ANKARA - TURKIYE

A REVIEW ON PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING MODELS

Dr. Selçuk Sayına * and Prof.Dr. Gülser Çelebib a * Selcuk University, Faculty of , Department of Architecture, Konya, Turkey, [email protected] b Alanya HEP University, Arts and Design Faculty, Department of Architecture, Antalya, Turkey, [email protected]

Abstract which can turn the issue from a technical point to a business issue is established. This approach should clearly define the “Performance approach in buildings” was developed as a components of the design process and determine the steps that result of usage of performance concept which has a definition enable the evaluation of design and should be user-friendly. 962 of behavior of a product related to use in buildings. The integration of this approach into the design process of building Keywords: building performance, design performance design brought out the “performance based ”. evaluation, performance based design, performance approach Performance based design contains the transformation of the on buildings functional and technical requirements which were determined at 1. Introduction the initial phase of design into the performance requirements, and making design towards those performance requirements. Performance is defined as “behavior of a product related to In the performance based design process, the evaluation of use” by ISO 6241-1984 [1]. Here, the product might mean an performance of design is made by the usage of some methods entire building as well as a part of it. Preiser et al. [2] suggest (simulation tools, calculations, quantification methods) in that the concept of performance in buildings was developed obligatory conditions. These evaluations are applied to control by Eberhard [3] in the 1960s, and was first introduced into the the required performance is met or not by design, the accuracy profession of architecture at the end of the 1970s. Bakens et of the design and desired performance goals are achieved or not. al. [4] state that the performance based principles introduced in the 1970s could not be adapted within the building industry, In the content of this study, the models that were developed despite a number of previous efforts in the field [5-15]. The on performance based design is discussed based on literature report titled “Performance-Based Study of Buildings” prepared survey. These models are performance based design teaching for CIB provides the most basic definition of performance-based method (Atiuno model), building evaluation domain model approach as follows: “The performance approach is, first and for existing building evaluations, the model that shows the foremost, the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends relation of performance based design and knowledge based rather than the means. It is concerned with what a building or tools, design process model for high performance buildings, building product is required to do, and not prescribing how it design decision network model, cognitive model and aspect is to be constructed.” [16]. This definition is the very first and system models. The positive and negative aspects of these the most basic definition of the performance-based approach models are explained, methods and procedures that were used to buildings and main its validity, as it is still being used in in them are examined. As a result of the examination of these many recent studies [17-32]. In addition to this basic definition, models; to increase the usage of performance based building the first record that mentioned building performance was design in the practical architectural works, a lack of approach made in the Code of Laws drawn up by King Hammurabi, who 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE lived in 1700s B.C. Article 229 on obelisks that are on display decisions provided by building construction and systems, in Louvre Museum in Paris reads as follows: “The builder mostly for a particular aim and location [26]. The differences has built a house for a man and his work is not strong and between user requirements and performance requirements are if the house he has built falls and kills a householder, that shown in Table 1. builder shall be slain.” This expression, despite not including Table 1. Comparison of user needs and performance any information with regards to the construction technique, requirement [26] material, thickness, size, etc..., clearly states that the building User needs Performance requirement is expected to provide the desired performance. The content of this article is compatible with the definition suggesting that Have meetings with max. - Required : 3 m² per 25 people in different person the performance approach pertains to a thinking and working settings (theater and round - Space shape: ratio length : principle relevant more to the ends than the employed means. table) width ≤ 1,5 : 1 - Ventilation: min. 30 m³ fresh 2. Performance Based Building Design air per person and After the performance based approach started to be used in per hour - Air temperature: 19° C < t < relation to buildings in the 1970s, studies aiming to apply and 21° C extend this approach [33-40] began using “performance-based - Back ground noise (due to building” or “performance-based design” terms instead of external sources): max. 35 dB(A) “performance approach in buildings” or “performance concept - Reverberation time: 0,8 – 1,0 in buildings”. All these terms have the same focus: to design sec and construct buildings with high or desired performance [41]. - Lighting on desktop level: min. 500 lux The PeBBu (Performance Based Building) Thematic Network that was initiated as part of European Union 5th Framework Another important stage in performance-based design is to Program defines performance-based design in their final report carry out the design for the targeted performance in line with as follows: user requirements, as well as performance requirements defined on the basis of these. During the performance-based “A Performance-based design is a building design that is based design process, the design team that is led by the architect on a set of dedicated performance requirements related to works in collaboration with different disciplines. 963 the intended use of the building, and that can be evaluated on From the first stages of the design process onwards, everybody the basis of performance specifications” [26]. The same report defines the performance-based design process as “a process in should work in a coordinated manner, in line with the defined which performance requirements are translated and integrated target performance. into a building design.” While computational design is an advantageous design 3. Constituents of Performance Based Building Design technique widely used for performance-based design, other computational techniques are used within the design process The most important starting point in performance-based for an appraisal of design alternatives and of the possible building design is to accurately define the requirements. outcomes. The assessment of whether the design meets the While defining user requirements, it should be kept in mind performance requirements is another important component of that the user profile can include a wide range of individuals, performance-based design. For performance evaluation within including the permanent users of the building, visitors, the design process, the measurement of performance is an building staff, public in buildings providing a public service, and activity embedded within design production. The evaluation animals in buildings with an agricultural function. All these of a design solution and its suitability for stakeholders’ individuals are recognized as stakeholders. The requirements requirements, as well as other design components that should of the stakeholders might include technical, physiological, be integrated to this particular solution, are other elements of sociological, and psychological aspects. These are mostly this embedded activity [42]. The most significant computation qualitative terms and quantifying these is a special step in the tool that is used for the design performance evaluation design process. The application of the performance approach is simulation. Building simulation software has gained to buildings is possible via converting user requirements into considerable importance as it accelerates the design process, performance requirements. User requirements are expressed in increases productivity, allows a comparison of different design terms of means and conditions provided by a certain building schemes in a wide area, and shows more optimal solutions. for a certain aim, independently from where the building is Simulations increase the efficiency of the design process and located. Performance requirements, on the other hand, are help gain a better understanding of the results of the design quantitative means and conditions reflecting the design decisions [43]. 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

4. Existing Performance-Based Building Design Models This performance-based design process is quite deficient compared to today’s performance-based design approach. This section discusses a variety of performance-based design models, examined in this study as part of the literature review. Particularly in the stage where user requirements are defined, The strengths and weaknesses of each model were explained the content user profile is not considered. In other words, and methods used by each of them were examined. stakeholders that are a components of performance-based design are not included within the process. Their roles in and 4.1. Atiuno Model contributions to the design process are not reflected upon. The Atiuno model was used by Croce et al. [44] at Atiuno Performances are not checked at the schematic design stage. (Architettura tecnica uno) – “Building Science and Technology” The methods used for the performance program suitability module given in the “Building Engineering” department of analysis made in the detailed design stage and for the final “Politecnico di Milano” in Italy. This model, which is described performance checks in the design process for different building as a performance-based design training method for building components are not clear. Based on the current performance- engineers, aims to teach students how to devise performance- based design approach, the methods and tools used to assess based design. whether design ends provide targeted performance level are In the performance-based design model shown in Figure 1, the not explicitly stated. Furthermore, the model has a linear design process is divided into two as pre-design and design. structure and it does not allow feedback from and return to In the first stage of the former, user requirements are defined. stages before checks [41]. After defining these, the inner space requirements, the main 4.2. Building Evaluation Domain Model focus of the module, are defined. Following this, a performance program is formed for each building unit. This stage is called the Mallory-Hill [45] suggested a 3D model called the building performance program, in which the performance requirements evaluation domain model, as shown in Figure 2. The components are actually defined. Then, schematic are made in line of this 3D model are as follows: with the established programs. These steps are realized in the • Human system level (forms the demand scale and pre-design stage. In the design stage, on the other hand, firstly represents the requirements) functional layers or members are shaped in a regular order. Later, in the first stages of detailed design stage, the suitability • Architectural system level (represents building scale and 964 of the design to the first performance program is analyzed. In the complexity) final part of the design stage, building components are defined • Building system level (forms the supply scale and in light of the performance program, which is elaborated using represents building systems meeting the requirements) the accessible product components catalogue. A performance check is carried out for the established building components on This model developed by Mallory-Hill is not a model to be used a whole building level and the design process is concluded once for performance evaluation in the design process, but to assess the design of each building unit is confirmed. the performance of the existing buildings. Figure 1. Design phases of Atiuno [44] Figure 2. Building evaluation domain model [45] 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE

Mallory-Hill applied this model to an existing office building • Determine safety/modification factors for transforming with post occupancy evaluation method. The lighting comfort characteristic values into design values. of the office space was chosen as basic (personal) contentment • Establish acceptable evaluation tools reliably predict performance demand in the human system level, while the the consequences of exposing the suggested design system level services were defined as office performance solution to the relevant combinations of generalized load supply. The demand-supply comparison was achieved via user (simulations, PTMs). satisfaction. Mallory-Hill states that this model can be used for the aim of performance evaluation using tools to simulate • Establish methods for deriving design values for all office space. This model is also deficient, as it does not take relevant material or component properties required in the the design process into account and does not include the evaluation process. stakeholders [41]. Becker has not conducted a case study application of this 4.3. Performance-Based Design Framework Model model. According to Becker, this algorithm is useful to define Becker [46] expressed the performance-based design model the relationship between databases and tools needed for an shown in Figure 3 as a model related to database tools, accurate application of performance-based design. Becker reflecting a common engineering approach that can be used in states that this schematic algorithm is a basic tool not many performance applications. only as a conceptual model but also for the development and adaptation of simulation tools used for performance- Figure 3. Schematic of performance based design and based design and evaluation purposes. However, as she also required knowledge-based information and tools [47] acknowledges, this model remained at the level of a schema, framework, or a conceptual model. She underlines that further tools, procedures, and model documentations are needed for the application of performance-based design [46].

4.4. Design Decision Network Model and Design Process Model for High Performance Buildings

Magent [48], as part of his PhD research, investigated the design process for high performance buildings and developed a 965 new design process. Magent stated that the design process is not clearly defined for high performance buildings and to fill this gap, developed an process that is considered useful for high performance buildings using “decision focused process” and “competency based approach.” In the initial In this model, Becker defines the performance-based design stages of this study, Magent proposed a design-decision model. process as an algorithm composed of ten steps. These steps are: This model, as shown in Figure 4, has a conical structure. This conical model is used to reflect the nature of decision making • List potential user activity groups and their requirements. process. The possible decision options are reduced in number • Identify all relevant actions/conditions that tend to using analysis and information, to finally reach a conclusion on adversely affect building performance and threaten the basis of a commitment. Any uncertainty at any time within achievement of the user requirements and the the decision time schedule is represented by means of the cone combinations that should be addressed simultaneously. diameter. When new options are considered the uncertainty • Identify all relevant performance indicators for every user increases, while it decreases when new information is provided requirement. and options are analyzed.

• For each performance indicator, define the building-related Figure 4. Proposed design-decision model [48] meaning of the term dissatisfaction or performance failure.

• For every user requirement associated with every User- Activity, define the accepted percentage of dissatisfied or the accepted level of failure.

• Determine the characteristic values of the generalized loads.

• Determine the characteristic limit values of the performance indicators. 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

Magent states that this design-decision model is a part of the Process Evaluation Model has been developed as a decision- design environment. He models this design environment as a based process evaluation model on the basis of the two decisions network and defines the model previously developed models, summarizing the steps to be shown in Figure 5 as design decision network model. Magent taken in the design process of high performance buildings. suggests that in this model, the commitment obtained at the Magent, as part of his study, has not conducted any testing or end of the decision making period provides the information validation of this design process evaluation model. He states that is needed for subsequent decision making processes. that this model provides a decision-based process/evaluation According to him, in addition to the decisions, this model helps tool summarizing design steps for high performance buildings carry out analysis in the design process. Magent represented and based it on two other models he developed. In this model, these analyses (simulations, cost calculations, and research) the first step is to form a team. Then, the function ofthe by rectangular boxes within the model. Furthermore, he states building will be defined. The next step is to develop a decision- that this design environment includes not only decisions and based design process map. Following this, key decisions are analysis, but also the individuals responsible for the design. evaluated both within the time slots allocated to them within The skills and knowledge of these individuals have a direct the whole process and when they are individually organized. influence on the decisions, information, and analyses forming Then, the information needed for the aim of decision-making the design decision network. These information and skills will be identified. The last step is to define competencies are characterized as competences within the design decision required for the process application [48]. network, and represented as hexagons.

966 Figure 6. Design process model for high performance buildings [48]

Among the models developed by Magent, the design process model and design decision network model are very similar Figure 5. Proposed design decision network model [48] to each other. The design process model defines the design Magent, in his study, has also developed a design process stages within IDEF modelling in a hierarchical order. Within this model to be used to evaluate the design process of energy hierarchy, it is well-defined which stakeholders are included systems, based on the theory established within the Design and which tools are used within certain stages as part of the Decision Network Model. In this model, the IDEF (Integrated “mechanism” data of the IDEF model. Similarly, data used DEFinition) model method was employed. The IDEF model at a certain design stage, prevailing conditions and results represents the process of a series of diagrams and defines obtained from that stage are included within the model. The the information relationships between activities. Activities in design decision network model, on the other hand, is used to these diagrams are represented as boxes, while the interfaces make decisions among different design or design component between activities are shown as arrows or lines between these alternatives available for a particular design stage. This model boxes. IDEF uses hierarchical diagrams. A0 activity located includes design decisions and analyses that are to be made, at the uppermost level of the diagram is expressed as a i.e. calculations, simulations, etc... used to evaluate design single activity. Then to this activity, sub-activities are added, alternatives, and the skill and knowledge level of stakeholders shown as A1, A2, A3... to form a more detailed diagram. This included within a particular stage are shown. Therefore, the disintegration continues until model reaches its target [49]. design decision network model is included within the design process model that has a hierarchical structure [41]. Magent defines the design process model, shown in Figure 6, with activities and sub-activities and shows sub-levels of 4.5. Objects – Cognitive Model the model within IDEF. He developed a total of three different Bittermann [50] developed a model that he defined as a models: Design Decision Network Model, Design Process cognitive approach to performance-based design and called Model for High Performance Buildings, and Design Process it “intelligent design objects.” This model is complicated, Evaluation Model for High Performance Buildings. The Design employing multiple methods. This cognitive design model, 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE shown in Figure 7, includes methods such as genetic Augenbroe uses the visual comfort example to explain the algorithms, fuzzy neural trees, and Pareto optimization. system that he calls the aspect model. In order to be able Genetic algorithms are a procedure based on Darwin’s “survival to understand the problem physically, the technical systems of the fittest” principle. This procedure is an evolutionary that play a role on the targeted visual comfort level are listed process including the competition among potential solutions below. Among these technical systems, the most important and elimination of some [51]. The fuzzy neural tree method, on members and parameters that have the greatest influence on the other hand, was developed by Bittermann himself, using the visual comfort are given in parenthesis. fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks. The method called • External enclosure system (elevation: type, size, and Pareto optimization is used for a multi-purpose optimization location of windows, shading devices, shading control) and multi-criteria optimization (non-dominant optimization) [52]. Furthermore, the visual perception model he developed • Neighborhood system (nearby buildings, vegetation) as part of his study was used in the “measurements” section • Electric lighting system (type of fixtures, location, control) to calculate perception. In his perception model, Bittermann • Internal enclosure (surface finishes (color, reflectivity)) modelled perception using an avatar and mathematical calculations. • system (workplace location and orientation, internal partitions height and finishes)

These systems show that the entirety of members and parameters that comprise the different technical systems are responsible for the visual comfort. In addition to these, a functional system that can be described as the conglomeration of different technical (sub)system elements is also formed. The selection of these elements is made on the basis of whether Figure 7. Cognitive system based on intelligent design these make a contribution to the building behavior in relation objects [50] to a certain function. This functional system is defined by The cognitive system model developed by Bittermann has Augenbroe [54] as the “Aspect System”. The quantification been used for performance evaluation of fuzzy neural trees. method to be employed on a performance requirement 967 Bittermann’s “cognitive model” works as follows: firstly, a (generally simulation) works on the Aspect System as in the design objects example is presented by the initial population of visual comfort example. As seen from Figure 8, each functional the algorithm. Measurements are made on this design, and the requirement depends entirely on an “Aspect System”. The performance evaluation is achieved by means of fuzzy neural relationship between a functional requirement and an “Aspect trees. Among the evaluated performances, designs selected System” is concretized in the form of performance indicator. on the basis of relaxed Pareto distribution are transferred to the genetic algorithm module and new design alternatives are developed here. For these new design alternatives, the same measurement and performance evaluation procedures are repeated. This repetition continues until the best solution is found by the genetic algorithm module, i.e. the is completed.

This model does not take into account stakeholders, who should be actively involved during the definition of user requirements stage, one of the basic components of performance-based design. Furthermore, it is should also be questioned if design alternatives being produced by genetic producers change the role of the and design team [41].

4.6. Aspect System Model Figure 8. Aspect systems are performance criterion spe- cific aggregations over technical systems [54] Augenbroe [53] bases performance-based design on building performance requirements and a set of standardized 5. Conclusions performance indicators forming a series of well-established Croce et al. [44] proposed a model that was systematically values that show possible results. The expert of the design divided into different stages with regards to performance. process analyzes and evaluates different designs on the basis Mallory-Hill’s model [45] is different from other proposed of these performance indicators. models, as it is not related to the design process and aims 2nd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium

to evaluate the performance of existing buildings. However, Acknowledgement: This study is produced from the Phd this model was discussed in this study because Mallory-Hill Thesis named “Proposal of A Model for Performance Based suggested that his model can also be used in the design process Building Design” which is fulfilled by Selçuk SAYIN under the with the help of simulation tools. In the performance matrix in supervision of Prof.Dr. Gülser ÇELEBi at Selcuk University Mallory Hill’s model, which is formed independently from the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences in 2014. time dimension, the matrix components are expressed within References a certain hierarchy. The building, which is one of the matrix [1]. ISO 6241, “Performance Standards in Building – Principles for Their components, is divided into sub-systems formed by a variety Preperation and Factors to be Considered”, Switzerland, (1984). of elements. The other components, dissimilar to the elements [2]. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z. and White E. T., “Post-Occupancy forming the building, were expressed within a hierarchy as Evaluation”, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, (1988). [3]. Eberhard, J. P., “The Performance Concept: A Study of its Application building and the surroundings. The last component of the to Building”, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, USA, 3-34 matrix is the people and situations affected by the performance. (1968). The content of this component is given in a hierarchy, varying [4]. Bakens, W., Foliente, G. and Jasuja, M., “Engaging Stakeholders in Performance-Based Building:Lessons from The Performance-Based from the individuals’ level to the global level. Becker [46], in Building (PeBBu) Network”, Building Research & Information, 33 (2): her model, defined a ten-step process to draw the general 149-158 (2005). framework. Becker’s model is a conceptual, general model, and [5]. Foster, B.E., (ed.), “Performance Concept in Buildings”, Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, NBS Special Publication No. does not include any other hierarchy than steps that need to be 361, Vol.1, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, (1972). followed. One of the three models developed by Magent [48], [6]. Foster, B.E., (ed.), “Performance Concept in Buildings”, Proceedings of the design process model for high performance buildings, is the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, NBS Special Publication No. 361, Vol.2, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, (1972). formed using the hierarchy-based IDEF model. As this model’s [7]. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, “Performance Concept in language is a model composed of hierarchy diagrams, it has Building”, Proceedings of the ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Vol. 1, LNEC, Lisbon, (1982). also a hierarchical nature. Both Augenbroe’s model [54] and [8]. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, “Performance Concept in fuzzy neural trees within Bitterman’s cognitive model [50] are Building”, Proceedings of the ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Vol. 2, both based on the formation of a hierarchy. LNEC, Lisbon, (1982). [9]. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M., (ed.), “Applications of the Performance The Building Evaluation Domain Model, Framework Model, Concept in Building”, Proceedings of the 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM and Aspect System Model define performance-based design International Symposium, Vol. 1, National Building Research Institute, Haifa, (1996). 968 independently from the design process. Among other models [10]. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M., (ed.), “Applications of the Performance that were examined here, the Atiuno model, Design Process Concept in Building”, Proceedings of the 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Vol. 2, National Building Research Institute, Model for High Performance Buildings, and Cognitive Model Haifa, (1996). illustrated performance-based design as a whole process. [11]. CIB, “The Performance Concept and its Terminology”, Report No.32, The Atiuno model is linear, does not include feedback, freezes CIB, Rotterdam; Building Research and Practice, 1 (January/February), 18-23 (1975). performance checks at certain stages throughout design, [12]. CIB, “Performance Requirements in Buildings”, Key Papers, Luxemburg, and does not incorporate stakeholders’ participation into the Vol. 1, Centre Scientifigue et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB), France, process for the identification of requirements. The Design 1-263 (1988). [13]. CIB-ISO-BRS, “Implementation of the Performance Concept in Building Process Evaluation Model for High Performance Buildings, in and Training”, Proceedings of the International Workshop, which Magent states is composed of his two other models, the Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal, (1989). Design Decision Network Model and Design Process Model for [14]. CIB, “Final Report of CIB Task Group 11 – Performance Based Building Codes, Report of Working Commission TG11”, Publication High Performance Buildings, is claimed to include a team to No.206, National Research Council Canada – Institute for Research in develop the targeted function for the building. However, this Construction, Ottawa, (1997). model has not been put in application and has remained in at [15]. CIB, “Measurement and Management of Architectural Value in Performance-Based Building”, Report of Working Commission W60/ the cognitive level. The cognitive model is composed of a series W96, Publication No. 283, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2002). of complex methods that are difficult to employ in architectural [16]. Gibson, E. J., “Working with the Performance Approach to Building”, practices, such as genetic algorithms, Pareto distribution, and Report of Working Commission W60, Publication No.64, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (1982). fuzzy neural trees, and does not incorporate stakeholders, an [17]. Hammond, D., Dempsey, J.J., Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., “Integrating A important component of performance-based design [41]. Performance-Based Approach into Practice: A Case Study”, Building Research & Information, 33 (2): 128-141 (2005). As a result, the examination of performance-based design [18]. Meacham, B., Bowen, R., Traw, J. and Moore, A., “Performance-Based models revealed a lack of a certain approach that is needed Building Regulation: Current Situation and Future Needs”, Building Research & Information, 33 (2): 91-106 (2005). to increase the usability of performance-based building design [19]. Barrett, P., Sexton, M. and Lee, A., “Performance Based Building within architectural practices. To this end, this approach ”, PeBBu Domain 8 Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). should explain the design process components thoroughly, [20]. Becker, R. and Foliente, G., “PeBBu 2nd International State of the Art”, identify steps allowing a design evaluation, be easy to use, and PeBBu Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). capable of transforming this subject into a business field rather [21]. Cardilla, P. and Varone, G., “PeBBu Regional User Platform 4”, Final User Regional Platform Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). than a technical one. [22]. Fenn, P., Haugbolle, K. and Morse T., “Legal & Procurement Practices”, 28 - 30th May 2015 | Ankara - TURKIYE

PeBBu Domain 6 Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). [47]. Becker, R. and Foliente, G., “PeBBu 2nd International State of the Art”, [23]. Foliente, G.C., “Performance Based Building R&D Roadmap”, PeBBu PeBBu Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). [48]. Magent, C. S., “A Process and Competency-Based Approach to High [24]. Jasuja, M., “Performance Based Building Thematic Network Final Performance Building Design”, PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State Report”, PeBBu Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). University, The Graduate School, The Department of Architectural [25]. Loomans, M.G.L.C. and Bluyssen, M.P., “Indoor Environments”, PeBBu Engineering, Pennsylvania, USA, (2005). Domain 2 Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). [49]. De Wilde, P., Augenbroe, G. and Van Der Vooerden, M., “Managing the [26]. Spekkink, D., “Performance Based Design of Buildings”, PeBBu Domain Selection of Energy Saving Features in Building Design”, Engineering, 3 Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). Construction and Architectural Management, 9: 192-208 (2002). [27]. Spekkink, D., “Performance Based Design: Bringing Vitruvius up to [50]. Bittermann, M.S., “Intelligent Design Objects (IDO) A Cognitive Date”, PeBBu Domain 3, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). Approach for Performance-Based Design”, PhD Thesis, Delft University [28]. Szigeti, F. and Davis, G., “Performance Based Building: Conceptual of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, (2009). Framework”, PeBBu Final Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2005). [51]. Caldas, L.G. and Norford, L.K., “A Design Optimization Tool Based on A [29]. Vandaele, L., “PeBBu Regional Platform 2”, Final Regional Platform Genetic Algorithm”, Automotion in Construction, 11: 173-184 (2002). Report, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2006). [52]. Sarıyıldız, İ.S., Bittermann, M.S. and Çiftçioğlu, Ö., “Performance-Based [30]. Sexton, M. and Barrett, P., “Performance-Based Building and Pareto Optimal Design”, Proceedings of the TMCE 2008 Symposium, Innovation: Balancing Client and Industry Needs”, Building Research & (ed. I. Horvath and Z. Rusak), İzmir, Turkey, 1005-1020 (2008). Information, 33 (2): 142-148 (2005). [53]. Augenbroe, G., “Trends in Building Simulation”, Advanced Building [31]. Harputlugil, G.U., “Enerji Performansı Öncelikli Mimari Tasarım Simulation (ed. Ali M. Malkawi, Godfried Augenbroe), Spon Press, New Sürecinin İlk Aşamasında Kullanılabilecek Tasarıma Destek York, USA, 4-24 (2005). Değerlendirme Modeli”, PhD Thesis, Gazi University Graduate School [54]. Augenbroe, G., “The Role of Simulation in Performance Based of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Building”, Building Performance Simulation for Design and Operation, Turkey, (2009). (ed. Jan L.M. Hensen, Roberto Lamberts), Spon Press, London, UK, [32]. Hopfe, C.J., “Uncertainty and Sensitivy Analysis in Building 15-36 (2011). Performance Simulation for Decision Support and Design Optimization”, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, (2009). [33]. Jasuja, M., “The Performance Based Building Network: Impacts and Perspectives”, CIB Symposium Combining Forces, (ed. Pekka Huovila), Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki, Finland, 1-13 (2005). [34]. Foliente, G.C., Leicester, R.H. and Pham, L., “Development of the CIB Proactive Program on Performance Based Building Codes and Standards”, BCE Doc 98/232, CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering, Highett, Australia, (1998). [35]. Foliente, G.C., “Developments in Performance-Based Building Codes and Standards”, Forest Products Journal, 50 (7/8): 12-21 (2000). [36]. Sexton, M., Barrett, P. and Lee, A., “The Relationship Between 969 Performance Based Building and Innovation: An Evolutionary Approach”, CIB Symposium Combining Forces, (ed. Pekka Huovila), Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki, Finland, 37-43 (2005). [37]. Foliente, G., Boxhall, P. and Pham, L., “Facilitating Innovation & Enhancing Trade – The Performance Based Building Networks in Australia & Asia”, CIB Symposium Combining Forces, (ed. Pekka Huovila), Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki, Finland, 55-59 (2005). [38]. Lee, A. and Barrett, P., “Performance Based Building: First International State of the Art Report”, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, (2003). [39]. Porkka, J. and Houvila, P, “Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – A Step Towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB)”, CIB Symposium Combining Forces, (ed. Pekka Huovila), Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland, 81-93 (2005). [40]. Prior, J.J. and Szigeti, F., “Why All the Fuss About Performance Based Building?”, Thematic Network, PeBBu, Performance Based Building, News Article, (2003). [41]. Sayın, S., “Performans Tabanlı Bina Tasarımı için Bir Model Önerisi”, PhD Thesis, Selcuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Architecture, Konya, Turkey, (2014). [42]. Gürsel, İ., “CLIP Computational Support for Lifecycle Integral Building Performance Assessment”, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, (2010). [43]. Augenbroe G., “Trends in Building Simulation”, Building and Environment, 37: 891-902 (2002). [44]. Croce, S., Daniotti, B., De Angelis, E., Filiberti, A., Fiori, M. and Tiso, A., “From Comfort Requirements to Building Elements Design: A Performance Approach Based Design Training Method for Building Engineers”, Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium - Applications of the Performance Concept in Building Vol. 1, (ed. Rachel Becker, Monica Paciuk), Tel-Aviv, Israel, 95-105 (1996). [45]. Mallory-Hill, S. M., “Supporting of Workplace Environments with Case-Based Reasoning”, PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, (2004). [46]. Becker, R., “Fundamentals of Performance-Based Building Design”, Building Simulation, 1: 356-371 (2008).