Quick measurements of energy efficiency of buildings

Mangematin, Eric; Pandraud, Guillaume; Roux, Didier

doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.001

Cited by 44 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Andrews [45] provides a useful review of the variation seen in successive short term dynamic measurements-with consistent results generally achieved once weather corrections are applied. However, Liu and Claridge [46] noted the importance of understanding the thermal history of a dwelling prior to measurements in order to avoid systematic bias and Andrews [43] concluded that that further tests on a wider range of dwellings was needed, a statement that still holds true, particularly concerning heavyweight and highly glazed dwellings. Recent work has looked to develop the application of dynamic test sequences and analysis (e.g., ARX, ARMAX, state space models) from single components to whole building characterisation [47,48].…”

Section: Alternative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methods can often elicit results in shorter time frames than steady state approaches, offering obvious advantages over the longer, steady state co-heating test. For example, the PSTAR method used a 48 or 72 h test sequence [42], with similar recent dynamic methods aiming to achieve results in similar time periods [43,44]. Andrews [45] provides a useful review of the variation seen in successive short term dynamic measurements-with consistent results generally achieved once weather corrections are applied.…”

Section: Alternative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Relationship between Measurement Length and Accuracy within Steady State Co-Heating Tests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence of a fabric performance gap has underlined the need for measurements of in situ building performance. Steady state co-heating tests have been used since the 1980s to measure whole building heat transfer coefficients, but are often cited as impractical due to their 2-4 week test duration and limited testing season. Despite this, the required conditions for testing and test duration have never been fully assessed. Analysis of field tests show that in 12 of 16 cases, a heat loss estimate to within 10% of the result achieved across a full test period can be achieved within just 72 h. These results are supported by simulated tests upon a wider range of dwellings and across wider environmental conditions. However, systematic errors may still exist, even in cases of convergence and cases with significant uncertainties may never converge. Simulated examples of traditional dwellings and those built in line with current building regulation limits may be tested for more than half the year. However, even when simulated with reduced uncertainties, dwellings with low heat loss and high solar gains, such Passivhaus dwellings and apartments, could be successfully tested for just 22% and 12% of a year respectively, demonstrating the limitations of the co-heating method in assessing such dwellings.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Alternative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Relationship between Measurement Length and Accuracy within Steady State Co-Heating Tests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A small number of dynamic aggregate test methods have been devised. These include: ISABELE [18], the Primary and Secondary Terms-Analysis and Renormalization (PSTAR) method [19][20][21] and the Quick U-value of Buildings (QUB) method [22]. Although the dynamic methods offer the advantage of much shorter test durations than is required by the quasi steady-state coheating test method, the analysis of the data obtained from these test methods tends to be significantly more complex.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Building Fabric Thermal Performance of Passivhaus Dwellings—Does It Do What It Says on the Tin?

Johnston

Siddall²

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The Passivhaus (or Passive House) Standard is one of the world's most widely known voluntary energy performance standards. For a dwelling to achieve the Standard and be granted Certification, the building fabric requires careful design and detailing, high levels of thermal insulation, building airtightness, close site supervision and careful workmanship. However, achieving Passivhaus Certification is not a guarantee that the thermal performance of the building fabric as designed will actually be achieved in situ. This paper presents the results obtained from measuring the in situ whole building heat loss coefficient (HLC) of a small number of Certified Passivhaus case study dwellings. They are located on different sites and constructed using different technologies in the UK. Despite the small and non-random nature of the dwelling sample, the results obtained from the in situ measurements revealed that the thermal performance of the building fabric, for all of the dwellings, performed very close to the design predictions. This suggests that in terms of the thermal performance of the building fabric, Passivhaus does exactly what it says on the tin.

show abstract

“…Dynamic whole house heat loss test methods exist that are far shorter in duration than the coheating test. These include: ISABELE (Bouchié et al [23]), the Quick U-value of Buildings (QUB) method (Mangematin et al [24]) and the Primary and Secondary Terms-Analysis and Renormalization (PSTAR) method (Subbaro [25], Subbaro et al [26]). However, the nature of the HLC estimation obtained by PSTAR was questioned when compared with that measured by a coheating test on the same dwelling (Palmer et al [27]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obtaining the heat loss coefficient of a dwelling using its heating system (integrated coheating)

Farmer

Johnston

Miles-Shenton

2016

Energy and Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the methodology, along with some of the initial findings and observations from tests performed on two dwellings, of differing construction and form, in which a coheating test was performed using the dwelling's central heating system; this method is referred to as integrated coheating. Data obtained during the integrated coheating tests using a dwelling's heating system have been compared with data obtained during electric coheating of the same dwelling. In one instance, integrated coheating test data from one dwelling was compared to a similar adjoining control dwelling that was simultaneously subject to an electric coheating test. The results show a good agreement between the heat loss coefficients (HLC) obtained using a dwelling's own heating system and those obtained through electrical coheating. Initial analysis suggests the HLC estimate obtained from integrated coheating is likely to be more representative of how a dwelling performs in-use. The findings question the appropriateness of comparing current steady-state HLC predictions to those derived from in-use monitoring data. Integrated coheating has the potential to provide a more cost-effective and informative indication of whole house heat loss than electric coheating, as it enables in situ quantification of both fabric and heating system performance.

show abstract

Quick measurements of energy efficiency of buildings

Cited by 44 publications

References 6 publications

Assessing the Relationship between Measurement Length and Accuracy within Steady State Co-Heating Tests

Assessing the Relationship between Measurement Length and Accuracy within Steady State Co-Heating Tests

The Building Fabric Thermal Performance of Passivhaus Dwellings—Does It Do What It Says on the Tin?

Obtaining the heat loss coefficient of a dwelling using its heating system (integrated coheating)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About