PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

UNIT III
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS AND MODELING FOR PASSIVE
SYSTEMS.

Modelling and experimental techniques for building assessment/ evaluation and design –

Introduction
The International Energy question especially regarding the building sector has become a really
important focus, both for designers and researchers. It deals with the enormous potential of buildings
in terms of Green House Gasses emissions reduction, achievable also applying a whole building
energy design concept different from a simple addition of disconnected parts.

All over the world the interest tries for acquire skills able to integrate and optimize all the
possible interconnecting properties also during the earlier design phases. By now it is clear
that all the decisions taken in the early stages of the architectural process affect both indoor
thermal comfort and building energy efficiency, that could not be independent also from the
environmental stresses, typical of each macroclimate region and also of every different
outdoor microclimate .

Elements contributing to the creation of energy-efficient buildings are for example:
architectural shape and “passive design” techniques, technical solutions both for the opaque and the
transparent “intelligent façade”, innovative materials, plants interaction strategies and multi-energy
systems in buildings . All these elements have also to be considered both in summer and in winter
period, taking into account realistic and peculiar to the site climatic conditions .

Improving building design and operation

As energy performance legislation becomes more stringent, it is necessary to better

understand the way that our buildings behave. Changes in building design and occupation affect the
energy and thermal performance of buildings and building energy modelling enables a deeper
understanding of the likely effects of these changes. Energy consumption and risk of overheating are
particularly pertinent issues.

In new buildings, energy modelling should be carried out at an early stage of the design
process in order to inform further development of the design and construction.
In existing buildings, modelling can help to evaluate and prioritise the options for reducing carbon
emissions cost effectively.

Basic principles of energy simulation

Energy simulation tools predict the energy performance of a given building and thermal
comfort for its occupants. In general, they support the understanding of how a given building
operates according to certain criteria and enable comparisons of different design alternatives.

Limitations apply to almost every available tool of this kind today, thus it is necessary to
understand certain basic principles of energy simulation. First of all, any simulation result can only be
as accurate as the input data for the simulation.

© Anuradha Menon Page 1

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

As illustrated in Figure 2, the input mainly consists of the building geometry, internal loads,
HVAC systems and components, weather data, operating strategies and schedules, and simulation
specific parameters.
Every energy simulation is based on thermodynamic equations, principles and assumptions.
Since thermal processes in a building are complex and not totally understood today, energy simulation
programs approximate their predictions with qualified equations and methods. Therefore, results can
be arbitrarily incorrect, if certain assumptions are not satisfied in the simulation or matched in real
life.

© Anuradha Menon Page 2

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Furthermore, most energy simulation tools comprise of an engine and a graphical user
interface. Different calculation methods to determine space loads are being used within the engine.
All available simulation tools are uniform time increment models. While these time increments
are somewhat flexible (or user-definable), they are not based on events or changes.

In general, energy simulations could be applied in every stage of the building lifecycle, since
the used concepts are equally valid independently of the stage of a building’s life. However, so-called
design tools are mainly focusing on the design of a building from a heating and air conditioning
perspective including its passive performance, such as shading. Many of the underlying
assumptions and features are primarily related to the design stage and limit capabilities for other
stages of the life-cycle.

In particular design tools are used to size HVAC equipment for worst case conditions
and do not consider the overall annual performance. In contrast, simulation tools use more
generic concepts, thus they can be used during any life-cycle phase. The latter produce more data
(typically over a period of one year) that can be compared to actual building performance and, thus,
they are also useful for commissioning and operations purposes.

Today, energy performance simulation tools are mainly based on one-dimensional heat
transfer between thermal zones. This assumption simplifies the geometric input dramatically and
allows shorter simulation run times. While 2 or 3 dimensional heat transfer would increase the
accuracy of simulation results, geometry input and simulation run time is likely to be more complex.

Input to energy simulation

The building geometry constitutes the basic input for energy simulation. It is crucial to
understand that there are differences between a building model that was created by an architect and a
building model needed for energy simulation. The latter, often referred to as thermal building model
or thermal view of the building model, is basically a simplified view of the architectural building.

One of the differences is that architectural spaces can typically be aggregated into thermal
spaces or in case of large open offices the architectural space can be divided into multiple thermal
spaces. This conjunction or division of architectural spaces is based on the thermal perspective where
spaces with the same or very similar thermal characteristics and control patterns are combined into
one. For energy simulations spaces need to be defined by space boundaries, which are not
necessarily the same as walls in an architectural model.

© Anuradha Menon Page 3

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Difference between walls and space boundaries

As illustrated, single long walls (WALL 1) may need to be divided into multiple space
boundaries (BOUNDARY 1 & 2) in case multiple neighboring spaces are attached to this particular
wall. These space boundaries define the interface between a thermal space and its surrounding
boundaries for energy equations, thus only that part of a wall that represents an actual boundary
needs to be assigned to the space.

Based on this space boundary concept the intersecting portion of the two walls (illustrated in
red) is ignored in the thermal simulation model, because of the mentioned one-dimensional heat
transfer assumption. Freestanding walls or columns can be mostly ignored in thermal models.
Since there is no difference in temperature between the exterior surfaces that all belong to the same
thermal space there will be no heat transfer. Slabs and walls that do not relate to a particular
building space and are external can be ignored from a heat transfer perspective, but need to be
converted into shading objects if they shade the building. Shading devices are an important part of
any energy model, since they can dramatically reduce solar loads in a space. Today, curved surfaces
can not be represented as such in any thermal simulation engine that is based on one-dimensional heat
transfer. Usually objects with curved surfaces are approximated through a number of plane surfaces.

While in the early design phases both the architectural and the thermal model can
sometimes be almost identical, the differences increase while design progresses. The automated
simplification process to derive the input geometry for thermal simulation from an architectural model
is still a challenge today.

Internal and external loads are necessary to provide enough information for an energy balance
in a space. The external loads are strongly influenced by weather and climate, thus collected and
statistically assembled weather data are used in energy performance simulation. Weather data files are
being created for design purposes for an increasing number of cities and regions around the world.

These weather files do not reflect a specific year, but provide statistical reference for the
typical weather parameters of a specific location. During commissioning and operation weather
information can sometimes be measured directly at the building in question or at weather stations
that are locally close. Internal loads such as loads from people, lights and equipment in a space
depend greatly on the actual usage of a space and the behavior of the occupants. Assumptions have to
be made about the quantity of internal loads in a given space for energy simulation in design.

HVAC systems and their components are a major part of the input information for
thermal simulation models. These systems can be modeled to reflect the actual system if the energy
simulation tool (graphical user interface and the engine) provides enough flexibility. To define a

© Anuradha Menon Page 4

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

realistic representation of the real HVAC system within a predefined structure can sometimes be
challenging.

Another important aspect is the possibility to model new HVAC technologies and concepts
such as under-floor heating and cooling within the energy simulation tool. Besides the HVAC system
configuration and HVAC component parameters, control strategies are necessary as input for energy
simulations.

These strategies define the simulated behavior of the HVAC components to act as a system
and serve the building as intended. These control strategies in current simulation tools are simplistic
when compared to actual control implementations.

Assumptions in energy simulation

Weather data and internal loads, for energy simulation is already based on assumptions, as are
the thermodynamic concepts. For that matter, any simulation is based on assumptions, so that
complex interrelations can be simplified and managed. Users need to be aware of these
assumptions and be able to decide whether they are reasonable for their specific simulation or not.

For example, the majority of energy simulation tools are based on the assumption that every
space in a building is well-mixed. In other words, the temperature within a space is spatially uniform.
This assumption applies for a majority of one story high spaces; but becomes less acceptable as the
space height increases. Atria, for instance, extend over several floors; therefore, the temperature
distribution in atria varies according to the height of the space.

Many energy simulation programs use simplified approaches for infiltration and natural
ventilation that are pressure independent. While the traditional approach to slightly pressurize a
building is sufficient for conventional HVAC systems, it is not adequate for buildings which are
primarily naturally ventilated.

Basic tool architecture

Most building simulation tools consist of two different components, the engine and the
graphical user interface. While the simulation engine is usually developed by one or more academic
and/or research institutions, the user interfaces are mostly implemented by private software vendors.

General architecture of energy simulation tools

© Anuradha Menon Page 5

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

The general data flow principle between simulation engines and graphical user interfaces is
illustrated.
The simulation engine uses an input file (or files) of a defined format that contains a
representation of the previously described input. Based on this input the engine performs a simulation
and writes its output into one or more output files.

While the output files contain results from the simulation, they also contain information
about the simulation run itself, such as warning messages or additional information to evaluate
the input. Graphical user interfaces usually wrap around this process and enable the user an easier
generation of input files, initiate the simulation with the engine and process the output files to
illustrate results in a more graphical manner.

General purpose of energy simulation

A major benefit of energy simulation in design today is the comparison of architectural

design alternatives: Alternatives to the original building design are validatedfor both thermal
comfort and energy usage. One of the biggest challenges for this comparison is the dynamic
human behavior. Typically, internal loads resulting from humans are represented with schedules in
energy simulation models; the actual usage of the building, however, changes on a daily basis. It is
uncommon today to keep track of occupancy for every thermal zone, and to match the simulation
input of occupancy with the actual occupancy. The input of static occupancy schedules in energy
simulation can not properly represent the actual building usage. Statistically derived stochastic
distributions may provide a methodology to simulate the actual behavior of people in buildings more
accurately, but none of the energy simulation tools provide such a functionality.

The strength of energy simulation today is the comparison of different design alternatives
rather than predicting absolute energy consumption values. With additional research and
development, these tools could also provide more accurate absolute values and provide many
additional benefits to their users.

Current seamless data import of building geometry data into energy simulation
tools has limitations and usually includes either a process of iteratively changing the
architectural model or manual checking and fixing of the partially converted geometry.

Energy performance simulation tools are mostly used during design, but the use
of such tools during the commissioning and operations phase has additional value. To
leverage this value, data exchange must become more applicable and usable in other phases of a
building’s life-cycle, not only in the design phase.

Thus a closer integration of energy performance simulation with the actual performance
of buildings during operation will not only improve existing simulation tools, but will also enable a
more efficient operation of buildings.

© Anuradha Menon Page 6

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Issues and opportunities with current assessment modes/ evaluation tools

The field of building environmental assessment has matured remarkably quickly since the
introduction of BREEAM in 1990, and the interim period has witnessed a rapid increase in the
number of building environmental assessment methods either in use or being developed worldwide.
Building environmental assessment methods have contributed enormously to furthering the
promotion of higher environmental expectations, and are directly and indirectly influencing the
performance of buildings.
Widespread awareness of assessment methods rather than the actual number of assessed
buildings has created interest necessary to cement their role in creating positive change. This early
success largely derives from their ability to offer a recognizable structure for environmental issues
and, more importantly, to provide a focus for the debate of building environmental
performance. This momentum will likely increase over the next few years, and current systems will
continue to evolve in terms of refining performance indicators, measures and benchmark and the
level of complexity attainable within acceptable costs. Similarly, the organizational setting within
which the methods are administered will respond to concerns over the costs of making an assessment
by streamlining the certification process and the necessary support documentation.
The context in which building environmental assessment methods now operate, and the roles that they
are increasingly playing, are qualitatively different than earlier expectations. Moreover, a shift in
emphasis toward sustainability will further transform the structural and operational
requirements of such tools.

Initial Intentions & Roles

The majority of existing building environmental assessment methods evaluate “green” performance
and are classified here as “first generation” systems. This generation of assessment methods:

• Are technically framed and emphasize the assessment of resource use, loadings and health &
comfort issues in individual buildings.
• Assess performance relative to explicitly declared or implicit benchmarks and, as such,
measure the extent of improvement rather than how close to a defined desired goal.
• Assess design intentions and potential as determined through prediction rather than actual
real-world
performance.
• Structure performance scoring as a simple additive process and use explicitly declared or
implicit weightings to denote priority.

They were initially conceived, and still largely function, as voluntary, market place mechanisms by
which owners striving for improved performance would have an objective basis for communicating
their efforts. An often-stated role and expectation is that the widespread adoption of assessment
methods could ultimately transform the market in its expectation and demand for buildings with
higher environmental performance.

Building environmental assessment is now a distinct and important realm of research and inquiry that:
• Seeks to develop greater refinement and rigour in performance indicators, weighting protocols and
the potential incorporation of LCA approaches to refine the constituent requirements.

© Anuradha Menon Page 7

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

• Has provided numerous side-by-side comparisons of the more notable tools (e.g., BREEAM,
LEED® and GBTool) to illustrate points of convergence and distinction, typically as a starting point
for generating applicable methods in other regions or countries.

Assessment Tools in Developing Countries

The first generation of assessment tools originated in developed countries. However, with increased
international interest, the cross-cultural transferability of assessment methods is of particular
importance to those in developing countries.
Since developing countries are confronted with pressing social and economic concerns, their
domestic constraints on environmental progress are therefore qualitatively different from those in
developed countries.
Whereas the developed countries have been concerned with maintaining standards of living
while reducing resource depletion and environmental damage, the average standard of living in
developing countries is far lower than in developed countries and in many cases basic human needs
are not being met. The emphasis should therefore be on development that aims to address these
basic needs while avoiding negative environmental impacts.

Whereas some environmental criteria related to resource use and loadings can be readily
reconfigured to acknowledge different regional and geographical contexts, many others cannot. All
assessment tools carry the values and priorities of their authors, either implicitly or explicitly,
and importing them from one circumstance to another or, indeed, developing a standardized
universally applicable method, is now difficult. This will become increasing more acute as and
when the range of considerations is expanded to address social and economic aspects of
sustainability.

Several recent assessment tools – the Japanese Comprehensive Assessment Scheme for
Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE); the South African Sustainable Building Assessment
Tool (SBAT);Arup’s Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR®); and the proposed Hong Kong
Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme (CEPAS) – show structural features
that differentiate them from the first generation of tools. Although they still employ several of the
scoring characteristics of earlier systems, they collectively suggest a transition towards a generation of
tools that may enable assessment of the extent to which buildings can contribute to supporting
sustainable patterns of living:

• CASBEE, while employing an additive/weighting approach, breaks away from the simple addition
of points achieved in all performance areas to derive an overall building score, which has been the
dominant feature of all previous methods. It distinguishes between the Environmental Loading
(resource use and ecological loadings) and Environmental Quality and Performance (indoor
environmental quality and amenities) scoring them separately to determine the Building
Environmental Efficiency, i.e., the ratio of Environmental Quality and Performance to Environmental
Loading. Conceptually, therefore, building assessment is not presented as a representation of the
environmental characteristics of a building as a “product”, but rather as a measure of the
environmental implications associated with providing a set of “services.”

• CEPAS, again while employing an additive/weighting approach, introduces and organizes

performance criteria that make a clear distinction between “human” and “physical” performance
issues as well as “building” and their “surroundings.” This manifests as eight performance categories:

© Anuradha Menon Page 8

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Resource Use; Loadings; Site Impacts; Neighbourhood Impacts; Indoor Environmental Quality;
Building Amenities; Site Amenities and Neighbourhood Amenities.

• SBAT explicitly introduces performance criteria that acknowledge social and economic issues. A
total 15 performance areas are identified – equally divided within the overarching sustainability
framework of environmental, social and economic. These performance areas are each described
through 5 performance criteria. Further, SBAT considers how it could become and integral part of,
and subsequently influence, the building production process by relating SBAT’s application to a nine-
stage process based on the typical life cycle of a building: Briefing, Site Analysis, Target Setting,
Design, Design development, Construction, Handover, Operation, Reuse/refurbish/recycle, is
explicitly defined in this context.

The starting point and expectation for these assessment methods is qualitatively different
from those of the first generation of tools. However, although reference is made to sustainability
criteria and issues, the fundamental relative scoring and separate scoring of the individual criteria are
similar to those currently deployed in assessing “green” performance.

Future Intentions & Roles

Two inter-related requirements are likely to play critical roles in shaping future developments in
assessment tools:
• Acknowledging and fully embracing the requirements of sustainability
• Encouraging and assisting in dialogue between multiple stakeholders

A key question here is whether current assessment methods that were conceived and created
to evaluate the environmental merits of individual buildings can be easily transformed to account for a
qualitatively different role.

Embracing Sustainability

The increase in development and application of building environmental assessment methods

has provided considerable theoretical and practical experience on their potential contribution in
furthering environmentally responsible building practices. While their most significant early
contribution was to acknowledge and institutionalize the importance of assessing building across a
broad range of considerations, the increased use of building environmental assessment methods has
began to expose and clarify a host of new potential roles.

These primarily relate to their role in facilitating communication between stakeholders.

However, despite their current success and influence, and despite the fact that they embrace a broad
range of environmental considerations, current building assessment methods remain framed and
constrained by several underlying notions as the focus shifts to addressing sustainability and
changing the culture of the building industry

© Anuradha Menon Page 9

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Evaluation and assessment based on Building type/ function and program –

Building performance with respect to function, program, micro climate, urban planning,
envelope design, material

The Building as a System

The idea of the building as a system springs from modern systems theory and the application of
building science principles to building behavior and performance. Analysis and review of building
failures indicated that traditional approaches to design were inadequate.

The building as a system approach, as depicted in Figure 1, requires designers to explicitly and
consciously consider the interactions between the primary elements comprising the system:

1. Building enclosure (building envelope system);

2. Inhabitants (humans, animals, and/or plants, etc.);
3. Building services (electrical/mechanical systems);
4. Site, with its landscape and services infrastructure; and
5. External environment (weather and micro-climate).

Harmonization of these elements is the key to well-performing buildings. A large number of

materials, components, equipment, and assemblies must be properly integrated to achieve a high-
performance building. At the same time, it must be appreciated that most performance problems
involve the building enclosure, which also represents the primary passive environmental control
system.

© Anuradha Menon Page 10

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Figure 2. Physical mechanisms driving the behavior of the building as a system.

There remain four primary physical mechanisms associated with climate and weather that drive the
behavior of the building as a system in terms of its role as a moderator of the indoor environment .

1. Heat Flow - the conductive, convective, and radiative flow of heat;

2. Air Flow - the air flow across and within the building enclosure due to air leakage and
ventilation;

3. Moisture Flow - the flow of water and vapor across and within the building enclosure;
and

4. Solar Radiation - the influence of insulation on the opaque and transparent enclosure
components.

In the building as a system, all of these physical mechanisms are occurring in various
combinations at various times. During cold periods, heat and warm moist air escape through leaks in
the building enclosure. To compensate, the heating system must supply the amount of heat being lost,
and to replace the lost moisture, the indoor air must be humidified for occupant health and comfort.
During hot periods, heat and warm moist air are driven into the building and the HVAC system must
cool and dehumidify.

Under all conditions, the building enclosure must manage the heat, air, and moisture flows.
The occupants can exert as great an influence as the climate through their activities. This explains
why a building may be very fit for one occupancy (e.g., warehouse or factory), but then
experience problems when the occupancy changes (e.g., residential or institutional). Problems
occur when the balance of moisture, heat, and air flows is disturbed beyond the performance
thresholds of the building as a system.

© Anuradha Menon Page 11

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

The key to the fitness of a building is the balanced control of these physical mechanisms, so that
durability, comfort, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, health, and safety are not compromised.

Building Performance

The term "performance" may be defined as the level of service provided by a building material,
component, or system, in relation to an intended, or expected, threshold or quality.

For example, the structural performance of a building may be judged in terms of its resistance to dead,
live, soil, wind, hydrostatic, and seismic loads as prescribed by applicable codes. Within the
established thresholds for these loads, the structure would be required to behave adequately according
to expectations in terms of strength, durability, deflections, and vibrations.

When the intended or expected level of performance is not achieved, the resultant behavior is termed
a "failure" which must not be confused with the term "defect", a minor damage or blemish which has
no immediate or significant impact on performance, and which may be suitably repaired.

An important contribution of building science is the quantification of performance parameters such

that many of these can be predicted at the design stage, and assessed / confirmed after the building is
occupied and operational. This preoccupation with prediction and validation has led to the
appreciation of the need for a systems approach, as building scientists grapple with issues such as
indoor air quality and sustainable buildings.

The concept of a building performance framework is intended to explicitly represent:

1. External and internal conditions affecting a building system (e.g., climate, weather, site,
soils, occupancy, and indoor climate class);
2. Parts and inter-relationships comprising a building system (e.g., the behavior of materials,
components, equipment and sub-systems);
3. Parameters or indicators defining acceptable performance (e.g., aesthetics, health and
safety, economy, sustainability, etc.); and
4. Methods, tools, and techniques for designing and analyzing performance according to the
parameters, inter-relationships and conditions cited above.
5. Context for Contemporary Building Performance Objectives

Appropriate building performance objectives involve numerous interfaces between the building, its
occupants, and the natural and built environment as depicted in Figure 4.

© Anuradha Menon Page 12

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

Some of these interfaces cannot be regulated (e.g., climate, weather, human physiology, etc.), while
others may be manipulated within some prescribed range (e.g., energy efficiency, affordability, etc.).
The most significant change in recent times has been our awareness of the ecological impacts
of buildings. Today, our society recognizes that the building as a system does not arbitrarily end at the
property line, and may have far reaching environmental implications. It is reasonable to expect there
will continue to be a variety of interpretations of the relative importance (priority) of the factors
involved in the performance of building systems.

Relationship between Physics, Materials, Components, and Systems

Performance concepts in building codes and standards have existed largely as constraints guiding the
prescriptive codes and standards development process. One of the major challenges in developing an
effective building performance objectives framework has been the establishment of explicit
parameters supported by building science knowledge, and specialized knowledge from allied
disciplines. These are premised on the relationship between physical phenomena and building system
behavior.

A building is a system which consists of materials, components (assemblies, equipment), sub-systems,

and systems that interact with physical phenomena in the process of providing an intended level of
performance to its immediate occupants and societal stakeholders.

© Anuradha Menon Page 13

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

The framework depicted in Figure 7 is based on the premise that in the assessment or design process,
the key consideration appears to be the performance objective or intent. An interesting aspect of
any objective-based framework is that the intent remains constant while the means of achieving the
intent or objective continue to evolve with advances in technology. It appears humans will always
expect buildings to provide firmness, commodity, and delight, and that architects will always have to
find appropriate means of responding to their clients' demands.

The framework presented in the Figure consists of two primary elements:

1. The physical constraints which are imposed by site conditions and the limits or thresholds of
the global environment and local ecosystem; and

2. The functional requirements of buildings that encompass occupant requirements,

compatibility requirements, and physical requirements.

Contemporary building science supports the societal objective of sustainable architecture by balancing
the physical constraints and the functional requirements, ideally without compromising
architectural aesthetics and high performance.
The predominant area of interest for building science is under functional requirements, and within this
area further and more specific objectives are identified that constitute the basis for designing and/or
assessing physical building system performance.

This performance objectives framework, is intended to provide designers with an explicit means of
accounting for compliance with the functional requirements of buildings. Optimizing performance
goes beyond compatibility between the structure, enclosure, interior, and services. It involves the
assessment of economic, social, and environmental parameters so that performance targets are

© Anuradha Menon Page 14

 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BUILDINGS

attained affordably within the skill capacity of the industry. This effectively means innovation may be
defined as achieving better performance and higher quality at less cost over the life cycle of a
building or facility.

Conclusions

1. Buildings are systems that must be appropriately integrated by designers to achieve

defined levels of performance.

2. Building science provides a disciplined means of dealing with the physical requirements
of buildings that is compatible with the architectural design and building construction
processes.

3. Innovation in modern architecture relies on building science and the systems approach
to ensure that building performance meets the expectations of building owners,
inhabitants, and society.

The context for building performance has more recently evolved to include issues of ecology and
sustainable development. This expansion of performance parameters, coupled with increasing
consumer expectations, has dramatically increased the complexity of buildings. Performance
objectives frameworks and conceptual models have become necessary methodologies to assure all
aspects of the integration of well performing building systems have been carefully addressed.

© Anuradha Menon Page 15