Why select 3D EPS Panels over conventional?
Hi…As I am thinking about getting my own house constructed over 1000 sqft of area, 2BHK. Therefor I was generally looking for options and came across 3D EPS Panel technology which claims that it saves on time, labor and cost. However the contractors that I have spoken to and GBA Advisor Martin Holladay were not in favor of this technology due to its high cost. Therefore I am a bit confused whether this technology is actually cost effective or costly. If so then how come African countries are using this technology to fulfill the demand for housing units in their respective country and have actually claimed that it costs 30% less as compared to conventional method. Check this link for reference: http://www.constructionkenya.com/2733/cheap-building-technology-Kenya/.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Sural,
As I explained in my answer to your question on the other Q&A thread, cost-effectiveness depends on available alternatives. It's possible that alternatives used in the U.S. -- for example, framing lumber -- are more expensive in Kenya than in the U.S.
If you want to use this technology in India, however, its cost in the U.S. or in Kenya is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the cost in India. Call up a few contractors or materials suppliers and see if these panels are available in India, and calculate the cost of construction in India. Then you will have the answer to your question.
Dear Martin
Thank you for your responce. Apart from cost effectivness if i want to go with EPS panels how reliable it is as a load bearing structure.
Sural,
I have no doubt that the 3D system as implemented in the U.S. has been approved by engineers and meets all building standard requirements for bearing loads.
If the concrete is applied by trowel, however, engineering assumptions may not apply. In most Third World countries, concrete is mixed on the ground, beginning with a pile of sand or aggregate shaped like a volcano, and workers with shovels mix the concrete by incorporating water poured into the volcano's crater. The results of this type of concrete mixing are all over the map -- ranging from some of the best concrete possible to concrete that has too little cement and too much water. Needless to say, all bets are off with this method of concrete mixing unless supervisors are willing to test the concrete.
It is actually 30% less than regular framing because of the extreme price increase of wood products and many more steps necessary on regular construction. Time is shortening to a max of 30 days from foundation to roof. Elimination of the wood used also will reduce your maintenance cost (no mold, no bugs, no termites, no fumigations needed) Energy-wise is a dream (R38 to R52) Wind resistance to 230MPH, earthquake tested to 9.0, and a fire rating of 3.0 hours is a big pluss.