Spray Foam Instalation Pics

paddy147

Can I also just add,that both my attics were fully cleaned out and cleared of any clutter the day before,for quick and easy access by the 2 spray foam insulation lads who installed the product in the attics

Myself and my girlfriend tried to give the lads the best,cleanest and safest attic space and enviroment to work in.:)

slavetothegrind

and a cup o tea i hope

i bet they were drowned in sweat after it, i had to install some tanks in an attic the day after it had been sprayfoamed and fcuk me i lost a stone with the heat up there!

....could do with going back and losing a few more....:(

gsxr1

Looks great paddy. .. Great job;)

paddy147

Thanks.:)

yop

Macspower wrote: »

hi yop

The product is the same. For this application we use a certified breathable foam. The difference in prices is down to the job and the requirements. There are a lot of variables like depth of wallplate, ease of access/workarea, depth of foam required etc.

EG one house might have a 4inch rafter and another might have 6 . A house with 500m2 will have a lower price per m2 than a house with 80m2 as fixed running costs are taken into account.

sorry for longwinded reply but it is not a straightforward subject.

Thanks very much for that. I get you re the pricing, it makes sense. I am doing a garage/shed myself with open office space on the FF so that solution, cost dependent, might be an option for me.
Are you East coast based?

I might fire on the plans at some stage to see.

Thanks again

delly

paddy147 wrote: »

Thanks for the support.:)




But how come then I was instantly banned for posting the exact same pics and mentioning the company name in the Construction forum then???:mad:

Thats why I didnt mention the name here and asked 1st,as I didnt want to be banned for it.

How is it ok to mention it here,but then you get banned somewhere else for it????

Its very infair and also very confusing,as you dont know what you are allowed or not allowed to say,and then you get pounced on and banned for saying something that you didnt know wasnt allowed.

Well different forums have different rules I suppose, also you could have been warned on previous occasions for doing similar so I'm not sure tbh. If it benefits the community and is a well constructed post, then I would see it as ok once you are solely the customer and not connected to the company you are talking about.

paddy147

delly wrote: »

Well different forums have different rules I suppose, also you could have been warned on previous occasions for doing similar so I'm not sure tbh. If it benefits the community and is a well constructed post, then I would see it as ok once you are solely the customer and not connected to the company you are talking about.

I posted this thread in the construction forum,with the exact same info and pics for the benifit of others.

Within about 5 minutes of being posted,it was edited and most of it was removed and I was then banned via a PM from the moderator.

I have all the PM s from the moderator saved here on my PC.

I feel very hard done by and I feel that 1 particular moderator has it in for me,with countless PMs to me with infractions and is harrassing me too.

Im not 1 bit happy about this,and when I do complain,its simply ignored.:mad::mad:

paddy147

Anyway,the constructions forums loss is the DIY forums gain.:D

yop

Paddy
I know you are not a man for prices, but out of interest, that roller door, what sort of euros are you talking for one of those?

paddy147

yop wrote: »

Paddy
I know you are not a man for prices, but out of interest, that roller door, what sort of euros are you talking for one of those?

The leccy security shutter is 8 feet 2 inch wide by 8 feet 2 inch tall.

800 euro supplied and fitted from C&S Shutter systems in Finglas.They also added in an "anti lift" internal locking system aswell.

If they are good enough for Tesco,02,Meteor,and Topshop,than they are good enough for me.



http://www.cs-shutters.ie/

yop

paddy147 wrote: »

The leccy security shutter is 8 feet 2 inch wide by 8 feet 2 inch tall.

800 euro supplied and fitted from C&S Shutter systems in Finglas.They also added in an "anti lift" internal locking system aswell.

If they are good enough for Tesco,02,Meteor,and Topshop,than they are good enough for me.



http://www.cs-shutters.ie/

Thanks Paddy, the might not come down this far!

Macspower

paddy147 wrote: »

Can I also just add,that both my attics were fully cleaned out and cleared of any clutter the day before,for quick and easy access by the 2 spray foam insulation lads who installed the product in the attics

Myself and my girlfriend tried to give the lads the best,cleanest and safest attic space and enviroment to work in.:)

thanks Paddy,

That really was beyond the call of duty but much appreciated.. you'd want to see some of the places we have been in :eek:

Macspower

yop wrote: »

Thanks very much for that. I get you re the pricing, it makes sense. I am doing a garage/shed myself with open office space on the FF so that solution, cost dependent, might be an option for me.
Are you East coast based?

I might fire on the plans at some stage to see.

Thanks again

certainly.. we work nationwide but are based in johnstown in naas.. you can get most detials form the link in my sig

paddy147

yop wrote: »

Thanks Paddy, the might not come down this far!

You never know.Worth the cost of a phone call to them.:)

yop

Macspower wrote: »

certainly.. we work nationwide but are based in johnstown in naas.. you can most detials form the link in my sig

A1,

I am going to send you on the plans of the shed by email. I will just note my username on here if thats ok.

Thanks

sinnerboy

Macspower wrote: »

Anyway If anyone has any general questions about spray foam or the industry in General I would be glad to answer them.

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

Once cured the product is trimmed flat using a saw and covered with vapour barrier and lining board.

To satisfy the requirements of ICP 2:2002 and BS 5250:2002, a vapour control layer must be installed behind the plasterboard lining, unless an
assessment shows it to be unnecessary.

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 )

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. 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.

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

heinbloed

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.

Macspower

I'll get round to answering these questions tomorrow for you guys..

sinnerboy

The µ-value (“mu-value”) of a material is also known as its “water vapour resistance factor”. It is a measure of the material’s relative reluctance to let water vapour pass through, and is measured in comparison to the properties of air.

From here

Mellor

paddy147 wrote: »

But how come then I was instantly banned for posting the exact same pics and mentioning the company name in the Construction forum then???:mad:

Thats why I didnt mention the name here and asked 1st,as I didnt want to be banned for it.

How is it ok to mention it here,but then you get banned somewhere else for it????

Its very infair and also very confusing,as you dont know what you are allowed or not allowed to say,and then you get pounced on and banned for saying something that you didnt know wasnt allowed.

'
DIY and Construction are two different forums. Simple as.

Paddy, what you are allowed and not allowed to say in detailed very clearly in the charter. This applies to every forum.
You have been asked to refresh yourself with the charter a number of times. You obviously haven't, the fact that you complain here that you aren't sure what you are allowed to say is a bit of a joke.

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!