湿球温度冷度日反映制冷能耗的适用性评估

基于湿球温度提出一种新的表征制冷能耗的冷度日,利用TRNSYS软件模拟得到1961—2012年逐月制冷能耗,分析了基于湿球温度的冷度日反映我国不同建筑气候区制冷能耗的适用性。结果表明,除上海外,基于干球温度的冷度日并不能很好地反映制冷能耗,仅能解释逐月制冷能耗的17%~60%;基于湿球温度的冷度日能够很好地反映各建筑气候区的制冷能耗,可以解释逐月制冷能耗的67%~98%。此外,各建筑气候区随着设定的基础湿球温度不同,计算得到的冷度日对制冷能耗的解释量不同。基础湿球温度为16.85℃的冷度日对哈尔滨和天津制冷能耗解释量最大,而不同基础湿球温度的冷度日对上海和广州制冷能耗解释量均无明显差异。以上研究结果证实,基于湿球温度的冷度日能较好地反映各建筑气候区制冷能耗,但各气候区用湿球冷度日反映制冷能耗时应设定不同的基础湿球温度。

Applicability of cooling degree-days based on wet bulb temperature as an index of cooling energy consumption

In this study, cooling degree-day based on wet bulb temperature (WCDD) was proposed as an index to reflect building cooling energy consumption. The applicability of WCDD was validated by analyzing the relationships between cooling energy loads simulated by TRNSYS software and WCDD in four cities representing different climate zones from 1961 to 2012. The results showed that cooling degree-day based on dry bulb temperature (DCDD) cannot fully explain the variations of cooling loads except Shanghai, with only explaining 17%?60% of monthly cooling loads in Harbin, Tianjin and Guangzhou. On the contrary, WCDD can explain 67%?98% of monthly cooling loads in all selected cities, indicating that WCDD can be well reflect the variations of cooling energy consumption. In addition, there are great differences in the explanation of WCDD for cooling loads in different zones with different base wet-bulb temperatures. In Harbin and Tianjin, the WCDD with the base temperature of 16.85℃ can explain the monthly cooling loads best. However, there are no significant differences in the explanation of cooling loads by WCDD with three base temperatures in Shanghai and Guangzhou. This study verifies that WCDD can be well used to reflect the building cooling energy consumption in different climate zones as a reliable index. In addition, different optimal base temperatures in calculating WCDD should be taken to efficiently reflect the cooling energy consumption in different climate zones.