## 4 Discussion  
Tables 12-14 show final model settings for both manual and automatic procedure. Table 12 presents infiltration and thermal bridges values that were not modified during both calibration processes. Figure 16: Results for Calibration C. First floor, North-West exposure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Element** & **First Guess** & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline Controller for supply & Water T at ambient T = \(-\)30 °C [°C] & 45 & 45 & 55 \\ heating water temperature & Water T at ambient T = 30 °C [°C] & 45 & 45 & 55 \\ \hline Radiators emitted power & Exponent N & 1.28 & 1.26 & 1.30 \\ \hline Internal gains & Equipment power [W] & 100 & 100 & 200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Parameters collection for Calibration C.  
Tables 13 and 14 show the values of the parameters obtained during manual and automatic calibration, where bold values indicate those parameters modified during the processes. Concerning the construction elements' parameters, the manually calibrated model presented higher thickness for roof slab (0.24 m vs. 0.12 m), while the automatic model shows lower values for roof surface emissivity and reflectance (0.80 and 0.45 vs. 0.90 and 0.50) and for \(\lambda\)-value of brick materials (0.312 W/mK vs. 0.387 W/mK). Those discordant values are different attempts to increase simulated T from first guess model in Calibration A. In addition, the manual model presents higher \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Controller three-ways valve**} \\ \hline
**Element** & Method & Temperature [°C] \\ \hline
**Air 1** & Manual & \(-\)26.0 \\
**Automatic** & \(-\)**30.0** \\ \hline Air 2 & Manual & 20.0 \\
**Automatic** & **30.0** \\ \hline Water 1 & Manual & 70.0 \\
**Automatic** & **50.0** \\ \hline Water 2 & Manual & 20.0 \\
**Automatic** & **47.0** \\ \hline  & **Radiators** \\ \hline Element & Method & q [W] & C [W/m\({}^{2}\)-K] & N \\ \hline Refurbished radiators & Manual & 147.4 & - & 1.339 \\ \hline Original radiators & Manual & - & **28,100** & **1.330** \\  & **Automatic** & - & 22,500 & **1.285** \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Internal gains**} \\ \hline Element & Method & Equipment power [W] \\ \hline Equipment & Manual & 100.0 \\  & **Automatic** & **188.8** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Infiltration and thermal bridges input for resulting model from manual and automatic calibration (bold when changed). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Infiltrations**} \\ \hline
**Element** & **Method** & **Air Tightness [ACH]** \\ \hline Wind driven flow & Manual & 0.5 \\  & Automatic & 0.5 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Thermal Bridges**} \\ \hline Element 1 & Element 2 & Method & Thermal bridge [W/mK] \\ \hline External wall & Internal wall & Manual & 0.03 \\  & & Automatic & 0.03 \\ \hline External wall & External wall & Manual & 0.08 \\  & & Automatic & 0.08 \\ \hline External windows perimeter & - & Manual & 0.03 \\  & & Automatic & 0.03 \\ \hline External doors perimeter & - & Manual & 0.03 \\  & & Automatic & 0.03 \\ \hline Roof & External wall & Manual & 0.09 \\  & & Automatic & 0.09 \\ \hline Roof & Internal wall & Manual & 0.03 \\  & & Automatic & 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Plants and internal gains settings for resulting models from manual and automatic calibration (bold when changed). values for U\({}_{\text{glass}}\) and g\({}_{\text{glass}}\) multiplier for both original (0.90 and 0.40 vs. 0.90 and 0.12) and refurbished (0.80 and 0.20 vs. 0.70 and 0.17) internal shading, while the automatically calibrated model shows higher U-value for refurbished windows (2.6 W/m\({}^{2}\)K vs. 1.1 W/m\({}^{2}\)K), emissivity and reflectance surface parameters of brick wall (0.95 and 0.56 vs. 0.90 and 0.50) and marble wall (0.96 and 0.50 vs. 0.90 and 0.50) and for tuff wall thickness (0.16 m vs. 0.12 m).