Search

Earth-to-air (EAHX) and/or air-to-air (AAHX) heat exchangers can be conveniently inserted in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to obtain relevant energy saving. In this article, the subject is analyzed for an office building located in two Italian localities: Milan (Northern Italy, with cold winters and hot summers) and Palermo (Southern Italy, with mild winters and very hot summers). A dynamic building energy performance simulation software is used to simulate a designed office building. The HVAC system is based on fancoils and primary air, with or without EAHX and AAHX. The seasonal analysis shows better energy results for AAHX in winter and EAHX in summer, respectively. The yearly analysis shows that the EAHX is preferable in hot or mild climates. Successively, the EAHX and AAHX are combined: based on the previous seasonal results, the first one is activated in summer, while the second in winter. The combination of the two technologies is preferable for Milan (energy saving up to about 75%) compared to Palermo (saving up to about 60%). Finally, the analyses of the equivalent CO2 emissions and discounted payback are reported.

A passive strategy to reduce the energy consumption of existing buildings is to improve the thermal insulation of the opaque building envelope and insert windows with low thermal transmittance U. But what is the best compromise between cost of intervention and reduction of primary energy? The aim of this paper is to answer this question using the innovative cost-optimal methodology and a dynamic energy simulation software. The case study refers to an existing school in central Italy. Eight passive strategies are analysed, combining different insulation thicknesses and types of windows. Furthermore, a comparison between cost-optimal methodology and discounted payback analysis is reported. Finally, a sensitivity analysis on parameters influencing the cost-optimal method is conducted. The lowest primary energy is obtained considering an insulation thickness of 12 cm and windows with U of 1.10 W/m2 K, while the best case using the cost-optimal methodology refers to a low increase in insulation thickness.