Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Towards Net Zero Energy Buildings: Dynamic Simulation of office Building in Three Climate Zones of EuropeNusrat Jung1,2, Jari Shemeikka1, Risto Lahdelma2, Jyri Nieminen11VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland2Aalto University, Department of Energy Technology, Finland EES Annual Seminar 2013, Aalto
IAQ & Building operationparameters Indoor air quality & building operation parameters Floor plan and simulation zones of the exemplary office building
Building Envelope Properties: Helsinki *Helsinki base case values are based on Finnish building codes D2, D3, and D5. Energy efficient and zero energy case values are based on expert knowledge.
Building Envelope Properties: London *London base case values are based on National Calculation Methodology (NCM) modelling guide (for buildings other than dwellings in England and Wales, 2010 Edition) reference building. Energy efficient case values are based on Target Zero 70% improvement in Part L emissions for an office building (www.targetzero.info).
Building Envelope Properties: Bucharest *Bucharest base case values are based on the Romanian norm C107-2005 modified in year 2010. The energy efficient and zero energy case vales are based on expert knowledge.
Sensitivity analysis results Intelligent window thermal loss control -10% savings in heating VAV sizing can be between 2-3 l/s according to the space needs for ducting Night time set point temperature can only achieve minor energy savings and higher morning peaks Effect of thermal mass (150, 100 & 60 mm concrete slab) in energy consumption is small
Comparison of cases • Helsinki was reduced to 60 kWh/m2/year (60% beyond the base case) • London was reduced to 54 kWh/m2/year (65% beyond the base case) • Bucharest was reduced to 64.6 kWh/m2/year (70% reduction beyond base case)
Conclusions In low-energy solutions the electricity consumption dominated the total energy consumption profile (also when compared with heating) Greater reductions in Bucharest case due to significant improvements in the thermal properties of the building envelope Window and wall ratio is moderately larger for London as compared to Helsinki and Bucharest Harnessing solar energy gains in Bucharest are high Futureresearchcontinues to reachzeroenerygoals in allthreeclimatezones Underground Piles and Solarpanelsarebeingevaluated to balance the energyconsumption