Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Feb 19, 2000 02:50am | #1

   *
   ........Gene..I'll probably never see that report, what does it say???

   I've always felt that "beadboard " was a no-no...but High-compression strengt molded poly styrene such as Styro-Sm (blue), FoamulaR (pink) , Amoco (green) were geat as long as they were nowhere near gasoline, turpentine, acetone or some of the other volatiles, since they eat them and all you wind up with is a little blue, pink, or green goo.....am I about to learn something new ????

   b inquiring frogs want to know...Kermit

1. 
   Guest_ | Feb 19, 2000 07:32am | #2

   *MikeThanx to Gene I also have a copy... and I too always understood that the material to use was XPS like those you mention. Why they used EPS I can't imagine, except that their test results show that it works as both a water barrier and an insulator, although they didn't i concern themselvesin this test with comparitive R values because they sheathed the exterior of their test walls with different products side by side to test for water proofing and in situ performance.The overall test included 10 EPS, 2 spray polyurethane (SPS),2 mineral fiber insulation (MFI) and 2 glass fibre insul. (GFI). Test results of the other materials are not included in this paper.The test lasted over two years. They installed 3" thick EPS on the exterior of basement walls at their test site in Ottawa, covered it with cementitious board to below grade and backfilled. One wall was backfilled and sloped away, the other was sloped towards the foundation to approximate settling of the soil.A massive array of sensors, and thermocouples were placed in the ground, and into a 1" layer of EPS on the interior to measure moisture and temp of the soil and the basement wall.i "Through analysis of the measured surface temperature records, the presence of water was detected at the outer surface during various periods of heavy rain and major thaw throughout the two year period. During these periods, the surface of the concrete showed no evidence of water penetration through the insulation over most of the height of the basement wall."i "The thermal performance of each insulation specimen was found to remain consistent over the two year period and was not significantly affected by episodes of water movement at the exterior face of the specimens."i "The insulation specimens were retrieved after 30 months of exposure in the soil. Moisture content as well as thermal and mechanical properties of the materials were evaluated in the lab. and compared to initial properties. It was concluded that the specimems did not show signs of deterioration in thermal or mechanical performance."i "A number of additional tests were performed for comparitive purposes. Some specimens were manufactured with grooves on one surface, others with shiplap joints. One EPS specimen was wrapped in 6mill poly. with large overlap on the joints. Since no evidence of water movement on the back of the EPS boards was recorded, the effect of grooves, shiplap and other differences between boards could not be established. The thermal performance of the wrapped EPS was not significantly different... however...during the removal of the specimens, some water was observed behind the poly."They also tested two types of installing the EPS.. . System one featured two horizontal rows of metal "Z" bars(picture a flattened or square "Z") separated by a wood spacer, all fastened to the joist header and then covered with cement board (fastened only to the "Z" bars) to below grade. No other fasteners were used.System two featured metal "Z" bar supports placed vertically between each insulation specimen and fastened directly to the header and the cement wall, and then covered with cement board to below grade. This latter installation yielded consistently i inferior thermal performancebecause each "Z" bar acted as a thermal bridge around the insulation.-pm

1. 
   Guest_ | Feb 19, 2000 11:10am | #3

   *I've recently removed 36 year old 1" EPS from under a slab-on-grade. It was in near new condition except for one location that was exposed, long-term, to moisture from a leaking shower connection. There, the foam was damaged from the termites drawn to the water but not by the water itself. This stuff had been constantly wet for a number of years.Jerry

1. 
   Guest_ | Feb 21, 2000 11:42pm | #4

   *For those of you who have questions, I loczted Mike Swinton's e-mail address: [email protected]. I will be posting more on testing of EPS belwo ground. GeneL.