I want to insulate CH 22mm pipes. The standard ''round'' pipe insulation will not fit because of all four pipes being to close together. I am thinking of covering the lot in expandable foam, maybe loosely wrapping something around them and spraying inside to contain the foam. I do not want to use any fibreglass/rockwool wraps as I am allergic to that stuff.
Are the foam insulating properties as good as the pipe insulation tubes? Are there any other alternatives?
Products typically have a rating in watts per hour of energy transmission. But PU foam-in-a-tin can not because it depends how it is used. The user affects how aereated the foam is. However it will be roughly comparable to any PU foam product such as kingspan, look on there web site. Err on the lower side since their facilities obviously allow the best possible values to be achieved.
I think whatever dimension that 33mm is supposed to apply to it is unlikely. If it refers to the usual wall thickness then it is extremely unbelievable. B.Reg for climaflex insulation rating works out to be 25mm. Expanded Polystyrene is going to be very similar if not better thermal efficiency. Foil backing may be effective but I don't believe it beats depth of something decent.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:01:16 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named "VisionSet" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
I was sceptical too, but it appears to be correct. The R-value of Alreflex (the nearest equivalent I could think of) with no cavity either side is 0.15m2K/W; the R-value with cavity both sides is 1.56, so the R-value with one side exposed must be 0.93. Multiply that figure by the conductivity of polystyrene (0.037W/mK) and the equivalent thickness is 34mm so they're not far off.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:29:09 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named Tony Bryer randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
equivalent to 200mm of rockwool. Alreflex is bubble-wrap sprayed silver. The R-value includes a value for the material as well as increased resistances of the air either side as it has a higher emissivity (or is it lower?, it's late & I can't remember). The values I quoted were taken from the BBA certificate for it, so if you can't believe them, who can you believe?!
Although the BRE report refers to multilayer I believe that the failings pointed out apply to all products that (over) rely on reduction in radiation for their 'enhanced' properties.
The easy flaws to spot are:
They rely on a carefully controlled air gap to meet their stated performance.
The gap must be still air or heat will lost by conduction to the moving air (forced convection if you like), so no draughts and no ventilated roof or cavity.
The gap has an optimum width, too great and there is room to create a convection loop giving more heat loss.
The reduced radiation relies on clean reflective outer surface, get it dirty or dusty and there goes the radiation benefit resulting in more heat loss.
The reflective surface may lose its shine with age resulting in more heat loss.
To stand a chance of this product getting close to its design claims you have to install it in an unrealistically perfect environment. In contrast, trapped air systems (foams, rockwool or whatever) can achieve high performance with a lot less attention to detail.
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:10:14 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named Tony Bryer randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
The problem with the TRADA document is that they don't have the accreditation to test for insulation values; so one couldn't believe them WRT insulation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.