denver, 15 may 2012 the impact of the shape factor on final
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
WREF
Itai Danielski
Anna Joelsson Morgan Fröling
Denver, 15 May 2012
THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR
ON FINAL ENERGY DEMAND
IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
IN NORDIC CLIMATES
1
Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development Mid Sweden University
![Page 2: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Definitions
2
The shape factor of buildings:
• The ratio between the building’s thermal
envelope and volume
![Page 3: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. The shape of the building
3
![Page 4: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2. The size of the building
4
![Page 5: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
![Page 6: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Case studies
6
Shape factor definition:
Thermal-envelope-area-to-floor-area
Floor area Thermal envelope
area
Shape
factor
Building A 2197 m2 2228 m2 1.01
Building B 1711 m2 2018 m2 1.18
Building C 975 m2 1287 m2 1.32
Building D 1069 m2 1561 m2 1.46
Building E 567 m2 913 m2 1.61
![Page 7: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Thermal envelope scenarios
Thermal envelope scenarios: Low Medium High
External wall 120 180 420
Roof 120 190 400
Ground floor 100 160 350
Thermal envelope scenarios: Low Medium High
External wall 0.331 0.229 0.103
Roof 0.304 0.202 0.100
Ground floor 0.318 0.208 0.099
Windows 1.7 1.2 0.7
7
Insulation thickness (mm)
Heat transfer coefficient W/(m2K)
![Page 8: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Climate scenarios
8
Average outdoor
City temperature
Kiruna: -1 ˚c
Östersund: 3 ˚c
Karlstad: 5 ˚c
Malmö: 8 ˚c
![Page 9: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Different thermal envelope scenarios
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
k
Wh
/(m
2 y
ea
r)
The shape factor
Low thermal envelope scenario
Medium thermal envelope scenario
Large thermal envelope scenario
![Page 10: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Different climate scenarios
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
k
Wh
/(m
2 y
ea
r)
The shape factor
7.7°C 4.8°C 1.8°C -1.7°C
![Page 11: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The impact of the shape factor
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
P
er
un
it o
f s
ha
pe
fa
cto
r
kW
h/[
(m2 y
ea
r· S
F)
Annual average outdoor temperature
Low thermal envelope Medium thermal envelope High thermal envelope
![Page 12: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
y = -3.4702x + 49.126 R² = 0.9942 y = -2.5995x + 32.875
R² = 0.9943
y = -1.6922x + 18.203 R² = 0.9952
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
P
er
un
it o
f s
ha
pe
fa
cto
r
kW
h/[
(m2 y
ea
r· S
F)
Annual average outdoor temperature
Low thermal envelope Medium thermal envelope High thermal envelope
The impact of the shape factor
12
![Page 13: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
y = -3.4702x + 49.126 R² = 0.9942 y = -2.5995x + 32.875
R² = 0.9943
y = -1.6922x + 18.203 R² = 0.9952
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
P
er
un
it o
f s
ha
pe
fa
cto
r
kW
h/[
(m2 y
ea
r· S
F)
Annual average outdoor temperature
Low thermal envelope Medium thermal envelope High thermal envelope
The impact of the shape factor
13
![Page 14: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
y = -3.4702x + 49.126 R² = 0.9942 y = -2.5995x + 32.875
R² = 0.9943
y = -1.6922x + 18.203 R² = 0.9952
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Sp
ec
ific
he
at
de
ma
nd
P
er
un
it o
f s
ha
pe
fa
cto
r
kW
h/[
(m2 y
ea
r· S
F)
Annual average outdoor temperature
Low thermal envelope Medium thermal envelope High thermal envelope
The impact of the shape factor
14
![Page 15: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Differences in specific heat demand
among case studies with different shape factor
15
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9% d
iffe
ren
ce
in
he
at
su
pp
ly
Annual average outdoor temperature
Low thermal envelope Medium thermal envelope High thermal envelope
![Page 16: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Summery and conclusions
• The design of the building (shape factor) has
larger impact on its final energy use for
– buildings with lower grade of thermal envelope
– buildings in colder climates
– buildings exposed to strong winds
16
![Page 17: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Conclusions and summery
• 10% - 20% differences in specific heat demand
were found in this study due to differences in
building’s design
• The differences could be higher for buildings
designed with larger shape factor
17
![Page 18: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Recommendation
• Limitation on the shape factor for future buildings
in cold climates could help to reduce space
heating demand
• Such limitation were introduce for new design
building in China.
18
![Page 19: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
For future study
• Differences in primary energy by using LCA
including material for construction and demolition
of buildings with different shape factors.
19
![Page 20: Denver, 15 May 2012 THE IMPACT OF THE SHAPE FACTOR ON FINAL](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022020705/61fb8f8a2e268c58cd5fa17e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Thank you for your attention
20