Comparing Methodology of Building Energy Analysis - Comparative Analysis from steady-state simulation to data-driven Analysis -

건물에너지 분석 방법론 비교 - Steady-state simulation에서부터 Data-driven 방법론의 비교 분석 -

  • Cho, Sooyoun (Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University) ;
  • Leigh, Seung-Bok (Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2017.08.29
  • Accepted : 2017.09.30
  • Published : 2017.10.31


Purpose: Because of the growing concern over fossil fuel use and increasing demand for greenhouse gas emission reduction since the 1990s, the building energy analysis field has produced various types of methods, which are being applied more often and broadly than ever. A lot of research products have been actively proposed in the area of the building energy simulation for over 50 years around the world. However, in the last 20 years, there have been only a few research cases where the trend of building energy analysis is examined, estimated or compared. This research aims to investigate a trend of the building energy analysis by focusing on methodology and characteristics of each method. Method: The research papers addressing the building energy analysis are classified into two types of method: engineering analysis and algorithm estimation. Especially, EPG(Energy Performance Gap), which is the limit both for the existing engineering method and the single algorithm-based estimation method, results from comparing data of two different levels- in other words, real time data and simulation data. Result: When one or more ensemble algorithms are used, more accurate estimations of energy consumption and performance are produced, and thereby improving the problem of energy performance gap.


Supported by : Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)


  1. D. B. Crawley, J. W. Hand, Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs, Building and Environment 2008, 43, 661-663.
  2. W. Zeyu, R. S. Srinivasan, A review of artificial intelligence based building energy use prediction, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016,75, 796-808.
  3. 백영렬, "건물의 열에너지 해석 프로그램" 기계저널, 42권 11호 //(Y. R. Beak, Thermal energy analysis program of building, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2002, 42, 20-21.)
  4. Y. Yuebin, W. Denchai, D. Yu, A Review of Fault Detection and Diagnosis Methodologies on Air-handling Units, Energy and Buildings, 2014, 82, 550-562.
  5. 김현수, 최기원, 장지훈, 강경모, 이승복, "BEAT프로그램을 이용한 건물에너지 retrofit요소들 간의 에너지 절감 관계분석", 대한 건축학회, 구조계 33(2), 2017.2,97-105//(H.S. Kim, K.W. Choi, J.H. Jang, K.M. Kang, S.B. Leigh, Analyzing Energy Reduction Correlations among Factors of Building Energy Retrofit by using BEAT Program, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Structure & Construction, 2017, 33, 97-105)
  6. D. Basak, S. Pal, D.C. Patranabis, Support vector regression. Neural Information Process, 2007,11, 23-24.
  7. K.J. Kim, S.B. Cho, Ensemble classifiers based on correlation analysis for DNA microarray classification. Neurocomputing, 2006, 70, 187-99.
  8. S. Kang, P. Kang, T. Ko, S. Cho, S.J. Rhee, K.S. Yu, An efficient and effective ensemble of support vector machines for anti-diabetic drug failure prediction. Expert Systems with Application, 2015,42(9), 4265-73.
  9. W.S. Parker, Predicting weather and climate: uncertainty, ensembles and probability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2010, 41(3), 263-72.
  10. P.D. Wilde, The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings, Automation in Construction, 2014, 41, 40-49.
  11. A.C. Menezes, A. Cripps, D. Bouchlaghem, Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non domestic buildings using post occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap, Applied Energy, 2014, 97, 335-364.
  12. G.S. Olivia, T.A. Christopher, In-use monitoring of buildings: An overview and classification of evaluation methods. Energy and Building, 2015, 86, 179-189.
  13. J.H. Choi, V. Loftness, A. Aziz, Post-occupancy evaluation of 20office building as basis for future IEQ stanadards and guidelines. Energy and Buildings, 2012 46, 167-175.
  14. Carbon trust, Closing the Gap: Lesson learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design, 2012
  15. NHBC Carbon Foundation, Compliance for tomorrow's new homes, A review of the modeling tool and assumption, Closing the gap between designed and built performance, 2010
  16. T. Catalina, J. Virgone, E. Blanco, Development and validation of regression models to predict monthly heating demand for residential buildings, Energy and Building, 2008, 40(10), 1825-1832.
  17. 안기언, 김영진, 박철수, "설계단계에서 동적 건물에너지 성능 분석의 쟁점들", 대한건축학회 - 계획계 28(12), 2012.12, 361-369//(K.U. Ahn, Y.J, Kim, C.S. Park, Issues on Dynamic Building Energy Performance Assessment in Design Process, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design, 2012, 28(12), 361-369)
  18. A.E. Ben-Nakhi, M.A. Mahmoud, Cooling load prediction for buildings using general regression neural networks. Energy Conversion and Management, 2004, 45, 2127-41.
  19. X. Lv, T. Lu, C.J. Kibert, M. Viljanen, A novel dynamic modeling approach for predicting building, Applied Energy, 2014, 114, 91-103.
  20. C. Fan, F. Xiao, S. Wang, Development of prediction models for next-day building energy consumption and peak power demand using data mining techniques, Applied Energy, 2014, 127, 1-10.

Cited by

  1. Three-Dimensional Visualization Solution to Building-Energy Diagnosis for Energy Feedback vol.11, pp.7, 2018,