Spray Foam Instalation Pics

Macspower

sinnerboy wrote: »

My understanding of the function of the vent card is that it does not provide ventilation directly. It is installed to prevent the expansion of the foam from forcing breathable felt ( when installed ) to belly up and so in that way , it facilitates ventilation indirectly by ensuring that the vent path over the breathing felt is not compromised.

Question 1 - Is this correct ?
Question 2 . What material is the vent card made of ?

From the NSAI cert relating to Bio Foam





Question 3 . What advise do you typically give regarding the provision or ommision of a vapour barrier ?

From the NSAI cert relating to Bio Foam ( I have emboldened some text )



Question 4 . What advise do you typically give regarding the provision or ommision of a plasterboard fire barrier ?

Sorry for delay in replying. My son was taken to hospital and I wasn't online much ..

These questions I will answer the best I can.. I have avoided mentioning our company name onthread up to now as per boards regulations. However since these questions relate directly to our company and to the foam we spray (ie biofoam) I feel it is only fair that I answer them directly from our Company (weatherseal.ie) The way we do things may not be the way the rest of the spray foam insustry conducts their business....

I trust this is ok with the mods?

Q1 your analagy is not too far wrong. The purpose of the BioVent is to prevent the disturbance of the felt and to ensure constant air flow to the roof of a house, as part of our NSAI certification studies were carried out by NSAI on the behavior of a full fill roof without vent card .
The results of this concluded that the gap is required on the underside of the felt. The Biovent was constructed and approved by the NSAI and we now recommend and install it on all houses with breathable felt/membrane

Q2 The BioVent system is made from High Impact Polystyrene.

Q3 We always advise customers to use a vapour control layer.
The quoted text relates to situations where where the product is been slabbed over. Insulation must be filled flush with the timbers to prevent the occurance of cold spots. This was determined through our structural details and condensation risk evaluations. It is best practice in areas where the insulation is not been covered to leave the product untrimmed.
The reasoning behind this is that the outer skin on the insulation acts as a vapour retarder not a vapour control layer.
In roof structures which generally get the slope of the roof insulated it is for the purpose of significantly reducing heat loss due to air intrusion and heat escape. These households use their attics for light storage not for living areas. In these cases best practice is to leave skin on and not trim back to the rafter. In these cases a vapour control layer is not normally fitted. On many occassions the engineer on the build will decide from our Air Tightness Tests (available from our website www.weatherseal.ie under technical section) that an air tightness membrane is not required

Q4 Their must be a minimum of a 9.5mm (normally 12.5) plasterboard between the inhabitated area of a structure and the area insulated.
In any living area a plasterbord must be used. This is stated in our documentation, certification and all our structural details. The quoted text refers to living areas.. where the attic is not used for living.. ie storage or just empty space the plasterboard is not used. The foam has a neutral fire rating ie it does not increase the fire rating of a roof. The rafters are made of timber and and will have a specific fire rating and our foam has a lower fire rating than the rafters therefore not adding to the overall fire risk.. from NSAI cert 4.1.2 Roofs
The use of the product in a tiled pitched roof will
not affect its external rating when evaluated by
assessment or test to BS 476-3:2004 Fire tests
on building materials and structures –
Classification and method of test for external fire
exposure to roofs.

I hope this answers some of your questions regarding our spray foam.

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

Good questions.

Another one from me about the breathability:

If the "card board" (PP,poly propylene ?) isn't breathable/diffussion open and the skin of the cured foam isn't - how can the finished product as such be sold as 'diffusion open'?
As far as I know - please correct me - the diffusion rate (greek: 'my' value) is tested on samples without cured skin on it .....so with the skin on it (at all sides as shown in Paddy's pictures) it can't have the certified my-value ?

The load bearing timber would be at risk in such a case....

Thanks.

Thanks for your enquiry.

The vent card we use is made from High Impact Polystyrene. The vent card has nothing to do with breathability. It is simply a barrier between the foam and the felt... have a look at above post...

The 96% breathable relates to the breathable / open cell content of the foam.
Open cell foam relates to the cellular structure of the foam and the % of the foam molecules which are open.
The simpilest analagy of this is simply.:
"Imagine thousands of tiny bubbles each with a pin hole in them."
This allows them to breath, and is tested by our chemist as this is not part of the Foam insulation EOTA CUAP (guidelines for the testing and certification of spray foams) at present.

As part of NSAI certification carried out Water vapour permeability testing was carried out .
I.S. EN 12086:1997 Water vapour resistance factor (μ):
Biofoam 800 - 2.03 μ -value
Biofoam 1600 - 15.79 μ -value
Biofoam 2700 - 16.98 μ -value
Timber has a μ -value of 20.00

The NSAI stated that any product below the μ -value of timber was deemed to be suitable to use in conjunction with timber. Hence more breathable than timber.

All products were tested as per their useage, the skin was on the samples of material tested. This is why our product has a higher density than our compeditors.
All our contractors apply the foam in layers to prevent the occurance of gaps. Open cell foams have a core density of 0.5 lb/ft3 / 0.8kg.m3,
however with the inclusion of the skin formation on the material its density is closer to 0.8 lb/ft3 / 14 kg/m3.
The density can be easily checked by a weight (g) Vs cubic size (cm) calculation. 3 density samples are taken during each instalation and the results recorded on each job card for full traceability.

further technical details can be got on our website www.weatherseal.ie or on the foam manufacturers website www.bfsi.ie

heinbloed

Well answered!

So if Paddy choses to habitate the roof space what needs to be done?

a.) trimming of the foam
b.) installation of the vapour barrier and
c.) installation of the fire proof material (gypsum board etc..)

Correct?

But the foam/insulant would then be sealed, not diffusion-open anymore. Wouldn't the timber have to be treated before that, to protect it against micro organisms and insects?
Loadbearing timber should not be sealed, it's ability for moisture exchange be guaranteed - as far as I know.

About the my-value for the foams:
The numbers presented - are these for the "trimmed" foam ?

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

Well answered!

So if Paddy choses to habitate the roof space what needs to be done?

a.) trimming of the foam
b.) installation of the vapour barrier and
c.) installation of the fire proof material (gypsum board etc..)

Correct?

But the foam/insulant would then be sealed, not diffusion-open anymore. Wouldn't the timber have to be treated before that, to protect it against micro organisms and insects?
Loadbearing timber should not be sealed, it's ability for moisture exchange be guaranteed - as far as I know.

About the my-value for the foams:
The numbers presented - are these for the "trimmed" foam ?

1 2 and 3 are correct. the foam can be trimmed at any time but should not be trimmed unless slabbing in the near furure.. ie within a few weeks...

I'm not exactly sure what your next point means... but maybe this will help.. our foam is certified 96% breathable and therefore the timber can always breathe even in fully encapsulated in the foam.. So it is never sealed and can always breathe...

As our foam is applied in layers there are several skins through the depth of it depending on the depth of the rafter.. ie a 7 inch rafter may require 3 applications in succession.. therefore you might have 3 scured skins on...

from my answer above (just to save me typing again)
All our products were tested as per their useage, the skin was on the samples of material tested. This is why our product has a higher density than our compeditors.
All our contractors apply the foam in layers to prevent the occurance of gaps.
Open cell foams have a core density of 0.5 lb/ft3 / 0.8kg.m3,
however with the inclusion of the skin formation on the material its density is closer to 0.8 lb/ft3 / 14 kg/m3.
The density can be easily checked by a weight (g) Vs cubic size (cm) calculation.

hope this helps

sealgaire

paddy147 wrote: »

I got a very good deal,lets just say that.:)

I had 2 attics to get spray foamed and also the overhang of my extension.

LOL, that is such an Irish response. Even if two lads bought the same thing in the same place for the same price, they wouldn't tell each other what they paid

heinbloed

Thanks again, our posts came in to short sequences...

So my question about the my-values to put it in plain words:

An EPS foam has a different my-value than an HD-EPS sheet.

Simply because of the higher density and because there no tiny bubbles with pinholes present.

So a Bio-foam with a high density (where it is touching,squashed along the timber) is dense at that point of contact.
Like the compacted EPS foam the compacted bio-foam has a lower my-value, like all technical foams......

The surface Bio-foam 'foils' (skins) have a different my-value compared to the skimmed foam which was tested. And certified.

So the in-situ situation is that the loadbearing timber is covered directly with an uncertified material. Namely the compacted and cured,dense bio-foam. For which there is no my-valu available.....since we simply don't know it.

Compare the situation again with EPS material:
The foam is certified, the foil or board is certified.
But the combination isn't.

The loadbearing timber (here: Paddy's roof) could be covered with insulating EPS foam.
But it could not be covered with high density EPS foil or boards.

An in-situ aplication (of whatever foam) will deliver both: the foam and the foil, the skin on it.
Shaving-off the skin at the room facing side can be done, should be done.

But shaving-off the skin between timber and foam to achieve the certified my-value - how this?

The carpenter's concern is that loadbearing timber would be packed in a non-breathing foil. On 3 sides at least, left and right and room-facing.
No matter if the roofing felt is breathable or not, this 3/4 - 5/6 coverage with non-breathing material is too much to guarantee structural safety. At least in the Irish climate where the air borne moisture is relative high.

So to answer my my-value question(smiley):

Is the certified my-value of the in-situ bio foam for the skinned foam or the unskinned foam?

heinbloed

To make my question shorter and to make it more pregnant I use the kitchen sample:

A loaf of bread made in the tin looks differently inside compared to outside. When taken out of the mould, and sliced.
A soft, foamy part in the center and a harder, denser part where the dough touched the mould.

The in-situ foam shows a similar pattern.

So which pattern of the bio-foam is certified: the inner,soft part or the outer,dense part?
Or a combination of both? How many layers of "crust" had the testing samples?

Putting jam on the crust of the loaf or on the soft part shows a clear difference in moisture transport.

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

Thanks again, our posts came in to short sequences...

So my question about the my-values to put it in plain words:

An EPS foam has a different my-value than an HD-EPS sheet.

Simply because of the higher density and because there no tiny bubbles with pinholes present.

So a Bio-foam with a high density (where it is touching,squashed along the timber) is dense at that point of contact.
Like the compacted EPS foam the compacted bio-foam has a lower my-value, like all technical foams......

The surface Bio-foam 'foils' (skins) have a different my-value compared to the skimmed foam which was tested. And certified.

So the in-situ situation is that the loadbearing timber is covered directly with an uncertified material. Namely the compacted and cured,dense bio-foam. For which there is no my-valu available.....since we simply don't know it.

Compare the situation again with EPS material:
The foam is certified, the foil or board is certified.
But the combination isn't.

The loadbearing timber (here: Paddy's roof) could be covered with insulating EPS foam.
But it could not be covered with high density EPS foil or boards.

An in-situ aplication (of whatever foam) will deliver both: the foam and the foil, the skin on it.
Shaving-off the skin at the room facing side can be done, should be done.

But shaving-off the skin between timber and foam to achieve the certified my-value - how this?

The carpenter's concern is that loadbearing timber would be packed in a non-breathing foil. On 3 sides at least, left and right and room-facing.
No matter if the roofing felt is breathable or not, this 3/4 - 5/6 coverage with non-breathing material is too much to guarantee structural safety. At least in the Irish climate where the air borne moisture is relative high.

So to answer my my-value question(smiley):

Is the certified my-value of the in-situ bio foam for the skinned foam or the unskinned foam?

I see where you are coming from... The tests carried out on our foam is tested with the skin on... the skin makes no real difference to the breathability of the foam....

in short your rafters will always be able to breathe... If you want to PM me I will have one of our technical guys to get you further information on the testing and values of the foam...

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

To make my question shorter and to make it more pregnant I use the kitchen sample:

A loaf of bread made in the tin looks differently inside compared to outside. When taken out of the mould, and sliced.
A soft, foamy part in the center and a harder, denser part where the dough touched the mould.

The in-situ foam shows a similar pattern.

So which pattern of the bio-foam is certified: the inner,soft part or the outer,dense part?
Or a combination of both? How many layers of "crust" had the testing samples?

Putting jam on the crust of the loaf or on the soft part shows a clear difference in moisture transport.

sorry missed this one in a crosspost... the samples will ahve several skins on... during each job we test 3 samples. each sample will be a crosssection of the cured foam.. this may have several layers or crusts as you describe them included in the sample.. the samples are tested for density to ensure they are within tolerence.. this is done on every job.

I'll see if we can spray a sample and take a pic tomorrow.. this would prob be the best way of explaining a cross section of the foam.

the crust of the foam makes no difference to it's breatability...

offer is open for pm as per previous post

heinbloed

You have a lot of patience Macspower, thanks!

In your last post answering my "loaf-of-bread" question you wrote:

the crust of the foam makes no difference to it's breatability...

(omparing the vapour/diffusion tighness/breathability of the foam's skin with the skinned foam itself)

I have my doubts about that, although I have not seen any test reports about this issue.

In a different thread in the construction forum you said the skin (if left on) acts as a vapour control, not as a a vapour tight membrane but still as a 'break'. This makes sense to me, the skin being of a more heavy and denser structure would naturally show a different behaviour.

So with several layers of skins integrated in the finished product (the cured foam would match in principle a Swiss role cake!) the vapour transport can't be the same as with the skinned foam on it's own.
And as far as I understand the EN test demands an exact dimension of thickness of the sample. A rugged sample with an unknown size of surface would be useless. Ergo the sample is cut flat.
The certificate concerning the samples being tested are trimmed samples therefore,foam without skin at all. .

Which is nothing special with bio-foam, it is the general way of testing technical foams. Flat surfaces are necessary for the test.

But in-situ foams are different to ready made insulants like panels, boards etc. where the skins are removed prior to delivery. In the (PU-, EPS-board) factory the skins of the foam blocks are removed and the blocks then cut to sheets or boards.
And then send in for testing, once or twice per year, nowadays it could be every month to hold the permit to sell them as building material- I think.

For this type of boards the EN test was developed.
A test for technical foams without skins.

But the in-situ foams do have these skins, can't be installed without them. Except it is shaved away but this works only at the open, visible side.
The foam's contact surfaces can't be shaved. And developes a skin, between foam and contact surface.

Check this out yourself using a teflon coated baking mould or a mould treated with oil or grease(to get out the sample easily).
I know this from crudely moulding canned PU foam on site. A skin developes on the contact surface which is harder, denser than the rest of the sample.



During the lab tests the sides of the samples are blocked to avoid test-vapour escaping from there, otherwise the vapour would be taking the easy short route and leading to false results.
Usually done with plastic tape.

The test sample results are therefore presenting a two-dimensional vapour movement.

So my question:

Is there a special test done for in-situ foams, an acredited standard for the test? Or is the test for the in-situ foam done the same way as the test for the ready-made foam boards?

I remember a discussion a few years ago where this point was discussed in the industry, that there is no particular test for in-situ foams. But I didn't follow the discussion and haven't heard about a new test method being acredited. I might have missed that!

I know that propellant gases (HCFC,CFC, Pentane, Butane, CO2 etc.) used for technical foams do escape much faster from the ready product if the naturally developing skins are removed, after the foams are cut to size in the factory.

And therefore these products, the cut boards, are sealed with skins of for example aluminia foil. Or wax or resin or whatever.
If the foam board's U-value is determined by the gas mixture it contains the installer of these boards is required to seal the cut edges, to create a seal, a skin. To keep the gas in as long as possible.

So sure it is generally agreed that it makes a difference to gas or vapour movement if the skin is intact or not, present or not.


And with the skin intact the in-situ foam takes up less moisture as compared to a 'shaved' sample. As you have said and as I think as well.

But there is more than 1 skin in the finished product, there are several layers of skin ('Swiss cake roll') plus the contact surfaces at the timber and at the HD-EPS board ( or at the roof felt).

Again: thanks for your patience!

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

You have a lot of patience Macspower, thanks!

In your last post answering my "loaf-of-bread" question you wrote:



(omparing the vapour/diffusion tighness/breathability of the foam's skin with the skinned foam itself)

I have my doubts about that, although I have not seen any test reports about this issue.

In a different thread in the construction forum you said the skin (if left on) acts as a vapour control, not as a a vapour tight membrane but still as a 'break'. This makes sense to me, the skin being of a more heavy and denser structure would naturally show a different behaviour.

So with several layers of skins integrated in the finished product (the cured foam would match in principle a Swiss role cake!) the vapour transport can't be the same as with the skinned foam on it's own.
And as far as I understand the EN test demands an exact dimension of thickness of the sample. A rugged sample with an unknown size of surface would be useless. Ergo the sample is cut flat.
The certificate concerning the samples being tested are trimmed samples therefore,foam without skin at all. .

Which is nothing special with bio-foam, it is the general way of testing technical foams. Flat surfaces are necessary for the test.

But in-situ foams are different to ready made insulants like panels, boards etc. where the skins are removed prior to delivery. In the (PU-, EPS-board) factory the skins of the foam blocks are removed and the blocks then cut to sheets or boards.
And then send in for testing, once or twice per year, nowadays it could be every month to hold the permit to sell them as building material- I think.

For this type of boards the EN test was developed.
A test for technical foams without skins.

But the in-situ foams do have these skins, can't be installed without them. Except it is shaved away but this works only at the open, visible side.
The foam's contact surfaces can't be shaved. And developes a skin, between foam and contact surface.

Check this out yourself using a teflon coated baking mould or a mould treated with oil or grease(to get out the sample easily).
I know this from crudely moulding canned PU foam on site. A skin developes on the contact surface which is harder, denser than the rest of the sample.



During the lab tests the sides of the samples are blocked to avoid test-vapour escaping from there, otherwise the vapour would be taking the easy short route and leading to false results.
Usually done with plastic tape.

The test sample results are therefore presenting a two-dimensional vapour movement.

So my question:

Is there a special test done for in-situ foams, an acredited standard for the test? Or is the test for the in-situ foam done the same way as the test for the ready-made foam boards?

I remember a discussion a few years ago where this point was discussed in the industry, that there is no particular test for in-situ foams. But I didn't follow the discussion and haven't heard about a new test method being acredited. I might have missed that!

I know that propellant gases (HCFC,CFC, Pentane, Butane, CO2 etc.) used for technical foams do escape much faster from the ready product if the naturally developing skins are removed, after the foams are cut to size in the factory.

And therefore these products, the cut boards, are sealed with skins of for example aluminia foil. Or wax or resin or whatever.
If the foam board's U-value is determined by the gas mixture it contains the installer of these boards is required to seal the cut edges, to create a seal, a skin. To keep the gas in as long as possible.

So sure it is generally agreed that it makes a difference to gas or vapour movement if the skin is intact or not, present or not.


And with the skin intact the in-situ foam takes up less moisture as compared to a 'shaved' sample. As you have said and as I think as well.

But there is more than 1 skin in the finished product, there are several layers of skin ('Swiss cake roll') plus the contact surfaces at the timber and at the HD-EPS board ( or at the roof felt).

Again: thanks for your patience!

Hi again, Sorry fro short response as I'm replying on my phone.. You've lost me a bit with this TBH but I will have a discussion on it with the foam manufacturers and the tech guys and get back to you

sent from windows 7 phone

heinbloed

Here a web page from an Austrian test lab explaining in short how the thermal conductivity test is done in their lab:

http://www.bti.at/GeraetE1.htm

The samples are grinded down to get an exact level surface.

Hence my question how the bio-foam samples are tested (thermal conductivity and vapour transport): with or without skins on them ? With or without layers of skins in them?

sinnerboy

Macspower wrote: »

Q4 Their must be a minimum of a 9.5mm (normally 12.5) plasterboard between the inhabitated area of a structure and the area insulated. In any living area a plasterbord must be used. This is stated in our documentation, certification and all our structural details. The quoted text refers to living areas.. where the attic is not used for living.. ie storage or just empty space the plasterboard is not used.

Here is the full text

4.1 BEHAVIOUR IN FIRE
Although Bio Foam Spray Insulation is not
classified as non-combustible and must be
protected from naked flames and other ignition
sources during and after installation, when used
in the context of this Certificate the increase in
fire loads in the building consequent to its use is
negligible.
The fire ratings to IS EN 13501-1:2007 Fire
classification of construction products and
building elements – Classification using data from
reaction to fire tests, when tested to IS EN
13823:2002 Reaction to fire tests for building
products – Building products excluding floorings
exposed to the thermal attack by a single burning
item are shown in Table 6.
Once installed, the product must be contained by
a suitable lining board, e.g. 12.5mm
plasterboard, with joints fully sealed and
supported by rafters or studs. Therefore, it will
not contribute to the development stages of a fire
or present a smoke or toxic hazard until the
lining is compromised.
Care must be taken to ensure continuity of fire
resistance at junctions with fire-resisting
elements, in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Building Regulations 1997 to
2009.
Elements must incorporate cavity barriers at
edges, around openings, at junctions with fireresisting elements and in extensive cavities in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Building Regulations 1997 to 2009. The design
and installation of cavity barriers must take into
account any anticipated differential movement.

... no distinction is made between living and non living areas.

Macspower wrote: »

The foam has a neutral fire rating ie it does not increase the fire rating of a roof. The rafters are made of timber and and will have a specific fire rating and our foam has a lower fire rating than the rafters therefore not adding to the overall fire risk.. from NSAI cert 4.1.2 Roofs . The use of the product in a tiled pitched roof will not affect its external rating when evaluated by assessment or test to BS 476-3:2004 Fire tests on building materials and structures – Classification and method of test for external fire exposure to roofs. I hope this answers some of your questions regarding our spray foam.

I would not expect the foam to affect fire performance of a roof in the case of external fire exposure . Being

not classified as non-combustible and must be protected from naked flames and other ignition sources during and after installation

I do expect it to contribute , vigorously , to the surface spread of fire internally.

Ergo - there must always be a plasterboard lining and ergo - a vapour barrier.

Is this not so ?

What happens to the foam if you hold a cigarette lighter to it ? A

thermal attack by a single burning item

as mentioned in the text quoted above from the IAB cert

Macspower

heinbloed wrote: »

Here a web page from an Austrian test lab explaining in short how the thermal conductivity test is done in their lab:

http://www.bti.at/GeraetE1.htm

The samples are grinded down to get an exact level surface.

Hence my question how the bio-foam samples are tested (thermal conductivity and vapour transport): with or without skins on them ? With or without layers of skins in them?

I have asked this question on your behalf and will post a response when I get one from the foam manufacturer.. you can contact them directly if you wish

I was informed on my last enquiry that the samples are tested with skin on... but I will enquire again with your detailed post above.

thanks for your patience

Macspower

sinnerboy wrote: »

Here is the full text




... no distinction is made between living and non living areas.




I would not expect the foam to affect fire performance of a roof in the case of external fire exposure . Being I do expect it to contribute , vigorously , to the surface spread of fire internally.

Ergo - there must always be a plasterboard lining and ergo - a vapour barrier.

Is this not so ?

What happens to the foam if you hold a cigarette lighter to it ? A as mentioned in the text quoted above from the IAB cert

I have covered this in detail on another thread here tonight

you are correct and the foam should be covered by plasterboard according to the NSAI certificate and we recommend this. In reality this is not always done..

As to your cigeratte lighter Questions.. this I am an expert on... as I was always the child with the box of matches I have a liking for setting things on fire.. I have tried this several times.. It does not burn on it's own.. If I hold the lighter constantly to it it will blacken and shrink but when I remove the flame it does not continue... much to my dissappointment as a "denis the meance"

Neilw

What happens to the existing insulation on the floor of the attic, I presume this stays in place?

heinbloed

Youtube has a video available showing the installation of PU foam for various insulation jobs on-site, see here:

Here a German PU foam installer's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_gqJCH4PU&NR=1

Note that the attic installation of PU foam leaves out the installation of boards between the rafters (in the video!).
The installation description tells us to install tulip wood boards between the rafters in a situation as seen in the video.
For the non-carpenters: Brasilian tulip wood is a highly mould resistant type of tropical timber, also called Bahia wood, the latin name is
according to Wikipedia dalbergia decipularis.

This wood would then be diffusion open,the insulation being capeable to 'breath'.