Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Author's personal copy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The increased awareness of building energy consumption and sustainability has resulted in the devel-
Received 8 January 2013 opment of various means of predicting performance and rating sustainability. The Building Research
Received in revised form 22 February 2013 Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Leadership in Energy and Environ-
Accepted 13 March 2013
mental Design (LEED) are the most commonly used Performance Rating Systems.
To predict energy consumption and award relevant energy performance credits, these systems use
Keywords:
computer-based Building Performance Simulation tools (BPS). Predictive inconsistencies between BPS
BREEAM
tools have been acknowledged in various studies. The probability of achieving different ratings by using
LEED
Building energy performance simulation
different BPS tools or rating systems raises questions concerning the ability to rate ‘sustainability’ in a
tools consistent manner. To investigate this, a case-study based inter-model comparative analysis was imple-
Energy performance and credits mented to examine the extent of the variation in the results produced by three of the most widely used
Results variability BPS tools (Tas, EnergyPlus and IES), and assess their influence and impact on overall BREEAM and LEED
scores.
Results showed that different simulation tools resulted in different energy consumption figures, but
had only a minor effect on BREEAM or LEED energy performance credit scores. Nonetheless, due to the
differences between BREEAM and LEED assessment procedures, the case study building was awarded a
considerably different rating level in each.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.022
Author's personal copy
Table 1
Comparative overview of BREEAM and LEED.
Certifying body BRE – British Research Establishment USGBC – U.S Green Building Council
Scope of accredited buildings Over 200,000 buildings [20] Nearly 45,000 commercial buildings
Nearly 19,000 certified residential units and 75,000
registered residential units [21]
Latest version (new construction) BREEAM New Construction 2.0:2011 [22] LEED 2009 New Construction and Major Renovations
(updated November 2011) [23]
Main parameter for reduction Annual CO2 emissions Annual energy cost
have the most significant impact on the overall rating [15], rating For large non-domestic developments, the most commonly used
systems utilize any of a number of computer-based Building Perfor- variations are BREEAM New Construction (BREEAM NC) and LEED
mance Simulation tools (BPS). A fundamental issue that has been New Construction/Major Renovation (LEED NC/MR) [18,19].
highlighted in various studies is the predictive variability found Both systems are subdivided into a number of environmental
between BPS tools e.g. [16,17]. In considering these issues, the prob- categories and sub-categories, each of which has an allocated num-
ability of achieving different ratings as a result of using different ber of points/credits. Table 1 summarizes and compares the main
standards or BPS tools therefore raises questions concerning the features of each system. Although they share many features in com-
ability to measure sustainability in a credible and consistent man- mon, a number of significant differences exist between them, these
ner. Furthermore, in view of the wider impacts highlighted above, include:
this inconsistency could potentially have a significant economic
implications on future developments.
• Assessment aims: BREEAM focuses in decreasing CO2 emissions
The purpose of this study is to examine and quantify the poten-
caused by energy use in buildings, whereas LEED’s main concern
tial impact of using different BPS tools on the scores achieved
is reducing annual expenses on energy in buildings.
in building sustainability rating systems. The study will focus on
• Applications of weightings: While BREEAM’s categories have dif-
examining the most up-to-date versions of the two most commonly
ferent weighting in the overall BREEAM score calculation, LEED
used building rating systems for the new non-domestic sector
does not use any weighting system.
(BREEAM-NC and LEED-NC/MR) and will examine the results gen-
erated by three widely used BPS tools (Tas, EnergyPlus and IES-VE).
To enable this, a comparative inter-model format will be employed A comparison between the two ratings systems found that a
using a single case-study building and the following questions will development with a standard level LEED building (Silver or Gold)
be investigated: (i) How do energy loads predictions vary with the is considered to have low performance under BREEAM (Between
use of different BPS tools? (ii) How does the use of different BPS “Pass” and “Very good”)1 [14]. It has also been suggested that LEED
tools affect BREEAM and LEED energy credit scores? (iii) What, if is both more suited to climates where mechanical ventilation and
any, is the impact of these variations on the overall BREEAM and HVAC are widely used and places where the infrastructure that
LEED score? encourages driving exists. On the other hand, BREEAM is consid-
ered to be more supportive of facilities that encourage pedestrian
2. Background and cycle-based modes of transport, as well as more efficient water
consumption aspects [24].
2.1. Building rating systems: BREEAM and LEED
Table 2
BREEAM and LEED energy credit assessment procedure.
2.2. BREEAM and LEED energy credit calculation advantages associated with the application of BPS tools have been
widely discussed in relevant literature; some examples of this can
For both BRREAM and LEED, energy performance is a key com- be listed as follows:
ponent of sustainable design. Accordingly, in both of these systems
it is the energy consumption categories – Ene for BREEAM and EA • The encouragement of new design concepts and strategies
for LEED – that are the most influential in terms of their impact on through the evaluation and development of appropriate hard-
the overall assessment score. The most influential sub-categories ware components [30,31].
in each rating system are: • The improvement of the environmental performance of buildings
through the provision of an effective mechanism for optimizing
• For BREEAM: Ene-01 Reduction CO2 emissions (15 available cred- internal environmental conditions [30].
its, contributing approximately 10 overall BREEAM credits after • The facilitation of the application of a holistic approach to
weighting) [25]. assessing the overall performance of design proposals [32–35].
• For LEED: EA Credit-1 Optimize Energy Performance (19 available • The support of the exploration of innovative approaches to satis-
credits). fying performance requirements [36,37].
The ‘Ene-01’ and ‘EA Credit-1’ sub-categories grant credits for In following the increasing international trend for the integra-
buildings that demonstrate a performance improvement over a tion of BPS tools in the design process [38], both the BREEAM and
specific target. As described in Table 2, for BREEAM this target is LEED systems now rely on the use of BPS tools for the calculation
related to UK building regulations requirements, and for LEED it of various credits, most notably the main building energy per-
is associated with ASHRAE performance standards. To enable this, formance credits in the energy consumption categories: BREEAM
the performance of the ‘Designed building’ is compared to that of ‘Ene-01’ and LEED ‘EA Credit-1’.
a generated ‘Base case’ building by using any of the approved sim- For each of the rating systems, tools used for this calculation
ulation tools according to each standard. The ‘Base case’ building should be accredited based on a specified accreditation procedure.
shares some characteristics with the ‘Designed building’ (shape, For BREEAM Ene-01, the calculation procedure requires the use of
size, activities etc.), but includes adjusted specifications for build- any of the three classes of building energy calculation software
ing fabric and service systems. For each standard they are referred approved by the appropriate schemes for use for implementing
to as follows: the NCM (as described in Table 3). For LEED EA Credit-1 calcula-
tions, while USGBC does not certify or formally approve simulation
• For BREEAM: The ‘Base case’ building is known as the ‘Notional software packages for compliance with ASHRAE requirements or
building’ and is defined in accordance with Part L of the UK Build- for generating an appropriate baseline model, the software used
ing Regulations [26] and the NCM 2010 [27]. needs to be approved by the rating authority. The qualified sim-
• For LEED: The ‘Base case’ building is known as the ‘Baseline build- ulation program must follow a list of specification that includes
ing’ and is defined in accordance with the specifications outlined requirements that the tool must be able to [29]:
in ASHRAE 90.1-2007.
• Calculate 8760 h of building operation to simulate annual energy
There are differences between some characteristics of the ‘Base use.
case’ and ‘Designed building’ between the two standards. A study • Model hourly variations in occupancy, lighting power, miscella-
by Ng et al. [28] shows that BREEAM’s ‘Notional building’ consumes neous equipment power, thermostat set points, and HVAC system
18% less energy than LEED’s ‘Baseline building’. The ‘performance operation.
improvement’ calculation for BREEAM uses the EPR-NC (Energy
Performance Ratio for New Construction) – a figure which is directly Table 3 lists a number of commonly used tools that have been
influenced by energy consumption, delivered energy and CO2 emis- approved for use for the calculation of the relevant energy perfor-
sions. The LEED ‘performance improvement’ is simply a cost savings mance credits for each of the rating systems.
calculation. It is assumed that the approved BPS tools will have equivalent
results, and therefore the use of different simulation tools will
2.3. The use of building energy simulation tools in performance not lead to a major rating score difference [40]. To maintain the
modeling and assessment credibility of these systems, it is integral that the BPS tools used for
BREEAM and LEED credit calculations produce valid and consistent
Given the increasing importance of energy efficiency, a variety results. However, the investigation of predictive variations in BPS
of BPS tools have been developed and adopted in an aim to sup- tools has been the subject of various studies that have explored
port the decision-making process for energy efficient design. The both the extent of results variability between tools and the
Author's personal copy
Table 3
Accreditation requirements and approved tools used for BREEAM and LEED energy credit Assessment procedure.
Accreditation requirements Tools accredited by the appropriate body/procedure for Tools that must comply with ASHRAE requirements or
implementing the NCM for generating an appropriate baseline model
Approved tools The following software tools classes can be used: Commonly used approved tools include:
• SBEM – Simplified Building Energy Model – calculates monthly • EnergyPlus
average energy consumption in buildings (excluding dwellings) • DOE-2-Based Software (eQUEST, VisualDOE)
• FI-SBEMs-Front-End Interfaces to the Simple Building Energy • IES-VE
Model. Includes tools such as Carbon Checker, DesignBuilder and • Tas
CYMAP. • EnerSim
• DSM – Dynamic Simulation Models – enables hourly energy
loads calculations [39]. Includes tools such as IES-VE, Tas and
Hevacomp Simulator (EnergyPlus Engine)a
a
Although only Tas and IES are explicitly approved under for implementing the NCM, EnergyPlus is the calculation engine for one of the other DSM approved tools
(Hevacomp) and has therefore been included in the comparative analysis.
Table 4
BPS tools used in the study.
Tas-EDSL A commercial dynamic simulation tool developed in the 1970s 9.2.1 Most commonly used in the UK
at Cranfield University. Tas uses a CAD-linked 3D Modeller for International user in approximately 700 different companies,
building geometry input and modification and the Tas 9.2.1 many with multiple licenses [59]
simulation engine. Functions such as compliance calculations
are performed via a dedicated program Macros.
EnergyPlus A multi-platform whole building energy simulation program 7.1 Large international user base with approximately 100,000
used by the U.S Department of Energy for building energy individual licenses [60]
performance assessments. The tool is free to use and widely
used for research application.
IES-VE A suite of commercial building analysis tools (The VE Suite) 6.4.0.10 One of the most popular simulation tools used worldwide
that uses the dynamic simulation engine ApacheSim. today Used in over 80 countries. Used in 19 out of the top 20
Geometry is taken from the <VE>3D building model. 3D BIM engineering firms, 18 out of the top 20 consultancy firm and 15
imports and shares information with ApacheCalc and of the top 20 architectural design firms in the UK [61]
ApacheSim via VE Integrated Data Model
Table 5
A comparison of the modeled ‘Designed’, ‘Notional’ and ‘Baseline’ building properties.
stories. The performance of each was then multiplied by the num- of the performance of this single case-study building, as calculated
ber of floors it represented to account for the overall performance. by different BPS tools, enables an examination of the performance
It is important to note that the case-study building was only results and the difference between them. Consequently, the find-
used as an enabling tool to implement a study where the focus of ings of this study that relate to the influence of BPS tools on BREEAM
the analysis was the performance of the BPS tools. The comparison and LEED ratings can therefore be generalized.
Table 6
A comparison of the modeled ‘Designed’, ‘Notional’ and ‘Baseline’ detailed HVAC specifications.
Efficiency Heating SCoP: 90% Heating SCoP: 79.2% Heating SCoP: 90% ASHRAE 90.1-2007
Cooling SSEER: 3.6 Cooling SSEER: 3.6 Cooling SSEER: G3.1.2 and section 6.4.1:
Section 6.4.1 – 2.72 Minimum efficiency
Heating SCoP: 82% (6.8.1F)
Cooling SSEER: 2.72 (6.8.1.D)
Author's personal copy
This section will discuss the result of the study. It starts with an
energy consumption prediction comparison, followed by an exami-
nation of some aspects that led to these results. Finally, it calculates
and compares the relevant BREEAM and LEED energy credits.
2
In order to examine the influence of the weather-file on the performance pre-
dictions, and since it was not possible to import the TWD to EnergyPlus, the EPW
file was later imported to IES and Tas. Fig. 4. The impact of different weather files on energy performance predictions.
Author's personal copy
4.2. Calculated energy credits 4.2.3. NCM 2010 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007 comparison
A comparison between NCM 2010 and ASHRAE 90.1-2007
4.2.1. BREEAM Ene-01 credits: ‘Designed’/‘Notional’ building shows that although NCM and ASHRAE ‘Designed building’ energy
performance demand were practically identical in each BPS tool (Fig. 8a),
In order to calculate the BREEAM Ene-01 score, the EPR-NC the differences between the ‘Designed building’ system proper-
parameters (energy demand, energy delivered and CO2 emissions) ties in each standard (HVAC and domestic hot water systems,
Table 7
BREEAM Ene-01 score.
Tool EPR-NC (a) Ene-01 (b) Maximum Ene (c) Score gained/maximum (d) Section Contribution to overall
score gained score for BREEAM NC score (%) weighting BREEAM score (%)
(a)/(b) (c) × (d)
Fig. 7. Performance improvement components in the ‘Designed’ and ‘Baseline’ buildings. Left: (a) energy demand. Right: (b) total energy expense.
Table 8
LEED EA credit-1 score.
Tas 8.2 No 0 0
EnergyPlus 7.5 No 0 0
IES 8.3 No 0 0
materials, etc.), resulted with ASHRAE ‘Designed building’ deliv- ‘Notional building’. However, IES results showed an inverse trend
ered energy being approximately 0.3% higher than that in the NCM (Fig. 8c). Despite this, after considering the efficiency coefficients
(Fig. 8b). according to each system, this trend was reversed: all tools resulted
A comparison between the NCM 2010 ‘Notional’ and ASHRAE with the ‘Notional building’ having worse performance than the
90.1-2007 ‘Baseline’ buildings shows that the ‘Baseline building’ ‘Baseline building’ (Fig. 8d). This demonstrates the significant con-
under Tas and EnergyPlus had higher total demands than the tribution of NCM efficiency coefficients to the final BREEAM score.
Fig. 8. NCM/ASHRAE performance comparison. Top left: (a) ‘Designed buildings” energy demand. Top right: (b) ‘Designed buildings” energy delivered. Bottom left: (c)
‘Notional’/‘Baseline’ buildings energy demand. Bottom right: (d) ‘Notional’/‘Baseline’ buildings energy delivered.
Author's personal copy
Table 9 systems, but also due to the recent USGBC announcement (March
Contribution of Ene-01 and EA credit-1 to overall BREEAM and LEED score.
2012) acknowledging the similarities between LEED and BREEAM
Simulation tool BREEAM LEED and confirming their recognition of credits from BREEAM’s New-
Tas 4.28 0 Construction and most updated international schemes [64].
EnergyPlus 4.28 0
IES-VE 4.92 0 6. Further research
[18] T. Bevan, How the new BREEAM 2011 version measures, quantifies and evalu- [43] R. Judkoff, J. Neymark, Home Energy Rating System Building Energy Simu-
ates the key life cycle environmental impacts of new buildings at the design and lation Test (HERS BESTEST), NREL/TP-472-7332, National Renewable Energy
construction stages, in: CIBSE Technical Symposium, DeMontfort University, Laboratory, Golden, CO, 1995.
Leicester UK – 6th and 7th September 2011, 2011. [44] G. Guyon, The role of the user in results obtained from simulation software pro-
[19] AIA, How Changes to Leed? Will Benefit Existing and Historic Buildings, Knowl- gram, in: Proc. BS’97 The International Building Simulation Conference, Prague,
edge Communities, 2012. Available from: http://www.aia.org/practicing/ 1997, 1997.
groups/kc/AIAS076321 (accessed 27.12.12). [45] F. Karlsson, P. Rohdin, M. Persson, Measured and predicted energy demand of a
[20] BRE Global, The World’s Foremost Environmental Assessment Method and low energy building: important aspects when using building energy simulation,
Rating System for Buildings, 2011. Available from: http://www.breeam.org/ Building Service Engineering Research and Technology 28 (2007) 223–235.
filelibrary/BREEAM Brochure.pdf (accessed 27.12.12). [46] T. Kalema, G. Johannesson, P. Pylsy, P. Hagengran, Accuracy of energy analysis
[21] USGBC, Press Release: U.S. green building council announces the LEED of buildings: a comparison of a monthly energy balance method and simulation
green building program to recognize energy credits from BREEAM, Wash- methods in calculating the energy consumption and the effect of thermal mass,
ington, DC, 2012. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/ Journal of Building Physics 32 (2008) 101–130.
LEED%20Intl%20Roundtable%20Meeting%20in%20Paris%20031612.pdf [47] R. Judkoff, D. Wortman, B. O’doherty, J. Burch, A methodology for validating
(accessed 27.12.12). building energy analysis simulations, Technical Report NREL/TP-550-42059
[22] BREEAM, BREEAM New Construction Non-domestic Buildings Technical Man- April 2008, 2008.
ual, BRE Global (SD5073-2.0:2011), Watford, 2011. [48] R. Raslan, M. Davies, Results variability in accredited building energy per-
[23] USGBC, LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations rat- formance compliance demonstration software in the UK: an inter-model
ing system with alternative compliance paths for projects outside the comparative study, Journal of Building Performance Simulation 3 (1) (2009)
U.S., Washington, DC, 2011. Available from: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. 63–85.
aspx?DocumentID=8868 (accessed 27.12.12). [49] T. Maile, M. Fischer, J. Haymaker, V. Bazjanac, Formalizing approximations,
[24] INBUILT, BREEAM versus LEED, Inbuilt LTD, Kings Langley, 2010. Avail- assumptions, and simplifications to document limitations in building energy
able from: http://www.ukpassivhaus.org/media/406565/breeamvsleed.pdf performance simulation, Comparing Measured and Simulated Building Energy
(accessed 27.12.12). Performance Data (2010) 96.
[25] S. Barlow, Guide to BREEAM, RIBA Publishing, 2012, ISBN 978 1 85946 425 0. [50] H. Radhi, A comparison of the accuracy of building energy analysis in Bahrain
[26] UK Building Regulations, Building Regulations 2010, Approved Document L2A, using data from different weather periods, Renewable Energy 34 (3) (2009)
Conservation of Fuel and Power, NBS, London, 2010. ISBN 978 1 85946 326 0. 869–875.
[27] NCM, National Calculation Methodology (NCM) Modeling Guide (for buildings [51] Y. Sun, Y. Heo, M.H.Y. Tan, H. Xie, C.F. Jeff Wu, G. Augenbroe, Uncertainty
other than dwellings in England and Wales), Building Research Establishment quantification of microclimate variables in building energy models, Jour-
Ltd, 2011. nal of Building Performance Simulation (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
[28] S.T. Ng, T. Chen, J.M.W. Wong, Variability of building environmental assess- 19401493.2012.757368.
ment tools on evaluating carbon emissions, Environmental Impact Assessment [52] L. Wang, P. Mathew, X. Pang, Uncertainties in energy consumption introduced
Review 38 (2013) (2013) 131–141. by building operations and weather for a medium-size office building, Energy
[29] ASHRAH, ASHRAE Standard Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise and Buildings 53 (October) (2012) 152–158.
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE, Atlanta, 2007. ISSN 1041-2336. [53] B. John, Reducing the variability between novice modelers: results of a tool for
[30] CIBSE, Building Energy and Environmental Modelling, Applications Man- human performance modeling produced through human-centered design, in:
ual AM11: 1998, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling
1998. and Simulation, Charleston, SC, 21–24 March 2010, 2010.
[31] J.W. Hand, Removing Barriers to the Use of Simulation in the Building Design [54] H. Brohus, P. Heiselberg, A. Simonsen, K.C. Sorensen, Uncertainty of energy con-
Professions, PhD Thesis, 1998. sumption assessment of domestic buildings, in: Eleventh International IBPSA
[32] J. Hensen, N. Nakahara, Energy and building performance simulation: current Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, July 27–30, 2009, 2009.
state and future issues, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001) vii–ix. [55] Y. Yildiz, Z.D. Arsan, Identification of the building parameters that influence
[33] P. Wilde, Computational Support for the Selection of Energy Saving Building heating and cooling energy loads for apartment buildings in hot-humid cli-
Components, DUP Science, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004. mates, Energy 36 (July (7)) (2011) 4287–4296.
[34] D.B. Crawley, J.W. Hand, M. Kummert, B.T. Griffith, Contrasting the capabilities [56] G.R. Newsham, S. Mancini, B.J. Birt, Do LEED-certified buildings save energy?
of building energy performance simulation programs, Joint Report, US Depart- Yes, but. . ., Energy and Buildings 41 (August (8)) (2009) 897–905, ISSN 0378-
ment of Energy, University of Strathclyde, University of Wisconsin & NREL, 7788.
2005. [57] R.A. Fenner, R. Ryce, A comparative analysis of two building rating systems.
[35] D. Spekkink, Performance Based Design: an explanation, Building Research & Part 1: Evaluation, Engineering Sustainability 161 (ES1) (2007).
Information: Special Issue on Performance Based Building, 2005. [58] M.J. Witte, R.H. Henninger, J. Glazer, Seventh International IBPSA Conference,
[36] BCA, Performance-Based Building Regulations (online), 2004. http://www.bca. 13–15 July 2001 Rio de Janeiro, Building Simulation, 2001, pp. 353–360.
gov.sg/Performance-Based/others/FAQPerformanceBased.pdf [59] B. Haytack (ben@edsl.net), 4 December 2012, Subject: Ticket (SAL-
[37] P.A. Strachan, Simulation support for performance assessment of building com- 9021304815), E-mail to Y. Schwartz (y.schwartz.11@ucl.ac.uk), personal
ponents, Building and Environment 43 (2008) 228–236. communication.
[38] J. Clarke, D. Tang, A co-operating solver approach to building simulation, in: [60] D.B. Crawley, EnergyPlus: DOE’s Next Generation Simulation Program, U.S
Proceedings of the Bi-Annual Conference of IBPSA-ESIM2004, International Department of Energy, 2010. Available from: http://www1.eere.energy.
Building Performance Simulation Association, Vancouver, Canada, 2004, pp. gov/buildings/pdfs/eplus webinar 02-16-10.pdf (accessed 27.12.12).
213–220. [61] E. Cramp (edwina.cramp@iesve.com), 5 December 2012, Subject: IES Support
[39] UK GOV, DCLG Approved Software for the Production of Non Domestic Enquiry, E-mail to Y. Schwartz (y.schwartz.11@ucl.ac.uk), personal communi-
Energy Performance Certificates, 2012. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/ cation.
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/43614/121109 - [62] The Charted Institution of Building Services Engineers London, CIBSE Guide-A:
Table for website - list of DCLG approved Software 2 .pdf (accessed Environmental Design, CIBSE Publications, Norwich, 2006, ISBN-10: 1-903287-
11.02.12). 66-9, ISBN-13: 978-1-903287-66-8.
[40] W.L. Lee, Benchmarking energy use of building environmental assessment [63] SPPARC Architects, Quill Design & Access Statement, SPPARC Architects, Lon-
schemes, Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 326–334. don, 2010.
[41] P.R. Rittelman, A.S. Faruq, Design Tool Survey, IEA SHC Task 8 Passive & Hybrid [64] USGBC, Press Release: U.S. Green Building Council Announces the LEED
Solar Low Energy Buildings, Subtask C Design Methods, 1985. Green Building Program to Recognize Energy Credits from BREEAM, Wash-
[42] R. Judkoff, J. Neymark, International Energy Agency Building Energy Simulation ington, DC, 2012. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/
Test (BESTEST) and Diagnostic Method, NREL/TP-472-6231, National Renew- LEED%20Intl%20Roundtable%20Meeting%20in%20Paris%20031612.pdf
able Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 1995. (accessed 27.12.12).