Search

Building Energy Simulation (BES) tools play a key role in the optimization of the building system during the different phases, from pre-design through commissioning to operation. BES tools are increasingly used in research as well as in companies. New BES tools and updated versions are continuously being released. Each tool follows an independent validation process but rarely all the tools are compared against each other using a common case study. In this work, the modelling approaches of widespread dynamic simulation tools (i.e. EnergyPlus, TRNSYS, Simulink libraries CarnotUIBK and ALMABuild, IDA ICE, Modelica/Dymola and DALEC), as well as PHPP (a well-known quasi-steady-state tool), are described and the results of all the tools modelling the same characteristic office cell, defined within the IEA SHC Task 56, are compared on a monthly and hourly basis for the climates of Stockholm, Stuttgart and Rome. Unfortunately, different tools require different levels of input detail, which are often not matching with available data, hence the parametrization process highly influences the quality of the simulation results. In the current study to evaluate the deviation between the tools, frequently used statistical indices and normalization methods are analysed and the problems related to their application, in a cross-comparison of different tools, are investigated. In this regard, the deviation thresholds indicated by ASHRAE Guideline 14-2014 are used as a basis to identify results that suggest an acceptable level of disagreement between the predictions of a particular model and the outcomes of all models. The process of reaching a good agreement between all tools required several iterations and great effort on behalf of the modellers. To aid the definition of building component descriptions and future references for inter-model comparison a short history of the executed steps is presented in this work. Together with the comparison of the results of the tools, their computational cost is evaluated and an overview of the modelling approaches supported by the different tools for this case study is provided aiming to support the users in choosing a fit-for-purpose simulation tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]