Posted By ICFHybrid on 10 Dec 2011 05:26 PM

In an earthquake the 2x6 wood frame would do MUCH better vs. an ICF home.

I'm sorry, that's just not the case. I built with ICF so the structure would be earthquake-survivable and it is engineered to withstand far more than any other building.

ICF is essentially steel-reinforced concrete. That is just about the strongest thing out there. High-rises, freeway interchanges, parking garages and bunkers are not built out of 2X6 and there is a reason for that.

There is no doubt when it comes to strength, tornado resistance, longevity and thermal mass, correctly designed and poured ICF's perform superbly. Earthquakes is where ICF voids can cause structures to fail. Also, when it comes to earthquakes, different principles come into play and the main factor that ICF has AGAINST it is it's shear mass/weight. It's own mass/weight can be used against it when it comes to earthquakes.

We can't really compare high-rises, freeway interchanges and parking garages to ICFs because they are designed with numerous FEET of concrete, not 4-6 inches of concrete, and they are not utilizing stay-in-place forms. They pour the concrete and then pull the forms out. Even then, one can go back and view pictures of freeway passes collapsing in LA.

When I spoke to engineers about utilizing ICF in seismic areas, I was told that it requires more engineering than one thinks. It's not as simple as stacking the block, placing some re-bar, and doing the pour.

From my research, the best performing residential design in earthquakes is actually SIPs. Not that it can't be done with ICF, it can, but it requires costly engineering & expensive on-site factors to do so.

correctly designed and poured ICF's perform superbly.

What other kind is there? You can ignore the rules with woodframe just the same as you can with ICF.

but it requires costly engineering & expensive on-site factors to do so.

Not any more than anything else. Any of those construction methods will require engineering if you do something out of the prescriptive tables. Whether or not your reinforced concrete utilizes stay-in-place forms has little to no impact on the engineering. The calculations are based on the concrete and steel matrix.

it requires more engineering than one thinks

Not at all. It takes exactly as much as it takes, just like anything else.

because they are designed with numerous FEET of concrete,...

Feet or inches, it doesn't matter one bit. A structure is built with the amount of concrete and steel that is necessary to resist the design forces, whatever they are.

It's not as simple as stacking the block, placing some re-bar, and doing the pour.

Uh, well, there is the bracing you left out but other than that, it is essentially as simple as that.

the best performing residential design in earthquakes is actually SIPs. Not that it can't be done with ICF, it can, but it requires costly engineering & expensive on-site factors to do so.

Are you saying that a structure built with SIPS requires no special engineering to meet seismic code?

Can you show us the source that you are basing all these statements on?

Reinforced concrete structures perform very well in earthquakes. I am developing a project in a earthquake prone are of northern Argentina. Every building is individually engineered and our engineer put a screen grid ICF house through his seismic software and was impressed. They usually build using a frame of reinforced concrete and in-fill the walls with terracotta or concrete block. No wood. Wood houses are disposable.

I dealt with a number of engineers in NorCal over the years and they loved the ICF/Concrete design for houses. Main reason, every wall is now a sheer wall, they claimed it made their job easier than wood and all the various connections and hardi-panels, etc.

As I commented on before, a typical standard ICF build, utilizing standard ICF building techniques, will fail in major disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes) UNLESS they are specifically strengthened and specifically engineered to withstand those forces. My statements are backed by ICF Builder Magazine. I am not knocking ICF, I believe it is a far superior building technique over wood frame, but just because it was completed in ICF does not make it infallible to strong seismic activity.

Per ICF Builder Magazine (Feb/March 2010 issue):

This industry has propagated a few myths, exaggerations and misstatements for many years. These inaccuracies that some of us promote as “facts” are a leading reason why many in the building community still look at ICF as an immature or radical product.

“ICF Homes are hurricane and tornado resistant”
At face value, “everyone knows” ICF walls and ICF floor roof systems definitely are resistant to the forces of a hurricane. However, just because the structure incorporates ICF doesn’t mean that it can withstand Mother Nature’s worst. Proof of this was evident along the gulf coast of the US as many ICF structures failed. These failures were usually a fault of improper engineering. We must overcome the idea that “it’s ICF so it will work”. Additionally, homes with ICF walls that lack a hurricane-proof roof system may not be any more resistant to wind damage than a well built home of other materials and methods. The statement should read: Properly engineered ICF walls and roof system will outperform traditional non-fortified homes in the event of a hurricane or tornado.

“ICF walls will withstand seismic activity”
Once again, only if they are engineered and designed to withstand the level of seismic activity expected. Design of the structure is first and foremost when considering the ability of the wall system to withstand forces that may come to bear. ICF walls may perform better than a traditional structure in the event of an earthquake, but that statement lacks specific details.

Because of your desire to find a neat, packaged way to consider ICF, you are making your own set of generalizations and assumptions. That is exactly what the article warns against. For example, what is the definition of "a typical standard ICF build" and how can you state that it will fail in "major disasters"? Just because "many ICF structures failed" along the gulf coast does not make them typical or standard, whatever that is. And how many DIDN'T fail? Don't make me go back and pull forward your repetitive statements about how ICF wouldn't perform well in an earthquake because of it's mass.

We rarely see magic claims about ICF from posters here. What they have all said is that if you want it to stand up to something in particular, it has to be engineered. That is the same for other building methods. And, just because it is engineered does not put it in the class of costly or expensive. I have seen more mistakes in progress because someone is trying to avoid hiring an engineer. I can't remember a time that an engineer wasn't worth his fee in savings on my jobs.

People always want to take their chosen stick frame design and translate it across the board to ICF. That might work for a simple little box, but the larger and more complex it is the more likely you will have to engage an engineer to meet code standards.

LBear -- you make this author out like he represents the industry or that these statements are being made by ICF Builder magazine. I doubt both.  I too write for the magazine and this particular article is vague at best in a few ways -- which helps you make what point exactly?   Have you seen Scott Sunbergs home in Miss. photo to right?   Left photo is Galveston Texas.    BYW notice the empty slabs in the area?   To Hybrids point above you have twisted the intent of the article.  Haiti is proof that concrete without engineering/rebar will fail catastrophically.   Some stuff is just very basic.  If you play in the street you will eventually be run over.

I only know of one ICF structure that "failed" in Pass Christian - it was hit by a shrimp boat.   I made a call this morning to make sure this was correct.  I was told this morning that it had no corner rebar at all.   I don't know if it would have survived the shrimp boat had it been engineered or not.  How may buildings were destroyed in the past few years with our recent weather?  Actually, so many that they don't even know exactly.  How about that.   Generally speaking, in the hardest hit areas the only structures to survive were ICF.    From reading your posts you seem to really like wood - perhaps it is best for you.   At some point if you ask someone to the movies 10x and they say no you move on.   No one on this forum is trying to get you to skip basic engineering.  Regards.

it was hit by a shrimp boat.

Hate it when that happens..... :-)

Posted By TexasICF on 15 Dec 2011 09:36 AM

LBear -- you make this author out like he represents the industry or that these statements are being made by ICF Builder magazine. I doubt both.  I too write for the magazine and this particular article is vague at best in a few ways -- which helps you make what point exactly?   Have you seen Scott Sunbergs home in Miss. photo to right?   Left photo is Galveston Texas.    BYW notice the empty slabs in the area?   To Hybrids point above you have twisted the intent of the article.  Haiti is proof that concrete without engineering/rebar will fail catastrophically.   Some stuff is just very basic.  If you play in the street you will eventually be run over.

I only know of one ICF structure that "failed" in Pass Christian - it was hit by a shrimp boat.   I made a call this morning to make sure this was correct.  I was told this morning that it had no corner rebar at all.   I don't know if it would have survived the shrimp boat had it been engineered or not.  How may buildings were destroyed in the past few years with our recent weather?  Actually, so many that they don't even know exactly.  How about that.   Generally speaking, in the hardest hit areas the only structures to survive were ICF.    From reading your posts you seem to really like wood - perhaps it is best for you.   At some point if you ask someone to the movies 10x and they say no you move on.   No one on this forum is trying to get you to skip basic engineering.  Regards.

Yes, the above was quoted directly from ICF Builder Magazine, the issue and date were listed. One can go to ICFMag.com and review the quote themselves. The author is a contributor to ICF Builder Magazine. Click here for the link.

Look, I am not attacking ICF or its abilities. I am simply trying to drive a point that even the ICF industry is trying to drive to the public. I am just trying to clear through the bad information that is prevalent in this field. As I mentioned before, I am contemplating using ICF for my home build because I believe that ICF is a better technology over stick framing. ICF Builder Magazine emphasizes this point, and I quote:

"This industry has propagated a few myths, exaggerations and misstatements for many years. These inaccuracies that some of us promote as “facts” are a leading reason why many in the building community still look at ICF as an immature or radical product."

.


Remember this pic? It was and is toted by many that this ICF structure withstood the fire that ravaged all the other homes. Well, the TRUTH is that this home is NOT an ICF home, the truth is that the home is a wood framed home covered with stucco. It did not burn because it was properly sealed to prevent any flames from reaching the wooded frame. Yet, to this date, many in the ICF world use the photo and claim that it is an ICF home. That is NOT accurate and gives ICF a bad name when the truth is revealed.

This lbear character is starting to sound suspiciously troll-like. I think he has the information he needs, but is developing a habit of baiting you guys to feed his disputatious hobby. Ignore him and he'll go away.

And that sounds like an ad hominem attack from someone who has contributed nothing (edit: to this thread).

jonr, it's not an attack, ad hominem or otherwise -- it's an observation. I'm sorry if you think I have contributed nothing. Fortunately, the important people in my life feel differently.

Let me reiterate this. With my custom home, I hope & plan to use ICF as the first choice in a building method, with SIPs coming in 2nd and then stick-frame coming in 3rd.

I am just trying to clear through all the information that is out there, some of it being inaccurate. I quoted the national ICF Builder Magazine. If they say that the ICF industry needs to get its act in order and clear out the bad information, then you know there is a problem.

It is a good thing to do some "house cleaning" and airing out the laundry is positive first step. Attacking those who are seeking to use ICF and those who want to strengthen the industry by dispelling the bad info, is not a good business model.

In that same article, they addressed the void issue:

"“You don’t need to vibrate concrete….”
Unless you use a self consolidating concrete mix design, concrete should always be vibrated to remove trapped air, and ensure consolidation. Studies at PCA have shown that internal vibration is the surest way to eliminate voids and honeycombing. It’s true that certain mix designs can forego internal vibration, however, few ICF installers are equipped to accurately do this. The discussion of whether or not to vibrate concrete mixes should be left to the structural engineer involved in the project.

Through the above statement and all my research, it is now a fact in my mind that ICF walls need to be internally vibrated to eliminate voids. So when I look for an ICF contractor and they don't vibrate internally, then I move on to the next contractor.

Posted By Ray Gladstone on 15 Dec 2011 03:51 PM
jonr, it's not an attack, ad hominem or otherwise -- it's an observation. I'm sorry if you think I have contributed nothing. Fortunately, the important people in my life feel differently.

Unfortunately it was an attack against me. You called me names and attacked me personally. JONR was referring to your contribution HERE on the thread and forum, not in your personal life. You have 35 posts under your belt and have not contributed to this thread except for your post that attacked me personally, that is what JONR was commenting on. It had nothing to do with your life contributions.

lbear, you're beating a dead horse. That's not an attack, it's an observation. If I said that you're a moron, that would be an attack. If I called you a troll, that would be an attack. I said you were sounding suspiciously troll-like (observation). Enough with the blather about vibration. We got the point. Several times. If you have other questions, ask them and the experts (pseudo and otherwise) will attempt to answer. Then move on. :-)

Texas.....HITH does a shrimp boat run into a house??

Posted By robinnc on 15 Dec 2011 10:12 PM
Texas.....HITH does a shrimp boat run into a house??

The water level rose so high that the ocean level was far inland. Whatever boats were out there moved inland and that is why boats were found deep inland.

In a rural area, how wide does the driveway & roadway have to be to allow for the concrete pumper truck to be able to navigate down the driveway & roadway?
 15 feet ?  20 feet?  25 feet?

10-12 feet if it is straight. To go down the road vehicles can be no wider than 8.5'. Their turning ability is not as good as a tandem dump truck or ready mix truck, but better than a semi.

Posted By ICFconstruction on 29 Dec 2011 08:25 AM
10-12 feet if it is straight. To go down the road vehicles can be no wider than 8.5'. Their turning ability is not as good as a tandem dump truck or ready mix truck, but better than a semi.

Thanks! So a 15 feet driveway entrance should be adequate for the truck.


I was reading up on ICF at the BuildingScience site.

I had a question about this:
"Durability: There are very few risks associated with air leakage and vapor condensation of ICF construction. The most common durability issue is from rainwater leakage into the enclosure. ICF forms typically do not have any buffering capacity of leakage, so even a small leak, that may occur undetected with no durability risks in a wood framed wall, may affect the interior of and ICF building. The ICF wall itself is not susceptible to moisture related issues but interior finishes are generally sensitive to moisture. "

Total Score

ICF construction is a very durable construction strategy provided the rainwater management details are constructed correctly. Generally, ICF construction alone cannot achieve a high R-value and will require other insulation strategies in combination for cold climates, which is commonly done in practice. ICFs are ideal for basements and multi-story residential and are being adopted as the dominant choice in some markets.

What are they talking about in regards to rainwater leakage on ICF?

They claim that ICF will require other insulation strategies in cold climates, why is that?

BuildingScience.com



Did BuildingScience address the thermal mass in their studies?