4.7 Article

Model calibration of a variable refrigerant flow system with a dedicated outdoor air system: A case study

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 158, Issue -, Pages 884-896

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.049

Keywords

Variable refrigerant flow; Dedicated outdoor air system; Building simulation; Calibration

Funding

  1. UT-Battelle, LLC
  2. DOE [DEAC05-00OR22725]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With increased use of variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems in the U.S. building sector, interests in capability and rationality of various building energy modeling tools to simulate VRF systems are rising. This paper presents the detailed procedures for model calibration of a VRF system with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) by comparing to detailed measured data from an occupancy emulated small office building. The building energy model is first developed based on as-built drawings, and building and system characteristics available. The whole building energy modeling tool used for the study is U.S. DOE's EnergyPlus version 8.1. The initial model is, then, calibrated with the hourly measured data from the target building and VRF-DOAS system. In a detailed calibration procedures of the VRF-DOAS, the original EnergyPlus source code is modified to enable the modeling of the specific VRF-DOAS installed in the building. After a proper calibration during cooling and heating seasons, the VRF-DOAS model can reasonably predict the performance of the actual VRF-DOAS system based on the criteria from ASHRAE Guideline 14-2014. The calibration results show that hourly CV-RMSE and NMBE would be 15.7% and 3.8%, respectively, which is deemed to be calibrated. The whole-building energy usage after calibration of the VRF-DOAS model is 1.9% (78.8 kWh) lower than that of the measurements during comparison period. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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