bresaer d2.3 design guide computer tool p13 20160429 final · deliverable 2.3 6 this project has...

[Digitare il testo] [Digitare il testo]

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement N° 637186.

Deliverable 2.3 Date of document – 04/2016 (M15)

D2.3: Design Guide and Computer tool / Definition of the design guide and design tool concept WP 2, T 2.3 Authors: Carlos Ochoa (TEI); Guedi Capeluto (TEI); Isabel Lacave (ACC); Alejandro Martin Barreiro (ACC); Ines Apraiz (TEC); Roberto Garay (TEC)

BREakthrough Solutions for Adaptable Envelopes in building Refurbishment

EeB-02-2014 RIA

Deliverable 2.3 2

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020

research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 637186.

Technical References

1

PU = Public

PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Document history

V Date Beneficiary Author

0.1 17/03/16 ACC, TEI Alejandro Martin (ACC), Carlos Ochoa (TEI)

0.2 06/04/16 ACC, TEI, TEC Alejandro Martin (ACC), Carlos Ochoa (TEI), Ines

Apraiz (TEC)

1.0 21/04/16 ACC, TEI, TEC Alejandro Martin (ACC), Isabel Lacave (ACC), Carlos

Ochoa (TEI), Guedi Capeluto (TEC), Ines Apraiz

(TEC)

1.1 29/04/2016 ACC Alejandro Martin (ACC)

Project Acronym BRESAER

Project Title BREakthrough Solutions for Adaptable Envelopes in building Refurbishment

Project Coordinator

Isabel Lacave

ACCIONA INFRAESTRUCTURAS

[email protected]

Project Duration February 2015 – July 2019 (54 months)

Deliverable No. D2.3

Dissemination level 1 CO

Work Package WP 2 - Design criteria for the integrated system

Task T 2.3 - System design guide and computer tool for aiding design

Lead beneficiary 13 (TEI)

Contributing

beneficiary(ies)

1 (ACC), 14 (TEC)

Due date of

deliverable

29 April 2016

Actual submission

date

29 April 2016

Deliverable 2.3 3



0 Summary

This deliverable features preliminary developments of the design guide and the design tool that

will be used as aids for implementation of the BRESAER system. It defines the foundations and

principles of the design methodology.

The methodology design guide presented in this deliverable describes the process to be followed

by design teams considering application of the system. It is based on functional requirements,

energy and economic information available at the time of presentation. Improvements will be

made as more knowledge is gained on the application of different technology combinations, their

interactions and financial costs.

The design tool concept given in this report defines the end-users to which the tool will be

directed. It also provides an initial program flow and format that will help abstract the design

guide into a system for practical application of the BRESAER system. A discussion is included on

the most suitable distribution format for the tool, how it will be distributed according to resources

available in the project and its impact on future development.

The final form of the design guide and the design tool will be featured in D2.7, as more

information becomes available during the project.

The design guide draft will be delivered in pdf and will be based in the methodology designed in

this deliverable. The design guide draft is an annex of this deliverable.

Deliverable 2.3 4



Table of content

0 SUMMARY 3

1 SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDE 7

1.1 DESIGN GUIDE OBJECTIVES 7

1.2 DESIGN GUIDE AUDIENCE AND USE 7

1.3 DISTRIBUTION FORMAT 8

1.3.1 STATIC GUIDE PDF FORMAT 9

1.3.2 DYNAMIC GUIDE WEB TOOL 11

1.3.3 CONCLUSIONS DISTRIBUTION FORMAT DESIGN GUIDE 13

1.4 DESIGN GUIDE CONTEXT 13

1.4.1 SYSTEM CONCEPT 13

1.4.2 DIAGNOSING APPLICABILITY OF RETROFIT. POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS 16

1.4.3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY TO SELECT INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS 18

1.4.4 PRINCIPLES TO SELECT INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY COMBINATIONS 23

1.5 DESIGN GUIDE DEVELOPMENT 36

1.5.1 GUIDE OVERVIEW 36

1.5.2 DIAGNOSIS 38

1.5.3 IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 42

1.5.4 ENERGY ANALYSIS 47

1.5.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 51

1.5.6 RETROFIT ALTERNATIVES 55

1.6 POINTS FOR FURTHER GUIDE DEVELOPMENT 56

2 DEFINITION OF THE DESIGN TOOL CONCEPT 57

2.1 TOOL SCOPE 57

2.2 APPLICABILITY OF THE DESIGN TOOL 58

2.2.1 USAGE WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS 58

2.2.2 BRIEF TOOL BACKGROUND 59

2.2.3 TOOL DISTRIBUTION 60

2.3 FUNCTIONS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE TOOL 63

2.3.1 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS 63

2.3.2 PROGRAM FLOW AND SELECTION ACCORDING TO DESIGN GUIDE 65

2.3.3 INTERFACE AND INTRODUCTION OF REAL WORLD CONSTRAINTS 70

2.3.4 OUTPUT 75

2.4 POINTS FOR FURTHER TOOL DEVELOPMENT 77

3 CONCLUSIONS 78

4 REFERENCES 79

5 ANNEX –DESIGN GUIDE DRAFT 80

Deliverable 2.3 5



List of Tables Table 1 BRESAER’s components integration possibilities ordered by degree of flexibility to define design

methodology sequence as applied to the demo ............................................................................................. 19

Table 2 Relation between interactions building/BRESAER’s possibilities (flexibility degree) and methodology

design stages ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 3 Envelope location and interaction of BRESAER components ............................................................. 24

Table 4 BREASER integration strategy with visible architectural elements .................................................... 25

Table 5 BRESAER integration strategy with visible existing services ............................................................... 26

Table 6 Suitable climate and orientation matches for individual BRESAER components ............................... 29

Table 7 Allowed combinations from energy analysis viewpoint ..................................................................... 30

Table 8 Hourly labour costs per hour for the whole economy in 2015, in euros within the European Union

(EU) and Norway. Source: Eurostat ................................................................................................................. 34

Table 9 Hourly labour costs per hour in euro, breakdown by economic activity in 2015, in euros within the

European Union (EU) and Norway Source: Eurostat. ...................................................................................... 35

Table 10 Pre-identification of degrees of freedom according to features found in the building ................... 46

Table 11 Sample calculations to be performed to obtain Return of Investment and Payback Period ........... 53

Table 12 Advantages and disadvantages of desktop and website tool distribution ....................................... 61

Table 13 Main characteristics to be accomplished by the tool ....................................................................... 65

List of Figures Figure 1 Possible paths of development in the design process ........................................................................ 9

Figure 2 General scheme of BRESAER system component integration........................................................... 15

Figure 3 Design methodology process with additive stages ........................................................................... 22

Figure 4 Design process development possible paths .................................................................................... 22

Figure 5 Main climate divisions of Europe and Turkey for the BRESAER project ............................................ 27

Figure 6 Psychrometric chart for Prague as representation for cold climate zone energy strategies ............ 28

Figure 7 Sample result graph for 1 wall technology placement on a South façade in Prague ........................ 31

Figure 8 Hourly labour costs per hour for the whole economy in 2015, in euros within the European Union

(EU) and Norway. Source: Eurostat ................................................................................................................. 34

Figure 9 Synoptic summary of the BRESAER design guide .............................................................................. 37

Figure 10 Relationship of the design guide with other BRESAER project tools .............................................. 38

Figure 11 Sample graph for investment cost structure: products, transportation and installation for

different options .............................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 12 Sample graph for cumulative cash flow function at year end for two options in the renovation

project and payback event .............................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 13 Tool range of action contrasted with stages of the RIBA construction process (2013 version) ..... 58

Figure 14 Stages in the design process from which tool input is taken and tool output is given ................... 59

Figure 15 Relationship between Design Guide and Design Tool ..................................................................... 66

Figure 16 General overview of the software design tool – web and server application ................................ 67

Figure 17 Design tool program flow diagram .................................................................................................. 69

Figure 18 Draft screen: Welcome and login screen ........................................................................................ 70

Deliverable 2.3 6



Figure 19 Draft screen: Screen for creating new projects or edit existing ones ............................................. 71

Figure 20 Draft screen: General information query screen ............................................................................ 72

Figure 21 Draft screen: Information query screen for general features ......................................................... 73

Figure 22 Draft screen: Information query screen for top floor ..................................................................... 73

Figure 23 Draft screen: Information query screen for floor below top .......................................................... 74

Figure 24 Draft screen: Information query screen for typical middle floor(s) ................................................ 74

Figure 25 Draft screen: Tab output display top floor and roof ....................................................................... 75

Figure 26 Draft screen: Tab output display for floor below top ...................................................................... 76

Figure 27 Draft screen: Tab output display for typical middle floor(s) ........................................................... 76

Deliverable 2.3 7



1 System Design Guide

1.1 Design guide objectives

This deliverable aims to present the BRESAER retrofit system design process summarized as a

guide for use by the designer. This developed guide should help the different designers (thought

as architects or engineers) to develop a strategy, defined by the steps to be taken in the diagnosis

and identification of suitable retrofitting systems to be applied. It is intended from the design

guide:

• Indicate when retrofit is needed by following the designated steps in the guide.

• Provide estimates on energy savings and costs of different case studies, taking into account

location, types of building and other considerations.

• Identify course(s) of action and apply the principles to select technological combinations.

• It should be developed in a suitable format for distribution that fulfil the dissemination

objectives of Horizon 2020.

• The developed design guide should be the basis of the design tool and of the printed

design guide.

The guide, explained and developed in the following sections, will also be implemented as an

expert system tool. The expert system will be referred in the document as the design tool. It has

the advantage of being flexible, incorporating on a shorter term new developments and updates

to the BRESAER system.

The software-based design tool is developed in detail in Section 2. The design guide will act as a

reference system to improve users’ perception about the design problem and help them take

better decisions. These decisions will still depend on criteria that is known to users of the guide

such as cost structure, acceptance of certain technologies, etc.

1.2 Design guide audience and use

The main objective of this point is to define the target audience of the Design Guide and Design

Tool to be implemented. It will describe the different target actors identified and the approach for

using them in the envisioned guide and expert tool.

There are normally three principal actors involved in a retrofitting project. These actors are the

Owner, the Designer and the Constructor. The design guide will be valuable for all of them, but in

this particular case it will be focused on the Designer, which can be architects and engineers

Deliverable 2.3 8



working individually or as part of a team. In this deliverable, the terms “designer” “designers” and

“design team” will be used interchangeably. They are used to mean the person or group of people

responsible for taking decisions concerning architectural planning, as well as selection of

technologies and services for the project. This decision to take into account the different skills and

responsibilities of the designer within the design guide will help to fulfil the different objectives of

the project.

The BRESAER project proposes a system for retrofitting in which the technical aspects should be

under control of a technical stakeholder. In this case designers are the actors which can develop

this task within all the retrofitting project.

The design guide will be followed by these actors during the different phases and steps that will be

explained in the next section. It is supposed from part of these actor the correct completion of all

the steps before the project design and implementation. The correct use of the guide and the tool

will provide an improved result in all the different fields of the project, achieving a better project,

implantation, construction and output.

In order to maximize the BRESAER system potential and minimize possible mistakes in its

application, the use of the design guide and design tool is intended to be done at the beginning of

the design process. The design guide will help to give guidance to the designers allowing them to

continue into the next steps.

1.3 Distribution format

In this point the different options for distribution of the guide and its advantages and

disadvantages are analysed. It will also include feasibility of each option and how it could be

accomplished within the timeframe and budget of the project.

As studied in the deliverable 2.2 there are two different paths to complete the proposed

methodology process (Figure 1):

Deliverable 2.3 9



Figure 1 Possible paths of development in the design process

A. Decision and technologies choice are made on each stage. Only on the last stage several

design or models are considered.

B. All design possibilities and technologies combinations are considered simultaneously on

every stage. Decisions and choices are just made on the last stage to obtain the final

design.

Figure 1 shows how this two process paths are followed. For a designer the most easily process to

implement by itself is option A. Nevertheless, in option B with the help of a software tool the

designer can obtain in a shorter period of time a wider set of options for the final design based on

the different iterations selected by the designer.

To divide the options listed below, suitable formats have to be related to the process insight:

C. Static guide: PDF, Text data, JPG, Web text description.

D. Dynamic guide: Web tool able to do calculations or to facilitate graphic decisions.

E. Other options: Print, static web pages, etc that were considered for their characteristics as

traditional means to convey information.

In this deliverable the two types of guides (A and B) will be developed in detail to cover the two

different processes described by the methodology. The next points will analyse the advantages

and disadvantages of both formats and which aspects should be improved in the guides here

designed.

1.3.1 Static guide PDF format

A static guide is define normally by the closed steps that it takes to fulfil a process. It is also bound

by the type of media, such as a closed-access file, print, etc. In our case it will be PDF (portable

document format) the document format to deliver the design guide because its advantages when

comparing to the paper format.

PDF (portable document format) is an electronic document file format proposed by Adobe [1]. It is

a stripped-down version of Postscript. It is somewhat more compact than plain uncompressed

Deliverable 2.3 10



Postscript, due to compression, and it offers hypertext facilities. In this case native PDF

(electronically developed) is analysed.

1.3.1.1 Advantages PDF format

• Easy creation, fast: The PDF format is designed to keep up with today's fast-paced and

highly demanding workload. Creating a PDF takes almost no time when comparing with

paper-printing or scanning. Currently it has become relatively standard as a shared format

and it is exportable from most software packages.

• Secure: The ability to secure the PDF files for controlling with a password the possible

actions to be taken by the file users such as opening, modifying and printing. Depending on

the material being sent electronically, it can be determined and decided on the best

security measures. A paper based document can be printed, scanned and sent without

control.

• Compact: The ability to compress large files that in paper format will occupy much space,

and also when compared to editable files such as Microsoft Word.

• Printable: A PDF file can be printed whole or in part on paper at the convenience of the

user and be examined offline. Naturally, any functionality such as hyperlinks will not work.

• Use as an authored reference: Through its large distribution and ability to embed

authorship information, the file format has gained the same attributions and rights as a

printed source. Therefore it can be used as a distributable publication with guaranteed

protection rights for citation under different schemes such as exclusive copyright, limited

usage copyright, creative commons, open access, etc.

• Archival capability: The file format does not suffer alterations over time, and it can be

opened and read even if the current format has upgrades. Some minor loss in presentation

format can be experienced (e.g. changes in font display) but not in content. This makes it

ideal for files to be stored on servers and to be accessed through websites for download.

• Self-Contained: It has the ability to exist independently from the hardware, software and

operating system (OS) used to create or view the PDF document. This means that a PDF file

created in Windows can be viewed with the same intended format in Macintosh systems

or mobile devices having the file-reading software.

1.3.1.2 Disadvantages PDF format

At the same time, with the advantages of the PDF, there come slight disadvantages:

• Difficult to edit, static: There are significant challenges to working with information

received within a PDF. By its nature, PDF is not an editable document format. Even though

the appearance of a PDF document mirrors what you might see in a Microsoft Word

document, it cannot be changed, revised or manipulated easily unless the end-user has a

version of the paid software to edit it. Microsoft Word, on the other hand, can be vastly

modified in order to adapt the guide from the designers.

• Various types: The way in which information has been introduced in the file to create them

can vary. It will affect the way in which some viewing and converting functions work. Two

Deliverable 2.3 11



types of PDFs exist: native PDFs and scanned PDFs. A native PDF is a file that is made from

a document that was electronically processed. Different sub-divisions exist in native PDF

formats to accommodate archival and distribution purposes. A scanned PDF, on the other

hand, is one that is made by scanning a physical paper document using a scanning device.

Some text-recognition is available when transferring from paper to electronic

documentation, but there are some instances when it is not accurate.

1.3.2 Dynamic guide web tool

For option B a web tool will be designed in order to simplify the decision methodology, as

performing by hand a comparison of all the possible options can be long and complex. The ability

of a software tool to help the designer take decisions is based on the fact of using different

features to provide answers for a large data set, simplifying this methodology process.

This type of format offers the following advantages and disadvantages. Additional information can

be found in Section 2.2.3 of this deliverable.

1.3.2.1 Advantages dynamic guide web tool

• Wider audience: The first and perhaps most obvious advantage of an interactive website

tool is the potential for reaching a wider audience. Data shows that internet access is still

on the rise, and having a web tool online will potentially provide the project with more

exposure.

• Timely access: An advantage of having a website is that information about the project and

tool can be accessed by anyone, anywhere and at any time.

• Easy access: With a website tool, the users can easily access information about the project

and analysis.

• Updated information: Once a website tool is designed, it can be kept relevant to the

project as deemed convenient.

Deliverable 2.3 12



• Publicity and advertising: The tool can be used as a dissemination element for the project

in line with the expectations of Horizon 2020.

• Establishing a branding online: It can serve to promote BRESAER as a presence on the

internet as a distinguishable brand for envelope retrofit elements.

1.3.2.2 Disadvantages dynamic guide web tool

• Reliability: The information on the website tool might become unreliable if it is not

updated on a regular basis. It is needed to ensure that changes are made when necessary

and have a disclaimer with regards to the reliability of the information contained within.

• Crashes and uptime: This is a serious disadvantage for a web tool. If there is not enough

resource for large numbers of simultaneous access, or if it becomes unavailable, then users

will not be able to find information, missing out on the potential for retrofit using the

system.

• Need to publicize the site: Because of the nature of the internet and the sheer number of

businesses already on the World Wide Web, it may be difficult to reach the right target

audience with the web tool. For this, relevant measures have to be taken, such as inclusion

of keywords that attract the right search results directed to the website.

• Complexity and usability: Designing a web tool can be a simple or difficult task. Adding too

many functions that do not contribute to the overall objectives of the project can detract

from achieving tool goals and even confuse users. Also it must be easy to use from the

point of view of the end-users involved in it.

1.3.2.3 Advantages and disadvantages of other traditional formats

• Printed guide: A printed guide can have some advantages and disadvantages:

- It is easy to read and to understand, as it has been the most traditional media for

conveying information. No need for electricity and can be accessed offline.

- If it is a short guide it can be easily printed and copied, but if it is a longer one then

it will be tedious to make more than one copy. Also, it is a non-environmental

solutions due to the use of high quantities of paper.

- A PDF Guide, on the other hand, can be also printed if needed.

• Static web site with hyperlinks: A static web site is normally used as an alternative media

to facilitate the approach of transmitting information to the different actors. It has some

advantages and disadvantages:

- It is easy to create and to attach with different documents or references. The

maintenance is also relatively simple. It gives flexibility in the dissemination

because it is based on the internet. It is cheaper than a web tool due to shorter

creation time and maintenance.

- If the static web site has a lack of design, the benefits of web sites will not provide

an advantage as it will not offer an attractive appearance to the different users. A

web tool can have enhanced functionality but it is more complicated to compose.

- The static website usually cannot be downloaded in its entirety, or there are issues

when downloading and subsequently copying it. A PDF file, on the other hand, can

be viewed on the internet, downloaded, stored and distributed easily.

Deliverable 2.3 13



• Video format: It can be integrate in web sites or sent as a documental guide. It needs more

resources and normally creating it is expensive. The formats are also heavy in terms of file

sizes and its dissemination is difficult without internet. Video format is also difficult to

point to a given location within the file.

1.3.3 Conclusions distribution format design guide

Summarizing, the PDF format and the Web tool guide have the same importance for the BRESAER

project due to their ability to solve two different process in different formats. Having this flexibility

of methods and formats will help disseminate the project. It is also a good approach for the users

because each one could decide the way they want to complete the methodology process.

The PDF format for the guide is chosen because of its convenience within the BRESAER project. It

can be hosted on the BRESAER website and can be used and discussed offline by professionals by

reading it on the web, as a PDF format or as a printed guide from the PDF format. It also provides

an instrument for feedback on project procedures with minimal technical updating. It gives an

accurate solution within the timeframe of dissemination between the different involved actors. A

PDF guide is also optimum for the project budget, being produced at minimal cost due to the lack

of maintenance and the low data storage needed wherever it will be hosted. A good graphical

interface of the web where the PDF is hosted can help to an economic and fast method of

distribution.

The PDF Design Guide Draft will be included in this document as and annex and it will resume the

design guide developed in this document. The principal aim is to make a printed stable and

working alone document useful for the design team of each BRESAER project.

1.4 Design guide context

The objective of the section is to provide a summary of features known at the moment that can

serve to prepare the design guide. They are sourced mainly from D2.1 and D2.2, as well as

incorporating elements in progress from WP3. A more refined version of these elements will be

given in D2.7 when further developments of technology interaction, cost and applicability become

known.

Mention will be made of the technologies that are being used, situations where the system should

not be applied, design method for selecting and combining different technological combinations,

and the principles that guide this method (energy, structural, economic).

1.4.1 System concept

This section will make a quick review of the envelope retrofit technologies involved in the

BRESAER system, showing the complexity that is involved in combining and applying them in

different situations as a prefabricated system. Further information can be found in D2.2.

Deliverable 2.3 14



The BRESAER system is formed by the combination of the following technological components:

DYNAMIC WINDOW WITH AUTOMATED SOLAR BLINDS (DW):

Window with automatic and controlled blind complementing energy

savings and visual comfort strategies, such as light redirection and

response to solar radiation.

MULTIFUNCTIONAL INSULATED PANEL (IP):

Multilayer panel to reach better performance in terms of insulating

capacity, lightness, thinness, manufacturing process, installation, and

environmental aspects, with appropriated mechanical resistance to work

as external panel.

SOLAR THERMAL AIR COMPONENT (SOL):

Combined solar thermal air and PV envelope component comprising many

novelties. Conditions: a) Winter: solar preheated air for space heating

through outdoor ventilation; b) Summer: solar preheated air for the

regeneration of a desiccant wheel combined with evaporative cooling and

heat recovery; c) Integration of PV films on cladding of ventilated façade.

LIGHTWEIGHT VENTILATED FAÇADE MODULE (VF):

Innovative multifunctional lightweight ventilated façade module. Based on

the cladding panels made of Polymer Concrete with new special finishes

providing special functionalities.

Technologies that are integrated to the exterior of some envelope components:

- Photovoltaic panels integrated in envelope component (PV)

- Combined thermal insulation and photocatalytic functional coating (COAT)

Figure 2 presents the general scheme of BREASER system components integration. These are:

- Variable envelope technologies: Dynamic Windows (DM), Multifunctional Insulated Panels

(IP), Solar Thermal Air Component (SOL) and Lightweight Ventilated Façade Module (VF)

- Extra integrated technologies in envelope: Photovoltaic Panels (PV) and Combined Thermal

Insulation and Photocatalytic functional coating (COAT)

- Lightweight Structural Mesh: vertical and horizontal metallic profiles

- Continuous insulation layer

Deliverable 2.3 15



Figure 2 General scheme of BRESAER system component integration

COMMON FEATURES:

- The four envelope components will use a common structure of vertical metallic profiles to

fix and adapt to the existing building.

- A continuous insulation layer will be located on the internal face of the system, directly in

contact with the exterior face of the building envelope. Its thickness and material will be

specific for each building and climatic location.

VARIABLE FEATURES:

- The horizontal substructure will be specific for each technology with the restriction to

maintain a constant distance between their external face and the existing building

(alignment). This will provide a constant overhang.

- The distribution of the structure on the envelope will be flexible in order to adapt to each

building’s geometry.

- The configuration and distribution of each of the envelop components will be specific for

each case. It will depend on the architectural characteristics of the building, its energy

performance goals, costs, etc.

Deliverable 2.3 16



1.4.2 Diagnosing applicability of retrofit. Possibilities and limitations

In this section the main factors that exclude the application of BRESAER for specific cases are

discussed. These must be taken into account before implementing the system, and can be divided

into general, structural and economic factors. The list is under development and will be

supplemented with information to be determined in WP3, WP4 and on experiences gained during

WP6.

1.4.2.1 General factors

The BRESAER system is flexible enough to retrofit buildings with different characteristics. Despite

this, due to the intrinsic characteristic of the system, some buildings will be out of the scope of

BRESAER system retrofitting possibilities because of their technical and non-technical

characteristics. The building characteristics that could limit the system’s implementation are:

a) Buildings with complex envelope geometry, because of the nonstandard components.

b) Building with large glazed areas, which do not comply with the wall-window ratio (this

ratio will be defined during the project development, but excludes totally glazed

windows).

c) Building that not receive enough solar radiation (permanently shaded by neighbours

or obstructions).

d) Cases where the system could not fulfil very strict building national regulations

standards.

e) Good energy performing buildings, such as conforming to the latest Energy

Performance of Building Directive (EPBD), as the range of energy savings won’t be

enough to consider the system cost-effective.

f) Historical buildings façades (pre-1950 or those featured in heritage listings). Specific

measures must be taken if there are limited aspects that can be modified such as the

roof, or facades that are generic enough where intervention could be possible.

g) Uses that have not been analysed: such as healthcare, big-box or mall retail, storage,

etc, since they have specific energy load and ventilation requirements that need

further testing beyond the scope of this project.

h) Structural problems: BRESAER can be applied in buildings that have good structural

conditions. This means that the buildings comply with the minimal normative of the

country where the project will be applied. Also, for each case where the system will be

implemented, designers should check that the required loads do not exceed the loads

considered in the design or rehabilitation (the heaviest façade component is Stam,

0.65kN/m²).

In case of structural problems in the building, these have to be repaired within the

country’s normative before BRESAER application. It is recommendable to make a

qualitative analysis before implementation.

Deliverable 2.3 17



i) Building’s height: BRESAER solutions are calculated for an extreme situation of a high

building of 30m in front of the sea (as stated in the Spanish normative CTE-AE)

considering a wind load of 1,95 kN/m2. Building´s height restrictions will be defined in

line with the country normative restrictions than from wind restrictions.

j) Lack of space: The existing wall separation between two neighbouring buildings

should be more than the space determined by the thickness of insulation, which is

3cm to 10cm.

These factors are still under structural verification and calculation in the context of WP3.

1.4.2.2 Economic factors

The BRESAER system is an energy renovation system for existing buildings that has positive

economic effects for the individual building owner and user. This renovation is energy-efficient, so

as energy consumption will be significantly reduced it is also expected that there will be an

absolute reduction in future energy bills.

However, economic analysis can reveal that there are cases when it would not be feasible to apply

the BRESAER system, because it can become not cost-effective: for example, when the initial cost

is too high, there is too long return of investment or the payback period is too long for investors.

The cases that could limit the BRESAER system’s implementation are:

a) Low energy prices: The lower the energy prices, the less cost-effective renovation

measures become on the building envelope. Absolute savings percentages become lower

and can discourage the application of retrofits.

b) High energy performance of a building before renovation: Higher energy performance of

a building before renovation reduces the economic viability of renovation solutions,

because of a worse cost/benefit ratio. Similar to low energy prices, if absolute energy

savings obtained from improving a high performance building are too low, this can

dissuade investors from applying energy retrofits.

c) Short lifetime of renovation solutions: With shorter lifetimes of renovation solutions for

given investment costs, improvements of the energy performance are less cost effective. It

is usual that users and creditors perceive renovations as a long-term economic investment.

d) High interest rates: It can be expected that the higher the interest rate, the less cost

effective are investments to improve the energy efficiency of the building or a switch to a

renewable energy system. A higher interest rate raises the capital costs for these

investments more strongly than for renovations that do not improve the energy

performance of the building, and which require accordingly a lower investment.

Deliverable 2.3 18



1.4.3 Design methodology to select innovative technology selections

The design methodology developed and described includes mainly architectural and energy

performance aspects. In this point the fundamental concept of BRESAER as an innovative, cost-

effective, adaptable and industrialized envelope system for buildings refurbishment including

combined active and passive pre-fabricated solutions integrated in a versatile lightweight

structural mesh takes importance by how these different technologies can be combined and

applied.

A geometrical analysis of the building must be done before starting the design process, to identify

interactions among the building’s characteristics and BRESAER system integration possibilities.

Also, local regulations must be analysed. If these requirements are found to be non-sufficient to

the project expectations, design changes will be analysed and implemented if possible. System’s

limitations exposed on Section 1.4.2 must be checked in order to know if the building is liable to

be retrofitted with BRESAER’s system.

The architectural design process is described based on the possibilities and restrictions of each

envelope component related to their architectural integration and interaction with the existing

façade/roof characteristics. Table 6 summarizes how and where each technology can be applied

for each envelope situation based on individual characteristics.

For each situation a numerical value of “flexibility degree” is given. This value corresponds to the

number of different technologies that could be applied; higher values means more design

flexibility. These are:

- Degree 1, one single envelope technology can be used

- Degree 2, two different envelope technologies can be used

- Degree 3, three different envelope technologies can be used.

In addition, a “+” symbol is added to the degree definition to mark an extra requirement (not

related to the envelope technology selection) that must be fulfilled and partially limits the

situation flexibility. For example, when analysing the solution for a window, not only it will be

limited to using the Dynamic Window technology but also the opening’s frame must be

considered; the results is an 1+ flexibility degree. These added restrictions have been defined on

section 1.4.4.

The objective is to set an order or sequence of the building’s characteristics to be examined, from

most restrictive: those to be decided in the first place as affect the rest of the system or those

where a specific technology must be used; to most flexible: where several technologies could be

used. This order of flexibility degree will be used to establish the BRESAER system design

methodology following the same sequence. In order to make easier the comprehension of the

methodology and to show its possibilities the demonstration building has been used in the

deliverable as a case of study for its application. Table 1 shows the analysis made to the demo

building and how BRESAER’s components can be integrated ordering them by their degree of

flexibility.

Deliverable 2.3 19



Table 1 BRESAER’s components integration possibilities ordered by degree of flexibility to define design

methodology sequence as applied to the demo

PLACE AND CLIMATIC ZONE

STAGE 0

Vertical structure and part of the horizontal structure. Special Interactions

GENERAL VERTICAL STRUCTURE

RELATION

max 90cm min 25cm

Systems, windows, overhangs, etc. should be overcome.

Special interactions related to vertical structure1

1These interactions should be identified and defined first because they condition vertical structure

Flat roof SOL/IP max 100cm/330cm min -/50cm

Sloped roof SOL max 100cm min -

Wall /Roof corners (without

downpipes) SOL/VF max 100cm/180cm

min -/30cm

Walls exposed to impacts IP max 330cm min 50cm

Part of the horizontal structure

Related to openings, when vertical structure is not continuous.

STAGES 1 to 3

Technologies to be applied according to interactions

+ Technologies to be applied according to façades orientation (conclusions from section 3)

STAGE

(grade of

flexibility)

Group Interaction with

existing

envelope

Number of

possibilities

(grade of

flexibility)

Technologies

IP VF SOL DW

ST

AG

E 1

(g

rad

e1

)

VERTICAL STRUCTURE and part of the horizontal structure

↓Not

flexible =

restricted (1)

Façade base Walls exposed

to impacts1

1 x

Opennings

Opennings

(Windows, doors, bay

Windows…)

Access doors 1 (frame)

Glazed

áreas/window

1+ frame x

Type of roof Sloped roofs 1 x

Systems Rain water

gutters

1 x

Downpipes,

cables

1 x

Air conditioning,

HVAC

1 x

Orientation

(section 3)

North 1+ window x x

ST

AG

E 2

(g

rad

e 2

, 2

+)

± Part

flexible/part

not flexible

(2+)

Balconies (no glazed),

overhangs

Overhangs 2 + PV in

overhang

façade

x x

Opennings


Windows…)

Loggia or bay

window

2 + DW + PV

above + floor

ext.insulation

x x x

Flexible (2)

Wall areas Small Wall

19 areas

(<0,5x0,5)

2 x x

Type of roof Flat roofs 2* x x*

*If needed it’s possible to install SOL but as SolarDuct type system (inclination 30º-45º)

Edges, corners Wall corners 2 x x

Roof corners 2 x x

Deliverable 2.3 20




overhangs

Decorative

elements

2 x x

Flat roof

perimeter walls

2 x x

Slooped roof

overhang

2 x x

Systems Exhaust tracks 2 x x

ST

AG

E 3

(g

rad

e 3

, 3

+) ± Part

flexible/part

not flexible

(3+)

Opennings


Windows…)

Loggia or bay

window

2 + DW + PV

above + floor

ext.insulation

x x x


overhangs

Balcony 3 + floor

ext.insulation

+ no PV

x x x

↑ Flexible

(3)

Orientation

(section 3)

South 3 x x x

Wall areas Big Wall areas 3 x x x

STAGE 4

Energy savings evaluation

Evaluation of energy savings of each room is developed in section 3. It is related to surface of each technology and

surface of each technology (window, roof, façade).

Once the building’s characteristics have been analysed and the interactions among BRESAER

system have been ordered by their degree of flexibility the design methodology is defined using

the same sequence. This is an additive process, on each stage new technologies are added to the

ones set in the previous stage model (Table 2).

Table 2 Relation between interactions building/BRESAER’s possibilities (flexibility degree) and methodology

design stages

STAGES Vertical

structure

Horizontal

structure

(part)

grade 1 ↓Not flexible

grade 2 Flexible

grade 3 ↑Flexible

1

2+ 2 3+ 3

0 x x

1 x x x

Restricted design

2 x x x x x

3 x x x x x x x

Flexible design

Deliverable 2.3 21



The process is defined by five stages that are closely related with the previously set degrees of

flexibility:

• Stage 0: Vertical structural profiles and partially horizontal structural profiles (those

surrounding openings and other elements) are defined and distributed. Also those special

interactions related with the vertical profiles are set.

• Stage 1: Grade 1 interactions are identified and technologies associated with this

interaction are implemented.

- At this stage a so called “restricted design” is obtained. This partial design has no flexibility

in terms of technology selection and will be the common base for all the customization

process to be done in the following stages.

• Stage 2: Grade 2 and 2+ interactions are identified. Energy performance recommendations

for that specific climate, orientation and building typology are checked and a suitable

technology is selected and implemented for each situation. Horizontal structural profiles

are defined and vertical profiles are reviewed.



technology is selected and implemented for each situation. Horizontal structural profiles

are defined and vertical profiles are reviewed.

- At this stage a so called “flexible design” is obtained. The final design is selected between

the multiple possible combinations. BRESAER system is customized is terms of architecture

and energy performance

• Stage 4: For the selected design (or designs if a single combination is not selected) energy

savings are evaluated, and suitable solutions are filtered based on additional criteria such

as cost.

Summarizing, Stages 0 and 1 define the so called “Restricted design” where the building’s

characteristics limits how BRESAER system can be implemented. Stages 2 and 3 complete the

model by adding to the “restricted design” the customization of BRESAER’s components and

obtaining the so called “Flexible design”. Finally, on Stage 4 the energy savings achieved are

provided (Figure 3).

Deliverable 2.3 22



Figure 3 Design methodology process with additive stages

As mentioned previously on Section 1.3, there are two different paths for this process

development (Figure 4):

a. Decision and technologies choice are made on each stage. Only on the last stage

several design or models are considered.

b. All design possibilities and technologies combinations are considered

simultaneously on every stage. Decisions and choices are just made on the last

stage to obtain the final design.

Figure 4 Design process development possible paths

STAGE Vertical structure

Restricted

Design

Flexible

Design

Horizontal structure Special interactions

STAGE Interactions with grade 1 of flexibility

STAGE Interactions with grade 2 or 2+ of flexibility


STAGE Energy savings evaluation

Energy

savings

evaluation

Deliverable 2.3 23



1.4.4 Principles to select innovative technology combinations

The section will summarize knowledge gained at the moment on how to select and apply BRESAER

technologies to the envelopes under consideration. The following characteristics will be

considered: Functional, structural, constructive aspects, economic and energy performance.

1.4.4.1 Functional and structural

The BRESAER system will be applied on the façades and roofs of existing buildings for retrofitting.

The original building structure shall remain intact. The building shall be analysed for the following

constraints:

• Geometry: The applicability of some components depend on placing them over large

surfaces. This will determine certain details of application and choice of components. In

this case some parameters should be calculate and analysed:

o Façade areas (m2)

o Building geometry

• The material composition of the envelope and estimated condition will be determined

from original construction documentation and probes of external walls, roofs and windows

where this is deemed relevant.

• Access routes: Openings and circulation routes within the building for the transport of

equipment shall be inspected and alternative ways of access shall be determined.

• Occupancy: The operational schedule of the building shall be sought and construction

works shall be carried with the least disruption possible. This involves studying the

following:

o Typology

o Actual areas used (m2)

o Occupancy schedules

• Building regulations: Previously to starting the design process, local regulations must be

analysed and use to set the system’s baseline requirements. If these requirements are non-

sufficient, design changes will be analysed and implemented if possible.

Based on the initial description of each envelope component developed and the requirements and

interactions described on it, the analysis of the applicability of BREASER system will respond to the

existing envelope requirements in terms of the next variables:

A. Envelope location and components interaction

B. Interaction and integration with the architectural elements present on the building

C. Interaction and integration with the visible services present on the building

Deliverable 2.3 24



This will set the general strategies used by BREASER system to fulfil the architectural envelope

requirements.

A. Envelope location and components interaction

The following table summarizes envelope location and interaction of the BRESAER components. It

indicates their most appropriate placement (roof or façade or both). Indicated is also their

suitability to include power-generating technologies such as photovoltaic panels and addition of

the self-cleaning nano-coating:

Table 3 Envelope location and interaction of BRESAER components

Envelope locations Multifunctional

insulation panel

Lightweight

ventilated facade Solarwall

Dynamic

window

Big wall areas > 1,5 m2 + PV +COAT + PV +COAT + PV

Small wall areas < 1,5 m2 + PV +COAT + PV

Walls exposed to impacts +COAT

Glazed areas +COAT

Flat roofs <5º + PV +COAT + PV*

Sloped roofs >5º + PV

Wall/wall corners + PV +COAT + PV

Roof/wall corners YES YES

B. Interaction and integration with the architectural elements present on the building

The analysis of how the BREASER system will behave and configure when interacting with existing

architectural elements is summarized on Table 4. This is meant to be a sort of catalogue of

BREASER system potential for its architectural integration. Each of these schematic solutions are

presented as possibilities given to the users that could always be complemented with existing

market products. Between these solutions, those that can be found on the DEMO building will be

developed in detail in WP3 and WP6.

Deliverable 2.3 25



Table 4 BREASER integration strategy with visible architectural elements

Architectural

element BRESAER interaction/integration strategy

Access door

The building’s entrance door will be integrated by including a special frame that will

solve the interaction between the opening and BRESAER’s façade to seal the junction

between them, anchor the door to the façade and break the possible thermal bridge.

The door will be replaced or not depending on its architectural and energy

performance quality.

Window

The existing windows will be replaced by BRESAER’s Dynamic Window component,

which size will be adapted to the previous one. A special frame will solve the

junction between the existing wall opening and the new façade. This frame will

include the windowsill, header and jamb, glass framing and dynamic blinds’ box. The

blind’s box will be located above the window’s opening and cladded by Ventilated

Façade or Solar Wall components to guarantee the continuity of the envelope

overhang.

Canopy or

other solar

protection

element

All existing solar protection devices will be removed as the dynamic window’s blinds

will replace its shading function.

Balcony

The existing balconies will be refurbished in two different aspects: its floor will be

thermally insulated externally with existing market products to break the thermal

bridge through this element; the railing will be cladded for its architectural

renovation. These cladding components will be done by BRESAER’s envelope

components as Ventilated Façade or Solar Wall system + PV when possible, but

could be also finished with market products depending on the architects’ choice.

Loggia or bay

window

Existing loggias will be replaced by Dynamic Windows component and its glazing

system. It will include blinds depending on the energetic performance needs. Top

and bottom floors will be thermally insulated and cladded with BRESAER’s

components + PV if possible or by market products depending on the architect’s

choice.

Overhangs

The transition between two façade planes with different overhang will be solved

using the most flexible cladding components is sense of dimension and shape. These

are the Ventilated Façade and the Solar Wall. The last one will just be used as an

aesthetical cladding component, nota as an active component. Special attention will

be taken to the joints to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.

Decorative

elements

Non-regular or non-orthogonal surfaces will be covered by Solar Wall component. Its

metallic sheet cladding allows its adaptation to this kind of volumes. Special

attention will be taken to the joints to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.

Flat roof

perimeter wall

The top finishing of flat roof’s perimeter wall will be cladded with Solar Wall or

Ventilated Façade components because of its light weight and dimensions flexibility.

Special attention will be taken to the joints between wall and roof to prevent water

leakage or thermal bridges.

Sloped roof

overhang

Slopped roof overhangs will be cladded with Solar Wall components because of its

light weight. Drainage opening will be needed as rain will run below this envelope

component. Special attention will be taken to the joints between wall, roof and this

element to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.

Deliverable 2.3 26



C. Interaction and integration with the visible services present on the building

The analysis of how the BREASER system will behave and configure when interacting with existing

services is summarized on Table 5. This is meant to be a sort of catalogue of BREASER system

potential for its architectural integration. Each of these schematic solutions are presented as

possibilities given to the users that could always be complemented with existing market products.

Between these solutions, those that can be found on the DEMO building will be developed in

detail in WP3 and WP6.

Table 5 BRESAER integration strategy with visible existing services

Technical appliance BRESAER envelope components

Rain water gutters Horizontal rain gutters will be integrated in the overhang of slopped roofs. This

must guarantee the correct drainage and sealing of rain water.

Water, gas ducts &

rain water downpipes

& electrical,

telecommunication

cables

Specific cavities/risers will be located on the envelope to host vertical and

horizontal facilities ducts and cables. These cavities/risers will be cladded with

Solar Wall or Ventilated Façade envelope components. Gas ducts will be located

in independent risers and cladded with Solar Wall metallic sheets with

perforations big enough to guarantee good ventilation.

Exhaust stacks 2 options: maintain existing (left) & replace by new one to move location (right)

Air conditioner units

and other HVAC

devices

Special connectors will be developed to fix the existing Air conditioner units to

BRESAER’s load bearing structure. A special covering box will be used to

integrate these elements.

Deliverable 2.3 27



1.4.4.2 Energy principles

Principles to select the best alternatives based on energy principles are based on work done for

D2.1 and D2.2. The procedure starts by identifying the appropriate climate zone in which the

project is located. In D2.1 Europe and Turkey were divided into four main climate zones, based on

solar radiation distribution as well as heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD).

Two options are available for suitable climate zone identification. The first (and easiest) one is to

identify by geographical positioning on the map the climate zone that corresponds to the location:

A, B, C, or D (Figure 5). However, in case of discrepancies with the local micro climate, the

designer has to follow the second option, to verify that HDD and CDD values match the stated

limits of each main climate zone.

Figure 5 Main climate divisions of Europe and Turkey for the BRESAER project

Deliverable 2.3 28



With the main climate zone identified, the designer can review the most suitable energy strategies

determined for each climate zone in D2.2. A total of 5 representative cities were selected in that

analysis, and the designer can match the strategies of the representative city corresponding to the

project climate zone (Figure 6). If it is desired to perform a detailed study for the specific location,

it can be done by means of software that plots the psychrometric chart using whole-year weather

data, such as Climate Consultant [2] or similar.

Figure 6 Psychrometric chart for Prague as representation for cold climate zone energy strategies

At the same time, the reference usage must have been identified as described in Section

1.4.4.11.4.2. A separate analysis also defines the number of technologies (degrees of freedom)

that can be applied: 1, 2, or 3 technology combinations.

The BRESAER system will be applied on the façades of existing buildings for retrofitting. BRESAER

system components will be placed based on solar radiation and insulation prerequisites. The

façades orientation should be analysed and described as North, East, South or West.

Based on the initial description of each components and general climatic strategies for these

technologies, the possibility to locate each of them depending on the climate and orientation in

here described. This analysis will be optimized with the simulations performance described in

Section 3. In Tasks 2.4 and 6.4, cost and payback calculations will complete this analysis.

The following table summarizes the suitability of technological component for each climate and

orientation based on its individual characteristics. Energy simulation results for each usage,

location and orientation are available in D2.2 for the technology combinations.

Deliverable 2.3 29



Table 6 Suitable climate and orientation matches for individual BRESAER components

BREASER’s climatic zones

Multifunctional

insulation panel

Lightweight


Dynamic

window

HOT (D)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT YES + COAT

SOUTH + PV + PV + COAT

WEST + COAT YES + COAT

HOT

SUMMER/

COLD

WINTER (C)

NORTH YES YES YES

EAST + COAT + COAT + COAT


WEST + COAT + COAT YES + COAT

TEMPERATE

(B)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT + COAT YES

SOUTH + PV + PV + PV YES

WEST + COAT + COAT YES

COLD (A)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT YES


WEST + COAT YES

The combinations allowed from an energy analysis point of view are shown in Table 7 Allowed

combinations from energy analysis viewpointTable 7. The energy use for these combinations was

calculated using certain assumptions that were determined in D2.2 and D2.1, such as target U-

value, basic areas, usages and schedules. Exact values were taken from the BPIE Data Hub website

[3] and from research done in D2.1 and can be considered representative of the “average”

situation for a retrofit. The combinations in Table 7 were tested for the five representative cities in

each of the climate zones and for the main usages that were defined.

Deliverable 2.3 30



In order to calculate the expected energy savings and compensate for geometrical variations

between the calculated cases and the project areas, the designer can follow the methodology

described in Section 3.4 of D2.2. Such variations can arise in cases such as those where permanent

shading is received on opaque surfaces, therefore limiting the retrofit to insulation upgrading to

current regulatory values. However, for the system to work, it is also assumed that insulation

upgrading will be continuous in all the envelope even if not all the areas have been assigned

technologies. In addition, the retrofit process has to consider significant infiltration reduction.

Table 7 Allowed combinations from energy analysis viewpoint

# Facade

Technologies Code Full description

-- 1 Base Basecase

1 Technology

2 SCr Solar collector roof

3 STr Stam panel roof

4 STw Stam panel wall

5 SCw Solar collector wall

6 VF Ventilated façade

7 BG Blinds&glazing

8 SCr+SCw Solar collector roof + solar collector wall

9 SCr+VF Solar collector roof + ventilated façade

10 SCr+STw Solar collector roof + Stam panel wall

11 SCr+BG Solar collector roof + Blinds&glazing

12 STr+SCw Stam panel roof + solar collector wall

13 STr+VF Stam panel roof + ventilated façade

14 STr+STw Stam panel roof + Stam panel wall

15 STr+BG Stam panel roof + Blinds&glazing

16 STr+SCr+STw Stam panel roof + solar collector roof + Stam panel wall

2

Technologies

17 BG+SCw Blinds&glazing + Solar collector wall

18 BG+VF Blinds&glazing + Ventilated façade

19 BG+STw Blinds&glazing + Stam panel wall

20 SCr+SCw+BG Solar collector roof + Solar collector wall + Blinds&glazing

21 SCr+VF+BG Solar collector roof + Ventilated facade + Blinds&glazing

22 SCr+STw+BG Solar collector roof + Stam panel wall + Blinds&glazing

23 STr+SCw+BG Stam panel roof + Solar collector wall + Blinds&glazing

24 STr+VF+BG Stam panel roof + Ventilated façade + Blinds&glazing

25 STr+STw+BG Stam panel roof + Stam panel wall + Blinds&glazing

3

Technologies 26 STr+SCr+STw*+VF+BG

Stam panel roof + Solar collector roof + Stam panel wall* +

Ventilated façade + blinds&glazing

*On areas above and below window only

In the energy estimation methodology, the total areas to be conditioned must be accounted for.

Three specific floors have to be distinguished in the calculation process: top floor, floor below top,

and typical levels. For simplicity, these typical levels also include the floor that is in contact with

the ground.

Deliverable 2.3 31



Façade areas to be retrofit have to be accounted for. It must also be decided if the roof will be

used to hold specific technologies. Conditioned floor area percentages per orientation must be

calculated, thus having to break complex shapes into simpler prisms. The same is done for the roof

but area is added only to the top floor.

The technology selection based on energy performance only is made from choosing between the

results shown in graph form in Section 3.3 of D2.2. They consist of a total of 1248 sets containing

information on energy consumption for heating, cooling, electricity for fans and lighting. Sets are

organized by representative city, orientation, number of technologies, as well as by levels: top

floor and floor below top (Figure 7). Therefore users have to match their location to the closest

representative city and choose technologies according to each orientation and floor type.

Figure 7 Sample result graph for 1 wall technology placement on a South façade in Prague

The final choice of combination or combinations from Table 7 is based on the application of

additional performance, structural, economic and regulatory criteria. The energy saving

percentage of the selected combination(s) is noted for each of the involved floors. The ratio

between retrofit surface area and serviced floor area is calculated for each orientation and floor

type (top, below top, and middle). This ratio is multiplied by the energy saving provided by the

selected combination(s) and repeated for each orientation and floor type. Results can be added

for each floor, and weighted to the total building area being serviced. A step by step account is

found in the design guide draft.

Selection 3

Selection 2

Selection 1

Deliverable 2.3 32



1.4.4.3 Cost and payback principles

This section will describe those principles, to select and apply the best BRESAER technologies,

based on cost and return on investment that are influenced by location, environment factors and

prevailing political and economic framework conditions, as for example indirect taxes, subsidies,

energy taxes, etc. Many of these variables are still under research and will depend on the outcome

of T2.4, T6.4 and recommendations from T7.4. Therefore, this section lays the foundations of the

conceptual framework upon which the methodology for cost calculations will be based upon.

Following are some definitions that will help understand the scope for cost and payback principles

which takes a life cycle approach:

Initial investment costs mean all costs incurred up to the point when the renovated building is

delivered and ready to use. These costs include design, licensing, acquisition of building elements,

connection to suppliers, installation and commissioning processes. These costs vary by country.

Operational annual cost includes energy costs, maintenance costs, and if necessary, replacement

costs. The energy costs comprises annual energy costs depending on the amount of energy

consumption (this varies according to project location climate and renovation technologies used),

and price of energy source used (electricity or gas) that change by country. Maintenance costs are

based on annual expenses for preservation measures to keep the desired building quality. They

include annual costs for inspection, cleaning, adjustments, repairs and consumable items.

The Return of Investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to evaluate an investment

efficiency or to compare the efficiency of a number of different investments. ROI measures the

amount of yield on an investment relative to the investment’s cost. To calculate ROI, the benefit

(or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment. Because ROI is measured as a

percentage, it can be easily compared with returns from other investments, allowing one to

measure a variety of types of investments against one another.

The payback period of investment for the renovation of building envelopes is the length of time

required to recover the cost of the investment. To calculate it, the net investment cost is divided

by the annual net saving. The payback period of a given investment is an important determinant of

whether to undertake the renovation project. Short payback periods are desirable for good

investment propositions. The payback for BRESAER renovation solutions has been estimated

initially to be less than 7 years.

Therefore, the cost analysis includes:

1. Initial investment cost: this includes renovation project, licences, cost of products

acquisition (manufacturing of the products and transport of products to the building to be

renovated), cost of products installation and commissioning processes.

2. Maintenance and operational costs (Operational costs): maintenance cost includes

inspection, cleaning, adjustments, repair, consumable items and operational cost includes

insurance cost.

Deliverable 2.3 33



3. Annual net saving (for payback period and ROI): generated by the building renovation.

This is the difference between the annual energy saving less the maintenance cost and

operational cost.

Other concepts that need to be understood for a complete financial analysis include:

The renovation project cost depends on the business strategies that will enable the introduction of

BRESAER system to the general construction market through mass production, ensuring an

accessible initial cost structure and wider impact. The business plan will be developed in Task 7.4.

The plan will address market, competition and risk analysis to offer a comprehensive services

package for different kinds of clients, considering the different building types, forms of ownership

and existing practices available in diverse parts of Europe. The renovation project cost will be

calculated with more accuracy when this business plan has been developed.

Part of the cost structure depends on prevailing political and economic framework conditions for

each country, as for example indirect taxes, subsidies, interest rates, energy taxes, etc. These

amounts must be taken into account by the user.

The cost of product manufacturing in (euros/m2) will be calculated in Task 2.4, for each of the

technological components included in Section 1.4.1. These costs will also be refined at the end of

WP3, when component specification and other calculations are finalized.

Product installation, commissioning processes and maintenance will be calculated in Tasks 2.4 and

6.4, mainly based in hours worked as the unit for analysis. The hourly cost depends directly on the

salary of the workers involved on system installation and rendering it operable. This cost has large

variations by country.

As an example, Figure 8 and Table 8 show the hourly labour costs per hour for the whole economy

(excluding agriculture and public administration) in 2015, in euros within the European Union (EU)

and Norway. There are significant differences between EU Member States, with the lowest hourly

labour costs recorded in Bulgaria (EUR 4.1), Romania (EUR 5.0), Lithuania (EUR 6.8), Latvia (EUR

7.1) and Hungary (EUR 7.5), and the highest in Denmark (EUR 41.3), Belgium (EUR 39.1), Sweden

(EUR 37.4), Luxembourg (EUR 36.2) and France (EUR 35.1). As a prominent outlier, the price of one

hour worked in Norway amounted to an average 52.00 euros in 2014. When comparing labour

cost estimates in euro over time, it should be noted that data for those Member States outside

the euro area are influenced by exchange rate movements.

Table 9 shows the hourly labour costs per hour in euro, breakdown by economic activity in 2015,

in euros within the European Union (EU) and Norway. There are noticeable differences between

the economic activities. Within the business economy, labour costs per hour were highest in

industry (EUR 25.9 in the EU-28 and EUR 32.3 in the euro area), followed by services (EUR 24.9 and

EUR 28.6 respectively) and construction (EUR 22.4 and EUR 25.8). In the mainly non-business

economy (excluding public administration), average labour costs per hour were EUR 25.1 in the

EU-28 and EUR 29.4 in the euro area in 2015.

Deliverable 2.3 34



Figure 8 Hourly labour costs per hour for the whole economy in 2015, in euros within the European Union

(EU) and Norway. Source: Eurostat

Table 8 Hourly labour costs per hour for the whole economy in 2015, in euros within the European Union

(EU) and Norway. Source: Eurostat

BSXO Other costs Wages & SalariesTotalEU-28 6.01 19.02 25.03EA-19 7.66 21.84 29.50

Denmark 5.75 35.56 41.31Belgium 10.87 28.23 39.10Sweden 12.01 25.36 37.37Luxembourg 4.89 31.29 36.18France 11.65 23.43 35.08Netherlands 8.08 26.00 34.08Finland 7.38 25.58 32.96Austria 8.53 23.87 32.40Germany 7.19 25.00 32.19Ireland 4.11 25.89 30.00Italy 7.84 20.25 28.09United Kingdom 4.32 21.40 25.72Spain 5.39 15.82 21.21Slovenia 2.51 13.25 15.76Cyprus 2.67 12.95 15.62Greece 3.45 11.05 14.50Portugal 2.69 10.52 13.21Malta 0.86 12.16 13.02Estonia 2.72 7.63 10.35Slovakia 2.65 7.40 10.05Czech Rep. 2.68 7.20 9.88Croatia 1.43 8.15 9.58Poland 1.58 7.04 8.62Hungary 1.71 5.81 7.52Latvia 1.42 5.64 7.06Lithuania 1.90 4.93 6.83Romania 1.10 3.90 5.00Bulgaria 0.64 3.44 4.08

Norway 9.27 41.91 51.18

Deliverable 2.3 35



Table 9 Hourly labour costs per hour in euro, breakdown by economic activity in 2015, in euros within the

European Union (EU) and Norway Source: Eurostat.

Annual energy saving: this saving (kWh/year) is related to the amounts obtained in the energy

principles. The final energy price takes into account its evolution in time and the different billing

structures that are applied according to final use in the building space (residential, commercial,

etc).

In order to calculate the area of the products of the project and compensate for geometrical

variations between the calculated cases and the project areas, for each product the area is

obtained multiplying the product area for each of the final choices by the ratio between total

retrofitted surface façade area of the project (introduced by the user) and retrofitted surface

façade area of the calculated cases.

A step by step conceptual account for cost calculation is found in the design guide draft. It will be

refined further for D2.7.

Business economy

Industry Construction ServicesMainly non-business (excl. public admin.)

EA-19 29.5 32.3 25.8 28.6 29.4EU-28 25.0 25.9 22.4 24.9 25.1Belgium 41.1 44.2 34.5 40.6 34.1Bulgaria 4.1 3.9 3.4 4.3 4.1Czech Republic 10.1 10.0 9.3 10.3 9.1Denmark 42.7 42.9 38.2 43.1 39.0Germany 32.7 38.0 26.2 29.9 30.8Estonia 10.7 10.4 11.3 10.9 9.3Ireland 28.7 31.8 26.6 27.7 33.8Greece : : : : :Spain 20.9 23.3 20.6 20.0 22.5France 35.7 37.6 30.5 35.5 33.4Croatia 9.5 8.7 8.6 10.2 9.8Italy 27.2 28.0 23.8 27.1 31.9Cyprus 15.5 14.4 14.4 15.9 17.3Latvia 7.1 6.7 7.0 7.3 6.9Lithuania 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.5Luxembourg 36.1 31.8 24.9 39.1 37.2Hungary 8.1 8.0 6.7 8.3 5.9Malta 12.6 12.8 9.3 13.0 14.3Netherlands 33.2 c c c cAustria 32.2 34.7 31.9 30.9 30.8Poland 8.4 8.6 7.5 8.5 9.2Portugal 12.9 11.0 11.8 14.2 14.1Romania 5.0 5.0 3.6 5.4 4.9Slovenia 15.8 15.8 11.8 16.5 15.8Slovakia 10.4 10.4 9.1 10.5 9.0Finland 33.5 36.8 34.1 31.7 31.9Sweden 40.1 41.6 39.0 39.5 33.0United Kingdom 25.7 25.8 26.4 25.6 25.8Norway 51.8 60.2 44.6 49.0 48.6c confidential: data not available

Deliverable 2.3 36



1.5 Design guide development

In this section, a first formulation of the design guide will be done through a list of steps needed to

develop the entire methodology. Following this design guide will mark the path to obtain the best

suitable solutions for each project complying with the retrofitting objectives of each case.

The guide has been divided into the following sections: diagnosis, identification of functional

requirements, energy analysis, and economic analysis. Although diagnosis can be considered the

starting point of the guide, the remaining sections influence each other interactively. Designers

can have energy performance or economic efficiency priorities, thus making the enumeration

order not always lineal.

The guide is formulated as a series of questions and possible answers, indicating the design team

to collect relevant information or be guided to another section to find recommendations.

For this particular deliverable, it must be noted that methodologies to establish certain design

elements are not known or rely on preliminary data. At the time of writing, research on

multifunctional panels continues to be ongoing (WP3), and the validation of the construction

process has not taken place (WP4). Cost methodologies will be established more firmly during

T2.4. If an item on the guide draft depends on such factors, a note will be indicated.

In the annex a first Design Guide Draft for printing will be added as example of distribution format.

1.5.1 Guide overview

The design process is summarized in the synoptic guide of Figure 9. It represents the “typical”

series of steps that the designers would need to follow in order to filter the wide array of

combinations available in the BRESAER system. This would also be the first page that the design

guide user would use to refer to the guide. Implemented on a PDF format, the use of hyperlinks on

selected text can lead the user to the relevant sections or pages.

The steps have been simplified as much as possible, ordering them by measureable priorities that

the design team has set beforehand. They have been identified as economic or energy

performance. Economic priorities would be used on many projects, while energy performance in

cases such as receiving tax or certification incentives when low energy consumption is achieved.

The third case, a “balanced” set of priorities, is not implemented on this deliverable, and is marked

in grey. Its methodology would require examining the experiences of the system close to research

completion, such as WP3 and WP6.

Figure 10 presents the relationship of the design guide within other tools that are proposed in the

BRESAER project. They have been marked in grey to distinguish them from the guide. In addition,

in both figures there is an indication of the products that can be found both in the design guide

and design tool proposed in this deliverable, and those that can only be found in the design tool.

Deliverable 2.3 37



Figure 9 Synoptic summary of the BRESAER design guide

Deliverable 2.3 38



Figure 10 Relationship of the design guide with other BRESAER project tools

1.5.2 Diagnosis

This step involves the preliminary information that has to be collected by design team concerning

physical, legal and economic aspects that affect directly the construction project. Based on the

answers to the questions, the design team can select appropriate courses of action in the

Deliverable 2.3 39



constraint analysis and technological delimitation section. The aim of the section is to make sure

designers can focus on relevant elements in order to facilitate technology selection.

Information is collected in the following format:

A-General information

1- Project name:

2- Project location: City and Country name

3- Intended future usage of the project: Choose between Educational, Housing and Office.

*For mixed-use projects, the analysis has to be separate for each area/floor that has a

defined use.

4- Geometry:

a. How many floors does the building have? Exclude basement levels without windows

b. Plan dimensions- Specify general plan length (L) and width (W). Complex plan shapes

such as U or L have to be divided into rectangular prisms.

c. Height dimensions- Specify general height (H) and average height of each floor (h).

d. Façade dimensions- Based on the main orientations (North, South, East and West),

define the total façade areas. Facades can be defined as having a certain direction if

their maximum tilt is 45 degrees relative to true North.

5- Building features: Please note any exceptional corners, entrances, terraces, etc or if the

overall plan is not rectangular or square (e.g. polygonal).

B- Context

1- Describe any significant buildings shading the project building. Where are these buildings

located? Do they cover all or part of the building? If in part, which facades and by how

much? Is it always like that year round? (Ask dwellers or relevant people)

2- Make note of open areas around the building that can serve to store construction

materials. Make note of the entrances to the buildings and if problems are anticipated

from construction.

C- Structural conditions

1- What is the construction year of the original building?

2- Have there been any significant refurbishments since? Mention those that have affected

external wall composition or insulation levels, and if possible the level reached.

3- What is the wall composition of the external facades?

Deliverable 2.3 40



4- Building materials and their condition:

a. What is the thickness of the external walls? Can any of them be identified as load

bearing?

b. What are the materials of the external facades? If known, list them from outside to

inside

c. Do they show significant degree of deterioration? (That would require replacement)

d. Does the building show any significant or hidden structural damage? (Specialized

inspection might be required)

D- Financial requirements

1- Project country (and possibly country region, in case there are differentiated tax incentives

or labor costs)

2- Renovation project:

Renovation project cost: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros)

Licences: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros)

Taxes: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros)

Subsidies (euros)

Total retroffited surface façade area (m2)

Man hour cost (euros/h) (*)

Interest rate (%)

3- Energy prices of the selected country: electricity energy price (euro/kWh), gas energy price

(euro/kWh) (*)

(*) If no data is introduced by the user, guide average data for the EU 28 countries will be

used.

E- Normatives

1- Investigate local, regional and national regulations concerning:

a. Retrofit of buildings for the area required

b. Fire, wind and earthquake resistance

c. Maximum height allowed by normatives

d. Requirements to achieve energy label certification (if this is not mandatory)

F- Priorities

1- What are the priorities in the project?

Deliverable 2.3 41



a. High energy performance, since there are incentives and energy label certification can

be achieved

b. Lowest cost and high return of investment is desired, but still achieving an acceptable

energy level reduction.

1.5.2.1 Analysing limitations and restrictions




characteristics. The building characteristics that could limit the system’s implementation are:

a. Complex geometry: Because the installation of multiple nonstandard components the

design and implementation will be difficult and costly.

b. Large glazed areas: If the building does not comply with the wall-to-window ratio (This

ratio will be defined during project development) the implementations of most

components will not be possible. This also excludes totally glazed curtain walls.

c. Solar radiation: If there is not sufficiently solar radiation some components could not

be use as the PV (permanently shaded by neighbours or obstructions).

d. National regulations: If it cannot be possible the implementation due to national

regulations some modification could be needed or some solutions will be dismissed.

e. Good energy performing buildings, such as those conforming to the latest Energy

Performance of Building Directive (EPBD), as the range of energy savings won’t be

enough to consider the system cost-effective.

f. Historical buildings façades (pre-1950 or those featured in heritage listings). Normally

historical buildings are under façade protection, but BRESAER can be applied in

historical or old buildings in good conditions that does not have any kind of protection

or restriction. It could be implemented on the roof only, or on facades without any

artistic features.

g. Uses that have not been analysed: such as healthcare, big-box or mall retail, storage,



h. Structural problems: BRESAER can be applied in buildings that are in good structural

conditions. That means buildings complying with the normative of the country of

application. Also in each implementation should be checked that the required loads do

not exceed the loads considered in the design or rehabilitation (The heaviest façade is

Stam, 0.65kN/m²). In case of problems in the building, these have to be repaired within

the country normative before BRESAER application. It is recommendable to make a

qualitative analysis before implementation.

i. Height of the building: BRESAER solutions are calculated for an extreme situation of a

high building of 30m in front of the sea (CTE-AE Spanish normative) considering a wind

load of 1,95 kN/m2. Building´s height restrictions will be define more from country

Deliverable 2.3 42



normative restrictions than from wind or height problems. (This height will be defined

in WP3).

j. Insufficient space between neighbouring buildings: The existing wall separation

should be more than the space determined by the thickness of insulation 3cm to

10cm.

1.5.3 Identification of functional requirements

1.5.3.1 Describing the design process to follow

As explained in Section 1.4.3, some steps have to be accomplished before starting the design

process. These steps are described to later identify the different interactions among buildings and

the BRESAER system. These steps include the complete geometrical analysis and definition of the

building characteristics, but also local regulations.


envelope component related to their architectural integration, and interaction with the existing

façade/roof characteristics.

Section 1.4.3 sets an order or sequence of the building’s characteristics to be examined, beginning

from the most restrictive: those to be decided in the first place affect the rest of the system or

those where a specific technology must be used; and continuing to the most flexible: where

several technologies could be used.

The design guide is based on the process is defined by five stages that are closely related with the

set degrees of flexibility described in Section 1.4.3:

• Stage 0: Vertical structural profiles and partially horizontal structural profiles.




for that specific climate, orientation and building typology.



technology is selected and implemented for each situation.



as cost.

The next process will be followed in order to design the project from more restrictive patterns to

more flexible ones, the next figure describes the process:

Deliverable 2.3 43



As mentioned previously, there are two different paths for this design development:

a. PDF Design Guide: The design process will consist in follow the decision and

technologies choices on each stage. Only on the last stage several design or

models are considered.

b. Web tool guide: All design possibilities and technologies combinations are

considered simultaneously on every stage. Decisions and choices are just made

on the last stage to obtain the final design.

The process of the printed guide will follow the design development path A.

1.5.3.2 Analysing BRESAER solutions

In this step, the proposed BRESAER technological solutions will be studied in order to identify if all

the solutions that are of the interest of the owner and the designer, if not the solution can be

delete from the design process. The solutions analysed in the point 1.4.1 are:

a. Dynamic window with automated solar blinds (DW)

b. Multifunctional insulated panel (IP)

c. Solar thermal air component (SOL)

d. Lightweight ventilated façade module (VF)

And additionally according to each situation:



As analysed previously, there are some cases in which the BRESAER retrofitting system will have

limited application or cannot be applied due to the conditions mentioned in the next section:

STAGE Vertical structure

Restricted

Design

Flexible

Design

Horizontal structure Special interactions

STAGE Interactions with grade 1 of flexibility



STAGE Energy savings evaluation

Energy

savings

evaluation

Deliverable 2.3 44



1.5.3.3 Applying the decision process for degree of freedom according to restrictions

The following steps give the steps to calculate the different solutions and parameters within three

prioritization criteria: Economic, Energetic and Design. BRESAER is prioritized in energetic issues,

but in this guide also recommendations in Economic and Design criteria are contemplated. In this

case the user should decide which criteria should be followed in each case, as when restrictive

decisions appear.

Identify building parameters to solve: To achieve this point, some components of the envelope

have to be identified and measured in the entire building. These elements are listed within its area

of importance in the building, later the elements will be listed from the point of view of restriction

with each solution:

- General façade sides depending on orientation

- Big wall areas that are more than 1,5 m2

- Small wall areas that are less than 1,5 m2

- Walls surfaces that are exposed to impacts (Cars, entries…)

- Glazed areas of the building

- Flat roofs that are less than 5 degrees

- Slopped roofs that are more than 5 degrees

- Wall to wall corners of the building

- Roof to wall corners of the building

- Access door

- Windows

- Canopy or other solar protection element

- Balcony

- Loggia or bay window

- Overhangs

- Decorative elements

- Flat roof perimeter wall

- Sloped roof overhang

- Rain water gutters

- Water, gas ducts & rain water downpipes & electrical, telecommunication cables

- Exhaust stacks

- Air conditioner units and other HVAC devices

1.5.3.4 Following the design steps

Step 0

Vertical structural profiles and partially horizontal structural profiles (those surrounding openings

and other elements) are defined and distributed. Also those special interactions related with the

vertical profiles are set.

Deliverable 2.3 45



GENERAL VERTICAL STRUCTURE

RELATION

max 90cm min 25cm

Systems, windows, overhangs, etc. should be overcome.

Special interactions related to vertical structure1

1These interactions should be identified and defined first because they condition vertical structure

Flat roof SOL/IP max 100cm/330cm min -/50cm

Sloped roof SOL max 100cm min -

Wall /Roof corners (without

downpipes) SOL/VF max 100cm/180cm

min -/30cm

Walls exposed to impacts IP max 330cm min 50cm

Part of the horizontal structure

Related to openings, when vertical structure is not continuous.

Step 1

Grade 1 interactions are identified and technologies associated with this interaction are

implemented. At this stage a so called “restricted design” is obtained. This partial design has no

flexibility in terms of technology selection and will be the common base for all the customization

process to be done in the following stages.

a. Walls surfaces that are exposed to impacts (Cars, entrances…)

b. Access door

c. Glazed areas / windows of the building

d. Slopped roofs that are more than 5 degrees

e. Rain water gutters

f. Downpipes, cables

g. Air conditioner units and other HVAC devices

Step 2

Grade 2 and 2+ interactions are identified. Energy performance recommendations for that specific

climate, orientation and building typology are checked and a suitable technology is selected and

implemented for each situation. Horizontal structural profiles are defined and vertical profiles are

reviewed.

h. Overhangs

i. Small wall areas that are less than 1,5 m2

j. Flat roofs that are less than 5 degrees

k. Wall to wall corners of the building

l. Roof to wall corners of the building

m. Decorative elements

n. Flat roof perimeter wall

o. Sloped roof overhang

Step 3

Grade 3 and 3+ interactions are identified. Energy performance recommendations for that specific

climate, orientation and building typology are checked and a suitable technology is selected and

Deliverable 2.3 46



implemented for each situation. Horizontal structural profiles are defined and vertical profiles are

reviewed.

p. Loggia or bay window

q. Balcony

r. Big wall areas that are more than 1,5 m2

s. Generic wall areas

A summarizing guide to this identification is found in Table 10, relating the next elements of the

design process

Table 10 Pre-identification of degrees of freedom according to features found in the building

Elements to solve (by each

façade orientation)

Flexible

grade

ENERGETIC ECONOCMIC DESIGN OTHER

To choose between solutions: IP, VF, SOL, DW / +COAT, + PV

ST

AG

E 1

(g

rad

e1

)

a. Walls exposed to impacts 1

b. Access doors 1 (frame)

c. Glazed areas/window 1+ frame

d. Sloped roofs 1

e. Rain water gutters 1

f. Downpipes, cables 1

g. Air conditioning, HVAC 1

ST

AG

E 2

(g

rad

e2

,2+

)

h. Overhangs 2 + PV in

overhang

i. Small wall areas that are

less than 1,5 m2

2

j. Flat roofs that are less

than 5 degrees

2*

k. Wall to wall corners 2

l. Roof to wall corners 2

m. Decorative elements 2

n. Flat roof perimeter wall 2

o. Sloped roof overhang 2

ST

AG

E 3

(g

rad

e 3

, 3

+)


2 + DW + PV

above + floor

ext.insulation

q. Balcony 3 + floor ext.

ins. + no PV

r. Big wall areas > 1,5 m2 3

s. Generic wall areas 3

Deliverable 2.3 47



1.5.4 Energy analysis

The aim of this section is to generalize the energy analysis by using the energy saving estimation

methodology and simulation results that were defined in D2.2. As such, the result graphs and base

assumption values should be available in the finished version of the design guide as an appendix.

The steps for the energy analysis are the following:

A- Identification of the climate zone

1- The climate zone is identified from locating the indicated project city in the climate division

map (Figure 5 of this deliverable). The division has been made for EU member countries

and Western Turkey. A series of indicative cities have been placed on it to help guide

locating the city or placing it on one of the four main climate zones.

2- Based on the location, define the climate zone as:

a. Cold

b. Temperate

c. Hot summers and cold winters

d. Hot

e. High mountain zone (if the project is located in this zone, the analysis cannot

continue since it was not examined due to sparse population)

3- Variant to point 2: use the heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD)

division indicated in the same map to define your climate zone according to those limits.

Use this method if the weather characteristics in the project city differ significantly from

the divisions on the map.

4- Guiding city: Our initial energy analysis was limited to a certain number of representative

urban centres from each climate zone. The reference cities are the following:

a. Cold: Prague, Czech Republic

b. Temperate: Paris, France

c. Hot summers and cold winters: Bologna, Italy and Ankara, Turkey

d. Hot: Athens, Greece

The city name indicates the results that need to be consulted. A more detailed study for

the particular project city will require performing energy simulations. This is recommended

for the next stage after choosing the alternatives.

B- Usage and assumptions

1- The intended future usage of the project defines the sections of the results that need to be

consulted. Therefore, the structure of each result page is Reference city�Usage.

Deliverable 2.3 48



2- Assumptions:

a. The roof and external walls will have a continuous insulation layer that complies with

minimal regulatory values for each reference city. This value has to be verified with the

minimum value of the project city.

b. A series of ventilation and infiltration values, as well as usage schedules were assumed

for each use. These can be found in D2.2 of the BRESAER project documents. It is

assumed that the constructive process of the retrofit project will address quality

control to ensure infiltration reduction if necessary.

c. Façade areas that receive permanent shading from neighbouring buildings will be

covered with the multifunctional insulated panel only.

3- Available combinations: The list of combinations that are available from the point of view

of energy are shown in Table 7 which can be used as symbol key to interpret the

combinations shown in the graphs.

C- Energy estimation methodology and selection of technology combination(s)

The following steps need to be followed:

1. Total floor areas to be conditioned with technologies (TFAa) must be accounted for each level.

2. Three specific floors must be noted: Top floor (the one with roof), floor below the top floor, and

typical middle floor(s). Typical middle floors are assumed to be identical or close to identical,

otherwise they must be noted separately. For simplicity, ground floors may be considered as

middle floors.

3. Façade areas to be retrofit with technology combinations (SAa) must be detailed for each floor

and orientation. If the roof is going to be used for technology placement it must be kept as

separate data.

conditioned conditioned

Conditioned

Floor below top floor

Conditioned

Not

Top floor

Notconditioned

Not

Conditioned

Typical middle floor



Top floor


Example of division of served floor areas per floor per orientation in a prism-shaped floor

plan

Deliverable 2.3 49



4. Floor area percentages for each façade and orientation must be defined according to the floor

plan shape and total floor area to be served in the building under study (FAa). This will vary if the

floor plan shape is prism or square, and the number of external walls. Complex shapes such as L or

U-shaped plans should be broken down into smaller prisms or squares.

FAa = TFa x % assigned per orientation

4b. A similar division must be made for the roof areas for each orientation but added to the façade

areas to be covered according to relevant orientation of the top floor only.

5. A technology combination must be selected from the results shown in D2.2, from Figure 53 to

Figure 88 (to be shown in the final deliverable as appendix) by selecting the relevant

representative city, usage, number of technologies and orientation. The top floor and floor below

top will receive the same combination, while middle floors can have different combinations as

allowed by the Section “Constraint analysis + technological delimitation”. The energy saving

percentage of the picked combinations (EScomb) must be noted for each of the involved floors.

East/West

Not covered

Not covered

North/South

Covered

Covered

Not covered

Covered

W

N

E

S

EScomb = 59%

Example choosing from the graph

Deliverable 2.3 50



The suggestions how to choose from the list are the following:

a) Priority energy performance:

-If there is priority of energy analysis then choose lowest energy use(s). Threshold

percentage to choose between alternatives can vary according to other project

considerations

b) Priority economic investment and return:

-If a list of combinations comes from priority economic analysis, note their energy use(s)

and choose the least energy using ones. Threshold percentage to choose between

alternatives can vary according to other project considerations

c) Pre-determined technology degrees of freedom:

-If there is restriction from technology degrees ignore the other number of technologies

and continue with a) or b)

6. The ratio for retrofit surface area and serviced floor area, a, must be calculated for the section

under study for each orientation, as well as the ratio between basic module surface area and basic

module floor area, b. A second ratio (a/b) is calculated as well. This means there will be one ratio

for the module on the top level and another for the middle levels.

7. The ratio (a/b) calculated in the previous step is multiplied by the energy saving provided by the

technology combination used for that floor (EScomb). This result is multiplied by the weighted floor

area served by the desired surface area in the case under study (FAa). The product is the energy

saving of the section area (ESs)

ESs = (a/b) x (EScomb) x (FAa)

8. The procedure is repeated for the orientations involved and that will receive retrofit. Results

can be added to obtain energy savings per each floor (ESf).

ESf = ESsn+ESse+ESss+ESsw

building

building

Floor area

Surface area

module

module

Floor area

Surface area

a = SAa/FAa b = Sab/FAb

Example of surface area ratios for top floor

Deliverable 2.3 51



9. The floor areas are weighted relative to the total building area (including unconditioned areas),

and multiplied in terms of percentage to the energy savings per floor (ESf). These results are

added in order to obtain the total energy saving of the building using the considered technology

combinations.

EStotal =(ESf1*Percentage area floor1)+(ESf2*Percentage area floor2)+….+(ESfn*Percentage area floorn)

1.5.5 Economic analysis

The aim of this section is to generalize cost analysis, by using energy saving estimations indicated

in Section 1.5.4 that were developed using the methodology and simulation results of D2.2. Note:

many of these calculations will be refined for D2.7. It must also be noted that further analysis will

provide the final relationship between the formulas expressed in this section.

Data to be taken into account for the conceptual economic analysis includes:

• Country and city (within the EU-28 and Turkey)

• Total energy saving of the building using the considered technology combination for the

studied city: EStotal (kWh/m2/year)

• The ratio between total retrofitted surface façade area of the project (RSFAp) and

retrofitted surface façade area of the calculated case (RSFAc): W=RSFAp/RSFAc

• The area of each product of the considered technology combination of the calculated case:

PRSFAc (m2)

• The area of each product of the considered technology combination of the project:

PRSFAp= PRSFAc x W

The steps for the cost analysis are the following:

A- Investment, maintenance and operational costs

Initial investment cost: this includes renovation project, licences, cost of products acquisition

(manufacturing of the products and transport of products to the building to be renovated), cost of

products installation and commissioning processes.

The total manufacturing cost (sale cost) (SC) of the selected combination of technologies is the

summation of the manufacturing cost of all the products of the combination. In task 2.4 and 6.4

the unit price of each product (UP) will be calculated. The cost of each product is calculated

multiplying the area of the product, PRSFAp (m2), by the unit price of the product, UP (euros/m2):

SC= ∑(PRSFAp x UP)

Deliverable 2.3 52



Transport cost of each product to the building is considered as an average distance (Km) by

country (td) and transport cost average (tc= euros/Km.ton). Total transport cost (TC) is the

summation of transport cost of all the products of the combination.

TC= ∑ (td x tc)

Total acquisition cost of the selected combination is calculated as: AC= ∑ (SC +TC)

The renovation project cost (DG) depends on the business strategies that will enable the

expansion of BRESAER system to external markets. The business plan will be developed in WP 7

and will develop comprehensive services packages for different kind of clients considering

different building types, forms of ownership and different existing practices in different parts of

Europe. The renovation project cost will be refined when the business plan has been developed.

Installation of the products, commissioning processes and maintenance will be defined for each of

the products in tasks 2.4 and 6.4 and will be calculated mainly based in number of hour worked.

The associated costs depend directly on the salary of the workers involved. Installation cost (IC) of

a product will be calculated multiplying the amount of hours (hI) of installation of a unit (m2) of

the product by the area of the product PRSFAp by hourly cost (euros/h) of the country selected by

the user or by the man hour cost (euros/h) introduced by the user. Commissioning process cost

(CC) and maintenance cost (MC) will be calculated will be calculated analogously.

IC= ∑(hI x PRSFAp x euros/h)

MC= ∑ (hM x PRSFAp x euros/h)

CC= ∑(hC x PRSFAp x euros/h)

Renovation project cost, licences and taxes are specific of the country selected and will be

introduced by the user.

The total investment cost, as known at the moment, is:

Inv = DG +AC+ AC x t + IC + IC x t + CC + CC x t

where ‘t’ is the relevant associated tax (introduced by the user).

B- Annual net saving

Annual net saving is the difference between net investment cost less annual net energy saving.

Net investment cost is the difference between investment costs less subsidies (introduced by the

user). Annual net energy saving is the difference between annual energy saving less annual

maintenance and operational costs.

Annual energy saving (EStotal) (kWh/year) for each of the final choices is obtained in Section 1.5.4.

Deliverable 2.3 53



To calculate the Payback Period, the net investment cost is divided by the annual net saving.

Payback period for an investment is the time (years) required for cumulative returns to equal

cumulative costs. Payback period measures the time required for total cash outflows to equal total

cash inflows, that is, the time required to break even.

The following table present the calculations to be performed to obtain the Return of Investment

(ROI) and the Payback Period (PB).

Table 11 Sample calculations to be performed to obtain Return of Investment and Payback Period

Cost structures and payback periods can be represented in graphical form, of which two samples

are shown. Final functions and graphs will be determined in D2.7.

Figure 11 presents an example of the product cost, the transport cost and the installation cost for

four combination of technologies. The purpose of the graph is to facilitate the user to choose

according to the economic investment criteria that is more favourable to the retrofit project.

n = Year 0 1 2 n … SL

qn = discount factor 1 1/(1+d)^1

1/(1+d)^2

1/(1+d)^n

IRn = inflation factor 1 (1+i)^1

(1+i)^2

(1+i)^n

ERn = Energy price rate 1

(-0,0008 x 1^2) +

(0,0311 x 1) + 0,9956

(-0,0008 x 2^2) +

(0,0311 x 2) + 0,9956

(-0,0008 x n^2) +

(0,0311 x n) + 0,9956

MCn = Maintenance

Cost MC + t3 (MC + t3) x IR1 (MC + t3) x IR2 (MC + t3) x IRn

OCn = Operation Cost OC OC x IR1 OC x IR2 OC x IRn

ES total= Energy saving kWh kWh kWh kWh

Enegy saving Cost kWh x €/kWh kWh x €/kWh x ER1 kWh x €/kWh x ER2 kWh x €/kWh x ERn

Cn = Cashflow - Inv Es1 - MC1 - OC1 Es2 - MC2 - OC2 Esn - MCn - Ocn

NetCn = Net Cashflow C0 x q0 C1 x q1 C2x q2 Cn x qn

NPVn = Net Present

Value NetC0 NPV0 + NetC1 NPV1 + NetC2 NPVn-1 + NetCn

ROI n NPV0/Inv x 100 NPV1/Inv x 100 NPV2/Inv x 100 NPVn/Inv x 100

input data

calculation

PB= Payback Period If NPV > 0, n = PB

where

Cn:

q:

d:

i: is the inflation/deflation; sustained increase/decrease in the general price level

n:

SL: is the period of analysis, the Service Life.

Inv: is the initial investment cost = DG +AC+ AC x t + IC + IC x t + CC + CC x t

t: taxes (%)

is the number of years between the base date and the project service life;

is the cost in year n;

P ERIO D

is the discount factor;

is the discount rate; rate reflecting the time value of money that is used to convert cash flows occurring at different times to a common time

�� 1 � ��

��

�� . X 100

Deliverable 2.3 54



Figure 11 Sample graph for investment cost structure: products, transportation and installation for different

options

Figure 12 presents an example of the cumulative cash flow at year end of two technology

combinations of a renovation project. The purpose of the figure is to easily compare differences of

payback period for the selected combinations.


project and payback event

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Combination

1

Combination

2

Combination

3

Combination

4

Transport

Products

Installation

Deliverable 2.3 55



1.5.6 Retrofit alternatives

BRESAER is an innovative, effective project solutions for retrofitting which aim is giving the best

possible solution within each different condition and situation. Nevertheless its flexibility gives the

designer the opportunity to choose the best solution within different prioritization criteria. The

designer shall decide which one is important from the variety of criteria, such as design,

aesthetics, owners’ interests and other factors.

The next diagram shows how the decision-making process can be achieved in different ways by

following different criteria:

The prioritization criteria OTHER shows the possibility of different decision making under different

circumstances decided by the prioritization criteria chosen by the designer. Sometimes the

BRESAER solutions are not the best for a very particular situation due to exceptional design

conditions, normative or other conditions. These different situations, when found, correspond to

the limitations of BRESAER and where it is not able to be applied. In these supposed cases in which

BRESAER cannot be applied in one part of the façade, another retrofitting alternatives can be

analysed in order to check if it is compatible with BRESAER solutions under the criteria and

responsibility of the designer.

The benefits of this flexibility of criteria and alternatives are among others:

• Contributing to the different design methodologies of each designer and owner

• Adapt the system to each country, constructive system or other considerations

• When BRESAER is limited different retrofitting alternatives or commercial

products can be analysed by the point of view of compatibility with the rest of

BRESAER solutions.

• Adapt the system to difficult regulations

• Maintenance with specialised technicians.

Deliverable 2.3 56



1.6 Points for further guide development

This deliverable sets the foundations for a design methodology of the BRESAER system expressed

as a design guide and a design tool that incorporate design, energy and economic principles to

choose an alternative for each case. However, due to the timing of T2.3, many sub-aspects of the

methodology have been expressed as conceptual descriptions. Some characteristics will require

verification after new information is gained in other WPs. This new information will enable a more

accurate development of the guide for D2.7 and includes the following characteristics:

General guide features:

• Improving question formulation in order for designers to provide answers that can lead

them more easily to the desired set of solutions. These questions can only be re-written

when modular prototypes have been evaluated.

• Adding questions to better identify constructive limitations in the project, economic

requirements and specific priorities from the designer.

• Improving relationship of the design guide with the design tool.

Design aspects:

• Structural calculations are in progress to estimate final resistance.

• Finalization of the system prototype will provide more insights into element design,

assembly methods and element interaction.

• Other scheduled tests for technical performance and standards’ compliance will also add

into the list of possible limitations for system application.

Energy aspects:

• Verification of energy simulations with performance on the real demonstration building in

Turkey and the proposed virtual demonstration sites, in order to improve savings’

predictions.

• Incorporation of relevant information that can come from the estimation of BRESAER

system impact potential according to the geo-cluster tool.

• Verification of the implemented BEMS towards its influence on energy consumption.

Economic aspects:

• Refinement of general hypothesis and formulas for cost-analysis, ROI, environmental

impacts and life-cycle analysis.

• Final definition of marketing and exploitation model for mass-production.

• Information collection for cost structure concerning base materials, salaries and taxes in

the main sites that will be studied.

Data collected for these and any other relevant points will be incorporated in D2.7, where a critical

review of information will be done and changes made as appropriate.

Deliverable 2.3 57



2 Definition of the design tool concept

This part of the deliverable defines the objectives and direction intended for the proposed design

tool and its applicability within the design process. The programmatic flow and main features are

presented.

2.1 Tool scope

As it has been seen in Part 1 of this Deliverable, the design process of retrofitting an existing

building in an adequate, energy-saving way, presents many complexities to the design teams

handling that assignment. They might also operate under a tight schedule, surrounded by a given

degree of uncertainty about the “right” design direction to take. Therefore, it is essential to

provide them with instruments that can facilitate application of the BRESAER system.

The main objectives of the design tool include:

a) Guarantee correct application of the BRESAER system in order to maximize its energy-

saving potential for the required situation, therefore helping to achieve overall project

objectives.

b) Facilitate system application by using information that designers have at the moment of

deciding to use BRESAER and translating it into answers that are helpful to them.

c) Provide a means of communication between the design team and the BRESAER

exploitation team, in order to link them and advance larger-scale implementation of the

retrofit system.

d) Promote the BRESAER project results and products to a larger audience.

For a more effective tool development, it is also important to identify the intended target users.

The first and most obvious audience consists of architects and engineers who have considered or

are considering to use BRESAER in their retrofit project. For them, technical data is available as

input and the desired output needs to be technical as well, helping them take informed decisions

about the constructive activity and continue the design process.

Another target group for which the tool might be interesting consists of users not related directly

to the constructive action, but which are stakeholders with some responsibility on taking decisions

about carrying on retrofits in existing buildings. This group includes a variety of potential users

such as regional or urban planners, building owners, facility managers, and also organized end-

users such as housing associations or professional unions. Their overall interest from a tool is on

finding the feasibility of the retrofit measured by the amount of energy savings compared to the

financial significance of the investment.

Given the elements described in the previous paragraphs, proposing a tool to aid design with the

BRESAER system has a more advantages if it is used during the early stages of the design process

or previous to it. Using it as an early stage tool will be supplemented with the geo-cluster map

Deliverable 2.3 58



evaluation of T2.5, while in T4.4 an additional tool will be developed to support system installation

and input.

It must also be noted that developing a tool for both groups (designers and other stakeholders)

would need specific features directed to each of them. For example, for architects and designers

explanations need to be technical and can show raw calculation figures, while for non-

construction professionals numbers might need to be interpreted graphically for easier

comprehension.

For the purposes of this deliverable, tool development will focus on construction professionals, as

it requires a more complete interface and communication with external programs. Further on it

will be explored how the tool can be adapted for use by other stakeholders.

2.2 Applicability of the design tool

2.2.1 Usage within the design process

In order to understand the importance of the tool for the design process, a brief presentation will

be made of the steps followed by architects during a construction project from conception to

implementation.

Although many theories exist about the design process, this deliverable will take as reference a

slight adaptation of the steps mentioned by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) on its

2013 version of the process [4], which is shown in Figure 13. According to the association, the

process is generally linear. Following their nomenclature, feedback and loops that determine

success of the entire design are generally found in the first stages (0 to 2, shown in orange in the

Figure). Nevertheless, target deadlines impose a limited exploratory phase. Intermediate phases (3

and 4, shown in yellow) are dedicated to the analysis of ideas and their preparation as

constructive documents. In subsequent stages (5 to 6, shown in light blue) it is very hard,

expensive and mostly impossible to make any drastic changes. The figure shows the range of

action where the tool of this deliverable will be used.

Figure 13 Tool range of action contrasted with stages of the RIBA construction process (2013 version)

Deliverable 2.3 59



As shown in Figure 14, the design tool of this deliverable will take input from the early design

stages (0 to 2), but providing an output that can help to advance into later stages (3 and 4).

Figure 14 Stages in the design process from which tool input is taken and tool output is given

It must be noted that in the first design stages energy performance of any project is defined by

early stage decisions [5]; therefore assistance must be given to designers during that phase in

order to reach the most adequate technology combinations.

2.2.2 Brief tool background

It must be noted that current design tools used by consultants and for document production have

as main objective their use during the middle stages of the design process (steps 3 to 4), since they

operate on exact data. But few tools are available or adapted for the early design stages (steps 0

to 2), since in that phase data is still undefined or in the process of being collected. Design teams

are also searching for adequate strategies according to the requirements of each project and

available budget constraints. At the same time, decisions that determine the success or failure of a

project are taken.

Complex decision-making tasks are currently supported by “expert systems”. They are mostly used

nowadays in providing diagnostic for highly repetitive tasks using a previously defined set of rules.

Users have to answer a series of questions about the initial condition of the problem, and the

program returns a diagnostic. The diagnostic can comprise a list of recommendations for action or

the type and number of parts that have to be used to assemble a given product. Most of the rules

are based on conditional statements, and when shortlisting is made, a database of available

choices is consulted using the statements deduced from querying the user.

There have been propositions for expert systems to be used in the architectural design process

(including retrofits), but in practice architects have mostly avoided them. One of the main reasons

is their failure to follow the early design process logic, which at that moment consists mainly of an

iterative exploration of ideas.

Deliverable 2.3 60



Other drawbacks by current design tools and many expert systems include the evaluation of a

single finished alternative at a time. Although this is due in part to long data input and processing

times in some instances, this prevents comparison and assessment of different design directions.

At the same time, output given by most tools need the evaluation of an expert, who needs to

check for its validity. This increases time and cost, while restricting the way decisions are made by

designers from a set of results.

The design tool presented in this deliverable will use an expert system approach for the

application of the BRESAER system to a retrofit project. Using experience from other expert

systems proposed for new buildings [6], it will incorporate an inference mechanism that takes into

account the design process logic and the type of data available. In this way, exact quantitative

variables can be determined from qualitative information.

Experience gained through the project duration will be incorporated in the problem-solving

process. Therefore, it is subject to changes. The main foundations of the process will be presented

in this deliverable.

2.2.3 Tool distribution

A fundamental consideration to be made at the start of the tool production is the way that users

will access it. This defines the programmatic language to be chosen, as well as and distribution

options. The results of the choices also have to be weighted with the resources available during

project duration.

Currently, two main methods are available for software distribution. The most traditional one is

desktop access, in which the program is installed (“resides”) on the user’s computer. All

operations are carried out there as an almost closed loop. Any output files are produced directly

by the program and written on the user’s computer hard disk. Responsibility for updating any

features or databases falls on the user. The program is distributed either as a file that is written on

a CD, USB stick or as a file that is downloaded from the Internet.

The second method is setting an application on a website. This method has gathered more

attention in recent years, due to more widespread access to the Internet either through improved

speeds or a wider number of devices such as mobile phones and tablets. The user accesses the

web interface only, and the application (which resides on a remote server) performs the query and

returns data as requested. Optionally, output files can be downloaded from the remote server.

Responsibility for updating the application or its database falls on the programmer.

Each method has a series of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of user

experience, programming, security, code maintenance, supported formats, distribution, etc. A

series of these points are enumerated in Table 12. The list is not exhaustive and does not assign

weight to each feature. The table also shows a series of facts that need to be considered when

taking a given direction for software distribution.

Deliverable 2.3 61



Table 12 Advantages and disadvantages of desktop and website tool distribution

Method Desktop Website

Aspect Advantage Disadvantage Advantage Disadvantage

User

experience

Exists in the user’s

computer

Restricted access Exists on the world

wide web (wider

access)

Application is useless

if internet access is

broken or not

possible

Programmers have

more control over

application look and

experience

The look can have

variations depending

on the operative

system

The look and

experience tends to be

more uniform,

independent of

platform

Browser

dependence.

Programmers have to

adapt to limitations

posed by different

browsers (e.g., flash

player not admitted

on some of them)

Processing speed is

potentially the same of

the computer’s

processor

Speed can have large

variations due to

factors beyond the

programmers’ reach

(e.g. processor type,

RAM/HDD, number

of apps open, etc.)

Good internet

connection provides

almost same speed as

if the program has

been installed

Slow connection can

seriously detract the

experience

Coding Coding for desktop can

provide fine-tuned use

of computer resources

Need to keep up with

the latest

developments in

coding languages

Web languages are

relatively more stable

Coding might not

take advantage of

computing resources

Code

maintenance

In order to keep it

competitive, need to

provide regular

updates to code and

database when new

developments are

achieved.

Code is easier to

maintain, and as a

single file, all users will

experience the same

version

Regular code

maintenance still

needs to be done

Need to notify users

of any updates to

code or database

Database approach is

easier to update and

maintain: one copy is

changed and uploaded

Webserver required

(one dedicated

machine for it)

Website hosting

issues, need to find

reliable service

provider in order to

provide working code

(no relying on free

site providers)

Security Compiled code can be

kept hidden from users

and the original code

can be kept

confidential

Some risk of reverse

engineering

Several lines of code

can be exposed easily

on browsers, but

measures exist to hide

sensitive or proprietary

scripts

Potential loss of

control over code

secrecy or of the

website (hacking)

Need to provide Responsibility on Still need to provide

Deliverable 2.3 62



updates on short

notice if serious

programming

security issues are

discovered by

operative system

producer

browser security falls

on third parties

(browser producer,

user)

update to web

application code if

the security flaw

resides in it

Not all users might

decide to update,

leaving exposed

copies at risk

Input/output Input and output can

be files in the user’s

computer

Verification

measures needed,

storage can be an

issue on older

systems

Input can be files

uploaded from the

user computer and

results downloaded, no

need to store

Delays in the

upload/download

process

Supported

formats

More formats are

supported for direct

processing (e.g.

potential BIM

exchange)

Specialized formats

change over time and

can be left

unsupported by

third-parties

Less variety in file

formats provides safer

distribution strategies

Restricted variety of

native formats, might

need to process with

another program.

Less support for

third-party exchange

formats

User support Self-contained help

system is possible,

users can access it

themselves

Help is static Forums can be created Maintenance and

moderation of

forums required (i.e.

manpower)

Support can be

immediate (e.g. via

email or chat)

Support helpdesk

needs to be

maintained by

human operator

Distribution Can be distributed on

different media (USB,

Web, CD…)

Human operator

needed to maintain

these copies. If over

the web, there is

need to maintain a

file repository

Adaptability to

different hardware

such as desktop

computers and

portable devices

Programming has to

make sure all

functions can be

carried out on all

devices

Compilation and

installer necessary

(significant monetary

cost)

Licensing Licensing is possible

(potential revenue

generator)

Mechanisms are

needed to administer

the licensing

procedures

Free access is

preferred (revenue is

obtained through

other ways)

Web-based licensing

possible only if the

application becomes

quite famous in the

sector (e.g. portions

of Adobe Creative

Cloud)

Deliverable 2.3 63



Given the overall dissemination objectives of the Horizon 2020 program, a wider distribution

channel has to be favoured in order to maximize the impact of research output. This leads to

preference of developing a web-based application. In this way, knowledge can be transmitted

faster and in a more updated way to a broader audience of end-users.

Due to budget availability in the project, it must be noted that during project lifetime the

application will be hosted ad hoc for testing purposes in servers under control of TEI. A more

detailed implementation plan will be brought by the end of the project to consider hosting and

maintenance, based on remaining financial resources and examination of any interest that the

tool might have generated.

2.3 Functions to be accomplished by the tool

2.3.1 Main characteristics

This section discusses the major features that the tool must have for successful application. They

are analysed under the perspective of the main software design areas found in almost any

computer or web-based application: input, processing and output. In addition, a number of

programmatic aspects are noted, due to their relevance to overcome any potential disadvantages

of website distribution that were mentioned in Section 2.2.3.

2.3.1.1 Input functions

It is important for the tool to work with concepts that are relevant to early design stages, which

can be translated to numerical variables. Any exact data required has to be known from simplified

sources, such as façade areas to be retrofit.

Similarly, real world data has to be entered in a user-friendly way, using resources provided by

modern computing and a study of the graphical user interface (GUI). It must also have the ability

to read files in common formats (such as pure text files), even though this possibility will be

explored in full for D2.7 as more design technological aspects are developed in other WPs.

2.3.1.2 Processing functions

The design tool of this deliverable has to provide interactivity to the design guide, providing in

algorithm form the economic, energy and structural criteria that will lead to technology selection

according to each case, synthesizing input given by users.

It is expected that the algorithms will consult to a database of previously calculated solutions, in

order to accelerate the return of suggested solutions. Coupling the web-based tool with other

stand-alone software that has been made for desktop use has specific technical requirements that

Deliverable 2.3 64



might not be met by all potential tool users, such as access to broadband speeds in order to have

calculated results in reasonable time. Stand-alone tools, depending on model complexity, also

have prolonged calculation times. Therefore, the database approach will be preferred.

The starting point for the tool database consists of energy consumption information that has been

calculated in D2.2 using leading energy simulation software, thus ensuring its accuracy. The

database will be complemented later on with economic calculation data to be done in T2.4 and

work on envelope components from WP3.

2.3.1.3 Output functions

In order to be usable for continuation of the project workflow, the tool has to provide information

that can help take decisions. It has to explain the logic behind the selection as well, since the

process has a defined methodology. Suitable display and comparison methods are to be taken into

account, as well as the ability to consult this information offline or for sharing with other

stakeholders involved in the process.

The ability to provide downloadable output files needs to be considered. This involves an online

repository of them, to be made available as information is given to the user. The actual files need

to be determined and produced, but as work continues to be in progress, it is expected that these

will be available for D2.7. However, programmatic requirements for file request and download will

be considered in this deliverable.

2.3.1.4 Programming functions

Parallel to the main functions to be provided by the tool, it is also needed to consider some

additional features. They have to be directed to increase achieving the stated goals of the tool

becoming a promotion instrument for BRESAER, and to serve as a communication channel

between users and the exploitation team.

Clear programming procedures have to be established in order to facilitate software maintenance

and updating. Conversely, tool users have to be notified of any important updates to the software

and the database. This has the aim of keeping interest in the tool and also to demonstrate it is

competitive and updated. In order to achieve this, relevant contact details are to be collected but

reasonable steps will be taken to ensure the security and privacy of this information.

As mentioned, the database is one of the central points that needs to have a dynamic growth with

implementation of the project. A suitable structure will be given for maintenance, updating and

addition of new elements.

Communication channels such as enabling the possibility to email a short message to the

exploitation team have to be considered as well. This also involves opening an email account to

receive such messages. One possibility involving no cost is that of using a web-based service such

as Google mail or similar. Even though, there should be a designated administrator for receiving,

classifying and answering messages.

Deliverable 2.3 65



The three main function areas and some partial evaluation criteria are given in Table 13, which

describes functions identified at the moment of presenting this deliverable.

Table 13 Main characteristics to be accomplished by the tool

Function Sample evaluation criteria

Input functions

Format exchange Ability to read files in other formats (for D2.7)

Work with concepts of early design stage

Abstraction of real world data GUI design

User friendliness

Processing functions

Database analysis Selection of suitable cases

Energy analysis Algorithm for energy estimates

Economic analysis Algorithm for economic estimates

Synthesis capability Pre-production of recommended range of

solutions

Output functions

Provide criteria for decision-making Indications of technological combinations

Potential energy saving percentages

Estimate of ROI, budget

Provide continuation of analysis Output files in formats for use by other

programs (e.g. csv) (For D2.7)

Programmatic functions

Software maintenance Upgrades, notification of updates

Updates notification

Database maintenance Update on costs, energy usage, technologies

High dissemination Ease of access

Communication between user and exploitation

team

Email

2.3.2 Program flow and selection according to design guide

The design tool follows the logic of the design guide, and is closely related to it. The

correspondence between these two elements is shown on Figure 15, where both guide and tool

are examined from a three-point perspective: input, processing and output.

Deliverable 2.3 66



Figure 15 Relationship between Design Guide and Design Tool

On the first stage, users consult the initial project information required by the guide and apply the

steps. For the design tool, they enter a series of initial data in order to continue to the next step.

For the processing stage, the same method is used in both cases: in the design guide users must

follow the described steps. For the design tool, the query system based on the selection method

for innovative BRESAER elements guides the user in an interactive form.

In order to receive output, users of the design guide need to search for the alternatives that the

steps have indicated, while design tool users are offered the description of solutions in a format

they can use electronically for continuation of the design process.

As mentioned in the previous sections, the decision to develop a web-based tool is based on the

most adequate channel to maximize research impact. The intended aims for interactivity and

dynamic alternative selection make the tool not only a collection of web pages, but requires

logical operations and database consultation. The general overview of how the tool should work is

given on Figure 16.

Deliverable 2.3 67



Figure 16 General overview of the software design tool – web and server application

The figure shows that as an interactive program, the tool is divided into two main areas: the web-

based application which is what users will see on their computer/smartphone/tablet screens, and

the server-side application that resides on a computer connected to the internet and has the

actual program.

The web-based application is dedicated to collect information from the user as input and send it to

the server for interpretation. It also receives the results given by the server application and

prepares it for presentation according to a pre-defined layout.

The server-side application receives and interprets the data given as input, and applies the design

guide steps. This is done by application of different algorithms and database consultation. The

server-side application returns a series of alternatives that correspond to what the user provided

as input, and are sent back to the web-based application for result presentation.

As such, it is expected that there will be three main databases: user project database (for

convenience of users to save work and return later to it, as well as to enable communication and

statistics collection); the combined databases for energy, structural and financial aspects; and a

file repository where standard computer files with representations of the innovative elements or

their characteristics will be stored. It can also serve to store any files that can serve as templates

for result output. As a way to help advance programming, elements that are missing at the time of

this deliverable such as a concrete numeric data for financial calculations, will be substituted with

“filler” data which can later be replaced with the real one.

Deliverable 2.3 68



2.3.2.1 Program flow

As part of the planning procedures for the design tool, a program flow was created and is shown in

Figure 17. The diagram is divided into the main programmatic areas (input, processing, and

output) and allows to estimate the procedures, screens and database operations that need to be

done, and the moment when they should be performed within the general process. A description

follows of the overall process:

At the beginning of the program flow, it is expected that a link will be present to access the design

tool from the project website (www.BRESAER.eu). This link will lead to a welcome screen with

brief explanations about the tool purposes. It would also allow users to either sign up or login,

using data of their choice (username and password) and an email address for future

communications and to enable users retrieve their password if this is lost or forgotten.

After filling in this information, users would then find a list of their projects (if they have already

completed them) or be able to create a new one. The same screen would allow them to edit

existing data from existing projects. New users would have to create a new project from scratch.

In case of creating a new project, the user would have to fill in identifying data (such as project

name) and provide basic data on the project such as location, order of priorities and initial

financial information. This would start the query system in which a series of questions would

translate the early stage answers to variables that allow identification with specific elements in the

solution databases.

The query system is intended to obtain information as detailed as possible. This includes but is not

limited to data for the roof and each façade being retrofit, general context of the building, and

general information for each floor that will be conditioned using BRESAER.

The server-side application would then search and return the series of elements from the solution

databases. Results of the query (output) would be presented in web pages allowing the possibility

to repeat the process if desired, or to download the necessary files that will enable continuation of

the design process.

It is envisioned that all pages will contain links to return to the main website or to send emails for

a potential support team.

Deliverable 2.3 69



Figure 17 Design tool program flow diagram

Deliverable 2.3 70



2.3.3 Interface and introduction of real world constraints

The web-based interface of the BRESAER design tool becomes the place where designers can

introduce real world constraints to the query system. As such, it is closely related to developments

in the design guide, by interactively asking for information related to the system according to each

situation.

This section presents a series of images showing the design of the programmatic dummy for the

tool interface. They were created using Powerpoint software, since at this stage and for this task it

was of interest to quickly develop the procedures for input acquisition and output presentation.

The draft interface is shown from Figure 18 to Figure 27. The overall design keeps the visual

identity defined for the project. The programmatic dummy will then be developed using suitable

website design software and programming language. The final product will contain improved

graphics and interactive information exchange methods, as allowed by the programming

language. Therefore, stylistic variations will be found between these figures and the finished

products. The name “BRES-DES” is being used in the illustrations as a code name. Final designation

will be studied further.

The following figure presents the welcome and sign-up screen, which is the first screen that tool

users would encounter after clicking on the appropriate link from the general BRESAER website. A

brief presentation is given on this screen about the tool purpose.

Figure 18 Draft screen: Welcome and login screen

Deliverable 2.3 71



After filling in the relevant information and implying acceptance of the terms and conditions, the

user would press the “Login” button. Two options are available for the next screen, shown in the

following figure: For a new user, the screen would be mostly blank and will invite the designer to

create a new project. For an existing user, a list of projects previously completed by the designer

would be shown, with hyperlinks to their data. Additionally, there will also be a button to create a

new project. In the figure, **user** is being placed as a representation of the string that contains

the username entered by the person login into the website.

Figure 19 Draft screen: Screen for creating new projects or edit existing ones

In both cases, users would encounter the following screens that initiate the query. The first query

screen will consist of basic data. Existing project data would pre-populate these fields while

starting a new project would show them blank. The first screen of the query would ask for general

information about the project such as its name. Other basic information that has multiple uses will

be entered as well, such as location (for determining climatic zones and cost structures),

construction year, project priorities and information for use in the payback calculations. Precise

question formulation will be subject to different tests in order to obtain information accurately,

and to the developments of different WPs.

Deliverable 2.3 72



Figure 20 Draft screen: General information query screen

After filling in the information and pressing the button “Continue”, a new series of query screens

will be presented, as shown in the following figures. They are envisioned to be organized for

clarity as “tabs” such that the user will find it easier to navigate between them. The organization

of these tabs includes entering data representing general features for the whole building and for

each orientation (such as dimensions, context, if the façade will be intervened or not, etc).

The other tabs follow the main floor divisions that were found in the energy analysis of D2.2: Top

floor, floor below top, and typical middle floors (including ground floor). In each of them

individualized information for each floor type will be entered (e.g. floor area to be conditioned,

specific façade area, etc). At the moment manual input of numeric data is being used, but as the

project will progress and other tools will be developed (such as the one planned for T4.4), coupling

data acquisition with other formats will be explored.

Deliverable 2.3 73



Figure 21 Draft screen: Information query screen for general features

Figure 22 Draft screen: Information query screen for top floor

Deliverable 2.3 74



Figure 23 Draft screen: Information query screen for floor below top

Figure 24 Draft screen: Information query screen for typical middle floor(s)

Deliverable 2.3 75



2.3.4 Output

After the query system has collected information from the user concerning the project, the user is

invited to press the button “Analyze” in order to send data to the server application. The process

on the server side will then use this data for alternative selection, and to assemble its respective

information. The resulting output will allow to continue with the design process and take concrete

decisions about application of BRESAER to the specific project. In the figures, “Project name A”

and “City” represent text strings containing the specific project name and city where the retrofit

project is located.

The aim of the output display screens, as shown in the following figures, is to show the suitable

technology combinations with their energy and economic data. It is organized by the floor types

identified in the input screens. The display should be as clear as possible, and users should also be

able to navigate through it easily. For this purpose, the tab theme is continued here as well,

adding another navigational device named “accordion”. This will enable presenting relevant data

for users to read and compare. Users can click sections most relevant to them or scroll through all.

Another feature contemplated in the design tool is the possibility to download a copy of the

displayed data and support files, for example for use in BIM or CAD programs. WP3 and WP4 are

under development, therefore any version of the tool offered at the moment will only have

sample files until the final ones are composed. Files for download will reside in a repository where

the server side application is stored.

Figure 25 Draft screen: Tab output display top floor and roof

Deliverable 2.3 76



Figure 26 Draft screen: Tab output display for floor below top

Figure 27 Draft screen: Tab output display for typical middle floor(s)

Deliverable 2.3 77



2.4 Points for further tool development

The design tool for the BRESAER project should not be considered a final, closed product. On the

contrary, tool development is intended to reflect the dynamic nature of research and as such it

will evolve according to the pace of other WPs.

However, a number of points remain for further development during the course of the project.

They will be addressed fully in D2.7 as more information becomes available:

a) Enhancements to the user interface concerning input acquisition, and the possibility to use

external files to facilitate input. This work will be closely related to the eventual

development of the basic tool in T4.4 and the type of questions being made for the design

guide.

b) Improvements to the user interface concerning output and file downloading. Exploration

will be made on different methods for easier data display.

c) Improvements on the selection algorithm as needed, and according to the developments

of the project. These will reflect developments on cost, life cycle and return of investment

calculations; as well as developments concerning modular systems and their structural

interaction with the façade.

d) Incorporation of an expanded database to the server side application that contains the

energy simulations and economic calculations.

e) Completion of actual data files for download and usage in further design stages, reflecting

the solutions that the design team was looking for.

f) Feedback on the general tool process using experiences from WP6.

g) Overall improvements to graphics.

Deliverable 2.3 78



3 Conclusions

This document has presented the foundation for the design methodology that will be used when

designers consider using the BRESAER system. The main steps of the strategies for selecting the

most convenient solutions for each case have been summarized as a draft guide. The design

methodology is also in the process of being automated as a web-based design tool.

Design and energy principles for the strategies to choose an alternative for each case are based on

information presented in D2.2. A filtering approach to narrow the ample array of technological

combinations is used. Strategies to reach the desired combinations are formulated by using base

information following the most common processes encountered by designers applying BRESAER.

The processes include: delineating system applicability, determining the number of options

available according to functional requirements (degrees of freedom), and establishing the

proportionality of energy savings and costs that can be achieved based on previous energy and

economic calculations. The final order of the alternative-filtering process will depend on variables

that cannot be quantified but which are expressed as priorities: energy or economic.

Information on economic and payback principles is presented in a conceptual manner for this

deliverable, as a more detailed study on the subject will be performed in T2.4 (which starts after

the presentation of D2.3). Nevertheless, important decisions on this aspect have been made

during the course of this deliverable that will provide the basis for research efforts in T2.4.

All the three main aspects of the methodology (design, energy and economic) will be studied

further during the course of the project. A critical review will be made for D2.7, in which new

project information will be incorporated to improve the design guide and design tool.

The distribution format for the design guide and design tool are aligned with the overall

dissemination requirements of the Horizon 20202 program. For the design guide, a pdf format has

been chosen as it allows easier distribution of the document and can be hosted in the project

website. A design guide draft will be added to the annex of this document in order to give an

example of how the document should be distributed and to show. For the design tool, a web-

based application is envisioned and the main sections of the interface have been created for the

programmatic dummy. The design tool will be used as a marketing tool for the project, increasing

its visibility by allowing users to obtain specific data on the benefits brought by BRESAER to their

retrofit projects.

Deliverable 2.3 79



4 References

[1] Adobe Systems Software. http://www.adobe.com (Accessed March 2016).

[2] Milne, M. Climate Consultant software http://www.energy-design-

tools.aud.ucla.edu/climate-consultant/ (Accessed March 2016).

[3] Building Performance Institute Europe. BPIE Data Hub website

http://www.buildingsdata.eu/ (Accessed March 2016).

[4] Royal Institute of British Architects, RIBA Plan of Work 2013. Available at

http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/ (Accessed March 2016).

[5] Mendez-Echeganucia T, Capozzoli A, Cascone Y, Sassone M (2015) The early design stage of a

building envelope: Multi-objective search through heating, cooling and lighting energy

performance analysis. Applied Energy 154: 577-591.

[6] Ochoa CE, Capeluto IG (2009) Advice tool for early design stages of intelligent facades based

on energy and visual comfort approach. Energy and Buildings 41: 480-488.

Deliverable 2.3 80



5 Annex –Design Guide DRAFT

[Digitare il testo] [Digitare il testo]

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement N° 637186.

Design Guide (PDF) Date of document – 04/2016 (M15)

D2.3: Design Guide and Computer tool / Definition of the design guide and design tool concept, Annex WP 2, T 2.3 Authors: Carlos Ochoa (TEI); Guedi Capeluto (TEI); Isabel Lacave (ACC); Alejandro Martin Barreiro (ACC); Ines Apraiz (TEC); Roberto Garay (TEC)

BREakthrough Solutions for Adaptable Envelopes in building Refurbishment

EeB-02-2014 RIA

Design Guide - DRAFT 2



Table of content

GUIDE OVERVIEW 3

GUIDE 4

DIAGNOSIS 5 2.1

RECOMPILATION OF INFORMATION 6 2.1.1

• GENERAL INFORMATION 6

• BUILDING INFORMATION 6

• CONTEXT 7

• STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS 7

• FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS 8

• NORMATIVE 8

• PRIORITIES 8

ANALYSING LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 9 2.1.2

IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 10 2.1.3

• STEP 0 11

• STEP 1 12

• STEP 2 12

• STEP 3 12

ENERGY ANALYSIS 17 2.1.4

• IDENTIFICATION OF THE CLIMATE ZONE 17

• USAGE AND ASSUMPTIONS 18

• ENERGY ESTIMATION AND SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY COMBINATION(S) 18

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 21 2.1.5

• INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS 21

• ANNUAL NET SAVING 23

RETROFITTING ALTERNATIVES 26 2.1.6

APENDIX – ENERGY DATA 27




Guide overview

This design guide is based on the conclusions and the guide methodology developed within the

BRESAER project and in the deliverable D.2.3. The information of this document is extracted from

deliverable D.2.2 and D.2.3, so the information of the methodology (tables, structure) will be

repeated and resume in order to make this guide as independent as possible. The aim is to give

the user a complete guide to comply the process without needing any other BRESAER document.

The design process is summarized in the synoptic guide of Figure 1. It represents the “typical”

series of steps that the designers should need to follow in order to filter the wide array of

combinations available in the BRESAER system.

The steps have been simplified as much as possible, ordering them by measureable priorities that

the design team has set beforehand. They have been identified as economic or energy

performance. Economic priorities would be used on many projects, while energy performance in

cases such as receiving tax or certification incentives when low energy consumption is achieved.

The third case, a “balanced” set of priorities, is not implemented on this deliverable, and is marked

in grey. Its methodology would require examining the experiences of the system close to research

completion, such as WP3 and WP6.

Figure 2 presents the relationship of the design guide within other tools that are proposed in the

BRESAER project. They have been marked in grey to distinguish them from the guide. In addition,

in both figures there is an indication of the products that can be found both in the design guide

and design tool proposed in this deliverable, and those that can only be found in the design tool.




Guide

Figure 1 Synoptic summary of the BRESAER design guide




Figure 2 Relationship of the design guide with other BRESAER project tools

Diagnosis 2.1

The steps of Diagnosis involves the preliminary information that has to be collected by the design

team concerning physical, legal and economic aspects that affect directly the construction project.

Based on the answers to the questions, the design team can select appropriate courses of action

in the constraint analysis and technological delimitation section. The aim of the section is to make

sure designers can focus on relevant elements in order to facilitate later technology selection.




Recompilation of information 2.1.1

• General information

1- Project name:

2- Project location: City and Country name

3- Future usage of the project: Chosen between Educational, Housing and Office.

*For mixed-use projects, the analysis has to be separate for each area/floor that has a

defined use.

4- Analyse BRESAER solutions: In this step, the proposed BRESAER technological solutions will

be studied in order to identify if all the solutions that are of the interest of the owner and

the designer, if not the solution can be delete from the design process. The solutions are:

a. Dynamic window with automated solar blinds (DW)

b. Multifunctional insulated panel (IP)

c. Solar thermal air component (SOL)

d. Lightweight ventilated façade module (VF)

And additionally according to each situation:



• Building Information

1- Geometry:

a. Building floors: Exclude basement levels without windows

b. Plan dimensions: Specify general plan length (L) and width (W) in meters. Complex

plan shapes such as U or L have to be divided into rectangular prisms.

c. Height dimensions: General height (H) and average height of each floor (h) in meters.

d. Façade dimensions: Based on the main orientations (North, South, East and West),

define the total façade areas in meters. Facades can be defined as having a certain

direction if their maximum tilt is 45 degrees relative to true North.

2- Building features: Please note any exceptional corners, entrances, terraces, etc or if the

overall plan is not rectangular or square (e.g. polygonal).




3- Identify and analyse building parameters to be solved: These parameters will be solved in

the restrictions decision process following the methodology.

- General façade sides depending on orientation

- Big wall areas that are more than 1,5 m2

- Small wall areas that are less than 1,5 m2

- Walls surfaces that are exposed to impacts (Cars, entries…)

- Glazed areas of the building

- Flat roofs that are less than 5 degrees

- Slopped roofs that are more than 5 degrees

- Wall to wall corners of the building

- Roof to wall corners of the building

- Access door

- Windows

- Canopy or other solar protection element

- Balcony

- Loggia or bay window

- Overhangs

- Decorative elements

- Flat roof perimeter wall

- Sloped roof overhang

- Rain water gutters

- Water, gas ducts & rain water downpipes & electrical, telecommunication cables

- Exhaust stacks

- Air conditioner units and other HVAC devices

• Context

1- Describe any significant buildings shading the project building. (Location, Dimensions,

Shade projected, Percentage of shade, Area affected per day hour…): Ask dwellers or

relevant people.

2- Note open areas and entrances to the buildings: This information is used to find place

around the building that can serve to store construction materials and to anticipate

problems from construction.

• Structural conditions

1- Construction year of the original building:

2- Refurbishments since construction (Years, Modifications): Mention those that have

affected external wall composition or insulation levels, and if possible the level reached.

3- Wall composition of the external facades (layers, cm)




4- Building materials and their condition:

a. Thickness of the external walls (cm, function): Try to identify load bearing walls.

b. Materials of the external facades: If known, list them from outside to inside.

c. Note degree of deterioration: That would require replacement.

d. Detect possible hidden structural damage: Specialized inspection might be required.

• Financial requirements

1- Project country: Also possibly country region, in case there are differentiated tax incentives

or labour costs.

2- Renovation project:

a. Renovation project cost: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros).

b. Licences: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros).

c. Taxes: % construction budget or fixed amount (euros).

d. Subsidies: (euros).

e. Total retrofitted surface façade area (m2):

f. Man hour cost (euros/h) (*):

g. Interest rate (%):

3- Energy prices of the selected country: electricity energy price (euro/kWh), gas energy price

(euro/kWh) (*)

(*) If no data is introduced by the user, guide average data for the EU 28 countries will be

used.

• Normative

1- Investigate local, regional and national regulations concerning:

a. Retrofit of buildings for the area required:

b. Fire, wind and earthquake resistance:

c. Maximum height allowed by normative:

d. Requirements to achieve energy label certification (if this is not mandatory):

• Priorities

1- Stablish the priorities in the project:




a. High energy performance: since there are incentives and energy label certification can

be achieved.

b. Lowest cost and high return of investment: It is desired, but still achieving an

acceptable energy level reduction.

c. Design: Criteria of high design performance, this criteria normally increase cost

estimations.

Analysing limitations and restrictions 2.1.2




characteristics.

After the recompilation of information there are enough data to decide if BRESAER is applicable or

not to the analysed project. The building characteristics that could limit the BRESAER system’s

implementation are:

a. Complex geometry: Need of installation multiple nonstandard components, the design

and implementation will be difficult and costly.

b. Large glazed areas: If the building does not comply with the wall-to-window ratio* the

implementations will not be possible. Glazed curtain walls are excluded.

c. Low solar radiation: If there is not sufficiently solar radiation some components could

not be use as the PV (permanently shaded by neighbours or obstructions).

d. National regulations: If it cannot be possible the implementation due to national

regulations some modifications could be needed or some solutions will be dismissed.

e. Good energy performing buildings: Buildings for example under Energy Performance of

Building Directive (EPBD), here the improvements will not be enough.

f. Historical buildings façades or protected ones: Normally historical buildings (pre-1950

or those featured in heritage listings) are under façade protection. It could be

implemented on the roof only, or on facades without any protection feature.

g. Uses that have not been analysed: Such as healthcare, big-box or mall retail, storage,






h. Structural problems: BRESAER can only be applied in buildings that are in good

structural conditions in the country of application. Also in each implementation should

be checked that the required loads do not exceed the loads considered in the design or

rehabilitation (The heaviest façade is Stam, 0.65kN/m²). In case of problems in the

building, these have to be repaired within the country normative before BRESAER

application. It is recommendable to make a qualitative analysis before

implementation.

i. Height of the building: BRESAER solutions are calculated for an extreme situation of a

high building of 30m in front of the sea (CTE-AE Spanish normative) considering a wind

load of 1,95 kN/m2. Building´s height restrictions will be define more from country

normative restrictions than from wind or height problems. (This height will be defined

in WP3).

j. Insufficient space between neighbouring buildings: The existing wall separation should

be more than the space determined by the thickness of insulation 3cm to 10cm.

*This data will be actualisable during the project.

Identification of functional requirements 2.1.3

2.1.3.1 Describing the design process to follow

Some steps have to be accomplished before starting the design process. These steps are described

to later identify the different interactions among buildings and the BRESAER system. These steps

include the complete geometrical analysis and definition of the building characteristics, but also

local regulations.


envelope component related to their architectural integration, and interaction with the existing

façade/roof characteristics.

Here is set an order or sequence of the building’s characteristics to be examined, beginning from

the most restrictive: those to be decided in the first place affect the rest of the system or those

where a specific technology must be used; and continuing to the most flexible: where several

technologies could be used.

The design guide is based on the process is defined by five stages that are closely related with the

set degrees of flexibility:

• Stage 0: Vertical structural profiles and partially horizontal structural profiles.







for that specific climate, orientation and building typology.



technology is selected and implemented for each situation.



as cost.

The next process will be followed in order to design the project from more restrictive patterns to

more flexible ones, the next figure describes the process:

2.1.3.2 Following the design steps

The following steps give the steps to calculate the different solutions and parameters within three

prioritization criteria: Economic, Energetic and Design. BRESAER is prioritized in energetic issues,

but in this guide also recommendations in Economic and Design criteria are contemplated. In this

case the user should decide which criteria should be followed in each case, as when restrictive

decisions appear.

• Step 0

1- General vertical structure: min 25cm – max 90cm

STAGE 0

Vertical structure

Restricted

Design

Flexible Design

Horizontal structure (part) Special interactions

STAGE 1 Interactions with grade 1 of flexibility

STAGE 2 Interactions with grade 2 or 2+ of flexibility

STAGE 3 Interactions with grade 3 or 3+ of flexibility

STAGE 4 Energy savings evaluation

Energy

savings

evaluation




2- Special iterations within (different solutions are identified):

a. Flat roof (SOL/IP): min -/50cm – max 100/330cm

b. Sloped roof (SOL): max 100cm

c. Flat Roof (SOL/VF): min -/30cm – max 100/180cm

d. Flat Roof (IP): min 50cm – max 330cm

3- Horizontal structure: Related to openings, when vertical structure is not continuous.

• Step 1

At this stage a so called “restricted design” is obtained. This partial design has no flexibility in

terms of technology selection and will be the common base for all the customization process.

a. Walls surfaces that are exposed to impacts (Cars, entrances…)

b. Access door

c. Glazed areas / windows of the building

d. Slopped roofs that are more than 5 degrees

e. Rain water gutters

f. Downpipes, cables

g. Air conditioner units and other HVAC devices

• Step 2

h. Overhangs

i. Small wall areas that are less than 1,5 m2

j. Flat roofs that are less than 5 degrees

k. Wall to wall corners of the building

l. Roof to wall corners of the building

m. Decorative elements

n. Flat roof perimeter wall

o. Sloped roof overhang

• Step 3


q. Balcony

r. Big wall areas that are more than 1,5 m2

s. Generic wall areas

In step 2 and 3 energy performance recommendations for that specific climate, orientation and

building typology are checked and a suitable technology is selected and implemented for each

situation. Horizontal structural profiles are defined and vertical profiles are reviewed.

A summarizing guide to this identification is found in Table 1, relating the next elements of the

design process. To fulfil the table the deliverable D2.3 will be needed in order to have all the

complete methodology available to undertake each decision.




Table 1 Pre-identification of degrees of freedom according to features found in the building

Elements to solve (by each

façade orientation)

Flexible

grade

ENERGETIC ECONOCMIC DESIGN OTHER

To choose between solutions: IP, VF, SOL, DW / +COAT, + PV

ST

AG

E 1

(g

rad

e1

)

a. Walls exposed to impacts 1

b. Access doors 1 (frame)

c. Glazed areas/window 1+ frame

d. Sloped roofs 1

e. Rain water gutters 1

f. Downpipes, cables 1

g. Air conditioning, HVAC 1

ST

AG

E 2

(g

rad

e2

,2+

)

h. Overhangs 2 + PV in

overhang

i. Small wall areas that are

less than 1,5 m2 2

j. Flat roofs that are less

than 5 degrees 2*

k. Wall to wall corners 2

l. Roof to wall corners 2

m. Decorative elements 2

n. Flat roof perimeter wall 2

o. Sloped roof overhang 2

ST

AG

E 3

(g

rad

e 3

, 3

+)


2 + DW + PV

above + floor

ext.insulation

q. Balcony 3 + floor ext.

ins. + no PV

r. Big wall areas > 1,5 m2 3

s. Generic wall areas* 3

*Generic wall areas will be decided almost with the climate zone – orientation methodology to

facilitate the energetic approach of the façade.

The information to compete this decision process is define by the next sequence of tables

extracted from the methodology process documents in which the user shall decide over the

different technologies with different criteria to fulfil the restriction design process (Table 1 Pre-

identification of degrees of freedom according to features found in the building)




Table 2 Suitable climate and orientation matches for individual BRESAER components

BREASER’s climatic zones

Multifunctional

insulation panel

Lightweight


Dynamic

window

HOT (D)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT YES + COAT


WEST + COAT YES + COAT

HOT

SUMMER/

COLD

WINTER (C)

NORTH YES YES YES

EAST + COAT + COAT + COAT


WEST + COAT + COAT YES + COAT

TEMPERATE

(B)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT + COAT YES


WEST + COAT + COAT YES

COLD (A)

NORTH YES YES

EAST + COAT YES


WEST + COAT YES




Table 3 Envelope location and interaction of BRESAER components

Envelope locations Multifunctional

insulation panel

Lightweight


Dynamic

window

Big wall areas > 1,5 m2 + PV +COAT + PV +COAT + PV

Small wall areas < 1,5 m2 + PV +COAT + PV

Walls exposed to impacts +COAT

Glazed areas +COAT

Flat roofs <5º + PV +COAT + PV*

Sloped roofs >5º + PV

Wall/wall corners + PV +COAT + PV

Roof/wall corners YES YES

Table 4 BRESAER integration strategy with visible existing services

Technical appliance BRESAER envelope components

Rain water gutters Horizontal rain gutters will be integrated in the overhang of slopped roofs. This

must guarantee the correct drainage and sealing of rain water.

Water, gas ducts &

rain water downpipes

& electrical,

telecommunication

cables

Specific cavities/risers will be located on the envelope to host vertical and

horizontal facilities ducts and cables. These cavities/risers will be cladded with

Solar Wall or Ventilated Façade envelope components. Gas ducts will be located

in independent risers and cladded with Solar Wall metallic sheets with

perforations big enough to guarantee good ventilation.

Exhaust stacks 2 options: maintain existing (left) & replace by new one to move location (right)

Air conditioner units

and other HVAC

devices

Special connectors will be developed to fix the existing Air conditioner units to

BRESAER’s load bearing structure. A special covering box will be used to

integrate these elements.




Table 5 BREASER integration strategy with visible architectural elements

Architectural

element BRESAER interaction/integration strategy

Access door

The building’s entrance door will be integrated by including a special frame that will

solve the interaction between the opening and BRESAER’s façade to seal the junction

between them, anchor the door to the façade and break the possible thermal bridge.

The door will be replaced or not depending on its architectural and energy

performance quality.

Window

The existing windows will be replaced by BRESAER’s Dynamic Window component,

which size will be adapted to the previous one. A special frame will solve the

junction between the existing wall opening and the new façade. This frame will

include the windowsill, header and jamb, glass framing and dynamic blinds’ box. The

blind’s box will be located above the window’s opening and cladded by Ventilated

Façade or Solar Wall components to guarantee the continuity of the envelope

overhang.

Canopy or

other solar

protection

element

All existing solar protection devices will be removed as the dynamic window’s blinds

will replace its shading function.

Balcony

The existing balconies will be refurbished in two different aspects: its floor will be

thermally insulated externally with existing market products to break the thermal

bridge through this element; the railing will be cladded for its architectural

renovation. These cladding components will be done by BRESAER’s envelope

components as Ventilated Façade or Solar Wall system + PV when possible, but

could be also finished with market products depending on the architects’ choice.

Loggia or bay

window

Existing loggias will be replaced by Dynamic Windows component and its glazing

system. It will include blinds depending on the energetic performance needs. Top

and bottom floors will be thermally insulated and cladded with BRESAER’s

components + PV if possible or by market products depending on the architect’s

choice.

Overhangs

The transition between two façade planes with different overhang will be solved

using the most flexible cladding components is sense of dimension and shape. These

are the Ventilated Façade and the Solar Wall. The last one will just be used as an

aesthetical cladding component, nota as an active component. Special attention will

be taken to the joints to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.

Decorative

elements

Non-regular or non-orthogonal surfaces will be covered by Solar Wall component. Its

metallic sheet cladding allows its adaptation to this kind of volumes. Special

attention will be taken to the joints to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.

Flat roof

perimeter wall

The top finishing of flat roof’s perimeter wall will be cladded with Solar Wall or

Ventilated Façade components because of its light weight and dimensions flexibility.

Special attention will be taken to the joints between wall and roof to prevent water

leakage or thermal bridges.

Sloped roof

overhang

Slopped roof overhangs will be cladded with Solar Wall components because of its

light weight. Drainage opening will be needed as rain will run below this envelope

component. Special attention will be taken to the joints between wall, roof and this

element to prevent water leakage or thermal bridges.




Energy analysis 2.1.4

After the restrictions decision making process an energy analysis will be done by using the energy

saving estimation methodology and simulation results from the project. The steps to follow for the

energy analysis are the following:

• Identification of the climate zone

1- Identify the climate zone: A, B, C, or D. Identity the project city in the climate division map.

The climate zone that corresponds to the location in the map.

Figure 3 Main climate divisions of Europe and Turkey for the BRESAER project

2- Based on the location, define the climate zone as:

a. Cold

b. Temperate

c. Hot summers and cold winters

d. Hot

e. High mountain zone (if the project is located in this zone, the analysis cannot

continue since it was not examined due to sparse population)




3- Variant to last point (2.Location): Use the heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree

days (CDD) division indicated in the same map to define your climate zone according to

those limits. (Use this method if the weather characteristics in the project city differ

significantly from the divisions on the map).

4- Identify guiding city: The initial energy analysis was limited to a certain representative

urban centres from each climate zone. The reference cities are the following:

a. Cold: Prague (Czech Republic)

b. Temperate: Paris (France)

c. Hot summers and cold winters: Bologna (Italy) and Ankara (Turkey)

d. Hot: Athens (Greece)

The city name indicates the results that need to be consulted. A more detailed study for

the particular project city will require performing energy simulations. This is recommended

for the next stage after choosing the alternatives.

• Usage and assumptions

1- The intended future usage of the project defines the sections of the results that need to be

consulted. Therefore, the structure of each result page is Reference city � Usage.

2- Assumptions needed to make the estimation:

a. The roof and external walls will have a continuous insulation layer that complies with

minimal regulatory values for each reference city. This value has to be verified with the

minimum value of the project city.

b. It is assumed that the constructive process of the retrofit project will address quality

control to ensure infiltration reduction if necessary. (Ventilation and infiltration values

D2.2 BRESAER project documents)

c. Façade areas that receive permanent shading from neighbouring buildings will be

covered with the multifunctional insulated panel only.

3- Available combinations: The list of combinations that are available from the point of view

of energy are shown in Table 7 – Combinations for energy analysis on the appendix which

can be used as symbol key to interpret the combinations shown in the graphs.

• Energy estimation and selection of technology combination(s)

1- Total floor areas to be conditioned with technologies (TFAa): It must be accounted for each

level.

conditioned conditioned

Conditioned


Conditioned

Not

Top floor

Notconditioned

Not

Conditioned


Example of division of served floor areas per floor per orientation in a prism-shaped floor

plan




2- Specific floors must be noted: Top floor (the one with roof), floor below the top floor, and

typical middle floor(s): Typical middle floors are assumed to be identical or close to

identical, otherwise they must be noted separately. For simplicity, ground floors may be

considered as middle floors.

3- Façade areas to be retrofit with technology combinations (SAa): It must be detailed for

each floor and orientation. If the roof is going to be used for technology placement it must

be kept as separate data.

4- Floor area percentages for each façade and orientation: It must be defined according to

the floor plan shape and total floor area to be served in the building under study (FAa). This

will vary if the floor plan shape is prism or square, and the number of external walls.

Complex shapes such as L or U-shaped plans should be broken down into smaller prisms or

squares.

FAa = TFa x % assigned per orientation

4- b. A similar division must be made for the roof areas for each orientation but added to the

façade areas to be covered according to relevant orientation of the top floor only.

5- Selection of technology combination: It must be selected from the results shown in D2.2,

from Figure 53 to Figure 88 (to be shown in the final deliverable as appendix) by selecting

the relevant representative city, usage, number of technologies and orientation. The top



Top floor


East/West

Not covered

Not covered

North/South

Covered

Covered

Not covered

Covered

W

N

E

S




floor and floor below top will receive the same combination, while middle floors can have

different combinations as allowed by the Section “Constraint analysis + technological

delimitation”. The energy saving percentage of the picked combinations (EScomb) must be

noted for each of the involved floors.

The suggestions how to choose from the list are the following:

a. Priority energy performance: If there is priority of energy analysis then choose lowest

energy use(s). Threshold percentage to choose between alternatives can vary

according to other project considerations.

b. Priority economic investment and return: If a list of combinations comes from priority

economic analysis, note their energy use(s) and choose the least energy using ones.

Threshold percentage to choose between alternatives can vary according to other

project considerations.

c. Pre-determined technology degrees of freedom: If there is restriction from technology

degrees ignore the other number of technologies and continue with a) or b).

6- Calculation of ratios: Ratio for retrofit surface area and serviced floor area, a, must be

calculated for the section under study for each orientation, as well as the ratio between

basic module surface area and basic module floor area, b. A second ratio (a/b) is

calculated as well. This means there will be one ratio for the module on the top level and

another for the middle levels.

building

building

Floor area

Surface area

module

module

Floor area

Surface area

EScomb = 59%

a = SAa/FAa b = Sab/FAb

Example of surface area ratios for top floor

Example choosing from the graph. Tables in the appendix




7- Calculate the energy saving of the section area (ESs): The ratio (a/b) calculated in the

previous step is multiplied by the energy saving provided by the technology combination

used for that floor (EScomb). This result is multiplied by the weighted floor area served by

the desired surface area in the case under study (FAa).

ESs = (a/b) x (EScomb) x (FAa)

8- The procedure is repeated for the orientations involved and that will receive retrofit.

Results can be added to obtain energy savings per each floor (ESf).

ESf = ESsn+ESse+ESss+ESsw

9- Calculate total energy saving of the building using the considered technology

combinations: The floor areas are weighted relative to the total building area (including

unconditioned areas), and multiplied in terms of percentage to the energy savings per floor

(ESf).

EStotal =(ESf1*Percentage area floor1)+(ESf2*Percentage area floor2)+….+(ESfn*Percentage area floorn)

Economic analysis 2.1.5

The aim of this section is to generalize cost analysis, by using the energy saving estimations that

were developed using the methodology and simulation results of BRESAER. Note: many of these

calculations will be refined for D2.7. It must also be noted that further analysis will provide the final

relationship between the formulas expressed in this section.

Data to be recover and taken into account for the conceptual economic analysis includes:

a. Country and city: The country should be within the EU-28 and Turkey.

b. Total energy saving of the building: EStotal (kWh/m2/year) Using the considered technology

combination for the studied city.

c. The ratio between total retrofitted surface façade area of the project (RSFAp) and

retrofitted surface façade area of the calculated case (RSFAc): W=RSFAp/RSFAc

d. The area of each product of the considered technology combination of the calculated case:

PRSFAc (m2)

e. The area of each product of the considered technology combination of the project:

PRSFAp= PRSFAc x W

• Investment, maintenance and operational costs

1- Calculate the initial investment cost: This includes renovation project, licences, cost of

products acquisition (manufacturing of the products and transport of products to the

building to be renovated), cost of products installation and commissioning processes.




2- The total manufacturing cost (sale cost) (SC) of the selected combination of technologies: It

is the summation of the manufacturing cost of all the products of the combination. In task

2.4 and 6.4 the unit price of each product (UP) will be calculated. The cost of each product

is calculated multiplying the area of the product, PRSFAp (m2), by the unit price of the

product, UP (euros/m2):

SC= ∑(PRSFAp x UP)

3- Transport cost of each product to the building: It is considered as an average distance (Km)

by country (td) and transport cost average (tc= euros/Km.ton). Total transport cost (TC) is

the summation of transport cost of all the products of the combination.

TC= ∑ (td x tc)

4- Total acquisition cost of the selected combination is calculated as:

AC= ∑ (SC +TC)

5- The renovation project cost (DG): It depends on the business strategies that will enable the

expansion of BRESAER system to external markets. The business plan will be developed in

WP7 and will develop comprehensive services packages for different kind of clients

considering different building types, forms of ownership and different existing practices in

different parts of Europe. The renovation project cost will be refined when the business

plan has been developed.

6- Installation of the products, commissioning processes and maintenance: It will be defined

for each of the products in tasks 2.4 and 6.4 and will be calculated mainly based in number

of hour worked. The associated costs depend directly on the salary of the workers

involved. Installation cost (IC) of a product will be calculated multiplying the amount of

hours (hI) of installation of a unit (m2) of the product by the area of the product PRSFAp by

hourly cost (euros/h) of the country selected by the user or by the man hour cost (euros/h)

introduced by the user. Commissioning process cost (CC) and maintenance cost (MC) will

be calculated will be calculated analogously.

IC= ∑(hI x PRSFAp x euros/h)

MC= ∑ (hM x PRSFAp x euros/h)

CC= ∑(hC x PRSFAp x euros/h)

7- Renovation project cost, licences and taxes are specific of the country selected and will be

introduced by the user.

8- The total investment cost where ‘t’ is the relevant associated tax (introduced by the user),

as known at the moment, is:

Inv = DG +AC+ AC x t + IC + IC x t + CC + CC x t




• Annual net saving

1- Annual net saving: (EStotal) (kWh/year) for each of the final choices is obtained in Section 0.

It is the net investment cost less annual net energy saving. Net investment cost is the

investment costs less subsidies (introduced by the user). Annual net energy saving is the

difference between annual energy saving less annual maintenance and operational costs.

2- Calculate the Payback Period: The net investment cost is divided by the annual net saving.

Payback period for an investment is the time (years) required for cumulative returns to

equal cumulative costs. Payback period measures the time required for total cash outflows

to equal total cash inflows, that is, the time required to break even.

The following table present the calculations to be performed to obtain the Return of Investment

(ROI) and the Payback Period (PB).

De

sign

Gu

ide

- DR

AFT

2

4

Th

is pro

ject h

as re

ceiv

ed

fun

din

g fro

m th

e E

uro

pe

an

Un

ion

’s Ho

rizon

20

20

rese

arch

an

d in

no

va

tion

pro

gra

mm

e u

nd

er g

ran

t ag

ree

me

nt N

° 63

71

86

.

Ta

ble

6 S

am

ple

calcu

latio

ns to

be

pe

rform

ed

to o

bta

in R

etu

rn o

f Inve

stme

nt a

nd

Pa

yb

ack P

erio

d

n = Year 0 1 2 n … SL

qn = discount factor 1 1/(1+d)^1

1/(1+d)^2

1/(1+d)^n

IRn = inflation factor 1 (1+i)^1

(1+i)^2

(1+i)^n

ERn = Energy price rate 1

(-0,0008 x 1^2) +

(0,0311 x 1) + 0,9956

(-0,0008 x 2^2) +

(0,0311 x 2) + 0,9956

(-0,0008 x n^2) +

(0,0311 x n) + 0,9956

MCn = Maintenance

Cost MC + t3 (MC + t3) x IR1 (MC + t3) x IR2 (MC + t3) x IRn

OCn = Operation Cost OC OC x IR1 OC x IR2 OC x IRn

ES total= Energy saving kWh kWh kWh kWh

Enegy saving Cost kWh x €/kWh kWh x €/kWh x ER1 kWh x €/kWh x ER2 kWh x €/kWh x ERn

Cn = Cashflow - Inv Es1 - MC1 - OC1 Es2 - MC2 - OC2 Esn - MCn - Ocn

NetCn = Net Cashflow C0 x q0 C1 x q1 C2x q2 Cn x qn

NPVn = Net Present

Value NetC0 NPV0 + NetC1 NPV1 + NetC2 NPVn-1 + NetCn

ROI n NPV0/Inv x 100 NPV1/Inv x 100 NPV2/Inv x 100 NPVn/Inv x 100

input data

calculation

PB= Payback Period If NPV > 0, n = PB

where

Cn:

q:

d:

i: is the inflation/deflation; sustained increase/decrease in the general price level

n:

SL: is the period of analysis, the Service Life.

Inv: is the initial investment cost = DG +AC+ AC x t + IC + IC x t + CC + CC x t

t: taxes (%)

is the number of years between the base date and the project service life;

is the cost in year n;

PERIO D

is the discount factor;

is the discount rate; rate reflecting the time value of money that is used to convert cash flows occurring at different times to a common time

�� 1 � ��

��

�� . X 100




The cost structures and payback periods can be represented in graphical form to facilitate the

analysis task, of which two samples are shown. The graphics can be easily done with excel. The

purpose of the graph in Figure 4 be to facilitate the user to choose according to the economic

investment criteria that is more favourable to the retrofit project. The purpose of the Figure 5 is to

easily compare differences of payback period for the selected combinations.

Figure 4 Sample graph for investment cost structure: products, transportation and installation for different

options


project and payback event

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Combination

1

Combination

2

Combination

3

Combination

4

Transport

Products

Installation




Retrofitting alternatives 2.1.6

BRESAER is an innovative, effective project solutions for retrofitting which aim is giving the best

possible solution within each different condition and situation. Nevertheless its flexibility gives the

designer the opportunity to choose the best solution within different prioritization criteria. The

designer shall decide which one is important from the variety of criteria, such as design,

aesthetics, owners’ interests and other factors.

Sometimes the BRESAER solutions are not the best for a very particular situation due to

exceptional design conditions, normative or other conditions. These different situations, when

found, correspond to the limitations of BRESAER and where it is not able to be applied. In these

supposed cases in which BRESAER cannot be applied in one part of the façade, another retrofitting

alternatives can be analysed in order to check if it is compatible with BRESAER solutions under the

criteria and responsibility of the designer.




Apendix – Energy data

EnergyPlus [11] was used in order to analyse through computer modelling the most suitable

technology combinations for each usage and location. This software provides an efficient and

verified solution for large scale analysis of different building variables. Constant developments of

this software enable it to model the advanced technological characteristics present in considered

options for application in the BRESAER system, as well as their interaction with each other.

Table 7 – Combinations for energy analysis

# Facade

Technologies Code Full description

-- 1 Base Basecase

1 Technology

2 SCr Solar collector roof

3 STr Stam panel roof

4 STw Stam panel wall

5 SCw Solar collector wall

6 VF Ventilated façade

7 BG Blinds&glazing

8 SCr+SCw Solar collector roof + solar collector wall

9 SCr+VF Solar collector roof + ventilated façade

10 SCr+STw Solar collector roof + Stam panel wall

11 SCr+BG Solar collector roof + Blinds&glazing

12 STr+SCw Stam panel roof + solar collector wall

13 STr+VF Stam panel roof + ventilated façade

14 STr+STw Stam panel roof + Stam panel wall

15 STr+BG Stam panel roof + Blinds&glazing

16 STr+SCr+STw

Stam panel roof + solar collector roof + Stam panel

wall

2 Technologies

17 BG+SCw Blinds&glazing + Solar collector wall

18 BG+VF Blinds&glazing + Ventilated façade

19 BG+STw Blinds&glazing + Stam panel wall

20 SCr+SCw+BG

Solar collector roof + Solar collector wall +

Blinds&glazing

21 SCr+VF+BG

Solar collector roof + Ventilated facade +

Blinds&glazing

22 SCr+STw+BG Solar collector roof + Stam panel wall + Blinds&glazing

23 STr+SCw+BG Stam panel roof + Solar collector wall + Blinds&glazing

24 STr+VF+BG Stam panel roof + Ventilated façade + Blinds&glazing

25 STr+STw+BG Stam panel roof + Stam panel wall + Blinds&glazing

3 Technologies 26 STr+SCr+STw*+VF+BG Stam panel roof + Solar collector roof + Stam panel

wall* + Ventilated façade + blinds&glazing

*On areas above and below window only




Figure 6 – Simulation results Educational Ankara 1 façade technology

An

ka

ra E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 7 – Simulation results Educational Ankara: 2 façade technologies

An

ka

ra E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 8 – Simulation results Educational Ankara: 3 façade technologies

An

ka

ra E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 9 – Simulation results Educational Athens: 1 facade technology

Ath

en

s E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 10 – Simulation results Educational Athens: 2 facade technologies

Ath

en

s E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 11 – Simulation results Educational Athens: 3 facade technologies

Ath

en

s E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 12 – Simulation results Educational Paris: 1 facade technology

Pa

ris

Ed

uca

tio

na

l




Figure 13 – Simulation results Educational Paris: 2 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Ed

uca

tio

na

l




Figure 14 – Simulation results Educational Paris: 3 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Ed

uca

tio

na

l




Figure 15 – Simulation results Educational Prague: 1 facade technology

Pra

gu

e E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 16 – Simulation results Educational Prague: 2 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 17 – Simulation results Educational Prague: 3 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e E

du

cati

on

al




Figure 18 – Simulation results Offices Athens: 1 facade technology

Ath

en

s O

ffic

es




Figure 19 – Simulation results Offices Athens: 2 facade technologies

Ath

en

s O

ffic

es




Figure 20 – Simulation results Offices Athens: 3 facade technologies

Ath

en

s O

ffic

es




Figure 21 – Simulation results Offices Bologna: 1 facade technology

Bo

log

na

Off

ice

s




Figure 22 – Simulation results Offices Bologna: 2 facade technologies

Bo

log

na

Off

ice

s




Figure 23 – Simulation results Offices Bologn: 3 facade technologies

Bo

log

na

Off

ice

s




Figure 24 – Simulation results Offices Paris: 1 facade technology

Pa

ris

Off

ice

s




Figure 25 – Simulation results Offices Paris: 2 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Off

ice

s




Figure 26 – Simulation results Offices Paris: 3 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Off

ice

s




Figure 27 – Simulation results Offices Prague: 1 facade technology

Pra

gu

e O

ffic

es




Figure 28 – Simulation results Offices Prague: 2 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e O

ffic

es




Figure 29 – Simulation results Offices Prague: 3 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e O

ffic

es




Figure 30 – Simulation results Residential Athens: 1 facade technology

Ath

en

s R

esi

de

nti

al




Figure 31 – Simulation results Residential Athens: 2 facade technologies

Ath

en

s R

esi

de

nti

al




Figure 32 – Simulation results Residential Athens: 3 facade technologies

Ath

en

s R

esi

de

nti

al




Figure 33 – Simulation results Residential Bologna: 1 facade technology

Bo

log

na

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 34 – Simulation results Residential Bologna: 2 facade technologies

Bo

log

na

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 35 – Simulation results Residential Bologna: 3 facade technologies

Bo

log

na

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 36 – Simulation results Residential Paris: 1 facade technology

Pa

ris

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 37 – Simulation results Residential Paris: 2 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 38 – Simulation results Residential Paris: 3 facade technologies

Pa

ris

Re

sid

en

tia

l




Figure 39 – Simulation results Residential Prague: 1 facade technology

Pra

gu

e R

esi

de

nti

al




Figure 40 – Simulation results Residential Prague: 2 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e R

esi

de

nti

al




Figure 41 – Simulation results Residential Prague: 3 facade technologies

Pra

gu

e R

esi

de

nti

al

bresaer d2.3 design guide computer tool p13 20160429 final · deliverable 2.3 6 this project has...

Documents