1 s2.0 S2352710222000353 Main

Journal of Building Engineering 49 (2022) 104022
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Optimization and BIM-based lifecycle assessment integration for

energy efficiency retrofit of buildings
Maedeh Motalebi a, *, Ali Rashidi b, Mohammad Mahdi Nasiri a
a
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
b
Future Building Initiative, Monash University, 3145, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: A retrofit plan for improving the energy efficiency of an existing building can contribute to a
Building information modeling sustainable built environment. This study presents a novel framework for integrating mathe
Decision making matical optimization, 6D-Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Life Cycle Assessment to
Life cycle assessment enhance existing buildings’ energy efficiency through applying energy retrofit measures. This
Building energy framework aims to (1) integrate life cycle cost, and environmental impacts analysis (2) identify
Sustainability
energy-efficient alternatives for buildings’ energy retrofit (3) make the decision-making process
straightforward for decision-makers and investors (4) discover the primary energy efficiency
agents that impose the most energy waste on existing buildings. This study contributes to the
body of knowledge by applying effective retrofit measures and alternative material choice and
empowers decision-making by analyzing life cycle cost and environmental impacts of building
envelopes by combining mathematical optimization, BIM, and LCA. The BIM energy model
compares the cooling and heating loads of the building’s components before and after applying
retrofitting measures. The results show that inefficient buildings’ envelopes and evaporative
coolers play a significant role in energy consumption. A developed mathematical optimization
model estimates the economic benefits of energy efficiency upgrades to minimize the total life
cycle cost of a building during its lifetime. Moreover, it provides an optimum energy retrofitting
scenario that leads to reductions of 24%–58.2% in energy consumption. In conclusion, the Life
Cycle Assessment Comparison between the building before and after retrofitted measures dem
onstrates that over 45% of global warming impacts could be reduced in the well-established
building.
1. Introduction
The buildings and construction industry are among the significant contributors to the green gas emissions (30%), energy con
sumption (40%), and waste (32%) worldwide [1,2]. If preventive actions are not taken, the buildings’ energy consumption and GHG
(Green House Gas) emissions will be doubled by 2050 due to population and economic growth [3]. This increase in the urban built
environment had prioritized energy efficiency and saving strategies policies [4], especially when recent studies approved that
energy-efficient buildings are substantial factors to potentially decrease carbon emissions of building stock by about 80% by 2050 [3].
Hence, the essential step to mitigating the adverse impacts of this industry on the environment is moving toward sustainable and
energy-efficient buildings, accessed by upgrading building envelope, integrating buildings with renewable energy systems, and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maede.motalebi@ut.ac.ir (M. Motalebi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104022
Received 4 September 2021; Received in revised form 29 December 2021; Accepted 7 January 2022
Available online 11 January 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Motalebi et al. Journal of Building Engineering 49 (2022) 104022
Nomenclature
Indexes
i Types of external wall
r Types of roof materials
j Types of windows
s Types of solar panels
w Types of wind turbines j
m Types of cooling system
n Types of heating system
p Types of appliances
z Types of lighting systems
d Geographical directions
Abbreviations
wall External wall
win Windows
roof Roof
app Appliances
heat Heating
cool Cooling
light Lighting
PV Photovoltaic
WT Wind Turbine
CAP Capital Cost
O&M Operation and maintenance
h Cold days requiring heating
c Hot days requiring cooling
Parameters
LCC Life cycle cost ($)
CCAP Investment cost ($)
PVO&M Present value of operation and maintenance cost ($)
PVEN Present value of Energy cost ($)
PVRV Present value of benefits from buildings’ resale after its service life ($)
C Investment cost ($)
CM Maintenance cost ($)
RV Resale value of the building ($)
RV0 Resale value of the building before energy retrofits ($)
ECC0 Annual energy consumption before energy retrofits ($)
ECC Annual energy consumption after energy retrofits ($)
QHeating Energy consumption for space heating (kW h/year)
Qcooling The energy consumption for space cooling in a building (kW h/year)
Qext Heat loss through zones in contact with the outdoor (kW h/year)
Qlnu . Heat loss through zones in contact with non-useful spaces (kW h/year)
Qv Heat loss through fresh air flow (kW h/year)
Qhuhg Useful heat gain in cold days (kW h/year)
Qltb Heat loss through linear thermal bridges (kW h/year)
Qcuhg power load densities of lightings (W/m2)
Qe power load densities of appliances (W/m2)
Qi occupancy time during year t (h)
Qt Heat transfer due to infiltration (kWh/year)
QDEN Internal heat gain in a general building mainly results from people, lightings and appliances (kWh/year)
EPV the energy produced by the installed solar panel(kWh/year)
EWT the energy produced by the installed wind turbine (kWh/year)
ELight energy usage by lighting system (kWh/year)
EAPP The energy usage by appliances (kWh/year)
A Area (m2)
An Net floor area (m2)
Ag Building gross area (m2)
2
Anu building envelope in contact with non-heated spaces (m2)

HDD Heating degree day (◦ C/day)
CDD Cooling degree day (◦ C/day)
BLC Building’s load coefficient (W/◦ C)
Unu Thermal transmission coefficient in non-useful spaces
Mk Average daily water consumption (kWh)
ACH Air changes per hour (h− 1 )
ω1 power load densities of people (W/m2)
ω2 power load densities of lightings (W/m2)
ω3 power load densities of appliances (W/m2)
TOCC (t) occupancy time during year t (h)
TLight (t) occupancy time of the lightings in year t (h)
TAPP (t) occupancy time of the appliances in year t (h)
qAPP (t) Energy consumption of appliances in year t
light
Pz Normalized energy density (kW)
gi Internal gains (W/m2)
SHGCj Solar radiation absorption coefficient for windows
ζ Linear heat flux transmission (W/m◦ C)
Ζ Interior length in contact with the soil or thermal bridge (m)
NDH Number of days requiring heating systems
NDC Number of days requiring cooling systems
θo Outdoor temperature (◦ C)
TIh (t) solar radiation time in cold days in year t
TIc (t) solar radiation time in hot days in year t
Id average solar energy that reaches buildings’ different directions (kW h/m2)
Ipv solar irradiation (kW h/m2-year)
U Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 ◦ C)
λ thermal conductivity
δs efficiency of the s-th type solar panel
δp average solar to electrical power conversion efficiency
Cpw the power coefficient of WT
ρair air density
V the wind velocity in the height of turbine hub
lb Lifetime of Building
r% Interest rate
e% increasing rate of energy cost
MPV (t) Number of failed solar panels
L(t) Reliability function
RPV (t) Number of healthy solar panels
Gheat
n Gas consumption of space heating systems (m3)
Gcool
m Gas consumption of space cooling systems (m3)
IGheat
n Impact of new space heating system on natural gas consumption
IGcool
m Impact of new space cooling system on natural gas consumption
Eheat electricity consumption of the building for space heating before retrofitting
Ecool electricity consumption of the building for space cooling before retrofitting
Eapp Energy consumption of appliances before retrofitting
Elight Energy consumption of lighting system before retrofitting
IE Impact of applying new systems on electricity consumption
pE electricity unit price in the first year ($)
pG natural gas unit price in the first-year ($)
Capacityheat
n Capacity of n th heating system
hfc Height from floor to ceiling (m)
CapacityCool
m Capacity of m th cooling system
Ncool Number of cooling systems
Nlights Number of lights
Napp Number of appliances
nd Number of days when domestic water heating occurs
EC Energy consumption
3
GC Natural Gas consumption

RB Rebound effect of energy consumption
Decision variables
xwall
i 1, if the i th type of wall material is chosen, and zero otherwise.
roof
xr 1, if the r th type of roof material is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xwin
j 1, if the j th type of window is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xcool
m 1, if the m th type of cooling system is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xheat
n 1, if the n th type of heating system is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xapp
p 1, if the p th type of appliances is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xPV
s 1, if the s th type of solar panel is chosen, and zero otherwise.
xWT
w 1, if the w th type of wind turbine is chosen, and zero otherwise.
light
xz 1, if the z th type of lighting system is chosen, and zero otherwise.
N0PV Initial number of solar panels
N0WT Initial number of wind turbines
enhancing electrical and mechanical systems [3,5].

Sustainability defines as satisfying present needs without jeopardizing natural resources for next-generation demands [6]. Sus
tainability in the building construction industry aims to minimize environmental impacts and resource use and maximize investment
returns [7]. There are two primary approaches to moving toward sustainable and greener buildings. The first is constructing new green
buildings expressing a key strategy to achieve urban sustainability by modifying the built environment [8]. The second strategy is the
sustainable energy retrofits of existing buildings as an almost more cost-effective and feasible alternative to new building construction
[9]. The attention to the green buildings’ construction and existing buildings’ energy retrofitting has recently developed considerably.
This attention’s significant outcomes are establishing green building councils and introducing certification systems that evaluate
buildings’ sustainability performance.
Achieving sustainable building that is energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective depends on the material
choices, construction methods, and building systems, which considerably affect buildings’ operational and embodied energy. Oper
ational and embodied energy are respectively defined as the energy needed for buildings’ lighting, cooling, heating, ventilation, and
the energy consumed for buildings’ components production, construction, demolition, and disposal phase [10]. In conventional
buildings, the operational phase accounts for 80–94% of energy use, and embodied energy is responsible for about 6–20% [11] and
20–25% of GHG emissions worldwide [12]. The built environment in most developed countries is full of old buildings, especially in the
European Union, there are fifty-year-old buildings near the end of their lifespan. In such buildings, the energy efficiency and comfort
are comparatively less than newly constructed ones; thus, applying energy retrofit measures and setting standards is necessary [13]. As
the European Commission reports, retrofit rates in the European Union were about 1.2% in Northwestern Europe, at a rate of 0.9% in
Southern Europe, and 0.5% in new member states [14,15]. This low rate might be the outcome of a low public awareness rate about
retrofit’s potential benefits.
In most developing countries, the criticalness of enhancing the building industry is discerning as significant environmentally
friendly progress. Although there is a lack of comprehensive regulation on energy retrofits for well-established buildings, some basic
guidelines are already set to inform the public about the reduction of adverse environmental impacts of energy-efficient buildings. On
the other hand, another point that necessitates energy retrofit plans for developing nations is the short lifetime of buildings (25–30
years) [16–19]. Therefore, the more they near the end of service time, the more their energy efficiency and performance decrease, and
the need for retrofits rise faster than developed countries.
The life cycle assessment (LCA) method can be employed to improve energy efficiency in buildings. LCA provides an assessment of
buildings’ environmental impacts and energy usage patterns [20]. LCA encompasses buildings’ entire lifespan, from the design phase
to the demolishing phase, and evaluates the buildings’ environmental impacts regarding energy, material, and environmental releases.
Applying the LCA method for energy-retrofit studies encourages designers, engineers, and contractors to decrease overall lifecycle
energy consumption using less energy-intensive and energy-efficient materials and optimize design strategies.
In previous studies, operational and embodied energy levels of construction components have been assessed to achieve sustain
ability and reduce energy consumption [21]. When this evaluation integrates with Building Information Modeling (BIM), its appli
cation goes further. For instance, BIM and Building Energy Modeling were integrated to enhance operational energy efficiency in
buildings and help decision-makers at the early design phase [22]. The BIM and LCA fusion outcomes can help attain other sustain
ability aspects in construction projects [23]. In literature, many researchers integrated BIM-LCA [20,22], but there is a lack of applying
mathematical optimization modeling in the design phase decision-making process and energy performance optimization in BIM-LCA
integration to reach energy-efficient buildings [24]. However, several studies regarding buildings’ structural framework cost [25],
environmental concerns [26], and buildings’ orientation optimization for sustainability purposes are conducted [27], but there is
scarce focus on buildings’ energy retrofits costs, envelope and components optimization, and integration with BIM and LCA.
Furthermore, users accentuate the BIM approach’s criticalness for building operation time by proposing 6D-BIM [28–30]. The most
notable benefit of 6D-BIM is accessible building databases from the type, model, and equipment producer to service intervals [30].
Therefore, buildings’ stakeholders can efficiently manage their decisions while obtaining information about materials, operation and
4
M. Motalebi et al.
Table 1
Review of the most relevant studies.
Reference Building energy LCC (objective function) Methodology Material and equipment
retrofits
Author-year Initial Maintenance Energy Resale Optimization BIM LCA Envelope Heating & Lighting appliances renewables
investment cost cost value cooling system
Jafari and Valentin 2017 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

[37]
Najjar et al., 2019 [40] - - - - - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - -
Mejjaouli and Alzahrani ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2020 [45]
Fan and Xia 2017 [46] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ - - - ✓
Shakouri G. et al., 2018 - ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ - -
5
[43]
Pazouki, Rezaie, and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓
Bozorgi-Amiri 2021
[47]
Hu 2020 [3] ✓ ✓ - - - - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - -
Liu et al., 2018 [41] ✓ ✓ ✓ - - - - - ✓ ✓ - - -
Ascione et al., 2017 [48] ✓ - - - - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓
Wu, Wang, and Xia 2016 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ - -
[50]
Tan et al., 2016 [42] ✓ ✓ - ✓ - ✓ - - ✓ ✓ - - -
Akbari et al., 2014 [51] - ✓ ✓ - - ✓ - - - ✓ - - ✓
Journal of Building Engineering 49 (2022) 104022

Current study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
maintenance instructions, as-built drawings, and completion certificates. 6D-BIM was firstly considered in 2012 by Redmond et al.
[31]. Park and Cai [32], Wu and Hsieh [33], and Ding et al. [34] have allotted 6D-BIM to “the construction records such as quality
information, health, and safety information, and contract information” Zhang, Wang, and Liu [35] connected the sixth dimension to
sustainability information by expanding a model that automatically assesses sustainability performance, empowering designers to
select the best design option. 6D-BIM as a digital information model simulates the building’s actual energy behavior. Therefore, the
6D-BIM simulation enables us to make decisions regarding buildings’ design and operation, not only for new buildings construction but
also for retrofitting existing buildings. Further to the energy model analysis of 6D-BIM, we can access previous dimensions data such as
buildings geometry, climate, operational and occupational data, spaces characteristics, and construction material and equipment.
In energy retrofitting projects’ decision models, both single and multi-objective optimization problems can be employed. The
objectives commonly include initial investment cost and energy retrofitting benefits. In determining the objectives among various
possible objective functions, reconciling energy-related social, legal, environmental, and monetary factors must be considered by
decision-makers to attain the best possible trade-off to meet the final occupant demands [36]. One of the significant challenges for
decision-makers is selecting the most proper objective functions and estimating them accurately. It is essential to estimate the eco
nomic benefits of energy retrofits in order to attract investment from homeowners. Therefore, lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) is
commonly used to consider both initial investment and upcoming benefits of various energy efficiency alternatives. LCC is the sum of
costs throughout a specific time and provides a criterion for attaining the best solution, while the LCC is minimum [37]. Nevertheless,
detecting cost-optimal elements for a whole building is yet a complicated task [38]. However, rare studies attempt to examine various
cost-related components through the buildings’ service life (shown in Table 1) [39], still the lack of studies considering all lifecycle cost
elements (including building resale value) for an energy retrofitting project decision model is felt. The mathematical optimization part
of this work centers on the financial benefits of energy retrofitting projects.
In optimal energy retrofit strategy selection, energy retrofit measures are considered decision variables of the decision-making
model. The variables can be associated with building envelope components [40] or envelope components along with heating and
cooling systems [41,42], lighting systems [3,43,44], appliances [45], or renewable energy measures [45–49]. A decision-making
model developed by Jafari et al. [37] considered all types of energy retrofitting measures (envelope components, heating, and
cooling systems, lighting systems, appliances, and renewable energy measures) simultaneously [37]. The developed model of this work
considers all the mentioned retrofitting measures simultaneously to take advantage of Jafari et al. [37]. A more detailed classification
of the studied parameters and methodology in the literature is depicted in Table 1.
This study proposes a framework that combines mathematical modeling, 6D-BIM, and LCA, focusing on the economic and envi
ronmental aspects of energy retrofitting projects. It estimates how the life cycle cost optimization in retrofitting projects and life cycle
assessment of envelope insulation and other buildings’ components contribute to the homeowner and environmental benefits. In this
paper, 6D-BIM is the modeling platform of a case study building in which material, climatic data of buildings’ location, and energy
model are placed. All these data are crossed to the LCA platform to analyze the outcome of decisions regarding operational energy
efficiency enhancement and environmental impact reduction. The mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) is developed to optimize
the choice of buildings’ envelope insulation material, lighting system, cooling, heating system, renewable energy systems, and efficient
appliances. The objective of mathematical modeling is to optimize the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of the building. The decision variables are
types of materials and components and the number of implemented renewable systems, including PV panels and domestic wind
turbines. The building is designed in the BIM platform in both situations of before and after applying retrofit measures. In both stages
(considering before retrofit materials and proposed material for retrofit), the data passes into an integrated BIM-LCA system in which
the energy model of the building, operational energy, building loads, and environmental impacts are quantified. As the energy-efficient
building has fewer environmental releases, the environmental impact assessment validates the optimization model. This work aims:
i. To integrate life cycle cost and environmental impacts analysis along with finding the best possible alternative material and
equipment for building energy retrofitting.
ii. To optimize the decision-making process of buildings’ energy retrofitting projects from the decision-makers and homeowners’
perspectives.
iii. To discover the primary energy efficiency agents in Iran’s existing buildings that impose the most energy waste on buildings.
The contribution of this work ensures applying effective retrofit measures and alternative material choice and empowers decision-
making by analyzing life cycle cost and environmental impacts of building envelopes by combining mathematical optimization, BIM,
and LCA.
The remainder of this paper includes five parts. The methodology is introduced in section 2 in three main sub-sections: the
Mathematical optimization model, BIM-LCA integration, and Linking framework components. The case study details are presented in
Section 3. The results and discussion are provided in Section 4, and finally, Section 5 concludes the paper with primary outcomes and
future recommendations.
2. Methodology
This work provides a generalized comprehensive decision-making framework that assures the application of the different types of
energy-efficient retrofit measures and alternative material choices for building energy retrofit projects. It empowers decision-making
by analyzing lifecycle cost and environmental impacts of building envelopes through integrating mathematical optimization, BIM, and
LCA, shown in Fig. 1. A detailed definition of the proposed mathematical optimization model, methodology, and framework com
ponents linking are presented in this section.
6
2.1. Mathematical optimization model

An optimization model is developed in which the key decision variables are the types of buildings’ energy retrofit materials and
components. The LCC objective function is formulated for the whole buildings’ lifespan. Then BIM-LCA integration approach is
adapted.
2.1.1. Decision variables

Assumed that there are I alternatives of walls, J alternatives of windows, Z alternatives of the lighting system, N alternatives of
heating system, M alternatives of the cooling system, R alternatives of the roof, P alternatives of appliances, S alternatives of solar
panels, W alternatives of wind turbines available for retrofit, and N0PV , N0WT are respectively, the initial number of PV panels and wind
turbines. Let
{ }
X = xiwall , xroof
r , xjwin , xcool heat app light PV
m , xn , xp , xz , xs , xWT PV WT
w , N0 , N0
Before formulating a retrofitting plan, it is necessary to mathematically model the building’s component energy consumption. In
the following sections, the energy consumption of building through space heating and cooling is modeled by considering the heat flows
through the building’s envelope materials and the energy usage of the lighting system and appliances within the building. Ultimately, a
hybrid renewable energy system (PV/WT) is presented in the model to generate clean energy in the building. The motivation for such a
hybrid renewable system is the high dependency of Iran on fossil fuels and the non-renewability of these fuels. Besides, this research
study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using PV panels, wind turbines, and hybrid systems (PV/WT) in Tehran as Iran’s capital
city. Furthermore, using renewable energies will lead the construction sector towards green building practice. The following sub
sections present energy consumption for space heating and cooling, lighting and appliances, and energy production by HRS.
2.1.2. Energy demand for space heating

In a building, consumed energy for space heating is calculated by the following Equation:
QHeating = QEXT + QLNU + QV − QhUHG − QLTB
in which
QEXT = 0.024HDD.BLC
Fig. 1. The methodological framework.
7
QLNU = 0.024HDD(t).Unu Anu

( )
QV = 0.024 0.34.ACH.An .hfc .HDD
D ∑
∑ J
QhUHG = Awin h h
d Id SHGCj xj TI
d=1 j=1
QLTB = 0.024HDD.ζ.Ζ
∑
I
Ui λi ∑R
Ur λr ∑J
BLC = Awall xwall
i + Aroof xroof
r + Awin xwin
j Uj
i=1
Ui ki + λi r=1
U k
r r + λr j=1
In Eqs. (1) – (7), QEXT is the heat loss within an external environment associated with building in the t-th year (kWh/year). QLNU is
heat loss within a non-useful space associated with building in the t-th year (kWh/year). QV is heat loss within fresh air flow (kWh/
year). ELTB (t) is heat loss within linear thermal bridges (kWh/year). QhUHG useful heat gain by the sun through windows and passive
systems in cold seasons in which heating is required (kWh/year). HDD, heating degree days, is the sum of the measured daily tem
perature minus thermal comfort temperature. BLC is the building’s load coefficient (W/◦ C).
2.1.3. Energy demand for space cooling

The demand load for building’s space cooling in the t-th year is QCooling which calculated by the following Equation:
QCooling = QcUHG + QE + QT + QDEN
in which:
D ∑
∑ J
QcUGH = Awin c c
d Id SHGCj TI
d=1 j=1
QE = BLC(0.024CDD)
( )
QT (t) = 2.93 0.34.ACH.An .hfc .CDD
QDEN = (ω1 + ω2 + ω3 )TOCC .An

In Eqs. (8)-(12), QcUGH is the heat gain by the sun through windows and passive system in hot seasons which cooling system is
required in the t-th year (kWh/year). QE is heat gain through the building’s envelope in the t-th year (kWh/year). QT is internal heat
gain in the t-th year (kWh/year). QDEN is the internal heat gain in a general building mainly resulted from people, lighting, and ap
pliances (kWh/year). It can be calculated by CDD, cooling degree days, which is the positive sum of the measured daily temperature
minus thermal comfort temperature.
2.1.4. Lighting and appliance energy consumption

Eqs (13) and (14) respectively calculate the energy usage by lighting system and appliances.
∑
Z
ELight = N light xlight
z Plight
z TLight
z=1
Prefr P∑ P∑
∑
P ∑ Dishw clothw
EApp = N app xapp

p qapp .Tapp = N
app1
xapp1
p qapp1 .Tapp1 + N app2 xapp2
p qapp2 .Tapp2 + N app3 xpapp3 qapp3 .Tapp3
p=1 p=1 p=1 p=1
2.1.5. Hybrid renewable system (HRS) energy production

Produced energy by PV panels in the t-th year is calculated by Ref. [46]:
∑
S
( )
EPV = xpv pv PV
s δs As Ipv δPV N0
s=1
In this Equation, the degradation of solar panels in energy generation is considered. However, PV panels are introduced as a system
with 25 years reliable lifespan; its performance will degrade over time, which affects total output power. It means that the number of
well-functioned and healthy PV panels will diminish over time. This degradation causes less energy production and consequently
returns more energy costs for the building. Owning more power from the grid and less financial benefits from electricity sales directly
affects the retrofit project sustainability. Hence, failure in the survival of PV panels is critical in both maintenance costs and the
system’s power supply. The population degradation model follows the Weibull distribution, which is commonly used in lifespan
distribution and the system’s reliability. The survival rate of PV panels is estimated by Equation (16) [46,52]:
8
( )3
− t
φ
L(t) = e
L(Ł) = 0.5
with the given lifetime Ł, the survival rate at the end of the system’s lifetime equals to 0.5. The number of installed solar panels that still
work functional is estimated by equation (18), and the number of failed PV panels and wind turbines that need maintenance is
calculated by equation (19).
R(t) = N0PV L(t)
M(t) = N0PV − N0PV L(t)
The energy generated by WT is measured through Equation (20) [53,54].
1∑ W
EWT = N WT xWT Cpw AWT
w ρair V
3
2 w=1 0 w
2.1.6. Objective function

In the decision-support models regarding building energy retrofit, both single and multi-objective optimization models are applied.
The objectives mainly reveal the benefits of energy retrofits or initial investment costs. The decision-maker should select the objective
function among various objectives, which embrace environmental, financial, social, and energy-related factors to perfectly meet end-
users needs [36]. Choosing the most appropriate objectives among all possible options and estimating them accurately is challenging
for the decision-making process. When determining the most proper energy retrofitting strategy, the most common objectives are
energy savings and environmental impacts, especially CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and thermal comfort. However, there is at
least a single economic aspect among all these models regarding capital cost, energy cost and monetary value of energy savings, life
cycle cost, net present value, and payback period. Life cycle cost is the common one that encompasses initial cost, operational costs,
and all the further benefits of applying energy retrofit measures in buildings’ service life. However, many studies considered economic
factors in retrofitting projects; few tackle comprehensive life cycle cost elements such as resale value in decision support models for
retrofit projects. In this study, a comprehensive objective function is developed that comprises all essential costs from the beginning
steps of building retrofit to its end of service time.
It is challenging to determine cost elements in lifecycle cost calculation since its complex elements and difficulties with future
change prediction [55]. “the lifecycle cost of an item is the sum of all funds expended in support of the item from its conception and
fabrication through its operation to the end of its useful life” [56]. Prior studies on LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Analysis) in building projects
have shown that the initial investment cost of building, operation and maintenance cost, replacement cost, energy cost, administration
cost, taxation cost, renovation cost, and disposal cost are the buildings’ lifetime main cost elements [55–60]. One important element to
calculate each LCC segment in buildings’ service life is the interest rate which is dependent on inflation rate or currency depreciation.
The appropriate interest rate is 2–3% above inflation [61]. Another element affecting LCCA is the buildings’ expected service life that is
typically between 25 and 50 years [55]. This range may vary due to project features and clients’ expectations. In this study, the
following cost elements are elected for the LCC formulation:
• Investment Cost (IC): Initial costs belong to the performing retrofit activities and initial replacement costs, such as materials and
equipment purchase and installation.
• Energy Consumption Cost (EC): Buildings’ gas and electricity consumption cost throughout the service life.
• Maintenance Cost (MC): The periodic service, repair, or replacement of equipment costs to hold it operating appropriately in the
building’s service life.
• Resale Value (RV): The owner’s monetary benefits from selling the retrofitted building later its service life.
Hence, the LCC calculates as follow:
LCC = CCAP + PVEN + PVO&M − PVRV
where LCC is the net present value of the buildings’ whole lifecycle cost, CCAP is the capital cost of applying energy retrofit measures,
PVEN is the present value of total energy consumption cost, PVO&M is the present value of operation and maintenance cost in the
building service life, PVRV is the present value of the benefits from building resale value after its service life.
The following Equation calculates the capital cost of energy retrofit:
∑
I ∑
R ∑
J ∑
P ∑
Z ∑
M
CCAP = Awall Ciwall xwall
i + Aroof Crroof xroof
r + Awin Cjwin xwin
j + N app Cpapp xapp
p +N
light
Czlight xlight
z + N cool Cmcool xcool
m
i=1 r=1 j=1 p=1 z=1 m=1
∑
N ∑
S ∑
W
+ Cnheat xheat
n + N0PV CsPV xPV
s + N0WT CwWT xWT
w
n=1 s=1 w=1
C is the cost of material and equipment and installation, and x is a binary variable indicating whether one type of material and
9
equipment is elected. Also, A is the area of external walls, roof, and windows that need applying energy retrofit measure.
The following Equation computes energy consumption present value:
⎛ ( ( ))lb ⎞
′
r− d
⎜ 1 + 1+d′ − 1 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
PVEN = ECC × ⎜( ) ( ( ))lb ⎟
⎝ ′ ′ ⎠
r− d r− d
1+d
′ × 1 + 1+d′
where ECC is the buildings’ annual energy consumption cost in the first year, r is the interest rate, and d is the rate of the energy cost
increase on an annual basis.
ECC = ECC0 − (1 − RB) × (ECC0 − ( EC × pE + GC * pG ))
where ECC0 is the buildings’ yearly energy consumption cost before applying energy retrofit measures, EC computes the buildings’
annual electricity consumption, pE is the electricity unit price, GC computes buildings’ annual natural gas consumption, and pG is the
natural gas unit price in the first year. Also, RB represents the energy consumptions’ rebound effect, which shows that people use more
energy when energy cost decreases, so energy-saving reduction occurs. The Rebound effect is considered 20% Nadel [62], indicating
that just 80% of energy efficiency benefits can be obtained due to increased energy consumption.
The annual energy consumption, including buildings’ electricity and natural gas consumption in the first year, can be calculated as
follow:
∑
N
( ) heat ∑
M
( )
EC = 1 − IEnheat xheat
n E + 1 − IEmcool xmcool Ecool + EApp + ELight − EPV
n=1 m=1
∑
N
( ) heat ∑
M
( ) cool
GC = 1 − IGheat
n xn
heat
G + 1 − IGcool
m xm
cool
G
n=1 m=1
where IE is the impact of applying new systems on electricity consumption, Eheat and Ecool are electricity consumption of heating and
cooling system before applying energy retrofit measure. IG is the impact of applying new systems on natural gas consumption, and Gheat
natural gas consumption of heating and cooling system before applying energy retrofit measure.
The following Equation can calculate the present value of Operation and maintenance cost:
∑
lb ∑
M lb ∑
∑ N lb ∑
∑ S
PVO&M = N cool CMmcool xmcool (1 + r)− t + CMnheat xnheat (1 + r)− t + CMsPV xsPV M PV (t)(1 + r)− t
t=1 m=1 t=1 n=1 t=1 s=1

lb ∑
∑ W
− t
∑
lb ∑
Z
t
+ CMwWT xWT
w (1 + r) + N light CMzlight xlight
z (1 + r)−
t=1 w=1 t=1 z=1
To calculate the present value of the resale value of building, it is necessary to obtain the value of building after applying energy
retrofits [63], so RV computes this value:
(ECC0 − ECC)
0.02×
RV = RV0 × e− A
where RV0 is buildings’ resale value before applying retrofit measures, A is the area of buildings in square meters. The following
Equation can calculate the present value of benefits of reselling the building after its lifespan:
1
PVRV = (RV − RV0 ) ×
(1 + d)lb
2.1.7. Constraints
The constraints of this study consist of six parts as follows;
➢ Budget constraint:
The first part of the constraints is the available budget for retrofitting, which is depicted as:
Ccap ≤ B
➢ Area constraint:
The second part of the constraints is the potential rooftop area for renewable energy systems installation. This research assumes
that the PV panels are facing the south to gain the maximum intensity of sunlight. The mentioned constraints are described in the
following equations that which are individually defined for PV panels and wind turbines:
10
∑
S
xsPV APV PV
s N0 ≤ Aeff 1
s=1
∑
W
xwWT AWT WT
w N0 ≤ Aeff 2
w=1
➢ Cooling and heating load constraint:

When buildings’ envelope changes, the buildings’ load changes as well, so this factor is considered in choosing the colling and
heating systems in the following constraint:
∑
M
N Cool .CapacityCool
m .xm
Cool
≥ QCooling
m=1
∑
N
CapacityHeat
n .xHeat
n ≥ QHeating
n=1
➢ Illumination constraint:
The fourth part of constraints relates to the illuminance level of the building to bring visual comfort for occupants. The illuminance
estimates the lights’ density in lux or foot-candle (FC) [64]. Also, the illumination level defines as the lamps’ output per unit area of
space. Due to their activity, the illumination level of buildings’ spaces is suggested by Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA). The illumination level is affected by replacing the old lamps with the energy-efficient ones considering the difference
in the new lamps’ lumen. Equation 10 shows the illuminance constraint for buildings different spaces:
∑
Z
N light(each space) Lumenlight .xlight
z z
≥ lux for each space
z=1
Area of Space
➢ Energy production constraint:

The fifth part of constraints correlates to the amount of produced electricity by the renewable energy sources and constraints it to
produce at least 25% of the building’s total energy load.
( )
EWT + EPV ≥ 0.25* QHeating + QCooling + ELight + EApp
➢ Measure selection constraint:

The sixth part of constraints is the boundary limits of decision variables that consist of envelope materials, cooling, heating,
lighting, and renewable energy system equipment:
⎧ { }
⎪
⎪ ∑ I
⎪
⎪ xwall
≤ 1 for x wall
∈ {0, 1}, ∀ i ∈ 1, 2, …, I
⎪
⎪ i i
⎪
⎪ i=1
⎪
⎪ { }
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑ J
⎪
⎪ win win
xj ≤ 1 for xj ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ j ∈ 1, 2, …, J
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ j=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ { }
⎪
⎪ ∑ Z
⎪
⎪ light light
⎪
⎪ xz ≤ 1 for xz ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ z ∈ 1, 2, …, Z
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ z=1
⎪
⎪ { }
⎨∑ N
heat heat
xn ≤ 1 for xn ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ n ∈ 1, 2, …, N
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ n=1
⎪
⎪ M { }
⎪
⎪ ∑
⎪
⎪ cool cool
⎪
⎪ x ≤ 1 for x ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ m ∈ 1, 2, …, M
⎪
⎪ m c
⎪
⎪ m=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑ R
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ xroof
r ≤ 1 for xrroof ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ r ∈ {1, 2, …, R}
⎪
⎪ r=1
⎪
⎪
⎪ P
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∑
⎪
⎪ xapp ≤ b for xapp ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ p ∈ {1, 2, …, P}
⎪
⎩ p p
p=1
11
⎧∑ { }
S
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ xPV ≤ 1 for xPV ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ s ∈ 1, 2, …, S
⎨ s=1 s S
{ }
⎪
⎪ ∑
W
⎪
⎪
⎩ xWT WT
w ≤ 1 for xw ∈ {0, 1}, ∀ w ∈ 1, 2, …, W
w=1
2.2. BIM-LCA integration

The integration of BIM-LCA is an indispensable method for building construction projects to bring sustainability standards to both
buildings and the built environment [65]. BIM allows collaboration with different building construction stakeholders from the early
stages by giving different alternative design parameters to entire buildings’ service life [23]. The LCA encompasses other essential
aspects of construction projects, including environmental impact evaluation and energy performance estimation [66]. This integration
comprises built environment protection and energy-efficient building construction, thereby expediting decision-making [67].
BIM-LCA integration is classified into 5 types:1) taking BoQ from BIM and exporting it into LCA tool, 2) importing surfaces in IFC
format extracted from BIM into LCA software, 3) the third is processing BIM information into BIM viewer tool then transferring to the
LCA software, 4) Using developed LCA plug-ins in BIM for LCA analysis, 5) LCA data are in BIM objects to be used in BIM model, instead
of being in separate tool [68]. Current work is employed the fourth type of BIM-LCA integration.
This study is divided into two steps: the first part of the analysis is the gate to the second step. The methodological framework of this
research is retrieved from ISO 14040 and 14044 guidelines [69]. The first part of the analysis refers to mitigating the building’s
operational phase energy efficiency and LCC as well; this is because the operational phase is responsible for up to 90% of buildings’
total energy consumption globally [40]. In this step, the equivalent comparisons and analyses are made by considering technical and
functional constraints and objectives for applying buildings’ energy retrofit measures. The second step focuses on the environmental
impacts of alternative envelope materials for energy retrofitting in which both operational and embodied energy are considered.
The buildings’ 6D model is designed on a BIM methodology basis. In the first stage, the analysis objective is to enhance the
buildings’ energy efficiency and moderate Life Cycle Cost as well. Therefore, the energy model, analytical spaces, data referring to the
geometry and geographic location, thermal envelope, climate, operation schedule, and operational and occupational characteristics of
the spaces are provided. The case study location’s feasible alternative material and equipment are determined to be utilized as studies’
databases. The mathematical optimization model’s optimum retrofit measures results are contrasted with the building before energy
retrofitting. A separate BIM model for before and after retrofit is developed in the second stage of analysis to minimize the adverse
environmental impacts of energy retrofits. The after retrofit BIM model is the optimum one. In the last part of this study’s method
ological framework, LCI and LCIA results are evaluated and compared. Finally, it is essential to propose energy retrofit options that
serve the objectives of the retrofitting project.
2.3. Linking components of the framework

The BIM model is implemented to design the target case study, a multi-story residential building in Iran, to investigate the validity
of mathematical optimization. BIM-LCA integration is also utilized for estimating energy performance and assessing the environmental
impacts in energy retrofit projects. Subsequently, the preferred case study is the typical multi-story residential building. Hence, it
examines the building’s operational energy demands regarding the building envelope, heating, and cooling loads. Some building
energy simulations and tools like QUEST, BLAST, DOE2, Energy Plus, TRACE, Ecotect have been extensively utilized in the con
struction industry [70]. In this work, the Tally® REVIT® application is applied as an intelligent energy framework to assess building
materials’ environmental impacts in their whole lifetime [71].
In the first stage of methodology, the building’s operation phase is considered. Considering the local materials in Iran’s con
struction market, the study optimizes feasible alternative energy retrofit materials, including the building envelope, heating, cooling,
renewable energy systems, lighting systems, and appliances. The energy retrofit measures recommended in this study involve insu
lating walls and roof, replacing old windows, heating and cooling systems, lighting systems, and appliances with energy-efficient ones,
and installing renewable energy systems in the building. The idea is to optimize all the effective factors on energy consumption. In this
term, the building is simulated before retrofit and after retrofit considering optimum retrofit measures resulting in a mathematical
optimization model to conduct a conceptual energy usage investigation for this specific type of buildings.
The subsequent stage is the impact evaluation and interpretation to suggest a set of energy retrofit measures. Before retrofit and
after applying the optimum retrofit plan, the two-building models are compared in case of the buildings’ material environmental
impact. In addition, the entire buildings’ service life, including embodied energy of envelope material, consumed energy for in
stallations, the transportation of material in the energy retrofit project, maintenance and replacements through buildings’ service life,
operation energy, and end of life excluded the buildings service system embodied energy and GHG emissions are considered. This
developed database is used the Tally® REVIT® plug-in derived from the GaBi database [72]. To evaluate retrofit materials’ envi
ronmental impacts, Tally® combines the LCA dataset (GaBi 8.5 using the GaBi database) and the BIM elements [73]. Tally® plug-in
provides feedbacks on buildings’ life cycle at the beginning stage of the project [74].
The Tally methodology is a static LCA approach [75] and is compatible with LCA standards ISO 14040–14044, ISO 21930:2017,
ISO 21931:2010, EN 15804:2012, and EN 15978:2011. The analysis considers the entire cradle to grave life cycle of the design options
studied throughout all life cycle stages, including material manufacturing (EN 15978 A1 - A3), Transportation (EN 15978 A4),
Operational Energy (EN 15978 B6) maintenance, and replacement (EN 15978 B2-B5), and end of life (N 15978C2-C4). The building’s
construction impacts (EN 15978 A5) and operational energy (EN 15978 B6) are included within the scope. The boundary comprises the
12
flow of biogenic carbon absorbed and generated by biological sources instead of fossil resources. The materials are included up to a 1%
cut-off factor by mass except for known materials that have high environmental impacts at low levels. In these cases, a 1% cut-off was
implemented by impact. The degree that the emissions result in adverse environmental impacts depends on regional ecosystem
conditions and the location of the emissions. The reference study period (RSP) in this study is considered 50 years, and also
replacement of material after their service life is considered during the RSP.
3. Case study: validation of methodological framework

In this part, the developed mathematical optimization model results are tested on a real case in Tehran, Iran. For this purpose, a
multi-story residential building is selected, including 25 units in over 8 levels comprising parking, ground floor, 5 residential stories,
and a roof, with a total floor area of 776 m2. Each unit has a living room, two or three bedrooms, kitchen, toilet, and bathroom, as
depicted in Fig. 2.
In the case study building, the cooling system is a typical evaporative cooler that is used in Iran’s residential buildings. This building
has 25 evaporative coolers that cover 90 m2 of the rooftop. The only time the evaporative cooler’s effectivity is high is when the
windows and doors are open. It means the insulating buildings’ envelope would be ineffectual since the evaporative coolers act as a
thermal chimney over the rooftop for each apartment unit. Hence, buildings are now exposed to the temperature and humidity
variation and significant heat loss through this evaporative cooling ducting caused by the thermal chimney effect. In addition, the
evaporative coolers occupy a considerable portion of the rooftop area which can be utilized as a place for rooftop solar PV panels and
domestic wind turbines to generate renewable energy. However, about 51% of buildings in Tehran are old-established and have an old
and inefficient central heating system.
The Autodesk Green Building Studio (GBS)™ plug-in of Autodesk® REVIT® software is applied to determine the case study’s
climate data, which covers about 1.6 million virtual weather stations [76]. Moreover, the Green Building Studio is employed for the
building’s annual operating energy consumption estimation. GAMS, as a profoundly efficient nonlinear mixed-integer programming
solving, is used. The detailed data of building components before energy retrofits are depicted in Table 2.
Lists of potential alternative materials and equipment compatible with Iran’s construction market and their detailed characteristics
Fig. 2. The case study of multi-story residential building model in REVIT®

a) 2D Plan View; b) 3D view of North Elevation; c) 3D view of South Elevation.
13
are shown in Table 3.

In the cost estimation of each material and equipment, the demolition cost of current insulations, purchasing new material insu
lation, and equipment plus their installation cost are considered. The HDD and CDD for the studied city are 2390, 890.8, respectively.
4. Results and discussion

This section discusses different retrofitting scenarios based on the initial budget level. In the following, the cooling and heating load
of the case study building in the operational phase is estimated through the energy model of the building. Subsequently, the envi
ronmental impacts of the building before and after applying energy retrofit measures are examined using the LCA method.
4.1. Retrofitting scenarios

The case study’s optimum energy retrofit investments and measures are recognized by incorporating potential retrofitting measures
such as material and equipment-related detailed information and climatic data. The proposed optimization mathematical model is
solved by GAMS on homeowners’ different budget levels basis from 120 K to 300 K USD. The best retrofitting measures for each case
are selected to minimize the case study buildings’ LCC. The results provide various energy retrofit scenarios with various energy
retrofit measures, LCC, and annual energy consumption savings for different budget levels. The mentioned retrofit strategies are
depicted in Table 4. For instance, implementing the energy retrofit measures at the budget of 260 K USD enhanced the energy-saving to
48.6%, decreased the LCC by 9.35 M USD. Some retrofitting measures are repeated in all scenarios because the most efficient and
significant measures are selected first, and by raising the budget, new measures are added to enhance buildings’ total energy efficiency.
For example, in the first scenario (with a budget of 120 K USD), the similar retrofitting heating, cooling, and lighting system-related
measures are approved as the third scenario (with a budget of 220 K USD), plus two extra envelopes and appliances (Dishwasher)
related measures.
The results in Fig. 3 and Table 4 highlighted that the budget of $260 K minimizes the LCC of the case study building for home
owners. The calculated optimum energy retrofitting budget is for the specific case study building with 25-unit apartments and the
assumptions mentioned earlier (heating, cooling, lighting, and all buildings’ specification). The optimum budget is case-specific, yet
the analysis process would be the same.
As the results present, the model suggests installing solar PV panels in all scenarios. The amount of energy savings will increase
when the budget and the number of installed rooftop PV panels increase in each building. In the first scenario, the selected retrofitting
measures with a minimum budget reduced the amount of annual energy consumption by 21%, resulting in LCC reduction. In the
second scenario, the model proposes replacing the boiler and evaporative coolers, inefficient lights, and halogens, the same as the first
scenario, plus insulating buildings’ envelope, enhances the expected energy saving of the building by 34.6%. In the third, fourth, and
fifth scenarios, the model suggests replacing inefficient appliances that can decrease the expected energy saving by 37.4%, 41.38%,
and 48.6. Although replacing appliances is an efficient way to increase buildings’ energy savings, increasing installed solar PV panels is
much more effective. Therefore, the fifth scenario with the lowest amount of LCC is the optimum scenario. Scenario 6 suggests applying
all possible measures, including replacing all appliances simultaneously and installing domestic wind turbines, which results in a 58%
improvement in energy savings, but the investment cost and LCC are boosted considerably. This analysis makes the decision-making
process much more straightforward, as it helps select the most fitted strategy of energy retrofitting with the project and make the
homeowner aware of the decisions’ future outcome.
4.2. Estimating buildings’ actual cooling and heating load in its operational phase
The current study demonstrates that BIM models enable decision-makers to apply different retrofitting and construction materials
with various performance parameters at the early stages of any construction or energy retrofit project. One of the BIM aspects that is
less explored is obtaining buildings’ energy model, known as 6D-BIM.
In this study, the 6D-BIM is employed to obtain the building’s energy model to estimate the actual operational energy of building
and cooling and heating loads before and after applying energy retrofit measures. The view of Analytical spaces of the energy model of
the case study building is depicted in Fig. 4. As a reliable LCA requires the actual operational energy of the building, the detailed
operational energy of the building is estimated by 6D-BIM. As the results show, insulating uninsulated exterior walls have decreased
Table 2
The case study specifications before energy retrofitting.
Envelope Existing Material Area Description
Wall Uninsulated, Plaster dense, Brick 3438 m2 U = 2.767

k = 0.213
λ = 0.06
Roof Uninsulated Plasterboard, Mosaic roof tile 776 m2 U = 2.767
k = 0.213
λ = 0.06
Glazing Single glazing window 695 m2 U = 6.7018
SHGC = 0.19
Lighting T5 Fluorescent - triphosphor – plight = 10.2
14
Table 3
Retrofitting alternative materials and equipment.
( ) ( ◦ )
i Information on Wall insulation materials W◦ ki (m) W ($)
Ui C λi C Cwall
i
m2 m m2
1 Expanded Polystyrene 0.48 0.2924 0.030 10.91
2 Glass wool 0.45 0.5540 0.033 2.00
3 Cellulose fiber 0.19 0.4953 0.039 1.25
4 Rock Wool 0.35 0.2919 0.041 6.50
5 Polyurethane Board 0.39 0.2350 0.035 17
6 Glass fiber batt 0.28 0.102 0.032 1.00
( ◦ ) ( ◦ )
r Information on roof material W kr (m) W ($)
Ur C λr C Croof
r
m2 m m2
1 Felt sheathing 0.177 0.435 0.034 0.90
2 Fiberglass flat roof 0.07 0.5933 0.037 2.45
3 Glass wool 0.23 0.2451 0.039 3.00
4 Rock Wool (Roofing Board) 0.158 0.2752 0.043 3.50
5 Expanded polystyrene, molded beads 0.258 0.3640 0.031 9.35
j Information on windows Uj αj ($)

Cwin
j
m2
1 Double glazing Clear, Low-E, (e = 0.07) 1.9873 0.45 264.871
2 Double glazing blue-green, Low-E, (e = 0.05) 1.9873 0.27 296.032
3 Double glazing domestic, (SC = 0.05) 2.1030 0.6 280.451
4 Triple glazing Low-E,1/8 thick, clear 1.5330 0.62 311.612
5 Triple glazing, Low-E 1.4554 0.26 467.419
6 Double glazing Ref clear 1.9873 0.17 327.193
Information on lighting system light

pz (W) lumenz
light
(lm) Cz
light
($)
1 Fluorescent, Compact (CFL) 23 1520 5.2

2 LED type1 9 800 1.94
3 LED type 2 12 1200 2.18
4 LED type 3 9 900 3.12
5 LED type 4 15 1350 3.43
6 Halogen type 1 20 275 9.32
7 Halogen type 2 5 90 6.17
8 Halogen type 3 10 110 7.23
9 Halogen type 4 7 310 8.99
w Information on wind turbines Cp (%) diameter(m) CWT

w ($)
1 Windmax HY400 42 1.55 699

2 Automax windmill 600 43 1.31 549.95
3 Windmill DB-400 25 1.22 399
4 POPSPORT wind generator 400 31.4 1.37 329
5 Automax windmill 1200 39.7 1.7 1199.95
6 Tumo-Int 1000 23 2.4 999
s Information on photovoltaic panels Apv 2

s (m ) δs (%) Cpv
s ($)
1 Shell S 105 1.64 15.7 540

2 Shell SP 150 1.32 16.2 780
3 SEIDO 10-10ASAB 1.678 14.9 1023
4 PUL-128 1.865 15.6 870
5 ACR 20-01 1.865 14.8 900
6 AE-21 1.93 16.4 927
m Information on cooling system Capacitycool

m (kWh) CCool
m
1 Mini Split Air Conditioner type1 8.8 2900

2 Mini Split Air Conditioner type2 14 7590
3 Mini Split Air Conditioner type3 7 2000
4 Mini Split Air Conditioner type4 10.5 3420
n Information on heating system (Boiler) CapacityHeat

n (kWh) Cheat
n ($)
1 Gas Fired Considering Boiler type1 (MI3) 300 3300

p Information on Appliances qapp (W) Cpass

p ($)
1 Refrigerator type1 86 2298

(continued on next page)
15
Table 3 (continued )
( ) ( ◦ )
i Information on Wall insulation materials W◦ ki (m) W ($)
Ui C λi C Cwall
i
m2 m m2
5 Dishwasher type1 27 1030
8 Cloth washer type1 62 1519
Table 4
Results of mathematical model for the case study building.
Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6
Budget $120000 $200000 $220000 $240000 $260000 $300000

01: Insulating external walls ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
02: Insulating roof ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
03: Replacing windows with energy efficient ones ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
04: Replacing evaporative coolers with energy efficient split air- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
conditioning
05: Replacing inefficient boiler with efficient one ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
06.1: Replacing existing inefficient lights with energy efficient LEDs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
06.2: Replacing existing lights with energy efficient CFLs
06.3: Replacing existing inefficient Halogens with energy efficient ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
LED Halogens
07.1: Replacing existing Refrigerator with energy star refrigerator ✓ ✓
07.2: Replacing existing Dishwasher with energy star Dishwasher ✓ ✓
07.3: Replacing existing cloth washer with energy star cloth washer ✓ ✓
08: Installing rooftop photovoltaic panels ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
09: Installing domestic wind turbines ✓
Number of installed photovoltaic panels 22 24 25 28 32 30
Capital cost $117,876 $199,065 $215,818 $236,040 $247,065 $297,448
Annual energy saving rate 21% 34.6% 37.4% 41.35% 48.6% 58.2%
LCC $9,250,837 $9,313,585 $9,328,335 $9,348,560 $8,959,735 $9,583,153
Fig. 3. Impact of allocated budget on Investment cost, energy cost and LCC and optimum budget.
the cooling load caused before, at about 81%, and heating load at about 66%. Insulating the roof resulted in an 82% reduction in the
cooling load it used to impose on the building and 70% of the heating load.
Furthermore, replacing windows has decreased 80% of the cooling load and about 63% of the imposed heating load on the building.
Lighting only imposes a cooling load on the building, and replacing the lighting system has reduced the load by about 84%. Moreover,
16
people and power cooling load have lowered by 84% and 82%, respectively, by applying retrofitting measures. The total cooling and
heating loads are decreased 82% and 62%, respectively, after applying energy retrofit measures. A detailed heating and cooling load
for each building component is depicted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
4.3. Evaluating the environmental impacts of the case study via LCA before and after energy retrofitting
The environmental impacts of the case study are evaluated for both before and after energy retrofitting. This study mainly focuses
on the most proper material and components of energy retrofits. The entire lifetime of the building, including the construction phase, is
elaborated in the current study. Hence, lifespan analysis of the material, including extraction, manufacturing, transportation, service
time, and end-of-life stages, are considered. Summary of input data of envelope materials are utilized in this researchs’ case study,
before and after applying the retrofit plan, are presented in Appendix A. A comprehensive and reliable life cycle analysis in Tally®
needs the buildings’ operational energy consumption (electricity and fuel), which is estimated both before and after energy retro
fitting. In the current study, road transportation is considered the main transportation of retrofitting projects in Iran, employing ve
hicles with 16 and 32 tons capacities. Therefore, average distances for road transportation in Iran are set to attend the environmental
impact analysis. For instance, about 12 km for transporting materials to the retrofitting site and 14 km for landfill wastes are
considered. In this analysis stage, either material’s use and maintenance are considered in the operational phase. When the con
struction material quantities are calculated, the simulation measures the environmental impacts in global warming potential, acidi
fication potential, eutrophication potential, smog formation potential, non-renewable energy categories in all lifecycle stages. The
simulation results of the case studys’ environmental impacts through Tally® REVIT® before and after applying retrofit measures are
depicted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The results clarify the quantity of the potential effects for all lifecycle stages of materials.
Results confirm that both environmental impacts and operational energy can be significantly decreased by retrofitting old
buildings. As it is depicted, the Global warming potential reduced from 164,518 kg CO2 equivalent before the energy retrofitting
model to 89,632 kg CO2 equivalent after applying retrofit measures which is about a 45.5% decrease. Additionally, the acidification
potential was modified from 689.9 kg SO2 to 375.5 kg SO2, corresponding to a 45.6% reduction. The other impact categories analysis
shows the same applies, as there was a remarkable reduction in the impacts’ quantification; however, the total mass of the building has
increased after energy retrofitting.
As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, the operational energy decreases significantly in the building after applying the retrofit measures, while
embodied energy is almost two folded. Energy-efficient buildings often improve their energy efficiency by employing more insulation,
thicker envelopes, and energy-efficient window systems that decrease the operational energy need at the expense of increased
embodied energy.
5. Discussion
The energy model of the selected building as a case study was simulated using Revit Autodesk, which is a BIM-based software. A
building’s energy model makes it possible to identify the components that can be used to enhance the building’s energy efficiency [77].
This study used a mathematical optimization model to identify optimum retrofit strategies, such as the insulation of buildings’ en
velope material components and mechanical and electrical equipment. The results were compared before and after applying retrofit
measures to demonstrate the reduced operational energy consumption of buildings. Then, the environmental impacts of the optimal
material were measured, and the results were compared with those before retrofitting. The environmental impacts assess the used
materials over the whole lifespan of the building. This study demonstrates that employing BIM enables decision-makers to investigate
the performance of construction materials. This study proposes a generalized framework that integrates mathematical optimization,
BIM, and LCA to investigate the sustainability aspects of retrofit projects.
According to the results, the optimum retrofit strategy could be used to achieve significant improvements in the energy efficiency of
the building envelope compared to before the retrofit process, as summarized below:
(i) Comparing the cooling and heating load that exterior walls imposed on the building before and after retrofit, insulating the
exterior walls with optimum components decreased 81% of the cooling load and 66% of the heating load.
Fig. 4. View of Analytical spaces of the energy model of the case study building in REVIT®.
17
Fig. 5. Cooling loads of buildings’ components before and after applying energy retrofits.
Fig. 6. Heating loads of buildings’ components before and after applying energy retrofits.
(ii) Insulating the roof with the optimum components reduced 82% of the cooling load and 70% of the heating load imposed on the
building.
(iii) Replacing inefficient windows as an essential part of buildings’ envelope decreased the 80% of cooling load and 63% of the
heating load imposed on the building before retrofitting.
(iv) Insulating the whole envelope increased the energy-saving rate by around 13.6% in the whole building.
(v) Replacing old and inefficient lighting systems with energy-efficient and optimum ones has decreased the cooling load by about
84%. Totally, by applying all retrofit measures, the whole cooling and heating loads decreased 82% and 62%, respectively.
(vi) Applying all the optimum retrofit measures with optimum components enhanced the annual energy saving rate by around
48.6.35% with 260,000$ initial investment budget for the case study building.
(vii) After applying retrofit measures, the operational energy dropped at about 48%, while the embodied energy almost doubled as a
result of envelope insulation works.
The outcomes represent that applying each retrofit measure, including replacing heating and cooling systems, insulating envelopes,
replacing building electrical devices, and installing renewable energy sources, increases energy savings effectively. The building
envelope (floors, walls, roof, and finishes) plays an essential role in embodied energy and operational energy consumption. In building
energy retrofits, insulating envelopes can increase energy savings and decrease heating and cooling loads to an enormous extent.
Significantly, envelope insulation has a direct impact on operational energy-efficient strategies, particularly in low-energy buildings,
where it contributes about 48–50% of embodied energy. The environmental analysis shows a one-third reduction in global warming
effects of the building even though embodied energy has increased.
The first step of retrofitting a building is identifying the energy-efficient and financially viable retrofit measures based on its
location, inhabitants’ lifestyles, and climatic factors. A combination of insulating an envelope and replacing the cooling system can be
effective in Iran. In Iran, evaporative coolers are typical, and they act like chimneys on the roof, which wastes all the insulation
18
Fig. 7. Global warming potential of the case study building before applying retrofit measures per life cycle stage.
materials inside the envelope. However, if decision-makers and investors fail to use the frameworks provided, the retrofit projects
might not be economically and environmentally feasible. According to the insights gained from this study, choosing the proper retrofit
measures considering numerous factors such as lifecycle costs, climatic conditions, and the lifestyle of the studied country will result in
an environmentally and financially sustainable investment.
6. Conclusion
The operational phase of the building is responsible for a considerable amount of buildings’ energy consumption. This study op
timizes the integrated BIM-LCA framework for building energy retrofit projects that analyze projects from a sustainable perspective. In
this generalized and comprehensive framework, the mathematical model helps determine the optimum solution for the energy effi
ciency retrofitting of buildings. The proposed framework proves a possible improvement in energy savings and decreased environ
mental impacts by employing BIM and LCA. This stimulates the idea of enhancing existing buildings to be more sustainable. It enables
decision-makers to be involved in this process and be aware of the consequences of employing every possible retrofitting alternative
component.
Furthermore, this framework reduces the building’s service life costs as well as its energy consumption. The 6D-BIM was utilized to
create the building’s energy model and estimate the building’s actual operational energy and loads. In other words, the BIM tool
provided the opportunity to link all aspects of buildings from a 3D model to time, cost, components characteristics, operational and life
cycle management together dynamically. The novelty of this research study is focused on the integration of mathematical modeling,
building information modeling (BIM), and life cycle assessment toward a generalized framework for energy retrofitting of existing
buildings. It includes all aspects of energy retrofitting, cost minimization, including maintenance, energy, and investment costs, in
creases in the resale value of the building, and reducing environmental impacts of the building during its life and demolition. The
effectiveness of this framework was examined on a typical multi-story building in Iran. The results are compared both before and after
applying retrofitting measures.
The operational phase serves most building lifecycle costs and consumptions; thus, the focus of the current study is on this phase,
although in the life cycle assessment of retrofitting material, the entire life cycle is considered. In the studied building and all similar
buildings, reaching a 24%–58% energy saving was possible based on the targeted investment budget. According to the research results,
a highly energy-efficient building component reduced operational energy significantly while increasing embodied energy (product).
The exterior walls and windows can be considered the buildings’ energy efficiency main agents as they impose the most heating and
cooling load on the building. Furthermore, when the buildings’ envelope is insulated, an inefficient evaporative cooling system will
19
Fig. 8. Global warming potential of the case study building after applying retrofit measures per life cycle stage.
waste all the insulation works, as they work as a big chimney on the buildings’ rooftop. Therefore, another primary agent of energy
efficiency in such buildings is the evaporative cooling system. If all energy retrofitting measures are applied in the case study building,
the energy savings will be enhanced by about 58%, and environmental impacts could decrease by about one-third. Although insulation
materials contribute to less operational energy use, there are matters about their global warming potential, embodied energy, and
other environmental impacts, increasing low-energy buildings. The proposed methodology can be used for every building type to
estimate the loads for each component imposed on the building to choose the optimum retrofit measures among possible alternatives to
reduce environmental impacts and energy consumption and life cycle cost to the least amount. This study encourages homeowners to
enhance existing buildings’ energy efficiency and sustainability through enhancing components and equipment based on their
available budget. Although this study focuses on the operational phase, this framework can be applied to buildings’ entire lifetime.
Those making decisions and investors can benefit from this framework. It can be applied for any building type, including complex
buildings, hospitals, and commercial ones, to determine the optimum retrofit strategies and sustainability aspects both environ
mentally and financially.
7. Recommendations and future work

The findings of this work are limited as they mainly focus on the operational phase of the building. The mathematical optimization
phase took into account only the buildings’ operational phase. A future study will consider embodied energy as a part of the math
ematical phase since it increases due to the envelope insulation. Therefore, the study posits to consider the embodied energy efficiency
results in low-energy manufacturing procedures on the building materials. Moreover, some critical factors come into play in building
construction materials selection, such as local availability, manufacturing energy intensity, life span, durability, renewability, recy
clability, and reducing construction waste. The initial investment costs for retrofitting existing buildings with energy efficiency are still
challenging for investors and homeowners despite all the environmental and economic benefits. As a result, the authors aim to examine
different incentive schemes to achieve as short a payback period as possible. Furthermore, in the LCA, the service system GHG
emissions and embodied energy were not considered due to the limited data access and applied software limitations. For future
research direction, the authors will plan to consider those items in order to have a more precise and comprehensive decision-making
perspective.
20
Funding
No funding was received for this work.
Intellectual property
We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there
are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm
that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.
Research ethics
We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has involved human patients has been conducted
with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript.
IRB approval was obtained (required for studies and series of 3 or more cases).
Written consent to publish potentially identifying information, such as details or the case and photographs, was obtained from the
patient(s) or their legal guardian(s).
Contact with the editorial office

This author submitted this manuscript using his/her account in EVISE.
We understand that this Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including EVISE and direct commu
nications with the office). He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and
final approval of proofs.
We confirm that the email address shown below is accessible by the Corresponding Author, is the address to which Corresponding
Author’s EVISE account is linked, and has been configured to accept email from the editorial office of American Journal of
Ophthalmology Case Reports:
CRediT author statement

Maedeh Motalebi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Validation, Ali
Rashidi: Visualization, Investigation, Reviewing and Editing, Supervision, Mohammad Mahdi Nasiri: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
Lifecycle Inventory LCI data Source Transportation Product Scope End of life scope
100% Fired brick DE: Stoneware tiles, unglazed (EN15804 By truck: 30 Cradle to gate, excludes 55% Recycled into
A1-A3) ts (2017) km* mortar, anchors, ties, coarse aggregate,
and metal accessories 45% Landfilled
outside of scope (<1% (inert material)
mass
Adhesive, polyurethane 5% EU-27: Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate By truck: 20 Cradle to gate, plus 98.7% solids to
Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate ((p) ((p)MDI) ts (2014) DE: Polyurethane km* emissions during landfill (plastic
MDI), 95% Polyurethane (copolymer- (copolymer-component) (estimation from application waste)
component) (estimation from TPU TPU adhesive) ts (2017)
adhesive), 1.35% NMVOC emissions
Cement mortar, Latricrete - EPD EPD (US), LATRICRETE (2016) By truck: 30 Cradle to gate, excludes 55% Recycled into
km* mortar Anchors, ties, and coarse aggregate
metal accessories outside 45% Landfilled
of scope (<1% mass) (inert material)
EPDM, reinforced membrane, 60 mils, US: Reinforced EPDM single ply roofing By truck: 172 Cradle to gate 100% Landfilled
SPRI - EPD membrane, 60 mils, A1-A3 - SPRI ts (2017) km (plastic waste)
Granite tile DE: Natural stone slab, rigid, facade By truck: 50 Cradle to gate 55% Recycled into
(EN15804 A1-A3) ts (2017) km* coarse aggregate
45% Landfilled
(inert material)
Hardware, aluminum 50% Primary RNA: Secondary Aluminum Ingot AA/ts By truck: 40 Cradle to gate 95% Recovered 5%
aluminum 50% Secondary aluminum (2010) [EPD] DE: Aluminium cast km* Landfilled (inert
machining ts (2017) DE: Aluminium die- material)
cast part ts (2017) RNA: Primary
Aluminium Ingot AA/ts (2010) [EPD] US:
(continued on next page)
21
(continued )
Lifecycle Inventory LCI data Source Transportation Product Scope End of life scope
Electricity grid mix ts (2014) US: Thermal

energy from natural gas ts (2014)
Mortar type N Dried mixture: 83% Sand DE: Masonry mortar (MG II a) ts (2017) By truck: 10 Cradle to gate 55% Recycled into
11% cement 6% limestone (11% water km* coarse aggregate
evaporates on drying) 45% Landfilled
(inert material)
Stucco, portland cement 100% Light US: Silica sand (Excavation and By truck: 35 Cradle to gate 100% Landfilled
Plaster (Silica sand, Portland cement, processing) ts (2017) US: Portland cement km* (inert waste)
Calcinated lime) PCA/ts (2015) US: Lime (CaO) calcination
ts (2017)
Stucco, synthetic 90% Acrylic resin 10% DE: Acrylate resin (solvent systems) PE By truck: 64 Cradle to gate, including 97.8% Solids
Quartz sand 2.2% NMVOC emissions (2015) US: Silica sand (excavation and km* emissions during landfilled (plastic
during application processing) ts (2017) application waste)
Vinyl frame: 2.8 kg/m (1.3 kg/m PVC part DE: Window frame PVC-U (EN15804 A1- By truck: 96 Cradle to gate, excludes 100% Landfilled
metal reinforcement 1.5 kg/m (Steel A3) ts (2017) km hardware, casing, (plastic waste)
cold rolled, zinc-coated)) sealant
Glazing, monolithic sheet, generic DE: Window glass simple (EN15804 A1- By truck: 40 Cradle to gate 100% Landfilled
A3) ts (2017) km* (inert waste)
Fasteners, galvanized steel GLO: Steel wire rod worldsteel (2014) By truck: 100 Cradle to gate 70% Recovered
GLO: Steel turning ts (2017) GLO: km 30% Landfilled
Electrolytic galvanization (1 m2 steel sheet (inert material)
part, electrolytic) ts (2017) GLO: Value of
scrap worldsteel (2014)
Fiberglass blanket insulation Fiberglass US: Fiberglass Batt NAIMA (2007) By truck: 172 Cradle to gate 100% Landfilled
batt density varies from 10 to 14 kg/ km (inert waste)
m3
References
[1] P. Nejat, F. Jomehzadeh, M.M. Taheri, M. Gohari, M.Z.A. Majid, A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with
an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries), Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015) 843–862.
[2] Y.L. Li, M.Y. Han, S.Y. Liu, G.Q. Chen, Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by buildings: a multi-scale perspective, Build. Environ. 151 (2019)
240–250.
[3] M. Hu, Life-cycle environmental assessment of energy-retrofit strategies on a campus scale [Internet], Build. Res. Inf. 48 (2020) 659–680, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09613218.2019.1691486. Available from:.
[4] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, C. Pout, A review on buildings energy consumption information, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 394–398.
[5] R. Petrasiunas, Renovation of Residential Building According to Finnish and Lithuanian Na-Tional Building Codes, 2016.
[6] Imperatives S. reportReport of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Accessed Feb 1987;10:1–300.
[7] G.K.C. Ding, Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools [Internet], J. Environ. Manag. 86 (2008) 451–464. Available from: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479706004270.
[8] J. Cidell, M.A. Cope, Factors explaining the adoption and impact of LEED-based green building policies at the municipal level, J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 57
(2014) 1763–1781.
[9] Y.-K. Juan, P. Gao, J. Wang, A hybrid decision support system for sustainable office building renovation and energy performance improvement, Energy Build. 42
(2010) 290–297.
[10] P. Chastas, T. Theodosiou, D. Bikas, Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review, Build. Environ. 105
(2016) 267–282.
[11] R. Azari, N. Abbasabadi, Embodied energy of buildings: a review of data, methods, challenges, and research trends, Energy Build. 168 (2018) 225–235.
[12] M. Röck, M.R.M. Saade, M. Balouktsi, F.N. Rasmussen, H. Birgisdottir, R. Frischknecht, et al., Embodied GHG emissions of buildings–The hidden challenge for
effective climate change mitigation, Appl. Energy 258 (2020), 114107.
[13] D. D’agostino, P. Zangheri, L. Castellazzi, Towards nearly zero energy buildings in Europe: a focus on retrofit in non-residential buildings, Energies 10 (2017)
117.
[14] [Internet] EC(European Commission), Energy Performance of Buildings, 2019 [07/10/19].
[15] W. Eichhammer, T. Fleiter, B. Schlomann, S. Faberi, M. Fioretto, N. Piccioni, et al., Study on the Energy Savings Potentials in EU Member States, Candidate
Countries and EEA Countries, 2011.
[16] W. Wuyts, A. Miatto, R. Sedlitzky, H. Tanikawa, Extending or ending the life of residential buildings in Japan: a social circular economy approach to the problem
of short-lived constructions, J. Clean. Prod. 231 (2019) 660–670.
[17] A. Pakdel, H. Ayatollahi, S. Sattary, Embodied energy and CO2 emissions of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the traditional and contemporary Iranian construction
systems, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021), 102310.
[18] C. Daily, Short-lived Buildings Create Huge Waste, 2010.
[19] G. Liu, K. Xu, X. Zhang, G. Zhang, Factors influencing the service lifespan of buildings: an improved hedonic model, Habitat Int. 43 (2014) 274–282.
[20] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, A. García-Martínez, Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildings, Energy Build. 136 (2017) 110–120.
[21] T. Parkinson, A. Parkinson, R. de Dear, Continuous IEQ monitoring system: context and development, Build. Environ. 149 (2019) 15–25.
[22] H. Gao, C. Koch, Y. Wu, Building information modelling based building energy modelling: a review, Appl. Energy 238 (2019) 320–343.
[23] L.Á. Antón, J. Díaz, Integration of LCA and BIM for sustainable construction, Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 8 (2014) 1378–1382.
[24] X. Chen, H. Yang, A multi-stage optimization of passively designed high-rise residential buildings in multiple building operation scenarios, Appl. Energy 206
(2017) 541–557.
[25] M. Liu, Y.K. Wen, S.A. Burns, Life cycle cost oriented seismic design optimization of steel moment frame structures with risk-taking preference, Eng. Struct. 26
(2004) 1407–1421.
[26] E. Cuce, P.M. Cuce, C.J. Wood, S.B. Riffat, Optimizing insulation thickness and analysing environmental impacts of aerogel-based thermal superinsulation in
buildings, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 28–39.
22
[27] S.J. Jalal, R.K. Bani, Orientation modeling of high-rise buildings for optimizing exposure/transfer of insolation, case study of Sulaimani, Iraq, Energy Sustain.
Dev. 41 (2017) 157–164.
[28] A.K. Nicał, W. Wodyński, Enhancing facility management through BIM 6D, Procedia Eng. 164 (2016) 299–306.
[29] J.J. McArthur, A building information management (BIM) framework and supporting case study for existing building operations, maintenance and
sustainability, Procedia Eng. 118 (2015) 1104–1111.
[30] Z. Pučko, D. Vincek, A. Štrukelj, N. Šuman, Application of 6D building information model (6D BIM) for business-storage building in Slovenia, Pučko, Z., Vincek,
D., Štrukelj, A., & Šuman, N. (2017). Application of 6D building information model (6D BIM) for business-storage building in Slovenia. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and . IOP Publishing, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017, p. 62028.
[31] A. Redmond, A. Hore, M. Alshawi, R. West, Exploring how information exchanges can be enhanced through Cloud BIM, Autom. ConStruct. 24 (2012) 175–183.
[32] J. Park, H. Cai, WBS-based dynamic multi-dimensional BIM database for total construction as-built documentation, Autom. ConStruct. 77 (2017) 15–23.
[33] I.-C. Wu, S.-H. Hsieh, A framework for facilitating multi-dimensional information integration, management and visualization in engineering projects, Autom.
ConStruct. 23 (2012) 71–86.
[34] L.Y. Ding, Y. Zhou, H.B. Luo, X.G. Wu, Using nD technology to develop an integrated construction management system for city rail transit construction, Autom.
ConStruct. 21 (2012) 64–73.
[35] L. Zhang, G. Wang, H. Liu, The development trend and government policies of open BIM in China, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on
Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, Springer, 2014 page 981–93.
[36] E. Asadi, M.G. Da Silva, C.H. Antunes, L. Dias, Multi-objective optimization for building retrofit strategies: a model and an application, Energy Build. 44 (2012)
81–87.
[37] A. Jafari, V. Valentin, An optimization framework for building energy retrofits decision-making [Internet], Build. Environ. 115 (2017) 118–129, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.01.020. Available from:.
[38] GM-E F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R De Masi, Undefined. Resilience of Robust Cost-Optimal Energy Retrofit of Buildings to Global Warming: A Multi-Stage, 2017.
multi-objective approach. Elsevier [Internet] [cited 2019 Feb 16];Available from, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778817320418.
[39] O. Pombo, K. Allacker, B. Rivela, J. Neila, Sustainability assessment of energy saving measures: a multi-criteria approach for residential buildings retrofitting—a
case study of the Spanish housing stock, Energy Build. 116 (2016) 384–394.
[40] M. Najjar, K. Figueiredo, A.W.A. Hammad, A. Haddad, Integrated optimization with building information modeling and life cycle assessment for generating
energy efficient buildings [Internet], Appl. Energy 250 (2019) 1366–1382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.101. Available from.
[41] Y. Liu, T. Liu, S. Ye, Y. Liu, Cost-benefit analysis for Energy Efficiency Retrofit of existing buildings: a case study in China, J. Clean. Prod. 177 (2018) 493–506.
[42] B. Tan, Y. Yavuz, E.N. Otay, E. Çamlibel, Optimal selection of energy efficiency measures for energy sustainability of existing buildings, Comput. Oper. Res. 66
(2016) 258–271.
[43] G.H. Shakouri, M. Rahmani, M. Hosseinzadeh, A. Kazemi, Multi-objective optimization-simulation model to improve the buildings’ design specification in
different climate zones of Iran [Internet], Sustain. Cities Soc. 40 (2018) 394–415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.033. Available from.
[44] Z. Wu, B. Wang, X. Xia, Large-scale building energy efficiency retrofit: concept, model and control, Energy 109 (2016) 456–465.
[45] S. Mejjaouli, M. Alzahrani, Decision-making model for optimum energy retrofitting strategies in residential buildings, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 24 (2020)
211–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.008. Available from.
[46] Y. Fan, X. Xia, A multi-objective optimization model for energy-efficiency building envelope retrofitting plan with rooftop PV system installation and
maintenance, Appl. Energy 189 (2017) 327–335.
[47] M. Pazouki, K. Rezaie, A. Bozorgi-Amiri, A fuzzy robust multi-objective optimization model for building energy retrofit considering utility function: a university
building case study, Energy Build. (2021), 110933.
[48] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R.F. De Masi, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, Resilience of robust cost-optimal energy retrofit of buildings to global warming: a multi-stage,
multi-objective approach [Internet], Energy Build. 153 (2017) 150–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.004. Available from.
[49] K. Akbari, M.M. Nasiri, F. Jolai, S.F. Ghaderi, Optimal investment and unit sizing of distributed energy systems under uncertainty: a robust optimization
approach, Energy Build. 85 (2014) 275–286.
[50] Z. Wu, B. Wang, X. Xia, Large-scale building energy efficiency retrofit: concept, model and control, Energy 109 (2016) 456–465.
[51] K. Akbari, M.M. Nasiri, F. Jolai, S.F. Ghaderi, Optimal investment and unit sizing of distributed energy systems under uncertainty: a robust optimization
approach [Internet], Energy Build. 85 (2014) 275–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.009. Available from.
[52] Laronde R, Charki A, Bigaud D. Lifetime Estimation of a Photovoltaic Module Based on Temperature Measurement. 2nd IMEKO TC11 [Internet] 2011;34–9.
Available from: http://www.imeko.org/publications/tc20-2011/IMEKO-TC20-2011-10.pdf.
[53] H. Yang, Z. Wei, L. Chengzhi, Optimal design and techno-economic analysis of a hybrid solar–wind power generation system, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 163–169.
[54] S.H. Pishgar-Komleh, A. Keyhani, P. Sefeedpari, Wind speed and power density analysis based on Weibull and Rayleigh distributions (a case study: Firouzkooh
county of Iran), Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 313–322.
[55] N. Wang, Y.-C. Chang, A.A. El-Sheikh, Monte Carlo simulation approach to life cycle cost management, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 8 (2012) 739–746.
[56] M. Ammar, T. Zayed, O. Moselhi, Fuzzy-based lifecycle cost model for decision making under subjectivity, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 139 (2013) 556–563.
[57] F.J. Bromilow, M.R. Pawsey, Life cycle cost of university buildings, Construct. Manag. Econ. 5 (1987) S3–S22.
[58] R. Kansal, G. Kadambari, Green buildings: an assessment of life cycle cost, IUP J. Infrastruct. 8 (2010) 50.
[59] M. Gašić, M. Pejanović, T. Jurenić, Life cycle cost elements of the architectural projects, Tech. Technol. Educ. Manag. 7 (2012) 227–236.
[60] C.C. Menassa, Evaluating sustainable retrofits in existing buildings under uncertainty, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 3576–3583.
[61] K.C. Sarma, H. Adeli, Life-cycle cost optimization of steel structures, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 55 (2002) 1451–1462.
[62] S. Nadel, The Rebound Effect: Large or Small? American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2012.
[63] A. Jafari, V. Valentin, R.P. Berrens, Estimating the economic value of energy improvements in US residential housing, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 143 (2017),
4017048.
[64] W.T. Grondzik, A.G. Kwok, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings, John wiley & sons, 2019.
[65] S. Eleftheriadis, D. Mumovic, P. Greening, Life cycle energy efficiency in building structures: a review of current developments and future outlooks based on BIM
capabilities, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 811–825.
[66] J.P. Basbagill, F. Flager, M. Lepech, Measuring the impact of dynamic life cycle performance feedback on conceptual building design, J. Clean. Prod. 164 (2017)
726–735.
[67] F. Shadram, T.D. Johansson, W. Lu, J. Schade, T. Olofsson, An integrated BIM-based framework for minimizing embodied energy during building design, Energy
Build. 128 (2016) 592–604.
[68] T. Potrč Obrecht, M. Röck, E. Hoxha, A. Passer, BIM and LCA integration: a systematic literature review, Sustainability 12 (2020) 5534.
[69] S. Valdivia, C.M.L. Ugaya, J. Hildenbrand, M. Traverso, B. Mazijn, G. Sonnemann, A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our
contribution to Rio+ 20, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 1673–1685.
[70] F. Jalaei, A. Jrade, An automated BIM model to conceptually design, analyze, simulate, and assess sustainable building projects, 2014, J. Constr. Eng. (2014)
1–21.
[71] Tally, Meet Tally, 2016.
[72] M. Najjar, K. Figueiredo, M. Palumbo, A. Haddad, Integration of BIM and LCA: evaluating the environmental impacts of building materials at an early stage of
designing a typical office building, J. Build. Eng. 14 (2017) 115–126.
[73] W. Yang, Q.Y. Li, L. Yang, J.Y.X. Ren, Analyzing the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts in the Chinese Building Design Process, Proc. Sixth Int. Symp. Life-Cycle
Civ. Eng. (IALCCE 2018), 2018.
23
[74] Autodesk. Flying High with Revit and Tally: Lifecycle Assessment for the Atlanta Falcons Stadium. [Internet]. Available from: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/
support/revit-products/learn- explore/caas/auonline/content/au/global/en/au-online/classes-on-demand/class- catalog/classes/year-2014/revit-for-
architects/ab6581/jcr-content.html;.
[75] K. Safari, H. AzariJafari, Challenges and opportunities for integrating BIM and LCA: methodological choices and framework development, Sustain. Cities Soc.
(2021), 102728.
[76] Autodesk, Weather Data Sources and Methodology, 2014. Autodesk Knowledge Network. [Internet]. Available from, https://knowledge.autodesk.com/search-
result/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/ENU/BPA-Help/files/GUID-DDF449B0-058E-465C-AFF4-7E45917B08EF-htm.html.
[77] Montiel-Santiago FJ, Jesús Hermoso-Orzáez M, Terrados-Cepeda J. Sustainability and Energy Efficiency: BIM 6D. Study of the BIM Methodology Applied to
Hospital Buildings. Value of Interior Lighting and Daylight in Energy Simulation. [cited 2021 Apr 19];Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.
24

1 s2.0 S2352710222000353 Main

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

1 s2.0 S2352710222000353 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 49 (2022) 104022

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Optimization and BIM-based lifecycle assessment integration for

Anu building envelope in contact with non-heated spaces (m2)

GC Natural Gas consumption

enhancing electrical and mechanical systems [3,5].

Jafari and Valentin 2017 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - - ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Journal of Building Engineering 49 (2022) 104022

2.1. Mathematical optimization model

2.1.1. Decision variables

2.1.2. Energy demand for space heating

QHeating = QEXT + QLNU + QV − QhUHG − QLTB

Fig. 1. The methodological framework.

QLNU = 0.024HDD(t).Unu Anu

2.1.3. Energy demand for space cooling

QCooling = QcUHG + QE + QT + QDEN

QDEN = (ω1 + ω2 + ω3 )TOCC .An

2.1.4. Lighting and appliance energy consumption

EApp = N app xapp

2.1.5. Hybrid renewable system (HRS) energy production

R(t) = N0PV L(t)

M(t) = N0PV − N0PV L(t)

The energy generated by WT is measured through Equation (20) [53,54].

2.1.6. Objective function

t=1 m=1 t=1 n=1 t=1 s=1

➢ Cooling and heating load constraint:

➢ Energy production constraint:

➢ Measure selection constraint:

2.2. BIM-LCA integration

2.3. Linking components of the framework

3. Case study: validation of methodological framework

Fig. 2. The case study of multi-story residential building model in REVIT®

are shown in Table 3.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Retrofitting scenarios

Envelope Existing Material Area Description

Wall Uninsulated, Plaster dense, Brick 3438 m2 U = 2.767

j Information on windows Uj αj ($)

Information on lighting system light

1 Fluorescent, Compact (CFL) 23 1520 5.2

w Information on wind turbines Cp (%) diameter(m) CWT

1 Windmax HY400 42 1.55 699

s Information on photovoltaic panels Apv 2

1 Shell S 105 1.64 15.7 540

m Information on cooling system Capacitycool

1 Mini Split Air Conditioner type1 8.8 2900

n Information on heating system (Boiler) CapacityHeat

1 Gas Fired Considering Boiler type1 (MI3) 300 3300

p Information on Appliances qapp (W) Cpass

1 Refrigerator type1 86 2298

Budget $120000 $200000 $220000 $240000 $260000 $300000

7. Recommendations and future work

Contact with the editorial office

CRediT author statement

Declaration of competing interest

Electricity grid mix ts (2014) US: Thermal

You might also like