Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Reflective thermal insulation systems in building: A review on radiant

barrier and reflective insulation
Sau Wai Lee n, Chin Haw Lim, Elias @ Ilias Bin Salleh
Solar Energy Research Institute, National University of Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concerns over depletion of fossil fuel resources and negative environmental impact arising from
Received 12 January 2016 energy generation have prompted increasing attention on the use of thermal insulation in building
Received in revised form energy conservation. This article strives to make an overall review of reflective thermal insulation system
27 March 2016
which focuses on radiant barrier and reflective insulation. The main parameters in evaluating the per-
Accepted 1 July 2016
Available online 22 July 2016
formance of radiant barrier system are reduction of heat flux, thermal load and attic air temperature.
Based on studies, radiant barrier is effective in reducing heat flux, thermal load and attic air temperature
Keywords: during summer and to a lesser extent during winter. Researchers found that on average radiant barrier
Radiant barrier installed on attic space could reduce heat flux by 26% to 50% and cooling load by 6% to 16% during cooling
Reflective insulation
seasons. Fundamentally, reflective insulation system works under enclosed reflective airspace(s) and
Heat flux
thus its key thermal performance is usually measured by level of thermal resistance produced by the
Thermal load
Reflective airspace enclosed air cavity. Although many research works have been conducted on reflective insulation, there
Thermal resistance are still many uncertainties exist in predicting the correct resistance value. The most commonly used
method to measure the resistance value is guarded hot box which can simulate large-scale assemblies
that are closer to real conditions. Heat flow meter was used to test smaller specimen. Calculation using
theoretical approach provides a more simplified method to predict the resistance value. However, this
method may tend to over predict the value given the limitations from which its basis was formed. It was
discovered that emittance of upward facing reflective foil used in both radiant barrier and reflective
insulation system are also susceptible to degradation due to dust accumulation, moisture condensation
and corrosion. Hence, it is imperative to ensure a low-emittance surface for a sustainable performance of
both insulation systems in the long run.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
2. History of reflective thermal insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
3. Characteristics and attributes of reflective thermal insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
3.1. Radiant barrier system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
3.2. Reflective insulation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
4. Radiant barrier system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
4.1. Thermal performance under summer and winter seasons across different climates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
4.2. Type of testing methodology or protocol adopted in evaluating the thermal performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
4.3. Measure of thermal performance in terms of heat flux, thermal load and attic temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
4.3.1. Heat flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649
4.3.2. Thermal load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650
4.3.3. Attic air temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
4.4. Analysis of parameters that affect the thermal performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
4.5. Effect of radiant barrier on roof surface temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
5. Reflective insulation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: june_lsw@yahoo.com (S.W. Lee).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.002
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
644 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661

5.1. Properties of enclosed reflective airspace(s) on thermal resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654

5.2. Methods for evaluation of thermal resistance (R-values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
5.3. Application of reflective insulation in building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
6. Degradation of reflective surface emittance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
6.1. Dust and other contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
6.2. Moisture condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
6.3. Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
6.4. Oxide films. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

1. Introduction Thermal insulation using bulk technology make use of bulk

The 1970s energy crisis which heavily affected major developed
countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany,
Japan, Australia and New Zealand had sent an alarming signal to
the world that conserving energy is of paramount importance as
energy was no longer cheap and production of petroleum had
reached its peak. In the United States, although the oil price shocks
during 1970s and 1980s had led to a shift away from petroleum
based power generation, both coal and natural gas have made a
recent come back [1]. Coal and natural gas are the two pre-
dominant fossil fuels used in electricity generation in most coun-
tries which are also depletable resources. While efforts to explore
and use renewable sources such as hydropower, wind and solar [2]
are being undertaken, energy conservation should remain as the
priority measure to prevent the depletion of scarce fuel for a
sustainable future.
The greenhouse gases from combustion of fuel to generate
electricity are one of the major causes of climate change. Accord-
ing to the Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) [3], cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and
flaring have tripled from 1970 to 2010. Fossil fuel combustion and
industrial processes made up about 78% to the total greenhouse
gases emission increase during the same period. From this report
it is evident that human activities are the main culprit in changing
the global climate system. It is therefore human being plays an
important role in mitigating if not stopping the climate change.
The urgent needs in preserving the non-renewable fuels and
growing concern on the climate change from its use make it increas-
ingly important to implement energy saving measures and passive
heating and cooling strategies in building especially. This is because the
International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that buildings represent
32% of the total energy consumption in the World [4]. In a research
done by Perez-Lombard et al. [5], it was found that percentage of en-
ergy consumed in heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) in
office was 48% in the United States, 55% in the United Kingdom and
52% in Spain. While in the residential sector, space conditioning con-
sists of 53%, 62% and 42% of the total energy consumption in residential
in the three respective countries. In view of the high usage of energy in
HVAC, Ibrahim [6] and Dylewski and Adamczyk [7] both in their re-
search stated that thermal insulation is one of the most effective
measures in conserving energy used for heating and cooling buildings.
Thermal insulation in building is essential to reduce excess heat loss or
heat gain which leads to decrease of energy consumption in heating
and cooling systems. In hot climates, thermal insulation can slow or
reduce the heat gain from solar radiation into building. On the con-
trary, it serves to reduce heat loss from building in cold climates.
Generally thermal insulation technologies can be classified into
four main categories namely bulk, reflective, vacuum and nano-
technology as shown in Fig. 1.
or fibrous material such as fiberglass, mineral wool, expanded
polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), etc to block or
trap the transfer of heat via conduction and convection. Its
ability to resist heat depends on thermal conductivity and
density or thickness of the material used. Bulk insulation may
not be the most effective material in resisting radiative heat
transfer. On the other hand, thermal insulation that adopts re-
flective technology such as radiant barrier and reflective in-
sulation uses very thin layer of low-emittance aluminium foil is
more effective in preventing the transfer of radiative heat. These
two categories of reflective technology are the focus of this
paper. Combined with airspace adjacent to the low-emittance
surface, this technology can resist conductive and convective
heat transfer as well. Thermal insulation using interior radiation
control coatings (IRCCs) and the latest innovation, gas-filled
panels (GFPs) also incorporate the reflective technology. The
evolution of nanotechnology has enabled the development of
another type of thermal insulation for building i.e. aerogel
which is made of nanostructured material and very lightweight.
Its porous structure and up to 99% airspace make it very good
thermal insulation. Another advance in thermal insulation ap-
plying vacuum technology is vacuum insulated panels (VIPs).
This thermal insulation is able to resist heat transfer with its air
tight enclosure surrounding a panel.
The objective of this paper is to review studies done on radiant
barrier and reflective insulation system in order to provide an
insight to reader on these two technologies.
2. History of reflective thermal insulation
The discovery of the principle in reflective thermal insulation
can be traced back to the middle of 19th century when a French
physicist Jean Claude Eugene Peclet carried out experiments with
multiple layers of tin-coated steel (reflective surface) facing var-
ious thickness of the airspace between the reflecting surfaces.
Peclet discovered the excellent insulating property with reflective
surface in reducing the transfer of heat. However, the widely use of
this type of insulation commercially was only started in 1925
when two German businessmen Schmidt and Dykerhoff filed pa-
tents on reflective surfaces for use as insulation. They experi-
mented with very thin aluminium foil with less than 0.0005 in.
(0.0127 mm) thick which had very low-emittance surface. With
this, they further improved and developed an effective and in-
expensive form of insulation which is commercially viable. This is
a paradigm shift in the insulation industry as the thin aluminium
is very lightweight and more affordable as compared to conven-
tional insulation materials like rock wool. Within the next 15 years
millions of square feet of radiant barrier were applied in the
United States alone [8].
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Thermal Insulation Technologies
for Building Energy Efficiency
Reflective
Bulk Technology
Technology
Fiberglass Radiant barrier
Mineral wool Reflective insulation
Interior Radiation
Expanded Polystyrene
Control Coating s
(EPS)
(IRCCs)
Extruded Polystyrene Gas Filled Panel s
(XPS) (GFPs)
Fig. 1. Classification of thermal insulation technologies for building energy efficiency. Red dashed lines represent the focused technologies in this paper. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
The breakthrough in reflective thermal insulation using radiant
barrier was further popularized in mid 1950s when a Professional
Engineer, Clark E. Beck of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base en-
gineered the development of radiant barrier technology for Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space suit
and space craft [9]. As a result of this development, radiant barrier
had been in use by NASA since the Gemini and Apollo missions in
early 1960s [9,10]. This insulation material made of aluminized
polymer film provided a reflective surface that protects the space
craft instruments and astronauts from fluctuating extreme tem-
peratures. In 1996, radiant barrier was awarded into the Space
Technology Hall of Fame of NASA [10]. Following the spin-off from
NASA, several companies started to develop their own reflective
insulation products in various forms.
Today, this highly efficient reflective aluminium foil materials
are widely used in energy conserving building insulation both in
hot and cold climates.
3. Characteristics and attributes of reflective thermal
insulation
Reflective thermal insulation works on a different physic be-
havior as compared to conventional thermal insulation. It uses
high reflective surface(s) with low emissivity adjacent to airspaces
to bar or frustrate the flow of heat into or out of a building. This is
very different from conventional thermal insulation in which the
performance of heat resistance highly dependent on the thickness
and thermal conductivity of the material used. In reflective ther-
mal insulation, low-emittance material and airspace play an im-
portant role in the insulation system. As mentioned in Section 1,
radiant barrier system and reflective insulation system are the
focus of this paper.
3.1. Radiant barrier system
According to Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association
International (RIMA-I) [11], “the generally accepted definition of a
645
Vacuum
Nanotechnology
Technology
Vacuum
Aerogel Insulation Panels
(VIPs)
radiant barrier system specifies that the reflective material face an
open airspace”. Similarly, Yarbrough [12] described radiant barrier
system as having large ventilated or unventilated airspaces gen-
erally larger than 0.5 m adjacent to low-emittance surface. Clearly
these two sources define radiant barrier as system that works
under open air in which air is free to enter and exit the system. The
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifies that
the emissivity of reflective material used should be less than 0.10
[13]. Usually radiant barrier materials consist of a thin layer of
aluminium foil laminated to one or both sides of another sup-
porting material like kraft paper, plastic films, cardboard, etc. for
reinforcement. As the materials used are commonly a single sheet
of materials and there is no defined closed airspace, it is im-
possible to measure its thermal resistance i.e. R-value. Although
radiant barrier does not contribute any R-value to the insulation
system, it does reduce the amount of heat flow across an open
airspace adjacent to the radiant barrier [13,14]. Application of this
type of insulation is most common in an attic system. According to
RIMA-I, there are three basic configurations which radiant barrier
can be installed i.e. rafter or truss installation, attached or pre-
laminated to underside of roof decking (as shown in Fig. 2) and
horizontal installation over ceiling insulation (as shown in Fig. 3).
The horizontal configuration is commonly known as horizontal
radiant barrier. The rafter or truss installation includes a few var-
iations i.e. attached to the bottom of truss or rafters, attached in
between rafters and draped over rafters before roof sheathing is
installed. Figs. 4–6 exhibits these variations in truss installation.
3.2. Reflective insulation system
RIMA-I defines this type of insulation as “thermal insulation con-
sisting of one or more low-emittance surfaces, bounding one or more
enclosed airspaces”. Contrary to radiant barrier, reflective insulation
works under enclosed or sealed airspace. Yarbrough [12] further
stated that airspaces of up to about 0.25 m in the direction of heat
flow are needed for reflective insulation to be effective. The materials
used are same as radiant barrier i.e. low-emittance material like
aluminium foil. However, the structure of materials that made up this
646 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Fig. 2. Radiant barrier installed to underside of roof decking.
Source: Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13].
Fig. 3. Radiant barrier installed horizontally over ceiling insulation.
Source: Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13].
Fig. 4. Radiant barrier attached to the bottom of rafters.
Source: Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13].
insulation may be slightly different. It may contain one or more
aluminium foils or metalized film separated by layer or layers of
plastic bubbles or a foam material. While this core material in be-
tween serves as support or reinforcement to the aluminium foil,
more importantly it provides a small thermal resistance to the in-
sulation system. The core material forms smaller trapped airspaces
which help to lessen heat flow via convection hence contributing a
small R-value to the insulation system. Nevertheless a single layer of
Fig. 5. Radiant barrier attached in between rafters.
Source: Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13].
Fig. 6. Radiant barrier draped over rafters.
Source: Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13].
Fig. 7. Installation of reflective insulation in attic.
Source: RIMA-I [11].
aluminium foil or metalized film laminated to a supporting material
e.g. kraft paper (like in the case of radiant barrier) can form a re-
flective insulation when this single sheet material is encapsulated
with an adjacent airspace. Unlike radiant barrier, reflective insulation
has a measurable thermal resistance value i.e. R-value. This type of
insulation is commonly applied to walls, roofs, ceilings, basements,
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Fig. 8. Installation of reflective insulation in wall.
Source: RIMA-I [11].
floor and crawl spaces. Examples of two applications are illustrated
in Figs. 7 and 8.
4. Radiant barrier system
Compilations of quantitative results from various studies [15–
58] conducted are summarized in Tables 1–7. Some of the most
important aspects of radiant barrier system are discussed in the
following sections with reference to aforesaid tables.
4.1. Thermal performance under summer and winter seasons across
different climates
Performance of radiant barrier system is not the same
throughout the year across different climatic conditions. Broadly
comparing Table 1 to Table 2 it is quite obvious that radiant barrier
systems are more effective in reducing heat flux during summer
compared to winter with average percentage reduction of more
than 25% in summer versus less than 15% in winter. In terms of
thermal load reduction, radiant barrier can reduce up to average
about 16% cooling load (refer Table 3) during summer. While on
the contrary, based on the limited literatures available for winter,
heating load reductions were only up to 9% on average (refer Ta-
ble 4). This disparity in thermal performance is due to the direc-
tion and major component of heat flow. During summer season,
the major heat transfer is radiation flowing downward from roof
top to conditioned space. With a radiant barrier mounted in the
attic can significantly blocking the most part of radiant heat that
made up the major component of total heat transfer. On the other
hand, the main component of heat transfer during winter season is
convection which is driven by buoyancy causing heat from con-
ditioned space to move upwards. As radiation only a small portion
of the total heat flow, radiant barrier may not be as effective
during this season. In addition, radiant heat from solar radiation
during daytime winter will be blocked by radiant barrier the same
manner as it does during summer. However, this blockage is
647
undesirable during winter hence making radiant barrier less ef-
fective in this heating season.
During summer and winter seasons, different climates are seen
to affect the effectiveness of radiant barrier in reducing heat flux
and thermal load. Medina [15], Medina and Young [16] and Davis
Energy Group [17] had used simulation model to predict the per-
formance of radiant barrier in reducing heat flux and thermal
loads in cities across different climatic zones in the United States.
In Medina and Young's simulation for cooling season (refer Ta-
ble 1), Mediterranean and Marine West Coast climates were seen
as the two climates having lowest integrated percent reductions in
ceiling heat flux with about 2% and 10% respectively while the
highest of 37% was recorded for Tropical Savanna climate. How-
ever, the peak-hour ceiling heat flux reductions for Mediterranean
and Marine West Coast climates were the highest with 97% and
almost 100% respectively. These results indicated that building
located in different climates will have different levels of benefits
from radiant barrier system. Stovall et al. [18] in their analysis
suggested that economic savings from radiant barrier system are
most sensitive to climate. This indicates that thermal performance
of this system depends greatly on climate.
4.2. Type of testing methodology or protocol adopted in evaluating
the thermal performance
From the literatures reviewed, there are three testing meth-
odologies being adopted by researchers to evaluate the perfor-
mance of radiant barrier. They are laboratory measurement, field
measurement and computer simulation model. Each of these
methods has its advantages and shortcomings.
Laboratory measurements are usually done under steady-state
conditions in a large scale climate simulator (as shown in Fig. 9)
which outdoor conditions are simulated in the chamber. Under this
laboratory controlled setting, other variables can be held constant
which enables performance parameters such as ceiling heat flux and
attic air temperature be measured. However, the results obtained
may not represent the real environmental and actual human beha-
vioral conditions as this is done with constant boundary conditions.
The limitation in laboratory testing has led to the need to conduct
field measurements under dynamic conditions. Results produced by
this method are close to the actual conditions in which the building
located and operated. Field measurements can be conducted in test
cells or test houses which are built and exposed to actual climatic
conditions. Many researchers e.g. Medina, Levins and Karnitz, Hall,
Winiarski and O’Neal, etc. had conducted field testing using side-by-
side test cells or unoccupied test houses. Under this testing protocol,
all test cells or test houses set-up will be made identical in all aspects
prior to retrofitting radiant barrier. One of the units without radiant
barrier will serve as the control or reference unit while the rest will
be installed with radiant barrier. This allows direct comparisons be-
tween the control unit and retrofit unit. There were researches done
using pre-and-post testing protocol [19,20]. Parker and Sherwin [20]
conducted the pre-and-post testing in actual occupied houses. Data
obtained from pre-retrofit period will be compared to post-installa-
tion period to determine its performance. Although field testing of-
fers more realistic results, it is more complex as environmental
variables are uncontrollable. This can be seen in the pre-and-post
testing protocol where it is difficult to find two identical testing
periods with exact climatic conditions thus making a fair compar-
isons difficult. Side-by-side testing using unoccupied test cells or test
houses does offer a better alternative. With this protocol, although
some researchers encountered units differences in results when
performing null tests, normalization of data will usually be done to
factor in the differences. Another drawback of field measurements is
the limited roof configurations one can test due to time period
constraints of certain climatic conditions in a year.
648 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661

Table 1
Thermal performance of radiant barrier in reducing heat flux during SUMMER season.

Although given the complexities and limitations of field mea-
surement, it is still essential in order to provide high quality data
for the development of computer simulation model. Developed
simulation model will be validated by comparing actual results
obtained from field experiments. Some researchers had used this
method to study the performance of radiant barrier under variety
of climatic conditions. This method is important especially in
parametric analysis in which wide-ranging environmental and
building parameters can be studied in a short period of time.
Computer simulation model can cater for steady-state or transient
conditions of testing. While some environmental or climatic
variables are not being simulated by computer model, differences
may arise between predicted results and measured results.
4.3. Measure of thermal performance in terms of heat flux, thermal
load and attic temperature
Thermal performance of radiant barrier can be assessed in a
number of ways. While the literatures reviewed mostly discussed
in terms of heat flux, thermal load and attic air temperature, dis-
cussions will be centered on these areas.
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Table 2
Thermal performance of radiant barrier in reducing heat flux during WINTER season.
4.3.1. Heat flux
The earliest extensive experiments to evaluate the performance
of radiant barrier system were spearheaded by Joy [21] in 1958. Joy
performed the tests in a steady-state laboratory using attic test
module. Perforated radiant barrier was placed on top of ceiling
insulation. Results from Joy’s tests showed radiant barrier could
produce 25–50% reduction of heat flux under simulated summer
conditions in relative to control test with no radiant barrier. This is
in close agreement to the average percentage reductions of 26–50%
in Table 1.
Table 1 shows the percentage of heat flux reduction to condi-
tioned space during summer seasons in relative to no radiant
barrier case. Computer simulation model showed that radiant
barrier can reduce average 35–36% heat flux as compared to
building without this system. This is within the range of results
produced by various field measurements which gave an average
reductions ranged from 26% to 47%. Results from laboratory ex-
periments showed a slightly higher performance with heat flux
reductions varied from 39% to 50% averagely. This could be due to
laboratory testing were conducted under steady-state conditions
which did not take into consideration variables that might affect
the performance of radiant barrier. As mentioned in Section 4.1,
during winter radiant barrier may not be as effective as during
summer seasons. This can be seen from Table 2 which shows the
percentage of heat flux reduction from conditioned space to ceil-
ing was only at average in between 7% and 13%. The exception case
was the laboratory testing conducted by Petrie et al. [22] in an
attic test module which found that there was an increase of heat
loss or heating penalty of 37% under mild winter condition with
ducts in the attic.
When analyzing the performance of radiant barrier under
various ceiling floor insulation level, it is observed that percentage
of heat flux decreases with increase in the floor insulation level
during summer. This trend was obvious from the results produced
by field measurements. Medina [23] in her study explained one
649
possible reason could be due to the surface temperature of radiant
barrier and other attic structures will increase with the increase of
ceiling insulation level as more heat is being trapped. This higher
temperatures cause more radiant heat exchange to occur which
makes the percentage of heat flux reduction become smaller in
relative. The only exception to this trend was the pre-and-post
field testing performed by Hageman and Modera [19] which
showed a 44% reduction in heat flux under R-38 (6.69 m2K/W)
ceiling floor insulation. This reduction is higher than those pro-
duced under R-19 (3.35 m2K/W) or R-30 (5.28 m2K/W). This could
be due to the reduction of heat gain by HVAC ductworks which is
located in the attic. During winter, ceiling insulation level does not
have very significant effect on the performance of radiant barrier.
Based on Table 2, it is observed that average percentage of heat
flux reduction achieved under R-19 (3.35 m2 K/W) and R-30
(5.28 m2 K/W) insulation level is about the same.
It is further observed from the field measurements results in
Table 1 that location of radiant barrier in the roof system produced
different magnitude of heat flux reduction in summer. Under
ceiling insulation R-19 (3.35 m2K/W), radiant barrier installed
horizontally on top of ceiling insulation yielded reductions ranged
from 30% to 40% with an average of 35%. Radiant barrier mounted
on the rafter or truss section and attached to the underside of roof
sheathing or decking produced an average reductions of 28% and
16% respectively. This is agreeable to the field studies conducted by
Levins and Karnitz [24], Hall [25], Ober [26] and laboratory mea-
surements by Katipamula [27] which in their research found that
radiant barrier laid horizontally over ceiling insulation performed
better than truss or rafter mounted radiant barrier. However,
Fairey et al. [28] and Al-Asmar et al. [29] in their studies found that
the location of radiant barrier in the attic did not show significant
effect in ceiling heat flux reduction. This is because Fairey et al.
conducted the test in carefully constructed and controlled building
in Florida Solar Energy Center's passive cooling laboratory with
low-emittance material covering the side and end walls of the
650 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Table 3
Thermal performance of radiant barrier in reducing cooling load during SUMMER season.
attics and parallel ventilation air flow to the attic framing mem-
bers. Whereas testing by Levins and Karnitz in the research houses
in Tennessee were having high-emittance gable and walls with
perpendicular ventilation air flow. These could be in part con-
tributed to the opposing conclusions from the researchers.
From Table 2, we observed the same trend during heating
seasons in which horizontal laid radiant barrier performed better
than that mounted on rafter or truss under all three levels of
ceiling insulation in the field measurements conducted by Levins
and Karnitz [30], Hall [25,31] and Medina [32].
4.3.2. Thermal load
As ceiling heat flux only made up one of the components that
contribute to the overall thermal loads of a building, its per-
centage of reduction in relative to control unit with no radiant
barrier will be much lesser than that seen in heat flux reduction.
From Table 3, average cooling load reductions during summer
ranged from 6% to 16% for the three testing methodologies
namely computer simulation model, field and laboratory mea-
surements. Table 4 shows an average of 2–9% heating load
reductions during winter time. In a research using computer
simulation model as conducted by Davis Energy Group for
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) [17] showed that higher
reductions of cooling and heating load were seen with the de-
crease in ceiling insulation level from R-30 (5.28 m2K/W) to
R-11 (1.94 m2 K/W). However this correlation may not be seen
for ceiling insulation R-38 (6.69 m2K/W) for both computer si-
mulation and field measurement during the cooling seasons.
Results from Davis’ simulation found that with ceiling insulation
R-38 (6.69 m2 K/W) higher cooling load reduction with average
10% was yielded as compared to R-30 (5.28 m2K/W) level with
average 7%. This could be due to one of the test cities were si-
mulated using Mediterranean climate which derived the higher
reduction. While field studies done by Hageman and Modera
[19] showed an average reduction of 16% with R-38 (6.69 m2 K/
W) level which was higher than the average achieved under
other lower ceiling insulation levels. In Parker and Sherwin's
study [20] in actual occupied residential houses, two of the test
houses recorded negative reductions of 8% and 5% which means
increase in cooling load. The authors explained that this was
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661 651

Table 4
Thermal performance of radiant barrier in reducing heating load during WINTER season.

Table 5
Thermal performance of radiant barrier in reducing attic air temperature SUMMER season.

partly due to the lowering and frequent changes of cooling which showed radiant barrier laid horizontally over ceiling in-
thermostat set temperature by the household during the post sulation performed better than truss mounted configuration in
retrofit period. Again we observe the same trend as in heat flux reducing thermal load during heating and cooling seasons.
for the field tests done by Levins and Karnitz [24,30,33,34]
652 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661

Table 6
Analysis of parameters that affect the performance of radiant barrier.

4.3.3. Attic air temperature
Table 5 summarizes the decrease in attic temperatures by the
installation of radiant barrier. The average reductions produced by
this system ranged from 4 °C to 10 °C depending on the level of
ceiling insulation. With attics containing R-9 (1.59 m2 K/W),
R-11 (1.94 m2 K/W), R-12 (2.11 m2 K/W), R-19 (3.35 m2 K/W) and
R-30 (5.28 m2 K/W) insulation in the field measurements, units
installed with radiant barriers were seen to have lower attic
temperature by an average of 5 °C to 6 °C. Attic with R-38
(6.69 m2 K/W) insulation reported a reduction of 10 °C. Computer

Table 7
Effect of radiant barrier on roof surface temperature.
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
Fig. 9. Large scale climate simulator.
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
simulation run by Medina [15] indicated under R-19 (3.35 m2
K/W) ceiling insulation, attic temperature reductions ranged from
3 °C to 5 °C with average 4 °C. Levins and Karnitz [35] and Al-As-
mar [29] found that radiant barrier laid horizontally over ceiling
insulation had small effect on the attic air temperature. Hall [31]
stated that the reduction of attic air temperature could further
lead to more savings as a result of reduced heat gain by HVAC
ductworks which are located in attic in some buildings. This is
evidenced by Hageman and Modera's [19] study which suggested
cooling load reduction of 16% with 10 °C lower attic temperature
for R-38 (6.69 m2 K/W) ceiling insulation.
The key measures of radiant barrier performance discussed so
far were heat flux, thermal load and attic air temperature. Chang
PC et al. [36] had conducted testing in Taiwan by incorporating
radiant barrier system into double roof prototypes which mea-
sured the performance of radiant barrier in terms of thermal
transmittance or U-value of the roof. It is shown that this system
can reduce thermal transmittance in roof from 3 W/m2 K in pro-
totype without radiant barrier to 1 W/m2 K in the case with ra-
diant barrier.
4.4. Analysis of parameters that affect the thermal performance
While studies conducted to assess the thermal performance of
radiant barrier are important, efforts in the evaluation of para-
meters that influence its effectiveness is equally crucial. By iden-
tifying the parameters that have significant effect over this system,
will help in the design or retrofit of an effective thermal insulation
system for a building.
Table 6 demonstrates a brief summary of the parametric stu-
dies conducted by researchers on some parameters. Besides cli-
mates as discussed in Section 4.1, ambient air temperature and
radiant barrier surface emittance were seen to be parameters
having significant effect on the performance of radiant barrier.
Findings from Winiarski and O’Neal's [37] and Medina's [38]
parametric simulations showed that for both truss and horizontal
configurations, a small change in radiant barrier emissivity would
cause a relatively significant changes in the amount of heat flux
during summer season. However, Medina further stated that
during winter season with higher emissivity, radiant barrier al-
lowed more heat flow into the conditioned space which is desired.
Roels and Deurinck [39] investigated the influence of reflective
653
roof underlay's emissivity on thermal performance of pitched roof.
Their studies revealed that the lower the emissivity especially with
value less than 0.25, the higher the reduction of heat flows or gain
to the conditioned space.
Medina and Young [16] in their parametric study on climate
and local environmental variables found that besides ambient air
temperature, relative humidity, sky cloud cover index and altitude
were other parameters that were having first order effect. Studies
by Winiarski and O’Neal [37] indicated that airspace thickness
beneath horizontal laid radiant barrier was having great effect
while airspace created above truss mounted configuration was
only having little effect. This is contrary to Asadi et al.’s [40]
findings using finite element method which showed air gap
thickness between roof deck and truss mounted radiant barrier
was having significant effect.
Location and condition of HVAC ductworks appeared to be
another important parameter that had significant effect on the
effectiveness of radiant barrier. Greatest savings can be achieved
with radiant barrier when uninsulated or poorly insulated HVAC
ducts are located in attic [13,18]. In an attic simulation studies
conducted by Davis Energy Group [17] for six cities in the United
States showed that average cooling load reductions for the six ci-
ties increased 27% with ductworks located in attic over R-19
(3.35 m2 K/W) ceiling insulation, in relative to non-duct attic.
Hageman and Modera [19] from their studies discovered that
about 80% of savings produced by radiant barrier is attributed to
the reduced heat gain by the HVAC ductwork system located in
attic. In addition, results from simulation done by Moujaes and
Brickman [41] indicated significant reduction of heat gain (i.e. al-
most 50%) to attic with radiant barrier system and this great re-
duction was mainly due to decrease in heat pick-up by the duct
system installed in attic. Petrie et al. [22] too found out under
severe summer conditions radiant barrier performed better when
ducts were in place in attic i.e. 34% decrease in heat gain with duct
versus 29% without ducts. Nevertheless, simulation for mild win-
ter conditions revealed an average 37% increase in heat loss with
ducts in the attic.
Ventilation plays a role in the roof attic system as it carries
away heat from attic in summer and removes excess moisture in
winter. Yet, performance of radiant barrier is only somewhat
sensitive to attic ventilation flow rate as found out by some re-
searchers. Medina et al. [38,42] and Fairey and Swami [43] in their
studies discovered that radiant barrier effectiveness was only
sensitive to attic ventilation flow rate until a critical level of
0.25 cfm/ft2(1.3 l/s/m2) after which no noticeable changes in ra-
diant barrier performance was observed. Investigation from
Medina [38] indicated that the critical level of 0.25 cfm/ft2(1.3 l/s/
m2) was for radiant barrier laid horizontal over ceiling insulation
while a higher level of 1 cfm/ft2 (5.1 l/s/m2) was for truss mounted
radiant barrier. Moujaes [44] too in his research paper stated the
decrease in cooling load was not proportional to the airflow which
further proved that excessive amounts of ventilation will not help
to reduce the cooling load. Because of the limiting level of venti-
lation, radiant barrier is only somewhat sensitive to this para-
meter. Having said that, by having vented attic compared to non-
vented, many researchers had proved that radiant barrier system
performed better. Major findings from Al-Asmar [29] showed that
with ventilation in attic, radiant barrier produced more heat flux
reduction (ranged from 24% to 42%) than when the attic was not
ventilated (from 17% to 26%). Parker and Sherwin's [45] testing
showed that by increasing ventilation rate (opening/ceiling area)
from 1:300 to 1:150 radiant barrier yielded 10% increase in heat
flux reduction from a 26% to a 36% reduction. Miranville et al. [46]
also proved that this system is more effective with ventilated air
654 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
gap between rooftop and radiant barrier compared to non-venti-
lated case. Miranville et al. [47] further conducted testing on the
influence of ventilation and found that with the increase of airflow
rate the percentage of reduction in heat flux increased. Soubdhan
et al. [48] did a comparison of performance between other in-
sulation materials and radiant barrier found that when roof air
layer was ventilated, radiant barrier provides a better insulation. It
is therefore undeniable that ventilation is important for this sys-
tem. Joy's [21] steady-state radiant barrier tests reported this
system performed better in attic with ventilation air flow parallel
rather than air flow perpendicular to ceiling joists. It was noted
that the geometries of Joy's test attics were different with parallel
air flow in a flat roof attic whereas perpendicular air flow in a
pitched roof with vented gable. So far the papers have discussed
the influence of ventilation on radiant barrier during summer
time. Medina [32] in her studies during winter season discovered
that the magnitude of ceiling heat flux reduction due to radiant
barrier was more in non-vented attic compared to vented attic in
both horizontal and truss mounted configurations.
Although Asadi and Hassan [49] in their parametric study
concluded that ambient air temperature and solar radiation being
parameters that were having significant effect, they further ex-
plained that solar radiation alone does not affect the performance
of radiant barrier. It is more of the effect of solar radiation which
drives the ambient air temperatures and relative humidity that
radiant barrier is sensitive to. Medina and Young [16] and Fairey
et al. [28,43] suggested that solar radiation only having second
order or little effect on radiant barrier performance. On totally
clear days and somewhat overcast days, this system's effectiveness
were almost the same and only slight variations in ceiling heat flux
reductions was observed for solar radiation greater than 1500 Btu/
day (1600 kJ/day) [42].
Other parameters which were having second order or little
effects include exterior roof surface emissivity or absorptivity, ra-
diant barrier coverage, roof slope, ceiling insulation level, condi-
tioned room temperature and radiant barrier location. As ex-
plained in Section 4.3.1 that Fairey's report showed radiant barrier
location having little effect as compared to significant performance
variations with different locations under Levins and Karnitz's field
tests was due to differences in the test set-up.
4.5. Effect of radiant barrier on roof surface temperature
Table 7 summarizes the increase in roof surface temperature
for roof installed with radiant barrier. Average increase for all le-
vels of ceiling insulation is about 1 °C to 3 °C. Results from various
studies or testing done as shown in Table 7 were agreeable to
Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet 2010 [13] which stated that truss
mounted radiant barrier can increase roof temperature by 2 °F
(1 °C) to 10 °F (6 °C) while horizontal laid radiant barrier may
cause a smaller increase of 2 °F (1 °C) or less.
5. Reflective insulation system
The significant difference between radiant barrier and re-
flective insulation is the former facing an open and usually ven-
tilated airspace while the latter functions in a single or multiple
enclosed airspace(s) with no leakage created by the reflective in-
sulation product. This indicates the important role of airspace in
both insulation systems with confined airspace(s) crucial for this
second type of reflective thermal insulation. From the literatures
reviewed, many were discussing about the reflective airspace this
system created and the methods involved in evaluating its thermal
resistance which our discussions in the following sections will
focus on.
5.1. Properties of enclosed reflective airspace(s) on thermal
resistance
While open air with ventilation may cause greater heat transfer
especially when the air flow is turbulent, enclosed airspaces with
assumed no leakage will make the air within become still. Ac-
cording to the Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Condition-
ing and Heating Technical Handbook [59] (hereinafter referred to
as “AIRAH”), “the air must be still to be a good insulator”. By adding a
reflective material facing the still air will provide further insulation
resistance level and this enclosed assembly becomes reflective
airspace. Reflective airspace aims at minimizing (if not eliminate)
convection current with its confined cavity(s) and radiation with
its low-emittance surface. Although some reflective insulation
products e.g. reflective bubble foil will have small R-value inherent
in the material itself while the major resistance generally comes
from the reflective airspace(s) it created when installed in a
building section.
Many studies had been done on reflective airspace since 1930s
as reported by Goss and Miller [60] in their literature reviews.
From this review we can see how the concept of using metallic
surfaces separated by airspaces was first started and its develop-
ment throughout the years from 1900 to 1989. The following
paragraph briefly reviews the studies done on reflective airspaces
as presented in Goss and Miller's paper. Comparisons to the much
later literatures by other researchers were also included wherever
necessary.
Queer [61] found that by increasing the airspace width and
height up to a level would increase its thermal resistance. The
optimum width spacing as suggested by Queer was 19 mm. In-
vestigation from Mason [62] also discovered the optimum spacing
for airspace width was between 15 mm and 18 mm which is close
to Queer's findings. Babbit [63] conducted hot plate tests on the
effect of height on the airspace thermal resistance. Results from
the tests showed that cell with 0.152 m height had lower thermal
resistance values than higher cell at 0.305 m height. The author
further discovered that at airspace width less than 10.2 mm con-
vection was not significant. This is consistent to a much later
presentation by Fricker and Yarbrough [64] in 2011 that stated for
air gaps less than 10 mm heat transfer by convection is absent.
Babbit's test results were derived from small heights using hot
plate while Wilkes and Peterson [65] did a full-scale testing of
2.4 m high by 101.6 mm thick for five different airspace positions
with one surface being aluminium. They found convection heat
flow to be greater at small heights diminishing at about 0.38 m
and become constant above 0.61 m. This again indicated that
thermal heat transfer of reflective airspace is greater at lower
height or in other words, thermal resistance of reflective airspace
is greater at higher height. Mason [62] further found that with
insulations having six to eight airspaces convection was very little
and probably negligible. This concept was further pointed out by
King [66] that partition a given airspace into multiple airspaces
will reduce the radiative and convective heat transfer. These im-
plied that by having more than one enclosed airspaces will further
increase the thermal resistance of the insulation system. This is
also agreeable to the aforementioned presentation by Fricker and
Yarbrough [64] that stated two air gaps with half the temperature
difference will provide higher thermal resistance value than a
single air gap with greater single temperature difference. Calcu-
lations from Fricker [67] revealed that thermal resistance of roof
improved from 0.9 m2 K/W with single 50 mm reflective cavity to
1.5 m2K/W with double 25 mm reflective cavities. Heat flow di-
rection is also an important factor that influences convection in
airspace. Wilkes and Peterson's [65] large-scale testing found that
convection coefficient of heat flow upward was about five times
more than heat flow downward. This trend was again seen in the
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661 655

subsequent testing done by Wilkes et al. [68]. Besides airspace

height, width, number of airspace and heat flow direction, results
from studies done also showed a relationship between airspace
thermal resistance and temperature difference across airspace.
Data from tests using calorimeter and guarded hot box as pre-
sented by Wilkes et al. [68] and Wilkes [69] showed that in-
creasing temperature difference will cause decreasing airspace
thermal resistance. Handegord and Hutcheon [70,71] investigated
the influence of convection in frame walls with airspaces. They
discovered that with increasing height, the rate of heat flow into
the wall decreased. This is because with increasing height the
temperature difference across the airspace decreased and con- Fig. 10. Rotatable guarded hot box.
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
vection currents became lesser leading to increased airspace
thermal resistance.
Goss and Miller [60] did a comparisons between airspace
thermal resistance data from Wilkes et al.'s [68] guarded hot box
measurements and calculated thermal resistance values using
Yarbrough's [72] convection equation and the standard Stefan-
Boltzman radiation equation. It was found that for non-reflective
airspace, thermal resistance values agreed to within about 6%
while for reflective airspaces, the difference was big ranged from
6% to more than 37%. For both airspaces, the calculated thermal
resistance values were greater than the measured values.
In a more recent paper presented by Fricker [67] in 1997 on the
analysis of reflective airspaces summarized the properties of re-
flective air cavities based upon Robinson and Powell's [73] re-
search paper in 1954. Fricker illustrated as follows: -

i) The brighter the surfaces, the greater the airspace thermal

resistance. It is equally effective for a bright surface facing a
dull surface or for both bright surfaces facing each other.
ii) In general, greater thermal resistance especially for heat flow
downwards is seen with greater air gap.
iii) The greater the temperature difference across the cavity, the
lower thermal resistance. This effect is obvious for heat flow
up because of convective heat transfer.
iv) For heat flow down in particular, the greater the cavity mean
temperature, the lower the thermal resistance.
v) For horizontal airspaces, convective current is greatest for heat
flow up and least for heat flow down. While in pitched and
vertical airspaces, convection currents and thermal resistance
are only at intermediate level.
Generally, thermal resistance of reflective insulation is influ-
enced by factors that include airspace temperature (i.e. mean and
temperature difference across the air cavity), emissivity of all
bounding surfaces, airspace (i.e. size and orientation) and direction
of heat flow [12,59,74].
5.2. Methods for evaluation of thermal resistance (R-values)
As discussed in Section 4.3, performance of radiant barrier
system is usually assessed in terms of reduced heat flux and
thermal load, performance of reflective insulation system is eval-
uated with reference to its thermal resistance i.e. R-value. There-
fore defining methods for evaluating the R-value is important but
this is also an uncertain aspect or problem faced by researchers.
From Goss and Miller's [60] review paper, it was seen that re-
searchers since earlier days in 1930s were using guarded hot plate
and guarded hot box (as shown in Fig. 10) to measure the thermal
resistance of this system.
Subsequently in 1980s there were studies performed with a
calibrated hot box. Miller et al. [75] stated that both guarded hot
box and guarded hot plates have its limitation in that they only
measure the heat transfer through the center of the test panels
which contain the reflective insulation material. So there may be
Fig. 11. Heat flow meter apparatus.
errors or inaccuracy in the R-value measured using these methods.
However, Miller further added that the magnitude of this mea-
surement error should be less for a guarded hot box as its height to
width ratio of the airspace is able to simulate a full-scale system
compared to guarded hot plate. To test reflective insulation with a
small specimen a heat flow meter apparatus (as shown in Fig. 11)
can be used. According to Yarbrough [12] this type of apparatus
usually limit the air gaps to less than 50 mm.
Despite that ASTM C518 [76] provides test method using heat
flow meter to measure the R-value of small specimens, Saber [74]
in his study revealed that using this testing method will under-
estimate the effective R-value of the testing assemblies with re-
flective insulation. The author further recommended matching the
size of the heat flux transducers in the heat flow meter to the top
and bottom surfaces of the testing assemblies to enable a more
accurate measurement. Investigations conducted by Craven and
Garber-Slaght [77] for Cold Climate Housing Research Center
(CCHRC) too found that the measured airspace R-values using heat
flow meter in accordance to ASTM C518 were lower than the
predicted values in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-conditioning Engineers HVAC Fundamentals Handbook
[78] (hereinafter referred to as “ASHRAE”) which were derived
from experimental testing using guarded hot box. Another short-
coming of the hot plate or heat flow meter measurement is the
emissivity of the plates usually differs from actual building ma-
terials which have higher emissivity. This will produce resistance
value different from real application [79].
Robinson and Powell [73] did an extensive experiments using
guarded hot box and data from their testing formed the basis of
airspace R-values found in ASHRAE and AIRAH handbooks [60,64].
As pointed out in Goss and Miller's [60] review paper that the
R-values from Robinson and Powell's experiments only apply to
656 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
ideal conditions i.e. uniform airspace thickness, parallel surfaces
with no air leakage into or out from the cavity or between cavities
if more than one spaces were used. However, actual field condi-
tions may differ from these mentioned ideal or “perfect” condi-
tions. As a result considerable care should be taken when applying
the listed R-values in these handbooks in which its basis was de-
rived from Robinson and Powell's data in 1954. Otherwise it will
result in significant errors in evaluating the thermal performance
of this reflective insulation system. Robinson et al. [80] did a fol-
low-up study on the effect of non-uniform thickness of reflective
airspace found that the thermal resistance decreased. The re-
sistance values were 50–90% of the uniform airspace thickness
[64]. This discrepancy between measured and listed R-value was
further proven by the experiments performed by Hollingsworth
[81] and Greason [82] using large calibrated hot box to simulate a
wall application. Both concluded that measured R-values for re-
flective airspaces were significantly lower than ASHRAE airspace
R-values.
In 1983, by using results from Robinson and Powell [73], Yar-
brough [72] developed an one-dimensional model for predicting
the thermal resistance of multiple reflective and non-reflective
airspaces. This model is recommended as alternative to the ASH-
RAE airspace R-values. Using this one-dimensional model, Yar-
brough compared results from model calculations with his and
Hollingsworth's earlier experimental results. Again, it was found
that this one-dimensional model calculation significantly over-
predicted R-values of experimental values. In view of these dis-
crepancies, Yarbrough recommended the need for a multi-di-
mensional model. Seifaee [83] and Miller et al. [75] developed a
three-dimensional finite element analysis incorporating the flange
thermal bridge used to attach the reflective materials to the wood
stud could predict quite well the experimental results. Therefore
Miller et al. [75] too recommended the use of two and three di-
mensional analytical models to predict the thermal resistance
values for reflective airspaces.
In 2011, Fricker and Yarbrough [64] presented four computa-
tional methods for predicting thermal resistance of enclosed re-
flective airspaces. The first three methods were using computer
software namely Reflect2, Reflect3 and Res2. Yarbrough's Reflect2
program is based on the original hot box measurements for re-
flective airspace by Robinson and Powell in 1954. Reflect3 with
incorporation of Yarbrough's polynomial curve fit algorithms was
recommended by the Aluminium Foil Insulation Association
(Australia) as the software for calculation of thermal resistance as
per Australian/New Zealand standard AS/NZS 4859.1:2002 [84].
Res2 is software developed by Fricker in 1997 which like Reflect2
is based on the data from Robinson and Powell. The fourth method
is by using simplified algorithms contained in ISO 6946 [85] to
calculate the thermal resistance of reflective insulation. Fricker and
Yarbrough also did a comparison on the results produced from
these four methods. They found results from all four agreed closely
for air gap less than 10 mm thickness as convection was not pre-
sent in that small gap. Nevertheless, with increasing gap, natural
convection starts to form and dominate which caused the results
to differ from one another. This is due to the differences in esti-
mation of convective component. Overall, the authors found good
agreement for results obtained from Res2 and Reflect2 with less
than 4% difference for 5 mm to 200 mm air gaps. Curves plotted
using results from Res2 and Reflect2 were seen to be more con-
sistent than the ISO 6946 and Reflect3 curves. Overall the results
were generally agreed to within 10% and 4% if ISO 6946 results
were not included. It should be highlighted that the underlying
assumption in all four methods is the one-dimensional heat
transfer between infinite parallel planes which may not represent
the actual construction that includes the framing members con-
necting the planes which will absorb, emit and reflect radiant heat.
Researchers in an effort to predict correct R-values did some
comparisons between the measurement methods and prediction
method using some of the available standards or handbooks. Uv-
slokk and Arnesen [86] had done a comparison of thermal re-
sistance values between calculation and measurement methods.
Calculations were according to ISO 15099 [87] and EN ISO 6946
[88]. The authors were of the opinion ISO 15099 is the most up-
dated international standard for heat transfer in closed cavities
while algorithms in EN ISO 6946 for natural convection are more
simplified hence produces lower airspace R-values. Measurements
were performed using large hot box and heat flow meter in a
timber frame wall of full height (2.4 m). It was discovered that
calculated values per ISO 15099 compared well to hot box mea-
sured U-values. However, measured values from heat flow meter
gave a higher R-value of cavities which the authors considered as
too high because the circular metering area of heat flow meter
located at the middle height of wall air cavity was not large en-
ough to capture the convection current at the top and bottom of
the air cavity. From the plotted curves in Uvslokk and Arnesen's
testing, calculated values according to ISO 15099 and EN ISO 6946
showed very good agreement up to air gap thickness of 20 mm.
After 20 mm thickness R-values became constant under EN ISO
6946. The constant R-values after this thickness were also seen in
Fricker and Yarbrough's [64] graph for wall calculation using ISO
6946 [85]. This showed that the optimum thickness under ISO
6946 is about 20 mm. Thickness past this level will not cause the
thermal resistance value to change.
Given the simplified algorithms in ISO 6946, Baldinelli [79] like
Uvslokk and Arnesen too suggested another standard i.e. ISO
15099 but stated that with certain conditions i.e. temperature
differences do not exceed 5 K and average temperature of the
surfaces limited to 273–313 K range, the R-value differences pro-
duced by these two methods were less than 6%. So the author
further added that the simplified model of ISO 6946 can be used if
the aforesaid conditions are followed. Comparisons of results
made by Baldinelli showed that thermal resistance of two air gaps
in field measurement per ISO 9869 [89] compared well with the
value from calculation of ISO 6946. He found that guarded hot
plate and hot box gave a slightly higher R-value, probably due to
the limited space within which restricts the convective currents as
found in real environment conditions.
In an attempt to compare the predicted R-values using simu-
lation model with the listed R-values in the ASHRAE handbook for
different inclination angles and heat flow directions, Saber [74]
found good agreement for all values of emissivity for 45° inclined
cavity (upward heat flow) and horizontal cavity (downward heat
flow). Significant differences with higher ASHRAE R-values were
seen for vertical cavity (horizontal heat flow), 45° inclined cavity
(downward heat flow) and horizontal cavity (upward heat flow) at
low emissivity.
Although uncertainties exist in the different evaluation methods
as discussed above, constructing a full-scale test building for in-situ
experiments or large hot box facility may not be commercially fea-
sible to many. Therefore relying simplified calculation method per
international standard or computer programs as discussed above will
serve as a better choice especially for the purpose of comparing
thermal performance of different test configurations.
5.3. Application of reflective insulation in building
As compared to radiant barrier system which applications are
more common in the roof system, reflective insulation systems are
often found in wall structure from the limited literatures reviewed
in this paper.
Vrachopoulos et al. [90] conducted evaluation of reflective in-
sulation in wall using a small scale test chamber exposed to
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
outdoor conditions. Reflective insulation was inserted in between
wall air gap creating 10 mm air gap thickness on each side of the
reflective material. During winter period, the reflective insulation
system helped to retain heat in the test chamber by reflecting heat
into the interior causing stabilization of indoor temperature. The
inner wall temperature remained quite constant from 10 °C to
12 °C while greater temperature fluctuations of 4 °C to 16 °C were
seen on the outer wall temperatures. During summer time, re-
flective insulation will block the radiation heat from entering the
interior hence able to maintain temperature on the surface of in-
ternal wall about 23 °C to 27 °C throughout the whole day while
temperature on the external wall surface swung from 17 °C in the
morning to about 32 °C in the afternoon. These stability of tem-
peratures during both seasons helped to lighten the thermal load
for the air-conditioning system leading to cost savings.
Field measurement using test cell conducted by Baldinelli [79]
to evaluate the thermal performance of reflective insulation in wall
showed with the insertion of low-e panel in between air gap in the
wall structures increased the overall R-value by 1.236 m2 K/W.
Fricker [67] did some calculations in accordance to the R-value
data in AIRAH handbook for reflective insulation applied to roof
and wall system under both winter and summer seasons. Results
clearly showed that with addition of reflective airspace the overall
thermal resistance of these two building sections increased with
greater increment seen under summer for roof while calculated
R-values for wall under both seasons are similar.
However, based on the samples assemblies tested in CCHRC
[77], Craven and Garber-Slaght concluded the contribution of
R-value created by reflective insulation system to overall R-value
of a wall assembly was very modest compared to the minimum
prescriptive values by local law especially in cold climates like
Alaska.
6. Degradation of reflective surface emittance
It has been pointed out in Sections 4.4 and 5.1 that emissivity of
the reflective surface plays an important role in the thermal per-
formance of both radiant barrier and reflective insulation systems.
Therefore preserving or maintaining the reflective surface initial
low-emittance property after installation becomes an issue merits
considerable attention. From the limited available literatures in
this aspect, we will discuss the following elements which may
cause the surface emittance to degrade:-
a) Dust and other contaminants
b) Moisture condensation
c) Corrosion
d) Oxide films
6.1. Dust and other contaminants
Dust and other contaminants which include fly ash, pollen and
fibers [91] may accumulate over time especially on the upward
facing foil which is placed horizontally. From the literatures re-
viewed, studies done on this element were focus on the rate of
dust buildup over the foil area, its impact on foil emissivity and as
a result how this affects the foil thermal performance in the in-
sulation system.
The earlier study in mid 1960s on the dust effects on reflective
foils was conducted by Lotz [92] over five occupied homes in
South Africa. His findings showed that for the four houses with
vented attic dust accumulated and covered the foil surface at an
average of 28.6% per year with estimated total coverage in about
five years. While for the remaining one house with sealed attic
dust collection rate was shown to be at 7% per year. Although
657
emissivity of the samples foil were not measured, with dust
buildup it was observed the larger the percentage area covered by
dust the higher the rate of heat flow through ceiling.
Hall [31] in an attempt to find out the effect of dust during his
summer testing in 1986 was surprised by the outcome that
showed similar ceiling heat flux reduction in the horizontal ra-
diant barrier with loaded Arizona dusts as compared to a clean
barrier of the same position. This unexpected finding had led Hall
to conduct more testing during the summer of 1987. In this sub-
sequent test [93,94], Hall conducted them in five small test cells
(4.46 m2) that were exposed to ambient conditions. Arizona dusts
were used in the tests. The author reported 1.27 mg/cm2 and
2.54 mg/cm2 dust loading caused the emissivity increased to 0.43
and 0.51 respectively. Lighter dust loading of 0.69 mg/cm2 was
seen to increase the average emissivity to 0.34. The dust loading
with emissivity 0.43 and 0.51 had caused respective 25% and 19%
heat flux reductions as compared to no radiant barrier case. These
reductions were significantly lower than the clean barrier which
yielded average 35–40% reductions. The lighter dust loading with
emissivity 0.34 degraded the effectiveness in reducing heat flux by
about one third in relative to clean horizontal radiant barrier.
While Hall's testing in 1987 were in smaller test cells, during
the summer of following year Levins et al. [95] did a large-scale
test on the effect of dust at three unoccupied research houses in
Tennessee. Horizontal radiant barrier in two houses were loaded
with Arizona dust with 0.74 mg/cm2 and 0.34 mg/cm2 each. When
compared to a clean horizontal radiant barrier in the same house it
was observed an increase of cooling load and attic heat flow after
dusts were applied to the barrier. With the heavier dust loading
(0.74 mg/cm2), cooling load and heat flow increased by 8.4% and
28.4% respectively. In contrast, a lower increase of cooling load (i.e.
2.3%) and heat flow (i.e. 12.6%) were seen in the house with lighter
dust loading. In terms of emissivity for the dusted barriers, the
actual measured values were 0.125 for 0.34 mg/cm2 dust loading
and 0.185 for the heavier dust loading of 0.74 mg/cm2. When
compared to Hall's emissivity results, we can see that with dust
loading of 0.69 mg/cm2 the emissivity value (0.34) was higher
than Levins et al.'s value (0.185) for an even heavier loading of
0.74 mg/cm2. Differences in the emissivity value with same type of
dust and quantity of loading as compared to Hall and Levins et al.'s
testing were also seen in Cook et al.'s [91] laboratory measure-
ments. Cook et al.'s emissivity recorded a higher value. Cook et al.
stated these differences could partly due to sample preparation.
As aforesaid, Cook et al.'s measured emissivity values were
different from that of Hall and Levins et al., but the effect of dust
on foil emissivity agreed qualitatively with the latter which hea-
vier dust loading will cause higher increase in the emissivity value.
Cook et al. extended the tests to include two more different types
of dust i.e. dust from home interiors and dust from attic spaces in
Tennessee. Principal findings from Cook et al.'s laboratory mea-
surement using emissometer showed the increase of emissivity
will reach maximum values of 0.674, 0.791 and 0.849 with in-
creasing loading of Arizona dust, attic dust and dust from home
interiors respectively. After reaching the maximum value, addi-
tional dust loading will not cause the foil emissivity to increase.
These values also denote the worst possible emissivity value if
thick layer of dust has buildup and also represent the emissivity of
the dust itself [59,96]. Measurement on actual foil samples taken
from seven residential attics in Chicago where radiant barriers had
been installed from 39 to 52 months showed an average emissivity
of 0.239. This average emissivity appeared to be somewhat lower
than Lund's [97] measured foil emissivity for three residential
houses over three years. Lund's measured emissivity values after
three years for the three houses were 0.207, 0.341 and 0.432 which
Lund attributed dust buildup over the three years as reason for the
emissivity increase. With the average emissivity of 0.239, Cook
658 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
et al. by using a dynamic thermal model predicted a 46% decrease
in the foil effectiveness in reducing ceiling heat flux as compared
to a clean horizontally laid foil. On the other hand, Wilkes [98] by
using his developed thermal model predicted that with increases
in emissivity the drop-offs in cooling load reduction was faster
than that in heating load reduction when compared to a clean
horizontal radiant barrier. Wilkes's model predicted rapid decline
in radiant barrier performance as a function of emissivity. With
emissivity value at 0.20 the barrier was only about 50% and 67% as
effective as a clean barrier in reducing cooling load and heating
load respectively. The drop-offs were slightly faster than that
predicted by Cook et al.
Yarbrough [72] in his review presented the deterioration in foil
thermal performance caused by increase of emittance value in
terms of R-value. The author used a model program Reflect to
predict the effect of increase foil emissivity on system R-value. The
results for a two-foil assembly revealed that with an increase of
emissivity from 0.03 to 0.10 caused the system R-value to decrease
by 26%.
6.2. Moisture condensation
During winter season, moisture condensation can occur on the
surface of reflective foil as well as on the underside of horizontal
radiant barrier. This moisture condensation may pose two poten-
tial problems i.e. causing increase in emissivity of the reflective
surface and damage to the wood structure members around it and
dampen the ceiling insulation.
Moroz [99] and Hooper and Moroz [100] investigated the effect of
moisture condensation by having samples of reflective foils exposed
to condensation and frost. Findings showed that under both condi-
tions emissivity of the samples increase to about 0.80. Robinson et
al.’s [80] wall testing using guarded hot box which found deposits of
condensation on the reflective foil and they assumed the moisture to
have come from wood framing. The film of water which covered
about 10% of the foil area had caused reductions of 10–30% of thermal
resistance or R-value with the greatest (i.e. 30%) in the case of
downward heat flow. This again showed that moisture on the re-
flective surface can raise its emissivity causing decrease in thermal
performance. However, after the condensation fully evaporated,
measurements showed emittance value back to its original value.
This indicates the effect of moisture on the surface emittance is short
term and not permanent.
Bassett and Trethowen [101] also concluded the effect of con-
densation on emittance of reflective insulation to be significant
with only small amount of condensate. They reported with only
1 g/m2 condensate could increase the foil emittance from 0.06 to
0.25. Greater impact was observed with heat flow down where
they reported 50% of the benefits produced by reflective foil were
eliminated by only 0.38 g/m2 of condensate. Consistent to Moroz,
Hooper and Robinson et al., the authors stated this was a tem-
porary effect lasting until the condensation fully evaporated.
The moisture condensation problem can be avoided by using
perforated foil [98] or making the reflective insulation assembly
permeable to water vapor [72]. But by doing this the trade-off is
decreased in R-value as a result of air movement or radiation pass
directly through gaps or holes in the reflective insulation system
[72]. Although by using permeable foil will reduce its thermal re-
sistance, Fairey et al. [28] stated that placing impermeable coverings
on top of ceiling insulation should be avoided if there is foreseeable
moisture problem. This is consistent to recommendation from Le-
vins et al. [102] to use perforated radiant barrier materials for
horizontal installations. Fairey et al. further added permeable foil
should also be used for radiant barriers attached directly to roof
decking materials especially if there is leaking in the roof.
Full-scale tests on the effect of moisture condensation on
horizontal radiant barrier was conducted by Levins et al. [102]
during the winter of 1987–1988 in three unoccupied research
houses in Tennessee. Major finding from these tests was moisture
went through a diurnal moisture cycle in which water vapor that
condensed on the underside of horizontal radiant barrier during
cold weather would evaporate to the attic air in the afternoon
leaving the radiant barrier dry. Therefore moisture condensation
did not cause any damage to the ceiling structure, dampen the
ceiling insulation nor stain the ceiling of the research houses.
Nevertheless, the authors emphasized that the outcome from
these testing under Tennessee winter conditions may not be sui-
table for application to colder climates with more severe and
prolonged periods of subfreezing temperatures. Emissivity of the
barriers was measured after the tests. It was found that top side of
barriers in all three houses retained its initial emissivity with a
change of þ0.02 in some samples taken from different locations of
the foil which is within the measurement error.
Results from Levins et al. [102] was used by Wilkes [98] to
validate his thermal model which has been modified to include
predictions of moisture accumulation. This model was used to run
parametric analysis to evaluate moisture accumulation as a func-
tion of radiant barrier permeance and indoor relative humidity in
eleven climatic conditions. The author stated by having a radiant
barrier with permeance of 20 the potential moisture problems
were much reduced whereas with exception in coldest climates
and the highest indoor relative humidity, permeance of 100 can
eliminate the moisture problem.
6.3. Corrosion
Corrosion on the surface of foil may be caused by con-
taminating or corrosive environment where the foil is installed.
Besides moisture tests mentioned in Section 6.2, Moroz [99] and
Hooper and Moroz [100] in their studies on aging factors affecting
the emissivity of reflective insulation also did a corrosion testing
on the foil. They sprayed weak corrosive chemicals which some
are bases used in acid solutions on samples of foil to simulate the
effect of contaminated environment. They reported an increase in
the emissivity of foil.
6.4. Oxide films
Aluminium is well known as the primary material used to
produce the low-emittance foil used in the two reflective thermal
insulation discussed in this paper. However, aluminium exposed to
oxygen will cause chemical reaction leading to formation of oxide
films on its surface. Concerns over this oxide films on the foil
emissivity was addressed by Taylor and Edwards [103] back in
1939 whom from their testing concluded the natural oxide films
deposited on the foil surface are too thin to have any significant
effect on its emissivity. This finding is agreeable to Technical Bul-
letin #105 [104] issued by RIMA-I which stated “…the thickness of a
naturally occurring oxide-film is too small to have a significant im-
pact on a facing's emittance.” On the other hand this bulletin stated
that the presence of oxide film can serve as a protective layer to
resist damaging corrosion.
In contrast to elements mentioned in Sections 6.1–6.3 that
could cause an increase in foil emissivity, Wilkes [8] in his paper
presented in 1939 cited a few examples from his personal ex-
perience over ten years which aluminium foil still retaining a low
emissivity after installation. The samples were taken from various
locations which include roof in actual residence after five years of
foil installation, roof of log boat house with two-year salt spray
and exposed to sea air environments, laboratory where foil were
exposed to dust and fumes for about ten years and foil stored in
laboratory for various periods of up to ten years.
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
7. Conclusions
Both radiant barrier system and reflective insulation system are
proven technologies that are able to reduce heat flow in building.
Although the primary material used in both systems is low-
emittance aluminium foil, they work on different physical princi-
ples. Radiant barrier system works with reflective surface facing an
open air while reflective insulation system functions by having the
reflective surface facing one or more enclosed airspace(s).
Generally data gathered from various research works showed
radiant barrier system is effective in reducing heat flux, thermal
load in both summer and winter seasons with lower effectiveness
during heating seasons. Its performance is also dependent on cli-
mates. During cooling seasons in the United States, Tropical Sa-
vanna and Humid Subtropical climates showed highest average
heat flux reductions compared to other climatic zones. Overall the
average percentage of ceiling heat flux reductions in relative to
house without this system ranged from 26% to 50% during sum-
mer. In contrast, during winter this system can produce about 7%
to 13% reductions though in certain instances there were heating
penalty with increased heat flux. Similarly average cooling load
reductions in summer was higher with 6–16% than that produced
under winter with 2–9%. With the reduction of heat flux, attic air
temperature was lower by 4 °C to 10 °C in roof with this system
during summer time. This reflective system caused the roof sur-
face temperature to increase by 1 °C to 3 °C, yet there is no lit-
erature shows this slight warmer surface to affect the life span of
roof layer. Parametric analyses were run by some researchers to
determine the parameters that influence the thermal performance
of radiant barrier. Besides climates, some of the other parameters
that were having significant effect include ambient air tempera-
ture, surface emittance of radiant barrier and location of duct-
works. As a whole data from various studies agreed qualitatively
showing radiant barrier system is effective in heat flux reductions
but the magnitude of reductions were different from one another.
The reasons may be due to differences arising from weather con-
ditions when the test was conducted, testing method, experiments
set-up (e.g. adopted method and rate of ventilation, size and
geometry of attic, radiant barrier installation method, etc.) and
emissivity of reflective foil being used.
Another area worth mentioning is the economic aspect of this
radiant barrier technology. Wilkes [105] in his analysis on the
earlier version of Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet found that this tech-
nology is more cost effective in warmer climates and when they
are used in combination with lower levels of ceiling floor insula-
tion. For R-11 ceiling floor insulation the present value savings
ranged from US$0.11–US$0.36 per square foot (without HVAC
ducts in attic) to US$0.12–US$0.43 per square foot of ceiling (with
HVAC ducts in attic) for 27 cities across the United States. For
higher ceiling floor insulation at R-38, the energy savings was
smaller, about a quarter of the savings of R-11 ceiling floor in-
sulation. The savings for radiant barrier attached to the bottom of
rafters are greater than those laid horizontal over the ceiling floor
insulation when the effect of dust accumulation was taken into
account. Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet [13] further analysed the cost
savings of radiant barrier as a function of the conditions of HVAC
duct system in attic. Greatest savings from radiant barrier system
was seen for homes with uninsulated or poorly insulated ducts in
the attics. For R-19 ceiling floor insulation, the calculated annual
savings for homes with uninsulated ducts in attic ranged from US
$0.28 per square foot (for warmer climate in southern zone) to US
$0.87 per square foot (for colder climate in northern zone) by
adding radiant barrier and improving on the ducts insulation. On
the other hand, for homes with well-insulated and sealed ducts in
659
attic, the savings derived from adding radiant barrier is much
smaller i.e. US$0.03 per square foot in warmer climate zone to US
$0.01 per square foot in colder climate zone. However, the eco-
nomic aspect of this thermal insulation technology is still lacking
where further research is essential.
The major property of reflective insulation system is its en-
closed reflective airspace. Some reflective insulation materials e.g.
reflective bubble foil will have a small resistance value (R-value)
inherent in the material itself which further contributes to the
whole system thermal resistance. It has been demonstrated that
two or more enclosed airspace(s) will create higher thermal re-
sistance compared to a single enclosed airspace. This is because by
dividing the enclosed air gap to smaller cavities, temperature
difference between the bounding surfaces in the smaller gap be-
comes lower leading to lesser convection currents. Thus reflective
insulation system aims at reducing two of the heat flow modes
namely radiation and convection. Factors that influence the ther-
mal resistance of this system are cavity's surface air temperature,
size and orientation of airspace, direction of heat transfer and the
emissivity of reflective surface. Key measurement of thermal per-
formance of this system is its thermal resistance value or R-value.
However, uncertainties exist in predicting the correct R-value for
this insulation system. Measurements using guarded hot box is
shown to produce more accurate values than guarded hot plate or
heat flow meter. Measured values from guarded hot box done in
mid 1950s formed the basis of R-values listed in some of the HVAC
technical handbooks and calculation algorithms in some interna-
tional standards. Nevertheless these measured values were per-
formed under ideal conditions which seldom exist in real appli-
cations. Measured values from subsequent studies performed
were found to be significantly lower than the listed R-values in the
technical handbooks or calculated value per international stan-
dard. The uncertainties in predicting the correct R-values hope-
fully have prompted the development of a generally-accepted
multi-dimensional model in an attempt to predict a more accurate
thermal resistance value.
The common factor affecting the thermal performance of radiant
barrier system and reflective insulation system is emissivity of the
reflective surface. Degradation to the surface may be due to dust
buildup, moisture and corrosion. Moisture condensation appeared to
only cause short term deterioration to the reflective surface in less
severe winter climates. Using permeable foil in horizontal radiant
barrier can prevent the problem caused by moisture condensed on
the underside of barrier. Maintaining the low-emittance surface is
important in ensuring sustainable thermal performance over time.
This is crucial especially when comparing life-cycle cost of these two
systems with conventional insulations.
As many researches on these two insulation systems were from
Western countries, it is hoped that more studies will be performed
in South East Asia countries which development and awareness of
energy efficiency and renewable energy are still at its early stage.
Data from localized research will definitely provide a more solid
basis to the formation of building code or energy efficiency stan-
dard in the local context. Furthermore, reflective thermal insula-
tion systems are seen to have great potential in this part of the
world given high temperatures all year round.
References
[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Competition Among Fuels for Power
Generation Driven by Changes in Fuel Prices n.d. 〈http://www.eia.gov/to
dayinenergy/detail.cfm?id ¼ 7090〉 [accessed 25.08.15].
[2] Administration USEI. What is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy
Source? n.d. 〈http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id ¼427&t ¼3〉
[accessed 25.08.15].
660 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
[3] Pachauri RK, Meyer LA. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution
of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014.
[4] IE. Agency Energy Efficiency n.d. 〈http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/en
ergyefficiency/〉 [accessed 25.08.15].
[5] Pérez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, Pout C. A review on buildings energy consumption
information. Energy Build 2008;40:394–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2007.03.007.
[6] Ibrahim SMA. The Benefits of Using Thermal Insulation in Buildings for En-
ergy Conservation. Pergamon Press plc; 1988. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-
034798-1.50020-3.
[7] Dylewski R, Adamczyk J. Economic and environmental benefits of thermal
insulation of building external walls. Build Environ 2011;46:2615–23. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.06.023.
[8] Wilkes GB. Reflective insulation. Ind Eng Chem 1939;31:832–8.
[9] Mission Accomplished. NASA Tech Briefs, Des Technol Dig 1997:22 & 24.
[10] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Spinoff 2008;
2008.
[11] Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association International (RIMA-I). Un-
derstanding and Using Reflective Insulation, Radiant Barriers and Radiation
Control Coatings; 2014.
[12] Yarbrough DW. Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort in
Buildings. Chapter 12 - Reflective Insulation and Radiant Barriers for In-
sulation in Buildings. 2010. doi:10.1533/9781845699277.2.305.
[13] Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet. Oak Ridge Natl Lab; 2010.
[14] Rogers L. Reflective-Insulation and Radiant- Barrier Systems. Home Energy;
Mag 2013.
[15] Medina MA. Radiant Barrier Performance Estimation for the State of Cali-
fornia. Rep Prep ADM Assoc; 2004.
[16] Medina MA, Young B. A perspective on the effect of climate and local en-
vironmental variables on the performance of attic radiant barriers in the
United States. Build Environ 2006;41:1767–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2005.07.018.
[17] Davis Energy Group, Inc, Davis C. Simulated Attic Radiant Barrier Perfor-
mance. Rep Prep Eletr Power Res Inst 1991.
[18] Stovall T, S Shrestha, R V Arimilli, DW Yarbrough, T. Pearson Analysis in
Support of the Radiant Barrier Fact Sheet 2010 Update. Therm Perform Exter
Envel Whole Build XI Int Conf 2010.
[19] Hageman R, Modera MP. Energy Savings and HVAC Capacity Implications of a
Low-Emissivity Interior Surface for Roof Sheathing. Proc. ACEEE Summer
Study Energy Effic. Build., 1995, p. 1.117–1.130.
[20] Parker DS, Sherwin JR. Influence of Attic Radiant Barrier Systems on Air
Conditioning Demand in an Utility Pilot Project. Proc. Thirteen. Symp. Im-
prov. Build. Syst. Hot Humid Clim.; 2002.
[21] Joy FA. Improving attic space insulating values. ASHRAE Trans 1958;64:251–66.
[22] Petrie TW, Wilkes KE, Childs PW, Christian JE. Effects of radiant barriers and
attic ventilation on residential attics and attic duct systems: new tools for
measuring and modeling. ASHRAE Trans 1998;104(Pt. 2):1175–93.
[23] Medina MA. On the performance of radiant barriers in combination with
different attic insulation levels. Energy Build 2000;33:31–40. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00065-7.
[24] Levins WP, Karnitz MA. Cooling Energy Measurements of Unoccupied Single-
Family Houses with Attics Containing Radiant Barriers. Oak Ridge Natl Lab
ORNL/CON-200; 1986.
[25] Hall JA. Performance Testing o f Radiant Barriers. Proc. Third Symp. Improv.
Build. Syst. Hot Humid Clim., 1986, p. 57–67.
[26] Ober DG. Attic Insulation Performance: Full Scale Test of Conventional In-
sulation and Radiant Barriers; 1990.
[27] Katipamula S, O’Neal DL. An Evaluation of the Placement of Radiant Barriers
on Their Effectiveness in Reducing Heat Transfer in Attics. In: Proceedings of
the third Annu. Symp. n Improv. Build. Effic. hot humid Clim.; 1986, p. 68–77.
[28] P Fairey, M Swami, D. Beal Radiant Barrier Systems Technology: Task 3 Re-
port. Florida Sol Energy Center, FSEC-CR-211–88, Cape Canacveral, FL; 1988.
[29] Al-Asmar HR, Jones BW, Matteson DK. Experimental evaluation of attic ra-
diant barriers. ASHRAE Trans 1996;102(Pt. 1):297–306.
[30] Levins WP, Karnitz MA. Heating Energy Measurements of Single-Family
Houses with Attics Containing Radiant Barriers in Combination With
R11 and R30 Ceiling Insulation. Oak Ridge Natl Lab ORNL/CON-239;
1988.
[31] Hall JA. Performance Testing of Radiant Barriers (RB) with R11, R19 and R30
Cellulose and Rock Wool Insulation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Symp. Im-
prov. Build. Syst. hot humid Clim.; 1988, p. 174–185.
[32] Medina MA, O’Neal DL, Turner WD. Radiant Barrier Performance during the
Heating Season. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symp. Improv. Build. Syst. Hot
Humid Clim.; 1992, p. 53–58.
[33] Levins WP, Karnitz MA. Cooling Energy Measurements of Single-Family
Houses with Attics Containing Radiant Barriers in Combination With R11
and R30 Ceiling Insulation. Oak Ridge Natl Lab ORNL/CON-226; 1987.
[34] Levins WP, Karnitz MA. Heating Energy Measurements of Unoccupied Sin-
gle-Family Houses with Attics Containing Radiant Barriers. Oak Ridge Natl
Lab ORNL/CON-213; 1987.
[35] Levins WP, Karnitz MA. Energy measurements of single-family houses with
attics containing radiant barriers. ASHRAE Trans 1987;93(Pt. 2):182–99.
[36] Chang PC, Chiang CM, Lai CM. Development and preliminary evaluation of
double roof prototypes incorporating RBS (Radiant Barrier System). Energy
Build 2008;40:140–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.01.021.
[37] Winiarski DW, O’Neal DL. A quasi-steady-state model of attic heat transfer
with radiant barriers. Energy Build 1996;24:183–94. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(96)00987-5.
[38] Medina MA. Effects of Shingle absorptivity, radiant barrier emissivity, attic
ventilation flowrate, and roof slope on the performance of radiant barriers.
Int J Energy Res 2000;24:665–78.
[39] Roels S, Deurinck M. The effect of a reflective underlay on the global thermal
behaviour of pitched roofs. Build Environ 2011;46:134–43. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.07.005.
[40] Asadi S, Hassan MM, Beheshti A. Performance evaluation of an attic radiant
barrier system using three-dimensional transient finite element method. J
Build Phys 2012;36:247–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259112448368.
[41] Moujaes SF, Brickman RA. Effect of a radiant barrier on the cooling load of a
residential application in a hot and arid region: attic duct effect. HVACR Res
1998:231–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10789669.1998.10391402.
[42] Medina MA, O’Neal DL, Turner WD. Effects of Radiant Barrier Systems on
Ventilated Attics in a Hot and Humid Climate. Proc. Eighth Symp. Improv.
Build. Syst. Hot Humid Clim.; 1992, p. 44–52.
[43] Fairey P, Swami M. Attic radiant barrier systems : a sensitivity analysis of
performance parameters. Int J Energy Res 1992;16:1–12.
[44] Moujaes S. Use of passive radiation barriers in ventilated Attics. ASHRAE
Trans 1996;102(Pt.1):307–14.
[45] Parker DS, JR Sherwin, Comparative Summer Attic Thermal Performance of
Six Roof Constructions. 1998 ASHRAE Annu Meet 1998.
[46] Miranville F, Fock E, Garde F, Herve P. Experimental study of the thermal
performances of a composite roof including a reflective insulation material
under tropical humid climatic conditions. World Renew Energy Congr 2000;
VI:586–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[47] Miranville F, Fakra AH, Guichard S, Boyer H, Praene J-P, Bigot D. Evaluation of
the thermal resistance of a roof-mounted multi-reflective radiant barrier for
tropical and humid conditions: experimental study from field measure-
ments. Energy Build 2012;48:79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.01.013.
[48] Soubdhan T, Feuillard T, Bade F. Experimental evaluation of insulation ma-
terial in roofing system under tropical climate. Sol Energy 2005;79:311–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.10.009.
[49] Asadi S, Hassan MM. Evaluation of the thermal performance of a roof-
mounted radiant barrier in residential buildings: experimental study. J Build
Phys 2013;38:66–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744259113499213.
[50] Ashley R, Garcia O, Medina MA, Turner WD. Effect of Radiant Barrier Tech-
nology on Summer Attic Heat Load in South Texas. In: Proceedings of the
Ninth Symp. Improv. Build. Syst. Hot Humid Clim.; 1994, p. 121–124.
[51] Ober DG, Volckhausen TW. Radiant Barrier Insulation Performance in Full
Scale Attics With Soffit And Ridge Venting. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Symp.
Improv. Build. Syst. Hot Humid Climate; 1988, p. 169–173. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
[52] D’Orazio M, Di Perna C, Di Giuseppe E, Morodo M. Thermal performance of
an insulated roof with reflective insulation: field tests under hot climatic
conditions. J Build Phys 2012;36:229–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1744259112448181.
[53] William E. Lear, Barrup TE, Davis KE. Preliminary Study of a Vented Attic
Radiant Barrier System in Hot, Humid Climates Using Side-By-Side, Full-
Scale Test Houses. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Symp. Improv. Build. Syst.
Hot Humid Clim.; 1987, p. 195–198.
[54] Michels C, Lamberts R, Güths S. Theoretical/Experimental Comparison of
Heat Flux Reduction in Roofs Achieved Through the Use of Reflective Ther-
mal Insulators. Energy Build n.d.;40:438–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en
build.2007.03.012.
[55] Michels C, Lamberts R, Güths S. Evaluation of Heat Flux Reduction Provided
by the Use of Radiant Barriers in Clay Tile Roofs. Energy Build n.d.;40:445–
451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.013.
[56] Shrestha S, Miller W, Desjarlais A. Thermal performance evaluation of attic
radiant barrier systems using the Large Scale Climate Simulator (LSCS).
ASHRAE Trans 2013.
[57] Levins WP, Herron DL. Radiant barrier field tests in army family housing
units at Fort Benning, Georgia. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96(Pt.2):589–97.
[58] Wilkes KE, Childs PW. Thermal performance of clean horizontal radiant
barriers under winter conditions: laboratory measurements and mathema-
tical modeling. ASHRAE Trans 1993;99(Pt.1):603–13.
[59] AIRAH Technical Handbook 2007. The Australian Institute of Refrigeration,
Air Conditioning and Heating (Inc.) (AIRAH); 2007.
[60] Goss WP, Miller RG. Literature review of measurement and predictions of
reflective building insulation system performance: 1900–1989. ASHRAE
Trans 1989:651–64.
[61] Queer ER. Importance of radiation in heat transfer through airspaces. ASHVE
Trans 1932;38:77–96.
[62] Mason RB. Thermal Insulation with aluminum foil. Ind Eng Chem
1933;25:245–55.
[63] Babbit JD. Note on the testing of aluminum foil insulation. Heat Pip Air Cond
1937;9:577–9.
[64] Fricker JM, Yarbrough DW. Review of Reflective Insulation Estimation
Methods. In: Proceedings of the Build. Simul. 2011 12th Conf. Int. Build.
Perform. Simul. Assoc.; 2011, p. 1989–1996.
[65] Wilkes GB, Peterson CM. Radiation and convection across airspaces in frame
construction. ASHVE Trans 1937;43:351–66.
[66] King WJ. Letter to the Editor. Refrig Eng 1934; 22:152.
 S.W. Lee et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65 (2016) 643–661
[67] Fricker JM. Computational analysis of reflective airspaces. AIRAH J 1997.
[68] Wilkes GB, Hechler FG, Queer ER. Thermal test coefficients of aluminum
insulation for buildings. Heat Pip Air Cond 1940:68–72.
[69] Wilkes GB. Thermal conductivity, expansion and specific heat of insulators at
extremely low temperature. Refrig Eng 1946;52:37–42 68, 70, 72.
[70] Handegord GO, Hutcheon NB. Thermal performance of frame walls. Heat Pip
Air Cond 1952;24:113–8.
[71] Handegord GO, Hutcheon NB. Thermal performance of frame walls, part II -
airspaces blocked at mid-height. Heating, Pip Air Cond 1953:117–22.
[72] Yarbrough DW. Assessment of Reflective Insulations for Residential and
Commercial Applications. Oak Ridge Natl Lab Rep ORNL/TM 8891; Oct 1983.
[73] HE Robinson, FJ. Powell The Thermal Insulating Value of Airspaces. Hous Res
Pap No 32, Natl Bur Stand Proj ME-12, US Gov Print Off Washington, DC 1954.
[74] Saber HH. Investigation of Thermal performance of reflective insulations for
different applications. Build Environ 2012;52:32–44. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.12.010.
[75] Miller RG, Oscar DS, Seifaee F, Goss WP. Methods for Determining the
Thermal Performance of Reflective Insulation Systems. ASTM/DOE/ONRL/
BTECC Conf. Therm. Insul. Mater. Test. Appl. ASTM STP 1030, Bal Harb. FL;
December 1987.
[76] American Society of Testing and Materials. ASTM C518 - Standard Test
Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the
Heat Flow Meter Apparatus; 2010.
[77] Craven C, Garber-Slaght R. Reflective insulation in cold climates. Cold Clim
Hous Res Cent 2011.
[78] ASHRAE HVAC. Fundamentals handbook. The American Society of Heating,
United States: Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; 2009.
[79] Baldinelli G. A methodology for experimental evaluations of low-e barriers
thermal properties: field tests and comparison with theoretical models. Build
Environ 2010;45:1016–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.009.
[80] HE Robinson, LA Cosgrove, FJ. Powell. Thermal Resistance of Airspaces and
Fibrous Insulation Bounded by Reflective Surfaces. Build Mater Struct Rep
151, Natl Bur Stand November 1957.
[81] Hollingsworth M. Experimental determination of the thermal resistance of
reflective insulations. ASHRAE Trans 1983;89(Part 1):568–678.
[82] Greason DM. Calculated versus measured thermal resistances of simulated
building walls incorporating airspaces. ASHRAE Trans 1983;89(Part 1):579–88.
[83] Seifaee F. Natural convection in reflective building insulation systems. (PhD
Diss). United States: Mech Eng Dep Univ Massachusetts Amherst; 1986.
[84] AS/NZS 4859.1:2002 (Incorporating Amendment No.1) - Materials for the
Thermal Insulation of Buildings - Part 1: General Criteria and Technical
Provisions; 2006.
[85] ISO 6946:2007 - Building Components and Building Elements - Thermal
Resistance and Thermal Transmittance - Calculation Method; 2007.
[86] Uvslokk S, Arnesen H. Thermal Insulation Performance of Reflective Material
Layers in Well Insulated Timber Frame Structures. In: Proceedings of the 8th
Symp. Build. Phys. Nord. Ctries., vol. 1; 2008, p. 1–8.
661
[87] ISO 15099:2003 - Thermal Performance of WIndows, Doors and Shading
Devices - Detailed calculations; 2003.
[88] EN ISO 6946:1996 - Building Components and Building Elements, Therma
Resistance and Thermal Transmittance - Calculation Method. CEN; 1996.
[89] ISO 9869:1994 - Thermal Insulation - Building Elements - In situ Measure-
ment of Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance; 1994.
[90] Vrachopoulos MG, Koukou MK, Stavlas DG, Stamatopoulos VN, Gonidis AF,
Kravvaritis ED. Testing reflective insulation for improvement of buildings
energy efficiency. Cent Eur J Eng 2012;2:83–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/
s13531-011-0036-3.
[91] Cook JC, Yarbrough DW, Wilkes KE. Contamination of reflective foils in
horizontal applications and the effect on thermal performance. ASHRAE
Trans 1989;95(2):677–81.
[92] Lotz FJ. The Effect of Dust on the Efficacy of Reflective Metal Foil Used as Roof/
Ceiling Insulation. Counc Sci Ind Res Res Rep 212, Pretoria, South Africa; 1964.
[93] JA. Hall Radiant Barrier Testing to Assess Effects of Dust Accumulation, Attic
Ventilation, and Other Key Variables. TVA Rep No TVA/OP/ED þ T-88/25, July
Chattanooga, TN Tennessee Val Auth 1988.
[94] Levins WP, Hall JA. Measured effects of dust on the performance of radiant
barriers installed on top of attic insulation. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96(Pt.
2):253–60.
[95] WP Levins, MA Karnitz, Hall JA. Dust and Ventilation Effects on Radiant
Barriers: Cooling Season Energy Measurements. Final Report, EPRI CU-6817,
Proj 2034–24 Electr Power Res Inst 1990.
[96] Noboa H, O’Neal D, Turner WD. A model of the effect of dust on the emis-
sivity of radiant barriers. ASHRAE Trans 1994;100(Pt.2):23–30.
[97] Lund CE. Heat transfer through mineral wool insulation in combination with
reflective surfaces. ASHRAE J 1961;3:47–54.
[98] Wilkes KE. Analysis of annual thermal and moisture performance of radiant
barrier systems. United States: Oak Ridge Natl Lab; 1991.
[99] Moroz WJ. Aging Factors Affecting Reflective Insulations. MS Thesis, Dep
Mech Eng Univ Toronto; 1951.
[100] Hooper FC, Moroz WJ. The influence of aging factors on the emissivity of
reflectuve inuslations. ASTM Bull 1952:92–5.
[101] Bassett MR, Trethowen HA. Effect of condensation on emittance of reflective
insulation Afor. J Therm Insul 1984;8:127–35.
[102] Levins WP, Karnitz MA, Hall JA. Moisture Measurements in Single-Family
Houses with Attics Containing Radiant Barriers. Oak Ridge Natl Lab ORNL/
CON-255; 1989.
[103] Taylor CS, Edwards JD. Some reflection and radiation characteristics of alu-
minum. Heating, Pip Air Cond 1939:59–63.
[104] Technical Bulletin 105 - Oxidation of Aluminum Foil Facings Used in Re-
flective Insulation. RIMA Int 2008.
[105] Wilkes KE. Analysis of annual energy savings due to radiant barriers. Pacific
Grove, CA: ACEEE Summer Study Energy Effic. Build; 1990.