I'm in design stage for a house in Auburn,CA outside of Sacramento. Because of fire concerns, I have been leaning towards a concrete dome, surrounded by earth, with the PAHS umbrella over the top and extending out 15 ft beyond foundation edge. I'm wondering if I would be better off to go the standards Monolithic Dome; exterior insulation, interior concrete; in effect a PassiveHaus as I understand it. I prefer to stay in concrete; wild fire and termites are the biggest threats we face. Does anyone have any comments? Thanks, McFish

passivehouse concept has more to do with how much energy a house needs than how it is built. you can build a passive house from strawbale if you want. I don't know exacly how fire affects concrete but I'd put the concrete on the exterior and the insulation on the interior if fire protection and termites are the biggest problems. PAHS is a very nice concept but it may be a bit more complex to design properly from what I've read.

keep us posted

Adi
http://torontonetzerohouse.blogspot.com/

PAHS is indeed complex to implement correctly. I am hoping for some feedback on it. The typical Monolithic Dome is from the inside out; layers of concrete and rebar, then foam, then the airform, then maybe a protective cover. Both systems use reinforced concrete for the structure and to provide thermal mass. PAHS takes this one step further to enclose more dirt for added storage inside the insulation envelope. Building the envelope is where things get complicated.

I think that with the high humidity in Sacremento you need to be sure of adequate cross ventilation
and a vent at the top of the dome.

I don't like domes but hey.

look at a local company here called SIPSMART for their website.

PAHS are potent atmospheric pollutants that consist of fused aromatic rings and do not contain heteroatoms or carry substituents.

I have built PAHS and passive house type homes before. I have been building zero energy homes for 30 years. Drop me an email if you would like to chat about it. [email protected]

Brian

I live in an earth-sheltered PAHS home. http://house-in-the-hill.blogspot.com/

I have been in the Sacramento, CA area a number of times and believe that a well-insulated, solar-heated, earth-sheltered home can be a nearly zero-energy home. Our costs are mainly electricity for appliances and fluorescent lighting and propane gas for cooking and clothes drying, although we use sun for clothes drying most of the time. I recommend Davis Caves Homes http://www.daviscaves.com/homes.htm for constructing a very reliable earth-sheltered home with the PAHS system. They have experience building ours and others.

I would look at a SCIP building (including the roof). Edit: above ground.

SCIP buildings are not designed to be covered by several feet of soil as would be required in a PAHS system. Davis Caves was recently called to repair a partially collapsed structure built of materials not capable of withstanding the surrounding soil pressure loads. Our house has a one-foot thick monolithic reinforced concrete roof and one-foot thick walls. It is surrounded on three sides by soil, and the roof is covered by five feet of soil. The reinforced structure was designed by a professional architect and approved by the county inspectors.

Posted By raw915 on 17 Dec 2012 03:28 PM
SCIP buildings are not designed to be covered by several feet of soil as would be required in a PAHS system.    . . .

I agree with this statement in a general sense.  That is, SCIP buildings are not typically designed to be covered with several feet of soil.  However, I do think that SCIP buildings can be designed to carry exceptionally heavy loads.  But the correct type of panel and good engineering must be used.

I agree, SCIPs are just steel, foam and concrete (like ICFs). With enough steel and concrete (ie, the right panel design), they can support anything, above or below ground.