-2 Helpful?

Hybrid Insulation Techniques

Many insulation companies in our area have begun to sell hybrid insulation systems. In a standard 2x6 wall, they will spray 1" of closed foam inside the wall cavity and then fill the rest with cellulose. The idea is to get all the benefit of the air sealing, but then to get the rest of the R-value from the much less expensive cellulose. I can foresee many potential building science issues with this, but it's hard to compare to anything out there.

Does anyone have experience with these systems? How do they perform? How is their durability?


Asked by Adam Stenftenagel
Posted Mar 2, 2009 10:15 AM ET


64 Answers

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have used this type of approach on projects in cold climates. While I like the idea of hybrid insulation systems and fine tuning insulation for specific areas in a building or a specific application,I have concerns about the "flash and fill" method that you are describing. When I have used a similar approach, I am sure to increase the depth of the spray foam to 2 1/2-3".This depth varies depending on what climate zone you are building but it is important to have the adequate R value provided by the foam before installing the rest of the cavity fill (cellulose, fiberglass, etc..)This has direct impact on where the condensing surface will be in the assembly. I like closed cell foam for it's thermal, moisture, and air barrier qualities and I like the savings associated with filling half the cavity with foam and topping it off with cellulose.
Many foam insulation contractors talk about "perceived R value" based on air stopping capacity and not having to completely fill the cavity with insulation. My energy raters still say R value is R value and rate a house accordingly.

Answered by Jeff Medanich
Posted Mar 2, 2009 4:06 PM ET


Jeff Medanich is spot-on with concerns about the condensing surface. The condensing surface is essentially the face of the vapor barrier-- in this case the face of the (closed-cell) foam. Warm, moisture-laden inside air will pass through the cellulose or fiberglass layers; when it touches the face of the closed-cell foam vapor barrier it had better not be cool enough to condense; otherwise there's trouble. Too little foam or too much cellulose can lead to condensation on the face of the foam.

Joe Lstiburek has a useful report, including a formula to determine the right ratio of permeable to impermeable insulation to use for a given climate, design temparature, and inside relative humidity. It's called "Vapor Barriers and Wall Design".

I think a lot of insulation contractors are going to create a lot of future work for the rest of us if they aren't careful about the "flash and fill" or "flash and batt" method described. It's more complicated than that, but not a lot more.

Answered by Jim Picton
Posted Mar 2, 2009 7:34 PM ET


So if I build a wall with 3/4" or even 1 1/2" foam exterior sheathing over 5" of fiberglass am I setting myself up for a major rot problem?

I don't see how Flash and Batt is all that different from foam sheathing over fiberglass which seems to be a more readily accepted alternative. (other than the thermal bridge at the studs).

To me the wetting potential just needs to be in balance with the drying potential and what I see as the problem here is the cellulose's limited drying potential.

I'm just askin'...

Not tryin' to make trouble or anything...

Answered by Michael Chandler
Posted Mar 3, 2009 1:46 AM ET


Hi Jeff! That's great you're a part of this team. Yes, we're talking about Boulder here. And your concerns are exactly what I'm referring to. I like the idea of going to at least 2" if you're going to do this. At the same time if my clients are installing an ERV, I'm hoping they'll be able to keep their humidity levels down, so condensation isn't a problem. As for energy ratings, I agree completely that we can only count R-Value as R-Value. Now, when it comes to fiberglass I have some different stories as some initial research is showing an R-19 batt wall assembly having an actual R-value of 5. Thanks for the response!

Answered by Adam Stenftenagel
Posted Mar 3, 2009 5:21 AM ET


Michael, Concerning your question above...It depends on your local climate and the humidity inside the house. The wall design chapter in Joe's Builder's Guide to(your climate) has a nice explanation.
As our homes become more airtight the interior humidity will rise without proper ventilation.

Answered by John Brooks
Posted Mar 3, 2009 8:34 AM ET


Adam & Jeff,
We don't recommend the "flash and fill" approach. I believe the goal is to build an assembly that is lower in price. When using a hybrid system, you end of doubling the effort to install. Our open cell foams R4.5 per inch can be installed as full fill and cost less than the hybrid solutions. Another problem with spraying 1" of closed cell spray foam is the application can not dialed-in 1" perfectly, so some areas might be less. If you have an area that is less than 1" you may have condensation issues just as you would with any air premeable insulation material. Closed cell foams form very tight VAPOR BARRIERS, this is not ideal in wood structures. You may trap moisture laden air or water between the closed cell foam and the exterior wall assemblies (as mentioned above). Every element in the structure follows a humidity curve (just like a 2x4).
I like the many benefits with foam, thermal, moisture management, sustainable (lasts forever, no settling or rot/decay), air barrier, and performance. I know lots of people say cellulose does not settle over time, but its hard to believe. We just reviewed two 5 year old homes that had settling in the top 2 feet of the wall cavities.
As Jeff mentioned above 2.5" to 3" of closed cell spray foam would be enough and I would not fill the rest of the cavity, its just not necessary and will add only a slight improvement, if you could measure it.
On the energy raters saying an R is an R and rate accordingly, is ture, but real data shows a very different answer. The longer we promote equal performance between different materials, the longer we promote incorrect information.

Answered by Jeff White
Posted Mar 10, 2009 3:08 PM ET


The "perceived" R-value myth is nothing but snake-oil salesmanship. Conductive heat loss is dependent on measured R-value (or calculated R-value of the as-built assembly) and nothing else. Radiant heat loss is dependent upon the emissivity of surfaces and surface temperature. Infiltrative/exfiltrative (convective) heat loss is dependent upon the air tightness of materials, assemblies and the entire thermal envelope system. They are three different and independent measurements.

While it's true that properly-installed spray foam can create an excellent air barrier (as well as offering good R-value), spraying between studs does nothing to limit thermal bridging. Mechanical penetrations in top and bottom plates can introduce vertical convection paths within the framing cavities if not sealed, and penetrations (electrical boxes, e.g.) in the interior air barrier can create channel flow of moist air in the cavities.

The primary reason that foam installers try to sell flash and fill or minimal foam is the exhorbitant cost. A tight house with little more than energy-code minimum R-value is not going to be an efficient house, regardless of the type of insulation.

Yes it's true that installed fiberglass has been tested as significantly less R-value than advertised. In addition, fiberglass loses R-value if it is either colder or warmer than room temperature (when it's most needed), and loses most of its R-value if air can move through it.

Contrary to what Jim suggests, cellulose will stop most air movement, and with a good air barrier (such as air-tight drywall) creates a very effective and moisture-tolerant thermal envelope. And contrary to what Michael suggests, the drying potential of cellulose is entirely dependent upon the permeability of the interior and exterior "skins" of the thermal envelope, and cellulose has a moisture-buffering capability that few other insulation materials share. And contrary to what foam installer Jeff suggests, properly-installed dense pack cellulose (≥ 3 pcf) will not settle, since it is more than double its gravity-settled density. (Disclaimer: I am not a cellulose contractor, but I use it in all my projects).

If you want to use foam to create an effective air barrier, then applying exterior rigid foam board as a continuous thermal break is both more effective and less costly than flash and fill.

Northern climes require a minimum of 2" exterior foam to prevent a condensation surface, but controlling moisture migration with an effective interior vapor-permeable air barrier (such as air-tight drywall) minimizes moisture accumulation in the thermal envelope and allows drying to the interior. (By the way, the American Air Barrier Association uses drywall as the test standard for air barrier materials: ≤ 0.004 cfm/sf @75Pa)

All parts of a moisture-tolerant thermal envelope should allow drying either to the interior or exterior, and ideally in both directions. A moisture-tolerant assembly balances wetting potential with drying potential and safe moisture-storage ability.

An efficient and durable thermal envelope requires high R-values, low air permeance, and moderate to high vapor permeance for drying (ideally to the exterior in a heating climate and to the interior in a cooling climate).

Answered by Riversong
Posted Mar 13, 2009 5:42 PM ET


My company has used "flash-and-batt" several times with excellent results. While I would prefer to wrap the exterior with foam panels, it creates too many problems for the detailed exterior trim we typically use. It is also problematic on remodels where new ties into old. We have found it cost-effective to have 2" of closed-cell sprayed into walls, and the balance of the space filled with f/g batts, with the airtight drywall approach (NO vapor barrier). We are in a cold climate, bordering on mixed humid.

We use dense-packed cellulose about as often as flash-and-batt, for about the same price. Flash-and-batt is actually easier for the last-minute changes our clients seem to enjoy inflicting on us. The f/g cavity can be used to route new wires, etc. Dense-pack is not easy to put back together if a change is needed.

Closed cell foam, inside or outside the shell, allows f/g to do what it's supposed to, by eliminating air leaks and insulation gaps. For the few days a year where conditions (theoretically) allow condensation on the face of the foam, the lack of a vapor barrier will allow drying to the inside.

If you look at a house through an infared camera and see every gap and void in the insulation showing as cold spots, you will see why I don't think R-value testing is an accurate measure of performance.

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 20, 2009 1:13 PM ET


I would only recommend the flash and fill method as discussed above if applied in our climate (Calgary), with the foam being the 1/2 pound open cell foam. As the open cell foam has a perm rating value higher than 1, it does not constitute a vapour barier, and thus condensate vapour will pass thru the foam. With the balance of the cavity being filled with fiberglass batts and poly being applied to the interior side of the studs, the wall assembly as built should have the same charastics regarding condensate as a wall cavity with only batts inside.

The foam combined with the batts will create a much more robust air barrier and still allow for the cost savings attributed to the traditional fiberglass batts.

I do agree that R values as advertised to not reflect a typical as built system, as the thermal bridging of wall studs is not factored into these calculations. But as building science has proven, an air tight envelope has a much higher true R value than a leaky one.

To advocate building a leaky house so that it can dry when vapour enters the cavity, is going against the goal of building a home which consumes less energy and offers a much more comfortable environment to its inhabitants.

A properly built high performance home with a tight air barrier and overall properly built building envelope coupled with a ERV or HRV will outperform any traditionally built home.

The less air leakage from the house, the better. The potential for condensate in the wall cavities can be remedied by looking at the overall mechanical / ventilation system in the home and ensure it is designed properly.

Answered by Wade Buler CGP, MCT
Posted Jan 25, 2010 3:17 AM ET


Wade Buler: "I would only recommend the flash and fill method as discussed above if applied in our climate (Calgary), with the foam being the 1/2 pound open cell foam. As the open cell foam has a perm rating value higher than 1, it does not constitute a vapour barier, and thus condensate vapour will pass thru the foam."

In a very cold climate it is critical to hygrically isolate the sheathing from interior water vapor. This can be done with an interior vapor barrier (but that prevents drying to the interior) or with closed-cell foam thick enough to keep its inside surface above the dew point. Open-cell foam in this application will not only not have enough R-value to keep its surface above the dewpoint but will then allow water vapor to permeate through to the cold sheathing where it will condense and do all sorts of damage.

Wade Buler: "But as building science has proven, an air tight envelope has a much higher true R value than a leaky one."

R-value and whole-wall R-value are measures of resistance to conductive heat loss. Tightening up the house does not increase the "true R-value" except in so far as the reduction of internal convection within the insulation allows it to maintain its rated R-value.

Wade Buler: "To advocate building a leaky house so that it can dry when vapour enters the cavity, is going against the goal of building a home which consumes less energy and offers a much more comfortable environment to its inhabitants."

No one advocates building a house that leaks air. But a house that breathes moisture allows the thermal envelope to dry, not if but when it gets wet – as all will over the course of their useful lives. In a cold climate, the thermal envelope should be able to breathe at least to the exterior if not in both directions. In a hot climate, to the interior.

Wade Buler: "The potential for condensate in the wall cavities can be remedied by looking at the overall mechanical / ventilation system in the home and ensure it is designed properly."

The primary line of defense against cavity condensation is a tight, properly designed thermal envelope. The HVAC system needs to be part of the strategy of source reduction and moisture dilution. No HVAC system is going to be able to remedy a poorly designed or built envelope.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Jan 25, 2010 2:46 PM ET


This thread is typical of the responses I am hearing when I ask my home designer, my builder, an energy expert during a blower door test, local insulators and local home inspectors - each has their own opinion with very little consensus among the group. Needless to say, I am confused as hell.
I am building a 2000 sq ' home with conditioned basement, radiant, HRV, platform construction, conventional framing in the Seattle, WA area. I would like to do the flash n' bib but am concerned about the condensation threat inside the wall cavity...perhaps the blown in batt is the way to go - better air infiltration control, and better human factors control for the insulator - the vapor retarder will actually contact the sheathing and wallboard in the vaulted space. For my climate, does anyone have a reasonable recommendation? thanks

Answered by Frank
Posted Jan 30, 2010 10:41 AM ET



Yes, there are at least as many opinions as there are insulation options. Some can be dismissed because of obvious conflict of interest, other's have to be weighed based upon the knowledge, experience and credibility of each "expert".

IECC recommends only R-13 walls for your climate zone, so you can get away with almost any option. But since you're in a marine environment, drying is critical. Since you have a lot more HDD than CDD and little sunshine, drying to the exterior is more important. For that reason, I would advise against closed cell foam. BIBS is probably a good option, as it offers good R-value and good air resistance. Do not use an interior vapor barrier, but make sure the drywall is air-sealed as well.

If it helps you in discerning the credibility of my advice, I have been designing and building super-insulated homes for 30 years, and I teach hygro-thermal engineering and building science.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Jan 30, 2010 1:59 PM ET


We recently had an energy audit performed by both utility companies here on Cape Cod and they both came up with the same (or very similar) plan. However, their plan could only be 30% implemented as the insulation contractor was refusing to perform all the requested action items due to concern for condensation or loss of R-value.

One of specific concern is our attic. Both auditors wanted dense packing. However, our walk-up attic (which will be finished in the future) is decked and has 10" of batt laid between the engineered I-beams. The decking is tongue and groove, so not easy to remove. The insulator did provide a $15,000 quote to hot roof our attic, as an alternative (which is too much for us to invest with too far out a payback). To further complicate our issue, we have our 2nd story air handler and duct work running through the attic (above the decking).

If I were to be so ambitious to rip up the decking and want to spray closed-cell cellulose, would we flash and batt (reusing the 10" fiberglass, as I have a few extra inches between it and the underside of the decking) or remove the fiberglass and just spray the foam? I know I have thermal loss through the ceiling penetrations into the attic from the HVAC ducts and mechanical penetrations through the top plates in the walls.

Any suggestions you can lend for our climate is appreciated? Thanks for the help.

Answered by Jayson
Posted Feb 8, 2010 12:22 PM ET



"Dense pack" is recycled shredded newspapers (cellulose) with borate fire retardant, blown in at a minimum 3 pcf density, it is not a closed-cell foam. The auditors probably recommended cellulose because it is more cost-effective than spray foam and blocks much of the exfiltration through the ceiling, unlike fiberglass (though penetrations should be foamed first with a can of Great Stuff or equivalent).

But, if you plan to finish and condition the attic in the future, then you may have no choice but to "hot roof" the attic unless there is enough headroom to build the framing down to make space for roof venting and dense-pack cellulose (basically turning your rafters into parallel-chord trusses). And, with HVAC in the attic, you'd be better off moving the thermal envelope and air barrier to the roofline.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Feb 8, 2010 12:37 PM ET



Thanks for the quick reply and catching my explanation error. If I move the thermal envelop to the roofline, would a flash and batt situation work there or can I use closed cell foam (the insulator was pushing 6" - 8" of Icynene). I obviously would have to cover the eave and ridge vents and install a ventilation system.

By chance we don't finish the attic (it was to be a future home theatre and not really necessary), is there an option you would recommend?

Thanks again for the help.

Answered by Jayson
Posted Feb 8, 2010 12:46 PM ET


thank you Robert for your response...I've heard similar recommendations from Home Inspectors - fellows who see how houses wear in the NW climate. One said even to avoid the bibs... as eventual water infiltration combined with a bibs application will make remediation a messy job. Seems a bit too skeptical.

You mentioned, "... Do not use an interior vapor barrier, but make sure the drywall is air-sealed as well." Do you mean avoid these applications ...
"Depending on the climate, additional water vapor control may also be specified. These often include polyethylene plastic sheeting, faced fiberglass insulation, foil-backed wallboard, or an interior "vapor barrier" paint."


"The logical series of sealing and detailing steps pioneered by the Canadians in the Airtight Drywall Approach (ADA) and Simple Caulk and Seal (SCS) is usually less expensive, simpler, and more effective than more commonly used polyethylene sheeting techniques."

thannks, Frank

Ref: http://www.doityourself.com/stry/airtightdrywallcaulk#ixzz0glzTAQIB

Answered by Frank
Posted Feb 27, 2010 5:16 PM ET


I obviously would have to cover the eave and ridge vents and install a ventilation system.

Either you're still confused or I am. If you close off the roof venting with spray foam then the attic becomes conditioned space and attic ventilation is incompatible with that. Perhaps you mean to include the attic in a whole-house ventilation system (which is a good idea once you sufficiently tighten up the envelope).

Closed-cell foam would offer the most R-value in whatever space, but code calls for R-38 ceilings and you're not likely going to be able to achieve that without building down your roof. With a closed-cell "hot roof" it's imperative that the roofing material can breathe to the outside for drying any leakage. Open-cell foam or open cell flash and batt at least allows some drying downward and shows roof leaks after a while.

The least costly and most effective retrofit would be to seal any obvious penetrations with a can of spray foam and add some cellulose on top of the fiberglass to increase R-value and control exfiltration. Also seal all duct joints with duct mastic or foil-butyl tape and insulate ducts well.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Feb 27, 2010 7:57 PM ET



It's not just that air sealing is simpler, less expensive and more effective than poly vapor barriers, it's that a true vapor barrier (plastic or foil) is as likely to trap moisture as it is to prevent its intrusion. Air sealing is a must, and then you can use a 1 perm vapor retarder (like latex v.r. primer) on the drywall to meet code requirements. There is a significant difference between a vapor barrier and a vapor retarder.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Feb 27, 2010 8:00 PM ET


I'm confused on your stance on open-cell flash and batt applications. In comment 17 you state, "open-cell foam or open cell flash and batt at least allows some drying downward and shows roof leaks after a while," yet in comment 10 you are clearly against open-cell flash and batt-- "Open-cell foam in this application will not only not have enough R-value to keep its surface above the dewpoint but will then allow water vapor to permeate through to the cold sheathing where it will condense and do all sorts of damage."
Yes, you were talking about a wall application in one comment and a roof application in the other, but I don't see a difference. I think the moisture that "permeates" through the foam to the cold sheathing is a concern in walls AND in roofs.

Answered by Brett Moyer
Posted Feb 28, 2010 7:12 PM ET



If you're confused, it's because you're no paying attention. My first comment was about open cell foam in a very cold climate (Calgary), the second was a generic comment about open cell in a roof compared to closed cell. I do not advocate spray foam in any climate, though in some renovation scenarios it may be a reasonable option. But one needs to consider the VOC off-gassing that has forced some homeowners to move out of their homes and the inadequacy of R-value or moisture protection in many applications.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Feb 28, 2010 9:41 PM ET


I agree with your point. Like you, I'm uncertain what Robert meant by "open cell flash and batt."

Lest anyone be tempted, it's important to clarify: all flash-and-batt proponents I have talked to emphasize that the technique is only used with closed-cell foam, so (as far as I know) there is no such thing as "open cell flash and batt."

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Mar 1, 2010 6:36 AM ET


I don't sell SIPs, but doesn't the use of SIPs eliminate most of this debate.
I have done enough remodels to see mositure damaged walls from all framing systems.

Answered by Richard
Posted Mar 8, 2010 1:22 PM ET


Martin, Owens Corning's "EnergyComplete" system could be described as a flash and batt system, and it uses open cell foam: http://www.ocenergycomplete.com/. It's not what we usually think of as flash and batt, and I'm dubious about their air sealing claims at such minimal thickness.

Richard, I've seen moisture damage from SIPs, and it's very difficult to repair. They come with their own set of debatable traits.

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 8, 2010 2:58 PM ET


I think you are mistaken. The spray foam used in the EnergyComplete system is very dense -- denser even than closed-cell (2-pound) foam. It has a density of 7 to 8 pounds per cubic foot, so it is about 4 times denser than closed-cell foam. Open-cell foam has a density of only 1/2 pound per cubic foot.

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Mar 8, 2010 3:11 PM ET


Martin, I was going by OC's website. See #7 under "System" here: http://www.ocenergycomplete.com/Resources/faq.aspx#using-the-system

Under "Performance" they list the R-value at 3.2/in, even less than 1/2lb foam.

There are a lot of slippery answers on their FAQ section, including comparison to "Polyurethane" foams, which makes it sound like their product is not polyurethane based. I don't have any first-hand experience with it though.

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 8, 2010 4:09 PM ET


I can see the source of your confusion. I think that Owens Corning could do a much better job with their literature, so that the answers to these questions weren't so mysterious.

The source of my information was Dwight Shuler, OC's technical manager for foam products and fiberglass insulation, who I spoke with on the telephone today. He described the spray foam as more of an air-sealing product than an insulation product. "We don't make any R-value claims for the product," he told me -- which is consistent with its density (it's dense) and the fact that it is applied only 3/8 inch thick.

I'm not sure why they call it an "open-cell" foam -- probably because it is applied in a very thin layer, and therefore may allow for some drying.

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Mar 8, 2010 4:20 PM ET


There are more answers on OC's website but they're hard to find: http://www.ocenergycomplete.com/docs/ec-datasheet.pdf.

The problem is that our common terms "open cell" and "closed cell" are shorthand for polyurethane foam in 1/2lb and 2lb densities. The Owens Corning product is a latex-based foam, with a perm rating of 40. Definitely vapor permeable.

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 8, 2010 6:57 PM ET


Martin, it's interesting that Mr. Shuler (thanks for making that call, btw) would claim that they don't make any R-value claims, when it's posted on the document I linked to above and elsewhere on OC's website that their product has an R-value of 3.2/in.

At least it's low R-value means that we don't have to consider it in the 1/2lb vs. 2lb polyurethane foam debate....

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 8, 2010 7:03 PM ET


Thanks for the useful link. As an example of the inadequate job that Owens Corning is doing with their technical literature, consider this sentence from the linked document: "However, it does have an R-value of 3.2 and can be used behind electrical boxes as insulation."

The statement is meaningless without specifying the thickness of the sample they are discussing. Presumably, they mean R-3.2 per inch — but without a thickness measurement, we're all left in the dark.

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Mar 9, 2010 7:22 AM ET


Martin, on this page http://www.ocenergycomplete.com/Resources/faq.aspx#performance they are clear, "R-3.2 per inch." The whole sheet does read like the marketing people got hold of it after the tech guys wrote it.

I'm intrigued by the idea of the permanently flexible latex foam as drywall gasket though. With fully air-sealed framing cavities, fiberglass could actually perform adequately. The addition of exterior foam would keep the delta T to a minumum, reducing convective looping.

Answered by Michael Maines
Posted Mar 9, 2010 11:36 AM ET


I agree. The system shows a lot of promise. My criticism is not a criticism of the system — just a criticism of the clarity of the marketing materials.

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Mar 9, 2010 11:44 AM ET


Have you looked at OC's Energy Complete System?

As a one-time homebuilder wrestling with new terms like convection, conduction, radiation, diffusion, heating days v cooling days, permeable/retarder/barrier, 2.5 ACH @ 50 pa, ERV v HRV...I'm certainly attracted to OC's Air Sealing Claim + Insulation performance.

2000 Sq ft home + basement, Thermal Envelope main floor and second floor, Cathedral ceilings - scissor trusses in attic, Seisco 18 KW microboiloer closed radiant system, HRV - Seattle, Wa.

Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 12, 2010 2:48 AM ET


The main reasons open cell foam is not a great canidate for a flash and batt are - It is almost impossible to spray a 1" layer of open cell - it expands too quickly and even if you could it would not do you any good because it is only an air barrier when it is 3" thick. It could be used in a very cold climate when trying to reach a very high R-Value but does make sense to combine it other products anywhere else.

Answered by Danny Kelly
Posted Mar 13, 2010 10:18 PM ET


Are you referring to OCs Energy Complete System foam which they use for air sealing (ref 26 above)...or is your comment directed at open cell foam in general (used in a flash-n-batt application)? thanks, Frank

Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 14, 2010 12:01 AM ET



If an Insulation contractor was to use closed cell foam with the same methodology as the OC energy complete system latex foam (as an air sealant), would it yield the same results? (OC Energy Complete is offered by few contractors...most fellows will spray closed cell foam however).


Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 14, 2010 2:08 PM ET



Owens Corning's Energy Complete system is intended as a cheaper and lower-tech alternative to flash and batt or flash and fill that allows the use of the dreaded Pink Stuff while eliminating some of its liabilities. It's ironic that OC's comparison chart for various insulating approaches shows that fiberglass batts alone are the worst performers by a mile (but they're cheap).

Latex foam has the advantage of being toolable and paintable (must be painted if it's exposed to the exterior), has low expansion and is water cleanable.

But, it's highly flammable, produces flammable heavier than air fumes during application, requires personal protective equipment during installation, is highly vapor permeable and absorbs water. It has less adhesion than other foams and, like all latex, will shrink over time.

Other than being an improvement over plain fiberglass, it's mostly more hype from the Pink Panther.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Mar 14, 2010 2:47 PM ET


...darn Robert - I thought I was looking at the mac-daddy of air seal/insulation systems with Energy Complete.
Well then, let me ask the same to you as I posed to Martin...if I was to shoot closed cell foam as prescribed by Energy Complete to address air infiltration and drywall sealing (ref application http://www.ocenergycomplete.com/architects/), use a blown-n-bib for stud bays (NOT flash-n-bib in the stud bays - I need drying to the exterior for my marine environment), a latex vapor retarder primer on my drywall to address diffusion, properly size and balance my HRV for 2 adults and 2 rowdy toddlers, further ventilate in bathrooms and kitchen (short rigid ducting vented outside)...wouldn't I be putting together a solid program (92.3% solution)? Cheers, enjoy your posts...

Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 14, 2010 5:18 PM ET



Is this new construction? If so, what stage of construction are you at?

Closed cell foam cannot be applied to most of the surfaces listed in OCEC, since they are expanding foams not surface treatments.

What EC is trying to do is an easier method of the Air-Tight Drywall Approach (http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/information-sheets/4-air-barrie...), except they fail to address electrical boxes which are a major source of air leakage.

If you haven't yet framed the house, I would recommend the ADA system using either EPDM gaskets (http://www.conservationtechnology.com/building_gaskets.html) or Tremco acoustical sealant. If it's already framed and sheathed, then the alternative though less effective "simple caulk and seal" uses caulks and sealants to do the same as shown in the Energy Complete system.

But, in either system, don't forget the Lessco polypans (http://www.lessco-airtight.com/) behind all electrical boxes in insulated walls and ceilings.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Mar 14, 2010 6:20 PM ET



Yes, new construction. I am currently framing (1st floor/walls complete w/ 1/2" cdx , 2nd floor joists in place).
That being said, I'm unable to put a gasket on the top plate of my first floor but could do the same on the second floor. Do you have a suggestion as what to prioritize for maximum air sealing (or rather minimal air infliltration) at this point...I've let the horse out of the barn...

Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 14, 2010 7:20 PM ET



The top and bottom of the building are the most important places to air seal. You can use construction adhesive (such as PL Premium urethane) to seal the framing from that point upwards, and get a foam gun and a half dozen cans of PurFil or other ozone-friendly low-expansion foam to seal the sill and band joist and any exposed sheathing joints as well as mechanical penetrations and around doors and windows.

I would get the Lessco boxes and make sure the drywallers caulk the top and bottom plate edges, door and window openings and Lessco flanges as they hang the rock. Make sure the interior air barrier is continuous from wall to upper ceiling, with special attention to attic kneewalls, cantilevered floor joists and any hatches into unconditioned space.

If you're using a pull-down attic stair, the only one worth using is this (http://www.conservationtechnology.com/building_ladder.html) insulated and air-tight unit. No ceiling light cans in the insulated ceiling, and make sure to seal around chimneys and plumbing or radon vents where they penetrate the thermal envelope. I use a roof flashing for the plumbing stack at the ceiling level and metal flashing and mortar fire/air stops around masonry chimneys.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Mar 14, 2010 7:33 PM ET


Great Stuff Robert ~ family and I appreciate it...now how to sound proof the kids' rooms!


Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 14, 2010 7:48 PM ET


we've discussed the interior of the envelope. One of the products I'm considering for the exterior that touts superior weather/air seal properties while still allowing 50 perms of breathability to the exterior is Wrapshield by http://www.vaproshield.com/ . Any comments on this product?

Answered by Frank
Posted Mar 25, 2010 10:06 AM ET


OK, here is the way it is i have dont insulation for many years, if fiberglass touches either the plywood wall or any other material is loses its R-value, thats it in a nut shield. Also use your common since if you use foam and fibergalss togther you are setting yourself up for a major problem down the road. I have seen where this has actually rotted the floor away from the wall, sorry people its the true, Now if you properly install cellulose with someone who has year of experience, you can go up and touch the cellilose and it will fill only damp let set for the week and your will be ready for sheetrock. Now if its in a lower under ground you need to let it dry for at least 2 weeks. I know all about flash and batt and i have actually test that have been done at Oakridge National Lab. And again if the fiberglass touches plywood or any other matter it will lose its R value have the test to prove it.

Answered by joe
Posted Sep 22, 2010 4:20 PM ET


if fiberglass touches either the plywood wall or any other material is loses its R-value

This statement has no basis in either hygro-thermal physics or fact.

This writer seems to have as little comprehension of thermo-dynamics and building science as he does of the English language.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Sep 22, 2010 4:33 PM ET


Hi folks, I recently had my second floor reinsulated as it never was completed from 20 years ago. I live in Vemont - Here is my situation and what I elected to have done. 2X12 rafters 2X6 collar ties. Pre existing soffit to gable vent . My insulator installed used closed cell foam to seal all air infiltrations at soffit where pre existing soffit ventilation was generated then instatlled 1" foal faced ridgid insulation and used 3/4" stapping to hold insulation up and act as fasteners for drywall. All joints were taped with foil tape.I then installed and taped ceiling with 1/2" drywall. My insulater they blew in high density cellulous in rafter bays and 2' on ceiling. Prior to blowing in insulation all ceiling and wall penetrations such as outlets and light boxes were foam sealed. I having been a general contractor for 20 years (which of course explains my unfished house) was very sceptical of this insulation approach. I had planned to either foam entirerly or stay with conventional insulation and soffit to ridge ventilation techniques. My insulator convinced me against my better judgement that this was the way to go. everthing he told me when i questioned him about this aproach made sense at the time and maybe still does. So my questions .... Is this a good technique? Also more importantly it seems as if i am experiencing negative pressure issues now, how do I find out if i am correct and what can / should i do to solve problem? FYI The reason I think i may be experiencing negative pressure is that I can now smell creasote from time to time and I have not been running heat of any type. This is something i have never smelt before the insulation project was completed. I plan to question my insulator ( very nice your gentleman) but would appreciate imput from anyone who has it. Thanks Keith

Answered by Keith bollman
Posted Oct 4, 2010 1:57 PM ET



If you have a new question to bring to the forum, you're far better off starting a new thread than by piggy-backing on an ancient one.

What do you mean "reinsulate"? Was the attic floor already insulated and air-sealed?

What could you possibly mean by "used closed cell foam", since such foam is sprayed in place and cannot be re-used. Or do you mean pieces of rigid foam board that were sealed in place with canned foam?

Why in the world would use drywall and then cut holes to insulated rather than blowing through the foam board, sealing the holes and then drywalling over (which is how this is done)?

Do you have creosoted sills in your house that could possible be a source of a "creosote" smell? Creosote is a banned carcinogen and has no place in a residential structure.

If the contractor used sprayed foam, the smell you're noticing may be the chemical odor of the foam if it was not properly installed at the right mix and the right temperature at the appropriate thickness.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Oct 4, 2010 2:16 PM ET


The insulation method used by your contractor -- dense-packed cellulose in unvented rafter bays -- is fairly common in Vermont but is controversial and may be risky. It would have been safer to include ventilation between the top of the insulation and the roof sheathing.

Here's one possible explanation for your creosote smell: the insulation work reduced your home's air leakage rate. So your home is tighter than ever. I'm guessing that you have a variety of exhaust appliances -- perhaps a bath fan, a clothes dryer, a range hood, and maybe a water heater. These appliances put your house at negative pressure. The makeup air is coming down your chimney, and you are smelling creosote, even when you have no fire in your stove or fireplace. (That's the smell of your chimney flue.)

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Oct 4, 2010 2:34 PM ET


Of course, it would be the chimney (assuming you're burning wood) - I didn't think of that.

But tightening up the roof should have reduced the negative pressure in the lower floors, since there'd be less air escaping at the top. If you're wood-burning appliance is upstairs, though, it might now be in the negative or neutral pressure zone and be more easily influenced by the draft from exhaust fans.

You need to give us a lot more information about your house if you want an appropriate assessment.

Answered by Riversong
Posted Oct 4, 2010 5:41 PM ET


Robert & Martin – First thanks for your speedy replies, I was in a big hurry in my earlier post and was obviously not clear of my situation.

Robert, to answer your questions…

The floor was not insulated; I had previously insulated the rafters with fiberglass and proper vent (the older white Styrofoam type) which I never liked. The area was left unfinished other than that & was not occupied. As I now intended to complete the second floor I wanted to investigate better ways to insulate and consider either improving ventilation or possibly eliminating it by using foam. FYI I have eight gable front dormers so as you can imagine proper ventilation was a bit tricky to achieve. The closed cell foam was used only in the new insulating process I had decided on, and was used to aid in sealing air flow from soffit vents previously in place. My existing ventilation was achieved through use of continuous vents in soffit with proper vent to attic and gable vents in both main gables. I always felt soffit to ridge was the best way to ventilate so was unhappy with what existed. As far as the new technique used, first all existing fiberglass was removed. Second all existing penetrations from soffit were blocked by means of ridged dams and closed cell foam which was spayed over entire ridged blocks and to seal areas which left small air gaps ( obviously insulator was not going to scribe blocks, especially since he planned to foam, the blocks were to stop foam and cellulous from flowing into sofffits. After all soffits were blocked 1” foal faced ridged insulation was installed from eave connections to collar tie/ rafter joint. The foil faced insulation was held in place on the slopes with plastic washer type nails and only enough nails were used to hold the foil faced in place until strapping could be applied perpendicular to rafters, this served a couple of purposes, First to hold foil faced insulation up as the insulator was to later blow high density cellulous in rafter bays so the washer head nails would not hold pressure of cellulous. Second purpose was to act as nailing for drywall to be later installed only after insulation was totally completed. The one exception was to be the ceiling, that area the insulator wanted dry walled and taped so that once rafter bays were filled he could then cover the horizontal bays of the collar ties. Prior to blowing cellulous insulation all electrical or other penetrations especially in ceiling were foam sealed , also the washer nail heads and ridged insulation joints were taped with foal tape. Hope that makes sense.

No creosote sills only source of creosote is wood stove and not much either as I burn exclusively kiln dried firewood or clean & check chimney regular. I am a 20 year fireman so often chimney gets checked from cleanout twice a week.

As to you comment of the smell possibly being the foam, I will have to check that possibility but it sure smells like creosote to me. Interesting also that the smell comes and goes and I expect is more prevalent during certain barometric situations.

Martin, I agree with every comment you have made 100%! The question is if this, as we both suspects the case, now what? Mechanical ventilation, I never thought this could happen to me I used to laugh at houses with no ventilation now I worry about my families health even more than my house and probably both are at major risk. Thoughts? Stove is not in use this year and is on first floor.

Thanks again

Posted Oct 5, 2010 1:20 PM ET


If you have evidence that my analysis is correct, then you need to either:
1. Install a new wood stove with ducted outdoor combustion air, or
2. Crack a window to allow fresh makeup air to enter your house when you are operating any exhaust appliance, or
3. Install a balanced ventilation system (for example, an ERV or HRV) or a supply-only ventilation system.

Answered by Martin Holladay
Posted Oct 5, 2010 1:35 PM ET

Other Questions in Energy efficiency and durability

Dirty electric from minisplit ductless heat and air conditioning

In General questions | Asked by Arleendv | May 30, 18

vinyl siding recycling

In General questions | Asked by patj47 | Jun 23, 18

Roof vent size for vaulted ceiling

In General questions | Asked by Nepal | Jun 22, 18

Radiant Floor Cooling?

In Mechanicals | Asked by Steve Mackay | Apr 4, 18

Unvented roof — vaulted ceilings — moisture, rot, etc.

In General questions | Asked by Meyersrl | Jun 22, 18
Register for a free account and join the conversation

Get a free account and join the conversation!
Become a GBA PRO!