See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268415938

ANALYTICAL COMPUTATION OF ADMITTANCE, DECREMENT FACTOR, TIME

LAG AND SURFACE FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS
OF THE BUILDINGS IN DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

Conference Paper · December 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3196.8965

CITATIONS READS

0 1,216

2 authors, including:

Shaik Saboor
VIT University
37 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

REFLECTIVE COATINGS ON GLASS View project

Eco friendly and Energy efficient building and insulation materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaik Saboor on 18 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 22th National and 11th International
ISHMT-ASME Heat and Mass Transfer Conference
December 28-31, 2013, IIT Kharagpur, India

HMTC1300782

ANALYTICAL COMPUTATION OF ADMITTANCE, DECREMENT FACTOR, TIME LAG AND SURFACE

FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS OF THE BUILDINGS IN DAKSHINA
KANNADA DISTRICT.

S. Saboor
Research Scholar, Mechanical Engg.Dept., National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Surathkal, Karnataka, 575025
Email: saboor.nitk@gmail.com

*Dr. T. P. Ashok Babu

Professor, Mechanical Engg.Dept., National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Surathkal, Karnataka, 575025
Email: tpashok@rediffmail.com, tpashok@nitk.ac.in, tpashok@gmail.com

ABSTRACT By using these bricks both energy and material saving is

The cooling of buildings by using passive methods has
evoked great interest. The underlying principle of passive
cooling is to prevent heat from entering the building, or
remove heat once it has entered. The applicability of these
concepts depends greatly upon the climatic conditions
prevailing in a particular place. This paper presents thermal
properties of Laterite stone and Fly ash bricks which are
measured experimentally using transient plane source method.
Unsteady state thermal characteristics like, transmittance,
admittance, decrement factor, time lag, thermal heat capacity
and surface factor for different building materials used in
Dakshina Kannada district (Karnataka State, India) have been
investigated analytically. For this purpose one dimensional
heat flow diffusion equation was solved using matrix algebra.
Five building materials like Laterite stone, Burnt clay bricks,
Fly ash bricks, Concrete Blocks and Hollow concrete blocks
were selected and computations were made for different
external walls. The effects of material properties and thickness
of material on thermal parameters under periodic excitation
were investigated. It was found that thickness of material and
the material properties have a significant effect on the time
lag, decrement factor, admittance and surface factors.
Optimum fabric thickness values were calculated for Laterite
stone, Burnt clay bricks, Fly ash bricks, Concrete blocks and
Hollow concrete blocks. It is concluded that Fly ash bricks
have the least optimum fabric thickness value (0.09m).
* Corresponding author.
possible in construction of buildings. It was also found that Fly
ash Brick walls have less thermal heat capacity and release
very less heat during the second half cycle compared among
other wall materials. It is concluded that among all the
composite walls studied, Fly ash brick composite walls are
found to be least energy gain to space since they are having
least thermal capacitance. The results of present study are
useful for designing more effective energy efficient buildings.
The smaller the decrement factor the more effective the wall at
suppressing temperature swings. Decrement factors of the Fly
ash bricks (0.338) and Fly ash brick walls (0.274) are least
among the studied homogeneous and composite walls
respectively. From the results, it can be concluded that the Fly
ash bricks and Fly ash brick walls are the most recommended
materials among the studied building materials in dakshina
kannada district for environment friendly and energy efficient
building construction.
NOMENCLATURE
Cp Specific heat (J/kgK)
d Optimum Fabric thickness (m)
f Decrement Factor
F Surface Factor
G Imperfect thermal contact condition
k Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)
P Time period (s)
P0 Output power in sensor (W)
q Heat Flux (W/m²)
r Sensor radius (m)
R Surface Resistance (m²K/W) lag and decrement factor were studied in detail [4]. Present
t Time (s) study focuses on the cyclic response admittance method to
u Cyclic Transmittance (Dimensionless) calculate non steady state thermal characteristics of the wall for
U Thermal Transmittance (W/m²K) more energy efficient building design.
X Thickness of the wall (m) The admittance method is concerned with the internal
Y Thermal Admittance (W/m²K) building response to a cyclic variation in external conditions as
a result of the considered component of the building envelope.
Greek Letters The method provides three response factors used to describe
Δ differential the behavior of a wall. Each response factor has an associated
α Thermal Diffusivity (m2/s) time lag/lead, where the construction causes a phase shift in the
θ Temperature (oC) periodic variation in internal temperature to the external sol-air
ρ Density (kg/m3) temperature.
τ Dimensionless Time The most common way to express the thermal performance
ω Time lead for Thermal Admittance (h) of insulated components is by using the U-value, but this entity
ϕ Decremental Delay (h) is strictly limited to the performance at steady state. When it
χ Thermal Heat Capacity (J/m²K) comes to dynamic performance, there are several means for
ѱ Time lag for Surface factor (h) expressing thermal performance. The admittance method is one
Ө Characteristic time (Dimensionless) of them.

Subscripts 2. WALL THERMAL PARAMETERS

corr Correction The following are the wall thermal parameters [7].
e Exterior surface
i Interior surface 2.1 Thermal Transmittance, U.
se External air surface This is the steady state heat flow through the element per
si Internal air surface unit degree of temperature difference between the internal and
external environmental temperatures per unit area. Note that
Abbreviations this quantity may differ from other U-values quoted as it does
BCB Burnt clay brick not take account of thermal bridging and is sensitive to the
BCBW Burnt clay brick wall values of surface thermal resistances used.
CB Concrete block
CBW Concrete block wall 2.2 Thermal Admittance, Y.
FAB Fly ash brick This is the amount of energy leaving the internal surface of
FABW Fly ash brick wall the element into the room per unit degree of temperature
HCB Hollow concrete block swing. This is under theoretical conditions where the internal
HCBW Hollow concrete block wall environmental temperature undergoes periodic oscillation and
LS Laterite stone the external environmental temperature is constant.
LSW Laterite stone wall 𝑞
𝑦𝑖 = 𝑖 = −𝑀1/𝑀2 (1)
𝜃𝑖 𝑇𝑒=0

1. INTRODUCTION 𝑌 = 𝑌𝑐 (2)
Buildings are responsible for about 40% of total energy use
in the world. With recent boom in construction sector, there has 2.3 Time lead for thermal admittance, ω.
been a sudden increase in energy consumption, especially in This is the time difference between the timing of the peak
countries like India and china. Climatic Building Design is the heat flow at the internal surface and timing of the peak internal
most important factor in ensuring energy efficiency in buildings. temperature.
12 𝐼𝑚(𝑌 )
Buildings with climate responsive design can consume around 𝜔 = 𝜋 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝑅𝑒(𝑌𝑐 ) (3)
𝑐
10% - 15% less energy as compared to conventional buildings,
The arctangent should be evaluated in the range 0 to π radians,
and that, too, without incurring any incremental cost. Thus, it is
thus ω is a time lead.
imperative to pay attention to the crucial aspect of energy
efficiency at the design stage itself. Climate responsive design
2.4 Decrement factor, f.
of buildings becomes an extremely important aspect in the
This is the ratio of the peak heat flow out of the external
process of constructing an energy efficient building.
surface of the element per unit degree of external temperature
The European reference standard on the dynamic behavior
swing to the steady state heat flow through the element per unit
of an external wall, the EN ISO 13786:2007, simply
degree of temperature difference between the internal and
characterizes the transient response of a building component by
external environmental temperatures.
means of three parameters: the periodic thermal transmittance,
the decrement factor and the phase displacement of the heat 1
flux. The EN ISO 13786:2007 procedure has been compared 𝑓𝑐 = − 𝑈𝑀 (4)
2
with fast Fourier transform analysis [1].
The effects of thermo physical properties and thickness of a 𝑓 = 𝑓𝑐 (5)
wall of a building on time lag and decrement factor have been
investigated using crank Nicolson method by many researchers 2.5 Decrement delay ϕ.
[2]. Numerical computations of time lags and decrement factor This is the time lag between the timing of the internal
for different building materials were also investigated [3] and temperature peak and the peak heat flow out of the external
also Effects of Wall‟s insulation thickness and position on time surface.
 12 𝐼𝑚(𝑓𝑐 )
𝜙= 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛
𝜋 𝑅𝑒 (𝑓𝑐 )
The arctangent should be evaluated in the range -2π to 0
radians, thus ϕ is a time lag.
2.6 Surface factor, F.
This is the ratio of the swing in heat flow from the internal
surface of the element to the swing in heat flow received at the
internal surface of the element.
𝐹𝑐 = 1 − 𝑅𝑠𝑖 𝑌𝑐
𝐹 = 𝐹𝑐
2.7 Time lag for the surface factor, ѱ.
This is the time lag between the timing of the peak heat
flow entering the surface and peak heat flow leaving the
surface into the room.
12 𝐼𝑚 (𝐹𝑐 )
𝛹= 𝜋
𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝑅𝑒 (𝐹𝑐 )
As with decrement factor, the arctangent should be evaluated
in the range -π to 0 radians, thus ѱ is a time lag.
2.8 Thermal heat capacity, χ.
This is the amount of energy stored in the element over the
first half period of the heat flow swing per unit area of building
element per unit degree of temperature swing. The same
amount of heat is released in the following half period.
𝑡 𝑀4 −1
𝜒 = 2𝜋 𝑀2
3. THERMAL PROPERTIES AND DYNAMIC
RESPONSE ANALYSIS:
3.1 Transient plane source method.
Thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity and specific heat
of Laterite stone and Fly ash bricks (88% Fly ash, 12%
Hydrated lime and 14% Water) are measured experimentally
using transient plane source method in K-Analys AB, Sweden.
In the Transient Plane Source technique [5], a 12 micron thick
double-spiral sensor made of a nickel foil is sandwiched
between two identical pieces of sample material, the sample
material must completely cover the sensor probe. A step-wise
heating power is applied to this sensor configuration, resulting
in a transient temperature response that is simultaneously
recorded by the same spiral heating elements. The double
spiral thus gives a constant heating rate per unit spiral length,
and simultaneously operates as a resistance thermometer, to
record the average temperature response of the sensor.
Assuming the thermally heated region which grows into the
surrounding sample with a time-dependent thermal penetration
depth never reaching the lateral or outer surfaces of the sample
material, the average temperature response is modeled as [6]:
𝑃0
∆𝑇 = 𝐺 + 𝐷 𝜏
𝑘𝜋 3 2 𝑟
Where,
𝑡 − 𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟
(6) 𝜏=
Ө
𝑟2
Ө=
𝛼
Parameter 'G' in Eqn.(11) incorporates the imperfect thermal
contact conditions in a measurement between sensor probe and
the sample surface, making it possible to eliminate the
influence of any thermal contact effects when performing
analysis. From this model, the thermal conductivity is obtained
by plotting the temperature increase ΔT vs. D (τ) and
extracting the conductivity from the slope of the best line-fit.
(7)
The thermal diffusivity α and time correction tcorr are obtained
by an iterative procedure producing the best model fit of Eqn.
(8) (11) to the experimental data points.
3.2 Cyclic response admittance method.
There are two levels of dynamic modeling i.e., Transient
and Cyclic. The present study focuses on the cyclic response
admittance method. The cyclic-response admittance method
attempts to consider the effects of dynamic conditions on (i)
(9) fabric heat transfer, and (ii) fabric thermal sorption and
storage, effectively by determining unsteady-state multiplier
factors for application to the steady-state properties of the
fabric. Normally, under simplified steady-state conditions, the
difference between indoor and outdoor air temperatures is
taken to produce a thermal gradient across the thickness of the
wall, the profile of which is determined by the thermo-physical
properties of the wall material and its corresponding surface
resistances. Instead of the outside air temperature the
admittance model uses the hypothetical sol–air temperature, as
a single point variable to establish this thermal gradient. This
represents the rate of heat flow into the external wall surface
(10)
by convection from the surrounding air plus shortwave solar
radiation and radiative exchange to the surroundings (e.g. other
buildings, ground and sky). Analogous to sol–air temperature
(external), the environmental temperature is a single point
hypothetical temperature that represents the rate of heat flow
into the internal wall surface by (a) convection from the room
and (b) radiation from surrounding objects, e.g. people, lights,
heaters, etc.
The admittance procedure is used to calculate these un
steady- state parameters values uses matrices to simplify the
temperature and energy cycles for a composite building fabric
element (e.g. a wall) that is subjected to sinusoidal temperature
variations at the sol–air node.
The temperature distribution in a homogeneous wall
subjected to one dimensional heat flow is given by the
diffusion equation,
𝜕 2𝜃 𝜌𝐶𝑝 𝜕𝜃
= (12)
𝜕𝑋 2 𝑘 𝜕𝑡
For finite walls and for sinusoidal temperature variations the
temperature and energy cycles can be linked by the use of
matrix algebra, [7]:
𝜃𝑖 𝑀 𝑀2 𝜃𝑒
= 1 (13)
𝑞𝑖 𝑀3 𝑀4 𝑞𝑒
(11)
Clearly, for a composite wall, the matrices of each of the layers
can be multiplied together to give the relation between inside
and outside as follows [8]:
 𝜃𝑖 1 −𝑅𝑠𝑖 𝑚1 𝑚2 𝑛1 𝑛2 1 −𝑅𝑠𝑒 𝜃𝑒 𝑎 = 𝜋𝜌𝑐𝑝 𝑘𝑋 2 𝑃
1 2
= 𝑚3 𝑚1 𝑛3 𝑛1 … . 0 (14)
𝑞𝑖 0 1 1 𝑞𝑒 1 2
𝑧 = 𝜋𝜌𝑐𝑝 𝑋 2 𝑘𝑃
Where, m and n represent the properties of each layer in the
considered solid wall that relate the internal and external The cyclic transmittance is
temperature and heat flux.
When a layer has negligible heat capacity compared to its 𝑢 = 1/𝑀2 (17)
thermal resistance (e.g. a cavity layer and surface films) its
layer transmission matrix becomes The Decrement Factor is

1 −𝑅𝑠𝑖 1 −𝑅𝑠𝑒 f = u/U (18)

𝑀𝑠𝑖 = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑠𝑒 = (15)
0 1 0 1
Table 1 shows the thermo-physical properties of the building
In this study, Rsi is taken as 0.13 m2 K/W and Rse is taken as materials considered for the study. Most widely used building
0.04 m2 K/W for external walls of Dakshina kannada district. materials in the dakshina Kannada district were selected for the
Transmission matrix of a single layer has the form, [8]: study. Nominal thickness of 200 mm for the exterior wall was
selected for the study. Different combinations of both
𝐴 + 𝑗𝐵 𝐶 + 𝑗𝐷 𝑎 homogeneous and composite walls were considered as shown
(16)
−𝐷 + 𝑗𝐶 . 𝑎 𝐴 + 𝑗𝐵 in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Unsteady state thermal
characteristics for these materials were calculated using
Where, admittance procedure as shown in Table 3. Computer program
𝐴 = cosh 𝑧 cos⁡(𝑧) was used to calculate the all unsteady state characteristics of all
𝐵 = sinh 𝑧 sin⁡
(𝑧) ten configurations of the walls.
𝐶 = cosh 𝑧 sin 𝑧 + sinh 𝑧 cos⁡
(𝑧) 2
𝐷 = cosh 𝑧 sin 𝑧 − sinh 𝑧 cos⁡
(𝑧) 2

Table 1. THERMO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BUILDING MATERIALS

Material k (W/mK) ρ (kg/m3) Cp (J/kgK) α (m2/s)

Laterite Stone1 1.3698 1000 1926.1 7.11x10-7
Burnt Clay Brick 0.711 2000 837 4.24x10-7
Fly Ash Brick2 0.360 1700 857 2.47x10-7
Concrete Block 1.31 2240 840 6.96x10-7

Hollow Concrete Block 1.35 1220 840 1.31x10-6

Plaster 0.57 1300 1000 4.38x10-7

Table 2. WALL CONFIGURATIONS AND THICKNESS

Configuration Wall Type Thickness (m)

a. LS 0.22
b. BCB 0.22
c. FAB 0.22
d. CB 0.22
e. HCB 0.22
f. LSB 0.015 Plaster + 0.22 LS + 0.015 Plaster
g. BCBW 0.015 Plaster + 0.22 BCB + 0.015 Plaster
h. FABW 0.015 Plaster + 0.22 FAB + 0.015 Plaster
i. CBW 0.015 Plaster + 0.22 CB + 0.015 Plaster
j. HCBW 0.015 Plaster + 0.22 HCB + 0.015 Plaster

1, 2 Experimentally calculated values

 Figure 1. HOMOGENEOUS WALLS, a.) LATERITE STONE Figure 2. COMPOSITE WALLS, f.) LATERITE STONE WALL
(LS) b.) BURNT CLAY BRICKS (BCB) c.) FLY ASH BRICKS (LSW) g.) BURNT CLAY BRICK WALL (BCBW) h.) FLY ASH
(FAB) d.) CONCRETE BLOCK (CB) e.) HOLLOW CONCRETE BRICK WALL (FABW) i.) CONCRETE BLOCK WALL (CBW) j.)
BLOCK (HCB). HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCK WALL (HCB).

Table 3. UNSTEADY STATE THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WALLS

U Y
Configuration Wall (m) f ϕ (h) ω (h) F Ѱ (h) χ (J/m2K)
(W/m2K) (W/m2K)
8.16x104
a. LS 3.02 0.509 5.993 5.301 1.113 0.393 2.01

BCB 2.08 0.444 4.789 4.572 1.387 0.492 1.691 7.15x104

b.
FAB 1.28 0.338 2.912 3.720 1.677 0.599 1.332 5.68x104
c.
CB 2.96 0.512 5.979 5.240 1.137 0.402 1.984 8.07x104
d.
HCB
3.00 0.752 3.857 4.455 1.333 0.497 1.563 6.26x104
e.
1.46x105
LSW 2.61 0.433 5.180 4.547 1.029 0.458 1.337
f.
5
BCBW 1.88 0.368 3.833 4.269 1.332 0.514 1.438 1.08x10
g.
FABW 1.19 0.274 1.805 3.940 1.709 0.582 1.489 7.6x104
h.
CBW 2.56 0.434 5.153 4.524 1.054 0.463 1.348 1.42x105
i.
j.
HCBW 2.59 0.656 4.817 4.194 1.330 0.522 1.390 1.15x105

Table 2 shows the different homogeneous and composite wall
configurations considered for the study of the unsteady state
thermal characteristics. Table 3 shows the unsteady state
thermal characteristics of the various wall configurations.
Unsteady state thermal characteristics are calculated using
cyclic admittance procedure. For the calculation of all thermal
characteristics of the walls computer program was made and its
accuracy was compared with CIBSE Environmental design
guide.
3.3 Optimum fabric thickness of the homogeneous BCB Y
wall. 0 2 4 6 8 BCB U10
6 10
The fluctuating component of the conduction through the
building fabric, caused by cyclic variation in the sol–air 5
8
temperature, is treated by using a modified heat flow for all

ADMITTANCE (W/m^2 K)
external surfaces which is effectively the thermal transmittance 4

(U) multiplied by the decrement factor, f. The second and most 6

important point to consider is the rate of transfer of heat energy 3

between the internal surface of the fabric and the 4

environmental node. The rate of flow of this heat energy, for 2

d=0.129 m
each degree of deviation about the mean environmental 2
1
temperature value, is known as the thermal admittance, Y. It is
this non-steady-state parameter that positively indicates the
0 0
ability of the fabric to absorb (and store) heat energy from the 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
environmental node, i.e. fabric energy storage or „thermal THICKNESS (X) (m)
mass‟. The associated time dependency of this heat transfer is
referred to as the lead time, ω.
Previous research indicates for low d values (thin cross - Figure 4. OPTIMUM FABRIC THICKNESS AT d=0.129 m FOR
section fabrics) that Y ̴ U and that Y increases linearly against BCB.
d up until a constant value is achieved where d ≈ 200 mm [9]. FAB Y
Interestingly, other sources suggest that this limiting factor is 0 2 4 6 8 FAB U10
achieved at a much lower thickness of d ≈ 100 mm [7]. Childs 10

5
et al discovered that with increasing thickness, d the energy
stored goes through a maximum value and then actually 4
8
ADMITTANCE (W/m^2 K)

decreases slightly. They also concluded that the limiting value

for d, at which point maximum energy storage occurs, was 3 6

dependent upon the thermal diffusivity (α) of the fabric

suggesting that it could be calculated as [9] : 2 4

𝛼𝑃 d= 0.09 m
𝑑 = 1.2 (19) 1
𝜔 2

0
Wall thickness greater than optimum gives no additional 0
energy storage benefit and can actually reduce energy storage. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

The physical explanation given is that as heat stored in the THICKNESS (X) (m)
fabric from previous days tries to escape, it meets with current
heat flow attempting to enter the fabric. Also, as d increases,
after the peak Y value has been achieved, the thermal Figure 5. OPTIMUM FABRIC THICKNESS AT d=0.09 m for
transmittance, U and volumetric heat capacity, continue to FAB
increase. CB Y
0 2 4 6 8 CB U10
10

LS Y 5

0 2 4 6 8 LS U10 8
10
ADMITTANCE (W/m^2 K)

6 4

6
8
5
ADMITTANCE (W/m^2 K)

d=0.16m 4

4 6
2

2
3 4 1

d= 0.168 m 0
2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
2
THICKNESS (X) (m)

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Figure 6. OPTIMUM FABRIC THICKNESS AT d=0.16 m for CB
THICKNESS (X) (m)

Figure 3. OPTIMUM FABRIC THICKNESS AT d=0.168 m FOR

LS
 HCB Y
0 2 4 6 8 HCB 10
U10
0.8
DECREMENT FACTOR
6
SURFACE FACTOR
0.7
8
5
ADMITTANCE (W/m^2 K)

0.6

DECREMENT FACTOR
6 0.5
4

0.4
3 4
0.3

2 0.2
2
d= 0.22 m
0.1
1

0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 LS BCB FAB CB HCB LSW BCBW FABW CBW HCBW

THICKNESS (X) (m) WALL TYPE

Figure 7. OPTIMUM FABRIC THICKNESS AT d=0.22 m for Figure 10. DECREMENT FACTOR AND SURFACE FACTORS
HCB OF HOMOGENEOUS AND COMPOSITE WALLS

0.52
DECREMENT FACTOR
0.50 SURFACE FACTOR 0.60

0.48 1.0

LS f
DECREMENT FACTOR

0.46 0.55
SURFACE FACTOR

BCB f
0.8
DECREMENT FACTOR

0.44 FAB f
CB f
0.42
0.50 HCB f
0.6
0.40

0.38
0.45 0.4
0.36

0.34
0.40 0.2
0.32

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.0
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY (W/mK) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

WALL THICKNESS (m)

Figure 8. EFFECT OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF THE Figure 11. EFFECTS OF WALL THICKNESS OF THE
HOMOGENEOUS WALLS ON THE DECREMENT FACTOR HOMOGENEOUS WALLS ON THE DECREMENT FACTOR
and the surface factors

0.6

LS F
BCB F
SURFACE FACTOR

FAB F
CB F
THERMAL HEAT CAPACITY (J/m^2 K)

140000
0.5 HCB F
120000

100000

80000 0.4

60000

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

40000
WALL THICKNESS (m)
20000

0
LS BCB FAB CB HCB LSW BCBW FABW CBW HCBW
Figure 12. EFFECTS OF WALL THICKNESS OF THE
WALL TYPE
HOMOGENEOUS WALLS ON THE SURFACE FACTOR

Figure 9. THERMAL CAPACITANCE OF HOMOGENEOUS

AND COMPOSITE WALLS

2.00
1.95
1.90
SURFACE FACTOR TIMELAG (h)
1.85
1.80
1.75
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.55
1.50
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
WALL THICKNESS (m)
Figure 13. EFFECTS OF WALL THICKNESS OF THE
HOMOGENEOUS WALLS ON THE SURFACE FACTOR TIME
LAGS
The limiting value for „d‟ has been calculated for all the
above mentioned building materials. This value helps to
calculate optimum fabric thickness values for different wall
materials. This value greatly depends upon the thermal
diffusivity value of the material. This paper describes the
variation of admittance and transmittance values with increase
in the thickness of the building materials from 0 to 1m.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
4.1 Optimum Fabric thickness of building material.
Optimum fabric thickness of the building materials was
calculated using Eqn. (19).
Figure 3 shows the variation of admittance and
transmittance values of the LS with thickness ranging from 0 to
1m. Limiting value of „d‟ was found to be 0.168 m.
Figure 4 shows the variation of admittance and
transmittance values of the BCB with thickness ranging from 0
to 1m. Optimum fabric thickness for Burnt clay bricks „d‟ was
found to be 0.129 m
Figure 5 shows the variation of admittance and
transmittance values of the FAB with thickness ranging from 0
to 1m. Optimum fabric thickness „d‟ was found to be 0.09 m.
Figure 6 shows the variation of admittance and
transmittance values of the CB with thickness ranging from 0
to 1m. Limiting value of „d‟ was found to be 0.16 m.
Figure 7 shows the variation of admittance and
transmittance values of the HCB with thickness ranging from 0
to 1m. Limiting value of „d‟ was found to be 0.22 m.
From the Figures 3 to 7, it can be observed that due to the
lower thermal diffusivity value of Fly Ash Bricks, they are
more energy efficient and more cost effective as they require
very less material to get the desired inside conditions.
Maximum energy storage in the walls occurs at the
optimum fabric thickness „d‟ and optimum fabric thickness of
the building material depends upon the thermal diffusivity of
the material.
4.2 Effects of Thermal Conductivity of the walls on
decrement factor.
Figure 8 shows the effects of thermal conductivity of
the homogeneous walls on the decrement factor and surface
factors. The thickness of the wall is 220mm. the decrement
factor decreases with the decrease of thermal conductivity.
Building materials with high thermal conductivity or high
thermal diffusivity have lower decrement factors.
The surface factor increases with the decrease of thermal
LS
conductivity of the building material. Building materials with
BCB
FAB high thermal conductivity have lower surface factors and high
CB surface factor time lags. Among all the homogeneous and
HCB
composite building materials considered for the study FAB and
FABW have high surface factors and lower surface factor time
lags due to lower values of thermal conductivities or thermal
diffusivities.
4.3 Thermal capacitance of homogeneous and
Composite walls.
1.0 Figure 9 shows the thermal capacitance values of
homogeneous and composite walls. Among all the
homogeneous walls Fly ash bricks (FAB) have very least
thermal heat capacitance and among all the composite walls
Fly ash brick walls (FABW) have lower thermal capacitance
values. Lower thermal heat capacitance values are the most
preferable for building materials as they store and release less
amount of heat during the second half cycle.
4.4 Decrement and Surface factors of homogeneous
and Composite walls.
Figure 10 shows the decrement factor and surface factors of
homogeneous and composite walls. From the results it is
observed that Fly ash bricks (FAB) and Fly ash brick walls
(FABW) have least decrement factor values and higher surface
factor values among all the homogeneous and composite walls
used in dakshina kannada district.
4.5 Effects of wall thickness of the homogeneous
walls on the decrement factor, surface factor and
surface factor time lags.
The physical process involved is that short wave radiation
is absorbed at the surface, which after a delay due to thermal
storage, causes the temperature of that surface to rise. Heat is
then transferred to the space in the form of long wave radiation
and convection.
Figure 11 shows the effects of wall thickness of the
homogeneous walls on the decrement factor. The thickness of
the homogeneous walls considered for the study is 0 to 1m.
The decrement factor of the building material decreases with
increase in the wall thickness. The smaller the decrement factor
the more effective the wall at suppressing temperature swings.
Figure 12 shows the effects of wall thickness of the
homogeneous walls on the surface factor. The thickness of the
homogeneous walls considered for the study is 0 to 1m.
Surface factor is independent of the wall thickness. From
Figure 8 and Figure 12. It is clear that the surface factor value
decreases with increasing thermal conductivity and remain
virtually independent of the material thickness.
Figure 13 shows the effects of wall thickness of the
homogeneous walls on the surface factor time lags. The
thickness of the homogeneous walls considered for the study is
0 to 1m. Surface factor time lag of the homogeneous walls is
independent of the wall thickness. The surface factor time lag
value increases with increasing thermal conductivity and
remain virtually independent of the material thickness.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The cyclic-response admittance method attempts to account
for dynamic response of building fabric by using a simplified
nodal network and assuming sinusoidal inputs over a 24 h time
period. The admittance, decrement factor, surface factors, thermal transport properties of building materials,”.
thermal heat capacity and time lags are calculated as Fire and Materials, 19, pp.43-49.
unsteady state constants that are derived for different [7] CIBSE, 2006. CIBSE Environmental Design
building materials from the steady-state values using the Guide-A. 7th ed., chartered Institution of Building
admittance procedure. services engineers, London.
Optimum fabric thickness values were calculated for [8] Davies, M.G., 2004. Building Heat Transfer, John-
Laterite stone, Burnt clay bricks, Fly ash bricks, Concrete Wiley & sons Ltd. pp. 335-351.
blocks and Hollow concrete blocks. From the Figures 3 to 7 [9] Hall, M., Allinson, D., 2008. “Assessing the
it can be concluded that Fly ash bricks have less limiting moisture-content-dependent parameters of
value of „d‟ (0.09m) due to their low thermal diffusivity. stabilised earth”. Energy and Buildings, 40, pp.
With these bricks both energy and material saving is 2044-2051.
possible in construction industry.
Admittance procedure gives a clear picture of thermal
heat capacities of building materials. Concrete blocks have
more thermal heat capacity (8.07 X 104J/m2K) and Fly ash
bricks have less thermal heat capacity (5.68 X 104 J/m2K).
Fly ash bricks are extremely preferable over all mentioned
building materials as it absorbs less heat due to its low
thermal heat capacity during the first half cycle and releases
the same amount of heat during the second half cycle.
The amplitude of surface factor decreases and it‟s time
lag increases with increase in thermal conductivity. Laterite
stones have less surface factor (0.393) and high surface
factor time lags (2.01h) due to its high thermal conductivity
(1.36 W/mK) and Fly ash bricks have high magnitude of
surface factor (0.599) and less surface factor time lags
(1.33h) due to its low thermal conductivity (0.360 W/mK).
The decrement factor of the material increases with
increase in the thermal conductivity or thermal diffusivity of
the material. Decrement factors of the FAB (0.338) and
FABW (0.274) are least among all the studied homogeneous
and composite walls respectively. The smaller the
decrement factor the more effective the wall at suppressing
temperature swings.
From the results, it can be concluded that the FAB and
FABW are the most recommended materials among the all
studied building materials in dakshina kannada district for
environment friendly and energy efficient building
construction.

REFERENCES

[1] Gasparellaa, A., Pernigottob, G., Baratieri, M. and

Baggioc, P., 2011. “Thermal dynamic transfer
properties of the opaque envelope: Analytical and
numerical tools for the assessment of the response
to summer outdoor conditions”. Energy and
Buildings, 43, pp. 2509-2517.
[2] Asan, H., Sancaktar, Y.S., 1998. “Effects of Wall‟s
thermo physical properties on time lag and
decrement factor”. Energy and Buildings 28, 159-
166.
[3] Asan, H., 2006. “Numerical computations of time
lag and decrement factors for different building
materials”. Building and Environment 41, 615–620.
[4] Asan, H., 1998. “Effects of Wall‟s insulation
thickness and position on time lag and decrement
factor”. Energy and Buildings 28, 299–305.
[5] Gustafsson S.E. 1991. “Transient plane source
technique for thermal conductivity and thermal
diffusivity measurements of solid materials,”. Rev.
Sci. Instrum., 62, pp.797-804
[6] Log, T. and Gustafsson, S.E. 1995. “Transient
plane source (TPS) technique for measuring

View publication stats