AEI 2017 204

A Comparative Evaluation for Three Residential Wall Insulation

Systems in a Hot-Arid Climate Using Simulation Tools and
Experimental Testing
K. Tarabieh and A. Aboulmagd

Abstract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The composition of typical wall systems impacts the rate of heat gain through the
building envelope in the hot arid climate. A wall system performance can be
predicted using simulation tools and can be measured effectively in lab. The purpose
of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis for the commonly used wall
insulation materials that are suitable for the hot arid climate. The research approach
utilize simulation tools and is validated by experimental testing utilizing a state of the
art guarded hot box test rig able to analyze the performance of large scale wall
insulation specimens under varied conditions using the standard ASTM C1363-111.
Three different wall insulation types representing the commonly built systems in the
research location were applied in the lab to a standard wall system detail. The study
revealed the importance of vertical wall insulation in hot arid climates, however, with
specified optimum thickness validated by experimental testing. The main limitations
of both simulation tools and experimental testing are also noted.

INTRODUCTION
The performance of a typical wall system is primarily driven by energy. The typical
detail in a hot arid climate often is constructed from a (2cm plaster, 12cm brick, 5cm
insulation later, Gypsum board of 1.25cm, 3-4mm coating and paint. In this research,
we propose the use of simulation tools to analyze the performance of a wall system
and to validate using experimental testing in the lab for actual walls. Similar to other
climatic zones, hot arid climates require perfect information on the thermal properties
of the materials used in construction. Specifically in countries with limited public
reliable information that are critical during design and specification. Several
techniques and standards have been developed for determining the overall heat
transfer coefficient (U-value) of the material (Mumaw 1974, Perrine, Lineham et al.
1979, Achenbach 1981, Miller and Goss 1991, BTC 2004, Giovanardi, Baldracchi et
al. 2010). The thermal performance of a building envelope is dependent on the type
and thickness of installed insulation and a number of other factors that are directly or
indirectly related to the overall performance of the building skin. Among these factors
are the thermal bridging, climate, ventilation and workmanship (Ghazi Wakili and
Tanner 2003, Asdrubali and Baldinelli 2011, Luo, Moghtaderi et al. 2011, Martin,

1
ASTM C1363 – 11, Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials and
Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 205

Erkoreka et al. 2011, Martin, Campos-Celador et al. 2012, Saber 2012). To better
understand the behavior of the skin, different types of experimental testing methods
were developed along with a recent reliance on parametric analysis and simulation for
prediction of performance without in-situ experimental design (Bales and Bass 1981,
Sala, Urresti et al. 2008, Vivancos, Soto et al. 2009, Martin, Flores et al. 2010, Chen
and Wittkopf 2012, Ferrari and Zanotto 2013).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST RIG

The test rig apparatus2 is comprised of two chambers; warm and cold and a common
chamber “tempering ring” that surrounds the building sample “specimen” calibrated
according to EN ISO 89903 and ASTM C 1363 (see Figure 1). The specifications of
the specimen is made per the standards and is placed in the tempering ring between
the two chambers. The two chambers have an indirect system of thermoregulation
with a rate of 0.2°C/min and an accuracy of ±0.2°C. The purpose of the tempering
ring is to minimize the heat flux surrounding the perimeter of the sample (see Figure
2).

The warm and cold side are equipped with a total of fifty eight surface temperature
sensors “thermocouples” that are placed to measure the thermal performance of the
specimen following the standard heat transfer equations for a steady state condition.
The power of the fan and the heater of the metering box on the warm side are
calculated as recorded by the test rig (see Figure 3). This method is used in the
determination of the steady-state thermal transmittance (U-value) and accordingly the
thermal resistance (R). This method has a number of advantages as the specimen
scale allows for better understanding of the skin on a large scale sample and a
considerable number of data points through the thermocouples, works as validation to
any computer simulation program and allows for better addressing and monitoring of
issues that are difficult to account for quantitatively such as precise measurement of
the impact of thermal bridging, change in material not addressed in the simulation
program and allows for believability of the results using the actual materials used in
construction in the location or region of the test. The disadvantages lie in dealing with
the large scale sample size and the safety, cost and constructability issues surrounding
it.

The method requires experience in the data interpretation and knowledge about heat
transfer, flanking loss estimation (Lavine, Rucker et al. 1983) and calibration of the
chamber on uniform basis to make sure the results are believable. Of the major

2
Specifications of the Thermal Transmittance Test Equipment for Buildings Thermal Performance
Testing According to the ISO 8990 std, MOD. TTS 6, Angelantoni Industrie S.P.A, Italy.
3
ISO 8990, 1996: Determination of steady-state thermal transmission properties. Calibrated and
guarded hot box, BSI

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 206

problems, is the ability to control room humidity at a level acceptable per the standard
and the time that can be consumed per one test, the logistics of preconditioning and
other technical skills that require special handling of large scale specimens in labs
such as the availability of proper equipment and space to maneuver the specimen and
interact with the test rig.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Test rig apparatus and specimen.

Tempering Ring

Guarded Chamber Climatic Chamber

Flanking Loss
(Qfl)
Heat Input

Heat transfer
Metering Box wall Loss
(Qmw)

Specimen

Figure 2. A schematic of the metering box.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 207

TC 21 TC 50

TC 01 TC 02 TC 03 TC 04 TC 33 TC 34 TC 35 TC 36

TC 05 TC 06 TC 07 TC 08 TC 37 TC 38 TC 39 TC 40

TC 20 TC 18 TC 53 TC 51
TC 17 TC 49

TC 09 TC 10 TC 11 TC 12 TC 41 TC 42 TC 43 TC 44
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TC 13 TC 14 TC 15 TC 16 TC 45 TC 46 TC 47 TC 48

TC 19 TC 52

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Metered area of the test specimen: a) Warm side (ID), b) Outdoor side
(OD).
The test is performed on three specimens of different types of insulation materials,
namely:
• Polyurethane foam (PUR)
• Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)
• Extruded polystyrene (EPS)
An uncertainty analysis is performed in order to accurately assess the span of error
associated with the calculated output parameters from experimental data. Different
heat transfer quantities, like thermal conductivity, heat transfer coefficients and
resistances are calculated based on experimental measurements of basic quantities.
The U-value as a function of specimen insulation thickness and ID/OD temperatures
as fitted to a simulation of a common wall structure is investigated. In addition, the
U-value of the insulation is simulated as a function of the specimen thickness in order
to obtain the optimal thickness setting for an experimental set-up. The error
estimation of the test procedure was 2.3% in the calibration test carried out with a
homogeneous well known sample (Polyurethane 5 cm thickness with a factory
specified thermal conductivity K of 0.023 W/(m.K).

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Figure 4 shows the block diagram of the present research framework, sampling,
calibration, testing and simulation steps under each process.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 208
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Block diagram of the research framework of the study

TYPICAL OUTPUT OF ONE TEST
In the following, the output of a sample testing day is presented. The test performed
(Test 1 in table 2) for the Polyurethane insulation slab and characterized with the
following parameters and test conditions:
− Hot side (indoor) temperature set point: 40 °C
− Cold side (outdoor) temperature set point: 23 °C
As demonstrated by Fig. 3, sixteen type T thermocouples are affixed on the specimen
hot-side surface. These thermocouples are distributed so that each one covers an
equal area portion of the metering area. Similar number and distribution of
thermocouples are available on the cold-side of the specimen surface. Figure 5 shows
the time variations of hot-side (ID) and cold-side (OD) surface temperatures as well
as the corresponding area-weighted average quantities (dotted-lines). Figure 6 shows
time variations of indoor, outdoor and metering box environmental temperatures.
Area weighted average ID and OD surface temperatures are also overlaid. Figure 7
demonstrate variations of electric heater and fan powers with time during the
experiment.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 209

45
W.Avg. ID Surf. Temp.
W.Avg. OD Surf. Temp.

40
Temperature [ o C]

35
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30

25

20
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [min]

Figure 5. Indoor and outdoor surface temperatures vs. time. Area weighted average
surface temperatures values are overlaid.

45

40

35 OD Temp.
ID Temp.
MB Temp.
W.Avg. ID Surf. Temp.
30 W.Avg. OD Surf. Temp.

25

20
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [min]

Figure 6. Indoor, outdoor and metering box air temperatures vs. time. Area weighted
average indoor and outdoor surface temperatures are also overlaid.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 210
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 7. Heater and fan power inputs vs. time.

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
The instruments used in the experimental test-rig were calibrated by manufactures
before the installation. Calibration certificates, manufacturer specifications and
datasheets of the measurement equipment are used to determine the measurement
error associated by each equipment. Table 1 introduces the full-range uncertainty of
the measurement equipment used in the experiments.
The evaluations of uncertainty in a calculated parameter based on experimental
measurements of individual quantities is based on the law of uncertainty propagation,
given below

2 2 2
§ wf 2 · § wf 2 · § wf 2 ·
uf ¨ u f1 ¸  ¨ u f2 ¸  ...  ¨ u fn ¸
© wf1 ¹ © wf 2 ¹ © wf n ¹

Where, is the total uncertainty in the calculated value of the function based on
individual uncertainties of independent parameters that are included in its calculation
( , ,…, ).

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 211

For instance, the uncertainty of the calculated value of thermal conductivity ( ),

based on measured independent parameters is:

2 2 2
§ wK 2 · § wK 2 · § wK 2 ·
uK ¨ uQ ¸  ¨ uT1 ¸  ¨ uT2 ¸
© wQ ¹ © wT1 ¹ © wT2 ¹

Table 1. Full-range uncertainties in measurement equipment used.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Meas. Equipment Full-range uncertainty Assumptions

Heater voltage Multi-meter 0.35 V 0.5 % of full scale value
Heater current Multi-meter 0.005 amp 0.5 % of full scale value
Fan voltage Multi-meter 0.15 V 0.5 % of full scale value
Fan current Multi-meter 0.006 amp 0.5 % of full scale value
Temperature Thermocouple 0.5 °C --

EXPERIMENTAL MODELS AND CALCULATIONS

In order to calculate the heat transfer quantities, the steady-state net heat flow rate ( )
across the specimen thickness need to be calculated from the following relation,
according to the ASTM C1363-11 standard:
Q Qh  Q f  Qmw  Q fl

Where,
: Heat power generated from the heater, W

: Fan input power, W

: Metering box wall heat loss, W

: Flanking heat loss, W

For the guarded hot box apparatus, the heat flow through the metering box wall is
zero. The flanking loss is assumed to be 10% of the net heat flow rate through the test
specimen.
The thermal conductivity ( ) value in W/m.K is calculated from the following
relation:
L Q
K
A (T1  T2 )

Where,
: Specimen thickness, m

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 212

: Specimen metered area, m2

: Area weighted average temperature of the specimen hot surface, °C

: Area weighted average temperature of the specimen cold surface, °C

The thermal transmittance ( ) is calculated from the following relation:

Q
U
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A(Tenv ,h  Tenv ,c )

Where,
: Effective environmental hot temperature (OD), °C

: Effective environmental cold temperature (ID), °C

The hot and cold surface heat transfer coefficients ( and ) are calculated
respectively from:
Q
hh
A(Tenv ,h  T1 )

Q
hc
A(T2  Tenv ,c )

The thermal conductance ( ) is calculated from

Q
C
A(T1  T2 )

The thermal resistances ( , , and ) are calculated, respectively from

A(t env ,h  tenv ,c ) 1

Ru
Q U

A(t1  t2 ) 1
R
Q C

A(t env ,h  t1 )
Rh
Q

A(t2  t env ,c )
Rc
Q

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 213

RESULTS
The calculated values of the specimen thermal conductivity ( ) and other thermal
characteristics are based on the average temperature between hot and cold surfaces of
the specimen. The testing for each specimen type is implemented over a range of
working temperatures, 27 to 50 °C for indoor (hot) temperature and 18 to 28 °C for
indoor (cold) temperature.
POLYURETHANE RIGID FOAM (PUR) INSULATION SLAB
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2 shows the results for the PUR test specimen. Different heat transfer quantities
are calculated for different testing days.
Figure 8 shows the variation of specimen thermal conductivity as a function of the
average operating temperature within the test specimen (PUR), generated from
various test runs. The generated values include the calculated experimental
uncertainty.

Table 2. Heat transfer quantities for PUR test specimen.

Parameter/Test Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
4
tenv,h (S.p) [°C] 40°C 27°C 33°C 30°C 40°C
tenv,c (S.p) [°C] 23°C 19°C 21°C 16°C 25°C
tenv,h [°C] 40.20 27.28 33.12 30.2500 39.8000
tenv,c [°C] 23.00 18.99 21.02 16.0005 25.0000
[°C] 40.84 27.16 33.62 29.9761 40.3875
[°C] 23.40 19.39 21.29 18.9463 26.1875
ΔT=T1-T2 [°C] 17.44 7.77 12.33 11.0299 14.2000
[°C] 32.12 23.27 27.46 24.4612 33.2875
[W] 9.82 9.82 9.82 9.8112 9.8112
K [W/(m.K)] 0.0281 0.0631 0.0398 0.0445 0.0345
U [W/(m2.K)] 0.5270 1.1538 0.7448 0.6767 0.6079
hh [W/(m2.K)] 12.46 28.76 16.92 18.7277 13.0389
hc [W/(m2.K)] 24.85 24.92 36.11 3.3306 8.2621
C [W/(m2.K)] 0.5627 1.2629 0.7963 0.8895 0.6909
Ru [m2.K/W] 1.8976 0.8667 1.3426 1.4779 1.6451
R [m2.K/W] 1.7771 0.7918 1.2558 1.1242 1.4473
Rh [m2.K/W] 0.0803 0.0348 0.0591 0.0534 0.0767
Rc [m2.K/W] 0.0402 0.0401 0.0277 0.3002 0.1210

4
Setpoint of the temperature controller

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 214

PUR
0.1
Measured
0.09 Linear Fitting

Thermal Conductivity (K) [W/(m.K)]

0.08

0.07

0.06
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Specimen Mean Temperature (Tm ) [ o C]

Figure 8. Specimen thermal conductivity as a function of the PUR specimen mean

temperature.
EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE (XPS) INSULATION SLAB
Table 3 shows the results for the XPS test specimen. Different heat transfer quantities
are calculated for different testing days. Figure 9 shows the variation of specimen
thermal conductivity as a function of the average operating temperature within the
test specimen (XPS), generated from various test runs. The generated values include
the calculated experimental uncertainty.

Table 3. Heat transfer quantities for XPS test specimen.

Parameter/Test Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
5
tenv,h (S.p) [°C] 40°C 23°C 40°C 27°C 33°C
tenv,c (S.p) [°C] 23°C 10°C 23°C 19°C 21°C
tenv,h [°C] 39.80 22.76 40.10 27.28 33.02
tenv,c [°C] 22.99 10.01 23.00 19.01 21.01
[°C] 39.10 22.56 38.99 27.11 32.51
[°C] 23.57 10.77 23.51 19.53 21.60
ΔT=T1-T2 [°C] 15.53 11.78 15.48 7.58 10.91
[°C] 31.33 16.67 31.25 23.32 27.06
[W] 15.87 9.82 9.82 9.99 9.82

5
Setpoint of the temperature controller

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 215

K [W/(m.K)] 0.0511 0.0416 0.0317 0.0659 0.0450

U [W/(m2.K)] 0.9356 0.7406 0.5757 1.1633 0.8054
hh [W/(m2.K)] 18.59 13.98 9.28 20.39 14.24
hc [W/(m2.K)] 27.57 12.80 19.09 19.36 16.63
C [W/(m2.K)] 1.0217 0.8330 0.6341 1.3176 0.8999
Ru [m2.K/W] 1.0688 1.3502 1.7371 0.8596 1.2416
R [m2.K/W] 0.9788 1.2006 1.5770 0.7589 1.1113
Rh [m2.K/W] 0.0538 0.0715 0.1077 0.0490 0.0702
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rc [m2.K/W] 0.0363 0.0781 0.0524 0.0517 0.0601

XPS
0.1
Measured
0.09 Linear Fitting
Thermal Conductivity (K) [W/(m.K)]

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
o
Specimen Mean Temperature (Tm ) [ C]

Figure 9. Specimen thermal conductivity as a function of the XPS specimen mean

temperature.
EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS) INSULATION SLAB
Table 4 shows the results for the EPS test specimen. Different heat transfer quantities
are calculated for different testing days. Figure 10 shows the variation of specimen
thermal conductivity as a function of the average operating temperature within the
test specimen (EPS), generated from various test runs. The generated values include
the calculated experimental uncertainty.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 216

Table 4. Heat transfer quantities for EPS test specimen.

Parameter/Test Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

6
tenv,h (S.p) [°C] 33°C 40°C 27°C 50°C
tenv,c (S.p) [°C] 21°C 23°C 19°C 23°C
tenv,h [°C] 33.02 40.10 27.08 50.20
tenv,c [°C] 21.01 22.99 18.99 23.00
[°C] 32.89 39.14 27.51 48.30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[°C] 21.39 23.44 19.48 23.87

ΔT=T1-T2 [°C] 11.50 15.70 8.03 24.43
[°C] 27.14 31.29 23.49 36.09
[W] 9.82 12.75 9.82 16.85
K [W/(m.K)] 0.0427 0.0406 0.0611 0.0345
U [W/(m2.K)] 0.7857 0.7521 1.0772 0.6240
hh [W/(m2.K)] 16.06 15.68 16.50 9.92
hc [W/(m2.K)] 25.71 28.73 20.14 19.37
C [W/(m2.K)] 0.8536 0.8123 1.2223 0.6895
Ru [m2.K/W] 1.2727 1.3297 0.9283 1.6027
R [m2.K/W] 1.1715 1.2311 0.8181 1.4503
Rh [m2.K/W] 0.0623 0.0638 0.0606 0.1008
Rc [m2.K/W] 0.0389 0.0348 0.0497 0.0516
Thermal Conductivity (K) [W/(m.K)]

Figure 10. Specimen thermal conductivity as a function of the EPS specimen mean
temperature.

6
Setpoint of the temperature controller

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 217

DETERMINATION OF OPTIMAL INSULATION THICKNESS

In this section, using thermo-physical properties of the tested insulation slabs,
simulated is performed inside an energy efficient wall structure. Values of thermal
conductivities of different insulation materials obtained from the previous test were
used. Different thicknesses will be utilized (2, 4,… and 12 cm) in order to attain the
optimal setting for insulation thickness. The wall structure is shown in the Fig. 11. a 2
cm plaster layer ( W/mK), 12 cm bricks ( W/mK), insulation and a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.25 cm layer of GWB ( W/mK) comprise the wall composition.

Figure 12 illustrates the overall heat transfer coefficient of the wall as a function of
insulation thickness. The values of the surface heat transfer coefficients are set as 20
W/m2K and 40 W/m2K for the hot-side (ID) and cold-side (OD), respectively. These
values are taken as average as noted by several test runs.

Figure 11. Wall structure: plaster, brick, insulation and GWB coatings.

For the three insulation slab systems, PUR, XPS and EPS, and for variations in the
insulating material thickness inside the wall, selected ID/OD set point temperature
pairs (40/23 °C, 33/21 °C and 27/19 °C) are taken as input parameters. The
designation for temperature distribution inside the wall system is as follows (refer
also to Fig. 11):
Location Temperature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 218

Overall HT Coeff. [W/(m 2 .K)]

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 12. Wall structure overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value) for different
values of insulation thicknesses.
Temperature distribution data are tabulated in table 5 through 7 (with illustration of
the case: 40/23 °C ID/OD temperatures) and also shown in Figs. 13, 15 and 17 for
PUR, XPS and EPS insulation slabs, respectively. The associated heat losses through
the wall are shown in Figs. 14, 16 and 18, respectively.
1. POLYURETHANE (PUR) INSULATION WALL CONSTRUCTION
Table 5. Temperature distribution inside the PUR insulation wall construction.
ID/OD Insulation Thickness (cm)
Temperature 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
tenv,h [°C] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
T1 [°C] 39.11 39.46 39.61 39.70 39.75 39.79
Ti1 [°C] 38.40 39.03 39.30 39.46 39.55 39.62
Ti2 [°C] 35.79 37.45 38.17 38.57 38.83 39.01
Ti3 [°C] 24.75 24.06 23.76 23.60 23.49 23.41
T2 [°C] 23.45 23.27 23.19 23.15 23.12 23.10
tenv,c [°C] 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 219

PUR Insulation

40

35
Temperature [ o C]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30

25

20
0.12
0.1
15 0.08
1 0.06
2
3 0.04
4
5 0.02
6
Location [-] 7
[m]
ess
hi ckn
T
l ation
u
Ins

Figure 13. PUR: Surface plots of the temperature distribution of the simulated wall as
functions of insulation thickness and locations inside the wall system.

PUR Insulation
18

ID/OD: 40/23 o C
16
ID/OD: 33/21 o C
ID/OD: 27/19 o C
14

12
Heat Loss [W]

10

0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Insulation Thickness [m]

Figure 14. PUR: Heat loss of the simulated wall as a function of insulation thickness
inside the wall system.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 220

2. EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE (XPS) INSULATION WALL

CONSTRUCTION
Table 6. Temperature distribution inside the XPS insulation wall construction.
ID/OD Insulation Thickness (cm)
Temperature 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
tenv,h [°C] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
T1 [°C] 38.83 39.24 39.43 39.55 39.63 39.68
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ti1 [°C] 37.89 38.62 38.98 39.19 39.33 39.43

Ti2 [°C] 34.45 36.39 37.32 37.87 38.24 38.49
Ti3 [°C] 25.32 24.51 24.12 23.89 23.74 23.63
T2 [°C] 23.59 23.38 23.28 23.22 23.19 23.16
tenv,c [°C] 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00

XPS Insulation

40

35
Temperature [ o C]

30

25

20
0.12
0.1
15 0.08
1 0.06
2
3 0.04
4
5 0.02
6
Location [-] 7
[m]
ess
ckn
Thi
tion
ula
Ins

Figure 15. XPS: Surface plots of the temperature distribution of the simulated wall as
functions of insulation thickness and locations inside the wall system.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 221

XPS Insulation
25
o
ID/OD: 40/23 C
o
ID/OD: 33/21 C
o
Heat Loss [W] 20 ID/OD: 27/19 C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

15

10

0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Insulation Thickness [m]

Figure 16. XPS: Heat loss of the simulated wall as a function of insulation thickness
inside the wall system.
3. EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS) INSULATION WALL
CONSTRUCTION
Table 7. Temperature distribution inside the EPS insulation wall construction.
ID/OD Insulation Thickness (cm)
Temperature 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
tenv,h [°C] 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
T1 [°C] 38.97 39.35 39.53 39.63 39.70 39.74
Ti1 [°C] 38.15 38.84 39.15 39.33 39.45 39.53
Ti2 [°C] 35.13 36.95 37.78 38.25 38.56 38.77
Ti3 [°C] 25.03 24.27 23.93 23.73 23.60 23.51
T2 [°C] 23.51 23.32 23.24 23.18 23.15 23.13
tenv,c [°C] 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 222

EPS Insulation

40

35
Temperature [ o C]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30

25

20
0.12
0.1
15 0.08
1 0.06
2
3 0.04
4
5 0.02
6
Location [-] 7
[m]
ess
hi ckn
T
l ation
u
Ins

Figure 17. EPS: Surface plots of the temperature distribution of the simulated wall as
functions of insulation thickness and locations inside the wall system.

EPS Insulation
25

ID/OD: 40/23 o C
ID/OD: 33/21 o C
20 ID/OD: 27/17 o C

15

10

0
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12
Insulation Thickness [m]

Figure 18. EPS: Heat loss of the simulated wall as a function of insulation thickness
inside the wall system.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 223

CONCLUSION
The limitations with simulation tools are in the availability of similar types in the
material library and integrity of the input data, while in the experimental, the
limitations were all related to the quality of air used by the chamber and the ability to
keep the relative humidity in acceptable levels. Three test commonly used insulation
specimens were analyzed using the guarded hot box apparatus and according to the
guidelines of the ASTM C1363-11 test standard. The results show the effectiveness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of applying energy efficient wall insulation solution in terms of energy, economic and
environmental positive impacts. An uncertainty analysis for the error of the calculated
quantities was performed based on measured values of basic quantities. Data were
given from the manufacturer specification for a given value of thermal conductivity
with respect to temperature while the contribution led to finding a continuous series
of points along the thermal conductivity average specimen temperature characteristic
curve including experimental uncertainty. When simulating the data output for
insulation slabs inside an energy efficient wall structure, the results show a near
optimal setting for insulation thicknesses midway between minimum and maximum.
This is due to insignificant decrease in heat losses as relevant to increased material
cost.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, P. R. (1981). "Design of a calibrated hot-box for measuring the heat, air,
and moisture transfer of composite building walls." Thermal performance of the
exterior envelopes of buildings, Proceedings-1: 308-324.
Asdrubali, F. and G. Baldinelli (2011). "Thermal transmittance measurements with
the hot box method: Calibration, experimental procedures, and uncertainty analyses
of three different approaches." Energy and buildings 43(7): 1618-1626.
Bales, E. and L. Bass (1981). Thermal performance of the exterior envelopes of
buildings: proceedings, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., New York; USDOE Assistant Secretary for
Conservation and Solar Energy, Washington, DC. Office of Buildings and
Community Systems.
BTC, J. K. P. D. O. (2004). "A New Whole Wall R-value Calculator."
Chen, F. and S. K. Wittkopf (2012). "Summer condition thermal transmittance
measurement of fenestration systems using calorimetric hot box." Energy and
Buildings 53: 47-56.
Ferrari, S. and V. Zanotto (2013). "The thermal performance of walls under actual
service conditions: Evaluating the results of climatic chamber tests." Construction and
Building Materials 43: 309-316.
Ghazi Wakili, K. and C. Tanner (2003). "U-value of a dried wall made of perforated
porous clay bricks: Hot box measurement versus numerical analysis." Energy and
Buildings 35(7): 675-680.

© ASCE

AEI 2017
 AEI 2017 224

Giovanardi, A., P. Baldracchi and R. Lollini (2010). A new test rig for the assessment
of building envelope components integrating solar active systems. Eurosun-
International Conference on Solar Heating, Cooling and Buildings, Graz.
Lavine, A., J. Rucker and K. Wilkes (1983). Flanking loss calibration for a calibrated
hot box. Thermal Insulation, Materials, and Systems for Energy Conservation in
the'80s, ASTM International.
Luo, C., B. Moghtaderi, S. Hands and A. Page (2011). "Determining the thermal
capacitance, conductivity and the convective heat transfer coefficient of a brick wall
by annually monitored temperatures and total heat fluxes." Energy and Buildings
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 12/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

43(2–3): 379-385.
Martin, K., A. Campos-Celador, C. Escudero, I. Gómez and J. Sala (2012). "Analysis
of a thermal bridge in a guarded hot box testing facility." Energy and Buildings 50:
139-149.
Martin, K., A. Erkoreka, I. Flores, M. Odriozola and J. Sala (2011). "Problems in the
calculation of thermal bridges in dynamic conditions." Energy and Buildings 43(2):
529-535.
Martin, K., I. Flores, C. Escudero, A. Apaolaza and J. Sala (2010). "Methodology for
the calculation of response factors through experimental tests and validation with
simulation." Energy and Buildings 42(4): 461-467.
Miller, R. G. and W. P. Goss (1991). Hot Box Instrumentation, Calibration and Error
Estimation—A Survey. Insulation Materials: Testing and Applications, 2nd Volume,
ASTM International.
Mumaw, J. (1974). Calibrated hot box: an effective means for measuring thermal
conductance in large wall sections. Heat Transmission Measurements in Thermal
Insulations, ASTM International.
Perrine, E., P. Lineham, J. Howanski and L. Shu (1979). "The Design and
Construction of a Calibrated/Guarded Hot Box Facility." Thermal Performance of the
Exterior Envelopes of Buildings: 299-307.
Saber, H. H. (2012). "Investigation of thermal performance of reflective insulations
for different applications." Building and Environment 52: 32-44.
Sala, J., A. Urresti, K. Martín, I. Flores and A. Apaolaza (2008). "Static and dynamic
thermal characterisation of a hollow brick wall: Tests and numerical analysis."
Energy and Buildings 40(8): 1513-1520.
Vivancos, J.-L., J. Soto, I. Perez, J. V. Ros-Lis and R. Martínez-Máñez (2009). "A
new model based on experimental results for the thermal characterization of bricks."
Building and Environment 44(5): 1047-1052.

© ASCE

AEI 2017