
We're going from a door with an R value of about 4.5 to one rated as 16.5 or so. In percentage terms, can someone tell me how much better the 16.5 will be than the 4.5? I know it's not as simple as being "4 times better," but can't find the math online.
Thanks,

FollowUp Postings:

 Posted by davidandkasie (My Page) on Mon, Nov 26, 07 at 17:41
i am not sure either. but one thing i can tell you is that if that door is not 100% airtight against the opening when closed, you just wasted a bunch of money. 

Perhaps the following will help. I did not write it so don't ask me to explain it. Rvalue is a term predominantly used in the building industry to rate the insulative properties of construction materials and building assemblies. It is derived from the Ufactor (see below). The higher the Rvalue, the greater insulation value. The relationship between Ufactor or Rvalue and thickness is not always exactly linear and therefore its value cannot be precisely extrapolated for a material of different thickness, but assuming a linear relationship is often adequate. In any case, Rvalues of adjacent materials can be added to determine a final Rvalue of the entire construction assembly; e.g., Rvalue(brick) + Rvalue(fibreglass batt) + Rvalue(plasterboard) = R value(total) The SI unit for Rvalue is kelvin square meters per watt (K·m²/W). The imperial unit for Rvalue is ft²·°F·h/Btu. The conversion factor is 1 ft²·°F·h/Btu ≈ 0.1761 K·m²/W, or 1 K·m²/W ≈ 5.67446 ft²·°F·h/Btu. Sometimes the nomenclature 'RSI' is used to denote the SI form of the value. In contrast, the imperial unit is often written as R–31.4. To complicate matters, some countries that employ the SI system (e.g. New Zealand) retain the R but incorporate a dash e.g. R–5.53. One tenth of an RSI is called a tog. Some sellers of radiant barrier products spread the rumor that Rvalue measures only heat transfer from conduction, ignoring radiation and convection. This oftrepeated statement is false. As David Yarbrough, an engineer and insulation expert at R & D Services in Cookeville, Tennessee, has written,"The Rvalue used to describe thermal insulating products includes heat being transferred by all three mechanisms  conduction, radiation, and convection. The term used in the thermal insulation community is ‘apparent thermal conductivity.’ A formal definition for apparent thermal conductivity is contained in document C168 published by the American Society for Testing and Materials. The term is applied to situations involving the simultaneous flow of heat by all three transport mechanisms. The statement ‘Rvalues are measures of conductive thermal resistance’ is incorrect, if it implies a limitation, since ‘Rvalue’ includes radiation and convection when they are present." Rvalue should also not be confused with the intrinsic property of thermal resistivity and its inverse, thermal conductivity. The SI unit of thermal resistivity is K·m/W. Thermal conductivity assumes that the heat transfer of the material is linearly related to its thickness. Ufactor (also known as UValue) Ufactor describes how well a building material conducts heat. Methodologically, it measures the heat transfer of a material of known thickness over a given area under standard conditions. The usual standard is at a temperature gradient of 24oC at 50% humidity in no wind conditions.[1] U is the inverse of R i.e. U = 1/R and the SI unit for U is W/(K·m²). For example, if the interior of your home is at 20 °C, and the roof cavity is at 10 °C, the temperature difference is 10 K. Assuming a ceiling insulated to R–2, energy will be lost at a rate of 10 K / 2 K·m²/W = 5 watts for every square metre of ceiling. 

Holy cannoli! 

I'm surprised someone makes a garage door with an R value that high. That's higher than 35/8" batt insulation (R11) and close to 6" batt insulation (R17). How thick is the door? As David said, your challenge now shifts to the door perimeter. That's a great insulating value, but unless it seals very tightly to the wall in the closed position you won't really make use of the insulating properties. 

It really is just 4x times better. This is tempered by infiltration losses that will reduce the possible improvement. Higher R value is easily obtained with various foam type insulations, they just cost a lot more. Polyiso foam runs R7 per inch. 

While it is 4 times better, what does that really mean? When you are talking about heat loss and insulation, you're talking about slowing down the speed the heat travels through something (a door, a wall, a window, etc.). A single pane of glass has about an R1 value, so, in comparison, your R4.5 door would allow 1/4.5, or about 22%, of the heat to pass through compared to a window of the same square footage. When you increase the door to an R16.5 you allow 1/16.5, or about 6% of the energy to pass through compared to the window. You are saving more energy by going to the higher Rvalue door, but it's not a huge amount becasue the R4.5 door was already slowing down the heat loss a fair amount. What this illustrates is that increasing insulation has diminishing returns because, once you slow down heat loss, the amount left to save gets smaller. Even if you had a 15" thick door with an Rvalue of 100, it wouldn't be that much better than your R16.5 door. It's nice that you have a highly insulated door, but, unfortunately, you won't see any noticeable difference in your energy bill because: 1) your original door had a decent Rvalue to start with, and 2) the square footage of your door amounts to only a very small portion of your overall heat loss surface (roof, walls, windows, and floors). The most important thing is to be sure the door is adequately weatherstripped, because you can lose much more energy through the cracks around a door than you will gain through having a higher Rvalue door. 

 Posted by brian7972ri (My Page) on Sun, Dec 16, 07 at 13:10
Thanks for all of this information and insights. Just checking back into this thread now. I misspoke on our original door. Apparently, they were R2 rated. The new doors (Amarr Olympus) are 15.67 or something in that range, for whatever that rating/methodology is worth. From my eyes, there are no gaps or other issues with the weatherstripping (looking outside when garage is dark). We have some empirical evidence that the doors make a 23 degree F difference on the floor above the garage (we did pre and post measurements with the same thermometer). While the surface area of the door is certainly smaller than the rest of the surface area of the room, the floor is 24x24 with an unheated garage underneath it, so we figured upgrading the doors (which needed upgrading anyway) was worth it. Of course, I'd be lying if I could say that we can "feel" a 23 degree difference in the room on the floor temperature, but the empirical pre to post testing (relatively scientific, but not perfect) makes us feel better for the expense. 

 Posted by brian7972ri (My Page) on Sun, Dec 16, 07 at 13:12
Post a FollowUp
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.
If you are a member, please log in.
If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Garages/Workshops Forum
Information about Posting
 You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
 Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
 Posting is a twostep process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
 After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
 Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
 We have a strict noadvertising policy!
 If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
 If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about intext links on this page here