house with 2x4 or 2x6 studs is going to conduct the
cold into a house thru the framing itself (example- look at the frost
melting off the studs of a house right away in the morning). Since wood is
roughly R 1.3 per inch, a 2x4 would be R 4.5 on edge, and a 2x6 R 7.1.
Granted, the 2x6 has a better R rating, but when compared to an R-13 wall
and a R-19 wall, the studs are a definate weak spot in the entire exterior
wall system. Overlaying the exterior with 1" foam creates a barrier to the
cold that probably increases the overall R-value of the entire exterior
wall by more than the r-value of the product itself.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not on the "use foam as sheathing bandwagon", but I
can see it has a huge value as a thermal barrier.
If I was a millionare, my house would be plywood sheeted and overlaid with
Tuff-R.
--brant
Gerry Goodrich
<fam...@transport.com> wrote:
>In the Pacific Northwest, 2x6 construction on exterior walls is code for
>all living areas! Garages and such can still be of 2x4 construction, but
>all houses are 2x6 by code.
> I disagree strongly with the 70 some year payback theory, and
>believe that it is much more in the 7-10 year range. This of course
>depends on which part of the world you live in, and the difference in
>prices between the two materials. With so many variables involved, how
>can ANYONE give a generic answer based on someone's tables in a book?
I didn't see any generic answer - the post referred to a web site with
a specific location, specific size and local costs.
Actually, the feds run a darn decent energy estimator site (url
previously posted). At the location I input the data for (WV Eastern
Panhandle - weather much like DC) I was surprised that the wall made
very little difference.
Now the Pacific northwest is lumber central, hard to compare the costs
elsewhere. Also, with 16" OC, up to 25% of the wall is just wood.
Studding is only part of the costs, doors and windows go up
significantly in some areas.
> The average of around 1/2 higher r-value in the 2x6 wall will
>provide at least a 1/8 savings on your heating costs so lets base this
>on a 350 dollar a year heating budget (very low for most parts of the
>country). 1/8 of $350 is $43.75 in heat savings per year. This factors
>into less than a 15 year payback time for the 2x6 walls...... How in the
>heck does anyone figure 70+ years? I think someone is trying to sell
>someone a load of crappies for dinner, and in no way reflects the real
>world...I would guesstimate much less than the 15 year payback myself...
>FNO Toolman
I'm sure folks are trying to sell things, including lumber.
Walls are #3 on the list of heat loss so you are hitting diminishing
returns fast.
As far as I've seen so far, the highest R values per buck come with
2x4, fiberglass bats and 1" rigid foam under the siding..
You are very correct - number costs, fuel costs and insulation costs
vary dramatically around the country.
gerry
Gerry Goodrich
<fam...@transport.com> wrote:
>Gerry;
> You are the original poster to this question and I seem to see
>almost as much argument coming from you as advice from other people.
>When you post your questions in this and other NG's, the idea is to seek
>answers from others and make your judgements from those answers. You are
>entitled to your thoughts of course, but don't try to change my thoughts
>by what other people have told you. I CAN read the other threads in this
>group, in fact my response is from watching for the last 2 days before I
>even responded. Nothing to your post under my thread states anything
>that has not been covered in the other replies. If you are going to
>argue with everyone who responds to your question, you won't find many
>more responses.
You certainly haven't followed the thread if you think I've argued
with everybody. I see this as a discussions forum, as such questions
ate not arguments!
> One more thing, what is the cost of installing 1" ridged foam on a
>1500 sq.ft. house? I do believe it is $5.29 a 2x8 sheet here, or $0.33
>cents a sq.ft. Based on the 1280 sq.ft. wall surface space, this comes
>to $422 dollars just for the foam. My money is on 2x6 walls for the
>extra 200 dollars spent over your 2x4 wall any day. If for no other
>reason than strength of framing.
> I also think you are RIDICULOUS when you say 25% of the wall is
>solid framing members. If this is your figure, you may want to take a
>framing course to learn how to frame a house. At 25% solid studding in a
>wall, you are probably right in your 70+ year return rate for 2x6
>studs... You got enough to frame the White House that way!
>FNO Toolman
I isn't my number - check out
Also check out
http://www.askbuild.com/cgi-bin/column?217
if you like an attempt at the total costs (also click on the Builder
Bulletin)
and a few other sites mentioned in this thread. You seem to be
forgetting many components such as sole plates, top plates, headers,
sills, corner blocking... Counting studs only is a great under
estimation both in area insulated and cost.
I'm not arguing, I'm discussing a topic where there have been many
contradictory replies. You are free to discuss or not, you are also
free to insult folks instead of discussing the topic if that is your
goal.
FNO Toolman
I guess you didn't look at the components of the wall framing in my
original estimate. It does include sole plate, and also double top
plates. The sill plate has no effect on stud sizes, and will have
nothing to do with the wall framing material. In your original post your
said "lets take a 28x50 box". I answered your original question with
"real life" answers according to the prices in the Pacific Northwest. I
found that in your 28x50 box, a total difference of only 200 dollars
between a 2x4 framed wall with 1" ridged, and a 2x6 framed wall with
r-21 insulation. If you disagree with this, that's is your opinion, but
I have 25 years experience behind my figures and will stand by them no
matter what you or any other "book" says. I even gave you a $100
allowance for "corner studs" which is only 4 extra studs in your box.
Sure windows vary in price, but it is very possible to pay more for
windows for a 4 inch wall, then for a 6 inch wall. In fact, a standard
vinyl or aluminum window does not care what thickness of wall it goes
in, so unless you are buying a "top quality" wood window, this really
has no bearing on cost either! In fact the amount you spend on your
windows can totally blow your whole theory and that cost is much more up
for debate than the framing members in my book. As far as headers go,
the difference in the two framing options is VERY minimal! You need to
support the same roof weight in both cases and with a 6" wall you can
add a total of ONE added framing member to make up the added width of
wall (adding to my statement of "if only for framing strength"). This is
more than covered in the $100 allowance as well. How about the cost of
added labor to install the ridged foam? Is this a factor in your
figures? It adds another component to the framing process, thus adding
further costs then I have even factored in.
You seem dead set on framing with your option of 2x4's with 1"
ridged foam which is fine, but don't even try to tell me that I don't
know how to estimate the price difference between the two. I can back
all the figures I gave and as far as I am concerned, I stand on my
statement that the 6" wall is a better value! You are definatly intitled
to your opinion as well, and can post whatever you would like. I was
simply trying to get across to you that for every answer you received
that went against your opinion, you had something to say about it. The
only reason I have even replied to your post is to try to give another
opinion, and for doing so you are telling me that my figures don't apply
to anything, and are not revelant because I live in the Pacific NW, "the
lumber capitol of the world" as you call it. This is bothersome to me,
and I feel that it requires a response at the very least. If you take my
opinions as an "insult", to bad! You can respond anyway you like from
here on, I will not add anything farther to this thread.
FNO Toolman
--
FREE Online Help & Advice Covering A Wide Variety Of Subjects
PLUS Loads Of Great Family Fun! Check Us Out...
www-familynews-org
Your Connection To North American Family Life
Gerry Goodrich wrote in message
>You certainly haven't followed the thread if you think I've argued
>with everybody. I see this as a discussions forum, as such questions
>ate not arguments!
Steve
$5 for a 2x6x8? $3.25 around here.
$3.50 for a 2x4x8? $2.00 here.
FNO Toolman wrote in message ...
>In the Pacific Northwest, 2x6 construction on exterior walls is code for
>all living areas! Garages and such can still be of 2x4 construction, but
>all houses are 2x6 by code.
> I disagree strongly with the 70 some year payback theory, and
>believe that it is much more in the 7-10 year range. This of course
>depends on which part of the world you live in, and the difference in
>prices between the two materials. With so many variables involved, how
>can ANYONE give a generic answer based on someone's tables in a book? I
Gerry Goodrich
<fam...@transport.com> wrote:
>Gerry;
> I guess you didn't look at the components of the wall framing in my
>original estimate. It does include sole plate, and also double top
>plates.
not going to amplify - counter productive.
Please do mot feel I'm dead set on anything but reasonably accurate
data. Also, appreciate your input.
However, as you must have noticed, there are very different opinions
being expressed in this thread. So, if I'm to find out what is most
cost effective, I must figure out where the truth is, knowing it may
vary with local.
I'm not trying to change any persons opinion other than my own. If I
didn't value your comments and wonder why they are different than
other data, I'd never would have replied to any of your posts.
There is a difference between valuing input and accepting any opinion.
BTW - My references on building passive solar houses totally agree
with your opinion, but heat cost estimators do not for the location
I'm looking at. Thus the "why".
Scot Thomas
Yes, I know I'm coming late to the conversation, but I couldn't resist.
I went through this in 1996 when building my current home. The home is in
Raleigh, NC. A 1900 sq ft, two story, 850 sq ft per floor, 10' ceilings on
1st floor, 8' ceilings on 2nd. Around here the design is called a basic 5
over 4 (5 windows on top floor over 4 on the bottom). Fully sheathed in
1/2" ply.
The choices that we had were to go with 2x4 studs on 16" centers or
2x6 studs on 24" centers. The sheathing was going to be 1/2" ply
regardless of the framing, so I wanted to go with the extra insulation
available with the 2x6. Extra costs totaled $518 for the entire house.
This included the framing, insulation, deeper jambs for windows and doors,
and change to 5/8" drywall (not necesary, but helps).
The additional cost for sheathing over the plywood with foam insulation
ranged from $850 to $1500 depending on material. This was for 90 sheets of
insulation board and includes $5/board for installation.
We went with the 2x6 for many reasons. Some of which are: Payback time
was shorter (about 6-7 years, if I remember properly). We needed the extra
insulation, which included R38 in the attic, R19 in walls, R19 in crawl
space, and double glazed insulated
windows.
Also, 2x6 framing actually makes the whole job easier, framing (fewer
studs to place, 2x6's are normally a little higher quality, eases nailing)
plumbing (more room if you must run plumbing on exterior walls, and we
did), and electrical (nice room for deep boxes, and generally easier to
run). And it makes for a marginally stiffer frame.
Scot Thomas
Raleigh, NC
Gerry Goodrich
wrote:
You make good points and it isn't too late in the thread. You cost
differences are lower than many of the references I've made. A big
factor is your choice of 24" OC. My other references avoided away from
this, preferring 16" OC for a more solid wall. So this could be turned
into a "OC" discussion and have merit.
Several references I have recommended 2x4 with either tounge and grove
or taped 1" rigid foam. Their reasoning is that fiberglass in REAL
installations allows more air infiltration which a sealed rigid foam
panels.
However, the rigid foam also will require jamb extensions.
At this point, I feel Iv'e seen extremely high and low estimates. Also
costs vary dramatically based upon local. And the workmanship makes a
big difference.
Thanks to all who made the puzzle more complex! That isn't a dig, it
is an honest statement that there is not a simple answer.
gerry
.......
Scot Thomas
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Gerry Goodrich wrote:
> You make good points and it isn't too late in the thread. You cost
> differences are lower than many of the references I've made. A big
> factor is your choice of 24" OC. My other references avoided away from
> this, preferring 16" OC for a more solid wall. So this could be turned
> into a "OC" discussion and have merit.
>
That could be a fruitful discussion. I don't have my references handy, but
I seem to remember that 2x6 framing on 24" centers is slightly stiffer
than 2x4 on 16", but I may be miss remembering. I think the only time
I've seem 2x6s on 16" centers was on the ground floor of a three story a
couple years ago. Someone can, and probably should, correct me.
> Several references I have recommended 2x4 with either tounge and grove
> or taped 1" rigid foam. Their reasoning is that fiberglass in REAL
> installations allows more air infiltration which a sealed rigid foam
> panels.
>
A solid layer of R4 - R7 foam, taped and sealed, is a very good solution,
and may be economical depending on costs, weather, and heating/cooling
systems. And yes, if properly installed, will prevent air infiltration to
the point that you may need fresh air intake/heat exchange.
> However, the rigid foam also will require jamb extensions.
>
> At this point, I feel Iv'e seen extremely high and low estimates. Also
> costs vary dramatically based upon local. And the workmanship makes a
> big difference.
>
Yes, everything in construction should be based on local markets!
> Thanks to all who made the puzzle more complex! That isn't a dig, it
> is an honest statement that there is not a simple answer.
>
> gerry
>
good luck,
scot
Brittish1
>construction.
>source yet for construction costs.
>gerry
>.......
>on the added cost of 2x6 exterior
>walls vs 2x4? For the sake of it
Looks like a lot of input!!
I am amazed nobody suggested STEEL Framing! Check it out. The R-values can
actually be higher than wood.
Sincerely,
David. Estimator.
buildcost...@eudoramail.com
Gerry Goodrich
wrote:
>> this, preferring 16" OC for a more solid wall. So this could be turned
>> into a "OC" discussion and have merit.
>>
>
>That could be a fruitful discussion. I don't have my references handy, but
>I seem to remember that 2x6 framing on 24" centers is slightly stiffer
>than 2x4 on 16", but I may be miss remembering. I think the only time
>I've seem 2x6s on 16" centers was on the ground floor of a three story a
>couple years ago. Someone can, and probably should, correct me.
The main arguments I've seen against 24 OC isn't vertical support but
flexing of the interior and exterior surfaces. Thicker wallboard...
>
>
>> Several references I have recommended 2x4 with either tounge and grove
>> or taped 1" rigid foam. Their reasoning is that fiberglass in REAL
>> installations allows more air infiltration which a sealed rigid foam
>> panels.
>>
>
>A solid layer of R4 - R7 foam, taped and sealed, is a very good solution,
>and may be economical depending on costs, weather, and heating/cooling
>systems. And yes, if properly installed, will prevent air infiltration to
>the point that you may need fresh air intake/heat exchange.
As a bit of humor, my book on passive solar heating recommends a
"solar cat". Well, we have one! Our cat wants in and out so much there
isn't any air change over problem <G>
>
>
>good luck,
>scot
Thanks - going to be at least 3 years but I want to do it right from a
price/performance standpoint as well as what we want. Heck, picking
windows can make this entire thread seem trivial!
gerry
Keith or M.A. Carlson
<clip>
> I seem to remember that 2x6 framing on 24" centers is slightly stiffer
> than 2x4 on 16", but I may be miss remembering. I think the only time
> I've seem 2x6s on 16" centers was on the ground floor of a three story a
> couple years ago. Someone can, and probably should, correct me.
Our house has 2x6s on 16" centers, on the "knee wall" (if that's the
right term) in the lower level of a split entry, if not in the whole
house. It was a very inexpensive house. I didn't know this was unusual
until I started reading this NG!
Peter Bucy
>
>Also, 2x6 framing actually makes the whole job easier, framing (fewer
>studs to place, 2x6's are normally a little higher quality, eases nailing)
>plumbing (more room if you must run plumbing on exterior walls, and we
>did), and electrical (nice room for deep boxes, and generally easier to
>run). And it makes for a marginally stiffer frame.
Another factor that is often missed is that 2x6 walls will meet the
SBCC 10-93 wind code even in "stud" grade; something that 2x4's can't
do in that grade. Therefore it is a stronger wall under both vertical
and horizontal load conditions.
My clients have claimed that 2x6 framing has reduced their energy
costs (anecdotal evidence) and that the homes are a little quieter
than 2x4 framing. I don't have any hard data to support their
observations.
As to energy efficiency, a report in the JLC stated that the gains in
energy savings using 2x6 construction over 2x4 construction were not
as much as had once been assumed. The inclusion of doors and windows
tended to even out the performance of both types of construction.
2x6 framing is an advantage if you are going to have to let-in any
bracing or nailers and it certainly is more rigid when you balloon
frame structural knee walls to support conventional roof framing.
Also, when you have to run plumbing in the outside walls, 2x6 is
generally deep enough to permit you to place enough insulation behind
the plumbing to keep it warm during the winter. [Not that us folks in
the Carolinas have to worry much about cold weather <g>].
Peter A. Bucy - Home Builder
Charlotte, North Carolina
Human
I don't know if this is the case in your part of the country or
not but, here in Cal. if your first floor is framed with 2x4, you
can only build up one floor above that without augmenting the framing,
whereas if your first floor is framed with 2x6, you can build up
two stories above that.
Good luck and best wishes,
Bob Amberger, Pleasanton, CA
In article <36f9738d...@news.earthlink.net>, pet...@earthlink.net
says...
Gerry Goodrich
>Peter and original poster,
>
>I don't know if this is the case in your part of the country or
>not but, here in Cal. if your first floor is framed with 2x4, you
>can only build up one floor above that without augmenting the framing,
>whereas if your first floor is framed with 2x6, you can build up
>two stories above that.
>
>
>>energy savings using 2x6 construction over 2x4 construction were not
>>as much as had once been assumed. The inclusion of doors and windows
>>tended to even out the performance of both types of construction.
>>
>>2x6 framing is an advantage if you are going to have to let-in any
>>bracing or nailers and it certainly is more rigid when you balloon
>>frame structural knee walls to support conventional roof framing.
>>
My (at the original poster) was initially only considering energy cost
payback. Although I didn't state it explicitly, this was because I'm
looking at a single story home.
Clearly there are situations where structural strength is the
determining factor. I'm unaware of as such requirements in a single
story building. Clearly, a single story has a lot sell wall than a
multi story structure in relation to roof and floor. Heat gain/loss
via the ceiling dominates dramatically in this situation. I'm assuming
glazing and door loss is also a higher fraction on a typical single
story home since homes commonly have more exterior doors and larger
windows on the main floor.
Michael Burr
>
> As to energy efficiency, a report in the JLC stated that the gains in
> energy savings using 2x6 construction over 2x4 construction were not
> as much as had once been assumed. The inclusion of doors and windows
> tended to even out the performance of both types of construction.
I don't understand how such a conclusion could be drawn since the
number and size of the doors and windows (and floors and ceilings)
should be constant in either case. The only way I can make sense of
this would be if doors and windows in 2x6 construction were LESS
effecient than in 2x4 construction... since obviously a 2x6 wall fully
insulated has a higher R value than it's 2x4 equivilent.
Granted, the increase in effeciency is not going to be the ~42%
difference in energy loss between R11 and R19 since the whole house is
not wall. But I would think that typically at least ~50% of a house is
wall surfaces, so I would think that > 20% increase in effeciency is not
out of the question.
Could you provide any more details on exactly how their conclusion was
drawn?
--
Michael Burr - Renaissance Man Wanna-Be, Mount Vernon, WA
97% is enough! Support Julia Butterfly - http://www.lunatree.org/
Peter Bucy
wrote:
>Peter Bucy wrote:
>>
>> As to energy efficiency, a report in the JLC stated that the gains in
>> energy savings using 2x6 construction over 2x4 construction were not
>> as much as had once been assumed. The inclusion of doors and windows
>> tended to even out the performance of both types of construction.
>
>I don't understand how such a conclusion could be drawn since the
>number and size of the doors and windows (and floors and ceilings)
>should be constant in either case. The only way I can make sense of
>this would be if doors and windows in 2x6 construction were LESS
>effecient than in 2x4 construction... since obviously a 2x6 wall fully
>insulated has a higher R value than it's 2x4 equivilent.
>
>Granted, the increase in effeciency is not going to be the ~42%
>difference in energy loss between R11 and R19 since the whole house is
>not wall. But I would think that typically at least ~50% of a house is
>wall surfaces, so I would think that > 20% increase in effeciency is not
>out of the question.
>
>Could you provide any more details on exactly how their conclusion was
>drawn?
I don't have the data or even the article handy at the moment. If I
find it in the next couple of days I'll post it here.
As I recall, it stated that so much heat is lost through windows and
doors that the additional insulation in the walls did not offset this
loss proportionately to the r-factor increase in 2x6 construction. I
do not recall the actual factor, but it was substantially less than we
had been lead to believe over the years.
The article appeared in the Journal of Light Construction in the last
year or so. You might want to check with your library to see if they
have access to the publication.
John
If you want to use plantation style shutters, 2 x 6 are important to
prevent protrusion into the rooms.
On 24 Mar 1999 22:38:24 -0800, ga...@nospamjps.net (Human) wrote:
>Peter and original poster,
>
>I don't know if this is the case in your part of the country or
>not but, here in Cal. if your first floor is framed with 2x4, you
>can only build up one floor above that without augmenting the framing,
>whereas if your first floor is framed with 2x6, you can build up
>two stories above that.
>
>Good luck and best wishes,
>Bob Amberger, Pleasanton, CA
>
>
>
>In article <36f9738d...@news.earthlink.net>, pet...@earthlink.net
>says...
>>
>>>windows.
>>>
>>>Also, 2x6 framing actually makes the whole job easier, framing (fewer
>>>studs to place, 2x6's are normally a little higher quality, eases
>nailing)
>>>plumbing (more room if you must run plumbing on exterior walls, and we
>>>did), and electrical (nice room for deep boxes, and generally easier
>to
>>>run). And it makes for a marginally stiffer frame.
>>
>> Another factor that is often missed is that 2x6 walls will meet the
>>SBCC 10-93 wind code even in "stud" grade; something that 2x4's can't
>>do in that grade. Therefore it is a stronger wall under both vertical
>>and horizontal load conditions.
>>
>> My clients have claimed that 2x6 framing has reduced their energy
>>costs (anecdotal evidence) and that the homes are a little quieter
>>than 2x4 framing. I don't have any hard data to support their
>>observations.
>>
>> As to energy efficiency, a report in the JLC stated that the gains in
>>energy savings using 2x6 construction over 2x4 construction were not
>>as much as had once been assumed. The inclusion of doors and windows
>>tended to even out the performance of both types of construction.
>>
>>2x6 framing is an advantage if you are going to have to let-in any
>>bracing or nailers and it certainly is more rigid when you balloon
>>frame structural knee walls to support conventional roof framing.
>>
>> Also, when you have to run plumbing in the outside walls, 2x6 is
>>generally deep enough to permit you to place enough insulation behind
>>the plumbing to keep it warm during the winter. [Not that us folks in
>>the Carolinas have to worry much about cold weather <g>].
>>
>>
>>