Building with cross-laminated timber - who has experience with it?

Hello,

after numerous meetings with architects, the topic of wood and especially the topic of construction with cross-laminated timber (Züblin Timber Leno was mentioned) has now come up.

Actually, we had so far primarily thought of massive stone on stone (brick), but we do not want to completely rule out this option right away.

We did some research and found quite a lot of positive aspects.

- Very high thermal insulation
- Very good living climate as it is diffusion-open
- Very ecological construction method
- Faster construction time

Fire protection also does not seem to be a serious issue.
Water damage with this construction method apparently is also not a problem, nor pest infestation or the like.

Does anyone have experience with cross-laminated timber construction, especially compared to construction with, for example, brick/Poroton?

Thanks.

Best regards

After several appointments with architects, the topic of wood and especially the topic of construction with cross-laminated timber (Züblin Timber Leno was mentioned) was also brought up.

Actually, we had so far been thinking of solid stone on stone (brick), but we do not want to completely rule out this option right away.

That would be quite a radical change of course. A carpentry building material also means completely different contractors than a masonry building material. If an architect suggests a building material, I would strongly suspect a passionate fixation on it. From an architect, I expect planning with an "open outcome" – that works when switching between red stone / white stone / gray stone, but not between stone and wood.

Personally, I cannot imagine anything ecological about such a wooden house: even if it is not made of solid wood, it is still massively made of wood. So basically, the same amount of tree is in it. But that much does not grow on the plot to be built on in the time the house will stand. From my point of view, it is marketing wrapped in eco-nonsense.

Looks like our solid wood walls.

Thermal insulation: As far as I know, additional insulation is also needed for KFW 55.

Diffusion-open: Sounds like advertising to me. Plaster, reinforcement, insulation, wooden wall, drywall, putty, tiles or painter's fleece and paint. Where is supposed to be any breathability?

Ecological: Still sounds like advertising.
Where does the wood come from?
Where are the boards manufactured?
More wood consumption than can regrow.
Which construction method is really ecological cannot be said. There would have to be listings about the manufacturing processes, where manufactured, etc.

Construction method faster than stone on stone, slower than timber frame (classic prefabricated house).
Since windows, doors, sockets, conduit channels are CNC milled, very high precision.

Why does the architect waver?
Does he have experience with the construction method?

Fire protection, try putting a piece of wood in water or fire and see what happens.

There was no talk of a switch on the part of the architect; he is open-ended and still equally okay with building with bricks or similar; he brought the alternative to the table relatively neutrally, which I even find good within the framework of comprehensive consulting.

He has (multiple) experience with the construction method.

How much wood grows in German forests and how much is used for wooden house construction can be easily researched (we have done so as well – if you do that, you would argue differently than above *g); whether the trees necessary for a wooden house grow on your own property is mathematically more than irrelevant. I see no argument against [BSP].

Repeated "Sounds like advertising to me" is unfortunately no better than advertising would be, namely pure speculation without factual basis; articles and statements from [VDI] etc. provide some hard facts/values on the subject of [BSP]; from a fire protection standpoint, for example, we are at least at d; s2; d0; – but these are all technical values; I was concerned with solid experience (but also not with speculations without professional background, without research, or without comparable experience).

Thank you.

The contractor is coming around the corner here. The walls and ceilings were ordered in Passau, the plans were sent there as well. The truck came from Lithuania. The walls partly came from Lithuania, partly from Austria, the roof truss from the Spessart. Lithuania has the most modern plant in Europe and a large part of the walls come from there. The wood does not only come from Lithuania and Austria. It was stated on the components, not googled on the internet. You can decide for yourself whether that is ecological. Experience shows that if you put the wood in water, not much happens, rain stays on the surface; if you put it in fire, also not much happens for a long time. The surface gets damaged. Wall construction – what is still diffusion-open there? That is a fact and not speculation. The wooden wall itself is diffusion-open, it is just nicely packaged on both sides.

Which GU is suddenly being talked about? Why is there said to be no diffusion openness with sufficiently thick BSP when no insulation is needed at all to meet the energy saving ordinance? I believe everything has been said about fire protection and water damage. I am a bit surprised why this option is being so criticized; has anyone gained experience themselves - for example because they have built with BSP themselves?