CODE2170 Assignment 2
BIM BASED DESIGN ANALYSIS
TEAM 44
Environmental Analyser: Stephen So | 5063172 Model Checker: Will Hanson | 3333046 Cost Analyser: Christine Huang | 5059815
Contents
1.
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (Stephen So) 3
1.1. ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION 3
1.2. HEATING AND COOLING LOAD 3
1.3. INCIDENTAL SOLAR ACCESS RADIATION 6
1.4. DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS 9
1.5. ANALYSIS SUMMARY 10
DESIGN ANALYSIS (Will Hanson) 11
2.1. INTRODUCTION 11
2.2. D3.1 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 12
2.3. 3.9.1.2 STAIRWAYS 14
2.4. DOORWAYS 15
2.5. WINDOWS 16
2.6. BARRIER CONSTRUCTION 17
2.7. OTHER ISSUES 18
ANALYSIS (Christine Huang) 19
OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS 19
3.2. RESULTS: ELEMENTAL BUILDING COST ANALYSIS RESULTS 20
3.3. SUGGESTED DESIGN CHANGES 22
GROUP PROCESS AND KEY ISSUES (Christine Huang) 24
DESIGN MODEL CHANGES (Stephen So) 28
5.1. BCA COMPLIANCE CHANGES 28
5.2. COST REDUCTION CHANGES 34
5.3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHANGES 38
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RE-TEST (Stephen So) 44 6.1. HEATING AND COOLING LOADS 44 6.2. NATURAL LIGHTING 49
DESIGN ANALYSIS RETEST (Will Hanson) 50
7.1. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES 50
7.2. D3.1 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 50
3. COST 3.1.
4. 5.
6.
7.
PAGE 1
8.
7.3. 3.9.1.2 STAIRWAYS 51
7.4. DOORWAYS 51
7.5. WINDOWS 52
7.6. BARRIER CONSTRUCTION 52
7.8. OTHER ISSUES 53
7.9. SUMMARY OF CHANGES 53
BUILDING COST ANALYSIS RETEST (Christine Huang) 54
8.1. OVERVIEW 54
8.2. RESULTS 55
8.3. COMPLETE COSTX ANALYSIS RESULTS 60
9.
10. REFERENCES 63
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 62
PAGE 2
1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (Stephen So) 1.1. ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION
The aim of the environmental analysis is to provide a report on the environmental efficiency of the building with emphasis on solar. Ecotect and Green building studio were used as tools to assess the heating and cooling loads and solar access. Green building studio provides an in-depth analysis on heating and cooling loads as well as individual performance of each room, however, it does not have the capability to analyse solar access of the building, thus, Ecotect was used to perform that function.
Figure. 1, Building performance summary (Green Building Studio 2016)
1.2. HEATINGANDCOOLINGLOAD
METHODOLOGY
The heating and cooling load is computed via Green building Studio in Revit 2016. By defining the rooms and spaces as volume in Revit as well as defining the function of spaces and operational hours via Revit schedules, we can accurately compute the heating and cooling loads. A total of 37961 W of cooling load and 12591 W of heating load were found as listed in Table 1 below.
PAGE 3
MONTHLY HEATING LOAD
Aim
Table 1. Space Schedule, Revit 2016.
Figure 2, Monthly Heating Load, (Green Building Studio 2016)
The aim of the monthly heating load analysis is to predict how much heating is required for participants such as roof, walls and windows. Figure 1 provides a more detailed analysis as compared with table 1. A grand total of 12591 W summary was computed.
Results
As shown in figure 1, during the winter months of June to August, the negative values are the highest. This peaks in June due to the winter solstice. It is apparent that the high window conductivity and walls are the major factors that contribute to the total heat loss throughout the winter months.
Potential Solutions
Windows, being the highest heat loss factor, poses great opportunities to reduce the total heating load. Solutions to this issue may include reducing amount of windows facing the least favorable orientation for solar access to reduce heat loss or providing extra glazing which in turn increases the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) reducing the load deficiency. The insulation on the walls and roof can also be increased to reduce heat loss.
PAGE 4
MONTHLY COOLING LOAD
Aim
Figure 3, Monthly Cooling Load, Green Building Studio 2016
Similarly, the monthly cooling load provides information as to how much cooling is needed year round. As according to Table 1, there is a massive peak of 37961W of total cooling load, 3 times more than heating, higher cooling demands, thus should be our priority in regards to improvements.
Results
Solar access via windows is the major contributor as seen in figure 2 while walls create an offset during winter periods.
Potential solutions
A possible solution to address this issue can be improving wall insulation (increasing the R value). Walls are chosen due to their consistency appearing in both heating and cooling load diagrams. Windows can be reduced double glazed to increase insulation and reduce solar penetration. Solar access can also be controlled using shading designs above current windows facing the northern façade to control the amount of solar penetration into the internal space.
PAGE 5
1.3. INCIDENTAL SOLAR ACCESS RADIATION
METHODOLOGY
The incidental solar access radiation is computed via Ecotect 2011, by exporting a room and space defined gbxml from Revit, changing the encoding to UTC-8, I was able to compute figure 4 and 5 via Ecotect’s analysis calculations.
SUMMER
North
North
Figure 4 and 5, Summer (1 December to 29 February) Average Daily Solar access (North and south respectively), Ecotect 2011
Aim
The aim of the summer solar access computation is to Analyse the amount of comparative solar access in each of the façade faces. The area with the most average daily radiation will be observed and taken into consideration for design alternatives to reduce solar access concluding in a lower cooling load throughout warmer days of the year.
Result
The northern façade receives the most solar radiation during summer ranging from 600 to 3000 Wh/m2 while Southern façade ranges from 600 to maximum 1800 Wh/m2.
Potential solutions
The largest contributor factor for cooling load requirements is solar access via windows as shown in figure 2. Therefore, windows can be reduced in the northern façade as well as the inclusion of shading design such as eaves created by extending the roof at the correct offset. With an expected
PAGE 6
solar radiation highest on the roof, solar panels can be installed to reduce electricity use especially for air conditioning as simulated in Figure 6 below explained by Autodesk (2016)1 where electricity usage increases during hotter months.
WINTER
Figure 6, Monthly electricity consumption, Green building Studio 2016
North
North
Figure 7 and 8, Winter (1 June to 31 August) Average Daily Solar access (North and south respectively), Ecotect 2011
Aim
As seen in the figure 2, heating load diagram, the requirement for heating is extremely high and should be our main focus in creating a large positive environmental design impact. The façade with the largest solar access gain will be redesigned to allow more solar access into the room as well as
PAGE 7
facades with lowest solar access to reduce glazing to reduce heat loss via window conductivity as recorded as the largest contributor in the requirement for heating.
Result
The northern façade similarly, provides the most solar radiation with 1800 to 2400 Wh/m2. The southern façade receives a low 0 to 600 Wh/m2.
Summer Winter
Figure 9 and 10, Ground floor bar northern wall, Ecotect 2011
One noticeable gain in solar radiation for winter as compared with summer is the northern external wall of the bar as shown in figure 9 and 10. This may be due to the lower altitude of the sun during winter allowing solar access into the building.
Potential Solution
As shown in the heating load analysis, the largest contributor is heat loss via windows. Windows can be reduced in size and number on the southern façade where there is no solar radiation.
The windows on the hallway external wall can be increased to improve solar access during winter.
Similarly, solar panels can be installed to reduce fuel consumption (Autodesk 2016)2 from heating and hot water as simulated in figure 11 below.
Figure 11, Monthly fuel consumption, Green Building Studio 2016.
PAGE 8
1.4. DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
The daylight analysis has been computed using Ecotect 2011 by creating an analysis grid attached to building elements. An analysis grid was attached to the floor for this study.
GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR
Figure 10, Ground floor Day light analysis, Ecotect 2011 and Revit 2016
Figure 12, First floor day light analysis, Ecotect 2011 and Revit 2016
Active rooms
Active rooms
PAGE 9
Aim
The main purpose of the daylight analysis is to reduce the need for artificial lighting especially in spaces where it is active daylight throughout the day.
Results
The ground floor analysis shows a positive result when referring to the active rooms such as the living room and the bar area while the first floor analysis tells us that there is a lack of natural lighting, closer to zero in the living rooms of residential C and 20 – 40% near the large windows of the living room in residential unit B.
Potential Solutions
Changing the orientation of the living/dining room of residential C replacing the laundry room as shown in figure 12 and increase window sizes facing north to provide more natural lighting into that room will reduce artificial lighting usage throughout the year.
Figure 12, Room orientation change plan for residential unit C, Revit 2016
1.5. ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The analysis concluded possible solutions to be executed as follows:
1. Reduce or remove windows on the southern orientated facades
2. Increase R value of walls and roof by improving insulations
3. Double glaze windows to reduce heat loss by window conductivity
4. Provide shading devices for windows with strong solar access to reduce cooling load during
summer
5. Change the orientation for the living room of residential unit C
PAGE 10
2. DESIGN ANALYSIS (Will Hanson) 2.1. INTRODUCTION
This building is defined under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as a Class 2 Building. Under this definition there are certain standards a building must meet in order to comply with the Australian Standards and the Building Code of Australia. The following report outlines all the issues under the BCA identified and Australian Standards within the building. Solibri Model Checker has been used to review this building focusing on accessibility issues.
This table is a summary of the issues identified within Solibri Model Checker.
PAGE 11
2.2. D3.1 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
As shown above under D3.1 of the Building code of Australia at least one unit is required to be accessible to a disabled person. There is only one unit present on the ground floor of this building with the principle entrance highlighted in red. Therefore this unit must be a disabled friendly unit.
PAGE 12
The unit meets the requirements of a disabled friendly sole-occupancy under the BCA besides the door to the WC highlighted in Red. This door was identified under Solibri Model Checker as being narrower than 850mm which is the minimum requirement for disabled friendly doorways.
Recommendation: Amend doorway to meet the minimum width for disabled access doorways
PAGE 13
2.3. 3.9.1.2 STAIRWAYS
The Highlighted stairs have a riser height of 208mm and a going length of 250mm. In accordance with the BCA requirement 3.9.1.1 the stairs are not compliant as they exceed the maximum riser height by 28mm.Recomendation: Amend riser height to be below 190mm.
PAGE 14
2.4. DOORWAYS
According to the Australian Standards doors to sanitary facilities must have a minimum width of 850mm. All the doors within the ground level bar have doors narrower than this. These doors need to be widened in order to comply with this standard and be considered disabled friendly. Recommendation: Widen doorways to meet this standard.
PAGE 15
2.5. WINDOWS
The highlighted window within this bedroom is above the NCC disability standard of a maximum sill height of 865mm as shown in Solibri Model Checker. This needs to be lowered in order to comply with this standard. Recommendation: Lower window sill height to meet this standard
PAGE 16
2.6.BARRIER CONSTRUCTION
According to 3.9.2.3 construction of barriers to prevent falls Openings in barriers (including decorative balustrades) must be constructed so that they do not permit a 125 mm sphere to pass through it and for stairs, the opening is measured above the nosing line of the stair treads. The current barriers within the design have openings far greater than this and need to be amended in order to comply with this requirement. Recommendations: Amend barriers to meet this requirement
PAGE 17
2.7. OTHER ISSUES
The main issues identified that were not picked up in Solibri Model Checker as they do not have to do with accessibility are the height of rooms.
Many of the spaces within the building do not meet this requirement. As seen below the habitable rooms at the back street level have a height lower than 2.4m. Recommendation: increase the heights of these rooms in order to comply with this standard
PAGE 18
3. COST ANALYSIS (Christine Huang) 3.1. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS
The cost analysis of the project was carried out using the BIM model and the CostX software to evaluate an accurate cost estimation of the project building and to achieve a more ideal and economical design. Using the Cordell’s 2013 edition of the “Construction Cost Estimating in NSW”, The Building Economist Cost Index, and additional local suppliers as reference, the material rates were determined for the final CostX report.
There were two problems that occurred during the analysis.
1. When the BIM model was imported into CostX software, some of the names used to identify elements were unclear as they were given during the design of the BIM model in Revit. They were changed for the report so that they could be identified more easily.
Fig 1. Names of elements when BIM model was imported
Fig 2. Names of elements changed
2. Some of the materials or elements that appeared when the BIM model was imported included either unspecified rates or zero quantity. This occurred when designing the model in Revit where some of the loaded family models were not used for the final design. These elements were not included in the cost analysis workbook.
PAGE 19
3.2. RESULTS: ELEMENTAL BUILDING COST ANALYSIS RESULTS
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
From the cost analysis of the initial design, it can be seen that the construction of the project would cost a total of $490,320. Although this is a reasonable price for a wine bar and three residential buildings, it can be greatly reduced by altering some aspects of its design, in particular; the thickness in concrete, choice of furniture, the materiality of walls, and the glass panels.
3.3. SUGGESTED DESIGN CHANGES
1. Thickness of concrete slab
The concrete floor slab used on the ground floor of the residential building and wine bar was originally 200m thick, which would cost a total of $28 716. Research suggests that the design does not require the floor slab to be this thick and it would be sufficient to use a 150mm concrete floor slab instead. This would cut the total cost of the floor due to lower quantity of concrete material required as well as lower installation cost.
2. Furniture and Plumbing Fixtures
PAGE 22
Furniture and plumbing fixtures alone costs $168, 055, which accounts for 34.27% of the total cost of the building- a significantly large proportion. This was because most of the furniture chosen to be used were designer brand eg. Breuer and Corbusier chairs. As large quantities are required, ie seating for the wine bar, it would be more practical and affordable to replace them with local products of similar style that would function the same way. Additionally, the cost of furniture and plumbing fixtures could be further reduced when selecting suppliers. Local suppliers can usually offer more affordable furniture or plumbing fixtures than overseas suppliers because of lower transportation fees, installation cost, etc.
3. Second Floor residential wall (brick veneer to timber)
The exterior walls of the residential building consisted of a timber frame construction and a painted single brick veneer in the initial design. This costs $53,331 and accounts for 10.88% of the total cost of the project. To reduce this amount, the walls of the upper floor could be changed to a timber frame with external timber cladding and gypsum lining on the inside. This would reduce both the material cost as well as the labour cost of laying bricks and painting over it.
4. Glass Planel
From the cost analysis, it can be seen that the glass curtain system panels were fairly expensive to install, costing at a rate of $750 per meter squared. This summed up to a total of $51,750 (10.56%). Although the chosen material of 6mm glass glazing was one of the most basic and simple option that could be used, further discussion with the designer was required to re-evaluate its efficiency and importance in the design. The option of using large fixed windows instead, similar to the ones used in the living room of the residential, were considered to significantly reduce the total cost.
PAGE 23
4. GROUP PROCESS AND KEY ISSUES (Christine Huang)
After reviewing each individual response analysis, a group discussion was held to identify the key issues from each section, Ecotect, Solibri and CostX. To improve the building’s cost efficiency, compliance to Australian building standards and codes, and its environmental efficiency and performance, the following changes were proposed to address these issues.
Designer completes BIM model according to brief
Group discussion on issues that were identified during each analysis
Applied changed on BIM model and re-tested it using Solibri, Ecotect and CostX. Results were collaborated and assessed
Group discussion on optimum solution to reduce issues from different perspectives
Each member performs individual analysis on Solibri, Ecotect and CostX.
Fig. 1 Diagram of group process undertaken
CostX
1. No change from brick to timber on second floor of residential
While it was addressed that changing the brick veneer walls of second floor of residential to timber would save cost for the building, it was agreed after discussion with the group that it was a better option to keep the brick veneer. After collaborating results with analysis from Ecotect, it appeared that while it was initially cheaper to build with timber for construction, it was more economical and efficient in the long run to use a brick veneer because of its high insulation properties, saving on heating and cooling costs.
PAGE 24
2. Reduce thickness of ground floor concrete slab
The 200mm thick concrete ground floor slab was found to be unnecessarily expensive and it was agreed that a 150mm thick concrete floor slab would be sufficient and more economical for the design of the building.
3. Change in furniture and plumbing fixtures
The main issue for furniture and plumbing fixtures was that it was extremely costly because designed brands were chosen from the limited family library in Revit during the design stage. It was advised that they should be replaced with more affordable furniture of similar style from local suppliers to reduce furniture and plumbing costs.
4. Replacement of single brick veneer wall instead of curtain glass panel wall
The large curtain wall panel facing south of the ground floor wine bar was identified from CostX analysis as comparatively expensive considering its large area. After collaborating with Ecotect results, it can be seen that unlike the other two curtain wall panels, facing north and west, it was also least efficient as it allowed least amount of sunlight into the wine bar. Group discussion was necessary to find an alternative option that did not compromise the building performance but lowered the cost of the walls, ie replacing south-facing glazed curtain wall with brick veneer wall.
Solibri Model Checker
5. Increase width of toilet doors of wine bar
The Solibri analysis indicated accessibility and mobility issues with the design of the building regarding the width of the toilet doors of the ground floor wine bar. They were found to be too narrow, and must be changed for wider doors to comply with building codes and standards.
6. Reduce height of risers of external stairs
It was also identified from the Solibri analysis results that the height of the risers of the external stairs to the residential exceeded the maximum riser height allowed by the BCA requirements. To resolve this safety and accessibility issue, it was agreed that the height of the risers should be reduced according to standards.
7. Increase width of entrance door to residential and lower window sill height for disability access
To provide adequate disability accessibility to at least one of the residential buildings, the width of the entrance door on the ground floor was revised. This issue was simply addressed by replacing
PAGE 25
the door with a wider one to provide enough space for wheelchair manoeuvre and accessibility. It was also advised that the window sill height of the building unit needs to be lowered to comply with the maximum sill height of the NCC disability standards.
8. Increase height of ground floor residential rooms
While the Solibri Model Checker did not identify it as an accessibility issue, it was found that the ground floor residential rooms did not meet the minimum requirements of ceiling height according to the BCA. This was because the design maintained a constant ceiling height along the ground floor but did not account for the floor level change of the wine bar and the residential. It was advised that the floor height of the rooms should be adjusted.
9. Amend size of opening gap of external balustrades
The size of the opening gaps between the fencing of the external balustrade did not comply with the building standards, as they were too wide apart. To resolve this issue, it was advised that the construction of the balustrade should be adjusted so that the openings were no less than 125mm wide. This can be done by changing the width of the fencing or using a different type of balustrade.
Ecotect Analysis
10. Wall and roof insulation
To improve the building’s passive design and thermal massing for slow heat transmission, it was advised from Ecotect analysis results that the addition of wall and roof insulation was required. By increasing insulation, the heating load during winter months and cooling load during the summer months can be significantly reduced to save on excessive high energy consumption.
11. Add shading to windows eg overhang, blinds
From the Ecotect analysis, the results showed that the high exposure of solar radiation access during summer months was an issue for cooling load and energy consumption. The addition of shading, such as overhang eaves on the roof and blinds for the windows, was considered to control the amount of solar penetration into the internal space, and therefore, improving its passive design and reducing its environmental impact.
12. Change size/quantity of south-facing windows of wine bar
PAGE 26
To reduce heating load during winter months, it was decided that reducing the size or quantity of the south facing windows of the wine bar would be a cost efficient and beneficial option to improve the building’s passive design, as it received no direct solar radiation but contributed to the building’s heat loss.
13. Change in room configuration of residential
In response to the natural daylight analysis results computed in Ecotect, it was suggested that the room layout configuration of the upper floor residential could be re-organised more appropriately, accordingly to its internal activities and functions ie moving active rooms such as living room/bedroom to more exposed areas and replacing it with the laundry room. This way, the use of artificial lighting could be minimised to save on electrical consumption and costs.
Figure 2, Room configuration of upper floor residential
PAGE 27
5. DESIGN MODEL CHANGES (Stephen So)
With mutual agreement, the model on revit will be altered accordingly in this section. Prioritising the Solibri model check to comply with the BCA 2016 and with the compliance in mind, environmental performance and cost efficiency are considered.
5.1. BCA COMPLIANCE CHANGES
D.3.1 Requirement for people with disabilities
As according to the model checker performed by Will, the ground floor residential unit should be disabled friendly, thus, the door needs to be at the correct width.
The door that did not comply was the bathroom door where its width is 864, which is only 4mm above minimum, thus it is increased to 915mm.
PAGE 28
Stairway construction
The external stair located on the northern façade that leads to the first floor hallway does not comply with 3.9.1.2 of BCA 2016 due to the riser height exceeding a maximum of 180mm.
The original non-compliant stair had riser height of 208.3mm which is 28.3mm above the maximum height as listed in the BCA. This was amended by adding 2 extra runs to reduce the riser height to 178.6mm which is now below the stated maximum of 180mm.
PAGE 29
Doorways
The bar WCs were listed as uncompliant under the minimum width of 850mm for disabled use.
Fortunately, the storage space next to the non-compliant doors can be decreased, the doors were changed without implications. The non-compliant doors were measured to be 762mm wide, thus they were all increased to 864mm which is 14mm greater than the minimum width as according to the BCA.
Through this change, the WC total combined width increased by 345mn while reducing the storage width by the same amount. The shelving in the storage room reduced from 1800 to 1450mm.
Windows
PAGE 30
The windows in bedroom 2 of the ground floor residential unit was found to be non-compliant as according to the disability standard of the BCA. This was due to the sill height being greater than 865mm.
The window was calculated to have a sill height of 1390mm, which is 525mm more than the maximum allowed height. This was changed to a sill height of 800mm, 65mm below the maximum of 865mm.
Barrier construction
PAGE 31
As according to BCA 3.9.2.3, the gap between each part of the railing should be less than 125mm however, the external stair does not comply. Not only are the rails non-compliant, the railing height is less than the 1000mm minimum rule.
Due to the fact that there were 2 things that were non-compliant, the whole railing was changed. The railing now comply with the minimum height of 1000mm with balustrade spacing of 100mm.
Height of habitable rooms
PAGE 32
As picked up by Will, the ground floor residential unit has a ceiling height of 2188mm, which is below the standard 2.4m for habitable rooms as mentioned in the BCA F3.1.
In order to amend this, due to the nature of this residential unit having its own floor, the concrete slab, windows and doors are moved 212mm negatively along the y-axis. Naturally, the surrounding walls will be expected to have an increased count in m2 which will then be visible in the CostX analysis when a re-test is made in the later section of this report.
PAGE 33
5.2. COST REDUCTION CHANGES
Wine bar concrete slab thickness
As reported, the concrete flooring throughout the building are currently 200mm thick giving a costing a grand total of $28,716. This cost can be minimized by reducing the thickness of the slab to 150mm potentially reducing concrete slab cost by 25%.
PAGE 34
Furniture
As according to CostX analysis results, furniture and plumbing fixtures costs a total of $168,055 which accounts for 34.27% of total cost. Thus, cheaper alternatives for Breuer and Corbu chairs were switched via the furniture schedule in Revit as shown below
PAGE 35
Alternatively, furniture that were unnecessary were removed, for example, an island counter by itself is more suitable in a commercial kitchen as shown below.
After careful consideration, the final furniture count was reduced from 125 to 117.
PAGE 36
Glass Panels
Glass panels, according to CostX, contributes to 10.56% of the total cost, thus reducing the use of curtain wall will reduce the total cost. After group discussion, and the help from Ecotect 2011, it was determined that the most viable option is to remove the southerly oriented curtain wall of the wine bar as shown below and replace it with a fixed 915x1220mm window.
PAGE 37
5.3. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHANGES
Rearranging the rooms of Residential unit C
ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT
NEW ARRANGEMENT
The purpose was to provide more natural lighting into the more common area, the living and dining room. Although floor area of bedroom and laundry has reduced, the dining and living room has now increased by 6m2 which is a positive change.
Increasing Window Sizes for Residential C
PAGE 38
With the aim of the orientation being to improve natural lighting of more common areas, the fixed window facing north has increased from 915×610 to 1800x1830mm.
PAGE 39
Removing Southern Windows
Considering the functions such as commercial kitchen and toilet, all the windows solely for views due to the poor orientation can be removed to reduce heat loss by conduction as well as to reduce cost.
PAGE 40
Shading Devices
One of the biggest contributor for heating load are solar access via windows, shading devices are needed in order to block out summer solar access while maintaining passive solar heating during winter. Through extrusion above the largest northern oriented windows and using over hang on roof, optimal shade length are computed using Ecotect 2011 for blocking summer sun only.
The shading extrusion length has been advised to be 642.3mm with 100mm offset above window, thus the model will be updated accordingly.
PAGE 41
Wall and roof Insulation
Wall insulation are enhanced by adding glass fiber batting into the timber studs of the brick veneer walls. Only exterior walls will be insulated to save cost. This in turn, increased the R value of the external walls by 4.8 (m2 K)/W
PAGE 42
Similarly, the roofs are now installed with foil faced glass fiber for its reflectivity.
Double glazing windows
All window will be changed to double glazing with low E to enhance reflectivity and increase insulation from the air gap improving the solar heat gain coefficient and the R value respectively. This is beneficial for both summer and winter months to reduce heating and cooling loads.
PAGE 43
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RE-TEST (Stephen So)
The main concern, as analysed, were the monthly heating loads, thus will be our primary focus. The monthly and heating load greatly impact on how much energy is needed to heat the building to generate thermal comfort. Reducing the heating and cooling loads in turn reduces energy use which reduces life cycle energy cost as shown below with a reduction from $90,055 to $53,113, a total savings of $36942 in its 30 year life.
Figure 1, Before and After changes building performance summary (Green building Studio 2016)
6.1. HEATING AND COOLING LOADS
Figure 2, Energy model settings on Revit 2016
The heating and cooling loads are retested with the same method, through green building studio. The energy settings to generate the analytic model and simulations are made sure to keep exactly the same, before and after changes, to reduce inaccuracy.
PAGE 44
MONTHLY HEATING LOAD
Before
Figure 3, Space schedule Revit 2016
After
Figure 4, Before and after monthly heating load (Green Building Studio 2016)
PAGE 45
Result
As shown in the before and after diagrams for the monthly heating load, the modifications has improved the requirement for heating substantially. The overall graph now has a maximum heat loss of -2500MJ as compared with the previous -9700MJ (approximated) in June. Walls were the largest contributor for the heating load followed by window conductivity, however, walls are now substantially reduced with windows are now becoming the major contributor.
Figure 5, before and after wall insulation schedule (Revit 2016)
The modification that contributed to this success was the increase of insulation on external walls and roof. As shown in the table above, the wall’s R-value, being the resistance to heat conduction in a material, increased from 0.83 to 5.57 (m2 K)/W. This increase was clearly seen in the graphs.
Further improvement potential
Although heat loss from walls have been significantly reduced, windows now contribute the most. This can be further improved through more reduction in windows facing south. Heavy curtains can be installed to windows to aid insulation.
PAGE 46
MONTHLY COOLING LOAD
Before
After
Figure 6, Before and after monthly cooling load (Green building studio 2016)
Result
Similarly, the graph shows substantial improvements. With solar access via windows being the greatest contributor for cooling load requirements, the modification has reduced this heat gain from solar as according to the graphs above and the table below.
The modifications that contributed greatly to this success was the shading design for the largest window facing north.
PAGE 47
Figure 7, Ecotect generated shading being applied (Ecotect 2011 and Revit 2016)
Through Ecotect 2011, the shading device was calculated optimum at summer solstice to be 642.3mm out with 100mm above the windows, which appears to be reliable.
The reduction of windows on the southern façade also contributed to the slight load by window conductivity.
Further improvement opportunity
With solar gain via windows still being the major contributor, due to the fact that shading devices decreased solar gain substantially, it can be added through all the windows in northern façades to further improve this load.
PAGE 48
6.2. NATURAL LIGHTING
Result
Changing the orientation of residential C has dramatically improved natural lighting into the living room, this in turn will decrease artificial lighting use. Previously, there were corners that received no natural lighting due to the laundry room, which took up part of the northern external wall. However, after rearrangement, it opened up more possibility for increased window to reduce heating load.
Initial Residential C arrangement (Revit 2016)
New Residential C arrangement (Revit 2016)
Further improvement opportunities
Natural lighting into the living room can also be improved by opening up the enclosed hall way, i.e. glazed or no roof above the shared hallway, and installing windows on that wall.
PAGE 49
7. DESIGN ANALYSIS RETEST (Will Hanson) 7.1. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
All the issues identified in the original model from Solibri Model Checker were changed within the model. A secondary run through Solibri Model Checker was done on the updated model. All the original issues were fixed. Below is the table of the results.
7.2. D3.1 – REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
At least one unit within the building had to be disabled friendly. The ground floor unit was the only unit that was able to achieve this. However, the door within the ground floor WC unit was too narrow. This door has been widened and now complies with the requirements set out in the BCA making the whole ground floor unit disabled friendly.
PAGE 50
7.3. 3.9.1.2 STAIRWAYS
The outdoor stairway on the West side of the building did not comply with the Accessible Stair requirements within the BCA. The riser and going measurements were updated in the model. These stairs now comply with this requirement.
7.4. DOORWAYS
The doorways within the ground floor bar WC did not comply with the Australian Standards for Disabled Friendly WC’s. The doorways were widened in order to comply with this standard as shown by the photo below.
PAGE 51
7.5. WINDOWS
The window that did not comply with the BCA standards for disable friendly windows was lowered to a sill height of 731mm. This now complies with the BCA.
7.6. BARRIER CONSTRUCTION
The previous barrier construction of outdoor stairway on the West side of the building did not comply with requirement 3.9.2.3 construction of barriers to prevent falls within the BCA. The barrier was changed so that a 125mm sphere could not fit through the openings as shown below.
PAGE 52
7.8. OTHER ISSUES
The previous model did not comply with BCA in that the habitable rooms at the back street level have a height lower than 2.4m. This level has since been raised in order to comply with this standard as shown below.
7.9. SUMMARY OF CHANGES
Solibri Model Checker identified many issues to do with the accessibility of this building. The changes have since been updated and run through Solibri Model Checker for a second time and returned positive results. Some of the issues identified could not be tested using Solibri Model Checker. These issues have also been amended. The building now complies with the Accessibility requirements of the Australian Standards and the Building Code of Australia.
PAGE 53
8. BUILDING COST ANALYSIS RETEST (Christine Huang) 8.1. OVERVIEW
After revising the initial BIM model, a new report was generated using the CostX software. This involved adjustments and changes to the materiality and structure of the model, which was agreed during group discussion, to not only improve the building’s affordability but also its passive design and compliance to building standards. Updated rates that were used for this retest were mainly sourced from Cordell’s 2013 edition of the “Construction Cost Estimating in NSW”, The Building Economist Cost Index, and additional local suppliers.
While some modifications saved money, others took more consideration of its environmental performance or compliance of building standards, and therefore, were more expensive for construction. However, the overall cost of the revised model is $370, 037. This is 75.47% of the original project, which was $490,320 (saving a total of $120, 283).
PAGE 54
8.2. RESULTS
The main changes made that affected the total cost of the building are shown below. 1. Thickness of Concrete Floor Slab- Total Cost Saving= $10,572
Before Changes
After Changes
The thickness of the concrete ground floor slab was reduced from 200mm to 150mm, hence, the rate decreased from $113.50 to $72.15. This cheaper alternative did not affect the building’s environmental performance or building standards, so this change was implemented in the final design to save cost.
2. Double Glazed Windows and Change in Window Quantity- Total Cost Increase= $6868 Before Changes
PAGE 55
After Changes
All windows of the model were modified from single to double glazed panes with low E-value to enhance reflectivity and increase insulation. While this increased the total cost for windows by approx. $201.45/m2 of windows, the five south-facing windows of the wine bar were eliminated to save costs, due to their inefficiency on the building’s environmental performance (saving a total of $1551). Conversely, the size of the north facing window of the upper residency was increased. Overall, these changes in windows caused the building’s cost to increase by $6868, however, it has dramatically reduced the heating and cooling load, improving the building’s overall efficiency and performance.
3. Addition of Wall Insulation + Replacement of Glazed Wall Panel of Wine Bar with Single Brick Veneer Wall – Total Cost Saving = $1688
Before Changes
PAGE 56
After Changes
It was agreed that insulation, such as glass fiber batting, should be added into the timber frame of all external walls to reduce the building’s heating and cooling loads and improve its environmental performance, increasing the cost by a total of $8759. While it was more expensive to build, it would save money in the long run through operational and energy consumption costs. The southern glazed panel wall of the wine bar was identified as extremely costly yet also inefficient, so it was replaced with a single brick veneer wall to reduce building cost (saving a total of $10,447).
4. Addition of Window Shading- Total Cost Increase = $1,900
Window overhang awnings were added to the model to provide shading and solar access control. This costs a total of $1,900, however, it was implemented to improve the passive design of the building and reduce the cooling load during summer.
5. Furniture and Plumbing Fixtures- Total Cost Saving = $114,342 Before Changes
PAGE 57
After Changes
PAGE 58
The total price of plumbing fixtures and furniture of the initial model was $168,056, while the revised model cost a total of $53,714 (saving a total of $114,342!). This was mainly due to the fact that designer labels were chosen to be used in the original model in high quantities eg. 50 chairs for wine bar. By replacing them with locally supplied furniture and plumbing fixtures that were of similar style, a huge amount of the building’s cost was saved.
6. Roof Insulation –Total Cost Increase = $2,289 Before Changes
After Changes
The addition of roof insulation by installing reflective foil faced glass fibre will reduce heat loss. Even though it costs an additional $10.13/m2 for thermal insulation (costing $2,289 altogether) it was a more environmentally sustainable option because it will significantly reduce the building’s operational energy consumption, saving costs in the long run and improving its environmental performance and impact.
PAGE 59
8.3. COMPLETE COSTX ANALYSIS RESULTS
PAGE 60
PAGE 61
9. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Many issues were identified within each individual analysis of the building. The group discussions often revolved around how the issues could be resolved and how they could potentially another aspect of the building. The proposed changes needed to be thoroughly thought out in order to achieve the best possible outcome. This especially became apparent when trying to adjust materials of the building as the materials effect both cost and energy efficiency. The recommendations proposed within the design analysis section did not affect the energy efficiency or cost of the building dramatically, so the proposed design analysis changes was easy to carry out.
Group discussions were vital when amending the issues identified within cost and energy efficiency of the building. For example, it was proposed to make the building more environmentally friendly by changing the windows to double-glazed panes to enhance reflectivity and increase insulation. This however dramatically increased the cost of the windows. In order offset this cost, five windows were removed from the south facing part of the building. This was done, as they did not affect the buildings environmental performance. After the environmental design and cost retest it was found the cost of windows increased. However after a lengthy group discussion it was found that although the cost of construction of the building increased the long-term environmental efficiency of the building improved drastically reducing costs in the long run. This outcome was made possible through coordination of the cost and energy analysers.
This process allowed our group to identify many issues within the original design, amend these issues and achieve a better outcome in terms of design, efficiency and cost of the building. The majority of the individual proposed changes resulted in a better outcome for the building and was able to be achieved without drastically affecting other aspects of the building. The importance of the design being a collaborative process has been realised throughout this project by all the members. Changes to a small part of the design can have drastic affects on a different design outcome, highlighting the importance of communication throughout the process. Overall, this project was a great learning experience for all members involved and provided a platform to enhance our Revit and design analysis skills.
PAGE 62
10. REFERENCES
1. AIQS 2016, Building Cost Index, The Building Economist, March 2016.
2. Autodesk 2016, Monthly Electricity Consumption, Autodesk, viewed on 23 May 2016,
3. Autodesk 2016, Monthly Fuel consumption, Autodesk, viewed on 23 May 2016,
4. Fred Albert 2014, Decorating 101:How much is this going to cost me, viewed on 3 June 2016,
5. Herman Miller 2016, Steelwood Stool, viewed on 3 June 2016,
6. Knoll 2016, Cesca Chair with Arms, viewed on 3 June 2015,
7. Matt Blatt 2016, Le Corbusier, viewed on 3 June 2016,
8. Upgrade Space 2016, Appliance, Fixture, and Furniture Cost, viewed on 3 June 2016,
PAGE 63
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Built Environment
Group Plagiarism Declaration
(use more than one form where needed)
Course ID Course Name Date
CODE2170
BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING
S1, 2016
ASSIGNMENT 2 & 3,BIM-BASED DESIGN ANALYSIS & COLLABORATION
of
Session & Year
Lecturer
Title of Assessment Task to which this Declaration applies Page No. of Total
Dr LAN DING
We the undersigned, individually declare that:
• the percentages listed below represent a fair indication of the proportional contribution made by each member of the group submitting this piece of work for assessment;
• my contribution to this assessment item is my own work, except where acknowledged, and has not been submitted for academic credit elsewhere;
• all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that no other person has been able to copy this work either in paper or electronic form.
We acknowledge that the assessor of this item may, for the purpose of assessing this item:
• reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another member of the University; and/or,
• communicate a copy of this assessment item to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of the assessment item on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).
We certify that we have each read and understood the University rules in respect of Student Academic Misconduct.
Student Number Student Name Percentage Signature
z5063172
STEPHEN TSZ CHUNG SO
100
5059815
Christine Huang
100
Christine
3333046
Will Hanson
100
Will
Student Number Student Name Percentage Signature
Plagiarism is the use another’s work pretending that it is your own. In group work, claiming a greater percentage of the contribution than is rightfully your own, is plagiarism. More specifically, in an educational context, plagiarism is endeavouring to obtain academic credit in a course of study for work that is either not individually prepared by you or prepared by you, but for some other purpose, whether paid or unpaid.
The following web sites expand more fully on the nature and consequences of plagiarism and must be read prior to submitting this declaration.
http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/plag.html http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/student-intranet/assignments-and-plagiarism/
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.