[esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models - e mail 2

Tue Mar 20 11:52:17 GMT 2007

Dear Gunter,

the new set of CEN Standards is not yet mandatory for the European countries 
and only intend to facilitate or help the European countries to implement the 
EBPD, particularly those countries that have no experience (regulations?) in 
the energy performance calculations.
However, these Standards, and especially CEN 13790 which describes the heating 
and cooling calculations methodology (i.e. simplified monthly or hourly 
methods),  ALLOW the use of validated simulation tools. 
There were few reactions about this (to allow simulation tools to be used) 
while this Standard was prepared and during the "comments"/review period but 
the authors replied that they were trying to ensure a "level playing field" 
between all methods.
Now, some countries (i.e. UK) adopted this and the use of simulation tools is 
allowed (they have imposed though an enormous amount of accreditation tests 
and other criteria for the simulation tools in order to do this).
Quite few other countries (I think Germany is one of them) allow the use only 
of one method. This is normally the monthly method described in the 13790. I 
can only think that the reason for this is because they do not want to get 
different results with different tools (?). From the other hand, would you go 
for a validated tool or for simplified method? I also believe that by using 
the simplified methods with different ways or assumptions you can get a 
different way of getting your building to comply with regulations or a 
different answer.
The simplified methods in the CEN standards (e.g. the hourly and the monthly 
in the 13790) do not seem easy to be used and they also need good interfaces. 
In UK for example, they have already started selling interfaces for the 
regulations tool which is based on an old draft of the monthly method in the 
13790 CEN Standard (and these interfaces are popular as I hear people 
saying).

We have done few comparisons with regards to ESP-r, EnergyPlus and the two 
simplified methods of the latest 13790 (e.g. 2007 version) by constraining 
the two simulation tools according to the 13790 Standards. There are 
agreements in few cases but often the results between simulation tools and 
simplified methods were significantly different. This will hopefully be 
published in the next IBPSA conference. On the other hand, there will be soon 
a report coming out for a European project where some people in Denmark have 
tested the monthly method for few of the BESTEST cases and it seems that it 
gives good predictions. I am not yet familiar with this report but I think 
that few of their assumptions (e.g. internal emissivities, etc.) are not 
mentioned in it.

Regards,
Georgios

On Tuesday 20 March 2007 10:38, Pueltz, Gunter wrote:
> Hi Achim,
>
> the current state of implementing the EPBD in the European countries is
> quite confuse:
>
> In Germany is planned by the goverment, that from 01/01/2008 the German
> standard
> DIN V 18599 will define the calculation methods for the so called "Energy
> passport" for
> buildings (as the official German certificate according to EPBD).
>
> Simultaniously the European parliament has given CEN a mandat to develope a
> complete
> set of EUROPEAN standards, which will define the official calculation
> methods for energy
> certificates according to EPBD. Some of these standards are currently
> already available
> - but also many of them are currently under development ......
> I am not a specialist in politics or law - I am only an ingeneer - but I
> assume, that in (near ?)
> future the European standards by CEN will replace all national standards
> concerning energy
> certificates according to the EPBD - or do you think that indivdual
> national liberty will allow
> to override the European standards ? I assume that the European standards
> will win ..... ?
>
> Moreover I have heard, that in other European countries, like GB/Scottland,
> a complete other way has
> been followed: I knew that the Scottish government has installed a national
> authority, which gives
> certificates to software tools - like the Virtual Environment tool from IES
> - which are able to perform
> the calculations according to EPBD ..... This software includes a zonal
> room simulation (similar to
> the thermal domain in ESP -r), zonal air flow calculations (like the
> air-flow network in ESP -r)
> and also a plant simulation (like the plant-domain of ESP -r) and a - very
> crued - light simulation
> (like in ESP-r ... ????) for calculating energy consumption of lights.
>
> Thus in Scotland an official certificate according to EPBD can be created
> by using a zonal simulation tool (IES/VE),
> whereas in Germany this certificate MUST base on - very inaccurate, but
> simple - calculation methodes
> (DIN V 18599: a simple monthly balancing method - much more inaccurate than
> an hourly energy balancing;
> also constant, standardized boundary conditions and user behaviour .....).
> I do not know what is currently happening in other European countries
> concerning the EPBD ....
>
> What´s going on in Switzerland - with the EMPA ? They usually are very
> up-to-date in Switzerland: Is the
> use of a detailled (zonal) simulation tool allowed for creating a
> EPBD-certificate ?
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Gunter Pültz
>
> --
> Dr. Gunter Pültz
>
> Müller-BBM GmbH
> Robert-Koch-Straße 11
> 82152 Planegg
> Telefon +49(89)85602-336
> Telefax +49(89)85602-111
> http://www.MuellerBBM.de <http://www.muellerbbm.de/>
>
> HRB München 86143
> Geschäftsführer: Bernd Grözinger, Dr. Edwin Schorer, Norbert Suritsch
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geissler Achim [mailto:Achim.Geissler at josef-gartner.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:07 AM
> To: Pueltz, Gunter
> Cc: esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: [esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models - e
> mail 2
>
>
>
> Hi Gunter,
>
>
>
> thanks for the angle clarifications (the term "cut off" is quite widely
> accepted with the definition you gave, I think. However, we do use "solar
> altitude" for the "projected angle", usually ... is there any significant
> difference? I couldn't find what difference you see, from the sketch).
> However, I totally agree that explicit treatment of all angles would
> simplify any discussions. It would probably be quite a bit clear(er), what
> is assumed for the calcs.
>
>
>
> What you write about DIN V 18599 is interesting. Do you have any
> information on other countries in this regard? I have heard of ideas to
> have an "accepted EPBD" calculation tool for Europe ... for my
> understanding of the EPBD and the freedom of individual countries in its
> implementation, this is not really possible, is it? It would be
> interesting, of course.
>
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Best regards
>
>
>
> Achim Geissler
>
>
>   _____
>
>
> From: esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk
> [mailto:esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pueltz, Gunter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:23 AM
> To: Geissler Achim
> Cc: esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk; Bart Lomanowski
> Subject: [esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models - e mail
> 2
>
>
>
> 2) Defintion of "profile angle e":
> The profile angle e is defined as the projection of sun heigt angle a
> into a vertical plain, which is normal to the facade (see attached
> picture).
>
>
>
> Thus the profile angle can be interpreted as "sun heigt angle" if the sun
>
> azimuth angle j is not taken into account (e.g. for WIS-results or also
>
> in ESP-r, optical database).
>
>
>
> Again I propose an enhanced window model for ESP-r, which takes into
>
> account ALL relevant angles (see attachment):
>
> - blinde sloüpe angle
>
> - sun real heigt angle a or alternatively sun height´s profile angle e
>
> - sun azimuth angle j
>
>
> Concerning the official EPBD-oriented planning / calculation tool in
> Germany,
> called DIN V 18599, I can tell you following:
>
> The DIN V 18599, part 2, defines a so called effectivce g-value, which MUST
> be
>
> calculated according to EN 13363, part 1 (simplified) or part 2 (detailled
> and spectral,
>
> but only for ONE angle of 45 degree).
>
> The more sophisticated algorithm of ISO 15099 (implented in WIS) is NOT
> allowed .......
>
> So it is clear, that all the angle dependancies described above are not
> valid for the
>
> stupid German DIN V 18599 ......
>
> Best regards,
> Gunter
>
> --
> Dr. Gunter Pültz
>
> Müller-BBM GmbH
> Robert-Koch-Straße 11
> 82152 Planegg
> Telefon +49(89)85602-336
> Telefax +49(89)85602-111
> http://www.MuellerBBM.de <http://www.muellerbbm.de/>
>
> HRB München 86143
> Geschäftsführer: Bernd Grözinger, Dr. Edwin Schorer, Norbert Suritsch
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geissler Achim [  <mailto:Achim.Geissler at josef-gartner.ch>
>
> mailto:Achim.Geissler at josef-gartner.ch]
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:44 AM
> > To: Pueltz, Gunter; esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk
> > Cc: Bart Lomanowski
> > Subject: RE: [esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models
> >
> >
> > Hi Gunter,
> > good point on azimuth angle (if it was not already being
> > focused on). However, what WIS actually models in regard to
> > angle dependany is not so clear to me.
> >       - cut off by Venetian type blinds is definitely modelled.
> >       - other than that, comparison calculations seem to
> > imply that all the angle dependant results are simply
> > calculated by the Fresnel equation.
> >       - The paper on "new model" for Venetian type blinds:
> > The blinds considered are, of course, relatively special
> > cases. It would be interesting to see differences for more
> > "standard" types of Venetian blinds. Additionally, I do not
> > understand why "0°" and "cut-off" gives the same discrepancy.
> > Anyway, for typical control scenarios "blind down and closed
> > if sun", I assume the simple models do O.K. for most cases.
> > Enhancing the model capabilities of ESP-r in this regard is
> > very interesting for us, in any case! However, an interesting
> > question (at least here in Europe) will be: How do results /
> > performance parameters gained with enhanced models fit in
> > with the EPBD-oriented planning / calculation tools (for
> > Germany e.g. DIN 18599)?
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüssen / Best regards
> >
> > Achim Geissler
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk [ mailto:esp-r- <mailto:esp-r->
> > > bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pueltz, Gunter
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:30 AM
> > > To: esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk
> > > Cc: 'Bart Lomanowski'
> > > Subject: [esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models
> > >
> > > Bart,
> > >
> > > a short info concerning transmission and absorption of each
> >
> > layer of a
> >
> > > tmc:
> > >
> > > The European software "Advanced Window Information System (WIS)",
> > > Version 3.0.1, des Window Energy Data Network (WinDat), coordinated
> > > by TNO Building and Construction Research (TNO Bouw), Department:
> > > Sustainable Energy and Buildings (DEG), The Netherlands (details
> > > see http://windat.ucd.ie/wis/html/index.html
>
> <http://windat.ucd.ie/wis/html/index.html> )
>
> > > is able to calculate both the overall transmission as well as the
> > > absorption
> > > in each layer of a facade WITH venetian blinds as a function of sun
> > > altitude
> > > angle (this is the "profile angle" you suggested). The WIS
> >
> > software is
> >
> > > similar
> > > to the WINDOW-software from LBNL, but also treats venetian blinds.
> > > Therefore you should use the software WIS for the enhanced
> >
> > window model in
> >
> > > ESP-r ...
> > > An interface between WIS and ESP-r would be a great help
> >
> > for ESP-users !!
> >
> > > But also WIS shows a crued defect: It is NOT able to take
> >
> > the azimuth
> >
> > > angle
> > > of
> > > the sun into account. A recent work from Mr. Kuhn,
> >
> > Fraunhofer-Institute of
> >
> > > solar
> > > energy systems in Freiburg, Germany, has shown, that this
> >
> > defect may yield
> >
> > > -
> > > at critical
> > > sun angles - to an underestimation of solar heat gain of appr.
> > > 100% !!!!!!!
> > > Therefore it would be the best - for my opinion -, if the
> >
> > new enhanced
> >
> > > facade model
> > > (glazing AND blinds) takes into account ALL relevant angles:
> > > - the slope angle of the blinds
> > > - the sun heigt angle (or the profile angle)
> > > - the sun azimuth angle
> > > Concerning this topic, Mr. Kuhn has developed a new,
> >
> > enhanced algorithm (I
> >
> > > assume
> > > based on raytracing), which considers all these angles. Please see
> > >
> > > 1) Tilmann E Kuhn, Solar Control: A general evaluation
> >
> > method for facades
> >
> > > with venetian blinds or other solar control systems, Energy and
> > > Buildings, 38 (2006), 648-660.
> > >
> > > 2) Tilmann E Kuhn, Solar Control: Comparison of two new
> >
> > systems with the
> >
> > > state-of-the-art on the basis of a new general evaluation method for
> > > facades with venetian blinds or other solar control
> >
> > systems, Energy and
> >
> > > Buildings, 38 (2006), 661-672.
> > >
> > > You can also find more information about this new algorithm at the
> > > IBPSA-Germany
> > > website at  <http://129.187.44.165/konferenz/paper/2006/108.pdf>
>
> MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:
> http://129.187.44.165/konferenz/paper/2006/108.pdf
>
> > > I propose that you contact Mr. Kuhn directly, because he
> >
> > has already told
> >
> > > his
> > > willingness to support or even participate the code
> >
> > enhancement of ESP-r.
> >
> > > His contact data are following:
> > >
> > > Dipl.-Phys. Tilmann E. Kuhn
> > > Head of Group Solar Facades and Durability Analysis
> > > Dept. Thermal Systems and Buildings
> > > Fraunhofer Institut für Solare Energiesysteme ISE
> > > Heidenhofstr. 2, 79110 Freiburg, Germany
> > > Phone: +49 (0) 761/ 4588-5297  Fax: +49 (0)761/ 4588-9297
> > > tilmann.kuhn at ise.fraunhofer.de
> > > http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de <http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de>
> > >
> > > As a stupid ESP user I would appreciate it greatly if all
> >
> > experts for
> >
> > > facade
> > > modelling
> > > cooperate for the enhancement of facade modelling in ESP-r  ....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gunter
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Gunter Pültz
> > >
> > > Müller-BBM GmbH
> > > Robert-Koch-Straße 11
> > > 82152 Planegg
> > > Telefon +49(89)85602-336
> > > Telefax +49(89)85602-111
> > > http://www.MuellerBBM.de <http://www.MuellerBBM.de>
> > >
> > > HRB München 86143
> > > Geschäftsführer: Bernd Grözinger, Dr. Edwin Schorer,
> >
> > Norbert Suritsch
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk
> > > > [ mailto:esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk
>
> <mailto:esp-r-bounces at lists.strath.ac.uk> ]On Behalf Of
>
> > Bart Lomanowski
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:45 PM
> > > > To: esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: [esp-r] Re: Proposed development of window shading models
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all the feedback, I appreciate the interest this
> > > > subject has
> > > > generated.
> > > >
> > > > I've attached some ppt slides outlining in more detail our
> > > > model capabilities,
> > > > the ESP-r development proposal in broad strokes, and some
> > > > implementation issues
> > > > for discussion. What I am most interested in is the
> > > > capabilities of other
> > > > ongoing developments (e.g., SHOCC) and the expected
> > > > interactions of these
> > > > facilities with transparent constructions. Ideally I would
> > > > like to retain
> > > > generality with respect to the window shading
> >
> > developments to ensure
> >
> > > > functionality with other windows related projects. I hope a
> > > > brief discussion
> > > > will be possible at the Developer's conference to shed some
> > > > light on this.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bart Lomanowski
> > > > University of Waterloo
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > esp-r mailing list
> > > esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk
> > > http://lists.strath.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/esp-r
>
> <http://lists.strath.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/esp-r>