[TRNSYS-users] Type 56 active layer accuracy, alternatives

[Mathieu Lévesque]

Dear all,

I'm currently studying the coupling between thermally activated building
systems (TABS), or floor heating/cooling, and geothermal heat pumps. I chose
using the active layer in type 56, but I recently read in an article by T.
Weber (*An optimized RC-network for thermally activated building components*,
Building and Environment, 2005) that "...it will loose a part of its
accuracy for harmonic temperature fluctuations in the pipe having a
period lower than 10 h". However, this sentence refers to an article that
has never been published.

The calculation of the energy storage in the slab is very important for my
study. However, the validation of the active layer in type 56 refers to a
comparison of the heat fluxes at the slab's upper and lower surface and the
mean temperature at pipe level.

Therefore, is there a known accuracy problem with the energy storage
calculations in type 56's active layer, usually for high temperature or flow
rate fluctuations?

Also, except from type 56's active layer and type 360 (Floor heating and
hypocaust), are there other types available for floor heating/cooling?

Thank you!


*Mathieu Lévesque*
Master student
Département de génie mécanique
École Polytechnique de Montréal
mathieu.levesque at polymtl.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trnsys-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110919/2ccb67cc/attachment-0001.htm>