Zhao, J; Lam, K P; Biswas, T and Wang, H (2015) An online platform to automate LEED energy performance evaluation and submission process. Construction Innovation, 15(3), pp. 313-332. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to develop a web-based tool - LEED Energy Performance Online Submission Tool (LEPOST) to reduce the submission cost of the leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) application process and facilitate green building design. Lifecycle cost reduction is a major driver for designing green buildings. LEED rating system has been well recognised and widely used in the green building industry. However, certification cost incurred in time and money is often a deterrent for some projects. Design/methodology/approach - LEPOST automatically maps EnergyPlus and eQUEST energy simulation results to the LEED energy performance requirement submission templates using an extensible markup language (XML) data structure. It incorporates the Energy Star Target Finder online engine and current utility data to calculate points required to assess LEED Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 and Credit 1 automatically. Findings - A comparative case study is conducted using an office building project. The study results show that the tool can reduce the amount of time for the LEED energy performance evaluation and submission process from more than 6 hours to 2 minutes. The total number of manual data entries is reduced from 442 to 20. Research limitations/implications - Future work includes the update to support LEED V4, the development of a parametric design function that can help design teams perform design alternatives to evaluate energy performance with minimum effort, and the integration with the LEED Online system. Practical implications - The use of the tool by the building industry may decrease the cost of LEED certification for building owners, developers and design teams by simplifying the submission process. Originality/value - The overall development framework of LEPOST contributes to the knowledge of the data interoperability in the building sector by demonstrating a viable solution to extract and map digital model information for achieving code and standard compliance purposes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | automation,leed,xml,building energy model,data interoperability,energy simulation |
| Index terms: | design team, certification, maps, compliance, energy simulation, cost reduction, building energy model, data structure, green building, integration, methodology, energyplus, parametric design, office building, data interoperability, owner, environmental design, energy star, case study, platform, energy performance, automation, lifecycle, building industry |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, construction type, design methods, sustainability and energy, modelling and simulation, data science, professional practice, environmental science, energy systems, project delivery, design practice, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, data exchange, economics, automation and robotics, health safety and environment, digital design, organizational analysis, sociology, industry analysis, administrative processes |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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