EI I[| G't

AND
UILDING-
ELSEVIER Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256

LT Method 3 . 0 - a strategic energy-design tool for Southern Europe

Nick Baker, Koen Steemers
The Martin Centrefor ArchitectJtral and Urban Studies, Departmentof Architecture Universityof Cambridge, 6 ChaucerRoad, Cambridge CB2 2EB, UK

Abstract

The LT Method is an energy-design tool which responds to parameters available early in the design development. It provides an output of
annual primary energy for lighting, heating cooling and ventilation. This paper introduces LT 3.0 i a version for Southern Europe which
includes a procedure to evaluate the affect of shading devices on cooling loads and on lighting.

Keywords: Energy-design tools; Strategic; Architecture; Southern Europe

1. Introduction In considering the factors which influence energy use in a

Energy modelling has developed to a high standard in the
past decade. The growing power of computers together with
rigorous procedures for validation, relying upon high-quality
data from test cells, has greatly increased the accuracy with
which thermal models can predict temperatures and energy
use. However, this is often at the expense of complication -
in order to develop the potential accuracy, more detailed
building data is required than is likely to be available until
the design is fully developed. This means that if the model is
to be used as a design tool, the iterative loop of design pro-
posal: testing/design modification/re-testing, etc., is a wide
one. The conceptual momentum of a design team, and prac-
tical considerations, make this iterative process unlikely to
occur.
A second problem with these powerful models is that few
integrate other energy uses into the analysis; the emphasis
has been on thermal models. But energy use for electric light-
ing, mechanical ventilation and refrigeration, often consumes
a much greater proportion of the total energy. This is espe-
cially true for non-domestic buildings in milder climates.
The LT 2 Method has atlempted to address these two prob-
lems. This has been at the. expense of modelling precision,
but there is clearly no virtue in being able to take account of
a parameter, if information of that parameter is not yet avail-
able.
t The full data and documentation is published by the Energy Research
Group, Department of Architecture, University College Dublin, Dublin 14,
originally as supporting material for the EC sponsored 'Zephyr' Architec-
tural Competition.
2 LT: Lighting and Thermal energy.
building, we can classify them into three broad categories:
(i) building; (ii) services, and (iii) occupants. Studies of
Baker have shown that all three categories independently
have about equal impact on energy use. Within building fac-
tors we can identify two sub-categories building-design par-
ameters and engineering parameters. For example, the plan
depth of a building is a fundamental building-design param-
eter, interacting with many other parameters and having an
impact on the form and performance of the building in terms
of daylight, heating and cooling, and natural ventilation. In
contrast, the U-value of the wall, whilst it will have significant
effect on the thermal performance, can take on values inde-
pendently from other parameters.
More to the point is that at the strategic stage of design the
architect is really not very interested in U-values or the lumi-
nous efficacy of the lamps; he or she is free to choose them
at a later stage. However, the plan, section, facade design,
orientation, position on the site in relation to other buildings,
organisation of functions within the building are all of great
interest during the phase when the 6B-pencil sketches are
being created.
In developing the LT Method we have concentrated upon
these design parameters. The engineering parameters do
influence energy performance, but these have been given
'sensible' default values, or reduced to simple categories such
as 'high internal gains' or 'low internal gains'.
It so happens, that to assist in the dissemination of the LT
Method, it has been developed predominantly in a manual
form. That is to say that the procedure is carried out using
scale rule, pocket calculator and pencil. This may seem anach-
ronistic in a time when the computer prevails, but in fact the

0378-7788/96/$15.00 © 1996 Elsevier Science S.A. All fights reserved

SSD10378-7788(95)00950-3
252 N. Baker, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256

constraint has usefully forced us to simplify data requirc- MWh/m 2

0.30
ments and output options. It also means that the method has
to rely upon pre-computed data presented in the form of lotal ~
0.25 ......... cool 1.0
graphs and tables. ...... heat
\. .............
Although we are now developing electronic versions, the
0.20 .7
presentation ofpre-computed data in this way is still adopted• s.r"
This maintains the transparency of the method and confronts
the user with his or her design proposal set against other 0.15 •, , " "" .,,,0.35

performance data. It shifts the emphasis from the number to

the trend; from evaluation to comparison. 0.10 " "" "*' "'"*

0.05 ~
"'•. .... fan p o v ~

2. The L T Method .......... :_...-...:.-...:.....; ......

The LT Method relies upon the concept of the passive zone
as shown in Fig. 1. This is an area in the building within a
maximum distance from a perimeter wall, or an area under a
roof. These passive zones can receive the benefit of daylight,
natural ventilation and useful solar gains in winter, but also
the disbenefit of heat loss through the envelope and solar
gains in summer. Non-passive zones are away from the enve-
lope, and thus require mechanical ventilation and artificial
lighting, but do not suffer from unwanted solar gains or fabric
heat loss• In the LT Method the passive zone depth from a
side wall is defined as twice the floor to ceiling height, or
6 m as a default. (This is quite a useful way to assess a
building even if it is not used as part of the LT procedure.)
Annual Primary Energy consumption per m z is presented
for the zones as a function of glazing ratio and orientation. A
typical LT Curve is shown in Fig. 2.
In using the LT Method there are three main steps:
(i) define passive and non-passive zones and their orien-
tation; measure the areas from a sketch plan and enter on the
LT Worksheet (Fig. 3);
(ii) read off the Annual Primary Energy consumption per
m 2 from the LT Curves for lighting, heating and cooling
applying any correction factors due to the presence of shading
devices, and
~, ~J' t /
~'!' - -
Fig. !. Passive zones (white) and non-passive zones (hatched) on sketch
plan.
0.00
1"o 2o ~o 4"o 5o ~ 7o ~o go
SOUTH % glazing rabo
Fig. 2. LT Curve for south-facingofficein Southern Europe.
(iii) multiply the areas by the appropriate specific energy
consumptions and sum for all zones and uses.
The results can either be presented by the different uses:
heating, lighting, cooling, etc., or a total, or on a per m 2 basis•
The latter is most useful when comparing the performance of
the building with a target.
2.1. The LT Model
The LT Curves are derived by a mathematical model. Fig. 4
shows the energy flows which are modelled. First, the model
evaluates the heat conduction through the external envelope,
and ventilation heat loss (or gain). Using monthly mean
temperatures and a thermal reference point with a correction
factor to allow for intermittent heating, a monthly gross heat-
ing load is calculated. The model then evaluates the solar gain
and applies a utilisation factor to this.
At the same time the monthly hours of available daylight
are calculated from the average hourly sky illuminance on
the facade, the daylight factor, and an internal lighting datum
value. This gives a monthly electrical consumption for arti-
ficial lighting, and a monthly heat gain.
The lighting heat gains and useful solar gains, together
with a fixed casual gain from occupants and equipment, are
then subtracted from the gross heating load to establish the
net heating load. When the gains are greater than the gross
load, there is a cooling load. The cooling loads contain an
allowance for fan and pump energy.
As soon as a cooling load exists, the model eliminates a
percentage of the solar gain as defined by the shading device•
However, the ventilation remains at the low rate for calculat-
ing the cooling load, assuming there are no openable windows
and no 'free cooling'. This is to establish what the cooling
load would be, if it were mechanically cooled.
Note also that the model assumes 'sensible light-switch-
ing', i.e. that lights are only on when the daylighting value
drops below the datum value. In practice this would almost
certainly require automatic, light-sensing switching. Thus to
 N. Baker, K. Steeraers / Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256
~ t,a~ t'mmmU~
I ~"~'" "'8' I .o/_~ I
A to~ M~t y 0
vent
¢omnte~ts
~,~ . / v o . , - /f"""a~s~;~..~ ~ , ~ .
Fig. 3. LT worksheet.
a certain extent the model already assumes a considerable
degree of good design.
The monthly energy consumption is calculated for a 'cell'
and then reduced to the value of energy consumption per m 2.
This is then totalled for the year and plotted as a function of
glazing ratio. A 'cell' corresponds to a room surrounded by
other rooms. This implies a zero conductive heat loss through
all surfaces except the external (window) wail or in the case
of rooflighting, the ceiling. Appropriate efficiency factors are
applied to reduce all energy to primary energy.
The reason that primary energy is used is that it allows the
different 'fuel' inputs for lighting, heating and cooling to be
reduced to one common unit. Primary energy is the energy
value of the fuel at source. In the case of fuels such as gas or
oil when it is to be used for heating, there is an energy over-
head required for extracting, refining and distribution, and
then the loss of heat due to combustion losses, at the point of
use. In the case of electricity, used for lighting and mechanical
power for cooling and ventilation, an energy overhead occurs
at the power station due to the thermodynamic efficiency of
the conversion of heat to raechanical power. This is a large
factor: 1 unit of delivered electricity is equivalent to 3.7 units
of primary energy.
For fossil fuel, Primary Energy relates well to CO2 and
other pollution production, and to cost. Problems arise when
a large proportion of electricity is generated by renewable
sources such as hydro or nuclear sources. On a national basis,
there are wide variations of the fuel used for electricity gen-
eration. However, bearing m mind that electricity is exported
and imported on the European grid, a single European factor
is appropriate.
253
. I .o~? I 0 6 o I .o~rs I
0 SUMMARY
n ~ annual ol~naw net annual
e¢~rgy consumptior CO2 ernisr,~
MWtl kWWm' t k~tm 2 %
TOTALS ~"7~' /07 / 2$'-~' 100
3. Shading
Shading is recognised as a vital measure to prevent over-
heating, in particular in warmer climates. Yet it is clear that
most shading devices reduce the daylight, as well as solar
gain, within the building. If reduced below a threshold, this
then causes an increased lighting energy demand. How can
this be taken account of in an integrated energy tool?
Again the LT Method has to make simplifications. Two
kinds of shading system are identified: (i) those which only
reduce unwanted solar gain (type A), and (ii) those which
reduce the daylight by the same proportion that they reduce
solar gain (type B). These two extremes may rarely exist in
practice, but due to the way LT works, it is more meaningful
than it may seem at first.
Take the case of movable shading devices such as fabric
roller blinds or venetian blinds (Fig. 5). These need only be
deployed when solar radiation is failing onto the window, i.e.
when there is a surplus of illuminance. Even if the fabric or
louvre system has a diffuse transmission of only 10%, applied
to direct solar radiation with an illuminance of around 80 000
lux, this still leaves 8000 lux transmitted through the window
plane. Converting this to the equivalent horizontal illumi-
nance in order to apply a conventional Daylight Factor (DF),
a 2% DF value would give a horizontal illuminance of about
500 lux. Furthermore, in principle the louvre system can be
adjusted to give sufficient diffuse illuminance transmission,
without admitting direct sunlight. Thus although the system
usefully reduces unwanted solar gain, it permits sufficient
daylight to exceed the threshold value for artificial lighting.
Now consider a light shelf (Fig. 6), a fixed system. High-
angle direct sun is completely prevented from reaching the
254 N. Baker, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256

lighting power

heaU~

coc~ir~ ~gh~ng

~I~, conduc~i(xlthroughglass

~ ~ )"~c(mducfiontlvough opaque

Fig. 4. Energy flows in the LT Model.

= ,i = / Q

.........................
300
0 L _ ~ shading 0
• transmission M m
500 lux 700 lux 10% 600 lux SO00lux

oll
lux

ref poi~ . . . . . . . . "

1" i :°21
300]
J

ref Point
,*,'

0 ~ shading 0 __ . shading
transmission ~ ~ = ~ I ~ M transmission
300 lux 600 lux 100% 800 lux 1000 lux 35%
Fig. 5. Moveable shading is only deployed when there is an excess of
illuminance. Type-Al shading.

workplane, most being reflected by the external part of the

shelf whereas diffuse radiation is reflected to the back of the
room. Even in diffuse sky conditions, although the illumi-
nance is reduced near to the window, due to intereflection, it
is not reduced at the back of the room. Thus the transmission
of the system is geometrically selective.
For the evaluation of artificial lighting energy, LT is only
interested in critical conditions. In both these cases LT
assumes that the shading device causes no reduction in day-
light at the critical reference point in the room (4.5 m from
the window wall), and at the critical time (i.e. as the internal
daylight level approaches the switch-on threshold value). We
will call these two shading types A1 and A2, respectively.
When reading off from the LT Curves, if the shading device
has no effect on illuminance at the critical switch-on time, it
will not effect lighting energy. Thus for a given glazing ratio,
no modification to lighting energy has to be made. For cooling
energy, however, the LT Model has been used to produce a
family of curves at different shading transmission factor 0.7
and 0.35. For heating energy, it is assumed that low-angle
useful winter sun is uninterrupted, either due to the geometry
300
0
300 lux 450 lux
Fig. 6. A light shelf reduces excess illuminance close to the window but not
at the critical reference point. Type-A2 shading.
of the shading device, or because it is not deployed at times
of heating demand. So the heating curve is read off with no
modification.
In contrast, type B shading devices are really rather dumb,
and cannot be recommended. These devices reduce daylight
by as much as they reduce unwanted solar gain (Fig. 7). This
is the same effect as opaque wall - in other words it is just as
good to reduce the glazing area. In fact this is the better
solution, because shaded glass still has a high U-value,
whereas opaque wall can be well insulated, and at lower cost.
If shading devices such as these are to be evaluated using LT,
the reduced light transmission must be accounted for. This is
 N. Baker, K. Steemers / Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256 255

m
0.30 ~ I l
lux o.25 ~ I /

:t I re,poi~.......... . o'~ 0.20 ~. . . . . . . ~ - ~ _~. ~.,

s" '" p'~

iiim
60,3 lux
. . . .

300 lux
'" d htt"~-
0.10 ~M~-~ ,

AC 0.05 ' '-q. i

600 t . , - ....
300 .... x ........... ~..,....e ..... 0.00

0 10 60 70 80 90
0 ~ < ~ ~ ~ transmission nST ..~.~/.~,~ ~
105 lux 210 lux 35%

Fig. 7. Fixed screens and grids reduce daylight and solar gain by the same
amount. Type-B shading. Fig. 8. The effect of fixed shading on lighting energy.

done by multiplying the actual glazing ratio, by the shading
transmission coefficient, when reading off the lighting energy
curve, as shown in Fig. 8.
It is interesting to note that several advanced daylight sys-
tems, combining reflective louvres or prismatic glass with
shelves, claim to improve the distribution of the daylight.
This could be described as having a negative shading factor
for daylight, actually increasing the daylight at the critical
position, (from the LT viewpoint this would be equivalent to
increasing the depth of the lrassive zone) and a positive shad-
ing factor for solar gain. This discussion suggests the urgent
need for shading devices to be classified in this way - that is
a time-integrated ratio of solar shading to critical daylight
transmission.
4. Cooling loads and passive buildings
A most important question that designers ask is 'can LT
tell me if my building will be OK without air conditioning?'
The short answer is no. LT can produce an annual cooling
load which responds to solar gains, internal gains, and ambi-
ent temperature, but it is quite difficult to translate this into
an overheating probability.
This is because overheating in subtropical regions is a
result of non-uniformity in conditions, rather than the result
of steady or average conditions. This is in contrast to the
situation for heating. In most of Europe, the average winter
temperature is at least 7 °C below comfort temperature and
in many cases 15 °C. This contrasts with the most severe
summer condition, e.g. the average temperature in Athens in
August of 29 °C which is only 2 °C above an accepted upper
comfort limit. Most of Southern Europe's average summer
temperature lies well within the comfort zone.
Thus it is difficult to translate annual cooling load direct
to overheating frequency. A new LT feature, currently under
development, are overheating prediction curves. These, how-
ever, are based upon the cumulative frequency of tempera-
tures above a datum value, and thus are driven by the
departure of conditions from the norm, rather than the average
conditions. Until this feature is available, we believe that
potential cooling loads are of interest, since from a compar-
ative viewpoint they can help to optimise design.
5. LT and education
The messages given by the use of LT are quite simple.
After having used the procedure a number of times, it would
probably be possible to sum up the conclusions in a few lines
of good advice. Why then go to the trouble of producing such
a complex procedure?
We believe that, quite rightly, designers are sceptical about
prescriptive advice particularly when it requires many qual-
ifications to make it sufficiently robust. Humans have basi-
cally quantitative minds, and advice which is backed by
quantities is much more convincing. Furthermore it is more
useful because it enables us to rank measures in order of
priority. For example, it may be important to know by how
much the application of shading devices reduces cooling load
compared with, say, reducing the internal gains. Even simple
global messages such as 'avoid deep plans' seem to be more
convincing when backed up by numbers.
5.1. Validation
So, although strategic energy tools like LT are limited in
the number of parameters they can address, they have a role
in creating their own advice. This raises the question: is it
good advice?
In assessing energy models, validation is regarded as a pre-
requisite for their use. This usually consists of comparing
256 N. Baker. K. Steemers/ Energy and Buildings 23 (1996) 251-256
measured data from simplified buildings such as test cells,
with results from blind simulations using the model. This is
by no means as easy as it sounds, but model validation meth-
ods have become sophisticated enough to cope with most of
the difficulties.
With simplified energy-design tools, the same approach is
hardly appropriate. So much of the data has to be given
assumed values, that comparing measured and predicted
energy-consumption figures would really become a test for
the selection of default values. Far more useful is the criterion
'are the general messages given by this tool in accord with
the expert view?' This softer criterion does not appear to lend
itself to rigorous application. Rather, the continued use of
design tools such as LT in education and professional training
contributes to a slowly developing confidence.
Bibliography
N. Baker, Low energy strategies for non-domestic build-
ings, in S. Roaf and M. Hancock (eds.), Energy Efficient
Building, Biackwell, Oxford, 1992.
Other versions of the LT Method are as follows:
(i) J. Goulding, J.O. Lewis and T. Steemers, LT 1.2,
(Office buildings in Europe), Energy in Architecture, Bats-
ford for the CEC, 1993.
(ii) LT 2.0, (Office buildings in UK), Cambridge Archi-
tectural Research Ltd. for Building Research Energy Conser-
vation Unit, BRECSU.
(iii) LT 4.0, (Multi-residential Buildings in Eastern
Europe), Documentation for architectural competition Liv-
ing in the City, Energy Research Group, Department of
Architecture, University College Dublin, Dublin 14.