Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

For those who have read Tom’s blog about EFC this is just a small addition as you can’t add photos to comments it needs its own post. For those who haven’t read Tom’s either go back and read it or ignore this one as I won’t waste time regurgitating what he articulated better than I could and it won’t make sense unless you have.

Basically BAM sent out a message to us temporary works designers encouraging us to use EFC in our designs. It seems that due to lack of codes or experience with it they are not confident on recommending it to larger permanent jobs but they think the temporary works environment is a perfect start for its incorporation. We have been sent both Wagners (Toms post) and CemFree brochures to read. They both offer similar properties and savings.

That is the strength and savings promised by CemFree for their product.

The fact BAM have suggested it for temp works first is either due to the lack of risk on our designs (perhaps due to the perceived inefficient low risk designs produced by temporary works designers) or maybe they have worries about its durability.

CemFree advertise a coastal defence job used in Harwich using 100% EFC saving a staggering 88% in embodied carbon, they clearly have no such worries on durability.

I do wonder if the H&S of using AACM instead of cement powder is advantageous as well as there is no mention of the dangers of its powder form on either companies brochure.