© Fraunhofer IBP

Ralf Kilian, Hannes Brandl, Martin Krus, Florian Antretter and Klaus Sedlbauer

Multi-Criteria Accuracy Assessment for Indoor Climate

Change Projections of Historic Buildings

Presented by Johanna Leissner

Our Common Future under Climate Change

UNESCO Conference – Paris 2015

© Fraunhofer IBP

Climate for Culture – methodology

1960 - 1990

2020 - 2050

2070 - 2100

55,650 climate maps and risk maps

© Fraunhofer IBP

CfC Risk Assessment Methodology

Weather Indoor ClimateSimulation

Measurement

Transfer Functions Risk Assessment

Energy Demand

© Fraunhofer IBP

New

Method

for

model

calibration

© Fraunhofer IBP

Suggested criteria for assessment of statistical location parameters

characteristic comparative parameter

assessment criterion

excellent /

acceptable

totality of

datatotal range

± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C

Totality of data

without extremes1 % / 99 % percentile

± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location maximum maximum ± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location minimum minimum± 5 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 10 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location 1 % percentile 1 % percentile± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location 99 % percentile 99 % percentile± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location general median± 3 % r.h., ± 1 °C /

± 5 % r.h., ± 3 °C

location general correlation coefficient 0,95 /

0,8

location general QQ-PlotΔ 5 % r.h., 1 °C /

Δ 10 % r.h., 3 °C

dynamicsfrequency

daily fluctuations

Quote: 0,95 – 1,05 /

Quote: 0,75 – 1,25

© Fraunhofer IBP

Roggersdorf - Climate Measurement Setup

© Fraunhofer IBP

Roggersdorf - Hygrothermal Building Simulation

© Fraunhofer IBP

Comparison Measurements 2012 and Simulation

© Fraunhofer IBP

Comparison Measurements 2012 and Simulation

Parameter Simulation

T [°C]

Measurement

T [°C]

Delta

[K]

Assessment

Range 28,9 29,2 0,3 excellent

1% / 99% Quantil 26,3 25,4 0,9 excellent

Maximum 21,9 23,9 2,0 aceptable

99% Quantil 20,9 21,1 0,2 excellent

Median 11,0 11,4 0,4 excellent

1% Quantil -5,4 -4,3 1,1 aceptable

Minumium -7,0 -5,4 1,6 aceptable

Mean 10,1 10,5 0,4 excellent

Correlation Coefficient 0,994 excellent

Parameter Simulation

RH [%]

Measurement

RH [%]

Delta

RH [%]

Assessment

Range 48,1 52,1 4,0 excellent

1% / 99% Quantil 34,1 33,7 0,4 excellent

Maximum 100 96,6 3,4 excellent

99% Quantil 92,8 91,9 0,9 excellent

Median 76,3 78,7 2,4 excellent

1% Quantil 58,8 58,2 0,6 excellent

Minumium 51,9 44,6 7,3 aceptable

Mean 76,0 77,8 1,8 excellent

Correlation Coefficient 0,912 aceptable

Temperature

Relative

Humidity

© Fraunhofer IBP

Accuracy Test on Damage Functions / Characteristics

Prediction Quota QV

Measurement vs. Simulation 2012

Microbiology Risk

Fluctuations

of RH > 15 %

in 24 hours

Time of Indoor

RH > 70 %

Salt Deliquescence

South Wall (n)

Salt Deliquescence

Indoor Air (n)

Dew Point (n)

Prediction Quota

0,95 – 1,05 Excellent

0,75 – 1,25

Acceptabel

© Fraunhofer IBP

Comparison Conservation Risk Assessment

Scenario A1B

Measurements 2012

one possible future!

Projection 2099

© Fraunhofer IBP

Conclusions

• High resolution outdoor climate modeling

• New Method for climate change impact assessment

Creation of Indoor Risk Maps all over Europe

• Applicability of hygrothermal building simulation for historic buildings

• Use of building simulation for preventive conservation

• Test of different mitigation strategies

• Accuracy assessment is crucial for application of HAM Simulation

• Different damage functions can be taken into account

© Fraunhofer IBP

© Fraunhofer IBP

for more information / conact

www.climateforculture.eu

Dr.-Ing. Ralf Kilian

Dipl.-Restaurator Univ.

Fraunhofer-Institute for Building Physics

Holzkirchen, Germany

eMail: ralf.kilian@ibp.fraunhofer.de

web: www.ibp.fraunhofer.de