Jump to content

Retro Therma


Onoff

Recommended Posts

Looks like a neat, near dust free install method for fitting UFH in existing concrete floors but guessing the losses downward (& to the side?) must be pretty large without decent insulation in the floor make up?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Onoff said:

but guessing the losses downward (& to the side?) must be pretty large without decent insulation in the floor make up?

Yep, it relies on people thinking that low temperature automatically means low energy.

I was recently talking to someone about an UFH system that was being fitted to a new house.  I asked how much insulation was being fitted under it, the reply was "80mm, it's the building regs standard".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick and dirty estimate of losses, assuming the floor is set to deliver around 30 W/m² (which is on the low side for a house built to just meet building regs) gives the percentage heat lost down through a 100mm concrete slab set on 80mm PIR underfloor insulation of around 14.35%, for a room temperature of 21°C.

 

With no insulation under the floor the heat loss increases so that around 4 times more heat would flow down to the ground beneath than would flow into the room (assuming a 150mm thick slab bearing on the ground, it would be worse for a 100mm slab).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

What would be the losses if the insulation was increased to 120mm?

 

With the same 100mm slab, 30 W/m² output from the floor, and 21°C room temperature, with the same 8°C ground temperature, the losses would be around 9.64% for 120mm of PIR, with a λ of 0.022 W/m.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So worth it for an extra 40mm.

Especially as builders can't work to that accuracy.

 

 

 

Yes, especially as 30 W/m² is probably a bit higher than would be needed with extra insulation under the floor, due to the reduction in whole house heat loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

With the same 100mm slab, 30 W/m² output from the floor, and 21°C room temperature, with the same 8°C ground temperature, the losses would be around 9.64% for 120mm of PIR, with a λ of 0.022 W/m.K.

 

 

I thought my original heat loss of 5.8% for 150mm of insulation was low, having adjusted the insulation number from the PIR default to EPS I now get 9% at a floor temp of 25 c.

 

Would I be correct in thinking EPS is the default choice under a screed in a traditional build?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Would I be correct in thinking EPS is the default choice under a screed in a traditional build?

 

Tends to be PIR I believe, largely due to better performance for a given (often height-limited) thickness.


EPS tends to be used under slabs in raft constructions where a separate screed isn't used, largely because of its durability in that application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

the losses would be around 9.64% for 120mm of PIR, with a λ of 0.022 W/m.K.

 

 

One thing I noticed while adjusting the whole house heat loss to 50% or 30% of worst case is that the heat loss to ground rockets up to > 20%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Onoff said:

Anyone care to calc the loss of 150mm pir with 25mm eps underneath?  Cheers.

 

For a 100mm slab, delivering 30 W/m² to the room, with a ground temperature of 8°C and a room temperature of 21°C, the losses through the insulation would be about 6.98%

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

heat loss to ground rockets up to > 20%.

That is to be expected because it is a percentage of the whole.  This is not really the way to look at it.  Really should look at the kWh/year and what that is costing in terms of emissions and cash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

That is to be expected because it is a percentage of the whole.  This is not really the way to look at it.  Really should look at the kWh/year and what that is costing in terms of emissions and cash.

 

 

 

I guess so but previously I had scaled down my under screed insulation thickness to 150mm on the basis that anything below 10% was acceptable, now I realize the majority of the time the ufh will be coasting along well below the max output in the zone where the 10% to 20% factor applies. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

where the 10% to 20% factor applies.

Generally, in science, it is always worth looking at the actual units rather than in percentage terms.

To give you an example, dairy farming uses about 1 GWh of electrical energy a day, Sound a lot, but is about 3% of our mean energy usage.

Well worth it for something to put in tea.

That is about the same as electric cars currently use.

 

 

Edited by SteamyTea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...