The pivotal role of moisture buffering effect in energy simulation of

historical buildings: a case study

F. Leonforte, C. Del Pero, N. Aste, M. Buzzetti, H. E. Huerto C.*, H. El Khatib,

Department of architecture, built environment and construction engineering, Milan, Italy
email: fabrizio.leonforte@polimi.it, claudio.delpero@polimi.it, niccolo.aste@polimi.it,
michela.buzzetti@polimi.it, haroldenrique.huerto@polimi.it, hussein.elkhatib@mail.polimi.it

ABSTRACT
With the increasing awareness on the importance of energy efficiency in the building sector,
the debate on sustainability about conservation and management of historic buildings is
constantly increasing. Dynamic energy simulation software seems to provide accurate
prediction of the building’s environmental response and can be used as diagnostic and
prognostic tools. However, in historic buildings’ simulations often the uncertainty increases
due to the lack of information and the incorrect choice of the numerical model unable to
adequately capture the real physical phenomena involved. In this work the effect of air
infiltration in combination with two different moisture buffering models (EC and EMPD), have
been investigated using EnergyPlus software. The analysis carried out on the Salone
dell’Armeria in Mantua shows that the infiltration rate could be largely underestimated when
the buffering effect is neglected, especially in historic buildings, generally characterized by
massive structures and many furnishings.

* Corresponding author

KEYWORDS
Historic buildings; dynamic-state simulation; calibration; infiltration; moisture buffering; EC;
EMPD.

INTRODUCTION
Dynamic simulation tools allow to predict the future behaviour of buildings based on different
boundary conditions and retrofit actions. Thereby in order to realize the energy model of a
historic building is necessary to take into account all the features and phenomena which
characterized such buildings, through a proper definition of the main input parameters and the
choice of the model or algorithm able to consider the physical process involved.
Among the several simplifications often carried out in the building energy simulations (BES),
the effect of the moisture buffering is often oversimplified or even ignored. Such phenomena
describe the material’s ability to dampen the moisture variations in the surrounding air.
Therefore, even if the simplified models often adequately predict energy use, they do not
accurately predict the indoor humidity and thus the latent energy [1].
Several factors affect the indoor humidity: moisture sources (from people or appliances), the
air change rate due to infiltrations or ventilation, the moisture absorption or desorption by
hygroscopic surfaces of envelope and furniture and the moisture flow through building
envelope [2].

1
In literature, several works [2–8] demonstrated that the moisture storage capacity of materials
has a significant effect on indoor relative humidity (RH). According to N. Mendes et al. [4],
BES models that ignore moisture transfer in the building envelope could overestimate
conduction peak loads up to 210% and underestimate the yearly integrated heat flux up to 59%
that can lead to oversize heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (especially in dry
climates) and underestimate energy consumption (primarily in humid climates) [2].
Among several building simulation tools, EnergyPlus is one of the most commonly used the
research community [9–11] and its engine is implemented in other software, as Design Builder,
Sefaira, etc.
EnergyPlus has a default algorithm for considering the effect of the moisture capacitance of the
materials, which is the “Effective Capacitance” (EC) model that works by lumping the effect
of buffering with that of moisture capacitance of the zone air. The EC model however, is not
able to [12]:
 accurately predict indoor humidity (or thermal comfort);
 accurately predict energy use when humidity is being actively controlled;
 provide a quantification of the moisture content and of the potential moisture problems
associated with a specific wall construction.

The EC algorithms are not accurate in calculating the moisture content of the room [8].
Moreover, this model implies that the resistance of moisture transfer between the material and
the air present in the rooms is negligible.
The two algorithms provided by EnergyPlus, which are able to take into account the moisture
buffering of the material, are the so called HAMT (heat and moisture transfer) and EMPD
(effective penetration depth) [13]. Both models need moisture properties of the building
materials that the EC model doesn’t required [13]. However, even if HAMT is able to take into
account the mass transfer through the building materials, it requires greater amount of input
parameters compared with EMPD, which can lead to a reduction of the accuracy due to several
hypothesis to be carried out. For such reason, in the present work, the EMPD model was
selected due to the high accuracy in relation to the lower computational time [12,14,15].
The EMPD model in the recent EnergyPlus (v7 and above) is made of two-layers depth model,
which includes two layers for the short and long-term humidity fluctuations (surface and deep
layer) [16]. The first, could be used for hypothetical internal latent gains, which occur
predictably on a daily basis, but is less certain for long-term humidity fluctuations (like seasonal
changes in yearly or monthly energy simulation). Thereby the second one, the deep surface
layer, is used to take into account seasonal cases which is the material’s response to longer term
changes in the zone air humidity.
In such framework, the present work aims to analyse in detail the use of EC and EMPD
algorithms used in EnergyPlus software for the energy-environmental simulation of historic
buildings, typically characterized by a massive envelope with a high moisture capacitance and
by the presence of furniture and artworks made with hygroscopic materials.
In particular, this work analyses the moisture buffering effect of the materials present in the
Salone dell’Armeria, a huge unused space without internal sources of moisture, which allows
to study accurately such phenomenon. The case study is located in the Palazzo Ducale of
Mantua, one of the most important historical buildings of the city.

METHOD
Currently the Salone dell’Armeria room is a not used and is not accessible to visitors, therefore
during the year there are no people, electrical equipment and lights which could affect the
internal gains or the moisture content. This particular condition has facilitated the calibration

2
procedure of the building simulation model and allowed to exclude some variables for the
assessment of the moisture buffering effect.
In detail, an initial dynamic building simulation model was developed in EnergyPlus using the
default EC model. The required input parameters were set according to the data acquired during
the survey phase and adopting a standard value for the infiltration rate on which no real
information was available. The obtained results were then compared with a real monitoring data
carried out on-site along one year, and a calibration of the infiltration rate have been done.
Of course, since the outdoor climate conditions play an important role in the assessment of the
environmental and energy performance of buildings, a specific weather file of the same year of
monitoring was prepared and used. The data was collected hourly from the nearby weather
stations of the ARPA (Regional Environmental Protection Agency) [17], from august 2017,
when the monitoring activity took place, until July 2018.
The calibration was performed considering the infiltration rate that minimizes the mean
absolute error (MAE) and optimizes the coefficient of determination (R2), between simulated
and measured indoor temperature (DBT) and mixing ratio (MR).
Subsequently, the default heat balance algorithm was changed with the Effective Moisture
Penetration Depth (EMPD) model in order to take into account the effect of moisture buffering
on the surfaces of the construction materials.
Of course, in order to exclude the phase changes of the water vapour present in the air, which
can affect the hygrometric balance, it has been verified that internal surface condensation didn’t
occurred during the analysed year.
The results obtained from EMPD were compared with the previous simulations in order to
highlight the main differences. Finally, a new calibration of the virtual model has been carried
out again, changing the infiltration rate in order to find the value that optimize the two selected
metrics, according to the EMPD numerical model.

CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION

The space selected as a case study was built in the 13th century and is located in the Palazzo del
Capitano, part of the enormous museum complex of the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua. This hall is
a single rectangular space that covers an area of about 1000 m2 (66x15 m) with a maximum
height of 11 m, for a total volume of approximately 9700 m3. The interior space is delimited by
bracing brick walls built in the 20th century.
Currently, the room is completely empty and no HVAC system is installed. The access is only
allowed in extraordinary cases to technicians or researchers. The external walls have a thickness
that vary from 70 to 80 cm, made by solid bricks and the floor and the roof are realized with
wooden structures. Thirteen double lancet windows, composed by single glasses and wooden
frames, lights the indoor space.

3
 Figure 1. View of Palazzo del Capitano from Piazza Sordello

ON-SITE AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS

The assessment of the microclimatic performance was carried out to support the realization and
the calibration of a virtual model, able to reproduce a realistic building behaviour.
In such respect, the hygrothermal properties of the Salone dell’Armeria was monitored from
August 2017 with hourly time step, for one year. Two Hobo MX Temp/RH data logger
(MX1101) were placed in significant points, each other about 12 m far, at a height of about
3.50 m from the ground in order to avoiding the influence of the solar radiation entering from
windows. In detail, the sensors acquire the DBT values with an accuracy level of ±0.21°C and
a resolution of 0.024°C, while the relative humidity is measured with an accuracy of 2 % (from
20% to 80%) with a resolution of 0.01 %. Therefore, such instruments comply within the
minimum requirements suggested by European regulations [18,19] on the measurement of the
microclimatic parameters for the conservation of cultural heritage.
Hereafter the indoor and outdoor air DBT and MR for the monitored period are reported.

Figure 2. Indoor-outdoor DBT and MR

4
MODEL REALIZATION AND CALIBRATION
Since Palazzo Ducale is a huge building complex, only the portion that include the space of the
Salone dell’Armeria was modelled with a total of 19 thermal zones (Figure 3). The building
geometry was realized through the architectural drawings and documents collected. Opaque
construction materials properties were selected from standards [20,21], while windows properties
were selected from the literature [22,23]. The calculated U-values of the envelope components are
shown in table below.

Table 1. U-values of the building envelope components

Building component Material U-value (W/m2K)
Exterior wall Solid brick 0,9
Roof Wood + tiles 1,4
Floor Wood 1,0
Windows Single glazing (SHGC=0,9) 5,8

Mainly, two different conditions have been set for the model thermal zones: one for the space of
the Salone dell’Armeria and one for the other rooms of the museum. In detail, the first is a free-
floating and unused space without internal gains due to people, electrical equipment and lighting
for the whole year. Regarding the air change rate per hour (ACH), since the double lancet windows
of Salone dell’Armeria are always closed, the ACH depends only on the infiltration caused by air
leakages through them and the wooden roof. Internal mass due to the presence of three bracing
brick walls with a thickness of 0.45 m was also taken into account, realizing about 400 m2 of brick Commentato [FL1]: Forse cambierei termine
surface exposed in the indoor environment.
About the other thermal zones, standard internal load for museum spaces from Italian regulation
have been set [24]. The building operation profile of such spaces has been defined adopting the
current condition, according to the information gathered from the surveys. The infiltration rate
adopted for those spaces is the same set for the Salone dell’Armeria in the absence of further
information.

Figure 3. Thermal zones of the BES model

The model calibration was carried out manually through the comparison of yearly simulated and
measured data of air DBT and MR. However, the process has been focused in particular on the
calibration of the MR as the goal of this work is to evaluate the moisture buffering effect to estimate

5
a more realistic ACH. As already said, two different EnergyPlus algorithms was used: the EC and
EMPD.
The accuracy of the virtual model was assessed calculating the mean absolute error (MAE) and
the coefficient of determination (R2), looking for the best values among the simulations carried out
(lower results as possible for MAE and values close to 1 for R2). In particular, the mean absolute
error is calculated according to the equation below.

∑𝑛𝑖=1|𝑚𝑖 − 𝑠𝑖 | (1)
𝑀𝐴𝐸 =
𝑛

Where mi and si are respectively the measured and simulated data and n is the number of data of
the sample considered.

While the coefficient of determination measures the proportion of the variance in the dependent
variable that is predictable from the independent variables.
Before comparing the simulation results with measured data, the possibility of condensation on
the internal envelope surfaces has been excluded through the verification that the surface
temperatures of the walls obtained from the preliminary simulation do not reach the dew point of
the monitored indoor environment.

Effective Capacitance (EC) model calibration

First of all, the simulations were performed with the default algorithm set by EnergyPlus, the
Effective Capacitance, that don’t consider the moisture buffering effect. Since in the hall there
aren’t internal sources of moisture, the changes of the humidity in the air depend mainly on the
exchanges through the envelope with the outdoor environment. Therefore, the infiltration rate was
estimated through the manual calibration of the model considering the value that minimize the
mean absolute error (MAE) and optimize the coefficient of determination (R2) of the simulated
and measured MR.
In such respect, the ACH value of 0.11 can be considered the optimal results in relation to the
MAE and R2 respectively equal to 0.63 g/kg and 0.95 for MR and 1.53 °C and 0.98 for DBT.

Figure 4. MR of simulated model with EC algorithms at 0.11 ACH and measured data.

6
Effective Moisture Penetration Depth (EMPD) model calibration
Since the EC model neglects the effect of moisture buffering, the default algorithm used by
EnergyPlus has been changed with the effective EMPD model, able to take into account the
moisture buffering effect of the building envelope and internal walls.
It should be noted that the EMPD model requires some additional information such as: water
vapour diffusion resistance factor, moisture equilibrium constants that define the material moisture
content, surface/deep layer penetration depth and the thickness and vapour diffusion resistance
factor of the coating layer. In the present work such parameters have been set according to the
EnergyPlus documentation [25] and database. After the implementation of the data according to
the new input required by EMPD algorithm, a new simulation with the same ACH previously
defined (0,11) was performed. However, as shown in Figure 5 the obtained MR values along the
whole year don’t’ fit well with the real monitored data.

Figure 5. MR of simulated model with EMPD algorithm at 0.11 ACH and the measured data.

In such regards, a new calibration has been carried out by the variation of the air change rate.
As shown in Table 2, the calibration needed 6 simulations (listed in Table 2) to achieve a fine
tuning.

Table 2. Uncertainty indices calculation for different ACH simulations.

Simulation ACH [1/h] T [°C] MR [g/kg]
MAE R2 MAE R2
1 0.11 1.610 0.982 0.850 0.920
2 0.21 1.490 0.984 0.670 0.945
3 0.28 1.475 0.985 0.647 0.947
4 0.31 1.477 0.985 0.640 0.948
5 0.41 1.514 0.985 0.660 0.943
6 0.70 1.719 0.983 0.720 0.931

According to the obtained results, the EMPD model can be considered calibrated with an
infiltration rate equal to 0.31, which is around 3 times higher than the one previously obtained
from the conductive heat transfer model. In this case, the values of MAE and R2 are respectively
0.64 g/kg and 0.948 (simulation 3 in Table 2).

7
Figure 6. MR of simulated model with EMPD algorithm at 0.31 ACH and the measured data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results reported in the previous section show how the moisture buffering effect of the materials
can highly affect the simulation output.
In fact, while in the EC model a small variation of the external humidity content that comes from
outside through air infiltration suddenly changes the indoor MR, the moisture buffering of
materials acts as a humidity storage, decreasing thus the MR peaks as well as the water content in
the air.
More in detail, the moisture buffer effect of all hygroscopic materials in the indoor environment
(e.g. interior surfaces of building envelopes, curtains, carpet, etc.) helps to absorb the vapour in the
air when the indoor relative humidity is high and decrease indoor relative humidity. On the
contrary, when indoor relative humidity is low, these materials release the vapour back into the air
and increase indoor relative humidity. Such phenomena, thus, moderate the variations of moisture
content in the indoor air.
For such reason, in the selected case study, in order to obtain similar values in terms of MR of the
indoor air between the two adopted models (EC and EMPD), thus considering the calibrated
model, the infiltration rate must be increased.

CONCLUSIONS
In this work the effect of air infiltration in combination with two different moisture buffering
models have been investigated in a case study using EnergyPlus. The selected case study suits
perfectly with the goal of the research since it is characterized by free floating condition and no
internal gains, thus air infiltration can be considered the only moisture source and the building
materials the only buffering contributors.
According to the obtained results, it can be stated that the default model used by EnergyPlus (EC
model) leads to an underestimation of the infiltration rate in comparison to the EMPD model, since
hygrothermal interactions between the envelope and the environment are not considered. The
EMPD model, in fact, would better predict the actual moisture capacitance of the indoor because
it considers separately two moisture contents for the space and the interior surfaces of the building
envelope. Therefore, the result obtained from the calibrated EMPD model provide an infiltration
rate almost 3 times greater than the value of the default model.
However, it should be noted that the EMPD model requires additional information about the
hygroscopic properties of the materials which significantly affect the robustness of the results.

8
In such respect, designers should carry out a deep survey on building materials as well as
performance laboratory tests to know the required information, even if often this is not an easy
task in historical buildings.
In conclusion, users shall be aware on the applicability of the different humidity models and try to
select the suitable one according to the specific condition in order to achieve the highest accuracy
and more realistic result.

9
NOMENCLATURE
DBT: dry bulb temperature;
RH: relative humidity;
MR: mixing ratio;
ACH: air change rate per hour;
BES: building energy simulation;
MAE: mean absolute error;
R2: coefficient of determination;
EC: effective capacitance;
EMPD: effective moisture penetration depth.

REFERENCES
1. J. Woods, J. Winkler, Field measurement of moisture-buffering model inputs for
residential buildings, Energy Build. 117 (2016) 91–98. doi:.1037//0033-2909.I26.1.78.
2. M. Woloszyn, T. Kalamees, M.O. Abadie, M. Steeman, A. Sasic Kalagasidis, The effect
of combining a relative-humidity-sensitive ventilation system with the moisture-
buffering capacity of materials on indoor climate and energy efficiency of buildings,
Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 515–524. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.04.017.
3. P. Plathner, M. Woloszyn, Interzonal air and moisture transport in a test house :
experiment and modelling, Build. Environ. 37 (2002) 189–199.
4. N. Mendes, F.C. Winkelmann, R. Lamberts, P.C. Philippi, Moisture effects on
conduction loads, Energy Build. 35 (2003) 631–644. doi:10.1016/S0378-
7788(02)00171-8.
5. H. Yoshino, T. Mitamura, K. Hasegawa, Moisture buffering and effect of ventilation rate
and volume rate of hygrothermal materials in a single room under steady state exterior
conditions, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 1418–1425. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.09.007.
6. O. Koronthalyova, The coupled effect of hygroscopic materials and ventilation regime
on indoor humidity, in: IEA-EXCCO Energy Conserv. Build. Community Syst. Annex
41, 2014.
7. P. Plathner, D. Ross, E.E. Centre, B. Lane, The Effect of Sorption on Airborne Moisture
Movement in Dwellings The Effect of Sorption on Airborne Moisture Movement in
Dwellings, Int. J. Vent. ISSN. 1:3 (2016) 201–208.
doi:10.1080/14733315.2003.11683635.
8. M. Qin, J. Yang, Evaluation of Different Thermal Models in EnergyPlus for Calculating
Moisture Effects on Building Energy Consumption in Different Climate Conditions,
Build. Simul. 9 (2016) 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.194.
9. J. Sousa, Energy simulation software for buildings: Review and comparison, in: Proc.
Int. Work. Inf. Technol. Energy Appl. (IT4ENERGY 2012), Lisbon, 2012: pp. 57–68.
10. M. Jarić, N. Budimir, M. Pejanović, I. Svetel, A Review of Energy Analysis Simulation
Tools, in: 7th Int. Work. Conf. ’’Total Qual. Manag. – Adv. Intell. Approaches’’, 2013.
11. V.S.K.V. Harish, A. Kumar, A review on modeling and simulation of building energy
systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 1272–1292.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.040.
12. J. Woods, J. Winkler, D. Christensen, Evaluation of the Effective Moisture Penetration
Depth Model for Estimating Moisture Buffering in Buildings, 2013.
13. U.S.D. of Energy, EnergyPlus Version 9.1.0 Documentation - Engineering Reference,
2016.
14. J. Woods, J. Winkler, D. Christensen, Moisture Modeling: Effective Moisture
Penetration Depth Versus Effective Capacitance, Therm. Perform. Exter. Envel. Whole

10
 Build. XII Int. Conf. (2016) 13.
15. J. Woods, J. Winkler, Effective moisture penetration depth model for residential
buildings: Sensitivity analysis and guidance on model inputs, Energy Build. 165 (2018)
216–232. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.01.040.
16. J. Woods, J. Winkler, D. Christensen, Evaluation of the Effective Moisture Penetration
Depth Model for Estimating Moisture Buffering in Buildings, 2013.
17. ARPA, http://www.arpalombardia.it/siti/arpalombardia/meteo/richiesta-dati-
misurati/Pagine/RichiestaDatiMisurati.aspx, (n.d.).
http://www.arpalombardia.it/siti/arpalombardia/meteo/richiesta-dati-
misurati/Pagine/RichiestaDatiMisurati.aspx (accessed May 30, 2018).
18. EN, EN 15758: 2010 – Conservation of cultural property. Procedures and instruments
for measuring temperatures of the air and the surfaces of objects., 2010.
19. EN, EN 16242: 2012 – Conservation of cultural heritage – Procedures and instruments
for measuring humidity in the air and moisture exchanges between air and cultural
property., 2012.
20. UNI, UNI 10351 - Materiali da costruzione. Conduttività termica e permeabilità al
vapore, 1994.
21. EN, EN ISO 10456:2007 - Building materials and products — Hygrothermal properties
- Tabulated design values and procedures for determining declared and design thermal
values, 2007.
22. D. Milone, G. Peri, S. Pitruzzella, G. Rizzo, Are the Best Available Technologies the
only viable for energy interventions in historical buildings?, Energy Build. 95 (2015)
39–46. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.004.
23. G.B.A. Coelho, H.E. Silva, F.M.A. Henriques, Calibrated hygrothermal simulation
models for historical buildings, Build. Environ. 142 (2018) 439–450.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.06.034.
24. UNI, UNI/TS 11300-1 - Prestazioni energetiche degli edifici Parte 1: Determinazione
del fabbisogno di energia termica dell’edificio per la climatizzazione estiva ed invernale,
2008.
25. EnergyPlus, Input Output Reference, Encycl. Ref. to EnergyPlus Input Output. (2010).

11