Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

A simple time domain calculation method for transient heat transfer models
Xinhua Xu, Shengwei Wang *
Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 20 November 2007 Received in revised form 23 February 2008 Accepted 26 February 2008 Keywords: Transient heat transfer model Finite differential model State space equation Matrix exponential function Time domain

This paper presents a simple time domain calculation method to derive thermal response factors and conduction transfer conduction (CTF) coefcients of nite differential models for estimating transient heat transfer through building structures. It is developed on the basis of converting the matrix exponential function, which is a part of the solution of the state equation established from the nite differential equations of building nite differential models, to matrix polynomial. The thermal response factors and CTF coefcients can be easily derived from the matrix polynomial with simple arithmetic and integral in time domain. This method avoids the time-consuming root-nding process of conventional methods and the computation of all the internal temperature of the nite differential model, while utilizing the advantage of the thermal response factors/CTF coefcients which relate the desired outputs at a moment to the previous inputs through a set of coefcients. Various case studies were conducted to validate the performance of this time domain calculation method in calculating the thermal response factors and CTF coefcients of various order nite differential models. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Building and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system simulation techniques play important roles in the analysis of energy and environment performance of building and HVAC system in their design and management [14], The simulation techniques are also very important in the process of testing and evaluating control strategies and algorithms in energy management and control systems [58]. Heat transfer models of building structure are of primary importance for building and HVAC simulation programs. The heat transfer models through building walls and roofs represent the heat transfer through composite medium consisting of several layers of different physical properties in contact. There are various ways to calculate the heat transfer of building structures. The methods currently used are mainly response factor method (or conduction transfer function method), nite differential method (thermal network method) and the combination of the two methods. Response factor method [9,10] and conduction transfer function (CTF) method [11] are often used to calculate the space load. Conventional root-nding method is often used to nd response factors or CTF coefcients. This method is involved in a computa-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 27665858; fax: +852 27746146. E-mail address: beswwang@polyu.edu.hk (S. Wang). 0378-7788/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.02.029

tionally lengthy, tedious and inefcient process of nding the poles of hyperbolic s-transfer function and computing their residues [12]. It occasionally may lead to miscalculation due to missing a root, particularly in the case where two adjacent roots are close together [13]. Researchers also concerned about developing methods to simplify the calculation of the response factors/CTF coefcients. For example, to avoid nding the poles of hyperbolic s-transfer function, Chen and Wang [14] developed a frequency-domain regression method to estimate polynomial s-transfer functions whose frequency responses are equivalent to the theoretical frequency responses of building constructions. With the estimate polynomial s-transfer functions, the response factors and CTF coefcients can be calculated with the inverse Laplace transform. Finite differential method simplies the heat conduction problem [15] by discretizing the building structure using a set of n nodal points corresponding to a system of n simultaneous rstorder ordinary differential equations to be solved for the temperature-time history at each of the n nodal points. Many studies dealt with the problem of nodal placement (thermal network generation) [1618]. The solution of these differential equations is typically approximated using the Eluer and CrankNicolson technique for moving ahead step by step in time. However, using these numerical techniques, a critical time is needed and the internal temperature distribution is calculated [19,20]. Furthermore, if it is desired to determine the response of the same structure to another input time history, it is necessary to solve the complete problem over again [19].

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

1683

Nomenclature a, b, c, d CTF coefcients A, B, C, D, G, H coefcient matrix C thermal capacitance specic heat (J kg1 K1) CP Error average error polynomial f(l) polynomial g (l) G transfer function L thickness (mm) Lamda matrix M matrix the ith row and jth column element of matrix Mij M polynomial p (l) q heat ow (W m2) polynomial Q( l ) R thermal resistance (m2 K W1) s Laplace variable t time (s) T temperature (8C or K) T, T(t) temperature state vector TX temperature response factor of a unit triangle pulse (8C or K) TX1(t) temperature response function of a unit ramp excitation (8C or K) TY temperature response factor of a unit triangle pulse (8C or K) TY1(t) temperature response function of a unit ramp excitation (8C or K) TZ temperature response factor of a unit triangle pulse (8C or K) TZ1(t) temperature response function of a unit ramp excitation (v) u, u(t) temperature input vector U transmittance value X external thermal response factor (W m2 K1) Y cross thermal response factor (W m2 K1) z z-transfer Z internal thermal response factor (W m2 K1)

Subscripts
i, j, n, k in out TMM SSM X, Y, Z integer count inside or indoor outside the time domain method the state space method related to external, cross and internal heat transfer

Based on the nite differential and thermal network concept, state space methods [13,19,20] are developed to calculate the thermal response factors and/or CTF coefcients of nite differential model (thermal network model). The sate space method needs to obtain rational fractions of s transfer function from simple series expansion. Some measures are also required to improve the rate of convergence. This paper presents a simple time domain calculation method to calculate thermal response factors and CTF coefcients of transient heat transfer models for heat transfer simulation of building structures. This method in time domain has the advantages of both nite differential models and the thermal response factor method (or CTF method). This method begins with a set of established nite differential equations of a nite differential model. First, the state equation is generated from the nite differential equations and matrix exponential function is transferred to matrix polynomial. Secondly, the temperature response function is solved in time domain, which is easy since the matrix exponential function can be derived easily. Then, the temperature response factors are easily deduced based on temperature response functions. Finally, the thermal response factors are calculated easily with simple arithmetic by dividing the temperature response factors with the corresponding resistances. The CTF coefcients can also be derived very easily simultaneously. Validations and comparisons demonstrate that this time domain calculation method can work well and provide thermal response factors and CTF coefcients with good accuracy for practical applications. 2. State space formulation of nite differential models The heat transfer of building structure can be represented by nite differential models when discretizing the process spatially as shown in Fig. 1. Such model can be easily transferred into a state space formulation which is traditionally used to analyze linear systems that have many inputs and outputs as shown in Eqs. (1)(3). Where, T and u are the temperature state vector and input vector respectively as shown in Eqs. (4) and (5). q is heat ow. A, B, C, D, G, and H are coefcient matrix as shown in Eqs. (6)(11). Where, T, C, and R are the nodal temperature, thermal capacitance and resistance, respectively dT AT Bu dt qin CT Du qout GT Hu TT T2 uT T out T4 0 T 2n 1n 0 T in 1n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Greek symbols a coefcient b coefcient vector bi the ith element of coefcient vector D time interval (3600 s) h slope of excitation function l thermal conductivity (W m1 K1), eigenvalues of
r t f
A density (kg m3) time (s) height of a unit triangle pulse

Superscripts
k, n T integer count transpose of matrix

1684

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

Fig. 1. Schematic of a nite differential model.

2 6 6 6 6 6 6 A6 6 6 6 6 6 4

R1 R3 R1 C 2 R3 1 R3 C 4 0 0

1 C 2 R3 R3 R5 R3 C 4 R5 0 0

3 0 1 C 4 R5 0 0 0 0 0 0 } 1 R2n3 C 2n2 0 R2n3 R2n1 R2n3 C 2n2 R2n1 1 R2n1 C 2n 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 7 7 1 7 7 C 2n2 R2n1 7 R2n1 R2n1 5 R2n1 C 2n R2n1 n n 0

(6)

1 6 R1 C 2 6 6 0 6 B 6 6 6 0 4 0

0 0 0 0

} 1

0 0 0 0 !
1 n

0 0 0 1 C 2n R2n1

3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5
nn

b Lamda1 F T
where (7)

(14)

b b0 b1 bn1 T
F el1 tt el2 tt eln tt
T

(15) (16)

C 0

R2n1 1 R2n1 ! 0

(8)

!
1n

0 1 R1 1 R1

(9)

1 6 1 Lamda 6 4 1

l1 l2

l1 n1 l2 n1 7 7
5
n1

3 (17)

ln

ln

(10)

1n

! 0 0
1n

(11)

The solution to the state vector of the system of rst-order differential equations with constant coefcients is given by the formula shown in Eq. (12) Z t T t eAt T 0 eAtt But dt (12)
0

where {l1, l2, . . ., ln} are the eigenvalues of matrix A and distinct. When inverse of the matrix Lamda is represented by M (shown in Eq. (18)), the terms of vector b (in Eq. (15)) can be rewritten in the format as shown in Eq. (19). It is obvious that the coefcients are the functions of time t and t: 2 3 M 11 M 12 M1n 6 M 21 M 22 M2n 7 7 (18) M Lamda1 6 4 } 5 M n1 M n2 M nn nn

The rst term on the right-hand side of Eq. (12) is called zeroinput response, and the second term on the right-hand side of the equation is called zero-state response. The zero-input response of a system involves the response of the state variable to the conditions at time zero. The zero-state response is the convolution integral, which integrates the response of the state variables to the input between time 0 and t. To calculate the integral, it is necessary to calculate the matrix exponential t function eA(t ) correctly. It can be given in the following format as shown in Eq. (13). The deduction of the equation is given in Appendix A. The coefcients of the matrix polynomial are determined as Eq. (14) eAtt bn1 An1 bn2 An2 b1 A b0 I (13)

bi1 Mi1 el1 tt Mi2 el2 tt Min eln tt ;

n (19)

3. Analytic solution of nodal temperatures forced by dened ramp excitation A ramp excitation is dened as an increase at time t = 0 with a slope of h = 1/D (K h1) in the outside air temperature of a wall. The outside air temperature of the wall is at zero temperature everywhere before time t = 0. The inside air temperature is subsequently maintained at zero. Supposing that the wall is imposed on by such a ramp excitation (h = 1/D), the solution of Eq. (12) forced by the dened ramp excitation actually becomes the format shown in Eq. (20) as the zero-input response is zero. The

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

1685

product of B and u can be represented by Eq. (21): Z t eAtt But dt T t

0

(20)

The temperature response factors, TY( j) ( j = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .), are the values of TY(t) at time t = jD ( j = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .). Conventionally, D = 3600 s. The value of the rst factor, TY(0), is derived from a single ramp (h = 1/D) at time t = 0, as shown in Eq. (28): TY 0 TY 81D 9 n < li D n = X e 1 li D X j1 M ji A n; 1 2 : DR1 C 2 l ;
i1 i j1

Bu where u

1 t DR1 C 2

!T
1 n

(21)

(28)

!T t 0 0 0
1 n

(22)
t

We care about the rst column of matrix function eA(t ) in Eq. (20) because the elements of Bu are zero except the rst element as shown in Eq. (21). The temperature at the nth node T2n with which heat ux can be calculated directly, can be calculated using Eq. (23). Representing the temperature response function at the nth node by TY1(t) (when the dened ramp excitation is imposed on the outside of the wall), the equation can be rewritten in the format as shown in Eq. (24). Similarly, TX1(t), the temperature response function at the rst node (T2) when the dened ramp excitation is imposed on the outside of the wall, can be calculated using Eq. (25). TZ1(t), the temperature response function at the nth node (T2n) when a similar ramp excitation is imposed on the inside of the wall, can be calculated using Eq. (26): R t Att e n; 1But1; 1 dt T 2n t 0 8 9 = n < li t n X (23) e 1 li t X j1 M ji A n; 1 2 : DR1 C 2 l ;
i1 i j1

Eventually, the cross thermal response factors can be calculated using Eqs. (29) and (30), which is the ratio of the temperature difference (between the temperature response factors at the nth node and the indoor air temperature) to the resistance R2n+1. Similarly, the thermal response factors X(k) at the rst node and Z(k) at the n-node can be calculate using Eqs. (31)(34). The intermediate values are expressed as Eqs. (35)(40): Y 0
n X WY 0i i1 n X WY i eDli k i1 n 1 X WX 0i R1 i1

(29)

Y k

k ! 1

(30)

X 0

(31)

n X X k WX i eDli k i1 n X 1 WZ 0i R2n1 i1

k ! 1

(32)

TY 1t

T 2n 8 t 9 n < li t n = X e 1 li t X j1 M ji A n; 1 : DR1 C 2 l2 ;
i1 i j1

Z 0 (24)

(33)

8 9 n < li t n = X e 1 li t X j1 M ji A 1; 1 TX 1t : DR1 C 2 l2 ;
i1 i j1

n X Z k WZ i eDli k i1

k ! 1

(34)

(25) WY 0i (26) WY i

8 9 n < li t n = X e 1 li t X j1 M ji A n; n TZ 1t :DR2n C 2n1 l2 ;

i1 i j1

n eli D 1 li D X M ji A j1 n; 1 2 DR1 C 2 R2n1 li j1 2

(35)

n 1 eli D eli D X M ji A j1 n; 1 2 DR1 C 2 R2n1 li j1 n eli D 1 li D X M ji A j1 1; 1 2 DR1 C 2 R1 li j1 2

(36)

4. Calculation of thermal response factors and CTF coefcients The fundamental thermal response functions are the surface heat ow responses against the unit triangle pulse of the surface temperature excitation. When taking the values of function at the same time interval, i.e. one hour in the case, the response function of heat ow can be expressed in the form of a time series. The values of the series obtained are called thermal response factors. The convolution expression of the thermal response factors and temperature series with the same time interval allows for the calculation of the surface heat ow. The equations developed in this study to calculate the thermal response factors and their deduction process are briefed as follows. A unit triangular pulse, which is of height f = 1 K and base 2D at time t = 0, can be formed by a h = 1/D ramp (at time t = D), a h = 2/D ramp (at time t = 0) and a h = 1/D ramp (at time t = D). Therefore, the temperature on the nth node due to a unit triangular pulse on the outside surface is calculated by Eq. (27): TY t TY 1t D 2TY 1t TY 1t D 8 9 2 n < n = X 1 eli D eli tD X j1 M ji A n; 1 2 : ; DR1 C 2 li i1 j1 WX 0i (37)

WX i

n 1 eli D eDli X M ji A j1 1; 1 DR1 C 2 R1 l2 j1 i n eDli 1 li D X M ji A j1 n; n 2 DC 2n R2 j1 2n1 li 2

(38)

WZ 0i

(39)

WZ i

n 1 eli D eli D X M ji A j1 n; n 2 2 DC 2n R2n1 li j1

(40)

t ! D (27)

With thermal response factors, conduction transfer function (CTF) coefcients can be deduced easily. CTF coefcients associated with the cross heat transfer GY(z) can be developed as Eq. (41). This equation is expressed as a ratio of two polynomials in z1. Similarly, CTF coefcients associated with the external and internal heat transfer GX(z) and GZ(s) can also be obtained easily as Eqs. (42) and (43). When z = 1, the values of internal, cross and external conduction transfer functions are all equal to the

1686 Table 1 Detailed properties of walls Wall no. Description

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

Thickness and thermal properties L (mm)

l (W m1 K1)
1.333 0.727

r (kg m3)
2005 1765

CP (J kg1 K1) 920 840

R (m2 K W1) 0.0587 0.0762 0.1396 0.1468 0.05 0.0514 1.707 0.0514 0.16

Wall I

Outside surface lm Face brick Common brick Inside surface lm Outside surface lm Concrete Insulation Concrete Inside surface lm

101.5 101.5

Wall II

89 127 89

1.73 0.0744 1.73

2235 24 2235

1106 992 1106

transmittance U value as Eq. (44): GY z Y 0 Y 1z Y 2z n n X X WY 0i eli D WY i

i1 i1 1 2

5. Validation tests and results Y 3z Y nz z 1 1 eli D z1

3 n

BZ b0 b1 z1 b2 z2 br zr Qn l D 1 i z 1 d1 z1 d2 z2 dm zm n1 1 e (41) & ' n n X 1 X z1 WX 0i eli D1 WX i R1 i1 1 eli D z1 i1 Qn

GX z

AZ a a1 z1 a2 z2 ar zr 0 l D 1 i 1 d1 z1 d2 z2 dm zm z n1 1 e (42) & n n X X WZ 0i eli D1 WZ i

i1 i1

GZ z

1 R2n1

z1 1 eli D z1

'

C Z c0 c1 z1 c2 z2 cr zr Qn li D z1 1 d1 z1 d2 z2 dm zm 1 e n 1 (43) P P b a Pk0 k GX zjz1 Pk0 k d k k0 dk k 0 P d GZ zjz1 Pk0 k U k0 dk

GY zjz1

(44)

where A(z), B(z), C(z) are r-order polynomials in z1, the coefcients ak, bk, ck, and dk are CTF coefcients.

Many case studies were conducted to validate this method developed for calculating thermal response factors and CTF coefcients in time domain (i.e., time domain method thereafter). The accuracy of this method is also studied by comparing with the results available using other methods. Detailed results of two typical structures are presented below. In the study, fth order and/or ninth order differential models are used for both structures (walls). In addition, the CTF coefcients of several problematic walls and roofs [21] were also calculated to further evaluate the performance of the time domain method. The geometry, construction material and properties of both structures used in the tests are given in Table 1. Wall I is a multilayer construction, consisting of an outside surface lm, a layer of face brick, a layer of a common brick and an inside surface lm. Kusuda [12] provided the properties of thickness, thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of individual layer in imperial unit. For nodal placement of the nite differential model, the thermal diffusivity is decomposed to density and heat specic as list in Table 1 in SI unit. Using traditional Laplace transforms and the direct root-nding method, Kusuda [12] provided a list of external, cross, and internal thermal response factors for the wall, which is list in Table 2 for comparison. Wall II is a multilayer construction consisting of ve layers of homogeneous materials including insulation between two layers of concrete with inside and outside air lms as shown in Table 1. Ouyang and Haghighat [13] provided also a list of the cross thermal response factors for the wall with the state space method

Table 2 Comparisons of the thermal response factors ((Btu)( ft2)(h1)(8F1)) for Wall I k By time domain method (n = 5) X (k) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0.90832 0.14222 0.07116 0.05194 0.04012 0.03182 0.02571 0.02105 0.01738 0.01444 0.012.3 0.01006 0.00842 0.00706 0.00592 Y( k ) 0.00109 0.01480 0.03381 0.04233 0.04322 0.04044 0.03621 0.03161 0.02720 0.02319 0.01966 0.01662 0.01400 0.01179 0.00992 Z(k) 1.97950 0.47853 0.24469 0.17163 0.12695 0.09735 0.07676 0.06175 0.05040 0.04154 0.03446 0.02871 0.02398 0.02007 0.01682 By time domain method (n = 9) X(k) 0.92926 0.16994 0.08134 0.05214 0.03761 0.02889 0.02313 0.01896 0.01574 0.01316 0.01105 0.00929 0.00782 0.00658 0.00555 Y( k ) 0.00042 0.01023 0.03101 0.04312 0.04512 0.04209 0.03728 0.03222 0.02750 0.02333 0.01972 0.01665 0.01404 0.01184 0.00998 Z(k) 1.96900 0.48980 0.24283 0.15730 0.11577 0.09083 0.07369 0.06086 0.05075 0.04253 0.03573 0.03007 0.02532 0.02132 0.01796 By Kusuda [1969] X(k) 0.91949 0.16678 0.07950 0.05150 0.03715 0.02816 0.02292 0.01877 0.01556 0.01298 0.01086 0.00911 0.00764 0.00642 0.00539 Y( k ) 0.00013 0.00812 0.03112 0.04482 0.04658 0.04304 0.03784 0.03250 0.02761 0.02333 0.01965 0.01653 0.01389 0.01167 0.00980 Z(k) 1.98340 0.51260 0.23226 0.15634 0.11690 0.09216 0.07482 0.06173 0.05137 0.04294 0.03598 0.03018 0.02533 0.02126 0.01786

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690 Table 3 Comparisons of the cross thermal response factors ((W)(m2)(8C1)) for Wall II k 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 By time domain method (n = 9) 0.00006064 0.00195333 0.00805260 0.01508031 0.02049180 0.02400185 0.02596580 0.02678065 0.02677065 0.02618410 0.02520751 0.02397968 0.02260300 0.02115220 0.01968105 0.01822756 0.01681787 0.01546929 0.01419260 0.01299375 By state space method [13] 0.00001771 0.00164078 0.00852682 0.01606351 0.02132861 0.02458189 0.02634117 0.02701426 0.02690951 0.02625774 0.02523350 0.02397017 0.02256861 0.02110207 0.01962103 0.01815949 0.01674130 0.01538425 0.01410104 0.01289871

1687

By direct root-nding method [13] 0.00001549 0.00164541 0.00852884 0.01605804 0.02132482 0.02458376 0.02634535 0.02701681 0.02690827 0.02625429 0.02523131 0.02397118 0.02257155 0.02110402 0.01962030 0.01815708 0.01673967 0.01538486 0.01410310 0.1290017

and the direct root-nding method as shown in Table 3 for comparison. With this time domain method, the external, cross, and internal thermal response factors for Wall I were calculated based on the nite differential models of different orders. For case n = 5 and 9 (D = 3600 s) presented in this paper, the three sets of thermal response factors are showed in Table 2. The thermal response factors given in the table demonstrate that this time domain method for calculating thermal response factors works well. Comparisons show that the accuracy increases when higher order nite differential models are used. The comparisons also show that the cross thermal responses of the nite differential models at the rst two hours are a little faster than the conventional root-nding method. Although the rst two terms of the thermal response factors, when n = 9, deviate a little from the results given by the direct root-nding method, the effect of these two factors on the load calculation is small. The rest of
Table 4 CTF coefcients of Wall I and Wall II using different methods k 0 Wall I Time domain method ak 11.180344 bk 0.002402 ck 5.276608 dk 1.000000 State space method 11.326559 ak bk 0.000992 ck 5.252472 dk 1.000000 Wall II Time domain method ak 13.470309 bk 0.000061 ck 5.389074 dk 1.000000 State space method ak 13.793512 bk 0.000020 ck 5.498243 dk 1.000000 1 2

the thermal response factors are almost identical to the results given by the direct root-nding method. Table 3 gives the cross thermal response factors for Wall II for the case n = 9, which were calculated using this time domain method. The thermal response factors are compared with the results given by Ouyang and Haghighat [13] using the state space method and the direct root-nding method. The results also show that this time domain method can calculate thermal response factors with good accuracy for practical applications. The complete CTF coefcients of both walls were produced using Fortran code of the state space method in ASHRAE Loads Toolkit [22,24] since there are not published reference. The complete CTF coefcients of both walls using this time domain method and the state space method are list in Table 4. The CTF coefcients of both walls using this time domain method agree well with those using the state space method although they are

S
3 4 5

19.040353 0.054645 8.638492 1.454257

9.303341 0.092961 4.073988 0.593679

1.288540 0.023111 0.552425 0.067028

0.019170 0.000794 0.014313 0.000878

0.000050 0.000003 0.000074 0.000002

0.173913 0.173917 0.173917 0.073271

18.397814 0.047187 8.127495 1.361802

8.145362 0.111875 3.385479 0.478282

0.894968 0.035307 0.319262 0.033859

0.017754 0.001470 0.005657 0.000298

0.000055 0.000005 0.000015 0.000000

0.196838 0.196837 0.196837 0.082919

29.371560 0.001835 11.138555 1.960868

19.640408 0.004295 7.140262 1.196143

3.993263 0.001613 1.483378 0.234403

0.264721 0.000096 0.101530 0.015238

0.002697 0.000001 0.001030 0.000153

0.007919 0.007900 0.007903 0.015957

27.752218 0.001622 10.200632 1.747621

15.473652 0.005560 5.088213 0.815487

1.547070 0.002507 0.383366 0.048614

0.042144 0.000161 0.007431 0.000777

0.000148 0.000001 0.000019 0.000001

0.009872 0.009871 0.009871 0.020029

1688

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690

ow calculation with good accuracy for practical applications: P24 jq k qSSM kj Error % k1 PTMM 100 (45) 24 j k1 qSSM kj where q is heat ow, subscripts TMM and SSM indicate the time domain method and the state space method, respectively. For further evaluate the performance of the time domain method, the CTF coefcients of several problematic walls and roofs were also computed. ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals [21] published the CTF coefcients of 41 representative walls and 42 representative roofs, among which the coefcients for a few heavy walls and roofs are not accurate as presented in Ref. [23]. The error of the CTF coefcients of these walls and roofs could be quantied by checking whether the calculated U value as Eq. (44) based on the published CTF coefcients agrees with the coincident real U value. These problematic walls and roofs are Wall 30 (3.35%), Wall 31 (5.92%), Wall 35 (16.78%), Wall 36 (1.05%), Wall 37 (28.54%), Wall 38 (31.77%) and Roof 37 (6.53%). Based on the CTF coefcients using the time domain method (n = 9 was used), the errors are 0.16% (Wall 30), 0.48% (Wall 31), 0.12% (Wall 35), 0.81% (Wall 36), 0.47% (Wall 37), 0.06% (Wall 38) and 0.05% (Roof 38). For the space limitation, only the CTF coefcients of Wall 37 and Roof 38 published in Ref. [21] and calculated using this time domain method are presented in Table 5 for comparison. It is also worthy to mention that this method can also easily calculate thermal response factors and CTF coefcients for shorter time steps other than the interval of 3600 s. The CTF coefcients of many walls and roofs in different time intervals were computed for further calculating the heat ows to verify the performance of this time domain method for CTF coefcient calculation in different time intervals. Only the results of one wall were presented for reference. Fig. 4 presents the heat gains through Wall I, which were calculated using the CTF coefcients at the time intervals of 3600 s, 1800 s, 900 s and 600 s while the daily temperature proles shown in Fig. 2 were used. Cubic spline interpolation method was used to evaluate the temperature values at different time intervals for heat ow calculation. The results show that the heat gains at the integer hours agreed very well when the CTF coefcients in different time intervals were used for heat ow calculation. The daily total heat gain is 1611 kJ using the CTF coefcients at the interval of 3600 s. The daily total heat gains are 1611 kJ, 1613 kJ, 1624 kJ using the CTF coefcients at these shorter time steps, i.e., 1800 s, 900 s and 600 s. The relative errors are 0.00%, 0.12%, and 0.81%, respectively, when using the heat gain at the interval of 3600 s as the benchmark. These results demonstrate this time domain method can produce stable CTF coefcients at shorter time steps for heat ow calculation without unstable phenomena.

Fig. 2. Solair temperature and indoor air temperature.

slightly different. These slight differences do not affect the calculation of heat ow through constructions. The transmittance U value is often used to evaluate the accuracy of the steady thermal behaviors of CTF models although they are developed to calculate transient heat conduction. For Wall I, the calculated transmittance U values using CTF coefcients by this time domain method and the state space method are 2.373609 W/ (m2 K) and 2.373846 W/(m2 K), respectively. They are almost identical to the real value of 2.373605 W/(m2 K). For Wall II, the U values by both methods are 0.495086 W/(m2 K) and 0.492827 W/ (m2 K) while the real U value is 0.495074 W/(m2 K). The performance of transient heat calculation of this time domain method was also validated. In real applications, the indoor air temperature changes continuously. Its necessary to consider the effects of the change of indoor air temperature on heat transfer. The daily solair temperature and indoor air temperature as presented in Fig. 2 were used to estimate heat gains through Wall I and Wall II by assuming these temperatures daily repeating on both walls for several consecutive days. The heat gains using CTF coefcients generated by this time domain method and the state space method are presented in Fig. 3. The results show that the calculated heat gain proles of both walls using this time domain method match very well with those using the state space method, respectively. The average error as Eq. (45) is used to evaluate the performance of heat transfer calculation of this time domain method by taking the calculated heat ow using the state space method as benchmark. The average error of heat ow of Wall I is 0.60%. As for Wall II, the error is slightly high of 1.96%. According to the mass classication [21], Wall II is between both medium and heavy constructions. If more accuracy is required, high order may be used. Therefore, this time domain method can be used to calculate thermal response factors and CTF coefcients for the heat

Fig. 3. Hourly heat gains through Wall I and Wall II using different methods.

Fig. 4. Heat gains through Wall I using CTF coefcients in different time intervals.

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690 Table 5 CTF coefcients of Wall 37 and Roof 38 k 0 Wall 37 Time domain method bk 0.00000 ck 5.17030 dk 1.00000 1 2 3 4 5 6

1689

Calculated U value

Errora (%)

0.00001 21.12022 3.50226

0.00009 34.91948 4.86028

0.00011 29.67645 3.34862 0.00003 2.56330

0.00003 13.49373 1.15469

0.00000 3.03639 0.16595 0.00020 0.16764

0.00000 0.24980 0.00296

0.000249 0.000252 0.001101

0.226320 0.229424

0.47 1.85

Fundamentals [21] (real U value = 0.22526) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 bk ck 1.00000 3.17760 4.00460 dk Roof 38 Time domain method bk 0.00000 ck 2.20718 1.00000 dk

0.00015 0.89048

0.00009 0.01638

0.00047 0.00046 0.00292

0.16096 0.16752

28.54 30.07

0.00001 7.57912 2.99357

0.00006 10.18250 3.33846

0.00008 6.73594 1.67796 0.00005 1.62770

0.00003 2.25479 0.35500

0.00000 0.34603 0.02122 0.00017 0.06569

0.00000 0.01690 0.00023

0.000184 0.000184 0.000936

0.196618 0.196618

0.05 0.05

Fundamentals [21] (real U value = 0.196521) bk 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ck dk 1.00000 2.81430 3.05060
a

0.00017 0.45499

0.00006 0.00455

0.000450 0.000453 0.002450

0.183673 0.184898

6.53 5.91

Error = (calculated U value real U value)/(calculated U value) 100%.

6. Conclusion This time domain method can easily derive thermal response factors and CTF coefcients from the state space equation of a nite differential model of a construction. This method avoids the timeconsuming and complex root-nd process used by conventional methods. It also avoids the requirement of a critical time by the Eluer and Crank-Nicolson technique when the nite differential model is used. Furthermore, this method has the advantage of thermal response factors and CTF coefcients to avoid the computation of all the internal temperature by relating the desired outputs at any moment of concern to the previous inputs through a set of coefcients. Studies show that this time domain method can be used alternatively to carry out the thermal response factors and CTF coefcients for practical applications. The case studies also show that the method can provide the thermal response factors and CTF coefcients of nite differential models with good accuracy. In practical application if the order of the nite differential model is sufciently high or optimized nodal placement of the nite differential model is provided, the simple time domain method can provide thermal response factors and CTF coefcients for transient heat transfer calculation of building structure with satised accuracy. Acknowledgement The research work presented in this paper is nancially supported by a grant (PolyU 5283/05E) from the Research Grants Council (RGC) of the Hong Kong SAR.

A.1. CayleyHamilton theorem [25] If Q(l) is the characteristic polynomial of an arbitrary square matrix A, then Q(A) = 0. Let Q(l) is the characteristic polynomial of the matrix A. If f(l) is divided by Q(l), one would obtain a quotient polynomial p(l) and a remainder g(l) such that for all l: f l plQ l g l where g l bn1 l
n 1

(A1)

bn2 l

n2

b1 l b0

(A2)

The degree of g(l) is not larger than n 1 because the degree of the divisor Q(l) is n. Therefore, by the CayleyHamilton theorem: f A g A

bn1 An1 bn2 An2 b1 A b0 I

(A3)

Suppose the eigenvalues of A are {l1, l2, . . ., ln} and are distinct. Let l = li, then obtain the system of equations:
n2 n1 b0 b1 l1 bn2 l1 bn1 l1 f l1 n2 n1 b0 b1 l2 bn2 l2 bn1 l2 f l2

(A4)

b0 b1 ln bn2 l
Let b b0 b1 bn1
T

n2 n

bn1 l

n1 n

f ln

(A5)

Appendix A. Calculation of matrix polynomial Suppose an n-order square matrix A and a polynomial f(l) = aklk + ak1lk1+ +a1l + a0 are given (ak 6 0), and we want to evaluate f(A) = akAk + ak1Ak1+ +a1A + a0. Obviously, it may be difcult to do directly. However, one can use the CayleyHimilton theorem to nd f(A).

F f l1 f l2 f ln 2

(A6) 3 (A7)

1 6 1 Lamda 6 4 1

l1 l2

ln

1 ln 1 n 1 7 l2 7

5
n 1 n

1690

X. Xu, S. Wang / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 16821690 [11] D.G. Stephenson, G.P. Mitalas, Calculation of heat conduction transfer functions for multilayer slabs, ASHRAE Transactions 77 (1971) 117126. [12] T. Kusuda, Thermal response factors for multilayer structures of various heat conduction system, ASHRAE Transactions 75 (1) (1969) 246271. [13] K. Ouyang, F. Haghighat, A procedure for calculating thermal response factors of multi-layer wallsstate space method, Building and Environment 26 (2) (1991) 173177. [14] Y.M. Chen, S.W. Wang, Frequency-domain regression method for estimating CTF models of building multilayer constructions, Applied Mathematical Modelling 25 (7) (2001) 579592. [15] G.E. Myers, Analytical Methods in Conduction Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1971. [16] P. Butler, K.M. Letherman, A criterion for the accuracy of modeling of transient heat conduction in plane slabs, Building and Environment 15 (1980) 143 149. [17] J.R. Waters, A.J. Wright, Criteria for the distribution of nodes in multilayer walls in nite-difference thermal modeling, Building and Environment 20 (3) (1985) 151 162. [18] R. Holopainen, P. Tuomaala, J. Piippo, Uneven gridding of thermal nodal networks in oor heating simulations, Energy and Buildings 39 (10) (2007) 11071114. [19] G.E. Myers, Long-time solutions to heat conduction transients with time-dependent inputs, Journal of Heat Transfer 102 (1980) 115120. [20] J.E. Seem, S.A. Klein, et al., Transfer functions for efcient calculation of multidimensional transient heat transfer, Journal of Heat Transfer 111 (1989) 512. [21] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 1997. [22] C.O. Pedersen, D.E. Fisher, R.J. Liesen, R.K. Strand, Toolkit for Building Load Calculations, ASHRAE Transactions 109 (1) (2003) 583589. [23] J.D. Spitler, D.E. Fisher, Development of periodic response factors for use with the radiant time series method, ASHRAE Transactions 103 (2) (1999) 503515. [24] ASHRAE, A Toolkit for Building Load Calculations, 2001. [25] N.J. Pullman, Matrix Theory and its Applications, Selected Topic, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1976.

The matrix Lamda is full rank. Therefore, the coefcients of the matrix polynomial are determined as follows: b Lamda1 F T (A8)

References
[1] J. Lebrun, M. Jokela, et al., Annex 30: Bringing Simulation to ApplicationFinal Report, International Energy Agency, University of Liege, Belgium, April 1999. [2] J. Pakanen, S. Karjalainen, Estimating static heat ows in buildings for energy allocation systems, Energy and Buildings 38 (9) (2006) 10441052. [3] Y. Yao, Z.W. Lian, W.W. Liu, et al., Evaluation program for the energy-saving of variable-air-volume systems, Energy and Buildings 39 (5) (2007) 558568. mpf, D. Robinson, A simplied thermal model to support analysis of urban [4] J.H. Ka resource ows, Energy and Buildings 39 (4) (2007) 445453. [5] Z. Liao, A.L. Dexter, An inferential control scheme for optimizing the operation of boilers in multi-zone heating systems, Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 24 (4) (2003) 245256. [6] J. Pfafferott, S. Herkel, M. Wambsgan, Design, monitoring and evaluation of a low energy ofce building with passive cooling by night ventilation, Energy and Buildings 36 (5) (2004) 455465. [7] J. Braun, Z.P. Zhong, Development and evaluation of a night ventilation precooling algorithm, HVAC&R Research 11 (3) (2005) 433458. [8] S. Yuan, R. Perez, Multiple-zone ventilation and temperature control of a singleduct VAV system using model predictive strategy, Energy and Buildings 38 (10) (2006) 12481261. [9] D.G. Stephenson, G.P. Mitalas, Cooling load calculations by thermal response factors, ASHRAE Transactions 73 (1967), pp. III1.1III1.7. [10] G.P. Mitalas, Calculation of transient heat ow through walls and roofs, ASHRAE Transactions 74 (1968) 182188.