Isolate The Entire "concrete Part"? - Building & Construction - DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum
Advertisement


Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > Home Improvement > Building & Construction

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Display Modes
Old 11-01-2010, 09:58 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default

isolate the entire "concrete part"?


Cold climate; zone 8. Foundation wall will likely be ICFs, with an extra 2 to 3" of XPS on the outside of that. Bituthane will be applied to the ICFs. I MAY install 2" of 100 psi XPS under the footer, too, but have not been able to digest that yet. Footer will be on 1' of compacted gravel. Under the slab will be 4 to 6" of XPS, with Tuff Nuff under that for a VB, and compacted gravel, as usual. It has been suggested that it is wise to run the Tuff Nuff under the slab, down the foundation wall, under the footer, then wrapping it around the top of the footer and partially up the ICFs. The bitu would go over the Tuff Nuff at the very bottom of the ICFs. In theory, this completely isolates the concrete from ground water. Anyone have experience w/ such a water proofing deal? I have never seen or heard of the VB going under a footer, but can see the sense to running it along the foundation wall on the inside, down TO the bottom of the footer. I am guessing that the compacted gravel under the footer will sufficiently isolate the footer from ground water that a VB is not needed. Q: Run the VB under the footer, or not? Thanks. john
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-02-2010, 01:04 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


On 2nd thought, the answer is "no, don't run the VB under the footer". (1) If there is ever a leak, I would have a lake around my foundation wall. (2) The VB would break any (small) mechanical bond to the gravel, too. So, "never mind."
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-02-2010, 05:11 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: leesburg, fl
Posts: 6,669
Rewards Points: 3,622
Default


why not run your icf's up to the gables ? ? ? you'll wind up w/much stronger & quieter structure,,, but, IF you think utility costs will decrease, build w/stick !

backfilling in compacted ' lifts ' will do wonders for preventing water,,, oversize gutters, remote discharging down spouts, leader drains, NO leaf guards, miradrain, sonolastic waterproofing, properly constructed toe drain discharging to daylight, soil filter fabric - all terms you've read on this forum - good luck !
stadry is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-02-2010, 12:34 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by itsreallyconc View Post
why not run your icf's up to the gables ? ? ? you'll wind up w/much stronger & quieter structure,,, but, IF you think utility costs will decrease, build w/stick !

Thanks for the replies. Yes, all the systems you mentioned will be in place. I am very big on having serious slope to the land near a house. My overhangs will likely be 3', too. On the ICFs, there is no "if" about their being poor insulators for cold climates. Extremely expensive, too. If I were in hurricane or earthquake country (our 'quakes are frequent, but normally very mild... normally....) I'd consider them, but I will use double wall w/ dense packed cellulose for the walls.
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 12:46 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: leesburg, fl
Posts: 6,669
Rewards Points: 3,622
Default


' POOR insulators ' ? ? ? our experience is 10% above 2x4 stick built - that's not expensive considering the amortization of the addl $$$ is less than 2yrs,, schools, hi-rise condo's, 15-20 story high hotels all disagree w/your decision.

possible 2x6 walls may be your decision,,, structural insulated panels are another choice but, for me, it would be icf's w/o a doubt
stadry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 01:16 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


icf's are low r, (R15 or so?) and 1/2 of the insulation is on the "wrong" side (inside. it is better to have the thermal mass on the warm side). sure, they are used many places and are a good product for warmer zones, but they are a poor choice from a perspective of insulating in cold climates. people sometimes argue about their "heat storage" ability, etc, which is true; they have a lot of mass and can store heat picked up during the day and release it to a cooling house at night. however, if you have to use oil to heat them, it is a loosing money game; solar heating is another story. icf's are good for basements because of their speed of erection and they are not going anywhere soon, but one should add xps on the outside, too(again, cold climates). i do not see that icf's are used above grade in super-insulated houses in cold climates, and for a reason. a double 2x4 wall w/ dense packed cellulose costs far less to build and has far more r value. anyone interested in debating further can read on buildingscience.com, greenbuildingadvisor.com, etc. sip's are not on my list; i've read a lot about them, and their are just too many concerns for my situation, but thanks for the suggestion.
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 02:35 PM   #7
Member
 
concretemasonry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota - Latitude 45.057 Longitude -93.074
Posts: 4,113
Rewards Points: 2,716
Default


It is hard to make sense to someone that looks at the short term window and has been scared by the "pink panther" advertising using the false and archaic concept of "R-values" of individual materials to justify a decision.

I had a 1860 sf masonry (exterior brick veneer, 2" XPS, 8" lightweight block and 1 1/2" EPS on the interior side) lake home (9' walls and vaulted ceilings) in northern Minnesota with an attached 2 1/2 car garage on the north side. I had large windows and 4 - 6' sliding doors. There is really no "wrong side" forsome of the insulation, but I but some minimal insualtion on the interior because I anticipated wanting to warm up things quickly when I arrived in the winter late on a Friday afternoon.

Just to illustrate the long term dynamic effects of mass, I normally set my thermostat at 68F when I was there on week-ends and 40F on weekdays. One winter, I was traveling for about 6 weeks and drove up to the lake home on December 15 after a few -10F spells and found the temperature was 65 inside. I turned up the thermostat and the furnace did not come on. After searching, I found the furnace breaker had been switched off by accident over 6 weeks earlier and the furnace could not run. After that, I set the thermostat at 68F full time in the winter and my heating cost was minimally higher and never over $80 even in the coldest months.

If I had been serious about heating, I could have installed timed drapes on the sliding doors and possibly never had to heat in the winter because of the thermal mass of the structure even though the average "R-value" on paper was not that high. If you really are interested in the concept of energy and comfort look at the mass concepts that are described well in in many books. The usual gargbage/advertising R-values are based on an idealized test of a material (like fiberglass) and do not reflect the actual wall tests AND are on a short term basis and not on a real life dynamic basis. The "pink panther" does not use the dynamic testing because it is more expensive, takes longer, is not done by many labs and show the flaws in the claimed R-value. This method even points out the flaws in the assumed insulation of fiberglass in single or multiple plies as compared to rigid foam over wood studs. The ASHRAE standards give some methods to calculate the more realistic methods of short term thermal analysis, such as the "thermal short circuiting" by either steel or wood studs, where a R-19 can produce a R-11 wall even on a short term basis.

Regarding the isolation of your foundation from moisture, do not be too detail oriented and be more practical and look at real world conditions and the end effects. You cann build a concrete basement/foundation and expect is to float like a ship. It is better to collect and remove the water and minimize the problems with the ideal details that eventually have problems that cannot be easily corrected.

Dick

At one time, I was thoroughly embarrassed when I took a group of Russiam professors and engineers to look at American construction and the basis for the insulation values of walls. It took one of them about 2 minutes to sketch up the heat flow and energy loss for both a frame corner and the inefficient framing at a window or door, neglecting the inevitable infiltration. - After that, i was lucking because they did not ask about fire protection.
concretemasonry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 03:27 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by concretemasonry View Post
It is hard to make sense to someone that looks at the short term window... •• Short term? Not hardly. I am looking at 30 yrs, min.

and has been scared by the "pink panther" advertising... •• I never mentioned that fiberglass was in insulation of any use. It never has been. I mentioned dense packed cellulose; not the same animals.

using the false and archaic concept of "R-values" of individual materials to justify a decision. •• R values are science, and you can poo-poo that all day long, but it won't change how heat moves through materials. Thermodynamics is not going to change regardless of how any of us view it. What is important it to look at the real R value, not the advertised value.

Just to illustrate the long term dynamic effects of mass... •• If I read this right, you are saying that a house sat with the heat source off for 6 weeks and it never got cold, despite -10 F outside for a bit. Then where did all the heat come from to replace what the house was dissipating to the environment? There is no way on God's earth that a building can stay at 65 degrees F when it has been dipping to -10 outside without some kind of applied heat source. Was there a lot of sun hitting the building? It would have been nice to have a temp recorder inside to see what the temps did over the 6 wks, as when it may have been cloudy and cold for a week.

The usual gargbage/advertising R-values are based on an idealized test of a material (like fiberglass) and do not reflect the actual wall tests AND are on a short term basis and not on a real life dynamic basis. •• That is absolutely false. Many, many independent labs, and real world house builders, etc, have verified true R values of every insulation on earth. You keep mentioning "pink panther" as a reference. I can only agree with the fact that fiberglass in general is poor, over-hyped insulation. (Note: the same can not be said for dense packed Spider fiberglass. It is, according to one of the advisers on greenbuildingadvisor.com, pretty good stuff.) However, there are other materials that work real well; even in the "real world."

.... where a R-19 can produce a R-11 wall even on a short term basis. •• If thermal bridging is not addressed, the entire R value of a wall is at least 2 to 3 R's less than the insulation, naturally, because wood is not a great insulator. If air movement is not addressed, the R value can drop to "very low"; I have read of it going as low as about 20% of a tight wall.

... do not be too detail oriented and be more practical and look at real world conditions and the end effects. •• I think you best reconsider that statement, because without paying attention to the details one is setting him/herself up for failure, IMO.

It is better to collect and remove the water and minimize the problems with the ideal details that eventually have problems that cannot be easily corrected. •• OK for some folks, but I think I'll stick w/ trying my best to not have any water in the first place, and allowing the wall to breathe if/when saturation happens.

... i was lucking because they did not ask about fire protection. •• Dense packed cellulose is a pretty good fire retardant. Concrete is even better, but I'd hate to be anywhere near an ICF building that had a fire in it.
Please see above, after the bullets. I respectfully disagree on a few points; agree on others. Have a good one.

Last edited by jklingel; 11-02-2010 at 03:29 PM.
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:48 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: leesburg, fl
Posts: 6,669
Rewards Points: 3,622
Default


my $$$'s on dick even if this post doesn't get by the chatroom censors
stadry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 05:03 PM   #10
Member
 
concretemasonry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota - Latitude 45.057 Longitude -93.074
Posts: 4,113
Rewards Points: 2,716
Default


My comments are based on evaluation, engineering, design, construction and inspection of many different construction methods and the writing of codes and standards in many countries over a period of 40 years. That gives a good background to evaluate the real world differences in materials and construction. The critical factor is the ability of a structure to maintain a level of comfort over a longer period of time than 24 hours. Unfortunately, most U.S. standards and are backed by limited testing and advertising claims. Most labs can perform short term guarded hot box test, but few can conduct longer term, more realistic, dynamic testing and analysis that is available elsewhere. when constructing a home the annual cycles must be the concern and not the short term (usually 24 hours or less) guarded hot box tests commonly used. I have never seen a "house builder" that was qualified to accurately certify any level of annual thermal performance unless short term "snap shot" test were used as documentation and they were probably incorrectly used on an item by item basis and not as a typical documented wall or roof section.

I recognize that cellulose is far superior to fiberglass, but it is generally used in lightweight structures that are affected by daily climate swings and cannot store enough energy for the longer term benefits of of much heavier construction. One of the benefits of cellulose ironically is the slightly greater weight, which allows more storgar od energy rather than loss.

Some of the common erroneously "r-value" based designs are the basement requirements. This leads to the erroneous concept that there is a "magic" line drawn on the inside of a foundation wall where the temperature is 32F. It neglects the fact that the soil, even in Minnesota is only 55F because of the summer energy that is stored in the walls and soil during the warmer months - ever heard of a root cellar where the latent heat of the soil has been used as a benefit. A passive solar home also uses the same properties of mass storage. This happens during many cycles during the 30 year projected life of a common home.

When I refer to the short term, I am referencing the general "modern" concept based on the short term "r-value" tests for insulation capacity and not the longer term or annual conditions that a real structure is subjected to.

There is no question that 30 years is a long term (for American construction), but it does not reflect the annual benefits that mass can provide on a daily/seasonal basis until the legendary global thermal warming changes things.

Regarding the thermal "short circuiting", I included BOTH steel studs and wood studs, but the steel studs were conveniently ignored. Tests have clearly shown that a 6" wall with steel studs and R19 6" lightweight insulation performs as a R11 wall even on a short term analysis with no long term storage of energy or thermal "flywheel" effect. Even ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) recognized this effect for lightweight walls, and does give some token credibility to the erroneous parallel path method of heat flow in a real structure.

When you question the heat required to maintain/heat a structure to 65F in periods of -10F, you fall into the classic short term erroneous energy trap when the -10F was an evening minimum and during the day, the water was running in the gutters at 20F and sunlight (solar energy) was charging the interior with heat to be stored for the future. This was not a solar designed structure, but it did have 4 - 6' sliding doors that allowed heat in and also lost radiant heat at night, but there was a daily gain or equalization. That is why I referred to the benefits of motorized drapes, but they were not used. In the fall, when we typically have no leaves and good sun, the temperatures on a properly ventilated house can go up despite that the outside temperatures are lower. In the winter, the sun is very direct and it is common for a well ventilated roof to have snow/ice melting and running in any gutter or downspout even at 5F. - The $80/month maximum heating cost is very real and that was for the colder months where I awoke to -42F on a couple of mornings. The problem with a massive structure is that it can be dangerous, because you do not hear or feel the wind and there is no immediate temperature drop to alert you to what you will get when you get in your car and leave.

Details obviously must practically be addressed as is the practical aspects of them performing. It is sort of akin to putting down a 6 mil poly in a crawl space because it is theoretically a "vapor barrier"(at least by definition) but once it is installed and in use is may be worthless unless it is 10 mil. Construction in the real world is definitely not a science and things happen and they happen more frequently to the closest engineered details. When I saw my first test firing of a F1 rocket engine for a Saturn, it had a failure and destroyed a test stand in California and during the debriefing, I was asked what did you see that was wrong and my reply was that it was impressive until it started up.

Dick
concretemasonry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 05:18 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: leesburg, fl
Posts: 6,669
Rewards Points: 3,622
Default


in theory, there's no difference between theory & practice,,, in practice, there often is glad i put my $$$ on dick

ps - if i'm not mistaken, icf's will not support fire however will melt from the effects of interior burning,,, then again, some mistakenly thought there were no wmd's in iraq

Last edited by stadry; 11-02-2010 at 06:27 PM.
stadry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 10:34 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


The critical factor is the ability of a structure to maintain a level of comfort over a longer period of time than 24 hours. •• That is self evident, isn’t it? There are a variety of ways to accomplish that, too. One is with thermal mass (If, IMO, it is heated for free). The other is with very good insulation and small blasts of heat from something other than the sun. Better yet, a combination of the two, providing the sun is available at sufficient radiation.

I have never seen a "house builder" that was qualified to accurately certify...*•• I think you need a larger circle of acquaintances. Jack Hebert is the head of the Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Frb, and I believe he also has a construction business (Hebert Construction). I don’t think you want to post that comment on the greenbuildingadvisor.com site, as I suspect Robert Riversong (housewright.com) will have a pointed word w/ you. There are a number of others there that would take exception to that, too, and I am sure the same can be said for buildingscience.com, and hundreds of other knowledgeable builders in the country.

...but it is generally used in lightweight structures... •• Which, I believe, is a house, which we are talking about.

....that are affected by daily climate swings and cannot store enough energy for the longer term benefits of of much heavier construction. One of the benefits of cellulose ironically is the slightly greater weight, which allows more storgar od energy rather than loss. •• Cellulose is not intended for storage, obviously, as it has very little mass. It is a good insulator.

Some of the common erroneously "r-value" based designs are the basement requirements. •• Codes are minimums. No secret there.

... ever heard of a root cellar where the latent heat of the soil has been used as a benefit. •• Yes, but the “latent heat” is actually not the benefit. Root cellars are used to keep things COOL, not to warm them up. Unless, of course, you want to live at 55 degrees, or whatever temp the dirt is. Subterranean houses are easy to heat (none) if the soil maintains a temp at which you can live. Otherwise, you better get some insulation and a heat source between you and said earth.

A passive solar home also uses the same properties of mass storage. •• Yes,the sun is getting that mass up to temp and the INSULATION around the mass is keeping it inside. Water is also a good heat storage medium, which is why many folks use 1000+ gallon storage tanks with their wood boilers. IMO, one is far better off money-wise to use a slab for thermal mass and put some far cheaper (than ICFs) insulation around it. If you don’t have a slab, then concrete walls work well, too. ICF blocks are $26 each up here, plus concrete at $140/CY, plus rebar. Very expensive wall, and too spendy to heat, again, for my situation, which is what itsreally and I were originally discussing.

This happens during many cycles during the 30 year projected life of a common home. •• Sure, I don’t have numbers in front of me, but I suspect that it happens hundreds of times a year. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a Fairbanks-cold climate house with so much thermal mass that it takes a month for it too cool. Thermal mass has to be considered carefully in the design of a house, or you can get too much at times.

Regarding the thermal "short circuiting", I included BOTH steel studs and wood studs, but the steel studs were conveniently ignored. •• We agreed that whole wall R value is less than the insulation for any house with any studs. I mentioned an over-all decline of 2-3 as a conservative number. I did not mention steel studs, per se, as I know nothing of them. If that is “conveniently ignoring”, then I apologize.

... recognized this effect for lightweight walls, and does give some token credibility to the erroneous parallel path method of heat flow in a real structure. •• Again, who would ever consider typical home insulation as a thermal mass medium? It has little mass, and is therefor not designed to be thermal mass. I am not aware of any insulation that is also a “thermal mass”.

When you question the heat required to maintain/heat a structure to 65F in periods of -10F, you fall into the classic short term erroneous energy trap... •• First off, you seem to think that I, if not most of us, are hung up on this “short term” testing. I do not recall having ever mentioned it as being of supreme use. If you reread what I said, I specifically asked if the sun were heating the house. Obviously, the house needed to get heat from somewhere, as I stated. Those walls were not keeping the house warm for 6 weeks all by themselves. Henceforth, if you are going to tout the benefits of thermal mass, which no one can deny, it would be handy if you included all the information, not just the -10F. BTW: “Cold climate” is a somewhat nebulous term. To me, I live in a cold climate, and have very little use for ICF walls, which are poor insulators. When it is -10 up here, it is -10; no dripping.

The problem with a massive structure is that it can be dangerous, because you do not hear or feel the wind and there is no immediate temperature drop to alert you to what you will get when you get in your car and leave. •• Reduction of noise is one benefit of high mass walls. I have 13” FB (forgive me; I did not know better in 1980) walls, double stud and it is quite quiet in here. I’d tell you about being trapped in a snow slide at my garage, and not having my hollering and cussing heard by anyone in the house, but that is another story.

Details obviously must practically be addressed as is the practical aspects of them performing. •• Now THAT I have no argument with. That is in sharp contrast to what I questioned in your previous post, that being “...do not be too detail oriented and be more practical ...”

“Construction in the real world is definitely not a science ....” •• As you mentioned your affiliation with engineering as well, I will assume that you meant here that “there are so many variables in going from materials to a home that we can not predict how the end product will behave, at least not with extreme accuracy.” I would add that we can not duplicate house A on lot A when we move to house A on lot B, just for that reason. Trying to manipulate a matrix with that many variables is beyond our computing capabilities.

•• So, the bottom line is, if you want to build w/ ICFs or poured concrete walls in your neighborhood, go for it. I think there are more thermally efficient and cheaper-to-construct ways in my neighborhood. There are other issues with ICFs that I did not like when we used them in my son’s basement, but that is another thread. In the meantime, hang some more HUGE fish! john
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 10:54 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by itsreallyconc View Post
' POOR insulators ' ? ? ? our experience is 10% above 2x4 stick built - that's not expensive considering the amortization of the addl $$$ is less than 2yrs,, schools, hi-rise condo's, 15-20 story high hotels all disagree w/your decision.

possible 2x6 walls may be your decision,,, structural insulated panels are another choice but, for me, it would be icf's w/o a doubt
Good morning, itsreally. Comparing an ICF wall to a (I assume you meant) single 2x4 wall is not a contest, either from a cost or from a thermal point of view. An ICF wall here is horribly expensive ($26/block, $140/CY for concrete, etc) compared to a double-stud 2x4 wall. ICFs sure have their place, but not here, IMO, at least not for my parameters. Too, ICFs are not environmentally ideal. There is a ton of embodied energy in concrete, and the foam around them is petrol based; not the best stuff to eventually return to Mother Earth. I don't feel that "thermal" is the main issue w/ them, but rather "structural". If you want to build a tank, those are the guys.
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 12:33 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Posts: 1,941
Rewards Points: 1,188
Default


Here is something I have wondered about ICFs, but never asked. I happened upon this via another cat's thread on his basement. Interesting. You can read the whole thread at http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/...nt-wall-insula

Robert prefers the ThermoMass walls, which are very similar to ICF but appear to have advantages over ICFs. I was going to use ICFs in my foundation walls, but maybe I better research these ThermoMass walls. Just an FYI....

"I would say that ICF is a reverse foundation system, since it puts the foam both on the outside - where it's vulnerable to UV, physical damage and insects - and on the inside where its vulnerable to fire. And it almost eliminates any dynamic thermal mass advantage.

CIC (concrete/insulation/concrete), not only puts the foam in the most advantageous and protected position, but also offers almost as much dynamic thermal mass advantage as an exterior-insulated 8" concrete wall. And, because the foam requires no attachment or protection, it costs no more than exterior foam, while also eliminating the problem of structural support at the exterior wall line.

The 4/4/4 wall is also perfect for the kind of 12" thick double framed wall that I design and build, and allows both exterior and interior walls to be load-bearing.
Answered by Robert Riversong - Nov 3 10"
jklingel is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Entire First Floor Laminate ClumsyCarpenter Flooring 2 04-12-2010 01:09 PM
Turned off power. Changed outlet. No power to entire house. pauly99 Electrical 39 03-06-2009 05:09 PM
Painting entire interior of house barnett151 Painting 7 03-03-2009 07:49 AM
entire circuit out jozim Electrical 7 12-21-2008 06:06 PM




Top of Page | View New Posts