An End-User-Focused Building Energy Audit: A High-Density Multi-residential Development in Melbourne, Australia

  • Jin WooEmail author
  • Trivess Moore
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


This chapter aims to demonstrate a building energy audit process using a case study of high-density multi-residential modular development in inner Melbourne, Australia. An energy audit is essential to understand where and how energy is used in buildings and consequently to identify those areas where improvements can be made. It includes a series of activities such as pre-survey data collection, walk-through inspection, data collection, analysis of the data collected and formulation of energy efficiency solutions. Extensive data were collected including indoor condition monitoring, occupant feedback and utility usage. The occupant survey identified thermal discomfort in summer, reporting overheating, dry and stuffy conditions. Energy consumption in the case study building was found to be significantly less than the average consumption in the same suburb. Surprisingly, energy consumption was found to be more likely to be affected by housing tenure types than physical building conditions such as orientation and height. The impact of building materials on occupants and the provision of air conditioning systems in the individual unit need to be further researched to resolve overheating problems. It is recommended that not only the design and physical conditions of buildings but also the socio-economic status of building residents could be main factors to achieve a high level of energy efficiency in multi-residential buildings.


  1. 1.
    ASHRAE (2011) Procedures for commercial building energy audits, 2nd edn. ASHRAE, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry S, Whaley D, Davidson K, Saman W (2014) Do the numbers stack up? Lessons from a zero carbon housing estate. Renew Energy 67:80–89. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry S, Whaley D, Davidson K, Saman W (2014) Near zero energy homes—what do users think? Energy Policy 73:127–137. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bureau of Meteorology (2016) Climate data online. Retrieved from
  5. 5.
    CIBSE (2008) Energy Benchmarks—CIBSE TM46: 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta R, Chandiwala S (2010) Understanding occupants: feedback techniques for large-scale low-carbon domestic refurbishments. Build Res Inf 38(5):530–548. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hadjri K, Crozier C (2009) Post-occupancy evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities 27(1/2):21–33. Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEA (2013) Total energy use in buildings. Analysis and evaluation methods. Final Report Annex 53. Retrieved from Japan
  9. 9.
    Ingle A, Moezzi M, Lutzenhiser L, Diamond R (2014) Better home energy audit modelling: incorporating inhabitant behaviours. Build Res Inf 42(4):409–421. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leaman A, Bordass B (2001) Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their implications. Build Res Inf 29(2):129–143. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menezes AC, Cripps A, Bouchlaghem D, Buswell R (2012) Predicted versus actual energy performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap. Appl Energy 97:355–364. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moore T (2018) Strategic niche management and the challenge of successful outcomes. In: Moore T, de Haan F, Horne R, Gleeson B (eds) Urban sustainability transitions. Australian Cases—International Perspectives. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore T, Higgins D (2016) Influencing urban development through government demonstration projects. Cities 56:9–15. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore T, Ridley I, Strengers Y, Maller C, Horne R (2017) Dwelling performance and adaptive summer comfort in low-income Australian households. Build Res Inf 1–14.
  15. 15.
    NAGA (2012) Moreland energy profile 2004–2012. Retrieved from
  16. 16.
    Powell J, Monahan J, Foulds C (2016) Building futures: managing energy in the built environment. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pretlove S, Kade S (2016) Post occupancy evaluation of social housing designed and built to Code for Sustainable Homes levels 3, 4 and 5. Energy Build 110(Supplement C):120–134. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevenson F, Rijal HB (2010) Developing occupancy feedback from a prototype to improve housing production. Build Res Inf 38(5):549–563. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strata Community Australia (n.d.) Smart blocks. Retrieved from
  20. 20.
    Sunikka-Blank M, Galvin R (2012) Introducing the prebound effect: the gap between performance and actual energy consumption. Build Res Inf 40(3):260–273. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turpin-Brooks S, Viccars G (2006) The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities 24(5/6):177–196. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van den Brom P, Meijer A, Visscher H (2017) Performance gaps in energy consumption: household groups and building characteristics. Build Res Inf 1–17.
  23. 23.
    Woo J (2014) A systematic post-occupancy evaluation in green-rated high-rise office buildings. Paper presented at the Across: Architectural Research through to Practice: 48th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2014, Genoa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woo J (2016) The energy use and occupant comfort of a high-density multi-residential development. Paper presented at the 32th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA 2016), Los Angeles, United StatesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Building Innovation Laboratory, School of Property Construction and Project ManagementRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations