Solar radiation properties of common membrane roofs used in building
structures

Hongbo Liu, Bo Li, Zhihua Chen, Ting Zhou, Qi Zhang

PII: S0264-1275(16)30673-6
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.068
Reference: JMADE 1816

To appear in:

Received date: 28 February 2016

Revised date: 1 May 2016
Accepted date: 19 May 2016

Please cite this article as: Hongbo Liu, Bo Li, Zhihua Chen, Ting Zhou, Qi Zhang, Solar
radiation properties of common membrane roofs used in building structures, (2016),
doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.068

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Solar radiation properties of common membrane roofs used in building

structures

Hongbo Liu a, Bo Li a, Zhihua Chen a*, Ting Zhou b, Qi Zhang b

T
a

IP
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin
University, Tianjin 300072, China

R
b
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China

SC
Abstract: Membrane roofs are widely used building materials, and their solar radiation

coefficients significantly affect the thermal environment of the steel structures below

NU
them. In this study, the solar radiation coefficients of common membrane roof
MA
materials, namely, ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polytetrafluoroethylene

(PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), thermoplastic olefin (TPO), and

D

polyethylene (PE), were obtained from systematic specimen tests. The temperatures
TE

of steel plates below different types of membrane roofs were measured during
P

summer under solar radiation. A numerical simulation method was presented and
CE

verified. The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the test and
AC

numerical analyses. 1) The ETFE and PE membranes have a high solar radiation

transmittance of up to 0.8, which can be effectively modified by printing silver dots

and by increasing thickness. 2) The PTFE, PVDF, and TPO membranes have a

relatively low solar radiation transmittance below 0.25. 3) The temperature of steel

structures below the ETFE and PE membranes is over 61.7 °C during summer, which

is at least 27.7 °C higher than ambient air temperature. 4) The temperature of steel

*
Corresponding author. E-mail address: zhchen@tju.edu.cn ( Z.H. Chen)

1 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

structures below the PTFE, PVDF, and TPO membranes is over 41.2 °C during

summer, which is at least 7.2 °C higher than ambient air temperature.

Keywords: Membrane; Solar radiation properties; Thermal effect; Steel plate;

T
IP
Numerical analysis

R
1. Introduction

SC
Given their lightness and aesthetically pleasing appearance, membrane roofs have

NU
been commonly used in large-span steel structures in recent years [1–3], such as the

Eden Project (Fig. 1) in the United Kingdom and the Beijing National Aquatics Center
MA
(Fig. 2) in China, among others. However, given the high solar transmittance of these

membrane roofs, a considerable amount of solar radiation can pass through them and
D
TE

irradiate on the steel structures below them. Consequently, the temperature of the steel

structures becomes significantly higher than the corresponding ambient air

P
CE

temperature, which induces remarkable thermal stress and thermal displacement on

the steel structures [4-8]. Therefore, a non-uniform thermal load under solar radiation
AC

is the key load for large-span steel structures with membrane roofs.

Fig. 1. Eden Project. Fig. 2. Beijing National Aquatics

Center.

In some large-span steel structures, the steel members may be set in an enclosed space

2 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

between the upper membrane roof and the lower membrane ceiling; a good example

of such structure is the China National Stadium [9]. In the China National Stadium,

the steel members are enclosed by the upper ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE)

T
IP
membrane roof (with high solar transmittance) and the lower polytetrafluoroethylene

R
(PTFE) membrane ceiling (with low solar transmittance), as shown in Fig. 3.

SC
Therefore, a considerable amount of radiant energy can enter the enclosed space

NU
through the upper ETFE membrane roof, but only a small amount can pass through

the lower PTFE membrane ceiling. As mentioned earlier, a closed warm box is
MA
formed, which induces a significant and complicated non-uniform temperature field

on the steel members under solar radiation.

D
P TE
CE
AC

(a) Aerial view (b) Interior view

Fig. 3. China National Stadium.

Current research on membrane materials has focused on fabrication techniques

[10-11], mechanical properties [1, 12], thermal properties [2], and design methods [3].

Only a few studies have addressed solar radiation properties, which significantly

affect the indoor thermal environment of buildings and the temperature of steel

structures below the roof. In addition, several works on thermal indoor environment

under membrane roofs have also been conducted in recent years [13–15]. Jiang

3 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[16–17] measured and simulated the thermal environment in a built space under a

membrane structure. Harris [18] considered the long-wave transmission properties of

ETFE materials and explained the necessity for a methodology for estimating surface

T
IP
temperatures, heat losses, and solar gains.

R
In the present study, the solar radiation properties of membrane roofs with different

SC
materials, colors, thickness values, and printing dot ratios were obtained through

NU
testing. Furthermore, the temperatures of steel plates under different types of

membrane roofs and enclosing conditions were measured during summer. A

MA
numerical simulation method using a CFD package was also presented to analyze the

temperature of steel members under membrane roofs, which was verified using the
D
TE

test results. The solar radiation properties of the membrane roofs and their thermal

effect on the steel structures below them were discussed based on the experimental
P
CE

and analytical results.

2. Measurement of the solar radiation coefficients of the membrane roofs

AC

2.1. Measurement method

The solar radiation that eventually reaches the surface of the Earth has a wavelength

range of 280–2500 nm, mostly from 400 nm to 2000 nm. When sunlight irradiates on

an object, the object absorbs, reflects, and transmits solar radiation. The ratios of the

absorbed, reflected, and transmitted energy to the total solar radiation are defined as

solar absorptance , solar reflectance , and solar transmittance , respectively.

The relationship among these three coefficients is described as Eq. (1):

4 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

. (1)

In this study, the spectroscopy method was adopted to measure the solar radiation

coefficients. First, the reflectance and transmittance of a membrane roof for each

T
IP
wavelength ranging from 400 nm to 2000 nm were measured using an

R
ultraviolet–visible–near infrared spectrophotometer with an integrated sphere. Then,

SC
solar reflectance and solar transmittance were calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3),

NU
respectively, whereas solar absorptance was calculated using Eq. (1).

, (2)
MA
, (3)

where = transmittance of a membrane roof for the optical spectrum at

D
TE

wavelength ; = spectral intensity of the optical spectrum at wavelength ;

= wavelength interval, and ; n = number of measuring

P
CE

points; = reflectance of the standard whiteboard for the optical spectrum at

wavelength ; = reflectance of a membrane relative to the standard

AC

whiteboard for the optical spectrum at wavelength .

Solar radiation spectral intensity and wavelength interval were determined from the

Code ASTM G173-03.

2.2. Specimen design

Five types of membranes, which are typically used as building roofs, were selected to

obtain their solar radiation coefficients. These membranes were ETFE, PTFE,

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) coating, thermoplastic

5 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

olefin (TPO), and polyethylene (PE). Considering the effect of thickness, printing

silver dot ratio, and surface color, 25 membrane specimens were designed in this

research. Then, 3 of the same specimens for each membrane were manufactured and

T
IP
measured. The average value was considered for the final result.

R
For the ETFE membrane, 11 specimens were designed with different colors, printing

SC
silver dot ratios, and layer numbers (Fig. 5 and Table 1). For the PTFE membrane, the

NU
color was brown after manufacturing, and then turned into white after 3 months under

solar radiation. Considering the color changes and the different manufacturers, 11
MA
specimens of the PTFE membrane were designed (Fig. 4 and Table 1). The FGT

specimens were from SKYTOP PTFE. The B18039 and B18089 specimens were from
D
TE

the Duraskin Membrane Company in Germany. The H302 specimen was from the

Weilikai Membrane Company in China. For the PVC–PVDF, TPO, and PE

P
CE

membranes, one specimen from each kind was designed in this research, as listed in

Fig. 4 and Table 1.

AC

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

6 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
S11 S12 S13 S14 S15

R IP
SC
S16 S17 S18 S19 S20

NU
MA
S21 S22 S23 S24 S25
Fig. 4. Membrane test specimens.
D
TE

2.3. Analysis of the results

The solar absorptance , solar reflectance , and solar transmittance of all the
P
CE

specimens are listed in Table 1. These variables provide a significant parameter value

in the non-uniform temperature numerical simulation model for steel structures below
AC

a membrane roof under solar radiation. The transmittance and reflectance curves

within the wavelength range of 400–2000 nm for all the specimens are shown in Figs.

5 and 6, respectively.

Table 1
Solar radiation coefficients of the membranes.
Specime
t/m
n Membrane type color
m
number
S1 colorles 0.0 0.8 0.1
ETF colorless ETFE 0.25
s 8 0 2
E
S2 wathet ETFE 0.25 wathet 0.0 0.7 0.2

7 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9 0 1
S3 0.6 0.0 0.3
ETFE printing dots 0.25 silver
1 5 4
S4 colorles 0.3 0.3 0.3
ETFE with 63% printing dots 0.25

T
s 7 2 0

IP
S5 colorles 0.5 0.1 0.3
ETFE with 80% printing dots 0.25
s 2 6 2

R
S6 colorles 0.1 0.6 0.1
double-layer colorless ETFE 0.5

SC
s 5 9 6
S7 colorles 0.2 0.5 0.2
triple-layer colorless ETFE 0.75
s 0 7 3

NU
S8 colorles 0.6 0.0 0.3
double-layer printing dots 0.5
s 1 2 7
MA
S9 colorles 0.6 0.0 0.3
triple-layer printing dots 0.75
s 2 1 7
S10 triple-layer ETFE colorles 0.5 0.1 0.4
0.75
(63%63%0%) s 0 0 0
D

S11 triple-layer ETFE colorles 0.5 0.0 0.4

TE

0.75
(63%63%46%) s 2 7 1
S12 0.6 0.2 0.1
FGT-250D-2 0.25 white
P

2 4 4
CE

S13 0.7 0.1 0.1

FGT-250 0.35 white
2 4 4
S14 0.6 0.1 0.2
AC

brown
5 0 5
FGT-600 0.6
S15 0.7 0.1 0.1
white
3 0 7
S16 0.6 0.0 0.3
PTFE brown
5 4 2
FGT-800 0.8
S17 0.7 0.0 0.1
white
7 5 8
S18 0.7 0.0 0.2
brown
3 2 5
FGT-1000 1.0
S19 0.7 0.0 0.1
white
9 3 8
S20 0.6 0.0 0.3
H302 0.6 brown
4 2 4

8 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

S21 0.5 0.0 0.4

B18039 0.5 brown
6 4 0
S22 0.6 0.0 0.3
B18089 0.7 brown
0 2 8

T
S23 0.8 0.0 0.1
TPO TPO 1.2 white
1 0 9

IP
S24 PVD 0.8 0.0 0.1
PVC–PVDF 1.0 white

R
F 7 3 0

SC
S25 0.0 0.7 0.1
PE PE membrane 0.08
8 4 8
Note: t denotes the thickness of the membrane specimens.

NU
0.8 0.7
S1 S2
0.7 S3 S4 0.6
S5
0.6
MA
0.5
0.5
Reflectance
Reflectance

0.4
0.4 S6 S7
S8 S9
0.3 0.3 S10
D

0.2 0.2
0.1
0.1
TE

0.0
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Wavelength(nm) Wavelength(nm)
P

(a) Specimens of S1 to S5 (b) Specimens of S6 to S10

0.8 0.9
CE

0.8
0.7
0.7
S16 S17
AC
Reflectance

Reflectance

0.6 0.6 S18 S19

S20
0.5
0.5
0.4
S11 S12
S13 S14
0.4 S15 0.3

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Wavelength(nm) Wavelength(nm)

(c) Specimens of S11 to S15 (d) Specimens of S16 to S20

9 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.0

0.8

0.6

Reflectance

T
0.4
S21 S22
S23 S24

IP
0.2 S25

R
0.0
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100

SC
Wavelength(nm)

(e) Specimens of S21 to S25

Fig. 5. Reflectance curves of the membrane specimens.

NU
1.0 1.0
S1 S2
S6 S7
S3 S4
S8 S9
0.8 S5 0.8 S10
MA
Transmittance

Transmittance

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
D

0.2 0.2
TE

0.0 0.0
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Wavelength(nm) Wavelength(nm)
P

(a) Specimens of S1 to S5 (b) Specimens of S6 to S10

CE

1.0
S11 S12
S13 S14
0.8 S25
AC
Transmittance

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Wavelength(nm)

(c) Specimens of S11 to S14 and S25

Fig. 6. Transmittance curves of the membrane specimens.

The following conclusions were drawn from Table 1 and Figs. 5 to 6.

(1) The solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane without printing dots and

10 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the PE membrane is higher than that of the other types of membranes. The solar

radiation transmittance of the PTFE and PVDF membranes is lower, whereas that of

the TPO membrane is the lowest, with a value of 0. The colorless single-layer ETFE

T
IP
membrane without printing dots has the highest solar radiation transmittance, with a

R
value of 0.8.

SC
(2) The printing dot in the ETFE membrane has a weak solar radiation transmittance

NU
but strong reflectance and absorptance; thus, the solar radiation transmittance of the

ETFE membrane is modified by arranging different printing dot ratios, which is

MA
validated by the test results in Table 1. For example, the solar radiation transmittance

values of the ETFE membrane with printing dot ratios of 0%, 63%, and 80% are 0.8,
D
TE

0.32, and 0.16, respectively.

(3) The solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane decreases with layer
P
CE

number, which is validated by the test results in Table 1. For example, the solar

radiation transmittance values of the colorless ETFE membrane with one, two, and
AC

three layers are 0.80, 0.69, and 0.57, respectively. Meanwhile, the solar radiation

transmittance values of the printing dot with one-, two, and three layers are 0.05, 0.02,

and 0.01, respectively.

(4) The color of a membrane has a remarkable effect on its reflectance, transmittance,

and absorptance, which is validated by the test results of specimens S1–S2, S15–S16,

S17–S18, and S19–S29

(5) The transmittance and reflectance curves of various membrane types exhibit

11 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

remarkable differences, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.

2.4. Calculation method for the solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane

with different printing dot ratios

T
IP
As shown in Table 1, the solar radiation coefficients can be efficiently modified by the

R
printing dot rate. A formula based on the test results was presented as Eqs. (4) and (5)

SC
to calculate the solar radiation reflectance and transmittance of the membranes with

NU
different printing dot ratios.

, (4)
MA
where = the solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane with a printing

dot ratio of a, = the solar radiation transmittance of the colorless transparent ETFE
D
TE

membrane, and = the solar radiation transmittance of the printing dots.

The solar radiation transmittance values of Specimens S4 and S5 (Table 2) were

P
CE

calculated using Eq. (4). The average calculation error was 10.70%, which proved that

Eq. (4) was credible.

AC

Table 2

Comparison between the test results and the calculation results of solar radiation

transmittance.

Specimen number S4 S5 S6 S7 S10

Test value 0.32 0.16 0.69 0.57 0.10

Calculation value 0.33 0.20 0.64 0.51 0.08

Error (%) 3.13 25.00 7.25 10.53 20.00

12 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.5. Calculation method for the solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane

with different layer numbers

Layer number has a remarkable effect on the solar radiation transmittance and

T
IP
reflectance of a membrane. A formula based on the test results was presented as Eqs.

R
(6) and (7) to calculate the solar radiation reflectance and transmittance of a

SC
membrane with different layer numbers.

NU
, (5)

where = the solar radiation transmittance of the ETFE membrane with n layers,
MA
and = the solar radiation transmittance of the nth membrane.

The solar radiation transmittance values of Specimens S6–S11 were calculated using
D
TE

Eq. (5), as listed in Table 2. The average calculation error was 12.60%, which proved

that Eq. (5) was credible.

P
CE

3. Temperature tests of steel plates below different types of membranes under

solar radiation
AC

3.1. Specimen design and test scheme

The temperatures of steel plates under nine different membrane roof types were

measured during summer under solar radiation, which provided insights into the

temperature distribution characteristics and test data to verify future numerical results.

The roofs of M1–M4 were ETFE membranes with different printing dot ratios, which

were 0, 46%, 63%, and 80%, respectively. The roofs of M5–M6 were three-layer

ETFE cushions. For M5, the printing dot ratios for each cushion layer were 0, 63%,

13 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and 63%. For M6, the printing dot ratios for each cushion layer were 46%, 63%, and

63%. The roof of M7 was a PE membrane. The roof of M8 was PTFE membrane. The

steel plate for M9 was exposed directly to solar radiation. Each tested model consisted

T
IP
of a steel frame, thermal insulation, a bench, and a steel plate (Fig. 7).

R
SC
NU
MA

Fig. 7. Overview of the test model.

D
TE

To study the effect of ambient wind around the steel plate and the incubator effect,

four conditions with different enclosing degrees were considered in this research (Fig.
P
CE

8). Case 1 has no open thermal insulation wall. Case 2 has half open thermal

insulation wall. Case 3 has one open thermal insulation wall. Case 4 has two open
AC

adjacent thermal insulation walls.

(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2 (c) Case 3 (d)

Case 4
Fig. 8. Test models for the four conditions.

The temperatures of the steel plates were measured automatically and continuously

14 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

using the JTNT-C Enclosure Structure Heat Transfer Monitor every 5 minutes.

3.2. Analysis of the results

The highest temperatures of the steel plates in different models were obtained and

T
IP
listed in Table 3. The temperature curves of the steel plates under different conditions

R
are presented in Fig. 9.

SC
Table 3

NU
Highest temperatures of the steel plates below the membrane roofs under solar

radiation.
MA
Highest temperature (°C)
Model
Fully Half wall One wall Two walls
number
D

enclosed opened opened opened

M1 0.80 99.9 86.8 74.0 67.9
TE

M2 0.46 82.8 79.1 58.4 57.5

M3 0.32 75.7 68.4 55.9 54.8
P

M4 0.16 68.1 58.8 52.6 50.3

CE

M5 0.10 69.2 52.9 44.0 43.4

M6 0.07 65.2 50.5 41.4 41.2
AC

M7 0.74 87.7 76.6 62.9 61.7

M8 0.02 45.5 46.0 41.1 42.1
M9 -- 63.5 64.4 63.2 62.8
Ambient air -- 32.0 34.0 34.0 34.0

15 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

100
100 M1 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
M2 M6 M7 M8 M9 air
90 90
M3
M4
80
M5
80

70 M6
70
)

Temperature( )
M7
℃

℃
Temperature(

60 M8
M9 60

T
50 air
50
40

IP
40
30

20 30

R
10 20
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00

SC
Time(h) Time(h)

(a) Fully enclosed (b) Half wall opened

80 70
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
M6 M7 M8 M9 air

NU
M6 M7 M8 M9 air
70
60

60
)

50
℃

℃
Temperature(

Temperature(
MA
50

40
40

30
30
D

20 20
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00
TE

Time(h) Time(h)

(c) One wall opened (d) Two walls opened

Fig. 9. Temperature–time curves of the steel plates.
P
CE

The following conclusions were drawn from Table 4 and Fig. 9.

(1) Because part of solar radiation can transmit the membrane to some extent, and the
AC

steel below membrane roof can absorb some solar energy, the temperatures of the

steel plates below the membrane roofs are considerably higher than ambient air

temperature under solar radiation, particularly for the fully enclosed condition.

(2) The difference between steel plate temperature and ambient temperature increases

with the solar radiation transmittance of a membrane roof, because the higher the

transmittance of membrane roofs, the more solar radiation absorbed by the steel plate.

For M1 with a colorless ETFE membrane roof, the temperatures of the steel plates

16 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

were 67.9, 52.8, 40.0, and 33.9 °C higher than ambient air temperature under solar

radiation for Cases 1 to 4, respectively. For the M8 with a PTFE membrane roof, the

temperatures of the steel plates were 13.5, 12.0, 7.1, and 8.1 °C higher than ambient

T
IP
air temperature under solar radiation for Cases 1 to 4, respectively.

R
(3) The temperature of the steel plates below the membrane roofs decreases with the

SC
degree of open wall, particularly for the membrane roofs with high solar radiation

NU
transmittance, because the air flow rate around steel plate was increasing with the

open degree of wall, which make the thermal convection between the steel plates and
MA
ambient air stronger. Therefore, the temperature of the steel plates below the

membrane roofs maybe higher than when it is exposed to solar radiation even if the
D
TE

membrane blocks part of the radiation.

4. Numerical simulation of steel plate temperature using the CFD tool

P
CE

The finite element method is typically adopted in the numerical simulation of the

non-uniform temperature of steel structures in existing research. However, this

AC

method cannot simulate the wind environment around steel members, which induces a

non-negligible error, particularly for steel members below membrane roofs. To

overcome this shortcoming, the CFD tool was used in this study to predict the

non-uniformity of the temperature of steel members below membrane roofs using

FLUENT software.

4.1. Numerical model

Transient temperature simulation was conducted from 8:00 to 16:00 for the eight test

17 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

models under three conditions, namely, no thermal insulation wall opened, one

thermal insulation wall opened, and two adjacent thermal insulation walls opened.

The computational domain covered 42 m (length in the south–north direction) × 22 m

T
IP
(width in the east–west direction) × 6 m (height), as shown in Fig. 10. These

R
dimensions were 15 times the length, 11 times the width, and 6 times the height of the

SC
test model. The test model was located 5 times the length of the test model away from

NU
the inlet. A structural grid was adopted to mesh the model because the test models

were too simple. The number of cells was approximately 92072. The pressure-based
MA
solver, the absolute velocity formulation, and the RNG k–ε model were adopted. The

energy equation, the viscous model (k–ε), and the radiation model (P-1) were active.
D
TE

Given that solar radiation from ground reflectance was cut out by the bench, the steel

plates absorbed minimal solar radiation from ground reflectance. Therefore, scattering
P
CE

fraction in this study was set as 0 for the test models with opaque membranes and set

as 0.7 for the test models with ETFE and PE membranes. The scattering fraction was
AC

set as 0.1–0.5 for the other test models.

Fig. 10. Grid generation style. Fig. 11. Time curves of air temperature and wind
speed.

18 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2. Boundary conditions

The east and west surfaces were set as the velocity-inlet and the pressure-outlet,

respectively. The south and north surfaces were set as the symmetrical boundary. The

T
IP
ground surface was set as the wall boundary. The upper surface of the test model was

R
set as the coupled wall to simulate different membranes in which solar radiation

SC
absorptance and transmittance can be set according to the tests. The lower surface was

NU
set as the temperature wall representing the ground. The other four surfaces were set

as the heat flux walls. The heat flux value was 0 to simulate an insulated wall. The
MA
inner surface of a steel plate was a coupled wall, and the absorptance of the steel plate

was set as 0.8.

D
TE

Given that the height of the numerical model was only 6 m, uniform wind speed and

air temperature were used in this research. The wind speed and air temperature at each
P
CE

period were set according to the curves (Fig. 11), which were obtained from

meteorological data. Turbulent intensity was 10%, and turbulent length scale was set
AC

as 0.02 m.

4.3. Solar radiation model

The solar ray tracing model in ANSYS FLUENT software, which could predict the

direct illumination energy source resulting from incident solar radiation, was adopted

to consider solar radiation. The fair weather conditions method and the ASHRAE

model were used to calculate solar radiation heat load. The date and latitude were set

19 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

as August 11, 2014 and 39.13°N, respectively, according to the test scheme. The

parameter values in the ASHRAE model were set according to references [9–11].

4.4. Analysis of the results

T
IP
The results of the CFD numerical simulation are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 12. The

R
results of the CFD numerical simulation are consistent with the test results. The

SC
maximum error and the average error between the results of the CFD numerical

NU
simulation and the tests were 8.96% and 2.22%, respectively, which satisfied

engineering requirements.
MA
100
80
90
70
80
D
Temperature（ ℃）
Temperature（ ℃）

70 60
TE

60 50
Closed Simulation
50 Closed Simulation
Closed Test 40 Closed Test
40 1 Side Opened Simulation
1 face Opened Simulation
P

1 Side Opened Test

30 1 face Opened Test
30 2 Sides Opened Simulation
2 faces Opened Simulation
2 Sides Opened Test
2 faces Opened Test
CE

20 20
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00
Time ( h ) Time（ h ）

(a) M1: 0% printing-dot ETFE membrane (b) M2: 46% printing-dot ETFE
AC

membrane
70
80
65
70 60
55
Temperature（ ℃）

60
Temperature（ ℃）

50

50 45
40
Closed Simulation Closed Simulation
40 Closed Test Closed Test
35
1 face Opened Simulation 1 face Opened Simulation
1 face Opened Test 30 1 face Opened Test
30
2 faces Opened Simulation 25 2 faces Opened Simulation
2 faces Opened Test 2 faces Opened Test
20 20
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00
Time ( h ) Time ( h )

(c) M3: 63% printing-dot ETFE membrane (d) M4: 80% printing-dot ETFE
membrane

20 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

70
60
60
Temperature（ ℃）

50

Temperature（ ℃）
50
40

T
40
Closed Simulation Closed Simulation
30
Closed Test Closed Test

IP
1 face Opened Simulation 1 face Opened Simulation
30
1 face Opened Test 20 1 face Opened Test
2 faces Opened Simulation 2 faces Opened Simulation
2 faces Opened Test 2 faces Opened Test
20

R
10
8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00
Time（ h ） Time（ h ）

SC
(e) M5: ETFE air cushion (63%,63%,0) (f) M6: ETFE air cushion

NU
(63%,63%,46%)
70
45
MA
60
40
Temperature（ ℃）
Temperature（ ℃）

50
35
D

Closed Simulation
Closed Test
TE

1 face Opened Simulation 40

30 Simulation
1 face Opened Test
Test
2 faces Opened Simulation
2 faces Opened Test
25 30
9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00
P

8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00

Time ( h ) Time ( h )
CE

(g) M8: PTFE membrane (h) M8: Steel exposed to sunlight (control group)
Fig. 12. Temperatures of the different membrane models.
AC

Table 4

Comparison of the CFD numerical results and the test results for the maximal

temperature.

Case M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

Test (°C) 99.9 82.8 75.7 68.1 69.2 65.2 45.5

Case 1 CFD(°C) 99.7 82 74 66 63 62 45

Error(%) −0.20 −0.97 −2.25 −3.08 −8.96 −4.91 −1.10

Test (°C) 74 58.4 55.9 52.6 44 41.4 41.1

Case 3
CFD(°C) 74 55 51 49 46 45 41

21 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Error(%) 0.00 −5.82 −8.77 −6.84 4.55 8.70 −0.24

Test (°C) 67.9 57.5 54.8 50.3 43.4 41.2 42.1

Case 4 CFD(°C) 65 54 51 49 44 43 41

T
Error(%) −4.27 −6.09 −6.93 −2.58 1.38 4.37 −2.61

IP
5. Conclusions

R
(1) The ETFE and PE membranes have a high solar radiation transmittance of up to

SC
0.8, which causes the steel structures below the membrane roofs to have a high

NU
temperature. This solar radiation transmittance can be effectively modified by printing

silver dots and increasing thickness.

MA
(2) The PTFE, PVDF, and TPO membranes have a relatively low transmittance below
D

0.25, which exerts a weak effect on the temperature of the steel structures below the
TE

membrane roofs.
P

(3) The temperature of the steel structures below the ETFE and PE membrane roofs is
CE

over 61.7 °C during summer, which is at least 27.7 °C higher than ambient air

temperature.
AC

(4) The temperature of the steel structures below the PTFE, PVDF, and TPO

membrane roofs is over 41.2 °C during summer, which is at least 7.2 °C higher than

ambient air temperature.

(5) A CFD numerical simulation method is presented and applied to verify the

obtained test data.

Acknowledgments

This work is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant

22 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

No. 51338006) and Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (Grant No.2016). The

authors also appreciate the financial support provided by the Chinese Scholarship

Council (File No. 201506255034), which enables the visiting research scholar to

T
IP
collaborate with Prof. Luke Bisby at the University of Edinburgh.

R
References

SC
[1] Linda Charbonneau, Maria Anna Polak, Alexander Penlidis. Mechanical

NU
properties of ETFE foils: Testing and modelling. Construction and Building Materials,

2014; 60: 63-72.

MA
[2] Hu JH, Chen WJ, Qiu ZY, et al. Thermal performances of ETFE cushion roof

integrated amorphous silicon photovoltaic. Energy Conversion and Management,

D
TE

2015; 106: 1201-1211.

[3] Kinya Ando, Atushi Ishii, Toshio Suzuki. Design and construction of a double
P
CE

membrane air-supported structure. Engineering Structures, 1999, 21(8):786-794.

[4] Tong M, Tham LG, Au FTK, Lee PKK. Numerical modeling for temperature
AC

distribution in steel bridges, Comput. Struct. 2001; 79 (6): 583-593.

[5] Kim SH, Cho KI, Won JH, Kim JH. A study on thermal behavior of curved steel

box girder bridges considering solar radiation, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 2009; 9 (3):

59-76.

[6] Liu HB, Chen ZH, Chen BB, Xiao X, Wang XD. Studies on the temperature

distribution of steel plates with different paints under solar radiation, Appl. Therm.

Eng. 2014; 71(1):342-354.

23 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[7] Liu HB, Chen ZH, Zhou T. Theoretical and experimental study on the

temperature distribution of H-shaped steel members under solar radiation, Appl.

Therm. Eng. 2012; 37:329-335.

T
IP
[8] Chen ZH, Xiao X, Liu HB. Simplified Method for Calculating Temperature of

R
Steel Tubes Considering Solar Radiation, J. Tianjin Univ. 2014; 47(Suppl.):1-7.

SC
[9] Fan Z, Wang Z, Tang J. Analysis on temperature field and determination of

NU
temperature upon healing of large-span steel structure of the National Stadium, J.

Build. Struct. 2007; 28 (2): 32-40. (in Chinese).

MA
[10] Ihsanullah, Adnan M. Al Amer, Tahar Laoui, et al. Fabrication and antifouling

behaviour of a carbon nanotube membrane. Materials and Design, 2016; 89: 549-558.
D
TE

[11] Barbara Tišler-Korljan, Diana Gregor-Svetec. Properties and printability of

compression moulded recycled polyethylene. Materials and Design, 2014; 55:

P
CE

583-590.

[12] Mei Lv, Fei Zheng, Qihua Wang, Tingmei Wang,Yongmin Liang. Surface
AC

structural changes, surface energy and antiwear properties of polytetrafluoroethylene

induced by proton irradiation. Materials and Design, 2015; 85: 162-168.

[13] Baskaran A, Katsman R, Sexton M, Lei W. Investigation of thermally-induced

loads in modified bituminous roofing membranes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2003; 17(3):

153-164.

[14] Bekkouche SMA, Benouaz T, Cherier MK, et al. Thermal resistances of local

building materials and their effect upon the interior temperatures case of a building

24 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

located in Ghardaia region. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014; 52: 59-70.

[15] Fabrizio Ascione, Nicola Bianco, Rosa Francesca De Masi, et al., Simplified state

space representation for evaluating thermal bridges in building: modelling, application

T
IP
and validation of a methodology, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013; 61: 344-354.

R
[16] He Jiang, Hoyano Akira. Measurement and simulation of the thermal

SC
environment in the built space under a membrane structure, Build. Environ. 2009;

NU
44(6):1119-1127.

[17] He Jiang, Hoyano Akira. Measurement and evaluation of the summer

MA
microclimate in the semi-enclosed space under a membrane structure, Build. Environ.

2010; 45(1): 230-242.

D
TE

[18] Poirazis Harris, Kragh Mikkel, Hogg Charlie. Energy modelling of ETFE

membranes in building applications, IBPSA 2009, 696-703.

P
CE
AC

25 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical abstract

T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC

26 / 27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

(1) The ethylene tetrafluoroethylene membranes and polyethylene membranes have a

high solar radiation transmittance of up to 0.8.

T
IP
(2) The polytetrafluoroethylene membranes, polyvinylidene fluoride membranes, and

R
thermoplastic olefin membranes have a relatively low solar radiation transmittance

SC
below 0.25.

NU
(3) The silver printing dots and air cushion can effectively reduce the transmittance of

the ethylene tetrafluoroethylene membranes.

MA
(4) The temperature of steel structures below the ethylene tetrafluoroethylene

membranes or polyethylene membranes is over 61.7 °C during summer.

D
TE

(5) The temperature of steels below polytetrafluoroethylene membranes,

polyvinylidene fluoride membranes, or thermoplastic olefin membranes is over

P
CE

41.2 °C during summer.

AC

27 / 27