Coupling Building Simu With CFD

Research Paper
Journal of Building Physics
Coupling building energy Ó The Author(s) 2020

1–44
simulation and Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1744259120901840
computational fluid journals.sagepub.com/home/jen
dynamics: An overview
Martin Rodrı́guez-Vázquez1,
Iván Hernández-Pérez2, Jesus Xamán1 ,
Yvonne Chávez1, Miguel Gijón-Rivera3 and
Juan M Belman-Flores4
Abstract
Building energy simulations coupled with computational fluid dynamics tools have
emerged, recently, as an accurate and effective tool to improve the estimation of energy
requirements and thermal comfort in buildings. Building modelers and researchers usu-
ally implement this coupling in the boundary conditions of both tools (e.g. surface tem-
perature, ambient temperature, and conductive and convective fluxes). This work
reviews how the building energy simulation–computational fluid dynamics coupling has
evolved since its first implementation to the present day. Moreover, this article also sum-
marizes and discusses the research studies in which the building energy simulation–
computational fluid dynamics coupling has been used to analyze building systems, build-
ing components, and building urban configurations. Implementing a building energy
simulation–computational fluid dynamics coupling brings a series of benefits when com-
pared with the conventional building energy simulation methodology, a building energy
simulation–computational fluid dynamics coupling provides an improvement that ranges
between 10% and 50% for estimating the building energy requirements. Moreover, the
1
Tecnológico Nacional de México, CENIDET, Cuernavaca, México
2
División Académica de Ingenierı́a y Arquitectura, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco (UJAT),
Cunduacán, México
3
Escuela de Ingenierı́a y Ciencias, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Puebla, México
4
División de Ingenierı́as Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Salamanca, México
Corresponding author:
Jesus Xamán, Tecnológico Nacional de México, CENIDET, Prol. Av. Palmira S/N. Col. Palmira, Cuernavaca CP
62490, Morelos, México.
Email: jxaman@cenidet.edu.mx
2 Journal of Building Physics 00(0)
computation time to implement computational fluid dynamics with information obtained

from the building energy simulation could be reduced by as well.
Keywords
Building energy simulations, computational fluid dynamics, building energy simulation–
computational fluid dynamics coupling
Introduction
Currently, the use of fossil fuels is fundamental for developing human activities;
however, as the population continues growing, the amount of energy we need also
increases. This action has caused over many years, an environmental deterioration,
which has come to change our ecosystems. According to the International Energy
Agency, CO2 emissions are currently 40% higher than those emissions produced in
the mid-1800s. Now, the burning of fossil fuels contributes 68% of the emission of
greenhouse gases (International Energy Agency, 2017a).
Due to the changes in the ecosystems, influenced partly by the greenhouse gases,
man must seek new alternatives to adapt to the changes, again. One of these alter-
natives is the use of mechanical space conditioning systems, which allows man to
continue his activities in a comfortable way despite being in a very hot or cold envi-
ronment. However, these systems, even though their technology is constantly evol-
ving, are large consumers of electricity and have now gone from being a luxury for
some people to be a need for many. In what corresponds to the residential sector,
this contributes to 11% of the emissions from the generation of energy, adding
another 6% for other activities to the total emissions of this sector (International
Energy Agency, 2017). Currently, the demand for energy is 150% higher than that
required in 1971, which is mainly produced from fossil fuels (82%) and with a lower
percentage by non-fossil fuels (nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.). Of the total
energy produced in 2015, the residential sector consumed 22% of the total energy,
making it the sector with the third highest consumption after industrial and trans-
port sectors (International Energy Agency, 2017b)
Due to the aforementioned findings, part of the scientific community is finding
alternatives to reduce buildings’ energy consumption. Many tools have been devel-
oped for over 40 years to evaluate the thermal performance of buildings with the
aim of improving interior comfort conditions and reduce energy consumption.
Among these tools, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and building energy
simulators are two of the most popular tools to analyze building thermal
performance.
CFD requires discretizing a set of differential equations using approximation
schemes; in this way, a set of algebraic equations is obtained, and it gives us an
approximate result. These resulting algebraic equations are solved using comput-
ers. To solve the governing equations of heat transfer phenomena, researchers use
finite volume, finite element, and finite difference numerical techniques, each with
Rodrı́guez-Vázquez et al. 3
its own ideology that allows having an advantage over specific areas of study.
However, numerical studies have some limitations that depend on factors such as
discretization method, type of numerical algorithm, interpolation scheme, numeri-
cal stability, fluid regime, among others (Patankar, 1980; Xáman and Gijón-
Rivera, 2016). These factors are crucial to obtain results similar to the experimental
ones when using the adequate parameters; however, the development, verification,
and optimization of self-developed numerical codes in some cases could take the
same amount of time to the one that is used to carry out an experimental study.
Chen et al. (2010) mention that CFD models, despite their high precision and accu-
racy, are perhaps the most difficult tools to implement. Learning the fundamental
principles and knowledge for modeling can get to take a young researcher about
tens of months or even years. One must also have a good knowledge of fluid
mechanics, heat transfer, and numerical techniques to carry out a rigorous verifica-
tion process with experimental data. If not, the results of this process in CFD may
not be completely reliable.
Building energy simulators (BESs), however, are convenient tools to analyze the
factors that influence thermal comfort and energy requirements in buildings
(Crawley et al., 2008). They use mathematical models to represent the physical
characteristics and control strategies of a building. While using a BES tool, the
building is divided into portions called thermal zones in which the three mechan-
isms of heat transfer are solved. One of the primary considerations is that such
thermal zones have a uniform air temperature (Sousa, 2012) and in which a single
computational node is usually used for each surface (Clarke, 2001). The thermal
zones are usually solved using three main models:
Models of thermal balances (heat balance model).

Thermal network models (thermal network models).
Transfer function models.
The thermal balance models ensure that all energy flows are balanced, and it
involves solution of a set of energy equations for the air and the interior and exter-
ior surfaces of each wall, roof, and floor. Thermal network models, on the con-
trary, are a form of thermal equilibrium model characterized by the discretization
of the building in a network of nodes, with interconnected trajectories, through
which energy flows; the use of numerical sub-models for conduction heat transfer
(for example, finite difference or finite volume); and provision for multi-zone air
temperatures. The transfer function model uses response factors to relate the cur-
rent values of the cooling load or the heating load to send values of heat gain and,
in most cases, values of the cooling load or heating load. Among these and other
considerations, energy simulators allow a rapid convergence to obtain results with
low computational resources. However, these formulations are developed under
ideal conditions of uniformity, which can lead to calculations with a considerable
percentage of error.
According to Hong et al. (2018), there are 10 challenges in building performance

simulation. They are as follows:
Addressing the building performance gap: It refers to a difference between

the calculated energy requirements and the actual requirement for the
building.
Modeling the human–building interaction for occupant-centric building
design and operation: Many models have been developed to represent the
human interaction of the occupants in the room. Even though these models
are based on hypothetical situations, the final function of the building is not
always similar as modeled.
Model calibration: The aim is to improve the accuracy of energy models in
buildings through experimental data. However, these data are not easy to
obtain, so usually, an international criterion is used by the ASHRAE.
Modeling building operations, controls, and retrofits: It is about the
improvements and about modeling the improvements that can be made to
the building and optimize its performance.
Modeling operational faults in existing buildings: It refers to model the poor
maintenance of equipment and the envelope in the building.
Zero net energy buildings and grid responsive building.
Urban building energy modeling.
Modeling the national or regional impacts of building energy efficiency.
Modeling the adoption of energy-efficient technologies.
Integrated building performance simulation.
CFD and energy balance models are used for different purposes. CFD is usually
used to analyze the temperature and velocity distributions and flow patterns inside
buildings. On the contrary, BES models are frequently used to determine annual
heating and cooling energy loads of buildings. Therefore, as the BES and CFD
model different things, they are not direct alternatives to each other, but rather
complement each other’s weaknesses. These differences originate from Negrão
(1998), who proposed that both computational tools could work together to take
advantage of the qualities (BES and CFD tools) and thus complement each other.
This advantage gave rise to the building energy simulation–computational fluid
dynamics (BES–CFD) coupling techniques. In a recent work, Tian et al. (2018)
described mathematically the different types of coupling, as well as the works
focused on developing these techniques. Subsequently, they described the various
ways in which information can be exchanged, either by reading an external file or
by a third program that allows interaction between BES and CFD. Finally, the
authors mention the current applications of the coupling technique in the calcula-
tion of energy requirements in buildings. Kato (2018) and Kato and Zhang (2014)
described the different approaches between the CFD and network models for dif-
ferent scenarios. They described the different network models and their implemen-
tation in the calculations of heat transfer in buildings mathematically. They divided
the coupling studies into two kinds: one focus in the CFD analysis with network
model as an auxiliary program to obtain better boundary conditions, and the other
is focused on the network model with CFD as an auxiliary to obtain better bound-
ary conditions. The authors discussed the main disadvantage of coupling CFD and
network models, which occurs when using the network models as the main pro-
gram and the CFD as an auxiliary. With this method, the process requires more
computational resources and time than those required when using only network
models.
In this work, we describe how the coupling between BES and CFD has evolved
so that readers can have a general understanding of what a BES–CFD coupling is
and when it is convenient for the researcher to carry it out. The information was
reviewed in such a way that all the possible ways in which the coupling can be car-
ried out are shown. Furthermore, it also discusses the different types of coupling
and how these methods benefited the prediction of thermal loads, the prediction of
ventilation of buildings, the prediction of the behavior of passive systems, among
others. Because most of the studies available in the literature have used the coupling
BES–CFD method to analyze the behavior of indoor conditions in buildings, this
article is focused on internal flow simulations. However, it also contains a small sec-
tion about studies on urban design, which deals with the application of BES–CFD
methods for external flow.
BES–CFD coupling
The coupling between BES and CFD occurs through an exchange of
information, which usually leads to better values of convective coefficients on the
part of the BES and better temperature, pressure, and velocity conditions on the
part of the CFD. Currently, the literature classifies BES–CFD coupling methods
as:
Internal or external. Depending if the coupling is through new modules cre-

ated by the user with CFD capacity in the BES, or if it is through an external
program communicated by a third program or by using reading files.
For its time step of operation. They can be static (one program converges
and supplies information to the other so that it reaches its convergence) or
dynamic which depends if the exchange of information is in each time step
(full dynamic) or for the next time step (quasi-dynamic).
Depending on the complexity of the problem and the type of coupling, a differ-
ent efficiency of computational resources and accuracy can be obtained. Figure 1
shows the main types of static coupling, while Figure 2 shows the types of dynamic
coupling.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Static coupling diagrams: (a) one way and (b) two way.
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Dynamic coupling diagrams: (a) full dynamic and (b) quasi-dynamic.
Development of BES–CFD coupling methods

As shown in the previous section, the mathematical models used by the BES con-
sider that the air inside each thermal zone has uniform temperature and pressure,
homogeneous properties, and so on. These ideal conditions do not always repre-
sent adequately the heat transfer phenomena involved in a building room. Thus,
BES software can underestimate or overestimate the energy requirements of a
building. Table 1 shows the studies that have compared the results provided by a
coupling method, either with experimental results or with results from other
Table 1. Development of BES–CFD coupling.
Reference Objective Data exchanged BES–CFD results BES–CFD results versus other
versus experimental results
results
Clarke Implemented a The BES provides wall Difference of 3% in the net

et al. (1995) method of internal wall mass flow of the room
Rodrı́guez-Vázquez et al.
coupling temperature. between two boundary

between BES conditions.
and CFD The net mass flow of the
through two room obtained with the
types of coupling methods was 17%
boundary greater than that obtained
conditions in a with the network approach.
building room.
Negrão (1998) Implemented a The BES provides In a room with isothermal
method of internal wall conditions, there is no
coupling temperature. significant difference
between BES The BES provides between the net mass flow
and CFD pressures to the CFD. obtained by coupling and
through two that obtained by the
types of network approach.
boundary In a room with non-
conditions for isothermal conditions, the
analyzing a maximum net mass flow
building room. obtained by coupling was
17% greater than that
obtained by network
approach.
(continued)
7
Table 1. Continued
8
results
Zhai et al. (2001) Proposed the The BES provides The CHTC obtained by
static and internal surface coupling is two times greater
dynamic temperatures and than that used by BES alone.
coupling and heating load. The cooling load obtained
tested the The CFD returns the with the coupling method
quasi-dynamic CHTC. was 10% greater than that
coupling in a obtained with BES.
room.
Zhai et al. (2002) Tested the The BES provides The thermal loads of cooling
quasi-dynamic indoor surface obtained by coupling are
and static two- temperature to the 13% greater than those
way coupling in CFD. obtained only by BES.
an office and an The CFD calculates
autodrome. the air temperature
distribution and
airflow.
Djunaedy Compared the The BES provides an CHTC obtained with the
et al. (2004c) internal and internal surface coupling method are 10–
external temperature. 14 W/m2 K higher that the
coupling. The CFD returns the CHTC obtained by empirical
CHTC. correlation.
Djunaedy Justified the The BES provides The maximum
et al. (2004b) application of internal surface difference of 15%
the external temperature to the in the room air
coupling. CFD. temperature
The CFD returns the between the
CHTC. external coupling
and measured data
(coupled method
higher).
Journal of Building Physics 00(0)
(continued)
Table 1. Continued
results
Djunaedy Analyzed The BES provides an A maximum

et al. (2005a) different mesh interior wall difference of 17%
size on the temperature in a was obtained in
CFD room. the energy

calculation and The CFD returns the consumption
its effect in the CHTC and calculated by
solution in a temperature near the means of coupling
BES–CFD wall. with respect to
coupling for a the experimental
test cell. results.
Djunaedy Evaluated the The BES provides wall The coupling The energy consumption
et al. (2005b) advantages of temperature to the methods provided from the coupling method
implementing CFD. an energy was 10% greater than the
an external The CFD returns the consumption 18% one provided by BES.
coupling in CHTC. smaller than the
energy value determined
requirements. experimentally.
Zhai and Described The BES provides The interior The energy consumption
Chen (2005) different interior wall temperature of a from the coupling method
coupling temperatures to the test room with was 10% greater than the
methods and CFD. and without one provided by BES.
validated with The CFD returns radiator obtained
experimental convective coefficients from a coupling
data. and internal method was 1%
temperature smaller than the
distribution to the experimental
BES. results.
(continued)
9
Table 1. Continued 10
results
Mirsadeghi Developed a The BES provides Maximum difference 6.5% in

et al. (2009) mechanism to surface temperatures the relative humidity of the
perform an and indoor humidity air node between the
external values to the CFD. coupled method and BES
coupling The CFD provides alone (coupled method
between BES convective and higher).
and CFD. humidity coefficients
to the BES.
Bouyer et al. (2011) Integrated CFD The CFD calculates The difference of 18% in
and SOLENE to the CHTC, air energy consumption in
evaluate the temperature, and net summer between coupled
effect of the humidity for SOLENE. method and BES alone
microclimatic The SOLENE (coupled method higher).
ambient in two software sends The difference of 28% in
urban surface temperatures, energy consumption in
methodologies. absorbed solar winter between coupled
radiation by method and BES alone
vegetation and latent (coupled method higher).
heat flow to the CFD.
Hiyama and Developed a The CFD calculates The difference of 15% in
Kato (2011) method that the air temperature daily cooling energy between
combined BES distribution and coupling method and CFD
and CFD using velocity inside the alone (coupled method
an answer room. These data are higher).
factor of introduced into the
advection and BES model to
diffusion. estimate the thermal
loads.
(continued)
Table 1. Continued
results
Qin et al. Tested a BES– The CFD calculates The maximum difference of
(2012) CFD coupling and provides interior 8% in the air temperature
with an ANN conditions, with which between coupling method
and its benefits ANN calculates and CFD alone (coupled

for estimating convection heat method most of the cases is
the thermal transfer to the BES. greater).
loads. The BES subsequently
calculates airflow, air
temperature, and
internal walls, which
are introduced to the
ANN.
Zhang Developed a The CFD calculates The difference of 24% in the
et al. (2012) procedure to and introduces airflow rates through
reduce specific heats and openings between BES and
computational mass transfer BES–CFD results (it is not
time in the coefficients to the BES specified if it is greater or
analysis of the model. lesser).
natural The BES calculates
ventilation of a and returns to CFD
building using a interior and exterior
BES–CFD conditions of the
coupling. enclosure as wall
temperature.
(continued)
11
results
Yi and Feng (2013) Studied The BES provides the CHTC obtained with the
different BES– CFD with boundary coupled method are 2–3
CFD coupling conditions times larger than those
methods for (temperature of obtained with empirical
outdoor exterior walls) and methods.
conditions to CFD returns to the The CHTC of the external
estimate the BES new exterior walls obtained by coupling
impact of heat convective are 12% smaller than those
flows in coefficients. reported in Clarke (2001).
buildings.
Zhang et al. Implemented The EnergyPlus sends Difference between 28% and
(2013a) and tested a external dry bulb 37% in thermal resistance
coupling temperature, wind between empirical and
between BES speed and interior coupled results (values from
(EnergyPlus) surface temperature coupling method are lower).
and CFD to CFD.
through a The CFD returns to
BCVTB BES airflow and heat
platform. transfer coefficients.
Zhang et al. Presented an The CFD calculates The difference of 20% in the
(2013b) alternative way the indoor CHTC and thermal loads between the
to integrate it is sent to BES. coupled method and non-
CFD and BES The CFD calculates coupled method (coupled
to analyze the the temperature method lower).
energy demand distribution inside the
of a room by room.
implementing
natural and
mechanical
ventilation in a
warm season.
(continued)
Table 1. Continued
results
Barbason and Developed a The BES sends the The maximum difference of
Reiter (2014) BES–CFD internal surface 5% in the inner room
coupling temperature and the temperature between the
scheme focused mass flow to the CFD. coupled method and BES
on improving The CFD provides the alone (coupled method
the prediction CHTC and average lower).
of heating of temperature to the
buildings. BES.
Han et al. (2015) Evaluated three CFD calculates and The maximum difference of
methods to introduces detailed 20% in monthly electricity
calculate the airflow patterns and use with different infiltration
infiltration in air pressure rates between coupled
buildings and its coefficients to a method and BES alone
effect on the multizone model. (coupled method sometimes
precision of the is greater and other is
results of the lower).
BES.
Charisi Evaluated three CFD calculates and The air infiltration
et al. (2017) different introduces pressure rates are up to
approximations coefficients to the BES 13% smaller than
of pressure model. those from
coefficient in experimental data.
the estimation
of air
infiltration for
buildings.
(continued)
13
results
Yamamoto Implemented a BES calculates and The difference of

et al. (2018) method to sends to CFD the 0.2% in the room
calculate the interior surface air temperature
temperature temperatures and between the
distribution in a heat fluxes. coupled method
room using a CFD calculates and measurement
BES–CFD CHTCs and net mass data (coupled
coupling to flow and sends them method lower).
obtain better to the BES.
convective
coefficients for
the BES.
Zhang et al. (2018) Developed a The BES provides The difference of 27% in the
coupling surface temperatures cooling demand energy
method to to the CFD and CFD between the coupled
improve calculates CHTC to method and the BES alone.
analysis of use them into the (coupled method higher).
convective heat BES.
transfer in
urban
neighborhoods
using more
accurate
convective
coefficients.
(continued)
Table 1. Continued
results
Shirzadi et al. Proposed the The CFD calculates The difference of 45% and
(2019) use of pressure coefficients, 60% in the airflow rate and
experimental local wind velocity, CHTC, respectively,

and numerical and airflow through between the coupled
data in BES– openings between method and BES alone.
CFD coupling buildings.
methods, with
the aim of
improving the
accuracy in the
analysis of
cross
ventilation in
urban
morphologies
BES–CFD: building energy simulation–computational fluid dynamics; CHTC: convective heat transfer coefficient; ANN: artificial neural networks; BCVTB: building
controls virtual test bed.
15
theoretical tools. This table indicates that the surface temperatures and the convec-
tive heat transfer coefficient (CHTC) are the variables most used for the exchange
of information when coupling BES and CFD tools. The percentage differences of
the results obtained with a BES–CFD coupling vary depending on the variable
studied and against which method of analysis is compared. In a study of energy
analysis in buildings, the thermal loads can be between 10% and 30% higher than
the results obtained from standalone BES, while this difference can be 10% and
20% lower with respect to experimental results. On the contrary, when analyzing
indoor air temperature in a room, the difference between the results from a BES–
CFD coupling and experimental ones are ranging between 1% and 15%. These
percentage differences are essential because the CHTC in the interior walls and the
airflow obtained by CFD are about 50% higher than those used by a standalone
BES. This significant variation is due to the non-uniformity in the temperature
(air, interior walls, etc.) and airflow, which are considered uniform in the BES
models, which does not occur in reality. If the coupling is implemented for study-
ing more extensive phenomena, such as the morphology of urban buildings or the
microclimatic effects, a percentage difference ranges between 20% and 60% of the
variables for different variables involved as CHTC, air temperature, thermal loads,
among others.
Due to the need to treat conditions as non-uniform, in 1990 Clarke and Tang
(1995) proposed a doctoral project to integrate the CFD technique into the BES
software ESP-r with the aim of improving the capacity of energy simulators
through the use of mass, momentum, and energy equations. Negrão (1995), who
carried out this project, proposed three coupling schemes in which CFD and BES
could work together. These were: (i) Simple scheme that consists of the interaction
and exchange of information indirectly between BES and CFD (they exchange
information after the convergence); (ii) Thermal scheme in which there is more
direct interaction and exchange of information between BES and CFD (they
exchange information after each time step); and (iii) Momentum scheme in which
the mass flow equations of the BES is combined with the momentum equation of
CFD. In the simple and thermal coupling schemes, the BES and CFD programs
exchange the interior surface temperature, the air temperature, and the CHTC.
While in the momentum coupling scheme, the BES and CFD exchange mass flow
rate and air pressure. The thermal and momentum schemes were validated using
analytical, inter-model, and empirical solutions, whose results of the schemes vary
61% with respect to the analytical and intermodal, and 68% with the empirical
ones. The results showed that from the three coupling schemes, the simple scheme,
in which the interior surface temperature and the CHTC are exchanged, is the sim-
plest to implement because both programs work independently; however, this
method decreases the accuracy of the results compared with the other more sophis-
ticated methods of coupling. The two remaining proposed schemes (thermal and
momentum), however, showed that each method is more complicated than the pre-
vious one; nevertheless, using a more complicated approach brings better accuracy
in the results. During the development of his thesis, a publication was developed
by Clarke et al. (1995), and later in 1998, an article about his research was pub-
lished by Negrão (1998). This point allows us to know that the coupling between
both methods is possible; however, the complexity that can be presented in its
implementation can vary according to the type of BES–CFD coupling method.
Subsequently, Beausoleil-Morrison (2000) developed his doctoral thesis study in
which the author proposed an adaptive method of coupling between BES and
CFD. For the study, the researcher suggested a logic controller that selects the best
parameters that optimize the coupling method. In this proposal, the BES provides
boundary conditions (surface temperature or heat flow) to the CFD, and this pro-
vides better estimation of the convective coefficients. The controller, on the con-
trary, analyzes the airflow regime and the type of boundary to be implemented for
the modeling, in this way optimizing the computational performance of the CFD.
In this method, the author introduced the concept of communication in one direc-
tion and two directions of the BES–CFD coupling. Beausoleil-Morrison tested this
method in one case study to evaluate an heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) system in the ventilation of an office, where it proved to be able to solve
problems with realistic operating conditions in a room effectively. For the valida-
tion of this method, the authors compared the results provided by the coupling
method with analytical results (cooling tube case), with domain in CFD (test room
from Olson et al., 1990), and with empirical results. Based on the results of the the-
sis, he subsequently published an article in the Journal of Energy and Buildings
(Beausoleil-Morrison, 2002).
The modeling of non-uniform flows with CFD requires high consumption of
computational resources and time, so it arose the need to seek alternatives that
could reduce the use of computational resources. The BES–CFD coupling tech-
nique is one of these alternatives. Srebric et al. (2000) coupled BES and CFD pro-
grams to calculate the hour-by-hour distributions of airflow, thermal comfort, and
thermal loads of a house and an Atrium in Boston for the warmest and coldest
days of the year. For the coupling, the authors used the energy analysis program,
ACCURACY, to provide the CFD model boundary conditions as interior wall
surface temperatures to calculate non-uniform airflows inside the building. To vali-
date the coupling method, the authors used experimental data from an environ-
mental chamber and several references as Srebric et al. (1999), Chen et al. (1999)
and Chen and Kooi (1988). With this coupling technique, the CFD calculated
faster the internal conditions of the building, such as temperature and air velocity
or moisture content compared with a conjugate CFD model. The computational
time used by the coupling lasted 3 h. Between the years 2001 and 2005, Zhai
Zhianq mentioned that the main element that links a BES with CFD is the CHTC.
Thus, the main problem was how to carry out the coupling through the CHTC.
Therefore, Zhai et al. conducted several studies in which they proposed and tested
various coupling methods between BES and CFD because there are certain discon-
tinuities when coupling BES with CFD, which are: (i) scale of time, (ii) modeling,
and (iii) speed and memory. To solve these problems, Zhai proposed two coupling
strategies called static coupling (one or two directions) and dynamic coupling (one
step of time, quasi-dynamic, fully dynamic, and virtually dynamic). A static cou-
pling, however, do not require the exchange of information between BES and
CFD continuously, and the interaction between both programs is occasional in
certain time step. On the contrary, a dynamic coupling requires exchange and con-
tinuous interaction between each time step. In 2001, Zhai et al. (2001) coupled
CFD with buildings energy simulators, where the authors proposed two methods
of coupling which they call static and dynamic coupling. The authors tested a
quasi-dynamic coupling analysis in an office in Boston for the winter season. For
the coupling, BES provides surface temperature to the model in CFD, which
returns to BES air temperature and CHTC. The results showed that the quasi-
dynamic coupling optimizes the process, provides satisfactory results, and ade-
quately uses computational resources, with a total computation time of 83 s. The
analysis of the building indicated, however, that when using the BES–CFD cou-
pling, the thermal loads increase 9.4% compared with the loads determined by the
standalone BES because the CHTC calculated by CFD is 50% greater than that
used by the BES. In this research, there is no comparison of the results with experi-
mental data, but because CFD simulations consider additional aspects such as air-
flow movement and non-uniform air temperature within a building room, one
expects better results from the BES–CFD coupling method than a BES alone.
Because modeling by implementing CFD is closely related to the boundary con-
ditions that are provided to the model, and because BES models require a more
precise CHTC; in the work published by Zhai et al. (2002), one of the objectives
was to know which coupling method is more appropriate for certain situations.
Thus, the authors analyzed two types of buildings (office and Autodrome) by
implementing the quasi-dynamic and static couplings in two directions. In these
coupling methods, the BES provides indoor surface temperature to the CFD, while
the CFD calculates the distribution of temperature and airflow in different time
steps (quasi-dynamic) and at each convergence BES–CFD–BES (static in two
directions). The results showed that the coupling improves by 10% the prediction
of thermal energy in both cases, as well as a faster convergence by the CFD (83 s
for the office analyzed). The convective coefficient in the office by means of the
coupling was 50% greater than that obtained by only standalone BES, while that
of the autodrome reaches up to 100 times greater compared with that obtained
only with BES. The authors also concluded that the static coupling is recommend-
able for situations where the conditions do not change abruptly in short periods.
On the contrary, where the condition changes abruptly, the dynamic coupling is
more recommendable.
Later in 2003, Zhai and Chen (2003) proposed that the final solution of a phe-
nomenon studied by a type of BES–CFD coupling is independent of what informa-
tion both programs exchange and only affects the amount of time and
computational resources. Therefore, Zhai and Chen (2003) studied four different
methods of information exchange between BES and CFD, which were implemen-
ted to analyze a simple room model, using a dynamic coupling in a step of time.
The information exchanged consists mainly of surface temperature, convective
coefficient, and convective heat flow. The authors concluded that the method
called 1 (BES provides interior surface temperature to the CFD, and this returns
CHTC and indoor temperature distribution) is more stable than the rest of the
methods and also requires a lower computational resource achieving convergence
in 85 s. However, regardless of the coupling, the solution obtained by the BES–
CFD coupling is unique.
In 2004, because the studies carried out in CFD must go through a verification
process to obtain appropriate modeling parameters (among which are those of
mesh independence), Zhai and Chen (2004) analyzed the effect of mesh size imple-
mented by CFD in the CHTC calculation during the coupling between BES and
CFD. The authors examined different mesh sizes for laminar and turbulent flow
over a plate and natural and forced convection in a room, the results obtained by
the coupling were compared with analytical results and experimental results for a
chamber with the sidewall jet. The results showed that, when using zero equation
models, a finer meshing does not always lead to a more accurate solution. The
authors concluded that for a room with airflow in natural convection, a mesh with
a spacing of 0.005 m between nodes is sufficient to provide results with good preci-
sion; while for airflow in forced convection, they suggest a mesh of 0.1 m of space
between nodes.
Zhai and Chen (2005) briefly described the different coupling methods up to that
date, later validating them with four experimental cases from a test cell obtained in
the literature. The results of its validation showed that the temperature calculated
by the coupling varies around 1% compared with that reported experimentally.
Once the method was validated, the authors simulated a complex of racecars to test
the implementation of the method for the estimation of the cooling loads of large
spaces. The authors implemented the quasi-dynamic coupling, where BES supplies
interior surface temperatures to the CFD, and this returns CHTC and internal tem-
perature distribution to the BES. The results of their study showed that the cooling
loads obtained from the BES–CFD coupling are 10% higher than those obtained
from a standalone BES, which is significant for the study since, according to the
authors, 1% can represent up to 300 kW of thermal energy. The results of their
research showed that the coupling produces more precise and detailed results for
two reasons: (i) CFD receives more detailed and accurate boundary conditions and
(ii) BES obtains CHTCs more accurate than those calculated analytically.
During a similar period that comprised between 2002 and 2005, Djunaedy
(2005) developed a doctoral thesis project, which had two main objectives: (i) to
generate guidelines regarding the need or applicability of the coupling between
BES and CFD in the design of buildings and other systems, and (ii) to develop a
cooperative design prototype between BES and CFD for the optimization of
energy performance in buildings and interior conditions. To meet these objectives,
Djunaedy developed a methodology (called coupling procedure decision methodol-
ogy (CPMD)) which helps in making decisions to select if a CFD coupling is
required in the simulation and the complexity of the coupling. In addition, he pro-
posed a coupling mechanism that works with the coupling principles already
established but implemented differently. Based on this, Djunaedy categorizes the

couplings into two main types: internal coupling and external coupling. The inter-
nal coupling allows the energy simulation programs to be computationally flexible
and gives some freedom to simulate the behavior of the fluid and its interaction
with the solid components. Two or more equations are solved separately, and they
exchange information during the coupling process, in this way, the calculation
work is divided between BES and CFD obtaining a better use of the computational
resources. In the internal coupling, modules are created (the energy simulators
have the option of the user creating their tools according to their needs). The main
disadvantage of this type of coupling is that once the module with the CFD capac-
ity has been created, verified and validated, it cannot be modified, so if one wants
to expand its modeling capacity, a new module must be designed and performed
the whole process of verification and validation again. External coupling, on the
contrary, is defined as the exchange of information between two programs that
work simultaneously in a particular period and only when it is necessary. The
exchange of information between the BES and CFD programs is through an exter-
nal mechanism between the two programs, either through a text file or through
some other communication process. From his doctoral project, several publications
were published in international journals (Djunaedy et al., 2003a, 2003b, 2004a,
2004b, 2004c, 2004d).
Later, Djunaedy et al. (2005a) evaluated the advantages of implementing an
external coupling in energy requirements by simulating a test module in
Bedfordshire, United Kingdom. The authors compared the results of the external
coupling with results obtained by internal coupling and empirical correlations pro-
posed by different authors and experimental results. The results showed that an
external coupling has higher heat transfer convective coefficients than the
uncoupled model and more realistic than the results obtained with empirical corre-
lations. The energy consumption calculated by the internal and external coupling
were the closest to those measured experimentally, whose difference with this is
17%. However, the computational time of the external coupling was 90% smaller
than the internal coupling, reducing the computational time from 10 h to 23 min.
In that same year, Djunaedy et al. (2005b) evaluated the advantages of perform-
ing a BES–CFD coupling, in the analysis of the effect of a thermoactive concrete
core system for cooling and heating a room. For the study, the authors implemen-
ted a coupling between BES–CFD at each time step, where CFD calculates the
CHTC of the internal walls using boundary conditions provided by BES (wall tem-
perature and amount of heat extracted and inserted). The CHTC of the walls
obtained from the coupling was compared with the results obtained only with BES
and with values reported in the literature, which were 50% higher than the results
only with BES and 25% lower than those reported in the literature.
Up to this point, it is observed that the benefit that one can obtain by coupling
BES–CFD in the analysis of energy requirements and the analysis of indoor tem-
peratures in buildings either in the precision of the results and computation time,
no matter which type of coupling method is chosen. However, we should not forget
that the different coupling methods work better for specific cases as Zhai found in
his research (Zhai and Chen, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Zhai et al., 2001, 2002).
On the contrary, Zhang et al. (2013b) presented an alternative way of integrating
CFD and BES to analyze the energy demand of a room by implementing natural
and mechanical ventilation. The authors used a quasi-dynamic coupling in which
TRNSYS calculated the CHTCs on the walls of the room. This information was
sent to the CFD to determine the air temperature distribution inside the room. The
results showed that the cooling loads obtained from the coupling were between
15% and 20% lower than those obtained from the standalone BES. The main
assumption in the BES implemented models is to suppose that the air inside a room
has a uniform temperature, thus Barbason and Reiter (2014) developed a BES–
CFD coupling scheme focused on improving the prediction of heating energy
demand for a building with 10 rooms in Belgium. This research was developed with
the aim to check if the assumption of constant temperature is suitable for large
rooms and how the BES–CFD coupling can help in this calculation. The coupling
consisted of a quasi-dynamic by transferring the internal surface temperature, and
the mass flow of the BES (TRNSYS) to the CFD, and then the CFD provides the
CHTCs and average air temperature to the BES to optimize the computation time
and resources. The authors made a comparison between the BES model and the
BES–CFD coupled model with experimental data, in which they concluded that
the BES could not model the thermal behavior of the entire building by itself
because of the limitations of the program. On the contrary, the coupled model can
have exact results anywhere within the building, in 4 h with an error smaller than
5% for temperatures. According to Yamamoto et al. (2018), for a model in BES to
perform a study in very large spaces, such as an Atrium, the space must be divided
into arbitrary zones which makes the process difficult since the amount of advec-
tion between zones is not known. For this reason, they implemented BES–CFD
method to determine the temperature distribution and the thermal load in a room.
In the coupling strategy, the BES calculated the interior surface temperatures and
heat fluxes, which were loaded as boundary conditions to the CFD. Then, the
CFD was used to determine the CHTCs (CHTC) and mass flow rate, which were
loaded into the BES. To validate their results obtained by the coupling, the authors
simulated the natural ventilation experiment of Barbason et al. (2014), where the
results obtained by means of coupling differ in 0.3% from the experimentally mea-
sured data. The researchers compared the results of the coupling method with those
obtained only with BES, and they found that BES alone overestimates the CHTC
values by about 25%, which also produces a room air temperature difference
between 4°C and 5°C greater than the temperatures obtained by the coupled
method.
Many of the studies where the BES–CFD coupling was implemented analyzed
interior conditions in buildings without taking into account the external environ-
ment. For this reason, Yi and Feng (2013) studied different coupling methods for
outdoor conditions between BES and CFD to determine the impact of the heat
flows on buildings. The authors implemented a quasi-dynamic coupling with a
10 min time step to evaluate the warmest day and the coldest day of a typical year.
The BES provides the boundary conditions (temperature of exterior surfaces and
weather data) to the CFD, and this returns new external convective coefficients to
the BES. The results showed that the convective coefficients loaded into the BES
when using the coupling were between two and three times higher than those values
that the BES uses by default. The CHTC of the external walls were compared with
those reported in the literature, which differ by 12%, while the empirical results dif-
fer by about 70%. Later, Zhang et al. (2018) used a dynamic method between CFD
and energy models (BES) to improve the analysis of the convective heat transfer in
urban neighborhoods. In the coupling, the BES provides external surface tempera-
tures and the CFD calculates and integrates the new CHTC into the BES. The
results of the study showed that the difference in the heat flow and the convective
energy is 74% and 64%, respectively, compared with those obtained by the BES
alone. The authors also obtained a maximum difference of 20% compared with
unique algorithms to calculate CHTC.
Other works such as Mirsadeghi et al. (2009) integrated a model of effective
depth of penetration of moisture (made in FLUENT), to take into account the
interior fraction of water vapor of the room in the BES (ESP-r) using a quasi-
dynamic coupling. In the coupling, BES provides surface temperatures and moist-
ure content to CFD and this returns convective and moisture coefficients to BES.
The authors concluded that the relative humidity and the convective moisture
transfer coefficient tend to be higher through the coupling than that obtained from
the BES. Bouyer et al. (2011) in addition to the surface temperature and the
CHTC began to implement global radiation, mass flow and heat to evaluate the
effect of the microclimatic environment in the external ventilation in two different
urban morphologies implemented a quasi-dynamic coupling, where they developed
a thermal model in buildings in SOLENE. For the coupling, CFD calculates
CHTC, external air temperature and net mass flow for model in SOLENE, and
this returns to CFD, the temperature of external walls, the absorbed global radia-
tion, and the latent heat flux. Using the coupled model, the researchers estimated
that an urban area with vegetation reduces energy consumption about 10.5% and
9.6% in winter and summer, respectively compared with an urban area without
vegetation. Hiyama and Kato (2011) integrated an advection and diffusion
response factor through a BES–CFD coupling, to calculate the distribution of tem-
perature and air velocity and their influence on the energy demand of a building
room. The authors implemented a coupling in which CFD calculates the tempera-
ture and velocity of the indoor air to be later used by the BES model to calculate
thermal loads. Compared to the model without integrated CFD calculations, the
proposed method showed a variation in thermal loads of 77 kW h, 14% greater
than the results obtained with full CFD. However, unlike other coupling strategies
that only consider the behavior of the air in a steady-state this coupling method
can examine it in a transient state. Zhang et al. (2013a) developed a procedure to
introduce the specific heats and the mass transfer coefficients to a BES model
(EnergyPlus) by a CFD model. The authors showed that the coupling reduced
computational time by 90% compared with a full CFD study and the results are
35% more accurate than those provided when using only EnergyPlus alone. Han
et al. (2015) compared three different approaches for the calculation of air infiltra-
tion, and its effect on the monthly thermal loads of a building in Saginaw, MI,
USA. The authors compared the infiltration rate calculated by a BES–CFD cou-
pling with those obtained with the default values of BES. In the coupling, through
fluid dynamics, they calculated and introduced detailed airflow patterns and air
pressure coefficients to a multizone model in which the infiltration is estimated.
The results obtained using a coupled model showed a maximum difference close to
12% compared with those obtained using the database and more accurate than the
results obtained by default values of air infiltration. Charisi et al. (2017) evaluated
three different methods to determine the air infiltration rate, to predict the indoor
air temperature of a building. They carried out a static BES–CFD coupling and
compared the results obtained with the coupling with those obtained using the
CFD tool in DesignBuilder and OpenFOAM. The results showed that the
OpenFOAM–DesignBuilder coupling provided the most precise values of inner air
temperature because they had a difference of 2% compared with experimental
data. Recently, Shirzadi et al. (2019) proposed the use of experimental and numeri-
cal data in the BES–CFD coupling methods, with the aim of improving their accu-
racy in the analysis of cross-ventilation in urban morphologies. For the study, the
authors introduced experimental data of airflow into the CFD, and then CFD cal-
culated pressure coefficients, local wind speed, and airflow through the openings
between buildings. In this way, the authors found that the results of the coupled
model differ on average by 50% with those obtained by the BES alone.
In 2012, researchers with the aim of facilitating the coupling between BES and
CFD used a third program that would serve as an interface between both methods.
Qin et al. (2012) tested a coupling strategy that integrates BES, and artificial neural
networks (ANN), and its benefits in the analysis of cooling load of an atrium in
Hong Kong. In the coupling, the CFD calculates and provides inner wall tempera-
tures and airflow distribution, which are used to calculate the CHTCs with the
ANN, and then those coefficients are introduced in the BES. The BES subsequently
calculates airflow, air temperature, and interior wall temperatures, which all are
loaded into the ANN. The results provided by the coupling method showed a dif-
ference between 1°C and 3°C compared with the results obtained with CFD alone
for the indoor air temperature of the Atrium. Later, Zhang et al. (2013a) implemen-
ted and tested a coupling between BES (EnergyPlus) and CFD, through a building
controls virtual test bed (BCVTB) platform for a building in Philadelphia, PA,
USA. The technique they implemented was a static coupling in two directions. The
study consisted of modeling the heat transfer and airflow by natural ventilation,
where the results of the coupled model were compared with three algorithms for
calculating the CHTC. The results showed that the algorithms had greater external
heat transfer coefficient than the coupled model. Thus, the airflow through an
opening for natural ventilation determined with the three algorithms was between
100% and 200% higher than the airflow from the coupled model. The study con-
cluded that the coupled model is flexible, configurable, and simple.
The benefits of implementing a BES–CFD coupling are clear in terms of the pre-
diction of energy requirements and indoor air temperature of buildings; however,
two questions may still arise, that are: ‘‘How complex it can be to carry out the cou-
pling and what other variables can be implemented other than those mentioned?’’
and ‘‘Will the information that is exchanged between the BES and CFD models
affect in some way the final result?’’ This is analyzed in section ‘‘Comparison of sev-
eral types of coupling.’’
Comparison of several types of coupling

As shown in the previous section, the coupling between CFD and energy simula-
tors in rooms offers many mutual advantages in the design and thermal analysis of
buildings. Due to these advantages, researchers developed several coupling meth-
ods between BES and CFD; however, depending on the complexity of the cou-
pling, there will be a difference between the computational resources used for the
accuracy of the result, stability, and speed (Zhai et al., 2001) Due to these differ-
ences, in 2004 Novoselac (2005) studied different methods of coupling between
BES and CFD. In the proposed methods, the BES provided internal surface tem-
peratures from which the CFD calculates airflow for an HVAC system that is
introduced to the BES model. The authors showed that the results of the three
types of coupling (static, quasi-dynamic, and full dynamic) do not present signifi-
cant differences. However, the full dynamic coupling requires more computational
resources, time, and iterations (CFD) than the other two coupling methods but it
is more accurate. The quasi-dynamic coupling, on the contrary, is easier to imple-
ment than the dynamic coupling, but requires small time steps to reduce the devia-
tion or error with respect to results from full CFD simulation. The static coupling
requires fewer resources and computational iterations and is more stable than
quasi-dynamic and full dynamic couplings. Later, between 2007 and 2008, some
authors (Wang and Chen, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Wang and Wong, 2008) analyzed
different methods for the information exchange between BES and CFD. The vari-
ables used in their study were pressure and airflow, which were exchanged differ-
ently between BES and CFD. The authors showed that the results provided by the
different methods had no significant differences. However, the computational cost
and the instability that may exist between the exchanges of information may vary
from method to method.
It was not until the study carried out by Zhai and Chen (2006) that the three
main questions were answered regarding a BES–CFD coupling: (i) When is a cou-
pling between fluid dynamics and energy simulator necessary? (ii) What type of
coupling should be implemented? and (iii) What time step should be used? To
answer these questions, the authors carried out a sensitivity study on the factors
that influence the coupling when calculating the energy requirements in buildings.
For their study, the authors analyzed the ventilation of an office with different
HVAC systems in summer, in which the four types of coupling between BES and
CFD were carried out (full dynamic, quasi-dynamic, one-time-step dynamic, and
dynamic bin).
The results of their study allowed the authors to propose basic rules that can
serve as a guide for the implementation of couplings between BES and CFD. These
rules are as follows:
The static and quasi-dynamic coupling in a step of time, its implementation

is recommended in cases where the temperature and the movement of the
indoor air do not present very significant changes due to the influence of the
external conditions (buildings with a high level of insulation).
On the contrary, when external conditions or ventilation devices have a more
significant influence on the temperature and airflow outside, it is advisable
to use a dynamic coupling.
The quasi-dynamic coupling and the full dynamic can present very similar
results, but the quasi-dynamic coupling requires less computational resources
than the full dynamic. However, this is only possible in cases where the air-
flow does not have significant changes in every time step. Otherwise, the
CFD in the quasi-dynamic coupling will require more iterations to achieve
convergence, and that decreases the computational time-saving.
The time step in the exchange of information between the two programs is
often every 2 h; however, a smaller time step such as every hour (in some
studies they have implemented 15-min steps) is also recommended.
The coupling may not be necessary for the modeling and simulation of days
in the cold season, because the external conditions are relatively constant.
However, on warm-weather days, it is highly recommended to implement
some coupling technique, especially in buildings with high thermal mass.
BES–CFD coupling application studies in the

energy analysis of buildings
Thanks to the efforts of the diverse authors as mentioned in the previous sections,
the coupling BES–CFD presents many advantages to optimize the calculations of
energy requirements in buildings. After the computational verification period of the
coupling, this technique has been applied to the following fields:
Building envelope.
Mechanical and passive systems for buildings.
Natural ventilation for buildings.
Urban design.
Table 2 present the studies carried out over 14 years, in which most have focused
on studying the effect of different arrangements of a set of buildings (urban design)
26
Table 2. Works that used a BES–CFD coupling for a case study.
Reference Type of coupling Type of study Programs Information exchanged between the programs
Sreshthaputra Full dynamic Natural CFD-DOE2 The BES provides thermal conductivity, solar gain, and
et al. (2004) ventilation the surface temperature of walls and roof to the CFD.
The CFD provides convective coefficients to the BES.
Gao et al. Full dynamic Mechanical CFD-Berkeley The CFD calculates the air conditions from the desk
(2006) systems Comfort Model (temperature, velocity, and contaminant
concentration).
Berkeley calculates the skin temperature, heat flux, and
energy losses from sweating.
Pappas and Zhai Full dynamic Double facade PHOENICS- The BES provides glazing surface temperature, and
(2008) EnergyPlus heat flow of shading devices to the CFD.
The CFD provides convective coefficient for glazing,
and temperatures and airflow to the BES.
Villi et al. (2009) Quasi-dynamic Roofs Fluent- The CFD provides indoor convective coefficients to
EnergyPlus the BES.
Haupt et al. Quasi-dynamic Passive systems CFD-Radtherm The Radtherm provides surface temperatures of the
(2010) walls to the CFD.
The CFD provides convective coefficients to the
Radtherm.
Pan et al. (2010) Static one way Facade Fluent- The BES provides the heat flux to the CFD.
EnergyPlus
Yi and Malkawi, Static one way Urban design Fluent- The CFD provides temperature, velocity, and wind
(2011) EnergyPlus direction to a neural network (NN) and this NN
provides specific weather conditions to the BES.
Allegrini et al. Quasi-dynamic Urban design Fluent-TRNSYS The BES provides surface temperatures to the CFD.
(2012) The CFD provides convective coefficients to the BES.
Fan and Ito Full dynamic Mechanical Fluent-TRNSYS The CFD provides air temperature distribution and
(2012) systems the air velocity of the thermal zone, and the air
temperature at the inlet of the A/C to the BES.
The BES sends the air temperature of the air supplied
the AC and the heat flow of the walls.
(continued)
Table 2. Continued
Yi and Malkawi Quasi-dynamic Urban design BES–CFD The CFD provides convective coefficients, velocity,
(2012) direction, and wind temperature to the BES.
Asciones et al. Static one way Mechanical Fluent-DOE2 The BES provides heat flow of the walls, net volumetric
(2013) systems flow, and air conditions to the CFD.
Gijón-Rivera et Static one way Glazing CFD-ESP-r/ The CFD provides the convective coefficients to the
al. (2013) TRNSYS BES.

Gowreesunker Quasi-dynamic Passive and Fluent-TRNSYS The BES provides weather data, heat gains, and an air
et al. (2013) mechanical temperature of the equipment to the CFD.
systems The CFD provides the temperature of the thermal
zone to the BES.
Fan and Ito Full dynamic Mechanical Fluent-TRNSYS The BES provides temperatures and velocity of the air
(2014a) systems and net generation of CO2 to the CFD.
The CFD provides the outlet temperature of the air
and CO2 concentration of the system and the thermal
zone to the CFD.
Fan and Ito Full dynamic Mechanical Fluent-TRNSYS The BES provides temperatures and velocity of the air
(2014b) systems and net generation of CO2 to the CFD.
The CFD provides the outlet temperature of the air
and CO2 concentration of the system and the thermal
zone to the CFD.
Liu et al. (2014) Static-one way Urban design Fluent- The CFD calculates the wind velocity and pressure
EnergyPlus which are loaded to the BES.
Allegrini et al. Static one way Urban design OpenFOAM- The BES provides temperatures of the surfaces and the
(2015) CitySim ground.
The CFD provides convective coefficients to the BES.
Du et al. (2015) Full dynamic Mechanical CFD-TRNSYS The BES provides thermal loads, temperature and
systems airflow to the CFD.
The CFD provides temperature and velocity
distribution of the air in the zone to the BES.
Li and Li (2015) Full dynamic Natural CFD-Dest Vent The BES provides surface temperatures, weather data,
ventilation Plus and wind velocity to the CFD.
27
(continued)
28
Table 2. Continued
Piscia et al. Static-one way Natural Fluent-ES The CFD provides convective coefficients to the BES.
(2015) ventilation
Liu et al. (2015) No specified Urban design Fluent- The CFD calculates convective coefficients and
EnergyPlus provides them to the BES so that it calculates the
energy consumption of the building.
Alnusairat et al. Static two way Facade WindAir-HTB2 The BES calculates the convective coefficients on the
(2017) walls, the conditions of the indoor and outdoor air,
and the indoor heat gains.
The CFD calculates the airflow through ventilation.
Hong et al. No specified Natural EnergyPlus- The CFD calculates the indoor temperature
(2017) ventilation Starccm distribution of the building.
The BES calculates the energy consumption.
Kong et al. Static two way Facade CFD–BES The BES calculates convective coefficients on the walls,
(2017) conditions of indoor and outdoor air, and internal
energy gains
The CFD calculates and sends to the BES the
ventilation airflow.
Colombo et al. Full dynamic Double facade. IDA ICE-Star The BES provides surface temperatures to the CFD.
(2017) CMM + The CFD calculates heat flow for the BES.
Li and Jing Static one way Solar energy TRNSYS-CFD The BES provides ambient temperature and solar
(2017) irradiance to the CFD.
Allegrini and Static one way Urban design OpenFOAM- The BES provides walls surface temperatures to the CFD
Carmeliet CitySim as boundary conditions.
(2018)
Toparlar et al. No specified Urban design Fluent- The CFD calculates air temperature of surfaces (wall,
(2018) EnergyPlus roof, and streets) to generate microclimatic conditions.
The BES calculates cooling energy demand for different
cases.
BES: building energy simulations; CFD: computational fluid dynamics.

Figure 3. Implementation of the BES–CFD coupling through the years.
in indoor conditions. Figure 3 shows that the number of publications for this type
of study was not very frequent between 2004 and 2011. It was from 2012 that the
number of publications began to increase, reaching a high point in 2016 and 2017.
In the following sections, the different types of studies are described, and the
works carried out in the field of BES–CFD are presented.
Studies on the building envelope

These type of studies focuses on the energy performance of a building through pas-
sive design, which aims to obtain thermal comfort through natural energy flows.
Some studies have analyzed the effect of glazing in the room, where the information
usually exchanged between BES and CFD is the CHTC. The convective coefficient
is determined with the CFD, and then this coefficient is supplied to the BES. Most
of the coupling methods used for these studies have been either full dynamic or sta-
tic one-way coupling. The number of studies about the building envelope developed
with a BES–CFD coupling is small compared with the other type of studies; just
eight publications are available between 2008 and 2017. Unlike previous sections,
the studies of passive building components have been carried out for warm, cold,
temperate, and dry climates, among other types of environments.
Pappas and Zhai (2008) studied the thermal performance of a double skin
facade (DSF) using a BES–CFD coupling to obtain correlations for determining
the cavity airflow rate, the air temperature, and the interior convective coefficient.
The authors implemented a full dynamic coupling in which BES provides both the
surface temperature of the glass and the heat fluxes of the shading device to the
CFD as boundary conditions, and then the CFD sends back the convective coeffi-
cients, the air temperature, and the airflow to the BES. The researchers analyzed
several factors as dimensions of the facxade, different shading devices and materials,
and airflow control. The authors compared their results with experimental data
with and found a mean error of 9% and 15% for the predicted rate airflow and the
DSF temperature stratification, respectively. Villi et al. (2009) through a BES–
CFD coupling investigated the effect of ventilated roofs on the cooling loads of a
building. The coupling consisted of modeling the roof with CFD to obtain the
CHTC for three different thicknesses of the air cavity, while the BES used these
convective coefficients to calculate the energy requirements of the building. The
results showed that a roof with an air cavity thickness between 5 and 10 cm pro-
vided a 45% energy saving compared with a non-ventilated roof. Pan et al. (2010)
analyzed the thermal performance of an atrium with different geometries and its
effect on the cooling loads for regions with humid-warm weather. In the coupling
method, the CFD determined temperature distribution and the airflow for different
atrium geometries using the heat flows obtained from the EnergyPlus software.
The results showed that regardless of the height and area of the atrium, the indoor
air temperatures ranged between 35°C and 50°C in a zone 10 m below the glassed
roof. Gijón-Rivera et al. (2013) studied a room with three different types of glazing
for Mexico City. The authors coupled a 2D model of a cavity using CFD with a
BES software. The coupling consisted of obtaining the heat transfer coefficients
using CFD and loading them into the BES to obtain a more accurate estimation of
the energy demand of the room. The researchers compared coupled (CFD–BES)
and non-coupled (BES) models. The results indicated that the air temperature
inside the room determined by the CFD–BES method was higher than the air tem-
perature determined by the standalone BES. These differences were 10%, 13%,
and 13% for the cavity with the clear, reflective, and filtered glass, respectively.
Moreover, they concluded that the room with the reflective glass requires less
energy for cooling, while the room with the glass with a filter requires less energy
for heating. Alnusairat et al. (2017) by using a BES–CFD coupling analyzed the
thermal performance of a high-rise building with different skycourt geometries for
a temperate climate. This study aimed to find the parameters that improve building
thermal comfort and its energy consumption. The authors implemented a static
coupling in which the BES calculates and introduces into the CFD the surface tem-
peratures of the walls, the indoor and outdoor air conditions, and the internal
energy gains. On the contrary, the CFD calculates the airflow and sends it back to
the BES. The results showed that the three analyzed geometries presented a very
similar energy performance, with a consumption close to 70 kW h per year with an
average temperature of 25°C and 15°C on the hottest and coldest day, respectively.
Kong et al. (2017) analyzed the cooling effect of a radiative floor using a BES–
CFD coupling. The authors analyzed the thermal performance of an office in
which the CFD calculates indoor air temperature with the help of the BES that
provides interior wall temperatures. The results showed that the interior tempera-
ture of the building remains at an almost constant value of 25°C during the day.
Colombo et al. (2017) studied the thermal behavior of a building double-facade in
summer using a BES–CFD coupling. In this coupling strategy, the BES provided
the surfaces temperatures that were introduced to the CFD model, which in turn
calculated and sent back the heat fluxes to the BES model. The results showed that
the temperature reached by the exterior glass was between 58°C and 69°C; and
between 54°C and 63°C when the exterior glass was in a shaded area. Li and Jing
(2017) studied the thermal and energy performance of a photovoltaic system using
a BES–CFD coupling (TRNSYS-CFD). The researchers evaluated different solar
cells and parameters using climate data from Xian, China. The authors calculated
in CFD the velocity of the air, the conversion of energy of different cells, and the
energy analysis with the ambient temperature and solar irradiance obtained from
the BES model. The authors concluded that the best performance of the photovol-
taic cell is obtained with an air velocity of 0.02 m/s using a solar cell of type InGaP/
GaAs/InGaAs generating a maximum of 30 kJ of energy with an efficiency between
50% and 60%.
Studies for mechanical and passive systems

The aim of the studies on mechanical and passive systems is to analyze and quantify
the effect of these systems on the interior conditions of a room. Examples of this
type of studies can be found in the work conducted by Rodriguez and Hinojosa
(2014), Li et al. (2012), and Wang et al. (2019) in the case of studies of mechanical
equipment. On the contrary, studies such as Sailor et al. (2011) and Rosselló-Batle
et al. (2014) studied parameters of the envelope of the building such as building
materials and green roofs. The works on mechanical systems deal with different
types of air conditioning, while those that consider passive systems until now have
examined Trombe wall and plate heat exchangers. The coupling most commonly
used in these studies has been a full dynamic coupling, followed by a quasi-dynamic
coupling. The information usually exchanged between the two programs is as fol-
lows. For the case of mechanical systems, the BES program provides the tempera-
ture and the velocity of the supplied air. The CFD uses these variables as boundary
conditions and then it returns to the BES the average temperature of the room and
the temperature of the air entering the mechanical system. In the case of passive sys-
tems, the information exchanged so far between the two programs is very similar to
that carried out in the other studies mentioned.
Gao et al. (2006) studied the effect of three methods of personal ventilation on
human thermal comfort in an office, which receives airflow from three different
positions on a desk. Using the CFD, the authors calculated conditions of the air
coming from the desk (temperature, velocity, and pollutant concentration) which
were integrated into a thermal regulation model to calculate skin temperature, heat
flux, and losses due to sweating. The results showed that the best method for
personal ventilation was an airflow from a diffuser at the height of the head or the
height of the floor which only require an air flow of 2 l/s to condition the body
while a diffuser implemented on the edge of the desk can require up to 6.5 l/s.
Haupt et al. (2010) using a BES–CFD coupling analyzed a building heated by large
windows and a Trombe wall. The authors implemented a dynamic coupling where
the BES provided surface temperature as boundary conditions for the CFD.
Subsequently, the CFD calculated convective coefficients and air temperatures that
were sent to the BES until both programs reach the established convergence criter-
ion. The results showed that in summer the upper area of the building reached
higher temperatures than those recorded in the lower areas, while in winter the
building remains at an almost constant temperature. Fan and Ito (2012) studied
the thermal behavior of a room with an energy recovery ventilator (ERV). The
authors implemented a quasi-dynamic coupling between the Fluent and TRNSYS
programs. The TRNSYS calculated the energy requirements for three different
positions of the ERV in the room, with non-uniform data of temperature and air
velocity supply obtained from Fluent. The authors showed that when the supply
and exhaust openings for ERV were arranged on the ceiling, there were no signifi-
cant differences between the results of the CFD–BES coupled method and BES
alone on the energy consumption of the HVAC system. However, there is a differ-
ence of 21% in energy consumption between both methods when placing both
openings at ground level. Ascione et al. (2013) evaluated the energy requirements
of three air conditioning systems for a typical exhibition room of Italian museums.
The authors used a BES–CFD coupling to perform this study. The conditioning
systems studied were dehumidification by absorption, a fan of energy recovery,
and traditional with two types of ventilation diffusers (swirl and grids). The
authors divided the study into three parts: the energy requirements of each system,
the control of the interior temperature, and the relative humidity inside the equip-
ment, all of which are carried out by the BES, and the distribution of air by the
studied diffusers made in CFD. The authors used a static one-way coupling where
the BES sends net energy flows from the walls, net airflow, and conditions in the
thermal zone to the CFD as boundary conditions. The results showed that systems
with dehumidification by absorption have a higher energy saving (11%) and pro-
vide better control of temperature and relative humidity inside the building com-
pared with the traditional air conditioning system. On the contrary, the vortex
ventilation diffuser presented a better distribution of air, as well as a fresher and
uniform air. Gowreesunker et al. (2013) analyzed the application of phase change
materials (PCMs) in the thermal performance of a plate heat exchanger installed in
the diffusers of the terminal of an airport. The authors coupled a 2D CFD model
with TRNSYS. The coupling consisted of a quasi-dynamic method, where the air-
flow temperature, the heat gains, and external weather data were loaded to CFD
from TRNSYS. The building and the PCM were simulated in CFD to calculate
the energy requirements. In the case of the PCM, the air temperature and the
PCM material were also loaded at the output of the system. The results showed
that the implementation of PCM-HX in the ventilation diffusers reduces the
cooling loads in summer. On the contrary, the heating loads remain constant,
achieving a total energy saving of 34% of the total HVAC consumption. Fan and
Ito (2014a) compared the performance of a controlled CO2 ventilation system with
an ERV system, for a typical office in Matsumoto, Japan, using a BES–CFD cou-
pling. The study consisted of a full dynamic coupling in which BES provides tem-
perature, and airspeed supplied to the room (through the ERV) to the CFD.
Subsequently, the CFD sends the air temperature of the room to the ERV. The
CO2 concentration was also considered in the coupling. Two different positions for
the air supply input (roof and floor) were studied. The authors concluded that a
controlled ventilation system is more efficient, saving 30% and 38.5% more energy
(ceiling and floor respectively) than a traditional ventilation system. Fan and Ito
(2014b) developed a numerical procedure for the optimization of an air control
demand-controlled ventilation (DCV) system in a typical office in Matsumoto,
Japan. The authors implemented a quasi-dynamic coupling between the Fluent
and TRNSYS programs. The TRNSYS calculated the energy requirements for
three different positions of the DCV system in the room, with non-uniform data
obtained from Fluent (air temperature, relative humidity, concentration of CO2).
The results of the DCV performance were compared with a constant air volume
system where the DCV system reduced 29.1% and 40.9% of energy consumption
in summer and winter, respectively.
Studies on natural ventilation

The main objective nature of ventilation is to improve the interior conditions of a
building by supplying or removing an amount of air using either a pressure or a
temperature difference without mechanical systems. This can be observed in studies
such as Saelens and Hens (2001) and Specjal and Bartosz (2017). Most of the stud-
ies on ventilation that have used a BES–CFD coupling have implemented a full
dynamic method, where the BES usually provides the surface temperatures of the
walls to the CFD, and then the CFD sends back the convective coefficients to the
BES. The first study of BES–CFD coupling for natural ventilation was published
in 2004 (Sreshthaputra et al., 2004). However, it was until 2006 that coupling meth-
ods were used again in some publications (Gao et al., 2006).
Sreshthaputra et al. (2004) implemented a BES–CFD coupling to analyze and
optimize the design of a Thai Buddhist temple. The BES provided the surface tem-
perature of the walls and roof, the thermal conductivity, and the solar gain to the
CFD software; then, the CFD uses this data as boundary conditions to calculate
convective coefficients and airflow in each time step (full dynamic). The results
showed that the attic of the Buddhist temple had a significant influence on thermal
comfort, so the authors suggest applying a layer of insulation on the roof and a
coating with a low solar absorptance. Li and Li (2015) studied the potential for nat-
ural ventilation for different types of buildings with three different types of internal
gains (low, medium, and high) for Beijing, China. They used a BES–CFD coupling
software, which consisted of a dynamic method that exchanged information at each
time step. The BES provided surface temperatures as boundary conditions to the
CFD. Subsequently, the CFD provided the wind conditions (speed and wind direc-
tion) to the BES. The results showed that a building called tower A (square shape
with cross ventilation) significantly reduced the use of air conditioning (between
50% and 60%). However, this value varies depending on various factors such as
wind speed, the amount of pollutant in the air, the type of climate, and the type of
building. Piscia et al. (2015) studied the natural ventilation of a greenhouse for dif-
ferent wind speeds, sky temperature, and angle of the opening of the air intake and
its effect on convective coefficients. The authors implemented a static BES–CFD
coupling where the CFD provided convective coefficients and net ventilation to the
BES, and this calculated the interior temperature of the greenhouse. The results of
his study showed that ventilation increases as air velocity increases for all the angles
studied. On the contrary, the convective coefficients inside and outside are more
significant when the opening is entirely open (90°) and closed (0°), respectively.
However, the convective coefficients did not show significant variation with differ-
ent types of sky conditions. Hong et al. (2017) studied the effect of natural ventila-
tion on the interior temperature of a classroom in the Republic of Korea. The
authors analyzed three different scenarios in which the windows remained open for
a certain time (30, 50 min of ventilation and non-ventilation, respectively). The
authors do not specify the type of coupling they used, but the coupling was carried
out in the following way: the BES provided the CFD with boundary conditions
(wind speed, temperature, and solar radiation). Subsequently, CFD calculated the
temperature distribution in the room that is supplied to the BES to calculate the
energy requirements of the room. The results showed that at the beginning of the
modeling time (9:00 h); the three cases presented a similar level of thermal load.
However, as the day continued, the case without ventilation had the highest levels
of thermal loads, while the case with ventilation during 50 min for each hour did
not have thermal loads at the end of the day (16:00 h).
Studies on urban design

This type of study analyzes what is usually known as urban building configurations
or urban design, which consists of a group of buildings of different sizes grouped
in such a way that the influence of factors such as wind velocity, solar radiation,
among others, on the thermal performance of the built environment are studied.
This type of studies have been carried out by authors such as Guglielmini et al.
(1981), Gao et al. (2008), and Yasa (2017). Kahsay et al. (2019) mentioned the
importance of an accurate CHTC in thermal analysis in buildings, because this
variable can generate an error between 20% and 40% when estimating buildings
energy consumption. In this type of studies, the information most commonly
exchanged between BES and CFD is the temperature of the building exterior sur-
faces and the outdoor CHTC. These data are transferred dynamically, usually in
each time step between the two programs (full dynamic coupling) or in between
time steps (quasi-dynamic coupling).
Yi and Malkawi (2011) studied the effect of external environmental conditions

such as wind conditions and outside air temperature on energy requirements of
buildings. The authors used a BES–CFD coupling, by using CFD simulations, they
calculated the wind speed and direction, and the outside air temperature for an
urban geometry composed of four buildings with different dimensions. By using
BES, they calculated the energy requirements of the buildings. The results showed
that higher thermal loads of cooling are obtained (20%) with the BES–CFD
coupled model compared with the BES model, while the thermal heating loads of
the BES–CFD coupled model are 50% lower than those of the BES model. This
difference occurs because when using the BES–CFD coupling, the BES uses better
values of wind conditions than those obtained with the empirical correlations that
it had by default. Allegrini et al. (2012) calculated and studied the effect of CHTCs
on the energy consumption of seven buildings with different geometry. The authors
implemented a quasi-dynamic coupling between TRNSYS (BES) and Fluent
(CFD). The CHTC’s were calculated through CFD using as input data the surface
temperature of the exterior walls obtained with TRNSYS; this program, in turn,
used the CHTC calculated by CFD to determine the energy requirements of the
buildings. The results showed that the CHTC values decrease from a cubical form
to an elongated form to a building street canyon, increasing in 80% the cooling
demand from a cubical form building compared with a building street canyon. Yi
and Malkawi (2012) developed a methodology to optimize the geometry of a set of
buildings in response to the wind external conditions. The authors implemented a
BES–CFD coupling, in which by using CFD, they calculated the temperature,
speed, and direction of the wind, which were provided to TRNSYS to calculate the
energy consumption of a building. Subsequently, these data were sent to a third
program that optimized the design of the building. The results showed that for a
warm climate, it is recommended to have the east and west walls closer to the adja-
cent walls to take advantage of the shadow generated by neighboring buildings. On
the contrary, for a cold climate, they recommend buildings with higher walls, to
avoid the shadow generated by the adjacent buildings and to gain more solar radia-
tion. These modifications provided an energy savings of 3.41%. Liu et al. (2014)
proposed a three-step procedure for coupling a method of calculation for natural
ventilation and energy performance (BES–CFD), with the aim of optimizing the
urban morphology of four buildings of a neighborhood in Chongqing, China. The
authors analyzed the airflow in the space between buildings and their orientations.
Using CFD, they calculated the velocity and pressure fields of the wind, which are
introduced into EnergyPlus. The results of their study showed that the best ventila-
tion is obtained for a space between buildings of 34 m with an orientation angle of
74°. Allegrini et al. (2015) studied the heat fluxes of six different urban designs to
optimize the geometry of the buildings and maximize the heat removed in the city
of Zurich. The study was carried out using a BES–CFD coupling, where the BES
provided the temperature of the surfaces as boundary conditions to the CFD, and
this provided the field of velocity and the distribution of the temperature for each
type of arrangement of buildings. The authors concluded that the highest heat
losses in the six configurations are through the roof and the lower part of the build-
ing (avenues between buildings). However, the heat losses are higher in configura-
tions that implement higher blockage for the wind than in those arrangements that
implement standalone buildings (cubical), increasing up to 50% the convective heat
flow in a street canyon building arrangement that a cubical building. Liu et al.
(2015) analyzed the impact of CHTCs in different urban environments through a
BES–CFD coupling. The authors evaluated three buildings with different levels of
insulation but with a similar fac xade. In the study, they defined the urban density
(0.04, 0.11, 0.25, 0.44) depending on the total area of study considered, the wind
speed (5 m/s), and the temperature difference as correlations. The results showed
that the CHTC has a slightly higher impact on the thermal loads than on the
energy consumption of the building. They also observed that buildings with a low
level of insulation are more susceptible to the change of CHTC by increasing the
thermal loads of cooling by 12.2%, while those with better insulation were 6.2%
and 3% in comparison with the loads obtained with the CHTC that the BES soft-
ware uses by default. Allegrini and Carmeliet (2018) evaluated the effect of two
urban configurations of buildings on the thermal comfort of an urban area in sum-
mer for the city of Zurich, Switzerland. The authors implemented a static coupling
between OpenFOAM (CFD) and CitySim (BES). In this method, the OpenFOAM
used the calculated surface temperatures in CitySim for two wind speeds and direc-
tions; in addition to two different albedo values. The configurations consisted of an
urban area with high and small alternating buildings, and an area with a high
building at the beginning and the rest with small ones. The results showed that for
the summer, buildings with high values of albedo (0.6) and an urban zone config-
uration with alternating buildings could increase ventilation and improve thermal
comfort in the area. Toparlar et al. (2018) studied the effect of three different
microclimatic conditions, on the energy cooling demand for residential buildings
and offices in rural and urban areas. For the study, the authors implemented a
BES–CFD coupling, where they calculated the microclimatic conditions by
FLUENT with which EnergyPlus could calculate the demand for cooling energy.
The results of their study showed that the air temperature near the surfaces is 3°C
lower than in urban areas, this means that the energy demand is 70% and 20%
lower for residential buildings and offices, respectively.
Discussion
Tables 1 and 2 show that the information exchanged between both programs is
most commonly carried out using a dynamic coupling, either full dynamic or quasi-
dynamic. This type of coupling is usually implemented in studies where boundary
and interior conditions have significant changes over time. However, despite apply-
ing a dynamic methodology, the time step that is used in most research works is
1 h. This time step is frequently applied as recommended by the publications that
Zhiqiang Zhai wrote in the period of validation and verification of the BES–CFD
coupling. The guidelines suggested by this author have helped other researchers to
save computational resources when implementing a dynamic methodology in the
CFD.
On the contrary, the information exchanged, usually as convective coefficients,
improves the calculations of the energy requirements of a building estimated by the
energy simulators. Currently, energy simulators allow the user to provide informa-
tion through an external data file, which increases the possibilities of coupling with
CFD. Although some passive systems can be modeled using a static one- or two-
way coupling, some specific systems such as systems with PCM require being mod-
eled in a transient state using a dynamic coupling. Perform this type coupling in
early studies was limited to relatively large time steps of about 1 h because it was
the smallest time interval that the BES could simulate. However, current energy
simulators allow reading and calculating data in time steps of seconds, so this fea-
ture allows one to use a BES–CFD coupling in systems whose thermal behavior
requires small time spans.
The BES–CFD coupling methods can be very useful tools in the analysis of
buildings when they are implemented properly. A static coupling is an easy tool to
implement that brings reliable results, either by implementing CFD software or a
self-developed code in a programming language. A dynamic coupling, however,
despite presenting better results may not be the best option if the research group
does not have access to CFD software and even having it, this does not guarantee
that they can communicate dynamically by itself. It is necessary to study more
thoroughly how the dynamic exchange between both methods can be optimized so
that the coupling meets the objective of combining the benefits of both methods.
On the contrary, we believe that the energy simulation–CFD coupling method
can be implemented to other fields of research where more accurate values of
CHTC are required. The coupling method philosophy involves that one method
generates information that will be implemented by the other method, and therefore
it could be applied to other areas of engineering such as flow analysis in pipes and
analysis of thermoelectric plants, analysis in the refrigeration system in petrochem-
ical plants by mentioning some. In the end, one only need to find which variable is
the one that can be shared between both methods.
Conclusion
Despite the significant progress in the development of the BES–CFD coupling, few
researchers have used this method to simulate buildings’ energy performance. This
is mainly due to the difference in time steps in which the programs can work, while
the BES usually use time steps in hours; the CFD can work smaller time steps such
as minutes or seconds. However, as BES programs bring out newer versions, this
difficulty disappears because these versions allow the user to perform the simula-
tions for time steps of minutes and seconds.
From the literature, we conclude that the applications of the BES–CFD cou-
pling can be carried out efficiently with time steps of 1 h between both programs
when a full dynamic coupling is required. However, the modeling of the thermal
performance of passive systems requires time steps of minutes, which is very diffi-
cult to handle by the energy simulators. For this reason, a static coupling can pro-
vide the desired results when one implements smaller time steps than an hour
because the interaction between both programs occurs separately. The static cou-
pling allows one to model and to simulate transport phenomena with high tem-
perature and velocity fluctuations extending the application of this technique.
Therefore, a static coupling is recommended for situations where the conditions do
not change abruptly in short periods. On the contrary, where the condition change
abruptly, the dynamic coupling is more recommendable.
The BES–CFD method so far has advanced a lot; however, the building research
community is not exploiting all its capacity and benefits that it can provide to
researchers since its implementation requires an extra effort, which can be very
large in some cases. However, the fact that their results from standalone BES can
have a deviation of up to 30% with respect to experimental measurements should
be a motivation to carry out at least one static coupling.
Currently, no coupling method can be implemented in all cases without any dif-
ficulty. However, there is a wide variety of coupling methods that work very effi-
ciently if they are correctly implemented with the appropriate modeling conditions.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: M.R.-V. acknowledges the support provided by the
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (CONACYT) given through its doctorate scho-
larship program.
ORCID iD
Jesus Xamán https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8805-573X
References
Allegrini J and Carmeliet J (2018) Simulation of local heat island in Zürich with coupled
CFD and building energy models. Urban Climate 24: 340–359.
Allegrini J, Carmeliet J and Dorer V (2012) Analysis of convective heat transfer of space
cooling demand in buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
104– 106: 464–473.
Allegrini J, Carmeliet J and Dorer V (2015) Coupled CFD, radiation and building energy
model for studying heat fluxes in an urban environment with generic building
configurations. Sustainable Cities and Society 198: 385–394.
Alnusairat S, Hou SS and Jones P (2017) Investigation spatial configuration of skycourts as
buffer zones in high-rise office buildings. In: Proceedings of the 5th eCAADe regional
international symposium, Cardiff, 26–28 April, 83–92. Welsh School of Architecture,
Cardiff University.
Ascione F, Bianco N, De Masi RF, et al. (2013) Simplified state space representation for
evaluating thermal bridges in building: modelling, application and validation of a
methodology. Applied Energy 103: 344–354.
Barbason M and Reiter S (2014) Coupling building energy simulation and computational
fluid dynamics: application to a two-storey house in a temperate climate. Building and
Environment 75: 30–39.
Beausoleil-Morrison I (2000) The adaptive coupling of heat and air flow modeling within
dynamics whole building simulation. PhD thesis, Univertsity of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Beausoleil-Morrison I (2002) The adaptive conflation of computational fluid dynamics with
whole-building thermal simulation. Energy and Building 34: 857–871.
Bouyer J, Inard C and Musy M (2011) Microclimatic coupling as a solution to improve
building energy simulation in an urban context. Energy and Building 45: 1549–1559.
Charisi S, Thiis TK and Waszczuk M (2017) Investigation of the pressure coefficient impact
on the air infiltration in buildings with respect to microclimate. Energy Procedia 122:
637–642.
Chen Q, Glicksman LR and Srebric J (1999) Simplified methodology to factor room air
movement and the impact on the thermal comfort into design of radiative, convective and
hybrid heating and cooling systems. Final Report for ASHRAE RP-927, Department of
Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Chen Q and Kooi JVD (1988) ACCURACY- a computer program for combined problems
of energy analysis, indoor airflow and air quality. ASHRAE Transactions 94: 196–214.
Chen Q, Lee K, Mazumdar S, et al. (2010) Ventilation performance prediction for buildings:
Model assessment. Building and Environment 45: 295–303.
Clarke JA (2001) Energy Simulation in Building Design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Clarke JA and Tang D (1995) An investigation of the functional conflation of building energy
simulation and computational fluid dynamics. Project proposal to the UK SERC (now
EPSRC) ESRU, Univertsity of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Clarke JA, Dempster WM and Negrão CRO (1995) The Implementation of a Computational
Fluid Dynamics Algorithm Within the ESP-r System. Glasgow: Energy system division,
Univertsity of Strathclyde.
Colombo E, Zwahler M, Frey M, et al. (2017) Design of a glazed double-facxade by means of
coupled CFD and building performance simulation. Energy Procedia 122: 355–360.
Crawley DB, Griffith BT, Hand JW, et al. (2008) Contrasting the capabilities of building
energy performance simulation programs. Building and Environment 43: 661–673.
Djunaedy E (2005) External coupling between building energy simulation and computational
fluid dynamics. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2003a) Development of a guideline for
selecting a simulation tool for airflow prediction. In: Eight international IBPSA
conference, Eindhoven, 11–14 August, 267–264. Eindhoven: Organizing Committee
Building Simulation.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2003b) Toward external coupling of
building energy and air flow modeling programs. ASHRAE Transactions 109: 771–787.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2004a) Building energy simulation and
computational fluid dynamics: 1 + 1.2? In: Proceedings of the TI-IBPSA-NVL studiedag
(ed JLM Hensen and M Lain), Antwerpen, Belgie, 21 October, 53–56.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2004b) Comparing internal and external
run-time coupling of CFD and building energy simulation software. In: Proceedings of
the 9th ROMMVENT international conference on air distribution in rooms, Coimbra,
Portugal, 5–8 September, 393–396.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2004c) On integration of CFD in building
design. In: Proceedings of the PhD symposium modelling and simulation for environmental
engineering (ed JLM Hensen and M Lain), 16 April, 53–60.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2004d) Selecting an appropriate tool for
airflow simulation in buildings. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology
25: 289–298.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2005a) External coupling between CFD
and energy simulation: implementation and validation. ASHRAE Transactions 111:
612–624.
Djunaedy E, Hensen JLM and Loomans MGLC (2005b) Simulating radiative cooling/
heating using BES-CFD coupled simulation. In: Proceedings in the 10th international
conference on indoor air quality and climate ‘‘indoor air,’’Beijing, China, 4–9 September,
1344–1348. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University.
Du Z, Jin X, Liu Q, et al. (2015) Temperature sensor placement optimization for VAV
control using CFD-BES co-simulation strategy. Building and Environment 85: 104–113.
Fan Y and Ito K (2012) Energy consumption analysis intended for real office space with
energy recovery ventilator by integrating BES and CFD approaches. Building and
Fan Y and Ito K (2014a) Integrated building energy computational fluid dynamics
simulation for estimating the energy-saving effect of energy recovery ventilator with CO2
demand-controlled ventilation system in office space. Indoor and Built Environment 23:
785–803.
Fan Y and Ito K (2014b) Optimization of indoor environmental quality and ventilation load
in office space by multilevel coupling of building energy simulation and computational
fluid dynamics. Building Simulation 7(6): 649–659.
Gao J, Zhang X and Zhao JN (2008) Numerical determination of convection coefficients for
internal surfaces in buildings dominated by thermally stratified flows. Journal of Building
Physics 31(3): 213–223.
Gao N, Niu J and Zhang H (2006) Coupling CFD and human body thermoregulation model
for the assessment of personalized ventilation. HVAC&R Research 12(3): 44–518.
Gijón-Rivera M, Xamán J, Álvarez G, et al. (2013) Coupling CFD-BES simulation of a
glazed office with different types of window in Mexico City. Building and Environment
68: 22–34.
Gowreesunker BL, Kolokotroni M and Tassou SA (2013) Coupled TRNSYS-CFD
simulations evaluating the performance of PCM plate heat exchangers in an airport
terminal building displacement-conditioning system. Building and Environment 65:
132–145.
Guglielmini G, Magrini U and Nannei E (1981) The influence of the thermal inertia of building
structures on comfort and energy consumption. Journal of Thermal Insulation 5: 59–72.
Han G, Enache-Pommer E and Srebric J (2015) Different modeling strategies of infiltration
rates for an office building to improve accuracy of building energy simulation. Energy
and Building 86: 288–295.
Haupt SE, Kunz RF, Peltier LJ, et al. (2010) Computational fluid dynamics coupled with
thermal impact model for building design. Journal of Computer 5: 1552–1559.
Hiyama K and Kato S (2011) Integration for the three-dimensional CFD results into energy
simulation utilizing an Advection-Diffusion Response Factor. Energy and Building 43:
2752–2759.
Hong T, Langevin J and Sun K (2018) Building simulation: ten challenges. Building
Simulation 11(5): 871–898.
Hong T, Lee M and Kim J (2017) Analysis of energy consumption and indoor temperature
distribution in educational facility based on CFD-BES model. Energy Procedia 105:
3705–3710.
International Energy Agency ( 2017a) CO2 emissions from fuel combustión, highlights 2017.
Available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/CO2Emissionsfrom
FuelCombustionHighlights2017.pdf
International Energy Agency (2017b) World energy balances: overview. Available at: http://
biblioteca.olade.org/opac-tmpl/Documentos/cg00444.pdf
Kahsay M, Bitsuamlak G and Tariku F (2019) Numerical analysis of convective heat
transfer coefficient for building facades. Journal of Building Physics 42(6): 727–749.
Kato S (2018) Review of airflow and transport analysis in building using CFD and network
model. Japan Architectural Review 1: 299–309.
Kato S and Zhang W (2014) A review: coupled simulation of CFD and network model for
heat and contaminant transport in a building. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering 13: 231–238.
Kong Q, Feng J, Yang C, et al. (2017) Numerical simulation of a radiant floor cooling
office bades on CFD-BES coupling and FEM. In: Proceedings of the 8th international
conference on applied energy, Beijing, China, 8–11 October, 3577–3583.
Li Y and Jing D (2017) Investigation of the performance of photovoltaic/thermal system by
a coupled TRNSYS and CFD simulation. Solar Energy 143: 100–112.
Li Y and Li X (2015) Natural ventilation potential of high-rise residential buildings in
northern China using coupling thermal and airflow simulations. Building Simulation 8:
51–64.
Li Z, Agarwal R and Gao H (2012) Development of temperature controllers for a room
deploying the displacement ventilation for heating, ventilating and air-condition. Journal
of Building Physics 37(1): 80–102.
Liu J, Heidarinejad M, Gracik S, et al. (2015) The impact of exterior surface convective heat
transfer coefficients on the building energy consumption in urban neighborhoods with
different plan area densities. Energy and Buildings 86: 449–463.
Liu S, Liu J, Yang Q, et al. (2014) Coupled simulation of natural ventilation and daylighting
for a residential community design. Energy Building 68: 686–695.
Mirsadeghi M, Blocken B and Hensen J (2009) Application for externally-coupled BES-
CFD in HAM engineering of the indoor environment. In: Eleven international IBPSA
conference, Glasgow, 27–30 July, 324–331. Glasgow: International Building Performance
Simulation Association.
Negrão CRO (1995) Conflation of computational fluid dynamics and building thermal
simulation. PhD thesis, Univertsity of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Negrão CRO (1998) Integration of computational fluid dynamics with building thermal and
mass flow simulation. Energy and Buildings 27: 155–165.
Novoselac A (2005) Combined airflow and energy simulation program for building mechanical
system design. PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Olson DA, Glicksman LR and Ferm HM (1990) Steady-state natural convection in empty
and partitioned enclosures at high Rayleigh numbers. Journal of Heat Transfer 112:
640–647.
Pan Y, Li Y, Huang Z, et al. (2010) Study on simulation methods of atrium building cooling
load in hot and humid regions. Energy Building 42(10): 1654–1660.
Pappas A and Zhai Z (2008) Numerical investigation on thermal performance and
correlations of double skin fac xade with buoyancy-driven airflow. Energy and Buildings
40: 466–475.
Patankar SV (1980) Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Piscia D, Muñoz P, Panades C, et al. (2015) A method of coupling CFD and energy balance
simulation to study humidity control in unheated greenhouses, computer. Electronic in
Agriculture 115: 129–141.
Qin R, Yan D, Zhou X, et al. (2012) Research on a dynamic simulation method of atrium
thermal environment based on neural network. Building and Environment 50: 214–220.
Rodriguez NA and Hinojosa JF (2014) Numerical study of airflow and heat transfer in an
air-cooled room with different inlet positions. Journal of Building Physics 37: 246–268.
Rosselló-Batle B, Ribas C and Molá-Pol A (2014) Saving potential for embodied energy and
CO2 emissions from building elements: a case study. Journal of Building Physics 39(3):
261–284.
Saelens D and Hens H (2001) Experimental evaluation of airflow in naturally ventilated
active envelopes. Journal of Thermal Environment & Building 25: 101–127.
Sailor DJ, Elley TB and Gibson M (2011) Exploring the building energy impacts of green
roof design decisions: a modeling study of building in four distinct climates. Journal of
Building Physics 35(4): 372–391.
Shirzadi M, Naghashzadegan M and Mirzaei PA (2019) Developing a framework for
improvement of building thermal performance modeling under urban microclimate
interactions. Sustainable Cities and Society 44: 27–39.
Sousa J (2012) Energy Simulation Software for Building: Review and Comparison. Porto:
Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto.
Specjal A and Bartosz D (2017) Determination of the seasonal heat consumption based on
the short-term measurements in the building. Journal of Building Physics 40(6): 544–560.
Srebric J, Chen Q and Glicksman LR (1999) Validation of a zero-equation turbulence model
for complex indoor airflows. ASHRAE Transactions 105(2): 414–427.
Srebric J, Chen Q and Glicksmon LR (2000) A coupled airflow and energy simulation
program for indoor thermal environmental studies. ASHRAE Transactions 106(1):
465–476.
Sreshthaputra A, Andrews MJ and Haberl J (2004) Improving building design and operation
of a Thai buddist temple. Energy and Buildings 36: 481–494.
Tian W, Han X, Zuo W, et al. (2018) Building energy simulation coupled with CFD for
indoor environment: a critical review and recent applications. Energy and Buildings 165:
184–199.
Toparlar T, Blockn B, Maiheu B, et al. (2018) Impact of urban microclimate on summertime

building cooling demand: a parametric analysis for Antwerp, Belgium. Applied Energy
228: 852–872.
Villi G, Pasut W and De Carli M (2009) CFD modelling and thermal performance analysis
of a wooden ventilated roof structure. Building Simulation 2: 215–228.
Wang L and Chen Q (2007a) Theoretical and numerical studies of coupling multizone and
CFD models for building air distribution simulations. Indoor Air 17: 348–361.
Wang L and Chen Q (2007b) Validation of a coupled multizone-CFD program for building
airflow and contaminant transport simulation. HVAC&R Research 13(2): 267–281.
Wang L and Chen Q (2008) Applications of a coupled multizone-CFD model to calculate
airflow and contaminant dispersion in built environments for emergency management.
HVAC&R Research 14(6): 925–939.
Wang L and Wong NH (2008) Coupled simulations for naturally ventilated residential
building. Automation in Construction 17: 386–398.
Wang Y, Kuckelkorn JM, Li D, et al. (2019) A novel coupling control with the decision-
maker and PID controller for minimizing heating energy consumption and ensuring
indoor environmental quality. Journal of Building Physics 43: 22–45.
Xáman J and Gijón-Rivera M (2016) Dinámica de fluidos computacional para ingenieros.
Bloomington, IN: Palibrio.
Yamamoto T, Ozaki A, Lee M, et al. (2018) Fundamental study of coupling methods
between energy simulation and CFD. Energy and Building 159: 587–599.
Yasa E (2017) Microclimatic comfort measurements evaluation of building physics: the
effect of building form and building settle area, on pedestrian level comfort around
buildings. Journal of Building Physics 40(5): 472–500.
Yi YK and Feng N (2013) Dynamic integration between building energy simulation (BES)
and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation for building exterior surface.
Building Simulation 6: 297–308.
Yi YK and Malkawi AM (2011) Integrating neural network models with computational
fluid (CFD) for site-specific wind condition. Building Simulation 4: 245–254.
Yi YK and Malkawi AM (2012) Site-specific optimal energy from generation based on
hierarchical geometry relation. Automation in Construction 26: 77–91.
Zhai Z, Chen Q, Klems JH, et al. (2001) Strategies for coupling energy simulation and
computational fluid dynamics programs. In: Seventh international IBPSA conference, Rio
de Jainero, Brazil, 13–15 August, 49–56. Organizaing Committee of Building Simulation.
Zhai Z, Chen Q, Klems JH, et al. (2002) On approaches to couple energy simulation and
computational fluid dynamics programs. Building and Environment 37: 857–864.
Zhai ZJ and Chen QY (2003) Solution characters of iterative coupling between energy
simulation and CFD programs. Energy and Buildings 35: 493–505.
Zhai ZJ and Chen QY (2004) Numerical determination and treatment of convective heat
transfer coeficient in the coupled building energy and CFD simulation. Building and
Zhai ZJ and Chen QY (2005) Performance of coupled building energy and CFD simulation.
Energy and Building 37: 333–344.
Zhai ZJ and Chen QY (2006) Sensitivity analysis and application guides for integrated
building energy and CFD simulation. Energy and Buildings 38: 1060–1068.
Zhang R, Lam KP, Yao SC, et al. (2012) Annual coupled energy plus and computational
fluid dynamics simulation of natural ventilation. In: Fifth national conference of IBPSA-
USA, Madison, WI, 1–3 August, 314–321.
Zhang R, Lam KP, Yao SC, et al. (2013a) Coupled energy plus and computational fluid
dynamics for natural ventilation. Building and Environment 68: 100–113.
Zhang W, Himaya K, Kato S, et al. (2013b) Building energy simulation considering spatial
temperature distribution for non-uniform indoor environment. Building and Environment
63: 89–96.
Zhang R, Mirzaei PA and Jones B (2018) Development of a dynamic external CFD and
BES coupling framework for application of urban neighbourhoods energy modelling.
Building and Environment 146: 37–49.

Coupling Building Simu With CFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coupling Building Simu With CFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Paper

Journal of Building Physics

Coupling building energy Ó The Author(s) 2020

simulation and Article reuse guidelines:

computation time to implement computational fluid dynamics with information obtained

 Models of thermal balances (heat balance model).

According to Hong et al. (2018), there are 10 challenges in building performance

 Addressing the building performance gap: It refers to a difference between

 Internal or external. Depending if the coupling is through new modules cre-

Development of BES–CFD coupling methods

Clarke  Implemented a  The BES provides wall  Difference of 3% in the net

coupling temperature. between two boundary

Djunaedy  Analyzed  The BES provides an  A maximum

CFD room. the energy

Mirsadeghi  Developed a  The BES provides  Maximum difference 6.5% in

and its benefits ANN calculates and CFD alone (coupled

Yamamoto  Implemented a  BES calculates and  The difference of

experimental local wind velocity, CHTC, respectively,

established but implemented differently. Based on this, Djunaedy categorizes the

Comparison of several types of coupling

 The static and quasi-dynamic coupling in a step of time, its implementation

BES–CFD coupling application studies in the

al. (2013) TRNSYS BES.

BES: building energy simulations; CFD: computational fluid dynamics.

Figure 3. Implementation of the BES–CFD coupling through the years.

Studies on the building envelope

Studies for mechanical and passive systems

Studies on natural ventilation

Studies on urban design

Yi and Malkawi (2011) studied the effect of external environmental conditions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Toparlar T, Blockn B, Maiheu B, et al. (2018) Impact of urban microclimate on summertime

You might also like

Models of thermal balances (heat balance model).

Addressing the building performance gap: It refers to a difference between

Internal or external. Depending if the coupling is through new modules cre-

Clarke Implemented a The BES provides wall Difference of 3% in the net

Djunaedy Analyzed The BES provides an A maximum

Mirsadeghi Developed a The BES provides Maximum difference 6.5% in

Yamamoto Implemented a BES calculates and The difference of

The static and quasi-dynamic coupling in a step of time, its implementation