Florida Civil Engineering Journal

Improving the Thermal Performance of

Concrete Masonry Blocks

Maryam Asghari Mooneghi1, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Ramtin

Kargarmoakhar2, Ph.D., M.ASCE and Arindam G.
Chowdhury3, Ph.D., M.ASCE
1
Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555
West Flagler, Miami, FL 33174, U.S.A., E-mail: [email protected].
2
Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, 10555
West Flagler, Miami, FL 33174, U.S.A., E-mail: [email protected].
3
Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering/ International Hurricane Research Center,
Florida International University, 10555 West Flagler, Miami, FL 33174, U.S.A., E-mail:
[email protected].

ABSTRACT: Efforts are being made world-wide to conserve energy resources and
optimize the utilization of energy/electricity. One such direction is to use thermally
efficient building materials in the construction industry so as to minimize the
consumption of electricity. The overall thermal performance of the concrete masonry
units (CMU blocks) can be improved by proper arrangement of thermal insulation
and air holes and appropriate sizing of these insulators. This paper investigates how
the spatial arrangement of thermal insulation and air gaps influences the overall
thermal resistance of concrete and masonry wall systems. In addition, a computer cost
analysis program is used to investigate the annual energy consumption of the best
studied alternative to verify the improvements caused by using the thermal efficient
blocks on the energy consumption. Results demonstrate that decreasing the thermal
bridging effect improves the thermal performance of the blocks. Also it is shown that
thermal efficient blocks are most effective for cold climates.

INTRODUCTION

In many countries, building energy consumption accounts for approximately 40%

of global energy demands, and the energy requirement for space heating and cooling
of a building is approximately 60% of the total energy consumed in buildings, which
accounts for the largest percentage of energy usage. The building envelope plays a
key role in designing energy-efficient buildings. Some of the main purposes of the
building envelope are to protect occupants from ambient and extreme conditions,
regulate environmental loads for building operation, and provide a safe, comfortable
and stable indoor condition. Thus, the design of the building envelope involves many
considerations. Proper selection and design of building envelope systems should
carry the notion of sustainability by fulfilling the following four aspects: (1)
resiliency: maintaining the integrity in extreme events such as hurricanes and
recovering from these with minimal efforts, (2) durability: having an extended service
life and maintaining functionality with minimal need for maintenance and repair, (3)
energy efficient: conserving non-renewable energy and profiting from renewable
energy during the building’s service life, and (4) cost effectiveness. The proper

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 1

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

design and selection of a building envelope and its components are efficient means to
reduce the space heating–cooling loads. As such, thermal insulation is one of the
most valuable tools in achieving energy conservation in buildings (Kaynakli, 2012).
Although in the 20th century masonry was displaced for many applications by steel
and concrete, it remains of great importance for load bearing walls in low and
medium rise buildings, for internal walls and cladding of buildings where the
structural function is met by one or other of these newer materials. Masonry wall
construction has a number of advantages the first of which is the fact that a single
element can fulfill several functions including structure, fire protection, thermal and
sound insulation, weather protection and sub-division of space. Masonry materials are
available with properties capable of meeting these functions, requiring only to be
supplemented in some cases by other materials for thermal insulation, damp-proof
courses and the like.
The second major advantage relates to the durability of the materials which, with
appropriate selection, may be expected to remain serviceable for many decades, if not
centuries, with relatively little maintenance. From the architectural point of view,
masonry offers advantages in terms of great flexibility of plan form, spatial
composition and appearance of external walls for which materials are available in a
wide variety of colors and textures. Complex wall arrangements, including curved
walls, are readily built without the need for expensive and wasteful formwork
(Hendry, 2001).
Masonry construction employs masonry units, mortar, grout, reinforcement, and a
number of specialized materials such as flashing, damp proofing, and coatings. A
wide variety of concrete and masonry systems exists on the market today for
residential and commercial buildings. Solid masonry walls are not generally effective
as barriers to thermal flow. Masonry walls built in conventional units of clay;
concrete or calcium silicate will usually require additional insulation although
lightweight materials such as AAC may be adequate if sufficiently thick. Insulation
can add significant cost to a masonry unit. From an economic and environment
conservation point of view, it is more beneficial to design buildings with high thermal
insulation characteristics since it results in long-term benefit of reducing the cost of
cooling as well as reducing the pollution of the environment due to heavy use of fuel.
Blocks, most of which have hollow cores, offer various possibilities in masonry
construction, generally providing great compressive strength, and they are generally
best suited to structures with light transverse loading when the cores remain unfilled.
One problem with the current method of adding insulation to concrete blocks is that
to increase the thermal performance of masonry walls to achieve very low U-values,
there are limitations on how much insulation can be added within the cavity. Also
adding insulation on the inside or outside face of the walls will presents additional
labor and material costs.
From the thermal point of view, lightweight aerated concrete blocks are often the
preferred choice in domestic construction nowadays, but many architects and
engineers prefer medium density concrete for the outer skin, although its thermal
qualities are not as good. This is because, in the words of one experienced architect,
aerated concrete block is ‘like a sponge’ and the result is that renders are in danger of
cracking, especially because these blocks settle more than their denser counterparts.

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 2

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

Even if it takes a render well, many architects and engineers avoid aerated concrete
blocks because of settlement problems, especially if they have an external render. The
fear is that with a crack the wet will get into the cavity and find it very hard to get
out. Also, if water is allowed to penetrate into the, the humidity stays in the wall and
the thermal performance is reduced. Medium density concrete blocks soak the water
out of the mix far less and have a surface into which a render keys well. Medium
density concrete is also considerably cheaper than aerated concrete.
In this study, CMU blocks with different geometries are investigated using finite
element modeling to show the impact on overall CMU R-value. This clarifies the
effects of different design parameters on the final properties of the concrete block. All
the three basic heat transfer mechanisms (conduction, convection and radiation
phenomena) are taking into account in numerical modeling. Energy consumption of a
sample building constructed with the best candidate is calculated for two different
climates; a hot and humid climate and a region with temperate weather and cold
winters. Same analysis is conducted for regular concrete blocks and the results are
compared with the proposed block to investigate the thermal efficiency of the
modified blocks versus regular blocks.

1. CMU blocks thermal performance

The R-value is used as a measure of thermal resistance for construction materials in

the building and construction industry. Under uniform conditions, R-value is defined
from the ratio of the temperature difference across an insulator and the heat flux (heat
transfer per unit area, ) through it, as shown in equation 1.

(1)

The R-value, being discussed as the unit thermal resistance, is used for a unit value
of any particular material. It can also be expressed as the thickness of the material
divided by the thermal conductivity. For the thermal resistance of an entire section of
material, instead of the unit resistance, the unit thermal resistance is divided by the
area of the material. Generally R-values is given in SI units, typically square-meter
kelvins per watt or m²·K/W (or equivalently to m²·°C/W). However, in the United
States customary units, R-values are given in units of ft²·°F·h/Btu, where 1
h·ft²·°F/Btu = 0.176110 K·m²/W.
Building codes generally prescribe requirements for minimum R-value or
maximum thermal transmittance, U-value, for elements of a building envelope.
Thermal resistance R is the reciprocal of thermal conductance 1/C and does not
include surface-air-film resistances. Thermal conductance C is the coefficient of heat
transfer for a wall and does not include surface-air-film resistances. Thermal
transmittance U is the overall coefficient of heat transfer and includes the interior and
exterior surface-air-film resistances plus the wall’s thermal resistance.
Concrete Masonry Blocks are usually composed of approximately 65 to 70%
aggregate by volume. The remaining volume consists of voids between aggregate
particles, entrained air, and cement paste. The typical air-void content of concrete
used to make lightweight CMUs, for example, has been found to be 10 to 15% by

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 3

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

volume. Expressed as a percentage of the cement paste, void volumes are

approximately 30 to 45%. For a typical lightweight CMU having a net water to
cement ratio of 0.6 and an average cement-paste air-void content of 40%, the thermal
conductivity would be in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 Btu × in./h × ft2 × °F [0.22 to 0.26
W/(m2K)]. It is well known that the thermal conductivity of concrete is much higher
than the thermal conductivity of air and insulation. Therefore, by proper arrangement
of thermal insulation and air holes and appropriate sizing of these insulators, the
overall thermal performance of the concrete blocks can be improved.

2. Finite element modeling

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical procedure that can be used to
obtain solutions to a large class of engineering problems involving stress analysis,
dynamic analysis, electromagnetism, and in our case a non-linear thermal problem.
The method was introduced by engineers in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the
numerical solution of partial differential equations in structural engineering (elasticity
equations, plate equations, etc.). At this point the method was thought of as a
generalization of earlier methods in structural engineering for beams, frames and
plates, where the structure was subdivided into small parts, so-called finite elements,
with known simple behavior (del Coz Díaz et al, 2006).
Heat transfer across the two external faces of the block involves all the three
possible mechanisms. Heat is transferred by conduction through the solid materials
forming the block, by radiation through the voids and by convection in and through
the voids. For the modeling of the different alternatives, ANSYS 5.4 commercial
software is used. Solid tetrahedral elements with 20 nodes, named SOLID90 have
been used for the light concrete. This element is appropriate to reproduce the
behavior of heat transference for conduction in the solid. It has 20 nodes with a one
degree of freedom (temperature) per node.
Surface elements with nine nodes 8 nodes + 1 extra node included, named
SURF152, have been used in order to simulate the convection and radiation
phenomena in the bricks inner holes. These elements have one degree of freedom
(temperature) per node. For the modeling purposes, following properties were
assigned to the materials and boundary conditions:

 Concrete conductivity: 0.25 W/m.K= 1.73 Btu/h.ft2, this value represents an

approximate conductivity for a block fabricated from unsanded, expanded and
sintered clay which is a common practice in masonry material production.
 Insulation conductivity: 0.02 W/m.K
 Film coefficients in the block (in the recess): 6.5 W/m2.K for convection.
 Boundary conditions: a 10 W/m2 heat flow in one of the wall sides, a 25
W/m2.K external film coefficient and a 273.15 K ambient temperature.

In order to investigate the effect of the size and distribution of the air gap and
insulation on the overall thermal performance of the concrete blocks, 12 different
alternatives with following properties have been studied, Figure 1-1 to 1-12 show the
shape and configuration of these blocks.

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 4

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

 B1: Regular Block.

 B2: In this model, the webs are replaced with insulation.
 B3: In this model, the number of holes increases while the exterior geometry
of the block is intact. This goal is achieved by adding a one inch thick rib in
the middle of the block parallel to the exterior faces. All the other properties
of the block are the same as for the regular concrete block.
 B4: This block is modeled assuming that the inner rib is made of insulation. It
assumes that the interior face of the block is thermally insulated from the
exterior face of the block by a low conductive material. The thickness of the
insulation is assumed equal to one inch.
 B5: The purpose of this model is to introduce an innovative design approach
for a thermally efficient concrete masonry block. This goal is achieved by
decreasing the possibility of thermal bridging effect due to the webs. For this
reason the following geometry is proposed to increase the path length of the
heat conduction. Also an insulation layer is considered between the exterior
and interior faces of the block to improve the R-Factor of the block. The
thicknesses of the ribs are assumed based on the minimum permissible values
proposed in the ASTM code for masonry blocks.
 B6: In this model, it is assumed that convection boundary exists at the side
close to the insulation, and heat flux is assigned to the side opposite to the
insulation.
 B7: In this model, it is assumed that heat flux boundary exists at the side close
to the insulation, and convection is assigned to the side opposite to the
insulation.
 B8: In this model, it is assumed that convection boundary exists at the side
close to the insulation, and heat flux is assigned to the side opposite to the
insulation. Also, it is assumed that the added strip in the middle is made up of
insulation.
 B9: In this model, it is assumed that heat flux boundary exists at the side close
to the insulation, and convection is assigned to the side opposite to the
insulation. Also, it is assumed that the added strip in the middle is made up of
insulation.
 B10: In this model, it is assumed that convection boundary exists at one side,
and heat flux is assigned to the other side of the block. Insulation fills the gaps
in between the webs connected to the face shells.
 B11: In this model, the following configuration is considered for the concrete
block. The three webs connecting the faces of the block are designed so that
only the half of the depth is from concrete and the rest is from insulation.
 B12: In this model, the following configuration is considered for the concrete
block. The three webs connecting the faces of the block are designed so that
only the half of the depth is from concrete and the rest is from insulation.

3. “FEM” Results and discussion

The Results are presented for the temperature distribution in the block, adopting the
following approach in the determination of the insulation coefficient:

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 5

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

 On the side where the thermal flow is applied: The average temperature of all
the elements is obtained by dividing the sum of temperatures to the number of
elements.
 On the opposite side, the sink temperature is considered: 273.15 K.
The FEM results are processed by equations (2) and (3) to obtain the R-Factor:

(2)

(3)
Where:
- : Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.K).
- : Overall thermal resistance, taking into account the film coefficients (m2.K/W).
- : Thermal flow applied in the finite element model.
- : Surface area of the wall (m2) (about 1 m2 in this case).
- : Temperature difference between faces of the block, obtained from the finite
element model, following the procedure described above (K).
Table 1 summarizes the obtained R-value for the different alternatives. Figures 1-1
to 1-12 show the temperature distribution under defined boundary conditions for the
B1 to B12 blocks, respectively. A comparison of the R-value obtained for different
alternatives is also shown in Figure 2.
According to the results, increasing the number of the recesses along the heat
transfer path and perpendicular to the wall direction increases the thermal resistance.
Block B2 suggests that termination of the thermal bridging effect due to the webs
does not change the overall R-Factor considerably. From blocks B6 to B10, it is clear
that if only one layer of insulation is used in the block, the position of the insulation
has a negligible effect on the final R-factor; however, it is recommended that the
insulation to be used on the warmer side of the block. Although confusing the heat
transfer by eliminating part of the web improves the thermal behavior of the block, it
is more dependent to the reduction of the area from which heat is transferred rather
than the position of the remained portion of web. This can be concluded by
comparing block B11 with block B12. Comparison of Block B10 with blocks B11
and B12 demonstrates that adding to the number of webs worsens the thermal
behavior of the block and reduces the R-value.

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 6

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

(1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7) (8) (9)

(10) (11) (12)

FIGURE 1. B1 to B12 blocks shape configuration and temperature distribution
under assigned loading

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 7

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

Table 1. and R-value for the different blocks

Block Name
B1 10 4.27 0.427 2.42
B2 10 4.80 0.48 2.72
B3 10 7.25 0.73 4.11
B4 10 16.30 1.63 9.19
B5 10 13.60 1.36 7.71
B6 10 16.28 1.63 9.23
B7 10 16.78 1.68 9.52
B8 10 21.93 2.19 12.43
B9 10 22.46 2.25 12.73
B10 10 19.23 1.92 10.91
B11 10 20.39 2.04 11.56
B12 10 20.34 2.03 11.53

FIGURE 2. Comparison of R-value between the different alternatives

4. Annual energy consumption

The annual energy consumption is estimated for a building constructed using

blocks with R-factor equal to 12 and located in Miami, FL and Buffalo, NY using
eQUEST software. This software has been developed by the Department of Energy
and was designed to perform detailed analysis of today’s state-of-the-art building
design technologies using today’s most sophisticated building energy use simulation
techniques without requiring extensive experience in the "art" of building
performance modeling. The studied building is a two story residential building with
the following properties:
- Plan shape: Rectangular (60.96 m x 15.24 m= 200ft x 50ft)
- Floor to Floor= 2.74 m= 9ft
- Floor to ceiling= 2.44 m= 8ft

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 8

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

- East/West plan (North façade faces North)

- Area= 1,858 m2= 20,000 ft2.
Table 2 shows the average annual energy consumption for two buildings with walls
made of R-12 blocks versus regular blocks and for two different climates. According
to the results, using concrete blocks with higher R-values is most effective for space
heating applications for lowering the energy consumption. Also it can be noted that
while it is good to use materials with higher R-values for the building enclosure
construction both for hot and cold climates, it is more effective when it is used for
buildings located in cold regions.
To investigate the accuracy of the eQUEST software in modeling the energy
consumption of the buildings, simple hand calculations are conducted to calculate the
approximate energy consumption of the buildings constructed with regular CMU
blocks and R-12 blocks. Figure 3 shows the results of the simple hand calculations.
Compared to the results from eQUEST software, simple hand calculations also offer
approximately same trend for the energy consumption of the models. R-12 blocks
seem to be more effective for cold climates.

Table 2. Estimate of the average annual energy consumption of 2-story

residential buildings, with different blocks in walls and for different climates
calculated using eQUEST software.

Type of environmental
Space Cooling Space Heating
loading
Electric Consumption Gas Consumption
Type of energy required
kwh x 000 Btu x 000,000
Reg. 14.85 Reg. 695.44
Block Type
Buffalo R-12 13.87 R-12 336.35
Reduction 7 percent 52 percent
Reg. 56.63 Reg. 2.02
Block Type
Miami R-12 54.26 R-12 0
Reduction 4 percent 100 percent

FIGURE 3. Total Annual energy consumption estimate for the two buildings
and with different climates based on hand calculations

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 9

 Florida Civil Engineering Journal

CONCLUSIONS

Proper design and selection of building envelope and its components are efficient
means to reduce the space heating–cooling loads which can help improve durability
for sustainable building envelope design and reduce energy consumption. Thermal
performance of concrete masonry blocks can be improved by proper arrangement of
thermal insulations and holes and appropriate sizing of these insulators. In this paper,
the influence of spatial arrangement of thermal insulation and air gaps on the overall
thermal resistance (R-value) of masonry wall systems was investigated. CMU blocks
with different geometries were modeled using ANSYS 5.4 finite element commercial
software to show the impact on overall R-value. A computer cost analysis was also
performed to investigate the annual energy consumption of the best proposed
alternative and to verify improvements of utilizing it in construction. Results
demonstrate that decreasing the thermal bridging effect will enhance the thermal
performance of the blocks. Comparing the energy cost analysis for cold and hot
climates shows that thermal efficient blocks are more effective for cold climates.

FUTURE WORK

Future work includes building a large-scale building with the proposed R-12 block
and tests it for in-situ measurement of R-value and overall thermal performance of
the building. Convective heat transfer coefficient of the same building will be
measured experimentally using the Wall of Wind open-jet facility at Florida
International University (FIU). Design guidelines will be proposed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FIU financial support is acknowledged gratefully.

REFERENCES

del Coz Díaz, J.J., Nieto, P.J.G., Rodríguez, A.M., Martínez-Luengas, A.L.,
Biempica, C.B., 2006. Non-linear thermal analysis of light concrete hollow brick
walls by the finite element method and experimental validation. Applied Thermal
Engineering 26, 777-786.
Hendry, E.A.W., 2001. Masonry walls: materials and construction. Construction and
Building Materials 15, 323-330.
Kaynakli, O., 2012. A review of the economical and optimum thermal insulation
thickness for building applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
16, 415-425.

© ASCE Florida Section 2015 Annual Conference Proceedings Page 10