report 2nd expert meeting 2nd expert meeting...2nd expert meeting 3 april 26-28, 2017 loughborough,...

Report 2nd Expert meeting

April 26-28, 2017 - Loughborough, UK

IEA EBC Annex 71: Building energy performance assessment

based on in-situ measurements

2nd Expert Meeting

1

April 26-28, 2017 Loughborough, UK

Content:

1. Participants ............................................................................................................................. 2

2. Agenda ................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Minutes .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1. Day 1 – Wednesday April 26, 2017 ................................................................................ 6

3.2. Day 2 – Thursday April 27, 2017 ................................................................................... 8

3.3. Day 3 – Friday April 28, 2017 ...................................................................................... 11

Annex: Overview of practical arrangements ........................................................................... 13

2nd Expert Meeting

2


1. Participants

Ten countries were represented at this 2nd Expert Meeting, yielding 60 participants from 35 different institutes:

Susanne Metzger TUW Technische Universität Wien AT

Fabian Ochs UI University of Innsbruck AT

Nicolas Heijmans BBRI Belgian Building Research Institute BE

Liesje Van Gelder BCCA Belgian Construction Certification Association BE

Luk Vandaele INIVE International Network for Information on Ventilation and Energy Performance

BE

Geert Bauwens KUL KU Leuven BE

Staf Roels KUL KU Leuven BE

Evi Lambie KUL/EV KU Leuven /EnergyVille BE

Glenn Reynders KUL/EV KU Leuven /EnergyVille BE

Dirk Saelens KUL/EV KU Leuven /EnergyVille BE

Marieline Senave KUL/EV KU Leuven /EnergyVille BE

Gabrielle Masy UCL Université catholique de Louvain BE

Eline Himpe UGent Universiteit Gent BE

Jacob Estevam Schmiedt GAC German Aerospace Center (DLR) DE

Matthias Kersken IBP Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics DE

Peder Bacher DTU Danmarks Tekniske Universitet - Compute DK

Henrik Madsen DTU Danmarks Tekniske Universitet - Compute DK

Tuule Mall Kull TUT Tallinn University of Technology EE

Karl-Villem Võsa TUT Tallinn University of Technology EE

María José Jiménez CIEMAT The Centre for Energy-Related, Environmental and Technological Research

ES

Aitor Erkoreka UPV/EHU University of the Basque Country ES

Pablo Eguia UV Universidade de Vigo ES

Enrique Granada UV Universidade de Vigo ES

Antoine Caucheteux CER Cerema FR

Myriam Humbert CER Cerema FR

Guillaume Ansanay CSTB Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment FR

Rémi Bouchie CSTB Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment FR

Balsam AJIB LD IMT Lille Douai FR

Sarah Juricic LOCIE Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Laboratoire d'Optimisation de la Conception et Ingénierie de l'Environnement

FR

Simon Rouchier LOCIE Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, Laboratoire d'Optimisation de la Conception et Ingénierie de l'Environnement

FR

2nd Expert Meeting

3


Guillaume Pandraud SGI Saint-Gobain Isover FR

Alexandra Cosseron SGR Saint-Gobain Recherche FR

Simos Yannas AA Architectural Association GB

Zoe De Grussa BBSA British Blind and Shutter Association GB

Miroslav Hamouz CCH Centrica Connected Home GB

Andy Carter ENC Encraft GB

David Farmer LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

Martin Fletcher LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

David Glew LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

Chris Gorse LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

Adam Hardy LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

Dominic Miles-Shenton LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

Jim Parker LBU Leeds Beckett University GB

David Allinson LBORO Loughborough University GB

Christina Hopfe LBORO Loughborough University GB

Matthew Li LBORO Loughborough University GB

Kevin Lomas LBORO Loughborough University GB

Eirini Mantesi LBORO Loughborough University GB

Rajat Gupta OBU Oxford Brookes University GB

Jonathan Chambers UCL UCL Energy Institute GB

Cliff Elwell UCL UCL Energy Institute GB

Behzad Sodagar ULin University of Lincoln GB

Richard Fitton USal University of Salford GB

Alex Marshall USal University of Salford GB

Paul Strachan ESRU University of Strathclyde GB

Ammar Alzaatreh UWE University of the West of England GB

Bill Gething UWE University of the West of England GB

Hans Bloem JRC European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre

IT

Christian Struck SAX Saxion Hogeschool Enschede NL

Henk Polinder TNO Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek

NL

2nd Expert Meeting

4


2. Agenda

Wednesday April 26, 2017

Morning: Dynastee workshop Standard writers meet researchers Exchange between CEN TC89 WG13 and IEA EBC Annex 71 Afternoon: Annex 71-meeting at the School of Civil and Building Engineering 14.00 start of 2nd expert meeting of Annex 71 - welcome by meeting host (David Allinson) 14.10 Summertime overheating in homes: A disaster in waiting? – Key note lecture by Prof. Kevin Lomas, Loughborough University 14.50 intro by Operating Agent – status and overview of Annex 71 (Staf Roels) 15.10 ST1: objectives and work in progress: first results of questionnaire (Richard Fitton) 15.30 ST1: presentation of free papers (each paper 15’ presentation + 5’ discussion)

Estevam Schiedt J., et al. Remote sensing techniques for building models and energy performance studies of buildings. German Aerospace Center

Metzger S., et al. Quality Data Acquisition in Buildings and Grids: A technology review. TU Wien

16.30 ST2: objectives and work in progress: first results of CE0 (Dirk Saelens) Introduction of common exercise – overview of results Short presentation of CE0 by participants (5’ per participant) 17.30 ST2: presentation of free papers (each paper 15’ presentation + 5’ discussion)

Ajib B., Lefteriu S., Caucheteux A., Lecoeuche S. Building thermal modelling using a hybrid system approach. Mines Douai

Himpe E., Janssens A. Modelling residential gas metering data using ARX-models and time series decomposition methods. Ghent University

Willems E.M.M., Visser L., op 't Veld P.J.M. Energy-related in-use building characteristics based on day-to-day measurements for building physics and installations. Huygen Engineers & Consultants

18.30 introduction of break out sessions of Thursday afternoon Thursday April 27, 2017

8.30 Inventory of identification techniques - Key note lecture by Prof. Henrik Madsen 9.30 ST1: presentation of free papers (cont’d)

Gupta R., Kotopouleas A. Insights from meta-analysis of building performance gap in UK low energy housing. Oxford Brookes University

9.50 ST3: objectives and work in progress (Chris Gorse, Geert Bauwens) 10.00 ST3: presentation of free papers (each paper 15’ presentation + 5’ discussion)

Erkoreka A., et. al. Estimating and decoupling the Heat Loss Coefcient of an in-use office building into its Transmission (UA) and Infiltration (Cv) heat loss coefficients through basic monitoring and modelling. University of the Basque Country

Caucheteux A. Extracting heat transfer coefficient from on-site measurements: monitoring uncertainty propagation: case study, methods and results. Cerema Ouest

11.00 ST3: presentation of free papers (cont’d)

2nd Expert Meeting

5


Chambers J. Evaluation of a model to infer heat loss coefficients from occupied dwelling smart meter energy data. UCL Energy Institute

Allinson D., Jack R., Lomas K., Loveday D. Measuring the heat transfer coefficient of a house while it is occupied Loughborough University

Humbert M., Moujalled B., Guernouti S. Assessing of heat transfer coefficient based on in-situ monitoring of an occupied building

Rouchier S., Juricic S. Structural and practical identifiability of RC-models - application to the Round Robin Test Box, Univ. Savoie MontBlanc

Glew D. Evaluating building performance data analysis methods to compare the thermal performance of Passivhaus dwellings and evaluate the implications for building owners of smart meter data, Leeds Beckett University

Bacher P. Lessons learned from previous case studies. DTU 13.00 lunch 14.00 AP1: proposal of case studies intro by ST2 and ST3-leaders on aim of case study Short presentation of proposals (5’ per participant) 14.30 AP3: link with BES-models (Paul Strachan) Initial analysis of possible experimental facilities 14.55 ST4: objectives and work in progress (Guillaume Ansanay-Alex) 15.10 Break-out sessions: elaboration and discussion of ST2, ST3, ST4, AP3 (BES-validation exercise) 16.10 coffee break 16.30 first feedback of break-out sessions – general discussion 17.00 visit of test facilities at Loughborough University Friday April 28, 2017

9.00 ST5: objectives and work in progress (Hans Bloem, Maria Jose Jimenez) 9.20 ST1: conclusion of break out sessions, invitations, action points and commitments towards next meeting 9.30 AP1 case studies: conclusions of break out session – decision on next case studies 10.00 ST2: conclusion of break out sessions, invitations, action points and commitments towards next meeting 10.15 ST3: conclusion of break out sessions, invitations, action points and commitments towards next meeting 10.30 coffee break 11.00 ST4: conclusion of break out sessions, invitations, action points and commitments towards next meeting 11.15 AP3 BES-validation: conclusion of break out sessions – next step in BES-validation exercise 11.25 round up – conclusions Loughborough meeting – towards next meeting (Operating Agent) 11.45 invitation for next meeting (Simon Rouchier) 12.00 end of meeting / lunch

2nd Expert Meeting

6


3. Minutes

3.1. Day 1 – Wednesday April 26, 2017

KEY NOTE LECTURE BY KEVIN LOMAS Keven Lomas (Loughborough University) gave a keynote lecture on the risk of overheating in UK dwellings, stating that one of the first things we should be able to do is identify the problem through monitoring and inform people about risks and measures. The slides can be found on the Annex 71 website.

INTRODUCTION BY STAF ROELS

The operating agent, Staf Roels, opened the meeting. The slides of the overview presentation are available on the Annex website. The presentation highlights the differences between subtask 2, which aims to characterize the dynamic behavior of buildings, and subtask 3, which mainly focusses on methodologies to identify physical parameters. Subtask 2 therefore aims at applications in e.g. model predictive control or optimization of district energy systems. The methods developed in subtask 3 are to be used for quality assurance e.g. by estimating the overall heat transfer coefficient or system efficiency of the heating (or cooling) system.

Practically, Staf explained that we are officially still in the preparation phase of the annex, but given that we already had a strong annex-proposal, we use this meeting as a real working meeting.

Finally, it was emphasized that the main goal of this meeting is to find high-quality case studies that can be used for the research in each of these subtasks.

ST1: OVERVIEW OF STATUS (RICHARD FITTON)

The subtask leader, Richard Fitton, presented the results of the questionnaire on data collection methods that was distributed. He emphasized that the number of submissions is currently too low (14) to draw statistically relevant conclusions. Therefore, he invites all members of the annex to complete the questionnaire, which will remain available on the annex website.

ST1: PRESENTATION OF FREE PAPERS

The free papers together with the slides can be downloaded from the annex website.

Estevam Schiedt J., et al. Remote sensing techniques for building models and energy performance studies of buildings. German Aerospace Center

Presents different methods to collect input data for building energy simulation using remote sensing. The input data collected varies from rough geometry data to internal composition of building components using micro-wave technology. In the discussion, it was explained that the cost of these measurements depends on the type of sensor and the area that is to be covered. E.g. 3D reconstruction from aerial images is already a standard procedure. Others are expected to become cheaper in short to medium terms. Also, it was pointed out that this type of inputs could be interesting for case studies, so we can look for case studies where this type of data is already available or can be collected in parallel to ‘traditional’ methods.

2nd Expert Meeting

7


Metzger S., et al. Quality Data Acquisition in Buildings and Grids: A technology review. TU Wien

Presents an overview of the link between existing and state-of-the-art data acquisition technologies in buildings (residential and commercial) and the applicability for the identification techniques to be used in this annex. The main focus is the technological review of existing Building and home automation systems as well as smart meters.

Gupta R., Kotopouleas A. Insights from meta-analysis of building performance gap in UK low energy housing. Oxford Brookes University (presented on Thursday)

Presents an analysis of the performance gap in low energy dwellings and passive houses. Demonstrates and emphasizes that identifying the underlying causes of the performance gap is important to a range of key stakeholders including designers, constructors and policy-makers.

ST2: STATUS UPDATE AND OVERVIEW OF THE COMMON EXERCISE (Dirk Saelens) The subtask leader, Dirk Saelens, presented an update of ST2, mainly focusing on the results of Common Exercise 0. The slides are available on the website. In total 7 institutes contributed to the common exercise:

- Belgium – KU Leuven - Estonia – Technical University Tallinn - France – IMT Lille Douai / Cerema - France – Univ. Savoie Mont-Blanc - Germany – German Aerospace Center - Spain – CIEMAT - Spain – Univ. of Vigo

The presentations and reports can be accessed on the website.



Ajib B., Lefteriu S., Caucheteux A., Lecoeuche S. Building thermal modelling using a hybrid system approach. Mines Douai

Presents a hybrid model that combines modelling of discrete and continuous states by identifying different ARX models to describe the continuous behaviour for discrete states (PWARX). The method identifies discrete (hidden) states of the building (e.g. windows open/closed) and describes the behaviour during these states with a continuous (ARX) model.

During the discussion, it was emphasized that the model learns that discrete ‘states’ (eg. windows open/closed) exist, it doesn’t use input for e.g. window opening. Also it was clarified that when identifying the ARX model for a specific state it uses data on previous time steps where needed even if (at the beginning of the discrete state) these time steps belong to previous discrete states.

Himpe E., Janssens A. Modelling residential gas metering data using ARX-models and time series decomposition methods. Ghent University

Presents a similar modelling approach that combines ARX-modeling with time-series decomposition. Time series decomposition is used to identify different clusters in the time series data that show

2nd Expert Meeting

8


similar dynamics. 1 global ARX model is then setup which combines the classical ARX inputs (Te, Ws…) with interaction terms for the identified clusters. Hence, when a cluster is ‘active’ the interaction terms corresponding to that cluster will add to the global regression model. Identified parameters thus have no physical meaning, but prediction of the dynamic response can be improved.

It was concluded from the discussion that this method should be compared against the work of Balsam to clarify benefits and drawbacks of both methods especially in relation to available data.

Willems E.M.M., Visser L., op 't Veld P.J.M. Energy-related in-use building characteristics based on day-to-day measurements for building physics and installations. Huygen Engineers & Consultants Was excused

3.2. Day 2 – Thursday April 27, 2017

KEY NOTE – INVENTORY OF INDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES (HENRIK MADSEN)

Henrik Madsen presented an overview of identification techniques in relation to the availability of data, i.e. single sensor, several sensors or special sensors. The slides can be found on the annex website. Links to the statistical guidelines of Annex 58 can be found on https://www.kuleuven.be/bwf/projects/annex58/index.htm

ST3: STATUS UPDATE (GEERT BAUWENS AND CHRIS GORSE)

The subtask leaders, Geert Bauwens and Chris Gorse, presented the status of ST3. The presented slides can be accessed on the website. It was emphasized that for subtask 3, it is not the aim of going to more detailed measurements compared to subtask 2 (see example Henrik Madsen of HTC-estimation on smart meter data). The main goal of ST3 is to gain insight in the uncertainty obtained from the combination of data and identification techniques and try to reduce this uncertainty by using the appropriate statistical tools for each case. Also, the call for case studies has been repeated as it is of essence in this moment of the annex to find case studies that support the studies we aim for.



Erkoreka A., et. al. Estimating and decoupling the Heat Loss Coefcient of an in-use office building into its Transmission (UA) and Infiltration (Cv) heat loss coefficients through basic monitoring and modelling. University of the Basque Country

In the discussion, it was commented that the two separate regressions, with and without occupants, are indeed not correct, but that it is not proven that the combined one is.

Caucheteux A. Extracting heat transfer coefficient from on-site measurements: monitoring uncertainty propagation: case study, methods and results. Cerema Ouest

https://www.kuleuven.be/bwf/projects/annex58/index.htm

2nd Expert Meeting

9


In the discussion, it was argued that an alternative would be to use longer periods instead of repeating weeks to fit the model. As such, the uncertainty over the whole period would be estimated.

Chambers J. Evaluation of a model to infer heat loss coefficients from occupied dwelling smart meter energy data. UCL Energy Institute

In the discussion, it was clarified that absence is detected using a simple heuristic. This assumes that the system behaves linear so that a decrease in outside temperature should respond to an increase in heating power. When the heating power stays equal to 0 W when temperature decreases, you can expect the building to be unoccupied.

Allinson D., Jack R., Lomas K., Loveday D. Measuring the heat transfer coefficient of a house while it is occupied Loughborough University

It was clarified that room dimensions are recorded because they can be used to generate a space-averaged room temperature.

For the co-heating tests the existing heating system is used instead of electric heating, thereby a fixed boiler efficiency is assumed. It was suggested that additional electric heating could have been an interesting input to separate HTC and system efficiency.

Humbert M., Moujalled B., Guernouti S. Assessing of heat transfer coefficient based on in-situ monitoring of an occupied building

It was emphasized that statistical validation is an important step, which is needed in all studies to make sure that uncertainty of model and estimated parameters can be specified and relied upon.

Rouchier S., Juricic S. Structural and practical identifiability of RC-models - application to the Round Robin Test Box, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc

In the discussion, it was argued that covariance matrix can be used for experimental design but instead of using entire covariance matrix it may be interesting to focus on the part which corresponds to parameters that relate to HTC. It may be possible to use only a subset of the covariance matrix to not penalize for parameters that are physically unnecessary. For example, R1 and R2 may not be uniquely defined but we are only interested in R1+R2, so as long as combined estimates are ok, the experiment design is sufficient. Hence, one could think about transforming the Fisher information matrix to a different domain.

Also, partial likelihood functions can give important insight.

Glew D. Evaluating building performance data analysis methods to compare the thermal performance of Passivhaus dwellings and evaluate the implications for building owners of smart meter data, Leeds Beckett University

In the discussion, it was emphasized that we should not mix up the performance gap and the energy signature with the steady state heat transfer coefficient. The latter is defined as a steady state parameter and the co-heating test is meant to get to similar boundary conditions.

Also the importance of uncertainty on measurements was emphasized. Now we tend to specify uncertainty on estimates based on confidence intervals obtained from the statistical identification method, but uncertainty can also be introduced by e.g. using radar data for solar irradiation instead of local measurements.

2nd Expert Meeting

10


Bacher P. Lessons learned from previous case studies. DTU The importance of a thorough residual analysis was emphasized in order to get reliable confidence intervals. Now, in practice, deciding if confidence intervals are reliable is to somewhat arbitrary and relies on modeler experience. Within the annex we should aim at getting this modeler experience out of the loop if we want to develop methods that are applicable by ‘general public.’

AP1: PROPOSAL OF CASE STUDIES (DIRK SAELENS, CHRIS GORSE)

Given the limited response on the call for case studies, the subtask leaders of ST2 and ST3 elaborated on the requirements for case studies to be suited for common exercises. The presentations can be found on the website. Hereby, it is emphasized that case studies for the model validation exercise (AP3) are not included in this discussion, but handled in AP3. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial if case studies could be applied in multiple subtasks. In total 6 case studies were presented:

- Newtown Case Study (UK, UWE Bristol) - Clermont Ferrand (France, Cerema) - Pilot projects Renovation (Belgium, KU Leuven) - iNSPiRe buildings (Austria, UIBK) - Cambridge-project (Belgium, UCL) - Merlin (France, CSTB)

It was evident that all case studies are focusing on building level. Case studies on district level are missing. Further analysis of the case studies in relation to the requirements for the common exercises in ST2 and ST3 or application in AP3 is still needed.

AP3: VALIDATION OF BES MODELS (PAUL STRACHAN)

4 case studies were submitted and evaluated of which IDEE house and Twin houses were the most complete. A call is put out for experts that can aid in the experiment design. This experiment design should not only support the validation of BES models, but also be applicable in ST2 and ST3. Hence, experts in system identification are also needed. Experiments are most likely being conducted in winter ‘18-’19, so there is plenty of time to do proper experiment design. Already some modelling teams have committed to do the validation exercise, but more are welcome.

ST4: STATUS UPDATE (GUILLAUME ANSANAY-ALEX)

The subtask leader, Guillaume Ansanay-Alex, presented an update of ST4. The presentation can be found on the website. Andy Carter (Encraft) will support Guillaume as co-subtask-leader. He will replace Helen Brown. Main challenge for ST4 on short term is to setup a user group that can give input on practical applicability of the annex results.

2nd Expert Meeting

11


3.3. Day 3 – Friday April 28, 2017

ST 5: STATUS UPDATE

The summer school for 2017 is taking place in Almeria and will focus on LORD instead of CTSM-R. It will remain a level 1 course, which explains the fundamental principles of dynamic modelling. The organization of a follow-up (level 2) course is investigated and will depend also on the result of the COST proposal. In the meanwhile, Henrik Madsen is organizing a new advanced course.

A USB-drive containing relevant background information, data sets from earlier studies, etc. was distributed to all participants by Dynastee.

A potential new workshop for the next Annex meeting was introduced which should be linked with the activities of ST4 and can focus on certification bodies.

ST 1: NEXT STEPS

Now there was no break-out session as it was considered to be too soon. ST1 should in this first phase also receive input from other subtasks and the discussion in the breakout session on the type and detail of data that should be gathered and how to limit the scope. Close collaboration between the subtasks is thus a must.

For the next meeting, free papers that focus on specific or advanced techniques for data collection are again welcome. The aim is to find technologies that allow for inexpensive data collection.

ST 2: SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT AND NEXT STEPS

During the breakout session next steps for the common exercises and the link with case studies was discussed. Although there was a clear interest in activities on the neighborhood and district level, it was concluded that in a first step the subtask should focus on the building level. Mainly since case studies on a district level (order of 40-100 buildings) are not available at this stage. It was decided to compile a list of requirements for case studies in order to increase comparability and simplify the selection process. The list should mention, “minimum requirements” such as gas/electricity consumption data, indoor temperature, climate data and “nice-to-haves” such as sub-metered DHW consumption, heat metering… For the tasks within ST2 it was suggested that 1 month of data on hourly or sub-hourly intervals would suffice. This list will be merged with the list of ST3 in order to avoid duplication of work and to identify case studies that can be used for both subtasks to create synergies. In the discussion Kevin Lomas, Maria José Jimenez, Mathias Kersken, Paul Strachan, Christian Struck and Peder Bacher volunteered to review this “wish-list.”

ST 3: SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT AND NEXT STEPS

For ST3 one of the identified outcomes should be to identify a matrix that links the model accuracy expected for a specific application to a list of required measurements and a statistical method. To initiate the development of such a matrix a common exercise was proposed whereby modelling teams get an elaborate set of measurements and are asked to use any technique they can to identify the HTC of the dwelling. Note that the goal thereby is not only to compare very advanced measurements and identification techniques but also compare simple methods that could be used with a limited budget in a broader context.

2nd Expert Meeting

12


The overlaps with ST1 and ST2 were emphasized.

ST4: SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT AND NEXT STEPS

From the break out session a small group was established that will perform a first test run on the questionnaire that is prepared for the user group. As a next step, the user group should be established. First contacts will be made in the coming months.

AP3: NEXT STEPS

For the BES validation experiments the Twin Houses in Holzkirchen were the most suited. To set up the experiment a team of experts should be established. Taking into account the findings of Annex 58, special attention should be given to the handling of thermal bridges and stratification and it should be made sure that the experiment is suited for identification. Kevin Lomas, Simon Rouchier, Gabrielle Masy and Christian Struck volunteered to aid in the design of the experiment.

NEXT MEETING

The next expert meeting will be organized by the University Savoie Mont Blanc in Chambéry from Monday October 23 to Wednesday October 25. On Monday we will start at 10AM to allow nearby participants to arrive on Monday morning (e.g. by train). Possibilities to organize a Dynastee workshop linked to ST4 on Wednesday is investigated.

WRAP UP

Staf concluded the meeting by making a final call for: - Letters of participation - Additional case studies - Input for the Dynastee newsletter (preferably input from ST4)

2nd Expert Meeting

13


Annex: Overview of practical arrangements

General principles Working meetings are the key activity within an annex. Research is streamlined and decisions are made during these meetings. In between, e-mail is the easiest way to communicate and share ideas. The website will contain papers, proceedings and general information on past and next meetings. Management reports and technical presentations at the ExCo will be shared as well. The site will, however, not include a discussion forum.

Each participant is encouraged to focus on the tasks that she/he accepted to fulfill, be it via free paper contributions or participation in common exercises. The research will be streamlined by a 6-month emphasis on certain problem statements within the different subtasks. This emphasis should not prohibit relevant own work going on. In total, eight meetings are planned, one every spring and every autumn. In addition a final meeting is foreseen in the reporting phase, possibly in combination with a dissemination workshop, promoting the outcome of the project to a larger audience.

Contracts The participation letter of each institute, signed by the national representative of the IEA EBC ExCo, is the official contract describing the commitment of the institute to actively participate in the Annex-project.

Some important points included: Participants:

- Each participant is active in at least one of the subtasks; - Participants are required to deliver information and written material to the final reports as

agreed in the Annex; - Each participant shall individually bear its own costs incurred in the annex activities. Each

partner is expected to cover its own costs for labor, consumables and investments (including eventual overhead costs) associated with the execution of research activities, and to cover for travelling expenses for participation in at least two expert meetings per year during the four year working phase of the annex.

- The working meeting shall be hosted by one of the participants. Costs of organizing and hosting the meeting shall be borne by the host.

Countries: - A participating institute must designate at least one individual (an active researcher, scientist

or engineer, here called the expert) for each subtask in which they decide to participate. It is expected that the same expert attends all meetings and acts as technical contact regarding the national subtask contribution;

- All participating institutes have access to the intermediate results of all subtasks.

Subtask leaders: Cfr. participants, however additionally:

- For subtask leaders, the funding shall allow for extra man-months for additional annex activities such as attending the core group meetings, preparing and follow up of common exercises, assessing abstracts of free papers,…

- Subtask leaders will chair that part of the annex meetings that concerns the subtask they are leading;

- Subtask leaders are expected to attend all annex meetings and additional subtask leader

2nd Expert Meeting

14


meetings, if needed; - Subtask leaders must accept responsibility for the draft of the final report of the subtask they

are in charge of. The Building Physics Section of KU Leuven will act as editor.

Subtask leaders

The following Subtask leaders have been (tentatively*) accepted at the Kickoff Meeting Subtask 1: Richard Fitton (USal, United Kingdom) Subtask 2: Dirk Saelens (KUL/EV, Belgium) Subtask 3: Chris Gorse (LBU, United Kingdom), Geert Bauwens (KUL, Belgium) Subtask 4: Guillaume Ansanay-Alex (CSTB, France), Andy Carter/Helen Brown (ENC,

United Kingdom) Subtask 5: Hans Bloem (JRC-DYNASTEE, Italy), Luk Vandaele (INIVE, Belgium), Maria

José Jimenez* (CIEMAT, Spain) Action ‘BES models’: Paul Strachan (ESRU, United Kingdom) Action ‘Case studies’: Mattias Kerskens* (IBP, Germany), variable Action ‘Data analysis methods’: Henrik Madsen (DTU, Denmark), Peder Bacher (DTU, Denmark)

Website and confidentiality All annex related news and facts will be stored on a password protected annex website (papers, meeting proceedings, draft reports, information on future meetings, etc.). The website will be managed by the Building Physics Section, KU Leuven. All participating countries and all participants will receive the username and password. The reason to install this limited access is that, during the annex, specific annex information and results are not public domain. This confidentiality is thus respected.

Publications rules All participants have the right to publish congress and journal papers that report on annex related work. When doing so, however, the annex should be acknowledged as one of the ‘vehicles’ that served as an aid in conducting the research.

Newsletter and intermediate reports

It is agreed to compile one newsletter a year for the outside world, intermediate reports will be published when appropriate.

Final Annex 71 reports

The outcome of the Annex 71 project will be published infinal reports (see deliverables in project description). The final reports will be made available as pdf-versions on the Annex 71-website, the Dynastee website and the website of the International Energy Agency.

report 2nd expert meeting 2nd expert meeting...2nd expert meeting 3 april 26-28, 2017 loughborough,...

Documents