ADLIan

See also new Approach Doc L due next month-insulation for intermediate floors with underfloor heating.

There are 2 types of energy assessor: On construction. Primarily to show compliance with building regs so must be able to understand drawings, building regs, building technology and many pages of full sap documentation. Can offer lots of advice on energy efficiency, build efficiency, cost effectiveness etc, etc. As part of as built assessment the epc is done. Cost £100s per property. Domestic. Use rdsap and undertakes ‘survey’ of property. Lots of box ticking. Cost £35 per property, do 10 a day including travel??? Make your own mind up where the expertise is. For disclosure I’m ‘on construction’ but leaving as red tape, evidence gathering (photograph all parts of the build process please) will mean I’ll spend 90% of my time chasing information, that is probably not available, rather than doing assessments and advising clients

The reflective breather membranes (and reflective AVCLs) can give a useful reduction in the U-value but only if they face onto an unventilated airspace. When used behind cladding with a ventilated airspace behind most of this benefit is lost and there is unlikely to be any improvement in the U-value

Assuming concrete/medium density block on both sides then acoustic performance will come from the mass of the wall. Adding mineral wool or dense plasterboard will add little, if anything, acoustically.

@Iceverge As a start you need to get copies of BS EN 10211 (calculation methods) and BR 497 for the conventions used when undertaking linear thermal transmittance calculations. You also need to know the correct inputs into THERM and what to do with the output value (which is not automatically the psi-value unless THERM has changed recently). It is not a simple process!

Sorry but that THERM model is wrong. The lintel, jambs and cill should be modelled separately effectively ignoring the window. I've not used THERM for some time but in the past it did not give the psi-value directly - the output needed more number crunching to arrive at the psi-value. Whilst the psi-value may be low in this instance I doubt that it would be negative.

In a masonry cavity wall the thermal resistance of the residual cavity is set at 0.18 m2K/W.

Differences in the acoustic absorption make little or no difference to the overall acoustic performance as it is insignificant compared to the effect of the plasterboard, studs, quality of workmanship……. The Canadian document I seem to remember listed 100’s of different combinations of insulation, timber/metal studs, plasterboard thickness, No of layers etc. The type and density of mineral wool made no difference; thicker wool giving a slightly better performance.

The above does not apply to multi foil insulation. Here the manufacturers normally quote a total thermal resistance of their product based on the resistance of the core material plus the resistance of a low emissivity air space on both sides. It is the additional battens that can add to the thickness of the roof (or wall) and add to material and labour costs.

Denser does not equal better - this is something pushed by Rockwool for many years. The Approved Docs show a minimum density of 10 kg/m3 for mineral wool as an acoustic absorber in walls and floors. Someone posted a link on here some time ago to some very extensive research, I think done in Canada, that showed all mineral wool effectively does the same job and it is the use of denser plasterboard, double layer of plasterboard, acoustic studs, resilient bars etc that will improve the acoustic performance. Attached is an article from Knauf who make both glass wool and stone wool products. Don't waste your money on ever denser Rockwool! 592690867_KnaufAcousticDensityArticle.pdf

And it is the compressed insulation thickness that is used in the U-value calculation.

Knauf glass wool going up by 35% on 1 July!!!

The difference in density between all those mineral wool products will have no affect on the overall acoustic performance. Price of all insulation products has increased massively in the last 12 months - perhaps by 50-60%!!

Whole window is assessed - glazing and frame

Yup. You’ve already designed it.

I think that’s water use rather than drainage

Nothing has really changed with conservatories. If thermally separated they can ignored - if not they are treated as part of the dwelling so included in the heat loss, CO2 emissions, DER/TER calculations etc and the solar gain (overheating) assessment. What has changed is that this part of overheating is now in the new Appr Doc O which has both a simplified method and complex dynamic thermal modelling method

'Seconds' will be downgraded for a reason. This means they will not comply with relevant British/European Standards, not be covered by CE marking or BBA certification and as such not fit for use under the Bldg Regs/Approved Docs. Not that any BCO I've come across would police this! Perhaps more of an issue if fire performance questioned.

SAP assessor may not have taken account of low emissivity foil on the PUR. As above, manufacturer figures can be used provided you have proof of the numbers

standard block outer, aircrete block inner, plasterboard on dab and 75mm PUR partial fill should give about 0.20 W/m2K (25mm or 50mm cavity makes no difference to U-value)

'Wind wash' is not normally an issue with loft insulation as the wind speed over the insulation is insignificant. From memory BBA and/or BRE have done work on this

Mass air movement into the loft also needs to be considered. Seal any gaps in the ceilings - around pipe and cable penetrations, light fittings etc. Not sure that emulsion paint will create much of a vcl as its moisture vapour resistivity is only about 0.5 MNs/g (polythene is 250 MNs/g or more)

Both systems work and problems are more down to workmanship or wall not being suitable for injection. More problems reported with mineral wool simply because this has the biggest part of the market, especially refurb. injected cavity insulation will also reduce air movement in the cavity so getting the best from the EWI. The EWI will mitigate potential penetrating damp across the wall.

But the sap assessor must have this info to sign off this part of the works. Rock and a hard place come to mind!! I give my clients a full design stage report with recommendations/requirements for building reg compliance (or more), not really my issue if Building Control do not take this into consideration. SAP assessor is not responsible for policing this part of the Regs

Totally agree. But checking BR compliance is a job for Building Control not a SAP assessor who will never visit the site.