Content uploaded by Isil Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isil Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu on Jul 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
Available online 8 February 2024
0360-1323/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Building performance with an integrated simulation approach: Experiences
in Solar Decathlon Europe 21/22 and future perspectives
Isil Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu
*
, Karsten Voss
Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Pauluskirchstr, 7, D-42285, Wuppertal, Germany
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Teaching
Building performance simulation
Integrated approach
Solar Decathlon
Review
Survey
ABSTRACT
This paper is concerned with the use of building performance simulation (BPS) in higher education. It in-
vestigates the methods used to integrate BPS into experimental building projects in Solar Decathlon Europe
2021/2022 (SDE21/22), the most recent European edition of an international university-level student compe-
tition on designing, building, and operating high-performance, low-carbon, and solar-powered houses. Previous
editions of the competition are reviewed to identify pedagogical approaches, challenges, and potentials. The
adoption of BPS in SDE21/22 is explored through the results of the competition, the reports of the participating
teams, and cross-referencing them to nd out how effective the methods for introducing BPS in design and
operation were. The integration of building performance into the curricula of the participating universities is
investigated to see if higher integration meant higher success in the competition. A survey is conducted to learn
about the teams’ experiences in using BPS tools to understand the integrative effectiveness of the design and
performance components. The main ndings show that the integrated BPS is possible when (1) implemented
together with experiential learning methods, (2) introduced starting from early design, (3) discussed through
comparison of simulated data with reality, (4) provided with multidisciplinary supervision and continuous
feedback, and (5) applied with BPS tools that are easy to use and integrated into a design tool. The aim of the
study is to identify teaching methods that have the potential to enable the integrated use of BPS and to offer
future perspectives for a more effective use of BPS in higher education.
1. Introduction
As time runs out to achieve sustainable future goals in the midst of
climate change, it is becoming increasingly difcult to create a built
environment with low environmental impact yet high comfort, while
ensuring energy efciency and maintaining aesthetic quality. To over-
come the multidimensional and highly interacting challenges in Archi-
tecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC), and thus realize this multi-
purpose built environment, the wider adoption of interdisciplinary ap-
proaches that address many parameters in an integrated manner is a
necessity rather than an option.
Building performance assessment allows for complex analyses to
respond to multiple criteria resulting from many objectives arising from
demands related to energy consumption, acoustic performance, thermal
occupant comfort, indoor air quality, lighting, etc. [1]. Among many
others, such as a scale model, a full experimentation, an analytical
appraisal etc. [2], BPS is a widely recognized and adopted approach for
providing spatial interactions within a design, including many
performance domains, e.g., energy, comfort, daylighting, etc., support-
ing interdisciplinary and collaborative work, and supporting the un-
derstanding of complex systems of a built environment [1,3–5]. Using of
BPS in a design phase can provide practical benets, because assessment
of the behavior/performance of a future building in advance is more
efcient and economical than xing problems when the building is in
use [3]. Beyond that, its use in commissioning and operation also has
high potential to detect possible gaps between simulated and measured,
and also to support performance assessment and monitoring models, e.
g., digital twin, which uses data streams to create a digital representa-
tion of a real-world asset to improve collaboration, information access,
and decision making.
The practical implementation of integrated approaches depends on
many technical, economic, and social parameters in AEC, but even more
fundamentally, it depends on whether practitioners are familiar with
integrated approaches and acquire the necessary knowledge and skills
during their higher education. Previous studies [6–12] show the rele-
vance of teaching BPS in higher education. The experience gained
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kalpkirmazrizao@uni-wuppertal.de (I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Building and Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111261
Received 19 July 2023; Received in revised form 24 January 2024; Accepted 30 January 2024
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
2
during the education plays a signicant role in the adoption of BPS tools
by the architects and engineers of the future. However, BPS is often an
additive rather than an inherent part of design education, therefore new
methods are needed to provide design-integrated experiences [6,13,14].
In this regard, the study problematizes integrated performance and
design teaching in architecture and engineering education, focusing on
the use of Building Performance Simulation (BPS). The aim of the study
is to identify teaching methods that have the potential to enable the
integrated use of BPS and thus provide future perspectives for the
effective use of integrated BPS.
Solar Decathlon Europe 2021/2022 (SDE21/22) [15], as the most
recent European edition of Solar Decathlon (SD) [16], which is an in-
ternational university-level student competition on designing, building
and operating high-performance, low-carbon and solar-powered houses
[17], is chosen as the main focus of the investigation. First of all, SD is an
important example because many teaching and learning methods have
been applied at the intersection of performance and design since the rst
edition took place in the United States (US) in 2002. Moreover, the
reason why SDE21/22 is chosen as the main focus is that it is the rst
edition inspired by the outcome of Annex 74 – “Competition and Living
Lab Platform” of the International Energy Agency’s Energy in Buildings
and Communities Program (IEA EBC) [18], which includes signicant
updates to the competition rules closely related to building performance
assessments. In addition, as part of the organizing team of this edition,
the authors had the opportunity to experience the entire process
rst-hand and make observations for the topics discussed in this study.
2. Methodology
The framework of the study, including the purpose, objectives,
research questions, and methods, is illustrated in Fig. 1 by pointing to
the core sections that address the objectives.
The state-of-the-art for the integrated approaches concerning the use
of BPS that implemented in the context of the SD competitions is
investigated through a literature review. The literature review seeks
answers to the questions “What are the main pedagogical approaches
and methods related to BPS in SD?” and “What are the challenges and
potentials encountered during their implementation of these methods?”.
The results are presented in the “State of the Art” section to provide
background and to reveal the research gap.
The methods used to include BPS in SDE21/22 and the new elements
unique to this edition are explored by reviewing.
⁃ the ofcial documents of SDE21/22 [19] (i.e., the SDE21/22 Rules
document, the SDE21/22 Content and Criteria documents, and other
documents prepared to support the SDE21/22 teams for specic
contests),
⁃ the reports of the participating teams [19] (i.e., the teams’ project
manuals), which were submitted just before the competition nal.
Therefore, the evaluation includes 16 teams out of 18 that partici-
pated in the nal event. The authors collected information also from
on-site inspections and the web pages of SDE21/22 and the teams
[15].
The ndings of the SDE21/22 review are cross-analyzed with the
Fig. 1. Framework of the study: Aim, objectives, research questions and methods.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
3
teams’ rankings in the competition to answer the question “How effec-
tive were these methods to integrate BPS into the stages of the projects, i.
e., design and operation?”.
The use of BPS tools by the SDE21/22 teams is investigated with a
survey, namely “BPS Tools in SDE21/22”, which was conducted in an
anonymous format after the completion of the competition via the on-
line communication platform of SDE21/22. Out of the 18 teams, 12
teams participated. The questions were close-ended with single- and
multiple-choice options. There were 10 questions in total. Some of the
questions were provided with denitions of the terms used in the
questions to avoid misunderstandings and/or confusion, for example,
the denitions of the design phases were given in the questions about the
design and documentation tools used in different design phases. The
main objectives of the survey were to understand the integrative effec-
tiveness of design and performance components used during the appli-
cation of BPS tools and the impact of BPS on the design process.
The integration of building performance topics into the curricula of
the participating universities is again investigated by cross-referencing
“the level of integration” with “the competition results” to see
whether higher integration led to higher rankings.
3. State-of-the-Art
A study [20] sharing the experiences of a participant team in SD US
2013 claims that “The earlier architectural students are encouraged to
actively engage with environmental issues, the more likely they are to consider
them as key in later professional practice.”, and adds that “Design-build
method offers a new learning environment that serves to empower students
and ensure that they gain the fundamental skills to work within a design
environment and – above all – to bring elements of fun and professional
practice into their academic life.”.
A paper [21] exploring the learning experiences of a group of engi-
neering and construction students, who took part in SD US 2011 con-
cludes that the implementation of the appropriate level of real-world
interaction via competitions such as SD to balance the classroom-based
education is vital, because traditional university classroom teaching is
not sufcient to develop the skills needed by future professionals.
Another paper [22], based on the experience of SD US 2013, underlines
the importance of SD as a pedagogical opportunity for collaboration
between architects and engineers, as well as construction management,
interior design, and other professional specializations in building design,
by pointing out the importance of the use of digital design and assess-
ment tools. One another [23] shares the experiences gained during SD
US 2011, focusing on the pedagogical methods and the usefulness of
interdisciplinary projects for architecture students. It lays emphasis on
the need to improve the standard student curriculum to allow for
interdisciplinary and collaborative projects and learning programs.
Another study [24], based on the experiences of SD Latin America
and Caribbean 2019 and SDE 2019, highlights the six main values
empowered by the SD competitions: (1) incorporating innovation as a
tool, (2) generating and implementing an interdisciplinary organiza-
tional learning and teaching model, (3) nding a balance between a
design project, its functionality and aesthetics, (4) making use of the
necessary tools for design, performance assessment and others related to
information and communication technologies, such as
three-dimensional (3D) design, Building Information Modeling (BIM)
and BPS, etc., (5) structuring a broadly accessible, exible and multi-
disciplinary learning environment through online and face-to-face
courses, workshops, exhibitions via networks across universities and
industry, (6) applying assessment and evaluation for critique and sub-
sequent reection on the nature of the experience, as well as
re-evaluation of the design-build-operate process.
A comprehensive study [25] mentions the four main SD surveys
focusing on education from the 2002–2020 editions of the competition.
According to the results of the 2012 SD US Survey, ve times more
ex-decathletes worked in the eld of clean energy after leaving
university than non-decathletes (76% and 15%, respectively). According
to the results of the SDE 2012 and 2014 surveys, the most voted skills
and knowledge that students stated they developed through the
competition were communication, public relations, project manage-
ment, scheduling, productivity, teamwork, construction, and leadership.
Another study [26] reports the results of the SD Worldwide 2020 survey
in terms of the educational impact of Solar Decathlon. Looking only at
students, who represented 60% of the total 392 participants from around
the world, innovation and knowledge generation was the top reason for
satisfaction, followed by environmental and sustainability awareness
(49% of students), and the third most highly rated by students (41% of
students) was fostering education. And the study adds that: “This may be
associated with the fact that the dynamic and transversal process that the
competition promotes is an educational environment favorable to learning.”
Following the review of pedagogical approaches and methods
adopted in the SD competitions, studies focusing on BPS in the previous
competitions are also reviewed to further investigate methods related to
BPS.
A study [27] cross-analyzes the monitoring results on energy, house
functioning and indoor comfort with the jury assessment on energy ef-
ciency in the context of SDE 2012. It mentions that because it is an
international event, there are houses that are designed for their own
local climate. On the other hand, when a house is to be built in a com-
mon competition site, it needs to be adapted to the climatic conditions of
that competition site in order to compete. This issue is also discussed in
the context of monitoring. It can be said that including BPS at the design
stage as well as BPS calibrated according to the constructed project can
help for more accurate performance evaluation.
Another study [28] focuses on the optimal integration of architec-
tural concepts and energy-efcient mechanisms through a case study of
an SDE 2010 project. The following statement of this project, in which
BPS is included not only as an evaluation tool but also as a continuous
feedback mechanism for making design decisions, is noteworthy: “We
can achieve a coherent and unitary image that, together with the solar
thermal and photovoltaic collectors, does not appear as added, but as a
natural part, on one side of the “vessels” that make up the house.”
Another one [29] shares the experience of a participating team,
which holds the second place in the ranking, from SD Middle East 2018,
on the topics of design, modeling, implementation and evaluation of the
solar PV and HVAC systems by comparing the simulated and measured
data. BPS was used from the very early steps to the nal steps of the
design process to explore the climatic conditions of the competition site,
identify possible passive design strategies, design an HVAC system,
calculate energy demand, and design a photovoltaic system. The team’s
extensive BPS work resulted in a high degree of consistency between
simulated and measured data.
Another project from SD Middle East 2018 [30] is explained in terms
of design optimization, focusing on passive strategies. An integrated BPS
approach was adopted, starting from the early design phase for massing
studies, later for building envelope design, to the advanced phase for the
nal decision on building materials and technical systems. However,
what attracts more attention in the study is that the energy simulation
results - performed through one of the well-known and validated in-
terfaces of the EnergyPlus [31] simulation engine - were not shared due
to the difculties/failures in modeling passive design strategies.
Therefore, another relatively less known and simplied BPS tool, but
with a feature of CFD, was adopted to investigate passive ventilation
scenarios. Another signicance is that the authors refer to their moni-
toring experience “as a means to correct energy-inefcient behaviors”.
A post-competition study [32] from SD Latin America 2015 in-
vestigates the environmental performance of a competition house
through a full-year BPS assessment, pointing out that a short monitoring
period is not enough to give a complete picture of a performance.
Therefore, they use the data monitored during the competition to cali-
brate and verify the simulation model to further investigate the per-
formance of a double skin, particularly for indoor thermal comfort.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
4
Another shortcoming mentioned was that the monitoring data was
sometimes interrupted by user interactions, since the monitoring took
place at the same time as the visit, a period when the houses were open
to public.
The literature review shows that BPS is used in SD competitions at
many stages of the project process, from design to operation. Some
highlights from the review are summarized below.
⁃ Including BPS in a design process and later in the comparison of
simulation data with reality - via measurements - is signicant for
concrete learning experience.
⁃Including annual BPS, considering local climate conditions, along-
side measured and monitored data would help for better perfor-
mance evaluation.
⁃ Monitoring results of a short period of time cannot represent the
annual performance of a building. Thus, the use of BPS to assess the
overall annual performance would be a value for performance
appraisals.
The extensive presence of SD in the literature clearly shows how
important it is as a resource for integrated and interdisciplinary edu-
cation and research, not only during the competition, but also after the
competition. However, research on integrated teaching and learning
methods, especially focusing on BPS from a pedagogical perspective, is
still scarce in the context of SD and needs more attention to be able to
identify the limitations and potential of these methods and to use them
more efciently.
4. Solar Decathlon Europe 21/22
Today, SD is a worldwide event with editions in the United States,
the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, China and Africa. The ultimate
goal is to educate and train the students who will be the next generation
of AEC by equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to
create environment friendly, energy efcient and comfortable built
environments.
SDE21/22 [15], which took place in June 2022 in Wuppertal, Ger-
many, was the most recent European edition. The Faculty of Architec-
ture and Civil Engineering of the University of Wuppertal was the main
host and organizing institution of SDE21/22. The project was funded by
the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action
against the background of promoting a climate-neutral building stock by
2045 in Germany [33].
A total of 18 teams from 11 countries with the participation of more
than 500 students took part in the competition. Due to difculties caused
by COVID-19, the competition nal was postponed from 2021 to 2022
and two SDE21/22 teams (BKU and KMU) could not reach the nal
phase of the competition. Therefore, 16 of the 18 teams built their
houses on a common competition site, the SDE21/22 Solar Campus,
which was the event area for the nal phase of the competition,
including jury evaluations, House Demonstration Unit (HDU) perfor-
mance measurements and comparisons in “Ten Contests”, and public
visits. Table 1 lists the SDE21/22 teams with their universities and
countries. During 36 days at the Solar Campus, the teams built, oper-
ated, tested, measured, presented their HDUs, and explained their
overall design approach to the jury, as well as to public visitors, who
numbered more than 115,000 in just 12 days of public visits. After a two-
week construction and assembly period, the teams opened the doors of
their houses to visitors.
4.1. What are the contests?
The ten contests around which the competition was structured were
(1) Architecture; (2) Engineering & Construction; (3) Energy Perfor-
mance; (4) Affordability and Viability; (5) Communication, Education
and Social Awareness; (6) Sustainability; (7) Comfort; (8) House
Functioning; (9) Urban Mobility; and (10) Innovation. In total, there
were 5 different ways for the teams to earn points: jury evaluation, guest
evaluation, task completion, test, and in-situ monitoring. Still, the main
evaluations were based on jury and monitoring, 30% of the points in 10
disciplines are distributed based on monitoring and 70% on jury
evaluations.
The teams worked on the planning and design of their projects for 3
years. In order to ensure the gradual continuation of the work and to
provide feedback on the work, the teams were asked to make a series of
submissions until the nal stage of the competition. These submissions,
called “deliverables”, included all the documents, drawings and other
materials that the teams had to submit to the SDE21/22 organizers.
4.2. What are the urban situations?
SDE21/22 was the rst edition organized with a European urban
prole. As a response to climate change, the aim of SDE21/22 was to
promote energy transition. For this purpose, targets were set to achieve
climate neutrality in an existing urban building stock by focusing on
renewable energy, especially the active use of solar energy, increasing
energy efciency and reducing energy demand, mainly based on fossil
fuels.
Three different urban situations (Fig. 2) were given as options and
the teams were asked to choose one of these situations: Renovation &
Extension (1), Closing Gaps (2), and Renovation & Addition (3). As
an example, the teams were given real situations from a neighborhood in
Mirke, a district of Wuppertal, but the teams were also free to nd and
work on a similar situation from their own countries.
4.3. What are the challenges?
The SDE21/22 format combined two challenges for the teams
(Fig. 3).
Table 1
SDE21/22 teams with their universities and countries.
Team Name University Country
KIT Team RoofKIT Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany
TUE Team VIRTUe Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands
TUD Team SUM Delft University of Technology Netherlands
GRE Team AuRA ´
Ecole Nationale Sup´
erieure
d’Architecture de Grenoble
France
HSD Team MIMO Düsseldorf University of Applied
Sciences
Germany
FHA Team Local+Aachen University of Applied
Sciences
Germany
ROS Team Level Up Rosenheim Technical University of
Applied Sciences
Germany
UPV Team Azalea Polytechnic University of Valencia Spain
HFT Team CoLLab Stuttgart University of Applied
Sciences
Germany
ION Team EFdeN Ion Mincu, University of Architecture
and Urbanism Bucharest
Romania
NCT Team TDIS National Yang Ming Chiao Tung
University
Taiwan
HBC Team X4S Biberach University of Applied
Sciences
Germany
CTU Team First Life Czech Technical University Czech Republic
ITU Team Deeply
High
Lübeck Technical University of
Applied Sciences &
Istanbul Technical University
Germany &
Turkey
UPH Team Lungs of
the City
University of P´
ecs Hungary
CHA Team Sweden Chalmers Technical University Sweden
BKU Team SAB Bangkok University Thailand
KMU Team UR-
BAAN
King Mongkut’s University of
Technology Thonburi
Thailand
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
5
⁃ In the Design Challenge (DC), the teams created a design & energy
concept by planning a whole building transformation addressing one
of the urban situations.
⁃ In the Building Challenge (BC), the teams designed and built a
House Demonstration Unit (HDU) as a representative of the DC on
the SDE21/22 Solar Campus at the competition nal. HDUs are one-
to two-story houses with up to 110 m2 of living space.
The detailed description of the challenges and urban situations is
provided by the SDE21/22 organizers and is available on the Building
Competition & Living Lab Platform [19].
4.4. What was new in this edition and what is the importance for BPS?
SDE21/22 was the rst edition inspired by the work and results of
the IEA EBC Annex 74 [18]. The edition included important updates
which were applied for the rst time and greatly inuenced the way BPS
was adopted in the competition, namely.
(1.) a consistent documentation of key project facts and indicators in
a comparable set of data sheets,
(2.) a consistent separation of monitoring and visiting times,
(3.) blower door (i.e., air tightness) and co-heating tests,
(4.) the mandatory use of a simplied dynamic simulation tool,
(5.) a modied contest to test the buildings’ energy exibility in
interaction with the power grid,
(6.) an extended monitoring system.
The data sheet, namely the “Fact Sheet” (1), is prepared by the
SDE21/22 organizers and provided to the teams to be lled with their
project data, updated and resubmitted for each deliverable. It was
helpful for easier comprehension and comparison of the projects, in
addition to promoting the use of building performance parameters and
indicators through the elaboration of BPS inputs and results. The sepa-
ration of monitoring and visiting (2) was signicant to increase the us-
ability of monitoring data for educational and research purposes. By
eliminating the impact of visitors on the measured data, which is likely
to create a much more different operation/user scenario than originally
planned, the measurements were more reliable for comparing with the
simulation and/or calibrated simulation models. The in-situ tests (3)
were another important input to characterize the building thermal
properties under comparable real conditions and to provide input to the
simulations for further evaluation of the projects. The use of a common
BPS tool (4) ensured a homogeneous modeling and simulation process
among the teams, in terms of simulation setup, model and outputs, as
well as weather data and time resolution. Therefore, it was possible to
review the process and compare the results on a common basis. The
modications for the energy exibility test (5) and the extended moni-
toring (6) in this respect were important to reect the needs of power
grids with a high penetration of uctuating power from renewable en-
ergy sources and to better quantify the performance of the PV systems
and the interaction of the building with the power grid, again in terms of
comparing simulated and measured data.
4.5. To what extent is BPS included in the contests and sub-contest?
The deployment of BPS in SDE21/22 was quite extensive. It was used
as one of the main assessment methods in 20 of the 34 sub-contests. The
contests and sub-contests are listed in Table 2, showing in which con-
tests BPS was used.
BPS was utilized to address both DC and BC, as well as the built
version of BC, the HDU. In order to assess the performance of the de-
signs, the teams were asked to provide annual simulations, estimating
the sustainability and efciency of the energy concepts over the course
of a year, continuously via deliverables. Besides, BPS accompanied the
in-situ tests and measurements as part of the “performance gap” sub-
Fig. 2. Urban situations: Renovation & Extension (1), Closing Gaps (2), and Renovation & Addition (3) [34], ©SDE21/22.
Fig. 3. Urban situations (1,2,3) and Design Challenge (DC), Building Challenge (BC) and House Demonstration Unit (HDU) as part of the SDE21/22 competition
[34], ©SDE21/22.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
6
contest. This was a task that the teams had to complete by submitting
performance simulations of their houses for a certain period of time,
during which co-heating tests were carried out and operative tempera-
tures were monitored by the SDE21/22 organizes to be compared with
the simulation results.
BPS studies were deliberately promoted in SDE21/22 by targeting 3
main didactive points with links to the building practice.
⁃ Studying variations during design development to nd the optimum
solution for the targeted performance;
⁃ Testing the robustness of a design; e.g., to test the resilience against
extreme weather conditions (e.g., heat wave effect) and/or extreme/
unexpected user behavior (e.g., operation of blinds, windows)
⁃ Initiating the generation of simulation data to be compared with
measurements as part of a Performance Gap Task (PGT).
The monitoring used in the “energy performance”, “comfort”, and
“house functioning” contests stands out as an integral component of the
design-build-operate approach. Students had the opportunity to
compare the measurements and performance expectations, that were
primarily assessed through the use of BPS tools during the design
process, to learn what was wrong or missing in their assessments and/or
the overall building process. Thus, the use of BPS tools in combination
with the monitoring and site measurements created a link between
design and operation.
5. BPS in SDE21/22
SDE21/22 provides a rich set of examples of integrated BPS use with
a variety of methods from design to operation. Accordingly, this section
explains how BPS is used in SDE21/22 and the methods involved.
5.1. BPS in design
The teams went through all design phases, including early design,
design development, and advanced design, to create their design and
energy concepts for both DC and HDU. In this study, the design phases
are dened based on the stages of a building project according to the
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) [35] and the Honorarium
Regulations for Architects and Engineers (HOAI) [36].
⁃ Early design phase: Conceptual investigations, schematic design,
form nding, massing studies, etc. are made to explore design
options.
⁃ Design development phase: Layout of oor plans is decided;
exactly what is needed in each part of the building and some rough
designs for facades, details such as windows, comparison, evaluation
and selection of prominent design alternatives are among the rst
alternatives to be developed.
⁃ Advanced design phase: More detailed drawings are produced.
Input from external consultants such as surveyors, engineers, re
safety ofcers, etc. may be sought. An application of permission to
the planning ofce is made. At this stage all specications and tender
drawings for the project are completed.
Almost all the teams used BPS starting in the early design phase.
These investigations at the intersection of design and performance hel-
ped the teams compare, evaluate, and identify prominent design alter-
natives and then move on to further design details. Following this, all the
teams used BPS to evaluate the performance of their nal designs. The
early design and design development investigations for both DC and
HDU, based on the teams’ report, are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Although less than a year has passed since SDE21/22, the number of
publications [17,34,37–40] on topics at the intersection of design and
performance in the context of SDE21/22 is a clear indicator of the
substantiality of the competition and the interest in that intersection.
A recently published study by the HFT team [37] presents the use of
parametric design and BPS tools for the optimal placement of photo-
voltaic (PV) cells. In the study, solar gains are reduced for summer
thermal comfort while being utilized for winter thermal comfort, also
achieving a high efciency for the PV system. The example work of the
team is presented in Fig. 5.
Another recent study [39] shares the work and experience of the KIT
team with BPS during the design process to support decision making and
achieve the realization of their proposed design. It explains how a solar
based heating system was optimized, decisions regarding the area and
angle of a PVT collector and storage control strategies were made by
using BPS. Besides the work presented in the study, the team also used
BPS to determine the window area and positioning to study the inuence
of night ventilation on local thermal comfort and to optimize the insu-
lation thickness and thermal mass.
A paper [17], including the authors of this study, focuses on solar
engineering and discusses the application of active solar systems and
their integration into a design as an architectural element at SDE21/22.
It presents a wide range of solutions with a high level of aesthetic and
technical quality. The maximum power generation of a PV/PVT system
was limited for competition related reasons, and only the systems on the
Table 2
Contests and sub-contests at SDE21/22: The dots show the sub-contests where
BPS was used.
Contest Sub- contest Scoring type
1 Architecture •site integration jury by team reports
•building design jury by team reports
•interior & lighting design jury by team reports
•solar system integration jury by team reports
2 Engineering &
Construction
•energy concept jury by team reports
•performance analysis jury by team reports
•life cycle carbon footprint jury by team reports
3 Energy Performance •energy consumption monitoring by in situ
measurements
•energy balance monitoring by in situ
measurements
•self-consumption monitoring by in situ
measurements
•PV system performance monitoring by in situ
measurements
•grid interaction team task
4 Affordability &
Viability
affordability jury by team reports
viability jury by team reports
5 Communication,
Education
& Social Awareness
communication
education
social awareness
jury by team reports
jury by team reports
jury by team reports
6 Sustainability •circularity jury by team reports
sufciency, exibility &
environmental performance
jury by team reports
jury by team reports
7 Comfort •temperature monitoring by in situ
measurements
•humidity monitoring by in situ
measurements
•air quality (CO2) monitoring by in situ
measurements
•lighting monitoring by in situ
measurements
•sound insulation test in situ
•air tightness test in situ
•performance gap team task
8 House Functioning appliances monitoring & team
task
hot water & water balance team task
dinner guest evaluation
user friendliness guest evaluation
9 Urban Mobility mobility concepts jury by team reports
urban mobility tasks team task
10 Innovation jury by team reports
•BPS use in a contest
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
7
roof of the SDE21/22 houses were more than enough to fulll the
competition requirements. However, many teams preferred to demon-
strate their integrated design ideas by using PV/PVT systems on the
facades, although they were not actively connected in terms of elec-
tricity or thermal energy during the competition.
Returning to the use of BPS in the context of SDE21/22, one of the
most important steps was the introduction of a simplied single-zone
energy and indoor climate simulation tool “SimRoom” [41] by the
SDE21/22 organizers for the dynamic simulation of the HDUs, in order
to ensure a homogeneous modeling and simulation process among the
teams. This allowed the process to be reviewed and the results to be
compared on a common basis. SimRoom was preferred because it is a
free Excel-based tool that is easy to use and learn in a short time.
Additionally, it was already proven by positive didactive experiences in
many schools of architecture and engineering in Germany [42]. Vali-
dation studies [43] prove that “SimRoom can be regarded as sufciently
meaningful for teaching purposes, and therefore, for the qualitative demon-
stration of energetic relationships. Other tools must be used for the planning
and dimensioning of technical and structural building components and sys-
tems, which was the case.”.
SimRoom was mainly utilized for two purposes: (I) indoor climate
and energy calculations of the HDUs, (II) PGT as a part of the comfort
contest, which is discussed in section “5.2. BPS in operation”. Also, the
use of other BPS tools alongside SimRoom for all related performance
evaluations was encouraged.
The teams’ process and experiences with SimRoom and their simu-
lation works on indoor comfort and energy balance were continuously
tracked and supported through workshops, question & answer sessions,
guiding documents (e.g. user manual, content and criteria, etc.) and
reviews by the organizers and experts appointed for the tasks. The de-
liverables were the most effective way to track the teams’ performance
with the tool. The teams made 6 deliveries until the competition nal.
Starting with deliverable 4, the teams were required to submit their
SimRoom simulations on the HDU for review. These submissions were
not for grading, but only to give the teams feedback on the quality and
plausibility of their works. After each deliverable, the teams received a
comment on their work: (A) clear and complete, (B) clear but can be
improved, (C) lack of minor information, to be developed, (D) lack of
important information, to be completed, and (E) missing document/no
submission.
The teams’ ranking in the “performance analysis”, which is the sub-
contest of the “engineering & construction” contest, focusing on indoor
comfort and energy concepts, and decided by jury, is compared to the
teams’ performance in the SimRoom reviews. To do so, both the review
and the ranking are proportioned between 1 and 100 (%) and compared
(Fig. 6). The teams BKU and CHA, for they did not submit any documents
for the SimRoom review, and the team KMU, for could not attend the
competition nal, are excluded from the comparison. The patterns of the
review and the jury ranking are seen to be quite similar, except for the
teams ITU and UPH. The minor deviations between the patterns might
be related to that the performance analysis sub-contest addressed both
DC and HDU, while the review was on the performance assessment of
HDU.
Another cross-analysis is made between the teams’ BPS use intensity
and the teams’ ranking in the contest of “engineering & construction”,
which includes the sub-contest of “energy concept”, “performance
analysis” and “life cycle carbon footprint”. The number of the domains,
which are investigated by the teams for performance assessment of their
DC and HDUs, are listed by the review of the teams’ reports. A range is
dened as low, medium, high and very high, based on the number of BPS
domains investigated by the teams, to dene the intensity of BPS
adoption. When the ranking in the contest is compared to the intensity of
Fig. 4. Early design investigations and design development for DC and HDU, by teams, at the intersection of design and performance.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
8
BPS use, a consistent pattern between the ranking and intensity is
observed, except for the teams HBC and NCT (Fig. 7).
5.2. BPS in operation
Two recent studies [17,38], involving the authors of this study,
report specically on the building physics aspects of SDE21/22 houses,
including monitoring and measurement results. In this section, the use of
BPS in the operation stage is presented, focusing on the integrative
effectiveness of the methods for teaching BPS.
A process of obtaining feedback on the performance of the recently
completed HDUs is conducted in the context of the monitoring-based
contests, i.e., energy performance, comfort, and house functioning.
Indoor climate measurements were considered only on seven
selected days when no visitors were allowed in the HDUs. Energy and
equipment data were collected continuously for ten days. The moni-
toring was part of the competition, but outside the core period. It took
place before the typical “ten-day competition” period so as not to
interfere with the operation of the HDUs. In total, over half a million
data points were collected during the competition.
In addition to monitoring, the other two ways of scoring were test
and task completion. Tests of sound insulation and air tightness in the
scope of comfort contest were conducted by the organizers. Two main
tasks related to energy performance and comfort contests were grid
Fig. 5. Example works of the HFT team - design of the building envelope with integrated use of BPS: (1) nal design, (2) design development - evaluation of direct
irradiation for the determination of shading needs. ©SDE21/22, ©team coLLab.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the SimRoom review results with the performance analysis sub-contest ranking.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
9
interaction and PGT.
5.2.1. PGT and BPS
PGT, which refers to the investigation of the difference between
anticipated and actual performance of the HDUs, is selected as a show-
case in this study not only because it includes the methods of BPS and
monitoring in relation to the design-build-operate-approach, but also
because it bridges the gap between competition and post-competition by
providing a ground for further work for interdisciplinary research and
teaching. The results of PGT are presented only to explain the methods
applied and to discuss their pedagogical potential, but are not particu-
larly elaborated in order not to exceed the limits of the study and not to
distract from its focus.
In PGT, the teams were requested to deliver the performance simu-
lations of their HDUs for a specied period of time, during which the co-
heating tests were conducted - for the rst time in SDE21/22 - and the
operative temperatures were monitored to be compared with the teams’
simulation results. It should be highlighted that the air tightness tests,
also performed for the rst time in SDE21/22, were an important input
for the performance gap evaluations.
The co-heating test is dened as an assessment of the as-built per-
formance of a building by comparing the heat input into the building
against the temperature disparity between the inside and outside of the
building [44]: “During a co-heating test, the investigated dwelling is ho-
mogeneously heated to an elevated steady-state interior temperature, e.g.
25 ◦C, using electric heaters and ventilator fans scattered throughout the
building.” In SDE21/22, earlier studies on dynamic test methods for
buildings were used, in particular those from “Annex 71 - Building En-
ergy Performance Assessment Based on In-situ Measurements” in the
IEA EBC program [45].
The three main objectives were:
(I.) to enable the teams to have an overview over the topic of building
performance at the intersection of indoor thermal comfort and
thermal characterization of the HDUs,
(II.) to stimulate the teams to do better work keeping in mind that
their work will be evaluated,
(III.) to provide a data set for post-competition evaluations.
In each case, the co-heating test was conducted in the space to be
fully conditioned during the heating season. At the same time, fan
heaters were used to increase the indoor temperatures in the HDUs well
above the ambient temperature. Outdoor weather data was recorded
during the test and made available to the teams for simulation work. Not
all the teams on site were able to participate due to the late completion
of the assembly phase.
Co-heating test key settings.
⁃ Heating power: A fan heater with an output of 3 kW and an airow
rate of 250 m
3
/h was running 3 days, June 7–9, between 12 a.m. and
6 a.m.
⁃ Internal loads and occupancy: House-hold appliances were the
only source of internal loads; there was no occupancy.
⁃ Ventilation: Ventilation systems were out of operation. The
airtightness test took place right before the co-heating test, so all
ventilation openings were still closed.
⁃ Movable sun protection: All movable shadings were closed to
minimize the effect of passive solar gains.
Following the co-heating tests, the teams ran thermal simulations
using the aforementioned software. In order to provide consistent con-
ditions with the in-situ measurements, some of the simulation settings -
weather data, heating period, heating power (3 kW), occupancy (no),
movable blinds (on), and ventilation (no) - were set as predened con-
ditions in the special edition of the tool for the use of the teams [41]. In
addition, to enable the teams to update the thermo-physical, optical, and
geometry related features of the zones as they are built, some other in-
puts were left adjustable.
A comparison [17] of the measured and simulated hourly mean
temperature data for the main living spaces of the 10 buildings (HDUs)
compared with the outdoor air temperature in the scope of co-heating
from 00:00 on June 7th to 23:59 on June 9th is presented in Fig. 8.
In general, the simulations and measurements show a similar
pattern. Two teams started on the second day of the test sequence (HFT,
FHA) due to construction delays, which can be seen in the diagram of the
measured data. It is also apparent that the automatic turn-off did not
function and the heater ran longer - 4 h on the rst day and 2 h on the
second day in one of the units (TUD). The next most obvious effects on
both the measured and simulated data were the volumes of the rooms,
for example the units with smaller test volumes (HSD: 51 m
3
and HFT:
59 m
3
) had the higher temperature increases in a shorter time. More-
over, the response of the units to the time of operation of the fan heaters,
represented by the grey background in the graphs, is clearly visible by
the peaks and minimum values cumulated at the border of each opera-
tion time range. The different decay behaviors each time the fan heaters
are turned off reect the thermo-physical characteristics of the units,
such as thermal transmittance, air tightness, thermal mass.
The largely swinging values in the last hours of the last test day show
the inference of occupancy, opening windows, etc. In addition, the
different start temperatures of the test periods show that the harmonized
pre-conditioning in all buildings was not achieved as planned due to the
late completion of construction, while it is important to be able to
Fig. 7. Comparison of the intensity of the BPS use with the engineering and construction contest ranking.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
10
provide the even start temperature considering the effect of thermal
inertia.
The teams utilized the performance gap data for further research to
validate and benchmark their models by using simulation tools more
advanced than SimRoom. This stands out as evidence that the perfor-
mance gap task is already a source of post-competition research and
education. Some samples of these simulation datasets were collected
from the teams and are presented in Fig. 9, combining the SimRoom data
and measured data of their units during the competition time.
It is known that the team ROS started to benchmark the results of
different simulation tools during the competition period. New simula-
tion data from a calibrated model in IDA-ICE [46] is provided by the
team. This is added to the comparison and presented in the upper dia-
gram of Fig. 9. The team HBC did not participate in PGT, but as a
post-competition evaluation they used the measured data to calibrate
their simulation model [47] in another, more advanced simulation tool,
EnergyPlus [31]. The comparison of this work is shown in the middle
diagram of Fig. 9. The team CTU’s simulation data from a model in
Ladybug Tools [48] is also shown with the same concept in the lower
diagram of Fig. 9.
Besides the deviations between the data sets due to differences in
simulation settings and measurements, the post-competition evaluations
presented are valuable as they allow the whole process of design de-
cisions, expectations and evaluations to be reconsidered by the teams
and remind the importance of using performance analyses as part of the
design process.
6. BPS tools in SDE21/22: A survey
The investigation of the use of BPS tools in SDE21/22 is based partly
on the nal reports submitted by the teams shortly before the compe-
tition nal and partly on the “BPS tools in SDE21/22” survey. While the
report review includes 16 out of the18 teams that participated in the
competition nal, the survey was conducted with the participation of
the 12 teams.
6.1. Teams’ reports review
SDE21/22 required the use of digital information modeling and
performance simulation methods for a consistent building documenta-
tion base and integrated design. At the nal, BIM and energy models of
the HDUs were delivered by the teams, which is important for the future
use of the data for research and education. All data and documentation
are available on the Building Energy Competition & Living Lab Knowl-
edge Platform [19].
A wide variety of BPS tools can be observed in terms of calculation
methods (non-dynamic, dynamic, semi-dynamic), elds of application
(i.e. energy, comfort, design integration), level of integration with
design tools (i.e. integrated, semi-integrated, independent), as well as
intelligent design options provided by the tools (i.e. parametrization and
optimization). Fig. 10 illustrates the use of BPS tools in the context of
SDE21/22. The tools used by the teams are presented in Table 3 by
application elds.
Fig. 8. Comparison of the measured (upper diagram) and simulated (lower diagram) hourly mean temperature for the main living space of the 10 buildings, with the
outdoor air temperature, in the scope of co-heating from 00:00 on June 7 to 23:59 on June 9. The time slots highlighted in grey represent the operation of the fan
heaters [17]. The abbreviations in the legend refer to the 10 teams.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
11
6.2. BPS tools in SDE21/22 survey
To capture the teams’ views and learn about their experiences using
BPS tools in SDE21/22, a survey was conducted right after the
completion of the competition. The results are presented as percentages
(%) of the teams’ answers.
The teams were asked which design tools are used in which phase,
considering the design process of DC and HDU. (Fig. 11). This question
excluded BPS tools in order to focus on design tools only. While the use
of hand sketches and physical models is common in the early steps, the
use of digital tools, i.e. Computer Aided Design (CAD) and BIM tools,
became more dominant in the later steps of the design process.
Comparing the challenges, the use of CAD tools is intensive in both DC
and HDU. In all design phases, the use of BIM tools is signicantly higher
for HDU compared to DC. On the other hand, while the use of BIM in-
creases from early phase to advanced phase, CAD is always the main tool
of the whole design process. Considering the intensive use of BPS tools in
the whole design process, as previously explained in the review, these
ndings are likely to state that the effectiveness of CAD was higher than
the other design and documentation tools for integrated design and
performance workows and also, show that the use of BIM was an in-
tegral part of the integration especially in the design development and
advanced design.
A level of integration, which refers to the physical availability of a
BPS tool directly in a design environment, was asked (Fig. 12). Within
the scope of this survey, four levels of integration were dened: non-
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured data with simulation results of two different BPS tools - SimRoom and IDAICE (ROS) (upper diagram) - EnergyPlus (HBC) (middle
diagram) and Ladybug Tools (CTU) (lower diagram).
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
12
integrated, partially integrated, mostly integrated and fully integrated.
Non-integrated refers to a BPS use in which all design process and per-
formance simulations are conducted completely in different and sepa-
rate environments, and there is no le exchange between these two
processes. Fully integrated means that all BPS tools are available in
design tools. Results show that BPS tools were mostly partially
integrated.
Regarding the phase in which the teams started using BPS tools, the
teams showed a varying pattern for DC; one-third started in the early
phase, one-third in the design development phase, and the last third in
the advanced design phase. On the other hand, for HDU, most of the
teams (75%) started involving BPS in their design workows in the early
design phase, only less than one-fth (17%) in the design development
phase, and fewer (8%) in the advanced design phase (Fig. 13). The
effectiveness of HDU in terms of integrated use of design and perfor-
mance tools appears to be higher than DC.
The overall inuence of the conducted simulations on the architec-
tural designs - especially the impact of the BPS results on a design form
was considered differently by the teams. This result may be related to
the fact that the teams used BPS at different intensities in the early
design phase. Nevertheless, more than 50% of the teams indicated that
the inuence of BPS on design decisions was high.
The teams mainly agreed on that BPS, particularly during early
design, was useful for creating design alternatives, raised condence for
Fig. 10. Use of BPS tools in SDE21/22, © SDE21/22.
Table 3
BPS tools and their elds of application in SDE21/22, © SDE21/22.
Site & Climate Energy Comfort PV/PVT System Ventilation Hygrothermal Lighting LCA
FIELD Site integration Use Thermal comfort Design Passive Heat Daylight design Cost
Radiation Cost Air quality Production Mechanical Moisture Articial light design Carbon footprint
Shadow Balance Humidity Grid integration Visual comfort Circularity
TOOL RESBy Design Builder Design Builder PVlib Python Ladybug Tools WUFI Autodesk Revit UMI Tool
Vi-suite MATLAB/
Simulink
SimRoom PVGIS Plancal Nova Lesosai and Flixo IDAICE eLCA/
Bauteileditor
Ladybug Tools Ladybug Tools TRNLizard AutoCalSol DDS-CAD Therm Dialux Evo SimaPro 9.0
Climate
Consultant
IDAICE TRNSYS 18 Polysun TRNFLOW PsiTherm Radiance Caala
Climate Studio SimRoom ENERCALC TRNLizard VELUX OneClickLCA
EN-13790 Tool ETU Sim. Gold Sunny Design IES-VE
Plancal Nova IES-VE PV*SOL RELUX
EnergyPlus T*SOL Valentin
DDS-CAD OpenModelica
TRNLizard PV syst 7
TRNSYS 18 POLYSUN
ENERCALC SolarEdge
ETU Sim.Gold
IES-VE
PHPP
Climate Studio
Open Studio
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
13
decision making, and supported creativity (Fig. 14).
The results show that only a small amount of the simulation work
(8%) was done by external experts. For the internal works (92%), mostly
team members from the eld of engineering were more active.
Regarding the level of students, the involvement of graduate and un-
dergraduate students was almost equally distributed.
When asked for the top three features of a BPS tool to be used from
the early design phase, the teams put emphasis on “ease of use”. The next
most voted features are “guidance (e.g., by providing explanations for
limit values)” and “comparison of design alternatives”. “Integration with
a design tool”, “availability of intelligent design/simulation techniques,
i.e. parametrization, automation, optimization, etc.” and “suitability for
both early and advanced design stages” are voted equally.
7. BPS in the curricula of the participating universities
To investigate how the building performance topics of SDE21/22 are
incorporated into the curricula of the participating universities, a review
is made based on the teams’ reports. The results are presented in Table 4.
Although some courses related to SDE21/22 are mentioned as existing in
their study programs, some of the team reports do not provide a detailed
list of courses, therefore the information was not applicable (n/a). In the
scope of the review, building performance includes the topics of energy,
indoor thermal comfort, indoor air quality, ventilation, hygrothermal
assessment, lighting and related building equipment, and building-
integrated renewable energy. The percentages in the table represent
the weight of building performance courses in the total number of the
SDE21/22 related courses offered at the universities.
An aspect of different levels of integration of performance may be
related to the school or department or chair of the main group of par-
ticipants. For example, if the vast majority of students come from more
technical and/or engineering-oriented departments rather than design
and art, then the topic of performance is more deeply integrated into the
curriculum.
The level of integration appears to be higher in the curricula of the
engineering disciplines. While the topics of sustainable design and
lighting design are more common in the bachelor’s degree programs in
architecture, technical topics such as thermal comfort and the other
topics related to the thermal and optical properties of buildings are more
prevalent in the bachelor’s degree programs in engineering. Almost half
Fig. 11. Use of design tools based on design phases of DC, and BC with its HDU.
The teams’ selections are presented in percentage (%), © SDE21/22.
Fig. 12. Level of integration of BPS tools into the digital design environment
during DC and HDU. The teams’ selections are presented in percentage (%), ©
SDE21/22.
Fig. 13. Design phases of DC and HDU when teams started using BPS tools, ©
SDE21/22.
Fig. 14. Descriptions about the effect of BPS tools in the early design process, ©
SDE21/22.
Table 4
Integration of building performance topics into the curricula of the participating
universities in the scope of SDE21/22. The abbreviations refer to the 18 teams.
The weight of building performance related courses is shown in numbers and as
a percentage of the total number of courses in the curricula of the participating
teams’ universities.
Bachelor
Courses
Master
Courses
In total (%)
BKU n/a n/a n/a
KMU 7 out of 28 n/a 17,5%
NCT 2 out of 18 11%
ITU n/a n/a n/a
ROS 5 out of 24 3 out of 7 26%
UPH 2 out of 4 n/a 50%
HBC 3 out of 13 1 out of 2 26,6%
HSD 4 out of 16 7 out of 16 34,40%
ION n/a n/a n/a
KIT 11 out of 17 n/a 64,7%
TUE n/a n/a n/a
CHA n/a n/a n/a
CTU n/a n/a n/a
FHA 4 out of 16 n/a 25%
GRE 3 out of 5 60%
HFT 6 out of 30 20%
TUD 1 out of 4 25%
UPV 7 out of 11 2 out of 5 56,25%
n/a: not applicable.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
14
of the participating universities focused the design studios in their
bachelor’s and/or master’s programs on the SDE21/22 challenges,
including performance topics.
The results are cross-analyzed with the teams’ ranking to see if a
higher weight of the building performance topics led to a higher success
in the contest of “architecture”, “engineering and construction”, “energy
performance” and “comfort” where building performance assessments
were extensively applied. The rst 4 teams, in whose universities the
building performance courses have a weight of at least 50% among the
other courses related to SDE21/22, are investigated (Fig. 15). It becomes
clear that the teams with higher rankings were those from the univer-
sities with the higher weight of adoption of performance topics.
For example, the KIT team from the university with the highest
weight of building performance topics (64%) was the winner of the
competition with the highest overall ranking.
The pattern remains the same for the second (60%), third (56%), and
the fourth (50%) teams. It seems that, at least for these four teams, the
incorporation of performance topics in the context of SDE21/22 was
fruitful.
To identify the common opportunities and obstacles for the strategic
integration of SDE21/22, in particular the topic of building performance
in the curricula, the most prominent aspects mentioned in the SWOT
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analyses of the
teams as part of their education reports are compiled and presented in
Table 5.
8. Discussion
Since the beginning of SD, the main goal has been to educate and
train students by demonstrating real-world challenges through a design-
build-operate approach. Here, design is seen not only as a creative
problem-solving exercise, but also as an integrated process where
analytical, organizational and practical skills are also required. In this
context, this study reported on the experiences gained during SDE21/22
in order to identify methods that have the potential to enable an inte-
grated use of BPS and to provide future perspectives for a more effective
use of BPS in higher education.
Main ndings of the study highlight the methods listed below for the
integrated use of BPS in engineering and architectural education.
(1) Experiential learning methods,
(2) Early introduction of BPS as a part of the design process,
(3) Discussions through comparison of simulated data with reality,
(4) Ensuring multidisciplinary supervision and continuous feedback,
(5) Use BPS tools that are easy to use, integrated into a design tool,
and provide guidance and comparison of design alternatives.
Teaching and learning approaches that promote experiential
learning, especially those that combine different project stages, are
likely to be a more attractive and efcient way of integrated BPS
teaching. Direct interaction with tools and methods of design and per-
formance, e.g. modeling, simulation, testing, measuring, is important to
ground and internalize the knowledge.
The design-build-operate method seems to have a high potential to
introduce students to different skill sets. One of the survey results sup-
ports this argument by revealing that the integrative effectiveness of
HDU, which involves the design, build, and operate steps, was higher
than DC, which involves only the design step. Once again, learning-by-
doing is proven to be a useful method that allows students to apply BPS
more effectively and to help them internalize the learning process
through critical thinking. As mentioned before, in SDE21/22 only a
small part of the simulation work (8%) was done by external experts.
When students perform BPS, instead of just receiving a performance
evaluation from an external source, they are likely to be more interested
and engaged in BPS, especially when it comes to reading/understanding
simulation results and adapting their designs accordingly.
Early design investigations at the intersection of design and perfor-
mance, starting from the initial steps of a project, by adopting BPS has a
high potential to compare, better evaluate and identify the prominent
design alternatives. The overview of the intersection of design and
performance was remarkable, showing how design and performance
decisions are interrelated. The performance tasks of climate analysis,
daylighting, energy balance, indoor comfort, active and passive solar
energy show strong relation to design decisions of adaptation to site
context, volume massing, orientation, footprint design, building enve-
lope, spatial organization, layout, building elements and materials, etc.
On the educational value of BPS work and its attractiveness for ar-
chitects, what is different in SD compared to conventional architectural
education is that architecture students investigate the performance of
their own design. But the case in conventional education, students
mostly work on case studies, which are mostly not their design work,
and the investigation is not that attractive. Design studios that integrate
performance analyses can be a way to engage architecture students, i.e.
to apply BPS not only for performance evaluation, but also as a stimulus
to inspire students to develop their own designs and explore design
alternatives.
PGT had a didactive approach aiming to attract students’ attention to
how performance assessment and evaluation relate to each other
through simulations, tests, observations and measurements, requiring
effective communication across disciplines to balance the different re-
quirements in engineering and architecture. Moreover, simulation and
monitoring are being used more and more in the building sector, e.g.
new buildings that receive incentives, funds and/or sponsorship are
usually required to demonstrate their performance with high-resolution
measured and/or calculated data. This is addressed in the proposal for
the revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive by the
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy - COM (2021)802 [49]. In
addition, the European Commission places a special focus on the topics
Fig. 15. Comparison of the teams’ rankings in the contests in which BPS is applied to the weight of building performance topics in the curricula of their universities.
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
15
of “reduced energy performance gap between as-built and as-designed
(difference between theoretical and measured performance), and
higher construction quality.” with the Implementing Decision C (2023)
2178 [50].
The topic of commissioning, in which the building is handed over
from the project team to the owner, remains a topic of discussion for
future editions of SD. The more complex the building, the greater the
value of commissioning [51]. However, in SD, houses are built and
immediately opened for occupancy, which results in the lack of a tran-
sition phase, in which controls and tests are done to detect and x
problems. Another perspective of the authors is the idea of a decentral
SD, which means that not the houses, but the participants and the jury
are traveling, assuming that there might be a proper commissioning
phase, which is likely to allow more efcient building performance tests.
The cross-analysis between the integration of building performance
topics in the curricula of the participating universities in the scope of
SDE21/22 and the teams’ ranking in the related contests demonstrated a
quite consistent pattern. While it is not possible to speak of a denitive
causality without quantitative research, as the information on the level
of integration is based only on a review of the reports, the results indi-
cate a potential.
The comparison of the SimRoom review results with the performance
analysis sub-contest rankings showed that the continuous support and
tracking of the teams’ BPS studies, especially with the reviews provided
by the SDE21/22 experts, was a highlight in escalating the learning
curve. Integrated teaching requires continuous, high quality and inter-
disciplinary feedback, and this necessitates collaboration between
teaching chairs/institutions. To achieve a balance between design and
performance, the balanced involvement of educators/professionals
teaching design and building performance in a continuous feedback
process throughout the learning experience seems ideal.
The use of a simplied BPS tool for basic building performance as-
sessments was effective in terms of easy evaluation and comparison of
design and performance scenarios. In early design investigations, less
complex and less time-intensive design-integrated methods and tools of
BPS have signicant potential to be adopted because early design seeks
detection and quick evaluation of possible design alternatives in
relatively short time and with relatively less input [13]. In addition,
considering beginners, the adoption of simplied BPS methods inte-
grated into design workows seems to be a promising way to enable an
easy and attractive start [6].
The survey showed that the CAD tools were used more intensively in
the context of SDE21/22 than any other design and documentation tool.
This is an important outcome that should be considered in the further
development of digital platforms that combine digital design and BPS
tools to enable a more comprehensive integration of performance ana-
lyses into design processes.
The SWOT highlights the importance of integrated approaches
through key elements such as exible curricula, interdisciplinary
teaching, knowledge of building physics and the existence of interna-
tional student competitions, e.g. SD. There is still a lot to be done on a
general scale to introduce the integrated approaches to education
community. Although higher education institutions have different
pedagogical approaches with varying curricula, the main challenge
seems to be changing mindsets by acknowledging the fact that
performance-integrated design is an imperative way to achieve the goal
of a sustainable future.
9. Conclusion
This study presented an evaluation of pedagogical methods with high
potential for the implementation of integrated BPS teaching in higher
education, by sharing the experiences gained in SDE21/22.
The work presented, with concrete recommendations and future
perspectives, can be used as a reference point to illustrate the impor-
tance of the integrated use of BPS in the educational context and to
implement it more efciently. The target audience is not only educators,
but also all those responsible for promoting more integrated educational
methods in order to empower future professionals for the creation of a
more sustainable environment.
The results cannot be generalized to a larger scale, as the ndings of
the study are mainly based on SDE21/22. On the other hand, the results
are notable for providing a closer look at BPS teaching methods at an
international level and identifying those with high potential for more
effective integration.
Outlook
All data and documentation provided on the “Competition Knowl-
edge Platform” [19] is a source for further research and education not
only for the teams, but also for all interested parties with research and
education purposes.
Three studies based on performance gap datasets in such a short time
after the completion of SDE21/22 is evidence of the high interest and
raises expectations for future research. Half of the houses have been
returned to their home cities for further research and education, while
the rest remain on the competition site in Wuppertal as part of “Living
Lab” [52].
The acquisition of more qualied monitoring data is crucial for
further research of the performance gap, and thus for benchmarking and
validation of the collected data sets, as well as for simulation and more
precise measurement of parameters. Advanced co-heating tests with a
special focus on educational use are already initiated for the heating
season 2023/2024 for all the houses in Living Lab.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Isil Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data cura-
tion, Conceptualization. Karsten Voss: Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Table 5
Most prominent aspects which are mentioned in teams’ SWOT
analyses as a part of their education reports.
Strengths
⁃ Available infrastructure and resources of university
⁃ Multidisciplinary team of students
⁃ University curriculum in engineering and architecture
⁃ Collaborations within and across universities
⁃ Interest boost from the previous Solar Decathlon participations
⁃ Impact and appeal of previous Solar Decathlons/decathletes
Weaknesses
⁃ Tedious and complex bureaucracy of educational institutions
⁃ Scarce project-based pedagogical approaches
⁃ Rarity of interdisciplinary education and research
⁃ Low level of knowledge if SD team consists mostly bachelors
⁃ Lecturers/supervisors with high teaching load
⁃ Restrictions due to Covid-19 pandemic
Opportunities
⁃ Digital transformation for online teaching and learning
⁃ Adoption of new pedagogical approaches/methods
⁃ Raising awareness for sustainable built environment
⁃ Promoting interdisciplinary skills among students
⁃ Contributing to solving the global challenges
⁃ Enlarging collaborations within and across universities
Threats
⁃ Strict curricula that conict with SD timetable and works
⁃ Solar Decathlon being a time-limited event
⁃ Risk of scientic criticism being reduced by sponsorships
⁃ Competing SD teams with varying backgrounds
⁃ High cost of organizing educational activities
⁃ Unstable politics and economy worldwide
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
16
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
and Climate Action for funding the preparation and implementation of
the Solar Decathlon Europe 21/22 in Germany under contract 03 EG
B0019. Thanks to all the SDE21/22 teams and the Energy Endeavour
Foundation for their intensive and fruitful cooperation during all phases
of the competition, from start to nish. The authors are indebted to
Ferdinand Sigg from Rosenheim University of Applied Sciences, Pius
Weidner from Biberach University of Applied Sciences, and Zdenko
Malik from Czech Technical University in Prague for providing the data
sets of their post-competition work on the performance gap task. The
authors express their gratitude to the survey participants and thank the
following individuals in particular for their guidance during the review
process of the paper: Nathan Van Den Bossche and Jan Tywoniak.
References
[1] C.J. Hopfe, G.L.M. Augenbroe, J.L.M. Hensen, Multi-criteria decision making under
Uncertainty in building performance assessment, Build. Environ. 69 (2013) 81–90,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.019.
[2] S. Citherlet, Towards the Holistic Assessment of Building Performance Based on an
Integrated Simulation Approach, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL),
Lausanne, 2001.
[3] J. Hensen, R. Lamberts, in: J.R. Hensen (Ed.), Building Performance Simulation for
Design and Operation, Spon Press, London, 2011.
[4] J.A. Clarke, J.L.M. Hensen, Integrated building performance simulation: Progress,
Prospects and requirements, Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 294–306, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.002.
[5] P. De Wilde, Building performance simulation in the Brave new world of Articial
intelligence and digital twins: a Systematic review, Energy Build. 292 (2023)
113171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113171.
[6] I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu, K. Voss, Building performance simulation in design
education: design-integrated versus additive, Proceedings of BauSim 2022: 9th
Conference of IBPSA-Germany and Austria, IBPSA-Germany and Austria 9 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.26868/29761662.2022.43, 0–0.
[7] A. Mahdavi, B. Martens, U. Pont, M. Schuss, H. Teu, C. Berger, Excellence in
building Science education: experiences with a Central European experiment,
Central Europe towards Sustainable Building 38 (2022) 316–322, https://doi.org/
10.14311/APP.2022.38.0316. Czech Technical University in Prague.
[8] I. Beausoleil-Morrison, C. Hopfe, Teaching building performance simulation
through A continuous learning cycle, in: Building Simulation 2015: 14th
Conference of IBPSA, 2015, pp. 2757–2764, https://doi.org/10.26868/
25222708.2015.2834.
[9] C.J. Hopfe, V. Soebarto, D. Crawley, R. Rawal, Understanding the differences of
integrating building performance simulation in the architectural education system,
in: Building Simulation Conference Proceedings, International Building
Performance Simulation Association, 2017, pp. 1095–1102, https://doi.org/
10.26868/25222708.2017.319.
[10] C.J. Hopfe, R.S. McLeod, M. Gustin, E. Brembilla, L. McElroy, Teaching data
analysis for building performance simulation – series: building simulation and
calculation tools in teaching, Bauphysik 44 (2022) 285–290, https://doi.org/
10.1002/bapi.202200027.
[11] N. Gentile, J. Kanters, H. Davidsson, A method to introduce building performance
simulation to beginners, Energies 13 (2020) 1941, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13081941.
[12] M.-M. Fernandez-Antolin, J.-M. del-Río, F. del Ama Gonzalo, R.-A. Gonzalez-
Lezcano, The relationship between the Use of building performance simulation
tools by recent graduate architects and the Deciencies in architectural education,
Energies 13 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051134.
[13] I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu, K. Voss, Building performance simulation to stimulate
architectural early design: Integrating design and simulation, in: J. Rodríguez-
´
Alvarez, J.C. Gonçalves (Eds.), 35th PLEA Conference on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture, A Coru˜
na, 2020, pp. 1525–1530, https://doi.org/10.17979/
spudc.9788497497947.
[14] K. Voss, I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu, Use of Computer Programs in University Teaching
– Series: Building Simulation and Calculation Tools in Teaching (Org. in German:
Einsatz von Computerprogrammen in Der Hochschullehre – Serie:
Geb¨
audesimulation Und Berechnungstool in Der Lehre), 2022, https://doi.org/
10.1002/bapi.202200021, 2022 Bauphysik Kalender.
[15] Solar Decathlon Europe 2021/2022. https://sdeurope.uni-wuppertal.de/en/,
(accessed 20 June 2023).
[16] US Department of Energy. Solar Decathlon. https://www.solardecathlon.gov/,
(accessed 13 May 2023).
[17] K. Voss, I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu, A. Balcerzak, H. Hansen, Solar energy engineering
and solar system integration – the solar Decathlon Europe 21/22 student
competition experiences, Energy Build. 285 (2023) 112891, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2023.112891. Elsevier.
[18] IEA EBC Annex 74 ‘‘Competition and Living Lab Platform”. https://annex74.iea
-ebc.org/, (accessed 24 April 2023).
[19] Building Energy Competition & Living Lab Knowledge Platform. https://buildi
ng-competition.org/, (accessed 20 June 2023).
[20] K. Stieldorf, Building physics, design, and the collaborative build: sustainability
and resilience in architectural education, Architect. Des 88 (2018) 102–109,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2264.
[21] E. Holt, M. Shaurette, Students involvement in the solar Decathlon competition:
Giving context to the classroom experience, Proceedings of the 48th ASC Annual
International Conference (2012).
[22] M. Chiuini, W. Grondzik, K. King, W. Mcginley, J. Owens, Architect and Engineer
Collaboration: the Solar Decathlon as a Pedagogical Opportunity, vols. 216–225,
2013, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412909.021.
[23] G. Marriage, Solar Decathlon. Interdisciplinary and collaborative research
competing on a world stage, The Journal of Public Space 2 (2017) 31, https://doi.
org/10.5204/jps.v2i3.111.
[24] R. Herrera-Limones, J. Rey-P´
erez, M. Hern´
andez-Valencia, J. Roa-Fern´
andez,
Student Competitions as a Learning Method with a Sustainable Focus in Higher
Education, vol. 12, The University of Seville “Aura Projects” in the “Solar
Decathlon 2019, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041634. Sustainability.
[25] K. Voss, S. S´
anchez, P. Russel, B. Arranz, L. Holloway, S. Hendel, R. Amaral,
M. Stark, A. Balcerzak, A. Ingeborg van Luijn, Solar Decathlon Europe - Analysis of
the Results, 2020.
[26] R. Amaral, B. Arranz, S. Vega, Participatory research for the evaluation of
satisfaction with solar Decathlon competitions: a survey analysis, Sustainability 13
(2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312995.
[27] E. Rodriguez-Ubinas, S. Rodriguez, K. Voss, M.S. Todorovic, Energy efciency
evaluation of Zero energy houses, Energy Build. 83 (2014) 23–35, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.019.
[28] F.J. Terrados, D. Moreno, “Patio” and “Botijo”: energetic strategies’ architectural
integration in “Patio 2.12” Prototype, Energy Build. 83 (2014) 70–88, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.03.081.
[29] B. Baneld, C. McDowell, D. Robinson, A. Agalgaonkar, Evaluation of in-Depth
energy Modelling for the design and operation of a Net-positive energy solar
Decathlon house, E3S Web of Conferences 111 (2019) 4024, https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/201911104024.
[30] V. Belpoliti, M. Calzolari, P. Davoli, H. Altan, R. Nassif, Design optimization to
Enhance passive energy strategies. The KNOW HOWse project for solar Decathlon
Middle East 2018, Procedia Manuf. 44 (2020) 302–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2020.02.235.
[31] USA DOE. EnergyPlus. https://energyplus.net/, (accessed 18 July 2023).
[32] ´
A. L´
opez-Escamilla, R. Herrera-Limones, ´
A.L. Le´
on-Rodríguez, Evaluation of
environmental comfort in a social housing Prototype with Bioclimatic double-skin
in a Tropical climate, Build. Environ. 218 (2022) 109119, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109119.
[33] German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Climate Change
Act 2021, 2021. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klim
aschutz/climate-change-act-2021-1936846. (Accessed 20 July 2023).
[34] K. Voss, K. Simon (Eds.), Solar Decathlon Europe 21/22 – Competition Source
Book. Wuppertal, 2023. https://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/receive/duepublic
o_mods_00000696.
[35] Royal Institute of Architects, Stages of a Building Project - ‘RIBA Plan of Work 2020
Overview.’, 2020. https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Test-
resources-page/Additional-Documents/2020RIBAPlanofWorkoverviewpdf.pdf.
(Accessed 25 July 2023).
[36] Stages of a Building Project According to German Honorarium Regulations for
Architects and Engineers (HOAI). https://archxtecture.com/en/hoai-explained,
(accessed 25 July 2023).
[37] L. Claus, S. Herb, C. Frenzel, J. Stave, A Faster Method for the Simulation-Based
Parametric Optimization of Structural Shading, 2022, https://doi.org/10.26868/
29761662.2022.13.
[38] K. Voss, H. Hansen, M. Kaliga, I.K. Rizaoglu, Solar Decathlon Europe 2022 –
Bauphysikalische Ergebnisse von Demonstrationsgeb¨
auden. 2023 Bauphysik
Kalender, Wiley, 2023, pp. 531–550, https://doi.org/10.1002/9783433611289.
ch15.
[39] N. Carbonare, M. Bühler, J. Pfafferott, A. Wagner, RoofKIT – Building Simulation in
Sustainable Housing at the Solar Decathlon Europe 21/22, 2022.
[40] A. Wagner, D. Hebel, N. Carbonare, R. Gebauer, RoofKIT - Circular construction
and solar energy Use in practice at the solar Decathlon Europe 21/22, IOP Conf.
Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1078 (2022) 12058, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/
1078/1/012058. IOP Publishing.
[41] M. Lichtmess, SimRoom 4 – A Learning Tool for Dynamic Space and Energy
Balances, SDE 21/22 Special Edition, 2020. https://ingefo.de/Werkzeuge/
SimRoom/. (Accessed 25 May 2023).
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
Building and Environment 253 (2024) 111261
17
[42] Markus, L. SimRoom as a Learning and Teaching Tool. https://www.ingefo.de/Leh
re/, (accessed 28 May 2023).
[43] L. Markus, SimRoom- Comparison with Different BPS Tools. https://ingefo.de/We
rkzeuge/SimRoom/. (Accessed 15 September 2023).
[44] G. Bauwens, S. Roels, Co-heating test: a state-of-the-art, Energy Build. 82 (2014)
163–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.039.
[45] Building Energy Performance Assessment Based on In-Situ Measurements,
International Energy Agency, Energy in Buildings and Community Systems
Programme. https://www.iea-ebc.org/projects/project?AnnexID=71.
[46] EQUA. IDA ICE. https://www.equa.se/en/ida-ice, (accessed 28 June 2023).
[47] P. Weidner, A. Gerber, Scalable Façade-Integrated PVT-Systems for Upward
Extensions in the Urban Context, CISBAT - The Built Environment in Transition,
LAUSANNE, 2023.
[48] Ladybug Tools. https://www.ladybug.tools/, (accessed 28 June 2023).
[49] European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). 2021/0426 (COD),
2021.
[50] European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
Implementing Decision Final on the Adoption of the Work Programme for 2023-
2024 within the Framework of the Specic Programme Implementing Horizon
Europe (Annex I) – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation and on
its Financing, 2023. C/2023/2178.
[51] S. Noye, R. North, D. Fisk, Smart systems commissioning for energy efcient
buildings, in: Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 37,
SAGE Publications Ltd STM, 2015, pp. 194–204, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143624415622954.
[52] Living Lab NRW. https://livinglabnrw.uni-wuppertal.de/de/, (accessed 22 August
2023).
I. Kalpkirmaz Rizaoglu and K. Voss
