Skip to main content
Log in

The impact of building massing on net-zero achievability for office buildings

  • Research Article
  • Building Thermal, Lighting, and Acoustics Modeling
  • Published:
Building Simulation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The simultaneous impact of massing on both energy consumption and renewable energy production potential is studied by taking the case of office buildings in Washington D.C. A Baseline design with a square footprint is compared with eleven massing alternatives: three rectangular parallelepiped designs with aspect ratios of respectively 2, 3, and 4, along the east-west orientation; three rectangular parallelepiped designs with aspect ratios of respectively 2, 3, and 4, along the north-south orientation; two H-shaped designs; one cross-shaped design; and two pyramidal buildings with wall slopes of respectively 86° and 83°. With differences between the best performing massing alternative and the worst performing massing alternative of more than 10% in terms of energy consumption, and more than 20% in terms of renewable energy production, massing is found to significantly impact both energy use and energy production. Consideration of both energy consumption and renewable energy production potential suggests that, for temperate climates such as Washington D.C., buildings with H-shaped footprints, buildings with crossshaped footprints, and buildings with high aspect ratio footprints are preferable when targeting net-zero energy status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ASHRAE (2007). Standard 90.1-2007 User’s Manual. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

  • ASHRAE (2010a). Standard 62.1-2010: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

  • ASHRAE (2010b). Standard 90.1-2010: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

  • ASHRAE (2013). Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

  • Cheng V, Steemers K, Montavon M, Compagnon R (2006). Urban form, density and solar potential. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin N, Franconeri P (1980). Composition and heating value of municipal solid waste in the Spring Creek area of New York City. In: Proceedings of the 1980 National Waste Processing Conference, Washington DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compagnon R (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36: 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley D, Pless S, Torcellini P (2009). Getting to net zero. ASHRAE Journal, 51(9): 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depecker P, Menezo C, Virgone J, Lepers S (2001). Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption. Building and Environment, 36: 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2015). A Common Definition for Zero Energy Buildings. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

  • EIA (2016). Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey—2003 Survey Data. Available at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/ commercial/data/2003/. Accessed 05 Feb 2016.

  • EO (2015). Executive Order 13693—Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Federal Register, 80(57): 15871–15884.

  • EU (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). Official Journal of the European Union, 153: 13–35.

  • Granadeiro V, Duarte JP, Correia JR, Leal VMS (2013). Building envelope shape design in early stages of the design process: integrating architectural design systems and energy simulation. Automation in Construction, 32: 196–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratia E, De Herde A (2003). Design of Low Energy Office Buildings. Energy and Buildings, 35: 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P (2011). Investigation of solar potential of housing units in different neighborhood designs. Energy and Buildings, 43: 2262–2273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsath TL, Bandhosseini KA (2015). Sensitivity analysis evaluating basic building geometry’s effect on energy use. Renewable Energy, 76: 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch JJ (2014). eQuest v3.65. Available at http://www.doe2.com.

  • Kämpf JH, Montavon M, Bunyesc J, Bolliger R, Robinson D (2010). Optimisation of buildings’ solar irradiation availability. Solar Energy, 84: 596–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanters J (2015). Planning for solar buildings in urban environments— An analysis of the design process, methods and tools. PhD Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks W (1997). Multicriteria optimization of shape of energy-saving buildings. Building and Environment, 32: 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masa-Bote D, Caamaño-Martín E (2014). Methodology for estimating building integrated photovoltaics electricity production under shadowing conditions and case study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31: 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mermoud A, Wittmer B (2014). PVSyst6—User’s Manual. Satigny, Switzerland: PVSyst SA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montavon M (2010). Optimisation of urban form by the evaluation of the solar potential. PhD Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton B, Eames PC, Mallick TK, Huang MJ, McCormack SJ, Mondol JD, Yohanis YG (2011). Enhancing the performance of building integrated photovoltaics. Solar Energy, 85: 1629–1664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRCan (2013). RETScreen v4. Varennes, QC, Canada.

  • NREL (2015). System Advisor Model v 2015.6.30. Available at https://sam.nrel.gov.

  • NREL (2016). Best Research-Cell Efficiencies. Available at http:// www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg. Accessed 05 Feb 2016.

  • Pessenlehner W, Mahdavi A (2003). Building morphology, transparence, and energy performance. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Building Performance Simulation Association, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips D, Beyers M, Good J (2009). Building height and net zero—How high can you go? ASHRAE Journal, 51(9): 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • PVEducation (2016). Shading. Available at http://pveducation.org/ pvcdrom/modules/shading. Accessed 05 Feb 2016.

  • Ross BM (2009). Design with energy in mind: Toward a low-load and high satisfaction civic architecture in the great lakes basin. Master Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samsung (2016). Solar Modules Products. Available at http:// www.samsung.com/us/business/solarmodules/product.html. Accessed 05 Feb 2016.

  • Scartezzini JL, Montavon M, Compagnon R (2002). Computer evaluation of the solar energy potential in an urban environment. In: Proceedings of 2002 EuroSun, Bologna, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanek FM, Albright LD, Angenent LT (2012). Energy Systems Engineering—Evaluation and Implementation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Rivard H, Zmeureanu R (2006). Floor shape optimization for green building design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 20: 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youssef AMA, Zhai Z, Reffat RM (2015). Design of optimal building envelopes with integrated photovoltaics. Building Simulation, 8: 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demba Ndiaye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ndiaye, D. The impact of building massing on net-zero achievability for office buildings. Build. Simul. 11, 435–438 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-017-0417-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-017-0417-5

Keywords

Navigation