Advertisement

A Framework for Fully Automated Performance Testing for Smart Buildings

  • Elena MarkoskaEmail author
  • Aslak JohansenEmail author
  • Sanja Lazarova-MolnarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)

Abstract

A significant proportion of energy consumption by buildings worldwide, estimated to ca. 40%, has yielded a high importance to studying buildings’ performance. Performance Testing is a mean by which buildings can be continuously commissioned to ensure that they operate as designed. Historically, setup of Performance Tests has been manual and labor-intensive and has required intimate knowledge of buildings’ complexity and systems. The emergence of the concept of smart buildings has provided an opportunity to overcome this restriction. In this paper, we propose a framework for automated Performance Testing of smart buildings that utilizes metadata models. The approach features automatic detection of applicable Performance Tests using metadata queries and their corresponding instantiation, as well as continuous commissioning based on metadata. The presented approach has been implemented and tested on a case study building at a university campus in Denmark.

Keywords

Building performance testing Smart buildings Building metadata models Continuous commissioning Energy efficiency 

References

  1. 1.
    Cao X, Dai X, Liu J (2016) Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during the past decade. Energy Build 128:198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyner RC, Kramer SW (2017) Long term benefits of building commissioning: should owners pay the price? Proc Eng 196 (Supplement C), 429–435Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Markoska E, Jradi M, Jørgensen BN (2016) Continuous commissioning of buildings: a case study of a campus building in Denmark. In: Book continuous commissioning of buildings: a case study of a campus building in Denmark (IEEE), pp 584–589Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karger DR, Quan D (2004) Haystack: a user interface for creating, browsing, and organizing arbitrary semistructured information. In: Proceedings of CHI ‘04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ploennigs J, Clement J, Wollschlaeger B, Kabitzsch K (2016) Semantic models for physical processes in CPS at the example of occupant thermal comfort. In: Book semantic models for physical processes in CPS at the example of occupant thermal comfort, pp 1061–1066Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balaji B, Bhattacharya A, Fierro G, Gao J, Gluck J, Hong D, Johansen A, Koh J, Ploennigs J, Agarwal Y (2016) Brick: towards a unified metadata schema for buildings. In: Book brick: towards a unified metadata schema for buildings (ACM), pp 41–50Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lazarova-Molnar S, Kjærgaard MB, Shaker HR (2015) Commercial buildings energy performance within context occupants in spotlight. In: Book commercial buildings energy performance within context occupants in spotlight (IEEE), pp 1–7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu M (1999) Improving building energy system performance by continuous commissioning. Energy Eng 96(5):46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Wilde P (2014) The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: a framework for investigation. Autom Constr 41 (Supplement C), 40–49Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pang X, Wetter M, Bhattacharya P, Haves P (2012) A framework for simulation-based real-time whole building performance assessment. Build Environ 54 (Supplement C), 100–108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations