Unfortunately I did not save all of our e-mails, but I saved this one from Bruce Harley: "Yes, I see what you’re saying. I missed that entirely when looking quickly just at the calculations. The calculations on 8:2 and 8:3 both suffer from this problem, and both are completely bogus as shown. Although it wouldn’t be exactly right, a quick approximation would be to treat the stud sides and face all as exposed surface area with similar net R-value, so you’d have something like 14” at R-3.8 and 20” at R-12.5, for net of 34/(14/5.2+20/13.3) ~= R-8.1. A more detailed analysis would be a little worse than this because a good deal of that fin’s side has less than the 0.6 R-value of the 7.5” stud but it’s not going to add up to much. My comments about the mis-interpretation of IRC/IECC are still correct as well. There is no legitimate calculation using the mehod on 8:3, even if they correct the problem noted above. And the calcs on 8:4 and 8:5 are also incorrect. You can’t add the “R-value” of the stud across it’s whole width, to that part of the surface area, because the heat will flow through the sides and not in parallel all the way through the stud. Basically, you can ignore the stud and the whole assembly is the R-5.82, except that they don’t take the top and bottom “plates” into account here, which I believe are thermal bridges across the R-5 foam, as well as the metal pins that link the “sheathing” surface to the studs, so the net of the “R-5” wall if you don’t put anything in the cavity has got to be less than 5, plus the air films. Note that they also leave out the (small, 0.17 I think) outside air film which they can include in the assembly R."
答案
大卫，
几年前，我与Bruce Harley交换了关于XI墙的电子邮件。由于设计中固有的热桥接，布鲁斯和我怀疑制造商的R价索赔。在我关于这个话题的笔记中，我写道，“布鲁斯哈利人物，XI系统的全壁R值为R-8.1 - 而不是由制造商索赔的R-12.1至R-12.5。”
Unfortunately I did not save all of our e-mails, but I saved this one from Bruce Harley: "Yes, I see what you’re saying. I missed that entirely when looking quickly just at the calculations. The calculations on 8:2 and 8:3 both suffer from this problem, and both are completely bogus as shown. Although it wouldn’t be exactly right, a quick approximation would be to treat the stud sides and face all as exposed surface area with similar net R-value, so you’d have something like 14” at R-3.8 and 20” at R-12.5, for net of 34/(14/5.2+20/13.3) ~= R-8.1. A more detailed analysis would be a little worse than this because a good deal of that fin’s side has less than the 0.6 R-value of the 7.5” stud but it’s not going to add up to much. My comments about the mis-interpretation of IRC/IECC are still correct as well. There is no legitimate calculation using the mehod on 8:3, even if they correct the problem noted above. And the calcs on 8:4 and 8:5 are also incorrect. You can’t add the “R-value” of the stud across it’s whole width, to that part of the surface area, because the heat will flow through the sides and not in parallel all the way through the stud. Basically, you can ignore the stud and the whole assembly is the R-5.82, except that they don’t take the top and bottom “plates” into account here, which I believe are thermal bridges across the R-5 foam, as well as the metal pins that link the “sheathing” surface to the studs, so the net of the “R-5” wall if you don’t put anything in the cavity has got to be less than 5, plus the air films. Note that they also leave out the (small, 0.17 I think) outside air film which they can include in the assembly R."
使用低于等级的纤维素存在纤维素中含有高水分积累的风险，直到你手上有一个真正的混乱。如果不是耐湿性的刚性泡沫（EPS或XPS）岩棉或甚至玻璃纤维是优选的。在上述等级的东西上纤维素很好。
在任何子级施加中，将组件允许朝内部晾干，因此不要在纤维和调节空间之间施加任何内部面板或其他气旋阻滞剂。为了跳过内部蒸汽延迟器，无需将外部泡沫-R与腔光纤维-R与1/5或更高的比率保持在4 ZOOR 4中的上述等级部分的冷凝问题，所以它看起来像你一样有很多保证金。
用1英寸的泡沫包裹在所有4侧面的螺柱本身将具有R10的R值，这根本不差。如果它在螺柱外缘的2.5英寸，而且1“面向洞穴。超过R12。没有更清晰的横截面和间距数字，计算热桥接损失的全部范围，但底线，将其提升到R25 +，廉价纤维仍将在舒适度下“值得”和4区的长期节能，即使将其提升到泡沫的高度，也可能不是。见表2，P10：
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/reports/rr-1005-building-america-high-r-value-high-performance-residential-buildings-lclimate-zones.
虽然R12.5连续保温符合IRC 2009年4月4日，但是，对于第4区，它将是Marginal 2012年的。舒适靴子！
我穿着马丁 - 没有看到他的回应。我推迟了他更明智地分析了XI系统的热桥接。
在〜R8全壁上，它是IRC2009的子码（需要更接近〜R10全墙），但是可能仍然可以用添加的光纤绝缘来实现IRC 2012。钢螺栓的高导热率是杀手。
谢谢所有人的回应。
达娜，我看过BSC的东西很有点，甚至买了Lstiburek的书籍。我的意图是在您所提到的表中满足或超过表中的建议。这是导致我发布这个问题的原因。
关于低于等级的纤维素：它是上升批次，所以后壁将作为挡土墙作用，并且将是低于等级的唯一一个，但是泡沫都不会埋入。优越墙的承诺之一 - 以及我选择使用它们的重要原因 - 是混凝土将在内部保持干燥。我会将所有墙壁设计干燥到内部，所以我无法想象纤维素在这里是一个问题。如果我错了，请纠正我。
钢螺柱充满泡沫。它们是否仍然会导致任何重要程度？
马丁，我不确定我不知道计算的计算，没有更多上下文（我不知道8：2等是什么）。我认为Bruce Harley所说的是，在侧面和面上仅具有1英寸的泡沫，在两侧和穿过侧面的热桥的螺柱，因此必须在r下计算整个14英寸的暴露表面-3.8-即在每侧6英寸，2英寸朝上。
如果这种理解是正确的，那么填充绝缘空腔变得非常重要，以消除6“表面作为热桥。然后将结果减少到螺柱的2”面部的2“面部，顶部的光束（底部光束毗邻板坯）？然后剩下的墙面都会在R-36？
再次感谢。顺便说一句，我喜欢约翰·施塔巴的研讨会 - 令人难以置信的服务，使我们拥有我们所有人！