Is CLT better than timber frame for Passive House?

Both systems can achieve Passive House certification. CLT offers inherent airtightness (solid panels with taped joints) and thermal mass (beneficial for summer comfort), but requires external insulation for the full wall thickness (CLT alone has poor thermal performance).

Both systems can achieve Passive House certification. CLT offers inherent airtightness (solid panels with taped joints) and thermal mass (beneficial for summer comfort), but requires external insulation for the full wall thickness (CLT alone has poor thermal performance). Timber frame integrates insulation within the structural depth, resulting in thinner overall walls. For most projects, timber frame is more cost-effective for Passive House; CLT is preferred when thermal mass, acoustics, or speed of construction are priorities.

Why this matters

This question relates to Passive House Timber Construction: Achieving U-Values Below 0.15, which covers the broader topic in detail. Understanding this specific aspect helps architects, builders, and timber dealers make informed specification decisions.

For full context and additional technical detail, see our comprehensive guide:

→ Passive House Timber Construction: Achieving U-Values Below 0.15

Related questions

• Can you build a Passive House with timber frame?
• What U-value is required for Passive House walls?
• How thick does a Passive House timber wall need to be?

About this answer

This answer is part of the PuurModulair Knowledge Base — comprehensive timber specification guidance for architects, builders, and dealers across the UK, EU, and Scandinavia.