Integrated energy design process for the Solar Decathlon
competition
Magnus Hustad Kleven
Eskild Rognes
Pablo Alarco Gonzales
Kristof Lijnen
Michael Gruner
When facing the task of evaluating the performance of the existing Solar Decathlon
proposal, we decided to divide it in different phases.
DEFINITION AND INPUT
Defining the possible scenarios
In the first place we needed to find the input data that the simulation software needs. To
do so we used developed several possible scenarios using the Norwegian standards and
the Solar Decathlon criteria.
The questions we needed to answer in the first place for the different scenarios would be:
Where the building would be? When would the building be self sufficient? How much
energy should it produce?
We developed the following table to guide us in that process:
how much?
when?
where?
plus energy
two weeks in june (s.d.e.)
madrid
zero energy
per year
trondheim
net-connected
per month(s)
oslo
… feed in
… winter half year
lillehammer, røros
net-independent
… per season (3 months)
jotunheimen, hardangervidda
… autarchic, self-sufficient
per week
lofoten, hammerfest, svalbard
… plus energy
,,,
The two main scenarios that we decided to be the most useful for us would be: “plus
energy house in Madrid over one year with grid feed in” which is required from the solar
decathlon rules and “plus-energy house in Trondheim on annual basis”, both fulfilling
passive house criteria according to NS 3700.
A third scenario would be based on a cabin placed in the Trondheim climate.
To define the appliances we used the demand per m2 that is in the standards. But for
precise calculations it may be better if we calculate the actual demand of the appliances
we need.
We realized that the internal loads due to the occupancy in the standards were too low.
That is why we decided to simulate in Ecotect the presence of two occupants in the
residence during all year.
The scenario of the cabin has some problems. The operational schedule could not be
defined yet, because the existing regulation does not include this possibility.
Another point of discussion is the occupancy of the cabin. We could assume a higher
number of occupants in a cabin than in a normal residence, reducing the heating loads
needed. There could also be a reduction in the demand of the equipment.
As another starting point we used the criteria of the passive house standard ns3700, and
the ns3031 when something was not defined in the previous one. The goal would be to
achieve or improve those requirements.
For those scenarios we had to define the boundary conditions for the design, the
calculation methods and the input data needed to use simulation software. To completely
define our scenarios we included the needed data in the following table:
Defining the energy budget
We calculated annual energy budgets for Madrid and Trondheim according to NS 37002010 and prNS 3700 with lower values for the internal gains and energy demands for
domestic hot water, equipment and lighting. However, for the simulations in “ecotect” the
values from NS 3700-2010 were used.
In a next step we divided the annual loads of the budget for prNS 3700 according to the
energy sources.
From here we defined the total energy demand for the building on monthly basis and for
the whole year, using the input of prNS3700 for equipment, lighting and domestic hot
water. Then we included the values of heating and cooling demand from Ecotect for the
original design for every month. According to this we have a total deficit of 1573 kWh per
year.
1000
500
0
t ot a l
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
p h ot ovolt a ic s
lig h t in g
-5 0 0
e q u ip m e n t
d om e s t ic h ot w a t e r
fa n s & p u m p s
-1 0 0 0
ve n t ila t ion h e a t in g
-1 5 0 0
To-2 calculate
the PV production we used a Photovoltaic GIS webtool from the webpage of
000
the European Union.
The input data we introduced in this webtool was: Crystalline silicon panels with an
optimized slope of 43º, with a installed peak PV power of 6 Kwp, since we have 70m2 of
roof surface for the panels but they are sloped, reducing the total area that can be used.
The estimated system losses were 14% by default and we did not modify this value.
EVOLUTION
When we had defined input data we used Ecotect firstly to simulate changes in the basic
characteristics which lead to a range of proposals. The point was not to have accurate
data but to test and compare them, studying the impact of different modifications.
The evolution of the base design should be according to Kyoto Protocol. Mainly we
focused on the reducing the heat loss and a reduced energy consumption which are the
base levels of the pyramid.
1 Reducing heat loss
Orientation
Without any additional facilities the actual design does not respond to the cardinal
directions at all. Every façade has equally 50 per cent wall and 50 per cent glazing
resulting in a bad thermal performance both in Madrid and Trondheim. Further
improvement is mainly related to an optimizing of the windows orientation.
From the simulations we obtained the south orientation gives best results in Trondheim,
while north orientation (turning the building 180 degrees) is desirable in Madrid.
Building form
Changes in the ratio of the building's floor plan have been simulating while the floor plan
area and the window distribution has be maintained.
As a result we can say that it has not a big influence on the thermal performance. Thus the
actual ratio and consequently the actual floor can be maintained in the following
investigations.
Low transmission heat loss
The way to achieve this is using very low U-values of envelope. The passive house
standards are used to define the U values of every component.
Wall, floor, roof: U-value = 0.1 W/m²K, later changed to 0.08 W/m²K to fulfill the passive
house standard in Norway
Operable windows: U-value = 0.7 Wm²/K in the beginning, then changed to 0.55 W/m²K
after modeling a triple-layered glazing with Argon fill in ecotect
Low ventilation heat loss (infiltration)
In a highly insulated building complying with the passive house standard the ventilation
heat loss is likely to be greater than the transmission heat loss. Besides the known air
change rate of n50 = 0.6 ach, T. H. Dokka gives a values for necessary air tightness for
n0, which is 0.05 ach. Consequently the infiltration settings in “ecotect” where reduced to
0.25 air change rate and no wind sensivity.
A higher and a lower infiltration rate were simulated to see the impact on the thermal
performance. Since the impact in ecotect is tremendous, further investigations have to be
made to define the settings in “ecotect” more precisely.
Sun-shading
To simulate a shading device used during summer half year a shading device was
generated on the east-, west-, and south- facing widows to prevent direct solar radiation 1st
May to 30th September from 8:00 until 18:00. The generated protruding device is to
replace a vertical shading device like sliding doors or venetian blinds.
As the results show, in Madrid shading is an absolute must to reduce the cooling loads.
On the other hand, a shading device in Trondheim resulted in a higher heating demand
throughout the year since it allows less solar gains.
We run our simulations using shading devices in every window from 8 to 18 in Madrid,
while we do not use shading devices when simulating the performance in Trondheim.
Windows
Window area, size, orientation, and distribution in the wall are the critical adjustment
factors in the design.
According to our simulations the window area has to be limited to just the amount which is
necessary to achieve proper daylighting, otherwise the heat losses exceed the solar gains.
If we consider static solutions the results can be summed as followed:
in Trondheim
We found out that we needed a large window area facing south and almost no area or no
windows at all facing east, west and north.
in Madrid
East and west are also problematic. As we have to deal with the cooling loads during two
weeks in june, the north orientation is not problematic and we have considered to turn
around the building as it is, getting fairly good results.
a special investigation was undertaken to examine the impact of windows on opposite
facades in order to find an explanation of the phenomena that a window on another façade
than the north increases the energy demand for heating by approximately 10 kWh/m²a.
Therefore a model was build with windows on north and south side. For the investigations
the south window was reduced and the north window was increased while the total window
area was maintained.
The results can be interpreted that an additional window leads to an increased heat loss
by ventilation.
100 / 0
80 / 20
60 / 40
40 / 60
20 / 80
0 / 100
100 / 100
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
Madrid
100 / 0
80 / 20
60 / 40
40 / 60
20 / 80
0 / 100
100 / 100
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
Trondheim
2 Reducing the energy consumption
Low energy appliances
When taking a look to the present passive house standard NS3700 we figured out that the
values indicated for energy demand per m2 was too high. Finally we used the values
indicated in the prNS3700 for lighting, domestic hot water and equipment.
Passive heating respectively
The window design was our main tool to reduce the heating demand over the whole year.
Daylighting
As explained before, when reducing the window area to improve the energy performance
the immediate problem we had to face was the lack of daylight inside.
Since we needed most of the window area facing south, we had light only coming from
that façade. The zig zag shape of the interior space was difficult to light correctly, due
mainly to the front box.
Some of our proposals try to find the compromise between energy performance and good
daylight levels inside, optimizing the position and size of windows.
When reducing the window area in the east, west and north façades to improve the energy
performance we had problems with daylight levels inside. That is what lead us to consider
the possibility to use translucent wall materials.
In the low energy school Maela school in Skien, Norway, a certain kind of translucent wall
allows good daylight inside. The material is ISOFLEX transparent insulation that with a
thickness of 200mm achieves a U value of 0.28.
Natural ventilation
In the first place we run the simulations using only full air conditioning during all year. But
later on we figured out that we could use a mixed-mode configuration in a way that we use
the natural ventilation when is enough to achieve the needed comfort levels, switching off
the mechanical systems and having the consequent savings in energy demand.
After applying the different modifications we evaluated them comparing the energy used
for heating and cooling and during June, for the different options.
Solar collectors and Solar panels
By using the sun data from page 69 in NS3031 we calculated what values we could obtain
from solar collectors and solar panels. Regarding the solar collectors, we assumed that the
overproduction could not be stored or exported. So in the months we produce more then
we need we simply deleted the extra production from our calculations.
By optimizing the results were we put the efficiency of solar collectors to 25 % and for the
solar panels 15 %. We find that the optimal area for solar collectors would be 5m 2 and the
remaining 67m2 is covered by solar panels. The result we get is 63 % of the heating
demand for water would be covered by solar collectors and the rest by electricity from
solar panels.
The production of electricity would be more than enough to cover the needs of the cottage.
Our theoretical production of electricity ends up on approx. 15000 kWh and heat for water
on approx. 1600kWh. Look at Appendix A for calculations.
Parameters for ecotect
These are the Ecotect parameters we used in the zone management settings:
Occupancy: 2 occupants (70W sedentary) 24 / 7 / 52
Internal gains: 3.75 W/m², schedule NS 3031 = 16 / 7 / 52
Infiltration: air change rate – 0.25, no wind sensitivity
HVAC: thermostat range: in Madrid 23 – 25 °C, in Trondheim 21 – 26 °C
1. Mixed mode (air conditioning + natural ventilation when comfort zone reached), no
specified operation time or schedule.
2. Full air conditioning, no specified operation time or schedule.
We decided to run the simulation with two occupants because of the small size of the
house. The number of occupants has a huge impact on the final results.
Our first approach was using full air conditioning, but later we figured out that there were
big potential savings in using a mixed mode approach in which the mechanical system is
automatically switched off when the natural ventilation is enough to achieve the desired
comfort levels.
The temperature range we used in Madrid is defined by the Solar Decathlon competition.
The range used in Trondheim is specified in the ns3700.
Parameters for SIMIEN
It was decided to make two simulations in SIMIEN. One of the original design with no
improvements. And one optimized design with roots from the original design to reach the
passive house standard for Norway. Both simulations used the passive house standard
NS 3700 for the different variables.
For the simulation the dynamic simulation program SIMIEN, which is approved due to the
regulations in NS-EN 15265, was used as it was familiar to the group. It is also used for
energy classification of buildings in Norway.
The simulation was only done for Oslo since there were no obtainable data for Madrid for
the program, and the residence was classified as “småhus” in SIMIEN. The design of the
house and the size of it are fairly plain and it was therefore only simulated as one zone,
this simplified the simulation. For heating and it was chosen a heat pump with a system
factor (COP) of 2.5. This factor might be a bit high for an air to water heat pump. When we
did a small research, we found that it would be closer to two. For the tap water we had a
system consisting of solar heating and electrical heating. The solar heating system is
planned to go on the flat roof and share this space with solar panels. A rough estimation
gave an optimal area of 5-6m2 for the tap water system, but was chosen to 8m2 to have a
small buffer. The rest of the 72m2 roof were to be covered in solar panels for electricity
production. For the tap water system an efficiency of 25% was used for the calculations
and 15% for the solar panels. To achieve an optimal efficiency the solar panels were
placed with an elevation of 30 degrees.
This system was chosen in order to achieve a more environmental house. In order to
simplify the simulation it was assumed that an eventual overproduction of electricity in the
solar panels could be exported on to the grid at any given time. Since there were some
complications implementing the energy produced by the solar panels, these calculations
were kept outside SIMIEN, and were manually withdrawn from the energy budget.
The systems for room heating and cooling were optimized so that the room temperature
stayed within desired limits. Since the cooling implemented in the ventilation system didn’t
give an efficient contribution, there were installed an external cooling device.
Solar collectors and Solar panels
By using the sun data from page 69 in NS3031 we calculated what values we could obtain
from solar collectors and solar panels. Regarding the solar collectors, we assumed that the
overproduction could not be stored or exported. So in the months we produce more then
we need we simply deleted the extra production from our calculations.
By optimizing the results were we put the efficiency of solar collectors to 25 % and for the
solar panels 15 %. We find that the optimal area for solar collectors would be 5m 2 and the
remaining 67m2 is covered by solar panels. The result we get is 63 % of the heating
demand for water would be covered by solar collectors and the rest by electricity from
solar panels.
The production of electricity would be more than enough to cover the needs of the cottage.
Our theoretical production of electricity ends up on approx. 15000 kWh and heat for water
on approx. 1600kWh. Look at Appendix A for calculations.
“FLEXBOX” – THE ACTUAL DESIGN
Once we had defined the possible scenarios we used the simulation software
programmes of “ecotect” and “Simien” to study the existing proposal “flexbox” without any
modification. We assumed the building to be a permanent residence in Trondheim.
The daylight analysis shows an average daylight factor of 15 % which is an abundant
amount compared to desired 5 % or even to the minimum of 2 %.
ecotect simulation
For several design options concerning the settings for the HVAC in “ecotect” (full
conditioning vs. mixed mode) and applied shading we achieved the following results:
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
fu ll c on d .
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
m ixe d m od e
may
ju n
ju l
aug
fu ll c on d . +
s h a d in g
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
m ixe d +
s h a d in g
fu ll c on d .
ja n
fe b
mar
a pr
may
ju n
ju l
a ug
m ixe d
se p
o ct
nov
de c
Both for the best cases in Madrid (heating demand 27.7 kWh/(m²a), cooling demand 29.5
kWh/(m²a) and Trondheim (heating demand 57.4 kWh/(m²a), cooling demand 0.1
kWh/(m²a)) we do not achieve the passive house criteria in “ecotect”.
Simien simulation
The results from the simulation with the original design did not fulfill the passive house
requirements.
Varmetapsbudsjett
Beskrivelse
Verdi
Varmetapstall yttervegger
0,09
Varmetapstall tak
0,13
Varmetapstall gulv på grunn/mot det fri
0,13
Varmetapstall glass/vinduer/dører
0,36
Varmetapstall kuldebroer
0,03
Varmetapstall infiltrasjon
0,04
Varmetapstall ventilasjon
0,18
Totalt varmetapstall
0,95
Krav varmetapstall
0,60
From these data we could see that the main problem with our original building would be
the windows and our ventilation system.
So by reducing the window area and changing the ventilation system we could gain a
better result that would fulfill the requirement of 0.6. So we need to reduce the total heat
loss from 0.95 to 0.6.
Energiytelse
Beskrivelse
Verdi
Krav
Netto oppvarmingsbehov
45,2 kWh/m²
25,6 kWh/m²
Netto kjølebehov
16,2 kWh/m²
0,0 kWh/m²
Energibruk el./fossile energibærere
85,3 kWh/m² 118,8 kWh/m²
We also see the energy demand is above accepted level as a consequence due to the
high value of the heat loss, and it is not legal with cooling equipment except from the
ventilation itself.
Varmetapsbudsjett (varmetapstall)
Varmetap gulv 13,6 %
Varmetap tak 13,6 %
Varmetap yttervegger 9,8 %
Varmetap vinduer/dører 37,8 %
Varmetap ventilasjon 18,1 %
Varmetap infiltrasjon 3,9 %
Varmetap kuldebroer 3,2 %
Varmetapstall yttervegger
Varmetapstall tak
Varmetapstall gulv på grunn/mot det fri
Varmetapstall glass/vinduer/dører
Varmetapstall kuldebroer
Varmetapstall infiltrasjon
Varmetapstall ventilasjon
Totalt varmetapstall
0,09 W/m²K
0,13 W/m²K
0,13 W/m²K
0,36 W/m²K
0,03 W/m²K
0,04 W/m²K
0,17 W/m²K
0,95 W/m²K
Energibudsjett
Energipost
Energibehov
Spesifikt energibehov
2360 kWh
42,1 kWh/m²
161 kWh
2,9 kWh/m²
2502 kWh
44,7 kWh/m²
3a Vifter
594 kWh
10,6 kWh/m²
3b Pumper
159 kWh
2,8 kWh/m²
4 Belysning
654 kWh
11,7 kWh/m²
5 Teknisk utstyr
981 kWh
17,5 kWh/m²
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
1a Romoppvarming
1b Ventilasjonsvarme (varmebatterier)
2 Varmtvann (tappevann)
6a Romkjøling
6b Ventilasjonskjøling (kjølebatterier)
Totalt netto energibehov, sum 1-6
898 kWh
16,0 kWh/m²
8310 kWh
148,4 kWh/m²
“FLEX03”
The original was optimised by reducing the window area to give the building a definite
orientation.
The window area was reduced just to keep the daylight factor above 5 % and also to keep
windows on all four façade to allow cross ventilation.
However, passive house criteria were not achieved heating (Madrid: heating demand 16.9
kWh/(m²a), cooling demand 19.7 kWh/(m²a)), Trondheim: heating demand 38.7
kWh/(m²a), cooling demand 0.03 kWh/(m²a))
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
ja n
fe b
mar
a pr
may
ju n
ju l
a ug
se p
o ct
nov
de c
“FLEXXX1”
Persuading to reach a heating demand according to the passive house criteria we arrived
at a design without any windows on north, east, or west façade.
Despite the depth of the space of over 8 metres the daylight factors are good due to the
fully glazed south façade.
The thermal performance in Norway is according to passive house standard with an
annual heating demand 29.4 kWh/(m²a). However a cooling demand of 1.0 kWh/(m²a)
remains even though the “mixed mode” is used. In Madrid the cooling demand of 21.2
kWh/(m²a) would not fit the passive house criteria, the heating demand of 13.0 kWh/(m²a)
does.
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
ja n
fe b
mar
a pr
may
ju n
ju l
a ug
se p
o ct
nov
de c
“FLEXXX2”
Continuous window
We decided to eliminate the Windows facing east, west and north, keeping the window
facing south. We achieved to have a good energy performance but we had a problem with
the daylight levels. The window surface in east, west and roof aims to illuminate the space
behind the front box and the kitchen zone in front of the second box.
The effect of the window surface in east, west and roof makes the performance worse,
reaching 38.7 Kwh/m2a for heating in Trondheim, in full conditioning mode. In Madrid the
total consumption is 50.2 Kwh/m2a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
m
ix
ed
m
fle
x0
od
e
3
.
or
x
fle
no
ed
ix
m
+
m
ix
ed
ig
h
rt
g
in
ad
sh
3
x0
fle
fle
x
no
or
rt
ig
h
.
0
Clerestory
In the same line as the previous proposal we placed a clerestory, instead of a high
window. The main problem we had to achieve good daylight levels is the zig zag shape of
the building, as the front box is blocking most of the incoming light from the south facing
façade.
In order to solve this specific problem of daylighting we placed the clerestory behind the
box, facing south, and we have similar results for heating and cooling as before placing the
clerestory.
In Madrid we obtained 40,5Kwh/m2a total energy for heating and cooling. In Trondheim
the heating demand is 45,6Kwh/m2a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
e
od
x2
m
xx
m
ix
ed
fle
fle
x0
1
3
.
ig
or
x
fle
+
ed
ix
m
ed
m
ix
rt
no
ad
sh
+
x2
xx
fle
h
g
in
h
rt
no
1
3
x0
fle
fle
x
no
or
rt
ig
h
.
0
Before modeling the clerestory the heating consumption in Trondheim was below
29Kwh/m2a. Comparing the results with the proposal with a high window on top of the
technical room we came to the conclusion that Ecotect is automatically increasing the
infiltration rate due to the higher position of the clerestory. This leads to really high energy
consumption for heating and cooling which does not necessarily match the reality.
It would be necessary to use another kind of calculations or software to find the real
performance of this proposal.
Upper window
This proposal tries to solve the problem of daylight levels inside without compromising the
energy performance. The solution comes in the form of more south facing window surface.
We decided to make the technical room lower in order to design a high window.
In Madrid we obtained 34,2Kwh/m2a total energy for heating and cooling. In Trondheim
the heating demand is only 25,4Kwh/m2a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
od
e
2
x2
m
xx
m
ix
ed
fle
fle
xx
x2
x0
1
3
.
ig
fle
x
or
rt
+
ed
ix
m
fle
h
g
ad
sh
+
ed
ix
no
in
h
rt
h
no
rt
x2
xx
m
fle
fle
xx
x2
2
no
1
3
x0
fle
fle
x
no
or
rt
ig
h
.
0
“FLEXXX3” – The Quarter Circle
We have been modeling a lot with the original model to achieve the requirements
according to the NS3700 and NS3031 standards. It was quiet difficult to achieve those
aims and that is the reason why we start thinking about an optimum design due to the
most important renewable energy source The Sun. This is the reason why we start
thinking about circles but after some energy performance we came to the solution of a
quart circle because this design gave directly good results according to the energy
requirements. The reason for that is that we make more effort from the solar gains.
As a common result for our 3 designs we can say that windows facing south is a must
because windows too the east and west have a bad influence on the energy performance.
In Madrid we need to shade those windows and in Trondheim we making an effort out of
these solar gains for reducing the heat demand and we have to find a way to store this
heat in a thermal mass.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
ed
ix
m
m
ix
ed
+
fle
sh
xx
ad
in
x2
g
3
x1
xx
fle
fle
x0
3
.
ig
or
+
fle
sh
3
x2
xx
fle
x
ad
no
in
rt
g
h
h
rt
no
x1
fle
xx
3
x0
fle
fle
x
no
or
rt
ig
h
.
0
A comparison of different orientations of the “quarter circle” was undertaken for Madrid.
s ou t h + s h a d in g
s ou t h
n or t h
east / west
ja n
fe b
mar
apr
may
ju n
ju l
aug
sep
oc t
n ov
dec
“FLEX03+”
The design was recalculated in Simien with changed parameters.
By reducing the window area from 62% of BRA to 23% of BRA, as well as changing the
ventilation system. We could obtain the results we needed.
Varmetapsbudsjett
Beskrivelse
Verdi
Varmetapstall yttervegger
0,10
Varmetapstall tak
0,10
Varmetapstall gulv på grunn/mot det fri
0,12
Varmetapstall glass/vinduer/dører
0,13
Varmetapstall kuldebroer
0,03
Varmetapstall infiltrasjon
0,04
Varmetapstall ventilasjon
0,07
Totalt varmetapstall
0,58
Krav varmetapstall
0,60
By comparing the two results we could see that the values for the ventilation, and windows
were reduced drastically. We also needed to reduce the U-values of the windows, walls
and roof.
The new values for roof and walls are 0.08 W/m2K, and 0.55 W/m2K for windows. These
values requires an insulation of 500mm. For the windows we are not sure if this is
obtainable for the big windows and needs a bit more research.
Energiytelse
Beskrivelse
Netto oppvarmingsbehov
Netto kjølebehov
Energibruk el./fossile energibærere
Verdi
Krav
27,9 kWh/m² 29,0 kWh/m²
0,0 kWh/m²
0,0 kWh/m²
13,0 kWh/m² 76,7 kWh/m²
By making these adjustments to the building we automatically achieve the goal for heating
as well. The max ventilation air flow 12m3/m2h needed to keep the temperature below
26°C. The main change in ventilation was that we don’t have a constant airflow, but it
varies with the temperature.
Varmetapsbudsjett (varmetapstall)
Varmetap tak 16,7 %
Varmetap yttervegger 17,4 %
Varmetap gulv 20,9 %
Varmetap ventilasjon 11,6 %
Varmetap infiltrasjon 6,4 %
Varmetap vinduer/dører 21,8 %
Varmetap kuldebroer 5,1 %
Varmetapstall yttervegger
Varmetapstall tak
Varmetapstall gulv på grunn/mot det fri
Varmetapstall glass/vinduer/dører
Varmetapstall kuldebroer
Varmetapstall infiltrasjon
Varmetapstall ventilasjon
Totalt varmetapstall
0,10 W/m²K
0,10 W/m²K
0,12 W/m²K
0,13 W/m²K
0,03 W/m²K
0,04 W/m²K
0,07 W/m²K
0,58 W/m²K
Energibudsjett
Energipost
1a Romoppvarming
1b Ventilasjonsvarme (varmebatterier)
2 Varmtvann (tappevann)
3a Vifter
3b Pumper
Energibehov
Spesifikt energibehov
1582 kWh
26,8 kWh/m²
64 kWh
1,1 kWh/m²
2637 kWh
44,7 kWh/m²
236 kWh
4,0 kWh/m²
50 kWh
0,9 kWh/m²
689 kWh
11,7 kWh/m²
1034 kWh
17,5 kWh/m²
6a Romkjøling
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
6b Ventilasjonskjøling (kjølebatterier)
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
6291 kWh
106,6 kWh/m²
4 Belysning
5 Teknisk utstyr
Totalt netto energibehov, sum 1-6
Levert energi til bygningen (beregnet)
Energivare
1a Direkte el.
Levert energi
Spesifikk levert energi
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
1b El. Varmepumpe
658 kWh
11,2 kWh/m²
1c El. solenergi
166 kWh
2,8 kWh/m²
2 Olje
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
3 Gass
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
4 Fjernvarme
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
5 Biobrensel
0 kWh
0,0 kWh/m²
30 kWh
0,5 kWh/m²
854 kWh
14,5 kWh/m²
6. Annen ()
Totalt levert energi, sum 1-6
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
Our general conclusion is that the present project did not allow us to achieve the required
level of energy efficiency. Even the big modifications in the windows area were not enough
to fulfill the requirements of the NS3700.
We arrived to a range of proposals that present a sensible improvement in the energy
performance.
The energy budget shows that with the chosen proposal it is possible to build a project
that not only fulfills the passive house standard but that is a plus-energy house over the
year in Trondheim.
Most of our proposals have the characteristics of a typical passive house in Nordic
climates; a large window area facing south and the rest of the building extremely insulated,
one way or another.
But we also came to some solutions that are out of that family. Those proposals so that
perhaps the present design is not optimal in terms of the energy performance.
After a discussion about our models we noticed that they were static, they were fixed all
year around. We thought that the design of the proposal could have some potential if we
could focus it in a different way. Instead of the static approach we took before it could
adapt to the different seasons of the year by means of movable insulation or other system
that could allow us to open and close the windows depending on the needs and locations.
We analyzed one model modifying the size of the windows to see the performance of the
different configuration during the year.
For us there are two possible ways forward. We either make a complete redesign of the
proposed project according to the passive house tradition or think in a new way integrating
systems that allow us to adapt the building to different conditions.