## 5 Results and Discussion
### MUZA's Thermal Bridges  
Figure 10 visualizes the temperature distribution for the analysed construction details. The influence of steel elements (studs, beams, columns) on the temperature distribution is evident by strong concentration of the heat flux around steel.  
Figure 10 and Table 6 give the results of the thermal bridges analyses.  
Figure 10: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Construction Detail**} & \(L_{\text{zD}}\) & \(\overline{\text{\boldmath$\psi$}}\) & **Min. Surf. Temp.** & \(f_{\text{f}si}\) \\  & [**W/(m K]**] & [**W/(m K)**] & [**\({}^{\circ}\)C**] & [**\({}^{\circ}\)**C**] \\ \hline Wall—wall corner & \(0.38410\) & \(0.0178\) & \(18.293\) & \(0.943\) \\ \hline Wall—niche & \(0.32853\) & \(0.0800\) & \(18.539\) & \(0.951\) \\ \hline Wall-floor connection & \(0.28919\) & \(-0.0038\) & \(17.707\) & \(0.924\) \\ \hline Roof—wall connection & \(0.28417\) & \(-0.0195\) & \(18.394\) & \(0.946\) \\ \hline Wall—sliding door frontal connection & \(1.14286\) & \(0.0628\) & \(15.220\) & \(0.841\) \\ \hline Wall—sliding doors niche & \(1.22735\) & \(0.115\) & \(15.606\) & \(0.854\) \\ \hline Sliding doors—wall side connection & \(1.22786\) & \(-0.209\) & \(13.028\) & \(0.768\) \\ \hline Sliding doors—floor connection & \(0.69195\) & \(-0.295\) & \(14.378\) & \(0.813\) \\ \hline Sliding doors—roof connection & \(0.40650\) & \(-0.472\) & \(15.330\) & \(0.844\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Results of numerical analysis of the analysed thermal bridges.  
Figure 10: Geometrical models and temperature distribution of the analysed thermal bridges.  
The results (\(\psi\)-values) shown in Table 6 were calculated by using the \(U_{\mathit{eff}}\)-values from Table 5, while the internal surface temperatures were calculated for the geometry shown in Figure 10 with the real building's envelope layers and material properties. This approach was taken because the building's energy balance would presumably be calculated using the \(U_{\mathit{eff}}\) values due to the simplicity of the approach (accounting for the linear thermal bridges of steel studs directly in the \(U_{\mathit{eff}}\)), while the remaining thermal bridges should then be taken into account using the \(\psi\)-values calculated in Table 6.  
It is evident from the results of the numerical calculations that wrapping the steel members of the LSF structure continuously with thermal insulation would contribute significantly to reduction in heat losses, with \(\psi\)-values well below 0.1 W/(m\(\cdot\)K), except for the wall-sliding doors connection in the niche of the MUZA. This slightly worse value was because of the construction detail which, due to technological reasons and the slender sliding door frame, made it difficult to install additional external thermal insulation. Here, a relatively high internal surface temperature confirms that this version of the detail is also acceptable and there is no need to invest more resources into additionally reducing the \(\psi\)-value. The very low \(\psi\)-values obtained for the last three details in Table 6 are the consequence of the calculation procedure described above, as well as the use of \(U_{\mathit{eff}}\).  
While heat loss is a significant consequence of thermal bridging, the more potentially serious aspect results from the occurrence of low internal surface temperatures in thermal bridge areas. This can lead to surface condensation for non-absorbent materials or loss of thermal performance, structural integrity, and mould growth for absorbent materials.  
Concerning the factor \(f_{\mathit{Rsi}}\), it can be seen from Table 6 that the values are well above the limiting value of \(f_{\mathit{Rsi}}=0.7\), which ensures the reduced risk of mould growth on the internal surface of the considered construction details.