Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Over the last several years, the energy used for air conditioning in buildings increased
in most European countries because of the high heat loads during the summer and the
occupants’ increased comfort needs. The aim of our research was to determine the
incident solar radiation on horizontal and vertical surfaces and to investigate the heat
loads of buildings with different orientations of the glazed areas and different thermal
masses in the building structures. Using the measured hourly global radiation data for
the years 2009–2013, the diffuse and direct incident solar radiation was determined for
the horizontal and vertical surfaces. A statistical analysis of the daily energy yield from
solar radiation and the daily mean outdoor temperatures was conducted. The number
of symmetric and asymmetric days was determined for torrid days. Using the metho-
dology provided by standard EN ISO 13790:2008, the cooling energy demand and daily
energy need for cooling was determined and evaluated for representative days of the
analyzed years.
Keywords
Cooling load, energy use, operative temperature, solar gains, thermal mass
Introduction
In accordance with the prescriptions of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
Parliament and the Council, Member States have established new requirements
related to building envelopes over the past several years (EC Directive, 2010).
Consequently, the usage rates of different components that comprise the yearly
energy balance of buildings are changing. In countries with temperate climate, the
energy used for cooling is rising, whereas the energy used for heating is decreasing.
These changes are accentuated by the increasing number and amplitude of heat
waves that have occurred during summers in recent decades (Luterbacher et al.,
2004). The problem related to electricity consumption, particularly during summer
periods, is more pronounced in subtropical and tropical climates. Multi-year build-
ing energy simulations were conducted for generic air-conditioned office buildings
in Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Kunming, and Hong Kong, which represent the five
major architectural climates in China (Wan et al., 2012). The results of the simula-
tions suggested that there would be a decreasing trend in the heating load and an
increasing trend in the cooling load due to climate change in future years. The
impact of climate change on the energy use of buildings was analyzed by several
authors (Li et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2010). It was concluded that
an increase in temperature has varying impacts on the electricity demand, depend-
ing on the geographical spread of the major climate zones and the prevailing role of
electrical power for heating and cooling purposes. Because space heating is pro-
vided largely by oil- or gas-fired boiler plants but space cooling relies primarily on
electricity, there would most likely be a shift toward electrical power demand (Li et
al., 2012). Complex building energy modeling and simulations proved that new cli-
matic indexes and energy performance indicators should be developed to obtain
reliable results (Chua and Chou, 2010; Lam et al., 2010). Different mitigation mea-
sures (i.e. measures concerning the building envelope, internal conditions, lighting
load density, and chiller plants) of the effect that climate change has on the energy
use in a building were analyzed by Wan et al. (2011b), who concluded that thermal
insulation for the external wall would not effectively mitigate the expected increase
in building energy use due to climate change. Controlling the amount of solar heat
gain through the windows would be a better alternative. Lowering the current light-
ing load would result in substantial energy savings. The coefficient of performance
of chiller plants should be improved to alleviate the impact of climate change
(Wan et al., 2011a). Bichiou and Krarti developed a comprehensive energy simula-
tion environment for the optimal selection of both building envelope features and
heating and air-conditioning system design and operation settings. Building design
features that minimize the life cycle costs can be determined using the simulation
environment. They found that the optimal selection can reduce life cycle costs by
10%–25%, depending on the climate and the type of homes (Bichiou and Krarti,
2011).
Residential building envelope heat gain and cooling energy requirements were
analyzed by Lam et al. (2005), who confirmed that there has been substantial
growth in energy use in Hong Kong, particularly electricity consumption for air
conditioning in the residential sector during the hot, humid summer months.
Gueymard and Thevenard (2009) presented a new model for determining clear-sky
beam normal and diffuse horizontal irradiances that can also be used to calculate
the monthly or extreme cooling loads for buildings. In their model, the evaluation
of aerosol-related information, which is of crucial importance to obtain an accurate
estimate of solar radiation in general, received special attention. Gueymard and
Csáky and Kalmár 37
duPont (2009) analyzed the spectral effects of solar radiation on the transmittance,
solar heat gain, and performance rating of glazing systems. Because modern solar
gain calculations are preferably based on the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
method, the authors introduced new reference spectra that have the advantage of
being tailored for two major applications: vertical windows and tilted roof-
mounted skylights (Gueymard and duPont, 2009). Li and Lam (2001) developed
an approach for calculating the solar heat gain factors (SHGF) for the horizontal
and vertical surfaces at the peak load operation of air-conditioning systems and
other significant levels based on solar angles and the clearness index. When sizing
air-conditioning equipment, the calculations are usually based on the assumption
that the building is under a clear sky. Some design guides provide SHGC for cloud-
less days during daylight hours on the 21st day of each month for a given window
orientation at a specific latitude and time of year. Building designers use these data,
which are considered the maximum solar heat gains, to determine the maximum
cooling load and for plant sizing. However, in addition to the expected variations
in solar gains due to latitude and season, solar gains are locality dependent (Li and
Lam, 2000).
In this article, an analysis of cooling load is presented based on long-term global
radiation and temperature data measured by the Agro-Meteorological Observatory
in Debrecen-Kismacs, Hungary. The calculation of the cooling load was performed
using the methodology presented by EN ISO 13790:2008 (2008). It was proven that
this methodology give sufficiently accurate results for energy calculations (Csáky
and Kalmár, 2015).
IDifH
= 1 0:9kT for kT <0:22
IGH
IDifH
= 0:9511 0:160kT + 4:388kT2 16:638kT3 + 12:336kT4 for 0:22\kT <0:8
IGH
IDifH
= 0:165 for kT .0:8
IGH
ð1Þ
where IGH is the global solar radiation on horizontal surfaces (W/m2), IdirH is the
direct solar radiation on horizontal surfaces (W/m2), and uz is the zenith angle of
the sun.
The measured global radiation, the calculated direct radiation on horizontal sur-
faces, and the calculated diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces between 2009 and
2013 are presented in Figure 1.
Based on an analysis of the diagrams presented in Figure 1, it can be concluded
that the diffuse solar radiation represents an important part of the global radiation
for horizontal surfaces. The ratio of annual diffuse and global radiation for hori-
zontal surfaces during the years 2009–2013 varies from 39% to 76%, but for all 5
years, the average ratio is 50%.
Furthermore, Figure 1 indicates that global radiation values higher than
900 W/m2 were measured in the months of April, May, June, and July. The daily
incident energy from global radiation was calculated for horizontal surfaces based
on the measured global radiation data.
Rb factor
The ratio of direct radiation on the tilted surface to a horizontal surface is called
the geometric factor and it is generally expressed as (Basunia et al., 2012)
Csáky and Kalmár 39
1000
2009
Global radiaon
Solar radiaon [W/m²]
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1000
Global radiaon
2010
Solar radiaon [W/m²]
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1000
Global radiaon
2011 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]
800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1000
Global radiaon
2012 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]
800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1000
Global radiaon
2013 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]
800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600
400
200
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
cos u
Rb = ð4Þ
cos uz
where
and
cos uz = sin d sin u + cos d cos u cos v ð6Þ
where u is the incidence angle, d is the solar declination, u is the latitude of the site,
b is the angle of the horizontal surface, g is the solar azimuth angle, and v is the
hour angle.
The solar declination can be determined with the following equation (Hsieh,
1986)
284 + n
d = 23:45 sin 360 ð7Þ
365
Rb coefficient 3
Rb coefficients
Kondtratev
2
Rb coefficients
calculaon
1
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 2. Validation of calculated Rb values (south orientation).
3
Rb coefficient
Rb coefficients South
2 Rb coefficients East
and West
Rb coefficients North
1
0
Oct
Aug
Dec
Nov
Jan
May
Feb
Sep
Apr
Jul
Jun
Mar
5
Rb coefficient
Rb coefficients South
4 Rb coefficients East
3 Rb coefficients North
Rb coefficients West
2
0
0:00
2:00
4:00
6:00
8:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
20:00
22:00
Figure 5. Mean monthly energy yield values from global radiation (2009–2013).
Table 1. Energy yields on vertical surfaces from direct radiation on the hottest days of the
analyzed months (Wh/m2 day).
horizontal surface. The required values of these parameters were computed from
the available global solar radiation data measured on a horizontal surface. The
mean monthly global radiation values for the analyzed years (2009–2013) are pre-
sented in Figure 5.
It can be observed that the highest monthly values of energy yield from global
radiation were recorded in May, June, July, and August. The highest mean monthly
temperatures were obtained for the same 4 months. Consequently, from a cooling
perspective, it was determined that only the following months would be considered
in the analysis: May, June, July, and August.
The direct solar radiation is calculated using equation (8) (Hsieh, 1986)
The energy yields determined from direct solar radiation values for the hottest
day of each month are presented in Table 1 for different orientations, assuming dif-
ferent orientations of the walls.
Csáky and Kalmár 43
Table 2. Energy yields on vertical surfaces from diffuse radiation on the hottest days of the
analyzed months (kWh/m2 day).
2 May 2012 W/m2 818.33 345.94 172.97 398.33 974.90 173.12 179.72
Wh/m2 day 6211.85 1995.1 997.55 2007.59 3882.59 352.20 182.12
21 June 2012 W/m2 886.83 288.17 144.09 300 979.46 251.19 491.14
Wh/m2 day 7980.63 2440.72 1220.36 1581.25 4554.50 917.30 848.67
10 July 2011 W/m2 865.00 306.32 153.16 304.91 1092.09 222.90 528.54
Wh/m2 day 7610.37 2338.22 1169.11 1643.97 4671.30 767.31 857.68
6 August 2012 W/m2 816.33 284.72 142.36 368.59 910.72 223.41 183.45
Wh/m2 day 6739.82 2229.03 1114.52 2035.92 3560.51 711.17 197.96
When the isotropic diffuse model is used, the diffuse solar radiation on a tilted
surface can be determined using equation (9) (Goetzberger and Wittner, 1993; Liu
and Jordan, 1961; Norris, 1966)
iso
Idif b = Rb Idifh ð9Þ
where
1 + cos b
Rb = ð10Þ
2
iso
For vertical surfaces (b = 90°), Idif b = IdifV . The daily energy yields determined
from diffuse radiation values are presented in Table 2 for the hottest days of the
months analyzed from 2009 to 2013 (May, June, July, and August).
In Table 3, the measured and calculated daily maximum values and the daily
energy yield values for global horizontal radiation, diffuse horizontal and vertical
radiation, and direct solar radiation are presented for different orientations.
Based on an analysis of the values shown in Table 3, it can be observed that
there are important differences between the direct incident solar radiation on east-
and west-oriented vertical surfaces. For each month analyzed, the measured global
radiation values were calculated for the hottest days in the morning (until
44 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)
Table 4. Measured global radiation values (energy yields in the morning and in the afternoon).
Table 5. Number of hot days and extremely hot days (May–August, 2009–2013).
Hot days 34 34 35 48 44
Extremely hot days 0 1 2 16 8
11:00a.m.) and in the afternoon (after 13:00p.m.). The measured values are shown
in Table 4.
Notable differences between energy yields for east- and west-oriented surfaces
would be expected because the vertical direct and diffuse radiation values for east-
and west-orientations were calculated using the measured global radiations.
Table 6. Number of torrid days and extremely torrid days (2009–2013, May–August).
Torrid days 22 18 17 37 22
Extremely torrid days 0 0 1 8 3
Table 7. Number of torrid and extremely torrid days characterized by a significant difference in
total energy yield between east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces (2009–2013, May–August).
2009 – 1
2010 – 1
2011 1 17
2012 7 34
2013 3 20
in the total energy yield (direct and diffuse radiation) between the east- and west-
oriented vertical surfaces. The significance analysis was performed using the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. The results of the evaluation at a p = 0.05
significance level are presented in Table 7.
In 2009 and 2010, except for 1 day, all of the torrid and extremely torrid days
can be considered symmetric days (i.e. days on which the difference in energy yield
between east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces is not significant). All of the torrid
and extremely torrid days were asymmetric in 2011. One extremely torrid day and
two torrid days were symmetric in 2012; and in 2013, two torrid days were sym-
metric. The total number of asymmetric days for 2009 through 2013 was rather
high; consequently, it is extremely important to evaluate the effects of asymmetry
on the cooling demand and cooling energy consumption of buildings. Furthermore,
it is very important to clarify which irradiance values are used as input data when
designing the cooling systems.
The following discussion presents the results of a statistical analysis of symmetric
and asymmetric days that considered the global radiation, total irradiance on verti-
cal surfaces, and daily mean temperature. The highest values of the analyzed para-
meters were determined both for symmetric (Table 8) and asymmetric days (Table
9), assuming a 95% confidence level.
The daily mean temperature and the global radiation value are both higher for
asymmetric days. For the total irradiance, the values are higher for the east- and
north-orientations for asymmetric days, and higher total irradiances are indicated
for the south- and west-orientations for symmetric days.
46 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)
Figure 6. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from global radiation.
Figure 7. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (south orientation).
(BVH), and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), were provided with an external
insulation layer. The flat roof was also insulated properly to obtain the required
overall heat transfer coefficient. A lightweight steel frame structure that had similar
48 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)
Figure 8. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (east orientation).
Figure 9. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (west orientation).
overall heat transfer coefficients as the external building elements were also ana-
lyzed. In each case, it was assumed that the room had a window (no shading, 85%
glazed area, solar energy transmittance: g = 0.7), and that the air change rate/air
Csáky and Kalmár 49
Figure 10. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (north orientation).
Cardinal direction Mean outdoor temperature (°C) Total irradiance (Wh/m2 day)
change per hour (ACH) was 0.5 h21. The energy calculations were performed for
the symmetric and asymmetric real days identified in section ‘‘Analysis of meteoro-
logical data.’’ Furthermore, the cooling energy demand and daily energy used for
cooling were determined, assuming that the building was under a clear sky. The
results are presented in Table 11.
Discussion
Analyzing the obtained energy data indicates that the asymmetric real day had the
highest cooling energy demand and daily energy use for cooling, regardless of the
50 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)
Table 11. Daily energy used for cooling and cooling demand of analyzed room.
SB: solid brick; BVH: brick with vertical hole; AAC: autoclaved aerated concrete.
Csáky and Kalmár 51
Table 12. Relative differences of cooling energy demand and daily energy used for cooling (%).
Relative difference in daily energy used for cooling 21.6 14.2 245.9 334.2
Relative difference in cooling energy demand 7.2 12.6 141.7 181.2
building structure and the orientation of the glazed area. In each of the analyzed
cases, the real day had a higher cooling energy demand and daily energy use for
cooling compared with the ‘‘clear-sky’’ day. The highest cooling energy demand
and energy use was found for an east orientation of the glazed area for the days
analyzed. Compared with an east orientation, the cooling energy demand was
27%–93% lower for a glazed area with a west orientation. Compared with a west
orientation, the cooling energy demand was 15%–27% lower for a south-oriented
glazed area. The decrease in cooling energy demand by orientation was higher for
building structures with higher thermal masses.
The trend was similar for the daily energy used for cooling. It is noteworthy that
the ratio between asymmetric and symmetric days for energy demand for cooling
can reach 300%. For operative temperatures, this difference is maintained below
2 K. The operative temperature variation during the analyzed day for a SB struc-
ture is presented for different orientations in Figure 11. For asymmetric and sym-
metric days in a SB structure, the relative differences in cooling energy demand and
daily energy used for cooling are presented in Table 12.
Conclusion
The number of hot and extremely hot days was determined by analyzing the global
radiation and daily mean outdoor temperatures for 2009–2013 for Debrecen. The
torrid and extremely torrid day concept was introduced and used to analyze the
energy required for the cooling loads for buildings based on the hourly mean values
of outdoor temperatures. The concept of asymmetric days was used to distinguish
days that were characterized by significant differences between the incident solar
radiation observed for east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces. Using the ANOVA
method, it was determined that in 2009 and 2010, the torrid and extremely torrid
days were mainly symmetric days, and that in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the torrid and
extremely torrid days were generally asymmetric. The representative symmetric
and asymmetric days were determined for the analyzed period at a 95% confidence
level. For a room with typical dimensions, the cooling energy demand and daily
energy used for cooling were determined by assuming different building materials
for the envelope. In addition, the energy calculations were performed for ‘‘clear-
sky’’ days. It was concluded that an asymmetric real day indicated the highest cool-
ing energy demand and daily energy used. The real days indicated higher cooling
energy consumption values compared with the ‘‘clear-sky’’ days. The differences
52 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)
between energy demand and daily energy consumption were higher for building
structures with higher thermal mass.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Agro-Meteorological Observatory,
Debrecen, for providing indispensable meteorological data.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the TÁMOP-4.2.2.A-11/
1/KONV-2012-0041 project. The project was co-financed by the European Union and the
European Social Fund.
References
Basunia MA, Yoshio H and Abe T (2012) Simulation of solar radiation incident on
horizontal and inclined surfaces. Journal of Engineering Research 9(2): 27–35.
Bichiou Y and Krarti M (2011) Optimization of envelope and HVAC systems selection for
residential buildings. Energy and Buildings 43(12): 3373–3382.
Bogoslovskij BN and Poz MJ (1983) Teplofizika apparatov utilizatii tepla System otoplenija,
ventilatii i konditionirovania vazduha. Moskva: Stroizdat.
Celik AN (2006) Analysis of Ankara’s exposure to solar radiation: evaluation of
distributional parameters using Long-term hourly measured global solar radiation data.
Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 30: 115–126.
Chua KJ and Chou SK (2010) Energy performance of residential buildings in Singapore.
Energy 35(2): 667–678.
Csáky I and Kalmár F (2015) Effects of thermal mass, ventilation and glazing orientation on
indoor air temperature in buildings. Journal of Building Physics 39(2): 189–204.
Dragicevic S and Vuckovic N (2007) Evaluation of distributional solar radiation parameters
of Cacak using long—term measured global solar radiation data. Thermal Science 11(4):
125–134.
Dragsted J and Furbo S (2012) Solar radiation and thermal performance of solar collectors
for Denmark. DTU Civil Engineering Report R-275, October. Available at: http://
orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:117385/datastreams/file_8854fca2-ce61-4017-befd-9d73
8e6f595e/content
Duffie JA and Beckman WA (2006) Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 3rd edn.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
EC Directive (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the
European Communities L 153(13), 18 June. EC Directive: Brussels.
54 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)