ACTIVIDADES CULTURALES

The base case and the seven refurbishment cases representative of each group are compared at different latitude with the box-whiskers plot.

Figure 6.8 shows the total energy usage for the base case. Without any renovations, the building model is most robust in Turin and Athens, and worst in Stockholm and Copenhagen. The lowest energy usage is recorded in Barcelona. In general, the most sensitivity to climate change is recorded in colder climates. For this reason, the base case in Stockholm and Copenhagen is less robust than in the other cities. At lower latitudes, hence hotter climates, there seems not to be a strong correlation between energy usage and robustness.

Figure 6.9 illustrates the energy usage for the external insulation of the wall. It shows a lower energy usage for all the cities but almost the same width of boxes and whiskers, hence energy range. The width of the boxes seems to be smaller than for the base case, but the graph is not enough to estimate the difference. Also the medians seem to have the same position, besides for Turin where it almost disappear in the first quartile showing a low-skewed distribution of data. In the base case the building model behaves better in Copenhagen instead of Stockholm, whereas with the external

1

Figure 6.8: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for the base case (BC0).

Figure 6.9: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for the external insulation

Figure 6.10: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for the external

insulation of the roof (RC9).

Figure 6.11: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for the insulation of

Figure 6.12: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for use of triple glazing

with argon (RC18).

insulation of the wall the building has a smaller range of energy usage in Stockholm compared to Copenhagen.

Figure 6.10 shows the energy ranges for the insulation of the roof. The energy consumption values are higher compared to the external insulation of the wall but the robustness seems to be the same or slightly lower.

Figure 6.11 illustrates the robustness for the insulation of the floor, which is almost the same as the one of the base case.

Figure 6.12 shows the energy usage ranges for the use of triple glazing with argon. Also in this case, the ranking between the seven cities is the same in terms of both energy usage and robustness. In Turin the refurbishment behaves in a better way considering the robustness, whereas in Barcelona the same thermal model consumes less total energy. Stockholm and Copenhagen are still the worst cities for both robustness and energy consumption.

Figure 6.13 illustrates the use of external shading systems and figure 6.14 the use of PCM. No relevant changes can be seen in these graphs in comparison with the others. On the other hand, figure 6.15 shows the most relevant variations of robustness and energy usage. The increase of the airtightness, beside decreasing the energy usage at all the latitudes, present shorter boxes for almost all the cities. It must be noticed that all the boxes are smaller in comparison with the other refurbishments, beside for Turin and for Athens. At these latitudes, in fact, an increase of the airtightness seems

Figure 6.13: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for use of external

shading systems (RC20).

Figure 6.15: Annual final energy usage for heating and cooling for the increase of the

airtightness (RC22).

to have a more negative effect in comparison with the other latitudes. In particular, the boxes of Stockholm, Copenhagen and London have almost the same dimensions of the one of Barcelona, showing a big increase in the robustness in comparison with the base case and the other refurbishment cases. Paris shows the biggest change in terms of robustness presenting a very small box and almost no whiskers.

In conclusion:

• Each refurbishment has a different robustness at different latitudes.

• In almost all the cases (beside the airtightness improvement, RC22) the robustness in terms of energy usage is much higher at lower latitudes.

• The variation of robustness through latitudes is almost the same for each refur- bishment. The boxes have almost the same dimension and are just shifted higher or lower.

• The biggest changes are recorded for the airtightness solution. In this case, in fact, the building behave almost in a similar way in different cities as can be seen by looking at the dimension of the boxes.

• RC22 (airtightness improvement) is the most robust solution in terms of variation in time (dimension of a single box) and in space (similar dimensions of all the boxes at different latitudes).

• The energy performance are more influenced by the climatic variations than by the refurbishment measures, beside for the increase of airtightness.

• The different behaviour of only the RC22 is due to the fact that is the only measure that behaves in a non-linear way. The crack template of the model, in fact, takes into account the differences in air pressure and wind speed at each latitudes instead of the temperatures as in the other refurbishments.