Regulations corroborate the importance of retrofitting existing building stocks or constructing new energy-efficient districts. There is, thus, a need for modeling tools to evaluate energy scenarios to better manage and design cities, and numerous methodologies and tools have been developed. Among them, Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) tools allow the energy simulation of buildings at large scales. Choosing an appropriate UBEM tool, balancing the level of complexity, accuracy, usability, and computing needs, remains a challenge for users. The review focuses on the main bottom-up physics-based UBEM tools, comparing them from a user-oriented perspective. Five categories are used: (i) the required inputs, (ii) the reported outputs, (iii) the exploited workflow, (iv) the applicability of each tool, and (v) the potential users. Moreover, a critical discussion is proposed, focusing on interests and trends in research and development. The results highlighted major differences between UBEM tools that must be considered to choose the proper one for an application. Barriers of adoption of UBEM tools include the needs of a standardized ontology, a common three-dimensional city model, a standard procedure to collect data, and a standard set of test cases. This feeds into future development of UBEM tools to support cities’ sustainability goals.

Urban building energy modeling (UBEM) tools: A state-of-the-art review of bottom-up physics-based approaches

Ferrando M.;Causone F.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Regulations corroborate the importance of retrofitting existing building stocks or constructing new energy-efficient districts. There is, thus, a need for modeling tools to evaluate energy scenarios to better manage and design cities, and numerous methodologies and tools have been developed. Among them, Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) tools allow the energy simulation of buildings at large scales. Choosing an appropriate UBEM tool, balancing the level of complexity, accuracy, usability, and computing needs, remains a challenge for users. The review focuses on the main bottom-up physics-based UBEM tools, comparing them from a user-oriented perspective. Five categories are used: (i) the required inputs, (ii) the reported outputs, (iii) the exploited workflow, (iv) the applicability of each tool, and (v) the potential users. Moreover, a critical discussion is proposed, focusing on interests and trends in research and development. The results highlighted major differences between UBEM tools that must be considered to choose the proper one for an application. Barriers of adoption of UBEM tools include the needs of a standardized ontology, a common three-dimensional city model, a standard procedure to collect data, and a standard set of test cases. This feeds into future development of UBEM tools to support cities’ sustainability goals.
2020
BPS
Building energy use
Building performance simulation
City model
District systems
Sustainable urban development
UBEM
Urban building energy modeling
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2020_UBEM_StateoftheArt.pdf

Accesso riservato

Descrizione: published version
: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 853.85 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
853.85 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
2020_UBEM_StateoftheArt_Preproof.pdf

Open Access dal 02/11/2022

Descrizione: AAM
: Post-Print (DRAFT o Author’s Accepted Manuscript-AAM)
Dimensione 3.15 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.15 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1152140
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 149
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 116
social impact