首页> 外文期刊>Energies >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
【24h】

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

机译:基于热流量计和红外热像仪测量的各种分析方法的比较,以评估不透明外墙的原位热透射率

获取原文
           

摘要

There are several methods to obtain the in situ thermal transmittance value (U-value) of building envelopes from on-site data, including the three approaches of the progressive average method, average method considering the thermal storage effect, and dynamic method for deriving the U-value from heat flowmeter (HFM) measurements and the four methods with different formulas to analyze infrared thermography (IRT) measurement data. Since each of these methods considers different parameters and the non-steady characteristics of the heat transfer in building walls in their own way, discrepancies may occur among the obtained results. This study evaluates and compares the in situ U-values by using various methods of analyzing HFM and IRT measurement data. Further, by investigating buildings with similar materials and identical stratigraphies, but with different construction years, we analyze the discrepancy between the designed and measured values caused by material deterioration and evaluate the errors according to the analysis method. The percentage deviation between the U-values obtained by the three methods from the HFM data is found to be satisfactory, being within 10%. When compared with the results of the progressive average method, the deviations for the four different IRT-measurement-based methods vary greatly, being in the range of 6–43%.
机译:有多种方法可以从现场数据中获取建筑物围护结构的原位传热值(U值),包括渐进平均法,考虑蓄热效应的平均法和动态推导法的三种方法。来自热流量计(HFM)测量和四种具有不同公式的方法的U值,用于分析红外热成像(IRT)测量数据。由于这些方法中的每一种都以各自的方式考虑不同的参数和建筑物墙内传热的非稳定特性,因此在获得的结果之间可能会出现差异。本研究通过使用各种分析HFM和IRT测量数据的方法来评估和比较原位U值。此外,通过调查材料相似,地层相同但建造年限不同的建筑物,我们分析了由材料劣化引起的设计值与测量值之间的差异,并根据分析方法评估了误差。发现通过三种方法从HFM数据获得的U值之间的百分比偏差令人满意,在10%以内。与渐进平均法的结果相比,四种不同的基于IRT测量的方法的偏差差异很大,在6-43%的范围内。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号