Advanced Building Simulation

Developments in interoperability 213
● the mapping between design information and the set of coexisting structured
representations is supported by constructive interfaces that are integrated in
the workbench. Each interface operates in pull mode, initiated by the occurrence
of predefined analysis functions in scenarios. This approach avoids “overengineered”
interfaces;
● the constructive interfaces are “procedural” replacements of the integrated
Building Model;
● the scenario approach integrates well with the trend to support collaborative
design teams by Internet-based team.
A number of important research questions need to be addressed before large-scale
interoperability workbench development can be undertaken:
1 Can a distinct set of molecular AFs be defined that covers a significant enough
percentage of recurring analysis scenarios? The underlying performance theory
has roots in earlier work by CSTB on Proforma (CSTB 1990) and CIB’s work on
test methods. Later work has tried to establish Performance Assessment
Methods, such as reported in (Wijsman 1998). However, a classification of
system functions and their performance measures has not been attempted at any
significant scale.
2 Can the claim for maximum reuse of IFC investments be proven? The IFC is
being tested successfully in preconditioned settings. A hard test for the IFC would
be to develop a large enough set of analysis functions and test the coverage of the
data needs of these analysis functions by the IFC. From preliminary studies, it
seems that the coverage in the energy, HVAC, and related analysis fields would
be complete enough to cover a significant set of analysis functions.
3 Can the workbench approach effectively capture performance at increasing levels
of granularity in accordance with design evolution or will the necessary number
of analysis functions explode? The answer to this question will be largely determined
by the establishment of an AF classification and the way this classification
can be applied to different building systems and to varying levels of granularity.
4 Will the workbench approach lead to the capturing of best practices in current
building/engineering design and thus be able to act as a catalyst for reengineering?
The building performance analysis profession is gaining in maturity but
lacks clear standards and accepted quality assurance methods. The diffusion of
best practices could prove to be an important factor for this maturation.
5 Who will own and maintain the classification of analysis functions? Does this not
have the same drawback/problem as the ownership and maintenance of the neutral
product model? There is as yet no way of knowing this, as the complexity of
the classification is untested.
These are important questions for which no definite answers can be given as yet.
Acknowledgment
The reported work on DAI was funded by the US Department of Energy and conducted
by Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania and Carnegie
Mellon University.