Comparative energy performance evaluation and uncertainty analysis of two building archetype development methodologies: A case study of high-rise residential buildings in Qatar

Abstract

Building Archetypes (BAs) are often used in modeling urban-scale building energy consumption profiles to represent the energy consumption behavior of typical buildings within the modeled urban environment. One current approach to the development of BAs involves the creation of Building Energy Models (BEMs) using surveyed data coupled with codes, standards, or engineering experience. Another approach is the modification of existing standardized BEMs using available data to produce a suitable BA for the representation of the building stock. The adoption of either of these methods has been treated as an axiom or a step that did not need much consideration. However, the results produced by BEMs created according to different methodologies present several differences. The discrepancy in the produced results is shown not only in the results of the BEMs developed according to different methodologies but also in the degree to which these results vary when changing input values. Limited studies analyzed the sensitivity of these models to uncertain inputs, even though it is essential for the development of BA libraries. This paper comparatively investigates the Region-Specific (RS) and Department of Energy (DOE)-based BEM creation methods for BA library development. The models are developed by following the two methodologies, and their predictions are compared to the metered data from a high-rise residential building in the Marina district of Lusail City, Qatar. A Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) method is used to identify the most influential parameters contributing to the energy consumption variation of these models. Further, a parametric simulation campaign is conducted by varying the inputs determined earlier to quantify the BEMs’ output variability. According to the results, the baseline RS BEM and DOE BEM yield an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 211.03 kWh/m2 and 137.9 kWh/m2, respectively. The deviation of these values from the metered EUI of 185,37 kWh/m2 indicates that the RS BEM development methodology is preferable to the DOE BEM for the BA development. Based on the GSA results, regardless of the BEM development methodology used, the most important parameters contributing to output variation are the Cooling Setpoint, the Outdoor Air Requirements, the Equipment Power Density, and the Lighting Power Density. Further, the RS BEM’s parametric simulations produce a mean cooling EUI of 324.83 kWh/m2, closer to the literature benchmarks than the mean cooling EUI of DOE BEM, 341.62 kWh/m2. The results obtained from the baseline model and the uncertainty analysis support the conclusion that a Region-Specific Model developed from the ground up serves to better represent high-rise residential buildings in regions with extreme climate conditions. The impact this work achieves is providing decision-making support for urban scale building energy modelers for future building stock representation efforts in such areas while also providing an expected uncertainty range for the developed high-rise residential archetypes.