energies

Article
Determining the U-Value of Façades Using the
Thermometric Method: Potentials and Limitations
David Bienvenido-Huertas 1, * ID , Roberto Rodríguez-Álvaro 2 ID
, Juan José Moyano 1 ID
,
Fernando Rico 1 ID and David Marín 1 ID
1 Department of Graphical Expression and Building Engineering, University of Seville, 41012 Seville, Spain;
jmoyano@us.es (J.J.M.); fricodel@us.es (F.R.); damar@us.es (D.M.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain;
roberto.rodriguez1@udc.es
* Correspondence: jdbienvenido@gmail.com

Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 1 February 2018; Published: 3 February 2018

Abstract: The thermal transmittance of building envelopes determines to a large extent the energy
demand of buildings. Thus, there is a keen interest in having methods which can precisely evaluate
thermal transmittance. From a scientific point of view, this study analyses the viability of the
application of the thermometric method (THM), one of the most used methods in Spain. For this
purpose, the test method has been improved by determining the adequate test conditions, the selection
and installation of equipment, data acquisition and post-processing, and the estimation of uncertainty.
We analyse eight case studies in a Mediterranean climate (Csa) to determine the potentials and
limitations of the method. The results show that the values obtained through THM are valid under
winter environmental conditions with relative uncertainties between 6% and 13%, while difficulties
to perform the test in optimal conditions, and therefore to obtain valid results in warmer seasons,
are detected. In this regard, the case studies which obtained a greater number of observations by
performing the filtrate conditions were able to obtain representative results. Furthermore, there are
significant differences depending on the kind of equipment and probes used during the experimental
campaign. Finally, in warm climate regions a data filtrate can be considered for observations of a
temperature difference higher than 5 ◦ C, obtaining valid results for the case studies, although the rise
in the thermal gradient can guarantee a greater stability of data.

Keywords: thermal transmittance (U-value); thermometric method (THM); façades; internal convective
coefficient; in situ measurement

1. Introduction
The concern about the environmental degradation of the planet has increased over the past few
years. The building sector is among those most responsible for this phenomenon because of the amount
of energy that it consumes [1].
In Europe, 24.79% of the total energy used in 2014 was attributed to residential buildings [2].
Likewise, the energy consumption has shown a tendency to increase 1% per year since 1990, so a higher
energy consumption is expected [3]. In the case of the region of Andalusia (Spain), the residential
building sector was responsible for 15.9% of the total energy consumption in 2016, which represents
an increase of 4.1% in comparison with 2014 [4]. In this regard, it is important to highlight that the
main source of consumption is attributed to meeting the heating demand [5–7].
Due to the fact that most of the energy consumed during the use phase of residential buildings
comes from non-renewable resources, it is necessary to reduce the energy consumption in the existing
building stock. Thus, the reduction of the energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions is the top
priority objective of the building sector.

Energies 2018, 11, 360; doi:10.3390/en11020360 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 360 2 of 17

This improvement in energy behaviour must be made in existing buildings. Most of Spain’s
building stock was built after the Spanish Civil War [8]. In this sense, as stated by Kurtz et al. [9],
the thermal transmittance values of those buildings walls are higher than the limit values set by the
Spanish Technical Building Code [10]. Furthermore, façades are the building envelope elements which
most contribute to energy losses [11–14]. In this regard, Moyano Campos et al. [11] established that
the analysed façades exceeded more of 100% the maximum acceptable value of the energy loss set by
Spanish regulations, and that this situation could be solved by incorporating more insulation.
Thus, an improvement proposal regarding the thermal behaviour of external building walls
represents one of the main performances in passive protection buildings [15]. Different procedures
such as energy audits and checking the adequacy of safety and maintenance measures in buildings
are fundamental to the study of building energy performances as well as to the proposal of energy
conservation measures (ECMs) for building façades [16].
Thermal transmittance (also known as U-value) is one of the most significant properties which
define the energy behaviour of a building envelope. The U-value is understood as the amount of heat
which flows through a certain element per unit area and time.
This property can traditionally be determined by means of different procedures such as estimated
methods [17] or in situ tests (the heat flow meter method) [18], or quantitative methods such as infrared
thermography [19–23]). These methods have been widely studied in the literature and there are several
studies in which the validity of their use is compared [24–27].
However, one of the most-used methods in Spain is called the thermometric method (THM)
by the authors of this paper, and it is used by different trademarks. Most professionals use this
method in order to perform energy audits. It can also be employed by authorised laboratories in the
country [28,29]. However, there are no standards to develop the method, apart from specifications
provided by the equipment’s manufacturers [30,31]. After a review of the literature, it was verified
that there are no studies in which the viability of THM is analysed.
This method is characterised by the measurement of indoor and outdoor air temperatures as well
as the internal surface temperature of the wall, but the heat flux is not measured. It is a method with
simple theoretical and metrology fundamentals. These simplicities can lead to the fact that the obtained
thermal transmittance value can be non-representative. In this context, Ficco et al. [25] indicated that
in situ measurements with a simple theoretical development may face metrological problems, which
can lead to atypical values with significant percentages of relative uncertainty.
However, THM shows a priori some advantages due to the fact that not using a heat flux
plate allows the tests to be performed more easily and avoids the disturbance of the thermal
behaviour of the wall caused by using the plate. According to this, Trethowen [32], Desogus et al. [33],
and Cesaratto et al. [34] established that the presence of the heat flux plate could cause a disruption in
the heat flux, consequently influencing the measurement result. Another important aspect to highlight
is the reduction of the error achieved by avoiding the use of a heat flux plate. Peng and Wu [35]
demonstrated that the main contribution to error in the thermal transmittance results is due to the heat
flux measurement. Cucumo et al. [36] indicated that the location of the plate has an influence on the
correct heat flux measurement. In this sense, Meng et al. [37] established that the maximum error of
the U-value due to the use of thermocouples can be up to 6%, while that caused by the use of a heat
flux plate can reach up to 26%.
Therefore, this research aimed to develop THM by establishing the best test conditions as
well as the guidelines of the qualitative analysis of the wall, the installation of the equipment,
data post-processing, and the estimation of uncertainty. The method is applied to eight study cases of
heavy walls, and the results are compared to the estimated value of thermal transmittance according
to ISO 6496 with the conductivity correction factors established by Pérez-Bella et al. [38] for the
study areas.
Energies 2018, 11, 360 3 of 17

2. Theory
THM is a development of the average method set in ISO 9869-1 [18]. It is based on the instantaneous
measurement of the heat flow as well as the indoor and outdoor air temperatures under the conditions of
a stationary regime:  
q W
U= (1)
Tin − Tout m2 ·K
where q (W/m2 ) is the heat flux of the wall, Tin (K) is the internal air temperature, and Tout (K) is the
external air temperature.
Using Newton’s Law of Cooling, the heat transfer per unit surface could be determined by the
following expression:  
W
q = hin ( Tin − Ts,in ) (2)
m2
where hin (W/(m2 ·K)) is the internal convective coefficient and Ts,in (K) is the internal surface
temperature of the wall.
From Equations (1) and (2), the equation used in THM is obtained:

hin ( Tin − Ts,in ) W

 
U= (3)
( Tin − Tout ) m2 ·K

It is important to highlight that this method always uses a fixed value of the internal convective
coefficient, based on the value of the internal surface thermal resistance set in ISO 6946. Taking into
account that the surface resistance is the reciprocal of the convective coefficient (Equation (4)) and the
tabulated value of Rs,in set by ISO 6946 for a vertical building envelope is 0.13 ((m2 ·K)/W), we obtain
the equation of THM for the U-value measurement of façades (Equation (5)).

1
Rs,in = (4)
hin

7.69( Tin − Ts,in ) W

 
U= (5)
( Tin − Tout ) m2 · K
The fundamental difference between Equations (1) and (5) is in the numerator of the equations:
in Equation (1) it is necessary to measure the heat flux of the wall, so the result is subject to a possible
disruption of the heat flux due to the use of the plate [32–34] and has a high level of uncertainty
associated with its location [35–37], while in Equation (5) the necessary variable measurement is only
carried out by temperature probes, reducing the error associated with the probes’ location.
The temperature data are obtained by thermocouples, which measure both the exterior and
interior environmental temperatures as well as the internal surface temperature of the wall [30,31].
Some manufacturers’ specifications in relation to the installation of the equipment and test
durations are listed below [31]:

• Mounting the interior and exterior environmental temperature probes 30 cm away from the wall
as well as at the same height as the internal surface temperature probes.
• No direct solar radiation.
• Measurements should be carried out during the night.

Moreover, it is advisable to have a significant difference between the internal and external
temperatures, preferably higher than 15 ◦ C.
Some of these specifications coincide with those set in ISO 9869-1. Requirements such as avoiding
direct solar radiation on the façades and performing the test during the night are indicated in the
standard, although the performance of the test during the night is established for light walls, while for
heavy walls it should be longer.
Energies 2018, 11, 360 4 of 17

However, these specifications are limited to ensure that the test is performed under correct
metrological guidelines. Furthermore, the internal convective coefficient is utilised during the building
design process to determine the energy behaviour, which overestimates the thermal transmittance [21,23],
so the results obtained may not correspond to the actual values.

3. Quality Control, Data Post-Processing, and Uncertainty Quantification of the Method

Due to the fact that the metrological requirements given by the manufacturer do not address all
factors that may affect the results of the test, we suggest some guidelines and criteria that should be
applied when performing a THM test.

3.1. Test Conditions

In order to avoid direct solar radiation, the façade should preferably face north. Furthermore,
the test should be conducted on walls without anomalies or pathologies, such as moisture or damage
and defects.
Likewise, the manufacturers recommend a temperature difference higher than 15 ◦ C [30,31].
In addition, the ideal test conditions will be those with no rainfall and a wind speed lower than 1 m/s.
In this respect, the effects of these climatological variables can last from 2 to 6 h after these climate
events disappear [23].
Before performing the test, it is advisable to evaluate the possible presence of non-homogeneities
and thermal bridges in the wall through infrared thermography. This assessment should be carried out
from both the internal and external sides of the wall by analysing them using ISO 6781 [39], as well as
considering the following aspects:

• For at least 24 h before starting the test, the external air temperature must not vary more than
±10 ◦ C from the existing temperature at the moment of starting the inspection.
• During the inspection, the outdoor air temperature must not vary more than ±5 ◦ C and the indoor
air temperature should vary no more than ±2 ◦ C with respect to their initial values.
• Taking an infrared thermal image should be avoided in these three cases: when it is detected that
the wall surface is not dry, if it is raining at the moment of performing the test, or if the wind
speed is higher than 8 m/s.

3.2. Selecting and Installing the Equipment

In order to perform the test, a data logger and temperature probes are required. Moreover, it is
advisable to mount a weather station near the wall in order to measure the external environmental
conditions. Likewise, an IR camera is also required to apply ISO 6781.
Thermocouples should be as indicated by IEC 60584-1 [40]. There are different kinds of
thermocouples , so we recommend a class-1 grade thermocouple due its tolerances and specifications.
In terms of the data logger, it is also preferable to use programmable equipment which allow one to
make data records with flexible periods from 1 s to 900 s.
Before performing the test, the equipment and probes should be correctly calibrated. Criteria for
installing the equipment are as follows:

• Thermocouples measuring the internal surface temperature should be mounted with a space of
10 cm between them, as well as 20 mm away from the mortar joints of the pieces of brick of the
internal side of the wall [31,37] at a height of 1.5 m above the floor [19]. The test described in ISO
6781 may be useful to determine the position of the mortar joints. According to the indications of
Meng et al. [37], when the mortar joints cannot be determined, probes must be mounted without
being vertically or horizontally aligned. A fixed mastic can also be used to achieve good contact
with the wall [31]. In addition, it is important to avoid mounting the sensors in the corners, since
the temperature is usually higher there than in the rest of the wall [23].
Energies 2018, 11, 360 5 of 17

• Moreover, the internal and external air temperature sensors should be placed as horizontally
aligned as possible, at a distance of 30 cm from the wall in order to avoid convective effects [31].
• In the case of those devices which directly measure air temperature, they should be placed at a
distance of 30 cm from the internal side of the wall to prevent being affected by convective effects,
with a height difference of 20 cm from the rest of the probes to avoid significant differences in
temperature measurement.
• The weather station should be installed as near as possible to the wall under study, avoiding its
installation towards other orientations.

3.3. Data Acquisition and Post-Processing

The test duration will depend on the typology of the wall to be analysed as well as the heat flow
meter method: for light walls, the test should be carried out during the night to avoid direct solar
radiation, while for heavy walls, it should last between 72 and 168 h [18]. The use of a data logger
that records data for a period between 1 and 900 s will allow the variation of the frequency of data
acquisition used in each test. By analysing the literature, the use of different sampling periods for
the heat flow meter method and the quantitative methods of infrared thermography were detected:
2 min [41], 5 min [23,24,33], 15 min [19,25], 30 min [25], 60 min [25], or 90 min [25]. In this regard,
we propose the use of sampling times of 15 min, which make the subsequent data analysis easier.
With respect to data post-processing, we recommend the use of a statistical programming language
like R [42] due to its versatility when aggregating, validating, analysing, and reporting the obtained
data. The generated dataset should be filtered by those observations with a high temperature gradient.
This differential should be of 15 ◦ C, although in those regions where the external environmental
conditions make that requirement impossible, the use of a minor differential temperature should be
considered. Likewise, only records obtained without precipitation and with a wind speed lower than
1 m/s should be considered.
The result obtained through the method is determined by the average value of the filtered subset
of n values of thermal transmittance:

1 n
 
W
U = ∑ Ui (6)
n i =1 m2 · K

where Ui (W/(m2 ·K)) is the U-value obtained from Equation (5) for a certain observation i, and n is
the total number of filtered observations of the dataset.
To determine the validity of the U-value, the criterion proposed in ISO 9869-1 should be used.
The valid results will be those with a difference less than 20% between the estimated value in
ISO 6946 [17] and the value measured on site (see Equation (7)).

UTHM − UEstimated
σ= [%] (7)
UEstimated

The estimated value is obtained from ISO 6946 as follows:

 
1 W
UEstimated = (8)
Rs,in + ∑ si /λi + Rs,out m2 ·K

where λi (W/(m·K)) and si (m) are the thermal conductivity and the thickness of each of the layers of
the wall, respectively, and Rs,in and Rs,out ((m2 ·K)/W) are the internal and external surface resistances.
These last two variables are obtained by means of the tabulated values in the standard ISO 6946.
One of the estimation method’s aspects which most affect the determination of the representative
values is the existing difference between the used value of thermal conductivity and the actual value
of each layer. This difference arises to the fact that in most existing databases, such as the constructive
elements catalogue of the Spanish Technical Building Code in Spain [43], fixed environmental
Energies 2018, 11, 360 6 of 17

values are used in order to calculate the thermal properties according to ISO 10456 [44]. However,
Pérez-Bella et al. [38] proposed the use of conductivity correction factors (CCF) for the conductivity
values as a simplified procedure provided by ISO 10456 for all the Spanish cities, as it can be seen in
the following expression:  
W
λCCF = λ·CCF (9)
m·K
where CCF (dimensionless) is the conductivity correction factor assigned to the municipality where
the wall is located [38].
In order to determine the thickness of façade layers, a comparison with other buildings built
during the same period as well as available design data and endoscopies can be used [18,25].

3.4. Estimating the Uncertainty

The uncertainty associated with THM is estimated by the combined standard uncertainty.
The uncertainty contributions related to the measurement are due to the accuracy of the equipment
employed (this accuracy is indicated in the manufacturers’ technical specifications) as well as the operative
conditions associated with the performance of the test and the ambient conditions (see Table 1).

Table 1. Uncertainty contributions estimated by the method.

Type Description Estimation

Thermocouples in poor contact with the surface 1–5% a
Non-uniformity of temperature due to heterogeneities in the wall or impacts of
1–5% b
Measurement internal/external radiation
equipment and Installation of thermocouples near to the mortar joints of the pieces of brick of
procedure 2–6% c
the internal side of the wall
Thermocouple linearity and sensitivity 0.1–0.2 ◦ C b
A/D converter resolution and data transmission 1–2% b
Temperature instability due to environmental climatic variations 3–10% a
Influence of external and internal radiation from the sun or lighting equipment 1–2% b
Environment
Influence of high speed wind 1–2%
Influence of moisture in measurements (i.e., moisture condensation) 1–2% b
aEstimated value according to ISO 9869-1 [18]; b Estimated value according to Ficco et al. [25]; c Estimated value
according to Meng et al. [37].

Basing on the mathematical model of THM (Equation (5)), uncertainty contributions for the
variables Tin , Tout , and Ts,in are set. Due to the fact that hin (7.69) is a non-measured value, it has no
contributions from uncertainty sources.
In order to estimate the combined standard uncertainty, ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 [45] is used.
According to this standard, the uncertainty for input quantities which are uncorrelated, as in the THM
method, are determined by the following equation:
v
δf 2 2
u n  
uc (y) = t ∑
u
u ( xi ) (10)
i =1
δxi

 
δf
where δx are the sensitivity coefficients and u( xi ) are the uncertainty contributions.
i
As mentioned above, the sources of uncertainty are associated with three of the four variables,
so there will be a total of three sensitivity coefficients. These sensitivity coefficients are partial derivatives
from Equation (5) regarding the input variables Tin , Tout , and Ts,in , which are used to describe how the
output estimate changes according to the variations in these variables:
Energies 2018, 11, 360 7 of 17

hin ( Tout − Ts,in ) 7.69( Tout − Ts,in )

 
c1 = δU
=− =−
δTin ( Tin − Tout )2 ( Tin − Tout )2
 
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER cREVIEW
2= δU δTout = − Tin h−inTout = − Tin7.69
− Tout
7 of 18 (11)
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18

ℎ − h7.69 − ) ,= 7.69( Tin − Ts,in )

in ( Tin − Ts,in
 
δU ,
= =c3 = − , == (7.69
ℎ δTs,in − −2 ( Tin − Tout )2
= , ( −
= ) = (
T in − ) ),
Tout
, ( − ) ( − )
4. Experimental Campaign
4. Experimental Campaign
4. Experimental Campaign
In order to validate the method, eight walls from different building periods were monitored
In order to validate
In order thethe
to validate method,
method,eight
eightwalls
walls from differentbuilding
from different building periods
periods werewere monitored
monitored (see (see
(see Figure 1). These façades are located in the city of Seville (case studies 1–6) and Cadiz (case studies 7–8)
FigureFigure 1). These
1). These façades
façades areare located
located ininthethecity
cityof
of Seville
Seville (case
(casestudies 1–6)
studies andand
1–6) Cadiz (case(case
Cadiz studies 7–8) 7–8)
studies
(see Table 2). Table
(see
(see Table
They
2). They
represent
2). They
represent
typical
represent façade
typicalfaçade
typical
configurations
façadeconfigurations
configurations found found
foundininthese inareas.
these
these areas.
In such
areas.
In
cities,
In such
such
the
cities, the
cities,
the climate
climate is
is classified
climate
classified byKöppen
is classified
by Köppen
by Köppenandand
and Geiger
Geiger
Geiger as
CsaCsa
asCsa
as [46]:[46]:
[46]: mild mild
mildwinters winters
wintersand
andhothotand hot summers.
summers.
summers.

Figure 1. Façades of some of the analysed buildings: (a) C-5 (1966), (b) C-6 (1981), and (c) C-7 (2004).
Figure 1. Façades of some of the analysed buildings: (a) C-5 (1966), (b) C-6 (1981), and (c) C-7 (2004).
FigureThe procedures
1. Façades described
of some in analysed
of the Section 3 of this paper(a)
buildings: were
C-5applied
(1966), to
(b)allC-6
walls (see Figure
(1981), and (c)2).
C-7The tests
(2004).
were conducted in winter (C-1, C-2, and C-3), summer (C-4, C-5, C-6, and C-7), and autumn (C-8). The
The procedures described in Section 3 of this paper were applied to all walls (see Figure 2).
duration of the tests was 72 inh in all case3 studies and thewere
equipment were configured with a sampling
The tests The
were procedures
conducted
frequency
described Section of this paper applied to all walls (see
of 15 min.in winter (C-1, C-2, and C-3), summer (C-4, C-5, C-6, and C-7), and autumn
Figure 2). The tests
were conducted in winter (C-1, C-2, and C-3), summer (C-4, C-5, C-6, and C-7), and autumn (C-8). The
(C-8). The duration
To carryofout
thethetests
tests,was 72 hloggers
two data in all with
casedifferent
studiesprobes
and the
wereequipment were
used (see Table 3) inconfigured
order to with a
duration of the tests was 72 h in all case studies and the equipment were configured with a sampling
determine possible
sampling frequency of 15 min. existing deviations.
frequency of 15 min.
To carry out out
To carry the the
tests, two
tests, data
two dataloggers
loggers with differentprobes
with different probes were
were used
used (see(see Table
Table 3) in3) in order
order to to
determine possible existing deviations.
determine possible existing deviations.

Figure 2. (a) Installation of the equipment and (b) internal qualitative assessment by means of infrared
thermography.

Design data of all case studies were obtained, so their compositions were determined by this
source and the transmittance values were estimated by standard ISO 6946 (see Table 2).
Figure 2. (a) Installation of the equipment and (b) internal qualitative assessment by means of infrared
Figure 2. (a) Installation of the equipment and (b) internal qualitative assessment by means of
thermography.
infrared thermography.
Design data of all case studies were obtained, so their compositions were determined by this
Design data
source and theof all case studies
transmittance valueswere
wereobtained, so standard
estimated by their compositions
ISO 6946 (seewere
Tabledetermined
2). by this
source and the transmittance values were estimated by standard ISO 6946 (see Table 2).
Energies 2018, 11, 360 8 of 17

Energies
Energies 2018,
2018, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 88 of
of 18
18
Energies
TableEnergies
2.
Energies 2018,11,
2018,
Technical
2018, 11,x
11, xFOR
FORPEER
FOR PEERREVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
xcharacteristics and thermophysical properties of case studies 1–8. 888of
ofof18
18
18
Energies 2018, 11,Table
x FOR2.
Table Technical
2.PEER REVIEW
Technical characteristics
characteristics and
and thermophysical
thermophysical properties
properties of
of case
case studies
studies 1–8.
1–8. 8 of 18
Table2.
Table
Table 2.2.Technical
Technicalcharacteristics
Technical characteristicsand
characteristics andthermophysical
and thermophysicalproperties
thermophysical propertiesof
properties ofcase
of casestudies
case studies1–8.
studies 1–8.
1–8.
# Component ## C-1
Component
Component C-1 C-1
s (mm) s (mm) λ (W/(m
s (mm)
·K)) a a
λλ (W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K)) aa
R ((m
R
2 ·K)/W)
R ((m
((m2·K)/W)
2
·K)/W)
Sketch
Sketch
Sketch
Energies 2018,
Table 2. 11, x FOR PEER
Technical REVIEW
characteristics and thermophysical properties of case studies 1–8. 8 of 18
##11# mortar Component C-1 ss(mm)
(mm) λλ(W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K)) RR((m
((m2-·K)/W)·K)/W) Sketch
2
Component
Component C-1
C-1 (W/(m·K)) a ((m 2 ·K)/W) Sketch
15 s (mm) λ R Sketch
Cement a
1 Cement Cement mortar
mortar 15
15 1.301.30
1.30 - -
11 Cementmortar
Cement mortar
mortar 15
15 1.30
1.30 ----
2 #122
Perforated Cement
Perforated
brick
Perforated
Component brick
brick
C-1 15
115
115 s (mm)
115
Table 2. Technical λ 0.351.30
0.35
0.35 a
(W/(m·K)) R ((m- 2·K)/W) Sketch
22 Perforated
Perforated brick
brick 115 characteristics
115 0.35 and thermophysical
0.35 - properties of case studies 1–8.
3 Cement1233 mortar Perforated
Cement
Cementmortar
Cement brick
mortar
mortar 10 115
10
10
15 1.300.35
1.30
1.30
1.30 - ----
4 Air 343 gap #Cement
3 Cement
Cement
Air mortar
mortar
mortar
gap
Component 20
C-1
10
10
10
20 s (mm) - λ
1.30
1.30
1.30
-(W/(m·K)) a 0.17
R0.17 --c- cc2·K)/W)
((m Sketch
2 4 Air gap
Perforated brick 20
115 0.35 - 0.17
- cc
44 Airgap
Air gap
gap 20
20 -- - 1.30 0.17
0.17
3455 brick Air 20 -0.17 c
5 Hollow 1 Hollow
Hollow
Cement brick
Cement
brick mortar
mortar 50 50
50 15
10 0.320.32
0.32
1.30 --- -
55 Hollow
Hollow brick
brick 50
50 0.320.35
0.32 - ---- c -
6 Gypsum4566 plaster Hollow
2Gypsum
Gypsum gapbrick
plaster
Air Perforated
plaster brick15 50
15
15 115
20 0.570.32
0.57
0.57
- 0.17
66 , b =Gypsum
= 0.13 (m2 ·K)/W 3=Gypsum plastermortar
plaster
Cement 15 =100.04
15 2 ·K)/W 0.57
220.57
b 1.30 - - d dd
==---1.0385
56 Gypsum
0.13 (m 22plaster
·K)/W bb 15 (m 0.57
·K)/W bb
Rs,in , 0.13
Hollow(m ·K)/W
brick R s,out = 0.04
50 ,, (m= 0.04 (m ·K)/W
0.32 CCF = 1.0385 1.0385
# ,,
, 4=0.13
0.13(m
(m22·K)/W
==Component
0.13 (m 2·K)/Wb b
·K)/W
Air
C-2gap
b
,,
s (mm) , =0.04
==200.04
0.04 (m22·K)/W
(m
λ(m
2·K)/Wb b
·K)/W
(W/(m·K)) -b aa ===221.0385
R ((m 1.0385
0.17 c ddd
1.0385
·K)/W) Sketch
# 6#
Component Component
Gypsum
C-2 plasterC-2s (mm) s (mm) 15 λ (W/(m·K))
λ (W/(m 0.57 ·K))0.32a a R ((m
R ((m -2·K)/W)
2 ·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
##11# Component
Component
5Cement
0.13 (m2mortar
=Component
Cement
Hollow
mortar
·K)/W
C-2brick sss(mm)
C-2
C-2b
(mm)
(mm)
15
15
50 λλ(W/(m·K))
= 0.04λ(m
(W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K))
1.30
1.30 b
2·K)/W
aa RR((m
R ((m22-·K)/W)
((m
-
= 1.0385
·K)/W)
·K)/W)
-
d
Sketch
Sketch
Sketch
1 Cement mortar
, 15 , 1.30 -
11221 Cement
6Cement
Cement
Perforated
Perforated
mortar
Gypsum
mortar
mortar
brick
brick
plaster 15
1515 15
115
115
1.300.57
1.30
1.30
0.35
0.35 ---- -
2 #
Perforated Component
brick = 0.13 C-2
(m s (mm)
115 b 115
2·K)/W λ=(W/(m·K))
0.35
0.04 (m
a
2·K)/W b R ((m 2·K)/W)
- - - = 1.0385 d Sketch
2232 Perforated
Perforated
,
Perforated brick
brick
brick 115
115 , 0.35
0.35
0.35
3 13 mortar
Cement
Cement
Cementmortar
Cement mortar
mortar
C-2 15
10
10 1.30
1.30
1.30 --- 2·K)/W)
333
#Cement
Cement
Cement mortar 10
Component
mortar
mortar 10
1010 s (mm) 1.30 λ1.30
1.30
1.30
(W/(m·K)) a - ((m
R -- Sketch
Extruded
Extruded244polystyreneExtruded
Perforated
1
polystyrene
polystyrene
Cementbrick mortar 115 35 15 0.35
0.036 1.30 --- -
4 Extruded
Extruded
(XPS)
Extruded polystyrene35
polystyrene
insulation
polystyrene 35 0.036 0.036 - -
444
(XPS) 3insulation 2(XPS)
Cement
(XPS)
(XPS)
insulation
mortar brick 10
Perforated
insulation
insulation
35
3535 115 0.0360.35
0.036
1.30
0.036 --- - -
55 (XPS) Air
Air insulation
gap
gap 10
10 10 -- 0.15
0.15 c c-
c
5 Air gap Extruded
3 polystyrene
Cement 10
mortar - 1.30 0.15
45565 Air
Air
Hollow Airgapgap
gapbrick 10
35
1010
50 0.036 -- -
0.32 0.15
0.15
0.15-- cc c
6 Hollow 6 (XPS)Hollow brick
insulation
Extruded polystyrene 50 0.32 -
66 brick Hollowplaster
Hollow
4Gypsum brick 50
brick 5050 35 0.32 0.320.036
0.32 - -- -
7 5677 plaster
Gypsum
Hollow
Gypsum
Air gap brick
plaster
(XPS) insulation 50
15
15
10 0.32
0.57
0.57
- - --- c
0.15 -
77 , =Gypsum
7 Gypsum
Gypsum
0.13 (m plasterbb 15
plaster
22plaster
·K)/W 15
1515 = 0.04 (m 0.57 0.57 bb
0.57
220.57
·K)/W ==--1.0385
Rs,in 2 6
= 0.13 (m ·K)/W , b 5
=Hollow
0.13 (mbrick Air
·K)/W R gap = ,
50, (m
0.04 10
= 0.04
2 · (m0.32
K)/W ·K)/W b
b - CCF = 1.0385 0.15dc dd
1.0385
==0.13
, 0.13(m (m2·K)/W
2 2 ·K)/Wb b b s,out ==0.04
0.04(m (m2·K)/W
2 2 ·K)/Wb a b ==21.0385
1.0385ddd
,, =Component
0.13 (mplaster
·K)/W ,, =500.04λλ(m ·K)/W = -21.0385
7## 6Component
Gypsum C-3
Hollow
C-3 brick ss (mm)
15,
(mm) (W/(m·K))
0.57 0.32a
(W/(m·K)) a aa a 2((m
R
R ((m
((m ·K)/W)
-
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
# Component ##1# Component
Component C-3splaster
C-3 (mm)sss(mm)(mm) λλ(W/(m·K))
λ (W/(m·K))
·K))0.57 RR((m
R
R ((m 2·K)/W)
·K)/W)
22-·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
1 , C-3 7Cement
=Component 2mortar
0.13 (mGypsum
Cement mortar
·K)/W C-3b 15
(mm)
15 λ (W/(m
15
,15 = 0.04 (m ·K)/W
2 1.30
(W/(m·K))
1.30 b ((m ·K)/W)
- - d
= 1.0385
Sketch
Sketch
1 Cement 11221 mortar Cement
Cement
Cement
Solid
,
Solid
mortar
mortar
mortar
=brick
0.13
brick 15 b 115
(m2·K)/W 15
15
115 , = 1.30
0.04 1.30
1.30
1.30
0.85
0.85(m2·K)/W b - 2 ---- = 1.0385 d
# Component C-3 s (mm) λ (W/(m·K)) a R ((m ·K)/W) Sketch
2 Solid22 brick #Cement SolidComponent
Solid brick
brick 115
C-3 115 115s (mm) 0.85
115 λ0.85
0.85 (W/(m·K)) a - ((m
R - - 2·K)/W) Sketch
1233 Solid
Cement
Cement brick
mortar
mortar
mortar 10
10
15 0.85
1.30
1.30
1.30 ---
3 Cement 3343 mortar Cement
Cement
1Cement
Air mortarmortar
mortar
Cement
mortar
gap 10 10
10
10010 15 1.30 1.30
1.30
1.30- 1.30 -0.18- - cc -
-
24 Airbrick
Solid gap 100
115 0.85 - 0.18
-c c c
4 Air 44 gap 2 Hollow AirAirgap
gap
gap Solid brick100 100 115
100 -0.32 -- - 0.85 0.18 0.18
0.18 c-
3455 CementAir
Hollow
3 Hollow
brick
brick
mortar
Cement mortar
100
50
50
10 10
0.32
1.30 1.30
0.18--- -
5 Hollow 5565 brick Hollow
Hollow
Cement brick
brick
brick
mortar 50 50
50
1550 0.32 0.32
0.32
0.32
1.30 - -- -
4 6 Cement mortar
Air gap Air gap 15
100 100 1.30
- -
0.180.18 cc
6 Cement 66 mortar 4Cement
Cement mortar
mortar 15 15 15 1.30 1.30 -
1.30 - -- -
5677 Cement
Ceramic
Ceramic
5Hollow
mortar
tiles
tiles brick
brick
Hollow
15
10
10 50
50 1.30
1.30 0.32
0.32 -- -
7 Ceramic77 tiles
7 = Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
0.13 (m tiles bb 10
tiles
tiles
22·K)/W 10
10 10 = 0.04 (m 1.30 1.30 bb
1.30
221.30
·K)/W -= --1.0385
- dd
,, 15,,
Rs,in
6
= 0.13 (m2 ·K)/W 6==0.13
b Cement
0.13
(mCement
(m
·K)/W b
mortar
2·K)/Wmortar
bR = 0.04
=1520.04 (m1.30
(m= · K)/W
0.04 (m
·K)/W
b 1.30
2·K)/W b ba CCF =
=- 1.0385
1.0385
= - d dd
1.0385
# ,
,
, = 0.13
=Component (m 2·K)/W
0.13 (m ·K)/W
2 C-4 b s,out s (mm),
,
, = 0.04
= 0.04λ(m(m 2·K)/W
2 ·K)/W a
(W/(m·K)) b R ((m =
= 221.0385
1.0385
·K)/W) d Sketch
7# 7ComponenttilesC-4 tiles
CeramicCeramic s (mm)
10 λ (W/(m·K))
1.30 1.30a a R ((m-2·K)/W) Sketch
##1 # Component Component C-4
Perforated C-4
brick s (mm)
115 s (mm) 10
λ λ (W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K))
0.35 R
R ((m
a a b R ((m 2-·K)/W)
2 ·K)/W)
-
R ((m2 ·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
# Component 1 , C-4 =Component
Perforated
0.13, (m=2·K)/W C-4
(mb2s·K)/W
brick
0.13 (mm) b s (mm)
115
, = 0.04 λ=(m
λ, (W/(m (W/(m·K))
·(m
0.35
2·K)/W
0.04 K)) b
2·K)/W ((m ·K)/W)
- = 1.0385
= 1.0385 d d Sketch
Sketch
1 11221
Perforated brick
Perforated
Perforated
Perforated
Cement
#CementComponent
brick
brick
brick
mortar
mortar 115
115
115
115
15 0.35
15 s (mm)λ (W/(m·K))
C-4 s (mm)
0.35
0.35
0.35
1.30
1.30
λ (W/(m·K)) a -
R ((m
-- 2
-
- ·K)/W) Sketch
# Component C-4 a R ((m 2 ·K)/W) Sketch
22 Cementmortar
Cement mortar
mortar 1515 1.30
1.30 -
2 Cement123 mortar 1Cementpolystyrene
Extruded
Extruded
Perforated Perforated
brick brick
polystyrene 15 15
115
30 115 1.30 1.30
0.35
0.036 0.35 - ---- -
3 Extruded
Extruded
(XPS) polystyrene
polystyrene 30 0.036 -
Extruded2333polystyrene 2(XPS) insulation
Extruded
Cement polystyrene
Cement
mortar mortar
insulation 30
1530 15 0.036
0.036
1.30 1.30 - - - -
3 (XPS)
(XPS) insulation
insulation 30 30 0.0360.036 -0.18 - c
44
(XPS) insulation (XPS) Airinsulation
gap
gap polystyrene 70
Extruded
Air 70 30 -- 0.18 cc-
Extruded
3 polystyrene 0.036
4 4
345 gap Hollow Air
Air
Air gap
gap
gap
(XPS) insulation
brick 70
30
7070 0.036 -
- - 0.18
0.18
-c-
0.18
cc
4 Air 5 (XPS)Hollow brick
insulation 70 70 -0.32
0.32 0.18 -
55 Hollowplaster
Hollow
4Gypsum brick
brick
Air gap70 7070 0.32 -
0.32 - ----0.18
15 70
c
5 4566 brick
Hollow Hollow
Gypsum
Air gap brick
plaster 70
15
70 0.32 0.32
0.57
0.57
- 0.18 c
66 , =Gypsum 5Gypsum
Gypsum plasterbbbrick
plaster
2Hollow 1515 =700.04 (m 0.570.32
0.57 - - dd
-==---1.0385
56 plaster plaster 15
0.13 220.57
0.13 (m ·K)/W ·K)/W bb
6 Gypsum , =Hollow (m2brick·K)/W 15 70 ,, = 0.04 0.57
(m ·K)/W
0.32 1.0385
, , b= 6=0.13
0.13(m (m 2·K)/Wbplaster
22·K)/W
Gypsum b =0.04
==15 20.04
0.04 λλ(m(m22·K)/W
2·K)/W
b 0.57 b ba ===221.0385
1.0385- d ddd
Rs,in = 0.13 (m2 ·K)/W
6## , Gypsum =Component
0.13 (m
Component ·K)/WC-5
plaster
b
C-5 Rs,out =ss 0.04
(mm) ,,
15, (m
(mm) (m
·K)/W ·K)/W
(W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K))
0.57
b
a CCFR
R=((m -1.0385
1.0385
((m ·K)/W)
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
##1# Component
= 0.13 C-5
(m2·K)/W b s (mm)
Component
,
Perforated
Component C-5
brick
C-5 ss (mm)
(mm)
115 , λ=λ(W/(m·K))
λ (W/(m·K))
0.04 (m2·K)/W
(W/(m·K))
0.35 aa
a b
RR((m
R ((m22-·K)/W)
((m 2·K)/W)
= 1.0385 d
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
Sketch
1 , C-5 =#Perforated
0.13 (mComponentbrickbs (mm) 115
2·K)/W 0.35
K)) ba - 2 d
s =(mm)
0.04 (m2·K)/W
# Component , λ (W/(m ·(W/(m·K)) aR ((m R
2= 1.0385
·K)/W) Sketch
111 Perforated
Perforated
Perforated brick C-5 115
brick
brick 115
115 λ0.35
0.35
0.35 ((m
---- ·K)/W) Sketch
1 #22
Perforated brick 1
Cement mortar
CementPerforated
Component mortar
C-5 brick
115
10
10 115 λ (W/(m·K))
s (mm) 0.35
1.30
1.30 0.35a R ((m- 2·K)/W) Sketch
22 Cement
Cement mortar
mortar 10
10 1.30
1.30 -- c -
2 1233 mortar
Cement
Cement
Air
Perforated
2 Air
mortar
gap
Air Cement
gap brick mortar
10
10
100
100
115 10 1.30
1.30
--
0.35 1.30 -- ccc-
0.18
0.18
-0.18
3343 Air
Air gap
Hollow gapgap
brick 100
100
100
70 -
-
0.32- 0.18
0.18 - c
3 24 gap Cement
Air 3 Hollow brick
mortar
Air gap100 70 100
10 0.32
-1.30 0.18--c--0.18 c
4454 Hollowplaster
Hollow
Hollow
Gypsum brick
brick
brick 70
70
70
15 0.32 -
0.32
0.32
0.57 -
4 Hollow 5
3 brick Gypsum
4 Air gap plaster
Hollow brick 70 15
100 70 0.32 0.57
- 0.32 - --- c -
0.18
55 Gypsum
Gypsum plaster
plaster 15
15 0.57 b
0.57
5 Gypsum45 plaster Gypsum
,, =0.13
5Hollow
=0.13 (m plaster
22·K)/W
(mGypsumbrick
·K)/W
bb
plaster
15
15
70 ,, =0.04
15 (m
=0.04 (m 0.57
0.57
22·K)/W
0.32
·K)/W 0.57
b
- - dd
-==-1.0385
1.0385 d
2 =0.13(m
, b, =0.13
=0.13 (m (m22·K)/W
2·K)/Wb b
·K)/W b =0.04
=0.04
, , =0.04
2 (m
(m(m22·K)/W
2·K)/Wb b
·K)/W
b b ===-21.0385
1.0385
1.0385
d
dd d
5
Rs,in =0.13 (m ·K)/W #
# , Gypsum
Component
,
Component plaster
=0.13 C-6 Rs,out =0.04
C-6
(m 15
2·K)/W b s (mm)
s (mm), (m ,·K)/Wλ=0.04 0.57
(W/(m·K))
λ (W/(m·K))(m 2·K)/Waa b
CCFR=((m
R 1.0385
((m 2 ·K)/W)
= 1.0385
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
##1# Component
Component
#Cement
Component mortar C-6
C-6
C-6 s(mm)
(mm)
C-6 ss (mm)
20 (mm)λ λ λ(W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K))
(m(W/(m·K))
1.30 b a
aa
RR((m
R ((m22-·K)/W)
((m
2·K)/W)
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
Sketch
, =0.13 (m2Component
·K)/W 20, s=0.04 2·K)/W
R ((m2R=·K)/W)
1.0385
b λ (W/(m·K)) ((m d
# Component 1 Cement
C-6 mortar s (mm) λ (W/(m 1.30
·K)) a
a
- 2·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
11221 CementCement
Cement
Cement
Perforated
1Perforated
mortar
mortar
mortar
brick
brick mortar 20
20
115
115
20 20 1.30
1.30
1.30
0.35
0.35 1.30 -- - -
-
1 Cement# mortar Component C-6 20 s (mm) λ (W/(m·K))
1.30 a R ((m- 2 ·K)/W) Sketch
2 2 Perforated
Perforated brick
brick brick 115 115
115 0.35
0.35 -
-- -
2 1233
Perforated
Perforated
2Cement
CementPerforated
Cement
brick
brick
mortar
mortar
mortar 115 10 115
10
20 0.35
0.35
1.30 0.35
1.30
1.30 - ----
33 Cement
Cement
3Cement mortar
mortar
Cement mortar 10 10 10 1.301.30
1.30 -
3 Cement234 mortar Mineral
Mineral
Perforated mortar
wool
wool (MW)
(MW)
brick 10
10
115
20 1.30
1.30
0.35
0.05 - ---
4 Mineral
Mineral
Mineral wool(MW)
wool
Mineral
insulation
wool (MW)wool (MW) 20
(MW) 0.05 -
3 4 4
Mineral4wool (MW) 4
Cementinsulation
mortar 20
10
20 20 20 1.300.05
0.05
0.05 0.05 - -
- c - -
4 insulation
insulation insulation
55
insulation Mineral Air gap(MW) 20
insulation
Air gap
wool
50
50 0.05-- -0.18
0.18 cc c
45565 5 Hollow Airgap
Air
Air gap
gap Air gap
brick 50
20
50
7050 50 0.05
0.32-- -
- -c- 0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
cc
5 Air 6 gap Hollow
insulation brick 50 70 0.32
-0.32 0.18 --- -
676 6 Hollow
HollowHollow brick brick
brick 70 70 70 0.320.32
6
57 brick Hollow
Gypsum brick
plaster 70
15 0.32
0.57 -
6 Hollow
77 , =Gypsum 7Gypsum
Gypsum
Gypsum
Air gap plasterplaster
Gypsumplasterbb
plaster
70 15 15
50
15
0.32
15 = 0.04 (m220.57
0.57
-
0.570.57
0.57
- -- c -
0.18
-
67 plaster
22plaster 15
0.13
0.13 (m ·K)/W ·K)/W -===--1.0385
bb dd
7 Gypsum =Hollow (m ·K)/W ,, = 0.04=(m ·K)/W 1.0385
b 15 0.57
,
, (m
brick
= 20.13 (m2b·K)/W b 70 , 0.04(m
0.32
0.04 (m2·K)/W b = 1.0385 d
# , b=, == 0.13
0.13
0.13
Component (m
(m 2
2·K)/W
·K)/W
·K)/WC-7 b s (mm), , =
==0.04
0.04 λ (m(m 2
2·K)/W
2·K)/W
·K)/W
(W/(m·K))
b ba
b R ((m 1.0385
== 221.0385
1.0385
·K)/W)
dd
d Sketch
2
Rs,in = 0.13 (m ·K)/W
7 # , Component
Gypsum C-7
plaster Rs,out s (mm),
15 s(m 2 · λ (W/(m·K))
0.57 b a R ((m
CCFR=((m ·K)/W)
-2 ·K)/W) d Sketch
# #Component Component C-7 C-7 =s0.04
(mm) (mm) K)/W
λ λ (W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K)) a
a 1.0385
R 2((m 2
·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
##11 Component C-7 s (mm) λ (W/(m·K))
(W/(m·K)) R ((m
((m2-·K)/W)·K)/W) Sketch
a
Cement
=Component
1Cement 2mortar
0.13 (mCementmortar
·K)/W C-7 bmortar s (mm) 25
25 0.04λ(m 1.30
1.30 1.30
a R - - d Sketch
,25 =25
2·K)/W b = 1.0385
,
# 111
Component C-7Cementmortar
Cement
Cement mortar
mortar s (mm) 115 25
25 λ (W/(m ·K)) a
1.30
1.30
1.30 R ((m2 ·K)/W) ---- - Sketch
#22 Perforated
2Perforated
Component brick
brick
Perforated
C-7 brick s (mm) 115 115 λ (W/(m·K)) 0.35
0.35 0.35a R ((m2·K)/W) Sketch
1 Cement 22 mortar Perforated
Perforated brick 25
brick 115
115 1.30 0.35
0.35 - -- - -
1233 Perforated
3Cement
CementCement
Cement brick
mortar
mortar
mortar mortar 115
10
10 10
25 0.35
1.30
1.30 1.30
1.30 --
2 33
Perforated brick Cementmortar
Cement mortar 115 10 10 0.35 1.30
1.30 - -- -
234 Cement
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Perforated
4
mortar(PUR)
Polyurethane
(PUR)
brick (PUR) 11510
40 40
1.30
0.35
0.028 0.028 -- -
3 Cement 4 mortar Polyurethane
Polyurethane
insulation
Polyurethane (PUR)
(PUR)
(PUR)
insulation 10 40 1.30 0.028 - -
3444 Cementinsulation
mortar 40
10
40 40 0.028
0.028
1.30
0.028 --- -
Polyurethane 55 (PUR) insulation
insulation
5 insulation
Air gap Air gap 100 100 - - 0.18 cc
-0.180.18
c
4 PolyurethaneAir gap(PUR) 40 100 0.028-
insulation
45565 Airgap
Air
6 Hollow gap
gap
Hollow 100 40
100
40 0.028 -- - 0.32 0.18
-- cc c-
0.18
6 Air
Hollow
insulation brick brick
brick 100
40
40 0.32
0.32 0.18 -
c
5 Air 66 gap Hollow Hollowbrick
Hollow brick 100
brick 40 40 -0.32
0.32 0.18 -- -
56 40 0.32
6 Hollow brick Air gap 40 100
0.32- 0.18 c
-
7 Gypsum6 plaster Hollow brick 15 40 0.570.32 - -
Rs,in = 0.13 (m2 ·K)/W b Rs,out = 0.04 (m2 ·K)/W b CCF = 1.0403 d
Energies 2018, 11, 360 9 of 17

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

Table 2. Cont.
7 Gypsum plaster 15 0.57 -
, = 0.13 (m2·K)/W b , = 0.04 (m2·K)/W b = 1.0403 d
# Component
# Component C-8 s (mm)s (mm) λ (W/(m
C-8 ·K)) aa
λ (W/(m·K)) R ((m 2 ·K)/W)
R ((m 2·K)/W) Sketch
Sketch
1 Cement mortar 15 1.30 -
1 Cement mortar 15 1.30 -
2 Perforated brick 115 0.35 -
2 Perforated brick 115 0.35 -
3 Cement mortar 10 1.30 -
3 Cement mortar 10 1.30 -
Polyurethane (PUR)
Polyurethane
4 (PUR) 35 0.028 -
4 insulation 35 0.028 -
insulation
5 Air gap 10 - 0.15 c
5 Air gap 10 - 0.15 c
6 Hollow brick 70 0.32 -
6 Hollow brick 70 0.32 -
7 Gypsum plaster 15 0.57 -
7 Gypsum plaster 15 0.57 -
2 , b
= 0.13 (m 2·K)/W b
, = 0.04
2
(m 2·K)/W b
b
= 1.0403dd
Rs,in = 0.13 (m ·K)/W Rs,out = 0.04 (m ·K)/W CCF = 1.0403
: thickness; : thermal conductivity; : thermal resistance; a Thermal conductivity of each layer
s: thickness; λ: thermal a
obtained from the R:
conductivity; thermal
Spanish resistance;
standard Thermal
[43]; b Surface conductivity
thermal of obtained
resistance each layer obtained
from from
ISO 6946 [17];the
b Surface thermal resistance obtained from ISO 6946 [17]; c Thermal resistance of air gap obtained
Spanish standard [43];c Thermal resistance of air gap obtained from ISO 6946 [17] according to its thickness; d Conductivity
from ISO 6946 [17] according d Conductivity correction factor given by Pérez-Bella et al. [38].
correctiontofactor
its thickness;
given by Pérez-Bella et al. [38].

Table 3. Main
Table 3. Main technical technical specifications
specifications of the employed
of the employed equipment.
equipment.
Equipment Measuring Range Resolution Accuracy
Equipment Data logger A Measuring Range Resolution Accuracy
±0.05 K
Data logger A with thermocouples K Temperature −10 °C to 105 °C 0.1 K
±0.05%
±0.05
±0.05 K K
K thermocouples KTemperatureTemperature−10 ◦ C−200
with thermocoupleswith ◦ C205 °C
°C to
to 105 0.10.1
KK
±0.05%
±0.05%
Data logger B
±0.05 K
K thermocouples KTemperatureTemperature−200 ◦ C−20
with thermocoupleswith °C to◦ C
to 205 70 °C 0.10.1
K °C ±0.1 °C
±0.05%
with thermohygrometer Temperature −20 °C to 70 °C 0.1 °C ±0.3 °C
Data logger B Field of view (FOV) 25° × 19°
Infrared camera FLIR E60bx (FLIR
with thermocouples K TemperatureSpectral range−20 ◦ C7.5
toµm ◦ C13 µm
70 to 0.1 ◦ C ±0.1 ◦ C
systems, Portland, OR, USA)
with thermohygrometer Temperature −20 ◦ C<0.05
Thermal sensitivity °C◦to
to 70 C 30 °C 0.1 ◦ C ±0.3 ◦ C
Field of view (FOV) 23° × 17°
Field(Fluke
Infrared camera Fluke TiR1 of view (FOV) 25◦ × 19◦
Infrared camera FLIR E60bx (FLIR Spectral range 7.5 to 14 µm
Corporation, Everett, WA,Spectral
USA) range 7.5 µm to 13 µm
systems, Portland, OR, USA) Thermal sensitivity ◦ <0.07 °C ◦to 30 °C
Thermal sensitivity <0.05 C to 30 C
Temperature −40 °C to 65 °C 0.1 °C ±1 °C
Field (PCE
Weather station PCE-FWS20 of view (FOV) 23◦ ×0 km/h
17◦ to 180
Infrared camera Fluke TiR1 (Fluke Wind speed 0.07 m/s ±10%
Spectral
Instruments, Southampton, UK) range 7.5 to 14 µmkm/h
Corporation, Everett, WA, USA)
Precipitation<0.07 ◦0Cmm
Thermal sensitivity to ◦9.99
to 30 C mm 0.1 mm ±1 mm
Temperature −40 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C 0.1 ◦ C ±1 ◦ C
5. Analysis(PCE
Weather station PCE-FWS20 and Results Wind speed 0 km/h to 180 km/h 0.07 m/s ±10%
Instruments, Southampton, UK)
The measured values during the experimental campaign for the different case studies 1can
Precipitation 0 mm to 9.99 mm 0.1 mm ± mm be
seen in Figure 3. To show a simpler graphic, only the values measured by one of the data loggers are
represented.
5. Analysis and Results
Figure 4 represents the average values and the uncertainty estimations of the case studies
The measured obtained
values by means
duringof the
THM. Furthermore, the
experimental estimated and
campaign forobtained thermal case
the different transmittance
studiesvalues
can be
are reported in Table 4.
seen in Figure 3. To show a simpler graphic, only the values measured by one of the data loggers
It is important to highlight the following aspects of the measured values:
are represented.
• As can be observed, there were difficulties in the case studies (except in C-2 and C-5) to find
Figure 4 represents the average values and the uncertainty estimations of the case studies obtained
observations with a difference higher than 10 °C between indoor and outdoor air temperatures.
by means of THM. Furthermore, the estimated
Also, in the case andout
studies carried obtained thermal
during winter transmittance
(C-1 valuestemperature
and C-3), the largest are reported
in Table 4. difference between the outdoor and the indoor air temperature was 7.2 °C, with values of the
It is important tomaximum
highlight temperature reaching
the following up to 20.5
aspects °C,measured
of the which are records
values: more commonly found in
spring than in winter. For C-6 and C-8, there were few instances of a temperature difference
• registered
As can be observed, therehigher
werethan 5 °C.
difficulties in the case studies (except in C-2 and C-5) to find
• In most case studies, the value of the indoor air temperature was constant but with slight
observations with a difference higher than 10 ◦ C between indoor and outdoor air temperatures.
variations.
Also, in the case studies carried out during winter (C-1 and C-3), the largest temperature difference
between the outdoor and the indoor air temperature was 7.2 ◦ C, with values of the maximum
temperature reaching up to 20.5 ◦ C, which are records more commonly found in spring than in
winter. For C-6 and C-8, there were few instances of a temperature difference registered higher
than 5 ◦ C.
• In most case studies, the value of the indoor air temperature was constant but with
slight variations.
Energies 2018, 11, 360 10 of 17

• Energies
In C-22018,
and11,C-4,
x FOR PEER
the REVIEW temperature
external sensor of data logger B, connected by radio, 10 ofstopped
18

emitting a signal shortly after the beginning of the test, so data could not be obtained from
• In C-2 and C-4, the external temperature sensor of data logger B, connected by radio, stopped
this emitting
equipment.a signal shortly after the beginning of the test, so data could not be obtained from this
• Regarding the difference between the measures recorded by both data loggers, meaningful
equipment.
•variations in the
Regarding measurement
the of the internal
difference between surface
the measures temperature
recorded were
by both not
data detected,
loggers, with average
meaningful
variations
deviations ◦ C.measurement
of ±in0.1the However, thereof the internal
were surface
significant temperature
differences were the
between not indoor
detected,
andwith
outdoor
average deviations
air temperatures of ±0.1 °C.
(see Figure 5). However, there were significant differences between the indoor
and outdoor air temperatures (see Figure 5).
• During the performance of the tests, no rainfall occurred and the wind speed was always lower
• During the performance of the tests, no rainfall occurred and the wind speed was always lower
than 1 m/s.
than 1 m/s.
DueDueto the lowlow
to the thermal gradient
thermal gradientregistered duringthe
registered during themeasurements
measurements taken
taken withwith
mildmild outdoor
outdoor
air temperatures, wewedecided totofilter ◦ C. The influence of
air temperatures, decided filterthe
thedata for aadifferential
data for differentialtemperature
temperatureof 5of 5 The
°C. influence of
usingusing
this this
post-processing onon
post-processing the
theobtained
obtainedresults is analysed
results is analysedininFigure
Figure 6 and
6 and Table
Table 5. 5.

Figure
Figure 3. Values
3. Values of theoftemperature
the temperature measured
measured by thebyprobes
the probes
of dataoflogger
data logger
A: the A: the internal
internal air
air temperature
temperature (red), the internal surface temperature of the wall (green), and the external
(red), the internal surface temperature of the wall (green), and the external air temperature (blue). air
temperature (blue).

It can be seen
It can by by
be seen analysing
analysingthe
theresults
resultsthat
that the valuesobtained
the values obtainedininC-1,
C-1, C-2,
C-2, C-3,
C-3, C-4,C-4,
C-5,C-5,
and and
C- C-7
were7lower than 20%
were lower regarding
than 20% the the
regarding estimated value
estimated valueofofthermal
thermal transmittance determined
transmittance determined byby means of
means
of the
the data data obtained
obtained throughthrough data logger
data logger A. With
A. With respect
respect touncertainty
to the the uncertainty associated
associated with
with these
these results,
optimal values lower than 14% were obtained in C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-5. However, the values obtained
were unacceptable (20–26%) in the rest of the walls. Thus, the method presented good behaviour in
Energies 2018, 11, 360 11 of 17

winter environmental conditions, whereas in summer, the results obtained in C-5 were valid due to the
huge numbers of observations registered with differences higher than 5 ◦ C. Nevertheless, the average
results in C-6 and C-8 had meaningful differences regarding the estimated value of the façade due to
the fact that a representative sample of data with a difference higher than 5 ◦ C between the interior
and exterior was not obtained, being lower than 3.46% and 5.19% of the total number of observations,
respectively. Thus, in those case studies in which a percentage of filtered observations higher than
31.8% was acquired, the results obtained are representative. For this reason, it is very difficult to
perform tests in optimal warm climate conditions, except in winter seasons.

Table 4. Comparison of the obtained thermal transmittance values.

U (W/(m2 ·K))
Case of Study
UEstimated a b UTHM2 c
UTHM1
C-1 1.18 1.03 ± 0.09 0.87 ± 0.29
C-2 0.57 0.59 ± 0.07 Fail
C-3 1.50 1.39 ± 0.08 0.94 ± 0.29
C-4 0.56 0.45 ± 0.09 Fail
C-5 1.10 0.98 ± 0.06 0.59 ± 0.17
C-6 0.76 0.38 ± 0.10 0.29 ± 0.37
C-7 0.45 0.48 ± 0.11 0.37 ± 0.32
C-8 0.48 0.88 ± 0.10 0.57 ± 0.33
aU-value obtained from ISO 6946 [17] using the conductivity correction factors (CCF) of Pérez-Bella et al. [38];
bU-value obtained from the observations generated by data logger A; c U-value obtained from the observations
generated by data logger B.

On the other hand, the values obtained by data logger B only allowed us to obtain an average
value inside the deviation of 20% regarding the estimated value of thermal transmittance for the case
study C-7, but the high uncertainty associated with this result (86.5%) rendered it invalid. In the rest of
the case studies, the average values obtained had differences higher than 20% regarding the estimated
value, as well as inadmissible values of relative uncertainty.
Thus, differences between the results obtained by both data loggers with variations between
15.5% and 39.8% were detected.
This difference obtained between the two data loggers was not due to the possible presence
of thermal discontinuities in the wall, since the façades were analysed before the installation of the
probes. Likewise, all of the thermocouples used were put in the same location, according to the criteria
established in Section 3 of this paper. In this sense, the variations presented by the measurements of
indoor and outdoor air temperatures recorded by both sets of equipment (see Figure 5) were the main
cause of the existing differences between their results, since the thermocouples for the internal surface
temperature obtained records with average deviations of ±0.1 ◦ C. This fact not only affected the
thermal transmittance value obtained by Equation (5) for each observation, but also had an influence
on the filtrate process, obtaining subsets with a different number of observations.
This circumstance was due to the fact that the indoor air temperature probe was located in the
cable connection of the internal surface temperature probes in data logger B, so the measurement
conditions of the indoor air temperature probe were different from those of the other equipment.
Along this line, it is important to highlight that data logger B was placed very near to the internal air
temperature probe of data logger A. Despite this, the data distributions showed significant variations
between quartiles, with differences up to 1.1 ◦ C. One of the reasons for this could be the fact that the
equipment has to be put on a horizontal surface, so the measurement conditions were different from
those of the probes of data logger A. Furthermore, the material of the horizontal surface on which data
logger B was placed was not the same for all of the case studies, but varied according the elements
available inside the rooms analysed.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

data logger B was placed was not the same for all of the case studies, but varied according the
Energies 2018, 11, 360 12 of 17
elements available inside the rooms analysed.

Figure 4. Comparison of the thermal transmittance

4. Comparison transmittance values
values obtained
obtained for
for the
the different case studies.
EQPT-A
EQPT-A denotes data logger A and EQPT-B indicates data logger B. The estimated value
denotes data logger A and EQPT-B indicates data logger B. The estimated value provided
provided in
in
ISO represented by the red line [17] using the CCF
ISO 6946 is represented by the red line [17] using the CCF of Pérez-Bella et al. [38], and the maximum
6946 is of Pérez-Bella et al. [38], and the maximum
acceptable
acceptable difference
difference (20%)
(20%) regarding
regardingthat
thatvalue
valueisisrepresented
representedbybythe
thedashed
dashedline.
line.

With respect
With respect to
to the
the outdoor
outdoor airair temperature
temperature variable,
variable, the
the existing
existing differences
differences between
between both
both
equipment setups
equipment setups were
were attributed
attributed to
to the
the technical
technical characteristics
characteristics of
of each
each probe.
probe. TheThe difference
difference in
in the
the
data distribution of the thermohygrometer of data logger B was due to the lack of
data distribution of the thermohygrometer of data logger B was due to the lack of stability of the probe stability of the
probe during
during the measurement
the measurement regardingregarding
the probetheofprobe
data of dataA.
logger logger A. Consequently,
Consequently, it was detected
it was detected that the
that theof
median median of thetemperature
the external external temperature data had higher
data had variations variations 0.5 ◦ C as
thanhigher thanwell0.5as°C as well
limit as up
values limit
to
values
◦ up to 7.1 °C. Thus, the use of a class-1 grade K-type thermocouple to measure
7.1 C. Thus, the use of a class-1 grade K-type thermocouple to measure the variables necessary for the variables
necessary
THM couldforguarantee
THM could guarantee
better stabilitybetter stability Likewise,
in readings. in readings.
theLikewise, the use ofand
use of equipment equipment and
probes that
probes that allow a considerable flexibility when installing them in the rooms of
allow a considerable flexibility when installing them in the rooms of the walls to be analysed without the walls to be
analysed without being placed on a horizontal surface would reduce the differences
being placed on a horizontal surface would reduce the differences of internal temperature data that of internal
temperature
were observed data that the
during were observed during
experimental the experimental campaign.
campaign.
Energies 2018, 11, 360 13 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

Figure 5. Box plots of the measurements of the indoor and outdoor air temperature recorded by both
Figure 5. Box plots of the measurements of the indoor and outdoor air temperature recorded by both
equipment setups. EQPT-A denotes data logger A and EQPT-B represents data logger B. The representation
equipment setups. EQPT-A denotes data logger A and EQPT-B represents data logger B. The
of case studies C-2 and C-4 is omitted due to the fact that the external probe was disconnected during
representation of case studies C-2 and C-4 is omitted due to the fact that the external probe was
the tests.
disconnected during the tests.

With respect
With respecttotothe
theneed
needforfor
processing the the
processing measured data,data,
measured Figure 6 shows
Figure how differences
6 shows higher
how differences
than 5 ◦ C between the internal and external ambient air allowed us to obtain representative values of
higher than 5 °C between the internal and external ambient air allowed us to obtain representative
thermaloftransmittance
values in most case
thermal transmittance studies
in most forstudies
case the measurements of data logger
for the measurements A. In
of data this sense,
logger the
A. In this
repeatability
sense, of the thermal
the repeatability transmittance
of the values obtained
thermal transmittance valuesin the different
obtained in thecase studies
different was
case adequate,
studies was
with variations between 11% and 35% regarding the obtained average value.
adequate, with variations between 11 and 35% regarding the obtained average value. However, However, the values
the
obtained in C-2 and C-5and
gave ◦ C (see Table 5). In the
values obtained in C-2 C-5a gave
greater stability
a greater in differences
stability higher higher
in differences than 10than 10 °C (see Table 5).
case
In of case
the data of
logger
dataBlogger
the result
B thedidresult
not vary,
did while for data
not vary, logger
while A the
for data obtained
logger A theresults reduced
obtained the
results
associated uncertainty, and even values with a minor difference regarding the estimated
reduced the associated uncertainty, and even values with a minor difference regarding the estimated value of the
wall
valuecould
of thebewall
obtained.
could be obtained.
Energies 2018, 11, 360 14 of 17

5. Comparison
TableEnergies 2018, 11, x FORof theREVIEW
PEER obtained values of thermal transmittance in C-2 and C-5 according
14 of 18 to
data management.
Table 5. Comparison of the obtained values of thermal transmittance in C-2 and C-5 according to data
management. 2
U (W/(m ·K))
(W/(m2·K))
Case of Study Tin − Tout > 5 ◦ C Tin − Tout > 10 ◦ C
Case of StudyUEstimated a a
− > ° − > °
b b
UTHM2 cc b b UTHM2
c c
UTHM1 UTHM1
C-2 0.57 0.59 ± 0.07 Fail 0.54 ± 0.05 Fail
C-2 0.57 0.59 ± 0.07 Fail 0.54 ± 0.05 Fail
C-5 1.10 0.98 ± 0.06 0.59 ± 0.24 1.04 ± 0.05 0.59 ± 0.24
C-5 1.10 0.98 ± 0.06 0.59 ± 0.24 1.04 ± 0.05 0.59 ± 0.24
U-value obtained from ISO 6946 [17] using the CCF of Pérez-Bella et al. [38]; b U-value obtained from
a
aU-value obtained [38]; b U-value
from ISO
the observations 6946 by
generated [17] using
data logger A;CCF
the of Pérez-Bella
c U-value et the
obtained from al. observations obtained
generated by from the
observations generated by data logger A; c U-value obtained from the observations generated by data logger B.
data logger B.

Figure 6. Dispersion of U-value data according to the differences between the external and internal
Figure 6. Dispersion of U-value data according to the differences between the external and internal
environmental temperatures. The local regression (LOESS) curve is represented by the blue line.
environmental temperatures. The local regression (LOESS) curve is represented by the blue line.
This conclusion is in accordance with the recommendations established by several authors to
perform other kinds of thermal transmittance tests, such as the heat flow meter method [25,33] and
This conclusion is in accordance with the recommendations established by several authors to
the quantitative methods of infrared thermography [19,23]. However, the use of filtered data for
perform other kinds higher
temperatures of thermal
than 5 transmittance
°C is an option tests, such the
to overcome as the heat flow
difficulties meter by
encountered method
the [25,33]
and the quantitative methods of infrared thermography [19,23]. However, the use of filtered
performance of the tests in warm climate regions, as it is shown in the representative results obtained data for
in the different case ◦
studies analysed during the experimental campaign.
temperatures higher than 5 C is an option to overcome the difficulties encountered by the performance
of the tests in warm climate regions, as it is shown in the representative results obtained in the different
case studies analysed during the experimental campaign.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, a detailed revision of one of the most-used methods to define the energy behaviour
of a building envelope in Spain, the thermometric method (THM), is carried out. This method only
has test recommendations given by the manufacturers of the equipment, but they are quite simple
Energies 2018, 11, 360 15 of 17

and do not guarantee the validity of the results. For this reason, we decided to provide the method
with greater scientific rigour by establishing the operative conditions and optimal data management.
In order to validate THM, the authors chose eight walls from different traditional façade typologies in
the south of Spain.
Based on the results obtained in the experimental campaign of the eight case studies, we conclude
the following:

• THM shows a more optimal behaviour in winter than in summer, with relative uncertainties
between 6% and 13%.
• With respect to the environmental conditions in summer and autumn, despite obtaining average
values with a difference lower than 20% regarding the estimated value of thermal transmittance,
the associated uncertainty for the tests is unacceptable. Only in C-5 was an optimal value acquired,
as temperature records with a difference higher than 10 ◦ C were obtained.
• Differences in the average values as well as uncertainty according to the technical characteristics
of the employed equipment were revealed. In this sense, the data logger which has probes with
better features used for the tests obtained acceptable average results as well as adequate levels of
uncertainty. However, the same cannot be said for the other equipment setup, because there were
differences in the distribution of the measured temperature values.
• The typical characteristics of the Mediterranean climate (class Csa according to Köppen and
Geiger’s climate classification) notably causes some difficulties in obtaining records with a
temperature difference higher than 10 ◦ C between the interior and exterior environments.
In this regard, the results show that measurements with a high number of observations with a
temperature difference higher than 5 ◦ C were able to obtain representative results. Therefore,
a thermal gradient of 5 ◦ C can be considered for tests which are carried out in warm climate
regions, although a higher difference would guarantee a decrease in the uncertainty and the
achievement of more representative values.

To conclude, it is worth noting that there are few studies which analyse the use of a method in
order to evaluate the U-value in warm climate typologies, such as the Mediterranean climate. It is also
vital to highlight the lack of research studies in which THM is used. Our future work pertaining to this
investigation will be the study of variations presented by the method regarding the use of internal
convective coefficient values measured in situ, as well as the validation of its use in typologies of
light walls.

Acknowledgments: The present study has been financed by “V Own Research Plan” University of Seville.
Author Contributions: All authors chose the case studies, performed the measurement, analysed the data,
and wrote the paper together.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Tin Internal air temperature (K)
Tout External air temperature (K)
Ts,in Internal surface temperature (K)
hin Internal convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2 ·K))
q Heat flux (W/m2 )
s Thickness (m)
λ Thermal conductivity (W/(m·K))
R Thermal resistance ((m2 ·K)/W)
Rs,in Internal surface thermal resistance ((m2 ·K)/W)
Rs,out External surface thermal resistance ((m2 ·K)/W)
U Thermal transmittance (W/(m2 ·K))
CCF Conductivity correction factor (dimensionless)
Energies 2018, 11, 360 16 of 17

References
1. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build.
2008, 40, 394–398. [CrossRef]
2. European Environment Agency. Final Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel (2017); European Environment
Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017.
3. European Academy of Bolzano. European Project iNSPiRe Report; European Academy of Bolzano: Bolzano,
Italy, 2015.
4. Andalusian Energy Agency. Energy Data of Andalusia; Andalusian Energy Agency: Seville, Spain, 2015.
5. Ecology and Development Foundation (ECODES). Archive ECODES. City and Building: Environmental Impacts;
Ecology and Development Foundation: Bend, Oregon, 2009.
6. Institute for the Energy Diversification and Saving. Balance of the Final Energy Consumption in Year 2015;
Institute for the Energy Diversification and Saving: Seville, Spain, 2016. (In Spain)
7. Sánchez-García, D.; Sánchez-Guevara, C.; Rubio-Bellido, C. The adaptive approach to thermal comfort in
Seville. An. Edif. 2016, 2, 38–48. [CrossRef]
8. Gangolells, M.; Casals, M.; Forcada, N.; MacArulla, M.; Cuerva, E. Energy mapping of existing building
stock in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3895–3904. [CrossRef]
9. Kurtz, F.; Monzón, M.; López-Mesa, B. Energy and acoustics related obsolescence of social housing of Spain’s
post-war in less favoured urban areas. The case of Zaragoza. Inf. Constr. 2015, 67, m021. [CrossRef]
10. The Government of Spain. Royal Decree 314/2006. Approving the Spanish Technical Building Code CTE-DB-HE-1;
The Government of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2013.
11. Moyano Campos, J.J.; Antón García, D.; Rico Delgado, F.; Marín García, D. Threshold Values for Energy Loss
in Building Façades Using Infrared Thermography. In Sustainable Development and Renovation in Architecture,
Urbanism and Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 427–437.
12. Mortarotti, G.; Morganti, M.; Cecere, C. Thermal analysis and energy-efficient solutions to preserve listed
building façades: The INA-Casa building heritage. Buildings 2017, 7, 56. [CrossRef]
13. Park, K.; Kim, M. Energy Demand Reduction in the Residential Building Sector: A Case Study of Korea.
Energies 2017, 10, 1506. [CrossRef]
14. Battista, G.; Evangelisti, L.; Guattari, C.; Basilicata, C.; de Lieto Vollaro, R. Buildings Energy Efficiency:
Interventions Analysis under a Smart Cities Approach. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4694–4705. [CrossRef]
15. Suárez, R.; Fragoso, J. Passive strategies for energy optimisation of social housing in the Mediterranean
climate. Inf. Constr. 2016, 68, e136. [CrossRef]
16. Serrano Lanzarote, B.; Sanchis Cuesta, A. The Technical Inspection of Buildings as an instrument for the
energy improvement of existing buildings. Inf. Constr. 2015, 67, nt003. [CrossRef]
17. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 6946:2007—Building Components and Building
Elements—Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance—Calculation Method; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
18. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9869-1:2014—Thermal Insulation—Building Elements—In
Situ Measurement of Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance. Part 1: Heat Flow Meter Method; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
19. Albatici, R.; Tonelli, A.M. Infrared thermovision technique for the assessment of thermal transmittance value
of opaque building elements on site. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 2177–2183. [CrossRef]
20. Madding, R. Finding R-values of stud-frame constructed houses with IR thermography. Proc. InfraMation
2008, 2008, 261–277.
21. Dall’O, G.; Sarto, L.; Panza, A. Infrared screening of residential buildings for energy audit purposes: Results
of a field test. Energies 2013, 6, 3859–3878. [CrossRef]
22. Fokaides, P.A.; Kalogirou, S.A. Application of infrared thermography for the determination of the overall
heat transfer coefficient (U-Value) in building envelopes. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 4358–4365. [CrossRef]
23. Tejedor, B.; Casals, M.; Gangolells, M.; Roca, X. Quantitative internal infrared thermography for determining
in-situ thermal behaviour of façades. Energy Build. 2017, 151, 187–197. [CrossRef]
24. Evangelisti, L.; Guattari, C.; Gori, P.; De Lieto Vollaro, R. In situ thermal transmittance measurements for
investigating differences between wall models and actual building performance. Sustainability 2015, 7,
10388–10398. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 360 17 of 17

25. Ficco, G.; Iannetta, F.; Ianniello, E.; D’Ambrosio Alfano, F.R.; Dell’Isola, M. U-value in situ measurement for
energy diagnosis of existing buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 104, 108–121. [CrossRef]
26. Choi, D.S.; Ko, M.J. Comparison of Various Analysis Methods Based on Heat Flowmeters and Infrared
Thermography Measurements for the Evaluation of the In Situ Thermal Transmittance of Opaque Exterior
Walls. Energies 2017, 10, 1019. [CrossRef]
27. Nardi, I.; Paoletti, D.; Ambrosini, D.; De Rubeis, T.; Sfarra, S. U-value assessment by infrared thermography: A
comparison of different calculation methods in a Guarded Hot Box. Energy Build. 2016, 122, 211–221. [CrossRef]
28. Regional Government of Andalusia. Catalog of Services Offered by Quality Control Laboratories of the Regional
Government of Andalusia—January 2017; Regional Government of Andalusia: Sevilla, Spain, 2017.
29. The Government of Spain. 5th Registry, Entities and Quality Control Laboratories of Building; Ther Government
of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
30. KIMO Instruments. Determination of U Coefficient; KIMO Instruments: Montpon-Menesterol, France, 2010.
31. Testo AG. U-Value Measurement; Testo AG: Lenzkirch, Germany, 2014.
32. Trethowen, H. Measurement errors with surface-mounted heat flux sensors. Build. Environ. 1986, 21, 41–56.
[CrossRef]
33. Desogus, G.; Mura, S.; Ricciu, R. Comparing different approaches to in situ measurement of building
components thermal resistance. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2613–2620. [CrossRef]
34. Cesaratto, P.G.; De Carli, M.; Marinetti, S. Effect of different parameters on the in situ thermal conductance
evaluation. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1792–1801. [CrossRef]
35. Peng, C.; Wu, Z. In situ measuring and evaluating the thermal resistance of building construction.
Energy Build. 2008, 40, 2076–2082. [CrossRef]
36. Cucumo, M.; De Rosa, A.; Ferraro, V.; Kaliakatsos, D.; Marinelli, V. A method for the experimental evaluation
in situ of the wall conductance. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 238–244. [CrossRef]
37. Meng, X.; Yan, B.; Gao, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Long, E. Factors affecting the in situ measurement accuracy
of the wall heat transfer coefficient using the heat flow meter method. Energy Build. 2015, 86, 754–765.
[CrossRef]
38. Pérez-Bella, J.M.; Domínguez-Hernández, J.; Cano-Suñén, E.; Del Coz-Díaz, J.J.; Álvarez Rabanal, F.P.
A correction factor to approximate the design thermal conductivity of building materials. Application to
Spanish façades. Energy Build. 2015, 88, 153–164. [CrossRef]
39. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 6781:1983—Thermal Insulation—Qualitative Detection of
Thermal Irregularities in Building Envelopes—Infrared Method; International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 1983.
40. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60584-1:2013—Thermocouples—Part 1: EMF Specifications and
Tolerances; International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
41. Meng, X.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yan, B.; Zhang, W.; Long, E. Feasibility experiment on the simple hot box-heat
flow meter method and the optimization based on simulation reproduction. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 83,
48–56. [CrossRef]
42. Ihaka, R.; Gentleman, R. R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 1996, 5,
299–314.
43. Eduardo Torroja Institute for Construction Science. Constructive Elements Catalogue of the CTE; Eduardo
Torroja Institute for Construction Science: Madrid, Spain, 2010.
44. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10456:2007—Building Materials and Products—Hygrothermal
Properties—Tabulated Design Values and Procedures for Determining Declared and Design Thermal Values; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
45. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008—Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 3:
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM:1995); International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
46. Rubel, F.; Kottek, M. Observed and projected climate shifts 1901–2100 depicted by world maps of the
Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Meteorol. Z. 2010, 19, 135–141. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).