Garage Door Insulation
January 13, 2018 at 1:17 am #15601
I’ve got a garage built into the house and it’s under the bedrooms. It’s got a metal roller shutter door that may as well not be there as far as letting heat out is concerned. We use the garage every day, so I can’t block it up, but need to insulate it. I’m already planning on renewing the insulation in the ceiling. I’ve been looking at rubber draught excluders for the bottom of the door too.
I’ve been told that an insulated frame around the door is probably the best way to keep the heat in, but I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for the door itself.
January 13, 2018 at 1:38 am #15603
RSBKeymaster@bdthreeForumite Points: 2,136
May be good to show some close up of the frames, gaps etc. If you watch adverts for crocodile garage doors and look closely at the bottom of the door you can see how the rubber is cut to match the up and downs of the floor. Depending on the frame foam filler is an option. All wild guess of course. Is there is a single skin wall to one side and the rear? Some plaster board with insulation behind them, not an expensive or difficult job and all the above with an extra radiator piping from your central heating.
Americans: Over Sexed, Over Payed and Over here, Wat Wat!00January 13, 2018 at 2:03 am #15606
TipponKeymaster@tipponForumite Points: 2,663
This is the rubber door seal I’ve looked at (haven’t shopped around yet though):
It looks pretty straightforward, and doesn’t leave anything on the threshold that the bike could slip on.
The frame could probably do with renewing, and would almost certainly need filler, but I hadn’t thought of that (Doh!). I think the front wall is double skin brick, but I’m not sure. The internal wall seems to be breezeblock, but the opposite wall and back wall are underground, due to the split level of the house. The right hand side of the garage door and the internal door between the garage and house are quite close to each other too, so I may not be able to build the wall out to insulate it.00January 13, 2018 at 2:33 am #15607
wasbitParticipant@wasbitForumite Points: 595
Kingspan or Celotex are probably the best know brand names. Builders merchants are the normal sellers but I see Wickes stock some so presumably B&Q etc may have them as well.
Expensive, so these may help. Based at Presteigne, LD8 2UF
Rig 1: Zalman Media Centre Rebuild (i3-540)
Rig 2: Hp Elitebook 8440P (The Dave Laptop Special)
The Dave Special & The 43 Special are still giving sterling service with new owners
Dear Starfleet, hate you, hate the Federation, taking Voyager. - Janeway00January 13, 2018 at 7:38 am #15610
We had an identical problem to you, and decided to just junk the old 40 year old up & over door and have a new door fitted. In the end we went with something similar to this link. (We did not use that particular company because we got a better deal from a local company in the South East). We went a little overboard in also rubberising the floor and installing a bumper strip on the garage floor for the door to tightly seal against (shutter doors like a flat horizontal seal). Once the door was fitted we went around and sealed any remaining gaps even though not many were found.
Unfortunately we changed too many things that year to make a good post-audit on savings, but the winter temperatures in the garage are no longer frigid. We must have lost a lot of energy through the bedroom floor as that too feels warmer. Our consensus was that this was a worthwhile investment.
Good luck with whatever you do.
 I forgot – we also triple boarded the garage celing as the old ceiling did not meet modern fire regs – that probably added another measure of insulation.00January 13, 2018 at 9:30 am #15615
Ed has mentioned the regs – garages have to be seperated from the rest of the house above by 60 minutes fire resisting construction, which should give you a measure of warmth (though, concrete is fireproof but not particularly well insulating from my limited knowledge of building thermals – something to do with it being a cold bridge IIRC)
Celotex and Kingspan – the regs allow you to use them in buildings under 18m, but be aware that Celotex was the material used in the cladding at Grenfell…00January 13, 2018 at 11:25 am #15621
I do not know if facing Celotex or Kingspan with plasterboard bonded with plaster on each side not flamable glue and installed horizontally would be safer than a vertical installation with air space behind it but they have lost my confidence. A fire resistant plasterboard with a non-combustible insulation creating a false ceiling could be considered subject to height considerations and of course fire resistance. Is the door going to be insulated? Once more a non combustible insulation lining could be both useful and cost effective. Gaps do allow both draughts and rodents easy access though some ventilation could be advisable. Is the door powered or manual, adding to the weight via insulation or resistance due to draught proofing might make it harder to operate. Adjustment of the counter balances might be needed. If the door and frame are old would they even be reliable enough to support the additional work or would a better engineered replacement provide a better payback, all aspects considered?
I was surprised our garage kept to a minimum of just below 10 Centigrade when outside is was minus 4. We run a very old fridge out there (43 years old) and I had wondered if we could source a current model replacement, but it is a bit tight for the environmental conditions. However, additionally I am not happy to run a plastic backed fire hazard out there waiting to incinerate cars and the house.00January 13, 2018 at 11:50 am #15624
Drezha would know better but I THINK fire resistant plasterboard is always pink on one side, so it may be possible to check if your existing ceiling meets modern specs. There are probably other visual clues as a mate of mine just looked at the garage ceiling and said nope the ceiling is just boarded to the old specs.
Tbh if your garage ceiling was built before the regs changed (1984?) then I would add fireproofing just for peace of mind — afaik you do not HAVE to do this. However as Richard points out it gives an opportunity to add a layer of suitable insulation.
(I’m not sure which year the regs changed)00January 13, 2018 at 1:08 pm #15632
The issue of what changed when and why is always a challenge. Normally you do not have to update when the regs change unless you are already doing work when changes might need to be incorporated.
My concern was that following the Grenfell fire the various regulations, fire, plus building, plus ecological and environmental were found to have come up as questionable bed fellows if not actually well short of needs. I was hoping for a swift sign of progress towards clarifying what is in and what is out. I would be less confident about doing any work to meet what are the supposed standards at the moment. The goods may well have been tested under a framework that was possibly shot full of holes. While the likes of Celotex and Kingspan were originally passed, they no longer look a good choice,for anything even if the insulation space available is small, where they were said to be most useful.
Is fire rated material really able to meet my field conditions and not just the original laboratory self test experimental ones?
Should fire risks now be addressed by use of best available rated (guess and god rated materials?) backed up by a sprinkler system or other active suppression method in higher risk locations.
Sadly the investigations appear to be heading into the long grass of too many special interest groups pulling for their often political special interest, so I no longer expect any real progress to sort out the almost wild west set up that has been revealed. For the record I am referring to the complex interworking of differential competing, overlapping and often ill defined standards I am not referring to the work of the various fire authorities whose hair is now being pulled out in frustration at the mess they face.00January 14, 2018 at 11:50 am #15682
Well, the plasterboard rule of pink = fire rated isn’t always true because British Gypsum offer different plasterboard to other manufacturers and there isn’t a common standard.
Current rules (which I don’t imagine will change) are that you do not have to comply with the existing Building Regulations, unless your refurbishment works make anything worse. In this case, that isn’t the case. Current Building Regs are 2010 (and the house building guidance to meet that, ADB Volume 1, was updated in 2013 IIRC – certainly was for non-domestic premises).
Gluing plasterboard on to Kingspan or Celotex would be permitted – a building of 18m or less (including a house) can be made of fully combustible materials (but is required to have the escape routes lined in fire rated materials).00January 14, 2018 at 1:23 pm #15686
Thank you Drezha, that clarifies things a little. Perhaps you can clarify one other point, clearly the building regulations specify the use of non-combustible materials. I was led to believe that the sometimes self certification qualification process for non-combustible and even for fire rated are less explicit. If someone can apparently persuade a material not to burn (by hook or by crook) for the qualifying time then it can qualify as a suitable material. On that basis and the looseness of some testers how much trust can be applied to such terms?00January 14, 2018 at 9:23 pm #15697
Well the tests are carried out by UKAS accredited testing houses – in the UK that would be Exova Warrington or BRE (of which, I used to work for BRE, though not on the testing side). As far as I am aware, no Building Control in the country would accept a self certified test, hence one of the above two has to test this. If it passes a BS test,then it is accredited to that BS. However, it doesn’t have to be tested at a later date – I think it is ISO tests that continue to test the materials/item over the course of it’s manufacturing lifetime (i.e. five years later, the product is tested again to ensure that it is still being manufactured the same).
The self accreditation thing perhaps comes in to play where the architect/contractor can request a desktop study of an item. This is where a build up of materials (so in the case of the external walls, a BS 8414 test) has passed a British Standard fire test. This test has tested this exact build up – so everything has to be the same to comply with the BS, including the external finish etc. The desktop study then takes this initial test and compares what the architect wants to change. You might have a combustible panel as part of this build up, but if it has passed the BS test with that panel in place, it is compliant.
So take an example where an architect wants to use a combustible panel behind a terracotta tiled panel. This might be a tested system and is therefore safe. Someone else wants to use a slate tile on the front. The desktop study allows for an engineer to turn around and say that slate is anon combustible material like terracota and as the terracotta panel passed, then this one should pass as well and you don’t have to pay £25,000 for the test to be undertaken. Some Building Controls have accepted that in the past thought personally, that’s a grey area (as I don’t know enough about materials science to say with certainity that it’ll perform the same!)
I think that’s what you mean.
Other areas of the Building Regs can be self certified, like plumbing and extensions etc I believe (though I don’t deal with many domestic properties so couldn’t say for sure).00January 15, 2018 at 7:44 am #15703
Imo the ‘desktop study’ aspect of Drezha’s reply is the biggest single failing that has so-far emerged from the Grenfell House disaster. The Dutch firm that carried out the study apparently took zero account of the German and US views of the material and failed to include the significant number of dangerous fires that contemporaneously took place in the Middle East etc. I just hope that the Inquiry manages to pin a very large measure of blame on the perpetrators of an obviously flawed study.
Under our system once an ‘expert’ has certified something there is very little chance that anyone else can raise objections. I would change the law such that Consulting Companies who certify a product carry an ONGOING responsibility for their studies and have an ongoing responsibility to update their studies, and issue warnings etc as new evidence emerges.00January 15, 2018 at 9:53 am #15708
Darn it I just lost a post that was almost done. I will compose in Word and cut and paste the next try.
Thank you drezha the press reports had suggested that not all materials always were tested in a standardised laboratory, I am pleased to note that impression was wrong. I do have concerns that the scope of desk top studies could be an issue though replacing one fire resistant or non combustible material with another should not appear to make a difference. Slate in some (all?) forms is non-combustible but can burst, spall or shatter given the right heat. What works on a 30 foot high wall might fail if deployed on e.g. a 90 foot structure where a taller chimney effect could exist. Staged fire stopping would then become an issue
I hear Ed’s comments but fear that as a standalone suggestion it would become a lawyer’s dream of heaven. The desk top study performed on the basis of then knowledge and without control of the installation results achieved, should allow eminent QCs to argue until the original objective was lost. If something like that was to be workable then in my mind the consultant’s hands would have to be in the mud all through the build process, overseeing and signing off every stage of the work.
In short some drastic changes to working practices are be required.
There is another aspect, the remedial work on Grenfell cost in the region of £10 million pounds, that is not chump change and alongside it £25,000 for a test is more like the coffee club kitty. Now consider all the other buildings that are having to be cleansed of this material at far more than £25,000 a pop and it becomes an even more materially insignificant sum.
Should the answer not have been for standards for retrofitted insulation to have been established that explicitly approved materials and fully tested installation standards pursuant to the standard to be followed? Testable standards for all stages of the work would make the end to end process more reliable, more easily checked and, above all far more cost effective – not just cheaper through out of sight rounded corners.00January 15, 2018 at 10:36 am #15711
While on the subject of vehicle fires and fire resistance was anyone else surprised at the structural damage done by the Liverpool car park fire? The ‘fire resistant’ concrete had crumbled away in several areas surprisingly (for me) leaving only the metal reinforcing where the floor had been. I would have expected the metal to be melted or at least substantially softened. Some beams had also appeared to fail. Clearly it had been a very intense fire that had spread very easily, possibly been boosted by the open nature of the structure.00January 15, 2018 at 12:12 pm #15712
Richard I take your point, but as an Engineer, in my experience desktop studies are a way of life. Good consultants tend to play an active role throughout the design/build/commission cycle as they normally have some sort of retainer/oversight role as well as a professional interest in maintaining good relations with the contract awarder.
What still annoys me with respect to Grenfell Tower case is that the consulting company apparently made no reference to actual practical experience which would have invalidated their study. We obviously await the results of the Inquiry, but I will be bitterly disappointed if the Consulting Company and its employees do not get their share of opprobrium – even to the extent of them being the defendants in criminal and civil court cases.
wrt Liverpool this interview may be of interest. I would hope that the results of this fire are comprehended in future design desktop studies!00January 15, 2018 at 1:08 pm #15714
I venture to suggest that desk top studies should normally be directed towards confirming that the proposed use is compliant with ‘normal’ i.e. certified and verified usage. As the matter is currently in the throws of investigation and possible legal action I feel limited in the extent to which I should add to the fog of doubts. I lack confidence in the way that the project(s) were carried out.
Thank you for the Liverpool reference, the first time I tried it demanded I sign in, the second try went straight in, subsequent returns did not work. With the exception of discussion of drainage channels (- question which I have no data to discuss) it reflected my thinking, it was truly a ‘but for the grace of god’ situation that it did not and has not yet fallen. To speculate about whether it ‘might’ need to be taken down struck me as weird. The admission that hydrocarbon fires were not considered in the design process does sound like a desk study cost management step too far – as for not maintaining an asset; that is too stupid to contemplate. There was no possible effort to compartmentalise or to fire stop any multi story car park I have ever seen. Since the fire was so destructive I also wonder whether it went beyond spalling to destruction of the concrete back to its new calcined raw material. Whether mist sprinkler or other measures should be considered, I can almost hear the long grass and special interest groups gathering to sell their own angles.
As I have said before, I really want all of the investigations to avoid political interests pulling things to suit a special interest.
(a) If there are structural problems, materials problems, design or deployment or any other process problems I want them identified and addressed ASAP.
(b) If there were also clearly illegal actions they should be punished to the normal extent of the law.
However, (b) should not take precedence as (a) is vital for future safety of all building works.
The issue of retrospective corrections is a real hot potato with huge emotional baggage.00January 15, 2018 at 2:15 pm #15715
Desktop studies normally go far beyond just looking at compliance for materials of construction and their verified usage. As a young Engineer I was involved in one of the first post-Flixborough HSE desktop studies of the implications of a major disaster with one scenario being the possibility of a ‘747’ hitting the place. Obviously not something capable of being anything but a desktop simulation.
Where I think we are in agreement is that a code of conduct should be enforced for materials selection. Engineers and Architects have to rely on ‘experts’ when it comes to materials suitability as designs can only be built on a solid basis of best practice knowledge and experience. Such ‘experts’ need to demonstrate that their procedures and processes comprehend current best practice knowledge and research on a world-wide basis. Failure to do so should bring swingeing sanctions.00January 15, 2018 at 2:45 pm #15716
Yes I’ll buy that. I totally agree with this statement ‘solid basis of best practice knowledge and experience‘ and your following words.00January 15, 2018 at 7:55 pm #15730
Well, in terms of the Liverpool car park fire – we tend to only consider that three cars are on fire. This has been backed up by testing by BRE – full scale tests were conducted that showed that fire started in one car and spread to the adjoining cars. Once it spread sideways to those cars, the initial car had dropped off and the effect from heat was negligible. Therefore, the peak was considered to be three cars. However, as the images at Liverpool show, there was somewhat more than 3 cars on fire! Open sided car parks only require 30 minutes fire protection to the structure (hence why the concrete was so badly spalled – there wasn’t a lot of it to start with!
General fire safety design is for life safety – get everyone out safely. It performed as it should have done in this case as no one was injured.
In terms of expertise, they’re looking at saying that only chartered engineers can do desktop studies. Which is ridiculous, because (as I’m almost chartered), I know I don’t have the experience to do that and wouldn’t. In fact, it’s part of my chartership to hold my hands up and say sorry, I can’t do that (to anything I know I cannot do)!00January 16, 2018 at 9:56 am #15738
Thank you drezha, a very good, useful, educational (to me at least) response.
I wondered what age the cars were that were tested as it is my impression that many current cars contain a range of highly combustible plastic materials such as wings and bumpers that do burn somewhat hotter than the metal on some older vehicles. The use of rust free but less fire resistant plastic fuel tanks is another variable that may or may not be relevant. Though to go against that, the original fire start vehicle was suggested to have been an older Land Rover.
It is all guess work and speculation so its time for me to shut up.00
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.