GEOTABS Final report - TU Braunschweig · GEOTABS Final report ... Since the overall improvement of the design process and control strategy is based on an integrated ... Helio = Heliopower

GEOTABS Final report The overall aim of the project is to improve the system design and control of GEO-HP-TABS in office buildings by using monitoring, comfort survey and simulation data. Hereby, improved design is defined as a design characterized by increased energy performance as well as increased convenience for future commissioning, while comfort is guaranteed. Since the overall improvement of the design process and control strategy is based on an integrated system approach and on different information flows (current practice, monitoring, comfort survey and simulation data), various actions will be carried out in parallel. project GEOTABS was therefor divided in 9 work packages. WP1: Project coordination and management WP2: Detailed analysis of design procedures WP3: Inventory of cases WP4: Monitoring of real GEO-HP-TABS cases WP5: Model simulations WP6: System operation and controller development WP7: Comfort survey tool development WP8: Guidelines for improved design and control WP9: Dissemination and valorisation This final report gives a summary of all results per work package with a reference to the place where more detailed information can be found. For each task or deliverable the corresponding partners were listed. The following abbreviations were used in the rest of the report. KUL= KU Leuven UNu= University of Applied Sciences Nuremberg MIK = MIKROKLIMA s.r.o. HIn = Heimann Ingenieure GmbH SoN = SolarNext AG TUE = Eindhoven University of Technology DNI = Hogeschool voor Wetenschap en Kunst - De Nayer Instituut Boy = Studiebureau R. Boydens nv Belvi = Belvi NV DTU = International Center for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark Helio = Heliopower Nilan = NILAN A/S EDBS = Energydesign Braunschweig GmbH UBr = TU Braunschweig - Institute for Building Services and Energy Design COP = COPROMAX ENG. SPRL. ULg = Université de Liège BenR = BenR Adviseurs voor duurzaamheid Oct = Octalix Slim = Slimline Buildings B.V. Vabi = Vabi Software bv TCS = Thermal Comfort Systems BV Rehau = Rehau NV Fa4 = Factor4 DGMR = DGMR Bouw B.V. DWA = DWA installatie- en energieadvies SvB = Smits van Burgst bv

GEOTABS Final report

WP 1: Project coordination and management

Authors: Jan Hoogmartens, Lieve Helsen


1. Goal To guide, coordinate and manage the overall project legally, financially and administratively

2. Tasks The work in this work package has been divided in several subtasks and milestones to fulfill the goal

of this work package. The three main subtasks were: writing a project proposal with special attention

to a good organizational structure. This structure guaranteed that all partners know their

responsibilities, cooperation partners, deadlines, … Second subtask was to organize, in association

with the local partners, one meeting per half a year. For these meetings an agenda was send around

before and a report was send after the meeting. At last, a project website was made. On the secured

intranet page, all partners could upload their draft/final reports. Furthermore, the website was used

to upload dissemination information and to organize practical meeting arrangements (hotel,

attendances, …).

Task Description Responsible partner(s)

1.1 Organisation of kick-off meeting KUL

1.2

Allocation of the financial contribution between partners and activities

KUL

1.3

Organisation of and participation in the Steering Board (SB), General Assembly (GA) and Advisory Board (AB) meetings

all partners

1.4 Project reporting and monitoring Regional Coordinators

1.5 Overall project coordination and management KUL

1.6 Establishment of the project website KUL

3. Milestones Milestone Description Planned deadline Executed deadline

1.1 Kick-off meeting Feb 2011 Feb 2011

1.2 Detailed work plan ready Feb 2011 Feb 2011

1.3 Consortium Agreement signed by all partners Ma 2011 Feb 2012

1.4 Steering Board Meeting July 2011, 2012 Sept 2011, Aug 2012

1.5 Steering Board and General Assembly Meeting

Feb 2012 Jan 2012

1.6 GEOTABS Final meeting Jan 2013 Jan 2013

4. Summary The Steering Board (SB) and General Assembly (GA) of the project have met five times during the

lifetime of the project, in order to review the progress and plan future activities:

1st SB/GA Meeting: Leuven, Belgium, Feb 10-11, 2011

2nd SB Meeting: Nurnberg, Germany, September 5-6, 2011

3rd SB/GA Meeting: Lyngby, Denmark, January 11-12, 2012

4th SB Meeting: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, August 29-30, 2012

5th SB/GA Meeting: Hannover, Germany, January 21-22, 2013


Figure 1: Kick-off meeting (Leuven, February 2011) Figure 2: SB meeting (Nurnberg, September 2011)

The detailed working plan was already implemented in the project proposal. Each meeting the

progress was checked and if necessary, some changes in the work planning were made. These

decisions were approved by all attendees of the meeting and could be commented by the absentees

via remarks on the report.

The first draft of the consortium agreement was presented at the kick off meeting in Leuven. As it

took us three rounds of revision, the final document was not finished until June 2011. In February

2012 all partners received the original version of the consortium agreement signed by all partners,

Earlier on (August 2011), a digital version was already send to all partners.

The key mechanism implemented for disseminating the outputs of the project was the GEOTABS

website (www.geotabs.eu). The project website has been operating since the beginning of the

project, and serves as an information exchange between interested parties in the project

(researchers, national officers, …) and also between partners (the GEOTABS intranet-page).

IP management was used as described in the project proposal and the signed consortium agreement.

IP management was crucial in the development of two products: the comfort survey association and

the MPC development.

For the first one all partners who contributed in the development of the tool were brought together

for the development of association based on a collaboration agreement between joint owners. This

proposal was presented during the last General Assembly meeting and no remarks were made. The

practical implementation will continue after the end of the project.

For the MPC implementation an overview was made of what information was background

information before the start of the project and which knowledge came out of the project. This one is

shared between both collaborating parties (KU Leuven and Mikroklima).


5. Annex: reports

Coutnry/region Reponsible institute Responsible person Regional report finished (Y/N)

BE-Flanders KU Leuven-MECH Lieve Helsen Y

BE-Walloon U Liege Vincent Lemort

NL TU Eindhoven Jan Hensen

DK DTU Bjarne Olesen

DE U Nürnberg Arno Dentel

CZ MIKROKLIMA Tomas Vizner

Deliverable Output Reference IP

D1.1: agenda and minutes of Kick-off meeting, Steering Board Meetings and General Assembly Meetings

reports Intranet page consortium

D1.2: detailed Project Plan with deliverables and milestones report Mail to all project partners consortium

D1.3: consortium agreement signed by all partners C.A. Mail to all project partner consortium

D1.4: national/regional technical and financial reports (cfr. national/regional requirements) Table Final report consortium

D1.5: project website Website www.geotabs.eu

Website www.geotabs.eu public

D1.6: confidential report on IP management report Final report public

D1.7: final project report and overall project portrait report Website www.geotabs.eu public

http://www.geotabs.eu/




WP 2: Detailed analysis of design procedures

Author: Jan Verheyen


1. Goal To review methods currently available and used in practice for the design of geothermal heat pumps

(GEO-HP) in combination with thermally activated building systems (TABS).

2. Tasks Task 2.1. State-of-the-art review of design methods.

The methods currently available and used in practice to design GEO-HP-TABS systems will be

reviewed. The following topics will be covered: ground heat exchangers, underground thermal

energy storage, geothermal heat pump systems, TABS, Thermal comfort (interaction with WP7),

control strategies (interaction with WP6-task 6.1), commissioning. Besides the current design

methods, this review will also cover recent research results. This task will result in a state-of-the-art

literature review report on design methods for geothermal heat pumps combined with thermally

activated building systems (GEO-HP-TABS) for application in office buildings, which will be an

extremely valuable source of information to all companies and researchers active in the field.

Task 2.2. Development of a selection tree for design methods.

Based on the results of task 2.1. and on a survey of common practices applied by engineering

companies, drillers, … (integrated in the project sheets set up in WP3), all methods used in the design

(and commissioning) phase of an office building equipped with GEO-HP-TABS will be listed in a

structured way. This will be done by studying and comparing the available methods for the different

design steps (e.g. calculation of the size of the boreholes, size of TABS, heat pump sizing, control

system, …) and by listing them in a type of selection/Decision tree, together with the implication of

their choice. The comparative study of design methods will be carried out on the reference building

developed in WP5. As a result, a scheme for common application (independent of specific cases)

illustrating the current practice, will be obtained.

Following table lists the tasks to be fulfilled for WP2. The column ‘responsible partners’ only contains

the partner with end-responsibility. Contributors according to the project-proposal include: UBr,

EDB, DTU, TUE, Belvi, Bay, Rehau, Helio, Nilan, COP and UNu.


2.1 State-of-the-art literature review on design methods for GEO-HP-TABS buildings

DNI

2.2

Development of a selection tree for the design of GEO-HP-TABS buildings

DNI

2.3

Scientific coordination of the work package DNI



2.1 State-of-the-art literature review report on design and control methods for GEO-HP-TABS buildings

31-July 2011 30-November 2012

2.2 Selection/decision tree for design methods for GEO-HP-TABS buildings

31-July 2011 End of January 2013

4. Summary This work package has led to a comprehensive report on the state-of-the-art of methods for the

design of GEO-HP-TABS offices. The subject control strategies is studied and reported on separately

in WP6 (D6.1); review report of existing control strategies for GEO-HP-TABS.

From the body of knowledge summarized in the state-of-the-art report and based on a questionnaire

amongst companies participating in the project consortium, a decision/design tree is developed

consisting of flowcharts and an explanatory text document. A decision tree enables first feasibility

and rough building design and choice of system configuration for an office building on a given

location. Also, a design tree is developed that gives an overview of the standards currently available

for the design of GEO-HP-TABS in offices and the various components of these systems. The design

tree can be used succeeding the use of the decision tree. Both trees are constructed as flowcharts

guiding the decision maker, architect and designer of GEO-HP-TABS for offices through the decision

and design process.

Each meeting the progress was checked and necessary changes in the work planning were made. It

was agreed upon to use the terminology decision and design tree. The decision tree is to be used

preliminary to the design tree. These decisions were approved by all attendees of the meetings and

could be commented by the absentees via remarks on the report.

The results of the reporting process for D2.1 were all subject to a review process within the project

consortium and remarks taken into account in the final document.

The results of the reporting process for D2.2 were all subject to a review process within the project

consortium and remarks taken into account in the final document. However, the last review round

resulted in significant adaptations to the decision/design tree. Therefore, the resulting final reporting

for D2.2 will be subjected to a final review during the last internal meeting in Hannover. Comments

will be taken into account before the decision/design tree is considered final to be published

externally.

The delay in submission dates of both deliverables can be attributed to an internal restructuring

including change of employees without overlap in time.


5. Annex: reports Deliverable Output Reference IP

D2.1: state of the art design report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D2.2: Decision/design tree for GEO-HP-TABS buildings report Website www.geotabs.eu public




WP 3: Inventory of cases

Authors: Franziska Bockelmann, Hanna Soldaty, Stefan Plesser


1. Goal The goal of the work package 3 is to select and analyze a number of non-residential building cases

(10-20) with GEO-HP-TABS and to choose 5 buildings to be analyzed in details in respect to their

design practices. The cases are supposed to be the cross section of GEO-HP-TABS buildings – diverse

in terms of characteristic, applied solutions, localization etc.

2. Tasks The work in this work package was divided in several subtasks and milestones to fulfill the goal of this

work package. The two main subtasks were: to collect data from GEOTABS-buildings and to present

them in building flyer and a database.

1) In the first subtask a number of cases (GEO-HP-TABS offices currently being monitored) were

selected and analyzed with respect to their design practices. To structure the inventory of cases, a

generic functional description system was developed by using a web-based tool (which was also used

to set up the building data questionnaire in Task 7.3). The Energy-Navigator (developed by TU

Braunschweig and RWTH Aachen University) was used as a starting point for evolving this tool.

Design procedures and building data were collected in this web-based system, containing

information such as: surface area, number of floors, glazing ratio, indicator of thermal mass, degree

of commissioning (what, how, accuracy), applied design procedures, targeted energy consumption

and monitored performance (specific values), as-built plans, installation schemes, dimensioning. For

each GEOTABS case study, the information is presented in a project sheet (output of the web-based

tool), which served as input to WP2.

2) Second subtask was to select the cases to be studied in detail and informative cases. Within the list

of cases limited to 5 were studied in detail, while the others were ‘informative cases’ which

generated project sheets for the database. Selection criteria were amongst others:

a. The age of the building

b. The availability of monitoring data

c. The detail of data available from the design phase

d. Accessibility to the building management system

e. The number and types of sensors

f. Availability of climate measurements (meteo station)

g. Availability of thermal response test (GEO-HP)

h. Willingness of the occupants to complete the survey to be able to include occupants’ behavior and

occupants’ acceptance

Differences in design/control between the five detailed case studies were significant, such that they

formed a limited but representative set of current office building design. A high performance building

envelope (high insulation quality, solar shading and/or reduced percentage of glazing) was set as a

requirement for using TABS.

3) Coordination of the work package.


Table 1 List of the tasks

3. Milestones At the beginning of the project it was decided to collect the information from the 17 buildings using

excel sheets instead of a web-based tool. An Excel sheet was more suitable for the collection. The

effort and the implementation of a web-based data collection tool would have been too high for such

a small number of buildings.

Milestone Description Planned deadline Executed deadline

M 3.1 Web-based tool for case data collection March 2011 Excel sheet: General survey November 2011; Detailed survey November 2011

M 3.2 Project sheet with design practices and building data for each case to be studied in GEOTABS project

January 2013 Finalized for all buildings: November 2012

M 3.3 Database of GEO-HP-TABS cases January 2013 Finalized with all buildings and information: November 2012

M 3.4 List of cases to be studied in detail (3-5) and list of ‚informative cases‘

April 2011 January 2012

Table 2 List of the milestones

4. Summary During the project 17 GEOTABS buildings located in Belgium, in the Netherlands, Germany and

Denmark were surveyed and investigated. All buildings are presented on the project-website

(http://www.geotabs.eu/Database) with a building flyer as pdf for downloading and in the database

(http://geotabs.synavision.de/).


3.1 Development of a generic functional description system for real cases

EDB, UBr, DTU, Fa4, Nilan

3.2 Selection of cases KUL, ULg, EDB, UBr, DNI, UNu, HIn, Belvi, Boy, Rehau, COP

3.3 Scientific coordination of the work package EDB

http://www.geotabs.eu/Database


Figure 1 all building cases, which would be researches in the project

Collecting data and information from the building

The general and the detailed building survey (Figure 2 und Figure 3) were created in the first phase of

the project and sent to the partners involved in order to gather the relevant information about the

potential case studies. The received information were gathered and compared to define the five

detail cases.

The general survey consists of questions grouped according to the following issues:

Buildings characteristic (location, type of usage, occupancy, demand for cooling and heating etc.)

Information for the project use

No. Building Picture

1. VGH - Regionaldirektion Lüneburg Konrad_Zuse_Allee 4 21337 Lüneburg Germany

2. Arcadis Building Hasselt Eurostraat 1 bus 1 3500 Hasselt Belgium

3. TransPort Piet Guilonardweg 15 1117 EE Schiphol Oost / Amsterdam Netherlands

4. Infrax West Noordlaan 9 8820 TORHOUT Belgium

5. Arenberg ICT 3 & 4 Gaston Geenslaan 14 3001 Leuven Belgium

6. Hollandsch Huys Prins-bisschoepssingel 36 3500 Hasselt Belgium

7. EnergieForum Berlin Stralauer Platz 34 10243 Berlin-Fredrichshein Germany

8. DTU1 - - - Germany

9. Bayer J.E. Mommaertslaan 14 1831 Diegem Belgium

10. Rickmers Reederei Neumühlen 19 22763 Hamburg Germany

11. Juridisch Kantoor Wellen - - Wellen Belgium

12. Infrax Dilbeek Noordkustlaan 10 1700 Dilbeek Belgium

13. Museum Lothar Fischer Weiherstraße 7 a 92318 Neumarkt i.d.OPf. Germany

14. Viessmann Zoning Les Plenesses - Rue du Progrès 2 4841 Welkenraedt Belgium

15. TechnologieCenter Festo Ruiter Straße 82 73734 Esslingen Germany

16. Viborg City Hall Prinsens Alle 5 8800 Viborg Denmark

17. Grontmij Stationsstraat 51 2800 Mechelen Begium

Address Building


Information on geothermal systems

Information on systems in the building

Remarks, experiences etc.

The detailed survey was created to receive more detailed information like building concept and

systems, capacity as well as information concerning other work packages like comfort (WP7) and

monitoring data (WP4).

Figure 2 excel sheets for general survey

Building Survey

Geotabs - partner name

contact person

e-mail address [email protected]

telephone

General information on name picture

building address

ZIP

city

country

year of construction

type of use x office building

school / university

library

hospital / doctor's practice

shopping mall

other: ____________________________________

building in operation / x yes

commissioning carried out?

no

net floor area [m²]

specific heating demand [kWh/m²] refers to net floor area

specific cooling demand [kWh/m²] refers to net floor area

approx. occupancy (%)

Information for the project use Inventory of cases (WP3) Monitoring (WP4) Model simulations (WP5)

Detailed information about Available for monitoring? Suitable for simulation model?

technical systems available? Enough monitoring data available? Sufficient data and basic information existing

to build a model?

x Yes x Yes possible to convert into a model

No No x impossible

data available since

until

What is planned to be measured?

Comments:

Controller (WP6) Comfort survey (WP7) Monitoring and Comfort (WP4 + WP7)

Accessible to integrate Available for carring out the survey? Is the indoor climate data from the building available?

a new controller? Do the owner/tenants and employees (room temperature, air humidity, air velocity etc. to be

Available for controller test? accept the survey? compared with results from the survey)

Yes x Yes available

x No No x not available

How many different heating and

cooling zones are in the building?

Zones with different possibilities /

controlling strategies for heating

or/and cooling.

? heating zones

? cooling zones

Definitions

Ground heat exchanger / x energy-pipes, foundation piles

geothermal system

borehole heat exchanger, vertical ground heat exchanger, vertical loop

well systems

others:________________________ (e.g. foundation absorber, ground heat collectors)

only backup-system or

Energy supply external energy supply additional supply system for example

more than one answer is possible electrical energy electrical grid electrical grid

heating district heating additional supply system district heating, local heating, gas, oil

cooling district cooling

internal energy generation

electrical energy photovoltaic, fuel cell, CHP (cogeneration)

heating ground coupled heat pump additional supply system ground coupled heat pump, heat pump (air/water), exhaust air heat,

solar collector, cogeneration, condensing gas boiler

cooling reversible heat pump, ground heat exchanger ground heat exchanger, ground coupled refrigerating machine

or reversible heat pump, cooling tower, cooling unit

fraction of the total demand [%]

cooling heating

geothermal energy 100 30 [%]

other supply-system 70 [%]

backup-system [%]

Incorporating the geothermal system underground usage only heat sink only heat source

x combined heat sink and heat source

operation mode free heating mode / direct heating x free cooling mode / direct cooling

ground heat exchanger

x heat pump x refrigerating machine / cooling machine

Geothermal energy and capacity heat extraction MWh/a

(design data) heat injection MWh/a

max. extraction capacity kW

max. injection capacity kW

Heating and cooling systems x concrete core activation x radiator / convector x ventilation and air-conditioning system

(all systems in the building)

ceilling heating / cooling x floor heating / cooling other: _____________________

capillary pipe system domestic hot water other: _____________________

heating cooling

Which of the systems above use geothermal energy (please list) concrete core actiavtion concrete core actiavtion

ventialtion ventialtion

Experiences, mistakes,

potentials for improvement

for example: what kind of problems and errors occured during the planing and commissioning phase? Feedback, reactions and questions from owner and employees

to the system, requirements during the design phase concerning comfort, indoor climate, systems dynamics (time/speed of response and readjustment) etc.

Documentation information used for case-study and description (also available for publication)

x pictures (building and offices) x other relevant systems ____________________

x floor plan x functional discription / ____________________

control strategies

x hydraulic system x measured data ____________________

Comments

TUBS

VGH - Regionaldirektion Lüneburg

Konrad_Zuse_Allee 4

Lüneburg

Franziska Bockelmann

75

3 957

2002

Germany

100

25

67

105

Before the monitoring phase there was no regular heating and coolong mode.

85

5

5313913557

flow and return temperatures of the supply systems (geotheraml and systems in the buidling), heating, cooling and electrical energy consumption, indoor and outdoor temperatures,

operation modes, flow rates

2005

21337

end 2009

Building Survey

Geotabs - partner name

contact person

e-mail address [email protected]

telephone

General information on name picture

building address

ZIP

city

country

year of construction

type of use x office building

school / university

library

hospital / doctor's practice

shopping mall

other: ____________________________________

building in operation / x yes

commissioning carried out?

no

net floor area [m²]

specific heating demand [kWh/m²] refers to net floor area

specific cooling demand [kWh/m²] refers to net floor area

approx. occupancy (%)

Information for the project use Inventory of cases (WP3) Monitoring (WP4) Model simulations (WP5)

Detailed information about Available for monitoring? Suitable for simulation model?

technical systems available? Enough monitoring data available? Sufficient data and basic information existing

to build a model?

x Yes x Yes possible to convert into a model

No No x impossible

data available since

until

What is planned to be measured?

Comments:

Controller (WP6) Comfort survey (WP7) Monitoring and Comfort (WP4 + WP7)

Accessible to integrate Available for carring out the survey? Is the indoor climate data from the building available?

a new controller? Do the owner/tenants and employees (room temperature, air humidity, air velocity etc. to be

Available for controller test? accept the survey? compared with results from the survey)

Yes x Yes available

x No No x not available

How many different heating and

cooling zones are in the building?

Zones with different possibilities /

controlling strategies for heating

or/and cooling.

? heating zones

? cooling zones

Definitions

Ground heat exchanger / x energy-pipes, foundation piles

geothermal system

borehole heat exchanger, vertical ground heat exchanger, vertical loop

well systems

others:________________________ (e.g. foundation absorber, ground heat collectors)

only backup-system or

Energy supply external energy supply additional supply system for example

more than one answer is possible electrical energy electrical grid electrical grid

heating district heating additional supply system district heating, local heating, gas, oil

cooling district cooling

internal energy generation

electrical energy photovoltaic, fuel cell, CHP (cogeneration)

heating ground coupled heat pump additional supply system ground coupled heat pump, heat pump (air/water), exhaust air heat,

solar collector, cogeneration, condensing gas boiler

cooling reversible heat pump, ground heat exchanger ground heat exchanger, ground coupled refrigerating machine

or reversible heat pump, cooling tower, cooling unit

fraction of the total demand [%]

cooling heating

geothermal energy 100 30 [%]

other supply-system 70 [%]

backup-system [%]

Incorporating the geothermal system underground usage only heat sink only heat source

x combined heat sink and heat source

operation mode free heating mode / direct heating x free cooling mode / direct cooling

ground heat exchanger

x heat pump x refrigerating machine / cooling machine

Geothermal energy and capacity heat extraction MWh/a

(design data) heat injection MWh/a

max. extraction capacity kW

max. injection capacity kW

Heating and cooling systems x concrete core activation x radiator / convector x ventilation and air-conditioning system

(all systems in the building)

ceilling heating / cooling x floor heating / cooling other: _____________________

capillary pipe system domestic hot water other: _____________________

heating cooling

Which of the systems above use geothermal energy (please list) concrete core actiavtion concrete core actiavtion

ventialtion ventialtion

Experiences, mistakes,

potentials for improvement

for example: what kind of problems and errors occured during the planing and commissioning phase? Feedback, reactions and questions from owner and employees

to the system, requirements during the design phase concerning comfort, indoor climate, systems dynamics (time/speed of response and readjustment) etc.

Documentation information used for case-study and description (also available for publication)

x pictures (building and offices) x other relevant systems ____________________

x floor plan x functional discription / ____________________

control strategies

x hydraulic system x measured data ____________________

Comments

TUBS

VGH - Regionaldirektion Lüneburg

Konrad_Zuse_Allee 4

Lüneburg

Franziska Bockelmann

75

3 957

2002

Germany

100

25

67

105

Before the monitoring phase there was no regular heating and coolong mode.

85

5

5313913557

flow and return temperatures of the supply systems (geotheraml and systems in the buidling), heating, cooling and electrical energy consumption, indoor and outdoor temperatures,

operation modes, flow rates

2005

21337

end 2009


Figure 3 excel sheets for detail survey

Database and presentation of GEO-HP-TABS building

All information were collected, presented in attractive graphical form and published online as

building flyers (see Figure 4). The flyers give an overview on the building, presenting the information

like:

• Picture

• Building description

• Energy concept

• Floor plan

• Hydraulic scheme

• Control strategies

• Monitoring data and

• Operation experiences

During the project, the database for collecting and publishing information about the GEOTABS-

buildings with actual monitoring data (Figure 5) was developed. The database will be also used for

other project in the future.

Implementation of the GEOTABS-buildings in other existing web based databases turned out to be

expensive. Thus since there was no extra budget for it and the expected benefit was low, it was

decided not to present the GEOTABS building in external databases.

All buildings - generals

All buildings - capacity

WP7 – comfort buildings


Figure 4 Example of a building flyer

Figure 5 Screenshot from the database

Detail cases:

After collection and analysis of all required information, datailed building cases were choosen to

cover all possible variations of ground heat exchanger, emission systems, combinations, building size

etc. The additional criterium was accessibility for other WPs.


Selection criteria were amongst others:

• Availability of monitoring data

• Accessibility for model simulations

• Availability of indoor climate data

• Acceptance for comfort survey

• Accessibility of the controller

• Location of the building

• Type of the ground heat exchanger

• Other supply systems

• Systems installed in the building

• Net floor area

• Year of construction

• Characteristic of the building

The final detailed cases were:

• VGH, Germany

• Hollandsch Huys, Belgium

• Arcadis, Belgium

• Infrax West, Belgium

• Bayer, Belgium

Figure 6 Pictures from the detail cases


5. Annex: reports


D3.1: web-based tool for collecting information regarding the design methods and building data used in real cases

Excel file Website www.geotabs.eu public

D3.2: project sheet with design practices and building data for each case to be studied in the GEOTABS project

report per case Website database www.geotabs.eu public

D3.3: database of GEO-HP-TABS cases report per case Website database www.geotabs.eu http://geotabs.synavision.de/ public

D3.4: list of cases to be studied in detail and list of ‘informative cases’ presentation Website www.geotabs.eu public




http://geotabs.synavision.de/



WP 4: Monitoring of real GEO-HP-TABS

Author: Vincent Lemort Contributors: Clément Gantiez, François Randaxhe


1. Goal The goal of WP4 is to gather and to analyze the monitoring data of 4 detailed case studies selected in

the frame of WP3. This analysis addresses the energy performance of the building as well as the

thermal comfort.

Four buildings have been selected: VGH (Germany), Bayer (Belgium), Hollandsch Huys (Belgium) and

Infrax (Belgium). The criteria of selection were the availability and quality of monitoring data and the

possibility to perform both an energy and thermal comfort performance analysis. In this respect, one

building (Energy Forum Berlin, Germany) does not meet all requirements (no information regarding

the thermal comfort). However, because of the good quality of the monitoring data, its energy

performance has also been analyzed.

2. Tasks This work package was divided into 4 subtasks:

o Task 4.1: Evaluation of the measured energy and thermal comfort performance (Partners

involved: ULg, KUL, DTU, DNI, UNu, HIn, EDB, UBr, MIK, Belvi, Boy, COP, Nilan, BenR, DGMR, TCS,

Oct, Slim, Smits, Vabi)

In this subtask, the performance of the different detailed case studies selected in the frame of WP3

was analyzed. This analysis was based on detailed monitoring data provided by the partners

responsible of the each building selected as a case study.

This analysis aimed at assessing the energy performance of the entire building and its

subcomponents on seasonal, monthly and daily bases. In this analysis, it was also important to

account for other subsystems that the GEO-HP-TABS systems (ventilation, etc.): the building as a

whole should be investigated.

o Task 4.2: Evaluation of the applied control strategy (Partners involved: KUL, UNu, HIn, MIK, Boy,

COP)

A detailed evaluation of the control strategies was conducted, based on project sheets and on

monitoring data. The influence of the different control parameters was investigated. The

achievement of the set points was checked. This analysis allowed pointing out bad and well

performing components and systems. A special attention was paid to the integration of all

components within the global system

o Task 4.3: Evaluation of adjustments (Partners involved: KUL, MIK)

Based on simulation (WP5) and using newly developed control strategies (WP6), adjustments

(improvements) of the control strategy were identified and implemented in the Hollandsch Huys

building. A comparison of energy and thermal comfort performance before and after adjustments

was conducted. Experimental results were compared to calculated improvements.

o Task 4.4 Scientific coordination of the work package (ULg)


3. Milestones The milestones of the project, their planned deadline and their actual date of execution are given in

Table hereunder.


4.1 Report on energy performance and control strategy

April 2012 January 2013

4.2 System adjustments performed ready for testing

July 2012 December 2012

1.3 Tests on adjusted cases finished November 2012 December 2012

4. Summary Methodology

Energy Performance

The energy and thermal comfort performance of 5 different buildings (A and B located in Germany

and C, D and E located in Belgium) were analyzed based on monitoring data. These buildings showed

large differences in terms of net floor area, design of the HVAC plant (and its control) and quality of

the monitoring information. The energy performance was analyzed on the seasonal (yearly) basis,

monthly basis and daily bases.

It was asked to the partners responsible of each building to fill a form with all the monitoring data.

This standard form was useful to allow for an easier comparison of the energy performance of all

buildings and to limit the risks of misunderstandings (by the scientific coordinator) of measurement

data.

Heat balances across the main components were expressed on the annual, monthly and daily bases.

These components are the geothermal heat pump, the TABS, any other radiant floors, terminal units

and air-handling units (AHU). In order to allow for a fair comparison of the energy performance of

each building, performance indicators such as (COP, SCOP, EER, SEER) were accurately defined. For

instance, different COPs were proposed according to the electrical consumption taken into account

in the calculation (compressors only, circulating pumps of the ground heat exchanger, of the TABS, of

the heat pumps condenser, etc.).

Thermal comfort

The thermal comfort was assessed according to the method provided in standard EN15251. Two

performance indicators were used:

1) The percentage outside the range: The number or % of occupied hours when the PMV or the

operative temperature is outside a specific range.

2) The degree hours criteria: The time during which the actual operative temperature exceeds

the specified range during the occupied hours is weighted by a factor which is a function

depending on how many degrees the range has been exceeded.


According to the category of building, the values of the PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and

operative temperatures given hereunder are considered for the evaluation of the thermal

comfort.

Results

Seasonal performance analysis

Except for A, whose heat pump performance is much larger, B, C and D buildings show similar

seasonal coefficients of performance (SCOP). However, accounting for circulating pumps, this

coefficient of performance can be dramatically decreased. This is the case of the D building whose

SCOP drops from 3.56 to 1.23 when electricity consumption of ground heat exchanger pumps,

condenser pumps, and TABS pumps are taken into account.

It was observed that the part of the heating load covered by the TABS is limited: around 13.5% for

each case but. Regarding the cooling load, the TABS provides almost the entire building consumption

(more than 75%) or even the total load.

- A (2010)

B (2009)

C (2011)

D (2011)

E (2010-11)

Annual heating load [MWh] 1200 355 67.44 452.88 502.26

Ventilation

Boiler [MWh] / / / 99.55 72.28

District heating

[MWh] 109.28 5.3 / / /

Geothermal HP

[MWh] / 42.3 7.8 / 51.38

Fan coils Boiler [MWh] / / / 198.17 131.87

TABS Geothermal

HP [MWh] 171.3 48.2 49.7 47.13i 32.33

Heating load by radiators

Boiler [MWh] 885.78 219.3 / 39.11ii /

Floor heating Boiler [MWh] / / / 65.19iii 2.70

District heating

[MWh] 33.66 23.9 / / /


Geothermal HP

[MWh] / / 9.9 / 101.68

DHW [MWh] / 15.9 / 12.00iv No data

Electrical consumption

Heat pump [MWh] 33.24 21 13.26 No data

Ground hex pumps

[MWh] 3.1 No Data

10.84v No data

Condenser side pumps

[MWh] 2.73 No Data

5.59 No data

TABS pumps [MWh] 8.70 No data

Annual cooling load [MWh] 46.47 19.69 76.4 92.70 68.29

Ventilation Chiller [MWh] / 4.2 5.99 6.67 6.66

Fan coils Chiller [MWh] / / / 21.19 /

TABS Geocooling [MWh] 46.47 15.2 70.46 64.84 61.69

Electrical consumption

Ground hex pumps

[MWh] 0.935 No Data

17.41 No data

Brine/water hex

[MWh] 9.57 No data

TABS side pumps

[MWh] 1.283 No Data

5.04 No data

SCOP1 [-] 5.15 3.94 3.76 3.56 ND

SCOP2 [-] 4.71 ND 1.96 ND

SCOP3 [-] - ND 1.59 ND

SCOP4 [-] 4.38 ND 1.23 ND

SEER1 [-] - 7.54 10.74 - ND

SEER2 [-] 49.70 ND ? 3.72 ND

SEER3 [-] 20.95 ND 2.89 ND

SEER4 [-] - ND 2.08 ND

Monthly energy analysis

Monthly analysis allows distinguishing the impact of climate on the cooling/heating loads. For the A

and B buildings, the part of the heating load covered by the TABS is limited, while the latter covers

almost the entire cooling load.

The most frequent problems encountered during the analysis of the measurements are:

- The lack of relevant sensors. Here are a few examples. In the D building, only the TABS supply

temperature is provided but not the return temperature. In the E building, there is no

measurement of the electricity consumption.

- The low temperature differences (lower than 2K), which results in a very large uncertainty on

the energy loads measured by calorimeters.

Daily analysis

Daily analysis allows for a better understanding of the control of the HVAC plant. The analysis of both

the energy performance and the thermal comfort can also be conducted in parallel, what allows

pointing out technical limitations. For instance, in the D building, the TABS supply temperature is

GEOTABS Final report limited by the overheating in the warmest zones of the buildings. Having a separate control for the

different portions of the TABS would enable increasing the part of the heating load provided by the

TABS in the coldest zones.

Thermal comfort

Analysis of the thermal comfort indicates that there is seldom overheating in the investigated

buildings. However, one of the investigated buildings (B) shows significant fractions of time when

overcooling is observed. Hence, energy savings could be achieved by decreasing the cooling energy

provided by the HVAC plant.

Economical and environmental analyses

The use of geothermal energy for heating (heat pump) or cooling (free chilling and/or heat pump in

reverse) allows for a running cost reduction up to 71% compared to traditional systems and also a

decrease of CO2 emissions by 54%. Concerning the control strategies, the TABS of the two german

buildings are controlled in different ways: one is operating 24h/24h with a supply water temperature

depending linearly on the outdoor temperature and the other is running only at night time with fixed

supply water temperature according to winter or summer time. Finally, the comfort analysis

performed for B showed a significant percentage of subcooling in summer that could yield to possible

energy savings by reducing the cold production.


5. Annex: reports


D4.1: report of energy performance and control strategy evaluation of the detailed cases

report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D4.2: list of suggestions for improved system operation report Website www.geotabs.eu public




WP 5: Model Simulation

Authors: Daniel Cóstola (TUE) Contributors: Jan Hensen (TUE), Wout Parys (KUL), Jan Hoogmartens (KUL), Arno Dentel (UNu), Thomas Dippel (HIn)


1. Goal The overall goal of WP5 was to study the influence of design and control strategies in GEOTABS

buildings by simulations. This overall goal was divided in four specific goals:

Development of a database of validated models. This goal aimed at the production of a broader

and deep overview of existing validated models. The tools and validated models that are available to

the different research partners participating in this WP should be listed (e.g. IEA-ECBCS Annex 48

building types and HVAC systems, offices within EPICOOL project, HARMONAC buildings and systems,

RC model for TABS, TRNSYS borehole model, EES heat pump model, EED design of boreholes),

together with their validity range, limitations and strengths. Based on this list the appropriate

model(s) should be chosen for the task considered. Efficient coupling of different simulation tools is a

challenge.

Simulation system performance by using different design and control strategies. The simulation

models enable to study the influence of parameter settings, control strategies and changes in the

installation design on the energy performance and thermal comfort. This parameter analysis should

be performed on a reference building (link with WP2), capturing the main characteristics of the real

cases. By inter-model comparison the models used by the different partners should be verified.

Besides this parameter analysis, the causes of possibly bad performance as monitored in the real

cases should be studied in detail. The parameter and in-depth performance analyses allow to identify

the most appropriate design procedure and to suggest adjustments in system design and control for

performance improvement.

Selection of the most appropriate design procedures. This goal is directly related to the work

developed in WP2 on the current design methods for GEOTABS buildings. This goal aims at the

integration of simulation in the design procedure developed in WP2, focusing on the role of different

simulation tools, and on the different levels of resolution necessary to the simulation of different

aspects of GEOTABS buildings.

Suggestion of strategies for performance improvement, including occupant behaviour. This goal

aims to derive actual suggestions based on the extensive simulations that should be conducted in

this WP. The control of TABS is usually defined for larger zones of the building rather than for

individual pieces. As a consequence of the probabilistic character of occupant behaviour, occupancy

rates and different use of rooms, local discomfort or a less than optimal energy use may occur. A

probabilistic approach should be implemented to define the occupants’ behaviour in order to analyse

the influence of shading device use, switching off the lighting, occupancy rate, arrival time and office

use. The sensitivity of the performance indicators related to different user scenarios should be

quantified. The results of this extensive analysis should be used to define refinements in control

algorithms and implementation of different strategies for zoning of TABS control (link with WP6).

Also the climate impact should be studied in order to assess the generic character of the guidelines

to be formulated (in WP8).

The partners involved in WP5 are: TUE (WP leader), BenR, DGMR, Oct, Slim, Smits, Vabi, EDB, UBr,

KUL, Helio, DTU, UNu, Hln, MIK, ULg, Boy, TCS.


2. Tasks The work in this WP has been divided in four subtasks, directly related to the goals and listed below:


5.1 Development of database of useful validated models TUE

5.2 Simulation of overall system performance TUE, KUL, UNu and Hln

5.3 Incorporation of occupants’ behaviour KUL

5.4 Scientific coordination of the work TUE

3. Milestones The WP5 have 7 milestones, summarized in the table below:


5.1 Database validated models available May 2011 Aug 2011

5.2 Coupling different software tools operational Aug 2011 Aug 2011

5.3 Model for reference building available Aug 2011 Nov 2011

5.4 Parameter analyses and in-depth performance analysis finished

Feb 2012 Oct 2012

5.5 Most appropriate design procedures selected Apr 2012 Sept 2012

5.6 Strategies for performance improvement suggested

Jun 2012 Sept 2012

5.7 Occupants’ behavior incorporated Oct 2012 Aug 2012

4. Summary Database validated models. The database is designed to bring high-level information about the

model, based on information publicly available about them. This implies that models were not tested

and in some cases, the model itself was not available. Nevertheless, the database is rather complete,

as 3 approaches were used to collect information about the models: literature review (about 100

papers), survey with GEOTABS partners and survey with experts in the field (around 30 people in

total).

The database indicates that there is a variety of simulation programs and components available for

the simulation of GEOTABS systems. Different simulation programs and components address physical

phenomena in different levels of complexity and adopting a variety of assumption regarding spatial

and temporal discretization, boundary conditions and coupling with other components. Portability of

components between different simulation environments seems to be very low, in spite of attempts

to create general purpose components, such as in the ASHRAE toolkit or in the equation-based

models. Coupling between simulation programs is also rarely reported.

In general, components included in this database do not have extensive validation reported.

Practitioners also ignore validation of components. In practice, only very few simulations

environments are used by practitioners. The survey indicates that TRNSYS is the main simulation

environment used in the design of buildings with GEOTABS systems. Earth Energy Designer (EED) is

commonly used in the design of GHE. The database and main findings are object of a report available

in the project intranet.

GEOTABS Final report Coupling different software tools. The vast majority of the simulations were performed in a single

simulation environment: TRNSYS. Therefore, the need for coupling was restricted to the integration

to WP6. In WP6, results from TRNSYS simulations were used in the development of new control

algorithms, and in this case the coupling is performed only in one direction, and no code

development is required for run-time data exchange.

Model of the reference building. The chosen building is named Hollandsch Huys, it is located in

Belgium and its 4500 m2 are currently partially occupied. The building has 4 floors with different

schemes of TABS integration with additional HVAC systems.

Figure 7 Hollandsch Huys

A detailed description of this building was carried out, resulting in a report to be used by the

different partners during the modelling phase. Four partners worked independently to produce 3

separate models representing the building. This models are described in detailed in individual reports

available in the project intranet. The models were validated using different levels of information. The

model developed by KUL was particularly well validated, and results are shown in the figure below.

The mean-bias error is around 10%, acceptable for the purpose of this project.

The different models provide a rich comparison on the modelling approaches used by different

groups. The differences in the assumptions adopted by each group are remarkably high, and models

differ on, among other things: climate file used, floor modelled, number of zones, assumptions

regarding occupancy, assumptions regarding the implementation of control strategies. Nevertheless,

the three models provide results in the same order of magnitude when the main assumptions

regarding occupancy and control were harmonized between the different research groups.

Figure 8 Comparison of simulated and measured electrical energy use of production unit for 2010 (KUL simulations)

GEOTABS Final report Parameter analyses and in-depth performance analysis. The models developed for the reference

building have a large number of input variables and parameters. Therefore, the parameter analysis

proved to be an extensive task, with many possible approaches to understand the role of each design

decision in the building performance. Two main approaches were adopted regarding the parameter

analysis: sensitivity analysis in the building level and alternative hydraulic schemes in the HVAC

system level. Results in the figure below show one example of sensitivity results. In these results the

role of the number of occupants can be identified as a key parameter for the assessment of

overheating risk and energy consumption in the summer. These results indicate that the building

shell is well designed, so small changes in the U-value and g-value are not dominant in the

performance, while uncertainty in the building use and infiltration become more relevant in this

case.

Figure 9 Sensitivity analysis on building parameter during summer (TUE simulations)

Most appropriate design procedures. WP2 has produced a design procedure for GEOTABS buildings,

and the role of WP5 was to provide guidelines for the use of simulation in this context. These

guidelines were based on the experience of partners involved in this WP, and are the main

contribution to the guidebook produced by WP8. The several aspects of GEOTABS design are initially

addressed separately: ground system, buildings and HVAC system; and then on an integrated level.

For all cases, the most suitable simulation tools and simulations approaches were listed, followed by

a brief list of their advantages and disadvantages.

Strategies for performance improvement. Results on recommendations for the system

improvement are focuses on the hydraulic scheme used in the production unit. Proposed schemes

are described in detailed in the report “Simulation Results Alternative Hydraulic Concepts”, and one

of these schemes is illustrated on the figure below. The proposed schemes require less pumps,

diverters and valves, resulting in a system easier to implement and maintain. The performance of the

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Insulation thickness

Window area_N

Window area_S

Window area_W

Window area_E

U-value

g-value

Infiltration rate

Area per occupant

Overheating

Energy

GEOTABS Final report system using the hydraulic schemes is better than original design of the reference building, with

energy savings around 6%. Results corroborate common knowledge on the design of building shells

in TABS buildings, where attention should always be paid regarding solar gains and conduction

losses.

Figure 10 One of the proposed hydraulic schemes, reducing the complexity of the system (simulations by UNu/HIn)

Occupants’ behaviour. The role of occupant behaviour was incorporate in the simulations as a

variation in the internal heat gain to the environment. Results obtained by KUL indicate that changes

in the occupancy profile have impact of up to 2.1°C in the indoor air temperature. Results for more

extreme cases by TUE indicate that the building may suffer from overheat if high-density layout and

use are in place. Both KUL and UNu/HIn adopted lower density of occupants in the simulations, also

taking into account that all workstations are rarely occupied simultaneously. For low density of

occupants, the building performs well, with no overheating. However, if design densities from

general purpose HVAC guidelines are adopted (usually worse-case scenario), then the building shows

clear overheating. The role of occupants in the control of building was not investigated.



D5.1: database with useful validated models online database + report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D5.2: reference building model (simulation test case) software file + 3 report Website intranet www.geotabs.eu consortium

D5.3: report that describes the variation of system performance with design and control strategy


D5.4: most appropriate design procedures, indicated on the selection/decision tree (WP2)

report + REHVA text Website www.geotabs.eu public

D5.5: suggestions for performance improvement (system/component design, control), such as strategies for zoning of control systems


D5.6: list of refinements to control strategies imposed by the occupant report Website www.geotabs.eu public








WP 6: System operation and controller development

Authors: Arno Dentel, Jan Hoogmartens Contributors: Maarten Sourbron, Lukas Ferkl


1. Goal The goal of this work package is to develop, test and evaluate an automated tuning model based

controller for a building with a ground coupled heat pump system (GCHP) and with thermally

activated building elements (TABS).

2. Tasks The work in this work package has been divided in five subtasks and six milestones to fulfill the goal

of this work package. The five subtasks are listed in the following table:


6.1 Review of existing control strategies KUL, MIK, DTU; Stobbe, Nilan, DNI, Boydens, Belvi,

6.2 Sensitivity analysis of control parameters KUL, Boydens, UNu, HIn, SoN, MIK

6.3 Development of a model based concept for automated tuning control

KUL, Boydens, UNu, HIn, SoN

6.4 Evaluation of a model based concept for automated tuning control KUL, Boydens

6.5 Scientific coordination of the WP UNu

In this WPs the following partners are involved:

UNu, KUL, MIK, HIn, SoN, TUE, DNI, Boy, Belvi, DTU, Helio, Nilan, EDB, UBr, COP

Task 6.1: Review of existing control strategies

Based on current practices and recent R&D results a review of existing control strategies is made. A

lot of control strategies use (simple) models to calculate some parameters of their control action, or

to determine the parameters of a dynamic system model in the case of model based predictive

control (MPC). These models and parameters are listed for all control strategies. This review

complements the state-of-the-art report delivered in WP2 (D2.1).

Task 6.2: Sensitivity analysis of control parameters

A simulation based sensitivity analysis allows defining the most critical parameters by determining

their impact on the system performance. Knowledge of the most critical parameters allows

identifying the building data, system data, users’ profiles and sensors needed to tune the control

parameters based on on-line measurements in the commissioning phase. Control strategy, building

and HVAC system are highly interacting. Therefore, the sensitivity of the system performance on the

control settings will be assessed for a broad range of buildings and HVAC system characteristics.

Task 6.3: Development of a model based concept for automated tuning control

A model based control algorithm will be developed. By using predictions of weather data, occupants’

profiles, feedback from the building and system (self-learning control) the algorithm will be extended

to model based predictive control (MPC). The model used within the control algorithm should be

able to predict the system dynamics, but not the detailed individual physical processes. Multi-

dimensional optimization algorithms will be used to calibrate these simplified models. The control

GEOTABS Final report parameters, which need to be adapted to the specific application, determine the resulting control

performance. An automated procedure will be developed to determine the optimal values for the

MPC parameters from both measured data and detailed simulation data. Besides the estimation of

control parameters, this WP identifies the sensors needed to estimate control parameters based on

on-line measurements.

Task 6.4: Evaluation of a model based concept for automated tuning control

First, the control algorithm will be evaluated by dynamic simulation of the global system (building,

HP, ground, with or without thermal energy storage). Second, the control algorithm will be

implemented in a real case (e.g. Czech Technical University) and tested. This monitoring phase

(closely related to Task 4.3) allows to verify the actual operation, the energy efficiency of the global

system and the thermal comfort in the building. By comparing with the initial situation, the energy

and cost savings attributed to the new control concept will be evaluated.

Task 6.5: Scientific coordination of the WP

This task represents the coordination of the WP. Besides the project management, to control the

deadlines and milestones and a continuously reporting at the meetings are part of this task.

3. Milestones All milestones and the planned and executed deadlines can be found in the following table:


6.1 Critical control parameters listed Feb 2012 Aug 2012

6.2 Sensors required to tune control parameters listed

Apr 2012 Oct 2012

6.3 MPC algorithm developed May 2012 Aug 2012

6.4 Procedure for automated tuning of control parameters developed

Aug 2012 Aug 2012

6.5 MPC controller implemented in real case and ready for testing

Aug 2012 Sep 2012

6.6 MPC controller tested Jan 2013 Jan 2013

4. Summary

4.1 Task 6.1: Review of existing control strategies

The goal of this task is to analyze the state of the art of existing control strategies and their most

important and influencing control parameters. The result of this subtask is one deliverable and can

be found in full text in the annex of this report:

D6.1: review report of existing control strategies for GEO-HP-TABS

State of the art report of control (D 6.1)

Based on current practices and recent R&D results a review of existing control strategies is made. A

lot of control strategies use (simple) models to calculate some parameters of their control action, or

to determine the dynamic system behaviour in the case of model based predictive control (MPC).

GEOTABS Final report These models and parameters are listed for all control strategies in the report. This review

complements the state-of-the-art report delivered in WP2.

An overview of the analyzed papers in the report is given through a table in the report. This table is

divided in conventional and advanced model based control strategies:

Conventional control: any type of on/off feedback controller, usually with a dead band to avoid oscillation. This type of controller is often combined with a feed forward, outdoor temperature dependent heating/cooling curve, which incorporates a static building model in the controller.

Advanced model based control: a controller which incorporates a dynamic building model and takes into account disturbances such as outdoor temperature, solar radiation or internal gains, to predict the future dynamics of the building in order to calculate the optimal control action.

Further distinction is made on system level. Papers were divided according to the components within

the global GEOTABS system. Four categories were made:

1. papers dealing with ground coupled heat pumps (GCHP),

2. papers dealing with hybrid ground coupled heat pump (HGCHP) systems where switching

between the heat pump system and a backup system is a challenge,

3. papers about thermally activated building systems (TABS) and

4. papers treating the whole GEOTABS-system.

4.2 Task 6.2: Sensitivity analysis of control parameters

The goal of this task is to define the most critical parameters by determining their impact on the

system performance. The results of this subtask are two deliverables and can be found in full text in

the annex of this report:

D6.2: list of critical control parameters

D6.3: list of sensors needed to tune control parameters

Milestones reached in this task: M6.1 and M 6.2

List of critical control parameters (D 6.2)

A summary of the main characteristics, the most important control parameters and strategies can be

found in D 6.2. This deliverable is also integrated in the REHVA guidebook (see WP 8). The main

results of TABS control and the control parameters are briefly summarized below:

Given its large thermal time constant, individual room control is not possible with TABS.

The system and controller design must ensure that the TABS and the additional peak system

do not counteract.

Due to the large thermal time constant and the limited thermal power of TABS, typical on-off

control based on a feedback of the zone temperature, will inevitably lag behind.

A recommended control guideline is to keep the concrete core temperature at

Tcomfort,min + 1°C during the whole year (C4-strategy). The threshold of 1°C is a tuning

parameter of the controller and depends on the zone heat gains: large heat gains require a

lower, small heat gains a larger threshold.

To implement the C4-strategy, a feedback loop is needed to indicate the “thermal state of

charge” of the concrete slab. Indicative measurements can be: the temperature difference


between water supply and water return or some temperature of the concrete slab (core,

surface or in between).

The settings of this feedback loop (on-off set point, hysteresis) must ensure smooth pump

operation (instead of cycling) such that the whole concrete slab is charged and not only the

concrete around the water pipes.

Increasing the heating supply temperature and decreasing the cooling supply temperature

results in a reduced time to charge the concrete slab, but against a higher required thermal

power of the production system. A maximum of 3°C increase/decrease compared to the

steady state heating/cooling curve is a good compromise.

The C4- control strategy typically results in night time operation for heating, which is

beneficial if a night tariff for electricity is available. However, cooling of the concrete slab

occurs mostly during the day, when the slab gradually absorbs heat from the zone until the

thermal charge is too low and cooling has to be switched on. Precooling during the night

(lowering the set point of the feedback loop) is possible.

The described C4-strategy yields good and robust control performance, but does not intrinsically

incorporate all parameters that affect thermal comfort and energy use (energy cost), such as the

transient thermal characteristics of the TABS, of the additional system and of the building; also time

varying parameters such as a variable energy price, weather conditions and occupation are not

included. This can be achieved by Model based Predictive Control (MPC).

List of sensors needed to tune control parameters (D 6.3)

Out of the case studies and the implenatation work of the MPC at the Hollandsch Huys case study a

list of control parameters is developed. The list is divided in minimum necessary requirements and in

additional information of the control parameters.

Minimum necessary requirements:

parameters to measure:

temperatures in referenced rooms (zones) [°C]: the ideal place for zone temperature sensor is such a place that is not affected by the disturbances (computer heat, lights, sun and other heat sources)

supply water temperatures [°C]: in order to compute energy delivered from TABS to the concrete

mass flow rate or valve status ( if the mass flow rates are not constant )

return water temperatures or concrete core temperatures [°C]: in order to compute energy delivered from TABS to the concrete

parameters to necessary to know (predictions of the following variables during whole the prediction horizon):

Solar Radiation [W/m2]: for identification and subsequent predictive control, it is necessary to know the solar radiation striking upon the wall with windows of non-negligible size.

Ambient air temperature [°C]: measured at the place, where the temperature is not affected by disturbances ( especially sun)


Additional information:

information good to measure*:

temperatures at the surfaces with the TABS [°C]: usually temperatures on the floor and on the ceiling

temperatures at the adjacent walls [°C]: it is advantageous to be measured in the case that the two reference rooms share one adjacent wall

temperatures at the walls with windows [°C]

temperatures at the others walls [°C]

information good to know* (predictions of the following variables during whole the prediction horizon):

occupancy gains [W/m]): knowing how many people and when are in the building

equipment gains [W/m2]: power of computers, lights and same others additional gains

* these variables are ordered by interest

4.3 Task 6.3: Development of a model based concept for automated tuning

control To develop a model based control algorithm and an automated procedure to determine the optimal

values for the MPC parameters (from measured data and detailed simulation data) are the goal of

this task. The results of this subtask are two deliverables and can be found in full text in the annex of

this report:

D6.4: MPC algorithm for controlling GEO-HP-TABS in offices

D6.5: procedure for automated tuning of control parameters


MPC algorithm for controlling GEO-HP-TABS in offices and procedure for automated tuning of

control parameters

The MPC algorithm is developed for the integration in the case study of the Geotabs project:

Hollandsch Huys (H.H). Details about the MPC in the H.H. can be found in D 6.4 & D. 6.5 (annex). The

main topics of the discussed contents are:

Data processing

Building modeling Model structure Identification approaches Model selection and verification

Model validation, MPC control performance preservation


4.4 Task 6.4: Evaluation of a model based concept for automated tuning control The last task of WP 6 is engaged with evaluation of the control algorithm by dynamic simulation and

with the implementation in a real case, followed by a monitoring phase.

The result of this subtask is one deliverable and can be found in full text in the annex of this report:

D6.6: MPC controller is ready for testing in the real case


The MPC ran from November 2012. After some practical problems, the MPC ran stable. A 3-week

operation period was compared with a similar 3-week operation period with RBC (rule based control)

period. This comparison resulted in the following results.

Previous control (RBC) MPC

Days compared 23 23

Minimum outdoor temperature [°C] - 3,9 -3,7

Maximum outdoor temperature [°C] 12,5 11,4

Average outdoor temperature [°C] 4,7 4,4

Heat from ground [kWh] 14304 9645

Heat pump electricity [kWh] 4890 3330

On/off switches 336 183

Heat pump running time [h] 204 134

Comfort violation (EN15251 class B) [Kh] 12,8 0,56

Energy savings of more than 30% were achieved, but a longer evaluation period is needed for a

credible long term comparison.


5. Annex: reports


D6.1: review report of existing control strategies for GEO-HP-TABS report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D6.2: list of critical control parameters report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D6.3: list of sensors needed to tune control parameters report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D6.4: MPC algorithm for controlling GEO-HP-TABS in offices report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D6.5: procedure for automated tuning of control parameters report Website www.geotabs.eu public

D6.6: MPC controller implemented in real case software + report

Website www.geotabs.eu

Consortium + public








WP7: Comfort survey tool development

Author: Bjarne W. Olesen Contributor: Johan Coolen


1. Goal The goal of WP7 is to develop an international generic web-based comfort survey tool and use this

tool in a number of buildings with or without Thermo-Active-Building-Systems and Geothermal

systems.

The partners in this WP were: DTU, KUL, UBr, EDB, MIK, Boy, Belvi. The main part of the work was

sub-contracted to Fa4.

2. Tasks The work in this work package has been divided in several subtasks and milestones to fulfill the goal

of this work package.

The questionnaire was translated into 5 languages: German, Dutch, French, English and Czech. A

shorter questionnaire, which is related to how people perceive the indoor environment here and

now was developed and translated into three additional languages: Danish, Italian and Spanish.

A web-based tool “Comfortmeter” is now available and can be used to evaluate buildings by

contacting the “Comfortmeter Consortium”. The tool was then used in about 30 buildings to collect

subjective evaluations from the occupants and collecting building data. The data was included in a

data, analysed and the results distributed to the partners with individual report to building owners.

3. Milestones Milestone Description Deadline Executed

7.1 Comfort questionnaire ready in 5 languages

Month 4 Month 12. The questionnaire is available on the web-site and available for the partners and public.

7.2 Web-based tool for the comfort questionnaire ready

Month 9 Month 12. The tool is confidential and not available on the web-site. The tool can be used by the public by contacting the “Comfortmeter Consortium”

7.3 Database with collected comfort and building data available

Month 12 Month 14. The database is at the moment only available for the project partners.

7.4 Report of comfort questionnaire results addressed to partners, EU and building owners

Month 16 Month 18. Individual report has been send to the building owners and an overall report to the partners. At the moment not available for the public; but a scientific


7.1 Development of comfort questionnaire and translation into 6 languages

All partners

7.2 Sending, follow-up and processing comfort questionnaires Fa4

7.3 Sending, follow-up and processing building data questionnaires Fa4

7.4 Analysis and reporting to partners and EC Fa4

7.5 Reporting to building owner Fa4

7.6 Scientific coordination of the work package DTU


paper is being prepared.

7.5 Procedure for using the comfort and data collection tools ready

Month 12 Month 14. The procedure will be available for the public and can be received by mail from the “Comfortmeter Consortium)

7.6 Comfort survey repeated for adjusted cases

Month 22 Not done

7.7 WP7 finished Month 24 Month 24

4. Summary The main result of this work package is the developed comfort questionnaire and the tool for using

and analyzing the results. For interested building owners and scientific purposes the tool is available

through the “Comfortmeter Consortium”.

The main delivery of this work package is the report on the study on occupants perception of the

indoor environment. This report presents the results of the comfort survey in 7 GEO-HP-TABS

buildings and 22 non-GEO-HP-TABS buildings.

The survey was realized in spring 2012 and made use of the online survey tool ‘Comfortmeter’. The

survey polled 35 comfortvariables (e.g. Comfort temperature overall, Comfort summer never too

warm,…) and 17 user-variables (e.g. User age, User good health,…) and was realized in spring 2012

via the online survey module of ‘Comfortmeter’. A response rate of 55% was realized which resulted

in 1370 user completed questionnaires.

At the same time, 140 building variables (e.g. type of heating system, insulation thickness,…) were

surveyed via another module of ‘Comfortmeter’. These data were typically entered in the application

by the building manager or by an external consultant hired by the building owner.

In the next step, all comfort data were converted and normalized. e.g. all surveyed comfort data

were converted to scores between 0% (very negative, e.g. very dissatisfied) and 100% (very positive,

e.g. very satisfied). The normalized data was analyzed via multiple regression analysis and functions

were fixed, e.g.

• the function between explained variable ‘Comfort temperature overall’ and explaining

variables such as ‘Comfort summer never too warm’

These separate functions were integrated in the Comfort-meter analysis module in one mathematical

model that enables for instance:

• the filtering out of the user influence, e.g. the influence of ‘User: age’ on comfort scores

which enabled estimating user-corrected comfort scores that were used for final reporting;

• the estimation of the influence of each comfort-, user- and building variable on the overall

comfort score ‘Comfort overall’;

• the estimation of the productivity effect of the score of each variable for the average

GeoTabs building, compared with the average non-GeoTabs building. And based on this the financial

effect, assuming a building of 10.000 m².

Figure 1 presents the financial effect of the comfort scores of the average GeoTabs building. The

good summer comfort, expressed by ‘Comf: summer never too warm’, generates - because of the

higher productivity of the employees - in an average GeoTabs building of 10.000 m² a positive

financial effect of +34.000 €/year. The low scores for the acoustical comfort variables, for the extent

GEOTABS Final report to which users can ventilate via the windows (-76.000€/year) and for the individual adjustability of

heating (-134.000€/year) generate important negative effects..

Figure 1: the financial effect of the comfort scores related with the GeoTabs concept

The average low scores, and the corresponding negative average effects for acoustic, opening of

windows, do not appear in all the GeoTabs buildings which show that it is technically possible to

avoid them if the required measures are taken. Unfortunately in the 7 Geotabs buildings the

windows could not be open. This is not required in buildings with TABS and compared to full air-

conditioning one of the advantages with TABS, that windows can be opened by the occupants.

As full suspended acoustical ceilings will impair the heat exchange with the room it cannot be

recommended to use them in buildings with TABS. There are other ways to take care of the

acoustical issues like partly covered ceilings with acoustic panels, use vertical acoustic panels, use

drapery on walls etc.

Finally the lack of individual control was perceived more negatively in buildings with TABS. You

cannot control TABS on a room by room basis. You would normally divide the buildings in zones

(north-south, east-west) and use a zone-control. This works well in landscape offices, where

individual control is anyway not possible. The study do not show if the occupants needed the

individual control. They seemed to be more satisfied with the room temperature in TABS building

than in the other 22 buildings. So even without individual control they were more satisfied. If

individual control is desired in single offices this must be done via the ventilation system or by aan

additional heating/cooling system. In this way TABS will take care of the basic heating/cooling needs

and a supplement system is design for a room control corresponding to + 1-2 degrees.

-160.000 -140.000 -120.000 -100.000 -80.000 -60.000 -40.000 -20.000 0 20.000 40.000 60.000

Comf: summer never too warm

Comf: draught never bothers

Comf: winter never too warm

Comf: shading

Comf: summer never too cold

Comf: winter never too cold

Comf: individual adjustability cooling

Comf: sound privacy

Comf: noise level

Comf: ventilation via windows

Comf: individual adjustability heating

€/year


5. Annex: reports


D7.1: Comfort questionnaire in 6 languages Implemented in software Website www.comfortmeter.eu public

D7.2: web-based tool for the comfort questionnaire Software Website www.comfortmeter.eu public

D7.3: database with collected comfort data and building data for TABS buildings

Report Website intranet www.geotabs.eu

Consortium, public in future( ?)

D7.4: report of comfort questionnaire results addressed to partners, EU, building owners

Report Website intranet www.geotabs.eu

Consortium Scientific paper for public

D7.5: procedures for using the comfort and data collection tools Manual Website www.geotabs.eu public

http://www.comfortmeter.eu/






WP 8: Guidelines for improved design and control

Authors: Hanna Soldaty, Franziska Bockelmann and Stefan Plesser


1. Goal The goal of this work package is to develop guidelines for the most appropriate design procedures

and to optimize the existing planning methods and control strategies, etc. in order to achieve a

higher energy efficiency performance and a consistent or improved thermal comfort in the buildings

as well as reaching professional monitoring in the future.

2. Tasks The work in this work package has been divided in three subtasks to fulfill the goal of this work

package:

1) The main subtask is to resume, summarize and integrate all results from all work packages

(monitoring, simulation and comfort data) in a guidebook. The design guidelines, calculation tool,

GEO-HP-TABS cases, comfort survey results and recommendations for commissioning are collected in

a (REHVA) guidebook for improved design and operation of GEO-HP-TABS. Moreover, suggestions

will be formulated to integrate the project results in the European energy performance in buildings

regulation.

In WP2 a selection/decision tree for design methods was developed. WP3 generates different paths

on this tree for the different selected cases. So, one subtask deals with an additional improved path,

which will be added on the same selection/decision tree, based on the results obtained in WP4, WP5,

WP6 and WP7. This work package should be seen as an adaptation/improvement and integration of

the existing path with the lessons learned from the other WPs. ‘Improved’ is defined as resulting in

higher energy performance and equal (or better) thermal comfort, as well as better convenience for

future commissioning by anticipation.

2) Second subtask was to translate the results from all work packages to clear guidelines and

calculation tool. The integration of the different components in a global system is of crucial

importance. Therefore, the appropriate system design procedures and control strategies may not be

the optimal ones for the individual components. All design methods constituting the improved path

on the selection/decision tree will be documented as design guidelines.

Furthermore, a simple calculation tool is developed to assist the future design phase.

Recommendations on measurements and methods needed to assess the performance of GEO-HP-

TABS (commissioning) are provided.

3) Scientific coordination of the work package and partners cooperation in the work package.

3. Milestones All Milestones are finished and finalized in the REHVA guidebook. The guidebook deals with all

milestones and deliveries (see Figure 11)


8.1 Integration of all feedbacks from monitoring, simulation and comfort data

DNI, UBr, DTU, COP

8.2 Translation to clear guidelines and calculation tool UBr, EDB, MIK, Boy

8.3 Scientific coordination of the work package UBr


Figure 11 Overview of the content of the guidebook


8.1 Improved path on the selection/decision tree developed in WP2

July 2012 Implemented in WP2

8.2 Guidelines (guidebook) for improved design and control of GEO-HP-TABS

January 2013 January 2013

8.3 EXCEL calculation tool to assist future design processes


8.4 Recommendations for commissioning January 2013 January 2013

8.5 Suggestions for integration in European energy performance in buildings regulation


Table 3 List of the milestones

During the project, Milestone 8.1 (see table) is changed in relation to create a holistic selection /

decision tree in cooperation with WP2, which includes the improved and general paths.

After consulting the project coordinator, it would be decided to finalize the following timeline for the

REHVA book. The final draft will be finished at the end of the project, but the final manuscript and

the printing will be finished after the project.

• Preliminary work Autumn 2012

• Final draft December 2012

• Reviews March2013

• Final manuscript April 2013

• Printing June 2013


4. Summary The experiences from the project are summarized in a guidebook to be published as a REHVA book.

The guidelines constitutes recommendations for specifications, commissioning, description of cases

and comfort survey results, which will be extremely valuable for all stakeholders: architects, building

contractors, drillers, engineering offices, consultants, HVAC installers, HP, TABS and control

companies, energy agencies, scientific researchers, teachers, students, users specifically dealing with

sustainable buildings.

The simple excel-tool for control GEOTABS will be created to provide the decision makers with a

simple tool enabling evaluation of the building regarding potentials for implementation of the

thermally activated building systems coupled with geothermal heat pump.

Figure 12 Integration of all work packages in the guidebook

Guidebook:

The analysis and improvement of the design process and control strategy done in the GEOTABS

project and to be presented in the REHVA guidebook are based on an integrated system approach

(including the development of innovative control strategies) and on different information flows

(current practice, monitoring, comfort survey and simulation data).

GEOTABS Final report A new guidebook will overview the optimal design, controls and commissioning of geothermal heat

pumps combined with thermally activated building systems in European offices. It tackles the

problems occurring during the implementation of geothermal systems, heat pumps (HP) and

thermally activated building systems (TABS) in energy concepts. The guidebook explains to the

building owners, engineers and planers the benefits of the integration of GEO-HP-TABS-Systems in

their buildings and how to design it. It sets up guidelines for improved design and control of Geo-HP-

TABS systems based on best practice examples analyzed during the GEOTABS project including

corresponding current norms and standards.

The structure of the book is: Terminology, Symbols, Units

1 Introduction

2 What are GEOTABS?

2.1 TABS

2.2 HEAT Pumps

2.3 Geothermal systems

3 Possibilities and limitations of GEOTABS

3.1 Specification of Requirements

3.2 Ground

3.3 Building

3.4 Building Services

4 GEOTABS: Designing the Ground System

4.1 Design

4.2 Simulation

4.3 Controls

4.4 Check-List

5 GEOTABS: Designing the Building

5.1 Design

5.2 Simulation

5.3 Control

5.4 Check-List

6 GEOTABS: System Integration

6.1 Heat Pumps

6.2 Tabs

6.3 GEOTABS and Demand Side Management

6.4 Check-List

7 GEOTABS: Commissioning, Operation & Maintenance

7.1 Monitoring Concept


7.2 Commissioning during Construction

7.3 Initial Commissioning

7.4 Monitoring

7.5 Risks & Optimization

8 Conclusion and Outlook

8.1 Specification

8.2 Simulation

8.3 Controls

9 GEOTABS: Buildings – Diversity of Solutions

9.1 Hollandsch Huys

9.2 VGH

9.3 InfraxWest

9.4 Bayer

9.5 Arcadis

9.6 Experiences

9 Literature / References

Excel-Tool:

The Excel-tool is to support design procedure and planning process for the GEOTABS buildings.

Vertical quality management

The tool provides guidelines / checklists for:

• Building

• Rooms to be equipped with TABS

• TAB System

• Heat pump

• Ground heat exchanger / Ground

• Monitoring

Horizontal quality management

The checklists cover three phases:

• Design phase


• Construction phase

• Commissioning and operation

Figure 13 Opening screen of the excel-tool

Figure 14 Example of working space with check traffic light and working control

Values Design Construction Cx/Operation

Glazing area / Area of

exterior wall % 62

Elevation / Section On site inspection -

Shading control strategy

(DIN EN 15232) including

radiation and wind speed

-Auto

Functional

Specification

- Functional

Specification

Area of suspended ceiling % 90

Ground Floor plan On site inspection

…

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?


Figure 15 Example of explanation and help text

Recommendations for commissioning

The results of this deliverable will be included in chapter 7.3 in REHVA guidebook

Suggestions for integration in European energy performance in buildings regulation

No suggestions were proposed. A general conclusion from WP2 is that dynamic simulations are

crucial in the thermal behavior of TABS. Very simple calculation methods will result to major errors in

estimated energy use.

Values Design Construction Cx/Operation

Glazing area / Area of

exterior wall % 62

Elevation / Section On site inspection -

Shading control strategy

(DIN EN 15232) including

radiation and wind speed

-Auto

Functional

Specification

- Functional

Specification

Area of suspended ceiling % 90

Ground Floor plan On site inspection

…

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

A suspended ceiling may reduce the

heating and cooling effect of the TABS

system. Therefore the area of a

suspended ceiling should not exceed

50% and should if possible be avoided

above work stations.


5. Annex: reports


D8.1: improved path on the selection/decision tree developed in WP2 REHVA book draft mail Public in Summer 2013

D8.2: guidelines for improved design and control of GEO-HP-TABS REHVA book draft mail Public in Summer 2013

D8.3: EXCEL calculation tool to assist future design processes Excel tool Website geotabs April 2013 public

D8.4: Recommendations for commissioning REHVA book draft mail Public in Summer 2013

D8.5: suggestions for integration in European energy performance in buildings regulation

report N public


WP 9: Dissemination and valorization

Author: Dirk Saelens


1. Goal The main goal of this work package is to disseminate the project results to all stakeholders and

valorise the project results. This is further clarified by the following objectives:

Listing up and inform about good examples but also common mistakes in buildings with

GEOTABS

Provide guidelines and inform about solutions for the main design questions regarding

GEOTABS

Provide solutions for problems through introduction of the restraining market penetration

Disseminate existing knowledge

Update existing knowledge

2. Tasks The work in this work package has been divided in several subtasks and milestones to fulfill the goals

of this work package. In total four main subtasks were defined. The first subtask focused on the

dissemination of knowledge. A total of 6 actions were identified to disseminate the project results to

the stakeholders. The second subtask consisted of identifying project results that have the potential

to penetrate as a product in the market and to actually introduce them. The third subtask focuses on

making full use of the comfort survey tool and results (WP 7). The last main subtask the lessons

learned from the case studies are made publicly available.


9.1 Dissemination of knowledge all partners

9.2 Market introduction KUL, Boy, Belvi, Rehau, DTU, TUe, Helio, EDBS, IGS, MIK, COP

9.3 Foundation and start-up of the Comfort Survey Association KUL, DTU, TUe, Helio, EDBS, IGS, MIK

9.4 Case Studies Belvi, Rehau, DTU, TUe, Helio, EDBS, IGS, MIK, COP

9.5 Scientific coordination of the work package KUL


9.1 Project website started up and leaflet ready Feb 2011 Feb 2011

9.2 All seminars and workshops organized Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.3 Publications and reports ready Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.4 Presentations given Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.5 All visits organized and reported on the website

Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.6 Educational material implemented in curricula Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.7 Students and researchers exchanged, networking

Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.8 Comfort Survey Association set up Jan 2013 Jan 2013

9.9 Some test cases improved Jan 2013 Jan 2013


4. Summary

Dissemination of knowledge The availability and dissemination of the developed knowledge is vital for the building professionals

in understanding and improving the design and control processes towards comfortable low energy

offices. Different actions were taken to disseminate the project results to the stakeholders

(architects, building contractors, drillers, engineering offices, consultants, HVAC installers, HP, TABS

and control companies, energy agencies, scientific researchers, teachers, students, users specifically

dealing with sustainable buildings …):

1. Set-up of the project website (www.geotabs.eu) containing the project description and all

non-confidential work package reports. The project website has been operating since the

beginning of the project. Since February 12th 2012, 25 000 visits were reported.

2. The development of a project leaflet. This leaflet was made available for the partners

through the project website. No brochure was developed as it seemed more convenient to

disseminate the ever increasing amount of results through the project website. The main

project results will become available in printed form through the development of a REHVA

guidebook.

3. Organization of project meetings and local seminars. Noteworthy is the organization of a

workshop in Leuven (June 4th 2012) dedicated to the integration of GEOTABS in building

simulation tools. During the upcoming CLIMA2013 conference in Prague (16-19 June 2013) a

special session dedicated to GEOTABS and a GEOTABS course based on the upcoming REHVA

publication will be organized.

4. Networking with industrial and scientific partners, including the organization of project

meetings, networking activities (incl. exchange of students), site visits and international

symposium. The main achievement was the organization of the international symposium in

Hannover (January 22nd 2013) which attracted 77 participants.

5. Production of technical and scientific presentations and publications

6. Use of project results in other research projects, education such as the use of cases in PhD

studies and other research projects and the integration of the results in teaching activities.

In order to keep track of the progress of the dissemination actions, participants were asked to file all

actions through the project website. The actions were combined into 10 categories:

Organization of and participation in workshops and seminars

Scientific Journal Publications

Conference publications

Non-scientific Journal Publications

Presentations on non-scientific meetings

Press Releases

Building Visits

Use of data in research projects

Use of project results in education

Exchanges


GEOTABS Final report The below figure shows the input distributed over the different categories during the course of the

project (status just before the Hannover meeting). In total 100 specific actions were reported.

Market introduction Increasing the market introduction of GEOTABS has been accomplished in two ways: through the

market introduction of new products and by increasing the knowledge. The Tasks “Foundation and

start-up of the Comfort Survey Association” and “Case Studies” are integrated in this paragraph.

Products

The presence of SMEs within the project partnership and the users committee opened perspectives

for fast exploitation of the project results. The following products with a high market potential were

identified:

1. Design calculation tool. Based on the project results a calculation tool, implementing the

improved design and control guidelines, is released. This calculation tool makes the

guidelines developed throughout the project ready-to-use by offering a straightforward

calculation method. It is distributed with the REHVA guidebook and will become available

from the REHVA website. The draft of the REHVA guidebook has been finalized and mailed

to participants for review. The guidebook will become publicly available in Summer 2013.

2. Simulation tools. Throughout the project different simulation environments were setup in

the TRNSYS building simulation tool. As the use of standard types sufficed for doing the

simulation, no new types have been developed. The report of WP5 does however contain

useful information about how to use the existing types for GEOTABS simulation. A summary

of this information will be included in the REHVA guidebook.

3. MPC controller with automated tuning. WP6 focused on the development of an MPC control

algorithm for use with GEOTABS. Although a first implementation was done in the

Hollandsch Huys, the market exploitation of the MPC controller with automated tuning will

require more time. Mikroklima is taking action to commercialize the controller. Patentability

will be checked and a scenario for commercialization together with a business plan and the

granting of rights has been initiated.

o Model development and MPC testing were done within the GEOTABS project

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Workshops and seminars

Scientific Journal

Publications

Non-scientific Journal

Publications

Conference publications

Presentations on meetings

Press Releases Building Visits Use of data Education Exchanges

2

0 0 01

8

0 0

7

0

3

01

2 2

8

01

8

1

5

01

2 2

8

1 1

8

1

10

1 1

6

3

8

18

1

8

3

21

2

11 11

9 9

19

2

13

3

number of inputs (Nurnberg)

number of inputs (21/09/2011)

number of inputs (Copenhagen)

number of inputs (Eindhoven)

number of inputs (Hannover)


o Pilot applications, fine tuning and further development of business model (2013 after

GEOTABS project)

o Small-scale serial applications, improvement of business model (2013/14 after

GEOTABS project)

o Large-scale routine applications (2014/15 after GEOTABS project)

4. Comfort survey tool. The methodology for carrying out the comfort survey (WP7) resulted in

the development of a web-based survey tool (www.comfortmeter.eu). During the GEOTABS

project the granting of rights and ownership was initiated. The tool will be commercialized by

granting Factor4 a license. Factor4 will exploit and maintain the website.

In general the granting of rights (licenses, transfer of ownership) of other project results for use

outside the project shall be done at market conditions (commercial conditions taking into account, if

any, the non-funded contributions of a party requesting rights on the results). The business plan will

be developed sequel to the GEOTABS project, based on the analysis of: the socio-economic

relevance, the target sector and customers, and the valorization potential in the different regions of

Europe.

Knowledge

Besides these products, the project leads to new knowledge, insights, methods and databases which

increase the competitiveness of the SMEs involved. Since the individual technologies involved (GEO-

HP and TABS) are state-of-the-art technologies, the time to market is expected to be very short,

when the knowledge on design exploitation and implementation is sufficient. Besides the

dissemination activities previously mentioned the following list shows how the improved knowledge

may lead to increased implementation of GEOTABS:

1. State-of-the-art design and control practices. This result from WP2 will be available as a

report from the project website.

2. Review current design and control practice. As for the previous item this is also a result from

WP2 and WP6 and will become available through the project website.

The reports with the design and control guidelines and recommendations for commissioning (WP2,

WP6 and WP8) are available but the results will mainly find its way to the market by its integration in

the REHVA guidebook. Together with this book the design calculation tool, implementing the

improved design and control guidelines, will be released. The guidebook and the decision tool will

help identifying opportunities for GEOTABS and increase its market introduction.

3. GEO-HP-TABS Building database. In WP3, 14 buildings with GEOTABs were described. The

database is available through the project website, through http://geotabs.synavision.de and

is available as part of the EnBop database.

4. Detailed GEO-HP-TABS office cases. Besides the general descriptions of WP3, in WP4 detailed

measurement data and office descriptions on 5 buildings were performed.

The combination of both items fulfills the deliverables mentioned in the “Case Studies” task.

5. In WP7, a large comfort survey was performed on office buildings with and without

GEOTABS. As for the GEO-HP-TABS office cases, the reports will be available from the project

website and the main results will be implemented in the REHVA guidebook. The combination


http://geotabs.synavision.de/


of the survey results which remain available for the project partners and the Comfort Survey

Tool (see above) is considered as the “Foundation and start-up of the Comfort Survey

Association”.

The databases resulting from WP3, WP4 and WP7 serve as examples for future projects. As both

good as bad examples were analyzed they not only give proof of concept and actually demonstrate

that good results on comfort level as well as energy performance can be achieved but also identify

common mistakes. Learning from these mistakes will avoid their occurrence in future projects. The

results of the comfort survey serve as a benchmark for future projects..



D9.1: project-website, project leaflet Website Website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.2: workshops/seminars: list of participants and evaluation report online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.3: list of publications and presentations, and corresponding publications and presentations

online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.4: list of research projects in which the collected monitoring data are used online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.5: reports of organized visits, links on project website online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.6: list of Bachelor and Master courses in universities and university colleges, having project results included

online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.7: report on student and researcher exchanges online output Annex website www.geotabs.eu public

D9.8: design guidelines book (with calculation tool) REHVA book draft mail Public in Summer 2013

D9.9: Comfort Survey Association Ongoing work Y: presentation G.A. meeting Hanover consortium

D9.10: improved cases, with project sheets describing the improvements Report Cfr. D 6.6 public








Documents

GEOTABS Final report - TU Braunschweig · GEOTABS Final report ... Since the overall improvement of the design process and control strategy is based on an integrated ... Helio = Heliopower