So "portland cement is only a small part of what makes AAC" ? and Hebel AAC "only" contains 27% Portland Cement? Right? I wonder if the Hebel guy knows what % of the concrete, that is used in ICF construction, is portland cement? How about typically 10% to 15%, according to the PCA (Portland Cement association) Most of his other "product superiority claims" have also been debunked, or at least put into a proper perspective, by others on this thread.

Having said that, the product may be a viable option for some people, in some situations, in some locations. However, I'm thinking that we won't be shutting down our SIP and ICF manufacturing facilities any time in the near future due to the sudden arrival on the scene of the subject product.

Composite masonry systems can not provide a structural roof with much design flexibility.

Sipper, you msut have misread this thread you SIP counterpart said:

"

cmkavala Registered Users Veteran Member Posts:1555

01/18/2010 3:10 PM Quote Reply   Posted By aekimble on 01/18/2010 12:55 PM BTW expected life span for Hebel AAC building is 220 years plus (true meaning of sustainability) Houses in USA that are 50 years old are old houses. Old houses in Europe are 500 years old. Something to show for concrete I think you will find many houses in the US well over 50 years old that are in fine condition. In Europe the Acroplis also comes to mind BTW our FrictionLoc panels are calculated at 300+ years life expectancy thru accelerated aging tests, are made with 30% recycled steel, leave a smaller carbon foot print (a truer measure of sustainability) Chris Kavala [email protected]" I responded in a jovial manner yet never made the claim of Acropolis is AAC just as the eifel tower is nots SIPS I enjoy the thought that I have been "debunked" only for the sake of you mis quoting me. Please enlighten me on what else you have debunked? Cost: No reply to my reponse R-value: No verification other than the one that is on the SIPS association that I quoted No sure what was debunked? Portland cement is used in AAC for viscocity in the curing process, that is why AAC's scientifics name is Tobermorite or Calcium silicate (not concrete masonry unit) 27% if my math serves me correct isn't there 73% of the rest of the materials. AAC is not a composite masonry/buidling product like SIPS and ICF. Take a look at our tech. manual and will show you we are not compopsite. Why add more materials to maintain structural integrity and insulation SIPS and ICF does a good enough job at that. I would not want SIPS and ICF plants to close. There is enough business for all of us. Some people want a BMW and some want KIA.

I feel that this discussion has taken an unfortunate detour and instead of talking about how SIP construction can last the distance without any trouble, we are now discussing whether a single solution, AAC, can do everything.

I think it is naive to extol a single solution as the be-all in construction and to use misleading data to confirm it. In my experience as an architect, in building with a single product there will be compromises. More sensibly, hybrid systems should be used so that each part of your building is being used to best effect.

Although the AAC blocks as discussed by this company have their merits, I dont think they can or should do everything. I would have thought a roof more complicated that a straight gable would be difficult to do with concrete planks. I would have thought that hips, valleys and complex roof forms would definitely need a reinforced concrete or steel frame. You would be limited in the spans of concrete plank floors and all of your internal walls would have to be load bearing.

Similarly, in my experience in earthquake zones, as where I live we have a very active one, you could not build in AAC without a concrete or steel frame . The mortar bond between the blocks does not make them a single monolithic element with the same structural properties throughout. You would also need steel reinforcement throughout, and quite a bit of it.

At the moment I feel that combining ICF for ground and walkout basements, SIPS for upper storeys, Posi trusses for floors and either trusses for roof, or SIPs (if you want room in roof, or vaulted ceilings) is a good combination. If you need more thermal mass, then a couple of trombe walls internally in masonry will give you that.

Framed construction methods with infill walls also have their merits but careful thought has to be given to at each junction between frame and infill in terms of thermal break, fire resistance and expansion /contraction of dissimilar materials.

Chris,

Back peddle? Wasn't it you that started the joke about Acropolis? Every question or rebuttle I have answered concisely to questions/rebuttals. From my last thread none of you all have answered any of my questions. I guess no need to back peddle when you dodge questions.

Jazzdue,

I respect your answer and expert insight on your chose of how you design buildings. The one thing you have mistaken is our limitations for seismic. As I stated before we have no limitations in Residential via IBC and ACI 530. And for commercial our limitations start at seismic C limit 35 ft. and panels are recommeneded to used other elements as shear walls.

Come on now, children! :)

If anybody really cares about accuracy - the Romans invented and built with concrete, a mixture of lime and pozzolanic ash. The Pantheon is the structure that is often mentioned as the early example of a poured concrete monolithic dome, 126 AD.

Carry on.

Thanks for the clarification Jelly. You all have a great day I have some orders to full fill.

BTW if I have offended anybody personally I apologize. My intention was to stoke thought in this forum since it is dominated by SIPS and ICF guys. Thinking makes us better.

aekimble You still don't get it, do you? Its not a matter of "offending" people, we're a pretty thick skinned group, its more a matter of frustrating them with your virtual "spamming" of these forums. Most of your posts did not speak to the subject of the particular threads, and would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that you were proposing that "your" product was the "only" solution that should be considered in connection with any building project anywhere.

BTW, in my opinion, Jazzdude did the best job of anyone with his concise summary of the flaws in the claims that you have been making in your posts. Your somewhat condescending response to him was very lame, in my book.

Now regarding the % of portland cement that is utilized in the manufacturing process of your product. Your math was perfect "100%- 27%= 73% (materials in Hebel that are NOT portland cement)" You ignored my point that your product employs 2 to nearly 3 times as much portland cement as is used in the production of the concrete that is used in connection with ICFs. Maybe you're not aware that portland cement is not considered to be "green" by most who are involved in this segment of the building industry. However, this concern is offset when used in connection with ICFs due to the rather modest amount that is used, and the resulting energy efficiency of the system. And, Hebel does not match up with ICFs for energy efficiency, not to mention strength. (It is my contention that you can't "glue" small individual blocks together, and match the strength of a monolithic, rebar enforced. concrete wall) BTW, my comments regarding "green" in connection with portland cement should not be taken out of context, obviously concrete is the material of choice for foundations and slabs and many commercial applications. I'm also well aware of PC substitutions such as fly ash, coal burning "slag", etc. but that could be the topic of a new thread.


Also, I think that its fair to ask for your clarification of one specific point. Are you saying that you can get a permit to build a residential structure with Hebel ACC blocks in any SDC area, even D,E. and F, without any rebar, and/or without any other steel or timber structural support? If you can prove that you can do this, that'll likely go along way toward silencing your detractors. Having said that, I think that you're going to have a difficult time in areas that have stringent energy codes, such as title 24 in California. (Again, SIPs and ICFs have no problems meeting, and typically exceeding, these regulations)

Its OK if you don't get back to us for awhile, I understand how much time it takes to "full fill orders".

Thanks Sipper for your comments, I couldn't agree more.

I suppose if you were to use AAC in seismic zones you could do it in large vertical panels for walls, but again the connection between them would need to be examined, and there I think if it were to be reinforced concrete with rebar you are basically canceling out the total insulation properties of your wall with an effective thermal bridge at each junction.

Its the same where I have seen metal stud frame being used here in the same way as traditional timber frame, where they insulate between the studs, basically creating a large metal radiator.

Here AAC (Ytong) can only be used purely as an infill material in a standard concrete or steel frame, with a external thin layer of EPS over the structural elements. To achieve anything near the level of insulation we achieve with SIPS the walls would need be overall twice as thick.

Jazzdude, only California rules out AAC on sesimic grounds, and there is some controversy on the question: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/11/green.building.material/index.html

Your view of its fire resistance is also puzzling. The engineering in the US is straight up CMU construction: rebar in vertical concrete cores at corners and flanking windows and doors; bond beam on top. Don't see how heat would threaten this structure.

Yes, the cores and beams degrade the wall's r value, but you use AAC for its mass rather than its insulation, or more to the point, for its specific heat of 0.25 in a passive solar house. On a super bright day on record in my part of the world (in the gray northeast), the windows in my design would generate 50,000 btu/hour in a home with a design day heat load of 25,000 btu/hour. Take my word for it. You don't want me stripping to my skivvies.

Sad to say, you'd be obliged to hire an energy designer to get passive solar/high mass approved under IECC 2009, assuming your jurisdiction allows alternatives to Rescheck. It's not just the blocks. Skipping Low E in south facing windows blows an even bigger hole in Rescheck.

From another topic I read in this forum was about this product.

http://www.siphouse.co.uk/Sipcrete.htm

although this is not what I would call a sip panel per say it is interesting site.

http://www.sipcrete.com  

British Company, Similar products are available in the U.S. They also offer an OSB SIP. The opening statement on their website's OSB SIP page is something like " SIPs are not a new building product, they have been in use in the U.S. for over 50 years......." Yep, the world is catching up to concepts developed by the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory in the early 1930's, then utilized by, according to many, "the greatest American architect of all times", Frank Lloyd Wright, for hundreds of his affordable Usonion homes in the late 1930's and 1940's, with the major breakthrough by famed architect, Alden B. Dow
(an FL W protege) who developed the first "foam core panel" in 1952.

It's interesting to note that while many want to hold up European building techniques, and products, as superior to those in this country, other countries are adopting technologies that have been developed in the U.S. For instance, R-Control, with a dozen or so U.S SIP manufacturing facilities, has licensing agreements with plants in Japan, and recently opened a plant in Australia which is also designed to support the New Zealand market place. I have no inside information but the R-Control website indicates that they are actively seeking partners throughout the world. And, there appears to be a number of additional sources for SIPs that are coming on line in other countries as is evidenced by the British company that is the subject of the previous post.

These comments are intended to speak to the topic of this thread "Expected lifespan of a sip home" by adding a little more background and historical information. For those who are sincerely planning to build a home, and are still seeking answers to the subject question, there are literally volumes of information in the archives of this website, as well on all of the search engines, You Tube Videos, the SIP manufacturers' websites, etc etc.

Everyone has a "comfort zone", and some folks need more information, and assurances than others but I don't think that anyone has ever presented any credible data to suggest that a properly built SIP home won't last for a "very long time". Are there other building methods that will, or may, be serviceable for a longer period of time? Probably, but can you afford to build it? And to maintain it? Then, of course there are many other questions, issues, philosophies, etc etc that can be brought into the equation but that's my two cents on this topic for now.

I am English, living in the States. I am not going to profess knowledge on European systems other than to say that Germany would be very different to Portugal.

In the UK standard construction has been brick, when I built an extension 40 years ago we Used Celcon (AAC) for the foundations on top of a concrete footer, then brick outer wall, Celcon inner with an insulated cavity.
Conventional plaster with wooden trusses. But then I did not live in an earthquake zone.

I also associate stick construction as something you would use for a garden shed, not a house. And that is not going to go away.

Wood framed construction is something else, part of my old school had this and went back to Queen Elizabeth.

In am in CO, AAC would be my first thought but not common here. I can see why stick is used, large houses and cheaper to put up and there is not the sense of building for the future.

Como, many homes are built with SIPs in Colorado, primarily due to the superior energy efficiency, and strength of the system, and it's cost competitive with "stick" construction as well. It also doesn't hurt that SIPs are considered to be one of the most widely recognized "green" building systems that is available in the marketplace. In case you're thinking about building something, one good source for more information,
and a quality product, should you decide that SIPs are your best option, is the R-Control manufacturing affiliate in Denver, ACH Foam Technologies.

I might well use SIPS for a small building I will be constructing.

I want to build a small berm house if a few years, leaning towards ICF's, AAC is all well but no use if you do not have labour familiar with it. Quality materials and quality trades.

Umm, Sipper, while FLW used plywood walls in his Usonian designs, they had no insulation in them, and thus were SPs rather than SIPs. With board and batten nailed to each side of the plywood, there wasn't a whole lot of S involved either. One code inspector, demonstrating the deflection between posts set 48 inches OC, declared, "This isn't a house. It's a barn."
As for Alden Dow, he was the son of Herbert H. Dow, founder of Dow Chemical Co. To present his embrace of Styrofoam as an offshoot of Wright's Usonian work is a stretch.
Both architects devoted considerable effort to cement block systems, in fact. Wright expected his Usonian clients to cast them as well as set them. When they were not up to the challenge, he introduced the Usonian Automatic with blocks that could be drystacked and finished with rebar and grouting. Dow's Unit Block system was also dry stacked.
When I researched wall systems for my Usonian homage, I settled on AAC as a worthy successor, mainly for its DIYability.

toddm,

Read the opening paragraph of my post that you're referring to. I merely alluded to the "CONCEPTS that were first developed by the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, and later utilized by Frank Lloyd Wright etc etc.........." However, I do admit that there was one inaccuracy in my post. According to one credible internet source only a "little over 100 Usonion Homes" were actually built. I had said that several hundred had utilized this concept (eg "Panelized Construction techniques), as opposed to conventional framing.

BTW, its pretty obvious that FLW was not too concerned about energy efficiency, since the "blocks" that he utilized in many of the "Usonions" were only 3" thick. Ummm, maybe his plywood/board and batten panels could technically be called SIPs when compared to 3" thick masonry "blocks". Also, according to one internet source it was in the early 50's that he started using these "blocks secured with steel rods"
(of course none of this speaks to the topic of this thread which is "Expected Lifespan of SIP Homes")

As far as Alden Dow's use of styrofoam "as an off shoot of Wright's Usonion work" being a "stretch", you're entitled to your opinion but this is a generally accepted theory from a historical perspective. Let's see, Wright developed a panelized building system, Dow studied under Wright, Styrofoam was then invented, Dow incorporated styrofoam into a panel system. Ummm, seems logical to me.

If Wright's parenthood is "generally accepted theory from an historical perspective," let's see some citations, other than the misleading history at sipa.org.

Just so you have the timeline correct: Alden Dow spent the summer of 1933 at Wright's Taliessen; Wright built the first Usonian house in Madison in 1936; Dow the company bought the rights to Styrofoam from its Swedish inventor in 1941; Dow the architect built the first SIP house in Midland, Mich., in 1952, after the aircraft composite work done during WWII established how to find strength in the sum of lightweight parts.

The exact number of Usonian designs built is a subject of debate. But among your mistakes:

Alden Dow was barely a Wright student, let alone a protege.

Wright's "panelized building system" is not the precursor SIPA wants you to believe. The wall panels typically were stick built on site with little or no gain in framing efficiency. The labor savings came in the substitution of board and batten for plaster on one side and siding on the other. Needless to say, today's building inspectors would do more than shake their heads at this approach. (Naked AAC on the other hand is good to go in most jurisdictions.)

It is Usonian, not Usonion.