Towards Net Zero Energy Buildings: Dynamic Simulation of office Building in Three Climate Zones of Europe Nusrat Jung 1,2 , Jari Shemeikka 1 , Risto Lahdelma 2 , Jyri Nieminen 1 1 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 2 Aalto University, Department of Energy Technology, Finland EES Annual Seminar 2013, Aalto
16
Embed
Towards Net Zero Energy Buildings: Dynamic Simulation of office Building in Three Climate Zones of Europe Nusrat Jung 1,2, Jari Shemeikka 1, Risto Lahdelma.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Towards Net Zero Energy Buildings: Dynamic Simulation of office Building in Three Climate Zones of Europe
Nusrat Jung1,2, Jari Shemeikka1, Risto Lahdelma2, Jyri Nieminen1
1VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland2Aalto University, Department of Energy Technology, Finland
EES Annual Seminar 2013, Aalto
Building Level Simulation with IDA ICE
Climate zones Northern Europe Central Europe Southern Europe
Climate data files
Helsinki, Finland London, U.K. Bucharest, Romania
Simulation cases
BaseE-Efficient
Zero Energy
BaseE-Efficient
Zero Energy
BaseE-Efficient
Zero Energy
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was performed only for Zero Energy Helsinki case: Window, thermal mass, VAV sizing, night time set
point, lighting & equipment
Future researchFurther optimization of Zero Energy case to continue. System
level decisions with renewable energy sources such as PV, ground heating cooling, etc.
IAQ & Building operation parameters
Floor plan and simulation zones of the exemplary office building
Winter temperature 21°C
Summer temperature < 25°C
CO2 concentrations < 900 ppm
Mechanical airflow (CAV+VAV)
1.5 – 5 l/s, sqrm
Lighting levels (at desk) 500 lux, 9W/m2
Office operation timesMon.-Fri., 06-18
at 15 sqm/occupant
Indoor air quality & building operation parameters
Building Envelope Properties: HelsinkiComponent Base Case Energy
EfficientZero
Energy Wall U value, W/m2K 0.17 0.16 0.12Roof U value, W/m2K 0.09 0.08 0.05Floor U value, W/m2K 0.16 0.14 0.1Air tightness, n50 1/h 2 2 0.5Window U value, W/m2K 1.0 0.9 0.45Window g value 0.35 0.25 0.24Ext. door U value, W/m2K 1.0 1.0 0.7Heat recovery 0.45 0.79/0.59 0.85/0.75Ventilation air flow control type CAV CAV VAV
Approx. LightNo light control
No light control
Presence & daylight control
Appliances 100% 100% 70%
*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.
Simulation results: Helsinki
Simulation Delivered Energy, kWh/year Specific energy, kWh/m2/year
Base Case Energy efficient Zero Energy Base CaseEnergy
Wall U value, W/m2K 0.26 0.25 0.1Roof U value, W/m2K 0.18 0.18 0.1Floor U value, W/m2K 0.22 0.22 0.15Air tightness, n50 1/h 10 m3/(hm2) 3.0 m3/(hm2) 2.0 m3/(hm2)
Window U value, W/m2K 1.80 1.60 0.5Window g value 0.40 0.40 0.2Ext. door U value, W/m2K 2.20 2.20 0.7Heat recovery None 0.85 0.85Ventilation air flow control type CAV CAV VAV
Approx. Light 3.5=17.5 1.5=7.5Presence & daylight
control
Appliances 100% 100% 70%
*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).
Zero Energy 39,094 12,666 14,167 99,606 2,437 15,331 31,647 305,550
Walls5%
Roof1%
Floor1%
Windows23%
Doors0%
Therma
l bridge
s1%
In-fil-tra
tion &
Open-ings10%
Ventilation 57%
Base Case
Walls9%
Roof
2% Floor2%
Windows30%
Doors1%Thermal bridges
2%Infiltra tion & Open-ings5%
Ventilation 48%
EE Case
Building Envelope Properties: Bucharest
Component Base Case Energy Efficient
Zero Energy
Wall U value, W/m2K 0.80 0.45 0.30Roof U value, W/m2K 0.40 0.30 0.1Floor U value, W/m2K 1.50 1.00 0.25Air tightness, n50 1/h 4 5.0 3.0 0.6Window U value, W/m2K 3.00 2.00 0.45Window g value 1 0.9 0.6Ext. door U value, W/m2K 4.00 2.50 1.60Heat recovery None 0.73 0.80Ventilation air flow control type VAV VAV VAV
Approx. Light No light control No light controlPresence &
Daylight control
Appliances 100% 100% 70%
*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.
Simulation results: Bucharest
Simulation Delivered Energy, kWh/year Specific energy, kWh/m2/year
• 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• Future research continues to reach zero enery goals in all three climate
zones • Underground Piles and Solar panels are being evaluated to balance the