internal walls

[Big Neil]

anyone gone for internal walls in ICF. It seems like ive mostly seen Block or timber stud. Downstairs that is..

[Vijay]

Only where mine goes from single to double storey (obviously to support the upper ICF wall), otherwise mine are timber stud for non load bearing and block for load bearing

[ToughButterCup]

8 hours ago, Big Neil said:

anyone gone for internal walls in ICF. It seems like ive mostly seen Block or timber stud. Downstairs that is..

 

Yes.

Structural support for the stairwell. Cheap, fast, strong.

[Russell griffiths]

I have two internal walls in icf, but both project through the roof and up again

i kept thinking how to do it in a different method but couldn’t work out a good method of providing the strength 

so just did them both in icf, glad I did as it’s solid. 

[Sue B]

Velox do internal (non-supporting) panels but we are unlikely to use them as each panel is 68kg and simply picking them up would be a struggle for us!!

[D Walter]

We have used Velox internal walls with our Velox build.  We have both structural (220mm overall with 150mm concrete core) and non-structural (100mm).  The non-structural panels are basically foam-glued in place.  The non-structural panels are heavy, as mentioned by Sue B above, but do result in solid walls with excellent fixability across its surface and good sound insulation (39 DB).  There is a new Velox multi-layer partition product which is lighter at 55kg and gives better sound insulation (49DB) but this was not available when we ordered.  It is standard practice to chase out service voids in the Velox panels but clearly laying services will be simpler with a studwork wall.   For us it was a trade off of solidity against flexibilty.

[D Walter]

Contrary to what I said above, although still on the Velox website, the Velox multi-layer partition product is NOT available, at least not in the UK.

[scottishjohn]

only reason i can see for using solid internal on most builds will be to give support to upper floors using shorter joists or to support main ridge beam  on a sips panelled roof  so smaller gluelam can be used

other wise stud seems easier .

as for cheaper --don,t know - but doubt it

[Alexphd1]

We have some blockwork internal walls in a icf build at 3 point loads for the ridge beam. Cheap and strong. Could of easily done it in ICF but very over kill!

Edited January 28, 2019 by Alexphd1

[Alexphd1]

As mentioned elsewhere on this forum many ways to cut down sound travel in a wall, solid walls is not always better. 

[Ed Davies]

3 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

only reason i can see for using solid internal on most builds will be to give support to upper floors…

Also heat capacity (“thermal mass”). I've been thinking it wouldn't be completely mad to build a house with mostly solid internal walls and timber external walls. Pretty much the opposite of what's normally done in the UK.

[scottishjohn]

 

 

20 hours ago, Ed Davies said:

Also heat capacity (“thermal mass”). I've been thinking it wouldn't be completely mad to build a house with mostly solid internal walls and timber external walls. Pretty much the opposite of what's normally done in the UK.

Hi,

so why build outside with wood when you  could just as easy do it all ICF of some sort

so many different types some of which it would be quite easy to hand mix and fill as you go -no need for pump,if cost is the primary concern and wanting to do it a bit at a time 

Edited January 29, 2019 by scottishjohn

[scottishjohn]

On 17/01/2019 at 08:04, Sue B said:

Velox do internal (non-supporting) panels but we are unlikely to use them as each panel is 68kg and simply picking them up would be a struggle for us!!

I like velox in some of its points ,but would not use the internal wall panels --stud  walls unless need support for something further up .

then just same as outer walls 

then there is durisol or  Isotex 

plenty of choices

Edited January 29, 2019 by scottishjohn

[Ed Davies]

2 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

so why build outside with wood when you  could just as easy do it all ICF of some sort

The masonry takes up space and has high embodied energy and CO₂ but gives no particular advantage I can see for that case.

[scottishjohn]

I think you need to elaborate on "high embodied energy" term .

what are you actually saying .?

 

 

[Ed Davies]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy

 

Concrete intrinsically has a high embodied energy because of the processes needed to make the cement. Wood is a bit more tricky as it depends a lot on how far it's transported and what other processing is done to it. It does, at least, have the benefit of sequestering a small but not insignificant amount of carbon for the lifetime of the building.

[scottishjohn]

15 hours ago, Ed Davies said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy

 

Concrete intrinsically has a high embodied energy because of the processes needed to make the cement. Wood is a bit more tricky as it depends a lot on how far it's transported and what other processing is done to it. It does, at least, have the benefit of sequestering a small but not insignificant amount of carbon for the lifetime of the building.

and concrete can out last wood  by 10 fold at least --go to rome and see the 2000year old concrete there 

so long term the actual co2 etc is probaly less than building from wood ,which will be replaced many  times . 

If you were building with green timber that was not processed + sourced on site then your argument would be more valid ,rather than kiln dried stuff which will probably have come from deepest russia or canada--cetratinly a long way cos most home grown wood is only good for chipboard /osb--which has lots of chemicals in glue and energy in in processing .

any way these interior walls for thermal mass --are they dry built from rock ?-if not you have concrete there  and your slab.

you could always build a "cobhouse".

LOL

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Having seen many wooden churches in southern Poland that were around 400 to 500 years old, as well as all the timber framed houses we have here in the UK that are around the same age, plus having lived in a concrete house that was built in the 1950's here (that ended up being demolished because of structural failure), I'm not convinced by that argument.

 

Certainly very good concrete can last for hundreds of years, but we have lots of examples here, from houses through commercial buildings to things like motorway bridges that show that concrete can and does fail after just a few decades.  We've also had examples of timber framed houses that have failed prematurely, notably the Barratt Homes fiasco in the 1970's, where they built houses with no understanding of the need to control interstitial condensation, and which rotted out inside a decade.

 

A good timber building can easily last hundreds of years, there are many examples that prove this.  Equally a good concrete building can last a very long time, but we have very few examples in the UK of long-lasting concrete houses, or any structure come to that.    The Romans developed a form of concrete that we've only recently begun to understand.  It doesn't use the same type of cement that we use in modern concrete, and is very different in terms of its longevity, and in particular, it's resistance to water and seawater. 

[scottishjohn]

13 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Having seen many wooden churches in southern Poland that were around 400 to 500 years old, as well as all the timber framed houses we have here in the UK that are around the same age, plus having lived in a concrete house that was built in the 1950's here (that ended up being demolished because of structural failure), I'm not convinced by that argument.

 

Certainly very good concrete can last for hundreds of years, but we have lots of examples here, from houses through commercial buildings to things like motorway bridges that show that concrete can and does fail after just a few decades.  We've also had examples of timber framed houses that have failed prematurely, notably the Barratt Homes fiasco in the 1970's, where they built houses with no understanding of the need to control interstitial condensation, and which rotted out inside a decade.

 

A good timber building can easily last hundreds of years, there are many examples that prove this.  Equally a good concrete building can last a very long time, but we have very few examples in the UK of long-lasting concrete houses, or any structure come to that.    The Romans developed a form of concrete that we've only recently begun to understand.  It doesn't use the same type of cement that we use in modern concrete, and is very different in terms of its longevity, and in particular, it's resistance to water and seawater. 

all I,m going to say to this is you cannot comapre the wood used in a 500 year old house with the crap we get now ,which is still growing or near enough, and has not been seasoned for years before use.

what is the  warranty you get on treated timber???

10years ?--hardly the same stuff is it ?

Yes and in poland and those countires you have real winters + summers where it is cold and dry  in winter and stinking hot in summer to dry the wood out --not semi cold and damp like uk

so wood never really gets dried out .

ask any one with a TF house how much it shrinks in the first few years  and way doors change fit and cracks in plaster etc--thats shows the wood is not seasoned enough 

[Jeremy Harris]

You're not actually bothering to read what I write, are you?  Did you not note that I wrote (I've added emphasis in the quote to make it more obvious):

29 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

A good timber building can easily last hundreds of years, there are many examples that prove this.

 

There is good and bad in all types of construction, no matter what the material.  Having experienced living in a concrete house that used to spall off lumps of the stuff whenever the weather got cold, and which was eventually condemned as being structurally unsound (along with several hundred other similar houses on the same estate), I know first hand that poor concrete construction is just as real as poor timber construction.

 

If timber is kept dry then it lasts a very long time indeed, but sadly there have been far too many instances in the last few decades where construction companies have failed to recognise this. 

[scottishjohn]

which is why I posted what i did 

 

you cannot get good wood  ,well not at sensible pricing --but you can get good concrete  very easy 

which is why I would not consider building a TF house  with MODERN timber 

you will know as well as I that cutting a new bit of wood is very easy --try to cut a seasoned bit --totally diffeent thing very much more dense and harder to cut --but it will stay dimensionaly correct 

[Jeremy Harris]

The problem is that I can't find any solid evidence to support the statement that you "can get good concrete - very easy".  We have no way of knowing whether the concrete we are buying today is any better than the concrete that has been used to build structures that have been failing over the past few decades.  We certainly know more about things like the placement of fabric within reinforced concrete, and more about the need to ensure voids are reduced by vibrating the mix, but the durability of concrete is still highly dependent on the mix being right, the climatic conditions at the time of the pour being within limits and most importantly, the skill of the people doing the pour.  Get any of those wrong and there's a chance of premature failure.

 

Also, you definitely can get good wood, there are well-established standards for structural timber.  I owned a wooden aeroplane for a few years, that was built in the mid-1990s.  That was made from very good timber, timber that, like structural construction timber, had been carefully graded and inspected.  The fact that the DIY sheds and some builders merchants tend to sell a lot of really rubbish timber doesn't indicate that all modern timber is rubbish. 

[Ed Davies]

1 hour ago, scottishjohn said:

any way these interior walls for thermal mass --are they dry built from rock ?-if not you have concrete there  and your slab.

 

Indeed, it's a balance. If you want a comfortable modern existence in a cold climate you're bound to do a certain amount of harm but it's worth thinking through where you'll get the most benefit, not just building out of whatever materials people in previous centuries felt happy with. I'm not advocating the use of concrete blocks in a house for heat storage. I'm saying that if you're going to use them to prop up the roof then putting them on the inside is better than putting them on the outside.

 

Most houses have timber roofs which last long enough if the exterior is maintained. It's not a matter of the quality of the wood, it's a matter of sensible detailing and looking after the house.

[Construction Channel]

Depends on how you quantify "good wood". The modern fast grown rubbish you get from any BM will twist and shrink BUT it won't rot very fast as long as you maintain your exterior properly

[scottishjohn]

27 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

The problem is that I can't find any solid evidence to support the statement that you "can get good concrete - very easy".  We have no way of knowing whether the concrete we are buying today is any better than the concrete that has been used to build structures that have been failing over the past few decades.  We certainly know more about things like the placement of fabric within reinforced concrete, and more about the need to ensure voids are reduced by vibrating the mix, but the durability of concrete is still highly dependent on the mix being right, the climatic conditions at the time of the pour being within limits and most importantly, the skill of the people doing the pour.  Get any of those wrong and there's a chance of premature failure.

 

Also, you definitely can get good wood, there are well-established standards for structural timber.  I owned a wooden aeroplane for a few years, that was built in the mid-1990s.  That was made from very good timber, timber that, like structural construction timber, had been carefully graded and inspected.  The fact that the DIY sheds and some builders merchants tend to sell a lot of really rubbish timber doesn't indicate that all modern timber is rubbish. 

never seen such a biased scaremongering post as this before !!.

you involved in the campaign fear in brexit ?

I take it you don,t drive on motorway bridges due to liability of the concrete failing  or go inside any multi storey concrete structure .

do not even try to compare aviation wood with house building stuff --that again is biased as we are not talking about same thing .

you think that aviation wood supplies are anywhere comparable to construction wood !

I certainly would not use readily available construction for a load bearing member on an aircraft I was building or flying

I have never found 20  pieces cls  that are all straight --just not how it comes .

why do think that glulam has come about --cos they cannot get decent large section wood .

even look at joists and things made from engineered wood --not real wood .