Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Thermal performance and thermal resistance of fibre cement roof tiles:

Experimental study
Caren Michels a,⇑, Saulo Güths b, Deivis L. Marinoski b, Roberto Lamberts b
a
Architecture and Urbanism Department, Federal University of Amazonas, Amazonas, Avenida General Rodrigo Octavio Jordão Ramos, 1200 - Coroado I, Manaus, AM
69067-005, Brazil
b
Brazilian Center of Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Civil and Mechanical Engineering Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina, PO Box 476, 88040-970 Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

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

Article history: A better understanding of the thermal performance of construction systems may help engineers and
Received 26 March 2020 architects to select the most suitable materials for the solutions that meet their objectives. In warm-
Revised 11 October 2020 climate countries like Brazil, the thermal performance of roofs is of particular importance. Thus, this
Accepted 15 October 2020
study presents an evaluation of the thermal performance of roofs built in reduced scale on an experimen-
Available online 20 October 2020
tal test rig, in Florianópolis, capital of the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Four roofs were eval-
uated, all with fibre cement tiles and a polyvinyl chloride (PCV) ceiling: the first was used as a reference,
Keywords:
the second had the tiles painted white, the third had a radiant barrier installed and the fourth had con-
Experimental test rig
Heat flow
ventional thermal insulation based on expanded polystyrene (EPS). All roofs were instrumented with
Roof thermal resistance temperature and heat flow sensors and data was collected over a period of eight months. The results
Fibre cement tiles show that all of the test roofs had a lower thermal gain than the reference roof, with reductions of
55% for the roof with white tiles, 67% with a radiant barrier and 70% with conventional thermal insula-
tion. The thermal resistance for downward heat flow of the roof with conventional thermal insulation
was 1.29 m2K/W and that of the roof with the radiant barrier was 1.20 m2K/W, with a difference between
the two of only 7%. When comparing the thermal resistance obtained experimentally with values
obtained with the international standard ISO 6946 and with the Brazilian standard NBR 15220-2 it
was found that the radiant barrier roof presented the greatest differences, of 41% and 30%, respectively.
This demonstrates that it is important to review the calculation procedure, especially when a radiant bar-
rier is used for thermal insulation.
Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The increase in average annual temperatures due to global
warming caused by climate change suggests that the demand for
air conditioners in buildings will increase in the near future.
According to the International Energy Agency [1], the use of air
conditioners and fans represents approximately 20% of the total
electricity used in buildings in the world today, and the projection
for the year 2050 is that this number will increase by at least a fac-
tor of 3. In Brazil, 16.7% of homes have this type of equipment [2].
This percentage may increase due to the occurrence of atypical
events, such as heat waves, and also an increase in the purchasing
power of the population. Thus, avoiding excessive thermal gains in
buildings provides direct benefits by reducing the internal temper-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: caren@ufam.edu.br (C. Michels), saulo@lmpt.ufsc.br (S. Güths),
deivis.marinoski@ufsc.br (D.L. Marinoski), roberto.lamberts@ufsc.br (R. Lamberts).
ature, improving the user thermal comfort and reducing the
demand for air conditioning systems. In addition, it would lead
to a reduction in the demand for electricity and reduce the need
for future investments in power generation.
In countries with hot climates, heating promoted by the sun is
the main concern when assessing the thermal performance of
buildings. In single-storied dwellings, most of the thermal gain
occurs through the roof and the materials used can lead to this
thermal gain being higher or lower.
Strategies to reduce thermal gains through roofs are not yet
used in the vast majority of buildings in Brazil. In recent years, reg-
ulations have been established and are in the process of being
implemented, aiming to improve the thermal performance and
energy efficiency of commercial, service, public and also residential
buildings [3,4].
The thermal performance of roofs can generally be improved
through the use of thermal insulation (reflective or conductive),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110569
0378-7788/Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Nomenclature

UFSC Federal University of Santa Catarina Rsi thermal resistance of internal surface (m2 K/W)
PVC polyvinyl chloride ISO International Organization for Standardization
EPS expanded polystyrene R thermal resistance (m2 K/W)
P
Tin air temperature inside the cavity (°C)
P
DT sum of temperature differences (°C)
thk thickness (mm) q sum of heat flow density values (W/m2)
PID proportional-integral-derivative controller

tiles with a white outer covering or painted white, and the so- international standards. In addition, mathematical models and
called green (living) roofs. simulations, which consider thermal resistance and thermal trans-
Many experimental research studies have been carried out to mittance, often do not reach an acceptable degree of approxima-
investigate the thermal performance of roofs, either in test cells tion to the actual thermal conditions of roofs, requiring
or in buildings of real dimensions. The use of test cells to investi- calibrations and adjustments based on experimental values speci-
gate the thermal performance of a roof increases the possibility fic to the each region. Thus, since this is a field evaluation, the
of performing simultaneous analysis involving different types of results could aid an assessment of the standards available and con-
construction and thermal insulation. In this regard, most studies tribute to a better understanding of the physical phenomena asso-
have been carried out in test cells to evaluate the influence of ciated with heat transfer in roofs.
the tile colour and the use of thermal insulation in reducing the
internal temperature.
2. Materials and methods
Winandy and Beaumont [5], for example, found that the use of
white fibreglass tiles reduced the internal temperature by 5 to 8 °C
2.1. Experimental test rig
when compared to black tiles, for the temperate climate in Valley
View, Ohio, USA. Bansal et al. [6] and Nahar et al. [7] found that the
The experimental tests were carried out in the city of Flo-
use of white tiles can reduce indoor temperatures by up to 7 °C,
rianópolis (Santa Catarina, Brazil), located at 27°360 S latitude and
when compared to black painted tiles for a humid tropical climate
48°310 W longitude, classified according to ASHRAE Standard 169
(New Delhi, India), and to a galvanized steel sheet for an arid cli-
- Climatic Data for Building Design Standards [17] as climate 2A,
mate (Jodhpur, India), respectively. In other studies carried out in
hot humid. The average annual temperature is 21 °C. In the hottest
test cells, the heat flow and temperatures were monitored, making
month of the year, maximum temperatures range from 28 °C to
it possible to verify the reduction in thermal gain in several loca-
33 °C and in the coldest month, minimum temperatures range
tions including India and Guadeloupe [7,8] and the calculation of
from 7.5 °C to 12 °C. The average annual relative humidity is 82%
the thermal resistance of roofs [10,10] in tropical (Reunion Island)
and the rainfall is approximately 1500 mm per year.
and subtropical (Australia) climates.
This study was carried out using an experimental test rig that
Studies in buildings of real dimensions have been conducted by
holds up to eight roofs, built on a platform on the roof of the
several researchers and the reduction in the thermal load for cool-
Mechanical Engineering Department at the Federal University of
ing or heating and the thermal resistance of the roofs were evalu-
Santa Catarina (UFSC). At this site, the experimental test rig was
ated. Asadi et al [11] found that roofs with dark asphalt shingles
exposed to the real climate conditions of the city of Florianópolis
and a radiant barrier showed an 8 to 25% reduction in thermal
and was free from shade created by buildings and vegetation.
loads for cooling in Zachary (Louisiana, USA) in relation to a roof
The experimental test rig is 1.56 m wide and 3.30 m long, and it
without a radiant barrier. D́Orazio et al. [12] compared the thermal
can be used to carry out the simultaneous analysis of eight roofs
performance of two thermally-insulated roofs with 12 cm of EPS in
with base dimensions of 0.70 m  0.70 m each, according to the
Ancona (Italy), with a radiant barrier installed in only one roof. The
floor plan shown in Fig. 1 [18].
research showed that for hot and temperate climates, the addition
The experimental test rig has a metallic structure on which the
of a radiant barrier is not effective on highly insulated roofs.
coatings were installed on the side faces and on the bottom were
Other researchers have carried out studies on roofs of real
aluminium plates and a layer of thermal insulation in expanded
dimensions and shown that the use of cool roofs (greater reflec-
polystyrene (thickness = 50 mm). The roofs used in this study were
tance and thermal emission) is effective in reducing the thermal
installed on the upper part of the experimental test rig. The inter-
load required for cooling. Parker and Barkazi [13] found that there
nal temperature of the rig was maintained at 23.5 °C with the use
was a 19% reduction in the daily use of energy for cooling after the
of two window air conditioners (total of 16,500 BTU) fixed on the
roofs were whitened, and Parker et al. [14] reported a 18–26%
smallest faces of the experimental test rig and with two thermal
reduction when compared to dark grey fibreglass shingles, both
resistances (total of 5000 W) installed inside the air ducts. Below
studies being conducted in Florida (USA). The internal temperature
each PVC ceiling, a fan was installed in order to distribute the air
of buildings with cool roofs was also assessed by Zinzi and Fasano
evenly. Fig. 2 shows half of the experimental test rig. Details of
[15], who observed a reduction of 1 to 2 °C in Rome (Italy) while
the construction and calibration of the experimental bench have
Piselo et al. [16] reported a reduction of more than 4.5 °C in Perugia
been previously published by Michels et al. [18].
(Italy).
Similar construction systems can generate different thermal
responses according to the specific environmental conditions for 2.2. Description of roofs
each region of the planet. Thus, this study brings contributions to
improve our understanding of the thermal performance of roofs Four experimental test rig roof modules were used and the con-
through experimental tests for a coastal city in southern Brazil. figuration of each one is shown in Table 1. A fibre cement tile was
The results of this study, besides identifying the roof with the best tested as it is a very common construction material used for roof-
thermal performance, also allow a comparison with national and ing in Brazil.
2
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Fig. 1. Floor plan of the experimental test rig [18].

Fig. 2. Exploded perspective of half of the experimental test rig.

Table 1 The radiant barrier was a commercial product with only one side
Description of roofs. with aluminium foil. It was installed with the aluminium surface
Roof Label Symbol Roof system configuration facing downward, nailed to roof slats, creating an air gap on both
1 REF Fibre cement tile (q = 0.30) + attic air + PVC ceiling
sides of the barrier. The EPS thermal insulation was fixed horizon-
tally on the top of the ceiling, creating just one air gap.
2 WHT White fibre cement tile (q = 0.76) + attic air + PVC To standardize the colour of the tile surface, grey paint was
ceiling applied to roofs 1, 3 and 4, and their solar reflectance was mea-
3 RB Fibre cement tile (q = 0.30) + layer of air + radiant sured as 0.30. The tile of roof 2 was painted white and its solar
barrier + attic air + PVC ceiling
reflectance was 0.76. Table 2 shows the thermal properties of the
4 EPS Fibre cement tile (q = 0.30) + attic air + EPS + PVC
roof materials.
ceiling

2.3. Sensors and measurement period

Roof 1 was the reference roof (REF) and its thermal performance
was compared to those of the following roof set ups: Roof 2) a tile
painted white with the solar reflectance of 0.76 (WHT); Roof 3) a
tile with reflective thermal insulation (RB); and Roof 4) a tile with
conventional thermal insulation with a thickness of 40 mm (EPS).
3
To measure the surface and air temperatures, T-type thermo-
couples (AWG 36) were used and the heat flux of the roofs was
measured by tangential gradient heat flow transducers with
dimensions of 100  100 mm and thickness of 1 mm [19].
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Table 2
Thermal properties of materials.

Thickness (m) Specific heat kJ/(kg.K) Mass density (kg/m3) Heat capacity
kJ/(m2.K)
Fibre cement tile 0.008 0.84 1900 12.77
PVC ceiling 0.01 0.96 273 2.62
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 0.04 1.42 35 2.48

deviate by more than 5%, for light elements. All roofs analysed in
this research are light, with specific heat capacity less than 20
KJ / (m2K), as shown in Table 3.
Thermal resistance was analysed daily and monthly and for the
total period of eight months. The experimental thermal resistance
results obtained were compared with the thermal resistances pro-
vided in ISO 6946 [21] and NBR 15220-2 [22].
P
Fig. 3a. Scheme showing position of sensors on REF and WHT roofs. DT
R¼ P ð1Þ
q

3. Results

3.1. Summer period

The days selected to graphically show the thermal behaviour of

Fig. 3b. Scheme showing position of sensors on RB roof.
Fig. 3c. Scheme showing position of sensors on EPS roof.
Figs. 3a, 3b and 3c show the positioning of the sensors for the REF,
WHT, RB and EPS roofs.
The measurements were performed over an eight-month per-
iod, from July 2017 to February 2018, encompassing the winter,
spring and summer seasons in the southern hemisphere. Thus,
periods of both high and cold temperatures were included for the
collection of temperature and heat flow data.
The thermal resistance of each roof was calculated from the
ratio between the sum of the temperature differences and the
sum of the heat flows (Eq. (1)), as recommended by ISO 9869
[20]. This standard is used to calculate thermal transmittance or
thermal resistance through in-situ measurements, since steady-
state conditions are not achieved on site. The measurements
should exceed 72 h if the temperature is stable around the heat
flux and the R-value obtained at the end of the test should not
Table 3
Thermal capacity of roofs.
REF WHT RB
Roof heat capacity (kJ/(m2.K)) 15.4 15.4 15.4
the roofs for the period of high temperatures were the 23rd and
24th of January 2018 (days 23/01 and 24/01). These were the hot-
test days of the analysis period, with maximum external tempera-
tures of 43.6 °C and 37 °C and minimum external temperatures of
23 °C and 23.4 °C, respectively. The maximum solar radiation was
approximately 1000 W/m2.
Fig. 4 shows the outer surface temperature data obtained for the
tiles. The reference roof (REF) showed a maximum tile temperature
of 58.8 °C and a minimum of 20.8 °C (day 23/01). It was observed
that the use of thermal insulating material, either insulation by
reflection (RB) or conventional insulation (EPS), increased the max-
imum tile surface temperature by around 7 °C in relation to REF.
Thermally insulated roofs had a higher surface temperature
than the reference roof, even with similar solar absorption. The
air temperature in the attic in the EPS roof was approximately
10 °C higher than that of the reference roof, which may have con-
tributed to the increase in the surface temperature of the tiles. The
same reasoning can be applied to the radiant barrier roof, however,
due to the position of the radiant barrier, the air layer formed
between the insulating blanket and the tiles showed the highest
temperatures. Where the thermal resistance is higher, there will
be greater heating of the tile and thus the most isolated cells will
have greater tile heating.
The white roof (WHT) had a maximum temperature of 45.5 °C, a
reduction of 13.6 °C when compared to REF. This reduction was
due to the solar reflectance value, q = 0.76, obtained by painting
the tile white.
The minimum tile surface temperatures were practically the
same for all roofs (around 21 °C).
For all test roofs the daytime ceiling temperatures were lower
compared with the reference roof, as shown in Fig. 5. The greatest
reduction in the ceiling temperature was observed for RB, with a
decrease of 3.3 °C in the peak hours, followed by EPS, which
showed a reduction of 2.6 °C. The reduction in the daytime ceiling
temperature for WHT was 1.8 °C.
The heat fluxes through the PVC ceilings of the four roofs are
shown in Fig. 6. It was observed that the maximum heat fluxes
for the different roofs occurred at a similar time, at approximately
EPS
14:30, with a delay of approximately two hours from the time of
17.8
maximum solar radiation.
4
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Fig. 4. Temperature data for outer surface of tiles obtained on the days of 23rd and 24th January 2018 (summer period).

Fig. 5. Ceiling surface temperature data obtained on the days of 23rd and 24th January 2018 (summer period).

For the peak hours, the EPS roof provided the greatest reduction
in heat transfer to the interior, followed by RB and WHT. These
reductions were 70%, 62% and 34%, respectively.
During the night, a small heat loss was observed, with similar
values for all roofs, since the night-time average temperature
was approximately 25 °C and the internal temperature of the
experimental test rig was 23.5 °C.
3.2. Winter period
The days of July 21st and 22nd 2017 (21/07 and 22/07) were
selected to show the results for a period of cold temperatures, since
these days showed the lowest external air temperatures of the
whole study period. The minimum and maximum external tem-

5
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Fig. 6. Heat flux through the ceiling on the days of 23rd and 24th January 2018 (summer period).

peratures were 11.3 °C and 25.5 °C, respectively, and the maximum
solar radiation was 678 W/m2.
In relation to outer surface temperature of the tiles (Fig. 7), it
was found that the roofs with a radiant barrier (RB) and with EPS
insulation were 3.5 °C and 3.0 °C higher in peak hours compared
to the reference roof (REF). On the other hand, the use of a white
roof tile (WHT) reduced this temperature by 16 °C, due to the
greater solar reflectance provided by the colour of the tiles
(q = 0.76).
Fig. 8 shows the ceiling temperatures recorded. It can be noted
that during the night (and in one period of the day) the ceiling tem-
peratures were below the internal air temperature, due to the
small period of thermal heat gain. The insulated roofs showed
the least fluctuation and the greatest influence from the indoor

Fig. 7. Outer surface temperature of tiles obtained on the 21st and 22nd July 2017 (winter period).

6
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

Fig. 8. Ceiling surface temperature data obtained on the days of 21st and 22nd July 2017 (winter period).

air temperature (maintained at 23.5 °C) of the experimental test
rig.
The heat flux over these two days is shown in Fig. 9, which ran-
ged from 46 W/m2 to 60 W/m2 in the reference roof (REF). It can
be observed that for these two days most of the heat flux is nega-
tive since the external air temperature reached up to 10 °C below
the internal temperature.
The maximum solar radiation occurred at approximately 12 pm,
and for all of the roofs the peak heat flux occurred one hour later
during the winter and two hours later during the summer. This dif-
ference may be related to the fact that on the days in the summer
period there was more cloudiness, leading to a more irregular solar
radiation and a greater time lag with regard to the external
temperature.
The heat flows at peak hours for the test tiles WHT, RB and EPS
were similar, with values approximately 65% lower in relation to
the reference roof (REF).

Fig. 9. Heat flux through the ceiling during the winter period (21st and 22nd July 2017).

7
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al.
During the night, WHT had a heat flux similar to that of the ref-
erence roof, reaching a minimum value of approximately 40 W/
m2. The RB and EPS roofs reduced the thermal heat losses by 48%
and 68%, respectively.
When evaluating the heat transfer for the total period of eight
months (Fig. 10), it was found that all of the test roofs reduced
the thermal exchange between the experimental test rig and the
external environment compared to the reference roof, for both heat
flow directions. However, an exception was the white roof, which,
for the upward heat flow, allowed a thermal loss 10% greater than
Fig. 10. Reduction in heat transfer through roofs over the study period (8 months).
Fig. 11. Roof thermal resistance during two days: A. Reference roof; B. White roof; C. Radiant barrier roof; D. EPS roof.
8
Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569
that of the reference roof. The upward flow of heat does not occur
only in periods without sun or at night, it can occur on cold days,
even in the sun. It can be seen in Fig. 9 that the heat flow begins
to decrease only at approximately 11 am. Thus, the difference
can be attributed to the absorbance of the tile.
For the upward heat flow, the RB and EPS roofs reduced the heat
flow by 38% and 49%, respectively, during the total measurement
period.
Regarding the downward heat flow, all roofs reduced the heat
transfer to the interior of the experimental test rig over the
eight-month measurement period. The decrease in the thermal
gain was 70% for the roof with conventional thermal insulation
(EPS) and 67% for the roof with the radiant barrier (RB). The 3% dif-
ference in performance between these roofs is small and could be
within the accuracy and resolution of the sensors used.
The white roof (WHT) showed a 55% reduction in heat transfer
in relation to the reference roof for the downward heat flow. In
periods of heat gain, it was noted that WHT had an advantage over
the thermally insulated roofs, since it lost more heat to the outside
during the night (negative flow), which would lead to a reduction
in the internal temperature of unconditioned buildings in hot peri-
ods. During the winter the WHT roof showed a disadvantage over
the thermally insulated roofs since the thermal exchanges to the
exterior were greater.
3.3. Thermal resistance analysis
The thermal resistance of the roofs was analysed daily and
monthly and also for the whole period of eight months, for upward
and downward heat flow.
The daily thermal resistance was measured on two days in the
summer period (23rd and 24th January 2018). Fig. 11A, 11B, 11C
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al. Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569

and 11D show the thermal resistance behaviour as a function of

heat flow and temperature difference for the following roofs,
respectively: REF, WHT, RB and EPS.
When the heat flow or the temperature difference was close to
zero or null, the thermal resistance values were underestimated or
overestimated, which occurred when there was a change in the
heat flow direction, that is, twice a day: in the morning it changes
from upward to downward and in the afternoon when the heat
flow reverses again. The thermal resistance values showed less
variation after the predominant heat flow for the period stabilized
and the temperature difference values were far from zero. During
the night, there is a greater chance of stabilization of the heat flux
and the thermal resistance is more stable.
The monthly thermal resistance values for each roof are shown
in Tables 4 and 5. For upward heat flow (Table 4), the values for the
reference roof (REF) were 0.22–0.26 m2K/W and the white roof
(WHT) had similar values (0.21–0.27 m2K/W). For the RB roof the
values were in the range of 0.57–0.69 m2K/W and the EPS roof Fig. 12. Thermal resistance of the roofs, for the upward and downward flow during
showed the highest thermal resistance values (0.94–1.14 m2K/W). the study period of eight months.
Over the measurement period, the thermal resistance for
upward heat flow showed values with little monthly variation,
being 5.3% for REF, 8.2% for WHT, 5.9% for RB and 6.8% for EPS. study. The thermal resistance for the downward heat flow showed
For the downward heat flow (Table 5), the thermal resistances higher values than for the upward heat flow, as previously
varied from 0.29 - 0.32 m2K/W for the reference roof, 0.24– observed by other authors [24,24].
0.28 m2K/W for WHT, 1.08–1.35 m2K/W for RB and 1.25– For the downward heat flow, the thermal resistance obtained
1.37 m2K/W for EPS. The downward thermal resistance showed for the reference roof was 0.31 m2K/W and for the upward heat
stable values, being 3.4% for the reference roof, 5.8% for WHT, flow it was 0.25 m2K/W. The white roof had a thermal resistance
7.3% for RB and 3.6% for EPS. of 0.25 m2K/W for both directions of heat flow.
To characterize the roofs, the thermal resistance for the total In the case of the RB roof, the thermal resistance for the down-
measurement period was calculated, as shown in Fig. 12. It was ward heat flow was 1.20 m2K/W and for the EPS roof the corre-
calculated over the course of the eight-month measurement per- sponding value was 1.29 m2K/W. Despite the differences between
iod, under different climatic conditions, which affect the tempera- the types of insulation, that is, one isolates by providing a low
tures and the heat flow for each roof. Nevertheless, the thermal emissivity layer and has a very thin thickness (6 to 8 mm) and
resistance was found to be stable, with coefficients of variation that the other isolates by conduction and has a thickness of 4 cm, the
reached a maximum of 8%, a value considered acceptable for this difference in the resistance values for the two roofs was only 7%.
For the upward heat flow, the RB roof showed lower thermal
resistance than the EPS roof, with a difference of 0.43 m2K/W or
Table 4
39%. Thus, the radiant barrier roof allows greater heat loss when
Upward roof thermal resistance.
compared to the EPS roof. This is related to the difference in the
R (m2K/W) heat transfer process prevalent in each case, i.e., conduction for
REF WHT RB EPS the roof with EPS and radiation for the roof with a radiant barrier.
RJuly 2017 0.25 0.25 0.69 1.10 The results indicate that for Florianópolis, which has hot sum-
RAugust 2017 0.26 0.25 0.64 1.14 mers and not very harsh winters, the radiant barrier would be
RSeptember 2017 0.26 0.26 0.66 1.10 the most suitable solution, as it reduces the heat flow gain during
ROctober 2017 0.24 0.26 0.60 1.05
the summer and reduces and the heat losses during the winter. The
RNovember 2017 0.24 0.27 0.64 1.01
RDecember 2017 0.25 0.27 0.64 1.02
reason for considering the radiant barrier as the ideal insulation for
RJanuary 2018 0.22 0.21 0.57 0.96 the climate of the studied city is due to the reduction of thermal
RFebruary 2018 0.25 0.24 0.60 0.94 gains in the hottest period of the year and also reduced thermal
Standard deviation 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 losses during the winter. However, when using the radiant barrier
Coefficient of variation 5.3 8.2 5.9 6.8
as thermal insulation there is a need to take some precautions, for
instance, the aluminium surface should face downwards, to avoid
surface oxidation. Also, it has been reported that after a six-
month measurement period, the emissivity had increased from
Table 5
0.06 to 0.70, that is, the radiant barrier had lost its main character-
Downward thermal resistance of the roofs.
istic [25].
R (m2K/W) It is therefore clear that thermally-insulated roofs are effective
REF WHT RB EPS in reducing both thermal gains and losses, an ideal scenario for
RJuly 2017 0.32 0.27 1.26 1.25 artificially conditioned buildings in Brazil. For naturally-
RAugust 2017 0.32 0.27 1.35 1.28 ventilated buildings, the use of white tiles is of interest, since it
RSeptember 2017 0.32 0.28 1.31 1.31 reduces daytime thermal gains and allows the building to lose heat
ROctober 2017 0.31 0.25 1.18 1.35 during the night, leading to a reduction in the internal
RNovember 2017 0.32 0.26 1.23 1.37
RDecember 2017 0.31 0.26 1.22 1.34
temperature.
RJanuary 2018 0.29 0.25 1.08 1.26 Table 6 shows a comparison between the experimental results
RFebruary 2018 0.30 0.24 1.14 1.25 and those provided by ISO 6946 [21] and the Brazilian standard
Standard deviation 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.05 NBR 15220-2 [22], which used ISO 6946 of 1996 as a normative
Coefficient of variation 3.4 5.8 7.3 3.6
reference.
9
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al.
Table 6
Comparison of experimental thermal resistance values and those provided by ISO 6946 and NBR 15220-2.
Upward heat flow
(m2K/W)
Experimental ISO 6946
REF 0.25 0.21
WHT 0.25 0.21
RB 0.65 0.47
EPS 1.08 1.21
For the upward heat flow, the experimental results showed a
16% difference in the thermal resistance values for the reference
roof and WHT when compared to ISO 6946 and 24% when com-
pared to NBR 15220-2. For the EPS roof, the differences were 12%
and 10% in relation to the corresponding ISO and NBR values,
respectively.
In the case of the downward heat flow, the experimental results
for the reference roof showed a difference of 10% in relation to ISO
6946 and 16% in relation to NBR 15220-2. The roof with white tiles
showed differences of 12% and 4% in relation to the thermal resis-
tance values given in the ISO and NBR standards, respectively, and
the corresponding values for EPS were similar, that is, 11% and 2%,
respectively.
The RB roof showed the greatest differences compared with the
reference standards. For upward heat flow, the difference was 28%
in relation to ISO 6946 and 29% in relation to NBR 15220-2 while
for downward heat flow the differences were even greater, i.e.,
41% in relation to ISO 6946 and 30% in relation to NBR 15220-2.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to evaluate the thermal performance
of roofs using an experimental bench [18]. The results presented
herein refer to four roofs evaluated for a period of eight months.
The roofing configurations (reference, white tiles, radiant barrier
and expanded polystyrene) selected are commonly applied in civil
construction in Brazil. Based on the results obtained, the main find-
ings were: a) The use of thermal insulation increased the outer sur-
face temperature of the tiles. On the other hand, the use of white
tiles resulted in the opposite effect, regardless of the period anal-
ysed (summer or winter); b) The heat transfer flow direction (up-
ward and downward) was reduced in the thermally insulated
roofs, with expanded polystyrene (EPS) having the best perfor-
mance. The roof with white tiles showed a reduction for the down-
ward heat flow and an increase for the upward heat flow; c) In the
case of the thermal resistance for the downward heat flow there
was a small difference between the roofs with radiant barrier
(RB) and EPS, whereas, for the upward heat flow, the difference
in thermal resistance values for these two roofs was greater; and
d) The thermal resistance values obtained experimentally were
higher than those recommended by the standards, except for the
roof with EPS.
The observed increase in the outer surface temperature of the
tiles with the use of thermal insulation (RB and EPS) is consistent
with previously reported results [12,26,27]. The cited authors attri-
bute this finding to the high reflective capacity of the insulation,
which re-emits radiation toward the tiles, resulting in an increase
in their surface temperature. In addition, Parker and Sherwin [28]
note that this increase in surface temperature can reduce the use-
ful life of the tiles. The tiles on the roof with EPS thermal insulation
showed the highest surface temperature, due to less heat exchange
between the attic and the internal space of the experimental test
rig. In addition, the reduction in surface temperature with the
Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569
Downward heat flow
(m2K/W)
NBR15220 Experimental ISO 6946 NBR15220
0.19 0.31 0.28 0.26
0.19 0.25 0.28 0.26
0.46 1.20 0.71 0.84
1.19 1.29 1.43 1.26
use of white tiles has been the subject of many studies [7,13,29–
32]. According to the cited authors, this is due to the high solar
reflectance related to white tiles and these are recommended for
reducing the thermal gain of individual buildings and avoiding
the phenomenon of urban heat islands [16,33,34]. The thermal
resistance of roofs should thus be considered in future studies
involving this phenomenon.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is pioneering with
regard to the evaluation of heat flow (upward and downward) in
roofs installed on an experimental test rig for a long period. Our
results indicated that all roofs analysed reduced both thermal
losses and gains, regardless of the season. The only exception
occurred with the white roof tiles, where the upward heat flow
had a value of 10% in relation to the reference roof. Several stud-
ies have compared the thermal performance of reflective and con-
ventional insulation for selected periods of summer and winter
[12,27,35–37]. A common feature of these studies is the use of both
types of insulation in the same roof. These methodological differ-
ences make it difficult to compare the results. On the other hand,
in studies on roofs with reflective thermal insulation in a configu-
ration similar to that described herein [8,26], the results indicated
a reduction in thermal exchange, both upward and downward, cor-
roborating our findings. However, it should be noted that Soubd-
han et al. [8] installed a radiant barrier with one of the faces
adhered to the ceiling and Michels et al. [26] carried out a study
on a real-sized roof without controlling the temperature of the
internal environment. Nevertheless, in relation to the increase in
thermal losses observed in the roof with white tiles (WHT), this
can be attributed to the high solar reflectance of the surface, since
it took a longer time for the direction of flow to reverse, and there-
fore the upward heat flow remained for a longer period compared
with the reference roof.
On comparing the thermal resistance values for the roofs with
the RB and EPS the difference for the direction of downward heat
flow is small (~7%) and for the upward heat flow the difference is
greater (~40%). This disparity is due to the fact that when the direc-
tion of heat flow is downward most of the heat transfer occurs
through radiation and the RB is effective at reducing the radiant
heat flow [8]. For upward heat flow, heat transfer occurs mainly
by convection with radiation representing only a portion of the
total heat flow, and the RB is not as efficient as conventional insu-
lation [38].
Lastly, for the RB roof the thermal resistance results for upward
heat flow (0.65 m2K / W) were similar to those reported by Belusko
et al. [10] (0.67 m2K / W), also obtained experimentally. However,
when we compared the thermal resistance values obtained exper-
imentally and those calculated from the reference standards
[22,22], for both directions of heat flow, the results indicated that
the standards tend to give higher values for all types of roofs.
Exceptions were noted in the case of the EPS roof while. The anal-
ysis of such differences indicated that the RB roof presented the
greatest discrepancies (28% to 41%) in relation to the values calcu-
lated according to the standards. Thus, considering the thermal
resistance obtained with the use of low-emissivity materials, fur-
10
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al.
ther studies need to be conducted in order to confirm the findings
reported herein, so that the appropriate adjustments can be made
to the reference standards.
5. Conclusions
In this study the thermal behaviour and thermal resistance of
four different types of roofs, constructed with fibre cement tiles,
were determined. The tiles varied in terms of colour and type of
thermal insulation and measurements were taken on an experi-
mental test rig.
All of the roofs tested showed a reduction in heat transfer to the
internal part of the experimental test rig in relation to the refer-
ence roof over the eight-month study period, except for the
upward heat flow with white tiles, since the high solar reflectance
of the surface contributed to this roof losing more heat than the
reference roof.
This study concluded that the barrier is the insulation type that
brings most benefits in relation to the thermal performance of
buildings located in the climate of the study location, as it pro-
motes a great reduction in thermal gains and also reduction in
thermal losses, which is desirable in colder periods of the year.
The thermal resistance of each roof was calculated for upward
and downward heat flows. As expected, the values for the upward
heat flow were lower compared with the downward heat flow, due
to the increase in convection currents within the attic cavity.
The thermal resistance values for thermally insulated roofs (RB
and EPS), considering the downward direction of heat flow, were
similar. This is attributed to the form of heat transfer in roofs,
which is predominantly by radiation for this direction of flow, so
the use of thermal insulation with low emissivity reduced consid-
erably this heat flow. The thermal resistance values for upward
heat flow showed that the EPS roof provided better insulation than
the RB roof. It was observed that the roofs with a radiant barrier
and EPS showed little difference in terms of thermal insulation
during the period of heat gain, and presented different thermal
resistances for the period of thermal losses (generally at night).
Considering that many buildings in Brazil are not thermally
conditioned, the use of a radiant barrier becomes important, as it
reduces the thermal exchange between the building and the exter-
nal environment, but also allows the building to lose more heat
during the summer nights when compared to EPS coverage, con-
tributing to a reduction in the internal temperature.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Caren Michels: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Saulo Güths: Conceptualization, Fund-
ing acquisition, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Deivis L. Mari-
noski: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing - origi-
nal draft, Writing - review & editing. Roberto Lamberts:
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration,
Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
11
Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Brazilian agencies FAPEAM (Foundation for Research Support in
Amazonas), Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM) and CNPq
(National Council for Scientific and Technological Development -
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation).
References
[1] OECD/IEA, The Future of Cooling Opportunities for energy-efficient air
conditioning Together Secure Sustainable, (2018) 92. www.iea.org/t&c/.
[2] Programa Nacional de Conservação de Energia e Eficiência Energética, Pesquisa
de Posse e Hábitos de Uso de Equipamentos Elétricos na Classe Residencial,
2019.
[3] Instituto nacional de metrologia (INMETRO), Regulamento Técnico da
Qualidade para o Nível de Eficiência Energética de Edificações Comerciais, de
Serviços e Públicas (RTQ-C), (2010) 96.
[4] Instituto nacional de metrologia (INMETRO), Regulamento Técnico da
Qualidade para o Nível de Eficiência Energética de Edificações Residenciais,
(2012) 136.
[5] J.E. Winandy, R. Beaumont, Roof temperatures in simulated attics, Res. Pap. -
For. Prod. Lab. USDA For. Serv. (1995) 14.
[6] N.K. Bansal, S.N. Garg, S. Kothari, Effect of exterior surface colour on the
thermal performance of buildings, Build. Environ. 27 (1992) 31–37, https://doi.
org/10.1016/0360-1323(92)90005-A.
[7] N.M. Nahar, P. Sharma, M.M. Purohit, Studies on solar passive cooling
techniques for arid areas, Energy Convers. Manage. 40 (1999) 89–95, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(98)00039-9.
[8] T. Soubdhan, T. Feuillard, F. Bade, Experimental evaluation of insulation
material in roofing system under tropical climate, Sol. Energy 79 (2005) 311–
320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.10.009.
[9] F. Miranville, A.H. Fakra, S. Guichard, H. Boyer, J.P. Praene, D. Bigot,
Evaluation of the thermal resistance of a roof-mounted multi-reflective
radiant barrier for tropical and humid conditions: Experimental study from
field measurements, Energy Build. 48 (2012) 79–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.01.013.
[10] M. Belusko, F. Bruno, W. Saman, Investigation of the thermal resistance of
timber attic spaces with reflective foil and bulk insulation, heat flow up, Appl.
Energy 88 (2011) 127–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.017.
[11] S. Asadi, M.M Hassan, Evaluation of the thermal performance of a roof-
mounted radiant barrier in residential buildings: Experimental study, J. Build.
Phys. 38 (2014) 66–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/1744259113499213.
[12] M. D’Orazio, C. Di Perna, E. Di Giuseppe, The effects of roof covering on the
thermal performance of highly insulated roofs in Mediterranean climates,
Energy Build. 42 (2010) 1619–1627, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.04.004.
[13] D.S. Parker, S.F. Barkaszi Jr., Roof solar reflectance and cooling energy use: field
research results from Florida, Energy Build. 25 (1997) 105–115, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0378-7788(96)01000-6.
[14] D.S. Parker, J.K. Sonne, J.R. Sherwin, Comparative evaluation of the impact of
roofing systems on residential cooling energy demand in Florida Research
Description, Sol. Energy (1998) 219–234.
[15] M. Zinzi, G. Fasano, Properties and performance of advanced reflective paints
to reduce the cooling loads in buildings and mitigate the heat island effect in
urban areas, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 28 (2009) 123–139, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14786450802453314.
[16] A.L. Pisello, F. Rossi, F. Cotana, Summer and winter effect of innovative cool
roof tiles on the dynamic thermal behavior of buildings, Energies 7 (2014)
2343–2361, https://doi.org/10.3390/en7042343.
[17] ASHRAE, Standing Stand. Proj. Commitee 169. Clim. Data Build. Des. (2013)
100.
[18] C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski, R. Lamberts, Development of an
experimental test rig for the evaluation of the thermal performance of
building roofs, Energy and Buildings 180 (2018) 32–41, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.023.
[19] S. Güths, P. Philippi, E. Gaviot, P. Thery, Um transdutor de fluxo de calor a
gradiente tangencial, in: XI Congr. Bras. Em Eng. Mecânica, Anais do XI COBEM,
Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, 1995.
[20] ISO 9869 Thermal insulation — Building elements — In-situ measurement of
thermal resistance and thermal transmittance — Part 1: Heat flow meter
method, 2014.
[21] CEN, BS EN ISO 6946: 2017 BSI Standards Publication Building components
and building elements - Thermal resistance and thermal transmittance -
Calculation methods, (2017).
[22] ABNT, Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR 15220-2 - Desempenho
térmico de edificações. Parte 2: Método de cálculo da transmitância térmica,
da capacidade térmica, do atraso térmico e do fator solar de elementos e
componentes de edificações, (2005) 1–21.
[23] H.H. Saber, Practical correlations for thermal resistance of horizontal enclosed
airspaces with upward heat flow for building applications, Build. Environ. 61
(2013) 169–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.12.016.
C. Michels, S. Güths, D.L. Marinoski et al.
[24] H.H. Saber, Practical correlation for thermal resistance of 45° sloped enclosed
airspaces with downward heat flow for building applications, Build. Environ.
65 (2013) 154–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.04.009.
[25] C. Michels, S. Güths, DESEMPENHO TÉRMICO DE ÁTICOS COM ISOLAMENTO,
in: ENCONTRO Nac. Tecnol. DO Ambient. CONSTRUÍDO, Foz do Iguaçu, 2018.
[26] C. Michels, R. Lamberts, S. Güths, Evaluation of heat flux reduction provided by
the use of radiant barriers in clay tile roofs, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 445–451,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.013.
[27] M. D’Orazio, C. Di Perna, E. Di Giuseppe, M. Morodo, Thermal performance of
an insulated roof with reflective insulation: Field tests under hot climatic
conditions, J. Build. Phys. 36 (2013) 229–246, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1744259112448181.
[28] D.S. Parker, J.R. Sherwin, Comparative summer attic thermal performance of
six roof constructions, ASHRAE Trans. 104 (1998) 1084–1092.
[29] J.R. Simpson, E.G. McPherson, The effects of roof albedo modification on
cooling loads of scale model residences in Tucson, Arizona, Energy Build. 25
(1997) 127–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(96)01002-X.
[30] H. Suehrcke, E.L. Peterson, N. Selby, Effect of roof solar reflectance on the
building heat gain in a hot climate, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 2224–2235,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.06.015.
[31] A.L. Pisello, F. Cotana, The thermal effect of an innovative cool roof on
residential buildings in Italy: Results from two years of continuous
monitoring, Energy Build. 69 (2014) 154–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2013.10.031.
12
Energy & Buildings 231 (2021) 110569
[32] R.T.A. Prado, F.L. Ferreira, Measurement of albedo and analysis of its influence
the surface temperature of building roof materials, Energy Build. 37 (2005)
295–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.03.009.
[33] M. Santamouris, A. Synnefa, T. Karlessi, Using advanced cool materials in the
urban built environment to mitigate heat islands and improve thermal
comfort conditions, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 3085–3102, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2010.12.023.
[34] A. Synnefa, M. Santamouris, I. Livada, A study of the thermal performance of
reflective coatings for the urban environment, Solar Energy 80 (2006) 968–
981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.08.005.
[35] M.A. Medina, On the performance of radiant barriers in combination with
different attic insulation levels, Energy Build. 33 (2000) 31–40, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00065-7.
[36] D.W. Winiarski, D.L. O’Neal, A quasi-steady-state model of attic heat transfer
with radiant barriers, Energy Build. 24 (1996) 183–194, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(96)00987-5.
[37] M.A. Medina, C.B. Young, Evaluating the sensitivity of attic radiant barrier
performance to climate parameters, J. Energy Eng. 134 (2008) 2–5, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(2008)134:1(2).
[38] S. Wai, C.H. Lim, E. Ilias, B. Salleh, Reflective thermal insulation systems in
building : A review on radiant barrier and reflective insulation, 65 (2016) 643–
661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.002.