0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

3 visualizzazioni14 pagineDec 13, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

3 visualizzazioni

© All Rights Reserved

- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- The Hormone Reset Diet: The 21-day Diet That Resets Your Metabolism
- Bloody Sunday: A Thriller
- WomanCode: Perfect Your Cycle, Amplify Your Fertility, Supercharge Your Sex Drive, and Become a Power Source
- The Final Day: A John Matherson Novel
- Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
- Vermilion Drift: A Novel
- King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself (with bonus article "How Will You Measure Your Life?" by Clayton M. Christensen)
- Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America
- The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope
- Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World's Worst Nuclear Disaster
- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- Multipliers, Revised and Updated: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter
- Free to Focus: A Total Productivity System to Achieve More by Doing Less
- Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima
- The Making of the Atomic Bomb
- The Power of Full Engagement: Managing Energy, Not Time, is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal
- The Subtle Body: An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy
- Lost in the Solar System

Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

irradiance on inclined surfaces for building energy simulation

a,b,*

P.G. Loutzenhiser , H. Manz a, C. Felsmann c, P.A. Strachan d,

T. Frank a, G.M. Maxwell b

a

Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Laboratory for Applied Physics in Buildings,

CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland

b

Iowa State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ames, IA 50011, USA

c

Technical University of Dresden, Institute of Thermodynamics and Building Systems Engineering, D-01062 Dresden, Germany

d

University of Strathclyde, Department of Mechanical Engineering, ESRU, Glasgow G1 1XJ, Scotland, UK

Received 27 July 2005; received in revised form 28 February 2006; accepted 3 March 2006

Available online 12 May 2006

Abstract

Accurately computing solar irradiance on external facades is a prerequisite for reliably predicting thermal behavior and cooling loads

of buildings. Validation of radiation models and algorithms implemented in building energy simulation codes is an essential endeavor for

evaluating solar gain models. Seven solar radiation models implemented in four building energy simulation codes were investigated: (1)

isotropic sky, (2) Klucher, (3) HayDavies, (4) Reindl, (5) Muneer, (6) 1987 Perez, and (7) 1990 Perez models. The building energy sim-

ulation codes included: EnergyPlus, DOE-2.1E, TRNSYS-TUD, and ESP-r. Solar radiation data from two 25 days periods in October

and March/April, which included diverse atmospheric conditions and solar altitudes, measured on the EMPA campus in a suburban area

in Duebendorf, Switzerland, were used for validation purposes. Two of the three measured components of solar irradiances global

horizontal, diuse horizontal and direct-normal were used as inputs for calculating global irradiance on a south-west facade. Numerous

statistical parameters were employed to analyze hourly measured and predicted global vertical irradiances. Mean absolute dierences for

both periods were found to be: (1) 13.7% and 14.9% for the isotropic sky model, (2) 9.1% for the HayDavies model, (3) 9.4% for the

Reindl model, (4) 7.6% for the Muneer model, (5) 13.2% for the Klucher model, (6) 9.0%, 7.7%, 6.6%, and 7.1% for the 1990 Perez mod-

els, and (7) 7.9% for the 1987 Perez model. Detailed sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo and tted eects for N-way factorial analyses

were applied to assess how uncertainties in input parameters propagated through one of the building energy simulation codes and

impacted the output parameter. The implications of deviations in computed solar irradiances on predicted thermal behavior and cooling

load of buildings are discussed.

2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solar radiation models; Empirical validation; Building energy simulation; Uncertainty analysis

1. Introduction

increasingly on building energy simulation codes to design

*

more energy-ecient buildings. One of the common traits

Corresponding author. Address: Swiss Federal Laboratories for found in new commercial buildings across Europe and

Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Laboratory for Applied Physics

in Buildings, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 823 43 78;

the United States is construction with large glazed facades.

fax: +41 44 823 40 09. Accurate modeling of the impact of solar gains through

E-mail address: peter.loutzenhiser@empa.ch (P.G. Loutzenhiser). glazing is imperative especially when simulating the

0038-092X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.solener.2006.03.009

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 255

Nomenclature

B radiation distribution index, ent levels of input parameters,

a, b terms that account for the incident angle on the m relative optical air mass,

sloped surface, OU overall uncertainty at each hour for the experi-

D hourly dierence between experimental and pre- ment and EnergyPlus for 95% credible limits,

dicted values for a given array, W/m2 W/m2

Dmax maximum dierence between experimental and OU average overall uncertainty calculated for 95%

predicted values for a given array, W/m2 credible limits, W/m2

Dmin minimum dierence between experimental and s sample standard deviation, W/m2

predicted values for a given array, W/m2 Rb variable geometric factor which is a ratio of

Drms root mean squared dierence between experi- tilted and horizontal solar beam irradiance

mental and predicted values for a given array, u is the individual or combined eects from the n-

W/m2 factorial study, W/m2

D95% ninety-fth percentile of the dierences between TF tilt factor,

experimental and predicted values for a given UR computed uncertainty ratio at each hour for

array, W/m2 comparing overall performance of a given

d estimated error quantity provided by the manu- model,

facturer, units vary UR average uncertainty ratio,

F1 circumsolar coecient, URmax maximum uncertainty ratio,

F2 brightness coecient, URmin minimum uncertainty ratio,

F0 clearness index, x arithmetic mean for a given array of data, W/m2

f11, f12, f13, f21, f22, f23 statistically derived coecients xmin minimum quantity for a given array of data,

derived from empirical data for specic loca- W/m2

tions as a function of e, xmax maximum quantity for a given array of data,

Ibn direct-normal solar irradiance, W/m2 W/m2

Ih global horizontal solar irradiance, W/m2

Ih,b direct-normal component of solar irradiance on Greek symbols

the horizontal surface, W/m2 a absorptance, %

Ih,d global diuse horizontal solar irradiance, W/m2 an normal absorptance, %

Ion direct extraterrestrial normal irradiance, W/m2 as solar altitude angle,

IT solar irradiance on the tilted surface, W/m2 b surface tilt angle from horizon,

IT,b direct-normal (beam) component of solar irradi- D sky condition parameter for brightness,

ance on the tilted surface, W/m2 e sky condition parameter for clearness,

IT,d diuse component of solar irradiance on the /b building azimuth,

tilted surface, W/m2 h incident angle of the surface,

IT,d,iso isotropic diuse component of solar irradiance hz zenith angle,

on the tilted surface, W/m2 n input parameter n-way factorial, units vary

IT,d,cs circumsolar diuse component of solar irradi- q hemispherical-hemispherical ground reec-

ance on the tilted surface, W/m2 tance,

IT,d,hb horizontal brightening diuse component of so- r standard deviation n-way factorial, units vary

lar irradiance on the tilted surface, W/m2

IT,d,g reected ground diuse component of solar irra-

diance on the tilted surface, W/m2

thermal behavior of these buildings. Empirical validations posed some of which have been implemented in

of solar gain models are therefore an important and neces- building energy simulation codes which include isotropic

sary endeavor to provide condence to developers and models (Hottel and Woertz, 1942 as cited by Due and

modelers that their respective algorithms simulate reality. Beckman, 1991; Liu and Jordan, 1960; Badescu, 2002),

A preliminary step in assessing the performance of the anisotropic models (Perez et al., 1990, 1986; Gueymard,

solar gain models is to examine and empirically validate 1987; Robledo and Soler, 2002; Li et al., 2002; Olmo

models that compute irradiance on exterior surfaces. Vari- et al., 1999; Klucher, 1979; Muneer, 1997) and models

ous radiation models for inclined surfaces have been pro- for a clear sky (Robledo and Soler, 2002). Comparisons

256 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

and modications to these models and their applications to eters-direct-normal, diuse and horizontal global solar

specic regions in the world have also been undertaken irradiance as well as ground reectance and surface azi-

(Behr, 1997; Remund et al., 1998). muth angle-propagated through radiation calculation algo-

In all empirical validations, accounting for uncertainties rithms and impacted the global vertical irradiance

in the experiment and input parameters is paramount. Sen- calculation. Sensitivity analyses were performed using both

sitivity analysis is a well-established technique in computer the Monte Carlo analysis (MCA) and tted eects for

simulations (Saltelli et al., 2004; Saltelli et al., 2000; Sant- N-way factorials.

ner et al., 2003) and has been implemented in building

energy simulation codes (Macdonald and Strachan, 2001) 2. Solar radiation models

and empirical validations (Mara et al., 2001; Aude et al.,

2000; Furbringer and Roulet, 1999; Furbringer and Roulet, Total solar irradiance on a tilted surface can be divided

1995; Lomas and Eppel, 1992) for many years. A thorough into two components: (1) the beam component from direct

methodology for sensitivity analysis for calculations, corre- irradiation of the tilted surface and (2) the diuse compo-

lation analysis, principle component analysis, and imple- nent. The sum of these components equates to the total

mentation in the framework of empirical validations in irradiance on the tilted surface and is described in Eq. (1).

IEA-SHC Task 22 are described by Palomo del Barrio

and Guyon (2003, 2004). I T I T;b I T;d 1

In the context of the International Energy Agencys

Studies of clear skies have led to a description of the dif-

(IEA) SHC Task 34/ECBCS Annex 43 Subtask C, a series

fuse component being composed of an isotropic diuse

of empirical validations is being performed in a test cell to

component IT,d,iso (uniform irradiance from the sky dome),

assess the accuracy of solar gain models in building energy

circumsolar diuse component IT,d,cs (resulting from the

simulation codes with/without shading devices and frames.

forward scattering of solar radiation and concentrated in

A thorough description of the proposed suite of experi-

an area close to the sun), horizon brightening component

ments, description of the cell, rigorous evaluation of the

IT,d,hb (concentrated in a band near the horizon and most

cell thermophysical properties and thermal bridges, and a

pronounced in clear skies), and a reected component that

methodology for examining results are reported by Manz

quanties the radiation reected from the ground to the

et al. (in press).

tilted surface IT,d,g. A more complete version of Eq. (1)

In virtually all building energy simulation applications,

containing all diuse components is given in Eq. (2).

solar radiation must be calculated on tilted surfaces. These

calculations are driven by solar irradiation inputs or appro- I T I T;b I T;d;iso I T;d;cs I T;d;hb I T;d;g 2

priate correction factors and clear sky models. While the

horizontal irradiation is virtually always measured, mea- For a given location (longitude, latitude) at any given

suring of direct-normal and/or diuse irradiance adds an time of the year (date, time) the solar azimuth and altitude

additional level of accuracy (Note: In the absence of the can be determined applying geometrical relationships.

latter two parameters, models have to be used to split glo- Therefore, the incidence angle of beam radiation on a tilted

bal irradiation into direct and diuse). surface can be computed. The models described in this

The purpose of this work is to validate seven solar radi- paper all handle beam radiation in this way so the major

ation models on tilted surfaces that are implemented in modeling dierences are calculations of the diuse radia-

widely used building energy simulation codes including: tion. An overview of solar radiation modeling used for

EnergyPlus (2005), DOE-2.1E (2002), ESP-r (2005), and thermal engineering is provided in numerous textbooks

TRNSYS-TUD (2005). The seven models examined including Due and Beckman (1991) and Muneer (1997).

include: Solar radiation models with dierent complexity which

are widely implemented in building energy simulation

Isotropic sky (Hottel and Woertz, 1942 as cited by Duf- codes will be briey described in the following sections.

e and Beckman, 1991).

Klucher (1979). 2.1. Isotropic sky model

Hay and Davies (1980).

Reindl (1990). The isotropic sky model (Hottel and Woertz, 1942 as

Muneer (1997). cited by Due and Beckman, 1991; Liu and Jordan,

Perez et al. (1987). 1960) is the simplest model that assumes all diuse radia-

Perez et al. (1990). tion is uniformly distributed over the sky dome and that

reection on the ground is diuse. For surfaces tilted by

Two of three measured irradiance components were an angle b from the horizontal plane, total solar irradiance

used in each simulation and predictions of global vertical can be written as shown in Eq. (3).

irradiance on a facade oriented 29 West of South were

compared with measurements. Particular emphasis was 1 cos b 1 cos b

I T I h;b Rb I h;d I hq 3

placed on quantifying how uncertainty in the input param- 2 2

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 257

Circumsolar and horizon brightening parts (Eq. (2)) are irradiance on a tilted surface can then be calculated using

assumed to be zero. Eq. (8).

1 cos b

2.2. Klucher model I T I h;b I h;d ARb I h;d 1 A

2

r

Klucher (1979) found that the isotopic model gave good I h;b 3 b 1 cos b

1 sin I hq 8

results for overcast skies but underestimates irradiance Ih 2 2

under clear and partly overcast conditions, when there is

increased intensity near the horizon and in the circumsolar Reection on the ground is again dealt with like the iso-

region of the sky. The model developed by Klucher gives tropic model. Due to the additional term in Eq. (8) repre-

the total irradiation on a tilted plane shown in Eq. (4). senting horizon brightening, the Reindl model provides

slightly higher diuse irradiances than the HayDavies

1 cos b 0 3 b

I T I h;b Rb I h;d 1 F sin model.

2 2

0 2 3 1 cos b 2.5. Muneer model

1 F cos h sin hz I h q 4

2

F 0 is a clearness index given by Eq. (5). Muneers model is summarized by Muneer (1997). In

2 this model the shaded and sunlit surfaces are treated sepa-

I h;d rately, as are overcast and non-overcast conditions of the

F0 1 5

Ih sunlit surface. A tilt factor TF representing the ratio of

the slope background diuse irradiance to the horizontal

The rst of the modifying factors in the sky diuse com-

diuse irradiance is calculated from Eq. (9).

ponent takes into account horizon brightening; the second

takes into account the eect of circumsolar radiation.

1 cos b 2B

Under overcast skies, the clearness index F 0 becomes zero TF

2 p3 2B

and the model reduces to the isotropic model.

b

sin b b cos b p sin2 9

2.3. HayDavies model 2

In the HayDavies model, diuse radiation from the sky For surfaces in shade and sunlit surfaces under overcast

is composed of an isotropic and circumsolar component sky conditions, the total radiation on a tilted plane is given

(Hay and Davies, 1980) and horizon brightening is not in Eq. (10).

taken into account. The anisotropy index A dened in

Eq. (6) represents the transmittance through atmosphere 1 cos b

I T I h;b Rb I h;d T F I h q 10

for beam radiation. 2

I bn

A 6 Sunlit surfaces under non-overcast sky conditions can be

I on

calculated using Eq. (11).

The anisotropy index is used to quantify a portion of the

1 cos b

diuse radiation treated as circumsolar with the remaining I T I h;b Rb I h;d T F 1 A ARb I h q

portion of diuse radiation assumed isotropic. The circum- 2

solar component is assumed to be from the suns position. 11

The total irradiance is then computed in Eq. (7). The values of the radiation distribution index B depend

1 cos b on the particular sky and azimuthal conditions, and the

I T I h;b I h;d ARb I h;d 1 A location. For European locations, Muneer recommends

2

xed values for the cases of shaded surfaces and sun-facing

1 cos b

I hq 7 surfaces under an overcast sky, and a function of the aniso-

2

tropic index for non-overcast skies.

Reection from the ground is dealt with like in the iso-

tropic model. 2.6. Perez model

2.4. Reindl model Compared with the other models described, the Perez

model is more computationally intensive and represents a

In addition to isotropic diuse and circumsolar radia- more detailed analysis of the isotropic diuse, circumsolar

tion, the Reindl model also accounts for horizon brighten- and horizon brightening radiation by using empirically

ing (Reindl et al., 1990a,b) and employs the same denition derived coecients (Perez et al., 1990). The total irradiance

of the anisotropy index A as described in Eq. (6). The total on a tilted surface is given by Eq. (12).

258 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

1 cos b

I T I h;b Rb I h;d 1 F 1

2

a 1 cos b

F 1 F 2 sin b I h q 12

b 2

Here, F1 and F2 are circumsolar and horizon brightness

coecients, respectively, and a and b are terms that take

the incidence angle of the sun on the considered slope into

account. The terms a and b are computed using Eqs. (13)

and (14), respectively.

a max0 ; cos h 13

b maxcos 85 ; cos hz 14

The brightness coecients F1 and F2 depend on the sky

condition parameters clearness e and brightness D. These

factors are dened in Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively.

Fig. 2. Pyrheliometer for measuring direct-normal and shaded pyranom-

I h;d I n eter for measuring diuse horizontal solar irradiance are positioned on the

I h;d

5:535 106 h3z

e 15 roof of the facility.

1 5:535 106 h3z

I h;d

Dm 16 elevation of 430 m above sea level). Fig. 1 shows the facility

I on which was designed to measure solar gains of transparent

F1 and F2 are then computed in Eqs. (17) and (18), facade components; a detailed description of the facility

respectively. is provided by Manz et al. (in press). For this study, only

the pyranometers and the pyrheliometer at the facility were

phz used (Figs. 1 and 2). For the diuse measurements, a shad-

F 1 max 0; f11 f12 D f13 17

180 ing disk was mounted in front of the pyranometer with the

phz same solid angle as the pyrheliometer that blocked out the

F 2 f21 f22 D f23 18

180 beam irradiance component (Fig. 2). In order to evaluate

The coecients f11, f12, f13, f21, f22, and f23 were derived the robustness of various radiation models, two 25 day

based on a statistical analysis of empirical data for specic periods were studied to compare predicted irradiance on

locations. Two dierent sets of coecients were derived for the tilted facade with measured data that were recorded

this model (Perez et al., 1990; Perez et al., 1987). by a pyranometer mounted on the vertical surface (29

West of South) of the test cell. The dates of the rst and

second periods were October 2 to October 26, 2004 and

3. Facility and measurements

March 22 to April 16, 2005, respectively. Both periods

include a range of dierent atmospheric conditions and

3.1. Test site and setup

solar positions. The solar radiation data were acquired

for 600 h for each period.

The solar radiation measurements were performed on

the EMPA campus located in Duebendorf, Switzerland

3.2. Solar irradiance

(Longitude 836 0 5500 East, Latitude 4724 0 1200 North at an

Table 1 indicates measured parameters, type of instru-

ment used and accuracies of sensors specied by the man-

ufacturers. To verify the accuracy of the instrumentation,

the global horizontal irradiance can be calculated using

solar position and direct-normal and horizontal diuse

irradiance shown in Eq. (19).

I h I b;n sin as I h;d 19

The dierences between global horizontal irradiance

measured and computed based on direct-normal (beam)

and horizontal diuse irradiance were analyzed. Using

the experimental uncertainties described in Table 1, 95%

credible limits were calculated for the measured global hor-

Fig. 1. Test cells with pyranometers visible in the central part of the izontal irradiance using manufacturers error and for the

picture and green articial turf installed in front of the test cell. computed global irradiance using propagation of error

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 259

Table 1

Instruments used for measuring solar irradiance

Parameter Unit Type of sensor/measurement Number of Accuracy

sensors

Solar global irradiance, W/m2 Pyranometer (Kipp & Zonen CM 21) 1 2% of reading

facade plane (29 W of S)

Solar global horizontal irradiance W/m2 Pyranometer (Kipp & Zonen CM 21) 1 2% of reading

Solar diuse horizontal irradiance W/m2 Pyranometer, mounted under the shading disc 1 3% of reading

of a tracker (Kipp & Zonen CM 11)

Direct-normal irradiance W/m2 Pyrheliometer, mounted in an automatic 1 2% of reading

sun-following tracker(Kipp & Zonen CH 1)

butions (Glesner, 1998). From these comparisons, the y = 0.9665x + 0.6466

700 R2 = 0.9985

95% credible limits from the calculated and measured glo-

bal horizontal irradiance for Periods 1 and 2 were found to 600

calculations were only performed when the sun was up

400

(as > 0). Careful examination of these results reveals that

the discrepancies occurred when the solar altitude angles 300

and irradiance were small or the solar irradiance were very 200

large (especially for Period 2). Linear regression analysis

100

was used to compare the computed global irradiance using

measured beam and diuse irradiances and measured glo- 0

0 200 400 600 800

bal irradiances. The results from this analysis are shown Measured global horizontal irradiance, W/m2

for Periods 1 and 2 in Figs. 3a and 3b, respectively. The dif-

Fig. 3b. Measured and calculated global horizontal irradiance for

ferences between calculated and measured quantities are Period 2.

apparent from the slopes of lines. These results reveal a

slight systematic under-prediction by roughly 3% of global

horizontal irradiance when calculating it from the beam was installed in front of the test cell to represent a typical

and diuse horizontal irradiance components. outdoor surface (Fig. 1).

Reectance of a sample of the articial turf was mea-

sured at almost perpendicular (3) incident radiation in

the wavelength interval between 250 nm and 2500 nm using

3.3. Ground reectance an integrating sphere (Fig. 4) which could not be employed

lieu of relying on default values is discussed in detail by

16

Ineichen et al. (1987). Therefore, in order to have a well-

dened and uniform ground reectance, articial green turf

14

Direct-hemispherical reflectance, %

12

Calculated global horziontal irradiance, W/m2

600

y = 0.9741x - 0.4356

R2 = 0.9977 10

500

400 8

300 6

200 4

100

2

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0

Measured global horizontal irradiance, W/m2 250 750 1250 1750 2250

Wavelength, nm

Fig. 3a. Measured and calculated global horizontal irradiance for

Period 1. Fig. 4. Near direct normal-hemispherical reectance of the articial turf.

260 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

for angular dependent measurements. Specular compo- zontal solar irradiance were used as inputs in 10 min and

nents of the reectance were measured at incident angles six timesteps each hour. DOE-2.1e also uses a Perez 1990

of 20, 40, and 60 and were found to be less than 1%; model to calculate irradiance on a tilted facade (Buhl,

therefore the surface was considered to be a Lambertian 2005) with hourly inputs of direct-normal and global hori-

surface (Modest, 2003). Integral values for reectance were zontal solar irradiance. Both EnergyPlus and DOE-2.1e

determined according to European Standard EN 410 assumed a constant annual direct-normal extraterrestrial

(1998) by means of GLAD Software (2002). Hemispheri- irradiation term (they do not factor in the elliptical orbit

calhemispherical reectance was then determined at each of the earth around the sun). TRNSYS-TUD allows the

wavelength assuming an angular dependent surface user to select from four models and various inputs for solar

absorptance as shown in Eq. (20) (from Due and Beck- irradiance. For these experiments, the Isotropic, Hay

man, 1991). Davies, Reindl, and Perez 1990 model were used with

(

ah 1 2:0345 103 h 1:99 104 h2 5:324 106 h3 4:799 108 h4 0 6 h 6 80

20

an 0:064h 5:76 80 6 h 6 90

Eq. (21) was used to calculate the hemisphericalhemi- inputs of measured direct normal and global horizontal

spherical reectance. irradiance; the inputs to the models were in 1 h timesteps.

Z 90 The extraterrestrial irradiation was varied to account for

q2 1 ah sinh cosh dh 21 the elliptical orbit of the sun for the Perez, Reindl, and

0 HayDavies models. ESP-r has the Perez 1990 model as

This integral was evaluated numerically using the Engi- its default, but other models are available to the user,

neering Equation Solver (Klein, 2004). The computed solar namely the Isotropic, Klucher, Muneer and Perez 1987

ground reectance shown in Table 2a corresponds well models. Measured 6 min averaged data were input to the

with albedo measurements described by Ineichen et al. program. The program also takes into account variations

(1987) in Table 2b. in the extraterrestrial radiation in the Perez and Muneer

models. It is also possible to use direct-normal plus diuse

4. Simulations horizontal irradiances, or global horizontal plus diuse

horizontal irradiances as inputs to ESP-r; for this study,

The incident (global vertical) irradiance on the exterior only the direct normal and diuse horizontal inputs were

facade for all the building energy simulation codes was a used.

function of the solar irradiance and ground reectance.

Four building energy simulation codes: EnergyPlus,

5. Sensitivity analysis

DOE-2.1e, ESP-r and TRNSYS-TUD, which encompassed

seven dierent radiation models that were evaluated for

Sensitivity studies are an important component in thor-

both periods.

ough empirical validations; such studies were therefore also

EnergyPlus version 1.2.2 uses the 1990 Perez model. For

performed. The uncertainties in the input parameters were

the simulation, measured direct-normal and diuse hori-

taken from information provided by the manufacturers

(Table 1). The error in the ground reectance calculation

Table 2a (models and measurements combined) was estimated as

Solar ground reectance 5% (see Table 2) and 1 for the building azimuth. Uni-

Parameter Reectance, % form distributions were assumed for estimated uncertain-

Hemisphericalhemispherical 14.8 0.74 ties and quantities provided by manufacturers (Glesner,

Near direct normal-hemispherical 8.8 1998). Although all the codes perform solar angle calcula-

tions, uncertainties were not assigned to the test cell loca-

tions (latitude, longitude, and elevation). Two types of

Table 2b sensitivity analysis were performed for this project in Ener-

Ineichen et al. (1987) measurements for determining average albedo gyPlus which included tted eects for N-way factorials

coecients over a three-month period

and MCA. For these analyses the source code was not

Parameter Reectance, % modied, but rather a wrap was designed to modify

Horizontal North East South West input parameters in the weather le and the input le for

Horizontal 13.4 EnergyPlus in MatLab Version 7.0.0.19920 (2004). A

Dierentiated 14.7 15.5 13.8 14.8 Visual Basic program was written to create a command line

Morning 13.9 14.3 14.3 15.7 executable program to run the WeatherConverter pro-

Afternoon 16.0 17.2 13.1 13.5

gram and the RunEplus.bat program was run from the

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 261

Weather Processor Inputs The two-way factorials were estimated using Eq. (24).

Direct-Normal Irradiance MatLab Additional levels of interactions were considered but were

Diffuse Horizontal Program

Irradiance found to be negligible.

uij /ni ri ; nj rj /ni ; nj ui uj i 6 j 24

EnergyPlus EnergyPlus Input

Weather Converter

File Parameters The overall uncertainty was estimated using the quadra-

Ground Reflectance ture summation shown in Eq. (25).

EnergyPlus

Program

q

X X

u u2i u2ij 25

EnergyPlus Output Parameters Uncertainty This analysis assumes a localized linear relationship

Incident Irradiance on the Facade Output where the function is evaluated. To conrm this assump-

tion, estimates were made by forward dierencing (ni + ri)

Fig. 5. Flowchart for the sensitivity studies. and backward dierencing (ni ri). The individual factori-

als can also be analyzed to assess their impact. In Table 3,

the results from this analysis averaged over the entire test

MatLab program. Output from each run was recorded in

(as > 0) are shown for both forward and backward dier-

output les. A owchart for this process is depicted in

encing. Looking at the results from forward and backward

Fig. 5.

dierence, the assumed localized linear relationship seems

reasonable but may lead to minor discrepancies that are

5.1. Fitted eects for N-way factorials discussed later.

A tted eects N-way factorial method was used to iden- 5.2. Monte Carlo analysis

tify the impact of uncertainties in various parameters on

the results (Vardeman and Jobe, 2001). The parameters The Monte Carlo method can be used to analyze the

that were varied for this study included: ground reectance, impact of all uncertainties simultaneously by randomly

building azimuth, direct-normal irradiance, global horizon- varying the main input parameters and performing multi-

tal irradiance (which was an unused parameter in Energy- ple evaluations of the output parameter(s). When setting

Plus), and diuse irradiance. Therefore, for this study a up the analysis, the inputs are modied according to a

tted eects for a Three-way factorial analysis was per- probability density function (pdf) and, after numerous iter-

formed. The rst step in this process is to run a one-way ations, the outputs are assumed to be Gaussian (normal) by

factorial shown in Eq. (22) varying each parameter. This the Central Limit Theorem. The error is estimated by tak-

equation is equivalent to the commonly used dierential ing the standard deviation of the multiple evaluations at

sensitivity analysis. each time step. MatLab 7.0 can be used to generate ran-

dom numbers according to Gaussian, uniform, and many

ui /ni ri /ni 22 other distributions. A comprehensive description and the

underlying theory behind the Monte Carlo Method are

For uniform distributions, the standard deviation is esti- provided by Fishman (1996) and Rubinstein (1981).

mated in Eq. (23).

5.2.1. Sampling

d For this study, Latin hypercube sampling was used. In

ri p 23

3 this method, the range of each input factor is divided into

Table 3

Average factorial impacts (as > 0)

Factorial Period 1 Period 2

2 2

Forward dierencing, W/m Backward dierencing, W/m Forward dierencing, W/m2 Backward dierencing, W/m2

Ibn 1.13 1.10 1.23 1.31

Ih,d 1.37 1.28 1.50 1.59

q 0.357 0.357 0.566 0.566

/b 0.499 0.500 0.291 0.303

Ibn Ih,d 0.05596 0.0831 0.0663 0.0531

Ibn q 0.00155 0.00158 0.00308 0.00310

Ibn /b 0.00464 0.00464 0.0027 0.00274

Ih,d q 0.00352 0.00380 0.00514 0.00516

Ih,d /b 0.00267 0.00264 0.00094 0.000907

q /b No interactions No interactions No interactions No interactions

u 2.40 2.40 2.85 2.95

262 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

the simulation; one value is then taken from each interval.

When applying this method for this study given parameters The computed results from the four simulation codes

with non-uniform distributions, the intervals were dened were compared with the measured global vertical irradi-

using the cumulative distribution function and then one ance. Comparisons were made using the nomenclature

value was selected from each interval assuming a uniform and methodology proposed by Manz et al. (in press). An

distribution (again this was simplied in using MatLab important term used for comparing the performance of

because the functions were part of the code). This method the respective models in the codes is the uncertainty ratio.

of sampling is better when a few components of input dom- This term was computed at each hour (as > 0) and is shown

inate the output (Saltelli et al., 2000). For this study, the in Eq. (26). The average, maximum, and minimum quanti-

input parameters were all sampled from a uniform distribu- ties are summarized in the statistical analyses for each test.

tion. Previous studies have shown that after 6080 runs Ninety-ve percent credible limits were calculated from the

there are only slight gains in accuracy (Furbringer and MCA for EnergyPlus and the 95% credible limits for the

Roulet, 1995), but 120 runs were used to determine uncer- experiment were estimated assuming a uniform distribu-

tainty. The average overall uncertainties (as > 0) for Peri- tion. The credible limits from EnergyPlus were used to cal-

ods 1 and 2 were 2.35 W/m2 and 2.87 W/m2, respectively; culate the uncertainty ratios for all the models and codes.

the results corresponded well with the tted eects model. For the uncertainty ratio, terms less than unity indicate

The results at any given time step are discussed in the next that the codes were validated with 95% credible limits.

Section (5.3).

jDj

UR 26

5.2.2. Analysis of output OUExperiment OUEnergyPlus

It can be shown that despite the pdfs for input param-

Tables 46 show the results from Periods 1 and 2 and

eters, the output parameters will always have a Gaussian

combined periods, respectively. Plots were constructed that

distribution (given a large enough sample and sucient

depict the global vertical irradiation (hourly averaged irra-

number of inputs) by the Central Limit Theorem; there-

diance values multiplied by a 1 h interval) and credible lim-

fore a Lilliefore Test for goodness of t to normal distri-

its. For these plots, the output and 95% credible limits for a

bution was used to test signicance at 5% (when as > 0).

given hour of the day were averaged to provide an over-

Using this criterion, 27.5% and 11.5% of the outputs from

view of the performance of each model. Figs. 68 contain

Periods 1 and 2, respectively, were found not to be nor-

results from Periods 1 and 2 and the combined results.

mally distributed. A careful study of these results reveals

that the majority of these discrepancies occurred when

the direct-normal irradiance is small or zero. This may 7. Discussion and conclusions

be due to the proportional nature of the uncertainties used

for these calculations. At low direct-normal irradiances, The accuracy of the individual radiation models and

the calculation becomes a function of only three inputs their implementation in each building energy simulation

rather than four, which could make the pdf for the output code for both periods can be accurately assessed from the

parameter more susceptible to the individual pdfs of the statistical analyses and the plots from the results section.

input parameters, which for these cases were uniform Fig. 6 shows that in the morning, there are both over

distributions. and under-prediction of the global vertical irradiance by

the models for Period 1; in the afternoon the global vertical

5.3. Estimated uncertainties irradiance is signicantly under-predicted by most models.

During Period 2, the majority of the models over-predict

Estimates for uncertainties were obtained from both t- the global vertical irradiance for most hours during the

ted eects for N-way factorial and MCA. From these anal- day. Combining these results helps to redistribute the

yses, both methods yield similar results. The only hourly over and under-predictions from each model, but

discrepancies for both forward and backward dierencing it is still clear when comparing the uncertainty ratios that

were that tted eects estimates are sometimes overesti- all the models performed better during Period 1.

mated at several individual timesteps. Careful inspection Using the average uncertainty ratio as a guide, it can be

of the individual responses revealed that there was a signif- seen that for both periods none of the models were within

icant jump in the two-way direct-normal/diuse response overlapping 95% credible limits. Strictly speaking, none of

(sometimes in the order of 5 W/m2) that corresponds to the models can therefore be considered to be validated

odd behavior in the one-way responses. The response for within the dened credible limits UR > 1. This is partly

the rest of the timesteps was negligible. Additional review due to the proportional nature of the error which at verti-

showed that these events do not occur during the same cal irradiance predictions with small uncertainties leads to

timesteps for forward and backward dierencing. It was large hourly uncertainty ratio calculations and the di-

therefore assumed that these discrepancies result from culty in deriving a generic radiation model for every loca-

localized non-linearities at these timesteps. tion in the world. This is also shown in Figs. 68 where

Table 4

Analysis of global vertical facade irradiance in W/m2 (as > 0) for Period 1

Experiment EnergyPlus DOE-2.1e TRNSYS-TUD TRNSYS- TRNSYS- TRNSYS- ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r

Perez 1990 Perez 1990 HayDavies TUD TUD Reindl TUD Perez Perez 1990 Perez 1987 Klucher Isotropic Muneer

Isotropic 1990

x 176.1 169.7 177.2 165.1 157.8 170.9 169.8 188.2 192.8 174.8 171.9 191.4

s 223.8 211.8 218.6 205.1 190.1 209.4 211.1 218.2 220.5 196.9 192.5 226.3

xmax 856.8 817.8 820.4 801.2 743.2 810.4 796.4 804.7 806.7 743.5 728.8 915.7

xmin 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2

D 6.4 1.1 11.0 18.3 5.2 6.3 1.9 6.6 11.5 14.3 5.1

jDj 13.7 10.5 18.0 26.2 15.7 11.7 13.3 14.7 24.6 27.8 14.1

Dmax 103.5 67.1 108.0 138.9 90.4 73.3 87.7 86.7 139.1 157.7 205.5

Dmin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Drms 24.2 17.0 28.9 44.4 24.0 21.0 21.4 22.1 39.1 44.7 24.6

D95% 56.4 40.3 71.7 111.2 56.3 57.1 50.9 51.5 96.5 110.7 53.3

OU 6.90 4.62

UR 1.34 1.34 2.28 4.03 2.29 1.12 1.43 1.69 2.50 2.63 1.54

URmax 12.42 20.41 20.41 129.05 20.41 10.20 11.22 12.09 17.04 17.04 13.48

URmin 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

jDj=x 7.8 5.9 10.2 14.9 8.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 14.8 16.7 7.2

D=x 3.7 0.6 6.2 10.4 3.0 3.6 2.7 0.1 11.3 13.4 1.0

Table 5

Analysis of global vertical facade irradiance in W/m2 (as > 0) for Period 2

Experiment EnergyPlus DOE-2.1e TRNSYS-TUD TRNSYS- TRNSYS- TRNSYS- ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r ESP-r

Perez 1990 Perez 1990 HayDavies TUD TUD TUD Perez Perez Perez Klucher Isotropic Muneer

Isotropic Reindl 1990 1990 1987

x 194.5 208.5 210.5 199.7 191.6 207.7 201.4 202.0 206.7 190.1 187.9 202.5

s 222.1 226.3 231.3 219.0 201.5 224.1 225.2 222.4 223.8 201.3 197.3 224.2

xmax 797.1 796.3 828.5 807.8 741.4 820.2 801.7 794.6 799.5 730.4 720.2 801.1

xmin 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

D 14.0 16.0 5.2 2.9 13.2 6.9 7.5 12.2 4.4 6.6 8.0

jDj 19.4 17.6 16.2 25.0 19.0 12.7 14.6 17.2 23.4 26.4 15.4

Dmax 104.0 77.3 59.5 122.6 67.2 63.5 81.3 86.7 113.0 134.9 86.9

Dmin 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Drms 29.2 26.3 20.9 35.2 24.5 19.2 22.2 24.5 33.6 38.8 24.0

D95% 70.1 62.4 42.6 81.7 51.1 46.3 50.9 58.0 79.9 93.2 55.6

OU 7.62 5.62

UR 2.11 2.12 2.66 3.06 2.99 1.41 1.61 2.00 2.60 2.73 1.64

URmax 12.83 21.70 20.62 20.63 21.41 11.21 9.70 11.24 14.94 14.94 13.48

URmin 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

jDj=x 10.0 9.1 8.3 12.9 9.8 6.5 7.5 8.8 12.0 13.6 7.9

D=x 7.2 8.2 2.7 1.5 6.8 3.5 3.9 6.3 2.3 3.4 4.1

263

264 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

Muneer

there is very little overlap in the experimental and MCA

13.48

1.54

0.00

95% credible limits. But the average uncertainty ratio can

ESP-r

191.4

226.3

915.7

205.5

14.1

24.6

53.3

0.2

5.1

0.0

7.6

2.8

also be used as a guide to rank the overall performance

of the tilted radiation models. The Isotropic model per-

formed the worst during these experiments, which can be

Isotropic

17.04

2.63

0.00

171.9

192.5

728.8

157.7

110.7

14.3

27.8

44.7

14.9

0.3

0.0

7.7

ESP-r

account for the various individual components of diuse

irradiance. While the Reindl and HayDavies model

accounted for the additional components of diuse irradi-

Klucher

17.04

2.50

0.01

174.8

196.9

743.5

139.1

11.5

24.6

39.1

96.5

13.2

0.3

0.0

6.2

ESP-r

Reindl and circumsolar for the HayDavies), the Perez for-

mulation which relied on empirical data to quantify the

12.09

diuse components provided the best results for this loca-

1.69

0.00

ESP-r

Perez

192.8

220.5

806.7

14.7

86.7

22.1

51.5

0.1

6.6

0.0

7.9

3.5

tion and wall orientation. Dierences between the Perez

1987

be attributed to solar irradiance input parameters (beam,

global horizontal, and diuse), timesteps of the weather

11.22

1.43

0.00

ESP-r

Perez

188.2

218.2

804.7

13.3

87.7

21.4

50.9

0.2

1.9

0.0

7.2

1.0

1990

terrestrial radiations for DOE-2.1e and EnergyPlus). For

both periods, the assumptions made in the TRNSYS-

Perez 1990

TRNSYS-

But also from these results, the Muneer model performed

15.38

1.38

0.00

TUD

12.2

73.3

20.0

48.7

0.3

0.9

0.0

6.6

0.5

187.1

219.4

801.7

fact, the Muneer model performed better than Perez mod-

els formulated in EnergyPlus and DOE-2.1e.

TRNSYS-

Reindl

29.39

2.77

0.00

TUD

191.1

218.2

820.2

17.5

90.4

24.3

54.2

0.4

4.9

0.0

9.4

2.6

predicting solar irradiance for both time periods were: (1)

13.7% and 14.9% for the isotropic sky model, (2) 9.1%

TRNSYS-

for the HayDavies, (3) 9.4 % for the Reindl, (4) 7.6%

Isotropic

3.61

0.00

129.05

for the Muneer model, (5) 13.2% for the Klucher, (6)

TUD

176.3

197.0

743.2

138.9

25.6

39.6

99.4

13.7

0.4

9.9

0.0

5.3

9.0%, 7.7%, 6.6%, and 7.1% for the 1990 Perez, and (7)

7.9% for the 1987 Perez models. This parameter is a good

Analysis of global vertical facade irradiance in W/m2 (as > 0) for both periods

TRNSYS-TUD

load calculations. The mean deviations calculations for

HayDavies

these time periods were: (1) 5.3% and 7.7% for the iso-

28.31

2.57

0.00

tropic sky model, (2) 1.1% for the HayDavies, (3) 2.6%

184.1

213.4

807.8

108.0

17.0

24.8

54.9

0.4

2.1

0.0

9.1

1.1

for the Reindl, (4) 2.8% for the Muneer model, (5) 6.2%

for the Klucher, (6) 2.6%, 5.0%, 0.5%, and 1.0% for the

1990 Perez, and (7) 3.5% for the 1987 Perez models. From

Perez 1990

DOE-2.1e

29.31

1.90

0.01

195.5

226.1

828.5

14.4

77.3

22.6

55.1

0.0

9.3

0.0

7.7

5.0

facades with a high precision for longer time periods (such

EnergyPlus

Perez 1990

sumption with high prediction accuracy is achievable even

17.62

4.46

1.91

0.00

191.0

220.6

817.8

104.0

16.8

27.1

65.7

0.3

4.8

0.0

9.0

2.6

aected by solar gains. On the other hand, even the most

Experiment

timesteps (up to roughly 100 W/m2), which poses serious

7.30

186.2

222.9

856.8

0.2

ations in the case of non-air conditioned buildings or the

Table 6

URmax

URmin

jDj=x

Dmax

D95%

Dmin

Drms

xmax

xmin

D=x

OU

UR

jDj

D

x

s

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 265

Fig. 6. Average hourly irradiation comparisons for the vertical facade for Period 1.

Fig. 7. Average hourly irradiation comparisons for the vertical facade for Period 2.

Fig. 8. Average hourly irradiation comparisons for the vertical facade combining both periods.

266 P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267

must consider much higher uncertainties at specic Furbringer, J.M., Roulet, C.A., 1999. Condence of simulation results:

timesteps. put a sensitivity analysis module in you MODEL: the IEA-ECBCS

Annex 23 experience of model evaluation. Energy and Buildings 30,

Additional factors that were not investigated include the 6171.

number of components of solar irradiance measured at a GLAD Software, 2002. Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing

given weather station (often only global horizontal irradi- and Research (EMPA), Duebendorf, Switzerland.

ance is measured and other models are used to compute Glesner, J.L., 1998. Assessing uncertainty in measurement. Statistical

beam irradiance), locations and densities of the weather Science 13 (3), 277290.

Gueymard, C., 1987. An anisotropic solar irradiance model for tilted

stations used as inputs for building simulation codes, and surfaces and its comparison with selected engineering algorithms. Solar

reliability of weather les used by building energy simula- Energy 38 (5), 367386.

tion codes. While this study is somewhat limited to a spe- Hay, J.E., Davies, J.A., 1980. Calculations of the solar radiation incident

cic location and time period, it reveals the importance on an inclined surface. In: Hay, J.E., Won, T.K. (Eds.), Proc. of First

of making proper assessments concerning tilted radiation Canadian Solar Radiation Data Workshop, 59. Ministry of Supply

and Services, Canada.

models and their implementations in building energy simu- Hottel, H.C., Woertz, B.B., 1942. Evaluation of at-plate solar heat

lation codes. collector. Trans. ASME 64, 91.

Note: Radiation data and data of all other experiments Ineichen, P., Perez, R., Seals, R., 1987. The importance of correct albeto

within the IEA Task 34 project can be downloaded from determination for adequately modeling energy received by a tilted

our website at www.empa.ch/ieatask34. surface. Solar Energy 39 (4), 301305.

Klein, S.A., 2004. Engineering Equation Solver (EES) Software, Depart-

ment of Mechanical Engineering. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Acknowledgements Klucher, T.M., 1979. Evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted

surfaces. Solar Energy 23 (2), 111114.

Li, D.H.W., Lam, J.C., Lau, C.C.S., 2002. A new approach for

We gratefully acknowledge with thanks the nancial

predicting vertical global solar irradiance. Renewable Energy 25,

support from the Swiss Federal Oce of Energy (BFE) 591606.

for building and testing the experimental facility (Project Liu, B.Y.H., Jordan, R.C., 1960. The interrelationship and characteristic

17 0 166) as well as the funding for EMPA participation in distribution of direct, diuse, and total solar radiation. Solar Energy 4

IEA Task 34/43 (Project 100 0 765). We would also like to (3), 119.

Lomas, K.J., Eppel, H., 1992. Sensitivity analysis techniques for building

acknowledge Dr. M. Morris from the Iowa State Univer-

thermal simulation programs. Energy and Buildings 19, 2144.

sity Statistics Department for his clear direction with re- Macdonald, I., Strachan, P., 2001. Practical applications of uncertainty

gard to formulating the sensitivity analysis and the many analysis. Energy and Buildings 33, 219227.

contributions from our colleagues R. Blessing, S. Carl, Manz, H., Loutzenhiser, P., Frank, T., Strachan, P.A., Bundi, R., and

M. Camenzind, and R. Vonbank. Maxwell, G., in press. Series of experiments for empirical validation of

solar gain modeling in building energy simulation codes Experimen-

tal setup, test cell characterization, specications and uncertainty

References analysis. Building and Environment.

Mara, T.A., Garde, F., Boyer, H., Mamode, M., 2001. Empirical

Aude, P., Tabary, L., Depecker, P., 2000. Sensitivity analysis and validation of the thermal model of a passive solar test cell. Energy

validation of buildings thermal models using adjoint-code method. and Buildings 33, 589599.

Energy and Buildings 30, 267283. MatLab Version 7.0.0.19920, 2004. The MathWorks Inc.

Badescu, V., 2002. 3D isotropic approximation for solar diuse irradiance Modest, M., 2003. Radiative Heat Transfer, Second ed. Academic Press,

on tilted surfaces. Renewable Energy 26, 221233. Amsterdam.

Behr, H.D., 1997. Solar radiation on tilted south oriented surfaces: Muneer, T., 1997. Solar Radiation and Daylight Models for the Energy

validation of transfer-models. Solar Energy 61 (6), 399413. Ecient Design of Buildings. Architectural Press, Oxford.

Buhl, F., 2005. Private email correspondence exchanged on March 9, 2005 Olmo, F.J., Vida, J., Castro-Diez, Y., Alados-Arboledas, L., 1999.

with Peter Loutzenhiser at EMPA that contained the radiation model Prediction of global irradiance on inclined surfaces from horizontal

portion of the DOE-2.1E source code, Lawrence Berkley National global irradiance. Energy 24, 689704.

Laboratories (LBNL). Palomo del Barrio, E., Guyon, G., 2003. Theoretical basis for empirical

DOE-2.1E, (Version-119). 2002. Building Energy Simulation Code, model validation using parameter space analysis tools. Energy and

(LBNL), Berkley, CA, April 9, 2002. Buildings 35, 985996.

Due, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1991. Solar Engineering of Thermal Palomo del Barrio, E., Guyon, G., 2004. Application of parameters space

Processes, Second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chichester, analysis tools fro empirical model validation. Energy and Buildings 36,

Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore. 2333.

EnergyPlus Version, 1.2.2.030. 2005. Building Energy simulation code. Perez, R., Stewart, R., Arbogast, C., Seals, R., Scott, J., 1986. An

Available from: <www.energyplus.gov>. anisotropic hourly diuse radiation model for sloping surfaces:

ESP-r, Version 10.12, 2005. University of Strathclyde. Available from: Description, performanace validation, site dependency evaluation.

<www.esru.strath.ac.uk>. Solar Energy 36 (6), 481497.

European Standard EN 410, 1998. Glass in building determination of Perez, R., Seals, R., Ineichen, P., Stewart, R., Menicucci, D., 1987. A new

luminous and solar characteristics of glazing. European Committee for simplied version of the Perez diuse irradiance model for tilted

Standardization, Brussels, Belgium. surfaces. Solar Energy 39 (3), 221232.

Fishman, G.S., 1996. Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applica- Perez, R., Ineichen, P., Seals, R., Michalsky, J., Stewart, R., 1990.

tions. Springer, New York Berlin Heidelberg. Modeling daylight availability and irradiance components from direct

Furbringer, J.M., Roulet, C.A., 1995. Comparison and combination of and global irradiance. Solar Energy 44 (5), 271289.

factorial and Monte-Carlo design in sensitivity analysis. Building and Reindl, D.T., Beckmann, W.A., Due, J.A., 1990a. Diuse fraction

Environment 30 (4), 505519. correlations. Solar Energy 45 (1), 17.

P.G. Loutzenhiser et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 254267 267

Reindl, D.T., Beckmann, W.A., Due, J.A., 1990b. Evaluation of hourly Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., 2004. Sensitivity

tilted surface radiation models. Solar Energy 45 (1), 917. Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientic Models. John

Remund, J., Salvisberg, E., Kunz, S., 1998. On the generation of hourly Wiley & Sons, LTD.

shortwave radiation data on tilted surfaces. Solar Energy 62 (5), Santner, T.J., Williams, B.J., Notz, W.I., 2003. The Design and

331334. Analysis of Computer Experiments. Springer, New York, Berlin,

Robledo, L., Soler, A., 2002. A simple clear skies model for the luminous Heidelberg.

ecacy of diuse solar radiation on inclined surfaces. Renewable TRNSYS-TUD, 2005. Technical University of Dresden research code

Energy 26, 169176. based on the frame of TRNSYS 14.2, Solar Energy Laboratory,

Rubinstein, R.Y., 1981. Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. John University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 1996.

Wiley & Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto. Vardeman, S.B., Jobe, J.M., 2001. Data Collection and Analysis. Duxbury

Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, E.M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis. John Wiley Thomson Learning, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Spain,

& Sons, Ltd, Chichester, New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States.

Toronto.

- The Art of DifferentiatingCaricato daIvánPortilla
- Assessment IB Chemistry PracticalsCaricato daنور هدايو احمد
- Measurements of Solar Radiation Are Often Not AvailableCaricato dadsathiya
- Research Lahore (1)Caricato daAbdul Jalil
- out 5.pdfCaricato damamahosiele
- 42546875 Newton Solar Steam ManuscriptCaricato daTimothy Leo Schriever
- 8 48 InstructionsCaricato daDEMOLITIONBOYS201
- Prediction and Application of Solar Radiation With Soft Computing Over Traditional and Conventional Approach – a Comprehensive ReviewCaricato daahonenkone
- ASTM_G_24_2005Caricato daJORGE ARTURO TORIBIO HUERTA
- SOLAR ENERGY DECISON SUPPORT SYSTEMCaricato daVinay Korekar
- Performance Analysis and Comparison of Concentrated Evacuated Tube Heat Pipe Solar CollectorCaricato daLuis Smith
- Super ChargingCaricato daliamlim
- etaerythCaricato daSrinivas Nandikanti
- LP sensitivity-ORCaricato daAdeel Khan
- 4 Example CostCaricato daشادي الاخرس
- TI-05Caricato daivans30
- Sensitivity Analysis.pdfCaricato daNovita Frisilia
- Sensitivity AnalysisCaricato daSohail Ahmed Soomro
- operatios research-1.docxCaricato daPretty World
- Modelling Network Travel Time Reliability Under Stochastic DemandCaricato daJongga Jihanny
- Global Sensitivity Analysis of the ATV Design Guideline - Model EAUCaricato damothman22
- 1Caricato daDeepti Mangal
- RvmCaricato daArnab Goswami
- Solar Thermal 050210Caricato daxenofont
- Fuge - Impactmap Designing Sustainable Supply ChainsCaricato daISSSTNetwork
- Power Bus Sensitivity Analysis PkbCaricato daSagar Bhargava
- Affinity Diagram, VFT and Structuring DecisionsCaricato daநான் எனது
- SpeCaricato daAhmed Ali Alsubaih
- EEE Best practices.pdfCaricato daRoeverspoly Tripc
- Solar Pond TechnologyCaricato daBipul Kumar

- Artigo Cecilia FranciscoCaricato daVamsi Pavan Pavuluri
- International StandardsCaricato darocknroll0078
- Catalogo Media Tensao Web.enpdfCaricato daVamsi Pavan Pavuluri
- Cen Cenelec Wp2016 EnCaricato daVamsi Pavan Pavuluri
- Annual Report 2015 16 WebCaricato daVamsi Pavan Pavuluri
- 115022017_0000Caricato daVamsi Pavan Pavuluri

- Internship-Report-Format.pdfCaricato daJoy Ahmedkhan
- PPTChapter 4Caricato daAzyan Naj
- MuseumCaricato daanju suresh
- Sensitive Research Topics Netnography RevisitedCaricato dabk2788q
- Evidence-Based Practices for Christian Counseling and Psychotherapy Edited by Everett L. Worthington Jr., Eric L. Johnson, Joshua N. Hook and Jamie D. AtenCaricato daInterVarsity Press Samples
- Guidance Action Plan 2012Caricato daNyssa Diaz
- Interpretation and Report WritingCaricato daSaurabh Chaurasia
- Tackling Antibiotic Resistance NATURE REVIEWSCaricato daNatália Barth
- Entrepreneurship- Chapter 2.pptxCaricato daAnonymous Bt1XWZu
- kmgtCaricato daPuja More
- Sap Senior Application Consultant Hitachi Zosen Inova AgCaricato daRamiro Sanchez
- CS GuidelinesCaricato daMai Hamde
- aaron reinhart leader of learningCaricato daapi-395928590
- Delivering race equality in mental health care: report on the findings and outcomes of the community engagement programme 2005-2008 Jane Fountain and Joanna Hicks FULL REPORT 2010Caricato datony_jameson-allen
- Holmquist(2011)a Computational Constitutive Model for Glass Subjected to Large Strains. High Strain Rates and High PressuresCaricato daluisfmpereira
- WhitePaper-AEuropeanPerspectiveonCandidateExperience1.pdfCaricato daSharmi Roy
- A Study on Job SatisfactionCaricato daAshraf Hussain
- Pending Proposals Ldu June 09Caricato daAnurag Goel
- EMU Presidential Scholar Series 2012-13Caricato daemily vontom
- Big Data Analytics Comp Syllabus Sem7Caricato daSaprativa Bhattacharjee
- Sumedh_KakdeCaricato daSumedh Kakde
- abeeeCaricato daAubrey Marie Villamor
- Technology Management- Lecture NotesCaricato daramanrockstar21
- Qgis Beginners Manual Dds WorkshopCaricato daRafael Fonseca
- MODEL MIGRATION SCHEDULES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS (1977)Caricato daLuis Javier Castro
- Leadership in Agile OrganisationsCaricato dajimmy0000007
- RDCaricato daMudasir Usman
- Sex Differences in Coping Behavior- A Meta Analytic Review and an Examination of Relative CopingCaricato daSilvio Garcia Paredes
- 6.Format.eng-Establishment of Geodetic Controls Network for Monitoring of Jimeta Bridge (2) (Reviewed)Caricato daImpact Journals
- dalamCaricato daSyamzy Zack

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.