Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 8 Influence of distribution losses
Case study
Calculation method
EP
H
EP
gl
Energy class
A6.a
Simplified
464.47
488.43
G
A6.b
Analytical
481.38
505.37
G
Percentage gap (%)
3.5
3
B5.a
Simplified
178.60
205.46
G
B5.b
Analytical
177.04
203.91
G
Percentage gap (%)
0.8
0.7
Table 9 The influence of the control system improvement
Case study
Intervention
Calculation method
EP
H
EP
gl
g
gl
Energy class
A7. a
A0.a ? control
Standard
420.23
444.23
0.671
G
A7. b
A5.a ? control
Table 23
352.2
374.48
0.801
G
A7. c
A5.b ? control
B1
282.76
302.06
0.998
G
A7. d
A5.c ? control
B2
372.24
388.97
0.758
G
B6. a
B0.a ? control
Standard
179.17
206.03
0.603
G
B6. b
B4.a ? control
Table 23
155.19
183.19
0.700
G
B6. c
B4.b ? control
B1 method
155.46
184.26
0.695
G
B6. d
B4.c ? control
B2 method
171.6
200.22
0.630
G
7.8 Single Refurbishment Action: Final Considerations
Taking into account the results of previous sections, it is apparent that, according
to the kind of method for the energy performance assessment, the global indices
could be affected by significant uncertainties.
Therefore, for the refurbishment actions reported in Table
10
, uncertainty
ranges were defined.
In particular, for each case study and for each action, the following indices were
evaluated (Tables
11
,
12
):
• EP
H, min
: minimum heating performance index, obtained by applying the less-
conservative calculation method;
• EP
H, max
: maximum heating performance index, obtained by applying the most
conservative calculation method;
• EP
H,av
: medium value of heating performance index.
EP
H
;
max
þ
EP
H
;
min
2
ð
6
Þ
Figures
8
and
9
report the percentages which represent performance indices
after the intervention in comparison with the base energy needs; they show a 20 %
related to the applied energy calculation method (simplified or analytical) for some
