Home for Life Performance Study

This Politecnico di Milano group project analyzed the Home for Life active-house precedent as a coordinated energy and comfort system. The work used TRNSYS to study free-running behavior, ventilation, ground heat exchange, automated shading, solar thermal collection, building-integrated photovoltaics, and indoor comfort.

The first step translated the Home for Life precedent’s form, envelope, occupancy, schedules, and system intentions into a coordinated simulation structure. The group model then established a consistent basis for comparing passive, active, and renewable strategies.

A free-run simulation established how the building behaved before active strategies were added. This baseline makes each later intervention legible: instead of presenting one final number, the project shows how indoor conditions and energy demand change as ventilation, heat recovery, shading, and renewable systems are introduced.

The ventilation scheme selects among natural ventilation, ground pipes alone, and ground pipes combined with heat exchange according to comfort conditions. The TRNSYS model and control logic show how the building can shift modes rather than relying on one static operating strategy throughout the year.

The ground heat exchanger was modeled as part of the ventilation path, using the more stable ground temperature to temper incoming air. Optimization compared the system’s contribution to indoor comfort and energy performance. The results remain specific to the documented model inputs and assumptions.

The shading logic balances thermal comfort, solar gains, and visual comfort. Alternative controls were tested before selecting an automated strategy. The decision logic is evaluated alongside daylight and comfort results so that the reason for each response remains visible.

Solar thermal collection and building-integrated photovoltaics were added to the coordinated TRNSYS model as separate renewable-energy layers. Solar thermal contributes useful heat, while BIPV contributes electrical generation to the building balance.

The results follow a staged sequence from free run to ventilation, heat recovery, shading, solar thermal, and BIPV. This sequence reveals the contribution and interaction of each strategy rather than reducing the study to one end-state number. All values remain linked to the model version and assumptions documented in the final report.

The final evaluation considers thermal comfort and visual comfort together. This matters because an energy-saving action can still create glare, insufficient daylight, or uncomfortable temperatures. The model therefore concludes with the trade-offs among energy, temperature, daylight, and glare rather than a claim of universal optimization.