peteinny
New Member
Posts:85
 |
| 07 Mar 2012 07:18 PM |
|
What are the best methods to insulate an ICF foundation in the North East below grade? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 07 Mar 2012 07:37 PM |
|
The common process for waterproofing an ICF wall is to use a waterproofing membrane directly on the ICF and then to apply a dimpled drain board over top to minimize hydrostatic pressure, ensure proper drainage and protect the waterproofing membrane.
Waterproofing membranes are available in peel & stick and liquid varieties. Be certain to use a water-based product that is certified to be compatible with expanded polystyrene (EPS). Solvent based products will dissolve the ICF and must not be used. Most waterproofing membranes will resist hydrostatic pressures up to 28psi – please consult the manufacturer’s specifications for individual products.
There are many peel & stick waterproofing membrane products that are compatible with ICF construction. However, water-based spray-on membranes seem to perform better because they are easier to install properly. The presence of small amounts of dew or moisture on the ICF wall can cause the peel & stick varieties to fail – not so for the spray-on types.
If you message me offline, I will provide names of specific products. |
|
|
|
|
TexasICF
Advanced Member
Posts:622
|
| 07 Mar 2012 07:43 PM |
|
Very well put Bruce. |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 07 Mar 2012 08:49 PM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 07 Mar 2012 07:37 PM
The common process for waterproofing an ICF wall is to use a waterproofing membrane directly on the ICF and then to apply a dimpled drain board over top to minimize hydrostatic pressure, ensure proper drainage and protect the waterproofing membrane.
Waterproofing membranes are available in peel & stick and liquid varieties. Be certain to use a water-based product that is certified to be compatible with expanded polystyrene (EPS). Solvent based products will dissolve the ICF and must not be used. Most waterproofing membranes will resist hydrostatic pressures up to 28psi – please consult the manufacturer’s specifications for individual products.
There are many peel & stick waterproofing membrane products that are compatible with ICF construction. However, water-based spray-on membranes seem to perform better because they are easier to install properly. The presence of small amounts of dew or moisture on the ICF wall can cause the peel & stick varieties to fail – not so for the spray-on types.
If you message me offline, I will provide names of specific products.
So what I read is that the dimple products are not much more effective than wall paneling and are just protection and not waterproofing. Am I interpreting your analysis to mean that neither a dimple product nor a peel & stick, nor a spray on are sufficient when used alone? Logically it seems like the dimple product should shed water down to the weeping tile and then it drains away. I don't get why hydrostatic pressure applies to water that should not be there to create any kind of pressure. For the product I use, I don't see a requirement for a double protection method. (What would Alton's comment be on this?) |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 08 Mar 2012 01:11 AM |
|
The waterproofing membrane prevents water infiltration, and the dimple drain board protects the membrane and permits the water to drain away. It's a two-part system.If you choose not to use the complete system, that's obviously your choice. You may not have hydrostatic pressure today, but what happens if conditions change? If you're only using the drain board, you will almost certainly have water infiltrating the ICF. In my view, you might as well do the job right the first time. |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 01:47 AM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 01:11 AM
The waterproofing membrane prevents water infiltration, and the dimple drain board protects the membrane and permits the water to drain away. It's a two-part system.If you choose not to use the complete system, that's obviously your choice. You may not have hydrostatic pressure today, but what happens if conditions change? If you're only using the drain board, you will almost certainly have water infiltrating the ICF. In my view, you might as well do the job right the first time.
I don't think anybody would disagree with using redundant systems but my point is ... "is it necessary, or simply an added expense with little extra value?" Why would the solid plastic dimple membrane not be a waterproofing material by itself? I am still having a problem understanding why you would ever have hydrostatic pressure as long as you have a functioning weeping tile in place. By the definition I read, hydrostatic pressure is created by a height of water. Isn't the purpose of weeping tile to continuously drain water, thus what hydrostatic pressure scenario might you be suggesting? It seems like your recommendation is treading on the "better" concept. At some point don't redundant systems just become an expense with a diminishing return? One could also put (as engineers like to specify in my area of expanding clay) granular fill as backfill. Finding someone who actually does that is rare if it exists at all. I would appreciate it if you would post a link to any ICF brand who specifies both dimple membrane and peel 'n stick (or spray membrane) in their installation instructions. I'm always up for an education so please enlighten me as to what I am not understanding. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 08 Mar 2012 02:25 AM |
|
At some point don't redundant systems just become an expense with a diminishing return? Yes, they do, but does that mean you don't need them? |
|
|
|
|
Chris Johnson
Advanced Member
Posts:877
|
| 08 Mar 2012 08:13 AM |
|
Peel and Sticks are not approved by code here!! Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you view it most building departments are either not aware of this or don't enforce it.
We use peel and stick whenever we can, it is a product we know works, as well there are spray products that work equally as well. A protection board is used by us as most contractors (GC's) that we work for backfill with the onsite material that came out of the basement during the dig, this material 90% of the time is not acceptable as free draining materials. The use of protection board is just that, protection from large rocks and such that can and will puncture the peel and stick.
|
|
| Chris Johnson - Pro ICF<br>North of 49 |
|
|
smartwall
Veteran Member
Posts:1197
|
| 08 Mar 2012 08:15 AM |
|
I only use dimpled membane and have never had a problem. When I have a site with water problems I will first apply a liquid waterproofing under the dimpled but those are rare. The advantage of dimple is it can be applied in all weather situations and even the day of the pour. Tuesday it was 35 in upstate NY and we waterproofed 176 ft of 9'4" wall in a little over an hour for 3 men. You can't beat the speed of the install and it cost less that peel n' stick. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 08 Mar 2012 08:36 AM |
|
You can't beat the speed of the install and it cost less that peel n' stick. Did you apply horizontally or vertically and how did you seal the seams? |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 08:44 AM |
|
Posted By ICFHybrid on 08 Mar 2012 02:25 AM
At some point don't redundant systems just become an expense with a diminishing return? Yes, they do, but does that mean you don't need them?
Is there not a technical difference between "need", "good idea", "can't hurt" ...... and "required"? If they are "needed", wouldn't they be spelled out in the building code since then they would be "required"? One would think that the manufacturers would step up and make the double system a requirement for the proper functioning of their systems? We already have a TV personality who is beating up on contractors by saying things like "a 2x6 is code but why not use a 2x12". What is never revealed is the cost difference for the "premium" job. Don't get me wrong here, I try to give my customers the best information and product that I can. The wall we are up against is not what is best, it is who has the cheapest price. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 08 Mar 2012 08:58 AM |
|
If they are "needed", wouldn't they be spelled out in the building code since then they would be "required"? I would say that "need" is highly subjective. If you build to code minimum and your foundation leaks into your basement, then I guess you needed to have done something else. |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Veteran Member
Posts:1197
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:06 AM |
|
The rolls are 65.5' long and the heights vary so you roll it out horizontally it's held in place by a 2" plastic washer that you screw into the web about every foot, with the taller dimpled you place a few in the field and corners.The lap joints are caulked with silicone. The only two things that can screw it up , are allowing dirt to fill the dimples when back filling and not putting stone on top of the footing before back filling. When I use it with my mono pour system we take a ice srapper and make grooves in the top of the footing on the outside. This allows the water to flow to the drain lines. |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:16 AM |
|
Let's be very careful when we talk about "building to code". "Code" is the lowest acceptable standard.If your kid gets a D in math, he passed. Do you encourage your kids to aspire to all D's? You can bet those homes in Joplin, MO and in Indiana and Kentucky that were annihilated by tornadoes were built to code.
My grandad and my uncle built houses since shortly after the turn of the last century, and one of their favorite sayings was, "It only costs a few cents more to overbuild and you get a much sturdier house." If you want to cheap out, cheap out. Me? I don't want to live in cheap surroundings.Why go to all the trouble of building a concrete home and cheap out on the waterproofing in order to avoid spending a few bucks? Makes no sense. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:30 AM |
|
Funny thing happened during the recent spate of rain. My wife visited three homes for various functions during the same short period of time. All were newly built in the last three years and all were substantially in excess of a half million bucks. In all three homes there was a homeowner covered in mud trying to pump water out from under his home.
I think about how many times I would want to be doing that every five years or so and then I think about how much it would cost to waterproof and ...well, .... |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:35 AM |
|
The lap joints are caulked with silicone. Do you find that the dimples mate up well on the overlaps? With the product I was using, it looked like the temperature of the plastic sheet had been allowed to vary too much during the production run, causing slight warping in places. Over about 6 feet, there was enough variation that the dimples stopped matching up so the seams couldn't be securely lapped. |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:36 AM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 09:16 AM
Let's be very careful when we talk about "building to code". "Code" is the lowest acceptable standard.If your kid gets a D in math, he passed. Do you encourage your kids to aspire to all D's? You can bet those homes in Joplin, MO and in Indiana and Kentucky that were annihilated by tornadoes were built to code.
My grandad and my uncle built houses since shortly after the turn of the last century, and one of their favorite sayings was, "It only costs a few cents more to overbuild and you get a much sturdier house." If you want to cheap out, cheap out. Me? I don't want to live in cheap surroundings.Why go to all the trouble of building a concrete home and cheap out on the waterproofing in order to avoid spending a few bucks? Makes no sense.
I am not arguing against doing anything better than code. I am also an inventor and scientist so I look for that technical break point where I tell my customer "this works, but if you want to pay more, then this double system is an insurance policy, and you may never know if it was actually necessary". If I recommend a feature to my customer I would like it to be based in fact and not speculation. Customers are already fed a bunch of hooey about ICF by people who should know better and I just don't want to be upcharging a job when it is not required. However, to extend this double waterproofing concept to other systems in a house would a person then use 2 layers of 6 mil poly instead of one as a vapor barrier, or R 120 in the attic instead of R60, and 12" thick exterior walls be "better"? So far, what I am hearing is that either dimple membrane or peel 'n stick or spray by themselves is not sufficient. |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:39 AM |
|
All-Sask. If that's your angle, why ask the question here? Check your local building code and there's your answer as to what's "required". |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 09:45 AM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 09:16 AM
Let's be very careful when we talk about "building to code". "Code" is the lowest acceptable standard. Your last post doesn't seem to jive with this one. I'm looking for facts, that's all. |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 10:00 AM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 09:39 AM
All-Sask. If that's your angle, why ask the question here? Check your local building code and there's your answer as to what's "required".
Bruce, here's what really baffles me about this thread, and your comments. When I checked the PolyCrete installation manual (page 48) mentions a peel 'n stick only. I was expecting to see dimple membrane over it. It seems like this is a major flaw in what I am hearing in this thread. What are your thoughts on your manual? |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 08 Mar 2012 10:16 AM |
|
The question was what's the correct way to waterproof, and I tried to give you a complete answer. All you need to keep the water from penetrating the ICF is peel and stick or spray on. That's all we're "required" to tell you. If you want to know how to keep water draining off the wall surface, protect the membrane from hydrostatic pressure and protect it from debris, you have to take the second step. I believe the pictures on the website show plywood used to protect the membrane from damage by debris in backfill. In the interest in giving a complete answer, I stand by my original post. You, however, are free to build to code. |
|
|
|
|
RonCrosstone
New Member
Posts:17
|
| 08 Mar 2012 10:39 AM |
|
The purpose of any water proofing membrane is to prevent water intrusion, one of the best methods is to prevent the water from ever reaching the foundation in the first place, I use a minimum of 12" of gravel (washed 1"-1.5" stone) for backfill up the side of the wall and up to 12" under the slab including some under the footing with 4" SDR 35 drainage pipe, this process coupled with a peel and stick or some other type of sealant is almost a sure guarantee that you will never have a leak even if your membrane fails. |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 11:36 AM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 10:16 AM
The question was what's the correct way to waterproof, and I tried to give you a complete answer. All you need to keep the water from penetrating the ICF is peel and stick or spray on. That's all we're "required" to tell you.
As I read the original thread, and as indicated in the subject line, it says BEST, not CORRECT. As I read the words of your last sentence, it sounds like a minimum requirement waiver, which sounds a lot like the minimum requirements of the building code ... which you argue against. Perhaps it is only me who thinks this is a double standard but I like to see people with both feet firmly planted on one side of the fence, not both. Might it be in the best interests of your product to add your suggestions for the dimple membrane as the "better" way to install your system? |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 08 Mar 2012 11:45 AM |
|
I'm sure we'll be looking at that and any other inconsistencies that crop up next time we edit the installation manual. Here's another: When placing vertical rebar, don't drop it from 18 feet as it can bend a cross tie... |
|
|
|
|
galore
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 08 Mar 2012 02:11 PM |
|
I opted against peel&stick or liquid applied membrane but used dimple membrane and gravel backfill instead. Soil is expansive clay (Dallas, TX).
Basement walls are bone dry. Footings sit on limestone bedrock which collects water that slowly percolates through the clay so it requires drain tiles and sump (which pumps out once a week rain or no rain).
I don't get the point of peel&stick or liquid applied waterproofing. There can only be hydrostatic pressure if the drain tiles fail and if that happens I have much more serious problems than water intrusion through the EPS & concrete... |
|
|
|
|
Full ICF Homes
New Member
Posts:73
|
| 08 Mar 2012 02:47 PM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Mar 2012 11:45 AM
I'm sure we'll be looking at that and any other inconsistencies that crop up next time we edit the installation manual. Here's another: When placing vertical rebar, don't drop it from 18 feet as it can bend a cross tie...
I don't like the search engine on this site so I'll have to rely on my memory for one more variable to this redundant waterproofing idea. With other systems in a house, dew points and condensations can arise out of seemingly "better" ideas. Sometime in the last 6 months someone brought up the idea that there is a notable technical difference between P & S and dimpled in that the latter leaves an air space. This space allows any moisture that might get into the foam to dry out or any condensation that may develop to drain down the weeping tile whereas the P&S would not. If both were used it would negate the concept of dimple alone. Dimple has been suggested, but not demanded, by the tech people support for the system I use. Sounds like solid logic to me but I rely on the "experts" to verify the building science. (Anyone with an unbiased technical opinion out there ...  ?) I treat education as an ongoing and life long process so I am ever vigilant to improve my education. My dad told that is why they put curtains on a hearse at funerals ...  (to make us stop looking, but I'm fairly sure he was referring to this topic  ). |
|
|
|
|
peteinny
New Member
Posts:85
|
| 08 Mar 2012 04:25 PM |
|
Thanks for all of the posts. Very informative and lots of opinions. I think the most important thing to remember is to do it correctly so there are no water issues in the basement. |
|
|
|
|
arkie6
Veteran Member
Posts:1453
|
|
peteinny
New Member
Posts:85
|
| 09 Mar 2012 09:53 PM |
|
Thanks arkie6, Has anyone used any spray methods on ICF? |
|
|
|
|
Chris Johnson
Advanced Member
Posts:877
|
| 09 Mar 2012 10:36 PM |
|
I've used (had someone apply) Spray-it-Blue, never an issue but costly, ICF Blue Stuff from the box stores was a little finicky until you get used to it, AquaSeal makes a Grey Coat which sprays decent as well |
|
| Chris Johnson - Pro ICF<br>North of 49 |
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 10 Mar 2012 11:04 PM |
|
Posted By RonCrosstone on 08 Mar 2012 10:39 AM
The purpose of any water proofing membrane is to prevent water intrusion, one of the best methods is to prevent the water from ever reaching the foundation in the first place, I use a minimum of 12" of gravel (washed 1"-1.5" stone) for backfill up the side of the wall and up to 12" under the slab including some under the footing with 4" SDR 35 drainage pipe, this process coupled with a peel and stick or some other type of sealant is almost a sure guarantee that you will never have a leak even if your membrane fails.
Ron - I would agree that this is the often prescribed method of dealing with water. I try to discourage it when ever possible for the very reason you state, "to prevent the water from ever reaching the foundation in the first place".
When you think about it a bit you will understand that if there is a flood or even just a misplaced downspout extension or open hose bib, there is now a direct path through the drainage rock to the footings. Furthermore adding stone under the footing guarantees that in case of flooding you will have underslab hydraulic pressure and probably a lifted slab.
I aim for three things when building a basement.
Keep the surface water on the surface.
Keep ground water originating outside the foundation, OUTSIDE the foundation
Keep the underslab dry by install underslab drains to a sump inside to control any water bypassing the foundation or originating underslab.
To do this, I try to avoid tying the outside drains to the inside. I never tie downspouts to the weeping tile and try to avoid draining the window wells to the weepers. The outside drains either goes to daylight or to a pumpable manway, sometimes both. The outside drain is located with its bottom at the bottom of the footing and cover with drainage rock after the moisture proofing is installed. Usually 12 to 18" of rock spread up to 2 feet from the footing. The rock is covered with fabric to prevent the infiltration of fines in to the drainage material. In difficult soils, I will sometimes run more rock up the wall as you mentioned but I always try to cap it with 12"or so of soils with limited infiltration rates to prevent surface waters from reaching the drainage material. Then the topsoil can be places but it is usually better to wait with the topsoil till the following year so that the settlement can be filled with clays or similar materials to prevent a trough of permeable soils next to the house.
For the moisture proofing any of the mentioned products will work if there is no ponding of water. If the is total saturation, I doubt that any of them will prevent water from entering the basement either at the wall to floor joint or any crack, void in the wall. These product are really intended to prevent the soil moistures from wicking into the concrete and not really to with stand saturated or flooded conditions. I like the dipple materials or sometime even a product like AmerDrain http://www.americanwick.com/UserFiles/File/PRODUCTS/Total_Drain._Amerdrain.pdf which has filtration fabric mounted on it. It is than placed smooth side to the foam and the fabric creates a small void outside of the plastic that allows any soil moisture to run down to the weepers. The plastic materials suit me better mainly because most of the approved spray or roll on product don't do well in freezing conditions.
By separating the two systems, in flood conditions, even with a power failure, it is possible to pump the outside manway with a gas powered pump to relieve hydraulic pressure on the walls IF the surface water does not have straight access to the weepers. When s.h.t.f. there is no guarantees but if you can prevent the water from getting under the slab, you have half a chance.
Bob |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 10 Mar 2012 11:25 PM |
|
Tamko TW-60 sheet waterproofing membrane with Tamko TWM-1 mastic to seal all edges Arkie, did you use a primer with the membrane over ICF, and if so, which one; the quick dry or the water based? |
|
|
|
|
RonCrosstone
New Member
Posts:17
|
| 11 Mar 2012 12:07 AM |
|
Bob, You are correct, I forgot to add one thing to my statement.
I take the drainage pipes out to daylight in every case. I have used this system many times over the past 30-35 years and have had to repair many homes and commercial buildings that were built incorrectly and had extensive water intrusion. In each case I used the system described above with complete success, only I also took each system out to daylight. The best use of the system was when we had extensive water flowing though the site in a commercial application. We used this system as described above to catch the water as it moved over and through the ground and then directed the water down through the stone and away from the structure. But had we not brought the drain pipe out to daylight, it most likely would have floated the slab or even pushed the basement walls in.
I suppose that it might not be possible to use this system in every case, but when done properly, water will never enter the house even if the waterproofing membrane fails.
Regarding the use of filter fabric, I have a tendency to shy away from filter fabric based on the following story;
In the early 80s we built a 100,000 sf building for a large computer company in Massachusetts. Since it was a large structure it needed "in roof" drains, these drains were then directed out to the parking lot where they emptied into leaching catch basins. Per the engineer these basins were wrapped in filter fabric and then surrounded by 4"-6" stone. About a year after the projected was completed we had a call back to the site because the entire roof was flooded and was in danger of collapse. After reviewing the problem we dug up each basin in the parking lot and removed the filter fabric from around the basin which were all totally blocked with silt, as a result we never had a call back again.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
arkie6
Veteran Member
Posts:1453
|
| 11 Mar 2012 11:00 AM |
|
Posted By ICFHybrid on 10 Mar 2012 11:25 PM
Tamko TW-60 sheet waterproofing membrane with Tamko TWM-1 mastic to seal all edges Arkie, did you use a primer with the membrane over ICF, and if so, which one; the quick dry or the water based?
I didn't use any primer on the ICF foam based on recommendation from my supplier, but in hindsight, I would now. I just thoroughly brushed and washed off the surface of the foam prior to application of the peel and stick sheet to the foam. It stuck ok, but I felt that I could have had better adhesion with a primed surface. We ended up using screws with 2" plastic washers every 8" to secure the top of the sheet. Otherwise, the long sheets would tend to sag a bit. This worked ok and we applied the mastic over the top edge and over the screws and washers. Note that the mastic has solvent in it which tends to melt the foam it contacts a bit (~1/8" or so). This seems to work really well around the edges of the sheet membrane as the mastic and foam are literally fused together as the solvent evaporates. Also, prior to applying the sheet membrane, we applied the thick rubbery mastic to the top of the footing extending out from the wall. This helped the membrane adhere to the somewhat irregular surface of the footing. We extended the waterproofing membrane ~2" past the outside of the footing and folded it down over the edge. Note that if I had used the primer, it would have been the TWP-2 water based primer which is intended for EPS foam. The TWP-1 quick dry primer is solvent based and not intended for application to EPS foam. |
|
|
|
|
Alton
Veteran Member
Posts:2157
|
| 11 Mar 2012 11:56 AM |
|
I have read all of the above but now am wondering what each of you think about the following practice for waterproofing of walk-out cast-in-place basements:
Overcut the hole for the basement as much as required for worker access. Slope the bottom of the hole towards the walk out end. Spread and tamp clean gravel over the entire hole and slightly beyond the walk out area. Form and cast in place the footers on top of the tamped gravel. Cast the concrete walls on top of the footers. Rough in the plumbing, etc. and then place the concrete slab for the basement. Install the wall waterproofing. Install footing drains to grade (daylight) beside the footer. Install the main floor and then backfill the below-grade walls with clean tamped gravel to within one foot of the finished grade. Lay down a filter cloth and then fill the one-foot area with impervious clay so that it slopes away from the house to meet the code requirements.
Although this practice would require the footers to be formed with something other than a trench, I think the clean, tamped gravel will allow any water that gets under the slab to flow freely to grade. In a sense, the gravel should become one continuous footing drain to grade.
I mention all of this for your comments because basically this is what some precast wall companies do. Some companies such as Superior Walls and Ideal Building System do not use a separate footer. They just use a bond beam at the bottom and top of their precast walls. Although I have used precast walls that resulted in water free basements, I wonder if the same technique would work well with a cast-in-place (CIP) footer for the CIP walls. In other words, if this works for precast walls without footers, then will it also work with CIP footers? |
|
Residential Designer &
Construction Technology Consultant -- E-mail: Alton at Auburn dot Edu Use email format with @ and period .
334 826-3979 |
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 11 Mar 2012 12:42 PM |
|
We extended the waterproofing membrane ~2" past the outside of the footing and folded it down over the edge. More elegant. Because my footings were 3 feet wide on the outside, I opted to terminate the membrane (Miradri 860) at the bottom of the wall right on the footing. I then used the mastic (Carlisle CCW-704) to create a fillet at the corner. I took a 2" wide masonry trowel and ground the end down into a half circle for a filleting tool. That worked well. The mastic had lots of cautions about using it on plastics or foams, but it didn't appear to harm it in the few places they came into contact. Definitely a solvent-based mastic, though. I really liked the latex "primer" (Carlisle CCW-702) as we had some retaining walls that needed waterproofing and the membrane would NOT stick to those without the aid of primer. Using the primer on the ICF created a strong bond with the peel-and-stick membrane.. If the two surfaces touched, they weren't coming apart, much like contact cement. According to the distributor, people like the quick-dry stuff for conventional construction, but I found the water-based primer to dry in as little as 30 min - 2 hrs on the ICF depending on temp and humidity. Faster on wood and concrete. The trick is to apply it sparingly with a roller. |
|
|
|
|
eric monkman
Basic Member
Posts:262
|
| 12 Mar 2012 08:03 PM |
|
All Sask, you are correct to question the viability and performance of peel and stick membranes, congratulations The main deficit of peel and stick is to trap water...... without providing an escape path, a total waste of money imho. Once water gets behind the peel and stick membrane it can only escape to the interior of the foundation wall , which it invariably does  Air-gap is the ONLY product we use on ICF and Conventional Basement Walls, and as a concrete contracting company with 3 crews, I can say we get ZERO call-backs or complaints about water penetration into our foundations. We do all the sump, drainage system and clear stone work also to ensure that the water chanelled by the air-gap has somewhere to go, either by gravity or sump pump. The push to use peel and sticks by ICF trainers is a serious error. Here is a link to a video on our weeper tile install. This situation is allowing the 4 inch tile to be connected by gravity to municipal storm sewers, but in a rural condition we would be using plastic sump wells to handle the outflow. This work is equally important as the air-gap.......... one doesn't work without the other :) http://vimeo.com/35966139 |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 12 Mar 2012 10:38 PM |
|
The push to use peel and sticks by ICF trainers is a serious error. There has been quite a large amount of peel-and-stick applied by now. Wouldn't we be hearing about widespread problems if that was the case? If you have done your job on the drainage, the waterproofing only has to resist the water pressure long enough to allow the water to get to footing drains. During our frequent heavy rains this year, I have had standing water right up against the foundation, but the interior has been bone dry. I used peel and stick. |
|
|
|
|
eric monkman
Basic Member
Posts:262
|
| 13 Mar 2012 04:16 PM |
|
ICFHybrid..I stand by my comments discounting the effectiveness of "peel and stick"
Given good drainage, peel and stick will appear to be a success.
Given poor drainage, it will only be a matter of time before water infiltrates, then what ?
IMHO peel and stick is more difficult to apply, folds, creases and poor seams are easily to screw up.
Air gap is much more user friendly and 50% of the cost both labour and material wise of p&s.
The only failures i have been called on to repair have been by ICF installers who bought into the p&s mindset.
Trainers tend to embellish.
For me to make a living, I have to play it safe..and that is Air-Gap :-)
|
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 13 Mar 2012 05:45 PM |
|
Given good drainage, peel and stick will appear to be a success. Doesn't air gap depend on good drainage, too? |
|
|
|
|
eric monkman
Basic Member
Posts:262
|
| 13 Mar 2012 09:58 PM |
|
There are 2 sides to air-gap.
First line of defence against water infiltration is "barrier" Same as P&S.
Second line of defence is when water penetrates the barrier, vertical channels are provided to drain the water to the perimeter weeper tile system.
Peel and stick is "barrier" only and when water gets thru it has no path to come back away from the structure, thus the eventual appearance of water in the basement. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 13 Mar 2012 10:34 PM |
|
to drain the water to the perimeter weeper tile system. Right. Depends on drainage. |
|
|
|
|
eric monkman
Basic Member
Posts:262
|
| 14 Mar 2012 07:44 AM |
|
Certainly does 
Your point ? |
|
|
|
|
smartwall
Veteran Member
Posts:1197
|
| 14 Mar 2012 10:20 AM |
|
I'm with Eric, as I posted before it's cheaper and does a better job. If you like p&s keep using it, but for the life of me I can't understand why you would when there is a better product available |
|
|
|
|
arkie6
Veteran Member
Posts:1453
|
| 14 Mar 2012 01:30 PM |
|
I went for the "defense in depth" approach by installing multiple barriers. The idea being to minimize challenges to any single barrier while also providing a means to deal with one failed barrier.
1. Top of basement slab is ~5" above the joint between the ICF wall and footing. Basement slab is resting on EPS foam and plastic vapor barrier on top of footing and ~8" gravel inside the footings. Perforated pipes installed inside the footings with penetrations to drain to daylight.
2. Peel-and-stick membrane applied to ICF foam.
3. Polyguard Lowflow over the peel-n-stick which provides mechanical protection and a drainage plane next to the waterproofing membrane. The protection mat drains to the outside footing drains which have ~2' of gravel and geotextile cloth covering the performated pipe that drains to daylight.
4. Backfilled next to basement walls with fill sand up to within ~2' of final grade. Then ~18" of native red clay to seal surface water from the sand. Then ~6" topsoil with grade sloping ~6"/10' away from basement. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 14 Mar 2012 07:02 PM |
|
One problem with peel and stick is the vertical joints of the ICF block. When you adhere the p&s to the surface the upper transition is always suspect. Care must be taken in detailing this. I have seen jobs were the ICF installer applies p&s to the grade level and then someone applies stucco to the exposure between grade and siding without any allowance for a transition over the p&s because after all most stucco products don't stick to tar. The water runs down the wall and gets into the ICF joints behind the p&s. If the ICF installer did a bang up job and glued the peel and stick to the footing as well, then the only place for the water to go is into the basement. |
|
|
|
|
arkie6
Veteran Member
Posts:1453
|
| 14 Mar 2012 11:18 PM |
|
I can see where that might be an issue with direct applied stucco finishes. In my case, I am bricking the exterior with at least a 1" air gap between the brick and the wall. I'm also planning on an extra layer of 1/2" foil faced polyiso insulation over the ICF which would lap over the top few inches of the waterproofing. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 15 Mar 2012 09:34 AM |
|
I used a product called BTS Plus from Sto to parge the area between the siding and the Miradri 860 membrane. It adheres directly to the ICF foam. I had to use some 60 grit sandpaper to rough up the peel and stick membrane to get adhesion on the overlap. I can't understand why you would when there is a better product available As often happens, I don't think it is a matter of "a better product", but a different product. I have one section of retaining wall where the laborers worked 2 hours unsupervised during the backfill. That means they backfilled without compacting when the supervisors weren't looking. We've had three months of unseasonable rain and 7000 square feet of roof dumps all that water right next to the foundation. There was more than 2 feet of subsidence in that section. The earth ripped off the air barrier, dragging it down and crumpling it as it settled, but the peel and stick stayed intact due to good adhesion and the basement is still dust-dry despite 12 feet of water up against it. |
|
|
|
|