°ÇÃ൵½Ã°ø°£¿¬±¸¼Ò

Architecture & Urban Research Institute

pdf¿ø¹®º¸±â ¿¡·¯ ÇØ°á¹æ¹ý ¹Ù·Î°¡±â



¹®ÇåȨ > ¿¬±¸³í¹® > »ó¼¼

[¿ø¹®º¸±â½Ã ¼ÒºñµÇ´Â Æ÷ÀÎÆ® : 100 Æ÷ÀÎÆ®] ¹Ì¸®º¸±â Àοë

Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ|³í¹®Áý 2021³â 6¿ù

³í¹®¸í ÇöÀå ¿­±³ ÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ ½Ã°£Áö¿¬ÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷¿µÇâ Æò°¡¿¬±¸: âȣ-º®Ã¼ Á¢Çպθ¦ Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î / Error Impacts of Time-Lag on In-situ Measurement of Thermal Bridge Performance : Case in the Window-Wall Junction
ÀúÀÚ¸í °­ÀºÈ£½Äº°ÀúÀÚ ; ±èµ¿¼ö ; ÀÌÈ¿¹®½Äº°ÀúÀÚ ; À±Á¾È£½Äº°ÀúÀÚ
¹ßÇà»ç Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ
¼ö·Ï»çÇ× Å¾翡³ÊÁö(Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ ³í¹®Áý), Vol.41 No.3 (2021-06)
ÆäÀÌÁö ½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö(11) ÃÑÆäÀÌÁö(13)
ISSN 1598-6411
ÁÖÁ¦ºÐ·ù ȯ°æ¹×¼³ºñ
ÁÖÁ¦¾î ¿­±³; ½Ã°£Áö¿¬; âȣÁ¢ÇÕºÎ; Çб³ º®Ã¼ À¯Çü; ¿­Àü´Þ ½Ã¹Ä·¹À̼Ç; ÇöÀåÆò°¡; Á¦·Î¿¡³ÊÁö°Ç¹° ; Thermal bridge; Time lag; Window-Wall junction; Type of School Wall; Heat Transfer Simulation; In-situ evaluation; Zero Energy Building
¿ä¾à2 Considering the values acquired from thermal bridge performance indicators developed basedon a design stage may differ from the actual thermal bridge performance values, it is essential toquantitatively assess their performance in-situ. When the surface temperature of the internalwalls of a thermal bridge is measured in-situ to evaluate the performance, a time delay isobserved in the transfer of the effect of external conditions to the internal surfaces. The shape ofthe thermal bridge components exhibit either 2D or 3D boundary conditions, and hence,multiple time lags can occur depending on the surface condition of the thermal bridge, whichaffects the accuracy of the performance of thermal bridges during evaluations in-situ. Therefore,in this study, we analyzed the effect of time lag of the thermal bridge components on the thermalbridge performance using heat transfer simulations. It was observed that the relative error wasapproximately 25.35% with an average of 9.22% as compared to the steady-state thermalbridge. Furthermore, the approximate time lag values of each component surface werecalculated based on their surface temperatures. As a result, the time lag difference between thethermal and non-thermal bridge components was approximately 10 h and 30 min, respectively.
On eliminating the time lag difference from all surfaces of the thermal bridge components usingthe calculated time lag, the relative error decreased to 19.97% with an average of 7.69%, ascompared to the steady-state thermal bridge. Therefore, the relative error increased by 1.53%with an average of approximately 5.40%, owing to the time lag of the thermal bridge.
¼ÒÀåó Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ
¾ð¾î Çѱ¹¾î
DOI https://doi.org/10.7836/kses.2021.41.3.011
¡á Á¦ 1 ÀúÀÚÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ ¹®Çå ½Äº°ÀúÀÚ´õº¸±â
¹ß¿­À¯¸® âȣ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¹ß¿­·®¿¡ µû¸¥ ½Ç³»°ø°£ ¿­Àû ÄèÀû¼º´É ºÐ¼®
°­ÀºÈ£(Eun-Ho Kang) ; ±èµ¿¼ö(Dong-Su Kim) ; À±Á¾È£(Jong-Ho Yoon) - KIEAE Journal : Vol.21 No.6(Åë±Ç 112È£) (202112)
±×¸° ¸®¸ðµ¨¸µ¿ë ¿­±³ Â÷´Ü ¿Ü´Ü¿­ ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¿¡³ÊÁö ¼º´É Æò°¡ ¿¬±¸
±è¿õȸ;°­ÀºÈ£;À±Á¾È£ - Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ °¡À» Çмú³í¹® ¹ßÇ¥´ëȸ ³í¹®Áý : v.21 n.2(Åë±Ç Á¦41È£) (202111)
½Ã¹Ä·¹À̼ÇÀ» ÅëÇÑ ¹ß¿­À¯¸® ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¿­Àû ¼º´É ºñ±³
À̰æ¿ì ; À±Á¾È£ ; ±èµ¿¼ö ; °­ÀºÈ£ ; ¿À¸íȯ - Çѱ¹»ýÅÂȯ°æ°ÇÃàÇÐȸ Çмú¹ßÇ¥´ëȸ ³í¹®Áý : Åë±Ç42È£(v.21 n.2) (202111)
¼öÆò¼³Ä¡Á¶°ÇÀÇ °Ç¹°ºÎÂøÇü ž籤¹ßÀü½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Àå±â ¿î¿µ ¼º´ÉÆò°¡
ÀÌÈ¿¹®(Lee Hyo-Mun) ; °­ÀºÈ£(Kang Eun-Ho) ; ±èµ¿¼ö(Kim Dong-Su) ; À±Á¾È£(Yoon Jong-Ho) - ž翡³ÊÁö(Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ ³í¹®Áý) : Vol.41 No.4 (202108)
ÇöÀå ¿­±³ ÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ ½Ã°£Áö¿¬ÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷¿µÇâ Æò°¡ ¿¬±¸: âȣ-º®Ã¼ Á¢Çպθ¦ Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î
°­ÀºÈ£;±èµ¿¼ö;ÀÌÈ¿¹®;À±Á¾È£ - Çѱ¹Å¾翡³ÊÁöÇÐȸ Ãá°èÇмú¹ßǥȸ ³í¹®Áý : (202105)
âȣÁ¢ÇպΠ¿­±³ ÇöÀåÆò°¡ÀÇ Á¤È®µµ Çâ»óÀ» À§ÇÑ ÃøÁ¤Á¶°Ç ¿¬±¸
°­ÀºÈ£; TULGA;À±Á¾È£ - Çѱ¹»ýÅÂȯ°æ°ÇÃàÇÐȸ Çмú¹ßÇ¥´ëȸ ³í¹®Áý : Åë±Ç37È£(v.19 n.2) (201911)