online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste ForewordThis is a publication of work that was almost completed in August 1983. Final publication was never completed at that time because of funding issues. There was, however, a limited distribution of the final draft to leading experts in the field, and the report has been referenced in a number of documents nationally and internationally. Since that time great strides have been made in computer hardware. It is now possible for a building design practitioner to run a full-blown simulation of building energy performance on a laptop computer, and there are literally hundreds of such computer programs throughout the world. Thus, there is renewed interest in the theory of how to validate building energy simulation programs. We have therefore cleaned up the few cosmetic edits that remained in the previous final draft and formally published it as NREL/TP-550-42059 (originally SERI/TR-254-1508). Although the simulation programs referred to in this report have long since been replaced by many subsequent versions of software, the underlying theory of how to validate, diagnose, and design good validation experiments has remained substantially unchanged since we first proposed this methodology.i Executive SummaryObjective To develop a validation methodology for building energy analysis simulations (BEAS), collect high-quality, unambiguous empirical data for validation, and apply the validation methodology to the DOE-2.1, BLAST-2MRT, BLAST-3.0, DEROB-3, DEROB-4, and SUNCAT 2.4 computer programs. DiscussionThis report covers background information, literature survey, validation methodology, comparative studies, analytical verification, empirical validation, comparative evaluation of codes, and conclusions. Section 1.0 establishes the historical context in which the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) studies evolved. The history of computerized building energy analysis is traced and the case is made that earlier methods do not contain algorithms that can accurately determine all heat flow quantities, especially for natural heating and cooling applications. These programs, though versatile for conventional buildings, are highly questionable for analyzing innovative design options. Newer state-of-the-art programs, such as DOE-2.I, BLAST-3.0, DEROB-4, and SUNCAT-2.4, have not yet been sufficiently validated over a wide enough range of parameters to be used with confidence. Researchers, representatives of the building industry, and several government-sponsored planning groups have expressed the need for a systematic approach to the validation issue. Section 2.0 reviews a sampling of the literature on the validation of building energy analysis simulations, which shows that previous validation studies left four areas needing further investigation:• Validation with empirical data from full-scale buildings: In previous studies there generally have not been sufficient data to understand observe...

Four building energy analysis codes are compared using two direct gain building models with Madison TMY weather data. Hourly temperature profiles and annual heating and cooling loads are compared and discussed. An analytic verification technique is described and used to investigate perfcrmance of the four codes. An anomaly is discovered in one of the codes, and the analytic verification technique is used to test a modified version of this code.

The Validation Test House at the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado, is being used to collect performance data for analysis/design tool validation as part of the DOE Passive Solar Class A Performance Evaluation Program. This site handbook describes in detail the construction, instrumentation, and test configuration of the building for use by passive solar analysis/design tool developers and researchers.

No abstract

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by t h e United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.