Vertical ICF
Last Post 04 May 2010 09:50 PM by TF System. 49 Replies.
Author Messages
coolgreenhogUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:11

--
30 Oct 2009 10:07 PM
Who makes the best Vertical ICF out there? Tell me why you feel the one you use is the best, I need to get plans drawn and have to decide which way I'm going.
RsipgeoUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:104

--
30 Oct 2009 11:54 PM
There is the Hobbs ICF system and the TF ICF system. I just did a basement with the Hobbs system and it was really easy. Since I have not used the TF system I can not say which one is better though it does seem like vertical systems are better than horizontal systems. Though I have not used horizontal block systems.

What I like about the Hobbs system is the metal corners and that it is an engineered system that uses 40% less concrete than other systems. If you are in a high paperwork area it's always good to have extra engineering stamps. Bracing it was very quick and once it was braced the whole thing was surprisingly strong.

Good luck!
coolgreenhogUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:11

--
31 Oct 2009 08:36 AM
Thanks for your response, I have been very impressed with Hobbs from what i have read about them on the internet. Will they make the panels in custom lengths (or heights)? I want a 9 ft plate height, but I also need to come up 2 to 3 ft from the footing for tne slab. Can I just build my ICF walls to say 12 ft and then fill in and pour my slab inside, using the ICF as a form basically?
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
31 Oct 2009 06:13 PM
I use TF and last year looked into Hobbs. The area I was going to use it had a lot of ordinances so I showed the web site to the building inspector and he replied that there was a ban on waffle grid systems which is what Hobbs is. I showed him the quote that I had with a section saying that it would be engineered and he explained the reason for the ban is not the system, it was because there was too much of a chance of voids and honey combing mostly from human error. They had a waffle grid system in the area before and had problems.
I for the life of me can not figure out why TF does not shut them down. I was in TF for a training seminar a couple of years ago and see the plaques with the patents and Hobbs in clear violation of TF's patients. Which is probably why they have been patent pending for so many years.
I will say this vertical is the best way to build ICF's and yes I also use blocks on jobs customer request them on. The job that I had Hobbs quote for me last year I ended up using TF on and when said and done the TF came in $3000.00 cheaper installed and poured. The thing to remember is concrete per cubic yard is cheaper that poly. I know this because I need to figure it on a job a while back. I am in no way bashing Hobbs, like I said I would have tried them if that township would have allowed them. And I know that if push came to shove I probably could have fought it but that takes time and money and I could not pass that along to the customer and I was not willing to fight that fight.
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1323
Avatar

--
02 Nov 2009 05:46 AM
I don't see how a municipality can "ban" a building method.
Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
pdkUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:45

--
02 Nov 2009 05:32 PM
coolgreenhog
I have been home designer since 1972 and as far as I can see the Hobbs Building System works the best. It does go up very fast, does save you 40% concrete, uses less bracing, less man hours, etc. I just installed one in Michigan. I was the designer on the project as well, it was designed with Hobbs on the foundation, R-control sips on the upper walls and raised heel trusses on the roof. It was also barrier free with no steps into the home. Vicfs were 10'4" and 13'4" tall so that the floor system hung inside and between the vicfs.Panels can be made to any height but typically its more economical to go with standard sizes such as: 4', 9'4", 10'4" etc. If you need help in your design let me know. Where are you building? [email protected]
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
02 Nov 2009 06:43 PM
They can ban it by creating ordinances against them. Just like a little town in Door County WI that only allows the use of red, green, or white roofing materials. There are allot of materials that stricter towns will not allow be it for aesthetics or for structural reasons. One town that we worked in made us put sleepers for the roof rafters to land on in roof on roof applications, and the next town over we did not have to use them. Go figure.
The SipperUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:264

--
02 Nov 2009 08:05 PM
Again, (Since pdk is also strongly plugging the Hobbs system on another thread on this forum)
is "saving 40% concrete" really a selling point for an ICF system?
The Sipper
The SipperUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:264

--
02 Nov 2009 08:53 PM
I normally wouldn't submit 2 posts in a row, but I'd like to clarify the intent of my previous comment in connection with "Saving 40% concrete" I didn't intend to criticize pdk for supporting a product that he believes in, or pointing out a perceived benefit of that product. I'm just thinking that, in most instances, one of the primary incentives to build an ICF wall is the resulting strength of this approach.

And, I have a hard time believing that a wall with various thicknesses of concrete would be as strong as one with a consistent concrete thickness, and rebar schedule, whether it be a "vertical", or a "horizontal" ICF system.

At this point I don't want to start rattling off the features and benefits of the TF "Vertical" ICF system, all of this is on their website.

Also, when commenting on these forums, I usually just refer interested parties to the TF corporate office, for info, and referral to distributors and/or installation services in their areas. I know that if there's a possible project in my area, I'll be notified.

In any event, coolgreenhog, good luck with your project, whatever building systems or products that you decide to use.
The Sipper
RsipgeoUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:104

--
03 Nov 2009 06:20 AM
As for strength, the system is engineered and tested. The Hobbs system is as strong or stronger than other systems. Here is a question: Does a solid steel rod resist bending more or less than a hollow tube? I know it depends on the thickness of the tube but the fact is a tube can be stronger than a rod. A round tube can be stronger than a square tube. The shape of the concrete along with the rebar placement can make the system stronger.

This is the benefit of engineering. Engineers can make stronger structures with less material. (Plus stamped drawings are insurance.) First floor walls used to be a couple of feet thick. Now they are much thinner and resist earthquakes, hurricanes, fires etc. Also, this is the "green" building talk forum. Concrete production is a huge CO2 producer. Less concrete and more insulation is greener.

Let's not get into scare tactics about basic structural strength of similar technology. If you go to the SIPs forum and read the competitive posts it makes you not want to use SIPs at all. Every product is bad and will fall apart. I still think the determining factors are total price including rebar concrete and labor. And availability. Obviously, an ICF structure is probably the best in terms of strength and insulation. I think vertical systems are faster but I would not knock the finished product in a block system.

dmaceldUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1465
Avatar

--
03 Nov 2009 10:02 AM
Posted By Rsipgeo on 11/03/2009 6:20 AM
 but the fact is a tube can be stronger than a rod. A round tube can be stronger than a square tube. The shape of the concrete along with the rebar placement can make the system stronger.


Be careful with these kinds of statements. The bending strength of a rod, tube, column, etc., depends on the moment of inertia of the cross section. This is a measure that couples the mass of the material in the column with its distance from the center. You can take a small solid rod and convert it into a tube and it'll be much stronger because the mass is farther away from the center.

But, and here is the big BUT, the resistance to bending that a column or beam has, depends on its tensile strength, more so than on compressive strength. Concrete has no tensile strength. The tensile strength comes solely from the reinforcement in it, be it rebar or cable. The size, and the distance of the reinforcement from the centerline, of a concrete column determines its bending strength. Shape will have very little to do with it except as to how it determines the pattern of the reinforcement around the centerline.

A long skinny column of concrete with rebar only in the center will not resist bending any more than the same cross section of concrete with no rebar.

The only strength we really need to be concerned with in an ICF wall is its capacity to support the compressive load of all the concrete and dead load above the bottom few inches. The rebar is in there only to provide resistance to wind loads, and keep the concrete together as it cracks.
Even a retired engineer can build a house successfully w/ GBT help!
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
03 Nov 2009 10:40 AM
The thing to remember is that if both walls are engineered I would have to believe that the solid wall would be stronger if you are running the same re bar etc. It is funny how hard you guys are pushing the strength of waffle grids but I don't recall any of those type of systems at quantico for the military blast test. That tells me something, when all the block companies and TF Systems were there.
Full ICF HomesUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:73
Avatar

--
03 Nov 2009 10:59 AM
I have been researching the vertical ICF system as the (arguably) best system to use. These last few quantitative and technical comments are what I appreciate most. Some appear to be from engineers, and that makes them more valuable. I had an engineer tell me that "I don't care if you hold it up there with wax paper ... we design the concrete and rebar". You can strip the foam off any of the systems and the strength remains.

I am looking for technical info and installer comments on Hercuwall.


RsipgeoUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:104

--
04 Nov 2009 06:49 AM
I don't think many people design and engineer houses for military blasts. WHy would you? Plus, maybe some companies did not feel the need to go to quantico. I am just saying that engineers know what they are talking about. It is better to evaluate systems on factors that mean something, not on meaningless military blast tests, not on "it just seems...". Trust the engineers. Remember that any ICF house is going to be way way stronger than a stick built house. How many stick built houses are out there?

Price, availability, features. simple.
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
04 Nov 2009 06:59 PM
I agree with you about the engineering of a building. My point is that if both a flat wall and a waffle grid wall are engineered the flat wall will be stronger every time. The fact is because the block and TF are flat they do not need to be engineered. There is a reason why Hobbs has every system engineered is because they have too.
I would not say that the blast test are meaningless because if the military was looking into ICF's for barracks and other fortified structures here and abroad that would be compelling evidence in the strength of these systems. Engineered or not.
RsipgeoUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:104

--
04 Nov 2009 07:37 PM
In terms of strength any ICF system is going to exceed residential building standards by a lot. Reinforced concrete structures will go through hurricanes and earthquakes better than all other residential housing types. That's enough for me. I'm not going to start worrying about bomb blasts. My point is that the Hobbs system is plenty strong enough. Also, other systems are good too! It's counter productive for everyone in the ICF business to get into a lot of infighting.

A lot of other factors go into making a good ICF. Like how does one account for an un level footing? How easy is it to cut in windows? How does it account for blowouts? Can you get it with reasonable shipping in Montana? Maybe it all depends on your local concrete prices. or if your climate is mild.
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
08 Nov 2009 07:03 PM
Well apparently I have ruffled a bunch of feathers with some of my comments. Once again please remember the ban was not on Hobbs but on waffle grid systems. If a guy would present the engineering to the building inspectors and fight it, I am sure that it would get through. My point was I was not going to fight it because around here when we over-ride the inspectors the rest of the project becomes not so fun. (once again not Hobbs just waffle grid systems)
Second my comments about the patent infringement were peer speculation. It is just kind of funny how TF has the patents showcased on the walls at their facility and Hobbs has been patent pending for 5 plus years. (once again just speculation, I have no evidence of these claims)
Finally Joe, I will gladly pass the email that you sent me to TF and let one of there guys respond to you. I do not want to respond on behalf of a manufacturer whom product I occasionally use. I do have one problem. I don't have an email to respond to you. If you can PM your email to me, I will send you the quote that one of your distributors sent, along with the price that it would have cost me to install the project with both TF and one of the blocks I use. Once again I use a couple of different systems including blocks. On the project that I mentioned it just was not cost effective this time.
I do applaud Hobbs (from a marketing view) for having very aggressive sales people. This is one thing that I think TF and other ICF systems should look at. I look at how a Hobbs distributor is on almost every topic on this site plugging their product.
[email protected]User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6

--
09 Nov 2009 05:49 AM
I have been following these comments and would like to make a couple of points. First to the engineering, while all systems may have orininally engineered The Hobbs Vertical Wall System is the only one engineered for each specific job. Decisions on design, size, etc are not left to a unlicensed individual using generic tables. The liability for those people is enormous wether they know it or not. If you don't believe me talk to your insurance carrier or lawyer. Secondly, for all the debaters arguing strength I pose this question. If you are spanning 20' with no intertiment support would you use dimensional lumber or a TJI. The question of using engineered products in framing was settled a long tine ago and we should use that experiecne in the ICF world. I have used Hobbs on a number of jobs and there is no better, hands down. Besides it made my insurance company and lawyer happy.
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1323
Avatar

--
09 Nov 2009 06:18 PM
"Generic" engineering would cause no more liability exposure than job specific engineering. The liability is in the implementation of whatever the engineering is.

The generic engineering is lacking when you have an application that is outside of the scope of the engineering.

Job specific engineering has draw-backs too, cost is one. And when things change, they usually do, it has to be re-engineered. I can't remember a job where openings have not changed during construction.
Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
09 Nov 2009 07:37 PM
Wow, that is kind of a grasp. Comparing engineered lumber (TJI) to regular lumber; I think your missing the point. A TGI has as much glue as lumber in it. IT would be like me using just concrete with no re-bar and you getting to use re-bar and helix.
If you use your wall and I would install Nudra and we had both walls engineered I could have the Nudra wall made stronger. As far as the argument "it stronger than it needs to be" let me know if your home is hit by a tornado where you stand. Please keep in mind that I have never had a home hit by a tornado but if I did I would want as much concrete surrounding me.
Brad hit the nail on the head with his statements.
[email protected]User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6

--
10 Nov 2009 04:37 AM
It's easy to plug a product when after exhaustive research and real world experience one comes to the conclusion that they have chosen the best, most innovative system on the market. I can see people being loyal to a product but if you don't constantly question your methods and choices you will still be listening to 8 tracks while the rest of us are on Blue Ray.
[email protected]User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6

--
10 Nov 2009 04:52 AM
It's not a stretch and what the components are made of doesn't matter. I don't care what a TGI is made of as long as I have a reliable expectation ( proven through research and testing) that the TGI will span the lengths I want. The bottom line is the spans are not only greater but unreachable using dimensional lumber.
As far as your statement regarding engineering, you may or may not be right, but the difference is every Hobbs Vertical Wall System is engineered as part of the product ( every time )and Nudura's is not. Nudura users rely on prescriptive tables and unless they go the extra step of having the design engineered they leave themselves open to liability if they make a mistake in interperting the tables.
By posting on this forum you show yourself to be a forward thinking kind of person. Remember if your just looking at cost of ICF material you are not looking at total cost and the time saved which you can use to go on to your next ICF job.
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
10 Nov 2009 08:18 AM
Gary,
If you look at the Nudura tables you would see that they are all stamped by an engineer. Nudura has probably one of the best engineering teams out there. It they do not have the it in their engineered stamped drawings then they will draw it up for you and get it stamped. Once it is engineered stamped it is stamped. Their is no liability issues. No matter who's wall it is Hobbs or Nudura or any other ICF who uses Stamped drawings. It then is up to the installers to make sure that it is installed the way the engineer intended.
As far as tying Hobbs, I looked into them and got quotes for Hobbs and two other ICF's. I am sending the Hobbs quote to the Hobbs North American Sales Manager for him to look at. When It was apples to apples, wall up and poured, Hobbs was more expensive. Now please keep in mind that I was using labor numbers that reflect my crews installing TF (which is what my crews are fastest at) for numbers. I am figuring that the install time very is similar. If one is faster than the other it would not be by much. I am more than game to try new stuff that is how I got into ICF's to began with. I would try Hobbs on a future project if they are cost effective on that specific project.
I guess I better quit messing around on my computer and get out to the site and see how the guys are doing.
[email protected]User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6

--
10 Nov 2009 05:38 PM
TD,

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not knocking Nudura or their tables. I could not imagine them using anything but competent engineers. Can you have other block mfg's design and seal plans? Yes you can. Unfortunately most people do not and they rely on the tables. No matter how professional the tables are, if the person interpretating them is not an engineer, then that person is assuming the liability for the interpretation.
As to your second comment The Hobbs Vertical Wall System is much more than it's components. The closest analogy I can think of is UPS. UPS has for years employed armies of industrial engineers doing time studies with the sole purpose of saving seconds on each procedure every employee performs. If an installer follows the Hobbs Methodology they will achieve similar results. People such as yourself that are knowledgeable and passionate about what they do are just the type of installer / dealer we need. Your type of person can truly see how remarkable the system is.
tdbuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:67

--
10 Nov 2009 08:04 PM
There it is! I figure that you were a distributor for Hobbs but now you proved it. I sure hope you have a better sales pitch that "if it is good enough for UPS its good enough for you" with you customers. If want to sell your product put an ad on the side of the page. This forum is for contractors and homeowners to discuss experiences. When manufacturer and distributors get involved they start with the whole mine is bigger than yours. Most distributors at least come out and say who they are and most manufacturers reserve posting for technical reasons. Please keep in mind that this only my opinion and maybe other feel different. I for one have some respect for Joe who contacted me from Hobbs but he did it discreetly through a PM to talk with me about the advantages of his product.
RsipgeoUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:104

--
14 Nov 2009 11:14 PM
I think if you are choosing a product to use the first time the distributor/trainer is quite important. Can they meet your schedule or do they put you back a week? Are the shipping costs reasonable? For a waffle grid system, do they let you know how to calculate the amount of concrete needed? Do they ship the proper amount of material sized correctly for the job? Do they promise to send auxiliary material but then they never send it?

These kind of things are quite important and might influence which product you end up choosing or what product you might recommend to someone else.
Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
30 Apr 2010 11:00 PM
Hi, I'm new on here and have been doing blocks for a while, am talking to both Hobbs and TF about their walls. Hobbs is being sued I'm told by TF so that kinda takes them outta the picture as far as im concerned even if I thought Hobbs had a better system which I don't. I'm wanting to hear from some people who have handson experience (the more the better)  with TF. They're normal webbs are 1' apart, how much does the final product bulge in between the webs?  Most blocks webbing is 6-8" apart. What are the cons of vertical ICF? Are their any? It looks like a really good product and I'm gonna be using very soon on more than just one project I'm sure, if its all its cracked up to be.
jkaskoUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:3

--
30 Apr 2010 11:39 PM
We just finished up a pretty complex pour for an ICF basement on our new house in Downers Grove, IL. Todd at TF was excellent in helping on the initial product list, but we didn't get everything together until the last minute when he put us in touch with Bob Orlof of Planet Build, Inc.  Bob does nothing but ICF basement and buildings and is so knowledgeable on how effectively construct a job that his prices come very close to conventional concrete plus finishing out the exterior walls of the house. The TF System product is nice. They have gone to 8" spacing of the studs so a stud will land on 16" center so all trades people are happy.  We had a high pour without a sign blow out.

If I get a chance, I wiii post some pictures.

-Joe kasko
Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 02:10 PM
I had a 2 hour conversation with TF last night and yes they are offering a new 8" spacing on their webs instead of the old 12". Having said that the 8" system is made outta 1.5 lb nominal density foam vs the the 2 lb density foam which also has a higher R value, I like the fact I can offer homeowners more than just one option as many are looking to go with the cheaper route. With our temperatures we have in the northern half of Canada though I can also see many people going with the thicker foam. -45 is just a wee bit chilly never mind setting up and pouring walls in those temps, which has happened for a few of us die hards lol. Bottom line TF is going to be my supplier I'm sure unless I hear some very negative feedback from someone. Hobbs never even got back to me until I sent them a second email, a rather curt one I might add asking them if they wanted my business and by that time I was having an good dialogue with TF and I still havent even heard so much as a peep from Hobbs, and its been 3 weeks since they said they would get back to me with some pricing. I've pretty much given up on them, I won't chase anybody down(unless they owe me money lol)looking to use their product. Sounds to me like Hobbs has got some management issues and needs some better salesmanship providing they're allowed to continue manufacturing their product after their done in court with TF.
GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 02:40 PM
How far north RU in Canada.
GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 02:41 PM
How far north RU in Canada.
TexasICFUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:622
Avatar

--
01 May 2010 05:27 PM
There's an implication or two that a few of you guys have installed horizontal and you are moving now to vertical. I am keeping an open mind but do not see it. Perhaps you could explain. Regards.
GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 05:38 PM
Posted By TexasICF on 01 May 2010 05:27 PM
There's an implication or two that a few of you guys have installed horizontal and you are moving now to vertical. I am keeping an open mind but do not see it. Perhaps you could explain. Regards.

I have only researched vertical but if you have any faith in science and inventors, and are into history, TF started as a block system ... saw the flaws in that concept .... and moved to vertical to emulate the traditional concrete forming system.  While there are other vertical systems (with some potential technical issues), there are some excellent advantages to TF. 
TexasICFUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:622
Avatar

--
01 May 2010 06:00 PM
1st - I'm sure the ALL vertical systems are significantly better than conventional construction. However, you might check out the other 95% or so of the ICF market. I'd rather not comment on the science and invention and history etc. but what flaws do you refer to exactly?? And why might one want to emulate traditional forming? - which by the way is not vertical at all -- either unless you are referring to tilt-up which is another animal entirely. And finally what are these excellent advantages you are referring to. Regards.
TexasICFUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:622
Avatar

--
01 May 2010 06:03 PM
1st - I'm sure the ALL vertical systems are significantly better than conventional construction. However, you might check out the other 95% or so of the ICF market. I'd rather not comment on the science and invention and history etc. but what flaws do you refer to exactly?? And why might one want to emulate traditional forming? - which by the way is not vertical at all -- either unless you are referring to tilt-up which is another animal entirely. And finally what are these excellent advantages you are referring to. Regards.
GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 06:26 PM
It appears that you haven't looked at the installation manuals Texas.

TF can be set up from standing on the ground, without scaffolding (as is traditionally formed concrete). Also, you can set up the outside of the form and leave the inside off (as is traditionally formed concrete). To that level of comparison, I call that very similar to traditional forming. After all, what you are forming in any kind of ICF system is not the blocks or vertical system, the result desired is a combination of CONCRETE AND REBAR, and not how, or with which product you made it stand up until it hardens.

As to other vertical systems, in my location where soil & frost pressures are important, a system like Hobbs with no horizontal reinforcement (other than the top and bottom) makes engineers run away very quickly.

My thoughts are that rather than question the words and concepts, look at the installation manuals and draw your own conclusion. Anyone looking for any sort of clear and perfect answer ... church may be your only . If there is another system which allows you to split the panels and lift them up like a sash window while you pour each of the 4 foot lifts, then I am unaware of those systems.

There are inherent floating and compressing issues with block systems that cannot occur with TF, and Hobbs and these two don't need scaffold to assemble. Because you have to screw each row of blocks to the scaffold should imply that keeping them straight. The stud system of TF and whatever Hobbs uses are about the same as assembling a metal stud wall where the studs keep the wall straight.

All systems have inherent flaws and procedural differences. Perfection MAY come in the next life so, on earth, you just need to weigh the labor and technical procedures required when you compare blocks vs vertical systems and decide which system is your preference.

Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 06:48 PM
I'm in the northern prairies of Canada, as for the fellow who was asking what advantages vertical icf has, you can't have poured much for block walls, although you can safeguard against floating and or compression issues with a block wall it can be somewhat labour intensive. Also with a block wall after you have your wall up 5-6 feet you need to put up your bracing and scaffolding after which someone neeeds to constantly pass up block or someones always climbing up and down a ladder and with vertical icf that is eliminated beacause each panel is full height. block walls are simply more labour intensive, harder to keep level at the top and take more time, TF has a wonderful comparison on their website, experienced crews vs non experienced crews setting up their walls, if their is any one crew that can set up a 170 linear feet of wall in a day to full height than I want to see it lol, its not impossible but you wont be doing that with an ordinary 2-3 man crew, with TF you can pre panelize off or onsite, lets say its raining and you cant work onsite well, you take your  tf components and go into your shop and panelize as much as you want, installing window bucks as well, when you get onto site you're essentially erecting x amount of feet at a single time as you stand each panelized section you made in your shop. That is virtually impossible to do with ANY block system that I'm aware of. Also if you need access to the bottom of your wall (dropped tool) all you do is lift the panel up, same goes for rebar access for uprights. ALL uprights should always be tied into the rest of the rebar grid, thats extremely hard to do with a block as each block would have to be slid down over top of the upright, what a gigantic waste of time! Yes I put my uprights in after I pour as well, not because I want to but because Thats the only way you can be efficient at it Again I've yet to use TF but I will be very shortly, all Ican say for the time being is that if what I see and hear about TF is true(ill know on my first couple walls) ALL that I will be using is TF and thats a guarenteed thing!
GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 06:54 PM
The Northern prairies is a very large area ... what town/city are you located?
Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 06:55 PM
TEXAS ICF, I've been doing concrete commercial and residential for 10 yrs, I've yet to see any forming system that wasn't vertical examples are duraform and stripease. Not saying that it doesn't exist though just that I've never seen it get used aside from a residential grade beam on piles.
Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 07:00 PM
Gnubeebuilder, I'm not about to say where I live or work on here. I'm fairly new on here and if we can chat somewhere in private different story, they have a private messaging system on here?
ColoICFUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:34

--
01 May 2010 07:03 PM
Hi GnuBee.
I have worked with many conventional wall systems, and many ICFs over the last 45 years.
I have read a lot about the vertical ICFs but haven't had an opportunity to work with them. Since we often experience high winds on our Colorado job-sites, I would not be inclined to erect a wind "sail" without considerable bracing, regardless of technology used. This is an advantage of horizontal forms: you can erect a lot of wall before you get into the "sail" portion of the wall, by which time you usually want bracing and scaffolding anyway, just so that you can safely work at the top of the wall; safety before system isn't a bad mantra.
About seven years ago I stumbled across NUDURA forms which entirely do away with your floating and compression concerns. There are other decent horizontal forms. You might want to do some research in this arena instead of limiting yourself to vertical only; good surprises sometimes reward the diligent.
Cheers,
FM
Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 07:04 PM
GnuBeeBuilder just sent you a private message, we can discuss it further through pm.
Joseph FarellaUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:57

--
01 May 2010 07:10 PM

There is no truth whatsoever, of any lawsuits against the Hobbs VICF by the TF company. If anyone would have firsthand knowledge of this fact, it would be me. The only possible participants in a court case related to these two companies, could be the TF distributor, who seems to have expressively stated or implied this to be fact, to Hard working man, and the Hard working man if he continues to defame Hobbs in this form ,with his libellous statements. Todd Delbreau , currently an employee of the TF system, previously made a similar claim on this  form. He was asked to have TF substantiate the claim and they did not, for the simple reason that there is no fact or merit to it. Both VICF systems would be a good choose to use anywhere in Northern Canada. In Saskatchewan for example, where it gets really cold, ICF construction is the only way to go. In order for the building experience to end favourably for the consumer, he, the installer and the distributor must be of like minds and convictions, if they are to work together successfully. When an ICF distributor or installer chooses to defame or run down a competitor with unsubstantiated claims, to justify to his customer, their choice, this usually serves as a prelude to how the rest of the job is going to go. If you are unhappy with your perceived treatment from Hobbs, then TF would be an excellent choice for you. I hope that you would be as efficacious in your reply when you find out the true facts from your TF distributor, as you have been against the Hobbs product.

GnuBeeBuilderUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:14

--
01 May 2010 07:16 PM
Posted By ColoICF on 01 May 2010 07:03 PM
Hi GnuBee.
I have worked with many conventional wall systems, and many ICFs over the last 45 years.
I have read a lot about the vertical ICFs but haven't had an opportunity to work with them. Since we often experience high winds on our Colorado job-sites, I would not be inclined to erect a wind "sail" without considerable bracing, regardless of technology used. This is an advantage of horizontal forms: you can erect a lot of wall before you get into the "sail" portion of the wall, by which time you usually want bracing and scaffolding anyway, just so that you can safely work at the top of the wall; safety before system isn't a bad mantra.
About seven years ago I stumbled across NUDURA forms which entirely do away with your floating and compression concerns. There are other decent horizontal forms. You might want to do some research in this arena instead of limiting yourself to vertical only; good surprises sometimes reward the diligent.
Cheers,
FM
Yes, I have seen that system and do know what you say to be technically correct due to the way the cross bracing system actually touches each other from row to row.  I have also been helping on a pour where the 3/4 aggregate in the concrete was breaking those plastic cross braces, and the NuDURA has stronger looking webs than some of the others I have seen (but not been at a pour).

As to the sail problem ... the same bracing system can be used with the vertical systems if wind is an issue.  As an alternate, temp wooden braces every 10 feet do the same as the bracing system every 6 feet (but without the rental costs). 

Yes, one has to have an open mind and be thoughtful when applying your own individual situations to these systems.   For example, TF has a termite proof product with Borax in it that I haven't heard of in other systems (not to say I have reserched them all).


Hard workin manUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:8

--
01 May 2010 07:27 PM
Mr Farella, I bear you no ill will, you may be right, Im simply repeating what I was told by TF's office. Having said that my personal PERCEIVED experience with hobbs has not been very fruitful AT ALL! I'm not in the habit of chasing down people that dont reply to my emails when I'm looking to use their product. I don't mean to offend you, but I was very patient in waiting on a response from hobbs BEFORE i ever found or contacted TF! TO THIS DAY i am still waiting on a quote from one of your distibutors in western canada, that was 3 weeks ago and I still have nothing! as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with tf bashing hobbs, they would never have had the chance to bash hobbs if hobbs had gotten back to me in a timely manner. tf quoted me materials for the first job im trying with them THE DAY AFTER I CONTACTED THEM and sent them a print. you tell me,if you were in my shoes would you still want to deal with hobbs when you are being treated very well by tf? their lines of communication are open and quite good at a timely response to any inquiries that i've made. Thanks good luck and have a good day!
Joseph FarellaUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:57

--
01 May 2010 08:00 PM
I like your term wind"sail". In the Hobbs VICF ,you put up the corners and tees  first, then you build the wall assembleys, full height, complete with the window or door bucks, rebar and foam on the ground, and then install them where they are marked on the plans. I usually have one man build these first on site, or off site, if their is adverse weather. There is no more bracing required to hold the foam around the bucks  as it has been incorporated around the bucks with the furring assembleys. This is particulary usefull on the second and third  levels where there is usually lots of openings and the wind is more of a factor. If the wind is a major issue, then the top whaler can be installed at the top of the wall, connecting the full height corners and the full height wall opening assembleys. If the wind conditions warrant, every 16" the full height furing asembleys can be srewed to the top whaler, negating the effects of the wind ,not to create a wind "sail as you put it. Also each furring assembley has a full height rebar pre-loaded in it. Usually it is a No. 5 bar, depending on what the engineer states needs to be using in the job specific shop drawings, giving the wall unit weight and rigidity. Since the system is full height you can install the braces and scaffolding as you go if the conditions dictate. Vertical systems do not float or compress due to the nature of their design, so the brace is really their for alignment purposes, and for somewhere to hang the  scafflolding off of. No need to worry about where you place the srew in the sloted area of the brace either. Vertical ICF forming is a really safe way to work,especially since you are not up on the scaffold being handed up foam and rebar, especially in windy conditions.
Joseph FarellaUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:57

--
01 May 2010 08:49 PM
If one does not get the percieved service that they expect ,then of course they will look elsewhere, just as you have done. I must admit that I am rather distrubed that you claim to be repeating what you were told by the TF office, as once again I will state for the record, that there is absolutlely  no merit or truth behind what TF is telling you.
I would appreciate that when you find out the truth that you let everyone on this form know about it.
I empathize with you having been put in this postion to defend your intergrity because you belived what  your TF distributor told you to be true.
If this TF office that you speak of ,has an ounce of intregrity, I would hope that they will set the record straight with you and anyone else that they have been spreading this bull to.
I find it a sad state of affairs when TF needs to resort to this, in order to sell their system. You would think that your experience  alone would be all they need. They should be able to sell there system on their merits alone rather than resoting to making false statements about Hobbs. It makes me wonder what they are saying about other the other ICF systems out there.
We don't do buisness that way at Hobbs.
But, having said that ,having to  wait an inordinate amount of time for a adequate responce ,is no way to secure buisness either.. I can assure that this is not how the distrubtor you refer to ,usually conducts buisness and that your experince is not the norm.
I wish you well on your install and I apologize for the inconvience.
SpencerUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:36

--
02 May 2010 10:14 PM
Hard workin man, visit http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=21965 to see how Arxx Steel (formerly known as Polysteel) has been used for several years to create panelized walls for projects. Arxx Steel is a block form. Not only were the walls for this particular project panelized block forms, they were panelized at a shop in Minnesota and transported to the project in Omaha. These were set in place beginning at 8 AM and concrete started pouring into them at 3 PM. There are other block form ICF projects out there that have utilized panelization to construct their walls. Please take time to really learn the facts about all ICFs.
GrizzUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:9

--
03 May 2010 12:59 AM
I looked at the pathnet site.  7 hours to set the wall sounds good, but why would anybody want to have the block delivered to one site. Take them out of the semi and put them together. Load a truck back up. Haul it from Minn to Omaha. Unload the truck and go to work again. I wonder why they didn't have the truck show up at noon after the footings were set and poured. Then maybe spend an extra hour or two installing it on site without the extra time to handling, and extra trucking involved.

Just wondering
TF SystemUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4

--
04 May 2010 09:50 PM
Joe,

Before I went to work for TF System, I posted regularly on this site. As I have stated I believe this is a site for home owners and contractors, thus i have not posted since I became employed by TF. Now with that in mind..... I never stated that TF was suing Hobbs, if you look back I stated that I thought that they should. That was just my opinion at the time. I can not speak for the owners of TF and speculate on what their take on this is.

With that I can say this; TF is loving all the advertising Hobbs is doing. It promotes the vertical ICF concept and its advantages. We also have started to advertise more to keep the momentum moving. TF System prides its self on its cutting edge system and its outstanding customer service. Most of our business is from word of mouth, and we believe this is some of the best advertising. Our clients demand fast service, superior product and our technical expertise to give them the advantage over their competitors. That is what we give them. That is the reason why TF hires contractors on its staff with ICF experience whom can answer any of the tough questions.

I know from past conversations that we both believe that ICF is the way to build and that we both believe that vertical is a faster more versatile ICF.

Todd


---
Active Forums 4.1