Klimatanpassning av en skolbyggnad : Genom simuleringar utifrån framtidens klimatförändringar

The aim of this thesis was to examine what impact future climate change and raised temperatures will have on current building design and how they can be adapted to the future climate change in terms of energy use, indoor temperature and thermal comfort by using passive solutions. This was carried out by a case study of a school building located in the Uppsala- Stockholm area, which was modeled in the energy simulation tool IDA ICE 4.8. The building was then compared in today’s (2020) climate to the future (2080) climate based on future weather data representing IPCCS’s RCP 8,5 scenario for the year of 2080, followed by an assessment of several climate adaption measures in the future climate. The result showed a future climate much warmer than the one today, with a monthly average temperature up to 1,5 degrees higher. This led to the school building being overheated for 703 hours during the period of April-September in the future climate, in comparison to 20 hours in today’s climate, regarding mean air temperature. The energy usage of the building showed a smaller heat demand for the 2080 climate but an added cooling demand that did not exist in the 2020 climate. Despite the added cooling demand, the building had a lower energy usage in total in the future climate. In order to adapt the building to the 2080 climate, 10 passive measures were simulated individually as well as combined into two different packages of solutions, one large and one small. Overall, the results showed that no measure or package was enough to adapt the building in order to reach the current indoor climate requirements. For the building to keep the maximum mean air temperature at 26 degrees, an active cooling was needed as well. The measure keeping the lowest indoor temperature was the large package of solutions. Although, knowing that passive measures were not enough for the building to reach the current thermal requirements, looking at the total energy usage showed that the smaller package of solutions had the lowest annual energy demand of all measures. It had a marginally higher cooling demand due to fewer measures, but a significantly lower heating demand due to a less effective solar protection and a higher internal heating load