ICF Theory, right or wrong?
I attended a Green Building Expo in Pasadena yesterday and visited booths sponsored by numerous ICF manufacturers.
One of the products, www.quadlock.com , was being represented by a builder who’d been working with the product for a couple of years and had built quite a few homes and other buildings with it.
He asked me what I understood about how an ICF wall works and I gave him my simple answer about how a well insulated thermal mass can absorb/hold heat and help to maintain temperatures, acting also as a barrier to much colder outside air.
He gave me a verbal pat on the back and then proceeded to tell me that, in fact, the temperature of an ICF’s thermal mass was being maintained by it’s direct contact with the below frost line footing only.
What say you? How DOES an ICF wall work? What is its source or sources of heat and/or cool?
I’ll probably be talking with this man again as I expect to visit his next job in the Los Angeles area to get some first hand experience with the product and watch a pour. So I can bring up this subject again and give him the benefit of y’all’s collective wisdom…if it happens to differ from what he told me.
BTW, Quad-lock was one of the more interesting ICFs, a bit different from the others in concept and execution.
Edited 12/6/2007 5:35 am by Hudson Valley Carpenter
Replies
There may be a litle bit of basis for what he says, but when he adds that word, "only" he lost credibility.
Time to play Bob and ask him what sources he has to back him up with studies and tests.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Shades of the old R50 claim.
I'd like to see his heat movement calcs. Remotely possible that in your mild climate he's got a small point, assuming a short wall. Move that wall somewhere that gets cold and it ain't gonna work like that.
"Only"? So if he goes up 30' with that wall and it's 30º outside, 70º inside? And it'll be all you need for summer cooling I suppose. When your footing temp would feel real nice.
Follow the heat, it'll tell you. Delta T.
Something strange happened when I clicked on that link so I don't know anything about quadlocks. No idea who Abe is or why I got welcomed like that.
PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Edited 12/6/2007 8:34 am ET by VaTom
<Something strange happened when I clicked on that link >
Me, too - these certainly are a different approach to ICFs.
Purty, though
View Image
Forrest
"Only"? So if he goes up 30' with that wall and it's 30º outside, 70º inside?
Glad to hear from you on this topic Tom. I admit that I had to almost bite my tongue while listening to his little soapbox-type explanation. He was even making performance claims that sounded like what your home is doing...saying that ground temperatures below frostline were in the mid-sixties, year round.
Maybe the ICF industry is beginning to feel threatened by PAHS systems.
BTW, the URL is http://www.quadlock.com . I suggest that you copy and paste it if the link isn't working.
They claim that the product engineering comes from more than twenty years of trials in Europe. Their foam is definetly denser than any other ICF that I saw yesterday. I'm not sure how important that is. I mean it's not structural in the end so...
One side note; I watched their well made instructional DVD last night. As a carpenter viewing an ICF install for the first time and thinking about building a home like that, I felt depression coming over me, almost like hearing that an old friend had died.
I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to get behind any of these lego-like systems with the kind of enthusiasm I imagined I'd have for them. So you may have a partial convert to your flock yet, Reverend Tom.
The link worked fine this AM. I don't see much different from the other brands I've looked at- and recommended. For anybody unwilling to do standard wall-forming, ICFs look great to me. Won't work for PAHS, but I don't think the industry's shaking in their rubber boots just yet. LOL
The trade info I get thinks ICFs are the future. Makes sense to me. Jim and I think we have better solutions, but I don't see mass appeal. Hell, most people who look at my place think they'd have to live with structural steel ceilings...
The one interesting thing Quad-lock offers is that tilt-up version, that I haven't seen from anybody else. Extremely interesting. Not that I'm gonna change what I'm doing for one of their products, but I'll look into their pricing. And ask what the load rating is, curiously absent from the FAQ.
Quad-lock wall FAQ says "the highest available true R-value of up to R-40" which is mighty suspicious. "up to"? All that means is: no more than. You take the insulation R + concrete R + insulation R= ? I don't see 40, and they aren't saying.
I hate to see ICF companies still plying that same old deceiving ####. It's a good product and should stand on its merits. Your salesperson shouldn't be allowed to talk with the public. I'd guess just ignorant, rather than intentionally deceptive. But jeez, it isn't complicated.
German family just had a house built in Saarland. I was very curious about the construction. No more hollow clay tile walls as her mother's place used. Was not ICFs, but concrete block with foam. Unfortunately all I could learn was that this was the new "better" way to build. No idea about the heat specs. Far as they know, nobody builds with ICFs.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Va Tom,
I too think ICF's are the wave of the future. Perhaps with timbers in them to make them feel warmer and less insitutional. But timbers aren't needed for structural reasons..
I do agree with the mumbo jumbo about thermal mass, doesn't it work both ways, the heat leaving and the cold entering with thermal mass? Thus the real net effect is zero.
As for tilt up with your quad lock system, what do you gain? Easier assembly? You'd still need to do bracing and when I brace it's easy to use that as the walk around scaffolding. How would you lock the corners with tip ups? ? Right now ICF's use rebar to connect one wall with another and the corner blocks are staggered and interlocking which I don't see a tip up wall achieveing.. (but possibly I'm over looking something)
We've been through the mass benefit before. Cloud even made the effort to dig it out of Oak Ridge Lab studies. Not at all: real net effect is zero. Long thread if you want to look for it.
Yesterday never got over 32º here, very little sun. If it were net zero, we'd be freezing our butts off in here. Instead of toasty with no added heat. Our place isn't particularly efficient, loses large amounts of heat 'cause we don't bother to use window covers with glass almost 30% of floor area. It's the (free) heated mass that does the work. Dirt for annual storage, concrete walls/floor for diurnal storage. Works admirably.
Different heat source, but same reason masonry stoves work so well. I'd intended to build one until I realized we lived in one.
Delta T shows it all very clearly. I use manual calcs from "Other Homes and Garbage", an engineering manual written for non-engineers, in 1975. ISBN 0-87156-141-7
You're correct, for you, about the tiltup. Quad-deck I found interesting both as a 34' suspended floor/roof option and, by using it concrete side in, as a better wall than ICFs. Pretty sure they won't see it that way, but I don't mind asking. Has no future for my construction that I can see, but like ICFs I want to understand options for those who won't build what I do.
Tiltup also avoids pumping and can conceivably use a stronger mix (larger stone, lower slump). My experience with pumping isn't good. To the point I bought a crane to avoid it. And I've seen the problems with ICFs, where they can be seen. Mostly with ICFs, you have no idea of voids.
Which is not an invitation to defend ICFs to me. I recommend them, just don't use them. BTW, warmer walls make cooler air temps comfortable. Something my 96 yr old mother didn't believe until I did some measuring/testing to prove it to her.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Va Tom.
AHHHHHH! but the differanc is that you have the thermal mass fully inside of your envelope while an ICF has the thermal mass 1/2 in 1/2 outside of the envelope.. Or I'm wrong..
while an ICF has the thermal mass 1/2 in 1/2 outside of the envelope.. Or I'm wrong..
Don't know if that's wrong, or right (it is a good way to cause mechanical engineer types to squable amongst themselves rather than meddle with roux stirring).
One thought is that the icf is a uniform foam mass, that just happens to have a grid of concrete within it. One thought is that it becomes a single "mass" with two material densities. Yet another thought is that it can be treated as some quivalent thickness of concrete with two quivalent layers of foam on either side.
Note that many of those arguments are clearly following some form of calculational practice, to try an cipher heat gain/loss for hvac.
Similar arguments exist over whether window area ought be factored into wall construction equivalent (no quibbling <g>) values or not (there's debate on this, as if you do that, you then really ought to factor the bridging of materials in wood frame construction--which would not speed the process up, costing the engineer more).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Maybe one of you can explain to me why ICFs would be better than a poured wall with foam insulation? With all I've read here it seems like that would result in a nice, straight, thermally efficient wall. It also seems like the labor pool of people who have experience would be greater since walls get poured all the time but ICFs are still a fairly new technology.
Just the labor and mat'l savings by not having to build forms, add snap ties, tie rebar and then tear down forms, clean them up, haul them away to storage or whatever makes me happy.
ICF's go up quick and accurately....ICF bracing (reuseable) for high walls has catwalk attachments which saves additional mat'l and labor not having to build scaffolding (needed if using a line pump and for operating the vibrator for consolidation).
Most ICF mfgrs provide classes and on-site guidance for first timers....
HIJACK: Notchman ,
Haven't seen you post in awhile . Remember the talk about the wharehouse full CVG Fir barrel staves? I did find out the story on them. Couple of youngsters got them for the tear down effort from a cherry packing plant in Salem. Brining vats is what I am told. Being remilled into flooring by the two enterprising youngsters.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Thanks for the update on the staves: It's good to know that wood will get a second life and be enjoyed.
I've just decided to lurk for awhile and besides, I've been pretty focused on a construction project and another little personal venture....since you and I are getting to that "long in the tooth" stage, you might enjoy my recent experience with something quite old, made of wood, that has improved with age.
I'll send you an email.
Send it to : [email protected] My server rejects virtually all mail from FHB.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
hey, where'd you find my peg!!!!!
That's all good, but don't you still have to tie rebar, and instead of building forms you are doing a lot of bracing. The few people I know with ICF homes have crooked walls, so I'll have to take your word on the "accurately" part. I don't see how stacking ICFs would be any faster than throwing up a form, but that is my inexperience talking, I'm sure.
You don't have to tie rebar; The horizontals snap into slots in the webs and the verticals stand free. (All clearly prescribed in the IRC codebook).
Crooked walls are the result of inexperience, or perhaps one of the earlier generation of blocks. (I've seen some concrete and some block walls that were pretty atrocious, too).
The bracing I use (proprietary to ARXX) is as simple as setting up scaffolding and, since a high ICF formed wall will move during the pour, the bracing has adjusters for maintaining plumb.
There are about three things I won't do anymore: Traditionally form high walls; Use PVC liners in custom shower pans (Schleuter system for me!); Use tarpaper as a roof underlayment (I'm totally happy with the new underlayments like Grace, Dow Corning, et al).
ICF's have their quircks and to do one well requires a bit of study and some first-time guidance, but, not only do you end up with a good foundation that benefits the dwelling and owner, but they're one hell of lot easier on the body of those who put them up.
Edited 12/7/2007 9:45 pm by Notchman
Edited 12/7/2007 10:12 pm by Notchman
Thanks for adding your comments on ARXX forms. That's the product I was most interested in seeing at the EXPO I attended the other day and they were kind enough to see that I got a free pass into the exhibit area.
ARXX seems to be one of the more experienced companies, though I saw numerous other forms which were essentially the same as theirs.
As one sales rep candidly said, "They're all pretty much the same so just pick one with a brace/scaffold system and build a house with it. You'll be pleased with the result. Everyone is."
Thank you for your patient explanation.
aimless,
It depends on which form you use as to the requirement to tie rebar.. I use reward forms and all you do is snap the rebar in place.
As far as crooked walls I've seen some mighty crooked poured walls as well. Straight depends more on who's doing the building than what it's being built with, but then you knew that..
Again the main advantage is that you don't need that big truck with it's crane arm to place the forms. Some job sites that becomes impossible to get at and so your alternative is either use cement block and accept it's weakness and labor intensity or somehow lug those heavy forms and set them up without the aide of that truck and it's crane..
Building with ICF's means you only have to lift a 1 pound form around, and spray from from a one pound can. My sister-in-law did that!
aimless,
Let me reinforce what was just said.. For a typical builder ICF's are relatively simple to construct and require no expensive equipment to install and brace..
Poured walls on the other hand require large trucks and cranes to put the forms in place and remove when finished..
In addition putting foam and other wall treatments such as sheet rock etc. is simple with ICF's and extremely complex with poured walls. (ICF's have a place to screw sheet rock screws every six inches compared to having to drill tapcons or something similar into the concrete of poured walls)..
The amount of concrete required for most poured walls is much higher than the amount of concrete required for ICF's
For 17 years I watched homes and commercial building being put up and had a very good idea of the work required.. however I'd never seen an ICF home built untill I did mine.. I watched a video and went at it..
I stopped that weekend and went on a trip and came back with my back in terrible pain (bad seats in the car) 3 to 4 weeks later my sister-in-law with zero construction experiance and maybe a 15 minute slurred instructions from me (heavy doses of pain meds) finished the rest of it (more than 3/4 of the work) in a few hours..
Luckily I found the right medication the next day and a couple of days later with the aide of a kid from the grocery store poured the walls and floor.
What I'm saying is that anybody can build with ICF's, they are simple and easy to do!
Edited 12/7/2007 6:04 pm ET by frenchy
Couple of points to take issue with you (a bit of nitpicking, but for the benefit of others):
Web spacing on the ICF's I'm acquainted with are on 8" centers which facilitates layout on 16" and 24" centers typically used for application of finish materials.
And I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that poured walls use more concrete than ICF's.
The ICF forms are just that (from the standpoint of retaining the poured concrete).
The foam forms, while having, perhaps some structural value, I doubt they would affect the actual thickness of the concrete.
The walls I have done have been subject to local/regional seismic codes and, in addition, have been designed for backfill, but whether I was forming a traditional formed wall or an ICF wall for the same structure the wall thickness and the rebar schedules are identical. And footing sizes are based on factors independent of wall forming methods.
In other words, if I'm forming up 10' high walls for a daylight basement supporting a two story house, the concrete wall is going to be 10" thick regardless of what type of forms I use.
I use the standard thickness ICF which developes a concrete core roughly 6.5" thick.
A typical formed poured wall would be 8" here.Because of the superior way that crete cures inside the foam, they say that the 6" wall is structurally equivalent to the 8" wall Since crete is both expensive and hard to get here on the island, that savings in materials is 'special'
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Notchman,
Good point regarding the web spacing on other brands. I've only seen the spacing on five or six brands used around here and 6 inches is all I've seen.. Thanks for the heads up.. I'll try to remember that in the future.. It makes sense to use 8 inch spacing considering we're used to 16" OC. But it is also nice to have it closer so that the odd joint required because of building requirements has a web to screw on that much closer.. It's six of one and 1/2 dozen of another..
Second. I can't speak to wall thickness requirements.. my form supplier was good enough to do that for me and then shocked when I wanted to dramatically increase the size required.. due to ease of construction considerations..
(my foundation is 22 inches thick because my walls are 17 inches thick).
explain to me why ICFs would be better than a poured wall with foam insulation?
Ditto Frenchy, et al. ICFs make more sense as a construction technique, yielding an elegantly engineered structure of excellent economy that jsut happens to have some insulation benefits over other forms of economical construction.
Ideally, were we jsut looking for thermal mass, we'd assemble solid foam blocks as a insulation plane, then use tip-up concrete panels inside of that plane, to give us thermal mass. One of the ways to do that is PAHS (not necessarily in tilt-up, but you can). There are others. Whether the gains repersent a reasonable ROI over more traditional construction techiniques is where the rubber meets the road.
Personally, I just like pitching 'trade' brickbats at MEs interferring with my cooking <g>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"Ideally, were we jsut looking for thermal mass, we'd assemble solid foam blocks as a insulation plane, then use tip-up concrete panels inside of that plane, to give us thermal mass."
That's kind of what I was suggesting with poured walls and foam insulation. Tilt up walls are great, if you live near a manufacturer.
It takes more skil to set forms for a regular poured wall than to set up to pour ICFs
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Maybe one of you can explain to me why ICFs would be better than a poured wall with foam insulation? With all I've read here it seems like that would result in a nice, straight, thermally efficient wall. It also seems like the labor pool of people who have experience would be greater since walls get poured all the time but ICFs are still a fairly new technology.
Anyone who's made a living building concrete wall forms and tearing them down, as I used to on big govenment jobs, would laugh at how simple and easy to ICFs are to work with. Whether struggling with heavy steel (Simmons type) forms or 3/4" plywood, both covered with form oil, it's just damned hard, dangerous work.
You seldom see anyone over the age of fifty doing wall form work, unless he's a foreman. Average age about thirty. Your grandmother could form walls with ICFs and learn how to do it in minutes. Frenchy's story makes that clear.
Now I wouldn't mind forming walls with either steel or wood systems if I was doing it for myself but why? In my opinion, ICFs cut the labor time by about 2/3rd, the effort by about 7/8ths and are safer by half than any other method.
These ICFs are so easy to work with that I expect to see many ICF companies marketing their products as a DIY friendly. When other product manufacturers fall in line with that plan, we may be looking at the next generation of homes being put together like Legos, by the families who will be living in them.
Pex plumbing is almost as simple to understand and install as ICFs. Other products are going that way too, have been for the last forty-fifty years.
In any case, building is becoming less labor intensive and less skill related. That's always been the key that opened the door for DIY enthusiasts so I can see a lot more of that happening. And sooner rather than later.
I was in northern Italy last year and noted a similar construction method to what you mentioned in Germany. The area I visited was an earthquake zone so new construction is reinforced post and slab but between posts they are putting up doubled hollow clay block with styo. in between. Again nobody had any R-value info. just said it was the "new way to go."
Quad-lock wall FAQ says "the highest available true R-value of up to R-40" which is mighty suspicious. "up to"? All that means is: no more than. You take the insulation R + concrete R + insulation R= ? I don't see 40, and they aren't saying.
They make their foam panels in two different thicknesses, one at R-10 and the other, doubled up to make it R-20.
The other major difference is that the blocks themselves are assembled on-site, in place. This makes shipping the materials more efficient, three to one in cubic measurements, so they say. It also makes the product more adaptable, no corner sections for example. They just add one galvanized plate to the intersecting panels.
The net result is that their product requires more tedious labor, sticking all the plastic webs in place, but it should be more economical to buy and transport with less waste and no waiting for a specific corner section which didn't get counted somewhere along the line.
BTW, a couple of ICF reps at the EXPO told me that there are now over eighty companies making ICFs. I'm happy to hear that, should mean better products and more competitive prices.
The whole R-50 thing was really bugging me, then I talked to an IFC contractor at a home show who said the concrete actually produces heat during the winter when it is in compression due to the snow load on the roof...WTF
These guys will say anything to sell a job.
I like ICF's but this #### makes the whole industry look bad.
If I had to guess it all started with, can you pour the concrete in the winter? And evolved from there.
Do your research,
Garett
garette,
actually there is more than a little truth there, but he blew it..
you see concrete does create heat as it cures and insulated in the foam of an ICF you could pour well into the freezing zone where normal concrete couldn't be safely poured..
However snow load was pure bullship
>He proceeded to tell me that, in fact, the temperature of an ICF's thermal mass was being maintained by it's direct contact with the below frost line footing only.
That's a good one.
As Tom says, follow the Delta T. As for the concrete acting as a thermal mass, absorbing heat during the day and radiating it into the house at night (as the general theory goes), wouldn't the interior insulation prevent that?
Here's the link: http://www.quadlock.com
Edited 12/6/2007 9:45 am ET by CloudHidden
Regarding the 'old R50 claim', I once found an explanation of this in a report and saved it somewhere, but can't get my hands on it right now.
What the R50 claim involves is that in certain climatic situations, an ICF wall can function as if it were a wall insulated to R50. Being an engineer, I always found this hard to swallow without the backup explanation.
The particular climatic conditions were that the daily exterior temperatures had to go significantly both above and below the interior house temperature. An example was given that this could occur in the high-altitude desert of the SW. OK, that makes sense.
But, two problems with that: most of us don't live in a high desert environment, and the marketing people started spouting the R50 claim to everyone, everywhere.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, just open it up to see how it works!
formula 1
another extreme is where the outside temps are significantly below zero.
however that's a double edged sword and I have never completely resolved it..
For example assume that the foam thickness allows an R 10 on the outside, R 10 on the inside (I'm using simple numbers). Yes the thermal mass on the inside retains heat leaked past the R10 however it would also lose heat from the effects of extreme cold on the outside leaking past it's R10. Thus the net effect of the thermal mass would be zero. and we'd have the combined R value of R 20 for a total wall rating..
MY SIP's are R 30 and a 2x6 wall can be R19x.80 (due to thermal bridging of the studs) However SIP's have their own weakness which is the joint between panels. having built with panels I know how tuff it is to get a perfect air tight joint.
There was an example of a poorly done roof where warm air escaping caused pronounced bubbles in the shingles at the joint. Pictures were given right here and comments asked for.. So ICF's at least offer a solid airtight seal between inside and outside that is easily achieved.. Stick built walls can't and SIP's achieve it only when extreme effort and care is used..
I screwed blocks into the panel every two feet and used bar clamps to tighten them together as tight as possible.. yet still the joints weren't water proof! Luckily I followed the manufactures recommendation and put a suplimental vapor barrier on the panels prior to installation one that overlapped and was able to be sealed with Tyvec tape. That involved some real gymnastics 18 feet over the floor climbing on timbers. Something I doubt most builders would do..
Hudson Valley Carpenter,
My judgement regarding ICF homes is somewhat involved..
Fundamentally no Stick home can ever really be air tight, too many possible penetrations of the envelope which when you look at it closely is nothing more than a 6 mil poly barrier.
Stick building with a 2x6 stud wall is an R19 x .80 rating due to thermal bridging. if something like a mooney wall is used that can be reduced, somewhat. But at a relatively high cost..
SIP's on the other hand have a joint weakness that is difficult if not impossible to over come.. I used bar clamps attached by screw blocks every two feet to pull the panels tightly together and yet in spite of that plus exactly following their glue requirements and nailing schedule was not able to achieve a air tight seal.
Later I got smart and put the panels horizontal rather than vertical and the work was slashed. Gravity did the sealing for me. There is concern that placing the panels horizontal would provide a hinge point in the Middle. That was dealt with several ways.. first intersecting walls would provide vertical reinforcement, as would window penetrations and door frames.. that covered more than 4 feet.. In addition exterior treatments offered reinforcement vertically..
I could have ordered 8 foot wide panels up to 30 feet long and had no risk of hinge points but by the time I'd moved around to the front where there was absolutely no possiblity of handling that large of a panel without the aide of a telehandler..
ICF's have no such issue.. when assembled they are air tight.. and extremely durable!
Frenchy,
Have you perused Mike Smith's photo-dialog about the one story super-insulated stick built home his crew built this year? It's in the photo folder. It's has a lot of pics with excellent descriptions of the progress that they show.
He used trusses and the Mooney wall technique with cellulose insulation. I don't recall the R-values but they're quite high. They put RFH in the well insulated slab floor.
I like that method as a basic custom home, particularly done with the kind of care that Mike gave it.
Nonetheless I'm very pleased to have a number of energy efficient alternatives at this point. Maybe I'll do a modified timber frame with inset Mooney walls. What do you think of that idea?
Hudson Valley Carpenter,
Mooney walls are by nature very expensive to do and even more expensive to do well.. fitting them into a timberframe would be an insane amount of work and not yield any great insulation capabilities.. plus you would see the timbers as trim rather than their massive size providing you with the image of strength that they normally do..
To do an affordable house with high insulational and thermal capabilites I would do a ICF with a few selected pieces of timber used inside. If your contractors don't feel comfortable doing mortice and tenion joints you could do a post and beam inexpensively. Have much of the look of a timberframe and almost none of the expense. If you want higher insulation numbers simply put an added layer of foam inside or out.. The ICF's as well as being the most air tight will provide you will all the structural requirements
The timbers themselves are cheap and you can buy timberframing tools cheaply enough, besides all you would really need to do post and beam would be the big 16 inch Mikita circular saw, a mikita 6 1/4 power plane and a few ship augers. Buy those three items used and pay well under $500. when you are finished with them resell them for about that same $500. (ship augers are cheap enough to buy new)
Since these would be more ornamental than structural you could use 6x6. Doing a post and beam with 6x6 shouldn't add more than a few thousand to the costs. (labor included) especially if you use ash.
Thanks Frenchy,
I wasn't really serious about inserting a Mooney wall in a timber framed wall, not with the other methods available. I worked on a barn/timber frame renovation as a carpenter/cheap chiseler, many years ago in the days of low priced oil, and that's the way the building was re-framed.
However, it's always interesting to hear from you on this topic because you have so much experience to share.
As an ex timber framer, if I were to build a house right now, it would be ICF with all major interior structural members as the timberframe. In other words, the timberframe would really only hold up the floor system, so it wouldn't need to be extravagant (read $$$$), but you could do some really, really cool timberwork for a reasonable cost.
jesse,
Wow! I'm in complete agreement.. if the skill of joinery is frightening, simple post and beam construction would provide nearly the same appearance without the skill levels needed.
However I would still use SIP's on the roof or ceiling.
Just to be clear, my skills with timber framing go back forty years. One such home which I designed and built in 1972 is directly across the road from the property where I'll be building next.
I've also been well acquainted with three small specialty saw mills in my general area for a similar period.
The only part of recent timber framing that I'm not familiar with are the power tools so, no big deal.
The decision about whether or not to include exposed timbers in the next house has to do with style only. And I'm not the only one whose wishes matters there.
Hudson Valley Carpenter,
Thanks for the clarification regarding timberframing.. I hope you don't feel I was demeaning you or your skills. I somehow got the idea that this house was going to be contracted out.. sorry about that! I think I mixed up two differant posters..
By the way, shortly I'll be putting my timberframing tools on the market. They are well trained, nice, polite and have never given me a moments grief. ;-) In addition I bought some tools which on the surface don't seem like that great a deal but have made life so much easier for me. They've allowed me to do things which would have normally taken hours in minutes.. That's a big deal if you're trying to do this on nights and weekends by yourself as I was.. Just for information I'll sell them for 1/2 of the price of new. Sharpen everything and include extra blades etc.. Since they've only been used to build one house they aren't worn out and you should be able to resell them when finished for about what you paid for them.
I didn't spend too much time there, but at the Quadlock site, it looked like the exterior side of the foam was thicker than the interior. Is that correct?Either way, it seems like that would be the missing link to get the thermal mass towards the conditioned side of the envelope.
I didn't spend too much time there, but at the Quadlock site, it looked like the exterior side of the foam was thicker than the interior. Is that correct?
Actually the blocks are assembled on-site with either of their two panels on either or both sides of the blocks. Their panels are made from denser foam than I saw on any other ICF at the EXPO, about eight altogether, and measure about an inch and one half or three inches.
By the way, shortly I'll be putting my timberframing tools on the market.
"Only driven to church on Sunday then carefully hand washed by my eighty-four year old chauffeur and put right back in the garage" ;-)
"SIP's on the other hand have a joint weakness that is difficult if not impossible to over come.. I used bar clamps attached by screw blocks every two feet to pull the panels tightly together and yet in spite of that plus exactly following their glue requirements and nailing schedule was not able to achieve a air tight seal."I've often wondered when the SIP industry will be able to ship panels greater than 8' in width? Most of the new construction we're seeing has 9' walls, at least on the first floor. If I could order a panel that was 9'x32', with the window & door openings routed out, that would be very enticing. Having joints only at the corners would seem to help with the sealing problem that you're describing.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon,
There are panels out there that have cam locks built in I haven't priced them but I'd bet they are expensive..
However stacking them horizontally solves the connection problem. Simple forethought regarding intersecting walls and windows/doors solves the hinge point problem.. I mean it's possible to get up to 30 feet long panels (I've got more than a few on this place)
9 foot high wouldn't help me at all on my place.. I set my panels down past the floor joists and they are 15 inches high, plus my ceilings are at 10 feet so I'd need over 12 foot wide panels which would make them impossible to ship..
I thought the only reason you were able to go horizontal was because you were using the SIP's in a "curtain wall" fashion between the timber frame?I guess you could use the window & door king studs to keep things from hinging, but I'm not sure how the engineers would look at that. Still, the problem of making many connections remains. If we were to use SIP's on a large scale, I would want to see as few field connections as possible.Let's say you were building a 28'x54' Cape Cod. Wouldn't it be great to set four wall panels and be done with the first floor? Instead, if you used 9' walls and ran your panels down to the foundation you would have 42 panels to work with and 10x as many connections to deal with.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon,
Sure I could do whatever I wanted because of the way I used my timbers. But nobody explained that to me. They gave me a manual which had the approved methods listed.. nothing else..
In retrospect I probably spent hundreds of hours getting the joints sealed and still they weren't water proof which they should have been if they were really completely sealed. The only salvation was the vapor barrier which the factory makes you install.. Which if you really think about it is all wrong!
The vapor barrier must go over the OSB with the potential of trapping moisture between the foam and the vapor barrier with only the OSB trapped in between. The issue of double vapor barrier exists.
Yes it would be nice to have large panels where seams weren't needed, however that would make those panels extremely ungainly to handle requiring telehandlers or cranes to put up. it would also make getting those panels to the jobsite extremely difficult.
That's why I've become an advocate for use of ICF's. The slight loss of thermal properties can be made up by cheap supplemental layer of foam. however the ICF' has tremendous strength compared to SIP's, no possiblities of insect infestation, and absolutely completely air tight.
Besides having done both I believe that ICF's assemble faster than SIP's the potential for cost reduction certainly exists with ICF's more so than with SIP's