Polson, D R (2020) Assessment of applications of optimisation to building design and energy modelling. PhD thesis, University of London, University College London, UK.
Abstract
Buildings account for around 35% of the world’s carbon emissions and strategies to reduce carbon emissions have made much use of building energy modelling. Optimisation techniques promise new ways of achieving the most cost effective and efficient solutions more quickly and with less input from engineers and building physicists. However, there is limited research into the practical applications of these techniques to building design practice. This thesis presents the results of case-based research into the practical application of design stage optimisation and calibration methods to energy efficient building fabric and services design using building energy modelling. The application during early stage design of a Non-dominating Sorting Genetic Algorithm 2 (NSGA2) to a building energy model EnergyPlusTM. The exercise was used to determine if the application of NSGA2 yielded a significant improvement in the selection of building services technology and building fabric elements. The use of NSGA2 enabled significant (£400,000) capital cost savings without degrading the comfort or energy performance. The potential capital cost savings significantly outweighed the cost of the engineering time required to carry out the additional analysis. Three optimisation techniques were applied to three case study buildings to select appropriate model parameters to minimise the difference between modelled and measured parameters and hence calibrate the model. An heuristic approach was applied to the Institute for Life Sciences Building 1 (ILS1) at Swansea University. Latin Hypercube Monte Carlo (LHMC) was applied to the Arup building at 8 Fitzroy St London and compared directly with the results from an approach using Self Adaptive Differential Evolution (SADE). Poor Building Management System data quality was found to significantly limit the potential to calibrate models. Where robust data was available it was however found to be possible to calibrate EnergyPlus simulations of complex real world buildings using LHMC and SADE methods at levels close to that required by professional bodies.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | carbon emissions; optimisation; building design; design practice; professional; London; energy performance; heuristic; case study; simulation |
| Index terms: | comfort, London, energy performance, energy-efficient building, carbon emission, exercise, heuristic, case study, building design, design practice, building service, optimization technique, energyplus, savings, engineer, design stage, evolution, building energy model, capital cost, genetic algorithm, energy modelling, building management system, strategy, science |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, management, energy systems, sustainability and energy, engineering systems, mechanical systems, profession, risk assessment, data collection methods, design process, sustainable design, Geography, accounting and finance, algorithms, architectural design, economic analysis, environmental science, professional practice, health behaviours and lifestyles, climate science, specialized education |
| Topics: | Education, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here