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

[sydthebeat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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.

sabre

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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)



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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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?

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