A System to Pre-Evaluate the Suitability of Energy-Saving Technology for Green Buildings

Rating systems for green buildings often give assessments from the perspective of the overall performance of a single building or architecture complex but rarely target specific green building technologies. As some of the rating systems are scored according to whether the technologies are used or not, some developers tend to pile up energy-saving technologies blindly just for the sake of certifications without considering their suitability for the application. Such behavior may lead to the failure of achieving the energy goals for green buildings. To solve this problem, a system that pre-evaluates the suitability of green building energy-saving technologies is devised based on modified TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) method, SA (simulated annealing) algorithm and unascertained theory-based data analysis method. By setting indices from technology performance, economy, human satisfaction aspects and by using the building prior information and measured database of technology usage, this system can make a quantifiable and multi-dimensional grading assessment for the target green building energy-saving technologies in the design stage. The system aims at helping the designer choose technologies in the design phase that best enhance the performance of the finished green building. It also helps prevent the sub-optimal performance of unsuitable technologies caused by the “pile up” behavior mentioned earlier. To verify this evaluation system, two building designs which use energy-recovery technology are evaluated, and the predicted performance for both designs matched the actual operation of the technology in the buildings themselves well.

[1]  Eziaku Onyeizu Rasheed,et al.  The Productivity Paradox in Green Buildings , 2016 .

[2]  Juan Zhou,et al.  A REVIEW ON APPLYING VENTILATED DOUBLE-SKIN FACADE TO BUILDINGS IN HOT-SUMMER AND COLD-WINTER ZONE IN CHINA , 2010 .

[3]  E. C. Keighley Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in office buildings — A study of window shape , 1973 .

[4]  Zhaoxia Wang,et al.  Suitability assessment of building energy saving technologies for office buildings in cold areas of China based on an assessment framework , 2015 .

[5]  A. Zeinal Hamedani,et al.  A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate systems in urban sustainability , 2012 .

[6]  Li Yang,et al.  Green building in China: Needs great promotion , 2014 .

[7]  Carlo Lavalle,et al.  An assessment of the regional potential for solar power generation in EU-28 , 2016 .

[8]  Yan-ming Kang,et al.  Applicability of air-to-air heat recovery ventilators in China , 2009 .

[9]  Wanqing Li,et al.  Applying Unascertained Theory, Principal Component Analysis and ACO-based Artificial Neural Networks for Real Estate Price Determination , 2011, J. Softw..

[10]  Jin Si,et al.  Assessment of building-integrated green technologies: A review and case study on applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method , 2016 .

[11]  Rebecca J. Yang,et al.  Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: a social network model , 2014 .

[12]  Frédéric Magoulès,et al.  A review on the prediction of building energy consumption , 2012 .

[13]  W. L. Lee,et al.  A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes , 2013 .

[14]  Albert P.C. Chan,et al.  Examining issues influencing green building technologies adoption : the United States green building experts' perspectives , 2017 .

[15]  L. Gosselin,et al.  Understanding energy consumption in high-performance social housing buildings : a case study from Canada , 2018 .

[16]  Zhi Wang,et al.  Green Building Technology of Regional Suitability Evaluation System Research and Case Study , 2013 .

[17]  S. C. Kaushik,et al.  Performance evaluation of green roof and shading for thermal protection of buildings , 2005 .

[18]  John Tookey,et al.  A critical comparison of green building rating systems , 2017 .

[19]  Thong Ngee Goh,et al.  Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators , 2011 .

[20]  Ting Kuo,et al.  A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index , 2017, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Dj Carter,et al.  The costs and benefits of using daylight guidance to light office buildings , 2011 .

[22]  Ma Lihua,et al.  Evaluation Method of Dissertation Based on Unascertained Rational-AHM , 2011 .

[23]  Mohamad Ivan Fanany,et al.  Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Deep Learning , 2015 .

[24]  E. de Oliveira Fernandes,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Renewable Energy Systems on Islands , 2015 .