You are reading a single comment by @ectoplasmosis and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
ectoplasmosis
There are two approaches, but there are pros/cons to both. It's not always essential to do either. Note that dot & dab is a fast/cheap/bad approach for insulating internally: thermal bridging, poor sound proofing values, potential condensation risks on foil and within low-airflow areas.
Working with the existing mass using direct application fibre board will limit you to ~60mm of fibre board, or a U-value of ~0.5 W/m2K (based on a double run of 102.5mm bricks), but on the plus side you would have few concerns regarding moisture ingress over time. You would be prioritising permeability which can be critical for pushing back moisture levels within wet/dark environments, or for ensuring the long-term health of heritage buildings.
Working against the mass by building a new sub-structure (NOT dot & dab!) means you will have to carefully calculate your dew point and consider ways of bringing down the moisture level within your ventilated cavity, but on the plus side you will have no limit to the amount of PIR you could use - but only if cavity moisture is modeled/managed effectively. You would be prioritising performance/utility and would accept some external moisture ingress risk as you already have dry/sunny elevations in summer.