Contents
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Results
2
HDD 3902
London, UK
HDD 1828
Rome, IT
HDD 1415
W
E
S
Ref: Jin et al. (2014), Sensitivity of faade performance to early-stage design variables, Energy and Buildings 77, 457-466
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
3
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
4
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
5
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
6
Static products
0.9
0.8
t
[-]
T vis vis
0.7
COMFORT
0.6
0.5
0.4
Input (External
Climate)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
SHGC [-]
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
g-value
SOTA
Objectives
Occupation
Method -Tool
Time
Case study
7
Static products
0.9
0.8
t
[-]
T vis vis
0.7
COMFORT
0.6
0.5
0.4
Input (External
Climate)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
SHGC [-]
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
g-value
Occupation
Time
Zeng et al. (2012): SQL applied to RC model modelling limitations and optimisation of just one
property at the time (themal mass)
Kasinalis et al. (2014): long term adaptiveness only (general, any property)
Erikson (thermal mass) (2013), De Forest (IR glazing properties) (2013), Martinez (opaque
envelope properties) and Goia (WWR) (2014): simulation of static material properties and postprocessing to approximate adaptive material
Loonen et al. (2014): approach of Kasinalis extended to shorter adaptiveness (general, any property).
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
8
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
9
1.Construction state
1
4
4
4.Schedules
3
6
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
10
1.Construction state
1
4
4
4.Schedules
Objective functions:
a) Total Primary Energy
2
1
c) Thermal Comfort
d) Visual Comfort
e) IEQ
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
11
Potential applications
Concept design
6
1
System design
and control
2
1
3
Material design
and optimisation
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
12
6
1
4
4
5
Tvis [-]
2
1
3
SOTA
U-value [W/m2K]
Objectives
Method -Tool
g-value [-]
Case study
13
IN
IN
OUT
2 3
DGU
SGU
SOTA
OUT
IN
2 3
4 5
1. Possible technologies
TGU
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
14
IN
IN
OUT
2 3
DGU
SGU
OUT
IN
2 3
4 5
1. Possible technologies
TGU
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
15
IN
IN
OUT
2 3
DGU
SGU
OUT
IN
2 3
4 5
1. Possible technologies
Uglazing [W/m2K]
TGU
tvis = g-value/0.423
tvis [-]
g-value [-]
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
16
WWR = 40%
Helsinki
London
Rome
W
3.5 m
3 m
5m
Optimisation:
Global (PSO) +
Local (GPSHJ)
algorithm
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
17
5%
Helsinki
Rome
London
11%
21%
12%
22%
36%
34%
47%
57%
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
18
Performance
Control
Energy
Issues
Complexity of solution
Speed
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
19
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
20
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
21
SOTA
Rome Climate
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
22
Seasonal adaptive glazing: in general 10-12% energy saving for ESW orientations for all climates
compared to best static performance (more for hotter climates);
Daily adaptive glazing: additional 10-15% energy saving for NEWS for all climates compared to best
static performance (more for colder climates);
Hourly adaptive glazing: additional 15% compared to daily adaptive (40% compared to best static) for
one scenario (week in July in London, South Oriented);
Cooling demand nearly eliminated (80-97% less), the higher the adaptiveness the lower the energy for
cooling and heating;
NIR and visible spectrum need to be independently tunable (achievable with a combination of
technologies or with new synthetyzed material)
Complexity of the solution could be reduced to fewer descrete points (less complex technological
solution, easier to control)
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
23
Conclusions: Tool
Objective: Design a tool that can be used to assist the design and the
optimisation of new adaptive faade concepts and technologies:
Rely on validated Energy
Simulation Tool
Computationally efficient
and scalable
Multi-domain: considers all
physical domain involved
(energy, comfort)
Adaptive
Faade
Opt tool
SOTA
Objectives
Method -Tool
Case study
24
email: ff279@cam.ac.uk