Energy performance analysis of an office building in three climate zones

Nusrat Jung, Satu Paiho, Jari Shemeikka, Risto Lahdelma, Miimu Airaksinen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Most of the studies encompassing dynamic simulations of multi-storey buildings account only for a few selected zones, to simplify, decrease simulation run-time and to reduce the complexity of the ‘to be simulated’ model. This conventional method neglects the opportunity to see the interaction between different zones as it relates to whole building performance. This paper presents fifteen individual cases of dynamic simulations of a six-storey office building with 160 zones. The energy performance analysis was conducted for three climate zones including Helsinki in Finland, London in the United Kingdom and Bucharest in Romania. For each location, the following three cases were simulated: (i) building as usual simulated according to valid national building codes; (ii) Energy-efficient (EE) case with selected necessary parameters enhanced to reduce total delivered energy demand; and (iii) nZEB case representing partial enhancement of the EE case based on the parametric analysis. The results of nZEB indicate that for Helsinki, it is possible to reduce the space-heating load by 86%, electricity consumed by lighting, appliance, and HVAC by 32%. For London, the heating load is reduced by 95%, cooling load is slightly increased, and electricity demand is decreased by 33%. For Bucharest, 92% of energy in heating can be saved, cooling energy demand was reduced by 60% and electricity consumption by 34%. Based on the nZEB cases for each location, alternative heating and cooling choices of a radiant floor panel system and radiant ceiling panel system were explored. There are small differences in absolute consumption demand for heating, cooling, and electricity for three cases in each location. The specific energy/m2 for heating remained nearly the same in all systems for all three cases in each location. Alternative choices for heating and cooling by using Radiant Ceiling Panel (RCP) and Radiant Floor Panel (RFP) were investigated for all final nZEB cases. Marginal difference in heating energy required for space heating can be seen for London nZEB IHC and London nZEB RCP of 0.8 kWh/m2/year and for Bucharest nZEB IHC and Bucharest nZEB RCP case of 1.3 kWh/m2/year. RFP has the availability of large surface area for heat exchange and can provide heating at a low temperature and cooling at high temperature, but requires supporting air based cooling during the humid season. For RCP, the limited temperature exchange surface may increase the airflow rate, but supplies it at a lower temperature for the same load.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1023-1035
    Number of pages13
    JournalEnergy and Buildings
    Volume158
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2018
    MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

    Fingerprint

    Office buildings
    Ceilings
    Heating
    Cooling
    Electricity
    Space heating
    Temperature
    Computer simulation
    Lighting
    Availability
    Air

    Keywords

    • Bucharest
    • Dynamic simulations
    • Energy efficiency
    • Energy performance
    • Helsinki
    • IDA ICE
    • London
    • Multi zone
    • nZEB
    • Office buildings
    • Radiant ceiling panels
    • Radiant floor panels

    Cite this

    Jung, Nusrat ; Paiho, Satu ; Shemeikka, Jari ; Lahdelma, Risto ; Airaksinen, Miimu. / Energy performance analysis of an office building in three climate zones. In: Energy and Buildings. 2018 ; Vol. 158. pp. 1023-1035.
    @article{306846aba8e2444b89a3d7e01350b8d6,
    title = "Energy performance analysis of an office building in three climate zones",
    abstract = "Most of the studies encompassing dynamic simulations of multi-storey buildings account only for a few selected zones, to simplify, decrease simulation run-time and to reduce the complexity of the ‘to be simulated’ model. This conventional method neglects the opportunity to see the interaction between different zones as it relates to whole building performance. This paper presents fifteen individual cases of dynamic simulations of a six-storey office building with 160 zones. The energy performance analysis was conducted for three climate zones including Helsinki in Finland, London in the United Kingdom and Bucharest in Romania. For each location, the following three cases were simulated: (i) building as usual simulated according to valid national building codes; (ii) Energy-efficient (EE) case with selected necessary parameters enhanced to reduce total delivered energy demand; and (iii) nZEB case representing partial enhancement of the EE case based on the parametric analysis. The results of nZEB indicate that for Helsinki, it is possible to reduce the space-heating load by 86{\%}, electricity consumed by lighting, appliance, and HVAC by 32{\%}. For London, the heating load is reduced by 95{\%}, cooling load is slightly increased, and electricity demand is decreased by 33{\%}. For Bucharest, 92{\%} of energy in heating can be saved, cooling energy demand was reduced by 60{\%} and electricity consumption by 34{\%}. Based on the nZEB cases for each location, alternative heating and cooling choices of a radiant floor panel system and radiant ceiling panel system were explored. There are small differences in absolute consumption demand for heating, cooling, and electricity for three cases in each location. The specific energy/m2 for heating remained nearly the same in all systems for all three cases in each location. Alternative choices for heating and cooling by using Radiant Ceiling Panel (RCP) and Radiant Floor Panel (RFP) were investigated for all final nZEB cases. Marginal difference in heating energy required for space heating can be seen for London nZEB IHC and London nZEB RCP of 0.8 kWh/m2/year and for Bucharest nZEB IHC and Bucharest nZEB RCP case of 1.3 kWh/m2/year. RFP has the availability of large surface area for heat exchange and can provide heating at a low temperature and cooling at high temperature, but requires supporting air based cooling during the humid season. For RCP, the limited temperature exchange surface may increase the airflow rate, but supplies it at a lower temperature for the same load.",
    keywords = "Bucharest, Dynamic simulations, Energy efficiency, Energy performance, Helsinki, IDA ICE, London, Multi zone, nZEB, Office buildings, Radiant ceiling panels, Radiant floor panels",
    author = "Nusrat Jung and Satu Paiho and Jari Shemeikka and Risto Lahdelma and Miimu Airaksinen",
    year = "2018",
    doi = "10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.030",
    language = "English",
    volume = "158",
    pages = "1023--1035",
    journal = "Energy and Buildings",
    issn = "0378-7788",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Energy performance analysis of an office building in three climate zones. / Jung, Nusrat; Paiho, Satu; Shemeikka, Jari; Lahdelma, Risto; Airaksinen, Miimu.

    In: Energy and Buildings, Vol. 158, 2018, p. 1023-1035.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Energy performance analysis of an office building in three climate zones

    AU - Jung, Nusrat

    AU - Paiho, Satu

    AU - Shemeikka, Jari

    AU - Lahdelma, Risto

    AU - Airaksinen, Miimu

    PY - 2018

    Y1 - 2018

    N2 - Most of the studies encompassing dynamic simulations of multi-storey buildings account only for a few selected zones, to simplify, decrease simulation run-time and to reduce the complexity of the ‘to be simulated’ model. This conventional method neglects the opportunity to see the interaction between different zones as it relates to whole building performance. This paper presents fifteen individual cases of dynamic simulations of a six-storey office building with 160 zones. The energy performance analysis was conducted for three climate zones including Helsinki in Finland, London in the United Kingdom and Bucharest in Romania. For each location, the following three cases were simulated: (i) building as usual simulated according to valid national building codes; (ii) Energy-efficient (EE) case with selected necessary parameters enhanced to reduce total delivered energy demand; and (iii) nZEB case representing partial enhancement of the EE case based on the parametric analysis. The results of nZEB indicate that for Helsinki, it is possible to reduce the space-heating load by 86%, electricity consumed by lighting, appliance, and HVAC by 32%. For London, the heating load is reduced by 95%, cooling load is slightly increased, and electricity demand is decreased by 33%. For Bucharest, 92% of energy in heating can be saved, cooling energy demand was reduced by 60% and electricity consumption by 34%. Based on the nZEB cases for each location, alternative heating and cooling choices of a radiant floor panel system and radiant ceiling panel system were explored. There are small differences in absolute consumption demand for heating, cooling, and electricity for three cases in each location. The specific energy/m2 for heating remained nearly the same in all systems for all three cases in each location. Alternative choices for heating and cooling by using Radiant Ceiling Panel (RCP) and Radiant Floor Panel (RFP) were investigated for all final nZEB cases. Marginal difference in heating energy required for space heating can be seen for London nZEB IHC and London nZEB RCP of 0.8 kWh/m2/year and for Bucharest nZEB IHC and Bucharest nZEB RCP case of 1.3 kWh/m2/year. RFP has the availability of large surface area for heat exchange and can provide heating at a low temperature and cooling at high temperature, but requires supporting air based cooling during the humid season. For RCP, the limited temperature exchange surface may increase the airflow rate, but supplies it at a lower temperature for the same load.

    AB - Most of the studies encompassing dynamic simulations of multi-storey buildings account only for a few selected zones, to simplify, decrease simulation run-time and to reduce the complexity of the ‘to be simulated’ model. This conventional method neglects the opportunity to see the interaction between different zones as it relates to whole building performance. This paper presents fifteen individual cases of dynamic simulations of a six-storey office building with 160 zones. The energy performance analysis was conducted for three climate zones including Helsinki in Finland, London in the United Kingdom and Bucharest in Romania. For each location, the following three cases were simulated: (i) building as usual simulated according to valid national building codes; (ii) Energy-efficient (EE) case with selected necessary parameters enhanced to reduce total delivered energy demand; and (iii) nZEB case representing partial enhancement of the EE case based on the parametric analysis. The results of nZEB indicate that for Helsinki, it is possible to reduce the space-heating load by 86%, electricity consumed by lighting, appliance, and HVAC by 32%. For London, the heating load is reduced by 95%, cooling load is slightly increased, and electricity demand is decreased by 33%. For Bucharest, 92% of energy in heating can be saved, cooling energy demand was reduced by 60% and electricity consumption by 34%. Based on the nZEB cases for each location, alternative heating and cooling choices of a radiant floor panel system and radiant ceiling panel system were explored. There are small differences in absolute consumption demand for heating, cooling, and electricity for three cases in each location. The specific energy/m2 for heating remained nearly the same in all systems for all three cases in each location. Alternative choices for heating and cooling by using Radiant Ceiling Panel (RCP) and Radiant Floor Panel (RFP) were investigated for all final nZEB cases. Marginal difference in heating energy required for space heating can be seen for London nZEB IHC and London nZEB RCP of 0.8 kWh/m2/year and for Bucharest nZEB IHC and Bucharest nZEB RCP case of 1.3 kWh/m2/year. RFP has the availability of large surface area for heat exchange and can provide heating at a low temperature and cooling at high temperature, but requires supporting air based cooling during the humid season. For RCP, the limited temperature exchange surface may increase the airflow rate, but supplies it at a lower temperature for the same load.

    KW - Bucharest

    KW - Dynamic simulations

    KW - Energy efficiency

    KW - Energy performance

    KW - Helsinki

    KW - IDA ICE

    KW - London

    KW - Multi zone

    KW - nZEB

    KW - Office buildings

    KW - Radiant ceiling panels

    KW - Radiant floor panels

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032388303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.030

    DO - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.030

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:85032388303

    VL - 158

    SP - 1023

    EP - 1035

    JO - Energy and Buildings

    JF - Energy and Buildings

    SN - 0378-7788

    ER -