Performance Report of the Collegio di Milano by Doğukan Şamdancı

Performance Report of the Collegio di Milano 04/02/2022 Construction & Sustainability Design Studio Prof. Leonardo Belladelli Prof.ssa Teresa Blazquez De Pineda

Section C / Group 3 Dogukan Samdanci Emily Marie Shiga Kristina Mirkovic

EVALUATION OF THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF THE COLLEGIO DI MILANO & THE ENERGY POTENTIAL OF THE SITE Kristina Mirkovic, Dogukan Samdanci, Emily Marie Shiga

Introduction The energy model of the existing structure is of great importance to guide the design phase. It was thought that understanding how the building works and discovering the potentials of the location, provide important information for improvements and developments to be made. Determining the weaknesses of the system is important in terms of providing numerical data in determining at which points there is a need for improvement. In order to have an idea about the thermal performance of an existing building, firstly, a search was made for the details that may have been used in the building. The organization of the thermal layers which are separating the internal and exterior environments was interpreted together with the common solutions of the period and the drawings of the Marco Zanuso. After the data collection process from drawings, literature, site visit the potential solution for solving the problem of how this information will be used in the next step, was designed. Methodology 1) Translating the Current State (Prior to Retrofit) For creating a consistent energy model of the existing building, the dynamic climatic data should be used. The Collegio di Milano is located at Via S. Vigilio, 10, 20142 Milano MI. The UTM Coordinates of the building is N 45° 26’ 7.3428, E 9° 9’ 49.5936. Thus, as an initial step the location was selected in Dial+ v2.7.04 software. Then the room characteristic was selected according to its function as collective housing. This selection affects the occupation schedule which affects the thermal simulation at the further step. 2) Selection of the Thermal Zones The design of the Collegio di Milano has important

characteristics in terms of both plans (fig.2, fig.3, fig.4) and section. When its plan is considered, the interaction of different orthogonal grids can be noticed. The breakings on plan are flowing through the interaction of these grids. Because of the integration of different oriented grids, there are various building elements (walls, opening, etc.) which are oriented in different directions. It was noted that these differences in orientation could create thermal zones which work differently from each other in terms of the amount of radiation received from the sun. After all these statements, it can be declared that there are 4 different thermal situations according to orientation of the opening of the modular rooms. The other important characteristic of the Collegio di Milano is the shifting movement between its floors. If the section (fig.5) of the rooms is taken into account, the shifting which is equal to the dimension of the balcony, can be observed. Beside its aesthetic effects on the visual of the Collegio, it also affects the thermal performance of the building because of the variable relations between interior and exterior environment. In addition, thermal challenges according to the storey of the room are different. For instance, for the room, which is on the ground floor, the slab differentiates the earth and interior but on the first floor, it separates internal environments. At the second floor, the different thermal zones can be stated because of the separation at the roof. Shortly, the three floors of the building have their own unique thermal conditions. As a result, 12 case studies studied for understanding the general thermal performance of the rooms of the collegio, 12 cases have been defined as 3 rooms according to their floor level at each 4 different orientations (fig.1). These prototypes can give approximate assumptions about the performances of all rooms. It should also be noted that although the rooms in two separate blocks facing south-west are not exactly the same as each other, in the analyzes made, the difference was negligible. Shortly, the 12 case studies

227

232

300

142

240

141

240

140

240

139

240

138

240

137

480

240

134

240

200

555

1560

160

310

240

117

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

118

1 25

119

3325 954

130

120

29 0

121

29 0

122

129

0 24

128

123

50 0

29 50

0 24

5 16

227

262

29 230

180

50 300

210

240

2 0

240

90 +0,00

2 240

0 N W

W 0

126

125

124

127

50 240

2130

+0,51

910

570

1395

50 85 100 270 50 270

270

1465 270

1520

+0,00

499

270

100 90 50

+0,51

270

+1,02

-1,78

270

2660

+1,02

910

320

270

870

270

1587

+0,51

590

270

+0,51

80 210

270

+0,51

50 85 100

50 270 50 270 50 270 50 270 50 270 50 270 50 270 50 270 320 50

+0,00

280

2130

136

135

133

131

0 24

132

585

7 73

910

450

+3,92

30 210

50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 110 50 456 460 270 240 240 240 240 240

302 300 240 240 240 240 240

50 290 50 290 50 290 50 290 50 290 50

+0,00

3395 205 190 335

185

60 0

50 0

29 0

0 24

50 29

7 21

0 49

72 5

290 335 400 600 300 240 240 240 240 240 240 520 50 290

Room 8 South Oriented

290

Room 7 South Oriented

110 100 77 50

130

241

144

170

50 24

2520

910

191

0 24

South East South West South West Room 1 Room 4 Room 7 Room 10 Room 2 Room 5 Room 8 Room 11 Room 3 Room 6 Room 9 Room 12 Figure 1, the legend for the Selection of the Case Studies 27

100

Room Typology Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor

Hc=270

Room 4 South - West Oriented Room 10 West Oriented

Room 1 South-East Oriented

10m

Ground Floor Plan terra pianta - piano

Figure 2, Location of the thermal zones on Ground Floor

45 2

Room 5 South - West Oriented

Room 11 West Oriented

Room 2 South-East Oriented

10m

First Floor Plan primo pianta - piano

Figure 3, Location of the thermal zones on First Floor

0 44

0 24 +5,92

0 24

227

226

7 73

0 24

2 32

224

225

223

222

131

229

219

24 0

220

24 0

221

228

218

830

2418

24 0

217

24 0

+6,42

216

215

214

213 +6,92

212

211

210

822

150

445

240

480

240

480

240

120

375

2495 1466

300

Room 9 South Oriented

Room 12 West Oriented

227

292

241

240

239 88 21

240

238

240

237

240

236

+6,42

0 37

240

460

240

2136

235

240

234

240

233

240

232 +6,92

Room 3 South-East Oriented

240

231

240

230

210

+6,92

710

+6,92

175

+6,22

402

+7,22

318

Room 6 South - West Oriented

10m

Second Plan pianta Floor - piano secondo

Figure 4, Location of the thermal zones on Second Floor

Figure 5, The conceptual section of the rooms

Number of Similar Thermal Zones

Selection of the Cases 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

South

South East Ground Floor

Figure 6, Distribution of the rooms according to its opening orientation

First Floor

South West

West

Second Floor

Figure 7, Distribution of the rooms according to Floor Level

give a consistent result for determining the thermal performance of 98 rooms of the Collegio di Milano (fig.6, fig.7). As at the table, the legend of the prototypes explains the categorization of the rooms in terms of its floor level and its opening orientation. Also, the amount of the rooms which belong to the defined prototype has been given in another graph. 3) Energy characterization of the thermal envelope elements The data of the prototypes has been entered into the software. The data is: location of the prototype, orientation of the prototype, volumetric (dimensional) information of the prototype, its surroundings (for determining the shadow which will affect the received radiation amount from sun), the indoor-outdoor interactions of the layers (fig.8), the locations, dimensions, & properties of the openings. The unique information of each thermal zone has been translated carefully. As a next step, the thermal performances of the elements have been translated into “Dial+” software (fig.9, example for only one thermal zone). For calculating the existing layers thermal transmittance), the “Calculation of the Thermal Mass” file, by HtFlux was used (fig.11, fig.13). At the first step U value calculations were made in excel file. The layers of the envelope elements (as indoor-outdoor wall, indoor-outdoor floor, etc.) were used as an input for U value of the component. Since the effect of the indoor-indoor separator was not thought to be too much, only the indoor-outdoor separators were included in the double calculation and matching was

made between excel file and simulator. For indoor-indoor layers the Dial+’s own calculations were used. After that, the elements in the simulation were arranged to give the same thermal performance according to the calculated u value. For instance, the U value of the indoor-outdoor slab (as balcony and roof) has been calculated as 1,22 W/ m²K according to the HTFlux tool, in the Dial+, the same element performs 1,09 W/m²K. Same process has been applied to the indoor-outdoor walls. For indoor-outdoor walls, 3 cm insulation had been added for reaching closer number with the calculated U value (0,76 W/m²K) Although there is not insulation layer on existing wall. The calculated u values has been translated into Dial+.

Indoor- Outdoor Indoor- Indoor

Figure 8, Indoor-Outdoor data of the energy model in Dial+ (ex Room 1)

Detailed Wall Data Parameters for Room 1

*ps: the detailed wall information for Room 1 was given because it show the indoor-outdoor relation change (figure 8) according to shifting movement between floor levels (figure 5), for seeing the each thermal zones’ details, QR code can be used. 3 cm ınsulation had been used on wall for reaching calculated U value.

Figure 9, Informed Energy model and calculated U Values of the envelope

brick 2.5cm loiter 0.5cm brick wall 25cm

*ps: reference U value for “wall 2&3” detail of dial+ Room 1 thermal zone parameter

Figure 10, Indoor-Outdoor Wall detail

Figure 11, HtFlux Calculation of the indoor-outdoor wall

exterior layer 2cm water proofing layer 1 cm cementitious screed 2cm concrete slab with brick filler 24cm plaster

Figure 12, Indoor- Outdoor Slab (balcony) detail 1:20

*ps: reference U value for “roof 7” detail of dial+ Room 1 thermal zone parameter

Figure 14, Openings of rooms

Figure 15, U value calculation of the openings according to formula (fig.14), frame thickness was considered as 7 cm

*ps: the windows were already renovated from original design. The generic double glazed PVC had been considered for Dial+ Simulation

Figure 13, HtFlux Calculation of the indoor-outdoor slab (balcony & roof)

*ps: reference U value also for Dial + Parameter according to existing double glazed transparent elements. Iso 10292 standards had been used.

concrete blocks 3cm sand 3cm hidro insulation 1cm cementitious screed 3cm vapor barrier falling layer 3-10cm concrete slab with brick filler 22cm

DETAIL D1 D1 +11.00 +10.040 +9.64

concrete blocks 3cm sand 3cm hidro insulation 1cm cementitious screed 3cm

PVC

thermal insulation 10cm vapor barrier water vapor pressure equalization layer falling layer 3-10cm concrete slab with brick filler 22cm

+6.640 +6.340

Figure 16, Roof Detail 1:20 +3.340 +3.040

SECTION 2-2 R1:100 +11.00

brick 2cm loiter 0.5cm concrete wall 25cm

±0.00

+10.040

+6.640

+3.340

+0.40 ±0.00

+6.8

+6.70

+3.5

exterior layer 2cm cementitious screed 4cm sound isolation concrete slab with brick filler 20cm

+3.40

+0.2

+0.1

-3.50

Figure 17, Conceptual Section, key map for system detail

-3.50

exterior layer 2cm cementitious screed 4cm water proofing thermal insulation 10cm hidro insulation 1cm foundation slab 15cm lean concrete 5cm grit 10cm tamping soil

Figure 18, System Section 1:100

Figure 19, First Simulation Parameters, in free floating conditions

Figure 20, Second Simulation Parameters,with the Cooling & Heating Strategies

4) Determination of the simulation parameters

conditioners in each bedroom, as their set temperature is 26 °C, and their maximum power was unknown as well, so it was taken from the software, and it is equal to 1,91kW.

At this step, the parameters like; occupation schedule (10 hours ,default setting of Dial+ between 8am to 6 pm, per day for one year), internal gain has been informed as occupation 7 W/m² (user defined value for collective housing typology in Dial+) because of the usage of 1 person use for one room, electric and lightning equipment (8 W/m²,2.9 W/m²), ventilation parameters, air flow 0,99 ACH which was calculated with division of air flow 28.7 m³/h by the volume of the thermal zone (9,56m² x 3m) during usage and 0,10 ACH during not in use. As a cooling strategy manual opening windows only during occupation has been entered. The all thermal zones have 9,5 m² surface area, the only variables are the opening orientation of the room (thermal zones) and the floor level (indoor outdoor relations) Two stepped analyses have been applied for precisely determining the cooling and heating demand and the effects of the cooling and heating devices. First step is without any devices (free floating condition) (fig.19), the thermal performance and the comfort zones have been analyzed and at the second step the heating and cooling demands have been calculated according to radiator (as a heating device) and air conditioning (as a cooling device) (fig20). The existing heating devices are radiators, as their set temperature is 21°C, and their maximum power was not known, and therefore was extracted from the standard one given by the software: 0,96 kW. Regarding the cooling devices, there is a presence of air

5) Evaluation of the energy potential and analysis of the site Additional analyses of the site have been made with the LadyBug Plug-in of the Rhinoceros 3d/Grasshopper. Various calculations were made as: Radiation analysis (fig.22), Wind rose analysis, Sun Path & Direct Sun Hour analysis, Photo-voltaic Energy Potential from the Roof (fig.21). Especially the Photo-voltaic Potential of the site was considered as an important data for the further design decision in terms of the sustainability. The Collegio di Milano was modelled conceptually in Rhinoceros 3d. After that the different scripts were organized for creating the energy model. For all scripts, the EnergyPlusWeather file of the Milano / Linate was used. Thus, the unique data (as in terms of weather, wind, etc.) has been used for precise results. In the results and the conclusion part of this report, mostly the solar potential data will be mentioned, but it should be noted that other data obtained were influential in the decisions on the design process. For instance, the well-insulated parasite hubs can be located in the areas which have less radiation from the sun. With this method, the additional thermal layer of protection can increase the thermal performance of the Collegio.

Figure 21, Grasshopper analyses on the conceptual model of the Collegio di Milano

Figure 22, Grasshopper Script for calculating the recieved Radiation Amount from sun

Results 1) Results of Dial+ Simulation For demonstrating the effectiveness of the existing thermal layers of the thermal envelope, first simulation has been applied without any cooling and heating strategy. In this case the indoor temperature shows a big correletion with the outdoor temperature because of the limitted thermal transmittance values of it’s thermal envelope. In graphics the results for Room 1 (south-east ground floor) have been shared (fig.23). This finding is important to see the thermal performance of building elements, as a result the comfort analysis summaries the poor thermal performance. For instance, according to the “EN 15251 standard: Class 3” graph (fig.24), during the occupation hours there are 3666 hours of cold, and 1517 hours during unoccupied hours according to occupation schedule. Secondly, the simulation has been reapplied with the heating & cooling strategies like radiators as a heating device and air conditioning as a cooling device for each room. The intended Celsius temperature indoors is 21° during the heating period in Milan: October 15th - April 15th and 26° Celsius during the cooling period. Thermal comfort in rooms increased because of the applied strategies. The dramatic change in the comfort (according to the previous simulation) can be analyzed. The decrease in the number of the cases (as cold or overheating) can be noticed

from the number of the dots which are out of the boundary of the thermal comfort space. After the study on Room 1 (south-east ground floor), free floating analysis has been applied to the 5 other themal zones. Room 2 (south-east first floor), Room3 (south-east second floor) for understanding of the effects of the floor level analysis (fig.25) and Room 4 (south-west ground floor), Room 7 (south ground floor), Room 10 (west ground floor) for understanding of the effects of the opening orientation (fig26). The indoor temperatures of the thermal zones have been compared in specific dates, 21 July (midsummer) (fig.27, fig.28) and 21 December (midwinter) (fig.29, fig.30). The results shows that the thermal zone at second floor (room 3) and the thermal zone with south-west oriented opening (room 4) are the thermal zones with most disadvantageous. They gave the highest indoor temperatures during summer and lowest statistics during winter. Thus, this results gave clue that room 6 (South-west second floor) is the weakest prototype which have been proven with second step analysis (cooling and heating strategies). The bigger contact area with outdoor environment explains the thermal zone at the second floor and environmetal factor as form of collegio (shadow) is the reason of south west oriented thermal zone (room 4). For reaching this thermal comfort, the required ener-

gy demand / consumption tried to be analyzed as a further step. The heating and cooling demands were calculated for each room typology (fig.31). For instance, in the case of Room 1 (South-East Ground Floor) during the heating period the demand is 148,9 kWh/m² and during the rest of the year the cooling demand is 13,2 kWh/m². The statistics were represented in the table (fig.31). Together with the number of similar rooms in the same typology, the total amount of energy demand was calculated (fig.36, fig.37)). The result was divided by the total number of rooms and the average amount of energy demand which should be spent for thermal comfort in one square meter of room was found as 165 kWh/m². To highlight the difference according to opening orientation and the floor level of the room, average amount of annual heating & cooling demand is represented in the graphics. It is stated that the heating demand is lower on the intermediate (first) floor (127,95 kWh/m²) and higher (173,28 kwh/m²) on the second floor because of insufficient insulation at the upper slab which is functioning as a roof (fig.32). According to orientation of the opening, the heating demand is respectively as: South-East (146,93 kWh/ m²), South-West (154,10 kWh/m²), West (154,23 kWh/m²) and South (153,50 kWh/m²)(fig.33). For instance, it can be determined that the south-east oriented intermediate floor (Room2) should have lowest heating demand. If it is controlled with the table, it can be confirmed. For cooling demand, according to floor level the sorting is like ground floor average (12,88 kWh/m²), first floor average (13,70 kWh/m²), second floor average (13,80 kWh/m²)(fig.34). Lastly the cooling demand according to orientation of the opening is lowest on

the rooms which have West orientated (12,33 kWh/ m²), and highest on the rooms which have south orientated opening (14,37 kWh/m²)(fig.35). It has been noted that the solar light direction and angle determines these dynamics together with the shade dynamics of the thermal zone’s environment because of the architectural form of the collegio. The south orientated thermal zones are affected by solar radiation more and this situation creates a demand fo cooling more. 2) Result of the Photo-Voltaic Surface’s Potential by LadyBug Plug-in According to the LadyBug Plug-in, the potential energy gain from a 1m² photo-voltaic surface was calculated as 152.32 kWh in a year. In addition, the optimum inclination for the photovoltaic panel was determined as 22° degree (fig 38). Conclusion As a result of the simulation results, the statistic of energy demands according to floor level and orientation of the rooms can be a guide during the improvement process in terms of thermal envelope performance. At the further step, the new insulation and solution on thermal bridges (which are neglected during Dial+ simulation) can increase the performance of the building dramatically. With this way the required demand for creating thermal comfort can decrease. In terms of sustainability, currently solar panel potential from 1 square meter can cover 92% of the average energy demand on in the 1 m² area at Collegio di Milano’s rooms. When the total area of the

Figure 23, interaction of the outdoor temperature, first step indoor tempera- Figure 24, Comfort Zone, First Step Simulation, ture & second step indoor temperature, Room 1 Room1 with out cooling and heating strategy

Figure 25, Indoor Temperatures of South East Oriented Thermal Zones (different floor levels) and Outdoor Temperatures

Figure 26, Indoor Temperatures of Different Oriented Thermal Zones in same floor and Outdoor Temperatures

rooms and the roof area are compared, because of the big difference, a small part of the college’s own energy consumption can be met with these panels. But attention should also be paid to the following issue: With the improvements to be made, there will be an increase in the thermal performance of the building. Therefore, the energy to be obtained from solar panels will correspond to a greater proportion compared to the new consumption. Shortly, sustainability can be emphasized to the Collegio from 2 directions: firstly, with the improve-

ment on the existing system and secondly with the design decision and high-tech new solutions at the following design’s process of parasite attachment.

Figure 27, Indoor Temperatures according to the Orientation on 21/06 (midsummer)

Figure 28, Indoor Temperatures according to the Orientation on 21/06 (midsummer)

Figure 29, Indoor Temperatures according to the Floor Levels on 21/12 (midwinter)

Figure 30, Indoor Temperatures according to the Floor Levels on 21/12 (midwinter)

173,8 186,3 12,5

129,2 141,9 12,7

157,5 169,3 11,8

175,1 189,5

Total Demand (kWh/m²)

14,4

129,7 145,0 15,3

157,9 171,3 13,4

14,7

128,6 142,5

176,6 191,3

Cooling Demand (kWh/m²)

13,9

157,1 170,2 13,1

167,6 181,2 13,6

124,3 137,2 12,9

13,2

148,9 162,1

Heating Demand (kWh/m²)

ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 31, Annual Energy Demand accordint to Room Typology

F LO O R LE VE L - HEAT I N G D E MA N D (KW H/ M² )

O RI E N TAT I O N - HEAT I N G D E MA N D (KW H/ M² )

Average

190

180

173,28

170 160

170 155,35

160

150

140

154,10

154,23

153,50

SOUTH WEST

SOUTH

WEST

146,93

140 127,95

130 120

180

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

130 SECOND FLOOR

Figure 32, Heating Demand according to Floor Level

120

SOUTH EAST

Figure 33, Heating Demand according to Opening Orient.

F LO O R LE VE L - CO O LI N G DE MA N D (KW H/M² )

O RI E N TAT I O N - CO O LI N G DE MA N D (KW H/ M² )

Average

15,0

14,5

14,5 13,70

14,0 13,5 13,0

13,80

13,23

13,0

12,33

12,5

12,0

11,5

11,5 11,0

14,0 13,5

12,88

14,37 13,90

11,0 GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH WEST

SOUTH

WEST

SECOND FLOOR

Figure 34, Cooling Demand accordint to Floor Level

Figure 35, Cooling Demand accordint to Opening Orientation

Figure 36, Demands according to Room Typologies

Relative Distribution of the Cases on Total Demand kWh/m² Room 6 13%

Room 5 10%

Room 9 7%

Room 4 13%

Room 10 4%

Diğer 20%

Room 3 15% Room 2 10%

Room 1 12%

Room 11 3%

Room 8 5%

Room 12 2%

Room 7 6%

Figure 37, Relative distribution of the Cases on Total Demand

Ps: Considering also the number of similar rooms with modelled thermal zones, Room 3, has the biggest share on the energy demands of the Colleggio di Milano.The reason is the highest number of similar room. The second biggest shared thermal zone is Room 6. The reason is the highest energy demand because of poor thermal performances.

Figure 38, The Photovoltaic Energy Potential of the 1 m² surface

EVALUATION OF THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF THE UPGRADED STATE ( AFTER RETROFIT) Kristina Mirkovic, Dogukan Samdanci, Emily Marie Shiga

At the first step, the improvements on U Values (thermal transmittance) of thermal envelopes of the thermal zone has been studied. Firstly, the implementation decision for insulation has been made and external insulation (fig.39) has been preferred for avoiding the thermal bridges and its affordable implementation process. During the implementation, it was thought that material-related problems (such as material erosion or loss due to external forces as rain) on the facade of the college could be resolved. Interior insulation possibility has been eliminated because of the difficulties during construction (also considering the functions of collegio) and the big amount of required material for avoiding from the possible thermal bridges (especially on slab level), also the loss of space that can be created by the additional insulation layer to be added to the interior surfaces may complicate the situation in rooms which do not have a large area.

After that, required insulation thickness according to guideline has been calculated with the HTFlux file, considering the structural properties of the college. Application of 9 cm insulation layer on the indoor-outdoor walls (external façade) has a potential to improve current U Value which is 0,76 to 0,23 W/m²K (fig. 40). For indoor – outdoor slab (for balconies and roof) the regulation for roof has been followed and 12 cm of insulation layer has been added, it improves U Value from 1,22 to 0,21 W/ m²K (fig.42). It has been stated that, for retrofitting process, the quality of the openings of the collegio has crucial role according to Dial+ Thermal Performance Report of the current building. Replacing the double-glazed window which has 2,86 W/m²K U value with triple glazed window which has 0,84 W/ m²K U Value, has been purposed. 70% improvement on the walls U value, 83% on roofs and %71 on the opening as windows, has been achieved. (fig 45)

At the second phase, the insulation material decision has been studied according to factors as cost-effectiveness, sustainability, durability. At the end of the research process, EPS (Expanded Polystyrene with 0,030 W/m.K thermal conductivity) has been selected instead of other possible materials as Rockwool and Xps. According to required thermal transmittance (U value) for Italian Climatic zone E (Milano, Mantova, Trento etc.) the required U Values have been determined as 0,24 for walls, 0,22 for roofs 0,26 for floors, 1,4 for exterior openings and 0,80 for indoor partitions.

At the following phase, thermal zone 6 (room 6: south-west oriented, second floor) has been selected for studying the performance improvement effects of the proposed insulation on free floating conditions (without heating or cooling strategy) (fig46) because thermal zone 6 has the highest rate in terms of total heating and cooling demand according to simulation tables during the simulation of Current State (building A)(fig31) also this thermal zone has second biggest share on total demand of Collegio’s rooms (fig.37) . The thermal zone’s indoor-outdoor relations (fig48) has been translated to the program and the parameters like; occupation schedule (10

brick finishing 2cm termoinsolation 9cm hidroinsolation 1cm brick wall 25cm plaster 2cm

cromic tile 1 cm tile adhesive 2cm

Fig 39, External wal detail 1:20

brick finishing 2cm termoinsolation 9cm hidroinsolation 1cm & Internal brick wall slab 25cm hidroinsolation 1cm termoinsolation 9cm brick finishing 2cm

leveling folder 2cm *ps: reference U

value for dial+ parameter

insulation 40, 1cm HtFlux Calculation of the indoor-outdoor wall Figure internal structure 22cm

cromic tile 3 cm plaster 1cm termoinsolation 12cm hidroinsolation 1cm internal structure 22cm

Fig 41, Balcony (flat roof detail) detail 1:20

Figure 43, Performance Properties of Reference Product for triple glazed transparent elements of Rooms

*ps: reference U value for dial+ parameter,

Figure 42, HtFlux Calculation of the indoor-outdoor slab (balcony floor)

Figure 44, U value calculation for new openings, calculated acording to formula (fig.43). 7 cm thickness has been considered for frame *ps: reference U value also for Dial + Parameter according to existing double glazed transparent elements. Iso 10292 standards had been used

Figure 45, U value improvement of thermal envelope between Building A (current state) an Building B (upgraded state)

Figure 46, First Simulation Parameters, in free floating conditions

Figure 47, Second Simulation Parameters,with the Cooling & Heating Strategies

hours (default setting of Dial+ between 8am to 6 pm) per day for one year), internal gain has been informed as occupation 7 W/m² (user defined value for collective housing typology in Dial+) because of the usage of 1 person use for one room, electric and lightning equipment (8 W/m², 2.9 W/m²), ventilation parameters, air flow 0,99 ACH during usage and 0,10 ACH during not in use. Figure 48, Indoor-Outdoor data of the energy model in Dial+, ex Room 6 Indoor Temperature on 21 December 12,00

Cº degree

10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Retrofitted - Free Floating Simulation

Free Floating Simulation on Existing

Figure 49, Comparison of Indoor Temperature between Building A & B, Room 6 on midwinter

Cº degree

Indoor Temperature on 21 July 31,00 30,50 30,00 29,50 29,00 28,50 28,00 27,50 27,00 26,50 26,00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Retrofitted - Free Floating Simulation

Free Floating Simulation on Existing

Figure 50, Comparison of Indoor Temperature between Building A & B, Room 6 on midsummer

Building A and Building B (after retrofit) have been compared according to their annual and daily indoor temperatures. From annual graphic it can be clarified that better u value for thermal envelope decreases the effect of outdoor temperature on indoors (fig.51). When the data has been analyzed daily and separately for winter (21 of December: due to midwinter/solstice) and summer season (21 of June: due to midsummer/solstice) it has been clarified that new insulation maintains higher indoor temperature during winter and lower temperature during summer (fig.49, fig.50). According to EN15251 standards in terms of comfort, it can be stated that the performance of the thermal zone was enhanced because of the decrease in the amount of annual overheated hours (from 889 to 411) and also cold hours (from 4887 to 4168) (fig.49, 50.,51) After free floating analysis, second simulation (with cooling and heating strategy) was applied for each thermal zones. The heating and cooling demands has been defined(fig.54). According to data, intermediate floors have lowest heating demand and highest cooling demand (fig.55, fig.57), the reason has been thought as they have more indoor-indoor relation which means more energy transfer surface with adjacent indoor volumes which are under the effect of heating and cooling starategies. With the other

Figure 51, interaction of the outdoor temperature, first step indoor temperature & second step indoor temperature

words, decreasement in the amount of the external contacted surface area, was thought as a reason for more stable and mild indoor temperatures. In terms of opening orientation, heating demands calculated very close to each other (fig.56), for cooling demand zones with the west oriented opening has the highest value (fig.58). The reason of this situation has been thought that shading dynamics (exterior environment setting in Dial +) because of the form of the collegio. Lastly improvement percentages of each thermal zones have been calculated according to sum of cooling and heating demand data (fig 59). Because of the poor roof insulation at prior stage (building a) the biggest changes happened at the 2nd floor’s thermal zones (Rooms 3,6,9 and 12- approximately 65%) The average improvement has been calculated as 60% according to energy demand of the thermal zones (fig 60). Undertaking an energy model analysis of the existing fabric enabled design team to understand the dynamic of the building, unveiling information that was compiled and evaluated in order to determine the most suitable solutions to improve the buildings performance. The main purposed strategies of this analysis are outlined below : • External wall insulation • Green Roof Implementation • Triple glazing for Transparent Elements • Implementation of auto-shading system with parasite structure addition on balconies • Creation of well insulated interior spaces as parasite volumes on dark faces which gain less sun light during day.

Comfort Zone: EN 15251 for Room 6 (Class III)

Figure 52, Comfort Zone, First Step Simulation Building A

Comfort Zone: EN 15251 for Room 6 (Class III)

Figure 53, Comfort Zone, First Step Simulation Building B

12,7

65,2 12,6

52,6 12,3

10,4

59,1

69,5

69,1

63,7

58,7

11,8

51,9 10,1

12,6

71,8

81,8

Total Demand (kWh/m²)

78,7 68,6

73,3

66,5 12,8

53,7 10,2

12,2

60,7

70,9

56,7

62,3 11,0

51,3

68,9

77,0 66,3 10,7

Cooling Demand (kWh/m²)

81,1

Heating Demand (kWh/m²)

ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM ROOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 54, Annual Energy Demand according to Room Typology

F LO O R LE VE L - HEAT I N G D E MA N D (KW H/M² )

O RI E N TAT I O N - HEAT I N G DE MA N D (KW H/M² )

Average

68,83

58,80

52,38

45 GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

Figure 55, Heating Demand according to Floor Level

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH WEST

SOUTH

WEST

O RI E NTAT I O N - CO O LI NG DE MA ND (KW H/M² ) Average

Average 13,0

13,0 12,5

12,05

10,83

11,0

11,87

12,0 11,5

11,5

12,53

12,5

11,98

12,0

11,30 10,77

11,0

10,5

10,0

9,5

9,5 9,0 GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

Figure 57, Cooling Demand according to Floor Level

SOUTH EAST

SOUTH WEST

SOUTH

WEST

Figure 58, Cooling Demand according to Opening Orientation

Improvement Percentage on Total Demand

AVARAGE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE ON DEMAND

100,0

AVARAGE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE ON DEMAND

80,0 60,0

60,40

Figure 56, Heating Demand according to Opening Orient.

F LO O R LE VE L - CO O LI N G D E MA N D (KW H/M² )

9,0

59,73

50 40

61,77 58,10

55,5

58,7

66,2 54,9

58,2

65,6

56,6

60,0

66,5 55,9

59,3

66,0

30%

40,0 20,0 0,0

60 Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

70%

Improvement Percentage

Figure 59, Improvement Percentage of the Thermal Zones according to total demand (heating+ cooling) Building B

Figure 60, Average Improvement Percentage of the U value of Thermal EnvelopeBuilding B