Tech Science Press

DOI: 10.32604/ee.2024.051035

ARTICLE

eQUEST Based Building Energy Modeling Analysis for Energy Efficiency

of Buildings

Saroj Lamichhane1 , Roseline Mostafa2 , Bhaskaran Gopalakrishnan2, * and Dayakar G. Devaru3

1
Regional Mechanical Field, Amazon Web Services, Herndon, VA 20170, USA
2
Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
3
Industrial and Production Engineering, JSS Science & Technology University, Mysuru, 570006, India
* Corresponding Author: Bhaskaran Gopalakrishnan. Email: [email protected]
Received: 26 February 2024 Accepted: 26 July 2024 Published: 11 September 2024

ABSTRACT
Building energy performance is a function of numerous building parameters. In this study, sensitivity analysis on
twenty parameters is performed to determine the top three parameters that have the most significant impact on
the energy performance of buildings. Actual data from two fully operational commercial buildings were collected
and used to develop a building energy model in the Quick Energy Simulation Tool (eQUEST). The model is
calibrated using the Normalized Mean Bias Error (NMBE) and Coefficient of Variation of Root Mean Square
Error (CV(RMSE)) method. The model satisfies the NMBE and CV(RMSE) criteria set by the American Society
of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning (ASHRAE) Guideline 14, Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP), and International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) for building energy
model calibration. The values of the parameters are varied in two levels, and then the percentage change in
output is calculated. Fractional factorial analysis on eight parameters with the highest percentage change in energy
performance is performed at two levels in a statistical software JMP. For building A, the top 3 parameters from
the percentage change method are: Heating setpoint, cooling setpoint and server room. From fractional factorial
design, the top 3 parameters are: heating setpoint (p-value = 0.00129), cooling setpoint (p-value = 0.00133), and
setback control (p-value = 0.00317). For building B, the top 3 parameters from both methods are: Server room (p-
value = 0.0000), heating setpoint (p-value = 0.00014), and cooling setpoint (p-value = 0.00035). If the best values
for all top three parameters are taken simultaneously, energy efficiency improves by 29% for building A and 35%
for building B.

KEYWORDS
Energy efficiency; eQUEST; energy consumption; building energy modeling

Nomenclature
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAV Constant Air Volume
cfm Cubic Feet per Minute
cm Centimeter
CT Current Transducer

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Tech Science Press.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2744 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

CV(RMSE) Coefficient of Variation of Root Mean Square Error

DCV Demand Controlled Ventilation
DOE Department of Energy
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
eQUEST Quick Energy Simulation Tool
FEMP Federal Energy Management Program
ft Feet
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IPMVP International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-Hour
m Meter
NMBE Normalized Mean Bias Error
OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
PF Power Factor
RTU Roof Top Unit
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
Sq. Square
VAV Variable Air Volume
W Watt

1 Introduction
Residential and commercial buildings are major contributors to global energy consumption,
accounting for 20% of global energy usage and 40% of annual energy consumption in the U.S. The
electricity consumption in the building sector has significantly increased over the years, reaching
76% in the U.S. by 2012. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that global building
energy consumption will continue to rise, particularly in non-OECD countries. Therefore, improving
energy efficiency in the building sector is crucial for reducing energy costs, greenhouse gas emissions,
and operating expenses. The development of passive and net-zero buildings has introduced highly
efficient and energy-balanced concepts. Enhancing energy efficiency in buildings presents significant
opportunities for energy savings and sustainability [1,2].
Three approaches to energy modelling include physics-based (white box), empirical (black box),
and hybrid (Gray box) methods [3]. Calibrated simulation is another approach where the model
is adjusted to match actual energy usage [3]. Popular software tools for energy modelling include
eQUEST [4], EnergyPlus [4], TRACE 700, and TRNSYS. Each software has its strengths and
weaknesses, with eQUEST being user-friendly, EnergyPlus providing accurate results, TRACE 700
focused on HVAC calculations, and TRNSYS offering a range of simulations [4]. Overall, eQUEST
and EnergyPlus are commonly used, with eQUEST offering ease of use and EnergyPlus providing
higher accuracy [4].

1.1 eQUEST and Modeling Capability

eQUEST (Quick Energy Simulation Tool) was designed to allow the user to perform detailed
analysis of today’s state-of-the-art building design technologies using the most sophisticated building
energy use simulation techniques but without requiring extensive experience in building performance
modeling. It is an energy modeling software that utilizes the U.S. DOE’s simulation tool DOE-2. It
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2745

has three input wizards: schematic design wizard, design development wizard, and energy efficiency
wizard. The schematic design wizard is used in the earliest stages of the design, while the detailed
development wizard requires more specific information. The energy efficiency measure wizard allows
users to analyze multiple scenarios for the design model. eQUEST has enhanced DOE-2, wizards and
graphics.
eQUEST models can be highly effective for buildings with a maximum of three-season profiles,
simple building envelope construction, limited window, and door types, single HVAC system per zone,
and location where exact weather profile is available in .bin format. If the building consists of a simple
roof and wall structure with less than six construction layers, eQUEST can effectively model the
envelope. Simple flat roofs or pitched roofs can be effectively modeled in eQUEST. There are various
options for window and door types. Three types of windows and doors can be specified per shell in
eQUEST. Also, various shading controls like overhangs, fins, and drapes can be effectively modeled.
Various glazing options are available. In double or triple-pane windows, insulating materials like air
or argon can be modeled. A building with limited windows and doors, common frame types, and
insulating inert gases can be effectively modeled in eQUEST.
Various HVAC systems like direct expansion (DX) coils, chilled water coils, evaporative coolers,
furnaces, electric resistance heating, hot water coils can effectively be modeled in eQUEST. The
operation can be based on schedule, demand, standby, or sub-hour cycle for chilled water and hot water
loops and hot water loops. Various preconditioning and preheating can be effectively modeled. Energy
recovery wheels based on counter flow, cross flow, parallel flow, and mixed flow can be modeled.
eQUEST is most effective if the schedule of the equipment, occupancy, and HVAC system remains
steady on an hourly basis. Under lighting systems, fluorescent, metal halide, high-pressure sodium,
and incandescent lamps can be modeled. There are options to specify if the lamps are suspended
or recesses and vented or not vented. Under lighting controls, daylighting and sky lighting can be
modeled. Daylighting can be effectively modeled if the maximum number of daylight sensors in a
zone is not more than two. eQUEST can also effectively model photovoltaic arrays, engine generators,
gas turbine generators, and steam turbine generators. Thus, eQUEST allows for extensive and complex
building energy simulations.

1.2 Major Drivers of Energy Consumption in Buildings

The building envelope is a boundary between the interior and exterior of a building, including
the walls, roofs, base, windows, and doors. The type of material and insulation in the walls, roofs,
and foundation of the building affects the heat transfer between the building’s interior and exterior,
directly affecting its energy consumption. Single pane glass windows and doors add more heating
and cooling load to the building than double or triple-pane glass windows and doors with glazing
and low emissivity coatings. The efficiency of windows and doors is affected by Solar Heat Gain
Coefficients (SHGC) and U-value. The thermostat set point can affect the thermal comfort level,
ventilation requirements, and HVAC system’s energy consumption.
For example, setting a heating setpoint to a high temperature increases the heating load in the
building, so the HVAC system consumes more energy to bring the space to the setpoint temperature.
The thermostat setpoint temperature can be adjusted to achieve energy savings but must be made
without impacting people’s thermal comfort levels. Zone control allows multiple spaces or zones to
have their own independent thermostat setpoint, increasing energy efficiency. Occupancy directly
affects the energy consumption of a building, so many modern buildings have occupancy sensors
2746 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

to turn the lights off when the space is unoccupied and programmable thermostats and demand-
controlled ventilation (DCV) to adjust ventilation requirements according to the occupancy level.
People give off energy to the surroundings through their skins in sensible heat and latent heat.
The efficiency of energy use decreases with use over time, so replacing old and inefficient
equipment with new and efficient equipment can increase the building’s overall energy performance.
Building size, orientation, and weather profile also affect energy consumption. Human beings are
thermally comfortable in the temperature range of 68°F to 72°F, and the relative humidity range of 40%
to 60%. A building that experiences mild climatic conditions throughout the year has to expend less
energy to condition the space to meet the human thermal comfort level than a building that experiences
extreme climatic conditions.

1.3 Need for Research

The research mainly aims to evaluate the energy performance for the degraded and upgraded
building parameters compared to the base case. The research will help building owners identify the
major building parameters to prioritize and focus their resources on to improve the building energy
performance. Maintenance and operation practices in a building can impact its energy performance
as much as the design parameters over the long term. There is a plethora of parameters that affect a
building’s energy consumption, such as envelope insulation, HVAC capacity, lighting power density,
thermostat setpoint, fenestration, infiltration, and many more. Without considering these factors,
energy models will not give an accurate prediction of existing building energy performance.
Furthermore, by implementing findings from this study, the market penetration of energy savings
achieved in buildings can be evaluated. There were 5.9 million commercial buildings in the U.S. in
2018 [5] and 140.8 million residential buildings in 2020. However, only 36,000 buildings achieved the
Energy Star® rating by the end of 2019 [6], and only 67,200 buildings had received Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification at the end of 2018. Energy Star is awarded
to those buildings whose energy performance is better than 75% of buildings nationwide. This shows
that many buildings in the U.S. still have low energy efficiency. According to a report published by the
National Association of the Home Builders, 1.2 million new homes are built every year in U.S., and
it is estimated that at the stated rate of new homes construction, 45% of the total homes would still
consist of housings built before 1970 in 2037 [7].

1.4 Research Objective

The research objectives of this study are multifaceted and aimed at understanding the energy
consumption of commercial buildings and the influence of various building parameters. The objective
is to develop eQUEST models for two commercial buildings using the actual building parameters
obtained during the assessment phase. These models will serve as accurate representations of the
buildings for further analysis. Secondly, simulations will be performed to determine the annual energy
consumption of the buildings and compare the results with the actual utility bills, validating the
accuracy of the models.
Furthermore, the study aims to investigate the impact of diverse building parameters on energy
consumption. Specific parameters to be analyzed include the HVAC system (EER, motor efficiency,
static fan pressure, and economizer), building envelope and infiltration (roof and wall insulation, infil-
tration rate), windows and doors (U-value, SHGC, overhangs, and fins), the lighting system (Lighting
Power Density (LPD), daylight control), thermostat setpoint controls (cooling and heating setpoints,
setback control), demand-controlled ventilation, occupancy and plug load, building orientation, and
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2747

climatic conditions (dry bulb temperature). The parameters will be evaluated for the base case, low
performance, and high performance.
Lastly, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to identify the top three building parameters that
significantly impact building energy performance. This analysis will provide valuable insights into
prioritizing resources and implementing energy-efficient measures in buildings. The outcomes of this
research will contribute to a better understanding of energy consumption patterns in commercial
buildings and inform strategies for improving energy efficiency.

2 Literature Review
Occupant-based HVAC setpoint intervention has also been studied using eQUEST. Ardiyanto
et al. [8] examined the energy consumption of a commercial building in Virginia and achieved
up to 14.58% HVAC electricity savings by adjusting the setpoint based on occupants’ thermal
comfort. Incorporating occupancy information further increased the savings by 8.79%. Programmable
thermostats and occupancy sensors can automate setpoint adjustments, enabling more precise control
and energy savings during occupied and unoccupied periods.
In addition to thermostat setpoints, other building parameters such as the HVAC system, building
envelope, windows and doors, lighting system, occupancy, and plug load, among others, influence
energy consumption. Mininni et al. [9] found that energy savings were more significant when occupied
and was occupied and replacing inefficient equipment with Energy Star-rated appliances resulted
in savings of approximately 10% of total miscellaneous equipment electricity usage. The study also
revealed that replacing a constant air volume (CAV) HVAC system with a variable air volume (VAV)
system can yield up to 22.6% energy savings. However, the impact of VAV systems varies based on
climatic conditions, with energy savings observed in humid climates but increased energy consumption
in dry climates due to re-heating demands and fan energy.
The building envelope, particularly windows, is crucial in heat ingress. Dilshad et al. [10] investi-
gated the energy performance of a commercial building using eQUEST. They found that adding insu-
lation to exterior walls, replacing single-paned windows with double-paned windows, and installing
daylight controls can result in energy savings of up to 3.75%, 1.69%, and 2.84%, respectively. Shading
devices such as overhangs and fins can reduce solar heat gain, saving energy. Javad Dehghani et al. [11]
demonstrated that installing overhangs and fins in an office building in Ohio resulted in a 1.3%
reduction in energy consumption.
Lighting systems also significantly contribute to overall energy consumption. Jiafang
Song et al. [12] determined a linear relationship between annual power consumption and lighting
power density, with a 10% increase in lighting power density corresponding to a 10% increase in
energy consumption. Using daylight controls and efficient lighting fixtures can achieve energy savings
of up to 2.83% and 31%, respectively [10,13].
Sensitivity analysis helps identify the most influential building parameters. Ye et al. [14] conducted
a sensitivity analysis of retrofit projects in different climatic regions. They found that replacing
windows, lighting fixtures, and office equipment with more efficient alternatives had the highest
sensitivity ratios in most climatic zones. However, the impact of parameters varied by climate, with
insulation and cooling system efficiency being more sensitive in cold and hot temperatures, respectively.
The ASHRAE 90.1 standard provides guidelines for assigning thermal zones in a building,
allowing for combining HVAC zones into thermal blocks under certain conditions. These conditions
include consistent space usage classification within the thermal block, the similar orientation of zones
2748 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

adjacent to glazed exterior walls and using the same HVAC system or type [15]. HVAC systems
play a crucial role in the energy consumption of residential and commercial buildings. The design,
operation, and maintenance parameters of HVAC systems significantly influence the overall energy
performance of a building. One parameter that directly affects HVAC energy consumption is the
thermostat setpoint. Raftery et al. [16] conducted a study to assess the impact of HVAC setpoint
adjustment on energy savings and peak load reduction in buildings under different weather conditions.
The results showed that increasing the setpoint above the base-case temperature (70°F) during specific
outdoor temperature ranges led to energy savings and peak demand reduction. However, no energy
savings or peak demand reductions were observed when the outdoor temperature was lower than
the base-case setpoint. Energy modeling software like eQUEST allows for quick investigation of the
impact of setpoint adjustments on building energy performance.
Standards such as ASHRAE Guideline 14, the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocol (IPMVP), and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) define the
boundaries for calibrating simulation models. However, no standard methodology for calibration
exists. ASHRAE Guideline 14 suggests a whole-building calibrated simulation approach using com-
mercially available hourly computer simulation programs. The model is calibrated against actual
measured data and used to predict post-retrofit conditions [16].
Accurate utility bill matching is crucial in building energy modeling. Annual matching provides
a more precise energy performance prediction while allowing slight variations in monthly bills due
to modeling limitations [9]. Validation studies use statistical tests such as t-tests, Pearson correlation
coefficients, mean absolute error, and coefficients of variance of root mean square error (CV(RMSE))
to compare actual and simulated energy consumption data. The International Performance Measure-
ment and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option D is commonly used to verify simulation results
[13,17,18].
Comparisons between different software tools can provide insights into differences in load
calculations. For example, a study comparing TRNSYS and eQUEST for heating and cooling load
calculations found slight variations attributed to differences in load calculation methods. TRNSYS
calculates loads precisely to maintain temperature setpoints, while eQUEST uses standard equipment
assumptions. Other parameters, such as infiltration rate, building orientation, and window area,
yielded similar results in both programs [19].
Studies have evaluated the effectiveness of energy codes in reducing energy consumption and
carbon emissions. Adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 resulted in energy savings, reduced costs, and lower
emissions in states that still needed to implement this code. However, compared to older versions
of ASHRAE 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 did not consistently improve energy efficiency due to less
stringent rules. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems were more
efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2004 [20,21]. Adopting ASHRAE 90.1-2022 resulted in average site
energy savings upto 14% compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2019 [22].
Commissioning is essential for ensuring optimal building performance. Retro-commissioning
applies to existing buildings, while re-commissioning is performed periodically to maintain perfor-
mance. Studies have shown that retro-commissioning can result in 5% to 20% energy savings with
payback periods of 2 years or less. Regular re-commissioning is recommended to maintain savings
over time [23–25].
Components of buildings degrade over time, affecting their energy performance. Studies have
examined the degradation of HVAC systems, insulation, lighting, doors, and windows. Age, main-
tenance practices, and climatic conditions influence degradation rates. Regular maintenance and
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2749

replacement of degraded components can improve energy efficiency [26–28].

EFF = BaseEFF (1 − M) 
Age (1)

where EFF is the annual efficiency, BaseEFF is the efficiency of the pre-retrofit equipment when new,
M is the factor used to consider the impact of maintenance quality, and Age is the age of the equipment
in years.
Thermal mass and its effect on energy performance have been studied. The mass of building
envelopes and interior equipment impacts heating and cooling delays, energy storage, and temperature
control strategies. Heavyweight construction with high specific heat capacity can dampen transient
heat flows. The influence of thermal mass on energy consumption varies based on climate and design
characteristics such as insulation and window properties [29,30].
This chapter discusses the prevalence of research works in building energy modeling using
simulation software. It is noted that most of the prevailing research focuses on design parameters
only, and very few have evaluated operating parameters’ impact. Additionally, the quality of building
components degrades or fails over time, and retro-commissioning and re-commissioning can enhance
the energy efficiency of existing buildings. However, more research is needed to identify the main
parameters affecting the building energy performance using sensitivity analysis and simulation tool
eQUEST. This research has been addressed by evaluating the impact of various building parameters
on whole-building energy performance to identify the top three building parameters affecting building
energy performance.

3 Methodology
The research aims to identify the top three building parameters that impact building energy
performance the most. For this purpose, data collected from two fully functional commercial buildings
in Fairmont, West Virginia (WV), has been used to generate a baseline simulation model in eQUEST.
The baseline model is tuned and validated with the actual utility bill over a year. To evaluate the impact
of various building parameters on the building’s energy performance, baseline values of parameters
to be studied are varied to two levels: Low values and High values. The top three parameters with
the highest impact on building energy performance are identified. The overview of the research
methodology is shown in Fig. 1.
2750 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Figure 1: Overview of research methodology

3.1 Data Collection and Parameter Determination

Data collection involves a comprehensive assessment of various building parameters over two
days. Detailed data were collected on various building parameters during the two-day energy assess-
ment of the facility. A lighting survey was carried out to determine the current energy consumed by
lighting. As the building has a high window-to-wall ratio (WWR), it was identified that there could
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2751

be substantial energy savings opportunities by implementing daylight controls during the assessment.
Pictures of the existing Roof Top Units (RTUs), VAV boxes, auxiliary A/C systems, and water heaters
nameplates were taken. Data of current being drawn by the RTUs and VAV boxes were collected with
data loggers and current transducers (CTs) over a week. The CTs collected and recorded the electrical
current drawn at 16 s intervals for one week. At the time of installation of the CTs, an instantaneous
power factor (PF), voltage (V), and current (Amps) were measured with the help of a multimeter and
were recorded. Also, the room temperature profile of some rooms was measured with data loggers
over a week. The current drawn by the VAVs and the RTUs helps understand the existing operating
conditions of those units, and the temperature data can be used to check how well the thermostat
responds to the temperature in the room. The recorded data was uploaded to HOBOware® software,
from which graphs were obtained. Such data is crucial for analysis and in identifying energy-saving
opportunities. Furthermore, a preliminary survey of miscellaneous energy-consuming equipment and
interviews with plant personnel are conducted to gather information on occupancy, schedules, and
building operations. Utility bills for both buildings spanning September 2019 to August 2020 are also
collected.
The selection of parameters for the study is based on their significance in influencing building
energy performance, as identified through a literature survey and discussions in previous chapters.
These parameters encompass HVAC systems, making envelope and infiltration, windows and doors,
lighting systems, thermostat setpoints, and setback controls, demand-controlled ventilation, occu-
pancy and plug loads, building orientation, and climatic conditions.
The eQUEST software, version 3.65, is employed for building model development. The Design
Development Wizard (DDW) was chosen due to the complex nature of the buildings and the
availability of detailed data. This wizard requires comprehensive information about the building,
including address, project details, seasons, and additional building-specific data. A floorplan of the
building is created using AutoCAD software and imported into eQUEST to accurately represent the
building’s layout. Load profiles and schedules are inputted to calculate load in watts per square foot
for different space types. After completing the DDW, the Detailed Data Edit Mode is utilized to make
final adjustments to the building parameters, fine-tune the model, and match it with actual energy
usage data. This model is also used for performing energy efficiency studies. Figs. 2 and 3 show the
eQUEST Model for the building A and building B, respectively.

Figure 2: eQUEST model of building A

2752 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Figure 3: eQUEST model of building B

The baseline values of the parameters for both building A and building B are provided in Table 1.
The parameters encompass various aspects such as HVAC systems, building envelope, windows and
doors, lighting, thermostat setpoints, demand-controlled ventilation, occupancy and plug loads, and
climatic conditions.

Table 1: Baseline values for building A and building B

No. Block Description Baseline values
Building A Building B
1 HVAC EER 9 9
2 The overall efficiency 53% 53%
of supply fan and
motor
3 Supply fan static 2.97 inch (7.54 cm) 4.55 inch (11.56 cm) water;
pressure water 5.86 inch (14.88 cm) water;
4.39 inch (11.15 cm) water
4 Economizer None None
5 Building Roof insulation 25.693 h ft2 °F/Btu 26.294 h ft2 °F/Btu
envelope (4.5248 m2 K/W) (4.6304 m2 K/W)
6 Wall insulation 17.561 h ft2 °F/Btu 24.143 h ft2 °F/Btu
(3.0925 m2 K/W) (4.2516 m2 K/W)
7 Infiltration 0.038 cfm/sq.ft 0.038 cfm/sq.ft
8 Windows U-value 0.4 Btu/h ft2 °F 0.4 Btu/h ft2 °F
and doors (2.27 W/m2 K) (2.27 W/m2 K)
9 SHGC 0.62 0.62
10 Overhangs None None
11 Fins None None
(Continued)
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2753

Table 1 (continued)
No. Block Description Baseline values
Building A Building B
12 Lighting Lighting power density Different for each Different for each space
(LPD) space
13 Daylight control None None
14 Thermostat Cooling setpoint 65°F (291 K) 65°F (291 K)
setpoint
15 Heating setpoint 75°F (297 K) 75°F (297 K)
16 Setback control None None
17 Demand DCV None None
controlled
ventilation
18 Occupancy Server room 3 server rooms: 3 server rooms: 63 w/sq.ft;
and plug 44 w/sq.ft; 42 w/sq.ft; 16.5 w/sq.ft
loads 36.2 w/sq.ft
19 Occupant density Different for each Different for each space
space
20 Climatic Dry bulb temperature As per weather data As per weather data
conditions

3.2 Model Validation

The building model is used to simulate the energy consumption of a building for a year. The
model performs energy efficiency studies if the simulated annual energy consumption results match
the actual energy consumption data. If the monthly simulation result does not match the utility bill, the
building parameters are explored in more detail in the detailed data edit mode. ASHRAE Guidelines,
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and IPMVP use CV(RMSE) with NMBE to verify
the accuracy of the models. The calibration criteria of the FEMP, ASHRAE guideline 14, and IPMVP
are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Calibration criteria of the FEMP, ASHRAE guideline 14 and IPMVP

Index FEMP ASHRAE IPMVP Building A Building B
criteria guideline 14
Monthly NMBE ±5% ±5% ±20% 3.7% 0.0001%
CV(RMSE) 15% 15% – 8.3% 9.7%
2754 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

n
1(Ai − Si )
NMBE = i
(2)
Ai n

n
1 i (Ai
− Si )2
CV (RMSE) = (3)
Ai n
where A is the monthly measured value of energy consumption, S is the monthly simulated value
of energy consumption, and n is the number of data points. Fig. 4 gives the overview of the actual
and simulated energy consumption of building A. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows the actual and simulated
consumption energy of building B.
Actual Energy Consumption Simulation Result
5,00,000
ENERGY CONSUMPTION

4,50,000
4,00,000
3,50,000
3,00,000
2,50,000
(KWH/YR)

2,00,000
1,50,000
1,00,000
50,000
-

MONTH

Figure 4: Actual vs. simulated energy consumption of building A

Actual Energy Consumption Simulated Energy consumption

3,50,000
ENERGY CONSUMPTION

3,00,000
2,50,000
2,00,000
(KWH/YR)

1,50,000
1,00,000
50,000
-

MONTH

Figure 5: Actual vs. simulated energy consumption of building B

3.3 Energy Efficiency Study

After the building model is fine-tuned, the selected building parameters’ impact on the building’s
energy consumption is evaluated. The values for the parameters are varied for two levels. These values
are given in Table 3.
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2755

Table 3: Parameter values at two levels for building A

No. Block Description Building 1 Building 2

Low High Low High

1 HVAC EER 7.2 10.8 7.2 10.8
2 Overall 42.4% 63.6% 42.4% 63.6%
efficiency of
supply fan and
motor
3 Supply fan 2.38-inch 3.564-inch 3.64; 4.688; 5.48; 7.03;
static pressure water water 3.512-inch 5.27-inch
water water
4 Economizer None Dual – –
temperature
(DP low =
42°F)
5 Building Roof 20.5544 30.8316 21.05 31.55
envelope insulation (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu (h.ft2 .°F)/
Btu
6 Wall 14.0488 21.0732 19.31 28.97(h.ft2 .°F)/
insulation (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu (h.ft2 .°F)/Btu Btu
7 Infiltration 0.0304 0.0456 0.0304 0.0456
cfm/sq.ft cfm/sq.ft
8 Windows U-value 0.32 0.48 0.32 0.48
and doors Btu/(h.ft2 .°F) Btu/(h.ft2 .°F) Btu/(h.ft2 .°F) Btu/(h.ft2 .°F)
9 SHGC 0.496 0.744 0.496 0.744
10 Overhangs None L = 2 ft; None h = 1.54
h = 1.03 ft L = 3.02
11 Fins None 0.5 ft distance, None h = 1.54
1 ft deep L = 3.02
12 Lighting Lighting 10% less than 10% more 10% less than 10% more
power density the base value than the base base than base
(LPD) value
13 Daylight None Two None 2 cells per
control photocells per zone; switched
zone; switched 2/3-1/3-off
2/3-1/3-off
14 Thermostat Cooling 60°F 70°F 60°F 70°F
setpoint setpoint
15 Heating 70°F 80°F 70°F 80°F
setpoint
16 Setback None Unoccupied – –
control (heating: 68°F;
cooling 75°F)
17 DCV DCV None DCV sensor None DCV sensor
present inside present inside
zones zones
18 Occupancy Server room 44 w/sq.ft; 0 63.8 w/sq.ft; 0
and plug 42 w/sq.ft; 18 w/sq.ft
loads 36.2 w/sq.ft
(Continued)
2756 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Table 3 (continued)
No. Block Description Building 1 Building 2

Low High Low High

19 Occupant 20% less than More 20% Less20% More 20%
density the base value more than the
base value
20 Climatic Dry bulb −2°F from +2°F from −2°F than the +2°F than the
conditions temperature baseline baseline baseline value baseline value

3.4 Sensitivity Analysis

Two sensitivity analysis methods were used to evaluate the impact of different parameters on
the energy performance of two buildings. The percentage change method was used as a screening
method to identify the eight parameters with the highest impact on building energy performance. The
input values for the parameters are varied by ±20% to get the low-value and high-value. Parameters
like heating setpoint and cooling setpoint, the setpoints are varied by ±5°F from the baseline value.
Whereas outdoor dry bulb temperature varies by ±2°F from the baseline value. The fractional factorial
design was used to evaluate the significance of the eight selected parameters and some of the interaction
terms between the parameters. Full-Fractional Design was more appropriate to determine the effect
of all the interaction terms, but it would require a huge number of simulations runs. The fractional
factorial design provided the two-level interaction terms between the most significant parameters, and
the impact of higher-level interaction terms were estimated to be insignificant. Tables 4 and 5 show
the fractional factorial design used to evaluate the relative significance of eight different parameters
for building A and building B, respectively.

Table 4: Fractional factorial design for building A

No. Pattern Cooling Heating EER Efficiency of Supply fan Wall Server Setback Energy
setpoint setpoint supply fan static insulation room control consumption
motor pressure
1 −−++ 60 70 10.8 63.6 2.38 14.04 No Yes 3517400
−−++
2 +−−− 70 70 7.2 42.4 2.38 21.07 No Yes 3788500
−+++
3 +−++ 70 70 10.8 42.4 2.38 21.07 Yes No 4200000
−+−−
4 −−+− 60 70 10.8 42.4 3.564 21.07 Yes Yes 4319400
++−+
5 −−−− 60 70 7.2 42.4 2.38 14.04 Yes No 4246400
−−−−
−
6 −+−+ 60 80 7.2 63.6 2.38 21.07 Yes Yes 4170000
−+−+
7 −++− 60 80 10.8 42.4 2.38 21.07 No No 3856200
−++−
8 ++−− 70 80 7.2 42.4 3.564 21.07 Yes No 6311000
++−−
9 −+++ 60 80 10.8 63.6 3.564 14.04 Yes No 4470500
+−−−
(Continued)
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2757

Table 4 (continued)
No. Pattern Cooling Heating EER Efficiency of Supply fan Wall Server Setback Energy
setpoint setpoint supply fan static insulation room control consumption
motor pressure
10 +−−+ 70 70 7.2 63.6 3.564 14.04 Yes Yes 4390400
+−−+
11 ++++ 70 80 10.8 63.6 3.564 21.07 No Yes 3905900
++++
12 −−−+ 60 70 7.2 63.6 3.564 21.07 No No 3386700
+++−
13 ++−+ 70 80 7.2 63.6 2.38 14.04 No No 6049000
+−−+
−
14 +−+− 70 70 10.8 42.4 3.564 14.04 No No 4135000
+−+−
15 −+−− 60 80 7.2 42.4 3.564 14.04 No Yes 4038700
+−++
16 +++− 70 80 10.8 42.4 2.38 14.04 Yes Yes 4412500
−−−+

Table 5: Fractional factorial design for building B

No. Pattern Server Cooling Heating Overall Supply fan Infiltration EER Dry bulb Energy con-
room setpoint setpoint efficiency of static temperature sumption
supply fan pressure
1 −+−− Yes 73 70 42.4 7.03 0.0304 10.8 2 2678800
+−++
2 +−−+ No 63 70 63.6 7.03 0.0304 7.2 2 1730800
+−−+
3 ++−− No 73 70 42.4 7.03 0.0456 7.2 −2 2046200
++−−
4 +−−− No 63 70 42.4 4.69 0.0456 10.8 2 1627500
−+++
5 −++− Yes 73 80 42.4 4.69 0.0456 10.8 −2 2887300
−++−
6 −−+− Yes 63 80 42.4 7.03 0.0456 7.2 2 2887000
++−+
7 −−++ Yes 63 80 63.6 4.69 0.0304 10.8 2 2374000
−−++
8 −−−+ Yes 63 70 63.6 7.03 0.0456 10.8 −2 2460100
+++−
9 +−+− No 63 80 42.4 7.03 0.0304 10.8 −2 1968600
+−+−
10 ++−+ No 73 70 63.6 4.69 0.0304 10.8 −2 1651000
−−+−
11 ++++ No 73 80 63.6 7.03 0.0456 10.8 2 1978400
++++
12 +++− No 73 80 42.4 4.69 0.0304 7.2 2 2111600
−−−+
13 −+−+ Yes 73 70 63.6 4.69 0.0456 7.2 2 2482900
−+−+
14 −−−− Yes 63 70 42.4 4.69 0.0304 7.2 −2 2593200
−−−−
(Continued)
2758 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Table 5 (continued)
No. Pattern Server Cooling Heating Overall Supply fan Infiltration EER Dry bulb Energy con-
room setpoint setpoint efficiency of static temperature sumption
supply fan pressure
15 − + + + Yes 73 80 63.6 7.03 0.0304 7.2 −2 2996900
+−−−
16 + − + + No 63 80 63.6 4.69 0.0456 7.2 −2 1806100
−+−−

3.5 Assumptions and Limitation

The study is based on several assumptions and has certain limitations. Firstly, due to the
unavailability of historical weather data for the study location (Fairmont, WV) in eQUEST and
EnergyPlus, weather data from the nearest town (Morgantown, WV) is used, which may not accurately
represent current weather conditions. Secondly, the impact of equipment and furniture layout within
rooms is assumed to be negligible, although different configurations could affect daylight controls and
occupancy sensors. Thirdly, the assumption is that occupants consistently use the building as designed
throughout the year, even though parameters may vary based on changing circumstances and needs.
Fourthly, it is assumed that equipment operates according to specified schedules and manufacturer’s
specifications. Lastly, since the building in question has minimal natural gas usage, the study needs to
evaluate its impact.

4 Result and Discussion

4.1 Sensitivity Analysis Using Percentage Change Method
The results for low and high values of parameters when the parameters are varied independently
are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 for building A and building B, respectively.
It can be seen from Fig. 6 that cooling setpoint, heating setpoint, server room, setback control,
EER, the overall efficiency of supply fan and motor, supply fan static pressure have a higher impact
on the energy performance of building A than other parameters like an infiltration, U-value, SHGC,
overhangs, fins, economizer, roof insulation, wall insulation, LPD, daylight control, and outdoor dry
bulb temperature. The top three parameters affecting the energy performance of building A are the
cooling setpoint, heating setpoint, and server room.
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the top three parameters affecting the energy performance of
building B are server room, cooling setpoint, and heating setpoint.
 Percentage change in Annual
Energy Consumption
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

-5.0%
10.0%

-35.0%
-30.0%
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
5.0%
EER

Overall efficiency of sypply fan and motor

Supply fan static pressure

Roof Insulation

Wall Insulation

Infiltration

U-value

Low
SHGC

Overhangs

High

Parameters
Fins

Lighting Power Density (LPD)

Daylight Control

Cooling Setpoint

Heating Setpoint

Server Room

Dry Bulb Temperature

Figure 7: Sensitivity analysis of main parameters of building B

Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of main parameters of building A

DCV

Occupant Density
2759
2760 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis Using Fractional Factorial Design

The fractional factorial analysis obtained in JMP software is given in Tables 6 and 7 for building
A and building B, respectively.

Table 6: Fractional factorial analysis result for building A

Source p-value
Heating setpoint (70, 80) 0.00129
Cooling setpoint (60, 70) 0.00133
Cooling setpoint × Setback control 0.00273
Cooling setpoin t × EER 0.00291
Setback control 0.00317
Server room 0.00407
EER (7.2, 10.8) 0.00535
Cooling setpoint × Heating setpoint 0.00879
Wall insulation (17.56, 21.07) 0.11117
Efficiency of supply fan motor (42.4, 63.6) 0.19174
Supply fan static pressure (2.97, 3.564) 0.33069

Table 7: Fractional factorial analysis result for building B

Source p-value
Server room 0.00000
Heating setpoint (70, 80) 0.00014
Cooling setpoint (63, 73) 0.00035
Overall efficiency of supply fan 0.00042
(42.4, 63.6)
Supply fan static pressure (4.69, 7.03) 0.00059
EER (7.2, 10.8) 0.00110
Dry bulb temperature (−2, 2) 0.011777
Cooling setpoint × Heating setpoint 0.01605
Server room × Heating setpoint 0.37956
Server room × Cooling setpoint 0.56213
Infiltration (0.0304, 0.0456) 0.59558

It can be seen from Table 8 that the top three parameters affecting the energy performance
of building A are heating setpoint, cooling setpoint, and setback control. However, the interaction
between cooling setpoint and setback control and cooling setpoint and EER have a greater impact
than the setback control. It can be seen in Table 9 that the top three parameters affecting the energy
performance of building B are server room, heating setpoint, and cooling setpoint.
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2761

Table 8: Sorted parameters for building A

Term Probability > |t|
Heating setpoint (70, 80) 0.0013
Cooling setpoint (60, 70) 0.0013
Cooling setpoint × Setback control (No) 0.0027
Cooling setpoint × EER 0.0029
Setback control (No) 0.0032
Server room (Yes) 0.0041
EER (7.2, 10.8) 0.0054
Cooling setpoint × Heating setpoint 0.0088
Wall insulation (17.56, 21.07) 0.1112
Efficiency of supply fan motor (42.4, 63.6) 0.1917
Supply fan static pressure (2.97, 3.564) 0.3307

Table 9: Sorted parameters for building B

Term Probability > |t|
Server room (Yes) <0.0001
Heating setpoint (70, 80) 0.0001
Cooling setpoint (63, 73) 0.0003
Overall efficiency of supply fan (42.4, 63.6) 0.0004
Supply fan static pressure (4.69, 7.03) 0.0006
EER (7.2, 10.8) 0.0011
Dry bulb temperature (−2, 2) 0.0118
Cooling setpoint × Heating setpoint 0.0160
Server room × Heating setpoint 0.3796
Server room × Cooling setpoint 0.5621
Infiltration (0.0304, 0.0456) 0.5956

In Tables 8 and 9, the impact of parameters is sorted from largest to smallest. It can be seen that
the interaction terms cooling setpoint∗ setback control and cooling setpoint∗ heating setpoint have a
significant impact on the energy performance of building A. For building B, the interaction terms do
not have a significant impact on its energy performance. Table 10 compares the result obtained from
using the percentage change method and fractional factorial design.
2762 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Table 10: Comparison of results from two sensitivity analysis methods

No. Building A Building B
Percentage change Fractional factorial Percentage change Fractional factorial
method design method method design method
1 Heating setpoint∗ Heating setpoint Server room (30.2%) Server room (p-value
(13.3%) (p-value = 0.00129) = 0.0000)
2 Cooling setpoint∗ Cooling setpoint Heating setpoint∗∗ Heating setpoint
(13.3%) (p-value = 0.00132) (4.2%) (p-value = 0.00014)
3 Server room (11.5%) Setback control Cooling setpoint∗∗ Cooling setpoint
(p-value = 0.00317) (4.2%) (p-value = 0.00035)
Note: ∗ Heating and cooling setpoint have the same rank.

The results from both the sensitivity analysis method for both the buildings have heating and
cooling setpoint among the top three parameters. For building A, both the methods show that
the heating and cooling setpoint have the same impact on the energy performance of the building.
However, the third parameter on the list of the two methods is different. For building B, the results
are the same for both methods. Figs. 8 and 9 show how the energy consumption of building A and
building B will vary when different parameters change.

Figure 8: Prediction profile for building A

EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2763

Figure 9: Prediction profile for building B

Fig. 8 shows that the energy performance of building A varies more steeply with changes in heating
setpoint, cooling setpoint, server room, and setback control. Fig. 9 shows that the energy performance
of building B varies more steeply with changes in values of the server room. Compared to the effect of
the server room, changes in other parameters have significantly less effect on the energy performance
of building B.

4.3 Interaction Effect

Figs. 10 and 11 show the interaction plot obtained from JMP software for building A and building
B parameters.
The interaction profile for building A shows that the effect of changing the cooling setpoint is
more significant when there is no setback control compared to when setback control was present.
Also, the effect of changing the cooling setpoint is more when EER is at low level and heating setpoint
is at high level. When the cooling setpoint is at high level, the effect of changing heating setpoint, EER
and setback control is more than when the cooling setpoint is at low level.
The interaction profile for building B shows that energy consumption is significantly lower when
the server room is at a high level (when there is no server room) than at a low level. The energy
consumption increases linearly when the cooling setpoint and heating setpoint is increased. This can
be explained by the fact that the supply air is constant at 55°F so, increasing the cooling setpoint will
make the heating coil heat the supply air to the cooling setpoint at a higher level.
2764 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

Figure 10: Interaction plot for parameters of building A

Figure 11: Interaction plot for parameters of building B

5 Conclusion and Future Work

In conclusion, this study identifies the top three building parameters with the highest impact on
energy performance. Building A’s most influential parameters based on the percentage change method
are the heating setpoint, cooling setpoint, and server room. From the fractional factorial design, the
top three parameters are the heating setpoint (p-value = 0.00129), cooling setpoint (p-value = 0.00133),
and setback control (p-value = 0.00317). For building B, the top three parameters from both methods
are server room (p-value = 0.0000), heating setpoint (p-value = 0.00014), and cooling setpoint (p-value
= 0.00035). Optimizing these parameters improves energy efficiency by 29% for building A and 35%
for building B.
Furthermore, a 5-degree Fahrenheit change in cooling and heating setpoints results in a 13.3%
energy consumption change for building A and a 4.2% change for building B. The absence of a server
room reduces energy consumption by 11.5% for building A and 30.2% for building B. The findings
also reveal significant interaction terms and the influence of building orientation and removing doors
and windows on energy consumption. However, it is important to note that the results are specific
to the studied buildings and may not be universally applicable. Future studies should involve a larger
sample size and diverse building types to enhance generalizability.
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2765

Future work on this research study involves increasing the number of building parameters to
investigate all the building parameters. A summary of possible forthcoming work relating to this study
are listed below:
• In this study, only two buildings are modeled. Future research can model different building
types in different climatic conditions to determine the impact of building parameters in different
buildings and climatic conditions. The impact of building parameters can be different for the
different building types and different climatic conditions.
• More building parameters can be studied in the research to perform comprehensive research.
• The building being modeled had meager gas bills. The facility had electric heating, and the
natural gas was predominantly used for water heating only. Thus, the analysis of natural gas
has been ignored in this study. Future research works can investigate the facility where natural
gas is a significant portion of the utility bill.
• The study involves only one type of HVAC system. Future research can explore different types
of HVAC systems.

Acknowledgement: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the peer reviewers who
generously dedicated their time and expertise to review and provide constructive feedback on this
research paper. Their insightful comments and suggestions have significantly enhanced the quality
and rigor of this study.

Funding Statement: This research work was funded in part by the Industrial Assessment Center Project,
supported by grants from the US Department of Energy and by the West Virginia Development Office.
Author Contributions: The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and
design: Bhaskaran Gopalakrishnan, Saroj Lamichhane; data collection: Saroj Lamichhane; analysis
and interpretation of results: Saroj Lamichhane, Roseline Mostafa; draft manuscript preparation:
Roseline Mostafa, Saroj Lamichhane, Dayakar G. Devaru. All authors reviewed the results and
approved the final version of the manuscript.
Availability of Data and Materials: The data that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author, Bhaskaran Gopalakrishnan, upon reasonable request.
Ethics Approval: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the
present study.

References
[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2019,
“U.S. Department of Energy,” 2019. Accessed: Feb. 01, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2019.pdf
[2] U.S. Department of Energy, “Quadrennial technology review: An assessment of energy
technology and research opportunity,” 2015. Accessed: Jun. 29, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-technology-review-0
[3] N. Fumo, “A review on the basics of building energy estimation,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 31, no.
1, pp. 53–60, Mar. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.040.
2766 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10

[4] H. S. Rallapalli, “A comparison of EnergyPlus and eQUEST whole building energy simulation
results for a medium sized office building,” 2010. Accessed: May 3, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/149515
[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, “2018 Commercial buildings
energy consumption survey preliminary results,” 2020. Accessed: Mar. 25, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/pdf/CBECS_2018_Building_Characteristics_Flip
book.pdf
[6] Energy Star, Facts and Stats. Accessed: Jun. 29, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.energystar.gov/
buildings/about-us/facts-and-stats
[7] P. Emrath, “More New Homes Needed to Replace Older Stock,” Aug. 2018. Accessed: Apr. 24, 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=263243
[8] D. Ardiyanto, M. Pipattanasomporn, S. Rahman, N. Hariyanto, and N. Suwarno, “Occupant-
based HVAC set point interventions for energy savings in buildings,” in 2018 Int. Conf. Utility
Exhibit Green Energy Sustain Develop (ICUE), Phuket, Thailand, Oct. 24–26, 2018, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.23919/ICUE-GESD.2018.8635595.
[9] K. Mininni, R. Hudson, M. Pommier, J. Okvath, and R. Anderson, “Energy audit at fort stanwix national
monument,” in Multi-Discip. Sr. Des. Conf., 2009.
[10] A. Dilshad, M. Bilal Khan, S. Sajid, and W. A. Khalil, “Energy performance analysis of a commercial
building using eQUEST,” presented at the 1st Int. Conf. High Perform. Energy Effic. Build. Homes
(HPEEBH 2018), Aug. 2018.
[11] M. Javad Dehghani, P. McManamon, and A. Ataei, “Toward building energy reduction through solar
energy systems retrofit options: An equest model,” J. Appl. Eng. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 53–60, May 2018.
doi: 10.2478/jaes-2018-0007.
[12] J. Song, X. Zhang, and X. Meng, “Simulation and analysis of a university library energy consumption
based on eQUEST,” Procedia Eng., vol. 121, pp. 1382–1388, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.09.028.
[13] M. -T. Ke, C. -H. Yeh, and J. -T. Jian, “Analysis of building energy consumption parameters and energy
savings measurement and verification by applying eQUEST software,” Energy Build., vol. 61, pp. 100–107,
Jun. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.012.
[14] Y. Ye, K. Hinkelman, Y. Lou, W. Zuo, G. Wang and J. Zhang, “Evaluating the energy impact potential of
energy efficiency measures for retrofit applications: A case study with U.S. medium office buildings,” Build.
Simul., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1377–1393, Mar. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s12273-021-0765-z.
[15] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
“ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2007: Energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential
buildings,” 2009. Accessed: Mar. 01, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/
Technical%20Resources/Standards%20and%20Guidelines/Standards%20Addenda/90-1-2007/90_1_2007_
bu.pdf
[16] P. Raftery, M. M. Keane, and A. Costa, “Calibration of a detailed simulation model to energy
monitoring system data: A methodology and case study,” in Build. Simulat 2009, Glasgow, Scotland,
IBPSA, 2009, pp. 1199–1204. Accessed: Feb. 20, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.aivc.org/resource/
calibration-detailed-simulation-model-energy-monitoring-system-data-methodology-and-case
[17] A. Dutta and A. Samanta, “Determining factor/s of window glazing regarding reduction in electrical energy
consumption,” J. Energy Resources Technol., vol. 142, no. 3, Oct. 2019. doi: 10.1115/1.4044888.
[18] A. Dutta, “Passive design and performance evaluation of building using e-Quest: A case study,”
Int. Des. J., no. 1, 2013. Accessed: Feb. 15, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/331970753_Passive_design_and_performance_evaluation_of_building_using_e-Quest_a_case_
study
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.10 2767

[19] B. Ghobadian, C. Tzivanidis, A. Kouvari, and K. A. Antonopoulos, “Comparison of heating and cooling
loads of a typical building with TRNSYS and eQUEST,” Energy, Transp. Glob. warm., vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
327–338, Jan. 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30127-3_25.
[20] J. Kneifel, “Benefits and costs of energy standard adoption in new commercial buildings [National
institute of standards and technology (NIST) special publication SP-1147],” in Nat. Inst. Stan-
dards Technol., 2013. Accessed: Apr. 14, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/
SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1147.pdf
[21] G. Holness, “On the path to net zero, how do we get there from here?,” ASHRAE J., vol. 53, no. 6, pp.
50–60, 2011.
[22] Energy Star, “Retrocommissioning,” in Energy Star Building Manual, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 2007. Accessed: Apr. 21, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.energystar.gov/
sites/default/files/buildings/tools/EPA_BUM_CH5_RetroComm.pdf
[23] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 Receives Model Energy Code Determination from the DOE.
Mar. 2024. Accessed: Jul. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ashrae.org/about/news/2024/
-energy-code-determin-ashrae-standard-90-1-2022-receives-modelation-from-the-doe#:∼:text=The%20sta
ndard%20achieved%20this%20determination,as%20%E2%80%9Cnet%E2%80%9D%20savings
[24] J. Amann, “Retrocommissioning: Program strategies to capture energy savings in existing buildings,”
in Am. Counc. Energy-Effic. Econ. (ACEEE), 2003. Accessed: Jun. 29, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aceee.org/research-report/a035
[25] J. Roberts and B. Tso, “Do savings from retrocommissioning last? results from an effective useful life study,”
in Am Counc. Energy Effic. Econ., Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[26] G. Eleftheriadis and M. Hamdy, “Impact of building envelope and mechanical component degradation
on the whole building performance: A review paper,” Energy Proc., vol. 132, pp. 321–326, Oct. 2017. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.739.
[27] K. Fenaughty and D. Parker, “Evaluation of air conditioning performance degradation: Opportunities
from diagnostic methods,” in 2018 ACEEE Summer Stud. Energy Effic. Buildings, Washington, DC, USA,
2018.
[28] S. Verbeke, A. Audenaert, and I. Verhaert, “Interlinking the effect of thermal mass and tem-
perature control strategies in dwellings,” E3S Web Conf., vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 04065, 2019. doi:
10.1051/e3sconf/201911104065.
[29] K. W. Childs, G. E. Courville, and E. L. Bales, Thermal Mass Assessment: An Explanation of the
Mechanisms by Which Building Mass Influences Heating and Cooling Energy Requirements, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983.
[30] T. Ahmad and A. Zakharanka, “The impact of degradation on a building’s energy performance in hot-
humid climates,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–11, 2023.