# Weather Files for the Calibration of Building Energy Models
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulation and Calibration Results: On-Site vs. Third-Party Weather Data
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**House**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Weather File** \\ **Name** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Simulation** \\ **Period** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Living** \\ **Room** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Children** \\ **Room** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Bedroom** \\ **Reference** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Kitchen** \\ **Index** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-13}  & & & & **MAE (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(\rho\) (\%)** & **MAE (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(\rho\) (\%)** & **MAE (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(\rho\) (\%)** & **MAE (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(\rho\) (\%)** & **MAE (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(\rho\) (\%)** \\ \hline N2 & Base & On-site & Training & 1.54 & 96.6 & 0.25 & 98.7 & 0.5 & 97.2 & 0.90 & 96.5 & 0.81 & 93.0 \\ N2 & Base & On-site & Checking & 1.82 & 91.9 & 0.23 & 99.6 & 0.33 & 98.3 & 0.66 & 95.5 & 0.76 & 90.1 \\ N2 & Base & Third-party & Training & 1.21 & 94.9 & 0.66 & 99.1 & 1.16 & 94.7 & 2.57 & 90.55 & 1.40 & 87.9 \\ N2 & Base & Third-party & Checking & 0.84 & 87.5 & 0.74 & 99.4 & 0.93 & 97.2 & 2.10 & 86.2 & 1.15 & 84.5 \\ N2 & Calibrated & On-site & Training & 0.56 & 98.6 & 0.41 & 98.2 & 0.44 & 96.8 & 0.80 & 95.1 & 0.55 & 97.4 \\ N2 & Calibrated & On-site & Checking & 0.32 & 99.7 & 0.60 & 99.8 & 0.38 & 98.8 & 0.74 & 93.7 & 0.51 & 97.1 \\ N2 & Calibrated & Third-party & Training & 0.98 & 96.2 & 0.43 & 99.0 & 0.77 & 92.0 & 1.73 & 90.2 & 0.98 & 92.0 \\ N2 & Calibrated & Third-party & Checking & 0.50 & 94.0 & 0.73 & 99.5 & 0.82 & 97.8 & 1.58 & 85.6 & 0.90 & 91.5 \\ \hline O5 & Base & On-site & Training & 1.46 & 98.7 & 0.60 & 98.7 & 0.28 & 98.6 & 0.48 & 98.4 & 0.71 & 97.8 \\ O5 & Base & On-site & Checking & 1.31 & 97.9 & 0.54 & 99.7 & 0.26 & 97.4 & 0.50 & 96.9 & 0.65 & 95.0 \\ O5 & Base & Third-party & Training & 2.10 & 95.9 & 1.26 & 98.1 & 0.82 & 96.0 & 1.83 & 93.3 & 1.50 & 95.0 \\ O5 & Base & Third-party & Checking & 1.68 & 84.4 & 1.43 & 97.8 & 0.70 & 94.0 & 1.64 & 88.1 & 1.37 & 87.7 \\ O5 & Calibrated & On-site & Training & 0.65 & 98.6 & 0.25 & 99.1 & 0.30 & 97.8 & 0.36 & 97.9 & 0.40 & 98.9 \\ O5 & Calibrated & On-site & Checking & 0.50 & 98.2 & 0.50 & 98.7 & 0.30 & 99.3 & 0.40 & 97.9 & 0.42 & 97.5 \\ O5 & Calibrated & Third-party & Training & 1.64 & 95.9 & 0.29 & 98.5 & 0.35 & 95.3 & 0.40 & 97.0 & 0.67 & 97.2 \\ O5 & Calibrated & Third-party & Checking & 1.43 & 86.1 & 0.38 & 96.3 & 0.41 & 96.4 & 0.74 & 94.0 & 0.74 & 90.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Overall adjustment results for the N2 and O5 houses. Table 2 also shows the results obtained in the thermal areas that were analyzed. These thermal zones are the same as those proposed in the project of Annex 58. In general, it is observed that the models that underwent the calibration process generated a better fit with the real data than the base models. Therefore, when the thermal zones were analyzed individually, they followed the same pattern as when the global data of the houses were analyzed: the calibration process helped the model approach the limits set by Annex 58, making the use of a third-party weather file feasible.