Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259921312
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
591
744
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Srijan Didwania
Jyotirmay Mathur
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
M. Bodart, A. De Herde [8] evaluated the impact of lighting energy savings on global energy
consumption in office buildings. They combined the thermal and lighting aspects for few facade
configurations to bring out the total energy savings. However there is a need to bring out the
optimum glazing dimension for glasses having different properties, different facades and different
orientations, which has been incorporated in this document.
Various optimization methodologies for future integration in building performance tools have
been discussed in [10]. Hopfe, C.J. discussed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building
performance simulation for decision support and design optimization [11]. He showed how the
application of diverse prototypes could benefit and enhance building design methods, with the
emphasis on discrete decision making and component optimization, under uncertainty. Selkowitz
and Lee [12] discussed advanced interactive facades as critical elements for future green buildings.
He highlighted the use of new technology, better system integration using more capable design
tools, and smarter building operation that are all necessary to meet the goals of a new class of
buildings that are both environmentally responsible at a regional or global level while providing
the amenities and working environments that owners and occupants seek.
Thus, need for an optimization based approach keeping in view the heat gain and visible light
transmittance has become necessary. Use of good glazing material (ECBC standards) is not
sufficient for saving energy unless the optimum glazing area is found for different types of glazing
materials, different size and orientation of buildings.
1.2 Need for Optimization
The use of system simulation for analyzing complex engineering problems is increasing. Such
problems typically involve many independent variables, and can only be optimized by means of
numerical optimization. Parametric studies are used by many designers for achieving better
performance of such systems, even though only partial improvement is yielded by those studies,
while requiring high labor time. In such parametric studies, one usually fixes all but one variable
and tries to optimize a cost function with respect to the non-fixed variable. The procedure is
repeated iteratively by varying another variable. However, every time a variable is varied, all other
variables typically become non-optimal and hence need also to be adjusted. It is clear that such a
manual procedure is very time-consuming and often impractical for more than two or three
independent variables.
GenOpt, a generic optimization program, has been developed to find with less labor time the
independent variables that yield better performance of such systems. Optimization of a
user-supplied cost function is done by GenOpt, using a user-selected optimization algorithm.
In this study, it has been used to optimize the WWR for different orientation and direction of
the building. The window to wall area ratio (WWR) has an important effect on building energy
consumption for heating, air conditioning and lighting. For one thing, solar heat gains will be
increased as the WWR increases, the heat exchange will be also increased for the heat transfer
coefficient of window being usually larger than that of wall. On the other hand, the artificial
lighting consumption will decrease as WWR increases. These two opposing facts bring out the
need for optimization, such that an optimum WWR is reached where the total electricity
consumption is minimized.
The effect of increasing WWR on air conditioning and artificial lighting has been shown in
Figure 1(a). The variation of air conditioning energy consumption with WWR changes with
different orientations of the openings as discussed by Y.B. Hou and X.Z. Fu in [2]. From that study
it becomes quite evident that orientations have significant effect.
Air conditioning energy increase with increasing WWR, on the other hand the trend for
artificial lighting energy is just opposite i.e. it decreases with increasing WWR. Thus, the overall
impact of WWR on total energy consumption can be seen in Figure 1(b). It is a U-shaped curve
with minimum lying somewhere around 20% WWR. The minimum varies for different types of
building and different orientation of opening.
This brings out the need for optimization so as to reach the point of minimum energy
consumption with combination of different WWR in all four directions.
The variable inputs mentioned in the command section are assigned certain range of values so
as to get the results within acceptable and practical limits.
With start of the optimization process, the first iterate (initial value specified in the command
file) is assigned to the input file of EnergyPlus which carries out simulation calculations and
reports the result in its output file. This output meter value is then collected by GenOpt which is
processed into a function whose minimum value is to be achieved. For example the function can be
such that it gives the payback period or the total energy consumption.
The next iterate is then generated by GenOpt using the initial value and the step size defined
for the variable. The output value for the next input is again collected from EnergyPlus output file.
Having the two function values for two different inputs, both the results are compared by GenOpt
and the next iterate is assigned accordingly, i.e. if the function value for the second iterate came out
to be higher than the previous one, the iterate is rolled back in opposite direction and finally the
minimum function value is searched for the entire range of variables in accordance with the step
size mentioned. The selection of iterates is done by the optimizer i.e. it is influenced by the
algorithm selected by the user.
In this study, the input variable taken was WWR (in percentage form), having a range from 5
to 100 percent. A minimum of 5% WWR was assumed to be present so as to allow some natural
light and outside view. The output meter values collected from Energy plus were Es_cool,
Es_heat and Es_light, i.e. cooling, heating and lighting energy (electricity) required
respectively. These values upon summation yield total electricity consumption which need to be
minimized. It was referred to as Es_total.
Values
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Climate Type
Ground Reflectance
Geometry
Dimension (m)
Floor to floor height
(m)
Number of floors
WWR
28.38 N
77.12 E
Composite
0.2
Varies
3.5
2
Varies
Envelope Material
Roof U value (W/m2-K) 0.403
Wall U value (W/m2-K) 0.447
Floor U (W/m2-K)
0.795
Parameters
Values
Area (sq m)
Gross floor area
Varies
Conditioned floor area
Varies
Frames & Dividers
Material
PVC
Frame width (cm)
4
Divider width (cm)
2
Conductance (W/m2-K)
Divider spacing (m)
Internal Shade
Thickness (cm)
Conductivity (W/m-K)
Solar transmittance
Solar reflectance
Visible transmittance
Visible reflectance
3.4
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.7
0.2
HVAC
System type
Fan control
Cooling COP
PTAC
Constant
3.5
Electric
Internal loads
Lighting (W/sq m)
10
Equipment (W/sq m)
20
Occupancy (sq
m/person)
10
Dimming
16
500 lux
22
Glazing Detail
Glass U value (W/m2-K)
Varies
Glass SHGC
Varies
Glass VT
Varies
VLT
0.39
0.88
0.55
U-value (W/m2-K)
3.3
6.1
5.6
Windows on different orientations have different effects on solar heat gain due to different
cooling load factors (CLFs), cooling load temperature differences (CLTDs) and maximum solar
heat gain factors (MSHGFs). Thus analysis of independently varying WWR in different directions
for different orientation of building becomes essential. The comparison for optimum independent
WWR with optimum symmetrical WWR has also been analyzed.
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS*
35*70 (1:2)
EW*
40*40
(1:1)
56*28 (1:2) NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW
FIRST FLR
40
25
15
20
GROUND FLR
45
25
20
20
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
40
40
50
50
25
25
25
25
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
45
50
40
50
65
45
25
30
30
25
25
30
15
20
15
15
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
FIRST FLR
55
25
15
20
GROUND FLR
50
25
20
25
FIRST FLR
40
15
15
20
42*21 (1:2) NS
GROUND FLR
55
25
15
20
FIRST FLR
60
25
15
20
21*42 (1:2)
EW
GROUND FLR
45
25
15
20
*NS means North-South orientation (i.e. longer side facing north and south)
*EW means East-West orientation (i.e. longer side facing east and west)
30*30
(1:1)
It is evident that thermally efficient glass allows greater WWR which is reflected from the
results in Table 4-6 as well. Also, it is well known that for the northern hemisphere and climate like
that of India, maximum WWR should be in north direction, followed by east, west and minimum
in south direction. It should be noted that this statement only applies in the context of this study in
New Delhi which lies in the Northern Hemisphere and is specific to office buildings dominated by
a high cooling load and a small heating load. In this case more glazing to the north and less or none
to the west and south should typically give a more optimal energy and daylight balance, with a
reduction in overheating risks.
Looking at the trend for a inferior single layer glass (S818861) shown in Table-5, on an
average, northern facade can attain a WWR around 20-30%, followed by east and west with about
10%, and south only up to 5%.
Table-5: Optimum WWR for single glazed, high SHGC window (S818861)
Building Type
Floor
North
East
South
West
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2) NS
35*70 (1:2)
EW
40*40
(1:1)
56*28 (1:2) NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW
30*30
(1:1)
42*21 (1:2) NS
21*42 (1:2)
EW
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
20
35
20
35
20
20
10
10
10
15
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
40
40
20
30
25
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
65
45
65
55
25
20
10
10
5
10
10
15
5
10
5
10
5
5
10
10
5
10
5
10
Table-6: Optimum window area for single glazed, moderate SHGC window (S475556)
Building Type
Floor
North
East
South
West
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2) NS
35*70 (1:2)
EW
40*40
(1:1)
56*28 (1:2)
NS
28*56 (1:2)
EW
30*30
(1:1)
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
25
40
25
35
30
30
15
15
10
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
15
10
15
10
10
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
30
35
25
30
30
35
15
15
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
FIRST FLR
40
15
10
15
42*21 (1:2) NS
21*42 (1:2)
EW
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
35
30
35
40
20
10
5
10
15
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
Building Type
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS
35*70
(1:2)EW
Building Type
50*50
(1:1)
70*35 (1:2)
NS
35*70
(1:2)EW
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
Floor
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
Floor
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
FIRST FLR
GROUND FLR
20
25
25
25
25
25
Optimum
WWR
(symmetric)
Optimum
10
15
10
15
10
10
Optimum
WWR
(symmetric)
Optimum
15
20
15
20
15
15
48.3
48.5
47.7
47.9
48.2
48.4
40-25-15-20
45-25-20-20
40-25-15-20
40-25-15-20
50-25-20-20
50-25-20-20
20-10-5-5
35-10-5-10
20-10-5-10
35-15-5-10
20-10-5-10
20-10-10-10
25-15-10-10
40-15-10-15
25-10-10-10
35-15-10-15
30-15-10-10
30-15-15-10
48.1
48.2
47.4
47.5
48.1
48.2
Energy
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
49.9
50.5
49.5
50.1
50.6
51.1
Energy
(asymmetric)
kWh/m2-yr
49.6
49.9
49
49.4
49.8
50.3
Similarly, moving on to a better single layer glass (S475556) shown in Table-6, the optimum
WWR came out to be 30-40%, 15%, 10%, and 10% on an average for north, east, west and south
facade respectively. For double glass assembly shown in Table-4, the optimum value for WWR
reached 40%-60% on north, 25% on east, 20% on west and 15% on south.
Now, analyzing the results diligently, it could be identified that in general the ground floor
allows a higher optimum WWR. This difference of results for ground and top floor were basically
governed by two parameters, the difference in HVAC sizing for both floors and the ground
reflectivity. The higher HVAC sizing due to the effect of roof on top floor resulted in greater CFM
leading to higher convective heat gain through windows, thus favoring a smaller window. On the
other hand the ground reflectivity would account for a smaller window on the ground floor.
However it could be identified that this parameter was less pronounced than the former in most
cases. In few of the cases where the zone size was smaller and the HVAC difference became less
effective, this parameter played a dominant role. It could be seen that the effect of ground
reflectivity dominated over the effect of HVAC sizing mostly on the north faade and that too in
case of smaller building foot print. This was because in the northern hemisphere, the sun is mostly
on the south and thus the reflected radiation from the ground dominates over the direct solar
radiation.
On the other hand, the optimum WWR attained on distributing the windows symmetrically on
all four sides on the building came to be quite less as compared to independent distribution. The
comparison of energy consumption (Lighting & HVAC) between both the cases (one with
optimum symmetrical distribution and other with optimum independent distribution) is shown in
Table-7. With these results it can be visualized that considering an optimized asymmetric window
distribution proves much better than symmetric distribution.
1.8 Conclusions
The U-shaped nature of the curve between total energy consumption and WWR straight away
brings out the necessity for optimization based approach in determining the most efficient opening
size for a particular glazing type, orientation and type of building. The method of reaching to the
optimum values combining all four sides as discussed in this study proves to be very efficient with
minimal efforts on manual side.
Its not only the type of glazing (i.e. thermally efficient glazing recommended by ECBC) that
need to be emphasized for better building performance, but attention should also be given to the
WWR that is being adopted for different directions, different floors and different types of glass.
Independent distribution of glazing on the four directions should be preferred rather than
symmetric distribution as it can be seen that the optimized WWR for the latter case is much lower.
With this, a higher WWR can be afforded in few directions for better aesthetics and outside view
as compared to symmetric distribution and that too without compromising with savings, but in fact
enhancing it. It also accounts for better comfort due to more of natural light than artificial lights
during working hours.
1.9 References
[1] Xing Su, Xu Zhang, Environmental performance optimization of windowwall ratio for
different window type in hot summer and cold winter zone in China based on life cycle
assessment, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 198202
[2] Y. Feng, H. Yang, Defining the area ratio of window to wall in Design standard for
energy-efficiency of residential buildings in hot summer and cold winter zone, Journal of Xian
University of architecture and Technology 33 (2001) 348351.
[3] Y.B. Hou, X.Z. Fu, Affection of WWR on energy consumption in region of hot summer and
cold winter, Architecture Technology 10 (2002) 661662.
[4] Y.W. Jian, Y. Jiang, Influence of WWR on annual energy consumption for heating and air
conditioning in residential buildings, Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning 36 (2006) 15.
[5] M.N. Inanici, N. Demirbilek, Thermal performance optimization of buildings aspect ratio and
south window size in five cities having different climatic characteristics of Turkey, Building and
Environment
35 (2000) 4152.
[6] M. Szerman, Superlink: A Computer tool to evaluate the impact of Daylight-controlled lighting
system onto the overall energetic behavior of buildings, in: Proceedings of Right Light 2, Arnhem,
1993, 673-685.
[7] K.Opdal, B.Brekke, Energy savings in lighting by utilization of daylight, in: Proceedings of
Right Light 3, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1995, 67-74.
[8] M. Bodart, A. De Herde, Global energy savings in office buildings by the use of daylighting,
Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 421-429.
[9] GenOpt(R), Generic Optimization Program, User Manual, Version 3.0.0
[10] Emmerich, M. T. M., Hopfe, C. J., Marijt, R., Hensen, J., Struck, C., & Stoelinga, P. 2008.
Evaluating optimization methodologies for future integration in building performance tools.
[11] Hopfe, C.J., (2009). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building performance simulation
for decision support and design optimization, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The
Netherlands.
[12] Selkowitz, S., Aschehoug, ., Lee, E.S., Advanced Interactive Facades Critical Elements
for Future Green Buildings?, LBNL-53876.