*
I just got on here so maybe I’m missing something but are you guys serious? 1/2″ OSB plates and 1×4 studs? No headers and 2′ OC construction? Sheesh, its no wonder every wind or snowstorm trashes so many homes down there. Here in western Canada it is considered good construction practice to build with 2×6 studs 16″OC, 2×6 single bottom and double top plate and 3-stud corners. Headers, of course, over doors and windows. The house is bolted to the foundation. This provides R20 in the walls (along with R40 in the ceiling). Although not required by code, some contractors also augment that insulation by wrapping the entire exterior of the house with 1″ rigid insulation. This construction provides the strength to withstand heavy snowloads, high winds, seismic activity, floods and whatever else nature can throw at us. The only structures I have seen collapse under wet snow load or high winds are owner-built garages, carports, decks and similar that were built without permits and not to code.
Building codes have evolved for a reason….
Replies
*
Fred/Steve/Jack,/and others,
I say "parallel universe" because (a) I
don't know how the two "heat loss
modelling" threads pased through and
into the archives before I even saw
them, and (b) there seem to be people
out there whose motives for visiting
this site have little or nothing to do
with teaching/learning.
Can we attempt to re-focus on heat loss
issues by setting a basic ground rule?
That is: Ignore any post that does not
bear directly and specifically and
usefully on the discussion.
There have been too many issue-muddling
posters. Examples? People who attack
others, and, when asked for alternative
answers, say something like "I only do
it for money." A person like that is
clearly of no value here. I URGE
everyone to absolutely ignore these
people, or their
defenders/advocates/apologists. Don't
respond to anything they say, period.
Fred, this is especially aimed at you!
You have helped so many here, and given
so much thought and energy, and yet you
allow yourself to be taunted. You
respond to nitwits, which further
provokes/encourages them, and pretty
soon the thread is nothing but attacks
and counter-attacks. STOP! DON'T! From
this day forward you must fight no more
forever!
Other examples: Someone is sure to jump
on this thread and say: "Disagreement is
what this forum is all about!" Certainly
it is. "Disagreement" is someone saying:
"I think your figures are wrong, and
here's why....." "Disagreement" is not
simply calling other peoples' posts
ridiculous, and/or refusing ever to take
a specific position, and/or failing to
state your qualifications.
If this doesn't work, I suggest those
of us who are interested in knowledge
form a subgroup, and communicate with
each other directly by email.
Steve: If you (and any other mac user)
have Clarisworks, and want to look at
the little spreadsheet calculator I
worked up, drop me an email. I'm such a
newcomer to spreadsheets, I'm sure
others can improve what I've done. I
BELIEVE that if I select/copy the
spreadsheet, and then paste into an
email, anyone with Clarisworks can
see/use.
I think we can all agree that it is
impossible to be REALLY accurate with
this stuff, but if we exchange
thoughts/experience, we can get a lot
closer to the truth, and certainly
arrive at working definitions.
I personally am interested in the
working knowledege that professionals
like Fred and Gene, for instance, can
contribute. They have measured heat loss
in new and old buildings, and/or seen
and/or built numerous structures with an
eye toward energy conservation. Are
they gods? No, and neither I think would
claim to be. But each has seen and read
a HELL of a lot more than most of us on
the subject.
I don't think we should expect Fred to
give each and every one of us a home
heat loss analysis, but I assume he
doesn't mind doing one now and again, as
he did for Steve, just for the sake of
comparison/argument/discussion.
And stuff like this: what is the likely
R-factor of my 1972 ranch wall, w/
1/2"SH/16" OC 2x4 studs/slightly
shriveled looking R-11/tar paper/1"
stucco? And what is the likely ACH--air
changes per hour--for a house like this,
with its single pane aluminum sliders
and useless fireplace? (There must be 10
bazillion more like it.) And what about
my floor, which is carpet/1/2"
padding/1/2"PB/1 1/2" t&g fir/no
insulation/vented crawl space?
And, as far as new construction is
concerned, how many people have direct
experience with the "Arkansas House"
framing that Gene advocates? It
certainly seems to make a lot of sense,
in general, but I wonder about the
stud-wall-directly-onto-band-joist
detail. (Or maybe that's a Gene
innovation.) Could plate
thermal-bridging be solved another way?
(Being a furniture maker, I even wonder
about a kind of mortice/tenon connection to
*to platform frame.)We should all be aware that this discussion is, to some extent, separate from any consideration of codes/permit issues. Or at least I think so.Well, I've maybe rambled enough.J
*Jim-I believe that the "Arkansas House" methods are very similar to what the NHBA published as "OVE" or something like that - maybe Gene will confirm or clarify that. In any case, while I'm not a pro-builder (I'm a designer) I've built a couple additions using the 2-stud corner, 2' o.c. framing, 1 by bottom plate, single 2X top plate with roof framing directly over, no headers over windows, etc. I don't think you can tell the difference in many climates (mine have been north east and north central US) and would do more investigation if I had siesmic issues to address. I don't think it's that big a deal - but might be if you're building hundreds of units in a competitive market.
*Bill,Do you mean you don't think the heat loss savings are that great, or 2x savings, or both? I suppose, once you've decided to rethink standard building practices, as Gene did, you figure: every little bit..... And I suppose the Arkansas wall compared to stand stud wall would be 3-5% less heat loss? If that much? But maybe even more savings in 2x?Of course, I'm more interested just for my own project, where the labor is "free," heh, heh.And, yeah, I don't know what the seismic issues are. Luckily, I'm not in a particularly earthquake-prone area, though of course the geologists are discovering new faults daily, it seems.Jim
*Hi Jim,Thanks for the thoughtful post. Geez, I skip a day and all heck breaks loose.I would love to see your spreadsheet. I think the best thinkg would be for you to e-mail it as an attatched file. I think Excel will open claris spreadsheets. You might want to binhex it first.Steve
*What about heat loss in a rhombus universe?Near the stream, and not exactly parallel to anything,J
*I didn't think the savings in framing was that great.
*I have used elements of Arkansas framing for years but not the 1X bottom plate. Has that caused much problem with the drywall?
*Jim, Bill et al. Optimum Value Engineering (OVE)is what the NAHB calls its version of the Arkansas House (AH)techniques. Few today know of the AH techniques and when one hears about them Arkansas House is never mentioned. What one hears is Advanced Framing Techniques. Note that the two stud corner actually originated in 1832. And also note that the AH 2-stud corner is a true 2-stud corner not the 3-stud so-called California corner.There is no reson a 1x sole plate cannot be used. The codes merely say the studs must reat on a plate. Jim you state "...It certainly seems to make alot of sense, in general, but I wonder about the stud-wall-directly-onto-band-joist."My method of framing uses a modified form of balloon framing, where the hightly conductive connection between the exterior wall and the sub floor is broken. In classic balloon framing the exterior wall is down on the sill plate. And the floor joists are connected to the exterior studs. I break this highly conductive path by first indenting the platform 4-inches in from the edge of the foundation ( when using a 2x4 exterior wall. Next I place the outside wall down on the sill plate. This isolates the outer wall from both the subfloor and the floor joists. There is a 1-inch thermal break between the exterior wall and the joist headers.One of the nice things about this configuration is that is eliminates the labor intense cutting and fitting of rigid foam board insulation (RFBI) to the esxtrerior of the jooist headers or on the insulde between the floor josiists.Indeed, one need not think about it because it is done at the same time the exterior walls are filled with dense pack cellulose insulation.the AH techniques allowed its designer, Frank Holtzclaw to eliminate 41 % of the framing in the exterior walls. And even if he had used 2x4s it amounted to a 35% reduction.The AH was among there first to use 2x6s, but I believe Holtzclaw made a mistake when he opoted for 2x4.Based on analyses made by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) the difference in R-values between a 2x4 R-ll wall and a 2x6 R-19 wall are too small (3.8) to justify the added cost of 2x6s and the need for extended jambs.One person e-mailed me to say that by switching from 2x6s to 2x4s and 1-inch of RFBI on exterior, he saved $1200.00 on a 2000 sq. ft. spec house. GeneL.
*Gene - just for kicks - our first (old) hose was balloon framed and had one stud corners - 4X4!Thanks for helping with OVE. I think I still have some of the early NAHB literature on it.....somewhere.
*Looks like Gene's wall would work well with a 1x or even half inch osb for the bottom plate. If the sheathing wasn't structural, I would seriously consider some metal straps to tie the studs to the sill.
*Gene,Do you use the sill plate as the bottom plate for the wall, or does the wall have it's own bottom plate that sits on top of the sill?Steve
*Fred,The Oak Ridge guy--and I know they have incredible testing facilities there--is saying 40% loss beyond what you would expect, for whole wall performance?I'm trying to figure out how to ask/say this. I know that a standard 2x4, 16" OC, w/ 2x4 bottom plate, double 2x4 top plate, R-13 FG (for instance), can not be considered to have a whole-wall R-13 performance value. But is he saying that it would have about R-7?I can't figure how that could be, since the "extra" or "unnecessary" 2x4 material does not amount to 40% of the wall.I like the 1/2" OSB plate idea; think I'll use it top and bottom, 2' OC, w/ rafters directly above. And didn't I read somewhere (Gene?) that, really, 1x4 studs behind 1/2" sheathing would be sufficiently structural?By the way, if you want to see a good book that includes Gene's early super-energy-saving house, see if your library has William Shurcliff's "Super Insulated Houses & Double Envelope Houses".Jim
*Gene,Trying to get a better handle on your "off-set" stud wall. You say there is a "highly conductive connection" between normal stud wall and subfloor in the normal platform frame construction. Is there some "physics" thing that makes the thermal path there greater than the sum of its parts?J
*Jim,Allthough I have used single top plates extensivly, I would not want to use just a OSB top plate for two reasons. 1, Attaching the sheathing to the top plate and 2, defending myself from the drywall installers.
*Ron,I'm still thinking out loud here... Keep in mind that this is a one-off I'm building for myself, no permit, cavities to be filled w/ DP cels.Use 1/2" OSB top plate, add short 1-by block midway between studs, at top, for screws for sheathing.Heard/read anything about 1-by studs?Jim
*I just got on here so maybe I'm missing something but are you guys serious? 1/2" OSB plates and 1x4 studs? No headers and 2' OC construction? Sheesh, its no wonder every wind or snowstorm trashes so many homes down there. Here in western Canada it is considered good construction practice to build with 2x6 studs 16"OC, 2x6 single bottom and double top plate and 3-stud corners. Headers, of course, over doors and windows. The house is bolted to the foundation. This provides R20 in the walls (along with R40 in the ceiling). Although not required by code, some contractors also augment that insulation by wrapping the entire exterior of the house with 1" rigid insulation. This construction provides the strength to withstand heavy snowloads, high winds, seismic activity, floods and whatever else nature can throw at us. The only structures I have seen collapse under wet snow load or high winds are owner-built garages, carports, decks and similar that were built without permits and not to code.Building codes have evolved for a reason....
*Bill. The reason I claim that FHA rather than NAHB developed the AH techniques, is as follows: The Arkansas House began to receive a lot of publicity. And even more publicity when Owens/Corning published in 1976 its Energy Saving Homes. The Arkansas Story. NAHB began to get so many calls about the AH that they published a 3or 4 page critique.It was not a 100% endorsement of the AH and NAHB doubted some of its claims.My reading of the paper, if memory serves, told me that NAHB was not familiar with the AH techniques. Even today hardly anyone thinks of the Arkansas House when raised heel trusses are mentioned. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of that paper.GeneL.
*Rod. It sounds scary. But it is not as indiscriminate as some on these pages woul;d have you believe. Read your Canadian Building Codefor Part 9 buildings and find that it allows no exterior structrural sheatrhing or let-in wood corner bracing when using exterior RFBI as sheathing...as long as the interior face of the exterior walls are sheathed with gypsum board, OSB, Plywood, or fiberboard.The Arkansas House technicues and the American Plywood Association's 24"oc engineered system is based on engineering and long term monitoring of performance of these structures.I mention the Arkansas House because it was arguably the first to use these techniques. My disagreement with Frank Holtzclaw is his use of 2x6s in the AH. We did not need ORNL to tell us that an R-19 2x6 wall in not R-19. They confirmed what has been known for many years, sand tested dsome 18 different wall configuarations to verify the equations. GeneL.
*Gene,Please confirm or deny: was it you (or Ken Kern) who said that 1x4 studs, if used with structural sheathing, would make a viable wall? Jim
*Steve Zerby. I read your OHJ article and enjoyed it.In my last personal residence I eliminated the bottom plates. Now this is a code violation because the code requires that exteropr wall studs be on sole plates. Since the outside studs are down on the sill plate that is legal and a sole plate is not necessary.But unfortunately for the framers--who never complained to me--it is a royal pain to nail the studs so I've gone back to bottom plates.Jim. I am the one who brought to this and other web pages the use of rough sawn,full width and depth, framing lumber. The concept is not mine. I got it from the "inventor" Homer hurst. He is now retired from Virginia Polytech University. He has thoroughly engineered, built and tested houses using 1x lumber as studs, floor joists, ad trusses. It is possible he got the idea from others. You may have read my posts on the Andover, Massachusetts house that has 2x2 exterior wall studs, and 1x6 floor joists. It was built in 1942? and still stands and is as solid as if it were framed with more conventional studs and joists.GeneL.
*Gene:Slight correction to Homer Hurst's school name. It used to be known as Virginia Polytechnical Institute, VPI. Then a while back they wanted to become a University, so they added more words and became: Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University or VPI/SU. But to us here in Virginia it will always be known as Virginia Tech ( or Cow College due to it's veternary school) because the formal name is now way too long to bother with.Frank
*Frank. thanks for the correction.By the bye did you know about homer Hurst? Seems to me that you and I corresponded two or three years ago? GeneL.
*Hi Gene,Glad you like my article. BTW, the new issue of Old House Chronicle is now online. Went up a few days ago. Any who are interested, you can find it at http://www.ece.nwu.edu/ohcOHC is for old house enthusiasts of all stripes. It is completely non-comercial and volunteer produced. We've been doing it for about a year now.Anyway, about the bottom plates, I thought you might have eliminated them. I can see where nailing them would be a pain after the sills were down, but I bet you could frame them lying down like a regular wall only with a pressure treated bottom plate, then stand them onto the foundation bolts.Steve