Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

Whole building retrofit using vacuum insulation panels and energy

performance analysis ✩
Kaushik Biswas a,∗, Tapan Patel b, Som Shrestha a, Douglas Smith c, Andre Desjarlais a
a
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), One Bethel Valley Road, Building 3147, P.O. Box 2008, M.S. - 6070, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
b
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), PO Box 9005, Champaign, IL
61826-9005, USA
c
NanoPore Incorporated, 2525 Alamo Ave. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vacuum insulation panels (VIPs), due to their high thermal performance, provide an attractive alternative
Received 7 March 2019 to traditional building insulation materials, especially as an option for retrofitting old, poorly insulated
Revised 29 July 2019
buildings. This article describes the complete retrofit of all exterior walls of a single-story building in a
Accepted 11 September 2019
cold climate using VIPs. A recently-developed low-cost VIP, called modified atmosphere insulation (MAI),
Available online 11 September 2019
was used in this study. Two buildings of near-identical construction were studied, with one remaining
Keywords: unaltered and serving as the baseline while the other served as the retrofit building. The VIPs or MAI
Vacuum insulation panels proved to be a feasible and durable option for retrofitting building envelopes. Thermal perfor-
Modified atmosphere insulation mance of both buildings was analyzed using in-situ temperature and heat flow sensors. Numerical mod-
Building retrofit els of the two buildings were created, benchmarked using experimental data and used for predictions
Whole building energy analysis of annual energy savings due to the addition of MAI panels to the exterior walls. The models predicted
Exterior wall retrofit
significant reduction in the annual heating energy consumption in the retrofitted building compared to
the baseline building.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction isting buildings presents a big opportunity for energy savings and
reduction in emissions, due to the poor energy efficiency of major
Buildings consume about 40% of the total global energy, with portions of the existing building stock, the long life time of build-
a large fraction being used to maintain thermal comfort, and emit ings and the low turnover of the building stock [2,3]. There are
over 30% of the global carbon dioxide (CO2 ) [1]. Retrofitting ex- numerous studies in the literature on building retrofits and eval-
uation of different retrofit strategies, including laboratory experi-
ments, demonstrations in actual buildings, numerical simulations,
Abbreviations: BLCC, Building Life Cycle Cost; CERL, Construction Engineer- or some combination thereof.
ing Research Laboratory; COP, Center-of-panel; CVRMSE, Coefficient of variance of Salvalai et al. [3] described the exterior façade retrofit of a
root mean square error; ERDC, Engineer Research and Development Center; HFM, multi-story, multi-family residential building using pre-fabricated
Heat flow meter; HFT, Heat flux transducer; HVAC, Heating, ventilation and air- insulation panels and observed a 36% reduction in energy con-
conditioning; IR, Infrared; MAI, Modified atmosphere insulation; NMBE, Normal-
ized mean bias error; NE, Northeast; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Tech-
sumption during winter of the first year after the retrofit com-
nology; NW, Northwest; ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; PIR, Polyisocyanu- pared to the average winter energy use during five years before
rate; SE, Southeast; SIR, Savings-to-investment ratio; SW, Southwest; TARP, Thermal the retrofit. Rodrigues et al. [4] evaluated a modular prefabricated
Analysis Research Program; VIP, Vacuum insulation panel. external wall insulation system in the laboratory and used it to
✩
Notice: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC, under Con- retrofit a residential building. While no details of the retrofit it-
tract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United
States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publi-
self are provided, the authors provided descriptions of steady-state
cation, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, and dynamic simulations to evaluate the performance of the insu-
paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published lation system if applied to various building types. Shrestha et al.
form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Govern- [5] monitored and performed whole-building simulations of an ex-
ment purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally spon-
perimental army test hut retrofitted using typical foam and fiber-
sored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/
downloads/doe- public- access- plan). glass insulation. Jones et al. [6] reported deep retrofits of five
∗
Corresponding author. residential buildings, including added envelope insulation, energy-
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Biswas). efficient lighting, renewable energy generation, energy storage, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109430
0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

Nomenclature

CO2 Carbon dioxide

Q Solar irradiance (W/m2 )
k Thermal conductivity (W/(mK))
q Heat flux (W/m2 )
R Thermal resistance (m2 •K/W)
T Temperature (°C or K)

Subscripts
ext Exterior
int Interior Fig. 1. Building 432B (retrofit building).
o Outside
s Solar
- the retrofit building with MAI added to the exterior wall and a
baseline building that was left unaltered. The exterior walls of both
The simple paybacks based on savings and investment costs were the baseline and retrofit buildings were instrumented with temper-
in excess of 38 years, but the authors noted several other factors ature and heat flux sensors, which were monitored over a period of
that should influence the decision-making as well as the potential several months. EnergyPlus models of the two buildings were cre-
for better savings-to-investment ratios (SIR) in future with increas- ated and benchmarked using the temperature and heat flow data
ing energy costs and greater adoption of retrofit measures. Farmer from the buildings. Finally, the benchmarked models were used to
et al. [7] noted the uncertainties in the measured thermal perfor- estimate the energy savings due to the addition of the MAI under
mance of envelope retrofit strategies based on in situ measure- standard operational and weather conditions.
ments alone. The authors demonstrated a steady-state experimen-
tal methodology to evaluate the thermal performance of several 2. Building description
combinations of retrofit measures applied to a full-scale solid-wall
house that was located within an environmental chamber. Two buildings with the same orientation and construction and
Kosny et al. [8] evaluated multiple envelope retrofit strategies located within 30 m of each other were utilized for this study.
and noted the reduction in retrofit costs if thinner insulation ma- The buildings are located in Fort Drum, New York, which falls un-
terials with higher thermal performance could be used instead der climate zone 6A (cold-humid) [21]. The buildings were single
of current insulation materials. Due to their higher thermal resis- storied with 186 m2 of floor space and built using wood-framed
tance, vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) represent a more effective construction. The buildings were oriented with one corner point-
alternative to conventional building insulation materials [9]. State- ing north. The external walls contained fiberglass cavity insulation
of-the-art, silica-based VIPs can achieve apparent thermal conduc- with nominal thermal resistance of 3.4 m2 K/W and the roof in-
tivities in the range of 0.0 021–0.0 043 W/(mK) [10] compared to sulation with nominal resistance of 7.0 m2 K/W. They also con-
fibrous or foam insulations that can achieve 0.02–0.03 W/(mK) or tained the typical interior and exterior sheathing layers, an air bar-
higher [11]. VIPs have been used to retrofit exterior building walls rier film outside the exterior sheathing layer, and metal siding that
and facades of brick and concrete buildings and their long term was mechanically attached to the exterior sheathing. The exterior
performance was monitored using in situ temperature measure- northeast wall of each building was adjacent to an arms vault and
ments [12,13]. Sveipe et al. [14] performed laboratory tests and contained an approximately 0.3 m thick concrete wall inside the
simulations of exterior retrofits of timber walls with 20 mm and wood-framed exterior wall. The buildings were designated 431B
30 mm VIPs with a focus on condensation risks due to addition and 432B; 431B was the baseline building and 432B was retrofitted
of the VIPs. Ascione et al. [15] reported the dynamic testing of using the MAI panels. Both buildings were used as classrooms for
a multi-layered concrete wall with VIPs in a test building under training purposes, but with different occupancy schedules.
multiple weather conditions and also performed simulations of a Fig. 1 shows a photograph of building 432B and Fig. 2 shows a
model office building to evaluate the relative benefits of the low plan of the test buildings. The buildings are oriented so that the
thermal diffusivity of concrete and very low conductivity of VIPs bottom left corner of the schematic in Fig. 2 is pointing north. The
under different weather conditions. building schematic includes the wall orientations, room locations
Biswas et al. [16] demonstrated a new, lower-cost variant of and the approximate thermostat location. A major structural differ-
VIPs called modified atmosphere insulation (MAI) panels in an ad- ence between the buildings was that the room indicated by dashed
ditively manufactured research building, but the energy benefits lines in Fig. 2 was only present in 432B; in building 431, it was an
of using MAI were not evaluated. Biswas et al. [17] reported the open space including the hallway.
development of foam-MAI composite boards and the use of the
composite boards to retrofit the roof of an occupied building in a 3. Building retrofit and monitoring
cold climate; a limited number of temperature and heat flux sen-
sors were installed on the roof, but their primary purpose was to 3.1. MAI dimensions and layout
monitor the long term performance of the composite board. Thus,
while there are studies related to retrofits using VIPs, demonstra- MAI, a lower-cost VIP technology, was used for the retrofit. For
tions of whole-building envelope retrofits with VIPs combined with this project MAI panels with a fumed silica core and a polymeric
systematic evaluations of their specific energy benefits are missing. barrier film were utilized, similar to past work [17]. The advantage
This article presents the complete exterior wall retrofit of a of polymeric films is that the edge-effects, i.e. heat flows around
single-story office building using MAI and energy-savings analysis the edges of the panels, are significantly reduced compared to
using EnergyPlus (https://energyplus.net/). EnergyPlus is a whole metallic or metallized films that are typically utilized in VIPs.
building energy simulation program that has been used to study MAI panels are similar to silica VIPs with respect to core and
the benefits of applying various energy efficiency measures to barrier film, but are manufactured in a different, simplified man-
building [18–20]. In this work, two identical buildings were studied ner compared to traditional VIPs, with potential for significant cost
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 3

Fig. 3. Variation in the area fraction of MAI panels vs. number of different panel
sizes.

Table 1
Fig. 2. Plan of the test buildings, with the room details and wall orientations MAI panel dimensions.
(NE – northeast; SE – southeast; SW – southwest; NW – northwest). The approx-
imate thermostat location is indicated by ‘X’. The room indicated by the dashed MAI panel X (cm) Y (cm) Number of panels
lines was only present in 432B and not in 431B. All dimensions are in meters.
A 50.7 71.1 87
B 54.1 71.1 83
C 48.7 64.8 26
D 52.3 64.8 135
reduction. MAI panels can achieve center-of-panel (COP) thermal
conductivity of about 0.004 W/(mK), which is similar to regular
silica core VIPs [10]. The typical VIP production process involves
pressing fine powders of the core material into boards, which are teners for the metal siding as well as dimensions of the clear wall
cut to the desired size and dried; the latter is an energy-intensive areas (i.e. areas without doors, windows, signs, etc.) where the MAI
process. Next, the core is evacuated and sealed within barrier films. panels could be added. Using the measured wall dimensions, an
MAI, on the other hand, is created by replacing the air in the analysis was done to calculate the percentage area that could be
fluidized powder core by a condensable vapor. After the core is covered by MAI panels of various sizes. Fig. 3 shows the analysis
sealed within barrier films, cooled and formed to final shapes, results of area fraction of the MAI panels as a function of the num-
the condensation of the vapor creates the final vacuum. The MAI ber of different sizes of the MAI panels. The areas fractions were
technology is protected by multiple patents, which are listed in calculated using both clear wall and total wall areas of all exter-
Appendix A. nal wall surfaces. A gradual decline in area fraction was observed
An initial task was to determine the number of different MAI when reducing the panels sizes from 10 to 4, but a sharp drop was
panel sizes as well as the total number of MAI panels needed to observed below 4. Hence, a decision was made to produce MAI
achieve adequate coverage of MAI on the surfaces of the exterior panels with the dimensions and numbers listed in Table 1. With
wall to be retrofitted, to increase the overall R-value to the ex- the following selection, the overall area fraction of MAI panels on
tent possible. The overall cost of MAI when produced at commer- the four walls were: NE – 80%, SE – 78%, SW – 77%, NW – 72%.
cial scales is expected to be dependent on the number of different The thickness of all MAI panels was 2.54 cm.
sizes that need to be produced; the fewer the number of differ- Fig. 4 shows a drawing of the SW exterior wall of the retrofit
ent sizes, the lower the cost. Hence, within this project, an attempt building showing features like doors, signs and location of the me-
was made to minimize the number of MAI panel sizes while main- chanical fasteners via the dash-dotted black lines. Also shown are
taining adequate MAI coverage. The gaps between the MAI panels the MAI panels designated as A, C and D. Assuming thermal con-
were intended to be filled with rigid polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam ductivities of 0.004 W/(mK) and 0.026 W/(mK) for MAI and PIR, re-
insulation. spectively, and using the parallel heat flow path calculations, the
For this task, drawings of the exterior wall surfaces were cre- estimated average thermal resistance to be added to the exterior
ated to identify the locations of windows, doors, mechanical fas- walls was 2.75 m2 K/W. Assuming 5% of the MAI panels would

Fig. 4. Schematic showing the distribution of the MAI panels on the SW exterior wall. All dimensions are in meters.
4 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

to track the sun for measuring the direct normal solar irradiance
(DNI) and diffuse horizontal radiation (DHR). However, the tracker
operation failed, so the local DNI and HDR measurements required
to create the weather file for EnergyPlus simulations could not be
obtained. Therefore, solar irradiance data, including DNI and DHR,
from a nearby commercial weather station located at the Wheeler-
Sack Airfield, New York were utilized. It is noted that utilizing off-
site weather data does introduce additional uncertainties in the
energy models [22]. All sensors were scanned at 15 s intervals and
the hourly averages were stored in data files for monitoring and
analysis.
A heat flow meter was used to measure the thermal conductiv-
Fig. 5. Schematic representing a plan view of the wall cross-section and locations ity of MAI panels according to ASTM C518 [23] test method. The
temperature and heat flow sensors; sensor locations are not to scale. stated uncertainty of the heat flow meter is ±1%.

3.3. MAI installation

The retrofit was performed during November 2016. The retrofit

was done in sections and involved removal of the exterior metal
siding, addition of the MAI panels using adhesives and reinstalla-
tion of the metal siding. PIR foam sheets were cut to size on site
and fitted between the MAI panels. After some initial experimen-
tation, the installation team observed that by first attaching the
lighter PIR foam sheets to the air barrier film, the MAI panels could
simply be fit into the gaps between the PIR strips without any ad-
hesives. The foam strips would hold the MAI panels in place tem-
porarily before the siding was reinstalled using mechanical fasten-
ers at the same locations. The only architectural alterations needed
Fig. 6. Interior view of a wall sensors’ location; an ‘air’ thermistor (in a white
were replacing the soffit vents at the intersection of the roof and
pouch) and the gypsum board used for mounting the surface HFT are visible. external walls and replacing the original J-channels around doors
and windows to accommodate the added thickness of the MAI
panels. J-channels, as the name suggests, are J-shaped pieces of
be damaged during installation or later, the added average thermal siding trim used around windows and doors to overlap and cover
resistance was estimated to be 2.55 m2 K/W; the conductivity of the siding. Fig. 7 shows photographs of the MAI installation. Ad-
damaged MAI is about 0.02 W/(mK) based on measurements. Based hesive construction tape was applied to seal the joints between
on later inspections using infrared imaging, the actual number of the MAI panels and foam-MAI interfaces. In a related study, hy-
damaged MAI panels was about 3.3%. It is noted that these esti- grothermal modeling of the retrofitted walls were performed and
mates are based on COP conductivity of MAI and do not include the model results indicated no additional moisture risks due to the
the edge effects. exterior retrofit using MAI panels and PIR foam [24].
Infrared (IR) images of the facility were taken immediately after
3.2. Instrumentation and data acquisition the installation and during February 2017. These images were used
to determine whether any MAI panels were damaged. The IR imag-
The exterior walls of both buildings were instrumented with ing was performed during winter and clearly revealed the intact
thermistors and heat flux transducers (HFT). A schematic repre- MAI panels as areas of lower apparent surface temperature com-
senting the cross-section of the retrofitted wall as well as the rel- pared to the foam areas; i.e. lower heat losses from the building
ative locations of the thermistors and an HFT is shown in Fig. 5. interior through the MAI sections. One MAI panel was intention-
The thermistors were installed on all exposed surfaces before and ally damaged and was identifiable in the IR images due to its con-
after the retrofit as well as mounted near the interior surface to trast with the intact MAI panels. At some point after the retrofit, Ft.
measure the air temperature. The HFTs are 51 × 51 cm and 2.8 mm Drum staff installed building signs in both the baseline and retrofit
thick and were mounted on the interior wall surfaces using addi- buildings. Due to a lack of coordination, the signs were installed
tional pieces of gypsum board. Fig. 6 shows an interior view of the with screws and punctured five MAI panels in the process. The IR
“air” thermistor and the gypsum board used to attach the surface imaging during February revealed a total of eleven (11) failed MAI
HFTs. Based on the manufacturers’ specifications, the thermistors panels, including the one damaged intentionally and those due to
have an accuracy of ±0.2 °C while the HFTs have an accuracy of the installation of the sign. Although it’s not certain why the addi-
±5% and a sensitivity of 6.3 (W/m2 )/mV. To improve the sensitiv- tional five MAI panels failed, the team suspected the panels were
ity of the HFTs used with the higher-thermal resistance retrofitted damaged during the installation process and slowly allowed their
walls and enable accurate measurement of the low heat flows, two internal pressure to rise over time. With a total of 331 MAI pan-
HFTs combined in series were used in building 432B. HFTs pro- els installed, the eleven damaged panels represent a 3.3% failure
duce a voltage signal in response to the local temperature gradient rate; if the ones damaged intentionally and due to lack of coordi-
and resultant heat flow, and by adding two in series, a higher volt- nation are disregarded, the failure rate dropped to 1.5%. Thus, the
age signal is produced for the same temperature gradient and heat MAI panels proved to be sufficiently durable during the envelope
flow. Thus, the overall measurement sensitivity is increased. retrofit.
An onsite weather station was installed to gather local weather Members of this research team have developed a foam-VIP
data needed for the whole-building energy simulations. Table 2 composite insulation board in collaboration with another manu-
lists the instruments that were installed and corresponding param- facturing partner and demonstrated its installation in an occupied
eters that were measured. In addition, a solar tracker was installed building [17]. Use of composite insulation boards containing VIPs
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 5

Table 2
Instrumentation to gather local weather data.

Sensor/Instrument Model and manufacturer Measured parameter Accuracy/Uncertainty

Weather WXT520, Wind speed (m/s) ±3% at 10 m/s

transmitter Vaisala Wind direction (°) ±3°
Precipitation (mm/h) <5%
Pressure (Pa) ±50–100 Pa
Temperature (°C) ±0.3
Relative humidity (%) ±3–5%
Pyrheliometer DR02, Hukseflux Direct normal solar irradiance (DNI) (W/m2 ) ±2% for daily sums
Pyranometer SR20, Hukseflux Global horizontal irradiance (GHI) (W/m2 ) ±3% for hourly totals
Radiometer NR01, Infrared radiation (W/m2 )
Hukseflux Albedo

Fig. 7. Left - installation of MAI panels with foam strips in the gaps overlapping the fasteners for the exterior siding; Right – retrofitted wall with MAI before reinstalling
the siding.

sections to be able to calculate the appropriate area-averaged heat

flows and temperatures for comparison with the measurements.
In the retrofit building model, temperature-dependent thermal
properties of MAI panels [17] were utilized using the Conduc-
tion Finite Difference heat balance algorithm of EnergyPlus. Area-
weighted average thermal conductivity of insulation materials, ac-
counting for the fractions of wall area covered by MAI panels and
PIR foam, were used in the simulation. However, thermal conduc-
tivity at center of MAI panel was used on the small wall areas
where the HFTs were located, which were modeled as indepen-
Fig. 8. Building model rendering.
dent envelope sections as indicated in Fig. 8. This was necessary
as the HFTs were located near center of MAI panels and, based on
data analysis, were not influenced by the adjacent PIR foam lay-
is expected to significantly reduce the installation time and labor,
ers. It is noted that the area-weighted thermal conductivity calcu-
both being critical considerations for retrofits.
lations also used the COP conductivity of the MAI panels and did
not include edge-effects. However, since a polymeric barrier film
4. Building energy model was utilized, the edge effects are expected to be relatively small.
Due to the scale of the retrofit and variations in the geometries of
4.1. Methodology and model details the MAI panels and adjacent materials, it wasn’t feasible to pre-
cisely estimate and incorporate the edge effects of the MAI panels
EnergyPlus, a whole building energy simulation program, was in the numerical analysis. Appendix B shows calculations of overall
used for energy savings analysis. In this study, the building mod- thermal resistance of a foam-MAI composite layer [17] using COP
els were created using as-built dimensions and envelope details. MAI conductivity and compares it to measured values. The calcu-
Important parameters such as the exact location of HFTs, win- lations in Appendix B show that, with polymeric barrier films, the
dows, and shading surfaces were verified using information gath- COP conductivity of MAI panels yields an excellent approximation
ered from the field. Sensor locations in the models matched the of the overall thermal resistance.
physical locations of the sensors in the baseline and retrofit build- Exterior walls of the buildings were modeled using actual
ings. A rendering of one of the building models, created using construction details. The models contained wood-framed walls
OpenStudio® SketchUp Plug-in [25], is shown in Fig. 8. The en- with fiberglass cavity insulation of nominal thermal resistance of
velope covered by the sensors were modeled as separate envelope 3.4 m2 K/W. The roof was modeled as a low-slope roof with
6 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

Table 3
Temperature-dependent thermal conductivity of MAI.

Mean T (°C) 0 20 23.9 40 55

kMAI (W/(mK)) 0.0039 0.0040 0.0041 0.0043 0.0047

7 m2 K/W thermal insulation. The models also contained the arms

vault with 0.3 m thick concrete walls, which acted as a consider-
able thermal mass. Blower door tests of the two buildings were
performed to measure the envelope airtightness, which is needed
as input by the EnergyPlus models. Both buildings were served
with identical heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC)
equipment. Solar absorptance of exterior envelope surfaces was
measured at various locations and the measured values ranged
from 0.92 to 0.96 for the roof and 0.60 to 0.63 for walls. All these
details were captured in the EnergyPlus models of the buildings. Fig. 9. Sample of measured transient temperatures across the southwest (SW) wall
The simulations were performed using 20 timesteps per hour. of the retrofit building and GHI during three winter days.
The exterior and interior convection heat transfer was modeled
using the ‘SimpleCombined’ and ‘Thermal Analysis Research Pro-
gram’ (TARP) algorithms, respectively. Radiation heat transfer was
across the cross-section of the southwest (SW) wall of the retrofit
modeled using the inputs of surface properties and building ge-
building and the GHI over three winter days (January 18–20, 2017).
ometry; the latter is used by EnergyPlus to calculate view fac-
The locations of the measured temperatures were the exterior sur-
tors. Further details on heat transfer algorithms are available at
face of the siding (‘Siding ext.’), the exterior and interior surfaces
https://energyplus.net/.
of the MAI panels (‘MAI ext.’ and ‘MAI int.’, respectively), the in-
terior sheathing surface (‘Int. sheathing’) and room air adjacent to
4.2. Model benchmarking and estimation of energy savings the interior wall surface. During the daytime hours, the temporal
profiles of the exterior surface temperature and GHI are similar. As
Thermal properties of materials used in the exterior walls were expected, large temperature differences were observed across the
either measured directly using ASTM C518 [23] or were obtained MAI layer and across the original wall cross-section, i.e. between
from the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals [26]. Temperature- the interior sheathing surface and interior MAI surface. Also no-
dependent thermal conductivity (k) of the MAI panels [17], listed ticeable in the plot are the changes in the room air temperature
in Table 3, were used in the models. adjacent to the SW wall due to the thermostat settings. The air
Two sets of models were developed, one for benchmarking temperatures remained at about 23 °C during period from 8:00 AM
against measured data and another for annual energy consump- till 7:00 PM, and then started dropping overnight till about 7:00
tion estimations. For benchmarking, important parameters such as AM the following morning. This indicates thermostat setbacks out-
interior air temperature, HVAC schedule, and internal load were side typical operational hours. Similar observations were made in
modeled using the collected data. Reliable data for some parame- the baseline building.
ters such as occupancy and interior thermal mass (furniture, equip- Fig. 10 compares the room air and exterior siding tempera-
ment, etc.) were not available, so those parameters were tuned in tures measured across all four exterior walls of the retrofit (R) and
the models to reduce discrepancies between the EnergyPlus calcu- baseline (B) buildings. While the measured exterior siding temper-
lations and measurements. Weather data files were created using atures were very close between the baseline and retrofit build-
temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind direction, and ings, significant differences were observed in the room air tem-
wind speed that were measured at the building site and solar ra- peratures. It is noted that the air temperatures near the northwest
diation data from Wheeler-Sack Airfield weather data. and northeast walls were consistently higher in the retrofit build-
For annual energy savings predictions, parameters such as light- ing. It is also noted that the diurnal fluctuations in the air tem-
ing, internal load, occupancy, HVAC operation, and thermostat set- peratures near the northeast (NE) wall were lower compared to
point schedule were used from a DOE commercial prototype build- the other walls, due to the presence of the thermally-massive con-
ing model of a small office [27]. Such generalized building parame- crete section of the NE wall. The measured air temperatures near
ters are more appropriate than the conditions that were specific to the southwest (SW) and southeast (SE) provide some insights into
the baseline and retrofit buildings, since a common set of opera- the benefits of retrofitting with MAI panels. The average air tem-
tional parameters are needed to appropriately compare the energy peratures during the nominal operational hours (8 AM – 7 PM)
performance of the two buildings. All other parameters, such as were observed to be similar between the two buildings, but dur-
the envelope details, were retained from the benchmarked models. ing the evening and overnight hours the air temperature dropped
For weather conditions, typical meteorological year (TMY) weather to discernibly lower values in the baseline building. Thus, the MAI
data [28] were utilized. TMY data represent average weather con- panels were effective in reducing the temperature drop during the
ditions over a period of several years, typically 30. TMY data were thermostat setback hours.
deemed more suitable for annual energy simulations rather than Table 4 compares the average (‘Avg.’) air temperatures during
using actual weather data from a specific time period. the operational hours and the minimum (‘Min.’) air temperatures
during the subsequent evening and overnight hours. For clarity, the
5. Results and discussion corresponding date and time periods used for calculating the aver-
age and minimum temperatures are listed in Table 4. The impact
5.1. Measured data of the MAI panels added to the retrofit building are clearly ob-
served in the overnight drops in the air temperature near the SE
Temperature, heat flux and weather data were recorded on an and SW walls of the retrofit vs. baseline buildings; the overnight
hourly basis. Fig. 9 shows sample measurements of temperatures temperature drops were 1.5–2.5 °C lower in the retrofit building.
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 7

Fig. 10. Comparison of exterior surface temperatures and room air temperatures adjacent to the interior wall surfaces in the baseline (B) and retrofit (R) buildings.

Table 4
Comparison of room air temperatures in the retrofit and baseline buildings.

Retrofit building Baseline building

NE SE SW NW NE SE SW NW

Avg. (Jan 18, 8 AM – 7 PM) 21.5 22.7 22.9 26.8 18.7 21.3 21.8 21.5
Min. (Jan 18, 7 PM – Jan 19, 6 AM) 19.0 18.3 18.2 18.7 16.3 15.1 14.8 15.2
Difference 2.5 4.4 4.7 8.1 2.5 6.2 7.0 6.3
Avg. (Jan 19, 8 AM – 7 PM) 21.6 23.1 23.1 26.4 19.2 22.0 22.8 22.3
Min. (Jan 19, 7 PM – Jan 20, 6 AM) 19.2 17.8 17.8 18.7 16.6 15.5 15.4 15.7
Difference 2.5 5.3 5.3 7.7 2.6 6.5 7.4 6.6
Avg. (Jan 20, 8 AM – 7 PM) 21.7 22.7 22.8 26.6 19.0 21.7 22.7 21.9
Min. (Jan 20, 7 PM – Jan 21, 6 AM) 19.3 18.0 18.1 18.9 16.5 15.6 15.4 15.7
Difference 2.4 4.7 4.7 7.7 2.4 6.1 7.3 6.2

Conversely, near the NW wall the temperature drops in the retrofit 5.2. Model benchmarking results
building were higher; it is noted that the daytime (operational pe-
riod) air temperatures near the NW wall were about 4 °C higher EnergyPlus models were created to match the building geome-
than near the SW and SE walls, which can partly explain the larger try and construction, and benchmarked by comparing the hourly
overnight drops. The reasons for the higher daytime temperatures calculations of the temperatures and heat fluxes with the mea-
near the NW wall are unknown. The thermally-massive NE wall surements from the baseline and retrofit buildings. Figs. 12 and
behaved similarly in both the retrofit and baseline buildings, with 13 compare the EnergyPlus-calculated and measured heat flows
no discernible impact of the added MAI panels. from different walls of the retrofit building during two different
Fig. 11 compares the measured heat fluxes between the retrofit time periods in January and April 2017. While the calculations
and baseline buildings. There are no readily discernible trends to follow the temporal trends of the measurements, different levels
indicate the overall improvement in the thermal performance of of agreements were observed at different times and for different
retrofit building. The heat flux magnitudes through the NE and SE wall orientations. The calculated peak heat losses were observed to
walls are very close between the retrofit and baseline buildings. At be in excellent agreement with the measurements, except for the
the SW wall, the peak heat loses are greater in the baseline build- thermally-massive NE wall. Greater discrepancies were observed
ing and vice-versa in the retrofit building. It is noted that the heat between the hours of 12 PM and midnight during each 24-hour pe-
fluxes are based on single-point measurements and may not be riod. Fig. 14 compares the measured and calculated temperatures
considered representative of the entire walls in the two buildings. at the interior surfaces of the walls of the retrofit buildings during
Energy modeling has been utilized to estimate the overall thermal April 2017. The measurements are from thermistors located next
performance of the walls and their impact on energy consumption. to the HFTs on the walls. Similar to the heat flow results, the cal-
8 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

Fig. 11. Comparison of heat flows through the walls of the baseline (B) and retrofit (R) buildings.

Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and calculated heat flows through the walls of the retrofit building during January 11–15, 2017.
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 9

Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and calculated heat flows through the walls of the retrofit building during April 16–20, 2017.

culated temperatures were in excellent agreement with measure- CVRMSE values are within acceptable ranges except the NE wall of
ments during the overnight hours, while discrepancies of 1–1.5 °C the retrofit building, NMBE of the SE wall of the retrofit building
were observed during the peak temperature periods. Calculations and NW wall of the baseline building. NMBE and CVRMSE of the
and measurements from the baseline building were also compared daily maximum (i.e. peak daytime) heat fluxes were too far outside
and showed similar trends as the retrofit building. The exact ther- the acceptable limits and have not been listed here.
mal characteristics of the NE concrete wall were not known mak- The most probable reason for the discrepancies between the
ing it difficult to model the NE wall accurately. measured and calculated heat flows, especially during daytime
Two statistical metrics typically used to assess how the simu- hours, is the use of solar irradiance data from an offsite location
lation results (Calc.) compare with measured data (Meas.) are nor- due to the failure of the onsite solar tracker. Fig. 15 compares the
malized mean bias error (NMBE) and coefficient of variance of root solar irradiance on a horizontal surface, or GHI, measured using
mean square error (CVRMSE). However, these metrics are not suit- the onsite pyranometer and from the offsite weather station (‘Wea.
able for parameters like heat flow that fluctuate between positive Stn.’), and the differences are clearly observable. Further, assump-
and negative values and have values that are often very close to tions were made about the wall construction in the model such as
zero, i.e. their overall average would approach zero. Therefore, the defect-free construction, uniform and homogeneous insulation in
daily maximum and minimum values of the measured and cal- the cavities, etc., which could not be verified.
culated heat fluxes from January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017 were
selected for assessment using NMBE and CVRMSE. The maximum
5.3. Annual energy savings
values typically correspond to the peak daytime heat gains into the
building and the minimum values correspond to peak nighttime
Following the benchmarking of the models against measured
heat losses. NMBE and CVRMSE are calculated as follows [5].
data, these models were utilized for annual energy simulation
N
i=1 Meas.i − Calc.i and evaluation of energy savings due to the MAI retrofit. TMY
NMBE = × 100; weather data were used for the annual simulations. Lighting, in-
(N − 1 ) × Meas.
 ternal load, occupancy, HVAC operation, and thermostat setpoint
1 N 2
i=1 (Meas.i − Calc.i )
schedule were used from the DOE commercial prototype building
N−1
CV RMSE = × 100 (1) model of a small office[27]. The heating and cooling set points
Meas. were assumed to be 21.1 °C and 23.9 °C during operational hours
In Eq. (1), ‘N’ is the number of observation points. The ac- and changed to 15.6 °C and 29.4 °C during non-operational hours.
ceptable range of the statistical metrics for hourly results is ±10% The main focus is on the reductions in cooling and heating energy
for NMBE and ±30% for CVRMSE [5]. Table 5 lists the NMBE consumption in the retrofit building. The model assumed cooling
and CVRMSE of the daily minimum heat fluxes from the different using electricity and heating via natural gas, the same as the real
walls of the retrofit and baseline buildings. Most of the NMBE and buildings.
10 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

Fig. 14. Comparison of measured and calculated temperatures at the interior wall surfaces of the retrofit building during April 16–21, 2017.

Table 5
NMBE and CV-RMSE of daily minimum heat fluxes.

Retrofit building Baseline building

NE SE SW NW NE SE SW NW

NMBE 33.2 24.4 3.0 2.5 9.8 −7.4 −2.0 −30.5

CVRMSE −40.8 −26.9 −6.9 −5.4 −20.2 −10.1 −7.4 −37.2

Fig. 15. Comparison of solar incidence on a horizontal surface measured on-site and from an off-site weather station.

Fig. 16 compares the calculated monthly cooling electricity and that the retrofit building captured and retained the heat from in-
natural gas consumption between the baseline and retrofit build- ternal loads better than the baseline facility. As expected, the cal-
ings. Since Ft. Drum lies in a heating dominated climate zone, culated natural gas usage was consistently lower for the retrofit
overall gas consumption was much higher than cooling electricity facility.
use. It is noted that, during some months, the calculated electricity It is further noted that the both the baseline and retrofit build-
consumption of the retrofit building was higher than the baseline ings studied here were relatively newly-constructed buildings and
building, which is counter-intuitive. One probable reason for this is contained cavity insulation with nominal thermal resistance of
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 11

Fig. 16. Comparison of calculated monthly cooling electricity and natural gas consumption in the baseline and retrofit buildings based on annual energy simulations.

Table 6
Calculated annual consumption of electricity for cooling and natural gas for heating.

Baseline Retrofit % Difference Baseline∗ Retrofit∗ % Difference

Electricity (kWh) 1060.7 1028.4 −3.1 1458.2 1090.9 −25.2

Natural gas (kWh) 14,414.8 12,616.9 −12.5 26,165.0 14,032.4 −46.4

Table 7 ongoing efforts are expected to yield more accurate estimates of

Material, installation and energy costs assumed for the pre-
investment costs and payback periods of building retrofits. In ad-
liminary cost analysis.
dition, team members are continuing to perform research on MAI
Item Unit cost Unit and VIP technologies to improve thermal resistance and long-term
MAI $30.90 m2 performance by investigating different core materials, barrier films
PIR $6.70 m2 and sealing methods as well as to reduce cost by investigating
Installation $11,220 new processing methods. Based on the outcomes of the ongoing
Electricity $0.073 kWh
research, the updated cost analysis results may be quite different.
Natural gas $3.83 GJ

6. Summary and conclusions

3.4 m2 K/W. Older buildings needing retrofit are not nearly as well This article describes the use of low-cost VIPs, called modified
insulated. Thus, to further evaluate benefits of retrofitting an old atmosphere insulation or MAI, for retrofitting the exterior walls of
building with MAI, additional simulations were performed by as- a one-story office building located in Ft. Drum, New York. Two
suming no cavity insulation. Table 6 compares the calculated an- buildings of near-identical construction were studied; one build-
nual cooling and heating energy use for both scenarios, with and ing was left unaltered and served as the baseline and the other
without cavity insulation. ‘Baseline∗ ’ and ‘Retrofit∗ ’ represent cases was retrofitted with MAI. Thermal performance of the baseline and
without any cavity insulation and, as expected, much higher sav- retrofitted walls was analyzed using in-situ temperature and heat
ings are predicted for this scenario. In reality, by retrofitting an old flow sensors. The measured data were used to benchmark Energy-
building of similar construction and under similar operating condi- Plus models, which were subsequently used to estimate the annual
tions using MAI panels, the percentage savings can be expected to energy savings due to the addition of MAI panels to the exterior
be somewhere in between the cases listed in Table 6. walls.
A preliminary cost analysis was performed using the Building An important outcome of this project was that VIPs/MAI panels
Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) program from National Institute of Standards proved to be a feasible and durable option for retrofitting build-
and Technology (NIST) [29]. Table 7 lists the costs assumed for this ing envelopes, with a failure rate of 1.5% during installation. The
analysis. The cost of MAI is a projection assuming large-scale pro- walls retrofitted with MAI panels were more effective in regulat-
duction. For the current retrofit, 117.2 m2 and 38.6 m2 of MAI and ing the indoor temperatures and reducing the temperature drops
PIR insulation were used. The installation costs assumed $60/hour during the thermostat setback hours during nights and weekends.
and estimated the cumulative hours needed for installation. Finally, EnergyPlus models predicted annual reduction of 12.5% in the nat-
a 16% overhead was added to the total costs. ural gas consumption for heating in the retrofitted building com-
Using the costs listed in Table 7 and assuming a building with pared to the baseline building. It is important to note that both
no pre-existing insulation in the exterior walls, a simple payback the baseline and retrofit buildings contained well-insulated exte-
of 108 years was calculated. Biswas et al. [17] reported the retrofit rior wall cavities. For an older building with no wall insulation,
of a low-slope roof using foam-VIP composites, which could be in- the heating energy savings were estimated to be 46%. Preliminary
stalled similarly to regular insulation boards. If similar foam-VIP or cost analyses indicated payback periods of about 28 years based
foam-MAI composites could be used, the installation time is ex- on projected cost of the MAI panels used for the current retrofit
pected to be small fraction of the time taken to install individ- study.
ual MAI panels. Thus, another cost analysis was performed based Members of this research team and, the VIP industry in gen-
on material costs alone and it resulted in a simple payback of 28 eral, are continuing to perform research, development and demon-
years. stration work related to MAI and VIPs. The research work includes
Members of this research team are currently engaged in evaluation of long-term performance, improving performance by
projects on further demonstrations of MAI for building retrofits as investigating new core and film materials, and reducing cost by
well as evaluating the long-term performance of MAI panels. These altering production methods. Additional demonstrations in real
12 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430

buildings and verification of adequate long-term performance are Table B1

Measured thermal resistance of foam-MAI composite boards and individual
needed to increase the adoption of VIPs in buildings.
components.

Declaration of Competing Interest k (W/(mK)) Thickness (mm) R (m2 •K/W)

PIR (outer layer) 0.026 12.7 0.49

One of the co-authors, Dr. Douglas Smith, is the President of MAI (center layer) 0.0049 25.4 5.18
NanoPore Inc, which is a manufacturer of VIPs. Beyond that, the PIR (center layer) 0.026 25.4 0.98
HD PIR (outer layer) 0.029 12.7 0.44
authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Composite board (RTotal ) 4.46
MAI-PIR (center layer) (RMAI-PIR ) 3.53
Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the Environmental Se-

board. The second-to-bottom row of Table B1 shows the total mea-
curity Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) under project EW-
sured resistance of the composite board (RTotal ), which includes the
201512. ORNL authors are supported by the Building Technologies
impacts of the edge effects of the MAI panels. The bottom row
Office of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-
shows the resistance of the center MAI-PIR layer (RMAI-PIR ), which
AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC. We thank Mr. Philip Childs,
was obtained by subtracting the measured resistance of the sand-
Mr. Anthony Gehl, Mr. Jerald Atchley and Mr. Bradley Brown of
wiching regular and HD PIR layers from RTotal .
ORNL for calibration, set up and troubleshooting of all sensors and
Next, RMAI-PIR was estimated via an area-weighted parallel path
data acquisition systems as well as Mr. Rohit Jogineedi, a research
calculation using COP MAI resistance and area fraction of MAI as
intern at ORNL, for creating computer aided drawings. We also
follows:
thank Mr. Lake Lattimore, Ms. Megan Kreiger, and Dr. Andrew Nel-
son of ERDC-CERL and Mr. Ron Esparza of NanoPore for their sup- 1 AMAI (1 − AMAI )
= +
port in project execution and the installation of MAI panels. We are RMAI−PIR RCOP, MAI RPIR
grateful to Mr. Steve Rowley, Energy Manager at Ft. Drum, for his
‘AMAI ’ is the area fraction of the MAI panels in the center layer,
efforts to coordinate between the project team and Ft. Drum staff.
which is 0.898. RCOP,MAI and RPIR in the center layer are 5.18 and
We thank the Ft. Drum safety office for allowing us to retrofit one
0.98 m2 K/W, respectively, from Table B1. Thus, using only COP
of their facilities and the Ft. Drum carpentry shop for their support
thermal conductivity/resistance of the MAI panels, the value of
during the installation of the sensors in the buildings and MAI in-
RMAI-PIR is 3.60 m2 K/W, which is within 2% of the experimen-
stallation process.
tally determined RMAI-PIR of 3.53 m2 K/W (which includes the edge
effects). It is noted that the edge effects will be different in the
Supplementary materials
retrofit building at Ft. Drum compared to the values listed in
Table B1 due to differences in the overall configurations.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109430.
References
Appendix A. MAI-related patents [1] L. Yang, H. Yan, J.C. Lam, Thermal comfort and building energy consumption
implications–a review, Appl. Energy 115 (2014) 164–173.
• Douglas M. Smith, US Patent 9,133,973. Method of using ther- [2] E. Di Giuseppe, M. Iannaccone, M. Telloni, M. D’Orazio, C. Di Perna, Probabilis-
tic life cycle costing of existing buildings retrofit interventions towards nZE tar-
mal insulation products with non-planar objects, September get: methodology and application example, Energy Build. 144 (2017) 416–432.
2015. [3] G. Salvalai, M.M. Sesana, G. Iannaccone, Deep renovation of multi-storey mul-
• Douglas M. Smith, US Patent 9,598,857. Thermal insulation ti-owner existing residential buildings: a pilot case study in Italy, Energy Build.
148 (2017) 23–36.
products for insulating buildings and other enclosed environ-
[4] L. Rodrigues, J. White, M. Gillott, E. Braham, A. Ishaque, Theoretical and exper-
ments, March 2017. imental thermal performance assessment of an innovative external wall insu-
• Douglas M. Smith, US Patent 9,726,438. Production of thermal lation system for social housing retrofit, Energy Build. 162 (2018) 77–90.
[5] S. Shrestha, A. Pagan-Vazquez, D. Chu, M. Kreiger, K. Biswas, Evaluation of en-
insulation products, August 2017.
ergy efficiency of U.S. army hard shelters, Buildings XIII: Thermal Performance
• Douglas M. Smith, US Patent 9,849,405. Thermal insulation of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings, 2016.
products and production of thermal insulation products, De- [6] P. Jones, X. Li, E. Perisoglou, J. Patterson, Five energy retrofit houses in South
cember 2017. Wales, Energy Build. 154 (2017) 335–342.
[7] D. Farmer, C. Gorse, W. Swan, R. Fitton, M. Brooke-Peat, D. Miles-Shenton,
D. Johnston, Measuring thermal performance in steady-state conditions at each
Appendix B. Approximation of overall thermal resistance using stage of a full fabric retrofit to a solid wall dwelling, Energy Build. 156 (2017)
COP conductivities of MAI panels 404–414.
[8] J. Kosny, A. Fallahi, N. Shukla, Cold Climate Building Enclosure Solutions, Na-
tional Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, COUnited States, 2013.
Biswas et al. [17] measured the overall thermal resistance of [9] M. Alam, H. Singh, M.C. Limbachiya, Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) for build-
foam-MAI composites using a guarded hot box, following ASTM ing construction industry - a review of the contemporary developments and
future directions, Appl. Energy 88 (11) (2011) 3592–3602.
1363 (Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building [10] S.S. Alotaibi, S. Riffat, Vacuum insulated panels for sustainable buildings: a re-
Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Appa- view of research and applications, Int. J. Energy Res. 38 (1) (2014) 1–19.
ratus). The composite consisted on an array of 25.4 mm thick MAI [11] B.P. Jelle, Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation
materials and solutions - Properties, requirements and possibilities, Energy
panels sandwiched by 12.7 mm of regular PIR and 12.7 cm high-
Build. 43 (10) (2011) 2549–2563.
density (HD) PIR. There were gaps between the MAI panels that [12] P. Mukhopadhyaya, D. MacLean, J. Korn, D. van Reenen, S. Molleti, Building ap-
were filled with regular PIR. The area fraction of MAI in the center plication and thermal performance of vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) in Cana-
dian subarctic climate, Energy Build. 85 (2014) 672–680.
layer was 89.8%. The overall thermal resistance of the composite
[13] P. Johansson, B. Adl-Zarrabi, A.S. Kalagasidis, Evaluation of 5 years’ perfor-
board was measured according to ASTM C1363. Table B1 lists the mance of VIPs in a retrofitted building façade, Energy Build. 130 (2016)
measured conductivity (k), thickness and resistance (R) of the dif- 488–494.
ferent layers and total measured resistance of a composite board. [14] E. Sveipe, B.P. Jelle, E. Wegger, S. Uvsløkk, S. Grynning, J.V. Thue, B. Time,
A. Gustavsen, Improving thermal insulation of timber frame walls by
The conductivities listed in Table B1 were measured via ASTM C518 retrofitting with vacuum insulation panels–experimental and theoretical inves-
using materials similar to those used in the foam-MAI composite tigations, J. Build. Phys. 35 (2) (2011) 168–188.
 K. Biswas, T. Patel and S. Shrestha et al. / Energy & Buildings 203 (2019) 109430 13

[15] F. Ascione, R.F. De Masi, R.M. Mastrullo, S. Ruggiero, G.P. Vanoli, Experimental [21] A. ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016, Energy Standard for Build-
investigation and numerical evaluation of adoption of multi-layered wall with ings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 2016.
vacuum insulation panel for typical Mediterranean climate, Energy Build. 152 [22] M. Bhandari, S. Shrestha, J. New, Evaluation of weather datasets for building
(2017) 108–123. energy simulation, Energy Build. 49 (2012) 109–118.
[16] K. Biswas, J. Rose, L. Eikevik, M. Guerguis, P. Enquist, B. Lee, L. Love, J. Green, [23] ASTM C518-17, Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission
R. Jackson, Additive manufacturing integrated energy-enabling innovative solu- Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus, ASTM International,
tions for buildings of the future, J. Sol. Energy Eng. Trans. ASME 139 (1) (2017). 2017.
[17] K. Biswas, A. Desjarlais, D. Smith, J. Letts, J. Yao, T. Jiang, Development [24] K. Biswas, A. Desjarlais, T. Jiang, T. Patel, A. Nelson, D. Smith, Demonstration
and thermal performance verification of composite insulation boards contain- of the hygrothermal performance of a next-generation insulation material in
ing foam-encapsulated vacuum insulation panels, Appl. Energy 228 (2018) a cold climate, Advances in Hygrothermal Performance of Building Envelopes:
1159–1172. Materials, Systems and Simulations, ASTM International, 2017.
[18] S. Shrestha, W. Miller, T. Stovall, A. Desjarlais, K. Childs, W. Porter, M. Bhan- [25] OpenStudio SketchUp Plug-in. Available from: https://nrel.github.io/
dari, S. Coley, Modeling PCM-enhanced insulation system and benchmarking OpenStudio- user- documentation/.
EnergyPlus against controlled field data, in: Proceedings of Building Simula- [26] ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. 2013; Available from: https://www.ashrae.
tion, 2011. org/technical-resources/ashrae-handbook.
[19] J. Ferdyn-Grygierek, K. Grygierek, HVAC control methods for drastically im- [27] Commercial Prototype Building Models. Available from: https://www.
proved hygrothermal museum microclimates in warm season, Build. Environ. energycodes.gov/development/commercial/prototype_models.
149 (2019) 90–99. [28] Wilcox, S. and W. Marion. Users manual for TMY3 data sets, NREL/TP-581-
[20] G. Martinopoulos, A. Serasidou, P. Antoniadou, A.M. Papadopoulos, Building in- 43156. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43156.pdf.
tegrated shading and building applied photovoltaic system assessment in the [29] Building Life Cycle Cost Programs. Available from: https://www.nist.gov/
energy performance and thermal comfort of office buildings, Sustainability 10 services-resources/software/building-life-cycle-cost-programs.
(12) (2018) 4670.