Jack, R; Loveday, D; Allinson, D and Lomas, K (2018) First evidence for the reliability of building co-heating tests. Building Research & Information, 46(4), pp. 383-401. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper provides powerful evidence empirically demonstrating for the first time the reliability of the co-heating test. The test is widely used throughout Europe to measure the total heat transfer through the fabric of buildings and to calculate the heat-transfer coefficient (HTC; units W/K). A reliable test is essential to address the 'performance gap', where in-use energy performance is consistently, and often substantially, poorer than predicted. The co-heating test could meet this need, but its reliability requires confirmation. Seven teams independently conducted co-heating tests on the same detached house near Watford, UK. Despite differences in the weather and in the experimental and analytical approaches, the teams' final reported HTC measurements were within ±10% of the mean. With further standardization it is likely to be possible to improve upon this reproducibility. Furthermore, uncertainty analysis based upon a 95% confidence interval resulted in an estimated uncertainty in HTC measurements of ±8%. This research addresses persistent doubts about the reliability of the co-heating test. Avenues to further improvement of the test are discussed. This work helps to enable the test's wider adoption as a component of the regulatory process and thus improvements to standards of house construction.;This paper provides powerful evidence empirically demonstrating for the first time the reliability of the co-heating test. The test is widely used throughout Europe to measure the total heat transfer through the fabric of buildings and to calculate the heat-transfer coefficient (HTC; units W/K). A reliable test is essential to address the 'performance gap', where in-use energy performance is consistently, and often substantially, poorer than predicted. The co-heating test could meet this need, but its reliability requires confirmation. Seven teams independently conducted co-heating tests on the same detached house near Watford, UK. Despite differences in the weather and in the experimental and analytical approaches, the teams' final reported HTC measurements were within ±10% of the mean. With further standardization it is likely to be possible to improve upon this reproducibility. Furthermore, uncertainty analysis based upon a 95% confidence interval resulted in an estimated uncertainty in HTC measurements of ±8%. This research addresses persistent doubts about the reliability of the co-heating test. Avenues to further improvement of the test are discussed. This work helps to enable the test's wider adoption as a component of the regulatory process and thus improvements to standards of house construction.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-heating; energy performance; heat-transfer coefficient; houses; performance gap; performance assessment; in-situ; heat transfer; Construction standards; Construction; Energy use; Enthalpy; Standardization; Confidence intervals; Energy gap; Reproducibility; Heating; Reliability; Heat transfer coefficients; Uncertainty analysis |
| Index terms: | construction standard, Europe, uncertainty analysis, in-situ, standardization, confidence interval, energy performance, enthalpy, energy use, performance assessment, energy gap, performance gap, reproducibility, evidence, house construction, co-heating, weather |
| Subjects: | building construction, assessment methods, research evaluation and metrics, statistical analysis, thermal systems, environmental hazards, performance management, performance measurement, physical geography and landforms, sustainability and energy, energy systems, standards, air quality, construction type, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Human Resources, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| 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