ADLIan

Members
  • Content Count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Good

About ADLIan

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    NE England

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LABC issued certificates for both Celotex & Kingspan after both manufactures approached their local building control office in West Suffolk & Hereford. Kingspan swamped the BCB at Hereford with fire test data and it does not appear that they were experienced or qualified to make a judgement - K15 certainly should not have been classed as ' limited combustibility'.
  2. Market forces and latest Appr Doc B has sorted high rise!
  3. The problem with both kingspan and celotex and fire goes back to 2008 when new European/British manufacturing standards were introduced with new fire tests (BS EN 13501-1). If they had adopted these tests their products would have been classed as ‘combustible’ and they would have lost a lot of business. Instead they hid behind the old BS 476, Parts 6 & 7, tests which are simply not relevant to the pur manufacturing Standard. PUR/PIR and phenolic foams will be classed as combustible but may fall into slightly different Euroclass categories (C or D?)
  4. Where in the Building Regs or Approved Docs does it give information on min. roof falls?
  5. BS 6229 states design fall should be 1:40 to make sure actual fall is no worse than 1:80 accounting for site tolerances & inaccuracies. There are some waterproofing systems designed for zero falls - these should have 3rd party certification and need careful design (no back falls).
  6. Could try Recticel or Extratherm, they don’t appear to be caught up in this mess.
  7. We may drift off topic here. But basically both lied about fire performance, used outdated test data, changed the chemistry of products, openly confused the market.....Does not make for good reading. Celotex also admitted overstating thermal performance just after the Grenfell fire. Yes, other manufacturers are available.
  8. For a new extension wall you need 0.28 W/m2K. For new build house it depends upon the numbers that come out of the SAP assessment, looking at better than 0.25, ideally better than 0.20. After the revelations at the Grenfell Inquiry this week not sure why anyone would consider Celotex or Kingspan.
  9. That one looks to be more relevant. Your bco will have to decide if kiwa certificate is acceptable. Kiwa cert looks to be very much desk top study based. BBA have full size test rigs to make sure cavity gets fully filled and system will resist rainwater penetration - not sure if kiwa do this, .
  10. @oldkettleCheck with manufacturer. Read the certificate very carefully. Does not appear to cover cavity between 2 masonry leaves (a traditional masonry cavity wall detail)
  11. Awhile since I was involved in consultation on RHI. It was originally planned for upgrading heating systems in existing housing and tied in to certain fabric upgrades. Not sure why self builders were given exemption, as you state with a well insulated modern build payment is minimal.
  12. There is a table in L1A that mentions 0.18 in walls but this figure is not cast in stone. Possible to still get compliance with a wall at 0.25(ish). SAP gives a lot of design flexibility.
  13. Very little insulation in a 1980s timber frame house so condensation risk very different from current standards. From memory issue in 1980s was bad building practice and poor detailing leading to moisture penetration and subsequent rot, may also have been issues with fire performance. Also remember reports of media overhyping the issue of only a few actual problems - didn’t help Barrats though. Current timber frame construction is a world away from back then.
  14. Might not be a common detail but no reason not to insulate in cavity provided 50mm min cavity kept before brick outer.
  15. Prestige Devs deal with park homes. Requirements here very different to ‘normal’ houses having to comply with Building Regs so the linked diag may not be relevant.