English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article examines whether transient two-dimensional simulations are sufficient or three-dimensional simulations are necessary for the hygrothermal analysis of the three-dimensional detail of a beam support. Detailed measurement series from a test house with various interior insulation systems available for the investigation allow the results of two- and three-dimensional simulations to be verified with the measured data. In both the cases, a very good agreement between measurement and simulations was found. With the thermal simulations, agreement with the measured data is similar in both two- and three-dimensional calculations. However, the hygric measurements agreed slightly better with the three-dimensional calculations. For planning real tasks, two-dimensional simulations should be sufficient, provided that the simulation settings are selected within the secure margins. The actual comparison is initiated by the validation of the software DELPHIN 6 by means of a three-dimensional, stationary test case from EN 10211.

Comparison of hygrothermal 2D- and 3D-simulation results with measurements from a test house