BadgerBodger

Tough call. Are you draining groundwater or managing surface water? As a general rule I’d say textile all the way. In some exceptional circumstances I’ve seen them block (using non-woven). But these were truly exceptional.

Three consecutive days? I know the first “fill” should be on day one and the other tests follow but I actually thought you were meant to test consecutively on the same day so you get a cumulative impact (making the test take longer each time) which results in a larger drainage field. This is more important with poor draining land but not to be ignored. Either way. I did my own test as above, and got pretty low values (as in fast draining) but they were accepted (using PSTP). Admittedly I didn’t follow the guidance entirely as it was the middle of storm darragh… but I think it helped my cause. I also did three trial holes and tests picking the worst two for my final result. I used this website for guidance… https://www.copeland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/percolation_surface.pdf

No!!! The total build-up was 1.4m. If I recall it was geotextile, geogrid (Tri-axial) 300mm 75-125 stone, three times, with 300mm 6f2 and an MOT capping to make-up. It was a for a pile mat. The permanent structure was built on driven piles. I don’t think It’s absolutely necessary. I was looking to use grid at my place but given that the drive is caked in mud at potato harvest I figured grid wasn’t any use as it would be gunked up with much after the first winter.

@Redoctober I use the membrane below the type 1. It’s mainly out of habit now as every road, car park, plaza I do seems to have it so when I’m doing myself I figure I never have to go back to that spec so if it’s good for them, it’s good for me. Anecdotally, in my experience it helps with ensuring you don’t get such a migration on fines (upward) from formation level. Over simplifying it, geogrid type product greater resist punching down. I’ve had some pretty bad ground in my time and pretty much every time a combination of geogrid, membrane and stone in varying thicknesses generally gets the result we need. In some cases for pile mats I’ve put in 1400mm stone!! The rest of the site received cement stabilisation.

Angular gravel is the way. Essentially quarried only. As everyone else says river bed gravel, shingle, pea gravel or otherwise, spills, ruts etc. Up to 50mm of angular gravel on a good sub base (minimum 150mm MOT) with woven geotextile below is reasonable (substrate dependent) for passenger vehicle. The MOT wants compacting well (twin drum roller ideally) and the gravel should knit well. I recently did a temp car park on bad ground and we swapped out the gravel for 150mm of 40mm clean compacted and it’s held out for 3 years of heavy use.

Yeah, this client is not domestic but energy infrastructure. It’s not a case of want, more need. And the need is ours and their desire to make money.

@JohnMo I’m not sure you’re entirely correct on this point. The uk manufacturing process has been improved across the board and the average improvement is a 29% reduction in embodied carbon as an average in the placed product UK wide. You’re right, not everyone uses the best, lowest carbon products, but some do, the project I am on now has used 3500m3+ of concrete. Wherever possible we have used GBBA cement replacement at the maximum potential (it’s actually cheaper and your concrete supplier will give you a mix design with this in as standard unless you ask for 100% OPC which most people don’t actually want because is has a short workability period and unless places and protected properly is prone to cracking) . Wherever possible we also used recycled aggregate and placed 16000m3 of crushed concrete in lieu of virgin crushed rocks. And this is not a government contract. This in part because many institutional clients WANT do to the right thing. They sign up to optional scheme like BREEAM which push sustainability above and beyond the mandated standards. It’s much akin to the much maligned Euro Rules many justified brexit on, not realising we as a country went above and beyond, often by choice. You might not realise it but it’s happening right in front of our eyes. Because… the system of taxation… incentivisation… works! Another example of this is EV. Uptake wouldn’t be so high if the sales hadn’t been subsidised in the way they were. And subsequently if infrastructure requirements hadn’t been pushed through the various routes (subsidisation, investment, planning etc) but for the most part I think we can again agree that the trajectory is by and large “in the right direction”. And yes, big compromises will be made to “finish the job” but as ever you have to consider the pareto principle (80/20) rule. The premise of which is that inferred in this situation 80% of the gains will come from 20% of the effort. I think we’re still that 20% phase and importantly this trajectory is a 25 year plan and by that standard, the next 5 years will see the most gains with the least sacrifice. What happens next is anyone’s guess…

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen oak oudoors, not silver unless regularly treated. Lame goes for larch. And bothe look pretty similar in the end. As a soffit it might well be that as it’s not exposed to uv or weather, it may last a good while. I fitted this (not in wood finish) and the colour 5 years later is still good a strong when exposed to full daylight on a facade… pretty much 0 maintenance. https://www.trespa.com/en_GB/products/wood-decors

Have you looked at a shallow crate system which could then have a hydrobrake on the exiting MH?

Agreed. Compromises will be required. But incremental improvements combined with small changes in lifestyle/approach can make a huge difference. Sometimes there is very little compromise for the end user though, just look at concrete, still a major source of carbon emissions the production of cement has been improved so as to reduce carbon emissions by roughly 50% and development in concrete design by use of cement replacements such as GGBS mean that overall embodied carbon is reduced by nearly 30%. This is an averaged number and can be further reduced by use of recycled aggregates and increased GGBS in some applications. Proof that legislation, taxation and incentivisation works. This kind of approach cascades into developing worlds (eventually) through the realisation that it can and does save money in the long term.

This. Leading by example is the only way. If everyone takes the approach that “it’s not my problem”, no-one does anything. Everyone does their own bit. Like you say, the “20 billion” is small fry, and I don’t know the exact numbers but some if not all will be covered by the various “carbon” taxes.

Yes. They do. But most don’t have off street parking which, unless you are willing to put up with the inconvenience of have to go and sit somewhere to charge or they have charging everywhere you park (work, shop, etc) an EV is no good. Where I currently live it’s virtually all terraced housing (Leeds) in the main city…

Interesting topic. My two cents for what they’re worth. like others have said EV works for city dwellers. But not for most as they’re both too expensive AND impractical for anyone without a private driveway (currently, but likely not forever). EV models are marketed at that size and affordability range upwards. side note… as much a I hate all these e-bike everywhere they do seem to potentially be a part of the solution ICE for me is providing best value for money based on a 5 year usage cycle when considering purchase price, maintenance cost, fuel and resale value (so long as I only buy - nearly new). That IS changing and the tipping point is getting closer to viability on a cost basis BUT as a family we would not be able to have two given the current mileages capacity. I see electric cars as the Betamax. Something else will likely be VHS maybe a hydrogen fuel solution or maybe something we simply haven’t thought about/isn’t yet practical. re carbon capture. I have mixed feelings about this. I’m a strong believer in forward motion and this is an important step for lack of a better solution. The concept of carbon credits is forcing companies to start thinking about their own solutions (to carbon emissions) which should stimulate creativity. In this case maybe we need to rethink the problem as having another dynamic - tax. If you consider the impact of the laffer curve on business in combination of incentive effects the policy make more sense, hopefully stimulating yet more innovation and development I think carbon capture is a step in the right direction and the development of efficiencies in the technology is right BUT that solution for sequestration could be a misstep, or at least, only a small part in the long term solution (which in all likelihood will land on - plant more forests!!! - a topic for another time perhaps…) coming back to carbon capture, it’s not all about sequestration but some is actually re-used for manufacturing amongst other things. The reality is we, have to think more about what we are doing with our waste, because in my view, that’s what this is, a waste problem, which is solved by a multitude of factors but started by attacking the biggest generators which are energy production (in its various forms and usages), and quite literal waste. As usual the hierarchy of control should be eliminate, reduce, re-use, recycle, dispose (responsibly). EV is quite high in the hierarchy with it reducing emissions carbon capture sits lower on on the re-use/recycle/dispose levels but when you consider that with current processes carbon must be generated, carbon capture is the next most responsible thing to do. ultimately both are steps forward and forward motion is forward motion which is better than stasis or regression.

Tried searching for sinusoidal cladding? There are plenty of options.

Good question. And there is a lot to talk about here… I’ll keep it quick though. Ask for the suppliers CARES certificate. If it covers the relevant classes you’re looking for you’re good. I’m over generalising but for domestic work I wouldn’t dig much further than that. It’s a rabbit hole. On the bending sizes and radii, factory bent will give you the most options. On site you don’t really want to be making up complex bar bends!

Bending is easy enough with a bar bender but by the time you’ve hired one and bought the bar you’re probably better paying the 20% premium on the few you want…. I’m not sure you’d get a bar bender to manage bends in that short succession though.

Agreed. Not often you actually see the double tape and top hats being used!

It’s common to see pretty much all arrangements. If you’re using clay or cast pipe you don’t generally get female/male ends, only straight union couplers. It works fine. Same goes for twin wall. I like it when the builder leaves a coupler as you see there with a blanking plate left flush with the slab surface. Nigh guarantees you won’t damage the pipe through construction.

Interesting. So considering that there will be a service void on the inside face and a cavity on the outside, this will be of some benefit?

This is exactly what I’m doing. There is some Hardcore in there which needs knocking about once the foundation modifications are complete and then compacting. Sand blinding followed by EPS 100. Cheap and cheerful. I’m going under rafter only. Only need to tape to purlins. BUT also using a full VCL membrane the warm side before batten for service void and board. Debating whether to use reflective membrane or not. I think no need considering foil face on the PIR

And thanks all for the input.

I have to build up the levels to achieve the floor level and I’m using UFH. Figured we could use cheap EPS to hit two birds with one stone. Labour cost is the same. Small uplift in material cost for EPS/stone. I’m also limited to the amount of weight I can add to the existing roof. Maybe I will get 160mm but that will be the limit. It will be PIR in the roof build-up. Celotex advise resultant u-value with 150mm will be 0.13. The installation risk of fitting between irregular timber is why I have chosen to go under rafter only as opposed to between and under. Ok. So. I continue with my quest. I’m well aware of the Grenfell issues and the associated risks. I’ve been working with the various insulation materials for the last 17 years and in my view PIR always results in the technically most effective solution (not withstanding installation issues). As I’m going to be the installer for the main build and the builder is only doing the extension where it is a full fill cavity wall, I’m happy. As I saw someone else write on a thread recently. I always have the builder lay 6 course of block, flush up the cavity side and then point the internal face. Install insulation once the block has gone off, tape the joints, then face up. When coursing above the insulation, cover with a piece of timber or hessian, then brush off before more insulation.

why there is such a strong aversion to PIR on this forum. In context. For my barn conversion I’m looking at the following. 300mm EPS below slab external walls to be panelised stud liner system installed in steel frame with breather membrane to outside 120mm PIR between studs and 50mm to face with VCL and service void to face before PB roof will be breather above rafter, 150mm insulation below with VCL and service void to face before PB Additional perspective is that the architect proposed a hygroscopic solution but in my view this was not cost effective (surface area is huge and additional load to roof would have been problematic) and did not resolve the cold bridging issues I have with the steel frame being used to brace the external walls.

Also curious. Our conservation officer was encouraging me to go down this route but we ended up just going for double. I really wanted triple glazing but it was a hard no from his standpoint.

I’m not in a conservation area but my project is grade 2 listed. I’ve just had solar and ASHP approved. In my case they were really not keen on seeing it on the main build but accepted it on the extension. Every area has a different standard and I’d go as far as saying it depends upon the approach of the conservation officer. IMHO, the most expeditions route to finding the answer will be to make contact directly or find a good architect who has an existing relationship with them. I did both, my architect put the concept out there to test the water, I spoke about the finer detail and where the boundaries lay, we ended up with a submission that was passed fist time, as were the closure of the conditions. As others say, you have to get listed building consent and planning. Although, I haven’t quite figured either the removal of permitted development is solely to push you to the consent or whether the requirement for both is absolute.