4.7 Review

Vacuum insulation panels for building applications: A review and beyond

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 147-172

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.09.005

Keywords

Vacuum insulation panel (VIP); Building insulation; Thermal bridge; Service life; Gas-filled panel (GFP); Aerogel; Vacuum insulation material (VIM); Nano insulation material (NIM)

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) are regarded as one of the most promising high performance thermal insulation solutions on the market today. Thermal performances three to six times better than still-air are achieved by applying a vacuum to an encapsulated micro-porous material, resulting in a great potential for combining the reduction of energy consumption in buildings with slim constructions. However, thermal bridging due to the panel envelope and degradation of thermal performance through time occurs with current technology. Furthermore, VIPs cannot be cut on site and the panels are fragile towards damaging. These effects have to be taken into account for building applications as they may diminish the overall usability and thermal performance. This paper is as far as the authors know the first comprehensive review on VIPs. Properties, requirements and possibilities of foil encapsulated VIPs for building applications are studied based on available literature, emphasizing thermal bridging and degradation through time. An extension is made towards gas-filled panels and aerogels, showing that other high performance thermal insulation solutions do exist. Combining the technology of these solutions and others may lead to a new leap forward. Feasible paths beyond VIPs are investigated and possibilities such as vacuum insulation materials (VIMs) and nano insulation materials (NIMs) are proposed. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available