Has anyone heard/ used any tiger foam products? Thinking about using it to spray foam my sill. Might even consider using it in my walls. Any info would be appreciated. Mat

It's one of several DIY ~2lb foam kits. It's good stuff, and sealing the foundation sill & band joist with it is worthwhile, but you may get as-good or better pricing (installed, no less!) from a pro who shows up with the better guns, better temperature control, and more experience at it. Many areas offer tax & other incentives for this type of work too, but not usually for DIY- only if professionally installed.

Closed cell foam is a premium product at a premium price. If you have a lot of wall area to there are likely cheaper ways to get the performance. At 2" of thickness or more it becomes semi-impermeable to water vapor too. If you're going thicker than 2" anywhere, know where and how much you use it in order to avoid inadvertently building moisture traps and mold issues into the walls. 2" on the sill & band joist would give you ~R13. It's fine there even thicker, but if insulating the foundation walls below grade keep it at 2" or you'll drive ground moisture higher in the concrete, with potential spalling on the exterior, and higher humidity in the sill plate (unless you have a very good sill gasket there.)

Fire code requires a thermal barrier over any foam insulation (half-inch gypsum or OSB works). If it's just the sill & band joist you might ignore it, but for foundation walls, etc. it needs it. A 2x3 studwall or just furring strips through-screwed to the foundation to hang the thermal barrier on is fine.

I just shot a Dow Frothmate box today for a band sill. Pretty easy to use, they give you extra tips for spray or for caulking. Did 36' of band joist in less than 15 minutes with a helper following me with the tanks.

Posted By greentree on 03 Mar 2010 07:00 PM
I just shot a Dow Frothmate box today for a band sill. Pretty easy to use, they give you extra tips for spray or for caulking. Did 36' of band joist in less than 15 minutes with a helper following me with the tanks.

The DIY kits are perfect for small jobs like that- jobs small enough that the pros don't want to touch it.  It's less cost effective when considering doing your walls, with a 1000+ board feet of material to shoot.

I am actually planning on doing my 1st floor walls as well, just not sure if this product is designed for a wall cavity that already has (what's left of) 1950's era "economy" 1.5" batt insulation. Would be nice to bundle the whole thing together. Dana thanks for the heads up about the moister barrier thing, i'm a complete bonehead when it comes to trapping moisture.

Posted By Matcartier on 08 Mar 2010 07:17 AM
I am actually planning on doing my 1st floor walls as well, just not sure if this product is designed for a wall cavity that already has (what's left of) 1950's era "economy" 1.5" batt insulation. Would be nice to bundle the whole thing together. Dana thanks for the heads up about the moister barrier thing, i'm a complete bonehead when it comes to trapping moisture.

To insulate a cavity with econo-batts still installed you'd have to use slow-rise formula and hope that:

A: The foam doesn't cause the batts to bunch up and cause an obstruction/void  that's impossible to fix without drilling & ripping more wall

...or...

B: That it doesn't blow out or crack the 50+ year old wallboard.

If you were to strip it to the studs from the inside you spray  up to 3" in there (no more than 2" per lift), or a single 2" lift + fresh econo-batts to fill out the cavity and you'd be good.

Without stripping the econobatts out about the best you can do is to snake in a dense-packing tube and blowing it full of cellulose to over 3lbs/ft^3 density.  The result would be about R13-14 center cavity (whereas cc foam + econobatts would give you closer to R19), and it wouldn't be as air tight as with foam, but it would be 98% less air movement in the cavity that what you have now.  Dense packing would likely be less than half the cost of retrofitting it with slow-rise foam, and can be done from either the interior or exterior (which ever you feel is best for your situation- usually from the exterior works best in homes that are occupied.)

Whenever you're ready to re-side the exterior, by putting rigid foam board between the exterior sheathing and siding you can raise the R-value to nearly arbitrarily high levels, but even 1" of XPS does wonders for putting a thermal break on the short-circuits represented by the framing elements.

I plan on re-siding within the next few years, it seems like it would be more cost (and time) effective to slap up a couple inches of XPS when I do that. House was never stripped of the original cedar shakes when they put up the vinyl so I don't think the extra depth of the foam board will be problem.
Thanks
Mat

Dana,

  In addition to adding exterior foam when re-siding, would it also be feasible, before adding the foam, to open up some of the exterior sheathing to pull out the existing 1.5" fiberglass batts and then fill the stud bays with densepak cellulose? 
  Hmm, I wonder whether it would be a problem if the newly insulated walls render the existing HVAC system too large for the new heating/cooling demand.

Posted By NelsonL on 10 Mar 2010 10:14 AM

Dana,

  In addition to adding exterior foam when re-siding, would it also be feasible, before adding the foam, to open up some of the exterior sheathing to pull out the existing 1.5" fiberglass batts and then fill the stud bays with densepak cellulose? 
  Hmm, I wonder whether it would be a problem if the newly insulated walls render the existing HVAC system too large for the new heating/cooling demand.

If it's easy to pull the econo-batts out it makes dense-packing slightly easier, but the end result in terms of R value is the same whether dense-packing them in place or pulling them first. Dense-packing will compress the batts to less than an inch, but that inch will have about the same R-value as cellulose.  In some instances pulling a few planks of sheathing and pulling old batts makes it possible to gun-spray half-pound foam up the cavity, but it takes a very practiced installer to do that without voids (dense-packing cellulose is lower risk.)

If the HVAC was sized to Manual-J it'll very likely be oversized to the new load if you're going from a leaky R8 econobatt wall (that performs closer to R6) to a dense-packed cellulose no-rigid foam wall, which roughly doubles the clear wall R value.  If you add an inch of XPS between the siding and sheathing you'll have almost tripled the clear-wall R-value.  Upgrading the entire exterior wall area doesn't mean the heating & cooling loads are reduced by 2/3- glazing factors remain, and begin to dominate, but you may have reduced the heating load by as much as 1/3, or even 1/2 if the basement is also insulated. The cooling load isn't likely to drop as much, since solar gain through glazing is often more than half the total, and the roof/attic is another big chunk.

If we assume the calc done by the heating contractor was 35% oversized to begin with, post-insulation it's likely to be 100% oversized- 200% of peak load.  This isn't the disaster that it may sound like- AFUE tests assume 1.7x oversizing.  But if the HVAC folks stepped it up a size from the calc for some margin and it started out at 1.7-2x oversizing you could now be 3-4x oversized, and efficiency may suffer.  If it's a 2 stage condensing furnace or a modulating condensing boiler, not so much, but if it's 4x oversized cast-iron boiler you're taking at least a 8-10% efficiency hit.  (Still, you're using less fuel.)

This is a common problem and one more reason why it's better to err to the small side on systems when envelope upgrades are being planned.  Even if you start out 15% undersized the hours when it's not keeping up are few.  Heat loss/gain calculations used in the HVAC trades have built in margin on the order of 25%, so undersizing from the calc by 15% is more likely to result in near-perfect sizing rather than undersizing.  But contractors will never get the call that it's not performing if they oversize from the calc by 25%, so they often do.  In CA under Title 24 2008 they're not allowed to oversize by more than 10%, but the data going into the calc is often easy to fudge if they're uncomfortable with the initial answer based on "experience" (or "tradition", whatever.)

Posted By Dana1 on 08 Mar 2010 04:10 PM

Posted By Matcartier on 08 Mar 2010 07:17 AM
I am actually planning on doing my 1st floor walls as well, just not sure if this product is designed for a wall cavity that already has (what's left of) 1950's era "economy" 1.5" batt insulation. Would be nice to bundle the whole thing together. Dana thanks for the heads up about the moister barrier thing, i'm a complete bonehead when it comes to trapping moisture.

To insulate a cavity with econo-batts still installed you'd have to use slow-rise formula and hope that:

A: The foam doesn't cause the batts to bunch up and cause an obstruction/void  that's impossible to fix without drilling & ripping more wall

...or...

B: That it doesn't blow out or crack the 50+ year old wallboard.

If you were to strip it to the studs from the inside you spray  up to 3" in there (no more than 2" per lift), or a single 2" lift + fresh econo-batts to fill out the cavity and you'd be good.

Without stripping the econobatts out about the best you can do is to snake in a dense-packing tube and blowing it full of cellulose to over 3lbs/ft^3 density.  The result would be about R13-14 center cavity (whereas cc foam + econobatts would give you closer to R19), and it wouldn't be as air tight as with foam, but it would be 98% less air movement in the cavity that what you have now.  Dense packing would likely be less than half the cost of retrofitting it with slow-rise foam, and can be done from either the interior or exterior (which ever you feel is best for your situation- usually from the exterior works best in homes that are occupied.)

Whenever you're ready to re-side the exterior, by putting rigid foam board between the exterior sheathing and siding you can raise the R-value to nearly arbitrarily high levels, but even 1" of XPS does wonders for putting a thermal break on the short-circuits represented by the framing elements.

Dana

In a retrofit fit I thought foam  was limited to an open cell foam installed with a fill tube.  That would have an R value similar to dense pack cellulose.  the only method I know of for  closed cell would be with a spray gun in an open cavity so it wouldnt work in  a retrofit closed cavity.

Dense pack cellulose would be a good option.  What have you heard of JM's Spider insulation.  It look like is can used in the same situations as  cellulose.  JM does say it is densed packed an a lower pressure.  has it been tested to gauge compression of batts. Could it be installed at a higher pressure.

Some of the DIY kits like Tiger Foam have slow-rise 2lb.-pour options, (not just open cell half-pound foam), but I suspect blowouts are even more likely with the denser stuff than with open-cell. I don't know any commercial installers who will risk a 2lb pour- most don't even like doing half-pound pours, since the labor costs are higher, the risks are higher and the cleanup isn't fun. But if you're willing to strip it to the studs you can retrofit-spray whatever you like in there.

Spider is about as good as it gets in the blown-fiberglass world. IIRC it's specs are for installed densities similar to that of open blown cellulose (~1.8-2lbs/ft^3), and a measurably-better R-value than dense-packed cellulose at moderate delta-Ts (~R23 vs. ~R20 in a 2x6 studwall ). I suspect it's convective & infiltration aspects are worse than low-density cellulose, but much better than coarser old-school blown fiberglass. It has a water-activated adhesive, and can be wet-sprayed under ceilings, blown-in-bag, etc, and won't sag over time pretty much like wet-spray cellulose. While it doesn't have the hygric buffering capacity of cellulose, it can dry more quickly after a bulk-water incursion. It's definitely not your grandmother's blown fiberglass made of sweepings left over from batt manufacturing- it's good stuff. (It puts any batt insulation to shame.)

I still prefer dense-packed cellulose for walls in most situations, but for high-R attics, in conjunction with other air-barriers Spider has a favorable R-value per unit weight, and won't take on much EXTRA weight in a roof leak situation. Spider/foam combis can be a good way to go.

Posted By Dana1 on 24 May 2010 02:32 PM
Some of the DIY kits like Tiger Foam have slow-rise 2lb.-pour options, (not just open cell half-pound foam), but I suspect blowouts are even more likely with the denser stuff than with open-cell. I don't know any commercial installers who will risk a 2lb pour- most don't even like doing half-pound pours, since the labor costs are higher, the risks are higher and the cleanup isn't fun. But if you're willing to strip it to the studs you can retrofit-spray whatever you like in there.

Spider is about as good as it gets in the blown-fiberglass world. IIRC it's specs are for installed densities similar to that of open blown cellulose (~1.8-2lbs/ft^3), and a measurably-better R-value than dense-packed cellulose at moderate delta-Ts (~R23 vs. ~R20 in a 2x6 studwall ). I suspect it's convective & infiltration aspects are worse than low-density cellulose, but much better than coarser old-school blown fiberglass. It has a water-activated adhesive, and can be wet-sprayed under ceilings, blown-in-bag, etc, and won't sag over time pretty much like wet-spray cellulose. While it doesn't have the hygric buffering capacity of cellulose, it can dry more quickly after a bulk-water incursion. It's definitely not your grandmother's blown fiberglass made of sweepings left over from batt manufacturing- it's good stuff. (It puts any batt insulation to shame.)

I still prefer dense-packed cellulose for walls in most situations, but for high-R attics, in conjunction with other air-barriers Spider has a favorable R-value per unit weight, and won't take on much EXTRA weight in a roof leak situation. Spider/foam combis can be a good way to go.

the JM site claims 30% lower air leakage when compared to cellulose. You mentioned moderate delta T's. I wonder how it perform at high delta t's like in an attic in the summer.

If you look at the 3rd party test results,  dense-packed Spider is roughly comparable in air-resistance to dense-packed cellulose only when both are at ~4lbs density, which would make it considerably better than low-density cellulose. (Which was news to me- thanks for making me look!) But at 2.2lbs density it's still leakier than dense-packed cellulose @ 4lbs. It only beats 4lb cellulose (barely) if the Spider is also dense-packed to 3.9lbs. (which could be an expensive proposition.)

See p.4 for for apples-to-apples on 2x6 studwall tests. I wish they'd done 2.0/3.0lb cellulose &  1.0/1.8lb Spider in that test as well, but they didn't.  In their far less relevant demo-box test (uncontrolled pressure, 8-10" sample cavity, no air barriers) minimal-densepack 3lb cellulose underperformed 2.2lb Spider.  But since the spec calls out R-values for 1.0 & 1.8lb densities, I'm wondering how well it performs on air-resistance at those densities rather than at  seemingly arbitrary dense-packed numbers. (Not that manufacturers ever cherry-pick 3rd party data results... )

With air-resistance that low it's unlikely that dense-packed Spider (at either 2.2 or 3.9lbs density) would lose R at high delta-Ts the way less-dense goods do.  You  end up with ~10% higher clear-wall Rs using ~2lb Spider than if going with any-density cellulose, and it's probably pretty good even at high delta-Ts.  At 1lb density Spider is comparable to cellulose Rs at moderate delta-Ts, but I'm less confident that it would sustain that R at big deltas the way low-density cellulose clearly does (in multiple vendors, multiple 3rd party tests going back decades.)

In attics there's more at play than high delta-T- the radiated flux penetration into the glass might take the performance edge off Spider a bit, but probably not nearly as much as lower-density fiberglass (which heats up internally in the top ~2 inches from radiated heat penetrating the outer layers.)  Haven't seen any radiated test results, but I'd be very interested should they become available.

I always take manufacture sponsored test with a grain of salt. Plus it is a single test and not multiple tests and real world results. I am going back to reread the tests.

Posted By Dana1 on 02 Mar 2010 06:18 PM

Closed cell foam is a premium product at a premium price. If you have a lot of wall area to there are likely cheaper ways to get the performance. At 2" of thickness or more it becomes semi-impermeable to water vapor too. If you're going thicker than 2" anywhere, know where and how much you use it in order to avoid inadvertently building moisture traps and mold issues into the walls. 2" on the sill & band joist would give you ~R13. It's fine there even thicker, but if insulating the foundation walls below grade keep it at 2" or you'll drive ground moisture higher in the concrete, with potential spalling on the exterior, and higher humidity in the sill plate (unless you have a very good sill gasket there.)

Fire code requires a thermal barrier over any foam insulation (half-inch gypsum or OSB works). If it's just the sill & band joist you might ignore it, but for foundation walls, etc. it needs it. A 2x3 studwall or just furring strips through-screwed to the foundation to hang the thermal barrier on is fine.

Hi Dana,you brought up an interesting point.
I am building a workshop that will have a plywood floor. Since this will set on the ground, I thought Tiger Foam might be the best way to go for insulating the floor.
Possibly using slightly more than 2 inches.
What are your thoughts on the possibility of "inadvertently building moisture trap" ?
 I thought I might also use Refletix or some other foil barrier next to the floor with foam under it.

This is my first post here. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

2-3" of closed cell SPF allows ~15-20x the vapor diffusion of 6mils of polyethylene- it's a vapor retarder, not a vapor barrier. If you're putting it between all the wood and the cool damp ground you'll be fine as long as the finish floor is more vapor-permeable than the foam. (No vinyl flooring.) A 10mil polyethylene vapor retarder on the ground is probably worthwhile, and typically cheaper than foil vapor retarders like Reflectix, etc.

The use of reflective insulation between the ground & floor is completely useless from a heat-flow point of view, since the temperature differences are so modest.

Its for the first time I have heard about this product "Tiger Foam". Can some one here give me the details about this product?

As far as I know , it is only available directly from them.

http://www.tigerfoam.com/