Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 11 Case study A—EP
H
(minimum, maximum and average values for different refur-
bishment action)—whole results
EP
H
base
case
a
Action
EP
H,
min
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
EP
H,
max
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
EP
H,av
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
a
a
474.40
1
139.76
29.46
172.4
36.34
156.08
32.90
2
378.46
79.78
381.43
80.40
379.945
80.09
3
335.29
70.68
357.39
75.34
346.34
73.01
4
316.87
66.79
420.49
88.64
368.68
77.72
5
464.47
97.91
471.38
99.36
467.925
98.64
6
282.76
59.60
372.24
78.47
327.5
69.03
a
Energy performance index for heating season—kWh/(m
2
year)
b
Percentage of EPH after the intervention with respect to the base case
Table 12 Case study B—EP
H
(minimum, maximum and average values for different refur-
bishment action)—whole results
EP
H
base
case
a
Action
EP
H,
min
a
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
EP
H,
max
a
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
EP
H,av
Comparison
with base case
[%]
b
228.68
1
147.04
64.30
185.62
81.17
166.33
72.73
2
137.59
60.17
153.81
67.26
145.7
63.71
3
122.73
53.67
137.59
60.17
130.16
56.92
4
177.89
77.79
195.5
85.49
186.695
81.64
5
177.04
77.42
178.6
78.10
177.82
77.76
6
155.19
67.86
171.6
75.04
163.395
71.45
a
Energy performance index for heating season—kWh/(m
2
year)
b
Percentage of EPH after the intervention with respect to the base case
In order to evaluate the energy performances gaps associated with global
uncertainties, two different combinations of methods have been tested for both
cases A and B; the combination have been defined in order to maximize the gap
within the results. In the first case, the input parameters and calculation method-
ologies have been chosen in order to minimize the energy needs, while in the
second case to maximize the energy performance indicator for heating.
Moreover, three different sets of simulations have been performed: the first one
is the combination of all the possible intervention in opaque and transparent ele-
ments, the second one is the whole heating system improvement and the last one is
the combination of refurbishment action both on the envelope and on the heating
plant.
Table
13
reports all the calculation methodologies used in each case in order to
maximize or minimize performance indicators.
Table
14
shows the energy performance indicators for both cases. The gaps in
the results are very high: a suitable combination of methods allows us to obtain a
more efficient energy indicator and a different class. In case A, the energy class
difference is between D and C, and in case B, the gap is from E to C.
