Johnston, D; Wingfield, J and Miles-Shenton, D (2010) Measuring the fabric performance of UK dwellings. In: Egbu, C (ed.) Proceedings of 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
An airtight and well insulated thermal envelope is crucial for the development of low energy and low carbon housing. Although this is widely recognized, there is mounting evidence, in housing at least, that the U-values achieved in practice can be much higher than those calculated, and that the gap between the predicted and the actual measured thermal performance of the building envelope can be substantial. This paper describes an approach that can be used in the field to measure the fabric performance of dwellings, a co-heating test. The paper also presents the results from 15 co-heating tests that were undertaken on dwellings that were built to conform to or exceed the insulation requirements contained within Approved Document Part L1A 2006.Whilst the total number of dwellings reported here is small, the results suggest that a significant gap can exist between the predicted steady state heat loss and the measured heat loss, and that this gap can be as much as 125%. This is likely to have significant implications in terms of the energy use and CO2 emissions attributable to these dwellings in-use.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-heating; CO2 emissions; fabric performance; low carbon housing |
| Index terms: | low carbon, low energy, CO2 emissions, energy use, housing, co-heating, insulation, building envelope, evidence, thermal performance |
| Subjects: | sustainability assessment, architectural elements, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, air quality, building materials, sustainability and energy, energy systems |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here