Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Achieving affordable zero carbon housing design through an

integrated approach
∗
Hong Xian Li , Yan Li, Meng Du
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: CO2 emissions from building operations have increased to their highest level, moving away from the
Received 1 September 2022 Paris Agreement goal of below 2 ◦ C. Zero carbon housing (ZCH) has been identified as a viable solution
Received in revised form 8 March 2023 to realise carbon neutrality. However, ZCHs are barely recognised by the mainstream market due to
Accepted 5 April 2023
the misconception of high up-front cost. This research aims to identify affordable solutions for ZCH
Available online 17 April 2023
by synergising building design, mechanical services, and renewable energy, and to balance capital
Keywords: cost and environmental benefits. An integrated framework of energy simulation, sensitivity analysis,
Zero carbon housing and multi-objective optimisation is employed to achieve the goals. A representative house design is
Integrated design selected to demonstrate the proposed methodology, and a national energy rating scheme in Australia,
Capital cost NatHERS, is used for validation. The optimisation identified eight optimal solutions, resulting in a CO2
Indoor thermal comfort emission reduction between 1.894 tCO2 to 2.259 tCO2 with increased indoor comfort of 1.3%–2.6%.
NatHERS This research also finds that given the policy incentives, the actual incremental cost is marginal after
the government rebate. This research addresses the major barriers of the high up-front cost associated
with ZCH through an integrated approach. The research facilitates the paradigm shift in the mainstream
market, promoting the development and market expansion of ZCH.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction A ZCH is generally defined as a residential unit achieving net-

CO2 emissions from building operations increased to their
highest level of around 10 GtCO2 , or 28% of total energy-related
CO2 emissions globally in 2019, which moved away from the
Paris Agreement goal of keeping the global mean temperature
rise to well below 2 ◦ C (UNEP, 2020). The detrimental impacts
of global climate change have been revealed in recent decades,
and significant effort has been dedicated to reducing the green-
house effect worldwide. Within this context, various approaches
have been investigated in the building sector to improve en-
ergy performance and minimise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
World Green Building Council (2021) advocates that all buildings,
including commercial and residential buildings, to be net zero
carbon in operation by 2050. However, the market penetration of
zero-carbon buildings remains low, constituting much less than
1% of existing buildings on the global scale (Laski and Burrows,
2018).
In the effort of promoting high-performance residential build-
ings, zero carbon housing (ZCH) has been identified as a viable
solution to realise carbon neutrality for the living environment.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hong.li@deakin.edu.au (H.X. Li), yan.li@deakin.edu.au
(Y. Li), m.du@deakin.edu.au (M. Du).
zero annual carbon emissions during occupancy (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2020b), and it is realised through the integration
of energy-efficient housing design and on-site renewable energy
systems (e.g., solar photovoltaics (PV)). However, ZCHs are barely
recognised by the mainstream market. One of the major barriers
is the widely established misconception of the high up-front cost
associated with constructing high-performance buildings (Low
Carbon Living CRC, 2019). Pan and Pan (2020) examined the
knowledge, attitude, and practice towards zero carbon build-
ings, and revealed that explicit ZCB knowledge played an impor-
tant role in creating a knowledge-induced attitude that favours
changes in practice leading to zero carbon developments.
While the short-term factor of the capital cost involved in the
construction stage forms an important dimension for the success-
ful implementation of a ZCH design scheme, the design objectives
concerned in the delivery of ZCH are generally concentrated on
the long-term benefits, such as minimising the environmental
footprint of building operation (i.e., energy use and CO2 emis-
sions) and improving indoor comfort for building occupants. It
has been proposed that ZCH would be made affordable through
an integrated approach (Low Carbon Living CRC, 2019). However,
little quantitative evidence has been provided to facilitate the
paradigm shift in the mainstream market, hindering the develop-
ment of business models for the market expansion of ZCH (Wells
et al., 2018).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.04.022
2352-4847/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
The realisation of ZCH relies on the design strategies applied
for energy conservation, recovery, and generation. Energy con-
servation strategies generally involve passive design and building
envelope specification. There is a series of passive design strate-
gies that can facilitate the delivery of high-performance buildings
without incurring additional construction cost (Low Carbon Living
CRC, 2019). Building orientation, window-to-wall ratio (WWR),
and building insulation are concerned as passive design prin-
ciples (Morrissey et al., 2011; Allam et al., 2020). In Victoria,
Australia, properly insulated houses were found to save up to 45%
of energy bills (Sustainability Victoria, 2021a,b). These passive
design measures can effectively reduce the energy use for ZCH
operations. Along with the passive design measures, the inte-
gration of high-efficiency mechanical service systems, including
Heating, Ventilation, and Air-conditioning (HVAC) devices and
domestic hot water (DHW) units, is also a critical factor for
the ZCH design. By using energy-efficient technologies, such as
heat pump technologies, the energy performance of ZCHs can be
significantly improved (Li et al., 2017). As energy use is inevitable
for building operations, energy supply from on-site renewable
energy sources is an essential part of a ZCH design scheme. Solar
photovoltaic (PV) and wind turbines are frequently adopted as
domestic energy production systems. In Australia, solar PV is the
most popular clean energy technology in the residential sector,
with around 29% of homes having rooftop solar PV installed
by March 2021 (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and
Resources, 2021).
Another design objective is to address the comfort degree
for optimal building design. The indoor thermal conditions of a
building are specified by thermal comfort standards, such as the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard-55 (ASHRAE, 2019), the Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard-7730 (ISO,
2005), the European standard EN15251 (BS/EN, 2007), and the
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE, 2006).
According to ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 (ASHRAE, 2019), comfort
hours mainly involve two factors, namely operative temperature
and zone humidity ratio. (1) Operative temperature Top can be
formulated as Top = γ · Trad + (1 − γ ) · Ta , in which Trad and Ta
denote the mean radiant temperature for the thermal zone and
the mean zone air temperature, respectively, and a typical value
for γ is 0.5 (Littlewood et al., 2017). (2) The humidity ratio is the
mass of water vapour to the mass of dry air contained in the zone
(kg water/kg air) (ASHRAE, 2019). Based on the above-mentioned
indices, comfort hours are used to measure the total time within
the comfort ranges, where the 0.5 clothing level can be used for
summer, and the 1.0 clothing level can be used for winter, as
shown in Fig. 1. Coordinates of the bounding points for comfort
are also listed in this figure.
In order to estimate the performance of various design sce-
narios, energy simulation has been implemented as an effective
approach. Energy simulation can be employed to evaluate the
performance of energy-efficient design strategies with various
design scenarios (Ceballos-Fuentealba et al., 2019). For example, a
simulation-based method was employed by Capeluto and Ochoa
(2014) to identify and rank energy-efficient retrofitting solutions
in 13 urban centres in Europe. Based on the energy simulation of a
high-rise office building, Raji et al. (2016) conducted a sensitivity
analysis to improve the performance of the building envelope.
Several building simulation tools, such as TRNSYS, ESP-r, Ener-
gyPlus, and DesignBuilder, are commonly used to estimate the
energy demand of buildings (Hong et al., 2018). In particular,
DesignBuilder is capable of investigating detailed energy use and
providing a user-friendly graphical interface for comparison (Li
et al., 2020). DesignBuilder is often chosen as it is an interactive
tool with EnergyPlus used as the simulation engine, which is
4906
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
Fig. 1. Comfort ranges for 0.5 clothing level in summer and 1.0 clothing level
in winter (Luo, 2020).
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy as an independent
building simulation engine.
Building simulation has also been combined with optimisation
to assist building designers in the search for optimal design
solutions (Ascione et al., 2019). Wu et al. (2017) proposed an opti-
misation model for building energy systems in typical residential
buildings in the Swiss village of Zernez, where the optimisation
model was integrated into the dynamic energy simulation in
EnergyPlus to explore individual retrofit scenarios. In particular,
evolutionary optimisation algorithms, such as Genetic Algorithm
(GA), are capable of handling a larger number of parameters
efficiently, and have the advantage of being less sensitive to the
problem characteristics (Alajmi and Wright, 2014). Furthermore,
there are several multi-objective optimisation techniques that en-
hance the traditional GAs, such as Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm II (NSGA-II), Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm,
Micro Genetic Algorithm, and Pareto-archived Evolution Strategy
(Yusoff et al., 2011). Research also shows that NSGA-II has been
regarded as a fast and elitist multi-objective method providing a
good trade-off between a well-converged and a well-distributed
solution (Costa-Carrapiço et al., 2020; Martínez et al., 2020).
The successful synergy of the passive design scheme with
mechanical services and on-site renewable technology offers the
potential to cut back the financial implication of ZCH develop-
ment. However, only part design parameters of the three mea-
sures were considered for optimisation in the reviewed literature.
For example, Amani and Kiaee (2020) maximised energy saving
and minimised the environmental impact, with twelve typical
insulation materials with different thicknesses and a four-layer
insulation system developed and applied to a case study. Ansah
et al. (2022) considered WWR, building orientation, and envelope
construction to optimise building design. Ascione et al. (2019)
considered temperature setpoint, the thermo-physical properties
of envelope components, window types, and building orientation,
to optimise energy use and related cost. However, the tempera-
ture setpoint is a parameter of building operation, rather than a
design parameter. Therefore, this paper analyses the synergy of
the three design measures of building design, mechanical services
selection, and on-site renewable technology, and considers the
impacts of temperature setpoint in the sensitivity analysis.
Based on the identified research gap, this research aims to
address the synergy of three design measures for ZCH, includ-
ing building design strategies, mechanical services selection, and
on-site renewable technology. To explore cost-effective design
solutions for ZCH, while maximising indoor comfort, a compre-
hensive optimisation model is established by minimising capital
cost and minimising discomfort hours based on ASHRAE 55 with
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Table 1
Categories of design variables.
Energy-efficient building design Mechanical devices On-site renewable energy
Passive design strategies Building envelope
Opaque elements Fenestration component
• Building orientation • External wall • Glazing • HVAC • Solar PV
• Window-wall ratio (WWR) • Ground floor • Window frame • DHW
• Roof-ceiling assembly

a constraint of zero or negative operational CO2 emission. In mechanical devices for HVAC systems and DHW heating also sig-
order to balance the short-term factor of capital cost and the nificantly affects the overall energy performance of ZCH design.
long-term benefits of environmental performance, capital cost, Energy sources of the equipment, such as electricity and gas,
operational CO2 emissions, and indoor thermal comfort are used and the equipment efficiency are the main parameters related
as the metrics to evaluate the ZCH design. This research will also to the environmental performance of ZCH design. For the on-
separate building design variables from operational parameters, site renewable energy, solar PV systems with different capacities
such as heating/cooling temperature setpoints, for which sen- are evaluated for ZCH design in this research. Table 1 presents a
sitivity analysis is conducted. To identify optimal solutions for summary of the design variables discussed in this session.
ZCH design, multi-objective optimisation is employed coupled
with Pareto front analysis. This research addresses the major 2.2. Optimal design modelling
barriers and the widely established misconception of the high up-
front cost associated with the development of ZCH. The research In order to balance the short-term factor of capital cost and the
framework and identified solutions facilitate the paradigm shift in long-term benefits of environmental performance, capital cost,
the mainstream market, promoting the development and market operational CO2 emissions, and indoor thermal comfort are used
expansion of ZCH. as the metrics to evaluate the ZCH design, while synergising
building design, mechanical services selection, and on-site renew-
2. Research methodology able technology. The research objectives, design variables, and
constraints are formulated as Eqs. (1) to (14). The optimisation
This research utilises an integrated research framework to objectives include: (1) minimising capital cost, and (2) minimis-
achieve the research objectives. The systematic integration of ing discomfort hours based on ASHRAE 55. The optimal design
building design, mechanical device selection, and on-site renew- solutions are not necessarily straight carbon neutral; thus, zero
able energy systems is incorporated into energy simulation to or negative operational CO2 emission is specified as a constraint.
evaluate the performance of ZCH design. To identify optimal
solutions that promote ZCHs, an integrated simulation and multi-
objective optimisation approach coupled with Pareto front anal- Minimise CC (ORT , FHT , WHT , RHT , WWR, GZT , DHW , SHC , SPV )
ysis are conducted in this research. While holistic variables of (1)
building design, mechanical device selection, and on-site renew-
able energy systems are evaluated for ZCH design, operational
Maximise CF (ORT , FHT , WHT , RHT , WWR, GZT , DHW , SHC , SPV )
parameters such as heating/cooling temperature setpoints are
considered in the sensitivity analysis afterwards. Based on build- (2)
ing performance simulation, a Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Subject to:
Algorithm II is employed to identify the cost-effective design of
ZCHs while maximise indoor thermal comfort. A representative CO2op ≤ 0 (3)
house design provided by the Australian Government is selected
as a case study to demonstrate the proposed methodology. The ORT ∈ (ORT1 , ORT2 , . . . , ORTO ) (4)
research framework is illustrated in Fig. 2.
GF ∈ (GF1 , GF2 , . . . , GFP ) (5)
2.1. Design variables evaluated for ZCH design
EW ∈ (EW1 , EW2 , . . . , EWQ ) (6)
Systematic integration of building design, mechanical device
RCA ∈ (RCA1 , RCA2 , . . . , RCAR ) (7)
selection, and on-site renewable energy systems is evaluated
for ZCH design in this research. Literature review indicates that SEC ∈ (SEC1 , SEC , . . . , SECS ) (8)
design parameters of building orientation, WWR, and building WWR ∈ (WWR1 , WWR2 , . . . , WWRL ) (9)
envelope, have significant impacts on the energy conservation
capacity of a house. Therefore, the design parameters of build- GZT ∈ (GZT1 , GZT2 , . . . , GZTM ) (10)
ing orientation, WWR, and building envelope, including exter- WF ∈ (WF1 , WF2 , . . . , WFN ) (11)
nal wall, ground floor, roof–ceiling assembly, window glazing
AC ∈ (AC1 , AC2 , . . . , ACi ) (12)
and framing, are evaluated in this research. The design param-
eter selection also aligns with the thermal requisition of the DHW ∈ (DHW1 , DHW2 , . . . , DHWJ ) (13)
Australia National Construction Code (NCC) (Australian Building
SPV ∈ (SPV1 , SPV2 , . . . , SPK ) (14)
Codes Board, 2019). Moreover, the reference to the YourHome
Design (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019), which is an envi- CC , and CF are construction cost, comfort degree, respectively.
ronmentally sustainable housing design guide provided by the CO2op is the CO2 emissions incurred by building operation.
Australian Government, also endorses the design parameter se- ORT : building main orientation options, ORT ∈ (ORT1 , ORT2 ,
lection in this research. Referring to NCC, the infiltration rate . . . , ORTO ), such as north (0◦ ), east (90◦ ), south (180◦ ), and west
for the building envelope is set as 0.6 ac/hr. The selection of (270◦ ).
4907
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
Fig. 2. Research framework.
GF : ground floor design options, GF ∈ (GF1 , GF2 , . . . , GFP ), R-
value depends on selection of the material assembly for ground
floor.
EW : external wall design options, EW ∈ (EW1 , EW2 , . . . ,
EWQ ), R-value depends on selection of the material assembly for
external wall.
RCA: roof-ceiling assembly options for areas with cathedral
ceiling, RCA ∈ (RCA1 , RCA2 , . . . , RCAR ), R-value depends on selec-
tion of the material composition for the roof-ceiling assembly.
SEC : semi-exposed ceiling options for areas with roof-attic
space above, SEC ∈ (SEC1 , SEC , . . . , SECS ), R-value depends on se-
lection of the material composition for the roof-ceiling assembly.
WWR: window-to-wall ratio options, WWR ∈ (WWR1 , WWR2 ,
. . . , WWRL ).
4908
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
GZ : glazing type options, GZ ∈ (GZ1 , GZ2 , . . . , GZM ), such as
single glazing, double glazing and double glazing with argon-
filled, clear glazing, glazing with low-emissivity coating, glazing
with reflective tint, and so on.
WF : window frame options, WF ∈ (WF1 , WF2 , . . . , WFN ),
including aluminium with no thermal break, aluminium with
thermal break, wooden, painted wooden and uPVC
AC : air-conditioning device options, AC ∈ (AC1 , AC2 , . . . , ACi ),
coefficient of performance (CoP) related to space heating and
energy efficiency ratio (EER) related to space cooling depends on
selection of air-conditioner type.
DHW : domestic hot water system options, DHW ∈ (DHW1 ,
DHW2 , . . . , DHWJ ), including electrical DHW, gas DHW, and heat
pump hot water system, and solar hot water system.
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
SPV : solar photovoltaic (PV) system capacity options, SPV ∈
(SPV1 , SPV2 , . . . , SPVK )
2.3. Optimisation with NSGA-II
To identify the optimal ZCH design scenarios that can min-
imise the construction cost and maximise the indoor comfort si-
multaneously, multiple-objective optimisation enabled by NSGA-
II is applied to simulate and evaluate the energy performance
of the design alternatives generated with the variants of the
design variables. With the baseline model and design variables
established, design scenarios with various configurations of the
design options can be generated, and simulation can be per-
formed to estimate the energy consumed for building operation
and the energy produced on-site for each design variant. Under
this premise, a multi-objective optimisation approach enabled by
NSGA-II is applied to investigate the trade-off between the con-
struction cost and the indoor comfort with the diversified design
scenarios populated, and the cost-optimal ZCH design scenarios
are identified through the automatic Pareto front analysis.
With NSGA-II, the calculations of the construction cost and
comfort level mentioned above are automatically performed. The
trade-off between these two design objectives is investigated
simultaneously to obtain the Pareto front, which corresponds
to a set of optimal design solutions. Once the NSGA-II is ex-
ecuted, multiple generations of design scenarios are produced
with different configurations of the design variables. The first
generation is a population (a set of design scenarios) initialised
by the combination of the design options arbitrarily selected from
the option pool of each design variable. Each design scenario is
then simulated and evaluated against the optimisation objectives
and the constraint defined. Euclidean distances between solutions
are used to rank and select preferred solutions to help create a
diverse solution set and avoid crowding. Feasible design scenarios
are selected based on their fitness values and constraints, and the
optimal design solutions among the population of the existing
generation are identified with Pareto front analysis. According to
multiple performance measures in NSGA-II (Thakkar et al., 2022),
non-dominated solutions are regarded as better design plans. A
feasible design scenario is considered to dominate another feasi-
ble design scenario when none of both design objectives is better
than the other with respect to two objectives. Within the group
of optimal design scenarios, a new population is generated by
the mutation and crossover of design variables. Mutation aims to
mutate design variables of the new design scenarios. Crossover is
used to exchange the genes of parents, namely, design variables.
The new population is then added to the pool of the design
scenarios engendered in the previous generation for the iteration
of the simulation and optimisation process to locate a new set of
optimal design scenarios. To avoid unnecessary iterations, a con-
vergence criterion of 5 generations is implemented, which means
the optimisation will be automatically stopped if no new optimal
design solution is discovered within the recent five generations.
On top of the generations defined for convergence, a maximum of
100 generations is set to terminate this automated process to save
excessive computational time. The outputs of the optimisation
process include: (1) a diagram plotted with the Pareto front
analysis results of the design scenarios generated throughout
the automatic process to demonstrate the trade-off relationship
between the construction cost and the comfort degree; (2) a table
of the optimal design solutions with the configurational details
for each design variable listed.
4909
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
3. Case study
A well-established house design developed by the Australian
Government was selected as the case study model (Common-
wealth of Australia, 2019). The performance of the initial design
is below the ZCH criteria. By implementing the proposed frame-
work, the house design is evaluated with various design options
of building design (i.e., building orientation, WWR, building enve-
lope assemblies), HVAC and domestic hot water (DHW) systems,
and on-site renewable energy production systems (solar PV), to
identify optimal design scenarios as ZCH.
The optimisation is conducted using DesignBuilder coupled
with a multi-objective optimisation algorithm in this study.
Specifically, DesignBuilder (V7) coupled with NSGA-II based opti-
misation is utilised for energy simulation in this research, with
JEA selected as the optimisation engine, which can effectively
assist in the constraint handling issue remained in traditional
NSGA-II based optimisation process, and thus can identify the
optimal design solutions with less computational time (Zhang
and Jankovic, 2017). With the validated simulation engine of
EnergyPlus used in DesignBuilder, this research also conducts
additional verification based on the Nationwide House Energy
Rating Scheme (NatHERS). NatHERS in Australia is used to evalu-
ate the thermal energy load performance of houses. Compliance
with NatHERS is required through the National Construction Code
requirements. Based on a simulation of the building design, a star
rating of the predicted heating and cooling loads is calculated.
The star rating scale goes from 0 (worst) to 10 (best, the mini-
mal requirement for mechanical heating and cooling) (Berry and
Marker, 2015).
The case study is a detached single-family house, chosen from
YourHome Design, which is a national guide promoted by the
Australian government for the design and construction of af-
fordable, environmentally sustainable housing projects. It offers
a series of energy-efficient house design schemes developed by
the joint effort of experienced architects and accredited energy
assessors (see Fig. 3).
The selected design scheme is the Banksia House prototype,
which is a north-facing single-storey house with a south-facing
sloping roof that can offer up to 200 sqm of space for solar panel
installation. This house has a floor area of 156 sqm, around 91%
of which is considered air-conditioned space. As illustrated in
the house layout (Fig. 4), there is one open-plan area combin-
ing a kitchen with living & dining space, two bathrooms, three
bedrooms, and one home office space. Bedroom 1 and the living–
dining area have a cathedral ceiling, while the rest of the internal
space is covered by a flat ceiling with a roof attic space above.
For the simulation model, the activity for each zone was defined
based on its designated function. The YourHome Design has in-
cluded prescriptive details for the building envelope assemblies,
which are specified to suit the needs of different climates. For
this study, the referenced house is to be located in Melbourne
(Victoria, Australia, latitude 37.81◦ S, longitude 144.96◦ E), which
is dominated by the mild temperate climate and categorised as
Climate Zone 6 in the NCC. The ambient temperature of the house
location is illustrated for each month in Fig. 5.
The design specifications of the house include: (1) 85 mm
thick concrete slab on 300 mm waffle pods for the ground floor,
with a total R-value of 2.75 m2 K/W; (2) external wall assem-
bled with lightweight cladding on reverse brick veneer, R2.5 batt
insulation, high-performance anti-glare wall wrap, and 10 mm
plasterboard, resulting in an overall R-value of 3.4 m2 K/W; (3)
metal sheet roofing on battens with R1.3 reflective foil lam-
inate, plus 10 mm plasterboard on timber framing with R4.1
batt insulation for the roof–ceiling assembly, which results in
a total R-value of 5.76 m2 K/W. In contrast, the minimum en-
ergy efficiency required by NCC includes a minimum R-value of
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
Fig. 3. Case study house.
∗
Fig. 4. House layout. Areas in pink are covered by flat ceiling with roof attic space on top.
1 m2 K/W for ground floor insulations, a minimum total R-value
of 2.8 m2 K/W for external walls, and 5.1 for roof–ceiling systems.
The overall window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is 27.5%, and the house
has double-glazed windows with aluminium frames. The detailed
specifications of the baseline house are listed in Table 2. The
initial design does not specify the HVAC, DHW, and renewable
energy systems. In order to have a completed baseline model for
energy simulation, an air conditioning system with a heating CoP
of 4.47 and a cooling EER of 4.48 is chosen for the HVAC system,
and the DHW is an electric hot water system, along with a 3 kW
PV system as the baseline.
According to the National Construction Code (NCC), a 6-star
NatHERS rating is required to comply with the minimum energy
efficiency standards in Australia. With the energy-efficient design
scheme applied, this baseline house has reached above the NCC
energy efficiency requirements and can achieve a NatHERS rating
of 7.1 stars.
4. Simulation and sensitivity analysis
4.1. Simulation
The initial design is modelled using DesignBuilder, and the
HVAC and DHW systems are modelled using the detailed HVAC
4910
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
template. Solar PV systems are also added to the model to sim-
ulate the overall performance. Based on the design specifications
and detailed modelling, the simulated total energy use of the
baseline model is 7.551 MWh (see Table 3), with the heating
and cooling setpoint temperatures of 18 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C, respec-
tively, referring to YourHome guidance. The simulation results
also indicate that, given the project location in Melbourne, a
3 kW north-facing solar PV system can produce 4.466 MWh of
electricity. Thus, the energy used for the building operation can
be offset by 59% by using renewable energy, resulting in the net
annual energy use on site of 3.085 MWh.
The energy use breakdown of the baseline model is presented
in Fig. 6. Overall, spacing heating and cooling use 2.842 MWh
energy, accounting for 38% of the overall energy use. More specifi-
cally, space heating alone uses 2.102 MWh of energy, accounting
for 28% of the total household energy use. The energy required
for cooling is around 0.74 MWh, accounting for 10% of the total
energy use. Lighting consumes 1.91 MWh each year, making up
the second largest proportion (25%) of the total household energy
demand. Interior equipment uses 1.744 MWh, accounting for 23%
of total energy use. The energy used by DHW and ventilation is
0.654 MWh and 0.408 MWh, accounting for 9% and 5% of the total
household energy usage, respectively.
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Fig. 5. Ambient temperature of site location.

Table 2
Baseline building envelope specifications.
Ground floor Roof & Ceiling External wall Semi-exposed Internal Window
internal partitions
partitions
Assembly 85 mm concrete slab Roof Lightweight cladding 10 mm plasterboard 10 mm Air filled,
details with 300 mm waffle Metal sheet roofing on reverse brick on timber framing plasterboard double
pod on battens with R1.3 veneer with R2.5 batt with R2.5 batt on timber glazed, with
reflective foil insulation and insulation framing aluminium
laminate high-performance frame
anti-glare wall wrap,
Ceiling 10 mm plasterboard
10 mm plasterboard
on timber framing
with R4.1 batt
insulation
Baseline model Total Insulation Total Insulation Total Insulation Total Insulation
R-values R-value R-value R-value R-value R-value R-value R-value R-value
(m2 K/W) 2.75 0.63 5.76 4.1 3.39 2.5 – 2.5

The simulation result of the baseline model is validated by
comparing it with the officially accredited energy performance
level of the case study house. For the baseline model, the annual
sensible heating and cooling loads are estimated to be 1.898 MWh
and 0.963 MWh, respectively, and the total annual latent load
is around 0.162 MWh, resulting in an average thermal energy
load of 77 MJ/m2 for the air-conditioned area on an annual basis.
According to the NatHERS star bands, houses in Melbourne with
an average thermal energy load of 68–83 MJ/m2 per annum for
the air-conditioned floor area fall within the rating scale between
7 stars and 7.5 stars (Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme,
2019). Thus, the baseline model has achieved a 7.1-star rating
based on the NatHERS standard, which verifies the authoritatively
recognised energy rating of the case study house.
The simulation results also reveal that the total annual dis-
comfort time for the baseline model is around 1430 h, equalling
16.3% of the year. That is to say, the baseline design developed
on the basis of the case study house can secure a comfortable
indoor environment for up to 83.7% of the time when evaluated
by the ASHRAE standard. The estimated annual operational CO2
emission is 1.87 tCO2 . The estimated capital investment for the
house construction is about AUD 490,250, including the cost of
4911
installing the 3 kW solar PV system, which is around AUD 18,453.
The simulation results provide a baseline for the sensitivity anal-
ysis of temperature setpoint and achieving optimal ZCH design as
follows.
4.2. Sensitivity analysis
Given that the temperature setpoint is a parameter of building
operation, rather than a design parameter, this paper considers
the impacts of the temperature setpoint as a sensitivity analysis
in this section. By conducting sensitivity analysis, the impacts
of specific variables can be evaluated, and the results can also
be visualised graphically. In this research, sensitivity analysis is
designed to analyse the impact of changes in heating and cool-
ing setpoint temperatures on the operational CO2 emissions and
discomfort hours of the building. The parameters of sensitivity
analysis are listed in Table 4 below.
As discussed in the previous section (Section 4.1), the opera-
tional CO2 emissions and the discomfort hours achieved by the
baseline model are 1.87 tCO2 and 1430 h, respectively, at the
heating and cooling setpoint temperatures of 18 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C,
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Fig. 6. Energy use breakdown for baseline model.

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis between CO2 emissions and heating/cooling setpoint.

Table 3
Energy use breakdown of the baseline model.
Space heating & Cooling (MWh) Ventilation (MWh) DHW (MWh) Lighting (MWh) Interior equipment (MWh) Total end uses (MWh)
Heating Cooling
2.102 0.74 0.408 0.645 1.91 1.744 7.551
Total on-site renewable energy (from Solar PVs, 3 kW) (MWh) 4.466
Net site energy (MWh) 3.085

Table 4
Sensitivity analysis for temperature setpoint.
Variable type Min value Max value Step Target object Output KPI
Cooling setpoint temperature 19.00 26.00 1.00 Building
Operational CO2 emissions, Discomfort ASHRAE 55 (all clo)
Heating setpoint temperature 18.00 25.00 1.00 Building

respectively. Based on the parameters listed in Table 6, sensi-
tivity analysis is conducted to analyse the impact of changes in
heating and cooling setpoint temperatures on the operational CO2
emissions and discomfort hours of the building. The results of
sensitivity analysis for operational CO2 emissions are illustrated
in Fig. 7, and the results of sensitivity analysis for discomfort
hours, the sensitivity analysis, are shown in Fig. 8.
4912
From the sensitivity analysis, it can be deduced that by in-
creasing the heating setpoint temperature, there is a great reduc-
tion in discomfort hours. As an example, by increasing the heating
setpoint temperature from the baseline model setpoint of 18 ◦ C
to 21 ◦ C, the discomfort hours are almost halved from 1430 h
to 785 h. However, the thermal comfort improvement is at the
expense of an increased CO2 emission, i.e., the increase from 18
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis between thermal comfort and heating/cooling setpoint.

Table 5
Design options for building envelope assemblies.
Ground floor Roof & Ceiling External wall
Structure Design option R-value Structure Design option R-value Structure Design option R-value
(m2 K/W) (m2 K/W) (m2 K/W)
Total Insulation Total Insulation Total Insulation
2.29 2.0 5.76 4.1 Lightweight 3.39 2.5
2.79 2.5 Metal sheet roofing 6.76 5.1 cladding on 3.89 3.0
3.29 3.0 on battens with 7.76 6.1 reverse brick 4.39 3.5
85 mm 3.79 3.5 R1.3 reflective foil 8.76 7.1 veneer with 4.89 4.0
concrete slab 4.29 4.0 laminate for roof 9.76 8.1 batt insulation 5.39 4.5
on top of and 10 mm and high-
insulation NCC minimum R-value plasterboard on NCC minimum R-value NCC minimum R-value
in Zone 6 (m2 K/W) in Zone 6 (m2 K/W) performance in Zone 6 (m2 K/W)
timber framing with anti-glare wall
Total Insulation batt insulation for Total Insulation wrap, 10 mm Total Insulation
ceiling plasterboard
– 1 5.1 – 2.8 –
Window
Glazing Frame
• Single-glazed clear • Double-glazed (Air-filled) clear • Double-glazed (Argon-filled) clear • Aluminium with no thermal break
• Single-glazed clear LoE clear • Double-glazed (Air-filled) LoE clear • Double-glazed (Argon-filled) LoE • Aluminium with thermal break
• Single-glazed clear reflective tint • Double-glazed (Air-filled) reflective clear • Wooden
tint • Double-glazed (Argon-filled) • Painted wooden
reflective tint • uPVC

◦
C to 21 ◦ C for the heating setpoint resulting in the operational
CO2 emissions of around 2.581 tCO2 .
On the other hand, there is great benefit in increasing the
cooling setpoint temperature from the baseline setpoint of 25
◦
C to 26 ◦ C, and simultaneously increasing the baseline heating
setpoint temperature from 18 ◦ C to 22 ◦ C. These small changes
give a reduction in discomfort hours from 1430 h to only 385 h
which is an almost 300% decrease in the building’s operational
discomfort hours, with only a slight increase in annual CO2 levels
from 1.43 tCO2 to 2.654 tCO2 .
5. Multi-objective optimisation
To identify optimal design solutions, the design variables iden-
tified in the methodology section are optimised to balance the
short-term factor of capital cost and the long-term benefits of en-
vironmental performance, capital cost, operational CO2 emissions,
and indoor thermal comfort in this section. For the design options
of building orientation, eight generic directions are considered
and are defined as north (0◦ ), north-east (45◦ ), east (90◦ ), south-
east (135◦ ), south (180◦ ), south-west (225◦ ), west (270◦ ), and
4913
north-west (315◦ ). Regarding the WWR, the design options vary
within the range of 20% to 50%, with a 5% increase step, which
was adopted based on the common practice found in building de-
sign (Zhou et al., 2016). The design options of the building enve-
lope assemblies are developed by combining the design guideline
provided by YourHome and the Australia National Construction
Code (NCC). The HVAC equipment selection has been sourced
from the information on the typical equipment types available
in the existing market. Three versions of the air-conditioning
system with varied CoP and EER values have been developed as
design options for the HVAC system. Four generic sets of DHW
systems supplied by different energy sources, i.e., natural gas,
electricity, heat pump, and solar hot water, are specified. For
the on-site renewable energy, solar PV systems with 3–6 kW
capacities are evaluated as a means to offset the CO2 emission
caused by building operation for ZCH design in this research. The
design variable options are summarised in Tables 5 and 6, with a
possible combination of 810,000 design scenarios. As explained
in the methodology section, zero or negative operational CO2
emission is specified as the constraint. The heating and cooling
setpoint temperatures are the same as the baseline model, i.e., 18
◦
C and 25 ◦ C, respectively, referring to YourHome guidance.
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
Table 6
Design options for mechanical devices and on-site renewable energy systems.
HVAC systems DHW systems
Equipment type Heating CoP Cooling EER Equipment type
Air-con 1 4.47 4.48 DHW
Air-con 2 4.28 4.05 DHW
Air-con 3 4.03 3.43 DHW
DHW
Table 7
Optimisation parameters.
Count Percentage
Total iteration 889 100%
Optimal 8 1%
Satisfied constraint 77 9%
Failed constraint 804 90%
Generation 51
Computational time 6 h 42 min
NSGA-II based multi-objective optimisation is conducted to
identify the optimal ZCH design scenarios. The NSGA-II based
optimisation runs for 889 iterations and converges on 51 gen-
erations. All the iterations that are investigated during the op-
timisation process are plotted in Fig. 9a by DesignBuilder, and
the iterations that can meet the CO2 emissions constraint are
plotted in Fig. 9b. In these figures, the red dots indicate the Pareto
front, where the optimal design scenarios are identified. The grey
ones indicate the design solutions that satisfy the CO2 emissions
constraint, and the yellow ones represent design scenarios that
fail the constraint. The blue dots refer to the latest generation of
design alternatives engendered.
In Fig. 9a, among the 889 iterations of design alternatives
evaluated, 90% fail to achieve the design constraint of zero or
negative operational carbon emissions (yellow dots). Design sce-
narios that achieve the ZCH criteria constitute 10% of the total
iterations, among which eight optimal design scenarios were
identified (red dots). The optimal design solutions make up 1%
of the total iterations, as illustrated in Fig. 9b. From Table 8, it
can be observed that the operational CO2 emissions for these
design scenarios range between −0.39 tCO2 and −0.025 tCO2 per
year, and the discomfort hours for the optimal design scenarios
generally fall within a range between 1200 h to 1350 h. Hence,
with the optimal design scenarios, the indoor environment can
be maintained within the comfort zone for 85%–86.3% of the
time throughout the year. The construction costs for the optimal
design scenarios range between AUD 503,500 and AUD 516,000.
The three optimal design scenarios with the lowest construc-
tional costs are all facing north (0◦ ) and have a 5 kW solar PV
system coupled with a solar hot water unit. The construction
costs, annual discomfort hours, and operational CO2 emission of
optimal design solutions identified with the Pareto front analysis
are presented in Table 7, along with the configuration of design
variables for each design scenario listed in Table 8.
6. Discussions and conclusions
Comparing the results of the baseline model and the identified
optimal solutions, it is found that: (1) ZCH can be realised by
implementing the optimal design solutions. The optimal design
scenarios result in an annual operational CO2 emission between
−0.39 tCO2 and −0.025 tCO2 , while the baseline model generates
an operational CO2 emission of 1.87 tCO2 . (2) Compared with
the baseline, the optimal design scenarios can also improve in-
door comfort by 1.3%–2.6%, i.e., increasing indoor comfort hours
from 83.7% to the range between 84.6% and 86.3%. The overall
indoor comfort hours can be further improved by adjusting the
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
Solar PV systems
Water heater Equipment type System capacity
1 Gas Solar PV 1 3 kW
2 Electricity Solar PV 2 4 kW
3 Air source heat pump Solar PV 3 5 kW
4 Solar hot water Solar PV 4 6 kW
indoor temperature setpoint. (3) In realising ZCH design, the
capital investment for house construction is increased from AUD
490,250 for the baseline model to AUD 503,500–AUD 516,000
for the optimal design scenarios. This reveals a price gap of AUD
13,250–25,750 between the baseline and the ZCH design. Part of
the incremental cost is caused by upgrading renewable energy
systems, including upgrading the solar PV system from 3 kW
to 5 kW and 6 kW systems and introducing a solar hot water
unit. However, in Victoria, rebates for the installation of solar
PVs and solar hot water systems have been offered by both the
state and the federal governments, which can reduce the up-front
investment for these solar systems by a significant proportion,
i.e., up to 30% and 50% for installation of solar PV panels and solar
hot water systems respectively (Solar Victoria, 2021).
Furthermore, Sustainability Victoria just announced a 7-Star
Homes program, after the Zero Net Carbon Homes (ZNC) pro-
gram ended (Sustainability Victoria, 2021a,b). The 7-Star Homes
program, targeted at builders and land developers, is made up
of two streams. For Stream A, successful applicants can claim a
$4000 rebate per home built (up to four homes), and homes must
meet a minimum 7-star NatHERS rating with a whole-of-home
assessment. Therefore, the price increment between the baseline
model and the ZCH design solution is marginal. For instance,
when the optimal design scenario with the lowest capital cost
(AUD 503,635) is considered, the estimated results indicate an
additional cost for the ZCH is around AUD 13,385 and it is most
likely incurred by the expanded size of the solar PV system
(5 kW) and the inclusion of solar hot water device. This extra
investment can be substantially cut back to less than AUD 10,000
by taking advantage of incentive schemes made available under
the government’s solar energy policies. This implies the cost
difference between the construction of a ZCH and an affordable
house design scheme in the existing Australian residential market
can be significantly reduced. And in the best scenario, this price
gap can be maintained within 2% of the capital investment for
building construction.
Nevertheless, to motivate capital expenditure, financial incen-
tives can be addressed to stimulate the adoption of zero carbon
houses in order to overcome any additional capital costs. For ex-
ample, as one of the most common forms of economic incentives,
financial subsidies can be used to support sustainable housing,
including tiered incentives through efficiency labels, certification,
interest rate discounts for homeowners, and equipment subsidies.
Overall, cost-effective ZCH is achievable by identifying the
optimal configuration of the design variables related to different
aspects of the building design, and it would not compromise
the indoor comfort of the building occupants. This research aims
to balance the short-term factor of capital cost and the long-
term benefits of environmental performance, by synergising three
design measures for ZCH, including building design strategies,
mechanical services selection, and on-site renewable technology,
with capital cost, operational CO2 emissions, and indoor thermal
comfort used as the metrics to evaluate the ZCH design. This
research also separates building design variables from operational
parameters such as heating/cooling temperature setpoints, and
sensitivity analysis is conducted for the operational parameters,
including heating and cooling temperature setpoints.
4914
 H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
Table 8
Optimisation results.
Info Info Objective Objective Constraint Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable
Iteration Generation Total Discomfort CO2 Window Building Glazing type Window frame External wall Ground floor Pitched roof Semi- exposed HVAC template Solar PV
construction (All clothing) emissions to Wall % orientation type construction construction construction ceiling (Detailed HVAC)
cost (AUD) (h) (tCO2 ) (occ) construction
16 0 503 740 1289 −0.06 40 0 Sgl LoE (e2 = Wooden Reverse brick slab (R3.0) Pitched roof R6.1 VRF (heating CoP: 5 kW
.2) Clr 6 mm window frame R3.5 wt ceiling 4.28; cooling CoP
(R6.1) 4.05) & DHW
(Solar)
89 5 510 055 1210 −0.224 20 45 Sgl LoE (e2 = Painted Reverse brick slab (R4.0) Pitched roof R4.1 VRF (heating CoP: 6 kW
.2) Clr 6 mm Wooden R4.5 wt ceiling 4.03; cooling CoP
window frame (R7.1) 3.43) & DHW
(Solar)
104 6 515 751 1197 −0.39 50 315 Dbl LoE (e2 = UPVC window Reverse brick slab (R3.5) Pitched roof R7.1 VRF (heating CoP: 6 kW
.2) Clr frame R4.5 wt ceiling 4.28; cooling CoP
6 mm/13 mm (R7.1) 4.05) & DHW
Arg (Solar)
4915

179 10 509 488 1278 −0.195 30 0 Dbl LoE (e2 = Aluminium Reverse brick slab (R4.0) Pitched roof R4.1 VRF (heating CoP: 5 kW
.2) Clr window frame R3.0 wt ceiling 4.28; cooling CoP
6 mm/13 mm (with thermal (R6.1) 4.05) & DHW
Arg break) (Solar)
190 11 509 756 1256 −0.025 25 45 Sgl LoE (e2 = Aluminium Reverse brick slab (R2.5) Pitched roof R5.1 VRF (heating CoP: 6 kW
.2) Clr 6 mm window frame R3.0 wt ceiling 4.47; cooling CoP
(no break) (R5.1) 4.48) & DHW
(Elec)
207 12 503 635 1329 −0.085 25 0 Sgl LoE (e2 = Wooden Reverse brick slab (R2.0) Pitched roof R8.1 VRF (heating CoP: 5 kW
.2) Clr 6 mm window frame R2.5 wt ceiling 4.28; cooling CoP
(R7.1) 4.05) & DHW
(Solar)
371 22 515 668 1205 −0.268 50 315 Dbl LoE (e2 = Painted Reverse brick slab (R4.0) Pitched roof R7.1 VRF (heating CoP: 6 kW
.2) Clr Wooden R3.0 wt ceiling 4.47; cooling CoP
6 mm/13 mm window frame (R5.1) 4.48) & DHW
Arg (HP)
736 43 509 875 1234 −0.07 45 315 Sgl LoE (e2 = Aluminium Reverse brick slab (R3.5) Pitched roof R5.1 VRF (heating CoP: 6 kW
.2) Clr 6 mm window frame R2.5 wt ceiling 4.47; cooling CoP
(with thermal (R6.1) 4.48) & DHW
break) (HP)

Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918

Fig. 9a. A Overall optimisation results. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 9b. Optimisation results meeting the constraint. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

In order to identify optimal solutions for ZCH design, NSGA-
II based multi-objective optimisation is then employed coupled
with Pareto front analysis. A residential building provided by the
Australian Government is selected as a case study to demon-
strate the proposed methodology. DesignBuilder with the verified
4916
EnegryPlus used as the simulation engine is chosen as the tool
in this research, and NatHERs energy bands are used to further
verify the simulation results. Based on the optimisation, eight
optimal solutions are identified for the case house, resulting
in a CO2 emission reduction of 1.894 tCO2 to 2.259 tCO2 with
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
increased indoor comfort of 1.3%–2.6%. Although an increased
capital cost is incurred for ZCH design, given the policy incentives
promoting the uptake of renewable energy systems, the actual
incremental cost is marginal after the government rebate. The
identified solutions can benefit decision-makers in achieving ZCH
design from the perspectives of economics and comfort in home
design and retrofit projects. Therefore, this research addresses
the major barriers of the high up-front cost associated with
the development of ZCH through an integrated approach. The
research framework and identified solutions can also be referred
to for facilitating the paradigm shift in the mainstream market,
promoting the development and market expansion of ZCH.
This research has the following limitations that can be ad-
dressed in future research: (1) limited design plans and variables
are considered in this research, and the framework can be ex-
tended by incorporating more comprehensive design plans and
variables in future research. (2) This research is also limited by
the program and cost database used, which can be improved by
the customisation of the program and cost database in future
research. Also, while the research focus of this paper is to ad-
dress the capital cost as the identified gap with operational CO2
emissions considered as a constraint, it is worthwhile to evaluate
life-cycle costs and compare it between the baseline model and
ZCH design in future research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hong Xian Li: Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Paper revision.
Yan Li: Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Paper revision. Meng Du: Data curation, Visualization, Writing –
original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the support from the Depart-
ment of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP), Victoria,
Australia (RM34112).
References
Alajmi, A., Wright, J., 2014. Selecting the most efficient genetic algorithm sets
in solving unconstrained building optimization problem. Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 3 (1), 18–26.
Allam, A.S., Bassioni, H.A., Kamel, W., Ayoub, M., 2020. Estimating the standard-
ized regression coefficients of design variables in daylighting and energy
performance of buildings in the face of multicollinearity. Sol. Energy 211,
1184–1193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2020.10.043.
Amani, N., Kiaee, E., 2020. Developing a two-criteria framework to rank thermal
insulation materials in nearly zero energy buildings using multi-objective
optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 122592.
Ansah, M.K., Chen, X., Yang, H., 2022. A holistic environmental and economic
design optimization of low carbon buildings considering climate change and
confounding factors. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153442.
Ascione, F., Bianco, N., Maria Mauro, G., Napolitano, D.F., 2019. Building envelope
design: Multi-objective optimization to minimize energy consumption, global
cost and thermal discomfort. Application to different Italian climatic zones.
Energy 174, 359–374.
4917
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
ASHRAE, ., 2019. Interpretations for Standard 55-2004. ASHRAE, Available
at: https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/
st{and}ards-interpretations/interpretations-for-st{and}ard-55-2004.
Australian Building Codes Board, 2019. The Building Code of Australia. Australian
Building Codes Board, Available at: https://www.abcb.gov.au/.
Berry, S., Marker, T., 2015. Australia’s nationwide house energy rating scheme:
the scientific basis for the next generation of tools. Int. J. Sustain. Build.
Technol. Urban Dev. 6 (2), 90–102.
BS/EN, 2007. Standard-15251: Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design
and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor
Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics. British/European
Standard, London.
Capeluto, I.G., Ochoa, C.E., 2014. Simulation-based method to determine climatic
energy strategies of an adaptable building retrofit façade system. Energy 76,
375–384.
Ceballos-Fuentealba, I., Álvarez-Miranda, E., Torres-Fuchslocher, C., del Campo-
Hitschfeld, M.L., Díaz-Guerrero, J., 2019. A simulation and optimisation
methodology for choosing energy efficiency measures in non-residential
buildings. Appl. Energy 256, 113953.
CIBSE, 2006. Guide-a: Environmental Design. CIBSE – Chartered Institution of
Building Services Engineers, London.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2019. Your home: Australia’s guide to environmen-
tally sustainable homes. Available at: https://www.yourhome.gov.au/house-
designs.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2020b. Your home: Zero energy and zero carbon
homes. Available at: https://www.yourhome.gov.au/live-adapt/zero-carbon.
Costa-Carrapiço, I., Raslan, R., González, J.N., 2020. A systematic review of
genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimisation for building retrofitting
strategies towards energy efficiency. Energy Build. 210, 109690.
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2021. Solar PV and
batteries. Available at: Solar PV and batteries | energy.gov.au.
Hong, T., Chen, Y., Belafi, Z., D’Oca, S., 2018. Occupant behavior models: A
critical review of implementation and representation approaches in building
performance simulation programs. Build. Simul. 11 (1), 1–14.
ISO, 2005. Standard 7730: Ergonomics of the thermal environment – analytical
determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of
the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/st{and}ard/39155.html.
Laski, J., Burrows, V., 2018. From thousands to billions: Coordinated
action towards 100%, net zero carbon buildings by 2050. Available at:
https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/thous{and}s-billions-coordinated-
action-towards-100-net-zero-carbon-buildings-2050.
Li, H.X., Gül, M., Yu, H., Al-Hussein, M., 2017. Automated energy simulation
and analysis for NetZero energy home (NZEH) design. Build. Simul. 10 (3),
285–296.
Li, H.X., Li, Y., Jiang, B., Zhang, L., Wu, X., Lin, J., 2020. Energy performance
optimisation of building envelope retrofit through integrated orthogonal
arrays with data envelopment analysis. Renew. Energy 149, 1414–1423.
Littlewood, J., Spataru, C., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C., 2017. Smart Energy Control
Systems for Sustainable Buildings. Springer International Publishing.
Low Carbon Living CRC, 2019. Mainstreaming net zero energy hous-
ing: Cost analysis report. Available at: NZEH Cost Analysis Report
(lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au).
Luo, M., 2020. Introduction. the Dynamics and Mechanism of Human Thermal
Adaptation in Building Environment: A Glimpse to Adaptive Thermal Comfort
in Buildings. Springer Singapore, Singapore.
Martínez, S., Pérez, E., Eguía, P., Erkoreka, A., Granada, E., 2020. Model calibration
and exergoeconomic optimization with NSGA-II applied to a residential
cogeneration. Appl. Therm. Eng. 169, 114916.
Morrissey, J., Moore, T., Horne, R.E., 2011. Affordable passive solar design in a
temperate climate: An experiment in residential building orientation. Renew.
Energy (2), 568–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2010.08.013.
Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), 2019. How NatHERS Star
ratings are calculated. Available at: https://www.nathers.gov.au/owners-and-
builders/how-nathers-star-ratings-are-calculated.
Pan, M., Pan, W., 2020. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards zero carbon
buildings: Hong Kong case. J. Clean. Prod. 274, 122819.
Raji, B., Tenpierik, M.J., van den Dobbelsteen, A., 2016. An assessment of energy-
saving solutions for the envelope design of high-rise buildings in temperate
climates: A case study in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 124, 210–221.
H.X. Li, Y. Li and M. Du
Solar Victoria, 2021. Welcome to the solar homes program. Available at: https:
//www.solar.vic.gov.au/.
Sustainability Victoria, 2021a. Home insulation. Available at: https://www.
sustainability.vic.gov.au/energy-efficiency-and-reducing-emissions/building-
or-renovating/insulation.
Sustainability Victoria, 2021b. 7 star homes program. Available at:
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/energy-efficiency-and-reducing-
emissions/building-or-renovating/7-star-homes-program.
Thakkar, H.K., Shukla, H., Sahoo, P.K., 2022. Chapter 2 - metaheuristics in classifi-
cation, clustering, and frequent pattern mining. In: Mishra, S., Tripathy, H.K.,
Mallick, P.K., Sangaiah, A.K., Chae, G.-S. (Eds.), Cognitive Big Data Intelligence
with a Metaheuristic Approach. Academic Press.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2020. Towards a zero-emission,
efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector: global status re-
port. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34572/GSR_ES.
pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (Accessed 6 May 2020).
4918
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4905–4918
Wells, L., Rismanchi, B., Aye, L., 2018. A review of net zero energy buildings
with reflections on the Australian context. Energy Build. 158, 616–628.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.055.
World Green Building Council, 2021. The net zero carbon buildings commitment.
Available at: https://www.worldgbc.org/thecommitment.
Wu, R., Mavromatidis, G., Orehounig, K., Carmeliet, J., 2017. Multiobjective
optimisation of energy systems and building envelope retrofit in a residential
community. Appl. Energy 190, 634–649.
Yusoff, Y., Ngadiman, M.S., Zain, A.M., 2011. Overview of NSGA-II for optimizing
machining process parameters. Procedia Eng. 15, 3978–3983.
Zhang, Y., Jankovic, L., 2017. JEA, an interactive optimisation engine for building
energy performance simulation. In: Proceedings of BS 2017: 15th Conference
of the International Building Performance Simulation Association.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, S., Wang, C., Zuo, J., He, Q., Rameezdeen, R., 2016. Achieving
energy efficient buildings via retrofitting of existing buildings: a case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3605–3615.