Comparative Analysis of Thermal Simulation Tools Precision to Predict Thermal Comfort Factors

Abstract

The temperature discrepancy between thermal simulation results and real indoor-real temperature has not been thoroughly studied in Andean climates near the equatorial line. In this region, buildings do not require HVAC systems because of excellent local climate conditions. This research defines an adequate software configuration for providing the most accurate data with reduced error gaps. The three buildings of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Cuenca were built through the software DesignBuilder and ArchiCAD with the EcoDesigner STAR plug-in, and nine internal classrooms were selected. Both simulation models were configured with equivalent data from a climate file comprising data from on-site weather station measurements. Afterwards, indoor temperature and relative humidity data were collected from nine classrooms via temperature and humidity sensors. The results revealed a 0.81 °C and 5% of mean absolute error (MAE) between the temperature and relative humidity simulated in DesignBuilder and a 0.91 °C and 6.09% (MAE), with the EcoDesigner STAR simulation demonstrating more accuracy with DesignBuilder which achieved the highest calibrated model benchmark with ≤1°C and ≤5% while EcoDesigner achieved the lower standard with ≤2°C and ≤10%. The results obtained after infiltration calibration show that for older brick masonry buildings, because of the weak level of airtightness between 20 ACH and 40 ACH, this deficiency means good ventilation rates. Nevertheless, the temperatures are within the comfort zone as long as the areas are fully occupied, and in insulated buildings with better quality windows and lower ventilation infiltration, a rate of 15 ACH was determined, resulting in more stable and comfortable temperatures than those in previous classrooms.