澳大利亚如何评估建筑物的能源性能?——四种评价体系的比较

Ruidong Chang, Qiancheng Wang, Zijian Ding
{"title":"澳大利亚如何评估建筑物的能源性能?——四种评价体系的比较","authors":"Ruidong Chang, Qiancheng Wang, Zijian Ding","doi":"10.18178/ijscer.8.2.133-137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"—Buildings consume a large amount of energy in Australia. To assess the sustainability performance, including energy performance, of buildings, Australia has developed several evaluation systems with the main ones being Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS and BASIX. Industry practitioners have a certain level of freedom to choose from these evaluation systems to evaluate the sustainability performance of their buildings. However, there is a lack of systemic comparison among these evaluation systems in general, and between the ways that the energy performance of buildings is assessed by these systems in specific. This study provides a systemic comparison between these four main evaluation systems regarding their approaches to assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia. The results show that these systems use different assessing methodologies, namely indicator-based or simulation-based methods, to assess different types of buildings based on data from different sources. These differences reveal the possibility of merging these existing systems to propose a new system that could better assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia.","PeriodicalId":101411,"journal":{"name":"International journal of structural and civil engineering research","volume":"29 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How is the Energy Performance of Buildings Assessed in Australia? -A Comparison between four Evaluation Systems\",\"authors\":\"Ruidong Chang, Qiancheng Wang, Zijian Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.18178/ijscer.8.2.133-137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"—Buildings consume a large amount of energy in Australia. To assess the sustainability performance, including energy performance, of buildings, Australia has developed several evaluation systems with the main ones being Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS and BASIX. Industry practitioners have a certain level of freedom to choose from these evaluation systems to evaluate the sustainability performance of their buildings. However, there is a lack of systemic comparison among these evaluation systems in general, and between the ways that the energy performance of buildings is assessed by these systems in specific. This study provides a systemic comparison between these four main evaluation systems regarding their approaches to assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia. The results show that these systems use different assessing methodologies, namely indicator-based or simulation-based methods, to assess different types of buildings based on data from different sources. These differences reveal the possibility of merging these existing systems to propose a new system that could better assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of structural and civil engineering research\",\"volume\":\"29 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of structural and civil engineering research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.8.2.133-137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of structural and civil engineering research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.8.2.133-137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在澳大利亚,建筑消耗大量的能源。为了评估建筑的可持续性表现,包括能源表现,澳大利亚开发了几个评估系统,主要是Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS和BASIX。行业从业者有一定程度的自由选择这些评估系统来评估其建筑的可持续性表现。然而,总体而言,这些评估系统之间缺乏系统的比较,特别是这些系统评估建筑物能源性能的方式之间缺乏系统的比较。本研究对这四种主要的评估系统进行了系统的比较,以评估澳大利亚建筑物的能源性能。结果表明,这些系统采用不同的评估方法,即基于指标的方法或基于模拟的方法,根据不同来源的数据对不同类型的建筑物进行评估。这些差异揭示了合并这些现有系统以提出一个可以更好地评估澳大利亚建筑能源性能的新系统的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How is the Energy Performance of Buildings Assessed in Australia? -A Comparison between four Evaluation Systems
—Buildings consume a large amount of energy in Australia. To assess the sustainability performance, including energy performance, of buildings, Australia has developed several evaluation systems with the main ones being Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS and BASIX. Industry practitioners have a certain level of freedom to choose from these evaluation systems to evaluate the sustainability performance of their buildings. However, there is a lack of systemic comparison among these evaluation systems in general, and between the ways that the energy performance of buildings is assessed by these systems in specific. This study provides a systemic comparison between these four main evaluation systems regarding their approaches to assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia. The results show that these systems use different assessing methodologies, namely indicator-based or simulation-based methods, to assess different types of buildings based on data from different sources. These differences reveal the possibility of merging these existing systems to propose a new system that could better assess the energy performance of buildings in Australia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信