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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;hothouseâ&#x20AC;? 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 [CË&#x161;]
35.00 25.00 15.00 5.00 -5.00
Jan
Bergamo
35.00 Temperature [CË&#x161;] 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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;] [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]Temperature [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;] Temperature [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]Temperature [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;] Temperature [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;]
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 [CË&#x161;] Temperature [CË&#x161;]
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