Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Comparison of dynamic urban building energy models (UBEM):

Sigmoid energy signature and physical modelling approach
P. Nageler a,∗, A. Koch b, F. Mauthner c, I. Leusbrock c, T. Mach a, C. Hochenauer a, R. Heimrath a
a
Institute of Thermal Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 25/B A-8010 Graz, Austria
b
European Institute for Energy Research, Emmy-Noether-Strasse 11 D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
c
AEE – Institute for Sustainable Technologies, Feldgasse 19 8200 Gleisdorf, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Thermal energy demand represents over 30% of overall energy consumption and thus is a vital tar-
Received 13 April 2018 get for the decarbonisation of our energy supply. This fact is the reason why dynamic thermal mod-
Revised 10 August 2018
elling of buildings, components and infrastructure has been gaining increasing importance in the con-
Accepted 23 September 2018
text of the transformation of existing energy systems into smart energy systems. For the first time,
Available online 26 September 2018
this study presents a comparison of two major bottom-up approaches to modelling urban neighbour-
Keywords: hoods: a physical modelling approach and a data-driven approach. The physical method is represented
Dynamic urban building energy modelling by a GIS-based automated modelling approach with detailed dynamic building simulation in IDA ICE. In
Data-driven approach the data-driven approach, an energy signature is applied, which uses a non-linear data-driven method.
Physical approach These two methods were validated on the basis of a multi-family house, an office building and a res-
Heating demand forecasting idential area with 34 buildings by means of detailed multi-zone building simulation and measure-
ment data. The simulation results show that both applied approaches are applicable in these cases
within good agreement compared to the measurement data (physical/data-driven: multi-family house
(RN_RMSE(%) = 14.7/9.3; R2 = 0.68/0.87), office building (RN_RMSE(%) = 7.6/5.4; R2 = 0.92/0.96) and resi-
dential area (RN_RMSE(%) = 8.2/4.8; R2 = 0.92/0.97)). Finally, the fields of application of both approaches
are discussed. A major finding here is that the energy signature shows slightly better results at deriving
the load profile when the measured heating demand is present from a previous heating season. Fur-
thermore, the number of buildings does not affect the duration of a simulation because cumulative user
profiles are used. Whereas the simulation duration of the physical approach depends essentially on the
size of the investigated area. The physical approaches have the advantage of being able to include den-
sification or renovation scenarios, demand forecasting and coupled simulations of buildings and smart
energy systems of neighbourhoods.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction An analysis of the building energy demand is thus essential for

International energy and climate policies are aiming at a re-
duction of global energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions
to limit global warming [1]. Two-thirds of the world’s energy de-
mand and 70 % of global CO2 emissions occur in cities [2], and en-
ergy needs continue to increase through urbanization (from 54 %
in 2014 to 66 % in 2050 [3]). Buildings need a large portion of the
world‘s energy consumption. For example, European buildings ac-
count for approximately 37 % of the total final energy demand [4].
Retrofitting the existing building stock and integrating the build-
ings in future energy systems are therefore key strategies for cities
to reduce energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: peter.nageler@tugraz.at (P. Nageler).
city planners to analyse the energy demand of the actual building
stock or evaluate restructuring measures, densifications of urban
development areas or the expansion potential of district heating
networks (DHN). The underlying approaches, challenges, and op-
portunities for urban energy system models have been presented
by Keirstead et al. [5] and Kavgic et al. [6]. Reinhart and Davila
[7] published a review of urban building energy modelling (UBEM)
tools. Two major bottom-up UBEM approaches exist in the litera-
ture.
The first group are UBEM with physical modelling approaches,
which can be used to evaluate the current building stock as well as
the retrofit or densification scenarios. Most of the physical UBEM
use model simplification procedures, such as resistance and capac-
ity models [8–12], model order reduction methods [13], or simpli-
fications regarding their temporal resolution, such as steady-state

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.034
0378-7788/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
334 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343

family of models and their application is provided by Day [37] and

Nomenclature ASHRAE’s inverse modelling toolkit [38]. Energy signatures can be
further divided into linear [33,38,39] and non-linear [40,41] re-
Abbreviations gression models. At the scale of neighbourhoods, energy signatures
DB database were more recently used by Raffio et al. [42] as well as Mazzarella
DHN district heating network et al. [43].
DHW domestic hot water To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study presents a
GIS geographic information system comparison of two major UBEM approaches for the first time. The
IDA ICE simulation tool from EQUA: IDA Indoor Climate study points out the advantages and disadvantages of a data-driven
and Energy non-linear energy signature in comparison to a GIS-based physi-
IP inflection point cal approach using the detailed dynamic building simulation tool
MFH multi-family house IDA ICE [44]. By statistical validation with measured data the er-
NSB night setback of the heating system rors of both approaches are quantified. Furthermore, the simula-
SFH single family house tion results are compared against a detailed multi-zone building
RC model resistance and capacity model simulation in IDA ICE. This comparison and validation helps other
UBEM urban building energy model scientists to choose the right approach for the present task and to
assess possible uncertainties. The first part of the study introduces
Symbols, unit
the case study, which consists of a multi-family house (MFH), an
A area, m2
office building and a residential area with 34 buildings. The sec-
CVRMSE coefficient of variance of root mean squared error,
ond part presents the two UBEM approaches in detail. In the sec-
%
ond part, the simulation results of the case study are presented.
FD weekday factor
Finally, the fields of application of both approaches are discussed.
GFA gross floor area, m2
h normalised daily energy demand, kWh
MBE mean bias error, % 2. Materials and methods
n total number of data points in the dataset
Qd de-normalized daily heating demand, kWh This section introduces the case study with the study area and
QMD measured heating demand, kWh provides relevant information concerning the measurement data
RN_RMSE range normalized root mean squared error, % acquisition and applied metrics for validation purposes. Subse-
R2 coefficient of determination quently, the section presents a physical method and a data-driven
V volume, m3 modelling approach to model UBEM. First, a GIS-based physical ap-
Y experimental data proach is presented with detailed dynamic building simulation in
Y
ˆ model output IDA ICE. Afterwards, a non-linear energy signature is introduced.
ϑa calculated temperature of the day, °C
ϑ0 40 °C (point of discontinuity), °C 2.1. Study area
ϑt measured outdoor temperature of the current day,
°C The two UBEM approaches are tested on the basis of a case
μ mean value of measurement data, kWh study. The investigated area is a part of the building stock of a
small town in the Eastern Styria, Austria. The town is a typical Cen-
tral European small town with terraced houses in the town centre
models [14]. In the literature, few UBEM use detailed building sim-
and many detached houses on the outskirts. The case study is di-
ulation tools (EnergyPlus [15–18], Dymola [19] and IDA ICE [20]) to
vided into two cases.
ensure a temporal and spatial resolution in the desired level of de-
tail. Building archetypes [21,22] are used in these methods to ob-
tain the mostly unknown data about the building envelope. Tools 2.1.1. Individual buildings
and methods for automated modelling are therefore essential to In the first case, two buildings with different building usage,
shorten the time consuming modelling effort [23–26]. which are a MFH and an office building (see Fig. 1), are examined.
The second group are data-driven UBEM, which use a mathe- The MFH was built in 2011 and consists of 11 residential units with
matical description of the system based on measurement data [27]. a total gross floor area (GFA) of 1020 m2 . The office building was
Data-driven models can be applied to predict operational changes built in 1966 and has 1083 m2 GFA. The two methods were val-
or operational problems [18], to derive temporal courses of the idated on the basis of these buildings with the energy supplier’s
heating load from annual energy billing or to predict the energy measurement data and a detailed building simulation in IDA ICE
demand of whole cities based on training data [28,29]. However, it (see Section 2.2).
is difficult to evaluate retrofit or densification scenarios using data-
driven models [18]. The big advantage is that data-driven mod- 2.1.2. Residential area
els are less complicated in design and more robust in simulation In the second case, the two UBEM were applied to a typically
than physical models [30]. The empirical or black box approach residential area with 34 buildings, which consists of 30 single fam-
is widespread among the data driven modelling approaches [31], ily houses (SFH) and four MFH (see Fig. 2). The SFH of the residen-
which defines the input and output relation without describing tial area can be characterized by the following mean values: the
the physical properties. A more sophisticated approach is that of mean building heated gross floor area is 275 m2 , the mean build-
grey box models, also known as energy signatures, which consider ing height is 7.1 m and the average building age is 38 years. The
building archetypes and the dependency of heating demand and buildings are typically aligned to the southwest. A DHN supplies
environmental variables such as the outdoor temperature [32,33]. the residential area with heat for domestic hot water (DHW) and
Energy signatures can be applied to predict the temporal course of space heating. The DHN water supply temperature at the substa-
the heating and cooling load based on climate data and the annual tions is set in the simulation to 85 C and the heat exchanger at the
heating demand [34,35]. In this field of application, energy signa- substation is dimensioned with a temperature decrease with 30 K
ture models were first used by Jacobsen [36]. An overview of this (mean supply/return temperature at the supply unit is 88/60 °C).
 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
Fig. 1. Study area (detailed multi-zone building model in IDA ICE) of the first case: (a) multi-family house and (b) office building.
Fig. 2. Study area of the residential area refers to the second case; 30 single family
houses are depicted orange and four multi-family houses blue (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.).
2.2. Measurement data, validation and applied metrics
Data on buildings and district heating infrastructure for this
case study were supplied by the utility services [45]. The UBEM
approaches are validated with real measurement data derived from
the utilities’ database [45], which operate the DHN and collect the
measurement data for heat demand at the substations. The vali-
dation relies on the evaluation of heating load at the DHN sub-
stations. Unfortunately, the case study provides no measurement
data about cooling, which limits the evaluation to the heating per-
formance. The heat is measured with gauged heat meters. The
first case validates simulation results of both UBEM approaches
with measurement data. Furthermore, the results are also com-
pared with detailed multi-zone building simulation in IDA ICE, be-
cause such comparison is also relevant in the case of individual
buildings (MFH and office building). The detailed building models
in IDA ICE consist of 51 thermal zones for the MFH and 37 ther-
mal zones for the office building, see Fig. 1. Internal loads and set
points were chosen from room usage data for energy and building
technology [46]. Geometry data was obtained from the construc-
335
tion plans and wall structures were achieved from the official en-
ergy certificates of the individual buildings. The evaluation interval
is set to 1.1.2015 till 31.12.2015 with hourly resolution. Both UBEM
approaches and the detailed multi-zone building simulation were
calibrated to the annual heating demand in order to achieve better
comparability between the approaches, but the dynamic heating
load was not calibrated in any approach. Only the existing control
strategies or heating parameters were implemented, such as night
reduction of the heating. The physical models were calibrated by
variation of the infiltration rate. This means that only the heat-
ing load prediction and not the annual heating demand forecast is
evaluated in the physical approach. In the second case, the cumu-
lative load profile of an entire residential area is compared with
measured data from the energy supply unit. This load profile in-
cludes consequently the heat load from the buildings and the heat
losses of the piping to the environment. The residential area is as-
sembled of 30 SFH and 4 MFH. The building usage and the year
of construction are provided by the utilities services. To reflect a
realistic application case, climate corrected measurements of the
previous year were used for the residential area and compared to
the actual measurements. In this case, the UBEM approaches use
the climate corrected heating demand from the last heating season
(1.1.2016 to 31.12.2016) to calibrate the model and the evaluation
interval is for both UBEM approaches from 1.1.2017 to 31.12.2017
with hourly resolution. The building height is obtained from an
elevation model by airborne laser scanning [47] and the weather
data from the ZAMG are used [48].
It is common practice to use metrics to validate simulation
models in order to better evaluate failures in the simulation [49–
51]. In all metrics described below, the following nomenclature
applies: n is the total number of data points in the dataset, Yk
indicates experimental data and Y ˆ k indicates model output and
μ is the mean value of the measurement data. In a recent re-
search, Chakraborty and Elzarka [51] suggested that range normal-
ized root mean squared error (RN _RMSE) should be used as the
primary metric for validation of energy models instead of variance
of root mean squared error (CVRMSE). The RN _RMSE normalizes
the root mean squared error with the range of the dataset allowing
the comparison by using the RN _RMSE for different data sets. This
metric is defined according to Eq. (1) and evaluates the accuracy
of models, whereas a lower value is desirable. Coefficient of deter-
mination (R2 ) should be used as a secondary metric for validation
of energy models. R2 specifies how well the regression estimate
fits the data, see Eq. (2). Due to more frequent usage, more com-
mon metrics such as CVRMSE and mean bias error (MBE) are also
used, see Eqs. (3) and (4). All metrics are applied to the results for
daily heating demand in all calculations. Furthermore, the tempo-
ral course of the daily heating demand is displayed over a year;
the hourly heating load is presented over one week in the winter
336 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343

Fig. 3. Workflow of the physical UBEM approach.

period for detailed comparison and evaluation (see Chapter 3). TRNSYS or MATLAB. The DB system consists of a project-related
 DB and a reusable typology DB, which are both object-relational
(Yk −Yˆ k )
n 2
k=1 PostgreSQL DB [53]. The typology database stores non-geometrical
n
RN _RMSE (% ) = × 100 (1) project independent data, which are for example wall construc-
maximum(Y ) − minimum(Y )
tions for typical buildings or load profiles for DHW [52] and inter-
n  2 nal loads [46]. These data are reusable for the next project (D). All
2 k=1 Yk − Y
ˆk
R =1− n (2) non-geometric data of a building is linked in the so-called build-
k=1 (Yk − μ )2 ing type, which are data of the wall- and window constructions,
 the building usage, the percentage of glazing, the specific heat de-
k=1 (Yk −Yk )
n 2
ˆ
mand and peak power for space heating. The desired building type
n
CV RMSE (% ) = × 100 (3) can be selected from a list of building types. The building age and
μ
the building usage is an indicator for the energy demand in build-
n   ings. The building types were thus created according to both the
k=1 Yk − Y
ˆk
MBE (% ) = n × 100 (4) building usage and the building age. So-called archetypes were cre-
k=1 Yk ated, which can be subdivided, for example, for Austrian residential
buildings into the following eight building age classes [21]. Data
2.3. UBEM approaches that has not yet been implemented in the database can be added
and new building types can be created from these data (E). The
This section introduces the two major UBEM approaches in de- project database stores the relevant project data with a spatial ref-
tail. First, a GIS-based physical approach is presented with dynamic erence, which are the required input data (A), the assigned data
building simulation using IDA ICE. Thereafter, an energy signature (B) by means of a categorization/dimensioning process (2) and the
is introduced, which is a non-linear data-driven approach. dynamic simulation results (C). This means that the same typology
database is reusable while the project database is created for each
2.3.1. Physical approach: GIS-based automated dynamic thermal city new project or project version. In addition to the DB, a file system
modelling using IDA ICE is provided, in which the source code of the models is saved as
The physical modelling of entire neighbourhoods proves to be text files in order to make the results reproducible.
extremely time-consuming, because every single building has to The workflow of the UBEM approach is divided into the follow-
be geometrically modelled and parameterized with wall construc- ing five process steps (see Fig. 3). The first step 1) deals with data
tions, heating systems and internal gains. An automation process acquisition. This UBEM approach uses publicly available data. The
is required to shorten the considerable time needed for manual method is based on only three kinds of data, which are the build-
input. This study thus uses a validated method for automated ing geometry, the land utilization plan and the building age. The
building modelling, which has been developed by Nageler et al. building geometry is composed of the ground plan and the height.
[20] in order to minimize the considerable time required to model The ground plan can be obtained through Open Data such as Open-
the building stock. The approach can be integrated as a planning StreetMap [54] or basemap.at [55] or through cadastral plans. Laser
tool into an urban development process, see dashed/dotted line in scanning data [56,57] provide an opportunity to obtain the build-
Fig. 3. The planning development process begins with the develop- ing height. QGIS [58] is chosen as an open source GIS tool to ma-
ment of possible action or planning options, see Fig. 3. The energy- nipulate, visualize and analyse the collected data. In the second
technical definition of a planning option is called a scenario. step (2) the buildings are categorized and the heating system is
First, a database (DB) system is created, which allows the user dimensioned. A categorization process assigns the buildings a use,
to manage multiple sources for these data sets and make them a building type and a heating type. This assignment is made by
accessible to various simulation tools such as DYMOLA, IDA ICE,
 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
means of the building geometry, the land utilization plan and the
building age. Thereafter, the heating system is dimensioned due
to specific heating loads, which are set in the building types. The
heat is provided by one central heat generation unit or with a so-
lar thermal plant combination. In this approach, statistical assign-
ments are made on various levels in order to make basic assump-
tions, e.g. about the refurbishment rate. This kind of data can thus
be assigned through a compound interest calculation using a char-
acteristic refurbishment rate of the investigated area. This means
older buildings are more likely to be considered refurbished. It is
important to note, that every assumption can be overridden manu-
ally for each building, if more information is available. In the third
step (3), a building model is automatically generated from the in-
put data and the assigned data. This method uses a tool that gener-
ates detailed dynamic building models automatically [23]. The tool
is an interface between the PostgreSQL DB and the dynamic build-
ing simulation environment IDA ICE [44]. Each building consists of
a 2.5D geometry based on the ground plan and the mean build-
ing height. The zoning of the building is carried out by up to three
vertically layered thermal zones and depends on the number of
different uses. The building model generation tool also generates
and parameterizes a detailed heating system for each building. The
data used for parameterization is stored in the DB. The method
uses predefined and scalable heating systems for each heating type
(e.g. water tanks, boilers, ambient air and ground heat pumps, so-
lar thermal power, photovoltaic and wind turbine power, district
heating connection or heat distribution systems). This avoids errors
during the modelling process. In the fourth step (4) the automat-
ically created model is simulated with the dynamic building sim-
ulation environment IDA ICE, which allows automated modelling
through scripting and the simulation process is parallelizable. IDA
ICE, which uses balance equations for CO2, humidity and energy in
each thermal zones, is a whole-year detailed and dynamic multi-
zone simulation tool for study of thermal indoor climate as well
as the energy consumption of the entire building. The simulation
tool considers the mutual shading between buildings and also the
shading of the terrain, but the microclimate is not considered. In
the fifth step ((5), the results are graphically prepared for further
analysis and evaluation or as input for discussion with stakeholders
and decision makers, which are for example municipalities, energy
suppliers, urban planners and investors. QGIS is used to create heat
maps, 3D visualizations or spatio-temporal animations of building
(thermal) energy demands.
Finally, the results are evaluated, e.g. by comparing the results
with previously set benchmarks like CO2 reduction goals or in
discussion with respective decision makers. The evaluation deter-
mines whether the results for this scenario meet the requirements
and benchmarks. In this case the process is finished. If the result
is considered insufficient, the process starts again.
2.3.2. Data driven approach: non-linear energy signature
Energy signature models are regression functions that are used
in various forms. For the assessment of energy performance of
buildings, linear functions are used with single or multiple inflec-
tion points as well as non-linear functions such as the sigmoid
model described here. For the simulation of heating or cooling
needs, outdoor temperature measurements are often used as a sin-
gle regressor. The energy signature model used in this compari-
son was initially developed at the TU Munich by Geiger and Hell-
wig [35] for the gas load prediction at the scale of gas distribu-
tion zones, Eichlseder [59] adapted the sigmoid function for the
Austrian context. At the scale of groups of buildings and urban ar-
eas the model was evaluated and adapted by Koch [27]. The sin-
gle variant model is based on a geometric series of the outdoor
temperature and uses a set of four parameters (A, B, C and D),
which are defined depending on the use and the age of the build-
337
Table 1
Parameters sets (A, B, C and D) for office buildings and
multi-family houses (MFH) / residential areas.
Office building [35] MFH / residential area [27]
A 2.717 2.059
B −35.141 −39.762
C 7.130 5.384
D 0.0 0 0 0.070
ing. The normalized daily energy demand h is calculated by using
Eq. (5) and depends on the calculated temperature of the day ϑa .
The temperature ϑ0 describes the point of discontinuity with tem-
perature equals 40 °C.
A
h ( ϑa ) =  C + D (5)
1 + ϑa −B ϑ
0
Fig. 4 shows variations of each individual parameter based on
a typical SFH (Fig. 4: blue line). The parameter A shifts the curve
(Fig. 4: broken orange line) vertically at low outdoor temperatures,
whereas the parameter B shifts the curve (Fig. 4: dashed/dotted
yellow line) horizontally at the inflection point (IP). The param-
eter C changes the slope of the inflection tangent (Fig. 4: dotted
magenta line). The curve flattens off at low outside temperatures
due to a changed user behavior. The window ventilation at cold
temperatures decreases sharply, thus the heating demand does not
always increase linearly. These parameters can be seen as corre-
sponding to the performance and the building type while param-
eter D represents the non-temperature related part of energy de-
mand such as the DHW and shifts the curve (Fig. 4: green line)
vertically.
Table 1 shows a parameter comparison for an office building
and a MFH /residential area, which area also applied in the case
study. The parameters for the office building were extracted for dif-
ferent building uses using sampling data by minimizing error vari-
ance [35]. Parameter sets were developed by Koch [27] for the ap-
plication at the scale of urban neighbourhoods and MFH. The non-
temperature related part of the energy demand (DHW) increases
in MFH and residential areas due to an increasing D parameter.
In order to represent dynamic effects in the building‘s heating
demand such as the thermal inertia of the building, a calculated
temperature smooths the temporal course of the daily heating de-
mand. This calculated temperature ϑa is defined as the measured
outdoor temperature of the current day ϑt as well as the last three
days ϑt−1 , ϑt−2 and ϑt−3 with weighting factors, as can be seen in
Eq. (6) [35].
1 · ϑt + 0.5 · ϑt−1 + 0.25 · ϑt−2 + 0.125 · ϑt−3
ϑa = (6)
1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125
Eq. (7) provides the de-normalized daily heating demand Qd ,
which is calculated by using the measured heating demand QMD
and the normalized daily heating demand. The measured heating
demand of a specific period is divided by the cumulated normal-
ized daily heating demand of this period. The cyclical behaviour
of the building user is taken into account by means of a weekday
factor FD . Geiger and Hellwig [35] described these factors, which
especially for non-domestic users, show a distinct pattern with the
highest modifications on weekends.
QMD
Q d ( ϑ a ) = n · h(ϑa ) · FD (7)
1=1 h (ϑa ) · FD
To generate an hourly load profile from the calculated daily
heating demand, statistical hourly load profiles can be used. In the
case study these profiles depend on the outdoor temperature and
the building use. At a larger scale, site-specific load profiles can
be used for small building clusters or aggregated load profiles for
neighbourhoods [60].
338 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
Fig. 4. Sigmoid function with different parameter variations.
In this case study, the model was applied for the MFH as also
the case of the office building using the annual sum of the mea-
sured heating demand of the actual period and of the previous
year for the residential area. Furthermore, not every building in the
settlement area is simulated individually, but the entire residential
area is calculated with the cumulated heating demand.
3. Results
This section presents the results for the two cases as described
in Section 2.1. It is important to consider that UBEM approaches
and the detailed multi-zone building simulation were calibrated
to the annual heating demand in order to achieve better compa-
rability between the approaches. In the first case, the individual
buildings are examined, which are the MFH and the office building
(see Fig. 1). In the second case, the two UBEM were applied to a
residential area with 34 buildings (see Fig. 2). The graphical rep-
resentation of the simulation results is always carried out in sub-
plots in the same way in all cases: (a) First, the temporal course of
the daily heating demand is displayed over a year, (b) Thereafter,
the daily heating demand is displayed as a function of the mean
outdoor air temperature, (c) Then, the hourly heating load of one
week is shown and d) Finally, the applied metrics are illustrated in
a bar chart.
3.1. Result of the individual buildings
The heating demand of the two UBEM approaches were vali-
dated and compared with measurement data and detailed multi-
zone building simulation in IDA ICE (see Section 2.2). Fig. 5 shows
the analysis of the simulation results of the MFH. The trajectories
of the daily heating demand is in a good agreement with the mea-
surement data for both approaches and the detailed building sim-
ulation, see subplot Fig. 5.a. The figure shows a very good agree-
ment of the energy signature (see Fig. 5: yellow line) with the de-
tailed building simulation (see Fig. 5: blue line) and the measured
data (see Fig. 5: violet line). The simulation results of all applied
methods are below a RN _RMSE value of 14.7 %, a CVRMSE value of
40.2 %, above a R2 of 0.68 and a MBE value of 0 %, because of cali-
bration with the annual heating demand. A R2 of 0.68 means that
68 percent of the variance in the measurement data set can be
explained by the modelled values. The ASHRAE guideline 14 sug-
gests that the CVRMSE value for calibrated energy models must
be less than 30 % and the MBE must be within ± 10 % [50]. This
CVRMSE limit can be met by the detailed multi-zone IDA ICE sim-
ulation and energy signature, but the physical UBEM approach is
with 40.2 % above this value. Only the heating load peak at the
beginning of October is not recorded in the detailed building sim-
ulation. The reason is an overestimation of the storage mass in the
building that increases the capacity of the building, which has a
room temperature-compensating effect. This also explains the re-
duced alternating part of the heating load compared to the mea-
sured data. This effect is also evident in the physical UBEM ap-
proach (see Fig. 5: orange line). Another effect shortens the heat-
ing period, because the simulation model only uses one thermal
zone for the building. This approximation results in an underes-
timation of annual heating demand, because the simulation tool
treats a thermal zone as a node within a network with perfectly
mixed air volumes [26]. Therefore, possible local energy surpluses
due to solar irradiation in south-facing rooms that may occur dur-
ing winter are absorbed with underserved north facing rooms. This
aspect becomes more important with larger buildings [20]. This ef-
fect can amount to 10 % of the annual heating demand in multi-
family houses. The calibration with the air change causes a vertical
offset in the heating demand curve with an approximately constant
heating period. This explains the higher peak demands compared
to the measurement data. The summer base load, which is caused
by the domestic hot water demand, is properly covered by both
methods.
Subplot Fig. 5b shows that the fluctuation range of the heating
demand as a function of the outside air temperature in the en-
ergy signature is significantly lower and in the detailed multi-zone
building simulation is slightly too low. This means that the thermal
inertias have not been sufficiently considered. The opposite effect
is evident in the physical UBEM approach.
The weekly profile of the hourly heating load at the beginning
of January is illustrated in the subplot of Fig. 5c. Here it can be
seen that the heating load profile of the measured data agrees well
with the detailed building simulation. The night setback and the
subsequent start of the heating phase and also a reduction in the
room air temperature during noon hours can be well represented
with the detailed building simulation. The simulation results of the
energy signature show a smoothed profile, in which too much heat
demand during the night and too little during the day is predicted.
This can be explained by the larger number of users, for which the
hourly load curves were initially developed. The opposite effect is
evident in the physical UBEM approach. The reason for this also
lies in the assumption that one thermal zone represents a large
building. As a result, the load profile is not smoothed by switching
on/off of heating at different times and in individual rooms.
 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
Fig. 5. Evaluation of the simulation results in the multi-family house: (a) temporal course of the daily energy demand, (b) daily energy demand depending on the outdoor
temperature, (c) heating load profile of one week and (d) evaluation metrics.
Fig. 6 illustrates that the simulation results of the office build-
ing are in very good agreement for both UBEM approaches with
the measurement data and the results of the detailed multi-zone
building simulation. Fig. 6a shows that all temporal courses are
very similar and are in consensus with the mean outdoor tem-
perature. The reason for this is that the user behaviour in office
buildings is better predictable and structured, leading to a better
match between the load profile of the simulation results and the
measurement results than in the MFH. The simulation results of all
applied methods are below 7.6 % RN _RMSE, below 24.9 % CVRMSE,
a MBE value of 0.0 % (calibration) and above 0.92 R2 . The energy
signature lies closest to the measurement data with a RN _RMSE of
5.4 %, a CVRMSE of 17.6 % and a R2 of 0.96. The summer base load
drops to almost zero except for a few cold days, since office build-
ings require almost no hot water.
The fluctuation ranges of the heating demand as a function
of the outside air temperature is in both UBEM approaches and
the detailed multi-zone building simulation in agreement with the
measurement data, which is shown in Fig. 6b. This means that the
dynamic effects in all approaches are correctly integrated.
Subplot c in Fig. 6 also shows a good agreement of the hourly
heating load profile. The heating reduction at the weekend (3 and
4 January) due to setting down of temperature is also apparent in
the plot. Only the load profile of the energy signature (Fig. 6c: yel-
low line) shows a spread between day and night that is too low.
Furthermore, the energy signature shows a temporal offset of the
heating system switch-on points in the morning.
3.2. Results for the residential area
Fig. 7 shows the evaluation of the simulation results for the
residential area. In this case, the simulation results of the UBEM
approaches are not compared to detailed multi-zone building sim-
ulation due to the enormous modelling effort. The trajectories of
the daily heating demand are in good agreement with the mea-
339
surement data for both approaches and the detailed building sim-
ulation, see subplot Fig. 7a. The simulation results of both applied
UBEM approaches are below a RN _RMSE value of 8.4 %, a CVRMSE
value of 21.4 % and above a R2 of 0.92. The MBE value is 2.1 %, be-
cause the UBEM approaches are calibrated to the climate-corrected
annual heat demand from the last heating season.
Fig. 7b shows that the physical UBEM approach (Fig. 7b: orange
line) at low outside air temperatures overestimates the heating de-
mand and underestimates the heating demand at higher tempera-
tures in the range of about 3 to 15 °C. The reason is again that the
simulation model only uses one thermal zone for the whole build-
ing.
Fig. 7c shows a good agreement of the hourly heating load pro-
file. The load peaks of the day profile, which are present in SFH,
are smoothed out in residential areas by time-shifted switching on
/ off of heating.
The physical UBEM approach uses archetypes that depend on
the refurbishment status of the building. This explains a relatively
large spread of the simulation results of a single building. Thus,
some buildings are simulated with modelled refurbishment, but in
reality they are not refurbished and vice versa. Furthermore, the
extent of a refurbishment is always different and detailed data on
the state frequently not available. In the proposed physical method,
an advanced refurbishment of a building with a year of construc-
tion before 1919 causes a decrease of the overall heat transfer co-
efficient of walls from 1.4 to 0.12 W (m2 K)−1 due to additional
insulation [21].
4. Discussion
This section discusses relevant results and presents the applica-
tion areas and import features of physical and data-driven UBEM
approaches. The results from Chapter 3 show that the accuracy of
the estate level tends to be better than at the building level. The
biggest uncertainty factor in the building simulation is the user
340 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343

Fig. 6. Evaluation of the simulation results in the office building: (a) temporal course of the daily energy demand, (b) daily energy demand depending on the outdoor
temperature, (c) heating load profile of one week and (d) evaluation metrics.

Fig. 7. Evaluation of the simulation results in the residential area: (a) temporal course of the daily energy demand, (b) daily energy demand depending on the outdoor
temperature, (c) heating load profile of one week and (d) evaluation metrics.
 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
Table 2
Fields of application of physical and data-driven UBEM approaches.
Fields of application
Densification scenarios
Retrofit scenarios
Demand forecasting
Temporal course of heating or cooling load
Derive temporal courses from annual demands
Energy demand of whole cities based on training data
model the dynamic interactions between buildings and
smart energy systems in districts
Building modelling at any level of detail
Modelling of urban development areas
Modelling of building‘s heating system
Climate change scenarios
Operational changes
Thermal comfort analysis
behaviour. On the one hand, user behaviour influences the inter-
nal loads such as the heat input by people, lighting and equip-
ment. On the other hand, the ventilation behaviour and the set
point adjustment of the heating and cooling system is also influ-
enced by the user behaviour. This aspect coincides with the find-
ings from the literature. Schnieders et al. [61] compared measure-
ment data of four low-energy residential areas. The results show
a log-normal distribution of the specific heating demand of build-
ings with same construction, which can only be explained by the
user behaviour. This influence smoothes with increasing number of
users. This smoothing effect is in agreement with Koch [27], who
identified that the correlation between simulation and measure-
ments increases with the number of aggregated buildings.
In the case study, only the heating demand was considered,
as there were no measurements for the cooling demand. Nev-
ertheless, both methods can be applied to simulate the heat-
ing and cooling performance, but the results include more un-
certainty factors. Here, the user behaviour also has a significant
influence on the cooling requirements. Furthermore, in contrast
to the heating system, it is not clear which building or parts of
the building are cooled. The UBEM approaches are thus only valid
within a wider observation horizon for cooling, because the above-
mentioned problems are smoothed through statistics. Energy sig-
natures are applied to simulate the cooling demand in communi-
ties, which mostly calculates the electricity demand of the cooling
device [62,63].
The case study includes only residential buildings and one of-
fice building. However, the methods can also be applied to build-
ings with other uses by adaption of the parameters of the energy
signature (see Section 2.3.2) [27] and choosing other profiles for
internal loads in the physical building model [20].
Table 2. shows the application areas of physical and data-driven
UBEM approaches, which are commonly used at urban scale. Those
fields of application, which cannot be covered by means of the
two presented approaches in Chapter 2, are explicitly pointed out.
The strength of physical approaches is that building physical sce-
narios can be simulated. This allows the evaluation of retrofit sce-
narios by changing the material properties and thicknesses of the
wall constructions. Densification scenarios can also be simulated
by adapting the building geometry of existing buildings or by inte-
grating new buildings into the building stock. Furthermore, energy
demand forecasts can be simulated using planning materials from
buildings. This allows the evaluation of urban development areas,
in which new buildings are added to the building stock. Another
advantage is that the new challenges of the transformation of city
energy systems, as described by Lund et al. [64], can be assessed.
Such simulation tools can be used to serve as a decision-support
tool for city planners or investors during the planning phase. This
341
physical approach data-driven approach
√
✗
√
✗
√
✗
√ √
√
✗
√
✗
√
✗
√
✗
√ √
√
✗
√ √
√ √
√
✗
requires the simulation of the building‘s heating system, which is
coupled with smart energy systems at urban scale such as a com-
bination of a low temperature DHN with the integration of fluc-
tuating renewables and seasonal storage [65]. The dynamic inter-
actions between buildings and smart energy systems can thus be
evaluated. As a result, it is possible to investigate operational opti-
mizations of power supply units or special operating cases such as
failure or demand undersupply scenarios or the starting behaviour
of power supply units with temperature waves in the DHN. In ad-
dition, thermal comfort can be assessed by physical approaches.
This means that, for example, analyses can be carried out with re-
gard to the room air temperature or the air quality.
With the availability of more intelligent metering devices, smart
home applications and improved individual billing solutions, en-
ergy demand data is becoming ever more fully and extensively
available for a large part of the building stock. The family of sta-
tistical models described can be used to predict the energy de-
mand of whole cities or smaller urban areas using historic en-
ergy demand data in combination with readily available environ-
mental data (i.e. outdoor temperature) and limited information on
the building use. The presented method in Section 2.3.2 has not
been developed for this kind of application, but the results support
the assumed scalability from large regional areas to neighbourhood
scale. The application was based on a parameter set developed
based on building samples in Germany, local training data would
thus not always appear to be necessary for the applications shown.
A big advantage of energy signatures is that the temporal course
of heating and cooling loads of buildings or neighbourhoods can
be easily derived from an annual energy billing. If annual energy
billing is not available, e.g. in urban development areas, the spe-
cific heating demand by building age group and building use can
be taken from the statistics. Physical approaches are more complex
and thus require a detailed modelling of the buildings and suit-
able modelling tools. Heating loads may be of interest to energy
suppliers, for example to design DHN according to the maximum
load and the base load, or to decide whether a DHN is economical.
Both approaches show a good agreement with the measurement
data with respect to the mean daily energy demand and the load
profile during one day, see Sections 3.1 and 3.2. A further appli-
cation case can be the development of continuous benchmarks for
monitoring purposes, as the calculation requires little knowledge
in energy modelling.
Operational changes can be considered in both approaches,
which are e.g. changes in the building usage or changes regard-
ing the heating system control such as a reduction of the heating
demand because of a night set back in a residential building.
After the fields of application have been described, several im-
portant features of the UBEM approaches are discussed, such as the
342 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
Table 3
Properties and abilities of physical and data-driven UBEM approaches.
Properties and abilities
Co-simulation capable
Fast resource-saving simulation
No annual energy billing necessary
No climate data necessary
Physical properties of buildings are not required
Various types of heating systems considered
simulation duration, the necessary input data or interfaces to other
simulation tools. The properties and abilities of the two UBEM
approaches are listed in Table 3, in which a green check mark
indicates a positive result. The major drawback of the physical
UBEM approaches is the computationally expensive simulation and
the time-consuming collection of building data such as geometry,
physical properties, uses, etc. Physical approaches offer the possi-
bility that they can be coupled with other simulation tools. Co-
simulation provides the opportunity to couple the best and most
computationally efficient tool for each subtask. In this context, co-
simulation is an application that employs at least two simulation
tools to solve differential equations that are coupled to exchange
data depending on state variables [66,67]. In addition, the model
libraries of individual tools (e.g., IDA ICE, EnergyPlus, and Dymola)
can be linked and so a large repertoire of models can be obtained
without even having to create new models. Co-simulation can help
to model smart energy systems in cities, taking into account vari-
ous heating system types in buildings [68].
In general it can be stated that the data acquisition is a ma-
jor problem in UBEM. To simplify data acquisition, statistics and
archetypes were used in the physical approach to derive all phys-
ical building properties based on 3 data sources, which are gener-
ally well-available. The data-driven approaches, on the other hand,
only require the annual energy billing and the outdoor air temper-
ature as the environment variable. If this data is available, a fast
resource-saving simulation is possible, which requires no physical
properties of the building.
5. Conclusion
This study presents a comparison of two models represent-
ing the major UBEM approaches, which are a data-driven non-
linear energy signature and a GIS-based physical approach using
the dynamic building simulation tool IDA ICE. The two presented
UBEM approaches differ in that energy signatures use annual en-
ergy billings and physical approaches use physical building proper-
ties as their basis. This comparison helps other scientists to choose
the right approach for the present task. In principle, physical ap-
proaches can be used more extensively, e.g. for densification or
retrofit scenarios, demand forecasting of planned urban develop-
ment areas or interactions between buildings and smart energy
systems. Although, in overlapping fields of application and in the
case of existing annual energy billings, the energy signature is to
be preferred due to the lower computational and modelling effort.
These are applications that examine different climatic conditions
or illustrate the heating and cooling load profile when annual en-
ergy billings are available. A further application case is the devel-
opment of daily benchmarks for continuous monitoring of urban
areas.
The presented approaches are applied to case studies, which
consist of a multi-family house, an office building and a residen-
tial area with 34 buildings. The UBEM approaches are validated
by means of detailed building simulation and measurement data.
The simulation results show that both UBEM approaches are appli-
cable in such cases within reasonable deviation compared to the
Physical approach Data-driven approach
√
✗
√
✗
√
✗
✗ ✗
√
✗
√
✗
measurement data. Finally, the fields of application of both ap-
proaches are discussed. Energy signatures are more suitable for
calculating the load profile when the measured heating demand is
present during a heating season and the physical UBEM approaches
have the advantage of simulating densification or renovation sce-
narios, demand forecasting and coupled simulations of buildings
and smart energy systems of neighbourhoods are possible.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported / funded by the Austrian Fed-
eral Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (bmvit) and
is associated with the project "EnergyCityConcepts - method and
concept development for the implementation of sustainable energy
systems in cities and communities” (project duration from Febru-
ary 2016 to February 2019, FFG project number 850129).
This research was also supported by the Stadtwerke Gleisdorf,
the city of Salzburg and the Salzburg AG.
References
[1] UN Climate Change Conference Paris, 2015. Online]. Available Accessed 31-
August -2017 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cop21/.
[2] International Energy Agency, World Energy, Outlook, 2008 2008.
[3] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbaniza-
tion Prospects, 2014.
[4] L Pérez-Lombard, J Ortiz, C Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption
information, Energy Build 40 (3) (2008) 394–398.
[5] J Keirstead, M Jennings, A Sivakumar, A review of urban energy system mod-
els: approaches, challenges and opportunities, Renew Sustain. Energy Rev. 16
(6) (2012) 3847–3866.
[6] M Kavgic, A Mavrogianni, D Mumovic, A Summerfield, Z Stevanovic,
M Djurovic-Petrovic, A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy
consumption in the residential sector, Build Env. 45 (7) (2010) 1683–1697.
[7] CF Reinhart, CC Davila, Urban building energy modeling – a review of a
nascent field, Build Env. 97 (2016) 196–202.
[8] JA Fonseca, A Schlueter, Integrated model for characterization of spatiotempo-
ral building energy consumption patterns in neighborhoods and city districts,
Appl. Energy 142 (2015) 247–265.
[9] B Morille, N Lauzet, M Musy, SOLENE-microclimate: a tool to evaluate en-
velopes efficiency on energy consumption at district scale, Energy Procedia 78
(2015) 1165–1170.
[10] JH Kämpf, D Robinson, A simplified thermal model to support analysis of ur-
ban resource flows, Energy Build 39 (4) (2007) 445–453.
[11] S Coccolo, J Kaempf, JL Scartezzini, The EPFL campus in Lausanne: new energy
strategies for 2050, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 3174–3179.
[12] Walter E, Kämpf JH. A verification of CitySim results using the BESTEST and
monitored consumption values. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Building Simulation
Applications conference, Bozen -Bolzano, Italy; 2015:215–222.
[13] EJ Kim, G Plessis, JL Hubert, JJ Roux, Urban energy simulation: simplification
and reduction of building envelope models, Energy Build 84 (2014) 193–202.
[14] R Nouvel, A Mastrucci, U Leopold, O Baume, V Coors, U Eicker, Combin-
ing GIS-based statistical and engineering urban heat consumption models:
towards a new framework for multi-scale policy support, Energy Build 107
(2015) 204–212.
[15] G Zucker, F Judex, M Blöchle, M Köstl, E Widl, S Hauer, A Bres, J Zeilinger,
A new method for optimizing operation of large neighborhoods of buildings
using thermal simulation, Energy Build 125 (2016) 153–160.
[16] A Bres, K Eder, S Hauer, F Judex, Case study of energy performance analyses
on different scales, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 1847–1852.
[17] H Samuelson, S Claussnitzer, A Goyal, Y Chen, A Romo-Castillo, Parametric en-
ergy simulation in early design: high-rise residential buildings in urban con-
texts, Build Env. 101 (2016) 19–31.
[18] Y Chen, T Hong, MA Piette, Automatic generation and simulation of urban
building energy models based on city datasets for city-scale building retrofit
analysis, Appl Energy 205 (2017) 323–335.
 P. Nageler et al. / Energy & Buildings 179 (2018) 333–343
[19] M Fuchs, J Teichmann, M Lauster, P Remmen, R Streblow, D Müller, Workflow
automation for combined modeling of buildings and district energy systems,
Energy 117 (2) (2016) 478–484.
[20] P Nageler, G Zahrer, R Heimrath, T Mach, F Mauthner, I Leusbrock,
H Schranzhofer, C Hochenauer, Novel validated method for GIS based au-
tomated dynamic urban building energy simulations, Energy 139 (2017)
142–154.
[21] T Loga, B Stein, N. Diefenbach, TABULA building typologies in 20 European
countries—making energy-related features of residential building stocks com-
parable, Energy Build 132 (2016) 4–12.
[22] M Aksoezen, M Daniel, U Hassler, N Kohler, Building age as an indicator for
energy consumption, Energy Build 87 (2015) 74–86.
[23] P Nageler, T Mach, R Heimrath, H Schranzhofer, C Hochenauer, Generation tool
for automated thermal city modelling, Appl. Mech. Mater. (2018) (in press).
[24] S Leal, S Hauer, F Judex, S Gahr, Implementation of an automated building
model generation tool, in: Proceedings of 12th IEEE International Conference
on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), Porto Alegre , Brazil, 2014, pp. 457–462.
[25] T Dogan, C Reinhart, P Michalatos, Autozoner: an algorithm for automatic ther-
mal zoning of buildings with unknown interior space definitions, J. Build Per-
form Simul. 9 (2) (2016) 176–189.
[26] L Smith, K Bernhardt, M Jezyk, Automated energy model creation for concep-
tual design, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Simulation for Architecture
and Urban Design, San Diego, CA, USA, 2011, pp. 13–20.
[27] EA Koch, Continuous Simulation for Urban Energy Planning Based on a Non–
Linear Data-Driven Modelling Approach, FBTA, Karlsruhe Institute of Technol-
ogy (KIT), Karlsruhe, 2016 Thesis.
[28] J Ma, JCP Cheng, Estimation of the building energy use intensity in the ur-
ban scale by integrating GIS and big data technology, Appl. Energy 183 (2016)
182–192.
[29] CE Kontokosta, C Tull, A data-driven predictive model of city-scale energy use
in buildings, Appl. Energy 197 (2017) 303–317.
[30] ASHRAE. Energy Estimating and Modelling Methods, ASHRAE Handbook - Fun-
damentals, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2005 2005.
[31] AJ Heller, Heat-load modelling for large systems, Appl. Energy 72 (1) (2002)
371–387.
[32] M Bauer, JL Scartezzini, A simplified correlation method accounting for heat-
ing and cooling loads in energy-efficient buildings, Energy Build 27 (2) (1998)
147–154.
[33] A Rabl, A Rialhe, Energy signature models for commercial buildings: test with
measured data and interpretation, Energy Build 19 (2) (1992) 143–154.
[34] A Koch, Heat Demand Modeling at the Scale of Urban Neighborhoods, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Conference On Infrastructure Systems And
Services: Next Generation Infrastructure Systems For Eco-Cities (INFRA), Shen-
zhen, China, 2010.
[35] B Geiger, M Hellwig, Entwicklung von Lastprofilen für die Gaswirtschaft im
Auftrag des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Gas- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V.
und des Verbandes kommunaler Unternehmen e.V.-Haushalte, Institute for En-
ergy Economy and Application Technology, Technical University of Munich,
Munich, 2002.
[36] FR Jacobsen, Energy signature and energy monitoring in building energy man-
agement systems, in: Proceedings of CLIMA 20 0 0 World Congress, Copen-
hagen, 1985.
[37] T Day, Degree-days: Theory and Application, The Chartered Institution of
Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), London, 2006 TM41.
[38] JK Kissock, J Haberl, DE Claridge, Inverse modeling toolkit (1050RP): numerical
algorithms, ASHRAE Trans. 109 (part 2) (2003).
[39] L Girardin, F Marechal, M Dubuis, N Calame-Darbellay, D Favrat, EnerGis: a
geographical information based system for the evaluation of integrated energy
conversion systems in urban areas, Energy 35 (2) (2010) 830–840.
[40] HA Nielsen, H Madsen, Modelling the heat consumption in district heating sys-
tems using a grey-box approach, Energy Build 38 (1) (2006) 63–71.
[41] P Woods, ETI Macro Distributed Energy Project - Summary Report Loughbor-
ough, Energy Technologies Institute, 2012.
343
[42] G Raffio, O Isambert, G Mertz, C Schreier, K Kissock, Targeting residential en-
ergy assistance, in: Proceedings of the Energy Sustainability Conference, Long
Beach, California, 2007.
[43] L Mazzarella, M Liziero, C Neumann, D Jacob, Description of European Proto-
type Tool for Evaluation of Building Performance and the National tools. Po-
litecnico Milano, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, 2009.
[44] EQUA, http://www.equa.se/en/ [Accessed 16 September 16].
[45] Stadtwerke Gleisdorf. Wärme, http://www.stadtwerke-gleisdorf.at/992_DEU_
HTML.htm [Accessed 4 October 16].
[46] Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, SIA 2024, Standard-
Nutzungsbedingungen für die Energie- und Gebäudetechnik (2006).
[47] Digitaler Atlas Steiermark:: Höhen- & Reliefkarte, http://gis2.stmk.gv.at/
atlas/(S(kfkazafhk5p4fksmbm1afwwv))/init.aspx?karte=gel&ks=das&cms=
da&redliningid=kgbyngmhkqpn131mqgpr33z4&box=359853.849598163;
5162155;610146.150401837;5297226&srs=32633 [Accessed 23 January 18].
[48] meteorological and geophysical service of Austria (ZAMG), http://www.zamg.
ac.at/cms/de/topmenu/kontakt [Accessed 14 October 16].
[49] L Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall PTR,
1999.
[50] ASHRAE, Guideline 14-2014, Measurement of Energy, Demand and Water Sav-
ings, American Society of Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
Atlanta, GA, 2014.
[51] Debaditya Chakraborty, Hazem Elzarka, Performance testing of energy mod-
els: are we using the right statistical metrics? J. Build. Perform. Simul. (2017),
doi:10.1080/19401493.2017.1387607.
[52] U Jordan, K Vajen, DHWcalc: program to generate domestic hot water profiles
with statistical means for user defined conditions, in: Proceedings of the ISES
Solar World Congress, Orlando, FL, USA, 2005.
[53] PostgreSQL, https://www.postgresql.org/ [Accessed 17 October 2016].
[54] OpenStreetMap, https://www.openstreetmap.org/ [Accessed 14 October 2016].
[55] Basemap at:, http://basemap.at/ [Accessed 14 October 2016].
[56] M Kedzierski, A Fryskowska, Methods of laser scanning point clouds integra-
tion in precise 3D building modelling, Measurement 74 (2015) 221–232.
[57] L Mahdjoubi, C Moobela, R Laing, Providing real-estate services through the
integration of 3D laser scanning and building information modelling, Comput.
Ind. 64 (9) (2013) 1272–1281.
[58] QGIS. A free and Open Geographical Information System, http://www.qgis.org/
en/site/ [Accessed 17 October 16].
[59] H. Eichlseder, Lastprofile Nicht-Leistungsgemessener Kunden (HE, HM, HG, PG,
PK Und PW) Der Gasnetzbetreiber Österreichs – Überarbeitung 2008. Graz,
Technical University of Graz, 2008.
[60] J Grohmann, Lastanalyse und –synthese zur Optimierung leitungsgebundener
Energiesysteme, Herrsching, E und M Energie und Management Verl.-Ges,
20 0 0.
[61] J Schnieders, W Feist, R Pflug, O Kah, CEPHEUS - Wissenschaftliche Begleitung
und Auswertung, Endbericht. Retrieved from Darmstadt, Passive House Insti-
tute, 2001.
[62] MT Ali, M Mokhtar, M Chiesa, P Armstrong, A cooling change-point model of
community-aggregate electrical load, Energy Build 43 (1) (2011) 28–37.
[63] C Ghiaus, Equivalence between the load curve and the free-running tempera-
ture in energy estimating methods, Energy Build 38 (5) (2006) 429–435.
[64] H Lund, S Werner, R Wiltshire, S Svendsen, JE Thorsen, F Hvelplund, BV Math-
iesen, 4th generation district heating (4GDH): integrating smart thermal grids
into future sustainable energy systems, Energy 68 (2014) 1–11.
[65] G Schweiger, J Rantzer, K Ericsson, P Lauenburg, The potential of power—
to–heat in Swedish district heating systems, Energy 137 (2017) 661–669.
[66] M Wetter, Co-simulation of building energy and control systems with the
building controls virtual test bed, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 4 (3) (2011)
185–203.
[67] Engel G, Chakkaravarthy A, Schweiger G. A methodology to compare different
co-simulation interfaces: a thermal engineering case study. In: Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies,
Technologies and Applications, Madrid, Spain; 2017.
[68] P Nageler, G Schweiger, H Schranzhofer, T Mach, R Heimrath, C Hochenauer,
Novel method to simulate large-scale thermal city models, Energy 157 (2018)
633–646.