a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study utilized BIM technology (eQUEST) to conduct an energy consumption analysis and simulated
Received 16 October 2015 re-design of the Civil Engineering Research Building at National Taiwan University. After obtaining a
Received in revised form 27 May 2016 verifiably accurate simulation, energy-saving effects were investigated by altering the building’s envelop
Accepted 4 June 2016
design and analyzing the results. In addition, cost remains a crucial factor throughout the process in
Available online 5 June 2016
order to reflect the relationship between building expenses and energy efficiency during design scheme
optimization. The results of this study can provide better and more comprehensive choices for building
Keywords:
owners, designers, and developers in future.
Energy consumption
Energy simulation © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Economic analysis
Envelop
Orthogonal design
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.015
0378-7788/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
434 S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441
the primary goal of the study was to determine if the simulated Typically, to conduct a test with this large amount of test factors
retrofitting options produced similar trends in all three programs. that must be considered simultaneously would be highly complex.
There have also been valuable studies on field energy con- The number of independent factors that must be accounted for
sumption of building envelops. Nikoofard et al. [14], for example, makes it difficult to ensure a fully comprehensive test. Orthog-
evaluated the economic feasibility of window modifications using onal testing is a highly efficient test method which solves the
energy simulations built based on a Canadian hybrid residential multi-factor test problem by applying an orthogonal table that is
end-use energy model, plus greenhouse gas emissions informa- organized according to different parameters [23]. The orthogonal
tion. Their results showed that thermally improved windows can table contains representative horizontal parameter combinations
substantially reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas determined after comprehensive testing to determine orthogonal-
emissions from the Canadian residential sector. In another study, ity, so the table can effectively be used to replace comprehensive
Nikoofard [15] quantified the magnitude of the effect of site shad- tests through facilitating analysis of only the most important con-
ing on the energy requirements of residential buildings in Canada, ditions. An orthogonal test design was applied in this study to find
and found that external shading should indeed be given due con- the optimal building design scheme among all combinations with
sideration in energy simulations. Kim et al. [16] studied the impact fewer simulation iterations.
of different exterior shading devices on air conditioning loads in The economical index Net present value (NPV) is the differ-
residential buildings, demonstrating that exterior shading devices ence between the present values of cash inflows and outflows. NPV
can effectively reduce air conditioning energy consumption. Liu was also utilized to analyze the economic feasibility of the design
et al. [17] found that retrofitted external building walls consistently schemes, in addition to sensitivity analysis to determine the influ-
make the largest contribution to ECER in high energy-consuming ence of cost variations on the index. It is important to note that there
buildings compared to other parameters, followed by retrofitted may have been some differences in the cost analysis results due to
external windows. different brands and manufacturers of building materials, though
A cost-benefit analysis framework was proposed by Goodacre the typical Taiwanese building structure was the main source of
et al. [18] to assess the potential scale of the benefits of upgrading information.
heating and hot water energy efficiency in English stock buildings.
Ge et al. [19] studied the effects of clay-brick-powder on concrete
3. Case-study at National Taiwan University
mechanical properties, and applied their orthogonal experimen-
tal design to study the significance sequence of all influencing
3.1. Characterization of the Civil Engineering Research Building
factors; the optimal proportions were determined based on exper-
imental and orthogonal analysis. Kaklauskas et al. [20] developed a
The Civil Engineering Research Building (Fig. 1), the newest
multivariant design and multiple criteria method for building refur-
teaching building in the Civil Engineering Department of National
bishment analysis that can be applied to determine the significance,
Taiwan University, was completed on June 23, 2008. It is located
priorities, and utility degree of building refurbishment alternatives
in No. 188, Section Three, Xinhai Road, Taipei City. The building
to select the optimal variant. There have been several previous
includes a basement floor and nine above-ground floors (the sec-
researchers who have studied the economic aspect of this technol-
ond floor is a shock insulation floor,) and the total floor area is about
ogy. For example, Mehmet et al. [21] used an annualized Life-Cycle
9886 m2 . The main structural sections of the building were con-
cost method for economic analysis. Which conducted performance
structed using a pre-casting method. The total cost of the building
experiments and economic analysis on a horizontal ground-source
was about 8,133,641 USD. The majority of the department’s testing
heat pump (GSHP) system. The GSHP system has been shown to
equipment is still housed in the old Civil Engineering building, and
offer unique economic advantages compared to the five most com-
the new building contains mostly classrooms and office space for
mon conventional heating methods. Another study by Mehmet
professors and other department personnel.
[22] featured a techno-economic comparison between the ground-
The new building consumes a considerable amount of energy
coupled heat pump (GCHP) system and air-coupled heat pump
overall, and though it is convenient for professors and students,
(ACHP) system. The results indicated that system parameters have
the financial burden of the building weighs rather large on the Civil
a substantial effect on performance, and that GCHP systems are
Engineering Department. Energy consumption statistics (Table 1)
preferable to ACHP systems for the purposes of cooling spaces eco-
of the Civil Engineering Research Building were gathered over the
nomically.
past three years to inform this study.
The data gathered for this study shows low power consumption
due to the holiday season in February, during which time the build-
2. Methodology
ing was more likely to be unoccupied. The peak season for power
consumption was June to October, during which time the temper-
The BIM technique is relatively new and has been developed
ature is relatively high in Taiwan, so air conditioning consumption
extensively in recent years. It is now commonly applied in the
was relatively high.
engineering field. BIM is best described as a data model built
The Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is the ratio of the total annual
by integrating three-dimensional digital techniques with vari-
energy consumption to the total floor area (kWh/m2 a). The EUI
ous manner of relevant information about a given engineering
of the Civil Engineering Research Building is 121.86 kWh/m2 a
project. BIM is mainly used in the design stage, construction stage,
(Table 1) according to actual energy consumption, which is quite
and late operation and management stages. It can considerably
close to the maximum value, 123.4 kWh/m2 a [25], of common
improve efficiency and reduce risk throughout the entire construc-
buildings in each college of Taiwan University. This indicates that
tional engineering process. In this study, eQUEST was applied to
the building consumes energy at a significantly high level.
conduct an energy consumption simulation. The eQUEST energy
consumption simulation model was established based on the Civil
Engineering Research Building of Taiwan University, then the outer 3.2. Taiwanese climate conditions and original design
wall, roof, and extended length of sunshades were analyzed via
the simulation (in regards to both energy efficiency and cost- The northern area of Taiwan features a subtropical climate,
effectiveness,) to determine the effects of different energy-saving while the southern area has a tropical climate. Taiwan as a whole
design schemes. possesses a typical oceanic climate, with high-temperature and
S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441 435
Table 1
Energy consumption of Civil Engineering Research Building (kWh).
rainy characteristics; its annual average temperature is 23.6 ◦ C, its for energy-saving design in Taiwan are: 3.5 W/m2 ◦ C outer walls,
summer is long, and its winter is short [26]. The Civil Engineer- 1 W/m2 ◦ C roof, and no U value requirement for windows. The
ing Research Building is located in Taipei, in the northern part of design of the Civil Engineering Research Building as follows
Taiwan, which is perennially rainy, hot, and humid in the summer. (Table 2).
The primary consideration for the majority of Taiwan’s archi- The building contains a central, water-cooled air conditioning
tectural designers is heat-proofing. The basic requirements [27] system. There are four water chiller units, with individual cooling
Table 2
Design scheme of main building envelop.
Roof Steel plate PU: 2 mm, Light concrete: 100 mm, Steel plate: 1.5 mm, Mineral wool 0.94 71
panel: 2 mm, Air layer, Mineral wool acoustic panel: 15 mm
External wall Prefabricated wall Porcelain tiles: 8 mm, Precast reinforced concrete slab: 180 mm, Air 2.16 189
layer, Plasterboard: 25 mm
Windows Aluminum alloy frameLow-E glass Low-E 8 + Air + 8, i = 0.33 – –
Sunshade Aluminum louver panel Horizontal louvers 0.65 m – 224
capacities of 698 kW, 174 kW, and 52 kW for two of the sets. 698 kW Table 3
Energy consumption values (kWh).
of the compressors are screw type, and the other three sets are
reciprocating compressors. January February March April May June
Fig. 3. Comparison between monthly measurements and those predicted via simulation.
S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441 437
efficiency within the building envelop, then, sunshades would be each of the four sections of the grid protruded were optimized, as
most effective along the west wall of the building. well, at 0.7 m, 0.8 m, 0.9 m, and 1.0 m, respectively).
To this effect, adjusting the building envelop is the first step
to improving energy efficiency. The energy-saving effect of the 4.3. Orthogonal design of civil engineering research building
building’s windows is already quite successful as-designed, leav-
ing less room for improvement; this study thus focuses primarily Experiments on a given structural scheme must be con-
on improving the outer wall, roof, and sunshades. ducted 53 = 125 times each to ensure comprehensive combination
In this study, various roof and outer wall parameters typical of simulation—clearly, a difficult and time-consuming endeavor. To
buildings in Taiwan (Tables 4 and 5) were used to form alternative remedy this, orthogonal testing, which identifies the most influen-
design schemes for improving energy consumption. During eQUEST tial factors of a process by selecting appropriate test conditions and
simulation, the original design was replaced with these schemes combinations of conditions, was utilized in this study.
and various combinations of them to analyze their effects. The study selected the wall, roof, and sunshade as improvement
A horizontal sunshade was adopted in the original design. simulation factor and five value levels (Table 6) to represent differ-
To suit the energy-saving simulation, solely the sunshade design
was adjusted and other structures remained unchanged. The
horizontal sunshade was replaced by a grid sunshade, improv- Table 6
Test factors and levels in orthogonal test.
ing energy efficiency from the original 1228,400 kWh/year up
to 1221,400 kWh/year, thus saving, remarkably, up to 7000 kWh Factor A-Wall U (W/m2 K) B-Roof U (W/m2 K) C-Sunshade (m)
power over the course of one year. (The impact of a grid sunshade Level1 2.160 0.940 0.65
as opposed to a horizontal sunshade was analyzed only insofar as Level2 2.144 0.916 0.70
the shape of the shade, not the shade’s material.) The distance that Level3 1.251 0.795 0.80
Level4 0.981 0.745 0.90
Level5 0.711 0.308 1.00
Table 4
Typical design of external walls in Taiwan [27].
Brick Porcelain tiles: 10 mm, Mortar: 15 mm, Brick: 230 mm, Mortar: 10 mm 2.144 132
Aluminum plate Aluminum plate: 6 mm, Mineral wool panel: 20 mm, Air layer, Calcium silicate: 25 mm 1.251 205
Glass curtain Toughened glass: 8 mm, Air layer, Fiber surfboard: 4 mm, Mineral wool insulation board: 0.981 268
32 mm, Fiber surfboard: 4 mm
Steel curtain Enamel: 6 mm, Steel plate: 3 mm, Mineral wool panel: 20 mm, Air layer, Fiber surfboard: 0.711 363
4 mm, Mineral wool insulation: 32 mm, Fiber surfboard: 4 mm
Table 5
Typical design of roofs in Taiwan [27].
Steel plate PU: 2 mm, Light concrete: 100 mm, Steel plate: 1.5 mm, Mineral wool panel: 25 mm, PS: 10 mm 0.916 73
Skewback Skewback: 50 mm, Light concrete: 70 mm, Asphaltic felt: 10 mm, Mortar: 20 mm, Reinforced 0.795 102
Light concrete concrete: 150 mm, Mortar: 15 mm
Reinforced concrete Concrete: 50 mm, Insulation board: 25 mm, PU: 5 mm, Mortar: 15 mm, Reinforced Concrete: 0.745 69
150 mm, Mortar: 15 mm
Steel plate SBS: 1.5 mm, PS: 75 mm, Steel plate: 2.3 mm, Mineral wool fireproof: 3 mm, Air layer, Mineral 0.308 92
fiber plate: 12 mm
438 S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441
Table 7
Orthogonal design and energy consumption.
Test1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,221,400
Test 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1,219,400
Test 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1,214,800
Test 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1,211,000
Test 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 1,200,200
Test 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 1,219,600
Test 7 2 2 3 4 5 1 1,216,900
Test 8 2 3 4 5 1 2 1,208,700
Test 9 2 4 5 1 2 3 1,208,900
Test 10 2 5 1 2 3 4 1,208,400
Test 11 3 1 3 5 2 4 1,207,800
Test 12 3 2 4 1 3 5 1,205,900
Test 13 3 3 5 2 4 1 1,202,100
Test 14 3 4 1 3 5 2 1,206,800
Test 15 3 5 2 4 1 3 1,196,900
Test 16 4 1 4 2 5 3 1,206,900
Test 17 4 2 5 3 1 4 1,205,200
Test 18 4 3 1 4 2 5 1,207,600
Test 19 4 4 2 5 3 1 1,205,500
Test 20 4 5 3 1 4 3 1,195,400
Test 21 5 1 5 4 3 2 1,209,100
Test 22 5 2 1 5 4 3 1,212,300
Test 23 5 3 2 1 5 4 1,208,900
Test 24 5 4 3 2 1 5 1,206,600
Test 25 5 5 4 3 2 1 1,197,700
K1 1,213,360 1,212,960 1,211,300 1,208,100 1,207,760 1,208,720
K2 1,212,500 1,211,940 1,210,060 1,208,680 1,208,280 1,211,000
K3 1,203,900 1,208,420 1,208,300 1,208,820 1,208,740 1,205,866
K4 1,204,120 1,207,760 1,206,040 1,208,300 1,208,080 1,208,260
K5 1,206,920 1,199,720 1,205,100 1,206,900 1,207,940 1,207,980
Range 9460 13,240 6200 1920 980 5133
Note: “1” signifies the experimental wall factor, “2” the experimental roof factor, “3” the experimental sunshade factor, and “4”, “5”, and “6” are blank columns.
ent improvement schemes, including wall and roof U values and 5. Economic analysis
extended sunshade width.
Orthogonal design does not require that reciprocal effect be con- 5.1. Economic feasibility analysis
sidered. Orthogonal table structure L25 (56 ) was selected according
to the amount of factors and levels, and the following intuitive Though the most energy efficient combination of factors was
analysis table was created (Table 7): determined above, construction and power consumption costs still
The various levels of energy consumption simulated by differ- must be accounted for to form a comprehensive optimization of the
ent combinations of design scheme parameters are shown in the building’s design scheme. Once cost is introduced to the previous
orthogonal table, where numbers 1–5 represent different wall, roof, 27 combinations, the results, of course, are slightly different and
and sunshade parameters (Table 6), and K is the average value of the must be re-analyzed.
horizontal simulation result corresponding to different schemes; This study calculated power consumption cost according to
the smaller the K value, the lower the average energy consumption Taiwan University policy, which is 0.094 USD/kWh in practice
(i.e., the better the scheme.) The “range”, accordingly, is K1–K5; the (obtained from the Construction and Maintenance Division, Office
larger the range, the larger the influence of the factor. of General Affairs, NTU). Construction cost of the redesigned build-
The roof displays the largest impact on energy efficiency as it ing envelop was calculated based on the unit cost of the sunshade,
shows the most obvious effects on energy consumption, demon- multiplied by area. Net present value (NPV) was used to build an
strated by the simulation results. As indicated by the average value economic evaluation index. The results (Table 9) shown below were
of K1–K5 (Table 7), the combination that showed the most favor- obtained by referring to the Taiwan private investment discount
able energy-saving effects was A3 + B5 + C5 (where wall U value was rate of 7.9% over the service life of the building (30 years.)
1.251, roof U value was 0.308, and extended sunshade width was The economic schemes analyzed above facilitated comparison
1.0 m.) against NPV as shown in Table 9. Schemes with positive NPV results
included Test 1, Test 2, Test 4, Test 6, Test 7, Test 8, Test 9, and Test
4.4. Verification of simulation results 10. Test 6, at 177,394, showed the maximum NPV value among
all schemes followed by Test 10 (173,941). The original optimal
Because A3 + B5 + C5 is not included in the 25 combinations, energy-saving scheme (Test 27) was proven unacceptable after
further verification (Table 8) was required to compare all combina- considering its cost.
S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441 439
Table 9 Table 10
Economic analysis (USD). Ranking by effectiveness.
EneC EneCS ElpC ElpCS EcoB Scheme NO1 NO2 NO3 NO4 NO5 NO6
Test1 114,812 658 668,166 −395 7874 Priority Test6 Test10 Test7 Test9 Test8 Test1
Test2 114,624 846 673,637 5075 4540 Acceptable Test2 Test4
Test3 114,191 1279 707,902 39,341 −24,812 Unacceptable The remainder
Test4 113,834 1636 685,074 16,512 2076
Test5 112,819 2651 713,421 44,860 −14,734
Test6 114,642 827 500,569 −167,993 177,394
Test7 114,389 1081 509,769 −158,793 171,078 It can also be divided into three distinct categories (Table 10)
Test8 113,618 1852 544,035 −124,527 145,573 when subdividing these feasible schemes: favorable cost reduc-
Test9 113,637 1833 521,206 −147,355 168,187 tion/power consumption reduction schemes, considered the main
Test10 113,590 1880 515,987 −152,575 173,941
Test11 113,533 1937 726,946 58,384 −36,378
priority; cost-effectiveness schemes found acceptable over the
Test12 113,355 2115 953,316 284,754 −260,718 building’s 30-year service life; and unacceptable cost-effectiveness
Test13 112,997 2473 770,412 101,850 −73,754 schemes, in which the original investment is not recovered over 30
Test14 113,439 2031 714,016 45,455 −22,380 years, which were discarded. Basically, the first and second cate-
Test15 112,509 2962 738,634 70,072 −36,421
gories contain the only schemes considered successful or effective.
Test16 113,449 2021 924,769 256,207 −233,239
Test17 113,289 2181 933,969 265,407 −240,623 Taken together, the results showed that after considering cost,
Test18 113,514 1956 934,667 266,106 −243,885 Test 6 scheme (wall U value = 2.144, roof U value = 0.940, and
Test19 113,317 2153 908,110 239,548 −215,084 extended sunshade width = 0.70) is the optimal design scheme.
Test20 112,368 3103 936,457 267,895 −232,641
Test21 113,655 1815 1,217,773 549,212 −528,594
Test22 113,956 1514 1,193,406 524,845 −507,645 5.2. Sensitivity analysis
Test23 113,637 1833 1,223,942 555,381 −534,549
Test24 113,420 2050 1,201,114 532,552 −509,264
Test25 112,584 2886 1,229,461 560,900 −528,103
Construction costs were obtained through both government-
Test26 112,499 2971 1,236,921 568,359 −534,601 sponsored public information and private market inquiry, so there
Test27 112,076 3394 761,012 92,451 −53,885 may have been inconsistencies or omissions between the two sepa-
Note: EneC = Energy Cost = Energy Consumption × 0.094 USD/kWh. rate sources. In addition, material specifications that differ by brand
EneCS = Energy Cost Savings = Original Energy have an influence on actual price, affecting the practical conditions
cost − EneC = 1228,400kWh/year × 0.094 USD/kW − EneC. described in this study. Each improvement scheme is accompanied
ElpC = Envelop Cost = (Unit cost × Total Unit).
by respective price changes. Test 1 was chosen as an example of
ElpCS = Envelop Cost Savings = ElpC − Original Envelop Cost.
EcoB = Economic Benefits = NPV = A(P/A, i, n) − ElpCS = EnvCS(P/EnvCS,0.079,30) − ElpCS. critical conditions among priority improvement schemes, and con-
ducted analyses on single-factor sensitivity and the influence of
cost changes on economic benefit.
A bar graph (Fig. 5) was drawn to visualize the NPV values listed Set the percentages change of walls, roof, and sunshades as
in the table. The graph demonstrates that an acceptable scheme has an “x” reflects the influence of cost change on economic benefit
NPV greater than zero. (Table 11 and Fig. 6).
440 S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441
Table 11
Sensitivity analysis of Test 1.
After sensitivity analysis of Test 1, it became clear that the outer though a relevant factor during re-design, does not impact energy
wall was most affected by cost changes. When the cost of outer efficiency nearly as much as the roof.
wall exceeded 1.72% (obtained from Table 11) the scheme became In this study, the orthogonal design method was employed to
unacceptable—at this point, the roof and sunshade would need to select representative points for comprehensive testing to identify
increase to 15.21% and 19.99%, respectively. the scheme which has minimum energy consumption (A3 + B5 + C5)
while keeping the number of simulation iterations low and the test
6. Discussion precision high. Through orthogonal design, we were able to select
the most typical and representative points from a comprehensive
After all energy-saving scheme combinations were re-analyzed set of results. The best scheme as-identified by orthogonal testing
to include cost, the outer wall failed to reach the minimum level should be subjected to additional validation, however, to ensure
of efficiency (Test 26.) The main cause of this is that a large area that the identification is accurate.
of the outer Civil Engineering Research Building receives western With existing architecture as the research object, we used
exposure, and thus a large amount of solar radiation. Reducing the eQUEST to build a model based on existing architectural struc-
U value of the outer wall alone is inefficient, however, because ture and equipment. Actual energy-consumption data was used for
the roof receives the majority of the solar radiation and thus has comparison, simulation, and adjustment to validate the simulation
the greatest impact on energy efficiency. The U value range of results.
the optimized alternative roof structures is relatively large—in this To date, as discussed above, many researchers [30–33] have
study, energy-saving effects were very pronounced as roof U value used BIM to model buildings in effort to save resources during
decreased from 0.940 to 0.308. Basically, the outer wall structure, design, planning, and construction stages. The architecture itself
S.-J. Guo, T. Wei / Energy and Buildings 127 (2016) 433–441 441
does not actually exist in these stages, of course, so there may be [4] M. Krarti, P. Chuangchid, P. Ihm, Foundation heat transfer module for
some disparity between the simulated energy consumption and energy-plus program, in: Seventh International IBPSA Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, 2001.
the actual, future energy consumption. When selecting the optimal [5] D.B. Crawley, L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen, et al., EnergyPlus: new capable, and
scheme based on BIM, the simulation is still informative because linked, J. Archit. Plan. Res. 21 (4) (2004) 292.
it identifies notable advantages and disadvantages in the design. [6] D.B. Crawley, L.K. Lawrie, F.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y.J. Huang, C.O.
Pedersen, et al., EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy
In other words, the most reasonable scheme is made clear through simulation program, Energy Build. 33 (2001) 319–331.
BIM despite any differences among simulated and actual energy [7] M.-L. Persson, A. Roos, M. Wall, Influence of window size on the energy
consumption. balance of low energy houses, Energy Build. 38 (3) (2006) 181–188.
[8] M.-T. Ke, C.-H. Yeh, J.-T. Jian, Analysis of building energy consumption
In this study, we utilized only the cost of material to conduct
parameters and energy savings measurement and verification by applying
economic sensitivity analysis due to space constraints. In addition, eQUEST software, Energy Build. 61 (2013) 100–107.
multiple factors affect which scheme is optimal (e.g., service life, [9] H. Kim, A. Stumpf, W. Kim, Analysis of an energy efficient building design
through data mining approach, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 37–43.
cost of energy). We only considered a building with 30-year ser-
[10] L. Weytjens, S. Attia, G. Verbeeck, A.D. Herde, A comparative study of the
vice life, while the service life of some architectural structures can ‘architect-friendliness’ of six building performance simulation tools, Sustain.
reach 50 years or more. Cash flow into the building changes as it Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2 (2011) 237–244.
ages, thus the benefits of saving energy also change over the course [11] Y. Zhu, Applying computer-based simulation to energy auditing: a case study,
Energy Build. 38 (2006) 421–428.
of the building’s service life. We also calculated the cost of energy [12] Y.-J. Hu, X.-M. Zhang, P.-Y. Lu, et al., Study on the analysis method of energy
as the per-colleague actual electric charge collected by the univer- consumption of building with eQUEST software, J. Zhejiang Univ. Technol. 2
sity, though an electric energy shortage may occur in Taiwan in (2012) 75–83.
[13] K. Kensek, Comparing Building Performance Trends in Three Energy
the future which would drive up the price of energy. This is impor- Simulation Programs, ASES, Baltimore, 2013.
tant because the greater the increase in energy price, naturally, the [14] S. Nikoofard, V. Ugursal, I. Beausoleil-Morrison, Techno economic assessment
greater the benefit of saving energy. of the impact of window improvements on the heating and cooling energy
requirement and greenhouse gas emissions of the canadian housing stock, J.
Energy Eng. (2014) 1943–7897, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY, 0000140.
7. Conclusion [15] S. Nikoofard, V.I. Ugursal, I. Beausoleil-Morrison, Effect of external shading on
household energy requirement for heating and cooling in Canada, Energy
Build. 43 (2011) 1627–1635.
BIM technology can reduce errors at the design stage and [16] G. Kim, H.S. Lim, T.S. Lim, L. Schaefer, J.T. Kim, Comparative advantage of an
effectively improve the overall efficiency of design. Choosing exterior shading device in thermal performance for residential buildings,
appropriate methods based on BIM analysis can facilitate successful Energy Build. 44 (2012) 105–111.
[17] Y. Liu, W. Guo, Effects of energy conservation and emission reduction on
design and provide different design alternatives, ultimately iden-
energy efficiency retrofit for existing residence: a case from China, Energy
tifying the most cost-effective and energy-efficient solutions. In Build. 61 (2013) 61–72.
this study, BIM simulation results showed that the optimal energy- [18] C. Goodacre, S. Sharples, P. Smith, Integrating energy efficiency with the social
agenda in sustainability, Energy Build. 34 (1) (2002) 53–61.
saving design scheme is Test 27, but after the cost factor was
[19] Z. Ge, Z. Gao, R. Sun, L. Zheng, Mix design of concrete with recycled
introduced, it became unacceptable. Test 6, which showed accept- clay-brick-powder using the orthogonal design method, Constr. Build. Mater.
able (but not the most optimal) energy-saving effects, became the 31 (2012) 289–293.
overall best scheme due to its low cost. In short, the fully optimal [20] A. Kaklauskas, E. Zavadskas, S. Raslanas, Multivariant design and
multiplecriteria analysis of building refurbishments, Energy Build. 37 (2005)
design scheme was that which showed the highest energy savings 361–372.
at the lowest cost. [21] H. Esen, M. Inalli, M. Esen, Techno economic appraisal of a ground source heat
BIM technology was proven capable of developing a highly accu- pump system for a heating season in eastern Turkey, Energy Convers.
Manage. 47 (9–10) (2006) 1281–1297.
rate simulation platform for the energy consumption of buildings. [22] H. Esen, M. Inalli, M. Esen, A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled
This study also considered the feasibility of the proposed scheme and air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling, Build. Environ. 42 (5)
according to cost changes and the economic benefits of energy effi- (2007) 1955–1965.
[23] L. Jiang, Study on the design and analysis methods of orthogonal experiment,
ciency, and found that Test 6 is the optimal improvement scheme. Exp. Technol. Manage. 9 (2010) 52–55.
In this study, we utilized BIM to determine the most [24] Office of General Affairs, NTU, Power Supervisory Control And Data
energy-efficient building design possible. That said, the most Acquisition, Available from: http://140.112.166.97/power/index.aspx
(accessed 2014 21.11).
energy-efficient design may not be the best solution for building
[25] Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan Energy-saving
design overall. Energy-saving benefits must be combined with eco- Building Technology Application Manual, 2013, Available from: http://www.
nomic analysis to identify the optimal design in a comprehensive ecct.org.tw/print/files/1021231.pdf (accessed 2014 12.11).
[26] Climate Statistics of Taiwan. Available from: http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7/
manner. BIM is an auxiliary tool, and ultimately, cost is a key factor
climate/ (accessed 2015 20.11).
in any decision-making process during building design and con- [27] Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior, Building Energy
struction. Effiency Design Specifications for Office Buildings. Available from: http://
www.cpami.gov.tw/chinese/filesys/file/chinese/publication/law/lawdata/
1000810233-1.pdf (accessed 2014 12.11).
References [28] Building Envelope Energy Efficiency. Available from: http://www.ecct.org.tw/
event/files/102092403doc/05 (accessed 2015 12.11).
[29] Introduction to Vasari. Available from: http://help.autodesk.com/view/
[1] UNEP, Common carbon metric for Measuring Energy Use & Reporting VASARI/B3/ENU/ (accessed 2015 12.11).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building Operations. Available from: http:// [30] D. Bryde, M. Broquetas, J.M. Volm, The project benefits of building
www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/UNEPSBCICarbonMetric.pdf (accessed 2014 15.11). information modeling (BIM), Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (2013) 971–980.
[2] R. Sullivan, J. Bull, P. Davis, S. Nozaki, Z. Cumali, G. Meixel, Description of an [31] M. Gray, J. Gray, M. Teo, S. Chi, F. Cheung, Building Information Modeling, An
earth-contact modeling capability in the DOE-2.1B Energy Analysis Program, International Survey, Brisbane, Australia, 2013.
Chicago,USA, in: ASHRAE symposium on field measurements of heat transfer [32] F. Leite, A. Akcamete, B. Akinci, G. Atasoy, S. Kiziltas, Analysis ofmodeling
in building envelopes, 91, 1985. effort and impact of different levels of detail in building information models,
[3] J. Huang, N. Bourassa, F. Buhl, E. Erdem, R. Hitchcock, Using EnergyPlus for Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 601–609.
California title-24 compliance calculations, in: Second National IBPSA-USA [33] M. Nepal, S. Staub-French, J. Zhang, M. Lawrence, R. Pottinger, Deriving
Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2006. construction features from an IFC model, in: Proceedings of the CSCE 2008
Annual Conference, Quebec, Canada, 2008.