1 / 16

Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential

Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential. Forest Flager , John Basbagill , Michael Lepech , and Martin Fischer. ECPPM 2012. 2 of 15. Outline. Motivation. 1. Scope. 2. Method. 3. Case Study. 4. Results. 5. Conclusions. 6.

tamira
Download Presentation

Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential Forest Flager, John Basbagill, Michael Lepech, and Martin Fischer ECPPM 2012

  2. 2 of 15 Outline Motivation 1 Scope 2 Method 3 Case Study 4 Results 5 Conclusions 6 Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  3. 3 of 15 Motivation 1 1 2 Ability to impact cost 1 Cost of design changes 2 Impact 4 Traditional design process 3 3 Preferred design process 4 Construction Administration Operation Design Development Conceptual Design Design Stage Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  4. 4 of 15 Motivation 1 Challenges with integrating LCC and LCA during conceptual building design: perception: LCC and LCA require highly detailed understanding of building components CAD tools lack interoperability with analysis tools energy simulation tools designed for post-design process buildings are unique Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  5. 5 of 15 Scope: Life-Cycle Cost and Carbon Footprint 2 Transportation Building Raw material acquisition On - site material Demolition Operation construction production Maintenance, Repair, & Replacement Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  6. 6 of 15 Method: Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization 3 Pre-operational CO2e Energy simulation Operational CO2e Life-cycle CO2e Building information model Optimizer Pre-operational cost MRR schedule Operational cost Life-cycle cost KEY DProfiler CostLab Automated data translation SimaPro Excel eQUEST ModelCenter Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  7. 7 of 15 Case Study: Research Collaboration 4 Beck Technology Innovation in all Dimensions

  8. Case Study: US Government Building, Atlanta Area 4

  9. 9 of 15 Design Problem 4 Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  10. 10 of 15 Design Problem: Assumptions 4 7 stories 23,000 m2 Service life: 30 years Floor-to-floor height: 5.0 m Floor plates: slab on metal deck supported by steel frame Mechanical system: VAV forced air cooling: direct expansion coils heating: central furnace Electricity: Cost: $0.10/kWh Impact: 0.737 kg CO2e/kWh Natural gas: Cost: $0.015/kWh Impact: 0.173 kg CO2e/kBtu Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  11. 11 of 15 5 Results: Life Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint Life-cycle Cost (USD, millions) 80 75 KEY 70 Baseline Lowest Cost Carbon Footprint (kt CO2e) 65 Lowest Carbon Preference Shading 60 Best Worst Best 55 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  12. 12 of 15 Results: Optimal Design Configurations 5 3% - 15% - Lowest Carbon objective orientation 0° +6.7° Baseline Lowest Cost +6.6° +7.1° KEY escalation + N orientation 36% 68% 30% 39% S spandrel facade glazing % VNE 1-63 30% 59% 30% 39% VNE 13-63 E VS 1-08 30% 68% 31% 39% Solarban 70 XL W cladding type 30% 55% 30% 39% Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  13. 13 of 15 Results: Cost Savings 5 - - $2,000K +$1,729K KEY $1,500K MEP Capital + MRR Cladding Capital Operational Energy +$839K $1,000K +$624K COST SAVINGS (NPV, USD) $500K -$500K *Baseline CO2e NPV NPV objective escalation 3% 15% orientation +7.1° +6.6° +6.7° 0° *Baseline cost: $16.6 M Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  14. 14 of 15 Results: Carbon Reduction 5 - - 5,000 +4,300 +4,191 4,000 KEY 3,000 MEP Embodied Energy Cladding Embodied Energy Operational Energy 2,000 1,000 CARBON REDUCTION (ton CO2e) -1,000 -1,063 -2,000 -3,000 *Baseline CO2e NPV NPV objective escalation 3% 15% orientation +7.1° +6.6° +6.7° 0° *Baseline carbon impact: 60,900 tons CO2e Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  15. 15 of 15 Conclusions 6 Proposed MDO method improves conceptual building design $800K cost reduction (5.1% < base design) 4,300 kt CO2e carbon savings (7.1% < base design) 20% of designs improved both cost and carbon impact Limitations Building components: envelope and MEP systems structural and interior components, foundation Life cycle: upstream phases, operation, MRR construction, transportation, demolition Parameters: façade, glazing, orientation massing: building shape, # floors structural system Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

  16. Questions? Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012

More Related