Bruce,

If you are building in Texas I may be able to assist in some manner (even if it's just to recommend an installer or two) as I have been involved directly in approximately two million square feet of ICF across Texas.

This post is not directed at you but rather ... the issue I have here with the thread is that specific ORNL charts were called out by someones post -- charts which i happen to be quite familiar with -- which contradict what he is saying as well as what appears to be general consensus of some commenting here.

ORNL Text for chart 6 background: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/thermal/index.html -- see Potential Energy Saving in Houses with Mass Wall Systems.

The supporting text behind charts says in summary (my words): "In order to determine whether wall systems with thermal mass(e.g. ICF) actually contribute to energy efficiency or not -- conventional systems with equal R-values (e.g. equal to ICF) where utilized for the conventional construction"

ORNL says Verbatim:

"Annual whole building energy savings, attainable when lightweight walls are replaced by massive walls of the same R-value, were calculated for a 143 m2 (1540-ft2 ) one-story ranch house located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. These energy savings were defined as a difference between energies required to heat and cool the house containing massive walls v.s. the same house constructed with wood frame technology. Energy savings for this house were estimated between 3 and 7 MBtu/year for R-1.8 to 4.4 m2K/W (10 to 25 hft2F/Btu) walls. This is approximately 1900-4400 Btu/year per ft2 of floor area of the residential building."

Yes, the chart is about Minnesota and my experince is all in Texas. However, what is being missed here is that this comparison is NOT about conventional construction as we see it typically today 2x4, 2x6 etc. (see my previous post about needing to build with 2x8 walls with no infiltration to match a typical ICF R-value of R22+).

The chart as well as data from other studies says that if you build a conventional wall to the R-value of an ICF, the ICF system will perform about 6 percent better due to its thermal mass (in Minnesota).

How much better would ICF perform if you compared it to a 2x6 wall with foam between the studs with chaulking etc? I know from many many houses and commerical buildings that it would perform substantially better than what is reflected here (at least in Texas) -- but this scenario is not discussed at all by this ORNL report which is directly specifically at whether or not thermal mass ALONE makes a positive or negative contribution to a building system. For these values I suggest Peter A. VanderWerf research material and books on the subject.

These details matter when one considers that the actual R-value of conventionally constructed walls of my neighbor are lucky to be R-13. I know these R-values not a challenge for SIPs to attain and that is not my point, but they are somewhat of a challenge to your typical builder.

Regards.

That's OK, Bob, thanks for the information that you did provide. However, I'm going to suggest that anyone who is seriously considering the construction of a super energy efficient home, that includes all of the other benefits of SIPS, not place a lot of significance on the information that you supplied in your "Ok, I'll bite" post on this thread. Computer modeling is one thing, execution is another, particularly in the area of air filtration. R40/R70? How thick were those walls going to be? Double studs? (twice as much framing lumber). How "sustainable" is that? I ran the numbers, and came up with the approximate sq ft of the plan that you're using as an example, as well as wall area, and came up with some "interesting" $$ amounts. Maybe others who are into this thread would want to do this, and comment. Of course no one knows where this project is located, and we all know that "location" is always a major factor.

In reference to your closing remarks, it's probably true that over the years it has been the consumer who has driven the SIP industry. I think that has been primarily due to the reticence of the majority of contractors, and other building industry pros, to embrace anything that is "different" from what they're used to . However, now I'm finding that more and more architects and builders are specifying, or suggesting, SIPs, (and ICFs) to their clients and prospective clients. And, frankly, I don't think that anyone in this industry should be "selling" a product that they don't believe in. By the way, the principal of our firm is also a 30 year licensed GC who has been building only with SIPs and ICFs for about the last 15 years.

I emailed ORNL about doing tests on stick frame w/ foam board, 1" & 2", on the exterior, also with closed cell spray foam in the cavity and also dense packed cellulose both with foam board on the exterior. We will see if they respond.

The foam on the exterior has so many benefits and is really a key component to building an energy efficient home, whether you build ICF or stick built... great R-value per inch, reduces/eliminates air infiltration, reduces/eliminates thermal bridging.

I am planning for my future house and would like to know the pros & cons with all building methods, different windows, exterior doors, HVAC, etc.. Prior to finding this site along with another, I thought for sure I would go with geothermal no matter what, now I'm not sure. I have learned a lot over the past several months about ICF, SIP, & stick framing and ways to properly build the envelope to reduce heating/cooling loads. I want to make sure I can afford to build the home the way I want it, and more importantly make sure I can afford to operate and maintain, figuring gas & electric costs will only go up.

I don't know why everyone seems to think air sealing a stick framed house is so impossible. It's easy, I have done it several times using the Zip System Method, but there are many other ways to do it like taping foam board seams, spray foam, ect. Of course if you test a poorly constructed home with no thought put to air sealing against a SIP/ICF house, of course the SIP/ICF house is going to win. That doesn't mean you can't build a stick home that can compete, it just means you need to put a little thought into it. If you have a builder that just isn't going to pay attention to these air sealing details, either build with one of these new systems and hope he caulks the penetrations or get a new builder.

Also, the use of more framing lumber is actually "sustainable", provided the house you build with it is meant to last. Think about it, trees absorb CO2 from the air as they grow, but when they die, the release it all back as they rot. A forest that is just left alone and never harvested averages out to have no net carbon absorption. However, if you harvest the lumber and use it where it won't rot, you are actually removing CO2 from the air. All of this is minute anyway though, most all of your CO2 to oxygen conversion happens in the ocean, not from green plants. Also, they make studs now from the same material as osb, which help to use up that scrap wood that would have been wasted. I have used them, they are a bit pricey, but give a perfectly straight wall, which is nice for say the wall you will be hanging your cabinets from.

The biggest strength factor to a SIP house is the double diaphragm, aka osb on the inside and outside of the panel. This is what makes the house so strong, as someone else already stated, it turns your walls into one giant box beam. Most people don't realize you can do this with a stud house as well, the house I am renting that was built in the mid 80's has plywood on the inside and outside of the 2*6 studs. It is great, not only does it make the walls incredibly strong, but you can hang anything anywhere you want, no need for a stud finder.

As for thermal mass, the house I am renting also has a large solid masonry fireplace in the center of the house. It basically dampens the temperature swings of the house. It is really great in the spring and fall when the temperature is to warm in the day and too cool at night, because with the mass I can turn off the HVAC for a few months in spring and fall and the house stays comfortable with only a few degree temperature swing each day. During the summer and winter it helps with the cycling on and off of the hvac, but it doesn't really add any real efficiency to the system, because when it does come on, it stays on longer.

I between the major systems being discussed here, I don't think there is a clear winner for every situation. However if you are going to get price quotes between sip and stick, to do an apples to apples comparison on the stick side you need to compare a 2*4 wall with 1-2" of foam on the exterior, with plywood or advantec on the inside and outside, and taped seams on the plywood or foam and caulked penetrations. Then you will be comparing a wall that is in the same neighborhood as far as air sealing, strength, and R value. I think from there it will just come down to proximity to a factory and local experience in the area.

So that's what makes the world go 'round! Different opinions, different views of the information that is available. Sips, or ICFs, for that matter, don't eliminate the use of wood, they just reduce the amount that is used for construction purposes. Good quality framing lumber is at a premium now, when the new home construction industry gets back on track, it'll be at even more of a premium, and the prices will go up, particularly if the demand increases dramatically due to a widespread implementation of these "SFML" systems that many participants on these forums are promoting. Sure, you can use engineered lumber for framing, and that'll give you a much more stable structure, with a better chance of everything being plumb, square, level, etc but the last poster admitted that this material is a "bit pricy", and it would be if, you're using it throughout your framing system, particularly with the "DSW" or "SSW" approaches.

Now, the suggestion that you can equal sips by adding sheathing to the interior side of the exterior walls is great but I'll guarantee you that this approach, combined with other "SIP Alternatives" that are being discussed, won't provide a better result, and will cost more than SIPs unless (here I go again, last time, I promise!) one has access to FREE, or VERY CHEAP, LABOR, and probably a "Real Deal" on the materials, and little or no concern with time. (And I don't think that there is a lot of CHEAP engineered, or KD, framing material out there these days.) I agree with the previous poster regarding the issues of "proximity to a SIP factory, and local experience in the area" (In regard to the latter point, I've seen a number of owner builders install their own SIP's with no real problems) I think that some of these factors also come into play when ICFs are included in the equation.

By the way, just an observation, but it appears to me that this current "discussion", regarding the subject topic, has been much more objective and civil, than similar ones in years past.

The chart as well as data from other studies says that if you build a conventional wall to the R-value of an ICF, the ICF system will perform about 6 percent better due to its thermal mass (in Minnesota).

How much better would ICF perform if you compared it to a 2x6 wall with foam between the studs with chaulking etc?

I know from many many houses and commerical buildings that it would perform substantially better than what is reflected here (at least in Texas) -- but this scenario is not discussed at all by this ORNL report which is directly specifically at whether or not thermal mass ALONE makes a positive or negative contribution to a building system.

Well, yes. I cited a report that deals with thermal mass alone because that is precisely my point. When it comes to thermal mass, ICF doesn't bring much to the party. I'll concede that your average tract home isn't nearly as energy efficient as ICF, but thermal mass has absolutely nothing to do with it. Insulation, in turn, plays a surprisingly small role in thermal mass. (No role over the centuries of two-foot thick walls in Greece and adobe walls in New Mexico.)

Here is a zero energy home built in Dallas with R14 Durisol composite ICF (a mix of wood chips and cement with no foam.) http://www.zeroenergyhomedallas.com/ I repeat: R14. Zero energy.

Here is a zero energy home in California built with Dow Tmass, a concrete-foam-concrete sandwich. http://www.clarumzeroenergy.com/ Tmass is a static R10, I believe; the site reports the mass-adjusted effective rate of R28.

Here is zero energy home in Tucson with R14 EPS over CMU. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35302.pdf

What the designers are after in each of these cases is to sync the house with its environment. Consider Rastra, a composite ICF made of cement and EPS particles. It has a thermal lag of seven hours, meaning that afternoon heat makes its appearance about midnight (in a crude description of  the process.) A foam-concrete-foam ICF can't do this buffering well on a 24-hour basis.

Texas ICF, please check your PMs

Bruce

Sipper
One last comment on this thread; there are many good reasons to build with SIPS but their lower cost, at least in parts of the country - I don't know about CA, is NOT one of them. THink of it this way: the time it takes a manufacturer or distributor to pre cut and route all the panels for a house is probably equal to the time it takes a good framer to biuld walls, and the time it takes to install the panels is maybe slightly less time than it takes to install prebuilt walls in a house, so the cost difference comes primarily from the materials and SIPS are more expensive. I just don't know why you keep saying they're cheaper when there are so many positive aspects of SIPS to talk about which cannot be refuted.

Toddm, Zero energy alone (without all the data) doesn't mean much. Please don't copy that one line and try to build some case around it. We have two zero energy school in work now in Kentucky. The key (for schools) is to reach say 20K BTU per square foot per year (or better) so that you can build a 15 million dollars school with vastly reduced investment dollars in solar panels (due to greatly reduced geo tonnage for starters. You'll also need daylighting, distributed pumping for the geo etc. and much more to get there economically).

I'm not saying the guys you are pointing to are not doing a great job. They very well may be building a great building. The point is if you build with the best envelope possible you won't have to put an arm and an leg into the deal to make it zero energy. The easiest way to get there is ICF. If we assume, contrary to the report you sited from ORNL that the thermal mass doesn't do anything at all how would you propose to build to the same thermal standard? If you like you can ignore strength, fire rating and STC as well. How would you build conventionally to the same thermal envelope standard?

I'll say it again -- with SIPs its quite possible and they are out there. I'm referring to conventional construction. 2x8 walls with foam?

Bob 1,

Please tell me specifically where, in any of my posts, that I said "SIPs are Cheaper". However, It is my belief that you cannot equal, or exceed, FOR LESS $$, the energy efficiency or strength of SIPs, and be as sustainable and resource efficient (aka "green"), with one of the complicated "Alternative to SIPs" framing systems that have been discussed on this thread, or previous threads on other GBT forums, unless your labor was FREE or VERY CHEAP. I'm talking about the oversized stud, double stud, staggered stud, framing systems, multiple layers and types of insulation, utilizing engineered framing lumber, sheathing the interior of the exterior walls, etc etc

Now, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

OK, TexasICF, you want to talk insulation. Let's talk insulation. Here is another list, and while I am not boring you with super detail, you'll find it if you follow the links. You could have found it in the last one; no need to guess how AndersonSargent does zero energy in Dallas. In fact, I'd think you'd have made it a point to drop in on the Department of Energy's Builder of the Year in 2006.
I assembled the list below by googling affordable zero energy houses. Funny thing: my search turned up zero ICF takes on affordable green. Feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/challenge/pdfs/high-performance_builder_spotlight_yavapai_college.pdf
A college student built house with a HERS rating of -3. (didn't know it went negative.) XPS foam on 2x6 studwalls, blown cellulose in the cavities at R21. $92/SF with free labor.
Granted, affordable housing demonstrations with volunteer labor aren't real world, except to DIYers. But, once again, show us a volunteer-built ICF affordable house.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42591.pdf
A Habitat for Humanity zero energy home in Denver: R40 double stud walls, $85/SF (with volunteer labor)

http://www.ruraldevelopmentinc.org/home_ownership/green_homes.htm
A Massachusetts affordable green home program featuring R43 double stud walls, LEED Gold certification, HERS rating of 7. Townhouses market priced at $210k to $240k

http://www.buildingscienceseminars.com/presentations/UMass-Towards_Zero_Energy.pdf
A Building Sciences slide show on a Habitat for Humanity home in Lowell Mass: 4" of polyiso over 2x6 studs for R45 walls. 2,200 SF for an estimated price of $224k (adding in market rates for donated labor.)

Sipper,

Most rough carpenters charge by house square footage for framing labor, not lineal footage of wall or square footage of wall... at least when I built my house. It didn't matter how many walls I had for the exterior or interior for the labor cost. So in a case where you have a staggered stud wall or double 2x4 wall, you would have the cost of a additional 2x4's for the exterior walls, which are cheap... in some areas you can probably buy (2) 2x4's for the cost of (1) 2x6. You would also have additional cost for insulation in the thicker wall.

But where, Oh where do you buy 'straight' 2x4's in today's market? Certainly not at Lowes or HD!

toddm, some quick feedback..

"OK, TexasICF, you want to talk insulation. Let's talk insulation. Here is another list, and while I am not boring you with super detail, you'll find it if you follow the links. You could have found it in the last one; no need to guess how AndersonSargent does zero energy in Dallas. In fact, I'd think you'd have made it a point to drop in on the Department of Energy's Builder of the Year in 2006."

I am quite familiar with Jim Seargent and company (and i am a big fan). We have started working with him and his team. In the next few weeks we both have 8 hours AIA presenations coming up -- his is in Dallas and mine is in Lubbock. I'm sure he will draw quite a crowd - he always does. Jim likes the advantages of our products but i can't speak for him. Suggest you give him a call.

"Granted, affordable housing demonstrations with volunteer labor aren't real world, except to DIYers. But, once again, show us a volunteer-built ICF affordable house."

Don't have data on volunteer work in ICF but i am sure it exists. Have heard of a few in Louisiana. I donated labor for a 1275 square foot house (affordable housing) in houston without charge myself. Although i did not charge for the labor i believe the GC did. Actually, there's a timelapse on youtube.com of this one day installation (14 or so corners if i remember correctly. Four guys (including yours truly).

As far as I know the city of Lubbock is the leader in Texas (big time tornado country) - they have completed 100+ ICF affordable housing projects in the last few years. Suggest you call the city. As far as I know, labor and materials were not donated but ICF has become a matter of standard practice for the city. To me, ICF makes a great deal of sense for standard housing since these houses are typically not built to last and these are the folks that really need the energy savings. Regards.

glenfotre,

Can't help but add that buying the straight 2x material may not be as big of a challenge as keeping them straight over the years.

I assume you are one of the distributors working with the city of Lubbock on affordable housing. Good for you.
BTW, I have Arxx blocks in the stem walls of my slab on grade. Got it done cheaper than CMU. ICF above grade isn't cost competitive. That is my analysis based on my house on my lot, but think it's shared by most of the folks who trying to do zero energy on a budget. You don't see SIPs in these projects either.

Using HEED 3.0 software, MI data and keeping R value and air infiltration rates constant, I can't get more than $100/year (8%) difference in total utility bills with any type of wall construction or wall mass.

toddm, you've referred to 5 or 6 Zero Energy projects that did NOT utilize SIPs in their building envelopes, and I'm sure that there are many more. However, in the interest of balance, one only needs to "Yahoo" or "Google" the following words: "R-Control SIPs in Zero Energy Homes" to find articles about scores of ZEH or NZEH (Near Zero Energy Homes) SIP built projects, dating back to 2002.

Jere, its hard to imagine that the framing labor for a DSW, or SSW, structure, with 16 +/- sides, would be the same as for a square, or rectangular, building, with standard 2 x 16" oc framing. Also, remember that this thread is titled "Alternative to SIPs" so we shouldn't bring inferior, and cheap, lumber into the equation. Maybe some "bags on framers" will speak to this issue.

Also, news for our friends in Australia, R-Control has recently opened a SIP manufacturing facility in Welshpool.

In a quick scan, I didn't find budget ZEHs using SIP. I'd define budget as ~$100 SF. If I am wrong, throw up a link.

You got me there! I didn't add the search terms "budget" or "Cheap" to my quick search. These are probably either demo, or "real world", projects, that aren't based on the concept of free or cheap, labor and/or materials. However, I think that, without at least one of these elements present, you won't find many ZEH, or NZEH, houses being built for $ 100 psf or less. Of course the words "budget" or "cheap" are both relative. I am also of the opinion that the concept of ZEH/NZEH homes should not be applied only to low, or moderate, income housing.