6 Citations (Scopus)
98 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Comparative coheating tests have been carried out in five test buildings with walls constructed of Concrete Block Masonry and timber framed Hemp-lime composite, Polyisocyanurate (PIR), Wood Fibre and Mineral Wool. Five different methods of determining heat loss coefficient (HLC) were applied during the data analysis. While some variability in HLC values was observed between the different forms of construction, the hierarchy of HLC values among the test buildings were consistent, with the Concrete Block Masonry exhibiting the highest and Wood Fibre test building exhibiting the lowest HLC values. Except for the Concrete Block Masonry, there was good agreement between the calculated HLC values and those derived by applying the method 5 where the analysis incorporated both the effects of solar radiation and thermal mass. The in-situ U-value for the Concrete Block wall, determined by the average method, was 32.8% higher than its design value, whilst the other wall systems showed marginally lower U-values than their corresponding design U-values.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)68-81
JournalBuilding and Environment
Volume109
Early online date15 Sep 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Nov 2016

Fingerprint

Concrete blocks
Heat losses
masonry
energy
heat
performance
Values
Wood
Mineral wool
Hemp
Fibers
wool
Timber
Cannabis
building
Solar radiation
Lime
lime
timber
solar radiation

Keywords

  • Coheating test
  • U-value
  • In-situ test
  • Bio-based insulation materials
  • Hemp-lime
  • Wood fibre insulation
  • Thermal Conductivity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • Biomaterials

Cite this

@article{ffda0c850d654c7ca501323488570a9e,
title = "In situ assessment of the fabric and energy performance of five conventional and non-conventional wall systems using comparative coheating tests",
abstract = "Comparative coheating tests have been carried out in five test buildings with walls constructed of Concrete Block Masonry and timber framed Hemp-lime composite, Polyisocyanurate (PIR), Wood Fibre and Mineral Wool. Five different methods of determining heat loss coefficient (HLC) were applied during the data analysis. While some variability in HLC values was observed between the different forms of construction, the hierarchy of HLC values among the test buildings were consistent, with the Concrete Block Masonry exhibiting the highest and Wood Fibre test building exhibiting the lowest HLC values. Except for the Concrete Block Masonry, there was good agreement between the calculated HLC values and those derived by applying the method 5 where the analysis incorporated both the effects of solar radiation and thermal mass. The in-situ U-value for the Concrete Block wall, determined by the average method, was 32.8{\%} higher than its design value, whilst the other wall systems showed marginally lower U-values than their corresponding design U-values.",
keywords = "Coheating test, U-value, In-situ test, Bio-based insulation materials, Hemp-lime, Wood fibre insulation, Thermal Conductivity",
author = "Robert Lawrence and Peter Walker and Eshrar Latif and Andrew Shea",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.017",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "68--81",
journal = "Building and Environment",
issn = "0360-1323",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In situ assessment of the fabric and energy performance of five conventional and non-conventional wall systems using comparative coheating tests

AU - Lawrence, Robert

AU - Walker, Peter

AU - Latif, Eshrar

AU - Shea, Andrew

PY - 2016/11/15

Y1 - 2016/11/15

N2 - Comparative coheating tests have been carried out in five test buildings with walls constructed of Concrete Block Masonry and timber framed Hemp-lime composite, Polyisocyanurate (PIR), Wood Fibre and Mineral Wool. Five different methods of determining heat loss coefficient (HLC) were applied during the data analysis. While some variability in HLC values was observed between the different forms of construction, the hierarchy of HLC values among the test buildings were consistent, with the Concrete Block Masonry exhibiting the highest and Wood Fibre test building exhibiting the lowest HLC values. Except for the Concrete Block Masonry, there was good agreement between the calculated HLC values and those derived by applying the method 5 where the analysis incorporated both the effects of solar radiation and thermal mass. The in-situ U-value for the Concrete Block wall, determined by the average method, was 32.8% higher than its design value, whilst the other wall systems showed marginally lower U-values than their corresponding design U-values.

AB - Comparative coheating tests have been carried out in five test buildings with walls constructed of Concrete Block Masonry and timber framed Hemp-lime composite, Polyisocyanurate (PIR), Wood Fibre and Mineral Wool. Five different methods of determining heat loss coefficient (HLC) were applied during the data analysis. While some variability in HLC values was observed between the different forms of construction, the hierarchy of HLC values among the test buildings were consistent, with the Concrete Block Masonry exhibiting the highest and Wood Fibre test building exhibiting the lowest HLC values. Except for the Concrete Block Masonry, there was good agreement between the calculated HLC values and those derived by applying the method 5 where the analysis incorporated both the effects of solar radiation and thermal mass. The in-situ U-value for the Concrete Block wall, determined by the average method, was 32.8% higher than its design value, whilst the other wall systems showed marginally lower U-values than their corresponding design U-values.

KW - Coheating test

KW - U-value

KW - In-situ test

KW - Bio-based insulation materials

KW - Hemp-lime

KW - Wood fibre insulation

KW - Thermal Conductivity

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.017

U2 - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.017

DO - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.017

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 68

EP - 81

JO - Building and Environment

JF - Building and Environment

SN - 0360-1323

ER -