ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Developing a simplified method of calculating U-values

in light steel framing
Mark Gorgolewski
Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ont., Canada M5B 2K3

Abstract

There has been considerable debate over the development of simplified calculation methods for thermal resistance (R-value) and
thermal transmittance (U-value) for light steel frame constructions that designers can easily use. Such simplified methods have presented
a particular difficulty for light steel framed constructions as compared with many other forms of construction because they must
accommodate the effects of non-homogenous layers and thermal bridges where the difference between the thermal conductivity of
materials is large.
This paper describes the development of a simplified method for calculating U-values of light steel frame constructions suitable for
incorporating into U-value calculation software. The new method is based on research carried out by returning to first principles to use
finite element modelling to analyse the heat flows through steel framed constructions, and comparing these with predictions made by
simplified methods. It was found that for warm frame constructions, where all the insulation is placed outside the steel frame, the normal
U-value calculation method as set out in BS EN ISO 6946 can be applied. However, for constructions where some or all the insulation is
placed within the thickness of the steel frame, the methodology in BS EN ISO 6946 has to be adapted to allow for the increased effect of
the steel.
A new method is proposed that is similar in principle to that used in BS EN ISO 6946 but adapted to increase accuracy for these types
of construction. It is designed to be easily implemented in U-value calculation software. It was found that with the proposed method the
mean error of prediction compared with finite element modelling is less than 3% with a maximum error of 8% for a range of 52 assessed
constructions. This method has been adopted for use in the UK to demonstrate compliance with the amendments to the thermal Building
Regulations.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approved, simplified method was available to show

With the implementation of the 2002 editions of the
Approved Documents L1 and L2 for the Conservation of
Fuel and Power [1], in England and Wales the Proportional
Area Method for calculating U-values was replaced by the
‘‘Combined Method’’ given in BS EN ISO 6946 [2].
Although BS EN ISO 6946 may be used for most types
of wall, roof and floor deck, including masonry and timber
frame constructions, it specifically excludes from its scope
constructions in which insulating layers are bridged by
linear metal elements. Therefore, the current BS EN ISO
6946 methodology is not applicable for many light steel
frame systems (other than full warm frame construction).
Thus, with the new Building Regulations in force, no
E-mail address: mgorgo@ryerson.ca.
compliance for U-values of many light steel frame designs.
To address this issue, the BRE and the Steel Construc-
tion Institute worked together in conjunction with other
partners to develop a robust method that would be
accessible to designers, builders and regulators and that
could be used in conjunction with the new regulations.
2. Steel framing
In recent years, the number of light steel framing systems
used in residential building has been increasing in many
countries. Light steel framing has many advantages
including strength, low weight, dimensional stability,
resistance to insect damage and almost 100% recyclability.
This construction method has been attracting interest in
the various countries in recent years and its popularity is

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236
increasing for use in both individual houses and apartment
blocks. The use of light steel framing can help to address
issues of skills shortage, provide high construction stan-
dards, achieve precise tolerances and increase off-site
manufacture.
Light steel frame constructions typically comprise
C- and Z-shaped, galvanised, cold-form steel sections,
usually between 0.9 and 2.4 mm thickness that are
produced by roll forming. The technology has developed
from specific applications such as purlins and lintels to the
wider building market. Construction can use individual
light steel components assembled on site in a stick-built
format to construct load bearing or non-load bearing
frame structures similar to timber frame. However,
increasingly panellised or volumetric construction using
preassembled components is used (Fig. 1).
Light steel framing can potentially incorporate a high
standard of thermal insulation resulting in comfortable,
energy-efficient dwellings. However, steel members conduct
heat extremely well and when steel framing sections
penetrate through the insulation they cause significant
thermal bridging. This can sharply reduce the effective
thermal resistance of the envelope. In typical light steel
frame assemblies the steel web forms less than 0.5% of the
Fig. 1. Typical light steel framing system.
102
50
50
20
100
15 40 600
Thermal path a
Fig. 2. A typical hybrid light steel wall: thermal path b has a far smaller thermal resistance than path a.
231
area of the element (Fig. 2). However, the steel has a thermal
conductivity that may be over 1500 times higher than the
insulating material on either side. It has been shown that
ignoring the effect of the steel can lead to an over-estimate of
the thermal resistance by up to 50%, depending on the
details of the construction [3]. It can also create a significant
temperature difference between the centre of the cavity and
the stud area, leading to the possibility of wall staining called
ghosting occurring on cold spots.
During the last two decades, a variety of material
configurations have been investigated to increase the
thermal effectiveness of light steel frame structures [4].
These options include diminishing the contact area between
the studs and the sheathing, reducing the steel stud web
area by perforating the web, replacing the steel web with a
less conductive material, and placing foam insulation caps
in locations where the thermal bridges are most critical.
However, the most common way to overcome this problem
is to introduce rigid insulation board on the outside of the
steel structure to create a partial or total ‘‘warm frame’’.
2.1. Constructions assessed
Three generic design types were considered, as follows
(see Fig. 3):
1. Warm frame wall with all the insulation outside the steel
frame: This wall construction is common in UK
domestic designs and has the advantage that the steel
framing is kept at a temperature close to the internal
temperature. This type of construction already lies
within the scope of BS EN ISO 6946.
2. Cold frame construction with insulation only between
the steel studs but no insulation to the external side of
the studs. This construction has a higher degree of
thermal bridging and is generally not recommended for
dwellings in the UK.
3. Hybrid construction with insulation between the steel
studs in conjunction with a continuous layer of
insulation to the external side of the steel framing. This
type of construction is common for domestic walls and
roofs.
Brick outer skin
50 mm clear cavity
50 mm rigid insulant
20 mm plywood or OSB
100 mm insulation
15 mm plasterboard
100 mm deep
by 40 mm wide
C section studs
Thermal path b using 1.5 mm steel
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
232 M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236

1 or 2 layers of plasterboard

Optional
sheathing board 1 or 2 layers Light steel studs with
of plasterboard mineral wool between
Light steel studs
Insulated sheathing
Thermal insulation board with foil face
with foil face or or breather membrane
breather membrane

Wall ties
Wall ties

Brick external cladding Brick external cladding

Fig. 3. Warm frame and hybrid types of steel framing.

Table 1 limits, for light steel framing alternative proportions have

The range of variables assessed been suggested. As a starting point for this project, the
Variable Range Default
approaches used in those countries were examined with a
view to testing their applicability to the UK.
Stud spacing (mm) 300 and 800 600 As a means of testing the simplified methods in other
Stud depth (mm) 50–200 100 countries, and developing a method suitable for the UK, a
Stud flange width (mm) 30–60 40
Stud steel thickness (mm) 0.75–2.0 1.5
number of test constructions were devised. These incorpo-
Thermal conductivity of sheathing 0.02–0.04 0.04 rated typical features of light steel frame walls and roofs
insulation (W/m K) currently used in the UK. The results of simplified U-value
Thickness of sheathing insulation 0–100 50 calculation methods for these test constructions were
(mm) compared with the U-values as predicted by finite element
Thermal conductivity of bulk 0.02–0.04 0.04
calculations, using the techniques in BS EN ISO 10211-1
insulation between studs (W/m K)
[9], and the accuracy of the simplified methods was
assessed.

Table 1 lists the variables that were considered in the
modelling and the ranges that were assessed.
The stud spacing is typically 600 mm. To allow for
possible future variation, however, spacings of between 300
and 800 mm were considered in order to assess the effect.
The variation in stud spacing also provides an opportunity
to test simplified calculation methods against the effect of
varying the steel frame fraction. (The steel frame fraction
refers to the fraction of the wall area which is taken up by
the framing as opposed to insulation and this fraction is
analogous to the timber and mortar fractions used in the
context of other types of constructions).
3. Approach
A number of simplified calculation procedures have been
developed in countries such as Denmark, Canada, USA
and New Zealand for assessing U-values of light steel frame
constructions [5–8]. Some are similar to the BS EN ISO
6946 approach of calculating an upper and lower limit to
thermal resistance (Rmax and Rmin), but whereas BS EN
ISO 6946 then choose the mean of the upper and lower
4. Description of the modelling
Fig. 4 illustrates a generalised form of the constructions
that were modelled using finite element software. The ‘‘C’’
shape of the steel channel stud is shown (labelled D)
sandwiched between layers B and E. Layer A in the
diagram is to the outside of the steel studs and may
typically consist of render, insulation board or an air
cavity. Layer B is a continuous sheathing layer that may be
insulation (warm frame) or OSB board (cold frame). Layer
C either may consist of insulation or can be an air void.
Layer E is the internal lining and is typically made of
gypsum board, and could, in principle, be gypsum board
laminated to insulation and is therefore shown as a double
layer. Alternatively, the double layer could be considered
to be board covered by a plaster skim coat.
The outside environment for the purposes of these
calculations could in principle be either the external
environment or it could be a void or cavity behind external
cladding. In the latter case the coldest temperature would
be slightly higher than typical external temperatures but
this difference was ignored owing to the relatively minor
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236 233

A limit of thermal resistance, is obtained by considering the

B temperature at each plane to be constant (this situation
C separately, and then summing the resistance of all layers of
D the building element. In reality, the heat flow through a
E Therefore, there should exist a number, p, between 0 and 1,
Fig. 4. Generalised form of light steel frame constructions.
influence that a small temperature variation would have
upon the thermal conductivities of the materials.
To carry out the finite element modelling, key para-
meters such as dimensions of the various components and
conductivities of materials were varied in order to
encompass a variety of notional designs. In total, 52 steel
frame wall and roof designs were assessed. Some of the
cases are notional constructions, which are set out to
facilitate parametric analysis [10]. The internal and external
surface resistances, Rsi and Rse, were taken to be the
standard values in BS EN ISO 6946.
From the results of the numerical modelling a U-value
was obtained for the overall construction. This U-value,
which will be referred to as Umod, was determined from the
overall heat transferred through the wall for defined
internal and external environmental temperatures, as
follows:
U mod ¼ Q=A
T,
where Q is the total heat loss in watts as predicted by the
modelling, A is the area of the wall sample in square metres
and DT is the difference in temperature between the inside
and outside environment.
5. Results
The results from the finite element modelling were
compared to a number of simplified calculation methods.
Among the methods tested was the method given in BS EN
ISO 6946. Three other methods were also tested system-
atically and the comparisons are given below.
would be typical of layers sandwiched between highly
conductive panels) and is calculated by combining in
parallel the resistance of the heat flow paths of each layer
wall is three-dimensional and the true thermal resistance is
expected to lie between the extremes of Rmax and Rmin.
such that the total thermal resistance RT is given by:
RT ¼ pRmax þ ð1  pÞRmin .
Using the results of the thermal modelling the value of
pmod can be given by
pmod ¼ ð1=U mod  Rmin Þ=ðRmax  Rmin Þ.
The subscript ‘‘mod’’ is used here to indicate that the
value of p is essentially derived from the numerical
modelling. A value for pmod was calculated for each of
the simulated constructions and compared to simplified
methods for calculating p. Any simplified calculation
method that also uses Rmax and Rmin should accurately
predict the value of pmod.
5.2. The BS EN ISO 6946 method
Firstly, the modelled results were compared with
predictions made using the EN ISO 6946 methodology.
Although the method in BS EN ISO 6946 does not permit
cold frame and hybrid steel frame constructions within its
scope, this method was tested to assess its accuracy and to
determine how it could be improved for light steel framing.
BS EN ISO 6946 takes the mean of Rmax and Rmin, thus p
effectively is equal to 0.5.
Fig. 5 shows the U-values as predicted by EN ISO 6946
against those obtained by finite element modelling. The
graph shows a number of constructions where the
prediction is poor, particularly in the case of cold frame
constructions. The average absolute error is 8% and the
maximum error is an over-optimistic prediction of 38%.
To assist comparison, a best-fit line and a line of perfect
agreement are shown.
5.3. Experimental method 1

5.1. The upper and lower limits of thermal resistance
In order to interpret the data it is useful to carry out a
calculation of the upper and lower limits of thermal
resistance, as defined in EN ISO 6946. These limits are
labelled Rmax and Rmin.
Rmax, the upper limit of thermal resistance, is obtained
by considering the heat flow paths to be parallel and the
resistance is calculated from the area-weighted average of
the individual thermal transmittances of the various
parallel heat paths in the construction. Rmin, the lower
It was noted that if U ¼ p Rmax+(1p) Rmin, then there
was a correlation between the value of p and the ratio Rmin/
Rmax. Even using the simple assumption that p ¼ Rmin/
Rmax yielded reasonable agreement between the simple
calculation procedure and the results from modelling, as
can be seen in Fig. 6.
With this method the average absolute error is reduced
to 6%. The worst-case error is still about 28% but the
worst-case over-optimistic error is only 9%. A further
refinement to this approach was to modify ‘‘p’’ slightly so
that p ¼ 0.8 Rmin/Rmax+0.1. This significantly reduces the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
234 M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236

Comparison for use of method in BS EN ISO 6946

0.900

0.800

U-value (simplified method) 0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
U-value obtained from modelling

Fig. 5. The U-value as predicted by EN ISO 6946 plotted against that obtained by finite element modelling.

Comparison for method 1

1.400

1.200

1.000
U-value (simplified)

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
U-value obtained from modelling

Fig. 6. The U-value as predicted by experimental method 1 (p ¼ Rmin/Rmax) plotted against that obtained by finite element modelling.

average absolute error to 3% and the most over-optimistic Table 2

error was 10%. p-values used in method 2

Table of p-values (method 2) Hybrid Cold frame

5.4. Experimental method 2 Stud spacing4500 mm 0.5 0.3

This method is a refinement of the EN ISO 6046 method
and is similar to approaches used in Canada and Denmark.
The value for p is chosen from Table 2 and takes account of
the stud spacing and whether the frame is a hybrid or cold
frame type.
Overall, method 2 results in a reasonable level of
agreement, as can be seen in Fig. 7. The average absolute
error is 5% with a maximum error of 23% and a maximum
over-optimistic error of 8%.
Stud spacingo500 mm 0.4 0.25
5.5. Experimental method 3
Combining the above approaches, a third method was
then developed which made use of the Rmin/Rmax but the
formula was modified to include various additional terms
to account for the overall behaviour of the steel frame
designs. It was noted that stud spacing, flange width and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236 235

Comparison for method 2

1.400

1.200

U-value (simplified) 1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
U-value obtained from modelling

Fig. 7. The U-value as predicted by experimental method 2 plotted against that obtained by finite element modelling.

Comparison for method 3

1.200

1.000
U-value (simplified)

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
U-value obtained from modelling

Fig. 8. U-value predicted by method 3 plotted against those obtained by finite element modelling.

stud depth all had an influence on the value of p. This third
method is described in the following formula:
p ¼ 0:8ðRmin =Rmax Þ þ 0:44  0:1ðw=40 mmÞ
 0:2ð600 mm=sÞ  0:04ðd=100 mmÞ,
where w is the flange width, s the stud spacing and d the
stud depth.
The level of agreement between method 3 and the results
of the finite element modelling was found to be good, as
can be seen in Fig. 8. The average absolute error is only
2.7% with a maximum error of 8% and a maximum over-
optimistic error of 3%.
6. Correcting for metal fixings
In many constructions, part of the insulating layer is
penetrated by metal fixings such as metal wall ties or screws
through the sheathing. These fixings influence the heat loss
from the wall/roof/floor by offering an easier path for heat
to flow between the steel flanges and the external
environment. In order to determine how strong this effect
was, a number of finite element model simulations were
carried out both with and without fixings.
It was found that a reasonable estimate of the adjust-
ment to the U-value could be obtained by using the
following formula, which is a proposed amendment to that
used for metal fasteners in BS EN ISO 6946:
DU f ¼ alf Af nf ðRi =RT Þ2 =d i ,
where a is a constant set at 0.8 for warm frame and 1.6 for
hybrid/cold frame, lf the thermal conductivity of the fixing,
Af the cross-sectional area of the fixing, nf the number of
fixings per unit of area, Ri the thermal resistance of the
insulation layer penetrated by the fixings, RT the total
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 M. Gorgolewski / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 230–236
thermal resistance of the element and di the thickness of the
insulation penetrated by the fixings.
For typical stainless steel wall ties used in the UK this
method gives a DUf of 0.0077 W/m2K, whereas the finite
element modelling indicates an increase in U-value for such
fixings of 0.008 W/m2K. This suggests good agreement. It is
notable that when fixings did not actually penetrate any
insulation, such as in the cold frame designs, the fixings still
exerted a small effect; however, this effect was found to be
very minor in comparison with the effect of fixings which
did penetrate insulation. It was concluded that the above
formula was adequate for describing the effect of fixings.
7. Conclusions
It has been found that the use of the Rmin/Rmax ratio is a
useful basis for estimating U-values for constructions with
linear thermal metal bridges. Several methods were
assessed and from these the third experimental method
outlined above shows very good agreement with modelled
results. It is similar in principle to the method outlined in
BS EN ISO 6946, but with a more complex algorithm to
find the weighting between Rmax and Rmin. This method
has been adopted in the UK for Building Regulations
compliance and its application is described in detail in BRE
Digest 465 [11]. The method has also been incorporated
into U-value calculation software [12] which can be used to
demonstrate compliance with the new Approved Docu-
ments L1 and L2. This general U-value calculation
software now includes separate routines for light steel
frame construction enabling U-values to be easily calcu-
lated.
References
[1] DTLR. Conservation of fuel and power, approved document L1.
UK: The Stationery Office; 2001.
[2] European Committee for Standardisation. Building components and
building elements—thermal resistance and thermal transmittance—
calculation method, EN ISO 6946:1996.
[3] Kosny J, Christian J. Reducing the uncertainties associated with
using the ASHRAE zone method for R-value calculations of metal
frame walls. ASHRAE Transactions 1995;101(Pt. 2) SD95-5-3.
[4] Kosny J, Childs P, Gorgolewski MT. Making steel framing as
thermally efficient as wood most current developments from ORNL
Steel in Sustainable construction. Luxemburg: IISI world congress;
2002.
[5] Kosny J, Christian J. Reducing the uncertainties associated with
using the ASHRAE zone method for R-value calculations of metal
frame walls. ASHRAE Transactions 1995;101(Pt. 2) SD95-5-3.
[6] Adams JC, De Meo LJ, Stark GK. Evaluation method for the
thermal performance of lightweight framed wall assemblies; 1996.
[7] Canadian Commission on Buildings and Fire Codes. Model national
energy code for houses. National Research Council Canada; 1997.
[8] Trethowen HA. Calculating R-values using the isothermal planes
method. Building Research Association of New Zealand; 1998.
[9] European Committee for Standardisation. Thermal bridges in
building construction—Heat flows and surface temperatures. BS
EN ISO 10211-1; 1996.
[10] Doran SM. U-values of light steel frame constructions. BRE project
report 16289, Building Research Establishment, UK; 2002.
[11] Doran SM, Gorgolewski MT. U-values for light steel frame
construction. BRE Digest 465, Building Research Establishment,
UK; 2002.
[12] See /http://projects.bre.co.uk/uvaluesS.