Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Acknowledgements
Introduction
The last two decades have been marked by an increasing public awareness of the
need for environmentally sensitive solutions in the realm of building design. Given
the simple fact that a major purpose of a built environment is to provide shelter and
comfort, the realization that this could and should be accomplished more
intelligently so as to minimize the damage to the environment has gained
acceptance as a strategic objective.
Whereas active (mechanical and electrical) systems for supplying a working
building with the needed energy are traditionally the domain of engineering
specialists, so-called passive strategies seek to limit the need for auxiliary systems
by designing the building envelope such that it inherently fulfills thermal tempering
functions as extensively as possible under the given climatic conditions.
In other words, passive energy-use strategies are by definition a matter of the
entire building envelope together with its utilization and, therefore, a core concern
of architectural practice. In order to effectively reduce the negative environmental
impact of erecting and operating buildings -- without compromising thermal comfort
or other functional and psychological priorities -- architectural design concepts
should adequately reflect environmental concerns from their inception. Such an
integrative approach implies a fundamental departure from the increasingly
common practice of consulting specialists for energy arguments "after the fact" of
architectural design.
Since accounting for local climate is in large part a question of adequately
modeling the influences of solar radiation on the overall thermal performance of a
building, the meaning of the term passive solar has evolved to encompass nearly
all major strategies of environmentally responsive building design: to provide
comfortable and inexpensive heating in the winter, cooling in the summer, and
daylighting all year round. Concretely, these objectives are also reflected in new
building codes and thermal quality standards emerging in the European Union (as
elsewhere in the world), which prescribe increasingly sophisticated calculations to
be performed for building project permits.
Meeting more complex and stringent thermal quality standards poses a substantial
addition to the tasks required of building designers. A positive challenge to the
supporting field of building science lies in developing methods which not only yield
the prescribed final calculations, but also serve to guide the consistent realization
of passive energy-use strategies throughout the entire design process.
context
A wealth of quantitative methods and techniques for estimating solar influences on
the thermal behavior of a building already exist. Nonetheless, the approaches
behind these developments are either engineering-oriented and aimed at
evaluation late in the architectural design process, or too simplified and individually
limited in applicability to a single level of a specific design decision.
The term "design tool" is generally used to encompass all design-support methods
and aids, i.e. "forward-looking" guidelines as well as "backward-looking" simplified
methods. Theoretically, a guidance tool would be used before each design step,
followed by the use of an evaluation tool after the step to verify that the desired
result was indeed obtained (Balcombe 1992). Practically, however, such an ideal
usage sequence is only realistic if the individual procedures involve compatible
tools. As it is, in order to effectively implement the entire range of currently
available solar assessment techniques, the architect must first familiarize
him/herself with a varied (and often inconsistent) array of characterizing
parameters -- a time-comsuming, autodidactic process better left to specialists
after all.
The consequence, not surprisingly, is that very few of the many potentially valuable
instruments in solar building physics have made their way into the training and
practice of architecture. This may, in part, be due to the fact that most simplified
methods which have been developed especially with architects in mind are highly
derivative in nature, and thus tend to obscure rather than clarify underlying
physical principles. Moreover, using such a diverse palette of methods means
having to deal with incongruous models and sets of parameters for each type of
evaluation, thus prohibiting the comparative interpretation of results spanning
different design stages.
In contrast, computer simulations of thermal performance -- which provide data for
correlation analysis and thus constitute the source of many simplified methods -are in some respects simpler to comprehend as they are much more closely linked
to physical models. With the increasing availability and power of computer-based
methods for simulating thermal behavior, simulation analysis appears to be gaining
feasibility as a design guidance tool.
There is, however, no doubt that full-scale simulation analysis is still far too
unwieldy and data-intensive for immediate use during the course of building
design, especially at early stages when key decisions are made. More importantly,
even in the event that such tools should one day become sufficiently convenient for
architects, the buiding design process in its earliest stages does not generally
include enough thermally relevant detail information to make simulation results
the globe.
The second, less conspicuous, but equally important advantage lies in the
manageability and, therefore, interpretability of preliminary results. Instead of
handling unwieldy tables of numeric values, which are generally impenetrable for
anyone but an expert, the parametric approach allows the development of the
thermal simulation model in parallel with progressively detailed design stages.
Thus each stage can be consistently characterized as well as documented with
relatively manageable sets of parameters (profiles).
Above all, the parametric approach lets the designer extract valuable information to
guide running decisions in a customized manner, that is, derive sketch
assessments of parameter impact which are considerably more specific and
secure than general "rules of thumb." The concept for a prototypical
implementation of the necessary computational tools is briefly summarized in the
conclusion (The Solar Toolbox).
Part 1:
The entire extent of the building design process can be broken down into four main
phases in order to roughly categorize the types of design decisions encountered
and tools needed (Balcombe 1992, chapter 10):
Conceptual phase, which covers programming, site/situation analysis, and an
assessment of basic options for building shape and placement.
Schematic phase, which entails the commitment to a basic design strategy and
certain key functional, structural, and architectural aspects of a preliminary
design concept.
Developmental phase, in which the design concept evolves in increasing depth
and detail, ideally in a manner which progressively verifies the chosen
strategy.
Final phase, which includes detailing and technical fine-tuning of building
components as well as construction documentation.
The specific content of each phase is, of course, dependent on the concrete
project, and especially on whether the design is for new or retrofit construction.
Nonetheless, the four described stages do provide a theoretical framework for
relating thermal considerations in general -- and solar parameters in particular -- to
more or less equivalent levels of design information (figure 1.1).
The data required for the solar and climatic aspects of an overall thermal
simulation model conveniently coincide with information that is available at the
earliest stages of the building design process, i.e. during the conceptual phase of
new construction. The objective of the solar profiling method is to utilize this
information to reveal as much as possible about where the design stands in solar
terms -- without making any premature assumptions as to the thermal properties of
the building envelope. As the design model is developed through subsequent
levels, it should yield further and increasingly specific profiles, and ultimately serve
as the basis for more involved thermal performance assessments.
In order to facilitate the understanding of solar dimensions in a schematic yet
consistent fashion, the profiling method on the whole works with physical
dimensions of energy and geometry (e.g., W/m2). It aims to characterize a
building's solar potential from the conceptual stage on; hence, the initial emphasis
is not so much on computing absolute numeric quantities as it is on generating
qualitatively comparable visualizations and renderings. Calculation results in
numeric form may also be re-combined for the purpose of correlating solar/climate
profiles with other simplified methods, since these often work with some form of
dimensionless ratios (Balcombe 1980, Moore 1985, ASHRAE 1989, Lechner 1991,
Goulding 1993, see also 2-9 Preliminary Performance Assessment).
Regarding the choice of terminology, an effort has been made to select a
concordant set of solar terms from the numerous synonyms stemming from
different fields. Wherever possible without contradicting definitively established
conventions, terms were chosen to underscore the characteristic quality of primary
solar dimensions as defined in this particular context (e.g., "specific flux" instead of
"irradiation density" or other available synonyms). The most commonly used
equivalent terms are included for reference in the Glossary.
As mentioned in the Introduction, any prospective thermal simulation results are
particularly sensitive to the description of solar and climate boundary conditions.
With solar design considerations, assessing the impact of decisions on diurnal
patterns is just as important as grasping the effect over an annual cycle. This
makes it necessary to "sample" individual days of the year in order to obtain an
informative picture of the relevant diurnal patterns.
The choice of which days of the year to sample is especially important if the results
obtained are to bear relevance for later evaluations related to thermal
performance. It essentially depends on whether the cases to be eventually
considered later on in the design process are typical or extreme (critical/optimal) in
thermal terms. This, in turn, is a question of the thrust of analysis beyond the
strictly solar issues that can be addressed initially, and should be kept in mind from
the very beginning in the course of developing design case models.
Another way of looking at it is in terms of design scenarios, which are best
classified by the nature of the answers sought, in conjunction with the design
model in progress. Generally speaking, extreme scenarios more readily point up
the impact under either critical or "best case" conditions, making them most useful
in the earliest stages, both for avoiding solar design mistakes as well as optimizing
the use of solar potential. Typical scenarios, which are necessary to reliably
estimate the performance of a given building design under actually expected
conditions, come to bear mainly in later phases.
Thus initial solar/climate profiles are not only defined by the types of questions
commonly asked during early design phases, but also implicitly targeted at future
thermal profiles. Some examples of such questions, along with illustrations of the
types of answers obtainable, are included in the following sections. These are
structured with respect to the progressive levels of case model development, as
well as the underlying architectural design issues.
In this context, it is important to distinguish between reference data and parametric
profiles (figure 1.2). Reference type input (such as a standardized Test Reference
Year of climate data [Solar Energy Laboratory 1994]) yields sample results aimed
Fig. 1.1
Fig. 1.2
Parametric profiles vs. reference data: diurnal sample of incident solar flux [W/m2]
on horizontal surface (and normal on theoretical tracking surface).
1-1:
Solar Geometry
The task of programming a building project entails defining the primary project
requirements and constraints (in terms of function, location, space, access,
budget, etc.). Such program specifications can be extended to encompass target
values for thermal performance, thermal comfort, daylighting, and other energyrelated objectives. Together with the givens of the local climatic situation, these
objectives dictate which days of the year would best be sampled for the purpose of
developing a characteristic set of diurnal profiles.
Programming is typically accompanied by a thorough site analysis for determining
the range of basic design options given by the urban context, available space for
building, pedestrian and vehicular access, building regulations. and so on.
Analogously, a solar site analysis seeks to profile climate conditions and solar
potential in such a manner that an initial assessment of promising solar design
strategies can be made.
In the case of retrofit design, programming and site analysis also require a
complete description of the existing structure to be adapted. Energetically, the
basic solar site analysis would be rounded out with evaluations of the current state
of solar access, overall thermal performance, the thermal behavior of characteristic
components, as well as the thermal quality of critical details.
Set against such thermal base case profiles, comparative simulations of alternate
concepts for remodeling the existing structure could then inform the choice of solar
strategy and the combination of systems to be best integrated into the existing
situation (see also Case Studies).
The first step of solar site analysis is to define a set of seasonally characteristic
dates of the year, depending on the basic properties of the climate zone as well as
the focus of the project's solar energy-related objectives. These dates are
established at the beginning of the profiling method and maintained throughout all
levels of early analysis so that the profiles may be consistently interpreted and
compared. Since the design model becomes very complex with the addition of
geometric information at later stages, it is strongly recommended that the sampling
of dates be reduced to a maximum of three at the start. Otherwise, the number of
combinations for which profiles can be generated soon becomes unmanageable,
with an increased likelihood of losing sight of meaningful information.
For mild to tropical climates in which the annual and diurnal temperatures swings
are minor in comparison to the variations in solar radiation, days that characterize
solar seasons are most informative: winter and summer solstices, with an equinox
as transition. In such locations, design decisions are primarily directed by the the
handling of solar geometry for year-round shading and optimized energy collection
systems (passive or active), while thermal performance issues are of secondary
importance.
For locations in which the ambient mean temperatures vary significantly (thus
requiring a fair degree of interior tempering most of the year), it is more useful to
characterize climate seasons: mid-month days in January and July, with April as a
transition month. Design issues here usually involve mixed passive strategies for
optimally harvesting solar energy in cold weather and avoiding/exhausting excess
solar gain in warm weather. Therefore, the thermal performance of the building
envelope plays a dominant role in design development.
Given just the basic information of site location -- geographic latitude and
longitude, along with the applicable time zone meridian -- the diurnal paths of the
sun associated with the seasonal dates can already be calculated (see 2-1 Solar
Position for specifics on the calculation of these results).
Alternately to a solar path diagram as shown in figure 1.3, a three-dimensional
"terrestrial" rendering can be generated to visualize this characteristic solar
geometry as a theoretical tracking surface, that is, a plane assumed to ideally
follow the daily path of the sun from sunrise to sunset around the hemisphere of a
pre-defined model space. By showing the tracking surface as discrete unit planes
at hourly positions (as in figure 1.4), information about the local time in relation to
the sun's path is also conveyed in such a rendering.
Fig. 1.3
Solar path diagram for summer and winter dates:
Honolulu, USA -- Vienna, Austria -- Narvik, Norway.
Fig. 1.4
Tracking surface rendering of the same solar
paths as in fig. 1.3.
1-2:
The incident radiation on a tracking surface as illustrated in the previous section is,
by definition, normal to the surface at all times during the day. Since this quantity
represents the maximum possible solar flux that can be received at the given
geographic location at any given time, it is a measure of the solar energy potential,
or flux envelope, of the site.
The calculation of a diurnal flux envelope requires the definition of some basic
parameters to characterize the atmosphere and surrounding terrain: site altitude,
haziness and scatter, and ground-reflectance (detailed descriptions in 2-2 Solar
Flux through Atmosphere and 2-3 Local Solar Flux).
These parameters are used to generate an irradiation profile that shows the day
sums of the flux envelope on the given dates, whereby the global results can be
broken down into solar flux components for direct, diffuse sky, and diffuse groundreflected radiation (figure 1.5). The diurnal patterns of this quantity, i.e. global
radiation or one of its components, are conveyed through a composite flux plot
(figure 1.6).
Site altitude can be viewed as an atmospheric parameter in that it determines the
distance of atmosphere, or optical air mass, that solar flux passes through before
reaching the earth's surface. This measure, in turn, affects the degree of atmospheric attenuation of the incoming radiation, especially at low solar elevations
(when the distance is longest).
The meteorological parameters for haziness and scatter can be derived from
empirical data for direct/diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface -- in the unlikely
event that such information is immediately available for the geographic location in
question. Fortunately, it is not necessary (or even desirable) to work with
measured meteorological data during initial site analysis, since the type of
information sought generally focuses on the "best case" with respect to the site's
solar energy potential. To this end, meaningful profiles can be obtained by simply
applying standard parameters that describe the haziness and scatter on a
cloudless day. The ground-reflectance of the surrounding terrain can also generally
be assumed as standard without any loss in applicability.
Such flux envelope profiles are entirely site-specific, as they are specially
calculated for the given geographic location and altitude. These results may also
be used to design the geometry of double-axis tracking collectors and
subsequently gauge the amount of energy that could ideally be harvested (figure
1.7).
A further aspect of the site situation which should be modeled at this point are
distant-field obstructions in the form of horizon elevations (e.g., mountains). Since
the direct component of the calculated flux envelope is blocked at low solar
elevations on days when the sun rises or sets "behind" an elevated portion of the
horizon, this type of obstruction can have a noticeable impact on the given solar
energy potential of the location (figure 1.8, defined in 2-3 Local Solar Flux).
Fig. 1.5
Profile of the day sums of solar flux on a tracking surface [Wh/m2]:
clear skies (A) and overcast (B) -- summer/winter, Vienna.
Fig. 1.6
Diurnal plots of the solar flux envelope in fig. 1.5, clear skies.
Fig. 1.7
Photovoltaic collector tree ("Solarbaum") in Gleisdorf, Austria, design: H.
Skerbisch & W. Schiefer.
Fig. 1.8
Site situation with distant-field obstructions:
solar path diagram and tracking surface rendering with a partially
elevated horizon.
1-3:
Solar Access
For any surface plane with a fixed orientation, the incident radiation depends on
the angle of incidence specific to the orientation at any given time. In other words,
the local geometry of such a surface plane in terms of azimuth and tilt determines
its specific solar flux (see also in 2-3 Local Solar Flux). This quantity will always be
less than or equal to the momentary flux envelope, which is the normal radiation on
an ideal tracking surface as defined in the previous chapter.
A given site situation usually implies certain key orientations (e.g., street front,
roof), which constrain the locally usable potential for receiving solar energy.
Irradiation profiles and plots of the specific solar flux on such key orientations in
relation to the flux envelope show the magnitude of these constraints (figures 1.9
and 1.10). Associated plots of the incident angles reveal the interrelationship
between local and solar geometry (figure 1.11).
By enabling a preliminary assessment of optimal (or critical) local geometry, these
results inform initial decisions about building placement and sizing during the
conceptual phase of design. Important design decisions to secure solar access
should also account for future building developments as well as growing trees and
other issues of general landscaping. If properly applied at the urban planning level
(Schempp, Krampen, and Mllring 1992), such goals do not necessarily mean a
loss in density and can be well-integrated in zoning restrictions.
The question of how to optimally harvest incident energy is a special focus when
the design objective includes the integration of active solar system components
such as photovoltaic panels (figure 1.12). In certain situations, it may be useful to
compare the effect of ground-reflectance in conjunction with decisions about tilting
faade surfaces (figure 1.13).
Specific flux and angles of incidence show which of the possible orientations could
most effectively contain apertures for collecting solar gain, while at the same time
giving a first indication of the potential for overheating (figure 1.14). Furthermore,
knowing the relative position of the incident direct beam over the course of the day
allows significant middle-field obstructions to be spotted already at this stage,
before explicitly modeling them in the next level.
Fig. 1.9
Profile of the specific flux day sums [Wh/m2] set against respective flux
envelopes: facades facing south (A), southwest (B), west (C), north (D)
(summer/winter, Vienna, clear skies).
Fig. 1.10
Diurnal plots of the global specific flux [W/m2] for one date in fig. 1.9:
summer -- south (A), west (C), north (D).
Fig. 1.11
Angles of incidence [] of direct beams from fig. 1.10.
Fig. 1.12
Photovoltaic panels integrated in the south faade of a power station in
Rieden, Austria, design: stromaufwrts, H. Wirt.
Fig. 1.13
Specific flux comparison:
faade tilted towards sky (+20) and ground (-20) with different groundreflectances.
Fig. 1.14
Sunspace addition to a single family dwelling in Himberg, Austria, design:
Mihly Tkss.
1-4:
Fig. 1.15
Shading pattern on model ground plane: site situation with existing and
projected buildings.
Fig. 1.16
Flux pattern on incident surfaces of model: existing and projected
buildings.
Fig. 1.17
Flux pattern on key incident surfaces of model: elevation of projected
building (WSW).
Fig. 1.18
Profile of the resultant flux day sums [Wh]: key surface areas of projected
building (main faade orientations SSE and WSW), winter, clear skies.
Fig. 1.19
Diurnal plot of global resultant flux [W] on an incident surface area:
SW-facing, winter, clear skies.
1-5:
Fig. 1.20
Flux/shading pattern on glazed apertures/surface areas:
faade detail of projected building (SSE).
Fig. 1.21
Geometry of shading elements based on peak beam angles:
placement and minimum sizing of an overhang.
Fig. 1.22
Resultant shading effect of aperture details [W]: glazing structure on a
tilted faade.
Fig. 1.23
Profile of solar gain day sums [Wh] through glazed apertures -net flux after obstruction and solar-optical glazing properties:
g=0.71/t =0.65/double (A) and g=0.48/t=0.29/triple (B)
- standard clear glass.
Fig. 1.24
Diurnal plot of solar gain [W] through a glazed aperture -net flux after obstruction and solar-optical glazing properties.
Profiles). Plausible values for this basic type of meteorological data are commonly
available for most sites.
Fig. 1.25
Temperature pattern on incident surfaces of model:
aperture and room details of projected building.
Fig. 1.26
Diurnal plots of resultant (radiant) air temperature [C] at glazed and
opaque areas of a SW-facing surface.
1-8:
The ramifications of running design decisions with respect to the solar strategy
should be checked regularly by means of comparative target evaluations of
competing solutions. This process is best supported by solar profiles which
successively tighten the originally assessed potential to values more specifically
characteristic of design options already decided upon. As the available amount and
stringency of the design information grows, calculations requiring increasingly
detailed information yield estimated results that ideally should provide a measure
of the design's performance in terms of the energy-related objectives that were
initially specified in the conceptual design phase.
Whether explicitly or implicitly, the demand for thermal com-fort lies at the heart of
virtually all the building design objectives that concern energy. The definitive
quantification of this objective, however, is hardly possible since it is part
physiological, part psychological, and depends on the unpredictable combination
of a variety of factors (such as air temperature, surface temperature, air motion,
relative humidity, as well as air quality, age, activity rate, clothing, season, cultural
setting, etc.).
Usually only one aspect, the interior air temperature, is evaluated as a basic
measure of thermal comfort. Under free-running conditions, stable interior
temperatures can only be ensured with effective thermal distribution, that is, if
adequate thermal mass for heat storage is properly located in relation to major
solar gain.
Though the effect of heat storage on the temperature swing can only be calculated
by means of dynamic thermal simulation, the resulting mean interior temperature
can be estimated if periodically stable conditions are assumed (see also 2-9
Preliminary Performance Assessment). This is a reasonable basis for checking the
overheating potential in the especially critical situation of a longer summer heat
wave. Results that show a higher than tolerable mean temperatures are certainly
unacceptable, whatever the dampening effect of thermal mass may be (figure
1.27). Time-dependent simulation is required to account for diurnal ventilation
patterns (forced or natural), which are of special interest with respect to passive
cooling strategies.
A complementary question is that of how much energy is needed to maintain a
specified interior temperature. The mean results for heat flow can be checked for
critical summer conditions or optimal winter conditions based on the same steadystate assumption. Whereas inward flows correspond to the cooling load without
ventilation, outward flows convey heat losses. Since ventilation strategies are not
of primary concern in the winter, heat loss profiles give a reasonable estimate of
Fig. 1.27
Profile of mean resultant temperature [C] in rooms of model:
summer date, free-running.
Assessment).
Part 2:
The predominantly visual method of solar profiling as outlined in the first part is
intended to facilitate the meaningful interpretation of solar dimensions in a
schematic fashion. The desired flexibility and reliability in application is ensured by
basing the solar design guidance system on cohesive parametric models. Hereby
the general direction is one that approaches thermal simulation by supporting the
successive generation of a thermal model in stages that reflect the type of
evaluation results called for at different stages of building design.
Thermal models for building simulation typically represent the building envelope in
the context of its internal and external environments (figure 2.1). Generally, the
envelope itself is modeled independently in terms of its thermal characteristics
(thermal conductivity, specific heat and density of materials and assemblies, solar
absorptances of surfaces, etc.). The simulation then calculates the envelope's
thermal response to applied environmental driving functions (ambient temperature,
solar gains, internal gains, etc.).
The applicability of simulation results is largely a question of how the various
driving functions are modeled. If the overall thermal network is to be progressively
built up in stages, then the superposition of thermal responses to separately
applied boundary conditions must be permissible. The mathematical constraint of
linearity limits the description of all model components to a strictly linear system of
equations.
The same tack of approaching simulation can be taken to treat individual
components of such a thermal model, in particular, the parameters involved in
solar gain. Since the thermal characteristics of the building envelope are by and
large independent of solar gains, many types of meaningful solar evaluations can
be performed without generating an envelope model. Embedded in a seamless
application method, such preliminary evaluations can then be efficiently done as
input calculations for more comprehensive thermal simulations (see also Case
Studies).
For calculating the transmission of solar gains to the interior, the thermal envelope
must be at least partially incorporated into the solar gain model (solar-optical
glazing properties, solar absorptances). Other types of solar evaluations, which go
beyond the pre-simulative context of the solar profiling method, require simulationtype calculations based on more extensive information about related driving
functions and thermal properties (Hittle 1977, Hunn 1996). This applies, for
example, to the treatment of shading control involving functional conditions (e.g.,
Fig. 2.1
Fig. 2.2
Components of the solar gain model.
2-1:
Solar Position
The mathematical equations for calculating solar position relative to the earth as
related by Heindl and Koch (1976) are derived from a thoroughly "astronomical
point of view" (figure 2.3). This allows the description of apparent solar position to
fully account for annual deviations in the earth's ecliptic position, which are
attributable to the eccentricity and obliquity of the solar ecliptic.
The only significant simplifications made by Heindl and Koch lie in defining the unit
of a day d as 1/365 part of a solar year and, furthermore, in assuming that the
ecliptic position of the earth (and thus the solar declination ) remain constant
throughout the course of one day. The maximum range of error that can result from
these simplifications is proven quite negligible in comparison to other influences,
especially when considered in the context of thermal simulations. It should
furthermore be noted that all angles in the following equations are calculated in
degrees (not radians).
Given a date expressed as a day D of the month M, this must first be translated
into a day of the year d for use in subsequent equations:
(1)
corrective term z to represent the Equation of Time. In this description (Heindl and
Koch 1976), z is expressed analytically as a function of the day of year d (rather
than taken from a table of monthly values [ASHRAE 1989]):
(4)
whereby
(in degrees).
Solar positions at a given terrestrial location are generally calculated for mean
solar time t (in hours). The shift between conventional local time
and mean
solar time is determined by the geographic longitude relative to an associated
time zone meridian 0 (e.g., 15 for site locations with Central European Time) in
a separate computational step:
(5)
A transformation of the unit vector directed at the sun's position to an earth-based
coordinate system figure (2.4) yields the expressions for solar azimuth and
elevation at a given geographic latitude :
(6)
:
:
with variables from the transformed vector matrix:
(7)
Unlike in the ASHRAE method, a means for correcting the apparent solar elevation
to account for direct beam refraction through the atmosphere is also
incorporated by Heindl and Koch:
(8)
with
=1.4705
=3.0427
=0.0158
and from equation (7).
Fig. 2.3
Angles of the earth's orbit around the sun.
Fig. 2.4
Angles of the sun's position relative to a terrestrial location.
2-2:
Most thermal simulation programs work with a climate input data base derived
from empirical meteorological data (e.g., Heindl, Krec, and Sigmund 1984;
Lemoine 1984; Preuveneers 1994). Typical limitations of such input data bases are
due to the difficulty of obtaining timely access to correct climate data in the form
needed, as well as to the inflexibility of working with such extensive data sets in
general. Serious problems arise whenever
the geographic coverage is either incomplete or too coarse for the case at hand
to be adequately modeled, or
the data types are inappropriate for the simulation model or of incompatible
validity, or even if simply
the form in which the data is provided requires extensive manual input to transfer
it to the data base.
Instead of maintaining a comprehensive input data base, solar conditions can be
modeled as parametric functions with which the specific data is generated when
needed. Such "synthetic" radiation data is sufficiently realistic for simulating
thermal behavior and better manageable for the purpose of case comparisons,
since it requires maintenance of only a few key parameters.
The trigonometric equations for translating quantities of normal direct beam flux to
the radiation intensity that is incident on a surface plane of arbitrary orientation are
well known (and recapitulated in the next section, 2-3 Local Solar Flux). However,
as meteorological stations cannot implement ideal tracking and measuring devices
for determining direct beam normal flux throughout the day, this theoretical base
quantity is not directly available by empirical means and must be derived for all
further calculations.
Heindl and Koch (1976) delineated a fundamental method for directly describing
the insolation components on a normal surface in parametric terms, which -- due to
key differences to the ASHRAE "ABC" parameters (1989 pp. 27.2-14) -- merits a
more detailed re-introduction in this context (with adapted nomenclature). Because
of the need to distinguish between the various components of solar radiation in this
and subsequent chapters, the notation must employ indices in the superscript as
well as the subscript. This requirement takes precedence over the usual
exponential symbolism. Therefore, whenever a power of a variable quantity needs
to be indicated, parentheses are used to bracket the quantity and set apart the
exponent.
The first step is to determine with reasonable accuracy the amount of unmitigated
solar radiation that reaches the earth, before passing through the earth's
atmosphere, . This equation involves the time-varying distance between sun and
orbiting earth to account for significant irradiation fluctuations ( 3.34 %) owing to
the eccentricity of the solar ecliptic. It defines extraterrestrial radiation as a diurnal
function of the ecliptic longitude (instead of a tabular value of A for a given month
[ASHRAE 1989 p. 27.2]):
(9)
with
I0 = solar constant (e.g., 1370 W/m2),
= eccentricity of earth's orbit,
= ecliptic longitude of the earth (calculated angular distance from spring
equinox).
As related by Nehring (1962), the degree to which direct beam radiation is
mitigated due to atmospheric attenuation can be adequately approximated with a
(10)
combination of two parameters, and Q, reflecting meteorological haziness and
the inverse effect of the optical air mass at a particular altitude:
The atmospheric parameter Q is a function of the optical air mass mA , which is in
turn a function of site altitude and the calculated solar elevation (refractioncorrected -- see the previous chapter):
(11)
with c1 = 9.38076, c2 = 0.912018, and
(12)
Given appropriate values for the total haziness factor according to Linke and
Boda (1922), assumed constant over the course of the day, the equations above
are shown by Heindl and Koch to be sufficiently accurate for meteorological
conditions from clear to partly cloudy skies. Typical clear sky values are, for
example, =4.3 for urban sites, =3.5 for rural areas, and =2.7 for mountain
locations. By means of a time-dependent series of momentary values for the
haziness factor, variably cloudy conditions can also be described with this
equation.
As compared with the ASHRAE formulae, this still constitutes a simplification from
the point of view of the user: Instead of having to rely on regionally mapped data
for "clearness numbers" to correct the average conditions assumed in the
atmospheric extinction coefficient B (as well as to account for high altitudes), only
two relatively clear-cut parameters need be specified ( and ).
Part of the direct radiation filtered by the atmosphere still reaches the earth's
surface in the form of diffuse sky radiation. The relative portion of this component,
referred to here as the scatter factor P according to Reitz (1939), has been proven
to be nearly constant at around 1/3 for fair sky conditions and, above all, generally
independent of the haziness factor as well as solar elevation. The diffuse radiation
factor C according to ASHRAE, which varies strongly from month to month, does
not possess such convenient characteristics for two reasons:
The expression for diffuse sky radiation leaves the inherent dependency on solar
elevation embedded in the value C.
C is applied to the quantity of direct normal flux, rather than to the remainder of
extraterrestrial radiation that is scattered out of the direct beam.
With the Reitz scatter factor , the diffuse sky component of solar flux incident on
a horizontal surface is expressed as
(13)
Using the Lambert cosine formula, the direct beam flux component incident on a
horizontal surface is given by
(14)
Consequently, two further equations can be derived for correlating the two main
meteorological parameters with actual radiation data ("custom" and ), in the
event that applicable data is or becomes available. However, such fine-tuning of
the radiation model only becomes relevant at later evaluation levels, when
estimates of thermal performance become an issue (as described in 2-9
Preliminary Performance Assessment). For the purpose of making initial
assessments of the impact of primary design options, a model description that
consistently works with standard values of and is quite adequate, clear, and
in most instances preferable during early stages of analysis.
2-3:
At this point, given the atmospheric parameters and a locally assumed incident
plane i of arbitrary orientation (illustrated in figure 2.5), both the direct beam and
diffuse sky components of solar flux received by such a specified surface can be
calculated.
The magnitude of the direct component IID depends on the angle of incidence i ,
which is best expressed as follows:
(15)
with
i= azimuth angle of incident plane i,
i= tilt angle of incident plane i ,
e1 and e2 from equation (6), from equation(8),
such that the Lambert cosine formula may be applied:
(16)
With respect to the diffuse sky component IIS , this is, of course, less than that
incident upon a horizontal surface, since the inclined plane does not "see" the full
extent of the sky hemisphere. Based on the diffuse sky flux incident on a horizontal
surface IHS from equation (13), the generally accepted formula for calculating this
component on a plane i tilted at an angle i from the vertical is:
(17)
whereby the view coefficient i (equivalent to the angle factor FSS [ASHRAE 1989
p. 27.14]) is defined as
(18)
Part of the total incoming radiation, direct and sky diffuse, is reflected by the
surrounding ground and, to the extent that the incident plane is tilted into at least
partial view of the ground plane, is also received by the inclined surface. Empirical
radiation data that are limited to measurements made on a horizontal receiving
plane do not include any information about the diffuse reflectance of the
surrounding terrain. Nonetheless, a plausible expression for the diffuse groundreflected radiation component IIR can be gained (Heindl and Koch 1976) by
assuming
isotropic sky radiation,
a simplified surrounding terrain (ground plane G) that is horizontal and
homogeneously diffuse reflecting, and
with
G= reflectance of ground plane,
i from equation (18),
from equation (8),
IND from equation (10),
IHS from equation (13).
For most purposes, only the global solar flux specific to an incident surface, that is,
(20)
will be of immediate interest to the building designer. This applies to planes of fixed
orientation as well as to the ideal orientation normal to the direct beam (tracking
surface), which yields the solar flux envelope IN for the locality.
The full radiation component breakdown is nonetheless necessary for consistently
calculating global specific flux while manipulating the parametric model. This
makes it possible to account for, among other things, the effect that terrain
elevations (e.g., a mountainous horizon or other distant-field obstructions) have on
the "flux mix" incident on a given surface plane.
Distant-field obstructions surrounding a geographic location are modeled as
elevation angles G for local azimuths G , as measured from the center of the
assumed horizontal ground plane G (origin of the model space as in figure 2.6, see
also figure 1.8). This is essentially analogous to the familiar methods for
constructing an obstruction angle overlay for a solar chart (Moore 1985 pp. 55-61,
Goulding 1993 pp. 41-42). The direct beam component is effectively blocked when
the solar position is such that the solar elevation at azimuth is less than the
corresponding horizon elevation G ; the calculated global flux at the location is
reduced accordingly.
When the sun is clearly above the elevated horizon, i.e. for > G , distant
obstructions are treated as tilted segments of ground plane, with a mean tilt angle
over respective intervals of angular width G (Heindl and Koch 1976). The view
coefficient of an incident surface plane i (G,i) is thus reduced in comparison to the
case of a horizontal ground plane:
(21)
whereby the angle of incidence expressed in relation to each tilted ground segment
G,i is given by:
(22)
The effect on the solar flux received by an incident surface that is in view of such
horizon elevations is both
a reduction of the diffuse sky component from equation (17) and
an increase in the diffuse ground-reflected component from equation (19).
It should be noted that the reflectance of an elevated ground plane also results in
diffuse ground-reflected flux on the horizontal, since this orientation is treated in
the same manner as an incident surface of arbitrary orientation.
A final detail should also be pointed out regarding the general treatment of solar
elevation at sunrise and sunset in conjunction with flux calculations using the
equations above. The exact definition of this point in time varies from astronomical
convention somewhat: It is here defined as the moment when the visible sun's
center (rather than the top edge) passes the horizon. This allows a minor
simplification in the radiation pattern that is convenient and sufficiently precise for
the purpose at hand.
Solar flux is assumed to be null until the defined moment of sunrise and
immediately after the moment of sunset. The points of dawn and dusk according to
this description show a discontinuous jump from null to an initial quantity of
radiation associated with a fictitious full appearance of the sun. Of course, the
visible "disk" of the sun does not pass the horizon in a single moment with a
sudden jump. The actual radiation pattern at sunrise and sunset instead reflects a
gradual, albeit steep, transition from "sun still completely hidden" to "sun in full
view" (figure 2.7).
Fig. 2.5
Angles of an incident surface plane at a terrestrial location.
Fig. 2.6
Angles of an elevated horizon around an incident plane and coordinate
system of the view coefficient.
Fig. 2.7
Solar flux at sunrise: actual vs. calculated radiation pattern.
2-4:
In order to account for the impact of middle- and near-field solar obstructions on
the amount of incident radiation, the projected building together with its immediate
surroundings must be geometrically modeled. A graphical technique that is more or
less equivalent to the computer-based method delineated in this chapter is that of
using sun charts of available solar gain in conjunction with shading masks
(Balcomb 1992 pp. 491-495).
Up to this point, the solar gain model has been strictly presimulative in nature, that
is, an additive compilation of sequential input information. Coupling a geometric
surface model with radiation results constitutes a basic (yet potentially complex)
simulation model in as much as the various components of calculation are spatially
interdependent. It is in this connection that the intended integration of the proposed
design-support system becomes indispensable for generating continued results
that are truly meaningful to the building designer.
The calculation of resultant radiation quantities on a building requires an exact
description of the incident and obstructing surfaces in terms of their extents (areas
and contours), orientations, and relative positions in a unified coordinate space.
Due to the general lack of appropriate three-dimensional modeling standards in
computer-aided design to date, the use of available CAD applications to facilitate
model input is not feasible in a manner consistent with the constraints of
computing solar gain. Therefore, a fundamental issue that must be addressed in
conjunction with the proposed system is that of how to generate an integrated
surface model via an understandable and reasonably user-friendly input
procedure. This means, for example, avoiding the numeric input of absolute
coordinates in favor of graphically supported input of relative positions (distance
and direction between two elements), as the latter better corresponds to the visualspatial mode of thinking during the building design process.
The application concept presented here is based on an input metaphor that should
be familiar to most architects: constructing a sketch model out of perfectly flat
cardboard pieces, which are furthermore idealized to be infinitesimally thin.
Analogous to the process of physically drafting, shaping, and finally gluing together
the pieces of such a sketch model, input of the geometric calculation model entails
specifying a set of surface elements with regard to the following two- and threedimensional properties:
A polygonal contour, which can be thought of as "drawn" and then "cut out" in an
assumed working plane.
An implicit "front" side, to which the orientation is related and for which results
may also be calculated (incident surface).
A fixed position in an implied model space, which is horizontally limited by a pre-
Another type of building detail which shall prove useful in later stages, especially in
conjunction with groups of apertures, is that of the room contour. This is specified
in basically the same fashion as an aperture, but without associated shading
elements.
Furthermore, the delineation of a room may include multiple contours that extend
over more than one surface element (e.g., around a building corner), without
overlapping another room. Such an additional definition of rooms allows the
meaningfully combined output of calculation results for related apertures and other
surface sub-areas of the building model (see also 2-9 Preliminary Performance
Assessment).
Fig. 2.8
Positioning of a surface element in the model space.
Fig. 2.9
Aperture definition in a planar surface element.
2-5:
At any instant, the quantity of global solar flux falling on a glazed aperture equals
the sum of radiation that is
reflected back to the exterior,
absorbed and emitted to the exterior,
absorbed and emitted to the interior, and
transmitted directly to the interior.
Of these components, only the quantities that reach the interior space are of
interest for calculating solar gain as net flux through glazing. Specifically, the
directly transmitted flux is referred to here as primary gain, while the portion of the
absorbed component that is emitted inwards constitutes the so-called secondary
gain. By concentrating on these two net flux components, the description of the
solar-optical properties of glazing can be reduced to three characteristics:
total solar energy transmittance g ,
solar direct transmittance ,
directional transmittance () .
set of conditions to solar gain through a single light of the reference glass under
the same conditions." The net flux is then calculated by multiplying the shading
coefficient with the solar heat gain factor (SHGF) for the given orientation and
existing conditions (ASHRAE 1989, chapter 27: "Fenestration"). Thus an
appropriate value for the total solar energy transmittance g can also be derived via
this alternate route, if necessary.
By definition, the secondary gain through an aperture area j is equal to the
difference between the total gain and the directly transmitted radiation:
(27)
This is taken as constant for all angles of incidence, meaning that variations in
transmittance () are assumed to be chiefly compensated for by the
complementary directional reflectance () together with variations in the
absorbed radiation that is emitted outward (figure 2.10). Since the directional
distribution of these quantities only applies immediately to exterior "gains," it is not
of further interest here.
The case of specular reflection -- in which direct beam radiation is reflected as
such and may potentially contribute to the direct component incident on a nearby
surface (Balcombe 1992 p. 87) -- is consid-ered to be of special interest only for
certain detailed considerations of passive solar design. It has therefore not been
incorporated in the framework of the overall geometric model (2-4 Shading &
Resultant Flux).
In comparison to the proportionately small quantity of secondary gain, the primary
gain through aperture j is strongly dependent on the angle of incidence and is best
calculated by first distinguishing transmittances for direct and diffuse radiation,
such that
(28)
where 1 and 2 represent the expressions for direct beam and diffuse
transmittance, respectively, with JjD from equation (24) and JjS+R from equation
(25).
The direct beam transmittance 1 is equivalent to the dependence on the angle of
incidence () , which is a further characteristic of the glazing:
(29)
Theoretically, the Fresnel equations could be used to derive an expression for the
function () ; however, this would only be applicable to ideal conditions, which are
hardly given under the real circumstances of transparent building components. In
order to arrive at a realistic yet simple description of the complexities involved in
reflection, absorption, and transmission through multiple lights of glazing, it is
necessary to resort to a more empirical approach (Fuchs, Haferland, and Heindl
1977 p. 46; Heindl, Sigmund, and Tschegg 1984 p. 185). The following formula
quite precisely describes the curves of manufacturer data for the incident angle
response of glazing transmittance in a generalized form:
(30)
Hereby the exponent represents the sole parameter for defining the directional
profile of the glazing type, independently of the specified direct transmittance . A
realistically unclean state of the exposed glazed surface can be taken into account
by applying a reduced design value for solar direct transmittance (e.g., 10% less
than the ideal manufacturer-specified ).
The literature of technical data for typical glazing types (BMBT 1979, TU-Wien
1995) shows that the parameter conveniently characterizes standard categories
of glazing assemblies used in construction, in particular those of the following
materials:
clear glass,
translucent white glass,
gray/bronze (absorptive) glass,
Fig. 2.10
Solar-optical properties as a function of the angle of incidence for doublestrength sheet (A), 6-mm clear (B), and 6-mm grey, bronze, or green
absorptive (C) glass. Sources: ASHRAE 1989, Balcomb 1992.
Fig. 2.11
Transmittance as a function of the angle of incidence for various
exponents: parameter of () .
2-6:
Up to this point, the solar gain model has worked with combined radiation
quantities for all wavelengths of the solar spectrum. Although this is sufficient for
informing passive strategies with respect to the energy demands of heating and
cooling (see 1-6 Solar Gain through Apertures), architectural daylighting requires
information as to the spectral distribution of solar flux that enters a building. In
particular, the quantity of luminous flux in the visible range (0.38 - 0.77 m) is
needed to guide this additional category of design decisions.
Although the solar gain model as delineated in chapters 2-1 through 2-5 does
provide a framework for addressing the issue of luminous flux, a suitable
parameterization of spectral data is not (yet) possible in a form that could be
consistently integrated in this solar profiling method. A complete spectral extension
of the solar gain model would require the derivation of wavelength-dependent
parameters at two separate levels:
solar flux through the atmosphere (chapter 2-2) and
net flux through glazing (chapter 2-5).
Regarding the attenuation effect of the atmosphere at the first level, the impact of
increased optical air mass mA on terrestrial solar flux is apparently two-fold (figure
2.12):
a reduction in the global solar flux, as conveyed in equations (10) through (12);
a shift in the bulk of spectrally distributed flux to longer wavelengths ().
Given a spectral description of extraterrestrial radiation I() and equations (10)
through (12), a wavelength-dependent expression for normal direct beam flux
IND() could be developed with a spectral air mass mA() and haziness factor
(). Theoretically, the wavelength dependence of these parameters could be
derived by means of correlation analysis with reliable meteorological data;
unfortunately, such radiation data is currently not available in sufficient quantities.
Since the scatter factor according to Reitz (1939), which is used to estimate
quantities of diffuse sky radiation, can be expected to vary strongly with
wavelength, a spectral expression for this parameter, (), would be clearly
necessary as well. Hence equation (13) may eventually be completed for further
use in calculating the spectral solar flux components on an incident surface area
(equations in 2-3 Local Solar Flux and 2-4 Shading & Resultant Flux).
With respect to the second level mentioned, that is, for calculating the spectral
distribution of net flux through glazing based on the spectral resultant flux J()
incident on a given aperture, a parametric description of the spectral response of
glazing in general would still need to be established. Although the relative
transmittance, reflectance, and absorptance in the various wavelengths of the
radiation spectrum are empirically understood and partially documented (e.g.,
Moore 1985, chapter 11), the spectral expressions for these solar-optical
properties are still lacking: (), () , and () .
Especially a function for the spectral transmittance () would be of interest (figure
2.13), since this would allow profiles of daylight conditions to be generated
practically as a by-product of the calculation models.
As it is, however, the only spectrally relevant parameters that are occasionally
published for glazing products are values for the overall transmittances in basic
ranges of the solar spectrum, i.e.
ultraviolet transmittance UV (< 0.38 m),
visible transmittance vis (0.38 - 0.77 m), and
solar infrared transmittance IR (> 0.77 m).
A corresponding expression for at least the visible component of resultant flux (Jvis)
would thus enable the integrated assessment of luminous flux in conjunction with
its directional distribution. This could be conceivably employed in a manner that is
consistent with and naturally accompanies the general solar profiling method as
outlined in part 1.
Fig. 2.12
Spectral variation of solar radiation at the earth's surface for different
values of optical air mass mA . Source: Balcomb 1992.
Fig. 2.13
Transmittance as a function of wavelength for 3-mm regular sheet (A), 6mm grey absorptive (B), and 6-mm green absorptive (C) glass. Source:
ASHRAE 1989.
2-7:
Climate Profiles
At the very beginning of the solar profiling method (1-1 Solar Geometry), a
selection of characteristic dates was established for analyzing the solar situation
and design issues consistently throughout subsequent levels. In particular, the
characterization of climate seasons with a set of dates for the hottest and coldest
months of the year (together with a transition month) implies that the consideration
of ambient temperature takes precedence over solar radiation quantities for certain
design-analytical purposes.
The early focus on this aspect of the local climate is intended to generate
supporting solar profiles that are ultimately aimed at thermal simulation (1-9
Transition to Simulation). Dynamic performance simulations of buildings located in
climate zones with a strong seasonal variation in mean temperatures show that the
results are most sensitive to the ambient temperature that is applied as a boundary
condition in the thermal network model (see also 2-9 Preliminary Performance
Assessment).
Solar energy considerations on a diurnal basis are, therefore, most effective in
connection with the climatic extremes of temperature. In other words, it is more
important to know how much solar gain can be expected when the exterior
conditions are hottest and coldest, than at the solstices defining the solar extremes
(generally in the month prior to the temperature extreme).
Although the parameter of ambient air temperature lies beyond the immediate
scope of the solar gain model, its definition in this context allows the basic profiling
method to be extended to include a number of supplemental evaluations, which
can provide insight into the potential thermal performance of a building design (1-7
Surface Conditions and 1-8 Basic Thermal Envelope).
For this purpose, a parametric description of ambient air temperature is needed
which adequately characterizes the applied boundary condition as a diurnal profile,
analogously to the solar flux profiles. Such an analytical expression for generating
diurnal temperature curves was derived by Fuchs, Haferland, and Heindl (1977) on
the basis of the standardized profile as established by Nehring (1962) and
illustrated in figure 2.14. The following set of periodic functions for the air
temperature at time t characterizes this curve in a generalized form, which also
closely approximates the available meteorological data for varying seasonal
temperature swings.
The rising portion of the curve between the minimum and maximum temperature,
i.e. for time t from tmin to tmax , is described by the function
(33)
Since periodicity is assumed, the first and last sections of the curve are considered
as parts of a single continuous function from tmax to tmin :
(34)
Calibrating these curves to fit a given temperature swing between Tmin(tmin) and
Tmax(tmax) yields
(35)
Fig. 2.14
Ambient air temperature as a periodic function over the course of a day.
Source: Fuchs, Haferland, and Heindl 1977.
2-8:
whereby
hc= convective heat transfer coefficient,
T(t)= ambient air (sky) temperature from equation (34),
Wi= solar and longwave radiation absorbed by surface i
p(i)= radiation emitted by surface i.
The function p(i) represents the Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbody radiation
such that
(37)
The full expression for Wi includes the absorbed quantities of incident solar
radiation and longwave radiation from the surroundings (sky and terrain):
(38)
Hence the defining equation can be rewritten as:
(39)
with
(40)
(43)
with
Ak = total area of surface,
Bk = momentarily shaded area,
kA = radiant air temperature calculated for specific global flux ( IiD+IiS+IiR),
kB = radiant air temperature calculated for specific diffuse flux only (IiS+IiR).
Hereby the total area of the planar surface element as modeled in chapter 2-4 is
broken down into transparent sub-areas for each of the specified apertures and the
remainder, which is defined as opaque. Resultant air temperatures described in
this manner provide a very close approximation of the diurnal surface conditions
both for preliminary performance assessments (see next chapter) and as input
data for thermal simulation (Fuchs, Haferland, and Heindl 1977; Krec and Rudy
1996).
2-9:
(44)
with
Aj = total area of surface element,
Ak = component sub-area of surface,
Uk = component U-value.
The overall U-value for the exterior walls of a given room is calculated analogously.
Thermal capacitance is not included at this stage of the solar gain model, since the
effects of thermal storage can only be accounted for by means of dynamic
simulation (Hunn 1996, Krec and Rudy 1996). Nonetheless, based on the
assumption of periodic steady-state conditions, the following basic energy balance
is valid for constant mean values and includes the primary heat flows associated
with a building's solar load:
(45)
whereby
= diurnal mean of net flux through aperture j from equation (26),
= diurnal mean of interior air temperature (free-running),
= diurnal mean of resultant air temperature at surface component k from
equation (43).
Energy losses or gains due to infiltration and ventilation (forced or natural) are
generally neglected for the purpose of simple preliminary assessments. With this in
mind, a measure for determining the likelihood of overheating in a particular room
of the building model -- the resulting mean interior temperature -- can be obtained
by rewriting equation (45) with the sums expanded for the room's enveloping
components (apertures j and surface sub-areas k) and solving for
When considering the entire building envelope, information as to the overall heat
losses to be expected is generally of greater interest than the result for a freerunning interior air temperature. A rough estimation of the building's performance
under winter conditions can be obtained by setting
to a fixed temperature and
using equation (45) to calculate the resulting mean heat flow. Multiplied by 24
hours, this result corresponds to the auxiliary heating energy demand for the given
day under the applied conditions -- bearing in mind that the energy balance
includes neither heat losses to the ground nor thermal bridging effects (Heindl et
al. 1987).
Since the analysis up to this point has focused on the parametric impact of design
decisions on solar gain, the profiles of radiation and temperature would in general
have been calculated for clear skies, that is, sunny conditions, which emphasize
geometric considerations involving direct beam radiation. In the summer, this
constitutes the critical case and is therefore appropriate for assessing the summer
situation, especially with regard to overheating and passive control of excess solar
gain.
For the winter case, on the other hand, such profiles represent "best case"
conditions for harvesting solar energy. In order to arrive at a reasonable annual
estimate of auxiliary heating energy demand, the calculations would need to be
based on typical -- rather than ideal -- winter conditions. To this end, a preliminary
annual climate profile can be generated from historical data that is commonly
available for most geographic locations: monthly mean values of air temperature
and solar radiation on a horizontal surface. The latter data is used to derive typical
values for the atmospheric parameters and (2-2 Solar Flux through
Atmosphere), such that corresponding solar profiles may be calculated for midmonth dates.
This type of annual climate profile could also provide a plausible foundation for the
Fig. 3.1
Screenshot of the online solar workshop (2002).
references
Anderson, B. Ed. (1990) Solar Building Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
ASHRAE (1989) Handbook: Fundamentals - SI Edition. Atlanta: American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Balcombe, J.D. et al. (1980) Passive Solar Design Handbook, Vol. 2: Passive Solar
Design Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Energy, DOE/CS-0127/2.
Balcombe, J.D. Ed. (1992) Passive Solar Buildings. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Bundesministerium fr Bauten und Technik - BMBT (1979) Katalog fr empfohlene
Wrmeschutzrechenwerte von Baustoffen und Baukonstruktionen. Vienna:
Kommissionsverlag, sterr. Ingenieur- und Architekten-Verein.
Feist, W. (1994) Thermische Gebudesimulation. Heidelberg Verlag C.F. Mller.
Fuchs, H., Haferland, F., and Heindl, W. (1975) Ein Verfahren zur Ermittlung des
wrmetechnischen Verhaltens ganzer Gebude unter periodisch wechselnder
Wrmeeinwirkung. Vienna: Berichte aus der Bauforschung 99.
Fuchs, H., Haferland, F., and Heindl, W. (1977) Entwicklung eines einfach
anzuwendenden Rechenprogrammes zur Ermittlung von Luft- und
Bauteiltemperaturen sowie Heiz- und Khlleistungen. Vienna: Bundesministerium
fr Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Stdtebau.
Goulding, J. et al. (1993) Energy in Architecture: The European Passive Solar
Handbook. London: Batsford for the EC.
Haferland, F. and Heindl, W. (1970) "Der Einflu des Schicht-aufbaus von
Auenwnden auf den Temperaturverlauf unter periodischen Aufheizungs- und
Abkhlungsvorgngen infolge Sonneneinstrahlung und Heizunterbrechung."
Wrme-Klima-Sanitrtechnik, 11/1969, 1/1970, 2/1970.
Heindl, W. and Koch, H.A. (1976) "Die Berechnung von
Sonnenstrahlungsintensitten fr wrmetechnische Untersuchungen im Bauwesen."
Gesundheits-Ingenieur 97 12/1976, pp. 301-314.
Heindl, W., Krec, K., Panzhauser, E., Sigmund, A. (1987) Wrmebrcken. Vienna:
Springer-Verlag.
Heindl, W., Krec, K., and Sigmund, A. (1984), Klimadatenkatalog des
Bundesministeriums fr Bauten und Technik. Vienna: Kommissionsverlag, sterr.
Ingenieur- und Architekten-Verein.
Heindl, W., Sigmund, A., and Tschegg, E. (1984) Grundzge der Bauphysik.
Vienna: Springer-Verlag.
Hittle, D.C. (1977) BLAST - The Building Loads Analysis and System
Thermodynamics Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Laboratory.
Hunn, B. Ed. (1996) Fundamentals of Building Energy Dynamics. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Koch, A. and Pechinger, U. (1977) "Mglichkeiten zur Bercksichtigung von