Blown-in wood fibre vs. cellulose

[sansserif]

Hi all

 

Curious what the general consensus is between blown-in wood fibre vs. cellulose (warmcel) for a passive(ish) timber frame home. So far what I'm seeing is that cellulose is a bit more commonplace.

 

What I'm hearing so far:

- Wood fibre is technically better. It gets installed to a slightly higher density and is less prone to slumping if it gets damaged.

- Cellulose is more affordable and more common. And probably fine in the real world.

- It's unclear which is better from a fire perspective?

 

Anyone have any experience/thoughts on these?

[Iceverge]

Both better than plastic insulations. Both worse mineral wool but by the time fire gets to the frame your real protection has failed anyway. 

 

Cellulose has excellent airtightness properties and most of the best results are from timber frame with pumped on site cellulose. I have less knowledge of wood fiber.

Blown mineral wool is a choice too but. Cheaper and good U value but doesn't contribute as much to airtightness. 

[Alan Ambrose]

I don’t think there’s that much difference. About the same U-value, both have basic fire retardant. Mostly installed by the same crews with the same equipment. We went wood fibre, from memory slightly more expensive. Mainly because ‘wood’ rather than ‘paper’ - the wood fibre resembles the stuff that mdf is made of.

 

The installation for both needs to be done well. I’ll write up our unfortunate experience and some recommendations when I get some time.