Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings
R.P. Kramer, A.W.M. van Schijndel & H.L. Schellen
Eindhoven University of Technology
ABSTRACT
The indoor climate conditions of monumental buildings are very important for the
conservation of these objects. Simplified models with physical meaning are desired
that are capable of simulating temperature and relative humidity. In this paper we
research state-space models as methodology for the inverse modeling of climate
responses of unheated monumental buildings. It is concluded that this approach is
very promising for obtaining physical models and parameters of indoor climate
responses. Furthermore state space models can be simulated very efficiently: the
simulation duration time of a 100 year hourly based period take less than a second
on an ordinary computer.
INTRODUCTION
Effects of climate change on ecosystems and on the global economy have been
researched intensively during the past decades but almost nothing is known about
the influence to our cultural heritage. Although these historical monuments are
exposed to extensive loads caused by stampedes of visitors, there are many other
factors deteriorating World Heritage Sites. The impacts of climate change are a longterm and substantial menace to the sites. Lots of monumental buildings are used as
museum or storage for paintworks, books and artefacts. The indoor climate
conditions of monumental buildings are very important for the conservation of these
objects (ASHRAE, 2007). The influence of the changing climate on the indoor climate
of monumental buildings is unknown. It is impossible to prepare adequately for the
future, by anticipating on this change and adapting the installations, because of this
lack of knowledge (CIBSE, 2005). The result is that the conservation of the buildings
and the collections are at risk. Furthermore, the worldwide energy problem also
affects these monumental buildings. Due to the ancient building techniques used,
which result in huge transmission and infiltration losses, the energy consumption of
these buildings is high. Three problems can be identified with respect to the current
research methods: Firstly, due to the long simulation period (hundred years with
time step 1h), combined with detailed physical models, the simulation run time is
long. Secondly, the detailed modeling of the buildings itself requires much effort: the
monumental buildings are old and protected. Therefore, blueprints are hard to find
and; destructive methods to obtain building material properties are not allowed.
Thirdly, the used modeling approach does neither facilitate in an easy
characterization of the building nor in an easy characterization of the energy
performance. A simplified model with physical meaning is desired which is capable of
simulating both temperature and relative humidity. The objective is the successful
application of inverse modeling on a simplified thermal and hygric building model, in
order to determine the parameters with physical meaning. The simplified model is
needed for the prediction of the indoor temperature and the indoor relative
humidity and for characterization of the building parameters and the energy
performance. The paper is organised as follows. We start with a literature study on
simplified models. The methodology of the inverse modeling development for
climate responses is presented and applied for a group of four unheated
monumental buildings in The Netherlands and Belgium. The approach is evaluated
and conclusions are drawn.
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 1 of 12

LITERATURE
Due to the increase of computational power, the attention for simplified models has
decreased. However, through the years it became clear that simplified models have
benefits over complex models (Wang & Chen, 2001), (Mathews, et al., 1994): user
friendliness, straight forward, fast calculation. The response factor method and
lumped capacitance method are suitable for simplified modeling. More recently,
linear parametric models and neural network models are used for simplified models.
Neural network models, e.g. (Mustafaraj, et al., 2011), can be classified as black box
models. The parameters have no direct physical meaning, but the output is
generated by the hidden layers (black box) from the input. Some models are referred
to as gray box models. An example in the field of simplified building models is the
use of linear parametric models (Mustafaraj, et al., 2010).The linear model itself is a
black box model, but the parameters can be determined using physical data
(Jimenez, et al., 2008). Some researchers stress out the importance of simplified
models with physical meaning (Kopecký, 2011), so called white box models. The
lumped capacitance model can be classified as a white box model. Another
advantage of this approach is the representation of building elements using R
(resistance) and C (capacitance), according to the electrical analogy, which makes a
graphical representation of the model possible. Most of the simplified building
models are based on this approach. There are three approaches to create a
simplified model: (1) Create a detailed comprehensive model from known building
properties and perform afterwards a model order reduction technique, e.g. (Gouda,
et al., 2002); (2) Create directly a simplified model from building properties, e.g.
(Nielsen, 2005); (3) Create a simplified model and identify the parameter values with
an inverse modeling technique (Balan, et al., 2011). Technique 1 is obviously the
most labor intensive: building a detailed model and simplifying it afterwards.
Detailed construction properties need to be available together with a methodology
for simplifying an existing model. The lumped capacitance model can be used for this
model order reduction (Mathews, et al., 1994) and neural network models can be
used to filter out unimportant parameters (Mustafaraj, et al., 2011), called pruning.
Technique 2 is faster, but a validated methodology should be known how to identify
the parameters. Therefore, it is difficult to achieve good results with this technique.
(Fraisse, et al., 2002) has demonstrated a methodology how to incorporate multiple
walls into one single order model. Technique 3 is not labor intensive and
identification of the model parameters is done by an optimization algorithm. This
technique can be used with the lumped capacitance model (Wang & Xu, 2006),
neural network model, e.g. (Mustafaraj, et al., 2011), and linear parametric model,
e.g. (Moreno, et al., 2007). Technique 3 is used for the work in this paper.
INVERSE MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR CLIMATE RESPONSES
A linear model is often sufficient to accurately describe the system dynamics and, in
most cases, one should first try to fit linear models (Ljung, 1999). State Space models
are Linear Time Invariant (LTI) models. State Space models are models that use state
variables to describe the system dynamics by a set of first order differential
equations. To understand the concept of State Space, think of the system as
spanning a space where the axes (i.e. dimensions, i.e. orders) represent the state
variables. Even if some of the systems differential equations are higher order, they
should be converted to multiple first order equations. The state of the system can be
represented as a vector within that space. The system of first order differential
equations can be represented according to:
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 2 of 12

𝒙̇ (𝑡) = 𝑨𝒙(𝑡) + 𝑩𝒖(𝑡)
𝒚(𝑡) = 𝑪𝒙(𝑡) + 𝑫𝒖(𝑡)

The first part of equation (1) is known as state equation where x(t) is the state vector
and u(t) is the input vector. The second equation is referred to as the output
equation. A is the state matrix, B is the input matrix, C the output matrix and D the
direct transition matrix. The main advantage is that the calculation speed is very
high, especially compared to solving the differential equations. To show this
advantage, a first order RC-network is simulated as a State Space model and with the
ode23 routine for different simulation periods. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: calculation time of State-Space and ode23 for different periods.
1month 1 year
10 year
100 year
time [s] time [s]
time [s]
time [s]
ODE23
5
89
State-Space
0.016
0.016
0.050
0.45
The results show the huge advantage of the State Space model regarding simulation
time. While the simulation time increases almost linearly when using the ode23
routine to solve the differential equation, the simulation time of the State Space
model is less predictable. However, especially if the task requires a repeated
simulation for a long period, e.g. hundred years, the State Space model has a very
limited calculation time of half a second on an ordinary computer.
We proceed with the thermal and hygric modeling. Due to space limitation
we summarize the work of Kramer (2012). He investigated several thermal models
including solar irradiation. Also several hygric models have been developed and
tested. In this paper we present the optimal models according to Kramer (2012).
The thermal model is shown in Figure 1. There are thermal capacitances for
the interior (Cint), indoor air (Ci) and envelope (Cw). The sun irradiation is connected
to Cint (interior) and Ci (indoor air). Thermal resistances represent ventilation
(1/Gfast), wall to external air (1/Gw), wall to indoor air (1/Gi) and indoor air to
interior constructions (1/Gint).

Figure 1. The thermal network
The ODEs are,

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 3 of 12

𝑑𝑇𝑤
= 𝐺𝑤 (𝑇𝑒 − 𝑇𝑤 ) − 𝐺𝑖 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑖 )
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑇𝑖
���⃗ • ������������⃗
𝐶𝑖
= 𝐺𝑖 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑖 ) − 𝐺𝑓 �𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑓 � − 𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡 (𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) + 𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡 (𝑇𝑒 − 𝑇𝑖 ) + 𝑓𝐼
𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑑 (𝑏)
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑡
���⃗ • �����������⃗
𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑡
= 𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡 (𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) + 𝑓𝐼
𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑑(𝑎)
𝑑𝑡
𝐶𝑤

The State Space matrices are,

−𝐺𝑤 −𝐺𝑖
𝐺𝑖
⎡
0 ⎤
𝐶𝑤
⎢ 𝐶𝑤
⎥
−𝐺𝑖 −𝐺𝑓 −𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡 − 𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡
𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡 ⎥
⎢ 𝐺𝑖
𝐴=⎢
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖 ⎥
⎢
⎥
𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡
−𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑡 ⎥
⎢
0
⎣
𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑡
𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑡 ⎦
𝐺𝑤
⎡
0
0
0
0
0⎤
⎢ 𝐶𝑤
⎥
𝐺𝑓 ⎥
𝑓𝐼1
𝑓𝐼2
𝑓𝐼3
𝑓𝐼4
𝐵 = ⎢𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡
⎢
⎥
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖
𝐶𝑖 ⎥
⎢ 𝐶𝑖
⎣ 0
0
0
0
0
0⎦
0

𝐶=� 0
0

0
1

0

0

0

𝐷=� 0

0 �
0

0

0
0

0

0
0

0

0
0

0

0
0

0

0

0 �
0

The hygric model is shown in Figure 2. The hygric capacitances and resistances
represent are analog to the thermal network, but now for vapour pressures instead
of temperatures.

Figure 2. The hygric model
The ODEs are
𝑑𝑃𝑤
= 𝐺𝑤 (𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑤 ) − 𝐺𝑖 (𝑃𝑤 − 𝑃𝑖 )
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑃𝑖
𝐶𝑖
= 𝐺𝑖 (𝑃𝑤 − 𝑃𝑖 ) + 𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡 (𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑖 )
𝑑𝑡
𝐶𝑤

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 4 of 12

The State Space matrices are,
−𝐺𝑤 −𝐺𝑖
𝐶𝑤
𝐺𝑖
𝐶𝑖

⎡
𝐴=⎢
⎢
⎣

𝐺𝑖
𝐺𝑤
⎤
⎡
⎤
𝐶𝑤
⎥ 𝐵 = ⎢ 𝐶𝑤 ⎥ 𝐶 = � 0
−𝐺𝑖 −𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡 ⎥
0
⎢ 𝐺𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡 ⎥
𝐶𝑖
⎦
⎣ 𝐶𝑖 ⎦

0
0
�𝐷 = � �
1
0

This completes the modeling part. We proceed with the inverse modeling
methodology.
Inverse modeling is the inverse of traditional modeling. In traditional
modeling, the system is known and the output is unknown. By modeling the system,
the output can be simulated. In inverse modeling, the output is known (e.g.
measured), but little is known about the system. The objective is to identify the
parameter values of the model by repeatedly trying different parameter values and
comparing the simulated output with the measured output. The goal is to minimize
the simulation error, formulated as an objective function (e.g. summed squared
error). The process of finding the parameter set which minimizes the objective
function is called optimization. If the solution space includes multiple minima, the
goal is to find the global minimum, called global optimization. These solvers are all
very different, each having its advantages and disadvantages. One important aspect
is whether a solver is gradient based or gradient free. Gradient based solvers are the
most efficient in finding quickly a minimum. However, the solution space should be
smooth and continuous. If not, the solver fails. The second aspect is whether the
solver handles constraints or it is only intended for unconstrained problems. The
inverse problem in this research is a typical example of a constrained problem, since
all variables are not allowed to be negative. Moreover, constraining the problem
helps in finding the global minimum since it scales down the solution space. The
third aspect is whether a solver is deterministic or stochastic: all solvers are
deterministic except for the Genetic Algorithm. To maximize the speed of the
optimization process, all calculations which do not need to be repeated are executed
in the initialization step: preparing climate data, include measured data, set
constraints, set initial values and assign a function handle for the optimization
algorithm. Then the optimization algorithm determines the parameter set, the first
time it’s the initial value vector, and passes the parameter set to the function file:
the function file includes the model and simulates the model with the given
parameter set and calculates the objective function by comparing the simulated
output with the measured data. The objective function is passed to the Global
Optimization Algorithm which calculates the new parameter set which is likely to
minimize the objective function.
RESULTS FOR A GROUP OF UNHEATED MONUMENTAL BUILDINGS
An important validation method is the performance assessment of the developed
models on multiple other buildings: By fitting both the thermal and hygric model to
these buildings, their general performance is tested. General applicability is an
important aspect in this study. Moreover, it is important to chose a strategic set of
buildings and rooms to gain maximum added value of this validation method:
included in the set of buildings are (i) Room which is surrounded by a water canal; (ii)
Room with much thermal mass and hygric mass (iii) Room with significant sun
irradiation (iv) Room with sun irradiation on roof, but no windows (v) Rooms with
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 5 of 12

ground contact and no sun irradiation. The physical aspects of the buildings and
rooms and the argumentation why they are included, is explained in the next
Section. The performance per room is visualized in graphs and explained in word.
The performance of the rooms is compared by three performance criteria (MSE,
MAE & Goodness of Fit) at the end of the section. Figure 3 presents the monumental
buildings involved in the study.

Figure 3. The Monumental buildings involved in this study. Top Left: Castle of
Amerongen, Top Right: Castle of Gaasbeek, Bottom Left: Castle Keukenhof, Bottom
Right: St. Baafs Cathedral
Castle of Amerongen: Washing room
The washing room is situated in the basement of the castle of Amerongen. The castle
is surrounded by a canal: the external walls of the washing room are in direct contact
with water. Moreover, the basement has been flooded multiple times. The
performance of the thermal model is shown in Figure 4 (top). The model performs
good over the seasons resulting in a good fit. The detail at the right side of the figure
shows that the delicate fluctuations of the measured signal are not reproduced by
the model, which is a good thing: the sensors have an accuracy of ± 0.5°C meaning
that the observed fluctuations are cover by the uncertainty of the measurement. The
reason of these delicate fluctuations is unclear and considered to be unimportant for
the performance assessment of the model. The performance of hygric model 3 is
shown in Figure 4 (bottom). There seems to be a problem analogous to the thermal
model which has been observed earlier: the signal lies locally above, but mostly
below the measured signal. The result is that the model can’t be fitted accurately. A
new parameter is introduced for the hygric model, which is analogous to the thermal
model: a node with a fixed vapour pressure. The performance of this hygric model
with fixed vapour pressure is shown in Figure 4 (middle). The fixed vapour pressure
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 6 of 12

improves the fit significantly. The necessity of such a fixed vapour pressure suggest
the existence of a vapour source. Physically, the external wall which is connected to
a canal is analogous to the thermal situation with ground contact.

Figure 4. The thermal model (top), hygric model with additional fixed vapour
pressure node in model (middle) and hygric model without fixed pressure (bottom)
fitted to washing room (This figure relies on color see digital version of the paper).
Castle of Gaasbeek - Scockaert chamber
The Scockaert chamber is situated at the second floor in the castle of Gaasbeek
(Belgium). It has windows which allow a significant amount of sun irradiation into the
room. The room is richly decorated with antique furniture which adds to the
thermal, and mostly, the hygric capacity. The difficulty here: the irregular
disturbances by visitors. Because this effect can’t be captured by a linear time
invariant model, the Scockaert chamber is a good candidate for the models
performance assessment. The result of the thermal model is shown in Figure 5 (top).
The overall performance is good, but incidentally, some measured peaks are
observed which are not reproduced by the model. These peaks might be a result of
internal heat sources like visitors. The result of the hygric model (with fixed vapour
pressure node) is shown in Figure 6 (bottom). The same observation holds as for the
thermal result. The overall performance is good, but identical series of peaks are not
reproduced. These peaks are due to inputs which are not included, e.g. moisture
production by visitors.

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 7 of 12

Figure 5. The thermal model (top) and hygric model with additional fixed vapour
pressure node (bottom) fitted to Scockaert chamber (This figure relies on color see
digital version of the paper).
Castle of Gaasbeek - Gothic chamber
The Gothic chamber is also situated at the second floor of the castle of Gaasbeek.
The room is decorated richly with much furniture and decorations which contribute
to the thermal, but mostly hygric capacity. Also this room is frequently visited by
tourists. The performance of the thermal model is shown in Figure 6 (top). The
incidental peaks are less intense compared to those in the Scockaert chamber, but
are still visible. The detail at the right side of the figure shows that the model
reproduces the measured signal accurately. The delicate quick fluctuations which are
present in the measurements of the washing room are totally absent in the
measurements of the Gothic chamber.

Figure 6. The thermal model (top) and hygric model with additional fixed vapour
pressure node (bottom) fitted to Gothic chamber (This figure relies on color see
digital version of the paper).

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 8 of 12

The hygric model performance is shown in Figure 6 (bottom). The overall
performance is good, but small disturbances which are not reproduced are probably
due to time-variant phenomena. At least, the phenomena which could change over
the seasons turn out to be no source of error: think of possible use of sun blinds in
summer.
Castle Keukenhof - the loft
The castle Keukenhof is situated a few kilometers from the Dutch coast. Therefore
the building is exposed to a sea climate. The observed room is the loft which is
situated directly underneath the roof. This room is specifically interesting because
the overheating risk during summer. This situation will be a real test for the model
since the influence of sun irradiation is significantly present, but windows are absent.
The thermal model performance is visualized in Figure 7(top). The risk of overheating
is clearly present and is reproduced good by the model. Although the sun irradiation
is modeled by 4 input signals, each representing the sun irradiation on a vertical wall
oriented respectively to the north, east, south and west, the sun irradiation on the
roof and the resulting heat flux to the loft is simulated correctly. This significant heat
flux resulting from sun irradiation results in an indoor temperature of reaching 35°C
in summer. The detail at the right side of the figure shows how accurate the models
output has been fitted to the measured temperature. The performance assessment
of the hygric model is shown in Figure 7 (bottom). The hygric reproducibility is poor.
Besides the indoor temperature, also the indoor moisture content (or vapour
pressure) fluctuates heavily. These fluctuations good not be reproduced with the
only given input of the outdoor vapour pressure. This casus is interesting for a
follow-up research.

Figure 7. thermal model (top) and hygric model with additional fixed vapour pressure
node (bottom) fitted to Keukenhof-Loft (This figure relies on color see digital version
of the paper).
St. Baafs cathedral – South transept
The St. Baafs cathedral is situated in Gent (Belgium). The building consists of several
parts, e.g. the choir, the entrance, the transepts. Most of the parts are openly
connected. The building is totally free floating and has huge thermal mass and hygric
mass.
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 9 of 12

The measurements to which the model has been fitted are performed by a sensor in
the south transept. The south transept includes a huge window with colored glass
which is oriented to the south resulting in a significant amount of incoming sun
irradiation. The performance of the thermal model is shown in Figure 8 (top). The
measured indoor temperature is reproduced very accurately, also visualized clearly
in the detailed graph on the right side. Although there are visitors, the influence on
the indoor climate seems to be small due to the large dimensions of the cathedral.
The performance of hygric model is shown in Figure 8 (bottom). The measured signal
is reproduced perfectly by the model. The same holds for the hygric part: although
there are visitors, they hardly influence the indoor moisture content due to the vast
space in the cathedral. Moreover, the quality of the measurements are high without
signal noise.

Figure 8. The thermal model(top) and hygric model with additional fixed vapour
pressure node (bottom) fitted to St. Baafs cathedral-South transept (This figure relies
on color see digital version of the paper).
ASSESMENT OF THE METHODOLOGY
This section deals with the performance assessment of the models and the used
methods. The performance of the models relates to two things:
i) how accurately can the measured signal be reproduced
ii) how accurately can the parameters be identified (in validation section)
This implies a contradiction. Usually, the rule holds that a higher order model with
more parameters yields a higher accuracy. On the other hand, more parameters
result in a higher uncertainty in parameter identification (Ljung, 1999).
To be able to compare and rate how accurately the different models can reproduce a
measured temperature or vapour pressure, three performance criteria are used: the
MSE (Mean Squared Error), MAE (Mean Absolute Error) and FIT (goodness of FIT).
The MSE is calculated according to,
𝑁

1
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = �(𝑦 ′ − 𝑦)2
𝑁
𝑘=1

where 𝑦 ′ is the measured signal and 𝑦 is the simulated signal.

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 10 of 12

The MAE is calculated according to,
𝑁

1
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = �|𝑦 ′ − 𝑦|
𝑁
𝑘=1

The Goodness of Fit is calculated according to,
𝐹𝐼𝑇 = 100 ∙ �1 −

𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚(𝑦 ′ − 𝑦)

�

𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚(𝑦 ′ − 𝑦�′)

𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚(𝑦) is the Euclidean length of the vector 𝑦, also known as the magnitude. The
above equation therefore calculates in the numerator the magnitude of the error
between measured and simulated signal. This is divided by the denominator,
calculating how much the measured signal fluctuates around its mean.
Consequently, the Goodness of Fit criterion is robust with respect to the fluctuation
level of the signal. All three are used independently in several studies, e.g.
(Boaventura Cunha, et al., 1997) (Crabb, et al., 1987) (Frausto, et al., 2003).
However, (Mustafaraj, et al., 2010) stresses the strength of using the three together.
For example, the MSE gives more weight to bigger errors. Consequently, it is a good
criterion to express the amount of big errors. The MAE expresses the overall mean
error.

Table 2. results of fit summarized in three performance criteria (MSE, MAE & FIT).
thermal model 4a
hygric model 3
MSE
MAE
FIT MSE
MAE FIT
2
2
building
room
[°C ]
[°C]
[%] [Pa ]
[Pa] [%]
washing room*
4938
58
72
Amerongen
0.09
0.24
91
washing room
2468
39
81
Scockaert
1.03
0.73
84 5369
57
77
Gaasbeek
chamber
Gothic chamber 0.66
0.59
87 5316
56
78
Keukenhof loft
1.33
0.88
84 23785
113
58
south transept
0.17
0.32
91
St.
Baafs
south
1870
32
86
cathedral
0.74
0.69
81
transept**
dungeon of pain 0.30
0.41
87 3686
47
84
museum
iron chamber
0.10
0.26
82 462
18
85
Gevangenknight chamber 0.34
0.45
88 3710
47
84
poort
stock loft
1.41
0.96
81 6954
65
78
*model without node for fixed vapour pressure
**no solar input

CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that this approach is very promising for obtaining physical models and
parameters of indoor climate responses. Furthermore by using state space models,
the simulation duration time of a 100 year hourly based period take less than a
second on an ordinary computer.
Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 11 of 12

REFERENCES
ASHRAE, 2007. Museums, Archives and Libraries. In: ASHRAE handbook Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning applications. SI edition ed. s.l.:American Society of Heating Refrigaration and AirConditioning Engineers, pp. 21.1-21.23.
Balan, R. et al., 2011. Parameter identification and model based predictive control of temperature
inside a house. Energy and Buildings, Volume 43, pp. 748-758.
Boaventura Cunha, B., Couto, C. & Ruano, A., 1997. Real time estimation of dynamic temperature
models for greenhouse environment control. Control Engineering Practice, 5(10), p. 1473–1481.
CIBSE, T., 2005. Climate change and the indoor environment impacts and adaption. s.l.:s.n.
Crabb, J., Murdoch, N. & Pennman, J., 1987. A simplified thermal response model. Building Services
Engineering Research and Technology, Volume 8, pp. 13-19.
de Wit, M., 2006. Heat Air and Moisture model for building and systems evaluation. Bouwstenen,
Volume 100, p. 100 pages.
de Wit, M. & Driessen, H., 1998. ELAN: a computer model for building energy design. Building and
Environment, Volume 23, pp. 285-289.
Fraisse, G., Viardot, C., Lafabrie, O. & Achard, G., 2002. Development of a simplified and accurate
building model based on electrical analogy. Energy and Buildings, Volume 34, pp. 1017-1031.
Frausto, H., Pieters, J. & Deltour, J., 2003. Modelling greenhouse temperature by means of auto
regressive models. Biosystems Engineering, 84(2), p. 147–157.
Gouda, M., Danaher, S. & Underwood, C., 2002. Building thermal model reduction using nonlinear
constrained optimization. Building and Environment, Volume 37, pp. 1255-1265.
Jimenez, M., Madsen, H. & Andersen, K., 2008. Identification of the main thermal characteristics of
building components using Matlab. Building and Environment, Volume 43, pp. 170-180.
Kramer, R.P., 2012. The application of inverse modeling for the prediction and characterization of
indoor climates and energy performances, MSc Report, Eindhoven University of Technology
Kopecký, P., 2011. Experimental validation of two simplified thermal zone models. Tampere (Finland),
s.n.
Ljung, L., 1999. System Identification: Theory for the User. 2nd edition ed. Upper Saddle River(New
York): Prentice-Hall.
Mathews, E., Richards, P. & Lombard, C., 1994. A first-order thermal model for building design. Energy
and Buildings, Volume 21, pp. 133-145.
Moreno, G. et al., 2007. Modelling temperature in intelligent buildings by means of autoregressive
models. Automation in Construction, 16(5), p. 713–722.
Mustafaraj, G., Chen, J. & Lowry, G., 2010. Development of room temperature and relative humidity
linear parametric models for an open office using BMS data. Energy and Buildings, Volume 42, pp.
348-356.
Mustafaraj, G., Lowry, G. & Chen, J., 2011. Prediction of room temperature and relative humidity by
autoregressive linear and nonlinear neural network models for an open office. Energy and
Buildings, Volume 43, pp. 1452-1460.
Nielsen, T., 2005. Simple tool to evaluate energy demand and indoor environment in the early stages
of building design. Solar Energy, Volume 78, pp. 73-83.
van Schijndel, A., 2007. Integrated heat air and moisture modeling and simulation, Eindhoven: s.n.
van Schijndel, A., 2009. The exploration of an inversed modeling technique to obtain material
properties of a building construction. Istanbul, s.n., pp. 91-98.
van Schijndel, A. & Schellen, H., 2011. Inverse modeling of the indoor climate using a 2-state 5parameters model in Matlab. Visby, s.n., pp. 1-12.
van Schijndel, A., Schellen, H., Martens, M. & van Aarle, M., 2010. Modeling the effect of climate
change in historic buildings at several scale levels. Eindhoven, s.n., pp. 161-180.
Wang, S. & Chen, Y., 2001. A novel and simple building load calculation model for building and system
dynamic simulation. Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 21, pp. 683-702.
Wang, S. & Xu, X., 2006. Parameter estimation of internal thermal mass of building dynamic models
using genetic algorithm. Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 47, pp. 1927-1941.
Wang, S. & Xu, X., 2006. Simplified building model for transient thermal performance estimation using
GA-based parameter identification. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Volume 45, pp. 419432.

Inverse Modeling of Climate Responses of Monumental Buildings

Page 12 of 12

