Foam fill or bonded bead

N

nod

Registered User
Messages
103
Building an extension at the moment and when its finished we intend pumping the walls with insulation. The exisiting walls have 60mm of aerboard,house is 11 years old.
The sales guy for premier insulation says foam fill is better than beads for walls with aeroboard as it is pumped in at 130 lbs per square inch,beads only pumped at 8 lbs,and says the foam will push the aeroboard against the wall and therefore fill the cavity completely,whereas the bead will not.
U value of platinum bead is .27,foam is .24,quoted 1750 for foam,already have quote for bead of 950.

Anyone have any experience of foam fill ?
 
I saw this at [broken link removed]
.....might be 'safer' to stick with the beads??

"The bonded bead system is the above mentioned and not the polyurethane foam, which expands in the wall, as the latter presently does not have certification from the IAB. The foam system will provide a lower overall U- value but could change the properties of your wall sometimes leading to moisture problems."
 
Are all the bonded beads the same ? I am getting quote and they are talking about 'graphite' and 'platinum' bonded beads and they are all 'certified' and they are all around the same price. So are they the same products really ? They did talk about U-Values but they sounded same too.

How do I know I am getting best bead for my buck ?
 
Birroc said:
Are all the bonded beads the same ? I am getting quote and they are talking about 'graphite' and 'platinum' bonded beads and they are all 'certified' and they are all around the same price. So are they the same products really ? They did talk about U-Values but they sounded same too.

How do I know I am getting best bead for my buck ?
Click to expand...

If you ring www.sei.ie they will get one of their experts to ring you and have a chat with general advice. This might help.
 
I'm in the same situation as the PM so I've been doing some research. Premier Insulations have a nice video to show the benefits of the foam here:
[broken link removed]

However, there does appear to be some potential Health & Safety issues with the formaldahyde in foam. See here [broken link removed]. That said, I read that the foam most used these days does not contain formaldahyde which used to cause problems with moisture transfer. Polyurethane should be the material of choice. It would be interesting to know what material the likes of Premier use?
 
Last edited:
There are many previous threads on this subject I think. I believe the foam is not long lasting and the beads are a much better option... long term anyway.

A friend of mine had the foam installed a number of years ago and it just turned to dust on contact when he was recently doing some work on the house.
 
BarneyMc said:
There are many previous threads on this subject I think. I believe the foam is not long lasting and the beads are a much better option... long term anyway.

A friend of mine had the foam installed a number of years ago and it just turned to dust on contact when he was recently doing some work on the house.
Click to expand...
I had read somewhere that the foam should outlive the house! (I can't find the link). The premier website says that "Unlike Polystyrene Bead, Foamfill is Fire retardant, Rot Proof and will not sustain Fungi or Mould Growth."
 
The link below is the most comprehensive document I've found on this stuff :

[broken link removed]
 
I contacted SEI and they got back to me (in minutes!) with this :

The first thing is that the foam used nowadays is primarily polyurethane foam since, by and large, urea formaldehyde foam is no longer used because of the supposed health effects that were suggested in the 1980s.
Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation has an open-cell structure and this allows the walls to breathe so that any moisture in the air is breathed out through the structure without any condensation forming.
Polyurethane foam is, in the main, a closed-cell structure. This means that it isn't all that breathable and so is a vapour barrier in itself in many cases. This amounts to a change in the structural properties of the wall and means there is a very slight potential that condensation may form on the wall. It doesn't mean to say that polyurethane insulation causes condensation on the wall...it just means that there is a slightly raised risk of condensation. It would also be relatively easy to remedy by ensuring adequate ventilation.
The polyurethane would have a better level of insulation because of the fact that it's a closed cell structure. It would have a thermal conductivity in the region of 0.027 - 0.028 W/mK.
The majority of beaded insulation systems would have a thermal conductivity of 0.039 W/mK though there are a handful in the region of 0.032-034 W/mK. The beads are breathable as well which is why they tend to be used more than foam these days.
 
Thanks to everyone for very informitave replies,I was away for a few days so only reading them now.
One of the major selling points of the foam was the fact that it is pumped in at 130lbs per square inch which should push the existing aeroboard flat against the wall and therefore fill the cavity completely,the bead are pumped at 8 or 9 lbs and may not fill the cavity.
All of this was of course according to the sales man.
 
Just to let everyone know that I have confirmed that the Premier foam is Urea-formaldehyde and not polyurethane.
 
This thread hasnt discussed the use of blow-in mineral wool insulation at all.

I would actual prefer this type over the bonded bead because its blown in under higer pressures and expands in the cavity to fill voids that beads may not. Also if you have ever seen the beads after installation, there is still a signifiant amount of movement available to them, this would worry me as to risks of sagging, or risks that all areas arent filled. The blown in rockwool is granulated rockwool, this also increases the thermal mass of the walls leading to higher heat storage during winter and higher cooling effects during summer.
 
sydthebeat said:
This thread hasnt discussed the use of blow-in mineral wool insulation at all..
Click to expand...

Syd, is mineral wool, when placed in a wall cavity, not prone to moisture absorption which leads to sagging, poor insulation performance, etc.?
 
BarneyMc said:
Syd, is mineral wool, when placed in a wall cavity, not prone to moisture absorption which leads to sagging, poor insulation performance, etc.?
Click to expand...

thats a good and relevant question barney, as mineral wool sometimes has this property when installed into timber frame walls..

heres the BBA cert for rockwool energy saver:
[broken link removed]

in paragraph 8 it states:


8 Liquid water penetration
​
8.1 It can be demonstrated from tests that
the product does not absorb water by
capillary action. When the product is used in
situations where it bridges the damp-proof course in
walls, dampness from the ground will not pass
through to the inner leaf, so meeting the
requirements of the national Building Regulations:​
England and Wales​
​
​

8.2 Tests on precipitation through walls can
confirm that provided the wall incorporating the
product is built in accordance with BS 5628 :

Therefore i can only go by what the BBA cert says and this states that under testing the product has been shown not to allow water absorbtion by capillary action.
I have done condensation risk analysis on this using builddesk 3.3 and the results show that there is no interstitial condensation risk either. It can be accepted that any condensation that forms on the inner face of the external block leaf will be carried by capillary action back into the block.

regarding sagging, paragraph 11 state:​

11 Durability​
The product is a durable material, rot-proof
and water repellent. When installed it is
sufficiently compacted to prevent settlement
and will remain effective as an insulant for the life
of the building provided the installation is in​
accordance with this Certificate.
​
​
​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top