My last name is brawley. I stand beside all i have said. I like to think th best of people but anyone who follows this thread who is not in the business of foundation installation would probably agree with my observation. I'm over this thread . The facts are out there for anyone who looks.

No wonder SW can sell anything at all. They sell to a bunch of clueless people who THINK they know about construction. I have heard all of the advertising from people associated with SW and I think it is the biggest load of hogwash. Like "You don't have to have a sump pump." I have done so many basements that didn't have sump pumps in them and none of them were SW. All you need is a tile reaching daylight or drainage tile. Also there is a HUGE difference between gravel and concrete for footer. How many bridges do you see made from crushed gravel? My point is that concrete DISTRIBUTES the load. Plus the water underneath the walls is scary to me. Yes, we tie the outside tile in with the inside tile, but we transfer it through a 4" tile, not a wide area underneath the walls, and it goes straight into the sump pit or daylight pipe, not under the slab or walls. The point of the perimeter drain is to keep water away from the slab and footer, not transfer it there, duh.
One more thing. I will argue the rain and cold subject all day long. Does anyone claiming that you can pack frozen gravel know that when gravel freezes, the water particles between the stones expand, making it swell 10% more? I guarantee you won't find a full packed "gravel footer" at -10 when there are ICF contractors stacking AND pouring. Give me a break. Superior? I think not.

dwangle, that was a hell of a first post. I would also like to know how much this system settles. There was a picture of someone packing the stone with a plate compactor, and we know how poorly a plate compactor compacts.

But if your putting light, inferior wood framing on the foundation, it doesn't need to last very long.

What do you think gravel does: distributes load.

The point of the perimeter drain is to keep water away from the footer so we install an interior and exterior drain line next to the footing? Wrong.

Drain tile collects and directs water.

The point I'm trying to get ICFConstruction to grasp, which he obviously cannot, is the function of the water table which can rise and fall seasonally putting a giant hole in his "theory" that footings stop water from getting under the slab, in ADDITION to the fact that you install bleeders every 8' or less putting intentional holes in the footings, so gravel or concrete has no difference to stopping water.

What's scary is you guys are trying to position yourself as professional contractors.

The gravel may transfer the load to virgin soil, but it does not distribute it like a wide footing. The wall that distributes the load is what, 7.5" wide?

I grasp it just fine. I have yet to build a house were there water-table is as high as the basement floor. I do not put what you call a bleeder anywhere but at the sump. For example I have seen, while under construction, after a rain, the water standing only on one side of the footing. Water follows the path of least resistance, course rock offers no more resistance than flowing through drain-tile. With a footing the water does not (as easily depending on existing soil) run through the footing or under, though the dense virgin soil.

Greentree...In previous posts you have expressed the willingness to "Learn". "Learning" is the "Art" in realizing that our maker has given us 1 mouth...and 2 ears...so that we may listen twice as long as we speak. Belitteling ICF construction (or anyone else for that matter) only shows your PROFESSIONALISM.

P.S. Don't you have to go to a class (like Construction 101) somewhere???

A man after my  own heart

Well think of it this way, the gravel is great to begin with, however I wonder what happens long term.

I would suspect that the building will settle differentially, no matter how well bolted together, and result, over the years with leaking joints at high load points.

Assuming you are right, at 10" wide, that's less than about 1,750 lbs per foot of bearing capacity.

Long span beams and truss's will place more than that on the footing.

Who the hell ever thought of a footing like this, it makes no sense and the engineering simply does not work.  Unless I am missing something.  Out of curiosity, what if this footing was place withing 1' of the water table, or in poor soil conditions, or worse, in different sub soils with differing bearing capacities.  I have yet to see a stick frame building designed with such thin footings on anything but seriously capable soils or ROCK!!!!, let alone a panelized foundation.

Up in Canada, they used to do pressure treated wood foundations back in the early 1980's, on gravel with 2x12 footing planks.  Lets just say that these manufacturers don't market these types of foundations anymore.  Too may lawsuits I suspect.

Mark Ross

They used to do wood foundations around here (Minnesota) too. I haven't heard of a new one in many years.

They did treated wood foundations in Alaska for quite a few years but have now changed the codes due to the fact they rotted out way too soon. I have seen many rotted and some were still fine but the staples used were rusted (of course they were not suppose to use staples but they are faster)
I hate to be the bearor of controversial facts but , having worked on several structures around the country that are over 100 years old, I have to say that there is a historical precedence for packed stone/ trench foundations. Before portland became prevalent they were advocated and, when done properly, seem to perform well.
The White house recently had some remedial work done on one of the older sections that still had a trench/packed gravel foundation. (the problem being rectified was not related to the foundation design)
I am not advocating one way or the other but I think that this fact should be considered.
(By the way, I have seen many more improperly done spread footings than I have seen improperly done trench/packed stone footings)

Tesla:

OK...you have my attention...Who are you...I travel alot....Would like to put a face to the name....

PM me...Sil vous plait (RSVP - Respondez vous sil vous plait).

Rubble trench foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A cross section view of a rubble trench foundation

The rubble trench foundation, a construction approach popularized by architect Frank Lloyd Wright, is a type of foundation that uses loose stone or rubble to minimize the use of concrete and improve drainage. It is considered more environmentally friendly than other types of foundation because cement manufacturing requires the use of enormous amounts of energy and contributes significantly to global warming. However, some soil environments are not suitable for this kind of foundation; particularly expansive or poor load-bearing (< 1 ton/sf) soils.

A foundation must bear the structural loads imposed upon it and allow proper drainage of ground water to prevent expansion or weakening of soils and frost heaving. While the far more common concrete foundation requires separate measures to insure good soil drainage, the rubble trench foundation serves both foundation functions at once.

To construct a rubble trench foundation a narrow trench is dug down below the frost line. The bottom of the trench would ideally be gently sloped to an outlet. Drainage tile, graded 1":8' to daylight, is then placed at the bottom of the trench in a bed of washed stone protected by filter fabric. The trench is then filled with either screened stone (typically 1-1/2") or recycled rubble. A steel-reinforced concrete grade beam is poured at the surface to provide ground clearance for the structure.

If an insulated slab is to be poured inside the grade beam, then the outer surface of the grade beam and the rubble trench should be insulated with rigid XPS foam board, which must be protected above grade from mechanical and UV degradation.

The rubble-trench foundation is a relatively simple, low-cost, and environmentally-friendly alternative to a conventional foundation, but may require an engineer's approval if building officials are not familiar with it. Frank Lloyd Wright used them successfully for more than 50 years in the first half of the 20th century, and there is a revival of this style of foundation with the increased interest in green building.

Some of yall better call all the owners of Frank Lloyd wright houses and tell them they are in danger of colapse. They could use some ICF contractors advice. :)

WOW still going on this one, I see your basment Browler and don't see any problem with it (no back fill) drain to day light. No frost in your area to move the foundation, youl do ok. Hope all is well with you. Lets move on peopel. It's the superior thing to do!

Thanks man, I agree. Lets get back to helping each other build better.

Like build better, with footings? Sorry I could not resist.

By all means, follow codes. All I am saying is that one must ask himself how it use to be done and how did some of those buildings last so long without portland cement and building officials.

I was very recently in Kiev and stood next to a massive structure called the Golden Gate which was built in the 1100's
I am involved in a castle replication and we are emulating the materials and tecniques from a castle built in the 1200's. This will be a 20 year project and will be a large structure without even one ounce of portland cement.
Even though portland was invented in 1824 or so, it did not start to be used in the US on a large scale until the 1880's
You have to ask yourself how the old timers managed.
Some of the old cathedrals , pyramids, etc, were set on solid rock but some very significant structures I have seen were not--such as Ankor Wok, The Great Wall of China, The Opera House in Kiev (Circa. 1350) etc.
By all means. Build better but build informed--it is still not against the law to be informed.

Tesla,
It does not matter what the footing is made of but the load needs to be distributed more than the 7.5" width of a superior wall. Concrete is more like 10,000 years old.

Superior walls are 10 1/4" wide. Batteries were discovered in antiquity also, They failed utilize there maximum potential until the more modern area. Why don't you visit superior walls website and study up on the facts and design before closing your mind to a different system. Always know your competition and fight them with "superior" knowledge and benefits of your system. When salespeople call on me armed with rumors and negative statements about there rivals, I quickly discount them and show them the door.

I know enough to form my opinion, and 10 1/4" is not enough. Your assuming superior walls' website includes nothing but facts.