Laserfiche WebLink
PROJECT NO: 4140 92-2757 DATE: July 23, 1993 <br /> PAGE: 3 <br /> SA1�iPLE IDENTIFICATION: � _ <br /> EPS thermal insuladon molded to meet the requirements of ASTM C578, Type I and Type II classification, <br /> were submitted to our laboratory by Diversifoam Products, Rockford, Minnesota in August of 1989 for The <br /> Society of the Plastics Industry EPS Block Nfolders Group. Two 4' by 8' sheets of each type were <br /> identified as follows: <br /> Type I: 2.73 inches thick, white in color <br /> Type II: 2.52 inches thick, white with green beads <br /> The sample thicknesses were designed to provide reference thermal resistance values of approximately 10 <br /> h•ftz•'F/Btu. The tested R-values and densities were as follows: <br /> Tvpe Averag,e Densit, .lv b�ft' Averaee R-Value, h•ft�• 'F/Btu <br /> I 1.01 10.2 <br /> II 1.46 10.6 <br /> � <br /> OBSERVATIONS: ' <br /> � _ _ _ <br /> _ _ _ <br /> The general condition of test samples was documented upon removal from the foundation each year: <br /> F'ust Year: Scattered minor surface cracks and indentations were observed. A slight amount of soil <br /> impregnation in the surface was apparent (that which could not be removed by brushing). No significant <br /> distortion, shrinkage or swelling was evident. There was no apparent deterioration of the EPS,boards due <br /> to any freeze-thaw cycling that may have occurred. ' <br /> Second Year: Scattered minor surface cracks and indentations were observed. A greater amount of soil <br /> impregnation in the surface was apparent (that which could not be removed by brushing). No significant <br /> distortion, shrinkage or swelling was evident. There was no apparent deterioration of the EPS boards due <br /> to ariy freeze-thaw cycling that may have occurred. <br /> Third Year: Apart from some slight damage during the removal, the two samples were intact. Scattered <br /> minor surface cracks and indentations were observed. Some soil impregnation in the surface was still <br /> apparent (that which could not be removed by brushing). No significant dis[ortion, shrinkage or swelling <br /> was evident. There was no apparent deterioration of the EPS boards due to any freeze-thaw cycling that <br /> may have occurred: <br /> Refer to Appendix C for photographs of the samples. <br /> aS�".tU�Ual PROTECTiON 70 CUEvTS. TrE�UBuC ak0 OURSEWES .+LL Tw�N CIiV TES7ING CORPOAaiION REPORTS aRE SUBMiTTEO a5 iME COuf'DE.VTIA�PRGPEai V�F C_:E`:`- <br /> a'�0 aUT�CRIZATION FOR�UBUCaiIQN OF jTAi�A,lENTS.CONCWS�ONS OR cX'RaCTiCNS FROM pF REGaRD�NG OUA REPORiS 4 aESE�EO�ENOiNG Qu�?RIOR�.YR�T7E`�a???v�'�1� <br />