Hilldes

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About Hilldes

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Surrey

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks @Alexphd1 that is what I’m inclined to do. I did question this with the supplier but I don’t think they got it.
  2. Thanks @willbish that is my thinking too. We won't need much in the way of heat output. I guess the only downside might be the entire ceiling void will be warm - warming cables, water piped etc.
  3. Working on the MVHR spec with supplier. I've selected the option for Vent Axia Sentinel Kinetic High Flow MVHR unit. House is 260m2. The Vent Axia Sentinel Kinetic High Flow has larger 180mm spigots (150mm are more common I think). The design features 180mm ducts and grills for the intake and exhaust to atmosphere. For the internal supply and extract, the distribution boxes have been specced with 150mm spigots. An adaptor will be supplied to step down from the 180mm spigots on the MVHR unit to the 150mm spigots on the distribution boxes. Stepping down from 180mm to 1500mm sounds like it defeats the point of the ***High Flow***. Does this sound right?
  4. Working through spec for 1st floor UFH with Wunda. Most likely will go for F04 spreader plates fixed to top of posi joists. In the data sheet, the F04 has a layer of EPS immediately under the spreader plate. EPS is supported on battens fixed to the joists. Not keen on additional effort to fix the EPS. Asked if I could omit the EPS as will have 100mm mineral wool acoustic insulation below the spreader plate between each joist. Answer was yes, but essential the mineral wool is immediately below the spreader plate. I'm thinking the mineral wool will lie on the ceiling plasterboard, so will be around 140mm below the spreader plate. Anyone encountered this and found a solution? Any major issue with the mineral wool being some way below the spreader plate?
  5. Thanks @Mr Punter I'll check the Marmox data sheet. I vaguely recall it stating the Marmox block must not be wider than the blocks beneath it, but will check. Unless there are 140mm wide dense concrete blocks?
  6. Thanks @tonyshouse, will look at EPS in the cavity. I guess no problem in filling the cavity so 50mm EPS. Can I actually bridge the DPC with EPS? Perimeter insulation of 100mm sounds good given the wall make up - so this will be under the PIR wall insulation (the pink colour) and the service cavity.
  7. Thanks @Mr Punter, will look at detailing cavity tray and weep holes - have not seen these in detailing for TF with render board external skin, but I guess water could enter the cavity and needs to go somewhere. Sole plate fixing - will add these details when TF design completes. Interestingly, Marmox state that if the sole plate is "nailed" down then this can't go through the Termoblock. So the Thermoblock would need to go lower in the wall, and a 7N concrete block under the sole plate to take the "nail" - which I guess means the concrete block is colder and more risk of interstitial condensation at the sole plate DPC. The non standard height blocks - I've not been comfortable with this either. Will look at using on standard height blocks at least for the inner skin.
  8. Almost ready to submit this to Building Control. Any comments much appreciated... Piling and ring beam will have separate detailed drawings.
  9. Thanks @PeterW, For sign off, I think in this case the designer/specifier is me. Got separate SEs for the timber frame and the foundations, but the insulated B&B floor is me. The chairs was my next item to look into. Milbank do specify 75mm concrete above "services" so I've asked if that applies to UFH pipes.
  10. Thanks @Mr Punter and @Russell griffiths. The minimum depth of the structural concrete topping is 75mm as specified by Milbank - with various options for reinforcement. I'm planning a 100mm concrete topping with A142 mesh and 16mm UFH pipes embedded and clipped to the steel mesh. I've asked Milbank to help refine the specification for the concrete based on the above. Any views on lack of BBA cert?
  11. A coupe of questions on this one if anyone can help please... Data sheet: Specification of structural concrete toppings - "For standard concrete, the concrete sump should be class S3 (100 to 150mm) or S4 (for spot samples from initial discharge, 140 to 230mm)" - what does this mean? What do I actually specify for the groundworkers and order from the ready mixed concrete supplier? Can't see that WarmFloor Pro is BBA certified - not a show stopper if Building Control and warranty provider are OK?
  12. I'm seeking quotes for insulated beam and block floor systems. I've received a quote from Milbank for their WarmFloor Pro system. For a 146m2 ground floor, been quoted approx £5K ex VAT for the system. Includes the prestressed concrete 'T' beams (155mm), EPS infill blocks, closure blocks and 150mm EPS top sheet (for a floor U value of 0.12). I'd costed just a conventional B&B floor from Travis Perkins (albeit the un-discounted Ex VAT price), so the T beams and 7N concrete infill blocks. No insulation. At almost £6K. Am I missing something or is that very good value from Milbank?
  13. The one I went with @£2k sounds similar to your first option. Will post the work that was actually done when I get the report.
  14. Thanks both, if there was an explanation I thought it would be something like the breather membrane or foil on the insulation. This was not the first quote I've seen that seemed to good to be true. P.S. I assumed PIR, the supplier just specified "rigid insulation".
  15. Got a number of quotes from timber frame suppliers. I have been checking a few of the claimed U values. One reason being my current spec is for render board external skin as opposed to brick or block. When I check the U values quoted by the supplier I get a higher figure than they state. Here is an example for an external wall... Supplier offers a 140mm stud filled with 120mm of PIR (so about 85% PIR, 15% timber stud, plus a 20mm air gap). Across the inner face of the stud is 50mm PIR. Supplier claims overall U value for the wall will be 0.11 - but did not caveat this. I did a rough calc on just the elements mentioned and get approx U 0.16. I queried this disparity, the answer was "All our u-values quoted are all calculated based on a masonry external cladding". So I model a more complete, build up with brick outer skin and get U0.14. Is this a common problem? Here are the details of the caluation of U0.14...