Hi Tim,
I will do my best to reply, then take a look at "the weeds."
I have heard about this moisture issue. Most all if not all houses have this same issue, it occurs in the basement where there is not enough exchange of air. Where is the science to counter this moisture issue?
Unfortunately, much (not all mind you) of the "science" is generated by the industries that profit from the methods applied within the "insulation industry." This, in my experience has jaded greatly the data and conclusions draw from what research there is. As for "independent research" there is much, and some of it is good, but more aimed at material science than "application/type modalities."
Interstitial moisture is a problem throughout many "modern buildings" ever since adopting the "airtight" concept for modern architecture. Much of this coming out of Europe (aka mainly Germany at Passivhaus Institut) for the "passive house." Now being strongly reconsidered by many as needing to be "rethought out" in its entirety, since "passive house" was a "concept" not a historically "proven" (or even well understood concept) in "real world" application.
I never did (nor will) buy into the "airtight" house concept. I thought if folly then and still do. I design/facilitate "houses" (mainly natural and/or traditional) and not "space ships or submarines." Secondly, like a submarine, these "airtight" homes MUST rely on technology of all sorts from "plastic foams" to "mechanical lungs" (aka HVAC air to air heat exchangers) to not only to function optimally...BUT!!...at all!!! Like in my other world of "outdoor education" I have adopted and used the much more traditional concept of "draft proof" architecture in place of an "airtight" concept, as it does not rely on whether a "machine" is working to maintain "breathable (or healthy) air. I would also add, I am still a fan of opening a window and not feeling "guilty" about it for some misplaced belief that I a "harm the environment" or being wasteful...
I do agree...the process...(which ever one??) is expensive either in material and/or labor to achieve it in good form...
Were these five builds you encountered built with tires? Tires seem far too labor intensive. Concrete is a great replacement.
This subject (I know I am silly...I have too many interests..ha ha) is dear to my heart and my first few "earthships" (by the way I agree...dumb name...but what the heck, that is the vernacular now for them, or "wofati") where rammed tire and/or rammed earth modalities...I am still "tracking" quite a few, and all in all...if not in an arid region, I just do not recommend them AT ALL!!! to folks that do not have a HUGE!!!!!!!!! budget and/or lots of skill and knowledge of architecture of this form...
How many damp daylight basements have you seen?
Great point time...We call that a "horse shoe" basement (and if we ever do "basements"...which I dislike anyway...because I don't use concrete hardly ever) we do a "horseshoe" or "walk out" basement. These do tend to be much drier...when!...well done and the house above is permeable and draft proof...not airtight!
Was the moisture issue due to improper site prep? Built in a swamp with poor or no drainage incorporated? So many question should be asked before blame is placed on a cause/effect.
I agree, however even with great drainage, proper location (a swamp would just be plain silly I think all would agree on that) and everything else, most of these "modern" "
Earth Dung Out" attempts at fossorial architecture have huge issues in non-arid regions...
Today's modern super insulated tight houses will have horrible moisture issues, if air circulation is not addressed.
Also very true...and...why I don't go down that path at all...
Wofati, or any of the traditional methods of Walipini, Bikooh, or related structures from around the glob built underground do have great potential when well designed and thought out...
