polyurethane foam insulation
Post on 24-May-2015
806 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS INSULATED
WITH SPRAY POLYURETHANE FOAM
José Luis Müller, Antonio Subirats, Montserrat Gil
Luisa F. Cabeza
2
GENERAL INFORMATION
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
AGENDA
Background Program goals Experiment design Experiment setup Experimental conditions Results Evaluation of results Conclusions
4
BACKGROUND
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
GOALS
6
EXPERIMENT DESIGN
1) Construction of 4 cubicles:• Baseline (reference, no insulation material)• SPF (PUR)• Mineral Wool (MW)• Extruded polystyrene (XPS)
2) Data registered for each cubicle:• Temperature and humidity• Heat flux• Electrical consumption..
3) Experiments performed:• Free-floating temperature• Controlled temperature
4) Evaluation of results
7
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. BUILDING SOLUTION
PLASTER
INSULLATION MATERIAL
PERFORATED BRICK WALL
HOLLOW BRICK
5 cm. insulation material
8
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. BUILDING SOLUTION
1. PERFORATED BRICK WALL 29 X 14 X 7,5 cm
2. CONCRETE PRECAST BEAMS + 5 cm CONCRETE SLAB
3. CEMENT MORTAR, “FLAT” ROOF 3% SLOPE
4. DOUBLE ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE5. PLASTER PLASTERING6. CEMENT MORTAR FISNISH7. AIR CHAMBER8. HOLLOW BRICK9. PUR or MW or XPS
9
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. CONSTRUCTION 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
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CUBICLES
External finish with hollow bricks
Finished cubicle
11
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. GEOGRAPHICAL AND WEATHER CONDITIONS
Lleida NE Spain 41° 36′ 50″ N, 0° 37′ 32″ E
12
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. DATA COLLECTION
Wall temperature (ºC) N,E,W,S roof and floor
Heat fluxWall S(W/m2)
Internal air Humidity (%)
Solar radiation(W/m2)
24 hour/360 days remote data collection
Electrical consumption(Wh)
13
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP. THERMOGRAPHIC IMAGES
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
EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS
Experiment FREE FLOATING CONTROLLED
TEMPERATURE
Cooling / Heatingsystem
Off On. Set Point fixed
Data collected Climate Climate, Electrical consumption
Graphic representation
-Climate versus time for each cubicle
-Climate versus time for cubicle-Electrical consump. accumulated versus time for cubicle
15
EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED. FREE FLOATING TEMPERATURE - SUMMER
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
12/08/08 13/08/08 14/08/08 15/08/08 16/08/08 17/08/08 18/08/08
Period
Tem
per
atu
re [
ºC]
Outside Inside Reference Inside Polyurethane Inside Mineral wool Inside Polystyrene
Reference more sensitivity to T
16
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
07/01/08 08/01/08 09/01/08 10/01/08 11/01/08 12/01/08 13/01/08 14/01/08
Period
Tem
per
atu
re [
ºC]
Outside Inside Reference Inside Polyurethane Inside Mineral wool Inside Polystyrenne
EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED. FREE FLOATING TEMPERATURE - WINTER
17
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE - SUMMER
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
21/08/2008 22/08/2008 23/08/2008 24/08/2008 25/08/2008 26/08/2008 27/08/2008 28/08/2008
Period
Tem
per
atu
re [
ºC]
Outside Inside Polystyrene Inside Mineral Wool Inside Polyurethane Inside Reference
Set Point 24ºC
18
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE - WINTER
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
17/02/09 18/02/09 19/02/09 20/02/09 21/02/09 22/02/09 23/02/09Period
Tem
per
atu
re (
ºC)
Outside Inside Reference Inside Polyurethane Inside Mineral wool Inside Polystyrene
Set Point24ºC
19
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - SUMMER
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
21/08/2008 22/08/2008 23/08/2008 24/08/2008 25/08/2008 26/08/2008 27/08/2008
Period
En
erg
y [k
W·h
]
Reference Poliurethane Mineral wool Polystyrene
20
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. ENERGY CONSUMPTION - WINTER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
17/02/2009 18/02/2009 19/02/2009 20/02/2009 21/02/2009 22/02/2009Period
En
erg
y [W
h]
Reference Polyurethane Mineral wool Polystyrenne
21
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. ENERGY, CO2 AND COST SAVINGS VS. REF. - WINTER
Weekly Accumulated Results 4 Months Winter Period Extrapolation
PUR Cubicle 100m2 HouseKWh 889 15,435
€ 71 1,235
$ 101 1,754
CO2 Kg. 577 10,017
* vs. SPF PUR
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Reference PUR MW XPS
Ene
rgy
(KW
h)
+6% +10%
22
EVALUATION OF RESULTS. ENERGY, CO2 AND COST SAVINGS VS. REF. - SUMMER
Weekly Accumulated Results4 Months Summer Period Extrapolation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Reference PUR MW XPS
Ene
rgy
(KW
-h) +34%+21% PUR Cubicle 100m2 House
KWh 121 2,092
€ 9.6 167
$ 14 237
CO2 Kg. 78 1,358
* vs. SPF PUR
23
CONCLUSIONS
•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
CONCLUSIONS- 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
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful thanks to Honeywell Fluorine Products for its support, especially to:
Mary BogdanPaul SandersKarim Tarzi
26
For further info, please contact:
info@synte.es
www.synte.es
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!
top related