Bonded beads & '90/90' test

BarneyMc

I'm gathering quotes for pumped bonded beads for a new build and just thought I'd check the thermal conductivity from the different suppliers.

Anyway, according to one supplier the thermal conductivity has been changed from 0.032 to 0.035W/m2K for all suppliers following a '90/90' industry norm test conducted.

I've noticed some still quoting 0.033W/m2K.

Does anyone know who's right or wrong here or does it really matter that much?

ht9zni1gs28crp

The 0.035 is bottom of the barrel in terms of pumped bead into the cavity. The Silverbead for eg is next step up and is rated at 0.031.

With regards to mattering much, yes it can have a big impact on your through wall rating. Whoever is testing/certifying it needs to make that decision for you..

PROJECT K

31mW for bonded bead is totally unrealistic - rigid graphite EPS can just about manage that, how could a bead with a relatively high glue content in application achieve the same result?! Ask the manufacturers for their agrement certification and base your decision on that (this doesnt guarantee anything if you want the truth but its the best independant assurance you are going to get). I would advise basing calculations on 35mW unless you have assurances to the contrary (at least you are taking a worst case scenario which should more than allow for possible installation issues, settlelment, degradation, aging, moisture content etc etc). Always better err on the side of caution on these things and you wont be dissappointed!

ht9zni1gs28crp

So Warmfill Super is unrealistic then?

PROJECT K

i think you will find it is, never take NSAI agrement certs off suppliers websites they are often (and sometimes deliberately!) out of date. Always obtain certificates directly from the NSAI where the latest certificate should always be available:

http://www.nsai.ie/NSAI/files/96/96d1a468-121f-41eb-8cce-d0f8fef13c19.pdf

'Super' achieves 33mW same as standard silver bead (so really isnt that super afterall!)

BarneyMc

miller_63 wrote: »

The 0.035 is bottom of the barrel in terms of pumped bead into the cavity. The Silverbead for eg is next step up and is rated at 0.031.

Can you please let me know who supplies at 0.031?

Clseeper

At this stage myself on 250mm cavity and there seems to be a few at each step on the thermal conductivity performance. From my analysis of the NSAI certs;

0.04 W/mK: Warmfill White
0.038 W/mK: Supernova, Thermobead, Supertherm Platinum
0.035 W/mK: Envirobead, KOREfill, Kingspan Ecobead, Energistore Graphite 27 Plus
0.033 W/mK: Kingspan Ecobead Platinum, Envirobead Plus, Warmfill Silver, Warmfill SuperSilver (this is the one on website claims 0.031W/mK but NSAI disputes this).

Then from for my specific house, the difference between 0.035 - 0.033 W/mK is only around 100kWh/yr. However if the price is similar, why wouldn't I try and get the better performing bead? I'm not going to be changing that anything in the future. I'd draw the line at the higher end though, when I go up to 0.038W/mK, it's more like 230kWh/yr which is starting to add up over 10's of years. Especially when my heat load is so low, these small values do add up.

BarneyMc

I assume then if the NSAI dispute the Warmfill SuperSilver coming in at 0.031W/mK we should assume a value of 0.033 W/mK?

PROJECT K

the nsai arent disputing it, they dont carry out lambda assessments. The manufacturer must supply the NSAI with independant results fron a UKAS accreddited lab, 31mW is not currently achievable for bonded bead so yes i would take 33mW as per NSAI...

Calahonda52

Clseeper wrote: »

At this stage myself on 250mm cavity and there seems to be a few at each step on the thermal conductivity performance. From my analysis of the NSAI certs;

0.04 W/mK: Warmfill White
0.038 W/mK: Supernova, Thermobead, Supertherm Platinum
0.035 W/mK: Envirobead, KOREfill, Kingspan Ecobead, Energistore Graphite 27 Plus
0.033 W/mK: Kingspan Ecobead Platinum, Envirobead Plus, Warmfill Silver, Warmfill SuperSilver (this is the one on website claims 0.031W/mK but NSAI disputes this).

Then from for my specific house, the difference between 0.035 - 0.033 W/mK is only around 100kWh/yr. However if the price is similar, why wouldn't I try and get the better performing bead? I'm not going to be changing that anything in the future. I'd draw the line at the higher end though, when I go up to 0.038W/mK, it's more like 230kWh/yr which is starting to add up over 10's of years. Especially when my heat load is so low, these small values do add up.

So 250kWh at say 25 cents a kWh for 10 years is euro 625
Even at a euro/kWh for elec its 2,500 euro
What the delta euro cost for 33 vs 35?

galwaytt

BarneyMc wrote: »

I'm gathering quotes for pumped bonded beads for a new build and just thought I'd check the thermal conductivity from the different suppliers.

Anyway, according to one supplier the thermal conductivity has been changed from 0.032 to 0.035W/m2K for all suppliers following a '90/90' industry norm test conducted.

I've noticed some still quoting 0.033W/m2K.

Does anyone know who's right or wrong here or does it really matter that much?

Bear in mind that's a value for the PS itself - I'd be interested to see it's 'as-built' value c/w adhesive and void content, in an actual wall.

0.033 is the new norm for PS as - and you can thank the 'green' contingent for it - the change in manufacturing processes in the last few years (primarily the blowing gases involved), mean that the material is indeed much greener than it used to be. The downside is that the lambda value has dropped - no omelettes without breaking eggs comes to mind.

In the UK, where I do most work, the issue of GWP and ODP are weighted higher than u-value, and so it is that which is driving the manufacturers in the UK. The latest versions of PS have a ODP of zero, and GWP of only 5...........but u-value is less. But that's the way regulation is going.

sydthebeat

what gases are used for ODP of 0 and GWP of 5 ??

air blown?

Clseeper

Calahonda,

Pretty much have all my prices in so the difference between the lowest 0.035W/mK and the lowest 0.033W/mK is ~€640. But that differential in PHPP is only 100kWh so even at current electricity prices ~€0.25, that's a 28 40 year payback (€22 per year). If I'm using oil or an ASHP that will drop so much further (Oil ~€0.08, ASHP COP 2.5 (conservative) ~€0.10 etc)

Undecided but think I may be swung to the lowest 0.035W/mK, it was the lowest price overall. Cheaper than both of the 0.038W/mK jobs - large company so think this is volume thing.

PROJECT K

galwaytt wrote: »

Bear in mind that's a value for the PS itself - I'd be interested to see it's 'as-built' value c/w adhesive and void content, in an actual wall.

The test standard requires a lambda assessment for 'as installed' - this is not lambda for bead only, the graphite EPS bead can achieve 31mW, you lose 2mW (min.) for what you describe above

sydthebeat wrote: »

what gases are used for ODP of 0 and GWP of 5 ??

air blown?

typically pentane, same as PIR and Phenolic...as EPS is substantially open cell and/or has a cell structure that cant contain the molecular weight of pentane this escapes and air infiltrates. so the pentane is just used to expand the bead effectively...

galwaytt

PROJECT K wrote: »

[
The test standard requires a lambda assessment for 'as installed' - this is not lambda for bead only, the graphite EPS bead can achieve 31mW, you lose 2mW (min.) for what you describe above


typically pentane, same as PIR and Phenolic...as EPS is substantially open cell and/or has a cell structure that cant contain the molecular weight of pentane this escapes and air infiltrates. so the pentane is just used to expand the bead effectively...

Pentane is no longer used afaik - our PS uses sequestered CO2 - hence the drop in u values.

sydthebeat

yeah normal pentane has a GWP of somewhere between 15 and 25
co2 has a gwp of 1

BarneyMc

What can be done to ensure the installers do their job right and the beads fall into place? Obviously one easy way would be to make sure they drill at correct distances. What tests can be done post installation to check?

MicktheMan

BarneyMc wrote: »

What tests can be done post installation to check?

Thermal imaging survey with possibly borescope follow-up to confirm any anomalies.

BarneyMc

MicktheMan wrote: »

Thermal imaging survey with possibly borescope follow-up to confirm any anomalies.

So this thermal imaging can only be done when the house is finished, i.e. heating system in and working?

ht9zni1gs28crp

BarneyMc wrote: »

So this thermal imaging can only be done when the house is finished, i.e. heating system in and working?

For best results, yes. I would imagine holding a retention of sorts on the installer will ensure it gets done right. He/She can walk side by side as you thermal image the outside walls at a later date.

If the render is on and inside is finished there may be a mess to sort if it needs refilling. Make sure the installer knows this cost will come out of the retainer fee. That way hopefully he/she will install it correctly to begin with.

BarneyMc

miller_63 wrote: »

For best results, yes. I would imagine holding a retention of sorts on the installer will ensure it gets done right. He/She can walk side by side as you thermal image the outside walls at a later date.

If the render is on and inside is finished there may be a mess to sort if it needs refilling. Make sure the installer knows this cost will come out of the retainer fee. That way hopefully he/she will install it correctly to begin with.

I just wonder how many this will scare off!

ht9zni1gs28crp

BarneyMc wrote: »

I just wonder how many this will scare off!

If it does scare them off then that tells you all you need to know about them IMHO. Id be glad to flush those chancers out straightaway

BarneyMc

Peaks, any requirement to pump the peaks on the gable walls or is it sufficient to pump to the standard wall level.

ht9zni1gs28crp

BarneyMc wrote: »

Peaks, any requirement to pump the peaks on the gable walls or is it sufficient to pump to the standard wall level.

Where is your insulation line? Ceiling or rafters?

BarneyMc

miller_63 wrote: »

Where is your insulation line? Ceiling or rafters?

Ceiling, or to be more accurate the attic floor.

hexosan

Standard wall level would do but for the sake of f*#k all extra you could do the gable peaks

ht9zni1gs28crp

Im in same line, im going to fill to gable peaks to ensure it meets, ive only a small length anyways from ceiling to ridge.

BarneyMc

Spoke with one of the suppliers and he said the peaks were usually fillled anyway so looks like it's standard now anyway.

By the way I got a quote from one supplier last week which was twice that of the others!!! :eek:

hexosan

BarneyMc wrote: »

Spoke with one of the suppliers and he said the peaks were usually fillled anyway so looks like it's standard now anyway.

By the way I got a quote from one supplier last week which was twice that of the others!!! :eek:

I only thought of this after my last post. How would you stop it filling the gables anyway.

hexosan

What price per cube are they charging for the job barney

BarneyMc

hexosan wrote: »

What price per cube are they charging for the job barney

Not sure about the cubes Hex but all quotes (except for the chancer) are all about the same. It will come down to:

• bead peformance (not much difference in them)
• recommendations from others (limited to be honest)
• how the supplier reacts to me asking them about what happens if and when I run a thermal image test
• price (not a big difference between them)

hexosan

Ask them for the cube price or how many cubes they've measured the house to be (-the windows). You want to make sure there all quoting for the same amount. You don't want to go with the cheaper fella to discovered he under measured the quantity and he'll either push for more money doing the job or under fill areas to avoid losing money on the job.

BarneyMc

hexosan wrote: »

I only thought of this after my last post. How would you stop it filling the gables anyway.

It's the peaks (top of the gables) so I suppose the supplier could just drill and pump at the bottom of the peaks and stop there.

I've seen the job in action and in most cases they do drill up to the top of the peaks so maybe this is not a cause for concern but something to check anyway.

BarneyMc

Clseeper wrote: »

At this stage myself on 250mm cavity and there seems to be a few at each step on the thermal conductivity performance. From my analysis of the NSAI certs;

0.04 W/mK: Warmfill White
0.038 W/mK: Supernova, Thermobead, Supertherm Platinum
0.035 W/mK: Envirobead, KOREfill, Kingspan Ecobead, Energistore Graphite 27 Plus
0.033 W/mK: Kingspan Ecobead Platinum, Envirobead Plus, Warmfill Silver, Warmfill SuperSilver (this is the one on website claims 0.031W/mK but NSAI disputes this).

Then from for my specific house, the difference between 0.035 - 0.033 W/mK is only around 100kWh/yr. However if the price is similar, why wouldn't I try and get the better performing bead? I'm not going to be changing that anything in the future. I'd draw the line at the higher end though, when I go up to 0.038W/mK, it's more like 230kWh/yr which is starting to add up over 10's of years. Especially when my heat load is so low, these small values do add up.

After a long wait (bank issues) I'm at the stage of pumping. I've had to revise a few quotes and they've jumped considerably from 18 months ago!

Anyway this table is very useful and I hope to get a bead with 0.033 W/mK. It looks like the KOREfill (no connection to them) is now in this bracket. This page gives a good idea of performance comparisons, etc.

Anyway just wondering if anyone has installed beads lately and any last minute tips?

Clseeper

Barney,

Yes I was in touch with KOREfill at the time as suppliers of their product seemed to be the most keenly priced. Their technical rep did say they have a 0.033W/mK coming to market. I couldn't wait for their NSAI certification to come through and didn't want to be caught if there were delays. I believe they had their testing results confirmed and were awaiting ratification from NSAI?

I'm assumed I'd need all this for sign off of the house, BER etc.

Just wait until you feel the difference. I already had my ceiling insulation installed and didn't notice too much difference immediately after the wall were pumped. But after the floor insulation went it, it was like a sauna when I didn't have any windows open. Very satisfying. Now that the screed has gone in and I have a window open a crack, it's a lot more manageable. Not much shading built yet but happy that my real worry of overheating in summer isn't an extreme case. Thermal mass, MHRV + bypass, Stack effect window etc will all help regulate in summer.

Keep at it - this building lark is a serious slog. Had to take a few weeks break to catch up on life and things I had been putting off.

galwaytt

PROJECT K wrote: »

the nsai arent disputing it, they dont carry out lambda assessments. The manufacturer must supply the NSAI with independant results fron a UKAS accreddited lab, 31mW is not currently achievable for bonded bead so yes i would take 33mW as per NSAI...

NSAI don't do any tests: you have to go to the UK for that. It's why where I work we use the BBA.
As for your EPS , no way is it 0.031. Even highest quality XPS is 0.033, and EPS is lower performance again

And the trend for the future is worse : the greening of the product is at th he expense of thermal performance. Since pentane gas was supplanted by sequestered CO2 in its manufacture, the best XPS has fallen from 0.027 / 0.029 ( on data sheets at any rate.. ). 90/90 is the new norm and is what's going to be what you see anywhere.

BarneyMc

galwaytt wrote: »

NSAI don't do any tests: you have to go to the UK for that. It's why where I work we use the BBA.
As for your EPS , no way is it 0.031. Even highest quality XPS is 0.033, and EPS is lower performance again.

Got certification today for 0.033.

Carbonnet

BarneyMc wrote: »

Got certification today for 0.033.

The ONLY legally binding declaration is on the Declaration of Performance (DoP) - Kore quote 0.035

Carbonnet

The only legally binding declaration - must be issued under CE marking requirement within the DoP- Declaration of Performance - Kore quote 0.035

BarneyMc

Finalising quotes and prices have certainly increased in the past 18 months or so!

galwaytt

BarneyMc wrote: »

Finalising quotes and prices have certainly increased in the past 18 months or so!

..and will continue to do so.