Comparison between two energy dynamic tools: The impact of two different calculation procedures on the achievement of nZEBs requirements

11Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Due to the limitations of the stationary energy needs calculation, energy dynamic simulation tools become strictly essential. In literature, many researches compared different energy simulation tools without validating those models through real data. In this framework, this study aims to compare two energy dynamic simulation tools: TRNSYS 16 and Grasshopper/Archsim, through a real case study, the historical building of Palazzo Baleani, validated by comparing the simulated results with real consumptions. Furthermore, results will help users to choose the most suitable software depending on the needs and the available data. Finally, latest analysis underline that different type of retrofit solutions, simulated with those two tools, have a considerable impact on the achievement of nZEBs targets, especially on the listed building.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pompei, L., Nardecchia, F., Mattoni, B., Bisegna, F., & Mangione, A. (2019). Comparison between two energy dynamic tools: The impact of two different calculation procedures on the achievement of nZEBs requirements. In Building Simulation Conference Proceedings (Vol. 6, pp. 4259–4266). International Building Performance Simulation Association. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2019.210977

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free