Next Article in Journal
A Hierarchical Mission Planning Method for Simultaneous Arrival of Multi-UAV Coalition
Next Article in Special Issue
Study of the Hygrothermal Behavior of Wood Fiber Insulation Subjected to Non-Isothermal Loading
Previous Article in Journal
Durability of Subsea Tunnels under the Coupled Action of Stress and Chloride Ions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Life-Cycle Optimization of a Chiller Plant with Quantified Analysis of Uncertainty and Reliability in Commercial Buildings
Article Menu
Issue 10 (May-2) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

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

1
Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Astronautics, Electrical and Energy Engineering “Sapienza”, University of Rome, 00184 Rome, Italy
3
EnUpsrl, 00168 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(10), 1985; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9101985
Received: 8 April 2019 / Revised: 4 May 2019 / Accepted: 8 May 2019 / Published: 15 May 2019
  |  
PDF [5385 KB, uploaded 15 May 2019]
  |  

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: buildings; dynamic simulation; calibration; automatic optimization; sensitivity analysis; IDA ICE; GenOpt buildings; dynamic simulation; calibration; automatic optimization; sensitivity analysis; IDA ICE; GenOpt
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Cornaro, C.; Bosco, F.; Lauria, M.; Puggioni, V.A.; De Santoli, L. Effectiveness of Automatic and Manual Calibration of an Office Building Energy Model. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1985.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top