the test still shows that ICF's are awesome in hot climates as well!

Posted By Baldwin2014 on 19 Jun 2012 02:49 PM
the test still shows that ICF's are awesome in hot climates as well!

I did mention that, didn't I?

In fact the mass effect is more useful and has a greater reduction in energy use in cooling dominated climates than in heating dominated climates.  But that most ICFs have 2x the code-min R value for Dallas is an even bigger factor than the mass. 

On any side-by-side test with a code-min stick built it's important to figure out what the true relevant differences are.  Most of that awesomeness of the ICFs in this case comes from having 1.83x the whole-wall R of the stick built. (Fer sher it ain't from how wicked-tight those places are, eh? )

And, in the case of stud wall AND ICF, what matters most how carefully the buildings are constructed. In the ORNL study Lbear linked earlier, the researchers cited construction standards as the largest determinant of low ACH50 numbers. They found tighter homes in Madison Wis than they did in Knoxville Tenn., for the simple reason that tight houses in a Madison winter are good for business while tight houses in Knoxville are less so. The other major variable is square footage. Large houses have lower ACH50 numbers because there is more air to change without a corresponding increase in envelope area. Sorry, LBear, the researchers could not say that building age was a predictor of high air infiltration. While the houses in study that were 25 years old or older had higher ACH numbers, they were also smaller than new houses. The study reported only three years of tests, so there is no data on the deterioration of stud wall homes over time.

I would agree that ICF walls are harder to screw up. But not impossible: http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/aff/4/aft/24841/afv/topic/Default.aspx

Posted By toddm on 19 Jun 2012 05:52 PM

I would agree that ICF walls are harder to screw up. But not impossible: http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/aff/4/aft/24841/afv/topic/Default.aspx

The above linked ICF issue screw up was summed up in one sentence, "The only way we could build our home was by doing a lot of the work ourselves."

Ummm, the brother was a contractor. It was his first ICF house, though, so I repeat: if you can't find an experienced contractor, give it up or become your own expert.

Happily stud wall is quite common and forgiving, and a caulk gun is easy to use. I can and have built supertight stud wall houses, some BT (before tyvek), and they didn't rot. Imagine that. I used 130 tubes of caulk and 30 20 oz cans of foam on my current house. It is concrete block construction. Covered in a half inch of stucco.

Posted By Lbear on 20 Jun 2012 02:13 AM

Posted By toddm on 19 Jun 2012 05:52 PM

I would agree that ICF walls are harder to screw up. But not impossible: http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/aff/4/aft/24841/afv/topic/Default.aspx

The above linked ICF issue screw up was summed up in one sentence, "The only way we could build our home was by doing a lot of the work ourselves."

Oh common. You know better then that. I know you think ICF is the end all be all. There are success stories all over the place of DIY installs and horror stories of contractor installs just the same. Contractors screw up all the time, every day. I deal with it daily. I am doing ICF for mine, and it will be DIY with the rep being there with me for training and pour day. But I am sure it will bow out and cave in b/c it is a DIY, despite my years of construction experience. (wood framing, which, all are still standing...have not twisted, cracked, warped and fallen down. none have been eaten by bugs and giant rodents, and all are very efficient.) Interesting enough, I did a saferoom out of 12" ICF (12" core) with a different room beside it made out of 2x6 framing, blown insulation and exterior foam, taped and caulked. They are connected by 2 sets of double 4' saferoom doors. Each have their dedicated furnaces. The part built with sticks is larger then the ICF saferoom, yet the furnaces run LESS. Yep, you read that right, less. Ironcically the roof over the saferoom is 6" of concrete on steel deck with wood trusses above and blown insulation. The stick part is just roof trusses with blown insulation (r60). But I am sure all of your "research and findings" disprove my real life project experience.

Posted By Lbear on 20 Jun 2012 02:13 AM

Posted By toddm on 19 Jun 2012 05:52 PM

I would agree that ICF walls are harder to screw up. But not impossible: http://www.greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/aff/4/aft/24841/afv/topic/Default.aspx

The above linked ICF issue screw up was summed up in one sentence, "The only way we could build our home was by doing a lot of the work ourselves."

In the link above, it appears that the leaks were not due to faulty ICF construction per se, but likely due to poor quality installation of the synthetic stucco on the exterior.  It never was reported back exactly what was the cause for the leaks or what the fix was, but from the tid bits I gathered it looks like it was the Dryvit installation.

The Original Poster (OP) was Paula.

Paula (OP):  "...My husband and I built a our dream home over 7 years ago using ICF...After a couple of years we notices a couple of small leaks coming from the middle of the basement walls."

Paula (OP):  "...If the ICF was properly sealed on the outside ... and then our dryvit was applied, we shouldn't have leaks.  I don't think anything else was placed between the dryvit and sealed ICF"

Ian with ICF Builders:  "...On a wild guess, do these leaks mirror locations of windows or doors above???   Many times the failure is in the detailing of the EIFS above grade.  Once the water is in the foam or along the concrete, it will allow gravity to take it to the basement slab..."

Paula (OP):  "...As for the leaks, most of them are under a window or patio door from the first floor.  There is only one leak coming from under a window from the basement." 

That was Paula's last post in that thread.

Posted By lzerarc on 20 Jun 2012 09:51 AM


Oh common. You know better then that. I know you think ICF is the end all be all. There are success stories all over the place of DIY installs and horror stories of contractor installs just the same. Contractors screw up all the time, every day. I deal with it daily. I am doing ICF for mine, and it will be DIY with the rep being there with me for training and pour day. But I am sure it will bow out and cave in b/c it is a DIY, despite my years of construction experience. (wood framing, which, all are still standing...have not twisted, cracked, warped and fallen down. none have been eaten by bugs and giant rodents, and all are very efficient.) Interesting enough, I did a saferoom out of 12" ICF (12" core) with a different room beside it made out of 2x6 framing, blown insulation and exterior foam, taped and caulked. They are connected by 2 sets of double 4' saferoom doors. Each have their dedicated furnaces. The part built with sticks is larger then the ICF saferoom, yet the furnaces run LESS. Yep, you read that right, less. Ironcically the roof over the saferoom is 6" of concrete on steel deck with wood trusses above and blown insulation. The stick part is just roof trusses with blown insulation (r60). But I am sure all of your "research and findings" disprove my real life project experience.

I don't know why all the condescending comments are directed at me and ICF but I never said ICF is the absolute best end-all construction out there. A lot depends on location, design and intentions you have with the home.

*In my area the diurnal temps day to night are 30 - 40 degrees and therefore it is better suited with an ICF home vs wood frame.
*The home will be in a high forest fire area, again ICF/concrete beats a wood home for fire resistance.
*The area has a moderate/severe rating for subterranean termites, again ICF is better suited
*The area has a high rodent population and every single wood frame home out in that area eventually gets rodents within the wall cavity of the home. ICF again is better suited for this issue.

In northern climates a higher R-Value wood framed wall with densed packed cellulose is better suited over ICF. In the south/southeast portion of the country, SCIPs & steel SIPs are a better choice than wood frame. In mild climates, a wood framed home would be the best choice in terms of cost and bang for buck. In tornado alley, ICF would be the choice as wood framed would become a pile of popsicle sticks.

So wood framed has a place, as does SCIP's, ICF, SIP and whatever else you want to throw in there.

Peace...

You mean of course that SCIP or composite ICF is the best choice for AZ . (Because the interior foam of conventional icf mutes thermal mass buffering.) Hate to break it to you, but I have found mice in the garage of my all concrete house. That puts them two doors away from colonizing the house's interior stud walls.

If the ICF industry wants respect it should stop BS "better than crap" comparisons like this one, particularly since the Portlant Cement Association "volunteers" had their thumbs on the scale.

Forgot. Pick any one spot in tornado alley andyou would wait on average 1400 years for a tornado to pass over it.

Lb-
so, as you claim, basically the wood framed insulated structure is better then an ICF in a heating dominate area....such as the one in the study you started the thread about. I am not bashing ICF, as stated I am planning on building my own out of it for various reasons not much different from the ones you push (at least the basement for sure, upper might be double stud or urethane sips) But I am also not going to every thread and saying the stick homes will fall in, twist, crack, and have ach of 10 in a few years (still unproven). Your post above is a much more realistic and down to earth post than ones in the past.

Posted By lzerarc on 21 Jun 2012 10:32 AM
Lb-
so, as you claim, basically the wood framed insulated structure is better then an ICF in a heating dominate area....such as the one in the study you started the thread about. I am not bashing ICF, as stated I am planning on building my own out of it for various reasons not much different from the ones you push (at least the basement for sure, upper might be double stud or urethane sips) But I am also not going to every thread and saying the stick homes will fall in, twist, crack, and have ach of 10 in a few years (still unproven). Your post above is a much more realistic and down to earth post than ones in the past.

Since older construction that was NEVER air-sealed usually come in under 10ACH/50 in places where cold-weather comfort counts, I'd say it's DISproven by empirical data in survey studies (readily downloadable off the Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Labs Energy Performance of Buildings Group site.)

As for sub-3ACH/50 being "pretty good for a timber frame",  simply fixing the big holes on batt-insulated tract housing gets you there far more often than not according to Lstiburek's experience. 

If you have the time to watch this video on this page  it's clear that while it takes some (not very sophisticated or expensive) air seal detailing,  hitting below 0.4ACH/50 is perfectly doable on stick built without resorting to spray foam insulation, even on low-income housing type construction.  If anything like the foundation sill & sheathing detailing was done on the Habitat for Humanity house at the top of this thread it's likely to have ducted under 2ACH/50 even if they skipped the air-tight drywall.  Getting there is mostly about common-sense (no rocket science required), rather than hoping ocSPF is some sort of magic Holy Grail air sealing guarantee.

Just because ICF is good (or can be, when done right) doesn't mean stick built is crap (even if it can be, when done wrong.)

Posted By toddm on 21 Jun 2012 08:22 AM
You mean of course that SCIP or composite ICF is the best choice for AZ . (Because the interior foam of conventional icf mutes thermal mass buffering.) Hate to break it to you, but I have found mice in the garage of my all concrete house. That puts them two doors away from colonizing the house's interior stud walls.

If the ICF industry wants respect it should stop BS "better than crap" comparisons like this one, particularly since the Portlant Cement Association "volunteers" had their thumbs on the scale.

Look, I can see you are very passionate so I don't want to get into an emotionally charged discussion with you. I will say this. While the interior foam in ICF reduces the thermal mass buffering it does NOT eliminate it. ICF's thermal mass works great in climates like Arizona or New Mexico but less so in climates like Alaska or Minnesota. Having the concrete exposed to the thermal envelope is ideal but having 2.5" of interior foam does not eliminate the thermal effect, it reduces it.

If mice are getting into your concrete walls that means the walls were not consolidated properly and you have concrete voids in them. That is a quality issue and you should contact your contractor who did the work and have them repair the voids within the walls.

Now, if you are claiming mice got into your garage because you opened the garage door and they ran in while the door was open. That example you gave is beyond ridiculous.

Look, every technology uses marketing hype, wood is no exception. They all do it, SCIP, SIP, ICF, wood frame, etc. Everyone claims to have the best thing out there. One has to educate themselves and see what works best for their homes design and what technology and skill is available in that area. There are pros and cons to each home building technology. Simpson spends millions of dollars advertising on how one can take a wood framed home and put thousands of dollars of Simpson ties on it to make it stronger.

I am passionate about the truth, Lbear. You should try it some time. By the numbers:

You link an ORNL study you say proves that air infiltration increases as stud wall homes deteriorate over time., Turns out the study says nothing of the sort, in fact, states that its data can't even establish that age is a factor.

You promise backup studies. Have I missed them?

Lack of empirical evidence does not stop you from inviting readers to imagine a twisted, rotted mess inside their stud walls. Hype is one thing. Fearmongering is something else.

Which brings up to our furry friends. News flash, Lb ear. The gasket under a garage door will not deter a rodent determined to reach something inside., Or a black snake. After the wife came down from the table, and I explained that the mice are after her bird seed and the snake is after the mice, she is reconsidering her aid to feathered friends. There is hope for me in other words. There is no hope for a city slicker who thinks concrete walls are all it takes.

As for the side by side study, the Portland Cement Association assembled "volunteers" to build the ICF house. It was done before the builders' show in question despite a prime opportunity to demonstrate how easy it is to snap together foam blocks. The stud wall house was built while the show was underway, presumably by regular Habitat volunteers.

Speaking of ringers, are you a ringer, Lbear?

Perhaps some ICF manufacturer should produce an extra wide ICF block that has a channel for concrete and another channel packed with stabilized cellulose (less expensive than foam).