MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.

1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

Energy Prediction versus Energy Performance of Green Buildings in

Malaysia. Comparison of Predicted and Operational Measurement of GBI
Certified Green Office in Kuala Lumpur
1,a 1
Suzaini M. Zaid and Amir Kiani
1
Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Abstract. Forward from the sustainability agenda of Brundtland in 1987 and the increasing demand for energy
efficient buildings, the building industry has taken steps in meeting the challenge of reducing its environmental
impact. Initiatives such as ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ design have been at the forefront of architecture, while green
assessment tools have been used to predict the energy performance of building during its operational phase. However,
there is still a significant hap between predicted or simulated energy measurements compared to actual operational
energy consumption, or is more commonly referred as the ‘performance gap’. This paper tries to bridge this gap by
comparing measured operational energy consumption of a Green Building Index (GBI) certified office building in
Kuala Lumpur, with its predicted energy rating qualification.

1 Introduction however it does very little to measure actual performance

of the so-called green buildings. Therefore, there is a
need to fill in the gap of predicted and operational
Global warming is one of the biggest issues of this performance of buildings – known as the ‘performance
century, and according to National Aeronautics and gap’ [6] that can truly be a testament of real energy and
Space Administration (NASA), in the past few years the CO2 reduction.
number of carbon dioxide (CO2) parts in the atmosphere
exceeded an amount that it had never pass in the last
650,000 years [1]. Buildings play a big role in producing 2 Green Revolution
CO2 gases; in fact 30% of greenhouse gas emission come
from building sector, and between 80-90% of CO2 There has been large body of work that has been done to
emissions from the building sector come from the enhance how a building performs in its operational phase,
operational phase of already built buildings [2]. through simulation and ‘green’ design or architecture [7].
Consequently, mitigation of CO2 emissions has affected The term ‘green’ architecture/building refers to how
the building industry in a number of countries in the environmental friendly the building is, in terms of the
South East Asian region like Indonesia, Singapore, the design, techniques and technology used in the building
Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are already [8]. The green building revolution is being observed
implementing energy efficiency legislation on newly built internationally [9], through energy standards such as the
buildings [3]. However, it cannot be said the same about European Energy Performance of Building Directive
the building industry in Malaysia, where such legislation (EBPD), the French Low Energy Building Decree and the
does not exist for both new built and existing buildings. Norwegian Standard for Residential Passive House [10]
Other than building energy efficiency legislation, and is even starting to gain awareness locally in Malaysia
other strategies or approaches however has been done with the birth of GBI.
sporadically in the Malaysian building landscape, such as The believed benefits of green building practices will
the introduction of Green Building Index (GBI) to rate possibly provide the triple-bottom-line benefits of
how ‘green’ buildings are designed – not operated. The sustainable development, in terms of environmental,
GBI has taken heed from pioneering green building rating economic and social [9] [11] Some of the environmental
tools such as Building Research Establishment benefits include: biodiversity and ecosystems
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in The enhancement; air and water quality improvement; waste
United Kingdom [4] and Leadership in Energy & reduction; natural resources conservation; and
Environmental Design (LEED) in The United States [5]. minimizing global warming effects. Other possible
These green building rating tools are predicted models of economic benefits could include: reduction of operation
how buildings would perform in operational phase, and maintenance costs; creation of green products and
a
Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

services; life-cycle economic performance optimization; 11.Innovation - 20

image improvement; and reduction of cost for civil
infrastructure [9]. Meanwhile, perceived social benefit
include: occupant productivity improvement; and
occupant absenteeism minimization [9].

2.1 Green Rating Tool and Simulation

Many countries have developed their own green rating
tool based on one another, mostly adapted from the
pioneering BREEAM and LEED rating tools. Examples
of green building rating tools available in the South East Table 2. Energy Requirements for BCA Green Mark, BERDE
Asian region are Green Mark from Singapore, Building and GBI. Sources: [12-14].
for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence
(BERDE) from Philippines and the Green Building Index BCA Green Mark BERDE GBI
(GBI) from Malaysia [12-14]. Some of the assessment (Building Energy (Energy) (Energy
criteria in these green building rating tools are similar, for Performance) Efficiency)
example energy efficiency (EE), indoor environmental 1. Energy 1. Energy Sub- 1. Minimum
quality (EQ), and water efficiency (WE) [12-14]. Efficiency Metering EE
However, the assessment measurements and scoring 2. Air- 2. Energy Performance
system may differ between these green building rating Conditioning Efficient 2. Lighting
tools according to local context. Table 1 briefly Total System Lighting Zoning
highlights the assessment criteria for Green Mark, Efficiency 3. Natural 3. Electrical
BERDE and GBI for Non-Residential New Construction 3. Lighting Ventilation Sub-
Efficiency 4. On-Site Metering
category, and the maximum scoring points [12-14]. As
4. Energy Renewable 4. Advanced or
the focus of this paper is to review the Malaysian Effectiveness Energy Improved EE
building performance, a brief comparison between the 5. Building Generation Performance
energy efficiency criteria of the GBI with its other South Energy 5. Energy – BEI
East Asian counterpart Green Mark and BERDE is 6. Car Park Efficiency 5. Enhanced
described also in Table 2. Energy Improvement Commissioni
7. Receptacle 6. Energy ng
Table 1. Assessment criteria of BCA Green Mark, BERDE and Energy Efficiency 6. Post
GBI. Sources: [12-14]. 8. Renewable Building Occupancy
Energy Envelope Commissioni
BCA Green Mark BERDE GBI 9. Feasibility 7. Energy ng
– 120 points – 120 points – 100 points Study Efficient 7. EE
10. Solar Ready Equipment Verification
Roof 8. Building 8. Sustainable
1.Climatic 1.Management – 1.Energy
11. Replacement Automation Maintenance
Responsive 14 Efficiency (EE) –
Energy Systems
Design – 30 35
2.Land Use and
2.Building Ecology – 20 2.Indoor
Energy Environmental The GBI Minimum EE Performance is for building
Performance – 30 3.Water – 7 Quality (EQ) – envelope and installations like Building Energy Intensity
21 Tool (BEIT) to hoped to minimize the energy
3.Resource 4.Energy – 9 consumption, hence reducing CO2 emission [14].
Stewardship – 30 3. Sustainable Lighting Zoning; as the name suggests it is allocated for
5.Transportation – Site Planning & lighting and zonings of lightings and the flexibility of the
4.Smart & 18 Management system. In this part, GBI’s requirements are to install
Healthy Building (SM) - 16
– 30 6.Indoor
motion sensors to turn off the light in the absence of a
Environmental 4.Material & user, to install auto-sensors to automatically adjust the
5.Advanced Quality – 7 Resources (MR) level of artificial lighting according the level of natural
Green Efforts – – 11 lighting, and to provide switches for every enclosed area
20 7.Materials – 6 individually to increase the flexibility of the system [14].
5.Water Electrical Sub-metering & Tenant Sub-metering is for
8.Emissions – 4 Efficiency (WE) installing different sub-meters for all energy use more
– 10 than 100 kilovolt amps (kVa) as well as an individual
9.Waste – 11 sub-metering for lighting [14].
6.Innovation (IN)
10. -7
Renewable Energy is to promote the use of
Heritage renewable energies and points are given according the
Conservation – 4 amount of electricity provided by the renewable sources,
so the more renewable energy, the more points, and a

2
MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

building can get as high as 5 points [14]. Points are given intended as a CO2 emissions compliance tool [18] rather
in Advanced or Improved EE Performance if a building than energy simulation software.
manages to consume less than 150kWh/m2/year (this However, these simulation tools are not able to
number may vary according to the type of building, for predict the biggest variable in the calculations, as user
more information please refer to GBI) using BEI software behaviour, presence and activities can differ considerably
or any other software recognized by GBI or to save at to personal and group preference [6,7]. Building
least 20% of the normal energy consumption over 3 years occupants can considerably effect energy consumption by
using BEI [14]. Enhanced Commissioning is used to influencing internal conditions, such as individual
ensure that every energy using system is working at its controls on air-conditioning and heat, window openings -
best potential and to ensure the minimal energy used by passive ventilation and cooling methods, and shading
these systems [14]. mechanisms [6]. Furthermore, building occupants also
Points on On-going Post Occupancy have personal control over various electrical equipment
Commissioning will be given for regular Post Occupancy and appliances – or known as ‘unregulated loads’, such as
Evaluation (POE) and more points will be given if they computers, laptops, printers, and so forth [6].
are assessed by professional engineers [14]. EE Conversely during the operational stage of a
Monitoring & Improvement is for the use of Energy building, energy and facility management can
Management System (EMS) to monitor all the energy significantly effect how energy is consumed in a
usage in the building as well as the sub-metering. If a building. Good management and control can enhance
building is not equipped with EMS then they should operational efficiency of building services while the
submit BEI, fuel and water consumption of the building opposite reaction can occur through inappropriate
on annual basis to GBI for the 3 years of validity period strategies that result in unnecessary energy wastage [19].
[14]. Sustainable Maintenance focuses on the Other significant parameters to evaluate operational
maintenance of the energy related systems and points are energy performance of buildings include energy
given is the maintenance is planned properly and at least efficiency services and fittings, thermal performance of
75% of maintenance team participate in carrying out of materials and material efficiency [20]. A study done in
maintenance [14]. New York City found that one forth of the LEED Energy
Star buildings actually consume more energy than
predicted, and some was even consuming more than the
2.2 Predicted and Simulated Building
national baseline (Refer Figure 1) [21]. The discrepancy
Performance
is likely due to differences in operational practices and
schedules, equipment, construction changes and other
Other than green building rating tools, simulation tools issues not predicted in the energy modelling process [21].
like EnergyPlus and Simplified Building Energy Model
(SBEM) are also used as strategies to reduce the building
sector’s environmental impact and climate change effect.
Simulation and modelling tools are used as a design tool
to simulate and predict how the said building would
perform in its operational phase. An open source software
called EnergyPlus was developed under the prevue of the
United States Department of Energy Building
Technologies Office to simulate energy performance of
heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, plug and process
loads and water consumption of buildings [15]. Some of
the EnergyPlus features include simulated: thermal zone
conditions for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
(HVAC) systems; heat balance-based solution; combined
heat and mass transfer; luminance and glare, and built-in
HVAC and lighting control strategies [15].
The Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM) is Figure 1: Predicted Energy Savings Versus Actual
Performance. Source: [21].
a software developed by the Building Research
Establishment (BRE) to model building’s CO2 emission
and energy consumption rates for new buildings, in Similar results were found in United Kingdom, through a
compliance with United Kingdom Building Regulations free online energy data-sharing platform called
[16]. SBEM predicts monthly energy use and CO2 CarbonBuzz (refer Figure 2). CarbonBuzz was launched
emissions of a building, using variables such as building in 2008 by the Royal Institute of British Architects
geometry, construction, function and usage, HVAC (RIBA) and the Chartered Institution of Building
systems and lighting [16]. The SBEM uses a steady-state Services Engineers (CISBE) in United Kingdom,
model for its building energy calculation, which is highly published its analysis of shared energy consumption data
simplified and highly computational – as it largely in three building sectors, i.e. schools, general offices and
ignores any dynamic characteristic [17], and is mainly university buildings [6] [22].

3
MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

modelled [6]. Consequently, this paper helps to bridge the

gap by collecting real operational energy consumption
data of a GBI rated building, and comparing it with a
conventional non-GBI rated building to develop a
baseline study.

3 Methodology
The methodology used in this study is comparative case
study. This method is used when two or more similar
case studies are subjected and in depth comparison is
required between them [24]. Case studies for this
research have been chosen firstly from GBI Non-
Figure 2: CarbonBuzz median electricity consumption per- Residential New Construction (NRNC) list of certified
sector – predicted vs. actual. Source: [22]. buildings, the second conventional baseline building is
chosen carefully from the commercial buildings, which
In an energy audit done by CarbonBuzz in 2013, it was have the similar number of floors and floor area for a fair
largely found that the actual energy performance of all and valid comparison. There are total number of 116
the building sectors was higher than its predicted NRNC buildings in Malaysia which have been awarded
performance, approximately about 70% to 89% higher by GBI certification, 54 of which have been awarded by
than the predicted energy performance, or a Factor of GBI Certified certification, 18 have been awarded GBI
Change (from Design to Actual) – Performance Gap Silver certification, 39 have been awarded Gold and only
between 1.71 to 1.90 (refer Table 3) [23]. The typical 5 are awarded GBI Platinum certification [25].
variable that affects operational energy performance of a Consequently, electricity bills were collected from
building largely lies in the underestimating the the case studies and the data are quantitative and the
‘unregulated’ energy use from occupant-related usage, monthly average electricity consumption is calculated for
such as personalized computer/laptop, electronic plug-in each building. The selected GBI certified building is
appliances, heating and cooling, operating time, number categorized under the Non-Residential New Construction
of occupant and so forth [23]. category. The data is then categorized in Building Energy
Index (BEI), in terms of kWh/m2/year. The findings are
Table 3. CarbonBuzz median electricity consumption per-sector then compared to see how better (or worse) GBI certified
– predicted vs. actual. Source: [23]. buildings perform, in comparison to a baseline
conventional non-GBI certified building.
Building Median Electricity Factor Differen
Sector Consumption Change -ce (%) 4 Case Study and Findings
Design to
(kWh/m2/year) Actual – The selected GBI certified building was designed to
‘Performance
perform at 150 kWh/m2/year and has a total floor area of
Gap’
Predict- Actual 43,943 m2, while the baseline building with 41,249 m2.
ed Both buildings used double-glazed glass for its windows,
and the GBI certified building has a total of 15 lifts, while
Schools 71 121 1.71 70% the baseline building had 11 lifts. A brief description of
the building characteristics of the selected case studies is
presented in Table 4.
General 56 106 1.90 89%
Office Table 4: Building Characteristics of Selected Case Studies

Item Non-Residential
The ‘performance gap’ discrepancy can also be attributed
to the lack of feedback to building designers after Baseline Building GBI Certified
handover to enhance building performance [6] and Building
therefore the inability to ensure the building performs as Number 36 35
predicted. Other factors that could contribute to such of Floors
discrepancies insufficient data and assumptions during Total 41,249 43,943
the design stage, where the building function, use and Floor
future tenant are largely unknown or uncertain, which Area
could lead to oversimplified and unrealistic performance (m2)
[6]. Additionally, the modelling and simulation software
used can contain fundamental errors in its calculation if Building Double-glazed Tempered Double-
the tools have not been extensively validates and do not Façade low E insulated Glazed tinted glass
consider the specific typology of buildings being glass

4
MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

Lifts 4 high-speed lifts 6 high-speed lifts for 10 243,920 6 482,067 11

for low zone, 4 low zone, 6 high- 11 232,277 6 483,446 11
high-speed lifts speed lifts for high
12 221,791 5 461,555 11
for high zone, 2 zone and 3 car park
carpark lifts and 1 lifts.
VIP lift. Total of Total of 15 lifts kWh/ kWh/m2/ kWh/m2/
kWh/year
11 lifts year year year
Total 2,843,80
Air- Variable Central water chilled 69 4,885,572 111
3
Conditio Refrigerant air-conditioning Aver-
ning Volume (VRV) system supported by age 236,984 6 407,131 9
System system. high energy-efficient
‘green’ chiller and
complemented by
individual air handling In comparison to the intended energy performance
unit (AHU) installed designated for the selected GBI building case study at
at every floor. 150 kWh/m2/year, it would seem that the GBI case study
building was performing better than the intended or
Lighting 28 Watt T5 tubes; T5 Fluorescent tube simulated with a lower energy performance of 111
System 18 Watt T8 LED equipped with high kWh/m2/year. However, this does not negate from the
tubes; 9 Watt frequency electronic significantly higher electricity consumption of the GBI
Plasma Lighting ballast. certified building to the baseline non-GBI certified
System (PLS); 18 building. Further research needs to be done to investigate
and 36 Watt the factors of electricity consumption in non-residential
Fluorescent lights; building to understand why conventional non-GBI
8, 15 and 20 Watt certified building consume lower electricity than the
LED supposedly ‘green’ buildings that are GBI certified.

The electricity data collected for both the case study 5 Discussion
buildings were for a total duration of 12 months between
2013 and 2014. Table 5 represents the collated electricity This paper has highlighted the need to bridge the
data and energy performance of the baseline building and ‘performance gap’ between simulated and operational
the GBI certified building. It was found that the energy measured energy performance of buildings. Through the
performance of the baseline building was lower than the case studies selected and the data collected, it was found
GBI certified building, at 69 kWh/m2/year and 111 that the selected non-residential GBI certified building
kWh/m2/year, respectively. As presented in Table 5, was performing better than the simulated or intended
there is a stark difference in total electricity consumed by energy performance. However, through the comparative
both buildings, where the annual electricity consumption case study between a conventional non-GBI certified
by the baseline was at 236,984 kWh and the GBI building building and a GBI certified building, it was found that
was at 407,131 kWh. the conventional building was performing better than the
GBI rated building over time. Identifying the factors that
Table 5: Electricity Consumption and Energy Performance of affect how energy is consumed in buildings will enable
Case Studies researched to bridge this performance gap to potentially
Baseline Building GBI Building
predict energy performance and design building more
Month accurately through simulated.
Floor Area: 41249 m2 Floor Area: 43943 m2 Researching how user behaviour affects energy
kWh kWh/m2 kWh kWh/m2 performance of buildings is essential to bridging the
performance gap, and can be done through Post-
1 281,333 7 212,551 5 Occupancy Evaluation (POE) and sensor monitoring.
2 251,001 6 212,201 5 POE is a common method to measure actual building
performance, and now can be used to address to bridge
3 225,765 5 235,059 5 the gap between simulated and operational building
4 200,778 5 418,868 10 performance (Menezes et al., 2011). Green building
rating tools like the GBI is an effective tool to reduce
5 213,104 5 427,861 10 electricity consumption, but using this tool alone and
6 263,810 6 478,788 11 certification does not guarantee energy saving. From the
research it is understood that a well-managed and
7 231,928 6 469,016 11
efficient building operations of a conventional non-GBI
8 225,961 5 479,199 11 certified building can perform as well as or even better
than a green building.
9 252,135 6 524,961 12

5
MATEC Web of Conferences 66, 00071 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/20166600071
IBCC 2016

References 13. BERDE. (2013). BERDE for New Construction

Commercial Buildings. Phillippine Green Building
Council. Retrieved from
1. NASA. (2013). Climate change: How do we know? http://philgbc.net/berde/berde-nc/1.1.0/BERDE-NC-
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration COM-v110.pdf
(NASA). Retrieved from 14. GBI. (2009). GBI Assessment Criteria for Non-
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence Residential New Construction (NRNC).
2. UNEP-SBCI. (2010). Common Carbon Metric. GreenBuildingIndex Sdn Bhd. Retrieved from
United Nations Environmental Programme- http://new.greenbuildingindex.org/Files/Resources/G
Sustinable Building Climate Initiative. Retrieved BI%20Tools/GBI%20NRNC%20Non-
from Residential%20Tool%20V1.0.pdf
http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/UNEPSBCICarbonM 15. U.S Department of Energy, 2015. EnergyPlus
etric.pdf Energy Simulation Software. Retrieved from
3. Zaid, S., & Graham, P. (2015a). The Need for http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
Energy Efficiency Legislation in Malaysian Building 16. BRE. (2016). Simplified Building Energy Model
Sector. A Comparative Study of South East Asian (SBEM). Building Research Establishment Ltd.
Policies. Conference Proceedings of RICS COBRA Retrieved from
Legal Research Symposium 2012. https://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=706;
4. BREEAM. (2013). What is BREEAM? Building http://www.uk-ncm.org.uk/
Research Establishment (BRE) Ltd. Retrieved from: 17. Wang, S., Yan, C., & Xiao, F. (2012). Quantitative
http://www.breeam.org/about.jsp?id=66 energy performance assessment methods for existing
5. U.S. Green Building Council. (2013). Leadership in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 55, 873-888.
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). 18. Lee, W. L., & Burnett, J. (2008). Benchmarking
Retrieved from: http://www.usgbc.org/leed energy use assessment of HK-BEAM, BREEAM and
6. Menezes, A. C., Cripps, A., Bouchlaghem, D., & LEED. Building and Environment, 43(11), 1882-
Buswell, R. (2012). Predicted vs. actual energy 1891.
performance of non-domestic buildings: Using post- 19. Bordass B, Cohen R, Standeven M, Leaman A.
occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance Assessing building performance in use 3: energy
gap. Applied Energy, 97, 355-364 performance of probe buildings. Build Res Inform
7. GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlan, N. D., Berardi, U., 2001;29(2):114–28.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N., & 20. Mwasha A,Williams R G, Iwaro J. Modeling the
GhaffarianHoseini, M. (2013). Sustainable energy performance of residential building envelope: The
performances of green buildings: A review of current role of sustainable energy performance indicators.
theories, implementations and challenges. Renewable Energy and Buildings 2011;43 (9):2108–17.
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 1-17. 21. Turner, C., & Mark, F. (2008). Energy Performance
8. Love, P. E., Niedzweicki, M., Bullen, P. A., & of LEED for New Construction Buildings.
Edwards, D. J. (2011). Achieving the green building Vancouver, WA: New Buildings Institute, 2008.
council of Australia’s world leadership rating in an 22. Hamilton I, Steadman P, Bruhns H. CarbonBuzz –
office building in Perth. Journal of Construction Energy Data Audit. UCL Energy Institute, July;
Engineering and Management, 138(5), 652-660. 2011.
9. Nilashi, M., Zakaria, R., Ibrahim, O., Majid, M. Z. 23. CarbonBuzz. (2013). Summary of Audits Performed
A., Zin, R. M., Chugtai, M. W., ... & Yakubu, D. A. on CarbonBuzz by the UCL Energy Insitute.
(2015). A knowledge-based expert system for CarbonBuzz Performance Gap. Retrieved from
assessing the performance level of green buildings. http://www.carbonbuzz.org/index.jsp#performancega
Knowledge-Based Systems, 86, 194-209. p;
10. Zaid, S. M., Myeda, N. E., Mahyuddin, N., & http://www.carbonbuzz.org/downloads/Performance
Sulaiman, R. (2015b). Malaysia’s Rising GHG Gap.pdf
Emissions and Carbon ‘Lock-In’Risk: A Review of 24. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2009).
Malaysian Building Sector Legislation and Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2). Sage
Policy. Journal of Surveying, Construction and Publications.
Property, 6(1). 25. Greenbuildingindex Sdn Bhd. (2014). GBI Certified
11. Ahn, Y. H. (2010). The development of models to Buildings. Retrieved from greenbuildingindex:
identify relationships between first costs of green http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/organisation-
building strategies and technologies and life cycle certified-buildings-NRNC-01.html
costs for public green facilities (Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University).
12. BCA Green Mark. (2015). BCA Green Mark for
New Buildings (Non-Residential). Building and
Construction Authority (BCA). Retrieved from
http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/others/GM2015_
NewBuildings_NRB_Pilot.pdf