Validation of dynamic building energy simulation tools based on a real test-box with thermally activated building systems (TABS)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Empirical validation and code-to-code comparison of more than one building simulation tool has seldom been done in literature. Therefore this paper presents the first detailed comparison of 1D building energy simulation tools with 3D CFD simulation and measurement data from a test bed (Test-Box), exposed to natural environmental conditions. Dymola (library: IDEAS), EnergyPlus, IDA ICE and TRNSYS –four com- monly used tools–were selected for comparison against highly accurate real measurement data and dy- namic CFD results. This paper evaluates the performance of mentioned above 1D simulation tools and in particular their implemented Thermally Activated Building Systems (TABS) models. The mean error, RMSE, standard deviation and maximal error for the room air, the ceiling surface and concrete tempera- ture of the Test-Box model results are acceptable for all tools. The time course of the room air tempera- ture follows the measurement data relatively well for all four tools. However, the negative bias (Dymola -0.92 K, EnergyPlus -2.18 K, IDA ICE -0.37 K and TRNSYS -1.13 K) indicates a general overestimation for all tools. Furthermore, the paper reflects the properties of simulation tools regarding the modelling language, GUIs, co-simulation capabilities and their recommended field of application.
LanguageEnglish
Pages42-55
JournalEnergy and buildings
Volume168
DOIs
StatusPublished - 10 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

Computational fluid dynamics
Ceilings
Graphical user interfaces
Air
Concretes
Temperature
Modeling languages

Keywords

  • TABS
  • building simulation
  • Dymola
  • EnergyPlus
  • IDA ICE
  • TRNSYS
  • CFD
  • equation-based modeling

Cite this

@article{7737edfe3c494911947cb75b9de87205,
title = "Validation of dynamic building energy simulation tools based on a real test-box with thermally activated building systems (TABS)",
abstract = "Empirical validation and code-to-code comparison of more than one building simulation tool has seldom been done in literature. Therefore this paper presents the first detailed comparison of 1D building energy simulation tools with 3D CFD simulation and measurement data from a test bed (Test-Box), exposed to natural environmental conditions. Dymola (library: IDEAS), EnergyPlus, IDA ICE and TRNSYS –four com- monly used tools–were selected for comparison against highly accurate real measurement data and dy- namic CFD results. This paper evaluates the performance of mentioned above 1D simulation tools and in particular their implemented Thermally Activated Building Systems (TABS) models. The mean error, RMSE, standard deviation and maximal error for the room air, the ceiling surface and concrete tempera- ture of the Test-Box model results are acceptable for all tools. The time course of the room air tempera- ture follows the measurement data relatively well for all four tools. However, the negative bias (Dymola -0.92 K, EnergyPlus -2.18 K, IDA ICE -0.37 K and TRNSYS -1.13 K) indicates a general overestimation for all tools. Furthermore, the paper reflects the properties of simulation tools regarding the modelling language, GUIs, co-simulation capabilities and their recommended field of application.",
keywords = "TABS, building simulation, Dymola, EnergyPlus, IDA ICE, TRNSYS, CFD, equation-based modeling",
author = "Nageler, {Peter Josef} and Gerald Schweiger and Martin Pichler and Daniel Brandl and Thomas Mach and Richard Heimrath and Hermann Schranzhofer and Christoph Hochenauer",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.025",
language = "English",
volume = "168",
pages = "42--55",
journal = "Energy and buildings",
issn = "0378-7788",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of dynamic building energy simulation tools based on a real test-box with thermally activated building systems (TABS)

AU - Nageler, Peter Josef

AU - Schweiger, Gerald

AU - Pichler, Martin

AU - Brandl, Daniel

AU - Mach, Thomas

AU - Heimrath, Richard

AU - Schranzhofer, Hermann

AU - Hochenauer, Christoph

PY - 2018/3/10

Y1 - 2018/3/10

N2 - Empirical validation and code-to-code comparison of more than one building simulation tool has seldom been done in literature. Therefore this paper presents the first detailed comparison of 1D building energy simulation tools with 3D CFD simulation and measurement data from a test bed (Test-Box), exposed to natural environmental conditions. Dymola (library: IDEAS), EnergyPlus, IDA ICE and TRNSYS –four com- monly used tools–were selected for comparison against highly accurate real measurement data and dy- namic CFD results. This paper evaluates the performance of mentioned above 1D simulation tools and in particular their implemented Thermally Activated Building Systems (TABS) models. The mean error, RMSE, standard deviation and maximal error for the room air, the ceiling surface and concrete tempera- ture of the Test-Box model results are acceptable for all tools. The time course of the room air tempera- ture follows the measurement data relatively well for all four tools. However, the negative bias (Dymola -0.92 K, EnergyPlus -2.18 K, IDA ICE -0.37 K and TRNSYS -1.13 K) indicates a general overestimation for all tools. Furthermore, the paper reflects the properties of simulation tools regarding the modelling language, GUIs, co-simulation capabilities and their recommended field of application.

AB - Empirical validation and code-to-code comparison of more than one building simulation tool has seldom been done in literature. Therefore this paper presents the first detailed comparison of 1D building energy simulation tools with 3D CFD simulation and measurement data from a test bed (Test-Box), exposed to natural environmental conditions. Dymola (library: IDEAS), EnergyPlus, IDA ICE and TRNSYS –four com- monly used tools–were selected for comparison against highly accurate real measurement data and dy- namic CFD results. This paper evaluates the performance of mentioned above 1D simulation tools and in particular their implemented Thermally Activated Building Systems (TABS) models. The mean error, RMSE, standard deviation and maximal error for the room air, the ceiling surface and concrete tempera- ture of the Test-Box model results are acceptable for all tools. The time course of the room air tempera- ture follows the measurement data relatively well for all four tools. However, the negative bias (Dymola -0.92 K, EnergyPlus -2.18 K, IDA ICE -0.37 K and TRNSYS -1.13 K) indicates a general overestimation for all tools. Furthermore, the paper reflects the properties of simulation tools regarding the modelling language, GUIs, co-simulation capabilities and their recommended field of application.

KW - TABS

KW - building simulation

KW - Dymola

KW - EnergyPlus

KW - IDA ICE

KW - TRNSYS

KW - CFD

KW - equation-based modeling

U2 - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.025

DO - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.025

M3 - Article

VL - 168

SP - 42

EP - 55

JO - Energy and buildings

T2 - Energy and buildings

JF - Energy and buildings

SN - 0378-7788

ER -