Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- basics:energy_and_ecology:decision_support_tool [2024/10/25 12:21] – [Solution approach] yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
+++ basics:energy_and_ecology:decision_support_tool [2024/10/30 10:45] (current) – yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 The tool provides users with an initial assessment for a potential refurbishment concept. The output includes a brief description of the concept, a link to the relevant literature source and a compact overview of the most important energy performance indicators, which come from the PHPP working in the background.
+===== LIMITATIONS =====
+In addition to the current limitation to a few concepts in literature and residential buildings, the literature emphasizes that social aspects, aesthetics and economic aspects in particular also have a high influence on the system selection and implementation of a refurbishment measure (see [Pombo 2016]). Integrating these criteria would ensure a holistic view and evaluation of refurbishment concepts, which is why this should be the subject of future research and development activities.
+===== Conclusion =====
+As buildings are constructed and used in very different ways, hardly any two refurbishment projects are the same. This can lead to complex decision-making processes when selecting a refurbishment solution. The wrong decisions can lead to the optimal energy saving potential not being achieved. Support tools, such as the DeSuTo program presented here, are used to ease challenges in the selection of suitable renovation solutions for residential buildings. The results of this new program can provide a basis for subsequently planning the next steps with energy consulting experts.
+===== Availability =====
+The tool is available at the following link: [[https://desuto.outphit.eu/|Decision Support Tool]].
+===== References =====
+**[Ferreira 2013]**	Ferreira, J.; Duarte Pinheiro, M.; de Brito, J.: Refurbishment decision support tools: A review from a Portuguese user’s Perspective, Construction and Building Material, 49, pp. 425-447, 2013.
+**[Flourentzou 2002]**	Flourentzou, F.; Genre, J. L.; Roulet, C.-A.: TOBUS software — an interactive decision aid tool for building retrofit studies. Energy and Buildings, 34(2), pp. 193-202, 2002.
+**[Genre 2000]**	Genre, J.-L.; Flourentzos, F.; Stockli, T.: Building refurbishment: habitat upgrading, Energy and Buildings, 31(2), pp. 155-157, 2000.
+**[Gilani 2021]**	Gilani, G., Hosseini, S. M. A., Pons-Valladares, O., de la Fuente, A.: An enhanced multi-criteria decision-making approach oriented to sustainability analysis of building facades: A case study of Barcelona, Journal of Building Engineering, Bd. 54, p. 104630, 2021.
+**[Kamari 2021]**	Kamari, A.; Kirkegaard, P. H.; Schultz, C. P. L.: PARADIS - A process integrating tool for rapid generation and evaluation of holistic renovation scenarios, Journal of Building Engineering, 34, pp. 101944, 2021.
+**[Lanzarote 2021]**	Lanzarote, B. S., Escudero, C. I. J., Almela, D. S., Clausell, J. R.: Decision-Making Aid Tool to Support Renovation of Buildings with Industrialised All-in-One Technology Solutions, Environmental Sciences Proceedings, 11(1), p. 4, 2021.
+**[Loga 2016]**	Loga, T., Stein, B., Diefenbach, N.: TABULA building typologies in 20 European countries—Making energy-related features of residential building stocks comparable, Energy and Buildings, 132, pp. 4-12, 2016.
+**[Nemry 2010]**	Nemry, F., Uihlein, A., Colodel, C. M., Wetzel, C., Braune, A., Wittstock, B., Hasan, I., Kreißig, J., Gallon, N., Niemeier S., Frech, Y.: Options to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union—Potential and costs, Energy and Buildings, Bd. 42, Nr. 7, pp. 976-984, 2010.
+**[Nielsen 2016]**	Nielsen, A. N.; Jensen, R. L.; Larsen, T. S.; Nissen, S. B.: Early stage decision support for sustainable building renovation – A review. Building and Environment 103, pp. 165-181, 2016.
+**[outPHit D4.4]**	Hammes, S., Pfluger, R.: outPHit D4.4 Development of a suitable tool for the selection of renovation concepts, 2024
+[Pombo 2016]	Pombo, O., Rivela, B., Neila, J.: The challenge of sustainable building renovation: assessment of current criteria and future outlook, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, pp. 88-100, 2016.
+**[Sandberg 2016]**	Sandberg, K.; Orskaug, T.; Andersson, A.: Prefabricated wood elements for sustainable renovation of residential building façades. Energy Procedia 96, pp. 756-767, 2016.
+**[Torres 2021]**	Torres, J., Garay-Martinez, R., Oregi, X., Torrens-Galdiz, J., Uriarte-Arrien, A. Pracucci, A., Casadei, O., Magnani, S., Arroyo N., Cea, A.: Plug and Play Modular Façade Construction System for Renovation for Residential Buildings, Buildings, Bd. 11, Nr. 9, p. 419, 2021.
+**[Wittchen 2000]**	Wittchen, K. B.; Aggerholm, S.: Calculation of building heating demand in EPIQR, Energy and Buildings 31(2), pp. 137-141, 2000.
+----
+{{:picopen:outphit_logo_description.png?400|}}  {{:picopen:eu_logo_description.png?400|}}
+----
+===== See Also =====
+[[planning:tools:outphit_decision_support_tool]]
+[[planning:tools]]
+[[https://passipedia.org/eu_projects_publications#outphit_-_deep_retrofits_made_faster_cheaper_and_more_reliable|outPHit - Deep retrofits made faster, cheaper and more reliable]]