B

Building Model Analysis & Design Collaboration

Assignment III
Bridget Allen z3375192 Kainaaz Variava z3352973 Estelle Rose Rehayem z3372905

CONTENTS Introduction 04 Team Members 05 Contributions & Analysis of Building 06

Individual Analysis Reports 08 Solibri Analysis A / Bridget Allen 09 Access & Egress Analysis 09

t e a m

ogether veryone chieves ore

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 for design changes 51 54

Model Changes Report

Account of 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 of re-test 85

TEAM MEMBERS

Description of 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 felt was most appropriate as the building is located in a medium to dense precinct within Sydney. Since it includes a wine bar and a few apartments, exits and their locations are significant for the ease of exit in case of emergency and appropriate circulation pathways 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 analysis was appropriate to the context and purpose. She also wrote a description of the group process undertaken, reporting the key issues identified in the discussion after the first round of 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 of the model. Initially she had to create a general mass replicating the existing design before she could use Vasari to conduct the energy load analysis. This model was shared with Estelle for her Ecotect analysis as well. Her task was to also edit the model before re testing and write an account of the changes actually made to the design, including illustrations of specific changes made where appropriate. Member 3 Estelle Rose Rehayem 3372905

introduction

Estelles task was to use Ecotect to conduct an environmental analysis of the model also appropriate to the context and location being a medium to dense precinct in Sydney. Following the analysis she wrote an account of the group discussion, including group conclusions about both the design outcome and the entire collaborative process. Estelle also assisted the group for various tasks and compiled the final report document.

contributions & analysis of building

Software Used and Analysis Conducted; Member 1 2 3 Bridget Allen Kainaaz Variava 3375192 3352973 Software Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 SMC [Solibri Model Checker] v.8 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 Autodesk Vasari Beta 2.0 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011 Analysis Access and egress analysis Energy load analysis Environmental analysis
Fig.1

Chosen model After discussion the chosen model for analysis was Bridgets model. The reason why we chose this model is that we felt it had the most to improve upon in terms of re-designing to apply to standards and environmental analysis. We also felt that the construction in this model was the most defined out of the three and thus the better reason to go ahead. Aims BEK believes that the building is appropriate aesthetically and spatially to its context, being a medium to dense precinct within Sydney, however there are a few structural elements that need to be considered and add to the design. So we are aiming to not completely change the design but more improve on its simple yet effective spatial and aesthetic appeal. Building class Using BCA Volume 1 2009 part A3.2 Classifications, we have identified that the project falls under the following building classes: Apartments: Wine Bar: Class 1A Being a single dwelling. Class 6

Estelle Rose Rehayem 3372905

As mentioned initially, together, team BEK achieves more. For a complete, detailed and accurate final analysis of a variety of concepts on a structure, you need to be organised, worth methodologically and combine workloads. Hence through this report we have made it clear how significant it is to work methodologically in teams for the most thorough final solutions to a problem or design. Team BEK set up a private Facebook group for the ease of transfer of information in between lectures and during the final compilation of the team report. We were able to upload files, and have immediate access to information on any computer set up using this page. This is also where we organised and scheduled all our meetings and arrangements.

Methodology 1 2 3 4 Selection of BIM and preparation for analysis. Individual analysis of the building as defined in figure 1. Coming together to identify issues after analysis and generate a new design and mode changes. Changes made to the model.

5 Individual model re-testing and new reports generated. 6 Group discussions of new issues after re-testing for anything unresolved.

A shop. Rules to be applied The model will be analysed in accordance to the Australian Standards and Building Code of Australia. Specifically, using BCA Volume 1 2009, NCC - D1.2, D1.4, D1.6, D1.7 and D1.10 for the acess and egress analysis to be conducted in SMC by Bridget.

7 Conclusion

solibri analysis a
Access and Egress Analysis

Introduction My role was to use Solibri Model Checker V8 to undertake an access and egress analysis of the BIM model which was created using the REVIT tool. Firstly I read through section D of the BCA which is Volume One and Volume Two of the NCC. I then reread the document, noting what sections applied to the shop on ground floor (class 6) and single dwelling on first floor (class 1). Since my building was selected to be analysed, minimal studying of the floor plans was performed as I was already quite familiar with the layout. I then exported the Revit model as an IFC 2 3 file and imported it in the Solibri Model Checker V8. Rule-set used Passageways Passage Width and Height Stairs Doors Other Building should have stairs Minimum width of stair flights Head clearance Existence of railing Minimum door dimensions Clearance of door openings Escape route analysis Exits on level no step

Individual analysis Reports solibri

solibri analysis a continued

D1 Provision For Escape

D1.2 Number of exits required (a) All buildings - Every building must have at least one exit from each storey. No rule-set was created as I simply studied the plan. Ground floor exit for first floor apartments Exit from bar onto street

D1.4 Exit travel distances (c) Class 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings (i) no point on a floor must be more than 20m from an exit, or a point from which travel in different directions to 2 exits is available, in which case the maximum distance to one of those exits must not exceed 40m and (ii) the maximum distance to one of those exits must not be more than 30m from the starting point. I firstly endeavoured to create a rule-set. Solibri reported that all the elements must be classified for the report to be produced.

An example of the classification - each room

Exit from apartments to stairwell that leads to ground floor exit

Fig.4 Fig.2 Fig.3

There is clearly an exit from the bar onto the street. As a group we decided that the building should have an exit directly outside from each level. This means an external stairwell will need to be added from the ground floor which leads to the apartments on first floor. Also the exit door swings need to swing outside for fire safety.

A complex rule set was not working after many attempts of changing the input of information.

11

solibri analysis a continued

I decided to simply measure the plans. I also made sure I classified all the exits in the parameters box for future use in the report.

I had the intention of creating a report using Solibri that analysed the egress of the building. The results shown were that there were no exits within the model. I tried to reinsert the information into Solibri but the same results were given. It is my conclusion that there was an issue with the classification of some elements within the building. However, when studying the plans, I can tell that every room has an escape route. As shown by this figure there are doors which lead into every room on the plan.

Classifying doors as exits - useful for later analysis

Fig.5 Fig.6

The bar is calculated to be precisely 24m long. Therefore, if being at the rear of the building there is >20m to an exit. This needs to be resolved by placing another exit door at the rear of the building as well as an inclusion of another exit door in the kitchen which is quite long and enclosed.

13

solibri analysis a continued

D1.6 Dimensions of exits and paths of travel to exits In a required exit or path of travel to an exit (a) the unobstructed height throughout must be not less than 2 m, except the unobstructed height of any doorway may be reduced to not less than 1980 mm; and (b) the unobstructed width of each exit or path of travel to an exit, except for doorways, must be not less than (i) 1m I successfully created a rule-set and produced a report. Parameters created >1980mm high >1000mm wide

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

It is my findings that the paths of travel are of an acceptable height and width.

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

15

solibri analysis a continued

D1.7 Travel via fire-isolated exits (a) A doorway from a room must not open directly into a stairway, passageway or ramp that is required to be fire-isolated unless it is a public corridor or a sole occupancy unit occupying all of a storey.

D1.10 Discharge from exits (a) An exit must not be blocked at the point of discharge and where necessary, suitable barriers must be provided to prevent vehicles from blocking the exit, or access to it. (b) If a required exit leads to an open space, the path of travel to the road must have an unobstructed width throughout of not less than (i) the minimum width of the required exit; or (ii) 1 m, whichever is the greater. (d) The discharge point of alternative exits must be located as far apart as practical. I attempted to make a ruleset, however, it would only reveal internal passageways without revealing external results. I decided to study the plans myself. I feel this reveals that Solibri, however great to analyse, has problems and perhaps would be more efficient in the working world. Exit onto carpark is >1m which is required

Exits of apartments do no open directly onto the stairwell

Exit from ground floor by residences opens directly onto the stairwell

Ground exit - all trees were removed so there is a compliant exit

Fig.11 Fig.10

Fig.12

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

The front exit complies with D.10. Even though the rear exit for apartment residents does comply if a car is parked, I feel it would be more appropriate to move the carpark to ensure that there is plenty of space incase of an emergency exit.

17

solibri analysis a continued

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. This time I successfully managed to receive a report that the escape route analysis is of an ok standard. Perhaps when classifying parts of the building for the rest of the report, I managed to fix the mistake. I still believe it is necessary to add an external staircase so that fire safety is at a high standard.

Problems encountered Using the Solibri software I encountered many problems. I found it difficult to resolve issues as there is little online as far as tutorials. I assume that this is due to Solibri not being a widely used program or a program which is not used by students. I managed to produce successful solutions to these difficulties, such as collaborating with team members, simply measuring off the plans and by changing settings until I was successful. Often it was more efficient to simply measure the plans, however, Solibri was used whenever possible and was always attempted first.

Note It must be noted that when familiarising myself with the rule sets in Solibri I noticed that fire compartmentalisation was a major component. I had not thought of this being a major issue previously. After much deliberation, I concluded that single dwellings (class 1 buildings) werent required to have fire compartments. I also determined that since my wine bar design is an open space with the only enclosed rooms being the kitchen, storage and single toilets that a fire compartment was not needed. I checked with my group members and they were agreeable with my decisions. Therefore, problems encountered due to the lack of fire compartmentalisation were ignored in the results.

Analysis of results and design recommendations Acceptable results Door heights Every room has an escape route Discharge from exits at street of bar and first floor from stairs Entry to bar is on ground level Clearance in front of windows Entrance on level Key issues Need for external staircase Inclusion of rear door for exit and extra one in kitchen Door width increased to 1000mm Reposition internal staircase so that it doesnt lead straight into door Clearance in front of doors

Fig.13

19

vasari analysis a
energy load Analysis

INTRODUCTION This report covers the analysis of energy and fuel loads on the building. Programs used to help gain the outcome were Revit architecture and Vasari Beta 2. The building was divided as two separate mass components of type Dining Lounge or Leisure for the Wine Bar and Multi Family for the residential space as they do not fall under a common building classification type in options of Vasaris energy settings. The focus is to reduce the use of energy and fuel consumption and to be more economical, which directly decreases harm to the environment and less expense over a certain period of years. With this outcome the building design will be altered for a better result than present. ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT

vasari

The analysis conducted was an energy model analysis carried out by Vasari from conceptual mass models that was done in revit with the 3D model acting as a blueprint for it. The dining lounge or leisure ( mass below) and the multi family (mass above in yellow as in figure 14) were analysed separately due to the respectively different default value which is applied to the model which is based on minimum efficiency requirements for the ASHRAE 90.1 energy code. In Vasari, the selected weather station for the analysis was chosen in Sydney as it is the location of the building. From the analysis there was an outcome of a list of data, out of which only the relevant was taken into consideration and data like wind and temperature werent taken into account for it being similar though-out all analysis due to the same location.

Fig.14

21

vasari analysis a continued

Setting for 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. Common Building Type Ground Plane Detailed Model Export Complexity Energy Model Conceptual Construction - Walls ( Interior and Exterior) - Roofs - Floor and Floor slab - Glazing Target Percentage Glazing

Fig.15

Fig.16

23

vasari analysis a continued

Setting for Mass 2 - Multi Family PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS Initially I had issues trying to export a mass model directly from the Revit design file as a gbXML file like we would do for Ecotect 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 mass model of the design for it to work in Vasari. Secondly, after making the mass model I tried to run the analysis with my respective energy setting but there was a message which kept saying unexpected error in Vasari even after I made the building mass and checked back into Revit. Solution: After asking other peers who are using Vasari, I was informed that I had to even add mass roofs as well as floors for the analysis to run with floors defining the levels. With that opportunity in hand, I added the mass mullion window as well as according to the design. Thirdly, in vasari for analysing the model in the energy settings, there was no option of no HVAC system with the masses because there was none in the revit design model.
Fig.17

Solution: Used the same HVAC system for both the masses so as to get the same outcome which can be easily noticed and taken into account because through forums and questions, vasari is initial design stage where you implement systems, hence will be using this option as a design recommendation for the efficiency of the building.

Fig.18

25

vasari analysis a continued

ANALYSIS RESULT 1. Result for Dining Lounge or Leisure Observation From result shown in fig.19, it is clear that the EUI is way higher than an average of a standard commercial or hotel building. The annual carbon emissions shows that the structure has potential for improvement in terms for energy use. Design changes must be implemented to enhance the life cycle energy use and therefore decrease costs for the building energy life cycle overall. Observation From fig. 20, as we first see the annual energy use/cost, it can easily be reduced as it will be used for heating or cooling of the house due to absence of insulation and lesser windows except for the big mullion curtain wall at the front and skylights. As of the individual result of energy use by electricity, we can notice that lighting is the maximum due to lack of efficiency and placement of windows. To correct the solution, should use double glazing to insulate the windows as well as get sunlight in the building which will greatly decrease energy and cost.

Negative number representing tons of carbon that can potentially be removed from the project using renewable resources like solar panels and wind turbines.

Fig.19

Fig.20

27

vasari analysis a continued

Observation The result from fig. 22 shows a greater fuel consumption during the cold months from May to mid August for heating of the building though it shows a lesser electricity consumption during those months and higher in the warmer months to cool the house. Due to this issue, it is worth investing in a high efficiency heating and cooling units which can save up-to 20% on heating and cooling costs like a reverse cycle air conditioners ( or heat pumps) which are energy efficient.

Window conduction and walls is the largest negative value which means heat loss from conduction through them representing largest single monthly demand for heat.

Fig.21

Observation From the monthly heating load it represents that the structure is loosing heat from windows and walls, hence would have to reduce 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 of people increases the cooling load while it decreases heating load. And after 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 coefficient.
Fig.22

29

vasari analysis a continued

2.. Result for Multi-family Observation From result shown in fig.23, it shows a little above average of total energy use intensity in multi residential space. Like in previous result of the wine bar, the annual carbon Emissions show that there can be a lot of energy saved if renewable energy like solar panels and wind turbines are used. Design changes must be implemented to enhance the life cycle energy use and therefore decrease costs for the building energy life cycle overall. Observation From fig. 24 again there is a lot of electricity demand in the residential area. Most of it coming from miscellaneous equipments instead of lighting which includes plug loads, computers and others.

Fig.23

Fig.24

31

vasari analysis a continued

Observation The result from fig. 22 shows a big fuel consumption during the cold months from May to mid August for heating of the building and shows a lesser electricity consumption during those months and higher in the warmer months to cool the house. Due to this issue, it is worth investing in a high efficiency heating and cooling units which can save upto 20% on heating and cooling costs like a reverse cycle air conditioners ( or heat pumps) which are energy efficient. Comparing it to the result of the wine bar, there is a lesser demand of fuel and electricity due to the type and area of the mass.

Observation

Fig.25

From the monthly heating load it represents that the structure is loosing heat majorly from roofs and walls due to the lack of insulation and appropriate materials for Sydney weather while misc equipments and light fixtures demand lesser. In the monthly cooling load, as noticed in the electricity use there is a high demand for cooling of misc equipment in other months apart from the cold months. There there can be improvement in the glass putting in reflective or low emissivity glass which lets light and heat in but helps prevent heat escaping.

Fig.26

33

vasari analysis a continued

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Install solar panels to reduce use of fuel energy. Insulation in walls and roofs ( usage of a cool roof ) Put mullion windows instead of a massive curtain wall. Windows to be double glazing so as to insulate them or reduce windows solar heat gain coefficient or can even use low emissivity glass. Build skylights for light and heating improvement from the core of the residential area. Increase ventilation. Include reverse pump cycle air conditioner (or heat pumps) which are energy efficient as a HVAC system.

ecotect

35

ecotect analysis a
Environmental Analysis a
The spaces analysed were separated in Revit before exporting it into Ecotect.

Environmental Analysis a

Introduction This report has been prepared on the analysis of the environmental efficiency of the hypothetically designed bar and restaurant in a medium to dense precinct of Sydney, using Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011. My aims are to minimise the heating and cooling loads for the intention of a more environmentally friendly and sustainable building 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 after the parameters were entered. Apartment Bathroom Analysis Carried Out I conducted a solar access analysis and thermal analysis by using Ecotect to calculate the incident solar radiation on the building and the internal loads under the condition the structure is currently under, using Sydney Australia as the thermal climate location. This will allow me to make possible changes to the current design upon discussion with team members to improve the design on the basis of a more environmentally friendly design.

Apartments

First floor

solar access Analysis

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

Wine Bar Wine Bar Bathroom

ground floor

37

solar access Analysis continued

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

Analysis Results & Design Recommendations The result shown in fig 28 can be used to change the orientation of the building to achieve best results. If the daily average radiation occurs at -19 degrees, the graph results show that the optimum orientation for the building will be at -20 degrees from north (340 degrees shown on the graph).

Blue highlighting cooler fronts towards back of the building.

Fig.x Back of building : Incident Solar Radiation

The front is warmer than the back however still does not receive much solar access Fig.28 Optimum Orientation for Climate Location Graph Fig.27 Front of building : Incident Solar Radiation

Change the orientation of the building: 90 degrees clockwise and find the optimum Orientation based on average daily incident radiation on a vertical surface during the summer season in Sydney Australia.

39

solar access Analysis continued

WINTER In this case, the back of the building is warmer in the upper levels and cooler in the lower levels. In the front of the building, it is fairly cool as per Wh/m2 in regards to the solar access being absorbed.

Analysis Results & Design Recommendations The result shown in fig 31 can be used to change the orientation of the building to achieve best results. If the daily average radiation occurs at -2.0 degrees, the graph results show that the optimum orientation for the building will be at -2.5 degrees from north (357.5 degrees shown on the graph). The front of the building resulted in a cool incident solar radiation result on the facade in both seasons which is coherent as the sun is not facing the front facade during winter or summer. Final Recommendation Changing the orientation of the building to mediate between the summer and winter results will allow for the most appropriate positioning for the building in the climate location. Thus, the building should be rotated for optimum orientation at -11.25 degrees from north. This was calculated by taking the average of both season results and finding a medium.
The front of the building is purple highlighting a cooler area.

Blue highlighting cooler fronts towards back of the building. Orange highlighting the warmer front.

Fig.29 Back of building : Incident Solar Radiation

Problems Encountered & Solutions Initially I was not retrieving the correct results as the north point was not true to site, however this was amended by simply changing it to the correct degree according to the BIM.

Fig.31 Optimum Orientation for Climate Location Graph

Fig.30 Front of building : Incident Solar Radiation

Change the orientation of the building: 90 degrees clockwise and find the optimum Orientation based on average daily incident radiation on a vertical surface during the summer season in Sydney Australia.

41

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

Introduction I also conducted a thermal zone analysis in all the zones throughout the building. I had to initially input the relevant information (lighting systems, cooling/heating systems, occupancy units) within certain rooms such as bathrooms, kitchen spaces and bedrooms and this allowed me to generate results allowing me to understand exactly what areas are thermally deficient or vice versa. This will allow me to quantify the design changes and recommendations. Analysis carried out I grouped certain areas within the building together, such as restaurant bathrooms, wine bar, apartment rooms, apartment bathrooms. These grouped areas were analysed in Ecotect after the relevant information was input into the software and results were produced in regards to the parameters and data entered. 01 Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC): 200 lux Underpants only (0.2 clo) 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Natural Ventilation Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 22.0 C 6- midnight weekdays and weekends 3 (3 people per bathroom)

Monthly load results: Zone: G8 wine bar bathroom Zone is not air-conditioned. Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C Observations: In fig 33 no graph results were raised. I believe this is because the bathrooms are only occupied from 6pm until late during the entire week, and they are naturally ventilated. Therefore there would be no discomfort hours for most users. In fig 34 the results show that during summer the bathrooms may get too hot in summer and during winter they will get too cool. A total of 3613.8 heating and cooling hours per annum resulted because of natural ventilation.

Therm al analysis: Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC):

Zone: G8 wine bar bathroom Zone is not air-conditioned. Fig.33 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C

Lighting level: Clothing: Internal gains: Active heating/cooling systems: Comfort band for bathrooms: Hours of operations: Occupancy:

Setting the amount of people using the bathrooms on Monday nights for example.

Recommendations: Implement cross ventilation systems for summer and airconditioning for winter.

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

HEATING (WH) 260 313 309 121 0 0 0 0 3 8 8 146 1167.6

COOLING (WH) 0 0 0 25 127 672 751 595 177 40 58 1 2446.2

TOTAL (WH) 260 313 309 147 127 672 751 595 180 48 66 147 3613.8

Fig.34 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Zone: G7 wine bar Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C Max Heating: 7726 W at 23:00 on 25th July Max Cooling: 10299 W at 19:00 on 2nd February
43

Fig.32 Restaurant Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input

Therm al analysis: Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC):

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

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

02

Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Monthly load results: Zone: G7 wine bar Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C Observations: During the warmer months early and later in the year, the cooling loads for the air-conditioning system are quite low. They reach a maximum of 10299 W in April. You can see this in fig 36 through the blue column graphs below the zero line. During winter the heating loads reach a maximum of 7726 W in July. Also seen in fig 36 with the red column graphs above the zero line. Discomfort degree hours are quite high across the whole year.

Lighting level: 1200 lux Clothing: Light business suit (1 clo) Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Active heating/cooling systems: Mixed Mode System. Both natural and air condition, depends on the season. Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 24.0 C Hours of operations: 6- midnight weekdays and weekends Occupancy: 50 people
Setting the amount of people occupying the wine bar during weeknights and weekends.

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

HEATING (WH) 260 313 309 121 0 0 0 0 3 8 8 146 1167.6

COOLING (WH) 0 0 0 25 127 672 751 595 177 40 58 1 2446.2

TOTAL (WH) 260 313 309 147 127 672 751 595 180 48 66 147 3613.8

Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Zone: G7 wine bar Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C Fig.36 Graph displaying monthly heating and cooling loads per annum Max Heating: 7726 W at 23:00 on 25th July Max Cooling: 10299 W at 19:00 on 2nd February

Fig.35 Wine Bar Occupancy Schedule Data input

Recommendations: Cross ventilation system & put windows in front facade to reduce discomfort hours. Implement Insulation systems for winter and natural fire place systems.

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

HEATING (WH) 0 0 0 450 12949 251119 285693 171186 18671 1791 8720 0 750580

COOLING (WH) 78121 87997 80346 46175 0 0 0 0 0 9688 0 32640 334966

TOTAL (WH) 78121 87997 80346 46625 12949 251119 285693 171186 18671 11479 8720 32640 1085547

Fig.37 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

45

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

03

Apartment Bathroom Parameters:

Monthly load results: Zone: G11 apartment bathroom Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C

Lighting level: 900 lux Clothing: Naked (0 clo) Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioning Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 C Hours of operations: 24/7 Occupancy: 1 person
Only one person occupying the apartment bathrooms, per bathroom, per few hours.

Observations: Max Heating: 328 W in July Max Cooling: 403 W in February Heating and cooling hours in the apartment bathrooms are lower than other areas because of the use of complete air conditioning systems. The cooling load results were not clear the fig 39
Apartment Bathroom Parameters:
Zone: G11 apartment bathroom Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C Fig.39 Graph displaying monthly heating and cooling loads per annum Max Heating: 328 W at 09:00 on 27th July Max Cooling: 403 W at 13:00 on 5th April

Fig.38 Apartment Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input

Recommendations: Adding skylights for natural ventilation during summer to reduce discomfort hours.

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

HEATING (WH) 0 0 211 4254 31855 72426 76702 62739 26654 12146 9743 923 297652

COOLING (WH) 7014 8980 9462 6000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 810 32265

TOTAL (WH) 7014 8980 9673 10253 31855 72426 76702 62739 26654 12146 9743 1733 329918

Fig.40 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.

47

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

04

Other Apartment Room Parameters:

Monthly load results: Zone: G10 Room Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C Observations: Max Heating: 24734 W in July Max Cooling: 60841 W in April Cooling loads were not clear in fig 42
Other Apartment Room Parameters:
Zone: G10 Room Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C Max Heating: 24734 W at 06:00 on 27th July Fig.42 Graph displaying monthly heating and cooling loads per annum Max Cooling: 60841 W at 08:00 on 18th December

Lighting level: 900 lux Clothing: Trousers and t shirt (0.6 clo) Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioning Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 C Hours of operations: 24/7 Occupancy: 1 person
Only one person occupying the apartment, per room, per few hours.

Recommendations: Implement cross ventilation systems, simple by adding windows across from each other. Making sure windows are placed in a location where the sun enters in the morning only across the year. Change the lighting systems used to reduce power consumption and increase warmth in winter. Summer seems to be okay, however insulation systems mixed with air conditioning will improve discomfort hours in winter.

Fig.41 Apartment Occupancy Schedule Data input

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

HEATING (WH) 29462 1653 105453 688572 2148579 4862586 5103616 4183211 1823030 1180572 823542 138208 21088484

COOLING (WH) 5318786 4450554 4770669 1944149 0 0 0 0 74358 816823 1352974 4784163 23512476

TOTAL (WH) 5348248 4452206 4876122 2632721 2148579 4862586 5103616 4183211 1897388 1997395 2176517 4922371 44600960

Fig.43 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.

49

team discussion & rationale for design changes

Member 1: Write a description of the group process undertaken, reporting the key issues identified in discussion after the first round of analysis and the rationale behind the agreed design changes;

Group process undertaken: Initially the group decided upon Bridgets model as the construction was most defined. We set a methodology, aims, assigned tasks and roles to go ahead and individually complete our analysis reports using SMC, Vasari and Ecotect as the three different programs. Bridget completed an access and egress analysis using Solibri and refined her analysis with reference to the BCA and Australian Standards. While she was doing this Estelle was analysing the BIM using Ecotect for environmental issues such as solar and thermal properties and Kainaaz was analysing the energy and fuel loads using Vasari and comparing her results with standard Energy and Fuel loads for buildings.

group discussion report

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

KEY ISSUES SMC

There is no rear exit from the first floor directly to the outside Exit paths exceed 20m Door widths are too small Exit door for apartments on ground floor doesnt allow for clearance before flight of stairs

DESIGN CHANGE & RATIONALE

Need for an external staircase to first floor apartments Inclusion of rear exit door Inclusion of extra exit door in kitchen Increase all door widths to min 1000mm Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening

51

team discussion & rationale for design changes

VASARI
The front facade is completely glass from top to bottom with only the door as an opening. This attracts too much heat radiation within the area during summer, and a lot of heat loss during winter. As seen in Estelles thermal analysis, the surrounding walls are much cooler than the roof as the most incident sun radiation is reaching the top of the structure. So, there should be skylights for more light to enter within the structure from the roof perimeter. Reduce the size of the wine bar if it has gone over the size limit so that less cooling is needed for occupancy. Install solar panels to reduce use of fuel energy. Insulation in walls and roofs (usage of a cool roof ). Put mullion windows instead of a massive curtain wall. Windows to be double glazing so as to insulate them or reduce windows solar heat gain coefficient or can even use low emissivity glass. Build skylights for light and heating improvement from the core of the residential area. Increase ventilation. Include reverse pump cycle air conditioner (or heat pumps) which are energy efficient as a HVAC system.

ECOTECT

- During Summer the back of the building does not get much incident solar radiation. This results in a cooler area, especially around the bottom levels. - During Summer the front of the building is warmer than the back, however it still does not receive much solar access. - During Winter the back of the building is warmer on the top level and cooler on the bottom level. The front of the building is much cooler in general. Clearly the back receives more incident solar radiation than the front, and because the front is completely glass this needs to be changed. - Need to improve ventilation, circulation and thermal systems overall across all bathroom and apartment units.

- Changing the orientation of the building for optimum positioning in terms of climate location. The building should be rotated -11.25 from the true north. - Implement cross ventilation systems in restaurant bathrooms for decrease in discomfort hours. - Implement air-conditioning for winter months in restaurant bathrooms also for decrease in discomfort hours. - Implement a cross ventilation system & put windows in front facade to reduce discomfort hours. - Insulation for winter and natural fire place systems as an alternative heating system. - Apartment bathrooms add skylights for natural ventilation during summer. - Apartments: cross ventilation systems, windows are placed towards sun in the morning and mixed used heating and cooling systems such as insulation as well as air conditioning for a decreased discomfort

53

account of changes implemented

Member 2: Edit the model before re-testing and write an account of the changes actually made to the design, including illustrations of specific changes made where appropriate;

A meeting with the BEK group was held and all the key issues pertaining to the model were listed. We then discussed together and agreed with all the design changes and wrote the rationale behind these. An account of the design changes is presented below. These changes have the aim of creating a more efficient building which is compliant with Australian standards. The Solibri report revealed that there were some fundamental design issues in regards to access and egress. Fortunately, these were changes were resolvable by making changes to the Revit model. Inclusion of 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 an exit. The bar is 24m long, therefore, there needs to be an exit from both the front and rear of the bar, as well as an additional door in the kitchen. It was also noted that the fire doors didnt all swing to outside. This issue was also amended.

model changes report

Before

After Fig.44 55

Need for an external staircase to first floor apartments.

Increase all door widths to a minimum of 1000mm.

There is no exit from the first floor directly outside. When creating this external stairwell it was also necessary to remove some of the existing trees. In regards to this key issue we decided as a group that it was necessary to add an external flight of stairs which leads from first floor to the ground floor. This change improves the fire safety required in the building. A 3D view is shown below which shows these changes.

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

Before

Before After Fig.45

After Fig.46

57

Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening. The exit door for the apartments from first floor towards ground floor doesnt allow for clearance before flight of stairs. This design issue was amended by repositioning the internal staircase. This was possible as there was a large unused circulation space. As a result, there is now space clearance when both entering and exiting the flight of stairs.

Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening. Changing the orientation of the building for optimum positioning in terms of climate location. The building should be rotated -11.25 from the true North. The issue was that in different seasons, certain prominent areas within the building were not receiving much incident solar radiation, so the orientation of the structure had to be changed for optimum positioning in terms of climate location.

Before

Before

After Fig.47

After Fig.48 59

Implement a cross ventilation system & put windows in front facade to reduce discomfort hours.

Design changes implemented so far for wine bar and egress system:

There was a need to improve ventilation and circulation systems, especially in the front wine bar area. So, a cross ventilation system was added into the wine bar area with sliding windows that are as tall as the front door which go from the south to the north facades. Sliding windows were also added to the top half of the west facade (front) as it is a double height ceiling and all glass so ventilation is needed.

New windows in top half of double height ceiling in wine bar area.

New external exit for apartment units to the back.

Before

Cross ventilation system for wine bar.

Fig.50

After Fig.49 61

Insulation in walls and roofs (usage of a cool roof). A change of wall and roof construction to lightweight was needed on the top floor. So from a double brick structure on top, its a timber structure with insulation (green). The roof (red )is now a cool roof with insulation instead of a non insulation dark roof and it will stay cooler at peak times and absorb about only 20% of incident solar. The bottom walls (blue) are still double brick though now they have insulation for energy efficiency of the building. Hence overall, the main thing was to add insulation so as to reduce energy usage as well as cost.

Windows to be double glazing so as to insulate them or reduce windows solar heat gain coefficient or can even use low emissivity glass. By double glazing the window and having them with low emissivity, it improves the insulation of windows and skylight as well as helps to keep the heart in or out of the building. It also improves acoustic levels inside the building. This change reduces the electricity and fuel consumption to warm up or cool down a building hence giving better heating and cooling load demands through peak months of summer or winter.

Before

Before

After Fig.52

After

Fig.51

63

solibri analysis b
Access and Egress Analysis

individual re-test reports solibri

Fig.53

65

After my first Solibri report, I managed to change all of the fundamental issues in the REVIT model. This meant that the access and egress should now be working perfectly. However, I received unexpected results where Solibri had stated there was still design issues within the model. I rechecked the model manually and realised that there must be something wrong with the results as everything that was changed is now working within the model. I therefore was able to confidently reject those results. For example, the Solibri report states that there is no stairs within my model when I had defined the stairs as vertical circulation. I was therefore able to reject the results. I was also able to reject the results of clearance in-front of windows and doors. This was due to the fact that the rule-set wasnt completely accepted as there was one small chair in-front of a window. As it is a moveable object it should be okay and therefore the rule should pass. Using Solibri has been a very successful endeavour as I have properly learnt a new process to analyse construction. Through using the AS and Solibri congruently, I was able to decipher the design flaws within the building and correct them.

Fig.54

67

vasari analysis b
energy load Analysis

After the necessary changes that were done to main design model in Revit, I did another individual analysis run with the necessary changes to each of the individual masses. 1. Dining Lounge or Leisure Mass.

Energy settings for dining area mass.

vasari

Fig.55

69

energy load Analysis

The result from the analysis of the Dining lounge or Leisure area.

Initial design result

After changes to the design result

Fig.57

As noticed from the results in fig. 56, the total energy use intensity has decreased since fuel load for heating has drastically decreased as observed from the other graphs. It is further prove that it directly reduces the renewable energy potential used per year as well as the cost with the life cycle energy use/ cost that has decreased drastically from $88,413 to $79,316 which is over a 30 year life and 6.1% discount rate for costs. The reduced fuel is what was aimed for as burning more fuel increases green house gases, hence use of solar panels and using wind turbines generate electricity as well and is for the betterment of the environment. The change in the building has also reduced the load on the HVAC system with the demand of the window conduction and walls during the cold months, though there is an increase of a cooling load of the occupants which could show discomfort during summer. The roof has functioned well as it is clear from the result that its efficient with its heating and cooling demand being negligible.
Fig.56

71

energy load Analysis

2.

Multi Family Mass.

Energy settings for Multi Family

Fig.59

Initial design result

After changes to the design result

Fig.58

73

energy load Analysis

The result from the analysis of the Multi Family area.

Initial design result

After changes to the design result

Fig.61

From fig. 60 and 62 a drastic fuel consumption through the year has been decreased when compared to the earlier analysis of the design before the change. In fig. 61 the monthly heating load shows no result which I comprehend could be heating load negligible in the mass. From the result of the monthly cooling load, it has overall been reduced in the mass though there is a big increase of the HVAC system and lighting fixture, which means the same system used in the wine bar doesnt work in residential and would need further change.

Fig.60

75

energy load Analysis

ecotect

Initial design result

After changes to the design result

Fig.62

Comparing the analysis of before and after shows a big difference once the change was done in fuel and electricity consumption. Not only does this reduce greenhouse emissions but also reduces cost. Though there was a noted cooling load needed by the occupants which would ensure further change in the masses.
77

ecotect analysis b
Environmental Analysis
The spaces analysed were separated in Revit before exporting it into Ecotect.

solar access Analysis b

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

Apartments Apartment Bathroom

Red highlighting a medium amount of incident solar radiation across the annum.

First floor
Fig.64 Back of building : Incident Solar Radiation

Similar to the back, the front also receives a medium amount of sun across the annum.

Wine Bar Wine Bar Bathroom

Fig.65 Front of building : Incident Solar Radiation

ground floor
Fig.63

79

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems b

The same parameters were entered and this is what resulted: 01 Restaurant Bathroom (G4 and G5 WC): 02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

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

Zone: G6 Wine bar Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C Max Heating: 9699 W at 23:00 on 25th July Max Cooling: 15644 W at 19:00 on 12th January

02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Observations: There is an increase in heating and cooling loads in the wine bar bathrooms.
Fig.66 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually

Observations: There is an increase in heating and cooling loads in the Wine bar.
Fig.68 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL

TOOHOT(DegHrs) 250 281 251 85 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 128 1003.0

TOOCOOL(DegHrs) 0 0 0 27 219 814 878 710 234 49 62 1 2994.5

TOTAL(DegHrs) 250 281 251 112 219 814 878 710 234 52 67 129 3997.5

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Zone: G6 Wine bar

TOO HOT(DegHrs) 0 0 0 5740 57312 238071 257719 185042 55412 16305 16678 0 832279

TOO COOL (DegHrs) 133983 130207 133340 70351 0 0 0 0 0 17721 0 50378 535980

TOTAL(DegHrs) 133983 130207 133340 76091 57312 238071 257719 185042 55412 34026 16678 50378 1368258

Fig.67 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

Fig.69 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C Max Heating: 9699 W at 23:00 on 25th July Max Cooling: 15644 W at 19:00 on 12th January

81

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

03

Apartment Bathroom Parameters:

04

Other Apartment Room Parameters:

Zone: G9 apart bathroom Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C Max Heating: 337 W at 09:00 on 27th July Max Cooling: 347 W at 13:00 on 5th April

Zone: G8 Apartments Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C Max Heating: 23893 W at 06:00 on 27th July Max Cooling: 42294 W at 14:00 on 27th March Observations: There is an increase in heating and cooling loads in the apartments overall.

Observations: There is an increase in heating and cooling loads in the apartment bathrooms.
Fig.70 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually

Re-test Conclusions: It is clearly evident that the design changes were not successful as the supply loads and discomfort hours were substantially increased in most cases except for the apartment rooms zone which had a great decrease in cooling and heating loads which was successful. As mentioned in the retesting results, this is as a result of changing the wall types and insulations as well as the roof types which affected the overall design so that 74.3% less heating and cooling is required annually. On a whole, the aim to hypothetically decrease the environmental footprint of the building was partially met as the apartment room zones occupy most of the entire structure space, and their load requirements decreased by a heavy amount. The overall re-design would have been more successful if all the re-design actions implemented resulted in a decrease in heating and cooling loads across all zones, not just the apartments.
Fig.72 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually

Fig.71 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Zone: G8 Apartments

TOO HOT(DegHrs) 28446 0 102822 669620 2064590 4711640 4955296 4061670 1797110 1162758 787379 128118 20469448

TOO COOL (DegHrs) 2914346 2771012 3291424 1614724 0 0 0 0 172287 217862 102759 1563849 12648264

TOTAL(DegHrs) 2942792 2771012 3394247 2284344 2064590 4711640 4955296 4061670 1969397 1380620 890137 1691966 33117712

Fig.73 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.

Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C

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

83

account of re-test

Member 3: Write an account of the group discussion following the re-testing, including group conclusions about both the design outcome and the entire collaborative process. Collaborative Process There has been a myriad of benefits due to undertaking this report. Whenever a member of team BEK had an issue with any aspect of the report, we all collaborated and managed to find 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 working skills. The benefit for our report is it reads as a complete document not simply as individual sections.

final team conclusion

Design Outcomes Our main aim as a group was to improve the functionality of the building and environmental sustainability by decreasing the amount of heating and cooling loads, energy and fuel use and implementing better access and egress systems for emergency and fire exits as these were not initially implemented. There was a range of results in regard to the success of changes to the BIM. Some initial issues were easily amended such as the access and egress systems and the energy and fuel loads. On the other hand, some issues were deemed not to be as successful such as the aim to decrease the heating and cooling loads overall (this was only successful in the apartment zones after the re-design but not the wine bar and bathroom areas). Henceforth, to achieve an optimum design solution in terms of our individual aims (environmental sustainability, ease of access and egress and decrease energy and fuel loads) then the process will continue if it were to be actually constructed in terms of collaborating to pinpoint results that failed, re-design and re-analyse.

85