Energy efficient buildings

Page 1

ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING


POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Case Study 1: CasaSelvino Group 9 Professor Garaziano Salvalai MSc Building and Architectural Engineering Academic Year 2020-2021

2


MOHAMMAD AYAT

IVAN CARNIELETTO

REYHANEH GHAYOURI

ELAHEH NAMVARI

ALI NEMATI

IULIIA MURLYSHEVA

SEYYEDEHFATEME OLIAEI

3


1.

CONTENT

Introduction........................................................................................6 Passive house 2. Case study 1: CASASELVINO...........................................................9 2.1 General introduction 2.2 Dispersing areas 2.3 Technical drawings 2.4 Envelope analysis 3. Envelope technologies.....................................................................16 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Base case envelope 3.3 Lightweight envelope 3.4 Massive envelope 3.5 Comparisons 4. Climate analysis................................................................................27 4.1 Direct solar radiation 4.2 Ambient temperature 4.3 Relative humidity 4.4 Relation between T and RH% 4.5 Relation between T and solar radiation 4.6 Psychrometric chart and comfort zones 4.6.1 Bergamo 4.6.2 El-kharga 5. Building regime types and schedules............................................43 5.1 Bergamo 5.2 El-Kharga 6. Simulations.......................................................................................46 6.1 Definition of icons 6.2 Simulation summary 6.3 Considerations 6.3.1 Ground heat exchanger design in Bergamo 6.3.2 Ground heat exchanger design in El-kharga 7. Optimization in Bergamo.................................................................67 7.1 Layering 7.2 Shading 7.3 Ventilation 7.4 Summer comfort (passive strategies) 7.5 Windows 7.6 Winter optimization 7.7 Winter comfort (passive strategies) 7.8 Heat exchanger 7.9 Ground to air heat exchanger 7.10 Total comfort 7.11 Bergamo conclusion 7.12 Passive and active strategies effect on energy absorption 8. Optimization in El-kharga................................................................98 8.1 Layering 8.2 Shading 8.3 Ventilation 8.4 Summer comfort (passive strategies) 8.5 Windows 8.6 Winter optimization 8.7 Winter comfort (passive strategies) 8.8 Heat exchanger 8.9 Ground to air heat exchanger 8.10 Heating and Cooling 8.11 Total comfort 8.12 El-Kharga conclusion 8.13 Passive and active strategies effect on energy absorption

4


5


1

INTRODUCTION


1 - Introduction

The Passive house concept: A house without a conventional heating system More than “just” a low-energy building: • savings of more than 90%, compared to the existing building stock, for space heating and cooling. • efficient use of the sun, internal heat sources and heat recovery, rendering conventional heating systems unnecessary. • high level of comfort thanks to small variations of temperature between air and surfaces. • constant supply of fresh air through a ventilation system. The idea of passive house is to reduce as much energy absorption as possible before producing any kind of energy. 5 concepts of Passive house: 1- Thermal insulation 2- Passive house windows 3- Adequate ventilation strategy 4- Airtightness 5- Thermal-Bridge-Free

Building Services: Fresh external air is required for the comfort of users. With heat recovery Mechanical ventilation, it is possible to guarantee the indoor air quality, at the same time limiting the heat loss. What is the influence of ventilation on the energy balance? In a very simple, not extremely insulated, building like this (Uop = 0.34 W/m²K; Uwindows = 2.2 W/m²K): HT 150 W/K HV = 23 W/K Improving the envelope only (Uop = 0.1 W/m²K; Uwindows = 1.0 W/m²K): HT 50 W/K HV = 23 W/K with heat recovery HV = 9 W/K

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

7


1 - Introduction

Typical scheme of the building services in a Passive House. A mechanical ventilation unit with heat recovery (MVHR). In Passive Houses, the efficiency of the heat recovery system is higher than 75%.

Of course, it is still possible to open windows in a Passive House, for whatever reason (a party, mild weather, a quick air change, etc.). However, it is not necessary throughout most of the year thanks to the ventilation system. Fine filters keep dust, pollen, and other particulate materials out. High thermal comfort for users: the temperatures of bounding surfaces are more uniform if thermal resistance is high (more homogeneous heat exchange by radiation to / from body).

Uncomplicated: no need for instruction manuals to operate a Passive House. Technology is relatively simple because the benefits result from the design of the building itself. A Passive House is based on the performance improvement of already existing elements. Future-proof: the running cost of a Passive House will be only marginally dependent on the future cost of energy. Moreover, a Passive House maintains habitable indoor temperatures even in the case of power outages, increasing resilience in emergency situations. Affordable: compared to standard buildings, the investment costs for Passive Houses are often slightly higher because of the more intensive planning and superior components involved. The investment in higher quality building components is partially offset by the elimination of expensive heating and cooling systems. Over the lifespan of the building Passive Houses are more cost effective than conventional buildings thanks to their extremely low running costs. The Passive House indicators: Energy need for space heating and cooling < 15 kWh/m2a (temperate climate, continental Europe) Heating and cooling load < 10 W/m2 Primary energy for all uses < 120 kWh/m2a (in the future, with most energy from renewable sources, < 60 kWh/m2a) Airtightness (n50) < 0.6 h-1 Temperatures above comfort levels in summer months or in warm climates < 10% of the time

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

8


2

CASE STUDY1:

CASASELVINO


2 - Case Study1: CasaSelvino

10


11


2 - Case Study1: CasaSelvino 2.1 - General introduction Architects: AIACE – Studio di Ingegneria Partners: The AIACE architecture and engineering, experimental village for eco-sustainable holidays Type of project: New construction Project Year: 2011 House Address: Selvino, Bergamo, Italy Area: 144.1 sqm

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

12


2 - Case Study1: CasaSelvino

Not far from the city of Bergamo and within easy reach of Milan, the CasaSelvino eco-village offers all the beauty of the mountains without leaving an environmental footprint, thanks to the Class A CasaClima and CENED certified design choices. Despite its proximity to the main city of Bergamo and within easy reach from Milan, Selvino has retained its authentic charm, combining the mountain landscape with an extensive summer and winter tourist offer.

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

13


2 - Case Study1: CasaSelvino The idea behind CasaSelvino is to offer a green concept to anyone seeking a mountain holiday and who wants to save resources at the same time. The design choices that led to Class A certification to the CasaClima standard include insulation, orientation of the buildings, the use of solar energy and prefabricated wood and concrete panels, keeping carbon emissions to a minimum. The south-facing fully glazed bioclimatic “hothouse� maximises winter solar gain to the benefit of the interior climate, and also extends the living zone into the garden. The pitched roofs are covered in green vegetation and also incorporate solar panels, to emphasise the ongoing connection with nature, and for practical purposes: the plants absorb rainwater, improve the summer microclimate and provide additional insulation.

2.2 - Dispersing areas The building has a total dispersing area of 442.72 sqm that is possible to subdivide in: Dispersing surface of the ground in contact with soil = 118.3 sqm Dispersing surface of the opaque parts (walls and roof) = 284.62 sqm Dispersing surface of the glazing parts (window) = 19 sqm

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

14


2 - Case Study1: CasaSelvino 2.3 - Technical drawings

CasaSelvino can be divided in six different thermal zones: First thermal zone is Sunspace area 4.52 sqm Second thermal zone is Living area 24.81 sqm Third thermal zone is Sleeping area 25.80 sqm Fourth thermal zone is non heated area 38.05 sqm Fifth thermal zone is non heated area 25.10 sqm Sixth thermal zone has area of 25.80 sqm

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

15


3

ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGIES


3 - Envelope Technologies

3.1 - Introduction

This chapter studies the differences between the building’s actual envelope technologies (“base case”) and new ones, in order to find the best solution for both cold and hot weather. The case study was designed with massive technology for walls, roofs and partitions. We began studying the “base case” and calculate for each of the layerings some essential properties like thermal transmittance (U), attenuation (Fa) and time shift (ϕ). The second step was to compose and analize new walls and roof technologies, in order to insulate the building from a cold climate or a hot and dry weather. The creation of new layerings with a “massive technology” and a “light technology”, helped us to keep similar values of thermal transmittance (U), in order to compare in particular how attenuation, thermal mass and time shift can affect the building performance.

3.2 - Base case envelope Vertical Wall 1 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.35

Vertical wall (CM1) Layers Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] Plasterboard (1+1) 0.025 0.21 0.32 OSB (oriented strand board) 0.015 0.15 Polystyrene 0.2 0.034 OSB (oriented strand board) 0.015 0.15 Lightweight concrete 0.05 0.45 Cavity 0.04 _ Wood finishing 0.004 _ fd [-] 0.667

I

E

N 1 2 3 4

0.32

Results Ms [kg/m2] 87

ρ [kg/m3] 900 650 100 650 500 _ _

U [W/m2K] 0.1543

I

E

Vertical wall (CM1) Vertical Wall 2

φ [h] 7.24

C [J/kgK] 800 1600 670 1600 800 _ _

Vertical wall (CM2) Vertical wall (CM2) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.025 0.7 0.2 0.91 0.08 0.034 0.15 0.87

Layers Plaster Concrete Polystyrene Stone finishing fd [-] 0.081

0.33

φ [h] 0.09 14.15

Results Ms [kg/m2] 753

C [J/kgK] 800 800 670 800

ρ [kg/m3] 1400 2500 100 1400

U [W/m2K] 0.3389

I

E

Vertical wall (CM2) E

E

I

Party wall (CM3)

I

Party wall (PV1)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

17


3 - Envelope Technologies 0.32

Party Wall 1

N 1 2 3 4 5

0.33

Party wall (CM3) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.025 0.7 0.2 0.91 0.09 0.04 0.034 0.04 0.04 0.025 0.21

Layers Plaster Concrete Polystyrene Mineral wool Plasterboard (1+1) fd [-] 0.129

φ [h] 10.1

Results Ms [kg/m2] 562.7

C [J/kgK] 800 800 670 1000 800

ρ [kg/m3] 1400 2500 100 30 900

U [W/m2K] 0.3675

I

E

Vertical wall (CM2)

Party wall (PV1)

Party wall (CM3) Party Wall 2

N 1 2 3

0.09

I

E

I

E

Party wall (PV1) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.025 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.025 0.21

Layers Plasterboard (1+1) Mineral wool Plasterboard (1+1) fd [-] 0.975

φ [h] 1.36

Results Ms [kg/m2] 46.2

C [J/kgK] 800 1000 800

ρ [kg/m3] 900 30 900

U [W/m2K] 0.7102

I

E

Party wall (PV1)

Slab on Grade

N 1 2 3 4 5

Layers Wood finishing Lightweight concrete Polystyrene Concrete Water proof membrane fd [-] 0.247

φ [h] 11.69

Results Ms [kg/m2] 443

C [J/kgK] 2700 800 670 800 _

ρ [kg/m3] 500 500 100 2500 _

E U [W/m2K] 0.2934

0.39

0.36

E

Slab on grade (CO1) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.02 0.21 0.1 0.16 0.08 0.034 0.15 0.91 0.005 _

I

Slab on grade (CO1)

I

Green Roof (CO2)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

18


3 - Envelope Technologies Green Roof 1

Green Roof (C02) Layers Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] OSB (oriented strand board) 0.015 0.15 Polystyrene 0.2 0.034 Light weight concrete 0.05 0.45 Water proof membrane 0.005 _ E Ground and grass 0.12 0.3

N 1 2 3 E4 5

0.39

0.36

E

0.36

E

φ [h] 12.78

Results Ms [kg/m2] 174.75

ρ [kg/m3] 650 100 500 _ 1000

E[W/m2K] U 0.1501

0.39

I

fd [-] 0.192

C [J/kgK] 1600 670 880 _ 1840

0.39

I

Green Roof (CO2) I

I Slab on grade (CO1) I

Slab on grade (CO1) Green Green Roof 2 Roof (CO2) N 1 2 3 4 5

Green Roof (CO2) Layers Wood finishing Polystyrene Light weight concrete Water proof membrane Ground and grass fd [-] 0.12

E

0.50

0.50

E

Green roof (CO3)

0.39

Roof Towards Heated Zone

I I

N 1 2 3 4E

E

Green roof (CO3) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.02 0.21 0.2 0.034 0.15 0.45 0.005 _ 0.12 0.3 φ [h] 15.09

Results Ms [kg/m2] 233

C [J/kgK] 840 670 880 _ 1840

ρ [kg/m3] 900 100 500 _ 1000

U [W/m2K] 0.1453

Green roof (CO3) Green roof (CO3) Roof towards heated zone (CO4) Layers Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] Wood finishing 0.02 0.21 Polystyrene 0.2 0.034 Light weight concrete 0.15 0.45 Wood finishing 0.02 0.13 fd [-] 0.423

φ [h] 9.35

Results Ms [kg/m2] 123

C [J/kgK] 840 670 880 1600

ρ [kg/m3] 900 100 500 500

U [W/m2K]

Roof towards heated zone0.1507 (CO4)

0.39

Roof towards heated zone (CO4) Roof towards heated zone (CO4) I

I

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

19


3 - Envelope Technologies 3.3 - Lightweight envelope

Slab on Grade

N 1 2 3 4 5

Layers Wood finishing Aerated concrete Polystyrene Concrete (light gravel) Water proof membrane fd [-] 0.223

U [W/m2K] E 0.2641

I

ght Weight Envelope

I

Slab on grade (CO1)

Vertical Wall 1

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.35

Layers Plaster board (1+1) EPS 030 OSB Rock Wool OSB XPS 029 Cavity Finishing

I

E

0.50

Green Roof 1 Vertical wall (CM1)

Green (CO2) VerticalRoof wall (CM1) Thicknes [m] 0.025 0.05 0.015 0.1 0.015 0.1 0.04 0.004

λ [W/mK] 0.21 0.03 0.13 0.034 0.13 0.029 _ _

E

Results φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] 11.43 52.5

C [J/kgK] 800 1450 1800 1030 1800 1450 _ _

ρ [kg/m3] 900 20 650 60 650 35 _ _

U [W/m2K] 0.1166

0.39

fd [-] 0.133

E

Green Greenroof roof(CO2) (CO3)

fd [-] 0.133

Results E φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] 11.43 52.5

C [J/kgK] 1600 1030 1370 1600 1450 _ 1840

ρ [kg/m3] 650 60 300 650 20 _ 1000

U [W/m2K] 0.1166

0.36

E E

0.35

I

Green Roof (C02) Layers Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] OSB (oriented strand board) 0.015 0.15 Rockwool 0.075 0.034 Aerated concrete 0.05 0.1 OSB (oriented strand board) 0.015 0.15 I EPS 030 0.15 0.3 Waterproof membrane 0.005 _ Ground and grass 0.08 0.3

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Massive Envelope

Roof towards heated zone (CO4)

0.39

0.39

Results Ms [kg/m2] 318

C [J/kgK] 2700 1370 670 1040 _

0.39

0.36

E

φ [h] 12.5

Slab on grade (CO1) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] 0.02 0.21 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.034 0.15 0.89 0.005 _

I

Green roof (CO2)

I

I

Slab on grade (CO1) E

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

20


3.4 - Massive envelope

Green roof (CO2) Layers Plaster board (1+1) Rockwool I Concrete 2000kg/m³ Polystyrene Cavity Finishing

Vertical wall (CM1)

0.39

N 1 2 E 3 4 5 6

E

Vertical wall (CM1) Slab on grade (CO1) NThicknes [m] Layers [m] λ [W/mK] C [J/kgK] λ [W/mK] Thicknes C [J/kgK] ρ [kg/m3] 1 0.02800 0.21 900 2700 0.025Wood finishing 0.21 2 Concrete 0.08 0.91 800 0.05 XPS 029 0.034 1030 60 1450 3 0.05 0.029 0.15 1.35 1000 4 Concrete reinforced 0.2 2.5 2000 1000 5 Water proof membrane 0.005 _ _ 0.075 0.034 670 100 0.05 _ _I _ Results 0.004 _ φ (CO2) _ fd [-] roof [h] Ms [kg/m2] U [W/m2K]_ Green

Slab on Grade

E

0.125

11.87

711.75

I E

Massive Envelope

0.4635

E

Slab on grade (CO1)

E

E I

GreenPolystyrene roof (CO2)

Green roof (CO2) I

Vertical (CM1) Green Roof wall 1

N 1 2 3 4 5 6

C [J/kgK] 800 ρ [kg/m3] 1030 900 1000 670 60 _ 500 _

0.1 0.034 670 100 0.005 _ _ _ Results Slab on grade (CO1) fd [-] φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] U [W/m2K] 0.08 0.3 1840 1000

Protective membrane Ground and grass

0.043

I

E

0.36

Vertical wall (CM1) Layers Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] Green Roof (C02) Plaster board (1+1) 0.025 0.21 Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK]0.05 C [J/kgK] Rockwool 0.034 0.0252000kg/m³ 0.21 0.15 8001.35 Concrete Polystyrene 0.075 0.034 0.05 0.034 1030 Cavity 0.05 I _ 0.1 0.45 880 Finishing 0.004 _ 0.36

N 1 2 3 4 5 6

N 1 Layers 2 Plasterboard (1+1) 3 4 Rockwool lightweight concrete5 6

8.98

333

0.2453

E

Layers Plasterboard (1+1) Rockwool lightweight concrete Polystyrene Protective membrane Ground and grass

Green Roof (C02) Thicknes [m] λ [W/mK] I 0.21 0.025 0.05 0.034 0.1 0.45 0.1 0.034 0.005 _ 0.08 0.3

Green roof (CO2)

I

ρ [kg/m3] 900 60 2000 100 _ _

0.40

0.40

0.39

Vertical Wall0.351

Slab on grade (CO1)

fd [-] 0.13

φ [h] 12.5

Results Ms [kg/m2] 165.5

C [J/kgK] 800 1030 880 670 _ 1840

ρ [kg/m3] 900 60 500 100 _ 1000

U [W/m2K] 0.1927

E

0.40

)

I

0.36

)

3 - Envelope Technologies

Green roof (CO2)

I

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

21


3 - Envelope Technologies 3.5 - Comparison

Vertical Wall 1

Green Roof 1

Light Weight Envelope 0.35

0.32

E

E

Base

0.39

0.36

0.35

Light Weight Envelope I

0.35

IE

Light Weight Envelope I E

0.39

Slab on grade (CO1)

I Vertical wall (CM1) [W/m2K] Light Weight Envelope U 0.1543 E

Results Vertical wall (CM2) φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] U [W/m2K]

0.35

Results φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] 7.24 87

fd [-] 0.667

I E Roof (CO2) Green fd [-] 0.192

0.09 0.39

I E Vertical wall (CM1) Massive Envelope

Results φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] 11.43 52.5

Green roof (CO2)

0.40

0.36

I φ [h] E8.98

I

Slab on grade Roof towards heated(CO1) zone (CO4) I

E

Results Ms [kg/m2] U [W/m2K] I 0.2453 333

I

E

Results

fd [-] on grade φ [h] Ms(CO1) [kg/m2] U [W/m2K] Slab 0.13

12.5

165.5

E

0.1927

I

0.40

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

I

Slab onroof grade (CO1) Green (CO2)

I

Vertical wall (CM1)

fd [-] 0.043

E

0.36

0.35

E

E

I E

Vertical wall (CM1)

0.39

Massive

Massive Envelope

E Party wall (PV1)

0.40

E

0.35

I

E

Slab on grade (CO1) 0.36

Massive Party Envelope wall (CM3)

I

I Results φ [h] Ms [kg/m2] U [W/m2K] I0.1166 11.43 52.5 E

fd [-] 0.133

U [W/m2K] I 0.1166

I

0.35

E

GreenGreen roof (CO3) roof (CO2)

Vertical wall (CM1) Massive Envelope E

Green roof (CO2)

I

0.36

0.50

E Vertical wallI (CM1)

E

0.39

Light

0.33

E

0.1501

E

0.39

I

0.35

I

E

Vertical wall (CM1)

fd [-] 0.133

174.75

Green roof (CO2)

0.35

E

12.78

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

22


3 - Envelope Technologies In this comparison it’s easily noticeble how in there is a significant trasmittance (U) difference between Vertical Wall 1 and Vertical Wall 2. The Massive layering appears th have the higher over all trasmittance’s value.

During summertime, the thermal shift has significant importance, granting thermal comfort during the hotter season. Thermal shift values are good when 12 hours or higher, like in cases Green Roof 1 “base” and “massive”. In the winter season, in this type of stratigraphy, the thermic flow takes more than 12 hours to go through the wall and so into the building. Same in summer, the heat accumulates in the envelope and it’s released gradually with a significant time delay. This helps especially to mitigate the peak heat, reducing the need for cooling. In the graphs shown it’s possible to see that the best situation would be “massive” Green Roof 1 with “light” Vertical Wall 1. For the envelope technologies : - Trasmittance U [W/m²K] - Decrement Factor [-] - Shift φ [h] - Internal areal heat Capacity KJ/(m².k) - Periodic Thermal Transmitance W/(m².k)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

23


3 - Envelope Technologies 3.5.1 - Vertical Wall 1

CM1 - Trasmittance U [W/m2K]

CM1 - decrement factor [-] 0.8

0.3

0.7

0.25

0.6

0.2

0.5 0.4

0.15

0.3 0.1

0.2

0.05 0

0.1

Base

Massive

light

0

Base

light

CM1 - Internal heat capacity KJ/(m².k)

CM1 - Shift φ [h] 14

35

12

30

10

25

8

20

6

15

4

10

2

5

0

Base

light

Massive

Massive

0

Base

light

Massive

CM1 - Periodic thermal transmitance W/(m².k) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

Base

light

Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

24


3 - Envelope Technologies 3.5.2 - Slab on Grade

CO1 - Trasmittance CO1 - Internal heat U [W/m2K] capacity KJ/(m².k)

0.5

0.3

600.45

40 0.3

0.2 40

0.25 30 0.2

0.15 30

200.15

0.1 20

0.1

Base Base

light Light

Massive massive

0 0

0.05 0.04

60 60 60

50 12.2

50 50 50

40

12

40 40 40

3011.8

30 30 30

2011.6

20 20 20

1011.4

10 10 10

Base Base

light light

1

0.03 0.02

1

0.01

1

0

Base Base

light Light

1

Massive massive

CO1 CO1 - Internal - Internal heatheat capacity capacity KJ/(m².k) KJ/(m².k)

60 12.4

011.2

1

0.06

CO1 φ [h] heat CO1- Shift - Internal capacity KJ/(m².k)

12.6

1

0.07

0.05 10

10 0.05

1

0.08

60 0.25 50

0.4 50 0.35

0 0

CO1 - decrement factorheat [-] CO1 - Internal capacity KJ/(m².k)

Massive Massive

0 0 0

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

Base Base

0

lightlight

Massive Massive

CO1 CO1 - Periodic - Periodic thermal thermal transmitance transmitance W/(m².k) W/(m².k) 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 00

Base Base

lightlight

Massive Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

25


3 - Envelope Technologies 3.5.3 - Green Roof 1

CO2 - Trasmittance U [W/m2K]

CO2 - Decrement factor [-] 0.3

0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05 0

Base

light

Massive

0

Base

CO2 - Shift φ [h]

Massive

CO2 - Internal areal heat capacity KJ/(m².k)

18 16

18.8

14

18.6

12

18.4

10

18.2

8

18

6 4

17.8

2

17.6

0

light

Base

light

Massive

17.4

Base

light

Massive

CO2 - Periodic thermal transmitance W/(m².k) 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Base

light

Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

26


4

CLIMATE ANALYSIS


4 - Climate Analysis One of the major factors for building design is climate. The simulations and analysis will be considered based on the climatic conditions. In this section, there will be a comparison between different climate locations. The case study ‘Casa Selvino’, located in Bergamo (north of Italy). So, we decided to analyze and compare 3 more locations in different climatic regions as Trapani (South of Italy), Tistrup (Denmark) and El-Kharga (Egypt). The parameters that had chosen for comparing the different climates are: 1. Temperature [C˚] 2. Humidity [%] 3. Direct solar radiation [KWh/m²]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

28


4 - Climate Analysis 4.1 - Direct Solar Radiation

Trapani has constant and high amount of solar radiation over the year. Bergamo has a high solar radiation in the period of May to September. Tistrup has solar radiation mostly lower than 800 KWh/m². In summer it may increase to higher levels but it is not constant.

4.1.1 - Trapani

Direct normal Radiation - Trapani

KWh

KWh

1200 1000 1200 800 1000 600 800 400 600 200 400 0 200 0

4.1.2 - Bergamo

Direct normal Radiation - Trapani

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Direct normal Radiation - Bergamo

1000 800 1000

Direct normal Radiation - Bergamo

KWh

600 800

KWh

400 600 200 400 0 200 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Direct normal Radiation - Tistrup 1000

KWh

KWh

800 1000

Direct normal Radiation - Tistrup

600 800 400 600 200 400 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

0 200

Energy Efficient Building CasaSalevino Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun CaseStudy Jul 1Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

29


KWh

600 4 - Climate Analysis 400 200 0

4.1.3 - Tistrup

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Direct normal Radiation - Tistrup 1000

KWh

800 600 400 200 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.1.4 - El-Kharga

Direct normal Radiation - El-Kharga 1000

KWh

800 600 400 200 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

30


4 - Climate Analysis 4.2 -Ambient temperature

Tistrup is in a cold region. In summer the highest temperature is about 28˚C and in winter it might reduce near -15˚C. Bergamo has a mild climate. In summer the maximum temperature would be 35˚C. In wintertime the temperature will not be colder than -5˚C. Trapani located in Mediterranean climatic area. In summer months mostly it is warm and hot (about28˚C and maximum temperature is 36˚C). In winter the temperature will not even reduce to reach 0˚C at all.

4.2.1 - Trapani

Dry bulb temperature - Trapani 45

Dry bulb temperature - Trapani

[°C]

[°C]

35 25 45 15 35 5 25 -5 15 -15 5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-5 -15

4.2.2 - Bergamo

Dry Apr bulb May temperature Bergamo Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul - Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

45

[°C]

[°C]

35 25 45 15 35 5 25 -5 15 -15 5

Dry bulb temperature - Bergamo

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-5 -15

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Dry bulb temperature - Tistrup

45

[°C]

[°C]

35

Dry bulb temperature - Tistrup

25 45 15 35 5 25 -5 Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Group9: 15 Energy Efficient Building CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

31


25

[°C]

15 4 - Climate Analysis 5

-5 -15

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.2.3 - Tistrup

Dry bulb temperature - Tistrup 45 35 [°C]

25 15 5 -5 -15

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.2.4 - El-Kharga

Dry bulb temperature - El-kharga 45

[°C]

35 25 15 5 -5 -15

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

32


4 - Climate Analysis 4.3 - Relative humidity

Trapani is mostly humid during the year. Bergamo has less humidity in summer tolerances between 25% to 90%. Tistrup is the one most humid city between these.

4.3.1 - Trapani

Relative humidity - Trapani 100

Relative humidity - Trapani

RH%

RH%

80 100 60 80 40 60 20 40 0 20 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.3.2 - Bergamo

Relative humidity - Bergamo

100

Relative humidity - Bergamo

RH%

RH%

80 100 60 80 40 60 20 40 0 20 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Relative humidity -Tistrup

100

RH%

RH%

Relative humidity -Tistrup 80 100 60 80 40 60 20 40 0 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ivan Carnieletto, Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Jan FebAyat,Mar AprReyhaneh MayGhayouri, JunElahehJul Aug Sep Oct Seyyedehfateme Nov DecOliaei 20 Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

33


60 RH

4 - Climate Analysis 40 20 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.3.3 - Tistrup

Relative humidity -Tistrup 100 80 RH%

60 40 20 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4.3.4 - El-Kharga

Relative humidity - El-Kharga 100

RH%

80 60 40 20 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

34


4 - Climate Analysis 4.4 - Relation between T and RH%

[C˚]

T & RH - TRAPANI

RH%

100.00

45.00 30.00 [C˚] 15.00

45.00 0.00 30.00 -15.00 15.00 0.00

80.00

T & RH - TRAPANI

60.00 RH%

100.00 40.00 80.00 20.00 60.00 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T[˚C]

RH%

40.00 20.00 0.00

-15.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec [C˚]

T & RH - BERGAMO RH% T[˚C]

45.00 30.00 [C˚]

T & RH - BERGAMO

RH%

0.00 30.00

0.00 -15.00 [C˚]

45.00 25.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RH%

T[˚C]

T &Jun RH-TRISTRUP Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RH%

T[˚C]

T & RH-TRISTRUP

20.00 0.00 RH%

100.00 60.00 RH%

40.00 100.00 20.00 80.00

5.00 45.00

5.00

60.00 100.00 40.00 80.00 20.00 60.00 0.00 40.00

80.00

[C˚]

-15.00 25.00

100.00 80.00

15.00 45.00

-15.00 15.00

RH%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T[˚C]

RH%

-15.00

0.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

35


60.00

15.00 4 - Climate Analysis

40.00

0.00 -15.00

20.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0.00

RH%

T[˚C]

T & RH-TRISTRUP

RH%

[C˚]

100.00

45.00

80.00

25.00

60.00 40.00

5.00

20.00

-15.00

0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T[˚C]

[C˚]

RH%

T & RH-ELKHARGA

RH%

100.00

45.00

80.00

25.00

60.00 40.00

5.00

20.00

-15.00

0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T[˚C]

RH%

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

36


4 - Climate Analysis 4.5 - The relation between T and solar radiation

[kWh]

1000.00 [kWh]

1000.00 800.00 [kWh] 1000.00 800.00 600.00

T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION -TRAPANI T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION -TRAPANI T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION -TRAPANI

800.00 600.00 400.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 -15.00 200.00 0.00 [kWh]-15.00 0.00 1000.00 [kWh]-15.00 1000.00 800.00 [kWh] 1000.00 800.00 600.00

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00 [˚C]

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00 [˚C]

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00 [˚C]

T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION-BERGAMO T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION-BERGAMO T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION-BERGAMO

800.00 600.00 400.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 -15.00 200.00 0.00 [kWh] -15.00 0.00 1000.00 [kWh] -15.00 1000.00 [kWh] 800.00

45.00

[˚C]

-5.00 15.00 RADIATION-ELKHARGA 25.00 35.00 45.00 T& GLOBAL5.00 HORIZONTAL

[˚C]

-5.00 15.00 RADIATION-ELKHARGA 25.00 35.00 45.00 T& GLOBAL5.00 HORIZONTAL

[˚C]

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION-ELKHARGA

1000.00 800.00 600.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 -15.00 200.00 0.00 -15.00 0.00 -15.00

[kWh]

1000.00

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00

[˚C]

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00

[˚C]

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00

[˚C]

T & GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION-TRISTRUP

800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 -15.00

-5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

35.00

45.00 [˚C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

37


4 - Climate Analysis 4.6 - The comparison between ambient temperature in different climate

Avg- Dry bulb temperature comparison Temperature [CËš]

35.00 25.00 15.00 5.00 -5.00

Jan

Bergamo

35.00 Temperature [CËš] RH [%]

FebAvgMarDryApr June Julycomparison Aug Sep Oct bulbMay temperature

25.00

El-Kharga

Trapani

Nov

Dec

Tistrup

Avg- Relative humidity comparison

100.00 15.00 80.00 5.00 60.00 -5.00 4.7 - The comparison between relative humidity in different climate 40.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20.00 Bergamo El-Kharga Trapani Tistrup 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Avg- Relative humidity comparison

Bergamo

100.00

El-Kharga

Trapani

Tistrup

RH [%]

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

Jan

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Bergamo

El-Kharga

Sep

Trapani

Oct

Nov Dec Tistrup

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

38


4 - Climate Analysis

4.8 - Psychometric chart and comfort ranges

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

39


4 - Climate Analysis

Annual comfort on sun path

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

cold cool slightly cool neutral slightly warm warm hot

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

40


4 - Climate Analysis

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

41


4 - Climate Analysis

Annual comfort on sun path

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

cold cool slightly cool neutral slightly warm warm hot

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

42


5

BUILDING REGIME TYPES & SCHEDULES


5 - Building regime types and schedules In this section the regime types and schedules of the building will be explained to understand better the optimizations in the next chapters. Infiltration: From the starting point, infiltration set to 0.2 air change rate. Ventilation: The ventilation had been set with 2 types of day and night schedules

Internal gain

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

44


5 - Building regime types and schedules Heating and cooling schedules:

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

45


6

SIMULATION


6 - Simulation

6.1 - Definition of icons

Case Study1: Casa Selvino Building Schematic

Assumption

Selected

Variation

Parametes

Calender

Location

Infiltration

Consumptions

Heating

Cooling

Relative Humidity

Temperature

EAHX Internal Load

Thermal Comfort

PV Panels

Ventilation Const.

Ventilation Day

Ventilation Night

Internal Gain

Glass

Double Krypton

Triple Krypton

Triple Argon

Shading

Fixed

Dynamic

Heat Exchanger

Wall

Base

Light

Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

47


6 - Simulation

6.2 - Simulation summary

Phase0: Thermal zone In the first step the aim was to select one thermal zone to apply analysis since the unit is not huge, and analyzing only one zone is clear enough to have a brief of assumptions, technologies and energy absorption of the whole unit. The selected location for this stage was Bergamo, Italy, as it was the base case and all the properties was without any change as the existing situation. The results show us that the living area (Thermal zone 2) is one of the crucial zones that has higher temperature in summer and lower relative humidity. Also, another reason to choose living area is that in most of the time the users occupying this zone.

Wall

Ventilation OFF

Temperature

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

NO Shading

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Bergamo, Italy

zone.2

zone.3

zone.4

zone.5

Double Argon

Heat Exchanger OFF

EAHX OFF

Internal relative humidity 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TZ_2

40.00

TZ_3

TZ_4

TZ_5

Internal temperature

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TZ_2

TZ_3

TZ_4

TZ_5

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

48


6 - Simulation Phase1: Layering

In the first phase the building will be analyzed 3 time with 3 different building envelop which are the base case, lightweight and massive technologies as we reported in the chapter 3 (envelop technologies).

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation OFF

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature Wall

EAHX OFF

Phase2: Shading The second phase of simulations will be dedicated to the shading design of the building by considering the internal temperature and relative humidity as comparison parameters in summer. The shading analysis will compare fixed shading with different shading percentages and then they will be compared to the dynamic shading which is contiguous to the tilted solar radiation in the location.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation OFF

May-Sep

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Wall

Relative Humidity

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

EAHX OFF

49


6 - Simulation Phase3: Ventilation In phase 3 the building with the best variations chosen in the phase 1 and 2 will be analyzed with different values of ventilation as a passive strategy to reduce temperature in summer and increasing the internal air quality. The best value of ventilation will be selected by comparing internal temperature and relative humidity. The analysis will be performed by comparing the constant ventilation at first, and then the schedules will be given to have a plan between day and night.

May-Sep

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Wall

Relative Humidity

EAHX OFF

Summor comfort (passive strategies) In this step, the comfort standards will be a key reference to compare and see the effectiveness of the passive strategies like shading and ventilation on the comfort levels in the thermal zone.

Phase4: Windows The second phase of simulations will be dedicated to the shading design of the building by considering the internal temperature and relative humidity as comparison parameters in summer. The shading analysis will compare fixed shading with different shading percentages and then they will be compared to the dynamic shading which is contiguous to the tilted solar radiation in the location.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation ON

Temperature

Year

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Relative Humidity Wall

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat,Reyhaneh Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Seyyedehfateme Iuliia Murusheva Oliaei Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Ghayouri, Elaheh Ghayouri, Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Energy Efficient Building Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

EAHX OFF

50


6 - Simulation Phase5: Winter optimization In this phase the purpose of the simulations will be including the winter period in the last simulations which were performed in the summer. Comparing summer and winter results will give a bight view to change some variables in winter to reduce as much as possible the energy consumption. The parameters, which will be assumed in the comparison are internal temperature and relative humidity.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation

Temperature

Year

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Relative Humidity Wall

EAHX OFF

Winter comfort (passive strategies) In this stage the last 2 steps which were performed and compared annually, will be compared also by the standards to see the changes in the comfort levels.

Phase6: Heat exchanger After analyzing the building with different passive strategies, at phase 6, the aim is to implement an air to air heat exchanger to change the inside air without reducing temperature levels. The application which works with 70% of efficiency exchanges the heat by conduction between the internal temperature and outside fresh air temperature.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation ON

Temperature

Year

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Windows

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger

Relative Humidity Wall

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat,Reyhaneh Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Seyyedehfateme Iuliia Murusheva Oliaei Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Ghayouri, Elaheh Ghayouri, Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Energy Efficient Building Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

EAHX OFF

51


6 - Simulation Phase7: Ground heat exchanger This phase will analyze another type of heat exchanger which is exchanging heat by the underground temperature of the area. The key parameters for this stage are the soil temperature, pipe depth, pipe diameter and length which will be explained and compared in the consideration part of the report. The ground heat exchanger will get the outdoor air and give it either to the heat exchanger or directly to the building in some special circumstances.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation ON

Temperature

Year

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Windows

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger ON

Wall

EAHX

Phase8: Heating and cooling In this phase as the last step, an active plant system is implemented to keep the building temperature in the comfort levels by heating and cooling in winter and summer. The set points and schedules are reported in the chapter 5 for different climates.

Bergamo, El-kharga

Ventilation ON

Year

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Windows

Heating ON

Cooling ON

Heat Exchanger ON

Wall

EAHX

TOP / E comsumption

Total comfort The final step will be the comparison of the comfort standards to see the progressive approach on phase 6, 7 and 8.

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat,Reyhaneh Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Seyyedehfateme Iuliia Murusheva Oliaei Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Ghayouri, Elaheh Ghayouri, Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Energy Efficient Building Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

52


6 - Simulation 6.3 Consideration

6.3.1 Ground heat exchanger design in Bergamo Bergamo Climate At the stage of introducing a heat exchanger it has been decided to run simulations changing following parameters: 1) Pipe depth. 2) Pipe diameter. 3) Pipe length. The expected result is to define optimal value for each of 3 taken parameters to get the most impactful result. First, the burying pipe depth must be considered. Four different depth were considered to compare the temperatures of outdoor air. They are: 1 m; 2 m; 4 m; 6m. Secondly, the simulations were carried out on diameter of the pipe of three different sizes but with equal length and depth of the pipe. Proposed diameters are: 0,3 m; 0,4 m; 0,5 m. The last step was to take into consideration the length of the pipe, keeping the diameter and depth of the pipe fixed. Pipe lengths are: 15 m; 30 m; 60 m; 120m. 1. Graphs results. Pipe depth. Following simulation graphs are represented to compare proposed pipe depths: 1 m – in green; 2 m – in pink; 4 m – in blue; 6 m – in yellow. Taken diameter of the pipe is 0,3 m; length is 30 m for all four simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first graph gives data about ground temperatures at different depth and outdoor air temperatures, when the second one represents outlet and outdoor temperatures, showing maximum and minimum values.

Ground temperatures

Temperature [C˚]

35.00 25.00 15.00 5.00 -5.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T outdoor Depth 1m Depth 2m Depth 4m Depth 6m

erature [C˚]

35.00

Outlet T & Outdoor T

25.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

15.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

53


5.00 Temperature [C˚]

25.00 6 - Simulation -5.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec When the second one represents outlet and outdoor temperatures, showing maximum and 15.00T outdoor Depth 1m Depth 2m Depth 4m Depth 6m minimum values. 5.00

Outlet T & Outdoor T

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

35.00 -5.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 25.00T outdoor Depth 1m Depth 2m Depth 4m Depth 6m 15.00

Outlet T & Outdoor T

35.00 5.00 25.00 -5.00 15.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe outlet T

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

The next 5.00 two graphs represent data of the hottest summer week in July and the coldest week Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July) of winter in January. For both seasons we can see the maximum pipe depth provides more 35.00 efficient -5.00 conditions: lowest outlet air temperature of 15 during summer and highest outlet air Jandegrees Feb Mar Aprwinter. May The Jungrey Jul line Augmatching Sep Oct Dec temperature during withNov the temperature of out30.00of 13 Outdoor Pipe outlet T door air is given for the comparison withT temperatures on different depths. 25.00 20.00 35.00 15.00 30.00 10.00 1 2 25.00 1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T 20.00

Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July)

3

4 5 2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

6 7 4m depth outlet T

3

4 5 2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

6 7 4m depth outlet T

15.00 10.00 1 2 1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T 15.00

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 Jaunuary)

Temperature [C˚]

10.00 5.00 0.00 -5.00 -10.00

1 2 1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T

3

4 5 2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T

6

7 4m depth outlet T

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

54


Temperatur

5.00

0.00 6 - Simulation -5.00 To sum up, we settled on the pipe depth of 2 m considering it the most rational solution. The last graph compares maximum and minimum outlet temperatures obtained by the air to ground -10.00 heat exchanger. The 1 2 difference 3 between 4 max and 5 min temperatures 6 7for both of the cases is about which that pipe does not sizing. 1m4°C, depth outletmeans T 2m depth depth outlet T impact system 4m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T

Outdoor T

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T

Temperature [C˚]

25.00 20.00

19.32

18.08

16.39

15.39

15.00 10.00 8.56

5.00 0.00

9.80

1m

2m T MAX

11.49

4m T MIN

12.49

6m

2. Graphs results. Pipe diameter. As it may be seen from the following graphs, we overlaid the 3 different diameters results: 0,3 m – in pink; 0,4 m – in green and 0,5 m – in yellow. Taken depth of the pipe is 2 m; length is 30 m for all three simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first line graphs aim to compare internal temperature and pipe outlet temperature of 3 diameters mentioned above with the ambient air temperatures (grey line) during the whole year.

40.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.4 Pipe diameter 0.5

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 January)

ture [C˚]

10.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei 5.00 Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

55


Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

6 - Simulation 40.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

30.00 The next two graphs represent temperatures data of the hottest summer week in July and 20.00 the coldest week of winter in January respectively and outdoor air temperature. It is evident Internal temperature Pipe outlet temperature the largest diameter provides lower outlet and temperature in summer and warmer temperature in 40.00 10.00the narrowest diameter gives opposite results. winter, while To summarize, we settled on the pipe diameter of 0,3 m considering it the most rational solu30.00 0.00 tion. 20.00 -10.00 10.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.4 Pipe diameter 0.5

0.00

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 January)

-10.00 10.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.4 Pipe diameter 0.5 5.00

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 January)

10.00 0.00 5.00 -5.00

1

Outdoor T 0.00

2

3

4

Pipe diameter 0.3

5

6

7

Pipe diameter 0.4

Pipe diameter 0.5

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July) -5.00 35.00 1

2

Outdoor T 30.00

Pipe diameter 0.3

25.00 35.00 20.00 30.00 15.00 1 25.00 Outdoor T

3

4

5

6

Pipe diameter 0.4

7 Pipe diameter 0.5

Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July)

2

3

4

5

Pipe diameter 0.3

Pipe diameter 0.4

2

4

6

7 Pipe diameter 0.5

20.00 15.00

1

Outdoor T

3

Pipe diameter 0.3

5

Pipe diameter 0.4

6

7 Pipe diameter 0.5

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

56


6 - Simulation The last graph compares maximum and minimum outlet temperatures obtained by the air to ground heat exchanger. The difference between max and min temperatures vary from 1°C to 3°C, meaning that, compared to the influence of depth, the pipe diameter has higher impact on outlet air temperatures

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 25.00

25.23

23.35

21.94

9.08

9.45

20.00 15.00 10.00

8.32

5.00 0.00

0.30

0.45 T Max

0.50 T Min

3. Graphs results. Pipe length. The 4 following graphs compare the results of 4 proposed pipe lengths: 15 m – in pink; 30 m – in green; 60 m – yellow; 120 m – in blue. Taken depth of the pipe is 2 m; diameter is 0,3 m for all four simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first line graphs aim to compare internal temperature and pipe outlet temperature of the lengths mentioned above with the ambient air temperatures (grey line) during the whole year.

40.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe length 15m Pipe length 30m Pipe length 60m Pipe length 120m

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 January)

ture [C˚]

10.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei 5.00 Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

57


30.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

6 - Simulation Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature 20.00

40.00 The next two graphs represent temperatures data of the hottest summer week July and the 10.00 coldest week 30.00 of winter January respectively and outdoor air temperature. As it is seen the longer pipe is the closer outlet and outdoor temperatures for both seasons are. 0.00 20.00 -10.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

10.00

(13 -Jul 20 January) Jan Feb MarPipe Aproutlet May TJun Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe length 15m Pipe length 30m Pipe length 60m Pipe length 120m Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 January)

5.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 -5.00 0.00 -5.00 35.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe length 15m Pipe length 30m Pipe length 60m Pipe length 120m

1

2 Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

1

2 Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

3

4 5 Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July)

30.00

3

4 5 Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

6 7 Pipe length 30m

6 7 Pipe length 30m

Pipe outlet T (24 - 31 July)

35.00 25.00 30.00 20.00 25.00 15.00

1

20.00 15.00

1

2

3

2

3

Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

4

5

6

7

4

5

6

7

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

Pipe length 30m

Pipe length 30m

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

58


6 - Simulation To summarize, we settled on the pipe length of 30 m considering it the most rational solution. The last graph compares the maxi¬mum and minimum outlet air temperatures obtained by the implementation of air to ground heat exchanger. The difference between max and min temperatures vary from 1,5°C to 7°C, meaning that, compared to the influence of other parameters such as depth and diameter, the length of the pipe has the highest impact on outlet air temperatures. .

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 25.00

25.23 20.89

20.00 15.00 10.00

9.63

8.32

18.56 9.80

18.09 9.80

5.00 0.00

15.00

30.00 T Max

60.00 T Min

120.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

59


6 - Simulation 6.3 Consideration

6.3.2 Ground heat exchanger design in El-Kharga El-Kharga Climate At the stage of introducing a heat exchanger it has been decided to run simulations changing following parameters: 1) Pipe depth. 2) Pipe diameter. 3) Pipe length. The expected result is to define optimal value for each of 3 taken parameters to get the most impactful result. First, the burying pipe depth must be considered. Four different depth were considered to compare the temperatures of outdoor air. They are: 1 m; 2 m; 4 m; 6m. Secondly, the simulations were carried out on diameter of the pipe of three different sizes but with equal length and depth of the pipe. Proposed diameters are: 0,3 m; 0,4 m; 0,5 m. The last step was to take into consideration the length of the pipe, keeping the diameter and depth of the pipe fixed. Pipe lengths are: 15 m; 30 m; 60 m; 120m. 1. Graphs results. Pipe depth. Following simulation graphs are represented to compare proposed pipe depths: 1 m – in green; 2 m – in pink; 4 m – in blue; 6 m – in yellow. Taken diameter of the pipe is 0,3 m; length is 30 m for all four simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first graph gives data about ground temperatures at different depth and outdoor air temperatures, when the second one represents outlet and outdoor temperatures, showing maximum and minimum values.

Ground temperatures

Temperature [C˚]

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

T outdoor

Depth 1m

Depth 2m

Depth 4m

Depth 6m

Outlet T and outdoor T erature [C˚]

50.00 40.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei 30.00 Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

60


10.00 30.00 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20.00 when the second one represents outlet and outdoor temperatures, showing maximum and T outdoor Depth 1m Depth 2m Depth 4m Depth 6m minimum values. 10.00 Temperature [C˚]

6 - Simulation

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Outlet T and outdoor T

0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 50.00 T outdoor Depth 1m Depth 2m Depth 4m Depth 6m 40.00 30.00

Outlet T and outdoor T

20.00 50.00 10.00 40.00 0.00 30.00 20.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec T_ambient T_pipe_to_HE

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

The next 10.00 two graphs represent data of the hottest summer week in August and the coldest week of winter in January. ForPipe bothoutlet seasons we -can see the maximum pipe depth provides T (16 23 August) 0.00 more efficient conditions: outletMay air temperature 26 during summer and highest outJan Feb lowest Mar Apr June July of Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 45.00 let air temperature of 25 degrees during winter. The grey line matching with the temperature T_ambient T_pipe_to_HE of outdoor air is given for the comparison with temperatures on different depths. 40.00 35.00

Pipe outlet T (16 - 23 August)

45.00 30.00 40.00 25.00 35.00 20.00

1

2

3

1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T

30.00

5

6

7 4m depth outlet T

25.00 20.00

1

2

3

1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T

4

5

6

2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

7 4m depth outlet T

Pipe outlet T (13 - 20 Jaunuary)

30.00 Temperature [C˚]

4

2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

20.00 10.00 0.00 1

2

1m depth outlet T 6m depth outlet T

3

4

5

2m depth outlet T Outdoor T

6

7

4m depth outlet T

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

61


6 - Simulation To sum up, we settled on the pipe depth of 4 m considering it the most rational solution. The last graph compares maximum and minimum outlet temperatures obtained by the air to ground heat exchanger. The difference between max and min temperatures for both of the cases is about 4°C, which means that pipe depth does not impact system sizing.

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet 29.86

Temperature [C˚]

30.00

28.80

27.35

28.00

26.49

26.00 24.00

24.01

22.00 20.00

23.15

1m

20.64

21.70

2m T Max

4m

6m T Min

2. Graphs results. Pipe diameter. As it may be seen from the following graphs, we overlaid the 3 different diameters results: 0,15 m – in green; 0,3 m – in pink and 0,45 m – in yellow. Taken depth of the pipe is 4 m; length is 30 m for all three simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first line graphs aim to compare internal temperature and pipe outlet temperature of 3 diameters mentioned above with the ambient air temperatures (grey line) during the whole year.

50.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

Temperature [C˚]

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.15 Pipe diameter 0.45

Outlet T & Outdoor T (13 - 20 January)

ature [C˚]

30.00 20.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

62


6 - Simulation 50.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

TemperatureTemperature [C˚] [C˚]

40.00 The next two graphs represent temperatures data of the hottest summer week in August and Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature the coldest week of winter in January respectively and outdoor air temperature. It is evident 30.00 50.00 the largest diameter provides lower outlet temperature in summer and warmer temperature in winter, while the narrowest diameter gives opposite results 20.00 40.00 To summarize, we settled on the pipe diameter of 0,45 m considering it the most rational solution. 30.00 10.00 0.00 20.00 10.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

0.00 30.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.15 Pipe diameter 0.45

Outlet T & Outdoor T (13 - 20 January)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.3m Pipe diameter 0.15 Pipe diameter 0.45

Outlet T & Outdoor T (13 - 20 January)

20.00 30.00 10.00 20.00 0.00 10.00 0.00

1

2 3 Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.15

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Outlet Outdoor T T & Outdoor T (16 - 23 August) Pipe diameter 0.3 Pipe diameter 0.15 Pipe diameter 0.45

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

45.00

4

5

6 7 Pipe diameter 0.3 Pipe diameter 0.45

Outlet T & Outdoor T (16 - 23 August)

40.00 45.00 35.00 40.00 30.00 35.00 25.00

1

2 3 Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.15

4

5

6 7 Pipe diameter 0.3 Pipe diameter 0.45

1

2 3 Outdoor T Pipe diameter 0.15

4

5

6 7 Pipe diameter 0.3 Pipe diameter 0.45

30.00 25.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

63


6 - Simulation

The last graph compares maximum and minimum outlet temperatures obtained by the air to ground heat exchanger. The difference between max and min temperatures vary from 1°C to 5,4°C, meaning that, compared to the influence of depth, the pipe diameter has higher impact on outlet air temperatures.

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T Temperature [C˚]

50.00

42.10

40.00

39.12

36.72

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

9.98

0.15 T Max

10.00

10.00

0.30

T Min

0.45

3. Graphs results. Pipe length. The 4 following graphs compare the results of 4 proposed pipe lengths: 15 m – in pink; 30 m – in green; 60 m – yellow; 120 m – in blue. Taken depth of the pipe is 4 m; diameter is 0,45 m for all four simulations for the reason of obtaining a clear result. The first line graphs aim to compare internal temperature and pipe outlet temperature of the lengths mentioned above with the ambient air temperatures (grey line) during the whole year.

50.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

Temperature [C˚]

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

rature [C˚]

25.00

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

Pipe length 30m

Outlet T & Outdoor T (13 - 20 January)

20.00 15.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

64


40.00

Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚]

50.00 6 - Simulation 30.00

Internal temperature and Pipe outlet temperature

The next 40.00 two graphs represent temperatures data of the hottest summer week August and the coldest week of winter January respectively and outdoor air temperature. As it is seen the 20.00 longer pipe is the closer outlet and outdoor temperatures for both seasons are. 30.00 10.00 we settled on the pipe length of 60 m considering it the most rational solution. To summarize, 20.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

10.00

Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

0.00

Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚]

Pipe length 30m

Jan Feb Outlet Mar Apr May JuneT (13 July - 20 AugJanuary) Sep Oct Nov Dec T & Outdoor Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

25.00 20.00

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

Pipe length 30m

Outlet T & Outdoor T (13 - 20 January)

25.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 0.00

1

2 3 Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 Outlet T & Outdoor T (16 23 August) Outdoor T Pipe length 15m Pipe length 30m Pipe length 60m Pipe length 120m

50.00 Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚]

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

45.00

4 5 Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

6

7 Pipe length 30m

Outlet T & Outdoor T (16 - 23 August)

50.00 40.00 45.00 35.00 40.00 30.00 35.00 25.00 30.00 25.00

1

1

2

3

2

3

Outdoor T Pipe length 60m Outdoor T Pipe length 60m

4

5

4

5

Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m Pipe length 15m Pipe length 120m

6

7

6

7

Pipe length 30m

Pipe length 30m

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

65


6 - Simulation The last graph compares the maxi¬mum and minimum outlet air temperatures obtained by the implementation of air to ground heat exchanger. The difference between max and min temperatures vary from 0°C to 12°C, meaning that, compared to the influence of other parameters such as depth and diameter, the length of the pipe has the highest impact on outlet air temperatures.

MAX & MIN Pipe outlet T

Temperature [C˚]

50.00 40.00

40.53

36.72

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

10.00

10.00

15m

30m T Max

31.96

10.00

60m

28.51

10.00

120m

T Min

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

66


7

OPTIMIZATION IN BERGAMO


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.1 - Phase1: Layering Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Bergamo, Italy

Ventilation OFF

Double Argon

Shading OFF

Cooling OFF

Temperature

Heat Exchanger OFF

Wall Base case

Light

EAHX OFF

Massive

The first step of the building analysis was made to recognize the best envelope technology between the base case as existing in the building and two different alternatives which were the light weight and massive envelops that we discussed in chapter 3. This analysis conducted on a 1year period, 0.2 infiltration, no ventilation and internal gain and no shading elements. as it is visible in the annual graph the massive technology seems a little better than others in the summer by having lower internal temperature than other two case.

Temperature [C˚]

35.00

35.00

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

15.00

Internal Internal temperature (annual) (annual) -5.00 temperature

35.00 15.00

Internal temperature (annual)

15.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Basecase

Light

Massive

Outdoor T

Also, it is clear in the two [C˚] and minimum temperature, that [C˚] graphs which indicate the maximum TMIN -5.00 -5.00 TMAX massive envelope has higher internal temperature in winter and lower in summer. 4.00 42.00 Jan Feb Mar Jan Apr Feb MayJune Mar Apr July MayJune Aug Sep July Oct Aug Nov Sep Dec Oct Nov Dec 3.14 days of For more, there are two graphs of the internal temperature in the coldest and hottest 40.27 2.65 3.00 2.57 of 40.00 the year that generate 24-hour simulation of the internal temperature 38.98 Basecase Basecase Light Massive Light Massive Outdoor T Outdoor T the thermal zone 2. 38.00 [C˚]

42.00 40.00

[C˚]36.00

TMAX

TMAX

[C˚]

42.00 40.27 40.27 34.00 40.00 Base case Light 38.98 38.98

38.00

38.00

36.00

36.00

36.77

34.00 Base case Light Base case Massive Light

35.00

4.00 3.00 Massive 2.00

36.77

2.00 [C˚] 1.00

TMIN

TMIN

4.00 3.14 3.14 0.00 2.65 2.65 2.573.00 2.57 Base case Light Massive 2.00

Internal temperature (July 21nd) 1.00 1.00

40.00

perature [C˚]

34.00

36.77

0.00 0.00 Base case Light Base case Massive Light Massive

Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

Internal temperature Internal temperature (July 21nd)(July 21nd) Energy Efficient Building CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

68


42.00

40.27

40.00 38.98 7 - Optimization in Bergamo 38.00

36.77

3.00

2.57

3.14

2.65

2.00 1.00

36.00

For more, there are two graphs of the internal temperature in the coldest and hottest days of 0.00 internal temperature of the thermal zone 2. 34.00 the year that generate 24-hour simulation of the Base case Light

Temperature [CËš]

40.00

Massive

Light

Massive

Internal temperature (July 21nd)

35.00

30.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 basecase

10.00 Temperature [CËš]

Base case

Light

Massive

Internal temperature (January 13th)

8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Basecase Light Massive

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

69


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.2 - Phase2: Shading Bergamo, Italy

Ventilation OFF

May - Sep

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Double Argon

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature 50% DYNAMIC

Relative Humidity

50% FIXED

80% DYNAMIC

Massive

EAHX OFF

This phase is dedicated to analyzing the variation of internal temperature and internal relative humidity to specify the best shading design for the building. The process of this phase is to analyze first the difference of fixed shading and then compare them with dynamic shadings. Dynamic shadings are adapted to the solar radiation energy on the building. The setting for the sensor of this type of shading were explained in the chapter 5.

Temperature [C˚]

Internal temperature (May - Sep) 28.00

28.00 23.00

13.00

23.00 18.00 13.00

18.00

May

June

Outdoor T

May

July

20% Fixed

35.00

Aug

Aug

Sep

50% Fixed

80% Fixed

Sep

50% Fixed 80% Fixed Internal temperature

(24 - 31 July)

Internal temperature (24 - 31 July) Temperature [C˚]

35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

July

20% Fixed

June

Outdoor T

30.00 25.00 20.00

1

1

2 20% Fixed 35.00

2 20% Fixed 3 4

3

4 5

5

50% Fixed 6

6 7

7

80% Fixed

50% Fixed 80% Fixed Internal temperature (21st, July)

Internal temperature (21st, July)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei 35.00 CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino 30.00 Energy Efficient Building

[C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

70


May

June

Outdoor T

July

20% Fixed

Aug 50% Fixed

Sep 80% Fixed

7 - Optimization in Bergamo

Internal temperature (24 - 31 July)

35.00 Temperature [C˚]

For the fixed shadings, the first variation is internal temperature which we can see in the 5 month summer graph (May – Sep) and, in the other two graphs which are representing the 30.00 hottest week and hottest day of the year. The second variation is internal relative humidity that are in the same period as the temperature graphs. From these two series of graph it is understandable that 80% fixed shading has a better performance regarding temperature and 25.00 relative humidity. The next part is to compare 2 type of dynamic shading with 50% fixed shading to see the differences between 20.00 a higher value of dynamic shading and a mid-value of fixed shading. So, 1 series2of graphs3 here with4 summer 5period and 6 two others 7 for hottest there are also the same week and day of the year. With these results, it is stating that 80% dynamic shading would be 20% Fixed 50% Fixed 80% Fixed a better choice for the building.

Internal temperature (21st, July)

Temperature [C˚]

35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20% Fixed 50% Fixed 80% Fixed

Internal RH% (May - Sep) Internal RH% (May - Sep) 60.00

60.00

50.00 45.00 40.00

55.00 RH%

RH%

55.00

50.00 45.00

40.00 May June July Aug Sep May June July Aug Sep 20% Fixed 50% Fixed 80% Fixed 20% Fixed 50% Fixed 80% Fixed

80.00

80.00

70.00

70.00 60.00

50.00

RH%

RH%

60.00 40.00

50.00 40.00

30.00 20.00

Relative humidity (24 - 31 July) Relative humidity (24 - 31 July)

30.00 1

20.002

1 20% Fixed

3

2

4

3 50% Fixed 20% Fixed

5

7 5 80% Fixed 50% Fixed

4

6

6

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

Relative humidityCaseStudy (21st,1 CasaSalevino July)

Energy Efficient Building

7 80% Fixed 71


30.00

7 - Optimization in Bergamo 20.00 1

2

3

4

20% Fixed

5

6

50% Fixed

7 80% Fixed

Relative humidity (21st, July)

70.00 65.00 RH%

60.00 55.00 50.00 45.00 40.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20% Fixed 50% Fixed 80% Fixed

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

29.00

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

29.00 24.00 19.00 14.00

24.00 19.00 14.00

May

Outdoor T

May

June

Outdoor T

June

July

50% Dynamic July Aug

50% Dynamic

80% Dynamic

Aug

80% Dynamic

Sep

Sep 50% Fixed

50% Fixed

Internal temperature (July24 - July31)

Temperature [C˚]

31.00 29.00

Temperature [C˚]

31.00Internal temperature (July24 - July31) 29.00 27.00

27.00 25.00 25.00

1

1

2 3 4 5 6 50% Dynamic 80% Dynamic 2 3 4 5 6 7 50% Dynamic 80% Dynamic 50% Fixed

7 50% Fixed

Internal temperature (21st, July)

[C˚]

32.00

ature [C˚]

32.00 Internal temperature (21st, July) 30.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

30.00

28.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

72


Te

27.00

7 - Optimization in Bergamo 25.00

1

2 3 50% Dynamic

4

5 80% Dynamic

6

7 50% Fixed

Internal temperature (21st, July) Temperature [CËš]

32.00 30.00 28.00 26.00 24.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 50% Dynamic

80% Dynamic

50% Fixed

Internal RH% (May - Sep) Internal RH% (May - Sep)

60.00

RH%

RH%

60.00 55.00

55.00 50.00

50.00 45.00 45.00

May 50% Dynamic

Relative humidity (July24 - July31) Relative humidity (July24 - July31) 70.00

70.00 RH%

50.00

60.00 50.00 40.00

40.00

30.00

2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 7 50% Dynamic 80% Dynamic 50% Dynamic 80% Dynamic 50% Fixed

30.00

1

70.00

70.00

2

1

6

7

50% Fixed

Relative humidity (21st, July) Relative humidity (21st, July)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

%

RH%

60.00

May June July Aug Sep 50% Dynamic 80% 50% Fixed June July Aug Dynamic Sep 80% Dynamic 50% Fixed

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

73


Temp

27.00

7 - Optimization in Bergamo 25.00

1

2 3 50% Dynamic

4

5 80% Dynamic

6

7 50% Fixed

Internal temperature (21st, July) Temperature [CËš]

32.00 30.00 28.00 26.00 24.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 50% Dynamic

80% Dynamic

50% Fixed

Shading control - Bergamo

[W/m²]

1.20

3500.00

1.00

3000.00 2500.00

0.80

2000.00

0.60

1500.00

0.40

1000.00

0.20 0.00

500.00

1

2

3

4

SHADCNTRL_S15 SHADCNTRL_externalshading Shade_Close_threshold

5

6

7

shading_coefficient_exter Total_tilted_rad Shade_Open_threshold

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

0.00

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

74


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.3 - Phase3: Ventilation Bergamo, Italy

May - Sep

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Ventilation

Heating OFF

80% DYNAMIC

Cooling OFF

Double Argon

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

1.5 vol/h CONST.

4.5 vol/h DAY

4.5 vol/h NIGHT

Massive

EAHX OFF

In the third phase as analyzing the effect of different summer passive strategies, the aim was to conduct the simulations according to the different ventilation types. In this stage the internal gains are ON as the schedules that had been written in the chapter 5. The first graphs compare different air change rates according to the internal temperature in summer.

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

Temperature [CËš]

44.00 34.00 24.00 14.00

May June Outdoor T 4.5 Vol/h Night

Aug Sep 4.5 Vol/h Day 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July23 - July31)

45.00 Temperature [CËš]

July

40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

1

2 4.5 Vol/h Day

3

4 5 4.5 Vol/h Night

6 7 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July 21st) 40.00

]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

75


Internal temperature (May - Sep)

44.00

Temperature [C˚]

7 - Optimization in Bergamo 34.00

24.00 The second and third graphs which compare the different values in the hottest week and hottest day are state that constant ventilation keeps the building cooler in the summer.

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

Temperature [C˚]

14.00 44.00

May June Outdoor T 34.00 4.5 Vol/h Night 24.00

45.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

May

40.00Outdoor T

Temperature [C˚]

June

July

4.5 Vol/h Night

35.00

30.00 45.00 25.00 40.00 20.00 35.00 1 30.00

35.00 30.00

Aug Sep 4.5 Vol/h Day 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July23 - July31)

2 4.5 Vol/h Day

3

4 5 4.5 Vol/h Night

6 7 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July 21st)

25.00 40.00 20.00

Aug Sep 4.5 Vol/h Day 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July23 - July31)

14.00

Temperature [C˚]

July

1

2 4.5 Vol/h Day

3

4 5 4.5 Vol/h Night

6 7 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Internal temperature (July 21st)

40.00 25.00 35.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4.5 Vol/h Day

4.5 Vol/h Night

1.5 Vol/h Constant

30.00 25.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4.5 Vol/h Day

4.5 Vol/h Night

1.5 Vol/h Constant

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

76


7 - Optimization in Bergamo Relative humidity is another parameter in this stage, so the first graph in this section compares the different values by considering internal relative humidity. Then the second and third graphs are for the hottest week and day of the year. It is visible from these graphs that also with the relative humidity as main concern, the constant one is very restricted and has a lower value which prevents the incretion of inside humidity. But the scheduled ventilations which have higher values instead are performing better. Also, from the realistic point of view, we cannot have constant ventilation during the whole summer, so the selected ventilation type is the 4.5 Vol/h.

Internal Internal RH% (May -RH% Sep)(May - Sep)

60.00 Internal RH% (May - Sep)

50.00 50.00

RH%

RH% RH%

60.00 60.00

40.00

40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00

50.00

30.00 May May 4.5 Vol/h Day

RHRH %%

100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

July Aug

Aug Sep

Sep

80.00 RH%

100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

June July

Relative(July23 humidity (July23 - July31) Relative humidity - July31) 100.00Relative humidity (July23 - July31) 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 5 4.5 Vol/h Day 4 4.5 Vol/h Night6 1.57Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Day 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Day 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant

1 1

100.00

Relative(July humidity Relative humidity 21st) (July 21st) Relative humidity (July 21st)

80.00 RH %

RH% RH%

4.5 Vol/h Day

May June

4.5 Vol/h Day July 4.5 Vol/h Night June Aug Sep 1.5 Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant

60.00 40.00 20.00

0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4.5 Vol/h Day 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Day 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant 4.5 Vol/h Day 4.5 Vol/h Night 1.5 Vol/h Constant

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

77


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.4. - Summer comfort - Passive strategies

26.11% Comfort comparison61.56% EN15251 26.11%

0.00%

A Class

0.00%

A Class

0.00%

A Class

61.56% 73.16% 73.16% 73.16% 72.64% 50.00% 72.64%

B Class

C Class

50.00% 72.64%

B Class

C Class

50.00%

B Class

C Class

100.00%

Discomfort

100.00%

Discomfort

100.00%

Discomfort

Comfort comparison ISO 7730

7.21% 7.21% 7.21%7.28% 7.28% 7.28% 7.16% 7.16% 7.16%

26.11% Comfort comparison61.56% EN15251

4.5 Vol/h 4.5 Vol/h 4.5 Vol/h MassiveMassive Env Massive Env Env ShadingShadingShading

Comfort comparison EN15251

11.39%11.39%11.39% 12.58%12.58%12.58%

4.5 Vol/h 4.5 Vol/h 4.5 Vol/h MassiveMassive Env Massive Env Env ShadingShadingShading

This section is to understand the effect of changes made by passive strategies in the last three phases to the building. The standards that we used are EN15251 and ISO7730. These standards are dividing the comfort levels into 3 class as: Class A, Class B and Class C. the graphs are deriving the range of temperatures defined by these standard and we can visually see on the graphs the changes and percentage of the comfort levels. .

77.50% Comfort comparison ISO 7730 77.50% Comfort comparison ISO 7730

0.00%

A Class

0.00%

A Class

0.00%

A Class

77.50% 79.27% 79.27% 79.27% 79.41% 50.00% 79.41%

B Class

C Class

50.00%

B Class

79.41% C Class

50.00%

B Class

C Class

100.00%

Discomfort

100.00%

Discomfort

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

100.00%

Discomfort

78


7 - Optimization in Bergamo Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort Winterin Summer Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort Summer Guideline Winter in Summer EN 15251

40 35 40 30 35 2540 30 2035 25 1530 20 1025 15 520 10 0 15 5 10 0

operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature operative room temperature [°C] [°C]

1. At first, analysis will be conducted to determine the comfort levels with the phase 1 (layering phase) to see how the building situation without any optimization is.

Winter

TZ2_Living room

15Summer 20 Thermal10Comfort in Guideline 25 Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] EN 15251 5 10 20 25 Thermal Comfort in15Summer Guideline Winter Running mean of ambientSummer air temperature [°C] EN 15251 Thermal Comfort Winter in Summer Summer Guideline EN 15251

operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature operative room temperature [°C] [°C]

Winter

30

Summer

TZ2_Living room 5

10

15

20

25

5

Thermal10Comfort in15Summer 20 Guideline 25 Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] EN 15251 5 10 20 25 Thermal Comfort in15Summer Guideline Summer Winter Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] EN 15251 Thermal Comfort Summer Guideline Winter inSummer EN 15251

0

30

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] TZ2_Living room

5

5 10 0

5

5

30

TZ2_Living room

35 40 30 35 40 25 30 35 20 25 30 15 20 25 10 15 20 5 10 0 15

operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature operative room temperature [°C] [°C]

3. The third graph is showing the comfort levels after we implemented the ventilation system in the building.

5

10 15 20 25 30 Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] TZ2_Living room

5

35 40 30 35 40 25 30 35 20 25 30 15 20 25 10 15 20 5 10 0 15 5 10 0 40

TZ2_Living room

5

5 40 0

2. After applying the shading elements and its setting, the second step in comfort analysis to derive its data from the graphs.

Summer

30 30

Summer

Winter

TZ2_Living room TZ2_Living room

0

10

15

20

25

30

10

15

20

25

30

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] TZ2_Living room

5

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] 10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

25

30

79


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.5 - Phase4: Window Bergamo, Italy

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

4.5 vol/h NIGHT

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

80% DYNAMIC

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Double Argon

Triple Argon

Triple Krypton

Massive

EAHX OFF

In this phase the annual simulations are conducted to compare the effect of different windows with different U-values and g-values. The different windows that compared are: Double Argon (as the base case) with U-value= 2.82 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.64, Triple Argon with U-value= 0.77 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.62 and Triple krypton with U-value= 0.5 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.49. First and second graphs are comparing internal temperature and relative humidity to the outside environment by different window technologies.

Internal temperature

RH% RH%

40.00 20.00 0.00

Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May June June July July Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec Jan Outdoor TT Outdoor Triple Argon Argon Triple

Relative humidity

80.00 80.00

RH% RH%

Double Argone Argone Double Triple Krypton Krypton Triple

60.00 60.00

40.00 40.00

11

22

33

44

Double Argon Argon Double Triple Krypton Krypton Triple

55

66

77

88

99

10 11 11 12 12 10

Triple Argon Argon Triple Outdoor RH RH Outdoor

Internal temperature (July24 - July30)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

47.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

80


Relative humidity

7 - Optimization in Bergamo RH%

80.00

60.00

The third and forth graphs are deriving the data for hottest and coldest weeks of the year with different windows. And it is obvious that double argon has lower temperature in summer, but it is not very effective in keeping the inside temperature up in winter. By considering that triple 40.00 Krypton acting better than triple Argon in summer, we have chosen this type of windows for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 the building. Double Argon Triple Argon Triple Krypton

Outdoor RH

Internal temperature (July24 - July30)

Temperature [C˚]

47.00 42.00 37.00 32.00

1

3

5

6 7 Triple Kryptopn

17.00 12.00 7.00

1

2

3

Double Argon

45.00 Temperature [C˚]

4 Triple Argon

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

22.00

Temperature [C˚]

2 Double Argon

4

5

Triple Argon

6

7

Triple Krypton

Winter and summer optimization (Internal temperature)

35.00 25.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei 15.00 Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

81


Temperature [C˚]

17.00

7 - Optimization inInternal Bergamo temperature (13 - 20 January) 22.00 12.00

Temperature [C˚]

The last two graphs are visualizing the temperature and relative humidity in the coldest and 17.00 hottest week by installing Triple Krypton windows. 7.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Temperature [C˚]

45.00 7.00

Temperature [C˚]

Double Argon

12.00

Triple Krypton

Winter and summer optimization (Internal temperature) 1

2

3

Double Argon

35.00 25.00 45.00

Triple Argon

4

5

6

Triple Argon

7

Triple Krypton

Winter and summer optimization (Internal temperature)

15.00 35.00 5.00 25.00

1

2

3

4

5

Coldest week

6

7

Hottest week

15.00

100.00 5.00

Winter and summer optimization (Internal RH%) 1

2

3

4

5

Coldest week

80.00

6

7

Hottest week

RH%

Winter and summer optimization (Internal RH%)

60.00 100.00

RH%

40.00 80.00 20.00 60.00

1

2

3 Coldest week

4

5

6 Hottest week

7

1

2

3 Coldest week

4

5

6 Hottest week

7

40.00 20.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

82


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.6 - Phase5: Winter optimization

Bergamo, Italy

Ventilation

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

80% DYNAMIC

Cooling OFF

Triple Krypton

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature 4.5 vol/h annual

Relative Humidity

4.5 vol/h summer 0.9 vol/h winter

Massive

EAHX OFF

After analyzing the building with summer strategies, the team decided to work also on winter conditions. For this reason, we reduced the ventilation flow rate in winter to see the effects on the internal temperature and internal relative humidity. But the shadings are kept the same. The first graph is showing the internal temperature of one year with 4.5 Vol/h and comparing it to the one with 0.9 Vol/h annually. It is visible that reducing the flow rate will result in warmer and more comfortable inside environment in winter but also it will increase the temperature levels inside the building in summer. so, we decided to give the plan to the system to work with 4.5 Vol/h in summer (Mar – Nov) and 0.9 Vol/h in winter (Dec – Feb).

Internal temperature (Hourly)

Temperature [C˚]

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Winter optimization

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Summer optimization

Internal Relative humidity (hourly)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

100.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

83


Temperat

20.00 7 - Optimization in Bergamo 10.00

The second 0.00 graph showing the internal operative temperature by applying the winter optimiJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec zation. So, we can see the effects clearly in winter period on increasing the operative temWinter optimization Summer optimization perature and make it closer to the comfort levels.

Internal Relative humidity (hourly)

100.00

RH%

80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Summer optimization

Temperature [CËš]

50.00

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Winter optimization

Internal temperature (Winter and summer optimization)

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

84


7 - Optimization in Bergamo The third and fourth graphs are derived to show the effects of reducing the air flow rate on the internal temperature and internal relative humidity in winter by comparing the new winter value (0.9 Vol/h) and the last one.

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January) Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

25.00 25.00

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚] [C˚] Temperature

20.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00

1 1

2 2

1

2

3 4 3 4 4.5 Vol/h Night 4.5 Vol/h Night 3 4 4.5 Vol/h Night

5 5 5

6 6 0.9 Vol/h Night 0.9 Vol/h Night 6 0.9 Vol/h Night

7 7 7

Internal RH% (13 - 20 January) Internal RH% (13 - 20 January)

120.00 120.00

Internal RH% (13 - 20 January)

Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚] [C˚] Temperature

100.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00

1 1

2 2

1

2

3 3 4.5 Vol/h Night7 4.5 Vol/h Night7 3 4.5 Vol/h Night7

4 4 4

5 6 5 6 0.9 Vol/h Night 0.9 Vol/h Night 5 6 0.9 Vol/h Night

The last graph is also showing annual results of overall changes. Internalthe temperature(Winter optimization) 50.00 50.00

Internal temperature(Winter optimization)

Temperature Temperature [C˚] [C˚] [C˚] Temperature

40.00 50.00 40.00

Internal temperature(Winter optimization)

30.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4.5 Vol/h Annual 0.9 Vol/h Winter , 4.5 Vol/h Summer Vol/hApr AnnualMay Jun Jul 0.9 Vol/h Summer Jan Feb 4.5 Mar Aug Winter Sep , 4.5 OctVol/h Nov Dec 4.5 Vol/h Annual

0.9 Vol/h Winter , 4.5 Vol/h Summer

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

85


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.7 - Winter comfort - Passive strategies

Winte optimization

20.00% 20.00%

A AClass Class

40.00% 40.00%

B BClass Class

60.00% 60.00%

C CClass Class

80.00% 80.00%

100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort Discomfort

Winter Winter

Comfort comparison EN15251

3535 3030

24.45%

2525

0.00%

13.04%12.90%

20.00%

A Class

2020 1515

operative room temperature [°C]

67.52% 67.52%

76.87% 76.87%

0.00% 0.00%

20.00% 20.00%

A AClass Class

40.00% 40.00%

B BClass Class

60.00% 60.00%

C CClass Class

80.00% 80.00%

100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort Discomfort

Thermal ThermalComfort ComfortininSummer SummerGuideline GuidelineEN EN15251 15251

4040 operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature [°C]

Triple Kr Triple Kr

14.87% 14.87%

0.00% 0.00%

1010

Comfort Comfortcomparison comparisonISO ISO7730 7730

Comfort Comfortcomparison comparisonEN15251 EN15251

40.00%

B Class

Summer Summer

49.61%

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

Winte optimization

Triple Kr Triple Kr

After applying windows and changing the ventilation flowrate in winter we can see the changes according to the last comfort analysis by the standards of EN15251 and ISO7730. this stage has two levels, the first one is the effects of changing the window type and the second one is the effect of winter optimization on the thermal zone 2 comfort Classes.

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 12.37%

0.00%

Discomfort

68.50%

20.00% A Class

40.00% B Class

60.00% C Class

80.00% 100.00% Discomfort

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40

Winter

55 35 0030

55

25

1010

Summer

1515

2020

2525

3030

Running Runningmean meanofofambient ambientairairtemperature temperature[°C] [°C]

20 15 TZ2_Living room

10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

25

30

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

86


0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

A Class

B Class

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

76.87%

0.00%

100.00%

Discomfort

20.00%

A Class

40.00%

60.00%

B Class

C Class

Summer

Winter

30 25 20 15 10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [째C]

Comfort comparison EN15251 24.45%

0.00%

13.04%12.90%

20.00%

A Class

40.00%

B Class

49.61%

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

Discomfort

Winte optimization

operative room temperature [째C]

35

operative room temperature [째C]

5. This graph shows the thermal zone comfort levels after the winter optimization and changing the ventilation in winter period.

67.52%

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40

Winte optimization

4. The next step in the comfort analysis is to see how the thermal zone comfort levels is with installing the best windows.

Triple Kr

Triple Kr

14.87% 7 - Optimization in Bergamo

25

30

Comfort comparison ISO 77 12.37%

0.00%

68.50%

20.00% A Class

40.00% B Class

60.00% C Class

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40

Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 TZ2_Living room

10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [째C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

25

30

87

80.00 Dis


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.8 - Phase6: Heat exchanger

Bergamo, Italy

4.5 vol/h Summer 0.9 vol/h winter

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

80% DYNAMIC

Triple Krypton

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger

Massive

EAHX OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Phase 6 had the aim to increase inside comfort levels by changing the air with air to air heat recovery system. By activating this system with efficiency of 0.7 it will change the inside air through the heat recovery system which works with conduction and changes the air without temperature drop in winter. In the first graph we can see the effect of heat recovery system in winter. But in summer, we can see that it is not very effective as it increases the outside air temperature. This kind of system should be turned off in summer.

Heat exchanger effect (13 - 20 January)

30.00

Temperature [CËš]

25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 -5.00 -10.00

1

2

3

4

Outdoor T

5

Internal T

6

7

Loadside T

Heat exchanger effect (24 - 31 July)

60.00

Temperature [CËš]

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

1

2

3 Outdoor T

4

5 Internal T

6 Loadside T

7

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

88


60.00

Temperature [CËš]

7 - Optimization in Bergamo 50.00 40.00

The last graph 30.00is to see the changes in internal operative temperature in winter by activating the heat recovery system. 20.00 10.00

1

2

3 Outdoor T

4

5

6 Loadside T

Internal T

7

Internal operative temperature (13 - 21 January) 30.00

Temperature [CËš]

25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

1

2

3 Heat exchanger OFF

4

5 6 Heat exchanger ON

7

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

89


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.9 - Phase7: Ground Heat exchanger

Bergamo, Italy

4.5 vol/h Summer 0.9 vol/h winter

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

80% DYNAMIC

Triple Krypton

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger

Massive

EAHX OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

In the phase 6 we concluded that the air to air heat recovery system is not suitable for summer. Another alternative for changing the inside air without huge temperature changes is the ground to air heat exchanger system which is designed with pipes that buried under ground to get the soil temperature. We explained the considerations for ground heat exchanger in the chapter 6.3. So, in the Bergamo case we decided to implement both heat exchanger and ground pipes. The ground pipes are connected to the heat exchanger, but when the load side outlet temperature of heat exchanger reaches 25˚C the flow will be denied through the heat exchanger and a bypath will blow the pipe outlet temperature to the building. The first graph shows the same data as previous phase in the winter for inside air temperature and the fresh air temperature.

Ground to air heat exchanger (13 - 20 January)

30.00

Temperature [C˚]

25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 -5.00 -10.00

1

2

3

Outdoor T

45.00

4

5

Internal T

6

7

Load side T

Ground to air heat exchanger (24 - 31 July)

[C˚]

40.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

35.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

90


25.00

Temperature [C˚]

20.00 7 - Optimization in Bergamo 15.00 10.00 5.00

The second graph shows how works the bypath. It is obvious that in summer the load side 0.00 outlet temperature is lower than outside temperature and this condition is better than having -5.00 Ground to air heat exchanger (13 - 20 January) only a heat exchanger.

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 -10.00 25.00

2

3

Outdoor T

20.00

4

5

Internal T

6

7

Load side T

15.00 10.00

Ground to air heat exchanger (24 - 31 July)

5.00 45.00

0.00 40.00 -5.00 35.00 -10.00

Temperature [C˚]

1

30.00

1

2

3

Outdoor T

4

5

Internal T

6

7

Load side T

25.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

20.00 45.00 15.00 40.00

Ground to air heat exchanger (24 - 31 July) 1

35.00 30.00

2 Outdoor T

3

4 Internal T

5

6 Load side T

7

Internal operative temperature (24 - 31 July)

50.00 25.00 45.00 20.00 40.00 The last graph 15.00 is to see the changes in internal operative temperature in summer by activating the ground35.00 to air heat 1 exchanger. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Outdoor T

30.00

Internal T

Load side T

25.00 1

Temperature [C˚]

50.00

2

3

4

5

Internal operative temperature (24 - 31 July) Heat exchanger ON

6

7

By path

45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 1

2

3

4

5

Heat exchanger ON

6

7

By path

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

91


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.10 - Phase8: Heating and Cooling

Bergamo, Italy

4.5 vol/h Summer 0.9 vol/h winter

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Heating

80% DYNAMIC

Triple Krypton

Cooling

Heat Exchanger

Massive

EAHX OFF

TOP / E comsumption

The last step to get more closer to comfort levels was the heating and cooling plant system. For this phase we have set the schedules of heating and cooling according to the climate. The set point temperatures and schedules are explained in chapter 5 for each climate. The first graph is the result of internal operative temperatures after plantation. We can see that now it is more in line and close to comfort levels.

Internal operative temperature

Temperature Temperature [CËš] [CËš]

40.00

Internal operative temperature

40.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00

KWh

KWh

Jan Feb May consumption Jun Jul Aug Sep thermal Oct Nov The second graph shows the Mar hourlyApr energy of the zone.Dec The need for Hourly energy consumption cooling is more 2.50 than the need for heating as graph shows us.

2.00 2.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 -0.50 0.00 -1.00 -0.50 -1.50 -1.00 -1.50

Hourly energy consumption

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Internal operative temperature (13 - 20 January) Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

28.00

Energy Efficient Building CaseStudy(13 1 CasaSalevino Internal operative temperature - 20 January)

92


-0.50 -1.00 7 - Optimization in Bergamo -1.50

Jan Feb Mar Aprthe May Jun operative Jul Aug temperatures Sep Oct Novin the Dec hottest and the third and fourth graphs are showing internal coldest weeks of the year.

Temperature [C˚]

Internal operative temperature (13 - 20 January) 28.00 26.00 24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Internal operative temperature (24 - 31 July)

Temperature [C˚]

34.00 32.00 30.00 28.00 26.00 24.00 22.00 20.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The last graph shows theMonthly monthly energy energy consumption absorption for (Sensible the thermal zone. energy) The overall energy absorption as sensible energy is: 75.31 [W/m²a] 400.00

Montthly Sensible and Latent energy absoption 105.00

111.00 119.00

115.00

205.32

364.55

372.98

101.00 294.61

55.00

195.06

KWh

KWh

350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 600.00 150.00 500.00 100.00 400.00 50.00 300.00 0.00 -50.00 200.00 -100.00 100.00

50.00

61.97 Nov Dec 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr55.02May June Jul Aug Sep Oct -15.37 -28.73 -18.84 -41.58 -100.00 -32.82 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sensible energy

Latent energy

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

93


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.11 - Total comfort - Heat exchanger The last step is to analyze the building overall comfort levels by the standards explained before. After applying last 3 step as implementing heat exchangers and heating/cooling systems in the building, we can see the results of optimizations on the comfort graphs.

80.57% 80.57%

20.00% 20.00% A Class A Class

60.00% 60.00% C Class C Class

80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% Discomfort Discomfort

0.00% 0.00%

20.00% 20.00%

Class AA Class

40.00% 40.00%

Class BB Class

60.00% 60.00%

Class CC Class

80.00% 80.00%

100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort Discomfort

ThermalComfort ComfortininSummer SummerGuideline GuidelineEN EN15251 15251 Thermal

4040 Heating/Cooling Ground HEX [°C] Heating/Coolingoperative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature Ground HEX operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature [°C] operative room temperature [°C]

40.00% 40.00% B Class B Class

83.06% 83.06%

Comfort Comfortcomparison comparisonEN15251 EN15251 Winter Winter

3535

25.34% 25.34% 3030

15.50% 13.56% 15.50% 13.56%

Comfort Comfortcomparison comparisonISO ISO7730 7730

Summer Summer

Ground HEX Ground HEX

0.00% 0.00%

Comfortcomparison comparisonISO ISO7730 7730 Comfort

Heat exchanger Heat exchanger

Heat exchanger Heat exchanger

Comfortcomparison comparisonEN15251 EN15251 Comfort

13.80% 13.80%

45.59% 45.59%

2525

0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort Discomfort

2020

12.16% 12.16%

62.88% 62.88%

0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort Discomfort

0.00% 0.00%

Runningmean meanofofambient ambientairairtemperature temperature[°C] [°C] Running

2525

20.00% 20.00%

A Class

Class 20A20

1515 40 40 10 10

Heating/Cooling Heating/Cooling

1515 Thermal ThermalComfort ComfortininSummer SummerGuideline GuidelineEN EN15251 15251 4040 TZ2_Livingroom room TZ2_Living Winter Summer Winter Summer 1010 Comfort comparisonEN15251 EN15251 Comfortcomparison comparisonISO ISO7730 7730 Comfort comparison Comfort 35 35 55 25 30 300300 63.37% 1010 1515 202024.38% 30 24.38% 25 63.37% 5 5 15.01% 12.80% 17.87% 31.30% 26.45% 15.01% 12.80% 17.87% 31.30% 26.45% 40.00% 40.00%

Class BBClass

60.00% 60.00%

Class CCClass

80.00% 80.00%

100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort Discomfort

0.00% 0.00%

20.00% 20.00%

40.00% 40.00%

Class AAClass

Class BBClass

60.00% 60.00%

Class CCClass

80.00% 80.00%

100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort Discomfort

ThermalComfort ComfortininSummer SummerGuideline GuidelineEN EN15251 15251 Thermal

35 35 55 30 0 0 30

TZ2_Living room TZ2_Living room

Winter Winter

55

1010

Summer Summer

1515

2020

2525

Running mean ofof ambient airair temperature [°C] Running mean ambient temperature [°C]

3030

25 25 20 20 15 15

TZ2_Livingroom room TZ2_Living

10 10 55

00

55

10 10

15 15

20 20

Runningmean meanofofambient ambientair airtemperature temperature[°C] [°C] Running

25 25

30 30

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

94


operative room temperature [°C]

60.00% C Class

80.00% 100.00% Discomfort

83.06%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

A Class

B Class

60.00%

C Class

80.00

Dis

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Winter

Summer

30 25 20 15 TZ2_Living room

10

5

25.34% 0

operative room temperature [°C]

Heating/Cooling

45.59% 10

15

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 13.80%

12.16% 25

20

62.88% 30

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

20.00% A Class

40.00% B Class

60.00% C Class

80.00% 100.00% Discomfort

0.00%

20.00% A Class

40.00% B Class

60.00% 80.00% C Class Disco

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40

Winter

Summer

35 30 25 20 15 TZ2_Living room

10

Comfort comparison EN15251 5

0

63.37%

20.00%

A Class

5

40.00%

B Class

15.01% 10

12.80%15

Comfort comparison ISO 77 2024.38%

17.87% 25

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] 60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

0.00%

Discomfort

20.00%

A Class

31.30% 30

40.00%

60.00%

B Class

C Class

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40 operative room temperature [°C]

15.50% 13.56% 5

Ground HEX

Comfort comparison EN15251

0.00%

8. After plantation of heating and cooling system on the building, we can see the comfort levels of final applications on the building by this graph

40.00% B Class

35

0.00%

7. This graph shows the comfort levels by the EN15251 standard when ground pipes connected to the heat exchanger and then the building. It works with a by path with a sensor that turns off the heat exchanger when the outlet temperature of heat exchanger is more than 25˚C.

20.00% A Class

40

Ground HEX

6. Heat exchanger applied to the building and the graph demonstrates the comfort levels by using heat exchanger

0.00%

80.57%

Heating/Cooling

7.12 - Conclusion

Heat excha

Heat exchan

7 - Optimization in Bergamo

Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15

TZ2_Living room

10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

25

30

95

2

80.00

Dis


7 - Optimization in Bergamo 7.12 - Bergamo conclusion

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

96


7 - Optimization in Bergamo

PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE

ENERGY ENERGY DEMAND ENERGY ENERGY DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND ENERGY DEMAND

COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT

7.13 - Passive and active strategies effect on energy absorption

111 11

190[KWh/m²] 190[kWh/sqm] 190[KWh/m²] 190[KWh/m²] 190[KWh/m²]

55 555

132[KWh/m²] 132[KWh/m²] 132[kWh/sqm] 132[KWh/m²] 132[KWh/m²]

888 88

75[KWh/m²] 75[kWh/sqm] 75[KWh/m²] 75[KWh/m²] 75[KWh/m²] Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

97


8

OPTIMIZATION IN EL-KHARGA


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.1 - Phase1: Layering Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

El-Kharga, Egypt

Ventilation OFF

Temperature

[C˚]

46.00

TMAX Base case

Light

[C˚]

Massive

Wall

EAHX OFF

16.82

43.67

44.00

Heat Exchanger OFF

Cooling OFF

TMIN

18.00

45.07

Double Argon

Shading OFF

The first step of the building analysis was made to16.19 recognize the best envelope technology 15.83 16.00 between the base case as existing41.80 in the building and two different alternatives which were 42.00 and massive envelops that we discussed in chapter 3. the light weight This analysis conducted on a 1year period, 0.2 infiltration, no ventilation and internal gain and no shading elements. as it is visible in the annual 40.00 14.00 graph the massive technology seems better than others in the summer Light by having lower internalBasecase temperature other two case. Basecase Massive LightthanMassive

Annual temperature levels

50.00

Temperature [C˚]

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

Basecase

7

8

Light

9

10

Massive

11

12

Outdoor T

Internal and outdoor temperature (19th 46.00 Also, it is clear in the two graphs which indicate the maximum andAugust) minimum temperature, that lightweight envelope has higher internal temperature in winter, but massive envelop has lower 44.00 internal temperature in summer. Temperature [C˚]

42.00

[C˚] 40.00

46.00 38.00 44.00 42.00 40.00

46.00 45.07

36.00

43.6744.00

34.00 32.00 30.00

TMAX

[C˚]TMAX

[C˚]

[C˚]

45.07 18.00

18.00

43.67

42.00

TMIN

TMIN

16.82

16.82

16.19 41.80

16.00

41.80

16.19

16.00

15.83

15.83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 40.00 14.00 Massive 14.00Light Basecase Outdoor T Basecase Light Massive Basecase Light Massive Basecase Light Massive Basecase Light Massive

Annual temperature levels Annual temperature levels

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

50.00

50.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

99


Temperature [CËš]

Annual temperature levels 8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 50.00 40.00

For more, there is another graph of the internal temperature in hottest day of the year that 30.00 simulation of the internal temperature of the thermal zone 2. generate 24-hour In this stage we wanted to take into consideration that if our building was a semi-permanent 20.00 construction and we needed to use lightweight material that do not match the local technologies which are very massive, which challenges we have to face. So, the selected envelop is lightweight.10.00 1

2

3

4

5

Basecase

46.00

6

Light

7

8

9

10

Massive

11

12

Outdoor T

Internal and outdoor temperature (19th August)

Temperature [CËš]

44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00 30.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Basecase

Light

Massive

Outdoor T

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

100


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.2 - Phase2: Shading

El-Kharga, Egypt

Ventilation OFF

May - Sep

0.2 const. Infiltration

Shading

Internal Gain OFF

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Double Argon

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature 80% DYNAMIC

60% DYNAMIC

80% FIXED

Massive

EAHX OFF

This phase is dedicated to analyzing the variation of internal temperature and internal relative humidity to specify the best shading design for the building. The process of this phase is to analyze first the difference of fixed shading and then compare them with dynamic shadings. Dynamic shadings are adapted to the solar radiation energy on the building. For the fixed shadings, the first variation is internal temperature which we can see in the 5 month summer graph (May – Sep)

Temperature [C˚]

40.00

Internal temperature (May - Sep) 37.27

35.00

30.00

33.91

May

June

Outdoor T

July

36.46

Aug

60% Fixed

Sep 80% Fixed

Temperature [C˚]

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August) 44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00 30.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

60% Fixed

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

80% Fixed

7 101


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga Internal temperature (May - Sep)

35.00

40.00 30.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

40.00 In the other two graphs which are representing the internal temperature and relative humidity in the hottest week, we can see that 80% fixed 37.27 shading keeps building cooler with more humidity inside the building. 36.46

35.00

33.91

Internal temperature (May - Sep) May

Outdoor T

July

Aug 37.27 Sep

60% Fixed 36.46 80% Fixed 33.91

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August) 30.00 44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 44.00 34.00 42.00 32.00 40.00 30.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00 30.00 45.00

May

June

Outdoor T

July

Aug

60% Fixed

Sep 80% Fixed

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August)

1

2

3

4

60% Fixed

5

6

7

6

7

80% Fixed

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August) 1

40.00

2

3

4

60% Fixed

35.00 RH%

June

5 80% Fixed

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August)

30.00 25.00 45.00 20.00 40.00

RH%

15.00 35.00 30.00

1

2

3

4

5

60% Fixed

25.00

6

7

6

7

80% Fixed

20.00 15.00

1

2

3

60% Fixed

4

5 80% Fixed

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

102


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

Temperature [CËš]Temperature [CËš]

The fourth and fifth graphs are showing the internal temperature and relative humidity in the hottest day of the year. Also, it is visible in these graphs that 80% fixed shading is acting better in term of temperature and humidity inside the thermal zone.

44.00

42.33

42.00 40.00 38.00 44.00

41.21

Internal temperature (19th August)

42.33

36.00 42.00 34.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 40.00 35.00

RH%

Internal temperature (19th August)

30.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 41.21 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60% Fixed

80% Fixed

Internal RH% (19th August)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60% Fixed

80% Fixed

Internal RH% (19th August)

RH%

40.00 25.00 35.00 20.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60% Fixed

80% Fixed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60% Fixed

80% Fixed

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

103


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga The next part is to compare 2 type of dynamic shading with 80% fixed shading to see the differences between dynamic and fixed shadings. So, there is the monthly summer graph that shows the dynamic shadings are not enough for keeping inside temperature lower. Internal temperature (May - Sep)

40.00 40.00

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚][C˚] Temperature

40.00

35.00

Internal temperature (May - Sep) Internal temperature (May - Sep) 30.00

May

35.00 35.00

June

July

Outdoor T 80% Dynamic

Aug

80% Fixed 60% Dynamic

Sep

30.00

The second and third graphs are showing the internal temperature and relative humidity of 30.00 (16 - 23 August) May June July Internal Aug temperature Sep the thermal zone inMay the hottest week of is obvious Julythe year. AugIt Sep from these graphs that 80% fixed Outdoor45.00 TJune 80% Fixed shading keeps inside temperature at lower levels respect to the other dynamic shadings. Outdoor T 80% 80% Dynamic 60% Fixed Dynamic

Temperature [C˚][C˚] Temperature

45.00 45.00 40.00 40.00

Temperature [C˚]

80% Dynamic

40.00

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August) Internal temperature (16 - 23 August)

35.00 30.00

1

35.00 35.00 1 1

2 3 2 3 45.00 80% Fixed 80% Fixed 40.00

RH%

35.00 45.00 45.00 40.00 40.00 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 15.00

2

3

4

80% Fixed

30.00 30.00

RH% RH%

60% Dynamic

30.00

4

5

6

7

80% Dynamic 5

6

60% Dynamic

7

Internal RH% 4 5 (16 - 623 August) 7 80% Dynamic 80% Dynamic

60% Dynamic 60% Dynamic

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August) Internal RH% (16 - 23 August)

25.00 20.00 15.00

1

2

3

80% Fixed 1 1

2 2 80% Fixed 80% Fixed

3 3

4

5

6

80% Dynamic

4 5 4 5 80% Dynamic 80% Dynamic

6 6

7 60% Dynamic

7 7 60% Dynamic 60% Dynamic

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

104


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga The last two graphs are for the internal temperature and relative humidity of the thermal zone in the hottest day of the year, so we can see the variations during 24 hours of the hottest day. We can see also in these graphs that 80% dynamic shading performs better in this situation.

Internal temperature (19th August) Temperature [CËš] Temperature [CËš]

44.00 42.00 40.00 44.00 38.00 42.00 36.00 40.00 34.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 40.00

RH%

35.00 30.00 40.00

Internal temperature (19th August)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80% Fixed

80% Dynamic

60% Dynamic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80% Fixed

Internal RH% (19th August) 80% Dynamic

60% Dynamic

Internal RH% (19th August)

RH%

25.00 35.00 20.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80% Fixed

80% Dynamic

60% Dynamic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80% Fixed

80% Dynamic

60% Dynamic

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

105


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.3 - Phase3: Ventilation constant

El-Kharga, Egypt

Ventilation

May - Sep

Internal Gain ON

0.2 const. Infiltration

80% FIXED

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Double Argon

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

6 vol/h CONST.

6 vol/h DAY

6 vol/h NIGHT

Massive

EAHX OFF

In the third phase as analyzing the effect of different summer passive strategies, the aim was to conduct the simulations according to the different ventilation types. In this stage the internal gains are ON as the schedules that had been written in the chapter 5. First the comparisons are between constant ventilation then the second part is to compare constant ventilation with day and night scheduled ventilations.The first graphs compare different air change rates according to the internal temperature in summer.

Temperature [CËš]

43.00

Internal temperature (May - Sep)

38.00 33.00 28.00

May June Outdoor T 3 Vol/h Constant

July

Aug Sep 1.5 Vol/h Constant 6 Vol/h Constant

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

106


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga Internal temperature - Sep) in internal temperature and relative The second graphs are showing(May the variation [C˚] and third humidity with different constant ventilations. And as it is visible in these graphs, 6 Vol/h ventilation has a better performance on the building. Also, we can see the same result by looking 38.00graphs of temperature and relative humidity. at the daily Internal temperature (May - Sep)

[C˚] 28.00 38.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

28.00 50.00 45.00

May

June

July

Outdoor T

Aug

1.5 Vol/h Constant

Sep

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August) May

June

July

Outdoor T

Aug

1.5 Vol/h Constant

Sep

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August)

40.00 50.00 35.00 45.00 30.00 40.00

1

2

3

1.5 Vol/h Constant

4

5

3 Vol/h Constant

6

7

6 Vol/h Constant

35.00 30.00 50.00

1

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August) 2

3

1.5 Vol/h Constant

4

5

3 Vol/h Constant

6

7

6 Vol/h Constant

RH%

RH%

40.00 30.00 50.00 20.00 40.00 10.00 30.00

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August)

1

2

3

1.5 Vol/h Constant

4

5

3 Vol/h Constant

6

7

6 Vol/h Constant

20.00 10.00

1

2

3

1.5 Vol/h Constant

4

5

3 Vol/h Constant

6

7

6 Vol/h Constant

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

107


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

Internal temperature (19th August) 44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 44.00 36.00 42.00 34.00 40.00 32.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00 45.00

Internal temperature (19th August)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1.5 Vol/h Constant

3 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Constant

1 2 3 4 5 6Internal 7 8 9 RH% 10 11(19th 12 13 August) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1.5 Vol/h Constant

3 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Constant

RH%

40.00 35.00

Internal RH% (19th August)

30.00 45.00

RH%

25.00 40.00 20.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1.5 Vol/h Constant

3 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Constant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1.5 Vol/h Constant

3 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Constant

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

108


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.3 - Phase3: Ventilation constant day and night Step 2 is to give the schedules to the ventilation to have a day or night ventilation. The two first graphs are for comparing the constant, day, and nighttime ventilations. We can see from these graphs that constant ventilation has significant effects on cool down the inside temperature in summer.

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August)

60.00 Temperature [CËš]Temperature [CËš]

55.00 50.00

Internal temperature (16 - 23 August)

60.00 45.00 55.00 40.00 50.00 35.00 45.00 30.00 40.00

1

2

3

4

6 Vol/h Constant

5

6

6 Vol/h Day

7

6 Vol/h Night

35.00 30.00 70.00

(16 -423 2Internal RH% 3

1

6 Vol/h Constant

60.00

RH%

RH%

50.00 40.00 70.00 30.00 60.00 20.00 50.00 10.00 40.00 0.00 30.00

August) 5

6 Vol/h Day

6

7

6 Vol/h Night

Internal RH% (16 - 23 August)

1

2

3

6 Vol/h Constant

20.00

4

5

6 Vol/h Day

6

7

6 Vol/h Night

10.00 0.00

1

2

3

6 Vol/h Constant

4

5

6 Vol/h Day

6

7

6 Vol/h Night

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

109


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga Also, the last two graphs are showing the daily difference between constant and scheduled ventilations by considering the internal temperature and relative humidity. By knowing that in hot and dry climate which almost does not have winter, the constant ventilation will be very crucial to the building.

55.00

Internal temperature (19th August)

Temperature [CËš] Temperature [CËš]

50.00 45.00 40.00 55.00 35.00 50.00 30.00 45.00 25.00 40.00 35.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Day

6 Vol/h Night

30.00 25.00 100.00 80.00

RH%

Internal temperature (19th August)

60.00 100.00 40.00

Internal RH% (19th August) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Day

6 Vol/h Night

Internal RH% (19th August)

RH%

80.00 20.00 60.00 0.00 40.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Day

6 Vol/h Night

20.00 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 Vol/h Constant

6 Vol/h Day

6 Vol/h Night

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

110


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.4. - Summer comfort This section is to understand the effect of changes made by passive strategies in the last three phases to the building. The standards that we used are EN15251 and ISO7730. These standards are dividing the comfort levels into 3 class as: Class A, Class B and Class C. The graphs are deriving the range of temperatures defined by these standard and we can visually see on the graphs the changes and percentage of the comfort levels.

3Vol/h Constant

80% Fixed shading

0.00%

20.00%

Lightweight

10.21%

57.43%

40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% A Class B Class C Class Discomfort

Comfort comparison EN15251 27.51%

0.00%

20.00%

A Class

14.84% 11.78%

40.00%

B Class

45.87%

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

Discomfort

Comfort comparison EN15251 19.19%

0.00%

20.00%

A Class

60.75%

40.00%

B Class

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

Discomfort

74.68%

10.72%

0.00%

80% Fixed shading

20.18%

Comfort comparison ISO 7730

20.00%

40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% A Class B Class C Class Discomfort

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 71.40%

11.36%

0.00%

3Vol/h Constant

Lightweight

Comfort comparison EN15251

20.00%

A Class

40.00%

B Class

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 79.00%

8.06%

0.00%

20.00%

A Class

40.00%

B Class

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

100.00%

Discomfort

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

100.00%

Discomfort

111


Lig

Lig

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 0.00%

20.00%

40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% A Class B Class C Class Discomfort

0.00%

20.00%

40.00% 60.00% A Class B Class

Summer comfort - Light

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Winter

35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Comfort comparison EN15251 0

27.51%

A Class Summer comfort - 80% fixed shading 0.00%

20.00%

1045.87%

40.00%

B Class

15

20

Comfort comparison IS 25

30

11.36% 7.40% 9.84%

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] 60.00%

80.00%

C Class

100.00%

0.00%

Discomfort

20.00%

40.00%

A Class

71.40

60.00%

B Class

C Class

operative room temperature [°C]

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 40 Winter

35

25 20 15 10

Comfort 5 comparison EN15251 19.19%

0

10.02%10.03%

40.00%

B Class

5

60.75%

60.00%

C Class

10

Comfort comparison ISO 7730

15

20

25

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] 8.06% 7.80% 79.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Discomfort

0.00%

20.00%

A Class

40.00%

B Class

60.00%

C Class

30

80.00%

Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

25

10

Discomfort

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40 operative room temperature [°C]

Summer

30

0.00% 20.00% Summer comfort - Ventilation A Class

3. The third graph is showing the comfort levels after we implemented the ventilation system in the building.

5

14.84% 11.78%

3Vol/h Constant

3Vol/h Constant

2. After applying the shading elements and its setting, the second step in comfort analysis to derive its data from the graphs.

Summer

80% Fixed shading

[°C]

40

80% Fixed shadingoperative room temperature

1. At first, analysis will be conducted to determine the comfort levels with the phase 1 (layering phase) to see how the building situation without any optimization is.

30

112


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.5 - Phase4: Windows

El-Kharga, Egypt

6 vol/h CONST.

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

80% FIXED

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Windows

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Double Argon

Triple Argon

Triple Krypton

Massive

EAHX OFF

In this phase the annual simulations are conducted to compare the effect of different windows with different U-values and g-values. The different windows that compared are: Double Argon (as the base case) with U-value= 2.82 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.64, Triple Argon with U-value= 0.77 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.62 and Triple krypton with U-value= 0.5 [W/m²K] and g-value= 0.49. First and second graphs are comparing internal temperature and relative humidity to the outside environment by different window technologies.

Internal temperature (July24 - July31)

46.00

Temperature [C˚]

44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00

1

2 Double Argon

3

4

5

Triple Argon

6

7

Triple Kryptopn

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

113


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga Internal temperature (July24 - July31)

46.00

Temperature [C˚]

44.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 36.00 34.00 32.00

1

2

3

Double Argon

4

5

Triple Argon

6

7

Triple Kryptopn

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January) Temperature [C˚]

27.00 22.00 17.00 12.00 7.00

1

2

3

Double Argon

4

5

6

Triple Argon

7

Triple Krypton

Winter and summer optimization (Double argon)

50.00

Temperature [C˚]

45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

1

2

3 Coldest week

4

5

6

7

Hottest week

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

114


Double Argon

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

Triple Argon

Triple Kryptopn

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

27.00

Temperature [CËš]

The third and fourth graphs are deriving the data for hottest and coldest weeks of the year 22.00 with different windows. And it is obvious that double argon has lower temperature in summer, but it is not very effective in keeping the inside temperature up in winter. By considering that 17.00 triple Krypton acting better than triple Argon in summer, we have chosen this type of windows for the building. Since the results 12.00 are very close together, we decided to stick on the standard double Argon windows. The last two graphs are visualizing the temperature and relative humidity in the coldest and7.00 hottest week by installing double Argon windows. 1

2

3

Double Argon

4

5

6

Triple Argon

7

Triple Krypton

Winter and summer optimization (Double argon)

50.00

Temperature [CËš]

45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00

1

2

3

4

5

Coldest week

6

7

Hottest week

Winter and summer optimization (Double Argon) 90.00

RH%

70.00 50.00 30.00 10.00

1

2

3 Coldest week

4

5

6 Hottest week

7

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

115


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.6 - Phase5: Winter optimization

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

80% FIXED

Triple Krypton

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger OFF

El-Kharga, Egypt

Ventilation

Temperature 6 vol/h summer 3 vol/h winter

6 vol/h annual

Relative Humidity

Massive

EAHX OFF

After analyzing the building with summer strategies, the team decided to work also on winter conditions. For this reason, we reduced the ventilation flow rate in winter to see the effects on the internal temperature and internal relative humidity. But the shadings are kept the same. The first graph is showing the internal temperature of one year with 6 Vol/h and comparing it to the one with 3 Vol/h annually. It is visible that reducing the flow rate will result in warmer and more comfortable inside environment in winter but also it will increase the temperature levels inside the building in summer. so, we decided to give the plan to the system to work with 6 Vol/h in summer (Apr – Nov) and 3 Vol/h in winter (Dec – Mar).

Internal temperature (Hourly)

Temperature [C˚]

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Winter optimization

100.00

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Summer optimization

Internal Relative humidity (hourly)

80.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

60.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

116


20.00

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 0.00

Jan FebtheMar Aproperative May Jun July Aug by Sep Oct Nov The second graph showing internal temperature applying the Dec winter optimization. So, we can see the effects clearly in winter period on increasing the operative temSummer optimization Winter optimization perature and make it closer to the comfort levels.

Internal temperature (Winter and summer optimization)

Temperature [C˚]

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

The third and fourth graphs are derived to show the effects of reducing the air flow rate on the internal temperature and internal relative humidity in winter by comparing the new winter value (3 Vol/h) and the last one.

30.00

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

25.00 30.00

Internal temperature (13 - 20 January)

20.00 25.00 15.00 20.00 10.00 15.00 5.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 0.00

1

2

1

2

The last graph 100.00 is also

6 6 Vol/h Constant

7

3 4 5 6 3 Vol/h Constant 6 Vol/h Constant RH% (13 - of 20overall January) showingInternal the annual results changes.

7

4

5

Internal RH% (13 - 20 January)

100.00 80.00 Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

3 3 Vol/h Constant

80.00 60.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

1 1

2 2

3 4 3 Vol/h Constant 3

4

5 5

6 6 Vol/h Constant 6

3 Vol/h Constant 6 Vol/h Constant Internal temperature(Winter optimization)

7 7

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

40.00 50.00

Internal temperature(Winter optimization) Energy Efficient Building CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

117


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.7 - Winter comfort - passive strategies

60.75%60.75%

Double Argon

10.02% 10.02% 19.19%19.19%

Double Argon

Comfort comparison EN15251 Comfort comparison EN15251

Double Argon

Double Argon

After applying windows and changing the ventilation flowrate in winter we can see the changes according to the last comfort analysis by the standards of EN15251 and ISO7730. this stage has two levels, the first one is the effects of changing the window type and the second one is the effect of winter optimization on the thermal zone 2 comfort Classes.

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Comfort comparison ISO 7730 79.00% 79.00%

8.06% 8.06%

0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00%100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00%100.00%

Discomfort A Class A ClassB Class B ClassC Class C ClassDiscomfort

Discomfort A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort

40

40

operative room temperature [°C]

operative room temperature [°C] Winter Opt

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 35

10

10

405

5

35

WinterWinter Summer Summer

0.00%

20

20

49.61%

49.61%

operative room temperature [°C]

35

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0

0

Winter Opt

25

25.07% 12.98% 12.34% 12.98% 12.34%

9.19%

0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00%100.00% 15 15 20.00% Discomfort0.00% A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort

40 operative room temperature [°C]

25

25.07%

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Winter Opt

Winter Opt

30 30 Comfort comparison EN15251 Comfort comparison EN15251

9.19%

0.00% 20.00%

76.39%

20.00% 40.00%

40.00% 60.00%

76.39%

60.00% 80.00%

80.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Discomfort A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort

Thermal Comfort in Summer Thermal Comfort in Summer 0

5

5

5

5

10

10

10

15

15

20

20

25

25

30

15

15

20

20

25

25

30

30

Winter

Summer Winter Summer Running mean of ambient air temperature Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] [°C]

10

Running mean of ambient air temperature Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] [°C]

30

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

118


Double Argon

19.19% 10.02%

0.00%

40.00%

B Class

60.75%

60.00%

C Class

80.00%

100.00%

Comfort comparison ISO 7730

0.00%

Discomfort

79.00%

8.06%

20.00%

A Class

60.00%

B Class

80.00%

C Class

10

Discomfort

40 Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 10 5

0

5

10

15

20

0.00%

12.98% 12.34%

20.00% A Class

49.61%

40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% B Class C Class Discomfort

76.39%

9.19%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

A Class

B Class

60.00%

C Class

Thermal Comfort in Summer

40 operative room temperature [째C]

30

Comfort comparison ISO 773 Winter Opt

Winter Opt

25.07%

25

Running mean of ambient air temperature [째C]

Comfort comparison EN15251

5. This graph shows the thermal zone comfort levels after the winter optimization and changing the ventilation in winter period.

40.00%

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 operative room temperature [째C]

4. The next step in the comfort analysis is to see how the thermal zone comfort levels is with installing the best windows.

20.00%

A Class

Double Argon

Comfort comparison EN15251

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 10 5

0

5

10

15

20

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

25

Running mean of ambient air temperature [째C]

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

30

119

80.00%

D


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.8 - Phase 6: Heat exchanger

El-Kharga, Egypt

6 vol/h summer 3 vol/h winter

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

80% FIXED

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger

Massive

EAHX OFF

Triple Krypton

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Phase 6 had the aim to increase inside comfort levels by changing the air with air to air heat recovery system. By activating this system with efficiency of 0.7 it will change the inside air through the heat recovery system which works with conduction and changes the air without temperature drop in winter. In the first graph we can see the effect of heat recovery system in winter. But, since the winters in El-kharga are warm, we can see that when temperature is more than 20˚C, the heat exchanger will blow more than 30˚C air inside the building. But in summer, we can see that it is not effective at all as it increases the outside air temperature. For these reasons we decided to not implement a heat recovery system but only a ground to air heat exchanger.

Heat exchanger effect (13 - 20 January)

35.00

Temperature [C˚]

30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

1

2

3 Outdoor T

4

5 Internal T

6

7

Loadside T

Heat exchanger effect (24 - 31 July) 50.00 Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

120


30.00 Temperature [C˚]

25.00 8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 20.00 15.00 10.00

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

5.00 35.00 0.00 30.00

1

2

3

4

Outdoor T

25.00 20.00

5

6

Internal T

7

Loadside T

Heat exchanger effect (24 - 31 July)

50.00 15.00 10.00 45.00 5.00 40.00 0.00

1

35.00

2

45.00

3

4

Outdoor T

30.00 50.00 25.00

Temperature [C˚] Temperature [C˚]

Heat exchanger effect (13 - 20 January)

5

6

Internal T

7

Loadside T

Heat exchanger effect (24 - 31 July) 1

40.00

2

3 Outdoor T

4

Internal T

5

6

Loadside T

7

Internal operative temperature(13 - 21 January)

35.00 40.00 35.00

30.00is to see the changes in internal operative temperature in winter by activating The last graph 30.00 system. the heat recovery 25.00 25.00 20.00

1

2

15.00

4

Internal T

5

6

Loadside T

7

10.00

Internal operative temperature(13 - 21 January)

5.00 0.00 40.00 35.00 Temperature [C˚]

3 Outdoor T

1

2

3 Heat exchanger OFF

4

5 6 Heat exchanger ON

7

1

2

3 Heat exchanger OFF

4

5 6 Heat exchanger ON

7

30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

121


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.9 - Phase 7: Ground to air heat exchanger

El-Kharga, Egypt

6 vol/h summer 3 vol/h winter

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

80% FIXED

Triple Krypton

Internal Gain ON

Heating OFF

Cooling OFF

Heat Exchanger OFF

Temperature Massive

EAHX OFF

Relative Humidity

In the phase 6 we concluded that the air to air heat recovery system is not suitable for the building. Another alternative for changing the inside air without huge temperature changes is the ground to air heat exchanger system which is designed with pipes that buried under ground to get the soil temperature. We explained the considerations for ground heat exchanger in the chapter 6.3. In El-kharga case we decided to implement just the ground pipes. The ground pipes are connected to the building directly and changes the inside air by precooling or preheating by the ground temperature. The first graph shows the same data as previous phase in the winter for inside air temperature and the fresh air temperature. And here we can see the difference between outside air and pipe outlet.

Ground to air heat exchanger (13 - 20 January)

Temperature [CËš]

35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

1

2

3

Outdoor T

50.00

4

5

Internal T

6

7

Pipe outlet T

Ground to air heat exchanger (16 - 23 August)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

45.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

122


Temperature [C

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 20.00 25.00 15.00 10.00

30.00

Outdoor T

20.00 50.00 15.00 45.00 10.00

Pipe outlet T

Ground to air heat exchanger (16 - 23 August)

40.00 5.00 35.00 0.00 30.00

1

2

3

4

Outdoor T

25.00 20.00

5

6

Internal T

7

Pipe outlet T

Ground to air heat exchanger (16 - 23 August)

50.00 15.00

1

45.00

2 Outdoor T

40.00 35.00

3

4 Internal T

5

6 Pipe outlet T

7

Internal operative temperature (16 - 23 Aug)

37.00 30.00 35.00 25.00

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

Internal T

25.00

Temperature [C˚]

Temperature [C˚]

The second graph shows us how the ground pipes perform in summer and cool down the 5.00 inside air without opening the windows. air heat (13 - 20temperature January) difference with heat The last graph is to Ground see the to changes in exchanger internal operative 0.00 35.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 exchanger ON and with ground to air heat exchanger directly connected to the 7building.

33.00 20.00

The last graph is to see the changes in internal operative temperature difference with heat 31.00 15.00 exchanger ON and with ground to air heat exchanger directly connected to the building. 29.00

1

2 Outdoor T

3

4 Internal T

5

6 Pipe outlet T

7

27.00 25.00 37.00

1

Internal operative temperature (16 - 23 Aug) 2

Temperature [C˚]

35.00

3

4

5

HEX ON

6

7

GHEX ON

33.00 31.00 29.00 27.00 25.00

1

2

3 HEX ON

4

5

6

7

GHEX ON

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

123


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.10 - Phase 8: Heating and cooling

Year

0.2 const. Infiltration

Internal Gain ON

Heating ON

El-Kharga, Egypt

6 vol/h summer 3 vol/h winter

80% FIXED

Cooling ON

Triple Krypton

Heat Exchanger OFF

TOP / E comsumption Massive

EAHX OFF

The last step to get more closer to comfort levels was the heating and cooling plant system. For this phase we have set the schedules of heating and cooling according to the climate. The set point temperatures and schedules are explained in chapter 5 for each climate. The first graph is the result of internal operative temperatures after plantation. We can see that now it is more in line and close to comfort levels.

Internal operative temperature

Temperature [CËš] Temperature [CËš]

38.00

Internal operative temperature

38.00 33.00 33.00 28.00 28.00 23.00 23.00 18.00 18.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

The second graph shows the hourly energy consumption of the thermal zone. The need for KWh Hourlyasenergy consumption cooling is more than the need for heating graph shows us. 3.50

3.00 KWh

Hourly energy consumption

2.50 3.50 2.00 3.00 1.50 2.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 0.00 1.00 -0.50 0.50 -1.00 0.00

-0.50 -1.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Internal operative temperature (13 - 20 January)

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

30.00

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

124


0.50

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 0.00 -0.50

-1.00 The third and fourth are showing the internal in the hottest and Jan graphs Feb Mar Apr May June Julyoperative Aug Septemperatures Oct Nov Dec coldest weeks of the year.

Internal operative temperature (13 - 20 January) 30.00

Temperature [C˚]

28.00 26.00 24.00 22.00 20.00 18.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Internal operative temperature (16 - 23 August) 39.00 Temperature [C˚]

37.00 35.00 33.00 31.00 29.00 27.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The last KWh graph shows the monthlyenergy energyconsumption absorption for(Sensible the thermal zone. Monthly energy) The overall energy absorption as sensible energy is: 108.18 [W/m²a] 600.00 .

500.00 KWh

Monthly energy consumption (Sensible energy)

400.00 600.00 300.00

500.00

453.59

200.00

400.00 300.00 0.00

298.16

214.23

200.00

-100.00

100.00 Jan

-100.00

410.63

313.22

100.00

0.00

509.60

Feb

Mar

-8.93

-5.73

Jan

Feb

Apr93.56 May

24.98

June

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov 89.68 Dec -0.93

Mar

Apr

May June

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

Dec

125


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.11 - Total comfort

20.00% 0.00%

60.00% 40.00%

80.00% 60.00%

100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 0.00%

35

35

GHEX operative room temperature [°C]

40

0.00%

15

0

Heating/Cooling operative room temperature [°C]

35

10

18.26%

14.19% 18.26%

21.68% 14.19%

21.68%

GHEX

45.87%

20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 15 A Class A Class B Class

10

5 40

45.87%

73.42% 73.42%

11.26% 11.26%

60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 40.00% 0.00% C Class C Class DiscomfortDiscomfort B Class

20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00%100.00% 0.00% A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort Discomfort

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

5 40 35

0

5

10

5

10

15

30Comfort 30Comfort comparison EN15251 comparison EN15251 25

25

20

20

15

20

20

25

Winter Summer RunningRunning mean ofmean ambient airSummer temperature [°C] [°C] ofWinter ambient air temperature

66.74%66.74%

17.04%17.04%

Heating/Cooling

20

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Comfort comparison ISO 7730 GHEX

20

60.00% 60.00% 80.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 40.00% C Class C Class DiscomfortDiscomfort B Class

Winter Winter SummerSummer

30 25

40.00% 20.00% B Class A Class

89.55%

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

Comfort comparison EN15251 Comfort comparison EN15251

25

89.55%

20.00% 0.00% A Class

A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort Discomfort

40

30

40.00% 20.00%

78.06%

Heating/Cooling

0.00%

78.06%

9.50%

Heat exchanger

9.50%

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Comfort comparison ISO 7730

Heat exchanger

Heat exchanger

Comfort comparison EN15251 Comfort comparison EN15251

operative room temperature [°C] Heating/Cooling

operative room temperature [°C] GHEX

Heat exchanger

The last step is to analyze the building overall comfort levels by the standards explained before. After applying last 3 step as implementing heat exchangers and heating/cooling systems in the building, we can see the results of optimizations on the comfort graphs.

25

30

30

Comfort comparison ISO 7730 Comfort comparison ISO 7730 72.50%72.50%

11.44%11.44%

10

10

5 5 40 040 0 35

35

30

30

25

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

operative room temperature [°C]

operative room temperature [°C]

20.00% 100.00%0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00%40.00% 60.00%60.00% 80.00%80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 20.00%20.00% 40.00%40.00% 60.00%60.00% 80.00%80.00% 100.00% 15 A20.00% 15A Class Discomfort Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort Discomfort A Class A Class B Class B Class C Class C Class Discomfort

5

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

25

25

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C] [°C] Running mean of ambient air temperature Winter Winter Summer Summer

30

30

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei

5

Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

126


0.00%

40.00%

B Class

60.00%

80.00%

C Class

100.00%

89.55%

0.00%

Discomfort

20.00% A Class

40.00% B Class

60.00% C Class

80.00% Dis

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Winter

Summer

[°C]

30 25 20 15 10 Comfort comparison EN15251 45.87%

0

5

21.68%

10

15

11.26%

20

40.00% B Class

60.00% C Class

80.00% 100.00% Discomfort

0.00%

73.42%

25

20.00% A Class

30

40.00% B Class

60.00% 80.00% C Class Dis

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251 Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 10 5

Comfort comparison EN15251 66.74%

0 20.00% A Class

5 40.00% B Class

17.04%

10

15

Running80.00% mean of ambient 60.00% 100.00% C Class Discomfort

Heating/Cooling

operative room temperature [°C]

Heating/Cooling

14.19%

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

20.00% A Class

40

Comfort comparison ISO 7 72.50%

11.44%

20

25

air0.00% temperature [°C]40.00% 20.00% A Class

B Class

30

60.00% 80. C Class

Thermal Comfort in Summer Guideline EN 15251

40 operative room temperature [°C]

18.26%

Comfort comparison ISO 77 GHEX

5

0.00%

8. After plantation of heating and cooling system on the building, we can see the comfort levels of final applications on the building by this graph

78.06%

35

0.00%

7. This graph shows the comfort levels by the EN15251 standard when ground pipes connected to the building only. This time there is no heat exchanger because of the reasons explained

20.00%

A Class

40

GHEX operative room temperature

6. Heat exchanger applied to the building and the graph demonstrates the comfort levels by using heat exchanger

9.50%

Heat excha

Heat exchang

8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

Winter

35

Summer

30 25 20 15 10 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Running mean of ambient air temperature [°C]

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

127


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga 8.12 - El-Kharga Conclusion

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

128


8 - Optimization in El-Kharga

ENERGY ENERGY DEMAND ENERGY DEMAND ENERGY DEMAND DEMAND

8.13 Passive and active strategies effect on energy absorption

PHASE PHASE PHASE PHASE 1111

190[kWh/sqm] 190[KWh/m²] 190[KWh/m²] 190[KWh/m²]

5555

132[KWh/m²] 132[kWh/sqm] 132[KWh/m²] 132[KWh/m²]

8888

75[kWh/sqm] 75[KWh/m²] 75[KWh/m²] 75[KWh/m²]

COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT COMFORT

Group9: Sayedmohammad Ayat, Ivan Carnieletto, Reyhaneh Ghayouri, Elaheh Namvari, Ali Nemati, Iuliia Murusheva, Seyyedehfateme Oliaei Energy Efficient Building

CaseStudy 1 CasaSalevino

129


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.