[Greenbuilding] Basement EPS with plywood (acceptable)

Alan Abrams alan at abramsdesignbuild.com
Sat Jul 13 07:26:11 MDT 2013


because XPS has a significantly higher global warming potential than EPS,
I'd prefer the latter--even at somewhat lower R-value per unit of
thickness.  Others on this list (John Salmen) have written extensively
about using adhesives instead of mechanical fasteners to connect the
components.

it raises another idea--to use rigid mineral fiber instead of foam.  Roxul
comfort board is rated at R-4 per inch, and is said to compress only 10%
under 743 LBs per SF.  dunno how that extrapolates to ordinary live loads,
but it still suggests a double, staggered layer of plywood, mechanically
fastened.  many other advantages, including dimensional stability, fire,
rot, and pest resistance, high permeability, and low embodied energy.

Alan Abrams


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Sam Ewbank <g.l.ewbank at gmail.com> wrote:

> From the green building archives.  A similar application to what you are
> looking to do but with the suggestion of using 1.5" EPS
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/2012-April/003703.html
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:52 PM, John O'Brien <john at boardom.ca> wrote:
>
>> Friend is doing some work, looking to put down 1" EPS, with floating
>> plywood, tapcon'd down, followed by some floating laminate.
>>
>> Would this be considered an acceptable base, or would it be beneficial
>> to bump up to XPS or run a double layer of 1/2" ply staggered for more
>> point load compression protection?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> J
>
>
>
>
>>
>
> Sam Ewbank
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130713/456ac647/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list