2-to-one discrepancy between measured and predicted performance of a low-energy office building- Insights from a reconsiliation based on the DOE-2 model.

Title2-to-one discrepancy between measured and predicted performance of a low-energy office building- Insights from a reconsiliation based on the DOE-2 model.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication1994
AuthorsNorford, LK, Socolow, RH, Hsieh, ES, Spadaro, GV
JournalEnergy and Buildings
Volume21
Pagination121-131
Date Published1994
ISBN Number0378-7788
Accession NumberWOS:A1994PR70000005
Abstract

Computer models of building energy use, if calibrated with measured data, offer a means of assessing retrofit savings, optimizing HVAC operation (on- or off-line), and presenting energy-consumption feedback to building operators. The calibration process itself can pinpoint differences between how a building was designed to perform and how it is actually functioning. Our initial goal was to identify why the actual annual energy consumption of an office building was 325 kWh/m(2), over twice the predicted value of 125 kWh/m(2). Part of our effort to understand its performance involved calibrating a DOE-2 model prepared at the design stage. In the process, we formulated calibration guidelines and developed insights that may be of use to others. Of particular interest are the major sources of the wide discrepancy between predicted and actual energy use, Unanticipated tenant energy consumption, both during the day and the night, contributed 64% of the two-fold increase. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment operation beyond the expected 10 h per weekday contributed 24%. We attributed the remaining 12% to HVAC equipment not operating up to specification; building conductive heat loss in excess of the design-stage prediction; and minimum outdoor-air intake differing from the design value. The calibration process involved working on major input parameters independently of the others, then combining the results into one simulation. The calibrated model accounted for 94% of measured site energy for the building.