Laserfiche WebLink
Report A3132.1 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Conclusions <br /> For the conditions recorded over the two year monitoring period in this <br /> experiment, the EPS insulation specimens showed stable thermal performance <br /> in the soil. <br /> The EPS Type B and EPS Type C specimens showed sustained thermal performance <br /> over the two-year monitoring period. On average, there was little to differentiate these <br /> two types of EPS products in their ability to sustain thermal performance in the ground <br /> over the two-year monitoring period. <br /> Installation System #1 (Horizontal z-bars attached to header) yielded consistently <br /> superior thermal performance of the system compared to Installation System #2 <br /> (vertical z-bars attached to concrete). <br /> When tested in the lab after recovery and drying of the specimens, the <br /> compressive strengths of the EPS samples were the same as those of samples <br /> tested at the beginning of the test, within the margin of error of the test method. <br /> This was consistent with results of the environmental cycling tests5. <br /> When tested in the lab after recovery and drying of the specimens, the measured <br /> thermal conductivities showed no significant change over the pre-exposed <br /> samples. This was consistent with results of the environmental cycling tests. <br /> We conclude that the key performance factors of thermal conductivity and <br /> compressive strength of the EPS specimens were not affected by the 31-month <br /> in-situ exposure. <br /> The laboratory environmental cycling is not intended to duplicate field exposure. <br /> The lab test procedures exposed the product to extreme environmental cycling <br /> with no measurable change in properties. Details of the lab exposure tests are <br /> recorded in a separate report—A3132.25 <br />