Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A simulation-based evaluation of the absolute and comparative approaches in a code compliance process from the energy use perspective: Cold-climate case study

  • Research Article
  • Building Thermal, Lighting, and Acoustics Modeling
  • Published:
Building Simulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Like many countries, Canada’s building code includes a performance compliance path that compares the energy use of a proposed design to that of a reference house. Today, provinces across Canada are contemplating an alternative absolute energy use intensity approach. However, the effect of adopting the absolute approach on house design is not well understood. This study first developed a proof-of-concept methodology for a technical simulation-based comparison of the two approaches. Then, it performed a comparative analysis between the design outcomes of the two approaches using the developed methodology. To this end, statistically representative archetypes were configured to comply with the prescriptive requirements of the building code. Key characteristics of each archetype were then varied through parametric study, and the resulting energy performance under the absolute and comparative approaches were analyzed. The results of this study indicated that the two approaches had different effects on the design and energy use of houses in heating-dominated climate zones. Houses performing better under the absolute approach consumed less energy and exhibited more compact architectural form. These houses were also less sensitive to improvements in airtightness and envelope than houses performing better under the comparative approach. The results suggest that adopting the absolute approach based on the energy use intensity metric in building codes would encourage design and construction of houses with higher energy efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allard I, Olofsson T, Nair G (2017). Energy performance indicators in the Swedish building procurement process. Sustainability, 9: 1877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANSI/ASHRAE (2014). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140–2014. Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANSI/ASHRAE/IES (2016). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016. Energy Standard for Buildings ecept Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arent J, Athalye R, Taylor S (2020). Clearing the path to ZNE with energy codes. ASHRAE Transactions, 126(2): 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaee R, Ferguson A (2018). Development of New Archetypes for Building Code Analysis—Part 1: New Housing. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaee R, Ferguson A, Wills A (2019). Application of a housing technology assessment simulation platform in regulation R&D. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual IBPSA International Conference, Rome, Italy.

  • ASHRAE/AIA/IES/USGBC/DOE (2018). Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASHRAE/AIA/IES/USGBC/DOE (2019). Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small to Medium Office Buildings: Achieving Zero Energy. Atlanta, GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attia S, Eleftheriou P, Xeni F, et al. (2017). Overview and future challenges of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) design in Southern Europe. Energy and Buildings, 155: 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BC Housing (2018). Energy Step Code—Building Beyond the Standard: Metrics Research. British Columbia.

  • Berardi U (2017). A cross-country comparison of the building energy consumptions and their trends. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 123: 230–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleasby J (2020). Energy efficiency advocates concerned about direction of 2020 NBC. Available at https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/projects/2020/11/energy-efficiency-advocates-concerned-about-direction-of-2020-nbc. Accessed 27 Jan 2021.

  • Bourgeois D (2018). Building Energy Performance Codes: An Assessment of International Performance. Quebec, Canada: RD2 Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Energy Commission (2019). Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings: Title 24, Part 6, and Associated Administrative Regulations in Part 1. California Energy Commission.

  • Casals XG (2006). Analysis of building energy regulation and certification in Europe: Their role, limitations and differences. Energy and Buildings, 38: 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCBFC (2021). 2020–02 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Energy Efficiency. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC), National Research Council Canada.

  • CCBFC/NRC (2015). National Building Code of Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

    Google Scholar 

  • CCBFC/NRC (2017). National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Charron R (2018). A proposed alternative to the BC energy step code targets. In: Proceedings of the eSim 2018 Conference, Montréal, QC, Canada.

  • City of Toronto (2017). City of Toronto Zero Emissions Buildings Framework.

  • City of Toronto (2018). Energy Efficiency Report Submission & Modelling Guidelines for the Toronto Green Standard (TGS) Version 3. Environment and Energy Division & the City Planning Division, City of Toronto.

  • De Wilde P (2014). The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for investigation. Automation in Construction, 41: 40–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Depecker P, Menezo C, Virgone J, et al. (2001). Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption. Building and Environment, 36: 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enker RA, Morrison GM (2020). The potential contribution of building codes to climate change response policies for the built environment. Energy Efficiency, 13: 789–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2020). ENERGY STAR. Available at https://www.energystar.gov/buildings. Accessed 28 June 2020.

  • Esteves A, Matias E, Mercado MV, et al. (2018). Building shape that promotes sustainable architecture. Evaluation of the indicative factors and its relation with the construction costs. Architecture Research, 8: 111–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans M, Roshchanka V, Graham P (2017). An international survey of building energy codes and their implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158: 382–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairey P, Goldstein PB (2016). Metrics for energy efficient buildings: How do we measure efficiency? In: Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Pacific Grove, CA, USA.

  • Galvin R (2010). Thermal upgrades of existing homes in Germany: The building code, subsidies, and economic efficiency. Energy and Buildings, 42: 834–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein DB, Eley C (2014). A classification of building energy performance indices. Energy Efficiency, 7: 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haltrecht D, Fraser K (1997). Validation of HOT2000™ using HERS BESTEST. Building Simulation, 5: 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemsath TL, Alagheband Bandhosseini K (2015). Sensitivity analysis evaluating basic building geometry’s effect on energy use. Renewable Energy, 76: 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Mauerhofer V, Geng Y (2016). Analysis of existing building energy saving policies in Japan and China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 1510–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2021a). Buildings: A Source of Enormous Untapped Efficiency Potential. Available at https://www.iea.org/topics/buildings. Accessed 15 Sept 2021.

  • IEA (2021b). Tracking Buildings 2020. Available at https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-buildings-2020. Accessed 15 Sept 2021.

  • IEA/IPEEC (2015). Building Energy Performance Metrics: Supporting Energy Efficiency Progress in Major Economies. International Energy Agency and International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation.

  • Karpman M, Rosenberg M (2020). Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Building Energy Modelling for Program Administrators. CSA Group.

  • Liu S, Hinge A, Guo SY, et al. (2019). Building energy consumption quotas: A policy tool toward sufficiency? In: Proceedings of the ECEEE Summer Study.

  • Meyer C (2020). New building codes under review not tough enough on energy efficiency, report warns. Available at https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/20/news/new-building-codes-under-review-not-tough-enough-energy-efficiency-report-warn. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2019). Ontario’s Building Code. Available at https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-building-code. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • Mlecnik E, Visscher H, van Hal A (2010). Barriers and opportunities for labels for highly energy-efficient houses. Energy Policy, 38: 4592–4603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRCan (2017). HOT2XP. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/hot2xp/7445. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • NRCan (2019a). Housing Technology Assessment Platform (HTAP). Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://github.com/NRCan-IETS-CE-O-HBC/HTAP. Accessed 28 Aug 2020.

  • NRCan (2019b). HTAP-Archetypes. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://github.com/NRCan-IETS-CE-O-HBC/HTAP-archetypes. Accessed 28 Aug 2020.

  • NRCan (2020a). EnerGuide Energy Efficiency Home Evaluations. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energuide-canada/energuide-energy-efficiency-home-evaluations/20552. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • NRCan (2020b). EnerGuide-Rated New Homes. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-homes/buying-energy-efficient-new-home/energuide-rated-new-homes/20578. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • NRCan (2020c). The Energy Code in Your Province or Territory. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-buildings/energy-efficiency-new-buildings/canadas-national-energy-code/energy-code-your-province-territory/20677. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • NRCan (2020d). Tools for Industry Professionals. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Available at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-homes/professional-opportunities/tools-industry-professionals/20596. Accessed 4 Jan 2021.

  • Nejat P, Jomehzadeh F, Taheri MM, et al. (2015). A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43: 843–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson T, Meier A, Lamberts R (2004). Rating the energy performance of buildings. The International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 3.

  • Pacheco R, Ordóñez J, Martínez G (2012). Energy efficient design of building: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16: 3559–3573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parekh A (2005). Development of archetypes of building characteristics libraries for simplified energy use evaluation of houses. In: Proceedings of the 9th International IBPSA Conference, Montréal, QC, Canada.

  • Parekh A, Charron R, Poirier S, et al. (2018). Testing of HOT2000 version 11 in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 140–2014. In: Proceedings of the eSim 2018 Conference, Montréal, QC, Canada.

  • Pérez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, González R, et al. (2009). A review of benchmarking, rating and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes. Energy and Buildings, 41: 272–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RDH Building Engineering Ltd. (2012). Energy consumption and conservation in mid- and high-rise residential buildings in British Columbia.

  • Rosenberg M, Hart R (2014). Roadmap toward a predictive performance-based commercial energy code. In: Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Pacific Grove, CA, USA.

  • Rosenberg M, Hart R, Zhang J, et al. (2015). Roadmap for the Future of Commercial Energy Codes. Washington, USA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schettler-Köhler HP, Ahlke I (2018). EPBD Implementation in Germany: Status in December 2016. Bonn, Germany: Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz M, Nakhle C, Knoeri C (2020). Innovative designs of building energy codes for building decarbonization and their implementation challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248: 119260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp T (1996). Energy Benchmarking in Commercial Office Buildings. In: Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.

  • Tulsyan A, Dhaka S, Mathur J, et al. (2013). Potential of energy savings through implementation of Energy Conservation Building Code in Jaipur city, India. Energy and Buildings, 58: 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban Equation/EQ Building Performance (2019). Sidewalk Labs Toronto multi-unit residential buildings study: Energy use and the performance gap. Sidewalk Labs.

  • Van Dronkelaar C, Dowson M, Burman E, et al. (2016). Corrigendum: A review of the energy performance gap and its underlying causes in non-domestic buildings. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, 1: 17. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2015.00017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu S, Eom J, Evans M, et al. (2014). A long-term, integrated impact assessment of alternative building energy code scenarios in China. Energy Policy, 67: 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu S, Tan Q, Evans M, et al. (2017). Improving building energy efficiency in India: State-level analysis of building energy efficiency policies. Energy Policy, 110: 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided by Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Research and Development (OERD) under the Green Infrastructure program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CanmetENERGY-Ottawa, Natural Resources Canada, 1 Haanel Dr, Ottawa, ON, K1A 1M1, Canada

    Sara Gilani, Alex Ferguson & Meli Stylianou

Authors
  1. Sara Gilani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meli Stylianou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Gilani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilani, S., Ferguson, A. & Stylianou, M. A simulation-based evaluation of the absolute and comparative approaches in a code compliance process from the energy use perspective: Cold-climate case study. Build. Simul. 15, 1401–1418 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-021-0859-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-021-0859-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation