Building Decarbonization for All
This means that the tool is simple to understand and use for all engineers.
This study aims to provide a tool for designers to select the envelope insulation level, window-to-wall ratio to evaluate the heat loss, upfront and operational cost, as well as a simple pay back period compared to a benchmark case for a building designed in Module 7. In Module 7, the dimension and orientation of a 3-storey building is selected based on solar insulation, directness to lake view and floor area. Module 8 is developed based on the building shape, and further helps selecting the insulation level and window-to-wall ratio of this building project.
Change of insulation level will lead to change of heat lost and cost. We want to observe the trade-off between energy performance and cost. Comparing to a benchmark model allow us to analyze the cost-effectiveness of our design, as well as paid back period. The upfront cost is positively linear to the level of insulation, and the operational cost is proportional to the heat lost and electricity price (assuming this is a 100% electrified building), and the simple pay back period is upfront cost divided by the operational cost. Te cost is estimated based on current market value, future users can replace it with a more sophisticated model if needed. This tool can be run with a Generative Design tool in dynamo, or with a Dynamo player in Revit.
Inputs: Wall R-value, Roof R-value, Window R-value, Window-to-Wall ratio. Ranges are shown in the figure below.
Benchmark set up values: This can be changed by users, they are not currently set as the input to the generative design.
Design model: upfront and operational cost, total envelope heat lost;
Difference between design and benchmark model: difference in upfront and operational cost, total envelope heat lost, simple pay back period.
This script consists of two parts: set up and selection of building mass (M7), and energy analysis section (M8).
This parallel coordinate diagram shows 5 best design scenarios selected. They have the least total heat loss, an intermediate range of upfront cost, a low range of operational cost, less than 2 years of simple pay back period, and reasonable ranges of R values for window, wall and roof.
This diagram shows the design operation cost VS upfront cost. A higher ipfront cost generally leads to a lower operational cost. The 5 below selected scenarios are highlighted in green.
This charts shows the design total heat lost VS roof R-value. Higher R values leas to lower heat loss (smaller absolute value in heat lost).
link to google drive: