This qualitative study of energy model usage is a response to the poor uptake of models in practice and to the disparity of views which exists as to which type is most appropriate: simplified or detailed. To better understand this situation, past research on this topic has been reviewed and the results from returns of a detailed questionnaire analysed. It is concluded that (i) users perceive simplified models to have greater efficacy than detailed models, by a factor of three. (ii) users of the spectrum of energy models require improved user interfaces, and this issue grows in urgency with increased model complexity (supporting the previous conclusion). Model developers should respond by enhancing interfaces, this will also reduce the effort of utilisation. Examples of current innovative interface developments are presented as tentative exemplars.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahmad Q.T. and Szokolay S.V.Thermal design tools in Australia: A comparative study of TEMPER, CHEETAH ARCHIPAK and QUICKProc. 3rd Internat. IBPSA ConfAdelaide, Australia (1993 ) eds J W Mitchell and R C Van de Perre
2.
Aho I.Transferring computer based energy tools to practice: The whys and whats of simplificationProc. 4th Internat Conf. International Building Performance Simulation Assoc, Madison, Wisconsin , USA (1995) eds J W Mitchell and W A Beckman
3.
Clarke J.A Energy simulation in building design (Bristol : Adam Hilger) UK (1985)
4.
Judkoff R. and Neymark J.A.A testing and diagnostic procedure for building energy simulation programsProc. Building Environmental Performance '94, York (1995)
5.
Bland B.H.Conduction in dynamic models: Analytical tests for validationBuilding Serv. Eng. Res. and Technol.13(4) 197-208 (1992)
6.
Bland B.H.Validation of Conduction algorithms in dynamic thermal modelsProc. 5th Internat Symp. Use of computers for environmental engineering related to building pp22-35 (1986)
7.
Bloomfield D.P.Evaluation procedures for building thermal simulation programs BRE Report (Garston: Building Research Establishment ) (1988/89)
8.
Bloomfield D.P., Lomas K.J. and Martin C.J.Assessing programs which affect the thermal performance of buildings BRE information paper 7/92 (Garston: Building Research Establishment) (1992)
9.
Lomas K.J. and Eppel H.Sensitivity analysis techniques for building thermal simulation programsEnergy and Buildings19(1) pp21-44 (1992)
10.
Bunn R.Simulation models: Tower of Babel or the Promised Land?Building Serv: CIBSE J.17(1) 23-26 (Jan 1995)
11.
Hand J.W. and Henson J L MRecent experiences and development in the training of simulationistsProc. Fourth Internat Conf. Internat. Building Performance Simulation Assoc, Madison, Wisconsin , USA (1995) eds J W Mitchell and W A Beckman
12.
Robinson D.The assessment of energy model user requirements; Another form of validation?Proc. BEPAC seminar: Validation, the way forward , De Montfort University ( 1995)
13.
Robinson D.A thermal model user survey in Validation: The way forward BEPAC Newsleuer 12 supplement10-11 (1995)
14.
Clarke J.A.Building simulation: Realising the potentialProc. Building Environmental Performance '94: Facing the future University of York (1994)
15.
Aizlewood M.E. and Littlefair P.J.Daylight prediction methods: A survey of their use ETSU report S/02/00098/REP (Harwell: Energy Technology Support Unit) (1994)
16.
Richens P.MicroCAD software evaluated: A critical evolution of microcomputer-based CAD systems for the construction industry ed. E Winterkorn (Cambridge: Construction Industry Computing Association) (1990)
17.
Building 2000 Vol 1: Schools, laboratories, universities, sports halls and educational centres Vol 2: Office buildings, public buildings, hotels and holiday complexes ed C denOuden and T Steemers (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer) (1991)
18.
Littler J. and Thomas R.Design with energy: The conservation and use of energy in buildings Cambridge Urban and Architectural Studies 8 (Cambridge University Press) (1984)
19.
Howard R., Wager G. and Winterkom E.Guidance on selecting energy programs (Cambridge : Construction Industry Computing Association) (1994)
20.
Littler J G FOverview of some available models for passive solar designComputer-aided Design14(1) 15-18 (1982)
21.
Howard R., Winterkorn E. and Cooper I.Building energy and environmental survey Report BR 246 ( Garston: Building Research Establishment) (1993)
22.
MacMillan S. , Bloomfield D. and Cooper I.Environmental performance modelling: Use in practiceProc. CIBSE National Conf, Manchester ( 1993)
23.
Chapman J.Data accuracy and model reliability, Proc. Building Environmental Performance '91, Canterbury, Kent (1991)
24.
Bloomfield D.P.The influence of the user on the results obtained from thermal simulation programsProc. 5th Annual Symp. use of computers for environmental engineering related to buildings , Bath, UK (1986)
25.
Norton B. and Lo S N GHarmonising environmental simulation with the building design processProc. Building Environmental Performance '91, Canterbury, Kent (1991 )
26.
Byrd B.H.The limitations if computer models intended to aid energy efficient design of buildingsProc. Building Environmental Performance '94, York (1995)
27.
Wright A.J.Energy calculations for the non-domestic building sector: The use of semi-empirical modelsProc. Building Environmental Performance '94, York (1995)
28.
Hand J.W.How to train users of simulation based thermal performance analysis toolsProc. 3rd International Conf. International Building Performance Simulation Assoc, Adelaide, Australia (1993) ed. A E Delsante, J W Mitchell and R C Van de Perre
29.
Hirsch J.J., Winkleman F.C. et al. PowerDOE, a Windows-based visually oriented analysis toolProc. 4th Internat. Conf. International Building Performance Simulation Assoc, Madison, Wisconsin, USA eds J W Mitchell and W A Beckman (1995)
30.
Degelman L.O. and Soebarto V.I.Software descriptio for WNER-WIN: A visual interface model for hourly energy simulation in buildingsProc. 4th Internat Conf. International Building Performance Simulation Assoc , Madison, Wisconsin, USA eds J W Mitchell and W A Beckman (1995)
31.
Chen The development of a distributed virtual studio environment to support collaborative building design PhD thesis, Anglia Polytechnic University (1996)
32.
Holm D.Building thermal analysis: The architect's perspectiveBuilding and Environment28(4) 405-407 (1993)
33.
Baker N.V. and Steemers K LTMethod 2.0: An energy design tool for non-domestic buildings (Cambridge: Cambridge Architectural Research) (1994)
