Your ad can replace the one shown here from just £8.99 / month. – Click here for more info.
The Essential Guide » Timber Frame | Sips » Is Timber Frame or Traditional Construction Better For Self Build Projects?
Timber Frame vs Traditional Construction.
Which is best?
When considering timber frame vs tradtional build, for many years an argument has raged which split the “Self Build” world.
It goes along the lines of:
“Traditional build” (brickwork / blockwork) is the best way to build in the UK. – It’s more solid and better suited to our climate. - Timber frame just isn’t “up to the job”. - It may be fine in other countries, but with our extremes of weather every year, it just can’t “cut it” here.”
The argument started in the eighties soon after timber frame started to become more widely used by Self Builders and "Spec builders”.
What started it off, were a series of widely publicised reports of “failure” in the structure of some house, with the “outer skin” of brickwork coming away from the timber frame structure.
The problem was actually being caused by the wall ties failing (NOT the timber frame itself), - either because the ties themselves were of poor quality, or, more often because the “fixings” which were used to attach the wall ties to the timber frame, were, in some cases, “rusting” and “failing”.
What started it off, were a series of widely publicised reports of “failure” in the structure of some house, with the “outer skin” of brickwork coming away from the timber frame structure.
The problem was actually being caused by the wall ties failing (NOT the timber frame itself), - either because the ties themselves were of poor quality, or, more often because the “fixings” which were used to attach the wall ties to the timber frame, were, in some cases, “rusting” and “failing”.
I actually experienced the problem first hand:
After I left college, I rented what turned out to be a timber framed house which was only a few years old. – True enough, the gable wall started to “bow and buckle” over a period of a few months while I was there.
At the time I was working in the “Commercial” side of the Building Industry, and did not have much interest in housing, so I didn’t make any efforts to find out what had happened. – Instead, from that moment on, Timber frame was a “No No!” to me, and I didn't have a good word to say about it!
I was soon moved with work to another area, so never found out what actually happened to the house (with regards to repairing the problem). – I only know that the house is still there now and the wall isn’t buckled!
Fixing the "wall tie" problem:
The problem was addressed and fixed easily. – Better quality (usually stainless steel) ties were used instead of the "rusting" ones, and stainless steel fixing screws were also used to attach the tie to the timber frame. – Thats all it took, and the problem went away!
Unfortunately for the Timber Frame market, although the problem went away, the reputation of “the product” was very badly damaged. Stories of these failures spread across the country, and knocked back the “large scale” introduction of Timber Frame in the UK.
It took a number of years for the industry to recover.
I remember, when I was on the Committee of “The Association of Self Builders”, getting on for 20 years ago, I actually took to the stage at the AGM, with the boss of one of the large timber frame companies (who are actually still around and doing well). – I argued the point that Timber frame was: (as I said at the start of this section) “Just not up to the job in this country”. – Most people I spoke to afterwards said that, because of the problems, they tended to agree and would be “sticking to traditional building methods. – “We know where we are with them”!!
Here we are now, 20 years later, in fact the last vestiges of the legacy of THAT SINGLE PROBLEM are one of the reasons that the argument between timber frame and Traditional build still exists (all be it on a much lesser scale) now.
My view now?
I have built many houses by both methods, and would have to say that I now have absolutely No problem building with timber frame. Neither do I have any problem building "Traditionally.
However, “all things being equal”, in the argument between timber frame versus traditional build, Timber Frame is my preferred method.
However, “all things being equal”, in the argument between timber frame versus traditional build, Timber Frame is my preferred method.
BUT, that doesn’t mean that should be the case for everyone.
The terms “Horses for courses” comes into play when deciding “which route” to go down for your own project. - I’ll try and give you some “pointers” here to help you decide which the best might be for you.
If you are one of the people that is very “anti” timber frame, while you read this, try to keep an open mind.
(I am not going to go into constructional detail in this section, the “construction methods” are covered elsewhere in the guide. I’ll just compare “like for like” as it would present itself in the “average” project).
“Traditional build” versus “Timber frame” – A comparison:
1) Design Flexibility:
I have had no problems in nearly 30 years of building house, with having to “design a certain way” with either Traditional or Timber Frame.
Houses don’t tend to be complicated structures and both methods can handle most of “what is thrown at them” with regards to design complications. – The good thing with this is that you can actually “mix and match” the construction methods if you need to.
I recently built a house on a slope with a lower ground floor. There was an internal garage which was actually on the “first floor” if you looked from the rear of the property, but the ground floor if you looked from the front.
I needed to build support walls (to take the weight of 2 cars in the garage), from the lower ground floor to the ground floor. – I simply used timber frame for the majority of the structure, and traditional “blockwork” for the supporting walls for the garage.
This flexibility with both systems means that there is no real design advantages to either in most cases.
2) How long does it take to build?
Traditional build generally takes longer to complete than Timber Frame.
With “Traditional” building methods, to reach the point where the building is “watertight” (i.e. to construct the external walls, fix the floor joists, carcass and cover the roof), on an average 4 bed “Traditional Construction” detached house, could take anywhere between 3 and 12 weeks depending on:
· The weather,
· Who is building it,
· The complexity of the design,
· The choice of materials etc.
The same house in timber frame would usually reach the same point in between 7 days and 2 weeks generally, depending on the size of the “erection team”, and the complexity of the structure.
This one factor is the single biggest “pull” of the timber frame option, and is one of the main reasons for its surge in popularity over the past few years.
3) Timber Frame vs Traditional Build - Structural Stability:
As far as any homeowner needs to be aware, there is no significant difference in structural stability between a traditional and a timber framed house. A standard construction in either will give you perfectly adequate strength within the building.
Either type of building can be “upgraded” structurally, if required. - Both types of build can incorporate thicker walls, heavier joists and more robust roof construction, to give them extra strength.
However for general “residential” building projects, this is not something that you need to think about.
For most situations that we encounter in the UK, “standard construction” of either traditional or timber frame is perfectly adequate.
4) Heat Retention / Insulation properties:
As with structural stability, both systems are perfectly adequate in their “standard form”.
Whichever you decide upon, the completed building will have to comply with Building Regulations for “heat loss”.
In recent years the heat retention abilities of new domestic buildings have been upgraded considerably. - But both systems can offer a choice of ways to easily meet and exceed the requirements, using simple upgrades to the construction and insulation under the slab, in external walls, and in the roof (whichever type of construction you choose). Reducing “air escape” is another “fashionable” way to help you to keep the heat in either type of building. (New houses now pass to have an “Air Test” as part of the Building Regulations approval process. – see section on Air Testing later in the guide, and find air testers in the Trade Directory)
If you really want to “push the boat out” on your heating efficiency, to achieve the best rating possible, then you may find that a timber frame gives you the easiest and cheapest route to achieving your goals. The easiest way to do this would be to increase the width of the external walls of the timber frame. - Maybe to 8”, “fully insulated”, - with a wider cavity. This wouldn’t have a major impact on the cost of the frame itself, or any real impact on the time taken to construct it.
There is also the option of using an insulating material which gives a higher “insulation value” than standard fibreglass insulation (normally used). (To go even further, there would be nothing to stop you adding “cavity insulation” between the timber frame and the brick or blockwork, although this is rarely done).
Thicker insulation in the loft and under the floor are quick and easy ways to reduce energy consumption for heating within the house.
If you were to increase the internal skin to 6” or 8” of a traditionally built wall, using concrete blocks, the blocks become very heavy and awkward to “manhandle”, and can slow progress down, - as well as costing you significantly more in labour costs, to build.
You may also then find that you need to hire a “forklift” for the duration of the construction of the structure to carry the blocks around and get them up to the first floor level.
5) Soundproofing:
Here the traditionally built house will probably have the edge. A solid concrete block, plastered both side, does take a lot of beating for good solid sound insulation.
Used on the internal walls between “living” rooms 100mm ( 4”) will generally be quite adequate, but you can always upgrade to 150mm ( 6”) if you want that extra soundproofing.
The problem with block internal walls is that if they are used on the first floor:
· You physically have to get the blocks up to that floor, - which can cost you extra money for a fork lift, - or your bricklayers may ask for extra payment to carry them up individually.
· To support the weight of block work upstairs you need to either have a wall directly below it to pass the weight down to the foundations, or you need to provide support for it, by placing (possibly) a steel “I” beam within the floor structure at first floor level. - This can then involve extra design expense, as the Building regulations dept will want calculations to confirm the “adequacy” of the support, - and you may also have to pay a delivery charge for possibly just one steel beam (you maybe even have to hire a small crane for half a day to position the beam).
Sound proofing in a timber framed house is also quite “doable”.
I like to build “good solid” feeling houses, and “Quiet” houses. So sound insulation is something I have given a bit of attention to.
Building regulations change year to year, but one easy way to both exceed building regulations requirements for “heat loss” AND to improve your soundproofing at the same time, is to upgrade the plasterboards on the external and internal walls and ceilings.
Walls / Ceilings:
You could choose to use a “thicker” and a “denser” board (some boards are designed as “sound insulating” boards). – You could also consider “doubling up” each skin of the wall, to say 2 x ½” boards either side, and two skins to the ceiling (if you do this you should also make sure you “stagger” the joints – a lot of the sounds actually goes through the joints rather than the board, so if each “joint” has a “board” behind it, it will improve the sound insulation qualities even further)
In addition, you can then insulate the wall cavity with fibreglass wadding (preferably designed for sound insulation), and you can insulate between the floors with similar “wadding”.
A weak point with Timber Frame
(when it comes to sound insulation) is the joint at the ceiling and the floor, where the ceiling and wall boards “butt up” to each other. – This is a naturally weak point, but it can get worse as the timber of the frame and the joists fry out and shrink slightly, causing cracks, often at the ceiling.
If you insulate between the floors this can help to reduce the effect of this “weak spot”, but you can also use a) a flexible sealant” at the joint which will give some sound proofing and wont crack so easily as the timber dries out. You could also use “coving” to provide an extra sound barrier.
At floor level, use the sealant at the “floor / stud” joint and at the top and bottom of the skirtings.
I once tested a house having done this “soundproofing upgrade”: (A sound engineer may try to “shoot me down” on this one), by putting music on loudly in one room and closing the door in the other room, then moving around and listening to where the sound was coming from.
In fact my system seemed to work very well! Most of the sound that I could hear came through the door! Via a long stretch of hallway and through another door!
Two other “soundproofing” hints for Timber frame”:
· Plasterboard each room individually – Wall and ceilings. Many plasterers like to leave the top of the stud walls a bit lower than the ceiling joists (about ¾”), so that there is a “gap” that they can slide plasterboards through. – This saves cutting boards at each “wall / ceiling” junction of each room, so it can save money by cutting down on waste. BUT it does leave a good route for sound to get through from room to room.
If you make sure you take the studs all the way up to the underside of the joists, then the ceiling plasterboard can “butt up” against the timber stud, and the wall plasterboard can “butt up against the ceiling plasterboard, - forming a better soundproofing detail ( removing the “straight line” route for the sound to travel out through). – If you then also seal the joint and put coving up, it will reduce sound transmittance even further.
· At floor level, if you set the stud walls BEFORE you lay the floor screed (if you are using one ), then the base of the stud wall will be below the finished surface of the floor, again removing the “straight line” weakness that allows sound to escape easily.
And one last “soundproofing” hint for either timber frame or Traditional build:
When I did my “sound test”, most of the sound came not through the walls, but the door, so thicker, solid doors, with sound insulation around where the door meets the frame and along the floor, would probably be a cheaper and quicker way to “almost” solve the problem.
6) “Cracks and creaks”:
You will get cracks in both styles of houses.
Cracks:
People tend to worry that there is a structural problem with the house when they see cracks, but they are usually nothing to worry about.
In traditional construction, once it is all finished, you have a period of time (months) when the “wet work” is drying out and shrinking. Areas affected include the external walls, the plasterwork, and the floor screed.
Larger wall areas show the cracks to a greater degree as there is obviously more potential for shrinkage.
You will usually find cracks appearing at the weakest points in the structure. - These are normally between corners of windows (often from the first floor through to the ground floor, where it is easier for a crack to form across the couple of metres between the downstairs and upstairs windows, than it is to crack all the way up a solid wall.
For the same reason, floor screeds will tend to crack across door openings, and ( as mentioned previously), you will often find cracks at the top of internal walls where they meet the ceilings.
After a year or so, you generally be able to fill in any cracks formed from drying out, and expect them not to significantly reappear.
Timber framed house, in my experience tend to suffer less from cracking. The high percentage of “dry work” means that there is less water to “evaporate” once all the work has been finished, and therefore less shrinkage to occur.
Creaks:
Will occur in both types of houses.
They are generally associated with “joists” and “service”, and both traditional and timber frame construction can suffer in the same way (see later sections for advice on reducing creaks)
7) Over all quality:
.jpg)
The “finished job” for either a traditional build or a timber frame can be identical.There have been no major problems found with timber frame, to my knowledge since the original wall tie one was fixed many years ago, so the “quality” aspect really boils down to a) the individual self builder, b) the budget, c) the materials used d) the people who actually build the new property.
There are good and bad “Self Builders”, “Materials” and “Contractors” in both “Traditional” and “Timber Frame” trades (and a lot of them are the same people!)
8) Resale values:
There is very little, if any difference in the value of one compared to the other these days.
There is still the “timber frame” stigma from “the early days” in some people’s minds, but not many now.
When I build in timber frame, I tend to build “well insulated” houses, and actually find that that is becoming a strong selling point.
“Building Society Valuers” will note that a building is “Traditional build” or “Timber Framed” in their sales notes, but it won’t generally affect “like for like” values.
9) How long will they last?
I suppose that this has still yet to be proved with timber frame in the UK.
In other countries there are timber framed structures hundreds of years old, and still going strong!
If we have solved the old problem with “modern” timber frame in the UK (which there is no reason presently to believe we haven’t), then I don’t see any reason why our timber frames should not last as long.
Even in the UK there are some which are over 20 years old and are just as sound as their Traditional counterparts.
10) Cost comparison:
This is a very hard comparison to make due to the fact that no 2 buildings are the ever quite the same, - so it would be hard to get an exact comparison, even between two identically designed buildings.
In general, I don’t actually think that you can say accurately these days which method is cheaper “overall”.
Certain aspect of each type may be a bit cheaper than the other, however, over all, I would think that, given a level playing field, you won’t find a huge difference whichever of the two methods you use.
11) Structural Guarantees:
All the main guarantee companies offer structural warranties on both Traditional and timber framed properties. Prices are similar or maybe even identical whichever you chose.
Conclusion:
“Timber Frame”: - Offers “speed of construction and may show less drying out cracks.
“Traditional”: Possibly makes soundproofing easier.
Apart from that, like for like, there is not much difference between them these days.
YOUR particular project may suit one option better than the other, - but this will usually be due to “unique” factors associated with your particular plot or your design rather than the choice of “building system”.
As you do your initial planning, if you keep an open mind between the two, you will possibly find that one of them solves more of your individual problems than the other.
A build up of “small factors”, as your ideas, thoughts and wishes all start to come together to form an overall “plan”, may lead you to choosing one option over the other for your particular project.
However, if you were to take on another project in a few years you may find the “other option” to be better.
« return to guide contents
Your ad can replace the one shown here from just £8.99 / month. – Click here for more info.