Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential...

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


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


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


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


6 of 15

Beck TechnologyInnovation in all Dimensions

Case Study: Research Collaboration4 7 of 15

8

Case Study: US Government Building, Atlanta Area4

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


9 of 15

10

Design Problem: Assumptions4


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


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


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


*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


*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


15 of 15

Questions?


Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential...

Documents

Transcript of Multi-objective building envelope optimization for life-cycle cost and global warming potential...