Internationally, buildings are a major contributor to carbon emissions. Despite significant advances in the technology and construction of energy-efficient buildings, in many cases a performance gap between designed and actual performance exists. While much research has investigated the drivers of the building energy performance gap – both static and transient– there has been considerably less research into the total performance gap, defined here as performance gaps in building energy use, occupant satisfaction and Indoor Environmental Quality parameters such as thermal comfort and air quality which may impact on occupant health and wellbeing. This paper presents a meta-analysis of building performance data from buildings in the UK and China – selected due to their contrasting development environments – which illustrate the presence of and complexities of evaluating total performance gaps in both countries. The data demonstrate the need for (1) high end-use, spatial granularity and temporal resolution data for both energy and Indoor Environmental Quality, and (2) developing methodologies that allow meaningful comparisons between buildings internationally to facilitate learning from successful building design, construction methodologies and policy environments internationally. Using performance data from a UK building, a potential forward path is illustrated with the objective of developing a framework to evaluate total building performance.
Practical application: While much research has examined building energy performance gaps, Indoor Environmental Quality and occupant satisfaction gaps are rarely included despite their relationship to energy. We use a meta-analysis of energy, indoor environmental quality, and occupant satisfaction data from buildings in the UK and China to illustrating the presence of and complexities of evaluating total performance gaps for buildings in the two countries, and the need for high resolution dynamic buildings data and novel methodologies for comparison between buildings across different contexts. Illustrative case studies are used to demonstrate potential future directions for evaluating ‘total’ building performance.
IEA, International Energy Agency. Transition to sustainable buildings: strategies and opportunities to 2050. Paris, 2013; 29(2): 114–128.
2.
BordassBCohenRStandevenM. Assessing building performance in use 3: energy performance of the Probe buildings. Build Res Inf2001; 29(2): 114–128.
3.
Samuelson H, Ghorayshi A and Reinhart C. Post-occupancy evaluation and partial-calibration of 18 design-phase energy models. In: Proceedings of 2014 ASHRAE/IBPSA USA, building simulation conference, Atlanta, GA, 10–12 September 2014. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
4.
Bannister P. Why good buildings go bad while some are just born that way. Ecolibrium, Australian Institute of Air-Conditioning.
5.
Carbon Trust. Closing the gap, Lessons learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design. London, UK, 2011.
6.
Palmer J and Armitage P. Building performance evaluation programme–early findings from non-domestic projects. Swindon: Innovate UK.
7.
VossKHerkelSPfafferottJet al.Energy efficient office buildings with passive cooling – results and experiences from a research and demonstration programme. Solar Energy2007; 81: 424–434.
8.
Turner C and Frankel M. Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings. Vancouver: New Buildings Institute.
9.
van DronkelaarCDowsonMSpataruCet al.A review of the regulatory energy performance gap and its underlying causes in non-domestic buildings. Front Mech Eng2016(1): pp. 17–17.
10.
MumovicDPalmerJDaviesMet al.Winter indoor air quality, thermal comfort and acoustic performance of newly built secondary schools in England. Build Environ2009; 44: 1466–1477.
11.
Hartkopf V, Loftness V and Mill P. The concept of total building performance and building diagnostics, ASTM special technical publication. Building performance: function, preservation, and rehabilitation 1986: 5–22.
HM Government. Building regulations part L – conservation of fuel and power. London, UK, 2016.
14.
HM Government. Approved document F. London, UK, 2010.
15.
ChatzidiakouLMumovicDSummerfieldAJet al.Indoor air quality in London schools. Part 2: long-term integrated assessment. Intell Build Int2014; 7: 130–146.
16.
ChatzidiakouLMumovicDSummerfieldA. Is CO2 a good proxy for indoor air quality in classrooms? Part 1: the interrelationships between thermal conditions, CO2 levels, ventilation rates and selected indoor pollutants. Build Serv Eng Res Technol2015; 36: 129–161.
17.
BordassBLeamanARuysseveltP. Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications. Build Res Inf2001; 29: 144–157.
18.
Innovate UK. Building performance evaluation programme. Swindon, UK, 2016.
19.
Palmer J, Godoy-Shimizu D, Tillson A, et al. Building performance evaluation programme: findings from domestic projects Making reality match design. Swindon, UK: Innovate, 2016.
20.
LiuS. The present situation and prospect analysis of building energy saving in China. Shanxi Archit2010; 36: 226–227.
21.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD). GB/T 51161:2016. Civil building energy consumption standard.
22.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook. Beijing, 2013.
23.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook. Beijing, 2014.
24.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook. Beijing, 2015.
25.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD). Assessment standard for green building, 2014.
26.
WeiJYanWYaoZ. The energy consumption status and energy saving potential in China. J Shenyang Archit Civil Eng Inst1994; 10: 185–190.
27.
Zou F and You H. Post-occupancy evaluation of green building energy consumption. In: The tenth international conference on green and energy efficient building and new technologies and products expo, Beijing, 28–30 March 2014.
28.
Pei Z. Research on post occupancy evaluation of operation performance of green office buildings, 2015.
29.
WangZZhaoHLinBet al.Investigation of indoor environment quality of Chinese large-hub airport terminal buildings through longitudinal field measurement and subjective survey. Build Environ2015; 94: 593–605.
30.
XiaJHongTShenQet al.Comparison of building energy use data between the United States and China. Energy Build2014; 78: 165–175.
National Audit Office (NAO). The building schools for the future programme: renewing the secondary school estate. London, UK, 2009.
33.
HongSMPatersonGMumovicDet al.Improved benchmarking comparability for energy consumption in schools. Build Res Inf2013; 42: 47–61.
34.
Burman E. Assessing the operational performance of educational buildings against design expectations – a case study approach, Doctoral Thesis, UCL, 2016.
35.
Xiao H. Study on distribution features and influencing factors on energy use in office buildings by statistical method and survey, 2011.
36.
PeiZLinBLiuYet al.Comparative study on the indoor environment quality of green office buildings in China with a long-term field measurement and investigation. Build Environ2015; 84: 80–88.
37.
LinBLiuYWangZet al.Measured energy use and indoor environment quality in green office buildings in China. Energy Build2016; 129: 9–18.
38.
Chartered Institute for Building Service Engineers. CIBSE TM46:2008. Energy benchmarks. London, UK: CIBSE Publications.
39.
HongSMPatersonGBurmanEet al.A comparative study of benchmarking approaches for non-domestic buildings: Part 1 – top-down approach. Int J Sustain Built Environ2014; 2: 119–130.
40.
Chartered Institute for Building Service Engineers. CIBSE TM47:2009a. Operational ratings and display energy certificates. CIBSE Publications.
41.
Tsinghua University Building Energy Research Centre (THUBERC). Annual report on China building energy efficiency. Beijing, 2015.
42.
YiJXiuY. Electricity equivalent conversion method in energy analysis. Energy China2020; 32: 5–11.
43.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD). GB 50176:2015. Thermal design code for civil building (draft for approval). Beijing.
44.
Chartered Institute for Building Service Engineers. TM39:2009b. Building energy metering. London.
45.
Chartered Institute for Building Service Engineers. TM22:2006. Energy assessment and reporting method. London.
46.
ISO. BS EN ISO 7726:2001. Ergonomics of the thermal environment, instruments for measuring physical quantities. Geneva, Switzerland.
47.
ISO. BS EN 15251:2007. Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment, lighting and acoustics. Geneva, Switzerland.
48.
CohenRStandevenM. Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process. Build Res Inf2001; 29: 85–102.
49.
LeamanABordassB. Are users more tolerant of “green”buildings?Build Res Inf2007; 35: 662–673.
50.
BurmanEMumovicDKimpianJ. Towards measurement and verification of energy performance under the framework of the European directive for energy performance of buildings. Energy2014; 77: 153–163.
51.
Chartered Institute for Building Service Engineers: 2015. CIBSE Guide A: environmental design. London.
52.
LiuYLuBPeiZet al.Field investigation of operational energy consumption and environmental quality for Environmental Conventions Building. HV&AC2015a; 45: 22–27.
53.
LiuYHeQPeiZet al.Operational performance research of Tenio office building. HV&AC2015b; 45: 45–51.
54.
ZhangYYangJWangR. Green building operation performance research of SRIBS Xinzhuang Comprehensive Building. HV&AC2014; 44: 1–7.
55.
Eichhammer W, Fleiter T, Schlomann B, et al. Study on the energy savings potentials in EU member states, candidate countries and EEA countries: final report, European Commission, https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/index/index/docId/3926 (2011, accessed 2 May 2017).
56.
Economidou M, Atanasiu B, Despret C, et al. Europe’s buildings under the microscope. A country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings. Brussels: Building Performance Institute of Europe (BPIE), 2011.
57.
ZimmermanAMartinM. Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Build Res Inf2001; 29: 168–174.
58.
Way M and Bordass W. The soft landings framework: for better briefing, design, handover and building performance in-use. Bracknell: The Building Services Research & Information Association, 2009.
Azar E and Menassa C. Sensitivity of energy simulation models to occupancy related parameters in commercial buildings. In: Construction research congress 2012, West Lafayette, Indiana, 21–23 May 2012, pp. 1381–1390. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
61.
CIBSE. CIBSE TM47 Operational Ratings and Display Energy Certificates. CIBSE Publications, 2009.
62.
CIBSE. CIBSE TM46 Energy benchmarks. London, UK: CIBSE Publications, 2008.
63.
MOHURD. GB 50176. Thermal Design Code for civil building (draft for approval). Beijing, 2015.
64.
Hong SM, Paterson G, Burman E, Steadman P, Mumovic D. A comparative study of benchmarking approaches for non-domestic buildings: Part 1 – Top-down approach. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 2014; 2: 119–30.
