Building Energy Performance Analysis: An Experimental Validation of an In-House Dynamic Simulation Tool through a Real Test Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the experimental validation of a building energy performance simulation tool by means of a comparative analysis between numerical results and measurements obtained on a real test room. The empirical tests were carried out for several months under variable weather conditions and in free-floating indoor temperature regime (switched off HVAC system). Measurements were exploited for validating an in-house simulation tool, implemented in MatLab and called DETECt, developed for dynamically assessing the energy performance of buildings. Results show that simulated indoor air and surface room temperatures resulted in very good agreement with the corresponding experimental data; the detected differences were often lower than 0.5 °C and almost always lower than 1 °C. Very low mean absolute and percentage errors were always achieved. In order to show the capabilities of the developed simulation tool, a suitable case study focused on innovative solar radiation high-reflective coatings, and infrared low-emissivity materials is also presented. The performance of these coatings and materials was investigated through a comparative analysis conducted to evaluate their heating and cooling energy saving potentials. Simulation results, obtained for the real test cell considered as equipped with such innovative coatings and material, show that for the weather zone of Naples a 5% saving is obtained both in summer and in winter by simultaneously adopting a high-reflectance coating and a low- emissivity plaster for roof/external walls and interior walls, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".