I am looking for a better method of building besides using wood.  I have narrowed down my options to either an ICF or SIP homes.  From my research I concluded that using ICF's is a more superior way to build in terms of energy savings and saftety.  Am I right by saying Sips are less expensive in terms of cost, are constructed quicker than ICF's and easier to assemle?  Can someone give me some more pro's or con's between the two systems and respond to my findings on labor times to construct.

Thanks
Ebuilder

I can see that you are trying to start a war. And, I don't agree with your last statement!


That would depend on where you are building. But, generally, SIPS are less expensive. Quicker and Easier? Probably.


If you are building in 'Tornado Alley' or in a Hurricane area, I would think that ICF's have an edge(unless you just decide on a 'Safe Room'). Also, if you think that there will be a civil war in the future, I would recommend ICF's. Otherwise, for above ground construction, I would recommend SIPS. Considering 'Labor Times', I would give the nod to SIPS. But, I would put 'Labor' behind form and function.

Let the war begin.

Aw c'mon we don't need a war! :-)

I think BOTH technologies have their place, and especially BOTH are better building practices than days of old.

Now, both systems need a foundation, so ICFs have the advantage there, but if someone wants to use a combi system I say why not? ICfs perhaps have the opportunity to provide less experienced builders or homeowners the possibility of doing their own foundation, however I believe most SIPs require a factory certified installer. And that is good!! However, keep in mind that someone can do a poor ICF install if not properly trained or assisted!

The quicker easier question is a moot point. You need to compare the 4 installs to see how they come out. You have inexperienced ICF, experienced ICF, inexperienced SIP, and experienced SIP. I will assume there are no inexperienced SIP people, unless the factories started selling to everybody immaterial of knowledge and experience.

Now, I have not had good luck with SIP pricing for roofs, but that may have changed in the last year or so.

ICF's are:

• Much quieter (no question about this in imho)
• Stronger (obvious)
• As energy efficient or more
• Has thermal mass in walls
• Slighty more expensive (depends on lots things)
• Longer to build (of course).

Read the materials out there and talk to homeowners.

I disagree. Let's just leave it at that.

And, the thermal mass is tempered by the fact that it's insulated.

Ok you disagree but you have no rebuttle to back it up? huh...

I would go with icf's. If im investing the money in a house I would want to know that it would at least stay structurally sound in the result of a fire, flood or tornado. People need to realize that sips are easier to put up because its wood. Any framer can adapt fairly easily to sips because there is no concrete involved and convetional framing techniques and tools can be used throughout the installation. Icfs have so much more going for them. I mean just think if your living in Southern California and you expierience a drive by shooting....which one is going to protect your family better? Icfs.

HaHaHa. Sure I do. You could view this study by ORNL - Thermal Mass - Energy Savings Potential in Residential Buildings.

And, then you would be asking yourself Where's the Beef?

Especially this graph. And you will see that ICF's perform better in warm climate areas, and the savings over a stick framed stucture are only between 5% and 10%.

Not exactly a stunning testimonial is it?

Hi jc:

The referenced Graph is viewable. However, your reference report on the ORNL site comes up with a "Not Found" error. From your posts, I do understand that you are a proponent of both ICF and SIPs.

There have been practical studies where they built similar ICF and stick-built houses and determined the energy savings using ICF to be significant.

What is your position on energy savings in residential construction in building with ICF and SIPs over stick-built construction? and what do you think of the differences in the referenced ORNL study and the real-world whole house studies?

"There have been practical studies where they built similar ICF and stick-built houses and determined the energy savings using ICF to be significant."

Significant? Maybe its time for you to provide evidence for your claim. Most unbiased studies i have seen agree with panelcrafters information. About 10% savings. All anybody wants is correct information so we can make an informed decision.
I have a quadlock brochure right in front of me. It clearly shows that while you will save energy with icf you will not save money due to higher construction costs. In addition they show only $8000 more in costs for an icf home when they do their comparison. I doubt those figures because i got an icf bid this week for a house basement and the basement alone was 16000 higher than conventional poured.
If you look closely at the brochure you will see that they are comparing icf to 2/4 studs with batt insulation. I dont know about your part of the country but i dont build like that around here. I always use 2/6 and use cellulose or foam and with careful sealing i can get a home tight enough that you have to use an air exchanger. I would like to see a comparison to 2007 building practices and not 1990 practices.


http://www.quadlock.com/brochures/Quad-Lock_Contractor_Brochure.pdf page 4 monthly housing cost comparison chart

The original link has been fixed.


I have not seen these studies. And, obviously, they would conflict with the ORNL studies.


The main difference would be their(SIPS & ICF's) ability to reduce/eliminate air infiltraction. The others would be lack of thermal breaks and R-Value.

Now, one can use conventional materials to construct a wall with superior insulative qualities:



I would need to see the 'real world' studies, and definitely who sponsored them!.

The key to thermal performance is primarily R-Value, R-Value and R-Value. However, all of the R-Value in the world can be rendered useless with a high rate of air infiltration. So, while I consider R-Value the most important element of a thermal envelope, low air infiltration and reduction of thermal breaks are also very important.

Im not going to disagree with you on the subject of r-values. The math works out and the potential energy savings marks seem valid.  While the study is well put together and does a great job testing individual wall configurations it still fails to provide real world results, documentation on energy bills etc... every result in that study is derived from a mathmatical formula.

I motion to question the accuracy of results in the study given the make up of the infiltration variable calculated in the DOE-2.1E computer model is derived from a residential wood structure.

Quoted directly from the study:

"The Sherman-Grimsrud Infiltration Method, which is an option in the DOE 2.1E whole-building simulation model [Sherman et al 1980], is used in all whole building simulations. An average total leakage area of 0.0005 expressed as a fraction of the floor area is assumed. This is the considered average for a single-zone wood-framed residential structure. This number cannot be converted directly to average air changes per hour because it is used in an equation driven by hourly wind speed and temperature difference between the inside and ambient which varies for the six climates analyzed for this study. However, for the ten climates this represents an air change per hour range which will not fall below an annual average of 0.35 ACH."

I may be wrong, but doesn't it seem like the results in the study would have been signifigantly different if the 'Average total leakage' variable was derived from the type of system they were acutally testing? I would think that concrete, icfs and sips average total leakage would be signifigantly less considering how much more 'air tight' these methods of construction are.

Good thread.

I was surprised that, when we began getting quotes for our home, the ICF builder came in with a lower bid than the SIPs bid.  We were pleasantly surprised since we're building in FL so had really wanted ICF's for their strength.  Strangely enough, we found 2 builders in the area who specialized in ICF construction and none who specialized in SIPs, which may have been why one builder we could find who agreed to use SIPs came in with such a high bid.

I have nothing to contribute to the more technical, energy-efficiency aspect of this thread.

Cheers!
Heather W
Our ICF Home Construction Journal