Towards an objective assessment of energy efficiency in heritage buildings

Victoria Ingram, Phillip Frank Gower Banfill, Craig J Kennedy

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

    148 Downloads (Pure)


    All dwellings in the UK are required to have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) when sold or let, giving potential owners or tenants information on the cost and associated CO2 emissions of heat and power.
    The Scottish traditional construction of solid stone walls tends to get unfavourable EPC ratings, leading to a perception that ‘old is cold’: this paper uses alternative calculation methods to question that perception.
    The difference in results from steady-state and dynamic energy assessment methods is investigated for a dwelling with high thermal mass. The study focuses on modelled data and concludes that SAP 2009’s monthly assessment estimates lower energy use and therefore gives a more favourable EPC rating than the annually based RdSAP 2005; and further that the application of dynamic simulation models may not be the optimum solution to further understanding energy efficiency of this type of dwelling.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationProceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress 2011
    Place of PublicationLinköping
    PublisherLinköping University Electronic Press
    Number of pages8
    ISBN (Print)978-91-7393-070-3
    Publication statusPublished - 3 Nov 2011
    EventWorld Renewable Energy Congress XII - Linköping, Sweden
    Duration: 8 May 201113 May 2011

    Publication series

    NameLinköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
    ISSN (Print)1650-3686
    ISSN (Electronic)1650-3740


    ConferenceWorld Renewable Energy Congress XII
    Abbreviated titleWREC-XII


    • Energy assessment
    • Behaviour
    • Thermal mass
    • Heritage
    • Dynamic simulation


    Dive into the research topics of 'Towards an objective assessment of energy efficiency in heritage buildings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this