Who, if anyone, has used AirCrete?

I am in the beginning stages of formulating a plan for my next home and want the home to be as non-toxic as possible. 

I love the flexibility of foam panels and spray foams and I don't think they are toxic (especially Iso) but I am wondering if there are alternatives.

EPS

I would consider iso to be the least toxic of the rigid foam, however, unsuited for moisture environments and higher perm ratings (if foil faced).

Greetings,
Least toxic is, reflective insulation (RI).
It is also more efficient than the sips panels. I have a sips we bought about 20 years ago and have upgraded it with RI in ceiling and in process of adding RI top exterior walls ans install steel siding over it.
Recently while install'g alum soffit I discovered that the eps had shrunk and have a 1/4" gap along sides of eps .

With the RI my house does not go over 80 deg with an unshaded, dark roof on 95+ deg day WITHOUT ac.

An advanced RI sys in a standard 2x4 construct will not only cost less but give lower energy costs and and a healthier house.

Which product are you referring to?

EPA Considers Ban on Dangerous Chemicals in Spray Foam Insulation WASHINGTON, DC, April 16, 2011 (ENS) - The U.S. EPA is considering a ban or restriction on consumer insulation and sealant products containing a family of chemicals known as diisocyantes. The chemicals are found in spray polyurethane foam, an effective and widely used insulation and air sealant material for insulating walls, sealing concrete or finishing floors. Exposures to isocyanates such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, or MDI, and other SPF chemicals in vapors, aerosols, and dust during and after installation can cause adverse health effects, the agency warns. "There has been an increase in recent years in promoting the use of foams and sealants by do-it-yourself energy-conscious homeowners, and many people may now be unknowingly exposed to risks from these chemicals," said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Diisocyanates are known to cause severe skin and breathing responses in workers who have been repeatedly exposed to them. The chemicals have been documented as a leading cause of work-related asthma, and in severe cases, fatal reactions have occurred, the EPA says. The EPA Wednesday released action plans identifying a range of actions the agency is considering under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act to address the health risks, including a possible ban on the "uncured" type of diisocyanates. The agency also is considering issuing rules to call in data on any past allegations of significant adverse effects, obtaining unpublished health and safety data from industry sources, and requiring exposure monitoring studies for consumer products. "EPA is working to protect the health of the American people and the environment," Owens said. In a protective suit, a worker sprays polyurethane foam insulation on a wall. (Photo courtesy EPA) Diisocyanates are used to make polyurethane polymers. Most polyurethane products, such as foam mattresses or bowling balls, are fully reacted or "cured," and are not of concern. Some products, however, such as adhesives, coatings, and spray foam, continue to react while in use, and may contain "uncured" diisocyanates to which people may be exposed, Owens said. To protect worker health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates workplace exposures through permissible exposure limits. But there is very limited information available about the use and exposure patterns of consumers to products that contain uncured diisocyanates. Owens says the EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies, the polyurethanes industry, and others to ensure improved labeling and provide comprehensive product safety information for polyurethane products containing uncured compounds, especially in consumer products. The EPA gives some quick safety tips for spray polyurethane foam exposure. Whether you are an applicator, helper, or building occupant where this product is applied, the agency says follow these tips: Review label and product information for ingredients, hazards, directions, safe work practices, and precautions Ensure health and safety training is completed and safe work practices are followed to prevent eye, skin, and inhalation exposures during and after SPF installation Exercise caution when determining a safe re-entry time for unprotected occupants and workers based on the manufacturer recommendation If you experience breathing problems or other adverse health effects from weatherizing with SPF, seek immediate medical attention. Use the appropriate protection and best practices suited for each type of SPF product. Only workers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment should be present during SPF application. The EPA says, "It is not clear how much time is needed before it is safe for unprotected workers or building/home occupants to re-enter. Re-entry time is dependent on product formulation and other factors that affect the foam curing time." "Some manufacturers estimate that it can take approximately 23-72 hours after application for the foam to fully cure for the two-component high pressure 'professional' SPF system, and approximately 8 to 24 hours to cure for one component foam, typically available in 12 oz. to 24 oz. cans," but the agency says more research is needed to account for the potential variability of curing rates. Environmental Effects There are types of fireproof polyurethane foams on the market, but the types that are not fireproof can release toxic fumes into the air if burned. Greenhouse gases are produced by the blowing agents used to expel materials from spray foam applicators. A big concern for some people is that many spray polyurethane foams use fossil fuels in their composition. These are just a few environmental effects that come with using spray polyurethane foams. Some brands of polyurethane foam, like Eco Answers US, put in great efforts to assure consumers that their products do not have the damaging environmental effects that other brands have. Read more: Danger of Spray Polyurethane Foam | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5418626_danger-spray-polyurethane-foam.html#ixzz1eN59eXH4

Greetings,

I'm guessing that since your ? followed my comments that your ? was directed to me.

CK fifoil.com. They have a 2 layer RI product and a single layer. I combine these for a 2 btu/hr/sf sys.
( see Marks Mech. Eng. handbook 13th ed.)

Posted By rbisys1 on 21 Nov 2011 03:49 PM
Greetings,

I'm guessing that since your ? followed my comments that your ? was directed to me.

CK fifoil.com. They have a 2 layer RI product and a single layer. I combine these for a 2 btu/hr/sf sys.
( see Marks Mech. Eng. handbook 13th ed.)

No was not specifically answering your post
, but I am quite familiar with fi foil, it is the typical barrier used in the 1980s posing as insulation in Florida, in my opinion the cheapest farce of an insulation product on the market, I rate it one notch below ceramic bead paint.

Greetings,

I been installing RI for 30 yrs. Will out perform anything I've seen, including sips.

My guess is that you have never used it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't make such a comment.

I notice you're a sips dealer. FIY, I have a sips house. Wouldn't have another, and definitely would not recommend sips, since a conventional house can be built for less and with RI easily save more energy than sips. For one thing my sips house is extremely poor at muting outside noises. The panels are nothing but noise radiating panels. Foam separated from exterior osb and warped. Foam shrunk in ceiling leaving 1/4" gaps, which I corrected by installing a RI over the existing drywall. Ceiling panels flex up and down according to season leaving gaps at gable seams. Finally got that corrected. Panels use to pop so loud you thought a gun went off in the house. When I installed RI in ceiling that was pretty much eliminated.

With RI my house does not go over 80 degs on 95+ deg day, no shade, dark roof. It didn't do that before the retrofit RI.

Any more rocks you want to throw?

This is a reply that I copied from and email that I sent to a previous customer who was sure that a radiant barrier was the proper fix for his high attic temperatures.

If you are considering a radiant barrier for your home, please read the study completed by the TVA in the attached pdf. As read through the study, you will see that they the only significant reductions in ceiling temperature flux come at what would be considered terribly inadequate levels of insulation (R-11 or R-19).

Please re-read the summer sections. You will see that they discount the effectiveness of any radiant barrier at insulation depths of R-30. Energy star recommends a minimum of R-50 now.

As stated in the report multiple times, the effectiveness of radiant barriers is not "statistically significant" (page 177 top left) at insulation levels of R-30. R-30 is still inadequate for this area. Proper insulation levels are 1.67X times that depth. The effectiveness of radiant barriers at that depth is effectively zero. Radiant barriers for winter applications are minimally effective when compared to adding insulation and in some cases (inadequate insulation) they will translate to a lessening of home performance.

If you are having summer heating issues, the proper installation of the radiant barrier is along the rafters, not across the insulation. If you place a radiant barrier across the rafters and have too little insulation, you will actually make the wintertime conditions worse. Radiant barriers, used in these applications, do not have the universal applicability that insulation does.

The section that you highlighted regarding dust has to do with winter performance of radiant barriers and not summer performance. A Radiant barrier’s summer effectiveness and emissivity is reduced by dusting. The lack of change in winter performance has as much to do with the air barrier aspect of a radiant barrier applied to the insulation than with the emissivity of the radiant barrier. The increased emissivity in the radiant barrier as a result of the dust will translate lessened summer performance.

All of these dusting issues are mitigated by the proper placement of radiant barriers for controlling summer heat. If someone is proposing that they lay the radiant barrier on your insulation, they are doing you a disservice. Your issues are with summer heat. Radiant barriers must be applied to the rafters. This is absolutely best practice for summer heating issues.

Radiant barriers do have a place in residential energy efficiency if there are precluding circumstances. If you don't have access to proper insulation depth (i.e. insulated roof deck), a radiant barrier might have some application value. In situations such as that, spray foam is more likely a better solution. Regardless, most homes suffer from other issues that are not corrected by Radiant barriers.

Improper insulation levels and unchecked air infiltration and exfiltration from the home are the two largest culprits when it comes to issues of energy efficiency.

Making sure that the home is not taking on unconditioned air, has properly sealed air ducts, and proper insulation (R-50) will make exponentially more impact to comfort and eliminating heat gain than an improperly placed radiant barrier.


Here is a link to the study in question: http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/6531

Chris- c'mon, fifoil is a tiny notch above ceramic paint, not below, since it has an easily measurable macroscopic thermal performance (albeit well below code in most US climates, even at 2 layers), whereas ceramic bead paints have none.

Best case (cooling dominated climate) you're looking at less than R6 average performance: http://www.fifoil.com/pdfs/productDocs/MicrosoftEvaluationSix.pdf Compare wall 4 (3 reflective air spaces) savings performance with wall 5 (0.75"/R3.75 of XPS- a carefully chosen since 1"/R5 XPS might have outperformed it, and 1"/R6 of foil faced iso would outperform it in any climate.)

It's cheap, but not a real solution. If you want to knock yourself out and keep stacking layers you could arguably hit any desired performance level in any climate, as long as you air-sealed each layer and used insulating spacers to limit conducted thermal bridging, but even though the material is cheap, the labor required to create the adequate assembly for true high performance isn't (although I'm sure rbisys1 will disagree, citing his 3 decades of experience while thumping his Mark's Engineering Handbook Bible.) From a practical point of view getting to a high performance level with only low-E layering just doesn't cut it, but as the cheapest possible retrofit to an uninsulated building in a cooling dominated climate with no space for other materials there's at least a measurable benefit. There's a real renaissance of multi-layer retrofit goods going on in Europe right now, with claims as wildly optimistic as 1980s Florida, but those claims are regularly getting shot down in independent performance testing (both in-situ, and in EN/ASTM type testing.)

There is nowhere near the equivalent thermal performance to be had using ceramic nano-tech bead paints on macroscopic assemblies of any size or complexity, as interesting as they seem at the nano-scale.

EPS may be low-toxicity under normal circumstances, but in a fire the smoke is pretty bad stuff. Rock wool and foamed cement are pretty low-tox and fireproof. I'm looking forward to some of the ultra-high-density rock wool paneling to become more widely available for exterior sheathing applications, a market currently dominated by XPS/iso/EPS. (See: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/installing-mineral-wool-insulation-over-exterior-wall-sheathing ) At ~8lbs per cubic foot going extra-thick on it might be an issue, but it's drying capacity would be at least an order of magnitude greater than that of EPS at any given R, making rock-wool exterior insuation in a wall assembly that included a rainscreen gap between the siding and rock wool panel a superior solution. But whereas one can detail panelized foam as a primary air-barrier, as air-retardent as 8lb rock wool must be, you'd still have to use something else as the air barrier.

Rainscreening the wall is another detail with the rockwool as you mentioned.

I see where they put furring strips over it but even at the 8lb density, I feel like the compression would introduce some wall irregularity to the system. I would also personally like to see another layer of housewrap on either side of the furring strips.

I haven't handled the stuff myself, nor have I seen mechanical loading/deformation specs, but 8lbs is pretty dense. (If not quite as dense as fiiberglass-gypsum structural-sheathing.) I wouldn't be surprised if it were quite rigid. It's about 4-5x as dense as high-density batting, and purpose-made to be used as exterior insulation with a Canadian-code 10mm-min rainscreen.

Rainscreens are useful for drying performance in semi-permeable exterior foam applications too.

Greetings,

QUOTE>t's cheap, but not a real solution. If you want to knock yourself out and keep stacking layers you could arguably hit any desired performance level in any climate, as long as you air-sealed each layer and used insulating spacers to limit conducted thermal bridging, but even though the material is cheap, the labor required to create the adequate assembly for true high performance isn't (although I'm sure rbisys1 will disagree, citing his 3 decades of experience while thumping his Mark's Engineering Handbook Bible.) From a practical point of view getting to a high performance level with only low-E layering just doesn't cut it, but as the cheapest possible retrofit to an uninsulated building in a cooling dominated climate with no space for other materials there's at least a measurable benefit. There's a real renaissance of multi-layer retrofit goods going on in Europe right now, with claims as wildly optimistic as 1980s Florida, but those claims are regularly getting shot down in independent performance testing (both in-situ, and in EN/ASTM type testing.)

The max number of layers I recommend is three. You may want to discredit a eng. handbook ( you must be a god or something), but then, you have a product to sell and you want to minimize the completion. You cannot get a 2 btu/sf/hr performance with your sips sys.

Your comments about how to install RI sys is nonsense and I don't ever recall such an installation.

Your comments are opinions NOT based on experience. That's stupidity.

QUOTE>As stated in the report multiple times, the effectiveness of radiant barriers is not "statistically significant" (page 177 top left) at insulation levels of R-30. R-30 is still inadequate for this area. Proper insulation levels are 1.67X times that depth. The effectiveness of radiant barriers at that depth is effectively zero. Radiant barriers for winter applications are minimally effective when compared to adding insulation and in some cases (inadequate insulation) they will translate to a lessening of home performance.

Adding bulk insulation to any bulk sys with rated(erroneously) R 19 is a waste of money and a look at a declining percentage chart will prove that.

Adding RB for winter will not get the same results as a summer app. However since the temp of the existing insulation is raised the comfort level goes up. Installing RB on top of bulk insulation can reduce ac run time about 50%+. The "R" 50 you quote is bogus and you know it. Rafter installations have not been recommend for years, but the completion keeps quoting the rafter installation figures.

QUOTE>Making sure that the home is not taking on unconditioned air, has properly sealed air ducts, and proper insulation (R-50) will make exponentially more impact to comfort and eliminating heat gain than an improperly placed radiant barrier.

Statistically? Well statistically RI sys will out perform your sips. That I know from experience. Sips are a poor choice and the frame plus RI sys, as I recommend, is superior. Looking at it from a more logical viewpoint, sips is a pr product.

did you read the TVA study I posted up?

Posted By rbisys1 on 22 Nov 2011 10:44 AM
Greetings,

I been installing RI for 30 yrs. Will out perform anything I've seen, including sips.

My guess is that you have never used it yourself, otherwise you wouldn't make such a comment.

I notice you're a sips dealer. FIY, I have a sips house. Wouldn't have another, and definitely would not recommend sips, since a conventional house can be built for less and with RI easily save more energy than sips. For one thing my sips house is extremely poor at muting outside noises. The panels are nothing but noise radiating panels. Foam separated from exterior osb and warped. Foam shrunk in ceiling leaving 1/4" gaps, which I corrected by installing a RI over the existing drywall. Ceiling panels flex up and down according to season leaving gaps at gable seams. Finally got that corrected. Panels use to pop so loud you thought a gun went off in the house. When I installed RI in ceiling that was pretty much eliminated.

With RI my house does not go over 80 degs on 95+ deg day, no shade, dark roof. It didn't do that before the retrofit RI.

Any more rocks you want to throw?

First mistake was using wood, I have not seen EPS foam shrink. wood does shrink though. If the foam core was PU, then that was your second mistake, cause it shrinks too, as well as looses R value.
But, not to say that I haven't made too. As I am ashamed to say I installed Fi-Foil in 100s of block homes, in my youth , but the benefit of making those mistakes is to learn from them.

Extruded polystrene circa ~1980 had some real shrinkage issues over time (since fixed), but EPS, not so much.

Dimensional changes of OSB with changes in moisture (both shrinkage and expansion) are a much bigger issue withOSB skinned SIPs, particularly on roofs, but that too is controllable by-design. A cross-vented nailer deck above a SIP roof goes a long way toward mitigating those issue. Air leakage resulting wintertime condensation at ridges & hips are pretty common problems with roofing nailed to the outer skin of an OSB SIP roof. I doubt that would be an issue with steel SIPs.

Somehow rbisys1 seems to think I'm selling a product here (not so.)

While I confess freely that I haven't spent much time installing or testing radiant barrier systems I've read VOLUMES of literature on the subject going back to the 1970s, and more recently been following the issues surrounding misleading claims made for multi-layer RB systems in Europe. Many academic, government, and industry people have studied it several ways, and the performance case for multi-layer RB in heating dominated climates just isn't there. Guarded-box testing has a high correlation with in-situ performance of all insulation types, and realistic metrics of performance based on those tests have been made for setting U-value performance standards. Industry assertions of performance have mostly not been borne out by those who actually measure things objectively. I'll put 1001 European test agency tests against rbysis1's 3 decades of sales & installation and assertion of 2BTU/foot (under unspecified conditions) by his interpretation of the Engineering gospel according to Mark, and his cheezy R19 batt punching bag, any time. ;-)

It's not hard to find this stuff online, eg:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/multifoil.pdf

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/multi-foil-insulation_july2005.pdf

http://publications.npl.co.uk/npl_web/pdf/mat8.pdf

http://www.crbnet.it/File/Pubblicazioni/pdf/1513.pdf

And the stuff the RB industry in Europe is usually comparing it to is also complete CRAP from a performance point of view. "My crap is better than some other crap." isn't a very convincing approach. Without tested & known air-leakage on the comparative in-situ testing it's a garbage-in-garbage out situation, but there's very little rocket science to this.

But IIRC it's rbysis1's assertion that it's a vast conspiracy by the fiber insulation lobby that's keeping the superiority of multifoil systems a secret know only to industry insiders.

Greetings,
QUOTE> 22 Nov 2011 04:16 PM Quote Reply Alert did you read the TVA study I posted up?

That test is a rafter applied test. AGAIN that type of application went out years ago. AND< the test is for a RB I'm talking about a multilayer installation

QUOTE> First mistake was using wood, I have not seen EPS foam shrink. wood does shrink though. If the foam core was PU, then that was your second mistake, cause it shrinks too, as well as looses R value.

Wasn't my mistake because I didn't build it.

QUOTE> But, not to say that I haven't made too. As I am ashamed to say I installed Fi-Foil in 100s of block homes, in my youth , but the benefit of making those mistakes is to learn from them.

I've done subdivisions and commercial, never a problem.

QUOTE> But IIRC it's rbysis1's assertion that it's a vast conspiracy by the fiber insulation lobby that's keeping the superiority of multifoil systems a secret know only to industry insiders.

You don't have a clue do you. And remaining ignorant is the safe postion.

Posted By rbisys1 on 22 Nov 2011 09:08 PM
Greetings,
QUOTE> 22 Nov 2011 04:16 PM Quote Reply Alert did you read the TVA study I posted up?

That test is a rafter applied test. AGAIN that type of application went out years ago. AND< the test is for a RB I'm talking about a multilayer installation

QUOTE> First mistake was using wood, I have not seen EPS foam shrink. wood does shrink though. If the foam core was PU, then that was your second mistake, cause it shrinks too, as well as looses R value.

Wasn't my mistake because I didn't build it.

QUOTE> But, not to say that I haven't made too. As I am ashamed to say I installed Fi-Foil in 100s of block homes, in my youth , but the benefit of making those mistakes is to learn from them.

I've done subdivisions and commercial, never a problem.

QUOTE> But IIRC it's rbysis1's assertion that it's a vast conspiracy by the fiber insulation lobby that's keeping the superiority of multifoil systems a secret know only to industry insiders.

You don't have a clue do you. And remaining ignorant is the safe postion.

Would be nice to know if you have any area of expertise besides insults

Greetings,

QUOTE>Would be nice to know if you have any area of expertise besides insults

It's only an insult if not true.

For instance, I have some serious reservations about our resident engineer expert. There are so many apps involving RI in commercial, industrial, manufacturing, science, etc that if it wasn't for the nature and high eff of RI we would still be in the bronze age. Think about it. We wouldn't be arguing about insulation on the web, BECAUSE there would be no web. Without steel you would not have cars, planes, electric motors, space programs and on and on. And he knows this, and if he doesn't he should turn in his degree. If it hadn't been for reflective principle the oil fires in Saudi would have taken generations to put out. Stranded mountain climbers without their reflective film packs would have died as would forest fire fighters. Fire fighters would not be able to save people and property. Buildings in the arctics would not be possible. So to dismiss RI as marginal at best and use test data not applicable to the sys presented IS an insult to the engineers and architects that specify it and the people who dedicate themselves to "teaching", manufacturing, and installing RI and is an attempt to minimize ME as not relevant and also my experiences. Why would engineers and architects specify RI if there was something better.
I have little or no respect for people like this. To be ignorant is one thing, they can be taught, but how do you teach to stupid and politely malicious.

This subject reminds me that in the late 50's and 60's engineers were specifying RI for high altitude test chambers because it was the only material that responded almost instantly for simulated temp changes under extreme conditions.

Large warehouse ice cream freezers use RI to maintain sub zero temps.

There's a company in New Jersey that insulates huge tank structures with a heavy aluminumized mylar for sub/sub zero temps ( nitrogen) and high temp liquids such as high temp oil prods. Every thing else fails.

QUOTE>But, not to say that I haven't made too. As I am ashamed to say I installed Fi-Foil in 100s of block homes, in my youth

Now I'm assuming that you're talking about furring out block walls and using a product "specific" for that application. If that is the case I think FI FOIL would like to know the circumstances of your experience. They are manufacturing a product specific to block wall app today, http://www.fifoil.com/Builders/Products/ProductInfo/?ID=10, and I have not heard of any problems. Call Gene at 1 800 448 3401 Tell him "friendly" George from Troy, Il sent you.

Also, what was the ceilings of these homes insulated with? If with FG or cellulose then the house would overheat and that cannot be blamed on the RI. In fact the wall RI would help retain the excess heat in the blocks, and if installed interior would help hold high interior temps until sundown ( or after), from the ceiling. Been there, seen that. One of the problems I have with home owners and builders is convincing them to shade their sun exposed windows, or design appropriately for the summer. With RI it takes very little heat to cause excessive temps in those rooms. I would never install a RI sys in walls where another type of insulation would be used in the ceilings.

By the way, do you have a vacuum thermos bottle with a reflective material deposited on the interior glass surfaces? Then you need to throw it away because it's marginal at best, right? And on and on.