Mark,At the outset, I think the term "calibration" should be limited to a simple matching (within pre-approved tolerances) of the target data one may have to work with. If the target data are monthly utility bills alone, then calibration is fairly simple, but will necessarily leave unanswered questions regarding the individual variables that were "tweaked" to achieve calibration. I would leave control of those input variables within the context of modeling detail or quality rather than confuse the issue of calibration with them.
A more stringent calibration project may require matching of both monthly kWh and monthly peak demand kW (which may need to be converted to hourly). In this case the calibration process will necessarily require more detail in the model just to achieve the required tolerances around the 12 additional target points. The more target data you have, the more demanding the calibration procedure will be, and the more exact the model will necessarily have to be. The term "calibration" could still be limited to the context of matching any number of target data points within an acceptable set of tolerances. Issues of modeling accuracy and detail maintain their inherent importance both with and without calibration.
Glenn Haynes, RLW Analytics, Inc. At 11:30 AM 3/12/2003 -0700, you wrote:
In Reference to the recent `Weather Normalization Question' discussion line which evolved into a discussion of calibration, and to many years of discussions of calibrated modeling, I think perhaps we are lacking a definition(s) of what a `calibrated' model is. There are many out there but there are no standard definitions that I've ever seen, beyond `matching utility bills within x %' that appears in some DSM program guidelines. I believe this must be done in the context of `What are we going to use the model for?" I've seen the term used in reference to everything from aggregated load research work to the building on the corner that is considering a HVAC upgrade, from the Texas A&M shoot-out predictive statistical routines to detailed end-use monitoring and M&V approaches. Often it is used to as a surrogate for `expensive' or for `high quality'. Questions that should be answered in a definition: Calibrated to what standard measure? And why that particular standard? The entire model or just pieces? How closely does it have to match the defined standard? Possibly including various statistical measures. Mark E. Case, President etc Group, Inc. 3481 South 2300 East Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801-278-1927, 801-278-1942(F) ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM@xxxxxxxx mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@xxxxxxxx
======================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM@xxxxxxxx mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@xxxxxxxx