Reference

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 85-3211

Validation Tests of the Thermal

Analysis Research Program

AlllOt, 0 3 M b 5

George N. Walton

Kevin Cavanaugh

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

July 1985

-uo

100

U5b

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

85-3211

1985

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY

NBSIR 85-321 1 VALIDATION TESTS OF THE THERMAL

ANALYSIS RESEARCH PROGRAM

George N. Walton

Kevin Cavanaugh

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

July 1985

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

ABSTRACT

In this study analytical and empirical tests were performed using the Thermal

Analysis Research Program (TARP). TARP was found to be very accurate relative

to the analytical tests (calculations for simplified conditions) which covered

steady and transient conduction, internal radiant interchange, latent loads, and

clear sky solar gains. Six one-room buildings with different wall constructions

provided data for the empirical tests. TARP's predicted heating loads were

generally within 10 per cent of the predicted heating loads. The prediction of

cooling loads was less successful with an average difference from the measured

loads of 25 per cent. This error was considered primarily due to uncertainties

in the measured cooling loads and the modeling of diffuse solar gains. The

analytic tests are now part of the information available on the TARP source code

tape.

IX
.

'
PREFACE

This report is one of a series documenting NBS research and analysis efforts in

developing energy and cost data to support the Department of Energy/National

Bureau of Standards Measurements Program. It was prepared by the Thermal

Analysis Group, Building Physics Division, Center for Building Technology,

National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards (NBS). This work

was jointly sponsored by NBS and DoE. The development of multi-room airflow

modeling was supported by DoE/NBS Task Order A008 under Interagency Agreement

Number E-77-A-01-6010. This report describes calculations and a computer

program which were written as part of an effort to develop a comprehensive

modeling technique for predicting the simultaneous transfer of heat, moisture,

air, and contaminants in and through multi-room buildings.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract . ii

Preface iii

List of Figures v

1. Introduction 1

2. Analytic Tests 2

2.1 Steady Conduction and Scheduled Loads Tests 3

2.2 Transient Conduction Tests 3

2.3 Radiant Interchange Tests 4

2.4 Latent Loads and Contaminant Tests 4

2.3 Solar Gains Tests 4

2.6 Other Tests 4

3. Empirical Tests 5

3.1 Comparison for the Winter Test Period 5

3.2 Comparison for the Spring Test Period 6

3.3 Comparison for the Summer Test Period 6

3.4 Discussion 6

4. Summary and Conclusions 8

5. References 8

Appendix A 22

IV
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Photograph of one of the test buildings 9

Figure 2. Outdoor weather during the winter test period 10

Figure 3. Comparison of measured and predicted cumulative heating

loads for all six buildings for the winter test period .. 10

Figure 4. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the winter test period . 11

Figure 5. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for

the uninsulated wood frame building winter test for the

winter test period 11

Figure 6. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated masonry building for the winter test period ... 12

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the winter test period .. 12

Figure 8. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads

for the log building for the winter test period 13

Figure 9. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

inside mass masonry building for the winter test period .. 13

Figure 10. Outdoor weather during the spring test period 14

Figure 11. Comparison of measured and predicted cumulative heat loads

for all six buildings for the spring test period 14

Figure 12. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the spring test period . 15

Figure 13. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated wood frame building for the spring test period 15

Figure 14. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated masonry building for the spring test period ... 16

Figure 15. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the spring test period .. 16

Figure 16. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

log building for the spring test period 17

Figure 17. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

inside mass masonry building for the spring test period .. 17

Figure 18. Outdoor weather during the summer test period 18

v
List of Figures (continued)

Page

F igure 19. Comparison of measured and predicted cumulative cooling

loads for all six buildings for the summer test period 18

Figure 20. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the summer test period . 19

Figure 21. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

uninsulated wood frame building for the summer test period 19

Figure 22. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

insulated masonry building for the summer test period ... 20

Figure 23. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the summer test period .. 20

F igure 24. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for

the log building for the summer test period 21

F igure 25. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

inside mass masonry building for the summer test period .. 21

vi
1

.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of tests to validate the Thermal Analysis

Research Program (TARP) [1]. As introduced by NBS in March, 1983, TARP is a unique building thermal load prediction program which performa a simultaneous

evaluation of air, moisture, and heat transfer in and through multi-room

buildings as affected by dynamic external conditions and internal loads. TARP

is an evolutionary development of the more user oriented BLAST [2] computer

program. Primary emphasis has been on additional algorithms, flexibility in

modeling the building, and program portability to other computers. TARP has

been used on Sperry, CDC, IBM, and DEC (VAX) computers.

Although a prospective TARP user would like to have high confidence in its

accuracy, validation of any large computer program is a difficult task. This is

particularly true of building energy analysis programs which contain hundreds of

variables, parameters, and algorithms. Even if each algorithm is validated

individually, with each parameter tested at maximum and minimum values, there is no guarantee that some combination of algorithms will not give an improper

result because of some unexpected interaction. In addition, the heat transfer

algorithms and particularly the correct parameters to use in those algorithms

are still considered to be areas of continuing research.

Inaccurate results are not always due to program errors as shown in the

SERI report [3] which identified seven error sources classified into two groups.

External error sources are those which are not under the control of the

developer of the computer code. These errors include:

1. differences between the actual weather around the building and the weather

input used with the simulation;

2. differences between the actual effect of occupant behavior and those effects

assumed by the user;

3. user error, including inappropriate simplifying assumptions, in deriving the

input files;

4. differences between the actual thermal and physical properties of the

building and those input by the user.

Internal error sources are those contained within the coding of the program.

They Include:

1. differences between the actual heat/mass transfer mechanisms and the

algorithmic representations of those mechanisms;

2. differences between the actual interactions of heat/mass transfer mechanisms

and those interactions between the algorithms;

3. coding errors.

Only the internal errors can be identified in general testing. The external

errors occur on a case by case basis although the input procedures,

documentation, and internal data checking can assist in reducing user errors.

Three types of tests have been used to validate building energy analysis

programs. One is comparison to other simulation programs. Another is

comparison to analytically calculated results. The third is comparison to

experimental data. The following table from the SERI validation report [3]

summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

1
VALIDATION TECHNIQUES

Technique Advantages Disadvanteges

Comparative

Relative test

of different

programs

No input uncertainty

Any level of complexity

Inexpensive

Quick: many comparisons

possible

No truth standard

Analytical

Test of

numerical

solution

No input uncertainty

Exact truth standard

given the simplicity

of the model

Inexpensive

Does not test the model

Limited to cases for

which analytical

solutions can be

derived

Empirical

Comparison to

measured building

performance

Approximate truth

standard within accuracy

of data acquisition

Any level of complexity

Measurement involves

some degree of input

uncertainty

High quality, detailed

measurements are time

consuming & expensive

A limited number of data

sites and configurations

are economically

practical

In this report both analytical and empirical comparisons will be presented.

2. ANALYTIC TESTS

One set of standards against which the simulation program can be tested are

those which have analytical solutions. These cases must be much simpler than

those encountered in real buildings. (If analytic solutions existed for real

building conditions, there would be no need for computer simulation.) They are especially useful in determining the existance of coding errors. For that reason such tests may also be considered "software validation". They prove that

the program is doing what was intended in the heat transfer analysis and in the

handling of input and output (I/O). The current version of TARP has some 22. 000

lines of FORTRAN code and comments. The majority of these lines deal with I/O.

Therefore, the analytic tests have been devised to test the I/O as well as the

heat transfer algorithms.

It is best for the test algorithm to be independent of the TARP algorithm — they should use different methods to compute the answer. This helps to

insure that proper energy (and mass transfer, etc.) values are being computed

instead of just showing that the computer does correct arithmetic for the TAR p algorithm. This requires some knowledge of how the program works in order to

know if different algorithms are being tested. However, it does present the

danger that subconsciously tests may be devised so that the program can pass.

Although the analytic tests given below are designed to exercise TARP and not to

2
develop general test procedures for all building energy analysis programs, the

principal ideas behind the tests could be applicable to other programs.

It should be understood at the outset that TARP is undergoing continual

revision because it is a research program. New algorithms are added; old ones

are modified. Although much effort has gone into making the program modular,

there is considerable interaction among the algorithms. Whenever a change is

made, it is important to prove that other calculations have not been

inadvertantly affected. The following set of test cases can serve to check for

such inadvertant changes.

Input files for the analytic validation tests are listed in Appendix A.

One special feature of TARP input is that it can (and usually should) include

"comments''. Any text on a line after a dollar sign ($) is ignored by the TARP

input processor and can be used as a "comment". The validation input files are extensively commented. They include the expected results of the simulation.

These results are arrived at by procedures independent of TARP, which are documented in the comments. Occasionally TARP and the simple analytical

algorithms produce different results. Such differences must be reasonable based

upon known differences between TARP and the simple algorithms. The complexity

of the problem may not allow development of a complete analytic solution. Then

the analytic tests should show the limits of the correct solution and

demonstrate reasonable trends. The reader is directed to Appendix A for the

details of each analytic test.

2.1 Steady Conduction and Scheduled Loads Tests

The simplest analytic tests occur with steady state conditions. Input file

BDP-1 (pages A-l to A-3) tests the steady state conduction calculation which

uses the conduction transfer functions (CTF). and it tests that the user schedulable loads are correctly processed in the calculation of room heating and

cooling loads. The CTF method was developed to model transient heat conduction.

The computed results agree with the predictions to the limits of accuracy in the

printed results except for infiltration. In the case of infiltration there is

0.1% difference because the density of air is assumed to be a constant .075

lb/ft^ (1.2 kg/nP) in computing the analytic solution. TARP uses a more general

model where air density is a function of temperature and pressure.

2.2 Transient Conduction Tests

The use of CTF to calculate transient heat conduction is tested by

comparing to an analytic solution for the surface temperatures of walls as they

respond to a step change in air temperature. This used input file BDP-2 (pages

A-4 to A-8) . Two of the tests were developed by the author and three at SER T . This test demonstrates a case where the limiting values instead of the exact

solution is computed. The test is a refinement of the SERI procedure. Only the

very thin wall ever goes outside the limits. This error is demonstrating a true

limit of the CTF method — too few CTF coefficients are calculated for thin

walls to permit exact modeling of the transient conduction. There is also a limit on the maximum thickness of a wall, which is not reached in these tests.

3
2.3

Radiant Interchange Tests

BDP-3 (pages A-9 to A-ll) is an input file for testing radiant interchange

calculations which use the mean radiant temperature (MRT) network method [4]

.

Manual loads calculation methods typically ignore radiant heat transfer, or at

least only lump it in with convective heat transfer between the walls and the

air. Detailed modeling of radiant transfer is possible in computer simulations

but it is time consuming, especially for rooms with large numbers of surfaces.

The MRT network method is a fast algorithm which approximates radiant heat

transfer, included its nonlinear nature. The results of this test are accurate

to the limits of the printed output, i.e. 4 digits. The MRT network method is

known to produce a correct radiation interchange factor for this simple

geometry. It is also known to be only approximate for more complex geometries.

2.4

Latent Loads and Contaminant Tests

Latent loads and contaminant concentrations are calculated by very similar

algorithms involving an Euler (standard explicit) integration at a much shorter

timestep than one hour. Input file BDP-4 (pages A-12 to A-14) tests these

calculations. The steady state and transient results are accurate to within

0.1% at the default 60 second timestep. Other tests indicate very little loss

in accuracy of the hourly moisture and contaminant concentrations with timesteps

as long as six minutes, although the intermediate transient results have

relatively large errors.

2.5

Solar Gains Tests

Data in the AHSRAE handbooks are used to study the solar gain calculations

which are tested with input file BDP-5 (pages A-16 to A-19). The position of

the sun, the intensity of clear sky solar radiation, and the design solar gain

values can be compared. There are differences of up to 3% in the solar gains

values. This is caused primarily by ASHRAE (1977 Fundamentals Handbook, page

26.26) using a nonisotropic diffuse radiation distribution while TARP uses an isotropic distribution. The nonisotropic algorithm has not been included in

TARP because it applies only to unshaded vertical surfaces, and TARP allows any

surface tilt and shadowing.

2.6

Other Tests

Although tests of several other algorithms have been performed, they are either incomplete or only partially documented. One test studied the geometric

processing of the room surfaces as they undergo various coordinate

transformations (translation, rotation, and mirror imaging). The primary output

is the sketch of the surfaces. This sketch is also a help in preventing user

errors. Another test studied the shadowing calculations. It involved a simple

box shaped room with windows on the north and south sides and various opaque and

partially transparent shadowing surfaces around the south window. Calculations

produced the correct shadow geometries and permitted sunlight to pass through

the room at time when the sun was in the correct position. The detailed airflow

calculations were tested by comparison to an analytic procedure for flows

through openings in series and/or parallel with each other. The simple vent

4
fan, whole house fan, and interzone mixing models were tested to show

appropriate trends in their results. These tests will be made available on the

TARP source tape when they are completed.

3. EMPIRICAL TESTS

Experiments provide data which can validate the algorithms used in the

simulation program. TARP simulation results were compared to data from six NB R test buildings [5,6], The buildings were constructed to determine the effects

of wall thermal mass on heating and cooling loads.' The test buildings were

simple 6.1 by 6.1 m (20 by 20 ft) one room structures located at Gaithersburg,

Maryland (fig. 1). They all had the same floor plan and orientation. They were identical except for exterior wall constructions which were: (1) insulated

wood frame. (2) uninsulated wood frame, (3) insulated masonry. (4) uninsulated

masonry, (5) log, and (6) insulated masonry with the mass inside the insulation.

Full descriptions of these buildings are given in reference [5], The buildings

were instrumented to determine heating and cooling loads, wall heat

transmission, and indoor temperature and humidity. The floors were covered with

2 in (51 mm) thick polystyrene insulation to reduce the effect of heat transfer

to the ground. Eleven inches of glass-fiber blanket insulation was installed

over the ceiling. Each building had four triple glazed windows. There was a constant internal heat gain of 290 W. These factors plus the high ratio of wall

area to floor area create buildings having a high sensitivity to wall heat

transfer. The buildings were studied during a winter heating season, a mild

heating (spring) season, and a summer cooling season.

3.1 Comparison for the Winter Test Period

The winter heating test covers a period from February 21, 1982 through

March 5. Although all days are simulated by TARP, only the last three days are

used for comparison with the measured data. This insures that transients from

prior to the start of the simulation are not part of the comparision period.

Figure 2 shows the values measured for ambient temperature and total horizontal

solar radiation for the comparison period. Figure 3 is a summary of the

predicted and measured heating loads for the comparison period. Figures 4

through 9 give the hourly heating loads for the six buildings. The following

table summarizes the differences between the TARP predictions and the measured

heating loads in three ways: (1) the root mean square deviation of the hourly

loads, (2) the difference in the average hourly load for the entire test period

for each building, and (3) the difference in the combined average loads of all

buildings

.

Winter Test Period House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 House 5 House 6

Error (RMS) in hourly 14.6 % 11.4 % 17.1 % 24.5 1 10.1 % 19.0 %

heating loads

Average measured load 569 W 1208 W 626 W 1053 W 589 W 706 W

Average predicted load 554 W 1280 W 541 w 1262 W 620 W 620 W

Error in average load - 2.7 % + 6.0 % -13.4 % +19.8 % + 5.2 % -12.2 %

Average for all six buildings

804 W 813 W + 1 .1 %

(measured, predicted, error)

5
3.2

Comparison for the Spring Test Period

The spring heating test covers a period from April 11. 1982 through April

25. Only the last four days are used for comparison. The weather for the

comparison period is shown in figure 10, and the summary of heating loads is

shown in figure 11. Figures 12 through 17 show the hourly measured and

predicted heating loads for all six buildings. The differences between the

measured and predicted heating loads are summarized in the following table.

Spring Test Period Rouse 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 House 5 House 6

Error (RMS) in hourly 76.4 % 30.0 % 82.2 % 49.7 % 64.5 % 105. %

heating loads

Average measured load 163 W 441 W 136 W 256 W 104 W 88 W

Average predicted load 129 W 405 W 95 W 330 W 103 W 49 W

Error in average load -20.8 % - 8.2 % -30.0 % +29.0 % - 0.8 % -44.1 %

Average for all six buildings

198 W 185 W -6 .5 %

(measured, predicted, error)

3.3

Comparison for the Summer Test Period

The summer cooling test covers a period from July 23, 1982 through August

5. Only the last three days are used for comparison. The weather for the

comparison period is shown in figure 18, and the summary of cooling loads is

shown in figure 19- Figures 20 through 25 show the hourly measured and

predicted cooling loads for each building. The differences between the measured

and predicted cooling loads are summarized in the following table:

Summer Test Period House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 House 5 House 6

Error (RMS) in hourly 32.7 % 32.2 % 50.6 1 51.1 % 34.

A

% 40.8 %

cooling loads

Average measured load 409 W 572 W 320 W 373 W 332 W 283 W

Average predicted load 473 W 617 W 437 W 507 W 404 W 334 W

Error in average load +15.6 % + 7.8 % +36.6 % +35.9 % +21.6 % +18 1 %

Average for all six buildings * 361 W 462 W +21 %

(measured, predicted, error)

3.4

Discussion

In addition to the wide variability in error for each building, there are

two trends in the comparisons. First, the accuracy improves as more data is

averaged together before the measured and predicted performances are compared.

This is an indication of the extent to which the errors are random, i.e. if

they are perfectly random, averaging large amounts of measured and simulated

data would give the same results. The method used to compute beam and diffuse

solar radiation given the total horizontal radiation is an example of a TARP

algorithm which leads to such random errors. Each value of total horizontal

solar radiation (for a given solar altitude and time of year) leads to single

values of beam and diffuse radiation, even though differing sky conditions cause

a wide variation in beam and diffuse radiation which could lead to the same

total horizontal value. These differences have been averaged out in deriving

6
the algorithm used in TARP. Second, the average error for all buildings

combined goes from 9 W too little predicted heat gain (or too much heat loss) in

the winter, to 13 W too much heat gain in the spring, to 80 W too much heat gain

in the summer. This indicates a non-random component in the modeling error.

The thermal properties of the walls are about 10 per cent accurate based on several measures: properties reported by ASHRAE, hot box measurements of

similar walls, and comparisons of measured to predicted heat loss under weather

conditions approaching those where steady state theory is applicable. The high

discrepancy of building 6 is at least partially due to insulation voids under

the windows and a thermal bridge from the inside thermal mass to the ground.

The framing fraction (portion of the wall which is framing material instead of

insulation and therefore highly conducting) is estimated rather than measured.

The thermostat set points used in TARP were determined from average midheight

room air temperature in each house, which did not account for the gradients in

the room air temperature. The energy used for heating is accurate within 0.25

per cent because electric heaters were used. The accuracy of the measured

sensible cooling load is more prone to error because it was done by measuring

the airflow rate in the duct and the air temperature before and after the

cooling coil. The airflow measurement was up to 8 per cent uncertain and the

temperature difference measurement up to 4 per cent, giving an upper limit to

the overall uncertainty of perhaps 12 per cent. The cyclic nature of the

equipment accounts for some of the variability in the measured hourly loads.

Consider a hypothetical case where the air conditioner is on for three 20 minute

periods and off for three 20 minute periods in two hours. This means twice the

energy consumption is reported in one hour as in the other even though the heat

gain to the building could be constant.

A significant case of user input error occurred in developing the input

files. The overhang, which shades the window in the spring and summer seasons,

was placed below the windows in the input file. This was later discovered and

corrected during a review of the input data. The placement of overhangs does

not appear on any graphic output like the feature which draws a very simple plan

view of the walls, floors, and ceilings. This feature has been invaluable in

checking the geometric description of such surfaces. The error on the overhang

placement indicates a need for more graphic output to assist the user.

While correcting the overhang problem, the view factor between the walls

and the sky as reduced by the overhang was determined. Using the reduced view

factor, instead of the default value, gave about a 5% improvement in the spring

and summer loads. The typical user would probably not compute specific view

factors. The reduction in view factor due to the adjacent buildings and trees

can not be done by a simple calculation, but it also appears to be significant.

This additional reduction has not been included in the comparison because the

typical user could not compute it. In addition, it raises questions about the error introduced by considering the diffuse solar radiation to be of uniform

intensity from every point in the sky, since it is known to be nonuniform. More

detailed descriptions [7] are very difficult to implement in a simulation with

shadowing features. The accuracy of the diffuse radiation value is more

important in the spring and summer for the test houses because the overhang

blocks direct solar gains. Solar gains are more important in the test buildings

than in most buildings because of the envelope dominance on the loads.

7
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this study analytical and empirical tests were performed using TARP.

Because of the inherent complexity of TARP (and similar building energy analysis

programs), it is difficult to really validate the entire program. Successful

tests build confidence in the program; unsuccessful tests lead to corrections or improved algorithms.

TARP was found to be very accurate relative to the analytical tests. In

the empirical tests TARP's predicted heating loads were generally near the

estimated accuracy of the buildings' thermophysical properties. The prediction

of cooling loads was less successful with an average difference from the

measured loads of about 25%. Some of this difference is believed to be

attributable to the uncertainty in the cooling loads measurements. The modeling

of diffuse solar gains is considered to be a source of error.

Based on the tests described above, the following recommendations can be

made

1. There is a need for more extensive graphic output of the building

description to help insure correct geometric input.

2. Algorithms for non-isotropic diffuse solar radiation and for automatic

calculation of view factors between surfaces and the environment need to be

implemented and tested.

3. Additional analytic and empirical tests would be useful. They could cover

other important modes of heat transfer such as ground coupling, and other

building configurations, particularly multi-room.

4. Analytic tests should be part of the information available on the TARP

source code tape. This data should be used to verify that program modifications

have not inadvertantly caused errors in other calculations.

5. REFERENCES

[1] Walton, G. N. , "Thermal Analysis Research Program Reference Manual",

Nat. Bur. Stand., NBSIR 83-2655 (NTIS number PB83-194225) , Washington DC, March 1983.

[2] Hittle, D. C., "The Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics

(BLAST) Program, Version 2.0: User Manual", CERL Technical Report E-153,

US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1979.

[3] Judkoff, r. , Wortman, D. , O'Doherty, R. and Burch, J. "A Methodology for

Validating Building Energy Analysis Simulations", Solar Energy

Research Institute report SERI/TR-254-1508, Golden CO, August 1983.

[4] Carroll, J. A., "An 'MRT Method' of Computing Radiant Energy Exchange in

Rooms", Proceedings of the 2nd Systems Simulation and Economics Analysis

Conference, San Diego CA, 1980.

[5] Burch, D. M. , Krintz, D. F. , and Spain, R. S. , "The Effect of Wall Mass on Winter Heating Loads and Indoor Comfort — An Experimental Study",

ASHARE Transactions , Vol 90, Pt 1, 1984.

[6] Burch, D. M. , Davis, K. L. and Malcolm, S. A., "The Effect of Wall Mass on

the Summer Space Cooling of Six Test Buildings", ASHRAE Transactions , Vol 90, Pt 2, 1984.

[7] Carter, E. A., and Patel, A. M. , "Evaluation of Methods of Calculating

Solar Radiation on an Inclined Surface", report for US Department of

Energy, Contract No. EG-77-C-02-4494 , October, 1978.

8
Figure 1. Photograph of one of the test buildings

9
SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

^

SOLAR

HORIZONTAL,

W/m

CM

Figure

2. Outdoor weather during the winter test period

INSULATED HOUSES UNINSULATED

3. Comparison of measured and predict 'd cumulative heating

loads for all six buildings for th ; winter test period

10

OUTDOOR

TEMPERATURE,

°C
Figure 4. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the winter test period

Figure 5. Comparison of measured and predicted heating leads tor lIip

uninsulated wood frame building for the winter test period

11
2.00

$

JCQ*

<

O

_io

z

H

<

UJX

UJm

coz

UJCO

1.75 -

1.50

1.25 -

1.00 -

0.75

0.50

0.25

* Measured loads

Predicted loads

BUILDING 3

Figure 6.

12 18 24 6 12 18' 24

TIME OF DAY, hours

Comparison of measured and predicted heating leads for the

insulated masonry building for the winter test period

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the winter test period

12
SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD.

kW

e 8. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for

the log building for the winter test period.

Figure 9. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for

inside mass masonry building for the winter test period

13
SOLAR

HORIZONTAL.

W/m

2

Figure 10. Outdoor weather during the spring test period

25

20

15

10

5

0

INSULATED HOUSES UNINSULATED

Figure 11. Comparison of measured and predicted cumulative heating

loads for ail six buildings for the spring test period

14

OUTDOOR

TEMPERATURE,

°C
SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

n

SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

12. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the spring test period

Figure 13. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated wood frame building for the spring test period

15
SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

n>

SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

14. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

insulated masonry building for the spring test period

Figure 15. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the spring test period

16
SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD,

kW

n>

SENSIBLE

HEATING

LOAD.

kW

16. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for

the log building for the spring test period.

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0

12 24 12 24 12 24 12 24

TIME OF DAY, hours

Figure 17. Comparison of measured and predicted heating loads for the

inside mass masonry building for the spring test perud

17
INSULATED HOUSES UNINSULATED

Figure 19. Comparison of measured and predicted cumulative cooling

loads for all six buildings for the summer test period

18

OUTDOOR

TEMPERATURE,

°C
SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

n»

SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

20. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

insulated wood frame building for the summer test period

6 12 18 24 6 12 18 24 ' 6 12 18 24

TIME OF DAY, hours

Figure 21. Comparison of measured and predicted cool og loads tor tne

uninsulated wood frame building for the s Jirmer test period

19
SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

n>

SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

22. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads tor cue insulated masonry building for the summer test period

Figure 23. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads for the

uninsulated masonry building for the summer test period

20
SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

<t

SENSIBLE

COOLING

LOAD,

kW

2-. Ccir.oar i -o?. ->f measured and predicted cooling loads for

cue rwg u ui.iUi.Mg for the summer test period.

Figure 25. Comparison of measured and predicted cooling loads ror inside mass masonry building for the summer test periodthe

21

APPENDIX A: TARP input for analytic tests

$ BDP-1 BDP input file for testing steady conduction and scheduled loads.

$ This file primarily tests keys 4.18, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 . $ This uses environment EFP-1

.

$ Data will be converted from English units input to metric for the

$ simulation and back to English for the reports. User defined reports

$ will be used extensively. RN0S=8 will dump the contents of the simulation

$ input file (SINPFL).

PROJECT [ RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT=ENGLISH/

DESC=' STEADY CONDUCTION AND SCHEDULED LOADS TESTS')

RPT (RNOS= 8 /HOURLY /DAILY/FINAL /WIDTH=80)

] $ The library includes a set of schedules which are on during different

$ hours and are all on during the last three hours of the day.

$ The walls are described by R-valued materials so there is no mass effect

$ and no calculation of conduction transfer functions. The zones will be

$ maintained at constant temperatures while heating or cooling.

LIBRARY [ $ LIB(ALL) $ Remove comment for detailed library reports.

DS(NAME=C/FFC=24*1 .0)

WS(NAME=C/ALL=C)

DS(NAME=C1/FFC=3*0, 3*1, 15*0, 3*1)

WS( NAME=C1/ALL=C1

)

DS(NAME=C2/FFC=6*0, 3*1, 12*0, 3*1)

WS( NAME=C2/ALL=C2

)

DS(NAME=C3/FFC=9*0 ,3*1 ,9*0 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C3/ALL=C3)

DS(NAME=C4/FFC=12*0,3*1 ,6*0, 3*1)

WS(NAME=C4/ALL=C4)

DS(NAME=C5/FFC=15*0 ,3*1 ,3*0, 3*1)

WS(NAME=C5/ALL=C5

)

DS(NAME=C6/FFC=18*0 ,3*1 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C6/ALL=C6)

MATL(NAME=R10/R=10 .0)

MATL ( NAME=R4/R=4 . 0

)

cons(name=wallio/matl=o ,R10)

CON S ( NAME=WALL4/MATL=0 ,R4)

DS(NAME=HC/DESC='ZONE HEATING TEMPERATURES' /T=24*68 .

)

DS(NAME=CC/DESC='ZONE COOLING TEMPERATURES' /T=24*78 .

)

WS ( NAME=HEAT /DES C= ' HEAT ING ' / ALL=HC

)

WS( NAME=COOL/DESC= 'COOLING' /ALL=CC

] $ This simulation uses the simplest calculation procedures — constant (user

$ defined) convection coefficients, radiant interchange combined with the

$ convection coefficient, no outside heat balance, and no geometry dependence.

$ It uses a very tight loads convergence criterion.

BUILDING [ S IM ( SLDS=0 / HTB=0 / RIM=0 / HI= 1 ,1 .0/CNVG=.001 , .000001 , .01 ,12/

RPT=TA, A / Z0N=Z0NE1 , ZONE2 ,ZONE3 ,Z0NE4/ SYS=L0ADS)

]

A-l
$ The first zone, Z0NE1 , tests steady conduction simple walls

$ and known boundary conditions. Each wall has an area of 1000 square feet.

$ The first wall has the outside temperature set to the air temperature by

$ the OSC (4.18.3). The inside convection coefficient is the default giving

$ a total thermal conductance of .909 Btu/hsqftF. The total heat loss

$ from by this wall is given by 1000 * .909 * (68. - TA) which ranges from

$ 6000 Btu during the first hour to 1818.2 Btu during hour 24.

$ The second wall has a constant outside temperature of 48 F. It has a

$ constant heat loss of (1000 * .909 * [68 - 48] =) 1818.2 Btu/h.

$ The third wall has a constant outside temperature of 43 F (the ground

$ temperature. It also has a surface specific inside convection coefficient

$ (4.15.11) which gives a total thermal conductance of 0.0952.

$ The constant heat loss of this wall is 2381.0 Btu.

$ The fourth wall has a convection coefficient in the OSC (4.18.1).

$ The total thermal resistance of the wall is (1+10+1=) 12. The heat loss

$ of wall 4 ranges from 5500. Btu during hour 1 to 1666.7 Btu during hour 24.

$ The expected hourly heating loads for Z0NE1 are:

$ hours 1-6 15700.1 15351 .6 15003.1 14654.6 14306.2 13957 .7

$ hours 7-12 13609.2 13260.7 12912.2 12563.7 12215.3 11866.8

$ hours 13-18 11518.3 11169.8 10821 .3 10472.8 10124.4 9775.9

$ hours 19-24 9427 .4 9078.9 8730.4 8381 .9 8033 .5 7685.0

ZONE [ GEOM(NAME=ZONE1/VOL=0.01/RPT=HLS,T)

SRF(EX/ op/bs/ cons=wallio/azm=o/ ORG=100 ,100 ,0/ SIZE=100 ,10)

OSC (TAP=1

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=90/ORG=100,0,0/SIZE=100,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL10/HC=2 .0/AZM=180/ ORG=0 ,0,0/ SIZE=100 ,10)

0SC(TGP=1

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=270/ORG=0 ,100 ,0/ SIZE=100 ,10)

0SC(H0=1 ,0/TAP=l

)

> ] $ The second zone, Z0NE2 , tests the scheduling of convective internal gains

$ from lights, equipment, and simple infiltration. The two walls have a

$ heat gain of 3636.4 Btu/h. This is augmented by convective gains from

$ lights and equipment. These gains are scheduled to occur during different

$ hours to test hourly scheduling and have different energy sources to test

$ the user defined zone reports. They also occur simultaneously

$ during the last three hours of the day.

$ These heat gains are offset by infiltration which is estimated by

$ 1.08 * CFM * (78 - TA). This ranges from 820.8 Btu during hour 1 to

$ 324.0 Btu during hour 24.

$ The expected hourly cooling loads for Z0NE2 are:

$ hours 1-6 2815.6 2837 .2 2858.8 2980 .4 3002.0 3023 .6 $ hours 7-12 3045.2 3066.8 3088.4 3110.0 3131.6 3153.2

$ hours 13-18 3174.8 3196.4 3218.0 3239.6 3261.2 3282.8

$ hours 19-24 3304.4 3326 .0 3247.6 3869.2 3890.8 3912.4

ZONE [ GE0M(NAME=Z0NE2/ VOL=0 .01/RPT=CLS, T, ELZ , T, GSZ , T, STZ , T, HWZ , T, OTZ , T)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=0/ORG=10,10,0/SIZE=100,10)

OSC(CT=98./CTP=l)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=180/ORG=0 ,0 ,0/ SIZE=100 ,10)

OSC(CT=98./CTP=l)

LIT ( WS=C 1 / CAP= . 1 / RA=0 / RAD=0 / VIS=0 / REP=0

)
EQ P ( WS=C2 / CAP= . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOS T=0 / EL

)

EQP(WS=C3/CAP=.l/ LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOS T=0 / GS

)

EQ P ( WS=C4 / CAP= . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOS T=0 / ST

)

EQP ( WS=C5 / CAP= . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOST=0/ HW

)

EQP ( WS=C6/ CAP= . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOST=0 / OTHR)

INF(WS=C/CAP=10./C=1/T=0/V=0/VV=0)

] $ The third zone, ZONE3 , tests the baseboard heat algorithm (4.12).

$ The two walls have a heat loss which ranges from 6000. Btu at hour 1 to

$ 1818.2 Btu at hour 24. This heat loss is offset by basebaord heat of

$ 4000. Btu when TA <= 20 F to 2000. Btu when TA = 40F and zero when TA > 40

$ The expected hourly heating loads for Z0NE3 are:

$ hours 1-6 2000.0 1818.2 1636.4 1454.5 1272.7 1090 .9

$ hours 7-12 909.1 727 .3 545.5 363.6 381.8 400.0

$ hours 13-18 418.2 436.4 454.5 472.7 490.9 509.1

$ hours 19-24 527 .5 545.5 2363.6 2181.8 2000.0 1818.2

ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= ZON E3 / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=HL S , T

)

BBH(WS=C/CAP=4. ,2 ,/TMP=20 ,40/RAD=0/ST)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=0/ORG=50,50,0/SIZE=5Q,10)

OSC (TAP=1

)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL10/AZM=180/ ORG=0 ,0,0/ SIZE=50 ,10)

OSC(TAP=l

)

$ The fourth zone, Z0NE4, tests the non-convective gains from sheduled loads

$ The single wall (possible only with RIM=0 (3.1.8)) has a heat loss

$ of 13200. Btu. This loss is offset by various scheduled gains.

$ After radiant energy is absorbed by a wall, part of it is convected back

$ into the room air to become part of the zone load and part of it is

$ conducted to the outside. For the combination of thermal resistances in

$ Z0NE4, 20% [=1/(1+4)J of the radiant energy is lost to the outside.

$ The expected hourly heating loads for Z0NE4 are:

$ hours 1-6 13200.0 13200.0 13200. 12200.0 12200.0 12200.0

$ hours 7-12 12320.0 12320.0 12320.0 12720.0 12720.0 12720 .0

$ hours 13-18 12200.0 12200.0 12200.0 12380.0 12380.0 12380 .0

$ hours 19-24 12480.0 12480.0 12480.0 8300.0 8300.0 8300.0

ZONE [ GE0M( NAME= Z0NE4/ VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=HL S , T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/ORG=0 ,0 ,0/SIZE=100 ,10)

0SC(CT=2/CTP=1)

EQP(WS=C1/CAP=1 . / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOST=0 / GS

)

EQP(WS=C2/CAP=1 ./LAT=0/RAD=.6/LOST=0/GS)

EQP(WS=C3/CAP=1 . / LAT= . 2 / RAD= . 6 / LOST= . 2 / GS

)

LIT ( WS=C4/CAP=1 . / RA=0 / RAD=0 / VIS=0 / REP=0

)

LIT (WS=C5 / CAP=1 . / RA=0 / RAD= . 8 / VIS= . 1 / REP=0

)

LIT (WS=C6/ CAP=1 . / RA= . 2 / RAD= . 2 / VIS= . 2 / REP=0

)

] SYSTEM [ SYS ( NAME=LOADS

)

DES ( Z0NE=Z0NE1 / HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL

)

DES ( ZONE=ZONE2/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL)

DES ( Z0NE=Z0NE3/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=C00L)

DES(Z0NE=Z0NE4/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=C00L)

]
$ BDP-2 BDP input file for testing transient conduction calculations.

$ This uses environment EFP-2

.

$

$ The use of conduction transfer functions (CTF) to calculate transient

$ conduction is tested by comparing the temperature of a wall, as it responds

$ to a step change in air temparature, to an analytic solution.

$ User defined reports print the appropriate wall and air temperatures.

PROJECT [ RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT=ENGLISH/DESC=' TRANSIENT CONDUCTION TESTS')

RPT ( HOURLY/ FR0M=2 8FEB / THRU=6MAR

)

$ RPT(HOURLY/FROM=30APR/THRU=6MAY) $ Use this alternative to report T decay.

] $ Control schedules are set up to create step changes in the zone air

$ temperature for zones 1 and 2. Zone 6 is maintained at a constant

$ temperature.

$ Several different wall constructions are tested.

$ WALL1A and WALL1B are one foot thick sections of a generic masonry

$ material. There are one layer and three layer versions of this wall

$ because TARP uses slightly different techniques to compute the CTF

$ of one and multi-layered walls. The library report will show if

$ exactly the same CTF coefficients are computed for both.

$ WALL2A and WALL2B are 0.1 foot thick walls of the same material.

$ Thin walls have very few CTF coefficients.

$ LOWMASS, MEDMASS, and HIMASS are two-layer walls which can also be

$ tested against the analytic solution.

LIBRARY l LIB (CONS)

DS(NAME=H90/DESC='ZONE HEATING TEMPERATURES' /T=2 4*90)

DS(NAME=C40/DESC='ZONE COOLING TEMPERATURES '/T=2 4*40)

DS(NAME=S65/DESC='ZONE COOLING TEMPERATURES ' / T=24*6 5

)

WS(NAME=HEAT90/DESC= 'HEATING' /ALL=H90

)

WS ( NAME=COOL40 / DE S C= ' COOL ING ' / ALL=C40

)

WS ( NAME= SET6 5 / DES C= ' COOL ING' / ALL= S6 5

)

MATL(NAME=M1/K=0 .75/D=120 ./ CP=0 .2)

MATL (NAME=GYP- BOARD /K=. 25 /D=7 8/CP= .26)

MATL(NAME=C0NCRETE/K=.54/D=144/CP=.16)

MATL( NAME=RL0W/R=1 2 .7 83 ) MATL ( NAME=RMED / R= 1 2 . 3 3 2

)

MATL(NAME=RHI/R=11 .872)

C0NS(NAME=WALL1A/MATL=1 .0 ,M1)

CONS(NAME=WALL1B/MATL=0 .25 ,M1 , 0 .25 ,M1 , 0.50, Ml)

CONS(NAME=WALL2A/MATL=0 .1 ,M1

)

CONS(NAME=WALL2B/MATL=0 .05 ,M1 , 0.05, Ml)

C0NS( NAME=LOWMASS /MATL=0 ,RL0W, .0416667 , GYP-BOARD)

CON S ( NAME=MEDMASS /MATL=0 ,RMED, .333333 .CONCRETE)

C0NS( NAME=HIMASS /MATL=0 ,RHI, .583333 .CONCRETE)

] $ Very tight limits are used for loads convergence. Known, constant

$ convection coefficients are needed for comparison to the analytic solution.

BUILDING [ SIM(SLDS=0/HTB=0/CNVG= .00001 , .000001 , .010 ,24/H0=l ,4 ./HI=1 ,1 ./

RPT=TA, 1/

ZON=ZONEl , Z0NE2 ,Z0NE3 , Z0NE4 ,Z0NE5 , ZONE6/ SYS=L0ADS)

]
$ The solution of the analytic test is presented in most heat transfer

texts (e.g. Eckert & Drake, Analysis of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1972,

McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp 143-147). The problem consists of a flat plate

$ of thickness 2L in the x-direction and infinite extent in the y- and

$ z-directions . This plate is initially at a uniform temperature equal

to the temperature of the surrounding fluid (air). At time zero,

$ there is an instantaneous change in the air temperature. This is

transferred to or from the slab through a convection coefficient

$ causing the temperature of the slab to change as a function of time

$ and position in the slab. This configuration is also equivalent to

$ a slab of thickness L which is insulated on one side.

$ The conduction transfer function method in TARP (and most other building

$ energy analysis programs) cannot exactly represent a step change in

$ temperature because triangular pulses are used in generating the CTF.

$ All temperatures are assumed to change linearly from time t to time

$ t + delta. In TARP delta is a one hour timestep. The TARP solution

$ at time t + n*delta should lie between the analytic solutions for time

$ t + (n-l)*delta and time t + n*delta.

$ Zones 1 and 2 use the internal partition (IN/OP/BS) and equivalent MASS

$ configurations for cases which can be compared to the analytic solution.

$ The system control strategy changes the room air temperature. The

$ temperatures of all four surfaces should be identical and equal to

$ the mean radiant temperature (TR) which is reported for comparison

$ to the analytic solution for the surface temperature (at x=L)

.

$ The normalized temperature of the surface is defined as

$ TN = (TI - TZ) / (TIO - TZ)

$ Where

$ TI = wall surface temperature,

$ TZ = room air temperature,

$ TIO = initial surface temperature.

$ The following table gives the limits of the expected normalized

$ temperature when TI is rising and the temperatures (degrees F) when they

$ are rising (T+)i and when they are falling (T-) for WALL1A or B : $ time TNmin TNmax T+min T+max T-max T-min

$ 0 0.000 0.000 40.0 40.0 90.0 90.0

$ 1 0.000 0.2189 40.0 50.946 90.0 79.054

$ 2 0.2189 0.2888 50.946 54.438 79.054 75.562

$ 3 0.2888 0.3399 54.438 56.996 75.562 73.004

$ 4 0.3399 0.3843 56.996 59.214 73.004 70.786

$ 8 0.4626 0.4978 63.130 64.890 66.870 65.110

$ 12 0.5901 0.6170 69.506 70.848 60.494 59.152

$ 16 0.6874 0.7078 74.369 75.392 55.631 54.608

$ 20 0.7616 0.7772 78.078 78.858 51.922 51 .142

$ 24 0.8181 0.8300 80.906 81.502 49.094 48.498

$ 28 0.8613 0.8704 83.064 83.518 46.936 46.482

$ 32 0.8942 0.9011 84.710 85.056 45.290 44.944

$ 36 0.9193 0.9246 85.965 86.229 44.035 43 .770

ZONE [ GEOM( NAME= ZON El / VOL= . 0 1 / RPT=TR , I

)

SRF(IN/OP/BS/CONS=WALL1A/AZM=0/ORG=10,10,0/SIZE=10,10)

SRF(IN/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALLlB/AZM=0/ ORG=10 ,10 ,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

MAS S ( CON S=WALL1 A/AR EA= 1 00

)

MASS ( CON S=WALL1 B/AREA=100

)

]
$

$

The

for

response

WALL2A or

of Z0NE2

B:

should be compared to the following values

$ time TNmin TNmax T+min T+max T-max T-min

$ 0 0.000 0.000 40.0 40.0 90.0 90.0

$ 1 0.000 0.5671 40.0 68.356 90.0 6 1 . 6 44

$ 2 0.5671 0.8084 68.356 80.421 61.644 49.579

$ 3 0.8084 0.9152 80.421 85 .760 49.579 44.240

$ 4 0.9152 0.9625 85 .760 88.124 44.240 41 .876

$ 5 0.9625 0.9834 88.124 89.200 41.876 40.800

$ 6 0.9834 0.9926 89.200 89.632 40.800 40.368

ZONE [ GEOM( NAME= ZONE2 / VOL= . 0 1 / RPT=TR , I

)

SRF(IN/OP/BS/CONS=WALL2A/AZM=0/ORG=10 ,10,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

SRF ( IN / OP / BS/ CON S=WALL2 B/AZM=0 / ORG= 1 0 , 1 0 , 0 / S IZ E= 1 0 , 1 0

)

MASS (CON S=WALL2A/AREA=100

)

MASS ( CON S=WALL2 B/AREA=100)

] $ Zones 3 through 5 follow the transient conduction test developed at the

$ Solar Energy Research Institute (Judkoff, Wortman, O'Doherty, & Burch,

$ "A Methodology for Validating Building Energy Analysis Simulations",

$ SERI/TR-254-1508, August 1983).

$ Walls consist of a massive part on the inside and a massless part outside.

$ The same mathematical analysis is performed as for zones 1 and 2 with the

$ massless layer combined with the outside convection coefficient. The inside

$ surfaces of all walls of a zone are at the same temperature which equals

$ the zone air temperature. This should equal the centerline temperature

$ of the massive slab. Solutions for three levels of mass are presented.

$ Values of the normalized temperature, TN, have been independently

$ computed and are presented along with the SERI values. There are small

$ differences in the values which may be due to different accuracies in

$ evaluating the eigenvalues and series summations. The following table

$ gives the limits of the expected normalized temperature, the temperatures

$ (degrees F) when they are rising and when they are falling, and the

$ SERI values for TN for the low mass wall:

$ time TNmin TNmax T+min T+max T-max T-min TN(SERI)

$ 0 0.000 0.000 40.0 40.0 90.0 90.0 0.000

$ 1 0.000 0.0845 40.0 44.226 90.0 85 .774 0.086

$ 2 0.0845 0.1637 44.226 48.183 85.774 81 .817 0.165

$ 3 0.1637 0.2360 48.183 51.798 81.817 78.202 0.237

$ 4 0.2360 0.3020 51.798 55.101 78.202 74.899 0.303

$ 5 0.3020 0.3624 55.101 58.118 74.899 71.882 0.363

$ 6 0.3624 0.4175 58.118 60.874 71.882 69.126 0.418

$ 7 0.4175 0.4678 60.874 63.392 69.126 66 .608 0.468

$ 8 0.4678 0.5138 63.392 65.692 66.608 64.308 0.514

$ 12 0.6294 0.6614 71.468 73.070 58.532 56 .930 -

$ 16 0.7418 0.7642 77 .092 78.208 52.908 51.792 -

$ 20 0.8202 0.8357 81.010 81 .786 48.990 48.214 -

$ 24 0.8748 0.8856 83 .738 84.280 46.262 45.720 -

A6
ZONE [ GEOM(NAME=ZONE3/RPT=TZ, I/VOL=.01/PLAN=-5 ,35,-5 ,10)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=0/ ORG=30 ,5,0 / SIZE=30 ,8)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=90/ORG=30,0,0/SIZE=5 ,8)

SRF( EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=l 80/ ORG=0 ,0 ,0/ SIZE=3 0 ,8

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=270/ORG=0,5 ,0/SIZE=5 ,8)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=180/TILT=0/ORG=0 ,0 ,8/ SIZE=30 ,5

)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CON S=LOWMASS/AZM=l 80/TILT=180/0RG=0, 5 ,0/SIZE=30,5)

] $ The expected temperatures for the medium mass wall are

$ time TNmin TNmax T+min T+max T-max T-min TN(SERI)

$ 0 0.000 0.000 40.0 40.0 90.0 90.0 0.000

$ 4 0.0223 0.0322 41.116 41 .610 88.884 88.390 0.040

$ 8 0.0613 0.0708 43.066 43 .541 86 .934 86.459 0.078

$ 12 0.0988 0.1079 44.938 45.395 85.062 84.605 0.114

$ 16 0.1347 0.1435 46.737 47.175 83.263 82.825 0.149

$ 20 0.1693 0.1777 48.464 48.884 81.536 81.116 0.183

$ 24 0.2024 0.2105 50.121 50.525 79.879 79.475 0.215

$ 28 0.2342 0.2420 51.712 52.100 78.288 77 .900 0.246

$ 32 0.2648 0.2723 53.240 53.613 76.760 76 .387 0.276

$ 36 0.2942 0.3013 54.708 55.066 75.292 74.934 0.305

$ 40 0.3223 0.3292 56.116 56.460 73.884 73.540 0.332

ZONE [ GE0M(NAME=Z0NE4/ RPT=TZ , I/VOL= .01

)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=MEDMASS/AZM=0/ ORG=30 ,5,0/ SIZE=30 ,8)

SRF ( E X/ OP / BS/ CON S=MEDMAS S / AZM= 90 / ORG=3 0 , 0 , 0 / S IZ E=5 , 8

)

SRF ( EX/ OP / BS/ CON S=MEDMAS S /AZM=1 80 / ORG=0 , 0 , 0 / S IZ E=3 0 , 8

)

SRF ( EX/ OP / BS/ CON S=MEDMAS S /AZM=27 0/ ORG=0 , 5 , 0 / S IZ E=5 , 8 ) SRF ( EX/ OP / BS/ CON S=MEDMAS S / AZM=1 80 / T ILT=0 / ORG=0 , 0 , 8 / S IZ E=3 0 , 5

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=MEDMASS/AZM=180/TILT=180/ORG=0,5 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,5

)

] $ The expected temperatures for the high mass wall are:

$ time TNmin TNmax T+min T+max T-max T-min TN(SERI)

$ 0 0.000 0.000 40.0 40.0 90.0 90.0 . 0.000

$ 10 0.0386 0.0443 41.930 42.216 88.070 87 .784 0.058

$ 20 0.0942 0.0996 44.710 44.979 85.290 85 .021 0.111

$ 30 0.1466 0.1517 47.330 47.584 82.670 82.416 0.162

$ 40 0.1960 0.2008 49.799 50.038 80.201 79.962 0.209

$ 50 0.2425 0.2470 52.125 52.350 77 .875 77 .650 0.255

$ 60 0.2863 0.2906 54.316 54.528 75.684 75.472 0.297

$ 70 0.3276 0.3316 56.380 56 .580 73.620 73.420 0.332

$ 80 0.3665 0.3703 58.326 58.514 71.675 71.486 0.375

ZONE [ GEOM( NAME=ZONE5 / RPT=TZ , I / VOL= . 0 1

)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=HIMASS/AZM=0/ ORG=30 ,5 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,8

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=HIMASS/AZM=90/ORG=30,0,0/SIZE=5 ,8)

SRF (EX/ OP/ BS/ CONS=HIMASS/AZM=l 80/ ORG=0 ,0 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,8)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=HIMASS/AZM=270/ ORG=0 ,5,0/ SIZE=5 ,8)

SRF (EX/ OP/ BS/ C0NS=HIMASS/AZM=180/TILT=0/ ORG=0 ,0,8/ SIZE=30 ,5/

RPT=HC , I , HO , I , TI , I ) $ Report to insure HC=1 , H0=4 , TZ=TI.

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=HIMASS/AZM=l 80/TILT=l 80/ ORG=0 ,5 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,5

)

]
$ Z0NE6 tests that all three SERI walls reach the same steady state

$ conductance becaues all have the same U-value (.0704). This gives an

$ expected heating or cooling load of ( .0704*860 .*25 .=) 1514. Btu/h.

ZONE [ GE0M( NAME= Z0NE6 / RPT=HL S , I , CL S , I / V0L= . 0 1

)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=LOWMASS/AZM=0/ ORG=30 ,5 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,8)

SRF ( EX/ OP / BS/ CON S=L0WMAS S / AZM=90 / ORG=3 0 , 0 , 0 / S IZ E=5 , 8

)

SRF ( EX/ OP / BS / CON S=MEDMAS S / AZM=1 80 / ORG=0 , 0 , 0 / S IZ E=3 0 , 8

)

SRF ( EX/ OP / BS/ CON S=MEDMAS S / AZM=2 7 0 / ORG=0 , 5 , 0 / S IZ E=5 , 8

)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=HIMASS/AZM=180/TILT=0/ ORG=0 ,0,8/ SIZE=30 ,5

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=HIMASS/AZM=180/TILT=180/ORG=0,5 ,0/ SIZE=30 ,5

)

] SYSTEM [ SYS ( NAME=LOADS)

DES ( ZONE=ZONE1/HTWS=HEAT90/HTFROM=1MAR/ HTTHRU=3 0APR/

CLWS=COOL40/CLFROM=1MAY/CLTHRU=28FEB)

DES ( ZONE=ZONE2/HTWS=HEAT90/HTFROM=1MAR/ HTTHRU=3 0APR/

CLWS=COOL40/CLFROM=1MAY/CLTHRU=28FEB)

]

UNC(ZONE=ZONE3)

UNC(Z0NE=Z0NE4)

UNC ( Z0NE=Z0NE5

)

DES ( ZONE=ZONE6 / HTW S= SET6 5 / HTFROM=l JAN / HTTHRU=3 1DEC/

CLWS=SET65/CLFR0M=1JAN/CLTHRU=31DEC)

A8
$ BDP-3 BDP input file for testing radiant interchange calculations using

$ using the mean radiant temperature (MRT) network method.

$ This uses environment EFP-1 . Actually the weather data is not used in

$ the simulation, but an ENVTFL is required.

$

PROJECT [ RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT=ENGLISH/

DESC=' RADIANT INTERCHANGE TESTS')

RPT( HOURLY /FINAL)

] $ The library includes a set of schedules which are on during different

$ hours and are all on during the last three hours of the day.

$ The walls are described by R-valued materials so there is no mass effect

$ and no calculation of conduction transfer functions. The zones will be

$ maintained at constant temperatures while heating or cooling.

LIBRARY [ DS(NAME=C1/FFC=3*0,3*1, 15*0, 3*1)

WS(NAME=C1/ALL=C1)

DS(NAME=C2/FFC=6*0, 3*1, 12*0, 3*1)

WS(NAME=C2/ALL=C2)

DS(NAME=C3/FFC=9*0,3*1 ,9*0 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C3/ALL=C3)

DS(NAME=C4/FFC=1 2*0,3 *1 ,6*0 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C4/ALL=C4)

DS(NAME=C5/FFC=15*0 ,3*1 ,3*0 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C5/ALL=C5)

DS(NAME=C6/FFC=18*0 ,3*1 ,3*1)

WS(NAME=C6/ALL=C6)

MATL(NAME=R4/R=4 .0)

CONS ( NAME=WALL4/ MATL=0 ,R4)

DS(NAME=HC/DESC='ZONE HEATING TEMPERATURES '/T=24*68 .

)

DS(NAME=CC/DESC='ZONE COOLING TEMPERATURES' /T=24*78.)

WS(NAME=HEAT/DESC= 'HEATING' /ALL=HC

)

WS ( NAME=COOL /DES C= ' COOL ING ' / ALL=CC

)

] $ This simulation uses the detailed radiant interchange algorithm (RIM=2)

.

$ The simpler MRT network algorithm can also be tested by setting RIM=1

.

$ The default inside convection coefficient is used (HI=0).

$ It uses a very tight loads convergence criterion.

BUILDING [ S IM ( SLDS=0 / HTB=0 / RIM=2 / HI=0 / CNVG= . 00 1 , .000001 , .01 ,12/

Z0N=Z0NE1 ,Z0NE2,Z0NE3 ,Z0NE4,Z0NE5 ,ZONE6/ SYS=L0ADS)

] $ Z0NE1 tests steady state conduction in a- simple two wall zone.

$ Since the walls and outside temperatures are identical, the inside

$ surface temperatures are identical and there should be no radiant

$ interchange between the walls. The inside convection coefficient

$ for vertical walls with HI=0 should be 0.5424 Btu/h ft2 F.

$ The total U-value of the wall is 0.1711 . The expected heating load

$ for ZONEl is (0.1711*2000. *20.=) 6845. Btu/h.

ZONE [ GEOM(NAME=ZONE1/VOL=0.01/RPT=HLS,T)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/SIZE=100,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)
SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/SIZE=100,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

] Z0NE2 consists of a single wall identical to the walls in Z0NE1 and

a partition (IN/OP/BS) surface of equal area. This creates a more

complex thermal network:

exterior wall partition

1///////////1 i illinium

I///////////I Q21 I///////////I

i // minimi \ i ///////////

1

* Q01 * * Q22 *

I /////////// 1 \ / 1 ///////////

!

I///////////I QZl * QZ2 I///////////I

I///////////I I///////////I

TO Tl TZ T2 T2

Both sides of the partition are at the same temperature so, since the

thermal resistance is only an R-value, there is no conductive heat

flux, Q22 , in the partition. This leaves four heat flux paths:

(1) Q01 = U (TO - Tl) conduction in the exterior wall,

(2) QZl = H (TZ - Tl) convection to the exterior wall,

(3) QZ2 = H (TZ - T2) convection to the partition, and

(4) Q21 = SF (T2**4 - Tl**4) radiation between the walls.

S = 0.17141E-8 Btu/h ft2 R4 ( Stef an- Boltzmann constant);

F = 1/ ( 1/E1+1/E2-1 ) = 0.818182 for E1=E2=0.90 (radiation interchange

factor between two surfaces which can see only each other);

Temperatures must be in degrees Rankine (= Fahrenheit + 459.67);

H = 0.5424 Btu/h ft2 F;

U = 0.25 Btu/h ft2 F.

The heat balances at surfaces 1 and 2 are:

(1) Q01 + QZl + Q21 = 0 , (2) QZ2 = Q21 . Solving simultaneously with TO = 48F and TZ = 68F gives Tl = 63.523F,

T2 = 65.322F, and Q01 = -3.881 Btu/h ft2. For the entire wall the

expected heating load is 7762. Btu/h.

ZONE [ GE0M(NAME=Z0NE2/ VOL=0 .01/ RPT=HLS, T)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/ SIZE=10 ,200/ RPT=TI, I)

0SC(CT=48 ./ CTP=1

)

SRF(IN/ OP/BS/ C0NS=WALL4/AZM=1 80/ SIZE=10 ,200/ RPT=TI, I)

] $ Z0NE3 is identical to Z0NE2 except that it is in a cooling mode.

$ TO = 98F and TZ = 78F gives Tl = 82.428F, T2 = 80.752F, and

$ Q01 = 3.893 Btu/h ft2. The expected cooling load is 7786. Btu/h.

$ Note that this load is not exactly equal to the heating load for Z0NE2

$ even though there is a 20 degree temperature difference for both

$ zones. This is because of the nonlinear nature of radiant transfer.

ZONE [ GEOM( NAME= Z ON E3 / VOL=0 .01/ RPT=CLS , T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/SIZE=10,200/RPT=TI, I)

0SC(CT=98./CTP=1)

SRF(IN/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/SIZE=10,200/RPT=TI, I)

]

A- 10
$ Z0NE4 test the distribution of radiant gains from scheduled loads.

This is similar to the test in BDP-1 . Another test is required

because the MRT network method uses a different algorithm for the

radiant gains. 31.55% (=(1/ .5424)/(4+l/ .5424) ) of the radiant energy

$ is lost to the outside. The conductive heat loss is 684.5 Btu/h.

$ The expected hourly heating loads for Z0NE4 are:

$ hours 1-6 684.5 684.5 684.5 584.5 584.5 584.5

$ hours 7-12 600.3 600.3 600.3 616.0 616.0 616.0

$ hours 13-18 584.5 584.5 584.5 600.3 600.3 600.3

$ hours 19-24 616.0 616.0 616.0 179.1 179.1 179.1

ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= ZON E4 / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=HLS , T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/SIZE=10,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/SIZE=10,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

EQP(WS=C1/ CAP=0 . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=0 / LOST=0 / GS

)

EQP(WS=C2/ CAP=0 . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD= . 5 / LOST=0 / GS

)

EQP(WS=C3/CAP=0 . 1 / LAT=0 / RAD=1 .0/LOST=0/GS)

LIT ( WS=C4/CAP=0 . 1 / RA=0 / RAD=0 / VIS=0 / REP=0 ) LIT ( WS=C5 / CAP=0 . 1 / RA=0 / RAD= .3 / VIS= . 2 / REP=0

)

LIT ( WS=C6/ CAP=0 . 1 / RA=0 / RAD= . 7 / VIS= .3 / REP=0

)

] $ Zones 5 and 6 test the interzone partition algorithm. Since both

$ zones are identical, the interzone surface should be equivalent to a

$ partition. The heating loads for Zones 5 and 6 should be identical

$ to Z0NE4's heating load.

ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME=Z0NE5 / VOL=0 .01/ RPT=HLS, T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/SIZE=10,200)

0SC(CT=48./CTP=1)

SRF(IN/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/ SIZE=10 ,200/ Z0NE=Z0NE6

)

] ZONE [ GE0M( NAME= Z0NE6 / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=HLS , T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=0/ SIZE=10 ,200)

0SC(CT=48./CTP=1)

SRF(IN/OP/BS/CONS=WALL4/AZM=180/SIZE=10,200/ZONE=ZONE5)

] SYSTEM [ SYS (NAME=LOADS)

DES ( Z0NE=Z0NE1 / HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL

)

DES(Z0NE=Z0NE2/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=C00L)

DES ( Z0NE=Z0NE3 / HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=C00L

)

DES(Z0NE=Z0NE4/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=C00L)

DES ( ZON E= ZON E5/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL)

DES ( Z0NE=Z0NE6 / HTW S=HEAT / CLWS=C00L

)

]

A- 11
$ BDP-4 BDP input file to test latent load and contaminant calculations.

$ Contaminant concentration is computed by an algorithm which is nearly

$ identical to the mositure concentration and latent load algorithm.

$ This uses environment EFP-4.

$

PROJECT

[

RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT=ENGLISH/

DESC=' LATENT LOADS AND CONTAMINANT TESTS')

RPT( HOURLY /FINAL)

] $ The temperature and humidity control schedules cause the minimum humidity

$ ratio (at TZ=68F and RH=40%) to be .005903 (lb H20/ lb air). The maximum

$ humidity ratio (at TZ=78F and RH=60%) is .012523 . LIBRARY

[

$ LIB (ALL)

DS(NAME=C/FFC=24*1)

WS(NAME=C/ALL=C)

DS(NAME=STEP/FFC=6*0. 0,1 2*1.0, 6*0.0)

WS( NAME= STEP /ALL= STEP

)

DS(NAME=K1/FFC=6*1,18*0)

WS(NAME=WK1/ALL=K1)

DS(NAME=K2/FFC=6*0 ,6*1 ,12*0)

WS(NAME=WK2/ALL=K2)

DS(NAME=K3/FFC=12*0 ,6*1 ,6*0)

WS ( NAME=WK3 / ALL=K3

)

DS(NAME=K4/FFC=18*0,6*1)

WS ( NAME=WK4/ALL=K4)

MATL(NAME=R10/R=10 .0)

CON S(NAME=WALL10/MATL=0 ,R10)

DS ( NAME=HEATD/DESC= 'DAY HEAT ING ' / T=2 4*6 8 . 0

)

DS ( NAME=C00LD/DES C= 'DAY COOLING' /T=2 4*78 .0)

WS ( NAME=HEATW/DESC='WEEK HEATING' /ALL=HEATD)

WS( NAME=C00LW/DES C= ' WEEK COOL ING' / ALL=COOLD

)

DS(NAME=HUMD/DESC='DAY HUMIDIFYING' /FFC=2 4*0 .4)

WS( NAME=HUMW/DES C= 'WEEK HUMIDIFYING' /ALL=HUMD)

DS ( NAME=DEHUMD /DES C= ' DAY DEHUMIDIFYING' /FFC=24*0 .6

)

WS(NAME=DEHUMW/DESC='WEEK DEHUMIDIFYING' /ALL=DEHUMD)

] $ The LAT command causes the calculation of latent loads.

$ Try CTS with different timesteps to test the trade-off of accuracy vs.

$ calculation time. Relatively long steps should be possible when

$ conditions change slowly. Two contaminants are defined.

BUILDING!

S IM ( LAT / SLDS=0 / HTB=0 / H0=0 / HI=0 / CTS=6 0 .

/

Z0N=Z0NE1 , ZONE2 ,Z0NE3/SYS=L0ADS/RPT=TA,A)

ctm(name=co/acc=o/ws=c)

CTM(NAME=C02/ACC=0/WS=C)

] $ Z0NE1 tests the operation of scheduled latent gains. The reported

$ latent loads (RPT=CLL,T) should equal the scheduled latent gains.

$ The conductive gains through the walls are (.0844*200*20=) 337.7 Btu/h.

$ The convective portion of the scheduled equipment loads will be added

$ to the above value and reported as the sensible cooling load (CLS,T).

$ The sum of the sensible and latent loads should be 437.7 Btu/h at all hours.

A- 12
ZONE [ GEOM(NAME=ZONEl/ VOL=1200 ./RPT=CLS, T, CLL, T)

EQP(WS=WK1/CAP=0 . 1 / LAT=0 .0/RAD=0 .0/LOST=0 .0/ST)

EQP( WS=WK2/CAP=0 .1/LAT=0 .5/RAD=0 .0/LOST=0 .0/ST)

EQP(WS=WK3/CAP=0 . 1 / LAT=0 .75/RAD=0 .0/LOST=0 .0/ST)

EQ P ( WS=WK4/ CAP=0 . 1 / LAT= 1.0/ RAD=0 . 0 / LOS T=0 . 0 / ST

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=0/TILT=90/ORG=10 ,10 ,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

OSC(CT=98./CTP=l)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=180/TILT=90/ORG=0,0,0/SIZE=10,10)

OSC(CT=98./CTP=l)

] $ ZONE2 tests the calculation of latent loads due to infiltration.

$ The infiltration is constant at 20 cfm, or one air change, per hour.

$ When the ambient air temperature is 48F, the sensible heating load

$ due to conduction is 337.7 Btu/h, and the sensible heating load due

$ to infiltration is about 432. Btu/h. ASHRAE gives two slightly

$ different formulae for this. The result above is according to

$ equation 8, page 25.10 of the 1981 Fundamentals Handbook which gives

$ QS = 1 ,08*(cfm)*(temperature difference - F). Equation 25, page 26.30

$ gives QS = 1 ,10*(cfm)*(temperature difference).

$ The total sensible heating and cooling loads should be about 769.7 Btu/h.

$ Equation 29, page 26.30 gives the latent load as

$ QL = 4840*(cfm)*(humidity ration difference). During the 6 hours of

$ low ambient humidity, TARP should compute a humidification load of

$ (4840*20*(0. 005903-0 .003004)=) 280.6 Btu/h. During the 6 hours of

$ high ambient humidity, the dehumidification load should be

$ (4840*20*(0. 015832-0. 012523)=) 320.3 Btu/h.

$ Note that the mass of the zone air introduces a transient effect into

$ zone air temperature, and sensible and latent loads.

ZONE [ GE0M(NAME=Z0NE2/ VOL=1200 ./RPT=TZ , A, OAF, T, HLS, T, HLL, T, CLS, T, CLL , T

)

INF(WS=C/CAP=20./C=1/T=0/V=0/VV=0)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=0/TILT=90/ORG=10 ,10 ,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

0SC(TAP=1

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=180/TILT=90/ ORG=0 ,0 ,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

OSC (TAP=1

)

] $ Z0NE3 tests the calculation of contaminant concentrations. The first

$ contaminant should reach a steady concentration where the generation

$ rate matches the removal rate due to infiltration. The density of air

$ at 68F is about 0.75 lb/ft3 and the infiltration rate is 900 ft3/h.

$ This gives 67.5 pounds of air removed per hour. Since the contaminant

$ generation rate is 1.0 lb/h, the steady state concentration should be

$ (1.0/67.5=) 0.0148 (lb c/lb air).

A-13
-c/>

-co

<o

-co

-co

-co

-co

-co

<o

-co

-co

-co The second contaminant is generated during only half of the day for an analysis of the transient calculations. The concentration should follow

a simple exponential rise or decay. Since there is one air change

per hour, the time constant is 1/e or 0.3679 . The following

concentrations are expected:

rise decay

0.0 0.01481

0.00936 0.00545

0.0128 0.00200

0.0141 0.00074

0.0145 0.00027

0.0147 0.00010

ZONE [ GEOM(NAME=ZONE3/VOL=900/RPT=HLS,T,CCl,A,CC2,A)

INF(WS=C/CAP=15./C=1/T=0/V=0/W=0)

CTM(NAME=C0/CGR=1/WS=C)

CTM(NAME=C02/CGR=1/WS=STEP)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL10/AZM=0/TILT=90/ ORG=10 ,10,0/ SIZE=10 ,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL10/AZM=180/TILT=90/ORG=0 ,0 ,0/SIZE=10 ,10)

0SC(CT=48/CTP=1)

] SYSTEM

[

SYS ( NAME=LOADS

)

DES ( ZONE= Z ONE1 / HTW S=HEATW/ CLWS=COOLW/ HUWS=HUMW/ DHW S=DEHUMW

)

DES(Z0NE=Z0NE2/HTWS=HEATW/CLWS=C00LW/HUWS=HUMW/DHWS=DEHUMW)

DES(Z0NE=Z0NE3/HTWS=HEATW/CLWS=C00LW)

3

A- 14
$ BDP-5 BDP input file for testing solar gains calculations.

$ This uses environment EFP-5

.

$

Report flag 13 is set to print the results of the shadowing calculations.

TARP reports the solar azimuth and altitude for every hour,

and it prints the angle of incidence of the sun's rays on every surface

$ which is receiving direct solar radiation.

Page 57.4 of the 1982 Applications Handbook gives values of solar altitude

$ (ALT) and azimuth (AZM) angles. These values are given on the hour

$ in solar time. TARP computes the values at the half hour in local time.

$ TARP reports azimuth in degrees from north, ASHRAE in degrees from south.

$ The ASHRAE values are:

$ solar 21 March 21 June 21 December

$ time ALT AZM ALT AZM ALT AZM

$ 5 - - 4.2 117.3 ~ -

$ 6 - - 14.8 108.4 - -

$ 7 11.4 80.2 26.0 99.7 - -

$ 8 22.5 69.6 37.4 90.7 5.5 53.0

$ 9 32.8 57.3 48.8 80.2 14.0 41.9

$ 10 41.6 41.9 59.8 65.8 20.7 29.4

$ 11 47.7 22.6 69.2 41.9 25.0 15.2

$ 12 50.0 0.0 73.5 0.0 26.6 0.0

$ Values are symmetric about noon. These values are also presented

$ on page 27.6 of the 1981 Fundamentals Handbook. The angles of incidence

$ are also presented on that page. They can be compared to the TARP output.

$ They will not be presented here because they are implicit in the solar

$ gains values which will be presented.

$

PROJECT [ RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT= ENGLISH/

DESC=' SOLAR GAINS TEST')

RPT ( RN OS= 1 3 / HOU RLY/DA ILY/MONTHLY/ FINAL

)

] $ The wall materials have an inside solar absorptance of 1.0 to reduce

$ the amount of solar gain which could be reflected back out the window.

$ They also have an extremely high thermal resistance to prevent solar

$ gains being conducted to the outside. Outer solar absorptances are

$ 0.0 to prevent outside solar gains being conducted into the zone.

$ Some walls have 0A=1 to determine the total radiation incident on

$ various surfaces. The transmittance and shading coefficient models

$ of windows are both tested. A library report prints the window

$ optical properties.

A-15
LIBRARY [ LIB (CONS)

DS(NAME=C/FFC=24*1 .0)

WS( NAME=C/ALL=C

)

MATL(NAME=R1 0000/ R=1 0000.)

MATL( NAME=SPDS/ R= .01/ GLASS/TRNS= .86

)

MATL(NAME=SHDC/R= .01/ GLASS/ SC=1 .0)

cons(name=walli/matl=o ,rioooo/ia=i .o/oa=o.o)

CONS(NAME=WALL2/MATL=0,R10000/IA=1 .0/OA=1 .0)

CONS ( NAME=WINDOWl /MATL=0 , SPDS

)

CONS(NAME=WINDOW2/MATL=0 , shdc)

DS(NAME=HC/DESC='ZONE HEATING TEMPERATURES' /T-2 4*6 8)

DS(NAME=CC/DESC='ZONE COOLING TEMPERATURES '/T=2 4*7 8)

WS(NAME=HEAT/DESC= 'HEATING' /ALL=HC)

WS( NAME=COOL/DESC=' COOLING' /ALL=CC

)

] $ The simulation controls are set for: high loads convergence,

$ no shadowing (no base surface origins needed), the simple MRT

$ network algorithm, and inside and outside convection coefficients

$ corresponding to the AHSRAE values used to compute solar gains.

$ A modification of this test could use the default convetion coefficients.

$ It should give similar answers.

$ Another modification would be to mirror all zones so surfaces face north

$ instead of south, etc., and use EFP-4 modified for the southern

$ hemisphere.

BUILDING [ SIM(CNVG= .01 , .00001 , .10 ,12/ SLDS=0/HTB=0/RIM=1/H0=l ,4.0/HI=l ,1 .46/

RPT=TA,A, IT,T, IB,T, IS,T/

ZON=BOXN , BOXE , BOXS , BOXW , BOXSC/

SYS= LOADS)

] $ There are five zones. The first zone includes a set of six small, high

$ absorptance surfaces which face south and have different tilt angles.

$ The user defined reports will tell the amount of solar energy absorbed

$ (= the amount incident) on each surface. Ground reflectances are set to

$ zero for comparison to the ASHRAE values from page 57.4 of the 1982

$ Applications Handbook. Again, ASHRAE and TARP use different reporting

$ times and integration algorithms. The daily total values should be

$ quite similar.

$ 21 March

$ solar tilt angles

$ time 0 30 40 50 60 90

$ 7 46 55 55 54 51 35

$ 8 114 140 141 138 131 89

$ 9 173 215 217 213 202 138

$ 10 218 273 276 271 258 176

$ 11 247 310 313 307 293 200

$ 12 257 322 326 320 305 208

$ total 1852 2308 2330 2284 2174 1484

A- 16
$ 21 June

$ solar tilt angles

$ time 0 30 40 50 60 90

$ 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 $ 6 60 30 18 17 16 10

$ 7 123 92 77 59 41 14

$ 8 182 159 142 121 97 16

$ 9 233 219 202 179 151 47

$ 10 272 266 248 224 194 74

$ 11 296 296 278 253 221 92

$ 12 304 306 289 263 230 98

$ total 2648 2434 2224 1974 1670 610

$ 21 December

$ solar tilt angles

$ time 0 30 40 50 60 90

$ 8 14 39 45 50 54 56

$ 9 65 135 152 164 171 163

$ 10 107 200 221 235 242 221

$ 11 134 239 262 276 283 252

$ 12 143 253 275 290 296 263

$ total 782 1480 1634 1740 1796 1646

y$ The last three surfaces in the zone are used to compute the solar gain

$ due to one square foot of window. The window is very small in relation

$ to the other two surfaces to reduce the reflection of light out of the

$ zone. One of the surfaces is a floor which absorbs all beam solar enrgy

$ transmitted into the zone according to the default solar distribution

$ algorithm . The solar gain appear as a cooling load reported by "CLS,T M

. $ A ground reflectance of 0. 2 (the TARP default) is used.

$ The solar gain factors for standard glazing at 40 degrees latitude

$ are presented on page 27 .32 of the 1981 Fundamentals Handbook.

$ The ASHRAE reported values for f our window azimuths are

$ 21 March

$ solar window directions

$ time north east south west

$ 7 9 163 22 8

$ 8 16 218 74 16

$ 9 21 203 128 21

$ 10 25 153 171 25

$ 11 28 78 197 28

$ 12 29 31 206 31

$ 13 28 28 197 78

$ 14 25 25 171 153

$ 15 21 21 128 203

$ 16 16 16 157 218

$ 17 9 8 22 163

$ total 228 946 1388 946

A-l 7
$ 21 June

$ solar window directions

$ time north east south west

$ 5 10 20 1 1 $ 6 48 151 13 13

$ 7 37 207 22 21

$ 8 30 216 29 27

$ 9 33 192 45 32

$ 10 35 145 69 35

$ 11 38 81 88 38

$ 12 38 41 95 41

$ 13 38 38 88 81

$ 14 35 35 69 145

$ 15 33 32 45 192

$ 16 30 27 29 216

$ 17 37 21 22 207

$ 18 48 13 13 151

$ 19 10 1 1 20

$ total 430 1200 716 1200

$ 21 December

$ solar window directions

$ time north east south west

$ 8 3 67 50 3

$ 9 10 135 151 10

$ 10 14 113 210 14

$ 11 17 56 242 17

$ 12 18 19 253 19

$ 13 17 17 242 56

$ 14 14 14 210 113

$ 15 10 10 151 135

$ 16 3 3 50 67

$ total 104 427 1550 427

$ The zone named BOXN has a window facing north; BOXE faces east;

$ BOXS faces south; BOXW faces west. Zone BOXSC has a different window

$ type and faces south.

$ It should be noted that the ASHRAE solar gain values were computed

$ with an anisotropic diffuse radiation model, while the irradiation values

$ were computed with an isotropic model. TARP uses an isotropic model for

$ both calculations.

ZONE [ GEOM( NAME= BOXN / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=CL S , T ) SRF(EX/0P/BS/C0NS=WALL2/AZM=1 80/TIL T=00/SIZE=1 ,1/GRC=0/RPT=QSO, T)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ C0NS=WALL2/AZM=1 80/TILT=30/ SIZE=1 ,1/GRC=0/RPT=QS0,T)

SRF (EX/ OP/ BS/ CON S=WALL2 /AZM=1 80 / TLLT=40 / SIZE=1 , 1 / GRC=0 / RPT=QS0 , T

)

SRF(EX/0P/BS/C0NS=WALL2/AZM=1 80/TILT=50/ SIZE=1 ,1/GRC=0/RPT=QSO,T)

SRF (EX/ OP/BS/ C0NS=WALL2/AZM=1 80/TILT=60/ SIZE=1 ,1/GRC=0/RPT=QSO, T)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL2/AZM=180/TLLT=90/SIZE=1 ,1/GRC=0/RPT=QSO,T)

srf(ex/ op/bs/ cons=walli/azm=o/ SIZE=10 ,10)

SRF(EX/TR/SS/C0NS=WIND0W1/SIZE=1 ,1)

SRF(EX/0P/BS/C0NS=WALL1/AZM=1 80/TILT=1 80/ SIZE=10, 10)

]

A- 18
ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= BOXE / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=CL S , T ) SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL1/AZM=90/SIZE=10,10)

SRF(EX/TR/SS/CONS=WINDOW1/SIZE=1 ,1)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL1/AZM=180/TILT=180/SIZE=10,10)

] ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= BOXS / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=CL S , T

)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALL1/AZM=180/SIZE=10,10)

SRF(EX/TR/SS/CONS=WINDOWl/SIZE=l ,1)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALLl/AZM=l 80/TILT=1 80/ SIZE=10, 10)

] ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= BOXW / VOL=0 .01/RPT=CLS, T)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL1/AZM=270/ SIZE=10 ,10)

SRF(EX/TR/SS/CONS=WINDOWl/SIZE=l,l)

SRF(EX/OP/BS/CONS=WALLl/AZM=l 80/TILT=180/SIZE=10, 10)

] ZONE [ GEOM ( NAME= BOXS C / VOL=0 . 0 1 / RPT=CL S , T

)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL1/AZM=180/ SIZE=10 ,10)

SRF(EX/TR/ SS/CONS=WINDOW2/ SIZE=1 ,1

)

SRF(EX/ OP/BS/ CONS=WALL1/AZM=180/TILT=180/ SIZE=10 ,10)

] SYSTEM [ SYS ( NAME= LOADS

)

DES( ZONE=BOXN/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL)

DES( ZONE= BOXE/HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL)

DES ( ZONE=BOXS / HTW S=HEAT/CLWS=COOL

)

DES ( ZONE=BOXW/ HTWS=HEAT/CLWS=COOL

)

DES ( ZON E= BOXS C / HTW S=HEAT/ CLWS=COOL

)

A- 19
$ EFP-1 EFP input file for testing steady state and scheduled loads.

$ The ground temperature is 25 degreees lower than the zone temperatures.

$ The multiple air temperatures are primarily to test the operation of

$ the baseboard heat algorithm (4.5).

$ Solar radiation will not be used in the simulation.

$

RC(DEM/LIST/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT= ENGLISH)

LOC(DESC='ON TIME ZONE MERIDIAN' / LATD=40 ./LONG= 90 ./TZ=6)

GRND(GRT=12*43

)

DAY (DES C= ' 2 4 TEMPERATURES ' / DATE=2 1 MAR/ CLR=1 / CLD=2 4*0

/

TA=2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 ,24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 ,42 ,44, 46 ,48)

$ EFP-2 EFP input for the transient conduction tests.

$

$ This weather pattern consists of four months of constant temperatures

$ except for two step changes: from 40 to 90 and back. The long periods

$ of constant temperature are necessary to allow the massive walls to

$ reach steady state. The time periods of interest are the first few

$ hours or days after the temparature step changes.

$

RC(DEM/UIN=ENGLISH/UOUT= ENGLISH)

LOC(DESC='ON TIME ZONE MERIDIAN' / LATD=40 ./LONG=90 ./TZ=6)

GRND(GRT=12*55)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=1FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=2FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=3FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./ CLR=0/ CLD=24*0/DATE=4FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=5FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=6FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 ./DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=7FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=8FEB/RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 ./DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 ./ CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=9FEB/RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=10FEB/ RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 ./DIR=2 4*270 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 ./ CLR=0/ CLD=24*0/DATE=1 1FEB/ RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 ./DIR=24*270.

)

DAY (TA=24*40 ./ CLR=0/ CLD=24*0/DATE=1 2FEB/ RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0/ CLD=24*0/DATE=13FEB/ RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

A-20
DAY(TA=24*40 . /CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=14FEB/ RH=24*. 50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 ./DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=15FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=16FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=17FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=2 4*5. /DIR=2 4*270.

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0 / CLD=2 4*0/ DATE=1 8FEB/ RH=2 4* . 5 0 / PRES=2 4*40 5 .

/

WS=24*5 ./DIR=2 4*270 .)

DAY ( TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0 / CLD=24*0/ DATE=1 9FEB / RH=2 4* . 5 0 / PRES=2 4*40 5 .

/

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=20FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=21FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=22FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=23FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=24FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=25FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=26FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY ( TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0 / CLD=24*0/ DATE=27 FEB / RH=24* . 5 0 / PRES=2 4*40 5 .

/

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*40 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=28FEB/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY(TA=24*90 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=1MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

DAY(TA=24*90 . /CLR=0/CLD=2 4*0/ DATE=2MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=2 4*405 ./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*90./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=3MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY (TA=2 4*40 . / CLR=0 / CLD=24*0/DATE=4MAR/ RH=2 4* . 5 0 / PRES=2 4*40 5 .

/

WS=24*5 . /DIR=2 4*270 .

)

DAY(TA=24*90./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=5MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*270 .

)

DAY (TA=24*90 . / CLR=0 / CLD=2 4*0/ DATE=6MAR/ RH=2 4* . 5 0 / PRES=2 4*40 5 .

/

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

DAY(TA=24*90./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=7MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405./

WS=24*5 . /DIR=24*27 0 .

)

$DAY(TA=24*90 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=8MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 ./

$ WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

$DAY(TA=24*90 ./CLR=0/CLD=24*0/DATE=9MAR/RH=24*.50/PRES=24*405 .

/

$ WS=24*5./DIR=24*270.)

$

$ This file is not shown completely. The rest of the days in March

$ and all days in April have TA=24*90. The days in May have TA=24*40.

$ These days will be needed to study the response to a step decrease.

A-21
$ EFP-4 EFP input file for testing latent load calculations.

$ The dew point temperatures should give the following humidity ratios:

$ TD = 27 F W = 0.003004 (lb H20/lb air or kg H20/kg air)

$ TD = 53F W = 0.008573

$ TD = 70F W = 0.015832

$ The dry bulb temperatures are selected to give heating and cooling

$ with temperature differences of 20F and two periods of operation in

$ the zone's deadband between 68F and 78F.

$

RC (DEM/ LIST/ENGLISH)

L0C(DESC='0N TIME ZONE MERIDIAN' /LATD=40 ./LONG=90 ./TZ=6)

GRND(GRT=12*55)

DAY (DESC= 'TEST DAY'/DATE=21MAR/CLR=1/CLD=24*0/TA=6 *48 ,6*73 ,6*98 ,6*73/

TD=6*27 ,6*53 ,6*70 ,6*53)

$ EFP-5 EFP input file for testing solar gains calculations.

$ The location is set for 40 degrees north latitude and the longitude

$ matching the time zone. Weather is generated for three dates

$ corresponding to dates (and latitude) available in the ASHRAE

$ Handbooks

.

$ Page 57.4 of the 1982 Applications Handbook gives values o: $ (IB) and total horizontal (IT) irradiation. These values , $ hour in solar time. TARP computes the values at the half

$ time. The ASHRAE values are:

$ solar 21 March 21 June 21 December

$ time IB IT IB IT IB IT

$ 5 - - 22 4 - -

$ 6 - - 155 60 - -

$ 7 171 46 216 123 - -

$ 8 250 114 246 182 89 14

$ 9 282 173 263 233 217 65

$ 10 297 218 272 272 261 107

$ 11 305 247 277 296 280 134

$ 12 307 257 279 304 285 143

$ Remainder of day is symmetric about noon.

$ total 2916 1852 3180 2648 1978 782

to

The TARP daily total values should be quite similar.

Ambient temperatures are equal to the zone cooling set point

reduce conductive losses through the walls.

The latitude can be changed to LATD=-40 to test TARP solar calculations

in the southern hemisphere.

$

$

$

$

$

$

RC (DEM/ LIST/UIN= ENGLISH/ U0UT= ENGLISH)

L0C(DESC='0N TIME ZONE MERIDIAN' / LATD=40 ./LONG=90 ./TZ=6)

GRND(GRT=1 2*55)

DDY (DESC='21 MARCH'/HIGH=78/LOW=78/WB=70/DATE=21MAR/CLR=1

)

DDY(DESC='21 JUNE'/HIGH=78/LOW=78/WB=70/DATE=21 JUN/CLR=1

)

DDY(DESC='21 DECEMBER'/HIGH=78/L0W=78/WB=70/DATE=21DEC/CLR=1

)

A- 2 2
KMm NBS-I14A ,»fv 1

1

84)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publ i cation 0 ate

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 85-3211 September 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Validation Tests of the Thermal Analysis Research

Program

5. AUTHOR(S)

George N. Walton and Kevin Cavanaugh

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

10 . supplementary notes

_ Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant in formation . If document includes a si gn i fi can t bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

In this study analytical and empirical te-sts were performed using the Thermal

Analysis Research Program (TARP). TARP was found to be very accurate relative

to the analytical tests (calculations for simplified conditions) which covered

steady and transient conduction, internal radiant interchange, latent loads, and

clear sky solar gains. Six one-room buildings with different wall constructions

provided data for the empirical tests. TARP's predicted heating loads were

generally within 10 per cent of the predicted heating loads. The prediction of

cooling loads was less successful with an average difference from the measured

loads of 25 per cent. This error was considered primarily due to uncertainties

in the measured cooling loads and the modeling of diffuse solar gains. The

analytic tests are now part of the information available on the TARP source code

tape

.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key woras Sr ;; : - Building energy analysis; computer simulation, thermal analysis research program;

validation

13.

AVAILABILITY

Unlimited

F° r Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

f ~1 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402.

^

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161

14. NO OF

P R N TED PAGES

15. Pn :e

$10.00