Comparing tools for energy performance evaluation to support technological design performance-driven suggestions

The goal of this thesis is to simulate actual building using two known tools, from existing Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) software to dynamic simulators. The research addresses the variation between necessary inputs and the outputs supporting technology options for design improvement, particularly during the heating and cooling seasons. The thesis assesses the hourly and quasi-steady-state simulation methods and analyzes the impacts of changes in specific building design parameters and low energy/bioclimatic technologies. The simulations consider building geometry, construction details, HVAC systems, occupancy patterns, and climate data. The study evaluates the building energy simulation tools Termolog and DesingBuilder an interface of EnergyPlus on two case study buildings. T he first case study compares quasi-steady-state and hourly/dynamic methods on a simple shoebox model in Turin, Italy, examining internal temperatures and energy needs. The second case study is conducted on an ENEA living lab building located near Rome, Italy, to compare energy needs in a real-world setting. By comparing the capabilities and outcomes of Termolog and EnergyPlus, the study discusses about performance gap and potential limitations of each software tool. The comparison is made by comparing the results of the two tools with each other and with the actual measured performance of the buildings in the case of the ENEA living lab. The importance of this research lies in better understanding the need for complex dynamic methods to evaluate and assess a building's energy efficiency. Dynamic/hourly simulation considers the chronological and operational characteristics of buildings, providing a more detailed picture of energy performance compared to quasi-steady-state simulation, especially during the summer season and under dynamic input variations. However, the advantage of dynamic simulation depends on the context and objectives of the analysis. The methodology includes a simple shoebox model and an existing living lab office building. Specific scenarios are examined to illustrate disparities between Termolog and EnergyPlus. The findings highlight the expected divergencies of steady-state simulations and emphasize the need for dynamic simulations, in particular in the cooling season. The research contributes to the field by providing insights into the strengths and weaknesses of quasi-steady-state and dynamic simulations. It emphasizes the importance of considering dynamic effects in building energy analysis and certification processes, especially when climate-correlated low-energy and natural cooling solutions are adopted. While the study has limitations regarding software tools and case studies, it opens paths for future research to validate the findings in broader building types and contexts. Further investigation into specific input variations and calibration procedures for Termolog models is also suggested.