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!!