Article watch: Building Simulation vol 1 nr 3

Two articles from new new issue of Building Simulation sound particularly interesting:

Comparing computer run time of building simulation programs, by Tianzhen Hong, Fred Buhl, Philip Haves, Stephen Selkowitz and Michael Wetter.

This paper presents an approach for comparing the computer run time of building simulation programs. The computing run time of a simulation program depends on several key factors, including the calculation algorithm and modeling capabilities of the program, the run period, the simulation time step, the complexity of the energy models, the run control settings, and the software and hardware configurations of the computer used to run the simulation. To demonstrate this approach, we ran simulations for several representative DOE-2.1E and EnergyPlus energy models. We then compared and analyzed the computer run times of these energy models.

DeST—An integrated building simulation toolkit Part II: Applications, by Xiaoliang Zhang, Jianjun Xia, Ziyan Jiang, Jiyi Huang, Rong Qin, Ye Zhang, Ye Liu and Yi Jiang.

This is the companion paper of part I of DeST overview. DeST was developed as a building simulation tool with the aim of benefiting both design of and research on building energy efficiency. During its development, DeST has been applied to many projects, development of building regulations, and research. This paper gives examples of several areas in which DeST has been applied, including building design consultation, building commissioning, building energy conservation assessment, a building energy labeling system, and scientific research. Examples from a demonstration building are presented to demonstrate the entire process of aiding design with DeST. Additional projects and regulations are also mentioned to introduce other applications of DeST.

Journal of Building Performance Simulation – Volume 1 Issue 2 article watch

More papers directly relevant to the main topic of this blog:

Monitoring and modelling of manually-controlled Venetian blinds in private offices: a pilot study by Vorapat Inkarojrit

This study presents results from a window blind usage survey and field study that was conducted in California, USA during a period spanning from the vernal equinox to the winter solstice. A total of 113 office building occupants participated in the survey. Twenty-five occupants participated in the field study. In this study, 83 measurements of physical environmental conditions were cross-linked with participants’ window blind controlling preferences. A total of 13 predictive window blind control bivariate and multivariate logistic models were derived. As hypothesised, the probability of a window blind closing event increased as the magnitude of physical environmental and confounding factors increased (p < 0.01). The main predictors were window/background luminance level and vertical solar radiation at the window. The confounding factors included MRT, direct solar penetration and participants’ self-reported sensitivity to brightness. The results showed that the models correctly predict between 72-89% of the observed window blind control behaviour. This research extends the knowledge of how and why building occupants manually control window blinds in private offices, and provides results that can be directly implemented in energy simulation programs.

Article watch: Building and Environment, December 2008

The following papers from Building and Environment Volume 43, Issue 12, December 2008 are relevant to the field of building automation and simulation.

Photometry and colorimetry characterisation of materials in daylighting evaluation tools by M. Bodart, R. de Penaranda, A. Deneyer, G. Flamant.

This paper presents a methodology for evaluating the photometric and colorimetric characteristics of internal building materials, for daylight evaluation. The assessment of these characteristics is crucial both for modelling materials accurately in daylight simulation tools and for building correct daylight mock-ups. The essential photometric and colorimetric parameters that influence the reflection of light from and its transmission through building materials are identified and described. Several methods for evaluating these parameters qualitatively and quantitatively are then proposed and discussed. Our new methodology was fused to create a database of materials in a freely accessible web tool which compares full-size materials to scale-model materials in order to help architects and lighting designers choose materials for building daylight scale models.

On the behaviour and adaptation of office occupants by Frederic Haldi, Darren Robinson.

During the warm summer of 2006 a comprehensive longitudinal field survey of the adaptive actions of occupants, their thermal satisfaction and the coincident environmental conditions was conducted in eight Swiss office buildings. We have applied logistic regression techniques to these results to predict the probability of occupants’ actions to adapt both personal (clothing, activity and drinking) and environmental (windows, doors, fans and blinds) characteristics. We have also identified, for each type of control action exercised, the increases in temperature at which thermal sensation votes are reported. These “empirical adaptive increments” have also been defined for combinations of control action. In this paper we present the field survey methodology as well as the results relating to the above, which we discuss along with scope for further related work.

Minimisation of life cycle cost of a detached house using combined simulation and optimisation by Ala Hasan, Mika Vuolle, Kai Siren.

In the current study, minimisation of life cycle cost (LCC) for a single family detached house is achieved by combined simulation and optimisation. The house has a typical Finnish construction with initial U-values in accordance with the Finnish National Building Code C3 of 2003. The implemented approach is coupling the IDA ICE 3.0 building performance simulation program with the GenOpt 2.0 generic optimisation program to find optimised values of five selected design variables in the building construction and HVAC system. These variables are three continuous variables (insulation thickness of the external wall, roof and floor) and two discrete variables (U-value of the windows and type of heat recovery).

This investigation shows the advantages gained from the implemented approach of combining simulation and optimisation. The solution suggests lowering the U- values for the external wall, roof, floor and the window from their initial values. The exact values of the optimised design variables depend on the set up of the LCC data for each case. Reduction of 23–49% in the space heating energy for the optimised house is obtained compared with the reference case. Verification of the GenOpt results is made by comparison with results from a brute-force search method, which indicates that GenOpt has found, or has come very close to, the global minimum in the current study.

Modeling sky luminance using satellite data to classify sky conditions by S. Janjaia, I. Masiria, M. Nunezb, J. Laksanaboonsong.

Many traditional models of vegetation canopy reflectance have commonly used one of two approaches. Either the canopy is assumed to consist of discrete objects of known reflectance and geometric-optics are then used to calculate shading effects, or, as in the turbid medium approach, the canopy is treated as a horizontally homogeneous layer of small elements of known optical properties and radiative transfer theory is used to calculate canopy reflectance. This paper examines the effect of solar zenith angle on the reflectance of red and near-infrared radiation from forests using a combination of these modelling approaches. Forests are first modelled as randomly spaced eucalypt crowns over a homogeneous understorey and the fractional coverage of four components: shaded and sunlit canopy and shaded and sunlit understorey are calculated. Reflectance from each fraction is then modelled for a range of solar zenith angles using the Verhoef SAIL model. The overall scene reflection as seen by a nadir viewing satellite sensor is compared for three forest types representing a gradient of crown density from open dry grassy woodlands to dense wetter closed forest with an understorey of mesophytic plants. Modelled trends in scene reflectance change are consistent with aircraft measurements carried out at three different solar zenith angles. Results indicate that an increase in both tree density and solar zenith angle leads to an increase in the dominance of shaded components. In the visible band, both the sparsely treed woodland and the medium density dry forest show similar trends to that predicted by a turbid medium model, however, the wet forest shows a less rapid decrease in reflectance with solar zenith angle. In the near-infrared band, as tree density increases from woodland to wet forest, overall scene reflectance shows increased departure from that modelled using the traditional assumption of smooth homogeneous canopies, changing from an increase with solar zenith angle for the woodland to a decrease with solar zenith angle for the forest types.

Trends in Smart Buildings Meeting, August 2008

Four people again attended this second meeting, the purpose of which is to share information among people interested in home and building automation. As previously, here are photos of the group’s collective memory along with my comments.

20080804_1837

Fred told us first about a conference he had attended, organized and hosted by the Demontfort University in Leicester, England. The main subject of the conference was mainly user comfort, but according to Fred there’s a certain Cooper (or Copper, sorry if I got this wrong) who’s doing fairly detailed CFD simulations coupled with state-of-the-art thermal comfort models.

Friedrich, who joined us for the first time, told us about his research. He’s working on the non-visual aspects of indoor lighting, and on the important topic of spectral control on indoor lighting. I.e., he’s investigating whether “cold” fluorescent lights could have an impact on people’s feeling of well-being.

LESO has obviously been busy while I was away, as I learned that their sky scanner was being used again. It’s a highly reflective spherical mirror, laid flat on LESO’s roof, and a digital camera takes pictures of it from above. The mirror reflects the whole sky vault, so a computer that analyzes these pictures can then measure the sky luminance distribution. The sky can then be classified according to the standard CIE skies. (One ambition of LESO is to construct a catalog of representative skies for Lausanne, such as already exist for certain major cities.)

Friedrich is also using a head-mounted illuminance sensor that’s sensitive to the spectral quality of its incoming light. With this device, as I understood it, you can measure over a full day the quality of the eye-level light a person receives.

Very exciting work, I must say. I’m looking forward to seeing published papers.

20080804_1838

The (non-invasive) automatic data acquisition on an inhabited building has always been a strong point of LESO. I’ve been myself somewhat involved in that effort, and one of my great regrets was not having had the time to work on a canonical data format for data recorded on a building. I personally believe there’s a need for this, because it is at the moment impossible for separate research groups to share their data without a major translation effort. It would have benefits for industry too, in the same way that a standard XML format for business activities helps the integration of legacy systems.

Someone raised a very interesting question at this point, the gist of which was “What’s wrong with Excel files?”. I have ranted against the use of Excel in academia before, but to these arguments I would add the following.

Scientific data in our field is almost always structured (i.e., not tree-like nor with arbitrary fields for each data item). So how you store your data boils essentially down to a flat file, a relational database (RDB), or a proprietary program (Excel being the obvious example, but Matlab or Igor Pro are others).

I dislike proprietary program being used in scientific work on the principle that any such work must be repeatable and verifiable. This is by definition impossible with a proprietary program whose source code nobody can inspect, and whose license costs might be a barrier.

Flat files or RDB are my own, humble, personal preference, with a slight bias towards RDBs for any long-running measurement campaign that can yield thousands or millions (as for LESO) datapoints. Flat files are the format of choice for analysis, since they can be freely shared among co-workers and colleagues and even published along with their peer-reviewed article.

20080804_1839

Finally we talked about SUNtool, a simulation package to which LESO has contributed in the past but which has been plagued with difficulties. It appears that one commercial partner of that project has withdrawn its support, preventing the other partners from using their code. One ambition of LESO is now to start more-or-less from scratch and to develop a more open version of that tool.

That concluded our meeting, the next installment of which is tentatively scheduled for Moday September 1st.

Computing sustainability and building automation

The energy demand of computers—including PCs, peripherals, and corporate data centers—produced about 830 million tons of CO2 in 2007, according to a report by the the Global eSustainability Initiative (GeSI), a group of technology firms interested in the potential impact of information and communication technologies on climate change. But they can also help us save energy—the question has always been how, and how much.

The June 21st issue of The Economist comments on this report, summarizing the areas in which computers can help us achieve CO2 savings. The savings estimated in gigatonnes for 2020 are as follows:

  1. Smart grid: 2.03
  2. Smart buildings: 1.68
  3. Smart logistics: 1.52
  4. Smart motors and industrial processes: 0.97
  5. Transport optimisation: 0.60
  6. Teleworking: 0.22
  7. Videoconferencing: 0.14

Notice that smart buildings occupy the number two spot. Enabling buildings that switch off heating and ventilation when nobody is around will, according to the report, reduce our emissions by more than 1.6 billion tons of CO2. Smart buildings had always been touted as an effective CO2 emission reducer, but this is as far as I know the first time a concrete figure is given for those savings. The total emissions from ICT by 2020 is estimated at 1.4 gigatonnes, or one-fifth of the total savings (7.8 gigatonnes).

One should, of course, be extremely suspicious of such data. I have not read the report itself and can’t comment on the methods used to derive these figures. But even if the absolute numbers are wrong, it is encouraging to see that smart buildings are estimated to contribute 20% of all CO2 savings from ICTs by 2020.

Trends in Smart Buildings Meeting, July 2008

On 4 July 2008 we held at LESO-PB the first of (hopefully) a series of meetings for people interested in home/building automation. The idea is to give people of widely different backgrounds a venue, time and opportunity to share, discuss and explore new ideas.

It was my pleasure to facilitate this meeting and although I did not hold any minutes, you can find here pictures of the notes I took during the meeting.

20080704_1819

We started with introductions. It was great to have people from industry, academia and just plain hobbyists (like yours truly) interested in this subject. One thing we agreed on quite early was to discriminate between building automation (BA) and home automation (HA). BA will typically use completely different hardware and control algorithms than HA, so when a distinction needs to be made we agreed that HA is a subset of BA.

We started the discussion with two questions. 1) What is the state of BA today and 2) What is the role of building simulation in BA.

20080704_1820

David started by telling us about the preliminary research he’s been doing for his PhD work at EPFL. He’s looking for building simulation software that would be modular enough to easily allow testing of different algorithms. This problem was similar to one I’d been working on during my own PhD so we talked a bit about the software I had used, SIMBAD, and in particular how it had been extended with Java/RMI to allow remote processes to connect to it.

20080704_1821

One thing that Antoine stressed was the importance of building simulations for BA designers. The nature of the problem makes it impossible to run tests of control algorithms on real, occupied buildings and to get feedback in a timely manner. And the results would need to be compared to some base case anyway.

20080704_1822

We talked a lot about the academic efforts in building simulation, especially the need for a good model of the users’ behaviour. The fact is that modern simulation packages do not have a good user model, and it is very difficult to estimate the errors being made on energy demand predictions.

On the other hand, it was very unclear whether such user models could be directly used by BA systems to anticipate user actions. Users usually act after some discomfort threshold has been exceeded, but any BA system should try to act before.

20080704_1823

We briefly reviewed the user behaviour models that LESO had been working on for the past years, most notably Jessen’s occupancy model (the subject of his PhD thesis) and Fred’s window opening model.

20080704_1824

Someone mentioned a research group in Zurich. I’m not 100% positive about this but I think this could be the group of Prof. Morari, with whom I had had a brief email exchange a couple of years ago.

Antoine stressed again the importance of reliability in BA systems. The reliability issue brought up a discussion on centralized vs distributed control systems.

20080704_1825

We were shortly running out of time, so I asked the audience their recommendations for academic or trade publications of interest to BA. We concluded the meeting by regretting the lack of real innovation in BA, both academic and industrial, and observed that the big challenge facing building simulation today was the modelling of human factors and the urban environment.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and see you next time!

Interview: Jessen Page

You are a model of predictability. You come to your office every day of the week at 8 am sharp, never one minute late. You take no breaks until noon, when you instantly disappear from your building. At 2 pm you rematerialize in your office, where you work until 6 pm. You take weekends off, and perhaps some other holidays. While in the office, you sit perfectly still and have your computer switched on. The heat generated from your body and your computer are flat constants, and the only difference between you and a radiator is the odor that slowly builds up in the office while you are there. This is your life, day after day, kWh after kWh, pol after pol (the unit of air pollution).

Hardly flattering, but this is the assumption most building simulation software packages make about you. Your presence, your activities in your home or your office contribute to the heat load and affect the air quality in the building, so no serious simulation software could afford to ignore your presence. Building simulationists therefore represent you as the dummy described above.

Anyone alive would find it hard to recognize themselves in this computer model, and that’s where Jessen Page steps in. A PhD candidate at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Jessen develops more accurate mathematical models of our behaviour in buildings that will one day replace deterministic ones.

Jessen was hired by the Solar Energy and Building Physics Laboratory (LESO-PB) in 2002, the same year he graduated from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Although his graduate work was in theoretical physics, he wanted to work on problems of sustainable development, and on solar energy—his lifelong interest since childhood—in particular. The LESO-PB was at that time involved in the SUNtool project, a new software package that would simulate the energy and materials flows of whole urban neighbourhoods.

The SUNtool developers did not want to use deterministic or profile-based behavioural models, and asked LESO-PB to develop behavioural models that would reproduce the most important characteristics with respect to the occupant’s impact on the building. Jessen’s doctoral thesis is about the use of so-called stochastic behavioural models, i.e. models whose state at time t is randomly determined.

Jessen’s work will introduce more realism in building simulation programs and help them make better predictions of urban energy demands and flows of materials. Surprisingly, Jessen says that the impetus behind his work came not from practitioners or architects but more from academics.

I am therefore particularly pleased to be the first to announce on the Web that Jessen Page has succesfully defended his PhD thesis last August in front of a private jury, and will give his public defense shortly.

OptiControl project website

Recently I got this email from Dr. Dimitrios Gyalistras of ETH Zurich:

I would like to draw your attention to the newly launched website of the project Use of Weather and Occupancy Forecasts for Optimal Building Climate Control (OptiControl):

http://www.sysecol.ethz.ch/OptiControl/

OptiControl is a collaborative effort by the ETH Zurich, EMPA Dübendorf, MeteoSwiss and Siemens Building Technologies. The project is sponsored by “swisselectric research”, the ETH Domain’s “Competence Center Energy and Mobility” and Siemens Building Technologies.

I hope that the website will be of interest to you. Its contents will be updated regularly to reflect the project’s results and the newest literature in the field of predictive building climate control.

Eye movement tracking of office workers

Our laboratory hosted this morning a seminar given by Sylvia Hubalek, of the Environmental Ergonomics department of the Center for Organisational and Occupational Sciences in Zurich, Switzerland. She reported on work done by herself monitoring illuminance levels at the eye and tracking eye movements as a function of type of activity and light environment.

The data she gathers could help understand how feelings of well-being and alertness correlate with the amount of light we get during the day. Her methodology and equipement can also be used to understand what prompts people to switch their lights on/off, or raise/lower their blinds.

I learned about Sylvia’s work in September of this year at the LuxEuropa 2005 conference in Berlin. The head of our laboratory had been suggesting for some months that we try to set up an experiment where people would wear some equipment that would record their visual field somehow, and I had always dismissed the idea as too difficult to set up, and especially too difficult to find volunteers for.

Well here came Sylvia and proved me all wrong. Her contribution to the conference can be found here. She fits volunteers with equipment and records data for entire days.

It is too early for her to announce some specific findings, but what she does have is a substantial amount of data waiting to be analyzed. Results should be forthcoming in the next year.

We have in our lab some experience with monitoring people’s behaviour with respect to their visual environment, and a natural collaboration between Sylvia’s institute and ours would be to record data with her equipment while we monitor the subject’s acivities. This will help us achieve a much better understanding of what constitutes visual comfort and discomfort, and will also help us develop better automatic daylight controllers.