Suspended timber ground floors: Measured heat loss compared with models

Pelsmakers, S; Croxford, B and Elwell, C A (2019) Suspended timber ground floors: Measured heat loss compared with models. Building Research & Information, 47(2), pp. 127-140. ISSN 0961-3218

Abstract

There are approximately 6.6 million dwellings in the UK built before 1919, predominantly constructed with suspended timber ground floors whose thermal performance has not been extensively investigated. The results are presented from an in-situ heat-flow measuring campaign conducted at 27 locations on a suspended timber ground floor, and the estimated whole-floor U-value compared with modelled results. Findings highlight a significant variability in heat flow, with increased heat loss near the external perimeter. In-situ measured-point U-values ranged from 0.54 ± 0.09 Wm−2 K−1, when away from the external wall perimeter, to nearly four times as high (2.04 ± 0.21 Wm−2 K−1) when near the perimeter. The results highlight the fact that observing only a few measurements is likely to bias any attempts to derive a whole-floor U-value, which was estimated to be 1.04 ± 0.12 Wm−2 K−1 and nearly twice that derived from current models. This raises questions about the validity of using such models in housing stock models to inform retrofit decision-making and space-heating-reduction interventions. If this disparity between models and measurements exists in the wider stock, a reappraisal of the performance of suspended timber ground floors and heat-loss-reduction potential through this element will be required to support the UK’s carbon-emission-reduction targets.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: housing; performance gap; retrofit; suspended timber ground floors; thermal conductivity; thermal performance; u-value
Index terms: validity, thermal conductivity, in-situ, variability, disparity, housing stock, thermal performance, bias, performance gap, decision-making, housing
Subjects: energy systems, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, building construction, social justice, decision analysis, industry analysis, statistical analysis, performance management, material properties and characteristics, probability and distributions
Topics: Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Ethics, Quality Management
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