Actis TrioSol 10

pete6296

Hi all,
Has anyone used this insulation, 30mm thick with 10 foil layers. Expensive here in Ireland but affordable online in the UK. There is also a product for rafter insulation which is stapled.
Any suggestions or opinions appreciated.
Thanks,
Pete

Chimpster

pete6296 wrote: »

Hi all,
Has anyone used this insulation, 30mm thick with 10 foil layers. Expensive here in Ireland but affordable online in the UK. There is also a product for rafter insulation which is stapled.
Any suggestions or opinions appreciated.
Thanks,
Pete

There is no IAB or BBA cert as yet AFAIK. So be carefull.

It should be used in conjunction with other insulation as its U Value is not as good as some of the sales people would claim.

Many of the manufacturers and distributors claim the thermal performance of these products to be equivalent to that of 200 mm of mineral fibre insulation. These claims are based on comparative tests between these multi-foil products and mineral fibre insulation and not on absolute measurement to any recognised standard.

One place where it could be usefull is in a warm room structure. Here it be effective in keeping these first floor rooms cool in hot summer weather as it reflects the heat.

muffler

Haven't come across it personally but as advised above dont use it unless it has been properly certified. I wouldnt have a problem with a BS certification but others may.

Just be careful if buying from the UK as it just isnt down the road should a problem arise.

Mellor

This is not an insulation product, it is an insulated vapour barrier. Hige difference, the IAB/BBA certs confirm this. The companys make claims that borderline truthfulness, this makes me very wary of said companies.
Bargepole treatment from me

Builderfromhell

I've used it on a couple of projects. Had great difficulty taping joints with reflective tape. Apparently it's very important that all areas are sealed and that it has an air gap behind. I doubt that in reality it's fitted properly.

CJhaughey

I read an article in Sustainabity magazine and they tested this against other insulation materials.
They had a cardboard box with a lightbulb inside and they used various types of insulation to insulate the box and measured temps over a period of time.
The multifoil performed particularly badly, Kingspan had to be cut to very high degree of accuracy, Rockwool was the best taking into account ease of fitment.
Small gaps in the rigid insulation made big heatlosses.

pete6296

Very good points,thanks a mill, my engineer that suggested this insulation. Another company mentioned sprayed metac because of highlighted inaccuracies in cutting Kingspan.
All the options!!!!
Going with 300mm rockwool in attic and not sure about sloping ceiling in open areas.
Pete

CJhaughey wrote: »

I read an article in Sustainabity magazine and they tested this against other insulation materials.
They had a cardboard box with a lightbulb inside and they used various types of insulation to insulate the box and measured temps over a period of time.
The multifoil performed particularly badly, Kingspan had to be cut to very high degree of accuracy, Rockwool was the best taking into account ease of fitment.
Small gaps in the rigid insulation made big heatlosses.

sinnerboy

BR 443 ( code of practice for calculating U values) provides for them at Section 3.10

http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/rpts/uvalue/BR_443_(2006_Edition).pdf

UK field test results does credit them with some thermal performance - notably about 1/3rd that which has been claimed for the product - details here

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/multi-foil-insulation_july2005.pdf

This is one product which is BBA certified

http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/certs/43/4379i2_web.pdf

Please note

- BR 443 requires that an insulation product performance is demonstrated by a hot box test
- Field tests indicate that multi foil products perform "in the field" to resistance values as determined by hot box testing
- BBA cert above resistance value - is based on hot box test method . The BBA Certified resistance value closely relates to values in the field test report NB - Tri ISO Super claimed or perhaps even still claims a resistance of 5.0m2 K/W - the certified value of this similar product is 1.69 m2 K/W

My own opinion - crappy product , over hyped , over sold - it is an expensive product that does not perform as a stand alone insulator

.

CJhaughey

Have you looked into blown Cellulose? We used it and found it great, no itch and pretty reasonably priced as well.

pete6296

I have'nt, could you pm me details if possible. Problem with sloping ceiling is to ensure no gaps etc.
Thanks,
Pete

CJhaughey wrote: »

Have you looked into blown Cellulose? We used it and found it great, no itch and pretty reasonably priced as well.

ircoha

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054982848&highlight=actis particularly post 5
http://www.sustainability.ie/insulation.html
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055267006&highlight=actis

may help

ardara1

Got a giggle form this - ISO SUper 9 tho' - you mentioned the new improved Super 10 - perhaps it works better????

SEE LINK http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44335.htm

They explained that the 1997 testing used two identical and adjacent chalets, one of which was lined completely with TRI-ISO SUPER 9 and the other was lined with 200 mm of mineral wool. Because the manufacturers quoted a thermal resistance of 5 m²K/W for the mineral wool and the test results showed an equivalent thermal performance in the two chalets, the report concluded that TRI-ISO SUPER 9 was "thermally equivalent to 200 mm of mineral wool" and had a thermal resistance of 5 m²K/W. Actis therefore maintained that the BM TRADA Certification demonstrated the thermal efficiency of their product and provided proof of their claims.

1. Complaint upheld
The ASA obtained expert advice. We understood that the 1997 testing had not tried to measure the thermal resistance of TRI-ISO SUPER 9 directly, but had compared the measured energy consumption and internal temperatures in a chalet lined with TRI-ISO SUPER 9 with those in a similar chalet lined with 200 mm of mineral wool. The TRADA report stated that the construction method of both test chalets was representative of real buildings. We noted that both insulation systems were installed in the test chalets without a tiling underlay between the insulation and the ventilated space under the roof tiles, and with no internal plasterboard lining to the interior. Actis argued that the use of underlay and plasterboard was not common in France in 1997, but we understood that a tiling underlay and a plasterboard lining were used in most real buildings and noted that both the underlay and the plasterboard lining featured in the brochure for TRI-ISO SUPER 9 and the BM TRADA Certificate for TRI-ISO SUPER 9. Because there was no tiling underlay and no plasterboard lining, air would penetrate the mineral wool from the outside, and to a lesser extent, from the inside degrading its thermal performance. In addition we noted that care was taken to seal the joints between the pieces of TRI-ISO SUPER 9, which in itself was completely airtight, so as to eliminate air infiltration in the chalet that contained TRI-ISO SUPER 9. According to the TRADA report and the photographs annexed to it, the joints between the pieces of mineral wool in the second chalet were left open, which would lead to some ventilation in that chalet. Actis produced recent statements suggesting that TRADA were aware of the problem at the time and had directed Actis employees to seal the joints, and that this had been done, but there was no evidence in the contemporaneous documentation that that had been done. We concluded Actis had not substantiated the claim. We noted the ad was no longer appearing, but told Actis not to make claims in future advertising unless they held sufficient substantiation at the time of publication.

sinnerboy

Gravedigger