Semi-stationary and dynamic simulation models: A critical comparison of the energy and economic savings for the energy refurbishment of buildings

Abstract

Dynamic simulation is a powerful tool for accurately evaluating the thermal demands of buildings and assessing the impact of energy refurbishment actions on their final consumption. Conversely, semi-stationary models are widely adopted in commercial applications for its simplified approach, which reduce calculation times, resulting in standardized results showing a certain deviation with respect to the real energy This paper presents the energy and economic comparison between the dynamic simulation and semi-stationary approaches for the calculation of primary energy demand of residential buildings. The semi-stationary method, used by the legislation to calculate the buildings energy label, is based on an energy performance parameter, not representative of the real energy demand. Conversely, an approach based on dynamic simulation provides a more reliable estimation of the primary energy demand. The main novelty of this paper is to numerically prove that the energy and economic savings calculated by means of software based on the current legislation may be overestimated. In this work, the dynamic simulation of the building-plant system is performed by TRaNsient SYstem Simulation (TRNSYS) program. Each building apartment is divided in thermal zones, where the internal heat gains are defined in detail. The semi-stationary simulation of the building-plant system is performed according to the Italian standard UNI TS 11300. The models allow one to evaluate the yearly primary energy demand, along with the energy bill and CO2 emissions. A specific case study is developed for a residential building located in Naples (Italy). The models are used to calculate the building energy demand for several scenarios, considering different thermal transmittances of the building elements. The results show that the semi-stationary method overestimates of primary energy saving, equal to 64.7 %, with respect to the one calculated with the dynamic approach, equal to 43.2 %.