Foreword

The intent of this section is to acquaint the reader with the major issues that must be considered when Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) is proposed as an alternative to Expanded Polystyrene Insulation Inserts. Some of the key issues that must be addressed are:

1. Inserts are placed in masonry units at the point of manufacture. Foam is placed in masonry units at the job site.
   
   
2. Inserts have been manufactured to meet ASTM C578 Type I requirements and are controlled by a Third Party Inspection Program. There is no government standard or requirement pertaining to foamed plastics.
   
   
3. Structural Tests have been conducted to verify that Inserts can be left in the core of grouted reinforced masonry units with no degrading of structural integrity.
   
   
4. The types of foam available are numerous. The Urethane types are not subject to the same concerns that the Urea Formaldehyde are, such as Core-Fill 500. Numerous states outlaw the use of Urea Formaldehyde foam.
   
   
5. A great deal of research has been conducted to determine the long term effect moisture and temperature have on foams. An article from the Masonry Institute of Michigan highlights the impact these elements have.
   
   
6. Holometrix Test Laboratories of Bedford, Massachusetts has just completed an aging evaluation of Core-Fill 500.
   
   

Unlike foamed in place insulation, our Company guarantees the thermal efficiency of our molded inserts for twenty (20) years. We also do not rely on job site labor to further guarantee insulation is placed in each block. Our office maintains a complete file on competitive foamed in place products and would be more than happy to share this information at your request.