6 Comments

1. 
   dugantr | Jun 17, 2013 09:09pm | #1

   Disaster Resistant Buildings - Superior Walls
   I will continue to comment on all of these articles touted as having solutions to tornadoes, wild-fires, hurricanes, etc. The simple and readily available solution is from a company called Superior Walls of America. I am a builder in coastal North Carolina and only build hurricane resistant homes using their wall system. They are made of 5000 mix strength concrete panels that are rebar reinforced and come pre-insulated with Dow foam. The walls are inherently waterproof and missile proof. I use Viwinco brand impact rated windows and closed cell foam in the rafters. It is the only way to build, in my opinion.

2. Expert Member
   Dana Dorsett | Jun 18, 2013 03:15pm | #2

   Closed cell & Dow & Superior Wall (response to Thomas Dugan)
   At code-min R the most typical blowing agent used (HFC245fa) in most closed cell foam at the rafters will far outstrip the global warming potential (GWP) of the heating/cooling energy saved over the life of the building. It's a net-negative for the planet. At 3" it's already structural, but still sub-code for R, and still probably lifecycle net-damaging from a global warming perspective. At 2" it's pretty-structural, but may someday break-even, depending on the actual energy sources. HFC245fa is on the order of 1000 x CO2 as a greenhouse gas- it doesn't take a whole lot to do a whole lot of damage- the less you can get away with, the better.

   Similarly, Dow Styrofoam XPS, is blown with combination of HFC134a (about 1400 x CO2 by itself) and other HFCs, with a combined GWP of over 800 x CO2, and will never break-even using the code-min Xi version of Superior Wall. The R5 version might when used in combination with other insulation to reach code min, depending on the actual heating/cooling energy sources. But it's hard to turn Superior Wall R5 into a truly high thermal performance wall due to the excessive thermal bridging of it's structural stud-like members.

   Until that changes use of these materials as the primary insulation is the antithesis of "green building". There are newer blowing agents out there for closed cell polyurethane that with sub-10 x CO2 GWP,- notably DuPont FEA-1100®, & Honeywell Solstice®, but I'm not sure which (if any) of the major players are using them. I don't know of any vendor in north America using a truly low GWP blowing agent for XPS, but in Europe Dow used CO2 as the blowing agent for XPS (with, strangely, 1x CO2 GWP :-) ).

   Polyiso & EPS are both blown with pentane (at about 7x CO2 GWP), and where they CAN be substituted for XPS or closed cell polyurethane, they arguably SHOULD. A bare-bones minimalist R16 ICF (yes, they're still available) is a far greener solution than any version of Superior Wall, with substantially higher thermal performance than the Xi (R12.5) version of Superior Wall .

   Open cell foam is not at all structural, but is blown with water, and uses 1/4-1/3 the total polymer of most closed cell foams, and a much greener (though not the greenest) for going high-R, or even code-min. In the climate-zone 3 parts of NC an all open cell solution can be used on the underside of the roof deck without damaging the roof deck with excess moisture, but not in the cooler zone 4 parts. But a flash-inch of closed cell in combination of blown fiber works everywhere in your area, except possibly under "cool roof" finishes of metal roofing. See table 3 on this document:

   http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/reports/rr-1001-moisture-safe-unvented-wood-roof-systems

   There are at least two vendors with a 2lb spray polyurethane that is blown with water (with very low GWP). Aloha Energy (a regional player in NY), and Icynene's MD-R-200 product (not to be confused with MD-C-200, which is blown with HFC245fa). The 1.8lb goods from Aloha are fairly similar in most respect to HFC blown foam. The Icynene goods run about R5.1/inch, and are about 3-4x more vapor permeable (which is in some ways better, for roof deck applications, since even at code-min it's still a class-II vapor retarder, with at least some drying potential.) If you're going to stay stuck on the all-closed-cell solution to the roof insulation, PLEASE seek out one of these, or find a product/installer that stipulates that they use only the very-low/no GWP blowing agents- anything under 10x CO2 . The Enovate® 3000 blowing agent has sometimes been touted by Demilec as a low GWP, but it's just a trade name for HFC245fa, and thus on the order of 1000 x CO2.

   It matters that the materials used to insulate a house aren't more damaging to the environment the energy use they're offsetting, and I hope you can make accommodations & adjust to your "It is the only way to build, in my opinion" statement. The solutions proposed may be hurricane proof, but are net-damaging to the climate. There are better, lower impact ways to get there.

3. 
   David_Gregory_CZ3_CA | Jun 19, 2013 10:27pm | #3

   let's keep the conversation going
   Thanks for all the feedback and great resources so far. Hope the conversation can continue; esp. on the 'pretty good house for OK (re: energy use)' theme, regardless of where along the concrete - to - wood framed continuum people fall.

   One topic to go deeper on: Garage doors. There have been discussions here on how leaky they are, and the misleading 'R-value' claims of manufacturers; but in addition, garage doors are often the weak point that initiates the collapse of the structure. Even so, I heard that Midwest City recently started requiring garages as part of all new construction (still tracking down details)!

   Could a better-sealed garage door system also be more high-wind resistant? I prefer single-car garages (if any) for other reasons, but if a multi-car garage is unavoidable, breaking it into multiple doors would be preferable from a durability standpoint, though at the cost of more perimeter for leakage. I will review the literature on garage door failures for clues to improvements; welcome advice from anyone with first-hand knowledge.

4. GBA Editor
   Martin Holladay | Jun 20, 2013 04:31am | #4

   Response to David Gregory
   David,
   Thanks for your help. I've corrected the error.

5. 
   David_Gregory_CZ3_CA | Jun 23, 2013 12:17am | #5

   type-o
   last par., 2nd sentence: safe rooms, not roofs

6. 
   David_Gregory_CZ3_CA | Jun 23, 2013 01:13am | #6

   'Superior Walls'
   Thomas - thanks for the ref to 'Superior Walls'; good to know what builders are using. How do construction costs compare? Any other builder insights? Looks like they were originally foundations, now moving into walls...

   I have concerns about pre-fabricated systems in general, though, especially in disaster situations. Though fast to build once on-site, needs lead time for translation of designs, then time/money/environmental costs to shipping, and specialized (heavy) equipment for installation. Looks like the nearest manufacturing facility for SW is in Tennessee; not bad, but not great... Given that the majority of the components of concrete can usually be sourced more locally (water, stone and sand, even portland cement; and in OK, probably fly ash as a supplement; and demo concrete as new aggregate), it's hard for me to imagine that the net benefits of pre-fab (accounting for risks of things going wrong and harder to fix in the field) outweigh the flexibility of on-site construction with a similar final result (ICF).

   I second Dana's concerns about the foam; also, some of their products use concrete studs, sometimes with metal facings, which means thermal bridging. And I'm skeptical about their claims that no water proofing is needed (for foundations...); at least would need to see a convincing detail for sealing the joints between units. Perhaps better for higher-end homes with adequate lead time and attention to details, than rapidly built replacements for more modest incomes?

   Finally, my soapbox: If we're going to the trouble of building with reinforced concrete, does it still make sense to build single-story detached homes? (some multi-story on SW's website, admittedly).