SBMS Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Hi all We have received our first set of SAP Calcs back for our new build. The wall U-Values are coming out around 0.22 - this is using 100mm block, 100mm cavity with 75mm PIR, 100mm inner light block (just standard for now). However, putting this same spec into Kingspan/EcoTherm U-Value calculators, it spits out 0.17. Does the SAP Software calculate things differently? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 So the calculators all assume 50mm cavity which you don’t have with the solution there. Why not go with 125 or 150mm cavity and then use full fill blown bead or similar ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBMS Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, PeterW said: So the calculators all assume 50mm cavity which you don’t have with the solution there. Why not go with 125 or 150mm cavity and then use full fill blown bead or similar ..? This is the SAP calcs done by a firm, based on the above spec... Are you saying that they don't adjust the 'As Designed' Spec, to reflect the cavity solution described above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, SBMS said: SAP calcs done by a firm, based on the above spec. If you show them a proven (or stated) U value by a manufacturer, which matches your construction then they will plug that U value in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBMS Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 Got you. So effectively they're going off some 'stock' figures. I was going off ecotherm's calculator; https://uvaluecalculator.ecotherm.co.uk/calculator/walls/cavity wall/brick/lightweight (0.15)/3mm skim-coated 12.5mm plasterboard/partial fill/75/ which is the manufacturer @ our local merchants. Kingspan's calculator has a lower mark of 0.18 - both of these are better than the U Values used by the SAP calculator. I assume these would suffice as evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceverge Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 @SBMS Assuming you're not building this house for someone you really don't like I'd bin any thought of rigid boards in the wall. Full fill mineral wool or beads would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBMS Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 @Iceverge Quickly read the mentioned topic, but what's the rationale in a nutshell? If you have a good builder who can fit PIR well onto the inner leaf is there any reason you would still recommend full fill mineral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceverge Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 12 minutes ago, SBMS said: If you have a good builder who can fit PIR well Unless you're prepared to pay a brickie twice as much it just takes too much time to get an absolutely perfect fit. Too many mortar droppings, irregularities in the blocks and boards and then having to fit around cavity ties. To get anywhere near the labelled performance you would need to build one leaf first, the apply the boards, foaming the back and taping the joints as you go. Almost like an EWI job. Then build the second leaf, Preferably you would need to pre age the boards to ensure they had already shrunk before installation. Take care to carefully tape all nicks and cracks in the foil facing to prevent gas migration. Also you would need to account for the thermal bridging of the foil face of the insulation at corners. While you were at it it would be prudent to apply the PIR in 2 layers with all joints staggered. It would be tricky to do as they cavity ties will dictate the location of the boards and they might need drilling foaming and taping afterwards. Of course there's the issue then of getting everything to fit tight around windows and doors. Ideally the boards will be fitted and individually foamed to create a continuous insulation layer between all windows doors pile penetrations etc. If you can find a builder who is willing to do all this for a regular price let us know. Otherwise just full fill the cavity with diligently placed batts, EPS beads or closed cell foam. TLDR. Realistically it's impossible fit PIR to the perform even close to the theoretical design. Dritherm37 is £7.50/m2 for 125mm and will practically outperform Celotex @75mm for £17.50/m2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBMS Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 Thanks @Iceverge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now