# ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive quote?



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

Hi everyone 

i got a quote from a company and wondering what you guys think. is it expensive or reasonable?

To excavate top soil from drive placing hardcore leveling and tracking in with excavator (hardcore not included) supply and lay raft foundation including reinforced concrete, radon barrier and radon ducting                                                     €13,750.00

Erecting outer walls in 280mm ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) including Concrete and pump hire, steel reinforcement, DPC's, props & bracings, Window & door shutter linings, Concrete suspended floor, 100mm orth block partitions, Scaffolding, concrete sills, Coloured external render, skim plaster finish throughout internal,  Dropped ceilings to allow for services, labour                                    €103,200.00

Works Exclude
Stone hardcore and blinding for drive as it’s not possible to quantify until top soil has been removed, blinding, footpaths, piping, ducting, landscaping, Tiling painting, Sanitary ware, Fancy light fittings, Joinery-internal doors skirting architrave stairs, Septic tank & associated works, Kerbing


----------



## sas (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

You're not giving us alot to go on. How big is the house for example?

What ICF product is it? Or what is the u-value proposed for the walls?


----------



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

2790 square foot house. 

were using Reward Structures. [broken link removed] i have to ask about the u value.


----------



## sas (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

Ok, I can help a little here. I got a quote for my house from them a few weeks ago. Approx. 380 metres squared of wall came in at 43K for the walls only. I already have foundations.

This is for the Neopor option. Its offers a better u-value i.e. 0.21

Hope this helps.


----------



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

Thank you so much Sas.  i havent a clue what any of that means haha is the quote expensive do you think or is that a good price. im actually getting a price from nudura in a few days so ill post the price they quote me as well for everyone who is interested to know.


----------



## sas (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

Nudura will be more expensive. Its imported whereas Reward is manufactured here.

Make sure to get the u-value of both, its important for comparisons. Don't swallow any garbage about "performance u-value". Nudura were talking to me about it performing like a wall with a u-value of 0.12 due to its airtightness. This is absolute horse muck!

Neopor is a different type of polysytrene that Reward can make the panels out of, its a better insulator. Minimal cost increase in materials. Doesn't affect labour at all.


----------



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

i have no clue what u value is haha i will tell by bf thank you so much 

you seem to know lots about it.  would you think this is a good price.


----------



## sas (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*



Donnachain said:


> i have no clue what u value is haha i will tell by bf thank you so much
> 
> you seem to know lots about it.  would you think this is a good price.


 
I'm at the dangerous stage between knowing nothing and not knowing enough to realise how little I actually know!

Anyway, u-value is effectively a measurement of how good the insulation is. The current building regs. specify a min. of 0.27 for your external walls(smaller is better).
0.21 is a really good value. 0.15 is a fantastic value, nothing tends to go below that in reality.

Can't comment on the price I'm afraid. Haven't gotten my quotes for plastering etc yet.


----------



## ninsaga (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

If you don't know much about it then why did you select this building method may I ask?


----------



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

because i heard its the best. holds in heat better, sound proof and the internal walls are fire resistant for up to 4 hrs and its a fast build.


----------



## Donnachain (21 Jan 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

ah ok thats cool i will ask him that so and let you know what price nudura give me.  at least the plastering of the inner and outer walls are included in that price  thank god.


----------



## abdjc (14 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

 HI I'VE HEARD OF A COMPANY THAT DOES ICF, THINKS THEY'RE CALLED A.M CONSTRUCTION???? SORRY NOT SURE IF THERE'S A WEBSITE OR NOT, BUT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A PHONE NUMBER IF THAT'LL HELP. MAY BE WORTH A CALL IF ONLY TO GET A QUOTE.


----------



## sabre (14 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*



sas said:


> Neopor is a different type of polysytrene that Reward can make the panels out of, its a better insulator. Minimal cost increase in materials. Doesn't affect labour at all.


 
I thought Reward product was like a lego brick arrangement, I did n't think they made individual single panel arrangement. 

sabre


----------



## sas (15 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*



sabre said:


> I thought Reward product was like a lego brick arrangement, I did n't think they made individual single panel arrangement.
> 
> sabre


 
Ok, swap the word "panel" for whatever makes you happy.


----------



## sabre (15 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*

Sorry SAS, I didn,t mean to be pedantic over the phrasing, its just that reward blocks are for a double panel arrangement effectively, polystyrene, concrete core and polystyrene. Where as there are single panel wall systems like M2 that is a single panel with 35 mm concrete both sides, and no core fill, although they do a double panel wall section that will give more or less the same result as a reward block.

Its just when you mentioned panel, I thought that maybe they were about to introduce a single panel system as well, and I would have been interested to see that.

sabre


----------



## sabre (16 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Did you get any quote from M2 for a single panel or double panel for your build.

sabre


----------



## BarneyMc (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*



sas said:


> Don't swallow any garbage about "performance u-value". Nudura were talking to me about it performing like a wall with a u-value of 0.12 due to its airtightness. This is absolute horse muck!


 
I was quoted a u-value of 0.11 from Nudura!!! What is it in reality anyone? Also does anyone have a table of u-values for all of the ICF suppliers here in Ireland?


----------



## sas (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF - Is this an expensive quote?*



BarneyMc said:


> I was quoted a u-value of 0.11 from Nudura!!! What is it in reality anyone? Also does anyone have a table of u-values for all of the ICF suppliers here in Ireland?


 
Check the BBA cert on http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/ for it.

Which supplier quoted that? (PM me please) That sounds like the performance u-value they like to talk about. As I said before, it's complete rubbish.


----------



## sas (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

I should have checked the cert before I posted. The BBA cert contains the thermal conductivity of the EPS used and the size of the EPS leaf i.e. 67mm inside and out. Not the actual u-value.

Using the SEI u-value calculator and treating the walls as simply being 134mm (2 * 67) of EPS with the conductivity from the BBA cert (0.037)
I get a u-value fo 0.27. Include the render, concrete core and internal plasterboard won't greatly improve this. 

In order to get to 0.11 with 134mm you need a conductivity of 0.015. I haven't seen anything get that low that is readily available here.

They'd have to be increasing the size of the EPS leaf to get down to 0.11 like all the other ICF suppliers.

In a nutshell, they're lying.


----------



## BarneyMc (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

There was a good article on how to achieve a 0.11 U value for walls in the current edition of the Self Build mag - it did not list ICF as being able to achieve this. The next issue of Self Build (due out soon) has a chapter on ICF so it will be interesting to see if they go into U Values. I've no connection with the "Self Build" magazine by the way.

In the meantime I'll try and put together a table of ICF companies in Ireland and their "claimed" U Values. If anyone has already done this then please post here.


----------



## sydthebeat (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

just did a quick calculation using builddesk..........

in order to achieve a u value of 0.11 the wall would have to have a make up of the following

20 external cement render
200 XPS
200 reinforced concrete
200 XPS
12.5 internal plasterwork.

I dont think that is whats been offered.

Forget about what salemen tell you regarding 'performance u value' ... thats a made up term that doesnt exist.

Ask them for the elemental u value for the make up....


----------



## BarneyMc (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Yes I though 0.11 U Value was a bit too good to be true.

Here's a link suggesting the 0.11 U Value but I guess it should be swalled with a large pinch of salt:
http://www.buildicf.co.uk/products.php


----------



## sas (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

That is fantastic. The link for the 0.11 is to a document that doesn't contain any u-values. What is really funny is that the calculation gives an r-value of 3.94. A u-value = 1/r-value = 0.25 (not 0.11)

Also, the fact that the u-value improves from 0.24 to 0.11 "as the concrete cures". Amazing, the only way to build.

This is why new systems scare the hell out of people.


----------



## sabre (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

I can well understand misinformation from salesmen scaring people, maybe the best souce of correct info is from  the technical guys attached to the ICF system we are interested in then.


I take it that the general consensus of opinion is that a u value of near .11 is not achievable with any current ICF system.

sabre


----------



## sas (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

0.11 is possible. You'll just be looking at a big wall. 

[broken link removed] claim to be able to get to 0.11. I think this involves 2 * 200mm leaves of the EPS similar to Neopor. They use a different name to Neopor because apparently Neopor is a BASF product.

That would give you a wall 550 mm thick though. I'd aim for the 0.15 value per passive house spec. I'd imagine you are well into diminishing returns after that.

I'm getting a quote from Eurozone this week (allegedly) so we'll see how competitive they are.


----------



## sabre (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

But eurozone and reward are all double panel systems, what about single panel wall systems.

sabre


----------



## ICF (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Just finished the 2nd pour on my icf house last friday. Using the AMVIC system. Have to say im very happy with it so far. Has to be better than traditional blockwork.


----------



## sabre (18 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Congrats, hope all goes well.

 Had a *Quick * look at the Amvic site. I imagine it would take a high level of skill to perform the finishing spec required around the american window details. I imagine there are standard cill arrangement spec, but in all honesty I only had a very quick peep.Attention to detail in the external window and door opes is paramount so as to avoid any thermal bridging ect

I have seen some scary attempts in some icf builds in the ope prep works.

Do Amvic have a single wall panel system, or are they again a double panel arrangement. As I would be of the opinion that a single panel is a cheaper ICF option.

sabre


----------



## sas (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> As I would be of the opinion that a single panel is a cheaper ICF option.
> 
> sabre


 
I think there's a problem here. I don't believe it's ICF if its a single panel with Concrete sprayed on it. None of the ICF organisation websites I've seen have anything other than the double panel systems listed.

Why do you think that a single panel system is cheaper? The quote I got from M2 puts it at twice most of the others.
Plus the M2 system has more cold bridging than ICF.

The external render for ICF is pricey I'll give you that. But the concrete finish on the outside of the M2 system isn't the finished surface either.

What it sounds like you actually want is a full fill  block cavity wall.


----------



## BarneyMc (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> I'd aim for the 0.15 value per passive house spec. I'd imagine you are well into diminishing returns after that.
> 
> I'm getting a quote from Eurozone this week (allegedly) so we'll see how competitive they are.


 
I think for passive house you really need 0.11 u value for your walls? It states this in an article in the current self build. Anyway 0.15 as you say would be fantastic and leave a bit more space inside the house!!

what makeup and total width of wall is required to achieve the 0.15 value SAS? Very interested in what this will cost if you don't mind sharing when you get quoted. Tks.


----------



## sas (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



BarneyMc said:


> I think for passive house you really need 0.11 u value for your walls? It states this in an article in the current self build. Anyway 0.15 as you say would be fantastic and leave a bit more space inside the house!!
> 
> what makeup and total width of wall is required to achieve the 0.15 value SAS? Very interested in what this will cost if you don't mind sharing when you get quoted. Tks.


 
Nope, 0.15 for external shell is the minimum required. Plus for Ireland you only need to go to 0.17 depending on other details. See www.passiv.de for details. SEI released a paper on the passive spec. for ireland that shows how 0.17 can be good enough. There is a hell of alot more to building a passive house than the u-value of the walls. Its extremely difficult and expensive to achieve. I'm aiming for low heating bills but I am under no illusion that I won't have any. 

That article in selfbuild is all over the place in my opinion. Some of the makeups they list to achieve 0.11 seem questionable to me. Mixing layers of mineral wool with a separating layer of EPS sounds nuts to me for example. I buy selfbuild whenever its out but it's more for the adverts to see who does what and the very odd decent article. Construct Ireland is a far better publication for details on these types of discussions. The selfbuild shows however are great.

I'm not 100% sure what the build up from Eurozone for the 0.15 is going to be. I'll PM you the details once the quote arrives.


----------



## sabre (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> I think there's a problem here. I don't believe it's ICF if its a single panel with Concrete sprayed on it.
> 
> None of the ICF organisation websites I've seen have anything other than the double panel systems listed.
> 
> ...


 
I suppose M2 is regarded as an ICF system because its closer to this form of build than it is to a TF or traditional block build. I would have thought that a single panel system would be cheaper because there was no requirement for concrete core fill, so labour and materials there would be nil. I must admit that I am surprised that your M2 quote was twice most of the others , I cant see why it should be, was that a recent quote , as I know their pricing has recently been overhauled to be more competitive.I would not agree that M2 has more cold bridging, I assume you are refering to the cross connectors.

As far as I know external acrylic renders are indeed expensive , and some require trained professionals for application. True M2 single panel systems after sprayed structural concrete do require an external render. But thats standard sand and cement as far as I know.

How you come to the conclusion that I want a full fill block cavity wall, I dont know. I,m quite happy in my existing dwelling.

I do agree that there is a problem here, as I said in my earlier post, good technical info is best sought from technical guys, first. As the OP was concerned with the quote cost of his new ICF system , I thought that the single panel option was worth considering from a cost point of view. From the posts I think its clear in a double arrangement that the u values required would be hard to achieve, so maybe there was an option to investigate single panels further.

Sorry SAS , I,ll try not to cause any further problems for you.

sabre


----------



## sas (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> I suppose M2 is regarded as an ICF system because its closer to this form of build than it is to a TF or traditional block build. I would have thought that a single panel system would be cheaper because there was no requirement for concrete core fill, so labour and materials there would be nil. I must admit that I am surprised that your M2 quote was twice most of the others , I cant see why it should be, was that a recent quote , as I know their pricing has recently been overhauled to be more competitive.I would not agree that M2 has more cold bridging, I assume you are refering to the cross connectors.
> 
> As far as I know external acrylic renders are indeed expensive , and some require trained professionals for application. True M2 single panel systems after sprayed structural concrete do require an external render. But thats standard sand and cement as far as I know.
> 
> ...


 
Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your involvement with M2 as per the forum guidelines? One might think you are getting a little defensive and your posts are wandering into sales pitch.

I had the same sales pitch regarding them "being surprised they were more expensive" from one of their sales people recently. He couldn't back it up however once comparisons were made.

The problem with the suppliers technical guys (all the different suppliers) are that most of them basically haven't a clue about cold bridging detailing or what you must take into account when calculating u-values. I'm far from an expert but I'm having little difficulty confusing\annoying alot of them. Reward were the only company that were able to supply alot of actual performance data for developments they've been involved in.

My quote from M2 was recent but I'm not interested in the system anymore.

M2 has more cold bridging because the internal concrete spray prevents the floor insulation from ever coming into contact with the wall insulation. This is a problem the 2 leaf system doesn't have. You also have the opportunity with the 2 leaf systems to externally insulate your window frames which again would appear to not be an option for the M2 system due to structural spray.

How you can figure that filling a polystyrene mould (i.e. the 2 panel systems ) with concrete is more labour intensive than spraying a concrete mix onto the internal and external surface of the M2 system that then must also be made level is open to debate. 

On the price of the materials, concrete isn't all that expensive and the M2 system isn't concrete free anyway. It would have considerably less concrete however so point taken on that. 

My comment regarding the full fill block cavity wall was on the basis that you were investigating a build system and taking part in what has been an interesting thread on a new and potentially great build system. I happen to think there are alot of similarities between full fill block cavity wall and the M2 system. If you however are involved with M2 in anyway or live in one of their houses (which you for some reason haven't disclosed yet) then my assumption was wrong.


----------



## sabre (19 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your involvement with M2 as per the forum guidelines? One might think you are getting a little defensive and your posts are wandering into sales pitch.
> 
> I had the same sales pitch regarding them "being surprised they were more expensive" from one of their sales people recently. He couldn't back it up however once comparisons were made.
> 
> ...


 
No I am not a sales man for M2, and never have been. And I dont believe I made any sales pitch in relation to M2 to the OP. As the OP original queries were primarily related to quote concerns, I introduced the single panel from M2 for his consideration , as it may work out as a less expensive option for him. Given that the existing options discussed here are going to have difficulty and expense in achieving the passive house values mentioned here, i thought it worth looking at a single panel option that is IAB certified.

I think that more is to be gained by meaning full discusion and investigation into a suppliers product , rather than trying to tie technical guys in knots. As you say you are not an expert , and if you can trip up a technical rep for a company, I would agree with you that I would hesitate in using their product. I would be more inclined to investigate a products history worlwide and locally. M2 has been in use worlwide for about 30 years, so there should be plenty of technical spec, history ,good and bad if any available.

I,m not going to go into the materials versus labour on single and double panel systems, as it appears that we will have to either agree to disagree, or enter into a long debate.As the details of each quote is not available, I dont think its possible to say which option is comparing like for like, and I,ve no reason to doubt you when you say you believe that M2 was the more expensive option. And I dont think a prolonged debate is fair to the OP.

On the cold bridging issue , true internal wall structural concrete of 35 mm all around the perimeter does prevent floor insulation of contacting the wall panel insulation. Externally insulating the window and door opes is possible with the single panel system, I think you would need to check the ope details again in this regard. As I have not looked at the reward ope details I am not able to comment on them at the moment. I personally would have some issues with the current ope details posted on this thread, but that is my personnel opinion.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages in different ICF systems, and none of them offer all the solutions, and its a question of investigating all the options on offer, and pick the one that offers the best solution for the criteria given. Through out this post I think the main issues were related to cost and U values. Which one is the primary requirement. If its u values , then the double panel cost may rise so significantly, as to make M2 an viable option . This is where I was coming from. The 2 questions to be answered are can the double panel reach the required u value, and can it do it economically. M2 single panel can reach the value required, but its cost viability can only be compared when you receive your stats from Reward. 

Do I live in an M2 house . No. Have I lived in an M2 house . No. Do I work for M2 .No.
Have I worked for M2. Yes. As their Technical Manager.

Have I ever been tied up by SAS in any technical discussion related to his quote with M2. Not to my knowledge, but feel free to remind me.

sabre


----------



## sas (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> I think there are advantages and disadvantages in different ICF systems, and none of them offer all the solutions, and its a question of investigating all the options on offer, and pick the one that offers the best solution for the criteria given. Through out this post I think the main issues were related to cost and U values. Which one is the primary requirement. If its u values , then the double panel cost may rise so significantly, as to make M2 an viable option . This is where I was coming from. The 2 questions to be answered are can the double panel reach the required u value, and can it do it economically. M2 single panel can reach the value required, but its cost viability can only be compared when you receive your stats from Reward.
> 
> Do I live in an M2 house . No. Have I lived in an M2 house . No. Do I work for M2 .No.
> Have I worked for M2. Yes. As their Technical Manager.
> ...


 
The issue with achieving u-values below 0.2 with the majority of existing ICF solutions is that they don't do a product that goes this low. This in time will change of course, particularly given the changes in building regs.

From what I've found the following ICF systems on paper can get down as low as you want:

[broken link removed] (BRE certified)
[broken link removed] (BBA certification almost complete)
[broken link removed] (IAB certified)

[broken link removed] (Quadlock system, goes to 0.15) (BBA certified)

The rest of the ICF solutions in Ireland:
[broken link removed]
www.warmbuild.ie (Nudura, BBA certified)
[broken link removed] (Reward, BBA certified)
[broken link removed] (IAB certification almost complete)
[broken link removed]
www.amvicireland.com/ (IAB certified)

The best u-value from this group to the best of my knowledge is the kore product at 0.2. Having said that, adding a layer of insulation backed plasterboard to the inside will bring any of these well towards 0.15. I don't like this approach because it puts more distance between the inner surface and something you can securely fix to. Depends on what you want really.

Sabre, it would have been more constructive had you disclosed your connection to M2 before you were asked.


----------



## sabre (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> The issue with achieving u-values below 0.2 with the majority of existing ICF solutions is that they don't do a product that goes this low. This in time will change of course, particularly given the changes in building regs.
> 
> From what I've found the following ICF systems on paper can get down as low as you want:
> 
> ...


 
SAS, I clarified my previous association with M2 as soon as I was asked. As well as any current association , which there is none. And maybe you should clarify any associations you may have with ICF systems, if any.


----------



## sas (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> SAS, I clarified my previous association with M2 as soon as I was asked. As well as any current association , which there is none. And maybe you should clarify any associations you may have with ICF systems, if any.


 
I have no association with any build system, never have. Don't work in the building industry at all. If I did, I'd add a disclaimer as others have done on their posts in other threads.

I simply have spent most of the last 18 months talking to suppliers on any system I can find to ensure that when I finally do make my mind up on how to build my home, I'm happy that I've made the correct choice.

I've benefited hugely from other peoples advice who have been through similar paths. I am simply trying to help others in the way I was helped.

Early in my search I took as fact what some suppliers told me. Overtime I've learned enough to spot misinformation. There's a huge amount of bias and misinformation out there e.g. the nudura performance u-value of 0.11


----------



## sabre (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> The issue with achieving u-values below 0.2 with the majority of existing ICF solutions is that they don't do a product that goes this low. This in time will change of course, particularly given the changes in building regs.
> 
> From what I've found the following ICF systems on paper can get down as low as you want:
> 
> ...


 

Nice to see you have put the M2 system in with the ICF grouping , where it belongs.

SAS, as soon as I was asked about any associations with any ICF systems, in particular M2, I clarified my previous position. Maybe you should do likewise, if you have any affiliations with any ICF systems. It would have been more constructive as well if you gave more accurate information as well into your interpretation of M2 ope details.

M2 do manufacture a single panel that gives the required u values quoted.

U values themselves in relation to a build are theoretical in the sense that this is what is achieveable if the constructed elements are built as they should be. I think the application of the product on site is more important .

Single panel construction has been done in the midlands that gives an A rated house , that is the culmination of proper application. Single panel constructions have been widely used in Artic regions for years, I think that speaks for itself.

From an economic point of view for the OP , its costs versus results. You get what you pay for. If M2 is more expensive that a double panel arrangement, you may be getting a better result. If you pay for a Fiat panda, you dont expect it to perform like a Mercedes, and vice versa.

Sabre


----------



## sas (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> Nice to see you have put the M2 system in with the ICF grouping , where it belongs.
> 
> SAS, as soon as I was asked about any associations with any ICF systems, in particular M2, I clarified my previous position. Maybe you should do likewise, if you have any affiliations with any ICF systems. It would have been more constructive as well if you gave more accurate information as well into your interpretation of M2 ope details.
> 
> ...


 
I put m2 in there to keep you happy. We are all friends after all! The definition of ICF from  would suggest it doesn't belong there though, but who am I to argue.

Given that you are the expert can you explain to us then how you can have the insulated core within the M2 single panel walls overlap the frame of the windows\doors by 40 - 50mm externally? This is a standard passive house detailing. It easily done with the 2 left systems because you can simply make the window\door opening of the outerleaf smaller by 40 - 50mm all around when building the system and fit the windows from the inside. This is not something that Reward or anyone else has in their standard detailing from what I've seen. I first saw it on a Nudura building site. This was something the builder had come up with. It was later that I saw the same detail recommendation from the PHI.

The onsite work must be taken as being of equal quality when comparing systems. 

Standard block cavity construction has also been done that gives an A-rated house. Are there any certified passive houses built with the M2 system in Ireland? That would be a far more accurate reflection of performance in my opinion.

Haven't spent much time in the arctic regions so can't comment on that.

The "you get what you pay for" line is open to debate. Particularly given that you stated M2 recently revised their pricing to be more competitive. What were people getting before that?


----------



## sabre (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> I put m2 in there to keep you happy. We are all friends after all! The definition of ICF from  would suggest it doesn't belong there though, but who am I to argue.
> 
> Given that you are the expert can you explain to us then how you can have the insulated core within the M2 single panel walls overlap the frame of the windows\doors by 40 - 50mm externally? This is a standard passive house detailing. It easily done with the 2 left systems because you can simply make the window\door opening of the outerleaf smaller by 40 - 50mm all around when building the system and fit the windows from the inside. This is not something that Reward or anyone else has in their standard detailing from what I've seen. I first saw it on a Nudura building site. This was something the builder had come up with. It was later that I saw the same detail recommendation from the PHI.
> 
> ...


 

SAS, you are trying to keep me happy...I,m flattered.

I would be interested to see the builders detail to face cover windows with a lip of 40-50 mm , given that most window sections would be about 50-60mm across the face, not a lot of room left for a reveal. Unless of course the window sections were sliding sash arrangement , and then the side sections of maybe a Bonavara window section or weights and pulleys would probably be about 100mm, so a face cover of 40 -50 mm cover would not be problem there. Any required variable in a panel would not be an issue as it is a very flexible product from a manufacturing point of view.

Technically forming a cover rebate of any dimension with a single panel is straight forward, as they already do that with extended cast formation at the top of the wall panels to insulate the ring beam. And at the base on some foundation details. It can be done using 2 methods , either a cut rebate along the panel lenghts in the factory environment. Or fitting insulating strips on site to the required dimensions to suit the window types.

Agreed , onsite workmanship should be regarded as equal for differing systems. But offsite manufacture would be of a higher quality, as technically proficient personnel are used in wall panel section preparation.
M2 wall sections can be factory produced ensuring proper assembly, where other systems may not be off site assembly friendly.

As to whether there are certified passive houses built in Ireland , as I dont work there anymore I cannot comment. What I can say is there were clients that chose M2 system that required a passive house solution and as I was not involved in any follow up, I cant say whether they achieved their aims or not. Presumably if there was an issue , there would have been some contact made, but not to my knowledge. I would be willing to make contact on someones behalf to M2, but I am not willing to post their contact details without getting permission to do so.



As to artic living, haven't been there either, although weather here could be called artic at times.

Lots of companies have revised pricing structures at this time, and M2 is no different. Timberframe kits have never been as cheap , block builds are cheaper as well.I suppose its got everything to do with a downturn in construction. Thankfully a consumer can now get a bigger bang for his buck.


sabre


----------



## sas (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sabre said:


> Thankfully a consumer can now get a bigger bang for his buck.
> sabre


 
Something we can both agree on. 

As an update, my reward quote for 0.21 u-value was 43k for the external walls as I've stated earlier. The Eurozone quote arrived and its 71k for a 0.15 u-value for the same external walls. The funny thing on this one is that the supply only price for Eurozone was half their price. The supply only option from Reward was 3/4 their price. How could the same amount of concrete and less labour for the Eurozone system mean such a big difference in the labour quote?

Based on some initial numbers I've run it would appear a 0.15 u-value is now achieved in the cheapest way using a single leaf of 4 inch solids on the flat externally insulated with 230mm of STOs EPS external insulation system (i.e. STO classic). This is based on a ball park figure from STO of €100 per metres squared + VAT for the 230mm.


----------



## sabre (20 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> Something we can both agree on.
> 
> As an update, my reward quote for 0.21 u-value was 43k for the external walls as I've stated earlier. The Eurozone quote arrived and its 71k for a 0.15 u-value for the same external walls. The funny thing on this one is that the supply only price for Eurozone was half their price. The supply only option from Reward was 3/4 their price. How could the same amount of concrete and less labour for the Eurozone system mean such a big difference in the labour quot.


 

Maybe the variation in labour rates arises if one company is using their own labour, and the other one is using a sub contractors rate. I have seen the same issues when pricing for icf before.

sabre


----------



## BarneyMc (21 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sas said:


> Based on some initial numbers I've run it would appear a 0.15 u-value is now achieved in the cheapest way using a single leaf of 4 inch solids on the flat externally insulated with 230mm of STOs EPS external insulation system (i.e. STO classic). This is based on a ball park figure from STO of €100 per metres squared + VAT for the 230mm.


 
I've looked up STO and they seem to be a US based company? Have they a distributor here or does another company here use their products? Is this supply only? Also what's the internal insulation tickness? Thanks!


----------



## sas (21 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



BarneyMc said:


> I've looked up STO and they seem to be a US based company? Have they a distributor here or does another company here use their products? Is this supply only? Also what's the internal insulation tickness? Thanks!


 

The products name is actually StoTherm Classic
100 + VAT per metre squared is for supply and fit and render.
It's not ICF, it's an external insulation system i.e. no internal insulation


----------



## sabre (22 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Another externally insulated supplier, might be useful as an indicator for pricing. I see now that m2 are supplying panels for this purpose for the UK market. This is a recent development , as I was present at the early meetings with the representatives of the Irish and UK end , and both gentlemen were extremely knowledgable and professional in their approach .

Please ...no more remarks about touting for M2....I am relaying pertinent information on the topic, as I have it. What you do with it is up to you.


[broken link removed]

sabre.


----------



## GalwayRon (28 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

I'm just finishing my ICF house. Used Eurozone ICF based in Enniscorthy. Full height panels, made in Ireland. They also make Internal walls, floors and roof panels.


----------



## abbeyross (30 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

We are half way through an ICF build but have not made a decision on a heating method for the house.  We are told oil is the best option as we won't need a lot of heat, and any other methods such as geothermal, solar, etc. would be too costly and not cost effective.  

Would love to hear what other ICF builders are putting in? It just seems a pity to be building an eco friendly -ish house only to put in a conventional oil boiler....


----------



## sydthebeat (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

"we are told"...??? ... by whom??? educated professionals??
The one guarantee is that oil and gas (and electricity) will rise sharply in price in the future.... you if you do incorporate an oil burner, then factor in teh costs to convert it in the future???

What about wood pellets burners, or wood gasification burners???

Geothermal is still probably too expensive to warrant its inclusion as it is still electrically powered....

Solar would be fine is its a large enough system, but you would probably need a back up 'booster' heating system for winter months.


----------



## GalwayRon (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

I'm going for an Air thermal heat pump and underfloor heating. Also, solar vac-tubes for domestic hot water. The heatpump is very efficient (Mitsubishi Ecodan) compact. Plus there is no expensive installation as with geothermal.


----------



## BarneyMc (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



GalwayRon said:


> I'm going for an Air thermal heat pump and underfloor heating.


 
Hi Ron, Is the air thermal heat pump the source of heat for the underfloor heating system? If not I think the heated aire can be put through the heat ventilation recovery system. Perhaps this would be more efficient? Also assuming the house is very easy to heat, is underfloor heating a bit of overkill?


----------



## sydthebeat (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



BarneyMc said:


> Hi Ron, Is the air thermal heat pump the source of heat for the underfloor heating system? If not I think the heated aire can be put through the heat ventilation recovery system. Perhaps this would be more efficient? Also assuming the house is very easy to heat, is underfloor heating a bit of overkill?


 
barney, the ATWHP would be the UFH heating source, it takes in slightly heated air from the external and uplifts it to UFH temps (~40deg). This is space heating so if a HRV system is used then it automaticaly will pass through the system.

Galwayron,
have you a secondary heating system to heat Domestic Hot Water??

is the system designed to make use of any solar gains to preheat the air for the ATWHP?? ie winter garden, greenhouse etc?? as you probably every deg of preheated air is precious for an ATWHP.....
you could exhaust the HRV into this space and, in theory have a 100% HRV system.... plus if you exhaust to a greenhouse, your metabolic co2 can directly be exchanged by plants into fresh o2 for the dwelling.....

just a thought....


----------



## BarneyMc (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



sydthebeat said:


> is the system designed to make use of any solar gains to preheat the air for the ATWHP?? ie winter garden, greenhouse etc?? as you probably every deg of preheated air is precious for an ATWHP.....
> you could exhaust the HRV into this space and, in theory have a 100% HRV system.... plus if you exhaust to a greenhouse, your metabolic co2 can directly be exchanged by plants into fresh o2 for the dwelling.....
> 
> just a thought....


 
Syd, would this assume the plants could turn the Co2 into O2 quickly enough before that air is brought back into the house? Perhaps it would be better for the ATWHP to work from a greenhouse but to expell the air to outside? Interesting!!


----------



## sydthebeat (31 Mar 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



BarneyMc said:


> Syd, would this assume the plants could turn the Co2 into O2 quickly enough before that air is brought back into the house? Perhaps it would be better for the ATWHP to work from a greenhouse but to expell the air to outside? Interesting!!


 
Barney, the greenhouse would have be vented anyway.

The exhaust air from a ATWHP should definitely be exhausted to the external unless another use can be found for its very cold uses...??

A recent edition os the Architects jourbna;l have an article on a social housing development in Blackwater, cork, that used a winter garden to pre heat air before being used by an ATWHP. A very clever design IMHO.


----------



## HAB (7 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Dear SAS

Nudura has a U value of .253 (R22.4/RSI 3.94) The U.11 is the value that you would have to construct a timberframe home to so that it can perform to the U.25 of an ICF, and these are numbers widely used in North America by all ICF's. Calling someone a liar without confronting the person who made the statement is a bit cowardly. As to the cost of the block, what has shipping from Canada got to do with it? Have you compared costs of various ICF's in various countries?


----------



## sydthebeat (7 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> Dear SAS
> 
> Nudura has a U value of .253 (R22.4/RSI 3.94) *The U.11 is the value that you would have to construct a timberframe home to so that it can perform to the U.25 of an ICF,* and these are numbers widely used in North America by all ICF's. Calling someone a liar without confronting the person who made the statement is a bit cowardly. As to the cost of the block, what has shipping from Canada got to do with it? Have you compared costs of various ICF's in various countries?




sorry HAB.... i dont know where you are getting your info, but its very incorrect. If you are a supplier / manufacturer of such a product then lets debate this with you, its good to have balanced debate.

a u value is a measure of a RATE of heat loss, regardless of the material

0.11 is a very good wall u value, regardless of material
0.25 is slightly better than minimum standards, regardless of material...

to try to equate 0.11 to 0.25 is simply incorrect

it like saying a porche travelling at 80 mph is slower than a merc travelling at 50 mph....... a rate is a rate, and thats what you have to compare....

for a company like nudura, or whoever else, to state that you need to build a timberframe to a u vlaue of 0.11 in order to be comparable to an ICF dwelling at 0.25 is completely incorrect, misleading and underhanded........ i would wholeheartedly agree with SAS that the word 'lie' is completely applicable.....


----------



## sas (7 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> Dear SAS
> 
> Nudura has a U value of .253 (R22.4/RSI 3.94) The U.11 is the value that you would have to construct a timberframe home to so that it can perform to the U.25 of an ICF, and these are numbers widely used in North America by all ICF's. Calling someone a liar without confronting the person who made the statement is a bit cowardly. As to the cost of the block, what has shipping from Canada got to do with it? Have you compared costs of various ICF's in various countries?


 
So HAB, let's clear this up to start with. What's your involvement with Nudura? How come Nudura is the only ICF system in this country that claims a "performance u-value"? 

I would hardly describe a statement of fact as cowardly. As syd has kindly pointed out, u-value is u-value. 

Shipping costs money, that what shipping has to do with it. The locally manufactured ones tend to be cheaper u-value for u-value because the shipping costs less. I don't need to compare prices of various ICFs in various countries, just this one. Nudura have one of the poorest u-values of the ICF systems available here. They are not the cheapest either. I've priced lots of the ICF systems available in Ireland from the same plans so that was my experience which is all I can comment from.

Welcome to AAM by the way.


----------



## HAB (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

The performance value I refer to is the conclusion of an analysis done by Construction Technology Laboratories of Skokie, Illinois for the ICFA Assoc in North America showing the steady-state thermal resistance(R-value) of a typical 9" ICF wall (2"eps-5"concrete-2"eps), in 38 North American cities, using the ASHRAE Handbook. Another reference is the study done by Brock University, supported by the National Research Council of Canada, that shows that a typical 2x6 stick frame home with R-20(U.28) values, at -10.5C performs at an equivalent value of R-4(U1.4) In my view, its all about how well a wall performs under thermal loading, thus for me anyways, stated values of wall assemblies can be misleading.


----------



## sydthebeat (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> The performance value I refer to is the conclusion of an analysis done by Construction Technology Laboratories of Skokie, Illinois for the ICFA Assoc in North America showing the steady-state thermal resistance(R-value) of a typical 9" ICF wall (2"eps-5"concrete-2"eps), in 38 North American cities, using the ASHRAE Handbook. Another reference is the study done by Brock University, supported by the National Research Council of Canada, that shows that a typical 2x6 stick frame home with R-20(U.28) values, at -10.5C performs at an equivalent value of R-4(U1.4) In my view, its all about how well a wall performs under thermal loading, thus for me anyways, stated values of wall assemblies can be misleading.



firstly, a typical 6 x 2 'stick frame' in Canada is not a typical timberframe in Ireland. we have different methods of testing to suit OUR climate, not the canadian situation. 
secondly, any testing commisioned by a biased party, in this case the ICFA assoc... cannot be taken as independant confirmation.

we here do not recognise 'performance' u values (i dont even think its a recognised technical term here)... , because so much has to be taken into account... the majority of this would be workmanship, after that standards of materials, on site conditions etc.

you should not need to claim misleading figures if you are confident in your product.


----------



## sas (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> stated values of wall assemblies can be misleading.


 
I have no issue with this statement. If you compare the Nudura ICF with Standard block construction in Ireland it will certainly outperform it by more than the u-value difference reflects (i.e. 0.27 vs 0.25 (Nudura). 

So basically the "performance u-value" is based on a comparison of a very poor standard timber frame construction in North America and Nudura ICF. 

"Performance u-value" would appear to be at best a misleading marketing term.


----------



## Leo (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

HAB, welcome to AAM. In accordance with our , please confirm whether you have an association with any of the companies/bodies you mention above.
Leo


----------



## HAB (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

LEO, yes, I am a member of the ICFA Association in the UK , as well as the Super-E program. Personaly, I've been building with ICF's since 1991 and before that, a stick frame builder. Over the years I have used many different ICF's and have always championed their use. There is not a lot of difference between them in their insulating properties, as they all work well, but its a matter for the end user to pick one that they feel comfortable with. But as we all understand, its more the installation than the product that matters, whatever the type of wallsystem used. As to performance, again, one could always check out the results of the independant "Whole Wall Thermal Performance" tests done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) on 18 different wall assemblies.


----------



## Leo (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Thanks for the clarification.
Leo


----------



## sydthebeat (8 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> LEO, yes, I am a member of the ICFA Association in the UK , as well as the Super-E program. Personaly, I've been building with ICF's since 1991 and before that, a stick frame builder. Over the years I have used many different ICF's and have always championed their use. There is not a lot of difference between them in their insulating properties, as they all work well, but its a matter for the end user to pick one that they feel comfortable with. But as we all understand, *its more the installation than the product that matters*, whatever the type of wallsystem used. As to performance, again, one could always check out the results of the independant "Whole Wall Thermal Performance" tests done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) on 18 different wall assemblies.



we are completely in agreement here... 

I find it regretable that some ICF suppliers are happy enought to hand 'self builder's a few pallets of ICF blocks, a 'how to' DVD.....(or a days training)..... and best wishes and off you go..... practices like this, and the inevitable end product, give your building system a bad name. And i know for a fact that nudura have done this in the past. Thats not a comment on the capabilities of the client, but it does inhibit your 'performace' u value claim.

I have also experienced a whole housing development constructed in ICF by non-skilled workers... not your system, just to be clear. I have heard some horror stories by workers on this particular site of how these systems were put together.

Maybe the ICF conglomerate here should regulate themselves a bit better, first impressions last a very long time.


----------



## HAB (9 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Nudura does not sell to people that have not completed the training course, which is a day long with demonstrations and written test, then on site supervision for the installers first job. They have to be signed off as to their ability to hopefully, ensure good installation practices, and help and advice is only a phone call away. If you know otherwise, Nudura would be glad to know of it, for exactly the reasons you state. And I'm sorry to go on about "performance" but does the EU not have to work with the EPBD, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive? I have read some good articles by Patrick Daly in Construct Ireland that help explain what and how Ireland are doing with Part L and the DEAP to comply with EPBD.


----------



## sydthebeat (9 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*



HAB said:


> Nudura does not sell to people that have not completed the training course, which is a day long with demonstrations and written test, then on site supervision for the installers first job. They have to be signed off as to their ability to hopefully, ensure good installation practices, and help and advice is only a phone call away. If you know otherwise, Nudura would be glad to know of it, for exactly the reasons you state. And I'm sorry to go on about "performance" but does the EU not have to work with the EPBD, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive? I have read some good articles by Patrick Daly in Construct Ireland that help explain what and how Ireland are doing with Part L and the DEAP to comply with EPBD.



Funny you should bring up the EPBD....
The approved method for calculating the BER is the DEAP method. The only way you can input u values into this is to use the 'resistance' method where you calculate the resistance of the structure by using the thermal conductivity factors of all the constituent materials. This will then give you an elemental u value which is what you input into DEAP... theres no such thing as 'performance' u value.

Perhaps you can better describe the advantages of ICF in other terms rather than u value, because this is a readily testable and varifiable calculation.

One clear advantage would be the inherent superiority of 'air tightness' of the ICF system over other conventional systems such as cavity wall or TF. Another is the responsiveness gain of the heating system in an ICF house over trad cavity wall.... Another is the speed (and releative ease) of construction.......
these are great advantages, but are not measured in 'performance u values'.... you should be lauding these...


----------



## samhain (16 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Hi there, have not read all the posts but wondered have you considered how you will hang kitchen presses ect. because as far as I know it is a 60mm layer of aeroboard 100mm gap for concrete and 60mm again for aeroboard. Now I know it will be slabbed and or skimmed but you may have a hidden cost of putting up plywood under the slabs or skim coat to carry the weight of presses, wall mounted TVs ect. not to mention curtain poles wall mounted radiators. There is a hard point every 600mm but this is plastic and will it line up with the screwig points of tour appliances. 

Samhain's husband.


----------



## chimpster (19 May 2008)

*Roofing for ICF house*

Folks...

With regard to ICF built houses I have a question

Are these houses designed to carry a normal roofing system. As in do they have a wall plate where a timber roofing system can be attached? 

Or are you confined to a proprietary roofing product?

Cheers!


----------



## sas (19 May 2008)

*Re: Roofing for ICF house*



chimpster said:


> Folks...
> 
> With regard to ICF built houses I have a question
> 
> ...


 
Most of the ICF products don't have the proprietary roofing products. The wall plate is simply bolted to the concrete core.

You can absolutely use normal roofing systems.


----------



## chimpster (19 May 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

Cheers sas,

Thats as I thought.


----------



## Self_Builder (5 Nov 2008)

*Re: ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) using Reward Structures. - Is this an expensive qu*

I think i have found a passive house which has been built in Ireland on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Ccuf5_E64

I was quite interested in this and thought others might as well.


----------

