The point is that they are subject to problems depending on climate and depending on how they are used and by whom.
Since this is a structural component, it follows that any problem has the potential to affect the structural integrity of the building and to be expensive to correct.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
infestation.
These creatures would attack any wood. Timber farmed houses in the UK are common with many being around for 500 years or more. The oldest is from the
11th century.
Total nonsense. The USA & Canada has a large install base with many of the panels in climates colder and wetter than the UK. We also do not have the boring insects as north America does, and they have few problems with SIPs.
People fail to mention concrete cancer, which is more common that what people think in UK in houses. Far more common than timber homes failing.
and he was given one.
The figure would have to a range from...to.
Fine. It does, however, illustrate that there can be installation problems, and I already mentioned the potential for infestations.
Neither is intended to say that this technology may not have some use, but it is certainly not without its share of issues.
In terms of the end result and the implications of putting it right, it doesn't matter whether it is the material or the way it is installed. However, it is clearly not as idiot proof as the manufacturers would like to claim.
In any event, a manufacturer is hardly likely to say that problems are inherent in his product, is he?
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
infestation.
You are a full mentalist! That is clear.
The problem was due to the panels not being erected properly, NOT usage, climate or by whoever lived or walked in and out them. Boy oh boy!
installations
That is the case with any construction method.
Which is not a point in the UK, and will no longer be a point in the US.
What isues are those?
When compiling a list of advantage and disadvantages the disadvantages are few and far between.
It is idiot proof if you follow the instructions. If you don't follow the instruction with IKEA furniture it wobbles.
An official report put it squarly with shoddy workmanship.
You can buy the SIP Association report if you like:
So consider what can happen if a hidden piece of a panel which gives it structural strength is compromised invisibly
No. The installed base in the UK is small and the history short.
Take a look at what happens after water has been in contact with timber for a period, Weevils show up and chew the softened material.
Really. I found the following:
Concrete is the bogeyman of the late 20th century built environment, says Professor Andrew Beeby, University of Leeds civil engineering lecturer and a member of the Magazine of Concrete Research's editorial panel.
"Concrete is the run down council estate, the syringe-strewn tower block, the deserted shopping arcade.
In the post-war period, people were desperate to build a lot of housing very quickly. Concrete was an ideal material."
Takes us back to Milton Keynes, I guess.
However, he goes on to say:
The nicely alliterative phrase "concrete cancer" - an unwelcome reaction between the component cement and aggregate - has also done the material a disservice, says Mr Beeby.
"Concrete cancer has enjoyed a lot of media coverage and prompted a huge amount of research. It is very rare and tends to make a structure look nasty rather than render it unsafe."
That's probably not difficult if one considers the numbers of each.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Installation is an aspect of usage.
The product is marketed as being easy and practically idiot proof.
It isn't, and the cost of fixing problems can be pretty high.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
The point made clearly is that it is not a problem.
When constructed properly water does not get in. The millions of existing timber homes in the UK, many going back centuries, demonstrates this.
No, as Milton Keynes only started in the mid 1970s, and is still being built.
In percentage terms concrete has given more problems than timber.
You are clearly a full mentalist.
It is as long as you follow the instructions.
It is as long as you follow the instructions.
What problems? Where? what?
The cost of rectifying problems with foundations is high, the problems of replacing 14 bricks that are too porous and have shattered by ice is low.
Of course. However, this one is marketed as being simple to do and idiotproof. It isn't, and when things do go wrong, they are expensive to fix.
This is not necessarily a reason not to use the technology, but the suppliers should at least be honest in their claims - it is not all plain sailing.
Rodents and insects are present here.
Already covered.
There are certainly some, and when they arise, the implications are substantial. Removing entire roofs and walls is not everybody's idea of fun.
If something were as idiot proof as the manufacturers claim, it would not be a problem.
Unless used as part of a factory prefabricated construction, mistakes can be made.
workmanship, and undoubtedly this is a problem.
However, they should not then market their product and technology as idiot proof when it plainly is not.
You can't have it both ways.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Idiot proof if not used by an idiot then.
Ha ha ha ha ha
Unless you're the homeowner and the walls or roof have to be removed and replaced.
I wasn't talking about timber construction, only about foam filled OSB. The two are not the same as the manufacturers point out.
Scary thought.
Who knows. I wasn't talking about traditional timber framed construction anyway.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
It's more likely to be the other way round. The extension, on 2004 foundations, will settle a little then stop. Meanwhile if the existing house is on shallow foundations on shrinkable clay it will move up and down over the seasons as it has done for 100 years.
Neither is "How to build an H bomb" by Edward Teller.
The point is that in the example given it was possible to have a horrendous outcome of roofs needing to be replaced when the typical tradespeople who should know how to do the job ended up with a shoddy result.
It doesn't matter whether the problem was in the material, training for the installers, lack of inspection or anything else. Taken in total, the technology and its implementation can and did fail and so does have potential disadvantages.
You would be better off not reading manufacturer web sites and accepting all that they say unquestioningly.
Inevitably, there will be another side to the story - there always is.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
From BCIS (subscription only) One off housing, 2 storey current UK average prices: mean £1059, median £867, min £359, max £2918 All costs per m2 gross internal floor area, exluding external works, drainage, service connections, land, fees.
No, its just that obtaining planning permission and ownership of the land that is more difficult/expensive. Building costs will be similar, provided heavy plant can get through the stadium doors.
Christian.
It. Follow the simple instruction. One selling point of SIPs is that unskilled men can be easily trained up in them. No expensive hard to get tradesmen.
Depends on what went wrong. Replacing one wall panel is easy. Some can be patched up with OSB and foam injected.
They are honest. Not one has faled yet. Only failures are due to shoddy workmanship.
It is. A waetherproof shell can be up within a few days.
The first SIP panelled homes were in the 1950s and are still there today. I can't say that about many of the masonry homes in the UK that never lasted
15 years.
Different types and far less of them. The same problems exist for SIPs as for timber frames.
You never covered any. You only highlighted shoddy workmanship.
Name me the disadvantages?
Shoddy workmanship. A recent TV consumer programme highlighted a whole complex of brick built homes that required the roofs be re-roofed. Why? Shoddy workmanship.
No highly skilled men are needed to erect them. The makers have never said "idiot proof". Just less skilled men working on them.
Human nature can't be taken into account. As yet few panels failed even to shoddy workmanship. Only 90 in Alaska.
The official US government report sated shoddy workmanship.
It is not a major problem as few have failed to shoddiness to the installed base.
They don't. They say unskiled men can be trained up quickly in SIPs, nothing else. Read the book I posted.
You can. SIPs are near enough a panacea. Follow the instructions and hey presto a weather proof shell in a few days so internal work can go on in the winter and superinsulation and soundproofing as standard for the resident. Brilliant. In the US finishing trades love them as they have a small heater in the place in the winter and they work in comfort. Houses are completed in quicko time. Selbuilders love em too for the same reasons.
Your mentalism gets the better of you. repeat: The point made clearly is that it is not a problem.
The same condition affect both.
Must be for a Luddite like you.
Same conditions affect both. BTW, take away the wood from a supposedly masonry British house and there not much left. Wood is everywhere in homes.
The same can be said for any type of construction. This doesn't sink in does it!
The technology never failed. Workmanship did. You obviously can't tell the difference.
What might they be?
I don't. I have visited a few of the SIP homes in the UK. A number are going up in Portsmouth right now.
The right one, the objective one. You lack objectivity and go for tabloid headlines, like the SIP failures in Alaska headline. Sucked in hook line and sinker.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.