DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE CLADDING FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT FACADES IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY

1. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE CLADDING
FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT FAҪADES IN THE
BASQUE COUNTRY
Belinda Pelaz Sánchez
Directors:
Jesús Cuadrado Rojo
Jesús Mª Blanco Ilzarbe
April 2017
1

2. CONTENTS 2
I. Literature Review
• Façade materials
• Façade solutions
• Current requirements: Energy efficiency,
sustainability & comfort
II. Characterization of Radiata-pine:
• Thermal conductivity
• Permeability
• Specific heat
III. Energy Simulation:
• THERM
• WUFI
• Design Builder (CFD)
IV. Durability:
• Ageing
• Thermal properties
V. Index of sustainability:
• Case study
VI. Wooden façades Catalogue:
• Timber frame
• CLT (Cross Laminated Timber)
VII. Conclusions & future research lines

3. CONTENTS
Literature
Review
Characterization
of Radiata-pine:
Energy
Simulation
Durability
Index of
sustainability
Wooden
facades
Catalogue
Conclusions
& future
research
lines
Energy
Efficiency
Costs
Foot
Print
3

4. LITERATURE REVIEW
FAҪADE EVOLUTION
MATERIALS 4
Stone Ceramic
• An interpretation of natural structures, caves
• Its development is liked to masonry development
• Its extraction started in 5000 B.C.
• Manipulation with the apparition of copper in 2500
B.C.
• Development of the curvature by Egyptians, during the
Greek Architecture.
• The Romanians developed more in deep these
techniques
• Structural solutions by means of joining horizontal
layers (Gothic cathedrals of 13th century)
• Evolution to facades with external cladding.
• Products made of clay have taken place
since more than 7000 years
• Origin in Nilo Valley, buildings made of
handmade mud bricks
• In 5000 B.C. appeared the fire bricks, to
build masonries more durable
• Mass production of fire bricks by Romanians
• In Germany gained relevance in the Middle
Ages, with the Baltic Gothic
• Its peak was extended to countries where
stone was limited resource
Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy
House Ratschow in Rostock, Germany

5. LITERATURE REVIEW
FAҪADE EVOLUTION
MATERIALS 5
• From 12000 B.C., lime mortar was used as construction
material and its development permitted the discover
of opus caementitium or concrete in 2dn century B.C
• The discovery of Portland cement in 1824 enabled the
development of the concrete as it is known nowadays
• The first samples of reinforced concrete were tested in
the middle of 19th century in France and England
• Replaced wood and stone because this material
promised more protection against moisture
• The first patent was registered in England, in 1854, to a
reinforced concrete slab with steel
• It was the first artificial and heterogeneous
construction material
• Extremely durable, easy-to-work , great load capacity
together with steel, malleable
• It has been present from the prehistory until
the beginning of the industrial age
• Sawing and chipping methods are from a
thousand years ago
• The precessors of modern engineering of
wood are mainly found in 19th and 20th
century
• The current state of wooden façade
technology is extended from the craftwork
to more advanced prefabricated wooden
walls. (Cross Laminated Timber)
Other materials:
o Plastic
o Glass
o Metal
Concrete Wood
Red House in Ross-shire, ScottlandEnnis House in los Angeles, EEUU

6. LITERATURE REVIEW
FAҪADE EVOLUTION
MATERIALS 6
Iberdrola tower
School of civil Engineering (UPV/EHU)
San Mamés Stadium

7. LITERATURE REVIEW
FAҪADE EVOLUTION
SOLUTIONS 7
Load
façade
Multi-layer
façade
Ventilated
façade
Wooden façade
• Protection
• Structure use
• Protection
• Salubrity
• Comfort
• Energy efficiency
• Protection
• Salubrity
• Comfort
• More Energy Efficiency
(continuous insulation)
• Protection
• Structure use
• Salubrity
• Comfort
• Energy Efficiency
• Sustainability
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASPECTS
ECONOMIC
ASPECTS
SOCIAL
ASPECTS

8. 8

9. WOODEN CLADDING
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLES AND TREATMENTS
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
9
CU Location Humidity Example
CU 1
Protected against exterior
climate and no exposed to
humidity source.
< 20%
Interior rooms without
humidity source near
CU 2
Protected against exterior
climate and occasionally
exposed to humidity source.
Occasionally
> 20%
Interior rooms near to
humidty sources (ceiling of a
swimming pool, etc.)
CU 3.1
Outdoor, without contact
with ground and protected
Occasionally
>20%
Outdoor beam with copings
or sacrifice pieces to protect
the exposed heads
CU 3.2
Outdoor, without contact
with ground or fresh water
Frequency
> 20%
Unprotected pieces in uppper
faces or heads, subject to
splashing rain and snow
accumulations
CU 4
In contact with ground or
fresh water
Permanent
> 20%
Construction in fresh water.
Pilars in direct contact with
ground
CU 5 In contact with salad water > 20% Construction in salat water
PROTECTORS DEPENDING ON CLASS OF USE (DB-SE:M, CTE)
In the Basque Country (Spain), the most common specimen is the Radiata-
pine. Due to that, in order to study the external cladding, three types of
Radiata-pine samples will be tested; natural wood, protected wood with
chemical substances and heat-treated wood.
In this case, the most common treatments in our territory were selected.
The first one is a chemical treatment compounded with copper-HDO, Boro,
chromium and arsenic free, similar to WOLMANIT CX-8 product. The
second one is heat-treated wood; in this case wood is heated with high
temperature (210 °C) and water vapour. Both of protection treatments
gives to Radiata-pine the required durability for external exposed façades
made of this type of wood.
NATURAL
WOOD
CHEMICAL
TREATED
WOOD
HEAT-
TREATED
WOOD
The most vulnerable part of a wooden facade is the outer
face, that is, the external cladding made of wood. In this
case, its class of use is CU 3.2.

10. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONDUCTION vs CONVECTION METHOD
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
10
UNE-EN 12664
HAND-MADE TEST-BOX

11. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
RESULTS BY CONDUCTION METHOD
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
Natural
*554.7 kg/m3
Chemical treated
*513.4 kg/m3
Heat-treated
*502.5 kg/m3
λ [W/(m∙°C)] λ [W/(m∙°C)] λ [W/(m∙°C)]
T [°C] ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15 ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15 ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15
10 0.1214 0.1201 0.1294 0.1199 0.1183 0.1279 0.1057 0.1040 0.1142
25 0.1238 0.1239 0.1331 0.1211 0.1217 0.1304 0.1069 0.1051 0.1152
40 0.1299 0.1305 0.1400 0.1260 0.1262 0.1338 0.1100 0.1083 0.1181
Average 0.1248 0.1230 0.1346 0.1224 0.1224 0.1304 0.1062 0.1045 0.1149
*Apparent volume mass
Technical specifications
Test temperature 10 to 40 °C
Gradient of temperature 5 to 15 K
Material thickness 10 to 200 mm
Thermal conductivity 3 to 500 mW/m·K
Thermal resistance 0,125 to 5 m²·K/W
Accuracy < 1%
Reproducibility < 0.5%
Software EP500-Control Program
11
UNE-EN 12664
Thermal performance of building materials and
products. Determination of thermal resistance by
means of guarded hot plate and heat flow meter
methods. Dry and moist products of medium and
low thermal resistance

12. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
RESULTS BY CONDUCTION METHOD
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
Natural
*554.7 kg/m3
Chemical treated
*513.4 kg/m3
Heat-treated
*502.5 kg/m3
λ [W/(m∙°C)] λ [W/(m∙°C)] λ [W/(m∙°C)]
T [°C] ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15 ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15 ΔT5 ΔT10 ΔT15
10 0.1214 0.1201 0.1294 0.1199 0.1183 0.1279 0.1057 0.1040 0.1142
25 0.1238 0.1239 0.1331 0.1211 0.1217 0.1304 0.1069 0.1051 0.1152
40 0.1299 0.1305 0.1400 0.1260 0.1262 0.1338 0.1100 0.1083 0.1181
Average 0.1248 0.1230 0.1346 0.1224 0.1224 0.1304 0.1062 0.1045 0.1149
*Apparent volume mass
12
UNE-EN 12664
Thermal performance of building materials and
products. Determination of thermal resistance by
means of guarded hot plate and heat flow meter
methods. Dry and moist products of medium and
low thermal resistance
T : 10,25,40 [°C] ΔT5,10,15 [°C]

13. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONVECTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
13
HAND-MADE TEST-BOX

14. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONVECTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
Data acquisition equipment
Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik (HBM)
Fine-wire thermocouples
RS 409-4908 (PTFE)
Protection wooden box with
insulation
Multilayer blanket, 7.5 m2∙°C/W
thermal resistance
Silicon flexible resistance
Digital thermostat
ELIWELL ID961
14
HAND-MADE TEST-BOX

15. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONVECTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
15

16. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONVECTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
16
a.40
b.36
c. 32
d.28
Natural Radiata-pine Chemical treated Heat-treated

17. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
CONVECTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
Natural
Ti Te λ hi he
°C °C W/(m∙°C) W/(m2∙°C) W/(m2∙°C)
Test a
(40°C)
Tmed 40.7 21.6 0.1202 15.0858 7.4431
Tmax 42.9 21.6 0.1064 11.4066 7.4397
Tmin 38.5 21.6 0.1355 22.4503 7.4385
Test b
(36°C)
Tmed 36.8 21.9 0.1188 15.4370 7.0466
Tmax 38.9 22.0 0.1026 11.1898 7.0362
Tmin 34.7 21.9 0.1412 25.4776 7.0434
Test c
(32°C)
Tmed 32.9 21.8 0.1122 13.5698 6.5862
Tmax 35.1 21.8 0.0930 8.9250 6.5541
Tmin 30.8 21.8 0.1408 31.5150 6.5584
Test d
(28°C)
Tmed 28.7 21.5 0.1031 13.1443 5.7712
Tmax 31.0 21.5 0.0795 6.9088 5.9332
Tmin 26.8 21.5 0.1395 239.8796 5.9278
Chemical treated
λ hi he
W/(m∙°C) W/(m2∙°C) W/(m2∙°C)
0.1205 14.5856 7.3111
0.1118 10.5006 7.3476
0.1358 25.0350 7.3472
0.1207 14.1995 6.9947
0.1093 9.5100 6.9814
0.1394 28.0843 6.9799
0.1173 13.0026 6.3928
0.0998 7.6634 6.4501
0.1412 38.3745 6.4539
0.1123 12.8936 5.8554
0.0883 5.5558 5.8497
0.1529 98.7834 5.8600
Heat-treated
λ hi he
W/(m∙°C) W/(m2∙°C) W/(m2∙°C)
0.1215 14.2616 7.4494
0.1108 10.7003 7.6197
0.1356 25.2744 7.6148
0.1184 13.6486 7.0427
0.1070 9.5846 7.1056
0.1398 24.3241 7.1081
0.1163 13.5947 6.5932
0.0987 8.0011 6.5917
0.1460 32.9281 6.5994
0.1118 12.9676 5.8586
0.0855 5.7967 5.9012
0.1614 65.3473 5.9214
17

18. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY RESULTS
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
TEST BOX
Natural
Chemical
treated
Heat-treated
ΔTe-i [°C] ΔT 1-2[°C] λ [W/(m∙°C)]
20 9 0.1202 0.1205 0.1215
15 6.5 0.1188 0.1207 0.1184
11 4.6 0.1122 0.1173 0.1163
7 2.8 0.1031 0.1123 0.1118
0.1136 0.1177 0.1170
UNE-EN 12664
Natural
Chemical
treated
Heat-treated
ΔTe-i [°C] ΔT 1-2[°C] λ [W/(m∙°C)]
- 5 0.1248 0.1224 0.1062
- 10 0.1230 0.1224 0.1045
- 15 0.1346 0.1304 0.1149
0.1275 0.1251 0.1085
18
CTE (ρ= 520-610 kg/m3) λ= 0.18 W/(m∙°C)
ISO UNE-EN 10456
(ρ= 500-700 kg/m3 )
λ= 0.13-0.18 W/(m∙°C)

19. PERMEABILITY
PROCEDURE & RESULTS
CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
Natural Radiata-pine
1.1 1.2 1.3 Average
g [kg/(s.m2)] 3.505E-07 3.208E-07 3.189E-07 3.301E-07
W [kg/(m2.s.Pa)] 2.628E-10 2.405E-10 2.391E-10 2.475E-10
Z [(m2.s.Pa)/kg] 3.805E+09 4.158E+09 4.182E+09 4.048E+09
δ [Kg/(m.s.Pa)] 6.252E-12 5.711E-12 5.716E-12 5.893E-12
μ [-] 3.140E+01 3.438E+01 3.435E+01 3.337E+01
Sd [m] 7.470E-01 8.163E-01 8.209E-01 7.947E-01
Chemical treated Radiata-pine
2.1 2.2 2.3 Average
g [kg/(s.m2)] 3.025E-07 3.032E-07 2.923E-07 2.993E-07
W [kg/(m2.s.Pa)] 2.268E-10 2.274E-10 2.192E-10 2.244E-10
Z [(m2.s.Pa)/kg] 4.409E+09 4.398E+09 4.563E+09 4.457E+09
δ [Kg/(m.s.Pa)] 5.356E-12 5.392E-12 5.193E-12 5.314E-12
μ [-] 3.665E+01 3.641E+01 3.781E+01 3.696E+01
Sd [m] 8.657E-01 8.635E-01 8.957E-01 8.750E-01
Heat-treated Radiata-pine
3.1 3.2 3.3 Average
g [kg/(s.m2)] 1.970E-07 1.806E-07 1.829E-07 1.868E-07
W [kg/(m2.s.Pa)] 1.477E-10 1.354E-10 1.371E-10 1.401E-10
Z [(m2.s.Pa)/kg] 6.770E+09 7.385E+09 7.293E+09 7.149E+09
δ [Kg/(m.s.Pa)] 2.974E-12 2.741E-12 2.772E-12 2.829E-12
μ [-] 6.601E+01 7.162E+01 7.082E+01 6.948E+01
Sd [m] 1.329E+00 1.450E+00 1.432E+00 1.404E+00
19
Climate-chamber
DesiccantMetal cup
Sealing
Paraffin
Tape
UNE-EN ISO 1257:2001
Hygrothermal performance of building
materials and products - Determination of water
vapour transmission properties.

20. CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE
SPECIFIC HEAT
PROCEDURE & RESULTS
A: Cooling System
B: Silver furnace with circular heater
Technical specifications
Temperature Range 150 to 600 °C
Heating rates 0 to 100 K/min
Cooling rates
0 to 70 K/min
(depending on Temp.)
Sensor Heat flux System
Measurement range ± 600 mW
Enthalpy accuracy < 1%
Cooling options
Forced air; LN2;
Intracooler
Atmospheres
Oxid., inert (static,
dynamic)
Software Proteus
Specific heat [J/(kg∙K)]
Natural Chemical treated Heat-treated
1 1485 1328* 1442
2 1528 1650 1384
3 1434 1761 1184*
4 1629 1616 1158*
5 1597 1696 1498
Average 1535 1681 1441
* This value was excluded from the average and standard deviation
UNE-EN ISO 22007-2
Determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity
- Part 2: Transient plane heat source (hot disc) method
20
Differential scanning calorimetry
Sample Capsules
Wood dust

21. 21

22. ENERGY SIMULATION
FINITE ELEMENTS SIMULATION
RADIATA-PINE CLADDING
Rreference: 0.2 [(m2∙C)/W] λconifer: 0.15 [W/(m2∙°C)]
R [(m2∙C)/W] A [cm2] P [cm] eeq [m] emax [m] ∆emax
D1 0.1764 4305.14 169.02 0.0266 0.03 -11,8%
D2 0.1604 3804.18 153.97 0.0241 0.03 -19,8%
D3 0.1334 4068.75 243.17 0.0200 0.03 -33,3%
D4 0.1404 3375.00 165.75 0.0211 0.03 -29,8%
D5 0.1000 2590.85 164.89 0.0150 0.03 -50,0%
Rreference: 0.2 [(m2∙C)/W] λconifer: 0.15 [W/(m2∙°C)]
R [(m2∙C)/W] A [cm2] P [cm] eeq [m] emax [m] ∆emax
D1 0.1764 4305.14 169.02 0.0266 0.03 -11,8%
D2 0.1604 3804.18 153.97 0.0241 0.03 -19,8%
D3 0.1334 4068.75 243.17 0.0200 0.03 -33,3%
D4 0.1404 3375.00 165.75 0.0211 0.03 -29,8%
D5 0.1000 2590.85 164.89 0.0150 0.03 -50,0%
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.3304 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.0269 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D2 RD2 0.1604 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD2 6.2344 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.3034 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.2965 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D3 RD3 0.1334 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD3 7.4963 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.3104 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.2216 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D4 RD4 0.1404 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD4 7.1225 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.3464 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 2.8872 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D1 RD1 0.1764 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD1 5.6689 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.2700 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.7031 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D5 RD5 0.1000 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD5 10.000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.2700 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.7031 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D5 RD5 0.1000 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD5 10.000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺ ❻
emax 0.0300 [m]
λconifer 0.1500 [W/(m∙C)]
Rsi 0.1300 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
Rse 0.0400 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
hi 7.6923 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
he 25.0000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
R 0.2700 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
U 3.7031 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
D5 RD5 0.1000 [(m
2
∙C)/W]
UD5 10.000 [W/(m
2
∙C)]
① Finite elements mesh
[°C]②③ Isotherm lines
④ Flux vectors
[W/m
2
]⑤⑥ Constant flux lines
D1 D2
22
THERM Software
THERM contains an automatic mesh generator that uses
the Finite Quadtree algorithm. THERM checks solutions for
convergence and automatically adapts the mesh as
required using an error-estimation algorithm based on the
work of Zienkiewicz and Zhu .
THERM’s calculation routines evaluate conduction and
radiation from first principles. Convective heat transfer is
approximated through the use of film coefficients obtained
from engineering references .
This program allows estimate the thermal transmittance of
different solutions. The inputs are the thermal conductivity
of the material and the environment boundary conditions.
D3 D4
D5

23. HIGROTHERMAL SIMULATION
WUFI SOFTWARE
ENERGY SIMULATION
23
Transmittance, U [W/(m2∙K)]
Natural
Chemical
treated
Heat-
treated
1- January 9.7115 9.9299 9.9835
2- February 9.2577 9.2582 9.2507
3- March 6.7610 6.7794 6.8568
4- April 5.3675 5.4169 5.2881
5- May 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6- June 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7- July ---- ---- ----
8- August ---- ---- ----
9- September 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
10- October 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
11- November 1.7822 1.8328 1.9361
12- December 7.0047 6.9095 7.1370
WUFI Software
WUFI Pro v.6 software enables the one-dimensional investigation of the
hygrothermal performance of building components for various effects such
as built-in moisture, driving rain, solar radiation, long-wave emissions,
capillary transport and summer condensation.
This tool allows a simulation over a complete year. However, this software
presents some limitations relating to modeling, when some layers vary in
size along the wall.
Radiata-pine variables:
• Conductivity dependence of material
temperature (UNE-EN 12664 )
• Density (23°C, 50% HR)
• Resistande to water vapour difussion factor
(UNE-EN ISO 1257:2001)
• Specific heat (UNE-EN ISO 22007-2)

24. TEST-BOX SIMULATION
DESIGN BUILDER SOFTWARE
ENERGY SIMULATION
24
Temperature
Air velocity
Isotherms
Air direction
DESIGN BUILDER Software
Design Builder is a simulation tool which
combines various energy modules in order to
estimate heating and cooling energy demand
into a room, using different systems and
energy sources. This software combines
different advanced tools based on the
ENERGY PLUS engine.
The Design Builder software analyse both
moisture and heat transfer through a
combined Heat and Moisture Finite Element,
defined in the Heat Balance Algorithm.
Through the CFD module (Computational fluid
dynamics) it is able to analyse the energy
losses of the test box, and it also allows to
foreseen how the air flows inside the box.

25. TEST-BOX SIMULATION
DESIGN BUILDER SOFTWARE
ENERGY SIMULATION
Initial conditions 20°C
Turbulence model KƐ
Internal iterations 6
Relaxation factor 1
Viscosity
Relaxation factor 1
Velocity (x,y,z)
Internal iterations 3
Relaxation factor 1
Pressure
Internal iterations 3
Temperature
Walls Ceiling Floor (ext) Lost Heating Interior Exterior
kW kW kW kW kW °C °C
-0.336 -0.011 -0.011 -0.359 0.356 28,0 20,5
93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 100% 0.9% error
Temperature
Walls Ceiling Floor (ext) Lost Heating Interior Exterior
kW kW kW kW kW °C °C
-0.339 -0.011 -0.009 -0.359 0.356 28,0 20,5
95.2% 3.2% 2.4% 100% 0.9% error
25
Estimation in
the design of
the TEST BOX
Simulation
results
Temperature

27. DETERIORATION
DURABILITY TEST PREPARATION
DURABILITY
27
Cylindrical solar chart, from June to December
Cylindrical solar chart, from December to June
CLIMATE CONSULTANT Software
SSW (30° South-West)
UNE-CEN/TS 15397 EX
Wood preservatives - Method for natural preconditioning out of ground
contact of treated wood specimens prior to biological laboratory test
Support Samples
3D with SKETCHUP
Software

28. DETERIORATION
AGEING
DURABILITY
28
2015

29. DETERIORATION
DURABILITY TEST PREPARATION
DURABILITY
29
2016

30. DETERIORATION
VARIATION OF PROPERTIES
DURABILITY
Emissivity, ε [-]
Origin 2 years Δε [%]
Natural 0.93 0.92 -1.07
Chemical treated 0.93 0.87 -6,46
Heat-treated 0.93 0.90 -3.22
30
Technical specifications
Measuring
range
-30 to +100°C; 0 to
+350 °C (switchable)
Accuracy
±2 °C, ±2 % of m.v.
(±3 °C of m.v. at -30
to -22 °C)
Thermal
sensitivity
˂ 50 mK at +30 °C
Software TESTO IRSoft
Conductivity, λ [W/(m∙K)]
Origin 1.5 years Δλ [%]
Natural 0.1202 0.0821 -31.65
Chemical treated 0.1205 0.0898 -25.44
Heat-treated 0.1215 0.1006 -17.18
THERMOGRAPHIC CAMERA
EMISSIVITY
THERMAL CONDUTIVITY BY TEST BOX

31. 31

32. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX DEVELOPMENT BY MIVES
SUSTAINABILITY
Global Evaluation ESI-CW Criteria level evaluation Indicator level evaluation
32
General Hierarchy Diagram of the Evaluation
INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
In the Spanish code for concrete and
steel (EHE-08. RD 1247/2008]; EAE.
RD 751/2011) an index of
environmental sustainability was
obtained using an adaptation of the
MIVES.
In this case, this methodology aims
to establish a quick indicator for
quantifying the degree of
“environmental sustainability” that
may be assigned on the basis of
information from the agents that
intervene in the design of a timber
façade.

33. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX DEVELOPMENT BY MIVES
SUSTAINABILITY
33
1. Characterization of Timber products:
• Volume of laminated timber with FSC, PEFC or other certifications
• Volume of sawn timber with FSC, PEFC or other certifications
Respect to the total volume of wood used in the facade
2. Manufacture and assembly:
• Manufacture and assembly in the factory
• On-site assembly
• Construction firm
3. Optimization of resources in use :
• Origin of the timber with regard to its consumption ≤ 300 km
• Origin of the timber with regard to its consumption between 300 and1000 km
• Origin of the timber with regard to its consumption ≥ 1000 km
4. Supervision of environmental impact:
• Type of protection (superficial, average, deep)
5. Waste management:
• No specific action in either the Project or the budget
• The use of waste containers for stony fractions is proposed in the project and
appears in the budget
• The firm supplying the structure is responsible for possible waste generated in
the assembly of the structure
• The supplier collects the waste and proposes an agreement for its valuation
Company with
environmental accreditation
or commitment
Distance of the factory
respect to the site works
(more or less than 300km)
CRITERIA
The environmental
sustainability index is
proposed on the basis of two
criteria for a wood cladding,
which are the products used
and the measures to reduce
the generation of impacts

34. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX DEVELOPMENT BY MIVES
SUSTAINABILITY
ESI-CW
5: Waste management (67 %)
Products (70%)
3: Optimization of resources in
use (30 %)
1: Characterization of timber
products (40%)
2: Manufacture and assembly
(30%)
Measures to reduce
impacts (30%)
4: Supervision of environmental
impact (33 %)
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
1.- Indicator
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
2.- Indicator
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
3.- Indicator
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
4.- Indicator
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
5.- Indicator
34
VALUE FUNCTIONS [0-1]
CRITERIA &
WEIGHTING FACTORS [%]
INDICATORS
INDEX OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
The Panel of Experts was formed by professionals from the
construction sector (engineering and architecture studios,
construction companies, research centres and universities)
≈
EHE: Spanish normative for
concrete structures
EAE: Spanish normative for
steel structures

35. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX DEVELOPMENT BY MIVES
SUSTAINABILITY
35
CASE 1
• Certified Timber
• The factory was at a distance of 54 km from the location
of the house
• The timber factory has ISO-9.001 and OHSAS-18.001
accreditation
• The manufacturer is a small company without Research
and Development
• The construction firm in charge of carrying out the
necessary civil works, has no type of environmental
accreditation
CASE 2
• Wood is brought from Austria
• The CLT manufacturer has ISO 14.000 accreditation
CASE 3
• The external cladding is changed to a wooden external
cladding 2 cm thickness made of joined boards which are
joined to the CLT by means of wood studs
CASE STUDY
A house located in the Basque Country and made of CLT
(Cross Laminated Timber), whose external cladding is based
on a stone layer stuck to the façade support, the CLT walls.

36. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
INDEX DEVELOPMENT BY MIVES
SUSTAINABILITY
Indicator
Indicator
score
Indicator
value
Indicator
[%]
Value of
criterion
Indicator
[%]
Value of
Index
1: Pproduct 100 1.00 40
0.56 70
0.49
2: Pfactory/Psite 12 0.03 30
3: Puse 29 0.50 30
4: Pprotect. 100 1.00 33
0.33 30
5: Pmng 0 0 67
Indicator
Indicator
score
Indicator
value
Indicator
[%]
Value of
criterion
Indicator
[%]
Value of
Index
1: Pproduct 100 1.00 40
0.95 70
0.76
2: Pfactory/Psite 60 0.83 30
3: Puse 54 0.99 30
4: Pprotect. 100 1.00 33
0.33 30
5: Pmng 0 0 67
Indicator
Indicator
score
Indicator
value
Indicator
[%]
Value of
criterion
Indicator
[%]
Value of
Index
1: Pproduct 100 1.00 40
0.94 70
0.75
2: Pfactory/Psite 60 0.83 30
3: Puse 48 0.99 30
4: Pprotect. 91 0.91 33
0.30 30
5: Pmng 0 0 67
36
1.
2.
3.4.
5.
1.
2.
3.4.
5.
CASE 1. Local wood
CASE 2: Wood from Austria
CASE 3: Wooden external cladding
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3

37. 37
1.
2.
3.4.
5.
1.
2.
3.4.
5.

38. CATALOGUE OF FAҪADES
DEFINITION
CATALOGUE
38
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
•NATURAL RESOURCES
•BETTER WASTE MANAGEMENT
•ECOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
•FAST CONSTRUCTION
•HIGH CONTROL OF
QUALITY
•LESS FINAL COSTS
•INDEPENDENT TO
CLIMATE
SOCIAL ASPECTS
•CREATIVE
•AESTHETIC
•THERMAL AND ACOUSTIC
COMFORT
•GOOD WORK PRACTICES
CATALOGUE ASPECTS
• Carbon emissions
• Weight
• Costs
• Transmittance (Spanish Technical Code)
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
CATALOGUE OF WOODEN FAÇADES
The aim of this catalogue is a compilation of the most
common wooden façades used in our territory and
compare its sustainability depending on the aspects:
environmental, social and economic.
Very often, wooden façades are configured as a load
wall. That implies that both structural and protection
functions are required. Because of that, the catalogue
distinguished between façades made of traditional
timber frame (A) and CLT (B), Cross Laminated Timber,
in order to compare different structural composition

39. CATALOGUE OF FAҪADES
CONFIGURATION
CATALOGUE
39

40. CATALOGUE OF FAҪADES
TIMBER FRAME SOLUTIONS (A)
CATALOGUE
40
0.417 W/m2∙K
33.06 Kg CO2 eq
71.82 Kg/m2
53.26 €/m2
0.425 W/m2∙K
37.22 Kg CO2 eq
70.71 Kg/m2
88.44 €/m2
0.400 W/m2∙K
46.95 Kg CO2 eq
78.98 Kg/m2
66.32 €/m2
0.421 W/m2∙K
55.82 Kg CO2 eq
187.63 Kg/m2
124.01 €/m2
0.431 W/m2∙K
33.06 Kg CO2 eq
71.82 Kg/m2
53.26 €/m2
0.405 W/m2∙K
31.50 Kg CO2 eq
75.06 Kg/m2
63.02 €/m2
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

41. CATALOGUE OF FAҪADES
CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER SOLUTIONS (B)
CATALOGUE
41
0.396 W/m2∙K
27.66 Kg CO2 eq
73.81 Kg/m2
92.21 €/m2
0.370 W/m2∙K
31.14 Kg CO2 eq
67.47 Kg/m2
123.39 €/m2
0.437 W/m2∙K
41.55 Kg CO2 eq
69.51 Kg/m2
91.64 €/m2
0.411 W/m2∙K
58.66 Kg CO2 eq
198.63 Kg/m2
164.97 €/m2
0.406 W/m2∙K
35.90 Kg CO2 eq
94.11 Kg/m2
98.64 €/m2
0.426 W/m2∙K
25.94 Kg CO2 eq
74.31 Kg/m2
101.97 €/m2
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

42. 42

43. CONCLUSIONES FINALES
43

44. CONCLUSIONES FINALES
Simulación energética
• DESIGN BUILDER: Se ha demostrado que la hipótesis de
cálculo de la transferencia de calor y la hipótesis de
movimiento del aire interior se cumplen.
• THERM: Se ha demostrado que a mayor área en
sección y menor perímetro expuesto al exterior mayor
resistencia térmica. Este sofware permite obtener la
transmitancia térmica de las soluciones. (λ, hv, Te, Ti)
• WUFI: Se ha demostrado que en diferentes meses, la
transmitancia varía, y que hay meses en los que un tipo
de madera es más eficientes que otros. (λ, ρ, Ce, µ, hv)
44
D1 D2 D3 D4

45. CONCLUSIONES FINALES
Durabilidad
• La mayor variación del aspecto de las muestras, a nivel de color y aparición de fisuras,
se produce durante el primer año. Durante el segundo año, el deterioro se ralentiza.
• En términos de conductividad térmica, la madera natural y tratada térmicamente
representan una mayor variación (31 y 25%), mientras que la conductividad térmica de
la termotratada varía menos (17%).
• Sin embargo, en cuanto a emisividad son la natural y la termotratada las que menos
varían (1 y 3%), mientras que la tratada químicamente reduce su emisividad hasta en
un 6%.
45

46. CONCLUSIONES FINALES
Sostenibilidad
• Como dentro del grupo de agentes intervinientes en la industria de la construcción se
generan conflictos de interés, se ha desarrollado una metodología para unificar criterios
en relación a la sostenibilidad ambiental de las fachadas de madera.
• A partir de dicha metodología se pueden establecer líneas de acción para la mejora de la
sostenibilidad de las fachadas de madera, considerando la situación económica y las
características particulares de cada país.
Catálogo de fachadas de madera
• A través de la recopilación de diferentes sistemas de fachada de madera, se ha concluido
que las fachadas de CLT (Cross Laminated Timber) son en general más caras que las de
entramado. Sin embargo, representan menores saltos térmicos.
• Por otro lado, las fachadas de entramado son más baratas pero no son comunes en
nuestro territorio, mientras que las de CLT se están extendiendo debido al desarrollo
tecnológico de dicho modelo constructivo de gran resistencia mecánica, fácil de
ensamblar y de material ecológico.
46

47. CONTRIBUCIONES
47
Artículos
 ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF WOOD CLADDING ON THE THERMAL BEHAVIOR OF BUILDING
FAÇADES; CHARACTERIZATION THROUGH SIMULATION BY USING DIFFERENT TOOLS AND
COMPARATIVE TESTING VALIDATION. Pelaz, B., Blanco, J.M., Cuadrado, J., Egiluz, Z., Buruaga, A.
Energy and Buildings, 141, pp. 349-360. 2017
 METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF TIMBER STRUCTURES.
Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Pelaz, B., Marcos, I. Construction and Building Materials, 86, pp.
149-158. 2015
 ENERGY ASSESSMENT AND OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORATED METAL SHEET DOUBLE SKIN
FAÇADES THROUGH DESIGN BUILDER; A CASE STUDY IN SPAIN. Blanco, J.M., Buruaga, A., Rojí,
E., Cuadrado, J., Pelaz, B. Energy and Buildings, 111, pp. 326-336. 2016
Congresos
 NUMERICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE OPTIMIZATION OF WOOD COATING ENCLOSURES.
B. Pelaz , J. Cuadrado, Jesús M. Blanco, E. Rojí. CMN, Lisboa. 2015
 CHARACTERIZATION OF WOOD SAMPLES THROUGH NUMERICAL SIMULATION BASED ON A TEST
VALIDATION BENCH PROCEDURE. B. Pelaz , J. Cuadrado, Jesús M. Blanco, E. Rojí. CMN, Lisboa.
2015
 MODELOS DE COMPORTAMIENTO TÉRMICO EN FACHADAS DE MADERA. B. Pelaz , J. Cuadrado,
Jesús M. Blanco, E. Rojí, R. Losada. 6º EESAP , Donostia-San Sebastián. 2015

48. FUTURAS LINEAS DE INVESTIGACIÓN
 Se ha demostrado que a mayor conductividad térmica del material, mayor resistencia
térmica superficial, en el caso de muestras de Radiata de 2cm de espesor. El fenómeno
convectivo gana importancia y por ello puede ser objeto de estudio de cara a nuevas
aplicaciones.
 El método de la Caja de Ensayo se centra en la transferencia de calor. Sin embargo, el
estudio de las propiedades de humedad dentro y fuera de la cámara facilitarían la
caracterización de materiales higroscópicos.
 Se ha demostrado que el deterioro del material también toma importancia al influir en
las propiedades del mismo. Un mayor estudio en relación al deterioro de las
propiedades térmicas del material es necesario. En la actualidad, seguimos con este test.
 Aparte de la caracterización del material, conocer la influencia de las condiciones de
frontera en el comportamiento del material también es objeto de estudio.
 El diseño y geometría de los acabados exteriores de madera influyen en el
comportamiento térmico de dicho elemento. Por ello, un estudio más elaborado sería a
su vez objeto de interés.
 En el caso de la metodología creada para la evaluación de la sostenibilidad de fachadas
de madera, de cara a futuras necesidades, puede asumir nuevos criterios a desarrollar,
como, por ejemplo, los costes.
48

49. DEVELOPMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION OF RADIATA-PINE CLADDING
FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT FAҪADES IN THE
BASQUE COUNTRY
Belinda Pelaz Sánchez
Directors:
Jesús Cuadrado Rojo
Jesús Mª Blanco Ilzarbe
April 2017
49