Talk:Insulating concrete form

Fire resistance

I have a small problem with some of the editing to date: it is said that "Post-and-Beam" (or "screen grid") systems have no fire resistance, but that is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading. It implies that this design is dangerous, compared to the other design types, but the fact is that if a fire gets to the stage where a small opening in the concrete will allow more material to be combusted, the building is a total loss in any case. The post-and-beam/screen grid design allows a relatively small amount of concrete to be replaced by EPS or other foamed plastic, thereby increasing the insulation value of the overall wall structure. Since the plans for an insulated concrete form building are checked by structural engineers, and the local building authorities check the plans for ALL buildings, the post-and-beam/screen grid type of product are perfectly safe, from fire, structural, or any other standpoints, especially when one considers the comparison to traditional wood structures.

It should also be noted that EPS will only burn if a direct flame is applied to it, and the resulting smoke is said to have only 5% of the toxicity of wood smoke.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.147.59 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insect resistance and energy efficiency

I have an ICF home — the first to be built in Texas in fact. We used the "Greenblock" system. It's been very noticeable that there are very few insects in the home — and even after 8 years, we have not needed to have the house sprayed for Roaches — in previous houses we've owned in Texas, we needed annual spraying to keep things bearable. An all-electric home of 2500 square feet consumes $200 worth of electricity in the height of Texas summer — that's around half what a similar house of timber-frame construction would need. The claims for quietness are quite believable — but we built far from the nearest road or neighbour — so it would be pretty quiet anyhow. I'm hoping we never have to test the claims of tornado-resistance — but Greenblock claim the walls will survive 300mph winds — I'm more concerned with the roof and windows! SteveBaker 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screen grid vs. flat slab ICFs

I have heard, and seen here, that screen grid ICFs are an "old", or "first generation" system, implying that they are in some way inferior. I want to challenge that "first generation" assertion, and then provide some reasons I think post and beam systems are superior.

Applying Occam's razor: Which is more likely to have come first, given the newly discovered insulating properties of EPS?

A. Create an intricate form such that poured concrete flows in a regular grid pattern throughout the wall.

B. Pick up two EPS slabs, support them somehow, and pour concrete in between.

I believe the "first generation" argument came from flat-wall competitors looking to make their more basic system look better. There are many, many flat-wall ICF manufacturers and, like all rumors, that which is repeated most often is that which is most often believed.

Which will give off more exothermic heat as it cures, a 6' monolithic concrete slab, or a grid of 6" diameter posts and beams? Which, then, is more likely to shrink away from the form, causing an insulation-negating, insect-inviting air gap?

Which wall weighs less, requiring less concrete and less extensive foundation work?

Which makes sense when, with properly engineered concrete and rebar, the grid-walled structure can be built to 8 residential stories, or withstand 200 MPH winds? A flat-wall may be made to go higher, and/or withstand stonger winds, but how much more is appropriate, or cost effective?

Which will insulate better, 2 slabs of EPS (usually 4' total), or those same 4' plus a repeating pattern of "nodes" where the insulation goes from one side of the form to the other?

I work for Amazon Forms and, compared to flat ICF systems, our Grid-Wall ICF blocks are heavier (requiring less pre-pour bracing), stronger than EPS alone (less prone to pour-day trauma, with no need to find a "sweet spot" to hang a picture), easier to apply external and internal wall coverings (i.e., no mesh or scratch coat needed for stucco or plaster), and easier to add after-pour afterthoughts (like external hose bibs).

And we use 100% post-consumer recycled EPS, including the jobsite scraps from everyone else's ICF system.

So, tell me again, which system is inferior?

Randy@amazongridwall.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy@amazongridwall.com (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK — three issues here:

Firstly, your email address and what you tell us makes it very clear that you are associated with the "gridwall" business — which makes it very hard for anyone to believe that you are unbiased in what you say when you advocate that technology. Whether that's true or not — there is a strong PERCEPTION that this is the case. Wikipedia has strong policies against you advocating your business here — so please tread very softly!
Secondly, Wikipedia is not the place for these kinds of technical debates. Read WP:NOR to understand our policy here. We generally require evidence in the form of books or other unbiased, non-commercial sources. So could you perhaps point us in the direction of such evidence to back up your assertions. A comparative review from a reputable trade journal (not one directly associated with the grid-wall business of course) — any government studies that back up your claims? Structural engineering books perhaps?
Thirdly, whilst I'm not in the business, I have owned homes built with both techniques — and I have to say that my personal experience leads me to disagree with almost everything you said. Our present ICF home (the first ever to be built in Texas — and using the "Greenblock" system) has proven vastly better in practical terms than our previous house which was built with the grid wall approach (I don't recall the name of the exact construction system we used on that home) — of course I'm talking strictly as a consumer of the technology — I'm concerned about how cheap and effective the resulting home is — not with how tricky it was to put together. Certainly your claims that the ICF will have poorer insulation value or be somehow less insect-resistant has not proven to be the case. All that the heat of 100F Texas summers and the HORDES of insects we are plagued with here in Texas are a pretty tough test of the things you are claiming. We've lived in our present Greenblock house for seven years and our summer A/C bills are about 30% lower than we had with the grid system home (and 50% lower than with the conventional timber-framed house we owned before that). What's more, we don't see any insect infestations whatever. We have not had to have the house fumigated once in seven years — which could not be said of our previous homes. So — I am a little biased — but as a result of consuming the technology — not because my business stands to profit from it or anything. (I work in computer graphics — I design flight simulators).

In the end, both systems are so far ahead of "stick-built" houses, that we are truly arguing about the icing on the cake — but I would certainly say that my ICF home is "next generation" compared to the grid wall approach. My findings are as a practical result of living in these buildings and not based on the kinds of "Which is more likely?" types of assertions that you present.
SteveBaker 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should refrain from mentioning specific product names here. Both screen-grid and flat-panel systems are significantly better than conventional construction. The reason 80-85 percent of ICF manufactures market flat-panel systems or that their new developments are usually flat-panel systems is because the engineering if far less complicated for multi-story construction, lintel designs over openings, and tall walls. In addition, if one wished to span say 25 feet over an opening with a system other than the typical flat-panel system one would need to build a bond beam (like a flat-panel to accomplish this). Also, some of the flat-panel systems fold for shipping or they are deliverd to the worksite ready to assemble thus resulting in lower shipping costs. (Cam09RFWWW (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comparison with traditional wood frame construction

This article is about a concrete form system, throughout the article the merits of concrete vs traditional wood frame construction are mentioned. I don't believe that comparison belongs in an article about concrete forms. I would like to see all references to framed walls removed. Comparisons with other concrete form systems, added insulation, labor and material costs would be relevant. For instance it saves labor but is there a more expensive form system? Dougmcdonell (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see some of the obviously promotional areas of the article removed. Under the 'disadvantages' section, for example, each disadvantage is ended with some industry solution. The article has the tone of defending the technology instead of simply explaining what it is. 65.183.128.154 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming that section as "Problems and disadvantages" or splitting it into two sections "Potential problems" and "Disadvantages" since many of the issues are just problems with solutions not disadvantages. All construction types have potential problems and solutions but they are not disadvantages unless the solutions add excessive costs or time or have other undesirable impacts. I agree that where we are talking about a disadvantage we don't need to dress it up or make some counter objection like a salesperson would. Joja lozzo 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a problem of "tone" in the article - I agree that the fact that each disadvantage has a corresponding solution is kinda dumb - if it's easily fixed, then it's hardly a disadvantage. Perhaps a more neutral way to do this is to simply describe these issues as "differences between ICF and conventional wood framed construction" and thereby avoid using "advantage" and "disadvantage" at all. On the other hand, I strongly believe that we must describe the advantages over the prevailing most common construction techniques as well as the disadvantages. That's necessary in order to provide WP:NPOV. Perhaps the correct solution is to make a table of all of the construction methods and all of the problems that come up with any of them and turn that into a template which we'd include in every article about construction techniques. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Insulating concrete form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Insulating concrete form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation Clarification

Hi there, dropping a note here to confirm that the queried extracts from the definitive History of ICF's I wrote (and keep updated) entitled The History of ICFs - All About the History of Insulating Concrete Forms in North American Concrete Construction from 1953 to 2018 - will be authorized to be used on Wikipedia, as will subsequent updates. I would also like to confirm that I hold implicit authorization for reproduction and use of historic newspaper articles and photographs from their respective copyright holders and can also confer this to Wikipedia (unlike all other current online usage). Wikipedia, you have my contact email, if there are any queries during validation of this page copyright and use of this pertinent information that is the result of many hours of patent research please get in touch. Thanks, Rj --Rjauthoring (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]