Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Simulation-based decision support tool for early stages of zero-energy building

design
Shady Attia a,∗ , Elisabeth Gratia a , André De Herde a , Jan L.M. Hensen b
a
Architecture et Climat, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain La Neuve, Belgium
b
Building Physics and Services, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There is a need for decision support tools that integrate energy simulation into early design of zero
Received 12 October 2011 energy buildings in the architectural practice. Despite the proliferation of simulation programs in the
Received in revised form 17 January 2012 last decade, there are no ready-to-use applications that cater specifically for the hot climates and their
Accepted 28 January 2012
comfort conditions. Furthermore, the majority of existing tools focus on evaluating the design alternatives
after the decision making, and largely overlook the issue of informing the design before the decision
Keywords:
making. This paper presents energy-oriented software tool that both accommodates the Egyptian context
Design decision support
and provides informative support that aims to facilitate decision making of zero energy buildings. A
Zero energy building
Sensitivity analysis
residential benchmark was established coupling sensitivity analysis modelling and energy simulation
Energy simulation software (EnergyPlus) as a means of developing a decision support tool to allow designers to rapidly and
Thermal comfort flexibly assess the thermal comfort and energy performance of early design alternatives. Validation of
Hot climates the results generated by the tool and ability to support the decision making are presented in the context
of a case study and usability testing.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Design process and tools of NZEBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
NZEB design approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Conceptual early design stages of NZEBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Barriers to integrating BPS during early design phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Geometry representation in simulation tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Filling input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Informative support during the decision making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Evaluative performance comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Interpretation of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Informed iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Simulation tools review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tool description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Simulation benchmark and database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Thermal comfort in hot climates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Renewable systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Decision support logic and sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Implementation, Interface, input, output and design flow and design continuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Results validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Usability testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

∗ Corresponding author at: Architecture et Climat, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Tel.: +32 0 10 47 23 34; fax: +32 0 10 47 21 50.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Attia).

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.028
 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 3

Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary of main findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Strength and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Comparison with existing tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Introduction On the other hand, the integration of BPS in the design of NZEB
is challenging, and requires making informed design decisions and
The modelling of net zero-energy buildings (NZEBs) is a chal- strategic analysis of many design solutions and parameter ranges
lenging problem of increasing importance. The NZEBs objective and simulating their performance. A recent study by the author
has raised the bar of building performance, and will change the [12], aiming at ranking BPS tools’ most important selection criteria,
way buildings are designed and constructed. During the coming showed that architects ranked intelligence above usability, inter-
years, the building design community at large will be galvanised by operability and accuracy, as shown in Fig. 3. Architects identified
mandatory codes and standards that aim to reach neutral or zero- intelligence as the BPS tools’ ability to inform the decision mak-
energy built environments [1–3]. At the same time, lessons from ing and allow decision making on building performance and cost.
practice show that designing a robust NZEB is a complex, costly Also architects indicated a lack of intelligence within the tools com-
and tedious task. The uncertainty of decision making for NZEBs is pared. The study revealed that architects and non-specialist users
high. Combining passive and active systems early on is a challenge, who want to design NZEBs frequently therefore find it difficult to
as is, more importantly, guiding designers towards the objective integrate BPS tools into the design process.
of energy and indoor comfort of NZEB. Table 1 shows the six main Therefore, in order to deliver NZEBs we must lower the barrier
building design aspects that designers should address early on dur- between building design and performance, ensuring the best guid-
ing the conceptual stage. The integration of such design aspects ance is available during the critical decision making stages of NZEB
during the early design phases is extremely complex, time consum- design. Architects’ decisions to design NZEBs should be informed.
ing and requires a high level of expertise, and software packages Research investigations in the literature describe the reasons for
that are not available. At this stage, the architects are in a constant these barriers, but little effort has been done to develop the required
search for a design direction to make an informed decision. Deci- methods and tools that can predict the building performance in
sions taken during this stage can determine the success or failure
of the design. In order to design and construct such buildings it
is important to assure informed decision making during the early
design phases for NZEBs. This includes the integration of building
performance simulation (BPS) tools early on in the design process
[4,5].
BPS is ideal to lower such barriers. BPS techniques can be
supportive when integrated early on in the architectural design
process. Simulation in theory handles dynamic and iterative
design investigations, which makes it effective for enabling new
knowledge, analytical processes, materials and component data,
standards, design details, etc., to be incorporated and made
accessible to practicing professionals. In the last ten years, the
BPS discipline has reached a high level of maturation, offering
a range of tools for building performance evaluation [6]. Most
importantly, they open the door to other mainstream specialism,
Fig. 1. Evolution of BPS Tools in the last 10 years.
including architects and smaller practices, during earlier design
phases.
However, despite the proliferation of BPS tools, the barriers are
still high. Despite the proliferation of simulation programs in the
last decade, there are no ready-to-use applications that cater specif-
ically for the hot climates and their comfort conditions. Current
design and decision support tools are inadequate to support and
inform the design of NZEBs, specifically during early design phases.
Most simulation tools are not able to adequately provide feedback
regarding the potential of passive and active design and technolo-
gies, nor the comfort used to accommodate these environmental
conditions [7]. Several studies show that current tools are inad-
equate, user hostile and too incomplete to be used by architects
during the early phases to design NZEBs [8–10]. Architects suf-
fer from BPS tool barriers during this decisive phase that is more
focused on addressing the building geometry and envelope. In fact,
architects are not on board concerning the use of BPS tools for NZEB
design. Out of the 392 BPS tool listed on the DOE website in 2011,
less than 40 tools are targeting architects during the early design
phases, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 [11]. Fig. 2. Classification of BPS Tools pre- and post-design decisions.
4 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

Table 1
The six main building design aspects of NZEBs design.

1. Metric There are several definitions for NZEBs that are based on energy, environmental or economic balance. Therefore, a
NZEB simulation tool must allow the variation of the balance metric
2. Comfort level and climate The net zero energy definition is very sensitive towards climate. Consequentially, designing NZEBs depends on the
thermal comfort level. Different comfort models, e.g. static model and the adaptive model, can influence the ‘net zero’
objective
3. Passive strategies Passive strategies are very fundamental in the design of NZEB including daylighting, natural ventilation, thermal mass
and shading
4. Energy efficiency By definition, a NZEB must be a very efficient building. This implies complying with energy efficiency codes and
standards and considering the building envelope performance, low infiltration rates, and reduce artificial lighting and
plug loads
5. Renewable energy systems (RES) RES are an integral part of NZEB that needs to be addressed early on in relation to building from addressing the panels’
area, mounting position, row spacing and inclination
6. Innovative solutions and technologies The aggressive nature of ‘net zero’ objective requires always implementing innovative and new solutions and
technologies

use and support the design decision making of buildings [10]. In are forced to expand their scope of responsibility beyond func-
order to overcome the barriers and achieve the aims identified ear- tion and aesthetics. The design process of small scale NZEBs, with
lier this research, a contextual decision support tool is proposed no energy specialist on board, shows that the design is not intu-
for NZEB design. This study is part of a larger research project itive and energy performance requirements must be determined
that aims to lower the barriers of integrating BPS during the early in the early design stages. Therefore, BPS tools are a fundamen-
phases in design. This paper presents a method and decision sup- tal part of the design process [13–15]. During early design phases,
port building simulation tool under development that can be used 20% of the design decisions taken subsequently influence 80% of
as a proactive guide in the early design stages of residential NZEB all design decisions [15]. In order to apply simulation during early
design in hot climates. The paper proposes a sensitivity approach design phases it is better to understand the current building design
method embedded in a tool to provide better guidance for design and delivery process of NZEBs, because the effectiveness of tools
decisions to deliver NZEBs. This is achieved through enabling sensi- are affected by the process. This section elaborates on previous
tivity analysis to inform the decision making and allowing a variety attempts at solving integration issues related to the NZEB design
of alternatives to be created in short time. delivery process and the use of simulation tools.
Section 2 presents an overview on the existing design pro-
cess and simulation tools for zero energy buildings. Then Section
NZEB design approaches
3 presents a tool description and mechanics. Section 4 is a case
study that includes the validation of the results and usability test-
A NZEB is a grid-connected and energy-efficient building that
ing. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the research findings and tools
balances its total annual energy needs by on-site generation
strength and weakness suggesting future improvements.
[16]. The main concern of NZEBs design is robustness through
the metric-based design or the performance-based design (PBD)
Design process and tools of NZEBs approaches. As formulated by Kalay, the PBD approach emphasises
the design decision making in relation to performance [17]. Similar
A building delivery process has traditionally been a discrete and to the evidence-based design (EBD) approach that emphasises the
sequential set of activities. Designers start with rules of thumb to importance of using credible data in order to influence the design
create a design, and then model it to verify its compliance with the process in healthcare architecture, the PBD has become a funda-
performance goals. If the proposed design did not meet the goals the mental approach to evaluate the energy performance of buildings
designers would go back and start again. This tedious trial and error in environmental architecture. Experience with constructed NZEBs
approach continues until finding the design that meets the perfor- shows that their design process is based on performance-based
mance conditions. However, the “net zero” objective is an energy decision making that effectively integrates, early on, all aspects
performance-based design goal that embraces the integration of of passive building design, energy efficiency, daylight autonomy,
energy-performance goals early in the design process. Architects comfort levels, renewable energy installations, HVAC solutions, in
addition to innovative solutions and technologies [13,18,19]. Thus,
evaluating different design combinations and parameters based on
their performance became an additional activity during the early
design stages of NZEBs. To put the design process of NZEBs in
perspective, designers have to meet with successive layering con-
straints with a performance-based objective, where “form follows
performance”. Designers have to define their work in a set of per-
formance criteria, rather than work out the design traditionally in
a prescriptive objective. The implications of the NZEB performance
based design approach on the design process are discussed in the
next paragraph.

Conceptual early design stages of NZEBs

The process of NZEBs design can be described as a successive lay-

ering of constraints on a building. Every new added decision, every
defined parameters, is just one more constraint on the designer. At
the start of the NZEBs design process the designer has many deci-
Fig. 3. Architects ranking the most important features of a simulation tool [14]. sions and a relatively open set of goals. By the end, the building
 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 5

Fig. 4. Barriers of decision making during early design stages.

is sharply defined and heavily constrained. For high performance Geometry representation in simulation tools
buildings high constraints are imposed due to environmental and Architects work in different ways through sketches, phys-
energetic requirements. The constraints provide useful anchor for ical models, 2D and 3D computer generated imagery, and
ideas. Conceptual early design stages of NZEBs can be divided into analytically–and thus have different requirements for representing
five sub-stages: (1) specifying performance criteria, (2) generating and communicating their design form.
ideas, (3) zones-layout design, (4) preliminary conceptual design,
and (5) detailed conceptual design. Sub-stages 2–5 do not always
follow a sequential linear order. The design process goes into a Filling input
cyclic progression between those sub-stages in which each sub- The representation of input parameters in the language of archi-
stage elaborates upon previous constraints. tects is a challenge in many tools. There is a clear separation
between architects design language and the building physics lan-
guage of most tools. This difference is often addressed by using
Barriers to integrating BPS during early design phases
reduced input parameters or using default values. However, filling
in the design parameters is an overlooked issue among BPS tools
Experience with post occupancy evaluation of constructed
developers.
NZEBs shows that the design of high-performance buildings is not
intuitive, and that BPS tools are a fundamental part of the design
process. The nature of the aggressive goals of NZEBs requires the Informative support during the decision making
early creation of energy models during pre-conceptual and concep- Design cannot easily predict the impact of decisions on build-
tual design phases. Recent studies on current barriers that face the ing performance and cost. The building delivery process of NZEB
integration of BPS tools into NZEBs design are summarised below requires instantaneous feedback and support to inform the decision
[13]. Fig. 4 illustrates the barriers of decision making during the making for passive and active design strategies. The disadvantage
early design stages of NZEBs design. of most existing tools is that they operate as post design evaluation
6 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

tools. Therefore, the informative support should be comprehensive group named “evaluation tools” as shown in Table 2. The examples
enough to include geometry and envelope and systems. in Table 2 are meant to be indicative, not exhaustive.
Evaluation tools include energy analysis computer tools.
Evaluative performance comparisons Although by being evaluative they produce results that do not
During the early design stages the benchmarking and the pos- actually provide any direct guidance as to how the NZEB design
sibility to compare alternatives is more important than evaluating should be improved or the performance objective achieved. The
absolute values. The ideas generation phase is iterative and com- use of evaluation tools in NZEB design is based on a post-decision
parative. Most existing tools do not emulate this process and focus trial and error approach, where the simulation results are com-
on post-design evaluation. pared to a desired value. If the results are not satisfactory the
design is modified and the process is repeated. This approach is
Interpretation of results cumbersome, tedious, and costly and forces architects to rely on
The representation of simulation output and its interpreta- simulation experts during the early design stages. Recently, some
tion is frequently reported as a barrier among architects [10,14]. plug-ins were developed to facilitate the geometry input and link
Analytical results presented in tables of numbers or graphs are architectural forms of visualisation and 3D representation with the
often too complex and detailed, providing an excessive amount evaluation tools. However, evaluative tools embed most integration
of information. The output representation often lacks variety and barriers discussed in Section 2.3.
visual qualities. Analysis and simulation results should be displayed However, during the last decade, a range of design tools has
within the context of the 3D geometric model [20]. been available to help architects in the design of more energy effi-
cient buildings. Those tools are labelled “guidance tools”, which
Informed iteration were developed to facilitate decision making prior to design. They
The most important barrier facing architects is cycling informed range from quite simple pre-decision evaluation and analysis tools
iterations for concept development and optimisation. In the past, to parametric and optimisation decision tools that aim to inform
architects iterated back on the design for functional and aesthetical the design and integrate BPS during the early design process.
optimisation purposes. For NZEBs they have to iterate for perfor- However, Table 2 shows that most developed guidance tools are
mance optimisation purposes. This requires an understanding of pre-decision evaluative tools. Despite their remarkable capabilities,
building physics and performance. Architects need fundamental most those tools have not been transferred effectively to the archi-
understanding of basic building physics that allows them to inter- tectural community, and in particular architects during the early
pret the simulation feedback and drive them to iterate back to the design stages. The uptake of most those tools among architects is
concept. very low, and does not allow continuity with the design process
[10,22–24]. While they are quite useful to lower the “input fill-
ing” barrier, they could not lower the “informative support during
Simulation tools review
the decision making” barrier. Currently, few non-public tools exist
that support design pre-decisions, including jEPlus and iDbuild that
Almost no current tool addresses the design of NZEBs for
allow parametric analysis or BEopt that allows optimisation analy-
architects during early design phases [21]. NZEBs design strategy
sis [25,26]. The potential of parametric tools is very high to bridge
addresses a design duo: first maximum energy efficiency and then
the “informative support” barrier because they can provide con-
the delivery of energy required from renewable systems. Almost no
structive feedback with very little iterations, and at the same time
tool listed in Table 2 helps to answer this. A critical look at the exist-
allow a wide range of solution space. In contrast to optimisation
ing tools in relation to the NZEBs design process shows that several
tools that reduces the solution space to a minimum.
barriers exist in integrating the current BPS at this stage. There-
In order to address these shortcomings, we identified the
fore, future tools should allow both strategies in order to develop
requirements of a tool that can be used for the design of NZEBs
NZEBs and supplement the intuitiveness of the design process with
during early design processes. The author conducted a survey, com-
analytical techniques and simulation methods.
parison study and workshops on the use of BPS by architects for
Over the last few decades, a large number of BPS tools have
NZEB design in Egypt [27]. The guidelines of the new tool can be
been developed to help engineers during late design phases. Such
summarised as follows:
tools were developed to produce data concerning buildings’ numer-
ical modelling, simulating the performance of real buildings. Those
energy BPS tools require a complicated representation of the build-
ing alternatives that require specific and numerical attributes of the • Provide better guidance for design decisions to deliver NZEB in
building and its context. Those tools can be classified under a main hot climates

Table 2
Classification of BPS tools allowing design evaluation and design guidance.

Evaluative Informative

Support (Technique) Post-decision Evaluative Geometry Plug-in Pre-decision Evaluative (Para & Pre-decision Informative Pre-decision Informative
Opt.) (Parametric)
Iterations High High Medium Low Low
Renewable systems EnergyPlus TRNSYS OpenStudio SolarShoeBox DesignBuilder BeOPT
Energy efficiency Esp-r IES VE-Ware Energy 10 jEPlus OptiPlus
IES VE Vasari iDbuild OptiMaison
MIT Advisor
BDA
Desgin Inent
HEED
Solar House
Sunrel
Daylighting & Facades SunTools COMFEN NewFacades Lightsolve
Diva
 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 7

• Enable sensitivity analysis to inform decision making and allow appliances in respect to buildings layout and construction. The
a variety of alternatives to be created in short time benchmark simulation models were verified against the utility bills
• The comfort range criteria and design strategies can be adjusted and field survey data for 1500 apartments in Alexandria, Cairo and
to respond to local definitions of indoor comfort, local construc- Asyut.
tion systems and local code requirements For ZEBO a simple multi-dimensional rectangular zone was cre-
• Improve accessibility to decision tools for small practices ated to represent mechanically cooled apartment units. Despite the
• Integrate the new tool with sufficiently established, accurate limitation of this reduction or abstraction of the underlying model,
tools the tool coupled the model to the Egyptian climatic and urban con-
• Match the cyclic design iterations and extend the scope of tools text. The selected model is shown in Fig. 8 and allows maximum
to the conceptual phases of the design process design flexibility for a range of architectural early design parame-
• Allow connectivity with established tools used by different dis- ters, including the sites’ urban density and climatic conditions. The
ciplines and in later design stages. input parameters and output options are discussed in Section 3.5.
• Very easy to use and to learn, and adaptable for the less experi- Moreover, ZEBO is based on a knowledge base system that embeds
enced with minimum input the recommendations of the Egyptian Residential Energy Standard
ECP306-2005 I [31,32]. The prescriptive recommendations of the
In order to support decision making during the early design standards are translated into input default values depending on
phases it is important to include an informative tool for the early the selected site location and code. Also a self-developed materials
design phases that can model the complexity of the design. An library is embedded that allows the combination of the most com-
energy simulation tool, ZEBO, was developed to help architects dis- mon material constructions in Egypt, including glazing, insulation,
cover parameters that would achieve a zero energy building and and wall and roof construction.
inform them about the sensitivity of each parameter. The interface
for ZEBO was built on the above mentioned guidelines. How the Thermal comfort in hot climates
proposed tool intends to achieve these goals is explained in the
following sections. Designing NZEBs depend on the expected thermal comfort level.
In Egypt comfort is adaptive and mechanical equipment such as
Tool description ceiling fans are used mainly for occupancy satisfaction. It is known
that air movement affects both convective and evaporative heat
In response to the barriers, requirements, and expectations losses from the human body, and thus influence the thermal com-
identified in Section 2, a prototype of the proposed decision sup- fort and consequently influence the ‘net zero’ objective. For ZEBO
port tool was developed. The tool is a conceptual model for software we chose Givoni’s comfort method [33] that allows adaptive com-
under development called “ZEBO” that aims to address these short- fort boundaries in relation to the increase of air movement by
comings and test the validity of the method proposed in Section turning on fan or opening windows. As shown in Fig. 8, a psychro-
2 [28]. The tool allows for sensitivity analysis of possible varia- metric chart allows the visualisation of outdoor or indoor dry bulb
tions of NZEB design parameters and elements during the early temperature and relative humidity area temperature. The chart
design phases in hot climates. Its added value resides in its abil- can be used prior to, or after, design to estimate the necessity of
ity to inform the decision prior to the decision making for NZEBs installing an acclimatisation system. The chart can also estimate
design. The tool is contextual and is based on an embedded bench- the impact of mechanically assisted ventilation using, e.g., ceiling
mark model and database for Egyptian residential buildings, which fans in relation to forced wind speeds ranging from 0.5 to 2 m/s
includes local materials and construction and allows the generation as a desirable strategy for unconditioned buildings in hot climates.
of code complying design alternatives (see Fig. 6). This leads the designer to start thinking about the effectiveness
The initial target audience of ZEBO is architects and architec- of his or her passive design strategies in relation to active cooling
tural students with little experience in building energy efficiency. system. The chart can visualise impact of any parameter change
The tool can be used by architects to lower the barrier to design on thermal comfort opposite to many simulation tools that are
NZEBs during the early conceptual phases. Typically, architects pro- unable to adequately simulate human thermal comfort as well as
duce several design alternatives in the conceptual design phases. the acclimatization mechanical equipments such as ceiling fans in
Thus this is the moment where the tool should be applied to assess hot climates.
the energy performance and energy generation potential for each
design solution by studying the effect of the variation of different Renewable systems
design parameters ranges. ZEBO also allows for comparative energy
evaluations. Lessons learned from practice show the importance of inform-
ing architects with active system requirements to integrate them in
Simulation benchmark and database the envelope and become a basic part of the NZEB design concept.
Therefore, an extra integral module of ZEBO allows the estimation
One of the challenges to developing the tool was to implement a of the energy generation and required photovoltaic and solar water
representative benchmark or reference building for dwellings. The heater panel area. The solar active tool module is based on earlier
benchmark should represent Egyptian flat apartments in narrow research by the author [28] and informs the decision making on
front housing blocks. For this study we selected a benchmark based the physical integration within the building envelope, addressing
on a recent research, conducted by the author [29,30], to develop the panels’ area, mounting position, row spacing and inclination.
a benchmark models for the Egyptian residential buildings sector. The idea of this module is to inform the designer as early as pos-
The benchmark represents different settings of apartments that can sible on the spatial and physical implication of the NZEB objective.
be constructed in a detached, semidetached, or attached form. It The renewable system module is an implementation of simulation
was assumed to represent apartments in high urban densities of results that estimate the average performance of a PV system in dif-
Egyptian cities, incorporating surrounding buildings and streets. ferent locations and positions in Egypt. The simulation-generated
The benchmark developed by Attia et al. describes the energy data was matched with real measurements obtained from the lit-
use profiles for air-conditioners, lighting, domestic hot water and erature.
8 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

the panel efficiency and/or nominal peak power. For every question,
the user has to choose between different answers, corresponding
to the various simulated cases. Instead of communicating those
results in the form of textual/numerical data a graphical interac-
tive interface is developed to convey the design guidelines in an
visual way. The results are then compiled into performance graphs
as shown in Fig. 6.

Decision support logic and sensitivity analysis

The use of sensitivity analysis prior to the decision making rep-

resents an informative approach for the robustness of the design
decision in relation to energy consumption and comfort. Based
on the feedback obtained from the sensitivity analysis results, the
design decision is supported in relation to the possibilities of the
parameter range. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis is a method
that enables designers to take energy and comfort conscious deci-
sions to reach the final performance goal. For the tool, a global
sensitivity analysis was undertaken to investigate the most early
design parameters and their ranges [34,35]. Fig. 5 illustrates the
method used for the development of the tool. The designers inves-
tigates the sensitivity of a single parameter and its consequences
on energy saving, energy generation or comfort. The sensitivity
analysis result shows the whole parameter range and provides a
pre-decision overview of the parameter range and intervals. The
designer makes decisions based on this overview, and specifies
a perturbation. Based on the compliance with the rules set, the
designer can then repeat the process with other parameters before
combining all perturbations and running a complete evaluation.
ZEBO allows sensitivity analysis to illustrate how variations
in building design parameters can affect the comfort and energy
performance. In fact, sensitivity design environments provide an
Fig. 5. Tool workflow scheme. opportunity to inform the decision making. Therefore, the tool
depends on the parametric pre-processor, a recent addition to
EnergyPlus utilities that allows the accomplishment of sensitivity
To identify the input parameters 5 mandatory questions are analysis. The parametric objects of EnergyPlus can be used in a sin-
asked on two successive screens shown in Fig. 6. On the first screen gle file as an alternative to maintaining a group of files with small
users are asked to select a city, module type and mounting posi- differences. The user effectuates a series of simulations cloning the
tion. The second screen asks for input regarding panel orientation same IDF file but including all discrete intervals of a predefined
(azimuth angle) and inclination. There are two additional elective parameter range, just by clicking the sensitivity analysis button.
questions on screen two that allow users to input values regarding The Run Batch will run different simulations using the IDF input file.

Fig. 6. The flowchart of ZEBO.

 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 9

The user is then provided with a graph that shows the variation in illustrates an example of the output graphics. For each case, the
annual energy performance in relation to the parameter intervals’ ZEBO output screen displays the results in three different graphs:
range, in a way it can become an immediate yet comprehensive the outdoor temperatures graph located in the upper right corner
support to make informed design decisions. of the screen, the monthly end use graph in the bottom right side,
and the energy consumption breakdown graph on the bottom left
Implementation, Interface, input, output and design flow and side of the screen.
design continuation

Case study
ZEBO can accept input data required by the later phase tool Ener-
gyPlus v6 and run a simulation with its engine [36]. EnergyPlus is a
In order to test the validity and usability of the tool we took two
whole-building energy performance simulation tool developed by
measures. First use a case study as an example how a hypothetical
the US Department of Energy. EnergyPlus is the next generation of
design concept would be developed and to discuss how the results
BPS tool that is under constant development and offers advanced
generated by the tool are sufficiently accurate for the NZEB design.
simulation capabilities. The software is a free open source tool that
Second use a usability testing study.
allows third-party graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Therefore, Ener-
gyPlus was selected because it can be used in a cyclical process that
allows continuity with the design process using the same input files. Case study
The tool is based on a one page interface that communicates with
EnergyPlus via the input and output format that are in ASCII format. To test the validity of the proposed tool of ZEBO, we present
ZEBO creates an IDF input file and the simulation runs the Energy- a hypothetical design example for an apartment in narrow front
Plus engine through a “RUN” batch-file. The simulation results are housing block in Cairo. The first step is to create a basecase in
then generated in different formats, mainly HTML and CSV files. ZEBO. The user selects a building type, and the weather file for
The tool uses EnergyPlus’s IDF format that allows connectivity with Cairo, a Typical Meteorological Year (TMY2) weather file. Then
established tools used by different disciplines and in later design the user has to select the targeted standard for minimum perfor-
stages. ZEBO extracts the required output and presents them graph- mance. The choice of standard determines many of the defaults
ically on the same page. The programming language was written in and assumptions that go into the simulation model. The tool is cur-
Visual Basic 2008. rently limited to the Residential Energy Standard ECP306-2005-I.
To address the NZEB objective, the interface first addresses the For this case the Egyptian standard was chosen. The tool then auto-
passive design strategies and then the active design strategies. The matically loads a complete EnergyPlus input file for a single zone
overall conceptual flowchart is illustrated in Fig. 6. Upon clicking with complete geometry description that complies with the Egyp-
the execution file, ZEBO opens the main page of the interface as tian building energy and thermal indoor environment standard. The
shown in Fig. 8. Input options are categorised on the upper left user can change the building geometry, including the height, floor
of the GUI, and are listed in Fig. 7. Input categories are divided into plan dimensions and number of floors in the building, in addition
eight groups: weather file, orientation, zone dimensions, north and to the other input parameters mentioned earlier. However, for this
south window width and type, shading devices and dimensions, case study we chose not to make any changes and run the default
wall type, wall insulation type and thickness, and roof insulation file to create a basecase according to Table 3.
type and thickness. The weather file is selected by a pull down The second step, after viewing the simulation results for the
menu. The file is an EPW file type for eleven Egyptian cities down- basecase (Fig. 8), is performing sensitivity analysis. The designer is
loaded from the DOE EnergyPlus weather file library [36]. Once the encouraged to run sensitivity analysis for any selected parameter.
weather file is selected, the standard requirements of the chosen This step introduces designers to the impact of varying the param-
location are automatically set as default values, allowing the cre- eter values prior to the decision making. The sensitivity analysis
ation of the baseline case [30]. The user is then allowed to change results form the basis for informed decision making. Opposite to
the parameter input without exceeding the minimum standard the classical design approach, where simulation is used as a post-
requirement. decision evaluative tool, the designer is informed on the impact of
The main purpose of the passive design intervention is to reduce his or her decision prior to the decision making (Fig. 9).
the cooling demand. For example, the building can be rotated into In this case study we chose to examine the wall construction
eight directions every 45◦ . Three horizontal scroll bars allow the type. Upon selecting the PA checkbox next to the Wall Construction
modification of the height, length and depth of the housing or office Type a new window pops up to asking the user to confirm his choice,
unit. Designers can define windows. They can check the window which will require the running of 8 files for at least 2 min. Upon con-
option and modify the window width and type. Eleven different firmation, the results are generated by EnergyPlus and the output
window types can be chosen representing arrangements of typ- is presented as shown in Fig. 10. Based on the sensitivity analysis
ical Egyptian window types in addition to more energy efficient results, the designer is encouraged to select the most energy saving
types. It is possible to define the horizontal shading options and wall construction type. Based on the two sensitivity analysis graphs
determining the shading device locations and dimensions above in Fig. 10, the user can see the impact of the different construction
the windows. Also the wall section can be selected, including the types, and hence will probably select the wall construction type
wall type, insulation material and insulation thickness. At the end (7) with the lowest energy consumption (U value = 0.4 W/m2 K for
of this process, and prior to pressing the EnergyPlus button, the tool basecase wall). Once the output is displayed, the user can move
will update the EnergyPlus input file with the input parameters. on to the photovoltaic tool module. This step is done as a last step
The active design intervention can be done as a last step as it where five inputs (location, PV type, panel tilt, panel orientation,
depends on the total energy consumed (see Section 3.3). The solar panel efficiency) are requested to optimise the electrical yield [36].
active module allows the selection of different parameters includ- Thus ZEBO allows the designers to explore further parameter
ing the PV panel type, panel tilt, panel orientation, panel efficiency variations while indicating the optimal value in relation to energy
and mounting to optimise the electrical yield. Once the simulation consumption. The designer then makes an informed design deci-
has been run, the output graphics are displayed upon clicking on sion and enters the decision as an input and reruns the whole
any of the 11 output buttons illustrated in Fig. 8. Graphs are gen- simulation. On the same screen the total energy consumption
erated by reading the CSV output file using Excel macros. Fig. 8 can be compared to the reference case results Fig. 11. ZEBO also
10 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

Fig. 7. Reference model and output plots.

Fig. 8. Interface for ZEBO and reference model and output plots.

Fig. 9. Annual electric yield of amorphous, polycrystalline and mono-crystalline panels.

 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 11

Fig. 10. Reference model and output plots including sensitivity analysis results.

Fig. 11. model and output plots for design alternatives comparison.
12 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

Table 3
Reference model and output plots.

Building description Basecase 1 Parametric range

Orientation 0◦ 0◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ , 135◦ , 180◦ ,

225◦ , 270◦ , 315◦
Shape Rectangular 12 × 10, 12 × 11,
(12 m × 10 m) 12 × 12, 10 × 10
Floor height 3 m height 3, 4
Number of floors 1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Volume 360 m3 NA
External wall area 72 m2 NA
Overhang None 0.0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2
Fin None 0.0,0.3,0.5,0.8,1.0,1.5
Roof area 120 m2 NA
Floor area 120 m2 NA
Windows area 28 m2 NA
Window wall ratio WWR 45% 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25,
20, 15
Exterior wall U-value W/m2 K 2, 1.8, 1.6, 1.4, 1.2, 1,
0.8, 0.6, 0.4
Roof U-value 1.4 W/m2 K 1,4, 1.2, 1, 0,8, 0.6
Floor U-value W/m2 K 1.4, 1.2, 1
Single clear glazing Tv = 0.9 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5,
Fig. 12. Mean time per task.
0.4, 0.3
SHGC 0.75 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25
People density 0.033 people/m2 NA iteration included two test types. The first was a satisfaction simple
Lighting power density 6 W/m2 NA
paper-based usability questionnaire. System Usability Scale (SUS),
Plug loads 7 W/m2 NA
Outside air 20 (m3 /h per person) NA as defined by the standard, was used to enhance and validate the
Infiltration 0.7 ach NA tool [37]. To guarantee the internal validity of the test a set of 10
HVAC type On-Split + separate NA ordinary (pre-defined) SUS questions were used. The analysis of the
Cooling COP ventilation NA responses was based on the reporting framework [38]. The second
Thermal comfort model 2.00 NA
was a usability metric testing, measuring the task success. The aim
Cooling set point (◦ C) Givoni NA
Relative humidity (%) 24 NA was to measure how effectively users are able to complete a given
Fan efficiency (%) 60 NA set of tasks. Two different types of task success were used: binary
Water heater (%) 70 NA success and levels of success as shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
PV type Amorph, mchrist, NA
The usability iteration for ZEBO prototype 1 took place in August
pchrist
PV surface 0–100 NA 2010 with 27 users comprising architects, architectural engineers
Cell efficiency 6–14% NA and architectural students. The results were published in a previ-
Inverter efficiency None NA ous publication and are shown in Fig. 14 [28]. A paper based survey
was conducted using Likert scale. Users have expressed their agree-
ment with the questionnaire questions on a scale ranging from 1 to
allows the architect to easily make multiple informed decisions at
5 (1 = ’strongly disagree’ – 5 = strongly agree’). Scores were added
once and run the simulation button. EnergyPlus actuates the latest
and the total was multiplied by 2.5. A mean score was computed
changes and the result is presented.
out of the chosen responses with a range between 0 and 100. The
highest the score the more usable the website is. Any value around
Results validity
60 and above is considered as good usability. As shown in Fig. 14,
the first prototype scored a good usability for nine questions, how-
By examining the results of the basecase simulation the con-
ever for the last question, participants indicated that they needed
sumption was 19.85/kWh/m2 /year (U value = 1.78 W/m2 K for wall
to understand how the ZEBO worked in order to get going. Addi-
construction 1). Based on the sensitivity results shown in Fig. 10
tionally, every participant was interviewed after conducting the
the wall construction with the lowest energy consumption was
selected. Accordingly the energy consumption was reduced around
16% to reach 16.61/kWh/m2 /year (U value = 0.421 W/m2 K for wall
construction 7). Compared to the 8 wall constructions the wall con-
struction 7, comprising a 125 mm double wall with 50 mm glass
wool insulation, had the best energy performance. This result is
consistent with the findings of [29] for low energy design. The case
results shows that the tool decision support bring significant sav-
ings without any time for design iterations. This helps to extend
the application of sensitivity analysis to guide the decision making
before the building is designed using appropriate energy principles.

Usability testing

The main objective from the testing and evaluation was to assess
the usability of the interface and the ability of decision making by
performing usability tests on the different prototype versions. Two
main iterations of usability testing have been carried out during
the development of prototype 1 and 2 of ZEBO. This was done to
achieve feedback from designers and potential users. Each usability Fig. 13. Binary success data for performing simulation.
 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 13

Fig. 14. Usability testing of ZEBO prototype 1 using system usability scale.

Fig. 15. Usability testing of ZEBO prototype 2 using system usability scale.

usability testing to follow up and get a valuable understanding of passive deign strategy. However, the post usability testing inter-
the tools’ limitations. The feedback was incorporated in the ZEBO views revealed other limitations. For example, many users
prototype 2 and followed by a second usability testing. indicated their unfamiliarity with the tool’s assumptions and were
The second usability testing round was achieved during the uncertain about communicating the tool results with their clients.
organization of four design workshops of Zero Energy Buildings in Some users found the benchmark very useful but preferred to use
Cairo conducted in January 2011. Four users’ focus groups tested other more comprehensive tools beside ZEBO. Other suggested
the tool. Three testing groups comprising architects, architectural using the tool as an educational tool. Also users suggested a better
engineers and architectural students (62 users) were handed a list guidance on the tool use. Many users suggested using the tool with
of tasks showing the required actions. After installing ZEBO, every an expert guidance or as an educational tool. Another main reser-
user was shown a short tutorial video [39] illustrating the ele- vation many users had was the difficulty to interpret and explain
ments of the interface and their meaning. Fig. 15 illustrates the the output results. This had a direct influence on respondents’ con-
users’ feedback after compiling the 62 responses. In general, the fidence in the results and the reliability of the tool’s results to
prototype usability was improved when compared to prototype communicate them with the client. The results of this usability test-
1. Participants seemed more confident to use the tool, 85 percent ing will be embedded in next prototype and expanded to a more
compared to 72 percent, after adding the sensitivity analysis fea- formal case study design in the near future.
ture. This resulted in participants scoring higher for the use of ZEBO
more regularly (75 percent compared to 62 percent). Also the tool Discussion and conclusion
complexity was reduced by almost 10 percent which resulted in
easier of use (78 percent compared to 68 percent). Also the need to Summary of main findings
understand how the tool worked was improved exceeding the 60
percent threshold of good use. The simulation-based design support tool was found to pro-
From the analysis some main strengths and limitations were mote informed decision making for zero energy building design
revealed. Overall, the reactions were particular positive on the tools during early design stages. It increased the knowledge about the
effectiveness. From the analysis it emerged that there is a great zero energy building design lessened the uncertainty of decision
potential for the interface. From the open questions and post test- making. Participants who used ZEBO reported a high level of
ing interviews users appreciated the embedded benchmark and the knowledge and operated their design from an informative deci-
ability to size and simulate the renewable system. Respondents sion support approach rather than an evaluative trial and error
were also particularly enthusiastic about the sensitivity analysis approach. This congruence between decision making and design
feature that supports the decision making intuitively and reduce objective in the context of higher knowledge accords with our
the number of design iterations for each parameter and total design. definition of informed decision making of ZEB design. However,
Having comfort evaluation expressed through the psychrometric based on the interface usability testing the current prototype has
chart for forced wind speeds (ranging from 0.5 to 2 m/s) seemed not reached a usability level that satisfied the needs of designers.
extremely helpful to easily interpret the weather and they found As such, the tool is a starting point for the development of widely
great value in connecting comfort with weather and desirable usable tool.
14 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15

Strength and limitations current state has significant limitations and designers will still
require more information in order to make informed decision. For
This is the first simulation based decision support tool for early better usability, the tool can include a fully visual input inter-
stages of zero energy building design in Egypt. The tools’ strength is face and allowing users to add new building templates for new
its capacity to inform design prior to decision making, while man- building types or case studies. It can have T-shape, H-Shape, U-
aging large sensitivity simulations and presenting complex data shape and courtyard shaped templates, or even better integrate an
in easily comprehensible, fast and comparative formats. Basing OpenGL modeller. Also the interface can be expanded to include
the tools on a representative benchmark for Egyptian residential more building systems and components, especially different enve-
building and local building components and system linked to a lope types and cooling systems at different cities in Egypt using
detailed simulation engine like EnergyPlus is reinforcing the tools suitable COPs (coefficient of performance). Also the scope of the
result validity and certainty in decision making. The tool is easy tool can be extended further to achieve the net zero objective for
to use, with an interface structure that is based on matching the existing buildings or on a larger scale (cluster or neighbourhood).
passive and active design strategies for the net zero objectives. The Concerning the usability testing the study will address the tool
tool can help achieve the energy performance goal while exploring efficiency and effectiveness as a complementary testing to the
different ranges of a thermal comfort in hot climates to achieve satisfaction testing. On the level of decision support further devel-
the performance objective. ZEBO’s strength is in its capacity to opments of the tool can incorporate economic indices to achieve
reduce decision conflict and the need for tedious design iterations net zero energy cost effectively. The tool can be linked to optimi-
to achieve the performance objective, while creating a variety of sation algorithms too. This can create more viable alternatives and
alternatives in a short time, which match the early design cyclic allows the exploration of a wider search space for complex designs.
explorations and iterations. Better informed decisions, especially This development can include economy and cost, which may be
at the earliest conceptual design phases, will improve the design of of interest for designers, researchers, energy legislators and policy
NZEBs. It is hoped that several design trials, currently in progress makers.
using the tool, will allow a greater impact on architects’ decision
making and actual design outcomes, and enable integration of BPS
Acknowledgements
tools to proceed further than the decision support level reached in
this study.
This paper is an update and expansion of two papers authored
However, the tool in its current state can hardly attract large
by Shady Attia et al. entitled “Decision design tool for zero energy
enough numbers of users. The usability testing results revealed that
buildings” presented at the PLEA conference in 2011 and “Sizing
the tool seems more useful if used with the support of an expert to
photovoltaic systems during early design a decision tool for archi-
use ZEBO or in the hands of an educator for design exploration. Also
tects” presented at ASES 2010.
the decision making support of current prototype can only handle
The author would like to acknowledge Architecture et Climat
energy issues while many users expect other environmental and
and in particular Cédric Hermand and Stéphanie Salawa. Also
economical indices. One of the main limitations identified during
Aurélie Le Noire from the the Université de la Réunion, France. The
the workshops was the geometry and non-geometric input. Users
authors thank Mohamed Hamdy (Aalto University) for comments
suggested links to Google SketchUp for geometry input and user
on earlier versions of this article. This paper is part of an ongoing
interface improvements to insert input visually (not numerical or
PhD research funded by the Université catholique de Louvain.
textual). Similarly the tool is limited to its own library of a generic
rectangular single-zone template with few alternatives for building
components and systems. References

Comparison with existing tools [1] Task 40/Annex 52, Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings, IEA SHC Task
40 and ECBCS Annex 52, http://www.iea-shc.org/task40/index.html, 2008
(accessed 10.10.10).
This discussion builds on earlier software review (Section 2.4) [2] European Parliament. Report on the proposal for a directive of the European
that has provided a snapshot on the currently available BPS tools. Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast)
(COM(2008)0780-C6-0413/2008-2008/0223(COD)), 2009.
According to the literature, there are few tools that inform design
[3] ASHRAE, AHSRAE Vision 2020, ASHRAE Vision 2020 Ad Hoc Com-
prior to the decision making for early design stages, [24,26] and mittee, http://www.ashrae.org/doclib/20080226 ashraevision2020.pdf, 2008
in the same time addresses the zero energy objective, combining (accessed 10.10.10).
passive and active design strategies. The suggested tool is a para- [4] R. Charron, A. Athienitis, I. Beausoleil-Morrison, A Tools for the design of zero
energy solar homes, ASHRAE, in: Annual meeting, vol. 112(2), Chicago, 2006,
metric tool that can provide support decision making with very pp. 285–295.
little iterations while addressing the zero-energy objective. [5] S. Hayter, P. Torcellini, et al. The energy design process for designing and
A recent publication by the author proves that most existing constructing high-performance buildings, Clima 2000/Napoli 2001 World
Congress, 2001.
informative tools are exclusively local serving certain countries’ [6] J. Hensen, R. Lamberts (Eds.), Building Performance Simulation for Design and
context [21]. In fact, most BPS tools are developed in heat- Operation, Spon Press, London, 2011.
ing dominated countries. They cater for developed countries [7] D. Crawley, et al., Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance
simulation programs, Building and Environment 43 (4) (2008) 661–673.
with high energy consumption patterns and different expecta- [8] K. Lam, Y. Huang, Q. Zhai, Energy modelling tools assessment for early design
tions for comfort. The main barriers in using those tools are phase. Research report prepared for Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Port-
related to the availability and compatibility of input data including land, 2004, 77 p.
[9] G. Riether, T. Butler, Simulation space. A new design environment for architects,
weather, comfort models, building benchmarks, renewable sys-
in: M. Muylle (Ed.), 26th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Antwerp, Belgium,
tems, and operational characteristics. None of these tools, however, 2008.
addressed the zero-energy target in a context of hot climate devel- [10] S. Attia, L. Beltrán, A. De Herde, J. Hensen, Architect friendly: a comparison of
ten different building performance simulation tools, in: Proceedings of the 11th
oping country as in our tool.
International IBPSA Conference, Scotland, Glasgow, 2009.
[11] DOE, U.S., Building Energy Software Tools Directory (online). Available
Future research from: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools directory/, 2011 (accessed
01.03.11).
[12] S. Attia, et al., Selection criteria for building performance simulation tools:
ZEBO is a starting point to provide better guidance for design contrasting architects’ and engineers’ needs’, Journal of Building Performance
decisions to deliver NZEBs in hot climates. The tool in its Simulation (2011), First published on: 12 April 2011 (iFirst).
 S. Attia et al. / Energy and Buildings 49 (2012) 2–15 15

[13] A. Athienitis, S. Attia, et al., Strategic design, optimization, and modelling issues [26] Y. Zhang, I. Korolija, Performing complex parametric simulations with jEPlus,
of net-zero energy solar buildings, in: EuroSun, Graz, 2010. in: 9th SET Conference Proceedings, Shanghai, China, 2010.
[14] M. Donn, et al., Simulation in the service of design–asking the right questions, [27] S. Attia, M. Hamdy, M. Samaan, A. De Herde, J. Hensen, Towards strategic use
in: Proceedings of IBPSA, Glasgow, 2009, pp. 1314–1321. of BPS tools in Egypt, in: International Building Performance Simulation Asso-
[15] U. Bogenstätter, Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design, ciation, November 2011, Sydney, Australia, 2011.
Building Research & Information 28 (5) (2000) 376–386. [28] S. Attia, A. De Herde, Design Decision Tool for Zero Energy Buildings, in: Passive
[16] A. Marszal, et al., Zero energy building – a review of dentitions and calculation and Low Energy Architecture, July, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium, 2011.
methodologies, Energy Buildings (2011). [29] S. Attia, A. De Herde, Strategic Decision Making For Zero Energy Buildings in
[17] Y. Kalay, Performance-based design, Automation in Construction 8 (4) (1999) Hot Climates, in: EuroSun 2010, Graz, Austria, 2010.
395–409. [30] S. Attia, et al., Development of benchmark models for the Egyptian residential
[18] K. Molenaar, N. Sobin, et al., Sustainable high performance projects and project buildings sector, Appl Energy (2012), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.065.
delivery methods: a state of the-practice report, report, Charles Pankow [31] HBRC, Egyptian code for energy efficiency improvement in buildings [in Arabic],
Research Foundation, CPF Thrust-I report, 2009. ECP306, 2005, Cairo: HBRC.
[19] S. Korkmaz, et al., Influence of project delivery methods on achieving sus- [32] J. Huang, et al., The development of residential and commercial building energy
tainable high performance buildings: report on case studies, report, Charles standards for Egypt, in: Energy Conservation in Buildings Workshop Proceed-
Pankow Research Foundation, CPF Thrust-I report, 2010. ings, Kuwait, 2003, pp. 1–16.
[20] A. Marsh, Performance analysis and Concept design: The parallel needs of [33] B. Givoni, Comfort climate analysis and building design guidelines, Energy and
classroom & office, Welsh School of Architecture. Between Research and Buildings 18 (1) (1992).
Practice Conference, ARCC and EAAE Transactions on Architectural Educa- [34] H. Hansen, Sensitivity analysis as a methodological approach to the devel-
tion, Dublin (online). Available from: http://companyshed.com/1023649200/ opment of design strategies for environmentally sustainable buildings,
documents/2004 ARCC.pdf, 2004 (accessed 01.03.11). PhD Dissertation, Department of architecture, Aalborg University, Denmark,
[21] S. Attia, A. De Herde, Early design simulation tools for net zero energy buildings: 2007.
a comparison of ten tools, in: International Building Performance Simulation [35] C. Hopfe, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building performance simula-
Association, November 2011, Sydney, Australia, 2011. tion for decision support and design optimisation, PhD Dissertation, Technical
[22] C. Ochoa, G. Capeluto, Advice tool for early design stages of intelligent facades University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2009.
based on energy and visual comfort approach, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) [36] DOE. EnergyPlus version 6 (online). Available from: http://apps1.eere.
480–488. energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/, 2011 (accessed January 2011).
[23] W. O’Brien, A. Athienitis, T. Kesik, The development of solar house design tool, [37] ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display
in: 11th IBPSA Conference 2009, Glasgow, 2009, pp. 1397–1404. terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability, International Organization
[24] S. Petersen, S. Svendsen, Method and simulation program informed decisions for Standardization, 1998.
in the early stages of building design, Energy and Buildings 42 (7) (2010) [38] ANSI/INCITS 354-2001: Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability Test
1113–1119. Reports became a Standard December 2001.
[25] C. Christensen, S. Horowitz, G. Barker, BEopt: Software for Identifying Optimal [39] S. Attia, ZEBO Tutorial Video 1 (online) http://www.youtube.com/
Building Designs on the Path to Zero Net Energy, ISES, Orlando, Florida, ISES, watch?v=zJLYzuL7yjg, 2011 (accessed September 2011).
2005.