Performance
Mold, strength, insulation, fire and installation—all in one place. Use the section menu to go straight to the topic you need.
The two mold-sampled homes showed indoor counts below their same-day outdoor comparisons. The third residence had low chemistry measurements relative to the report’s cited reference data.
One-time field observations—not a mold-proof claim, certification, causal finding, or guarantee.
Our window and door bucks use REZWOOD protected lumber. Keeping the whole home dry still requires proper flashing, drainage, ventilation and humidity control.
Healthier living is a design goal, not a demonstrated health outcome from these samples. The reports compare indoor and outdoor measurements or cited reference data; they do not establish that ThermaTech homes are healthier than other homes. HVAC, finishes, occupant activity and maintenance all affect the result.
Measured
House 1 was sampled in January 2026. Testing from a house that was being lived in. Total VOCs were reported below 200 µg/m³, the lab's detection limit. The home bar shows that limit, not a reading of zero.
Measured assumptions. Independent inspector summary, February 2026. The reference average comes from about 45,000 residential samples, not a national ranking of houses. This test does not isolate the panels.
Measured
TMVOC is this report’s selected mold-related total. It does not count spores and does not establish that no mold exists.
Measured assumptions. Same House 1 sample and inspector summary. The home bar is an upper reporting bound on its own scale, separate from the TVOC chart.
Measured
December 2025 indoor samples ranged from 13 to 40 spores per cubic meter, compared with about 120 outdoors. The inspector reported no evidence of indoor amplification in this home.
Measured assumptions. One occupied home. Results depend on the day, the mold types, and outdoor air. This is not a regional average or a controlled wall test.
Measured
September 2025 indoor readings ranged from 27 to 173 spores per cubic meter. The outdoor sample was above 10,000, so its bar shows that lower bound and the indoor bars stay small on the same scale.
Measured assumptions. LaBastide home. The outdoor display is “>10,000”; the bar length uses 10,000 only as that lower bound, not as an exact count. These observations do not establish a regional ranking or a controlled mold-resistance result.
Photographs document a ThermaTech specimen in a loading rig. Exact allowable values, geometry, load paths, connections, and local acceptance still require the source report and project-specific sealed design.
Test imagery documents the setup; it does not publish an allowable load or establish project approval.
R-42–R-50 is the modeled typical-framing performance equivalent in Intertek’s total-heat-loss comparison. It is not a nominal or laboratory-tested wall R-value.
The comparison includes assumed, untested air-leakage and infiltration inputs. Whole buildings vary.
Modeled
Clear-wall results for the two assessed ThermaTech sections, next to the fiberglass baseline in the same report.
Modeled assumptions. Intertek, June 2026, LBNL THERM and ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix A. The ThermaTech figures are 5½-inch clear-wall sections and exclude top and bottom framing. The batt figure is that report’s effective assembly value for an ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 wood wall with R-19 cavity insulation, not a claim about every framed wall. The model assumed 1.0 pcf EPS at R-4.35 per inch. ASTM C578 Type I is R-3.6 per inch and Type VIII is R-3.8 per inch, so the EPS on a project has to match the model before the result is used. This is not a hot-box test.
Modeled
Studs sit in opposite faces of the foam, so there is no solid wood path straight through the wall. This chart is the modeled resistance of that stud path. It is not a split of heat flow among studs, cavity, and the thermal break.
Modeled assumptions. Intertek THERM stud path, about R-12.6, compared with about R-6 to R-7 for a solid 2×6 stud. The solid-stud bar is that reported range, not a single tested point. Clear-wall sections still exclude plates and junctions.
Modeled
In the same Intertek model, the 2×4 center-stud panel lost about 30% less heat by conduction than the 2×6 R-19 batt baseline. The 2×6 center-stud panel was about 27% lower. The bars show heat loss still remaining, with the baseline at 100.
Modeled assumptions. Intertek Table 3, conduction only, against one specified 2×6 R-19 wood baseline at effective R-15. Air leakage of the panel was not tested. A separate total-heat-loss figure in the report adds an assumed infiltration reduction and is not used here. Savings vary with climate, fuel, design, and how the home is used.
Modeled
These are other published assemblies. They are not the ThermaTech panel, and the bars are not a cross-study product ranking.
DOE/BSC open-cell spray foam
DOE/BSC closed-cell spray foam
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Modeled assumptions. DOE-hosted Building Science Corporation High-R Walls, Table 11: open-cell is 5½-inch foam in 2×6 advanced framing at 24 inches on center with OSB; closed-cell is 5-inch foam in that same framing. Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported the batt and foam-core examples for those assemblies. Whole-wall values include plates, junctions, and other details that a clear-wall section leaves out.
Measured
A five-year-old ThermaTech home in Fort Worth tested at 2.65 ACH50 in 2025. The other bars are published reference points, not measurements of this house or of a panel.
Measured assumptions. Henry energy case study, one occupied home. Airtightness depends on the whole house. The 2021 IECC limit shown is 3.0 ACH50 for climate zones 3–8. RESNET climate-zone 3A and 4A averages are about 3.6 and about 3.5. Air leakage of the panel itself was not tested under ASTM E2178 or E2357. This chart is not a leakage reduction for the panel.
Measured
Average monthly electricity was $86.79 and gas was $24.37 during the 2020–2021 study of the Henry home. These are observed costs, not a predicted saving.
Measured assumptions. One household in Fort Worth: 3,196 conditioned square feet, two occupants, 71°F setting. The home also had open-cell roof insulation and its own windows and HVAC. Current bills depend on climate, rates, design, and use.
Effective R-value for code compliance, from Intertek Table 3. Higher is better.
One whole-wall result per system. This is not Intertek’s effective-for-code measure, so it is not on the chart above.
| System | What the number is | R-value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 wood frame | Nominal insulation label | R-19 | Source 1 |
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 wood frame | Effective for code | R-15 | Source 1 |
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 wood frame | Total effective, with infiltration | R-15 | Source 1 |
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 steel frame | Nominal insulation label | R-19 | Source 1 |
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 steel frame | Effective for code | R-9 | Source 1 |
| ASHRAE 90.1 2×6 steel frame | Total effective, with infiltration | R-9 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×4 center studs | Nominal insulation label | R-24 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×4 center studs | Effective for code | R-21 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×4 center studs | Total effective, with reduced infiltration | R-23.3 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×6 center studs | Nominal insulation label | R-24 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×6 center studs | Effective for code | R-20 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×6 center studs | Total effective, with reduced infiltration | R-22.3 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 2×4 center studs · compared with wood frame | Performance equivalent | R-43 | Source 2 |
| ThermaTech · 2×4 center studs · compared with steel frame | Performance equivalent | R-50 | Source 2 |
| ThermaTech · 2×6 center studs · compared with wood frame | Performance equivalent | R-42 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 2×6 center studs · compared with steel frame | Performance equivalent | R-49 | Source 1 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×4 center studs | Modeled clear wall | R-21.07 | Source 3 |
| ThermaTech · 5.5 in. · 2×6 center studs | Modeled clear wall | R-20.48 | Source 3 |
| System | What the number is | R-value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2×4 wood · 16 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Nominal insulation label | R-11 | Source 4 |
| 2×4 wood · 16 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Clear wall | R-10.6 | Source 4 |
| 2×4 wood · 16 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Center of cavity | R-13.6 | Source 5 |
| 2×4 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Nominal insulation label | R-11 | Source 4 |
| 2×4 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Clear wall | R-10.8 | Source 4 |
| 2×4 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Whole wall | R-9.9 | Source 4 |
| 2×4 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-11 batts | Center of cavity | R-13.6 | Source 5 |
| 2×6 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-19 batts | Nominal insulation label | R-19 | Source 4 |
| 2×6 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-19 batts | Clear wall | R-16.4 | Source 4 |
| 2×6 wood · 24 in. o.c. · R-19 batts | Whole wall | R-13.7 | Source 4 |
| 2×6 wood · R-19 batts · ASHRAE 90.1 baseline | Effective assembly | R-15 | Source 1 |
| SIP · 3.5 in. EPS core | Clear wall | R-15.17 | Source 6 |
| SIP · 3.5 in. EPS core · best-practice details | Whole wall · best-practice details | R-14.09 | Source 6 |
| 6 in. foam-core stress-skin panel | Clear wall | R-24.7 | Source 4 |
| 6 in. foam-core stress-skin panel | Whole wall | R-21.6 | Source 4 |
| EPS block-form ICF | Clear wall | R-15.2 | Source 4 |
| Tested ICF · 9¼ in. form | Hot-box measurement | R-11.6 | Source 7 |
| Tested ICF · 9¼ in. form | Simulated clear wall | R-12.0 | Source 7 |
| Tested ICF · 9¼ in. form | Whole wall | R-11.1 | Source 7 |
| Open-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Nominal cavity label | R-21 | Source 8 |
| Open-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Clear wall | R-17.2 | Source 8 |
| Open-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Whole wall | R-16.5 | Source 8 |
| Closed-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Nominal cavity label | R-29 | Source 8 |
| Closed-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Clear wall | R-20.3 | Source 8 |
| Closed-cell spray foam · 2×6 at 24 in. o.c. | Whole wall | R-19.1 | Source 8 |
Not charted, because these sources do not support the numbers: a heat-flow percentage split among studs, the cavity, and the thermal break; a tested panel air-leakage reduction; a laboratory hot-box R-value; R-42–R-50 or R-47 drawn as a wall R-value; a ranking of this panel against spray foam; and a predicted utility-bill savings figure.
30% less heat loss
U-FACTOR (Btu/h·ft²·°F): LOWER = LESS HEAT LOSS
Source: Intertek report T6399.01-304-17R0 (issued 06/02/26), Tables 1 and 3. LBNL THERM model + ASHRAE 90.1-2022 Appendix A area-weighting, 75°F mean. Modeled, not a hot-box test.
"Conductive Heat Loss Reduction" vs. the ASHRAE 90.1 2x6 wood-frame R-19 wall: 30% (panel with 2x4 center studs, U-0.047) and 27% (2x6 center studs, U-0.049). Air leakage not included.
Intertek's EPS input assumes R-4.35/in at 1.0 pcf. Use of the Intertek name in advertising requires Intertek's written approval. Your savings will vary.
Source: Model 1 (2x4 center studs) from Intertek report T6399.01-304-17R0, Figure 1. Modeled, not tested.
Fire performance depends on the insulation, its protection and the complete wall assembly. The Carpenter EPS evaluation covers the named insulation component and its installation conditions; it is not an hourly ThermaTech wall-assembly rating or the separate UL Listing/Classification document.
Two 59-second overviews of company demonstrations. Playback is accelerated and labeled. In-house footage is not an accredited fire-resistance test and does not establish an hourly wall-assembly rating.
Company footage of the specimen identified as the ⅝-inch drywall demonstration, shown in full sequence at approximately 1.09× playback speed. The 59-second viewing time is not the exposure duration. Temperature and other statements in the footage are company-reported, not independently verified results or a wall-assembly rating.
Open video in its own playerCompany footage of the specimen identified as the ½-inch drywall demonstration, shown in full sequence at approximately 1.50× playback speed with tempo-adjusted original audio. The 59-second viewing time is not the exposure duration. Statements in the footage are company-reported, not independently verified results or a wall-assembly rating.
Open video in its own playerPanels, connections, openings and anchors must work together. The design depends on the site, exposure, building height and geometry. There is no single wind-speed rating that applies to every ThermaTech project.
Numbered panels and prepared openings help the crew stage, set and connect the wall package. Timing still depends on the project, crew, weather, site access, foundation tolerances and approved details.
Watch the crew carry, position, connect and brace exterior wall panels. This 59-second overview preserves the supplied sequence at approximately 206× original speed, with its elapsed-time overlay and a separate speed label. Playback length is not installation time; the pace of this project is not a guaranteed schedule for another build.
Open video in its own player