Y2E2 iRoom Analysis Final Presentation

Y2E2 iRoom AnalysisFinal Presentation

Gabe DietzMichael Ozowara

Brian RossDiane Santos

Colin VanLang

Story - Materials

Glass Polycarbonate Drywall

Story - Project Description

Choosing Wall Material for iRoom Options

1. As built

2. Additional proposed changes (sliding glass doors, replace some polycarbonate with glass)

3. All glass MACDADI Analysis

Story - Project Models

Energy (eQUEST) Acoustics (Ecotect) Egress (Simulex) Schedule/Cost/4D Model (Building Explorer) Daylight (DaySim)

Project Narrative

Energy (eQUEST) Analysis

Overview Analyze:

As Built Proposed design All glass

Outputs Total Energy Usage (mainly Electricity Usage)

Goals Overarching goals:

minimize life-cycle cost Low operation energy

Translates into: avoid excessive increase in electricity usage compared to As Built option

Critical Assumptions Window glazing

Chose window material based on Visible Light Transmittance Estimated amount of outside light coming through CIFE Offices

and Conference Room Geometry

Excluded walls in rooms adjacent to IRoom (see lines and areas in red on diagram on the right)

HVAC Simplified source of chilled water and hot water in eQUEST, modeled sources as single chiller and boiler

respectively Wall material

For internal walls and West exterior, used data from Arup’s Y2E2 model

For other eQUEST exterior walls on N, E, S sidesdefined wall material with U-value=0.001 (lowest possible in eQUEST)

Hours of use Fall, Winter, Spring Quarters: 9AM – 6PM Summer Quarter: 10AM – 4PM

Lighting Density From Arup’s model 1.5kWh/ft2 for IRoom (As Built) Used Colin’s results to reduce density to 63% and 83% of As

Built for Proposed and All Glass options respectively

IRoom

CIF

E S

tudent Offices

Offices and ConferenceRoom

Storage

N

S

W E

As Built

Notice missing walls

Proposed

New Sliding DoorAll glass changed to clear glass

All Glass – Original Design

All glass is clear glass

As Built eQUEST Output

Annual Energy Usage

*Ignore Natural Gas usage, since IRoom HVAC has no heating component

Proposed eQUEST Output

Annual Energy Usage

Cooling increased, but Area Lighting decreased (very minor differences)

All Glass eQUEST Output

Annual Energy Usage

No difference in Cooling between All Glass and ProposedArea Lighting decreased (again, very minor differences)

Annual Energy Usage Comparison

C ooling L ig hting T otal E lec tric ity

As B uilt 12479 15590 73718 0.00%P ropos ed 12245 14479 72367 1.83%All C lear Glas s 11963 13142 70742 4.04%

kW hS av ing s

Very minor differences General trends

Less cooling energy needed with greater clear-glass window area – only occupied during the day, so greater clear-glass window area means more sunlight in the space

Less lighting energy needed with greater clear-glass window area – greater window area means more daylighting

Interesting note: percent of total electricity usage for cooling load increased from As Built to Proposed and from As Built to All Glass

Energy Analysis MACDADI Rating

MACDADI Metrics

Total Energy Savings Compared with As Built MACDADI Rating

Energy Savings ≥ 15% 3

10% ≤ Energy Savings <15%2

5% ≤ Energy Savings < 10%1

Same as As Built option or within ± 5%0

5% ≤ Energy Use < 10% of As Built-1

10% ≤ Energy Use < 15% of As Built-2

Energy Use ≥ 15% of As Built-3

Energy Analysis MACDADI Results

O ption T otal E lectricity S avings C ompared to As B uilt

T otal Natural G as S avings C ompared to As B uilt

MAC DADI R ating

0

0

0

As B uilt

P roposed

All G lass

0%

1.8%

4.0%

0%

-0.2%

-0.5%

Energy will not have a large impact. Confidence in Results

Accuracy of information transfer: N/A – I had to generate all my models in eQUEST and could only import 2D drawings

Final Results: 60% Many assumptions, had to make estimates, especially with window

material Simplified geometry and HVAC system However, I did try changing the window material to ones with similar

Visible Transmittance but different SHGC’s and other properties

Energy: Time Spent on Each Step

Step Hours SpentAdjust dwg drawings 1

Import dwg files to eQUEST .2

Take pictures of IRoom and surroundings .25

Generate Inputs for models(includes research and looking at Y2E2 Arup model)

8

Create 3D models in eQUEST of all options(includes debugging errors)

25

Perform energy analysis 3

Determine MACDADI Metrics 1

Generate MACDADI Values 1

Produce presentable data(includes work on Narrative and PPT)

3

* Time spent on each step includes time spent fixing errors

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis

Overview•Analysis of three options to determine which performs best acoustically

•As built (with and without partition wall)•All glass•Proposed design

•Outputs drive which model performs the best•Acoustic response•Reverberation times•Ray tracing

Goals•Reasonable quality of sound within the iroom (goals from CEE 321)

•Support group lectures•Smaller discussions•Remote collaboration

•Distributed range of frequencies•Music range (1000 to 10,000 Hz)•Voice range (10 to 100 Hz)

•Reverberation does not distort sound


Metrics•Acoustic response – reasonable range of decay times •Reverberation times – decay of approximately one second•Ray tracing and lines of reflection


Inputs•Imported models from Revit (.dxf files)•Room materials

•Doors: sliding glass door, wood, glass•Floor: concrete slab on ground•Wall materials: drywall, glass, plastic (polycarbonate)•Ceiling: metal deck, drywall, modeled with delay properties

•Space volume: 441 m3

•Auditorium seating•Seating type: hard backed


Assumptions Sensitivity to AssumptionsRoom materials

Wall materials: plastic polycarbonateCeiling: metal deck, drywall, modeled with delay properties

Auditorium seatingSeating quantity: 40 peoplePercent occupied: between 25% and 75%

Speaker placementAlgorithm type

SabineNorris-EyringMillington-Sette

Relatively lowRelatively low

Relatively low

Relatively lowRelatively lowRelatively low

MediumPotentially medium


Model Options


Acoustic Response and Ray Tracing


Reverberation


MACDADI Information

Reverberation Time MACDADI Rating

Between 0.8 seconds and 1.0 seconds 3

Between 0.7 seconds and 0.8 seconds; OR2

Between 1.0 seconds and 1.1 seconds





Between 0.4 seconds and 0.5 seconds; OR-1


Between 0.3 seconds and 0.4 seconds; OR-2


Less than 0.3 seconds; OR-3

Greater than 1.5 seconds

Option Reverberation Time (50th Percentile) Standard Deviation MACDADI Rating

As Built 1.34 s 0.806 s -1

Proposed 1.28 s 0.601 s -1

Partition 1.12 s 0.205 s 1

All Glass 0.85 s 0.165 s 2

Time Spent on Each Step

Step Hours SpentGenerate 3D Models 1

Export 3D Revit Models to .dxf File 5

Generate Acoustic Design Input 16 (including tutorials)

Input Damping Material and Design Input 7

Run Acoustic Analysis (baseline, three options, partition wall)

17 (including tutorials)

Receive and Analyze Reverberation Times, Acoustic Response, and Ray Tracing Data

18 (including tutorials)


Egress Analysis

iRoom Goals Collaboration

Support Large Group Discussions Support large group receptions

Sponsorship and Community Comfortable Working Environment

Safety Egress

Egress (IES) Analysis

Overview Simulex Program in IES Analysis of 3 configurations for iRoom Utilize all 3 exits

Output Physical playback of egress Text file with data reports for simulations

Goal Minimize time needed to safely exit

Egress AnalysisClassroom Collaboration, Sponsorship and

communityMACDADI Rating

Reconfigurable, open space, large tables, movable chairs 3

Good2

Ok1

Fair, Typical classroom0

Poor-1

Bad-2

Rigid Structures, cramp feeling, small tables and chairs, distracting

-3

Option Egress Analysis (Time)

MACDADI Rating

Model 1: Typical Configuration

15.6 Seconds 2

Model 2: Rectangle Set Up

11.9 Seconds 1

Model 3: Lecture Set Up

17.4 Seconds 0

Egress Analysis: 3 Configurations

iRoom

Configuration 1

StudentsIn iRoom

All 4 Exits Defined

Total Time: 15.6 sec

Configuration 2

Students SeatedAt desks

Teachers UpFront


Configuration 3

Students Seated In Chairs Teachers Up

Front


Configuration 1

Egress In Progress

Results

Configuration 1 Typical iRoom Set Up

Highest MACDADI Rating

Difference in egress time is negligible

Majority of simulation uses least noticeable exit

Time Spent on Each Step

Step Hours SpentGenerate 3 Models for iRoom in Revit Architecture

5

Edit 3 Models in Architectural Desktop 5

Run Egress Analysis in IES Simulex 20

Developing Narrative 5


Installing Software 3

Cost/Schedule/4D Model Analysis

Overview Analysis of 3 options to determine cost,

schedule, and constructability Cost will be a key (usually primary)

consideration. Small scope of project means that schedule is

not as important Constructability not a major issue because of

the simplicity of the project.


Key Metrics Cost

Lump sum cost in USD of each option relative to 3rd party estimate

Hard number calculated by software based on user input

Schedule Total Duration in Days of each option relative to

estimate based on experience Hard number calculated by software based on user

input


Inputs & Assumptions Revit components are not custom Matching RS Means assemblies to Revit

components is an art Geographic cost adjustment RS Means costs are implicit about scope &

methodology Schedule is intuitive; based on experience

Building Explorer Interface

Assigning Costs

Cost Report

Schedule Input

Schedule Output

4D Model


MACDADI InfoCost Rating

< 45K 3

45K – 55K 2

55K – 65K 1

65k – 75K 0

75K – 85K -1

85K – 95K -2

> 95K -3

Schedule Rating

< 3 Days 3

3 Days 2

4 Days 1

5 Days 0

6 days -1

7 Days -2

> 7 Days -3

Option Cost Schedule Average/MACDADI Rating

Baseline 3 3 3

New Proposed 0 0 0

Glass -1 -2 -1.5

Baseline: 3 (<3 Days)

Glass: -2 (7 Days)

New Proposed: 0 (5 Days)

Baseline: 3 (0K)

Glass: -1 (78K)

New Proposed: 0 (68K)

Building Explorer Analysis

StepHours

Spent

Loading Programs (Revit, BE) 25

Making Revit Models 10

Learning BE 5

Cost & Schedule Analysis with BE 15

Organizing Results (Generating MACDADI Results) 10

Developing Narrative 5

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis

Why daylight? More energy-friendly Increase productivity More friendly space

Overview Analysis of how different options would

affect kWh/sf and brightness levels at different points in the room


Goals Minimize kWh/sf Maximize general brightness of room throughout the

space However, not too bright to avoid glare

Metrics kWh/sf: Electric lighting use

Amount of energy needed to light a square foot of the room at 50 lux

Daylight Factor: ratio of indoor illuminance to outdoor luminance

Measure for glare Luxh: Annual light exposure

Measure for brightness level


Input and Assumptions Use time: 9AM – 5PM

Typical class time Minimum Illuminance Level: 50 lux

Default was 500 lux Lighting Control: Combination switch-off

occupancy & dimming system Default was manual on/off switch

Site location: Sunnyvale (37.42 N/122.05 E) Modeled section of Y2E2 Building (for

simplicity)


Glass option Baseline and “New Proposed” model

Rest of the model

Plug for iRoom

Atrium

Glass wall


Coordinate System for DaySim sensors


Results Lighting use

Baseline: 2.4 kWh/sf New Proposed: 2.0 kWh/sf (83.3% of baseline) Glass: 1.5 kWh/sf (62.5% of baseline)

Daylight Factor 0.1% max for any scheme in any location

>5% for electric lighting to not be used normally >2% for electric lighting to always be used However, need for no glare


Baseline New Proposed Glass


Baseline New Proposed


Light Energy Use Rating

< 50% 3

50% - 75% 2

75% - 100% 1

Baseline value (100%) 0

100% - 125% -1

125% - 150% -2

> 150% -3

General Brightness Rating

(Points with > 10,000 luxh)/(Total points)

< 75% 3

50% - 75% 2

25% - 50% 1

0% - 25% 0

0% -1

--- -2

--- -3

Baseline: 0 (100%)

Glass: 2 (62.5%)

New Proposed: 1 (83.3%)

Baseline: 0 (22%)

Glass: 3 (100%)

New Proposed: 1 (47.2%)

Option Energy Rating Brightness Rating Average/MACDADI Rating

Baseline 0 0 0

New Proposed 1 1 1

Glass 2 3 2.5 --> 3


StepHours

Spent

Loading Programs (Revit, 3ds) 15

Making Models 4

Creating sensor files (finding coordinates) 30

Running Daylight Analyses 5

Organizing Results (Generating MACDADI Results) 10

Compatability between programs (Importing and Exporting) 5

MACDADI Analysis

GoalsPreference

Value

Cost 20.0

Schedule 7.0

Egress 5.0

Energy 20.0

Lighting 20.0

Acoustics 8.0

Classroom Learning 10.0

Research Environment 10.0

TOTAL 100

MACDADI Analysis

CostSchedul

eEgress Energy

Lighting

AcousticsClassroom

Learning

Research Environmen

t

Design Option

All Glass -1 -2 0 0 3 2 2 2

As Built 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Proposed Changes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

C ombined MAC DADI Analys is

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3C ost

S chedule

E gress

E nergy

L ighting

Acoustics

C lassroom L earning

R esearch E nvironment

All G las s

As B uilt

Propos edC hanges

MACDADI Analysis

Comparative

AnalysisOverall Value

Design Option

All Glass 82

As Built 81

Proposed Changes 40

Overall Value

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Rel

ative

Val

ue

All G lass

As B uilt

P roposed C hanges

Documents

Y2E2 iRoom Analysis Final Presentation