Jump to content

ADLIan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    767

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ADLIan

  1. ADLIan
    With lamba value lower = better so ‘understating’ is not good. Since 2009 they’ve been claiming 0.022 W/mK when it should have been 0.023 W/mK. Makes all your U-values higher (worse). Not good for their certification and CE mark especially on the back of Grenfell and incorrect quoted fire performance - all on website.
  2. ADLIan
    See Celotex website , www.celotex.co.uk. Appears they have not been exactly truthful with their thermal performance!
  3. ADLIan
    Compliance with relevant British Standard, harmonised European Standard (CE mark), BBA (or similar) or European Technical Approval normally acceptable routes to show compliance/acceptability . Mainland European countries all have their own version of BBA but BCOs often reluctant to accept these. See Approved Document 7 of the Regs for mor info. Ian
  4. ADLIan
    Beware!!! Switching from gas space/water heating (especially heated floor) to mains electric will totally screw up the CO2 emissions. Failure here under the Regs is very difficult/expensive to remedy! Your assessor should be able to advise.
  5. ADLIan
    That version of BS 5250 is now out of date and BS 6229 is more specific for flat roofs. Calculation method for condensation analysis now in BS EN 13788. Remember these standards/methods are basically steady state rather than transient conditions you can however change internal/external conditions to asses greater/lesser risk.
  6. ADLIan
    In a house of that age I assume cavity to be only 50mm. With a medium/dense block the 'balance' of insulation with 100mm EPS externally should be OK to avoid condensation. As stated above even if condensation is predicted is it harmful? Bear in mind amount of condensate, net build-up (if any), location & nearby materials.
  7. ADLIan
    Agree with above - vent cavity negates effect of EWI. As regards condenaation it not just if it occurs - also how much, is there a net build-up over the year, are moisture sensitive materals adjacent. Suggest you get the insulation or the render system manufacturer to look at this for you in accordance with relevant BSs - the Vesma calc looks very rough and ready and is not using correct values in the bit I can see - not sure what's going on behind this!
  8. ADLIan
    Glass wool (unfaced) from all the major manufacturers is normally classed as non-conbustible. If there is a facing (or encapsulation) such as paper or polythene this will burn. Loft insulation is generally not faced or encapsulated (some are!)
  9. ADLIan
    For conversion to dwelling work EPC still required. No air permeability test required under Regs so default of 15 is used. You can still get test done and use that value in the as built.
  10. ADLIan
    Recticel traditionally been great quality. As for Celotex - after recent events make your own mind up. If the foil face is that bad then thermal properties must be open to question too.
  11. ADLIan
    Interesting to see latest Celotex issue with fire performance and testing - see announcement on home page of website. ian
  12. ADLIan
    Apologies - got my Guides mixed up. It was the Domestic Building Services Guide that was updated in 2013 not the Ventilation Guide (still at 2010 version)
  13. ADLIan
    Link above is to the old version of the Domestic Ventilation Compliance Guide - there is a 2013 version effective from April 2014.
  14. ADLIan
    This is one of the reasons why we don't render directly onto timber frame in this country. Render should be onto a carrier board with ventilated cavity behind to protect the structural frame (and any insulation external to the frame). ian
  15. ADLIan
    BS476, surface spread of flame, isn't referenced by any of the current standards covering insulation materials so I'm at a loss as to why some manufacturer even quote this. Correct BS is BSEN 13501. This measures reaction to fire, flammable or non-combustible (with points between) and importantly smoke generation and the presence of burning droplets.
  16. ADLIan
    Appr Doc B2 already covers the issues faced at Grenfell Tower. Not sure if it's lack of understanding or enforcement is the issue. Cannot copy from the AD but see Section 12 on External walls, in particular paras 12.5 and 12.7. Perhaps these particular statements need emphasising more - capitals, in bold & underlined!! Ian
  17. ADLIan
    I believe that test only covered one particular external cladding (12mm fibre cement sheet?) and is not valid in any other system.
  18. ADLIan
    All mainstream insulation products are covered by BS EN standards which are used for CE marking and use BS EN 13501 for the fire performance. This Standard not only looks at the flammability but also characterises smoke production and burning droplets. Surface spread of flame rating under BS 476 is NOT referenced by these Standards so is meaningless. For some reason all of the Celotex products discussed here, irrespective of chemical composition, type of facing or use of glass fibre reinforcement, all have the same reaction to fire rating of 'No Performance Dertermined' (NPD).. If for example their standard products were 'Euroclass E' but a special fire resistant version was better at 'Eurclass B why not do the test and publish the data I have looked at a few of the Declaration of Performance documents (I have no intention of checking the entire product range) and they are all 'NPD'. Bottom line is they all appear to have the same fire performance and I've not seen any published test data to indicate otherwise
  19. ADLIan
    If FR = fire resistant (I don't think it does) and it has an enhanced fire performance compared to their standard PIR why not measure that performance in accordance with the BS and state it in the technical characteristics. As it stands most, if not all, Celotex products look to be 'No Performance Determined' (NPD) for fire performance. If you don't measure it you cannot state product x is better than product y! The PIR video on the first page shows it at Euroclass E. I have also seen PIR at Euroclass C or D. So different grades, manufacturer, composition etc can be differentiated by the BS. The Euroclass rating goes from best at Class A (non combustible) and worst performance is Class F (highly flammable/NPD).
  20. ADLIan
    Some insulation manufacturers continue to use Class 0 or Class 1 which relates to surface spread of flame under BS 476. For all of the mainstream insulation materials this is totally irrelevant as the manufacturing standards do not reference this standard - the common fire test is in BS EN 13501. For whatever reason Celotex have not tested their products to this standard. @Ian A quick skim though the report confirms my points above - PUR & PIR both burn! Looking at photos of the PIR on the tower the insulation looks to have been totally consumed by fire, the 'charring' offering no protection.
  21. ADLIan
    @JSHarrisPlease check the Celotex website - its RS5000. Whilst there also check the CE Mark & Declaration of Performance document for this and other Celotex products and for fire performance most are 'No Performance Determined' i.e. it must be classed as 'combustible' when assessing its suitability. I have seen other PUR/PIR manufacturers claiming Euroclass C or D (still combustible). One difference between PUR and PIR is a higher auto ignition temp for the PIR - still burns though.
  22. ADLIan
    PUR and PIR are manufactured to the same BS and fire tested to the same standard (BS EN13501-1) and achieve basically the same rating of Euroclass C or D (combustible). I can assure you PIR does burn! The charred and crazed remains left in some parts of the building, noted shortly after the fire subsided, were a clue to it being PUR/PIR, - see my post earlier in this thread when I would not speculate on the insulation used. Interestingly the Celotex RS5000 product used has 'no performance declared' for fire performance under its CE Mark, Read into this that it is combustible and that's what it must be classed as when assessing its suitability for use in any particular application.
  23. ADLIan
    The cladding panels themselves are only 4-6mm thick - any potentially combustible core (only 3-5mm) is nothing compared to the fire potential of the 150mm of polyurethane foam behind it. The 150mm foam would be the critical part in the early development of a fire. If intense enough, then as mentioned before, the al cladding would add to the problem.
  24. ADLIan
    Glass wool and stone wool both available for this application in slab form and both non-combustible. Additional weight per m2 is negligible, certainly for glass wool, compared to the PUR used so this is a red herring. This problem of combustible insulation in rainscreen cladding and similar systems in high rise buildings is very well documented. See attached from Building Control Alliance from a few years ago (my highlights for my use, not on original doc) bca_guidance_note_18_use_of_combustible_cladding_materials_on_residential_buildings.pdf
  25. ADLIan
    Had to go north of the border but insulation confirmed as celotex RS5000. No Performance Declared for fire performance. The Herald (Scotland)
×
×
  • Create New...