Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Energy rating system for climate conscious operation of multi-unit residential buildings

Abstract

Residential sector accounts for 17% of domestic energy use and 14% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Improving the energy performance of the Canadian residential building stock is vital in achieving climate action goals. A comprehensive review of popular building energy rating systems noted their lack of life cycle thinking. The scope of the popular rating systems is limited to operational performance, ignoring the condition of the assets. This paper proposes a condition assessment framework for the energy system of existing multi-unit residential buildings (MURB), which combines the concepts of asset rating and operational rating. Indicators were identified to define energy, environmental, economic, and asset performance of MURB. A life cycle assessment was conducted to quantify the overall environmental impacts of energy technologies from point of generation. A fuzzy logic-based approach was used to overcome the challenges due to data uncertainty and impreciseness. A case study was conducted for a residential building at UBC Okanagan, Canada. The weights at indicator level and category level were defined based on stakeholder consultation, while also considering different decision scenarios. A fuzzy rule-based approach was used to combine the different performance categories to obtain an overall condition rating. The results indicate that the performance of the case study building can be rated as “good” under operational, asset, and overall categories. The findings of this research can be used to improve the asset and operational management strategies in existing buildings and can inform the key stakeholders during the operational phase of the buildings.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mega tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

References

  1. Al-Ghamdi SG, Bilec MM (2014) Green building rating systems and environmental impacts of energy consumption from an international perspective. Icsi 2014:631–640. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784478745.058

  2. Al-Ghamdi SG, Bilec MM (2015) Life-cycle thinking and the LEED rating system: global perspective on building energy use and environmental impacts. Environ Sci Technol 49(7):4048–4056. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505938u

  3. Balaras CA, Droutsa K, Dascalaki E, Kontoyiannidis S (2005) Heating energy consumption and resulting environmental impact of European apartment buildings. Energy Build 37(5):429–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.08.003

  4. Blockley DI (1979) The role of fuzzy sets in civil engineering. Fuzzy Sets Syst 2(4):267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(79)90001-0

  5. British Standards Institution (2008) BS EN 15603:2008 Energy performance of buildings. Overall energy use and definition of energy ratings. London

  6. Brown CB, Yao JTP (1983) Fuzzy Sets and Structural Engineering. J Struct Eng 109(5):1211–1225. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:5(1211)

  7. Canada Green Building Council (2009) LEED® Canada for existing buildings: operations and maintenance 2009. Ottawa, ON

  8. Canada’s Action on Climate Change (2013) Copenhagen Accord

  9. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Research in Construction (Canada) (2011) National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings: 2011. National Research Council

  10. CIBSE Certification (2016) Energy Performance Certificates and the Asset Rating

  11. Dehghan-Manshadi B, Mahmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R (2007) A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method. Mater Des 28(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2005.06.023

  12. Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings: a guide to energy performance certificates for the marketing, sale and let of dwellings

  13. Department of Industry Innovation and Science (2016) Star rating scale overview

  14. El Shenawy A, Zmeureanu R (2013) Exergy-based index for assessing the building sustainability. Build Environ 60:202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.10.019

  15. Energy star (2015) Buildings and plants

  16. Environment Canada (2015) About Canada’s greenhouse gas inventory

  17. Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016) Federal sustainable development stratergy for Canada 2016–2019. Gatineau, QC

  18. Félio GY, Lounis Z (2009) Model framework for assessment of state, performance, and management of Canada’s core public infrastructure. Ottawa, ON

  19. BRE Global (2012) Briefing paper. BREEAM in-use. Driving sustainability through existing buildings. Watford, UK

  20. Gram-Hanssen K (2014) Retrofitting owner-occupied housing: remember the people. Build Res Inf 42(4):393–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.911572

  21. ​Green Building Council Denmark (2012) An introduction to DGNB. Frederiksberg. Retrieved from http://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/2292/dgnb_dk-gbc_oct_2012.pdf

  22. Green Building Council of Australia (2015) List of credits

  23. Green Building Initiative (2014) Green globes for existing buildings blank survey

  24. Grussing MN (2013) Life cycle asset management methodologies for buildings. J Infrastruct Syst (Fhwa 1999), 130404171828002. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000157

  25. Hernandez P, Kenny P (2011) Development of a methodology for life cycle building energy ratings. Energy Policy 39(6):3779–3788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.006

  26. HKGBC (2010) BEAM plus for existing buildings, 1

  27. Hossaini N, Reza B, Akhtar S, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2015) AHP based life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework: a case study of six storey wood frame and concrete frame buildings in Vancouver. J Environ Plan Manage 58(7):1217–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.920704

  28. Hu S-C, Shiue A, Chuang H-C, Xu T (2013) Life cycle assessment of high-technology buildings: energy consumption and associated environmental impacts of wafer fabrication plants. Energy Build 56:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.09.023

  29. Industry Canada (2013) Buildings

  30. Institute for Building Efficiency (2013) Green building rating systems Japan

  31. International Energy Agency (2010) Energy performance certification of buildings: a policy tool to improve energy efficiency. Paris

  32. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  33. Kamali M, Hewage KN (2015) Performance indicators for sustainability assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of ICSC15: the Canadian society for civil engineering 5th international/11th construction specialty conference (pp 1–11). Vancouver, BC: Canadian Society of Civil Engineers

  34. Karunathilake H, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017) Opportunities and challenges in energy demand reduction for Canadian residential sector: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, (February), 0–1. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.021

  35. Khan FI, Sadiq R (2005) Risk-based prioritization of air pollution monitoring using fuzzy synthetic evaluation technique. Environ Monit Assess 105(1–3):261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-3852-1

  36. Khatri KB, Vairavamoorthy K, Akinyemi E (2011) Framework for computing a performance index for urban infrastructure systems using a fuzzy set approach. J Infrastruct Syst 17(December):163–175. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000062

  37. Kim JT, Todorovic MS (2013) Towards sustainability index for healthy buildings—via intrinsic thermodynamics, green accounting and harmony. Energy Build 62:627–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.009

  38. Leung W (2001) How to design a questionnaire. Stud BMJ 9:187–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310495996

  39. Lewry AJ, Ortiz J, Nabil A, Schofield MN, Vaid R, Davidson P (2013) Bridging the gap between operational and asset ratings—the UK experience and the green deal tool. BRE Group, Watford

  40. Mosteiro-Romero M, Krogmann U, Wallbaum H, Ostermeyer Y, Senick JS, Andrews CJ (2014) Relative importance of electricity sources and construction practices in residential buildings: a Swiss-US comparison of energy related life-cycle impacts. Energy Build 68(PARTA):620–631. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.046

  41. Mwasha A, Williams RG, Iwaro J (2011) Modeling the performance of residential building envelope: the role of sustainable energy performance indicators. Energy Build 43(9):2108–2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.04.013

  42. Namini SB, Preece C, Tahmasebi MM, Shakouri M (2014) Managerial sustainability assessment tool for Iran’s buildings. Proc ICE—Eng Sustain 167(1):12–23. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.12.00041

  43. Natural Resources Canada (2013) Energy use data handbook: 1990–2010

  44. Natural Resources Canada (2014) Survey of household energy use 2011. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa

  45. Natural Resources Canada (2016a) EnerGuide rating, service, label, and reports

  46. Natural Resources Canada (2016b) EnerGuide rating system administrative procedures version 15.2

  47. Natural Resources Canada (2016c) Guide to the EnerGuide label for homes

  48. Natural Resources Canada (2016d) Improving energy performance in Canada

  49. Nilashi M, Zakaria R, Ibrahim O, Majid MZA, Mohamad Zin R, Chugtai MW et al (2015) A knowledge-based expert system for assessing the performance level of green buildings. Knowl-Based Syst 86:194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.06.009

  50. Perez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, Gonzelez R, Maestre IR (2009) A review of benchmarking, rating and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes. Energy Build 41(3):272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.10.004

  51. Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2013) A fuzzy-based approach for characterization of uncertainties in emergy synthesis: an example of paved road system. J Clean Prod 59:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.061

  52. Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2014) Emergy-based life cycle assessment (Em-LCA) of multi-unit and single-family residential buildings in Canada. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3(2):207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.09.001

  53. Rincón L, Castell A, Pérez G, Solé C, Boer D, Cabeza LF (2013) Evaluation of the environmental impact of experimental buildings with different constructive systems using material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. Appl Energy 109:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.038

  54. Ross TJ (2005) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Wiley, Hoboken

  55. Rossi B, Marique A-F, Glaumann M, Reiter S (2012) Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings in three different European locations, basic tool. Build Environ 51:395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.017

  56. Ruparathna R, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) Assessment of the level of service (LOS) of public recreational centre buildings: an uncertainty based approach. In: 5th International construction specialty conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (ICSC). Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, Vancouver, BC, pp 1–10

  57. Ruparathna R, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2016) Improving the energy efficiency of the existing building stock: a critical review of commercial and institutional buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:1032–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.084

  58. Ruparathna R, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017) Developing a Level of Service (LOS) Index for operational management of public buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 34(June):159–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.06.015

  59. Sadiq R, Rodriguez MJ (2004) Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of disinfection by-products—a risk-based indexing system. J Environ Manage 73(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.04.014

  60. Srinivasan RS, Ingwersen W, Trucco C, Ries R, Campbell D (2014) Comparison of energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings. Build Environ 79:138–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.05.006

  61. Statistics Canada (2011) Population, urban and rural, by province and territory

  62. Statistics Canada (2016) Evolution of housing in Canada, 1957–2014

  63. Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (2014) A guide to building energy rating for homeowners. Dublin

  64. The International Standards Organisation (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework (vol ISO 14040). Geneva

  65. The Residential Energy Services Network (2013) Understanding the HERS Index

  66. The World Bank (2016) Urban population (% of total)

  67. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2016) Historic Paris Agreement on climate change

  68. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009) Buildings and their impact on the environment: a statistical summary

  69. U.S. Department of Energy (2016) Building energy asset score

  70. Vijayan A, Kumar A (2005) Development of a tool for analyzing the sustainability of residential buildings in Ohio. Environ Prog 24(3):238–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10095

  71. Vučićević B, Jovanović M, Afgan N, Turanjanin V (2014) Assessing the sustainability of the energy use of residential buildings in Belgrade through multi-criteria analysis. Energy Build 69:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.10.022

  72. Yacob S, Ali AS, Peng A-YC (2016) Building Condition Assessment: lesson Learnt from Pilot Projects. MATEC Web of Conferences, vol 66. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600072

  73. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

  74. Zeynalian M, Trigunarsyah B, Ronagh HR (2013) Modification of advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model for the whole project life cycle’s risks. J Constr Eng Manag 138(January):51–60. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO

  75. Zimmermann H-J (2010) Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(3):317–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.82

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) for funding this research and UBC Okanagan Facilities Management for providing the required data.

Author information

Correspondence to Kasun Hewage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gamalath, I., Hewage, K., Ruparathna, R. et al. Energy rating system for climate conscious operation of multi-unit residential buildings. Clean Techn Environ Policy 20, 785–802 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1510-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Building energy ratings
  • Multi-unit residential buildings
  • Life cycle thinking
  • Fuzzy logic