1. Russian Apartment Building Thermal Response Models for Retrofit Selection and Verification
Peter Armstrong
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings
August 20-25, 2000
Pacific Grove, CA

2. Enterprise Housing Divestiture Project Cities

3. Essential Program Elements
Understand how (former) Soviet buildings are operated and determine as-found performance.
Establish audit & metered data collection protocols to estimate and measure thermal performance by building.
Select life-cycle cost-optimal packages of heating retrofits (requires appropriate thermal analysis).
Establish effective, multi-tiered acceptance test protocols, verification & ongoing program evaluation.

4. Over half the 6-city stock is 5- and 9-story panel buildings
space/service water heat source
Construction
Type
Height
(stories)
both
gas
SWH by gas
both DH
Total
Buildings
Apartments
Total Floor
Area (m 2 )
2 family
343
783
193
1,319
1,980
89,100
Wood
2 to 4
1,945
2,193
4,138
82,760
4,138,000
Brick 75
831
2,958
3,864
77,280
3,864,000 5
549
986
1,535
92,100
4,6
05,000
Panel
276
2,450
2,726
163,560
8,178,000
6 to 8
247
22,230
1,111,500 9
688
96,320
4,816,000
1,698
237,720
11,886,000
10 to 13
260
29,900
1,495,000 1
0 to 13 94
10,810
540,500
14 & over 28
4,480
224,000 42
6,720
336,000
Subtotal
5 & over
825
6,493
7,318
663,840
33,192,000
All
418
4,384
11,837
16,639
825,860
41,283,100

5. Panel Construction

6. U-value of existing walls
Uncertainty about panel composition and thermal properties
Uncertainty about local standards conformance
LCC of wall insulation retrofits are highly sensitive to existing wall conditions
Input to RusFEDS retrofit evaluation program: wall U-value by building type and location

7. U-value Measurement Panel wall thickness: 35cm = 14inch
Brick wall thickness: 65cm = 30inch
Huge wall mass requires long time (1-2 weeks) to perform ASTM test
Logistics of field testing in multiple cities requires shorter (~3-day) test period

8. Transient U-value Test Conditions

9. U-value Analysis
Huge wall mass plus short test duration created potentially large measurement errors
ASTM (steady-state) model could not account for “storage effect”
Simple Regression using conduction transfer function (CTF) model was sensitive to noise and bias errors in time-series (TX, TZ, flux) data
Developed and applied constrained CTF model to derive final U values
See Appendix A

10. U-value Results

11. Materials corresponding to measured conductivities
Median
(Wm - 2 K 1 ) k
eff
= t × U
Standard
Error N
Handbook
Material
Density
(kg m 3
Orenburg Panel
2.76
0.97
0.79 21
Concrete
1920
0.9
1.3
Petrozavodsk Gable
1.31
0.46
0.96 12
LDA concrete
1200
0.42
0.53
Petrozavodsk Panel
2.66
0.93
0.76 7
Ryazan Panel
3.81
1.33
1.14
2080
1.0
1.9
Zhukovskij Panel
1.95
0.68 32
1440
0.58
0.74
Orenburg Brick
4.27
2.78
0.48 4
Brick & mortar
2160
1.2
1.5
Petrozavodsk Brick
4.74
3.08
1.12
Brick
& mortar
Ryazan Brick
4.85
3.15
1.03 15
Orenburg Floor
3.24
See text
3.64 9 20
cm air gap
Ryazan Floor
19.62
2.94
1.82
2400
1.4
2.9
Orenburg Attic
22.64
3.40
6.06 .4
Ryazan Attic
18.75
2.81 NA

12. Demo Building at 22/1 Zubkova

13. Whole Building Thermal Performance
Two identical 5-story, 60-unit buildings in Ryazan: Zubkova 22/1 and 24/3
Measured hourly heating water, hot and cold service water (referenced to sewer T)
Hourly gas and electric use and weather
Control of heat supply to 22/1 and 24/3 is very different

14. Heat Input & Average Temperature in Zubkova 22/1

15. Heat Input & Average Temperature
in Zubkova 24/3

16. Deviation of Simulated from
Measured Heat Input

17. Thermal Parameters Derived from Model Coefficients:
Metabolic Heat Rate, Solar Gain Coefficient,
Wind-Infiltration Coefficient, and UA

18. Bathroom Vent Riser Temperature Compared to Average Building Temperature