building information modelling - group assignment

7/30/2019 Building Information Modelling - Group assignment

1/43

B E K


2/43

B E K

3

t ogether

e veryone

a chieves

m ore

CONTENTS

Introduction 04

Team Members 05

Contributions & Analysis o Building 06

Individual Analysis Reports 08

Solibri Analysis A / Bridget Allen 09

Access & Egress Analysis 09

Vasari Analysis A / Kainaaz Variava 20

Energy and Fuel Loads Analysis 21

Ecotect Analysis A / Estelle Rose Rehayem 35

Solar Access Analysis 36

Thermal Analysis 42

Group Discussion Report 50

Team discussion & rationale or design changes 51

Model Changes Report 54

Account o changes implemented 55

Individual re-test Report 64

Solibri Analysis B 65

Access & Egress Analysis 65

Vasari Analysis B 68

Energy and Fuel Loads Analysis 69

Ecotect Analysis B 77

Solar Access Analysis 79

Thermal Analysis 80

Final Team Conclusion 84

Account o re-test 85


3/43

B E K

5

Description o the process undertaken;

Member 1 Bridget Allen 3375192

Bridgets task was to use SMC (Solibri Model Checker) to conduct an access and egress analysis on the model, which we eltwas most appropriate as the building is located in a medium to dense precinct within Sydney. Since it includes a wine bar anda ew apartments, exits and their locations are signicant or the ease o exit in case o emergency and appropriate circulationpathways where necessary.

Bridget used the standards located in the BCA Volume 1 2009, NCC - D1.2, D1.4, D1.6, D1.7 and D1.10 to ensure her analysiswas appropriate to the context and purpose. She also wrote a description o the group process undertaken, reporting the keyissues identied in the discussion ater the rst round o analysis and the rationale behind the agreed design changes.

Member 2 Kainaaz Variava 3352973

Kainaazs task was to use Vasari to conduct an energy load analysis o the model. Initially she had to create a general massreplicating the existing design beore she could use Vasari to conduct the energy load analysis. This model was shared withEstelle or her Ecotect analysis as well.

Her task was to also edit the model beore re testing and write an account o the changes actually made to the design,including illustrations o specic changes made where appropriate.

Member 3 Estelle Rose Rehayem 3372905

Estelles task was to use Ecotect to conduct an environmental analysis o the model also appropriate to the context andlocation being a medium to dense precinct in Sydney.

Following the analysis she wrote an account o the group discussion, including group conclusions about both the designoutcome and the entire collaborative process. Estelle also assisted the group or various tasks and compiled the nal reportdocument.

TEAM MEMBERS

introduction


4/43

B E K

7

Software Used and Analysis Conducted;

Member Sotware Analysis

1 Bridget Allen 3375192 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013SMC [Solibri Model Checker] v.8

Access and egress analysis

2 Kainaaz Variava 3352973 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013Autodesk Vasari Beta 2.0

Energy load analysis

3 Estelle Rose Rehayem 3372905 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011

Environmental analysis

As mentioned initially, together, team BEK achieves more. For a complete, detailed and accurate nal analysis o a variety oconcepts on a structure, you need to be organised, worth methodologically and combine workloads. Hence through thisreport we have made it clear how signicant it is to work methodologically in teams or the most thorough nal solutions to aproblem or design.

Team BEK set up a private Facebook group or the ease o transer o inormation in between lectures and during the nalcompilation o the team report. We were able to upload les, and have immediate access to inormation on any computer setup using this page. This is also where we organised and scheduled all our meetings and arrangements.

contributions & analysis of building

Chosen model

Ater discussion the chosen model or analysis was Bridgetsmodel. The reason why we chose this model is that we elt ithad the most to improve upon in terms o re-designing to applyto standards and environmental analysis. We also elt that theconstruction in this model was the most dened out o thethree and thus the better reason to go ahead.

Aims

BEK believes that the building is appropriate aesthetically andspatially to its context, being a medium to dense precinctwithin Sydney, however there are a ew structural elements thatneed to be considered and add to the design. So we are aimingto not completely change the design but more improve on itssimple yet eective spatial and aesthetic appeal.

Building class

Using BCA Volume 1 2009 part A3.2 Classications, we haveidentied that the project alls under the ollowing buildingclasses:

Apartments: Class 1A

Being a single dwelling.

Wine Bar: Class 6

A shop.

Rules to be applied

The model will be analysed in accordance to the AustralianStandards and Building Code o Australia. Specically, using BCAVolume 1 2009, NCC - D1.2, D1.4, D1.6, D1.7 and D1.10 or theacess and egress analysis to be conducted in SMC by Bridget.

Methodology

1 Selection o BIM and preparation or analysis.

2 Individual analysis o the building as dened ingure 1.

3 Coming together to identiy issues ater analysisand generate a new design and mode changes.

4 Changes made to the model.

5 Individual model re-testing and new reportsgenerated.

6 Group discussions o new issues ater re-testingor anything unresolved.

7 Conclusion

Fig.1


5/43

B E K

9

Individual analysis

Reports

solibri

Introduction

My role was to use Solibri Model Checker V8 to undertake an access and egress analysis o the BIM model which was createdusing the REVIT tool. Firstly I read through section D o the BCA which is Volume One and Volume Two o the NCC. I then re-read the document, noting what sections applied to the shop on ground oor (class 6) and single dwelling on rst oor (class1). Since my building was selected to be analysed, minimal studying o the oor plans was perormed as I was already quiteamiliar with the layout. I then exported the Revit model as an IFC 2 3 le and imported it in the Solibri Model Checker V8.

Rule-set used

Passageways PassageWidthand Height

Stairs Bui ld ingshould havestai rs

Minimumwidthofstai rights

Headclearance

E xi st ence o f ra il ing

Doors M in imumdoor d imens ions

C learanceofdooropenings

Other E scape rou te ana ly si s

E xi ts on leve l no s tep

solibri analysis a

Access and Egress Analysis


6/43

B E K

11

D1.4 Exit travel distances

(c) Class 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings

(i) no point on a oor must be more than 20m rom an exit, or a point rom which travel in dierent directions to 2 exits is

available, in which case the maximum distance to one o those exits must not exceed 40m and

(ii) the maximum distance to one o those exits must not be more than 30m rom the starting point.

I rstly endeavoured to create a rule-set. Solibri reported that all the elements must be classied or the report to be produced.

A complex rule set was not working ater many attempts o changing the input o inormation.

D1 Provision For Escape

D1.2 Number o exits required

(a) All buildings - Every building must have at least one exit rom e ach storey.

No rule-set was created as I simply studied the plan.

There is clearly an exit rom the bar onto the street. As a group we decided that the building should have an exit directlyoutside rom each level. This means an external stairwell will need to be added rom the ground oor which leads to theapartments on rst oor. Also the exit door swings need to swing outside or re saety.

solibri analysis a continued

Exit rom baronto street

Ground oor

exit or rst oorapartments

Exit romapartments tostairwell that

leads to groundoor exit

An example othe classication

- each room

Fig.2 Fig.3

Fig.4


7/43

B E K

13

I had the intention o creating a report using Solibri that analysed the egress o the building. The results shown were thatthere were no exits within the model. I tried to reinsert the inormation into Solibri but the same results were given. It is myconclusion that there was an issue with the classication o some elements within the building. However, when studying theplans, I can tell that every room has an escape route. As shown by this gure there are doors which lead into every room onthe plan.


Classiying doorsas exits - useulor later analysis

I decided to simply measure the plans. I also made sure I classied all the exits in the parameters box or uture use in thereport.

The bar is calculated to be precisely 24m long. Thereore, i being at the rear o the building there is >20m to an exit. Thisneeds to be resolved by placing another exit door at the rear o the building as well as an inclusion o another exit door in thekitchen which is quite long and enclosed.

Fig.5

Fig.6


8/43

B E K

15

D1.6 Dimensions o exits and paths o travel to exits

In a required exit or path o travel to an exit

(a) the unobstructed height throughout must be not less than 2 m, except the unobstructed height o any doorway may be

reduced to not less than 1980 mm; and

(b) the unobstructed width o each exit or path o travel to an exit, except or doorways, must be not less than

(i) 1m

I successully created a rule-set and produced a report.

It is my ndings that the paths o travel are o an acceptable height and width.


Parameterscreated

>1980mm high>1000mm wide

It is my ndings that the doors within the building are all o an acceptable height, however, the width needs to be increased.The example shown above is o single steel rame doors which are an acceptable height, however, all need to be increased inwidth. The problem was described as a moderate severity.

Fig.7 Fig.8 Fig.9


9/43

B E K

17

D1.10 Discharge from exits

(a) An exit must not be blocked at the point o discharge and where necessary, suitable barriers must be provided to prevent vehicles

rom blocking the exit, or access to it.

(b) I a required exit leads to an open space, the path o travel to the road must have an unobstructed width throughout o not less

than

(i) the minimum width o the required exit; or

(ii) 1 m,

whichever is the greater.

(d) The discharge point o alternative exits must be located as ar apart as practical.

I attempted to make a ruleset, however, it would only reveal internal passageways without revealing external results. I decidedto study the plans mysel. I eel this reveals that Solibri, however great to analyse, has problems and perhaps would be moreefcient in the working world.

The ront exit complies with D.10. Even though the rear exit or apartment residents does comply i a car is parked, I eel itwould be more appropriate to move the carpark to ensure that there is plenty o space incase o an emergency exit.

D1.7 Travel via re-isolated exits

(a) A doorway rom a room must not open directly into a stairway, passageway or ramp that is required to be fre-isolated unless it

is a public corridor or a sole occupancy unit occupying all o a storey.

The positioning o the stairwell needs to be re-evaluated so that exiting on ground oor does not violate section D1.7


Exits o apart-ments do no

open directlyonto the stair-well

Exit rom groundoor by resi-

dences opensdirectly onto the

stairwell

Ground exit - alltrees were re-

moved so thereis a compliant

exit

Exit onto carparkis >1m which is

required

Fig.10

Fig.11Fig.12


10/43

B E K

19

Escape route analysis retest

I decided it was necessary to retest the escape route even though Solibri did not work as I had hoped when I initially tried. Thistime I successully managed to receive a report that the escape route analysis is o an okstandard. Perhaps when classiyingparts o the building or the rest o the report, I managed to x the mistake. I still believe it is necessary to add an externalstaircase so that re saety is at a high standard.


Problems encountered

Using the Solibri sotware I encountered many problems. I ound it difcult to resolve issues as there is little online as ar astutorials. I assume that this is due to Solibri not being a widely used program or a program which is not used by students. Imanaged to produce successul solutions to these difculties, such as collaborating with team members, simply measuringo the plans and by changing settings until I was successul. Oten it was more efcient to simply measure the plans, however,Solibri was used whenever possible and was always attempted rst.

Note

It must be noted that when amiliarising mysel with the rule sets in Solibri I noticed that re compartmentalisation was amajor component. I had not thought o this being a major issue previously. Ater much deliberation, I concluded that singledwellings (class 1 buildings) werent required to have re compartments. I also determined that since my wine bar design isan open space with the only enclosed rooms being the kitchen, storage and single toilets that a re compartment was notneeded. I checked with my group members and they were agreeable with my decisions. Thereore, problems encountereddue to the lack o re compartmentalisation were ignored in the results.

Analysis o results and design recommendations

Acceptable results Doorheights

Every roomhasanescaperoute Dischargefromexitsatstreetofbarandrstoorfromstairs

Ent ry tobar is onground level

Clearanceinfrontofwindows

Entranceonlevel

Key issues Need forexternal s taircase

Inclusionofreardoorforexitandextraoneinkitchen

Doorwidth increasedto 1000mm

Repositioninternalstaircasesothatitdoesntleadstraightintodoor

Clearanceinfrontofdoors

Fig.13


11/43

B E K

21

INTRODUCTION

This report covers the analysis o energy and uel loads on the building. Programs used to help gain the outcome were Revitarchitecture and Vasari Beta 2. The building was divided as two separate mass components o type Dining Lounge or Leisureor the Wine Bar and Multi Family or the residential space as they do not all under a common building classication type inoptions o Vasaris energy settings.The ocus is to reduce the use o energy and uel consumption and to be more economical, which directly decreases harm tothe environment and less expense over a certain period o years. With this outcome the building design will be altered or abetter result than present.

ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT

The analysis conducted was an energy model analysis carried out by Vasari rom conceptual mass models that was done inrevit with the 3D model acting as a blueprint or it. The dining lounge or leisure ( mass below) and the multi amily (massabove in yellow as in gure 14) were analysed separately due to the respectively dierent deault value which is appliedto the model which is based on minimum efciency requirements or the ASHRAE 90.1 energy code. In Vasari, the selectedweather station or the analysis was chosen in Sydney as it is the location o the building.

From the analysis there was an outcome o a list o data, out o which only the relevant was taken into consideration and datalike wind and temperature werent taken into account or it being similar though-out all analysis due to the same location.

vasari analysis a

energy load Analysis

vasari

Fig.14


12/43

B E K

23

Setting or Mass 1 - Dining Lounge or Leisure

ENERGY SETTINGS

These are the settings that were changed to the masses accordingly to the data used in the revit design model.

CommonBuildingType

GroundPlane

Detailed ModelExportComplexity

Energy Model

ConceptualConstruction

- Walls ( Interior and Exterior)- Roos- Floor and Floor slab- Glazing

TargetPercentageGlazing

vasari analysis a continued

Fig.15

Fig.16


13/43

B E K

25

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS

Initially I had issues trying to export a mass model directly rom the Revit design le as a gbXML le like we would do orEcotect as it was known that Vasari is similar to Ecotect.

Solution: I had asked on blackboard and through research on the internet did I realise that I had to make a conceptual massmodel o the design or it to work in Vasari.

Secondly, ater making the mass model I tried to run the analysis with my respective energy setting but there was a message

which kept saying unexpected errorin Vasari even ater I made the building mass and checked back into Revit.

Solution: Ater asking other peers who are using Vasari, I was inormed that I had to even add mass roos as well as oors orthe analysis to run with oors dening the levels. With that opportunity in hand, I added the mass mullion window as well asaccording to the design.

Thirdly, in vasari or analysing the model in the energy settings, there was no option o no HVAC system with the massesbecause there was none in the revit design model.

Solution: Used the same HVAC system or both the masses so as to get the same outcome which can be easily noticed andtaken into account because through orums and questions, vasari is initial design stage where you implement systems, hencewill be using this option as a design recommendation or the efciency o the building.


Fig.17

Fig.18

Setting or Mass 2 - Multi Family


14/43

B E K

27

Observation

From g. 20, as we rst see the annual energyuse/cost, it can easily be reduced as it will beused or heating or cooling o the house due

to absence o insulation and lesser windowsexcept or the big mullion curtain wall at theront and skylights.

As o the individual result o energy useby electricity, we can notice that lightingis the maximum due to lack o efciencyand placement o windows. To correct thesolution, should use double glazing toinsulate the windows as well as get sunlightin the building which will greatly decreaseenergy and cost.

ANALYSIS RESULT

1. Result or Dining Lounge or Leisure


Observation

From result shown in g.19, it isclear that the EUI is way higherthan an average o a standard

commercial or hotel building.

The annual carbon emissionsshows that the structure haspotential or improvement in termsor energy use.

Design changes must beimplemented to enhance the liecycle energy use and thereoredecrease costs or the buildingenergy lie cycle overall.

Fig.19

Negative number representing

tons o carbon that can potentiallybe removed rom the project using

renewable resources like solarpanels and wind turbines.

Fig.20


15/43

B E K

29

Observation

The result rom g. 22 shows a greateruel consumption during the coldmonths rom May to mid August orheating o the building though it shows

a lesser electricity consumption duringthose months and higher in the warmermonths to cool the house.

Due to this issue, it is worth investingin a high efciency heating and coolingunits which can save up-to 20% onheating and cooling costs like a reversecycle air conditioners ( or heat pumps)which are energy efcient.

Observation

From the monthly heating load it represents that the structure is loosing heat rom windows and walls, hence would have toreduce U value and include insulation in the design structure.

In the monthly cooling load, occupant is the largest, it is because the combined body heat o people increases the coolingload while it decreases heating load. And ater occupants its by window solar or radiant solar heat gain through windows.

There there can be improvement in the glass by reducing the windows solar heat gain coefcient.


Fig.21

Fig.22

Window conduction and walls is thelargest negative value which means

heat loss rom conduction throughthem representing largest single

monthly demand or heat.


16/43

B E K

31

Fig.23

2.. Result or Multi-amily


Fig.24

Observation

From result shown in g.23, itshows a little above average ototal energy use intensity in multiresidential space.

Like in previous result o the wine

bar, the annual carbon Emissionsshow that there can be a lot oenergy saved i renewable energylike solar panels and wind turbinesare used.

Design changes must beimplemented to enhance the liecycle energy use and thereoredecrease costs or the buildingenergy lie cycle overall.

Observation

From g. 24 again there is a lot oelectricity demand in the residentialarea. Most o it coming rommiscellaneous equipments instead olighting which includes plug loads,computers and others.


17/43

B E K

33


Fig.25

Fig.26

Observation

From the monthly heating load it represents that the structure is loosing heat majorly rom roos and walls due to the lack oinsulation and appropriate materials or Sydney weather while misc equipments and light xtures demand lesser.

In the monthly cooling load, as noticed in the electricity use there is a high demand or cooling o misc equipment in othermonths apart rom the cold months.

There there can be improvement in the glass putting in reective or low emissivity glass which lets light and heat in but helpsprevent heat escaping.

Observation

The result rom g. 22 shows a big uelconsumption during the cold monthsrom May to mid August or heatingo the building and shows a lesser

electricity consumption during thosemonths and higher in the warmermonths to cool the house.

Due to this issue, it is worth investingin a high efciency heating and coolingunits which can save upto 20% onheating and cooling costs like a reversecycle air conditioners ( or heat pumps)which are energy efcient.

Comparing it to the result o the winebar, there is a lesser demand o uel andelectricity due to the type and area othe mass.


18/43

B E K

35

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Installsolarpanelstoreduceuseoffuelenergy.

Insulationinwallsandroofs(usageofacoolroof)

Putmullionwindowsinsteadofamassivecurtainwall.

Windowstobedoubleglazingsoastoinsulatethemorreducewindowssolarheatgaincoecient

or can even use low emissivity glass. Buildskylightsforlightandheatingimprovementfromthecoreoftheresidentialarea.

Increaseventilation.

Includereversepumpcycleairconditioner(orheatpumps)whichareenergyecientasaHVACsystem.


ecotect


19/43

B E K

37

Introduction

This report has been prepared on the analysis o the environmental efciency o the hypothetically designed bar andrestaurant in a medium to dense precinct o Sydney, using Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011.My aims are to minimise the heating and cooling loads or the intention o a more environmentally riendly and sustainablebuilding design when it comes to the design changes stage.

Initially I ran the report separating the zones within Ecotect, however the results did not seem accurate. I then decided to

separate the zones in Revit so that when exported as an gbxml into Ecotect, there were only 4 zones to be analysed ater theparameters were entered.

Analysis Carried Out

I conducted a solar access analysis and thermal analysis by using Ecotect to calculate the incident solar radiation on thebuilding and the internal loads under the condition the structure is currently under, using Sydney Australia as the thermalclimate location. This will allow me to make possible changes to the current design upon discussion with team members toimprove the design on the basis o a more environmentally riendly design.

solar access Analysis

I conducted a solar analysis by using Ecotect to calculate the incident solar radiation in Sydney Australia with our buildinglocation during various seasons o the year to analyse building response to climate and location.

Environmental Analysis a

ecotect analysis a

Environmental Analysis a

Wine Bar

Wine BarBathroom

Apartments

ApartmentBathroom

The spaces analysed were separated in Revit beore exporting it into Ecotect.

First floor

ground floor


20/43

B E K

39

Analysis Results & Design Recommendations

The result shown in g28can be used to change theorientation o the building to achieve best results. Ithe daily average radiation occurs at -19 degrees, thegraph results show that the optimum orientation or thebuilding will be at -20 degrees rom north (340 degreesshown on the graph).

SUMMER

It is clear that the ront o the building is much warmer than the back as per Wh/m2 o solar access being absorbed.

Change the orientation o the building: 90 degrees clockwise and nd the optimum Orientation based on average dailyincident radiation on a vertical surace during the summer season in Sydney Australia.

solar access Analysis continued

The ront is warmer

than the backhowever still doesnot receive much

solar access

Blue highlighting

cooler ronts towardsback o the building.

Fig.x Back o building : Incident Solar Radiation

Fig.27 Front o building : Incident Solar Radiation

Fig.28 Optimum Orientation or Climate Location Graph


21/43

B E K

41

Analysis Results & Design Recommendations

The result shown in g 31 can be used to change theorientation o the building to achieve best results. Ithe daily average radiation occurs at -2.0 degrees, thegraph results show that the optimum orientation or thebuilding will be at -2.5 degrees rom north (357.5 degreesshown on the graph).

The ront o the building resulted in a coolincident solarradiation result on the acade in both seasons which iscoherent as the sun is not acing the ront acade duringwinter or summer.

Final Recommendation

Changing the orientation o the building to mediatebetween the summer and winter results will allow orthe most appropriate positioning or the building in theclimate location.

Thus, the building should be rotated or optimumorientation at -11.25 degrees rom north. This wascalculated by taking the average o both season resultsand nding a medium.

Problems Encountered & Solutions

Initially I was not retrieving the correct results as thenorth point was not true to site, however this wasamended by simply changing it to the correct degreeaccording to the BIM.

WINTER

In this case, the back o the building is warmer in the upper levels and cooler in the lower levels. In the ront o the building, itis airly cool as per Wh/m2 in regards to the solar access being absorbed.

Change the orientation o the building: 90 degrees clockwise and nd the optimum Orientation based on average dailyincident radiation on a vertical surace during the summer season in Sydney Australia.

solar access Analysis continued

The ront o the

building is purplehighlighting a cooler

area.

Blue highlightingcooler ronts towardsback o the building.

Orange highlightingthe warmer ront.

Fig.29 Back o building : Incident Solar Radiation


Fig.31 Optimum Orientation or Climate Location Graph


22/43

B E K

43

Monthly load results:

Zone: G8 wine bar bathroomZone is not air-conditioned.Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24,Weekends 18-24.Comort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C

Observations:

In g 33no graph resultswere raised. I believe thisis because the bathroomsare only occupied rom6pm until late during theentire week, and theyare naturally ventilated.Thereore there would beno discomort hours ormost users.

In g 34 the results showthat during summerthe bathrooms may gettoo hot in summer andduring winter they will

get too cool. A totalo 3613.8 heating andcooling hours per annumresulted because o naturalventilation.

Recommendations: Implement cross

ventilation systemsor summer and air-conditioning or winter.

Introduction

I also conducted a thermal zone analysis in all the zones throughout the building. I had to initially input the relevantinormation (lighting systems, cooling/heating systems, occupancy units) within certain rooms such as bathrooms, kitchenspaces and bedrooms and this allowed me to generate results allowing me to understand exactly what areas are thermallydecient or vice versa. This will allow me to quantiy the design changes and recommendations.

Analysis carried out

I grouped certain areas within the building together, such as restaurant bathrooms, wine bar, apartment rooms, apartmentbathrooms. These grouped areas were analysed in Ecotect ater the relevant inormation was input into the sotware andresults were produced in regards to the parameters and data entered.

01 Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC):

Lighting level: 200 luxClothing: Underpants only (0.2 clo)Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values or both lighting and small power loads per unit oor area)Active heating/cooling systems: Natural VentilationComort band or bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 22.0 CHours o operations: 6- midnight weekdays and weekendsOccupancy: 3 (3 people per bathroom)

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

Setting the amount

o people usingthe bathrooms onMonday nights or

example.

Fig.32 Restaurant Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input

Fig.33 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually

-- -

-

MONTH HEATING (WH) COOLING (WH) TOTAL (WH)

Jan 260 0 260

Feb 313 0 313

Mar 309 0 309

Apr 121 25 147

May 0 127 127

Jun 0 672 672

Jul 0 751 751

Aug 0 595 595

Sep 3 177 180

Oct 8 40 48

Nov 8 58 66

Dec 146 1 147

TOTAL 1167.6 2446.2 3613.8

- -

-

Fig.34 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.


23/43

B E K

45


Zone: G7 wine barOperation: Weekdays 18-24,Weekends 18-24.Thermostat Settings:18.0 - 24.0 C

Observations:

During the warmer monthsearly and later in the year,the cooling loads or theair-conditioning systemare quite low. They reacha maximum o 10299 Win April. You can see thisin g 36 through the bluecolumn graphs below thezero line.

During winter the heatingloads reach a maximum o7726 W in July. Also seen ing 36 with the red columngraphs above the zero line.

Discomort degree hoursare quite high across thewhole year.

Recommendations: Cross ventilation system

& put windows inront acade to reducediscomort hours.

Implement Insulationsystems or winter andnatural re place systems.

02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Lighting level: 1200 luxClothing: Light business suit (1 clo)Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values or both lighting and small power loads per unit oor area)Active heating/cooling systems: Mixed Mode System. Both natural and air condition, depends on the season.Comort band or bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 24.0 CHours o operations: 6- midnight weekdays and weekends

Occupancy: 50 people

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

Setting the amounto people occupying

the wine bar duringweeknights and

weekends.

Fig.35 Wine Bar Occupancy Schedule Data input

Fig.36 Graph displaying monthly heating and cooling loads per annum

-- -

-

. . .

- --


Jan 0 78121 78121

Feb 0 87997 87997

Mar 0 80346 80346

Apr 450 46175 46625

May 12949 0 12949

Jun 251119 0 251119

Jul 285693 0 285693

Aug 171186 0 171186

Sep 18671 0 18671

Oct 1791 9688 11479

Nov 8720 0 8720

Dec 0 32640 32640

TOTAL 750580 334966 1085547



24/43

B E K

47


Zone: G11 apartmentbathroomOperation: Weekdays 00-24,Weekends 00-24.Thermostat Settings:18.0 - 26.0 C

Observations:

Max Heating: 328 W inJuly

Max Cooling: 403 W inFebruary

Heating and coolinghours in the apartmentbathrooms are lower thanother areas because othe use o complete airconditioning systems.

The cooling load resultswere not clear the g 39

Recommendations:

Adding skylights or naturalventilation during summerto reduce discomort hours.

03 Apartment Bathroom Parameters:

Lighting level: 900 luxClothing: Naked (0 clo)Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values or both lighting and small power loads per unit oor area)Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioningComort band or bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 CHours o operations: 24/7

Occupancy: 1 person


Only one personoccupying the

apartmentbathrooms, per

bathroom, per ew

hours.

Fig.38 Apartment Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input


:: - - .

: . - .

: :: :


Jan 0 7014 7014

Feb 0 8980 8980

Mar 211 9462 9673

Apr 4254 6000 10253

May 31855 0 31855

Jun 72426 0 72426

Jul 76702 0 76702

Aug 62739 0 62739

Sep 26654 0 26654

Oct 12146 0 12146

Nov 9743 0 9743

Dec 923 810 1733

TOTAL 297652 32265 329918

Fig.40 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.


25/43

B E K

49


Zone: G10 RoomOperation: Weekdays 00-24,Weekends 00-24.Thermostat Settings:18.0 - 26.0 C

Observations:

Max Heating: 24734 W inJuly

Max Cooling: 60841 W inApril

Cooling loads were notclear in g 42

Recommendations:

Implement crossventilation systems, simpleby adding windows acrossrom each other.

Making sure windowsare placed in a location

where the sun enters in themorning only across theyear.

Change the lightingsystems used to reducepower consumption andincrease warmth in winter.

Summer seems to be okay,however insulation systemsmixed with air conditioningwill improve discomorthours in winter.

04 Other Apartment Room Parameters:

Lighting level: 900 luxClothing: Trousers and t shirt (0.6 clo)Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values or both lighting and small power loads per unit oor area)Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioningComort band or bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 CHours o operations: 24/7

Occupancy: 1 person


Only one personoccupying the

apartment, per room,per ew hours.

Fig.41 Apartment Occupancy Schedule Data input


:: - - .

: . - .

: :: :


Jan 29462 5318786 5348248

Feb 1653 4450554 4452206

Mar 105453 4770669 4876122

Apr 688572 1944149 2632721

May 2148579 0 2148579

Jun 4862586 0 4862586

Jul 5103616 0 5103616Aug 4183211 0 4183211

Sep 1823030 74358 1897388

Oct 1180572 816823 1997395

Nov 823542 1352974 2176517

Dec 138208 4784163 4922371

TOTAL 21088484 23512476 44600960

Fig.43 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.


26/43

B E K

51

Member1: Writea description o thegroup processundertaken, reportingthe key issuesidentifed in discussion aterthe frstround o analysisand therationale behindthe agreeddesign changes;

Group process undertaken:

Initially the group decided upon Bridgets model as the construction was most dened. We set a methodology, aims, assignedtasks and roles to go ahead and individually complete our analysis reports using SMC, Vasari and Ecotect as the three dierentprograms.

Bridget completed an access and egress analysis using Solibri and rened her analysis with reerence to the BCA and

Australian Standards. While she was doing this Estelle was analysing the BIM using Ecotect or environmental issues such assolar and thermal properties and Kainaaz was analysing the energy and uel loads using Vasari and comparing her results withstandard Energy and Fuel loads or buildings.

The group then put together their analysis results in a combined PDF template in InDesign and printed it out to discuss theissues they all encountered and recommended design changes.

KEY ISSUES DESIGN CHANGE & RATIONALE

SMC Thereisnorearexitfromtherstoordirectly to the outside

Exitpathsexceed20m

Doorwidthsaretoosmall

Exitdoorforapartmentsongroundoor doesnt allow or clearance beoreight o stairs

Needfor anexternalstaircasetorstoorapartments

Inc lu sion o f rear exi t door

Inclusionof extraexit door in kitchen

Increasea ll doorwidthstomin1000mm

Repositioninternalstaircasetoensureclearancefromdooropening

team discussion & rationale for design

changes

group discussion

report


27/43

B E K

53

VASARI The ront acade is completely glassrom top to bottom with only the door

as an opening. This attracts too muchheat radiation within the area duringsummer, and a lot o heat loss during

winter.

As seen in Estelles thermal analysis,

the surrounding walls are much coolerthan the roo as the most incident sun

radiation is reaching the top o the

structure. So, there should be skylightsor more light to enter within the

structure rom the roo perimeter.

Reduce the size o the wine bar i it has

gone over the size limit so that lesscooling is needed or occupancy.

Installsolarpanelstoreduceuseoffuelenergy.

Insulationinwallsandroofs(usageofacoolroof).

Putmullionwindowsinsteadofamassivecurtainwall.

Windowstobedoubleglazingsoastoinsulatethemorreducewindowssolar heat gain coefcient or can even use low emissivity glass.

Buildskylightsforlightandheatingimprovementfromthecoreoftheresidential area.

I nc re as e vent il at ion .

Includereversepumpcycleairconditioner(orheatpumps)whichareenergyefcient as a HVAC system.

ECOTECT - During Summer the back o the buildingdoes not get much incident solar radiation.This results in a cooler area, especiallyaround the bottom levels.

- During Summer the ront o the building iswarmer than the back, however it still does

not receive much solar access.

- During Winter the back o the building is

warmer on the top level and cooler on thebottom level. The ront o the building is

much cooler in general. Clearly the backreceives more incident solar radiation than

the ront, and because the ront is com-pletely glass this needs to be changed.

- Need to improve ventilation, circulation

and thermal systems overall across allbathroom and apartment units.

- Changing the orientation o the building or optimum positioning in terms o climate

location. The building should be rotated -11.25 rom the true north.

- Implement cross ventilation system s in restaurant bathrooms or decrease in discomort

hours.

- Implement air-conditioning or winter months in restaurant bathrooms also or

decrease in discomort hours.

- Implement a cross ventilation system & put windows in ront acade to reduce

discomort hours.

- Insulation or winter and natural re place systems as an alternative heating system.

-Apartmentbathroomsaddskylightsfornaturalventilationduringsummer.

- Apartments: cross ventilation systems, windows are placed towards sun in themorning and mixed used heating and cooling systems such as insulation as well as air

conditioning or a decreased discomort

team discussion & rationale for design

changes


28/43

B E K

55

Member2: Editthemodel beorere-testingandwritean accounto thechangesactually madeto thedesign,includingillustrationso specifcchangesmadewhereappropriate;

A meeting with the BEK group was held and all the key issues pertaining to the model were listed. We then discussed togetherand agreed with all the design changes and wrote the rationale behind these. An account o the design changes is presentedbelow. These changes have the aim o creating a more efcient building which is compliant with Australian standards.

The Solibri report revealed that there were some undamental design issues in regards to access and egress. Fortunately, thesewere changes were resolvable by making changes to the Revit model.

Inclusion o exit path and doors.

Exit paths exceed 20m. This is a compliance issue as there should be no point in the building where it is more than 20m to anexit. The bar is 24m long, thereore, there needs to be an exit rom both the ront and rear o the bar, as well as an additionaldoor in the kitchen. I t was also noted that the re doors didnt all swing to outside. This issue was also amended.

account of changes implemented

model changes

report

Beore

Ater

Fig.44


29/43

B E K

57

Need for an external staircase to rst oor apartments.

There is no exit rom the rst oor directly outside. When creating this external stairwell it was also necessary to remove someo the existing trees. In regards to this key issue we decided as a group that it was necessary to add an external ight o stairswhich leads rom rst oor to the ground oor. This change improves the re saety required in the building. A 3D view isshown below which shows these changes.

Increase all door widths to a minimum of 1000mm.

The design door widths were too small. In accordance to the NCC section D door widths should be a minimum o 1000mm.None o the doors within the model complied with this rule. This was very easily amended as I simply edited the type o doorwhich changed all the doors within the building o that type.

Ater

Beore

Beore Ater

Fig.45 Fig.46


30/43

B E K

59

Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening.

The exit door or the apartments rom rst oor towards ground oor doesnt allow or clearance beore ight o stairs. Thisdesign issue was amended by repositioning the internal staircase. This was possible as there was a large unused circulationspace. As a result, there is now space clearance when both entering and exiting the ight o stairs.

Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening.

Changing the orientation o the building or optimum positioning in terms o climate location. The building should be rotated-11.25 rom the true North. The issue was that in dierent seasons, certain prominent areas within the building were notreceiving much incident solar radiation, so the orientation o the structure had to be changed or optimum positioning interms o climate location.

Beore

Ater

Beore

Ater

Fig.47 Fig.48


31/43

B E K

61

Implement a cross ventilation system & put windows in ront acade to reduce discomort hours.

There was a need to improve ventilation and circulation systems, especially in the ront wine bar area. So, a cross ventilationsystem was added into the wine bar area with sliding windows that are as tall as the ront door which go rom the south to thenorth acades. Sliding windows were also added to the top hal o the west acade (ront) as it is a double height ceiling and allglass so ventilation is needed.

Design changes implemented so ar or wine bar and egress system:

New windows in tophal o double height

ceiling in wine bararea.

Cross ventilation

system or wine bar.

New external exit orapartment units to

the back.

Beore

Ater

Fig.49

Fig.50


32/43

B E K

63

Insulation in walls and roos (usage o a cool roo).

A change o wall and roo construction to lightweight was needed on the top oor. So rom a double brick structure on top, itsa timber structure with insulation (green). The roo (red )is now a cool roo with insulation instead o a non insulation dark rooand it will stay cooler at peak times and absorb about only 20% o incident solar. The bottom walls (blue) are still double brickthough now they have insulation or energy efciency o the building. Hence overall, the main thing was to add insulation soas to reduce energy usage as well as cost.

Windows to be double glazing so as to insulate them or reduce windows solar heat gain coefcient or can even use

low emissivity glass.

By double glazing the window and having them with low emissivity, it improves the insulation o windows and skylight as wellas helps to keep the heart in or out o the building. It also improves acoustic levels inside the building. This change reducesthe electricity and uel consumption to warm up or cool down a building hence giving better heating and cooling loaddemands through peak months o summer or winter.

Beore

Ater

Beore Ater

Fig.51

Fig.52


33/43

B E K

65

individual re-test

reports

solibri

solibri analysis b

Access and Egress Analysis

Fig.53


34/43

B E K

67

Fig.54

Ater my rst Solibri report, I managed to change all o the undamental issues in the REVIT model. This meant that the accessand egress should now be working per ectly. However, I received unexpected results where Solibri had stated there was stilldesign issues within the model. I rechecked the model manually and realised that there must be something wrong with theresults as everything that was changed is now working within the model. I thereore was able to condently reject thoseresults. For example, the Solibri report states that there is no stairs within my model when I had dened the stairs as verticalcirculation. I was thereore able to reject the results. I was also able to reject the results o clearance in-ront o windows anddoors. This was due to the act that the rule-set wasnt completely accepted as there was one small chair in-ront o a window.As it is a moveable object it should be okay and thereore the rule should pass.

Using Solibri has been a very successul endeavour as I have properly learnt a new process to analyse construction. Throughusing the AS and Solibri congruently, I was able to decipher the design aws within the building and correct them.


35/43

B E K

69

vasari

Ater the necessary changes that were done to main design model in Revit, I did another individual analysis run with thenecessary changes to each o the individual masses.

1. Dining Lounge or Leisure Mass.

Energy settings or dining area mass.

vasari analysis b


Fig.55


36/43

B E K

71

The result rom the analysis o the Dining lounge or Leisurearea.


As noticed rom the results in g. 56, the total energy use intensity has decreased since uel load or heating has drasticallydecreased as observed rom the other graphs. It is ur ther prove that it directly reduces the renewable energy potential used

per year as well as the cost with the lie cycle energy use/ cost that has decreased drastically rom $88,413 to $79,316 which isover a 30 year lie and 6.1% discount rate or costs.

The reduced uel is what was aimed or as burning more uel increases green house gases, hence use o solar panels and usingwind turbines generate electricity as well and is or the betterment o the environment.

The change in the building has also reduced the load on the HVAC system with the demand o the window conduction andwalls during the cold months, though there is an increase o a cooling load o the occupants which could show discomortduring summer. The roo has unctioned well as it is clear rom the result that its efcient with its heating and cooling demandbeing negligible.

Fig.56

Fig.57Initial design result Ater changes to the design result


37/43

B E K

73



2. Multi Family Mass.

Energy settings or Multi Family

Fig.59


38/43

B E K

75


The result rom the analysis o the Multi Familyarea.

Fig.60

From g. 60 and 62 a drastic uel consumption through the year has been decreased when compared to the earlier analysis othe design beore the change.

In g. 61 the monthly heating load shows no result which I comprehend could be heating load negligible in the mass. Fromthe result o the monthly cooling load, it has overall been reduced in the mass though there is a big increase o the HVACsystem and lighting xture, which means the same system used in the wine bar doesnt work in residential and would needurther change.



39/43

B E K

77


Comparing the analysis o beore and ater shows a big dierence once the change was done in uel and electricityconsumption. Not only does this reduce greenhouse emissions but also reduces cost. Though there was a noted cooling loadneeded by the occupants which would ensure urther change in the masses.


ecotect


40/43

B E K

79

ecotect analysis b

Environmental Analysis

Wine Bar

Wine BarBathroom

Apartments

ApartmentBathroom

The spaces analysed were separated in Revit beore exporting it into Ecotect.

First floor

ground floor

Fig.63

solar access Analysis b

Ater making the design changes and re-orientating the building and then re analysing the overall structure in Ecotect, thebuilding seems to receive an increase in incident solar radiation during winter and less incident solar radiation during summer.This decreases the overall hours o discomort during various seasons.

Similar to the

back, the ront alsoreceives a medium

amount o sun across

the annum.

Red highlighting a

medium amounto incident solar

radiation across theannum.

Fig.64 Back o building : Incident Solar Radiation



41/43

B E K

81

The same parameters were entered and this is what resulted:

01 Restaurant Bathroom (G4 and G5 WC):

Zone: wine bar bathroom wine bar bathroomZone is not air-conditioned.Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.Comort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C

Observations:

There is an increase in heating andcooling loads in the wine bar bathrooms.

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems b

MONTH TOOHOT(DegHrs) TOOCOOL(DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs)Jan 250 0 250Feb 281 0 281Mar 251 0 251Apr 85 27 112May 0 219 219Jun 0 814 814Jul 0 878 878Aug 0 710 710Sep 0 234 234Oct 3 49 52Nov 5 62 67Dec 128 1 129TOTAL 1003.0 2994.5 3997.5



02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Zone: G6 Wine barOperation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 CMax Heating: 9699 W at 23:00 on 25th JulyMax Cooling: 15644 W at 19:00 on 12th January

Observations:

There is an increase in heating andcooling loads in the Wine bar.

MONTH TOO HOT(DegHrs) TOO COOL (DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs)

Jan 0 133983 133983

Feb 0 130207 130207

Mar 0 133340 133340

Apr 5740 70351 76091

May 57312 0 57312

Jun 238071 0 238071

Jul 257719 0 257719

Aug 185042 0 185042

Sep 55412 0 55412

Oct 16305 17721 34026

Nov 16678 0 16678

Dec 0 50378 50378

TOTAL 832279 535980 1368258

:

:

:

: :

: :




42/43

B E K

83

03 Apartment Bathroom Parameters:

Zone: G9 apart bathroomOperation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24.Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C

Max Heating: 337 W at 09:00 on 27th JulyMax Cooling: 347 W at 13:00 on 5th April

Observations:

There is an increase in heating andcooling loads in the apartment bathrooms.

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

Fig.70 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually


04 Other Apartment Room Parameters:

Zone: G8 ApartmentsOperation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24.Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C

Max Heating: 23893 W at 06:00 on 27th JulyMax Cooling: 42294 W at 14:00 on 27th March

Observations:

There is an increase in heating andcooling loads in the apartments overall.

MONTH TOO HOT(DegHrs) TOO COOL (DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs)

Jan 28446 2914346 2942792

Feb 0 2771012 2771012

Mar 102822 3291424 3394247

Apr 669620 1614724 2284344

May 2064590 0 2064590Jun 4711640 0 4711640

Jul 4955296 0 4955296

Aug 4061670 0 4061670

Sep 1797110 172287 1969397

Oct 1162758 217862 1380620

Nov 787379 102759 890137

Dec 128118 1563849 1691966

TOTAL 20469448 12648264 33117712

:

:

:

: :

: :

Fig.72 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually


Re-test Conclusions:

It is clearly evident that the design changeswere not successul as the supply loads anddiscomort hours were substantially increasedin most cases except or the apartment roomszone which had a great decrease in coolingand heating loads which was successul. Asmentioned in the retesting results, this is

as a result o changing the wall types andinsulations as well as the roo types whichaected the overall design so that 74.3% lessheating and cooling is required annually.

On a whole, the aim to hypothetically decreasethe environmental ootprint o the buildingwas partially met as the apartment room zonesoccupy most o the entire structure space, andtheir load requirements decreased by a heavyamount. The overall re-design would have beenmore successul i all the re-design actionsimplemented resulted in a decrease in heatingand cooling loads across all zones, not just theapartments.


43/43

B E K

final team

conclusion

Member 3: Write an account o the group discussion ollowing the re-testing, including group conclusions about both the design outcome and the entire collaborative

process.

Collaborative Process

There has been a myriad o benets due to undertaking this report. Whenever a member o team BEK had an issue with anyaspect o the report, we all collaborated and managed to nd a solution. As a result we were able to learn more about the

programs than would have been possible working individually. It is also noted that we also built upon valuable team workingskills. The benet or our report is it reads as a complete document not simply as individual sections.

Design Outcomes

Our main aim as a group was to improve the unctionality o the building and environmental sustainability by decreasing theamount o heating and cooling loads, energy and uel use and implementing better access and egress systems or emergencyand re exits as these were not initially implemented.

There was a range o results in regard to the success o changes to the BIM. Some initial issues were easily amended suchas the access and egress systems and the energy and uel loads. On the other hand, some issues were deemed not to be assuccessul such as the aim to decrease the heating and cooling loads overall (this was only successul in the apartment zonesater the re-design but not the wine bar and bathroom areas).

Henceorth, to achieve an optimum design solution in terms o our individual aims (environmental sustainability, ease oaccess and egress and decrease energy and uel loads) then the process will continue i it were to be actually constructed in

terms o collaborating to pinpoint results that ailed, re-design and re-analyse.

account of re-test

building information modelling - group assignment

Documents