B E K

Building Model Analysis & Design Collaboration

Assignment III

Bridget Allen z3375192

Kainaaz Variava z3352973
Estelle Rose Rehayem z3372905

1
 B E K

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

Vasari Analysis A / Kainaaz Variava 20

t ogether Energy and Fuel Loads Analysis 21

Ecotect Analysis A / Estelle Rose Rehayem

Solar Access Analysis 36

35

e veryone Thermal Analysis 42

Group Discussion Report 50

Team discussion & rationale for design changes 51

a chieves Model Changes Report

Account of changes implemented 55

Individual re-test Report 64

54

m ore

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

3
 B E K

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.
introduction
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

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.

5
 B E K

contributions & analysis of building

Software Used and Analysis Conducted; Chosen model

Member Software Analysis After discussion the chosen model for analysis was Bridgets
model. The reason why we chose this model is that we felt it
1 Bridget Allen 3375192 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 Access and egress analysis had the most to improve upon in terms of re-designing to apply
SMC [Solibri Model Checker] v.8 to standards and environmental analysis. We also felt that the
2 Kainaaz Variava 3352973 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 Energy load analysis construction in this model was the most defined out of the
Autodesk Vasari Beta 2.0 three and thus the better reason to go ahead.
3 Estelle Rose Rehayem 3372905 Autodesk Revit Architecture 2013 Environmental analysis
Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011 Aims
Fig.1
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
As mentioned initially, together, team BEK achieves more. For a complete, detailed and accurate final analysis of a variety of need to be considered and add to the design. So we are aiming
concepts on a structure, you need to be organised, worth methodologically and combine workloads. Hence through this to not completely change the design but more improve on its Methodology
report we have made it clear how significant it is to work methodologically in teams for the most thorough final solutions to a simple yet effective spatial and aesthetic appeal.
problem or design. 1 Selection of BIM and preparation for analysis.
Building class
Team BEK set up a private Facebook group for the ease of transfer of information in between lectures and during the final 2 Individual analysis of the building as defined in
compilation of the team report. We were able to upload files, and have immediate access to information on any computer set Using BCA Volume 1 2009 part A3.2 Classifications, we have figure 1.
up using this page. This is also where we organised and scheduled all our meetings and arrangements. identified that the project falls under the following building
classes: 3 Coming together to identify issues after analysis
and generate a new design and mode changes.
Apartments: Class 1A
4 Changes made to the model.
Being a single dwelling.
5 Individual model re-testing and new reports
Wine Bar: Class 6 generated.

A shop. 6 Group discussions of new issues after re-testing

for anything unresolved.
Rules to be applied
7 Conclusion
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
 B E K

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 re-
read 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
Individual analysis Stairs
Building should have stairs
Reports

Minimum width of stair flights
Head clearance
Existence of railing
solibri Doors
Minimum door dimensions
Clearance of door openings

Other
Escape route analysis
Exits on level no step

9
 B E K

solibri analysis a continued

D1 Provision For Escape D1.4 Exit travel distances

D1.2 Number of exits required (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
(a) All buildings - Every building must have at least one exit from each storey. 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.
No rule-set was created as I simply studied the plan.
I firstly endeavoured to create a rule-set. Solibri reported that all the elements must be classified for the report to be produced.
Ground floor
exit for first floor
apartments

Exit from bar An example of

onto street 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
 B E K

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
 B E K

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 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
It is my findings that the paths of travel are of an acceptable height and width. width. The problem was described as a moderate severity.

15
 B E K

solibri analysis a continued

D1.7 Travel via fire-isolated exits D1.10 Discharge from 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 (a) An exit must not be blocked at the point of discharge and where necessary, suitable barriers must be provided to prevent vehicles
is a public corridor or a sole occupancy unit occupying all of a storey. 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
Exits of apart- (i) the minimum width of the required exit; or
ments do no (ii) 1 m,
open directly whichever is the greater.
onto the stair- (d) The discharge point of alternative exits must be located as far apart as practical.
well
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

Ground exit - all is >1m which is
trees were re- required
moved so there
is a compliant
exit
Exit from ground
floor by resi-
dences opens
directly onto the
stairwell

Fig.11
Fig.12

Fig.10
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
The positioning of the stairwell needs to be re-evaluated so that exiting on ground floor does not violate section D1.7 would be more appropriate to move the carpark to ensure that there is plenty of space incase of an emergency exit.

17
 B E K

solibri analysis a continued

Escape route analysis retest Problems encountered

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.
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
Fig.13
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

19
 B E K

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
 B E K

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 Fig.15
- Glazing
Target Percentage Glazing

Fig.16

23
 B E K

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.
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
B E K
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.
Fig.20
27
 B E K

vasari analysis a continued

Observation

The result from fig. 22 shows a greater

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

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
 B E K

vasari analysis a continued

2.. Result for Multi-family

Observation Observation

From result shown in fig.23, it From fig. 24 again there is a lot of

shows a little above average of electricity demand in the residential
total energy use intensity in multi area. Most of it coming from
residential space. miscellaneous equipments instead of
lighting which includes plug loads,
Like in previous result of the wine computers and others.
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.

Fig.23

Fig.24
31
 B E K

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.

Fig.25
Observation

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

ecotect analysis a
Environmental Analysis a
Environmental Analysis a

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

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
Apartments 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
First floor 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.

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
 B E K

solar access Analysis continued

SUMMER Analysis Results & Design Recommendations

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

solar access Analysis continued

WINTER Analysis Results & Design Recommendations

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 The result shown in fig 31 can be used to change the
is fairly cool as per Wh/m2 in regards to the solar access being absorbed. 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).

Blue highlighting The front of the building resulted in a cool incident solar
cooler fronts towards radiation result on the facade in both seasons which is
back of the building.
Orange highlighting
coherent as the sun is not facing the front facade during
the warmer front. 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
Fig.29 Back of building : Incident Solar Radiation 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 Fig.31 Optimum Orientation for Climate Location Graph
area. 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
Fig.30 Front of building : Incident Solar Radiation according to the BIM.

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
 B E K

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

Introduction Monthly load results:

I also conducted a thermal zone analysis in all the zones throughout the building. I had to initially input the relevant Zone: G8 wine bar bathroom
information (lighting systems, cooling/heating systems, occupancy units) within certain rooms such as bathrooms, kitchen Zone is not air-conditioned.
spaces and bedrooms and this allowed me to generate results allowing me to understand exactly what areas are thermally Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24,
deficient or vice versa. This will allow me to quantify the design changes and recommendations. Weekends 18-24.
Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C
Analysis carried out
Observations:
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 In fig 33 no graph results
results were produced in regards to the parameters and data entered. were raised. I believe this
is because the bathrooms Therm al analysis:
are only occupied from
01 Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC): 6pm until late during the Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC):
entire week, and they
are naturally ventilated. Zone: G8 wine bar bathroom
Lighting level: 200 lux Therefore there would be Zone is not air-conditioned. Fig.33 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually
Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.
Clothing: Underpants only (0.2 clo) no discomfort hours for Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C
Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) most users.
Active heating/cooling systems: Natural Ventilation MONTH HEATING (WH) COOLING (WH) TOTAL (WH)
Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 22.0 C In fig 34 the results show Jan 260 0 260
Hours of operations: 6- midnight weekdays and weekends that during summer Feb 313 0 313
Occupancy: 3 (3 people per bathroom) the bathrooms may get Mar 309 0 309
too hot in summer and Apr 121 25 147
during winter they will May 0 127 127
get too cool. A total Jun 0 672 672
of 3613.8 heating and Jul 0 751 751
cooling hours per annum Aug 0 595 595
Sep 3 177 180
Setting the amount resulted because of natural
Oct 8 40 48
of people using ventilation.
the bathrooms on
Nov 8 58 66
Monday nights for Dec 146 1 147
Recommendations: TOTAL 1167.6 2446.2 3613.8
example.
Implement cross
ventilation systems Fig.34 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.
for summer and air-
conditioning for winter.
Other Wine Bar area Parameters:

Zone: G7 wine bar

Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.
Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C
43
Max Heating: 7726 W at 23:00 on 25th July
Fig.32 Restaurant Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input Max Cooling: 10299 W at 19:00 on 2nd February
 B E K

Therm al analysis:

Restaurant Bathroom Parameters (G4 and G5 WC):

Zone: G8 wine bar bathroom

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued Zone is not air-conditioned.
Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.
Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C

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

Jan 260 0 260
Feb 313 0 313
Mar 309 0 309
02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters: Monthly load results: Apr 121 25 147
May 0 127 127
Zone: G7 wine bar Jun 0 672 672
Jul 0 751 751
Lighting level: 1200 lux Operation: Weekdays 18-24,
Aug 0 595 595
Clothing: Light business suit (1 clo) Weekends 18-24.
Sep 3 177 180
Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Thermostat Settings: Oct 8 40 48
Active heating/cooling systems: Mixed Mode System. Both natural and air condition, depends on the season. 18.0 - 24.0 C Nov 8 58 66
Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 24.0 C Dec 146 1 147
Hours of operations: 6- midnight weekdays and weekends Observations: TOTAL 1167.6 2446.2 3613.8
Occupancy: 50 people During the warmer months
early and later in the year,
Setting the amount
of people occupying
the cooling loads for the
the wine bar during air-conditioning system
Other Wine Bar area Parameters:
weeknights and are quite low. They reach
weekends. a maximum of 10299 W Zone: G7 wine bar
in April. You can see this Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.
in fig 36 through the blue Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C
column graphs below the Fig.36 Graph displaying monthly heating and cooling loads per annum
Max Heating: 7726 W at 23:00 on 25th July
zero line.
Max Cooling: 10299 W at 19:00 on 2nd February

During winter the heating MONTH HEATING (WH) COOLING (WH) TOTAL (WH)
loads reach a maximum of Jan 0 78121 78121
7726 W in July. Also seen in Feb 0 87997 87997
fig 36 with the red column Mar 0 80346 80346
graphs above the zero line. Apr 450 46175 46625
May 12949 0 12949
Discomfort degree hours Jun 251119 0 251119
are quite high across the Jul 285693 0 285693
whole year. Aug 171186 0 171186
Sep 18671 0 18671
Fig.35 Wine Bar Occupancy Schedule Data input Recommendations: Oct 1791 9688 11479
Nov 8720 0 8720
Cross ventilation system
Dec 0 32640 32640
& put windows in
TOTAL 750580 334966 1085547
front facade to reduce
discomfort hours. Fig.37 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.
Implement Insulation
systems for winter and
natural fire place systems.

45
 B E K

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

03 Apartment Bathroom Parameters: Monthly load results:

Zone: G11 apartment

Lighting level: 900 lux bathroom
Clothing: Naked (0 clo) Operation: Weekdays 00-24,
Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Weekends 00-24.
Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioning Thermostat Settings:
Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 C 18.0 - 26.0 C
Hours of operations: 24/7
Occupancy: 1 person
Only one person
occupying the
Observations:
apartment
Apartment Bathroom Parameters:
bathrooms, per Max Heating: 328 W in
bathroom, per few July
hours.
Zone: G11 apartment bathroom
Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24.
Max Cooling: 403 W in Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C
February 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
Heating and cooling
hours in the apartment MONTH HEATING (WH) COOLING (WH) TOTAL (WH)
bathrooms are lower than Jan 0 7014 7014
other areas because of Feb 0 8980 8980
the use of complete air Mar 211 9462 9673
conditioning systems. Apr 4254 6000 10253
May 31855 0 31855
The cooling load results Jun 72426 0 72426
were not clear the fig 39 Jul 76702 0 76702
Aug 62739 0 62739
Sep 26654 0 26654
Recommendations:
Fig.38 Apartment Bathroom Occupancy Schedule Data input Oct 12146 0 12146
Nov 9743 0 9743
Adding skylights for natural Dec 923 810 1733
ventilation during summer TOTAL 297652 32265 329918
to reduce discomfort hours.
Fig.40 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.

47
 B E K

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems continued

04 Other Apartment Room Parameters: Monthly load results:

Zone: G10 Room

Lighting level: 900 lux Operation: Weekdays 00-24,
Clothing: Trousers and t shirt (0.6 clo) Weekends 00-24.
Internal gains: 20 W/m2 (values for both lighting and small power loads per unit floor area) Thermostat Settings:
Active heating/cooling systems: Full air conditioning 18.0 - 26.0 C
Comfort band for bathrooms: Lower: 18.0 C Upper: 26.0 C
Hours of operations: 24/7
Occupancy: 1 person Observations:
Only one person
occupying the
Max Heating: 24734 W in Other Apartment Room Parameters:
apartment, per room, July
per few hours. Max Cooling: 60841 W in Zone: G10 Room
April Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24.
Cooling loads were not Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C
clear in fig 42
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
Recommendations:

Implement cross MONTH HEATING (WH) COOLING (WH) TOTAL (WH)

ventilation systems, simple Jan 29462 5318786 5348248
by adding windows across Feb 1653 4450554 4452206
from each other. Mar 105453 4770669 4876122
Apr 688572 1944149 2632721
Making sure windows
May 2148579 0 2148579
are placed in a location
Jun 4862586 0 4862586
where the sun enters in the Jul 5103616 0 5103616
morning only across the Aug 4183211 0 4183211
year. Sep 1823030 74358 1897388
Change the lighting Oct 1180572 816823 1997395
Fig.41 Apartment Occupancy Schedule Data input systems used to reduce Nov 823542 1352974 2176517
power consumption and Dec 138208 4784163 4922371
increase warmth in winter. TOTAL 21088484 23512476 44600960
Summer seems to be okay,
however insulation systems Fig.43 Heating and cooling hour results per annum.
mixed with air conditioning
will improve discomfort
hours in winter.

49
 B E K

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 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.

report KEY ISSUES DESIGN CHANGE & RATIONALE

SMC There is no rear exit from the first floor Need for an external staircase to first floor apartments
directly to the outside
Inclusion of rear exit door
Exit paths exceed 20m
Inclusion of extra exit door in kitchen
Door widths are too small
Increase all door widths to min 1000mm
Exit door for apartments on ground
floor doesnt allow for clearance before Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening
flight of stairs

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.
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 com-
pletely glass this needs to be changed.
- Need to improve ventilation, circulation
and thermal systems overall across all
bathroom and apartment units.
B E K
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.
- 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
 B E K

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
model changes door in the kitchen. It was also noted that the fire doors didnt all swing to outside. This issue was also amended.

report

Before

After
Fig.44

55
 B E K

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 The design door widths were too small. In accordance to the NCC section D door widths should be a minimum of 1000mm.
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 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 leads from first floor to the ground floor. This change improves the fire safety required in the building. A 3D view is which changed all the doors within the building of that type.
shown below which shows these changes.

Before

Before After

After
Fig.45 Fig.46

57
 B E K

Reposition internal staircase to ensure clearance from door opening. 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 Changing the orientation of the building for optimum positioning in terms of climate location. The building should be rotated
design issue was amended by repositioning the internal staircase. This was possible as there was a large unused circulation -11.25 from the true North. The issue was that in different seasons, certain prominent areas within the building were not
space. As a result, there is now space clearance when both entering and exiting the flight of stairs. 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
After
Fig.47 Fig.48
59
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

solibri analysis b
Access and Egress Analysis

individual re-test
reports
solibri

Fig.53

65
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

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
 B E K

ecotect analysis b solar access Analysis b

Environmental Analysis

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

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

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
Fig.65 Front of building : Incident Solar Radiation
Bathroom

ground floor
Fig.63

79
 B E K

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: G6 Wine bar
Zone is not air-conditioned. Operation: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24.
02 Other Wine Bar area Parameters:
Occupancy: Weekdays 18-24, Weekends 18-24. Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 24.0 C
Comfort: Band = 18.0 - 22.0 C Max Heating: 9699 W at 23:00 on 25th July
Max Cooling: 15644 W at 19:00 on 12th January

Observations:
Observations:
There is an increase in heating and
cooling loads in the wine bar bathrooms. There is an increase in heating and
cooling loads in the Wine bar.
Fig.66 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually Fig.68 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours anually

MONTH TOOHOT(DegHrs) TOOCOOL(DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs) MONTH TOO HOT(DegHrs) TOO COOL (DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs)
Jan 250 0 250 Jan 0 133983 133983
Feb 0 130207 130207
Feb 281 0 281
Mar 0 133340 133340
Mar 251 0 251
Apr 5740 70351 76091
Apr 85 27 112
May 57312 0 57312
May 0 219 219
Jun 238071 0 238071
Jun 0 814 814
Jul 257719 0 257719
Jul 0 878 878
Aug 185042 0 185042
Aug 0 710 710
Sep 55412 0 55412
Sep 0 234 234 Oct 16305 17721 34026
Oct 3 49 52 Nov 16678 0 16678
Nov 5 62 67 Dec 0 50378 50378
Dec 128 1 129 TOTAL 832279 535980 1368258
TOTAL 1003.0 2994.5 3997.5

Fig.67 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum. Fig.69 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.
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

81
 B E K

thermal analysis of heating and cooling systems

03 Apartment Bathroom Parameters: 04 Other Apartment Room Parameters:

Zone: G9 apart bathroom Zone: G8 Apartments

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

Max Heating: 337 W at 09:00 on 27th July Max Heating: 23893 W at 06:00 on 27th July
Max Cooling: 347 W at 13:00 on 5th April 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: Re-test Conclusions:

There is an increase in heating and It is clearly evident that the design changes
Fig.70 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually Fig.72 Graph displaying heating/cooling hours annually
cooling loads in the apartment bathrooms. were not successful as the supply loads and
discomfort hours were substantially increased
in most cases except for the apartment rooms
MONTH TOO HOT(DegHrs) TOO COOL (DegHrs) TOTAL(DegHrs)
zone which had a great decrease in cooling
Jan 28446 2914346 2942792
and heating loads which was successful. As Feb 0 2771012 2771012
mentioned in the retesting results, this is Mar 102822 3291424 3394247
as a result of changing the wall types and Apr 669620 1614724 2284344
May 2064590 0 2064590
insulations as well as the roof types which Jun 4711640 0 4711640
affected the overall design so that 74.3% less Jul 4955296 0 4955296
heating and cooling is required annually. Aug 4061670 0 4061670
Sep 1797110 172287 1969397
Oct 1162758 217862 1380620
On a whole, the aim to hypothetically decrease Nov 787379 102759 890137
the environmental footprint of the building Dec 128118 1563849 1691966
TOTAL 20469448 12648264 33117712
was partially met as the apartment room zones Zone: G8 Apartments
Fig.71 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum. occupy most of the entire structure space, and Fig.73 Heating/Cooling hour results per annum.
their load requirements decreased by a heavy Operation: Weekdays 00-24, Weekends 00-24.

amount. The overall re-design would have been Thermostat Settings: 18.0 - 26.0 C
more successful if all the re-design actions
implemented resulted in a decrease in heating
and cooling loads across all zones, not just the Max Heating: 23893 W at 06:00 on 27th July
apartments.
Max Cooling: 42294 W at 14:00 on 27th March 83
 B E K

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 Design Outcomes

conclusion 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