# Weather Files for the Calibration of Building Energy Models
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulation and Calibration Results: Combination of On-Site and Third-Party Weather Data  
Tables 3 and 4 show the simulation results of the base and calibrated models in the training and checking periods, respectively. The studies were performed using the weather files created by the on-site weather station, third-party weather, and the combination of data proposed in Section 2.2. In order to facilitate its understanding, only the global MAE index of both models is shown. The rest of the results by the thermal zone, globally, as well as the \(\rho\) index obtained, are shown in Appendix A. The results shown in Table 3 (training period) are homogeneous. All the models, when submitted to the calibration process, managed to improve their indices with respect to their base models. The range of improvement was between 30% and 39% in the case of N2, and 45% and 55% in the case of O5. Secondly, the base model was beyond the limits with all the combined weather files (values in red), except the on-site weather. This result strengthened the first goal of this research, which was to show how the calibration process could overcome faulty environmental data. In this case, as both models were trained during this period, the overfitting could be an argument against this result. Focusing on the new weather files, some improved the results of the base model simulated with the third-party weather files; these were: Weather_T; Weather_GHI and Weather_DHI. The weather files weather_WS, weather_WD, and undefined weather_RH slightly improved or worsened the results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**House**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Weather File**} & **Global MAE** & **Global MAE** & \multirow{2}{*}{**House**} & **Global MAE** & **Global MAE** \\  & & **Base Model** & **Calibrated Model** & & & **Base Model** & **Calibrated Model** \\ \hline N2 & On-site & 0.76 & 0.51 & O5 & On-site & 0.65 & 0.42 \\ N2 & Third-party & 1.15 & 0.90 & O5 & Third-party & 1.37 & 0.74 \\ N2 & Weather\_T & 0.95 & 0.60 & O5 & Weather\_T & 0.98 & 0.47 \\ N2 & Weather\_GHI & 0.85 & 0.67 & O5 & Weather\_GHI & 0.91 & 0.56 \\ N2 & Weather\_DHI & 1.06 & 0.81 & O5 & Weather\_DHI & 1.30 & 0.67 \\ N2 & Weather\_WS & 1.14 & 0.87 & O5 & Weather\_WS & 1.35 & 1.28 \\ N2 & Weather\_WD & 1.15 & 0.90 & O5 & Weather\_WD & 1.37 & 0.74 \\ N2 & Weather\_RH & 1.16 & 0.91 & O5 & Weather\_RH & 1.38 & 0.75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of results between the base and calibrated models in the checking period. The N2 and O5 houses. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**House**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Weather File**} & **Global MAE** & **Global MAE** & \multirow{2}{*}{**House**} & **Global MAE** & **Global MAE** \\  & & **Base Model** & **Calibrated Model** & & & **Base Model** & **Calibrated Model** \\ \hline N2 & On-site & 0.81 & 0.55 & O5 & On-site & 0.71 & 0.39 \\ N2 & Third-party & 1.40 & 0.98 & O5 & Third-party & 1.50 & 0.67 \\ N2 & Weather\_T & 1.15 & 0.69 & O5 & Weather\_T & 1.14 & 0.51 \\ N2 & Weather\_GHI & 1.10 & 0.75 & O5 & Weather\_GHI & 1.24 & 0.59 \\ N2 & Weather\_DHI & 1.22 & 0.82 & O5 & Weather\_DHI & 1.28 & 0.58 \\ N2 & Weather\_WS & 1.38 & 0.93 & O5 & Weather\_WS & 1.46 & 0.69 \\ N2 & Weather\_WD & 1.40 & 0.98 & O5 & Weather\_WD & 1.50 & 0.66 \\ N2 & Weather\_RH & 1.40 & 0.98 & O5 & Weather\_RH & 1.51 & 0.67 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of results between the base and calibrated models in the training period. The N2 and O5 houses. Regarding the results obtained by the calibrated models, all of them can be considered quality models, since they comply with the limits recommended by Annex 58. Regarding the improvement produced by the sensors when the data from the on-site weather station entered into the weather file of a third-party, the same effects were produced as in the base models.