4.6 Article

Effectiveness of Automatic and Manual Calibration of an Office Building Energy Model

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app9101985

Keywords

buildings; dynamic simulation; calibration; automatic optimization; sensitivity analysis; IDA ICE; GenOpt

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (MIUR) [2015S7E247]
  2. PRIN framework

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Featured Application This work could contribute to evidence strengths and weaknesses of manual and automatic calibration of building dynamic simulation models leading at improving the quality of building retrofit solutions investigation. Abstract Energy reduction can benefit from the improvement of energy efficiency in buildings. For this purpose, simulation models can be used both as diagnostic and prognostic tools, reproducing the behaviour of the real building as accurately as possible. High modelling accuracy can be achieved only through calibration. Two approaches can be adopted-manual or automatic. Manual calibration consists of an iterative trial and error procedure that requires high skill and expertise of the modeler. Automatic calibration relies on mathematical and statistical methods that mostly use optimization algorithms to minimize the difference between measured and simulated data. This paper aims to compare a manual calibration procedure with an automatic calibration method developed by the authors, coupling dynamic simulation, sensitivity analysis and automatic optimization using IDA ICE, Matlab and GenOpt respectively. Differences, advantages and disadvantages are evidenced applying both methods to a dynamic simulation model of a real office building in Rome, Italy. Although both methods require high expertise from operators and showed good results in terms of accuracy, automatic calibration presents better performance and consistently helps with speeding up the procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available