Next Article in Journal
Thermodynamic Analysis of Three Compressed Air Energy Storage Systems: Conventional, Adiabatic, and Hydrogen-Fueled
Previous Article in Journal
Finite Element Computation of Transient Parameters of a Salient-Pole Synchronous Machine
Article Menu
Issue 7 (July) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Energies 2017, 10(7), 1019; https://doi.org/10.3390/en10071019

Comparison of Various Analysis Methods Based on Heat Flowmeters and Infrared Thermography Measurements for the Evaluation of the In Situ Thermal Transmittance of Opaque Exterior Walls

1
Department of Building Equipment & Fire Protection System, Chungwoon University, Incheon 22100, Korea
2
Nabi Building Environment & Equipment Design Consultant Co., Ltd, Seoul 06226, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 11 June 2017 / Revised: 6 July 2017 / Accepted: 12 July 2017 / Published: 18 July 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Fundamentals and Conversion)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [21424 KB, uploaded 21 July 2017]   |  

Abstract

There are several methods to obtain the in situ thermal transmittance value (U-value) of building envelopes from on-site data, including the three approaches of the progressive average method, average method considering the thermal storage effect, and dynamic method for deriving the U-value from heat flowmeter (HFM) measurements and the four methods with different formulas to analyze infrared thermography (IRT) measurement data. Since each of these methods considers different parameters and the non-steady characteristics of the heat transfer in building walls in their own way, discrepancies may occur among the obtained results. This study evaluates and compares the in situ U-values by using various methods of analyzing HFM and IRT measurement data. Further, by investigating buildings with similar materials and identical stratigraphies, but with different construction years, we analyze the discrepancy between the designed and measured values caused by material deterioration and evaluate the errors according to the analysis method. The percentage deviation between the U-values obtained by the three methods from the HFM data is found to be satisfactory, being within 10%. When compared with the results of the progressive average method, the deviations for the four different IRT-measurement-based methods vary greatly, being in the range of 6–43%. View Full-Text
Keywords: in situ thermal transmittance; heat flowmeter; infrared thermography; on-site measurement; opaque exterior wall in situ thermal transmittance; heat flowmeter; infrared thermography; on-site measurement; opaque exterior wall
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Choi, D.S.; Ko, M.J. Comparison of Various Analysis Methods Based on Heat Flowmeters and Infrared Thermography Measurements for the Evaluation of the In Situ Thermal Transmittance of Opaque Exterior Walls. Energies 2017, 10, 1019.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Energies EISSN 1996-1073 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top