No.1277373[Last 50 Posts]
TAKE THE MASS TIMBER PILL
Human beings need places to live. Previously, in the 20th and early 21st century, cities were mainly built out of concrete. While sturdy, making concrete also emits quite a bit of carbon. While single story and two story detached houses have long been made out of wood and brick, the solution to taller buildings required for dense urban living has thus far eluded us: until now.
Cross-laminated timber, otherwise known as "mass timber" is a wood panel product made from gluing together layers of solid-sawn lumber, i.e., lumber cut from a single log. Each layer of boards is usually oriented perpendicular to adjacent layers and glued on the wide faces of each board, usually in a symmetric way so that the outer layers have the same orientation.
CLT has some advantages as a building material, including:
- Design flexibility – CLT has many applications. It can be used in walls, roofs or ceilings. The thickness of the panels can easily be increased by adding more layers and the length of the panels can be increased by joining panels together.
- Eco-friendly – CLT is a renewable, green and sustainable material, since it is made out of wood. It can sequester carbon, but differences in forest management practices translate into variations in the amount of carbon sequestered.
- Prefabrication – Floors or walls made from CLT can be fully manufactured before reaching the job site, which decreases lead times and could potentially lower overall construction costs.
- Thermal insulation – Being made out of multiple layers of wood, the thermal insulation of CLT can be high depending on the thickness of the panel.
- CLT is a relatively light building material – Foundations do not need to be as large and the machinery required on-site are smaller than those needed to lift heavier buildings materials. These aspects also provide the additional capacity to erect CLT buildings on sites that might otherwise be incapable of supporting heavier projects, and eases infilling projects where construction is especially tight or difficult to access due to the preexisting buildings around the site.
Various studies have shown that mass timber products are strong, fire-resistant, save time on building sites, and most importantly, are far better for the environment than concrete or steel. Let’s break down those claims one-by-one:
CLT delivers at minimum the “same structural strength as reinforced concrete, but it’s a material with a high degree of flexibility that has to undergo great deformations to break and collapse – unlike concrete.” Taller mass timber structures have also proven to perform very well in “earthquake tests.” In one study done in California, the test resulted in the CLT products “performed as well as steel or concrete.” But a beneficial difference is in the event of an earthquake, a CLT wall system allows any damaged connection devices on the building to be pulled out and replaced, often within just hours, rather than scrapping the whole structure – something not possible with steel or concrete.
A 5-ply CLT panel wall was subjected to temperatures exceeding 1,800 Fahrenheit and lasted 3 hours and 6 minutes, far more than the two-hour rating that building codes require. During fires, exposed mass timber chars on the outside, which forms an insulating layer protecting interior wood from damage. Additionally, when the code requires mass timber to be protected with gypsum wall board, the mass timber can achieve nearly damage-free performance during a contents-fire burnout event.
One of the biggest time-saving benefits that most pro-mass timber sources point to is prefabrication. Instead of ordering massive amounts of steel or concrete, then cutting and shaping everything to fit the design (which causes a lot of waste), mass timber products are built in a factory with pre-cut openings and lifting straps. Mass timber buildings are roughly 25% faster to construct than concrete buildings and require 90% less construction traffic. The faster production and installation time also contributes to the reduced GHG emissions.
Environmental Impact & Sustainability
Mass timber has positive environmental impact when compared to other traditional building materials. Last year, a team at the University of Washington attempted a full lifecycle analysis comparing a “hybrid, mid-rise, CLT commercial building” to “a reinforced concrete building with similar functional characteristics.” After tallying up all the many factors, they concluded that the CLT building represented a “26.5% reduction in global warming potential.” Another study found that replacing other construction materials with wood could reduce 14% to 31% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 12% to 19% of global fossil fuel consumption. So right now, mass timber’s status as both environmentally positive and sustainable is a somewhat complicated “yes” with caveats.
if the buildings are sourced from sustainably managed forests, this isn't a problem.
>>1277435> sustainably managed forests
point to those
It looks good, the problem is that it takes a lot to grow trees for timber.
Both the U.S and Canada have more forest than they used to, you can just regrow trees. The issue with the idea OP is putting foreword is that the glue used to make laminated lumber is petroleum based.
copypasta from solarpunk thread
It's true that mass timber has to be combined with sustainable forestry tactics to be truly green, but thats easy enough to do. It doesn't require "mass deforestation". Furthermore, with regards to adding tonnes of chemicals to wood, that's mostly applicable to less advanced forms of timber than CLT. Furthermore studies have already found that building wood buildings is far cheaper and faster due to lower amounts of labor being used to make it, despite wood being more expensive on a per pound basis. the advantage of 5x1s using timber is that the columns, walls, parts, etc. can be prefabricated in a factory thereby achieving economies of scale in a way thats not replicable with poured concrete. This speeds up construction and makes it far less labor + equipment intensive since wood is lighter than steel and concrete, instead of welding and pouring concrete, construction workers simply assemble a building like it was made out of legos, plus some additional metal parts for stability.>>1277447
While this is true, it's still orders of magnitude greener than concrete+steel. Eco-friendly adhesives don't really exist yet anyway.
is wooden brutalism a viable thing
>>1277447>Both the U.S and Canada have more forest than they used to, you can just regrow trees.
Monoculture tree farms are not forests. Forests are an ecosystem with a wide array of species growing in them. Sure you can make a tree farm and sustainably farm trees, but that is NOT a forest, and mistaking it for one endangers actual forests because lumber companies will use that misunderstanding to pretend to be more eco-friendly than they are.
What about concrete alternatives like hempcrete? Yes it's not to load bearing but we could use it to drastically lower concrete usage in all non-load bearing situations.
yes, I copy pasted from wikipedia (as well as other sources) because they had relevant information.
Disturbing trend of /leftypol/ in recent days to claim "muh copypasta" as an argument. As though having the argument sourced from somewhere else somehow means it can be dismissed out of hand. As for the disadvantages listed, they are relatively minor and fixable. If you actually READ the disadvantages section, alot of it has to do with CLT being new. Yes its true that CLT is more expensive now, because it's only produced in a few places. If it's produced in more places the supply will go up and the cost will go down. Track record is also a consequence of newness.
with regards to flammability, while yes its true that wood will always be more flammable than concrete, its still pretty resistant to fire. Watch vidrel, esp. from 6:10 onwards. Fire testing has been done on CLT columns. Mass timber doesn't burn, it chars and insulates the inner part of the column. They are designed a few inches thicker to account for this.
Again, these are all pretty fixable and to a large extent have been fixed. See vidrel
just an addendum, people are confusing PER UNIT costs with overall costs. yes, PER UNIT wood is more expensive, but overall its less because you can mass manufacture and achieve economies of scale on prefab parts and assemble buildings like IKEA, also helps you build it faster as well, which ultimately is cost saving as time is money.
<The timber rots.
hempcrete's strength makes it more of a replacement for drywall than concrete, which is good but not suitable to highrises or anything over 3/4 stories. I'm not opposed to use in low rise buildings and as a drywall replacement for other uses.
Concrete is neither, is when you combine it with steel that it can support such stress.
The same with hempcrete.
Also it's literally building with weed, it can be mass produces, thus making it much, much cheaper than timber, and it's really good at keeping heat/cole inside the house, easing the electric costs of it.
the sources ive found say hempcrete isn't as strong as traditional portland concrete, so it won't be a replacement for for example making foundations yet. Also i think the viscosity of liquid concrete allows it to more easily be poured over steel beams for example.
That's a bodybuilder not a lumberjack.
there are worse ways to die, anon
Concrete shall reign supreme for the next 100 years and more
Concrete obliterates the environment though, we cannot keep using it.
We shouldn't but we can.
And most cercaintly will.
Alright well this is a thread for us to plot what a better world might look like, not to say 'nothing will change anyway'.
Concrete is still used in CLT timber buildings for the foundation, elevator/stair shafts, ground floor, and parking structure. So its uses far less concrete but still uses some.
More like 10000.
The Romans used concrete.
Mostly because of capitalism. There are ways to make "green" concrete, it's just the companies are unwilling to experiment with it without government subsidies.
>>1277636>Can't smoke your house
Why even live?
These look cool but I think in reality you'd just end up with 5-over-1s but more wood. All for it if it's that much more sustainable though.>>1277478
I don't know but it should be
they also had slaves
I mean, it's not just le weed, it's 50% lime 50% hemp.
The point is that concrete has staying power as a building material. What do slaves have to do with that?
You probably support ukraine.
5 over 1s look ok to me.>>1277642
The point being something being 'traditional' doesn't mean we should keep using it
Just to note, concrete buildings from roman times has lasted long because they didn't use reinforced conrcrete (with steel beams inside). The one with beams lasts a lot less longer because they rust.
>>1277644>The point being something being 'traditional' doesn't mean we should keep using it
That's why we should stop using traditional wood. Embrace modernity with concrete.
Real modernity is building with hemp
anon the modern era was 50 years ago
you people are morons>>1277648
Didn't mean that Roman concrete is gud because it's still around. Meant that concrete is good because people have been building things with it since back that far and still use it today.>7
Pass me some of that modernity, bro, will you?
>>1277657>Didn't mean that Roman concrete is gud because it's still around. Meant that concrete is good because people have been building things with it since back that far and still use it today.
Yeah, i am not disagreeing. It is just too useful.
This is the most stupid pointing I have seen all month.
And I have seen people claiming the OAS is communist this week
People have also been building with manure for thousands of years, should we also do that?
Yeah, that was part of the joke.
Everything is relative. Woods was used for a lot longer than that.
roman concrete was more like wet sand than modern concrete which is weaker due to more moisture so it can be poured. Roman concrete had to be hammered into shape by hand using slave labor, which is why its stronger because the more soupy the concrete the weaker it is
If we stop using concrete we will probably have to.
Damn uygha do you really hate the natural world that much? Or are you just a brutalism cultist?
5x1s get too much hate. They're cheap, easy to build, and provide needed housing. People shit on them for being bland. so what. I'd rather pay less rent than have "interesting" postmodern nonsense designs which are expensive to build
Btw these bricks are the literal hegelian synthesis from his formula of 1)thesis 2)antithesis 3)synthesis between mass timber and hempcrete
ok so they used a more labor intensive version of the technology, but we have innovated.>>1277662
If you could build a large public building out of manure then maybe we should. The reason you poo-poo (lol) building out of manure is because you have a colonial mindset. People were willing to build with that for millennia and they got by. Does that mean we should keep doing it? No. Does that mean we should throw around their life ways as an insult? Also no.
Are you sure "mass timber" won't burn me if there's a small fire or spark?
Hempcrete is what you're looking for in here. See video >>1277636
Agreed. They look nice to me. Infinitely better than the traditional white pine/plastic box vs mcmansion american architecture.>>1277672
Well building with manure has advantages but overall it's not a great choice for developed urban areas. Concrete also has advantages but overall it is not good for our future.>>1277675
Remember that Grenfell was covered in petrochemical products, but nobody complained at the time about fire safety there.
Except they don't have any timber. Steel, hemp and lime
According to experts, though, these mass timber products may become a more affordable and sustainable choice for builders looking for fire-resistant material. Due to its plywood-like layers, cross-laminated timber, or CLT, has been found to char during a fire at a slow enough rate that it can take more than 90 minutes of burning for a structure to collapse. By comparison, tests done on single-story wood-frame homes resulted in collapse after just 17 minutes. But while collapse may be delayed, the added fuel load of mass timber can speed up the initial growth rate of a fire. Completely fireproof wood buildings are conceivable but not feasible. The goal is to increase their fire resistance. On this front, CLT is promising—but there’s still much to learn.
>>1277680>Concrete also has advantages but overall it is not good for our future.
Bull. It's not that different from any other industrial produced material.
"Currently, concrete's key ingredient cement is responsible for around eight per cent of global emissions, surpassing all other materials except oil, gas and coal."
imagine how you would have reacted if someone told you 10 years ago that people would be building houses out of weed LEGO today
Yeah, because industry inwilling to use recipies that are even slightly less profitable or just not tested enough and risk loosing profits. There are already several ways to make conrecte production a lot more environmental friendly.
Okay sure, that sounds great, however, those as far as I can tell rely on industrial waste/recycled materials that may not always be available in sufficient quantities for sustained production.
Hemp is based and redpilled btw.
1) It's cheap as fuck.
2) Can be grown in farms like it's wheat.
3) Can store way more Co2 than Timber.
4) in it's production, no innivent trees are killed.
5) Can be easily made, just shred the fuck out of it.
6) Every part of Hemp can be used for pretty much everything, from building to making clothes… You can even blaze it.
7) because of it being cheaper, it leads to more houses being built.
8) By elaborating an economy of mass production, you could build houses in just a month or so with those hemp bricks.
9) non flammable.
10) because of it's heat resistance and so on, literally pays 2/3 less of heating bills.
11) doesn't condense water on it's insides great for every climate out there.
12) every brick is like 13 Kg, it's a really lightweight material.
THAT'S FUCKING FITCH
No who asked lmao!
No one cares nerd!
Wrong. On both accounts.
as someone who owns a bit of forest I am excited to see the demand for lumber and therefore likely its price increase>>1277403>>1277438
solid timber is actually surprisingly fire resistant
proper forest care includes logging. somewhere around 1% per year. a forest that is not logged regularly will sequester less carbon than managed forest. this somewhat depends on tree species and whatnot, but where I live the usual age at which trees are cut down is around 100
NTA. Yeah, but that's not the amound needed for providing timber housing on industrial scale. Especially since not every log is particulary suited for building. You would need to grow forests rapidly and then cut them down and grow again, which is already done and has it's own ecological problems.
indeed you have different kinds of forests for different needs. energy forests using mostly salix is one example. contorta for basic lumber. it depends on what kind of wood products you need. there are also ways of doing selective logging rather than clearcutting. but clearcutting is beneficial to game. these are issues a socialist economy would have to deal with. forests aren't some pretty thing to look at, they are to be used
Hemp is cool but you would probably need another material for really big buildings, and mass timber could fulfill that niche.
Still go to grow them trees though. The amount of forest needed for a complete transition would probably put pressure on land value and so on, but I guess its good to have a variety of materials out there for different situations. How expensive is it compared to concrete?
Hot take fuck skyscrapers we shouldn't build above 10 or so stories.
That shouldn't be controversial. Planning carless city cores makes very high population density possible even if all buildings are capped at five stories.
doesn't even have to be carless, only have roads restricted to 2 lanes (Like most of paris, or even Honolulu) is enough to get enough density with 5 stories.
>>1277560>>no long lasting building has ever been made out of wood in human history
None of you have addressed this.
>no long lasting communist society has ever been made in human history
Alright Ted Reese
>>1277483>Monoculture tree farms are not forests.
Most logging operations don't do that. They just clearcut an area and leave it to recover on its own. You can do this when you have huge swathes woodland like Canada does.
literally all buildings need to be maintained or they will crumble, it's just the nature and regularity of maintenance that changes.
Also, I find big wooden beams aesthetically pleasing (there's a few in my childhood home). I definitely think wood is a better material than concrete for a house. But the problem is same as everywhere else: copy pasting shitty concrete suburbs is what bring in the most profit.
Wood is more expensive, but you save on labor costs because its lighter than concrete and requires fewer workers to assemble a wood building, and its faster than waiting for concrete to dry as well
>>1278527>literally all buildings need to be maintained or they will crumble
Yes, but the fegree of maintenance (changing paint vs changing the material itself) and how often you have to do matters. You would be able to think of that yourself if you spent aty least a minute doing so.
I like wood myself, in fact i built a wooden house for myself in the country, but you have to understand the material limitations and not simply wishing that just because you like something better, it is possible to use it in mass produced med to high rise buildings with modern communications.>>1279892>but you save on labor costs because its lighter than concrete and requires fewer workers to assemble a wood building
Unless you are talking about wooden logs, it's really not easier to produce. In fact the specific material OP is talking about is harder to produce than concrete.
Also wood "breathes", meaning if you build under rain (or just in moist environment) it will expand and contract after you dry it out. That adds time and is a bitch to work around as a construction worker.
It's one of the reason that wood today is mostly used indoors.
The wood is given a plastic/metal/whatever facade to keep the rain off. That reduces the maintenance to what it would be in a regular concrete building.
Not really. First of all, the previous arguments about how good it looks are thrown away with that because now the building doesn't look any different from outside than if we didn't build it from wood. Second, is that in MODERN buildins unlike with stave churches and pagodas, you have constant wet spots, because modern building has communications for heat and water. So whatever around those shouldn't be made out of wood either. At this point you are lefts with wood being used as decorative material and for ceiling/floor carcas. And they still wouldn't last as long is metal ones. And replacing floors and ceiling is not an easy task and while it's done people that live there have to be moved along with all their furniture somewhere else.
Just stop with those petit bourg anprim dreams.
Apaprtments are something that has to be built with longevity in mind, not with "oh, we will just replace half the house in 10 years" mentality.
>>1278499>leave clearcut forest areas to recover on its own
As we can see from capitalism, when you create a flat 2d environment where only the "most fit" survive and everyone else perishes, you do not create the conditions for a diverse and wondrous ecosystem that isn't just a weird artificial simulacrum zoo enclosure.
Mass timber is perfect for replacing steel beams but idk if it's that good for outer walls
My family lives in "stalinka" (it's a commie block from times of Stalin as you can guess). It's a great building, but they do have one common problem. Can you guess what that problem is? Wooden carcass for floors/ceilings. They do rot and they do it at different pace each (depending on quality of each beam and humidity in that specific place), so with time the floor becomes quite uneven even before you need to replace those beams. My experience kinda says "nay" on wooden beams.
How do you explain these buildings all over America/the world already that are wood framed if it's so absurd?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
>>1280740>How do you explain these buildings all over America/the world already that are wood framed if it's so absurd?
With the fact that porkies usually don't care about the quality of life of proles and longevity of buildings. Same porkies who build planes that hit the ground because they were cutting on costs. >>1280720
as you can gather from this post, wood has a lot less longevity than other materials. That's a simple fact.
Stop throwing some wiki aticles at me you dingus and do an actual research.
Ok but the Stalinka is using untreated bare wood unlike the modern wood framed buildings where the wood is chemically treated and not visible.
Also anecdotes are not data. Stop being obsessed with productivism and concrete.
>>1280759>Stop being obsessed with productivism and concrete.
I am not obsessed, you are obsessed with wood and the whole obsession is based solely on a couple of shitty pictures and zero knowledge of construction. I am just explaining to you why wood is not a great material for modern buildings. >muh anecdotes
I explained to you principles and the given the examples. I didn't seen anything from you aside from couple of wiki pages (from which you ignored everything that didn't conform to your desired conclusion) and a couple of shitty pictures. If you want to stay an ignorant ass, be my guest. >>1280755>not visible.
An invisible wood, wow, that's great.
God, you are such an idiot.
It means the wood is sealed behind drywall/facade to protect it from decay, dipshit.
Wood shouldn't warp unless exposed to moisture or not being dried properly before installation, plus are you sure those are MASS beams that are superior to normal beams
Yeah, and that's what made me laugh and call you an idiot - did you think that in stalinkas the floor carcass was just…open and visible? How would people walk on that floor? What kinda of shitholes do you think soviet people were living in?
>>1280766>An invisible wood<t. office worker
kek. get a real job jfc.
IDK I figured it was as you showed here. >>1280700
just bare wood beams, I have been in houses like that before. So ok, not visible wood, but still nothing like modern techniques and chemical treatment. Also Soviet era buildings themselves were hardly top quality, I'm sure they had all kinds of leaks.
>>1280787>IDK I figured it was as you showed here. >>1280700 (You) just bare wood beams
That's an unfinished building obviously. I posted it to give an example of what i means by wodden floor carcasses, because english is not my first lanuage and i wasn't sure that i got all the construction terminology correct. Google translate is not always helpful.
What you have probably seen is some roof beams, in some low rise houses they are left without cover for variety of reasons. But think for a minute - if this was the floor, how would you even live there? Like really.
>Also Soviet era buildings themselves were hardly top quality
Some of the khruschevkas were of the lower quality (then again that depended on the type), but stlainkas are still considered one of the best appartment buildings in Russia (except some elite porky houses) save a few flaws like i mentioned. They were built with quality and longevity in mind.
>>1280800>Why nobody except OP mention that wood is the only viable contruction method in lot of America because of earthquake??>Wood has some movement in it unlike brick, sand and sement, and so does not just all come tumbling down when one happen
Steel bends too. Springs are made out of steel, it is one of the best materials for earthquake resistant buildings. But it is more expensive than bulding out of wood so i understand why right now wood is the only viable material for many.
The main advantage of wood isn't cost, its labor savings. Less crew + equipment needed due to lighter weight than steel/concrete, and also SPEED of construction because you don't have to wait for concrete to dry you just screw in prefabbed pieces of wood together like IKEA.
This is one of the main reasons you can more easily use wood to do mass construction of apartments.
>>1280961>The main advantage of wood isn't cost, its labor savings. Less crew + equipment needed due to lighter weight than steel/concrete, and also SPEED of construction because you don't have to wait for concrete to dry you just screw in prefabbed pieces of wood together like IKEA.
For simple wooden LOGS maybe, but for chemically impregnated, cross laminated wood? Not really.
Hey, if you build a cabin in the woods or small house in a country, especially by yourself, wood is a decent choice. I have a log house myself with brick stove. The question is wherever it is a suitable material for mass construction of appartment buildings.
>>1280974>For simple wooden LOGS maybe, but for chemically impregnated, cross laminated wood? Not really.
Well why does it need to be cross laminated?
Cross lamination is a big part of what gives mass timber its strength.
>>1280974>For simple wooden LOGS maybe, but for chemically impregnated, cross laminated wood? Not really.
watch some of the videos ITT and they literally cite studies which prove this
For a start, that's what this whole thread was started with. And yeah >>1280985
what he said.>>1281028
I don't remember seeing any study about clt wood being cheaper in terms of labour cost. Give a link then. To a study, not a video.
i dont have any links atm, im just going by what the videos said like >>1277540
Which by the way don't talk about total labor cost but just on site labor cost, for low rises too. That's a different claim.
Besides those do look more like marketing it rather than honestly assessing.
Unique IPs: 42