X hits on this document

PDF document

“ARCHITECT FRIENDLY”: A COMPARISON OF TEN DIFFERENT BUILDING - page 2 / 8

29 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 8

guidance focus on

to BPS tool developers, with particular existing challenges and the criteria of

Architect Friendly’ BPS tools. This paper reports a survey that

is

dedicated

to

gathering

information

from

beginner

simulation

tools users such as architects, designers and fresh graduate students who want to become sustainability oriented architects and designers in the USA. The survey probes the users’ perception of the most important criteria of the usability of ten major USA market tools and how

they

use,

and

benefit

from

the

tools

associated

with their investigated

design (1) the

decisions. The survey usability and information

management

of

interface

and

(2)

the

integration

of intelligent design knowledge-base. objectives of the study are as follows:

The

  • To identify the basic criteria for BPS tools that

can support architects and designers making sustainable design more efficient, and cost effective.

  • To compare the potential challenges and

opportunities of using existing BPS tools

  • To understand the architects’ perceptions about

existing tools and the during design phases

importance

of

using

them

METHODOLOGY The research has been carried out in two parts. The first part consisted of a literature review on BPS tools, necessary to understand the tools’ usefulness. Also the review assisted in defining a set of criteria for ‘Architect Friendly’ tools that are used in daily architecture design practice. The second part is based on an online survey.

Part 1:“Architects Friendly” tools and criteria

The architecture and large have identified

simulation

community at

a number

of criteria for

Architects them, the reiterated:

Friendly’ BPS tools [10-12]. Among

following criteria are the most (1) Usability and information

management

(UIM)

of

interface,

(2)

integration

of intelligent

design knowledge-base

(IIKB), (3)

interoperability of building modeling (IBM), and finally (4) the accuracy of the tool and its ability to simulate complex and detailed building components (AASDC). But, some recent publications claim that point (3) and (4) seem to be fading and getting less important [13]. Probably as a result of researchers publishing real-world validation studies and recent announcement of direct links between BIM or non-BIM modeling tools, such as the plug-in of IES and Energy PLUS for Google SketchUp. Similar to the Revit Architecture plug-in IES and

ECOTECT in addition to enables AutoCAD to create

EnergyPlugged that and edit EnergyPlus

input files. However, in plausible and persuasive

order to guarantee research, this paper

presents

the

results

of

an

online

survey

that

  • -

    205 -

focused only on criteria (1) UIM and (2) IIKB. As future work, a second survey will include criteria (3) IBM and (4) AASDC.

Fig. 1. Criteria for ‘Architect Friendly’ tools

Part 2: Survey The online survey aimed to compare different BPS tools. Prior to launching the survey the authors conducted a literature review of other recent surveys [5, 11-17]. Comments and suggestions were requested from peers at X. The peers were asked to:

  • Screen and list their top-ten BPS tools, from the

    • U.

      S. DOE Directory. The selection had to

represent an overview of state of the art BPS tools used by architects in the USA [18].

  • Revise the questionnaire and provide critical

feedback in order to optimize the structure, clarity and relevance of the questionnaire before posting the final version online.

As a resul

Energy

10

t

eight tools, ECOTECT,

(E10),

Design

Builder

HEED, (DB),

eQUEST, Green Building Studio (GBS), IES VE and EnergyPlus SketchUp (EPSU) plug-in were selected plus ‘raw’ DOE-2 and Energy Plus (EP). The reviewers suggested adding DOE-2 and Energy PLUS to broaden the range of examined tools. First, to allow comparing tools that are capable of making overall energy analysis in the early design phase, versus tools capable of making detailed analysis in later design phases. Secondly, to allow comparing the sensible use of tools versus the amount of knowledge requested for each tool. Most significantly, to compare tools with developed graphical user interface (GUI) versus tools with text based user interface. The questionnaire targeted beginner simulation tools users such as architects, designers, architecture educators and fresh graduate students who want to become sustainable architects or designers in the USA. Participants were recruited through email invitations to the mailing lists and forums of the ten above

mentioned tools, in Committee on the USGBC and the

addition to the AIA Environment (COTE), building performance

simulation mailing lists (Bldg-SIM, Bldg-RATE,

IBPSA-USA).

Environmental

architecture

Document info
Document views29
Page views29
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 09:09:26 UTC 2017
Pages8
Paragraphs364
Words5222

Comments