Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography

НазваниеAppendix A: Annotated Bibliography
Размер1.61 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22


Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography

1. Building Envelope

1.1 Opaque Building Assemblies


        1. Assembly Thermal Conductance

          1. Christian and Kosny 1995 [73] described the thermal performance of walls in terms of the center-of-cavity R-value, clear-wall R-value, and whole-wall R-value.

          2. Christian and Kosny 1997 [74] discussed the importance of five elements (R-value, thermal mass, air tightness, moisture tolerance, and sustainability) to evaluate whole-wall performance.

          3. Christian and Kosny 1999 [72] defined and compared clear-wall and whole-wall R-values.

          4. Condon et al. 1980 [85] used a wall’s thermal resistance to relate the heat flux through a wall to the temperature difference across the wall.

          5. Desjarlais et al. 1998 [108] defined the R-value of a window assembly.

          6. Forest et al. 1991 [165] measured thermal resistance of porous insulation.

          7. Isaacs and Trethowen 1985 [218] defined a “cumulative” method of determining thermal resistance from a series of heat-flux and temperature-difference measurements.

          8. Lambert and Robison [244] measured whole-house thermal loss in terms of a K factor (slope of line regressed to chart of measured space heat average energy use vs. inside-to-outside temperature difference).

          9. Modera et al. 1986 [283] found through computer simulations that the dynamically measured thermal conductance of a wall was mostly likely to be inaccurate in the cases of (a) well-insulated walls; (b) large indoor and outdoor temperature fluctuations; (c) small average indoor-outdoor temperature differences; and (d) thermally massive walls.

          10. Saunders et al. 1994 [363] defined “building load coefficient” (BLC), an area-integrated envelope thermal heat transfer coefficient (U*A) incorporating both conduction and infiltration effects.

          11. Sherman et al. 1983 [380] described a wall’s dynamic thermal performance by a small number of “Simplified Thermal Parameters,” including a steady-state conductance, a time constant, and some storage terms.

          12. Sonderegger et al. 1981 [409] described the thermal performance of an heterogeneous wall in terms of its conductance, its time constant, and two or three pairs of correction terms that express the wall’s heterogeneity.

          13. Subbarao et al. 1985 [418] reported on the early stages of a project to characterize the long-term thermal performance of a building using only two short-term-measurable parameters (building heat loss coefficient and equivalent clear aperture area).

        2. Insulation Level and Location

          1. BII 1998 [53] discussed insulation performance metrics including R-value, installation depth, and infiltration rate.

          2. Grot and Chang 1983 [195] defined nine classes of envelope thermal anomalies (e.g., uninsulated exterior-wall cavity regions, improperly-insulated ceiling areas, air leakage around door or windows) that thermographic inspection of buildings can find.


        1. Assembly Thermal Conductance

          1. Burch 1980 [61] used infrared thermography to rank roofs of residential and commercial buildings according to their thermal resistances, and found that it worked best under low-wind conditions.

          2. Christian and Kosny 1999 [71] described Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s web-based whole-wall R-value calculator.

          3. Christian and Kosny 1995 [73] described a method/procedure for the estimation of whole-wall R-values considering both “clear wall” and envelope interface details. Generated an R-value database by 3-D heat-conduction simulation of 18 systems.

          4. Christian and Kosny 1999 [72] described an Internet-based calculation tool that computes whole-wall values of thermal resistance for 40 different wall systems.

          5. CMHC 1998 [79] described the physics and mechanisms of heat transfer in buildings. Also discussed general insulation strategies.

          6. Condon et al. 1980 [85] discussed steady-state measurement of wall thermal resistance with (a) heat flux sensors and (b) a guarded hot box. Also discussed the use of transient heat transfer analysis with the envelope thermal testing unit (a portable guarded hot box) to determine a wall’s complex conductance (a.k.a. admittance).

          7. Creech and Tiller 1993 [92] described the “cookie cutter” technique to remove and weigh attic insulation samples to check insulation density and R-value.

          8. Crowell 1992 [93] discussed visual signs of poor insulation installation quality.

          9. Cvetkovic 1982 [99] successfully tested a compensated heat-flux meter (i.e., one with a heating element used to compensate for the flux reduction induced by the presence of the meter).

          10. Fang et al. 1985 [141] measured the thermal resistance of the exterior envelopes of six test houses using (a) a portable calorimeter and (b) a heat-flux transducer. Laboratory tests showed that calorimeter and transducer results were within 9% of those yielded by a guarded hot box.

          11. Fang and Grot 1985 [142] measured the thermal resistance of office-building envelopes using (a) heat-flux transducers (four-inch-diameter wafer-type sensors with embedded thermopiles) and (b) a portable calorimeter.

          12. Flanders 1992 [154] discussed the effect of changing the data time period for the two proposed tests for ASTM C1155-90 to measure R-values of building envelope components.

          13. Flanders et al. 1995 [155] discussed test protocols and results of two in-situ long-term tests (multiple-day long, with values calculated based on incremental 24 hour blocks of data) to determine R-values of building envelope components. Tests are two proposed for ASTM C1155-90: summation technique and sum of least squares. Found that the R-value agreement between the two techniques varied by material, but was within 3% for metal panels, 13% for metal panel/block walls, and 1% for masonry walls and attic insulation.

          14. Grot et al. 1985 [194] discussed four tools (non-contact spot radiometer, contact heat flow transducer, portable calorimeter, and envelope thermal testing unit [guarded hot plate]) that can be used to measure the thermal resistance of building components.

          15. Harrje et al. 1985 [205] described the use of fan pressurization and infrared thermography to detect convective loops in buildings.

          16. Isaacs and Trethowen 1985 [218] measured the thermal resistances of roofs, walls, and floors with thermocouples and heat-flux sensors.

          17. Janssen and Rasmussen 1985 [219] used computer simulations of the thermal performance of a house to analyze the errors associated with a transient procedure used to measure overall “building thermal resistance” (BTR). Also programmed the algorithm into a microprocessor-based meter and measured the BTR of three homes.

          18. Lugano 1998 [257] discussed key air sealing and insulation locations by house type (colonial, contemporary, ranch, and finished half-attics).

          19. Modera et al. 1984 [285] outlined two techniques for thermal testing of walls: one active and one passive. The active method uses heat generation to produce the necessary delta T across the wall, whereas the passive method uses weather conditions.

          20. Modera et al. 1986 [283] found through computer simulations that the dynamically measured thermal conductance of a wall was mostly likely to be inaccurate in the cases of (a) well-insulated walls; (b) large indoor and outdoor temperature fluctuations; (c) small average indoor-outdoor temperature differences; and (d) thermally massive walls.

          21. Persily et al. 1988 [323] described the use of calorimeters and heat flux transducers to measure envelope thermal resistance.

          22. Roeder 1992 [352] discussed the American Society for Non-Destructive Testing’s (ASNT) guidelines for the voluntary qualification and certification of thermographers.

          23. Roulet et al. 1985 [356] described both steady-state and dynamic methods for computing the thermal conductance and time constants of building assemblies. Presented a criterion for determining how close a dynamically computed thermal conductance is to its true value. Tested both steady-state and dynamic methods on various building elements (windows, light sandwich panels, and heavy elements).

          24. Sandberg and Jahnsson 1995 [361] presented a simplified method (periodic electricity meter readings + indoor-outdoor air temperature measurements) for measuring the thermal loss factor (area-integrated conductance) of the envelope of an electrically-heated detached house with low thermal mass.

          25. Saunders et al. 1994 [363] described the measured performance rating (MPR) method, an overnight coheating procedure that predicts building load coefficient (BLC), thermal time constant for the building mass, heating system efficiency, and annual fuel consumption of single-family detached home.

          26. Sherman et al. 1982 [400] described wall thermal performance and temperature results using the envelope thermal test unit (ETTU).

          27. Sherman et al. 1983 [380] described the Envelope Thermal Test Unit, a device (surface heater + surface-temperature sensor + heat-flux meter) that characterizes a wall’s dynamic thermal performance by controlling and measuring heat flux.

          28. Sonderegger et al. 1981 [409] discussed the Envelope Thermal Test Unit (ETTU), a tool developed to dynamically measure component U-values in the field. Also described in Condon et al. 1980 [85], Sherman et al. 1982 [401], and Sherman et al. 1983 [382].

          29. Wishner 1996 [463] discussed a program to determine whether sufficient attic insulation is installed, based on the “cookie cutter” method; included a graph showing apparent thermal conductivity related to bulk density of four insulation materials.

        2. Insulation Level and Location

          1. ASTM 1990 [34] described the ASTM 1060-90 standard practice for using thermography to qualitatively inspect insulation installations in frame buildings.

          2. Christian and Kosny 1997 [74] described how to determine whole-wall R-values using a guarded hot box and computer simulations.

          3. Grot and Chang 1983 [195] discussed the use of thermography to detect defects in cavity-wall insulation.

          4. Harrje 1981 [203] described a technique (blower-door depressurization + infrared thermography) for detecting envelope leakage sites and insulation defects.

          5. Harrje et al. 1979 [204] described an IR thermography method for determining insulation irregularities.

          6. NAHB 1997 [293] measured air-dried density of wall insulation samples that had been extracted with a “cookie cutter”. Also inspected wall insulation for defects using the NAHB Research Center Certified Insulation Contractor checklist (detailed in an appendix), and recorded time to install wall insulations.

          7. NAHB 1997 [294] provided quality checklists for installation of wall insulation, including fiberglass batts, spray cellulose, blow-in blankets, and foam-in-place. Included 7 to 13 possible defects for each type of insulation.

          8. Persily et al. 1988 [323] described the use of thermography to qualitatively analyze the performance of building envelope insulation.

          9. Proskiw 1995 [340] discussed the use of thermography to detect envelope anomalies.

          10. Snell 1993[408] explained how to choose an infrared thermography system for building-energy audits.

          11. Treado and Burch 1983 [430] evaluated the effectiveness of aerial infrared thermography in detection of roofing insulation defects, finding it to be useful in comparing adjacent houses (same external climate). Factors to take into account when conducting tests are included.

          12. Zmeureanu et al. 1998 [469] used infrared thermography to detect envelope insulation voids in nine row houses.


        1. Assembly Thermal Conductance

          1. ASHRAE 1993 [27] specified how envelope tradeoff factors can be used in the prescriptive compliance path of ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993: added heating or cooling loads imposed by a given envelope component can be offset by load savings from other envelope components.

          2. ASHRAE 1995 [28] specified, based on local degree-days, overall thermal performance requirements for replacement building envelope components.

          3. CEC 1999 [66] presented the Title 24 California building code that specifies R- and U-values for residential and non-residential roofs, walls, and floors.

          4. Christian and Kosny 1999 [71] presented clear- and whole-wall R-values calculated using a web-based calculator, and provided examples of the effect of installation quality on insulation performance.

          5. Christian and Kosny 1997 [74] presented whole-wall R-values for 18 wall configurations, determined using a guarded hotbox and computer simulation procedure.

          6. Conover 1992 [88] discussed laboratory test results of convective heat loss through loose fill fiberglass insulation, in relationship to temperature differentials for attics.

          7. Creech and Tiller 1993 [92] discussed results from a study of attic insulation R-values using the “cookie cutter” method; 95% of the houses had loose-fill fiberglass insulation, the rest had loose-fill rock wool or fiberglass batts; 25% had R-values less than claimed and 50% had R-values greater than claimed.

          8. Greenberg 1994 [178] reported floor insulation techniques and their effect on insulation quality, based on work by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

          9. Isaacs and Trethowen 1985 [218] reprinted roof & wall R-value standards from NZS 4218P (New Zealand, 1977).

          10. Katz 1997 [226] discussed visual inspections of insulation installation in 100 homes. With a minimum code requirement of R-30 attic insulation, 23% of the homes had attic insulation levels below R-30; floor R-values were compromised by poor-to-mediocre installation.

          11. McBride 1992 [264] listed ASHRAE 90.2P's (ASHRAE 1993 [27]) prescriptive requirements for ceiling, wall, slab, floor, door, and fenestration thermal conductances in single- and multi-family houses.

          12. Modera et al. 1984 [285] gave data for the U-values of various wall types.

          13. National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) 1999 [295] gave HERS reference-home R- and U-values.

          14. Penn 1993 [319] noted Minnesota’s building code revision that includes a requirement that “all insulation materials must achieve their stated performance of 75˚F and no less than stated performance at winter design conditions”.

          15. Rainer 1995 [341] compared field findings to default framing factors and proposed ways to index and rate wall systems.

          16. Schalch and Fryer 1992 [364] discussed the Energy Crafted Home’s performance-based requirements for shell insulation levels.

          17. Uniacke 1996 [444] discussed framing and insulation quality goals to obtain quality construction.

          18. Werling et al. 1998 [460] gave Energy-Star required performance levels for envelope R- and U-values.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22


Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAnnotated Bibliography

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAn annotated bibliography

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconProject Management Annotated Bibliography

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAn Examination of the New Atheism: Annotated Bibliography

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconObject-Oriented Metrics: an Annotated Bibliography

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAnnotated Bibliography of Earth Science Trade Books

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconInternational Psychology: Annotated Bibliography, Relevant Organizations, and

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconHistory Annotated Bibliography for Scottish Independence 1286–1329

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAn Annotated Bibliography of the Neotropical Butterflies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea)

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography iconAnnotated Bibliography of Works on Second Language Instruction Related to Cooperative Learning Specifically or

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница