Superior Foundation Walls - anyone use them?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Our local Habitat for Humanity tried using a very similar foundation system years ago.

The foundations of habitat houses are typically farmed out to a contractor, but the waterproofing, tile drainage work and back-filling were often volunteer assisted to reduce costs.

In this one instance the contractor was supposed to hold-off on back filling until the first floor platform was in place, and then only bulldoze partway, leaving the fill against the foundation to be done shovel by shovel.

The contractor did not wait for anything (only kicker's holding foundation in place) and bowed in the wall real bad, necessitating an exhaustive dig-out by hand.

Concrete foundations are considered +100 year foundations, wood foundations are considered 50 year foundations, maybe at most 75 years if done correctly. At least these are the numbers I remember from 25 years ago being tossed around.

Here in Michigan we have a lot of clay soil which swells when wet, so I don't like wood foundations at all personally.

expansive soil | Extreme Weather Hits Home - Weblog





If you have sandy soil you can get away with murder foundation wise. However there are these things call "veins" which can make you have a really bad day.

To compare soils, this is Michigan.
Michigan | Extreme Weather Hits Home - Weblog




True, but remember these flaws are typically learned after the discovery of a problem which could lurk for years undetected.

I'd expect a generous discount on such a home, something to cover a new foundation at least half-way.

You should check with your insurance company too, you don't want higher rates or other hidden costs.

Is it your experience that Superior Walls foundations are more likely to have hidden flaws, that lurk for years undiscovered resulting in the need to replace a foundation, than a conventional block foundation?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

Is it your experience that Superior Walls foundations are more likely to have hidden flaws, that lurk for years undiscovered resulting in the need to replace a foundation, than a conventional block foundation?

No.

I'm sure it's a fine product when installed properly. And it sounds like this builder had plenty of experience unlike the Habitat contractor I spoke of.

However as with any construction type problems may develop over time, which is why people do home inspections before (not after) they buy.

Going negative for a moment, if this contractor had a history of using this foundation system despite any red flags (ie..unsuitable soil conditions) and going ahead because it was "their standard procedure" then there could be cause for concern.

Someone in this thread previous said this wall system was more expensive than standard foundations. I do not know for sure, but doubt seriously this. The main attraction of using this type of basement wall is "construction time" and "energy efficiency".

Longevity issues seem to demand a discount in my opinion, but I've never conducted an real estate assessment, so I'm talking out of my arse on that issue.

I do not see a stated or even an implied life-span on this product.
Superior Walls By Collier Foundation Systems, Inc.

Maybe someone can chime in on this issue.

If it's expected to last 50 years, and it's a 25 year old house, the value should be discounted or based on future replacement costs in my opinion.

As a rule; stick build homes has a life expectancy of only 50 years, 75 with proper maintenance. Masonry construction 100 years which can be extended to 200 years (university buildings for instance).

There will be many exceptions to these rules to be sure. These are just general guidelines.

HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical and of course roofing materials all have limited life spans which may be shorter than the basic structure of the home. In the end, all we ever buy is time, the more time we buy the more expensive it is.

Remember the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf which would huff and puff?

You get the idea.

[dad911]

Kach, they are slightly more expensive. However, they have built in insulation and are ready for finishing basements (no studs needed). Easier to meet new energy codes. I know a few local builders switching over, and have spoken to the local inspectors about them, they know of some 20+ years with no problems.

25+ YO Block foundations were not reinforced, and are much weaker and may need to be repointed. Poured walls have their own problems, especially if the contractor is not supervised.... Failure above was because directions were not followed, first floor deck framing needs to be done and basement slab poured before back-filling. Can't take shortcuts with drainage or stone.

I have not switched and continue to use poured concrete mostly because of what I read here. Although I think superior walls have advantages, I think the average customer is less accepting of a new product like this.

[Paul T]

Thanks again everyone...looks like the deal is moving forward so I'll report back in 20 years and see if they are still holding up! Seriously though, I'm becoming quite comfortable with them the more i read and understand...I agree with dad911, I think it's not the easiest sell to a lot of people because your standard poured foundation seems so time tested and the "why change what works" attitude prevails. That said, I like to be different, so I'm hoping this foundation treats me well! Appreciate the feedback as always...

[mepstein]

"Someone in this thread previous said this wall system was more expensive than standard foundations. I do not know for sure, but doubt seriously this. The main attraction of using this type of basement wall is "construction time" and "energy efficiency". "

The builder told me it cost him $1K more per house (y2k dollars) but felt all the selling points were worth it. Could be installed in any weather, could be built on immediately, sold with water proof warranty, could be finished at less cost, ect.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by kach22i

No.

I'm sure it's a fine product when installed properly. And it sounds like this builder had plenty of experience unlike the Habitat contractor I spoke of.

However as with any construction type problems may develop over time, which is why people do home inspections before (not after) they buy.

Going negative for a moment, if this contractor had a history of using this foundation system despite any red flags (ie..unsuitable soil conditions) and going ahead because it was "their standard procedure" then there could be cause for concern.

Someone in this thread previous said this wall system was more expensive than standard foundations. I do not know for sure, but doubt seriously this. The main attraction of using this type of basement wall is "construction time" and "energy efficiency".

Longevity issues seem to demand a discount in my opinion, but I've never conducted an real estate assessment, so I'm talking out of my arse on that issue.

I do not see a stated or even an implied life-span on this product.
Superior Walls By Collier Foundation Systems, Inc.

Maybe someone can chime in on this issue.

If it's expected to last 50 years, and it's a 25 year old house, the value should be discounted or based on future replacement costs in my opinion.

As a rule; stick build homes has a life expectancy of only 50 years, 75 with proper maintenance. Masonry construction 100 years which can be extended to 200 years (university buildings for instance).

There will be many exceptions to these rules to be sure. These are just general guidelines.

HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical and of course roofing materials all have limited life spans which may be shorter than the basic structure of the home. In the end, all we ever buy is time, the more time we buy the more expensive it is.

Remember the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf which would huff and puff?

You get the idea.

George, your earlier post indicated that you reccomend a significant discount as opposed to other foundation types, due to liklihood of unseen problems. I just wondered if that was due to experience with those problems being more prevalent with SWF. My (anectodal) experience has led me to have confidence that SWF is a fine product if installed properly, and I would not hesitate to reccomend it. While I have had friendships with several contractors, and relationships with builders and designers who use them with good experience, I am interested in your experience with the product, as it would color my opinion.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

George, your earlier post indicated that you reccomend a significant discount as opposed to other foundation types, due to liklihood of unseen problems. ..........I am interested in your experience with the product, as it would color my opinion.

I also said I was talking out of my arse if it came down to evaluating value as part of a Realtor's assessment.

1. I have been unable to find a projected life span for this product.

2. If the life span is 50 years for the "system", and 100 years for concrete and the age of the home is 25 years old, then is the concrete foundation home worth more because of future replacement costs? I don't know, just asking.

3. I have never used this product.

4. One important item being over looked is the energy use, if you save money long term on energy bills, then this savings should be part of your consideration.

If I were you, just call up the foundation company and ask for a projected life-span.

A fair amount of homes in my neighborhood have new basements put in, some because they are rentals with lower level apartments, some because of age and failure. My own basement has a layer of ThoroSeal on the inside (and outside) trying to hold it together a little longer, nothing lasts forever.

Based on what others have said in this thread, get the house inspected, if it checks out put an offer in.

I just wish I knew what the expected life-span of this foundation system is, then I could spout off an enhanced value or depreciated value.

As it stands threat it like you would any other home purchase (risk), and take your best guess.

EDIT: I re-read Post #14 where I mentioned "a discount", that was meant to read "a discount should a problem be discovered", and not "a discount for undiscovered problems". It is not written so clearly, sorry.

The overall concept of a value or discount based on maintenance and longevity is not exclusive to this foundation system, it applies to everything inside and outside the building and site. Old septic system systems and swimming pools are notorious for lowering the value of an otherwise good home.

[kach22i]

Learning Curve
Learning Curve: Permanent Wood Foundations - The Inspector's Journal Forums

Preservative-treated wood foundations, commonly known as permanent wood foundations (PWF), have been used in over 300,000 homes and other structures throughout the United States. When properly installed, they provide foundation walls at an affordable cost. In some cases, the manufacturer may offer a 50-year material warranty, which exceeds the warranty offered for other common foundation materials.

I suggest hiring an inspector familiar with these foundations and able to do these tests.

Permanent Wood Foundations
by Nick Gromicko and Kenton Shepard
http://www.nachi.org/permanent-wood-foundations.htm

exterior wood decay.
Inspectors can check for exterior wood decay by probing the wall from the outside with a rod. It is usually adequate to probe once every 8 feet. If decayed wood is detected by probing, it is likely that decay exists elsewhere in the wall.

A very negative thread by some inspectors:
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f23/pwf-permanent-powdered-wood-foundation-23709/

I don't know if the rod mentioned in the quote above is the same as the screwdriver method mentioned in the second link - sounds invasive to me if this is what they are doing. I was hoping they used a moisture meter like they do for boat hull inspections, something not poking holes in the membrane or panel skin.

INSPECTING PERMANENT WOOD FOUNDATIONS
November 30th, 2010 | 16 comments
http://www.structuretech1.com/2010/11/wood-foundations/

For a wood foundation to perform properly, it needs to stay dry or be given the chance to dry if it gets wet.

[dyount]

I'll put my 20 cents worth in regarding wood and "inferior" wall systems.
Wood systems would be a no unless what your are putting on them is disposable. The current treatments for wood systems simply do not last. If you'd make them out of Cyprus I'd be willing to go for that.
"Superior" wall systems have various flaws. Unless the stone foundations are well done the walls will move and crack. Well done means excavated and stone placed and tamped in lifts with no freeze thaw cycles while stone is placed. Then, concrete needs placed for floor prior to backfill ( never happens that way btw). As well, no treatment of foundation wall is done in that it's a 5000psi mix and "waterproof". Well with 2" of concrete that is poured,shipped prior to 28 day cure, and placed while curing I have no confidence in it not getting cracks and therefore leaks. As well, with insulation attached to the back side if you are in a high termite area you'll have no idea if you've got termite tubes under the insulation.
If I was building a house and the gave me superior walls I'd use em for my garage but not my house.
I'd go with 8" of well done concrete anyday.

I inspect commercial construction for a living btw, w/10+ yrs inspecting and 30 years in construction.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by dyount

I'd go with 8" of well done concrete anyday.

Around here we use 12" block or 10" pour.

I saw a 8" block basement once in my old neighborhood while it was being built by some Arabs. A couple of weeks later I went back to see the basement walls all caved in, no rebar, no web reinforcement, no solid fill in the corners, nothing.

Any system can fail if done wrong.

[dyount]

Rarely if ever does any build basement foundation walls with masonry anymore. By the time you place bar/fill at 5' vertical max pours per lift it isn't worth it. 8" with bar concrete or 10" w/o vertical bar and you're done.
The folks who like Superior walls use them as a cheap way to build without pouring concrete. "IF" they were so awesome nobody would be using poured concrete the same as we no longer do masonry because of cost vs product

[Taz's Master]

dyount, do you see problems with SWF leaking, cracking and shifting when installed properly?

[dyount]

If..... the footing of stone is done properly by a competent contractor and the walls are placed correctly and the floor is poured then the floor above framed and then back filled they should be fine.
Problem is for the most part if the structure is backfilled and has insulation on the inside you don't know if it has a crack in it until the basement has a puddle in it. This time of year in PA you wouldn't have a clue other than water marks on the floor.

Fact of the matter is depending upon who's doing the foundation work a poured concrete wall could fail just as easily.
I inspected a rack of townhouses some years ago that used SWF's and the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Frozen ground without blankets , no hard hats on the set crew,missing connection bolts,horrible caulking between panels,bad connections that didn't meet spacing requirements for attachment of panel to building.
Then again I failed a footing 2 weeks ago because the builder had no blanket to cover what was to be poured. "It's below the frost line I don't have to protect it"..... Umm yeah dude it's 11 degrees now and below 0 by morning.... no you don't get to pour until I see blankets next to the ditch.
I'd never have that conversation on a commercial jobsite. They'd be ready to pour,cover and also have a laser thermometer so I'd know exactly how warm it all was before pour (earth within 20 degrees of concrete temp)

[Paul T]

FWIW, this is a new (~2yr old) house and I know for a fact that the Superior walls were installed by a very competent outfit that has LOTS of experience with the product...floor was poured before backfill (pics to prove) and everything done per spec so I feel quite confident the installation is up to par....the question i suppose is to ultimate longevity versus a poured foundation. Guess I'll see...

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by dyount

If..... the footing of stone is done properly by a competent contractor and the walls are placed correctly and the floor is poured then the floor above framed and then back filled they should be fine.
Problem is for the most part if the structure is backfilled and has insulation on the inside you don't know if it has a crack in it until the basement has a puddle in it. This time of year in PA you wouldn't have a clue other than water marks on the floor.

Fact of the matter is depending upon who's doing the foundation work a poured concrete wall could fail just as easily.
I inspected a rack of townhouses some years ago that used SWF's and the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Frozen ground without blankets , no hard hats on the set crew,missing connection bolts,horrible caulking between panels,bad connections that didn't meet spacing requirements for attachment of panel to building.
Then again I failed a footing 2 weeks ago because the builder had no blanket to cover what was to be poured. "It's below the frost line I don't have to protect it"..... Umm yeah dude it's 11 degrees now and below 0 by morning.... no you don't get to pour until I see blankets next to the ditch.
I'd never have that conversation on a commercial jobsite. They'd be ready to pour,cover and also have a laser thermometer so I'd know exactly how warm it all was before pour (earth within 20 degrees of concrete temp)

I was asking to see if you were more critical of the product or the installation (and I understand that if the installation requirements are too difficult to meet that perhaps the product is at fault for requiring a perfect world). And purely for my benefit. My experience has been positive, but if asked my opinion (like in this thread) I don't want to present an opinion based on an exceptional experience, as one that is typical.