Sorry for the double post.

Eric, I do not know where to start. Yes I do " Ignorance is Bliss". I will not take from you that you know concrete and understand how to place it. Like anyone else in this business, this is something you best know and understand.

As Bruce so politely said, go to our website (Polycreteusa.com) and compare. We publish all of our test results because we are proud of what we have. Eric I wish you had gone and done a little research before spewing such damaging ignorance: "…But your product just doesn't cut it from a labour perspective. Your corners are weak and prone to deformation." Please feel free to question us as we will provide you with intelligent answers, However I would suggest from this point forward, know what you are talking about.

Now I will be the first to say this thread started about Nuduras Inserts. I do not know much about them but for anyone looking to increase the R value it is likely a great choice. We make an insert that is fast and easy @ 8' long and with our expander clips you will experience little to no slow down. Have a great day and work safe.

I stand by my opinion.
Any block that needs major onsite modification, or site assembly from loose parts, has left and right corners, is a 2nd generation "time wasteing" product.
The above sentance describes at least 3 products in the current marketplace.
Nudura has several very intelligent block details that makes it a 3rd generaton product leader. ttfn

Hello Eric,
At Quad-Lock, we see our 3" thick panels for R-28 becoming the preferred solution for higher R-Values with less of a premium in price and labor than insert panels or Neopor. You also get more formwork strength due to the thicker EPS (Neopor formwork strength is lower than EPS).

I hope that you and others will consider a bit more than only the "time wasteing" factor that you attribute to site-assembled ICFs, such as:
- wastefactor of ICF product: for anything that's not just a simple basement, we keep seeing mounds of cut/wasted ICF-blocks on jobsites. Guessing a 5% wastefactor for some preassembled blocks, that could amount to 15-20 cents/sqft after delivery and taxes.
- Zip Ties or 'clips' or sprayfoam: most ICF-blocks require Zip ties or special clips to connect their blocks close to corners, angles, and T-Walls. I heard this can add 10-15 cents/sqft.
- obviously freight is often an advantage for 'knock-down' systems, depending on your location

To make up for those money-wise, you might have to be upto 15% faster for total install time using the preassembled blocks. Or maybe 50% faster for only the ICF-stacking part (excl. bracing, buck-outs, rebar, pour etc). Considering that Quad-Lock installers report productivity rates similar to those published by some preassembled ICFs, I believe the small potential time-saving of preassembled blocks is often overvalued. And for above-grade, the time-saving percentage becomes smaller as you spend more time on buck-outs etc.
Georg from Quad-Lock

Anybody care to publish their test results from the standard R-22/24 blocks we have been using for years to these new R-28 and up? And I'm not talking a computer program showing the results, I want to see actual same builds, A vs. B. I want to see the payback for this increased R value

Hey Chris - I would love to see these spec's too.
On the other hand, you can't blame the manufacturer's for taking advantage of the hype the non believers have created!

Hello Chris,
for Quad-Lock's R-28 the ICF price is almost the same as R-22, though freight will be a tad more. So the payback period is very short in theory, but in reality will largely depend on the climate you're in (longer for milder, shorter for colder) and the many other building envelope components and installation quality.

Unfortunately, getting reliable data for an actual side-by-side comparison is hard because everything else would need to be exactly the same (e.g. building location, size, design, windows, doors, roofs, HVAC, under-slab insulation, installation quality, occupant # and habits, etc).
Georg

So your selling me something perceived by the general public to be better because you said so but cannot give me hard data figures showing what the actual savings are?

It's real simple to do, you are the manufacturer, build a couple of models, they do not have to be full scale homes, even something smaller, one with your regular forms, one with the higher perceived R value, then monitor them, report back with the results.

And yes I am giving you a hard time, because your the manufacturer that responded. I truly believe ICF homes built properly with the ICF we are use to (R-22/24) cost $XXX, and building with R-28plus will cost $YYY more. Since ICF prevent air transfer thru the wall and the insulation is already on both sides the payback is literally pennies a month and it will take 20plus years to justify the additional savings for the 'new' formwork R values.

But my theory can only be proven in real life situations, not a computer generated modelling approach.

ok got to chime in, we are able to give you Payback, ROI and IRR on conversions from wood to ICF and there has to be a very radically difficult design for an ICF house to have 20 year payback(most of ours are less than 3 years). we have built many homes and have done some fairly extensive number crunching of designs & plans and have done quite a bit of analysis that shows the financial benefit of using ICF, it is not rocket science, take the savings in utility cost compare that with the increase in the mortgage payment and run the numbers...very simple, BUT it all depends on the design, now if you really want to discover the truth..send your plans to me and i will send you the analysis, otherwise your right it's just hype talk on both sides. This analysis only considers the financial side of the comparison, it doesn't include all of the other attributes of ICF that a traditonal wood frame house just can not offer and never will be able to offer, the list i am sure, you have already heard about from the mfgr's rep.

First off - I've got to say thanks to Nudura & Quad-Lock for jumping in here and very professionally illustrating some of their products advantages. It's great to see the mfg's interact with the builders and home-owners. The more facts/data, the better! Let's keep it positive and these fellows engaged in the discussion.

Eric - I've been reviewing both the inserts and the additional panel approaches as well. I'm looking to build a very high R-Value wall for an extreme Alpine project(11,000ft Alt.).  Single story 4-corner building 21x40' with one 40' glass wall.   I've used Nudura standard forms and had good luck previously, its a nice product and is well thought out. But the lack of a nailing strip in the PLUS product got me looking elsewhere. I like the approach Quad-Lock takes with the extra panels. The on-site assembly is a bit of a departure having built with Nudura, but nothing that can't be easily overcome.  Less waste sounds good too, as Nudura does produce a decent amount of waste.   I'm ok with a very thick wall on the order of 24", but again - no nailing strip on the outside with Quad-Lock either.  The R-58 is interesting.    I want as much of the foam towards the outside as possible and an 8-10" concrete core.

1.\ I'm curious what R-Value could be obtained by combining inserts WITH one or two extra Nudura panels?
2.\ I'm also curious if there are differences in the insulating values of the actual foam used by Nudura and Quad-Lock.
3.\ Are the fire-ratings similar? Are there any unique considerations when using steel-siding that will be south facing?  (I anticipate an air gap, or phenolic isolator)

Thanks in Advance, and please keep any responses positive!

Eric - Hope I haven't invaded your thread, but I found it informative and echoed my project a bit.

Regards,

Corey..
Crested Butte, CO

Cory, you can also look at forms like Hobbs and TF. They can be made in any thickness, at least I know that TF can since I just priced out a job with 8" type IX eps. The webs will end up 1" below the surface

Hey Corey,

I assume you're not actually trying to nail things to any ICF - nails won't hold; only certain screws are approved...

Whatever you call the strips, I'm glad you brought it up because Quad-Lock does have two 5" x 1.5" tie flanges for every squarefoot of wall and they are only 1/4" below the EPS surface up to a true R-59 (not that misleading and illegal "effective R-Value" claim).

Most building scientists have started to recommend the "airgap" or "rainscreen" between the exterior foam and the exterior finish for two main reasons: let water drain down instead of saturating/rotting things behind the finish AND let enough air into the space to allow drying of remaining moisture. British Columbia requires a 10mm [ 3/8" ] rainscreen for most new construction.

Quad-Lock looked at options of incorporating this "rainscreen" into our formwork, but found that it takes two people only about 15-20 minutes to screw wood strips to our forms to create the rainscreen for a typical home. Now you have an actual nailing strip!

for your question 2:
There might be small differences; Most ICFs are Type II EPS (often cited as 'nominal' density of 1.5 PCF) allowing mfgs to claim R-4 per inch thickness; our 3" Ultra forms are Type II; and Type XI EPS for the Regular 2 1/4" panels (R-4.2 / inch thickness); our Extra "insert" panels are Type VIII = R-3.8 / inch
So you add up all those R-s for the EPS and then add R-2.66 for: inside air, 0.5" gypsum wall board, 6" concrete, 5/8 T1-11 Finish and outside air. That's what the FTC prescribes how we are allowed to advertise R-Values of our wall assemblies.

for 3.:
Fireratings of the different EPS 'Types' are quite similar (codes are mostly concerned about the EPS thickness on the interior to allow enough time for evacuation in a fire).
like all plastics, EPS and the cross-tie materials can only tolerate limited heat - so if you're concerned about that, use a reflective / light color for the steel siding - not dark.

Quad-Lock,

Thanks for the detailed & prompt answers! Sounds like I got the semantics incorrect - no intention of using nails. ;-) Just trying to come up with a non-wood phenolic spacer between the ICF form and a steel cladding product on the outside of the building and have enough fastening area on the ICF to secure it. Drilling through 3 panels worth of foam to find a fastening point seemed error prone and would introduce potential movement in the assembly.

Regarding fire ratings - I saw a video on polyisocyanurate that was rather concerning. Its copied below. While EPS is very different, its a factor I want to consider since we my project will have sun-exposed steel cladding. DOW noted their max exposure temp would be 160degF for blue board. Fortunately with the larger forms most of the foam (EPS) is on the outside of the concrete core. Regardless, it is just a factor to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxHNfEDmbXg

Again - very helpful, thx!!

Corey..

Chris and Bill,
we in the industry often forget a critical factor in both the business case for ICFs and in the business case for higher R-values: the customer's assumption about energy-price escalation, not ours... it alone can change the decisions with only a few percent change.

Let's say your upgrade from R-22 to R-28 costs $1 / sqft installed (material + labor), that might be $2200 for a typical SFR. That's a 30-year mortgage premium of $14/month. For customers assuming that energy prices increase at the rate of inflation and income, the financial benefit might not be there. But others might assume that energy prices grow by more than inflation/income, so that premium might look very small to them.

Georg

Okay, I'll buy your $ 14.00/month.

What is the energy savings?

Here's the issues, ICF is still a challenge to convert people, some get it, some don't, and as much as we try, some people just won't listen to the ICF advantages and cost savings on operation of the house. So for the longest time most ICF on the market place was R22 or so, and this is a number the general public can understand (Much like Sears use to sell carpet by the ounce, it became an industry standard of measurement), we promoted how well the system worked and savings on energy was huge, basically 50% or better of conventional construction.

Now we all know that R22 is real, but look at the whole package and use U value and we pretty much are ZERO, and compared to batt insulations U value we are literally 1000 times better (so to speak). Now with code changes everyone is promoting these damn inserts, platinum blocks, etc, etc and now promoting R28plus...has the U value changed? If so, by how much?

I would think that rather then build new moulds and have to produce different forms for different applications, prove that what we have been using is suffice and more then exceeds the energy requirements. As a manufacturer you have spent the money getting an ICC test done, had Warnock Hershey do testing, paid for upkeep on CSA approvals, and the list goes on and on, and yet you bend over and make a new form to increase an R value (Which really means nothing) instead of proving that the current status quo of block is more then sufficient and meets/exceeds the demands of our current codes.

So I ask again, where is the hard real time evidence showing the energy usage on 2 identical house, one with our standard ICF block and one with the increased R value? Because if I am telling someone that for an extra $ 14.00 a month you get thicker ICF foam, I better damn well have something to show them for energy savings exceeding that amount. Because that $ 14.00 a month could be the difference between Mrs Smith having P.Lam or Granite for kitchen countertops.

Posted By Quad-Lock on 29 Apr 2014 10:40 AM
Hey Corey,

I assume you're not actually trying to nail things to any ICF - nails won't hold; only certain screws are approved...

Whatever you call the strips, I'm glad you brought it up because Quad-Lock does have two 5" x 1.5" tie flanges for every squarefoot of wall and they are only 1/4" below the EPS surface up to a true R-59 (not that misleading and illegal "effective R-Value" claim).

Most building scientists have started to recommend the "airgap" or "rainscreen" between the exterior foam and the exterior finish for two main reasons: let water drain down instead of saturating/rotting things behind the finish AND let enough air into the space to allow drying of remaining moisture. British Columbia requires a 10mm [ 3/8" ] rainscreen for most new construction.

Quad-Lock looked at options of incorporating this "rainscreen" into our formwork, but found that it takes two people only about 15-20 minutes to screw wood strips to our forms to create the rainscreen for a typical home. Now you have an actual nailing strip!

for your question 2:
There might be small differences; Most ICFs are Type II EPS (often cited as 'nominal' density of 1.5 PCF) allowing mfgs to claim R-4 per inch thickness; our 3" Ultra forms are Type II; and Type XI EPS for the Regular 2 1/4" panels (R-4.2 / inch thickness); our Extra "insert" panels are Type VIII = R-3.8 / inch
So you add up all those R-s for the EPS and then add R-2.66 for: inside air, 0.5" gypsum wall board, 6" concrete, 5/8 T1-11 Finish and outside air. That's what the FTC prescribes how we are allowed to advertise R-Values of our wall assemblies.

for 3.:
Fireratings of the different EPS 'Types' are quite similar (codes are mostly concerned about the EPS thickness on the interior to allow enough time for evacuation in a fire).
like all plastics, EPS and the cross-tie materials can only tolerate limited heat - so if you're concerned about that, use a reflective / light color for the steel siding - not dark.

Quad-lock - have you ever tried nailing into full plastic strips? I think you will be pleasantly surprised. When it comes to strapping, we find air nailing the furring much more effective then screwing and we no longer use deck screws for anything associated with ICF.

Fire rating Codes (actually the building codes) are not concerned about the actual thickness of the foam in it self, they are concerned about the thermal barrier over the foam and how they are anchored. This is to prevent smoke generation from the foam overwhelming the occupants/first responders. As you know Canadian codes don't allow intumescent paints for this purpose so you must use drywall or wood. In some cases metal may be used.

Here is another way of thinking about inserts.
Typically above grade bungalow walls use a 6 inch concrete core.

Personally I find that 6 inch inch is overkill and we often use 4 inch core , but if you are using 6 inch core, work out the dollar $credit concrete saved for reducing to 4 inch,
 and apply that per sq ft number value to buying a 2 inch insert, and see where you stand $ dollar wise.

After the winter we just experienced north of 49, I'd sooner have another 2 inches of foamboard providing more thermal isolation, than 2 inches more concrete in the wall.
With ICF mixes hitting $130 or better Canadian , the additional cost for the insert is very little.

Eric - you might be saving the cost of the concrete but you are giving up thermal mass. It is the enclosed mass that makes the ICF walls so energy efficient.

Hi Eric,

I like your thinking! 4" walls are plenty strong for bungalow walls - as long as the concrete mix (should I call it grout?) & placement technique ensure full consolidation in the possibly congested cavity. A customer of ours used the 4" for a bungalow on the Gulfcoast engineered to 180 MPH wind loads and certified by an insurance institute, giving the owners 65% savings on their wind-insurance premiums.
So compared to 6" you're saving 2"x12"x12" per sqft of wall = 0.0061 cu.yd = $0.80/sqft @ $130/cu.yd
That's enough to pay for all or a large majority of the additional cost for higher R-value.

FBBP must be in a desert climate to reap the real benefits of thermal mass, which only helps on days when outside temperatures swing above AND below inside temperature. In most parts of the continent that's only a few dozen days per year, in deserts it's common.

In heating-climates like the Northern part of the continent, it's the additional resistance to heat-flow (measured by R-Value) that makes ICF walls so energy efficient (along with the low air infiltration, and of course, continuous insulation) - thermal mass benefits approach zero when you're heating the interior most of the year. See ICF Energy Science.

Chris,
You are right about the thermal barrier and its attachment being the primary concern in building codes for fire-protection. In addition, they limit the 'available fuel-load' on the interior or crawl-spaces/attics so once the fire reaches the foam, you don't get a crazy inferno instead of a regular inferno.

Yes, we've tried nailing to the plastic and they seem to work UNTIL it gets cold outside. The nails contract a little in the cold, getting thinner. The plastic contracts in the cold even more, making the nails' holes larger. Combine the two and the nails will come out quite easily, which is why all ICFs recommend screws not nails. Who will be liable for siding of buildings coming off in winter-storms? Most likely the contractor for not following manufacturer's recommendations... or possibly the architect/engineer for not specifying to use screws or following manufacturer's recommendations.

Unfortunately, nobody has discretionary funds to test energy use of 2 identical ICF homes or even walls, especially when current energy modeling tools can predict the savings from the higher R-Value quite precisely (once you feed it all the right info).

FBBP < I agree with Quad-lock in that ICF concrete core does not add effective thermal mass in any cold climate . More efficient insulation is a better investment.

4 inch core does take intelligent mix designs and rebar detailing , advantage less concrete form pressure

also reducing hose and slower concrete pumping, so choose your pumper carefully