Energies, Vol. 18, Pages 6015: Energy Efficiency in Buildings: The Gap Between Energy Certification Methods and Real Performances

Energies, Vol. 18, Pages 6015: Energy Efficiency in Buildings: The Gap Between Energy Certification Methods and Real Performances

Energies doi: 10.3390/en18226015

Authors:
Niccolò Aste
Harold Enrique Huerto-Cardenas
Claudio Del Pero
Fabrizio Leonforte
Michela Buzzetti
Rajendra Singh Adhikari
Elisa Montevecchio
Camille Luna Stella Blavier

In response to the pressing need to increase energy efficiency in buildings, new regulations are continually being introduced to enforce higher standards. The recent recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD IV) emphasizes the establishment of national performance standards, which will supposedly be based on the national Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). However, energy certifications across several European countries rely on a quasi-steady state approach, which fails to accurately represent real-performance conditions due to inherent limitations. This is more evident in buildings located in warm climates, where actual energy demands far exceed those predicted by energy certifications. To address these discrepancies, a shift towards dynamic performance assessment methods is pivotal. This research compares the heating and cooling energy demand of an office building using two approaches: the quasi-steady state, prescribed by the Italian standard, and the dynamic state. After calibrating the dynamic model, it was employed to perform a simulation incorporating more detailed user profiles and boundary conditions than those used in the quasi-steady state method. This approach allows the preservation of both reasonable accuracy and practical applicability. Finally, a sensitivity analysis of influential parameters seeks to elucidate the main causes of divergence between simulated and measured performance and to identify opportunities for improving EPC. The simulation outcomes indicate that, while the stationary model yields heating energy demand relatively aligned with the measured data, it shows substantial discrepancies (about 50%) in the cooling predictions. Moreover, the findings reinforce the inadequacy of the simpler approach and advocate for the integration of dynamic state simulation in energy performance assessment, aligning with the objectives of the recent EPBD.