List of All Wall Benefits over ICF’s:
- More usable interior space. 5,000 SF home yields greater than 95 SF MORE Interior Area
- Non-Combustible and Non-Flammable exterior load bearing walls.
ICF’s use drywall boards on the interior.
- More MOLD resistant. ICF’s use drywall boards which suck up and hold water for mold to grow.
- More pest and termite resistant:
ICF’s use drywall boards – pests can burrow a nice home
Foam is easily reached by pests – pests get a nice energy efficient home
- Costs Less, $10.50 / SF vs. $12.00/SF
- Easier to have plans drawn and approved:
All Wall is totally code compliant for any home.
- ICF’s have Code Design limits, where you need an outside Engineer to analyze the home which Costs more money.
- Easier to install.
Less skilled labor
The installers of ICF’s have to be as trained and skilled as concrete block layers, and Master Craftsman Carpenters.
- Less costly bracing
- Faster to erect and fill, less labor costs
- Faster removal of any forming, such as corners, and clean up
- Zero Site waste
- Better resistance to street noise. The Harder exterior bounces sounds off, then foam absorbs.
- More Energy Savings with All Wall, about 9% per the Dept. of Energy
Foam is in the middle, where it should be.
If you want to read for yourself an article written about ICFs and their additional costs in construction, over what the ICF salespeople sold the builders on, by the National Association of Home Builders, click here.
Most Energy Efficient System
The following information is from the web site of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
To do directly to the point of this information that relates specifically to the All Wall System? (Click Here)
Whole Wall Thermal Performance
Jan Kosny and Jeffrey E. Christian
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
A new procedure is proposed for comparing the thermal performance differences between diverse types of wall systems. This procedure will ultimately include four elements: whole-wall R-value, thermal mass benefits, airtightness, and moisture tolerance. The whole-wall R-value procedure described in this report should be considered for adoption in the ASHRAE Standard 90.2 (ASHRAE 1993b), MEC (CABO (1995), and HERS (Home Energy Rating System) (DOE 1995). In addition, many of the code compliance documents that are available to show builders how to comply with applicable codes, standards and energy-efficiency incentive programs would benefit by using this whole-wall R-value comparison procedure. The database of advanced wall systems is being assembled on the Internet, (http://www.cad.ornl.gov/kch/demo.html). The whole-wall R-value is a better criterion than the center-of-wall and much better than the center-of-cavity R-value methods used to compare most types of wall systems. The value includes the effect of the wall interface details used to connect the wall to other walls, windows, doors, ceilings and foundations. For builders and building owners to appreciate the added thermal benefits of many of the alternatives to conventional wood-frame wall construction, it is necessary to use a whole-wall R-value.
The market focus on clear-wall or even worse center-of-cavity R-value, is misleading and inhibiting the market penetration of high-performance wall systems into the residential construction industry.
The use of a whole-wall R-value could guide decision makers to select wall systems that have whole-wall R-values 25%-50% higher than for wall systems that have significant thermal shorting (high misleading center-of-cavity and clear-wall R-values compared to whole-wall R-value).
J. Kosny, T. Petrie, D. Gawin, P. Childs, A Desjarlais, and J.Christian
Buildings Technology Center, ORNL
Experimental and theoretical analysis of the energy performance of light-weight and massive wall systems was presented in this paper. Dynamic thermal performance of sixteen wall assemblies was investigated for residential buildings and the potential energy savings were presented for ten U.S. climates. It was found that some massive building envelope technologies can help in the reduction of building annual energies.
Several comparative field experiments have demonstrated that in many U. S. locations, heating and cooling energy demands in buildings containing massive walls of relatively high R-values can be lower than those in similar buildings constructed using equivalent R-value with lightweight wall technologies.
The thermal mass benefit is a function of wall material configuration, climate, building size, configuration, and orientation. From ten analyzed U.S. locations, the most beneficial for application of thermal mass are Phoenix, AZ and Bakersfield, CA.
Comparative analysis of "sixteen" different material configurations showed that the most effective wall assembly was the wall with thermal mass (concrete) applied in good contact with the interior of the building. (ALL WALL SYSTEM)
Walls where the insulation material was concentrated on the interior side, performed much worse. (any wall system with insulation on the interior of the wall)
Wall configurations with the concrete wall core and insulation placed on both sides of the wall performed slightly better, (FOAM BLOCKS, ICFs)
however, their performance was significantly worse than walls containing
foam core and concrete shells on both sides. (ALL WALL SYSTEM, CFIs)
Following are graphs depicting
the advantages of the All Wall System in regards to Energy Savings:
The third wall configuration is the All Wall System,
at the time of testing the Testing Company doesn't know the All Wall System exists.
Even though they are describing the All Wall System and making statements that the
All Wall System is superior by description.
If you would like to confirm this research, Please follow the below link.
This is a summary of a report prepared by the NAHB Research Center for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Portland Cement Association. The full report is available in PDF format. The green information is our explanation.
ICFs for Residential Construction Demonstration Homes
With sponsorship provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Portland Cement Association (PCA), the NAHB Research Center coordinated four demonstration projects to evaluate the use of Insulating Concrete Forms (ICF) in residential construction.
Initial observations documented the construction details of the homes and recorded the construction via photographs. Site visits were made after construction to perform thermal testing and interview homeowners and builders concerning their satisfaction with the homes. Thermal testing consisted of collecting air infiltration data and thermo-graphic imaging, which displays heat transfer through wall frame members in a color video format. Homeowners were interviewed concerning their impressions of the design, construction, thermal comfort, sound comfort, and overall satisfaction with their homes. Builders, or general contractors where appropriate, were interviewed concerning the construction process and construction costs. (Job screw ups = Insights) Insights about concrete handling (mix, pour); form placement and bracing; code requirements and other construction details were discussed. Costs of construction are compared to typical framing in the specific geographical location.
Advantages of ICFs cited by homeowners include reduced transmission of “street noise” to the indoors and an appreciation for new technology. Builders did not have difficulty in selling these homes, and plan to continue using this construction.
Although installed costs of the ICF walls were higher (1-5% of final sales price) (not cost of other walls, but 'of final sales price' which is a much higher number) than the builders typical practice, they found the cost premiums to be worth the benefit of this construction method. AFTER THE TRUTH!! Basically, ICF sellers lied, I mean stretched the truth, to get the job hoping the homeowners would be happy with the Energy savings. The energy savings that are less than All Wall.
5% of sales price of $500,000.00 home is $25,000.00 for the walls. Now add energy efficient air conditioner upgrade, energy upgrade for ceiling insulation, passive solar (or instant heat), and low e windows and the cost of your home is about $31,000.00 over.
'OR' USE the ALL WALL SYSTEM and the total cost for energy upgrade including walls, insulation in ceiling as sealed attic, passive solar ( or instant heat) and low e windows will be about $12,000.00
Testing showed the solid concrete wall (clear wall) has less cold spots than frame construction. However, construction details of the openings, architectural penetrations and foundations influence greatly the level of energy efficiency.
Winter infiltration rates for the demonstration homes, calculated using data from fan depressurization (i.e. blower door), ranged from 0.15 to 0.55 ACH (air changes per hour).