The hidden subtleties of U-Value calculations - Revision history

Editor at 08:20, 26 March 2024

2024-03-26T08:20:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:20, 26 March 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:
	These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.		These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.

−	[[File:~~AT Joan Ferrer~~, ~~Ravago Building Solutions headshot 1000~~.jpg]]	+	[[File:AT_Joan_Ferrer%2C_Ravago_Building_Solutions_headshot_1000.jpg\|link=File:AT_Joan_Ferrer,_Ravago_Building_Solutions_headshot_1000.jpg]]

	-----		-----
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* Conventions for calculating linear thermal transmittance and temperature factors.		* Conventions for calculating linear thermal transmittance and temperature factors.
	* Conventions for U-value calculations (BR443 2e 2019).		* Conventions for U-value calculations (BR443 2e 2019).
−	*
	* Double glazing v triple glazing.		* Double glazing v triple glazing.
	* Emissivity.		* Emissivity.
Line 61:		Line 60:
	* Reducing thermal bridging at junctions when designing and installing solid wall insulation FB 61.		* Reducing thermal bridging at junctions when designing and installing solid wall insulation FB 61.
	* Roof insulation.		* Roof insulation.
−	*
	* R-value.		* R-value.
	* Solid wall insulation.		* Solid wall insulation.

Editor at 06:16, 23 March 2024

2024-03-23T06:16:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 23 March 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:		Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:

−	[[File:~~AT Joan Ferrer~~, ~~Ravago Building Solutions table 1000~~.jpg]]	+	[[File:AT_Joan_Ferrer%2C_Ravago_Building_Solutions_table_1000.jpg\|link=File:AT_Joan_Ferrer,_Ravago_Building_Solutions_table_1000.jpg]]

	The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example build-up involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution! (see diagram above)		The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example build-up involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution! (see diagram above)
Line 20:		Line 20:

	These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.		These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.
		+
		+	[[File:AT Joan Ferrer, Ravago Building Solutions headshot 1000.jpg]]

	-----		-----
Line 26:		Line 28:
	--[[User:CIAT\|CIAT]]		--[[User:CIAT\|CIAT]]

−	[[Category:~~Articles_needing_more_work~~]]	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings =
		+
		+	* Accredited construction details ACDs.
		+	* Air tightness in buildings.
		+	* Assessing the effects of thermal bridging at junctions and around openings.
		+	* Building fabric.
		+	* Building performance.
		+	* Cavity wall.
		+	* Cavity wall insulation.
		+	* Co-heating test.
		+	* Computational fluid dynamics.
		+	* Conduction
		+	* Conventions for calculating linear thermal transmittance and temperature factors.
		+	* Conventions for calculating linear thermal transmittance and temperature factors.
		+	* Conventions for U-value calculations (BR443 2e 2019).
		+	*
		+	* Double glazing v triple glazing.
		+	* Emissivity.
		+	* Emission rates in the building regulations.
		+	* Floor insulation.
		+	* Free U-value calculators.
		+	* g-value.
		+	* Heat loss.
		+	* Heat transfer.
		+	* Insulation.
		+	* Insulation for ground floors.
		+	* Insulation specification.
		+	* Interstitial condensation.
		+	* k-value.
		+	* Limiting fabric parameters.
		+	* Mould growth.
		+	* Reducing thermal bridging at junctions when designing and installing solid wall insulation FB 61.
		+	* Roof insulation.
		+	*
		+	* R-value.
		+	* Solid wall insulation.
		+	* Standard Assessment Procedure SAP.
		+	* Thermal admittance.
		+	* Thermal bridge.
		+	* Thermal bridging and the Future Homes Standard.
		+	* Thermal comfort.
		+	* Thermal imaging to improve energy efficiency in building design.
		+	* Thermographic survey.
		+	* Thermal mass.
		+	* Thermal resistance.
		+	* U-values
		+	* U-value conventions in practice: Worked examples using BR 443.
		+	* U-What?
		+	* What do design professionals need to know about U-value calculation conventions?
		+
		+	[[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Product_Knowledge]] [[Category:DCN_Specification]] [[Category:Research_/_Innovation]] [[Category:Standards_/_measurements]] [[Category:Sustainability]]

Editor at 06:09, 23 March 2024

2024-03-23T06:09:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:09, 23 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:~~AT Joan Ferrer~~, ~~Ravago Building Solutions diagram 1000~~.jpg]]	+	[[File:AT_Joan_Ferrer%2C_Ravago_Building_Solutions_diagram_1000.jpg\|link=File:AT_Joan_Ferrer,_Ravago_Building_Solutions_diagram_1000.jpg]]

	Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies of each and every calculation.		Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies of each and every calculation.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:		Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:

−	[[File:AT Joan Ferrer, Ravago Building Solutions table.jpg]]	+	[[File:AT Joan Ferrer, Ravago Building Solutions table 1000.jpg]]

	The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example build-up involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution! (see diagram above)		The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example build-up involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution! (see diagram above)
Line 20:		Line 20:

	These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.		These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.
		+
		+	-----
		+	This article appears in the AT Journal no 148, winter 2023 as "The hidden subtleties of U-Value calculations" and was written by Joan Ferrer, Commercial Director UK & I RE, Ravago Building Solutions.
		+
		+	--[[User:CIAT\|CIAT]]

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor at 06:02, 23 March 2024

2024-03-23T06:02:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 23 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:AT Joan Ferrer, Ravago Building Solutions diagram 1000.jpg]]
		+
	Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies of each and every calculation.		Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies of each and every calculation.

−	However, the slightest of changes to certain variables can have a significant impact on the final result and mistakes made in the design stages can come back to haunt us. The impact of ground types Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:	+	However, the slightest of changes to certain variables can have a significant impact on the final result and mistakes made in the design stages can come back to haunt us.
		+
		+	= The impact of ground types =
		+
		+	Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:
		+
		+	[[File:AT Joan Ferrer, Ravago Building Solutions table.jpg]]
		+
		+	The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example build-up involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution! (see diagram above)
		+
		+	= What elements should be included in the calculation? =
		+
		+	BS EN ISO 13370:2017 is also somewhat ambiguous on how to account for the thermal properties of some elements of a ground bearing floor. While it is explicit that the hardcore below a concrete slab should not be included, it states the “thermal resistance of a dense concrete slab may be neglected”, leaving it to the individual performing the calculation to decide. This decision is quite a significant one, as typically the inclusion or exclusion of the concrete slab’s thermal resistance will cause a variance of 0.01 to 0.02 W/m2K in the final U-Value. The 2019 edition of Conventions for U-Value Calculations (BRE BR443) provides best practice advice to complement the standard. At first it is quite definitive, stating that “It is recommended for most calculations that dense floor slabs (ρ ≥ 1800 kg/m³) and floor coverings such as vinyl or carpets are not included in the calculation”, but frustratingly, it then immediately reintroduces the ambiguity of the standard by saying “but it is permissible to include them if their properties are adequately defined.” It is therefore important to check exactly what elements have been included in individual U-Value calculations before trying to compare them.

−	The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example buildup involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ~~ground type 2, meanwhile~~ a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution!	+	= The need for a common standard =

−	What elements should be included in the calculation? BS EN ISO 13370:2017 is also somewhat ambiguous on how to account for the thermal properties of some elements of a ground bearing floor. While it is explicit that the hardcore below a concrete slab should not be included, it states the “thermal resistance of a dense concrete slab may be neglected”, leaving it to the individual performing the calculation to decide. This decision is quite a significant one, as typically the inclusion or exclusion of the concrete slab’s thermal resistance will cause a variance of 0.01 to 0.02 W/m2K in the final U-Value. The 2019 edition of Conventions for U-Value Calculations (BRE BR443) provides best practice advice to complement the standard. At first it is quite definitive, stating that “It is recommended for most calculations that dense floor slabs (ρ ≥ 1800 kg/m³) and floor coverings such as vinyl or carpets are not included in the calculation”, but frustratingly, it then immediately reintroduces the ambiguity of the standard by saying “but it is permissible to include them if their properties are adequately defined.” It is therefore important to check exactly what elements have been included in individual U-Value calculations before trying to compare them. The need for a common standard These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.	+	These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.

	[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]		[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]

Editor: Created page with "Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies o..."

2024-03-22T16:48:54Z

Created page with "Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies o..."

New page

Calculating prospective U-Values is a routine part of the building design process, so routine that you could be forgiven for not giving all that much thought to the intricacies of each and every calculation.

However, the slightest of changes to certain variables can have a significant impact on the final result and mistakes made in the design stages can come back to haunt us. The impact of ground types Let us consider the case of ground-bearing floors – the thermal properties of the underlying ground can have a notable impact on the overall thermal performance of a buildup. It is therefore important to ensure that the U-Value calculations for competing insulation products have been compiled using the same ground type to allow you to make an informed decision. To this end, you should always provide the ground type (if known) when requesting a calculation to ensure that the resulting U-Value is most accurate. BS EN ISO 13370:2017 states that there are three categories of ground type:

The standard is clear that when the ground type is unknown it should be assumed to be category 2. While there is a swathe of fantastic tools on the market to help produce U-Value calculations, some of them actually default to using category 1, so those performing the calculation need to make sure that this is changed when a prospective customer has not specified a ground type. To demonstrate the importance of using a consistent ground type across calculations, lets look at an example buildup involving 100mm of XPS insulation on a ground bearing slab with a P/A of 0.3. In this scenario, using an XPS board with thermal conductivity of 0.031 W/mK results in a U-Value of 0.20 W/m2K when calculating for ground type 2, meanwhile a board with thermal conductivity of 0.034 W/mK can achieve a U-Value of 0.19 W/m2K if we instead use ground type 1; unless you were checking for the difference in ground type you would think that the board with higher thermal conductivity was the superior solution!

What elements should be included in the calculation? BS EN ISO 13370:2017 is also somewhat ambiguous on how to account for the thermal properties of some elements of a ground bearing floor. While it is explicit that the hardcore below a concrete slab should not be included, it states the “thermal resistance of a dense concrete slab may be neglected”, leaving it to the individual performing the calculation to decide. This decision is quite a significant one, as typically the inclusion or exclusion of the concrete slab’s thermal resistance will cause a variance of 0.01 to 0.02 W/m2K in the final U-Value. The 2019 edition of Conventions for U-Value Calculations (BRE BR443) provides best practice advice to complement the standard. At first it is quite definitive, stating that “It is recommended for most calculations that dense floor slabs (ρ ≥ 1800 kg/m³) and floor coverings such as vinyl or carpets are not included in the calculation”, but frustratingly, it then immediately reintroduces the ambiguity of the standard by saying “but it is permissible to include them if their properties are adequately defined.” It is therefore important to check exactly what elements have been included in individual U-Value calculations before trying to compare them. The need for a common standard These are just a couple of examples demonstrating how difficult it can be to compare U-Value calculations when trying to specify insulation. We need to start calculating U-Values with a consistent and transparent methodology that will allow specifiers to compare the performance of different insulation products quickly and easily.

[[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]]