Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

The thermal performance of lime hemp concrete (LHC) with

alternative binders
R. Haik a, A. Peled b, I.A. Meir b,∗
a
Energy Engineering Unit, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
b
Structural Engineering Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research studied the influence of replacing the lime with alternative unfired binders on the ther-
Received 25 August 2019 mal performance of Lime-Hemp Concrete (LHC), and compared it to conventional building materials, e.g.,
Revised 12 November 2019
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC), Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB), and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). This
Accepted 25 December 2019
was done by monitoring the internal temperature and relative humidity (RH) of test cells built with LHC
Available online 27 December 2019
and conventional materials, under real-time measured outdoor conditions, during summer and winter. It
Keywords: was found that all LHC cells with and without the alternative binders presented similar behavior, in terms
Hemp of temperature as well as relative humidity. This means that LHC with alternative binders requires similar
Binders quantities of operational carbon (OC) and operational energy (OE) as LHC with 100% lime; however, its
Clay embodied carbon (EC) and embodied energy (EE) are relatively lower so in total it requires less energy
Lime and is responsible for less CO2 emissions. As for the comparison with conventional building materials,
Sustainability
AAC performs slightly better than LHC in the winter, but LHC performs better in the summer, while both
Thermal performance
AAC and LHC demonstrate better performance than HCB and EPS, in terms of temperature as well as rel-
ative humidity. It can be concluded that since LHC possesses relatively lower EC and EE as compared to
conventional building materials, it has advantages in terms of energy savings, as well as CO2 emissions.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction order to make it more sustainable and to reduce its environmental

The population of the world is constantly growing, and its liv-
ing standard is rising. As a result, there is a constant rise in the
global energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and waste production.
The building sector in industrialized countries is responsible for
a significant part of these, accounting for approximately 40% of
the total energy consumption and CO2 emissions [1–5]. Those 40%
include only the operational carbon (OC) and operational energy
(OE), which are the carbon and energy required for the use phase
of the building, including cooling, heating, ventilation, etc. How-
ever, these values rise to approximately 50% when taking into con-
sideration also the embodied carbon (EC) and embodied energy
(EE), which are the carbon and energy required for the pre-use
phase of the building, including the production of the materials,
their transportation, as well as the construction phase itself [6,7].
Thus, there is essential need to find solutions to reduce these high
levels of energy and carbon requirements of the building sector, in
∗
Corresponding author:
E-mail address: sakis@bgu.ac.il (I.A. Meir).
impact.
Concrete, as well as other cement-based materials, is by far the
most widespread material in the building sector, with global an-
nual production of 10 billion tons, which are used for many differ-
ent applications, both structural and non-structural. Nevertheless,
cement-based materials are widely perceived as non-sustainable
because cement possesses high EE since its production involves a
kiln operated at 1450 °C. In addition, the EC of cement is also very
high since the production of each ton of it emits almost one ton of
CO2 into the atmosphere [8,9]. Furthermore, to ensure low build-
ing levels of OC and OE, insulating materials are needed, which in
many cases also possess high levels of EC and EE, often not com-
pensated by the OC and OE savings they achieve along the life cy-
cle of the building [10,11]. Therefore, development of sustainable
building materials is required to minimize the environmental im-
pact of the building sector. One novel development gaining grow-
ing popularity is Lime-Hemp Concrete (LHC), also known by its
commercial name Hempcrete.
LHC is an innovative sustainable building material based on a
mixture of hemp shives functioning as bio-aggregates, and lime
functioning as a binder [12]. Hemp shives are a by-product of the
hemp fibers industry. They account for 65-70% of the total yield of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109740
0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740

the hemp plant (by mass). They are lightweight due to their high terms of OC and OE, the thermal performance of LHC with alterna-
porosity, which also provides low thermal conductivity, i.e., high tive unfired binders should be examined.
thermal insulation ability. Lime is a binder produced in a limestone The objective of this research was to empirically study the in-
kiln operated at a temperature of approximately 950 °C, which is fluence of replacing the lime with alternative unfired binders on
lower than that of cement (∼1450 °C) by approximately 35%, there- the thermal performance of LHC, and to compare it to conventional
fore its EE is lower as well. In addition, most of the CO2 emitted building materials.
as a result of the chemical reaction involved in its production is
absorbed back through the carbonation process that occurs dur- 2. Experimental program
ing its hardening. Consequently, its EC is significantly lower than
that of cement. Therefore, the EE of LHC is relatively low, while In order to examine the thermal performance of LHC and other
its EC is actually negative due to the carbon sequestration of the building materials, a test cells experiment was conducted, based
hemp during its growing phase [13–16]. Furthermore, LHC is of low on the parameters of Florentin et al. [27,28]. The experiment in-
thermal conductivity which can lead to a reduction in the OC and cluded the parallel monitoring of temperature and relative humid-
OE of the building. However, the thermal conductivity of LHC de- ity within cells made of the different building materials, compared
pends on the hemp:lime ratio; lower lime content leads to lower to the outdoor conditions.
conductivity, as well as lower density. This work focused on a ra- Four different LHC mixtures were used for the test cells ex-
tio of 1:2 which provides thermal conductivity of 0.09-0.11 W/m·K periment. Two different alternative binders were chosen for these
and density of 330 kg/m3 [17–20]. Nonetheless, thermal conduc- mixtures: Kalgir which is limestone-based and Mamshit which is
tivity is not the only consideration in energy conserving buildings. clay-based, their names are based on the location of each quarry.
Heat capacity (thermal mass) is an important parameter that in- The binder compositions are as follows: 50:50 Kalgir:lime, 50:50
fluences the thermal performance of the building, especially if the Mamsit:lime, 100% Mamshit (no lime), and 100% lime (no al-
outdoor temperature amplitude is wide due to significant diurnal ternative binder) as a reference. The selection of these mixtures
and seasonal differences. Thermal mass affects the thermal behav- was based on previous work [32,33]. All LHC cells were made
ior of the building by storing heat during winter days and releas- of a mixture with hemp:binder (lime and/or alternative binder)
ing it during the nights, or, alternately, by functioning as a heat ratio of 1:2 in order to achieve a density of 330 kg/m3 . Trad-
sink during summer days when passively cooled during the nights ical Thermo® [35] was the lime used and Kanabat® [36] was
(through passive or active structural cooling). LHC possesses mod- the provider of hemp shives used. In addition, three more cells
erate heat capacity with a value of ∼0.7 MJ/m3 ·K. Due to these were built with conventional building materials: Autoclaved Aer-
two properties, LHC has the ability to lessen the impact of outdoor ated Concrete (AAC), Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB), and Ex-
temperature fluctuations. In one of the studies an internal ampli- panded Polystyrene (EPS). In total, seven test cells were built
tude of 4 °C only was recorded, while the external amplitude was and examined. The properties of the materials used to build the
16 °C [21]. Moreover, LHC has the ability to balance the outdoor cell walls are presented in Table 1, while all floors were made
humidity fluctuations, with internal amplitude of 5%RH only, while of concrete and roofs were made of EPS. The external dimen-
the external amplitude was 70%RH [21]. Other studies found the sions of the cells are 1m x 1m x 0.6 m (length x width x height),
thermal performance of LHC to be very attractive [22,23]. These presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. The thickness of the walls
qualities of LHC lead to an improvement of the thermal comfort is 0.2 m, which is a standard thickness of external walls. All
conditions within the building. Thus, the main advantage of LHC cell walls were plastered by lime mortar 2 mm thick and
for the building user is its thermal properties, but its mechani- were whitewashed with lime. The roofs of the cells were 5
cal properties are relatively low so it can only be used for non- cm thick sloped EPS roofs creating an extension of the south
structural applications [24–26]. Therefore, it is mostly used as a facing wall, whose dimensions are 1 m x 0.55 m (w x h) and has
substitute for conventional building materials such as Hollow Con- two south facing windows, 37.5 cm x 40 cm (w x h). In addi-
crete Blocks (HCB), as well as Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC), tion, the sloped roof also has two north facing windows,
or as a substitute for insulation layers for walls, ceilings, and floors. whose dimensions are 25 cm x 20 cm (w x h). All dimensions are
Note that materials such as HCB, AAC and conventional insulating presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. The distances between the cells
materials (e.g., polystyrene), possess high EC and EE which can be were set to 1 m in each direction, this was done to allow free air
significantly reduced if LHC is used instead [27,28]. movement between the cells, minimize mutual influences and also
However, the combustion required for lime production leads to to prevent the cells from shading each other. For comparison rea-
relatively high levels of EC and EE. Even though these are lower
than those of cement, they are still high enough to justify con-
Table 1
sidering the use of alternative unfired binders as replacement for
Properties of the cells’ materials [27,28]. ∗ Values based on laboratory measurements
lime, in order to further reduce the EC and EE of LHC. Clay is an at- [32,33].
tractive option since it is globally abundant and has an EC value of
Density Thermal conductivity Volumetric heat
0.005 kgCO2 /kg and EE value of 0.1 MJ/kg. These are significantly
[kg/m3 ] [W/m·K] capacity [MJ/m3 ·K]
lower than those of lime, which has an EC value of 0.8 kgCO2 /kg
and EE value of 5 MJ/kg [29–31]. Consequently, even if only par- LHC 330∗ 0.06-0.07∗ 0.46-0.5
AAC 500 0.16 0.57
tially replacing the lime with an unfired binder, the EC and EE of
HCB 1030 0.32 0.95
LHC can be significantly reduced [30,31]. In addition, clay is actu- EPS 43 0.033 0.044
ally a waste by-product of some aggregate quarries, thus offering
additional environmental benefits when turned from waste to re-
Table 2
source. Previous works found that replacing the lime in LHC with Dimensions of the test cells and their windows.
alternative unfired binders based on clay or limestone hardly af-
Length [cm] Width [cm] Height [cm]
fects the thermal properties of LHC, while the mechanical proper-
ties were improved [32,33] and the acoustical properties were not Test cells 100 100 60
influenced [34]. Therefore, there is a big advantage in using alter- Southern roof extenion - 100 55
Front (southern) windows - 40 37.5
native unfired binders in partial replacement of lime, in terms of
Back (northern) windows - 25 20
EC and EE savings. In order to examine if it is also an advantage in
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
Fig. 1. Schematic model of the test cell as drawn by SketchUp. (a) Front (south) view; (b) Back (north) view.
Fig. 2. Experimental test cells, Sde Boker.
sons, the dimensions of the cells and the windows are identical to
those of Florentin et al. [27,28].1
The test cells, which are shown in Fig. 2, were built on the
Sde Boker campus of the Ben-Gurion University in the Negev, an
arid area in the south of Israel with extreme diurnal and seasonal
temperature and humidity fluctuations. During summer monitor-
ing all windows were covered by EPS boards during the day and
were opened in the evening to allow natural night ventilation. Dur-
ing winter monitoring, the front (southern) windows were covered
with transparent 2 mm thick PVC sheets in order to allow pas-
sive solar heating by exposing the front windows to solar radiation
during the day, and covering them with EPS panels in the evening
1
As will be explained later, the optimal ratio of south facing glazing area to floor
area for passive solar gains in this region is 14-16%. Considering the net floor area of
the cells, which is 0.6X0.6 meters, the existing cells’ south facing windows account
for over 83% of glazing:floor ratio. Exaggerated as this ratio may be, it was decided
to retain it for comparability’s sake. This issue and its practical implications are
further discussed in sections 3.1.2 Winter performance, and Conclusions.
3
to minimize heat losses. The back (northern) windows were kept
covered with EPS boards all along the winter monitoring period.
Each cell was equipped with four temperature sensors and one
relative humidity (RH) sensor. Temperature sensors were copper
constantan thermocouples positioned in three locations: (A) inter-
nal air temperature, located in the center of the cells (30 cm above
floor); (B) internal surface temperature, located in the center of the
inside surface of the southern wall of the cells; and (C) external
surface temperature, located in the center of the outside surface
of the southern wall of the cells. The surfaces sensors were glued
to the surfaces with acrylic glue including a small insulation layer
insulating them from the environment. In addition to the thermo-
couples, HOBO UX10 0-0 03 Temp/RH 3.5% Data Loggers [37] mea-
suring both temperature and RH were placed in the center of each
cell. Outdoor data (temperature and humidity) were taken from
the Sde Boker campus meteorological station. Data were logged
every 10 minutes (both temperature and RH) and an hourly aver-
age was calculated. For example, the temperature of 10:00 was an
average temperature calculated from 6 measurements which were
logged between 10:00 to 10:50. The STDEV were in the range of
0.01–0.03 °C.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Temperature measurements
3.1.1. Summer performance
Fig. 3a presents the internal air temperature measurements of
all four LHC cells (dashed lines) compared to the outdoor air tem-
perature (solid black line) along a 9 day period of summer moni-
toring, between August 28-September 5, 2018. During this period,
the windows of the cells were kept closed from 08:00 to 17:00;
then they were opened to allow natural ventilation during the
night, leading to temperature drop, thus the observed cycles are
of 24 h each. All four LHC cells present similar thermal perfor-
mance along the monitored period with lower temperature peaks
as compared to the outdoor peaks. This means that LHCs, includ-
ing those with the alternative binders, have the ability to lessen
the impact of outdoor temperature fluctuations in the summer,
4 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
Fig. 3. Outdoor and indoor air temperature during summer monitoring of four LHC cells. (a) 9-day period (Aug.28-Sept.5); (b) 24 hour blow-up (Sept.4).
i.e., the binders’ composition has no influence on the LHC thermal
performance. To examine closely the temperature differences be-
tween the cells, a 24 h representative period was chosen – Sept.4,
as shown in Fig. 3b. It shows that also at high resolution the sim-
ilarity in the thermal performance of all LHC cells is obvious, with
a ∼30 °C peak, which is significantly lower than the peak of the
outdoor temperature (∼36 °C). This means that replacing the lime
with different contents of alternative binders has no influence on
the thermal performance of LHC and the thermal performance is
mainly dependent on the presence of the hemp and not on the
binder, allowing replacement of the fired binder with unfired one
leading to a reduction of the EC and EE. (It should be kept in mind,
though, that such replacement might have other influences such as
on mechanical properties, durability, water resistance etc. [32,33]).
Furthermore, the outdoor peak occurs around 14:00 while the in-
door peak has a time lag of ∼1.5 hours, resulting in the indoor
peak occurring around 15:30. This delay in the temperature peak
is an advantage since it provides lower temperature for a longer
part of the day, which allows a reduction in the use of mechani-
cal cooling resulting in lower OC and OE. At 17:00 the windows of
the cells were opened to allow natural ventilation and afterwards
a gradual convergence process between indoor and outdoor tem-
peratures was observed, until ∼21:30 when both temperatures ap-
proximately converged. This trend continued until 07:30 when the
windows were closed again.
Since all four LHC cells present similar thermal performance,
the 50% Mamshit cell was chosen as a representative cell for LHC
and its performance was compared to that of the cells made of
conventional building materials (AAC, HCB, and EPS), as shown
in Fig. 4. Fig. 4a presents the temperature measurements during
summer monitoring. It shows that LHC has better thermal perfor-
mance as compared to the conventional building materials, with
the lowest temperature peaks, while the peaks of the AAC and
the HCB cells are slightly higher, and the peak of the EPS cell is
much higher, approximately similar to the outdoor peak. Fig. 4b,
which presents the temperatures along 24 h (Sept. 4), shows sim-
ilar trends; the LHC cell (50% Mamshit) presents the lowest peak,
while the peaks of the AAC and the HCB cells are slightly higher
and the peak of the EPS cell is significantly higher, as clearly shown
in Table 3. These findings show that the thermal performance of
LHC with alternative binders is better than conventional building
materials, in terms of lower temperature peak in the hot season.
As for the time lag, the differences between the cells are also pre-
sented in Table 3, showing that the LHC cell presents a shorter
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740 5

Fig. 4. Outdoor and indoor air temperature during summer monitoring of a representative LHC cell and conventional materials cells. (a) 9-day period (Aug.28-Sept.5); (b) 24
hour blow-up (Sept.4).

time lag than the HCB and the AAC cells, while the EPS cell does
not have a time lag at all. The differences in the time lags can be
related to the heat capacity (thermal mass) of the materials; the
higher the heat capacity of the material, the longer is the time
lag. Therefore, the time lag of the AAC and HCB cells is the high-
est since their heat capacity values are relatively higher than the
moderate heat capacity of LHC and the low heat capacity of EPS
(Table 1).
The temperature measurements at the three measured locations
of the 50% Mamshit cell along 24 h (Sept.4) are presented in Fig. 5

Table 3
Air temperature peaks and respective time lags during the representative summer
day (Sept.4). ∗ The representative LHC cell is 50% Mamshit.

Difference from
Air temperature the outdoor Time lag
peak [°C] peak [°C] Peak time [hours]

Outdoor 36 - 14:00 -
LHC∗ 30 -6 15:30 1.5
AAC 31 -5 16:00 2 Fig. 5. Temperature measurements on Sept.4 of all sensors (A – internal air; B –
HCB 32 -4 16:00 2 S wall internal surface; C – S wall external surface) in the 50% Mamshit cell vs.
EPS 35 -1 14:00 0 outdoor temperature.
6 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
Fig. 6. Outdoor and indoor air temperature during winter monitoring of four LHC cells. (a) 16-day period (Jan.2-17); (b) 24 hour blow-up (Jan.9).
and Table 4: (A) internal air temperature, (B) internal surface tem-
perature of southern wall, and (C) external surface temperature of
southern wall, compared to the outdoor air temperature. The ex-
ternal surface temperature (C) is lower than the outdoor tempera-
ture during the night (a difference of 2.2 °C at 04:00). This might
be due to the fact that the external surface is exposed to wind
as well as dew which are cooling it down, alongside night radia-
tive heat losses. During daytime, the external surface temperature
rises in tandem with the rise of outdoor temperature until 10:00.
After this, the external surface temperature rises higher than the
outdoor temperature (a difference of 3.4 °C at 12:00), due to in-
cident solar radiation that heats the external surface of the cell.
However, both internal temperatures, air (A) and surface (B), are
significantly lower than the external temperature, demonstrating
the good insulation ability of LHC. In addition, due to the night
ventilation, the internal air temperature (A) is lower by ∼1 °C than
the internal surface temperature (B), and the outdoor temperature,
the latter plausibly attributed to cooling by evaporation of humid-
ity realeased by the wall indoors. Around 07:30, shortly before the
Table 4
Temperature measurements on Sept.4 of all sensors in the 50% Mamshit cell as
compared to the outdoor temperature.
Time 04:00 12:00
Temperature location [°C] Outdoor 21.7 34.3
(A) Internal air 21.4 28.0
(B) Internal surface 22.7 27.1
(C) External surface 19.5 37.7
time that the windows were closed, all temperatures (A, B, C, and
outdoor) converge, demonstrating the importance of the night ven-
tilation. Afterwards, the internal surface temperature (B) rises at a
slower pace than the internal air temperature (A), which is slightly
higher, apparently due to air infiltration. After the windows were
opened, around 17:30, the internal surface temperature (B) meets
the internal air temperature (A) which is decreasing faster than
that of the internal surface (B). In summary, during the day, the
internal surface temperature (B) is lower by ∼1 °C than the inter-
nal air temperature (A), while during the night the opposite occurs,
i.e., the internal surface temperature (B) is higher by ∼1 °C than
the internal air temperature (A). These slight differences demon-
strate the uniformity of the internal temperatures.
3.1.2. Winter performance
Fig. 6a presents the internal air temperature measurements of
all four LHC cells compared to the outdoor air temperature dur-
ing winter monitoring conducted along 16 days, between January
2-17, 2019. During this period the windows were exposed to solar
radiation between 08:0 0-16:0 0, after which they were covered by
the EPS boards in order to minimize night heat losses. The only
exceptions to that are Jan.6 and Jan.12, when the windows were
kept covered in order to better understand the effect of direct so-
lar gains. During winter measurements all four LHC cells demon-
20:00
strate similar thermal performance. In addition, the outdoor peaks
26.7 are usually around 15 °C while the internal peaks are significantly
25.8 higher, mainly in the range of 30-35 °C, which is much too high
26.8
25.2
in terms of thermal comfort. The reason for this is the high ratio
of 0.83 between the size of the south facing windows (0.3m2 ) and
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
Fig. 7. Outdoor and indoor air temperature during winter monitoring of a representative LHC cell and conventional materials cells. (a) 16-day period (Jan.2-17); (b) 24 hour
blow-up (Jan.9).
the net floor area of the entire cell (0.36m2 ). The Israeli standard
for Sustainable Building (SI 5281 part 2) [38] stipulates 0.16 ratio
(S glazing area: floor area) for single glazed direct solar gain res-
idential systems in the specific climatic zone (C), but in our case
it is about five times that, in addition to the fact that the cell
height is only 0.6m as compared to the standard 2.7m residential
indoor ceiling height. Thus, too much radiation is admitted and too
much energy is accumulated during the day with subsequent inter-
nal cell overheating. This can be reduced by covering the windows
with external shutters (shading). Therefore, on Jan.6 and Jan.12 the
windows were kept covered in order to better understand the in-
fluence of exposure to solar radiation vis-à-vis the cells’ thermal
capacity. Fig. 6a shows that on these two dates the internal air
temperatures are quite similar to the outdoor maximum temper-
ature (15 °C). Apparently, it would have been better if only one
window or even less was exposed to solar radiation since the ex-
posure of both windows is too much and no exposure at all is not
enough. This illustrates the need for appropriately sizing fenestra-
tion and for operable external shading devices. In addition, observ-
ing the minimum temperatures of the LHC cells (Fig. 6a), shows
that the minimum internal temperatures are higher than the min-
imum external temperature, which means that LHC has the ability
to lessen the impact of outdoor temperature fluctuations during
winter, too, while the binders’ composition has no influence on its
thermal performance. Jan.9 was chosen as a representative 24 h
period, and is presented in Fig. 6b. It also shows that all four LHC
cells present similar thermal performance, where the temperature
peak is ∼33 °C, which is significantly higher than the peak of the
7
outdoor temperature (∼11 °C). This major difference is ascribed to
the relative size of the windows to the cell floor area and volume,
and the solar gains discussed earlier. Temperatures start to drop
around 13:00 and gradually continue doing so during the night.
Then the internal air temperature of the LHC cells stays higher
than the outdoor temperature, and at 24:00 is higher by ∼7-8 °C
than the outdoor temperature. This means that LHC has the ability
to preserve the heat that was stored through the day and to re-
lease it during the night, a major advantage allowing a reduction
of the OC and OE of the building.
Fig. 7a presents the winter temperature measurements of the
50% Mamshit cell, which was chosen as a representative cell for
LHC, compared to the cells made of conventional building mate-
rials (AAC, HCB, and EPS) and to the outdoor temperature. Here,
too, the internal temperature peaks are significantly higher than
the external temperature one, while the peak of the EPS cell is the
highest, the peak of the HCB cell is the lowest and the peaks of the
LHC and AAC are in between. Fig. 7b, which presents the temper-
atures along 24 h (Jan. 9), shows similar trends, as also shown in
Table 5. The differences in the thermal behavior of the various ma-
terials can be explained, as in the summer case, by the differences
in their heat capacities (thermal mass, Table 1). A building mate-
rial of higher heat capacity can store more heat, so air tempera-
ture is affected slower and in a moderated manner in the building.
Therefore, the higher the heat capacity, the lower the peak of the
internal air temperature as monitored here. Furthermore, another
effect of the heat capacity concerns the stored heat’s release dur-
ing the night. A building material of higher heat capacity can store
8 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740

Table 5
∗
Maximum and minimum air temperatures and respective time lags during the representative winter day (Jan.9). The representative LHC cell is 50% Mamshit.

Maximum air Difference from Minimum air Difference from

temperature [°C] outdoor maximum [°C] temperature [°C] outdoor minimum [°C] Time of minimum Time lag [hours]

Outdoor 11 - 6 - 6:00 -
LHC∗ 33 +22 9 +3 6:00 0
AAC 30 +19 10 +4 6:30 0.5
HCB 27 +16 8 +2 6:30 0.5
EPS 42 +31 7 +1 6:00 0

more heat during the day which leads to relatively higher inter-
nal air temperature during the night. Therefore, while the mini-
mum outdoor temperature is 6 °C, which occurs at 06:00, the AAC
cell presents the highest internal minimum temperature, which is
slightly higher than the LHC cell (Table 5), while both of these cells
present higher minimum temperature as compared to the HCB and
EPS cells. This means that AAC performs slightly better than LHC
as it has a better ability to preserve the heat that was stored dur-
ing the day. The time lag is another parameter influenced by the
heat capacity. Fig. 7b and Table 5 show that the time lag of the
minimum temperature for the AAC and HCB cells is slightly longer
than that of the LHC and EPS cells which has no time lag at all.
Nonetheless, heat capacity is not the only parameter influencing
the internal air temperature. Thermal conductivity is also instru-
mental in ameliorating indoor conditions: the conductivity of HCB
is double the conductivity of AAC (Table 1), i.e., AAC is a better in-
sulator, thus, it can preserve internal heat better than HCB. This is
the reason that the minimum temperature of the AAC cell is higher
than the HCB cell. However, since LHC is of low thermal conductiv-
ity and moderate heat capacity, its temperature is in between AAC
and HCB.
In summary, all LHC cells present similar thermal behavior in
both summer and winter monitored cases, while the binders’ com-
position has no influence on thermal performance. Therefore, re-
placing the lime, which possesses high EC and EE values, with dif-
ferent contents of alternative binders, which possess relatively low
EC and EE values, has no influence on the thermal performance of
LHC. This is a major advantage that allows a reduction in the EC
and EE of the building. In addition, LHC with alternative binders
presents the best thermal performance during the summer, with
the lowest temperature peak and a moderate time lag, as com-
pared to conventional building materials (AAC, HCB, and EPS). As
for the winter measurements, the thermal performance of AAC is
slightly better than that of LHC, while both of them perform bet-
ter than HCB and EPS, in terms of minimum temperature as well
as time lag. These differences can be attributed to the different

Fig. 8. Outdoor and indoor relative humidity during summer monitoring of four LHC cells. (a) 9-day period (Aug.28-Sept.5); (b) 24 hour blow-up (Sept.4).
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
heat capacity values (Table 1), which are apparently more signif-
icant during the winter than during the summer.
The above findings clearly show the advantage of using LHC in-
stead of conventional building materials such as AAC, HCB and EPS.
LHC possesses relatively low EC and EE values, as compared to con-
ventional building materials [27,28]. In addition, the relatively good
thermal performance of LHC allows a reduction in the OC and OE
of the building. Therefore, considering both the pre-use phase and
the use phase, using LHC instead of conventional building mate-
rials can lead to a reduction of the energy consumption and the
CO2 emissions. Furthermore, since replacing the lime in LHC with
alternative unfired binders of relatively low EC and EE, does not in-
fluence the thermal performance of LHC, a further reduction of the
energy consumption and the CO2 emissions is expected. Therefore,
using LHC with alternative binders can lead to significant savings
of energy and CO2 emissions.
3.2. Relative humidity measurements
3.2.1. Summer performance
When comparing the relative humidity measurements of all
four LHC cells compared to the outdoor, during summer monitor-
ing (Fig. 8a), three of the four LHC cells behave similarly (with
the exception of the 100% Mamshit cell which will be discussed
later); they all present lower humidity amplitude compared to the
outdoor conditions. A blow-up of the relative humidity measure-
ments along a 24 hour cycle (Sept.4) is presented in Fig. 8b, show-
ing that the outdoor humidity is around 90%RH during the night
Fig. 9. Outdoor and indoor relative humidity during summer monitoring of a representative LHC cell and conventional materials cells. (a) 9-day period (Aug.28-Sept.5); (b)
24 hour blow-up (Sept.4).
9
and drops rapidly between 08:0 0-11:0 0, from ∼90%RH to ∼25%RH.
However, while the windows of the LHC cells are kept closed the
internal humidity of the cells is kept around 65-70%RH, and it only
drops when the windows are opened at 17:00 for natural ventila-
tion. These findings prove that all four LHC cells have a good abil-
ity to balance the outdoor humidity fluctuations. The outdoor hu-
midity stays around 25%RH until 15:00 and then it gradually rises
to ∼80%RH at 23:0 0. At 18:0 0 the internal relative humidity con-
verges with the outdoor relative humidity, which is ∼50%RH. In
general, all four LHC cells show a similar behavior; the only excep-
tion is the 100% Mamshit cell, whose humidity drop during the day
is slightly slower than the other LHC cells, resulting in a humid-
ity reading higher by ∼5-8%RH than the other LHC cells. This mi-
nor difference can be related to the better ability of clay to buffer
moisture, as compared to lime [30]. Therefore, the 100% Mamshit
cell presents the highest humidity at 17:00 (before the opening of
windows) while the 100% lime has the lowest humidity, and that
in both cells with 50% lime (and 50% alternative binder) humidity
which is in between. Therefore, the 100% Mamshit cell presents the
lowest amplitude of relative humidity, which is slightly better than
the other LHC cells. To summarize, LHC has the ability to lessen
the impact of the outdoor relative humidity fluctuations along the
summer, while the binders’ composition has a slight influence on
it.
Fig. 9a depicts the internal relative humidity along the sum-
mer measurements of the 50% Mamshit cell, which was chosen
as a representative cell for LHC, compared to the cells made of
conventional building materials (AAC, HCB, and EPS) and to the
10 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740

Fig. 10. Outdoor and indoor relative humidity during winter monitoring of four LHC cells. (a) 16-day period (Jan.2-17); (b) 24 hour blow-up (Jan.9).

outdoor humidity. It shows that LHC presents similar behavior as fected by the outdoor humidity fluctuations. The EPS has the low-
the AAC cell, both cells demonstrating a better ability to balance est ability to buffer moisture, as might be expected, and thus this
the outdoor humidity fluctuations, compared to the cells made of cell is highly affected by the outdoor humidity fluctuations.
HCB and EPS, which are more affected by the outdoor fluctuations.
The measurements along 24 h (Sept. 4, Fig. 9b), show that the in- 3.2.2. Winter performance
ternal humidity of the LHC and AAC cells is ∼65%RH at 16:00 while Fig. 10a depicts the internal relative humidity measurements of
at the same time it is ∼50%RH for the HCB cell and ∼30%RH for all four LHC cells compared to the outdoor during winter monitor-
the EPS cell. In addition, Table 6 shows that the LHC and AAC cells ing. It shows that all four LHC cells behave similarly, with humid-
present the narrowest amplitude of internal humidity while HCB ity amplitude which is slightly smaller than the outdoor amplitude,
presents slightly wider amplitude and EPS presents a significantly while the internal humidity values are lower than the outdoor. The
more pronounced amplitude. This means that the LHC and AAC measurements along 24 hours (Jan.9, Fig. 10b) show that the out-
possess the best ability to balance the outdoor humidity fluctua- door humidity is around 70%RH during the night. Between 07:00-
tions. These differences can be related to the materials composing 13:00 it drops from ∼75%RH to ∼45%RH. As for the indoor hu-
the cells. AAC is composed mainly of lime and the 50% Mamshit midity, the winter measurements show completely different results
cell is composed of clay and lime. Lime and clay can buffer mois- than the summer measurements, as all four LHC cells show inter-
ture more efficiently than cement [30]. Therefore, these two cells nal humidity fluctuation amplitude which is only slightly smaller
have higher efficiency to buffer moisture, compared to the HCB cell than the outdoor amplitude, but lower by 15-25%RH than the out-
which is composed of cement. Thus, these two cells are less af- door humidity. The internal humidity is 40-45%RH during the night
and it is gradually dropping from ∼45%RH to ∼20%RH between
07:0 0-11:0 0, where it stabilizes until 15:00. Then it gradually in-
Table 6 creases to 40%RH until 20:00 when it becomes stable and stays
Maximum, minimum and amplitude of %RH during summer day (Sept.4). ∗ The rep-
around 40%RH during the night. Thus, the LHC cell demonstrates
resentative LHC cell is 50% Mamshit.
the ability to balance indoor humidity during the night when it
Maximum %RH Minimum %RH Amplitude %RH stays around 40-45%RH. However, during the day the internal hu-
Outdoor 97 22 75 midity presents a drop of ∼25%RH, which is almost similar to the
LHC∗ 91 50 41 drop of the outdoor humidity.
AAC 91 52 39 Fig. 11a presents the winter measurements of relative humid-
HCB 90 44 46
EPS 94 30 64
ity of the 50% Mamshit cell, which was chosen as a representa-
tive cell for LHC, compared to the cells made of the conventional
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740 11

Fig. 11. Outdoor and indoor relative humidity during winter monitoring of a representative LHC cell and conventional materials cells. (a) 16-day period (Jan.2-17); (b) 24
hour blow-up (Jan.9).

building materials (AAC, HCB, and EPS) and to the outdoor hu- but also the minimum and maximum values of the relative hu-
midity. It shows that the internal minimum humidity of all cells midity.
is usually significantly lower than the outdoor minimum, while Fig. 12 presents the measurements of indoor air temperature
the internal maximum is only slightly lower. Fig. 11b and Table 7 and relative humidity of the 50% Mamshit cell along 24 hours
present the measurements along 24 h (Jan. 9). They show that the (Jan.9). As expected, it shows that while the temperature is ris-
LHC cell presents the lowest amplitude of internal humidity while ing from 8 °C to 33 °C (between 06:30 to 13.30), the humidity is
AAC and HCB present moderate amplitude and EPS presents sig- descending from 45%RH to 17%RH. It is important to note that the
nificantly higher amplitude. Thus, LHC is the most appropriate in south facing fenestration is three times larger than that stipulated
balancing the outdoor humidity fluctuations. The reason for these by the Israel Green Building Standard, thus indoor temperatures
differences can be related to the ability of the material to buffer are significantly higher than would be expected in a realistically
moisture [30], as discussed in the section of the summer measure- designed building, reaching summer noon peaks, thus also signifi-
ments (3.1.2). Moreover, the difference is not only the amplitude, cantly low relative humidity.
In summary, all LHC cells present similar behavior, both in sum-
Table 7 mer and winter, while the binders’ composition has only a slight
Maximum, minimum and amplitude of %RH during winter day (Jan.9). ∗ The repre- influence on the internal relative humidity. Therefore, replacing the
sentative LHC cell is 50% Mamshit.
lime with alternative binders has hardly any influence on the hu-
Maximum %RH Minimum %RH Amplitude %RH midity performance of LHC. In addition, during the summer, LHC
Outdoor 76 44 32 with alternative binders presents similar humidity performance as
LHC∗ 45 17 28 AAC, with the lowest humidity amplitude, which is lower than HCB
AAC 63 28 35 and EPS. As for the winter measurements, LHC presents the lowest
HCB 66 30 36
humidity amplitude as compared to conventional building materi-
EPS 61 15 46
als, but the differences are less significant than they are during the
12 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740
Fig. 12. Indoor air temperature and relative humidity of the 50% Mamshit cell along 24 hours (Jan.9).
summer. The reason for this might be the lower amplitude of out-
door humidity in the winter as compared to the summer, which
also causes the internal amplitudes of all cells to be lower.
4. Conclusions
This research studied the influence of replacing the lime in LHC
with alternative unfired binders on the thermal performance of
LHC. LHC was compared to conventional building materials such as
AAC, HCB, and EPS. Four LHC mixtures were examined: 50% Kalgir,
50% Mamshit, 100% Mamshit, and 100% lime for reference. Test
cells were built with these mixtures and their internal tempera-
tures and relative humidity were monitored during summer and
winter. It was found that:
• The thermal performance of LHC was hardly affected by the re-
placement of the lime with alternative unfired binders, as all
LHC cells presented approximately similar behavior, in terms of
temperature as well as relative humidity.
• In terms of temperature, during the summer the LHC cells pre-
sented the best thermal performance which demonstrated the
lowest temperature peaks as compared to the cells made of
conventional building materials (AAC, HCB, and EPS). However,
during the winter, the AAC cell presented slightly better ther-
mal performance than the LHC cells, i.e., the highest tempera-
ture at night, while both of these cells performed better than
the HCB and EPS cells.
• In terms of relative humidity, during the summer, the LHC and
AAC presented better ability to balance the outdoor humidity
fluctuations, with lower amplitude balanced at moderate hu-
midity, as compared to HCB and EPS. As for the winter, the
LHC cells presented the best ability to balance the outdoor hu-
midity fluctuations, with the lowest amplitude, but this time it
was balanced on low humidity. It is imperative to stress that
in order to take full advantage of the wall material’s humidity
buffering properties, finish materials (inner and outer plaster,
paints etc.) need to be vapor permeable - “breathing” - as well.
Thus, lime plaster would seem to be much more appropriate
than cement-based finishes, and paints would have to be care-
fully chosen.
• Regardless of the material and its properties, the current mea-
surements emphasized the need for careful sizing and detailing
of fenestration and its operability, and the incorporation of ex-
ternal operable shading devices, especially in climates with in-
tense solar radiation throughout most of the year. The thermal
comfort and energy usage implications of appropriate fenestra-
tion design cannot be overemphasized.
It can be concluded that the findings of this research clearly
show the high potential of using alternative unfired binders as par-
tial replacement for lime in LHC, as all LHC cells presented similar
behavior, in terms of temperature as well as relative humidity. This
means that LHC with alternative binders requires similar amount
of OC and OE as LHC with 100% lime; however, its EC and EE are
relatively lower so in total it requires less energy and is respon-
sible for less CO2 emissions. As for the comparison with conven-
tional building materials, LHC performs better in the summer, but
AAC performs better than LHC in the winter, while both AAC and
LHC demonstrate better performance than HCB and EPS, in terms
of temperature as well as relative humidity. However, since LHC
possess relatively lower EC and EE, as compared to conventional
building materials including AAC, it has an advantage in terms of
energy savings, as well as CO2 emissions. We consider such find-
ings to be very encouraging. Thus, future work plan includes:
• Simulating the operational energy required for real-size build-
ings made of LHC with alternative binders, and comparing it to
conventional building materials.
• Calculating the total energy and carbon, i.e., embodied and op-
erational, in order to estimate the total savings of the different
LHC mixtures and compare them to conventional building ma-
terials.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Ackowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the kind support of
the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, provided under
 R. Haik, A. Peled and I.A. Meir / Energy & Buildings 210 (2020) 109740 13

Research Grant Number 165-4-1. Thanks are also due to Shlomo [20] J. Ahlberg, E. Georges, M. Norlén, The potential of hemp buildings in different
Kabalo, Dept. Solar Energy and Environmental Physics, for shar- climates and the hempcrete building system. A comparison between a com-
mon passive house and the hempcrete building system Thesis, Uppsala Uni-
ing environmental data; Wolfgang Motzafi-Haller, Desert Architec- versity, Sweden, 2014.
ture and Urban Planning Unit; Shahar Ouannou and Yaakov Flo- [21] A. Shea, M. Lawrence, P. Walker, Hygrothermal performance of an experimen-
rentin, Dept. Structural Engineering, for their collegiality, for help tal hemp–lime building, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 270–275.
[22] C. Maalouf, C. Ingrao, F. Scrucca, T. Moussa, A. Bourdot, C. Tricase, A. Presciutti,
extended in construction and monitoring of the cells, and for long F. Asdrubali, An energy and carbon footprint assessment upon the usage of
discussions on results and their interpretation. hemplime concrete and recycled-PET façades for office facilities in France and
Italy, J. Cleaner Prod. 170 (2018) 1640–1653.
References [23] G. Costantine, C. Maalouf, T. Moussa, G. Polidori, Experimental and numerical
investigations of thermal performance of a Hemp Lime external building insu-
lation, Build. Environ. 131 (2018) 140–153.
[1] EC, 20% energy savings by 2020 – Memo, European Commission - Directorate
[24] P.B. De Bruijn, K.H. Jeppsson, K. Sandin, C. Nilsson, Mechanical properties of
General for Energy and Transport, 2005.
lime–hemp concrete containing shives and fibres, Biosyst. Eng. 103 (2009)
[2] IEA, Annex 31, Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings, Energy Con-
474–479.
servation in Buildings and Community Systems, Int. Energy Agency (2001).
[25] L. Arnaud, E. Gourlay, Experimental study of parameters influencing mechani-
[3] EIA, Annual Energy Review, Energy Information Administration, Washington
cal properties of hemp concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 50–56.
DC, 2005.
[26] H. Wadi, S. Amziane, E. Toussaint, M. Taazount, Lateral load-carrying capacity
[4] M.P. Laurenzi, Building Energy Efficiency. An Asia Business Council Book, 2007.
of hemp concrete as a natural infill material in timber frame walls, Eng. Struct.
[5] H. Gabay, I.A. Meir, M. Schwartz, E. Werzberger, Cost-benefit analysis of
180 (2019) 264–273.
green buildings: An Israeli office buildings case study, Energy Build. 76 (2014)
[27] Y. Florentin, A Comparative Life-Cycle Energy and Carbon Analysis of
558–564.
Hemp-based Building Materials in an Arid Environment (Thesis), The Jacob
[6] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials
Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
in the Negev desert, Energy Build. 40 (5) (2008) 837–848.
2015.
[7] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, E. Gal, I.A. Meir, Optimizing structural roof form
[28] Y. Florentin, D. Pearlmutter, B. Givoni, E. Gal, A life-cycle energy and car-
for life-cycle energy efficiency, Energy Build. 104 (2015) 336–349.
bon analysis of hemp-lime bio-compositebuilding materials, Energy Build. 156
[8] C. Mayer, The greening of the concrete industry, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31
(2017) 293–305.
(2009) 601–605.
[29] G. Hammond, C. Jones, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). Sustainable
[9] V.M. Malhotra, Role of supplementary cementing materials in reducing green-
Energy Research Team, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Of
house gas emissions, in: Concrete Technology for a Sustainable Development
Bath, UK, 2008.
in the 21st Century, E&FN Spon, London, 20 0 0, pp. 35–226.
[30] S. Wilkinson, A Study of the Moisture Buffering Potential of Hemp in Combi-
[10] I.A. Meir, D. Pearlmutter, Building for climate change: planning and design
nation with Lime and Clay-Based Binders (Thesis), School of Computing and
considerations in time of climatic uncertainty, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 45
Technology, University of East London, 2009.
(2010) 70–75.
[31] R. Busbridge, R. Rhydwen, An investigation of the thermal propeties of hemp
[11] I.A. Meir, Green technologies in planning and design vis-à-vis climatic uncer-
and clay monolithic walls, The School of Computing & Technology 5th Annual
tainty, Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology, 2nd Edition, Taylor
Conference, University of East London, 2010, pp. 163–170.
& Francis, 2015, pp. 796–803.
[32] R. Haik, I.A. Meir, A. Peled (2019). Sustainable Hemp-clay-lime concrete. Rilem
[12] R. Bevan, T. Wooley, Hemp Lime Construction: A Guide to Building with Hemp
SMSS (Sustainable Materials, Sytems and Structures) 2019, Rovinji, Croatia,
Lime Composites (Book), IHS BRE Press, 2010.
18th – 22nd March 2019 (will be presented by Rotem Haik).
[13] L. Zampori, G. Dotelli, V. Vernelli, Life cycle assessment of hemp cultivation
[33] R. Haik, G. Bar-Nes, A. Peled, I.A Meir, Alternative unfired binders as lime re-
and use of hemp-based thermal insulator materials in buildings, Environ. Sci.
placement in hemp concrete, J. Constr. Build. Mater. JCBM 117981 (2019) (in
Technol. 47 (2013) 7413–7420.
press).
[14] E.AJ Hirst, P. Walker, K.A Paine, T. Yates, Characterisation of low density
[34] M. Degrave-Lemeurs, P. Glé, A. Hellouin de Menibus, Acoustical properties of
hemp-lime composite building materials under compression loading, in: 2nd
hemp concretes for buildings thermal insulation: Application to clay and lime
International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technolo-
binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 160 (2018) 462–474.
gies, 2010, pp. 1395–1405.
[35] BCB-Tradical®, Thermo - Formulated limes for Tradical® hempcrete, technical
[15] K. Ip, A. Miller, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp–lime wall con-
data sheet V06 (November. 2017). http://www.bcb- tradical.com/wp- content/
structions in the UK, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 69 (2012) 1–9.
uploads/2018/02/Tradical- Thermo- technical- data- sheet.pdf [Last accessed Au-
[16] F. Pittaua, F. Krausea, G. Lumia, G. Habert, Fast-growing bio-based materials as
gust 15, 2019].
an opportunity for storing carbon in exterior walls, Build. Environ. 129 (2018)
[36] Womersleys®, Kanabat Hemp construction, technical guide (March 2013).
117–129.
https://www.womersleys.co.uk/techguides/Hemp%20Construction%20tech%20
[17] A. Evrard, A. De Herde, Dynamical interactions between heat and mass flows in
sheet.pdf [Last accessed August 15, 2019].
Lime-Hemp Concrete, Research in Building Physics and Building Engineering,
[37] Tempcon ®, HOBO-UX10 0-0 03 Temp/RH 3.5% data logger, product description.
Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, pp. 69–76.
https://www.tempcon.co.uk/shop/hobo- ux100- 003- temp- rh- 3- 5- percent-
[18] A. Evrard, Sorption behaviour of Lime-Hemp Concrete and its relation to in-
data-logger [Last accessed August 15, 2019].
door comfort and energy demand, in: 23rd International Conference on Passive
[38] SII, Sustainable Building (Green Building): Requirements for Residential Build-
and Low Energy Architecture, 2006, pp. 1553–1557.
ings. SI 5281 part 2, The Standards Institute of Israel, Tel Aviv, 2011.
[19] V. Cérézo, Propriétés mécaniques, thermiques et acoustiques d’un matériau
à base de particules végétales: approche expérimentale et modélisation
théorique Thesis, Institut national des sciences appliquées de Lyon, 2005.