|
|
|
What are your thoughts on Quad-Lock?? (good and bad)
Last Post 30 Jul 2013 10:25 PM by arkie6. 65 Replies. |
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
 |
| 08 Jul 2013 11:01 PM |
|
Little Bear, in 1856 Matthew Arnold published an essay called "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time". In it, he argued that the "the endeavour, in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science, is to see the object as in itself it really is." His genius is my inspiration on this forum. There is a difference between right and wrong. Moral relativism is a farce instituted by lazy people with no self-discipline, and plastic cross ties on ICFs were invented by cheap manufacturers looking to save a nickle. Their introduction had nothing to do with thermal bridging -- that's just a red herring introduced to confuse and distract. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 09 Jul 2013 01:36 AM |
|
Well folks even though the year is only half gone, I think we can vote Bruce for BC'er of the year!! Just a red herring. lazy installers?? really?
Maybe I missed it Bruce but I believed I clicked every button on your website and I can't find the fact the your webs are 1" in. below the surface. I'll give you that the pic's tend to portray them that why. As soon as I read that, I immediately became concerned about moment arm movement on the screws. I review the test results for lateral or shear strength. First thing to note is that the screws used where 3.5" long. Lets see. 2.5" of eps and 1/2" of ply. yeap, that means that for the test the screw tips anchored to the concrete core providing a cantilever effect rather then straight shear. Any one who has punched a screw through 22 gauge steel with one inch of unsupported length knows that the screw will tilt with the load applied. Oh yes , you ran it through a piece of 1/2" ply that was 6" x 6". This gives it sufficient friction to increase the lateral load ability. sorry but Hardie Siding does not apply the same friction. It only contacts on the the top edge. Oh wait, I forgot, I can't apply siding directly to the Polycrete block anyway, someone put the studs in the wrong way. I need to strap the whole thing. Come to think of it, I'm not sure my drywall joints in the inside will line up with those silly horizontal attachment strips either. i might have to cut the top and bottom sheets and add a strip to get my 4' sheets started to match the strips or of course I could strap the whole inside as well.
While I can't say I have done every block out there, I can say I have poured both Nudura and IntegraSpec to 24' in one shot successfully and have done walls several hundred of feet long. No, neither claims to be "commercial grade". I don't recommend anyone does 24' pours because most people cannot vibrate anywhere close to that height successfully.
If there is no need to lock the forms together, why do you need exterior corner guides? I don't need them on the mainstream blocks. As far as those little nubs, if you knew anything about the casting of ICF blocks, you would know there is no waste. Just the amount to fill the form. By the way, why do you need to start with a special starter base? I don't with my blocks. Just nail down a kicker and have at it. Also if your block is so strong why do you only allow 2.5" of unsupported length? Most of the others allow 4". 1/2 of a cell. Much less waste.
In spite of your claim as a "commercial grade" block, every verifiable sample in your commercial case study is done with someone else's block. What gives? Hasn't Polycrete done any commercial buildings of their own???
Bruce, you can continue to rail against the other blocks all who want, but that compels me to shoot enough holes in it to let the BS out. You want to keep going or are you just going to protect you inbox?
dmaceld ask a simple question, you refuse to answer. I too googled for it to but came up with no results. I guess Sailors comments from a few weeks ago still hold true!
|
|
|
|
|
Roger R
Basic Member
Posts:131
|
| 09 Jul 2013 03:19 AM |
|
Posted By FBBP on 09 Jul 2013 01:36 AM
By the way, why do you need to start with a special starter base? I don't with my blocks. Just nail down a kicker and have at it.
Also if your block is so strong why do you only allow 2.5" of unsupported length? Most of the others allow 4". 1/2 of a cell. Much less waste.
FBBP,
If a block manufacturer sells a starter base (like Quad-Lock does) could we skip the expense of the starter and nail down 2x4's instead? Can you elaborate on this please?
Also, what did you mean by: '...why do you only allow 2.5" of unsupported length? Most of the others allow 4". 1/2 of a cell. Much less waste'? What is "unsupported length"? |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 09 Jul 2013 03:56 AM |
|
I think you mean BSer of the year. We appreciate your support.All of Polycrete's ICC tests were done by Intertek, the world's leading independent testing lab for building products and accepted by ICC.
Last few comments: FBBP is correct that you need to fur the wall out before applying horizontal siding. Most commercial buildings don't use this type of exterior finish, so normally it's not a concern. The metal starter base is designed to make it easy to set the first course straight, keep in there when pouring and serve as the lowest level attachment point for interior finishes. Failing to anchor the first course of an ICF to the footing (or floor) is a main contributor to snaking walls, and that's a major issue on defective ICF installations.
Polycrete does not make molded corners. There's no reason for them. Fewer parts to order and store, more efficient shipping. The forms are so strong that they are just cut and butt together in the field. Commercial concrete contractors find this approach more intuitive. The metal corner guide holds the joint together and ensures the corner stays straight and plumb. This solves another of the most common problems with ICF installations -- corners out of plumb. Best practices requires that you brace an ICF corner if you want to be plumb and stay plumb. I apologize that this thread is starting to sound more like a sales pitch, but the specific points that were raised call for specific answers.
Lastly, just because you can't Google something doesn't mean it isn't so. I may write things some don't want to read, but I would never give you false information. I love the idea of ICF construction and am passionate about raising the quality of ICF technology so it can become a mainstream construction method. I do know about ICF manufacturing processes, and as I said in an earlier post, there is no reason why the rest of the industry cannot raise their quality except a desire to keep their costs down and make a cheaper product.That's among the biggest hurdles the industry has to overcome.
Polycrete ICFs have been used to build commercial buildings on five continents since 1988.In fact, one of the world's first ICF buildings over three stories was a seven story structure built for the University of Quebec with Polycrete Flex 850 in 1998. The case study is available for download on the PolycreteUSA website. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 09 Jul 2013 12:10 PM |
|
Posted By Roger R on 09 Jul 2013 03:19 AM
FBBP,
If a block manufacturer sells a starter base (like Quad-Lock does) could we skip the expense of the starter and nail down 2x4's instead? Can you elaborate on this please?
Also, what did you mean by: '...why do you only allow 2.5" of unsupported length? Most of the others allow 4". 1/2 of a cell. Much less waste'? What is "unsupported length"?
Roger - in this case "unsupported length" refers to the distance from the web to the end of a cut panel. Let's say you have to make cuts in the blocks at the middle of the wall because the wall length does not work out for a full panel. Most blocks allow for the cut length to be 4" long when measured from the last web. That means there is little waste when using 8" cells. With polycrete you need to trim that tail piece back to 2.5" otherwise you risk a blow out. This is due to the fact that their top and bottoms don't interlock , only shiplap.
With Quad lock, there is no cross webs, so you need to secure both panels to the footer or they will spread out. With products like Nudura, you simply place the block on the footer and it is self supporting. Most tend to put a 1" kicker down on one side or both sides of the wall to keep it in place. When it comes to concrete, every action needs a reaction. That is the beauty of ICF blocks. The concrete exerts the same pressure on both panels so the block basically just sits there. This is also true for corners. The concrete wants to push against the end of the wall to escape. If you can't transfer that pressure back into the wall with a moulded corner, who need to brace the end very securely.
You started this thread asking what is wrong with Quad-Lock. There is nothing wrong with it, it just has different strengths and weakness then some of the other blocks. That is my point in the discussion. We don't get very far beating up the competition with false claims. When you have been in the industry for a while and in the construction industry for most of 50 years, its not hard to pick apart the different products out there. There is no perfect system and I doubt any system that has been on the market now for five years is totally useless. What is good for you might not be for me. The two short comings I see in Quad lock is that they don't lock together top to bottom and that they have loose panels.
This will usually result in upward drift. Foam is lighter than concrete so it wants to float. We usually only brace one side so that side is somewhat restrained by the bracing system, the other side is free to float. The more you vibrate the more it floats. With products that have the plastic inserts in the foam continuous for the height of the panel with the top and bottom ends clicking together, the chance of float (or compression) is totally eliminated.
The other is that they have loose piece not blocks. I work in mostly windy conditions so I don't like panels flying around. When we used to do a lot of IntegraSpec, we always had to be on our toes and watch for any increase in wind speed. We just cut the end of the plastic bag open and slid out the number of panels that we needed at that time so the plastic bag kept the rest from blowing around. Also when the wind picks up, you have to make sure you punch the loose panels down hard on the ones below or they tend to lay flat in the wind meaning you need to lift them up again to put the web in. After a while you get use to carrying a panel in one hand and a web in the other. As soon as you place the panel, you slide in a web to support it. The other way that worked well with Integra was to start with a half web and offset the web and panel heights but that was kind of unique to their system.
The other things I look for in ICF products are dovetail grooves on the inner face of the panel and a full line of accessories, especially foam window and end bucks with plastic webs in them. |
|
|
|
|
Roger R
Basic Member
Posts:131
|
| 09 Jul 2013 12:43 PM |
|
FBBP, Thanks for the info. Can we tie the Quad-Lock inserts, bottom to top, as we go to eliminate the drift?
Can you give me an example of a 'dovetail grooves on the inner face of the panel'? A link to a block webpage that shows it would be easiest, if possible. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 09 Jul 2013 01:57 PM |
|
Roger - I don't really see an easy way to do this with Quad Lock. Perhaps the best would be to strap the off side wall with 1x4 screwed securely into the webs top and bottom.
As for dovetail grooves look at http://www.nudura.com/Libraries/Brochures/ENGCatalogue-2012_FINAL.sflb.ashx page 5. The reason I like the dove tails is that it give a 100% bond to the concrete. It is quite true that concrete will stick to almost all eps panels reasonable well but the smoother the block the less the stick. If the panel starts to let go at all, you have a higher chance of water infiltration and if it develops any type of air gap you bipass the value of the insulation. |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 09 Jul 2013 02:11 PM |
|
No fear of a blow out if you leave 4" unsupported on a Polycrete Big Block. Remember, there's a continuous welded web of 4mm wire inside the foam panel. 2.5 inches is best practices. If you leave more than that on any ICF, you are risking a bulge and FPPB knows that. We are an honest company. FPPB keeps taking silly shots at the Polycrete form,yet he has not used it and does not understand it. When we criticize other ICFs, we do so from a position of experience. We have used them and we have also tested them. |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 09 Jul 2013 04:07 PM |
|
Soon now I'm taking silly shots when I do what you tell us to do. Go to the website and get informed. The 2.5" is lifted right out of your manual. In fact it goes on to stress how important is not to over expose any area of unsupported product. And no I don't know that if you leave more than 2.5" on any ICF you are risking a bulge. Many ICF are manufacture with 4" tails. If you actually used them you would know that. You keep saying that there is no need to interlock top and bottom. Well here it is. If you had full interlock, with the wire mesh you could probably go around 6 or 7" unsupported. Because there is no support for the wire to push back against, the lower leading corner is the weakest point in the polycrete block. The upper leading corner could go much further because it is restrained by the shiplap. Once the wire is no longer between two webs, it is a cantilever rather than a restrained system.
If you don't believe that, simply look at polycretes corners. The unsupported length of the block can run as high as 14" with out harm. Why? because they are now restrained by the corner brace instead of being restrained by the web. When both ends of the wiremesh are restrained, yes, they add quite a bit of strength, without restraint, 2.5" is the max. I asked you yesterday to explain this, but like in most cases when you don't know the answer, you ignore the question. If you still have second thoughts, why don't you email this to your engineers in Quebec??
Add lets be clear, I am not taking silly shots at Poly crete or any other block. I just point out what I see as weakness and if people understand those weakness they can deal with them and be perfectly happy with the product.
Now I'm not above taking shots a people how keep trying to feed us bull Crap. |
|
|
|
|
Lbear
Veteran Member
Posts:2740
|
| 09 Jul 2013 04:26 PM |
|
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 09 Jul 2013 02:11 PM
FPPB keeps taking silly shots at the Polycrete form,yet he has not used it and does not understand it. When we criticize other ICFs, we do so from a position of experience. We have used them and we have also tested them. This thread started out without any problems. All was going well and it was not until YOU made the following post that this debate began:
Posted By BrucePolycrete on 08 Jul 2013 08:27 AM
Plastic (usually polypropylene) fastening strips were introduced into
ICFs in order to make a lower cost product that could be easily sold to
DIY homewowners with little knowledge of construction. It is one of the
silly characteristics of insulating concrete forms that makes it hard
for commercial construction professionals to look at our industry as
anything other than a quirky fringe product.
In my opinion,
plastic cross ties and plastic fastening strips are a safety issue. They
cannot hold a screw like steel does. That means they cannot hold a
brace, sheetrock, cabinets, a flat screen or even a painting like steel
does.They do not perform as well in a fire either. Don't take my word
for it, look at the facts. Here's a recent blog post
http://polycreteusa.blogspot.com/2013/06/i-havent-had-really-good-rantfor-long.html
(Administrator, this is not a plug, it's an expose).
Go back to Page#1 of this thread and you will see that it was YOU who started this whole plastic vs steel web debate. It was YOU who ripped on plastic webbing and called it unsafe and disparaged it. You made your point, now let the OP make his decision. How again are you helping further the ICF industry? |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 09 Jul 2013 04:27 PM |
|
That's right, FPPB, 2.5 inches is best practices and that's why it's in the manual. As we have stressed many times, folks who have made a living mastering the quirks of the residential grade ICFs may naturally feel threatened by technological advances. You've got a lot of time invested in dong what you do the way you do it. I'm not going to contest every one of your outbursts because what's the point? |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 09 Jul 2013 06:37 PM |
|
Bruce- major thread drift here, but I can't figure the relevance of these documents listed on PolyCrete's Technical Downloads Page under the heading, "ICF Industry Data": EPS LIfecycle Analysis
Whitepaper - EPS Reduces Global Warming
While presumptively valid (though no actual data or the primary assumptions given on what's behind their numbers), but the base model for both the LCA & Whitepaper is the greenhouse gas consequences of adding 1" or 1.5" of EPS to the exterior fiber-insulated studwalls, and has no relevance in the context of ICF- the numbers are meaningless when taken out of context. I'd personally be more interested in the LCA of 5" of EPS on the outside of stick built rather than a paltry 1" or 1.5", and to be sure the greenhouse equivalence "payback" periods WILL grow exponentially, but that's also not totally relevant in the 2.5" + 2.5" ICF context. As foam insulation goes EPS is pretty low impact, but those documents really have very bearing on the lifecycle greenhouse impact of EPS used in an ICF, except that the cooked-up CO2-equivalancy cost numbers for a 2.5" + 2.5" ICF would be something like 5x that given for the 1" EPS over-skinning. The time to break-even on greenhouse gas isn't going to be anywhere near as short, and we don't even have the presumed energy sources they're using as the CO2 savings balance. If the LCA of the 1" skinned wall assembly with all of the background assumptions & accounting is available online somewhere, I'd be curious to see it- the miniscule tabulated results are simply a "trust us", but I'm quite sure the transportation numbers are not a constant for any given project or EPS blowing facility- it's probably an average, but there's simply no information given. Also the fact that the embedded mesh is thermally broken by more EPS doesn't mean the thermal bridging is exactly eliminated, only reduced. The thermal conductivity of steel is orders of magnitude higher than the EPS the cross-wires are penetrating, and with 4mm of wire diameter at the apparent grid spacing the total cross section of the steel is large- large enough to significantly impact the total performance. A simple 2-D analysis wouldn't do it justice given the complexity of the wire structures but has there been a THERM (or similar) model run to determine just how big that effect? (Or alternatively, an ASTM C518 test of a representative wall section to measure the thermal bridging effect directly.) Simply stating that the bridging is thermally broken by the foam exterior to the steel isn't very a satisfactory answer for performance numbers nerds. Even the thermal conductivity of that much steel penetrating the concrete would have a measurable second-order effect. |
|
|
|
|
ICFBdr
Basic Member
Posts:238
|
| 09 Jul 2013 06:45 PM |
|
Posted By Dana1 on 09 Jul 2013 06:37 PM
Bruce- major thread drift here, but I can't figure the relevance of these documents listed on PolyCrete's Technical Downloads Page under the heading, "ICF Industry Data":
EPS LIfecycle Analysis
Whitepaper - EPS Reduces Global Warming
While presumptively valid (though no actual data or the primary assumptions given on what's behind their numbers), but the base model for both the LCA & Whitepaper is the greenhouse gas consequences of adding 1" or 1.5" of EPS to the exterior fiber-insulated studwalls, and has no relevance in the context of ICF- the numbers are meaningless when taken out of context. I'd personally be more interested in the LCA of 5" of EPS on the outside of stick built rather than a paltry 1" or 1.5", and to be sure the greenhouse equivalence "payback" periods WILL grow exponentially, but that's also not totally relevant in the 2.5" + 2.5" ICF context. As foam insulation goes EPS is pretty low impact, but those documents really have very bearing on the lifecycle greenhouse impact of EPS used in an ICF, except that the cooked-up CO2-equivalancy cost numbers for a 2.5" + 2.5" ICF would be something like 5x that given for the 1" EPS over-skinning. The time to break-even on greenhouse gas isn't going to be anywhere near as short, and we don't even have the presumed energy sources they're using as the CO2 savings balance. If the LCA of the 1" skinned wall assembly with all of the background assumptions & accounting is available online somewhere, I'd be curious to see it- the miniscule tabulated results are simply a "trust us", but I'm quite sure the transportation numbers are not a constant for any given project or EPS blowing facility- it's probably an average, but there's simply no information given.
Also the fact that the embedded mesh is thermally broken by more EPS doesn't mean the thermal bridging is exactly eliminated, only reduced. The thermal conductivity of steel is orders of magnitude higher than the EPS the cross-wires are penetrating, and with 4mm of wire diameter at the apparent grid spacing the total cross section of the steel is large- large enough to significantly impact the total performance. A simple 2-D analysis wouldn't do it justice given the complexity of the wire structures but has there been a THERM (or similar) model run to determine just how big that effect? (Or alternatively, an ASTM C518 test of a representative wall section to measure the thermal bridging effect directly.) Simply stating that the bridging is thermally broken by the foam exterior to the steel isn't very a satisfactory answer for performance numbers nerds. Even the thermal conductivity of that much steel penetrating the concrete would have a measurable second-order effect.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/u...h-meme.jpg |
|
|
|
|
BrucePolycrete
Advanced Member
Posts:524
|
| 09 Jul 2013 07:00 PM |
|
Dana1, It's all for your reading pleasure, as is the blog -- don't miss it. There's a rumor that the PolycreteUSA online presence is undergoing a complete make-over and will re-launch before the end of this month, so please stay tuned. As for me, I'm done with this thread. There's a road trip in the immediate future, hasta la vista boys and girls. |
|
|
|
|
Roger R
Basic Member
Posts:131
|
| 09 Jul 2013 08:40 PM |
|
Posted By Lbear on 08 Jul 2013 09:00 PM
Schock makes thermal bridge breaks for rebar when concrete decks are used. They have well documented that the rebar inside concrete will bridge heat/cold from the outside to the inside unless it is thermally broken.
Lbear,
I don't actually understand how these things work. Their web page doesn't explain it very well - at least to my learning style! But they look interesting. I was in Seattle today and took note of so many, many concrete decks there are sticking out of concrete buildings. WOW!
I am putting a concrete 'pan' deck on our addition, but I think it will be free floating on steel attached to the ground. It will probably be bolted to the foundation a couple of times however. |
|
|
|
|
Roger R
Basic Member
Posts:131
|
| 09 Jul 2013 08:49 PM |
|
Posted By FBBP on 09 Jul 2013 12:10 PM
With Quad lock, there is no cross webs, so you need to secure both panels to the footer or they will spread out. This is also true for corners. The concrete wants to push against the end of the wall to escape. If you can't transfer that pressure back into the wall with a moulded corner, who need to brace the end very securely.
The two short comings I see in Quad lock is that they don't lock together top to bottom and that they have loose panels. This will usually result in upward drift. Foam is lighter than concrete so it wants to float.
The other is that they have loose piece not blocks.
FBBP,
Thanks for the info. Here is a drawing of the Quad-Lock corner and the plastic connectors. Are these connectors as good as "cross webs"?
It looks like they hold the top block to the bottom and each vertical side to side. No?
http://www.quadlock.com/images/engineering/corner_overview.png |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 09 Jul 2013 11:10 PM |
|
Roger - the connectors are probably as good as webs but they do not hold together top to bottom. They keep the walls in alignment but do not resist lift.
The corner connector will turn the force of the concrete back into the wall. Even though I have not used them, I believe they will make a solid corner.
Quad-locks horizontal connections are good, so there is little chance of the walls separating in line as well they will stay in a strong alignment vertically. |
|
|
|
|
Lbear
Veteran Member
Posts:2740
|
| 10 Jul 2013 02:06 AM |
|
Posted By Roger R on 09 Jul 2013 08:40 PM
Lbear,
I don't actually understand how these things work. Their web page doesn't explain it very well - at least to my learning style! But they look interesting. I was in Seattle today and took note of so many, many concrete decks there are sticking out of concrete buildings. WOW!
I am putting a concrete 'pan' deck on our addition, but I think it will be free floating on steel attached to the ground. It will probably be bolted to the foundation a couple of times however.
They basically thermally break the concrete slab and rebar by utilizing the structural foam and use stainless steel rebar sections. Most importantly they transfer the loads of the deck so they are 100% structural members. So one can cantilever a 2nd story deck and use these to thermally break it. Here is the Nudura self locking tabs which help to prevent the forms from lifting:  |
|
|
|
|
Roger R
Basic Member
Posts:131
|
| 11 Jul 2013 02:43 PM |
|
It looks like the Quad-Lock connectors will hold the two sides together well (top & bottom), although the 'field' does not have the support that Nudura has.
It appears that the Quad-Lock connectors could let the blocks slip/float upwards, whereas Nudura has their little clips. I guess we could attach 1x4 wood occasionally to help hold the panels so they don't float. (How often would we need to do this?)
It appears that the Quad-Lock connectors would hold the block left & right together better than Nudura - although the Nudura connectors could be "tied" together left & right, internally.
They both have strengths and weaknesses. I like that Quad-Lock lets you choose thicker EPS if you want a better R-Value. And I like the cheaper freight from BC vs Canada's east coast.
|
|
|
|
|
TexasICF
Advanced Member
Posts:622
|
| 12 Jul 2013 07:41 AM |
|
Roger,-
What do you mean by hold the block left to right? I don't believe this has ever been a concern. NUDURA has inserts for variable wall thickness but its rarely ordered -its been used a bit more in Europe over the past five years.. Also, NUDURA is made in Georgia and ships to Texas for about 30 cents per square foot depending on size of job. Regards. |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
 |
Membership: |
 |
Latest:
IntegratedHomes |
 |
New Today:
0 |
 |
New Yesterday:
1 |
 |
Overall:
35026 |
 |
People Online: |
 |
Visitors:
179 |
 |
Members:
0 |
 |
Total:
179 |
|
|
|