Internal Wall Insulation - Valentina marincioni, ktp associate

882 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
882
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • As written!
  • IWI no ScaffoldingIWI Pipes are not removedIWI we can do one room at a timeIWI takes less time
  • Estimated (or expected value) :4%RH reduction Measured: 18% RH reductionPossible issues: Pavadentro functional layer not well modelled (especially for the liquid properties) clay block not well modelled (especially for the liquid properties)
  • Estimated: 20%RH reduction Measured: 28% RH reduction
  • Estimated: 0%RH reduction Measured: 3% RH reduction!!!Value within the accuracy range (+-3.5%RH)!!!
  • Internal Wall Insulation - Valentina marincioni, ktp associate

    1. 1. Internal Wall InsulationValentina Marincioni – KTP associate
    2. 2. More than 4.6m pre-1919 dwellings in England only
    3. 3. Why Internal Wall Insulation (IWI)? Conservation areas Traditional buildings Listed buildings Decorative façades COST
    4. 4. But… Energy loss through external wall in % Thickness of internal insulation in cm External insulation
    5. 5. But… 5
    6. 6. And..Existing wall exposed to low temperaturesIncrease of RH risk of mould growth andtimber decay
    7. 7. KTP project To find a safe, effective, saleable solution for mainstream application.  focus on 9” to 13” brick buildings in England. Three legged strategy: • Modelling • Laboratory testing • Case studies, real life monitoring
    8. 8. KTP project Test Methodology • Monitoring interstitial condensation by measuring the RH at the wall-insulation interface • Comparison of monitoring and hygrothermal modelling (WUFI Pro) • Comparative testing of breathable and non-breathable systems
    9. 9. KTP project Test Methodology
    10. 10. KTP project Test Methodology • 8 different internal insulation systems • 4 breathable systems (wood fibre) from NBT– development of two new systems • 4 conventional systems – the most common IWI systems in the UK market
    11. 11. Transport mechanisms • Vapour diffusion • Liquid transport • Moisture convection (through leaks)
    12. 12. Moisture sources • Wind driven rain • Internal water vapour (vapour production, low ventilation..) • Construction moisture • External water vapour (solar radiation..)
    13. 13. Conventional VS Breathable Insulation
    14. 14. Moisture content Location 35 30 Swansea, SW Moisture content [M-%] 25 Liverpool, SW 20 Manchester, SW 15 London, SW 10 40 60 80 100 Insulation Thickness [mm] Pavadentro on 9” solid brick, 1%DR
    15. 15. Moisture content Orientation 35 30 Swansea, SW Moisture content [M-%] 25 20 15 Swansea, N 10 40 60 80 100 Insulation Thickness [mm] Pavadentro on 9” solid brick, 1%DR
    16. 16. Moisture content Orientation 35 30 Moisture content [M-%] 25 20 15 London, N London, SW 10 40 60 80 100 Insulation Thickness [mm] Pavadentro on 9” solid brick, 1%DR
    17. 17. Moisture content Vapour Control Layer 35 33 sd-value [m] 31 0Moisture content [M-%] 29 27 5 25 100 23 21 19 17 15 London-N London-W Swansea-N Swansea-W 100mm Pavaflex on 9”solid brick, 0 DR
    18. 18. Moisture content Impact of density 35 30 100mm Pavaflex Moisture Content (M-%) Ρflex = 53 kg/m3 25 20 100mm Pavadentro Ρdentro = 175 kg/m3 15 10 20mm Pavaclay & 80mm Pavaflex 5 Ρclay = 380 kg/m3 Ρflex = 53 kg/m3 0 0-10mm 10-20mm 20-30mm 30-100mm Depth in construction On 9”solid brick Swansea 1% DR
    19. 19. KTP project Test Methodology Test 1 Δ VP • Only vapour is considered ΔVP ΔVP • Wall exposed to: • Winter climate (Nov, Dec) • Spring climate (May, June)
    20. 20. KTP Comparison of monitoring and modelling RH - simulated RH - monitored Dry-fit Pavadentro Wetting well simulated – drying underestimated
    21. 21. KTP Comparison of monitoring and modelling RH - simulated RH - monitored Pavaclay and Pavaflex
    22. 22. KTP Comparison of monitoring and modelling RH - simulated RH - monitored PIR
    23. 23. KTP Comparison of monitoring and modelling• WUFI calculations agree with the measured data during winter• The simulation underestimates the dry-out potential of the materials
    24. 24. Drying: -400 VPX Breathable materials: 22% average RH reduction Non-breathable materials: 8% average RH reduction
    25. 25. Drying: 0 VPX (typical spring conditions) Breathable materials: 6.5% average RH reduction Non-breathable materials: 1% average RH reductionHigher speed of desorption in breathable materials
    26. 26. Higher speed of desorption in breathable materials • Low vapour permeability (vapour movement on both sides) • Capillary suction: moisture is wicked away from the critical interface • Hygroscopicity: breathable materials can store moisture
    27. 27. KTP Other tests• In-situ U-value measurements with heat flux plates• Blower-door test• Joist-end moisture content• IR thermography
    28. 28. Way forward for IWI on solid walls?• Must take into account faults and failures both short and long term• Need useful safe and buildable solutions, not over-optimised solutions• Pointless and dangerous going for too low U-values• Need much more evidence, as well as proper data sets for materials and weather 28

    ×