Upload
meryl-poole
View
221
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential
ECPPM 2012Forest Flager, John Basbagill, Michael Lepech, and Martin Fischer
Outline
Motivation
Method
2
Case Study
3
Scope
1
4
Results5
Conclusions6
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
2 of 15
1 2
3
4
ConceptualDesign
DesignDevelopment
ConstructionAdministration
Operation
1
2
3
4
Ability to impact cost
Cost of design changes
Traditional design process
Preferred design process
Design Stage
Impa
ct
Motivation1
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
3 of 15
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
Challenges with integrating LCC and LCA during conceptual building design:
Motivation1
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
4 of 15
5
Building material
production
Transportation
On-siteconstruction
Operation Demolition
Maintenance, Repair, &
Replacement
Raw material
acquisition
Scope: Life-Cycle Cost and Carbon Footprint2
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
5 of 15
6
Buildinginformation
modelPre-
operational cost
Optimizer
MRR schedule
Pre-operational
CO2e
Energy simulation
Operational cost
Operational CO2e
Life-cycle cost
Life-cycle CO2e
KEY
Automateddata translation
DProfilerSimaProeQUEST
CostLabExcelModelCenter
Method: Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization 3
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
6 of 15
9
SCOPE(1) Facade(2) MEP system
OBJECTIVES(1) Minimize total cost of
ownership(2) Minimize carbon footprint
VARIABLES
(1) Building orientation: 0-360°(2) Glazing type: 7 options(3) Glazing percentage by façade: 30-70%
DESIGN SPACEPossible design configurations: 8.73E8
Design Problem4
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
9 of 15
10
Design Problem: Assumptions4
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
7 stories
23,000 m2
Service life: 30 yearsFloor-to-floor height: 5.0 mFloor plates: slab on metal deck supported by steel frameMechanical 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
10 of 15
11
KEY
Baseline
Lowest Cost
Lowest Carbon
Life-cycle Cost (USD, millions)
Carb
on F
ootp
rint (
kt C
O2e
)
80
75
70
65
60
5515.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5
Preference Shading
Best
Results: Life Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint5
BestWorst
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
11 of 15
12
facadeglazing
%
N
S
E
W
Lowest Carbonobjective Lowest Cost
30%
30%
31%
30%
68%
59%
68%
55%
36%
30%
30%
30%
3% 15%KEYBaseline
orientation +6.6° +6.7° +7.1°0°
orientation
+
cladding type
VNE 13-63
VS 1-08Solarban
70 XL
39%
39%
39%
39%
VNE 1-63
escalation --
spandrel
Results: Optimal Design Configurations5
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
12 of 15
13
COST
SAV
ING
S (N
PV, U
SD)
*Baseline NPV NPVCO2e
KEY
+6.6° +6.7° +7.1°0°
$500K
$1,000K
$1,500K
$2,000K
-$500K
+$624K+$839K
+$1,729K
3% 15%
objective
orientation
escalation- -
MEP Capital + MRR
Cladding Capital
Operational Energy
Results: Cost Savings5
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
*Baseline cost: $16.6 M
13 of 15
14
CARB
ON
RED
UCT
ION
(ton
CO
2e)
-2,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
-3,000
+4,300
-1,000
4,000
5,000
-1,063
+4,191
MEP Embodied Energy
Cladding Embodied Energy
Operational Energy
KEY
*Baseline NPV NPVCO2e objective
orientation
+6.6° +6.7° +7.1°0°
escalation3% 15%- -
Results: Carbon Reduction5
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
*Baseline carbon impact: 60,900 tons CO2e
14 of 15
15
Conclusions
Proposed MDO method improves conceptual building design
20% of designs improved both cost and carbon impact
$800K cost reduction (5.1% < base design)
4,300 kt CO2e carbon savings (7.1% < base design)
LimitationsBuilding components: envelope and MEP systems
Life cycle: upstream phases, operation, MRR
Parameters: façade, glazing, orientation
structural and interior components, foundation
construction, transportation, demolition
massing: building shape, # floorsstructural system
6
Flager, Basbagill, Lepech, Fischer ECPPM 2012
15 of 15