Closing the building energy performance gap through component level analysis and stakeholder collaborations

Abstract Despite the endorsement of green building regulations and the incorporation of energy-efficient technologies, commercial buildings often fail to achieve the desired energy conservation goals, instead consume as much as 3 times of the predicted energy consumptions, representing a significant building energy performance gap. This study aims to develop a pathway and stakeholder-engaged methodological framework to close the building energy performance gap (EPG) through an in-depth case study of a state-of-the-art green office building. The selected case study is a 14-storey office building with spaces predominantly occupied by public and private companies. The required data were collected from building design documents, energy monitoring reports, building energy simulation models, building management system, stakeholder meeting minutes and records and discussions with the building’s key stakeholders. The collected data were analyzed by using content analysis and statistical analysis methods. The results and findings demonstrated the importance of analysis and comparison of energy consumption at building service systems’ component level rather than comparing the overall energy consumption to determine the level of EPG and unfold the details. Based on the results and findings, it is discovered that even when the overall EPG was close to zero, energy consumptions were significantly higher than the predictions for some components and significantly lower for others. The identified causes of EPG include inefficient control strategies of components, human manual overriding of automatic control operations, inaccurate prediction of after-hour demand and operations, as well as inaccurate modeling of cold and hot weather conditions in winter and summer respectively. An EPG-closing framework, which brings all key energy stakeholders (environmentally sustainable design team, main contractor, facility manager, mechanical service contractor, electrical service contractor, BMS service contractor and independent commissioning agent) together to work collectively to close the EPG was proposed. It is crucial to ensure that there are 1) motivations for involvement and participation of all stakeholders, 2) consistent naming of building service components in the prediction model and BMS system, 3) regular update of prediction models and 4) seamless knowledge transfer between stakeholders to effectively implement the framework. The outcome of this research provides the practitioners with knowledge and confidence to close EPG in their projects. The methods and processes developed and applied in this study provides useful reference to future studies.

[1]  Juan J. Sendra,et al.  Understanding the performance gap in energy retrofitting: Measured input data for adjusting building simulation models , 2020, Energy and Buildings.

[2]  Alba Fuertes,et al.  The relationship between quality defects and the thermal performance of buildings , 2018 .

[3]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications , 2001 .

[4]  D. Johansson,et al.  Predicted and measured user-related energy usage in newly built low-energy schools in Sweden , 2020 .

[5]  Ming Hu,et al.  Mind the energy performance gap: Evidence from green commercial buildings , 2019, Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[6]  Patrick X.W. Zou,et al.  Strategies for minimizing building energy performance gaps between the design intend and the reality , 2019, Energy and Buildings.

[7]  P. Zou,et al.  Energy saving performance assessment and lessons learned from the operation of an active phase change materials system in a multi-storey building in Melbourne , 2019, Applied Energy.

[8]  Patrick X.W. Zou,et al.  Review of 10 years research on building energy performance gap: Life-cycle and stakeholder perspectives , 2018, Energy and Buildings.

[9]  J. Chambers,et al.  Measuring the thermal energy performance gap of labelled residential buildings in Switzerland , 2020 .

[10]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Learning from failure: understanding the anticipated–achieved building energy performance gap , 2015 .

[11]  Patrick X.W. Zou,et al.  A mixed methods design for building occupants’ energy behavior research , 2018 .

[12]  Robert Cohen,et al.  Mandating transparency about building energy performance in use , 2015 .

[13]  Dino Bouchlaghem,et al.  Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap , 2012 .

[14]  Henk Visscher,et al.  Actual energy saving effects of thermal renovations in dwellings—longitudinal data analysis including building and occupant characteristics , 2019, Energy and Buildings.

[15]  Fu Xiao,et al.  Discovering gradual patterns in building operations for improving building energy efficiency , 2018, Applied Energy.

[16]  Alo Mikola,et al.  Realisation of energy performance targets of an old apartment building renovated to nZEB , 2020 .

[17]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  Towards measurement and verification of energy performance under the framework of the European directive for energy performance of buildings , 2014 .

[18]  María Herrando,et al.  Energy Performance Certification of Faculty Buildings in Spain: The gap between estimated and real energy consumption , 2016 .

[19]  Brett Pollard.  Mind the Gap：Predicted vs.Actual Performance of Green Buildings , 2011 .

[20]  Catalina Spataru,et al.  A Review of the Regulatory Energy Performance Gap and Its Underlying Causes in Non-domestic Buildings , 2016, Front. Mech. Eng..

[21]  Elie Azar,et al.  A comprehensive framework to quantify energy savings potential from improved operations of commercial building stocks , 2014 .

[22]  Elie Azar,et al.  Framework to investigate energy conservation motivation and actions of building occupants: The case of a green campus in Abu Dhabi, UAE , 2017 .

[23]  Pieter de Wilde,et al.  The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation , 2014 .

[24]  Yingxin Zhu,et al.  A review of operating performance in green buildings: Energy use, indoor environmental quality and occupant satisfaction , 2019, Energy and Buildings.

[25]  William Swan,et al.  Domestic building fabric performance: Closing the gap between the in situ measured and modelled performance , 2017 .

[26]  M. Mahdi Salehi,et al.  A case study: The energy performance gap of the Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability at the University of British Columbia , 2015 .

[27]  Enedir Ghisi,et al.  Building-level and stock-level in contrast: A literature review of the energy performance of buildings during the operational stage , 2020 .

[28]  T. Kalamees,et al.  How well are energy performance objectives being achieved in renovated apartment buildings in Estonia? , 2019, Energy and Buildings.

[29]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  Building Schools for the Future: Lessons Learned From Performance Evaluations of Five Secondary Schools and Academies in England , 2018, Front. Built Environ..

[30]  William O'Brien,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and optimization of building operations , 2019, Energy and Buildings.