Accurate knowledge of the thermal transmittance (U-value) of existing building envelopes is essential for reliable energy performance assessment and the planning of energy-efficient refurbishment measures. However, in practice, the material composition of existing walls is often unknown, and installing measurement devices may be restricted due to limited accessibility, the risk of structural damage, or varying on-site boundary conditions. Although several in situ methods for determining the U-value have been proposed in the literature, systematic comparisons of their performance under real environmental conditions remain limited. This lack of comparative evaluation makes it difficult to select the most appropriate method under specific practical constraints. To address this gap, this study presents a comprehensive experimental comparison of four in situ U-value measurement methods applied simultaneously to the same building element under identical real boundary conditions, providing new insights into their accuracy, uncertainty, and practical applicability. In this study, four in situ techniques commonly used to determine the thermal transmittance (U-value) were tested on a double-leaf brick wall at the University of Stuttgart: heat flow meter (HFM), infrared thermography (IRT), infrared thermometer (IRTM), and thermometric method (THM). The measurements were carried out over several days under real boundary conditions, during which air temperature, surface temperature, and heat flux were recorded at regular intervals. The results show that all four techniques can be reliably used under real boundary conditions, with the measured U-values lying within a comparable range. Differences among the methods were observed, largely due to their varying sensitivity to environmental influences and sensor placement. A comparison between the upper and lower parts of the wall indicated that its thermal response is non-uniform, and the observed deviations can be attributed to its inhomogeneous structure. By outlining the strengths and limitations of each technique and comparing their measurement outcomes, this study provides practical guidance for selecting suitable approaches for in situ U-value determination. Furthermore, the findings support future efforts to refine thermal evaluation methods and improve energy performance in existing buildings.
Hejazi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.