Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Steady-state and transient thermal measurements of green roof

substrates
Andrea Pianella a,d,∗ , Robin E. Clarke b , Nicholas S.G. Williams a , Zhengdong Chen c ,
Lu Aye d
a
School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne, Burnley 3121, Australia
b
CSIRO Infrastructure Technologies, Clayton South 3169, Australia
c
CSIRO Land and Water Flagship, Clayton South 3169, Australia
d
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Group, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne,
Parkville 3010, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There has been growing interest in using extensive green roofs for commercial and residential buildings
Received 13 August 2016 in urban areas. Green roofs provide many benefits, including adding an additional insulation layer. The
Received in revised form potential of this benefit depends on many factors, including the thermal properties of the green roof sub-
12 September 2016
strate. Thermal conductivity values of three substrates comprised primarily of scoria, crushed roof tile
Accepted 13 September 2016
Available online 15 September 2016
and bottom-ash were measured with steady-state and transient techniques under three moisture condi-
tions. Specific heat capacities of the green roof substrates were also measured with a transient technique.
Steady-state measurements were performed with a “k-Matic” apparatus while transient measurements
Keywords:
Green roof substrate with KD2 Pro needles. In general, the steady-state measurements showed more consistency than tran-
Soil moisture measurements sient measurements. Thermal conductivity differed among the three substrates: crushed roof tile had
Thermal conductivity the highest conductivity values across all moisture contents. Substrate moisture content consistently
Transient and steady-state methods increased thermal conductivity across all substrates, but this was significantly greater for the crushed
roof tile substrate. Steady-state thermal conductivity curves were fitted using the thermal conductivity
model for green roof substrates adopted by Sailor (2011). The coefficients obtained are presented and
can be used in green roof models to quantify the thermal performance of green roofs and building energy
savings.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Green roofs are becoming more common in cities and towns
due to the multiple ecosystem services they provide [1,2]. Green
roofs can limit some of the environmental and societal problems
urban areas are facing. They can reduce storm water runoff [3],
increase urban biodiversity [4,5], mitigate the urban heat island
effect [6], improve air quality [7], reduce building energy consump-
tion [8] and may even improve worker attention and productivity
[9,10] helping to sustain their health and wellbeing [11]. How-
ever, in new and emerging green roof markets, such as Australia,
there is often a lack of quantifiable evidence for these benefits in a
local context [12]. While evidence of the benefits of green roofs to
urban stormwater retention in Australia is mounting [13,14], this is
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, Faculty of
Science, The University of Melbourne, Burnley 3121, Australia.
E-mail addresses: andrea.pianella@unimelb.edu.au, pianella@yahoo.com
(A. Pianella).
not the only potential driver of their uptake. Reduction of building
heating and cooling loads, and the resulting building energy sav-
ings, can help promote green roof installations [15], as buildings
consume about 20% of the total Australian annual energy con-
sumption [16]. However, many studies have shown that building
energy savings from green roofs are strongly dependant on climate
and location [17], as well as building characteristics and existing
insulation [18,19]. Given that Australia is conventionally divided
into eight different climate zones [20], the thermal performance
and consequent building energy savings would be different across
the country, and specific recommendations on the best green roof
build-up should be tested and provided locally [21].
A number of energy balance models have been developed and
refined to estimate heat fluxes through green roofs and then esti-
mate building energy savings [22–26]. Energy savings from green
roofs can be predicted from models if we know specific features
of the two main layers which form a green roof: the substrate (or
growing medium) and the vegetation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.09.024
0378-7788/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
124 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131
Table 1
Sample standard deviations of the thermal conductivity of the green roof substrates
[W m−1 K−1 ].
Green roof substrate Transient SH-1 Transient TR-1
Scoria dry 0.010 0.006
Scoria moist 0.020 0.057
Scoria wet 0.032 0.027
Crushed roof tile dry 0.012 0.007
Crushed roof tile moist 0.060 0.013
Crushed roof tile wet 0.071 0.070
Bottom-ash dry 0.007 0.008
Bottom-ash moist 0.011 0.019
Bottom-ash wet 0.035 0.044
Although many studies have investigated the thermal perfor-
mance of vegetated green roofs, few have focused specifically on
the thermal performance of the substrates. We do this here to iso-
late the relative effects of substrates and the vegetation (paper in
preparation) and gain a better understanding of the heat trans-
fer across the substrate. Physical properties such as composition,
water holding capacity, moisture content and porosity are impor-
tant parameters which dictate heat transfer through green roof
substrates. Generally, substrates with high porosity are good insu-
lators [27]. This is because, in general, heat flows more easily
through solid particles (by conduction) than through pores, and
higher porosity implies a lower effective thermal conductivity (or
higher thermal resistivity). The lower the porosity, the tighter the
particles are compressed together and the more contact points exist
among particles. The contact points then facilitate the conduction
heat transfer [28–30].
Thermal conductivity data is available for a number of green
roof substrates, including those whose main aggregate materials
are pumice (volcanic porous rock), porous silica, expanded clay,
expanded shale (sedimentary rock) and expanded slate (metamor-
phic rock) [31–34]. Presumably, these substrate components were
chosen due to their high porosity, which is natural or, in the case of
the expanded components, derived after heating at very high tem-
peratures, their lightness, availability and cost. Their use varies.
For example, expanded shale is a very common and cheap sub-
strate component in western U.S.A., while expanded clay is more
commonly used on green roofs in mid-western and eastern U.S.A.
[32]. These components have different thermal properties. Shale
has a higher thermal conductivity than many other substrates,
such as pumice [32] because of its mineral composition, particle
size and porosity (Table 1 [28]). In contrast, expanded clay, due to
its engineered porosity obtained by heating clay to about 1200 ◦ C,
has a lower conductivity than other green roof substrates (Table 1
[28,33]).
In south-eastern Australia scoria, crushed terracotta roof tile
and bottom-ash (non-combustible residue of burning black coal
also known as Horticultural Ash) have been used as the primary
components of green roof substrates [13,14,35,36]. These materials
are inexpensive and readily available but their thermal properties
have not been previously assessed. However, this information is
required to predict the thermal performance of Australian green
roofs, estimate potential energy savings and facilitate the inclusion
of green roofs in building energy rating systems such as the Green
Star Energy scheme [37].
The moisture content of a substrate is one of the key variables
that determines the thermal resistance of a green roof. Kotsiris et al.
[26] stated that the heat transfer in a substrate is linearly dependent
on the substrate’s moisture content. However, studies of soil ther-
mal conductivity [38–41] show that a linear dependency between
soil moisture content and soil thermal conductivity is not realistic.
These findings also apply to green roof substrates [31]. Conse-
Steady-state
0.002
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.036
0.025
0.003
0.005 Fig. 1. The green roof substrates tested. From left to right: crushed roof tile, bottom-
0.027 ash and scoria mix.
quently, quantification of substrate thermal conductivity values at
different substrate moisture contents is needed.
Studies of green roof thermal properties conducted so far have
predominantly used transient techniques to measure the thermal
conductivity of green roof substrates [32,34,42,43]. They are often
made using either single or dual needles that measure thermal
conductivity along the needle itself or between the two needles.
Transient measurements, which imply the temperature of the sam-
ples varies with time [41], may be inconsistent because they are
affected by external factors such as ambient air temperature and
relative humidity. Green roof substrates are also normally quite
porous with many voids that allow water to drain freely. Transient
measurements for wet substrates are therefore strongly influenced
by the point where the measurement is taken because it can con-
tain uncertain moisture content. These factors can cause transient
measurements with thermal needles to be inaccurate and may also
explain widely varying thermal conductivity values reported for
wet green roof substrates.
In contrast to transient techniques, measurements in steady-
state require that the thermal properties of the substrates are
recorded without any external influence and after the sample has
reached the steady-state conditions. Using thermal conductivity
values measured under steady-state conditions should therefore
make green roof thermal models more realistic. However, existing
steady-state methods such as ASTM C518 [44] may produce results
with high uncertainties due to the nature of green roof substrates
which are highly conducting but have varying contact resistance
due to their porous nature. This study employed a new steady-state
technique specifically developed to better measure the thermal
conductivity of porous substrates [45] and therefore improve the
validity and accuracy of steady-state measurements.
The main objectives of this research were to quantify the ther-
mal conductivity values of three green roof substrates that are
commonly used on green roofs in south-eastern Australia but
whose major components are also readily available elsewhere.
Thermal conductivities obtained using the steady-state and tran-
sient methods were compared and correlations were developed
between the thermal conductivities and substrate moisture con-
tent. In addition, we discuss the relative merits of the methods used
and the specific heat capacities of the green roof substrates tested
are reported.
2. Materials and methods
The thermal properties of three green roof substrates commonly
used in south-eastern Australia (Fig. 1) were assessed. These sub-
strates were developed by The University of Melbourne following
international standards and using materials readily available in
Australia. Their major component was scoria mix, crushed roof tile
and bottom-ash respectively. Each substrate also contained 20%
composted coir, which provided the organic matter necessary to
support plant growth. Their chemical and physical properties have
been previously assessed (Table 2 [13]) and the substrates have
 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131
been used on green roofs in Melbourne such as in the Growing
Up roof (132 Queen St), the Venny Childcare Centre, the Monash
Civic Centre, Minifie Park Kindergarten and the Pixel Building [36]
amongst others. Australian green roof companies now use very sim-
ilar proprietary substrates containing the same major components.
For our experiment, each substrate was prepared at the Univer-
sity of Melbourne’s Burnley Campus using a small concrete mixer.
The materials proportions were determined by volume.
2.1. Sample preparation
To determine how moisture content affects substrate thermal
conductivity, the three substrates were tested under three different
moisture content conditions: 1) Dry; 2) Moist (18–22% moisture
content by volume); and 3) Wet – substrate water holding capacity
in the holding frame (30–48% moisture content by volume). Three
replicates of each substrate moisture condition were prepared.
Dry substrate samples were prepared by drying them in labora-
tory ovens (Steridium d500) at 105–110 ◦ C for 48–72 h. We aimed
for moist samples to have a volumetric moisture content of approx-
imately 20%. We chose this value as it was the average volumetric
moisture content of three experimental non-vegetated green roofs
at the University of Melbourne’s Burnley Campus over a period of
two months in spring. Based on the dry weight and by comparing
it with the weight of the substrates before drying them out, it was
possible to calculate the moisture content before the drying pro-
cess and consequently to estimate a priori the content of volumetric
moisture by adding extra water at the substrates.
To produce wet samples at water holding capacity, the sub-
strates were completely submerged in water and then drained until
they stopped dripping. The samples were then placed into the hold-
ing frames (Fig. 2). This procedure prevented water accumulating
at the bottom of the filling frames as it was retained within the
substrate. The wet samples had different moisture contents, water
holding capacity, and porosity due to the different characteristics
of aggregate materials (Table 2 [13]).
For testing, samples were placed in pine-wood holding frames
(300 mm × 300 mm × 60 mm) (Fig. 2) which had been coated with
three layers of oil based polyurethane lacquer (Cobot’s Cabothane
Clear) to prevent them absorbing water. Holding frames were filled
using a wood filling frame placed on top of the holding frames. The
substrates were poured loosely into the frame until they reached
a height of 100 mm above the holding frames. As per standard AS
3473-2003, to settle the substrate, both the frames were then lifted
50 mm off the table and dropped five times. No further compaction
was performed; however, additional settlement may have occurred
when transporting the samples by car. After settling, the upper fill-
ing frame was removed and the excess mix was sliced off using
a metal ruler. The samples were then sealed with plastic wrap to
maintain the desired moisture content.
2.2. Transient measurements
The substrates’ thermal conductivity (k-value) was first mea-
sured through a transient approach using the KD2 Pro thermal
needle set (Decagon). Thermal probes can provide high quality
measurements [46], and have been utilized in a number of green
roof studies [26,28,33]. It should be noted that there are commonly
two types of thermal needle probe: single and dual-needle [47],
which utilize different techniques to measure thermal conductiv-
ity [48]. In this study, we have used both probe types: a 100 mm
single-needle probe (TR-1) and a 30 mm dual-needle probe (SH-
1). Due to the depth of our holding frames (60 mm), we employed
120 mm-high plastic cylinders to take measurements with the TR-1
needle probe. Cylinders were filled with the same substrates using
the same procedure used for the holding frames.
125
In the TR-1 probe, the entire length of the needle contains a
heater, and there is a temperature sensor at the centre of the nee-
dle. As the needle heats, the thermistor detects the heating time
and change in temperature, and also measures the cooling once
the heating stops. The temperature changes are used to calculate
the thermal conductivity.
The SH-1 dual-needle probe has one needle containing a heater
and the other containing the temperature sensor. They are at a
fixed 6 mm distance from each other, so knowing the travel time
of the heat pulse and the resulting temperature change, thermal
conductivity, resistivity, diffusivity and specific heat capacity can
be measured.
The SH-1 and the TR-1 are both used in solid media, such as soil.
However, with both sensors, care must be taken to avoid air gaps
as far as possible, as this creates an air boundary layer which may
introduce contact resistance and lead to inaccuracies.
Due to the differences in heat transmission measurement, the
durations of measurement are also different between the two nee-
dle probes. Single-needle TR-1 requires five minutes to accurately
measure moist (or wet) substrates, and 10 min for dry substrates,
while the dual-needle probe requires two minutes for every sub-
strate.
Five measurements were taken for each substrate sample using
the SH-1 probe (Fig. 2): one at the crossing point of the two diag-
onals, and four about 80 mm from the central point along the
diagonals of the square filling frame. The area formed by the four
outer points was approximately equivalent of the area measured by
the steady-state k-Matic apparatus (100 mm × 100 mm) and it also
avoided any edge interference. Finally, as recommended by the KD2
Pro manual, consecutive measurements were taken 15 min apart.
Three measurements were taken for each sample using the TR-
1 needle. Because the cylinders had a cross section area of only
25 cm2 and the single-needle is thick and multiple points would
have significantly disturbed the samples, only one single point was
used which is the centre of the cylinder.
2.3. Steady-state measurements
Steady-state measurements were taken using a commercial k-
Matic apparatus. The k-Matic apparatus follows the ASTM C518
standard [44] for measurements and has cold and hot plates whose
temperatures were pre-set at 13 ◦ C and 33 ◦ C respectively. Sam-
ples were put into the apparatus wrapped in plastic film to prevent
change in moisture content, and with two silicone sponge sheets
of 4 mm and 6 mm placed at the bottom and on top of the holding
frames respectively (Fig. 3). The k-Matic apparatus incorporates
a single HFM (heat flow meter) sensor to measure an area of
100 × 100 mm2 . Data were collected by a Doric 245 data logger.
Once the measurement starts, data are saved at 10-min intervals.
Each datum is the average over the previous 40 min. After reaching
equilibrium when the heat flow through the sample was constant,
the final datum was recorded and the total R-value of the sample
was obtained. The R-value of the substrate can be obtained by sub-
tracting the R-value of the two silicone sponge sheets, the phenolic
board and the plastic film wrapping the sample. By knowing the
thickness of each sample, the thermal conductivity of the substrate
can be calculated by Eq. (1).
t
k= (1)
R
Where: t = thickness [m]
R = thermal resistance [K m2 W−1 ]
k = thermal conductivity [W m−1 K−1 ]
Clarke et al. [45] provides further details on this technique and
how it was adapted to measure granular loose-fill materials such
126 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131

Fig. 2. Loose-fill holding frame for the green roof substrates (R. E. Clarke, CSIRO) and points measured by the dual needle probe.

Fig. 3. Cross section diagram of k-Matic apparatus for steady-state sample measurement (R. E. Clarke, CSIRO).

as green roof substrates. After both the transient and steady-state
measurements were performed, all the moist and the wet sam-
ples were completely oven-dried to determine their volumetric
moisture content.
3. Results and discussion
Thermal conductivities of scoria mix, crushed roof tile and
bottom-ash substrates at dry, moist and wet conditions under tran-
sient and steady-state measurements are shown in Figs. 4–6, while
the sample standard deviations (n < 30) are shown in Table 1. From
Table 1, we can see that the steady-state measurements always
show the smallest standard deviation in every treatment, with the
exception of the crushed roof tile substrate at moist condition. All
the data were validated with Student’s t-test at 95% confidence
interval, and showed no significant differences.
3.1. Effect of green roof substrate composition and physical
properties on thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity (k) is defined as the rate of heat transfer
per unit across sectional area by conduction for a unit temperature
difference and a unit thickness. Different materials have different
thermal conductivity values. Good thermal conductor such as cop-
per has a higher thermal conductivity than good thermal insulator
such as polystyrene foam.
The three green roof substrates we tested, had different major
components and different air filled porosities which influenced
their thermal conductivity (Table 2 [13]). The crushed roof tile
substrate (Fig. 5) had the highest thermal conductivity of all the
tested substrates using both transient and steady-state methods.
The crushed roof tile had the highest density and the lowest air
filled porosity, which allowed more conductive heat transfer which
 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131 127

Fig. 4. Transient and steady-state thermal conductivities of scoria mix substrate.

Fig. 5. Transient and steady-state thermal conductivities of the crushed roof tile substrate.

Fig. 6. Transient and steady-state thermal conductivities of the bottom-ash substrate.

128 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131
Fig. 7. Specific heat capacity of green roof substrates as a function of moisture saturation level.
was facilitated by the compaction. The crushed roof tile substrate
had the highest heat capacity (Fig. 7) under any given moisture con-
tent. In contrast, the scoria mix substrate had the highest air filled
porosity, the lowest moisture content at wet state and, overall, the
lowest thermal conductivity. Due to this, the scoria mix was the
most insulating substrate under any moisture content condition,
while the crushed roof tile substrate was the least insulating.
3.2. Effect of green roof substrate moisture content on thermal
conductivity
As expected, substrate moisture content was consistently asso-
ciated with increased thermal conductivity across all substrates.
However, the thermal conductivities of the three green roof
substrates increased at different rates (Figs. 4–6). The thermal con-
ductivity of the crushed roof tile substrate increased at a greater
rate with increasing moisture content compared to scoria mix and
bottom-ash substrates. Generally, the thermal conductivity values
at steady-state condition are congruous results with little fluctua-
tion. In contrast, transient measurements of thermal conductivities
have wider fluctuation in particular for moist and wet samples even
within the same sample (see Section 3.3) which is reflected in their
standard deviation (Table 1).
Transient thermal conductivities of moist and wet samples were
more challenging to measure than the thermal conductivity of
dry samples due to the dynamic nature of the water distribution
and transportation in the sample. Heat transfer is not purely one
dimensional, and this is particularly true for moist and wet samples
when the heat transfer is coupled with the water mass transfer.
The moist and wet samples do not have perfectly homogeneous
moisture contents due to the size of the substrate holding frames.
This was particularly evident when measuring thermal conductiv-
ity with the dual-needle thermal probe at five different points of
the same sample. Smaller fluctuation in the thermal conductivity
for moist and wet samples was measured with the single probe as
the sampling point was the same for all the replicated measure-
ments, therefore the localised differences in moisture content did
not affect the final result.
3.3. Comparison between steady-state and transient
measurements
The transient measurements with single and dual-needle probes
produced less consistent thermal conductivities with higher stan-
dard deviation than the steady-state measurements (Figs. 4–6). In
general, we found that steady-state thermal conductivities were
higher for moist and wet samples compared to transient ther-
mal conductivities. Local transient heating around the probe may
cause moisture to move away, so that the region around the
probe becomes drier and therefore has lower thermal conductiv-
ity. Steady-state measurement avoids this local heating effect since
it imposes a stable overall temperature gradient during measure-
ment.
Other observations using the probes are below:
a) Previous research has suggested that the thermal conductivity
measured by a probe should include a correction term to take
into account the presence of the probe [48]. This is because the
probes may facilitate heat transfer through the needle itself and
therefore make heat conduction more significant than in the k-
Matic apparatus due to the contact of the probe.
b) While the steady-state measurements take into account heat
transfer through the entire substrate profile (60 mm) and
account for a larger volume of the sample, the transient mea-
surements are mostly limited to the sampling point.
c) For the dual-needle measurements, the region tested by the
probe was closer to the surface (top 15 mm) and was potentially
drier, and therefore less thermally conductive, than the bot-
tom region which was likely to be wetter due to water dynamic
nature to move down.
d) Five points for each sample were measured with the dual-needle
probe, so the moisture content might have been slightly differ-
ent in each measured point.
e) The KD2 Pro manual acknowledges the possibility of a slight
decrease in thermal conductivity due to the probe contact resis-
tance that may occur when an air gap is created.
f) The dual-needle probe has a large heat pulse which causes free
convection in wet or liquid samples and thus slightly increases
thermal conductivity result.
g) The KD2 Pro manual also acknowledges that measurements
are less accurate (±10%) when measuring thermal conductiv-
ities higher than 0.2 W m−1 K−1 , conditions which occurred in
the moist and wet samples. In contrast, steady-state measure-
ments reduced the inaccuracies to ±7% for highly conducting
wet crushed roof tile samples and to ±4% for dry samples [45].
h) Finally, the penetration of the probe slightly alters the density
and compaction of the sample and may potentially create more
air gaps.
According to the KD2 Pro manual, each probe is designed to
test different samples with different properties. The 100 mm single-
needle probe (TR-1) is recommended for moist or dry soils, powders
and granular materials and not liquid. The 30 mm dual-needle
probe (SH-1) is designed mostly for solid and granular materials
 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131
and not for liquids, but, according to the manual, it is still suitable
for moist or dry soils, powders and granular materials.
For dry substrates we observed that data collected by SH-1 bet-
ter matched the results obtained using the steady-state approach,
while the results collected by TR-1 were usually closer to the
steady-state thermal conductivities of the substrate samples with
higher moisture content. Differences are due to the design of the
probes and measurement techniques. The single-needle probe has
a diameter of 2.4 mm, while the diameter of the dual-needle probe
is 1.3 mm. This implies that the TR-1 probe is more invasive and
generates a greater contact local disturbance than the SH-1 probe.
TR-1 and SH-1 probes measure thermal conductivity in two
different ways: the single-needle probe measures the thermal
conductivity through the probe itself where both the heater and
temperature sensors are located, while the dual-needle probe
measures thermal conductivity between the needles. In fact, the
dual-needle probe is formed of two different probes: one gener-
ates the heat pulse, while the other measures the temperature. The
longer measurement time for dry sample with the single probe may
also be a reason why the results differ. The single probe requires a
higher measurement time: 10 min for dry samples, 5 min for moist
and wet, while the dual probe requires only 2 min for every sample.
Although the k-Matic apparatus provides the most consistent
and reliable thermal conductivity values, we found that both probes
provided useable values for our substrates under different moisture
contents. However, the dual-needle probe proved to have rela-
tively more accurate results for the dry samples, while the single
probe was better for moist and wet samples. The exception was the
bottom-ash substrate where both probes had comparable results
perhaps due to the finer particles of which the substrate is com-
posed.
3.4. Thermal conductivity correlations for green roof substrates
The thermal conductivity of green roof substrates changes with
water content. After analysing three soil thermal conductivity mod-
els [38–40], Sailor and Hagos [31] adopted and optimized a model
for the thermal conductivities of their green roof substrates by
plotting the ratio of the thermal conductivities (k) on the ther-
mal conductivity of the dry substrate (kdry ) as a function of the
volumetric degree of saturation (Sr ). The resulting Eq. (2) was:
k ␣ exp(␤Sr )
= (2)
kdry [1 + (␣ − 1) exp(␤Sr )]
Where ␣ = 1.45 and ␤ = 4.411. We plotted the thermal conductivi-
ties of our substrates over their dry steady-state values (normalized
thermal conductivity) using Sailor’s ␣ and ␤ coefficients. With Eq.
(2) we also calculated our own ␣ and ␤ coefficients to minimise
the root mean square error (RMSE) using the Microsoft Excel solver
function. The following coefficients were calculated:
• For scoria mix substrate, ␣ = 1.339 and ␤ = 3.681 with
RMSE = 0.0036 compared to RMSE = 0.0205 with Sailor coef-
ficients (Fig. 8).
• For crushed roof tile substrate, ␣ = 1.155 and ␤ = 2.24 with
RMSE = 0.0061 compared to RMSE = 0.0612 with Sailor coeffi-
cients (Fig. 9).
• For bottom-ash substrate, ␣ = 1.305 and ␤ = 3.221 with
RMSE = 0.0009 compared to RMSE = 0.0192 with Sailor coef-
ficients (Fig. 10).
Figs. 8–10 show the normalized thermal conductivity as defined
by Eq. (2) for scoria mix, crushed roof tile and bottom-ash substrates
against their volumetric saturation levels. While the relationship
for scoria and bottom-ash is a curve with a slight downward
129
concavity, the roof tile shows a slight upward concavity, highlight-
ing how this material is sensitive to water content. This may be
explained by the physical properties of the crushed roof tile, which
is the substrate aggregate with the highest bulk density and the
lowest air filled porosity (Table 2 [13]). In the wet condition, the
bulk density of the crushed roof tile was 30% higher than the scoria
mix and bottom-ash substrates, making the substrate more com-
pact and less porous.
The single-needle probe measurements tended to overestimate
the normalized thermal conductivity for wet scoria and crushed
roof tile substrates calculated with our coefficients, while the
dual-needle probe tended to underestimate these values. For the
bottom-ash, the single and dual-needle probes gave similar results
for the wet samples.
Sailor’s coefficients were calculated using the thermal conduc-
tivity measured with the dual-needle SH-1 probe. Indeed, for the
scoria mix and crushed roof tile substrates (Figs. 8 and 9), we found
that Sailor’s curve fits the thermal conductivities that we measured
with the same type of probe (SH-1) well. However, as we believe
the steady-state thermal conductivities to be more accurate, we
needed to calculate new coefficients for Eq. (2).
It is noted that the volumetric saturation level for green roof
substrates is complex to measure as it is dependent on the sub-
strate density and on the substrate container (i.e. a pot for plants
would have a different volumetric saturation level than a green
roof module due to different bulk density and compaction). For
future studies, the water content by weight might be a more feasible
alternative to set up standard models or equations.
3.5. Implications for buildings
Existing green roof thermal models [22,24] use the thermal con-
ductivity of substrates to calculate heat transfers through the roof
profile and estimate building energy savings. It is crucial to feed
models with accurate values for all the required inputs, includ-
ing the conductivity of dry soil. A parametric analysis for a 120 m2
single-storey building located in the Melbourne suburb of Tulla-
marine was simulated with EnergyPlus 8.5.0 using Sailor’s 2008
[22] green roof model. Weather data used for the simulations were
collected at Melbourne airport, located in the same suburb of Tul-
lamarine, from 1st April 2014 through 31st March 2015. Default
data were used for all the green roof inputs, except the conductiv-
ity of dry soil (CDS). We performed two simulations: i) the first with
CDS as 0.35 W m−1 K−1 (default value); ii) the second time with CDS
as 0.13 W m−1 K−1 (average thermal conductivity of the scoria mix
substrate at dry condition measured using our steady-state tech-
nique). In comparison with the first simulation, it was found that
the heating load for one year of the second simulation decreased
significantly (∼32%), while the cooling load increased (∼7%).
Furthermore, our study highlights how higher substrate mois-
ture content is consistently associated with significantly higher
thermal conductivity. Existing green roof thermal models might
be more accurate if different substrate thermal conductivity values
reflecting different moisture contents are used. They might also be
able to predict seasonal differences and calculate yearly benefit if
soil moisture sensors are installed in the green roofs.
Of the three green roof substrates we tested, scoria was found
to have the lowest thermal conductivity under different moisture
contents. Consequently, if all other design considerations are equal,
it should be chosen if insulation is to be maximised.
However, we recognise that further studies are required to
model the thermal performance of buildings using these substrates
across Australia climate zones [21]. We also understand that the
green roofs should be judged on the multiple benefits they provide,
and not only for their insulating properties.
130 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131

Fig. 8. Normalized thermal conductivity curves for scoria mix substrate as a function of moisture saturation level.

Fig. 9. Normalized thermal conductivity curves for crushed roof tile substrate as a function of moisture saturation level.

Fig. 10. Normalized thermal conductivity curves for bottom-ash substrate as a function of moisture saturation level.
 A. Pianella et al. / Energy and Buildings 131 (2016) 123–131
4. Conclusions
The thermal conductivity values of three green roof substrates
based on scoria mix, crushed roof tile, and bottom-ash respectively
were measured using steady-state and transient techniques. All the
substrates were tested at three different moisture contents: dry,
moist and wet. Results showed that steady-state measurements
are more consistent within replicates than transient measurements
taken by the needle probes. Substrates have different thermal con-
ductivity due to their main aggregate material and the moisture
content. For the three substrates tested, their thermal conductiv-
ity increases with substrate moisture content. Steady-state thermal
conductivities are generally higher than transient thermal conduc-
tivities for moist and wet samples due to longer measurement
time across a larger volume of sample, and the technical limi-
tations of the probes. Although transient measurements provide
useable thermal conductivity values under different moisture con-
tents, steady-state measurements provide more accurate results to
feed existing green roof thermal models. To quantify thermal con-
ductivity for energy rating schemes and similar applications, it is
important that results are comparable and therefore tests should
be conducted under similar steady-state conditions.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by ARC Linkage grant LP130100731
and conducted in collaboration with CSIRO Infrastructure Tech-
nologies. Andrea Pianella is supported by the Melbourne
International Research Scholarship (MIRS) and Melbourne Inter-
national Fee Remission Scholarship (MIFRS). Authors would like to
thank Jörg Werdin for his help preparing the substrate samples and
building the filling frame, Associate Professor Barbara Ozarska for
her advice on waterproofing the timber frames and John Rayner for
discussion of substrate components.
References
[1] E. Oberndorfer, J. Lundholm, B. Bass, et al., Green roofs as urban ecosystems:
ecological structures, functions, and services, Bioscience 57 (10) (2007)
823–833.
[2] U. Berardi, A. GhaffarianHoseini, A. GhaffarianHoseini, State-of-the-art
analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs, Appl. Energy 115 (2014)
411–428.
[3] Y. Li, R.W. Babcock Jr, Green roof hydrologic performance and modeling: a
review, Water Sci. Technol. 69 (4) (2014) 727–738.
[4] N.S.G. Williams, J. Lundholm, J. Scott Macivor, Do green roofs help urban
biodiversity conservation? J. Appl. Ecol. 51 (6) (2014) 1643–1649.
[5] J.T. Lundholm, Green roof plant species diversity improves ecosystem
multifunctionality, J. Appl. Ecol. 52 (3) (2015) 726–734.
[6] D. Kolokotsa, M. Santamouris, S.C. Zerefos, Green and cool roofs’ urban heat
island mitigation potential in European climates for office buildings under
free floating conditions, Sol. Energy 95 (2013) 118–130.
[7] J.J. Baik, K.H. Kwak, S.B. Park, Y.H. Ryu, Effects of building roof greening on air
quality in street canyons, Atmos. Environ. 61 (2012) 48–55.
[8] A. Niachou, K. Papakonstantinou, M. Santamouris, A. Tsangrassoulis, G.
Mihalakakou, Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investigation
of its energy performance, Energy Build. 33 (7) (2001) 719–729.
[9] K.E. Lee, K.J.H. Williams, L.D. Sargent, N.S.G. Williams, K.A. Johnson, 40-second
green roof views sustain attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention
restoration, J. Environ. Psychol. 42 (2015) 182–189.
[10] K.E. Lee, Gazing at nature makes you more productive, in: N. Torres (Ed.),
Defend Your Research, Harvard Business Review, 2015, pp. 32–33.
[11] T. Hartig, R. Mitchell, S. De Vries, H. Frumkin, Nature and health, Annu. Rev.
Public Health (2014) 207–228.
[12] N.S.G. Williams, J.P. Rayner, K.J. Raynor, Green roofs for a wide brown land:
opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia, Urban For. Urban
Green. 9 (3) (2010) 245–251.
[13] C. Farrell, R.E. Mitchell, C. Szota, J.P. Rayner, N.S.G. Williams, Green roofs for
hot and dry climates: interacting effects of plant water use, succulence and
substrate, Ecol. Eng. 49 (2012) 270–276.
[14] C. Farrell, X.Q. Ang, J.P. Rayner, Water-retention additives increase plant
available water in green roof substrates, Ecol. Eng. 52 (2013) 112–118.
[15] O. Saadatian, K. Sopian, E. Salleh, A review of energy aspects of green roofs,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23 (2013) 155–168.
131
[16] Department of Industry, I.a.S, Australian Energy Statistics, 2015 [cited 2016
24/05/2016]; Available from: http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-
Chief-Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-statistics.aspx#.
[17] P. La Roche, U. Berardi, Comfort and energy savings with active green roofs,
Energy Build. 82 (2014) 492–504.
[18] H.F. Castleton, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison, Green roofs; building energy
savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy Build. 42 (10) (2010) 1582–1591.
[19] U. Berardi, The outdoor microclimate benefits and energy saving resulting
from green roofs retrofits, Energy Build. 121 (2016) 217–229.
[20] ABCB, NCC 2016 Building Code of Australia – Volume Two. NCC 2016 Building
Code of Australia. Vol. Two. 2016: The Australian Building Codes Board.
[21] A. Pianella, J. Bush, Z. Dong, N.S.G. Williams, L. Aye, Green roofs in Australia:
review of thermal performance and associated policy development, in
Architectural Science Association Conference 2016. In review: Adelaide,
Australia.
[22] D.J. Sailor, A green roof model for building energy simulation programs,
Energy Build. 40 (8) (2008) 1466–1478.
[23] E. Palomo Del Barrio, Analysis of the green roofs cooling potential in
buildings, Energy Build. 27 (2) (1998) 179–193.
[24] P.C. Tabares-Velasco, J. Srebric, A heat transfer model for assessment of plant
based roofing systems in summer conditions, Build. Environ. 49 (1) (2012)
310–323.
[25] F. Olivieri, C. Di Perna, M. D”Orazio, L. Olivieri, J. Neila, Experimental
measurements and numerical model for the summer performance
assessment of extensive green roofs in a Mediterranean coastal climate,
Energy Build. 63 (2013) 1–14.
[26] G. Kotsiris, A. Androutsopoulos, E. Polychroni, P.A. Nektarios, Dynamic
U-value estimation and energy simulation for green roofs, Energy Build. 45
(2012) 240–249.
[27] Y.J. Lin, H.T. Lin, C.Y. Chou, Physical properties and thermal performance of
calcined sludge as planting substrate in green roofs. 2011: Shangri-La. pp.
3–11.
[28] T.S. Yun, J.C. Santamarina, Fundamental study of thermal conduction in dry
soils, Granular Matter 10 (3) (2008) 197–207.
[29] W. Woodside, J.H. Messmer, Thermal conductivity of porous media. I.
Unconsolidated sands, J. Appl. Phys. 32 (9) (1961) 1688–1699.
[30] G.A. Narsilio, J. Kress, T.S. Yun, Characterisation of conduction phenomena in
soils at the particle-scale: finite element analyses in conjunction with
synthetic 3D imaging, Comput. Geotech. 37 (7–8) (2010) 828–836.
[31] D.J. Sailor, M. Hagos, An updated and expanded set of thermal property data
for green roof growing media, Energy Build. 43 (9) (2011) 2298–2303.
[32] D.J. Sailor, D. Hutchinson, L. Bokovoy, Thermal property measurements for
ecoroof soils common in the western U.S, Energy Build. 40 (7) (2008)
1246–1251.
[33] P.C. Tabares-Velasco, J. Srebric, Experimental quantification of heat and mass
transfer process through vegetated roof samples in a new laboratory setup,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 54 (25–26) (2011) 5149–5162.
[34] M. Zhao, P.C. Tabares-Velasco, J. Srebric, S. Komarneni, R. Berghage, Effects of
plant and substrate selection on thermal performance of green roofs during
the summer, Build. Environ. (2014) (0).
[35] A.M. Coutts, E. Daly, J. Beringer, N.J. Tapper, Assessing practical measures to
reduce urban heat: green and cool roofs, Build. Environ. 70 (2013) 266–276.
[36] DEPI, Growing Green Guide: a Guide to Green Roofs, Walls and Facades in
Melbourne and Victoria, Australia, Victorian Department of Environment and
Primary Industries, Melbourne, 2014.
[37] GBCA, Green Star Design & As Built v1.1, Submission Guidelines, Green
Building Council of Australia, Sydney, 2015.
[38] O. Johansen, Thermal Conductivity of Soils, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim, 1977.
[39] J. Côté, J.M. Konrad, A generalized thermal conductivity model for soils and
construction materials, Can. Geotech. J. 42 (2) (2005) 443–458.
[40] S. Lu, T. Ren, Y. Gong, R. Horton, An improved model for predicting soil
thermal conductivity from water content at room temperature, Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 71 (1) (2007) 8–14.
[41] O.T. Farouki, Thermal Properties of Soils, Trans Tech Publications, 1986.
[42] J. Darkwa, G. Kokogiannakis, G. Suba, Effectiveness of an intensive green roof
in a sub-tropical region, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 34 (4) (2013) 417–432.
[43] S.E. Ouldboukhitine, R. Belarbi, R. Djedjig, Characterization of green roof
components: measurements of thermal and hydrological properties, Build.
Environ. 56 (2012) 78–85.
[44] ASTM, ASTM C518-10. Test method for steady-state thermal transmission
properties by means of the heat flow meter apparatus Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, vol. 14.02, ASTM International, 2010.
[45] R.E. Clarke, A. Pianella, B. Shabani, G. Rosengarten, Steady-state thermal
measurement of moist granular earthen materials, J. Build. Phys. (2016),
http://jen.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/03/12/1744259116637864.
abstract.
[46] K.L. Bristow, G.J. Kluitenberg, C.J. Goding, T.S. Fitzgerald, A small multi-needle
probe for measuring soil thermal properties, water content and electrical
conductivity, Comput. Electron. Agric. 31 (3) (2001) 265–280.
[47] G. Liu, B.C. Si, Single- and dual-probe heat pulse probe for determining
thermal properties of dry soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75 (3) (2011) 787–794.
[48] K.L. Bristow, R.D. White, Comparison of single and dual probes for measuring
soil thermal properties with transient heating, Aust. J. Soil Res. 32 (3) (1994)
447–464.