Urban building energy modeling (UBEM) tools: A state-of-the-art review of bottom-up physics-based approaches

Abstract

Regulations corroborate the importance of retrofitting existing building stocks or constructing new energy-efficient districts. There is, thus, a need for modeling tools to evaluate energy scenarios to better manage and design cities, and numerous methodologies and tools have been developed. Among them, Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) tools allow the energy simulation of buildings at large scales. Choosing an appropriate UBEM tool, balancing the level of complexity, accuracy, usability, and computing needs, remains a challenge for users. The review focuses on the main bottom-up physics-based UBEM tools, comparing them from a user-oriented perspective. Five categories are used: (i) the required inputs, (ii) the reported outputs, (iii) the exploited workflow, (iv) the applicability of each tool, and (v) the potential users. Moreover, a critical discussion is proposed, focusing on interests and trends in research and development. The results highlighted major differences between UBEM tools that must be considered to choose the proper one for an application. Barriers of adoption of UBEM tools include the needs of a standardized ontology, a common threedimensional city model, a standard procedure to collect data, and a standard set of test cases. This feeds into future development of UBEM tools to support cities' sustainability goals.

Assessing a fit-for-purpose urban building energy modelling framework with reference to Ahmedabad

“…At present, there is a lack of consistency in nomenclature of these modelling approaches and urban datasets; identifying their resolution, and understanding their choice of selection with respect to the desired UBEM applications and outputs (Ferrando, Causone, Hong, & Chen, 2020). While oversimplification of urban data and modelling approach might cause large inaccuracies, very detailed inputs are not always necessary to obtain consistent results from a UBEM, as demonstrated by Chen & Hong, (2018), Monteiro et al, (2017), and Nouvel, Zirak, Coors, & Eicker, (2017).…”

“…Ferrando, Causone, Hong, and Chen's study (Ferrando et al, 2020) focused on the main bottom-up physics-based UBEM tools, comparing them from a user-oriented perspective,. They were classified based on: (i) the required inputs, (ii) the reported outputs, (iii) the exploited workflow, (iv) the applicability of each tool, and (v) the potential users.…”

Italian prototype building models for urban scale building performance simulation

“…These physics-based models are derived by BEM and exploit single time-step calculations, considering the energy balance of buildings [10]. These models simulate in detail the building and locate it in the urban environment, trying to include physics interactions among buildings, between buildings and microclimate or other entities (e.g., water bodies, trees, streets), and within time [11]. The bottom-up physics-based models are the ones that are gaining momentum in the last years.…”

Integrating GIS-Based Point of Interest and Community Boundary Datasets for Urban Building Energy Modeling

“…UBEM has become an excellent way to design and optimize city-scale buildings for energy efficiency [5] and evaluate renewable energy technologies for energy planning [6]. Many tools have been developed or are under development that aim to perform UBEM rapidly [7]. Unlike modeling a single building which requires detailed information to be obtained via on-site investigation, UBEM generally uses high-level building information, including series of geometric and non-geometric information.…”