5 ms·

I really like the concept of this, it's basically a step further on from SIPs (structural insulated panels) by having standard composable blocks. The things I t

I really like the concept of this, it's basically a step further on from SIPs (structural insulated panels) by having standard composable blocks. The things I think are particularly good: - Standardising on screw pile foundations. Standard concrete foundations are often be about 30% of the build cost, with the quantity of earth removed and cement used it's a massive part of the carbon footprint of a home. For a "light weight" timber construction, screw piles are the future. - Having services recesses and notches built into the panels, and there is no need to batten the internal walls for boarding. this will increase the speed of construction significantly. - Being an "Open" standard allows any timber frame or prefab construction company to adopt it. My one concern (I wouldn't go as far as criticism) is that the panels have a somewhat complex manufacturing process by having to be CNC machined. Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site. I wander why they went with ply over OSB, they have similar structural properties but OSB can be cheeper.

kupfer 4y ago
From their FAQs: >Which material is better, ply or OSB? >Ply is lighter and generally better structurally but more expensive. OSB is cheaper but heavier. With the recent research on WikiHouse Skylark we did test both materials, but in terms of the full spanning floor beams it’s clear ply offers advantages in terms of strength but also because it’s lighter it’s easier to move and carry. A hybrid approach is also a possibility.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  He's talking about the moisture resistance property of plywood over OSB. OSB absorbs moisture readily and turns into mush.
forgetfreeman 4y ago
Mold abatement & home restoration contractor here. OSB should not be considered code-compliant material, full-stop. Imagine your home has been constructed with slabs of sponge that have are purpose-engineered to provide optimal growing conditions for fungi when moisture is introduced. Now consider that over the lifetime of a structure some combination of exterior cladding failure, roof leaks, ground moisture issues, and plumbing fails are not only likely, but basically guaranteed. My biggest concern with this system is given this system's "tightness" to water vapor (similar to SIPs), all of the same issues with mold and related air quality are inherited. If structures don't breathe they rot. i
- hedgehog 4y ago
  Do you see that in modern construction? As long as there is adequate insulation and the vapor retarding layer is in the right place (per code) the OSB shouldn't ever be more than damp for any extended amount of time.
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    I've seen catastrophic moisture damage in every form of home construction utilized in North America from the 1850s to present day. Anecdotally the most common failure modes break down roughly thus: 1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly). 1970s-1990s: This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions. 2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached. 2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials. So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.
the_other 4y ago
> Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site. I feel this way about the current trend in plant-based meat replacements. I’ll trust the hype about lower carbon footprint, but they take food production further into industrialisation and profit motive territory which was, in part, how we got into this environmental crisis in the first place.
- Jeff_Brown 4y ago
  I live in Colombia, where ag tech is a lot farther behind. The profit motive for farmers here is as strong as anywhere. They wouldn't farm if it wasn't for the money. But the lack of industrialización means that more people are invested in the activity, producing less output, and living in poverty.
  - merlinran 4y ago
    Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer. If there are better alternatives, peasant farmers will chase them anyway. There are also better ways for agriculture which can regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
    - Jeff_Brown 4y ago
      > Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer. The places where industrial agriculture has taken off, that seems not to be the story. Grandparents in China are thrilled to see their children working city jobs. It's a hard life still, but much easier than they had. > regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more. I very much want those things. And corporations do sometimes make stupid decisions. But it's hard for me to believe there are such free lunches on a large scale. If there were, some enterprising soul ought to go start a business exploiting them, make a killing, put Monsanto out of business, etc.
nemo44x 4y ago
OSB is a really risky thing to use, especially in environments (like England) that are constantly damp. One leak and the panel is ruined. Plywood can dry out and retain its structural integrity. Plywood is generally considered the better material for home construction for all uses, walls, roofs, subfloors. I think the majority of homes are built with OSB today and I consider it the most glaring sign that the construction is cheap and to be avoided.

kupfer 4y ago

From their FAQs: >Which material is better, ply or OSB? >Ply is lighter and generally better structurally but more expensive. OSB is cheaper but heavier. With the recent research on WikiHouse Skylark we did test both materials, but in terms of the full spanning floor beams it’s clear ply offers advantages in terms of strength but also because it’s lighter it’s easier to move and carry. A hybrid approach is also a possibility.

LegitShady 4y ago
He's talking about the moisture resistance property of plywood over OSB. OSB absorbs moisture readily and turns into mush.

forgetfreeman 4y ago

Mold abatement & home restoration contractor here. OSB should not be considered code-compliant material, full-stop. Imagine your home has been constructed with slabs of sponge that have are purpose-engineered to provide optimal growing conditions for fungi when moisture is introduced. Now consider that over the lifetime of a structure some combination of exterior cladding failure, roof leaks, ground moisture issues, and plumbing fails are not only likely, but basically guaranteed. My biggest concern with this system is given this system's "tightness" to water vapor (similar to SIPs), all of the same issues with mold and related air quality are inherited. If structures don't breathe they rot. i

hedgehog 4y ago
Do you see that in modern construction? As long as there is adequate insulation and the vapor retarding layer is in the right place (per code) the OSB shouldn't ever be more than damp for any extended amount of time.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  I've seen catastrophic moisture damage in every form of home construction utilized in North America from the 1850s to present day. Anecdotally the most common failure modes break down roughly thus: 1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly). 1970s-1990s: This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions. 2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached. 2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials. So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.

the_other 4y ago

> Realisticly they almost always will be, but I would have liked to see the panels designed to be constructed a little more simply - you will always have to make changes on site. I feel this way about the current trend in plant-based meat replacements. I’ll trust the hype about lower carbon footprint, but they take food production further into industrialisation and profit motive territory which was, in part, how we got into this environmental crisis in the first place.

Jeff_Brown 4y ago
I live in Colombia, where ag tech is a lot farther behind. The profit motive for farmers here is as strong as anywhere. They wouldn't farm if it wasn't for the money. But the lack of industrialización means that more people are invested in the activity, producing less output, and living in poverty.
- merlinran 4y ago
  Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer. If there are better alternatives, peasant farmers will chase them anyway. There are also better ways for agriculture which can regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more.
  - Jeff_Brown 4y ago
    > Industrialized agriculture would push most people out of land (no longer need that many people), and if the people can't find alternative for living they would be even poorer. The places where industrial agriculture has taken off, that seems not to be the story. Grandparents in China are thrilled to see their children working city jobs. It's a hard life still, but much easier than they had. > regenerate soil, maintain biodiversity while at the same time harvest more. I very much want those things. And corporations do sometimes make stupid decisions. But it's hard for me to believe there are such free lunches on a large scale. If there were, some enterprising soul ought to go start a business exploiting them, make a killing, put Monsanto out of business, etc.

nemo44x 4y ago

OSB is a really risky thing to use, especially in environments (like England) that are constantly damp. One leak and the panel is ruined. Plywood can dry out and retain its structural integrity. Plywood is generally considered the better material for home construction for all uses, walls, roofs, subfloors. I think the majority of homes are built with OSB today and I consider it the most glaring sign that the construction is cheap and to be avoided.