Water repelling properties of my cavity wall insulation (or lack of)

-
Since the incompetent installers left a pile of insulation in the loft, I decided to examine the water repelling properties of the material

Cosytherm® white wool material description


Here is the salient information from the Cosytherm White wool BBA Agrément Certificate No 01/3789:

5 Description
5.1 Cosytherm White Wool Cavity Wall Insulation consists of granulated glass wool fibres which are treated with an inert water repellent during manufacture. The length of the fibres and degree of granulation are subject to regular quality control checks by the manufacturer.

In relation to Building regulations Section C4 (England and Wales) .
Resistance to weather and ground moisture
Tests for water resistance carried out by the BBA indicate that a wall filled with the product meets this Requirement provided the wall complies with the conditions set out in sections 7.2, 7.4, 7.6 and 9.2 of this Certificate.
The product does not absorb water by capillary action and may therefore be used in situations where it bridges the dpc’s of the inner and outer leaf 

My tests on cosytherm



Test 1 water repellent



I took 2.2g of dry insulation  and splashed some cold tapwater over it for  8 seconds.
During the test it showed no water repellency and in fact in short exposure had increased in weight to 18.1g.
I was able to then squeeze out some of the excess water but it still remained wet.

Test 2 Capillary action




I took a small sample of dry insulation to test for capillary action (i.e ability to wick against gravity).
I used beetroot powder as a water soluble dye but I also tried with plain water which produced the same results but not easily viewed on camera.

There is 2mm of coloured fluid in the plastic container. The video clearly shows 10mm of capillary wicking within a matter of seconds.

Test 3 Evaporation Test


Using the beetroot juice above, I placed several pieces of insulation into the liquid until it was completely absorbed.

At 24 hours sitting on a hot windowsill on a sunny day it was still visibly wet and compressed: (please not the red colour is from the beetroot water).


Even after 72 hours in a sunny window sill with outside temperatures in the range 12-25 degree Celsius, the insulation was still very wet as seen on the following video.

Conclusions


  1. Product has no water repellant properties - a single exposure is enough to saturate it to 8 times its original weight.
  2. Product demonstrably shows capillary action
  3. Product retains water for days in a vented and sunny area and readily retransmits the moisture to a more absorbent surface in direct contact with it. Scaling this up to a whole wall It seems unlikely that a whole section of wall filled with saturated insulation would be able to dry off at all.

Questions

Given the large discrepancy between the BBA certificate and the demonstrably poor water repelling performance of this material I would like to question the quality/content of this product.

  1. Is this material actually what it claims to be and if so was it subject to a batch test for quality control?
  2. Is there presence of an adulterant during or after manufacture
  3. Is there presence of a water repellant additive? And If so has stopped working over time?.
  4. To what degree do the BBA certificate test 'aged' product - I.e are products revisited after 10 years or more in situ to recheck their water repelling properties?


The wool manufacturer aka the  'system designer' is no longer trading defaults back to CIGA under the 25 year guarantee.


SaveSaveSaveSave

Comments

  1. Unknown11 July 2018 at 07:22

    Brilliant. You have just showed us yet another example of the misleading rubbish that are the BBA agrement certificates - issued by a private company, making serious cashflow from suppliers to issue meaningless certificates used to dupe the public. I've got the same problem with certificates issued for sprayfoam insulation - they claim polyurethane sprayfoam is breathable!!!! Need to check the exact methodology of each test - whether BBA will give that information on request I have no idea..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The controversy over Cavity Wall Insulation 'topups'

-
Image
In this article I talk about the practice and problems of topping up insulation when voids are discovered, why it is being done and the potential violations of building regulations. I can only put forwards what I have understood from public documents and personal correspondence  So I welcome corrections or clarifications from the industry on this important issue for home owners and will happily update this post to reflect any inaccurate statements. We know that 100s of topups are done every year.   From what I can gather : If the BBA have not approved these topups then the relevant local authority building control should have been notified prior to topping up as an 'off licence' use of the product.  It is not clear that the correct procedures are being followed in all cases. Background :Voids are common A void is simply an area cavity between the walls which is missing insulation.  If a void is large enough then the insulation will not be compliant with the meter square
Read more

Lintels, weep holes and render

-
Image
I found the notion of lintels in cavity trays difficult to visualise. The reason I'm looking into lintels is that there is a damp patch that runs along the lintel over the front door. Brick houses built today will have cavity trays and weep holes inserted into the design. You will spot weep holes these as either gaps in the mortar or where the mortar is replaced with a perforated plastic insert as below. CIGA state that no water should enter the cavity is properly maintained building. If that is so then why does building control mandate a cavity tray. Typical modern cavity tray with weep holes sitting on a steel lintel. The purpose of a cavity tray is to ensure moisture that gets in the cavity when driven through the mortar joints or other means is directed back to the outside wall and out of the building. If you didn't have a cavity tray or some sort of damp proof course then moisture would collect on the flat lintel and then flow off the sides of the lintel or soa
Read more

Discrepancies between Internal and external DPC (damp proof course)

-
Image
In a cavity wall construction, one would expect that the damp proof membrane to be at the same level on both walls. It turns out this is not always the case and my house is a good example where the internal wall's DPC is more than a brick lower than the external wall DPC. I didn't even think to check this before reading the CIGA Technical note 14 . This clearly states that if the distance between DPC and ground level is within a brick (as was the case with my property at time of install) then 'numerous other factors' must be assessed before declaring the dwelling as being suitable for CWI. CIGA  Technical note 14 . One of the factors is the relative level of the inner and outer leaf DPC. This is exactly what I found in my property. Ive used a floorboard to show the position of the internal floor. The DPC is clearly a brick below the floorboard and less than brick above the block paving. External leaf DPC is 1 brick below the floor level.
Read more