Corrigendum: A Review of the Energy Performance Gap and Its Underlying Causes in Non-Domestic Buildings

The Value of sustainability

“…Another study [12] found from 62 case study buildings, the average discrepancy between predicted and measured energy use was +34%. In their literature review, the most important underlying causes identified were building modelling specification uncertainty, occupier behaviour and poor practice in operation.…”

ObepME: An online building energy performance monitoring and evaluation tool to reduce energy performance gaps

“…Moreover, considering the investments and resources allocated in terms of energy efficient building physical envelope and energy supply systems, customers and residents are expecting their houses and buildings to perform as expected at the design stage. In an effort to define and characterize energy performance gaps, Van Dronkelaar et al [3] has highlighted three types of building performance gaps: a) a regulatory performance gap between predictions from compliance modeling tools and measured energy data; b) a static performance gap between predictions of performance simulation models and measured energy data; and c) a dynamic performance gap between results from calibrated dynamic performance models and measured energy data. However, they stated that with the large set of assumptions, generic and standard inputs and simple modeling and simulation methodologies, comparing predictions of the compliance modeling tools with actual measured energy doesn't provide a clear overview on the real energy performance gap in buildings.…”

“…Currently, compliance modeling tools dominate the regulatory framework in EU countries. In terms of the regulatory performance gap, Van Dronkelaar et al [3] reported an average gap of 34% between predicted and measured energy use in 62 case study buildings, with a standard deviation of 55%. The major factors along with their contribution to the large performance gap is as follows: building modeling (20-60%), occupants behavior (10-80%), and poor building operation (15-80%).…”

“…Regarding measurement meters, it was suggested that in addition to the overall energy consumption, sub-meters measurements and system-level meters are very useful to provide in-depth information regarding the performance gap [32]. Different researchers highlighted that the performance gap is lower when refined and calibrated energy models, using actual data, are used to simulate the building performance, considering various operational set points and dynamic schedules [2,3]. The background and review presented above draws special attention to the urgent need to reduce energy performance gaps in highly energy efficient buildings, highlighting the positive impact of continuous building commissioning and energy systems and occupancy behavior monitoring during the building operational phase along with the valuable added value provided by dynamic energy models in terms to predicting the building transient performance.…”

Effects of Building Occupancy on Indicators of Energy Efficiency

“…However, the latter are not well known in advance and are difficult to capture during the operation [21]. It is therefore not surprising that a significant discrepancy between the predicted and actual energy consumption is often observed (on average, a 34% increase in a study [23] consisting of 62 case study buildings, with the dominant root causes for the performance gap being specification uncertainty in modeling, occupant behavior, and poor operational practices). In addition, the occupants often don't know how to use the building as intended in the design, which can also explain the lower measured energy efficiency than expected.…”