AN EXERGY-BASED SIMULATION TOOL FOR RETROFIT ANALYSIS IN

SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Ivan Garcia Kerdan1, Rokia Raslan2, and Paul Ruyssevelt 1
1
Energy Institute, UCL, London, UK
2
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, London, UK
i.kerdan.12@ucl.ac.uk
Keywords: exergy analysis, retrofits, non-domestic buildings, heating systems

ABSTRACT
Exergy represents the potential of maximum work
obtainable from an energy transformation process
(the quality of energy). This concept allows us to
understand quantitatively and qualitatively any
energy process by identifying thermodynamic losses
that could be avoidable. In current buildings there is
a great potential to optimize systems and minimize
these losses by performing exergy analysis. The
following presents a proposed overarching structure
for an exergy analysis tool based on an exergy-based
modelling approach for retrofit analysis in buildings.
This tool is integrated with a widely-used building
performance simulation tool (EnergyPlus) and the
ECB Annex 49 exergy method. This framework
allows the comparison between different retrofit
options and assesses the exergy efficiency of
different heating systems as well as locating where
the exergy is consumed along the energy supply
chain. To test the proposed tool, an archetype UK
school building was developed and used to assess a
base case scenario and five different retrofit
options. Preliminary results illustrate the benefit of
developing a dynamic exergy simulation tool with
the intention to facilitate the assessment of the true
thermodynamic inefficiencies and determine the best
quality match between existing local energy sources
and the required quality within the UK non-domestic
sector.

INTRODUCTION
Approximately half of the energy used in the UK is
dedicated to space and water heating purposes,
where buildings are responsible for 52% of the
overall energy used (DECC, 2013). Since indoor
temperatures usually range between 18-25 C,
research indicates that the heating needs of buildings
can be met by low-grade heat sources. However, a
key issue associated with this application is that of
the ineffective match between the potential of the
sources and the quality demand of the buildings
(Schmidt, 2004). The concept of energy efficiency
through the first law does not provide a real
indicator of how nearly a system approaches to
100% thermodynamic efficiency or true ideality

(absence
of
thermodynamic
losses
or
irreversibilities) (Szargut, 1980). An irreversible
process is a process that cannot return the system
and the environment to their original conditions
because of the constant increase of entropy in the
environment. This phenomenon is common in any
real thermodynamic process, like those found in the
built environment. To support this, the second law of
thermodynamics states that in every process where
energy or matter is dispersed, entropy is inevitable
generated; this means that exergy can actually be
lost due to the irreversibilities of a process.
Consequently, it can be suggested that exergy
analysis (a combination of first and second law of
thermodynamics) can become essential in locating
the aforementioned inefficiencies and seeking
opportunities for improvement. To determine these
inefficiencies, the use of a holistic approach is
necessary to establish the amount of exergy that is
consumed throughout all the main parts of building
energy systems (Shukuya, 1994). Buildings, similar
to any energy system, work as an exergy-entropy
process. A building and their systems basically feeds
on exergy, consumes exergy, generates entropy, and
the generated entropy is finally disposed of into the
environment. Disposing of the generated entropy
from the system creates new an opportunity for
feeding on exergy and consuming it again, thus the
process cycles.
The reference environment
The most important concept that has to be taken into
consideration to undertake an exergy analysis of a
given system is the establishment of a reference
environment (Hermann, 2006). This because exergy
is not only a property of the system but also of the
environment. Hence, an exergy calculation primarily
depends on the choice of reference environment and
this is determined through the implementation of
preliminary analysis to identify which environment
can act as an entropy-disposal sink. Therefore,
through the use of exergy with the support of the
second law and the Carnot formula1, the quality or

The Carnot formula sets the limiting value on the fraction of the
heat which can be used.

usefulness part of energy to produce power from

heat can be obtained (Eq. 1).
(1)
In the Carnot formula,
represents the reference
environment temperature (in absolute value [K]). An
essential characteristic of the reference environment
is that has to be irreversibilities-free, where all the
major exergy destructions should occur in the
system or process analysed. Toro et al. (2009)
explained that the biggest debate surrounding
entropy-disposal sinks is that between the ground
and the surrounding outside air. Both can be
considered as infinite sinks, but the latest it is always
available and does not suffer any changes in its
physical properties (thermal, chemical) due to
interaction with buildings. In this paper, outside
air is also considered as the reference environment.
Exergy utilization in the UK building sector
At the present time, the UK is still largely dependent
on fossil fuels and electricity to meet the energy
demand in buildings (especially for space heating).
Since the most common heating system technologies
used in the building sector (e.g. furnace, gas boilers,
condensing boilers, electrical heating, and air
conditioners) require high-grade sources (e.g. natural
gas, electricity), the low quality demand is
mismatched by the utilization of these high-grade
sources. In the UK, several researchers (Hammond
and Stapleton, 2001, Gasparatos et al., 2009) have
used statistical exergy approaches to analyse the
exergy utilization across the UK sectors. The
analyses show that the building sector has low
exergy efficiency compared to other economic
sectors in the UK (Figure 1). This is understandable
because in most industrial processes, optimization
through the implementation of exergy calculation is
commonly applied (Rosen, 2002).

Figure 1 Exergy Efficiency in different UK sectors

(Modified from Gasparatos et al., 2009)
The importance of the exergy method for
building retrofits
To improve exergy utilization within the building
sector, actions have to be implemented with regard

to both existing buildings and their energy

infrastructure.
Improving
exergy
efficiency
throughout the building sector can deliver a large
range of benefits in the economy, environment and
society. This will only be achievable if buildings are
transformed through a comprehensive, rigorous and
sustainable approach. The issue of building retrofit
optimisation should focus on the determination and
application of the most cost effective technologies
without compromising the delivery of service and
comfort at an acceptable level (Ma et al., 2012). The
constant tightening of building energy regulations
has led to the design of new and more efficient
energy systems; although the majority of
regulations, codes and even systems are developed
based only on the first law analysis. As the
retrofitting of buildings through an exergy approach
(Figure 2) has a significant impact on the national
energy security, more national policies and
incentives that consider the maximization of exergy
utilization and the reduction of exergy destructions
at all levels of the energy supply chain should be
therefore implemented .

Figure 2 Schematic exergetic flow comparison

between a conventional building and an exergyefficient building (Modified from Annex 49, 2009)
Exergy simulation tools for buildings
Building modellers regularly use simulation and
optimization software to help perform calculations
that result in design parameters for buildings and
their systems, however the consideration of the
whole energy supply chain in the analyses is not
commonplace. Some steady-state tools have been
developed with the intention of calculating exergy
consumption in building systems (Sakulpipatsin and
Schmidt, 2005, Schlueter and Thesseling,2009). As
is noted in the final report of the ECB Annex 49, a
steady-state assessment can only be used to get a
first comparison between systems but contains high
uncertainty on the results. Although dynamic
simulations involve longer times to run the models
and are far more complex than static approaches,
they are required for an accurate comparison
between projects and serve for optimization of
building systems, especially those related to energy

storage. Some studies (Angelotti et al., 2009, Toro

et al., 2009, Sakulpipatsin et al., 2010) have
conducted dynamic simulations at a preliminary
stage showing an initial assessment of the potential
strengths and limitations that dynamic analysis have
for the exergetic optimization in buildings. Recently,
the DPV project (Schlueter, 2013), a dynamic
simulation add-in for a BIM tool (Autodesk Revit)
that performs energy and exergy analysis for an
early design stage was developed.

MODELLING FRAMEWORK
Figure 3 illustrates the proposed modelling
framework, which is intended to be an extension of
the aforementioned currently available models.
Based on a review of developments in this field, it
can be assumed that in the near future, the
regulatory compliance process for building retrofit
may potentially require that an exergy assessment
be carried out. This already is the case in the Canton
of Geneva, Switzerland, where the local legal
framework stipulates that the documents required
from city developers (including building retrofit
projects) should include an exergy approach (Favrat
et al., 2008). If this happens in the UK in the near
future, the modelling framework presented here
could serve to support similar legal requirements.
This modelling framework for a proposed
simulation tool was developed with the aim of
helping to analyse the exergy efficiency and exergy
consumption before and after energy-oriented
retrofits are implemented in non-domestic buildings.
This simplified methodology will allow the
implementation of robust exergy analysis, assess the
impact of refurbishment actions on exergy
consumption, and attempt to define exergy
benchmarks based on building archetypes. The
proposed tool performs exergetic analysis for
building retrofit based on a bottom-up building
physics approach.
The model environment is based on, the energy
simulation tool EnergyPlus (US DOE, 2012)
coupled with a python-based program add-on
developed to combine dynamic energy simulations
with the Annex 49 exergy analysis method. In the
modelling approach, EnergyPlus will calculate the
heating and cooling loads necessary to maintain the
thermal control setpoint. The energy tool, enables
the calculation of the energy demand (hourly step)
dQ, the inside temperature and outdoor temperature
T (from the TMY2 weather files) parameters.
Exergy flows related to heating and cooling demand
in buildings are very sensitive to the choice of the
reference state, since HVAC systems operate very
close to the dead state (Angelotti et al., 2009).
Following the calculation of these parameters, an
exergy analysis is performed throughout the supply

chain. In the first instance, the exergy load in the

room is calculated as follows:
(2)
According to the system analysis method developed
by Schmidt (2004), the subsystems of a building
heating chain can be differentiated into six
subsystems,
where
the
primary
energy
transformation subsystem is located outside the
buildings boundary. The calculation must be
performed in the opposite direction, starting from
the envelope and ending in the conversion of
primary energy. The demand of each subsystem
must be satisfied by the subsystem that precedes it.
When the supply passes through the energy chain,
losses are expected throughout all subsystems, this
is dependent on such factors as the envelope
characteristics or heating systems components. In
this work, this method is automated and combined
with the common energy analysis. Further
information regarding the method and calculations
can be found in relevant documentation (Annex 49,
2011).
Retrofit scenarios module
A module that encompasses a variety of common
retrofit measures applied to non-domestic buildings
at both the building and energy supply infrastructure
level was developed. Based on the Annex 49
research, the most important subsystems in the
energy supply chain of a building are identified; the
module is then used to develop different
refurbishment measures at each level of the supply
system. These are then simulated and analysed to
provide an understanding of the impact of both
individual and a group of measures on the exergy
consumption on the whole system and subsystems.
The retrofit scenarios module is divided into the
following group of technologies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Building envelope retrofits

Heat emission (convectors) retrofits
Distribution system retrofits
Storage system retrofits
Generation system retrofits
Primary energy transformation options

The first five groups are building level (although

groups 3, 4 and 5 can also be found at community
level), while group 6 looks at all the actual national
energy resources available that have the potential to
cover and/or assist in meeting the demand at the
highest exergy-efficiency possible. One of the main
objectives of the model is to focus on large energy
transformation systems (e.g. CHP) and compare it
with small and micro systems (micro-CHP or heat
pumps). This helps analyse the impact of different
heat sources and the impact of retrofitting at the
building level and supply chain.

Figure 3 Proposed methodological framework for exergy analysis of retrofit projects

CASE STUDY
For this study, the UK educational (school) sector
was chosen to perform an exergy analysis.
Consequently, a group of archetypes that represent
the most common characteristics in the sector was
created. The method for the development of
archetypes was based on a process that involved a
review of relevant literature and the application of
statistical analysis to find the most important
variables associated with energy use (Famuyibo et
al., 2012). For the development of archetypes
relevant to the UK context, key UK data sources
were considered (Steadman et al., 2000a, Steadman
et al., 2000b). Based on this, 5 school buildings
sizes/form configurations were identified:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1,500 m cellular sidelit

7,500 m cellular sidelit
7,500 m cellular around open plan
15,000 m cellular around deep plan
15,000 m cellular sidelit

Table 1 presents the most important characteristics

of the UK educational (school) sector.
Table 1 Characteristics of the UK educational sector
Characteristics
Value
Unit
Primary school mean area
1518
m
Secondary School mean area
7452
m
Most common form
Daylit
cellular
Most common structure
Frame Walls/Floor Ratio
0.6
Glazing/Wall Ratio
0.28
Number of floors (mean)
2.44
floors

For this study, a simplified version of a single-zone

1,500 m2 primary school building was developed
(Figure 4). This model included both external and
internal thermal mass characteristics, and typical
patterns on occupation, operation schedules, and
miscellaneous equipment

Figure 4 Simplified archetype model of a UK

primary school

SIMULATION
To test the modelling framework, different retrofit
options for the different subsystems of the energy
supply chain in a typical school were assessed.
Although the impact of the building geometry, form,
and characteristics was considered, the main focus of
the analysis is the energy supply systems. The
thermal building characteristics of the model were
based on past and current UK building regulations.
For the heating systems, a configuration comprised
of a standard gas boiler (the most common heating
system in the sector), a water to water local heat
pump, and a hypothetical connection to a district
heating network was modelled. Table 2 lists all the 5
retrofit cases used in the study.

Table 2 Main characteristics analysed for the baseline scenario and five retrofit options
Building and system
Characteristics

Baseline

Case A

Case B

Case C

Case D

Case E

1.7
1.42
1.42
5.7
1.05
30%
12
5

0.17
0.19
0.25
1.3
0.35
30%
12
5

1.7
1.42
1.42
5.7
1.05
30%
12
5

Gas Boiler

Gas Boiler

Source

Natural Gas

Natural Gas

0.8
1.1
90
Radiator
HT 90/70
70
60
0.95

0.8
1.1
90
Radiator
HT 90/70
70
60
0.95

0.17
0.19
0.25
1.3
0.35
30%
12
5
Ground heat
pump W/W
Electricity and
low grade heat
4.61
1.7
60

0.17
0.19
0.25
1.3
0.35
30%
12
5

Heating System

1.7
1.42
1.42
5.7
1.05
30%
12
5
Ground heat
pump W/W
Electricity and
low grade heat
4.61
2.7
60

External wall (W/mK)

Roof (W/mK)
Ground floor (W/mK)
Glazing (W/mK)
Infiltration (ach)
Glazing %
Lighting load (W/m)
Miscellaneous Load (W/m)

Thermal efficiency
Primary energy factor fossil FP,fossil
Max. supply temperature qS1,max [C]
Emission System
Inlet temperature qin [C]
Return temperature qret [C]
Heat loss / efficiency hE [-]

For the baseline scenario a poorly insulated building

coupled with a gas boiler heating system was
considered. Case A represents the same building
model but with high thermal insulation levels as
required by the current England and Wales
regulations (Part L2). Case B and Case C have the
same thermal properties as the baseline scenario but
with upgrades to the generation and heating
emission (radiators/convectors) subsystems. For
Case B, a water to water ground heat pump was
analysed and the typical 90/70 radiators are replaced
by a wall heating convection system with an inlet
and outlet temperature of 50 C and 40C
respectively. Case C analyses the possibility of
connecting the school heating system to a
hypothetical district heat network, where waste heat
from electricity generation could be used a heating
source. This useful low-exergy energy sources could
represent a vast potential for a future low-carbon
heating system. To maximize the potential of district
heating, the heat emission system was replaced by
slab and floor heating with an inlet and outlet
temperature of 28 C and 22 C respectively. Case D
and Case E are similar to B and C but the building
envelope was retrofitted to the latest regulatory
requirements (as in Case A).
For this experiment, the climate of London was
considered and the simulations were performed
using the relevant weather file (TMY2). The
temperature data from this file was used as the
reference temperature for the dynamic exergy
analysis. The framework described in the
methodological section was tested (Fig 3), but with
the difference that a partial dynamic simulation was
performed (results from only two months, January
and March, are presented, January and March).
Although this can be considered to be a limitation
affecting the interpretation of the outputs, the results

Wall heating
50
40
0.95

District heat
Waste heat
0.89
0
70
Slab and
floor heating
28
22
0.99

Wall heating
50
40
0.95

District heat
Waste heat
0.89
0
70
Slab and
floor heating
28
22
0.99

produced are considered sufficiently valid to enable

the production of insights on how the proposed
framework works. The result analysis module was
carried with the help of a spreadsheet and the R
software.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first two graphs in this section show the exergy
demand calculated throughout the whole year. This
exergy demand is estimated by multiplying the load
demand by the quality factor estimated by the Carnot
formula, using outside and inside temperature (eq.
2). Figure 5 represents the exergy demand of the
baseline scenario, (poorly insulated school), while
Figure 6 represents the same building but insulated
to the latest Part L standards. It can be seen a large
decrease the annual exergy demand of the building.
Also, in both cases, the exergy demand is notably
less in the summer months when the inside
temperatures are closer to the reference
environment.

Figure 5 Exergy demand, Inside and Outside

Temperature for a poor insulated primary school

qualities,
1.0). Case D and Case E (holistic
retrofits) show minimal differences in exergy
savings comparing to Case A and Case C, showing
that they are impractical and probably not a costeffective solutions.
140
Envelope
120
kWh/m

Inside Air
100
Emission
80
Distribution

60

Figure 6 Exergy demand, Inside and Outside

Temperature for a high insulated primary school

40

Storage

20

Generation

January
Figure 7 and 8 show the total exergy destruction
added by subsystems and the exergy flow
throughout the supply chain, respectively. It was
expected that the results would show a reduction in
irreversibilities due to energy oriented retrofits at
all stages; however the results show the real impact
of different types of retrofit measures on the entire
supply chain. In comparing Case A (only high
insulation) and Case C (district heating and heat
emission retrofit) it is obvious that these two
different types of refurbishment projects reduce
losses by around 66%, however some differences
between them can be seen if the whole supply chain
is analysed. Case A presents similar amount of
exergy destruction (~20 kWh/m) at the primary
transformation and generation subsystem (high
grade fuel used in a gas boiler). On the other hand,
more than half of the exergy destruction of Case C
occurs at the transformation subsystem, where highgrade fuel is used at the power plant where heat
waste is generated. For Case B (heat pump) the
losses at the transformation system are even greater
because of the necessity of electricity in this type of
technology (electricity has one of the highest energy

Transformation
Baseline Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E

Scenarios

Figure 7 Total exergy destruction at each stage of

the supply chain (January).
140

Baseline

120

Case A

100

kWh/m

As stated in the introduction section, information

regarding the irreversibilities and thermodynamic
losses cannot be provided by energy analysis only.
This has to be complemented by the analysis of
exergy consumption and destruction at each
subsystem of the supply chain. The following graphs
illustrate the location, the magnitude, and the
sources of thermodynamic inefficiencies in the
systems. The results are presented for all 6 cases for
January and March. These graphs provide an
understanding of the difference in the carbon
footprint of a highly insulated building (Part L) with
conventional heating systems (gas boiler, electric,
HVAC) and a poorly insulated building with other
heating systems (gas boiler, CHP, heat pump, district
heating).

Case B
80
60

Case C

40

Case D

20

Case E
0

Energy Supply Chain

Figure 8 Supply chain exergy flow analysisdegradation of the energy quality (January)
March
The same analysis is shown for the month of March,
to show the differences in exergy consumption,
destruction and efficiency between two different but
not very distant periods of the year. The difference
in temperature is smaller than in January, and this
can be seen in the reduced energy quality demanded
by the building (Figure 5 and 6) and the reduction in
exergy losses by all subsystems in all retrofit cases
(Figure 9). Similar exergy destruction trends were
expected (compared to January) but an interesting
difference is found in comparing Case A and C. In
this month, Case A has lower total exergy
destruction than Case C. Also it should be noted that
holistic retrofits bring minimal gains compared to
projects where only the envelope or the HVAC
system is retrofitted.

Table 3 Exergy efficiencies at supply level and

building level for January and March

140
Envelope

January

120
kWh/m

100

Distribution

60

Storage

40

Generation

20

Transformation

0
Baseline Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E

Scenarios

kWh/m

Figure 9 Total exergy destruction at each stage of

the supply chain (March).
140

Baseline

120

Case A

100

Case B

80
Case C
60
Case D
40
Case E

20

2.1

1.1

2.8
Base

2.0
A

total (%)

1.3

0.4

building (%)

1.8

0.9

building (%)
March

Emission

80

Base

total (%)

Inside Air

Energy Supply Chain

Figure 10 Supply chain exergy flow analysisdegradation of the energy quality (March)
To complete the analysis, exergy efficiencies must
be calculated. This illustrates how far the building
and their systems is from an ideal thermodynamic
stage. The total exergy system efficiency is obtained
in a similar manner to the energy efficiency; in this
case the exergy that leaves through the envelope is
divided by the total exergy load of the room. This
displays the ratio of exergy that it is really being
used (Eq. 3). At the building level, a useful indicator
is produced by comparing the exergy supplied by the
local HVAC system and the exergy leaving the
building (Eq. 4).
(3)
(4)
The results for all the cases and the analysed months
are presented in table 3.

3.9

6.2

1.4

1.7

11.9
B

18.7
C

4.3
D

5.0
E

2.4

3.5

0.5

1.7

7.1

10.4

1.4

5.0

As can be noted by the low exergy efficiencies,

buildings supply side are far from being ideally
compatible with the demanded exergy requirement
from buildings ( > 10%). From this analysis, Case
A has the lower exergy efficiency of all cases
analysed. The main reason is that although exergy
destructions are minimized by the building envelope,
the whole supply chain is still dependant on highgrade fossil fuels where large differences of
temperatures can be found in the transformation
processes. On the other hand Case C represents the
most ideal case in exergy terms. Here exergy
destruction is minimized due to the better match
between the quality of the supply source and the
exergy demanded by the building to maintain
minimal comfort conditions (waste heat at ~70 C to
heat a room at ~20C).

CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a first scope on the potential of
different retrofit scenarios to reduce exergy losses in
the UK non-domestic sector. Exergy can become a
powerful and useful tool to aid in the
implementation and undertaking of more robust
retrofit projects. Is evident that this approach can be
used in retrofitting the supply chains as it gives a
better perspective in where exergy is being wasted.
The results indicate that a building with no
insulation but connected to a district heating system
wastes less exergy, that results in the generation of
less CO. These benefits occur by using heat waste
in district heating as it has a low environmental
impact due to heat recycling and use of renewables.
Additionally, the heat can be produced through
many different production methods and is not
dependant on a specific fuel type. If this scenario
were to be replicated for the building sector as a
whole, conventional retrofits could become
economically non-viable and the major benefits
could be seen at a national level in better energy
resource utilization. On the other hand, highly
insulated buildings can improve the ability of a
school building to utilize low quality energy sources,
although the capital cost of installing all measures
could make a project of this type not profitable.
Finally, heat pumps (Case B and D) also have a
large utilization potential if a district heating
network is not available near the building site.

Although the dynamic analysis approach is more

time consuming, it allows a more accurate
comparison of different options in the supply chain,
especially in calculations where the reference
environment is closer to the indoor temperature (e.g.
in March). If exergy analysis is going to become part
of retrofit analysis in buildings, it is essential the
development of new methods to calculate the
economics of exergy destruction in buildings. In this
sense, thermoeconomics represent a valuable method
for the optimization of retrofit options. For future
work, a module will be developed within this
modelling framework. On the other hand, is
important to note that the exergy method by nature is
more focused on energy utilization/optimization and
commonly neglects other non-energy benefits such
as reduction of operational cost and improvement of
internal comfort. More research is needed to
understand how the exergy approach impacts these
parameters.

NOMENCLATURE
Quality or Carnot factor (-)
Temperature (K)
Exergy or second law efficiency (-)
Exergy consumed by the room air (kW)
Total exergy supplied to the system (kW)
Exergy input at the generation system (kW)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author acknowledges support from The
Mexican National Council for Science and
Technology (CONACyT) through a scholarship to
pursue graduate studies.

REFERENCES
Angelotti, A., Caputo, P. & Solani, G. 2009.
Dynamic exergy analysis of an air source
heat pump. 1st International Exergy, Life
Cycle Assessment, and Sustainability
Workshop & Symposium (ELCAS), 8.
Annex 49 2011. Detailed Exergy Assessment
Guidebook for the Built Environment, IEA
ECBCS. Fraunhofer IBP.
Department of Energy and Climate Change 2013.
The Future of Heating: Meeting the
challenge. DECC (ed.). United Kingdom.
Famuyibo, A. A., Duffy, A. & STrachan, P. 2012.
Developing archetypes for domestic
dwellingsAn Irish case study. Energy
and Buildings, 50, 150-157.
Favrat, D., Marechal, F. & Epelly, O. 2008. The
challenge of introducing an exergy
indicator in a local law on energy. Energy,
33, 130-136.
Gasparatos, A., El-haram, M. & Horner, M. 2009.
Assessing the sustainability of the UK
society using thermodynamic concepts: Part
2. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 13, 956-970.

Hammond, G. P. & Stapleton, A. J. 2001. Exergy

analysis of the United Kingdom energy
system. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of
Power and Energy, 215, 141-162.
Hermann, W. A. 2006. Quantifying global exergy
resources. Energy, 31, 1685-1702.
Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D. & Ledo, L. 2012.
Existing building retrofits: Methodology
and state-of-the-art. Energy and Buildings,
55, 889-902.
Rosen, M. A. 2002. Does industry embrace exergy?
Exergy, An International Journal, 2, 221223.
Sakulpipatsin, P., Itard, L. C. M., Van Der Kooi, H.
J., Boelman, E. C. & Luscuere, P. G. 2010.
An exergy application for analysis of
buildings and HVAC systems. Energy and
Buildings, 42, 90-99.
Sakulpipatsin, P. & Schmidt, D. 2005. Exergy
analysis applied to building design.
Schlueter, A. & Thesseling, F. 2009. Building
information model based energy/exergy
performance assessment in early design
stages. Automation in Construction, 18,
153-163.
Schlueter, A. 2013. Design Performance Viewer:
User Documentation. Institute of
Technology in Architecture, ETH Zurich.
Schmidt, D. 2004. Methodology for the Modelling
of
Thermally
Activated
Building
Components in Low Exergy Design.
Doctoral Thesis, Kungliga Tekniska
Hgskolan .
Shukuya, M. 1994. Energy, Entropy, Exergy and
Space Heating Systems. Healthy Buildings
'94: proceedings of the 3rd international
conference. Technical University of
Budapest, 369-374.
Steadman, P., Bruhns, H. & Gakovic, B. 2000a.
Inferences about built form, construction,
and fabric in the nondomestic building
stock of England and Wales. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27,
733-758.
Steadman, P., Bruhns, H., Senino, H. & Gakovic, B.
2000b. A classification of built forms.
Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 27, 73-91.
Szargut, J. 1980. International progress in second
law analysis. Energy, 5, 709-718.
Toro, H., Angelotti, A. & Schmidt, D. 2009. Exergy
analysis of renewable energy-based
climatisation systems for buildings: A
critical view. Energy and Buildings, 41,
248-271.
U .S. Department of Energy (2012). EnergyPlus
software.
Retrieved
2012,
from
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/builings/energ
yplus