Papamichael, K (2000) Green building performance prediction/assessment. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), pp. 394-402. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
To make decisions, building designers need to predict and assess the performance of their ideas with respect to various criteria, such as comfort, aesthetics, energy, environmental impact, economics, etc. Performance prediction with respect to environmental impact requires complicated models and massive computations, which are usually possible only through computer-based tools. This paper focuses on the use of computer-based tools for predicting and assessing building performance with respect to environmental impact criteria for the design of green buildings. It contains analyses of green performance prediction/assessment and descriptions of available tools, along with discussions on their use by different types of users. Finally, it includes analyses of the cost and benefits of green performance prediction and assessment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; cost; design tools; energy; environmental impact; green buildings; simulation; value |
| Index terms: | aesthetic, building performance, performance prediction, designer, comfort, environmental impact, green building, computation |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, quality assurance, factor and component analysis, design practice, performance management, profession, computational methods, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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