layer8prob@gmail.com wrote: ↑December 11th, 2019, 10:39 am I'm not sure I'd want one as a primary residence but as a second home it'd be awesome. I love the look and feel of them.
I love the look and feel too. from the FAQ page of the LHBA org:
my bishop (also my local engineer), after reviewing a 50 page structural report on my plans so he could give me a wet-stamp said, "I've never seen plans for a stronger built home than this one- unless it were made of concrete. I think if you follow the plans, that thing should be able to withstand an F4 tornado". (Earthquakes aren't much of a concern here in Alabama, but tornadoes are)As indicated elsewhere in this web-site, Skip’s log home was 1,000 yards from the epicenter of a 5.7 (Richter Scale) earthquake – with virtually no damage to the home. As far as we know, there is no jurisdiction anywhere in America that does not allow log homes to be built because of earthquake concerns. When a log home is built correctly it can withstand the biggest earthquake, and pass the most stringent building permit issuance process. We even have members who built their home almost directly on top of the San Andreas Fault in Southern California. They had no problem meeting local earthquake requirements.
That's amazing! It sounds like a fantastic last days structure.mudflap wrote: ↑December 11th, 2019, 12:23 pmlayer8prob@gmail.com wrote: ↑December 11th, 2019, 10:39 am I'm not sure I'd want one as a primary residence but as a second home it'd be awesome. I love the look and feel of them.
I used to have a cabin (a frame built cabin- not made of logs) as a second home- it didn't work out. Two homes require double the maintenance, cleaning, upkeep, etc. It's what made me want to live in one full time- just one home to maintain.
from the FAQ page of the LHBA org:
my bishop (also my local engineer), after reviewing a 50 page structural report on my plans so he could give me a wet-stamp said, "I've never seen plans for a stronger built home than this one- unless it were made of concrete. I think if you follow the plans, that thing should be able to withstand an F4 tornado". (Earthquakes aren't much of a concern here in Alabama, but tornadoes are)As indicated elsewhere in this web-site, Skip’s log home was 1,000 yards from the epicenter of a 5.7 (Richter Scale) earthquake – with virtually no damage to the home. As far as we know, there is no jurisdiction anywhere in America that does not allow log homes to be built because of earthquake concerns. When a log home is built correctly it can withstand the biggest earthquake, and pass the most stringent building permit issuance process. We even have members who built their home almost directly on top of the San Andreas Fault in Southern California. They had no problem meeting local earthquake requirements.
In layman's terms- Instead of being held rigidly in place by way of a concrete footer beneath the piers (which is the standard and modern way of building), the 1st level of logs takes the place of the concrete footer.
I have about a half mile of rebar installed in this house.
rebar jack-hammered into place, but still needs sledge hammer to finish pounding them all the way in:
here's the jackhammer doing its job. if you zoom in, you can see the sticks of rebar sticking up out of the log, waiting to be hammered:
The most exciting development right now is getting our utilities installed. This is a huge development. Whereas right now, we have a piece of land with logs, getting utilities installed means we can apply for a building permit. It means commitment. We are on the cusp of paying for this. It will be a major step in this process. There are a few things we have to nail down before we can apply...
very cool!HeberC wrote: ↑December 14th, 2019, 2:18 pm When we moved here, my family and I camped on the property in a small trailer while I built our log house. I did most of it myself except I hired others to stack the logs.
Log houses are earthquake proof. In a tornado, the pressure drop cause houses to explode. The windows blow out or the roof blows off. I greatly exceeded engineering specs by how I attached the roof trusses to the log walls.
Log houses cost half as much to heat as stick-built houses of the same R factor. My walls will stop handgun bullets.
I'd love to get into this more, but I need a standard family suburban home first (been slaving away trying to get a down payment... That and I'm terrified of buying expensive real estate at the peak top of the market!). I need to be near large cities based on my profession - but after I finally get a "standard" home, I would love love love to buy some remote forested property and build my own timber frame cabin.mudflap wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2020, 8:37 pm Timber frame homes are so elegant. I love the joinery that they use. I looked into building one at the same time I was looking into log homes. We (LHBA) have a member who is looking into the timber frame method because he can't find logs in his area in his price range.
Mine were free. One reason I went with logs instead of timber frame though was because the LHBA method allows use of extremely crooked and bent logs- not even suitable for timber frame building- logs that would normally just be bulldozed and burned. In fact, that's what was going to happen to our trees before we got them.
Great video explaining the method, though!
mudflap wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2020, 2:24 pm How much does my log cabin weigh? Most of it is in the walls and the roof:
Just a guess, I probably forgot something. And I didn't include nails (yes, there's about 120 lbs of nails just in the shingles), screws, etc. There will be probably 1 nail per inch on every row of logs inside and out to give the chinking something to stick to- don't know how much that will weigh.
But just the roof- I hauled every piece of it up there with a shingle elevator I designed and welded. Except the rafters and ridgepole- I hired that out to a crane. The log walls - were lifted into place with ropes and pulleys.
Here's the shingle elevator I designed:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/ZeCXm0BiiTA[/youtube]
mudflap wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2020, 8:37 pm Timber frame homes are so elegant. I love the joinery that they use. I looked into building one at the same time I was looking into log homes. We (LHBA) have a member who is looking into the timber frame method because he can't find logs in his area in his price range.
Mine were free. One reason I went with logs instead of timber frame though was because the LHBA method allows use of extremely crooked and bent logs- not even suitable for timber frame building- logs that would normally just be bulldozed and burned. In fact, that's what was going to happen to our trees before we got them.
Great video explaining the method, though!
It spoke to me, too. I'm not a builder either. My background was a technician at the phone company. Sure, I did some hardwood floors in my house and dry wall for my grandpa, but nothing on this scale.Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2020, 10:51 pm
I'd love to get into this more, but I need a standard family suburban home first (been slaving away trying to get a down payment... That and I'm terrified of buying expensive real estate at the peak top of the market!). I need to be near large cities based on my profession - but after I finally get a "standard" home, I would love love love to buy some remote forested property and build my own timber frame cabin.
Funny thing is: I know literally nothing about it. I grew up in techy white-collar middle class suburbs. I don't know anything about construction or carpentry or cabins. Except for what I've seen in a few YouTube videos. But it speaks to me.
Another law says my walls have to be insulated to R-13 or better. Does that law take into account the 30 studies going back to the 1980’s that show that R-values are not a reliable indicator for how well your walls will actually insulate? Or that log walls, even at half the R-value of standard walls, perform 45% better at energy efficiency (as recognized by the National Homebuilders Association and the Log Homes Council)? No. And No.
A 7″ thick log wall has a R-value of about R-9, yet performs 45% better at heat loss/gain than a standard framed wall (R-value of about R-15). It’s called Thermal Mass, and R-values don’t account for it. Luckily for me, I’m not using 7″ logs. Mine are averaging about 17″, so I’m hoping to beat the stupid R-value requirement with huge logs.
It should be obvious that these “energy efficiency” laws are really about corporations and businesses using the clout of government to take your money. Same is true for the “climate change” nonsense. If they were really all about “green building” and “saving energy”, wouldn’t they be all over themselves and support a guy cutting trees off his own property, with minimal processing/transportation/carbon emissions/at least 45% more energy efficient than traditional building/proven to lower your energy costs by 2/3’s/etc/etc? Yeah. They would.
Has the government hassled you about this? I mean directly, like sending you letters about violations regarding your specific property?mudflap wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:51 am Three years ago from my blog https://loghomejourney.wordpress.com/20 ... s-company/...
Another law says my walls have to be insulated to R-13 or better. Does that law take into account the 30 studies going back to the 1980’s that show that R-values are not a reliable indicator for how well your walls will actually insulate? Or that log walls, even at half the R-value of standard walls, perform 45% better at energy efficiency (as recognized by the National Homebuilders Association and the Log Homes Council)? No. And No.
A 7″ thick log wall has a R-value of about R-9, yet performs 45% better at heat loss/gain than a standard framed wall (R-value of about R-15). It’s called Thermal Mass, and R-values don’t account for it. Luckily for me, I’m not using 7″ logs. Mine are averaging about 17″, so I’m hoping to beat the stupid R-value requirement with huge logs.
It should be obvious that these “energy efficiency” laws are really about corporations and businesses using the clout of government to take your money. Same is true for the “climate change” nonsense. If they were really all about “green building” and “saving energy”, wouldn’t they be all over themselves and support a guy cutting trees off his own property, with minimal processing/transportation/carbon emissions/at least 45% more energy efficient than traditional building/proven to lower your energy costs by 2/3’s/etc/etc? Yeah. They would.
This was back when I was applying for my building permit. You submit your building plans, and they do their "calculations" to make sure your plans meet "energy efficiency standards". The "reference home" they use to measure new homes against is set for an energy efficiency of 100, whatever that means. Mine had to be 70 or less. The guy at the utilities company called a few days later and said my house comes in around 56. Meaning, for the required R-values (for windows, doors, floors, roof, etc.), my efficiency is predicted to be about 1/3 better (on r-values) than a typical home. **Mahalanobis Distance wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 10:31 amHas the government hassled you about this? I mean directly, like sending you letters about violations regarding your specific property?mudflap wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:51 am Three years ago from my blog https://loghomejourney.wordpress.com/20 ... s-company/...
Another law says my walls have to be insulated to R-13 or better. Does that law take into account the 30 studies going back to the 1980’s that show that R-values are not a reliable indicator for how well your walls will actually insulate? Or that log walls, even at half the R-value of standard walls, perform 45% better at energy efficiency (as recognized by the National Homebuilders Association and the Log Homes Council)? No. And No.
A 7″ thick log wall has a R-value of about R-9, yet performs 45% better at heat loss/gain than a standard framed wall (R-value of about R-15). It’s called Thermal Mass, and R-values don’t account for it. Luckily for me, I’m not using 7″ logs. Mine are averaging about 17″, so I’m hoping to beat the stupid R-value requirement with huge logs.
It should be obvious that these “energy efficiency” laws are really about corporations and businesses using the clout of government to take your money. Same is true for the “climate change” nonsense. If they were really all about “green building” and “saving energy”, wouldn’t they be all over themselves and support a guy cutting trees off his own property, with minimal processing/transportation/carbon emissions/at least 45% more energy efficient than traditional building/proven to lower your energy costs by 2/3’s/etc/etc? Yeah. They would.
Just curious
