A Comparison Between Four Dynamic Energy Modeling Tools for Simulation of Space Heating Demand of Buildings

  • Amir VadieeEmail author
  • Ambrose Dodoo
  • Leif Gustavsson
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Energy book series (SPE)


Different building energy modelling programs exist and are widely used to calculate energy balance of building in the context of energy renovation of existing buildings or in the design of energy performance of new buildings. The different tools have unique benefits and drawbacks for different conditions. In this study, four different types of building energy system modelling tools including TRNSYS, Energy Plus, IDA-Indoor Climate Energy (IDA-ICE) and VIP-Energy are used to calculate the energy balance of a recently built six-storey apartment building in Växjö, Sweden. The building is designed based on the current Swedish building code. The main outcomes of the software include hourly heating and cooling demands and indoor temperature profiles. We explore the general capabilities of the software and compare the results between them. For the studied building with similar input conditions such as weather climate data file, infiltration and ventilation ratio and internal heat gain, IDA-ICE modeled the highest space heating demand while the TRNSYS the lowest due to the simplification of thermal bridges. The main advance feature of VIP-Energy is the detail thermal bridge analysis while the main drawback is the complexity of using the model. EnergyPlus and TRNSYS can be used for energy supply system integration with the ability to add mathematical sub-modules to the models.


Building Energy analysis Energy simulation tools VIP energy Energy plus IDA TRNSYS 


  1. 1.
    IEA, Energy Efficiency Training Week, International Energy Agency, 2016. [Online]. Available: Accessed 16 Aug 2017
  2. 2.
    StruSoft, VIP+software, Sweden. 2010, Available from
  3. 3.
    VIP-Energy, Validation methods. (2016)
  4. 4.
    J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, vol. 3 (Wiley, New York, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Jóhannesson, Active heat capacity: models and parameters for the thermal performance of buildings. Report TVBH, 1981. 1003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Nylund, Räkna med luftläckningen. Samspel byggnad-ventilation (in Swedish). Swedish Council for Building Research, 1 (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EQUA Simulation AB, IDA Indoor Climate and Energy. Available from (2016)
  8. 8.
    Equa Simulation Technical Group, Validation of IDA Indoor Climate and Energy 4.0 build 4 with respect to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2004, Technical report, Solna, Sweden, 2010Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Equa Simulation AB, Validation of IDA Indoor Climate and Energy 4.0 with respect to CEN Standard EN 15255-2007 and EN 15265-2007. Equa Simulation AB, Stockholm, 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.B. Crawley, J.W. Hand, M. Kummert, B.T. Griffith, Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Build. Environ. 43(4), 661–673 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Sousa, in Energy Simulation Software for Buildings: Review and Comparison, International Workshop on Information Technology for Energy Applicatons-IT4Energy (Lisabon, 2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    TRNSYS, Using the Simulation Studio, TRNSYS version 16, Thermal Energy System Specialists, MadisonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology, Faculty of TechnologyLinnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations