"Why anyone would use OSB SIPs is beyond good reason" The above statement was posted by ergodesk on a previous thread on this forum by guy_davis, that was titled "PU SIP vs PU spray foam" I chose to start a new thread, if anyone is interested, rather than "hijack" that thread in order to respond to the contentious statement as quoted above. This topic has been hashed, and rehashed, in several threads on these forums, so I'll be brief but ready to respond to comments from others as I see fit. Maybe MGO Board, from CHINA, will eventually put the American OSB manufacturers out of business. If the product is that good, can compete in price, can meet demand, then maybe I'll be promoting it sometime in the future. That's not likely to happen, for many reasons, and no need to go there now. By the way, ergodesk, how about roof applications, with 10' max lengths? will MGO board sips even span 10'? what about plate heights higher than 10'? rake walls? large projects where 8' x 24' OSB SIPs reduce the installation time, as well as the number of seam connections? Also, do they always have to use a dimensional lumber "spline" to connect the panels, as is shown on the website that you referred to in your post? It seems to me like the primary advantage of MGO board is its fire resistance, and that's a good selling point. However, we have no problem dealing with fire code issues with OSB SIPs, we do it every day. That's all that I had on that for now. (I'm sure that there will be at least one more contribution to this thread from a proponent of another type of SIP "skin".)

OK, I can see that some of you want the OSB Skins, there is no laws against buying poor or bad product , but I stand here against the OSB Sins on EPS or Polyurethane cores.

DIY builders should consider this product instead of sips, much cheaper.

http://www.truefoam.com/

So, ergodesk, so now its a "sin" to use OSB on foam cores? That's a little harsh isn't it? OK, I know that was just a typing error, and we're all guilty of that from time to time, but I couldn't resist.

However, in my opinion, that was a pretty lame response to my comments and questions regarding your original "OSB bashing" statement that instigated this thread.

Can't you answer any of the questions that I posed regarding the superiority of MGO Board SIPS? Apparantly not, instead you throw up another random website for a company that manufactures and sells various EPS products, and you tell people that they should "consider this product instead of SIPs, (because it's) much cheaper" (should they also consider this system instead of MGO board SIPs, which was the product that you were just recently promoting?) Are you referring to the illustration of a stick frame house with EPS insulation? Now there's a new idea! (Actually it is a well done illustration, but what's the point?) Also, they sell an ICF system (which you've strongly criticized in the past)

ICFs are products that Concrete Suppliers like because they make a small fortune from but are not the best way for the consumer. The only good feature is that most ICFs don't have any OSB on them.

But, ergodesk in your previous post you endorsed a company, Truefoam, that sells ICFs........didn't you? Also, as usual, you didn't respond to questions regarding statements, and claims, made in your posts, and, by the way, what is "Structural Insulated Air" ?

The same could be said for EPS SIPs. EPS is easy to assemble into products but has many terrible characteristics that make them "not the best way for the consumer."

PU is far superior in fire protection and insulation value - where it really matters for the consumer.

ergodesk and azbuilder. In my opinion, this is a "slippery slope", that the two of you are pursuing, eg the "bashing" of certain materials, products, and systems, with no reliable data to back up your assertions

I wqas really just pointing out that ergodesk's "arguments" could just as easily be applied to the product he was promoting as that he was bashing.

That said, you really don't need to go far to find data that shows PU has a higher R value per inch, and lower flammability than EPS.

azbuilder, it was the phrase "EPs is..................but has many TERRIBLE characteristics.........................." that I take issue with. One does also not have to look far to find some negative features of PU, as well as some advantages of EPS.

OK,OK, I confess, That EPS Foam with Concrete or MGO Skins are superior to OSB Skinned PU. Here is an example.

The fact that EPS contains air and not a gaseous compound means that its insulative performance will not deteriorate over time. Expanded polystyrene is also non-toxic and biologically inert and will remain stable for the lifetime of the building. As part of meeting sustainability requirements, EPS is one of the most sustainable types of insulation, with zero global warming potential and zero ozone depletion potential.

So, egodesk has finally contributed an accurate post, based on fact and science.

Only if you think air is not a gaseous compound.

Darn! You got me there, azbuilder! Perhaps it would have been more accurate if the subject quote had implied that air is not a "HARMFUL gaseous compound". (except for fish, and a myriad of other creatures who reside in the seas, as well as in other bodies of water on this earth)

Question: What SIP's have a prescriptive method defined in the IRC?

Regarding MGO, isn't it by its very nature similar to a cementitious board such as durorock, not that it is composed with portland cement but it's a mineral that is bound together?  As such I would venture a guess that it is also similar in the way it behaves physically which would be good in compression and bad in tension.  If this supposition is true then I don't think it will be a good candidate for a stressed skin panel because, well, look at the name; stressed skin.  The characteristics of a stressed skin are such that the panel is working as a whole and, say in the case of earthquakes, which is a prime consideration in building analysis here in California, when a stressed skin is subjected to an earthquake load, the racking that occurs is picked up by the stressed skin (which is made stronger by being bound to the core and the skin on the opposite side) and transmitted through the hold down bolts to the foundation and the earth.  This is the purpose of using shear panels and hold downs in conventional construction.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that MGO boards don't have the resiliency to  act in this fashion. 

The Federation of Americam Scientists did a earthquake test on a 2 story cement panel SIP building and it took the eqivilant of the strongest earthquke ever recored with no damage to the structure as a mattrer of fact it broke the shake table.. go to www.fas.org and pull up building technologies and read about CSIPS

MagDaddy;

the verbage talks about CSIPS, but the video clip actually shows a conventional wood framed 2 story?