Lightweight Steel-Framed Thermal Bridges Mitigation Strategies: A Parametric Study

Original Article
Lightweight steel-framed
thermal bridges
mitigation strategies:
A parametric study
Journal of Building Physics

131
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1744259115572130
jen.sagepub.com
Claudio Martins, Paulo Santos and Lus Simoes da Silva
Abstract
In building applications (e.g. industrial, offices and residential), the use of lightweight
steel-framed structural elements is increasing given its advantages, such as exceptional
strength-to-weight relation, great potential for recycling and reuse, humidity shape stability, easy prefabrication and rapid on-site erection. However, the high thermal conductivity of steel presents a drawback, which may lead to thermal bridges if not well designed
and executed. Furthermore, given the high number of steel profiles and its reduced
thickness, it is not an easy task to accurately predict its thermal performance in laboratory and even less in situ. In a previous article, the authors studied the importance of
flaking heat loss in lightweight steel-framed walls. This article discusses several thermal
bridges mitigation strategies to improve a lightweight steel-framed wall model, which
increase its thermal performance and reduce the energy consumption. The implementation of those mitigation strategies leads to a reduction of 8.3% in the U-value, comparatively to the reference case. An optimization of the wall module insulation layers is also
performed (e.g. making use of new insulation materials: aerogel and vacuum insulation
panels), which combined with the mitigation approaches allows a decrease of 68% in the
U-value, also relatively to the reference case. Some design rules for lightweight steelframed elements are also presented.
Keywords
Lightweight steel frame, lightweight steel-framed walls, thermal transmittance, thermal
bridges, mitigation strategies, parametric study, design rules
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal
Corresponding author:
Paulo Santos, ISISE, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia da Universidade
de Coimbra Polo II, Rua Lus Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal.
Email: pfsantos@dec.uc.pt
Downloaded from jen.sagepub.com by SAGE Production (DO NOT CHANGE THE PASSWORD!) on March 12, 2015
Introduction
The demands to reduce the energy consumption in buildings increased in recent
decades, as a result of a greater concern towards sustainable construction. Space
conditioning systems, heating and cooling are among the main responsible for
energy consumption, which heavily depend on the climate and the region where
the building is located (Santos et al., 2011). Improvements of energy efficiency of
the buildings lead to reduced energy consumption, also decreasing costs during the
operational phase. This requires improving the building construction systems and
using new technologies.
In recent years, several alternatives to traditional structural systems for buildings
have emerged, for example, lightweight steel framing. Lightweight steel-framed
(LSF) construction uses as a basic component a structure made of cold-formed
steel profiles. Usually, these elements are prismatic and have thin-walled cross sections. LSF as a structural system presented a significant growth in recent years and
is successfully used in many types of buildings (e.g. industrial, office and residential
buildings). These systems present many advantages, such as cost efficiency, reduced
weight, exceptional resistance in relation to its mass, excellent stability of shape in
case of humidity, rapid on-site erection, easy prefabrication and great potential for
recycling and reuse.
However, LSF also presents some drawbacks (Santos et al., 2012). The high
thermal conductivity of steel can create thermal bridges, which if not correctly
addressed during the design stage can significantly penalize the thermal behaviour
and energy efficiency of the building. Thermal bridges may also result in constructive pathologies and reduced levels of comfort and healthy conditions associated
with the occurrence of condensation phenomena driven by localized temperature
drops inside construction components. This is particularly important in buildings
where the relative humidity (RH) may be high and may decrease the durability of
the materials. Another potential drawback of LSF construction system is the low
thermal mass and consequent reduced thermal inertia, leading to higher daily temperature fluctuations, originating higher discomfort to the occupants and higher
energy consumption. This is particularly relevant for climates with higher daily
temperature amplitudes, for example, Mediterranean climates.
As mentioned before, thermal bridges can penalize the thermal behaviour and
energy efficiency of steel buildings if not correctly addressed, increasing energy
consumption and costs during the operational phase. The total impact of thermal
bridges on the heating energy demand is significant, reaching 30%, and it is greater
than for the cooling energy demand (Erhorn-Klutting and Erhorn, 2009).
Significant work to assess and improve the thermal behaviour of constructive
solutions with steel structures was undertaken. Kosny and Christian (1995) showed
that the use of continuous exterior thermal insulation is an effective way to improve
the thermal performance and reduce the thermal bridges. In addition, the increased
spacing between profiles allows an increase of the thermal resistance (higher Rvalue). The improvement in R-value caused by the increased spacing of the steel
Martins et al.
profiles may reach 20% with 13 mm of expanded polystyrene (EPS) and about
15% with 25 mm of EPS (Kosny and Christian, 1995).
Hoglund and Burstrandb (1998) studied an efficient way to reduce heat flow by
increasing the heat flux path through the reduction of the area of the steel profile,
with the insertion of slots in the web stud. Furthermore, they also concluded that
the flanges of the steel stud act as heat collectors. If the flange length decreases, the
U-value will also decrease. Blomberg and Claesson (1998) performed a similar
study, which also concluded that one of the most efficient ways to decrease the
heat flow is to use slotted steel studs. The study shows that the thickness of a standard steel profile has to decrease by a factor of 6 to achieve the equivalent thermal
properties of a slotted steel profile. Furthermore, the heat flow through a profile
decreases as the number of narrow slots increases.
Note that whenever material is removed from the web (thermal slotted studs),
there is a consequent reduction of the mechanical resistance. This may not be
critical for non-bearing panels but could be relevant in the other cases (Veljkovic
and Johansson, 2006). Salhab and Wang (2008) proposed an equivalent thickness
method to predict the mechanical resistance of cold-formed thin-walled channel
sections with perforated webs under compression. These authors performed a
parametric study using finite element simulations. They concluded that perforating the web can significantly reduce the column strength, and the most relevant
parameters are ratio of the plate width to the thickness, ratio of the perforated
width to the gross width and ratio of the solid width to the total width of the perforation zone.
Good design rules also have a very important role, as they can mitigate and/or
avoid the thermal bridges. Strategies that lead to improvements are (1) keeping the
facxade geometry as simple as possible, (2) avoiding the interruption of the insulating
layer, (3) joining the insulation layers at full width at junctions of building elements,
(4) using a material with the lowest possible thermal conductivity whenever the
interruption of the insulation layer is unavoidable and (5) installing openings, such
as doors and windows, in contact with the insulation layer (Santos et al., 2012).
The utilization of new insulation materials also allows a great thermal performance improvement of walls with lower thicknesses. Aerogel blankets are one of
the most promising thermal insulation materials in recent years. They have a thermal conductivity 22.5 times lower than that of conventional mineral wool
(Baetens et al., 2011). Another promising material is vacuum insulation panels
(VIPs), which have a thermal resistance 58 times higher than other conventional
insulation materials (Alam et al., 2011). VIPs can achieve good results with low
thickness, but they still have some drawbacks: they are expensive, fragile, difficult
to adapt at the building site (cannot be cut or drilled), have a high cost and exhibit
decreasing thermal properties through time (Baetens et al., 2010).
In a previous study by the authors (Santos et al., 2014), the effect of flanking
thermal losses in a LSF modular wall was studied. It was concluded that heat flux
values can change from 222% (external surface) to + 50% (internal surface) when
the flanking heat loss was set to zero as a reference case, for a thermal
Table 1. Wall materials and properties.

Material (from outer to inner surface)
Thickness (mm)
l (W/(m K))
Finish external thermal insulation

composite systems (ETICS) coating
EPS (ETICS insulation)
Windtight and water-resistant membrane
Oriented strand board (OSB)
Stone wool
Aira
Steel frames (C: 100 3 40 3 10 3 1 mm,
U: 75 3 40 3 1 mm and Z: 75 3 25 3 1 mm)
Stone wool
Wood
OSB
Plasterboard
Total thickness (mm)
0.750
40
0.040
Neglected in thermal computations
11
0.130
40
0.034
166
0.922
175
50.000
40
15
11
13
325
0.034
0.180
0.130
0.250
Solid equivalent thermal conductivity.
transmittance equal to 0.30 W/(m2 K). In this article, the authors make use of the
same reference validated three-dimensional (3D) finite element method (FEM)
detailed model in order to study the importance of thermal bridges in LSF modular
walls and to assess the potential improvements on the wall thermal performance
due to the implementation of several thermal bridges mitigation strategies. First, a
description of the modular LSF reference wall materials, geometry and dimensions
is presented. Next, the experimental set-up and measurements that led to the validation of the 3D detailed FEM model are briefly described. Subsequently, a parametric study is carried out, which implements single and combined thermal bridges
mitigation approaches and optimizes the U-value using different insulation materials. Finally, the results are discussed leading to the proposal of the best strategies to
improve the U-value, and some conclusions are presented.
Description of the modular LSF reference wall

The modular reference wall is composed of a steel structure containing galvanized
steel cold-formed studs with different cross-sectional shapes: C (100 3 40 3 10 3 1
mm), U (75 3 40 3 1 mm) and Z (75 3 25 3 1 mm). Each wall module is 1.2 m
wide and 2.49 m high. Figure 1 illustrates the assembled steel structure contained
in the wall, and Figure 2 shows the enclosed materials and thickness. The modular
wall has two parts, the main exterior body, fixed, and interior part, detachable,
linked by three horizontal steel connections (see Figure 2). Table 1 shows the composition of the wall, including the thickness and thermal conductivity (l) of each
material layer assembled in the wall.
Martins et al.
Figure 1. Steel structure of an LSF wall module.

LSF: lightweight steel-framed.
Experimental set-up
The experimental set-up was the same as described in a previous article by the
authors (Santos et al., 2014). Nevertheless, a brief description and some additional
information are presented here. The experiments were performed using a test chamber heated by a split-type air conditioner that allows to set the temperature at 31 C.
Three standard wall modules (1.20 m wide) and one smaller module (0.39 m wide)
were placed in the chamber gantry (Figure 3). The flanking heat losses between the
wall modules and the chamber gantry are minimized with a continuous extruded
polystyrene (XPS) insulation layer 10 cm thick along its entire perimeter. L-shaped
steel fixing elements were used to fix the modular walls to the gantry. Figure 3 presents a sketch of the mobile gantry, where the wall tested specimen was assembled,
which illustrates the steel structure of the wall modules, the surrounding XPS and
the L fixing elements. Figure 4 presents a photograph of the test chamber and
mobile gantry.
The heat flux passing through each of the tested walls was monitored in certain
key points using heat flux sensors (precision of 65%). The internal and external
surface temperatures were measured using PT100 surface temperature sensors with
an accuracy of 60.4 C. The heat flux and surface temperature sensors were
located near and between steel studs (Santos et al., 2014). Note that in order to
increase the reliability of the measurements, 11 experimental tests were performed.
Furthermore, four points on the wall surface were monitored between the steel
Figure 2. Wall module materials.
Figure 3. LSF wall test specimen and mobile gantry geometry.

LSF: lightweight steel-framed.
Martins et al.
2.87 m
4.04 m
2.48 m
Figure 4. Test chamber and mobile gantry.
studs and four more points on the vicinity of the steel studs. The experimental values presented in section Verification and validation are mean values of the measured data.
To measure the air temperature inside the wall air gap, a PT100 needle temperature sensor with the same precision of the surface temperature sensors was used at
mid-height. In order to monitor the ambient air temperature inside or outside of
the test chamber, thermo-hygrometers (accuracy of 63%) were used. A data-logger
recorded all sensor measurements, except the thermo-hygrometers that have an
incorporated data-logger.
Numerical model
In this section, the 3D FEM model verification and validation procedures are
briefly described. Most of these procedures were previously presented in another
study performed by the authors aimed at studying the importance of flanking thermal losses in LSF walls (Santos et al., 2014).
3D FEM model
A detailed numerical model of the tested wall was assembled using ANSYS CFX
finite element software. The model of the LSF wall structure comprised about
308,000 nodes, a number that was found to be sufficient to provide good convergence and beyond which the results did not change.
The thermal boundary conditions used were 30.8 C for interior temperature
and 18.4 C for exterior temperature. The obtained average weighted film coefficients for the interior and exterior surfaces were equal to 6.98 and 5.97 W/m2 K,
respectively. These values are slightly lower than the one prescribed by the standard EN ISO 6946:2007 (2007) that prescribes for horizontal heat flow and indoor
conditions a film coefficient of 7.69 W/(m2 K).
Table 2. Temperature obtained for the 3D test reference cases of EN ISO 10211:2007 (2007).
Test reference case 3

Minimum surface temperature on
environment a
Minimum surface temperature on
environment b
Test reference case 4
Highest temperature on external surface
Reference (C)
Obtained (C)
Difference (C)
11.32
11.276
0.044
11.11
11.127
0.017
0.809
0.003
0.805
3D: three-dimensional.
The air gap inside the wall was modelled in two ways. In the first approach, the
air was modelled considering the equivalent thermal conductivity of a solid as prescribed by EN ISO 6946:2007 (2007), expression (1) and the thermal resistance values presented in Table 2 (horizontal heat flow) of the same standard.
In the second approach, the air was directly modelled as a fluid using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model. The CFD and the still air layer give similar
results, with an overall thermal transmittance difference of 0.0046 W/(m2 K). More
details may be found in Santos et al. (2014). Since the equivalent thermal conductivity approach is less time-consuming, it was used in the parametric study.
Verification and validation

Verification against EN ISO 10211. EN ISO 10211:2007 (2007) establishes the specifications to be followed when modelling thermal bridges in buildings and provides
several test cases (two-dimensional (2D) test case: two and 3D test case: two) to
evaluate the precision of the numerical algorithms to compute heat flows and surface temperatures. In order to assess the reliability of the models using the FEM
ANSYS algorithm, the authors modelled all the reference test cases prescribed in
Annex 2 of EN ISO 10211:2007 (2007). Figure 5 illustrates the temperature distribution obtained for the 3D test reference cases, while Table 2 presents the obtained
values. The surface temperature differences vary between 0.003 C and 0.044 C,
evidencing an excellent accuracy of the 3D FEM models. Similar procedures were
implemented for the 2D test cases, and analogous conclusions were found (not illustrated). These results ensure not only the accuracy of the applied algorithm but
also the authors skills to use it.
Verification against simplified models. In Santos et al. (2014), the authors made some
additional verifications in order to confirm the accuracy of the 3D FEM wall
model, making use of a 2D FEM algorithm (THERM software) and also an analytical expression for homogeneous layers. The obtained results showed a maximum
difference of 0.001 W/(m2 K) in the thermal transmittance of the wall.
Martins et al.
Figure 5. Temperature distribution obtained for the 3D test reference cases of EN ISO
10211:2007 (2007): (a) test reference case 3 and (b) test reference case 4.
31.0
0.310
29.0
0.290
Air cavity temp.
27.0
0.270
Internal ambient temp.
25.0
0.250
External ambient
temp.
23.0
0.230
21.0
0.210
19.0
0.190
17.0
0.170
15.0
U-value [W/(mK)]
Temperature [C]
10
Internal surface temp.

(near steel studs)
External surface temp.
(near steel studs)
Internal surface temp.
(between steel studs)
External surface temp.
(between steel studs)
U-value
0.150
Experimental
Numerical
Figure 6. Temperature and thermal transmittance values: experimental versus numerical

approaches.
Validation against measured data. The validation of the numerical model was performed by comparison with experimental measurements described in Santos et al.
(2014). Figure 6 presents some additional information in order to compare the
results of the numerical simulation with the experimental measured data for temperatures (wall surface and air). The thermal transmittance values are also
displayed.
The numerical model predicts values slightly higher than the measured ones.
These values are presented in Table 3, including the differences in percentage having as reference the experimental data. The accuracy of the numerical results varies
between + 0.7% (interior surface temperature near steel studs) and + 3.8% (exterior surface temperature between steel studs).
The 3D model produced an overall thermal transmittance of 0.235 W/(m2 K).
This value, although slightly higher than the experimental value, 0.214 W/(m2 K), is
considered acceptable based on the uncertainties involved in the systems, for example, precision of the heat flux sensor (65%), quantification of the steel stud influence zone and imperfections of the wall assemblies. Although flanking heat losses
exists in real buildings, given the usual adjacency to other construction components
and the subsequent lateral heat exchange, they were not considered in the validated
numerical model, leading to a 3D FEM simplified model, with adiabatic conditions
Martins et al.
11
Table 3. Experimental and numerical obtained values.

Air cavity
temperatures (C)
Experimental
Numerical
Differences
25.41
25.91
+ 2.0%
Surface temperatures (C)

Near steel studs
Between steel studs
Internal
External
Internal
External
29.66
29.86
+ 0.7%
18.45
19.01
+ 3.1%
29.60
30.20
+ 2.0%
18.19
18.88
+ 3.8%
U-value
(W/(m2 K))
0.214
0.235
+ 9.8%
in the wall edges. In addition, the reference standards for laboratory experimental
tests (e.g. hot box apparatus) also prescribe null or reduced flanking thermal losses.
The new numerical model with adiabatic conditions in the edges (called Model
A in the next section) predicted a U-value of 0.301 W/(m2 K). The difference
between the basic configuration (0.235 W/(m2 K)) and the one with adiabatic
boundary conditions is quite high even with an XPS insulation layer around the
test wall. This is due to the flanking thermal losses that are mainly originated by
the steel plates used to fix the wall panels to the test gantry. The importance of
flanking thermal losses in the thermal performance of LSF walls was analysed in
detail by Santos et al. (2014).
Parametric study for the mitigation of thermal bridges

Single thermal bridges mitigation strategies
With the purpose of improving the thermal performance of the wall module presented in Figure 2, several thermal bridges mitigation strategies were implemented
based on the validated model. The various models and results are described in the
following subsections.
As mentioned before, the reference wall module, Model A (Figure 2), presents
adiabatic conditions in the edges, which are common conditions for all models analysed in this parametric study and are ideal conditions prescribed for laboratory
experimental set-ups.
Thermal break rubber strip. The first improvement strategy consists of a thermal
break rubber strip (l = 0.037 W/(m K)) inserted between the vertical steel stud and
the oriented strand board (OSB) panel on the outer surface of Model B (Figure 7).
Two rubber thicknesses were used: 5 mm (Model B1) and 10 mm (Model B2).
Models B1 and B2 lead to a decrease of 1.9% and 3.5% in the U-value, respectively, corresponding to 0.2954 and 0.2906 W/(m2 K) for the U-value. These solutions provide a small thermal performance improvement. However, this can be
considered a good option, since this upgrading is easy and affordable to implement. Figure 8 shows the heat flux in the exterior face of Models A, B1 and B2,
12
Figure 7. Model B with rubber strips: (a) location of the rubber strips in the wall and (b)
dimensions of the rubber strips.
where the reduction of the heat flux is visible, mainly in the zone of the vertical
profiles.
Vertical male or female studs. The second mitigation strategy uses vertical female or
male studs that have connections in the web, between wall modules (Figure 9), all
other characteristics of Model A being maintained. This approach has two different connection sizes: 15 mm (Model C1) and 25 mm (Model C2).
In Models C1 and C2, the vertical female or male connection profiles do not significantly improve the U-value, causing a slight increase of 0.4% and 0.2% in the
U-value, respectively, corresponding to 0.3021 and 0.3018 W/(m2 K) for the Uvalue. These findings may be justified by the increased amount of steel area inside
the wall, leading to a slightly higher heat transfer due to an increased steel surface
within the wall. Although this solution does not provide an improved thermal performance, it results in increased shear strength at the junction between modules,
allowing them to work together against the perpendicular actions in the wall (e.g.
wind forces). It also increases assembly speed of the walls due to the coupling
capacity between the modules. Models C1 and C2 show a similar heat flux as for
Model A, as expected (not illustrated).
Vertical slotted steel studs. The third thermal bridge mitigation approach is the use of
slotted steel profiles (only vertical, as illustrated in Figure 10), preserving the other
characteristics of Model A. Two different slotted areas were modelled. In the first
(Model D1), 336.6 cm2 of the vertical web area was removed (14% of the web mass
in the C studs and 19% in the U and Z profiles). In the second (Model D2), a
Martins et al.
13
Figure 8. Heat flux of Models A and B external surface view: (a) Model A: reference case, (b)
Model B1: 5-mm rubber and (c) Model B2: 10-mm rubber.
Figure 9. Model C: vertical female or male studs: (a) normal stud, (b) indented stud: 15 mm
and (c) indented stud: 25 mm.
reduction of 673.2 cm2 of the vertical web area was considered, which represents
28% of mass in the web of the C profiles and 37% in the U and Z profiles.
The use of vertical slotted steel profiles, in Models D1 and D2, provides an identical benefit as the rubber solution, improving by 3.2% and 3.5% the U-value,
respectively, corresponding to 0.2913 and 0.2904 W/(m2 K) for the U-value. These
values are lower due to the fact that the wall has external insulation. In case of
walls with insulation in the same plane of the steel (batt thermal insulation), the
improvement is higher. Note that doubling the slotted area only yields to a reduction of 0.3% in the overall thermal transmittance value of the wall. This is mainly
because the number of slots was kept the same, confirming the trend identified by
Blomberg and Claesson (1998).
Slotted steel studs. To evaluate the thermal advantages of having all the steel studs
slotted, instead of only the vertical profiles (Model D), a new model was created, as
14
Figure 10. Model D: vertical slotted steel profiles: (a) steel structure, (b) slotted web area:
336.6 cm2 and (c) slotted web area: 673.2 cm2.
illustrated in Figure 11. Model D3 uses the same profile types as Model D2 (Figure
11). This model shows that it is possible to reduce by 4.54% the U-value with all
the steel profiles slotted, leading to a U-value of 0.2874 W/(m2 K).
Fixing bolts instead of horizontal steel plate connection. In order to reduce the thermal
bridges created by the horizontal steel connections, nine bolts were modelled, replacing these elements. Figure 12 shows the location of the bolts in the wall.
Model E shows that it is possible to reduce by 2.1% the U-value by removing
the horizontal steel connections of Model A and replacing them by bolts. A Uvalue of 0.2949 W/(m2 K) was obtained.
Combined mitigation strategies for thermal bridges

To improve the wall thermal performance, several models were created combining
the solutions previously presented, as shown in the next sections.
Combination of rubber strip, vertical slotted steel profiles and bolted connections. Model F is
the combination of the improvements introduced in Model B2 with 10-mm rubber
strips, Model D2 with vertical slotted steel profiles and Model E with bolted connections. Figure 13(a) shows the details of the wall module.
In this model, an improvement of 7.6% in the U-value was achieved, corresponding to a U-value of 0.2782 W/(m2 K). Figure 13 shows the heat flux of Model
F, which compared with Figure 8 (Models A and B), shows a reduction of heat
flux, especially in the vicinity of the vertical steel studs.
Combination of rubber strip, slotted steel profiles and bolted connections. Model G is similar
to Model F but with all the steel structure slotted in the web. This model provides
the best result of the U-value, 0.2762 W/(m2 K), corresponding to an improvement
Martins et al.
15
Figure 11. Model D3: all structural steel profiles slotted (except horizontal connections).
of 8.3%. The heat flux on the external surface of the wall is similar to Model F
(Figure 13(b)).
Results: overview and discussion

Table 4 presents an overview of the obtained thermal transmittance values for all
models and the thermal transmittance difference (DU) between each model and the
reference model (Model A). All models have adiabatic edges conditions and are
variations of Model A. Four decimal places are used in the presentation of U-
16
Figure 12. Model E: nine bolts instead of horizontal steel plate connections.
Figure 13. Model F: 10-mm rubber strip, vertical slotted steel profiles and nine bolts: (a) wall
materials and (b) heat flux: external surface view.
values, to increase the accuracy in the comparison analysis. Figure 14 presents an

illustration of the results for each wall model and shows the obtained percentage of
U-value reduction between each model and the reference one (Model A).
Reference model.
Combined strategies
Single strategies
Model
Aa
B1
B2
C1
C2
D1
D2
D3
E
F
G
P 9 bolts
P 9 bolts
Without horizontal
steel connections
Model description
P 10 mm
P 5 mm
P 10 mm
Rubber
strip
P 15 mm
P 25 mm
Vertical female
or male studs
P 28%Only vertical
P 28%
P 14%Only vertical
P 28%Only vertical
P 28%
Slotted steel
profiles
Table 4. Parametric study for the mitigation of thermal bridges: overview of models and results.
0.3011 ()
0.2954 (21.9%)
0.2906 (23.5%)
0.3021 ( + 0.4%)
0.3018 ( + 0.2%)
0.2913 (23.2%)
0.2904 (23.5%)
0.2874 (24.5%)
0.2949 (22.1%)
0.2782 (27.6%)
0.2762 (28.3%)
U-value (W/(m2 K)) (DU)
Martins et al.
17
18
Figure 14. Parametric study: overview of results for the wall models.
The best solution is the one that combines rubber strips (10 mm), slotted steel
profiles and bolted connections, identified as Model G. The U-value was reduced
from 0.3011 W/(m2 K), in the reference Model A, to 0.2762 W/(m2 K), corresponding to a reduction of 8.3% in the U-value, which represents a good improvement
in the thermal performance of the wall module, considering that the thermal insulation thicknesses and materials are the same. It is noted that since the wall without
steel profiles has a reduction of 11.01% (reference model), the mitigation strategies
for the thermal bridges achieve a 75% reduction of their impact.
The most efficient single mitigation strategy assessed is the inclusion of slotted
steel profiles in all structures, Model D3, which allows to obtain a thermal transmittance reduction of 4.54%. This can be considered a good thermal performance
improvement since it has a small cost impact. However, the reduction of the
mechanical resistance of the steel structure should be taken into account mainly
for load-bearing walls (Salhab and Wang, 2008; Veljkovic and Johansson, 2006).
With the performed studies, it can be concluded that the wall module is optimized in order to minimize the thermal bridges. If there is a need of improving the
U-value, the strategy must be to increase the thermal insulation. With this objective, several additional models were analysed and are presented in the next section.
Parametric study for U-value improvement

To achieve a U-value improvement in the LSF modular wall, many alternatives
may be considered, for example, other insulation systems, placing more insulation
Martins et al.
19
Figure 15. Wall models with polyurethane foam: (a) Model H: replacement of air gap and
stone wool by polyurethane foam and (b) Model I: replacement of air gap and interior stone
wool by polyurethane foam and replacement of exterior stone wool by an air gap.
or insulation materials with higher thermal performance. In this study, it was

decided to maintain the thickness of the wall. Three insulation systems were considered: polyurethane (PU) foam, with a l of 0.028 W/(m K); silica aerogel insulation
blanket, with a l of 0.015 W/(m K); and rigid VIPs, with a l of 0.007 W/(m K).
Single improvement strategies

PU foam. As individual strategies to improve the U-value, two models with PU
foam were created. Model H replaces the air gap and stone wool of Model A by
PU foam, as illustrated in Figure 15(a). In Model I, a PU layer is placed replacing
the air gap and the inside layer of stone wool of Model A. The stone wool layer
placed in the exterior side, present in Model A, is replaced by an air gap, as illustrated in Figure 15(b).
Model H achieved a significant improvement, reducing the U-value by 46.4%,
with the replacement by PU of the air gap and the stone wool layer, corresponding
to a U-value of 0.1615 W/(m2 K). Note that a possible side effect of filling the
existing air layer with thermal insulation material (e.g. PU foam in Model H) is the
potential increased heat flows and the consequent inner surface temperature
decrease. However, in this case, the PU foam also fills the gap between the vertical
20
Figure 16. Heat flux: external surface view: (a) Model H: replacement of air gap and stone
wool by polyurethane foam. (b) Model I: replacement of air gap and interior stone wool by
polyurethane foam and replacement of exterior stone wool by an air gap.
steel studs and the inner wood slats. Therefore, there is a decrease in the heat flows
also in the vicinity of the steel frame as illustrated in Figure 16(a).
Although this is a good thermal performance improvement, this solution may
have a functional drawback related with the lack of an air gap, if and whenever
there is moisture infiltration or condensation. Hence, Model I introduces an air
gap with 40 mm, relatively to the previous model. This solution provides a decrease
of 37.7% in the U-value, with 0.1876 W/(m2 K), which is 8.7% worse than the previous model. Figure 16(b) shows that the decrease of heat flux is slightly lower than
in Model H.
Silica aerogel insulation blanket. Silica aerogel insulation blankets have a dual function
(similar to stone wool) by improving both fire protection and thermal performance.
In this approach, three solutions were used, with 30-mm-thick layers. In the first
model (Model J), the aerogel insulation was placed on the internal side, between
the internal stone wool and the air gap. In the second approach (Model K), the
aerogel was positioned on the external side, between the external stone wool and
the air gap. In the third approach (Model L), the aerogel blankets were positioned
on both sides, as illustrated in Figure 17.
The main difference between the first two models (Models J and K) is the insulation position on the wall, a better U-value being reached for the solution when
the insulation blankets are placed on the internal side (Model K), 0.2295
versus 0.2356 W/(m2 K). As expected, Model L obtained a better U-value,
Martins et al.
21
Figure 17. Wall Model L with silica aerogel insulation blanket on both sides.
0.1889 W/(m2 K), which represents an improvement of 37.5%. Comparing Figure

18(a) to (c), it is possible to see the influence of the location of the blankets. In
Figure 18(c), there is a clear better performance, as a result of having twice more
aerogel insulation blankets.
VIPs. For the VIPs, with a thickness of 30 mm, the same strategies were used as for
the aerogel insulation blankets (Models M, N and O). All numerical models with
VIPs gave good results for the thermal performance due to the low thermal conductivity of this material. Note that the thermal conductivity of the VIPs (0.007 W/
(m K)) was provided by the VIP manufacturer Kingspan UK (2013) and takes into
account the foils edge effect, being the aged value. Furthermore, according to the
information provided by this manufacturer, it is possible to produce VIPs with the
suitable dimensions for each LSF wall module.
The main difference between the first two models (Models M and N) is the position of the panels in the wall: inner and outer side positions, respectively. A slightly
better U-value was obtained for the solution in which the panel is placed in the
inner side (Model M), 0.2032 versus 0.2048 W/(m2 K).
Model O gives a good U-value, 0.1536 W/(m2 K), which represents an improvement of 49% in relation to the reference model. Comparing Figure 19(a) to (c), it
is possible to see the influence of the location of the panels. In Figure 19(a), there
is a greater uniform distribution of heat flux that occurs because the insulation is
22
Figure 18. Heat flux: external surface view: (a) Model J: 30-mm silica aerogel insulation blanket
on the internal side, (b) Model K: 30-mm silica aerogel insulation blanket on the external side
and (c) Model L: 30-mm silica aerogel insulation blanket on both sides.
positioned (considering the heat flow path) before the steel structure. Figure 19(c)
shows the decrease of heat flux and shows that this solution is better for achieving
a better thermal performance in winter and summer conditions, as the steel structure is insulated on both sides.
Combined improvement strategies

Combining the presented thermal bridges mitigation strategies with the strategies
to improve thermal behaviour, a better U-value is achieved. Six models were created that combine the best mitigation solutions presented earlier. Model P combined the following improvements: Model B2 with rubber strips, Model D2 with
vertical slotted steel profiles, Model E with bolted connections and Model H, in
which the air gap and stone wool are replaced by PU foam (Figure 20(a)). Model
Q is similar to the previous, adopting instead the solution used in Model I: a PU
layer and an air gap with 40 mm (Figure 20(b)).
Model P leads to a reduction of 57.8% in the U-value, corresponding to
0.1271 W/(m2 K). A clear reduction of the heat flux is visible in Figure 21(a).
Model Q results in a reduction of 49.3% in the U-value, 0.1525 W/(m2 K). Figure
21(b) shows the heat flux in the external face, being visible a higher heat flux in
relation to the previous model. However, the thermal bridge effect due to the presence of the vertical steel studs is well mitigated.
Two similar approaches were done in Models R and S. These models differ from
the previous in the type of steel structure. In these approaches, all the steel structures are slotted in the web; Figure 22(a) and (b) illustrates the models.
Martins et al.
23
Figure 19. Heat flux: external surface view. (a) Model M: 30-mm vacuum panel on the internal
side, (b) Model N: 30-mm vacuum panel on the external side and (c) Model O: 30-mm vacuum
panel on both sides.
Figure 20. Wall combined solutions with polyurethane foam and vertical slotted steel profiles:
(a) Model P: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + vertical slotted steel profiles + replacement of air
gap and stone wool by polyurethane and (b) Model Q: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + vertical
slotted steel profiles + replacement of air gap and interior stone wool by polyurethane foam
and replacement of exterior stone wool by an air gap.
24
Figure 21. Heat flux: external surface view: (a) Model P: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + vertical
slotted steel profiles + replacement of air gap and stone wool by polyurethane and (b) Model Q:
nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + vertical slotted steel profiles + replacement of air gap and stone
wool by polyurethane.
Figure 22. Wall combined solutions with polyurethane foam and slotted steel profiles: (a)
Model R: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel profiles + replacement of air gap and stone
wool by polyurethane and (b) Model S: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel
profiles + replacement of air gap and interior stone wool by polyurethane foam and
replacement of exterior stone wool by an air gap.
Martins et al.
25
Figure 23. Heat flux: external surface view: (a) Model R: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted
steel profiles 28% + polyurethane and (b) Model S: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel
profiles 28% + polyurethane and 40-mm air gap.
These models provide good thermal performance, the best U-value being
obtained in Model R, with a U-value of 0.1173 W/(m2 K). This model improves by
61.0% the U-value relatively to the reference model (Model A). Model S also presents a good thermal performance, with 0.1333 W/(m2 K) for the U-value, which
corresponds to an improvement of 55.7% relatively to the reference model. Figure
23(b) shows the heat flux in the external face.
The last two models, T and U, combined the improvements introduced in the
previous model. Model T combines the following: Model B2 with rubber strips,
Model D2 with vertical slotted steel profiles, Model E with bolted connections and
Model L in which 30-mm silica aerogel insulation blankets were placed on both
sides (Figure 24(a) shows the details). Similarly, Model U consists of Model B2,
Model D2, Model E and Model O in which 30-mm vacuum panels were placed on
both sides (Figure 24(b) shows the details).
These last models provide good results for the U-value, being the best one
obtained for Model U, with a thermal transmittance value of 0.0959 W/(m2 K).
This model improves by 68.2% the U-value relatively to the reference Model A.
Model T also presents a good thermal performance, although lower, that is, a Uvalue equal to 0.1406 W/(m2 K), which corresponds to an improvement of 53.3%
comparatively to the reference model. Figure 25 shows the heat flux distribution
along the external surface of the walls.
26
Figure 24. Wall combined solutions with aerogel or vacuum panels and slotted steel profiles:
(a) Model T: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel profiles + 30-mm silica aerogel
insulation blankets on both sides and (b) Model U: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel
profiles + 30-mm vacuum panels on both sides.
Figure 25. Heat flux: external surface view: (a) Model T: nine bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted
steel profiles + 30-mm silica aerogel insulation blanket on both sides and (b) Model U: nine
bolts + 10-mm rubber + slotted steel profiles + 30-mm vacuum panel on both sides.
Martins et al.
27
U-value improvements results and discussion

Table 5 and Figure 26 presents a summary of the thermal transmittance values for
the improvements of the LSF modular walls and the thermal transmittance differences (DU) between each model and the reference one (Model A).
The best single strategy for U-value improvement is Model O, which adds VIPs
on both sides of the wall steel structure. The U-value was reduced by 49%, which
represents a good improvement in the thermal performance of the wall module,
considering that a layer of insulation with only 60 mm was added.
From the numerical simulations, for the combined strategies, it is concluded
that the best solution is the one that combines rubber strips, slotted steel profiles,
bolted connections, and VIPs on both sides, identified as Model U. The U-value
was reduced from 0.3011 W/(m2 K), in the reference Model A, to 0.0959 W/(m2
K).
Model R also presents good performance; in this model, the following solutions
are combined: rubber strips, slotted steel profiles, bolted connections and PU. The
U-value was also significantly reduced from 0.3011 W/(m2 K), in the reference
Model A, to 0.1173 W/(m2 K). Although this model improves the reference model
by 61%, it presents the drawback of not having an air gap, which in case of water
infiltration can be a problem. However, this disadvantage can be mitigated by
using a windtight and water-resistant membrane, placed between the ETICS and
the OSB.
Model S, which has an air gap with 40 mm, also presents a good alternative for
improvement. This model increases the U-value by only 0.016 W/(m2 K) comparatively to the previous (Model R).
Finally, Model T decreases the U-value by 53.3%. Although this model does
not present the best result, this is in fact also a good solution because the placement of aerogel insulation blankets in the wall not only decreases the U-value but
also increases the fire resistance of the wall.
The most efficient material added to the wall is the VIPs, improving by 68.2%
the thermal performance. However, due to the difference of price between this solution and the PU foam, which allows a reduction of 61.0% in the U-value, this second solution may also be considered a good option.
Conclusion
In this article, several thermal bridges mitigation strategies to improve an LSF wall
module were assessed. An optimization of the wall module insulation layers was
also performed, which combined with the mitigation approaches allows a significant improvement in the LSF wall thermal performance. The implementation of
thermal bridges mitigation strategies in a modular LSF wall was performed using
3D FEM models, derived from a previously validated 3D FEM reference model
(Santos et al., 2014).
Aa
H
I
J
VIP: vacuum insulation panel.

a
Reference model.
Slotted
steel profiles
P 28%
P
P
Without air
With 40-mm
gap and stone air gap and
wool
without
stone wool
Polyurethane
foam
P 10 mm P 28%Only vertical P
Without
Rubber
horizontal
steel connections
Model description
L
M
N
O
Combined P P
strategies Q
R
S
T
U
Single
strategies
Model
Table 5. Parametric study for U-value improvement: overview of models and results.
P Internal
side only
P External
side only
P
Aerogel
0.2356 (221.8%)
0.3011 ()
0.1615 (246.4%)
0.1876 (237.7%)
0.2295 (223.8%)
0.1889 (237.3%)
P Internal side only 0.2032 (232.5%)
P External side only 0.2048 (232.0%)
P
0.1536 (249.0%)
0.1271 (257.8%)
0.1525 (249.3%)
0.1173 (261.0%)
0.1333 (255.7%)
0.1406 (253.3%)
P
0.0959 (268.2%)
VIPs
U-value
(W/(m2 K)) (DU)
28
Martins et al.
29
Figure 26. Parametric study for U-value improvement: overview of results for the wall models.
From this work, several remarks can be highlighted. The mitigation of thermal
bridges caused by the steel structure is best accomplished by the introduction of
thermal break strips and the introduction of slotted steel profiles. The parametric
study shows that the thermal transmittance of the wall can be reduced by up to
8.3%, corresponding to 75% of the total impact of the steel thermal bridges. Note
that these values could be even higher if there is no continuous thermal insulation
layer of ETICS (40 mm).
Furthermore, the following design guidance may be provided:

Introduce at least one-third of continuous thermal insulation;

If the previous condition is verified, then some thermal bridges mitigation
strategies could be very much reduced or even irrelevant (e.g. male or female
studs, thin rubber strips, fixing bolts instead of steel plate connections and
slotted steel profiles);
When selecting or designing thermal profiles, choose the ones with higher
number of narrow slots since they are more efficient than the ones with
larger slots;
Whenever possible, try to use two layers of perpendicular steel studs, avoiding trespassing the entire wall cross section with two parallel steel profiles.
In the performed evaluation of the wall module, it is clear that the air gap
crossed by steel influences its thermal performance, and filling the air gap space
with insulation allows a great improvement. The parametric study shows that the
30
wall U-value can be reduced by near three times with quite simple solutions, corresponding to a reduction of 68%. From the economical perspective, the solution in
which PU is added to the wall module instead of the air gap is the best solution
given the higher cost of aerogel and VIPs.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors would like to thank the European Union for funding in the form of the QREN
SI I&DT N. 24804 EcoSteelPanel Thermal and acoustic comfort grant.
References
Alam M, Singh H and Limbachiya MC (2011) Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) for building
construction industry a review of the contemporary developments and future directions.
Applied Energy 88(11): 35923602.
Baetens R, Jelle BP and Gustavsen A (2011) Aerogel insulation for building applications: a
state-of-the-art review. Energy and Buildings 43(4): 761769.
Baetens R, Jelle BP, Thue JV, et al. (2010) Vacuum insulation panels for building
applications: a review and beyond. Energy and Buildings 42(2): 147172.
Blomberg TR and Claesson J (1998) Heat transmission through walls with slotted steel
studs. Conference proceedings by ASHRAE. In: Thermal envelopes VII, Clearwater, FL,
610 December, 621628.
EN ISO 10211:2007 (2007) Thermal bridges in building construction heat flows and
surface temperatures detailed calculations, European Committee for Standardization.
EN ISO 6946:2007 (2007) Building components and building elements thermal resistance
and thermal transmittance calculation method, European Committee for
Standardization.
Erhorn-Klutting H and Erhorn H (2009) ASIEPI Impact of Thermal Bridges on the Energy
Performance of Buildings. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics.
Hoglund T and Burstrandb H (1998) Slotted steel studs to reduce thermal bridges in
insulated walls. Thin-Walled Structures 32: 81109.
Kingspan UK (2013) OPTIM-R External Wall System Next Generation Insulation
Solution for External Masonry Walls. Leominster: Kingspan, Low energy Low Carbon
Buildings.
Kosny J and Christian JE (1995) Thermal evaluation of several configurations of insulation
and structural materials for some metal stud walls. Energy and Buildings 22(2): 157163.
Salhab B and Wang YC (2008) Equivalent thickness of cold-formed thin-walled channel
sections with perforated webs under compression. Thin-Walled Structures 46(79):
823838.
Santos P, Martins C, Simoes da Silva L, et al. (2014) Thermal performance of lightweight
steel framed wall: the importance of flanking thermal losses. Journal of Building Physics
38(1): 8198.
Martins et al.
31
Santos P, Simoes da Silva L and Ungureanu V (2012) Energy efficiency of light-weight steelframed Buildings, 1st ed. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS),
Technical Committee 14-Sustainability & Eco-Efficiency of Steel Construction, no. 129.
Santos P, Simoes da Silva L, Gervasio H, et al. (2011) Parametric analysis of the thermal
performance of light steel residential buildings in Csb climatic regions. Journal of Building
Physics 35(1): 753.
Veljkovic M and Johansson B (2006) Light steel framing for residential buildings. ThinWalled Structures 44(12): 12721279.

Lightweight Steel-Framed Thermal Bridges Mitigation Strategies: A Parametric Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lightweight Steel-Framed Thermal Bridges Mitigation Strategies: A Parametric Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Article

Journal of Building Physics

Claudio Martins, Paulo Santos and Lus Simoes da Silva

Journal of Building Physics

Journal of Building Physics

Table 1. Wall materials and properties.

Finish external thermal insulation

Solid equivalent thermal conductivity.

Description of the modular LSF reference wall

Figure 1. Steel structure of an LSF wall module.

Journal of Building Physics

Figure 2. Wall module materials.

Figure 3. LSF wall test specimen and mobile gantry geometry.

Figure 4. Test chamber and mobile gantry.

Journal of Building Physics

Test reference case 3

Verification and validation

Journal of Building Physics

Air cavity temp.

Internal ambient temp.

Internal surface temp.

Figure 6. Temperature and thermal transmittance values: experimental versus numerical

Table 3. Experimental and numerical obtained values.

Surface temperatures (C)

Between steel studs

Parametric study for the mitigation of thermal bridges

Journal of Building Physics

Journal of Building Physics

Combined mitigation strategies for thermal bridges

Results: overview and discussion

Journal of Building Physics

values, to increase the accuracy in the comparison analysis. Figure 14 presents an

U-value (W/(m2 K)) (DU)

Journal of Building Physics

Parametric study for U-value improvement

or insulation materials with higher thermal performance. In this study, it was

Single improvement strategies

Journal of Building Physics

0.1889 W/(m2 K), which represents an improvement of 37.5%. Comparing Figure

Journal of Building Physics

Combined improvement strategies

Journal of Building Physics

Journal of Building Physics

U-value improvements results and discussion

VIP: vacuum insulation panel.

Introduce at least one-third of continuous thermal insulation;

Journal of Building Physics

You might also like