|
|
jonr
Senior Member
Posts:5341
 |
| 06 Mar 2013 02:18 PM |
|
anyone have info on how SABS can build a strong structure with no steel mesh/reinforcing and such a thin coat of cement? One way is to use concrete post and beam construction and then the SCIPs can be non-structural curtain walls/infill. But this isn't necessary and I don't think it is what SABS is doing. |
|
|
|
|
Alton
Veteran Member
Posts:2157
|
| 06 Mar 2013 02:30 PM |
|
SABS walls are solid as opposed to post. Long span roofs are supported by EPS/composite coated T-beams. Very limited thermal paths. |
|
Residential Designer &
Construction Technology Consultant -- E-mail: Alton at Auburn dot Edu Use email format with @ and period .
334 826-3979 |
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 07 Mar 2013 12:36 AM |
|
Anyone see SABS seismic rating? they give lots of data on the website.
Earthquake Resistance they say Very resistant to seismic activity.
They give a yes for ICFs and a No for Sips under Earthquake Resistance.
No for SIPs really? |
|
|
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 07 Mar 2013 12:49 AM |
|
I am still searching for the origin of SCIPS.
I had a thermal break time line on my first lap top that I lost the hard drive on and learned a lesion on backing up information.
Roman times two rock walls with a gap filled with straw,
1935 SIPS
1940 first SCIP walls
I heard the theory that the first foam in the wall was as a cheap filler to give a backing for the shotcrete to cut the amount of cement used.
Looking forward to getting the email with new names of early SCIP developers that I do not have.
|
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 07 Mar 2013 09:00 PM |
|
Posted By Richard Sims on 05 Mar 2013 08:48 PM
This is not scientific
Nor do I hope to change anyone with a closed mind or dispute anyone who puts out false information.
I had the pleasure of talking to a retired architect who built a SCIP home in 2002 on the Puget Sound. He
He told of 40 degree days looking at all the wood stoves smoking away and his heat had not come on.
Told me how it would take an average of three days for the house to gain heat after being away and keep the heat for three days when the temperature dropped.
I did not ask how many years how many years he lived in the home. He was impressed enough to build with the system again.
Richard - We would not consider Puget Sound as a heat dominated climate but this does address one of my concerns. IT TAKES THREE DAYS. This is the problem with unprotected mass in cold climates. Unless the house was a very high solar gainer, he paid for all that heat stored in the walls. Now he was just drawing on his storage. This would not be a net benefit but rather a net loss.
Even in many high solar gain designs, only part of the house would benefit. The rest of the mass would have to be heated. There is no benefit in storing heat if
1) the heat doesn't come at a huge cost discount ie solar.
2) or there is a reason to believe there will be no heat available or a large increase in the required heat in the near future.
The three day lag does prove that it was a very air tight home, which is a benefit of most mono poured or shot concrete homes. When you go to panelize scips, you introduce more room for human error, that is more leaking joins.
I have no problem with the actual panels or shotcrete in cold climates. Many of our commercial building are tilt up although not always structural. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 07 Mar 2013 09:11 PM |
|
Posted By Richard Sims on 01 Mar 2013 10:27 PM
I saw a fire station in the Colorado mountains that had a $1.00 heating bill for the year.
I guess you are pulling our legs on this one, right?
Consider the large overhead doors for the fire engines. You will never get a significant R value in them. Then imagine five or six piece of fire apparatus rushing out taking all that heat with them. They spent hours out at minus 30 and come backing covered with snow and ice. Ton of metal to reheat and all the snow and ice to melt not to mention the air loss from those doors opening. |
|
|
|
|
Lbear
Veteran Member
Posts:2740
|
| 07 Mar 2013 09:47 PM |
|
Posted By FBBP on 07 Mar 2013 09:11 PM
Posted By Richard Sims on 01 Mar 2013 10:27 PM
I saw a fire station in the Colorado mountains that had a $1.00 heating bill for the year.
I guess you are pulling our legs on this one, right?
Consider the large overhead doors for the fire engines. You will never get a significant R value in them. Then imagine five or six piece of fire apparatus rushing out taking all that heat with them. They spent hours out at minus 30 and come backing covered with snow and ice. Ton of metal to reheat and all the snow and ice to melt not to mention the air loss from those doors opening.
Exactly. That is why I am just asking for documented 3rd party testing of SCIPs. We can read these claims all day long but in the end they are meaningless unless there is documented studies and proof. Unfortunately SCIPs is not providing such material for people to see. |
|
|
|
|
swis
New Member
Posts:2
|
| 07 Mar 2013 10:02 PM |
|
.
Lbear Did you not see the links for third party documentation????? |
|
|
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 07 Mar 2013 10:29 PM |
|
L Bear Here is one link third party
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/thermal/index.html
(Walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides) (SCIP)
(Concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides) ( ICF)
(Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides)
(Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side)
(Comparative analysis of sixteen different material configurations showed that the most effective wall assembly was the wall with thermal mass (concrete) applied in good contact with the interior of the building. Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side, performed much worse. Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides)
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 07 Mar 2013 10:36 PM |
|
Lbear
Link # 2 I have reached out to several sources for third party data.
This was forwarded to me by a engineer who works and is very familiar with SCIPS
I am awaiting more and will post as they come to me
1. ORNL conducted thermal experiments in 1987 that tested concrete sandwich panels:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1987/3445602788810.pdf Sorry if you need to copy and paste.
a. This paper states that there is only a 7% reduction in the thermal properties of concrete panels with 32 – 3 mm diameter stainless steel connectors in a 103”x103” wall compared to walls without connectors or with fiberglass-composite ties.
b. The report evaluated the isothermal planes method (also called series-parallel method) of calculating the R factor for the wall assemblies and found that the method predicted a 5% decrease in the thermal properties which is very close to the measured difference.
c. The isothermal planes method for concrete walls is contained in ACI 122R “Guide to Thermal Properties of Concrete and Masonry Systems” which we used to calculate the R-factors for the GCT TER.
d. The walls also had a thermal lag of 5 to 6 hours, which helps to reduce the impact of daily high/low temperatures.
e. The thermal lag indicates the capacity of the wall to store energy and is useful for designing passive solar systems.
2. The ORNL website has nothing on it regarding the reduction from an R30 to an R8 due to the thermal bridging as one post in the thread claimed.
3. The walls tested had 2” of XPS insulation and 3” layers of concrete and only obtained an R value of about 8 which is reasonable for this amount of insulation.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 07 Mar 2013 11:45 PM |
|
FBBP
I was not pulling you leg but relaying what I was told and shown by the owner of http://www.thermomass.com/ at WOC Expo. He assured me he was not pulling my leg.
Alice CO. Fire house was a Thermal mass poured concrete building.
The fire House I saw pictures of and talked to the owner of Thermal mass buildings about was at WOC expo. I pulled the picture from a CD they gave me.
I do not know what temperature they keep the fire station at, some areas like where the trucks would be above freezing but by how much.
I am not even sure where Alice, CO is but I will at some time go there and talk with them so my information is first hand to me.
My father in-law keeps the electric thermostat in the bedrooms in an Idaho mountains home at 55 degrees. I call that cold storage.
The living room and kitchen/ dining room are heated by wood stove.
Architect with SCIP home on sound where heat held for three days was relayed to me by the builder / owner himself who I am bidding to build a Timber frame post and beam/ SCIP home for in Colorado.
There are a number of SCIP homes built in the NW and I am trying to locate more information about them.
I know of three ongoing that are in different stages , one the foundation is in and he has ordered panels from Tri-D.
I have not seen the plans but have seen other work by the designer. His work in Hawaii and California is very intricate with multi level roofs. I look forward to see what he is doing in the NW Olympia area.
There is also a group building homes that believes 1 1/2" of thermal mass is not enough.
They were looking at the SCIP home I built considering using the system only using four times more concrete on the inside of the walls.
They are not considering any system that is not heavily positive thermal mass . No SIPs ICFs or double wall systems, and so far not SCIP as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 08 Mar 2013 12:26 AM |
|
Posted By Richard Sims on 07 Mar 2013 10:29 PM
L Bear Here is one link third party
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/thermal/index.html
(Walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides) (SCIP)
(Concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides) ( ICF)
(Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides)
(Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side)
(Comparative analysis of sixteen different material configurations showed that the most effective wall assembly was the wall with thermal mass (concrete) applied in good contact with the interior of the building. Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side, performed much worse. Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing foam core and concrete shells on both sides)
Richard - If you read from the top down on this report, it would seem that the whole report is based on the knoxville study. If you back up on this forum you will find some reference to it. One house had a flood basement which required windows left open to prevent mould and rot. The other was dry. The rest of the paper you reference appears to be simulations based on this fatally flawed study. It does not appear that any of these results are from actual measurement.
The other study is much more interesting. The scip attachment is very different than the wire trusses I'm use to seeing. One would think if the x section of steel per square foot of panel for the anchor in the study was similair to the accumulated sections of steel in the trusses, then the study would still hold some validity.
I'm very surprised that there is almost no difference the the surface temp in near proximity to the anchor as to the surface midway between anchors. Might this be ascribe to the conductivity of the metal bar to which the anchor is attached? On the other hand when comparing the same thermocouple location on wall P1 and wall P2 (P2 is attached to the anchor, P1 is in the foam at the same location - page 72 and 73) there is only 1.2 degree difference. This would indicate that the steel is transferring only that 1.2 degree more than the foam transmits. This with the delta t being over 70ºf. This is mind boggling! To me something just doesn't seem right.
and then theres the fiberglass tie results??? The P3 wall performs better than the reference wall.
Bear in mind that these test are in a calibrated box not a guarded box. Also this test is almost 26 years old and test procedures and our understanding of materials have change. That in it self would have a bearing on the calibration. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 08 Mar 2013 12:57 AM |
|
Alice Firehall - now this is interesting. I sure wish I could find actual operating costs. http://yourhub.denverpost.com/Page/YourHub/UGC/78/7891/78913_/78913___/78913/Post/2010/01/78913_10272_719148.xml
http://www.clearcreekfire.com/stations/stmarys.html http://www.thermomass.com/profiles/case_study.php?project=10580 |
|
|
|
|
Alton
Veteran Member
Posts:2157
|
| 08 Mar 2013 09:44 AM |
|
FBBP,
Thanks for posting the two links. I could not get the second link to work even after cutting and pasting. |
|
Residential Designer &
Construction Technology Consultant -- E-mail: Alton at Auburn dot Edu Use email format with @ and period .
334 826-3979 |
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 08 Mar 2013 09:49 AM |
|
Posted By FBBP on 08 Mar 2013 12:57 AM
Alice Firehall - now this is interesting. I sure wish I could find actual operating costs.
http://yourhub.denverpost.com/Page/YourHub/UGC/78/7891/78913_/78913___/78913/Post/2010/01/78913_10272_719148.xml
http://www.clearcreekfire.com/stations/stmarys.html
http://www.thermomass.com/profiles/case_study.php?project=10580
|
|
|
|
|
toddm
Veteran Member
Posts:1151
|
| 08 Mar 2013 11:11 AM |
|
TMass has been around long enough to been tested in the real world. Here is a real house in Las Vegas tested b y the Building Industry Research Alliance. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:I8UV2ukT_AAJ:www.bira.ws/files/FaithPremierpres.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShvtI3LSt6yOxebBdPDmjLuJQ6P1p2s98fxJphKTtnjl9oQr2eKxjOLYrv-ps7yivVsjU6_k_Nv4DCZME_ZB-9E8QvoZ-yc4At8ab4DbRfnBvIylXsLDJFbhbsrucTQoKL_r7c4&sig=AHIEtbQOcXZcmPaL1E_k4J64sjiW0ZYzyA&pli=1
(My apologies. If it doesn't work, and you and have Power Point on your computer, lift out the www.bira.......ppt part of the url.)
The cliff notes :R10 TMass performed like R18 whole wall, or R30-35 stud cavity, thanks to its mass effect. We should say here that LV has a very favorable climate for thermal mass. It cut energy costs by 14.5 percent over BIRA's benchmark, which I believe is 2003 IECC or 2x4 R13. But that wasn't much savings in dollars In the primary (for LV) cooling season, Tmass reduced bills by $55. And while mass time shifted the peak heat load it was not enough to capitalize on time of day pricing; those bills would have been $1 more rather than $55 less..
There was a second more comprehensive project in Borrega Springs by Clarum construction: four homes, two Tmass, one regular SIP and a fourth 2x6 OVE construction. I wasn't able to find results in the time I have today.
Two points: If energy efficiency is your goal, mass walls aren't likely to have a huge payoff. A couple poorly placed, unshaded window in the LV house easily could eat up $55/yr in AC savings. In that situation, though, a mass home would be more comfortable. Max temp variance from set po int 75 degrees was 3 degrees vs 7 degrees. You'd need the mass explosed to the interior. And you'd see why pairing passive solar with internal mass could get you big savings and reasonable comfort in heating dominated climates.
A last point. That the Knoxville ICF house suffered fatal flaws is FBBP's opinion. The behavior of the sponsoring Insulated Concrete Forms Association suggests otherwise. As far as I can tell, the ICF trade group said nothing publicly about the test -- no complaints, no protests, nada. Nor has it redone the test in the intervening 13 years. |
|
|
|
|
toddm
Veteran Member
Posts:1151
|
| 08 Mar 2013 12:23 PM |
|
Here is a link to the Borrego Springs Calif side-by-side. http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/nav/coolingandair/id/760
The story discusses a set-ahead strategy, or precooling, as they call it. The homes were chilled to 72 degrees overnight under the most favorable delta Ts available in the California desert, after which the Tstat kicked in the compressor when the house rose to 80 degrees. The stud wall house coasted for four hours. The SIP house coasted for 10 hours. The Tmass house coasted throughout, until the chilling cycle resumed. But the Tmass walls cost $42.5k more than the studwalls while the SIP house cost $15.5k more. While it is possible TMass costs less in a lifecycle cost analysis, unless you know your grandkids will live there, or you are in a resale market that really, really prizes concrete and efficiency, this would be prepaid green, as in the bill is all yours. |
|
|
|
|
Richard Sims
New Member
Posts:40
|
| 08 Mar 2013 12:36 PM |
|
I am glad we are bringing up and talking about thermal mass.
Safe to say window placement can have a negative affect if improperly placed and designed.
Just as proper solar/ thermal gain and eco cooling designs can have a major positive affect not possible without Thermalmass or alternate thermal storage method.
|
|
|
|
|
jonr
Senior Member
Posts:5341
|
| 08 Mar 2013 09:43 PM |
|
But the Tmass walls cost $42.5k more than the studwalls while the SIP house cost $15.5k more. For something probably closer to $5-10K, one could do some type of active thermal storage (eg, water tank). And it wouldn't require any deviations in interior temperature to work. |
|
|
|
|
toddm
Veteran Member
Posts:1151
|
| 09 Mar 2013 09:10 AM |
|
Tilt-up Tmass costs are location-specific and probably haven't dropped for distant construction sites. Transportation costs are the big hit, and the NV and CA houses were built before the major run up in fuel prices. Site poured should be competitive in basement country but you'd need to find an adventurous contractor.
Jonr's point about water storage isn't as simple or cheap as (nonTmass) mass in the desert SW, where these houses are located. A set-ahead strategy coupled with time of day pricing could result in major savings in those houses without any loss in comfort, assuming that set points err on the side of "cold."
His point doesn't quite fit passive solar in the north either. The important role of mass is buffering, tempering periods of high insolation. Active storage cannot substitute. After a year in an aggressive passive solar house (40 linear feet of 6' windows in the great room), I would say that energy savings are secondary. Both the wife and I feel claustrophobic in conventional houses, even huge ones. And I'd say that a small house that lives bigger than large ones is a higher order of green, eh? |
|
|
|
|