Hard-to-treat Retrofit - Richard Fitton Ecobuild 2014-03-04

50 %
50 %
Information about Hard-to-treat Retrofit - Richard Fitton Ecobuild 2014-03-04

Published on March 7, 2014

Author: BREGroup

Source: slideshare.net


Richard Fitton of Salford University talked about measuring performance of retrofits in their Energy House (the "house in a lab") - posing the question whether there are gaps in our ways of measuring the performance gap...

Presentation to: Ecobuild 2014 Richard Fitton Applied Buildings and Energy Research Group

Buildings and Energy Research Group at Salford

Buildings and Energy Research Group at Salford

Buildings and Energy Research Group at Salford Key Projects (specific to Heat flux and co-heating) • DECC – Energy and Environmental Monitoring of 40 Retrofit Properties in GM including In situ U value monitoring • Testing of staged retrofit in Energy House • U Value Methodology development • U Values in suspended floors • Co-heating methodology testing • Testing of Controls in Energy House

In Situ U Value Methodology development: In Situ U Value Methodology development • Under controlled, steady state conditions we are carrying out in-situ measurement of insulated and non-insulated traditional structures in the energy house, including party wall, walls, floors etc. • We are applying the following variables to carry out a sensitivity analysis : • Fixing of sensors • Analysis methods • Types of sensors Much of this work has been carried out in chambers before, so we are carrying out these under dynamic and extreme conditions ……….

In Situ U Value Methodology development: Little work has been done in terms of extreme conditions. We are currently testing U value methodologies, and equipment under the following conditions to examine the results for anomalies: • • • • • Extreme temperatures down to -15C Low Delta T work for testing during shoulder periods Driven rain onto the structure Wind applied and driven rain to structure Ice build up and frosting of structure Initial results point to a difference in U value of around +10% when carried out at -12C compared to +5C. This may be due to condensation forming and is still under investigation

In Situ U Value Methodology development: In Situ U Value Methodology development: The standard co heating method whilst generally avoiding stratification well, has a huge amount of airflow across sensors, we are working with Leeds Met to analyse how much difference this makes, what errors are generated and how the methodology can be adjusted to prevent this.

Stratification and Analysis Variations Sensitivity Analysis has already informed us that even when carrying out experiments out to ISO 9869 standards that we are finding differences :- Surface to Surface Temp (unadjusted) W/(m2.K) wall surface 1 wall surface 2 wall surface 3 Average U Value (mean) Surface T to Surface T (Rsi adjusted 0.17) W/(m2.K) Air To Air Temp W/(m2.K) Surface to Surface Air to Surface Temp(Rsi adjusted Temp(Rsi adjusted 0.013) W/(m2.K) 0.04) W/(m2.K) 2.25 2.45 2.42 1.63 1.73 1.71 1.43 1.51 1.46 1.46 1.56 1.54 1.69 1.81 1.79 2.37 1.69 1.47 1.52 1.76 Based on Analysis with Sofie Pelsmakers (UCL)

Overview of Methods Based on Analysis with Sofie Pelsmakers (UCL)

Whole House Heat Loss Methodology (Co-heating) Joint research project with Leeds Metropolitan University, focussing on: • Improvement of the methodology • Sensitivity analysis • Minimising stratification • Analysis of data • Reduction in testing period • Reduction in amount of equipment • Reduction of Delta T requirement

Whole House Heat Loss Methodology (Co-heating) 25C Inside Low outside temp achieving delta T of at least 10K = Between October/November and March/April

Whole House Heat Loss Methodology (Co-heating) Production of a low cost in situ whole house heat loss test using controlled lab conditions in the Energy House as an initial verification. Using gas metering/heat flow metering at each emitter to form an unobtrusive, quick and inexpensive whole house heat loss measurement system. Work has been carried out and found to be in line with other methods, more verification is needed. Paper presented to International Energy Agency in April.

Whole House Heat Loss Methodology (Co-heating) Co Heating and Whole House Heat Loss Methodology We believe that this method of testing when thoroughly defined, refined and verified could be useful in: • New build as part of a larger full commission of heating and systems including MVHR • Retrofit pre and post studies • Academic studies, and trialling of new technologies in the field, or Energy House under dynamic conditions • This requires rigorous research and validation.

Quick Co-Heating Test (QUB Method) Quick Whole House U Value Test: Working with St Gobain Research in Paris to test an innovative solution that can (according to numerous field trials in France and testing in the Energy House) provide an accurate whole house heat loss figure W/K in less than 48 hours (using two nights worth of data from this period). The results of the testing at the Energy House where tests on the protocol were carried out under steady state conditions, were presented at he last IEA Annexe 58 meeting at Fraunhofer IBP.

Quick Co-Heating Test (QUB Method) Quick Whole House U Value Test: • The series of tests carried out at Salford saw the HLC figure within +/- 15% some of which may be down to equipment inaccuracies and the like. • When two tests using the same parameters have been carried out the difference between the two have been less than 10% Further work is on-going to perform the test in the Energy House using: • Dynamic and diurnal cycles • Rain • Wind • Excessive temperatures and lesser Delta T

Buildings and Energy Research Group at Salford Conclusion • U values, A single ISO methodology, a considerable spread of results, much need for standardization within research and the industry for what is in essence a simple test. • Co Heating, 3 different methods, under controlled conditions very similar results, however room for development in terms of timescales, and methodologies used for analysis. This is exemplified in the recent NHBC trials • Performance gap needs addressing; • but are performance gaps, in our performance gap tools?

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages


The building represents 21% of UK housing stock and is classed as a hard to treat property due to its ... Richard Fitton, ... House during Ecobuild, ...
Read more

Blog | Energy Saving Trust

Minister (left) supports Big Energy Saving Week with Philip Sellwood (right), Chief Executive of Energy Saving Trust
Read more

SEMrush.com -> Advanced Keywords and Competitors Research Tool

SEO and SEM professionals use SEMrush to find the best keywords and online marketing ideas
Read more

Is climate change responsible for record cold in U.S ...

... but that says nothing about the validity of climate change, Climatologist Richard ... and retrofit residential living ... Climate Change ...
Read more

Design Headlines of Thursday, 06th February, 2014 ...

Design headlines on Thursday, 6 th February, 2014. DESIGN SOJOURN. Nimble design firms should do good Nimble design firms should do good . Thu, 06 feb 2014 ...
Read more

Bal des Conscrits de Besse - EventsDiscovery.com - A ...

On vous propose de venir vous détendre avec nous le temps d'une soirée, que se soit pour faire une pause pendant vos révisions, de souffler après les ...
Read more

Hostgator Coupon - Best Hosting for Wordpress and Joomla sites

Hostgator Coupon; Terms and Conditions; Joomla 3.x; Home Hostgator Coupon Hostgator Coupon. WebTemplatesBox is your #1 source of website templates, be it ...
Read more

Help an older person switch | Energy Saving Trust

... Richard Kay | | Post a comment. ... Ready for Retrofit; Red Bull; ... hard to treat homes; hard-to-treat; hazardous waste; health;
Read more