Polyurethane foam insulation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Polyurethane foam insulation

on

  • 724 views

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS INSULATED WITH SPRAY POLYURETHANE FOAM

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS INSULATED WITH SPRAY POLYURETHANE FOAM

Statistics

Views

Total Views
724
Views on SlideShare
707
Embed Views
17

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0

3 Embeds 17

http://sem-panoramait.com 12
http://espuma-poliuretano.es 3
http://www.espuma-poliuretano.es 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Polyurethane foam insulation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. E XPERIMENTAL S TUDY O N T HE P ERFORMANCE O F B UILDINGS I NSULATED W ITH S PRAY P OLYURETHANE F OAM José Luis Müller, Antonio Subirats, Montserrat Gil Luisa F. Cabeza
  • 2. G ENERAL I NFORMATION
    • Independent Spanish Company founded in 1964
    • Core Business : PU Business & Polyester polyol
    • Synthesia value’s & differentiation :
      • strong R&D orientation, innovation as key driver
      • consolidated track of major technical breakthroughs
      • deep application understanding through up- and downstream integration: Polyester Polyols/ Prepolymers  PU Systems  Panel & lamination
      • quick and reliable service on a world wide basis for more than 30 years
      • open to develop taylor made products
      • world leader in rigid spray foam technology
  • 3. A GENDA
    • Background
    • Program goals
    • Experiment design
    • Experiment setup
    • Experimental conditions
    • Results
    • Evaluation of results
    • Conclusions
  • 4. B ACKGROUND
    • Thermal insulation allows reduction of energy consumption
    • Differents materials in the market
    • Best lambda means best insulation
    • Insulation in buildings becomes critical
    • Only static test data available at single mean temperture- Is it sufficient to design structures?
    • Right, but is lambda a true indicator of building performance how much?
  • 5.
    • Compare and quantify in a full scale test the energy savings of insulation materials
    • Conduct testing on structures employing current Spanish construction practices
    • Study buildings over multiple season (2 years study)
    • Quantify economic saving under different weather conditions
    • Quantify thermal variance between building performance based upon insulations used
    G OALS
  • 6. E XPERIMENT DESIGN
    • Construction of 4 cubicles:
          • Baseline (reference , no insulation material )
          • SPF (PUR)
          • Mineral Wool (MW)
          • Extruded polystyrene (XPS)
    • Data registered for each cubicle:
          • Temperature and humidity
          • Heat flux
          • Electrical consumption..
    • Experiments performed:
          • Free-floating temperature
          • Controlled temperature
    • Evaluation of results
  • 7. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. B UILDING S OLUTION PLASTER INSULLATION MATERIAL PERFORATED BRICK WALL HOLLOW BRICK 5 cm. insulation material
  • 8. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. B UILDING S OLUTION
    • PERFORATED BRICK WALL 29 X 14 X 7,5 cm
    • CONCRETE PRECAST BEAMS + 5 cm CONCRETE SLAB
    • CEMENT MORTAR, “FLAT” ROOF 3% SLOPE
    • DOUBLE ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE
    • PLASTER PLASTERING
    • CEMENT MORTAR FISNISH
    • AIR CHAMBER
    • HOLLOW BRICK
    • PUR or MW or XPS
  • 9. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. C ONSTRUCTION OF THE CUBICLES Pillars and walls PUR insulation Poliuretan ® Spray  = 0,028 W/(m.K) MW insulation  = 0,035 W/(m.K) XPS insulation  = 0,034 W/(m.K)
  • 10. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. C ONSTRUCTION OF THE CUBICLES External finish with hollow bricks Finished cubicle
  • 11. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. G EOGRAPHICAL AND WEATHER CONDITIONS
    • Lleida NE Spain
    • 41° 36′ 50″ N, 0° 37′ 32″ E
  • 12. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP . D ATA C OLLECTION Wall temperature (ºC) N,E,W,S roof and floor Heat flux Wall S(W/m 2 ) Internal air Humidity (%) Solar radiation (W/m 2 ) 24 hour/360 days remote data collection Electrical consumption (Wh)
  • 13. E XPERIMENTAL SET-UP. T HERMOGRAPHIC I MAGES
      • Images with thermographic camera were taken to confirm the lack of thermal bridges:
    Refer. cubicle. W. façade PU cubicle. S. façade PU cubicle. W. façade
  • 14. E XPERIMENT CONDITIONS
    • Climate versus time for cubicle
    • Electrical consump. accumulated versus time for cubicle
    • Climate versus time for each cubicle
    Graphic representation Climate, Electrical consumption Climate Data collected On. Set Point fixed Off Cooling / Heating system C ONTROLLED T EMPERATURE F REE F LOATING Experiment
  • 15. E XPERIMENTS PERFORMED. F REE F LOATING T EMPERATURE - S UMMER Reference more sensitivity to T
  • 16. E XPERIMENTS PERFORMED. F REE F LOATING T EMPERATURE - W INTER
  • 17. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. C ONTROLLED T EMPERATURE - S UMMER Set Point 24ºC
  • 18. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. C ONTROLLED T EMPERATURE - W INTER Set Point 24ºC
  • 19. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. E NERGY C ONSUMPTION - S UMMER
  • 20. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. E NERGY C ONSUMPTION - W INTER
  • 21. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. E NERGY, CO 2 A ND C OST S AVINGS VS. R EF . - W INTER Weekly Accumulated Results 4 Months Winter Period Extrapolation PUR Cubicle 100m 2 House KWh 889 15,435 € 71 1,235 $ 101 1,754 CO 2 Kg. 577 10,017 * vs. SPF PUR +6% +10%
  • 22. E VALUATION OF RESULTS. E NERGY, CO 2 A ND C OST S AVINGS VS. R EF . - S UMMER Weekly Accumulated Results 4 Months Summer Period Extrapolation +34% +21% PUR Cubicle 100m 2 House KWh 121 2,092 € 9.6 167 $ 14 237 CO 2 Kg. 78 1,358 * vs. SPF PUR
  • 23. C ONCLUSIONS
    • Thermal insulation is the key to achieving and energy efficiency target.
    • SPF gives the best overall energy performance of all the insulations tested.
    • Under winter conditions, the use of SPF generated and estimated 6% greater energy savings cost than mineral wool and a 10% greater energy savings cost than XPS.
  • 24. C ONCLUSIONS- cont.
    • Under summer conditions, the use of SPF generated and estimated 21% greater energy savings cost than mineral wool and a 34% greater energy savings cost than XPS.
    • Powerful experimental process which allows one to evaluate the behavior of insulation materials under full scale real life conditions.
  • 25. A CKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful thanks to Honeywell Fluorine Products for its support, especially to: Mary Bogdan Paul Sanders Karim Tarzi
  • 26. For further info, please contact: [email_address] www.synte.es T HANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!