Thermal finishing plaster
- Thread starter CeeVee
- Start date
Builderboi
Well-Known Member
Vincey
Private Member
Vincey
Private Member
Can you skim over it with gypsum finish ?
Builderboi
Well-Known Member
Dunno mate not used it yet but very interested after all the info bauwer has posted
CeeVee
Well-Known Member
Geezer wants an insulating plaster on some solid walls in his house....there's no room to board it as it's on a staircase.
At that price I think he'll just turn the heating up instead...
Danny
-
D
Deleted member 23452
Guest
Aerotherm? 
You'd be better off saving the money and sticking cornflake packets to the wall, they have the same insulation value.
Compare it to some other materials and you'll see what a load of boll0cks it is.
The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K is:
Silica Aerogel ~ 57mm
PIR foam ~ 73mm
EPS foam ~ 118mm
Rock or mineral wool ~ 136mm
AeroTherm = 157mm
Dry timber ~ 292mm
A 1mm layer would make the following % contribution towards the target U value:
Silica Aerogel ~ 1.75%
PIR foam ~ 1.37%
EPS foam ~ 0.85%
Rock or mineral wool ~ 0.73%
AeroTherm = 0.64%
Dry timber ~ 0.34%
So if the customer wants to spend a small fortune to make less than 1% difference to the wall's insulation then crack on. If not, use the phrase 'snake oil' and tell him it's either insulated board inside, EWI, or turn the heating up.
You'd be better off saving the money and sticking cornflake packets to the wall, they have the same insulation value.Compare it to some other materials and you'll see what a load of boll0cks it is.
The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K is:
Silica Aerogel ~ 57mm
PIR foam ~ 73mm
EPS foam ~ 118mm
Rock or mineral wool ~ 136mm
AeroTherm = 157mm
Dry timber ~ 292mm
A 1mm layer would make the following % contribution towards the target U value:
Silica Aerogel ~ 1.75%
PIR foam ~ 1.37%
EPS foam ~ 0.85%
Rock or mineral wool ~ 0.73%
AeroTherm = 0.64%
Dry timber ~ 0.34%
So if the customer wants to spend a small fortune to make less than 1% difference to the wall's insulation then crack on. If not, use the phrase 'snake oil' and tell him it's either insulated board inside, EWI, or turn the heating up.
Dansouthcoast84
Private Member
to get the uvaules to make a difference you need thickness. do board or spread think be same
theclemo
Private Member
Aerotherm?
Compare it to some other materials and you'll see what a load of boll0cks it is.
The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K is:
Silica Aerogel ~ 57mm
PIR foam ~ 73mm
EPS foam ~ 118mm
Rock or mineral wool ~ 136mm
AeroTherm = 157mm
Dry timber ~ 292mm
A 1mm layer would make the following % contribution towards the target U value:
Silica Aerogel ~ 1.75%
PIR foam ~ 1.37%
EPS foam ~ 0.85%
Rock or mineral wool ~ 0.73%
AeroTherm = 0.64%
Dry timber ~ 0.34%
So if the customer wants to spend a small fortune to make less than 1% difference to the wall's insulation then crack on. If not, use the phrase 'snake oil' and tell him it's either insulated board inside, EWI, or turn the heating up.
Aerotherm @Plasterers1StopShop
.
D
Deleted member 23452
Guest
Another (unpopular) thing to note with this and refurb work in general, is that if you remove more than 25% of the plaster from the inside of any external wall you should notify building control. They will then expect it to come up to current requirements of part L for refurbishment. So it'd need to have a U value of 0.3 or better.
D
Deleted member 23452
Guest
D
Deleted member 29624
Guest
ssshhhhh
theclemo
Private Member
D
Deleted member 23452
Guest
Wd40
No. Engine oil for engines, cooking oil for cooking, gun oil for guns ...........
keithuk
Private Member
Just as i was thinking about the training !Aerotherm?
Compare it to some other materials and you'll see what a load of boll0cks it is.
The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K is:
Silica Aerogel ~ 57mm
PIR foam ~ 73mm
EPS foam ~ 118mm
Rock or mineral wool ~ 136mm
AeroTherm = 157mm
Dry timber ~ 292mm
A 1mm layer would make the following % contribution towards the target U value:
Silica Aerogel ~ 1.75%
PIR foam ~ 1.37%
EPS foam ~ 0.85%
Rock or mineral wool ~ 0.73%
AeroTherm = 0.64%
Dry timber ~ 0.34%
So if the customer wants to spend a small fortune to make less than 1% difference to the wall's insulation then crack on. If not, use the phrase 'snake oil' and tell him it's either insulated board inside, EWI, or turn the heating up.
D
Deleted member 23452
Guest
Just as i was thinking about the training !
Your pants are on fire!
Vincey
Private Member
Plasterers1StopShop
Well-Known Member
Give me a call tomorrow mate, can give you a price on bauwer or Aero-therm
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
As advised above, Bauwer material is available from our partners @Plasterers1StopShop. No approved installer required, as application process is consistent with traditional plastering and rendering.
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
Yes, you can. Bauwer Light + Bauwer Finish, primer and skimming with gysum plaster.
If you would use airless putty plasters such as Besisser BAGARG primer is not required.
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
Aerotherm?
Compare it to some other materials and you'll see what a load of boll0cks it is.
The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K is:
Silica Aerogel ~ 57mm
PIR foam ~ 73mm
EPS foam ~ 118mm
Rock or mineral wool ~ 136mm
AeroTherm = 157mm
Dry timber ~ 292mm
A 1mm layer would make the following % contribution towards the target U value:
Silica Aerogel ~ 1.75%
PIR foam ~ 1.37%
EPS foam ~ 0.85%
Rock or mineral wool ~ 0.73%
AeroTherm = 0.64%
Dry timber ~ 0.34%
So if the customer wants to spend a small fortune to make less than 1% difference to the wall's insulation then crack on. If not, use the phrase 'snake oil' and tell him it's either insulated board inside, EWI, or turn the heating up.
Thanks for the detailed comments, very useful information indeed.
I added few comments which are applicable mainly for older buildings with solid stone or brick walls.
"The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K "
That's a correct requirement if as built U value is 0.7 or better, could you please see extract from the building regs as well as the link to the regs (page 18):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...BR__PDF__AD_L1B_2013_with_2016_amendments.pdf
Typical solid wall as built U value would be about 2, so improvement to 0.7 would mean about 3 times improvement and corresponding reduction in heating bills and reduction of damp. Nothing wrong for older building to achieve U value of 0.7+ in my view.
Over years building method evolved with reduction of as built U value. The interesting fact is that requirement for the cavity wall insulation is U value of only 0.55
It can not be that requirement for the less advanced solid wall is tougher vs more advanced wall with a cavity, does not make sense, does it?
We came across several cases when insulated plasterboard or EPS was used in permeable cottage (to achieve U value 0.3) which resulted in serious damp issues and EPS, insulated plasterboard was removed; so the key is really vapour permeability of the insulation materials in older buildings.
From the list of insulation options above, only "Rock or mineral wool" provides high level of vapour permeability and fit for used in the permeable older buildings, cottages.
I also discussed this issue with few architects at the recent Build Show at NEC Birmingham last week, and their position re cottages U value requirement was either exempt from 0.3 all together or 0.7 being reasonable and sufficient U value to meet building regs (payback section).
I agree with you comments re 1mm of insulation; generally speaking only 1mm of vacuum would deliver a decent contribution toward U value.
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
In my view this statement is not correct for cavity wall insulation, eg U value of 0.55 required.
Also as I mentioned above, the requirement of 0.3 is typically not applied to solid stone walls buildings as built U value is much worse vs threshold of 0.7
Otherwise if as built U value is below 0.7 yes 0.3 is expected to be achieved
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
I knew this and it changes again as we close in on the 2020 emission target
We could put any target we want...but the challenge is always to meet it...
At the moment about 7 million of homes in the UK have solid walls and are those walls are NOT insulated.
Assuming 4 person per house, about 30% of the UK's population lives with U value of their walls of about 2.
That would mean large heating bills and damp in some instances as well.
My view is that the interpretation of current requirement as well as lack of funding and budget permeable insulation solutions are potentially responsible for 6 to 7 million of older houses not being insulated.
Basically house owners would chose between 1) spending money for heating vs 2) installing insulation. If option 1) works out cheaper with the simple pay back for the option 2) being 20+ years than the choice is obvious.
Bauwer
Well-Known Member
I disagree, based on the number of older buildings we insulated and the positive feedbacks we receive from our customers. As I said earlier, U value reduction from 2 to 0.7 is achieving a measurable improvement in thermal performance as well as living comfort.
jamesthefirst
Private Member
Is the primer lime based and does it contain a grit for key?
Dr.B
Active Member
So if I stud out a wall in front of an old stone wall (as mentioned in another thread) it would be better to use rockwool rather than a celotex type board?Thanks for the detailed comments, very useful information indeed.
I added few comments which are applicable mainly for older buildings with solid stone or brick walls.
"The thickness of each material needed to give a wall a U value of 0.3 W/m2.K "
That's a correct requirement if as built U value is 0.7 or better, could you please see extract from the building regs as well as the link to the regs (page 18):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...BR__PDF__AD_L1B_2013_with_2016_amendments.pdf
Typical solid wall as built U value would be about 2, so improvement to 0.7 would mean about 3 times improvement and corresponding reduction in heating bills and reduction of damp. Nothing wrong for older building to achieve U value of 0.7+ in my view.
Over years building method evolved with reduction of as built U value. The interesting fact is that requirement for the cavity wall insulation is U value of only 0.55
It can not be that requirement for the less advanced solid wall is tougher vs more advanced wall with a cavity, does not make sense, does it?
We came across several cases when insulated plasterboard or EPS was used in permeable cottage (to achieve U value 0.3) which resulted in serious damp issues and EPS, insulated plasterboard was removed; so the key is really vapour permeability of the insulation materials in older buildings.
From the list of insulation options above, only "Rock or mineral wool" provides high level of vapour permeability and fit for used in the permeable older buildings, cottages.
I also discussed this issue with few architects at the recent Build Show at NEC Birmingham last week, and their position re cottages U value requirement was either exempt from 0.3 all together or 0.7 being reasonable and sufficient U value to meet building regs (payback section).
I agree with you comments re 1mm of insulation; generally speaking only 1mm of vacuum would deliver a decent contribution toward U value.
Vincey
Private Member
Thanks Alex,
I passed the sample bags onto pft northern as I hadn't had time to use them and didn't want to waste them they had spraying bays and thought their experience and opinion of product would carry more clout than mine
Last edited by a moderator: