2020 BOOTH Colin - Retrofitting Solid Wall Housing 1

DESN40116 – RESEARCH PROJECT AND DISSERTATION
IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PRE-1919 HOUSING

BY RETROFITTING INNOVATIVE MATERIALS
by Colin Booth
Supervised by Dr Bahareh Kaveh
Dissertation submitted in the partial fulfilment of a

Master of Science Degree in Structural Engineering with Materials
to the School of Architecture, Design, and the Built Environment
Nottingham Trent University
2019 - 2020
For my Grandad, Peter Copley.
Because without his words of encouragement
I would not have taken the career path I have.
16/07/1931 – 24/07/2020
i
ii
Statement of Originality
I hereby certify that this thesis constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set
forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language,
ideas, expressions or writings of another.
I declare that the thesis describes original work that has not previously been presented for the award
of any other degree of any institution.
Signed,
Colin Booth
01/09/2020
iii
[BLANK]
iv
Abstract
There is clear evidence that GHG emissions are driving climate change at an unprecedented pace and
if left unchecked we are heading towards a global environmental catastrophe. Governments and
nations globally are waking up to the fact that we must all act now to reduce emissions if we are to
slow down this destruction. Stringent targets have been set by Governments across the globe, not
only by the wealthy nations who make up the UN or the G20 but by all nations. Many sectors are
working hard to reduce emissions, some have made great strides in this universal effort. The building
sector in the UK lags woefully behind other sectors, partly due to the poor housing stock, many of
which was built pre-1919. If we as a nation are to achieve any of these targets, then it requires a
collective effort on the part of all sectors to make this happen. The retrofitting of sustainable
measures to this ‘hard to treat’ housing stock can and will undeniably reduce energy inefficiencies,
save energy and reduce GHG emissions, if approached correctly. There are a wide range of materials
and methods available which have demonstrated these reductions are achievable. Product
development and innovation has never been greater than it is now. However, there are clear barriers
which get in the way of homeowners’ adopting these energy reduction measures. Cost and length of
payback period are primary reasons for the lack of motivation but the ease of application, lack of
knowledge and the level of disruption retrofitting causes are equally important. Thermal insulating
paint is a relatively simple, low-cost and easy means of delivering potential energy savings. To test
the ability of this paint coating in reducing thermal transmittance, a test rig featuring a section of solid
wall construction was constructed in laboratory conditions and a series of tests were carried out on the
thermal transmittance of the constructed wall both before and after application of thermal insulating
paint with a view to establishing if this was an effective means of improving its thermal
characteristics. The results clearly identified that improvements in thermal transmittance were
observed after application of the paint. Regrettably, the improvements were negligible. The thermal
transmittance of the thermal paint coating was found to be little better than that of conventional vinyl
textured wallpaper. In isolation, the performance of this coating is poor, however in combination with
other insulation materials and technologies there remains potential for thermal paint coatings to
become one of a suite of other sustainable, energy reduction measures.
v
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 16
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 16
1.2 Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 16
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................... 17
1.3.1 Aim ...................................................................................................................................... 17
1.3.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 17
1.4 Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 17
1.5 Project Outline ............................................................................................................................ 18
1.6 Stakeholders and Beneficiaries ................................................................................................... 18
2.0 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 20
2.1 Climate Change........................................................................................................................... 20
2.1.1 Climate Change Definition .................................................................................................. 20
2.1.2 Global Warming................................................................................................................... 21
2.1.3 Global Warming – UK Impacts ........................................................................................... 21
2.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 22
2.1.5 Contributors to Climate Change .......................................................................................... 26
2.1.6 Sub-Section Summary.......................................................................................................... 27
2.2 Climate Action ............................................................................................................................ 28
2.2.1 Climate Change Agreements ............................................................................................... 28
2.2.2 Significant Climate Change Organisations .......................................................................... 29
2.2.2 International Climate Change Commitments ....................................................................... 32
2.2.3 UK Government Climate Change Commitments ................................................................ 34
2.2.4 Nottinghamshire Climate Change Commitments ................................................................ 36
2.3 UK Housing Stock ...................................................................................................................... 37
2.3.1 UK Residential Sector Emissions ........................................................................................ 37
2.3.2 Energy Performance Rating Procedures .............................................................................. 39
2.3.3 UK Housing Construction Methods ..................................................................................... 41
2.3.4 Solid Wall Housing Quantity ............................................................................................... 42
2.3.5 Thermal Performance Parameters ........................................................................................ 43
2.3.6 Assumed Thermal Transmittance vs Measure Thermal Transmittance of Solid Walls ....... 46
2.3.7 Risk of Overheating ............................................................................................................. 48
2.3.8 Average Energy Ratings and Performances of Existing Stock ............................................ 48
2.3.9 Hard to Treat Homes ............................................................................................................ 49
vi
2.3.10 Sub Section Summary ........................................................................................................ 50
2.4 Sustainable Retrofit of UK Domestic Built Environment ........................................................... 51
2.4.1 Solid Wall Insulation ........................................................................................................... 52
2.4.2 Internal Wall Insulation ....................................................................................................... 53
2.4.3 Motivations to Retrofit with Internal Wall Insulation.......................................................... 55
2.4.4 Barriers to Retrofit with Internal Wall Insulation ................................................................ 57
2.5 Case Studies ................................................................................................................................ 58
2.5.1 Case Study 1 - Pre-Fabricated Tenement Flats - Parkview, Thamesmead .......................... 59
2.5.2 Case Study 3 – Thermal Paint Coatings Laboratory Simulation Test, University of Salford
...................................................................................................................................................... 61
2.6 Sustainable Retrofitting with Insulation Paint ............................................................................ 63
3.0 Research Design and Methods ........................................................................................................ 65
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 65
3.2 Research Design.......................................................................................................................... 65
3.2.1 A Thermal Performance Study using a Solid Wall Specimen ............................................. 66
3.2.2 Measuring Thermal Performance......................................................................................... 66
3.2.3 Specimen Wall Monitoring .................................................................................................. 66
3.2.4 Experimental Measurement and Model Comparisons ......................................................... 67
3.2.5 Sensor Positioning................................................................................................................ 67
3.2.6 Experimental Code of Practice ............................................................................................ 68
3.3 Test Subject and Materials .......................................................................................................... 69
3.3.1 Description and Geometry of Test Wall .............................................................................. 69
3.3.2 Internal Wall Insulation Paint .............................................................................................. 70
3.4 Equipment used for Measuring Thermal Performance ............................................................... 70
3.4.1 Environmental Chamber ...................................................................................................... 70
3.4.2 Heating Element................................................................................................................... 71
3.4.3 GreenTEG Gskin U-value Kit.............................................................................................. 71
3.4.4 Surface Mounted Temperature Sensors ............................................................................... 72
3.4.5 Data Logger ......................................................................................................................... 72
3.4.6 Thermal Imaging Camera .................................................................................................... 72
3.5 Physical Experimental Assessment ............................................................................................. 72
3.5.1 Experiment Phase 1: Pre-Retrofit Test................................................................................. 73
3.5.2 Experiment Phase 2: Temp-Coat Applied............................................................................ 74
3.5.3 Experiment Phase 3: Post Retrofit Test ............................................................................... 75
3.6 Numerical Assessment ................................................................................................................ 75
vii
3.6.1 Creating Brickwork Wall Model.......................................................................................... 75
4.0 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 77
4.1 Experimental GreenTEG U-value Measurement Kit Results and Discussion ............................ 77
4.1.1 Pre-Insulation Wall Results ................................................................................................. 78
4.1.2 Post-Insulation Wall Results ................................................................................................ 80
4.1.3 GreenTEG U-value Measurement Kit – Pre and Post Insulation Discussion ...................... 84
4.2 Experimental Thermocouple Temperature Differences Results and Discussion ........................ 86
4.2.1 Pre-Insulation Temperature Readings .................................................................................. 88
4.2.2 Post-Insulation Temperature Readings ................................................................................ 89
4.2.3 Thermocouple Temperature Differences – Pre and Post Insulation Discussion .................. 90
4.3 Steady State Numerical Analysis Results and Discussion .......................................................... 92
4.4 Results and discussion summary................................................................................................. 94
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 95
5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 95
5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 97
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Total anthropogenic GHG emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by economic sectors (IPCC, 2014) ..... 23
Figure 2: Total anthropogenic GHG emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by economic sectors (IPCC, 2014) ..... 23
Figure 3: The Greenhouse Gas effect (UNFCCC, 2003) ...................................................................... 26
Figure 4: Human vs natural influence on global temperature change (Peralta, 2014) .......................... 27
Figure 5: Emissions gap in meeting global temperature goals (CAT, 2019) ........................................ 31
Figure 6: Global GHG emissions under different scenarios and the emissions gap by 2030 (UNEP,
2019a) ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 7: Greenhouse gas emissions of the top four emitters in the G20 by 2030 under different
scenarios and compared with historical emissions (UNEP, 2019a) ...................................................... 33
Figure 8: UK greenhouse gas emissions compared to GDP (1990-2018) (CCC, 2019c) ..................... 35
Figure 9: 2018 UK residential sector GHG emissions (CCC, 2019a) .................................................. 38
Figure 10: EPC certificate showing how rating relates to SAP (EDF, 2020) ....................................... 40
Figure 11: Dwelling construction by age, England 2013 (Piddington et al, 2020) ............................... 43
Figure 12: Graphical representation of thermal performance properties (CTHERM, 2020) ................ 44
Figure 13: Proportion and relationship of HTT categories (BRE, 2008). ............................................. 49
Figure 14: Solid wall insulation uptake and indicator trajectories (2008-2032), (CCC, 2016) ............ 51
Figure 15: Annual installation rates of loft, cavity wall and solid wall insulation (2008-2017) (CCC,
2019b) ................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 16: Annual insulation savings by property type (EST, n.d.) ..................................................... 53
Figure 17: Timber frame IWI with cavity (Historic England, 2016) .................................................... 54
Figure 18: Directly fixed IWI with thermal break at floor junction (Historic England, 2016) ............. 54
Figure 19: Thamesmead Post-retrofit ................................................................................................... 60
Figure 20: Thamesmead Pre-retrofit ..................................................................................................... 60
Figure 21: External thermocouple positions diagram ........................................................................... 68
Figure 22: Internal thermocouple positions diagram ............................................................................ 68
Figure 23: Internal sensors affixed to the plasterboard ......................................................................... 68
Figure 24: External sensors affixed to the brickwork ........................................................................... 68
Figure 25: Construction of specimen wall ............................................................................................ 69
Figure 26: Constructed specimen wall .................................................................................................. 69
Figure 27: Plaster finish to internal facade ........................................................................................... 69
Figure 28: Temp-Coat insulation paint and thickness gauge ................................................................ 70
Figure 29: Environmental chamber exterior, interior and control panel set to -5°C............................. 70
Figure 30: Heating element fixed to rigid insulation ............................................................................ 71
Figure 31: Greenteg Gskin U-Value Kit Schematic (Kosmina, 2016) ................................................. 71
Figure 32: Surface mounted temperature sensors fixed to plasterboard ............................................... 72
ix
Figure 33: Pre-insulation testing schedule ............................................................................................ 73
Figure 34: Post-insulation testing schedule .......................................................................................... 73
Figure 35: Wall specimen in environmental chamber .......................................................................... 74
Figure 36: Wall specimen and heating element attached to insulation ................................................. 74
Figure 37: Wall specimen with insulation covering ............................................................................. 74
Figure 38: Preparation of Temp-Coat ................................................................................................... 75
Figure 39: Painted plaster ..................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 40: Painted brickwork, thickness gauge in use .......................................................................... 75
Figure 41: Generated model structure showing all materials and generated mesh ............................... 76
Figure 42: Heat loading and boundary conditions ................................................................................ 76
Figure 43: Pre-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings output ............ 79
Figure 44: Post-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings output .......... 81
Figure 45: Measured U-value vs hand calculated U-value ................................................................... 83
Figure 46: Post- insulation measurements overview ............................................................................ 84
Figure 47: Internal thermocouples positions diagram........................................................................... 87
Figure 48: Internal thermocouples positions diagram........................................................................... 87
Figure 49: Pre and post insulation average temperature differences - Internal vs External .................. 90
Figure 51: Post-insulation numerical model - steady state thermal output ........................................... 92
Figure 50: Pre-insulation numerical model - steady state thermal output............................................. 92
Figure 52: Pre-insulation numerical model - heat flux output .............................................................. 93
Figure 53: Post-insulation numerical model - heat flux output............................................................. 93
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of 2018 Emissions with 2019 Provisional emissions (DBEIS, 2018a; DBEIS 2019)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 2: UK Carbon budgets set by the CCC (GOV UK, 2016) .......................................................... 34
Table 3: Measured U values of solid wall buildings from UK studies ................................................. 47
Table 4: U values before and after renovation (modified from Boonstra, Hill et al 2014) ................... 60
Table 5: Summary of pre-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings ...... 80
Table 6: Summary of post-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings .... 82
Table 7:Post- insulation - Summary of GreenTEG readings ................................................................ 82
Table 8: Pre and post- insulation GreenTEG U-value measurement kit summary ............................... 85
Table 10: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 1 .............. 88
Table 9: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 2 ................ 88
Table 14: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 1 ............ 89
Table 16: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences – Day 4............ 89
xi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my project supervisor, Dr Kaveh Bahareh, for her enthusiasm for the project, her
infinite kindness and limitless encouragement. I am grateful for her calm reassurance during the
unrestful period in which this paper was written. Thanks too to all the members of staff at Nottingham
Trent University for their unparalleled knowledge and guidance.
Secondly, I would like the thank my employers, Evans Wolfenden Partnership, for allowing me to
carry out my studies over the last year, in particular my boss Mark for letting me focus on this paper
during the final week.
Thirdly, I would like to thank my family who through their limitless compassion and generosity have
helped me produce this paper. Mum and Dad, I cannot thank you for each and everything you have
done for me, but I can thank you for teaching me how to read and write.
Finally, I would like to thank my fiancée, Beth, who through her unbridled encouragement and
patience has seen me through a wide range of mindsets and side effects of writing a master’s thesis.
Your endless support has been nothing short of amazing, you have given me the much-needed
strength throughout this journey.
xii
Abbreviations
BEIS - Government Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy
BRE – Building Research Establishment
BREDEM – Building Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model
CCA – the Climate Change Act 2008
CCC - Committee on Climate Change
CIED – Centre of Innovation and Energy Demand
COP – Conference of the Parties
DECC - Government Department of Energy & Climate Change
EA – Environment
ECO - Energy Company Obligation is a Government
EHS – English Housing Survey
EPC - Energy Performance Certificate
EPS – Expanded polystyrene
EST – Energy Saving Trust
EWI – External Wall Insulation
G20 – the Group of 20
GHG’s - greenhouse gasses
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
ISO - International Organisation for Standardisation
IWI – Internal Wall Insulation used
MHCLG - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
NDC – Nationally Determined Contribution
PA - Paris Agreement
RdSAP - The Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure
RIBA – Royal Institute of British Architects
SAP - The Standard Assessment Procedure
SIP - Structural Insulated Panels, are high performance used for residential construction
SWI – Solid Wall
TC - Thermal conductivity
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
VIP - Vacuum Insulated
WMO - World Meteorological Organisation
xiii
[BLANK]
xiv
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch
them without doing anything."
Albert Einstein
15
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Earth’s climate has been changing for centuries but human activity, since the mid-19th century, has
exacerbated the dangers that climate change presents. With an abundance of scientific evidence, few
would disagree that climate change is the greatest social, economic and environmental threat that
humankind is currently faced with. Global warming is a major aspect of climate change, and studies have
shown that anthropogenic activities since the industrial revolution have intensified the concentration
atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) (IPCC, 2014).
Global economies are responding to the effects of climate change by implementing tough GHG emission
measures. In 2019 the UK was the first major economy to pass a legally binding climate policy that will
see GHG emissions cut to a least 100% below 1990 levels by 2050 (CCC, 2019a). In stark contrast to
these stringent measures, the UK residential sector has seen quantifiable increases in GHG emissions in
2018 and therefore has a vital responsibility to facilitate change fast. (BEIS, 2018a).
1.2 Rationale
Of the European nations, the UK’s housing stock is recognised as being one of the most outdated and
least energy efficient (Tink, 2018). Some 8.6 million UK homes were built prior to 1919, at a time when
energy efficiency standards did not exist and solid wall construction was at the height of its popularity.
This is reflected in their increased fuel consumption and poor energy performance (MHCLG, 2018). If the
government is going to achieve the 2050 GHG emissions target, full decarbonisation of the residential
sector must take place.
A key strategy in the energy efficiency improvement of the existing pre-1919 housing stock is the use of
sustainable retrofitting as a means of upgrading the fabric and air tightness of a poorly insulated homes.
Acknowledged as a cost-effective approach, retrofitting underpins the strategy to meet net zero emissions
by 2050, tackle fuel poverty and cut energy bills. Solid wall houses are vulnerable to increased heat loss if
the external walls are not insulated, since this is where the greatest proportion of heat is lost (Palmer and
Terry, 2017).
There is a wide variety of retrofit options available on the market, and for homeowners it can be rather
difficult and daunting selecting the type of solid wall insulation that is right for them and their property
and are ill-informed about the economic and health benefits. Conventional insulation products, like those
used in cavity wall applications, are widely adopted in whole house energy improvement schemes.
However, there is an emerging market demand for smarter, cheaper, thinner, easier to install insulation
technologies which deliver increased energy efficiencies (Palmer and Terry, 2017).
16
Solid wall dwellings are faced with limited options with regards to retrofitted insulation, especially when
the property is a listed building or situated within a conservation area. A quick, cheap, easy and energy
efficient option that lends itself to these applications would be the use of thermal insulation paint, applied
to the interior façade of the external walls.
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives

1.3.1 Aim
Quantitative data is vitally important when an innovative material is at concept stage, prior to being
introduced to the market or when an established product is being used in a new and alternative application
to the original application for which it was initially developed. Temp-Coat is a highly efficient, ceramic
based insulating paint used in highly sophisticated applications, the aim of this research is to investigate
the potential for thermal performance improvements on a solid brickwork wall once Temp-Coat is applied
and when compared to an uninsulated solid wall.
1.3.2 Objectives
• To investigate the global climate crisis and highlight the pitfalls in UK residential housing that have
made the UK implicit in the substantial atmospheric GHG concentrations. Sustainable retrofitting
will be explored as a viable option to guide older UK housing out of poor fabric standards,
reviewing case studies to highlight available materials, methods, advantages, and barriers.
• To comprehensively examine the thermal performance of a specimen solid masonry wall with and
without Temp-Coat insulation paint applied, when exposed to realistic internal and external
environmental conditions.
• Specific laboratory testing will see the constructed specimen wall’s performance monitored pre-
retrofit and post-retrofit, so comparisons can be drawn between the two data sets and measured
against examined case studies. In addition to the experimental data, theoretical hand calculations
and a numerical software model will be used to draw further comparisons.
• Conclusions will be drawn from all findings of the completed objectives in order to gauge what the
UK public response would be to this innovative insulating material and find out whether savings
in terms of energy and money can be achieved through retrofitting, ultimately dictating how Temp-
Coat would be received on the UK housing market.
1.4 Research Question

“The application of insulation paint coatings to solid wall buildings will improve thermal efficiency.”
In order to test this hypothesis, it is important for this research to answer the following question:
17
“Compared with the measured thermal performance of an insulated solid brickwork wall, can an
innovative material, such as Temp-Coat insulation paint, deliver significant improvements in thermal
performance and efficiency of solid wall housing?”
1.5 Project Outline

Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic, access to Nottingham Trent University laboratories was
prohibited, therefore the thermal performance testing of the combination of the solid masonry wall
specimen and Temp-Coat insulation paint could not be carried out in person. This study uses secondary
data collected in 2019 by a former post-graduate student of Nottingham Trent University as the basis of
the research, therefore the basic structure of the methodology model has been used. Any pictures taken
from the ex-student’s experiment.
Following this introductory chapter (Chapter 1 Introduction), the thesis is presented according to the
following chapter headings (the content is briefly outlined below):
Chapter 2 Literature Review: A thorough review of available literature has been conducted, specifically
in relation to UK carbon emissions, energy consumption and housing and government action and
solutions to the crisis. Analysis of similar case studies will be carried out, with focus on energy and cost
savings.
Chapter 3 Methodology: Methodology of laboratory testing, data collection and analysis procedure and
limitations are outlined.
Chapter 4 Discussion and Results: Examination and discussion of the results with adopted data
analytics
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendations: Conclusion of findings, summarising the full study,
limitations to full study and recommendations for future research.
1.6 Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

Innovation is at the forefront of Government policy in the war on GHG emissions. This research
investigates opportunities to utilise technologies form other sectors in an effort to provide solutions in the
UK residential sector. Its aim is to inform those with a vested interest in achieving energy and emission
reduction targets on the benefits, challenges and opportunities of a well-established insulation method in a
sector for which it was not originally designed. There are a number of key stakeholders who will benefit
from the results of this research; the UK government policy makers in their efforts to achieve carbon
neutral status by 2050; local government policy makers and professionals by providing opportunities to
utilise alternative retrofitting methods for housing stock in their control; academics and researchers by
providing an in depth investigation into the performance characteristics of an emerging technology for use
18
in the building sector; non-Government organisations like the BRE as the research gives insights into
alternative technologies useful in energy efficiency improvements; specialists in the UK building and
residential sectors by making available alternative sustainable retrofit methods.
19
2.0 Literature Review
A thorough and comprehensive review of all relevant literature was conducted, first to examine the
intrinsic link between countries and their predicted impact on climate change and global warming and
their unprecedented levels of GHG emissions that are the major contributors to the environmental threat
we currently face; together with a broad overview of the wider issues associated with climate change.
Secondly, the review examines and identifies the current evidence base in the field of buildings and
energy, which has contributed to moving research in this sector forward.
2.1 Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and oceans have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
(IPCC, 2018a)
It is widely acknowledged that the greatest threat facing today’s world is climate change, and through
scientific evidence few would disagree that human activity since the early 19th century has been the
predominant stimulus for this environmental, social and economic crisis (Papworth, et al., 2014). This
sub-section will examine global climate change, the major worldwide contributors, and the observed and
predicted effects and impacts.
2.1.1 Climate Change Definition

In their 2018 Global Warming of 1.5°C report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
defined climate change as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the
mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer” (IPCC, 2018a). Equally the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) characterised climate change as “a change in climate which is attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural
climate variability observed over comparable periods of time” (UN, 1992).
The Earth’s climate is an incredibly complex and interactive system. Elements such as the Earth’s
surface, oceans and other bodies of water, the atmosphere, and living organisms have been responding to
increased human activity since the pre-industrial period between 1850 – 1900 (Met Office, 2018).
‘Characteristic weather patterns’ is used as a common approach to measuring the climate, and
predominantly within weather, key indicators include changing temperatures and increased precipitation.
The dominant indicator of climate change is generally considered to be a global mean annual average near
surface air temperature, due to the increasingly catastrophic side effects of global temperature rise
20
(Jenkins et al.,2008), see section 2.1.2 for Global Warming. At the UN’s 2014 Climate Summit the
Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, remarked:
“Climate change is the single greatest threat to a sustainable future but, at the same
time, addressing the climate challenge presents a golden opportunity to promote prosperity,
security and a brighter future for all." (UN, 2014)
2.1.2 Global Warming

Global warming is considered a serious consequence of the much larger problem that human induced
climate change poses (Mann, 2009). The emission of GHGs, predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2), has
had a significant impact on rising global temperatures, and a significant reduction in both emissions and
temperatures are the fundamental concerns of environmental scientists (Luterbacher and Sprinz, 2001).
Using the global average temperatures recorded around 1850 – 1900 as a baseline, scientists have
confirmed that by 2019 the Earth had warmed by 1.15°C above pre-industrial levels. The year 2019 was
the second warmest year in the 140-year record (NOAA, 2020). Experts have forecasted that the
atmospheric concentration of GHGs may have doubled from pre-industrial levels by the year 2035 (Stern,
2007). The increase of CO2, in particular, means that the global average temperature will continue to rise,
and it is predicted that the temperature will climb to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a 50% chance it
could eventually surpass 5°C above (IPCC, 2018a).
In their 2018 Global Warming of 1.5°C report, the IPCC confirmed that even if global mean temperatures
were to rise by as little 0.5°C, severe widespread and irreversible weather and environmental related
changes and disasters would occur. For instance, if average global temperatures were to increase by
1.5°C, this would lead to thermal expansion of sea water and ice sheets melting, it is predicted that this
will cause the global mean sea level to rise between 0.26m to 0.77m by 2100 increasing to 0.87m if global
mean temperatures reach 2°C above. Global mean sea level increases of 0.1m will expose 10 million
more people to the threat of climate change, through increased risk of erosion, flooding and
contamination. Similarly, experts predict that an area of permafrost ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 million km2
will thaw if global warming reaches 2°C above the global mean; endangering communities and
ecosystems that rely on the frozen ground to survive, and as the frost thaws, releasing CO2 into the
atmosphere (IPCC,2018a).
2.1.3 Global Warming – UK Impacts

Climate change is having adverse effects all over the UK, summers are becoming hotter and drier, whilst
winters are growing warmer and wetter, coastal towns are subject to erosion and rising sea levels, and
across the nation heavy rainfall and severe flooding events are increasingly frequent (Met Office, 2018).
21
In their UK Climate Projections 18 Overview publication, the Met Office announced that all ten of the
UK’s warmest years have taken place since 2002. Depending on local and projected emission scenarios
from the Met Office’s UK Climate Projections, the average increase in temperature estimates in the UK
range from 0.7°C to 4.2°C in winter and 0.9°C to 5.4°C in summer. It is now expected for extremely hot
summers similar to 2018 to be 30 times more likely and heatwaves like 2019’s, where temperatures
exceeded 38°C, will occur every second year (Met Office, 2018).
Another phenomenon associated with global warming is increased precipitation, and according to the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, for every 1°C temperature rise the atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture.
Putting this into perspective, means that if our planet’s temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels, there would be 10.5% more water vapor in the air (Willett et al, 2008). As the Earth and
its atmosphere continues to warm, and due to the greater water retention capacity of warmer air, scientists
predict larger frequencies in intensified rainfall events and increases in the number of droughts (Reid,
2014). Here in the UK we are already experiencing the negative impact of this, as seven of the ten wettest
years on record have occurred since 1998, the risk of flooding has increased by 20% and heavy winter
rainfall, similar to event in December 2015, is now 40% more likely (Pall et al, 2011).
2.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

“Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by about 45
percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that
any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”
(IPCC,2018b)
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was measured at 408 parts per million (ppm) in 2018, and
climate projections only indicate this figure will rise in the coming years. To put this into perspective,
atmospheric CO2 hovered around 280 ppm before the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, the 46%
increase since then is the main cause of global warming. Reliable temperature records began in 1850 and
the Earth is now over 1°C warmer than in the “pre-industrial” period, this level of CO2 is greater than at
any time in the past 800,000 years (Friedlingstein et al., 2019). Scientists predict that if national efforts
were to remain the same, the world is on course to reach between 56 – 60 Gt CO2e emissions by 2030,
which is double what they should be (UNEP, 2019a).
The dominant driver of changing climate is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other GHG
emissions either caused naturally or due to human activities. These greenhouse gases act as a “blanket”
that traps incoming solar energy and keeps the Earth’s surface warmer than it otherwise would be; hence,
their increase leads to excessive warming (Smith, 2004). The following sub section aims to present the
22
trends in national and international GHG emissions, namely CO2 which accounts for approximately 81%
of all emissions (US EPA, 2016).
2.1.4.1 International Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels

Following the sharpest increase rate in seven years during 2018, global atmospheric concentrations of
GHGs continue to rise reaching another record high in 2019. According to the International Energy
Agency’s (IEA) Global CO2 Emissions in 2019 report the recorded CO2 emissions for 2019 was 33.3 giga
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2e), 0.24 Gt CO2e (0.6%) above 2018 (IEA, 2020). At present
the GHG levels have taken a steep and positive decline due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, at the
peak, reductions in transport and changes in consumption patterns saw individual nations reduce
emissions by 26% on average (Le Quéré et al., 2020).
Despite continued global economic growth, between the years 2014 to 2016 the world recorded
reductions in GHG emissions. 78% of 2018’s global GHG emissions were apportioned to the G20
member states, amongst the top four emitters globally are China, USA, EU28 and India. Most of these
nations have reduced their emissions by - 0.02 Gt CO2e, whilst China’s grew by 0.26 Gt CO2e (UNEP,
2019a). Widespread GHG emission reductions were largely attributed to the fall in coal use across the
USA and Europe, experiencing a 15% decline in advanced economies (Hausfather, 2019).
Figure 1 illustrates the 2014 share of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions by economic sector
published by the IPCC. The chart clearly indicates the dominance of the electricity and heat production
sector, totalling 25% of all global GHG emissions. However, if indirect emissions, or final energy, are
factored in then the emissions attributed to the electricity and heat production sector are shared out to the
industry and building sectors, increasing them to 31% and 19% respectively (IPCC2014).
Total Anthropogenic GHG Emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by

Economic Sectors
Other Energy
10% Electricity and Heat
Production
25%
Industry
21%
Agriculture, Forestry
Transport and Other Land Use
14%
Figure 2: Total anthropogenic 24%
GHG emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by economic sectors (IPCC, 2014)
Figure 1: Total anthropogenic GHG emissions
(GtCO2eq/yr) by economic sectors (IPCC, 2014) Buildings
6%
23
2.1.4.2 UK Carbon Emission Levels
Here in the UK, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) are responsible for
releasing the data regarding the proportions of various anthropogenic GHG emissions and the
contributions from each industrial sector, typically they follow a similar trend to those reported globally.
In their most recent publication, Final UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics - 2018, BEIS confirmed
that the UK emitted a total of 451.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e) in 2018, 81%
of which was carbon dioxide (365.7 Mt CO2e). Total emission reductions of 8.7 Mt CO2e (2.1%) in the
year 2018 meant that it was the sixth year in a row that the UK achieved overall reductions, only twice in
the last decade have emissions increased (2010 and 2012). The efforts of the various sectors of the UK to
drive deep cuts in the anthropogenic GHG emissions has meant that since 1990 GHG emissions have
decreased by 43% (BEIS, 2018a). The provisional statistics for 2019, also published by BEIS, report
further reductions in total GHG emissions and net CO2 emissions alone of 16.3 Mt CO2e (3.6%) and 14.2
Mt CO2e (3.9%) (BEIS, 2019a).
Table 1 and figure 2 summarise the measured emissions in 2018 per sector, their changes when compared
to 2017 and 1990 and the provisional statistical changes from 2018 to 2019. The sector with the largest
emission stats is transport, accounting for 28% of the UK’s emissions in 2018 which is only a 3%
reduction from 1990. Improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency has largely been offset by increased road
traffic. Continued decline in emissions year on year have been helped mainly by the reductions in the use
of coal to generate electricity and the associated power station emissions, so much so that the energy
supply sector in 2018 delivered a 6.6% (7.4 Mt CO2e) reduction in emissions and is currently exhibiting
the largest reductions when compared to 1990 levels. Contributions from the business and industrial
sectors, including reduced air conditioning, industrial combustion, and iron and steel manufacturing, have
driven deeper cuts in the UK’s GHG output (BEIS, 2018a).
2018 2018 2019

2017- 1990- 2018- 1990-
Emission Emission Emission
Sector 2018 % 2018 % 2019 % 2019 %
figures (Mt Proportions figures (Mt
Change Change Change Change
CO2e) (%) CO2e)
Provisional
Transport 124.4 28 % - 1.4 % -3% 119.6 - 2.8 % - 4.6 %

Final
Energy Supply 104.9 23 % - 6.6 % - 62 % 90.1 - 8.4 % - 62.8 %

Business 79.0 18 % - 2.5 % - 31 % 64.7 - 1.9 % - 42.1 %
Residential 69.1 15 % + 3.8 % -14 % 65.2 - 1.8 % - 16.7 %
Agriculture 45.4 10 % -1% -16 % N/A N/A N/A
Waste Mngmt. 20.7 5% + 1% -69 % N/A N/A N/A
Other 7.9 2% -8% - 89 % N/A N/A N/A
Table 1: Summary of 2018 Emissions with 2019 Provisional emissions (DBEIS, 2018a; DBEIS 2019)
24
2018 UK Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector (MtCO2e, %)
Land Use, Land Use
Industrial Processes, Public, 8.0, 2% Change and Forestry, -
10.2, 2%
10.3, -2%
Waste Management,
20.7, 4%
Energy Supply,
Agriculture, 104.9, 22%
45.4, 10%
Residential, 69.1, 15%

Business, 79.0, 17%
Transport, 124.4, 26%
Figure 2: 2018 UK Carbon dioxide emissions per sector (DBEIS, 2018a)
Predominantly affected by adverse weather conditions and fluctuating external temperatures, the
residential sector was one of the only sectors to record an increase in anthropogenic GHG emission
measurements in 2018. Colder weather in the first quarter, namely ‘The Beast from the East’, demanded
increased use in natural gas for space heating, thus increasing household emissions by 3.8% (2.5 Mt
CO2e) and after the transport sector the residential sector has delivered the second lowest change since
1990, 14% (BEIS, 2018a).
In terms of UK regions, Wales’ CO2 per capita emissions were the highest in 2018 (7.5 t CO2e per capita)
mainly due to the level of industry installations. London demonstrated the lowest CO2 per capita (3.2 t
CO2e per capita) of any region, which has been attributed to the most efficient transport system of
anywhere in the country and a lower number of industrial facilities. Since 2005 the North East
experienced the largest percentage reduction in CO2 emissions, due, in part, to industrial closures but also
because it boasts the second largest sink per capita (-0.5 t CO2) in the UK. A sink is a natural source
capable of storing GHG based chemicals, for example soil, trees, oceans, in the North East’s case this is
attributed to the large area of forest land (BEIS 2018b).
25
2.1.5 Contributors to Climate Change
Through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human actions, the intrinsic nature of the
climate structure is and has been put under immense pressure as the concentration of GHGs in the Earth’s
atmosphere intensifies (IPCC,2018a). The observed long-term shifts in the planet’s weather patterns and
average temperatures have been a result of human activity since the mid-1800s, specifically the burning
of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. Burning fossil fuels produces energy, but also releases GHGs such
as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous monoxide into the air. Over time, large quantities of these gases
have built up in the atmosphere and have caused a greenhouse effect (Mann, 2009). The gases released
mimic a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping in the heat radiation from the sun and ultimately
heating the Earth’s surface, resulting in the varying impacts such as global warming, extreme weather
events, ecological losses, increased flooding etc. (figure 3). It is essential to recognise that for human life
to survive on Earth the greenhouse gas blanket is crucial otherwise it would be extremely cold and
uninhabitable for humans. However, society has contributed to making the blanket thicker and creating an
enhanced greenhouse effect, destabilising the planet’s complex system (Met Office, 2018).
Figure 3: The Greenhouse Gas effect (UNFCCC, 2003)
Many attempts have been made to replicate and model global mean temperature variations over recent
decades, focussing on the period between the mid-19th century and the present. The most prominent of
these models is the Met Office’s Hadley Centre which uses fundamental physical principles to help
scientists understand how human activity is affecting the Earth’s climate (Met Office, 2018). Initially, the
models present the global temperature changes based on natural events, such as volcanic aerosols or the
Milankovitch Cycle, before adding anthropogenic changes, which include burning fossil fuels,
26
deforestation, agriculture, and cement production (Hulme, 2003). The consensus from such climate
simulations provides strong evidence that anthropogenic activity is a key factor in global temperature
increases recorded during recent decades (Solomon 2007). Figure 4 compares the simulation results of
changes in patterns of temperature, using only natural data (green) and natural factors combined with
man-made factors (blue) between 1850 and 2010 (US EPA, 2016). An example of which was in the
‘Climate Change 2014’ study conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
which provided distinct evidence that, with 95% certainty, human activity is the leading cause of the
climate crisis.
Figure 4: Human vs natural influence on global temperature change (Peralta,

2014)
2.1.6 Sub-Section Summary

There is now widespread scientific agreement that human activity has been the predominant stimulus for
climate change, perhaps the greatest pressing environmental, social, and economic threat facing the planet
today. Whilst emission levels continued to rise steeply since the mid-20th century, nations worldwide,
including the UK, are committed to making substantial contributions in tackling the global environmental
crisis.
The top three emitters of GHGs in the UK are the energy, transport, and residential sectors. Significant
restructuring to the national economy has seen fundament shifts in the energy and transport sectors, with
coal use in serious decline, renewable energy use increasing and important changes in the way in which
people travel. The residential sector, however, recorded the largest annual increase in GHG emission,
mainly due to bad weather, nevertheless this is a meaningful indicator of the inefficiencies present within
the existing housing stock in the UK.
27
2.2 Climate Action
Since 2012, the UK has recorded reductions in anthropogenic GHG emissions every year, indicating the
increased awareness and strengthened responsibility the nation has adopted in tackling the consequential
risks a changing climate poses. Promising as these statistics and attitude changes are, scientists and
experts alike, agree that more can and must be done to combat climate change. The UN Secretary
General, António Gutteres, characterised climate change as a defining issue of our time and at the Climate
Action Summit 2019 said:
“I want to hear about how we are going to stop the increase in emissions by 2020, and
dramatically reduce emissions to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.”
(Gutteres, UN 2019)
Therefore, if we are to produce any real change, we must respond to Mr. Gutteres’ request with
immediate effect, by significantly reducing our carbon emissions and delivering deeper cuts into the use
of fossil fuels for energy production. This section brings together the available international, national, and
local GHG emission commitments, pledged to combat climate change, the current progress of selected
nations and regions, and the guidance and bodies that govern global economies contributions’ and their
performance against the emission pathways towards a carbon free future.
2.2.1 Climate Change Agreements

To mitigate the devastating effects human induced climate change will have upon the Earth, nations
worldwide are committing to long term decarbonisation targets. Using concepts such as setting carbon
budgets, emissions trading and emissions gap reporting, governments are expected to deliver deep cuts
into their GHG emissions statistics via individually drawn up pathways. At the ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992
the 197 delegations of the United Nations (UN) prepared and signed the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international environmental treaty that seeks to reduce
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases through "preventing dangerous anthropogenic
interference with Earth's climate system"(UN, 1992). Since the framework came into force, member
states have met annually, at the Conference of the Parties (COP), to assess each nations’ progress and
approach to stabilising GHG emissions and climate change elimination. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and
the Paris Agreement (PA) in 2015 are considered the two most impactful commitment treaties to be
adopted by a majority consensus (van der Gaast, 2017).
The third COP took place in Kyoto, Japan 1997 and it was here that the Kyoto protocol was established. It
was acknowledged that “individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change,
owing to economic development, and therefore puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on
28
developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere” (UNFCCC, 1998). This meant industrialised nations, such as the UK, were
legally bound to cut GHG emissions by an average of 6% - 8% below 1990 levels between the years 2008
– 2012. Within the framework itself was the introduction of what are now known as Kyoto Mechanisms,
helping countries meet their commitments and stimulating sustainable development through technology,
transfer, and investment (UN, 1997). Kyoto Mechanisms include the clean development mechanism, joint
implementation, and emissions trading. Nations can earn credits through implementing emission
reduction projects in other countries, the credits can be traded to reduce their own GHG emission targets
(UN, 1997).
Following the end of the Kyoto Protocol’s term, COP 21 was held in Paris 2015. Negotiations resulted in
the adoption of the PA, a landmark framework that would combat climate change and accelerate and
intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. Building upon national
GHG emission reduction targets laid out previously, the central aim of the PA is to strengthen the global
response to the climate crisis by ensuring global temperatures do not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial
levels before the end of this century. With the further ambitious provision that all nations must endeavour
to limit the global temperature to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (UN, 2015).
Even though European nations emit the third largest volume of GHG emissions, they are the only group
on course to meet their climate change commitments and policies. Whilst GHG emissions across Europe
have been on a downward trend, noticeably since 2009, there have been gradual annual increases
recorded in GHG emissions until 2018 when they decreased by 2%. These are positive steps towards a
greener future and compared to 1990 emission statistics represent a 23% reduction, surpassing the EU
emissions reduction target of 20% by 2020. However, this is partly due to the EU’s Nationally
Determined Contribution, or NDCs, as they are considered too weak and insufficient to deliver the deeper
emissions cuts so desperately needed. Reaching the target for 2020 provides a positive outlook when
compared to previous years’ emissions, but as it currently stands the EU’s carbon emissions reductions
are projected to reach between 30 – 36% by 2030, falling short of the PA targets of 40% by 2030 (EEA,
2019).
2.2.2 Significant Climate Change Organisations

Subsidiary organisations to the UN that have a specific focus on the environment and climate change are
the, previously mentioned, IPCC and also the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Formed
of many divisions, including researchers, scientists, economists and other experts, the IPCC and UNEP
are leading bodies for implementing global environmental policies and practices. In the form of reports,
both bodies frequently publish critical scientific evidence and guidance, providing the world with
29
knowledge relating to understanding the risks of anthropogenic climate change, its environmental,
economic, and political impacts and risks and necessary actions required in order to combat it. Therefore,
enabling national governments to inform policies upon the guidance provided.
The IPCC was formed in 1988 by the UNEP and World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide
scientific advice suitable to develop and implement climate policies. They regularly conduct assessment
cycles and publish reports that present to governments, at all levels, the impacts and future risks of
climate change and the available adaptation and mitigation strategies. The assessment reports produced,
contribute towards the UNFCCC’s objective, and have fed directly into international climate
policymaking. In one of their most recent and influential publications, the ‘Special Report on Global
Warming of 1.5°C’ (IPCC, 2018a), the IPCC summarised the findings of 91 scientists who stated that
meeting the PA target of limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels remains
feasible. Modelling data within the report exhibited the need for “Global net human-caused emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net
zero’ around 2050” (IPCC, 2018b). However, it would require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of
society”, “deep emissions reductions” and “rapid and far reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and
infrastructure”.
The UNFCCC framework was produced following the Earth Summit in 1992, the objective of the treaty
according to the UN is to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (UN, 1992).
The UNEP are the world’s leading environmental authority, through their global environmental plan and
implementation of international environmental laws. They are responsible for coordinating the UN’s
environmental activities and assisting developing nations incorporating sound environmental practices.
Their mission is to inspire, inform and enable nations to cooperate and contribute towards caring for the
environment, improving people’s quality of life without compromising that of future generations, and
helping the world meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Aside from being influential in the
formation of the IPCC, the UNEP also helped to establish the international environmental treaty the
UNFCCC (Johnson, 2013).
Amongst many annual investigations and reports published by the UNEP is the Emissions Gap Report, a
publication that announces global progress on climate action. The term Nationally determined
contributions (NDC) is at the centre of the PA, they aggregate efforts by each country to cut GHG
emissions. It is the purpose of the Emissions Gap Report to highlight to global economies the measured
gap between the significantly reduced emission levels that the Earth needs to reduce to, compared with
the projected level of emissions based on a nation’s decarbonisation commitments. Put simply, it is the
30
gap between what we, as the global population, need to do and what we are actually doing to deliver our
NDCs. This is commonly referred to as the ‘commitment gap’ or ‘emissions gap’. Figure 5 illustrates the
crucial importance of the next decade and the vital commitments governments need to make. The primary
conclusions drawn from the Emissions Gap Report 2019 is that due to insufficient measures in global
NDCs, we are on the brink of missing the 1.5°C limitation target. The failure of global economies to act
now only serves to condemn humanity to a future of serious and more frequent climate change impacts
(UNEP, 2019a). Other key findings from the report include:
• To prevent a global temperature increase of

1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100,
our total annual GHG emissions must stay
below 25 Gt CO2e
• The G20 nations account for 78% of global
emissions, but only 5 states have
committed to a net-zero carbon plan.
• Based on current PA NDCs, temperatures
can be expected to rise by 3.2°C above pre-
industrial levels by the end of the century.
• The UNEP assures us the 1.5°C target is
still achievable, albeit with great difficulty,
because immediate action must be taken to
Figure 5: Emissions gap in meeting global temperature goals (CAT, 2019)
reduce GHG emissions by 7.6% annually
from 2020 to 2030.
Following the Global Warming of 1.5°C publication from the IPCC, stating that carbon dioxide emissions
must be at net zero by the year 2050, world leaders acted. However, the UNEP’s Emissions Gap 2019
report has expressed that governments are not doing enough to deliver their NDCs to prevent global
temperatures reaching the projected levels. The following sub-sections will investigate the actions and
policies countries, international and UK based bodies have committed to in response to the report from
the IPCC and global crisis (UNEP, 2019a).
“For ten years, the Emissions Gap Report has been sounding the alarm – and for ten years, the
world has only increased its emissions. There has never been a more important time to listen to
the science. Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means
we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”
Guterres (UNEP, 2019b)
31
2.2.2 International Climate Change Commitments
Ahead of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) being held in Glasgow in
November 2021, member states are expected to strengthen their NDC commitments. Under the
framework of the PA, COP26 is set to be the first “global stocktake” of emission reduction practices and
targets. This is because it was agreed that every 5 years since the implementation of the PA, global
economies must intensify their NDCs as a means of combatting climate change (UNEP, 2019a).
According to the Emissions Gap Report 2019, 71 countries and 11 regions have since announced climate
change commitments, this covers approximately 15% of worldwide GHG emissions, the remaining 85%
is yet to be addressed. Furthermore, we know 78% of global GHG emissions come from the G20 nations
but 15 of them have not yet pledged a net zero carbon strategy (UNEP, 2019a). Scientists have been
critical of international governmental climate change policies, in particular of the wealthier nations such
as the G20 nations, because developing nations are reliant upon them ramping up their climate mitigation
practices and policies (Hoppe and Rodder, 2019; Knutti et al, 2015).
In the interest of fairness and as an acknowledgement of the imbalance of economic wealth, global
initiatives have focused their pressure on developed countries to decrease their GHG emissions quicker
than in their emerging counterparts, in the short term at least (UNEP, 2019a). However, this should be on
the condition that a more collective effort from all nations is necessary to contribute towards this global
crisis. If successful, by educating the developing nations on effective techniques, there exists the potential
for these emerging countries to catch up and even overtake developed nations with regards to
implementing cleaner technologies sooner. Solutions are available which make it possible to meet the
Paris goals, but they are not being deployed fast enough or at a sufficiently large scale. (Hoppe and
Rodder, 2019; Knutti et al, 2015).
In terms of carbon neutrality, there are five major nations that have legislated to ensure that they will meet
net zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest (Murray, 2020). In order of when they made their
announcement these are Norway, Sweden, UK, France, and New Zealand, Norway is aiming for 2030,
whilst Sweden and Scotland are aiming for 2045 and the rest for 2050. A further three G20 member
states, Germany, Italy and EU28 have pledged they will commit to the net zero carbon 2050 target and are
currently in the process of passing legislation. These bills will give the G20 group the greatest opportunity
to lead the world into a thriving, low carbon future (UNEP, 2019a).
The top four emitters in the G20 group, China, USA, EU28 and India, have contributed to over 55% of
the total emissions during the last decade (UNEP, 2019a). Despite these figures they are introducing
major changes to the way in which their industry, economy and society operates. For example, China, the
largest GHG emitter in the world, are increasing their shift to renewable energy and, through their
32
policies, they are now considered a global leader in this field (UNEP, 2019a). With the likes of subsidies
that promote sustainable energy sources, like wind and solar, China are now exemplary in this field. Next
on the list of top emitters is the USA, and they too, have put in to place strong regional commitments,
whereby six states and territories and over 100 cities all aim to be 100% clean energy, which is energy
derived from renewable, zero emissions sources, by 2045 – 2050 and California state along with four car
manufacturing companies have stated they will improve fuel mileage and emissions standards in their
vehicles. The third largest global GHG emitter is the EU28, including the UK, these countries as a group
are set to achieve their emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels for 2030. These newly
implemented policies are alongside revised renewable energy strategies and improving efficiency targets.
Finally, India is currently fourth in the list of top emitters but their proposed transition to electric vehicles,
subject to timelines and targets, will place them at the forefront of the industry globally (UNEP, 2019a).
Figure 6 illustrates historic (1990, 2010, 2015) and projected (2030) GHG emissions data for the top four
global emitters of CO2e. It demonstrates that not all governments are collecting their own official data,
namely China, India and USA and that the conditional and unconditional NDC’s in place for 3 of the top
4 emitters are all set to exceed the estimated reduction value of 4 Gt CO2e, the most significant of which
is China. Figure 7 demonstrates the anticipated annual global emissions, based on the current emission
reduction initiatives taken. The favoured scenario is 1.5C and to safely achieve this it requires a 32 Gt
CO2e per annum reduction (UNEP, 2019a).
Figure 6: Global GHG emissions under different scenarios and the

Figure 7: Greenhouse gas emissions of the top four emitters emissions gap by 2030 (UNEP, 2019a)
in the G20 by 2030 under different scenarios and compared
with historical emissions (UNEP, 2019a)
33
2.2.3 UK Government Climate Change Commitments
When the Climate Change Act (CCA) was passed by the UK parliament in 2008 it became the world’s
first national, legally binding bill aimed at cutting GHG emissions. The primary target was to cut
emissions to at least 80% below the levels recorded in 1990 by the year 2050 (UK gov, 2018). Under the
CCA the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was formed, an independent non-departmental public
body, whose purpose it is to advise the UK Government on targets and related policies. Some 11 years
after their inception, the CCC pressured the government to amend the CCA, and in June 2019 a new law
was passed that updated the CCA mandate to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This made the UK the
first major economy to adopt this ambitious target, with France following suit shortly after (CCC, 2019a).
In order to meet the 2050 emission reduction target, all areas of economy and industry need to change. To
aid the government in achieving this, carbon budgets set by the CCC were put in place to limit CO2
emissions. The budgets, which could not be exceeded, run-in five-year instalments. The first two budgets
were met (2008-12 and 2013-17) and the third (2018-22) is also on course to be met. However,
projections suggest that the UK is not on course to meet the fourth (2023-27) or fifth (2028-32) carbon
budgets (GOV UK, 2016). Table 2 below outlines the agreed budget levels:
Budget Year Carbon Budget % Reduction Measured Carbon

Range Level (Mt CO2e) below base year Emission (Mt CO2e)
1st 2008 – 2012 3018 23% 2982
2nd 2013 – 2017 2782 29% 2398
3rd 2018 – 2022 2544 35% by 2020 N/A
4th 2023 – 2027 1950 50% by 2025 N/A
5th 2028 – 2032 1765 57% by 2030 N/A
Table 2: UK Carbon budgets set by the CCC (GOV UK, 2016)
The chief executive for the CCC, Chris Stark, commented:
“Our advice is offered with the proviso that net-zero is only credible if policies are introduced to
match…Current policy is insufficient for even the existing targets…A UK net-zero GHG target in
2050 is feasible, but will only be deliverable with a major strengthening and acceleration of
policy effort.” Stark; (CCC, 2019a).
Figure 8 below shows that despite the downturn in GHG emissions, during the period from 1990 to 2018,
UK gross domestic product has continued to rise, indicating that green technology is not detrimental to the
economy and could even be considered as beneficial.
34
Figure 8: UK greenhouse gas emissions compared to GDP (1990-2018) (CCC, 2019c)
The carbon budgets are set to ensure the nation reaches a decarbonised future and whilst the targets set are
incredibly ambitious but achievable, the government recognises that in addition to current initiatives, they
must also consider strategies such as lower-carbon power, more electric vehicles, a plan on how to tackle
commercial flight emissions, how homes are built and heated and much more (GOV UK, 2016).
In 2018 when the UK achieved its greenest ever year with over 50% of electricity being retrieved from
low carbon sources resulting from major focus and advances in the way in which energy is captured and
produced through reductions in fossil fuel usage and increasing usage of renewable energy in homes, such
as solar panels and wind turbines (Ofgem, 207). This was evident (Gov.UK, 2019). The introduction of
schemes to reduce energy, such as Cold Weather Payment and the Warm Homes Discount, and
subsequently the Green Homes Grant Scheme 2020, which help occupants cut fuel bills and make energy
efficient upgrades to their properties. It is clear that the UK Government recognises the importance of the
residential sector in the lead up to our low carbon future; this is all part of their green recovery initiative
aimed at improving the energy efficiency and fuel consumption of the existing housing stock. However,
following the release of the CCC’s ‘UK housing; Fit for the future?’ report, the evidence from this report
suggests that even with these schemes in place, the legally binding climate change targets will not be met
without near-complete elimination of GHG emissions from all UK buildings (CCC, 2019b). This
provides an opportunity for the sector to review and adapt their practices. Lord Turner, the previous chair
of the CCC said
“With the carbon budgets in place, we now need to achieve a step change in the pace of
emissions reduction. The Government needs to build on its “Low Carbon Transition Plan” and
put in place a comprehensive delivery framework. What we have proposed is achievable and
affordable, but action needs to be taken now if we are to make our contribution to combating
climate change.” Turner; (CCC, 2009)
35
2.2.4 Nottinghamshire Climate Change Commitments
As a city, Nottingham has made the largest commitment to carbon neutrality than all the other core cities
in the UK (NCC, 2019). In January 2019 Nottingham City Council (NCC) pledged to tackle climate
change by bidding to become the UK’s first carbon neutral city, reducing all carbon emissions to net zero
by 2028 which is two years ahead of the other cities. This is just one of the many steps forward in the last
decade that NCC have made for ambitious, innovative and forward-thinking environmental policymaking
and which has already yielded impressive results. In their Energy Strategy 2010 – 2020 framework it was
announced by the council that they aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 26% (1444 kt CO2e) from
the levels recorded in 2005. The data recorded in 2016 indicated that the region had achieved a 33%
reduction on 2005 levels, 4 years ahead of the target date (NCC, 2019). Furthermore, in their 2010 action
plan the City also prioritised the delivery of “20% of the City’s own energy generated from low or zero
carbon sources.” According to the data available, Nottingham is on course to reach this target by 2020.
To obtain these ambitious results NCC, with the help of Nottingham Green Partnership and Nottingham
Energy Partnership, initiated the following climate change strategies in partnership with local businesses,
universities, and local authorities (NCC, 2019):
• Distributed heat to over 5000 homes and businesses through a new low-carbon District Heat
Network.
• Improved the energy efficiency of over 40,000 homes
• Introduced one of the UK’s largest electric bus fleets, and the world’s largest bio-gas bus fleet
• Rolled out a city centre parking levy to discourage people from driving to work, resulting in more
than 40% of all journeys in the city being on public transport.
As well as strengthening Nottingham’s GHG emission reduction levels, these progressive policies have
also helped to improve the city’s air quality, improve the quality of life and human wellbeing and reduce
fuel poverty, whilst cultivating a community and economy that is green, clean and sustainable (NCC,
2019). However, with their latest policy announcement of becoming the first UK city to become carbon
neutral by 2028, it is evident that NCC are aware that more can and must be done to alleviate the threat of
climate change (NCC, 2010; NCC, 2019).

In respect of climate change action, there is clear evidence that governments and global organisations are
implementing mitigation policies and practices. However, opinions are split, it is clear that governments
believe that their carbon emission reduction schemes are sufficient and scientists and experts believe that
more can and must be done by economies upon the decarbonisation pathway. Referring to their Emissions
Gap Report 2019, the UNEP pointed out that if governments had responded to the science a decade
36
earlier, the annual emission reduction targets would have been 3.3%, instead we are facing much heavier
reduction targets. It is proposed that if countries collectively invest in national action plans and can
successfully reduce carbon emissions by 7.6% annually, between 2020 and 2030, global warming can be
limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (UNEP, 2019a). Failure to act now could mean that annual
emissions will need to reduce by 15.5% (rather than 7.6%) as early as 2025 if the 1.5°C limit is to be met.
Every day we delay, the more extreme, difficult, and expensive the cuts become (UNEP, 2019a).
It does appear that developed nations are stepping up and taking responsibility for their industrial pasts by
making the necessary and positive changes to their climate policies the world so desperately needs. It is
widely recognised that decarbonisation of the global economy requires fundamental restructuring and
with COP26 taking place next year, and therefore we expect to see intensified NDCs implemented by UN
member states under the requirements of the PA. This is an important step forward on the carbon
emissions reduction pathway. The UK, and especially the city of Nottingham, are firmly at the centre of
these climate action efforts, with clear and measurable goals that aim to guide them to net zero carbon
emissions (Newell & Patterson, 2012).
2.3 UK Housing Stock

The residential sector is now responsible for a large portion of the UK’s GHG emissions and therefore has
a significant and critical role to play in meeting the net zero carbon 2050 target (BEIS, 2018a). From an
energy efficiency perspective, the UK has some of the worst performing residential properties in the EU.
A major contributor to this is the use of natural gas in existing and new build homes, but strong historical,
technical and social barriers are preventing change. This sub-section provides an overview of the current
condition of the UK’s existing housing stock, with particular focus on the emissions, energy efficiency
rating, construction methods and thermal performances of solid walled housing (Tink.2018). According
to the CCC “The 29 million existing homes across the UK must be made low carbon, low-energy and
resilient to a changing climate” (CCC, 2019b).
2.3.1 UK Residential Sector Emissions

In their 2018 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Final Figures publication, BEIS reported that the
residential sector was responsible for a 4% increase in GHG emissions on top of existing 2017’s figures.
A total value of 69.1 Mt CO2e was emitted that year, making up 15% of the overall emissions for the UK.
However, one year later in the BEIS’ report, ‘2019 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Provisional Figures’,
a 2% reduction in residential emission levels to 65.2 Mt CO2e was recorded. The overall UK emissions
statistics for 2019 showed that the residential sector now makes up 19% of the total GHG emissions,
which is due to the sweeping reform seen in both the agriculture and waste management sectors each
37
reducing their carbon dioxide emissions from 45.4 Mt CO2e to 5.7 Mt CO2e and 20.7 Mt CO2e to 0.2 Mt
CO2e respectively (BEIS, 2018, 2019).
For the residential sector, energy consumption for space heating is directly correlated to external
fluctuating temperatures, making the domestic sector the most sesnsitive to the changing climate. This
responsive nature of the sector was demonstrated by the rise in energy consumption for space heating in
2018 when the unusually cold weather spell in the first quarter occurred, namely ‘the Beast from the East’
(ECUK2018). Space heating’s dominance is driving up energy consumption in existing homes, this is
clear from the outcomes of BEIS ‘Energy Consumption in the UK (2018)’ report put space heating at 63%
of annual energy demand followed by water heating 17%. Figure 9 is a percentage breakdown of the
residential sector’s carbon emissions from 2018 (figure 2).
Energy Consumption in the Residential Sector
Lighting
Appliances
4%
13%
Cooking
3%
Space Heating Residential, 69.1, 15%

Water Heating
63%
17%
Figure 9: 2018 UK residential sector GHG emissions (CCC, 2019a)
With the residential sector producing almost one fifth of all carbon emissions in the UK, decarbonising
homes is a crucial challenge on the net zero pathway. To accurately determine the necessary actions
required, we must first review the condition of UK housing stock, in particular the performance
characteristics and energy efficiency of the various types and ages of existing homes. Therefore, accurate
thermal performance data of building walls and the factors that influence it must be obtained before any
intervention can be considered.
38
2.3.2 Energy Performance Rating Procedures
Across the housing sector there are numerous ways a domestic property’s thermal performance can be
assessed. An older example of a code, still referred to by local and central government and housing
charities, is the ‘Decent Homes Standard’. The technical guidance outlined four criteria that a dwelling
must meet in order to be considered ‘decent’, if it does not then it is deemed ‘non-decent’.
a) meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing

b) It must be in a reasonable state of repair
c) It must have reasonably modern facilities and services,
d) It must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (DCLG, 2006a).
A more recently developed and alternative method of rating a dwelling’s performance, particularly in
terms of its energy, is known as the Standard Assessment Procedure or SAP in 1992. Created by the
Building Research Establishment (BRE) using their framework for calculating the energy consumption of
dwellings, the Domestic Energy Model (BREDEM), the SAP assesses and compares the energy and
environmental performance of dwellings. The SAP assessment procedure was adopted into Part L
(Conservation of fuel and power) of the Building Regulations in 1994 and is currently used to determine a
house’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
By defining a level of comfort or service provision required, the SAP can evaluate how much energy a
dwelling will consume, based on standardised assumptions for occupancy and behaviour. Annual energy
consumption estimates for space heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation are used to establish the
performance indicators. This assessment provides data about a property’s performance regarding a fuel-
cost-based energy efficiency rating, energy performance per unit floor area (the SAP rating) and
emissions of CO2 (the environmental impact rating). The property’s performance can then be quantified,
allowing for comparisons of the performance of equivalent dwellings to be drawn. The assessment
process is at the core of the UK government’s policy for identifying and assessing the energy upgrading
needs of the UK’s dwellings. To rationalise the methodology, a second assessment procedure was
introduced in 2005 called the Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure or RdSAP. Primarily for use
with existing dwellings, RdSAP is a lower cost calculation tool based on the SAP that is used to assess
energy performances of the pre-built homes. Together, SAP, RdSAP and BREDEM have been used to
underpin the delivery of several key energy and environmental policy initiatives (BRE, 2014).
Since 1993, the SAP has been an integrated, independent methodology used for evaluating and certifying
dwelling performance against Building Regulations requirements. It is at the core of the UK
Government’s policy for identifying and assessing the energy upgrading needs of the UK’s existing
dwellings (Part L1B) and for meeting the energy requirements of newly constructed dwellings (Part
39
L1A). The SAP evaluation method classifies properties from 1, the least energy efficient, to 100, the most
energy efficient. The calculations are used determine the EPC rating of a home and to issue the property
an EPC (Energy Performance Certificates, EPCs – see 2.3.6 below). The certificates were introduced
under the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) following the 2002 introduction of
energy rating requirements (Killip, 2011). The EPC rating can be specified from the SAP evaluation,
property energy performance ranges from A to G. Homes that are the most energy efficient, thus having
lower utility bills, are given an A rating, whereas those with poor energy efficiency ratings are given a
grade G and have higher running costs. Using the same scale, EPCs also outline a property’s
environmental impact rating based on carbon dioxide emissions, meaning that A rated homes have lower
environmental impact. Before a residential property can be sold or rented the homeowner or landlord
must obtain an EPC. The aim is that this will increase the marketability of the properties of homeowners
and developers, encouraging them to upgrade and retrofit their properties (Fuerst & McAllister, 2011).
Figure 10 illustrates how SAP ratings relate to EPC ratings. However, with actual energy performance
results now available, large discrepancies have been found between measured energy performance and the
SAP predicted performances. This is discussed further in Chapter 5. The SAP is the methodology used by
the Government to assess and compare the energy and environmental performance of dwellings. It is the
basis for establishing compliance with Building Regulations, and for Energy Performance Certificates
(EPCs). EPCs have two metrics, a fuel cost-based energy efficiency rating (commonly called the 'EPC'
rating, in £/kWh/m2 ) and a rating relating to emissions of CO2 the Environmental Impact (EI) rating, in
CO2/m2 ). Ratings are banded A-G, with A being the highest performing. The EPC rating is based on a
'SAP' score. A higher 'SAP' score indicates lower running costs, with an EPC rating of A being equivalent
to a SAP score of 92 to 100 (see figure 10).
Figure 10: EPC certificate showing how rating relates to SAP (EDF, 2020)
40
Whilst progressive, the SAP and EPC assessment programs have received criticism in the past and have
been at the centre of political controversy. In his 2014 thesis study, Dr Pelenur explained that one of the
disadvantages of EPC rating system is that it is based on likely energy performance whereas Display
Energy Certificates are based on actual energy performance (Pelenur, 2014). It is therefore possible that
there is a large gap between perceived energy demand and actual. A similar issue was raised by Historic
England in their EPCs and the Whole House Approach 2018 publication, which identified that EPCs put
traditional and historic homes at a disadvantage due to the calculations being based on typical modern
construction methods (Historic England, 2018). Building on that point further, Rhee-Duverne and Baker
in their 2013 report for English Heritage also indicated that RdSAP regularly overstates energy
consumption in traditional and historic homes, in some instances they are exaggerated by up to 40%
(Rhee-Duverne and Baker 2013). Owing to the common misconception that historic buildings are
inherently energy inefficient, the assumptions used for the RdSAP assessment method are very likely to
be incorrect.
2.3.3 UK Housing Construction Methods

It is widely recognised that out of all the EU member states, the UK has one of the oldest and least energy
efficient housing stocks than any other nation, with almost 38% built before 1946. Our nation’s housing
stock is also incredibly diverse, representing a long history of housebuilding, local building preferences,
local materials and policy interventions (Nicol et al (BRE), 2014). The blueprint for the modern-day
home as we know it, has its origins in the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods. Due to rapid
population growth in the 19th century, good quality housing was in short supply. This caused
overcrowding, mainly in the cities, which soon led to slum living conditions with no clean water, poor
sanitation, and high death rates.
It was around the late 1800s that houses began to be constructed from solid brickwork walls, i.e. a single
mass of one solid material, brickwork, with no cavity between the two skins. Low skilled, local
tradesmen, with little formal training, were typically responsible for housing production in the 19th
century, based primarily on societal requirements. These solid wall houses often featured colloquial
styles and materials (Brunskill 1971). Different construction methods were adopted over the centuries,
and the location of the property would govern the style, material and construction techniques adopted
(Cook 1983). These houses, therefore, vary depending on where they were constructed (Brunskill 1992).
From the early 20th century, professionally trained builders were commonplace and there was a shift to
employing these tradesmen to build houses (Potter & Potter 1973). Through time, as building techniques
improved, UK building standards were raised and, with the introduction of the Housing Act 1919, which
promised 500,000 new homes following the end of WW1, new methods of housing construction were
41
introduced. Cavity wall construction, whereby two independent leaves of brickwork formed the building
envelope, became the new method of choice but was not widely accepted until 1920. Including a cavity in
the fabric of the dwelling was more economical and prevented moisture from traversing from the exterior
to the interior of the property when it rained or when the water table was raised, thus protecting the
structural integrity of the building. It was not until the early 70s that thermal wall insulation began to be
used, placed between the two leaves of brickwork, and in 1976 this became a legal requirement under the
Building Regulations (Turner and Partington (NHBC), 2015). ‘Traditional Construction’ refers to the way
the vast majority of houses are constructed in the UK, built from brick and blockwork, with or without a
cavity in between. During the period between the late 19th and early 20th centuries solid wall houses
were the primary method of construction.
At present, the 2050 carbon neutral target is driving higher standards and improving the technical
transformation of new homes, particularly in terms of reduced energy usage and minimised carbon
emissions. With progressive changes to the building regulations, such as ‘The Future Homes Standard’,
proposed for new domestic properties, various government initiatives will be met through substantially
reduced energy consumption, and ultimately by the year 2050 it is widely believed new built houses will
not pose a threat to meeting the national target (MHCLG, 2019).
2.3.4 Solid Wall Housing Quantity

Of the 29 million households in the UK, it is estimated that 8.6 million (30%) are constructed of solid
brickwork walls, reaching their peak in production by 1918. In 1996 52% of the existing housing stock
were constructed with solid brickwork walls, by 2018 this had reduced to 33%. In their annual English
Housing Survey (EHS), the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)
reported that in 2018, almost 5 million homes of the existing housing stock were built before 1919
(MHCLG, 2018). Figure 11 reveals that solid wall construction continued well after 1918, similar forms
being used right up to the 1930s, but as the majority were built prior to 1919 it is possible to use the age
bracket of pre-1919, to represent this demographic of housing construction (BEIS, 2020; Piddington et al
(BRE), 2020). The existing housing stock is affected by demolition rates and due to societal, economic,
and environmental restrictions, the number of demolished homes in the UK is low. It is expected that
most of the current housing stock will still be functional in 2050 (Power 2008).
42
Figure 11: Dwelling construction by age, England 2013 (Piddington et al, 2020)
2.3.5 Thermal Performance Parameters

Although the focus of environmental performance of buildings is now on carbon usage, there is still a
need to consider thermal performance of the building fabric as a contributing factor to climate change.
The term Thermal Performance embodies a range of concepts which refer to the effectiveness of a
material, or an assembly of materials, to retain or prevent the flow of heat. A building with a good thermal
fabric tends to be constructed of materials that do not readily transmit heat i.e. effective insulators.
Conversely, a home with a poor thermal fabric will likely be built from materials that transmit heat
quickly, typically from a warm space to a colder external space or environment (Lymath, 2015). Straaten
(1967) has shown that it is possible to assess a material or structural systems thermal efficiency via three
separate techniques, these are (i) Thermal Conductivity- k value, (ii) Thermal Resistance – R value and
(iii) Thermal Transmittance – U value and have been expressed in equations 1 to 3.
2.3.5.1 Thermal Conductivity – k value

Thermal conductivity or k value can be broadly defined as the time rate of steady-state heat flow through
a unit area of a homogeneous material induced by a unit temperature gradient in a direction perpendicular
to that unit area. Generally, materials with a high rate of thermal conductivity experience heat transfer
through the material quicker than those of low thermal conductivity. The lower the thermal conductivity
of a material the greater suitability it has of being used for thermal insulation. Typically, for construction
materials today, there is a confirmed k value. However, the formula for thermal conductivity, measured in
watts per metre-kelvin, can be expressed as follows:
For flat, slab like elements: 𝐿

𝑘=𝑞∙ (𝑊/𝑚𝐾) Equation 1
∆𝑇
Where: 𝐿 is the material thickness (𝑚), ∆𝑇 is the temperature difference (𝐾) and
𝑞 is heat flow 𝑄/𝐴 (𝑊/𝑚2 )
43
Where: 𝑄 is rate of heat flow (𝑊) and 𝐴 is cross sectional area (𝑚2 )
2.3.5.2 Thermal Resistance – R value

According to a definition provided by Straaten (1967) thermal
resistance or R value is a measure of the temperature difference
between two defined surfaces of a material or construction that
induces a unit heat flow rate through a unit area. In other words,
it is the material’s ability to resist heat flow once energy is
applied, it evaluates the temperature gradient across a structure
over a unit of time. To prevent heat flow through a material’s
cross section, the molecular structure must be unaffected by
conduction, convection, and radiation caused by applied heat
energy. Thermal resistance is the opposite of transmittance, a
material with a high R value has preferable insulating properties.
Considered a more convenient measure, the formula for thermal Figure 12: Graphical representation of thermal performance
properties (CTHERM, 2020)
resistivity, measured in kelvins-metre squared per watt, can be
expressed as follows:
𝑑 2
𝑅= 𝑚 𝐾/𝑊 Equation 2
𝜆
Where: 𝑑 is the material thickness (𝑚) and 𝜆 is the material thermal conductivity (𝑊/𝑚𝐾)
2.3.5.3 Thermal Transmittance – U Value

Lastly, thermal transmittance or U value, is a measure of the transmission rate of heat energy through all
the layers of a structure, from the inside to the outside. Predominantly a term used in engineering, U-
values are used to gauge the thermal performance of a building and its elements, for example an insulated
cavity wall. U values measure the insulating capabilities of components within a building’s fabric, for an
element within a building’s structure to be considered a good insulator it must have a low U value. A
lower U value will slow the transmission of heat through a structural component, requiring less energy to
maintain comfortable conditions inside the building. The reciprocal thermal characteristic of
transmittance is resistance and to determine the U value of an assembly of materials the reciprocal of the
sum of the thermal resistances must be calculated. The basic formula for thermal transmittance, measured
in watts per metre squared kelvin, can be expressed as follows (ISO 8301):
1
𝑈= (𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾) Equation 3
𝑅𝑠𝑖 + ∑ 𝑅 + 𝑅𝑠𝑒
44
Where: 𝑅𝑠𝑖 is the internal surface resistance, 𝑅 is the sum thermal resistance of all material in the
building element, 𝑅𝑠𝑒 is the external surface resistance
Every construction element of a building has its own U value range, for example a solid timber door has
an approximate U value of 3 W/m2K, indicating that for every degree of temperature difference between
the inside and outside surface, 3 watts of heat will be transferred for every square metre surface of the
building element. However, thermal transmittance is primarily concerned with the U value of an assembly
of materials, such as a double-glazed window and window frame, explaining why the formula uses
thermal resistance values for each individual material.
Whilst it is essential for materials and elements to have efficient thermal conductivity and resistivity,
through low k values and high R values, it is the thermal transmittance of a building fabric that is the
crucial thermal performance characteristic. Part L of the Building Regulations (conservation of fuel and
power) outlines the maximum U-values for structural components and assemblies, by setting limiting
standards to prevent certain energy inefficient forms of construction. Therefore, according to Rhee-
Duverne and Baker (2013), the various industry relevant organisations and professionals concerned with
residential carbon emissions are seeking new and innovative materials and construction methods that will
prove to minimise building U-values, thus improving the energy efficiency of new build properties,
reducing their energy consumption, and eventually cutting GHG emissions ahead of the net zero 2050
target.
Conservation of energy is dependent on the ability of a wall (or other building element) to reduce the rate
of heat escaping from the inside of the building to the outside. With a view to assisting in the search for
an innovative insulation material which will significantly improve the thermal performance of solid
walled buildings, specifically residential properties, this paper will focus on the importance of U value
testing. This will also align with achieving one of the second objectives outlined in section 1.3.2 of this
paper.
2.3.5.4 In field U Value Investigations

Where the U-value of a building element cannot be calculated with certainty, due to either a lack of
construction information or material properties, it can be measured in-situ in accordance with procedures
set out in ISO 9869. This involves measuring the flow of heat (heat flux) through the building element
when there is a sufficient temperature difference between the inside and outside of the structure, the
formula used is expressed in equation 4 below. The methods described in ISO 8301 and ISO 9869 were
used in the investigations described in this report (Anderson & Kosmina, BRE, 2019). The guidelines of
45
ISO 9869 testing are outlined in section 3.0 Methodology. It assumes the thermal transmittance can be
calculated through dividing the average heat flow rate by the mean temperature difference.
𝑛
𝑄
𝑈=∑
𝑇1 − 𝑇2 Equation 4
𝑘=0
Where: 𝑄 is the heat flux, 𝑇1 is the internal temperature, 𝑇2 is the external temperature
2.3.6 Assumed Thermal Transmittance vs Measure Thermal Transmittance of Solid Walls

The first Building Regulations did not come into force until 1965, which meant that construction
standards prior to then were poor. ‘Traditionally constructed’ housing required sufficient ventilation for
the many combustion elements present within a household of that period, such as coal fires and oil
appliances. Therefore, at the time of construction thermal efficiency and air tightness was not a priority
and so these houses do not have the thermal properties to meet today’s Building Regulations. However, as
it was a fast form of construction and because of Government’s house building subsidies, solid walled
housing construction continued to grow and, at the time, was widespread across the UK (UWE, 2008).
The solid wall construction method is still in use today, albeit in much smaller quantities than the pre-
1919 period, but as with all current methods of construction, new solid wall developments must adhere to
the current conservation of fuel and power codes outlined in Part L of the Building Regulations and so do
not exhibit the same inadequate thermal properties and a lack of air tightness as does a dwelling from that
period. It is for this reason that modern solid walled dwellings, built with no cavity but with greater
insulation standards, air tightness and energy efficiency, are not as problematic as those built before 1965,
especially those built pre-1919 (Ley, 1990). In contrast, the traditional housing of pre-1919 experiences
high heat loss through their poor building fabric, low-quality materials and inferior workmanship.
Consequently, because of variances in the properties’ of construction materials used pre-1919 and the
different house building techniques adopted, the 8.6 million homes in the UK constructed with solid walls
will inevitably display a wide range of U values. Either the wall thickness (one leaf or two) or the material
used (clay brick or stone, lime mortar or cement based) can greatly affect the current energy efficiency of
solid wall housing (DCLG, 2013b).
Since 2005, when the 4th edition of the SAP system was released and BRE had begun including
previously assessed U-value data for the various constructional elements of a dwelling, the specified U-
value for a solid brick wall was assumed to be 2.1 W/m2K (BRE, 2005). This assumption was based on a
220mm thick solid brick wall with 13mm dense plasterboard applied and adopted UK wide (CIBSE,
2015). Therefore, it is believed that a single conservative value, applied to all solid wall properties, will
not truly reflect as-built U-values, something Francis et al alluded to in their 2015 study. However, as
46
discussed previously, there are numerous differences in material properties and sizes, element
construction techniques, and structural component geometry. By comparison, the required thermal
transmittance of a new build house with insulated cavity masonry walls is 0.16 W/m2K specified by
Building Control (Building Control, 2013).
Table 3 outlines the findings of numerous investigations into U-value measurements of UK solid walled
houses. All the studies cited, identified that the standard assumed U-value of 2.1 W/m2K is overestimated.
As-built U-values determined in these studies have either been expressed as a range or a standard
deviation to highlight the discrepancies in the assumed solid masonry wall U-value confirmed in BRE,
2005 and those found in the field on existing solid wall houses. For comparison, the last two lines
included in Table 3 are the recorded and assumed U-values for both an uninsulated cavity wall and an
insulated cavity call, taken from a review of U-values carried out by BRE in 2016.
Sample Measured Average U-Value Standard Measured U-value RdSAP assumed
Author
Size U-value (W/m2K) Deviation, σ (W/m2K) Range (W/m2K) U-value (W/m2K)
Rhee-Duverne &
18 1.4 2.2 – 1.0 2.1
Baker (2013)
Li et al (2014) 40 1.29 0.35 2.1
Rye & Scott (2012) 11 1.24 2.48 – 0.64 2.1
BRE (2016) 85 1.59 0.32 2.1
BRE (uninsulated
50 1.38 0.30 1.6
cavity) (2016)
BRE (insulated
109 0.63 0.23 0.5
cavity) (2016)
Table 3: Measured U values of solid wall buildings from UK studies
The in-situ solid wall U-values determined in the four studies indicate that there is a degree of inadequacy
in the SAP and RdSAP rating processes, underestimating the thermal performance of solid masonry walls
by almost a third. Therefore, the legitimacy of the assessment procedures used to establish the U-value for
solid masonry walls have been strongly criticised in recent years and many studies believe they should be
updated to provide a range of solid wall U-values rather than a single monitory figure (Rhee-Duverne &
Baker 2013). Not only does table 3 indicate that Rye and Scott recorded an average U-value of 1.24
W/m2K, which is almost 70% lower than the approved SAP and RdSAP value of 2.1 W/m2K, but it also
shows that in all the cases of uninsulated masonry walls, solid or cavity, the RdSAP U-value has been
overestimated, conversely, the assumed U-value for the insulated cavity had been underestimated. The
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have commissioned several studies into the
discrepancies between in-situ measured U-values and the assumed U-values in RdSAP calculations,
discovering they often don’t agree and that there is the potential to create a ‘performance gap’, which
47
refers to the difference between the estimated design performance and the actual performance of the
building (Davidson, 2016).
2.3.7 Risk of Overheating

A major risk of the underestimated U-value of solid wall housing is the possibility that building fabric
upgrades are being overcompensated to the point that homeowners are exposed to the dangers of an
overheated property. Generally judged as the upper limit for thermal comfort, overheating is when indoor
temperatures exceed a predefined benchmark for too long and can be linked to adverse health, well-being,
and workplace productivity issues. Building regulations do not specify a maximum internal temperature
for housing, however limits are provided by British Standards (Dengel & Swainson 2012). According to
Ji et al. (2014), overheating can be a result of one factor or a combination of many smaller factors. The
predominant cause, however, is an imbalance between indoor temperature gains and losses due to a
slower loss in heat. The imbalance is a product of highly insulated building fabrics based on poorly rated
SAP and EPC. There is a theory that solid wall houses that have been upgraded with internal wall
insulation (IWI) are more prone to overheating than properties retrofitted with external wall insulation
(EWI). The reason for this is that solid brickwork walls have favourable thermal mass characteristics,
which mean that during warmer or colder seasons, the building material has the ability to absorb or
radiate heat energy from or into indoor spaces when the temperature is high or low, respectively.
Applying EWI to a solid wall property, retains the benefit of the structure’s thermal mass, however if IWI
is adopted then the indoor space is isolated from the thermal mass of the brickwork and essentially a
barrier is preventing the masonry removing the excess heat (Mavrogianni et al. 2013). Not only can the
undesirable effects of overheating severely affect a homeowner’s comfort, but it has also been discovered
as the catalyst behind a number of homeowners’ exacerbated health conditions and in some cases death.
Research by Public Health England (PHE)(2015) reported clear links between increased deaths in
England and temperatures above 25°C, with 75 additional deaths per week per 1°C rise in temperatures.
The deaths and illnesses recorded are clear but the unintended consequence of energy efficient retrofits to
solid wall housing, nevertheless they present another barrier in the strive for carbon neutrality in the
residential sector. Prevention of overheating becomes incredibly complex in the case of retrofitted solid
wall properties; the most useful measures require the introduction of new ventilation systems and external
shading but even then, overheating is not fully mitigated and this will require a shift in occupant
behaviours and aesthetics (Psomas et al., 2016).
2.3.8 Average Energy Ratings and Performances of Existing Stock

Although the discrepancies highlight an element of unreliability in the assessment procedures, they, along
with EPC, are the primary method of rating the energy performance of residential properties in the UK.
48
Since being made a mandatory requirement by Building Regulations, the SAP assessments have been
integral in driving up domestic efficiency standards. Using this framework, the average recorded SAP
rating of English dwellings in 2018 was 63, up from 62 on 2017’s figures and up from 45 points on
1996’s ratings (MHCLG, 2019). Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) data indicates that D is the most
common EPC rating across Great Britain. Few properties have A or B ratings, estimated to only make up
1.4% of all properties in England and Scotland in 2016 (MHCLG, 2016).
According to Yate’s analysis of solid wall construction and its thermal performance the average SAP
rating of the pre-1919 housing stock is 40, which is the equivalent of an E on the EPC scale, i.e. low
energy efficiency. This is approximately 23 SAP points below the stock average of 63, and a minimum of
41 points below a new build which meets the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 (a ‘B’ on the EPC
scale). Additionally, 12.5% of dwellings with solid walls are in the lowest energy efficiency bands: F and
G. Of the property age bands, pre-1919 houses are the worst performing, which is justifiable based on
their poor-quality fabric and variable construction methods (Carvajal et al. 2018). These poor SAP ratings
are also indicative of non-decent homes, where the term ‘decent’ is defined as a dwelling that “meets the
statutory minimum standard, provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, is in a reasonable state of
repair and has reasonably modern facilities” (TPS, 2011). The proportion of non-decent homes among
the housing stock built before 1919 fell from 56% in 2008 to 34% in 2018, which is the equivalent of 4.3
million homes. Despite this improvement, these aged homes were still most likely to fail the Standard in
2018 (MHCLG, 2019).
Heath et al (2010) carried out similar studies whereby a comparison was made between the heat loading
and associated CO2 emissions of a solid wall house and the same building once retrofitted with insulation.
It summarised that without insulation the heat loading totalled an average of 80,397 kWh and the total
average CO2 emissions were 22,960 kg, once retrofitted the new average heat loading values and average
CO2 emissions were recorded as 28,883 kWh and 2,589 kg respectively (Heath et al, 2010).
2.3.9 Hard to Treat Homes

The BRE defines hard to treat (HTT) homes as those that “for a variety of
reasons cannot accommodate ‘staple’ or cost-effective fabric energy
efficiency measures”. Within the context of HTT dwellings there are four
main classifications that are considered: homes with solid walls, homes that
are not connected to the gas network, homes with no loft and high-rise flats
(BRE, 2008). Figure 13 illustrates the proportion of each type of HTT home,
indicating that solid wall housing is the most prominent amongst them.
Figure 13: Proportion and
relationship of HTT categories (BRE,
2008).
49
A study of the 2008 EHS conducted by the Centre for Sustainable Energy found 38% of the existing
housing stock fit into the category of HTT. Of the 8 million solid wall housing in the UK that would
benefit from the introduction of energy efficient measures, such as solid wall insulation, 6.8 million are
thought to be HTT. Further barriers that restrict HTT homes from being upgraded with energy efficient
measures are those dwellings that are listed and those that are located within conservation areas, of which
there are 374,000 and 1.1 million respectively (DCLG, 2014).
2.3.10 Sub Section Summary

Improving the thermal efficiency of solid wall properties is an area which has significant potential to put
the UK on the right path towards a low carbon future, due in part to the poor progress made to date in
reducing GHG emissions. With more and more experts and homeowners beginning to recognise the
advantages of insulating pre 1919 households, this is an area of society which is now seeing real growth,
with a range of cost-effective solutions available. Therefore, the two main energy efficiency goals for
existing dwellings in the future are, (i) improving their electrical and gas services, and (ii) upgrading their
building fabric to reduce heat loss. By upgrading the building fabric of all pre 1919 solid wall housing,
the prediction is that the residential sector should fall from the third largest emitter in the UK economy.
Sharp reductions in the use of fossil fuels for space and water heating must be urgently realised to ensure
the 2050 net zero carbon target can be achieved (CCC, 2019b).
Nevertheless, the government has introduced an array of green recovery strategies that will facilitate the
energy efficiency improvements that homeowners so desperately require. Although, the schemes have
received widespread criticism, chiefly on account of their limited action (RIBA, 2019). Pressure from
organisations such as the CCC and RIBA signify the government must do more on top of what they are
already doing if the residential sector is to experience any real positive and ‘green’ improvements. Lord
Nicholas Stern welcomed the CCC’s ‘UK housing: Fit for the future?’ report saying,
“The Committee on Climate Change has produced a report which charts both the way forward in
monitoring targets, emissions and policies and shows what will be required to achieve the
necessary emissions reductions; it is a fine piece of work, which should be supported across the
political spectrum and which will enhance the UK’s role in fostering global understanding and
agreement”. Stern; (CCC, 2009)
A comprehensive new approach is urgently needed for improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s
existing homes. For too long, a culture of cost cutting, low standards, and a lack of building regulations
enforcement have left the UK residential sector behind when compared with European counterparts. The
‘UK housing: Fit for the future?’ report emphasises the immediate attention UK housing stocks require.
Energy efficiency is critical to reducing emissions and energy bills, improving health and wellbeing,
50
helping tackle fuel poverty and making buildings better suited to low-carbon heating. All these beneficial
residential sector goals are achievable, but the government must take the initiative and show leadership by
acting now (CCC, 2019b). Re-committing to a zero-carbon standard for new homes, to mandating the
Dutch inspired Energieprong scheme, whereby whole house retrofits are delivered and the installer is
responsible for any maintenance problems that arise 30 to 40 years after installation, will help steer the
UK on to the desired decarbonisation pathway (Whitehead & Alous, 2016).
2.4 Sustainable Retrofit of UK Domestic Built Environment

Sustainable retrofit measures refer to the process of making buildings more energy efficient, thus more
sustainable because of reduced CO2 emissions. When considering the residential sector, the primary focus
is on energy demand reduction rather than improving energy production and supply. Energy efficiency
improvements are at the core of the eco-refurbishment framework where deep retrofit methods are
adopted to upgrade a property’s comfort, running costs and environmental footprint. The five steps
included within the scheme are: using fuels that have low carbon intensity; improving building envelope
airtightness; reducing building envelope heat bridges; using integrated building renewables; and the
possible use of solar energy (Sodagar et al, 2009). The need to sustainably retrofit the existing housing
stock, specifically solid wall dwellings, relates back to the Government’s legally binding carbon reduction
targets and the GHG emission levels recorded annually in the residential sector. Solid wall houses are
vulnerable to increased heat loss if the external walls are not insulated, since this is where the greatest
proportion of heat is lost (Palmer and Terry, 2017).
Solid wall insulation (SWI) has been available on the property renovation market for decades and is
strongly recognised as a vital method of making energy efficient improvements to pre 1919 housing.
However, uptake of the retrofitted approach remains very low, with only 3% of the 8 million solid wall
homes in the UK having had SWI installed (Hamilton et al, 2016). Figures 14 and 15 below, each indicate
the lack of uptake in solid wall insulation over recent years. Data for 2012 showed a substantial increase
in insulation demand, coinciding with the
Figure 15: Annual installation rates of loft, cavity wall and Figure 14: Solid wall insulation uptake and indicator
solid wall insulation (2008-2017) (CCC, 2019b) trajectories (2008-2032), (CCC, 2016)
51
Government introduction of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target and other home improvement
schemes (DECC, 2012). However, from thereafter insulation upgrades have been in short demand, none
more so than solid wall insulation. Figure 15 also demonstrates the CCC’s trajectory for solid wall
insulation use, it is projected that by the end of the fifth carbon budget in 2032, 2 million solid wall
dwellings will have received retrofitted improvements to their building fabric. However, the trajectory of
solid wall insulation projects based on 2015’s rates would see numbers rise to just above 1 million by
2032 (CCC, 2016; CCC, 2019b).
The following section will highlight the purpose and properties of SWI, the incentives and barriers behind
its use and the various options available to boost homeowners’ energy efficiency and comfort.
2.4.1 Solid Wall Insulation

When considering SWI, it is difficult to define a one size fits all option that will suit every dwelling, due
to the differences in domestic design, layout, wall construction, materials and spaces. The term SWI can
be subdivided into two further categories, internal wall insulation (IWI) and external wall insulation
(EWI). The high heat loss rate of solid wall housing can be thoroughly inhibited by using SWI, typically
installed on the inside of a property (IWI) or the outside of the property (EWI). Both offer significant
thermal improvements to a dwelling; however, each method has specific trade-offs. For instance, in
typical cases thicker insulation produces better U-values, but thicker insulation also means reduction of
internal floor space. A similar difficulty is faced with EWI but with respect to available external space
(Hamilton et al 2016).
As well as improving thermal efficiency, the avoidance of damp and thermal bridges is also vital when
designing and applying SWI. Experts who understand the nature of solid wall buildings agree that using
materials and systems that trap moisture can seriously exacerbate underlying conditions or create new
structural issues. Maintaining permeability of the external walls will avoid a cold and clammy feel to the
internal spaces and ensure damp and decay do not encroach into the structural components. Measures
must be taken to remove damp from external walls prior to fitting SWI. Thermal bridging will occur at
interruptions to the insulation coverage, creating weak points in the structural fabric where allowances are
made for openings and services. Key areas where thermal bridging is likely to occur is at window and
door reveals, additionally when using IWI, floor to external wall structural joints present further issues
(see figure 17 below). If unaccounted for, these features will not only be colder but will be susceptible to
condensation and subsequently localised decay to timber and finishes. Overall project costs can be
severely inflated if these common issues are ignored (Historic England, 2016).
When making home efficiency improvements, occupants are less likely to opt for SWI as a single retrofit
measure on account of its disruptive nature, difficulty to undertake and the expense. Homeowners are
52
more likely to make energy efficient changes to their property that will see the biggest returns in the
shortest period of time, in other words the ‘low hanging fruit’ or easy option. Measures such as loft
insulation, double glazing, and boiler upgrades all fit into this category, however these energy efficient
upgrades also have heavier marketing campaigns than does SWI, which could be an explanation for the
minimal uptake indicated in figure 14 above. In some instances, the information can be misconstrued, and
a lack of awareness can mean that SWI is overlooked as an energy efficiency improvement, figure 16
shows that in almost all types of housing in the UK, SWI will return the largest insulation savings (EST,
n.d.). SWI can be fitted as a standalone energy efficiency improvement or in a whole house retrofit
project. As a retrofit option, it is most effective in a whole house project and according to Simpson et al
(2016), if installed earlier in the project timeline, SWI can in fact surpass other measures in reducing
lifetime CO2 emissions (Simpson et al. 2016). There is disagreement between industry professionals, with
regards to which method, EWI or IWI, constitutes best practice. The focus in this research is the use of
IWI, and the relatively unused potential this method offers (Palmer and Terry, 2017).
Figure 16: Annual insulation savings by property type (EST, n.d.)
2.4.2 Internal Wall Insulation

IWI retrofit measures are generally carried out in two approaches. Firstly, there is the direct approach
where the insulation, usually in the form of rigid boards, is dot and dab bonded directly on to the inner
face of the external wall. Secondly, there is the stud wall method, whereby insulation (soft, semi rigid or
rigid) is fixed within or on the face of a timber structure. The timber frame itself can either be fixed
directly on to the inner face on the external wall or stand slightly proud to create a separate inner leaf
(GreenSpec, n.d.).
53
Figure 18: Directly fixed IWI with thermal break at floor junction Figure 17: Timber frame IWI with cavity (Historic
(Historic England, 2016) England, 2016)
Each approach has unique criteria that would make one more suitable than the other. For example, for an
uneven internal façade, timber battens would provide a uniform surface to which finishes can be applied.
However, this technique can in some cases reduce floorspace by upwards of 200mm per external wall,
reducing the size of the room significantly. If retaining floor space or the speed at which the work is
completed are the priorities then the direct application would satisfy both, manufacturers who can supply
thinner insulation boards, pre-fixed to dry-lining, with the vapour barrier already in position between
them. Although slimmer than the timber frame approach and less disruptive in relation to the room floor
size, thinner insulation will offer lower U-values and is also not robust enough to fix heavy items to
(Historic England, 2016). These problems represent just a few of the trade-offs which homeowners must
consider when embarking on a retrofit project.
One advantage that IWI has over EWI is that there are no limitations on which insulation material can be
used, providing moisture control is present in the design. There has been a wealth of product development
in the SWI market, manufacturers are in the pursuit of an insulation material product that not only
provides the necessary thermal properties to achieve internal comfort but also with very minimal
thickness (around 10mm) (Historic England, 2016).
SWI products can be characterised in a variety of ways. They can be separated in the development stage
in which they are currently in, traditional, modern and future. Traditional insulation materials generally
encompass what is on the market already, such as mineral wools, polyurethane (PUR) and expanded
polystyrene (EPS). Modern insulation materials are products that have been newly introduced to the
market, distinguishable by their higher thermal performance to thinness ratio, examples of these include
vacuum insulated panels (VIPS), gas filled panels and aerogels. The final category, future insulation
54
materials, are products that are still in pre-concept design and here it is the aim of the manufacturer to
produce the perfect consumer item, one that is low cost and high performance. However, that still seems a
long way from being realised, in the meantime the focus is on producing insulation materials that can
offer both high thermal performance and high durability; these included nano-insulation and dynamic
insulation (Tink, 2018).
In addition to the development stage, it is also possible to categorise SWI materials into either the form in
which they are supplied or the material compounds. For example, insulation can be pre-manufactured into
rigid boards of typically polystyrene, soft rolls of typically mineral wool or semi rigid sheets of rockwool.
Alternatively, insulation can be sprayed in the form of foam or blown in the form of wool; in terms of the
material compounds used, these can be either fibrous, cellular, man-made or organic. (Tink, 2018).
A study carried out by BEIS (Palmer and Terry, 2017) provided a comprehensive review of all the SWI
materials available on the market for sustainable retrofit projects. Table A1 (in appendix A) summarises
their findings for the IWI options based on thermal conductivity, indicative costs and their advantages and
disadvantages. What is distinctly noticeable from the list of materials is that despite SWI uptake being
relatively low, there is a substantial selection for a householder to choose from (Palmer and Terry, 2017).
BEIS classified the available IWI materials into four main groups, when based on performance and cost:
A. High performance and high-cost materials, such as VIPs and aerogels, provide a superior thermal
performance when compared to a similar material of the same thickness. However, they require a
meticulous approach to installation and must be used in conjunction with other materials.
B. High performance and moderate-cost materials, such as PIR, PUR, EPS and phenolic foam, are
much cheaper than the A materials, with slightly lower performance and greater thickness but
they do provide important moisture control properties.
C. Moderate performance and low-cost materials include glass and mineral wool, for a similar
thickness to the B materials, slightly worse thermal performance is achieved and for less cost and
they are breathable, allowing moisture to escape.
D. Low performance and low-cost material such as wood fibre allows absorption of moisture as well
as allowing it to pass through (Palmer and Terry, 2017)
2.4.3 Motivations to Retrofit with Internal Wall Insulation

The motivations behind retrofitting with IWI are primarily twofold, but there are a wide variety of aspects
that influence people into adopting residential energy efficiency measures for their home. Firstly, on a
national level, the UK Government has set the ambitious and legally binding goal of reducing carbon
emissions to net-zero by the year 2050. Deep emission cuts throughout the economy are urgently needed
55
if this target is to be met. The CCC has already warned that the UK will not meet the 4th and 5th carbon
budget, and failure to tackle building emissions is contributing substantially to this shortfall. Last year,
the residential sector was responsible for 19% of the total GHG emissions, 77% of which was apportioned
to housing. Decarbonisation of the existing housing stock needs to have been implemented by 2050, but
current and future policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions will not achieve the necessary results
(BEIS, 2019b). The reversal of these trends relies heavily on major improvements to the energy
performance of the UK’s building stock, and as the chairman of the CCC, Lord Deben said,
“Properly insulating buildings is an obvious and practical first step to decarbonising the
economy. Energy efficiency is by far the cheapest way of reducing our emissions.”
Deben; (CCC, 2019d)
Subsidiary economic benefits to improving the energy performance of UK housing predict that
employment figures will increase in the region of 66,000 to 86,000 new jobs and in addition, the economy
will experience a net growth of up to £7.5 billion (BEIS, 2019b).
Secondly, in the context of consumers and occupants, the key incentive behind improving homes with
energy efficient technologies is that energy bills will be significantly reduced. Rosenow et al (2018) found
that since 2008, households have saved approximately £290 a year once energy efficient measures have
been installed. Furthermore, consumers could see average energy cost savings of around £270 per year
energy usage was cut by 25% by 2035 (Rosenow et al 2018). As a general rule, IWI technology is
typically cheaper than their external counterparts, on account of the minimal labour required. The Energy
Saving Trust found that the difference in cost between using IWI and EWI, the cost for a semi-detached
house in Great Britain using IWI rather than EWI would be £5600 cheaper (EST, 2019). In addition to
saving consumer costs and energy, the introduction of energy efficiency measures would also improve
their health, wellbeing, and comfort (BEIS, 2019b).
Other incentives to adopt the IWI approach to retrofitting relate to the listing or conservation status of a
building. If a building has historical or architectural importance, then it is very likely it is listed, which
protects the structure from demolition or alterations to the façade. Generally being of a historic nature,
heritage buildings also present a similar issue of poor energy efficiency, but with the added restriction of
preventing the external appearance from being altered. This leaves homeowners with very limited legal
options in terms of energy efficiency improvements, IWI installation being the favourable choice amongst
historic homeowners (Historic England, 2015).
56
2.4.4 Barriers to Retrofit with Internal Wall Insulation
The subject of the barriers which affect the uptake of household energy efficiency measures has been the
focus of many academic studies. They typically characterise the primary reason behind the low number in
retrofit figures as being economic, seemingly downplaying the social and contextual factors. The barriers
define the growing ‘energy efficiency gap’ in the UK, distancing the nation’s existing housing stock from
where it needs to be if decarbonisation of the sector to be achieved. The Centre of Innovation and Energy
Demand identified (CIED) four interconnected challenges that are responsible for the low demand for
domestic retrofit (Brown et al. 2018).
2.4.4.1 Benefits and Quality Uncertainty

Before retrofit projects are implemented the EPC of the property is assessed to determine the projected
energy and cost savings. However, there continues to be a ‘performance gap’ between the modelled
energy predictions and the actual energy performance achieved. As this is a repeated occurrence,
homeowners are increasingly unlikely to disrupt their current lives to implement energy efficiency
measures, exacerbated by the fact that little to no contractual penalties are imposed on contractors should
under-performance arise. Occupants may also experience significant changes in their daily lives through
alterations to the building’s characteristic features, new heating controls, timings and reduced floor space
will only present themselves once the work is complete. Further adding to consumers’ reluctance to
retrofit. Another feature that specifically undermines the uptake in IWI is the increased likelihood of
condensation due to internal moisture build up in the structural elements of the building caused by the
differences in external and internal temperatures (CIED, 2018).
2.4.4.2 Complexity, Disruption and Timing

Homeowners are likely to be deterred by the large-scale works required to their property when carrying
out sustainable retrofitting, further adding to the disruptions in their daily life and to their doubts and
skepticism towards the uptake in energy efficiency improvements. The process of whole house retrofitting
is time consuming and complex and requires numerous consultants and installers to plan and carry out a
wide variety of duties. Despite the large timescales involved, households are more likely to stagger
energy efficiency improvements and will most likely only consider make changes to the building fabric
during wider renovations (CIED, 2018).
2.4.4.3 Information, Engagement and Trust

A continued, and significant, factor in the low uptake in domestic energy efficiency improvements in the
UK is a lack of knowledge. The products, materials and tools already exist for retrofitting to be carried
out on a much wider scale but homeowners lack interest, quoting an absence of knowledge about the
options available and the potential benefits obtained. Suppliers of retrofit technologies and services tend
57
to focus on short-term gains and government subsidised schemes, often influencing the occupant’s
decisions on their choices and usages. Following the failed Green Deal program, households are reluctant
to opt for complicated government schemes, the absence of knowledge, a lack of trust and a lack of
impartial advice on suitable options has undermined the uptake of whole house retrofits by homeowners
(CIED, 2018).
2.4.4.4 Capital Cost and Split Incentives

In the long-term, whole house energy efficiency improvements will achieve substantial savings in respect
to energy consumption and cost. However, a drawback encountered is that recouping capital costs
generally take a long time, and with large upfront costs, many homeowners don’t have the available
capital to cover the cost of retrofit work being carried out. Further, landlords and people moving to a new
house are unlikely to regain the capital from the energy efficiency investment, and whilst government
schemes have aimed to help with up-front costs the long-term loan is subject to changes in interest rates
(CIED, 2018).

There are many options when it comes to IWI, but the right technology for a certain application can be
dictated by either the incentives or the barriers present.
A wider homeowner knowledge on the benefits and cost savings of using IWI is required to increase its
uptake is required, focusing on the economic, environmental, and thermal comfort benefits of IWI
With the majority of the pre-1919 housing stock projected to remain in use past 2050, most of which
constructed before energy efficiency standards were in place, the lack of uptake in sustainable retrofit
technologies will have ramifications on the global economy (CCC, 2019b).
2.5 Case Studies

This section reviews previous applications of sustainable retrofits, the improvements in thermal
transmittance, the successes and lessons learnt. There has been considerable progress in this field over
recent years, particularly in the technical development of insulation materials and application techniques,
and it is important to consider and review previous applications in order to fully inform this investigation.
Below is a small selection of relevant applications which have been summarised to present the key factors
and benefits of each application. Whilst not every dwelling fits the target characteristics of a Victorian
terrace of solid wall construction, the application and findings remain very relevant. Each case study is
concluded with a brief critique considering the benefits and disadvantages.
58
2.5.1 Case Study 1 - Pre-Fabricated Tenement Flats - Parkview, Thamesmead
E2ReBuild partners Gumpp & Maier, Gallions and Trecodome
2.5.1.1 Overview
Thamesmead was originally conceived as a utopian “town of the 21st century” in the mid-1960s. Set in
the context of London’s post-war housing shortage, plans for the only new town in the capital envisaged
the creation of a community of 60,000 people over a 10 to 15 year period. Built on reclaimed marshland,
the 1300 acre site required significant physical transformation to make it suitable for habitation.
2.5.1.2 Building Construction

Parkview was constructed in 1972 from precast and insitu solid concrete. The precast facade panels
incorporated less than an inch of insulation but the bulk of the envelope was solid insitu concrete with
inherent thermal bridges. The development had previously been categorised as ‘hard to treat’ thermally.
The building structure themselves were in good repair but the shape of the buildings resulted in many
poorly or non-insulated surfaces.
2.5.1.3 Project Scope

Parkview Hub project comprised 18 flats and garages, owned by Gallions Housing Association. Gallions,
who conducted extensive consultation with residents, commissioned its retrofit and selected it to be part
of a demonstration project in the European-funded E2 ReBuild research network. Applying fabric first
techniques, space heating energy reductions of 80% less than existing were predicted
2.5.1.4 Sustainable Retrofit

The Parkview retrofit involved external cladding, designed to cause minimum disruption to residents,
who remained in occupation. Retrofit was completed to the Passivhaus Enerphit standard in order to
achieve an upper limit space heating demand of 25kWh/m2. The intention was to significantly reduce
energy bills, homes were more comfortable and healthier and were more affordable to run, the aim was
that homes could be heated for around £3 per week. Design input included thermal modelling of critical
junctions to remedy thermal bridging and condensation problems, repeated energy modelling during
construction providing a change control mechanism and the provision of detailed design information
tailored to factory production. Ground floor garages and storage units were converted into well insulated
shops and community facilities. Contract value was £3m.
The retrofit construction consisted of factory-made, pre-glazed timber storey-height structural insulated
panels (SIP), insulated with cellulose fibre and with high performance factory-finished timber board
cladding which were fitted to the existing external facades. This created a new and uniform timber
envelope, which works independently of the original structure and finished with a metal-clad insulated
59
roof, giving them the appearance of townhouses. The timber envelope required an extension to the
foundations and is supported entirely on internal load-bearing walls. U-values of the over-cladding units
were determined using Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) calculations and were typically in the
range 0.10 to 0.15W/m2K. Internal alterations were intentionally limited to ‘breaking through’ and
making good around the existing window and door openings and integrating new heat recovery
ventilation units.
2.5.1.5 Results
The Parkview project exceeded estimates for energy conservation by delivering an improved surface-
volume ratio. The project shows that U values in the range of 0,15 – 0,10 for W/m2K, combined with
airtight construction, triple glazing and mechanical heat recovery can achieve 80% reduction in space heat
demand. Occupants experienced improved comfort conditions, the average indoor temperature over a 24
hours cycle in the heating season increased from 16oC to 20 oC and delivered significant energy savings.
Figure 20: Thamesmead Pre-retrofit Figure 19: Thamesmead Post-retrofit
Element Symbol Units Before E2ReBuild % Reduction

2
Facade/Wall U W/m K 1.67 0.12 93
Roof U W/m2K 0.3 0.1 67
Ground Floor U W/m2K 2 0.3 85
Windows U W/m2K 2.4 1 58
Glazing U W/m2K 4 0.6 85
Average U W/m2K 2 0.29 85.5
Ventilation Rate air changes/h 1 0.93 7
Table 4: U values before and after renovation (modified from Boonstra, Hill et al 2014)
2.5.1.6 Critique
Clearly, improvements in U values across the whole spectrum of the building exceeded expectations. The
project demonstrated a pre-fabricated solution leads to shorter renovation times compared to traditional
renovation. However, the scale of the project required significant investment, out of reach of the average
household budgets. U-value reductions and improvements in thermal comfort speak for themselves.
60
2.5.2 Case Study 3 – Thermal Paint Coatings Laboratory Simulation Test, University of Salford
2.5.2.1 Overview
An in-depth investigation was carried out by the University of Salford into the performance, benefits and
disadvantages of thin layer, thermal paint coatings and additives, when compared to conventional
domestic wall coatings such as emulsion and wallpaper; and to establish whether claims made by thermal
paint manufacturers regarding energy cost savings could be validated. Insulating paint additives are
marketed as making almost any paint insulate.
2.5.2.2 Project Scope

The study identified the need to improve energy efficiency of ‘hard to heat’ homes with a simple, cost
effective solution which caused little disruption for homeowners. One potential approach for reducing
heating energy in solid wall ‘hard to heat’ housing is the simple application of a thin layer (<1mm) of
thermal paint or household paint containing insulating additives. The benefits of using such materials is,
they are a fairly low-cost alternative, easy to apply and create little more disruption than re-decorating.
The objectives of this study were to test not only the performance of these coatings, by measuring thermal
resistance, but also the energy saving claims made by manufacturers, some of which claimed energy
savings of between 20% and 25%. This investigation was a systematic study of the material
characteristics and thermal performance of these internal coatings, using well accepted international
standard test methods. As a benchmark, various thermal paints and paint additives were compared with
conventional internal wall coverings such as emulsion paint, wallpapers and expanded polystyrene liners.
2.5.2.3 Methodology
The objective of this study was to test the thermal performance and energy saving claims of a wide range
of thermal paint coatings available in the UK and compare them with conventional internal surface
coverings. A total of six different thermal paint coatings were examined, plus two insulating paint
additives. The coating samples were applied to skimmed, 12mm plasterboard samples. They were
applied and/or mixed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, using a standard paint brush. Each
had 2 coats of paint applied as per the instructions. Further plasterboard samples were prepared using
standard lining paper, vinyl wallpaper, EPS liner and emulsion paint. The relative improvement in
thermal resistance and the surface emissivity was measured, using standard methods, for each type of
coating. Thermal conductivity measurements were also made on specially constructed samples of
additive, and a mixture of paint and additive. Following application, the thickness of the ten surface
coatings on plasterboard panels was also measured. The thermal resistance of each test panel was
measured using a single specimen heat flow meter. Calibrated thermocouples were attached to the faces
of the sample to measure temperature difference.
61
2.5.2.4 Results
The thermal resistance of the all the thermal paint coatings was generally found to be not much better than
that of conventional vinyl textured wallpapers with a lining paper. For 5 of the 6 coatings, energy savings
were calculated at less than 1% when heat losses from all the building elements were considered. The
sixth product, which was a thicker coating of 1mm of paste containing hollow spheres, was predicted to
give larger savings of 2.9%. The increase in thermal resistance for coatings less than 0.55mm thick was
very small ranging from 0.004 to 0.011 m2K/W. For an uninsulated, solid brick wall structure of U- value
1.6W/m2K, the relative thermal resistance improvement of a coated wall would only be about 0.6 -1.8%,
the thicker coating only gave an improvement of 4% when applied to the wall structure. In general, the
performance of the thermal paints was found to be not much better than that of conventional vinyl
textured wallpapers and lining paper. The best performance was exhibited by the 3.4 mm EPS liner
which was substantially more effective, delivering an increase in thermal resistance of 18% for the same
structure. More significant and prohibitive, is the length of pay-back period for the installation of these
various insulation coatings. Using predicted annual energy consumptions for space heating for each of
the coatings together with the respective fuel cost savings and cost of decorating, the subsequent pay-
back period was calculated to be more than 1000 years for the worst performing product. Even the EPS
liner, which delivered the most promising results would take 50 years to recoup the costs. However, one
key point was established, coatings that are inherently thicker lend to better savings predictions but
thermal paints and lining paper alone deliver relatively small savings and hence these predictions offer an
unfavourable payback period for these coatings. It was also established that the evidence from the results
and models did not support the energy saving claims made. In simple terms, it would require several
hundred additional thermal paint coat applications to meet the recommendations of the Building
Regulations L1B document. However, it is recognised that the coatings do have advantageous properties,
even a fraction of a degree difference in building fabric temperature for sustained periods can reduce the
incidence of mould growth and condensation.
2.5.2.5 Critique
When whole building heat losses were considered, modelling predictions for thermal paint coatings
indicated an unfavourable payback period of several hundred years, and energy savings of between 0.4%
and 2.9% depending on coating thickness and type. Overall, the changes in the air to surface thermal
resistance of the six products was insignificant and did little to contribute to the effective resistance of
thermal paint coatings. Homeowners would be unlikely to subscribe to energy saving improvements that
would take a lifetime to recoup, regardless of how simple and easy the product was to use.
62
2.6 Sustainable Retrofitting with Insulation Paint
Although it offers one of the simpler approaches to the whole house retrofit of a ‘hard to treat’ home, as
an IWI material, insulation paint has a lower uptake than most other IWI technologies. Partly due to the
fact that, although this application is well used as a thermal coating in other industry sectors, it is a
relatively new application in the construction field and partly due to a lack of awareness and knowledge
of the products available on the market. Furthermore, there are a limited number of physical studies into
the performance of thermal insulating paints and even less which feature it’s use in a whole house test
situation.
Simpson et al. (2019) conducted a laboratory research study into the effect thermal insulation paint has
upon a solid masonry wall. Ten test subjects were investigated, each with a variety of insulating products
applied, six used a mixture of specific thermal paint products and the remaining four were each
individually coated with lining paper, vinyl wall paper, EPS + liner and emulsion paint, a summary of
these is presented in Appendix B and is the subject of a case study in section 2.5 above. The outcomes of
the experiment were not encouraging with respect to the thermal paint, particularly when compared with
the performances of the EPS + liner, lining paper or vinyl wallpaper test specimens. The tests showed that
energy savings between 0.4% and 2.9% were obtained for the thermal paints, with payback periods
ranging between 124 and 1040 years. The lining paper and vinyl wallpaper produce energy savings of
0.85% and 1.15% respectively. However, compared with the performance of the EPS + liner specimen
that produced a reduction of 8.13% in energy and a payback period of 50 years, the paints and thicknesses
used do not compare to conventional insulating methods (Simpson et al. 2019).
An additional study conducted by Palmer and Terry (2017) aimed at increasing the uptake in SWI
technologies. By interviewing insulation manufacturers, installers, architects, and specifiers, to help
identify best practices and innovations relating to SWI, Palmer and Terry found that in general, neither
interviewees or literature sources advocated the use of insulation paint as a SWI material. The reasons
behind their reluctance to adopt insulation paint in retrofit projects were threefold. Firstly, insulation
paints have a much lower thermal resistance, of around 0.8 to 0.9 m2K/W, which is only a tenth of the
improvement of 60 mm polyurethane insulation boards. Secondly thermal insulation paints tested do not
meet the maximum required U-value of 0.3 W/m2K for a solid wall stipulated in the government’s Energy
Company Obligation (ECO) scheme. Thirdly a 0.5mm layer of thermal insulating paint ascertained a solid
wall U value improvement from 1.3 W/m2K to 1.29 W/m2K (Palmer and Terry, 2017). The table in
Appendix A provides a full summary of their findings.
Thermal performances aside, the two studies did highlight some positives in the use of insulation paint as
a form of IWI. The primary observation of both studies was that the application of the paint is much
63
simpler and less time consuming than other approaches to retrofitting, consequently the installation costs
are also much cheaper. Although Simpson et al. indicated that the payback period of insulation paint was
dramatically long, Palmer and Terry found that the estimated costs of making energy efficiency
improvements to a three bedroom semi-detached home using Synavax insulating paint to be in the region
of £1200 with installation costs and time to be around half that of conventional insulation (Simpson et al,
2019; Palmer and Terry 2017)
The basis of this study is to analyse the thermal performance of Temp-Coat 101 thermal insulating paint
once applied to a solid masonry wall. Temp-Coat 101 is a ceramic based liquid used to apply an
insulation film to piping, air and heat ducts, oxygen lines and various other industrial products within a
broad selection of industries and has yielded excellent results in the process (Temp-Coat, n.d.). Temp-
Coat insulation paint, whilst well established in other industry sectors, has not yet been used in the
building and residential sector and so it is hoped that usage trials in this experiment will establish a
positive contribution to improving the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock in the UK and
therefore reducing overall GHG emissions.
64
3.0 Research Design and Methods
3.1 Introduction
This chapter will summarise the research design, outline the methods employed and provide details of the
materials and equipment used in this investigation. The research was designed using the most precise, real
world methods available at Nottingham Trent University, to measure the thermal performance of a solid
masonry wall before and after internal wall insulation was fitted. Below is an outline of the specification
of the materials used in the construction of the solid masonry wall, together with a description of the
technical characteristics of the lab-based instruments used to conduct the experiment and record the
measurements accurately, along with the methods used for measuring and monitoring thermal
performance. Effective methods were chosen to analyse, normalise and explore the data recorded.
By coupling accurate laboratory testing and data collection with computer software-based modelling and
analysis, a well-rounded and thorough understanding and conclusion can be drawn from the study.
Finally, a testing schedule is included to familiarise the reader with the work’s timeline
Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic, access to Nottingham Trent University laboratories was
prohibited, therefore the thermal performance testing of the solid masonry wall specimen and the Temp-
Coat insulation paint could not be carried out in person in this instance. In this study, secondary data
collected in 2019 by a former post graduate student of Nottingham Trent University has been selected as
the basis of the research, therefore the basic structure of the methodology model has been used. Any
pictures taken from the ex-student’s experiment.
3.2 Research Design

It is possible to quantify the impact of sustainably retrofitting solid walls through several different
research methods. Measurements from thermal performance investigations can be collated through
physical in-situ solid wall housing measurement studies, or scaled down laboratory testing that focuses on
a smaller portion of a solid wall’s performance can provide rationalised thermal performance
measurements, or reviewing the thermal performance data collected in case-studies and previously carried
out research studies on existing housing. Any of these approaches would be effective for the study into
thermal transmittance, however as the research into the effectiveness of insulating paint is only in initial
stages there are a limited number of studies in this field to refer to. Also, as these studies are preliminary
it would be sensible to minimise expenditure at this stage, and due a lack of resources (i.e. an in-situ
house), the most suitable approach was to conduct a scaled down laboratory based experiment and
measurement study at Nottingham Trent University’s workshop.
65
3.2.1 A Thermal Performance Study using a Solid Wall Specimen
This research paper is a detailed feasibility study into internal wall insulation paint. The overall aim of the
investigation was to thoroughly examine thermal performance, energy demand, carbon emissions and the
intrinsic nature in which these three themes are connected. How is the energy demand of a building
affected when the thermal performance is improved? How can introducing insulating paint in an energy
inefficient dwelling improve thermal performance and carbon emissions? These are the primary areas in
question that this paper is looking to address.
A solid masonry wall was used as the test subject and was tested both before and after the Temp-Coat
insulation paint was applied. Pre insulation paint and post insulation paint comparisons were necessary to
gain an in-depth understanding of how a real domestic external wall would respond to retrofitting. The
specific knowledge sought was if and by how much the thermal performance of a solid masonry wall can
be improved by Temp-Coat and what impact would it have on the energy efficiency of a property. For
these factors to be established, first a baseline data set, i.e. ‘typical walls performance’, must be
determined. Without this information the outcome is undermined, and the findings would be less useful
for the existing housing stock or any future studies.
3.2.2 Measuring Thermal Performance

Measuring the thermal performance of Temp-Coat satisfied objective 2 in section 1.3.2 of this paper. On
the surface, this research is predominantly regarding residential thermal performance advancements
through solid wall insulation, however beneath that the aim is to significantly reduce the residential
sector’s CO2 emissions through reducing energy demand. Reducing a home’s energy demand requires
effective thermal performance upgrades, that way the heat flow rate from the interior to the exterior is
restricted.
Infiltration loss and fabric loss present the two categories by which heat loss from a building envelope can
be defined. Infiltration losses are defined by air escaping through small voids in the building fabric, as the
experiment subject was a newly built wall this was not tested. Fabric losses are characterised by losses in
temperature due to conduction, convection, and radiation heat losses through building elements (i.e. roof,
walls floors) (LGC, 2019). It was through fabric losses that the reduction in thermal transmittance of the
specimen wall, due to the insulation paint and applied heat, was measured. Thermal bridging could not be
measured.
3.2.3 Specimen Wall Monitoring

Laboratory based monitoring was carried out continuously for 96 hours in each uninsulated and insulated
wall case. To measure the thermal performance of the pre retrofit and post retrofit test specimens an
66
environmental chamber was used to recreate the climatic conditions typical to the UK weather,
specifically during the winter. The temperature inside the environmental chamber was set to -5°C. A
heating element was fixed close to the ‘internal’ face of the wall and was set to 40°C to simulate realistic
indoor environments. Although these temperatures are outside the typical range within the UK, when
testing materials, the wider the temperature range the more extreme the sample materials are exposed to
thermal variations. However, a limitation noted is that the simulated realistic indoor environment will be
synthetic, as humans residual body heat and use of appliances creating heat would impact the
temperatures and energy use inside a house. Once running, measurements were taken every minute over
the course of the 96-hour period. For consistency, the exact same conditions were created for the insulated
wall as with the uninsulated wall. The benefit to performing a laboratory-based experiment was that once
running, a steady state is much easier to maintain then in an in- situ housing experiment. Steady state
conditions are defined as “the condition of a system that does not change in time; broadly it is a condition
that changes only negligibly over a specified time.”
3.2.4 Experimental Measurement and Model Comparisons

When a retrofit project is being carried out on an existing property a model is adopted to predict the
energy savings of the retrofitted elements using the pre-retrofit heating coefficients (HTC). A building’s
HTC is determined from the air permeability and the specific component’s U-values. In this instance the
required values were not available due to the specimen wall being newly built, therefore a prediction
model was not formulated.
However, comparisons were made between the experimental measurements and a numerical software
model. By using the steady-state thermal analysis method on Ansys Workbench, the ‘simulated
behaviour’ of the theoretical model can be compared with the experimental data or ‘real behaviour’ of the
physical model. This would highlight any errors that may have occurred during the experiment (human
error, equipment failure, poor materials) and also displaying the difference in assumptions used for the
computer-based model.
3.2.5 Sensor Positioning

A vital part of the experiment was positioning the 18 sensors that would monitor the wall’s temperature
and thermal performance throughout the experiment, consisting of 1 Greenteg Gkin heat flux sensor, 2
temperature probes and 15 surface temperature sensors (thermocouples). Due to the non-homogenous
nature of the solid brickwork wall, it was crucial that these sensors were accurately positioned in order to
achieve absolute precision data recordings. Thermographic imaging was used to locate and avoid any
potential thermal bridges within the wall structure. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate the positioning of the
sensors when looking at the wall’s internal and external facades. Labels A through to E are shown on the
67
isotropic diagram to indicate their exact locations, also shown on the internal surface is the position of the
heat flux sensor denoted by the symbol HF. In order to gain a thorough understanding of the wall’s
performance throughout its thickness, not only was it necessary to position the 15 sensors on the internal
and external facades of the specimen, but between the brickwork and plasterboard as well. Labelled as the
‘middle’ sensors it was though that thus would allow the thermal mass of the brick wall to be determined
but realistically the sensors would need to be concealed in the wall itself. Last of all the two temperature
probes were positioned on the internal and external facades at similar positions to the GreenTEG U-value
sensor. Figures 23 and 24 show the physical positioning of all the sensors.
Figure 22: Internal thermocouple positions diagram Figure 21: External thermocouple positions diagram
Figure 23: Internal sensors affixed to the plasterboard Figure 24: External sensors affixed to the brickwork
3.2.6 Experimental Code of Practice

According to the International Organisation for Standardisation, to determine a building elements U-value
the Heat Flow Me ter Method must be adopted. This is governed by ISO 9869, the test was carried out in
accordance with U-value analysis average method. The test could only be completed once the following
conditions had been fulfilled:
68
• For heavier structural elements, such as masonry, the test period must be a multiple of 24 hours.
• The monitoring timeframe must exceed 72 hours to ensure residual temperatures have levelled
off.
• The R value measured at the end of the test does not differ more than ±5% than the value
measured 24 hours prior.
• The R value measured during the first two thirds of the overall measurement period does not
differ more than ±5% of the last data recorded during the last two thirds of them measurement
period (Kosmina, 2016 & ISO, 2014).
3.3 Test Subject and Materials

In this section the materials used to construct the wall, details of the wall and equipment used to perform
the experiment will be outlined.
3.3.1 Description and Geometry of Test Wall

The specimen brickwork wall was built with two leaves of solid clay bricks and bonded using the English
Bond method, both of which were very typical of the pre-1919 period on account of availability and the
header bricks acting as a tie between the two leaves adding significant strength (The Heritage Directory,
2009) The individual bricks were of imperial sizes and so an individual brick measured as 215 mm x 65
mm x 110 mm (8.5” x 2.6” x 4.3”). The overall dimensions of the specimen wall were 720mm (wd) x
460m (dp) x 230mm (thk), with a surface area on each side of 331.2(103) mm2 (see figures X and X
above). Traditional lime based mortar was used to replicate the materials used during the pre-1919 era.
The bricks were bonded with a nominal 10mm thick mortar joint used at each course, vertical joint and in
the nominal 10mm joint between the two masonry leaves. To further simulate a pre-1919 residential
property’s external solid masonry wall, a 13mm internal gypsum plasterboard finish was applied. Finally,
to allow for ease of transferring the test subject in to and out of the environmental chamber the wall was
constructed on top of a wooden pallet (figure 25 - 27).
Figure 25: Construction of specimen wall Figure 26: Constructed specimen wall
Figure 27: Plaster finish to internal facade
69
3.3.2 Internal Wall Insulation Paint
The innovative material used to insulate the
solid brick wall in this study was a liquid
ceramic insulating paint called Temp-Coat.
Widely used across many industries and sectors,
such as oil, aviation, military, chemical and
marine, according to the manufacturers of
Temp-Coat the material has a thermal
conductivity of 0.033 W/mk. The coating was
only applied once the control test had been Figure 28: Temp-Coat insulation paint and thickness gauge
completed on the uninsulated wall. When using Temp-Coat it was imperative the paint was applied 2 mm
thick and was allowed to dry to the touch before the next coat was applied, the manufacturers provided a
thickness gauge for accuracy (figure 28). Under normal conditions total curing time took 24 hours. The
paint was applied to the internal face of the wall both on the brickwork and on the plasterboard, and to
further reduce heat loss it was also applied to the ends of the specimen wall.
3.4 Equipment used for Measuring Thermal Performance

In order to recreate real life conditions and gather the necessary temperature and U-value readings, a
combination of equipment was used. An environmental chamber to replicate environmental conditions,
U-value kit, heat flux and temperature sensors and data logger for measurement recording and lastly a
thermal imaging camera to monitor areas of heat loss and thermal bridging.
3.4.1 Environmental Chamber

To recreate the typical climatic conditions a home in the UK is exposed to, the specimen wall was placed
in an environmental chamber. The temperature inside the environmental chamber was set to -5°C,
simulating the external temperature at this magnitude was believed to improve the accuracy of and
amplify the recordings once the ‘internal’ temperature was applied (figure 29).
Figure 29: Environmental chamber exterior, interior and control panel set to -5°C
70
3.4.2 Heating Element
To replicate internal dwelling conditions a heating element was positioned
200 mm from the internal face of the wall. A temperature of 40°C was
applied for the duration of the testing period, this could be considered
atypical as human activity is irregular because heat would not be applied
constantly and not at that temperature. To note the heat was amplified to
speed up the heat transfer from internal to external. In order to maintain the
internal environment conditions an insulation chamber, made of EcoTherm
EPS rigid insulation boards, was formed around the wall. The heating
element was fixed to a piece of rigid insulation also (figure 30).
Figure 30: Heating element fixed to rigid
insulation
3.4.3 GreenTEG Gskin U-value Kit

Predominantly used in field testing investigations the GreenTEG
Gskin U-Value Kit is a measurement tool for analysing the thermal
performance of any material in a building envelope. Using ultra
receptive sensors called thermocouples, the GreenTEG kit directly
measured the internal and external temperatures, heat flow rate
passing through the brickwork and the U-value of the structural
element. The kit comprised a 30mm x 30mm x 3mm thick sensor
pad and two temperature probes. The heat flux sensor was
Figure 31: Greenteg Gskin U-Value Kit Schematic
positioned central on the interior face and the sensitivity was (Kosmina, 2016)
calibrated and set to 15.2 µV/(W/m2). To prevent direct heat contact, the sensor was fixed in place with
adhesive deflector tape. Finally, one of the two temperature probes were mounted in close proximity to
the heat flux sensor on the internal side. The second temperature probe was mounted on the outside wall
in roughly the same position as the heat flux sensor. The benefit of the U-value kit was that it would
provide immediate U-value readings, without the need to perform analytical calculations (figure 31).
(GreenTEG, 2015 & Durrer, 2013).
71
3.4.4 Surface Mounted Temperature Sensors
To effectively study a building envelope’s thermal resistance,
fifteen surface mounted temperature sensors were attached to the
specimen wall, five directly on to the brickwork of the exterior
side, five directly on to the plaster of the internal side and five
situated between the plaster and the brickwork. These ensured that
any temperature changes throughout the masonry wall would be
monitored for later analysis. See figures 21 - 24 and 32 for the
positioning of the sensors. Similar to the U-value kit, the internal Figure 32: Surface mounted temperature sensors
fixed to plasterboard
thermocouple sensors were fixed to the plasterboard with adhesive
deflector tape and roughly fixed in the same positions throughout the wall.
3.4.5 Data Logger

To be certain that all temperature and heat flux measurements are safely recorded, a data logger was
connected into the mounted sensors described above. This would ensure all data was recorded from the
beginning of the experiment to the end in four days’ time, logging values at 1-minute intervals.
3.4.6 Thermal Imaging Camera

Thermographic imaging was used as an additional means of identifying inconsistencies in the solid wall.
Widley used in various applications across society, infra-red imaging is beneficial to building engineers in
that it can capture images of radiant heat energy being emitted, reflected or passing through building
surfaces. Air leakages or inconsistencies in a building envelope can be located through the thermal image
produced which is useful for building energy researchers (Jack et al. 2017). Using thermography as a way
of recording quantitative data can be relatively complex, owing to the fact that apparent differences in
surface temperature could mistakenly be reflections or differences in emissivity rather than a defect or air
leakage (Pearson 2002). Thermal imaging was used to signify and detect any specific areas on the
external side of the specimen wall that exhibited high levels of infrared radiation and also helped in
positioning the heat flux meter. It is better suited as a qualitative tool, and therefore offered a more
holistic approach to the experiment. When assessing the retrofitted wall, the whiter or redder the area on
the image would indicate increasing temperatures, conversely the darker the area indicated cooler areas.
3.5 Physical Experimental Assessment

To fulfill objective 2 of this study the thermal transmittance of the solid brickwork wall needed to be
found, however this would be irrelevant if there was nothing to compare it against. The experimental part
of the research was essentially split in to three phases. Phase 1 tested the specimen wall prior to the
72
retrofit of insulation paint, phase 2 Temp-Coat was applied to the internal face of the wall and phase 3
was the same experiment as phase 1 but with the post retrofitted specimen wall. This sub section will
briefly discuss the steps taken. Figure 33 and 34 display the test schedule for the pre insulation and post
insulation experiments, figure 34 includes application of Temp-Coat prior to the commencement of the
insulated wall test.
04-Aug
05-Aug
06-Aug
07-Aug
08-Aug
09-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
12-Aug
Solid wall construction
Plaster board applied to internal
Thermocouples and Heat Flux sensor fixed to surfaces of wall
Heating element and insulation chamber fitted around wall
Uninsulated wall thermal performance test
Figure 33: Pre-insulation testing schedule

23/09/2019
24/09/2019
25/09/2019
26/09/2019
27/09/2019
28/09/2019
29/09/2019
30/09/2019
01/10/2019
Primer applied to wall
Temp-Coat insulation paint applied to wall
Thermocouples and Heat Flux sensor fixed to surfaces of wall
Heating element and insulation chamber fitted around wall
Insulated wall thermal perfromance test
Figure 34: Post-insulation testing schedule
3.5.1 Experiment Phase 1: Pre-Retrofit Test

To establish the baseline results of the uninsulated brickwork wall for the purposes of comparison, the
following steps were taken:
1. The U-value and surface mounted thermocouples were positioned as required (figures 21 - 24 and
32)
2. The heating element was applied 200 mm from the internal surface with the temperature set to
40°C (figure 30 and 35)
3. The EPS insulation covering was fixed in placed around the wall (figure 36).
4. The assembly was then placed into the environmental chamber which itself was set to a
temperature of -5°C (figure 37).
73
5. The data logger was set to record measurements every 1 minute. From this step the initial pre
retrofit experiment commenced.
The specimen wall was exposed to the synthesized realistic internal and external conditions for 4 days
(96 hours 17 minutes) from the 9th to the 12th August 2019.
Figure 37: Wall specimen with insulation

covering
Figure 36: Wall specimen and heating Figure 35: Wall specimen in environmental
element attached to insulation chamber
3.5.2 Experiment Phase 2: Temp-Coat Applied

In preparation for the post retrofit experiment the specimen wall was moved outside to be painted with
Temp-Coat. To do this the following steps were taken:
1. To ensure sufficient adhesion occurred between the paint and the brickwork and to prevent the
paint bleeding into the wall, primer was applied to the top, ends and internal surfaces of the wall.
This was allowed to dry for 20 minutes.
2. Before painting could begin the Temp-Coat material was in a semi-solid state and so was mixed
with 30 – 60 ml of water using a standard plaster paddle mixer for no more than 2 minutes (figure
38).
3. A spray gun was used to apply the Temp-Coat evenly. As per the manufacturer’s directions the
final thickness of paint applied was 2mm, except in smaller samples where 1.5mm is sufficient.
Three coats of paint were applied each 0.5mm in thickness. Temp-Coat has a wet film thickness
of 83%, meaning that the 1.5mm layer of paint applied had a dry film thickness of 1.24mm.
Drying time of 45 mins to 1 hour was allowed before the next layer of paint commenced (figures
39 - 40).
74
Figure 38: Preparation of Temp-Coat Figure 40: Painted brickwork, Figure 39: Painted plaster
thickness gauge in use
3.5.3 Experiment Phase 3: Post Retrofit Test

For the post retrofit test, exactly the same steps as outlined in section 3.5.1 were carried out. The
specimen wall was exposed to the identical synthesized realistic internal and external conditions for 4
days (96 hours 02 minutes) from the 28th September to the 1st October 2019.
The total number of days the experiment was in operation, including the time applying the insulation
paint, was 9 days (approximately 200 hours). Overall, from commencement of the experiment the wall
testing took a total of 53 days.
3.6 Numerical Assessment

In the meantime, whilst the physical experiment was on going, a simulated numerical model of the solid
masonry wall with heat applied was created using Ansys Workbench. Steady state thermal analysis was
used to assess how the materials in the wall as a whole would respond to continuous heat loading and the
influence this has upon the system (Ansys, 2019). This sub section will summarise the steps taken to input
constants and constraints that create the final model (outputs will be discussed in section 4.0).
3.6.1 Creating Brickwork Wall Model

In order to model the solid wall into a numerical representation of the assessed physical element that will
simulate how it will perform under a steady state thermal load, the following steps were taken. Note: the
analysis assumed the brickwork was isotropic and homogenous and the material properties of the mortar
were not considered.
3.6.1.1 Steady-State Thermal

1) Engineering Data (material properties)
a. Material > “Brick” > Isotropic Thermal Conductivity = 0.77 (W/mK)
b. Material > “Plasterboard” > Isotropic Thermal Conductivity = 0.19 (W/mK)
75
c. Material > “Insulation Paint” > Isotropic Thermal Conductivity = 0.033 (W/mK)
2) Geometry > SpaceClaim
a. Created structure using rectangle and extrude functions
i. Brick Wall > drawn to size = 720mm (wd) x 460m (dp) x 230mm (thk)
ii. Plasterboard > drawn to size = 720mm (wd) x 460m (dp) x 13mm (thk)
iii. Insulation Paint > drawn to size = 720mm (wd) x 460m (dp) x 2mm (thk)
3) Model > Mechanical
a. Steady-State Thermal
i. Temperature (internal) = 40°C
ii. Temperature2 (external) = -5°C
iii. Edges set to default > perfectly insulated (heat flow = 0)
b. Geometry > assign thermal conductivity value to each brick and insulation parts
c. Mesh > Generate mesh
d. Solution > insert > thermal
i. Temperature
ii. Directional Heat Flux
e. Solve
4) Details of steady state thermal
a. Physics type: thermal
b. Analysis type: steady state
c. Solver target: Mechanical APDL
The following image depict the brickwork model in various stages of Figure 41: Generated model structure showing
the process. Figure 41 illustrates the geometry of the wall with the all materials and generated mesh
brickwork highlighted in grey, the plaster board in blue and the

insulation in green.
The modelled image in figure 42 illustrates the boundary

conditions and applied loading. Also referred to as heat
loading, Temperature (B) = 40°C represents the internal face
of the wall, and Temperature 2 (A) = -5°C is the external. As
also mentioned, the default setting of Ansys Steady-State
Analysis is that if no heat flow is applied it is assumed to be
perfectly insulated, therefore all the grey edges represent the
boundary conditions.
Figure 42: Heat loading and boundary conditions
76
4.0 Results and Discussion
The overall aim of this research paper is to analyse the thermal performance improvement capabilities of
Temp-Coat insulation paint when applied to a solid masonry wall. The previous section outlined the steps
taken to perform the laboratory experiment on the solid brickwork. This section will present and analyse
the pre and post insulation measured data. Using tables and charts, significant events and readings during
the 8 days of testing will be highlighted and discussed and presented together with the outputted readings
from the GreenTEG U-value kit. The thermal characteristics of the solid masonry wall before and after
insulation was applied, demonstrated by typical thermal analysis calculations, will be assessed. These
parameters include the U-value, R-value and internal and external surface temperatures. Additionally, the
outcomes of the steady state thermal simulation of the modelled masonry wall will be reviewed. A
comparison of the theoretical, numerical and actual results will be drawn to fully satisfy objective 3 and
give a well-rounded overview of the wall and Temp-Coat’s physical performance. Consequently, this
allows for a deeper understanding of how the energy efficiency of pre 1919 housing can be improved.
4.1 Experimental GreenTEG U-value Measurement Kit Results and Discussion

In this subsection the results from the GreenTEG U-value measurement kit are presented and interpreted.
The benefit of using the GreenTEG kit was that the U-value and heat flux could be continuously
monitored, in addition to temperature measurements taken directly on the internal and external facades. In
field experiment terms, this kit is usually all that is required to ascertain the thermal performance of a
building fabric; however, a thorough understanding of a domestic property is vital, therefore a more
holistic approach that uses other thermal performance methods is essential. Firstly, it is important to
review the output from the pre-insulation paint test first, followed by the post-insulation painted
specimen. That way the fundamental differences and improvements the insulation paint had upon the wall
will become immediately apparent. Furthermore, the temperature, heat flux and U-value readings from
the insulated wall were provided in spreadsheet form and to enhance the results analysis, a measurement
overview chart has been provided for this part of the experiment. No U-value excel readings were
provided for the uninsulated wall experiment.
As mentioned in section 2.3.5.3, the thermal resistance or R value of a material is the reciprocal of the
thermal transmittance or U-value, meaning that 1 divided by the sum of the thermal resistances of all the
materials present in a structural component, will ascertain the U-value of that element. Thermal resistance
is defined by the ability of the thickness of material to prevent the transfer of heat energy and this can be
calculated by dividing the component’s thickness by that material’s thermal conductivity (λ). It is worth
remembering that lower U-values represent good thermal transmittance properties, and higher R-values
77
present desirable thermal resistivity (Straaten, 1967). The formulas for these thermal characteristics are
expressed in equations 2 and 3 below.
Thermal resistance (R-value):
𝑑 Equation 2
𝑅= (𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊)
𝜆
Where: 𝑑 is the material thickness (𝑚) and 𝜆 is the material thermal conductivity (𝑊/𝑚𝐾)
Thermal transmittance (U-value):
1
𝑈= (𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾) Equation 3
𝑅𝑠𝑖 + ∑ 𝑅 + 𝑅𝑠𝑒
Where: 𝑅𝑠𝑖 is the internal surface resistance, 𝑅 is the sum thermal resistance of all material in the
building element, 𝑅𝑠𝑒 is the external surface resistance
4.1.1 Pre-Insulation Wall Results

Figure 43 below presents the output from the U-value kit following completion of the pre-insulation
experiment. It also highlights that the three primary conditions of BS ISO 9869 have been satisfied prior
to the end of the experiment. Most significant of all the data is the measured U-value reading itself, which
returned a final figure of 1.45 W/(m2K). Using the material thicknesses and thermal conductivities of
each layer in the uninsulated solid wall, equation 2 can be satisfied. Once all the thermal resistances have
been established the theoretical U-value can be calculated, using equation 3:
Solid Masonry R-value, where:
𝑑 = 0.230 𝑚 and 𝜆 = 0.77 𝑊 ⁄𝑚𝐾 (𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑥 𝐵)
0.230
𝑅1 = = 0.30 𝑚2 𝐾 ⁄𝑊
0.77
Plasterboard R-value, where:
𝑑 = 0.0125 𝑚 and 𝜆 = 0.19 𝑊 ⁄𝑚𝐾 (𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑥 𝐵)
0.0125
𝑅2 = = 0.066 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
0.19
Total uninsulated Solid Wall R-value, where:
𝑅1 = 0.30 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊 and 𝑅2 = 0.066 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
∑ 𝑅 = 0.30 + 0.066 = 0.366 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
78
Uninsulated Solid Wall U-value:
1
𝑈= = 𝟐. 𝟕𝟑 𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲
0.366
Figure 43: Pre-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings output
It should be noted that the inside and outside temperature readings represent the temperature readings
directly on the internal and external surfaces of the wall and not the temperatures of the heating element
or the environmental chamber (40°C and -5°C respectively). A crucial piece of information is not present
on the GreenTEG output, which is the heat flux. However, by changing the subject of the industry
standard formula (equation 4) for calculating the U-value the heat flux can be determined. The thermal
transmittance formula is:
𝑛
𝑄 Equation 4
𝑈=∑
𝑇1 − 𝑇2
𝑘=0
Where Q is heat flux, rearranged the formula becomes. (Note adding 273.15 converts Celsius to Kelvin):
𝑄 = 𝑈 × (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 )
∴ 1.45 × [32.9 − (−2.3)] = 51.04 𝑊/𝑚2
79
Table 5 below provides a summary of the measured and post experiment calculated thermal performances
and other values for the uninsulated test subject.
Parameter Symbol Value Units
Measured Thermal Transmittance U 1.45 W/(m2K)

Theoretical Thermal Transmittance U 2.73 W/(m2K)
Thermal Resistance R 0.366 m2K/w
Heat Flux Q 51.04 W/m2
Inside Temperature T1 32.9 °C
Outside Temperature T2 -2.3 °C
Measurement Time t 96.17 (4) h (days)
Table 5: Summary of pre-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings
4.1.2 Post-Insulation Wall Results

Figure 44 below presents the output from the U-value kit following completion of the post-insulation
experiment. It also highlights that the three primary conditions of BS ISO 9869 had been satisfied prior to
the end of the experiment. Most significant of all the data, is the measured U-value reading itself, which
returned a final figure of 0.85 W/(m2K). Using the material thicknesses and thermal conductivities of
each layer in the insulated solid wall, equation 2 can be satisfied. Once all the thermal resistances have
been established the theoretical U-value can be calculated, using equation 3:
Solid Masonry R-value, where:
𝑅1 = 0.30 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
Plasterboard R-value, where:
𝑅2 = 0.066 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
Temp-Coat R-value, where:
𝑑 = 0.00124 𝑚 (dry film thickness) and 𝜆 = 0.033 𝑊 ⁄𝑚𝐾 (𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑥 𝐵)
0.00124
𝑅3 = = 0.038 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
0.033
Total insulated Solid Wall R-value, where:
𝑅1 = 0.30 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊 𝑅2 = 0.066 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊 𝑅3 = 0.038 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
∑ 𝑅 = 0.30 + 0.066 + 0.038 = 0.404 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
80
Uninsulated Solid Wall U-value, where:
1
𝑈= = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟖 𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲
0.404
Figure 44: Post-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings output
Similar to the uninsulated wall experiment, the heat flux can be calculated through the following formula
(equation 4):
𝑛
𝑄
𝑈=∑ Equation 4
𝑇1 − 𝑇2
𝑘=0
Where Q is heat flux, the formula when rearranged becomes. (Note adding 273.15 converts Celsius to
Kelvin):
𝑄 = 𝑈 × (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 )
∴ 0.85 × [31.5 − (−2.0)] = 28.48 𝑊/𝑚2
Table 6 below provides a summary of the measured and post experiment calculated thermal performances
and other values for the insulated test subject.
81
Parameter Symbol Value Units
Measured Thermal Transmittance U 0.85 W/(m2K)

Theoretical Thermal Transmittance U 2.48 W/(m2K)
Thermal Resistance R 0.404 m2K/w
Heat Flux Q 24.48 W/m2
Inside Temperature T1 31.5 °C
Outside Temperature T2 -2.0 °C
Measurement Time t 96.02 (4) h (days)
Table 6: Summary of post-insulation experiment - GreenTEG U-value kit measurement readings
The information in Table 7 summarizes the post-insulation measurement data recorded from the U-value
kit, which was presented in spreadsheet form. Outlined are the U-value, heat flux, internal and external
temperature and the date and time at which they were recorded.
28.09.19
28.09.19
29.09.19
29.09.19
29.09.19
30.09.19
30.09.19
30.09.19
01.10.19
01.10.19
01.10.19
Date
Parameter
16:15
18:00
02:00
10:00
18:00
02:00
10:00
18:00
02:00
10:00
16:00
Measured
0.96 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
U-Value (W/m2K)
Heat Flux (W/m2) 33.34 24.37 26.36 39.92 19.88 30.75 23.97 36.22 24.87 39.42 25.57
Inside Temp. T1 (°C) 31.5 31.5 31.5 32.25 29.75 30.75 31.25 31.5 29.94 32.38 31.31
Outside Temp. T2 (°C) -2.19 -2.25 -2.38 -2.38 -2.38 -2.38 -2.44 -2.38 -2.44 -2.38 -2.38
Hand Calculated
0.72 0.72 0.78 1.15 0.62 0.93 0.71 1.07 0.77 1.13 0.73
U-Value (W/m2K) †
𝑄
† 𝑈 = ∑𝑛
𝑘=0 𝑇2 −𝑇1
Table 7:Post- insulation - Summary of GreenTEG readings
Looking at the data recorded over the four days of the second experiment it is evident that the specimen
wall and U-value kit measurements reached a steady state condition. By the end of the second day, the U-
value levelled at the confirmed measurement of 0.85 W/(m2K), also remaining relatively constant were
the inside and outside temperature readings which recorded an average temperature of 31.2°C and
-2.36°C respectively. The readings that do not demonstrate any consistency are the heat flux value and the
82
hand calculated U-value using the heat flux and temperature values recorded. Using equation 4 the same
confirmed U-value from figure 44 can be calculated:
𝑄 (𝑎𝑣𝑔. ) = 28.61 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝑇1 (𝑎𝑣𝑔. ) = 31.21∘ 𝐶 𝑇2 (𝑎𝑣𝑔. ) = −2.36∘ 𝐶
𝑛
𝑄 28.61
𝑈=∑ = = 0.85 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾 Equation 4
𝑇1 − 𝑇2 31.21 − (−2.36)
𝑘=0
Figures 45 and 46 below have been processed using the data from the GreenTEG U-value kit outlined in
table 3. Firstly, figure 45 compares the measured U-values with the hand calculated U-values. What is
immediately striking is the stark difference between the two data sets, suggesting a discrepancy in the
hand calculated U-values. The hand calculated U-values were determined using the heat flux, inside and
outside temperature readings outlined in table 3 and equation 4.
Measured U-value vs Calculated U-value

2.5
1.5
U-Value (W/(m²K)
0.5
0
29/09/19
01/10/19
28/09/19
27/09/19
28/09/19
28/09/19
01/10/19
13:00
16:00
00:00
16:07
23:59
02:00
00:00
Date and Time

Measured U-Value Calculated U-Value
Figure 45: Measured U-value vs hand calculated U-value
There is no visible consistency in the calculated set of U-values, on the other hand the measured U-values
show a clear pattern which emerged almost immediately. By midday of the second day of the post
insulation experiment (28/09 12:00) the measured U-value had reached 0.85 W/(m2K), at which point it
remained constant until the very end of the experiment on 01/10.
83
Figure 46 gives a more comprehensive overview of the recorded measurements during the post insulation
experiment. Presented on the left Y axis are the temperature and heat flux measurements, which relate to
the blue, orange, and grey data sets. On the right Y axis are the U-values which relate to the yellow data
set. Again, but more obvious and clearly demonstrated this time, the measured U-values began at 0.96
W/(m2K), dropped down just below 0.82 W/(m2K) in the first hour and then by the second day reached a
steady state. The initial unsettled nature of the U-value measurements demonstrates the necessity of a
longer test period. The inside temperature measurements and heat flux followed a similar pattern, albeit
very loosely. The outside temperatures showed a similar consistency to the U-value data set. The chart
notes that the experiment time length was 96.02 hours.
Post-Insulation - Measurments Overview (t=96.02h)

45 0.98
40 0.96
35 0.94
Temperature (C°); Heat Flux (W/m²)
30
0.92
25
U-Value (W/(m²K)
0.9
20
0.88
15
0.86
10
5 0.84
0 0.82
-5 0.8
27/09/2019 28/09/2019 29/09/2019 29/09/2019 30/09/2019 01/10/2019
16:00 02:00 20:00 15:00 08:00
Date and Time
Heat Flux T1 T2 Measured U-Value
Figure 46: Post- insulation measurements overview
4.1.3 GreenTEG U-value Measurement Kit – Pre and Post Insulation Discussion
In this sub-subsection the results from the GreenTEG U-value measurement kit are discussed. Notable
differences between the measured and hand calculated thermal transmittances are analysed enabling
comparisons between the results from this study and the industry standard values to be drawn.
Furthermore, to gain a deeper understanding of the benefits of sustainable retrofitting, this report
examines the contrast between the pre-insulation and post-insulation results.
Table 8 outlines the finalised data set, listing the measured U-values and theoretically calculated U-value,
R-value and heat flux along with other measurements. Although both the post-insulation measured and
84
theoretical U-values are lower than both pre-insulation U-values, the measured and theoretical post-
insulated U-values show a large difference in magnitude between one another. The discrepancies between
the measured and calculated U-values mirror those in a study carried out by BRE in 2014, they also
discovered that measured U-values tend to be smaller than the calculated values. From their much larger
sample of 300 different types of wall, they discovered a variety of unknown factors that are unable to be
included in the theoretical calculations, therefore contributing to the spread (BRE, 2014b). These factors
included:
• The presence or absence of frogs in the bricks

• The presence or absence of cavities within the mortar joints
• The thickness of mortar within the wall
• The difference in densities, porosity, and moisture content of the brickwork
• The bonding pattern adopted
It is these unknown factors that correlate back to the discrepancy with the in-situ U-value measurements
outlined in table 3 (section 2.3.6) and the assumed RdSAP solid wall U-value of 2.1 W/(m2K).
Parameter Pre-Insulation Post-Insulation Percentage Difference
Total (dry) Wall Thickness 242.5 mm 243.74 mm
Measured U-value (U) 1.45 W/(m2K) 0.85 W/(m2K) (-) 41.4%
2 2
Theoretical U-value (U) 2.73 W/(m K) 2.48 W/(m K) (-) 9.2%
Thermal Resistance (R) 0.366 m2K/w 0.404 m2K/w (+) 10.4%
Heat Flux (Q) 51.04 W/m2 24.48 W/m2 (-) 52%
Inside Temperature (T1) 32.9 °C 31.5 °C
Outside Temperature (T2) -2.3 °C -2.0 °C
Measurement Time (t) 96.17 h 96.02 h
Table 8: Pre and post- insulation GreenTEG U-value measurement kit summary
The summarised values in table 4 indicate the expected reductions and increases for the various
parameters assessed, following the application of the Temp-Coat paint. As expected, both sets of
measured U-values yielded a reduction once the Temp-Coat was applied. Once the thickness and thermal
conductivity of Temp-Coat was included in the calculations in section 4.1.2, an increase in thermal
resistance was determined, this was also anticipated. Finally, from the rearranged formula, the heat flux
showed a similar significant increase. This was again expected on account of the thermal properties of
Temp-Coat. The reductions and increases signify that the rate of heat transfer through the solid wall
85
specimen was restricted by the Temp-Coat material, the combination of the Temp-Coat’s thermal
conductivity and the additional thickness will have caused the improvements.
Not overly significant but interesting nonetheless, is that the pre-insulation experiment recorded a warmer
internal surface temperature than in the post-insulation experiment and vice versa, with the external
temperatures being colder in the pre-insulation and warmer in the post-insulation experiments. This could
be symptomatic of the increased or decreased heat energy transfer rates, thus affecting the internal and
external surface temperatures due to the uninsulated wall permitting the transfer of heat energy, the
temperature of the interior and exterior surfaces are seen to increase and decrease, respectively, with the
reverse occurring for the insulated wall.
Consistent with the aim of this paper, the application of the Temp-Coat insulating paint has generated a
significant improvement to the thermal performance of the solid masonry wall. In the context of
retrofitting the existing pre-1919 housing stock, it would be reasonable to expect that homeowners would
experience improvements in terms of energy efficiency, fuel costs and general comfort should Temp-Coat
be used.
4.2 Experimental Thermocouple Temperature Differences Results and Discussion

The next set of results to be analysed and discussed are the temperature measurements from the 15
thermocouples fixed to the internal, external, and middle surfaces of the solid masonry wall. The
thermocouples recorded the temperature differences every minute over the four-day period for each
individual experiment. Results have been refined to show the average temperature differences between
the internal, external and middle thermocouples recorded at each sensor location (A-E) in tables 9 to 18.
Each table represents a full day of recordings. The full temperature readings have been condensed to two-
hour intervals and presented in tables B1.1 to B.2.5 in Appendix B, with the corresponding temperature
vs time charts. Figures 48 and 49 illustrate the positioning of the thermocouple sensors when fixed to the
specimen wall, this assists in identifying the different temperature readings from different points. When
facing the internal side of the wall, sensor A is at the top left whereas on the external wall sensor A is at
the top right. The sensors positioned between the plasterboard and brick are the same as figure 5.
This subsection follows a similar pattern to how the laboratory experiment was carried out, in that the
results will be presented in two sections: pre Temp-Coat application and post Temp-Coat application. The
average temperature differences will be discussed in section 4.2.3 and Fourier’s law and thermal
resistance will be adopted to calculate the thermal resistance of the masonry wall from the temperature
readings and compare it with the resistances recorded from the GreenTEG U-value kit.
86
Figure 48: Internal thermocouples positions diagram Figure 47: Internal thermocouples positions diagram
87
4.2.1 Pre-Insulation Temperature Readings
Data starts 8 August 2019 at 11:00
Data end 12 August 2019 at 10:51
4.2.1.1 Day 1 – 08/08/19 4.2.1.2 Day 2 – 09/08/19

Int. vs. Ext. (°C) Int. vs. Mid. (°C) Mid vs. Ext. (°C) Int. vs. Ext. (°C) Int. vs. Mid. (°C) Mid vs. Ext. (°C)
A 36.91 8.59 28.32 A 37.42 11.56 25.86
B 34.36 8.22 26.14 B 36.03 11.50 24.53
C 21.93 -0.15 22.08 C 22.51 2.46 20.05
D 24.28 3.22 21.06 D 22.98 7.17 15.81
E 27.68 12.52 15.16 E 28.23 18.14 10.09
Avg. 29.03 6.48 22.55 Avg. 29.44 10.17 19.27
Table 10: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 1 Table 9: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 2
4.2.1.3 Day 3 – 10/08/19 4.2.1.4 Day 4 – 11/08/19

A 37.42 11.91 25.51 A 37.41 11.88 25.53
B 36.14 11.88 24.26 B 36.17 11.86 24.31
C 22.49 2.77 19.72 C 22.39 2.69 19.70
D 22.84 7.56 15.27 D 22.71 7.51 15.20
E 28.22 18.71 9.51 E 28.15 18.72 9.44
Avg. 29.42 10.57 18.86 Avg. 29.36 10.53 18.84
Table 12: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 3 Table 11: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 4
4.2.1.5 Day 5 – 12/08/19

Int. vs. Ext. (°C) Int. vs. Mid. (°C) Mid vs. Ext. (°C)
A 37.29 11.80 25.49
B 36.12 11.80 24.32
C 22.32 2.66 19.66
D 22.64 7.49 15.16
E 28.12 18.70 9.41
88
Avg. 29.30 10.49 18.81
Table 13: Pre-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 5
4.2.2 Post-Insulation Temperature Readings
Data starts 27 September 2019 at 00:00
Data end 01 October 2019 at 15:27
4.2.2.1 Day 1 – 27/09/19 4.2.2.2 Day 2 – 28/09/19

A 35.31 9.76 25.55 A 36.51 10.30 26.20
B 31.71 12.99 18.72 B 34.59 10.48 24.11
C 27.77 2.99 24.78 C 29.26 4.86 24.40
D 24.63 4.36 20.27 D 23.91 8.32 15.59
E 25.55 10.53 15.02 E 28.50 17.45 11.05
Avg. 28.99 8.13 20.87 Avg. 30.55 10.28 20.27
Table 14: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 1 Table 15: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 2
4.2.2.3 Day 3 – 29/09/19 4.2.2.4 Day 4 – 30/09/19

A 36.10 10.98 25.12 A 35.40 11.05 24.35
B 34.87 11.20 23.67 B 34.96 11.29 23.67
C 29.22 5.66 23.56 C 29.35 5.72 23.62
D 24.05 9.13 14.92 D 24.11 9.20 14.90
E 28.56 18.39 10.16 E 28.61 18.47 10.13
Avg. 30.56 11.07 19.49 Avg. 30.49 11.15 19.34
Table 17: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences – Day 3 Table 16: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 4
4.2.2.5 Day 5 – 01/10/19

Int. vs. Ext. (°C) Int. vs. Mid. (°C) Mid vs. Ext. (°C)
A 35.37 11.07 24.30
B 34.96 11.33 23.63
C 29.46 5.81 23.65
D 24.18 9.26 14.92
E 28.59 18.47 10.12
Avg. 30.51 11.19 19.32 89
Table 18: Post-insulation internal, external, middle average temperature differences - Day 5
4.2.3 Thermocouple Temperature Differences – Pre and Post Insulation Discussion
Looking at the calculated average temperature differences, what is immediately noticeable is that between each pre-
insulation and post-insulation data set there have been recorded increases in temperature once the Temp-Coat was
applied. This is highlighted clearer in figure 7 below, whereby the pre-insulation results are indicated by the blue line
and the post-insulation results are indicated by the orange line. When illustrated this way the significant changes in
surface temperature once the Temp-Coat had been applied. The mean value of the pre-insulation temperature
differences is 29.31°C, compare to the mean value of the post-insulation temperature differences which is 30.22°C.
What this signifies is that Temp-Coat insulation paint is slowing the rate of heat transfer, retaining on average
approximately 1°C.
Pre vs Post Insulation Average Temperature Difference

Although
Internal vs External
30.80 significant,
Avg. Temperature (°C)
30.60 the
30.40 30.55 30.56 30.49 30.51
30.20
30.00
Pre-Insulation
29.80
29.60 29.42 Post-Insulation
29.36
29.40 29.30
29.20 29.44
29.00 28.99 29.03
28.80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Days
temperature Figure 49: Pre and post insulation average temperature differences - Internal vs External differences are not the
primary method of assessing the insulated solid wall’s performance. The thermal resistance of a structural element is a
key indicator of an assembly of material’s thermal performance. In thermal analysis the primary concern is the rate of
heat transfer, for this to occur the presence of heat and a material or group of materials of 𝐿 thickness are required.
The materials each have their specific thermal conductivity. Conduction is the transfer of energy from the more
energetic particles of a substance the adjacent less energic particles. The rate of heat conduction through a layer is
proportional to the temperature difference across the layer and the transfer area, but it is inversely proportional to the
thickness of the layer (Bergman et al, 2011), this is expressed below:
(𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎) × (𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 ∝
𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
In equation for this is expressed as:
∆𝑇
𝑄 =𝑘∙𝐴 (𝑊)
∆𝑥
Where:
90
𝑄 is the heat transfer, 𝑘 is the thermal conductivity, 𝐴 is the cross sectional area,
∆𝑇 = 𝑇2 − 𝑇1 is the change in temperature, ∆𝑥 = 𝐿 is the thickness
If ∆𝑥 = 0 then Fourier’s law of heat conduction is expressed:
𝑑𝑇
𝑄 = −𝑘 ∙ 𝐴 (𝑊)
𝑑𝑥
In this the equation the term 𝑑𝑡⁄𝑑𝑥 is referred to as the temperature gradient. Also known as the slope of the
temperature which indicates the rate of change of temperature T with thickness , in other words the rate of heat
transfer. The thermal resistance concept of Fouriers’s law for a steady state conduction through a homogenous cross-
sectional area of a solid wall can be expressed as:
𝑑𝑇 𝑇1 − 𝑇2
𝑄 = −𝑘 ∙ 𝐴 = −𝑘 ∙ 𝐴
𝑑𝑥 𝐿
The thermal resistance of the wall against heat conduction is:
𝐿
𝑅=
𝑘∙𝐴
Which means that the thermal resistance concept of Fouriers’s law for a steady state conduction can now be written as:
𝑇2 − 𝑇1
𝑄=
𝑅
Assuming that the rate of heat transfer remains constant before and after Temp-Coat is applied, then the Fourier
equation for thermal resistance can be expressed as follows:
𝑄𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 𝑄𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝑇2 − 𝑇1 𝑇2 − 𝑇1
∴ −𝑘𝑝𝑟𝑒 ∙ 𝐴 = −𝑘𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 ∙ 𝐴
𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
𝑇2 − 𝑇1 𝑇2 − 𝑇1 ∆𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒 ∆𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
∴ = ⟹ =
𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
∆𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
∴ 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = × 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒
∆𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒
Where the average temperature difference from above are:
∆𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 29.31℃ and ∆𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 30.22℃
When distributed back into the thermal resistance formula, the pre and post insulation thermal resistance ratio can be
found:
30.22
𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = × 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 1.03𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒
29.31
91
𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
∴ = 1.03
𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒
Next it is possible to compare this with the results from the GreeTEG U-value kit thermal resistances:
∑ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 0.30 + 0.066 = 0.366 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
∑ 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 0.30 + 0.066 + 0.038 = 0.404 𝑚2 𝐾⁄𝑊
∑ 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 0.404
= = 1.1
∑ 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 0.366 (Bergman et al, 2011)
Consequently, a slight correlation between the ratio of the thermocouple temperature measurement experimental
values and the ratio of the GreeTEG U-value kit experimental values can be observed:
𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
( ) ≈( ) ⟹ 1.03 ≈ 1.1
𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜 𝑅𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑇𝐸𝐺
The slight dissimilarity between the ratios could be justified by many factors, although both methods of data collection
were used in unison in each experiment, their inherent accuracy levels differ greatly. It is widely recognised that the
GreenTEG u-value measurement kit is the essential tool for in-situ thermal transmittance testing, whereas the studies
where the focus is purely on thermocouples is limited. Typically, thermocouples would used in combination with
another piece of monitoring and measurement equipment, very much like this study. [CITE]
4.3 Steady State Numerical Analysis Results and Discussion

To fully understand the thermal performance of the wall as a full assembly, Ansys Workbench was used to create a
steady state thermal analysis model and simulate the application of heat to the internal face of the wall and cooler
external temperatures to the exterior façade. Figures 3-19 and 3-20 in the Methodology depict the model produced
prior to simulation. The figures below demonstrate the performance of the wall, to draw comparisons between the pre
and post insulation models they are positioned next to one another.
Figure 51: Pre-insulation numerical model Figure 50: Post-insulation numerical model
- steady state thermal output - steady state thermal output
92
The model outputs presented in figures 8 and 9 illustrate the heat transfer and temperature distribution through the
brick wall, with red indicating the warmer surface (40°C) and blue indicating the colder surface (-5°C). It is not
particularly pronounced but there is a definite difference in the temperature changes throughout the modelled wall’s
cross section. Applying the Temp-Coat insulation paint to the interior surfaces, with a thermal conductivity of 0.033
W/mK has performed as expected in resisting the transfer of heat energy to the external surface.
Figure 52: Pre-insulation numerical model - heat flux Figure 53: Post-insulation numerical model - heat flux
output output
The images depicted in figures 10 and 11 do not present anything in the way of heat transfer but the details to the left-
hand side indicate the heat fluxes (W/m2) of the uninsulated and insulated models. Using the same U-value equation as
the one used for the GreenTEG U-value kit (see formula below), the thermal transmittances will be calculated.
𝑛
𝑄
𝑈=∑
𝑇1 − 𝑇2
𝑘=0
𝑇1 = 40℃ and 𝑇2 = −5℃
Pre-Insulation U-value
𝑄 = 122.54 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2
𝑛
𝑄 122.54
𝑈=∑ = = 2.72 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾
𝑇2 − 𝑇1 (40 − (−5))
𝑘=0
Post-Insulation U-value
𝑄 = 105.15 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2
𝑛
𝑄 105.15
𝑈=∑ = = 2.34 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾
𝑇2 − 𝑇1 (40 − (−5))
𝑘=0
93
Comparing the two values with one another the application of the Temp-Coat thermal insulation paint to the solid wall
has produced a 13% improvement on the uninsulated wall. Which is not too dissimilar to the difference between the
theoretical calculated U-values from the GreenTEG results, which outputted a difference of 9.2%. This is also
reflected in the similarity of the U-values ascertained, the GreenTEG pre insulation U-value was 2.73 W/m2K and the
numerical model pre-insulation U-value obtained was 2.72 W/m2K. Showing a bit more variation in their final values
are the post-insulation U-values, the GreenTEG post-insulation value was 2.48 W/m2K and the numerical model post-
insulation U-value was 2.34 W/m2K.
Typically, when comparing physical experimental values with numerical values obtained through Ansys, there tends
to be some variance in the results obtained. This can be because a number of factors, such as, imperfections within in
the solid wall test subject, variances in the actual surface temperature and the assumed temperature, the assumptions
that Ansys makes. This last point can be the cause of a lot of the differences, in the instance of this research the solid
brickwork wall was assumed to be homogenous therefore ignoring the effect of the mortar joints. Whereas in the
physical test all materials were factored in.
4.4 Results and discussion summary

The controlled laboratory experiments and numerical model observations provide important insights into the nature of
solid walls and the benefits insulation paint has on them once applied. Experimental U-value testing is fundamental in
the search for the perfect retrofit insulation material, as it provides validation for the in-situ solid wall U-values
discovered. The implication of these findings is in providing corroborating evidence that the introduction of insulating
paint will lead to the desired carbon free pathway.
In general, the comparisons between the three methods of analysing the thermal performance of the solid brick wall
pre and post insulation yielded results that were not too dissimilar. Both the thermocouple temperature difference
experiment and the numerical steady state analysis showed similarities with the GreenTEG U-value kit. Of the three
modes used it is the GreenTEG U-value kit that produced the most comprehensive and accurate set of results [CITE].
The thermal transmittance values in every case showed levels of improvement, the best of which was obtained in the
measured GreenTEG U-vales where the value reduced from 1.45 W/m2K to 0.85 W/m2K equal to a reduction of
41.4%. This shows significant promise that insulation paint can produce the energy efficiency improvements so
desperately required, however uncertainties still remain as to whether Temp-Coat can compete with other forms of
conventional insulation technologies.
94
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusion
There is now an overwhelming body of scientific evidence available that supports the opinion that anthropogenic
caused climate change is fundamentally the greatest social, economic and environmental threat the human race has
ever faced. From the mid-19th century to the present-day, human actions have steadily generated a significant
concentration of GHG emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere that continues to grow year by year. There is an ever
increasing army of experts, activists, scientists and organisations, who for decades have been sounding the alarm on
the dangers of climate change, warning of the risks of global warming, of temperatures as small as 0.5°C, will bring to
humans, eco-systems and the global economy. The potentially irreversible human actions are predicted to increase
global mean sea levels, caused by melting ice sheets and sea water expansion and cause a rise in global mean
temperatures that will increase the likelihood of severe environmental weather events due to the extra moisture in the
air (UNEP, 2019a; IPCC, 2018a).
The awareness of nations that action needs to be taken, in order to drive deep cuts into their GHG emissions levels, is
evident through their nationally implemented climate policies and practices. However, the UNEP has demanded that a
more direct approach from signatories of the UNFCCC framework, towards carbon neutrality, is imperative.
Specifically, ordering developed nations to strengthen their NDCs ahead of the next COP in 2021. The obligation to
tighten climate policies is on the G20 nations, on account of their industrial pasts and continued high levels of GHG
emissions (UNEP, 2019a). The UK is amongst the top emitters of CO2 and even after the ambitious legislative
amendments to the Climate Change Act, more progress must be achieved if this nation is to decarbonise the economy
by 2050. The CCC, who orchestrated the shift from 80% carbon emission reductions to net-zero carbon emissions, are
responsible for negotiating carbon budgets with the UK Government in order to stay on the clearly defined cost-
effective path towards the UK’s long-term climate objectives. The five existing carbon budgets were calculated in
accordance with the 80% emissions reduction target, nevertheless the Committee have confirmed that the nation has
achieved the first two budgets and is on course to meet the third but studies indicate that, at present, carbon budgets
four and five will be missed, highlighting a serious critical gap between commitments and actions which is widening
as the deadlines draw nearer (CCC, 2019c).
The Government, in their pursuit of carbon neutrality, have made sweeping changes to the fundamental structures that
underpin the economy. The two sectors recorded as emitting the largest amount of GHG emissions in 2019 were the
energy supply and transport sectors. Huge overhauls in both sectors have seen coal fuelled power plants phased out,
with only four remaining and which are due to be decommissioned by 2025, and the transport sector experiencing a
major shift towards electric and bio-gas fuelled vehicles. The UK residential sector, the third largest emitter in this
country of GHGs in 2019, is however leaving a lot to be desired having, recently contributed to a 4% increase in GHG
emissions in 2018 (BEIS, 2018a; BEIS, 2019a).
GHG emissions within the UK residential sector are directly linked to fluctuating weather and temperatures
conditions, this suggests there are two factors to consider. Firstly, with extreme weather events becoming increasingly
frequent it would be reasonable to assume that more annual increases in GHG emissions lie ahead in the future.
Secondly the sensitive nature of the existing housing stock to weather patterns presents an undeniable degree of
95
inefficiency, which when considering the SAP, RdSAP and EPC ratings of existing housing stock, concurs with the
statement above. Of the 29 million homes in the UK, 8.6 million are built with solid brickwork walls, the majority of
which were built pre-1919. Pre-1919 homes are typically classified in the three lowest bands in the EPC rating
procedure, E to G, the most common rating in the UK is D, indicating that most solid wall housing falls below the
average with respect to energy efficiency ratings (MHCLG, 2016; MHCLG, 2019).
These poor energy efficiency ratings present a significant problem to the government if the residential sector is to
reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, it has presented specialist building energy efficiency consultants,
contractors and insulation technology designers and manufacturers with a significant and compelling business
opportunity. At present there is an abundance of conventional insulation materials available for consumers and
installers to adopt, but the installation and upfront costs of these materials present barriers themselves in the form of
disruption to the homeowners current lifestyle, retrofitting can be time consuming and costly and the payback in
capital investment can take many years to be recouped. The primary barrier to taking up whole house retrofit is a lack
of consumer knowledge in the benefits that energy efficiency measures can have on fuel costs, health, and wellbeing
(CIED, 2018). However, there are incentives behind adopting IWI technologies, for example, IWI tends to be quicker
and cheaper to install when compared with EWI and they are virtually the only legal option available to a homeowner
living in a listed building or a property situated in a conservation area (BEIS, 2019b).
Conventional IWI products such as phenolic foam, polyurethane and polyisocyanurate are supplied in board form that
can in some cases be up 100mm thick, and so following installation, the footprint of a room is reduced affecting its
functionality. This presents a further barrier to the uptake in conventional IWI product and, as a result, insulation
consultants and manufacturers have made efforts to establish an innovative technology that not only satisfies the
thermal performances requirements but also offers minimal disruption to the current function of a room (CIED, 2018).
An IWI technology that has had limited research into its potential thermal performance properties when applied to
solid masonry walls is thermal insulation paint. It satisfies and solves many of the barriers preventing the uptake of
IWI, as well as offering the ability to improve the energy efficiency of a property. A manufacturer of thermal
insulation paint is a company called Temp-Coat. Their product, Temp-Coat 101 has been used in a wide variety of
thermal resistance applications and was invented by NASA for use on their space shuttle. It has also been adopted in
other thermal insulating applications such as hot and cold ductwork, offshore oil rigs and military vehicles, but has not
yet been tested on improving the thermal efficiency of solid masonry wall dwellings, the primary aim of this research
paper. Theoretically, it should offer all the thermal characteristic an IWI material should possess and therefore was
considered to be a favourable test subject for improving the energy efficiency of existing solid wall housing stock in
the UK (Temp-Coat, n.d.).
A thermal performance test of Temp-Coat 101 was carried out to ascertain the U-value improvement that can be
achieved based on an uninsulated solid masonry wall, followed by an identical test on the same wall but insulated with
Temp-Coat 101. The laboratory experiment methodology is outlined is section 3 and the full set of results are
presented in section 4 and Appendix B. The most reliable results were obtained by the GeeenTEG U-value
measurement kit, the initial uninsulated U-value measurement was 1.45 W/m2K. Once insulated with the Temp-Coat
101 insulation paint the new U-value measurement was 0.85 W/m2K. This yielded a thermal transmittance
improvement of 41.4% which is a significant improvement.
96
However, mentioned in their Solid Wall Insulation: Best Practice and Innovation report (2017) Palmer and Terry state
that in order for an IWI to meet the government’s ECO scheme, the U-value obtained cannot be greater than
0.3 W/m2K, which establishes that the material would not be supported by this scheme. Additionally, Palmer and
Terry also discuss the R-value of a thermal insulation paint that is considered to have a poor thermal performance. The
R-value in their study was confirmed as 0.9 m2K /W, the R-value of the Temp-Coat insulated wall obtained in this
research is 0.404 m2K /W. As thermal resistance is the reciprocal of thermal transmittance the U-value of both
insulating paints can be determined through dividing 1 by the confirmed R-values. Palmer and Terry’s calculated the
U-value in their study to be 1.11 W/m2K; the U-value for Temp-Coat 101 was calculated at 2.48 W/m2K. As the R-
value for the Temp-Coat is lower than Palmer and Terry’s findings and the U-value is higher than Palmer and Terry’s,
Temp-Coat 101 must inevitably be considered insufficient (Palmer and Terry, 2017).
Similarly, a study into the thermal resistance of six variations of thermal insulation paints carried out by Simpson et al
in 2019, obtained R-values between 0.463 m2K /W and 0.488 m2K /W. Only slightly higher than the Temp-Coat’s
thermal resistance in this case, however, the study concluded that “the six thermal paints did not show significant
improvements in thermal insulation when compared to standard emulsion paint.” It is also worth noting that the
thickness of paint used in Simpson et al’s study was less than half of the Temp-Coat thickness applied to the solid wall
specimen (0.55 mm and 1.24 mm) (Simpson et al, 2019).
To conclude, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that although Temp-Coat will improve the energy efficiency
of a solid wall building element, the scale of the improvements in thermal transmittance and thermal resistance, when
compared with other insulation technologies, will be insufficient to motivate consumers into adopting Temp-Coat as
an IWI technology when carrying out energy efficiency improvement measures to a solid wall house. Ultimately,
using Temp-Coat 101 as a means to achieving the government’s net zero carbon emission target will not offer the
required level of energy efficient improvements alone. This may be different if Temp-Coat 101 was used as an
adjunct to other sustainable retrofit materials and technologies. Indeed, many of the case studies reviewed as part of
this research support the view that a range of materials, technologies and methods deliver better efficiencies as a
whole than the sum of their parts.
Clearly, the global problem of ever increasing GHG emissions can never be solved by painting the walls of pre-1919
solid wall houses but it is important to recognise that small steps can often add up to big changes. As a consequence
the following recommendations should be seriously considered.
5.2 Recommendations
Further research into the benefits of using Temp-Coat as an IWI technology at a greater coat thickness than currently
recommended should be investigated.
Investigate using Temp-Coat insulation paint in combination with other IWI technologies and materials to establish
whether improved thermal efficiencies can be obtained.
Investigations into the use of other potential, new and innovative insulation materials should be carried out to
determine those which better satisfy the barriers faced by IWI installation with a view to keeping costs low,
minimising disruptions and shortening capital investment payback periods whilst delivering similar thermal
performances of conventional insulation materials.
97
Improve homeowner knowledge on the benefits and cost savings to overcome the most significant barrier faced in the
uptake of IWI, by developing a marketing and education programme focusing on the economic, environmental and
thermal comfort benefits of IWI and conducting a qualitative study into occupant behaviours towards retrofitting SWI
thus supporting the government’s 2050 net zero carbon emissions target.
Conduct a whole house energy efficiency study to establish the actual benefits in-situ rather than extrapolating the
results of an experimental, laboratory research study using test specimens, as in this study; it is vital to understand the
performance characteristics of Temp-Coat in a real life situation on a solid wall pre-1919 house.
98
References
Anderson, B and Kosmina, L (BRE), (2019). Conventions for U-value Calculations. Watford: BRE
ANSYS VERSION 19.2, (2019) User’s help, ANSYS tutorial
BEIS, (2018a). 2018 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final figures. London: HMSO.
BEIS, (2018b). 2018 Local Authority Carbon Dioxide Emissions. London: HMSO.
BEIS, (2019a). 2019 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional figures. London: HMSO.
BEIS, (2019b). Energy efficiency: building towards net zero. London: HMSO
BEIS, (2020). Household Energy Efficiency detailed release: Great Britain Data to December 2019. London: HMSO
Bergman, T., Lavine, A. and Incropera, F., (2011). Fundamentals Of Heat And Mass Transfer. Somerset: Wiley.
Boonstra, C; Hill, D (August 2014); Industrial Energy Efficient Retrofitting of Resident Buildings in Cold Climates;
D2.7 Demonstrator London; Project no: 260058; Project: E2ReBuild; Partners: Trecodome; Gallions Housing
Association; Funded from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)
BRE, (2008). A Study of Hard to Treat Homes Using the English House Condition Survey. Watford: BRE
BRE, (2014a). The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. 1st ed. [online].
June 2014. Watford: Building Research Establishment (BRE). Available at:
http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2012/SAP-2012_9-92.pdf [Accessed 07 August. 2020].
Brown, D., Kivima, P., Rosenow, J., Martiskainen, M. and Bird, J., (2018). Warm Homes For All. [online] CIED.
Available at: <http://www.cied.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CIED-Warm-Home-Report.pdf>
Brunskill, R.W., (1971). Illustrated handbook of vernacular architecture, London: Faber.
Brunskill, R.W., (1992). Traditional buildings of Britain: an introduction to vernacular architecture, London:
Gollancz
BRE, (2014b). In-situ Measurements of Wall U-values in English Housing. Watford: BRE
Building Control, (2013). NHBC Building Control Plus. [online] Nhbc.co.uk. Available at:
<http://www.nhbc.co.uk/Builders/ProductsandServices/BuildingControl/BCP2015/#1075> [Accessed 24
August 2020].
Carvajal, A., Unkaya, G., Botten, C. and Dasgupta, A., (2018). Minimum energy efficiency standards and heritage
properties. [online] Better Buildings Partnership.
CAT. (2019). Climate Action Tracker Emissions Gaps. [online] Available at:
<https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/> [Accessed 5 September 2020].
CCC, (2009). UK Needs To Achieve A Step Change In Its Pace Of Emissions Reduction To Meet Carbon Budgets - 12
October 2009 - Committee On Climate Change. [online] Available at: <https://www.theccc.org.uk/2009/10/12/uk-
needs-to-achieve-a-step-change-in-its-pace-of-emissions-reduction-to-meet-carbon-budgets-12-october-2009-2/>
[Accessed 1 August 2020].
CCC. (2016). Progress Report 2016: Meeting Carbon Budgets. [online] Available at: <https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/2016-CCC-Progress-Report.pdf> [Accessed 11 September 2020].
CCC (2019a), Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming. Committee on Climate Change,
London. <https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/>
CCC, (2019b). UK Housing: Fit for the future? Committee on Climate Change,
London. <https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/UK-housing-Fit-for-the-future-CCC-2019.pdf>
99
CCC, (2019c). Reducing UK emissions 2019 Progress Report to Parliament. Committee on Climate Change, London.
<https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CCC-2019-Progress-in-reducing-UK-emissions.pdf>
CCC. (2019d). UK Homes Unfit For The Challenges Of Climate Change. [online] Available at:
<https://www.theccc.org.uk/2019/02/21/uk-homes-unfit-for-the-challenges-of-climate-change-ccc-says/> [Accessed
16 September 2020].
CIBSE, (2006). CIBSE Guide A ‐ Environmental Design 7th ed. K. Butcher, ed., Norwich: Chartered Institute of
Building Services Engineers.
CIED, (2018)
Cook, O., (1983). The English house through seven centuries, Weybridge: Whittlet.
Davidson, P. (2016). Review of default U-values for existing buildings in SAP. London: HMSO
DECC, (2012). Revised estimates of Home Insulation Levels in Great Britain: April 2012. London: HMSO.
DCLG. (2006a). A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation. [online]. June 2006. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7812/138355.pdf [Accessed 07 August.
2020]
DCLG, (2014). English Housing Survey ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF ENGLISH HOUSING 2012, London:
Department for Communities and Local Government: Office for National Statistics.
DCLG, (2013b). English Housing Survey HOMES 2011, London: Department for Communities and Local
Government: Office for National Statistics.
Dengel, A. & Swainson, M., (2012). Overheating in new homes: A review of the evidence, Milton Keynes: IHS BRE
Press.
EA, (2016). Adapting To A Changing Climate. Environment Agency. Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526000/climate-
adrep-environment-agency.pdf
Durrer, L., (2013). U-Value verification measurement of a Minergie-certified building with greenTEG’s gSKIN® U-
Value Kit. Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Feberal Institute of Technology Zurich
EDF. (2020). How To Improve Your EPC Rating. [online] Available at: <https://www.edfenergy.com/energy-
efficiency/how-improve-your-epc-rating> [Accessed 7 September 2020].
EEA, (2019). Total greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe. European Union
EST. (n.d). Home Improvements Guide. [online] Available at: <https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/home-energy-

efficiency/home-improvements> [Accessed 12 September 2020].
EST. (2019). Solid Wall. [online] Available at: <https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/home-insulation/solid-wall>

[Accessed 16 September 2020].
Evans, S., (2019). In-Depth Q&A: The UK Becomes First Major Economy To Set Net-Zero Climate Goal. [online]
Carbon Brief. Available at: <https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-set-
net-zero-climate-goal> [Accessed 24 July 2020].
Evans, S., (2020). Analysis: UK’S CO2 Emissions Have Fallen 29% Over The Past Decade. [online] Carbon Brief.
Available at: <https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-
decade> [Accessed 23 July 2020].
100
Francis G. N. Li, A.Z.P. Smith, Phillip Biddulph, Ian G. Hamilton, Robert Lowe, Anna Mavrogianni, Eleni
Oikonomou, Rokia Raslan, Samuel Stamp, Andrew Stone, A.J. Summerfield, David Veitch, Virginia Gori & Tadj
Oreszczyn (2015) Solid-wall U-values: heat flux measurements compared with standard assumptions, Building
Research & Information, 43:2, 238-252, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2014.967977
Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M., O'Sullivan, M., Andrew, R., Hauck, J., Peters, G., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Le
Quéré, C., Bakker, D., Canadell, J., Ciais, P., Jackson, R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bastrikov, V., Becker,
M., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L., Currie, K., Feely, R., Gehlen, M., Gilfillan, D.,
Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D., Gruber, N., Gutekunst, S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Houghton, R., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A.,
Joetzjer, E., Kaplan, J., Kato, E., Klein Goldewijk, K., Korsbakken, J., Landschützer, P., Lauvset, S., Lefèvre, N.,
Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Marland, G., McGuire, P., Melton, J., Metzl, N., Munro, D., Nabel, J.,
Nakaoka, S., Neill, C., Omar, A., Ono, T., Peregon, A., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson,
E., Rödenbeck, C., Séférian, R., Schwinger, J., Smith, N., Tans, P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F., van der Werf,
G., Wiltshire, A. and Zaehle, S., (2019). Global Carbon Budget 2019. Earth System Science Data, 11(4), pp.1783-
1838.
Fuerst, F. & McAllister, P. (2011). The impact of energy performance certificates on the rental and capital values of
commercial property assets. Energy Policy, 39, 6608–6614. 20, 21
GreenTEG, (2015). Instruction Manual for gSKIN® Heat Flux Sensors for R&D Applications. Zurich,
Switzerland: GreenTEG
GreenTEG. (n.d.) Greenteg Heat Flux Sensor Explanation, Explanation Of The Working Principle Of Heat Flux
Sensors. [online] Available at: <https://www.greenteg.com/heat-flux-sensor/about-heat-flux/heat-flux-sensor-
explanation/> [Accessed 26 August 2020].
GOV.UK. (2016). Carbon Budgets. [online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carbon-budgets> [Accessed

3 September 2020].
GOV.UK. (2019). UK becomes first major economy to pass net zero emissions law. Available
at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law
GreenSpec. (n.d.). Housing Retrofit: Solid Wall Insulation: Internal lining. [online] Available at:
https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/internal-insulation/.
Hamilton, I., Summerfield, A., Shipworth, D., Steadman, J., Oreszczyn, T. and Lowe, R., (2016). Energy efficiency
uptake and energy savings in English houses: A cohort study. Energy and Buildings, 118, pp.259-276.
Hansford, Peter FREng (Nov 2015); Solid Wall Insulation – Unlocking Demand and Driving Up Standards; A report
to the Green Construction Board and Government by the Chief Construction Adviser;
Hausefather, Z., (2019). Analysis: Global Fossil-Fuel Emissions Up 0.6% In 2019 Due To China. [online] Carbon
Brief. Available at: <https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-up-zero-point-six-per-cent-in-
2019-due-to-china> [Accessed 29 August 2020].
Heath, N., Pearson, G. and Barnham, B. (2010). Energy modelling of Garden Bothy, Dumfries House. Historic
Scotland Technical paper 8. Prepared by Changeworks and HEADS.
Historic England. (2015). Planning responsible retrofit of traditional buildings. [online] Available at:
<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/planning-responsible-retrofit-of-traditional-
buildings/responsible-retrofit-trad-bldgs/> [Accessed 13 September 2020].
Historic England. (2016). Energy Efficiency And Historic Buildings Insulating Solid Walls. [online] Available at:
<https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/eehb-insulating-solid-walls/heag081-solid-walls/>
Historic England, (2018). EPCs and the Whole House Approach. STBA 2018
101
Hoppe, I. and Rödder, S., (2019). Speaking with one voice for climate science — climate researchers' opinion on the
consensus policy of the IPCC. Journal of Science Communication, 18(03).
Hulme, M., (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1810), pp.2001-2021.
IEA, (2020). Global CO2 emissions in 2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
IPCC, (2014): Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona,
E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.
Schlömer, C. vo
IPCC,( 2018a). Global Warming of 1.5°C.An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte,
V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield
(eds.)]. In Press.
IPCC, (2018b). Summary For Policymakers Of IPCC Special Report On Global Warming Of 1.5ºC Approved By
Governments. [online] Available at: <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/pr_181008_P48_spm_en.pdf>
[Accessed 18 July 2020].
ISO 9869-1:2014(en) Thermal insulation - Building elements - In-situ measurement of thermal resistance and thermal
transmittance — Part 1: Heat flow meter method. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardizatio
Jack, R., Loveday, D., Allinson, D. and Lomas, K., (2017). First evidence for the reliability of building co-heating
tests. Building Research & Information, 46(4), pp.383-401.
Jenkins, G.J., Perry, M.C., and Prior, M.J. (2008). The climate of the United Kingdom and recent trends. Met Office
Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK. Killip, G. (2011). Implications of an 80% CO2 emissions reduction target for small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK housing refurbishment industry. Oxford University
Ji, Y., Fitton, R., Swan, W. and Webster, P., (2014). Assessing overheating of the UK existing dwellings – A case
study of replica Victorian end terrace house. Building and Environment, 77, pp.1-11.
Johnson, S., (2013). UNEP The First 40 Years. Nairobi: UNEP.
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedláček, J. and Fischer, E., (2015). A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change
target. Nature Geoscience, 9(1), pp.13-18.
Kosmina L., (2016). In-Situ Measurement of U-Value. Watford: Building Research Establishment. Available at:
https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/In-situ-measurement-of-thermal-resistance-and-thermal-transmittance-
FINAL.pdf[Accessed 18 August 2020]
Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R., Jones, M., Smith, A., Abernethy, S., Andrew, R., De-Gol, A., Willis, D., Shan, Y.,
Canadell, J., Friedlingstein, P., Creutzig, F. and Peters, G., (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO2
emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 10(7), pp.647-653.
LGC, (2019). Building standards technical handbook 2019: non-domestic buildings. HMSO: Edinburgh
Luterbacher, U. and Sprinz, D., (2001). International Relations And Global Climate Change. Cambridge (Mass.): The
MIT Press.
Ley, A., (1990). Building Control: Its Development and Application 1840-1936. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/2334693610/.
102
Lymath, A., 2015. What Is A U-Value? [online] NBS. Available at: <https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/what-is-a-u-
value-heat-loss-thermal-mass-and-online-calculators-explained> [Accessed 10 September 2020].
Mann, M.E., (2009). Do global warming and climate change represent a serious threat to our welfare and
environment? Social Philosophy & Policy, 26(2), p.193.
Mavrogianni, A., Davies, M., Taylor, J., Oikonomou, E., Raslan, R., Biddulph, P., Das, P., Jones, B. & Shrubsole, C.,
(2013_. The unintended consequences of energy efficient retrofit on indoor air pollution and overheating risk in a
typical Edwardian mid‐terraced house. In FutureBuild ‐ International Conference. Bath: Futurebuild.
MHCLG. (2016). English Housing Survey. London, HMSO
Met Office, (2018). UKCP18 science overview report. Met Office. [Lowe, J.A., Bernie, D., Bett, P., Bricheno, L.,
Brown, S., Calvert, D., Clark, R., Eagle, K., Edwards, T., Fosser, G. and Fung, F.]. Hadley Centre: Exeter, UK.
NCC, (2010). Energy Strategy 2010 – 2020. Nottingham City Council. Available
at: https://www.nottinghaminsight.org.uk/d/
NCC, (2019). Nottingham 2028: Carbon Neutral Charter. Nottingham City Council. Available
at: https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/media/2620252/nottinghams-2028-carbon-neutral-charter-3.pdf
Newell, P. and Paterson, M., (2012). Climate Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicol. Set al (2014). The age and construction of English Homes. IHS BRE Press, Bracknell.
Nicol. S. et al (BRE), (2015). The cost of poor housing in the European Union. HIS BRE Press, Brackness.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Annual Global Climate Report for
(2019), published online January 2020, retrieved on January 16, 2020
from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201913.]
One Nottingham. (2012). Nottingham Green Partnership. [online] Available at:

<http://www.onenottingham.org.uk/?page_id=4952> [Accessed 4 August 2020].
Pall et al. (2011). Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000.
Nature 470, 382–385
Palmer, J and Terry,N, (2017). Solid Wall Insulation: Best Practice and Innovation. London: HMSO.
Papworth, A., Maslin, M. and Randalls, S., 2014. Is climate change the greatest threat to global health? The
Geographical Journal, 181(4), pp.413-422.
Pearson, C., 2002. Thermal Imaging Of Building Fabric. Bracknell, Berks.: Building Services Research and Information
Association.
Pelenur, M. (2014). Retrofitting the domestic built environment: investigating household perspectives towards energy
efficiency technologies and behaviour (Doctoral thesis). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.14069
Peralta, E., (2014). New Report Finds Climate Change Already Having Broad Impact. [online] KTOO. Available at:
<https://www.ktoo.org/2014/05/06/new-report-finds-climate-change-already-broad-impact/> [Accessed 31 August
2020].
PHE, (2015). Heatwave plan for England, protecting health and reducing harm from severe heat and heatwaves,
London: Public Health England and National Health Service. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429572/Heatwave_pl an_‐
Making_the_case_‐_2015.pdf
103
Piddington, J., Nicol, S., Garrett, H. and Custard, M.,(BRE) (2020). The Housing Stock Of The United Kingdom. BRE.
Potter, M. & Potter, A., (1973). Houses 3rd ed., London: John Murray Ltd.
Power, A., (2008). Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental,
social and economic viability? Energy Policy, 36(12), pp.4487–4501.
Psomas, T., Heiselberg, P., Duer, K. & Bjørn, E., (2016). Overheating risk barriers to energy renovations of single
family houses: Multicriteria analysis and assessment. Energy and Buildings, 117.
Reid, H., (2014). Climate Change And Human Development. London: Zed Books.
RIBA, (2019). RIBA Responds To The CCC’S Report On UK Housing And Climate Change. [online]
RIBA. Available at: <https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/response-to-
ccc-uk-fit-for-the-future-report> [Accessed 11 September 2020].
Rhee-Duverne, S and Baker, P (2013) Research into the Thermal Performance of Traditional Brick Walls, Available
at:
https://research.historicengland.org.uk/redirect.aspx?id=6935%7C%20Research%20into%20the%20Thermal%20Perf
ormance%20of%20Traditional%20Brick%20Walls [Accessed: 8 August 2020].
Rosenow et al (2018), ‘The remaining potential for energy savings in UK households’, Energy Policy, Vol 121, pp.
542–552.
Rye, C. & Scott, C., (2012). The SPAB Research Report 1: U-Value Report. Available at:
https://www.spab.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/MainSociety/Advice/SPABU-valueReport.Nov2012.v2.pdf
Simpson, A.; Fitton, R; Rattigan, I.G.; Marshal, A.; Parr, G.; Swan, W.; (2019) Thermal performance of thermal paint
and surface coatings in buildings in heating dominated climates
University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, UK; Energy and Buildings, Volume 197, 15 August 2019, Pages 196-213;
Publisher; Elsevier
Simpson, S., Banfill, P., Haines, V., Mallaband, B. & Mitchell, V., (2016). Energy‐led domestic retrofit: impact of the
intervention sequence. Building Research & Information, 44(1), pp.97–115.
Sodagar, B., Rai, D., Murphy, J. and Altan, H., (2009). The role of eco-refurbishment in sustainable construction and
built environment.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (2007). Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, 2007:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Smith, P. F. (2004). Eco-Refurbishmnet: a guide to saving and producing energy in the home. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Stern, N.H.(2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Straaten, J.F. van, (1967). Thermal performance of buildings. Amsterdam ; London: Elsevier.
Taylor, J; Smith, O; (March 2017); Heritage Retrofit – Older Buildings and Sustainability; The Building Conservation
Directory Special Report on Heritage Retrofit; First Annual Edition; ISBN 978 1 900915 87 8; Publisher: Cathedral
Communications Limited, Wiltshire SP3 6HA:
Temp-Coat (n.d.). Product Data Page. Temp-Coat

The Heritage Directory. (2009). Brick Bonds. [online] Available at:
<http://theheritagedirectory.co.uk/uploads/articles/Brick%20Bonds%20v2.pdf> [Accessed 11 September 2020].
104
Tink, Victoria J. (2018): The measured energy efficiency and thermal environment of a UK house retrofitted with
internal wall insulation. Loughborough University. Thesis. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/33727
TPS, (2011). UK: non-decent homes.http://www.poverty.org.uk/78/ index.shtml. 19

Turner, C and Partington R (NHBC). (2015) Homes Through the Decades. NHBC Foundation
UN. (2014). Secretary-General's Remarks At Climate Leaders Summit. [online] Available at:
<https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2014-04-11/secretary-generals-remarks-climate-leaders-summit>
[Accessed 28 August 2020].
UN, (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [New York], United Nations, General
Assembly.
UN, (1997). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted at COP3 in
KyotoJapan, on 11 December 1997.
UN, (2015). Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted at COP21 in
Paris France, on 12 December 2015.
UN. (2019). UN Climate Action Summit 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-09-22.
UNEP, (2019a). Emissions Gap Report 2019. UNEP, Nairobi.
UNEP. (2019b). Cut Global Emissions By 7.6 Percent Every Year For Next Decade To Meet 1.5°C Paris Target - UN
Report. [online] Available at: <https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/cut-global-emissions-
76-percent-every-year-next-decade-meet-15degc> [Accessed 1 August 2020].
UNFCCC, (1998). Report of the conference of the parties on its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December
1997.
UNFCCC, (2003). Caring for climate A guide to the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Issued by
the Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) Bonn, Germany
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition.
EPA 430-R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.
UWE. (2008). The History Of Council Housing. [online] Available at:

<https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm> [Accessed 10 September 2020].
Van der Gaast W. (2017) Towards a Future Climate Policy - From the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement. In:
International Climate Negotiation Factors. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46798-6_5
Whitehead, A. and Aldous, P., (2016). Warmer & Greener: A Guide To The Future Of Domestic Energy Efficiency
Policy. [online] Policy Connect. Available at:
<https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/sites/site_pc/files/report/734/fieldreportdownload/warmergreenerreport.pdf>
Willett, K., Jones, P., Gillett, N. and Thorne, P., (2008). Recent Changes in Surface Humidity: Development of the
HadCRUH Dataset. Journal of Climate, 21(20), pp.5364-5383.
Yates, T., (2012). Solid-Wall Construction Measuring And Improving Thermal Performance. [online] The Building
Conservation Directory. Available at: <https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/solid-wall-construction/solid-
wall-
construction.htm#:~:text=Dampness%2C%20and%20even%20structural%20damage,a%20risk%20of%20them%20re
curring.&text=Rising%20damp%20may%20also%20be,is%20the%20mostly%20likely%20problem.> [Accessed 7
September 2020].
105

2020 BOOTH Colin - Retrofitting Solid Wall Housing 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2020 BOOTH Colin - Retrofitting Solid Wall Housing 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2020 BOOTH Colin - Retrofitting Solid Wall Housing 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESN40116 – RESEARCH PROJECT AND DISSERTATION

IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PRE-1919 HOUSING

Supervised by Dr Bahareh Kaveh

Dissertation submitted in the partial fulfilment of a

Nottingham Trent University

Because without his words of encouragement

I would not have taken the career path I have.

1.3 Research Aims and Objectives

1.4 Research Question

1.5 Project Outline

1.6 Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

2.1 Climate Change

2.1.1 Climate Change Definition

2.1.2 Global Warming

2.1.3 Global Warming – UK Impacts

2.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.1.4.1 International Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels

Total Anthropogenic GHG Emissions (GtCO2eq/yr) by

2018 2018 2019

Transport 124.4 28 % - 1.4 % -3% 119.6 - 2.8 % - 4.6 %

Energy Supply 104.9 23 % - 6.6 % - 62 % 90.1 - 8.4 % - 62.8 %

Residential, 69.1, 15%

Transport, 124.4, 26%

Figure 2: 2018 UK Carbon dioxide emissions per sector (DBEIS, 2018a)

Figure 3: The Greenhouse Gas effect (UNFCCC, 2003)

Figure 4: Human vs natural influence on global temperature change (Peralta,

2.1.6 Sub-Section Summary

2.2.1 Climate Change Agreements

2.2.2 Significant Climate Change Organisations

• To prevent a global temperature increase of

Figure 6: Global GHG emissions under different scenarios and the

Budget Year Carbon Budget % Reduction Measured Carbon

The chief executive for the CCC, Chris Stark, commented:

2.2.5 Sub-Section Summary

2.3 UK Housing Stock

2.3.1 UK Residential Sector Emissions

Energy Consumption in the Residential Sector

Space Heating Residential, 69.1, 15%

Figure 9: 2018 UK residential sector GHG emissions (CCC, 2019a)

a) meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing

2.3.3 UK Housing Construction Methods

2.3.4 Solid Wall Housing Quantity

2.3.5 Thermal Performance Parameters

2.3.5.1 Thermal Conductivity – k value

For flat, slab like elements: 𝐿

2.3.5.2 Thermal Resistance – R value

2.3.5.3 Thermal Transmittance – U Value

2.3.5.4 In field U Value Investigations

2.3.6 Assumed Thermal Transmittance vs Measure Thermal Transmittance of Solid Walls

2.3.7 Risk of Overheating

2.3.8 Average Energy Ratings and Performances of Existing Stock

2.3.9 Hard to Treat Homes

2.3.10 Sub Section Summary

2.4 Sustainable Retrofit of UK Domestic Built Environment

2.4.1 Solid Wall Insulation

Figure 16: Annual insulation savings by property type (EST, n.d.)

2.4.2 Internal Wall Insulation

2.4.3 Motivations to Retrofit with Internal Wall Insulation