MTD
www.mtddergisi.com
ULUSLARARASI HAKEMLİ TASARIM VE MİMARLIK DERGİSİ
Ocak / Şubat / Mart / Nisan 2017 Sayı: 10 Kış - İlkbahar
INTERNATIONALREFEREEDJOURNAL OF DESIGNANDARCHITECTURE
January / February / March / April 2017 Issue: 10 Winter – Spring
ID:121 K:205
ISSN Print: 2148-8142 Online: 2148-4880
(ISO 18001-OH-0090-13001706 / ISO 14001-EM-0090-13001706 / ISO 9001-QM-0090-13001706 / ISO 10002-CM-0090-13001706)
(Marka Patent No / Trademark)
(2015/04018 – 2015/GE/17595)
192
ULUSLARARASI HAKEMLİ
TASARIM MİMARLIK DERGİSİ
INTERNATIONAL
REFEREED
JOURNAL
OF DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE
PRINT ISSN: 2148-8142 - ONLINE ISSN: 2148-4880
Energy Performance Class of the Building
Energy Performance
kWh/m
2
y ear
GHG emission
kg eq. CO
2
/m
2
y ear
Improved C.
Real B.
Ref. B.
G limit
71
47
F
Real Building
RG
Energy Performance Class
251
285
C
120
63
251
178
525
A limit
Improved C.
Real B.
Ref. B.
G limit
Energy Performance
20
15
71
42
87,5
A limit
Improved C.
Real B.
Ref. B.
G limit
GHG emission
Figure 12. Presentation of Performance Class of the Building
The Results sheet also presents the monthly
and annual energy requirements, the energy
use and the primary energy requirement
for heating, cooling, DHW and lighting.
Although results for each unit are preferred
to permit ease in comparison, the results are
provided for both the entire building and for
each unit. The monthly and annual results are
presented as both tabulated numerical outputs
and graphical outputs, as presented in Figure
13.
Energy Performance of the Building for per m
2
for per m
2
Space
Heating
153
183
183
43
Domestic Hot Water
28
37
37
9
Cooling
14
0
0
0
Lighting
13
13
32
20
TOTAL
209
233
251
71
kWh /m
2
year
kWh /m
2
year
kWh /m
2
year
kg eq. CO2 /m
2
year
Energy Need
Energy Use
Primary Energy
GHG emission
15
3
28
14
13
20
9
18
3
37
0
13
23
3
18
3
37
0
32
25
1
43
9
0
20
71
Space Heating
Domestic Hot
Water
Cooling
Lighting
TOTAL
Energy Performance of the building
Energy Need
Energy Use
Primary Energy
GHG emission
Figure 13. Presentation of Energy Performance of the Building per Unit
MTD
www.mtddergisi.com
ULUSLARARASI HAKEMLİ TASARIM VE MİMARLIK DERGİSİ
Ocak / Şubat / Mart / Nisan 2017 Sayı: 10 Kış - İlkbahar
INTERNATIONALREFEREEDJOURNAL OF DESIGNANDARCHITECTURE
January / February / March / April 2017 Issue: 10 Winter – Spring
ID:121 K:205
ISSN Print: 2148-8142 Online: 2148-4880
(ISO 18001-OH-0090-13001706 / ISO 14001-EM-0090-13001706 / ISO 9001-QM-0090-13001706 / ISO 10002-CM-0090-13001706)
(Marka Patent No / Trademark)
(2015/04018 – 2015/GE/17595)
193
ULUSLARARASI HAKEMLİ
TASARIM MİMARLIK DERGİSİ
INTERNATIONAL REFEREED
JOURNAL OF DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE
PRINT ISSN: 2148-8142 - ONLINE ISSN: 2148-4880
The most important output provided by the
program is the Feedback, which is compiled
and presented on the feedback page in tabular
form, and also on the data input sheet to fa-
cilitate design decisions. The feedback page
provides summary information about the de-
sign decisions, making a comparison with the
performance criteria defined in a provided
list of legislation, and making recommendati-
ons related to the decisions.
USABILITY, VALIDITY, RELIABILITY
and PRECISION of EnAd
Validity, Reliability and Precision of EnAd
As in many other evaluation tools, the vali-
dity, reliability range and precision of EnAd
is explored in detail through several case
studies including a reference case that is the
worked example in TS EN ISO 13790; gene-
ric cases, in which the major features of bu-
ildings affecting energy performance are stu-
died in order to observe the validity of EnAd;
and existing building projects for which the
energy consumption data is known so as to
observe the convergence of the results of
EnAd with those of the other programs.
For comparative studies, three different BEP
evaluation tools are selected: DesignBuilder,
which is a comprehensive simulation tool
with embedded CAD modelling and a rich
library; HAP, which is a text-based simulati-
on tool used for the design of HVAC systems;
and EnerCalc, which is a calculation tool ba-
sed on German standards. These three prog-
rams, developed by different countries and
using different methods of calculation, are
internationally acknowledged for their accu-
racy. Around 150 generic cases are developed
by changing one feature for each step to exa-
mine the effect of each parameter/assumption
on the results. For the benchmarking study,
one existing building is assessed by the tools.
Considering the results obtained from all ge-
neric cases including extreme conditions as
well, 156 in total, evaluated by the four prog-
rams, the precision and reliability of EnAd in
the calculation of heating, cooling, lighting
and DHW requirements is proven. It can be
noted that EnAd gives consistent results in it-
self and for many cases gives average results
for energy requirements for heating, cooling,
DHW and lighting.
The convergence of the results is shown in
Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, the con-
vergence of the results of EnAd with respect
to those of DesignBuilder, HAP and EnerCalc
for heating is found to be between -18 – 5%,
for cooling between -22 – 8%, for DHW bet-
ween -28 – 9%, and for lighting between -8
– 17%. These discrepancies in the results can
be attributed to the different energy models
and calculation methods employed by the
four programs, and also differences both in
the data input and the databases used by the
