I like R-84... that is very nice.... but am I going to like the price?

Has anyone used the R-84's?   Experience?   Pricing?

If I were to get the R-84's, would I NEED the 10" thick concrete cavity, or could I get away with the 6" or 8"

The house could "possibly" be a 48X48, with a 8' (finished) floor (basement), 8' second floor (finished), 8' third floor (finished)

I wanna go for the highest (within reason) R Value on the entire structure of the house,  so I can go minimal on the mechanical.  are the R-84's overkill?

Build Location - Western Montana, around the Hamilton/Missoula area.

Windows will "most likey" be Serious, or Milgard, depending on contractor pricing.

ANYONE with any info, good or bad on these, please reply.

Thank you!

-CT

I can't tell you about the r-84, (I have R 43 in my house in eastern Ontario), but you may want to check out Thermotech Fiberglass Fenestration in Ottawa for windows. (There are two companies, the one I used is the one with Fenestration in it.) Windows are, in my opinion, as good as serious and have been used in Passivehouse construction in the US.

Regards,

Lynelle

do you build at north pole? otherwise there is no reason to build a house to R84. If you check out Mill Creek Net Zero in Edmonton - they've managed to get to net zero with R56 clear wall (maybe around R50 whole wall). the energy modeling for the house shows an ANUAL energy consuption of 9GJ (around 100$). with R56 they-ve managed better than passive house standard in Edmonton. Do some calculation first - you dont need to go to R84 to not need a mechanical system.

good luck
Adi

Adi has it right.

Outside design temps for Missoula are only -10F (99% binned-hourly data), or -6F (97.5%), which is similar to the design temps for the Urbana IL PassiveHouse, which managed to get there with mere R60 clear-wall values. Given the comparatively drier air, greater winter insolation, and large diurnal temp swings of Missoula I suspect one could get to PassiveHouse energy levels with ~R50 clear walls in a good design.

But design is everything- it's easy to blow it, even with R84 clear-wall values.

The good news about EPS (most ICFs are EPS) at Missoula's cool-temp extremes is that at 0F it's R value goes UP by about 25% over it's 75F rating. If clear-wall rated R50 at 75F, it'll perform closer to R55 under heating design conditions. It'll be more like R47 on that blistering 110F day in summer though.

Posted By [email protected] on 15 Nov 2010 07:53 AM
I can't tell you about the r-84, (I have R 43 in my house in eastern Ontario), but you may want to check out Thermotech Fiberglass Fenestration in Ottawa for windows. (There are two companies, the one I used is the one with Fenestration in it.) Windows are, in my opinion, as good as serious and have been used in Passivehouse construction in the US.

Regards,

Lynelle

Thank you for the info Lynelle, I will look into those windows.

Posted By adi43d on 15 Nov 2010 09:32 AM
do you build at north pole? otherwise there is no reason to build a house to R84. If you check out Mill Creek Net Zero in Edmonton - they've managed to get to net zero with R56 clear wall (maybe around R50 whole wall). the energy modeling for the house shows an ANUAL energy consuption of 9GJ (around 100$). with R56 they-ve managed better than passive house standard in Edmonton. Do some calculation first - you dont need to go to R84 to not need a mechanical system.

good luck
Adi

Adi,

Thanks for the info.

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on R Values.  I didn't know R-84 was for polar climates.

I checked out the MCNZ home, it is impressive!  I like it a lot.  I don't think I could do a complete "net zero" house yet, as the price of Solar is still really high.
I know there is the 30% fed, but Montana lacks on the state level, as far as rebates go.  I checked the DSIRE website, and I wasn't impressed.

Again, thanks for the info.

Posted By Dana1 on 15 Nov 2010 12:34 PM
Adi has it right.

Outside design temps for Missoula are only -10F (99% binned-hourly data), or -6F (97.5%), which is similar to the design temps for the Urbana IL PassiveHouse, which managed to get there with mere R60 clear-wall values. Given the comparatively drier air, greater winter insolation, and large diurnal temp swings of Missoula I suspect one could get to PassiveHouse energy levels with ~R50 clear walls in a good design.

But design is everything- it's easy to blow it, even with R84 clear-wall values.

The good news about EPS (most ICFs are EPS) at Missoula's cool-temp extremes is that at 0F it's R value goes UP by about 25% over it's 75F rating. If clear-wall rated R50 at 75F, it'll perform closer to R55 under heating design conditions. It'll be more like R47 on that blistering 110F day in summer though.

Dana,

Thank you for your reply!  I've read a few of your posts around here.  You clearly have a wealth of knowledge.

I would be grateful to pick your brain about design/geo thermal/HVR ect.  If you can spare sometime.  If not, I completely understand.

Thank you for the info.

With all that said, I'd most likely feel comfortable with the R-61 ICF's from Quad-Lock, unless someone else makes a "better" product.

I still don't know the pricing on this stuff yet. I emailed Quad-Lock directly, hopefully I will get a reply.


The design will definitely be passive solar, south side facing with concrete floors to add thermal mass... I am sold on that.

Now I just need to figure out the "rough design", to make everything work.

Just one caveat: Read the Quad-Lock website. There's no guarantee that they're selling you an R61 product. It's their guess (extrapolation) that it should be R61. They may be going down that oft-trodden path incorporating the R value of the concrete, inside air, gyp-board, etc, etc, etc.

Posted By BrucePolycrete on 15 Nov 2010 02:48 PM
Just one caveat: Read the Quad-Lock website. There's no guarantee that they're selling you an R61 product. It's their guess (extrapolation) that it should be R61. They may be going down that oft-trodden path incorporating the R value of the concrete, inside air, gyp-board, etc, etc, etc.

Bruce,

Thanks for the info.

Is there anything you would recommend that has been proven to be R55-R61 ish?

Thanks

Nope. All I can tell you is that 5" of Type II EPS is going to be about R23. All the rest is marketing hype.

Posted By BrucePolycrete on 15 Nov 2010 03:12 PM
Nope. All I can tell you is that 5" of Type II EPS is going to be about R23. All the rest is marketing hype.

I understand that, thanks for the help.

... that's R23 @ 75F. It'll be over R25 @ 25F, and only R21ish at 110F.

EPS has a real temperature coefficient. See:

http://www.transconsteel.com/products/ultraframe/docs/Other_Properties_of_EPS.pdf

Using air-films etc in clear-wall R values is bogus, but doesn't add that much fluff to the very high-R fantasy numbers on a percentage basis. Adding the R value of the sheathing, and interior finish wall is legitimate. Assuming air-films is half the markup, the 2.66 total Quad-Lock hype-adder may be relevant with R20 ICFs, but at over R50, no so much- "in the noise" of EPS temperature coefficients, and "as-installed" blemish & error factors. (Gonna start counting & measuring every chip, dent or ding?)

Posted By BrucePolycrete on 15 Nov 2010 03:12 PM
Nope. All I can tell you is that 5" of Type II EPS is going to be about R23. All the rest is marketing hype.

The R-84 wall that the origional poster was refering to uses over 20" of Type II EPS. See: http://www.quadlock.com/green_build...lation.htm No marketting fluff, just a whole lot of excess isulation. My advice, take a look at everywhere your building can lose energy, and spend the money on your best bang for the buck. Making superinsulated walls just to end up skimping on your windows or HRV doesn't make sense.


To answer your original question, adding any thickness of insulation to your basement walls will not reduce the amount of concrete required. Talk to you architect or structural engineer for what the requirements are in your area and situation.

torres - R84 walls sound a bit like killing a mosquito with a bazooka. What is your plan for your roof? If your roof has wood or steel (like studs) connecting inside and outside you should be focusing on it. Even if you use a SIP roof you will need to find one that does not physically connect (structurally) inside to out to get remotely close to the performance of your wall. If you talked about the roof already i apologize for missing in advance. I did notice the three stories which does put a much greater load on the walls. I always get a chuckle when and engineer uses some factor like 20% for the wall "value" even when there is conditioned space above and below.

I don't know if I am going to go Quad-Lock anything anymore.  
They are Canadian based which would not support the economic growth of the US, directly.  (nothing against Canada)
That would ultimately weigh on my conscience, considering the current unemployment rate.

I also don't know if I could deal with 20+ inches of foam panels on the exterior, which would limit my exterior choices, to pretty much stucco, unless I am missing something.
R-84, like the others stated, would be over kill.  Load on the walls like you mention in the tri-level design, I'd likely need an 8-10+ inch thick concrete cavity, which would drive the price up.

When I posted this, in my mind, I thought, the higher the R Value, the "better" it would be.  I didn't know in the climate where I plan on building that I could get away with an R-50 ish wall, and be comfortable.

As for roofs, I am on the fence... IF I go ICF from the ground up, I'd likely get an ICF floor/roof system as well.
If I go ICF foundation/walls for the basement/garage area, I could go 12 inch SIPs for the upper levels and roof, with a metal roof over.  Kinda like what the Equinox house is, but w/ a full walk out basement and a little larger scale  :http://newellinstruments.com/equinox.html , that house is practically air tight, which is overall,  what I am trying to achieve.

I guess with all the info out there, I am kind of confused.

Not to mention, the plan for the house will likely involve the "basement" to be a full basement, and not part of the garage.

I figured, If I could get everything on ONE concrete slab, and build "UP", it would be a price savings, but the increased wall thickness might off-set that whole idea, plus I would have to create a nice thermal break, between the garage doors, and the actual part of the basement that would be used for entertaining.

If I do an attached garage it would be a 3 car, cause I do love my toys:
Garage Slab 32X24X6" ....don't know the exact cost, but I would guess it won't be cheap...... 
Then it would come down to framing... stick built, ICF, or SIP
SIP I know would be around 10k erected for the shell w/ 6 1/2 walls, 6 1/2 roof + drywall and other tidbits to finish it.
ICF would likely be closer to 15k because of the cost of the ICF+ the concrete+ the extra hours in setting the ICFs + the roof
Stick built would be like half of SIP.

Garage would not be a "conditioned" space, so I might go SIP and just let it be whatever temperature it turns out to be.

With the great deal of info out there, I am definitely confused.

Posted By C.torres05 on 16 Nov 2010 11:31 AM
I also don't know if I could deal with 20+ inches of foam panels on the exterior, which would limit my exterior choices, to pretty much stucco, unless I am missing something.
R-84, like the others stated, would be over kill.  Load on the walls like you mention in the tri-level design, I'd likely need an 8-10+ inch thick concrete cavity, which would drive the price up.

Not to mention, the plan for the house will likely involve the "basement" to be a full basement, and not part of the garage

We are currently using Quadlock in their regular/plus configuration. This is a 2.25" panel on one side, with a 4.25" panel on the other. Combined with a 7.75" concrete core, it's providing a true R-30, with a 14.25" overall wall thickness.

This plan also makes use of living space on the basement level underneath the garage using the QuadDeck / Insuldeck system. That has provided an extra 450sqft of living space downstairs that woudl normally just be backfilled with dirt.

Choosing the ICF system before you have a design is somewhat the proverbial cart before the horse. I would suggest to find your land, choose your plan, then determine the best system to suit your needs. In the meantime, the search feature of this site will provide days worth of valuable research.

C.torres05: In that climate you could have an R15-ish wall and be comfortable, but you'd have much higher annual energy use. R50 and a great design could reduce your energy use to near-nil, and make net-zero a reasonable goal.

in a high-R structrure you can''t skimp on window quality or and designing for the right balance of solar gain against cooling cost. Don't skimp on under-slab insulation either. The Urbana PassiveHouse has under-slab R values nearly identical to the wall-R. (R56 slab, R60 walls.) An uninsulated slab would DOMINATE the heat loss of an otherwise decent high-R design in Missoula/Hamilton. Your sub-soil temps are considerably lower than in Urbana IL: http://mb-soft.com/solar/soilmap.gif

Posted By Dana1 on 16 Nov 2010 01:48 PM
in a high-R structrure you can''t skimp on window quality or and designing for the right balance of solar gain against cooling cost. Don't skimp on under-slab insulation either. The Urbana PassiveHouse has under-slab R values nearly identical to the wall-R. (R56 slab, R60 walls.) An uninsulated slab would DOMINATE the heat loss of an otherwise decent high-R design in Missoula/Hamilton. Your sub-soil temps are considerably lower than in Urbana IL: http://mb-soft.com/solar/soilmap.gif

Best analogy I can think of: It'd be like designing a styrofoam coffee cup with a metal bottom.

Kicker, I like that one. Add screen door on a submarine for improper roof Regards.