4.6 Article

Uncertainty of Energy and Economic Performance of Manual Solar Shades in Hot Summer and Cold Winter Regions of China

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11205711

Keywords

manual solar shades; uncertainty; energy performance; economic performance; occupant behavior

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY18E080012]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878358]
  3. National Key Technology R&D Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology [2013BAJ10B06]
  4. K. C. Wong Magna Fund at the Ningbo University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Occupant behavior is recognized as a major source of discrepancy between simulated and actual energy consumption. This study investigates the uncertainty of energy and economic performance of manual solar shades for the south facade. A developed stochastic model for manual solar shades based on a discrete-time Markov chain method was constructed in Building Controls Virtual Test Bed (BCVTB) for co-simulation with EnergyPlus. The stochastic shade model was compared with deterministic models concerning energy savings potential and life cycle economic performance at different building scales (i.e., from a single room to a whole building). The results show that annual energy uncertainty, due to occupant behavior, on manual shades can be neglected at the building level, whereas for sizing heating equipment, energy uncertainty should be considered. The payback period for manual shades is about 10 years and, in general, a larger building has a higher economic performance. Comparative analysis shows that there is a relatively big performance overestimation or underestimation by commonly used deterministic models in building simulation tools, and thus may lead to a biased economic analysis or even an inappropriate design decision when comparing different energy-saving measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available