Thermal performance of wood-frame vs. traditional housing: a field measurement approach.

Abstract

The energy demand in the residential sector stems from heating, cooling, cooking, water heating, appliances, and lighting. Energy usage in homes is influenced by climate, architectural design, energy systems, and economic status. In socioeconomically vulnerable areas, restricted access to heating and cooling systems and inadequate housing design can lead to indoor discomfort, affecting quality of life. This study analyzes the energy performance of single-family social housing using two construction methods: wood frame and traditional (heavy system). Monitored houses were built in nearby rural/suburban areas, with measurements taken in two and three-bedroom homes during winter and summer. Data collected included indoor and outdoor temperatures, relative humidity, air permeability.Local microclimate conditions were characterized using nearby meteorological station data. Both construction methods showed good thermal performance, enhancing indoor thermal comfort compared to outdoor conditions. The traditional method outperformed the wood frame, with fewer thermal discomfort hours and better dampening of outdoor conditions, leading to a smaller thermal amplitude indoors. During warm periods, traditional housing maintained lower indoor temperatures at daily peaks. All houses had wood stoves in the living room, effectively heating the entire house in winter. The primary energy consumption was for hot water systems and outdated refrigerators, as the houses had minimal electrical appliances.