4.7 Article

Calibrating historic building energy models to hourly indoor air and surface temperatures: Methodology and case study

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 236-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.010

Keywords

Historic building; Case study; Simulation; Monitoring; Calibration; Sensitivity analysis; Particle swarm optimization; EnergyPlus

Funding

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7), project 3ENCULT [260162]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Uncalibrated building energy models, as well as models calibrated only on a single performance indicator such as energy consumption or indoor temperature, can be significantly unreliable regarding model parameters and other performance indicators. The risk of obtaining a calibrated model whose parameters are far from the actual values is particularly high in historic buildings because of the increased uncertainty about the building construction. In this paper, we propose a calibration methodology aimed at reducing this risk and apply it on a medieval building. The building was modeled in EnergyPlus based on an energy audit. A sensitivity analysis was performed to identify significant parameters affecting the errors between simulated and monitored indoor air temperatures. The model was calibrated on the hourly indoor air temperatures in summer by minimizing the root mean square error averaged over the building using a particle swarm optimization algorithm. A second calibration was performed by varying the parameters of a representative room. By comparing the results from these two calibrations, we obtained indications about the accuracy of the model parameters. Finally, the model was validated on hourly indoor air and surface temperatures in winter where temperature root mean square errors ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 K. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available