Q&A Forums

efficiency study info Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
quentin Posted: Mar 02, 2011 08:26 AM	efficiency study info I emailed you a copy of that info I found and was curious if you knew anything about studdies like it. I would post it here but it is in PDF and after the injuries yesterday I am on too many pain meds to try typing it. LOL It was on another insulation site and I just need to get a better source for this legislation I am working on. This could be a big boost for all of us in Ohio and a start for others in different states! You or anyone else that can help would be greatly appreciated since it can boost the entire industry! Maybe our generous site owners would be willing to help me post it for others to look at and comment on?
mason Posted: Mar 02, 2011 08:38 AM	I didn't see the email from you. Can you resend it? More importantly, what happened to you? Serious?
quentin Posted: Mar 02, 2011 09:02 PM	I will resend it right now. The accident was stupid stuff doing normal everyday household honeydo list items. I just managed to pull out the shoulder and hurt a couple of other injuries that have been patched up repeatedly by the military and VA. Anyone thinking we need government run medical can look at my records and it WILL change their minds. Narcotics are a normal item I have every day and if I really screw up like the past two then it is just avoiding a run for shots. You know it is bad when you see an infectious deisease specialist with 40 years experience in it and he is amazed at shots you have for long gone diseases he didn't know we had shots for! LMAO and yes that is a TRUE story!
mason Posted: Mar 03, 2011 08:34 AM	I received the PDF you sent. It does not contain any background for its findings (which show closed cell foam having an effective R value of 92% while cellulose and fibeglass have less than 40%. It does not provide the type of tests used to provide the data or under what conditions the information was derived. I researched the DOE websites for comparative insulation tests and information. They have what is called "Insulation Fact Sheet" containing what they are comfortable saying about insulation. It is a useful site with links to other pages about various types of insulation, physical properties, installation facts, links to other groups, studies etc. It did not contain the data in the PDF you sent. However, there is comparative R value testing conducted at Oakridge National Labs attic simulator that does show sprayfoam being 20-30% more effective than blown in fiberglass. This study was sponsored by SPFA as part of the EPA grant I obtained for the industry. Also as part of the grant, I coordinated research at the Architectural Testing Inc in York PA comparing sprayfoam wall assemblies to fiberglass insulated walls. Again, the sprayfoam walls achieved much better more effective thermal performance over the fiberglass. The ATI study was performed using high and low temperature differentials in addition to air infiltration. The attic study was also performed at high and low temperature differentials but was conducted in a sealed attic. The data you provided may have come from a book that Mark Bomberg wrote "Spray Polyurethane Foam in External Envelopes of Buildings" published in 1998. One section discusses the thermal performance of moist SPF. In it he describes research conducted by Andrew Kumaran with the National Research Council of Canada, where he addes 15 grams of water to thin slices of fiberglass board and also to cellulose. The "heat flux" of the wet materials was 3 times higher than the dry for the fiberglass specimen and 2 times higher for the cellulose sample. The closed cell sprayfoam sample had 15 grams of water introduced to its surface and the "heat flux" of the material was unchanged. Then they forcibly saturated the foam with high concentrations of water vapor and the "heat flux" decreased 15%. (note; heat flux is defined as "rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface")
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Mar 03, 2011 10:24 PM	Mason, So how does heat flux transpose into R-value?? It is a measure or factor of heat transfer -correct? And where is the study that did this heat flux test on open cell foam? It seems to have only been done on closed cell foam. PS. it seems you'll be up in my back yard this coming Tuesday for a FLBOA conference. Give me a ring so we can get together while your up here. Jim
quentin Posted: Mar 03, 2011 11:07 PM	You may be right Mason. That is why I don't want to try and use it for any legislation. It does claim to be from the DOE so unless Canada uses the same name it should be from the USA. Also it points out the all insulations drop to a 0% efficiency when saturated with water and notes if they absorb it or not. It is an interesting article but unless I can find better information on it or other studies then it will kill any chances of a bill I am hoping to get. We know that foam beats the others hands down and that 4 inches at an "R28" of closed cell can handle even extreme duty in blast freezers better than much higher levels in other insulations.
John Shockney Posted: Mar 04, 2011 01:58 PM	I don’t like these articles that compare the effectiveness of different insulations in terms of % from an HVAC perspective we need to know the rate of heat transfer through a given material at a certain temp range but most testing standards are done under conditions that fiberglass preforms best and when those same test standards are applied to foam the R-values come up nearly the same. But it is at the extremes that foam works so much better, yes a 6inch fiberglass bat will perform at R-19 when it is 50deg outside but at 20deg it is only preforming at R-10!! Even 6 inches open cell will test R-19 with outdoor temps as low as -20. And yes closed cell is better. If fiberglass was so good then why haven’t any refrigerators been built with fiberglass in them since 1960, they used to recommend that you put an insulation blanket on your water heater now the 1.5-2 inches of foam does a better job than the fiberglass ever did. I’ve heard it said that we could have reduced our oil imports by 50% if the new houses built over the last 10 years had been insulated with foam. So they just change the codes to require more R-value never looking at the conditions the insulation package must perform under or that most testing is done under ideal conditions for fiberglass not the extreme where it really has to work. Just adding to the cost of building but not solving the real problem. The problem as I see it is to get the testing standards to reflect real world conditions better and the lab testing would show how much better foam performs over fiberglass. Airpro
quentin Posted: Mar 05, 2011 12:39 AM	exactly airpro! I am working on a demo wall for shows instead of the standard one you see on air flow that will use dry ice and a real wall construction with various insulations and even a best methods one for thermal bridging. Also I have decided I will not do ANY more work in my our county since the inspectors demand I do a rescheck and provide documentation on every item I use on each and every item even if I use the same stuff each time. Yeah, I will put up with a fair amount but doing it each project I bid on, getting all the info on the OTHER contrator's products like the windows, door and rest and then begging the official to pass the exact same foam he approved the last week is just not worth it any more. Oh, and you owe me one Airpro for the guy in Kentucky you passed on to me! WOW!! Ok, he is a good guy and made up for it in the end but going to do a spray and leave roof snowballed big time! Foam can do a lot but adding a few dozen repairs done WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY wrong, a top roof over the main that was wrong and so bad it held 4 inches of water on the main roof instead of doing anythign to help it and some areas so bad the main roof wood was so rotteed a 2x6 support broke when walked on, man I am glad I have good guys in my crew!! LOL I will have to give you a call on the details on this one. You will get a good laugh!
mason Posted: Mar 05, 2011 08:53 AM	The testing SPFA performed at ATI and at Oakridge labs was done in accordance with ASTM E 1363, which is accepted by the building codes. But, we took the temperatures to more than 100 degrees F and to less than -10 degrees F. Also, we added air infiltration into the assembly at a controlled rate to simulate the cracks and crevices that are typically found in residential construction. It was at the extreme temperatures that the foam worked best. There was an effort by the SPFA to have this test procedure accepted by ICC ES so that manufacuturers could use it to qualify sprayfoam applications in thickness less than the prescribed code. I don't know if it has been followed up. But, I would encourage those in the SPFA, ABAA, ICAA and others to lobby ICC ES for adoption of this modified test procedure as an alternative acceptance criteria for thermal performance of wall assemblies.
quentin Posted: Mar 05, 2011 12:13 PM	If you can email me that study I can get it pushed at the state level as an accepted alternative test!
John Shockney Posted: Mar 05, 2011 02:43 PM	Quentin Are you trying to pass code with less than the R-value that the code wants like spraying R-14 of closed cell when the code calls for R-19? Or R-28 in the roof when code calls for R-35 to38? I think that is a losing battle. My customers want the added energy savings that foam gives them so I always spray the code recommended R-value and the customer gets the benefit of having an insulation the works twice as well as the fiberglass that the inspector will accept. Airpro
quentin Posted: Mar 07, 2011 08:56 PM	The trick is the point of diminishing returns. Once you get to an R35 or so, closed cell is at the point where you really don't gain much more for a huge cost. So boosting it to an R49 for code really is a waste of the client's money at that point and put the costs well out of reach. As a freezer or that camping cooler demonstrates, 3 inches of closed cell will beat the heck out of fiber and paper since you can seen how unless you let heat in through opening them, things will stay frozen for days without an issue. R values may have a place but the actual efficiency of the insulation beyond that and how it performs in the real world is more important in the long run.