energies
Article
Thermal Transmittance in Roof–Wall Structural Junction Areas
Insulated with a Hemp–Lime Mixture
Magdalena Grudzińska
Citation: Grudzińska, M.; Patyna, K.;
Jabłoński, W.; Brzyski, P. Thermal
Transmittance in Roof–Wall Structural
Junction Areas Insulated with a
Hemp–Lime Mixture. Energies 2024,
17, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en17020316
Academic Editor: Francesco Nocera
Received: 26 November 2023
Revised: 23 December 2023
Accepted: 3 January 2024
Published: 8 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2024, 17, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17020316
, Krystian Patyna , Wojciech Jabłoński and Przemysław Brzyski *
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Lublin University of Technology, 40 Nadbystrzycka St.,
20-618 Lublin, Poland; m.grudzinska@pollub.pl (M.G.); k.patyna@pollub.pl (K.P.); w.jablonski@pollub.pl (W.J.)
* Correspondence: p.brzyski@pollub.pl; Tel.: +48-815-384-448
Abstract: The junction between the roof and the external wall is a sensitive area within the building
envelope; here, increased heat flow often takes place. In the case of partitions insulated with materials
based on plant ingredients, thermal bridges are particularly dangerous due to the possibility of
condensation and, consequently, mold. The present article analyzed the connection of the roof
with the knee wall made of a hemp–lime composite and the ridge in terms of the occurrence of
thermal bridges. The following factors that may affect heat transfer in the junction were taken into
account: the location of the load-bearing wooden frame, the roof slope, and the presence of internal
plaster in the junction. Two-dimensional heat transfer analysis was performed based on the finite
element method using THERM 7.4 software. All of the studied thermal bridges had ψ values below
0.10 W/(m·K). Calculations of heat losses through a roof with different slopes were also presented,
taking into account the considered thermal bridges. As the roof slope decreases, the heat flow through
the roof decreases, despite the increasing value of the linear thermal transmittance. The share of
the considered thermal bridges in the total heat loss from the roof reached up to 15%. To verify the
obtained results, in further analysis, it would be necessary to calculate the impact of the roof–knee
wall bridge variants on heat losses throughout the entire building.
Keywords: hemp–lime composite; thermal bridge; heat losses; roof; ridge; structural junction
1. Introduction
One of the dominant directions in the global climate policy is the reduction in energy
consumption and the decrease in the carbon footprint in the construction industry. Accord-
ing to various estimates, this sector accounts for 30–40% of all energy consumption and
between 27% and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions [1–5]. The Paris Agreement (Accord
de Paris), resulting from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), stands as a pivotal agreement concerning the limitation of global warming.
It obliges member states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, significantly impacting the
construction sector by promoting the energy efficiency of buildings [6].
The European Green Deal, as one of the most crucial European policies, represents
the European Union’s strategic plan aiming to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Within
this framework lies the Renovation Wave, imposing a series of actions and standards to
enhance the energy efficiency of existing buildings. The Directive on the Energy Perfor-
mance of Buildings (2002/91/EC) [7], amended in 2023 (2023/1791/EU) [8], stands as
a key legal act at the European level, specifying minimum requirements regarding the
energy performance of buildings. Through these agreements and directives, the European
Union and the international community take steps to reduce emissions and enhance the
energy efficiency of the construction sector, contributing to global efforts for sustainable
development. According to Trotta’s estimations, energy consumption by buildings in the
EU should decrease by 30% by 2030 [9].
One of the ways to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, besides increasing
the thermal insulation of building partitions, is the elimination of or reduction in thermal
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2024, 17, 316 2 of 16

bridges. Theodosiou et al. observed that the omission of thermal bridges in thermal
insulation calculations leads to a 30% increase in energy consumption [1,10]. However,
these estimates vary depending on the region in which the studies were conducted. For
instance, Kotti et al. [11] observed a 13% energy loss due to thermal bridges in residential
buildings in Greece. Evola et al., in their research estimating energy loss costs in the
Mediterranean climate due to thermal bridges, indicated a potential 17.5–25% savings in
heating energy upon reducing thermal bridges [12].
Furthermore, as indicated by Ilomets et al. [13], based on studies of existing residential
buildings, the occurrence risk of surface vapor condensation due to thermal bridges is
approximately 49–51%, depending on the construction technology used. Condensation of
water vapor in building partitions can lead to mold and other fungal developments within
the building [1,10,13–16]. This phenomenon adversely affects the health and comfort of
occupants, leading to serious respiratory, rheumatic, and allergic conditions [17,18].
The issue of thermal bridges is widely recognized; however, many studies focus on
those occurring in walls and their connections with other building elements. Issues related
to thermal bridges in roofs are much less frequently addressed.
The most prevalent problem associated with thermal bridges in roofs involves the
occurrence of linear thermal bridges on rafters and at the junction between the actual
thermal insulation and the structural elements of the roof truss. It is important to note that,
in the traditional model of thermal insulation, where the insulation layer is placed between
rafters, structural heterogeneity occurs. In these areas, thermal bridges form within the
insulation layers near wooden elements [19]. Despite wood having a relatively low heat
transfer coefficient ranging from 0.16 to 0.30 W/(m·K) [19], it possesses thermal properties
that are significantly worse than those of standard insulation materials, such as mineral
wool, which has a heat transfer coefficient ranging from 0.030 to 0.040 W/(m·K).
The contemporary requirements for thermal insulation, stemming from national and
international regulations, incline towards solutions involving additional layers of thermal
insulation. For technological reasons and installation convenience, an additional insulation
layer is often placed within the partition, between the frames intended for the installation of
plasterboard panels. This placement results in structural wooden elements being located in
cold-temperature layers. The lack of insulation continuity at the knee wall encourages the
formation of thermal bridges at the junctions between the building’s structural elements.
Also, the occurrence of condensation at negative temperatures in these areas is likely
to damage the structure due to the expansion of water within the material’s capillary
pores [19].
The transitioning of surfaces, such as in chimneys or any installation openings, leads to
a breach in the integrity of thermal insulation, resulting in the formation of thermal bridges.
The solution lies in minimizing the number of penetrations through the insulation layers.
Any discontinuity of surfaces in building construction generates geometric thermal
bridges by increasing the external surface area of the partition compared to the internal
part. These areas primarily occur at the junctions of external walls with the roof and in
the ridge [1,15,20]. The junction of the truss with the wall also poses a problem due to the
use of different insulation materials of varying thicknesses. Modern architectural concepts,
devoid of roof gutters (known as hidden gutters), often exacerbate this issue.
With the growing interest and a policy-driven approach towards improving the energy
efficiency of buildings, technologies are being developed to enhance material insulation
while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of production. One such method
involves the utilization of hemp fibers or shives in building materials such as hemp wool
insulation, blown insulation in the form of blocks, or in the form of the discussed hemp–lime
composite cast in formwork on the construction site.
In light of the subject of the present article, the main thermal and moisture parameters
of the hemp–lime composite are presented below. The primary component of the mixture,
hemp shives, is characterized by a high porosity level, reaching 78% [21]. Empirical and
computational scientific studies thus far unambiguously indicate that the porosity of mate-
Energies 2024, 17, 316 3 of 16

rials significantly affects the thermal conductivity [22–25]. The high porosity contributes to
the hemp shives having a low thermal conductivity, with a coefficient of lambda at the level
of 0.05 W/(m·K) [21]. The composite, consisting of a mixture of hemp shives, hydrated
lime, metakaolin, and gypsum, can exhibit a thermal conductivity coefficient ranging
from 0.07 W/(m·K) to 0.138 W/(m·K), depending on the applied proportions [26–28]. The
increase in the lambda coefficient is a result of the higher density of the mixture. Mix-
tures characterized by increased compressive strength tend to have reduced insulation
properties [29,30]. An additional aspect arising from the porosity of the composite is its
low diffusion resistance, leading to a natural ability to regulate air humidity in indoor
spaces [31]. Similarly to thermal parameters, the diffusion resistance decreases with an
increase in the density of the mixture.
The embodied energy of the hemp–lime composite, considering the entire production
process, is relatively lower compared to traditional thermal insulation materials such
as polystyrene, mineral wool, or wood wool. The amount of embodied energy directly
translates into the quantity of CO2 emitted during the material’s life cycle.
The lower energy requirement for the production of hempcrete stems from several
factors. One of the initial and significant factors is the production process of the primary
raw material, industrial hemp. Apart from the energy required for transportation, sowing,
and field processing, the absence of the need for fertilization is crucial, resulting in a low
energy requirement for the production of fertilizers. During the growth phase, hemp plants
sequester carbon dioxide. Roughly, from one hectare of cultivation, 7–10 tons of hemp
shives can be obtained [32].
Assuming that one ton of material can sequester approximately 1800 kg of CO2 [28],
one hectare of cultivation would impound between 12.6 and 18 tons of CO2 . The se-
questered carbon dioxide is not subsequently released.
Other components of the hemp mixture, such as hydrated lime, metakaolin, and
gypsum, require significant energy inputs during the production process. Hydrated lime,
constituting 75% of the binder mixture mass, is a significant factor in terms of energy
consumption, primarily due to its substantial use among the components. A factor that
partially offsets CO2 emissions during production is the fact that lime rebinds CO2 during
the curing process of the hemp concrete mixture [33].
The components mentioned above, when combined with water, form hemp concrete.
The total amount of emitted carbon dioxide, despite processes related to the production of
hemp shives and lime, varies between −0.3 and −1 kg CO2 per kilogram of the mixture,
depending on the mixture’s density [34]. For comparison, traditional insulation materials
such as expanded polystyrene (EPS), glass wool, and polyurethane foam exhibit a high
carbon emission coefficient due to their production processes and use of non-renewable
resources. The CO2 emission coefficient per kilogram varies depending on the assumptions
made, with values ranging from 5.05 kg to 8.25 kg CO2 for expanded polystyrene, from
2.77 to 3.62 kg CO2 for glass wool, and 5.31 kg CO2 for polyurethane foam (per kilogram of
product, respectively) [35].
Wood wool, considered an environmentally friendly material, also has an increased
carbon emission coefficient compared to the hemp–lime composite, standing at 1.56 kg
CO2 per kilogram of the product [35].
As indicated by the referenced literature, hempcrete, when used as thermal insulation
for buildings, demonstrates favorable thermal properties. Furthermore, it exhibits good
CO2 emission coefficients compared to traditional insulation materials, which is significant
in the context of reducing emissions in the construction sector. Therefore, further research
is necessary to determine the essential parameters for achieving this goal.
The aim of this work is to present simulated two-dimensional models of thermal
bridges in the area of roof–wall and ridge connections. The analyzed junctions differ in
the location of the load-bearing wooden frame in relation to the wall thickness, the slope
of the roof, and construction details inside the core of bridges. Temperature distribution
in the described construction junctions was calculated using the THERM 7.4 software. It
 was the basis for further analyses of the linear thermal transmittance coefficients, show
ing excessive heat transfer above the level typical for flat building partitions without a
intrusions. Additionally, heat losses through an exemplary roof were calculated. T
Energies 2024, 17, 316 thermal parameters of the composites used in the studies were taken from the autho
4 of 16
own laboratory tests. The presented analyses concerning the roof–wall junctions in
construction insulated with a hemp–lime composite are the novelty of the research and
continuation offurther
was the basis for previous workof[4,15,19]
analyses the linearon othertransmittance
thermal junctions incoefficients,
this construction
showing technol
excessive heat transfer above the level typical for flat building partitions without any
gy.
intrusions. Additionally, heat losses through an exemplary roof were calculated. The
thermal parameters of the composites used in the studies were taken from the authors’
2. Materials and Methods
own laboratory tests. The presented analyses concerning the roof–wall junctions in a
2.1. Junctionsinsulated
construction Used in with
Calculations
a hemp–lime composite are the novelty of the research and a
continuation of previous
The presented work [4,15,19]
sections on other partitions
of the building junctions inwere
this construction
evaluated technology.
as a continuation
the authors’and
2. Materials previous
Methodsresearch concerning thermal bridges in hemp–lime constructio
[4,15,19]. The
2.1. Junctions earlier
Used publications described the construction details, such as the wa
in Calculations
ceiling connection, the
The presented sections window placement
of the building in a were
partitions wall,evaluated
the floorason the ground, and t
a continuation
foundation
of the authors’wall. The roof
previous construction
research details,
concerning thermalsuch as thein
bridges wall plate with
hemp–lime a knee wall an
construc-
ations
ridge, are equally important in analyses of the energy demands of ecological
[4,15,19]. The earlier publications described the construction details, such as thebuilding
wall–ceiling
and connection, the
may significantly window placement
contribute to the heatinlosses
a wall,from
the floor
theon the ground,
upper part ofandthethe
building.
foundation wall. The roof construction details, such as the wall plate with
External walls were assumed to have a timber frame positioned centrally in relati a knee wall and
a ridge,
to are equally
the wall thickness important
(variantin “a”—Figure
analyses of the1), energy
and in demands of ecological
the second case, it buildings,
was positioned
and may significantly contribute to the heat losses from the upper part of the building.
the internal side of the wall (variant “b”—Figure 2). Both types of walls were insulat
External walls were assumed to have a timber frame positioned centrally in relation to
with a hemp–lime
the wall composite
thickness (variant layer1),
“a”—Figure that
andwasin the400 mm case,
second or 530 mm
it was thick (variant
positioned on the I and I
The
internal side of the wall (variant “b”—Figure 2). Both types of walls were insulated with athe insid
wall was finished with lime plaster from the outside and clay plaster from
These solutions
hemp–lime are layer
composite commonly
that wasused in practice.
400 mm or 530 mmThe thickjunction
(variant Iof
and theII).roof slopes in t
The wall
was finished
ridge was alsowith lime plaster
modeled from 3).
(Figure theThe
outside
roofand was clay plaster from
insulated withthe inside.hemp–lime
a light These m
solutions are commonly used in practice. The junction of the roof slopes
ture placed between the rafters. At the bottom, additional insulation made of wood wo in the ridge was
also modeled (Figure 3). The roof was insulated with a light hemp–lime mixture placed
was placed between wooden battens. Figures 1–3 show details with a roof inclined at
between the rafters. At the bottom, additional insulation made of wood wool was placed
angle
between ofwooden
20°, while variable
battens. Figuresinclinations of 10°,
1–3 show details with20°, 30°,
a roof and 40°
inclined at anwere
angleassumed
of 20◦ , in t
work.
while variable inclinations of 10◦ , 20◦ , 30◦ , and 40◦ were assumed in the work.

Figure 1. Connection of the wall and roof with the timber frame located centrally in relation to the
wall thickness (variant “a” of wall construction).
 Energies2024,
Energies 2024,17,
17,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 55 of
of

Energies 2024, 17, 316 Figure1.1.Connection

Figure Connectionofofthe
thewall
walland
androof
roofwith
withthe
thetimber
timberframe
framelocated
locatedcentrally
centrallyin
5inofrelation
relation
16 tot
to
wall thickness (variant “a” of wall construction).
wall thickness (variant “a” of wall construction).

Figure2.2.2.
Figure
Figure Connection
Connection
Connection ofwall
of
of the theand
the wall
wall and
roofand roof
withroof withframe
with
the timber the timber
the timber frame
frame
on the inner on
on
side thewall
of the
the inner
inner side of
side
thickness of the
the w
w
thickness
thickness
(variant “b” (variant
(variant “b”of
“b” ofwall
wallconstruction).
of wall construction). construction).

Figure3.3.3.Detail
Figure
Figure Detail
Detail ofof
the
of roof
the
the connection
roof
roof in thein
connection
connection ridge.
in theridge.
the ridge.
2.2. Simulations
2.2.Simulations
2.2.
2.2.1.Simulations
Calculation Method
2.2.1. Calculation
2.2.1.Comparative
Calculation Method
Method
analyses of the construction junctions require a two- or three-dimensional
modelComparative
of heat transfer,analyses
allowing for oftheir
thequalitative and quantitative
construction junctionsevaluation.
require The
Comparative analyses of the construction junctions require aa two‐
two‐
qualitative examination may cover a visual comparison of the isotherm layout and the
three‐dimensionalmodel
three‐dimensional modelof ofheat
heattransfer,
transfer, allowingfor fortheir
theirqualitative
qualitativeand andquantitati
quantitat
heat flux vectors in the connection. Quantitative allowing
assessment is based on the linear thermal
evaluation.
evaluation.
transmittanceThe The qualitative
qualitative
values, examination
examination
characterizing may cover
may cover
the additional a visual comparison
a visualcompared
heat transfer comparison to the of the
ofheat isothe
the isother
layout and
layout
transfer and
in the heat
the
uniform heat flux vectors
flux
building vectors in
partitions inofthe
the connection.
the connection.
same length, asQuantitative
Quantitative
in the modelled assessment
junction. isis based
assessment based
the linear thermal
In this thermal
the linear transmittance
paper, two-dimensional
transmittancemodels values, characterizing
values,ofcharacterizing
thermal bridges the the additional
wereadditional
prepared inheatheat transfer
line with
transfer com co
pared
the
pared to the
standard
to theISO heat
heat10211transfer in uniform
[36] using
transfer in uniform
THERM 7.4 building
software.
building partitions
The software
partitions of the
of the same length,
is developed
same length,
and as as in
in t
distributed by
modelledjunction. the
junction. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for use by building
modelled
component
In thismanufacturers, engineers, architects,
paper,two‐dimensional
two‐dimensional modelsand others
ofthermal
thermal interested
bridgesin heat transfer
were prepared [37].inline
linewiw
In this paper, models of bridges
Validation of the code was presented in [38]. It was made according to the standard
were prepared in
the standard ISO
the ISO 10211 [36] [36] using THERM
THERM 7.4 7.4 software.
software. TheThe software
software isis developed
developed an a
ISO standard
10211 [36] and 10211 consisted ofusing
comparing the numerical results of the temperature at
distributed
distributed
specified by
gridby the Lawrence
the
junctions Lawrence
given by the Berkeley
Berkeley National
programNational Laboratory
Laboratory
with a strict (LBNL)For
(LBNL)
analytical solution. fora use
for use by
code by buildi
to build
component
component manufacturers,
be classified manufacturers,
as a “high precision engineers,
engineers,
calculation architects,
architects,
method”,and and others
the others interested
interested
temperature should in
innotheat
heat transfer
transfer [3
differ [3
Validationof
Validation ofthe
thecode
codewas
waspresented
presentedinin[38].
[38].ItItwas
wasmade
madeaccording
accordingto tothe
thestanda
standa
ISO 10211 [36] and consisted of comparing the numerical results of
ISO 10211 [36] and consisted of comparing the numerical results of the temperature the temperature
specifiedgrid
specified gridjunctions
junctionsgiven
givenby
bythe
theprogram
programwithwithaastrict
strictanalytical
analyticalsolution.
solution.For
Foraaco
co
to be
to be classified
classified as
as aa “high
“high precision
precision calculation
calculation method”,
method”, the the temperature
temperature should
should nn
Energies 2024, 17, 316 6 of 16

by more than 0.1 K compared with the values listed in the standard; additionally, heat
flow should not vary by more than 0.1 W/(m·K) from the given heat flow. The program
complies with all requirements of the norm [36]. In the analyses of thermal bridges, the
experimental validation of the models is not commonly practiced, as this would require
constructing a costly, large-scale model [39,40]. Additionally, difficulties in maintaining
stable temperature conditions during the measurements and eliminating boundary effects
would make it difficult to obtain reliable results.
Numerical calculations of the temperature and heat flux in the construction junctions
prepared with the use of the THERM 7.4 software include the following: the introduction
of 2D geometric data through a graphic interface [41], the definition of material properties
and boundary conditions, the generation of a mesh within the element, the computation
of heat transfer through the Finite Element Analysis Solver, and the presentation of the
processed results. The basis for the further analyses is mainly the isotherm profile and
the thermal transmittance coefficient (U [W/(m2 ·K)]), averaged for the whole length of a
thermal bridge.
The modelled connection of building partitions forms a core of the bridge, where the
heat transfer is two-dimensional. One-dimensional heat transfer should be restored at some
distance from this center, usually estimated as a threefold thickness of the partitions (and
no less than 1 m) [36]. The cut-off planes are considered to be adiabatic, which means that
there is no heat transfer through them, and the isotherms are perpendicular to the planes.
The linear thermal transmittance coefficient ψ [W/(m·K)] may be determined using
the internal or external dimensions of the junction. Its value depends on the thermal flux
transferred per length and temperature units of the bridge in steady-state conditions [42].
The specific values are then subordinated to the method of the calculation of energy demand,
based on the internal or external dimensions of building partitions. In the case of convex
junctions, external ψ values are usually negative, because their external boundaries are
typically longer than the internal boundaries. This may make the analyses more difficult,
as the results are sometimes not intuitive or clear enough to be appraised. The internal ψ
values are commonly positive, giving a more evident idea of the range of thermal losses
through the construction. In the analyses, the linear thermal transmittance coefficient
was calculated according to EN ISO 10211 [36] using internal dimensions according to
Equation (1):
ψi = L2D − ∑ j L j ·Uj (1)

where: L2D —thermal coupling coefficient obtained from the 2D analysis of the modelled
element as a multiplication of the averaged thermal transmittance U and the junction’s
length [W/(m·K)]; j—number of building partitions connecting in the thermal bridge;
L—internal length of a building partition [m]; U—thermal transmittance coefficient of a
building partition [W/(m2 ·K)].
Calculations of thermal transmittance of building partitions (walls and roof) were
made with the use of the standard ISO 6946 [43] and the THERM 7.4 software. The work
focused on the 2D simulations, and some effects connected with 3D heat flow in the rafters
and roof insulation were neglected. According to [44], the error resulting from performing
2D instead of 3D simulations in the case of a knee wall–roof junction was approximately
9%. The analyses were made for the building with a Porotherm block wall construction
(including reinforced concrete elements) and a rafter roof. The biggest influence on the error
was found to be the thermally diversified wall construction, and for the more homogenous
roof part, it did not exceed 3%. In the presented case, the wall is more uniform in terms of
the thermal properties of its parts. The thermal conductivity of insulating materials with
organic components (hemp–lime mixtures) is 0.08 W/(m·K), and the thermal conductivity
of timber forming a thermally weaker element is equal to 0.16 W/(m·K).
To make the influence of the 2D calculation method smaller, the following procedure
was introduced for all of the partitions including non-uniform layers, such as a wooden
load-bearing frame filled with the hemp–lime composite in the walls, rafters filled with
the hemp–lime mix, and wood wool between wooden battens fixed below the rafters
Energies 2024, 17, 316 7 of 16

in the roof construction. These layers were modelled in THERM first (cross-sections
perpendicular to the timber elements), presuming there is no thermal resistance between
the outer boundaries of the layers and the internal or external environment. Then, their
averaged thermal transmittance coefficients were used to calculate substitutive thermal
conductivity and applied in further THERM work.

2.2.2. Materials’ Properties and Boundary Conditions Used in Calculations

Tables 1 and 2 present the thermal conductivity of materials and elements assumed in
modelling, together with boundary conditions. The thermal conductivity of the hemp–lime
mixtures was obtained from the authors’ own research and laboratory measurements [4,15,19,21].
The source of the thermal conductivity coefficients of other materials was the ISO 10456
standard [45] or the catalogues of manufacturers. The absolute error of the numerical
analyses (calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the heat inflow and
outflow, divided by the mean heat flux through the junction) did not exceed 0.01%.

Table 1. Thermal conductivities of materials and building products.

Building Material Thermal Conductivity λ [W/(m·K)]

Hemp–lime mix (wall) 0.080
Hemp–lime mix (roof) 0.065
Wood wool 0.038
Timber 0.16
Fiberboard (low density) 0.07
Lime or clay plaster 0.70

Table 2. Boundary conditions assumed in modelling.

Temperature Surface Resistance

Surface Description
[◦ C] [(m2 ·K)/W]
Internal surface of the wall +20 0.13 Heat flow horizontal, simplified *
Internal surface of the roof +20 0.10 Heat flow upwards, simplified *
External surface (walls and roof) 0 0.11 Simplified *
Cut-off planes – – Adiabatic
Note: * the simplified model means that convective and radiative heat exchange is described by one common
surface resistance.

According to the Polish Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, the mean ex-
ternal winter temperature in Poland during 1991–2020 was −0.4 ◦ C, and during 2020–2021,
it was −0.2 ◦ C [46]. Regarding the rising trend of the air temperature in Poland, the external
temperature in the simulations was set to 0 ◦ C to obtain the internal temperature in the
junctions consistent with average winter conditions. The external temperature does not
have any influence on the linear thermal transmittance coefficient, as it is adjusted to the
unitary temperature difference.
The external surface resistance Rse was calculated according to the ISO 6946 stan-
dard [43], as in Equation (2).
1
Rse = (2)
h c + hr
where hc —the convective coefficient, for external surfaces adjacent to a well-ventilated air
layer [W/(m2 ·K)]; hr —the radiative coefficient, for the emissivity of surfaces of 0.9 and a
given mean temperature [W/(m2 ·K)].

3. Results and Discussion

Two levels of thermal insulation of the partitions that were included in the study
(Table 3) cover the range of the applicability of the hemp–lime constructions in Poland.
The first variant fulfills the national requirements regarding energy saving, and the second
 first variant fulfills the national requirements regarding energy saving, and the second on
is equivalent to the recommendations for low‐energy buildings and the boundary techno
logical requirements concerning hemp–lime walls. It is recommended that the wall thick
ness does not exceed approximately 500 mm [32] to enable proper drying and binding o
Energies 2024, 17, 316 8 of 16
the composite (in the second case, the thickness of the walls, excluding the plaster, is 530
mm).
one is equivalent to the recommendations for low-energy buildings and the boundary
Table 3. Thermal
technological transmittance
requirements coefficients
concerning of the partitions.
hemp–lime walls. It is recommended that the wall
thickness does not exceed approximately 500 mm [32] to enable proper drying and binding
National Regula‐ Adopted Values Low‐Energy Adopted Values
of the composite (in the second case, the thickness of the walls, excluding the plaster, is
Type of Partition tions (Variant I) Buildings (Variant II)
530 mm).
[W/(m2∙K)] [W/(m2∙K)] [W/(m2∙K)] [W/(m2∙K)]
External wall type
Table 3. Thermal transmittance coefficients of the partitions.
0.20 0.198 0.15 0.147
“a”
External wall type Adopted Values Adopted Values
National Regulations 0.20 I) Low-Energy
0.198 2Buildings 0.15 (Variant II) 0.148
Type of Partition 2 (Variant
[W/(m“b” ·K)] 2 [W/(m ·K)] 2
[W/(m ·K)] [W/(m ·K)]
Roof 0.15 0.149 0.12 0.117
External wall type “a” 0.20 0.198 0.15 0.147
External wall type “b” 0.20 0.198 0.15 0.148
Roof 3.1. Linear
0.15 Thermal Transmittance
0.149 of the Analysed Bridges
0.12 0.117
To make the results of the thermal bridges modelling more comparable, the connec
3.1. Linear
tions of theThermal Transmittance
partitions of the Analysed
were designed to haveBridges
the same internal length while calculating
their linear thermal
To make transmittance.
the results of the thermalBecause of that assumption,
bridges modelling in some
more comparable, of the junctions, i
the connections
of the
was partitions
necessary to were designed to wooden
add additional have the same
wedges internal length while
supporting calculating
the rafters their
placed above the
linear thermal transmittance. Because of that assumption, in some
capping beam. Also, the first batten supporting the ceiling was added at the same of the junctions, it dis
was necessary to add additional wooden wedges supporting the rafters placed above the
tance from the wall in all cases.
capping beam. Also, the first batten supporting the ceiling was added at the same distance
fromThethepresented junctions of the building elements with the hemp–lime mix are rathe
wall in all cases.
well‐insulated. Thejunctions
The presented thermally “weaker”
of the buildingparts
elementsarewith
the the
wooden components,
hemp–lime forming th
mix are rather
load‐bearing
well-insulated.construction
The thermally or “weaker”
upholding theare
parts rooftheinsulation below theforming
wooden components, rafters the
and the in
load-bearing construction or upholding the roof insulation below
ternal cladding. The wooden elements such as the capping beam or the wooden batten the rafters and the
internal cladding.
(perpendicular to The
the wooden
plane ofelements such as
the model) the capping
deform beam or theslightly,
the isotherms wooden butbattens
their influ
(perpendicular to the plane of the model) deform the isotherms slightly, but their influence
ence is not big (Figure 4).
is not big (Figure 4).

Schematic view
Figure4.4. Schematic
Figure viewof isotherms in a knee
of isotherms in awall–roof junction (partitions
knee wall–roof junction cut closely to the
(partitions cutcenter
closely to th
of the junction to make the figure smaller).
center of the junction to make the figure smaller).
The first variants of the junction have the internal plaster put on the whole height
Thewall.
of the firstIn
variants ofthere
this way, the junction
is no needhave the internal
to measure plaster put
the predicted levelon
ofthe
the whole
internalheight o
the wall. In
cladding orthis way, there
complement the is no need
plaster after to
themeasure
finishing the predicted
of the level of
roof. However, the internal
it turned out clad
ding or complement the plaster after the finishing of the roof. However, it turned out tha
that the plaster forms a kind of slab, transferring heat into the connection much better than
the
the surrounding
plaster formselements.
a kind ofThis
slab,phenomenon
transferringmay heatbeinto
seenthe
as the increased much
connection heat flux area than th
better
in Figure 5.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Energies 2024, 17, 316 surrounding elements. This phenomenon may be seen as the increased heat flux area in
9 of 16
Figure 5.

Schematic view
Figure5.5.Schematic
Figure view of
of heat
heatflux
fluxinin
a knee wall–roof
a knee junction
wall–roof (partitions
junction cut closely
(partitions to the center
cut closely to the
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
of the junction to make the figure smaller).
center of the junction to make the figure smaller).

This
This isisthe
thereason
reasonthat
thatexplains
explainswhy
why the
the analyses
analyses were
were broadened
broadened bybythe
thealternative
alternative
approach
20 to finishing the construction,
0.042 with the internal0.047
0.036 plaster applied only
0.041to the level of
approach to finishing the construction, with the internal plaster applied only to the level
30
the connection with0.036 0.033
the ceiling (Figure 0.042
6). The values of 0.040
the linear thermal transmittance
of the 40
connection with the ceiling (Figure 6). The values
0.035 of the linear thermal trans‐
are put together in 0.029
Tables 4 and 5. 0.029 0.035
mittance are put together in Tables 4 and 5.
The bigger the slope of the roof, the smaller the ψ value. This may be caused by the
change of the geometry, getting nearer to the flat partition, and by the smaller area of the
heat outflow. The values obtained for the roof sloped by 10° are close to the ISO 14683
standard [47] values for the convex corners, equal to 0.05 W/(m·K). Increased thermal
insulation results in smaller ψ values as well, and the reduction ranges from 5% to 15%.
Removing the plaster from the inside area of the bridge reduced the linear thermal
transmittance by 20%–23% at the maximum (slope of the roof 10°) for both types “a” and
“b” of wall construction (Figure 7). In the case of the roof sloped by 40° the ψ values re‐
mained the same. Here, the wall corner dipped very little during the roof construction;
therefore, in practice, it would be not justifiable to lay the plaster to a lower level.

Table 4. Linear thermal transmittance (internal dimensions)—knee walls and the roof, variant I of
insulating properties.
Figure
Figure6.6.Schematic
Schematic view
view of of
heat flux
heat in in
flux a knee wall–roof
a knee junction
wall–roof afterafter
junction removing
removingpartpart
of the
ofinter‐
the internal
nal plaster
plaster (partitionscut
(partitions cutclosely theLinear
closelytotothe center Thermal
center of
of Transmittance
the junction
the junction to
tomake
makethe [W/(m∙K)]
thefigure
figuresmaller).
smaller).
Slope of the Wall with the Central Load‐Bearing Wall with the Internal Load‐Bearing
The
Roof connection of the wall
Frame with
(Variantthe load‐bearing
“a”)
The bigger the slope of the roof, the smaller the ψ value. frame located nearmay
Frame
This its inner
(Variant surface
“b”) by the
be caused
and the roof turned
[deg]of thePlaster
change out
geometry, to be a
to thegetting worse
Top of nearer solution
to the
Plaster concerning the
flat partition,
to the thermal
Plaster toandtheby bridge
the
Top in
ofsmaller the
Plaster cor‐
areato of
thethe
ner. The steeper
heat outflow. Thethe the roof,
values the bigger the
WallobtainedCeiling difference
for the Level that occurred
roof sloped by thebetween
◦
10Wall variants “a”
are close toCeiling and
the ISO 14683
Level
“b”, ranging
standard
10 from
[47] approximately
values for the convex
0.055 8% (slope 10°) equal
corners,
0.044 to 22%to(slope 40°). This
0.050.059
W/(m ·K).was probably
Increased thermal
0.047
caused
insulation
20 by the presence
results in 0.047 of the additional
smaller ψ values as0.041 wooden wedges supporting
well, and the reduction the rafters
0.052 ranges from 5% placed
to 15%.
0.047
on the capping beam. Their application was necessary to keep a constant level of the roof
30 0.040 0.037 0.046 0.043
above
Table40the knee wall
4. Linear andtransmittance
thermal a constant length of the
(internal partitions creatingwalls
dimensions)—knee the junction.
and the In addi‐
roof, variant I of
0.031 0.031 0.037 0.037
tion, the type “b” wall construction has a slightly higher thermal transmittance coefficient
insulating properties.
than the type “a” construction, which may also contribute to this effect.
Table 5. Linear thermal transmittance (internal dimensions)—knee walls and the roof, variant II of
insulating properties. Linear Thermal Transmittance [W/(m·K)]
Slope of the Wall with the Central Load-Bearing Wall with the Internal Load-Bearing Frame
Roof Frame (Variant “a”) Linear Thermal Transmittance [W/(m∙K)]
(Variant “b”)
[deg] Slope of the Wall with the Central Load‐Bearing Wall with the Internal Load‐Bearing
Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the
Roof Frame (Variant “a”) Frame (Variant “b”)
the Wall Ceiling Level the Wall Ceiling Level
[deg] Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the
10 0.055 0.044 0.059 0.047
the Wall Ceiling Level the Wall Ceiling Level
20 0.047 0.041 0.052 0.047
30 10
0.040 0.048 0.037 0.037 0.046 0.053 0.0430.042
40 0.031 0.031 0.037 0.037

Figure 7. Linear thermal transmittance of the analyzed junctions: (a) variant I of insulating proper‐
ties; (b) variant II of insulating properties.
Energies 2024, 17, 316 10 of 16

Table 5. Linear thermal transmittance (internal dimensions)—knee walls and the roof, variant II of
insulating properties.

Linear Thermal Transmittance [W/(m·K)]

Slope of the Wall with the Central Load-Bearing Wall with the Internal Load-Bearing Frame
Roof Frame (Variant “a”) (Variant “b”)
[deg] Figure 6. Schematic view of heat flux in a knee wall–roof junction after removing part of the inter‐
Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the Plaster to the Top of Plaster to the
nal plaster (partitions cut closely to the center of the junction to make the figure smaller).
the Wall Ceiling Level the Wall Ceiling Level
10 0.048 0.037 0.053 0.042
The connection of the wall with the load‐bearing frame located near its inner surface
20 0.042 0.036 0.047 0.041
30 and the roof turned out to 0.033
0.036 be a worse solution concerning
0.042 the thermal0.040
bridge in the cor‐
40 ner. The
0.029steeper the roof, the bigger the difference0.035
0.029 that occurred between variants “a” and
0.035
“b”, ranging from approximately 8% (slope 10°) to 22% (slope 40°). This was probably
causedRemoving
by the presence of from
the plaster the additional wooden
the inside area of thewedges supporting
bridge reduced the rafters
the linear placed
thermal
ontransmittance
the cappingby beam.
20–23% at the maximum (slope of the roof 10 ) for both types “a” and “b” roof
Their application was necessary to keep
◦ a constant level of the
above the
of wall knee wall (Figure
construction and a constant
7). In thelength
case of of
thetheroofpartitions
sloped bycreating
40◦ the ψthe junction.
values In addi‐
remained
tion,
the the
same.type “b”the
Here, wall construction
wall corner dipped hasvery
a slightly higherthe
little during thermal transmittance
roof construction; coefficient
therefore,
in practice,
than the typeit “a”
would be not justifiable
construction, which tomay
lay the
alsoplaster to a lower
contribute level.
to this effect.

Figure
Figure7.7.Linear
Linear thermal transmittance
thermal transmittance of of
thethe analyzed
analyzed junctions:
junctions: (a) variant
(a) variant I of insulating
I of insulating proper‐
properties;
ties; (b) variant II of insulating properties.
(b) variant II of insulating properties.

The connection
Concerning the of the wall
ridge, with the
a similar load-bearing
regularity may frame located as
be observed near
foritsthe
inner
kneesurface
wall—the
and the roof turned out to be a worse solution concerning the thermal bridge
more convex the shape of the junction, the bigger the linear thermal transmittance in the corner.
(Table
The steeper the roof, the bigger the difference that occurred between variants “a” and “b”,
6). The smallest slope (10°), close to the◦ plane, is characterized by the smallest ψ value.
ranging from approximately 8% (slope 10 ) to 22% (slope 40◦ ). This was probably caused
This may suggest that, in the connections of well‐insulated partitions without any obvi‐
by the presence of the additional wooden wedges supporting the rafters placed on the
ous elements
capping beam. ofTheir
high application
thermal transmittance,
was necessaryheat losses
to keep depend
a constant to aoflarge
level extent
the roof aboveon the
shape
the knee wall and a constant length of the partitions creating the junction. In addition, thein in‐
of the junctions (Figure 8). The reduction in ψ values caused by the increase
sulating
type “b”properties of the partitions
wall construction is higher
has a slightly almostthermal
constant for all of the
transmittance slopes and
coefficient than equal
the to
22%.
type “a” construction, which may also contribute to this effect.
Concerning the ridge, a similar regularity may be observed as for the knee wall—the
more convex the shape of the junction, the bigger the linear thermal transmittance (Table 6).
The smallest slope (10◦ ), close to the plane, is characterized by the smallest ψ value. This
may suggest that, in the connections of well-insulated partitions without any obvious
elements of high thermal transmittance, heat losses depend to a large extent on the shape
of the junctions (Figure 8). The reduction in ψ values caused by the increase in insulating
properties of the partitions is almost constant for all of the slopes and equal to 22%.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of

Table 6. Linear thermal transmittance (internal dimensions)—ridge.

Energies 2024, 17, 316 11 of 16
Linear(internal
Table 6. Linear thermal transmittance Thermal Transmit‐ Linear Thermal Transmit‐
dimensions)—ridge.
Slope of the Roof
tance (Variant I) tance (Variant II)
[deg]
Table 6. Linear Linear
thermal transmittance Thermal
(internal Transmit‐
dimensions)—ridge. Linear Thermal Transmit‐
Slope of the Roof [W/(m∙K)] [W/(m∙K)]
tance (Variant I)
Linear Thermal
tance (Variant II)
Linear Thermal
Slope[deg]
10the Roof
of 0.026 0.020
[W/(m∙K)]
Transmittance (Variant I) Transmittance [W/(m∙K)]
(Variant II)
20
[deg]
[W/(m0.034
· K)] [W/(m·K)]0.027
10 0.026 0.020
30
10
0.041
0.026
0.032
0.020 0.027
20 0.034
40
20 0.047
0.034 0.027 0.036
30
30 0.041
0.041 0.032 0.032
40
40 0.047
0.047 0.036 0.036

Figure 8. Schematic view of isotherms in the ridge junction (partitions cut closely to the center
the junction to make the figure smaller).
Figure 8.Schematic
Figure 8. Schematic view
view of isotherms
of isotherms in the in thejunction
ridge ridge junction
(partitions(partitions cuttheclosely
cut closely to tothe
center of the center
the junction
junction to to
makemake
the the
figure figure smaller).
smaller).
3.2. Heat Losses through an Exemplary Roof
3.2. Heat
The Losses
results through
of thean Exemplary
analyses Roof
do Roof
not point unambiguously to what slope of a roo
3.2. Heat Losses through an Exemplary
would Theberesults
the most
of thefavorable
analyses doregarding heat transfer.toSmaller
not point unambiguously what slope slopes show
of a roof bigger he
would
flow through the knee wall–roof junction and smaller through the ridge, and inof
be The
the mostresults
favorableof the analyses
regarding heat do not
transfer. point
Smaller unambiguously
slopes show bigger to
heat what
flow slope
through thea cas
ro
would
of kneebe
thebigger the most
wall–roof
slopes, thefavorable
junction regarding
and smaller
situation is thethrough heat transfer.
the ridge,
opposite. and Smaller
The surfacein theofcaseslopes
the ofroof,
biggershow bigger
slopes,
differing for he
th
flow
the through
situation is the
the knee wall–roof
opposite. The junction
surface of the and
roof, smaller
differing through
for the the
examined
examined slopes, may also have an important influence on the total heat transmission. ridge,
slopes,andmayin the ca
also
of have an
bigger important
slopes, the influence
situation onisthe total
the heat transmission.
opposite. The surface of the roof, differing for th
The
The following
following results
results (Tables
(Tables 7–10)
7–10) present
present heat heat
loss loss coefficients
coefficients H tr for H
a tr for a gable roof
gable roof
mexamined
wide and slopes, may (internal
also havedimensions),
an importantshown influence on the9.total heat transmission.
8m wide and12 12m m long
long (internal dimensions), in Figure
shown in Figure 9.
The following results (Tables 7–10) present heat loss coefficients Htr for a gable roof
m wide and 12 m long (internal dimensions), shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Outline of the roof and thermal bridges included in calculation of heat loss coefficients.
Figure 9. Outline of the roof and thermal bridges included in calculation of heat loss coefficients.

Figure
In9.the
Outline of the roof
connection and gable
of the thermal bridges
wall and included
roof, theinψcalculation
values wereof heat lossW/(m·K)
0.045 coefficients.
an
0.047 W/(m·K) (variant I), and 0.036 W/(m·K) and 0.039 W/(m·K) (variant II) for the wa
In the connection of the gable wall and roof, the ψ values were 0.045 W/(m·K) an
construction types “a” and “b”, respectively. The calculations include heat losses throug
0.047 W/(m·K) (variant I), and 0.036 W/(m·K) and 0.039 W/(m·K) (variant II) for the wa
construction types “a” and “b”, respectively. The calculations include heat losses throug
Energies 2024, 17, 316 12 of 16

Table 7. Transmission heat loss coefficients for an exemplary gable roof, wall variant “I a”.

Transmission Heat Loss Coefficient

Slope of the Wall with Plaster to the Level
Roof Wall with Plaster to the Top
of the Ceiling
[◦ ]
Total Thermal Bridges Thermal Bridges Total Thermal Thermal
[W/K] [W/K] [%] [W/K] Bridges [W/K] Bridges [%]
10 16.885 2.360 14.0 16.619 2.095 12.6
20 17.539 2.318 13.2 17.384 2.163 12.4
30 18.790 2.275 12.1 18.716 2.202 11.8
40 20.918 2.251 10.8 20.911 2.244 10.7

Table 8. Transmission heat loss coefficients for an exemplary gable roof, wall variant “I b”.

Transmission Heat Loss Coefficient

Slope of the Wall with Plaster to the Level
Roof Wall with Plaster to the Top
of the Ceiling
[deg]
Total Thermal Thermal Bridges Total Thermal Bridges Thermal
[W/K] Bridges [W/K] [%] [W/K] [W/K] Bridges [%]
10 17.019 2.494 14.7 16.739 2.214 13.2
20 17.675 2.454 13.9 17.557 2.336 13.3
30 18.974 2.460 13.0 18.915 2.401 12.7
40 21.111 2.444 11.6 21.103 2.436 11.5

Table 9. Transmission heat loss coefficients for an exemplary gable roof, wall variant “II a”.

Transmission Heat Loss Coefficient

Slope of the Wall with Plaster to the Level
Roof Wall with Plaster to the Top
of the Ceiling
[◦ ]
Total Thermal Bridges Thermal Bridges Total Thermal Bridges Thermal
[W/K] [W/K] [%] [W/K] [W/K] Bridges [%]
10 13.399 1.994 14.9 13.134 1.729 13.2
20 13.906 1.954 14.0 13.758 1.806 13.1
30 14.878 1.910 12.8 14.812 1.844 12.4
40 16.559 1.901 11.5 16.551 1.893 11.4

Table 10. Transmission heat loss coefficients for an exemplary gable roof, wall variant “II b”.

Transmission Heat Loss Coefficient

Slope of the Wall with Plaster to the Level
Roof Wall with Plaster to the Top
of the Ceiling
[deg]
Total Thermal Bridges Thermal Bridges Total Thermal Bridges Thermal
[W/K] [W/K] [%] [W/K] [W/K] Bridges [%]
10 13.561 2.156 15.9 13.273 1.868 14.1
20 14.062 2.110 15.0 13.917 1.965 14.1
30 15.082 2.115 14.0 15.031 2.063 13.7
40 16.751 2.093 12.5 16.751 2.093 12.5

In the connection of the gable wall and roof, the ψ values were 0.045 W/(m·K) and
0.047 W/(m·K) (variant I), and 0.036 W/(m·K) and 0.039 W/(m·K) (variant II) for the wall
construction types “a” and “b”, respectively. The calculations include heat losses through
 Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

Energies 2024, 17, 316 13 of 16

Table 10. Transmission heat loss coefficients for an exemplary gable roof, wall variant “II b”.

Transmission Heat Loss Coefficient

the roof slope and thermal bridges along eaves, ridge, and the top of gable walls, according
Wall with Plaster to the Level
toSlope of the(3) [48]:Wall with Plaster to the Top
Equation of the Ceiling
Roof Htr = ∑iThermal
Thermal Uri · Ari + ∑ j ψj · L j Thermal (3)
[deg] Total Total Thermal
Bridges Bridges Bridges
where i—number [W/K] of the roof slopes; Ur —thermal transmittance
[W/K] coefficient of the
Bridges [%] roof
[W/K] [%] [W/K]
[W/(m2 ·K)]; A—internal surface of a roof slope [m2 ]; j—number of the thermal bridges;
10 13.561 2.156 15.9 13.273 1.868 14.1
ψ—linear
20
thermal 14.062
transmittance of a thermal
2.110 15.0
[W/(m·K)]; L—internal
bridge 13.917 1.965
length of a
14.1
thermal30 bridge [m].15.082 2.115 14.0 15.031 2.063 13.7
Transmission
40 16.751losses Q2.093
heat tr [Wh] during
12.5 a period depend proportionally
16.751 2.093 on the heat
12.5
loss coefficient, as in Equation (4) [48]:
The transmission heat loss coefficient clearly rises with the growing slope of the roof
(Figure 10). The contribution of thermal tr ·( θint,H
Qtr = Hbridges to−theθe )· t M heat loss coefficient ranges (4)
total
from 10.7% to 15.9%. It decreases as the slope of the roof increases, because of the rising
where
impact θofint,H —the
the heatset-point temperature
losses through the growingfor heating [◦ C];For
roof area. θ e —mean
the wallexternal temperature
variant “b”, the
during a period ◦
[ C]; tM —duration of the
the higher
calculation period
influence is slightly higher, because of values of the[h].
linear transmittance co‐
The transmission
efficients themselves. Using heat the
lossconstruction
coefficient clearly
with the rises with the growing
load‐bearing slope at
frame located of the
the roof
(Figure
internal10).
wallThe contribution
surface enlargesof thermal
heat lossesbridges
from the to the
rooftotal
by 1.1%heat loss coefficient
on average. ranges from
Improved
10.7% to 15.9%.
insulation reduces It the
decreases
heat lossascoefficient
the slope of by the
21%roof increases, because of the rising impact
on average.
of the heat losses
Thanks to thethrough the growing
modification roof area.
of the bridges For the
consisting of wall variant
removing the“b”, the from
plaster influence
is slightly
their interior higher, because
it is possible of thethe
to lower higher values
heat losses up of the linear
to 1.6% transmittance
in variant coefficients
I and up to 2.1% in
themselves.
variant II (in Using
the case theofconstruction
the slope of thewithroof
the10°).
load-bearing
This change framehaslocated
rather aatlimited
the internal
effect wall
surface enlarges
on the heat heatlessening
transfer, losses from as the roof
slopebyof1.1% on average.
the roof Improveditinsulation
grows. However, reduces
may be still
worth taking into consideration as
the heat loss coefficient by 21% on average. a solution not generating additional costs.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Heat
Heatloss
losscoefficients ofof
coefficients anan
exemplary roof.
exemplary roof.

4. Conclusions
Thanks to the modification of the bridges consisting of removing the plaster from
theirHemp–lime
interior it iscomposite
possible tois lower the heat
a material used losses up to 1.6%
to fill building in variant
partitions thatIhave
and up to 2.1% in
wooden
variant II (in the
load‐bearing case ofItthe
elements. slope of
belongs to the roof 10of◦ ).ecological,
a group This change has rather
recyclable, a limited effect on
easy‐to‐prepare
the heat transfer,
materials made oflessening as the slope
locally available of the roofUsing
components. grows.thisHowever,
material itinmay be still
typical andworth
taking into consideration
low‐energy as a solution
buildings demands not generating
the assertion additional
of the possibility costs.
of constructing building
partitions and junctions characterized by low thermal transmittance. The presented re‐
4. Conclusions
search proves such potential of the composite—the U values of the walls and roof are in
the range betweencomposite
Hemp–lime 0.15 and 0.20
is aW/(m 2·K), and between 0.12 and 0.15 W/(m2·K), respec‐
material used to fill building partitions that have wooden
tively, and all of the analysed thermal bridges
load-bearing elements. It belongs to a group haveofψecological,
values well recyclable,
below 0.10 W/(m·K).
easy-to-prepare
The study concentrates on thermal bridges appearing in roofs
materials made of locally available components. Using this material of different slopes and
in typical and low-
their connections with knee and gable walls. Our experiments enabled a comparison
energy buildings demands the assertion of the possibility of constructing building partitions
and junctions characterized by low thermal transmittance. The presented research proves
such potential of the composite—the U values of the walls and roof are in the range between
0.15 and 0.20 W/(m2 ·K), and between 0.12 and 0.15 W/(m2 ·K), respectively, and all of the
analysed thermal bridges have ψ values well below 0.10 W/(m·K).
Energies 2024, 17, 316 14 of 16

The study concentrates on thermal bridges appearing in roofs of different slopes and
their connections with knee and gable walls. Our experiments enabled a comparison
between different types of walls, concerning the heat transfer in construction junctions.
The analyses revealed weak spots in the thermal bridges, which was a starting point for
working out improved solutions with reduced linear thermal transmittance coefficients.
The final recommendations regarding the roof construction are as follows:
• The smaller tilt of a roof is a factor diminishing heat transfer through the main part of
the construction;
• Even though they increase the heat transfer through the linear bridges, their influence
is of minor importance in this case;
• As the share of the thermal bridges in the total heat losses may be up to 15%, the
above statement does not justify the negligence of carefully designing the construction
junctions, especially in low-energy buildings;
• Through the analyses of heat transfer in specific junctions, it is possible to identify
weak points in construction and substitute them with an alternative, better design.
It is also worth mentioning that accounting for heat losses throughout the whole
construction is an approach that gives more reliable and complete information compared
with an examination of the thermal transmittance coefficients of isolated building partitions
and junctions.
The presented work has some limitations. Firstly, the effects associated with the 3D
heat flow in the rafters and roof insulation were neglected. In the presented case, the
partitions are relatively uniform in terms of the thermal properties of its components,
lowering the resulting simulation error. Also, the two-step modelling procedure was
introduced, based on the substitution of non-uniform layers by the equivalent thermal
conductivity, calculated with the use of additional 2D simulations. Secondly, in practical
applications, the elements used in real constructions may have different thermal properties
or dimensions, so the presented values of linear thermal transmittance coefficients or
heat loss coefficients should be treated as approximates. Thirdly, vapor transfer is not
included in the study, as it cannot be handled by computer programs meant for heat
transfer analyses [49].

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.G. and P.B.; methodology, M.G. and P.B.; software,
M.G.; validation, M.G.; formal analysis, M.G. and P.B.; investigation, M.G. and P.B.; resources, M.G.
and P.B.; data curation, M.G. and P.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G., P.B., K.P. and W.J.;
writing—review and editing, M.G., P.B., K.P. and W.J.; visualization, M.G., K.P. and W.J.; supervision,
M.G. and P.B.; project administration, P.B.; funding acquisition, M.G., K.P., W.J. and P.B. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Polish Ministry of Education and Science within the grant
numbers: FD-20/IL-4/022; FD-20/IL-4/009; FD-20/AU-1/029; FD-20/AU-1/022.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Alhavari, A.; Mukhopadhyaya, P. Thermal Bridges in Building Envelopes an Overview of Impacts and Solutions. Int. Rev. Appl.
Sci. Eng. 2018, 9, 31–40. [CrossRef]
2. Building Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Renovation Strategies of Selected EU Countries: A Status Report on Compliance with
Article 4 of the Energy Efficiency Directive; BPIE: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. Available online: https://bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/
2015/10/Renovation-Strategies-EU-BPIE-2014.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
3. Yuan, X.; Wang, X.; Zuo, J. Renewable energy in buildings in China—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
4. Brzyski, P.; Grudzińska, M.; Majerek, D. Analysis of the Occurrence of Thermal Bridges in Several Variants of Connections of
the Wall and the Ground Floor in Construction Technology with the Use of a Hemp–Lime Composite. Materials 2019, 12, 2392.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 316 15 of 16

5. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 394–398.
[CrossRef]
6. The United Nations. Paris Agreement. 2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.
pdf (accessed on 21 November 2023).
7. European Parliament. Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the Energy
Performance of Buildings. Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, 46, 65–71. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2003:001:0065:0071:en:PDF (accessed on 21 November 2023).
8. European Parliament. Directive 2023/955/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2018 on the Energy
Perfromance of Buildings. Off. J. Eur. Union 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/
?uri=CELEX:32023L1791&qid=1700576301961 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
9. Trotta, G. Assessing energy efficiency improvements, energy dependence, and CO2 emissions in the European Union using a
decomposition method. Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 1873–1890. [CrossRef]
10. Theodosiou, T.G.; Papadopoulos, A.M. The impact of thermal bridges on the energy demand of buildings with double brick wall
constructions. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 2083–2089. [CrossRef]
11. Kotti, S.; Teli, D.; James, P.A.B. Quantifying Thermal Bridge Effects and Assessing Retrofit Solutions in a Greek Residential
Building. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 306–313. [CrossRef]
12. Evola, G.; Margani, G.; Marletta, L. Energy and cost evaluation of thermal bridge correction in Mediterranean climate. Energy
Build. 2011, 43, 2385–2393. [CrossRef]
13. Ilomets, S.; Kalamees, T. Evaluation of the criticality of thermal bridges. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2016, 1, 11. [CrossRef]
14. Dumitrescu, L.; Baran, I.; Pescaru, R.A. The Influence of Thermal Bridges in the Process of Buildings Thermal Rehabilitation.
Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 682–689. [CrossRef]
15. Brzyski, P.; Grudzińska, M.; Böhm, M.; Łagód, G. Energy Simulations of a Building Insulated with a Hemp-Lime Composite with
Different Wall and Node Variants. Energies 2022, 15, 7678. [CrossRef]
16. Jedidi, M.; Benjeddou, O. Effect of Thermal Bridges on the Heat Balance of Buildings. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2, 41–49.
17. Mayer, Z.; Kahn, J.; Götz, M.; Hou, Y.; Beiersdörfer, T.; Blumenröhr, N.; Volk, R.; Streit, A.; Schultmann, F. Thermal Bridges on
Building Rooftops. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 268. [CrossRef]
18. Cox-Ganser, J.M. Indoor dampness and mould health effects—Ongoing questions on microbial exposures and allergic versus
nonallergic mechanisms. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2015, 45, 1478–1482. [CrossRef]
19. Grudzińska, M.; Brzyski, P. The Occurrence of Thermal Bridges in Hemp-Lime Construction Junctions. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng.
2019, 63, 377–387. [CrossRef]
20. Borgero, S.; Chiari, A. The influence of thermal bridge calculation method on the building energy need: A case study. Energy
Procedia 2018, 148, 1042–1049. [CrossRef]
21. Kosiński, P.; Brzyski, P.; Tunkiewicz, M.; Suchorab, Z.; Wiśniewski, D.; Palczyński, P. Thermal Properties of Hemp Shives Used as
Insulation Material in Construction Industry. Energies 2022, 15, 2461. [CrossRef]
22. Meshgin, P.; Xi, Y. Multi-scale composite models for the effective thermal conductivity of PCM-concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2013, 48, 371–378. [CrossRef]
23. Li, H.; Zeng, Q.; Xu, S. Effect of pore shape on the thermal conductivity of partially saturated cement-based porous composites.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 81, 87–96. [CrossRef]
24. Qiu, L.; Zou, H.; Tang, D.; Wen, D.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, X. Inhomogeneity in pore size appreciably lowering thermal conductivity for
porous thermal insulators. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 130, 1004–1011. [CrossRef]
25. Li, K.; Li, D.; Liu, D. Meso-scale investigations on the effective thermal conductivity of multi-phase materials using the finite
element method. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2020, 151, 119383. [CrossRef]
26. Sinka, S.; Sahmenko, G.; Korjakins, A.; Radina, L.; Bajare, D. Hemp Thermal Insulation Concrete with Alternative Binders,
Analysis of their Thermal and Mechanical Properties. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 96, 012029. [CrossRef]
27. Pietruszka, B.; Goł˛ebiewski, M. Właściwości wyrobów budowlanych na bazie konopi. Przeglad ˛ Bud. 2019, 10, 139–141.
28. Walker, R.; Pavía, S. Moisture transfer and thermal properties of hemp–lime concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 64, 270–276.
[CrossRef]
29. Elfordy, S.; Lucas, F.; Tancret, F.; Scudeller, Y.; Goudet, L. Mechanical and thermal properties of lime and hemp concrete
(“hempcrete”) manufactured by a projection process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 2116–2123. [CrossRef]
30. Barnat-Hunek, D.; Smarzewski, P.; Fic, S. Mechanical and thermal properties of hemp-lime composites. Compos. Theory Pract.
2015, 15, 21–27.
31. Evrard, A. Sorption behaviour of Lime-Hemp Concrete and its relation to indoor comfort and energy demand. In Proceedings of
the PLEA2006—23rd International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland, 6–8 September
2006.
32. Bevan, R.; Wolley, T. Hemp lime construction. In A Guide to Building with Hemp Lime Composites; IHS BRE Press: Bracknell, UK,
2008; ISBN 978-1-84806-033-3.
33. Bevan, R.; Wolley, T. Constructing aa low energy house from hempcrete and other natural materials. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies (NOCMAT 2009), Bath, UK, 6–9 September 2009.
Energies 2024, 17, 316 16 of 16

34. Florentin, Y.; Pearlmutter, D.; Givoni, B.; Gal, E. A life-cycle energy and carbon analysis of hemp-lime bio-composite building
materials. Energy Build. 2017, 156, 293–305. [CrossRef]
35. Schiavoni, S.; D’Alessandro, F.; Bianchi, F.; Asdrubali, F. Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative
analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 988–1011. [CrossRef]
36. ISO 10211; Thermal Bridges in Building Construction. Heat Flows and Surface Temperatures. Detailed Calculations. European
Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
37. Available online: https://windows.lbl.gov/software-tools (accessed on 13 November 2023).
38. Hilderson, W. Therm 7.4 Validation According to EN ISO 10211:2007. The Flemish Passive House Platform. Available online:
https://pixii.be/sites/default/files/therm_7.4_validatie_10211.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2023).
39. Garay, R.; Uriarte, A.; Apraiz, I. Performance assessment of thermal bridge elements into a full scale experimental study of a
building façade. Energy Build. 2014, 85, 579–591. [CrossRef]
40. Kempton, L.; Kokogiannakis, G.; Green, A.; Cooper, P. Evaluation of thermal bridging mitigation techniques and impact of
calculation methods for lightweight steel frame external wall systems. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102893. [CrossRef]
41. Ramalho de Freitas, J.; Grala da Cunha, E. Thermal bridges modeling in South Brazil climate: Three different approaches. Energy
Build. 2018, 169, 271–282. [CrossRef]
42. Smusz, R.; Korzeniowski, M. Experimental investigation of thermal bridges in building at real conditions. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 70,
03013. [CrossRef]
43. ISO 6946; Building Components and Building Elements. Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance. Calculation Methods.
European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
44. Nagy, B. Comparative analysis of multi-dimensional heat flow modeling. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference for PhD Students
in Civil Engineering, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 10–12 December 2014.
45. ISO 10456; Building Materials and Products—Hygrothermal Properties—Tabulated Design Values and Procedures for Determin-
ing Declared and Design Thermal Values. European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
46. Available online: https://imgw.pl/wydarzenia/warunki-termiczne-w-polsce-w-sezonie-zimowym-20202021 (accessed on 22
December 2023).
47. ISO 14683; Thermal Bridges in Building Construction. Linear Thermal Transmittance. Simplified Methods and Default Values.
European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
48. ISO 52016-1; Energy Performance of Buildings. Energy Needs for Heating and Cooling, Internal Temperatures and Sensible and
Latent Heat Loads. Part 1: Calculation Procedures. European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
49. Nagy, B.; Marosvölgyi, M.; Szalay, M. Comparison of thermal bridge calculation methods. Acta Polytech. CTU Proc. 2022, 38,
77–83. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.