Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- operation:operation_and_experience:measurement_results:energy_use_measurement_results [2022/09/16 12:30] – [Literature] wfeist
+++ operation:operation_and_experience:measurement_results:energy_use_measurement_results [2022/09/16 12:38] (current) – [Literature] wfeist
@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 ===== 2.4.	Low-energy house projects in the UK =====
-Performance tests of the building envelope were carried out for 25 different buildings. The heat loss per Kelvin temperature difference was determined for the entire building (co-heating test). The measurement by Johnston et al. included 22 low-energy projects and three Passive House buildings [[Operation:Operation and Experience:Measurement results:Energy use – measurement results#Literature | [Johnston 2014] ]]. The latter had the best results by far and there was almost no difference between the predicted and measured values.
+Performance tests of the building envelope were carried out for 25 different buildings. The heat loss per Kelvin temperature difference was determined for the entire building (co-heating test). The measurement by Johnston et al. included 22 low-energy projects and three Passive House buildings [[Operation:Operation and Experience:Measurement results:Energy use – measurement results#Literature | [Johnston 2014] ]]. The latter had the best results by far and there was almost no difference between the predicted and measured values. In a 2020 publication Johntson et.al. included even more of the monitored examples from the UK and also in Europe [[Operation:Operation and Experience:Measurement results:Energy use – measurement results#Literature | [Johnston 2020] ]].
 [{{ :picopen:uk_perform_2014_johnston_eng.png?553 | //**Fig. 11:** The results of the Performance Tests carried out for 25 highly efficient new builds in England [[Operation:Operation and Experience:Measurement results:Energy use – measurement results#Literature| [Johnston 2014] ]]. The three Passive House projects scored best by far and in every respect: there was almost no difference between the predicted and the measured specific heat loss, they exhibited a loss coefficient lower by a factor of two compared with the next best projects and they saved almost 75% of the heating losses compared with the average losses.//}}]
 \\