All of that makes a lot of sense.
Ground remperature seems to stay in or near double figures where there is not a lot of groundwater.
Insulating the perimeter was state of the art back in the day, but it soon became apaprent that even greater savings could be acheived by insulating under screed or under the slab.
Nowadays with underfloor heating so popular its important that all of this precious heat is put into heating the room, and faster reaction times are being sought using a lightweight topping screed with high performance foil insulation below.
This is in contrast to previous detailing whereby the entire 150mm floor slab was surrounded by insulation and used as a heat store - UFH takes a long time to work in such a condition.
When you look at under-slab insulation and then back at what I posted you could be forgiven for thinking I'm being a bit too precious about this, but there is a difference between a distributed load transmitted through a 150mm slab over the whole area of a ground floor and what's called a line load, where the weight of the roof, walls windows, balconies and upper floors - included converted attic - is concentrated and transmitted vertically down to a "ring beam" distributing this load onto insulation that is at most 225mm wide.
Thats "distributed load from the ground floor slab only"
Versus "concentrated line load from superstructure"
Totally different type of loading derivation and resolution.
As for the reinforced ring beam being better able to distribute load, that's true.
But online ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE BEAM.
It cannot, unlike the floor slab, distribute it in all four directions, only two - either way along the beam..
You can argue that floor slab distribution is not so good in corners and this is true, but its all relative.
Even in a corner a load spreads in two direction on a slab whereas the ring beam stops and turns the corner.
There are no run on "corner pieces" to maintaing the two direction spread condition of the middle of the ring beam.
An a separate but related point, these "ring beams" look pretty flimsey in terms of their overall width and, perhaps more importantly, depth below ground.
They may be adequate on good bearing soils and sheltered site, but the reason foundations are down around 600mm down is to prevent frost heave in really cold weather amongst other things.
So taking all this on board, unless the ring beam is actually a bearing beam and properly designed by an engineer for spanning between piles AND protected against weathering I would be vary wary.
I'm not saying this cannot be done compliantly I'm saying I have a lot of concerns I would want addressed by any system builder before I signed up for this.
ONQ.
[broken link removed]
All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
, have been researching different types of foundations other than the normal strip with block, hardcore, radon barrier come damp proof and hd insulation in the middle of floor with 30N concrete pored.. what I've stumbled across is a insulated foundation system which sits on 400mm of hardcore and graded gravel, an aeroboard L - shape forms on the perimeter of house and under-concrete floor.