New Home Begins

[tkappeler]

That sounds good with the metal studs and all. I haven't seen homes done with pre-cast walls and wondered how the interior finishing works. In my climate, I would add insulation between the studs most likely.

What do you have planned for exposed exterior portion of the basement walls?

Nothing initially but it will ultimately get the same stone facade as the fireplace.

I see you are using Superior Walls. I knew a builder that used those a bit around here. The crews struggled a lot with getting everything level enough to be satisfactory. I would double check that the top of wall is flat and fully level before cutting them loose. You will need to drywall over the exposed foam too as it is not fire rated, but it sounds like you plane to finish the space anyways.

Nice to see progress!

How long ago was that? I would guess that is more related to the installation crew and not the product. They were used 2 miles up the road this past summer. I will have to contact the builder there and ask about his experience. Thanks for the heads up!!

 

[dstig1]

It was several years back, but the builder was pretty good overall. Around here the way they did Superior walls was to lay a footing of compacted crushed rock, and then set panels on it. No poured footings - always struck me as weird. They said they didn't need it, and I suppose you don't, but it seems like a much better point to start from. They would lock the walls in with the slab, and backfill on the outside. The big complaint was the difficulty in getting all the walls tied together and level/even....so I was told... The results seemed good once they got past that.

 

[dave1949]

It was several years back, but the builder was pretty good overall. Around here the way they did Superior walls was to lay a footing of compacted crushed rock, and then set panels on it. No poured footings - always struck me as weird. They said they didn't need it, and I suppose you don't, but it seems like a much better point to start from. They would lock the walls in with the slab, and backfill on the outside. The big complaint was the difficulty in getting all the walls tied together and level/even....so I was told... The results seemed good once they got past that.

Without a footer, I guess the theory must be if the walls are locked to the slab, and the slab can't sink, the walls can't either?

Footers for poured or laid walls can be a bit sloppier I suppose than for pre-cast, but I'm with you, I think I would want the footer even if it means they have to take a little more time forming the footer.

 

[dstig1]

Well it has a footing - it's just a crushed/compacted stone one instead of poured concrete. After all, a concrete wall sits on the ground at some point, one way or the other... It worked and met bearing load requirements but seemed the hard way to do it to me. But then it didn't require forms or a concrete pour, so I'm guessing that was the draw to the method :confused3:

 

[dave1949]

Well it has a footing - it's just a crushed/compacted stone one instead of poured concrete. After all, a concrete wall sits on the ground at some point, one way or the other... It worked and met bearing load requirements but seemed the hard way to do it to me. But then it didn't require forms or a concrete pour, so I'm guessing that was the draw to the method :confused3:

I thought the lack of a "true" footer might be why they had trouble getting the walls even/level? Do the pre-cast sections have a flared-out section at the bottom that acts like a footer for distributing weight?

 

[dstig1]

These didn't. They looked like plain vertical panels with "studs" cast into the interior side as part of the structure. Like this:

Interactive R-5 Wall Detail

In fact, you will note in the detail it shows it on crushed rock...

 

[tkappeler]

Well it has a footing - it's just a crushed/compacted stone one instead of poured concrete. After all, a concrete wall sits on the ground at some point, one way or the other... It worked and met bearing load requirements but seemed the hard way to do it to me. But then it didn't require forms or a concrete pour, so I'm guessing that was the draw to the method :confused3:

I thought the lack of a "true" footer might be why they had trouble getting the walls even/level? Do the pre-cast sections have a flared-out section at the bottom that acts like a footer for distributing weight?

As the OP, and having done a lot of research before committing to the Superior Walls, I can add what I learned. I too was skeptical about a crushed stone footing. What I learned is that the weight is distributed outward at an approximate 45 degree angle from the direct point load of the wall. This means that a 10" thick wall section will bear on a 18" base for a 4" thick base (4" exterior + 10" wall + 4" interior). An 8" thick crushed stone footing will distribute the weight over 8 + 10 + 8 = 26" wide. Superior provides charts for the thickness of the stone base based on expected loads.

The stone used is 3/8" clean crushed stone and is mechanically compacted (twice in one direction and twice in the opposite direction) to lock in the stone. Adjustments are made to reset the proper elevation after compaction.

The walls are then directly placed on the stone, bolted together, checked for plumb and level, repeat.

One claimed benefit of this process is that there is less hydrostatic pressure against the wall from ground water as the water can naturally flow through the footing and be picked up by your french drain.

The reasons I am using a poured footing instead of the stone (at least for the house itself, the garage will use the stone method) are two-fold: 1) The soil composition and it's load bearing ability, given the higher water table, was unknown during the design phase and the architect was not comfortable with the unknown and the ability of the gravel to NOT sink down further and 2) if there is a failure due to settling of the gravel, then the result can be water infiltration into the house.

One downside of the footing is that I now will have a french drain on the outside, carry the water through the footing to the interior only to pump it outside again.

 

[tkappeler]

These didn't. They looked like plain vertical panels with "studs" cast into the interior side as part of the structure. Like this:

Interactive R-5 Wall Detail

In fact, you will note in the detail it shows it on crushed rock...

There is a "bond beam" on the horizontal (top and bottom) edges so that the loads are carried on a flat surface bottom and a solid sill plate surface topside.

 

[dave1949]

These didn't. They looked like plain vertical panels with "studs" cast into the interior side as part of the structure. Like this:

Interactive R-5 Wall Detail

In fact, you will note in the detail it shows it on crushed rock...

Thanks for the link. For sure, those would be lighter than poured or laid block. That would reduce the need for a footer in decent bearing soils it seems. It just doesn't seem right.

Back about 1987 a friend of mine had a ranch house built using crushed rock footer, then full basement walls made of 2x10 studded wall with a top and bottom plate, sheathed in plywood on the exterior side--all pressure treated. He got divorced, so I lost track of how well that worked out over time.

 

[tkappeler]

These didn't. They looked like plain vertical panels with "studs" cast into the interior side as part of the structure. Like this:

Interactive R-5 Wall Detail

In fact, you will note in the detail it shows it on crushed rock...

Here is a cross section (in blue) of a superior wall. You can see the top and bottom bond beams as well as the ribs that make the effective weight bearing surface the full 10 1/4". I shaded the ribs in the silver color.