Roadstone thermal liteblock

Dick Jones

I happened to come across this the other day. Has anyone any further information on them? There doesn't seem to be much on the Roadstone site about them.

BryanF

Same as quinlite's as far as I can tell

massey woman

Saw them in Belgard Road display last week
Same finish as an ordinary concrete block using light weight aggregates
11Kg weight as opposed to 20kg standard 4" solid
Told me they had their product thermally modelled and that unlike the Quinn product there is no need for a full inner leaf.
Use only at critical junctions to reduce cold bridging and improving thermal efficency
I need only 400 for a 2000 sq ft extension
Looks like a significant saving over alternative product
Complies with Part L
Gave me a technical manual and would liaise with my certifier

BarneyMc

massey woman wrote: »

Told me they had their product thermally modelled and that unlike the Quinn product there is no need for a full inner leaf.
Use only at critical junctions to reduce cold bridging and improving thermal efficency

With Quinn you need to build the full inner leaf with them?

sydthebeat

BarneyMc wrote: »

With Quinn you need to build the full inner leaf with them?

no you dont, thats just sales speak

ht9zni1gs28crp

I concur with sydthebeat

be careful not to get too entrenched in sales patter!

Dick Jones

Am I right that they're a worse insulator than the Quinn-Lites.

I think the Roadstone site says they've a lamda of 0.33

where the Quinn site says the B7 is 0.17.

those figures are of the top of my head. on the phone in work.

BarneyMc

sydthebeat wrote: »

no you dont, thats just sales speak

Yes, just thought it was funny that company B would quote a sales pitch from company A knowing full well it's not true but use it as a sales pitch... that's not true! :P

sydthebeat

BarneyMc wrote: »

Yes, just thought it was funny that company B would quote a sales pitch from company A knowing full well it's not true but use it as a sales pitch... that's not true! :P

i think the point theyre trying to profit on is that quinn try to sell their quinn lites as a full inner leaf system, to improve a wall u value.

However in the majority of cases ive seen, they are used more as a thermal bridge reducer, due to the cost / benefit analysis of a full inner leaf of quinnlites versus an extra 10-20mm of insulation.

So while quinns dont need to be full leaf, thats how they try to push them.

chillit

I am currently trying to decide between roadstone thermal lite block ( lamda 0.33) and quinlite b7 blocks (lamda 0.19) for the first few rows of my rising walls.

Obviously the quinlite have a better thermal performance but are more expensive. The additional cost is not hugely significant as I only plan to use these from foundation up to ground floor level. Maybe 6-8 rows on the flat.

My biggest concern is that the quinlite are aerated blocks. I have experience of aerated blocks (Ytong) in the past and they soak water like a sponge. If you put them in a bucket of water and remove them a few days later they crumble in your hands. I know that the Quinlites are fully rated and certified for use in foundations/rising walls but it just seems wrong to me.

Can anyone offer any advice. Perhaps these Quinlite are a new type of aerated block that I am not familiar with but I am still a bit worried about putting these in my rising walls.

Currently I am veering towards the Roadstone product which on the face of it seems more solid and like a tradition block but with poorer performance.

Metric Tensor

If you are using them as a riser wall below the DPC then you have to consider that they may be permanently wet.

I haven't checked but would wager that the quoted lambda values are for the behaviour of the block when dry so may not in a any wet relate to wet/moist behaviour.

chillit

Metric Tensor wrote: »

If you are using them as a riser wall below the DPC then you have to consider that they may be permanently wet.

I haven't checked but would wager that the quoted lambda values are for the behaviour of the block when dry so may not in a any wet relate to wet/moist behaviour.

that's a good point.

In the roadstone technical detail the thermal blocks are actually above the DPC as per here <had to remove the link as not allowed to post link> you can get is on the roadstone site > roadstone.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RS-2.02-GF-INSU-BELOW-SLAB-WALL-EXT-INSULATION.pdf

I haven't seen a quinlite technical design doc but their foundation block claims to be suitable for use below DPC

JimmyMW

chillit wrote: »

I am currently trying to decide between roadstone thermal lite block ( lamda 0.33) and quinlite b7 blocks (lamda 0.19) for the first few rows of my rising walls.

Obviously the quinlite have a better thermal performance but are more expensive. The additional cost is not hugely significant as I only plan to use these from foundation up to ground floor level. Maybe 6-8 rows on the flat.

My biggest concern is that the quinlite are aerated blocks. I have experience of aerated blocks (Ytong) in the past and they soak water like a sponge. If you put them in a bucket of water and remove them a few days later they crumble in your hands. I know that the Quinlites are fully rated and certified for use in foundations/rising walls but it just seems wrong to me.

Can anyone offer any advice. Perhaps these Quinlite are a new type of aerated block that I am not familiar with but I am still a bit worried about putting these in my rising walls.

Currently I am veering towards the Roadstone product which on the face of it seems more solid and like a tradition block but with poorer performance.

Quote taken directly from the Quinn Lite B7 data sheet

"The blocks are resistant to freeze/thaw conditions likely to occur below the dpc
and are therefore suitable for use in situations up to and including MX3.2 as defined
in BS EN 1996-2 : 2006, Annex A, Table A1 and A3 as defined in BS 5628-3 : 2005,
Table 12, (ie where there is a high risk of saturation with freezing). "

Metric Tensor

I wouldn't argue with their structural strength when wet but I doubt they have the same lambda value when wet.

BryanF

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with their structural strength when wet but I doubt they have the same lambda value when wet.

Why not read the data sheet a report back

Metric Tensor

BryanF wrote: »

Why not read the data sheet a report back

I had a quick look at the IAB cert and the technical sheet I have for the B5 and neither mentioned wet lambda values as far as I could see.

Have I missed something?

BryanF

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Have I missed something?

Dont know