AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research Article

On the comparison of three numerical methods applied to building simulation: Finite-differences, RC circuit approximation and a spectral method

Julien Berger1( )Suelen Gasparin2,3Denys Dutykh2Nathan Mendes3
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LOCIE, 73000 Chambéry, France
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LAMA, 73000 Chambéry, France
Thermal Systems Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Rua Imaculada Conceição, 1155, CEP : 80215-901, Curitiba - Paraná, Brazil
Show Author Information

Abstract

Predictions of physical phenomena in buildings are carried out by using physical models formulated as a mathematical problem and solved by means of numerical methods, aiming at evaluating, for instance, the building thermal or hygrothermal performance by calculating distributions and fluxes of heat and moisture transfer. Therefore, the choice of the numerical method is crucial since it is a compromise among (i) the solution accuracy, (ii) the computational cost to obtain the solution and (iii) the complexity of the method implementation. An efficient numerical method enables to compute an accurate solution with a minimum computational run time (CPU). On that account, this article brings an investigation on the performance of three numerical methods. The first one is the standard and widely used finite-difference approach, while the second one is the so-called RC approach, which is a particular method brought to the building physics area by means of an analogy of electric circuits. The third numerical method is the spectral one, which has been recently proposed to solve nonlinear diffusive problems in building physics. The three methods are evaluated in terms of accuracy on the assessment of the dependent variable (temperature or vapor pressure) or of density of fluxes for three different cases: (i) heat diffusion through a concrete slab, (ii) moisture diffusion through an aerated concrete slab and (iii) heat diffusion using measured temperatures as boundary conditions. Results highlight the spectral approach as the most accurate method. The RC based model with a few number of resistances does not provide accurate results for temperature and vapor pressure distributions neither to flux densities nor conduction loads.

References

 
Bednar T, Hagentoft C (2005). Analytical solution for moisture buffering effect validation exercises for simulation tools. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Symposium on Building Physics, Reykjavik, Iceland.
 
Berger J, Guernouti S, Woloszyn M, Buhe C (2015). Factors governing the development of moisture disorders for integration into building performance simulation. Journal of Building Engineering, 3: 1-15.
 
Berger J, Orlande HRB, Mendes N, Guernouti S (2016). Bayesian inference for estimating thermal properties of a historic building wall. Building and Environment, 106: 327-339.
 
Biddulph P, Gori V, Elwell CA, Scott C, Rye C, Lowe R, Oreszczyn T (2014). Inferring the thermal resistance and effective thermal mass of a wall using frequent temperature and heat flux measurements. Energy and Buildings, 78: 10-16.
 
Cantin R, Burgholzer J, Guarracino G, Moujalled B, Tamelikecht S, Royet BG (2010). Field assessment of thermal behaviour of historical dwellings in France. Building and Environment, 45: 473-484.
 
Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, Zang TA (2006). Spectral Methods—Fundamentals in Single Domains. Berlin: Springer.
 
Clarke J (2013). Moisture flow modelling within the ESP-r integrated building performance simulation system. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 6: 385-399.
 
Courant R, Friedrichs K, Lewy H (1928). Über die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen Physik. Mathematische Annalen, 100: 32-74.
 
Crawley DB, Lawrie LK, Winkelmann FC, Buhl WF, Huang Y, Pedersen CO, Strand RK, Liesen RJ, Fisher DE, Witte MJ, Glazer J (2001). EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and Buildings, 33: 319-331.
 
Davies MG (2004). Building Heat Transfer. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
 
Deconinck AH, Roels S (2016). Comparison of characterisation methods determining the thermal resistance of building components from onsite measurements. Energy and Buildings, 130: 309-320.
 
Driscoll TA, Hale N, Trefethen LN (2014). Chebfun Guide. Oxford: Pafnuty Publications.
 
EIA (2015). Annual Energy Outlook 2015, with Projections to 2040. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
 
Fraisse G, Viardot C, Lafabrie O, Achard G (2002). Development of a simplified and accurate building model based on electrical analogy. Energy and Buildings, 34: 1017-1031.
 
Gasparin S, Berger J, Dutykh D, Mendes N (2018). Advanced reduced- order models for moisture diffusion in porous media. Transport in Porous Media, 124: 965-994.
 
Gasparin S, Berger J, Dutykh D, Mendes N (2019). Solving nonlinear diffusive problems in buildings by means of a Spectral reduced- order model. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 12: 17-36.
 
Gautschi W (2004). Orthogonal Polynomials: Computation and Approximation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
Incropera F, DeWitt D, Bergman T, Lavine A (2007). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 6th edn. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
 
Jiménez MJ, Porcar B, Heras MR (2009). Application of different dynamic analysis approaches to the estimation of the building component U value. Building and Environment, 44: 361-367.
 
Kahan W, Palmer J (1979). On a proposed floating-point standard. ACM SIGNUM Newsletter, 14: 13-21.
 
Kalagasidis AS, Weitzmann P, Nielsen TR, Peuhkuri R, Hagentoft CE, Rode C (2007). The international building physics toolbox in simulink. Energy and Buildings, 39: 665-674.
 
Kircher KJ, Zhang KM (2015). On the lumped capacitance approximation accuracy in RC network building models. Energy and Buildings, 108: 454-462.
 
Kirkpatrick J, Lee SK, Olive T, Batters H, Callaham J, Farquhar N, Pope L (1943). Complex heat transfer solved by electrical analogy. Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, 50: 111-113.
 
Lawson DI, McGuire JH (1953). The solution of transient heat-flow problems by analogous electrical networks. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 167: 275-290.
 
Luikov A (1966). Heat and Mass Transfer in Capillary-Porous Bodies. Oxford: Pergamon.
 
Mendes N, Winkelmann FC, Lamberts R, Philippi PC (2003). Moisture effects on conduction loads. Energy and Buildings, 35: 631-644.
 
Mendes N, Philippi PC (2005). A method for predicting heat and moisture transfer through multilayered walls based on temperature and moisture content gradients. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 48: 37-51.
 
Mendes N, Chhay M, Berger J, Dutykh D (2016). Numerical Methods for Diffusion Phenomena in Building Physics. Curitiba: PUC Press.
 
Naveros I, Ghiaus C (2015). Order selection of thermal models by frequency analysis of measurements for building energy efficiency estimation. Applied Energy, 139: 230-244.
 
Nayfeh AH (2000). Perturbation Methods. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
 
Peyret R (2002). Spectral Methods for Incompressible Viscous Flow. New York: Springer.
 
Reynders G, Diriken J, Saelens D (2014). Quality of grey-box models and identified parameters as function of the accuracy of input and observation signals. Energy and Buildings, 82: 263-274.
 
Robertson AF, Gross D (1958). An electrical-analog method for transient heat-flow analysis. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 61: 105.
 
Rode C, Grau K (2003). Whole Building Hygrothermal Simulation Model. ASHRAE Transactions, 109(1): 572-582.
 
Roels S, Bacher P, Bauwens G, Castaño S, Jiménez MJ, Madsen H (2017). On site characterisation of the overall heat loss coefficient: Comparison of different assessment methods by a blind validation exercise on a round robin test box. Energy and Buildings, 153: 179-189.
 
Shampine LF, Reichelt MW (1997). The MATLAB ODE Suite. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 18: 1-22.
 
Söderlind G, Wang L (2006). Evaluating numerical ODE/DAE methods, algorithms and software. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 185: 244-260.
 
Steeman HJ, van Belleghem M, Janssens A, de Paepe M (2009). Coupled simulation of heat and moisture transport in air and porous materials for the assessment of moisture related damage. Building and Environment, 44: 2176-2184.
 
Tariku F, Kumaran K, Fazio P (2010). Transient model for coupled heat, air and moisture transfer through multilayered porous media. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53: 3035-3044.
 
van Genuchten MT (1982). A comparison of numerical solutions of the one-dimensional unsaturated—saturated flow and mass transport equations. Advances in Water Resources, 5: 47-55.
 
Woloszyn M, Rode C (2008). Tools for performance simulation of heat, air and moisture conditions of whole buildings. Building Simulation, 1: 5-24.
 
Yang Z, Becerik-Gerber B (2015). A model calibration framework for simultaneous multi-level building energy simulation. Applied Energy, 149: 415-431.
Building Simulation
Pages 1-18
Cite this article:
Berger J, Gasparin S, Dutykh D, et al. On the comparison of three numerical methods applied to building simulation: Finite-differences, RC circuit approximation and a spectral method. Building Simulation, 2020, 13(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-019-0555-z

665

Views

12

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

15

Scopus

0

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 05 July 2018
Accepted: 06 May 2019
Published: 02 July 2019
© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
Return