Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchwartz, Emily K.
dc.contributor.authorKrarti, Moncef
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-16T18:36:18Z
dc.date.available2023-08-16T18:36:18Z
dc.date.copyright4/28/2023 12:00:00 AM
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn2642-6641
dc.identifier.otherjesbc_4_2_021001.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4292202
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, a life cycle cost-based optimization analysis is carried out to compare the energy and cost performance of diverse sustainable designs of a residential building. These designs include code optimal, net zero energy building, and passive house. It is found that in the case where natural gas is employed, a total energy savings of 77% is optimal. The cost-optimal design for electrification achieves 100.12% of energy savings relative to the baseline design but results in a slightly high life cycle cost than that of the gas-cost optimal design. In addition, the results indicate that due to the additional capital costs for the required energy-efficient measures, the passive house case is less economically optimal than the Net Zero Energy Building design options. Overall, the most cost-optimal designs are found to be for natural gas-heated homes with marginally better energy performance than the applicable current energy efficiency code with 10-kW solar panels.
dc.publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
dc.titleComparative Analysis Optimal Designs for Passive, Electrified, and Net Zero Energy Residential Buildings
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume4
dc.journal.issue2
dc.journal.titleASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities
dc.identifier.doi10.1115/1.4062325
dc.journal.fristpage21001-1
dc.journal.lastpage21001-14
dc.page14
dc.treeASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities:;2023:;volume( 004 ):;issue: 002
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record