Shipping container homes, good resources?

SVreX wrote: Here's an example of what "eco-friendly" can cost. I've got 2 quotes sitting on my desk for a project we are working on. Closed cell polyurethane spray foam vs. fiberglass in the walls of a structure. The foam is essentially a large scale version of "Great Stuff". Same thickness. The foam will offer better thermal efficiency, lower heat bills, less fuel consumed for energy, and much better resistance to air infiltration. Fiberglass- $2877. Foam- $8000.

What about cellulouse? I have that in my house, and I see that it can be sprayed in.... (I used it since the walls didn't need to be opened up, and I had NO wall insulation. BIG improvement.

Eric

Ok, one more post before I go and do some real work.

Combine a program like this http://www.recycleannarbor.org/ where you can get LOTS of recycled stuff- electrical, plumbing, etc, and add that to a container....

IF you had to build fresh- that would be a pretty good way to go.

Eric

alfadriver wrote:

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Keith, I agree. And if one knows how to weld, I would think adding reinforcements where necessary would be really easy.

I mean no disrespect, but are you qualified to figure out where those reinforcements would be necessary? A building inspector would expect that person to be a qualified structural engineer.

Since this thread is taking some very interesting tangets, I have a question for you, SVreX. Are there areas in the country where there ARE building codes in place for alternate plans? For instance, I live in Ann Arbor- a pretty liberal leaning, "green" city. I would expect that systems that are capable of surviving winters would have some kind of codes in this area just because they should be open to alternate ideas that may recycle "stuff". I don't know if they do, or not, but would not be surprised if they do. Knowing how strong these containers are, and how "tight" they are, I would think that shipping container homes here would be accepted as reduced wood usage. But are you aware of areas in the country that is more open to alternate ideas? I've been fascinated by buildings using containers- they announced a 3 or 4 story apartment in Detroit that was going to do it- I'll look up the article and get back with you. The iron of that is the number of unused homes in the area... This is one of the more interesting off topic discussions.... Eric

Different areas have different likes/ dislikes. Codes are national, enforcement varies state by state and locally.

Generally, if you have qualified engineering or architectural approval, local inspectors will back down (as long as someone else's license is on the line signing off on the technique).

Straw bale structures and adobe are more possible in the Southwest. Sod houses are a traditional form of architecture in the Plains states, and sometimes re-appear.

Building codes are fairly generic. Some alternate techniques are code allowed (like light gauge non-loadbearing steel, SIPS panels, post and beam construction, and wood foundation systems).

Windmills, for example, are frequently disallowed by local zoning ordinances governing height restrictions or neighborhood covenants governing asthetics.

It is less about the codes then the enforcement. Remote areas usually have very lax enforcement.

It also has a lot to do with how you are paying for it. Banks don't like to finance alternative techniques.

alfadriver wrote: What about cellulouse? I have that in my house, and I see that it can be sprayed in.... (I used it since the walls didn't need to be opened up, and I had NO wall insulation. BIG improvement. Eric

Wet cellulose or dry? 2 different techniques.

You've got dry. It's cheap and pretty simple in open areas (standard in Southern atttics), and also reasonably easy to drill and blow into walls (a bit more costly and less efficient- used for retrofits in the NE a lot).

Wet is a lot more efficient and more costly- it can only be done on open studwork.

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: None taken. I do have access to ME's and Architect's though.

Excellent. However, that will usually push the project out of the realm of what most people consider reasonable from a cost perspective (and increase environmetal impact, as they include more and more resources for various reasons).

As in free or nearly free access to ME's and Architect's. Have very good friends who are both who have the all the programs at home except a material analyzer, which I could possibly get done here at work, once everyone has gone home.

But actually that log cabin kit Jensenman posted up is VERY intriguing. We would really like at least a couple acres outside of town.

Another reason a fixed up house in-town isn't as appealing.

If you are in an area that inspections are an issue, your friend's free services may not help.

They will need to design plans, and put their professional seals on the drawings. They will probably want to charge for this.

It's a liability thing, and the inspectors want someone to accept responsibility.

And the cost will still go up. Even if their design work is free, they will include excesses in the design which will be more than an average DIYer would do, increasing construction costs.

z31maniac wrote: But actually that log cabin kit Jensenman posted up is VERY intriguing. We would really like at least a couple acres outside of town. Another reason a fixed up house in-town isn't as appealing.

I've also done log kits.

It will cost you 3-4 times the kit price before it is finished.

Is your motivation actually "green", or "inexpensive"? Log homes consume 8-10 times the timber, and though they increase the thermal mass, they do not increase the thermal efficiency.

J-man's link IS NOT a $45,000 package.

It is a $45,000 package with an upgraded roof, soffits and eaves, porches, decks, rails, not to mention the finished interior, foundation, HVAC, etc. etc.

I own a place near there. That is a $200,000+ house.

It takes me with my professional experienced crew and a 6000 lb lift about a month to put together a kit like that. The going rate for assembly of the SHELL ONLY (no foundation) is $10- $15 per square foot. That alone would be a 50% increase.

Assembly for an amateur would likely take more than 6 months. Could be a year. You'd probably need the lift for most of the time. They rent for about $1800 per month.

Yeah, I ran across that SIP cabin thing and it piqued my interest too. I can do all the mechanical, final roofing etc myself, basically just the cost of materials on top of the cost of the dried in structure. Thing is, I'd need to make it a full time endeavour for about 6-8 months.

EDIT: Here's what the $45,000 price includes:

http://www.octagonhomes.com/whatsincluded/

"Everything to complete the exterior of the home is included with the shell except finished roofing materials decks or porches. Delivery and erection within 75 miles of Ellijay, Georgia (delivery charges may apply for longer distances).

1st and 2nd Floor system 2x8 12" On Center, with plywood glued and nailed Walls 2x4 16" On Center with O.S.B. and house wrap installed. White Pine chink log siding and windows installed, Exterior Doors are also included Roof System with 2x8 16" On Center, finished gable overhangs, decking installed with felt paper A small amount of exterior trim, fascias, and siding to be installed by home owner (supplied by Connor Construction)"

http://www.octagonhomes.com/whatsnotincluded/

"Foundation Finished roofing materials (shingles or metal) Decks or porches Stairs and interior studding Plumbing and electrical Between studding insulation Interior walls ceiling and floor coverings Cabinets Heating and air"

It also appears this is NOT a SIP system. i.e. SIP is EPS foam bonded between two sections of OSB. This is a panelized stud home. That's OSB nailed to 2x4's like conventional construction.

Foundation costs vary with the property, depends on just what you want. Standing seam metal roofing (materials only) would be in the area of $3500.00, shingles would be cheaper.

SvRex is not kidding about this being a $200K house when finished (figuring the average cost of a foundation, lot, interior finishing, mechanical etc) but an individual willing to bust azz could bring it in considerably lower.

well z31maniac when your ready let me know I work for a company that rent a sells shipping containers.We actually get lots of calls for this specific reason.

I will! Are you still grinch on our local board?

Like I said, I started this to get feedback and ideas. I think for the time being we are going to stay where we are at, and look for a good piece of land that we can buy and pay off. But this is a very good start to the research process.

Jensen, I would think if I can handle tearing down a car for a rebuild and doing a motor swap, I could handle doing much of the home type stuff as well. Would just need to gather some tools and some of my friends who know what they are doing to help get me started.

Keep the ideas flowing gentleman.

The more I think about it, the more a container house is a good "factory" option to build homes- much like the modular homes. Where you can cut and paste in a controlled environment.

Not to say you couldn't do it on site- like the New Zealand example posted above. But factory work matched with the proper machines will make it easy.

One other interesting thing about the containers- many cruise ships are built in a similar fashion- the cabins are pre made, and most of them come through just a few open holes in the ship. Then moved to the final location, hooked up,and done. Much more efficient than making them in place.

z31- I think your first challenge on site will be- how to ACCURATELY cut the holes- windows, plumbing, electrical, etc. Then the issues go up from there.

But I think careful planning + some good architect help will put together a plan that will be doable. I think SV's got the real issue- finding 1) someone to put thier professional stamp on it to go with 2) the inspector who approves it.

It will be fun to see where this all goes.

Eric

alfa, I think you are correct. Good CAD-type drawings will be absolutely essential.

As one of the first things I was thinking was how to pour a foundation with either ginormous studs or metal plates poured in to firmly attach the bottom floor to the foundation.

I've talked with the girlfriend a bit today, I think we may try to buy the old house, do the bare minimum and start paying it off (think double payments on a 10-15 year loan) while beginning to look for that "right" piece of land.

Buying the old house also gives a chance to get in on some of the tax credit, and start doing small projects to see if a full blown house build is something that we could truly handle and/or see what we could/couldn't do, have to farm out, etc.

It should interesting research to say the least!

SvRex mentioned the log cabin controversy. I've done a good bit of research and along with the R value/thermal mass thing it seems a lot of the problems of 'true' log cabins center around drying the wood.The center of the log can't be dried unless you cut a slot down the center and then dry it in a kiln, very few manufacturers do this. Excess moisture can lead to checking (splitting), twisting, insect infestations, all kinds of stuff.

There's also a shape called the 'Swedish cope' which is ideal for keeping water from getting between the logs. Problem is, it's expensive to cut properly and again very few manufacturers do it.

Don't buy a house with your girlfriend. That could get really messy...

We currently use a shipping container as a shop. It's pretty cool- has doors on both ends for good flow through ventilation.

The easiest (and definitely cheapest) way to tie them down has nothing to do with anything ginormous or concrete. Standard mobile home strapping and tie down anchors work just fine.

Please don't misunderstand me. In my heart of hearts I'm a greenie, DIY homesteader, and I believe in it and encourage it. But the only way to do it is in an area that is remote enough to have lax code enforcement and without bank financing.

I think it is a great idea.

Jensenman wrote: SvRex mentioned the log cabin controversy. I've done a good bit of research and along with the R value/thermal mass thing it seems a lot of the problems of 'true' log cabins center around drying the wood.The center of the log can't be dried unless you cut a slot down the center and then dry it in a kiln, very few manufacturers do this There's also a shape called the 'Swedish cope' which is ideal for keeping water from getting between the logs. Problem is, it's expensive to cut properly and again very few manufacturers do it.

You are correct. Drying and shrinkage is ultimately the performance downfall of log construction.

To put it in perspective, an 8' tall wall of stacked logs can be over 3" shorter after 5 years. Enough so that we slot the screw holes when installing cabinets and doors, or they will be crushed by the shrinkage.

That's a LOT of shrinkage, which means a lot of compromise to the sealed joints, flashings, weatherseals, etc.

Ain't ya s'posed to go 'round inside -n- out with mud once a year and reseal 'em? An' who has cabinets -n- doors? Jus' some shoe leather fer a hinge and a piece a wood.

SVreX wrote:

Jensenman wrote: SvRex mentioned the log cabin controversy. I've done a good bit of research and along with the R value/thermal mass thing it seems a lot of the problems of 'true' log cabins center around drying the wood.The center of the log can't be dried unless you cut a slot down the center and then dry it in a kiln, very few manufacturers do this There's also a shape called the 'Swedish cope' which is ideal for keeping water from getting between the logs. Problem is, it's expensive to cut properly and again very few manufacturers do it.

You are correct. Drying and shrinkage is ultimately the performance downfall of log construction. To put it in perspective, an 8' tall wall of stacked logs can be over 3" shorter after 5 years. Enough so that we slot the screw holes when installing cabinets and doors, or they will be crushed by the shrinkage. That's a LOT of shrinkage, which means a lot of compromise to the sealed joints, flashings, weatherseals, etc.

I looked at int3rweb pix a couple of installations where the windows were bowed outward. The general consensus is to frame the window or door opening with solid timber, but it doesn't address the problem of shrinkage- caused gaps in the 'chinks' between logs. Additionally, the corners of the building are a natural moisture trap, leading to premature rot. I have pretty much decided against the olde tyme 'stacked log' cabins and houses for whatever I build.

Sounds like Doc Hess has been sniffing Thompson's Water Seal again.

2002maniac wrote: Don't buy a house with your girlfriend. That could get really messy...

I'll marry her at some point, she's too good to let get away, so that is the least of my concerns.

Actually, if it was a concern at all, I wouldn't even consider buying a house with her, much less live with her, have moved to live with her, had her move back with me when I found a different job, etc etc.

SVreX wrote: The easiest (and definitely cheapest) way to tie them down has nothing to do with anything ginormous or concrete. Standard mobile home strapping and tie down anchors work just fine. Please don't misunderstand me. In my heart of hearts I'm a greenie, DIY homesteader, and I believe in it and encourage it. But the only way to do it is in an area that is remote enough to have lax code enforcement and without bank financing. I think it is a great idea.

Not at all, I'm not one to be offended or cry like a momma's girl over constructive criticism.

If shipping containers don't bury well, what about sinking a Quonset hut? You could easily get a big floorpan with a nice high cathedral ceiling, and with dirt insulation you're looking at low energy costs. Finishing the interior might be expensive unless you use the steel as a decorative feature :) Or put a shipping container inside for bedrooms!

Underground construction is certainly a good thing, except: the loading on a Quonset or similar is WAY beyond what it was designed for. This jumps way up when it rains (wet soil weighs more), so the engineering will be much more involved. Drainage can be a problem along with proper water sealing. If you do have a leak, it becomes a HUGE problem to repair.

Then you can also have a problem with ground water; as a for instance in some cases where people have put in in ground pools and for whatever reason drained them, the pool will pop up out of the ground (it acts like a boat, floating on the groundwater).

Most 'underground' houses are actually built above ground and then covered for these reasons.

The arch shape of the Quonset should be pretty strong. That's kind of the point. It would be interesting to find out how much weight it could sustain. A google for "quonset hut underground" pops up quite a few people who have been thinking along the same lines.

As for putting dirt on top vs digging a big hole, either way. Dig it into the side of a hill if that's more appealing. If it's possible to build a house with a basement, then it's possible to figure out how to put structures underneath dirt. That's a question of implementation, not a problem with the concept.

Perhaps a buried Quonset, with shotcrete sprayed around a rebar matrix on the inside? Sort of like what the people at www.monolithic.comMonolithic do, but without the airform that they use? I asked them once about engineering drawings for such a setup, and their reply was "No, we will only provide them for our airforms, since they are so much more efficient... blah... blah... blah."