kilian r 20150707_1630_unesco_fontenoy_-_room_iv
TRANSCRIPT
© Fraunhofer IBP
Ralf Kilian, Hannes Brandl, Martin Krus, Florian Antretter and Klaus Sedlbauer
Multi-Criteria Accuracy Assessment for Indoor Climate
Change Projections of Historic Buildings
Presented by Johanna Leissner
Our Common Future under Climate Change
UNESCO Conference – Paris 2015
© Fraunhofer IBP
Climate for Culture – methodology
1960 - 1990
2020 - 2050
2070 - 2100
55,650 climate maps and risk maps
© Fraunhofer IBP
CfC Risk Assessment Methodology
Weather Indoor ClimateSimulation
Measurement
Transfer Functions Risk Assessment
Energy Demand
© Fraunhofer IBP
New
Method
for
model
calibration
© Fraunhofer IBP
Suggested criteria for assessment of statistical location parameters
characteristic comparative parameter
assessment criterion
excellent /
acceptable
totality of
datatotal range
± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C
Totality of data
without extremes1 % / 99 % percentile
± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location maximum maximum ± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location minimum minimum± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location 1 % percentile 1 % percentile± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location 99 % percentile 99 % percentile± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location general median± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /
± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C
location general correlation coefficient 0,95 /
0,8
location general QQ-PlotΔ 5 % r.h., 1 °C /
Δ 10 % r.h., 3 °C
dynamicsfrequency
daily fluctuations
Quote: 0,95 – 1,05 /
Quote: 0,75 – 1,25
© Fraunhofer IBP
Roggersdorf - Climate Measurement Setup
© Fraunhofer IBP
Roggersdorf - Hygrothermal Building Simulation
© Fraunhofer IBP
Comparison Measurements 2012 and Simulation
© Fraunhofer IBP
Comparison Measurements 2012 and Simulation
Parameter Simulation
T [°C]
Measurement
T [°C]
Delta
[K]
Assessment
Range 28,9 29,2 0,3 excellent
1% / 99% Quantil 26,3 25,4 0,9 excellent
Maximum 21,9 23,9 2,0 aceptable
99% Quantil 20,9 21,1 0,2 excellent
Median 11,0 11,4 0,4 excellent
1% Quantil -5,4 -4,3 1,1 aceptable
Minumium -7,0 -5,4 1,6 aceptable
Mean 10,1 10,5 0,4 excellent
Correlation Coefficient 0,994 excellent
Parameter Simulation
RH [%]
Measurement
RH [%]
Delta
RH [%]
Assessment
Range 48,1 52,1 4,0 excellent
1% / 99% Quantil 34,1 33,7 0,4 excellent
Maximum 100 96,6 3,4 excellent
99% Quantil 92,8 91,9 0,9 excellent
Median 76,3 78,7 2,4 excellent
1% Quantil 58,8 58,2 0,6 excellent
Minumium 51,9 44,6 7,3 aceptable
Mean 76,0 77,8 1,8 excellent
Correlation Coefficient 0,912 aceptable
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
© Fraunhofer IBP
Accuracy Test on Damage Functions / Characteristics
Prediction Quota QV
Measurement vs. Simulation 2012
Microbiology Risk
Fluctuations
of RH > 15 %
in 24 hours
Time of Indoor
RH > 70 %
Salt Deliquescence
South Wall (n)
Salt Deliquescence
Indoor Air (n)
Dew Point (n)
Prediction Quota
0,95 – 1,05 Excellent
0,75 – 1,25
Acceptabel
© Fraunhofer IBP
Comparison Conservation Risk Assessment
Scenario A1B
Measurements 2012
one possible future!
Projection 2099
© Fraunhofer IBP
Conclusions
• High resolution outdoor climate modeling
• New Method for climate change impact assessment
Creation of Indoor Risk Maps all over Europe
• Applicability of hygrothermal building simulation for historic buildings
• Use of building simulation for preventive conservation
• Test of different mitigation strategies
• Accuracy assessment is crucial for application of HAM Simulation
• Different damage functions can be taken into account
© Fraunhofer IBP
© Fraunhofer IBP
for more information / conact
www.climateforculture.eu
Dr.-Ing. Ralf Kilian
Dipl.-Restaurator Univ.
Fraunhofer-Institute for Building Physics
Holzkirchen, Germany
eMail: [email protected]
web: www.ibp.fraunhofer.de