Karambakkam - 2004 - Quench Analysis

TRANSIENT CONDUCTION HEAT TRANSFER IN
TWO-DIMENSIONAL AND
HEAVY ONE-DIMENSIONAL
WALLS
By
KARAMBAKKAM BHARATHKRISHNA
Bachelor of Engineering
Amravati University
Pusad, India
2001
Submitted to the Faculty of

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department
Of Oklahoma State University
in Partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
December, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I sincerely thank Dr. Spitler for his support and guidance all along the project,
especially for bearing with me and giving me hope during the difficult times. Though
things were bumpy at times I now realize its necessity for the success of this project.
I thank Dr. Fisher for his guidance and the knowledge I gained from his courses
and for his support all along. I also thank Dr. Delahoussaye for initiating me into this
project and for the key help and advice from time to time.
I also thank everyone in HVAC research group, especially Haider for his advice,
Weixiu and Ashwin for giving me company in the lab. I also extend my thanks to my
roommates Nilesh Shimpi and Nilesh Siraskar for bearing with me and inspiring me for
the timely completion of the project.
Most importantly, I thank my dad K. Sivakumar, mom K. Nagamani, and my
sister Swapna for their moral and emotional support.
Index
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview..............................................................................................1
1.2 Literature review and background .......................................................2
1.2.1 Transient heat transfer................................................................2
1.2.2 Conduction transfer functions....................................................3
1.2.3 Published methods .....................................................................4
1.2.4 Methods to obtain steady state R-value .....................................7
1.3 Report organization............................................................................13
2. Approximation for two dimensional walls
2.1 Homogeneous layer method ..............................................................15
2.2 Validation tool ..................................................................................16
2.2.1 Finite element method formulation..........................................16
2.2.2 Problem modeling in ANSYS..................................................21
2.3 Validation tests...................................................................................21
2.3.1 Boundary conditions ................................................................22
2.3.2 Test constructions ....................................................................23
2.3.3 Dynamic test with imposed surface temperatures ...................28
2.3.4 Dynamic test with imposed air temperatures...........................33
2.4 Discussion and conclusions ...............................................................39
3. Approximation for heavy one dimensional walls
3.1 Need for approximation .....................................................................41
3.2 Proposed heuristic approximation .....................................................41
3.3 Validation tests...................................................................................42
3.3.1 Test constructions ....................................................................43
3.3.2 Dynamic test with imposed surface temperatures ...................46
3.3.3 Dynamic test with imposed air temperatures...........................51
3.4 Results discussion .............................................................................55
4. Implementation in HvacLoadExplorer
4.1 Heuristic CTF method code implementation.....................................56
4.2 Renormalization of conduction transfer functions.............................59
5. Conclusion and recommendations .............................................................66
REFERENCES ................................................................................................69
APPENDIX A..................................................................................................71
List of Tables
Table
Page
1.1 Data for zone method...........................................................................................11

1.2 Zone method calculations ....................................................................................12
2.1 Exterior temperature schedule .............................................................................22
2.2 Convection coefficients .......................................................................................23
2.3 Wood stud wall construction ...............................................................................23
2.4 Homogeneous wall construction for wood stud wall...........................................23
2.5 Steel stud wall construction .................................................................................25
2.6(a) Homogeneous wall construction for steel stud wall without convective heat
transfer ...........................................................................................................25
2.6 (b) Homogeneous wall construction for steel stud wall convection ....................
boundary condition ........................................................................................26
2.7 Concrete block wall construction.........................................................................27
2.8 Homogeneous wall construction for concrete block wall....................................27
2.9 Surface to surface flux for wood stud wall ..........................................................29
2.10 Surface to surface flux for steel stud wall..........................................................30
2.11 Surface to surface flux for concrete block wall .................................................31
2.12 Periodic response factors of 8 concrete block wall .........................................34
2.13 Convection boundary flux for wood stud wall ..................................................35
2.14 Convection boundary flux for steel stud wall ....................................................36
2.15 Convection boundary flux for concrete block wall............................................37
3.1(a) Concrete wall construction ..............................................................................43
II
3.1(b) Heuristic CTFs for concrete wall ....................................................................43

3.1(c) Near-construction actual CTFs for concrete wall ........................................43
3.2(a) Composite brick wall construction (Case A)...................................................44
3.2(b) Heuristic CTFs for composite Brick wall (Case A) ........................................45
3.2(c) Heuristic CTFs for composite Brick wall (Case A) ........................................45
3.3(a) Composite brick wall construction (Case B)...................................................45
3.3(b) Heuristic CTFs for composite brick wall (Case B) .........................................46
3.3(c) Surface to surface heuristic CTF flux comparison for concrete wall..............46
3.4 Surface to surface flux for concrete wall .............................................................48
3.5 Surface to surface flux comparison for composite brick wall (CaseA) ...............49
3.6 Surface to surface flux comparison for composite brick wall (CaseB). .............50
3.7 Air to air flux comparison for concrete wall........................................................52
3.8 Air to air flux comparison for composite brick wall (Case A) ............................53
3.9 Air to air flux comparison for composite brick wall (CaseB) .............................54
4.1 Concrete wall construction for renormalization ..................................................60
4.2 Original CTFs for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1 .........................61
4.3 Renormalized CTFs for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1 ................62
4.4 Surface to surface flux for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1 ............64
III
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1.1 Temperature profile of wood stud wall................................................................8

1.2 Temperature profile of concrete block wall.........................................................9
1.3 Parallel and isothermal path resistance treatment comparison ...........................10
1.4 Temperature profile of steel stud wall .................................................................11
1.5 Modified zone method R-value calculation parameters ......................................12
1.6 Modified zone factor for R-value calculation of a steel stud wall.......................13
2.1 Triangular finite element......................................................................................17
2.2 Wood stud wall construction ...............................................................................24
2.3 Steel stud wall construction .................................................................................26
2.4 Concrete block wall construction.........................................................................27
2.5 Wood stud wall surface to surface flux comparison............................................29
2.6 Steel stud wall surface to surface flux comparison..............................................30
2.7 Concrete block wall surface to surface flux comparison .....................................31
2.8 Wood stud wall convection boundary flux comparison ......................................35
2.9 Steel stud wall convection boundary flux comparison ........................................36
2.10 Concrete block wall convection boundary flux comparison..............................37
3.1 Concrete wall surface to surface flux comparison...............................................48
3.2 Composite brick wall (Case A) surface to surface flux comparison ...................49
3.3 Composite brick wall (Case B) surface to surface flux comparison....................50
3.4 Concrete wall Convection boundary flux comparison.........................................52
3.5 Composite brick wall (Case A) convection boundary flux comparison ..............53
IV
3.6 Composite brick wall (Case B) convection boundary flux comparison ..............54
4.1 Heuristic CTF method code .................................................................................57
4.2 HvacLoadExplorer layer information input.........................................................58
4.3 Heuristic CTFs obtained in HvacLoadExplorer ..................................................58
4.4 Concrete wall surface to surface flux comparison...............................................64
4.5 Code for Renormalization of conduction transfer functions................................65
1. Introduction
1. 1. Overview
Heat transfer through the exterior envelopes is one of the most important
contributors of building heating/cooling load. Accurate determination of this heat transfer
is important for proper sizing of the equipment. This necessitates specification of the
envelope characteristics which are representative of its actual thermal performance.
Most building heat transfer simulation programs take the input for walls in terms
of single dimensional layers. The transient behavior of such a single dimensional wall can
be determined using methods as specified in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals
(2001) e.g. the conduction transfer function method. However many times walls have
discontinuities such as studs which cannot be represented by a single layer. Calculating
the heat transfer through such walls requires the use of numerical method such as finite
element method or finite difference method. But these methods are computationally
intense and are not usually considered feasible to be used in simulation programs.
Some simplified methods have been developed which let such two/three
dimensional walls to be modeled for input to simulation programs. This report
summarizes such known methods and suggests the homogeneous wall method as
proposed by Spitler (2004). The results obtained from the homogeneous wall method are
compared to those from finite element method and published experimental data.
Another aspect of exterior envelopes which causes problems in simulation is
thermally massive walls. Simulations of such constructions do not converge easily and
pose a strain on the computational memory required. This price is paid for the very little
variation is the heat flux that such walls exhibit over the day. Spitler (2004) proposes a
heuristic method that approximates the dynamic response of such walls with a steady
state heat transfer. This method is validated using RP-1052 ASHRAE analytical test
toolkit and implemented in the building load simulation program HvacLoadExplorer.
Further a renormalization procedure as proposed by Spitler (2004) is implemented in
HvacLoadExplorer in order to reduce the error in CTFs of heavy walls.
1.2 Literature review and background

1.2.1 Transient heat transfer
Due to the heat storage capacity of the wall, an increase in the outside temperature
does not cause an immediate increase in the inside heat flux. This lag reduces the peak
load that is used to size the equipment. This storage effect is not reflected by the steady
state resistance of the wall and hence it is necessary to obtain the dynamic response. The
following methods, as stated in McQuiston, et al. (2000) can be used to calculate
transient heat transfer.
1) Lumped parameter method: Here the structure is treated as a number of discrete
resistances and lumped capacitances.
2) Frequency response methods: These are analytical solutions requiring periodic
boundary conditions.
3) Numerical methods: These are numerical solutions such as finite difference, finite
element or finite volume methods.
4) Z-Transform methods: These include computations using response factors and
conduction transfer functions.
Among all the methods, Z-transform methods are most widely used in simulation
programs because of their efficiency and accuracy. This report uses the conduction
transfer functions for validating the results of the homogeneous wall method.
1.2.2 Conduction transfer functions

Stephenson and Mitalas (1967) developed the transfer function method by solving
the conduction equation using Ztransform methods. Conduction transfer functions
calculate the heat flux on the inside or outside surface based on the temperature and the
flux history. These values are characteristic of a wall and need to be calculated only once.
The heat flux through a wall for a given time is calculated using the following equations
as obtained from McQuiston, et al. (2000).
Ny
Nx
Nx
n =0
n =0
n =1
Ny
Nx
Nx
n =0
n =0
n =1
q"out , = (Yn tis , n ) + ( X n tos , n ) + ( n q"out , n )
q"in , = ( Z n tis , n ) + (Y n t os , n ) + ( n q"out , n )
(1-1)
(1-2)
Where:
q"out , = The heat flux at the outside surface at a given time (W/m2)
q"in , = The heat flux at the inside surface at a given time (W/m2)
Yn = Cross CTF (W/m2-K)

X n = Exterior CTF (W/m2-K)
Z n = Interior CTF (W/m2-K)

n = Flux coefficient
tis , = Temperature of the interior surface at a given time (oC)
tos , = Temperature of the outside surface at a given time (oC)

Conduction transfer functions for a given wall are calculated using a computer
program. These programs employ either the state space method [Ceylan (1980)] or the
Laplace transform method [Hittle (1981)] to calculate the values. The ASHRAE tool kit
[Pedersen, et al. (2003)] includes the Fortran program to calculate the CTFs using
Laplace transform method. However, these programs can be used only for a one
dimensional wall. Two and three dimensional constructions need some treatment in
order to obtain their CTFs.
1.2.3 Published methods to handle multidimensional wall heat transfer

Ceylan and Myers (1980) present a method to calculate the response factors of
multidimensional heat transfer. But their method requires the calculation of eigenvectors
and eigenvalues of a matrix which makes the solution complex. Seem (1987) proposes a
method of combining the CTFs to obtain the equivalent CTFs of a wall. Seem (1989)
showed a method of obtaining CTFs using the Laplace transform method which can be
extended to two dimensions. Kosny (2001) states a method to obtain an equivalent one
dimensional wall construction that has the same thermal behavior as the multi
dimensional wall. A brief explanation of two of the methods follows.
Equivalent CTFs method.
Seem (1987) proposed a method to combine the CTFs of the parallel paths
of a two dimensional wall to obtain the equivalent CTFs. The method was
derived using the concept of back shift operator [Box and Jenkins (1976)]. Once
the CTFs for each of the parallel paths are known the following equations can be
used to calculate the equivalent CTFs.
4
X n = ( f a X k , a n k ,b + f b X k ,b n k , a )
(1-3)
k =0
Z n = ( f a Z k ,a n k ,b + f b Z k ,b nk ,a )
(1-4)
k =0
Yn = ( f a Yk ,a nk ,b + f b Yk ,b n k ,a )
(1-5)
k =0
n = ( n , a n k ,b )
(1-6)
k =0
Where,
Xk,a, Xk,b
= Exterior transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b
Yk,a, Yk,b
= Cross transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b
Zk,a, Zk,b
= Interior transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b
n,a , n,b = The flux history terms of paths a and b
fa, fb
= Area ratio of the parallel paths a and b (ratio of area of path to

the total area of the wall)
The number of combined CTFs will be twice as many as those of the

parallel path walls. However this method is suitable only for walls where the
parallel path method for calculating the R-value can be applied, e.g. a wood stud
wall.
Equivalent Wall method
This method was developed by Kossecka and Kosny (2001). In this

method the multidimensional wall is approximated with a one-dimensional
multilayered structure having the same resistance and capacity as the original
wall.
The procedure for this method briefly described below is obtained from
the ASHRAE report RP 1145 (Kosny, et al. 2001).
1) Obtain the R-value R, overall capacitance C and the response factors
of the wall using a three dimensional numerical tool.
2) Calculate the structure factors ii and ie of the wall using the
equations.
ii =
ie =
1
C
1
C
Nx
(n X
n =1
Nx
(n Y
n =1
(1-7)
(1-8)
3) Assume n layers for an equivalent wall (three recommended for better

convergence). Using some logic or randomly set initial values of the
capacitance and the resistance of the layers. Solve for the resistance
and the capacitance of an n layered wall iteratively using the
equations.
ie =
1
R 2C
ii + ie =
Rm2 Rm R
C
(
+
+ Ro m Rm L )
m
3
2
n =1
1
RC
C
n =1
Rm
+ Rm L )
2
(1-9)
(1-10)
R = Rm
(1-11)
m =0
C = Cm
(1-12)
m =0
Where,
Rm = Thermal resistance of the mth layer of the equivalent wall. (m2-K/W)
Cm = Thermal capacitance of the mth layer of the equivalent wall. (KJ/m2 K )
Ro-m = Thermal resistance from the outer surface to the mth layer of the
equivalent wall. (m2-K/W)

Rm-L = Thermal resistance from the mth layer to the internal surface of
the homogeneous wall. (m2-K/W)

Xn, Yn = Response factors of the original wall (obtained from 3-D heat
transfer tool).
The drawback of this method is that it requires the user to first
obtain the response factors, the overall resistance and capacitance of the
multidimensional wall using a numerical method.
1.2.4 Methods to obtain the steady state R value of two dimensional wall
The ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2001) proposes three methods to obtain
the steady state R-value of a two dimensional wall. The selection of the method depends
on the thermal characteristics of the wall. The three methods are described below.
1)
Parallel path method.

Here the heat is assumed to flow in different parallel paths along the
different laterally placed materials. This method is recommended when there is
no significant lateral heat transfer, e.g. a wood stud wall. Figure 1.1, which is a
wood stud wall having a construction as given in Table 2.3 and with imposed
surface temperatures, shows the typical temperature distribution of such walls.
This method underestimates the amount of heat flow that actually occurs in the
wall. The overall U value is obtained using Equation 1-13.
U overall = a P1U P1 + a P 2U P 2 + a P 3U P 3 + ....
(1-13)
Where,
P1, P2, P3
= The parallel path constituting the multidimensional wall.
aP1, aP2, aP3 = Area ratio of the parallel paths. This is obtained by dividing
the area of the current path with the total area of the wall.
Figure 1.1 Temperature profile of wood stud wall
2)
Isothermal plane method.

In this method only the non-homogeneous section is calculated as having
parallel resistance. All other sections are treated as series resistances. This
method is recommended when there is significant lateral heat transfer along the
wall, e.g. a concrete block wall. This method overestimates the heat transfer
through the wall. Figure 1.2, which is a concrete block wall having a
construction as given in Table 2.7 and with imposed surface temperatures,

shows the temperature profile of such walls.
The U value for the isothermal
plane method is obtained using Equation 1-13. Figure 1.3 shows the difference
in the treatment of the resistances for parallel path method and the isothermal
plane method.
1
Roverall
a
a
= R1 + R2 + P1 + P 2 + R3
RP1 RP 2
(1-13)
Where,
R1, R2, R3 = Resistance of the one-dimensional layers. (m2-K/W)
Rp1, Rp2 = Resistance of the multidimensional layers. (m2-K/W)
Figure 1.2 Temperature Profile of concrete block
Figure 1.3 Parallel and isothermal path resistance treatment comparison
3)
Modified zone method.

In this method the heat transfer region is divided into different zones. A
combination of series and parallel path method is applied to the zones to obtain
the R - value. This method is applicable to walls such as steel stud wall, which
typically have a region of high heat conduction in the steel stud. Figure 1.4
shows the temperature profile of a steel stud wall with imposed surface
temperatures. The area of the zone near the steel stud is a function of the
following factors as described in ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2001):
Thermal conductivity of the sheathing material
Thermal conductivity of the cavity material
Size (depth) of the stud
Thickness of the sheathing material
10
Figure 1.4 Temperature profile of steel stud wall
As described in ASHRAE Hand Book of Fundamentals (2001), the resistance can

be calculated by performing the following calculations.
Table 1.1 Data for zone method
Description
Thickness (m)
Layers in section A say p

Layers in section B say q
Metal stud
Cavity insulation
Stud Pitch S = _______
Depth of Stud L = _______
Zone factor Zf = _______
di1, di2, di3dip

dj1, dj2, dj3djq
dII
dins
Resistivity (1/conductivity)
(m-K/W)
ri1, ri2, ri3rip
rj1, rj2, rj3rjq
rmet
rins
The zone factor is calculated based on the following criteria.

If the thickness of sheathing material is less than 16 mm:
Take Zf as 0.5 if the sheathing resistivity is greater than 10.4 m-K/W.
11
Take Zf as -0.5 if the sheathing resistivity is less than 10.4 m-K/W.

If the thickness of sheathing material is less than 16 mm
Take zone factor from the chart in Figure 1.6 as obtained from ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals (2001).
Calculations
Figure 1.5 Modified zone method R-value calculation parameters [ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals (2001)].
Using the geometry and resistance calculations as per Figure 1.5 the following
calculations can be performed to obtain the R-value.
Table 1.2 Zone method calculations
S.No Calculation
1
d I = d ins 2 d II = _______
S.No
2
Calculation
w = L + Z f di = _______
RA = (ri di ) = _______
RB = (rj d j ) = _______
I
Rins
= rins d I = _______
II
Rins
= rins d II = _______
I
Rmet
= rmet d I = _______
II
Rmet
= rmet d II = _______
9
10
RI =
I
I
Rins
w
Rmet
= _______
I
I
I
d II ( Rins Rmet ) + w Rmet
RII =
II
II
Rins
w
Rmet
= _______
II
II
II
L ( Rins Rmet ) + w Rmet
11
I
II
Rcav = RA + RB + Rins
+ 2 Rins
= _______
12
Rw = RA + RB + RI + 2 RII = _______
13
Rtot =
Rcav Rw s
= _______
w ( Rcav Rw ) + s Rw
12
Figure 1.6 Modified zone factor for R-value calculation of a steel stud wall [ASHRAE
Handbook of Fundamentals (2001)].
1.3 Report organization

This report consists of two sections dealing with heat transfer through walls. The
first section deals with incorporating heat transfer through two dimensional walls into
simulation programs. The second section deals with approximating heat transfer through
heavy walls which pose a problem of convergence in simulation programs.
In Chapter 2, the new homogeneous layer method is proposed. The testing tool is
explained and the finite element method equations are formulated. The accuracy and
applicability of the homogeneous wall method is tested using three different categories of
walls. These tests are carried out with a finite element program using steady state and
dynamic boundary conditions by imposing surface temperatures and air temperatures.
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 deal with heat transfer through heavy walls. The
heuristic conduction transfer method is explained and, using three different wall
constructions, the accuracy of this method is presented. The implementation of this
13
method in HvacLoadExplorer is explained in Chapter 4. The renormalization of the

conduction transfer functions to improve the accuracy is also dealt with in Chapter 4.
A sample ANSYS macro used for the validation tests is given in Appendix A. The
various functions used in the macro are also explained here.
14
2. Approximation for two dimensional walls

2.1 Homogeneous layer method
As proposed by Spitler (2004), in the homogeneous wall method the
multidimensional layer is approximated with a single dimensional layer. The step by step
procedure for obtaining the equivalent wall is stated below.
1) Obtain the steady state overall R value of the wall by using the method
recommended for the particular type of the wall. These methods are described in
Section 1.2.4.
2) Obtain the effective R-value of the homogeneous layer by subtracting the R
values of the single dimensional layers from the overall R value of the wall
determined in (1).
3) The equivalent conductivity of the homogeneous layer is obtained by dividing the
thickness of the homogeneous layer with the resistance of the homogeneous layer.
4) The density of the homogeneous layer is the sum of the densities of the materials
constituting the multidimensional layer multiplied by their volume fractions.
5) Similarly, the specific heat of the homogeneous layer is the sum of the product of
the specific heat, density and the volume fraction of the materials in the
multidimensional layer.
15
2.2 Validation tool

In order to validate the homogeneous wall method the finite element method
package ANSYS was used. The following section presents the description of the finite
element method and modeling of the problem in ANSYS.
2.2.1 Finite element method formulation

Finite element analysis is a numerical method to obtain a solution to a problem
that can be cast as a partial differential equation. The steps for obtaining the solution
using finite element analysis, as obtained from Reddy (1993) are as given below.
1) Discretize the solution domain into finite elements.
2) Develop a weighted integral (weak) form of the governing differential
equation. Develop the element equations.
3) Assemble the element equation to obtain the equations for the whole problem.
4) Impose boundary conditions.
5) Obtain the solution.
Though there are many methods of obtaining the solution using finite element
analysis, the Galerkins method using triangular two-dimensional elements, primarily
obtained from Krishnamoorthy (1994), is explained here.
Discretization of the Domain

The solution domain is divided into small sections which can be triangular,
rectangular or any other shape. The number of nodes in each shape may vary as per the
accuracy desired and the variation in the geometry. The geometry of the element is
interpolated from their nodal values using shape functions. For simplicity this same shape
16
function is used to interpolate the temperature at any point within the element, from the
nodal values. Figure 2.1 illustrates the use of the shape functions to interpolate geometry.
Y
k (xk, yk)
.p(x,y)
j (xj, yj)
i (xi, yi)
Figure 2.1 Triangular finite element.
The geometry is interpolated using the shape functions as:

x = N 1 x1 + N 2 x 2 + N 3 x 3
(2-1)
y = N1 y1 + N 2 y2 + N 3 y3
(2-2)
Where,
N1, N2, N3 are shape functions such that N1 + N2 + N3 = 1
Similarly the same shape functions can be used to interpolate the temperatures as
T = N 1T1 + N 2 T2 + N 3T3
(2-3)
Element equations
The well known transient heat transfer equation in two dimensions is given as:

T
T
T
+ G = c
Kx
+ K y
x
x y
y
t
(2-4)
17
An approximate solution to the above partial differential equation would

introduce an error (residual) in the solution. In Galerkins method the solution is obtained
by setting the residual relative to the shape function to zero.
Hence, assuming the conductivity to be same in all directions, Galerkins method
gives us the equation,
dT 2 dT
N
k
i x + y
T 2
+ c
dx dy = 0
t
(2-5)
Performing integration by parts and applying boundary conditions, we obtain the

elemental equation as given in Equation (2-6)
[ k ]{T } = { f }
(2-6)
Where,
d [ N ] dN d [ N ] dN 2
T 2
i
i
+ c
k ij = k
+
dx dy + h N i N j ds
V
s
t
x x y y
i = 1,2,...n
j = 1,2,...n
f i = G N i dv c[ N ] N i dv
v
d {T }
q N i ds + h T N i ds
s
s
dt
(2-7)
(2-8)
Substituting Equations 2-7 and 2-8 into Equation 2-6 and recasting in matrix form
we obtain the following equation,
[C ]
d {T }
+ [ K ]{T } = { f }
dt
Where
[C ] = c [ N ]T [ N ] dV
v
[ K ] = [ B ]T [ D ][ B ] dV + h[ N ]T [ N ] dS
v
(2-9)
{ f } = G[ N ] dV q[ N ]T dS + h T [ N ]T dS
T
All the element matrices for Equation 2-9 are derived in the next section.
18
Galerkins method is again used to solve the partial differential Equation 2-9 by
interpolating the variation of temperature with time as:
T (t ) = Ti (t ) Pi + T j (t ) p j
(2-10)
Where, Pi and Pj are the time shape functions,

Pi = 1
t
,
t
pj =
t
t
(2-11)
Applying Galerkins method again we obtain the equation,
dT
[C ] dt
+ [ K ]{T } f Pi dt = 0
(2-12)
This integral is solved to obtain a two level time stepping scheme,

[C ] [ K ]
[C ] [ K ]
{T }( n 1) t +
{T }n t = f / 2
+
+
3
6
2 t
2 t
(2-13)
or by combining two such time elements we obtain a three level time stepping scheme,
[C ] [ K ]
[C ] [ K ]
2[ K ]

{T }( n 1) t +
{T }( n +1) = f
+
+
{T }n t +
6
6
3
2 t
2 t
(2-14)
Matrix computations
The shape functions are selected such that they best approximate the temperature
distribution within the element. Though linear shape functions are used here, for more
complex problems the shape functions could be quadratic, polynomial etc. The shape
functions in Equation 2-15 are formulated using the Cartesian coordinates. However in
more complex problems it might become necessary to formulate them using some other
coordinates which are conductive to numerical integration. Detailed descriptions of the
more complex methods are given by Comini, et al. (1994) and are out of the scope of this
report.
19
The following equation gives the shape functions interpolated in Cartesian coordinates.
Ni =
1
(ci + bi x + ai y ); N j = 1 (c j + b j x + a j y ); N k = 1 (ck + bk x + a k y )
2A
2A
2A
in which,
(2-15)
ci = x j y k xk y j ; bi = yi y k ; ai = xk x j
c j = xk yi xi y k ; b j = y k yi ; a j = xi xk
ci = xi y j x j yi ; bk = yi y j ; ak = x j xi
We have,
[B] =
1 bi
2 A ai
aj
[D] =
1 k
2 A 0
0
k
bj
bk
a k
(2-16)
(2-17)
Performing the integrations required for Equation 2-9 we obtain:
bi bi + a i ai
tk
[k ] =
4A
sym.
bi b j + ai a j
b jb j + a j a j
bi bk + a i a k
h t lik
b j bk + a j a k +
6
bk bk + a k a k
2 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 2
(2-18)
In Equation 2-18, lik is the distance between the nodes of an element at the
boundary. For elements which are inside the body, this length would be zero.
From the definition of {f} in Equation 2-9, we obtain the following equation for
the boundary conditions.
Ni
Ni
Ni
{ f } = G N j t dA q N j t dl + h T N j t dlik
A
lik
lik
N k
N k
N k
(2-18)
Performing the integration we obtain:

1
GA t q t lik
{f}=
1
3
2
1
0
1 + h T t lik

2
1
1
0

1
(2-19)
20
The capacitance matrix is obtained by performing numerical integration of [C]

matrix as defined in Equation 2-9 as,
2 1 1
[C ] =
1 2 1
12
1 1 2
cA
(2-20)
2.2.2 Problem modeling in ANSYS

An ANSYS macro in the ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) was
developed to perform the task of constructing the wall and obtain the solution. Appendix
A includes a sample macro with an explanation of the functions used in it. The outline of
the program is as follows.
1) Construct the wall model using area functions.
2) Apply material properties to the areas and mesh model.
3) Apply the initial boundary condition.
4) Solve the model by changing the boundary condition at each time step. At
each step the flux and temperature solutions are stored.
5) Sum the flux through each of the elements facing the inside boundary. Divide
this sum by the unit face length to obtain the flux on the inside boundary.
2.3 Validation tests

For the homogeneous wall to have the same thermal properties as the original
wall, the first criterion was to ensure that the steady state U-value matched. The dynamic
equivalence of the two walls is tested by comparing the peak flux and the hour at which
this peak flux occurs (thermal lag). Validation tests were performed using surface
temperatures and imposed air temperatures, considering convection.
21
2.3.1 Boundary conditions

The dynamic tests were performed using a constant temperature on the inside and
24 hour periodic varying temperatures on the outside of the wall. The temperatures are
imposed on the air in cases which include convection; otherwise they are taken as surface
temperatures.
The outside temperature distribution is taken as per the equation,
2 t
To = Ti + Tamp sin
24
(2-21)
Where,
T0 = Outside temperature (oC)
Ti = Inside temperature (oC)
Tamp = Mean outside temperature (oC)
t = Current time (hrs)
In performing the tests an inside temperature of 20 oC was used and a mean
outside temperature of 30 oC was used. Using Equation 2-13 the outside temperature is
obtained as given in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 Exterior temperature schedule for imposed surface temperatures
Hour Temp (oC)
Hour
Temp (oC)
Hour
Temp (oC)
1
9
17
33.88
40.61
15.51
2
10
18
37.50
37.50
15.00
3
11
19
40.61
33.88
15.51
4
12
20
42.99
30.00
17.01
5
13
21
44.49
26.12
19.39
6
14
22
45.00
22.50
22.50
7
15
23
44.49
19.39
26.12
8
16
24
42.99
17.01
30.00
Tests involving convection had the following convection coefficients as

recommended by ASHRAE.
22
Table 2.2 Convection coefficients

Surface
Convection coefficient
(W/m2K)
Inside
8.29
Outside
34
2.3.2 Test Constructions

The following constructions were used for performing the tests.
Construction 1 (wood stud wall)
This is a wood stud wall with 2x4 studs, 24on center, with thermal properties
given in Table 2.3. The construction of unit length of the wall with its exact dimensions is
given in Figure 2.2. For the wood stud wall, the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals
(2001) recommends the parallel path method for the calculation of the U-value. This
gives us a surface to surface U-value of 0.473 W/m2-K resulting in a homogeneous wall
construction as described in Table 2.4.
Table 2.3 Wood stud wall construction.
Layer Name
Specific Heat
(kJ/kg-K)
Wood siding [1]
1.255
Plywood (Path 1) [2]
1.213
3.5 R-11 fiberglass (Path 2) [3]
0.962
2x4 Wood studs [4]
1.632
Gypsum [5]
1.088
Conductivity
(W/m-K)
0.072
0.115
0.046
0.114
0.16
Thickness
(mm)
12.7
12.7
8.89
8.89
12.7
Density
(Kg/m3)
544.0
544.0
84.8
576.0
800.0
Table 2.4 Homogeneous wall construction for wood stud wall. (U = 0.473 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat Conductivity
Thickness Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
Wood siding
1.255
0.072
12.7
544.0
Plywood
1.213
0.115
12.7
544.0
Homogeneous layer
1.171
0.051
8.89
115.5
Gypsum
1.088
0.160
12.7
800.0
23
Outside
609.6
12.7
38.1
3
Inside
88.9
12.7
12.7
All dimensions in mm
Figure 2.2 Wood stud wall construction

Construction 2 (Steel Stud wall)
Here a steel stud wall with 16 gauge steel studs, 24on center is considered. Table
2.5 gives the thermal properties of this construction and Figure 2.3 gives the construction
of the wall with exact dimensions for the unit length of wall. As stated earlier, the
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2001) recommends the zone method for the Uvalue calculation of steel stud walls. Performing the calculation as described in section
1.2.4 we obtain the surface to surface U-value as 0.66 W/m2-K. Using this U-value the
homogeneous wall for surface to surface heat transfer is obtained as given in Table
2.6(a).
In the zone method the total resistance of the sheathing material influences the Uvalue of the wall. Due to this while, considering the convective boundary condition, the
24
convective resistance had to be considered in the sheeting resistance. After removing the
convective resistances the surface to surface U-value was obtained as 0.62 W/m2-K. The
homogeneous wall calculated using this U-value is given in Table 2.6 (b). This
calculation reduced the error in the steady state U-value, with convective boundary
condition, from 6.2 % to 0.76 % as compared to ANSYS. The following steps give the
process of obtaining the homogeneous wall for steel stud wall with convective boundary
conditions.
1) Obtain the Zone factor (Zf) value by including the convection coefficient in the
sheeting resistance
2) Perform the required calculations as given in Table 1.1 and obtain the overall
resistance of the wall
3) Subtract the convective resistance from the overall resistance obtained above. This
gives the resistance required for the homogeneous wall.
4) Calculate the properties of the homogeneous wall as described in Section 2.1
Table 2.5 Steel stud wall Construction
Specific Heat
Layer Name
(kJ/kg-K)
Wood siding [1]
1.255
Plywood [2]
1.213
3.5R-11 fiberglass [3]
0.962
Steel studs [4]
0.502
Gypsum [5]
1.088
Conductivity Thickness Density

(W/m-K)
(mm)
(kg/m3)
0.072
12.7
544
0.115
12.7
544
0.046
88.9
84.8
45.279
88.9
7840
0.16
12.7
800
Table 2.6(a) Homogeneous wall construction for steel stud wall without convective heat
transfer. (U = 0.66 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat Conductivity Thickness Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
Wood siding
1.255
0.072
12.7
544
Plywood
1.213
0.115
12.7
544
Homogeneous layer
0.953
0.077
88.9
247.59
Gypsum
1.088
0.16
12.7
800
25
Inside
Outside
Table 2.6(b) Homogeneous wall construction for steel stud wall with convective
boundary condition. (U = 0.62 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
Wood siding
1.255
0.072
12.7
544
Plywood
1.213
0.115
12.7
544
Homogeneous layer
0.953
0.071
88.9
247.59
Gypsum
1.088
0.16
12.7
800
Construction 3 (Concrete block wall)
In this construction an 8 concrete block wall with vermiculite filled cores was
considered. Table 2.7 gives the thermal properties of this wall and Figure 2.4 gives its
construction. Due to the considerable lateral heat transfer involved ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals (2001) recommends the isothermal plane method for the calculation of
26
U-value of a concrete block wall. This resulted in a surface to surface U-value of 1.282
W/m2-K. Table 2.8 gives the properties of the homogeneous wall construction for this
concrete block wall.
Table 2.7 Concrete block wall Construction. (U = 1.282 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity Thickness
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
Face shells [1]
0.840
0.706
0.032
Web [2]
0.840
0.706
0.130
Vermiculite insulation [3]
1.340
0.068
0.130
Face shells [1]
0.840
0.706
0.032
Density
(Kg/m3)
1380
1380
110
1380
Inside
Outside
Table 2.8 Homogeneous wall construction concrete block. (U = 1.282 W/m2-K)

Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
in wood siding
1.255
0.072
12.7
544
in plywood
1.213
0.115
12.7
544
Homogeneous layer
0.953
0.077
88.9
247.59
in gypsum
1.088
0.16
12.7
800
27
2.3.3 Dynamic test with imposed surface temperatures.
In the following tests the boundary condition temperatures were imposed on the
interior and exterior surfaces of the wall. The interior surface temperature was kept
constant at 20 oC and the exterior surface temperature was applied as per the schedule
given in Table 2.1.
In Table 2.9 (a) the following three comparisons are made:
1) HvacLoadExplorer: CTFs for the homogeneous wall construction were obtained
using HvacLoadExplorer, which uses the Laplase transform method, and an Excel
spreadsheet was set up to calculate the dynamic heat flux using the CTFs.
2) ANSYS: The original two-dimensional construction of the wall was modeled in
ANSYS and the dynamic heat fluxes were obtained.
3) RP-1145: The CTFs given in RP-1145 [Kosny (2001)] was used to generate the
dynamic heat flux using an Excel spreadsheet.
In Table 2.9 (b) the error in the peak flux of the homogeneous wall is calculated
with reference to ANSYS and RP-1145 peak flux.
From Table 2.9 (c) the U-value of the wall modeled in ANSYS can be compared
to the analytical U-value. The U-value from ANSYS was obtained by imposing a
constant temperature of 30 oC on the external surface and a constant temperature of 20 oC
on the internal surface and then dividing the resulting flux by 10.
Table 2.9 (d) gives the difference between the time at which the peak flux occurs
in the homogeneous wall and the time at which it occurs in ANSYS and RP-1145.
Similar comparisons were made for construction 2 (steel stud wall) and
construction 3 (concrete block wall).
28
Construction 1: Wood stud wall surface to surface flux.

Table 2.9(a) Surface to surface flux for wood stud wall
Homogeneous ANSYS RP 1145
Hour Wall (W/m2) (W/m2)
(W/m2)
Table 2.9(b) Peak flux error of homogeneous wall
1
2.80
3.841
4.004
Compared to
Compared to
2
4.54
5.575
5.808
ANSYS (%)
RP-1145 (%)
3
6.30
7.255
7.556
4
7.94
8.768
9.129
0.92
-3.01
5
9.37
10.009
10.420
6
10.49
10.896
11.341
7
11.21
11.366
11.828
Table 2.9(c) Steady boundary condition U-value
8
11.49
11.388
11.850
Parallel Path method
ANSYS
9
11.31
10.961
11.403
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
10
10.69
10.114
10.520
0.4793
0.4726
11
9.66
8.904
9.259
12
8.29
7.414
7.707
13
6.68
5.745
5.970
Table2.9 (d) Homogeneous wall time lag.
14
4.94
4.011
4.166
Compared to
Compared to
15
3.19
2.331
2.418
ANSYS
(hrs)
RP
-1145 (hrs)
16
1.54
0.818
0.845
0
0
17
0.11
-0.424
-0.446
18
-1.01
-1.310
-1.366
19
-1.73
-1.781
-1.854
20
-2.01
-1.803
-1.875
21
-1.83
-1.376
-1.429
22
-1.21
-0.528
-0.546
23
-0.17
0.682
0.715
24
1.19
2.172
2.267
Peak
11.49
11.39
11.85
Wood stud wall surface to surface flux
14.00
12.00
10.00
Flux (W/m2)
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
10
15
20
25
30
Homogeneous Wall CTFs
-4.00
Hour
ANSYS
RP 1145
Figure 2.5 Wood stud wall surface to surface flux comparison
29
Construction 2: Steel stud wall surface to surface flux.

Table 2.10(a) Surface to surface flux for steel stud wall
Homogeneous ANSYS RP 1145
(W/m2)
Table 2.10 (b) Peak flux error of homogeneous wall
1
3.16
5.837
6.644
Compared to
Compared to
2
5.47
8.201
9.096
ANSYS (%)
RP-1145 (%)
3
7.86
10.449
11.370
4
10.16
12.426
13.308
0.84
-1.85
5
12.22
13.998
14.780
6
13.90
15.059
15.685
7
15.07
15.535
15.961
Table 2.10 (c) Steady boundary condition U value
8
15.67
15.394
15.589
Modified Zone method
ANSYS
9
15.64
14.646
14.596
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
10
15.00
13.342
13.048
0.649
0.660
11
13.78
11.570
11.051
12
12.08
9.452
8.741
13
9.99
7.132
6.275
Table2.10 (d) Homogeneous wall time lag
14
7.68
4.768
3.823
comparison
15
5.29
2.520
1.550
16
2.99
0.543
-0.389
ANSYS (hrs)
RP 1145 (hrs)
17
0.93
-1.029
-1.861
-1
-1
18
-0.74
-2.090
-2.765
19
-1.92
-2.566
-3.042
20
-2.51
-2.425
-2.670
21
-2.49
-1.677
-1.677
22
-1.85
-0.373
-0.129
23
-0.63
1.399
1.868
24
1.08
3.517
4.178
Peak
15.67
15.53
15.96
Steel stud wall Surface to Surface Flux

20.00
Flux (W/m2)
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
10
15
-5.00
20
25
30
Homogeneous W all CTFs

ANSYS
Hour
RP 1145
Figure 2.6 Steel stud wall surface to surface flux comparison
30
Construction 3: Concrete block wall surface to surface flux.

Table 2.11(a) Surface to surface flux for concrete block wall
Homogeneous ANSYS
1
7.31
6.616
Compared to
2
12.01
10.544
ANSYS (%)
3
16.76
14.560
4
21.24
18.387
14.48
5
25.15
21.766
6
28.22
24.467
7
30.25
26.305
8
31.09
27.155
Isothermal plane method
ANSYS
9
30.68
26.960
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
10
29.06
25.732
1.18
1.28
11
26.34
23.555
12
22.69
20.577
13
18.38
17.002
Table2.11(d) Homogeneous wall time lag
14
13.68
13.074
comparison
15
8.93
9.059
16
4.45
5.231
ANSYS (hrs)
17
0.54
1.852
0
18
-2.53
-0.849
19
-4.56
-2.687
20
-5.40
-3.537
21
-4.99
-3.342
22
-3.37
-2.114
23
-0.65
0.063
24
3.00
3.041
Peak
31.09
27.155
8" Concrete Block surface to surface flux
35.00
30.00
Flux (W/m2)
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
-5.00
10
-10.00
15
20
25
30
Homogeneous Wall(iso)
Hour
ANSYS
Figure 2.7 Concrete block wall surface to surface flux comparison
31
Surface to surface flux Results

The following can be observed about the surface to surface flux from the tests
performed.
1) Construction 1(Wood stud wall):
From the plot of the dynamic heat flux profile in Figure 2.5 it can be
observed that the dynamic behavior of the homogeneous wall closely mimics the
performance of the original two dimensional wall as obtained from ANSYS. The peak
hour flux of the homogeneous wall produced an error of 0.92 % as compared to ANSYS
and an error of -3.01 % as compared to the RP-1145. Here it is evident that the
performance of the homogeneous wall method has been found to be better than that of the
equivalent wall obtained used in RP-1145. The thermal response time of the
homogeneous wall is also seen to mimic that of the original wall as the time lag is
compared to both ANSYS and RP-1145 is zero.
2) Construction 2 (Steel stud wall).
The performance of the homogeneous wall, in this case also, is seen to be
impressive with a the peak flux homogeneous wall giving an error of 0.84 % compared to
ANSYS and -1.85 % as compared to RP-1145. Here again the performance of the
homogeneous wall is seen to be better than the equivalent wall from RP-1145. However
the homogeneous wall response time seems to lead that of ANSYS and RP-1145 by one
hour. From Figure 2.6 it can be seen that this lead of one hour is consistent throughout
the day and the homogeneous wall flux profile is similar to that of the two dimensional
wall obtained from ANSYS.
32
3) Construction 3 (Concrete block wall)

The homogeneous wall model produced error in the peak flux of 14 % compared
to the ANSYS model. From Figure 2.7, though, it can be seen that the there is no lag in
the thermal response of the homogeneous wall there is a progressively increasing error in
the flux transmitted.
The steady state U-value of the homogeneous wall, which is
primarily the U-value obtained using the isothermal plane method, is seen to give an error
of 8.5 %. This may be one of the reasons of the poor performance of the homogeneous
wall method.
2.3.4 Dynamic test with imposed air temperatures.

To test the performance of the homogeneous wall method under convection
boundary conditions, the following tests were performed assuming convection on the
internal and external surface of the wall. The convection coefficients given in Table 2.2
were as used for Construction 1 and Construction 2.
For Construction 3 the response factors with included convection coefficients are
given in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2001). These response factors are
presented in Table 2.12. However, these response factors include an inside convection of
8.33 W/m2-K and an outside convection of 25 W/m2-K. Similar convection coefficients
were used for ANSYS and homogeneous wall in order to compare these results.
Table 2.13 (a) gives the dynamic comparisons stated below.
1) HvacLoadExplorer: The flux is obtained by simulating the homogeneous wall in
HvacLoadExplorer. This was necessary as the flux for a wall with convection
boundary condition cannot be directly obtained using an Excel spreadsheet as
33
performed earlier. HvacLoadExplorer uses the energy balance method

[McQuiston (2000)] to obtain the heat flux through the wall.
2) ANSYS: The two dimensional wall is modeled in ANSYS and the flux is
obtained by imposing air temperatures.
In Table 2.13 (b) give the error in the peak flux of the homogeneous wall. This is
obtained by comparing the peak flux of the homogeneous wall and the peak flux of
ANSYS, which is taken as reference.
Table 2.13 (c) can be used to compare the steady state U-values. The steady state
U-values for HvacLoadExplorer and ANSYS were obtained by imposing constant
inside and outside air temperatures and dividing the flux obtained with the temperature
difference. Table 2.13 (d) gives the difference between the time at which the peak flux
occurs in the homogeneous wall and the time at which it occurs in ANSYS. Similar
results are presented for Construction 2 and Construction 3.
Table2.12 Periodic response factors of 8 concrete block wall.
Response factor
Response factor
Hour
Hour
Hour
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
1
9
17
1.06E-02
3.17E-02
2
10
18
1.16E-01
2.11E-02
3
11
19
2.22E-01
2.11E-02
4
12
20
2.11E-01
1.06E-02
5
13
21
1.58E-01
1.06E-02
6
14
22
1.06E-01
1.06E-02
7
15
23
7.39E-02
0.00E+00
8
16
24
5.28E-02
0.00E+00
Response factor
(W/m2-K)
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
34
Construction 1: Wood stud wall convection boundary flux.

Table 2.13(a) Convection boundary condition flux for wood stud wall
HvacLoadExplorer ANSYS
Hour
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
1
1.805
2.852
Compared to
2
3.313
4.394
ANSYS (%)
3
4.898
5.940
4
6.450
7.385
0.63
5
7.865
8.631
6
9.045
9.591
7
9.910
10.202
8
10.402
10.421
Parallel Path method
9
10.486
10.234
(Convection in
10
10.158
9.652
series)
11
9.438
8.717
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
12
8.378
7.491
0.4426
0.4455
0.44135
13
7.047
6.058
14
5.539
4.516
15
3.954
2.969
comparison
16
2.402
1.524
ANSYS (hrs)
17
0.987
0.279
-1
18
-0.193
-0.682
19
-1.058
-1.292
20
-1.550
-1.511
21
-1.634
-1.324
22
-1.306
-0.743
23
-0.586
0.193
24
0.474
1.419
Peak
10.486
10.421
Wood Stud wall Convection boundary Flux

12.000
10.000
Flux (W/m2)
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
-2.000 0
10
15
20
25
30
-4.000
Hour
ANSYS
HvacLoadExplorer
Figure 2.8 Wood stud wall convection boundary flux comparison
35
Construction 2: Steel stud wall convection boundary flux.

Table 2.14(a) Convection boundary condition flux for steel stud wall
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
Hour
1
1.577
4.111
Compared to
2
3.338
6.097
ANSYS (%)
3
5.258
8.052
4
7.209
9.843
-0.696
5
9.055
11.348
6
10.672
12.464
7
11.949
13.115
Table 2.14(c) Steady boundary condition U value
8
12.800
13.258
Modified zone
9
13.166
12.882
method
10
13.022
12.012
(Convection in
11
12.379
10.709
sheeting resistance)
12
11.279
9.061
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
13
9.799
7.179
0.5687
0.5645
0.5688
14
8.038
5.194
15
6.117
3.239
16
4.167
1.448
17
2.321
-0.057
comparison
18
0.704
-1.173
ANSYS (hrs)
19
-0.573
-1.825
-1
20
-1.424
-1.967
21
-1.790
-1.591
22
-1.646
-0.722
23
-1.003
0.582
24
0.097
2.230
Peak
13.166
13.258
Steel stud wall convection boundary Flux

16.000
14.000
Flux (W/m2)
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
-2.000 0
10
15
20
25
30
-4.000
Hour
ANSYS
HvacLoadExplorer
Figure 2.9 Steel stud wall convection boundary flux comparison
36
Construction 3: Concrete block wall convection boundary flux.

Table 2.15(a) Convection boundary condition flux for concrete block wall.
ANSYS
(W/m2)
2.496
4.754
7.353
10.116
12.854
15.382
17.527
19.142
20.118
20.388
19.933
18.785
17.022
14.764
12.165
9.402
6.663
4.135
1.991
0.376
-0.600
-0.870
-0.415
0.733
20.388
ASHRAE
Handbook
(W/m2)
2.164
4.949
8.117
11.451
14.725
17.715
20.217
22.061
23.122
23.326
22.660
21.170
18.956
16.171
13.003
9.669
6.395
3.405
0.903
-0.941
-2.002
-2.206
-1.540
-0.050
23.326
Table 2.15(b) Peak flux error of homogeneous

wall
Compared to
Compared to
ANSYS (%)
ASHRAE handbook (%)
17.74
2.9
Table 2.15(c) Steady boundary condition U
value
Isothermal
ASHRAE
plane method
Handbook
ANSYS
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
0.975
1.064
1.056
Table 2.14(d) Homogeneous wall time lag
comparison
ANSYS (hrs)
0
ASHRAE handbook (hrs)

0
8" Concrete block convection boundary flux
30.00
25.00
Flux (W/m2)
Hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Peak
HvacLoadExplorer
(W/m2)
1.946
4.803
8.067
11.516
14.915
18.031
20.653
22.602
23.745
24.004
23.362
21.862
19.607
16.750
13.486
10.037
6.638
3.522
0.900
-1.049
-2.192
-2.451
-1.809
-0.309
24.004
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
-5.00
10
Hour
15
20
25
30
Homogeneous wall
ANSYS
Ashrae handbook
Figure 2.10 Concrete block wall convection boundary flux comparison
37
Convection boundary condition flux results

The following observations can be made about the convection boundary condition
tests performed on the homogeneous wall.
1) Construction 1 (wood stud wall). The error in the peak flux of the homogeneous wall
can be seen to be 0.63 %. However the convection boundary condition flux response of
the homogeneous wall method leads that of the ANSYS by one hour. From Figure 2.8 it
is however evident that the thermal response profile of the homogeneous wall matches
closely with ANSYS.
2) Construction 2 (steel stud wall). For the steel stud wall it can be seen that the
convection boundary flux produced an error of 0.69% in the peak flux as compared to
ANSYS. Also the thermal response time of the homogeneous wall leads that of ANSYS
by 1 hour.
3) Construction 3 (concrete block wall). The peak flux of the homogeneous wall model
produced an error of 17.4 % as compared to ANSYS. However the error in the peak flux
compared the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2001) response factors is seen as
2.9%. As seen in Figure 2.10, the thermal response profile of the concrete block wall
matches pretty closely with that of ASHRAE handbook response factors flux.
38
2.4 Discussion and conclusions

The thermal performance of the homogeneous wall model was tested against three
different wall categories which exhibit different heat transfer characteristics. The tests
were performed using transient and steady boundary conditions and by imposing surface
and air temperatures. The results were compared to the two dimensional model results
from ANSYS and from RP-1145 (Kosny 2001). The key result of concern is the peak
flux on the internal surface of the wall as this result is used to size the heating and cooling
equipment. The following section discusses the results for each type of wall.
1) Construction requiring parallel path method treatment (Wood stud wall).
This test was performed using a wood stud wall as per the construction given in
Table 2.3. The error in the peak flux, for temperatures imposed on the surface, as
compared to ANSYS is found to be less than 1% and the error in the peak flux as
compared to RP 1145 is found to be 3 %. In the test involving convection the error
compared to ANSYS is found to be less than 1%. This indicates that the homogeneous
wall method can be implemented for such walls to model their thermal behavior.
2) Construction requiring isothermal plane method treatment (Concrete block wall).
The performance of the homogeneous wall was poor in this case giving an error
of 14 % in the peak flux as compared to ANSYS for the imposed surface temperature
boundary condition. For the case involving convection the results were further compared
with the flux obtained using the periodic response factors given in the ASHRAE
Handbook of Fundamentals (2001). The error in the flux involving convection is found to
be 17 % as compared to ANSYS. However when compared to the flux using the
ASHRAE Handbook response factors the error is found to be less than 3 %. This
39
indicates that the performance of the homogeneous wall method is undermined by the
capability of the isothermal plane method in predicting the R-value of the wall. Some
more analysis may be required to apply the homogeneous wall method, for such walls,
where high accuracy is desired.
3) Construction requiring modified zone method (Steel stud wall).
In this case, for surface boundary condition flux, the error in the peak flux is less
than 1% as compared to ANSYS and as compared to RP- 1145 the error is found to be
less than 2 %. Also the error in the peak flux involving convection is found to be less
than 1 % as compared to ANSYS. It may be recalled that for the steel stud wall a
different homogeneous wall construction was used by including the convection in the
sheathing resistance for the zone method calculation. Hence, the homogeneous wall
method can be applied to such walls to obtain good results.
40
3. Approximation for heavy one dimensional walls

3.1 Need for approximation.
Walls having very low U-values and high thermal mass exhibit a highly damped
dynamic response. For steady periodic conditions, as assumed in design load calculation
programs, the heat flux through the walls tends to approach the steady state flux obtained
using the mean internal and external temperatures. Moreover the dynamic response
contribution to the cooling load is very small, and does not significantly affect the peak
load or the HVAC equipment selection.
Further, heavy walls also pose a computational problem in requiring a high
number of CTFs to represent their thermal behavior. This creates problems for simulation
program using the CTFs to converge and they take more time to run. Hence it is
justifiable to approximate the flux with the steady state flux. This can conveniently be
achieved by using CTFs that give steady state response for steady periodic boundary
condition as explained in Section 3.2.
3.2 Proposed heuristic approximation

The procedure for obtaining the heat flux using the heuristic approximation
method is as follows.
1) Obtain the steady state U value of a wall.
2) Obtain the X, Y and Z CTFs by dividing the Uvalue by 24. There are no flux
history terms. The number of X, Y, Z CTFs so obtained is taken as 24.
3) The flux through the wall is calculated by the method described in section 1.2.2.
41
3.3. Validation tests

The finite element method program ANSYS was used to validate the heuristic
approximation method. A description of the finite element method is given in Section 2.2.
Further the commands used to obtain the solution using ANSYS are explained in
Appendix A.
The following tests were performed to verify the heuristic approximation method.
1) The transient boundary condition flux obtained from heuristic CTFs are compared
to those from the ASHRAE 1052-RP Analytical Test Toolkit [Spitler (2001)]. The
Toolkit uses analytical solutions to heat transfer partial differential equations to
output the flux. The flux is calculated using the test TC3 of the toolkit which
allows the wall construction to be input in terms of one-dimensional layers and
the transient temperature boundary condition to be specified as per Equation 2-13.
To compare the surface to surface flux a very high convection coefficient was
input in the toolkit.
2) A near- construction was selected with a 1 mm reduction in the thickness of the
wall. The actual CTFs for this near-construction wall were obtained using
HvacLoadExplorer. The flux obtained using these CTFs were compared to those
obtained using Heuristic CTFs. A change in 1 mm is not expected to produce
much change in the flux of the wall, hence this results in a comparison of the
heuristic CTF method with the actual CTFs. It may be noted that the actual CTFs
were renormalized as described in Section 4.2.
42
3) The heat flux was tested including the inside and outside convection coefficients.
HvacLoadExplorer was used to perform the heat balance iteration to obtain the
flux using the heuristic CTFs.
3.3.1 Test Constructions

Construction 1
In this case a single homogeneous layer of concrete 1165 mm thick, with a

U-value of 1.484 W/m2-K was used in the test. Table 3.1(a) gives the thermal properties
of this wall. Table 3.1(b) gives the heuristic CTFs while Table 3.1(c) gives the actual
CTFs of the wall with 1 mm reduction in the thickness.
Table 3.1(a) Concrete wall construction(U =1.484 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
Concrete
0.92
1.73
1165.4
Table 3.1 (b) Heuristic CTFs for concrete wall
Yn
Zn
Xn
0 23, all
0.06185
0.06185
0.06185
Density
(Kg/m3)
2304
43
Table 3.1 (c) Near-construction actual CTFs for concrete wall

S.No
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Xn
(W/m2-K)
2.69E+01
-1.24E+02
2.33E+02
-2.28E+02
1.21E+02
-3.22E+01
3.00E+00
6.60E-02
9.49E-03
2.04E-03
5.47E-04
1.69E-04
5.77E-05
2.12E-05
8.22E-06
3.32E-06
1.38E-06
5.91E-07
2.57E-07
1.14E-07
5.07E-08
2.29E-08
1.04E-08
4.73E-09
Yn
(W/m2-K)
-5.40E-12
2.70E-11
-5.56E-11
6.14E-11
2.60E-10
1.66E-08
2.53E-07
1.53E-06
4.67E-06
8.44E-06
1.04E-05
9.67E-06
7.38E-06
4.89E-06
2.94E-06
1.64E-06
8.74E-07
4.48E-07
2.24E-07
1.10E-07
5.31E-08
2.54E-08
1.20E-08
5.69E-09
Zn
(W/m2-K)
2.69E+01
-1.24E+02
2.33E+02
-2.28E+02
1.21E+02
-3.22E+01
3.00E+00
6.60E-02
9.49E-03
2.04E-03
5.47E-04
1.69E-04
5.77E-05
2.12E-05
8.22E-06
3.32E-06
1.38E-06
5.91E-07
2.57E-07
1.14E-07
5.07E-08
2.29E-08
1.04E-08
4.73E-09
4.02E+00
-6.41E+00
5.07E+00
-1.99E+00
3.09E-01
Construction 2
Construction 2 and construction 3 deal with a composite brick wall, with

homogeneous layers, in two cases. In construction 2, the composite brick wall case A is
considered with the thermal properties given in Table 3.2(a) and U-value of 0.295 W/m2K. Table 3.2(b) gives the heuristic CTFs for this wall and Table 3.2(c) gives the actual
CTFs with a reduction of 1 mm in the thickness of the facing brick.
Table 3.2(a) Composite brick wall (Case A) [U-value = 0.295 W/m2-K]
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
Facing Brick
0.79
0.87
590.6
Insulation
0.84
0.04
76
Concrete Block
1.05
0.21
152
Plaster
0.84
0.16
12.7
Density
(Kg/m3)
1600
91
944
720
44
Table 3.2(b) Heuristic CTFs for composite brick wall (Case A)

Yn
Zn
Xn
0 23, all
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0
Table 3.2 (c) Near-construction actual CTFs for brick wall (Case A)
S.No
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Xn
(W/m2-K)
1.55E+01
-7.02E+01
1.29E+02
-1.24E+02
6.41E+01
-1.66E+01
1.50E+00
3.13E-02
4.31E-03
8.89E-04
2.30E-04
6.95E-05
2.35E-05
8.57E-06
3.31E-06
1.33E-06
5.43E-07
2.25E-07
9.43E-08
3.97E-08
1.67E-08
7.07E-09
2.99E-09
1.27E-09
Yn
(W/m2-K)
-1.33E-14
6.00E-14
-9.38E-14
1.03E-11
1.62E-09
4.32E-08
3.56E-07
1.25E-06
2.32E-06
2.67E-06
2.19E-06
1.43E-06
7.95E-07
4.00E-07
1.89E-07
8.56E-08
3.78E-08
1.64E-08
7.05E-09
3.01E-09
1.28E-09
5.45E-10
2.31E-10
9.79E-11
Zn
(W/m2-K)
6.58E+00
-2.93E+01
5.29E+01
-4.93E+01
2.47E+01
-6.04E+00
4.89E-01
1.23E-02
1.74E-03
3.12E-04
5.96E-05
1.16E-05
2.30E-06
4.65E-07
9.80E-08
2.22E-08
5.63E-09
1.65E-09
5.52E-10
2.05E-10
8.14E-11
3.27E-11
1.42E-11
5.65E-12
3.94E+00
-6.13E+00
4.72E+00
-1.79E+00
2.69E-01
Construction 3
Here the composite brick wall case B is considered with the thermal properties
given in Table 3.3(a) and U-value of 0.235 W/m2-K. Here again the height of the wall is
taken as 1 m. Table 3.3(b) gives the heuristic CTFs for this wall and Table 3.3(c) gives
the actual CTFs with a reduction of 1 mm in the thickness of the facing brick.
Table 3.3(a) Composite brick wall construction (Case B) [ U = 0.235 W/m2-K]
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
Facing Brick
0.79
0.87
76
1600
Insulation
0.84
0.04
76
91
Concrete Block
1.05
0.21
460.6
944
Plaster
0.84
0.16
12.7
720
45
Table 3.3(b) Heuristic CTFs for Composite Brick wall (Case B)

Yn
Zn
Xn
0 23, all
0.00978
0.00978
0.00978
0
Table 3.3 (c) Near-construction actual CTFs for brick wall (Case B)
S.No
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Xn
(W/m2-K)
1.11E+01
-5.12E+01
9.59E+01
-9.23E+01
4.70E+01
-1.14E+01
7.98E-01
1.61E-02
5.14E-03
1.77E-03
6.16E-04
2.16E-04
7.59E-05
2.67E-05
9.43E-06
3.33E-06
1.18E-06
4.17E-07
1.48E-07
5.25E-08
1.87E-08
6.65E-09
2.37E-09
8.45E-10
Yn
(W/m2-K)
1.75E-14
-9.88E-14
2.34E-13
8.92E-13
2.90E-10
1.06E-08
1.14E-07
5.13E-07
1.19E-06
1.70E-06
1.68E-06
1.29E-06
8.27E-07
4.65E-07
2.39E-07
1.15E-07
5.26E-08
2.32E-08
9.96E-09
4.18E-09
1.72E-09
7.00E-10
2.82E-10
1.12E-10
Zn
(W/m2-K)
7.65E+00
-3.37E+01
6.02E+01
-5.54E+01
2.73E+01
-6.60E+00
5.26E-01
1.25E-02
1.77E-03
3.62E-04
9.01E-05
2.54E-05
7.79E-06
2.53E-06
8.54E-07
2.96E-07
1.05E-07
3.76E-08
1.36E-08
4.96E-09
1.82E-09
6.68E-10
2.46E-10
9.12E-11
3.89E+00
-5.98E+00
4.54E+00
-1.70E+00
2.50E-01
3.3.2 Dynamic tests with imposed surface temperatures

In the following tests the boundary condition temperatures were imposed on the
interior and exterior surface of the wall. The interior surface temperature was kept
constant at 20 oC and the exterior surface temperature was applied as per the schedule
given in Table 2.1.
In Table 3.4(a) following three comparisons have been made:
1) Heuristic CTFs: Excel spreadsheet was set up to calculate the dynamic heat flux
using the heuristic CTFs.
46
2) Near-construction: Using an Excel spreadsheet the near-construction CTFs

obtained from HvacLoadExplorer were used to calculate the dynamic heat flux.
3) ASHRAE toolkit: The dynamic flux was obtained using the ASHRAE 1052-RP
Analytical Test Toolkit [Spitler (2001)].
In Table 3.4 (b) the error in the peak flux obtained using the heuristic CTFs is
calculated with reference to near-construction CTFs and ASHRAE toolkit peak flux.
Similar comparisons were made for construction 2 (Composite brick wall-case A)
and construction 3 (Composite brick wall-case B).
47
Construction 1: Concrete wall surface to surface flux.

Table 3.4(a) Surface to surface flux for concrete wall
NearASHRAE
Heuristic CTF construction
toolkit
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
Hour
(W/m2)
1
14.84
14.754
14.756
2
14.84
14.804
14.807
3
14.84
14.857
14.860
4
14.84
14.909
14.913
5
14.84
14.957
14.960
6
14.84
14.996
15.000
7
14.84
15.025
15.029
8
14.84
15.042
15.046
9
14.84
15.045
15.049
10
14.84
15.034
15.038
11
14.84
15.010
15.014
12
14.84
14.974
14.978
13
14.84
14.930
14.934
14
14.84
14.880
14.883
15
14.84
14.827
14.829
16
14.84
14.775
14.777
17
14.84
14.727
14.729
18
14.84
14.688
14.689
19
14.84
14.659
14.660
20
14.84
14.642
14.643
21
14.84
14.639
14.640
22
14.84
14.650
14.651
23
14.84
14.674
14.675
24
14.84
14.710
14.711
Peak
14.84
15.045
15.049
Table 3.4(b) Peak hour flux error

Compared to
Compared to
near-construction CTF
ASHRAE toolkit
(%)
(%)
-1.33
-1.359
Surface to Surface Flux

(W/m2)
Concrete Wall Heuristic CTF Flux

15.10
15.05
15.00
14.95
14.90
14.85
14.80
14.75
14.70
14.65
14.60
14.55
14.50
0
10
Hour
15
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Near-Construction CTFs
Ashrae Toolkit
Figure 3.1 Concrete wall surface to surface flux comparison
48
Construction 2: Composite brick wall (Case A) surface to surface flux.

Table 3.5(a) Surface to surface flux for composite brick wall (Case A)
NearASHRAE
toolkit
Table 3.5(b) Peak Hour flux Error
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
Hour
(W/m2)
Compared to
1
2.96
2.956
2.957
near-construction
Compared to ASHRAE
2
2.96
2.967
2.968
CTF (%)
toolkit (%)
3
2.96
2.976
2.977
4
2.96
2.984
2.985
-1.29
-1.33
5
2.96
2.991
2.992
6
2.96
2.994
2.996
7
2.96
2.996
2.997
8
2.96
2.994
2.995
9
2.96
2.990
2.991
10
2.96
2.984
2.985
11
2.96
2.976
2.977
12
2.96
2.966
2.967
13
2.96
2.956
2.956
14
2.96
2.945
2.946
15
2.96
2.936
2.936
16
2.96
2.928
2.928
17
2.96
2.922
2.922
18
2.96
2.918
2.918
19
2.96
2.916
2.917
20
2.96
2.918
2.918
21
2.96
2.922
2.922
22
2.96
2.928
2.929
23
2.96
2.937
2.937
24
2.96
2.946
2.947
Peak
2.96
2.996
2.997
Composite Brick Wall (Case A) Heuristic CTF flux
3.01
Surface to Surface Flux (W/m2)
3.00
2.99
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.95
2.94
2.93
2.92
2.91
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Ashrae Tool Kit
Figure 3.2 Composite brick wall (Case A) surface to surface flux comparison
49
Construction 3: Composite brick wall (Case B) surface to surface flux.

Table 3.6(a) Surface to surface flux comparison for composite brick wall (CaseB)
"NearASHRAE
toolkit
Table 3.6(b) Peak Hour flux Error
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
Hour
(W/m2)
Compared to
1
2.35
2.346
2.346
near-construction
Compared to ASHRAE
2
2.35
2.352
2.352
CTF (%)
toolkit (%)
3
2.35
2.359
2.359
4
2.35
2.364
2.364
-1.057
-1.057
5
2.35
2.368
2.368
6
2.35
2.371
2.371
7
2.35
2.372
2.372
8
2.35
2.372
2.372
9
2.35
2.370
2.370
10
2.35
2.366
2.366
11
2.35
2.361
2.361
12
2.35
2.355
2.355
13
2.35
2.349
2.349
14
2.35
2.342
2.342
15
2.35
2.336
2.336
16
2.35
2.331
2.331
17
2.35
2.326
2.326
18
2.35
2.323
2.324
19
2.35
2.322
2.322
20
2.35
2.323
2.323
21
2.35
2.325
2.325
22
2.35
2.328
2.329
23
2.35
2.333
2.333
24
2.35
2.339
2.339
Peak
2.35
2.37
2.37
Composite Brick Wall (case B) Heuristic CTF flux
2.375
2.370
2.365
2.360
2.355
2.350
2.345
2.340
2.335
2.330
2.325
2.320
2.315
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Ashrae Toolkit
Figure 3.3 Composite brick wall (Case B) surface to surface flux comparison
50
3.3.3 Dynamic tests with imposed air temperatures

Here the performance of the Heuristic CTFs method is tested under convection
boundary conditions. The following tests were performed assuming convection on the
internal and external surface of the wall using the convection coefficients given in
Table 2.2.
No comparison was made with near-construction CTFs. As the wall had to be
simulated using the heat balance method in HvacLoadExplorer, problems were
encountered in convergence of the heat flux. This is probably caused by the high number
of CTFs involved and the thermal mass of the wall. This aspect needs more analysis and
is recommended for future work.
Table 3.7 (a) gives the dynamic comparisons stated below.
1) ASHRAE toolkit: The dynamic flux was obtained using the ASHRAE 1052-RP
Analytical Test Toolkit [Spitler (2001)].
2) HeuristicCTF: HvacLoadExplorer was used to simulate the heat transfer with
convection boundary condition to obtain the dynamic flux.
In Table 3.7 (b) the error in the peak flux obtained using the heuristic CTFs is
calculated with reference to near-construction CTFs and ASHRAE toolkit peak flux.
51
Construction 1: Concrete wall convection boundary flux.

Table 3.7(a) Air to air flux comparison for concrete wall
ASHRAE
Heuristic CTF toolkit
(W/m2)
Hour (W/m2)
Compared to
1
12.141
12.090
ASHRAE toolkit (%)
2
12.141
12.097
3
12.141
12.106
-0.44
4
12.141
12.118
5
12.141
12.131
6
12.141
12.145
7
12.141
12.159
8
12.141
12.171
9
12.141
12.182
10
12.141
12.189
11
12.141
12.193
12
12.141
12.194
13
12.141
12.191
14
12.141
12.185
15
12.141
12.175
16
12.141
12.163
17
12.141
12.150
18
12.141
12.136
19
12.141
12.122
20
12.141
12.110
21
12.141
12.100
22
12.141
12.092
23
12.141
12.088
24
12.141
12.087
Peak
12.14
12.19
Concrete Wall Heuristic CTF, Convection Boundary Flux

12.200
Air to Air Flux (W/m2)
12.180
12.160
12.140
12.120
12.100
12.080
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Ashrae toolkit
Figure 3.4 Concrete wall convection boundary flux comparison
52
Construction 2: Composite brick wall (Case A) convection boundary flux.

Table 3.8(a) Air to air flux comparison for composite brick wall (Case A)
ASHRAE
(W/m2)
Hour (W/m2)
Compared to
1
2.831
2.823
ASHRAE toolkit (%)
2
2.831
2.827
3
2.831
2.832
-0.67
4
2.831
2.837
5
2.831
2.842
6
2.831
2.846
7
2.831
2.848
8
2.831
2.850
9
2.831
2.850
10
2.831
2.849
11
2.831
2.847
12
2.831
2.844
13
2.831
2.840
14
2.831
2.835
15
2.831
2.830
16
2.831
2.825
17
2.831
2.821
18
2.831
2.817
19
2.831
2.814
20
2.831
2.812
21
2.831
2.812
22
2.831
2.813
23
2.831
2.815
24
2.831
2.818
Peak
2.831
2.850
Concrete Wall Heuristic CTF, Convection Boundary Flux

12.200
12.180
12.160
12.140
12.120
12.100
12.080
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Ashrae toolkit
Figure 3.5 Composite brick wall (Case A) convection boundary flux comparison
53
Construction 3: Composite brick wall (Case B) convection boundary flux.

Table 3.9(a) Air to air flux comparison for composite brick wall (CaseB)
ASHRAE
(W/m2)
Hour (W/m2)
Compared to
1
2.268
2.257
ASHRAE toolkit (%)
2
2.268
2.261
3
2.268
2.265
-0.7
4
2.268
2.269
5
2.268
2.273
6
2.268
2.277
7
2.268
2.280
8
2.268
2.282
9
2.268
2.283
10
2.268
2.283
11
2.268
2.283
12
2.268
2.281
13
2.268
2.278
14
2.268
2.274
15
2.268
2.270
16
2.268
2.266
17
2.268
2.262
18
2.268
2.258
19
2.268
2.255
20
2.268
2.253
21
2.268
2.252
22
2.268
2.252
23
2.268
2.252
24
2.268
2.254
Peak
2.27
2.283
Composite Brick Wall (Case B) Heuristic CTF, Convection Boundary Flux
2.290
2.285
2.280
2.275
2.270
2.265
2.260
2.255
2.250
2.245
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Heuristic CTFs
Ashrae Toolkit
Figure 3.6 Composite brick (Case B) wall convection boundary flux comparison
54
3.4 Results Discussion

The heuristic CTFs were tested for their performance under imposed surface
temperatures and imposed air temperatures. The error in the peak flux was observed to be
less than 1% in all the cases. From the graphs of the dynamic response, though there
seems to be a large difference in the peak flux predicted by the heuristic CTFs, the error
is not much as the dynamic response of the walls is very small and hence the graphs use a
very small scale. Due to the low fluctuation in the actual heat flux of the heavy wall, as
seen from the flux profile obtained from Analytical Test Toolkit [Spitler (2001)], it is
justifiable to approximate the heat flux with the average values. It may be noted that the
error in the heuristic CTFs flux would be dependent on the deviation of the temperature
from the mean value or amplitude (Tamp in Equation 2-13). As stated in Section 2.3.1 the
tests performed in this report assumed an amplitude of 15 oC with a mean temperature of
30 oC. However, for most natural environmental circumstances this amplitude is not
expected to increase much to cause an unacceptable error.
55
4. Implementation in HvacLoadExplorer
Two changes were incorporated into HvacLoadExplorer to improve the programs
capability to handle heavy walls.
1) The Heuristic CTFs method is incorporated in the program to handle very heavy
walls. When the number of CTFs for a wall becomes more than 24, computational
and
logical
errors
occur
in
the
HBFORT
solver
program
used
by
HvacLoadExplorer. As greater than 24 CTFs would require the program to store the
temperature profile for more than a day, this would require changes in the current
logic. Such large number of CTFs also causes problems in converging. Hence a
limit of 24 CTFs was taken as the cut off point, beyond which heuristic CTFs are
calculated.
2) For heavy walls, the order of the CTFs extend to 10-12 or more, this poses high
tolerance requirements on the HBFORT solver which uses a root finding method to
calculate the CTFs. This introduces errors in the resulting CTF values. The
renormalization of the CTFs is performed with the intention to correct this error.
These changes were made to the HBFORT solver that the HvacLoadExplorer
interface program uses. The following two sections describe the two changes to the
program.
4.1 Heuristic CTF method code implementation.
The Heuristic CTFs method code is implemented in the subroutine CalcCTFs in

the MODRTS module of the HBFORT solver. This subroutine is called from the
MainDriver subroutine, in the HBSSMain module, which is the main subroutine of
the solver. The CalcCTFs subroutine is called only once in the program before the loop
56
for the heat balance method is executed. The CalcCTFs subroutine further calls the
INITRF function, which calculates the CTFs for a construction, by passing to it the
details of the wall construction. Once this function is called the program checks if the
number of CTFs generated are more than 24 and if they are greater than 24 the CTF
variables are initialized and the heuristic CTFs are stored in them. Figure 4.1 shows the
code to generate the heuristic CTFs which is implemented in HBFORT.
.
.
Rvalue = 0
do j = 1,NumberofLayers(i)
Rvalue =Rvalue +
PropertyData(i,j,4)/PropertyData(i,j,3)
endDo
Uvalue = 1/Rvalue
if (nCTFs(i) > 24) then
Do k = 1,
nCTFs(i)
Do j = 1 ,3
CTFvalues(i, j, k) = 0
EndDo
xp(i,k-1) = 0
yp(i,k-1) = 0
zp(i,k-1) = 0
EndDo
nCTFs(i) = 24
Do k = 1,nCTFs(i)
xp(i,k-1) = Uvalue/24
yp(i,k-1) = Uvalue/24
zp(i,k-1) = Uvalue/24
CTFvalues(i, 1, k) = xp(i,k-1)
CTFvalues(i, 2, k) = yp(i,k-1)
CTFvalues(i, 3, k) = zp(i,k-1)
EndDo
Do k = 1, nhist(i)
histvalues(i, k) = 0
CR(i,k) = 0
enddo
nhist(i) = 1
else
.
.
Figure 4.1 Heuristic CTF method code
57
The following example shows a sample construction, which results in heuristic

CTFs, implemented in HvacLoadExplorer. The construction is entered in the wall layer
window [HvacLoadExplorer Manual (2004)].
Figure 4.2 HvacLoadExplorer layer information input.
Figure 4.3 shows the results window of the program after executing for a room.
As seen, the CTFs for the Brick wall are a heuristic approximation.
Figure 4.3 Heuristic CTFs obtained in HvacLoadExplorer.
58
4.2 Renormalization of conduction transfer functions.

An important property of the conduction transfer function is to satisfy Equation 4.1
and Equation 4.2.
Ny
U=
Y
n =0
Nq
(4.1)
1 n
n =1
Nx
Ny
Nz
n =0
n =0
n =0
X n = Yn = Z n
(4.2)
However, when the CTFs are calculated the tolerance criteria and other
convergence criteria cause the program to produce CTFs which do not satisfy these
equations. This error depends on the thermal mass of the wall and though the error may
be insignificant or not present for lighter constructions, it can be quite profound for heavy
walls. In such cases, even the steady boundary condition flux does not match up with the
expected results. Hence Spitler (2004) proposed a renormalization procedure to improve
the accuracy of the CTFs.
The renormalization is performed as per the following steps.
1) Calculate the overall U- value of the wall.
2) Calculate the sum of the flux terms.
3) From Equation 4-1, using the values calculated in 1 and 2, obtain the sum of the Y
terms required for the correct CTFs.
4) Calculate the sum of the Y terms in the CTFs.
5) Divide the result obtained in 3 by the result obtained in 4.
59
6) Multiply the term obtained in 5 by each of Y CTF values. This gives the
renormalized CTFs.
7) Repeat steps 3 to 6 for the X and Z CTF values.
To illustrate to correction made by the renormalization consider a concrete wall
construction as given in Table 4.1. This construction results in the original CTFs given in
Table 4.2 and renormalized CTFs given in Table 4.3. For this construction Equation 4.1
is expected to result in a U-value of 1.48 W/m2-K.
Table 4.1 Concrete wall construction for renormalization (U = 1.48 W/m2-K)
Layer Name
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Thickness
Density
(kJ/kg-K)
(W/m-K)
(mm)
(Kg/m3)
Concrete
0.92
1.73
1165.3
2304
60
Table 4.2 Original CTFs for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1
Xn
Yn
Zn
S.No (W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
0
3.60E+01
-5.40E-12
3.60E+01
4.02E+00
1
-1.66E+02
2.69E-11
-1.66E+02
-6.41E+00
2
3.12E+02
-5.55E-11
3.12E+02
5.07E+00
3
-3.06E+02
6.11E-11
-3.06E+02
-1.99E+00
4
1.62E+02
2.61E-10
1.62E+02
3.09E-01
5
-4.32E+01
1.67E-08
-4.32E+01
6
4.03E+00
2.54E-07
4.03E+00
7
8.85E-02
1.54E-06
8.85E-02
8
1.27E-02
4.68E-06
1.27E-02
9
2.73E-03
8.47E-06
2.73E-03
10
7.33E-04
1.04E-05
7.33E-04
11
2.27E-04
9.71E-06
2.27E-04
12
7.74E-05
7.40E-06
7.74E-05
13
2.84E-05
4.91E-06
2.84E-05
14
1.10E-05
2.95E-06
1.10E-05
15
4.45E-06
1.65E-06
4.45E-06
16
1.85E-06
8.77E-07
1.85E-06
17
7.92E-07
4.50E-07
7.92E-07
18
3.45E-07
2.25E-07
3.45E-07
19
1.52E-07
1.10E-07
1.52E-07
20
6.80E-08
5.33E-08
6.80E-08
21
3.07E-08
2.55E-08
3.07E-08
22
1.39E-08
1.21E-08
1.39E-08
23
6.35E-09
5.70E-09
6.35E-09
Sum
7.18E-05
5.38E-05
7.18E-05
U
1.991
1.490
1.991
The Sum stated in Table 4.2 is obtained by summing the respective X, Y and Z
CTFs and the U values for X, Y and Z are obtained from Equation 4.1 by using the
respective values in place of Yn . It can be seen that the sum of X, Y and Z CTF terms
are not equal and also the U values obtained do not equal the theoretical U value.
61
Table 4.3 Renormalized CTFs for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1
Xn
Yn
Zn
S.No (W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
(W/m2-K)
0
2.69E+01
-5.40E-12
2.69E+01
1
-1.24E+02
2.70E-11
-1.24E+02
4.02E+00
2
2.33E+02
-5.56E-11
2.33E+02
-6.41E+00
3
-2.28E+02
6.14E-11
-2.28E+02
5.07E+00
4
1.21E+02
2.60E-10
1.21E+02
-1.99E+00
5
-3.22E+01
1.66E-08
-3.22E+01
3.09E-01
6
3.00E+00
2.53E-07
3.00E+00
7
6.60E-02
1.53E-06
6.60E-02
8
9.49E-03
4.67E-06
9.49E-03
9
2.04E-03
8.44E-06
2.04E-03
10
5.47E-04
1.04E-05
5.47E-04
11
1.69E-04
9.67E-06
1.69E-04
12
5.77E-05
7.38E-06
5.77E-05
13
2.12E-05
4.89E-06
2.12E-05
14
8.22E-06
2.94E-06
8.22E-06
15
3.32E-06
1.64E-06
3.32E-06
16
1.38E-06
8.74E-07
1.38E-06
17
5.91E-07
4.48E-07
5.91E-07
18
2.57E-07
2.24E-07
2.57E-07
19
1.14E-07
1.10E-07
1.14E-07
20
5.07E-08
5.31E-08
5.07E-08
21
2.29E-08
2.54E-08
2.29E-08
22
1.04E-08
1.20E-08
1.04E-08
23
4.73E-09
5.69E-09
4.73E-09
Sum
5.36E-05
5.36E-05
5.36E-05
U
1.485
1.485
1.485
As seen in Table 4.3 above the U-value and the Sum obtained from the
renormalized CTFs satisfy Equation 4.1 and 4.2.
The dynamic performance of the renormalized and the original CTFs of the
concrete wall are compared in Table 4.4 (a). In this test the surface to surface flux was
generated using the boundary condition stated in Section 2.3.1. The flux was also
generated using ASHRAE Toolkit 1052 RP, Spitler (2001). As it can be seen from
62
Figure 4.4 the flux generated using renormalized CTFs are a much better match to the
ASHRAE Toolkit CTFs than those form the original CTFs.
Table 4.4 (b) gives the error in the peak flux compared to the ASHRAE Toolkit
peak flux. As it can be seen the renormalization reduces the error from 66.2 % to 1.4 %.
It may however be noted that this error depends on the construction of the wall
and may not be so substantial for lighter walls.
63
Concrete wall surface to surface flux.

Table 4.4(a) Surface to surface flux for concrete wall with construction in Table 4.1
Original
ASHRAE
Renormalized
CTF
toolkit
(W/m2)
(W/m2)
Hour CTF (W/m2)
Error in
Error in
1
14.842
4.787
14.756
Original CTF peak flux
Renormalized CTF
2
14.842
4.837
14.807
(%)
peak flux (%)
3
14.842
4.890
14.860
4
14.842
4.943
14.913
-66.25
-1.38
5
14.842
4.990
14.960
6
14.842
5.030
15.000
7
14.842
5.059
15.029
8
14.842
5.075
15.046
9
14.842
5.078
15.049
10
14.842
5.067
15.038
11
14.842
5.043
15.014
12
14.842
5.008
14.978
13
14.842
4.963
14.934
14
14.842
4.913
14.883
15
14.842
4.859
14.829
16
14.842
4.807
14.777
17
14.842
4.760
14.729
18
14.842
4.720
14.689
19
14.842
4.691
14.660
20
14.842
4.674
14.643
21
14.842
4.672
14.640
22
14.842
4.682
14.651
23
14.842
4.707
14.675
24
14.842
4.742
14.711
Peak
14.84
5.08
15.05
Renormalized CTF Flux Comparison

16.000
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
0
10
15
Hour
20
25
30
Renormalized CTFs
Original Flux
Ashrae Toolkit
Figure 4.4 Concrete wall surface to surface flux comparison
64
The renormalization is performed in the function CalcCTFs, in the MODRTS

module, of the HBFORT solver. The CTFs of all the constructions which produce below
24 CTFs are renormalized. Figure 4.5 gives the computer code added to HBFORT for
renormalization.
.
.
Rvalue = 0
do j = 1,NumberofLayers(i)
Rvalue =Rvalue +
PropertyData(i,j,4)/PropertyData(i,j,3)
endDo
Uvalue = 1/Rvalue
CTFSum = 0
Do k = 1, nhist(i)
CTFSum = CTFSum + histvalues(i, k)
enddo
CTFSum = Uvalue * (1 - CTFSum)
RatioX = 0
RatioY = 0
RatioZ = 0
Do k = 1,nCTFs(i)
RatioX = RatioX + CTFvalues(i, 1, k)
RatioY = RatioY + CTFvalues(i, 2, k)
RatioZ = RatioZ + CTFvalues(i, 3, k)
enddo
RatioX = CTFSum / RatioX
RatioY = CTFSum / RatioY
RatioZ = CTFSum / RatioZ
Do k = 1,nCTFs(i)
CTFvalues(i, 1, k) = RatioX * CTFvalues(i, 1, k)
CTFvalues(i, 2, k) = RatioY * CTFvalues(i, 2, k)
CTFvalues(i, 3, k) = RatioZ * CTFvalues(i, 3, k)
xp(i,k-1) = RatioX * xp(i,k-1)
yp(i,k-1) = RatioY * yp(i,k-1)
zp(i,k-1) = RatioZ * zp(i,k-1)
end do
.
.
Figure 4.5 Code for Renormalization of conduction transfer functions
65
5. Conclusion and recommendations

The various methods to handle dynamic heat transfer through two dimensional
walls have been documented and their drawbacks have been stated. The homogeneous
wall method is proposed as a simple alternative to approximate the two dimensional wall
with a one dimensional wall. The tests using wood stud wall and steel stud wall produced
an error of less than 1% in the peak flux compared to ANSYS for both imposed air and
surface temperatures. The test using concrete block wall produced an error of 14 % for
imposed surface temperatures and 17 % for imposed air temperatures, as compared to
ANSYS. This error may partially be attributed to the limited capability of the isothermal
plane method to predict the U- value.
The heuristic CTFs method for approximating the heat transfer through heavy
walls is found to have an error of less than 1% in the peak flux in all cases as compared to
ANSYS. The heuristic CTFs not only aid in obtaining the results faster but are also a
solution to the problem of convergence of the simulation program. This method is
successfully implemented in HvacLoadExplorer.
The renormalization of the CTFs to increase its accuracy is also successfully
implemented in HvacLoadExplorer. Though the advantage of renormalization depends on
the thermal mass of the wall, for the case studied, a concrete block wall with a U- value
of 1.48 W/m2-K and a specific heat of 0.92 kJ/kg-K, a correction of 66 % was achieved
on the steady state U-value.
66
Further the following recommendations are made for future work related to this
project.
1) Tests need to be performed with more walls from the different categories. At
present only one wall in each category has been modeled for comparison with
homogeneous wall method. However to obtain a more general conclusion more
walls may need to be compared with.
2) The homogeneous wall method needs to be compared to more experimental
results. An attempt was made in this report to compare the results with those from
Calibrated Hotbox Test Results Data Manual (Van Geem 1985), but the data
presented in the report was found to be insufficient to model a similar wall.
3) Better methods need to be developed to handle walls requiring isothermal plane
method of treatment. As stated in Section 2.4 this inaccuracy may not indicate
that the homogeneous wall method is improper, but the estimation of the steady
state U-value may need improvement.
4) The applicability of the homogeneous wall method needs to be tested in cases
which involve radiation boundary condition and combination of radiation and
convection. The ANSYS macro given in Appendix A can be used apply radiation
boundary condition by setting the options. The results would have to be verified
using HvacLoadExplorer or ASHRAE Toolkit 1052 RP, Spitler (2001).
5) The performance of HvacLoadExplorer for heavy walls with CTFs less than 24
needs to be analyzed. It is found that when the CTFs obtained for such cases gives
accurate results for temperatures imposed on the surface indicating that the CTFs
are correct. The heat balance method used in the HBFORT solver for simulating
67
the convection boundary condition flux needs to be analyzed for problems in

converging.
6) The heuristic CTFs being a good approximation to the heat flux, the possibility of
applying it to cases which produce lower than 24 CTFs need to be examined. As
the thermal mass of a wall depends on the thickness, density and conductivity of
the wall, some criteria considering these three can be used to switch to heuristic
CTFs after a certain limit in the dynamic response. The capability of the HVAC
equipment in meeting the flux variation may also be considered while
determining this limit.
7) The possibility of applying the homogeneous wall method to constructions having
three dimensions need to be examined. This may need some modifications in the
equations and would require the use of volume fraction instead of area fraction.
This may helpful in modeling the concrete block wall with mortar joints which is
not considered in this report.
68
REFERENCES
ANSYS Help files. ANSYS. Inc.
ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals. 2001. American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
Box, G. E. P. and G. M. Jenkins. 1976. Time series analysis Forecasting and control,
Holden Day, San Francisco.
Ceylan, H. T. and G. E. Myers. 1980. Long-time Solutions to heat Conduction Transfers
with Time-dependent Inputs. ASME Journal of heat transfer, Vol.102 (1):115-120.
Chandrupatla, T.R. and A.D. Belegundu. 2002. Finite Elements in Engineering, PrenticeHall, Inc. New Jersey.
Comini, G., S.D. Giudice and C. Nonino. 1994. Finite Element Analysis in Heat Transfer,
Taylor & Francis, Inc. Washington, DC.
Hittle, D.C. 1981. Calculating Building Heating and Cooling Loads Using the Frequency
Response of Multilayered Slabs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, IL.
Krishnamoorthy, C.S. 1994. Finite Element Analysis-Theory and Programming, Tata
McGraw-hill ltd, New Delhi.
Kosny, J., E. Kossecka and S. Carpenter. 2001. Modeling Two- and three dimensional
heat transfer through composite wall and roof assemblies in transient energy simulation.
ASHRAE Report 1145-RP, Atlanta, GA.
McQuiston, F.C., J.D. Parker and J.D. Spitler. 2000. Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning: Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Myers, G.E. 1971. Analytical Methods in Conduction Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Pawelski, M.J. 1976. Development of Transfer Function Load Models and Their Use in
Modeling the CSU Solar House I. MS Thesis. University of WisconsinMadison.
Pedersen, C.O., D.E. Fisher, R.J. Liesen, R.K. Strand. 2003. ASHRAE Toolkit for
Building Load Calculations. ASHRAE Transactions. 109(1) :583-589.
Reddy, J.N. 1993. An Introduction to the finite element method, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1993
Seem, J. E. 1987. Modeling of heat transfer in buildings. PhD Thesis, University of
WisconsinMadison .
69
Seem J.E., S.A. Klein W.A. Beckman, J.W. Mitchell. 1989. Transfer Functions for
Efficient Calculation of Multidimensional Heat Transfer. Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.
111: 5-12.
Spitler, J.D., S.J. Rees and D. Xiao. 2001. Development of an analytical verification test
suite for whole building energy simulation programs Building Fabric. ASHRAE 1052
RP, Atlanta, GA.
Spitler, J. D. 2004. Private communication.
Spitler, J. D. 2004. HvacLoadExplorer Manual.
Stephenson, D. G. and G. P. Mitalas. 1967. Cooling load calculations by Thermal
Response Method. ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 731(1):III.1.1-III.1.7
Stephenson, D. G., and G. P. Mitalas. 1971. Calculation of Heat Conduction Transfer
Functions for Multi-Layer Slabs. ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 77 (2):117-126
Van Geem, M. G. 1985. Calibrated Hot Box Test Results Data Manual Volume I,
Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.
70
Appendix A
The macro used for the modeling the wall and obtaining the flux in ANSYS in presented
here followed by brief description of the functions used.
Sample Macro
This macro is used to used for the creating the two dimensional wood stud wall
having a construction as given in Table 2.3.
*dim,_AHT, array, 24
_AHT(1) = 33.882,37.5,40.607,42.99,44.489,45,44.489,42.99,40.607,37.5
_AHT(11) = 33.882,30,26.118,22.5,19.393,17.01,15.511,15,15.511,17.01
_AHT(21) = 19.393,22.5,26.118,30
*dim,_RadFlux,array,24
_RadFlux(1)= 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,37.0,76.6,104.9
_RadFlux(11)= 207.9,303.4,366.6,390.4,372.4,314.6,223.1,109.6,81.1,43.7
_RadFlux(21)= 0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0
!set the following variables depending on the construction
!---!boundary condition
!1-Surface temperature,2-Convection,3-Radiation
bdc = 2
niter = 240 !number of iterations
!---/prep7 ! enter model creation mode
!-------------------------!Define material Porperties
!1- Wood Siding
mp,dens,1,544 !density
mp,c,1,1255.2 !Specific heat
mp,kxx,1,0.0721 !Conductivity
mp,emis,1,0.9 ! Emissivity
!2- Plywood
mp,dens,2,544
mp,c,2,1213.36
mp,kxx,2,0.11536
!3- R-11 Fiberglass Bats
71
mp,dens,3,84.8
mp,c,3,962.32
mp,kxx,3,0.046144
!4- Wood Studs
mp,dens,4,576
mp,c,4,163.176
mp,kxx,4,0.1442
!5- Gypsum
mp,dens,5,800
mp,c,5,1087.84
mp,kxx,5,0.160062
mp,emis,5,0.9
!-------------------------!------------------------!Wall Construction
!1- Wood Siding
blc4,0,0,0.0127,0.28575
blc4,0,0.28575,0.0127,0.0381
blc4,0,0.32385,0.0127,0.28575
aatt,1 ! apply material 1 to this element type
!2- Plywood
asel,all
asel,inve ! Unselect all areas to facilitate naming of newly created areas
blc4,0.0127,0,0.0127,0.28575
blc4,0.0127,0.28575,0.0127,0.0381
blc4,0.0127,0.32385,0.0127,0.28575
aatt,2
!3- R-11 Fiberglass Bats
asel,all
asel,inve
blc4,0.0254,0,0.0889,0.28575
blc4,0.0254,0.32385,0.0889,0.28575
aatt,3
!4- Wood Studs
asel,all
asel,inve
blc4,0.0254,0.28575,0.0889,0.0381
aatt,4
72
!5- Gypsum
asel,all
asel,inve
blc4,0.1143,0,0.0127,0.28575
blc4,0.1143,0.28575,0.0127,0.0381
blc4,0.1143,0.32385,0.0127,0.28575
aatt,5
nummrg, all !merge borders
tHeight = 0.6096 !unit height of the wall
!------------------------!------------------------!meshing
mshkey,1 !mapped meshing
mshape,0,2-D !2-D Quadrilateral Mesh
et,1,77 !Element type
alls
! Number of divisions on selected lines
lsel,s,length,,0.0127
lesize,all,,,5
lesize,all,,,10
lesize,all,,,10
lesize,all,,,10
amesh,all !perform meshing
!Perform surface meshing for radiation
*if,bdc,eq,3,then
et,2,151 !surface element
keyopt,2,8,1 !element for flux boundary condition
keyopt,2,5,0 !no extra node
type,2 !select element type 2 for overlaid meshing
nsel,s,loc,x,0
esurf
alls
*endif
bElemWidth = 0.0127/5 !define Inside element Width for element length calculation
!-------------------------
73
!------------------------!apply boundary conditions and solve

/solu
lsclear,all
antyp,trans
timint,on ! Transient mass inertia effects
autots,off ! Automatic time stepping
deltim,3600,0,0 !number of sub steps
alls
*if,bdc,eq,1,then
nsel,s,loc,x,0.127
d,all,temp,20
*elseif,bdc,eq,2
nsel,s,loc,x,0.127
sf,all,conv,8.29,20
*else
tref,273
tunif,20!apply positive uniform temp required for radiation element
nsel,s,loc,x,0.127
d,all,temp,20
*endif
alls
keyw,PR_SGUI,1 ! "Suppress the solution is done" message
*dim,FluxHour, ,niter
*do,t,1,niter
*if,t,GT,24,then
ct = mod(t,24)
*if,ct,EQ,0,then
ct=24
*endif
*else
ct=t
*endif
FluxHour(t) = ct
*if,bdc,eq,1,then
nsel,s,loc,x,0
d,all,temp,_AHT(ct)
*elseif,bdc,eq,2
nsel,s,loc,x,0
sf,all,conv,34.0,_AHT(ct)
*else
nsel,s,loc,x,0
esln,s,0,all
74
esel,r,type,,1
sf,all,conv,34.0,_AHT(ct)
esel,s,type,,2
sfe,all,1,hflux, ,_RadFlux(ct)
esel,s,
nsel,s,
*endif
alls
tstep=(3600*t)
time,tstep
solve
*enddo
finish
keyw,PR_SGUI,0
!------------------------!------------------------!obtain flux on the interior surface and output
/post1
/OUTPUT
alls
path,intBnd,2,,1000
ppath,1,,0.127,0,0
ppath,2,,0.127,0.6096,0
esel,s,path,intBnd
etable,inEFlux,tf,x
etable,eVol,volu
*dim,UnitFlux,,niter
*do,t,1,niter
set,t
etable,refl
smult,TotEFlux,inEFlux,eVol,1/bElemWidth !mult elem flux with elem lenght to get tot
flux
ssum
*get,UnitFlux(t),ssum,,item,TotEFlux
UnitFlux(t) = UnitFlux(t)/tHeight
*enddo
/OUTPUT,wall01,txt,,append
*vwrite,FluxHour(1),UnitFlux(1)
(F4.0,3x,F10.5)
/OUTPUT
75
!------------------------!delete parameters
*SET,_AHT
*SET,tstep
*SET,UnitFlux
*SET,noEle
*SET,t
*SET,FluxHour,
*msg
"Solution is Done"
Function descriptions
/prep7
Used to enter ANSYS in model creation mode.
mp, prop,mat,value
Specifies material properties. Where
prop the material property to be specified. It can be:
dens to specify the density of the material
c to specify the specific heat of the material
kxx to specify the conductivity of the material.
mat the material number to which the property is specified
value the value of the specified material property
blc4, XCORNER, YCORNER, WIDTH, HEIGHT, DEPTH

Creates a rectangular area or block. Where
XCORNER the X coordinate of the lower left corner of the area.
YCORNER the Y coordinate of the lower left corner of the area.
WIDTH the width of the rectangular block.
HEIGHTThe height of the block.
76
DEPTH The depth of the bock. This is ignored or specified 0 for

rectangular areas.
aatt,MAT
Associated a material number with currently selected areas.
asel,type
This is used to select items. The following types have been used
all Select all items on the constructed model
inv Unselects the selected items and selected the unselected items in the model
nmerge,label
This is used to merge the items such as nodes elements which occur on the
boundary of two different sections like different areas.
mshkey,key
This is used to specify the type of meshing that will be performed. The key can be
0 free meshing. The meshing is performed randomly without following a pattern
1 mapped meshing. The meshing follows a pattern. For this the number of
divisions on each line is specified. This project uses this type of meshing.
2 use mapped meshing if possible or else free meshing
mshape,key,Dimension
This function is used to specify the mesh type
Key Can have a value of 0 for quadrilateral shape elements or 1 for
triangle shape elements
Dimension Specifies the type of elements.can be either 2-D or 3-D
77
et,key,Dimension
The element type to be used. ANSYS documents many element types that
can be used. It depends on the type of problem e.g thermal, structural and the
dimension of the problem desired. This project uses the PLANE77 type of
element which is a two dimensional element for solving heat transfer problems.
lsel,type,item,comp VMIN, VMAX, VINC, KSWP

This command is used for selecting a line. The options used are
type The selection option. e.g select all, invert selection etc.
item Criteria for selection. e.g selection based on length, location etc.
comp The named label of the line.( not used)
VMIN, VMAX, VINC, KSWP These are values used for the selection
criteria. For the given macro only the VMIN parameter is used to specify
the length, all other parameters are ignored.
lesize, NL1, SIZE, ANGSIZ, NDIV

This command is used to specify the number of divisions to be made in a line. this
division data is used while performing mapped meshing.
NL1 The number of the line to be modified. If ALL then all the selected
lines are modified
Size The size of the individual length. In the given code this is left blank
as it is automatically calculated from the number of divisions.
ANGSIZ Used for arc divisions
NDIV- The number of divisions to be used for the currently selected lines.
amesh,NA1,NA2,NINC
78
This command is used to mesh the areas specified. If ALL is specified then all the
areas are meshed
/solu used to enter into solution mode.
79

Karambakkam - 2004 - Quench Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Karambakkam - 2004 - Quench Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TRANSIENT CONDUCTION HEAT TRANSFER IN

Submitted to the Faculty of

1.1 Data for zone method...........................................................................................11

3.1(b) Heuristic CTFs for concrete wall ....................................................................43

1.1 Temperature profile of wood stud wall................................................................8

1.2 Literature review and background

1.2.2 Conduction transfer functions

q"out , = (Yn tis , n ) + ( X n tos , n ) + ( n q"out , n )

q"in , = ( Z n tis , n ) + (Y n t os , n ) + ( n q"out , n )

Yn = Cross CTF (W/m2-K)

Z n = Interior CTF (W/m2-K)

tis , = Temperature of the interior surface at a given time (oC)

tos , = Temperature of the outside surface at a given time (oC)

1.2.3 Published methods to handle multidimensional wall heat transfer

Equivalent CTFs method.

= Exterior transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b

= Cross transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b

= Interior transfer functions of the parallel paths a and b

n,a , n,b = The flux history terms of paths a and b

= Area ratio of the parallel paths a and b (ratio of area of path to

The number of combined CTFs will be twice as many as those of the

Equivalent Wall method

This method was developed by Kossecka and Kosny (2001). In this

3) Assume n layers for an equivalent wall (three recommended for better

equivalent wall. (m2-K/W)

the homogeneous wall. (m2-K/W)

Parallel path method.

= The parallel path constituting the multidimensional wall.

Figure 1.1 Temperature profile of wood stud wall

Isothermal plane method.

construction as given in Table 2.7 and with imposed surface temperatures,

The U value for the isothermal

Figure 1.2 Temperature Profile of concrete block

Figure 1.3 Parallel and isothermal path resistance treatment comparison

Modified zone method.

Thermal conductivity of the sheathing material

Thermal conductivity of the cavity material

Size (depth) of the stud

Thickness of the sheathing material

Figure 1.4 Temperature profile of steel stud wall

As described in ASHRAE Hand Book of Fundamentals (2001), the resistance can

Layers in section A say p

di1, di2, di3dip

The zone factor is calculated based on the following criteria.

Take Zf as -0.5 if the sheathing resistivity is less than 10.4 m-K/W.

1.3 Report organization

method in HvacLoadExplorer is explained in Chapter 4. The renormalization of the

2. Approximation for two dimensional walls

2.2 Validation tool

2.2.1 Finite element method formulation

Discretization of the Domain

Figure 2.1 Triangular finite element.

The geometry is interpolated using the shape functions as:

An approximate solution to the above partial differential equation would

Performing integration by parts and applying boundary conditions, we obtain the

Where, Pi and Pj are the time shape functions,

Applying Galerkins method again we obtain the equation,

This integral is solved to obtain a two level time stepping scheme,

Performing the integrations required for Equation 2-9 we obtain:

Performing the integration we obtain:

The capacitance matrix is obtained by performing numerical integration of [C]

2.2.2 Problem modeling in ANSYS

2.3 Validation tests