01.IED

1
INTEGRATED ENERGY DESIGN
DESIGN OF A SCHOOL BUILDING FOR AARHUS MUNICIPALITY
Eduardo Artigas Picó 201310871
José Angel Monteagudo 201400120
Course Integrated Energy Design
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING

2
ABSTRACT
This report shows part of the early “room design” phase in IED Process for a wing
school extension in Aarhus Community. The IED process is based in the Aarhus model. In
that phase, building engineer specialized in indoor climate/building energy performance
develop a variety of optimum room designs. Those designs are presented to the design
group in order to provide ideas about design decision to achieve a good indoor environ-
ment and optimum energy performance.
In the design room process, it is presented a reference room model for each room
type that performs according to 2020 building regulation. After it is develop a list of pa-
rameter variation from the reference model. Finally, reference model and two new designs
are presented as final proposals for each room type. The limitations of the simulation tool
does not allow to present radical designs in terms of architectural expression.
The final report provides a guide of which parameters influence to achieve a proper
room performance. This method helps the design team to see how much indoor climate
can be affected by building layout.
Keywords: Integrated energy design, indoor climate, energy performance

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 4: VENTILATION SYSTEM
- Proposal 1: Centralized ventilation system
- Proposal 2: Descentralized ventilation system
PART 5: OVERALL BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE
- Energy consumption
- DF
- Thermal Indoor
- Indoor air quality
- Economy
PART 6: DISCCUSION & CONCLUSION
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- References
APPENDIX 1: ACTIVITY DATA SHEET OFFICE
APPENDIX 2: ACTIVITY DATA SHEET CLASSROOM
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
- Introduction
- Performance requirements
- Room geometry driven by function & energy consumption expectations
PART 2: OFFICE ROOM - IdBuild
- IdBuil: fixed parameters & daylight analysis
- South facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- Paramter variation: South facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- South facing: 3 layer glazing & external shading
- Paramter variation: South facing: 3 layer glazing & external shading
- North facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- Paramter variation: North facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- North facing: 3 layer glazing & external shading
- Paramter variation: North facing: 3 layer glazing & external shading
- Roof & gable analysis: South & North facing
PART 3: CLASSROOM - Grasshopper/DIVA/ICEbear
- ICEbear: fixed paramters & Daylight analysis
- South facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- North facing: 3 layer & coated glazing
- No roof thermal losses analysis: South & North facing

4
INTRODUCTION
From years ago to nowadays, EU legislations is increasing the building energy saving demands as
an answer against the global warming, as well as a strategy to become energy independent.
A new potential field is open to further investigation to develop new processes and methods to
approach energy zero house without forgiven the main architecture factors: the building aesthetic, indoor
climate, budget, etc.
For example, the significance of indoor climate for health and comfort has been emphasized in
recent years. People spend about 90% of their time indoors. Therefore, among other purposes, buildings
must provide healthy and comfortable environments for human activities. On the other hand, the criteria
used for the indoor environment delimits a great part of the energy consumption of buildings. Thus, al-
though sustainable buildings are very important, energy-saving measures should not sacrifice people’s
well-being and health [2].
Indoor climate and energy saving is just one of the multiple example that are inter-related and
affect to the end design. A new methodology is under developing called Integrated Design Process or
Integrated Energy Design Process. The IED process is based on the well-proven observation that chang-
es and improvements at the beginning of the process, but become increasingly difficult and disruptive as
the process unfolds. Experiences from building projects applying IED, the investment cost may be about
5% higher, but the annual running cost will be reduced by 40-70% [1].
In the paper one of the phases of IED is developed for the case of a school building for the Aarhus
Comunity. The phase in which the engineers, specialize in energy performance, design different possi-
bilities for the room design. The report is based on the “IED Aarhus model” and pretends to establish
an analysis method/layout where several parameters and aspects (physical, psychological, economical,
technological, etc.) are considering. The main goal is to create several room types, which respect the
requirements, and provide the design group with constructive input to go further in the IED.
The investigation is divided in four main chapters. The first chapter is a research of the room ge-
ometry depending on the function, occupancy, flexibility, user profile, etc. The second part analyses the
energy savings, indoor climate and daylight performance of the offices rooms with IDbuild as simulation
tool. The third part analyses the energy savings, indoor climate and daylight performance of the class-
room with Rhino-Diva, Grasshopper and ICEbear as simulation tools. The fourth chapter reports possible
ventilation strategies for an integrated building design.
The learning knowledge will be useful for the developing of future building projects and investiga-
tions but always with the main overall approach of the creation of value for building users.

5
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
Next tables set up the inputs/requirements by client, Danish standars and EU standards.
1. Location (Aarhus, Denmark)
Latitude 56°9.4044´ N
Longitude 10°12.6456´ E
Time meridian: 15 (Denmark Time CTE)
Albedo 0.2
http://dateandtime.info/citycoordinates.php?id=2624652
2. Building site
Open field – no significant shading from surroundings.
One-storey or two-storey, rectangular building
3. Spatial configuration

Zona considered 10 working/preparation rooms for teachers
8 classrooms for secondary school children
Natural lighting On facade, facing north or south
A full basement for e.g. building services

4. Occupancy schedule
OFFICE ROOM
Office occupancy 4 occupants per office room
Office hours used All year
Working days From Monday to Friday
Working hours From 8 to 17

CLASSROOM
Classroom occupancy 30 children + 1 teacher + 1 assistant teacher
Office hours used All year, except weeks from 24 to 31
Working days From Monday to Friday
Working hours 8 – 12 12 – 13 13 – 15 15 – 17
User pattern 100% 10% 100% 50%

5. Energy performance
Corresponding to Building Class 2020 [1] in which the total demand for energy supply must not
exceed 25 kWh/m²/year.
Primary energy factors (for district heating/electricity) 0,6/1,8
According client, use of renewable energy is not allowed.
6. Indoor Climate
Client defines the indoor environment must be at least in class II in DS/EN 15251 for all perfor-
mance issues. 5% deviation is however allowed.
Building Class 2020 states: [1]
Client defines the number of hours per year when indoor temperature of 26 ° C must not be
exceeded
Content of CO2 in the air < 900 ppm for extended periods

7. Daylight requirements
According client:
Daylight Factor on work area 3%
Building Class 2020 states [1]
Window glass-area
> 15 % of floor area if the windows light trans-
mittance is greater than 0.75 If the light trans-
mittance is lower glass area is increased corre-
spondingly.

8. Ventilation system
Building Class 2020 states [1]
Specific energy consumption (SEL) 1,500 J / m³
Heat recovery with a dry temperature efficiency 75%.
Max. air leakage/second (test pressure 50 Pa) 0.5 l/m²
Infiltration (in combination with mech. Vent.) >0,07 l/s per m2 gross floor area

6
ROOM GEOMETRY DRIVEN BY FUNCTION &
ENERGY CONSUMPTION EXPECTATIONS
The first part of the report tries to answer to the next question: How should be the classroom and
office room geometry regarding the activity/function in a Danish context?
First, a research of several existing school examples is done. The most famous Scandinavian
architecture firms have developed different school designs with a different understanding of the design
principles for this particular case. One example, where the flexibility of the areas is a main requirement,
is the Soelvgades Skole in Copenhagen by CF Moeller.
Moreover, a reading of the book “Neufert: Architect´s Data” is done. The book is considered as a
bible for the architects so the basic architecture data (building typologies, measures, human scale, etc.)
is collected in the book. Our research is focused in classroom typology (page 307 – 313) and offices
(page 336 – 351). [4]
Finally, having as a reference the two previous points, it is filled the questioner “Activity Data
Sheet” (see Appendix 1-2) for both room typologies. It is concluded the need of an office room of 36m2
(9m2
per person) including equipment and circulation needs. (See Figure 1). In case of the classroom, it
is concluded the need of a space of 90 m2
(3m2
per person) to allow certain flexibility answering to the
needs of the teacher and the students. (See Figure 2)
The energy performance for a building 2020 has to lower than 25 kWh/m2
per year. In case of the
school extension building, it is expected that the rooms facing north have a higher demand than the ones
facing south (more electrical lighting and energy for heating).
Table 1 shows an approximation of until which value the energy demand for each room could be.
Higher energy demand for north rooms will be balanced with the lower demand for south room, and thus,
being able to fulfill the energy requirements.
Floor level Room type Orientation Area Energy kW/m2
- Kithchen - - 10
- Toilets - - 6
- Miscelanious - - 5
Ground Floor
Classroom N 90 27
Classroom S 90 23
Office room N 36 28
Office room S 36 24
1º Floor
Classroom N 90 32
Classroom S 90 28
Office room N 36 31
Office room S 36 27
Figure 2: Office room geometry driven by function
Figure 1: Classroom geometry driven by function
Table 1: Building energy expectation per room type, orientation and level
BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
ROOM GEOMETRY DRIVEN BY FUNCTION

7
OFFICE ROOM
IDBuild
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

8
Figure 2 and 3 shows the minimum window height to room depth for the case of an office room
with geometry: 9 x 4 x 3 m with external shading device and without external shading device. The mini-
mum glazing height to room depth is calculated by the rule of thumb [4]. The minimum required according
to the light transmittance of the glazing is 15% [5].
2.1. Rule of thumb: with shading device.
Limiting depth = 2 x h
Minimum height = 2 m
2.2. Rule of thumb: no shading device.
Limiting depth = 2,5 x h
Minimum height = 1,6 m
Figure 2: minimun height of the top window with shading device
Figure 2: minimun height of the top window without shading device
min 2m
min
1,6 m
IDBUILD & DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS
IDBUILD: FIXED PARAMETERS DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS: RULES OF THUMB
1. Construction
UA value 0 (no extra thermal transmission losses)
Cw: internal heat capacity
(BuildingCalc and LightCalc user guide, Table 3, page 15)
Middle heavy: heavy constructions e.g. concrete floor and brick or light concrete walls
Specific effective heat capacity (c) 432000 J/m2
K
Wall thermal resistance (Rw) 0.031 m2
K/W
*Thermal Interior (Cf
)
4 labtop + 4 chairs + 4 desk + 1 cabinet + 2 misc stuff = 440 000 J/K
2. Systems
System
User Schedule
(Predective Control)
Set points (class II)
Heating Cooling
System 1
Inside office hours
Weeks: 1-53; Days: 1-5; Hours: 9-17
20 26
System 2
Outside office hours
20 26
SYSTEM 1 SYSTEM 2
Mechanical ventilation
(air quality)
Infiltration 0,07 l/s per m2
Min. airchange 1.13 l/s per m2
0.1 l/s per m2
Max. airchange 1.13 l/s per m2
0.1 l/s per m2
Max venting rate 1.2 l/s per m2
1 l/s per m2
Heat exchanger efficiency 0.75 0.75
Bypass of heat exchanger ON ON
Mechanical cooling OFF OFF
Lighting General
Min power 0.5 0
Max power 6 0
W/m2/100 lux 3 0.1
Control Always min Always min
Lighting Task
Min power 0 0
Max power 1 0
W/m2/100 lux 0.2 0.1
Control Always min Always min

9
REFERENCE ROOM: 15% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
U-value facade wall 0.15 W/m2
k
Thermal capacity construction Middle Heavy
Thermal capacity interior 440.000 J/K
Window width 6,2 m
Window height 1,5 m
Glazing Pilkington Suncool Brilliant
6B(66)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4
Overhang -
Energy consumption 15
Daylight factor 6,1
Daylight autonomy 0.89
Solar shading in use -
Indoor air quality
Thermal indoor climate
Hours above 26º 110
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 5 m
Window height 1.1 m
Glazing Pilkington Suncool Brilliant
6B(66)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4
Overhang 0
Daylight factor 3.9
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 20
The design of the room is based on the function description
states in the chapter 1 and appendix 1, as well as the client perfor-
mance requirement from page 5. The glazing area is 5.15 m2
= 15%
of the floor area. Next table presents the key features of the reference
office room.
SOUTH-FACING OFFICE
3-LAYER & COATED GLAZING
SOLUTION 2: 15% KRIPTON GLAZING PER FLOOR AREASOLUTION 1: 25% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Thermal capacity construc-
tion
Middle Heavy
Window width 5 m
Window height 1,1 m
Glazing 4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
Overhang -
Daylight factor 5
Indoor air quality
This solution applies the parameter variations in respect to the
size of the window. The increase has an impact on daylight factor
and daylight autonomy, which allow to keep such low energy con-
sumption.
The design performs optimun window frame regarding energy
consumption and, in combination with other type of window glazing,
keeps the thermal indoor conditions and a great daylight factor.

10
PARAMETER VARIATION
Table 2: Parameter variation: South facing 3-layer & coated
PARAMETER VARIATION: SOUTH FACING
Parameter Variation Energy
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 15 3,9 0,85 - 20
Window Width
6 m 15 4,1 0,86 - 55
6,5 m 15 4,2 0,86 - 60
Window Height
1,4 m 15 5,5 0,88 - 70
1,8 m 15 7,8 0,90 - 110
Overhang
Distance
0,1 m 15 3,6 0,84 - 5
0,2 m 15 3,7 0,84 - 20
0,3 m 15 3,7 0,84 - 30
Overhang
Lenght
0,25 m 15 3,7 0,84 - 15
0,5 m 15 3,3 0,83 - 0
0,75 15 2,4 0,81 - 0
Frame u-value
1 15 3,9 0,85 - 22
0,8 15 3,9 0,85 - 25
Frame width
0,06 m 15 4,1 0,85 - 15
0,04 m 15 4,2 0,86 - 20
Window Type
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4 14 4,6 0,86 - 80
Suncool Brilliant 6B(30) 19 1,9 0,75 - 0
Frame Psi
0,06 15 3,9 0,85 - 18
0,04 15 3,9 0,85 - 20
The section presents some parameter variations to improve the existing refer-
ence model show in the previous page. The table 2 presents the parameter variation
results. The parameter variation chosen are:
Parameter variations: Architectural parameters
1) Window height (m) 2) Window width (m)
1,1 m (reference room) 5 m (reference room)
1,4 m 6 m
1,8 m 6,5 m

Reason: The perception of a space depends partly on the height of the window.
It is a strategy to improve the daylight level of the room and solar gains, as well as the
architectural/aesthetics factor that could be interested for the client.
*It is not possible to reduce the height of the window due to the requirements
regarding glazing area to floor area [5] .
Parameter variations: Overhang
1) Distance 2) Length
0,1 m 0, 25 m (reference room)
0,2 m (reference room) 0, 5 m
0,3 m 0, 75 m
Reason: Overheating impact during no heating season may depend of the op-
timization of the overhang. At the same time, aesthetics factor might play an import-
ant role.
Parameter variations: Frame quality
1) U-value 2) Width 3) Psi
1,5 W/m2
K (ref. room) 0,08 m 0,08 W/mK
1,0 W/m2
K 0,06 m 0,06 W/mK
0,8 W/m2
K 0,04 m 0,04 W/mK
Reason: A window frame is one of the crucial construction elements regarding
heat loss. Window frame has a huge impact in the total u-value of the window.
Parameter variations: Window Type
1) Pilkington Suncool Brilliant 6B(66)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4 (ref. model) (Gv=0,277;Uv=0,729
W/m2
K)
2) 4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4 (Gv=0,398;Uv=0,554 W/m2
K)
3) Pilkington Suncool Brilliant 6B(30)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4 (Gv=0,141;Uv=0,736 W/m2
K)
Reason: Different U-value, G-value and light transmitance of glazing have a
great influence on solar gains and heat losses, which are reflected in room energy
consumption.
STUDY CASE: 2 WINDOWS ROOM: 3 LAYER + COATED GLAZING
The study presents the analysis for the design of a room with 2 windows. This case might be interesting to the cli-
ent due to: the aesthetics/architectural value, it improves the perception of the room interior using two window and the
possible improvement of the daylight performance of the room.
Window 1: 5 x 0,5 m Offset floor: 2,25 m
Window 2: 5 x 1 m Offset floor: 0,8 m
Window glazing: Pilkington Suncool Brilliant 6B(66)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4
Parameter Frame Variation
(u-value/width/
Psi)
Energy
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 1,5/0,08/0,08 21 5,3 0,88 - 50
Vatiation 1 1,5/0,06/0,06 20 5,4 0,88 - 50
Variation 2 1,5/0,04/0,04 19 5,6 0,88 - 65

11
REFERENCE ROOM: 15% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA SOLUTION 2: DOUBLE WINDOW: 20% GLAZING PER FLOORSOLUTION 1: 34% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 5 m
Window height 1.1 m
Glazing WinDAT#1 dark blinds 20air-
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-4SN
Overhang 0
Daylight factor 4,6
Daylight autonomy 0,86
Solar shading in use 0,56
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 6,5 m
Window height 1,9 m
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-4SN
Overhang 0
Daylight factor 10,6
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 5 m & W2: 5 m
Window height W1: 1 m & W2: 0,5 m
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-4SN
Overhang 0
Daylight factor 6,6
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
statements from the chapter 1 and appendix 1, as well as the client
performance requirement from page 5. The glazing area is 5.15 m2
= 15% of the floor area. Next table presents the key features of the
reference office room.
This proposal presents a solution with an increase of the glaz-
ing area respect to the reference model. To keep an optimum energy
consumption, indoor climate and air quality, a better quiality window
frame is chosen:
u value =0,8 W/m2
k / width = 0,06 m / Psi = 0,06 W/mk
This proposal repsents a solution with a radical aesthetic
change respect to the reference model. Two windows configura-
tion is applied. To keep an optimum energy consumption and indoor
cliamte, a better quality window frame is needed:
u value =0,8 W/m2
k / width = 0,08 m / Psi = 0,08 W/mk
SOUTH-FACING OFFICE
3-LAYER GLAZING & EXTERNAL SHADING

12
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 16 4,6 0,86 0,56 0
Window width
5,3 m 16 4,8 0,87 0,57 0
5,6 m 16 5 0,87 0,58 0
6 m 16 5,2 0,88 0,59 0
6,5 m 16 5,4 0,88 0,6 0
Window Height
1,4 m 19 6,6 0,89 0,6 0
1,7 m 19 8,6 0,91 0,63 0
1,8 m 19 9,1 0,91 0,64 0
1,9 m 19 9,8 0,91 0,64 0
Glazing type
Hunter Douglas 17 4,9 0,87 0,56 0
Versol silver 19 5,4 0,88 0,56 0
Frame u-value
1 16 4,6 0,86 0,56 0
0,8 15 4,6 0,86 0,56 0
Frame width
0,06 m 16 4,9 0,87 0,56 0
0,04 m 15 5 0,87 0,56 0
Frame Psi
0,06 16 4,6 0,86 0,55 0
0,04 16 4,6 0,86 0,56 0
Table 3: Parameter variation: South facing 3-layer & external shading
Parameter variation: Architectural parameters
1,4 m 5,3 m
1,7 m 5,6 m
1,8 m 6 m
1,9 m 6,5 m

It is a strategy to improve the daylight level of the room and it has architectural/aesthet-
ics factor that could be interested for the client.
Parameter variation: Glazing
1) Type
WinDAT#1 dark blinds 20air-4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-4SN (Gv=0,389;Uv=0,554 W/m2
K)
Hunter Douglas light blinds 20Air-4SN-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4 (Gv=0,401;Uv=0,761 W/m2
K)
Verosol silver dark grey EB02-20Air-4-15Ar-SN4 (Gv=0,543;Uv=1,19 W/m2
K)
Reason: U-value, G-value and light transmitance of glazing have a great influ-
ence on solar gains and heat losses, which are reflected in room energy consump-
tion.
Parameter variation: Frame quality
1) U-value 2) Width
1,5 W/m2
K (reference room) 0,08 m (reference room)
1 W/m2
K 0,06 m
0,8 W/m2
K 0,04 m
3) Psi
0,08 W/mK (reference room)
0,06 W/mK
0,04 W/mK
PARAMETER VARIATION
STUDY CASE: 2 WINDOWS ROOM: 3 LAYER + EXTERNAL SHADING
ent due to: the aesthetics/architectural value, it improves the perception of the room interior using two window and the
possible improvement of the daylight performance of the room.
Window 1: 5 x 0,5 m Offset floor: 2,25 m
Window 2: 5 x 1 m Offset floor: 0,8 m
Window glazing: WinDat#1 dark blind 20Air-4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
Parameter Frame Variation
(u-value/width/
Psi)
Energy
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 1,5/0,08/0,08 20 6,2 0,89 0,44 0
Vatiation 1 1,5/0,06/0,06 20 6,2 0,89 0,47 0
Variation 2 1,5/0,04/0,04 20 6,4 0,89 0,45 0
PARAMITER VARIATION: SOUTH FACING

13
REFERENCE ROOM: 15% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
U-value facade wall 0,15 W/m2
k
Window width 6,0 m
Window height 1,7 m
Glazing 4S(3)-15Ar-4-15Ar-S(3)4
Overhang -
Daylight factor 9
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 25
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 5 m
Window height 1,1 m
Overhang -
Daylight factor 3,8
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
= 15%
NORTH-FACING OFFICE
SOLUTION 2: DOUBLE WINDOW: 19% GLAZING PER FLOORSOLUTION 1: 28% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 5m W2: 5 m
Window height W1: 1 m W2: 0,4 m
Overhang -
Daylight factor 6,7
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
size of the window. The increase has an impact on improvement of
daylight factor and daylight autonomy. Another glazing, with different
energy perormance allows to keep such low energy consumption. All
changes are considered from minimum use of material or resources:
The design performs optimun window frame regarding energy
consumption and, in combination with other type of window glazing,
keeps the thermal indoor conditions and a great daylight factor.
Window glazing: 4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4 / Frame U-value: 0,8 W/
m2
k / Frame width = 0,04 m

14
PARAMETER VARIATION
Table 4: Parameter variation: North facing 3-layer & coated glazing
1,5 m 6 m
1,9 m 7 m

regarding glazing area to floor area (Reference).
Parameter variations: Overhang
1) Distance 2) Length
0,1 m 0,25 m (reference room)
0,2 m (reference room) 0,5 m
0,3 m 0, 75 m
Reason: Overheating impact during no heating season may depend of the op-
timization of the overhang. At the same time, aesthetics factor might play an import-
ant role.
1,3 W/m2
1,0 W/m2
K 0,06 m 0,06 W/mK
0,7 W/m2
K 0,04 m 0,04 W/mK
1) 4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4 (G-Value: 0,398 U-Value: 0,554)
2) Pilkington Suncool Brilliant 6B(66)-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4 (G-V: 0,277 U-V: 0,729)
3) 4S(3)-15Ar-4-15Ar-S(3)4 (G-Value: 0,418 U-Value: 0,578)
great influence on solar gains and heat losses, which are reflected in room energy
consumption.
PARAMETER VARIATION: NORTH FACING
STUDY CASE: 2 WINDOWS ROOM CONFIGURATION: 3 LAYER + COATED GLAZING
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 17 3,8 0,80 - 0
Window
Width
6,0 m 17 4,1 0,81 - 0
7,0 m 17 4,3 0,81 - 0
Window
Height
1,5 m 17 6,1 0,86 - 10
1,9 m 18 9,3 0,89 - 55
Frame
U-value
1,3 18 3,8 0,80 - 0
0,7 17 3,8 0,80 - 0
Frame
Width
0,06 m 17 3,9 0,80 - 0
0,04 m 17 4,0 0,81 - 0
Frame
Psi
0,06 17 3,8 0,80 - 0
0,04 16 3,8 0,80 - 0
Overhang
Distance
0,3 17 3,7 0,79 - 0
0,2 17 3,7 0,79 - 0
0,1 17 3,6 0,79 - 0
Overhang
Length
0,25 17 3,7 0,79 - 0
0,5 17 3,1 0,76 - 0
0,75 17 2,6 0,73 - 0
Type of
Glazing
Pilkington 6B(66) 19 3,2 0,77 - 0
4S(3)-15A-4-15Ar-S(3)4 17 4,0 0,81 - 0
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
VARIATION 1
W1: 5 x 0,4 m; W2: 5 x 1 m
24 5,1 0,83 - 0
VARIATION 2
W1: 5 x 0,7 m: W2: 5 x 0,7 m
24 5,6 0,84 - 0
VARIATION 3
W1: 5 x 1 m; W2: 5 x 0,4 m
24 6,1 0,85 - 0

15
REFERENCE ROOM: 15% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA SOLUTION 2: 19% GLAZING PER FLOORSOLUTION 1: 34% GLAZING PER FLOOR AREA
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 5 m
Window height 1,1 m
Glazing WinDat#1 dark blinds-20Air-
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
Overhang -
Daylight factor 4,1
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 6,5 m
Window height 1,9 m
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
Overhang -
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
Room width 9 m
Room depth 4 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 5 m W2: 5 m
4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
Overhang -
Daylight factor 6,7
Indoor air quality
Hours above 26º 0
= 15%
office room.
size of the window. The increase has an impact on improvement of
daylight factor and daylight autonomy, and higher solar heat gains
as well. All changes are considered from minimum use of material or
resources:
This design is based on the study case for 2 windows office
room (see page XX). The design has optimum performance regarding
daylight impact, indoor climate and indoor air quality. Besides, at the
same time the use of a high quality window frame, whose properties
are improved:
NORTH-FACING OFFICE

16
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
Reference 17 4,1 0,81 0,33 0
Window
Width
5,7 m 17 4,2 0,81 0,34 0
6,5 m 18 4,8 0,82 0,35 0
Window
Height
1,3 m 17 4,8 0,83 0,35 0
1,5 m 17 6,2 0,86 0,36 0
1,7 m 18 7,8 0,87 0,37 0
1,9 m 18 9,2 0,89 0,38 0
Frame
U-value
1,4 18 3,8 0,80 0,34 0
0,6 17 3,8 0,80 0,31 0
Frame
Width
0,1 m 18 3,5 0,79 0,31 0
0,04 m 17 4,0 0,81 0,35 0
Frame
Psi
0,1 18 3,8 0,80 0,32 0
0,04 17 3,8 0,80 0,34 0
Type of
Glazing
HunterDouglas
(Ar)
18 4,1 0,81 0,32 0
Winda#1 (Ar) 18 3,8 0,80 0,32 0
Table 5: Parameter variation: North facing 3-layer & external shading
PARAMETER VARIATION
PARAMETER VARIATION: NORTH FACING
STUDY CASE: 2 WINDOWS ROOM CONFIGURATION: 3 LAYER + EXTERNAL SHADING
1,3 m 5,7 m
1,7 m 6,5 m
1,5 m
1,9 m

1,4 W/m2
1,0 W/m2
K 0,1 m 0,1 W/mK
0,6 W/m2
K 0,04 m 0,04 W/mK
1) Reference model: WinDat#1 dark blinds-20Air-4SN-12Kr-4-12Kr-SN4
(G-Value: 0,398 U-Value: 0,554)
2) Variation 01: Hunter Douglas 0150 light blinds-20Air-4SN-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4
(G-Value: 0,401 U-Value: 0,761)
3) Variation 02: WinDat#1 dark blinds-20Air-4SN-12Ar-4-12Ar-SN4
(G-Value: 0,401 U-Value: 0,761)

great influence on solar gains and heat losses, which are reflected in room energy con-
sumption.
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
VARIATION 1
W1: 5 x 0,4 m; W2: 5 x 1 m
24 5,1 0,83 0,27 0
VARIATION 2
W1: 5 x 0,7 m: W2: 5 x 0,7 m
24 5,6 0,84 0,27 0
VARIATION 3
W1: 5 x 1 m; W2: 5 x 0,4 m
24 6,1 0,85 0,26 0
ent due to: the aesthetics/architectural value, it improves the perception of the room interior using similar window area,
different positioning on the façade, and the possible improvement in the energy performance and daylight impact within
the room.

17
Study Case
Parameter
Variation
Energy
Consumption
Daylight
Factor
Daylight
Autonomy
Solar
Shading
Overheating
(hours over
26ºC)
South-Facing
3 Layer glazing
+
Solar coated
Roof
Reference 19 3,9 0,85 - 15
Final 1 19 6,1 0,89 - 95
Final 2 15 5 0,87 - 95
Roof + Gable
Reference 20 3,9 0,85 - 10
Final 1 20 6,1 0,89 - 95
Final 2 16 5 0,87 - 95
South-Facing
3 Layer glazing
+
External shading
Roof
Reference 20 4,6 0,86 0,52 0
Final 1 20 10,6 0,91 0,66 0
Final 2 26 6,6 0,89 0,47 0
Roof + Gable
Reference 22 4,6 0,86 0,51 0
Final 1 21 10,6 0,91 0,66 0
Final 2 29 6,6 0,89 0,47 0
North-Facing
3 Layer glazing
+
Solar coated
Roof
Reference 22 3,8 0,80 - 0
Final 1 24 9 0,89 - 20
Final 2 32 6,7 0,86 - 0
Roof + Gable
Reference 23 3,8 0,80 - 0
Final 1 25 9 0,89 - 20
Final 2 36 6,7 0,86 - 0
North-Facing
3 Layer glazing
+
External shading
Roof
Reference 22 4,1 0,81 0,28 0
Final 1 23 10,4 0,89 0,38 0
Final 2 34 6,7 0,86 0,19 0
Roof + Gable
Reference 23 4,1 0,81 0,26 0
Final 1 25 10,4 0,89 0,36 0
Final 2 37 6,7 0,86 0,17 0
ROOF AND GABLE ANALYSIS: PARAMETERS
ROOF & GABLE ANALYSIS:
NORTH & SOUTH FACING
The table 6 shows the analys of the refenrece model and
the final solutions when including the heat losses throught:
CASE 1: ROOF
U value = 0,10 W/m2
K
Area roof = 36 m2
AU = 3,6 W/K
CASE 2: ROOF + GABLE
U value = 0,10 W/m2
K
Area roof = 48 m2
AU = 4,8 W/K
Table 6: Parameter variation: North facing 3-layer & external shading
Ingeneral,whentheheatlossthroughtheroofisincludedtheenergydemandishigher.Thereasoncouldbethehigherheatlossduetotheroof
duringwinterseason.Ontheotherhand,duringsummerseason,thatheatlossthroughtheroofseemstobeanadvantage,becausetheoverheating
(hours over 26ºC) is reduced a little. Thus, room temperatures are lower during summer.
Whentheheatlossthroughtheroofandgablesisincluded,theenergydemandishigherrespecttotheprevioussituations.Again,thereasoncould
be the higher heat loss due to the roof and gable during winter season.
Theuseoftwowindowsproduceadrasticallyincreaseoftheenergyperformancerespecttothemodelswhereroofandgablesarenotinclude.
CONCLUSION (when gable and roof thermal transmittance)

18
CLASS ROOM
RHINO3D + GRASSHOPPER + DIVA + ICE_BEAR
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

19
ICEBEAR & DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS
Figure 3 shows the minimum window height to room depth for the case of an office room with
geometry: 12,5 x 7,2 x 3 m with without external shading device (see Appendix 2). The minimum glazing
height to room depth is calculated by the rule of thumb [4]. The minimum required according to the light
transmittance of the glazing is 15% [5].
2.1. Rule of thumb: with shading device.
Limiting depth = 2.5 x h
Minimum height = 2.88 m

2.2. Minimum window ratio per floor area
15% of 90 m2
= 13,5 m2
Figure 3: minimun height of the top window without shading device
Figure 4: DF distribution at 0,8 m plane. Diva Simulation
min
2,8 m
ICEBEAR: FIXED PARAMETERS DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS: RULE OF THUMBS & DIVA SIMULATIONS
1. Construction
UA value Roof = 9 W/K
Cw: internal heat capacity
(BuildingCalc and LightCalc user guide, Table 3, page 15)
Middle heavy: heavy constructions e.g. concrete floor and brick or light concrete walls
Specific effective heat capacity (c) 432000 J/m2
K
Wall thermal resistance (Rw) 0.031 m2
K/W
*Thermal Interior (Cf
)
32 chairs + 32 desk + 2 cabinet + 2 misc stuff = 1200000 J/K
2. Systems
System
User Schedule
(Predective Control)
Set points (class II)
Heating Cooling
System 1
Inside classroom hours
20 26
System 2
Outside classroom hours
20 26
* Week holidays: 24 to 31 = outside classroom hours
SYSTEM 1 SYSTEM 2
Mechanical ventilation
(air quality)
Infiltration 0,07 l/s per m2
Min. airchange 5.2 l/s per m2
0.35 l/s per m2
Max. airchange 3.7 l/s per m2
0.35 l/s per m2
Max venting rate 4 l/s per m2
1 l/s per m2
Heat exchanger efficiency 0.75 0.75
Bypass of heat exchanger ON ON
Mechanical cooling OFF OFF
Lighting General
Min power 1 0
Max power 8 0
W/m2/100 lux 3 0.1
Control Continuos Always min
Lighting Task
Min power 0 0
Max power 1 0
W/m2/100 lux 0.2 0.1
Control On/off Always min

20
SOUTH-FACING CLASSROOM
3-LAYER GLAZING SOLUTIONS
SOLUTION 1: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOR RATIO SOLUTION 3: WINDOW + SKYLIGHTSOLUTION 2: 2 WINDOW: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOW RATIO
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Thermal capacity interior 1.200.000 J/K
Window width 10 m
Window height 1,7 m
Glazing Uvalue = 0,45; Gvalue = 0,45;
LT=0,45
Frame Uv = 0,8; Psi = 0,08; Width=0,08
Energy consumption 22,5
Solar shading in use 0
Indoor air quality -
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 1,5 m W2: 9 m
Window height W1: 2,7 m W2: 1,6 m
LT=0,45
Hours above 26º 89
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 9,5 m SK2: 9,5 m
LT=0,45
mance requirement from page 5. The glazing area is 19% of the
floor area. Next table presents the key features of the reference office
room.
This solution propose a redistribution of the previous 19%
glazing per floor area in two windows. The proposal performs similar
to the previous but there are significant benefits regarding the reduc-
tion of the overheating (hours above 26º).
The design shows a radical aesthetic change so a skylight is
included.The goal is to minimize the window facade and include a
skylight on the opposite side to keep an optimum Daylight Factor at
the center point and distribution.

21
NORTH-FACING CLASSROOM
3-LAYER GLAZING SOLUTIONS
SOLUTION 1: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOR RATIO SOLUTION 3: WINDOW + SKYLIGHTSOLUTION 2: 2 WINDOW: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOW RATIO
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 10 m
Window height 1,7 m
LT=0,45
Hours above 26º 99
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width W1: 1,5 m W2: 9 m
Window height W1: 2,7 m W2: 1,6 m
LT=0,45
Daylight factor 3,1
Indoor air quality _
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width WIND: 9,5 m SKY: 9,5 m
Window height WIND: 1 m SKY: 0,5 m
LT=0,45
Hours above 26º 79
room.
This solution propose a redistribution of the previous 19%
glazing per floor area in two windows. The proposal performs similar
to the previous but there are significant benefits regarding the reduc-
tion of the overheating (hours above 26º).
The design shows a radical aesthetic change so a skylight is
included.The goal is to minimize the window facade and include a
skylight on the opposite side to keep an optimum Daylight Factor at
the center point and distribution.

22
NO ROOF THERMAL LOSSES ANALYSIS:
NORTH & SOUTH FACING
SOUTH: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOR RATIO NORTH 1: 19% GLAZING TO FLOOR RATIONO ROOF THERMAL LOSSES ANALYSIS

The next two examples analyse the previous solution 1 with-
out thermal transmittance through the roof for both, south and north
facing:
CASE 1: ROOF
NO ROOF THERMAL TRANSMITTANCE
AU = 0 W/K
MAIN IDEA
In general, when the heat loss through the roof is included the en-
ergy demand is higher. The reason could be the higher heat loss
due to the roof during winter season. On the other hand, during
summer season, that heat loss through the roof seems to be an
advantage, because the overheating (hours over 26ºC) is reduced
a little. Thus, room temperatures are lower during summer.

Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 10 m
Window height 1,7 m
LT=0,45
Room width 12,5 m
Room depth 7,2 m
Room height 3 m
k
Window width 10 m
Window height 1,7 m
LT=0,45
room.
room.

23
VENTILATION SYSTEM
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

24
1. ROUTING
Ventilation facility, as an important part of design, is shown in a first valid solution as follow. Ven-
tilation layout proposal is set by a unique air handling unit, located in one space on the basement of
the building, available for this usage. Such machine is able to supply and remove the air volume of the
two-storey extension building.
Its location has been considered meaningful in order to get an optimal duct distributions. An area
between office rooms, basically on the center of building, is defined for vertical facility shafts, where
vertical ducts reach each floor. The floor layout of ducts is radial from this installations shaft to each ven-
tilated space.
Building orientation is not yet defined. Wide range of design room models, facing north and south
as clients demanded, are described in pervious chapters and the final orientation depends on final dis-
tribution choice through that analysis. Therefore, ventilation building layout is suitable and pending for
such final configuration further on.
Ventilation distribution has two primary goals to fulfill, one related with energy consumption of the
system. Such consumption is done through the air handling unit, which is responsible of air circulation.
So first objetive is reduce as much as possible pressure losses into the duct system, what would cause
higher energy demand. This is achieved by means of using greater duct dimensions, since the larger
duct section is, the smaller the velocity is through it. This increase of section must also assure proper air
quality conditions.
The second goal is to get higher free height on the rooms, what means higher suspended ceiling
and is a conflict with larger duct sections. As a ventilation design decision, duct sections are rectangular
what contribute to use optimally the space on the false ceiling. Higher free height provides to more air
volume per room, which is better thermal indoor conditions.
The distrubution for each space is done from main ducts through the corridor and this could have
caused a cross between supply and return ones or even complicated duct shapes to elude the problem.
In order to avoid that drawback, branches of supply and return are positioned in different height.
Finally, centralized ventilation proposal system set a false ceiling of 2,6 meter height in corridors,
allowing a way better height in rooms, 3,2 meters. False ceiling height is prolonged only 0,5 meters more
from corridors for supply intake, through wall inlets, unlike return outlet that is done as a ceiling diffus-
er. The cross-section below, Figure 6, clarifies how the different air inlet and outlet intakes are done by
means of different suspended ceiling heights. As a consequence of these decisions, the choice of air
handling unit must be a minimum working efficiency of 0,66.
2. TECHNICAL ROOM
In order to the performance of the air han-
dling unit that is easy of maintainance and
energy-efficient, following table defines the
space required for the location, according
DS/EN 13779.
Minimum Room
Size
173 m2
Minimum Room
Height
4 meters
Table 7: Technical room dimension require-
ments according DS/EN 13779
Figure 6: Cross section of building, showing duct
distribution and air unit location
Figure 6: Basement floor.
Location of air handling unit into technical room, with air inlets and outlets.
Figure 5: Ground and first floor layout.
Duct distribution through false ceiling for supply and return air
VENTILATION SYSTEM - PROPOSAL 1
CENTRALIZED VENTILATION SYSTEM

25
1. ROUTING
Second ventilation design proposal for the such extension building configures a system, which
change the idea of all air circulation ducts coming from the same installation shaft by another one de-
scentralized. In order to supply and remove the air volume of each room, two air handling units are set to
distribute in other way the duct nets.
The ventilation floor layout is configured in similar manner for ground and first floor. The machines
that manage air volume coming in and out are place in a proper space in the basement, meeting the re-
quirements of DS/EN 13779 in these terms, Table 8.
As it has been said, building orientation in descentralized case is not yet defined. Wide range of
design room models, facing north and south as clients demanded, are described in pervious chapters
and the final orientation depends on final distribution choice through that analysis. Therefore, ventilation
building layout is suitable and pending for such final configuration further on.
First goal to achieve is also the larger duct size possible for lower air velocity ranges in ducts. This
dimension has to be balanced in terms of space, respect to an available space on false ceiling. So as
second objective, it is stated reaching highest false ceiling, which gives greater free height on the rooms.
If it is increased, there will be more air volume per same room area and the thermal indoor conditions get
better.
The sort of size section of ducts is circular. There is no cross between branches, also reducing of
connections, and the ventilation routes are smaller, so it is suitable to sacrifice some of free height in fa-
vour of circular duct sections, since they cause less pressure losses by friction due to less area in contact
with the air.
As a result of this layout of ducts, the false ceiling is equally configured all over the floor, 1 meter
height, and a free height of 3 meters on the rooms and corridors. The intake and removal of air volume
are done by ceiling diffusers, as it is shown in Figure 7.

The cross-section below, Figure 9, clarifies how the different air inlet and outlet intakes are done
by means of different points on suspended ceiling. As a consequence of these decisions, the choice of
air handling unit smust be a minimum working efficiency of 0,58 per machine. The location of these ones
on basement requiere less space per air unit, but more area in total. This drawback may be compensat-
ed with better ventilation performance due to less pressure losses each duct net and moreover, a lower
minimum efficiency is needed per machine in comparison with the only unit as the previous proposal.
2. TECHNICAL ROOM
In order to the performance of the air han-
dling unit that is easy of maintainance and
energy-efficient, following table defines
the space required for the location, ac-
cording DS/EN 13779.
Minimum Room
Size
122 m2
Minimum Room
Height
3,5 meters
Table 8: Technical room dimension re-
quirements according DS/EN 13779 Figure 9: Cross section of building, showing duct
distribution and air unit location
Figure 8: Basement floor.
Location of air handling unit into technical room, with air inlets and outlets.
Figure 7: Ground and first floor layout.
Duct distribution through suspended ceiling for supply and return air
VENTILATION SYSTEM - PROPSAL 2
DESCENTRALIZED VENTILATION SYSTEM

26
OVERAL BUILDING ENERGY
PERFORME
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

27
Floor level Room type Orientation Area Energy kW/m2
Ground Floor
Classroom N 90 22
Classroom S 90 22
Office room N 36 15 -22
Office room S 36 13 - 19
1º Floor
Classroom N 90 24 - 25
Classroom S 90 22 - 23
Office room N 36 19 - 27
Office room S 36 19 - 25
ENERGY PERFORMANCE
INDOOR THERMAL QUALITY
DAYLIGHT FACTOR
INDOOR AIR QUALITY
ECONOMY
Initial expectations have been reached; in fact they have been improved
North facing rooms requires higher energy consumption than south facing rooms
Classroom requires higher energy consumption than office room
South facing rooms: overheating problems (hours above 26ºC) are more likely than north facing
rooms
Overhang or external solar shading devices allow to stop/reduce overheating issues easily when
comparing to coated glazing
When roof and gable thermal losses are included, overheating issue (hours above 26ºC) is reduced
It is important the configuration of the room geometry: relation between room depth and room
façade wall
Coated glazing performs problems when achieving daylight factor requirements. Low window
g-values have a high impact in the DF reduction in the room
A design strategy to achieve better DF performance, it is to increase the window height or to re-
duce the window offset from the ceiling. This strategy might be looked carefully so thermal indoor
and indoor air will reduce in terms of quality
Skylight: the use of roof windows might improve the daylight factor distribution along the room at
the working plane
Overhang: it is a strategy to reduce overheating (hours above 26ºC) issues but it might produce a
decrease of the DF
In rooms with a high occupancy rate e.g. classroom, it is important to establish a
minimum ventilation rate outside the occupancy schedule to avoid high CO2
concen-
tration at the beginning of the day
External shading diveces might require high maintenace cost and the instalation of a control sys-
tem. Then, coated glazed might be cheaper in a LCC analysis
Table 9: Overall Building Energy Performance: Min & Max
OVERALL ENERGY BUILDING PERFORMANCE:
GUIDE FOR DESIGN STRATEGIES

28
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

29
DISCUSSION CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
This document is as a simple guide to help the IED team along the early phase of the design.
The report is developed by building engineers to provide information about building energy perfor-
mance and indoor climate strategies to the rest of the interdisciplinary design team. The paper is a
tool for the design team to achieve a final design solution where multiple architecture factors (e.g.
aesthetics, structure, functionality) have been integrated.
Thereby, the use that the rest of the process participants make during all design process is what
makes this guide becomes really useful. It will occur when the design team takes into account the
impact of parameters in the model analysis and therefore they consider this document as a working
tool.
At this document, IED process applied sets up different room configuration, which are shown
along previous chapters. According with client demand, some requirements were fixed at the begin-
ning. Besides, all the parameters and values applied and the effects produced for each room-model
simulation were linked as follow in order to show the influence of these design decisions. So, it should
not be considered the tool to determine which model works or not, but the one with which to make
decisions based on prior knowledge of the effects of these decisions through in a close-to-reality
simulations at the early stages of design process.
This approach shows the effects of the change of room designs in detail, in terms of energy per-
formance, daylight impact, thermal indoor conditions or indoor air quality. These changes are made in
room scale, and participants of early stages of design as architects may be regarded as minor effects
respect changes on building design scale, but actually have great influence in all building design.
Nevertheless, the final goal to obtain a building design obliges that the information of room
scale is useful, it is essential the architect participation, through an approach of building scale, in
order to create a collaboration between architect-engineer, to shape all design project.
Concerning to one of the simulation analysis tools, iDbuild, may be mentioned that contains an inter-
face easy to deal and allows determining directly both, inputs and output display. As drawback, the
limitation of geometries and shapes of room to analyse, to fit wider range that cubical room designs.
Related to the other simulation tool, ICEbear and Grasshopper, as a first impression, Grashop-
per interface might look tougher than iDbuild, but only requires longer time. Grasshopper tool in com-
bination with ICEbear has huge potential regarding design possibilities. By contrast, there are some
limitations regarding the inputs configuration e.g. it is not possible to set multiple user schedule.

The aim of this project is to build a new wing school extension for the Aarhus Community. The
construction must fulfil the 2020 requirement in terms of energy consumptions and indoor climate.
This document is presented as a guide that provides information about building energy per-
formance and indoor climate for the design team involve in the Integrated Design Process. Multiple
room designs have been simulated and then will be presented to the design team. Those models
show the main factors that have influence in the energy performance and indoor climate of the
building.
The room level approach made for the design works highly well. The design team can get an
idea about which parameters improve building performance. Both computer tools used to the ap-
proach fulfil the expectation regarding simple interface, fast processing of the results and accurate
output.
[1] “A Guide To Integrated Energy Design” supported by Intelligent Energy, Europe
[2] Wargocki, P. “Improving Indoor Air Quality Improves the Performance of Office Work and School
Work”
[3] Standard DIN EN 15251:2012-12. Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assess-
ment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting
and acoustics.
[4] Neufert. Architects´Data. Blackweel. Third Edition.
[5] 7.2.5 Bygningsklasse 2020 - BR10. 2014. 7.2.5 Bygningsklasse 2020 - BR10.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

30
APPENDIX
AARHUS
UNIVERSITY

31
APPENDIX 1:
ACTIVITY DATA SHEET OFFICE

32
APPENDIX 2:
ACTIVITY DATA SHEET CLASSROOM

01.IED

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to 01.IED

Similar to 01.IED (20)

01.IED