Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Influence of selected solar positions for shading device calculations in


building energy performance simulations
Ismael R. Maestre, Juan Luis Foncubierta Blázquez, Francisco Javier González Gallero ∗ ,
Paloma R. Cubillas
Escuela Politécnica Superior de Algeciras, University of Cadiz, Avenida Ramón Puyol s/n, 11202 Algeciras, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Control strategies of building shading devices can achieve important savings in the air conditioning and
Received 23 October 2014 lighting energy consumption of a building. Calculation procedures of the different solar control devices
Received in revised form 17 February 2015 (overhangs, side fins, etc.) are of special interest in annual energy performance simulation programs,
Accepted 3 May 2015
which have to obtain solar gains in hourly time-steps and, more recently, in five minute time-steps. A
Available online 11 May 2015
common approach used to overcome this problem in the past was to select a representative day of a certain
period of time and maintain the same results of shading calculations for the rest of the period. Nowadays,
Keywords:
the new generation computers have drastically reduced computational costs, but some programs still use
Shading calculations
Building energy simulation
the former approach. The present paper assesses the error made by the use of it. Different overhang and
Solar gains side fin typologies and orientations, location latitudes and simulation time-steps have been analysed.
25% of the studied cases have shown annual average relative errors of 5% or greater in the incident solar
radiation over the glazing surface. Common configurations, such as south oriented overhangs, show daily
deviations of incident solar energy up to 0.48 kW h/m2 , with a relative error of 17%, having hourly errors
as high as 26%.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction control of exterior roller shades in terms of incident solar radia-


tion. Noteworthy studies are those carried out by Yang and Nam
Energy consumption of air conditioning and lighting systems in [3] for big office buildings and different glass areas, which reported
buildings is highly dependent on the incident solar radiation. This average savings in lighting energy consumption of 30.5% by using
energy is transmitted by conduction through the building enve- natural lighting control.
lope exposed to radiation or through the holes, impacting directly Shading calculation mainly consists in the evaluation of the frac-
on the inner enclosure of the building. The use of shading devices tion of the sunny area in every surface using three-dimensional
(overhangs, blinds, louvres, etc.) tries to assure both a right level methods, which require a detailed definition of both the building
of natural lighting on the building and to manage the incoming and the shading devices. The complexity of calculations justifies
solar energy. It has been proved that an efficient control design of the use of simulation as a tool to address these studies. From the
shading devices can achieve great energy savings in air conditioning review of Cascone et al. [4] about the methods for shading calcula-
and lighting devices. tions in Building Energy Performance Simulation tools (BEPS), they
In this context, the studies of Moeseke et al. [1], where the influ- could be classified into ray tracing methods and clipping (P&C)
ence of varying the geometry of an overhang on an office building methods. Ray tracing methods consist in the creation of a finite
over the incident solar radiation and the indoor temperature was number of rays from the spotlight to the surface. P&C methods are
simulated, achieved savings up to 39% on heating demand. based on the projection of polygons in the direction of solar ray
Simulations developed by Tzempelikos and Athienitis [2] and its later intersection. Although reflection modelling is not pos-
showed energy savings up to 77% in lighting and 16% in air con- sible using P&C methods, they allow a more accurate direct solar
ditioning for buildings with a 30% of glass area using an efficient shading calculation with a smaller computational cost than ray
tracing methods. Thus, P&C methods are widely used in most pop-
ular BEPS. Intersection algorithms are the critical part of this kind
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 956 028000; fax: +34 956 028001. of methods, where computational cost can represent up to 61.6%
E-mail address: javier.gallero@uca.es (F.J.G. Gallero). of the whole procedure [5]. DOE-2 [6] calculates, for each polygon,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.05.004
0378-7788/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152 145

2. Methodology
Nomenclature
As already described in the former section, a common practice
d distance sidefin—window (m) to reduce computational times in BEPS is to avoid shading calcu-
E east, Energy (kJ/m2 ) lations every simulation time-step. One of the options is to select
G total incident solar radiation (kW h/m2 ) a characteristic day of a determined period and use the shading
H window height (m) calculations of that day for the rest of the period. Assuming that
I error index the incident solar radiation is varying with simulation time, the
L sidefin width (m) main error source would be the difference in solar position. A prac-
N north tical way of measuring the deviation in solar position would be to
NE northeast study its effect on the so-called shading factor, SF, defined as the
NW northwest ratio of global solar radiation received on a surface in presence and
P overhang width (m) absence of shading obstacles. A possible indicator of the error made
R distance overhang—window (m) in the estimation of incident solar radiation on a glazing could be
S south the relative error of the shading factor, named as Id,h :
SE southeast  
SF shading factor SFrd,h − SFd,h 
SW southwest Id,h = (1)
SFd,h
W west, window width (m)
where SFd,h is the shading factor for day d at hour h; SFrd,h is the
Greek symbols shading factor at the same hour, h, calculated on the reference day,
G absolute error of total incident solar radiation rd, selected as the characteristic or representative day of the cor-
(kW h/m2 ) responding period. A period of one month and the representative
ϕ solar azimuth angle day proposed by Klein [14] have been considered in this study.
 solar altitude angle It seems obvious that due to daily or seasonal variation of inci-
dent solar radiation, (daily, monthly or annual) average values
Subscripts of the former indicator would not be useful, because the specific
d day weight of the energy given to the building at every time would not
h hour be considered. Other indicators, which use an average weighted
H horizontal projection with incident radiation, are proposed instead:
rd reference day 24  24 
  
w weighted average I E SFd,h
h=1 d,h d,h h=1
SFrd,h − SFd,h  Ed,h
wd weighted daily average
Iwd =  24   = 24   (2)
h=1
Ed,h SFd,h h=1
Ed,h SFd,h
wy weighted annual average
where Iwd is the weighted daily average of the shading factor rela-
tive error, Et is the incident solar radiation over the shading device
at instant t, expressed in W/m2 . Iwy is the weighted annual average
the projection of the rest of polygons on the former, using a variant
of the shading factor relative error, which is calculated as follows:
of the algorithm proposed by Groth and Lokmanhekim [7] for the
calculation of the intersection between projections. EnergyPlus [8] 365 24  
d=1
I E SFd,h
h=1 d,h d,h
uses the same procedure, where projections are calculated by using Iwy =  365 24  
homogeneous coordinates and the later projection is made with the d=1 h=1
Ed,h SFd,h
algorithm proposed by Walton [9]. Finally, TRNSYS, in its TRNSHD 365 24   
module [10], makes use of the algorithm proposed by Weiler and
SFrd,h − SFd,h  Ed,h
d=1 h=1
Atherton [11] for the intersection operations.
= 365 24   (3)
d=1 h=1
Ed,h SFd,h
BEPS usually use an annual simulation with hourly or smaller
time-steps, doing the shading calculations for every time-step.
It is worth to note that this last indicator does not coincide
In order to accelerate this process, some building energy simu-
with the relative error of the annual incident radiation, because
lation programs make a previous shading characterization for a
the numerator in Eq. (3) is not the absolute difference of incident
determined range of solar altitude and azimuth before the whole
energy calculated by both methods but the annual sum of absolute
building simulation. Then, the most suitable range is selected for
errors, avoiding error compensation.
each simulation time and solar position [12,13]. Other programs
Besides these relative errors, total incident solar radiation on
select only one day from a determined period, usually one month,
glazing, G, and its corresponding absolute error, G, both expressed
in order to develop shading calculations which are kept constant for
in terms of energy over glazing surface (kW h/m2 ), have been
the rest of the period. Thus, DOE-2 uses the first day of each month,
assessed for each simulation and time period (hour, day and year).
with hourly time-steps. EnergyPlus allows the user to adjust both
Using these indicators in Eq. (3), the following equation is
the time period (20 days by default) and the time-step (15 min by
obtained:
default). Likewise, TRSHD uses a representative day of each month, 365 24 365
specifically the one proposed by Klein [14]. d=1 h=1
G h d=1
Gd Gy
Although building energy simulation is commonly used in the Iwy =  365  24
= 365 =
Gy
(4)
d=1 h=1
Gh G
d=1 d
design of shading devices, no studies have been found about the
assessment of the error made by the former approaches. This paper Simulations, developed during one year, include: the main ori-
tries to quantify the error made in the incident solar radiation entations (north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west
received by a glazing, when a shading factor calculated on a day and northwest); two different window geometries (2 m wide and
different to the real one is considered for each time. The most com- 1 m high, 1 m wide and 1 m high); several types of shading devices
monly used shading devices (overhangs and side fins), for different made up of an overhang and two side fins, varying such that the
sizes, orientations and latitudes have been considered. overhangs are as wide as the window and a length equal to 100%,
146 I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152

out. Analytical solutions for the calculation of the shading factors of


a shading device composed of an overhang together with left and
right sidefins can be found in ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals
[17].
Fig. 2 shows the shade produced by an overhang and a sidefin
over a window, where  and ϕ are the solar altitude and azimuth
angles relative to the window, respectively. The shaded area can be
obtained by simple geometric calculations after the estimation of
the projection of one of the vertices of the shading device (point P).
Fig. 3 shows a comparison between the results determined
analytically for an overhang and those obtained by the numeri-
cal method used in the present study. Due to the vast number of
configurations analysed, only the validation corresponding to the
shading factors used in the case of highest absolute errors of inci-
dent radiation over the window have been shown. Owing to the
Fig. 1. Shading device configurations. election of a different day for the calculations (Seville, south facing
window, 100% overhang length), as it can be seen in Fig. 3, the val-
75% or 25% of its height, while side fins are as high as the window ues obtained by the numerical method closely agree with analytical
and a depth equal to 100%, 75% or 25% of its width (Fig. 1); finally, solutions, showing relative errors smaller than 0.02%. Analogously,
different latitudes have been considered (Seville [37.23◦ N], London Fig. 4 shows the results for the right sidefin with the highest
[51.1◦ N] and Whitehorse [60.7◦ N]). absolute error of incident radiation over the window (Whitehorse,
Because some BEPS can develop variable time-step simulations, south facing window, 100% sidefin length). Once again, deviations
and in order to quantify the influence of time-step in the present between numerical and analytical method are negligible.
study, simulations have been done with two different time-steps:
one hour and five minutes. Calculations on the representative day 4. Results and discussion
have also been done for the selected time-step. Two thousand and
thirty four simulations have been developed. Direct solar radiation Fig. 5 shows a frequency diagram of the error index Iwy for all
data have been obtained from EnergyPlus meteorological files [15]. the studied cases, with simulation time-steps of 5 min. About 25%
An efficient P&C method [5], which was validated by comparison of all cases have indicator values equal or higher than 5%.
with other methods, experimental results and European standards, As Iwy is a magnitude that depends on the total incident radiation
has been used in order to obtain the sunlit factor. This method is on the window, Table 1 shows the results obtained for each orienta-
based on the projection of polygons on a plane perpendicular to tion. Average and maximum values of the annual weighted relative
the solar ray, and a further intersection made with the algorithm errors together with the corresponding values of annual solar radi-
proposed by Vatti [16]. ation incident on the window (Ey ) and absolute error (Gy ) are
shown in Table 1. Furthermore, maximum values of the absolute
3. Validation process errors (Gy,max ) and their associated Iwy and Ey values are also
included.
The difficulty of obtaining shading factors logically depends First of all, it can be observed that, although maximum average
on the number of surfaces involved and complex algorithms are values of Iwy take place with North orientation (3.71%), its impact
needed to calculate the irradiations over a building with many on building annual energy is smaller due to the lower values of
walls, windows and shading devices. However, the configurations incident solar radiation (18.54 compared to the 397.8 kW h/m2 with
analysed have been reduced to overhangs and sidefins although South orientation). There are very typical configurations, such as
powerful algorithms were used to obtain shading factors in this those with a 2 m2 window and a single overhang 50 cm long, for
work for the sake of effectiveness. Analytical solutions may have which a South orientation in Seville leads to a maximum deviation
been used instead. in the absolute error of the annual incident energy of 28.7 kW h/m2 ,
In order to ensure the validity of the results shown in the present getting a 5% value of Iwy , as shown in Table 1.
study and to avoid the possible errors derived from the use of algo- Since Iwy values represent the weighted average relative error
rithms, a comparison with the analytical solutions has been carried of the shading factor through the year, it would be interesting

Fig. 2. Overhang and sidefin shadings.


I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152 147

Fig. 3. Overhang shading factor validation (Seville, South facing window, 2 m2 , 100% length).

to check its values on a daily or hourly basis such that useful spring and autumn equinox (March, April, September and October),
information about the uncertainty introduced in building energy where monthly variation of solar position is greater. For this con-
simulation programs could be obtained. Fig. 6 shows daily values figuration, error values of incident solar energy on the window
of the weighted relative and cumulative absolute errors, Iwd and of about 0.48 over 2.83 kW h/m2 can be found (on September,
Gd , respectively, for the case with the highest annual absolute 30th), implying a daily mean weighted value of 17%. Relative errors
error formerly described. It is shown how the maximum values as high as 95% can be observed, but at very low incident radia-
of the daily absolute error are reached in the months near the tion.

Fig. 4. Right sidefin shading factor validation (Whitehorse, South facing window, 2 m2 , 100% length).
148 I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152

Fig. 5. Iw Frequency diagram.

Table 1
Values of the error indicator for each orientation.

Orientation Average Iwy Maximum Iwy Maximum energy

Iwy (%) Gy Gy Iwy (%) Gy Gy Iwy (%) Gy Gy,max


(kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 )

South 2.57 397.8 10.21 8.20 169.5 13.9 5.06 567.8 28.71
Southeast 2.11 412.9 8.73 7.29 221.0 16.1 4.90 477.2 23.38
East 1.55 334.5 5.18 4.52 286.6 13.0 4.10 380.8 15.62
Northeast 2.52 124.2 3.13 6.43 109.7 7.1 5.55 135.2 7.50
North 3.71 18.5 0.69 9.22 14.7 1.4 4.55 31.0 1.41
Northwest 3.09 117.3 3.63 7.76 95.3 7.4 5.68 145.9 8.29
West 1.71 304.4 5.22 5.41 200.0 10.8 4.20 367.5 15.43
Southwest 2.25 384.9 8.65 8.34 203.6 17.0 5.22 461.8 24.13

In order to highlight the uncertainty introduced in every sim- the same shading factor as the one on the representative day
ulation time-step, Fig. 7 shows the results for the former case (September, 15th) would be 367.1 W/m2 , leading to an absolute
and the day with highest absolute error (September, 30th). As it error of 76.5 W/m2 and, correspondingly, a relative error of 26.3%.
can be seen, incident radiation over the window at 12:00 solar Fig. 8 shows the corresponding shade over the former device at
time (on September, 30th), equals 290.6 W/m2 , while assuming 10:00 AM, in September 30th, together with the corresponding

Fig. 6. Daily errors (Seville, 2 m2 , South, overhang 50%).


I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152 149

Fig. 7. Hourly errors on September, 30th (Seville, 2 m2 , South, overhang 50%).

shade on the reference day, September, 15th. This deviation causes radiation and absolute error for all configurations are 634 and
an absolute error of 57.1 over 258.3 W/m2 , and a relative error of 28.7 kW h/m2 , respectively, significantly smaller than the values
22.1%. 176.4 and 2.63, found for NE orientations.
The following is the analysis of the influence of latitude and The shade produced by side fins is also clearly affected by
the type of the shading device. Due to the large number of cases the use of a reference day. Fig. 10 shows that, logically, South
analysed, box plots have been used to display weighted relative orientations (SE, S and SW) have no significant effect because radi-
errors distribution. According to Tukey [18] definitions, a thin box ation is not blocked by this kind of shading devices. However, for
marks out the 25th to 75th percentiles, a line within the box marks the right side fin in a NW oriented window, the average annual
the mean, a line marks the outer part of the distribution, and outside weighted relative error is about 5% for all configurations, and 7.7%
dots represent extreme values or outliers. for some of them, although with an average incident solar radiation
Fig. 9 shows the results grouped in terms of latitude and ori- of 123.5 W/m2 . Smaller relative errors of about 2%, with maximum
entation. As it can be seen, mean and maximum values of the values of 3.4%, have been found for W orientations, these cases
weighted relative error are almost independent on latitude for with a greater average incident solar radiation (369 W/m2 ). Sim-
those orientations with high values of the incident radiation. Sig- ilar results are reached for the left side fin, with an average Iwy
nificant variations are only found for N and NW orientations, due value of 4% for all NE configurations, and a maximum of about
to the high sensitivity of Iwy for low values of incident radia- 6.5%.
tion.
Fig. 10 shows the results for the two simulated shading devices. 5. Study case
As expected, significant errors are found for the overhang in all
the orientations when using the representative day. Obviously, the The effects that deviations would have over the simulation
impact is greater for S orientations, for which average incident results, such as free-floating temperature, thermal load or HVAC

Fig. 8. Shading variation for September 30th and its reference day (September, 15th). Location: Seville.
150 I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152

Fig. 9. Analysis of latitude dependence.

Fig. 10. Iwy values for different shading devices. Five minute simulation time-step.

energy consumption, will depend on the type of building, window- space air, 13 mm gyp board). Although heat transfer to contigu-
to-wall area ratio, light or heavy constructions, etc. By way of ous spaces is small due to their conditioning, interior walls and
illustration, an annual simulation has been carried out in an office intermediate floors and ceilings have been included in order to
building located in Seville. In particular, the simulated space corre- take their thermal inertia into account. Roof and ceiling have a
sponds to an office located on an intermediate floor of the building U-factor and a weight of 0.427 W/m2 K and 211.8 kg/m2 , respec-
(Fig. 11), with a surface of 100 m2 and a height of 3.5 m. It has an tively (100 mm cast concrete, 70 mm EPS Expanded Polystyrene).
outside façade of 35 m2 oriented South, with an 80% glazed area. Internal walls have two layers of Gypsum Plasterboard on each
Construction characteristics of a medium thermal inertia building side (25 mm, 1.932 W/m2 K and 45 kg/m2 ) and an air gap of 10 cm.
(medium class construction) have been taken from ASHRAE Funda- Single glazing with a 3 mm clear glass has been used (Solid Heat
mentals Handbook [19]. The exterior wall has an air to air overall Gain Coefficient, SHGC of 0.858 and a U-factor of 6.257 W/m2 K).
heat transfer coefficient (U-factor) of 0.6 W/m2 K and a weight of An overhang protection of the same width as the window (1.25 m)
188.3 kg/m2 (105 mm face brick, 50 mm MW Stone Wool, 30 mm has also been included. No infiltration rates are provided. Internal
gains due to lighting and occupancy are 10 W/m2 and 10 m2 /person,
respectively.
A packaged system with a 2.5 EER has been used for cooling. It
operates from 7:00 AM to 18:00 h, with a setpoint temperature of
26 ◦ C. Ventilation rate is assumed to be 15 l/s person.
Simulations have been run with EnergyPlus, by using Design-
Builder graphical interface [20]. The simulation time-step used
was fixed to 30 min. EnergyPlus allows modifying the number
of days the shading calculations are kept (20 days by default).
A frequency of 20 days, the maximum allowed by EnergyPlus,
which is smaller than the frequency proposed by Klein, was
used. Thus, the obtained results can be considered conserva-
tive.
Table 2 shows monthly cooling consumption data when shading
calculations are made every day (1-day frequency) and when they
are updated every 20 days (20-days frequency). Absolute and
Fig. 11. Office building model.
I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152 151

Fig. 12. Daily electric consumption: absolute and relative errors (March).

Table 2
Monthly cooling electric consumption.

M A M J J A S Annual

1-Day frequency [kW h] 190.6 102.9 129.7 255.8 446.3 402.6 409.0 1936.8
20-days frequency [kW h] 185.7 110.7 129.5 255.8 446.6 400.9 414.7 1943.9
Absolute errors [kW h] 4.85 −7.75 0.13 −0.07 −0.35 1.69 −5.62 −7.12
Relative errors [%] 2.5 −7.5 0.1 0.0 −0.1 0.4 −1.4 −0.37

relative deviations are also given. As it can be seen, deviation in electrical energy when shading calculations are updated every 20
annual energy consumption is only 7.12 over 1936.8 kW h (0.37%). days and the associated relative error. Deviations up to 2.98 over
However, an absolute error of 7.75 over 102.9 kW h (7.5%) was 14.98 kW h/day (giving a relative error of 19.9%) are shown, cor-
found in monthly energy consumption, corresponding to April. responding to March, 25th. Fig. 13 shows hourly electrical energy
These deviations are even higher when a daily or hourly scale consumption for the former day when the two shading calculation
is considered, due to error compensation. Fig. 12 shows daily methods have been considered. The average hourly absolute error
electrical consumption for March when shading calculations are was 0.27 over 1.36 kW h (19.8%), while the maximum value was
made every day, together with the corresponding absolute error in 0.45 over 1.21 kW h (37%).

Fig. 13. Hourly electric consumption (March, 4th).


152 I.R. Maestre et al. / Energy and Buildings 101 (2015) 144–152

6. Conclusions [2] A. Tzempelikos, A.K. Athienitis, The impact of shading design and con-
trol on building cooling and lighting demand, Sol. Energy 81 (2007)
369–382.
The present work assesses the error made in the incident radia- [3] I.H. Yang, E.-J. Nam, Economic analysis of the daylight-linked lighting control
tion over the window when only one day within a month was used system in office buildings, Sol. Energy 84 (2012) 1513–1525.
for shading calculations. This approach is still used by some current [4] Y. Cascone, V. Corrado, V. Serra, Calculation procedure of the shading
factor under complex boundary conditions, Sol. Energy 85 (2011)
energy building simulation programs. 2524–2539.
Different overhang and side fin typologies, location latitudes, [5] I.R. Maestre, L. Pérez-Lombard, J.L. Foncubierta, P.R. Cubillas, Improving direct
shading device orientations and simulation time-steps have been solar shading calculations within building energy simulation tools, J. Build.
Perform. Simul. 6 (2012) 437–448.
analysed. The absolute error of incident solar radiation over the
[6] LBNL, DOE Engineers Manual Version 2. 1A, Lawrence Berkeley National Labo-
glazing surface and a weighted relative error have been calculated ratory, Berkeley, California, 1982.
for each case studied during a whole simulation year. In general, [7] C. Groth, M. Lokmanhekim, A new technique for the calculation of
shadow shapes and areas by digital computers, in: Proceedings of
25% of the cases studied showed values of the average annual
the Second Hawaii International Conferences on System Sciences, 1969,
relative error of 5% or higher, including the most frequent con- pp. 471–474.
figurations, such as the overhangs with a length equal to half of [8] EnergyPlus, EnergyPlus Engineering Reference, 2010.
window height. Maximum daily absolute errors take place during [9] G.N. Walton, The application of homogeneous coordinates to shadowing cal-
culations, Am. Soc. Heating Refrigeration Air-Conditioning Eng. ASHRAE Trans.
the spring and autumn months, due to a higher variation of solar 84 (1978) 688–690.
position along these periods. Maximum values up to 0.48 kW h/m2 [10] M.D. Hiller, W.A. Beckman, J.W. Mitchell, TRNSHD—a program for shading and
have been found, with an incident solar radiation over the glazing insolation calculations, Build. Environ. 35 (2000) 633–644.
[11] K. Weiler, P. Atherton, Hidden surface removal using polygon area sorting,
surface of 2.83 kW h/m2 , which means a relative error of 17%. Dur- Comput. Graphics 11 (1977) 214–222.
ing these extreme absolute error situations, shading factor error [12] F.C. Winkelmann, S. Selkowitz, Daylighting Simulation in the DOE-2 Building
can be as high as 22.1%. Similar values have been found for three Energy Analisys Program, Energy Build. 8 (1985) 271–286.
[13] F.J. Sánchez de la Flor, R. Ortiz Cebolla, J.L.M. Félix, S. Álvarez Domínguez, Solar
different northern latitudes (Seville, 37.23◦ N, London, 51.1◦ N and radiation calculation methodology for building exterior surfaces, Sol. Energy
Whitehorse, 60.7◦ N). Errors made by the use of two shading devices, 79 (2005) 513–522.
overhangs and side fins, have also been assessed and discussed. [14] S. Klein, Calculation of monthly average insolation on tilted surfaces, Sol. Energy
19 (1977) 325–329.
In order to show the effects that those deviations have over
[15] U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyPlus Simulation Software. Weather
the simulation results, such as free-floating temperature, thermal Data, Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
loads or HVAC energy consumption, a study case has been included. weatherdata about.cfm
[16] B. Vatti, A generic solution to polygon clipping, Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach.
Although a negligible deviation (0.37%) has been observed in annual
7 (1992) 56–63.
cooling consumption due to error compensation, significant errors [17] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook Fundamental, American Society of Heating, Refrig-
were found on a monthly (7.75 kW h; 7.5%), daily (2.98 kW h; 19%) erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2005.
and hourly (0.45 kW h; 37%) basis. [18] J.W. Tukey, Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
1977.
[19] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, American Society for Heating
References Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc, Atlanta, 2013.
[20] DesignBuilder, DesignBuilder v.4.2.0.054, 2014, Available from
[1] G. Moeseke, I. Bruyere, A. Herde, Impact of control rules on the efficiency of http://www.designbuilder.es/descargas/software-designbuilder
shading devices and free cooling for office buildings, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) (24.09.2014).
784–793.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi