1 / 18

Russian Apartment Building Thermal Response Models for Retrofit Selection and Verification

Russian Apartment Building Thermal Response Models for Retrofit Selection and Verification. Peter Armstrong Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings August 20-25, 2000 Pacific Grove, CA. Enterprise Housing Divestiture Project Cities.

roth-serrano
Télécharger la présentation

Russian Apartment Building Thermal Response Models for Retrofit Selection and Verification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Russian Apartment Building Thermal Response Models for Retrofit Selection and Verification Peter Armstrong Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings August 20-25, 2000 Pacific Grove, CA

  2. Enterprise Housing Divestiture Project Cities

  3. Essential Program Elements • Understand how (former) Soviet buildingsare operated and determine as-found performance. • Establish audit & metered data collection protocols to estimate and measure thermal performance by building. • Select life-cycle cost-optimal packages of heating retrofits (requires appropriate thermal analysis). • Establish effective, multi-tiered acceptance test protocols, verification & ongoing program evaluation.

  4. space/service water heat source Construction Height Total Total Total Floor both 2 Type (stories) Buildings Apartments Area (m ) gas SWH by gas both DH 89,100 2 family 343 783 193 1,319 1,980 4,138,000 Wood 2 to 4 0 1,945 2,193 4,138 82,760 3,864,000 Brick 2 to 4 75 831 2,958 3,864 77,280 4,6 05,000 Brick 5 0 549 986 1,535 92,100 8,178,000 Panel 5 276 2,450 2,726 163,560 0 1,111,500 Brick 6 to 8 0 0 247 247 22,230 Panel 6 to 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,816,000 Brick 9 0 0 688 688 96,320 0 11,886,000 Panel 9 0 1,698 1,698 237,720 1,495,000 Brick 10 to 13 0 0 260 260 29,900 540,500 Panel 1 0 to 13 0 0 94 94 10,810 224,000 Brick 14 & over 0 0 28 28 4,480 336,000 Panel 14 & over 0 0 42 42 6,720 Subtotal 5 & over 0 825 6,493 7,318 663,840 33,192,000 Total All 418 4,384 11,837 16,639 825,860 41,283,100 Over half the 6-city stock is 5- and 9-story panel buildings

  5. Panel Construction

  6. U-value of existing walls • Uncertainty about panel composition and thermal properties • Uncertainty about local standards conformance • LCC of wall insulation retrofits are highly sensitive to existing wall conditions • Input to RusFEDS retrofit evaluation program: wall U-value by building type and location

  7. U-value Measurement • Panel wall thickness: 35cm = 14inch • Brick wall thickness: 65cm = 30inch • Huge wall mass requires long time (1-2 weeks) to perform ASTM test • Logistics of field testing in multiple cities requires shorter (~3-day) test period

  8. Transient U-value Test Conditions

  9. U-value Analysis • Huge wall mass plus short test duration created potentially large measurement errors • ASTM (steady-state) model could not account for “storage effect” • Simple Regression using conduction transfer function (CTF) model was sensitive to noise and bias errors in time-series (TX, TZ, flux) data • Developed and applied constrained CTF model to derive final U values • See Appendix A

  10. U-value Results

  11. × Median Standard Handbook Density k k = t U eff - 2 - 1 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 (Wm K ) Error N Material (kg m ) (Wm K ) (Wm K ) Orenburg Panel 2.76 0.97 0.79 21 Concrete 1920 0.9 - 1.3 Petrozavodsk Gable 1.31 0.46 0.96 12 LDA concrete 1200 0.42 - 0.53 Petrozavodsk Panel 2.66 0.93 0.76 7 Concrete 1920 0.9 - 1.3 Ryazan Panel 3.81 1.33 1.14 12 Concrete 2080 1.0 - 1.9 Zhukovskij Panel 1.95 0.68 0.46 32 LDA concrete 1440 0.58 - 0.74 Orenburg Brick 4.27 2.78 0.48 4 Brick & mortar 2080 - 2160 1.2 - 1.5 Petrozavodsk Brick 4.74 3.08 1.12 4 Brick & mortar 2080 - 2160 1.2 - 1.5 Ryazan Brick 4.85 3.15 1.03 15 Brick & mortar 2080 - 2160 1.2 - 1.5 Orenburg Floor 3.24 See text 3.64 9 20 - cm air gap See text Ryazan Floor 19.62 2.94 1.82 2 Concrete 2400 1.4 - 2.9 Orenburg Attic 22.64 3.40 6.06 4 Concrete 2400 1 .4 - 2.9 Ryazan Attic 18.75 2.81 NA 1 Concrete 2400 1.4 - 2.9 Materials corresponding to measured conductivities

  12. Demo Building at 22/1 Zubkova

  13. Whole Building Thermal Performance • Two identical 5-story, 60-unit buildings in Ryazan: Zubkova 22/1 and 24/3 • Measured hourly heating water, hot and cold service water (referenced to sewer T) • Hourly gas and electric use and weather • Control of heat supply to 22/1 and 24/3 is very different

  14. Heat Input & Average Temperature in Zubkova 22/1

  15. Heat Input & Average Temperature in Zubkova 24/3

  16. Deviation of Simulated from Measured Heat Input

  17. Thermal Parameters Derived from Model Coefficients: Metabolic Heat Rate, Solar Gain Coefficient, Wind-Infiltration Coefficient, and UA

  18. Bathroom Vent Riser Temperature Compared to Average Building Temperature

More Related