[Back]

K. Sperka, U. Pont, A. Mahdavi:
"Method Comparison of Overheating Evaluation via normative Calculation and numeric simulation";
Talk: Vienna Young Scientist Symposium 2019, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria; 2019-06-13 - 2019-06-14; in: "VSS - Vienna Young Scientist Symposium June 13-14, 2019", K. Ehrmann, H. Mansouri Khosravi (ed.); (2019), ISBN: 978-3-9504017-9-0; 28 - 29.

The avoidance or at least mitigation of summer overheating is a topic that constantly gains importance within the AEC-community (Architecture-Engineering-Construction) in recent years. This is, on the one hand, due to the climate-change-induced increase of hot periods in summer time, and, on the other hand, caused by microclimatic implications in the urban surroundings, known as the Urban Heat Island effect. Currently different methods of assessment of building designs toward summer overheating tendency are available: (i) Normative methods of different degree of complexity for instance based on the Austrian standards [1]. These methods regularly are used for certification that a certain building design or retrofit project is to a certain degree safe against severe summer overheating. Such certifications are required for different purposes, e.g. for getting a subsidy grant or receiving a building permit; (ii) sophisticated simulation-based methods that consider a wide range of input data and allow for close to any enquiry being worked upon. In comparison to the normative methods, such methods require a higher resolution of input data regarding climate data, occupant behaviour, and physical characteristics of the surround building components. Both methods are widely in use, but deliver results in different resolutions. Due to the different output data characteristics, planners often struggle to understand if certain results from simulation can be mapped onto the normative performance indicators and vice versa. Moreover, aspects that need to be considered in recent times - such as changing boundary conditions due to climate change and increased impact of the Urban Heat Island effect - cannot or only to very limited extent integrated in the normative approaches. Needless to say, this is suboptimal and needs to be addressed in close future as the normative procedure is one decision criteria for or against a granted building permit. In this contribution we illustrate our efforts pertaining to comparing and mapping results of the normative approach and the simulation-based assessment on a set of case study building designs (roof top extensions of an existing Gründerzeit building in Vienna). The present study is in its preliminary phase, thus we can only provide an outlook onto expected results.

(no german abstract)
The avoidance or at least mitigation of summer overheating is a topic that constantly gains importance within the AEC-community (Architecture-Engineering-Construction) in recent years. This is, on the one hand, due to the climate-change-induced increase of hot periods in summer time, and, on the other hand, caused by microclimatic implications in the urban surroundings, known as the Urban Heat Island effect. Currently different methods of assessment of building designs toward summer overheating tendency are available: (i) Normative methods of different degree of complexity for instance based on the Austrian standards [1]. These methods regularly are used for certification that a certain building design or retrofit project is to a certain degree safe against severe summer overheating. Such certifications are required for different purposes, e.g. for getting a subsidy grant or receiving a building permit; (ii) sophisticated simulation-based methods that consider a wide range of input data and allow for close to any enquiry being worked upon. In comparison to the normative methods, such methods require a higher resolution of input data regarding climate data, occupant behaviour, and physical characteristics of the surround building components. Both methods are widely in use, but deliver results in different resolutions. Due to the different output data characteristics, planners often struggle to understand if certain results from simulation can be mapped onto the normative performance indicators and vice versa. Moreover, aspects that need to be considered in recent times - such as changing boundary conditions due to climate change and increased impact of the Urban Heat Island effect - cannot or only to very limited extent integrated in the normative approaches. Needless to say, this is suboptimal and needs to be addressed in close future as the normative procedure is one decision criteria for or against a granted building permit. In this contribution we illustrate our efforts pertaining to comparing and mapping results of the normative approach and the simulation-based assessment on a set of case study building designs (roof top extensions of an existing Gründerzeit building in Vienna). The present study is in its preliminary phase, thus we can only provide an outlook onto expected results.