Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Dynamic evaluations of heat pump and micro combined heat and power
systems using the hardware-in-the-loop approach
Philipp Mehrfeld a, *, Markus Nürenberg a, Martin Knorr b, Lars Schinke b, Maximilian Beyer b,
Manuel Grimm c, Moritz Lauster a, Dirk Müller a, Joachim Seifert b,
Konstantinos Stergiaropoulos c
a
RWTH Aachen University, E.ON Energy Research Center, Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate, Mathieustrasse 10, 52074, Aachen, Germany
b
Technische Universit€ at Dresden, Institute of Power Engineering, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 01069, Dresden, Germany
c
Institute for Building Energetics, Thermotechnology and Energy Storage, Pfaffenwaldring 10, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The seasonal coefficient of performance (SCOP) of a heat pump is nowadays determined according to standards
heat pump on the basis of steady-state measurements in laboratories. Monitoring data from field tests show non-negligible
CHP deviations regarding SCOPs compared to values identified according to state-of-the-art standards. Observed
Combined heat and power
deviations are partly due to neglecting instationary effects during momentary efficiency measurements of
Evaluation energy conversion system
Hardware-in-the-loop
standards. To counter this problem, three institutes have collaborated on developing a novel dynamic testing
SCOP procedure making use of the hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) concept. Furthermore, the control volume for the energy
Performance factor balance is extended to the whole system including the energy conversion system’s controller. The energy con­
version system is coupled via adequate test benches to a real-time building performance simulation. In order to
evaluate the annual efficiency according to the HiL approach, the experiments demand a feasible time frame. For
this purpose, we apply the k-medoids algorithm to shrink down one year to four representative days. We call the
novel approach Dynamic System Evaluation (DSE) test. In this work, we compare the annual efficiency factors of
three energy conversion systems: a micro combined heat and power system (mCHP), a ground-source heat pump
(GSHP) and an air-source heat pump (ASHP). For this purpose, we use three different types of building per­
formance simulation software as well as three different test facilities. The systems were investigated on two test
benches each and result in annual efficiencies with relative deviations of Δηrel;mCHP;HiL ¼ 0:6%,
ΔSCOPrel;GSHP;HiL ¼ 0:9% and ΔSCOPrel;ASHP;HiL ¼ 11:3%.

1. Introduction
In the building energy sector, a realistic and comparable criterion for
characterizing energy conversion systems is important. In particular,
annual performance factors are significantly relevant for economical
considerations of potential customers. For this purpose, standards and
other directives exist to preserve a certain comparability. However,
regarding a realistic energy efficiency characterization, field tests [1] of
electrically driven heat pump (HP) systems indicate a gap between
monitoring data and values predicted by standards (final report of
follow up project in Ref. [2]). Huchtemann evaluates this in Ref. [3].
Equivalent statements can be found in Refs. [4–10]. In a similar way,
this is valid for micro combined heat and power (mCHP) systems in Refs.
[11–14].
Parts of this gap originate in neglecting the dynamics of heat gen­
eration systems within existing evaluation methods [15,16]. Further­
more, standards do not take the systems’ controller strategies into
account, which have impact on transient behavior and non-ideal oper­
ation of systems [17]. Usually, controller properties are not known and
as a conclusion difficult to be evaluated [4]. Additionally [18], posits
that due to HP controllers the “band of uncertainty found within this
study covers high deviations of þ80% to 24% from the label value.”
Furthermore, energy conversion systems in buildings become more
complex. This fact demands for a more comprehensive investigation, in
which the control volume should be extended to cover the whole system
and not only a part of the energy conversion system, e.g. a single HP unit
[4,19]. The controllers’ operation strategies can never fully covered by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pmehrfeld@eonerc.rwth-aachen.de (P. Mehrfeld).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101032
Received 2 August 2019; Received in revised form 24 October 2019; Accepted 26 October 2019
Available online 4 November 2019
2352-7102/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Nomenclature rel relative

SCSPT Short Cycle and System Performance Test
A Air SH space heating
amb ambient Sim simulation
ASHP air-source heat pump SQL structured query language
B balancing TES thermal energy storage
BMWi Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy th thermal
BS buffer storage tot total
calc calculated TRY test reference year
CCT Concise Cycle Test TUD Technische Universit€
at Dresden
CHP combined heat and power W water
COP coefficient of performance ( ) WST Whole System Testing
CTSS Component Testing – System Simulation
dCOP daily coefficient of performance ( ) Greek symbols
DD Mon datetime format e.g.: 01 Jan Δ delta/difference ([ ] or ½%� or ½kWh�)
DHW domestic hot water η efficiency ( )
DSE Dynamic System Evaluation dτ infinitesimal timestep (s)
DST Dynamic System Test τ time (½a� or ½d� or ½h� or ½s�)
EBC Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor Climate ϑ temperature (� C )
el electric Roman symbols
end end or end-use energy m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
ERC E.ON Energy Research Center
Q_ heat flow (W)
fl flow or supply
x average or arithmetic mean of any value x
GSHP ground-source heat pump
cp specific heat capacity at const. pressure (J=ðKgKÞ)
H heating
Hi lower (inferior) heating value (J=kg)
HC heating circuit
i index number
HiL hardware-in-the-loop
n number ( )
HP heat pump
P electric power (W)
IGTE Institute for Building Energetics, Thermotechnology and
Q thermal energy (kWh )
Energy Storage
U internal energy (J)
mCHP micro combined heat and power
V volume (l)
Meas measured
W electric energy (kWh )
N nominal
SCOP seasonal coefficient of performance ( )
PLPE Short Cycle and System Performance Test
re return

standards which test the single energy conversion units under
quasi-stationary conditions.
An additional topic, which cannot be covered by a generic evaluation
methodology, are non-ideal installations of energy conversion systems
in buildings. This leads to further deviations between predicted and in
real world measured values of annual performances. Especially, HP
systems are sensitive to this issue [2,20]. As a consequence, for instance
the Association of German Engineers introduced a guideline for in­
stallers to design and commission heat pump systems in residential
buildings adequately [21]. However, an approach with which installers
could train assembling and configuring latest energy conversion systems
would be beneficial.
There is need for a new methodology that considers system dynamics
and encompasses a comprehensive system investigation. The hardware-
in-the-loop (HiL) concept fulfills these requirements. One advantage of
this approach is that energy conversion systems operate under realistic
and dynamic boundary conditions rather than only under quasi-
stationary ones. We denote the novel approach we demonstrate in this
paper as “Dynamic System Evaluation” (DSE). The three key challenges
of this methodology are the following:
� Test rigs have to emulate realistic and dynamic boundary conditions.
The real hardware, in terms of an energy conversion system, is
coupled to this test facility.
� A simulation model of an adequate building represents the real house
with its construction parts as well as heat distribution and transfer
system.
� The actual one-year evaluation period must be reduced to a smaller
set of representative days.
After examining the energy system for the period of these test or
typical days, the period’s performance is extrapolated to an annual ef­
ficiency factor. Since no whole year of experimental evaluation is
possible, we identify with a mathematical optimization method four
days that are representative for the whole year in terms of weather
conditions, which are the main driver of a building’s heat load.
All three project partners
� Technische Universita €t Dresden (TUD), Institute of Power
Engineering,
� RWTH Aachen University (RWTH Aachen), E.ON Energy Research
Center (ERC), Institute for Energy Efficient Buildings and Indoor
Climate (EBC),
� University of Stuttgart, Institute for Building Energetics, Thermo­
technology and Energy Storage (IGTE)
use differently designed test rigs and different simulation software
tools but apply the same concept. In order to validate the test benches
and simulations, we conduct a round robin test. Explicitly, the investi­
gated energy conversion systems are an mCHP system, a water-to-water
HP system (GSHP for ground source HP) and an air-to-water HP system
(ASHP for air source HP). At the current state of the DSE method we
neglect covering the cooling load of the virtual building, since an mCHP
is only able to supply heat.

2
P. Mehrfeld et al.
The paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we summarize the
state of the art of evaluation standards for HPs and mCHP units. Sub­
sequently, section 3 explains the applied concept of HiL with an exem­
plary HP heating system. In the next section, we outline the building
model and implemented user profiles. As a further part of the presented
method, a whole year must be reduced to a small set of representative
days. We identify four test days under the constraint of acceptable de­
viations. How this is achieved and the problems it brings along with this
simplification are explained in the related subsections. Section 6 illus­
trates the whole testing sequence from installing the hardware to fin­
ishing all four test days. Additionally, the accuracy for reproducibility is
quantified by three repeated experiment series. The final results are
displayed in section 7 in terms of the annual efficiency factors of both
the mCHP and the two HP systems.
2. State of the art: evaluation methods
2.1. Micro-CHP units
For cogeneration systems, the overall efficiency is calculated on the
basis of the thermal and electrical efficiency according to Eq. (1). In
particular, a motor CHP with a Stirling engine was considered. Since two
forms of energy are combined in the overall efficiency, the electrical
partial efficiency can also be weighted with primary energy factors.
However, these factors are influenced by political constraints and are
therefore only conditionally suitable for a neutral technical description.
QH Wel
ηtot ¼ þ (1)
Qend Qend
The heat output QH results from measuring the flow and return
temperature as well as mass flow at the device with the help of the
calorific balance according to Eq. (2). The electrical energy output Wel
can be measured directly. For gas powered CHP units the site or end-use
energy Qend is determined by the energy stored in the fuel with reference
to the lower heating value Hi (see Eq. (3)).
Z τB
QH ¼
��
m_ W ⋅ cp;W ⋅ ϑfl ϑre dτ (2)
0 SCOPs were predicted correctly, all markers would lie on the angle
Z τB
�
Qend ¼ m_ fuel ⋅ Hi dτ (3)
0
A measurement method for determining the overall efficiency is
described in the standard DIN 4709 DIN 4709 (German Institute for
Standardization) (2011).1 The test program contains a load profile
which maps different partial load conditions over a period of τ ¼ 24 h.
2.2. Heat pumps
2.2.1. Standards and guidelines
In order to characterize the annual efficiency of HPs, directives like
EN 14825 [24], EN 15316 [25] or the German guideline VDI 4650 VDI
4650 [26] predict the particular value based on measurement data
under quasi-stationary conditions. In terms of electrically driven HPs, on
which we focus within the project, these steady state values are deter­
mined on the basis of EN 14511 EN 14511 [27]. This momentary effi­
ciency factor is called coefficient of performance (COP) and declared as
the division of instantaneous heat flow Q_ H delivered through the HP’s
condenser and the electrical power Pel consumed by the device (see Eq.
(4)). The electrical consumption composes from the compressor, which
represents the major expense, auxiliary drives and control.
1
DIN 4709 [22] has been withdrawn and the use of the standard EN 50465
[23] is recommended. However, since EN 50465 [23] does not include a new
dynamic test method for determining the efficiency, the procedure according to
DIN 4709 [22] is used for comparative considerations.
3
Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032
Fig. 1. Field test data [1,2] compared in Ref. [3] to predicted SCOPs via VDI
4650 [26].
Q_ H
COP ¼ (4)
Pel
The annual efficiency of a HP (balancing time period τB ¼ 1 a) is the
integration of each power, denoted in Eq. (5) and called seasonal COP
(SCOP).
R τB
Q_ H dτ QH
SCOP ¼ R 0τB ¼ (5)
Pel dτ Wel
0
For instance, EN 14825 EN 14825 [24] tries to predict the SCOP by
using measured COPs in chosen operating points specified in EN 14511
[27]. [28] gives an overview about characterization and labeling
methods for HPs in Europe.
In terms of electrically driven HPs field test data from Ref. [1] show
monitored annual performance factors of ASHPs and GSHPs. These
measured values are compared in Ref. [3] to via VDI 4650 [26] pre­
dicted efficiencies. An overview of monitored HPs displays Fig. 1. If all
bisector. However, all markers, with two exceptions, are lower. This
means that the calculated values are predicted incorrectly with a devi­
ation of approximately ΔSCOP ¼ SCOPMeas SCOPVDI � 0:81.
2.2.2. Simulation aided evaluation in standards
Besides the bin methods,2 which are applied in the above mentioned
EN 145825 [24] and VDI 4650 [26], two other test approaches exist.
However, in comparison to the above mentioned tests, these two ap­
proaches make use of computer simulations.
One is the “Dynamic System Test” (DST) method, which ISO 9459–5
[29] and EN 12976–2 [30] apply. Hereby monitoring data of short
outdoor tests of a solar domestic hot water (DHW) system is gathered to
parameterize a mathematical model, which is then used for a dynamic
simulation [31,32].
The other method is the so called “Component Testing – System
Simulation” (CTSS). ISO 9459–4 [33] and EN 12977–2 [34] describe
and apply this testing methodology. Additionally, further work
regarding extending the CTSS method is still ongoing by the Institute for
Building Energetics, Thermotechnology and Energy Storage (IGTE,
Stuttgart, Germany, former: Thermodynamics and Thermal Engineering
(ITW)) [35]. Both test methods find the origin in the experimental
evaluation of solar thermal system [31]. explains that a CTSS procedure
carried out on a solar DHW system showed good agreement in thermal
performance in comparison to a DST applied to the same system.
2
Temperatures are clustered into 1 K groups and weighted with its
percentage-wise occurrences.
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Table 1
Overview of state of the art HiL methods.
Acronym CCT Combitest SCSPT PLPE DSE

Description Concise Cycle Test Combitest [37] Short Cycle and System Prescribed Load – Performance Dynamic System evaluation
[37] Performance Test [37] Extrapolation [38]
Institutions (country) SPF (Swiss) SERC (Sweden) CEA INES (France) EURAC (Italy) TU Dresden, RWTH Aachen,
University of Stuttgart (Germany)
Selected researcher/ Robert Haberl, Chris Bales, Tomas Philippe Papillon, David Diego Menegon, Roberto Authors of this paper
authors Michel Y. Haller Persson Ch�eze Fedrizzi
Load profile/ Simulation Load profile Simulation Load profile Simulation
Simulation
DHW yes yes yes yes yes
Number of test days 12 [37], later 6 [39, 6 [37] 12 [37] 6-24 [38] 4
p. 113]
Dataexchange time 1/32 h [37] 0.005 h [37] 1 min [37] Inputs: 1 min Data acquisition: 1s
span 5 s [39, p. 147]

Nonetheless, these three procedures (bin method, DST, CTSS) do not
make usage of the HiL concept and, thus, do not take a real time response
into account.
2.2.3. Hardware-in-the-loop methods
With focus on HP systems also diverse other institutions focus on HiL
approaches in order to characterize the performance of a system under
test. By names we would like to highlight the Institute for Solar Tech­
nology (SPF) of the University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil in
Switzerland, the Solar Energy Research Center of H€ ogskolan Dalarna
University in Sweden, the CEA at the French National Institute for Solar
Energy (CEA INES) in France and EURAC Research Institute for
Renewable Energy in Italy. Equivalent to our motivation, the main
research of the above mentioned institutions point out that current
standard evaluation methods neglect system as well as thermal inertia
effects [36,37], since the applied procedures test mostly only single
components in steady-state operation. Such effects are for instance
start-up and shut-down phases of HP, charging and discharging of
thermal energy storages (TESs) as well as buoyancy effects.
In comparison to all evaluation approaches mentioned in the sections
prior, the methodologies from SPF, SERC, CEA INES, EURAC as well as
our DSE test are HiL tests. Table 1 gives an overview.
Mainly, the HiL evaluation concepts differ in the following topics:
� Simulation or load profile as virtual part
� Number of test days
� Dataexchange frequency
� Level of detail of building model, on which the simulation or load
profile bases
The Project MacSheep [19,40] demonstrates the harmonization of
CCT, Combitest and SCSPT, which are summerized in the term “Whole
System Testing” (WST) [37]. Menegon et al. explains in Refs. [38,39] the
PLPE procedure and the comparison to the other three methodologies.
Furthermore, like DST and CTSS, the method CCT does a model
fitting on the basis of experimental results in order to perform a whole
year simulation to gather yearly integral performance indicators like the
SCOP, instead of extrapolating the measurement results directly [37]. In
this context one should note that “[t]he effort for parameter fitting and
simulation is certainly substantially higher than for direct extrapolation”
[37, p. 676].
Additionally, while we simulate a building with 13 individual but
thermally connected rooms (cp. section 4), the other methodologies
with a building model in the loop simulate a one family house with one
zone [19, p. 41].
Unfortunately, neither [19] nor [37] demonstrate a direct compari­
son, e.g. a round robin test, of the 3 methodologies with the same energy
conversion system. Although, both publications present essential test
results in terms of time series as well as integral values, for instance for a
solar assisted GSHP system.
3. Hardware-in-the-loop methodology
On the one hand, a HP or an mCHP unit itself as well as all corre­
sponding auxiliary components exist as real hardware and are mounted
in a suitable testing environment. Fig. 2 illustrates the hardware part
schematically in the dashed area.
On the other hand, a simulation model of a building is incorporated,
representing: construction, heat transfer system, heat distribution

Fig. 2. Schema of HiL: real hardware components in dashed line (transparent background); simulation system indicated in dash-dotted line (blue background);
couplers/emulators represented by test benches indicated in dotted lines (red background). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article).

4
P. Mehrfeld et al.
system, user model for DHW, air change rate, internal gains and room set
temperatures. Furthermore, a HiL concept needs a coupler in terms of
test benches. A hydraulic test bench emulates the simulated space
heating (SH) demand and handles DHW draw-offs. And in cases of
GSHPs it also represents the source, which can be e.g. ground water.
Additionally, in cases of ASHPs, a climate chamber realizes desired
ambient temperatures and humidity as outdoor air conditions. For gas
driven mCHPs a gas supply line and monitoring equipment is necessary
in order to determine the lower heating value Hi of the supplied gas
volume correctly.
The hardware performs a certain action on which the simulation
calculates the appropriate reaction. In terms of investigating energy
supply systems, measured variables are the flow temperatures and flow
rates of the SH and DHW circuit as well as in some cases the pressure
difference at the control volume’s boundary. The values are sent digi­
tally to the simulation software. The simulation sends back the return
temperatures and flow rates for the space heating circuit (HC) and the
DHW draw-offs, represented by cold city inlet water.
Thus, we achieve a tightly connected dynamic system that operates
with action and reaction, whereby a real-time simulation speed is
ensured. All HiL parts influence each other and therefore a sufficient
control of the emulating test facility is a challenging task to always meet
the required set values within a tolerance interval.
A test bench with the capability of house and earth probe emulation
is presented in Ref. [41]. However, the focus lies in that work on
comparing different control concepts for HP heating systems instead of
determining a realistic annual performance factor. In a similar way [42],
demonstrates a platform to test and improve the control of heating
systems. However [43], propose and analyze a 12-day-long experi­
mental HiL procedure to characterize a GSHP regarding its annual per­
formance. Hereby, four different approaches for the 12 experimentally
investigated test days are focus of the research work. Remaining days of
the year are substituted by pure simulations.
Directives use a narrow control volume as boundaries for the energy
balance and consequently to determine the efficiency. We decide to
choose a control volume for the whole system (see dashed line in Fig. 2),
including TES, like buffer storage (BS) and DHW storage, pumps, valves,
controllers, and further auxiliary components. Since the efficiency of the
whole system is applicable in the building owner’s economical calcu­
lations, it is advantageous to evaluate the comprehensive energy system.
Moreover, the controller is responsible for the highly dynamic behavior
of the energy conversion system throughout a day. Especially [44,45]
show the not negligible influence of controllers and its parametrization
on HP’s system performance.
On the basis of the flow and return temperatures as well as the
measurement values of the volume flow rate sensors, the instantaneous
thermal power is calculated. Furthermore, all electrical consumers like
the HP unit itself, a potential electrical backup heater, and all auxiliary
components like pumps or the system controller are connected to elec­
tricity monitoring devices. Thus, we meter all necessary powers in order
to integrate these to daily energy values.
4. Simulation models
In order to verify the methodology aside from performing experi­
ments on different test benches, we use three different programming
languages/simulation softwares for building performance simulations:
� TRNSYS TUD [46] at TU Dresden
� Modelica/Dymola [47,48] at RWTH Aachen, using mainly the li­
brary AixLib [49,50])
� TRNSYS [51] at University of Stuttgart
To be suitable for each of the three heat generators, we use a one
family house that is representative for the current German building stock
[52]. The key information is listed in Table 2. The radiators’ nominal
5
Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032
Table 2
Information of representative one family house.
Attribute Value/Description
Number of rooms (heated) 13 incl. attic (10)
Floor area (heated) 245 m2 (172 m2 )
Volume (heated) 548 m3 (439:40 m3 )
Window area 24 m2
Design heat load 8363 W (at ϑamb ¼ 14 � C)
Insulation standard German Thermal Insulation Ordinance 82/84
flow and return temperatures (55∘ C and 40∘ C) are a compromise for the
two technologies CHP and HP. All used models are validated. Exem­
plarily, we mention the AixLib high order building model, which is
validated by the ASHRAE Standard 140 [53,54].
In addition to the raw building construction and the chosen heat
transfer system, a hydronically balanced heat distribution system is
modeled in terms of pipes, junctions, arcs, and valves. Thus, we realize a
realistic behavior regarding pressure drops and thermal dynamics
within the hydronic network.
Furthermore, another important factor on the simulation side is the
implemented user. Therefore, we use varying profiles referring to a
reliable presences schedule [55] for room set temperature, air change
rate (combination of infiltration plus user induced ventilation [56]) and
internal gains [57,58]. Appendix A shows all mentioned boundary
conditions as time series for each room. Additionally, the DHW draw-off
profile L of EN 16147 [59] with a daily energy of QDHW;target ¼ 11:7 kWh
and approximately VDHW ¼ 200 l is used.
Within the prototype phase of this new HiL evaluation method for
energy conversion systems, only one residential building was used and
investigated in detail. With a view to future and even more generic so­
lutions, a data base will be made available to select a suitable building
for the energy system to be investigated. Sticking to such a convention
ensures a fair evaluation of the system’s long term efficiency and a good
comparability.
5. Representative days
In order to apply this approach of HiL for evaluating energy con­
version systems in terms of their annual or in general long term effi­
ciency, it is not possible to run experiments for a whole year. As a
consequence, the number of test days must be limited. The idea is to find
a reasonable number of meteorologically representative days that
combines the two necessary aspects: represent the long time period
adequately and make experiments economically feasible. The chosen
days are representative in a meteorological manner because the outdoor
air conditions are the main drivers for a building’s heat consumption
behavior and for most heat generation systems’ controllers.
From a nomenclature point of view, we denote the chosen days as
typical, representative or test days.
To gain a suitable set of representative days [60], compared diverse
possible concepts within a simulative study for different HP heating
systems (e.g. Ref. [43]). The mathematical optimization method
k-medoids clustering leads to the least deviations in terms of the annual
efficiency factor SCOP. Thus, in combination with weighting factors for
e.g. outdoor air temperature or solar irradiation we apply the k-medoids
clustering according to Ref. [61] on a weather time series with hourly
values. The k-medoids clustering forms groups on the basis of these
hourly values with days in each group that are the most similar. The
center, the so-called medoid, is a representative day for the whole
cluster, which normally includes a different number of days compared to
another cluster. Applied on a test reference year (TRY) in Germany
(2004, region 4 [62]), four days and clusters according to Table 3 can be
identified. The corresponding days of one cluster do not represent a
chronological sequence but are picked throughout the whole year. In the
P. Mehrfeld et al.
Table 3
Dates and number of days ndays;i in one cluster.
i Date (dayi ) ndays;i
1 11th Jan. 97
2 27th Feb. 103
3 1st Jun. 73
4 30th Aug. 92
Fig. 3. Energy shifting in TES: state of charge based on the buffer storage’s (BS)
heating curve.
current state-of-the-art insulation directive for buildings in Germany
[63] the reference location is TRY region 4 (Potsdam, close to Berlin).
Thus, it represents the most representative weather conditions and is
suitable for the DSE.
A set of four typical days results in less than 4% deviation to the
reference SCOPSim; 1 a of a whole year [60].
According to Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), the SCOPHiL and ηHiL , respectively,
can be extrapolated based on the daily energies.
P i¼4 R τday;i;end
_
i¼1 ndays;i ⋅ τday;i;start Qth ðτÞ dτ
SCOPHiL ¼ P i¼4 R τday;i;end (6)
i¼1 ndays;i ⋅ τday;i;start Pel ðτÞ dτ
P i¼4 R τday;i;end � account for the wrong day. In particular, in the case of an ASHP this
Q_ th ðτÞ þ Pel;prod ðτÞ dτ
i¼1 ndays;i ⋅ τday;i;start
ηHiL ¼ P i¼4 R τday;i;end � (7)
i¼1 ndays;i ⋅ τday;i;start m _ fuel ðτÞ⋅Hi dτ
The transition from one test day to the following one represents a
discontinuity and thus, a non-realistic behavior. This leads to two issues
of energy shifting. Therefore, the next subsection explains energy
shifting that occurs in the building’s thermal mass, whereas subsection
5.2 clarifies energy shifting in TESs.
5.1. Energy shifting in buildings
If a cold day follows a moderate warm day, the building’s storage
capacity will partially cover the dwelling’s heat demand during the cold
day with reserves that are saved in the thermal capacity of the building’s
mass. We can avoid this issue by simulating the model a certain number
of virtual days prior to the actual test day. Therefore, we decouple the
model from the HiL connection and provide the simulation system with
an ideal supply temperature according to a typical heating curve. Due to
these pre-simulations, the virtual building is initialized in equilibrium
state appropriate for the beginning of the according test day. Alterna­
tively, resulting in an analogous initialization state, we can simulate the
period between two representative days. However, the latter method
requires a calendrical order of the test days. Which approach can be
used, depends on the simulation software.
However, due to this concept, the building’s thermal mass does not
shift significant amounts of energy in time during the HiL experiments.
5.2. Energy shifting in thermal energy storages
The second issue regarding shifting energy from one test day to
another is related to TESs and can be divided in two sub-issues (see Fig. 3
Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032
ϑamb ½� C�
6.2
0.6
18.3
13.8
Fig. 4. Energy shifting in TESs: state of charge before and after a
day changeover.
and Fig. 4).
The first problem has its origin in the charging strategy of a BS for
SH. Usually, the tank is thermally charged on the basis of a heating
curve, which uses the outdoor temperature as input and controls with
this information the supply temperature: the colder it is outside, the
higher is the tank’s temperature.
As Fig. 3 indicates the state of charge is relatively high during the
first test day, which is exemplary a winter day. On the following warmer
test day, in the beginning the system still uses the thermal energy from
the highly charged storage.
Thus, in general we expect the system to behave differently, when
the representative test days are arranged in different orders. The main
driver hereby is the ambient air temperature.
The second sub-issue regarding energy shifting in TESs is more about
coincidence. Fig. 4 illustrates this problem. In the end of a typical day,
the TES can have any state of charge between the tank’s thermal mini­
mal and maximal level. Only due to slightly different boundary condi­
tions the system e.g. charges the TESs still in the end of a test day (blue
case) or in the beginning of the following day (green case). In both cases
the result is a decoupling of providing and consuming thermal energy.
As a consequence, the expended electrical or chemical energy would
influences the HP’s COP during the charging process since the ambient
air temperatures are significantly different.
In order to investigate these two issues of energy shifting in TESs, we
conduct two investigations – one experimental [64] and one simulative
[65]. The experimental HiL analysis focuses on a combined hot water
tank for SH and DHW, whereas the pure simulation investigation in­
cludes a HP system with two physically separated tanks: one buffer and
one DHW storage. However, the simulation study is treated like the
project’s HiL problem, i.e. the actual hardware parts are replaced by
simulation models that are not specifically initialized at each represen­
tative day. In both research works we arrange the four typical days in
different orders depending on the daily mean outdoor temperatures, e.g.
from warm to cold. Additionally, the simulations are combined with a
parameter variation so that the second sub-issue, which is more about
coincidence, can partially be avoided.
Usually, a combined hot water tank should lead to more or less un­
mixed zones for space heating and DHW in the tank. As a matter of fact,
during this specific experimental study we could not observe an un­
mixed behavior at the investigated tank. Against expectations, the tank
got always fully charged driven by the DHW set temperature, which is
independent from day and outdoor air temperature [64].
However, the simulative study reveals that the order from warm to
cold and back to warm leads to the least deviation of shifted internal
energy in the TESs over the four day test period. Consequently, we
follow this recommendation within our dynamic evaluation methodol­
ogy [65].
6. Process of a HiL experiment
Fig. 5 illustrates the procedure of a complete test series for
6
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Fig. 5. Procedure of one test series of HiL evaluation method.

Fig. 6. Accuracy of reproducibility shown in three 4-day experiments.

investigating a heat conversion system at a HiL test bench. The process

starts with an initialization phase of τ ¼ 2 h. During this period test
bench and heat generation system are enabled and initialized. This
especially includes heating up all hot water tanks to an adequate level.
Therefore, it is necessary to exclude this time from the evaluation period
itself. This time span of 2 h might need to be extended in case of larger
TES. Furthermore, the simulation models are prepared with the corre­
sponding pre-simulations. After τ ¼ 2 h the first test day starts. During
the following four days the middleware exchanges frequently the
necessary data between emulator and simulator.
The boundary conditions in terms of rooms’ set temperatures, air
change rates as well as internal gains are illustrated as time series for Fig. 7. Round Robin test: Exchange of energy conversion systems.
each room in Appendix A. Within a day these time series vary
immensely, whereas they stay the same profile for each day. 7. Results
Since these system testings are dynamic and non-trivial experiments,
we present in Fig. 6 their reproducibility in terms of daily thermal and 7.1. Round robin test
electrical energies. Regarding absolute values the results deviate in less
than ΔQth ¼ 1:61 kWh and ΔWel ¼ 1:84 kWh. In terms of relative dif­ As explained in the introduction, we performed a round robin test
ferences the three test series deviate between 1:04% and 3:43% related within the project’s scope. After a first reference experiment at each
to their arithmetic mean of thermal and electrical energies, respectively. institute, we sent the energy conversion systems to the next institute,
This meets our requested accuracy sufficiently. like Fig. 7 displays in detail. By applying the round robin test, we ensure
a quality and reproducibility check at three different test facilities and
using three different simulation softwares.
Table 4 gives an overview of the investigated energy conversion
systems.

7
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Table 4 constant boundary conditions. On the other hand, the two test benches
Nominal data of investigated energy conversion systems. supply DHW cold water that flows into the TES differently such that at
System Nominal data Storage the beginning of each DHW draw-off different temperatures occur.
mCHP Stirling: Combi tank:
Q_ th;N ¼ 6:0 kWPel;N ¼ 1:0 kW V ¼ 500 l
7.2. New dynamic evaluation methodology
Additional burner:
Q_ th;N ¼ 20 kW
GSHP Combi tank:
On the basis of Fig. 8 the entire testing procedure of the DSE is
Q_ th;N ¼ 13:3kW (W10W55)
V ¼ 300l described. Generally, the methodology encompasses the test facility
Pel;N ¼ 4:0kW (W10W55)
(blue, upper part) and the building performance simulation (green,
ASHP Q_ th;N ¼ 9:2kW (A7W55) BS tank:
V ¼ 46 l lower part) [66]).
Pel;N ¼ 3:5kW (A7W55)
DHW tank:
Initially, a trained technician installs the energy conversion system
V ¼ 170 l by coupling it to the hydraulic test bench. In the case of an ASHP, the
outdoor air unit is mounted in the climate chamber. If an mCHP system
is focus of the investigation, the trained technician connects the unit to a
Table 5
gas pipeline that is equipped with appropriate meters. Necessary pa­
Results of the round robin test in terms of.SCOPHiL .
rameters at the system controller have to be adjusted such that the
SCOPHiL [ ] or configuration fits to the virtual building. As state-of-the-art, most heat
ηHiL [ ] TU Dresden RWTH Aachen University of Stuttgart generation systems are controlled by outdoor temperature related
mCHP 0.879 – 0.869 heating curves. Therefore, the sensor has to be continuously manipu­
GSHP 3.31 3.34 – lated during the experiment. We achieve this by controlling the sensor
ASHP – 1.93 2.16 digitally, by applying a certain voltage (0::10V), by diving the sensor in a
thermostatically controlled water reservoir or by using the climate
When performing these six experiments – two times with the same chamber.
heat conversion system – we determine reliable values for the systems’ On the simulation side we choose a suitable building model depending
SCOPHiL and ηHiL . The results are listed in Table 5. Additionally, on the nominal capacity of the heat conversion system. Ideally, the
comprehensive test results of all 6 experiments are displayed in detail in building model is stored in a data base and mainly chosen on the basis of
Appendix B. its nominal heat load. The DHW draw-off profile follows EN 13203–4 [67]
Whilst the mCHP and GSHP system show satisfying relative de­ whilst the specific profile size depends on the building class.
viations related to their mean values of Δηrel;HiL ¼ 0:6% and As explained in section 6, after a preconditioning phase, the moni­
ΔSCOPrel;GSHP;HiL ¼ 0:9%, respectively, the ASHP analysis results in a tored evaluation phase starts with the 1st typical day. Each test day starts
relative difference of ΔSCOPrel;ASHP;HiL ¼ 11:3%. On the one hand, the with a building model initialized in thermally appropriate conditions for
two climate chambers have constructive distinctions. The transient the emulated calendar day. The 4-day long testing phase is checked for
ambient conditions during the experiments influence the ASHP’s sen­ validity in terms of the provided and required heating energy and
sitive efficiency more compared to a GSHP, which is exposed to almost whether the draw-offs met the standard’s requirements. As a last step, the

Fig. 8. Overview of newly developed Dynamic System Evaluation (DSE) test for energy conversion systems using the HiL approach.

8
P. Mehrfeld et al.
yearly energy performance factor SCOPHiL or ηHiL is extrapolated based
on the daily energies (see Eq. (6) or Eq. (7), respectively).
8. Conclusions
As a new methodology, this paper presents a dynamic testing pro­
cedure to gain the long-term efficiency of energy conversion systems.
Therefore, we follow the approach of the hardware-in-the-loop concept.
Within the project’s scope three institutes, which specialize on building
energy system investigations, performed a round robin test in order to
verify the experimental process and its results for three energy conver­
sion systems: air-source heat pump, ground-source heat pump, micro
combined heat and power system.
In contrast to existing normative directives that follow steady-state
testing approaches, the hardware-in-the-loop concept provides real­
istic dynamic boundary conditions to a real energy conversion system.
We achieve this by coupling detailed dynamic simulation models of a
building as well as its hydronic heating circuit, representing the heat
sink, to the test facility and performing real-time experiments.
On the basis of a mathematical optimization method – in particular
the k-medoids clustering – we identify typical days that are represen­
tative for a desired period, which is in general one year. The day related
experimentally determined energies are extrapolated to the heat pump
system’s annual performance factor SCOPHiL or the micro combined heat
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101032.
A. Boundary conditions of simulation
Fig. 9. Boundary conditions for rooms’ set temperatures
9 during HiL test from simulation point of view
Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032
and power system’s annual total energy efficiency ηHiL .
Besides not neglecting dynamic effects, a further aspect differs from
the presented procedure compared to standards. In this method we
choose a larger control volume for the energy balance which includes
auxiliary components, mainly thermal energy storages and its’ losses.
Hereby, the resulting performance indicator has a higher relevance for
the owner of such energy conversion systems.
Generally, the results of the evaluation show a good compliance
between several test rigs with deviations of Δηrel;HiL ¼ 0:6%,
ΔSCOPrel;GSHP;HiL ¼ 0:9% and ΔSCOPrel;ASHP;HiL ¼ 11:3% for the micro
combined heat and power, ground-source heat pump as well as air-
source heat pump system, respectively.
The methodology accomplished in this 3-year long project represents
a promising new evaluation approach for the identification of annual
performance factors for thermal and electrical energy conversion
systems.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support by the Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Germany, promo­
tional reference 03ET1211 A/B/C.
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Fig. 10. Boundary conditions for air change rates during HiL test from simulation point of view

10
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Fig. 11. Boundary conditions for internal gains during HiL test from simulation point of view

B. Detailed results all six experiments

In the context of the results, dCOP is the daily COP, which we calculate according to Eq. (5) with τB ¼ 1d. Furthermore, Qth;tot is the sum of the
thermal energy QHC supplied for space heating/supplied to the heating circuit and the thermal energy QDHW for DHW. With regard to the mCHP,
electric energy Wel must be treated as energy-related gain, whereas in relation to the HP experiments Wel represents energy-related expense.

Table 6
Results of mCHP from TU Dresden for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel Qend η1d

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 2.2 13.1 15.3 2.6 26.1 0.686

11 Jan. 69.6 12.8 82.4 13.3 107.6 0.889
27 Feb. 111.0 13.1 124.1 18.0 153.8 0.924
01 Jun. 2.1 13.1 15.2 2.5 25.4 0.697

Table 7
Results of mCHP from TU Dresden for whole clusters (1 year: ηHiL ¼ 0:879).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel Qend useful energy

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] output [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 202.4 1205.2 1407.6 239.2 2401.2 1646.8

11 Jan. 97 6751.2 1241.6 7992.8 1290.1 10437.2 9282.9
27 Feb. 103 11433.0 1349.3 12782.3 1854.0 15841.4 14636.3
01 Jun. 73 153.3 956.3 1109.6 182.5 1854.2 1292.1
1 year: 18539.9 4752.4 23292.3 3565.8 30534.0 26858.1

11
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Table 8
Results of mCHP from university of Stuttgart for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel Qend η1d

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 1.2 11.7 12.9 2.0 23.1 0.646

11 Jan. 60.5 11.7 72.3 11.0 94.0 0.886
27 Feb. 99.6 11.7 111.3 17.9 141.0 0.916
01 Jun. 1.8 11.7 13.5 2.1 23.7 0.656

Table 9
Results of mCHP from university of Stuttgart for whole clusters (1 year: ηHiL ¼ 0:869).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel Qend useful energy

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] output [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 111.3 1078.2 1188.6 185.8 2127.7 1374.5

11 Jan. 97 5871.4 1136.8 7008.3 1068.0 9115.4 8076.2
27 Feb. 103 10256.7 1205.1 11461.8 1842.7 14524.6 13304.5
01 Jun. 73 127.8 854.8 982.6 150.4 1727.1 1133.0
1 year: 16367.2 4275.0 20641.3 3246.9 27494.7 23888.2

Table 10
Results of GSHP from RWTH Aachen for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel dCOP

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 2.6 13.5 16.0 7.3 2.21

11 Jan. 72.0 11.9 83.9 24.7 3.40
27 Feb. 118.6 11.9 130.5 35.1 3.72
01 Jun. 1.5 11.9 13.4 7.1 1.89

Table 11
Results of GSHP from RWTH Aachen for whole clusters (1 year: SCOPHiL ¼ 3:34).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 238.3 1237.4 1475.7 667.9

11 Jan. 97 6985.0 1151.4 8136.4 2394.0
27 Feb. 103 12216.8 1223.6 13440.5 3610.2
01 Jun. 73 108.0 869.4 977.5 517.6
1 year: 19548.1 4481.9 24030.0 7189.6

Table 12
Results of GSHP from TU Dresden for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel dCOP

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 1.3 12.8 14.1 6.6 2.15

11 Jan. 64.9 12.8 77.7 22.7 3.43
27 Feb. 111.3 12.8 124.0 34.0 3.64
01 Jun. 0.5 12.8 13.2 6.9 1.92

Table 13
Results of GSHP from TU Dresden for whole clusters (1 year: SCOPHiL ¼ 3:31).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 120.5 1178.5 1299.0 605.4

11 Jan. 97 6296.3 1236.8 7533.0 2197.1
27 Feb. 103 11459.8 1314.3 12774.1 3506.1
01 Jun. 73 32.9 932.2 965.1 502.2
1 year: 17909.4 4661.8 22571.2 6810.8

12
P. Mehrfeld et al. Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032

Table 14
Results of ASHP from university of Stuttgart for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel dCOP

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 2.2 11.8 14.0 9.9 1.41

11 Jan. 55.8 11.8 67.6 27.4 2.47
27 Feb. 95.2 11.8 107.0 49.2 2.18
01 Jun. 3.0 11.8 14.8 8.2 1.81

Table 15
Results of ASHP from university of Stuttgart for whole clusters (1 year: SCOPHiL ¼ 2:16).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 198.7 1087.3 1286.0 909.6

11 Jan. 97 5416.4 1142.8 6559.2 2659.7
27 Feb. 103 9807.1 1216.3 11023.4 5064.2
01 Jun. 73 217.3 862.6 1080.0 595.7
1 year: 15639.7 4309.0 19948.7 9229.2

Table 16
Results of ASHP from RWTH Aachen for single days.

Date QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel dCOP

[kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [ ]

30 Aug. 2.9 12.0 14.8 16.3 0.91

11 Jan. 72.2 12.1 84.3 41.1 2.05
27 Feb. 115.4 12.1 127.4 59.0 2.16
01 Jun. 3.0 12.0 15.0 10.0 1.49

Table 17
Results of ASHP from RWTH Aachen for whole clusters (1 year: SCOPHiL ¼ 1:93).

Date ndays;i QHC QDHW Qth;tot Wel

[ ] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh] [kWh]

30 Aug. 92 263.4 1101.8 1365.2 1499.9

11 Jan. 97 7001.7 1176.0 8177.6 3982.7
27 Feb. 103 11882.7 1243.6 13126.2 6072.8
01 Jun. 73 216.1 878.1 1094.2 732.2
1 year: 19363.9 4399.4 23763.2 12287.6

References [9] J. Williamson, R. Aldrich, Field Performance of Inverter-Driven Heat Pumps in

Cold Climates, 2015-08.
[10] M. Miara, D. Günther, R. Langner, S. Helmling, J. Wapler, 10 years of heat pumps
[1] M. Miara, Heat Pumps in the Existing Building Stock – Heat Pump Field Trial in
monitoring in Germany. outcomes of several monitoring campaigns. from low-
Existing Residential Buildings, 2009. URL: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/rese
energy houses to unretrofitted single-family dwellings, in: 12th IEA Heat Pump
arch-projects/wp-im-bestand-2013-waermepumpenfeldtests-in-bestehenden-wohn
Conference, 2017.
gebaeuden.html.
[11] E. Ravn Nielsen, C.B. Prag, Learning points from demonstration of 1000 fuel cell
[2] M. Miara, D. Günther, T. Kramer, T. Oltersdorf, J. Wapler, Heat pump efficiency -
based micro-CHP units - summary of analyses from the ene.field project, Technical
analysis and evaluation of heat pump efficiency in real-life conditions, URL:
University of Denmark. URL: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/learning-
https://wp-monitoring.ise.fraunhofer.de/wp-smart-im-bestand/download/Berich
points-from-demonstration-of-1000-fuel-cell-based-microch
te/final_report_wp_effizienz_en.pdf, 2010.
p-units–summary-of-analyses-from-the-enefield-project
[3] K. Huchtemann, Supply Temperature Control Concepts in Heat Pump Heating
(58a61a3b-16e3-4a21-af43-42eb6bbeb496).html, 2017.
Systems, Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, 2015.
[12] J. Lipp, Field test with stirling engine micro-combined heat and power units in
[4] C. Wemhoener, T. Afjei, R. Dott, Iea hpp annex 28 – standardised testing and
residential buildings, Proc Inst Mech Eng A J Power Energy 227 (2013) 43–52,
seasonal performance calculation for multifunctional heat pump systems, Appl.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912458755.
Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 2062–2069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[13] V. Kuhn, J. Kleme�s, I. Bulatov, MicroCHP: overview of selected technologies,
applthermaleng.2007.12.003.
products and field test results, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 2039–2048, https://
[5] I. Staffell, D. Brett, N. Brandon, A. Hawkes, A review of domestic heat pumps,
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.02.003.
Energy Environ. Sci. 5 (2012) 9291, https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee22653g.
[14] B. Thomas, Benchmark testing of micro-chp units, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008)
[6] F. Madonna, F. Bazzocchi, Annual performances of reversible air-to-water heat
2049–2054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.03.010.
pumps in small residential buildings, Energy Build. 65 (2013) 299–309, https://
[15] M. Zogg, History of Heat Pumps - Swiss Contributions and International
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.016.
Milestones, 2008.
[7] L. Schibuola, M. Scarpa, On-field validation of a seasonal performance calculation
[16] A. Vittoriosi, D. Menegon, R. Fedrizzi, Evaluation of dynamic operation effects for a
method for chillers in buildings, Energy Convers. Manag. 85 (2014) 62–69, https://
heat pump in a solar combi-plus system, in: Proceedings of the EuroSun 2014
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.063.
Conference, 2014. URL: http://proceedings.ises.org/?conference¼eurosun2014.
[8] J. Ruschenburg, T. Cuti�
� c, S. Herkel, Validation of a black-box heat pump simulation
[17] M. Dongellini, C. Naldi, G.L. Morini, Seasonal performance evaluation of electric
model by means of field test results from five installations, Energy Build. 84 (2014)
air-to-water heat pump systems, Appl. Therm. Eng. 90 (2015) 1072–1081, https://
506–515, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.08.014. URL: https://www.sc
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.03.026.
iencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814006562/pdfft?md5¼da6ff0a
0651446edccdc46d4cdceb43a&pid¼1-s2.0-S0378778814006562-main.pdf.

13
P. Mehrfeld et al.
[18] L. Nolting, S. Steiger, A. Praktiknjo, Assessing the validity of european labels for
energy efficiency of heat pumps, J. Build Eng. 18 (2018) 476–486, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2018.02.013.
[19] R. Haberl, M.Y. Haller, P. Papillon, D. Ch� eze, T. Perrson, C. Bales, Testing of
combined heating systems for small houses: improved procedures for whole system
test methods: deliverable 2.3 - final: macsheep - new materials and control for a
next generation of compact combined solar and heat pump systems with boosted
energetic and exergetic performance, URL: http://macsheep.spf.ch/Reports-Delive
rables.245.0.html, 2015-02-11.
[20] M. Miara, D. Günther, R. Langner, S. Helmling, Efficiency of heat pumps in real
operating conditions–results of three monitoring campaigns in Germany, REHVA J.
7 (2014). September, https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/detail/05-2014.
[21] Association of German Engineers, VDI 4645: Heating Plants with Heat Pumps in
Single-Family and Multi-Family Houses - Planning, Construction, Operation, 2018-
03.
[22] DIN 4709 (German Institute for Standardization), Standard Efficiency Factor for
Micro-CHP-appliances of Nominal Heat Input Not Exceeding 70 kW, 2011.
[23] EN 50465, Gas Appliances - Combined Heat and Power Appliance of Nominal Heat
Input Inferior or Equal to 70 kW, 2015.
[24] EN 14825, Air Conditioners, Liquid Chilling Packages and Heat Pumps, with
Electrically Driven Compressors, for Space Heating and Cooling - Testing and
Rating at Part Load Conditions and Calculation of Seasonal Performance, 2013.
[25] EN 15316-4-2, Energy Performance of Buildings - Method for Calculation of System
Energy Requirements and System Efficiencies - Part 4-2: Space Heating Generation
Systems, Heat Pump Systems, 2017. Module M3-8-2, M8-8-2.
[26] VDI 4650 (German Association of Engineers), Calculation of the Seasonal
Performance Factor of Heat Pumps - Electric Heat Pumps for Space Heating and
Domestic Hot Water, 2014.
[27] EN 14511, Air Conditioners, Liquid Chilling Packages and Heat Pumps with
Electrically Driven Compressors for Space Heating and Cooling, 2013.
[28] M. Fors�en, R. Boeswarth, X. Dubuisson, B. Sandstr€ om, Heat Pumps: Technology
and Environmental Impact, 07/2005. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecol
abel/about_ecolabel/reports/hp_tech_env_impact_aug2005.pdf.
[29] ISO 9459-5, Solar Heating - Domestic Water Heating Systems: Part 5: System
Performance Characterization by Means of Whole-System Tests and Computer
Simulation, 2007-05.
[30] EN 12976-2, Thermal Solar Systems and Components - Factory Made Systems: Part
2: Test Methods, 2017-01.
[31] D.J. Naron, Using the Dst Test Method for Testing ’solar-Only’ and ’preheat’ Solar
Domestic Hot Water Systems, 2000. URL: http://ptp.irb.hr/upload/mape/solar
i/22_Daniel_Naron_Using_the_DST_test_method_for_testing_solar-o.pdf.
[32] G. Panaras, E. Mathioulakis, V. Belessiotis, A method for the dynamic testing and
evaluation of the performance of combined solar thermal heat pump hot water
systems, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 124–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.09.039.
[33] ISO 9459-4, Solar Heating - Domestic Water Heating Systems: Part 4: System
Performance Characterization by Means of Component Tests and Computer
Simulation, 2013-02.
[34] EN 12977-2, Thermal Solar Systems and Components - Custom Built Systems: Part
2: Test Methods for Solar Water Heaters and Combisystems, 2018-04.
[35] H. Drück, S. Bonk, B. Ehrismann, S. Stark, P. Frey, A. Loose, Leistungsprüfung und
o
€kologische bewertung von kombinierten solar-w€ armepumpenanlagen: akronym
wpsol, URL: https://www.igte.uni-stuttgart.de/en/chair_hrt/research/completed
-projects/wpsol/index.html, 2016-04-12.
[36] D. Menegon, A. Vittoriosi, R. Fedrizzi, A new test procedure for the dynamic
laboratory characterization of thermal systems and their components, Energy
Build. 84 (2014) 182–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.085.
[37] M.Y. Haller, R. Haberl, T. Persson, C. Bales, P. Kovacs, D. Ch� eze, P. Papillon,
Dynamic whole system testing of combined renewable heating systems – the
current state of the art, Energy Build. 66 (2013) 667–677, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.052.
[38] D. Menegon, A. Soppelsa, R. Fedrizzi, Development of a new dynamic test
procedure for the laboratory characterization of a whole heating and cooling
system, Appl. Energy 205 (2017) 976–990, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.08.120.
[39] D. Menegon, Development of a Dynmaic Test Procedure for the Laboratory
Characterization of HVAC Systems, Dissertation, University of Udine, Udine, Italy,
15.04.2016.
[40] Institute for Solar Technology (SPF), MacSheep (projec website), URL: http://www
.macsheep.spf.ch/, 2015.
[41] M. Bianchi, E. Shafai, H.P. Geering, Comparing New Control Concepts for Heat
Pump Heating Systems on a Test Bench with the Capability of House and Earth
Probe Emulation, 2005.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020) 101032
[42] A. La Tejeda De Cruz, P. Riviere, D. Marchio, O. Cauret, A. Milu, Hardware in the
loop test bench using Modelica: a platform to test and improve the control of
heating systems, Appl. Energy 188 (2017) 107–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.11.092.
[43] P. Riederer, V. Partenay, O. Raguideau, Dynamic test method for the determination
of the global seasonal performance factor of heat pumps used for heating, cooling
and domestic hot water preparation, in: Building Simulation 2009 Conference,
2009 (Glasgow, Scotland).
[44] A. Tejeda de la Cruz, P. Riviere, A. Milu, Double service air-to-water heat pump
performances: how do control parameters influence electricity consumption and
thermal comfort?, 07.12.2015-09.12, in: 14th International Conference of the
International Building Performance Simulation Association, 2015, pp. 1110–1117.
URL: http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2015/p2359.pdf.
[45] J. Hoogmartens, L. Helsen, Influence of control parameters on the system
performance of ground coupled heat pump systems: a simulation study, November
14-16, in: 12th International Conference of the International Building Performance
Simulation Association, 2011, pp. 262–269. URL: http://www.ibpsa.org/
proceedings/BS2011/P_1200.pdf.
[46] TRNSYS, Dresden TU, Trnsys - transient system simulation tool, special version TU
dresden based on TRNSYS v14, URL: http://www.trnsys.com/, 2017.
[47] Modelica Association, Modelica, URL: https://www.modelica.org/, 2018.
[48] Dassault Systemes, Dymola, URL: http://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/ca
pabilities/modelica-systems-simulation-info/dymola/, 2015.
[49] D. Müller, M. Lauster, A. Constantin, M. Fuchs, P. Remmen, AixLib – an open-
source modelica library within the IEA-EBC annex 60 framework, BauSIM (2016),
2016.
[50] EBC, AixLib: a Modelica model library for building performance simulations, URL:
https://github.com/RWTH-EBC/AixLib, 2018.
[51] TRNSYS, TRNSYS v17. http://www.trnsys.com/, 2017.
[52] Statistisches Bundesamt, Wirtschaftsrechnungen - einkommens- und
Verbrauchsstichprobe, Wohnverh€ altnisse privater Haushalte, URL, https://www.
destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingun
gen/Wohnen/EVS_HausGrundbesitzWohnverhaeltnisHaushalte.html, 2013.
[53] ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2007: Standard Method of Test for the
Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs, 2007.
[54] A. Constantin, R. Streblow, D. Müller, The modelica house models library:
presentation and evaluation of a room model with the ashrae standard 140, in: The
10th International Modelica Conference, Link€ oping University Electronic Press,
2014, pp. 293–299, https://doi.org/10.3384/ECP14096293.
[55] Statistisches Bundesamt, Zeitbudgeterhebung: Aktivit€ at nach Geschlecht, Alter und
Haushaltstyp, Forschungsbericht, 2006.
[56] A. Klesse, Modellierung und Bewertung unterschiedlichen Nutzerverhaltens in
hochw€ armeged€ammten Einfamilienh€ ausern, vol. 8, 2012 (of Energie und
Nachhaltigkeit. Lit, Münster, Germany).
[57] DIN V 18599-10, Energy Efficiency of Buildings - Calculation of the Net, Final and
Primary Energy Demand for Heating, Cooling, Ventilation, Domestic Hot Water
and Lighting - Part 10: Boundary Conditions of Use, Climatic Data, 2016-10.
[58] EN 4108-6, Thermal Protection and Energy Economy in Buildings - Part 6:
Calculation of Annual Heat and Energy Use, 2003.
[59] EN 16147, Heat Pumps with Electrically Driven Compressors - Testing and
Requirements for Marking of Domestic Hot Water Units, 2011.
[60] H. Engel, Development of a Procedure for Dynamic Evaluations of Heat Pump
Systems, Master‘s Thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, 2015.
[61] H.D. Vinod, Integer programming and the theory of grouping, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
64 (1969) 506–519, https://doi.org/10.2307/2283635.
[62] German Meteorological Service, Dataset TRY 2004, 2004.
[63] EnEV, EnEV Online, 2016. URL, http://www.enev-online.com/index.htm.
[64] D. Bihn, Influences of Thermal Energy Storages Analyzed in the Context of Heat
Pump Systems Using Hardware-In-The-Loop Experiments, Master‘s Thesis, RWTH
Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, March 2017.
[65] P. Mehrfeld, K. Huchtemann, D. Müller, Influences of hot water tank states and the
order of test days to gain the annual efficiency of heat pump systems evaluated
using modelica, in: Charles S. Barnaby, Michael Wetter (Eds.), Proceedings of
Building Simulation 2017: 15th Conference of IBPSA, BS2017, 2017-08-07 - 2017-
08-09, 2017, pp. 1499–1504, https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2017.396. San
Francisco, USA.
[66] M. Knorr, M. Nürenberg, M. Grimm, P. Mehrfeld, M. Beyer, L. Schinke, J. Seifert,
D. Müller, K. Stergiaropoulos, Energetische Bewertung von W€ armepumpen- und
Mikro-KWK-Systemen mit HiL-Versuchsst€ anden, in: DKV-tagung, 2017.
[67] EN 13203-4, Gas-fired Domestic Appliances Producing Hot Water - Part 4:
Assessment of Energy Consumption of Gas Combined Heat and Power Appliances
(mCHP) Producing Hot Water and Electricity, 2016.