Y2E2 iRoom Analysis Final Presentation Gabe Dietz Michael Ozowara Brian Ross Diane Santos Colin VanLang

Story - Materials Glass Polycarbonate Drywall

Story - Project Description Choosing Wall Material for iRoom Options 1. As built 2. Additional proposed changes (sliding glass doors, replace some polycarbonate with glass) 3. All glass MACDADI Analysis

Story - Project Models Energy (eQUEST) Acoustics (Ecotect) Egress (Simulex) Schedule/Cost/4D Model (Building Explorer) Daylight (DaySim)

Project Narrative

Energy (eQUEST) Analysis Overview Analyze: As Built Proposed design All glass Outputs Total Energy Usage (mainly Electricity Usage) Goals Overarching goals: minimize life-cycle cost Low operation energy Translates into: avoid excessive increase in electricity usage compared to As Built option

Critical Assumptions Window glazing Chose window material based on Visible Light Transmittance Estimated amount of outside light coming through CIFE Offices and Conference Room Geometry Excluded walls in rooms adjacent to IRoom (see lines and areas in red on diagram on the right) HVAC Simplified source of chilled water and hot water in eQUEST, modeled sources as single chiller and boiler respectively Wall material For internal walls and West exterior, used data from Arup’s Y2E2 model For other eQUEST exterior walls on N, E, S sides  defined wall material with U-value=0.001 (lowest possible in eQUEST) Hours of use Fall, Winter, Spring Quarters: 9AM – 6PM Summer Quarter: 10AM – 4PM Lighting Density From Arup’s model  1.5kWh/ft 2 for IRoom (As Built) Used Colin’s results to reduce density to 63% and 83% of As Built for Proposed and All Glass options respectively IRoom CIFE Student Offices Offices and Conference Room Storage N S W E

As Built Notice missing walls

Proposed New Sliding Door All glass changed to clear glass

All Glass – Original Design All glass is clear glass

As Built eQUEST Output Annual Energy Usage *Ignore Natural Gas usage, since IRoom HVAC has no heating component

Proposed eQUEST Output Annual Energy Usage Cooling increased, but Area Lighting decreased (very minor differences)

All Glass eQUEST Output Annual Energy Usage No difference in Cooling between All Glass and Proposed Area Lighting decreased (again, very minor differences)

Annual Energy Usage Comparison Very minor differences General trends Less cooling energy needed with greater clear-glass window area – only occupied during the day, so greater clear-glass window area means more sunlight in the space Less lighting energy needed with greater clear-glass window area – greater window area means more daylighting Interesting note: percent of total electricity usage for cooling load increased from As Built to Proposed and from As Built to All Glass

Energy Analysis MACDADI Rating MACDADI Metrics Total Energy Savings Compared with As BuiltMACDADI Rating Energy Savings ≥ 15% 3 10% ≤ Energy Savings <15% 2 5% ≤ Energy Savings < 10% 1 Same as As Built option or within ± 5% 0 5% ≤ Energy Use < 10% of As Built 10% ≤ Energy Use < 15% of As Built -2 Energy Use ≥ 15% of As Built -3

Energy Analysis MACDADI Results Energy will not have a large impact. Confidence in Results Accuracy of information transfer: N/A – I had to generate all my models in eQUEST and could only import 2D drawings Final Results: 60% Many assumptions, had to make estimates, especially with window material Simplified geometry and HVAC system However, I did try changing the window material to ones with similar Visible Transmittance but different SHGC’s and other properties

Energy: Time Spent on Each Step StepHours Spent Adjust dwg drawings1 Import dwg files to eQUEST.2 Take pictures of IRoom and surroundings.25 Generate Inputs for models (includes research and looking at Y2E2 Arup model) 8 Create 3D models in eQUEST of all options (includes debugging errors) 25 Perform energy analysis3 Determine MACDADI Metrics1 Generate MACDADI Values1 Produce presentable data (includes work on Narrative and PPT) 3 * Time spent on each step includes time spent fixing errors

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Overview Analysis of three options to determine which performs best acoustically As built (with and without partition wall) All glass Proposed design Outputs drive which model performs the best Acoustic response Reverberation times Ray tracing Goals Reasonable quality of sound within the iroom (goals from CEE 321) Support group lectures Smaller discussions Remote collaboration Distributed range of frequencies Music range (1000 to 10,000 Hz) Voice range (10 to 100 Hz) Reverberation does not distort sound

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Metrics Acoustic response – reasonable range of decay times Reverberation times – decay of approximately one second Ray tracing and lines of reflection

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Inputs Imported models from Revit (.dxf files) Room materials Doors: sliding glass door, wood, glass Floor: concrete slab on ground Wall materials: drywall, glass, plastic (polycarbonate) Ceiling: metal deck, drywall, modeled with delay properties Space volume: 441 m 3 Auditorium seating Seating type: hard backed

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis AssumptionsSensitivity to Assumptions Room materials Wall materials: plastic polycarbonate Ceiling: metal deck, drywall, modeled with delay properties Auditorium seating Seating quantity: 40 people Percent occupied: between 25% and 75% Speaker placement Algorithm type Sabine Norris-Eyring Millington-Sette Relatively low Medium Potentially medium

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Model Options

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Acoustic Response and Ray Tracing

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis Reverberation

Acoustics (Ecotect) Analysis MACDADI Information Reverberation TimeMACDADI Rating Between 0.8 seconds and 1.0 seconds 3 Between 0.7 seconds and 0.8 seconds; OR 2 Between 1.0 seconds and 1.1 seconds Between 0.6 seconds and 0.7 seconds; OR 1 Between 1.1 seconds and 1.2 seconds Between 0.5 seconds and 0.6 seconds; OR 0 Between 1.2 seconds and 1.3 seconds Between 0.4 seconds and 0.5 seconds; OR Between 1.3 seconds and 1.4 seconds Between 0.3 seconds and 0.4 seconds; OR -2 Between 1.4 seconds and 1.5 seconds Less than 0.3 seconds; OR -3 Greater than 1.5 seconds OptionReverberation Time (50th Percentile)Standard DeviationMACDADI Rating As Built1.34 s0.806 s Proposed1.28 s0.601 s Partition1.12 s0.205 s1 All Glass0.85 s0.165 s2

Time Spent on Each Step StepHours Spent Generate 3D Models1 Export 3D Revit Models to.dxf File5 Generate Acoustic Design Input16 (including tutorials) Input Damping Material and Design Input7 Run Acoustic Analysis (baseline, three options, partition wall) 17 (including tutorials) Receive and Analyze Reverberation Times, Acoustic Response, and Ray Tracing Data 18 (including tutorials) Generate MACDADI Values3

Egress Analysis iRoom Goals Collaboration Support Large Group Discussions Support large group receptions Sponsorship and Community Comfortable Working Environment Safety Egress

Egress (IES) Analysis Overview Simulex Program in IES Analysis of 3 configurations for iRoom Utilize all 3 exits Output Physical playback of egress Text file with data reports for simulations Goal Minimize time needed to safely exit

Egress Analysis Classroom Collaboration, Sponsorship and community MACDADI Rating Reconfigurable, open space, large tables, movable chairs 3 Good 2 Ok 1 Fair, Typical classroom 0 Poor Bad -2 Rigid Structures, cramp feeling, small tables and chairs, distracting -3 OptionEgress Analysis (Time) MACDADI Rating Model 1: Typical Configuration 15.6 Seconds2 Model 2: Rectangle Set Up 11.9 Seconds1 Model 3: Lecture Set Up 17.4 Seconds0

Egress Analysis: 3 Configurations iRoom

Configuration 1 Students In iRoom All 4 Exits Defined Total Time: 15.6 sec

Configuration 2 Students Seated At desks Teachers Up Front Total Time: 11.9 sec

Configuration 3 Students Seated In Chairs Teachers Up Front Total Time: 17.4 sec

Configuration 1 Egress In Progress

Results Configuration 1 Typical iRoom Set Up Highest MACDADI Rating Difference in egress time is negligible Majority of simulation uses least noticeable exit

Time Spent on Each Step StepHours Spent Generate 3 Models for iRoom in Revit Architecture 5 Edit 3 Models in Architectural Desktop5 Run Egress Analysis in IES Simulex20 Developing Narrative5 Generate MACDADI Values2 Installing Software3

Cost/Schedule/4D Model Analysis Overview Analysis of 3 options to determine cost, schedule, and constructability Cost will be a key (usually primary) consideration. Small scope of project means that schedule is not as important Constructability not a major issue because of the simplicity of the project.

Cost/Schedule/4D Model Analysis Key Metrics Cost Lump sum cost in USD of each option relative to 3 rd party estimate Hard number calculated by software based on user input Schedule Total Duration in Days of each option relative to estimate based on experience Hard number calculated by software based on user input

Cost/Schedule/4D Model Analysis Inputs & Assumptions Revit components are not custom Matching RS Means assemblies to Revit components is an art Geographic cost adjustment RS Means costs are implicit about scope & methodology Schedule is intuitive; based on experience

Building Explorer Interface

Assigning Costs

Cost Report

Schedule Input

Schedule Output

4D Model

Cost/Schedule/4D Model Analysis MACDADI Info CostRating < 45K 3 45K – 55K 2 55K – 65K 1 65k – 75K 0 75K – 85K 85K – 95K -2 > 95K -3 ScheduleRating < 3 Days 3 3 Days 2 4 Days 1 5 Days 0 6 days 7 Days -2 > 7 Days -3 OptionCostScheduleAverage/MACDADI Rating Baseline333 New Proposed000 Glass Baseline: 3 (<3 Days) Glass: -2 (7 Days) New Proposed: 0 (5 Days) Baseline: 3 (0K) Glass: -1 (78K) New Proposed: 0 (68K)

Building Explorer Analysis Step Hours Spent Loading Programs (Revit, BE)25 Making Revit Models10 Learning BE 5 Cost & Schedule Analysis with BE15 Organizing Results (Generating MACDADI Results)10 Developing Narrative5

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Why daylight? More energy-friendly Increase productivity More friendly space Overview Analysis of how different options would affect kWh/sf and brightness levels at different points in the room

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Goals Minimize kWh/sf Maximize general brightness of room throughout the space However, not too bright to avoid glare Metrics kWh/sf: Electric lighting use Amount of energy needed to light a square foot of the room at 50 lux Daylight Factor: ratio of indoor illuminance to outdoor luminance Measure for glare Luxh: Annual light exposure Measure for brightness level

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Input and Assumptions Use time: 9AM – 5PM Typical class time Minimum Illuminance Level: 50 lux Default was 500 lux Lighting Control: Combination switch-off occupancy & dimming system Default was manual on/off switch Site location: Sunnyvale (37.42 N/ E) Modeled section of Y2E2 Building (for simplicity)

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Glass option Baseline and “New Proposed” model Rest of the model Plug for iRoom Atrium Glass wall

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Coordinate System for DaySim sensors

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Results Lighting use Baseline: 2.4 kWh/sf New Proposed: 2.0 kWh/sf (83.3% of baseline) Glass: 1.5 kWh/sf (62.5% of baseline) Daylight Factor 0.1% max for any scheme in any location  >5% for electric lighting to not be used normally  >2% for electric lighting to always be used  However, need for no glare

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis BaselineNew ProposedGlass

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis BaselineNew Proposed

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Light Energy UseRating < 50%3 50% - 75%2 75% - 100%1 Baseline value (100%)0 100% - 125% 125% - 150%-2 > 150%-3 General BrightnessRating (Points with > 10,000 luxh)/(Total points) < 75%3 50% - 75%2 25% - 50%1 0% - 25%0 0% Baseline: 0 (100%) Glass: 2 (62.5%) New Proposed: 1 (83.3%) Baseline: 0 (22%) Glass: 3 (100%) New Proposed: 1 (47.2%) OptionEnergy RatingBrightness RatingAverage/MACDADI Rating Baseline000 New Proposed111 Glass > 3

Daylight (DaySim) Analysis Step Hours Spent Loading Programs (Revit, 3ds)15 Making Models4 Creating sensor files (finding coordinates)30 Running Daylight Analyses5 Organizing Results (Generating MACDADI Results)10 Compatability between programs (Importing and Exporting)5

MACDADI Analysis GoalsPreference Value Cost 20.0 Schedule 7.0 Egress 5.0 Energy 20.0 Lighting 20.0 Acoustics 8.0 Classroom Learning 10.0 Research Environment 10.0 TOTAL 100

MACDADI Analysis CostScheduleEgressEnergyLightingAcoustics Classroom Learning Research Environment Design Option All Glass As Built Proposed Changes

MACDADI Analysis Comparative Analysis Overall Value Design Option All Glass82 As Built81 Proposed Changes40