1. Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
John Swink, PE, LEED-AP
Acme Brick Company
FIX NUMBERING OF OUTLINE POINTS
ADD A FEW TITLES
CHECK VALUES

2. Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Avoid disinformation about saving energy in buildings.
Understand real thermal performance of wall systems
Demystify whole building energy analysis.
There is much disinformation about saving energy in the construction industry.
In this presentation I will attempt to give a clearer understanding of ACTUAL thermal performance of common wall systems.
I will also try to demystify whole building energy analysis and show how available free tools can help you design truly high performance buildings, while saving money on durable building envelopes.

3. Learning Objectives
Learn the TRUE U and R values of many common wall systems.
Learn how to calculate true U and R values for complex building envelope components.
Learn how eQuest and Simergy can help you design high performance buildings to meet sustainable goals.
Learn to integrate economical building envelopes with high performance mechanical systems for the most cost-effective energy performance.

4. 1. True U and R Values in Building Walls
Introduction – The LEED® Mandate Rising energy costs and concern for the environment have led many groups, including AIA, ASHRAE, USGBC and ICC to support much higher expectations for building energy performance. There have been many predictions and endeavors to build zero-energy and near-zero energy buildings. But there are practical limits on building performance. Today we will look at the entire building envelope to optimize the wall systems, including opaque and glazed areas, to see what those limits are, and how best to design buildings for optimum performance and value.

5. 1. True U and R Values in Building Walls
Introduction – The LEED® Mandate Traditionally, heating and cooling of buildings has been the purview of mechanical engineers on the design team. But choices made by architects and structural engineers have a significant impact on the energy performance of our buildings. So we need to understand as fully as possible how those choices can help or hurt the building’s overall energy performance. Today we will investigate the impact of various types of building envelope construction on the performance of those buildings.

6. 1. True U and R Values in Building Walls
Introduction – The LEED® Mandate – ever-decreasing energy demand for buildings.
We examine popular wall systems for ACTUAL heat flow
All include air and moisture barriers
Alternates for glazing area considered.
Mass not included in calculations, but will benefit
eQUEST or Simergy lets you quickly study the effects of different wall systems on whole building energy performance. Occupancy types are critical for effective evaluation of building performance. Energy demands vary widely:
Introduction – The LEED® Mandate – ever-decreasing energy demand for buildings.
First we examine popular wall systems to see what their ACTUAL heat transmission is.
All systems include effective air and moisture barriers
Alternates for glazing area are considered.
The effect of mass is included in heat flow calculations
I challenge you to use the DOE’s FREE eQUEST or Simergy whole building analysis to study the effectiveness of different wall systems in whole building energy performance. Occupancy types are critical for effective evaluation of building performance. Energy demands vary widely:
Assembly
Office
Schools
Multifamily residences
Restaurants
Shopping malls
Small retail
Big box stores
Warehouses

7. Session Outline Dispel some popular myths about R values
Compare popular wall systems
Detailed look at wall system heat flow
ORNL study of mass walls in a model house
Proposed mass house for optimum energy performance
School energy performance study at University of Louisville

8. “Oh, what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
Those “R” Lies
“Oh, what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”
Sir Walter Scott
Let’s look and some misinformation – or is it disinformation? – that is commonly reported.
Misinformation – erroneous information that is passed on through ignorance.
Disinformation – deliberate lies or distortions used to promote one’s cause or agenda.

9. OXYMORON – “TRUE” R VALUE
Fiberglass industry only reports R value of batt insulation that is:
Perfectly placed
No studs, fasteners, wiring, etc.
No stapled facings
Batts must be in contact with all surfaces
Never happens in the field
FALSE R values reported
True R values MUCH lower

10. OXYMORON – “TRUE” R VALUE
Wood industry reports R value of batts, not the wall assembly.
Does not include heat flow through studs
Ignores air gaps from imperfect placement.
Stapled facings leave gaps
Wiring leaves gaps
False R values reported
True R values MUCH lower

11. MASONRY – TRUE R VALUE NCMA
Calculates or tests true R value of wall assembly
Only reports True R values
Notes the effects of mass in reducing heat flow, but only as recognized by ASHRAE and supported by analysis.
NCMA and its members rely on true R values determined by calculation or testing.
We point out mass benefits, but do not include them in R values
Now let’s look at a dozen wall systems and calculate their true R values.
All systems have brick veneer where appropriate

12. Those “R” Lies Lie #1 – ICF walls have an R value of 50
Some say “Equivalent R Value of 50.”
Equivalent to what?
Truth – Typical ICF walls are R16 to R20

13. Those “R” Lies Lie #2 – 6” Steel stud walls are R 19
Steel stud conducts much heat through the wall
R19 batts are only R19 if perfectly placed with no gaps
Truth – 6” steel stud walls have typical R 7.03 according to AHSRAE 90.1

14. Those “R” Lies Lie #3 – 6” Wood stud walls are R19
Wood studs conduct less heat than metal studs
Wood studs conduct more heat than insulation
R19 batts are only R19 if perfectly placed with no gaps
Truth – typical 5.25” wood stud walls are R11.4 or less

15. Those “R” Lies Lie #4 – 4” Wood stud walls are R13
Wood studs conduct more heat through the wall than insulation
R13 batts are only R13 if perfectly placed with no gaps
Truth – perfectly built 3.5” wood stud walls
actually R 8.4.
Truth – many 3.5” wood stud walls
R5 or less

16. Detailed Look at Wall Systems
Now let’s look at these wall systems in more detail and calculate their actual R value using the ASHRAE series-parallel method:
When DIFFERENT wall components are in the SAME LAYER, we add the heat flows (U values) for each component in that layer. (PARALLEL)
Accounts for thermal bridging that bypasses insulation.
R for that layer = 1/(Sum of U values)
When wall components are in SEPARATE LAYERS, simply ADD the R values. (SERIES)
Here are examples of walls designed for true R19

17. A. True U and R Values in Building Walls
In this session we will compare each of the following wall systems. Each has peculiar advantages that can make them appropriate choices, but it is important to understand their limitations.
Wood Stud Walls
Steel Stud Walls
Insulated Concrete Form Walls
Tilt-up Concrete Walls
Single-Wythe Masonry Walls
Masonry Cavity Walls

18. 1. Wall Systems – Wood Stud
Advantages
Disadvantages
Moderate cost
Ease of routing wiring and other utilities
Fire destroys it
Water damage – mold and rot
Air and moisture barriers REQUIRED to prevent damage
Air leaks cause poor energy performance
Thermal bridging cause poor thermal performance

19. 1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R value Series/parallel method
R 3.5 – wood stud
U x 15% = 0.043
R 13.0 – batt
R 9.1 reduced 30% for imperfect fill
U x 85% = 0.093
U Total = = 0.136
R = average stud cavity
R = x 0.625” gyp board
R = 8.4 average opaque wall
Here we calculate the R value for typical opaque sections of wood walls.
Studs account for 15% of wall surface before sheathing.
U x 15% = 0.043
Batts are compressed from 6” to 5.5”, reducing R 19 to R17.4
Gaps due to imperfect filling, wiring, etc reduce insulation value another 30% to R 12.2
U x 85% = 0.070
Adding parallel conductivities, U = or R = 8.89
Adding gyp board layers, R = 10.0 average for opaque 6” wood stud walls without air films.

20. 1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R value Series/parallel method
R 3.5 – wood stud
U x 15% = 0.043
R 12.6 – spray foam, sprayed cellulose, or aminoplast foam filled
U x 85% =
U Total = = 0.111
R = studs and insulation layer
R = x 0.625” gyp board
R = 10.2 total when stud cavities are filled with insulation, no gaps
Here we calculate the R value for typical opaque sections of wood walls.
Studs account for 15% of wall surface before sheathing.
U x 15% = 0.043
Batts are compressed from 6” to 5.5”, reducing R 19 to R17.4
Gaps due to imperfect filling, wiring, etc reduce insulation value another 30% to R 12.2
U x 85% = 0.070
Adding parallel conductivities, U = or R = 8.89
Adding gyp board layers, R = 10.0 average for opaque 6” wood stud walls without air films.

21. 1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R value Series/parallel method
R 3.5 – wood stud
U x 15% = 0.043
R 16 –aminoplast foam filled
U x 85% = 0.053
U Total = = 0.96
R = studs and insulation layer
R = x 0.625” gyp board layer
R = 11.5 total when stud cavities are filled with insulation, no gaps
Here we calculate the R value for typical opaque sections of wood walls.
Studs account for 15% of wall surface before sheathing.
U x 15% = 0.043
Batts are compressed from 6” to 5.5”, reducing R 19 to R17.4
Gaps due to imperfect filling, wiring, etc reduce insulation value another 30% to R 12.2
U x 85% = 0.070
Adding parallel conductivities, U = or R = 8.89
Adding gyp board layers, R = 10.0 average for opaque 6” wood stud walls without air films.

22. 1. Wall– 6” Wood Studs Calculate actual R value Series/parallel method
R 5.5 – wood stud
U x 15% = 0.027
R 17.4 – compressed R 19 batt
R 12.2 reduced 30% for imperfect fill
U x 85% = 0.070
U Total = = 0.097
R = 10.3 average stud cavity
R = x 0.625” gyp board
R = 11.4 average opaque wall
Here we calculate the R value for typical opaque sections of wood walls.
Studs account for 15% of wall surface before sheathing.
U x 15% = 0.043
Batts are compressed from 6” to 5.5”, reducing R 19 to R17.4
Gaps due to imperfect filling, wiring, etc reduce insulation value another 30% to R 12.2
U x 85% = 0.070
Adding parallel conductivities, U = or R = 8.89
Adding gyp board layers, R = 10.0 average for opaque 6” wood stud walls without air films.

23. 1. R19 Wall – 4” Wood Studs R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.33 – Masonry veneer
R 1.0 – Air space
R 10.0 – 2” XPS insulation
R 8.4 – Wood Studs with R 13 batts*
This is the model for a wood stud wall systems designed to equal ICF model in total R value.
Note that many call this an R23 wall system, based on nominal R13 batt insulation, not actual stud wall performance.
Actual R value of wood stud wall system is R8.4 only for batt insulation that perfectly fills stud cavities.
With typical imperfect insulation placement, R is much less.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 20.6 – Total
10.4 inches total wall thickness

24. 1. R19 Wall – 6” Wood Studs R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.3 – Masonry veneer
R 1.0 – Air space
R 5.0 – 1” XPS insulation
R 10.3 – Wood Studs with R 19 batts*
This is the model for a wood stud wall systems designed to equal ICF model in total R value.
Note that many call this an R30 wall system, based on nominal R19 batt insulation, not actual stud wall performance.
Actual R value of wood stud wall system is R12.0 only for batt insulation that perfectly fills stud cavities.
With typical imperfect insulation placement, R is much less.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 19.5 – Total
11.9 inches total wall thickness

25. 2. Wall Systems – Steel Studs
Advantages
Disadvantages
Moderate cost
Ease of routing wiring and other utilities
Noncombustible
Subject to water damage – rust and mold
Air and moisture barriers required to prevent damage
Air leaks cause poor energy performance
Batt insulation less effective, cannot be well placed

26. 2. R19 Wall– 6” Steel Studs R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.3 – Masonry veneer
R 1.0 – Air space
R 10.0 – Continuous insulation
R 7.03 – Steel studs with R 19 batt
(ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals)
This is the WUFI model for a steel stud wall systems designed to equal ICF model.
Note that many call this an R32 wall system, based on nominal R21 batt insulation, not actual stud wall performance.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 19.1 – Total
12.9 inches total wall thickness

27. 3. Wall Systems – Insulated Concrete Form
Advantages
Disadvantages
R15 to R19 insulation built in
Strong reinforced concrete core
Low air infiltration
STC50+ sound barrier
Combustible forms must be protected by fire barriers both sides
Mass of concrete is isolated from building interior
Thicker walls reduce floor space
Toxic gases in fires
Blowouts and other construction issues

28. 3. R19 Wall– Insulated Concrete Form
R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer a
R 0.3 – 3” Masonry veneer
R 1.0 – 1” Air space
R 9.5 – 2.5” EPS insulation form
R 0.48 – Concrete pour
R 7.5 – 2.5” EPS insulation form reduced by electrical cut-outs
R 0.4 – ½” gyp board
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 19.4 – Total
15.3 inches total wall thickness

29. 4. Wall Systems – Tilt-up Concrete
Advantages
Disadvantages
Some general contractors have carpenters as permanent employees to build forms
24’ tall 6” walls
Hard concrete surfaces require low maintenance
Very durable
Not damaged by water
Low air infiltration
Very high strength
Non-combustible and very fire resistant
STC 50 sound barrier
100 Year Life
Limited insulation
Continuous insulation it cavity wall is only way to reach prescriptive R values in energy code
Limited finishes and profiles
Higher cost
Utilities must be in place and slab poured before walls can be cast
Heavy cranes required
More space required onsite
Level site required

30. 4. R19 Wall – 6” Tilt-up Concrete
R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.5 – 6” Tilt-up Concrete
Negative side dampproof coating
R 10.0 – Continuous insulation
(Seldom used – R10.3 without ci)
R 9.0 – 6”x25ga Steel studs, R 19 batts
(ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals)
This is the WUFI model for a steel stud wall systems designed to equal ICF model.
Note that many call this an R32 wall system, based on nominal R21 batt insulation, not actual stud wall performance.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 20.3 – Total
15.6 inches total wall thickness

31. 4. R19 Tilt-up Concrete Sandwich Panel
R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.2 – 2” Concrete
R 14.0 – Continuous insulation 2” polyisocyanurate
R 0.5 – 6” Concrete
This is the WUFI model for a steel stud wall systems designed to equal ICF model.
Note that many call this an R32 wall system, based on nominal R21 batt insulation, not actual stud wall performance.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 15.6 – Total
10.0 inches total wall thickness

32. 5. Wall Systems – Single-Wythe CMU
Advantages
Disadvantages
Very Low cost
24’ tall 8” walls
Hard masonry surfaces require low maintenance
Very durable
Not damaged by water
Low air infiltration
Very high strength
Non-combustible and very fire resistant
STC 50 sound barrier
100 Year Life
Limited insulation capacity limits use in some climate zones
More difficult to run wiring

33. 5. Wall Model – Single-wythe CMU
R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 5.7 – Core insulated CMU with grouted cells at 32” minimum and bond beams at 48” min spacing
(per IECC prescriptive tables)
This inexpensive wall system does not meet prescriptive R value requirements for climate zones 3 and above.
But whole building energy analysis shows that it has very little penalty over much higher insulation levels in many climate zones 3-5.
Add that to the durability and super low maintenance of prefinished masonry both sides and you have a win-win wall system.
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 6.55 – Total
7.63 inches total wall thickness

34. 6. Wall Systems – Masonry Cavity Wall
Advantages
Disadvantages
Moderate cost
Unlimited insulation
Hard masonry surfaces require low maintenance
Very durable
Not damaged by water
Low air infiltration
Very high strength
Non-combustible and very fire resistant
STC60+sound barrier
100+ Year Life
Slightly higher cost

35. 6. R19 Masonry Cavity Walls R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer
R 0.3 – 3” Masonry veneer
R 2.5 – Foil-faced 1” air space
R 14 – 2” foil-faced polyiso board
R 2 – 6” CMU uninsulated
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 19.5 – Total
11.3” inches total wall thickness

36. 6. Wall Model – Masonry Cavity Walls
R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer a
R 0.30 – Masonry veneer
R 2.5 – Foil-faced 1” air space
R 10.5 – 1.5” foil-faced polyiso board
R 5.7 – 8” CMU grouted 48” c/c
R 0.68 – inside air boundary layer
R 19.9 – Total
12.8 inches total wall thickness

37. Summary: R values, Thickness and Cost
$ / sq ft
1a. 4” Wood Studs with Brick Veneer
R 20.6
10.4”
1b. 6” Wood Studs with Brick Veneer
R 19.5
11.9”
” Steel Studs with Brick Veneer
R 19.1
12.9”
3. Insulated Concrete Form with Brick Veneer
R 19.4
15.3”
4. Tilt-up Concrete with Insulated Studs
R 20.3
15.6”
” Single-wythe CMU Wall
R 7.6
7.62”
6a. 6” CMU Masonry Cavity Wall with Brick Veneer
13.3”
6b. 8” CMU Masonry Cavity Wall with Brick Veneer
R 19.9
12.8”
Notes:
Every wall system in this list requires continuous insulation to achieve R19.
Consider aesthetics. Most of the above do not have finished masonry inside and out.
Consider durability. Masonry and concrete will last indefinitely.
Consider maintenance. Masonry and concrete surfaces require very little maintenance.
Consider Life Cycle Cost, not just first cost.
Consider fire resistance. Wood buildings burn to the ground in 20 minutes or less.
Finally consider overall value. Masonry cavity walls give most for your money.

38. True Mass Effect
Many wall systems, including masonry, tilt-up, and ICF’s claim a benefit from mass in the wall system to improve energy performance.
Computer simulations at ORNL show where mass should be placed for maximum benefit.
This debunks claims of some wall systems to benefit from mass.

39. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Study
This recent study at ORNL found significant improvement in energy performance of a 1500 sf house with properly placed mass elements in the walls.

42. (TILT-UP WITH INSIDE INSULATION)
HDD / CDD
3” Conc
4” EPS
3” Conc
4” Conc
4” EPS
2” Conc
6” Conc
4” EPS
4” EPS
6” Conc
1” EPS
6” Conc
3” EPS
2” EPS
6” Conc
2” EPS
WALL 1
WALL 2
WALL 3
WALL 4
WALL 5
WALL 6
MASS INSIDE
INSULATION OUTSIDE
MASS BURIED IN
INSULATION (ICF)
MASS NOT EFFECTIVE
MASS OUTSIDE
INSULATION INSIDE
(TILT-UP WITH INSIDE INSULATION)
MASS NOT EFFECTIVE

43. ORNL Study – Energy Use in Houses http://www. ornl

44. Table 4 - Annual Cooling Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr) CDD=> 2300 1000
4600
5000
1800
Wall
ATL
DNVR
MIA
MINN
PHX
WADC 2
5.68
0.74
32.80
1.32
27.27
3.00 6
7.05
1.70
33.87
1.93
28.76
4.08
-19.4%
-56.5%
-3.2%
-31.6%
-5.2%
-26.5%
Table 5 - Annual Heating Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr)
HDD=>
3100
6300
270
7100
1200
3900
18.88
37.76
0.35
66.75
3.37
33.26
19.50
38.91
0.42
67.26
4.73
34.01
-3.0%
-16.7%
-0.8%
-28.8%
-2.2%
Table 5 - Annual Heating and Cooling Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr)
24.56
38.50
33.15
68.07
30.64
36.26
26.55
40.61
34.29
69.19
33.49
38.09
-7.5%
-3.3%
-1.6%
-8.5%
-4.8%
-30%
-21%
-13%
-6%
-34%
-19%
Similar to Masonry Cavity Wall
ICF Wall
Cavity Wall Savings
Cavity Wall Savings
Cavity Wall Savings
Savings on heat flow through wall only (estimated)

45. What does this mean?
This study shows significant savings for walls with mass exposed to inside air compared with mass isolated within insulation.
Walls account for only 25% of the heat loss for these houses.
If we divide total savings in heat load by 25%, we can see that walls with mass exposed to inside air reduce heat loss through walls by up to 34% in Phoenix and 30% in Atlanta.
DFW savings would be in this 30% range as well.

46. Limitations on the ORNL study.
Significant wall types were not studied:
Masonry veneer over steel studs
Masonry veneer over wood studs
Whole building energy modeling does not show heat losses in walls directly

47. NBS 45 Study July 1973 Computer models Full scale testing
Showed mass benefits
Stabilized indoor temperatures
Reduced heating and cooling loads
+/- 0.8° F indoors
° F outdoors
In the last session we looked at the results of NBS Study 45 in 1973, showing very stable indoor temperatures with masonry buildings with outside insulation. Such a building could be easily built in North Texas. How would it perform as a residence?

48. Proposed Mass House in DFW
Using the adobe effect in DFW, a mass house could greatly reduce energy consumption by storing several days’ heat flow to take advantage of outside temperature variations and eliminate mechanical heating and cooling.
Walls would be solid masonry or concrete to maximize mass.
Ground floor would be slab-on-grade with perimeter insulation to maximize heat storage in the slab and the soil under it with ground temperature at 68ᵒF.
Attic floor would be 8” solid concrete.
Total mass for 1500 sf house would be 600,000 lbm
At 0.22 sp heat it takes 132,000 btu to raise the temperature one degree F.
In 18 hours of 90 deg weather, temperature will rise 3 deg F

49. 2011 Daily High and Low Temperatures, DFW Airport
Feb
Mar
May
Jan
Apr
Jun
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Jul
Dec
Daily Highs
Daily Lows
Thermostat Set-points 68ᵒF to 75ᵒF
A quick look at daily high and low temperatures in the DFW area shows that there are approximately 6 months when outside temperatures fall within the comfort zone as defined by thermostat set points. During these times, outside air can be brought in to either heat or cool indoor air at appropriate times of the day.
Light-framed houses will require supplemental heating and cooling during these times, because they can only store sufficient heat to maintain temperatures for several hours.
Mass houses can store enough heat to maintain comfortable temperatures for several days. With proper ventilation programming, mechanical heating will be required for only 2.5 months in winter. This can be easily provided by solar collectors, which can also supply domestic hot water. So far we have net zero energy, except for fans, lighting, and plug loads.
Cooling will be required for about 3.5 months in summer. But mass storage allows running cooling system at night only, when outside temperatures are at their lowest.
This decreases total energy use for cooling by 25% and shifts energy loads to off-peak hours to allow better use of alternative energy sources, such as wind power.
Solar Heating
Ventilation Only No Heat or AC
Efficient Air Conditioning
Ventilation Only No Heat or AC
Solar Heating

50. Proposed Mass House in DFW
Daily high and low temperatures in the DFW area shows approximately 6 months when outside temperatures fall within the comfort zone as defined by thermostat set points. During these times, outside air could be brought in to either heat or cool indoor air at appropriate times of the day.
Light-framed houses will require supplemental heating and cooling during these times, because they can only store sufficient heat to maintain temperatures for several hours.

51. Proposed Mass House in DFW
Mass houses can store enough heat to maintain comfortable temperatures for several days. With proper ventilation programming, mechanical heating will be required for only 2.5 months in winter. This can be easily provided by solar collectors, which can also supply domestic hot water. So far we have net zero energy, except for fans, lighting, and plug loads.
Cooling will be required for about 3.5 months in summer. But mass storage allows running cooling system when outside temperatures are at their lowest.
This decreases total energy use for cooling by 25% and shifts energy loads to off-peak hours to allow better use of alternative energy sources, such as wind power.

52. Mass House in Any Climate
Mass houses can store enough heat to maintain comfortable temperatures for several days.
Heating and cooling minimized in spring and fall weather
Long cooling cycles maximize cooling efficiency
Off-peak heating and cooling
Better use of alternative energy sources
Much lower energy costs with electric discounts

53. Comparing Wall Systems Summary and Conclusions
True R values differ widely among wall systems
Masonry cavity walls can match any level of insulation
Tilt-up has limited insulation capacity, unless an insulated cavity and masonry veneer is added.
ICF has limited insulation capacity that is adequate, but not better than masonry cavity walls.
ICF walls are 4”thicker than masonry cavity walls for the same insulation value.
Masonry cavity walls cost less than either ICF or tilt-up walls.

54. Comparing Wall Systems Summary and Conclusions
Steel and wood framed walls have very limited insulation capacity without added cavity insulation.
Steel and wood framed walls often have moisture damage from corrosion and mold.
Tilt-up panels with inside insulation have very limited insulation capacity and also can have moisture damage from corrosion and mold.

55. Comparing Wall Systems Summary and Conclusions
Masonry cavity walls are by far the most versatile wall systems:
Widest range of insulation capacities
Strong aesthetic qualities
Moderate cost
8” modules work at a human scale
Speed of construction
No cranes or heavy equipment required
Few site limitations
Disaster resistant – fire, flood, wind, seismic
Carries structural loads with ease

56. eQUEST & Simergy Energy Modeling
User-friendly shell for whole building energy analysis, especially Simergy.
Complies with IECC energy codes
ASHRAE 90.1 or IECC compliance paths
User selects building size, shape, and envelope and mechanical elements with few limits.
Change walls, windows, and other envelope components to compare performance.
Free! Developed by Lawrence Berkley Labs – Download at DOE website.

57. eQUEST & Simergy Energy Modeling
Demonstrates compliance with IECC where prescriptive methods fail.
Single wythe CMU walls comply in Climate zones 1 – 6.
Much lower cost buildings to meet or exceed energy codes.

58. Enjoy your eQUEST ! And may your life overflow with Simegy! 
John E. Swink, PE, LEED-AP Acme Brick Company 801 Airport Freeway Euless, TX Cell

59. Kentucky School Energy Study
The following slides are used by permission from a PCMA presentation by Dr. W Mark McGinley, from a recent study directed by him at University of Louisville.
Complete report can be obtained from the author by request.