Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951

www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Statistical modelling of heat transfer for thermal bridges of buildings

A. Ben Larbi *
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, 4 avenue du Recteur Poincaré, F-75782 Paris Cedex 16, France
Received 10 June 2004; received in revised form 19 September 2004; accepted 2 December 2004

Abstract

In this paper, we develop statistical models of the thermal transmittance of 2D thermal bridges (c). We aim to give building designers plain
and practical tools for the evaluation of the most common 2D thermal bridges. Three examples are considered: a slab-on-grade floor–wall
junction, a floor–wall junction and a roof–wall junction. For each case, we perform computer simulations of the thermal transmittance, c, for
several values of the most important variables. Then, we fit these numerical results to a nonlinear regression model. The results appear to be
good with relative errors less than 5%.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat transfer; Thermal bridge; Building; Computer simulation; Statistical modelling

1. Introduction thermal transmittance (or x-value in W/K). In most cases

Thermal bridges are parts of the building envelope where
the otherwise uniform thermal resistance are significantly
changed (e.g. at structural joints with roofs, floors, ceilings,
and other walls, or other building envelope details such as
corners, window or door openings) [1], resulting in a
multidimensional heat flow. They have a major effect on the
thermal performance of the building envelope, significantly
increasing winter heat loss and summer heat gain. The better
walls are insulated, the more thermal bridges amount in the
overall envelope heat losses.
The temperature of the inside surface over a thermal
bridge is lower than that of the adjacent construction during
the heating season. The difference in the temperature
gradient may cause condensation and mould growth (so
reducing the indoor air quality).
There are two types of thermal bridges. The linear or 2D
ones are situated at the junction of two or more building
elements and they are characterised by a linear thermal
transmittance (or c-value in W/m K). The point or 3D ones
lie where an insulated wall is perforated by an element with
high thermal conductivity or where there are three-
dimensional corners and they are characterised by a point
* Tel.: +33 1 30 85 20 93; fax: +33 1 30 85 21 34.
E-mail address: abenlarbi@cticm.com
evaluations will be limited to linear thermal bridges, most
common; 3D calculations will be exceptional.
The evaluation of thermal bridges can be done
experimentally by using standardised test methods on two
identical building elements, the first one with and the second
one without a thermal bridge. This method is limited to those
building elements that can be so tested. Thus, the accuracy of
the assessment is rather uncertain, it is time-consuming,
expensive and laborious, only applicable for important
projects or for checking the reliability of simulation
calculations [2]. Thermal bridges can therefore be evaluated
by using numerical methods. A lot of software helps for it
[3–5]. However they need minimum skills and some care for
defining the boundary conditions.
Catalogues [6] give several examples of thermal bridges
for fixed parameters (e.g. dimensions and kind of material).
So they are less flexible than calculations. In France, like in
many European countries, tabulated values of c are given
for typical cases [7]. But they often do not match with the
actual details of any building project.
In this paper, we develop analytical formulas for the
thermal transmittance of three different 2D thermal
bridges. We begin with a numerical computerization of
the thermal transmittance for a limited number of values
for the most important variables that influence the c-value.
Then we fit the numerical results to a regression model that

0378-7788/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.12.013
946 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951

Nomenclature

adj adjacent
e width of a thermal bridge (m)
em width of a wall (cm)
ep width of a roof (cm)
In. inside
L length of an adjacent wall (m)
Out. outside
R thermal resistance (m2 K/W)
Riv thermal resistance of wall insulation (m2 K/
W)
Rsp thermal resistance of roof insulation (m2 K/
W) Fig. 1. Geometrical model of a 2D thermal bridge.
DT temperature difference between the inside and
outside environment (K) The linear thermal transmittance is given by
U thermal transmittance (W/m2 K)
Fg XN
c¼  U i Li ðW=mKÞ (1)
Greek letters DT i¼1
x point thermal transmittance (W/K) where Fg is the global heat flow per unit of length (W/m), Ui
Fg global heat flow per metre length (W/m) the thermal transmittance of the 1D component i separating
c linear thermal transmittance (W/m K) the two environments (W/m2 K), Li the length within the 2D
geometrical model over which the value Ui applies (m), DT
Subscripts the temperature difference between the inside and outside
adj adjacent environment (K) and N the number of 1D components.

2.1. Hypotheses of calculation

gives an analytical formula for a wider range of
configurations. By doing so, we aim to give the building
actors (project manager, designer, engineer, etc.) plain and
practical tools for evaluating the most important 2D
thermal bridges.
The calculation hypotheses are given in the following
tables for the boundary conditions (Table 1) and the thermal
conductivities (Table 2).

3. Statistical modelling of the heat transfer

2. Numerical calculations of the heat transfer
through a 2D thermal bridge
Numerical calculations of the heat transfer through a
thermal bridge require the use of methods with numerical
resolution like finite element or finite difference methods.
The European Standard EN ISO 10211-2 [8] describes the
calculus method for linear thermal bridges and superficial
temperatures. The software used here, BISCO [4], refers to
the finite difference method in order to calculate the global
heat flows through the thermal bridge and the adjacent walls
under steady-state conditions. Fig. 1 shows a geometrical
model of 2D thermal bridge.
through a thermal bridge
The statistical model used to fit the values of a linear
thermal transmittance obtained from the computer simula-
tion is based on the heat flow per metre through the part of
the wall that constitutes the thermal bridge (Fig. 2), given by
the relation:
F ¼ eUDT ðW=mÞ (2)
where e is the width of the thermal bridge (m), U the thermal
transmittance of the portion of the wall that constitutes the
thermal bridge (W/m2 K), and DT the temperature difference
between the inside and outside environment (K).

Table 1
Boundary conditions
Title Surface heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) Surface thermal resistance (m2 K/W) Temperature (8C)
Horizontal flow Upward flow Downward flow Horizontal flow Upward flow Downward flow
Internal 7.69 10 5.88 0.13 0.10 0.17 20
External 25 25 25 0.04 0.04 0.04 0
 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951 947

Table 2 Eq. (5) is adapted to each case according to the thermal

Thermal conductivity of materials characteristics of the bridge (flow lines) and the dependent
Material Conductivity (W/m K) variables.
Insulation 0.04
Concrete 2.00
Masonry 0.70
4. Results and discussion

However, the heat flow through the thermal bridge also
depends on the insulation of the building envelope. The
more the envelope is insulated, the higher the heat flows
through the thermal bridge are. Following the European
Standard EN ISO 10211-1 [1], we limit the calculations to
adjacent walls.
In order to take into account the effect of the adjacent
walls, we add a function of the thermal resistance of the
adjacent walls (Radj) in Eq. (2):
F ¼ eUDT þ f ðRadj Þ ðW=mÞ
4.1. Computer simulations
This section presents numerical results for three thermal
bridges, which amounts for the most of the overall envelope
heat loss. For each one, we give on one side the thermal
characteristics (flow lines) and on the other the c-value (W/
m K) resulting from the numerical calculations. For each
thermal bridge two situations have been simulated; the exterior
wall, with internal insulation, is made of either concrete or
masonry. In all cases the floor is made of concrete.
(3)

The linear thermal transmittance is obtained by dividing the 4.1.1. Slab-on-grade floor–wall junction
heat flow by the temperature difference between the inside Figs. 3 and 4 show the cross section of the 2D thermal
and outside environment (DT): bridge and the flow lines, respectively. In this case the c-
value depend on the floor thickness (ep), the wall and floor
F f ðRadj Þ
c¼ ¼ eU þ ðW=mKÞ (4) insulations (Riv and Rsp). As shown in Fig. 4 the heat flow
DT DT lines concentrate on the floor width, thus the thermal bridge
By assuming f (Radj) as a linear function of the adjacent width is proportional to the wall width.
walls thermal resistance: The computerized c-values for a junction with a concrete
wall (resp. a masonry wall) are given in Table 3 (resp.
c1  e Table 4). The foundation is made of concrete.
c¼P þ c3 Radj1 þ c4 Radj2 þ cn
i 2  Ri þ cd
c (5)
ðW=mKÞ 4.1.2. Floor–wall junction
Figs. 5 and 6 show the cross section of the 2D thermal
P
where e is the thermal bridge width, i Ri the total thermal bridge and the flow lines, respectively. The c-value depends
resistance of the bridge, Radj1, Radj2 are the insulation on the floor thickness (ep), the wall width (em) and the wall
resistances of the adjacent walls and c1, c2, c3, c4, cd, cn insulation (Riv). The thermal bridge width is proportional to
are the estimated coefficients. the floor thickness where the flux lines concentrate (Fig. 6).

Fig. 2. Modelling of heat transfer through a 2D thermal bridge. Fig. 3. Cross-section.

948 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951

Fig. 4. Flow lines. Fig. 5. Cross-section.

Table 3
The c-values for a slab-on-grade floor–wall junction (exterior wall made in
concrete)
Riv Rsp (m2 K/W)
1.5 2.5 3.5
15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25
1.5 0.54 0.62 0.69 0.57 0.65 0.72 0.59 0.67 0.74
2.5 0.51 0.59 0.66 0.54 0.62 0.69 0.56 0.64 0.71
3.5 0.48 0.56 0.63 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.52 0.60 0.67
Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm.

Table 4
The c-values for a slab-on-grade floor–wall junction (exterior wall made in
masonry)
Riv Rsp (m2 K/W)
1.5 2.5 3.5
15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25
1.5 0.45 0.52 0.59 0.48 0.55 0.62 0.50 0.57 0.64
2.5 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.48 0.55 0.62
3.5 0.41 0.48 0.55 0.44 0.51 0.58 0.46 0.53 0.60
Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm.
Fig. 6. Flow lines.

Table 5 Table 6
The c-values for a floor–wall junction (exterior wall made in concrete) The c-values for a floor–wall junction (exterior wall made in masonry)
em Riv (m2 K/W) em Riv (m2 K/W)
1.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25
17.5 0.91 1.08 1.23 0.83 0.99 1.14 0.76 0.91 1.05 22.5 0.72 0.87 1.02 0.67 0.82 0.96 0.62 0.77 0.90
22.5 0.87 1.03 1.17 0.80 0.95 1.09 0.73 0.88 1.01 25.0 0.70 0.85 0.99 0.65 0.80 0.93 0.61 0.75 0.88
27.5 0.83 0.98 1.11 0.77 0.92 1.05 0.71 0.85 0.98 27.5 0.67 0.82 0.95 0.63 0.77 0.90 0.59 0.73 0.85
Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm. Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm.
 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951 949

The computerized c-values for a junction with a concrete

wall (resp. a masonry wall) are given in Table 5 (resp. Table 6).

4.1.3. Roof–wall junction

Figs. 7 and 8 show the cross section of the 2D thermal
bridge and the flow lines, respectively. The c-value depends
on the roof width (ep), the wall width (em), and the wall and
floor insulations (Riv and Rsp). The thermal bridge width is
proportional to the roof width where the flux lines
concentrate (Fig. 8).
The computerized c-values for a junction with a concrete
(resp. a masonry wall) are given in Table 7 (resp. Table 8).

4.2. Regression modelling

Fig. 7. Cross-section.
The analytical formulas for 2D thermal bridges are
intrinsically non linear in their parameters. So we use
nonlinear regression models, which allow nonlinearity in
the parameters of the regression. The estimation method is
the nonlinear ordinary least squares estimation: the values
of the parameters minimize the sum of squared deviations
[9].
For every thermal bridge analyzed, we give on the
one hand the regression model and figure showing the
model fitted to the numerical simulation. In the regression
model, the value of the parameter for Riv (at the
denominator) is chosen as 0.02, equal to the insulation
thermal conductivity divided by the floor thermal con-
ductivity. The goodness of fit can be appreciated by
considering the adjusted R-squared (R̄2 ) and the t-statistic
for each coefficient estimate.

4.2.1. Slab-on-grade floor–wall junction

As shown in Fig. 9, the regression model for the linear
thermal transmittance of slab-on-grade floor–wall junction is
close to the numerical simulation. For concrete wall, the
Fig. 8. Flow lines. absolute error reaches a maximum at 0.02 and the relative error
is less than 3%. For masonry wall, the absolute error reaches a
maximum at 0.01 and the relative error is less than 2%.

Table 7
The c-values for a roof–wall junction (exterior wall made in concrete)
Rsp (m2 K/W) em Riv (m2 K/W)
2 3 4
15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25
1.5 17.5 0.72 0.83 0.92 0.66 0.77 0.86 0.61 0.72 0.80
22.5 0.70 0.80 0.89 0.65 0.75 0.83 0.60 0.70 0.78
27.5 0.68 0.78 0.86 0.63 0.73 0.81 0.59 0.69 0.77
2.5 17.5 0.74 0.86 0.96 0.67 0.79 0.89 0.62 0.74 0.83
22.5 0.72 0.83 0.93 0.66 0.77 0.86 0.61 0.72 0.81
27.5 0.70 0.81 0.90 0.65 0.75 0.84 0.60 0.70 0.79
3.5 17.5 0.75 0.88 0.98 0.68 0.81 0.91 0.63 0.75 0.85
22.5 0.73 0.85 0.95 0.67 0.78 0.88 0.62 0.73 0.82
27.5 0.71 0.83 0.92 0.66 0.76 0.86 0.61 0.71 0.80
Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm.
950 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951

Table 8
The c-values for a roof–wall junction (exterior wall made in masonry)
Rsp (m2 K/W) em Riv (m2 K/W)
2 3 4
15 20 25 15 20 25 15 20 25
1.5 22.5 0.66 0.76 0.85 0.62 0.71 0.80 0.57 0.67 0.75
25 0.65 0.74 0.83 0.61 0.70 0.78 0.56 0.66 0.74
27.5 0.64 0.73 0.82 0.60 0.69 0.77 0.56 0.65 0.73
2.5 22.5 0.68 0.78 0.88 0.63 0.73 0.82 0.58 0.68 0.78
25 0.66 0.77 0.86 0.62 0.72 0.80 0.57 0.67 0.76
27.5 0.65 0.76 0.85 0.61 0.71 0.79 0.57 0.67 0.75
3.5 22.5 0.69 0.80 0.90 0.63 0.74 0.84 0.59 0.70 0.80
25 0.67 0.78 0.88 0.62 0.73 0.82 0.58 0.69 0.78
27.5 0.66 0.77 0.86 0.61 0.72 0.81 0.57 0.68 0.77
Floor thickness, ep = 15, 20 and 25 cm.

0:409  ep
masonry wall; c ¼ þ 0:025Rsp þ 0:184
0:02Riv þ 0:243
(7)

4.2.2. Floor–wall junction

For the floor–wall junction, the absolute error reaches a
maximum at 0.02, and the relative error is less than 2% with
a concrete wall. The absolute error reaches a maximum at
0.01 and the relative error is less than 2% with a masonry
wall (Fig. 10).
Regression model with a
ep
concrete wall; c ¼
0:02Riv þ 0:433  em þ 0:195
Fig. 9. Fitted model for a slab-on-grade floor–wall junction (concrete and  0:04Riv þ 0:462 (8)
masonry wall).
ep
masonry wall; c ¼
0:02Riv þ 0:613  em þ 0:153
Regression model with a
 0:018Riv þ 0:276 (9)
0:285  ep
concrete wall; c ¼ þ 0:023Rsp þ 0:252
0:02Riv þ 0:141
(6)

Fig. 10. Fitted model for a floor–wall junction (concrete and masonry wall). Fig. 11. Fitted model for a roof–wall junction (concrete and masonry wall).
 A.B. Larbi / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 945–951 951

4.2.3. Roof–wall junction Table 10

In this case the absolute error reaches a maximum at 0.04 Statistics for a floor–wall junction model
and the relative error is less than 5% for concrete or masonry Variable Concrete walla Masonry wallb
wall (Fig. 11). Coefficient t-Statistic Coefficient t-Statistic
em 0.433 22.37 0.613 22.20
Regression model with a cd 0.195 47.54 0.153 23.58
Riv 0.04 32.00 0.018 21.35
0:287  ep cn 0.462 55.03 0.276 47.31
concrete wall; c ¼
0:02Riv þ 0:155  em þ 0:06 a
No. of observations: 27; R̄2 : 0.988.
þ 0:02Rsp þ 0:34 (10)
b
No. of observations: 27; R̄2 : 0.999.

0:31  ep
masonry wall; c ¼
0:02Riv þ 0:213  em þ 0:065 Table 11
Statistics for roof–wall junction model
þ 0:017Rsp þ 0:312 (11)
Variable Concrete walla Masonry wallb
Coefficient t-Statistic Coefficient t-Statistic
ep 0.287 28.34 0.31 25.11
5. Conclusion em 0.155 12.86 0.213 8.49
cd 0.06 14.95 0.065 8.89
This paper presents regression models of the thermal Rsp 0.02 11.12 0.017 11.19
transmittance for three examples of 2D thermal bridges (c- cn 0.34 39.68 0.312 41.83
values): slab-on-grade floor–wall junction, floor–wall a
No. of observations: 81; R̄2 : 0.981.
junction and roof–wall junction.
b
No. of observations: 81; R̄2 : 0.982.
For slab-on-grade floor–wall junction, the results show
that the models, for concrete or masonry wall, give results
relative errors of the proposed models will be about 10%
with relative errors less than 3%. The statistics of this model
which are less than errors generally obtained by calculation
are also good. The adjusted R-squared (R̄2 ) is about 0.99 for
formulas (about 20%) [6].
concrete wall and is close to 1 for masonry wall. For all the
The presented models can be used by practitioners,
coefficients in the two cases, the t-statistics are higher than
provided that both boundary conditions and material
10, which mean that all the coefficients are significant. For
characteristics are similar to those considered above.
floor–wall junction, the relative errors are less than 2% for
the two cases. The R̄2 are close to 1 and the t-statistics are
higher then 20. For roof–wall junction, the relative errors are
References
less than 5% and R̄2 is about 0.98 for concrete or masonry
wall. The t-statistics are sufficiently higher to justify the [1] EN ISO 10211-1, Thermal bridges in building construction: heat flows
choice of the variables in the models (Tables 9–11). and surface temperatures. Part 1. General Calculation Methods,
For all the models, the relative errors are less than 5%. If 1995.
we added these errors to those obtained generally by [2] A.G. Mcgowan, A.O. Desjarlais, Investigation of common
thermal bridges in walls, ASHRAE Transactions 103 (1997) 509–
numerical calculations, which are about 5%, the global
517.
[3] A.W.M. van Schijndel, Modelling and solving physics problems with
Table 9 FemLab, Building and Environment 38 (2003) 319–327.
Statistics for a slab-on-grade floor–wall junction model [4] BISCO, 2D Steady-state Heat Transfer Free Form, Physibel, Belgium.
[5] KOBRA. Computer Program to Query an Atlas of Building Details on
Variable Concrete walla Masonry wallb
their Thermal Behaviour (Two-dimensional Steady State), Physibel,
Coefficient t-Statistic Coefficient t-Statistic Belgium, 2002.
ep 0.285 13.19 0.409 16.38 [6] EN ISO 14683, Thermal bridges in building construction: linear thermal
cd 0.141 11.97 0.243 15.08 transmittance, Simplified methods and default values, 2000.
Rsp 0.023 12.60 0.025 20.01 [7] Ministère de l’équipement, Guide de la réglementation thermique,
cn 0.252 28.47 0.184 40.96 France, 2000.
[8] EN ISO 10211-2, Thermal bridges in building construction: heat flows
a
No. of observations: 27; R̄2 : 0.988. and surface temperatures. Part 2. Linear thermal bridges, 2001.
b
No. of observations: 27; R̄2 : 0.995. [9] W.H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, 2003.