4.7 Article

Contribution of structural lightweight aggregate concrete to the reduction of thermal bridging effect in buildings

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 460-470

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.018

关键词

Lightweight aggregate concrete; Thermal conductivity; Thermal bridges; Energy needs

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [PTDC/ECM-COM1734/2012]
  2. CEris - ICIST/IST
  3. Saint-Gobain Weber Portugal
  4. Argex
  5. Stalite
  6. Lytag
  7. Secil
  8. BASF
  9. FCT [SFRH/BD/100397/2014]
  10. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/100397/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, Energy Performance Building Directives have been published and adopted by all EU member states in order to promote the improvement of the energy performance of buildings within the EU, and thus coping with the growing comfort needs and consequent increase in energy consumption for space heating and cooling. Structural lightweight aggregate concrete (SLWAC), due to its thermal properties, presents itself as an alternative to normal weight concrete (NWC) to reduce the thermal bridging effects as well as the building energy needs to maintain thermal comfort levels in buildings. In this paper, the potential of SLWAC to improve the energy performance of buildings was assessed. An experimental study was carried out in order to determine the thermal properties of five different concrete mixtures, four SLWAC and a reference NWC for comparison purposes. These thermal properties were then used in the two-dimensional heat transfer program Therm and in the whole-building energy simulation program EnergyPlus to assess the impact of SLWAC on the thermal bridge heat losses and building energy, needs of a case study. Results showed that SLWAC can improve the energy efficiency of buildings and thus be an attractive alternative to the use of the traditional NWC. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据