Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract A building performance assessment toolkit was developed for use by large corporate owners and building portfolio managers in the US. A variety of technical performance aspects are addressed such as energy, lighting, thermal comfort, maintenance and indoor air quality. Every assessment is based on a normative and objective Performance Indicator (PI). For easy data capture and calculation of PIs, the toolkit was implemented in a web hosted form, enabling facility managers and staff to collect the data during a walk-through enabled by PDA-based data entry. The current set of performance indicators is discussed and the results of the first benchmarks, most notably the energy benchmarks, are reported. Ce kit d'évaluation des performances des bâtiments a été mis au point par de grands propriétaires d'immeubles et par des gestionnaires de portefeuilles immobiliers aux Etats-Unis. Il permet d'analyser plusieurs aspects des performances techniques. Les évaluations sont basées sur un indicateur de performances normatif et objectif. Pour faciliter la saisie des données et le calcul des indicateurs de performances, ce kit est présenté sous forme d'un fichier Internet; les responsables d'installation et le personnel peuvent ainsi, lorsqu'ils visitent des propriétés, collecter des données et valider ces dernières en les entrant dans un personal digital assistant. L'article analyse les indicateurs de performances et donne les résultats des premières comparaisons, notamment sur le plan de l'énergie. Keywords: building performanceenergylightingthermal comfortoffice buildingsUnited States Acknowledgements Research was conducted in the framework of the General Services Administration (GSA) Building Performance Assessment Toolkit Development Project and was financed by the GSA. For the use of NEN 2916, the authors acknowledge the help of Eric Van den Ham, Climatic Design Consult, the Netherlands.
Augenbroe et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: