[BLDG-SIM] Thermal mass walls

[Mark E. Case]

Ok - here's a question, maybe stimulate a little controversy but as many
of you know -  that's the way I like it. 
-10 F freezer, 100,000+ square feet. Reasonably steady product loading
24 hours a day (say 90 tons +/- 25 tons in a given hour).
Two envelope systems: 5" metal skin panel with expanded polyurethane vs.
thermal mass panel of 8" HW concrete interior, 6" extruded polystyrene,
2-1/2  HW concrete exterior.
Polyu conductivity .0142 btu/h-ft-F (LTTR basis). Metal skin wall U
without external skin resistance (DOE2) = ..033. Polystyrene .0167,
thermal mass wall U = .030.  
Question - which one is better? That's a loaded question but from a
strictly thermal performance measure -  kWh per year to cool - is there
more difference than the .030 vs. .033 U-value would imply?.

We are using eQuest (Doe2.2) and it show the thermal mass as `slightly'
better. The manufacturer, based largely on testimonial evidence, insists
it is MUCH better. 
One issue that they raise is infiltration through the metal skin panels
and the impact on in-situ R value. They site ORNL test results that
apparently show this but I've not seen them. I know ORNL did some
testing on apparent R of mass walls but it didn't seem conclusive to me
that it would apply in this situation.

Anyone out there that can cite well documented research about the
differences? Anyone have comments about DOE2's strengths and weaknesses
in capturing the effects of the large wall thermal mass?


Mark E. Case, President
etc Group, Inc.



======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030624/62323b88/attachment.htm>