A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Building Energy Modelling Tools via the Case Study of an Italian Neighbourhood

Chiara Nardelli, Riccardo Colombo, Alessia Banfi, Martina Ferrando, Xing Shi and Francesco Causone ()
Additional contact information
Chiara Nardelli: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
Riccardo Colombo: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
Alessia Banfi: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
Martina Ferrando: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy
Xing Shi: College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, No. 1239 Si Ping Road, Shanghai 200092, China
Francesco Causone: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milano, Italy

Energies, 2025, vol. 18, issue 10, 1-20

Abstract: Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) represents a comprehensive approach to investigate the intricate interplay of the various factors impacting energy use of groups of buildings, offering invaluable insights for urban planners, architects, building engineers, and policymakers. Nonetheless, available UBEM tools are still “research tools” and lack a unified standard addressing input, output, nomenclature, and calculation approaches. In this context, this study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of two of the most used UBEM tools: Integrated Computational Design (iCD), the commercial tool provided by the Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) company, and Urban Modelling Interface (umi), developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The comparative analysis includes each step of the UBEM workflow: the creation of the model, the assignment of input data, energy simulation, and visualisation and exportation of results. The tools are tested through the simulation of a case study to provide insights on the rationale and informed use of the tools, highlighting the risks associated with use by modellers with different levels of expertise. Moreover, this study provides tool developers and the scientific community with suggestions for major areas of improvement and standardisation in the field of UBEM, since substantial differences are still reported with respect to output, input, nomenclature, and calculation approaches.

Keywords: urban building energy modelling (UBEM); IES-iCD; umi; tool comparison; building performance simulation (BPS) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/10/2618/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/10/2618/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:18:y:2025:i:10:p:2618-:d:1658986

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().