Due to the limitations of the stationary energy needs calculation, energy dynamic simulation tools become strictly essential. In literature, many researches compared different energy simulation tools without validating those models through real data. In this framework, this study aims to compare two energy dynamic simulation tools: TRNSYS 16 and Grasshopper/Archsim, through a real case study, the historical building of Palazzo Baleani, validated by comparing the simulated results with real consumptions. Furthermore, results will help users to choose the most suitable software depending on the needs and the available data. Finally, latest analysis underline that different type of retrofit solutions, simulated with those two tools, have a considerable impact on the achievement of nZEBs targets, especially on the listed building.
Comparison Between Two Energy Dynamic Tools: the Impact of Two Different Calculation Procedures on the Achievement of nZEBs Requirements / Pompei, Laura; Nardecchia, Fabio; Mattoni, Benedetta; Bisegna, Fabio; Mangione, Alessandro. - (2020). ((Intervento presentato al convegno Building Simulation 2019 tenutosi a Roma.
Scheda prodotto non validato
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Titolo: | Comparison Between Two Energy Dynamic Tools: the Impact of Two Different Calculation Procedures on the Achievement of nZEBs Requirements | |
Autori: | ||
Data di pubblicazione: | 2020 | |
Citazione: | Comparison Between Two Energy Dynamic Tools: the Impact of Two Different Calculation Procedures on the Achievement of nZEBs Requirements / Pompei, Laura; Nardecchia, Fabio; Mattoni, Benedetta; Bisegna, Fabio; Mangione, Alessandro. - (2020). ((Intervento presentato al convegno Building Simulation 2019 tenutosi a Roma. | |
Handle: | http://hdl.handle.net/11573/1464571 | |
Appartiene alla tipologia: | 04b Atto di convegno in volume |