ENERGY HOUSE 2.0 SPOTLIGHT 45


THE 2023 RESEARCH COMPRISED A DETAILED PROGRAMME THAT INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE LEAD PARTNERS, BUT ALSO THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN, AS WELL AS INNOVATORS NEW TO THE SECTOR


Comparison of design specifi cation of The Future Home and eHome2 with the Future Homes Standard


Diff erence in the measured Heat Transfer Coeffi cients of a sample of 30 new homes by Leeds Beckett University


5% to 140% in a sample of 30 new homes (see graph above). TFH showed a performance gap of 7.7%, while eHome2 had a gap of 3.9%. The Energy House 2.0 test homes’ results are marked in orange, indicating both homes had a low performance gap when compared with existing homes.


AIR TIGHTNESS


TFH’s air tightness was tested using two methods: the blower door method and the Pulse test. There was a difference between the design value and the measured value. The design value was 2.5 m³/h/m², but the measured result was 4 m³/h/m². This is a difference of 1.5 m³/h/m², which is 61% worse than the design value. Thermal imaging and visual inspections identifi ed that extra sockets and service penetrations drove much of this gap. However, this was due to the experimental nature of the house, with multiple heating systems installed to allow side-by-side comparison. eHome2’s air tightness was tested using two methods: the blower door method and the Pulse test. There was a difference


between the design value and the measured value. The design value was 3.0 m³/h/m², but the measured result was 2.8 m³/h/m². This is a difference of 0.2 m³/h/m², which is 6.2% better than the design value.


WHOLE HOUSE HEAT LOSS eHome2 was designed to have a Whole House Heat Loss (Heat Transfer Coeffi cient or TC of 3. /, based on the SAP energy model. This includes both the heat loss through the building’s materials and the heat loss due to air leakage. When measured using the coheating method, the TC was . (±2.1) W/K. This shows a difference of 2.9 W/K, or 3.9%, which is higher than the margin of error, indicating a small performance gap. Measurements for eHome2 were taken using the Saint- Gobain QUB and Veritherm test methods. Representatives from Veritherm and QUB conducted these tests independently of the research team. The tests were done under the same conditions as the coheating method, with the chamber set to 5C, to allow for direct comparison.


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76