And still have a product that is impermeable to humidity, mold and moisture? With a 4 hour fire rating? :)

As I stated before. "There are other reasons to go with ICF over SIPs but don't fool yourself that dollar for dollar an ICF and it's ecapsuated thermal mass will give you better heating and cooling cost savings."

It seems this conversation is dealing with heating and cooling savings.

Sorry I couldn't help it :)

Just wanted to point out that yes most ICF blocks net 5" of polystyrene (2.5" each side), which makes your point "more foam for your money" valid by going with a sips panel that nets 5.5". Just keep in mind that there are ICFs that net 5.5" of foam such as Logix. The R value of concrete should be considered as well. The R value of concrete is ~.3 per inch so 6" x .3 = 1.8 added R value to an ICF wall.

You must have edited your post 'cause in the copy that came in my email you said you had been doing load calculations on a 1700 sq ft house. Have you ever looked at, or used, the HEED (Home Energy Efficient Design) program from UCLA? It's a freebie program and has provisions for calculating ICF houses. Nowhere as detailed as Right Suite but makes for an interesting comparison. The main difference between it and most Manual J programs is it calculates heat load on a 24 hr basis using 30 yr hourly temp readings. Part of the output are 3D graphs showing how the heating/cooling load varies by hour and by day of year. It definitely accounts for the thermal mass of the concrete.

Here's a couple of graphs I saved from my own house calc. They're both for the first 12 days of a typical August in SW Idaho. One shows outdoor temp, the other indoor temp. There is no A/C reflected in this set of graphs, IOW, the indoor temp shows what would happen with no a/c turned on in the house. You can see a definite lag between outdoor and indoor temps.

Lol yeah you caught me! I edited my post because I realized shortly after that I made a mistake on a couple inputs in my heat loads, so the $6 a year difference was inaccurate by far. I just started using REM design. Pretty cool stuff.

Your graph definitely tells the story. I briefly ran into the HEED software on the internet today through a Google search but I didn't download it. I'll have to take a look at it again. Thats the first that i have seen a piece of energy simulation software put out a graph like that. Nice work!

I do agree that you can get more foam insulation for cheaper in a SIP. But I would take a 2.5" foam, 6"concrete core, 2.5" foam ICF over a 5.5" foam SIP granted there is a higher cost. I had spec'd out 8.25" SIPs for my upper level walls which would have cost $6,000.00 less over the 6" core ICFs. We went with ICF due to the many mature oaks that are close to the house and extra storm protection. I'd take a 5.5" foam SIP over traditional stick construction, any day. I downloaded that HEED program and I'm going load it up and check it out.

Ya the HEED software is pretty sweet. It will actually let you align your house how you want it in relationship to north and then take into account your longitude and latitude, your 30 year weather history and then spit out a ton of graphs showing your solar gain/loss for each part of your house. Thanks Dmaceld!

"If your reference is this -- http://www.isomax-terrasol.eu/uploads/media/ISOMAX-TERRA-SOL-engl.pdf"...

Yes indead Toddm - this is correct. The energy usage in the house in Poland is currently below 18Kwh/m2/year. Correct me if I am wrong - but I don't think that a SIP, Adobe and certianly not conventional Stick could come even close to that kind of proformance; let alone indoor air quality and indoor relative humidity (both in summer and winter)

The pipe in pipe flow-counterflow system is a below surface heat/cool air exchange (96% efficient) companion system which provides continious fresh air - a subject which has yet to be taken into consideration.

As to cost and system maintinance one might be pleasently surprised. Most importantly; these systems will work with any ICF Form; thus creating a "Supercharged ICF" for lack of a better term.

I watched an episode of Renovation Nation that had a similar roof system.

They installed warmaboard on the roof deck with pex for solar hot water. On top of that was metal roofing with the peel and stick Solar electric mambrane for an integrated solar hot water and electicity roof.

Great thread... thanks toddm for bringing this to my attention.

No matter whether it has been 90-95F (lows of 78-82) for a week and the temp is set to 77F, or it has been 28-21F (lows of 18-22) and the temp is set to 73, the exterior ICF wall temp of our home, whether shot at 1 foot or at 8 feet, is always exactly the same as the t-stat setting.

"The energy usage in the house in Poland is currently below 18Kwh/m2/year."

UPDATE: In regard to the ongoing energy readings concerning the house in Poland; the 2009 readings for the year (Jan. 2009 thru Dec. 2009) resulted in 5.8KW/m2/yr. This does confirm that the heat storage below the footprint of the building has indeed achieved the anticipated results; thus confirming the theory of heat accumulation over years.

The INTERIOR WALL TEMPERATURE (the temperature of the concrete core BETWEEN the EPS) has remained constant varying only +/- 3degrees centigrade (+19 - +22 C) throughout the year.

Therefore a "mirco climate" (not only a "Buffer") was created within the ICF wall itself; utilizing the free energy supplied by the Sun (Sol) and stored in the earth (Terra).

Impressive result!  Can you re-describe the build and the systems for us?  I scanned back through the thread, but I am not exactly certain exactly what was done to get this result.

Bruce

Bruce - as well as all valued readers of this thread;

First of all; may I express my deepest gratitude and thanks for all interest and comments (mostly constructive) concerning this technology - as well as our host Greenbuildingtalk; without which such an exchange of new constructive alternative ideas would be far more difficult.

In order not to be repetitive - please refer to my prior posts (1/29/09, 1,30/09 and 1/31/09) on this thread

PART ONE - THE FLUID SYSTEM

1.) Excavation: Below the foundation ( concrete basement floor/ concrete slab); a series of multiple circuits of PP-20mm tubing is installed (Future "warm" circuits) as well as a separate circuit for the pre-heating of domestic hot water ( this circuit runs directly through the ICF walls and connects to the solar absorber tubing circuits below the roofing shingles.

EPS is installed around the foundation perimeter forming a "Hat" (creating a "Geothermal Heat storage bubble") below the concrete foundation platform.

The cooling circuit is installed outside the foundation perimeter using multiple PP-20mm circuits.

2.) ICF WALLS: PP (or PEX) tubing is pre-installed prior to the concrete pour - one circuit for each exterior room wall (thus allowing individual room climate control); These circuits are connected to a manifold (computer controlled) which regulates either "warm" (from with-in the "Heat storage bubble") or "cold" (from the outside circuits - separate of the underground "Heat storage bubble") fluid flow as well as flow rate. THESE ARE THE BASICS BY WHICH THE "TEMPERATURE BARRIER" (MIRCO-CLIMATE) IS CREATED WITHIN THE CONCRETE CORE.

3.) Roof absorber: PP (or Pex) tubing is installed below the roof connecting to the domestic water supply below within the "Hat" underneath the concrete foundation (basement) slab.


Part 2 - the pipe-in-pipe - flow/counterflow air exchange system will follow after the WOC - 2010.

Food for thought: We recently had about 5 days of below freezing weather in north Texas (not a common occurance).

Anyway, I've just installed 4 temperature probes in a large ICF structure (school) with no doors installed (most windows are installed). Geo not yet turned on. After several continuous 20 degree days and nights (some teens) but continuous temps below freezing, I observed the following:

Continued -- hit the wrong key:

27 degrees outside probe.
35 degrees probe between concrete core and outer foam panel.
37 degrees probe between concrete core and inner foam panel.
35 degrees inside temperature.

Probes are 9-10 feet off the ground floor. Very interesting. Is terra helping a bit?

BTW -- concrete was poured in this section about 3 months ago so it is not still giving off heat due to the cure process. I need to go back and check now that average temperatures have been in the 40's and 50's over the past few days. But i can assure you that there is a substantial lag to be found.

Quote from report sited some time back in this thread "Table 1 shows that the insulation has a low volumetric heat capacity and a high thermal diffusivity. This means that the insulation has a low capacity for storing thermal energy and responds quickly to external temperature changes. The concrete, though, has a high volumetric heat capacity and a low thermal diffusivity, making it a good thermal storage medium that responds slowly to external temperature changes" Regards.