A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Steel framing has been used for many years for interior non-load bearing and curtain walls in commercial construction. However, cold-formed steel members have only recently attracted attention for use in load bearing wall, floor, and roof framing applications in residential construction. Despite the availability of cold-formed steel framing, there are still basic barriers that impede its adoption in the residential market. Probably the primary barrier is that the building industry is generally reluctant to adopt alternative building methods and materials unless they exhibit clear cost or quality advantages. A second barrier is how the high thermal conductivity of steel affects energy use in homes. Given improvements in the technology over the past few years, it is not clear how steel compares with wood framing in terms of overall cost to the builder. The scope of this project was limited to constructing two identical side-by-side homes at three different locations in the U.S. Each location had unique labor rates, material costs, size, shape and style of construction. The sites include Indiana, South Carolina, and North Dakota. Each site has a house framed with conventional dimensional lumber and a second one framed with cold-formed steel. Blower door tests were conducted for both houses to determine the levels of air infiltration for each house. Similarly, co-heat tests were performed to compare short-term energy consumption between the two houses.
Steel framing has been used for many years for interior non-load bearing and curtain walls in commercial construction. However, cold-formed steel members have only recently attracted attention for use in load bearing wall, floor, and roof framing applications in residential construction. Despite the availability of cold-formed steel framing, there are still basic barriers that impede its adoption in the residential market. Probably the primary barrier is that the building industry is generally reluctant to adopt alternative building methods and materials unless they exhibit clear cost or quality advantages. A second barrier is how the high thermal conductivity of steel affects energy use in homes. Given improvements in the technology over the past few years, it is not clear how steel compares with wood framing in terms of overall cost to the builder. The scope of this project was limited to constructing two identical side-by-side homes at three different locations in the U.S. Each location had unique labor rates, material costs, size, shape and style of construction. The sites include Indiana, South Carolina, and North Dakota. Each site has a house framed with conventional dimensional lumber and a second one framed with cold-formed steel. Blower door tests were conducted for both houses to determine the levels of air infiltration for each house. Similarly, co-heat tests were performed to compare short-term energy consumption between the two houses.
Steel vs. Wood. Cost and Short Term Energy Comparison. Valparaiso Demonstration Homes
N. Elhajj (author)
2001
100 pages
Report
No indication
English
Energy Use, Supply, & Demand , Building Industry Technology , Steel , Wood , Energy comparisons , Thermal conductivity , Houses , Labor houses , Site location , Tools , Equipment , Energy tests , Data collection , Data analysis , Productivity , Air leakage , Homes , Residential buildings , Costs , Cold-formed steel framing
Online Contents | 2011