IanR

I'll let you know in the new year. We're putting them only where we have hard floors as felt the extra hoovering the carpeted area needs puts more risk of damage and therefore skirting would be better. How do you plan to create the gap, We've gone with pre-finished Aluminium profiles, makes the job quite easy.

I can't deny, I was a little daunted by it initially and even tried to demolish part of it, but was told by planning "that's not allowed within the rules". I've grown to appreciate it now though!

Ah, OK, you were being non-specific when you said "hardcore". While there's probably a minimum bearing capacity in the spec for the soil under the type 1, there won't be for the type 1 itself, so you've not got a figure to test too to give you the peace of mind your architect is after. The Type 1 spreads any loads applied on it out to a wider foot-footprint of the soil beneath at an angle of 45 degrees, as does the EPS. So a 500mm wide ring beam, sitting on to 300mm of EPS and 500mm of aggregate, theoretically passes its load onto a 2100mm width of soil. The requirement for compacting the aggregate is to just ensure the load is passed on and spread wider, but doesn't itself come with a required load bearing capacity.

Is hardcore a suitable sub-base? As it's generic term I'm assuming it can't be certificated in the same way that say Type 1 can be. Or are you then putting a sub-base on top of the hardcore, and in that case you need to ensure the hardcore has the minimum bearing capacity stated for the foundation, which for mine was 100kN/m2 What's more important is that you have a "chain of custody" from Engineering specification to products used to ensure the Engineer's Insurance covers latent defects. (Unless the Engineer is overseeing the work).

That's a great looking finish, and obvious there's a lot of work required to get it to that level! Just to follow up on an earlier name I "introduced" for poured resin floors: The Senso/Sphere8 price was very competitive and I did like the quality of finish that I'd seen, but their payment terms have stopped me going with them. It's not clearly stated by them unless you ask, but their payment terms of 25% Deposit , 45% Staged and 30% Final are all required to be paid before any product arrives on site and any work has been started. Searching for a few Reviews I found a few that had been caught out and hadn't found out the Final payment is required 2 weeks before the job starts, until they had paid the nonrefundable deposit. These same reviews had issues with getting Senso/Sphere8 back to fix issues.

Yep, I looked at MBC and they quoted. I personally didn't have a great experience with them during the quoting phase. They were slow to respond and didn't answer questions related to their quote. Their frame was 10% more than TH, but that's close enough at an initial quote stage to mean on another job they could be cheaper. Their quote for my slab was ridiculously high which suggested they didn't want my job. This left a "nasty taste" and they'd have been better to explain either that they didn't want the job or what risk they saw that meant they needed to over double the real cost of installing it. Their panelised system was less suited to building around the existing structure, although this could have been worked on if I'd chosen to go with them. Smaller factors were that I preferred the TH method for the airtight layer, I saw this as easier to achieve a good result and longer lasting (just my engineering judgement) and I'm not convinced that installing Warmell into an internally open panel allows for easy, consistent distribution of the insulation. I'm sure they get the correct weight of insulation into each panel, but I fear it will be less dense at the bottom and increase in density towards the point it is filled from. To me this gives a risk of settlement. I caveat this with saying this is just my personal view of what I understood their process to be and have never heard of any issues, but my view of this was part of my decision. Definitely explore other options, not just Touchwood, but Beattie Passive, and perhaps Cygnum and Frame Technologies, but do your research...

There's a few members here with, like myself, a Touchwood Home's frames and there were quite a few more over at eBuid, but with MBC dominating the discussions over there it possibly suppressed discussion on other manufactures and build types. Our frame went up this year (2016) during July and August and I'd rate my experience with Touchwood as a success. Our build is a Conversion of a portal framed cowshed, and the frame design and erection was complicated by the existing structure, that obviously needed to remain in situ during the build. Visible below is the original primary steel frame with roof purlins: The TH Design process was far more precise than I expected for the construction industry. I was able to laser scan the original frame and prepare an as-built CAD model for TH to then work around. This was invaluable, since the original frame was a long way from square and plumb with the top of the portal frame being as much as 115mm out of position in places. With my model imported this into their frame design software they were able to confidently design their frame dovetailing around the existing structure, and confident we weren't going to have some unexpected clashes on site. The original structure and especially the haunches at the joints, required bespoke detailing of the timber frame to incorporate and guarantee a robust airtight layer. The TH design process allowed all of these conditions to be assessed and solutions agreed before a single piece of timber went up on site. During the design process we exchanged 3D models back and forth to agree solutions and to ensure compatibility to raft and drainage etc. I also have from them a full 3D model of the final frame design that has informed follow on trades and helped decide MVHR duct, plumbing and cable routings. This didn't however stop me from being nervous during the first stages of the frame erection when it would become obvious if my as-built model and their frame were sufficiently accurate. But I shouldn't have worried, the two fitted together perfectly. Taking a step back, our decision on what build process to use, what type of insulation to use and what performance targets to set took around 9 months after our planning was approved. Once we had decided on timber-frame with cellulose fibre insulation and Passivhaus levels of insulation and airtightness the list of companies capable of delivering this and giving guarantees was surprisingly small. Having removed many of the variables, we actually found it relatively simple to compare quotes. There were slight differences with what was and was not included, but these were all relatively simple to assign a value too, to allow comparison. A huge positive I found with TH is there has been no extra charges from their initial quotation. If anything, the content probably grew a little during the design stage, but everything must have been within a contingency they had allowed for, since they didn't ask for anymore money. With the majority of issues foreseen and resolved before the frame erection started, the frame build went without a hitch. Their frames are a mixture of pre-cut and cut on-site to a cutting list (whichever is more cost-effective), and stick built. I believe they're on site around 4 weeks for a "normal" build, it was a little longer for mine. While a panelised process may take less time on site, the overall timing would be around the same. For me, they turned up on the day they said they would and finished about a week later than expected. I'm looking forward to the airtightness test. Unfortunately, due to a hiccup with the roof lights I'll not be able to test with the structure still open, so remedial work will be a little more difficult, but I have high hopes. The airtight layer on a TH frame is "simple by design", and looks very robust. I believe their claim to generally be better than 0.2 ACH @ 50Pa, and sometimes be better than 0.1 ACH, but the proof of the pudding...

We have a Touchwood frame on an AFT Engineered raft. I looked at a lot of options for both, starting with SIPs suppliers and val-u-therm type panalised suppliers and eventually seeing the light with the help of ebuild and looked at all the blown cellulose fibre insulated frame installers I could find. With all the positive feedback on here and ebuild for MBC it was difficult to discount them, but I didn't have a great experience with them through the quoting phase. I did consider getting insulation for the slab directly from Kore and having it Engineered by TSD as this option was very cost effective, but it was most cost effective when it had a simple single perimeter ring beam that really needs to be combined with a twin stud wall to deliver a fully cold bridge free design. Once I'd decided to go with an I-Joist structure it required a slightly more complicated periphery detail and AFT for me had a slightly better solution at a similar price. For me the I-Joist structure from Touchwood was 10% cheaper than the twin stud from MBC. The Touchwood frame however required a slightly more expensive slab detail, but overall it was still slightly cheaper as a package. The cost from MBC to do the raft was so expensive I assumed they didn't want the job, so I'm comparing the price of a TSD designed, Kore supplied raft. Beattie Passive was about 50% more expensive for the frame and foundation package. The Val-u-therm option was about 10% more. SIPs options were about the same to achieve the same U Value, but no Airtightness guarantee, and no cold bridge free solution. My groundworks team installed the AFT raft. I got more involved than I would have liked as there was an inability to read a drawing. Should probably have got AFT to do the install, but no real complaints. The Touchwood frame is superbly designed, it really is very 'clever', and it was really well put together. It's been a pleasure working with all at Touchwood.

I think you'd struggle to beat the low capital and use costs of gas with an ASHP. Perversely, a poorly insulated home that can attract a higher RHI payment, may roughly draw even eventually. I'm going ASHP only because gas is not available and it's competitive compared to oil or LPG.

As ProDave said! Why do you think you will have an overheating problem? Has your house design been thermally modelled? ie. PHPP or the like? If so, it will guide you on what to do to reduce the overheating risk ie. reduce glazing area, recess windows further into reveals, larger eaves overhang, bris soleil etc. If, like me, you decide you don't want to reduce the glazing area because you like it, or can't increase overhangs or add bris soleil due to planning restrictions then you could consider low emissivity glass and/or add external shading and/or active cooling. But, you need a thermal model to determine what's the most cost effective, and what gives you the house that best suits your lifestyle. Edited to add: Expanding on ProDave's "and importantly the type of insulation", it's not all about U Value, when it comes to resisting incoming heat, choosing an insulation with a "decent" decrement delay will aid in reducing any heating requirement overnight when the sun goes down. This may be what you infer by your use of the term "thermal mass".

Could you clarify what's included in the £25/m When MBC quoted on mine, as part of a foundation and frame package, they wanted drainage already in and sub - base down, compacted and level, they were then going to lay the blinding, EPS, Steel, UFH, pour the concrete and power float, all for slightly over than £160/m2

Mine is an AFT Engineered, insulated raft, on clay with minimum load bearing capacity of 120kN/m2(mostly + 400) and AFT specifies Type 1 for the compacted aggregate, and uncompacted, no-fines, pea shingle for the blinding. Drainage is specified all around the perimeter, but I think that is also the case with a TSD engineered raft. Both options clearly work, just need to ensure you follow the spec from the respective engineer @dogman to ensure their insurance covers any issues.

Are you going with an MBC slab? I may be remembering this wrong from when I was considering the same, but doesn't TSD specify "no fines" in the compacted aggregate. If so I thought Type 1 was not suitable.

We paid £16 / tonne delivered for Type 1 from SRC Aggregates. If I remember correctly it's just under 2 tonne per cubic m. so we used about 170t for a 465 sqr. m . slab at 180mm thick. BUT, we actually used more than that as we extended out beyond the slab for the width of the scaffold so that there was hard-standing for the scaffold to sit on. The scaffolders insisted on hard-standing (although it didn't need to be type 1), and most will be pathways and patios at the end.

I wonder if there is a way of setting it up like Lease hire of a vehicle, with a balloon payment at the end to take full ownership. You effectively give them a loan of the notional value of the property, and they pay back that loan. They take ownership once full payment is received. Since it would be 0% interest on the loan, there would be no profit for you. Fix the term so that if the balloon payment is not received at the allotted time they walk away or enter a further agreement with you. Make sure the Lease is "full repairing and insuring".

Do you mean Revit?

Just to mention an alternative option for fixing UFH. On mine UFH clip rails fitted to EPS, pipes into clip rails, mesh over the top. I'm having a heart attack with every hole drilled into the slab (mostly to bolt down sole plates), so am grateful of having the pipe generally 75mm deep into the concrete. Pipe was also protected by the mesh while being walked over during the pour.

No no no. If you say you understand Rhino, then you are not understanding Alias if you think there is an equivalence. While Rhino is OKish at it price point, it would have no place in an Automotive workflow. I agree Alias is not suitable for Architecture. Taking you back to the start of this discussion, you blamed CAD for creating what you felt were rectilinear layouts in Architecture. All I said was "don't blame CAD", it's the construction industry that has chosen to invest their money buying software optimised for modelling boxes, so that is exactly what it has got. Other industries have invested in software with a different skill set. There is nothing else I can bring to this discussion, you have your view and are sticking with it, as is your prerogative. I'm signing out.

Diverted discussion from: To avoid that thread going further off topic. Alias AutoStudio (now owned by Autodesk), previously Alias StudioTools. Yes, and Yes. Although "design" means different things to people of different industries. To be clear I have not worked professionally as an Automotive Stylist, but I have 30 years Automotive design and project engineering experience, and a few years here and there in other industries, ie. aerospace, industrial design, product design. With regards to CAD Packages, I use (or have previously used) the following professionally: Catia V5 Catia V6 - early days, only done about 1000 hours in anger. UGS NX I-DEAS (now Siemens NX, was previously SDCR I-DEAS) Alias StudioTools (not current, last used StudioTools 13.0) 3D Studio Max ICEM Surf (not current, last used 4.0.2) now owned by Dassault Imageware Surfacer Catia V4 CADDS 5 CADDS 4x PDGS

But that's a gap in your knowledge/experience. "CAD" has no such shortfalls, it's a generic term that covers 100's of different software packages. Use the wrong tool for the job, or lack experience in that tool and you're restricted on what can be done with it, but don't blame "CAD".

You're about 10-15 years out of date with regards how the industry works. Yes, there are hobbyists that don't have access to the current tools, the software costs are prohibitive, so use old methods but mainstream design starts with Alias StudioTools/AutoStudio models. Only once a firm theme is chosen is a clay CNC cut to that model which is further finessed by hand. Any modifications being scanned and brought back into the Master studio 3D. Clay modelling is slow and expensive. The Automotive design process is constantly evolving, and improving, to reduce lead times and associated costs. Trust me, I've been in the industry 30 years and have worked in probably half of the major OEM Studios in Europe. The OEM Studios I am at presently really only produce a physical clay for management sign off and I haven't seen a tape drawing anywhere in at least 10 years.

That's not fare to blame "CAD". Automotive uses CAD from concept sketches through to cutting press tools and can produce beautiful shapes without a straight line or right angle in sight. The construction industry just chooses to limit itself to software optimised for modelling square boxes.

I've got a similar twin core pre-insulated pipe running under my slab ready to connect the ASHP up.

You'd need to be careful with what you submitted for your drawings to the planning dept. A correctly printed (from CAD) PDF that is electronically uploaded to the LPA will leave you nowhere to hide. PDFs have got too clever by half and the measuring facility within the free Acrobat Reader on every PC allows dimensions to be pulled off the plans to an accuracy of tenths of a millimeter. If you wish to muddy the waters you will have needed to have submitted paper hard copies of the drawings or to at least have printed them on to paper and then scanned them to PDF to break the CAD-2-PDF accuracy.

I must admit, since the OP only questions the roof, I'd assumed the rest of the TF Kit was either pre-cut stick build or panelised. Either way, perfectly OK to cut roof to a cutting schedule. Touchwood cut the vast majority of my entire frame on site and to the cutting list. Joe that does the cutting works about a week ahead of the erection team, so nothing built to measure to anyway. And their process certainly works, anything I've needed to measure so far has been within millimeters of where it should have been.