English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Energy reduction can benefit from the improvement of energy effciency 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 offce 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.

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