In the news

WASHINGTON, June 6, 2006 – Agriculture secretary Mike Johanns announced the United States Department of Agriculture’s new Home Energy Advantage program. The nationwide pilot program provides increased buying power for applicants purchasing energy efficient homes under the USDA’s Rural Development Section 502 homeownership loan program.

Rural Development Section 502 loan programs assist qualified low and moderate income families purchase homes in rural areas. The Home Energy Advantage program allows qualifying ratios for home loans to be stretched by up to two percentage points if an energy efficient home is purchased because decreased utility costs enable homeowners to make higher monthly mortgage payments.

A home is considered energy efficient under this program if it meets the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or a subsequent comparable code.

USDA Rural Development’s mission is to increase both economic opportunity and quality of life for American rural families.

“Homeownership has always been a central part of the American Dream,” said Johanns at the Stand Up for Rural America Conference. “I’m pleased that through this new initiative we can encourage efforts to expand access to new, affordable housing opportunities in rural America, while emphasizing energy conservation.”

Further information on the Home Energy Advantage program is available by visiting USDA’s website at www.rurdev.usda.gov.

NUMBER: 06-12
DATE: May 30, 2006
CONTACT: Chris Schwind
PHONE: 253-858-7472
E-MAIL: chris@sips.org

Builders seeking an Energy Star rating for homes will have to conform to more rigid energy efficient standards as of July 1, 2006. In effort to further energy efficiency in residential buildings, the EPA has changed the scale of the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) score, and added a comprehensive Thermal Bypass Checklist.

The new HERS index references the 2004 supplement to the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as a score of 100, in place of the Model Energy Code. Using the IECC as the lowest rating significantly raises the performance standards of Energy Star homes. The required HERS index depends on the home’s location in one of eight climate zones.

In addition to achieving a minimum HERS index, builders must pass a visual inspection of all items on the Thermal Bypass Checklist. The checklist insures that the home receives the full R-Value of the insulation by inspecting for gaps, voids, and potential areas of insulation compression. The primary item on the checklist is that a whole house air barrier be installed such that it will, “provide continuous alignment of the insulation with the air barrier.”

This requirement is practically automatic when building with structural insulated panels (SIPs). SIPs provide insulation consistently and flawlessly, and function as both an air and a thermal barrier. The insulating core foam core of a structural insulated panel does not have any gaps, voids, or thermal bridging studs. Building with SIPs leaves far fewer gaps to seal than conventional stick framing.

Sam Rashkin, the National Director of Energy Star for Homes, commented, “a SIP house has less cracks, less joints, and less complicated interfaces between conditioned and unconditioned spaces, and it is dramatically easier to make it tight.”

If the home uses SIP roof panels, many of the items on the Thermal Bypass Checklist such as attic duct sealing and recessed light sealing will be automatic because the attic is conditioned space.

“With SIPs it is virtually an auto check on all sixteen items of the Thermal Bypass Checklist because the air barrier details inherent in SIP construction put SIPs way ahead of the program,” said Rashkin.

SIPs can also help Energy Star builders save money. Rashkin estimates the additional costs of materials necessary for a stick built home to meet the new Energy Star standards between $600 and $1,200 for materials only. With the additional labor costs added in, of building with SIPs makes even more financial sense for builders aiming for Energy Star certification.

NUMBER: 06-11
DATE: February 9, 2006
CONTACT: Chris Schwind
PHONE: 253-858-7472
E-MAIL: chris@sips.org

A recent report issued by the John C. Stennis Institute of Government proposes the large scale construction of Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) homes to meet Mississippi’s low-income housing and Katrina rebuilding needs.

The state of Mississippi has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, with 19.9% of its population living in poverty. Rising energy costs affect these lower income residents more severely. A nationwide survey reveals that while energy costs account for an average of only 4.6% of household income for middle-income households, they account for 19.5% of income in low-income households.

The disproportionate amount of income spent on energy reflects the inverse relationship between household income and residential energy consumption. Lower income groups consume more energy per square foot than higher income groups. Although “affordability” includes both mortgage and utility costs, energy efficiency and the disproportionate burden of utility costs on low-income families is often compromised in favor of reductions in construction costs. Ineffectively insulated homes contribute to the growing necessity of Federal and State programs to provide financial assistance to low-income households for energy costs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 increased the budget of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $5.1 billion per year through 2007.

The Stennis Institute advocates the wide spread use of structural insulated panels as a strategy to decrease the burden of energy costs on low-income families. SIPs provide superior thermal resistivity of the building envelope for up to a 50% reduction in energy costs. Not only will SIP built homes aide families with energy costs, but they will also reduce the necessity of federal energy aide and benefit local economies by eliminating the need to import energy.

In addition to reducing energy costs, structural insulated panels offer a structurally superior and hurricane resistant product for residents of Mississippi’s hard hit gulf coast. In order to avoid the massive devastation witnessed during Katrina, the Stennis Institute recommends SIP homes capable of withstanding hurricane force winds. Both in laboratory tests and during hurricane Charley, SIP homes have proven themselves capable of surviving the most aggressive storm conditions.

The ease and speed of construction using prefabricated SIPs lends itself to the large-scale operation of rebuilding entirely devastated Mississippi communities. Homes built with SIPs can be assembled in a matter of hours with less skilled labor required than conventional framing methods. In addition, SIP homes allow for design flexibility to be introduced into low-income housing. The basic “footprint” home design furnished by the Stennis Institute for a cost of $70,000 permits for easy customization of the façade and interior floor plan due to the comprehensive structural integrity of the structural insulated panel exterior.

The adoption of structural insulated panels into Mississippi’s low income housing and Katrina rebuild projects will provide a superior, energy efficient, and structurally sound product for low-income families that need it most. Judith Phillips of the Stennis Institute will speak on the use of SIPs for low-income housing at the SIPA Annual Meeting and Conference, April 11-13 at the Hilton Hotel, in Austin, Texas.
For a copy of the proposal by Judith Phillips, go to www.sips.org.

NUMBER: 06-15
DATE: June, 5 2006
CONTACT: Chris Schwind
PHONE: 253-858-7472
E-MAIL: chris@sips.org

Results from the annual structural insulated panel (SIPs) production survey conducted by the Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA) shows that the market for SIPs continues to grow substantially. The survey queried all 67 known SIP manufacturers in the United States including two Canadian manufacturers. As energy prices continue to rise and the housing market boom reached a climax in 2005, the survey shows that structural insulated panel production increased 12 % in the last year, amounting to 64.4 million sq. ft. of SIPs produced.

According to the survey results, the number of single-family residential home starts built with SIPs has grown from 8,515 in 2004 to 10,485, a 23.1% increase. This follows a 10% increase from 2003. 65% of all structural insulated panels for residential structures were supplied by SIPA member manufacturers.

For the first time 33 manufacturers provided data for the geographical distribution of panels. 20% of all OSB skin panels were used in the high seismic areas of California, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. The hurricane affected South Atlantic region consumed 21.6 % of all panels, only 7.6% of which had OSB skins.

Additional details from the 2005 survey:

• 43% of all SIPs were used in Nonresidential construction.
   

• 52% of SIPs used in residential construction were used for walls, 44% for roofs, and 4% for floors.
   

• SIPs sales increased from $201.2 million estimated for 2004 to $329.8 million in 2005.

The 2006 production survey confirms a continuing upward trend in the production of structural insulated panels. The inherent benefits of SIPs, such as energy efficiency, reduced time and labor and minimal environmental impact, will continue to make SIPs a more popular and necessary choice for the construction industry.

Side by Side Study Proves SIP Advantage
Brock University Study Quantifies Superior Thermal Performance of SIPs
By Emil Taraba

A recent study by Dr. Tony Shaw of Brock University involved a side by side evaluation of nearly identical residential buildings - one constructed with SIP exterior walls and one conventionally framed with studs and batt insulation. The two structures involved in the study were rental housing units, located immediately adjacent to one another. Both buildings were identical and had similar east-west orientations, ensuring the same exposure to outdoor temperature and wind conditions. Except for brief periods both houses were occupied throughout the course of the study, which took place over a 12-month period from February 2000 to January 2001. Both units were heated with a natural gas/forced air system. One unit was constructed with 4.5" SIPs, while the other used 2x6 studs with batt insulation. Both homes were built to the Ontario/National Building Code of Canada. The same crew built the units, with no one being aware that scientific tests would be conducted afterwards. The study incorporated several test methods to analyze different determinants of energy efficiency: thermographic imaging, hourly temperature readings and air leakage measurement.

Thermographic Analysis
The deceiving nature of R-values was illustrated by infrared imaging on the two structures on a day in early March. Energy loss measured at the conventionally framed building, which used insulation rated at R-20, performed at an R-4 equivalent. By comparison the SIP home, performed at a true R-17 level. Thermographic analysis, at an outdoor temperature of 13.1 degrees Fahrenheit, also demonstrated that the stud home consumed nearly four times as many BTUs as the SIP home.

Furthermore, thermographic photographs provided visual confirmation of areas of thermal weakness in the 2x6 wall, where thermal bridging (i.e. conduction) is visible around each stud, along with pockets of air leakage.

Temperature Trends
This imaging evidence was supported by temperature data recorded hourly by a series of sensors located within the walls of each building. Temperatures recorded in the middle wall and inside the exterior wall surface of the stud construction showed the greatest fluctuation, corresponding closely to the variation in outdoor ambient temperatures, especially during the cold months of December, January and February. In comparison, the SIP wall sensors recorded significantly higher and more stable temperatures at those locations. The temperature of the middle wall sensor averaged 35.5 degrees Fahrenheit for the stud wall, while the SIP wall averaged 60.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the month of January.

These variances are key because, once again, heat will always move from the hotter body to the cooler one. The higher temperature at the middle wall sensor demonstrates that the SIP wall experienced less heat loss than the stud wall, and consequently, is more energy efficient.

Also of notable significance are the temperature differentials recorded between the inside interior wall surface and the inside exterior wall surface. Over the course of the year, lower differentials were recorded for the SIP wall (an average of 43.7 degrees Fahrenheit) as compared to 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit for the stud wall, further demonstrating its reduced susceptibility to heat loss.

Air Tightness Comparisons
The results of the air leakage tests showed the SIP house to be much tighter than the stud house. The SIP house had 1.55 air changes per hour (ACH) at a pressure differential of 50 Pa, while the framed wall house had 2.60 ACH at 50 Pa, or 68% more leakage. This means that, all other factors being equal, the SIP house would use less energy for heating, would be more comfortable, have better heat retention and be less drafty.

The preceding article appears courtesy of SIPA and is reprinted with permission.

Entering the mainstream
Builders News, April, 2005

Contractors and manufacturers alike emphasize the quality and energy-efficiency of structural insulated panel systems (SIPs) and say additional initial costs are offset by labor and time saved and the elimination of building site waste.

"The panels are going to add 10 to 15 percent to the framing cost,” says Donna Shirey of Shirey Construction, Seattle. "But SIPs resolve some construction issues. One is a lack of skilled labor. If you can use a nail gun and a level, you’re going to be successful in installing SIPs.” The others are speed of construction and minimal waste. Once the builders learn to work with SIPs, she says, the building progresses rapidly.

"One house will get them trained,” says Bill Wachtler, who has built two SIPs houses with Habitat for Humanity crews. "It’s easier than building with sticks,” says Wachtler, president of the Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA). Made by a variety of manufacturers at facilities throughout the country, SIPs are warranted against material faults or failures and offer airtight construction that meets or exceeds energy codes.

"My standard house is almost the highest level of Build Green,” says Scott Bergford, a Puget Sound, Wash. builder. "Washington State University says a standard [SIPs] house is 60 percent better than [a stick-built] home. In one house tested, they figured it would take 1,500 gallons of propane to heat the home for one year at $2,000 to $3,000. My house was predicted to take 700 gallons. However, the actual first year’s bill was only $700.”

Once he discovered the benefits of SIPs over stick construction, Wesley Cole of Contempo Homes, Palm Springs, Calif., made the switch. "We’re a new builder and we just didn’t learn about SIPs fast enough,” Cole says. "Our new architect is more familiar with green building systems. He thought SIPs was the way to go.” Downstream benefits separate SIPs from traditional building concepts, says Premier Building System’s Rick Gelormino. SIPs homes, he says, are square, plum and true, and "to a production builder, that means time benefits added to the construction cycle.”

SIPs usage isn’t limited to housing, Wachtler says. The Seattle Post Office was remodeled with SIPs roofing, and Four Seasons Solar Products in New York builds sunrooms with SIPs floors. Montana-based R-Control reports interest from a number of businesses, including banks and small restaurants. "The fast food chains are integrating SIPs into their store construction because they can have very tall, strong walls,” said Gelormino. "They find that SIPs are integrating well with steel studs.”

SIPs construction could become an easier choice for builders under a new national partnership. HUD launched an initiative to standardize SIP construction methods and include SIP techniques within the main body of the International Code Council’s building codes. The NAHB will manage the 12-month push with help from SIPA.

"Writing advanced SIPs methods into the building codes will remove time-consuming and costly requirements for SIPs home projects to get case-by-case approval from local building officials,” Wachtler wrote in an email to SIPA members.
The prescriptive method for SIPs encompasses popular techniques employed by suppliers and builders. Having a prescriptive plan will eliminate up to $2,000 in design fees builders currently pay, and several weeks’ delay to get the analysis completed.

SIPA expects panelized construction to increase, as has light-gauge steel framing. After prescriptive standards were established, steel frame home construction rose from 500 annually in the mid-1990s to nearly 40,000 today, Wachtler reports.