³í¹®¸í |
°Ç¹°¿¡³ÊÁö¼º´ÉÆò°¡ ¹æ¹ý ºñ±³ºÐ¼® / Comparative Analysis on Assessment of Building Energy Performance / Ãá°è-07. Á¦05ºÐ°ú °ÇÃàȯ°æ ¹× ¼³ºñ |
ÀúÀÚ¸í |
¿À¼¼¹Î ; ±è¿µ·Ï ; ±èÁ¾Çå ; ¹Ú»ó¸° |
¼ö·Ï»çÇ× |
´ëÇѰÇÃàÇÐȸ Çмú¹ßÇ¥´ëȸ ³í¹®Áý, v.33 n.1 (2013-04) |
ÆäÀÌÁö |
½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö(243) ÃÑÆäÀÌÁö(2) |
ÁÖÁ¦¾î |
°Ç¹°¿¡³ÊÁö¼º´ÉÆò°¡ ; ¿¡³ÊÁöÀý¾à¼³°è±âÁØ ; °Ç¹°¼º´É ; ½Ã¹Ä·¹ÀÌ¼Ç ; Assessment Building Energy Performance ; EPI ; ECO2 |
¿ä¾à2 |
This paper examines a case study where the prescriptive approach and performance-based approach were used for a common assessment of building energy performance to investigate the difference between two ways. The authors conducts analysis on abovementioned two ways through Energy Performance Index (EPI) of one of the building codes in korea and ECO2 simulation in real building. The results of this study indicate that meaningful information can be delivered to DM (Desicion Maker) pros and cons of difference ways of assessment of building energy performance. |