therm 7.8 vs EN 10077-2

[lorenzo belussi]

Dear collegues,

I have a question on the comparison between the results of Therm 7.8 against a software validated with EN 10077-2. I would like to point out that we have successfully verified Therm 7.8 with the frames of EN 10077-2.

Now, we are simulating 2 frames with Therm and we are comparing the results with a simulation sofwtare validated according to EN 10077-2.
The results are different for more than 5% between therm 7.8 and the software. We use the equivalent conductivity method in the software.

The results are: 

PVC frame:  Therm 1.31 - - - Other software 1.20
Metal frame: Therm 1.66 - - - Other software 1.51

In attach the file in Therm of the two file. Materials, geometry, boundary conditions, emissivity and everything is equal. The only difference could be something related to cavities but I don't find them.

Have you any suggestions?

Best regards

[Hamid BADI]

Hi,

Using my own software (NeoPhiT), I get pretty the same result as Therm.

It seems you're using ISO 15099 for air cavity. Which standard do you wan to use, EN 10077-2 ? Which radiation method do you use in Flixo (simplified or radiosity) ?