Green Dorm Multidisciplinary Analysis GREEN DORM Multidisciplinary Analysis Nthando Thandiwe Songya Kesler Mikal Brewer SangWoo Cho Ato Ulzenap

Green Dorm

Multidisciplinary Analysis

GREEN DORMMultidisciplinary Analysis

Nthando ThandiweSongya Kesler

Mikal BrewerSangWoo Cho

Ato Ulzenap

Green Dorm


Project BackgroundThrough multidisciplinary analysis: Steel or Wood?(1) Steel + Prefab. steel framing

(2) On-site standard wood construction + platform framing, 24” on-center

Once selected, one-step further with

“Real-time 4D-based Progress Management for Schedule Reliability Analysis”

Green Dorm


Weighted Preference (Steel vs. Wood)

Goals Weight

Environmental Performance

Low/no carbon 15

Low embodied energy 10

Day lighting 10

Economic Sustainability

First cost 10

Lifecycle cost 15

Completion date 15

Reduced earthquake losses ($) 10

Living Laboratory Research on structural performance technology 15

Sum = 100

Green Dorm


Metrics (Steel vs. Wood)Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Steel Low/No Carbon

267+ TonnesSteel 229-266 Tonnes

191-228 TonnesBaseline, 190 Tonnes

189-114 Tonnes 95-115 Tonnes 0-94 Tonnes

Wood Low/No Carbon

22+ Tonnes 19.7-21 Tonnes 15-19.6 TonnesBaseline, 14 Tonnes

8.4-13 Tonnes 7-8.3 Tonnes 0-6 Tonnes

Wood Low Embodied

Energy370+ GJ 245-369 GJ 247-344 GJ Baseline, 246 GJ 245-147 GJ 146-123 GJ 0-122 GJ

Steel Low Embodied

Energy5.5+ TJ 5.05-5.4 TJ 3.7- 5.04 TJ

Baseline, 3.6 Terra Joules

3.15-2.16 TJ 2.15-0.65 TJ 0-0.64 TJ

Dayligting

15%<x<25% of the total area to be over 25 fc

25%<x<35% 35%<x<45% 45%<x<55% 55%<x<65% 65%<x<75%>75% of the total area to be over 25 fc

First Cost >$27 million $26-27 million $25-26 million $24-25 million $23-24 million $22-23 million < $22 million

Lifecycle Cost

>$250 K $225-250 K $200-225 K $175-200 K $150-175 K $125-150 K <$125 K

Completion Date

> 3.5 years 3-3.5 years 2.5-3 years2 years from construction start

1.5-2 years 1-1.5 year < 1 year

Reduced Earthquake Losses ($)

> 50% of initial cost in damages.

50% > x > 25% 25% > x > 15% 15% > x > 10% 10% > x > 5% 5% > x > 1%< 1% of initial cost in damages.

Research on Structural

Performance

Technology

Cannot think of any reason why the building should be used for research.

Little research could be done that has not already been explored.

Several test studies could be carried out.

Many test studies may be carried-out.

Excellent research potential both pre and post construction.

Green Dorm


Structural ComparisonSteel or Wood?(1) Steel + Prefab. steel framing

(2) On-site standard wood construction + platform framing, 24” on-center

Green Dorm


Steel Modeling In Revit Structure Based on Preliminary Steel Framing Drawings

Green Dorm


Wood Modeling: Updated

Green Dorm


Steel vs. Wood Structure Analysis For Structural Framing,

– Steel needs 25 different types (total 172 pieces, 4,351’ in length)– Wood needs 6 different types (total 5,540’ in length)

• 8 x 6 timber, 9 x 7 timber, 12 x 5 gluelam, etc For Structural Column,

– Steel needs 7 different types (total 27 pieces, 987’ in length)– Wood needs 7 different types (total 3270’ in length)

Green Dorm


Wood Structure AnalysisPlatform Framing:

Light-Framing Construction: Small Apartment

Green Dorm


Wood Structure Analysis

Roof and Floor Format

Components

-2x10 joists

-5/8” T&G plywood Und.

-3/8” Plywood

Figure M16.1-10: One-Hour Fire-Resistive Wood Floor/Ceiling Assembly2x10 Wood Joists 16” o.c. – Gypsum Directly Applied or on Optional Resilient Channels

Green Dorm


Wood Structure Analysis: Quantity Takeoffs

Green Dorm


Wood Structure Analysis: Calculations

Green Dorm


Energy Analysis: Consumption Analysis in eQuest

Energy Assumptions

•Building is used primarily during the school year

•Major changes limited to framing

Required Specifications

•Building Size (Basic Building Envelope)

•Location

•Material Quantities (Steel and Wood)

Green Dorm


Environmental Performance: Analysis

Created baseline Steel models in Athena, eQuest, and BEES

Embodied Energy from steel ~9.05MJ/kg

Embodied Energy from wood ~11.85MJ/kg

• *Values Included Feedstock Energy

Created baseline models of yearly energy consumption for wood and steel as well

Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10)Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10)

Green Dorm



Based on steel embodied energy and Carbon Dioxide emissions, computed quantities for wood frame building

Baseline ModelsSteel Model Embodied Energy ~ 3.6 TJWood Model Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ

Optimized ModelsSteel Embodied Energy ~ 2.8 TJWood Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ

Green Dorm


Environmental Performance: Analysis

Wood Low Embodied

Energy370+ GJ 245-369 GJ 247-344 GJ

Baseline, 246 GJ

245-147 GJ 146-123 GJ 0-122 GJ

Steel Low Embodied

Energy5.5+ TJ 5.05-5.4 TJ 3.7- 5.04 TJ

Baseline, 3.6 Terra Joules

3.15-2.16 TJ 2.15-0.65 TJ 0-0.64 TJ

Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10)Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10)

Optimized ModelSteel Embodied Energy ~ 2.8 TJWood Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Steel Score = 1

Wood Score = 0

Green Dorm


Environmental PerformanceLow/No Carbon (Wt = 15)Low/No Carbon (Wt = 15)

Baseline ModelsSteel CO2 Emissions ~ 190 TonnesWood CO2 Emissions ~ 14 Tonnes

Optimized ModelsSteel CO2 Emissions ~150 TonnesWood CO2 Emissions ~14 Tonnes %21 CO2 Reduction in Steel

Green Dorm



Steel Low/No Carbon

267+ TonnesSteel 229-266

Tonnes191-228 Tonnes

Baseline, 190 Tonnes

189-114 Tonnes 95-115 Tonnes 0-94 Tonnes

Wood Low/No Carbon

22+ Tonnes 19.7-21 Tonnes 15-19.6 TonnesBaseline, 14

Tonnes8.4-13 Tonnes 7-8.3 Tonnes 0-6 Tonnes

Low/No Carbon (Wt = 15)Low/No Carbon (Wt = 15)

Optimized ModelSteel CO2 Emissions ~150 TonnesWood CO2 Emissions ~14 Tonnes

Steel Score = 1

Wood Score = 0

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Green Dorm


Let’s Go “GREENGREEN”Until we can get this 10 point by passing LEED NC2.2 Credit 8.1,Let’s improve our architectural design. We can reduce the lighting power density & energy consumptions

Environmental PerformanceDaylighting (Wt = 10)Daylighting (Wt = 10)

Goals Weight


Low/no carbon 15

Low embodied energy 10

Daylighting 10


First cost 10

Lifecycle cost 15

Completion date 15

Reduced earthquake losses ($) 10

Living Laboratory Research on structural performance technology 15

Sum = 100

Green Dorm


Assumptions1) For daylight analysis in IES, there is no difference between steel and

wood structure. Same score on steel and wood options

2) Information inputs:

- Room boundary, ceiling heights, window sizes, & glazing type

3) If we enlarge window size, there should be an increase in HVAC loads, which will, in turn, result in increase of energy consumption.

ProcessLet’s do daylight analysis for original design.

Then, let’s improve design for better daylight.


Green Dorm


1. Original Design

Define specifications- Bldg Type: Dormitory

- Bldg System: VAV Single Duct

- Location: Mountain View, CA

- Window: Slider with Trim 6’x8’

- Glazing: Large Single Glazing (U=0.9795)

- Room Boundary (at wall center)

- Ceiling Height: 12ft


Green Dorm



Building Specification Settings (Original)

Green Dorm



Window/Glazing Specification Settings (Original)

Green Dorm



Analysis Settings (Original)

Green Dorm


LEED NC 2.2 Credit 8.1

Roomname

FloorArea

AreaAbove

thresholdPercentage

Total 12,480 5,956 47.7%

LEED NC 2.2 EQ Credit 8.1 daylight and views: FAILA pass requires 75% or more of the total area to be over the

threshold, 25fc.

Daylight Analysis of Original Design


Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Dayligting


25%<x<35% 35%<x<45% 45%<x<55% 55%<x<65% 65%<x<75% >75%

Score “0”Let’s Improve the Design for Better Daylighting!

Green Dorm


2. Improved Design

Define specifications- Bldg Type: Dormitory

- Bldg System: VAV Single Duct

- Location: Mountain View, CA

- Window: Slider with Trim 7’x9’- Glazing: Large Single Glazing

(U=0.9795)

- Room Boundary (at wall center)

- Ceiling Height: 11ft


Green Dorm


LEED NC 2.2 Credit 8.1

Roomname

FloorArea

AreaAbove

thresholdPercentage

Total 12,480 10,939 87.7%

LEED NC 2.2 EQ Credit 8.1 daylight and views: PASSA pass requires 75% or more of the total area to be over the

threshold, 25fc.

Daylight Analysis of Improved Design


Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Dayligting


25%<x<35% 35%<x<45% 45%<x<55% 55%<x<65% 65%<x<75% >75%

Now, Score “3”We Improved the Design for Better Daylighting! Less lighting power density & energy consumptions!

Green Dorm



Pros– Friendly interface

• Layers, Groups, Templates• More control on parameters, Detailed

– Powerful• First principle calculations• Allows for accurate simulation of custom thermal systems

Cons– Not fully compliant with Revit, our primary modeling tool

• gbXML export not foolproof• dxf does not transfer model information• Temporary Solution: Model in IES, better approach for complex models

– Does not communicate with other modeling software (Tekla, SketchUp, etc)

Future Direction– Calibrate the model using detailed operations data– Advanced training with IES

What I Learned in IES…?

Green Dorm


Economic SustainabilityFirst Cost (Wt = 10)First Cost (Wt = 10)

Score -2 for Steel Score -1 for Wood

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

First Cost >$7 million $6.5-7 million $6-6.5 million $5.5-6 million $5-5.5 million $4.5-5 million < $4.5 million

Green Dorm


Economic SustainabilityLifecycle Cost (Wt = 15)Lifecycle Cost (Wt = 15)

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Lifecycle Cost >$250 K $225-250 K $200-225 K $175-200 K $150-175 K $125-150 K <$125 K

Score 0 for Wood Score 1 for Steel

Green Dorm


First Cost – Structure (Steel)

Green Dorm


First Cost – Uniformat (Steel)

Green Dorm


First Cost - MasterFormat

Green Dorm


Life Cycle Cost - Steel

Green Dorm


Cost – Steel vs Wood

First Cost– Wood has lower first cost– Steel had a metric of -1 for First

Cost, etc– Wood had a metric of 0 for First

Cost, etc Life Cycle Cost

– Wood has lower life cycle cost

Results/Reports

Green Dorm



Accuracy: To Be Field-Verified– Schedule modeled after existing

schedules– Steel more accurate than wood– 4-D & Real-time Progress Management

helps validate the schedules

Completion Date (Wt = 15)Completion Date (Wt = 15)

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Completion Date > 3.5 years 3-3.5 years 2.5-3 years 2 years from construction start 1.5-2 years 1-1.5 year < 1 year

Green Dorm


More Steel vs. Wood Schedule Assumptions Both steel and wood model roughly the same pre-construction

schedule except that steel takes a little longer due to the 7-month prefabrication process

Steel frame is prefabricated while wood frame is constructed on-site The 4-D focuses on the construction process, ignoring the pre-

construction

Economic SustainabilityCompletion Date (Wt = 15)Completion Date (Wt = 15)

Green Dorm


Steel Schedule

Although the project begins on 4/28/08, construction does not begin until 1/14/09

This results in a total construction period of 1.25 yrs.

This corresponds with a metric value of 2 (1.0-1.5 yr constr.).


Green Dorm


Steel 4-D


Green Dorm


Although the project begins on 4/28/08, construction does not begin until 1/05/09 (earlier than steel)

Total construction period of 1.75 yrs. This corresponds with a metric value

of 1 (1.5-2.0 yr constr.).

Wood Schedule


Green Dorm


Wood 4-D


Green Dorm


Economic SustainabilityReduced Earthquake Losses (Wt = 10)Reduced Earthquake Losses (Wt = 10)

Score -3 for Wood Score 2 for Steel

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Reduced Earthquake Losses ($)

> 50% of initial cost in damages.

50%>x>25% 25%>x>15% 15%>x>10% 10%>x>5% 5%>x>1%< 1% of initial cost in damages.

Green Dorm


Living Laboratory

Accuracy: Very Accurate– Conducted interviews with the professors who have

been/will be conducting the research– Interview with Prof. Dierelein & Prof. Miranda

Research On Structural Performance Technology Research On Structural Performance Technology (Wt = 15)(Wt = 15)

Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3


Performance Technology





The building demonstrates excellent research potential both pre and post construction.

Green Dorm


Living Laboratory

Areas of Research– Explores likelihood of an earthquake in X-yrs– Predict the structural performance of different

systems– Investigate the benefits of performance-based

seismic design in green building design– Estimate earthquake losses– Utilize sensor for on-going structural monitoring


Green Dorm


Living Laboratory

Steel = 3– Focus specifically on potential benefits of steel-frame

alternatives to conventional wood shear wall construction Wood = 0

– Much has already been explored, leaving little room for cutting-edge research


Goal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3


Performance Technology





The building demonstrates excellent research potential both pre and post construction.

Score 0 for Wood Score 3 for Steel

Green Dorm


Money Slide (weighted)

Weighted MACDADI

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40Low/no carbon

Low embodied energy

Day Lighting

First costLifecycle cost

Completion date

Reduced earthquake losses ($)

Optimized Wood Frame

Steel Rocking Frame

Green Dorm


Stakeholder Groups:– Students– CEE Faculty– Designers– Campus Planning– Campus Housing

Data taken from “Questionnaire for Stakeholders” under previous Green Dorm Structural Decision MACDADI analysis

Stakeholders

BackgroundBackgroundGoals Students

CEE Faculty Designers

Campus Planning

Campus Housing Average

Research on sensing and monitoring systems 8.97 8.85 9.36 9.22 2.21 7.72

Research on building structure 7.97 8.35 7.07 6.89 1.71 6.40

Research on building materials 7.97 8.85 7.07 8.22 2.21 6.87

Research on design and construction process 8.31 7.60 6.79 6.89 1.71 6.26

Low/no carbon 9.64 10.35 2.95 11.22 10.83 9.00

Low embodied energy 8.64 7.60 2.02 9.89 7.83 7.20

Material efficiency and sustainable sourcing 8.64 8.60 2.05 7.89 8.83 7.20

Design for daylighting 8.64 7.35 7.50 8.22 5.83 7.51

First cost 1.74 3.43 2.41 8.22 5.13 4.19

Lifecycle cost 2.08 5.68 2.45 11.56 8.88 6.13

Completion date 1.91 2.93 1.59 6.22 5.13 3.55

Reduced earthquake losses ($) 2.08 4.18 2.09 5.56 7.38 4.25

TOTAL 76.58 83.79 53.34 100.00 67.67 76.28

Green Dorm


StakeholdersCombined MACDADICombined MACDADI

Combined MACDADI Value Stakeholder Group Average

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

Research on sensing and monitoringsystems

Research on building structure

Research on building materials

Research on design and constructionprocess

Low/no carbon*

Low embodied energy Design for daylighting

First cost

Lifecycle cost

Completion date

Reduced earthquake losses ($)


Steel Rocking Frame

Green Dorm


StakeholdersCombined MACDADICombined MACDADI

Value of Design Options for Stakeholder Average

9.13

133.84

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Average

Design Options

Re

lati

ve

Va

lue

Optimized Wood FrameSteel Rocking Frame

Value of Design Options for Students

19.85

150.42

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Students

Design Options

Rel

ativ

e V

alu

e


Steel Rocking Frame

Value of Design Options for CEE Faculty

9.03

154.05

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

CEE Faculty

Design Options

Rel

ativ

e V

alu

e


Steel Rocking Frame

Green Dorm


Final Decision . . .

Steel!!Steel!! Next step: “Real-time 4D-based Progress

Management for Schedule Reliability

Analysis”

Green Dorm


Why Included…?- Can We VALIDATE Our Push-Driven Steel Schedule?

- Push-driven schedule: from upstream (GC) to downstream (field)- We tested other analysis (e.g. Daylight in IES, Structure in MaxBeam)- Reliability improvement: As-Planned vs. As-Built Schedules

We scored a metric value of “2” on Completion Date (1.25 yrs)

Is this really RELIABLE?

Let’s test its reliability!

Real Time 4D-based Progress Management for Schedule Reliability Analysis

Green Dorm


How..?1) We can Test Schedule Reliability thru as-planned vs. as-built schedules

2) We can Improve Schedule Reliability thru real-time progress visualization

3) We can Improve Schedule Reliability thru real-time communication

Preparations- 3D model, RFID tags & scanners, table-PCs, hosting server, GUID settings

Manufactured Shipped Received Erected

As-Planned Quantity Complete

As-Built Quantity Complete

Internet

Internet


Green Dorm


Assumptions1) Status is scanned thru RFID on a real-time basis.

2) Steel prefabrication includes columns, girders, and beams.

3) Seismic bracing, stud bracing, and misc. steels are on-site fabricated.

4) 1-on-1 mapping exists between schedule activities and 3D objects.

5) Schedule transition is made from WBS-oriented schedule to PBS-oriented schedule.

Information Needed1) Sequence observation


Green Dorm


Prefab.

Attach tags Scan tags

Shipping Receiving Installing

Scan tags Scan tagsRFID

BIM


Process Diagram

Internet

InternetReal-Time

Communication

Green Dorm


Green Dorm


How to Transform Results into MACDADI


Original Scores -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Completion Date > 3.5 years3-3.5 years

2.5-3 years

2 years from constr. start

1.5-2 years 1-1.5 year < 1 year

We scored a metric value of “2” on Completion Date (1.25 yrs)

Is this really RELIABLE?

Adjusted Scores 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

Variance 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Variance = (% of As-Planned - % of As-Built)Ex) As-Planned on the 13th week: Complete 200 LF (100%) Steel Framing Installation

However, As-Built on the week: Completed 180 LF (90%) Steel Framing Installation

Variance = 10%

Green Dorm


What I Learned..?


Real-time Communication– Machine-to-Machine interface

– Real-time info sharing / communication through RFID+BIM

– Real-time status tracking

Schedule Reliability– Quantity-based PPC vs. Duration-based Schedule

– Reliable look-ahead schedule development

Future Direction– Links to ERP systems (cost-progress report generating)

– Increase reliability through sub’s upfront involvement

Green Dorm


Thanks!

Any Question?

Documents

Green Dorm Multidisciplinary Analysis GREEN DORM Multidisciplinary Analysis Nthando Thandiwe Songya Kesler Mikal Brewer SangWoo Cho Ato Ulzenap