Images of My Analysis Results
Please paste two screenshots here, based on the options you chose to complete:
- For Option 1:
- For Option 2, paste a screenshot showing the ending point of your 4D simulation.
- For Option 3, paste a screenshot showing your building model in the Assemble web interface.
Option 1: Building Performance Analysis
Upload your brief one-page summary of your recommended settings to reach your building performance goal to ACC Docs, then embed a public link here.
**Disclaimer: had to use detailed building model for analysis as the conceptual mass generation consistently failed.
Link: https://acc.autodesk.com/docs/files/projects/49b8cddc-c894-4463-b1d8-25127037e2de?folderUrn=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Afs.folder%3Aco.-tujohMtT_-MBqAlcAFLQA&entityId=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Adm.lineage%3ANjLQ4OzFTTKpJNeIOy4STQ&viewModel=detail&moduleId=folders
My goal for these two buildings was to achieve the most sustainable design possible while keeping all of the aesthetic design choices. This meant I made no adjustments to window shades, building orientation, and window to wall ratios. I ended up being able to get below both the ASHRAE and Architecture 2030 goals. My final benchmark comparison metric was calculated to be $.41/ ft^2 / yr.
Starting from the 10th most important factor: Building orientation. I kept the building orientation the same as it was actually the more sustainable option. It also preserves the building aesthetic.
The ninth most important factor was WWR Western Walls. For this I stuck with the value from the building model to stay true to the design.
The 8th most important factor was the WWR Northern Walls which I also kept true to the building model.
Next up is WWR Eastern Walls. Like the other wall to window ratios, I kept the range only to the BIM to stay true to the building design. This also happened to be on the more sustainable side anyway.
Next was the roof construction. I left a large range for this as there was not much change that occurred from material to material. Whichever material’s upfront costs is the cheapest within the range would work just fine.
The 5th most important factor was south facing window to wall ratio. I chose to stay in accordance with the building model as any differing ratio would greatly impact the design’s aesthetic. This decision is also more sustainable.
Next was the Daylighting and Occupancy Controls. For this option I chose the most sustainable option as it didn’t interfere with the building’s aesthetic and fit nicely with the buildings’ intended use. As a 12/6 office space, daylight will be made use of and additional lighting needs will be limited with a design that has so much natural light. Occupancy controls are also a simple, non-intrusive way to conserve energy.
The 3rd factor was the operating schedule. I left a range of 12/6 to 12/5 just to provide a bit of breathing room for the building users. Overall, this range still provides a great impact in sustainability.
The 2nd most important factor was the plug-load efficiency. For this, I kept the range in the middle because the company building the building is in tech and will be using a lot of computing power. However, I also assumed the computers and other devices would be modern and therefore rather energy efficient.
Finally, the first most important factor is lighting efficiency. I placed this on the extremely efficient side as it saved operating costs. Efficient lighting also reduces waste as it has a longer lifespan.
Option 3: Model-Based Estimating
https://acc.autodesk.com/docs/files/projects/49b8cddc-c894-4463-b1d8-25127037e2de?folderUrn=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Afs.folder%3Aco.-tujohMtT_-MBqAlcAFLQA&entityId=urn%3Aadsk.wipprod%3Adm.lineage%3A_9XAIcUTT9SfyIdSnvv6og&viewModel=detail&moduleId=folders