Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the relative differences in building energy simulation results

  • Research Article
  • Advances in Modeling and Simulation Tools
  • Published:
Building Simulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Building energy modeling, also known as building energy simulation, has developed rapidly in recent years and plays a crucial role in building life-cycle analysis. It can be employed in the design phase to predict the energy consumption of different design schemes and evaluate various control and retrofitting measures at the operation stage. In such simulations, it is commonly understood and accepted that the simulated relative differences are more reliable than the predictions of absolute energy results. However, whether this common understanding is true is yet to be thoroughly investigated. In this study, we investigate the simulated relative differences and the extent to which they are affected by the degree of model input deviation. Simulation and Monte Carlo approaches are adopted for the analysis. The results indicate that the simulated relative differences are not as reliable as expected, and the outputs strongly depend on the degree of the model input deviation. When the degree of deviation is less than 15% or the model inputs are within reasonable ranges, the simulated relative differences match the baseline obtained using Monte Carlo simulations. Moreover, the model’s error indicators meet the requirements of the ASHRAE Guideline 14–2014 when the degree of input deviation is below 15%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad M, Culp C (2006). Uncalibrated building energy simulation modeling results. HVAC&R Research, 12: 1141–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASHRAE (2014). Guideline 14–2014, Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balaras CA, Gaglia AG, Georgopoulou E, et al. (2007). European residential buildings and empirical assessment of the Hellenic building stock, energy consumption, emissions and potential energy savings. Building and Environment, 42: 1298–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong A, Menberg K (2018). Guidelines for the Bayesian calibration of building energy models. Energy and Buildings, 174: 527–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke JA, Strachan PA, Pernot C (1993). An approach to the calibration of building energy simulation models. ASHRAE Transactions, 99: 917–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozza S, Chambers J, Brambilla A, et al. (2021). In search of optimal consumption: A review of causes and solutions to the Energy Performance Gap in residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 249: 111253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley DB, Lawrie LK, Winkelmann FC, et al. (2001). EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and Buildings, 33: 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deru M, Field K, Studer D, et al. (2011). U.S. Department of Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of the National Building Stock. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks JA, Gorrissen WJ, Hathaway JH, et al. (2015). Impacts of climate change on energy consumption and peak demand in buildings: A detailed regional approach. Energy, 79: 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Muñoz F, Cejudo-López JM, Carrillo-Andrés A (2010). Uncertainty in peak cooling load calculations. Energy and Buildings, 42: 1010–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2003). 2003 Commercial buildings energy consumption survey, U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/introduction.html.

  • Eisenhower B, O’Neill Z, Fonoberov VA, et al. (2012). Uncertainty and sensitivity decomposition of building energy models. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5: 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Yan D, Gui C (2020). The typical hot year and typical cold year for modeling extreme events impacts on indoor environment: A generation method and case study. Building Simulation, 13: 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heo Y, Augenbroe G, Graziano D, et al. (2015). Scalable methodology for large scale building energy improvement: Relevance of calibration in model-based retrofit analysis. Building and Environment, 87: 342–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopfe CJ, Hensen JLM (2011). Uncertainty analysis in building performance simulation for design support. Energy and Buildings, 43: 2798–2805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini M, Bigtashi A, Lee B (2020). A systematic approach in constructing typical meteorological year weather files using machine learning. Energy and Buildings, 226: 110375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Yan D, Zhang X, et al. (2021). A data-driven model predictive control for lighting system based on historical occupancy in an office building: Methodology development. Building Simulation, 14: 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy S, Steinberg DM (2010). Computer experiments: A review. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 94: 311–324.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas KJ, Eppel H (1992). Sensitivity analysis techniques for building thermal simulation programs. Energy and Buildings, 19: 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maile T, Fischer M, Bazjanac V (2007). Building energy performance simulation tools-a life-cycle and interoperable perspective. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) Working Paper, Stanford University.

  • Manfren M, Aste N, Moshksar R (2013). Calibration and uncertainty analysis for computer models—A meta-model based approach for integrated building energy simulation. Applied Energy, 103: 627–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979). Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 21: 239–245.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Monetti V, Davin E, Fabrizio E, et al. (2015). Calibration of building energy simulation models based on optimization: a case study. Energy Procedia, 78: 2971–2976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy TA (2006). Literature review on calibration of building energy simulation programs: uses, problems, procedures, uncertainty, and tools. ASHRAE Transactions, 112(1): 226–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romani Z, Draoui A, Allard F (2022). Metamodeling and multicriteria analysis for sustainable and passive residential building refurbishment: A case study of French housing stock. Building Simulation, 15: 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seem JE, Armstrong PR, Hancock CE (1989). Algorithms for predicting recovery time from night setback. ASHRAE Transactions, 95(2): 439–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen J, Krietemeyer B, Bartosh A, et al. (2021). Green Design Studio: A modular-based approach for high-performance building design. Building Simulation, 14: 241–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva AS, Ghisi E (2014). Uncertainty analysis of the computer model in building performance simulation. Energy and Buildings, 76: 258–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun K, Hong T, Taylor-Lange SC, et al. (2016). A pattern-based automated approach to building energy model calibration. Applied Energy, 165: 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Y, Xue H, Wang W, et al. (2020). Development of an optimal control method of chilled water temperature for constant-speed air-cooled water chiller air conditioning systems. Applied Thermal Engineering, 180: 115802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson D, Burman E, Mumovic D, et al. (2022). Managing the risk of the energy performance gap in non-domestic buildings. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 43: 57–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian W, Heo Y, de Wilde P, et al. (2018). A review of uncertainty analysis in building energy assessment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 93: 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torcellini P, Deru M, Griffith B, et al. (2008). DOE commercial building benchmark models. In: Proceedings of ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.

  • Wang D, Pang X, Wang W, et al. (2019). Assessment of the potential of high-performance buildings to achieve zero energy: A case study. Applied Sciences, 9: 775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang D, Pang X, Wang W, et al. (2020). Evaluation of the dynamic energy performance gap of green buildings: Case studies in China. Building Simulation, 13: 1191–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie Y, Liu J, Huang T, et al. (2019). Outdoor thermal sensation and logistic regression analysis of comfort range of meteorological parameters in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 155: 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Korolija I (2010). Performing complex parametric simulation with jEPlus. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies (SET2010).

  • Zhou X, Ren J, An J, et al. (2021). Predicting open-plan office window operating behavior using the random forest algorithm. Journal of Building Engineering, 42: 102514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the “Urban Carbon Neutral” Science and Technology Innovation Fund Project from Beijing University of Technology and Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Building Environment and Energy, China Academy of Building Research, Beijing, 100013, China

    Xiufeng Pang

  2. Faculty of Information Technology, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

    Dan Wang

  3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Green Built Environment and Energy Efficient Technology, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

    Dan Wang, Xiufeng Pang, Wei Wang & Chuan Wan

  4. National Engineering Research Center of Building Technology, Beijing, 100013, China

    Xiufeng Pang

  5. Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, No.19 Qingyuan Road, Daxing District, Beijing, 102627, China

    Wei Wang

  6. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 33146, USA

    Gang Wang

Authors
  1. Dan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiufeng Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuan Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiufeng Pang or Wei Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, D., Pang, X., Wang, W. et al. Evaluation of the relative differences in building energy simulation results. Build. Simul. 15, 1977–1987 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-022-0903-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-022-0903-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation