Posted By ricky_005 on 09 Aug 2014 11:51 AM

...The best system I have found to have a good chance of surviving the humid south is the Perfect Wall System http://www.buildingscience.com/docu...rfect-wall

In that link; "Figure 9: "The Residential Wall"—The best residential wall we know how to construct", is brick/stone veneer over a drained cavity over rigid foam insulation over structural sheathing over insulated cavity wood framed walls - is essentially the same wall I recommended earlier.

But if you really want the stucco look, why not go with real stucco rather than an imitation?  It is a time proven wall construction method.

I would prefer a wall with a R-28 rating..... To get R-28 that's a lot of foam, and to counter leaver heavy stucco that far out, I think its just to much weight.

Posted By ricky_005 on 09 Aug 2014 12:24 PM

Posted By Jelly on 09 Aug 2014 10:41 AM
Nice to hear from an expert!

Ricky, sorry your thread got hijacked and went off on this tangent.

The average house fire burns at a temperature of about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

I simply pointed out the structural issues of steel SIP's when you introduce fire into the equation and the outcome is total failure of the system. The cost to get an True 1 hour fire rated wall system to meet building code I think in most cases, you would better off with ICF or a system similar to the Perfect Wall System.

Introducing fire will result in structural failure in most systems, depending on how hot the fire and how long it is left to burn. Comparable fire ratings to those other systems are achievable with steel SIPs. The rate at which your suggesting the failure will occur is not correct. The 180F is not referring to the room temp, but the temp at which the EPS surface starts to degrade. The test results are published, showing room temps reaching up to 2000F with negligible damage to the EPS core. Again, I'm sorry to take up so much of your thread, but I can't let misinformation prevail.

Back to your original topic, if you want to go with EIFS, might I suggest you consider CMU, with an appropriate barrier layer, rigid foam, and STO or Dryvit?

Posted By Jelly on 09 Aug 2014 02:37 PM

Posted By ricky_005 on 09 Aug 2014 12:24 PM

Posted By Jelly on 09 Aug 2014 10:41 AM
Nice to hear from an expert!

Ricky, sorry your thread got hijacked and went off on this tangent.

The average house fire burns at a temperature of about 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

I simply pointed out the structural issues of steel SIP's when you introduce fire into the equation and the outcome is total failure of the system. The cost to get an True 1 hour fire rated wall system to meet building code I think in most cases, you would better off with ICF or a system similar to the Perfect Wall System.

Introducing fire will result in structural failure in most systems, depending on how hot the fire and how long it is left to burn. Comparable fire ratings to those other systems are achievable with steel SIPs. The rate at which your suggesting the failure will occur is not correct. The 180F is not referring to the room temp, but the temp at which the EPS surface starts to degrade. The test results are published, showing room temps reaching up to 2000F with negligible damage to the EPS core. Again, I'm sorry to take up so much of your thread, but I can't let misinformation prevail.

Back to your original topic, if you want to go with EIFS, might I suggest you consider CMU, with an appropriate barrier layer, rigid foam, and STO or Dryvit?

Are you a Steel SIP home owner?

yes I am

Posted By Jelly on 09 Aug 2014 11:22 PM
yes I am

I thought so .....

To get R-28 that's a lot of foam, and to counter leaver heavy stucco that far out, I think its just to much weight.

Note the the density of the foam and how much you put on the outside vs the inside are up to you. Foam is also much stronger than you might be thinking.

a home utilizing the theory behind the Perfect Wall System

Claims about 500 year life and "perfection" are just unproven marketing fluff. Personally, I think it would be closer to perfect with significant overhangs (for moisture and shade reasons).

I don't think you will find 'any' insurance com. would cover a house with EIFS. They got burned for millions in the past and they don't want to get anywhere near it now.

Posted By robinnc on 10 Aug 2014 07:32 PM
I don't think you will find 'any' insurance com. would cover a house with EIFS. They got burned for millions in the past and they don't want to get anywhere near it now.

No home owner insurance company's cover EIFS water damage/rot ...... unless you buy some sort of supplemental insurance to cover water damage/rot and odd are you wont be able to afford it. The home owners usually always gets stuck with the tab.


I know State Farms will insure for normal insurance rates, they just require annual inspections, so expect $200 bucks a year for inspections for EIFS wood framed structures.

based on your desired specifications and your location and the desired exterior finish, it is my opinion that the very best construction method you could choose would be to use 8" AAC (autoclaved aereated concrete) blocks or panels. The East coast manufacturer is not theat far from you. Hebel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wyDmuAzaWg

It offers low cost construction, is Lightweight, virtually fireproof, windproof, impact proof, requires no insulation, can be tooled, trowled or finished on the exterior to resemble stucco or limestone block and painted with elastomeric paint to achieve virtually any desired color. It has been used in Europe for decades with great result.

Yes I know it all sounds too good to be true but it is. Cost is slightly more than 8" CMU construction which is certianly not as expensive as ICF. Should get you a discount on fire insurance and is termite proof.

An article listing the (dis)advantages of AAC. http://greenspec.buildinggreen.com/blogs/autoclaved-aerated-concrete-aac-will-us-ever-lighten

Hoosier, I would ignore the majority of US opinions on AAC. Most US builders are not experienced with it. It is a very small percentage of the market and therefore themajority of published feedback is based on negative experiences. That doesn't make it an inherently bad material. The description of what you said you want plays more to its strengths than weakenesses.

It suffers many of the same problems here that ICF and strawbale do. It does not fit the mold of conventional building and it is hard to get a bank to loan money for it as the inspection schedule does not conform. It messes up the typical progression of trades for general contractors which causes cost overruns for their business models and makes it somewhat higher than conventional stick build construction. Therefore they discourage it and it remains a small margin of the market. However, it is much friendlier to the DYI type or the custom builder.

I have worked with it and it is a pleasure to work with albeit a bit dusty. If I lived in a wildfire prone area it is the only thing I would live in.

That said it was merely a suggestion. Take it or leave it but certainly don't rule it out based on R-value or the opinion of some bloggers or internet article. Tour some homes built with it and decide for yourself. Hebel should be able to give you some references in your area

AAC is fairly popular in Denmark & Sweden (and 25 years ago I noticed quite a bit of AAC used in the Netherlands.) In Sweden it is usually augmented with EPS to bring the thermal performance up to newer energy-use standards.

It's not particularly high-R and has only only modest thermal mass, and it's highly water-vapor permeable, which limits the finishes that can be used in colder climates. Even the lowest-R ICF will beat it on thermal & moisture performance.

Due to the mass effects a lowest-density 8" thick AAC wall will still meet IRC 2012 code minimum performance in US climate zone 4 without additional insulation, but it would take 12" low density AAC to meet code in zone 5. (Higher density AAC has better structural capacity, but lower thermal performance.) And that's only to get to code-min, not high performance.

@1blueheron,
I still have to figure out what AAC is called in the Netherlands. Pictures on Google vary but it looks like that light weight Ytong stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmL-Xz-p5fY
I never met someone who speaks highly of the stuff. I've only seen it used in interior walls. Walls I can just kick out. No tools needed. It doesn't really like water. Could very well be that it comes in quality grades that vary greatly. I've seen the same in wood. Same type of wood (meranti and merbau) can vary 4x in density.

It suffers many of the same problems here that ICF and strawbale do. It does not fit the mold of conventional building and it is hard to get a bank to loan money for it as the inspection schedule does not conform.

Inspection schedule?


BTW the article wasn't overly negative I think?

Dana,

It's not particularly high-R and has only only modest thermal mass, and it's highly water-vapor permeable
Not just vapor if it's the stuff I think it is. I absorbs water like a sponge.

will still meet IRC 2012 code minimum performance in US climate zone 4

But combined with some water it will only meet code-nothing I guess.

Once again there could be different quality grades or it's entirely different stuff; but the way I see that guy lift the blocks either means he's very strong or it's the stuff I have in mind.

It's not particularly high-R

I prefer to compare the price of walls based on R-value. If I save 20% on the wall but have 30% higher insulation costs, it doesn't work out as cheap as assumed

Posted By NewHoosier on 16 Aug 2014 01:44 AM

...I still have to figure out what AAC is called in the Netherlands....

Yes it's ytong, Porenbeton auf Deutsch.

How does Cellenbeton sound?

It has to be kept dry, but so does most everything.

Cell sounds like the English cell
en sounds like the first 2 letters of endavour
Beton
- Be sounds like the first two letters of bubble
- Ton sounds like the first 3 letters of tonnage

Concrete doesn't have much problem with water. It's even used for tunnels under river and even sea. But there ary many types and denisties of concrete.
Here, in Amsterdam, some age old building made out of brick litterally stand in the water.

Posted By NewHoosier on 16 Aug 2014 10:33 AM
Cell sounds like the English cell
en sounds like the first 2 letters of endavour
Beton
- Be sounds like the first two letters of bubble
- Ton sounds like the first 3 letters of tonnage

Concrete doesn't have much problem with water. It's even used for tunnels under river and even sea. But there ary many types and denisties of concrete.
Here, in Amsterdam, some age old building made out of brick litterally stand in the water.

No, what I meant was that Cellenbeton seems to be the word for aerated concrete in Nederlaans.

Whoops.....
I just checked. It seems we have lots of names for it. I only knew gasbeton (gas concrete), brandname Durox and gipsbeton (gypsum concrete)
Durox is AAC but I simply can't believe it can be used for bearing walls. It's the type of wall that can be kicked down or just rammed down with your shoulder.
Hanging heavy things on it can be tricky because plugs can come out. http://www.ijzerwebshop.nl/media/wysiwyg/Pluggen.png
I'm sure the building code commision is aware Durox is absolute junk so there must be a quality difference between AAC blocks.

EDIT:
Just checked AAC comes in densities between 600-1600 kg/m³. Likely I'm talking about the 600 type because it floats in water (1000 kg/m³).

Another option is Durisol - Cement-bonded Wood Fiber Insulated Concrete Forms. They have a 14" wide form with 5.5" concrete core that they claim is R28 (I have my doubts that the whole wall R value is that due to the way the blocks are constructed). They have a 12" wide form with 5.5" concrete core that they claim is R21. Stucco can be applied directly to the forms; however, reinforcing mesh is recommended to avoid cracks at the block joints.

http://durisolbuild.com/material-shtml/

A quick search indicates that Durisol is somewhat more expensive than regular ICF walls: http://durisolbuild.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22