« Back to main site AECB logo the sustainable building association
Welcome, Guest. Not sure where to start? Click here for a short introduction. Otherwise Please login or register.
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: You can mark all posts in a board as read so that new posts show up.

+  AECB Forum
|-+  Technical Forums
| |-+  Materials and products (Moderators: Chris Herring, Mark Siddall)
| | |-+  Alternative to celotex and equivalents
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Alternative to celotex and equivalents  (Read 4999 times)
Nathan Williams
AECBmember

Posts: 48


View Profile WWW
« on: January 18, 2010, 08:50:00 PM »

Is there an alternative to celotex/kingspan and other rigid type PIR insulation which has a comparable thermal conductivity performance (around 0.025-0.027W/mK). Wood fibres seem to be higher than simple rockwool (circa. 0.047W/mK), and sheeps wool similar to rockwool (circa. 0.040W/mK).
Logged
J Ingram
AECBmember

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2010, 09:01:56 AM »

I guess the simple answer is no
Some denser mineral walls are around 0.032W/mK
Slab 32 cavity batts by Knauf being on example
Aerogel has a lower U than the PUR,PIR, phenolic @ 0.012W/mk and can be laminated to other material such as plasterboard.

Worth doing some reading on the potential benefits of natural insulation, vapour permeability
and the effect this may play on insulation performance and U values. Still trying to figure that one out myself !

« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 09:12:11 AM by J Ingram » Logged
Mark Siddall
Moderator

Posts: 1092


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2010, 10:21:57 PM »

Springvale do an EPS Neopor based product - they call it platinum. Conductivity 0.03 W/mK
Logged
Nathan Williams
AECBmember

Posts: 48


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2010, 06:12:50 PM »

Thank you for your comments. The Dritherm 32 is being used on a project of ours at the moment as it meant a full fill cavity was possible. The reason I ask was in alot of situations I struggle to get the architect to consider larger cavities than 100mm, therefore achieving a decent u-value is difficult and relies either on the full fill approach (Dritherm) or partial fill with Celotex.
Logged
Nick Grant
AECBmember

Posts: 1261



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2010, 08:23:35 PM »

Nathan

I assume you have seen Mark Siddall's article on thermal bypass?

Nick
Logged
Mark Siddall
Moderator

Posts: 1092


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2010, 09:57:14 PM »

Nathan,
Foam in cavity walls is a no-no from my perspective. External insulation only (and beneath floor slabs.)

Mark
Logged
Nathan Williams
AECBmember

Posts: 48


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2010, 07:07:42 PM »

Yes I did read Marks artical on the cavity issues. Very interesting - hence full fill cavity I assume are better.

Mark - why no to foam in cavities?

I think the phrase "horse for courses" comes to mind. External insulation is all well and good, however is not practical for all situations.
Logged
Mark Siddall
Moderator

Posts: 1092


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2010, 08:41:43 PM »

QA problems really. Mortar snots etc. causing air gaps behind insulation and cracks between the joints - thus bypass. Builders can not get away with such things with ETHICS as the defects would be apparent in the level of the surface.

Mark
Logged
Matthew Richards
AECBmember

Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2010, 10:29:55 AM »

Hi

I am looking to get my teeth into organisng an event that will study and hopefully make soem scientifically informed advise on the issues of thermal upgrading/retrofitting insulation to existing properties (including the particuarly difficult case of doing this to a solid wall historic structure. This will obviusly need some detailed building physics input.

I would appreciate some advise on best approach:

My thoughts are to look at the various options on the market today i.e external versus internal insulation, thermal break problems at say floor and roof junctions, vapour and condensation risk, fabric decay, plaster type, paint type, costs and practicality.

Do you think I would be best to involve a university with building materials research capability.

If this info is already available I would be grateful to know. however, from the questions I have asked so far this appears that there is not clear guidance (just worrying rumours!).

Thoughts appreciated

regards

Darren
Logged
Nick Grant
AECBmember

Posts: 1261



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2010, 07:07:12 PM »

Darren

In terms of universities UCL come to mind. Neil May has contacts.

Clearly, where practical, external insulation sorts a lot of these issues. I'm hoping Alan Clarke will give a talk at this year's conference describing the journey with his own house. Years of incremental improvements followed by biting the bullet. Not always possible though.

Nick
Logged
Geoff Stow
AECBmember

Posts: 141



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2010, 08:26:48 AM »

Going back to the original question have you seen Edenbloc by Second Nature
www.edenbloc.co.uk

Geoff
Logged
Nathan Williams
AECBmember

Posts: 48


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2010, 10:47:10 AM »

Geoff

Thanks for that link - will look in more detail.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
naughty-teens