Solid-wall U-values: Heat flux measurements compared with standard assumptions

Li, F G N; Smith, A Z P; Biddulph, P; Hamilton, I G; Lowe, R; Mavrogianni, A; Oikonomou, E; Raslan, R; Stamp, S; Stone, A; Summerfield, A J; Veitch, D; Gori, V and Oreszczyn, T (2015) Solid-wall U-values: Heat flux measurements compared with standard assumptions. Building Research & Information, 43(2), pp. 238-252. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

The assumed U-values of solid walls represent a significant source of uncertainty when estimating the energy performance of dwellings. The typical U-value for UK solid walls used for stock-level energy demand estimates and energy certification is 2.1 Wm-2 K-1. A re-analysis (based on 40 brick solid walls and 18 stone walls) using a lumped thermal mass and inverse parameter estimation technique gives a mean value of 1.3 ± 0.4 Wm-2 K-1 for both solid wall types. Among the many implications for policy, this suggests that standard UK solid-wall U-values may be inappropriate for energy certification or for evaluating the investment economics of solid-wall insulation. For stock-level energy modelling, changing the assumed U-value for solid walls reduces the estimated mean annual space heating demand by 16%, and causes a proportion of the stock to change Energy Performance Certification (EPC) band. The analysis shows that the diversity of energy use in domestic buildings may be as much influenced by heterogeneity in the physical characteristics of individual building components as it is by variation in occupant behaviour. Policy assessment and guidance material needs to acknowledge and account for this variation in physical building characteristics through regular grounding in empirical field data.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: buildings; energy demand; epidemiology; heat flux measurements; solid walls; thermal conductivity; u-value
Index terms: certification, energy demand, energy modelling, energy performance certification, thermal conductivity, domestic building, solid-wall insulation, space heating, physical characteristic, variation, estimating, occupant behaviour, building component, energy performance, parameter-estimation, estimate, energy use
Subjects: material properties and characteristics, contractual condition, architectural elements, administrative processes, statistical analysis, materials science, health behaviours and lifestyles, construction type, mechanical systems, energy systems, financial and cost management, environmental policy, sustainability and energy
Topics: Cost Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Design Practice, Contract Administration
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