Nowadays, there is growing interest in all the smart technologies that provide us with information and knowledge about the human environment. In the energy field, thanks to the amount of data received from smart meters and devices and the progress made in both energy software and computers, the quality of energy models is gradually improving and, hence, also the suitability of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs). For this reason, the measurement of the accuracy of building energy models is an important task, because once the model is validated through a calibration procedure, it can be used, for example, to apply and study different strategies to reduce its energy consumption in maintaining human comfort. There are several agencies that have developed guidelines and methodologies to establish a measure of the accuracy of these models, and the most widely recognized are: ASHRAE Guideline 14-2014, the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). This article intends to shed light on these validation measurements (uncertainty indices) by focusing on the typical mistakes made, as these errors could produce a false belief that the models used are calibrated.
Building energy performance (BEP) is an ongoing point of reflection among researchers and practitioners. The importance of buildings as one of the largest activators in climate change mitigation was illustrated recently at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21). Continuous technological improvements make it necessary to revise the methodology for energy calculations in buildings, as has recently happened with the new international standard ISO 52016-1 on Energy Performance of Buildings. In this area, there is a growing need for advanced tools like building energy models (BEMs). BEMs should play an important role in this process, but until now there has no been international consensus on how these models should reconcile the gap between measurement and simulated data in order to make them more reliable and affordable. Our proposal is a new generation of models that reconcile the traditional data-driven (inverse) modelling and law-driven (forward) modelling in a single type that we have called law-data-driven models. This achievement has greatly simplified past methodologies, and is a step forward in the search for a standard in the process of calibrating a building energy model.
Building Energy Models (BEMs) are a key element of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), and they are at the basis of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs). The main goal of BEMs is to provide information for building stakeholders; they can be a powerful market tool to increase demand for energy efficiency solutions in buildings without affecting the comfort of users, as well as providing other benefits. The next generation of BEMs should value buildings in a holistic and cost-effective manner across several complementary dimensions: envelope performances, system performances, and controlling the ability of buildings to offer flexible services to the grid by optimizing energy consumption, distributed generation, and storage. SABINA is a European project that aims to look for flexibility to the grid, targeting the most economic source possible: existing thermal inertia in buildings. In doing so, SABINA works with a new generation of BEMs that tend to mimic the thermal behavior of real buildings and therefore requires an accurate methodology to choose the model that complies with the requirements of the system. This paper details our novel extensive research on which statistical indices should be chosen in order to identify the best model offered by the calibration process developed by Fernandez et al. in a previous paper and therefore is a continuation of that work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.