Abstract Thermal modelling tools have widely been used in the construction industry at the design stage, either for new build or retrofitting existing buildings, providing data for informed decision-making. The accuracy of thermal models has been subject of much research in recent decades due to the potential large difference between predicted and ‘in-use’ performance – the so called ‘performance gap’. A number of studies suggested that better representation of building physics and operation details in thermal models can improve the accuracy of predictions. However, full-scale model calibration has always been challenging as it is difficult to measure all the necessary boundary conditions in an open environment. Thus, the Energy House facility at the University of Salford – a full-sized end terrace house constructed within an environmental chamber – presents a unique opportunity to conduct full-scale model calibration. The aim of this research is to calibrate Energy House thermal models using various full-scale measurements. The measurements used in this research include the co-heating tests for a whole house retrofit case study, and thermal resistance from window coverings and heating controls with thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs). Thermal models were created using an IESVE (Integrated Environment Solutions Virtual Environment). IESVE is a well-established dynamic thermal simulation tool widely used in analysing the dynamic response of a building based on the hourly input of weather data. The evidence from this study suggests that thermal models using measured U-values and infiltration rates do perform better than the models using calculated thermal properties and assumed infiltration rates. The research suggests that better representations of building physics help thermal models reduce the performance gap. However, discrepancies still exist due to various other underlying uncertainties which need to be considered individually with each case. In relative terms, i.e., variations in percentage, the predictions from thermal models tend to be more reliable than predicting the absolute numbers.
[1]
Enrico Fabrizio,et al.
Calibration of Building Energy Simulation Models Based on Optimization: A Case Study
,
2015
.
[2]
Dino Bouchlaghem,et al.
Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap
,
2012
.
[3]
William Swan,et al.
The thermal performance of window coverings in a whole house test facility with single-glazed sash windows
,
2017
.
[4]
William Swan,et al.
Domestic building fabric performance: Closing the gap between the in situ measured and modelled performance
,
2017
.
[5]
Elena Lucchi,et al.
Thermal transmittance of historical brick masonries: A comparison among standard data, analytical calculation procedures, and in situ heat flow meter measurements
,
2017
.
[6]
Colin Craven,et al.
EVALUATING WINDOW INSULATION FOR COLD CLIMATES
,
2012
.
[7]
William Swan,et al.
Heat-flow variability of suspended timber ground floors: Implications for in-situ heat-flux measuring
,
2017
.
[8]
Adrian Leaman,et al.
Assessing building performance in use 3: energy performance of the Probe buildings
,
2001
.
[9]
Dennis L. Loveday,et al.
First evidence for the reliability of building co-heating tests
,
2018
.
[10]
Xiande Fang.
A study of the U-factor of a window with a cloth curtain
,
2001
.
[11]
Ruut Hannele Peuhkuri,et al.
Using measured indoor environment parameters for calibration of building simulation model: a passive house case study
,
2015
.
[12]
William Swan,et al.
Measuring thermal performance in steady-state conditions at each stage of a full fabric retrofit to a solid wall dwelling
,
2017
.
[13]
Tadj Oreszczyn,et al.
Solid-wall U-values: heat flux measurements compared with standard assumptions
,
2015
.
[14]
Paul Strachan,et al.
Whole model empirical validation on a full-scale building
,
2016
.