Home » Media Centre » SmartLIFE Lessons Learned from the ICFA Prospective
SmartLIFE Lessons Learned from the ICFA Prospective
22nd December 2008
30th March 2010
Thermal Mass - Explained
16th August 2009
The Two-Bed Thermal Envelope By Ashley Seager - The Observer
7th November 2008
The Picture Tells The Story
24th September 2008
Thermal Inertia Team
SmartLIFE – Lessons Learned
The SmartLIFE Project – a great opportunity wasted
It was an inspirational idea to build a number of similar houses using different materials and systems in order to evaluate various methods of construction, both MMC and traditional. The true lessons which could have been learned would have given the building industry a sound platform for further development and a proper appreciation of the considerable benefits of ICF construction.
Incorrect conclusions
However, the ‘SmartLIFE Site Measurement Final Report’ published by the Building Research Establishment has been subject to considerable misinterpretation by some participants in the Project– the unfortunate consequence of commercial interest riding roughshod over the all-important detail and presenting biased, incorrect conclusions – especially in relation to the relative cost-effectiveness and ease of construction afforded by the differing systems.
For many years now in Europe and particularly North America, ICF constructions are consistently demonstrating that they are cost-effective and quick to build. So why does the system appear to fare so unfavourably in the BRE Report, especially when the actual ICF build time was so small in the context of the whole build? Delve a little more deeply into the accompanying Technical Document and the answers become clear.
Inadequate understanding of ICF
PolarWall, who supplied the ICF system featured in the project, were responsible only for the training of the two previously inexperienced operatives, who then on their own built the ICF superstructure of the 15 houses in just 21 weeks – so far, so good.
But PolarWall’s invaluable design expertise was completely ignored from the outset – resulting in significant misapplication of the system and totally missed benefits.
Right from the start, the design of the foundations for the ICF buildings were of a traditional strip type seldom used in an ICF system. Furthermore, ICF houses are normally clad in render or brick slips, but the architect used a full brick skin to the lower section. Besides adding unnecessary expense, this led to a further costly problem with the alignment of the upper tile hangings - the battens required a substantial, complex sub-structure in order for the tiles properly to overlap the thickness of the bricks.
All of this would have been avoided if PolarWall’s recommendations had been properly heeded. At the launch of the SmartLIFE Report, the architect admitted his mistakes in these areas – mistakes which severely penalised the ICF system and which bring the entire project into question – especially the methodology, and the ‘Lessons Learnt’ as presented in the Report’s ‘Conclusions’.
Uneven assessment
In fact the whole exercise appears to have been insufficiently thought through and poorly managed. Access to the sites, for example, was completely different - one had a roadway with a one-way system, whilst another had limited access, a double-handling storage area and was effectively waterlogged for long periods. Such factors added to a very uneven assessment of the various builds.
Issues like these could have been better addressed through the use of ‘weighting’ of the data - something which the BRE would normally be expected to do. For example, where time was wasted as a result of design changes and amendments, this should have featured in the results, which in turn would have been be more relevant and meaningful. Baldly stating that ‘…13% of the time was wasted…’ is hopelessly misleading.
House design it is very often based on a brick-based modular dimension – the same is true of ICF construction, although of course the modular dimension will be different. Endeavouring to cross-over between the two, as was the case with the incorrectly designed ICF house, inevitably caused considerable waste of time and materials – a point not highlighted by the Report.
A further report is due to be published, detailing the comfort-levels and running-cost benefits of the homes. The ICF industry anticipates this with baited breath!
Innovation impeded
There are approximately 12 ICF manufactures in the UK, all of whom offer a variety of ICF systems. The principles of each are the same, but the methods of construction can be very different. It is therefore disappointing that they should all be ‘tarred’ by the BRE with the same ‘negative brush’ when these innovative, cost effective and fast build systems are beginning to make their mark here in the UK.
One of the Reports findings, which must be emphasised, is that the superstructure of the ICF house took 100 hours less than the traditional build. It was the elaborate and unsuitable claddings which added time and unnecessary cost.
True lessons
The true lessons to be learned from this project are:
Designers must take heed of system manufacturers’ design criteria; and
The BRE should take a more responsible approach to presenting collated information and give relevant trade associations the opportunity for comment prior to publication of reports of this kind, in order to avoid misrepresentation.
This is why the ICFA is stepping-up to represent its members and consult with the BRE about its concerns.
It is certainly high time for a more educated understanding of ICF. From its own experience in this case, the BRE should recognise this need and organise its efforts accordingly – how about a series of properly informed BRE seminars and a published addendum to the original SmartLIFE Report?
Positive results
Better reporting by the BRE is essential to encourage rather than impede the innovation it seeks to promote - the following case studies and their positive results demonstrate the point:
Case study 1 (et seq)
