ESD Report

ESD REPORT OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

MIXED USE M U LT I - U N I T R E S I D E N TA I A L T O W E R QV3 579, SWANSTON STREET MELBOURNE

PRODUCED BY TA M A R A I N G R A M 2 9 8 1 8 5 & A L I S TA I R N A N C A R R O W 2 9 9 8 0 5

8 OCTOBER 2013

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 7 01 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 8 02 CASE STUDIES.....................................................................................................................................16 03 SOCIAL EVALUATION........................................................................................................................19 CONCLUSIONS - SOCIAL....................................................................................... 26 04 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION....................................................................................................30 CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL.................................................................. 38 05 ECONOMIC EVALUATION...............................................................................................................43 CONCLUSIONS - ECONOMIC............................................................................... 51 06 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................43

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO BEST CASE

PAGE 3

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ESD Report QV3 - Mixed Use, Multi-Unit Residentail Development This report seeks to provide discussion and recommendations for the integration of environmentally sustainable design principles for the proposed development, QV3. These recommendations are provided after assessing the social, environmental and economic impacts of the building, to offer advice which will produce a sustainable development.

This is assisted through the use of the energy modelling software, Sefaira, which will analyse the development using quantitative indicators which measure relevant criteria. These indicators will also be assisted by qualitative research and case studies where relevant.

The recommendations range from design advice, specific product suggestions and guidance regarding building materials and practices. After analysing how the building could best meet the social, environmental and economic requirements, a best case version of the development will be presented which synthesised these equally important categories.

The resultant recommendations will be summarised in a checklist format, with additional suggestions ranked in order of necessity, to provide clear advice to assist the creation of a sustainable development.

PAGE 7

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[01] INTRODUCTION

THE QV3 PROJECT The proposed QV3 Apartments will be the third complex in the Queen Victoria development series which currently includes the Queen Victoria Village shopping complex, and the residential tower, QV2. QV3 provides an excellent opportunity for the development of a mixed use, residential tower with a high level of environmental performance and amenity, for those living in the inner city.

QV3’s siting on the former Carlton United Brewery Site, neighbouring Melbourne’s CBD, will provide residents with easy access to the city and its surrounding suburbs for employment, education and recreation. Such a location will not only appeal to the young professional market, but also to students and retirees alike. Many similar, inner city residential developments such as Forte Living in Docklands use their sustainability as a marketing advantage, a possibility which CBUS similarly has the opportunity to exploit.

PROJECT DETAILS CLIENT:

CBUS PROPERT Y

LOCATION: 579 SWANSTON STREET MELBOUNRE, VIC TORIA SITE AREA:

2850m 2

FLOORS: 27 HEIGHT: 80.02m 2 ROOF AREA: TOTAL 1320m 2 ROOF - 550% TERRACE - 770% USE: 90% RESIDENTIAL 10% RETAIL Aerial view of site with boundary marked in red

PAGE 8

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[01] INTRODUCTION

REPORT OUTCOMES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY MODELLING

This report seeks to optimise the development by making changes to the current design, termed baseline, within the parameters of three concepts, each with their own focus and unique set of priorities:

The analysis and recommendations within each of the social, environmental, and economic concepts will be assisted by the energy modelling tool Sefaira. This program allows changes to be made across a series of categories, such as HVAC, Envelope, Water Fixtures and Renewables, by altering the strategies within each.

1. SOCIAL

2. ECONOMIC

3. ENVIRONMENTAL

These concepts represent the Triple Bottom Line, where sustainable development is achieved when these factors are successfully integrated and aligned with each other. This report will therefore examine how the development can best achieve optimal performance across a range of categories within each of these concepts, then provide final recommendations which combine and evaluate how these concepts can be successfully integrated and balanced, to create a successful development both for CBUS and the future occupants.

Triple Bottom Line for sustainable development

PAGE 9

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[01] INTRODUCTION

RECOMMENDATIONS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED

STRATEGY Alter Facade Glazing Percentages •

North Facade (95%)

•

East Facade (75%)

•

West Facade (20%)

Upgrade Facade Glazing from single to double glazing •

U-Value (3.00 W/m2K)

•

Glazing SHGC (0.4)

Upgrade Structure to concrete construction •

Core Structure (Heavy)

•

Leakage (1.0 m3/m2.h)

Upgrade Walls to Pre-cast panels and increase insulation •

U-Value (3.00 W/m2K)

Balconies to Northern Facade (1.5m horizontal projection) Rooftop Gardens to Lower & Upper Terraces Provide Cross Ventilation (75% openable glazing) Implement Residential Ventilation Rate (0.30 L/m2.s) Install High Efficiency Water Fixtures Increase Landscaping & Introduce Native Species Increase Lighting Efficiency Install Facade Integrated PV •

North Facade (5% area, 15% efficiency)

•

East Facade (25% area, 5% efficiency)

•

West Facade (20% area, 5% efficiency)

Provide Solar Thermal Hotwater System (100m2, evacuated) Provide Solar PV System (150m2, 30% efficiency) Implement Water Reuse Strategies •

Greywater tank (20,000L)

•

Rainwater tank (20,000L)

Install Ground Source Heat Pump for Heating & Cooling (800 kW, COP 3)

PAGE 10

RECOMMENDED

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[01] INTRODUCTION

PROJECT SETTING CLIMATE ZONE

DESIGNING FOR CLIMATE

The proposed development is located in Melbourne, Australia which is classified by the Building Code of Australia as Climate Zone 6, a mild temperate climate. Characteristics of this climate 06/10/2013 include:

Of key importance is the moderate to high diurnal temperature range where there is a high temperature difference between the day and night temperatures. As such, the BCA recommends high thermal mass solutions, with high insulation levels; Sefaira Concept maximising north facing walls and glazing, whilst minimised facades and glazing to the east and west, combined with Concept Projects ▶ Assignment 2_QV3 ▼ BEST CASE SCENARIO appropriate shading solutions; encouraging passive cooling by using cross ventilation, and passive solar design.

•

Mild to cool winters with low humidity

•

Hot to very hot summers, with moderate humidity

•

Four distinct seasons. Summer and winter can exceed human comfort range. Spring and autumn are ideal for human comfort

•

Moderate to high diurnal (day/night) temperature range

•

Prevailing northern winds, with cool westerly winds in winter

Building on site Assignment 2

The BCA also states:

“No auxiliary heating or cooling is required in these climates with good design. ” Assignment 2_QV3 Therefore, in accordance with the climate zone of Melbourne, Site Info this will be one of the main aims of the energy modelling, BEST CASE SCENARIO whilst varying the other factors to maximise the success of the development in each of the categories of social, environmental and economic.

Carlton, VIC 3053 AU

Annual Temperature Data (°C)

An

5

15 Water Fixtures

0

10

Avg. Min Temp Avg. Max Temp

20

Renewables °C

Temps Below 18°C

°C

Temps Above 18°C

10

Avg. Max Temp

25

20

Avg. Min Temp

W/m²

20

15

10

Envelope Jan

HVAC Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Feb

Jul

Mar

Apr

Aug

May

Sep

Jun

Jul

Month

Oct

Aug

Nov

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Dec

Month

Report

Annual Rainfall Data (mm/day-mo)

Graph demonstrating annual wind direction andhttps://apps.sefaira.com/concept/project/9827/concepts/dimensions/single?id=9827&cid=25501&did=10 speed Graph demonstrating annual diurnal temperature range source: Sefaira source: Sefaira

PAGE 11

Ele

He

Wa

25 15

X

Annual Temperature Data (°C) 25

M

Uti

579 Swanston St

Site Wind Speed Data (%)

Ma

Site

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[01] INTRODUCTION

PROJECT SETTING HEATING & COOLING DEGREE DAYS To comprehend the ideal user comforts of the building, it is necessary to have an understanding of the heating and cooling requirements. The heating degree day data gives an understanding of the total days in a year that the temperature will fall below 12 degrees, and therefore users are likely to require heating to maintain optimal comfort. Conversely, cooling degree days looks at temperatures above 18 degrees, where cooling may be required.

From the below maps, it can be seen that Melbourne experiences more heating degree days than cooling degree days, and therefore heating requirements will likely use more energy in the building. As such, reducing the energy associated with heating the building will be a primary objective, both though the use of active and passive systems.

Maps showing annual heating and cooling degree days source: Bureau of Meteorology

PAGE 12

25,435

783,636

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING (kWh)

Currently, no renewables are incorporated into the building with the electricity in the project being 100% from coal. The majority of electricity in Victoria is produced from the burning of brown coal, which in a finite resource that releases high levels of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The heating is fuelled 100% by natural gas, which similarly contributes to environmental degradation. Attempts should be made to limit reliance on these non-renewable sources.

PAGE 13

The building is currently fully glazed with curtain walls, in a stepped form. This provides opportunity for roof terraces, and the potential to utilise these outcrops for energy production. The specifics of the building construction type will be investigated, however currently it would have difficulty meeting Section J of the BCA for minimum energy standards.

3,103,866

ANNUAL WATER USE (m 3 )

The building currently relies on active systems to maintain the temperature at the cooling set point of 23 degrees, and a heating set point of 20 degrees, which could be considered high.

810,356

ANNUAL CO 2 PRODUC TION (kgCO 2 )

BUILDING FORM

190

4,865,523

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST ($)

ENERGY USE

ANNUAL ENERGY USE PER GROSS INTERNAL AREA (kWh/m 2)

ANNUAL ENERGY USE (kWh)

The below information summarises the characteristics of the baseline model, which is performing relatively poorly across a wide range of factors:

PROJECT OVERVIEW - BASELINE MODEL

[01] INTRODUCTION

1,338,949

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING (kWh)

2,009,021

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED (kWh)

3D visualisation of the proposed development source: Sketch-up

2,856,502

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y (kWh)

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[02] CASE STUDIES

OVERVIEW Case Studies have been used to demonstrate and evaluate the practical implementation of the design recommendations and opportunities discussed in this report. In some case studies, the ESD improvements were found to be successful in their application, and provide a useful model of replication.

However, in other cases, some technologies that have been implemented were found to be inefficient or ineffective, and this too has been taken into consideration when making recommendations.

This section provides an overview of the projects which have been referred to in this report, for reference.

Artist’s impression of Forte Living Apartments used in website marketing source: forteliving.com.au

PAGE 14

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[02] CASE STUDIES

FORTE LIVING LOCATION:

DOCKLANDS, MELBOUNRE

DEVELOPER:

LEND LEASE

DWELLINGS: 23 USE:

RESIDENTIAL & MIX-USE

COMPLETED: 2013 Forte Living is located in the Melbourne Docklands precinct, with 23 apartments over 10 floors . The complex is the tallest residential building constructed with cross laminated timber, reducing concrete use and its carbon footprint.

GREEN SPACE Each apartment has access to a balcony, with a vegetable patch included in the design. A common area with roof garden was also created. Connections to green spaces, which can seem limited in the high-rise Docklands area, were stressed in marketing of the apartments.

RAINWATER HARVESTING Rainwater is captured and used for the flushing of toilets, and for the emergency fire system. Water is similarly conserved through the water efficient fittings. Whilst these fitting save a great amount of water and energy, there has been some discontentment among residents with regards to the limited flow shower heads.

ENERGY EFFICIENT Split system air-conditioners have been installed in each apartment for heating and cooling, and also ceiling fans. The fan allows occupants cool themselves via convection and increase air speed within the area, which may satisfy occupants cooling needs without needing to resort to the air-conditioner.

Providing occupants with choices for their preferred method of cooling themselves increases their perceived level of comfort within a space, adding to contentment (Szokolay 2008).

SOLAR SHADING Window shading devices have been designed specifically for each orientation, to allow maximum penetration of sunlight during winter, and minimise solar gain in summer.

DUAL ASPEC T All apartments were designed with dual aspect, which provides abundant natural light to enter the space, and also gives occupants views of the surrounds. The dual aspect also allows for adequate cross ventilation of the space, which is often difficult to achieve in high-rise apartment buildings.

These factors significantly contribute to the reduction of cooling energy required, and increase enjoyment of the space.

PAGE 15

Green roof communal area source: forteliving.com.au

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[02] CASE STUDIES

K2 APARTMENTS LOCATION:

WINDSOR, MELBOURNE

USE:

RESIDENTIAL

ARCHITEC T:

DESIGN INC

DWELLINGS: 96

DEVELOPER:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

COMPLETED :

2007

OVERVIEW

WATER USE

K2 Apartments is a large scale multi-unit public housing development with a primary objective to minimise green house emissions and water usage, whilst maximising the use of re-usable or recycled materials.

PV cells on the roof provide the residents with around 50% of their hot water needs, reducing gas consumption. The building recycles the grey water produced by occupants, which is then used for toilet flushing and irrigation. Rain water is similarly harvested and utilised. Four tanks collect roof water, and is used to supplement mains supply for domestic hot water, with the potential to reduce mains water consumption by 53%.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE The decision to incorporate ESD concepts into the design added approximately 9% to the $32.2 million dollar project, however the payback for such considerations was felt to be justified by the lower water and electricity costs.

ACCESS TO NATURE The apartments are staggered and divided into four separate buildings to maximise their access to northern light. This is enhanced by the addition of balconies for private green space, whilst increasing the percentage of operable windows to encourage natural cross ventilation.

North facing balconies source: gbca.com.au

PAGE 16

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[02] CASE STUDIES

BEDZED - BEDDINGTON ZERO ENERGY DEVELOPEMENT LOCATION:

HACKBRIDGE, LONDON

USE:

ARCHITEC T:

BILL DUNSTER ARCHITEC TS

DWELLINGS: 100

DEVELOPER:

PEABODY TRUST

COMPLETED :

OVERVIEW The BedZed project, completed in 2002 aimed to be the first large scale carbon neutral development able to produce all of its energy needs on site.

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) A CHP was installed, using locally sourced woodchips to generate both heat for hot water, and electricity on site. Whilst this remained in operation for some time, it has now been deactivated, as the cost involved in maintaining such a plant were not justified by its size and energy output capacity. Plans are still being finalised to find an appropriate form of energy production which meets the residents needs and the desire to be self sustaining.

PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS 20% of residents power is created by on-site PV cells with an area of 777m2, leading to a reduction of energy consumption

RESIDENTIAL AND WORK SPACES

2002

from the grid. These cells are located on the roof, and south facing facade (note: northern hemisphere location). The implementation of the PV cells has been particularly successful in this development. Originally, these cells were installed to provide electricity for electric vehicles, however since this technology had not become as prolific as expected, this energy is now used within the homes instead, providing a excellent example of adaptive reuse potential which should always be considered when forecasting new technologies.

ON SITE WATER TREATMENT The waste water treatment plant on site was designed to treat all waste water produced resulting in Green Water which could be used to flush toilets and irrigate gardens. Again, cost could no longer justify its continuing operation, as the plant used more energy than conventional sewerage treatment services and it was therefore discontinued. Rainwater is harvested, and used for non-potable household uses such as flushing toilets, as well as irrigation.

PV cells on the roof source: oneplanetcommunities.org

PAGE 17

Redundant water treatment plant source: oneplanetcommunities.org

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL EVALUATION

OVERVIEW The ability for the building to perform in a social capacity is determined through its response to four primary aspects of the built environment; •

THERMAL COMFORT

•

INDOOR AIR QUALITY

•

PROXIMITY TO NATURE

•

HUMAN CONTROL OVER THEIR ENVIRONMENT

INDOOR AIR QUALIT Y Sufficient air changes within a space must occur to allow for the delivery of oxygen to occupants. The presence of oxygen also relies on a high quality of indoor air that is free from pollutants.

This primarily affects the physiological condition of occupants.

PROXIMIT Y TO NATURE

Each of these factors influence human habitation in either a physiological or psychological capacity. It is therefore necessary that the built environment addresses these aspects to ensure occupants are satisfied with their surrounds.

THERMAL COMFORT Thermal comfort is a basic biological need of humans (Szokolay: 2008). The body must maintain a deep-body temperature of approximately 37 degrees celcius in order to survive. Thermal conditions within a building must necessarily be kept within reasonable limits, ideally between 20 degrees celcius and 26 degrees celcius (Keller & Rutz: 2010) to maintain this temperature. Air temperature, air movement, humidity & radiation all influence the thermal comfort of a space.

Humans have an inherent affinity to affiliate with natural systems and processes. This concept is known as biophilia, (Kellert: 2011). It asserts that a human’s wellbeing is enhanced through a connection with natural systems.

HUMAN CONTROL OVER THEIR ENVIRONMENT Biophilia also suggests that a human’s wellbeing is heightened through an ability to change or influence their immediate environment.

THE BUILDING RESPONSE It is possible to tailor the built environment to cater for these requirements. Performative architectural elements can allow for interactions between humans and their surrounds, and foster engagement with natural systems. Passive & active methods can be incorporated to regulate thermal comfort and indoor air quality.

PAGE 18

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

OVERVIEW INDICATORS

MEASURING COMFORT

The rating tools within Sefaira provide limited indicators that can be used to definitively measure how successfully these factors affect the social capacity of a building. Its success in this respect is therefore based on its capacity to maintain optimum comfort levels, air quality, foster engagement with natural systems, and exert influence over their built environment.

Notwithstanding the limits of the indicators within Sefaira to assess the social capacity of the building, two indicators offer a partial means of assessing the building’s ability to maintain optimum thermal comfort levels: These indicators show the amount of cooling or heating (kWh) required to maintain optimum internal temperatures:

CATEGORIES

•

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING

•

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING

The categories within Sefaira of greatest relevance to the factors influencing the social capacity of the building are; •

ENVELOPE

•

HVAC

•

WATER FIXTURES

In this category, predominantly passive design has been used, as this encourages natural systems to regulate the thermal comfort of a space. Therefore, a reduction in these indicators compared to the baseline model suggests a greater capacity for the building to passively regulate thermal comfort.

It is within these categories that alterations to the strategies were shown to have the greatest bearing on thermal comfort, indoor air quality, proximity to nature and human control over their environment.

PAGE 19

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE OVERVIEW OF ENVELOPE

Those strategies altered within this category are as follows;

Strategies contained within this category provided the greatest opportunity to passively influence thermal comfort levels of the building and foster a connection between indoors and outdoors.

•

FACADE GLAZING

•

ROOF GLAZING

•

STRUCTURE

•

FLOORS

FACADE GLAZING PERCENTAGE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING

Override Facade Glazing

Glazing % - North Facade

94.2%

99%

-1%

-1%

Glazing % - East Facade

95.2%

99%

-1%

-1%

Glazing % - West Facade

90.2%

99%

-1%

-1%

Research undertaken in the realm of biophilic design has identified a link between human health and proximity to windows (and subsequently daylight). The research asserts that greater access to daylight within commercial and residential contexts reduces instances of poor human health.

(Kellert, Heerwagen & Mador 2011). The most desirable and most efficient source of lighting is natural light, it also provides the most accurate colour rendering. Therefore, those facades containing glazed areas have been increased to include it at 99% of overall facade area.

The baseline model contained large amounts of glazing to these facades and as such Sefaira did not register significant change in annual space heating or annual space cooling. Both yielded variations of less than 1%. This affirmed that facade glazing could be increased without affecting the heating & cooling efficiency of the building, but increase visual connection to outside and improve the amount of daylight to internal spaces. Maximising daylight through large glazed areas and the provision of dual aspect apartments was a key feature in the design of Forte Living (see case studies).

PAGE 20

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE FACADE GLAZING STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING

Facade Glazing 01

Glazing U-Factor

5.0 W/m2.K

3.0 W/m2.K

-29%

-3%

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.4

Glazing U-Factor

5.0 W/m .K

3.0 W/m2.K

-68%

+39%

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.1

Horizontal Projection

0.00m

1.5m

-24%

+7%

Facade Glazing 02

Facade Glazing

2

‘Facade Glazing 01’ proposed the installation of standard double glazed windows (U-Factor 3.0) which showed decreases in both the annual space cooling (kWh) and annual space heating (kWh) required. This demonstrates an increased capacity for the indoor environment to maintain thermal comfort without the need for active systems.

‘Facade Glazing 02’ similarly proposed double glazed windows however; introduced internal blinds (SHGC 0.1). This reduced annual space cooling (kWh) requirements by 68%, a significant reduction from the baseline model. The modelling also shows an increase in space heating by 39% however, it is noted that Sefaira assumes blinds will be shut during the winter months, and prevent heat from entering, which may not be the case.

The provision of blinds therefore allows for an accumulative reduction of 39% in annual space cooling. Blinds also allow for occupants to have control over their surrounding built environment. Blinds with the above properties are the 205 Silver Screen by Verosol.

A horizontal projection in the form of a balcony is provided.

Due to the constant presence of this as a shading device, annual space heating requirements increased by 9%. Despite increasing the reliance of active systems for the provision of thermal comfort in this case, balconies are considered a necessary element to connect occupants with the outdoors.

They represent a significant increase in residential amenity.

STRUC TURE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Structure

Core Structure

Medium

Heavy

Leakage

9.7 m3/m2.h

1.0 m3/m2.h

Noise levels contribute to the contentment of occupants within their built environment. Poorly insulated walls and gaps within walls can allow sound to travel between apartments and service areas. To avoid any loss of amenity through noise, the core structure was increased to heavy, which denotes a

greater level of acoustic insulation. Leakage was also reduced to ‘best practice’ standard (1.0 m3/m2.h). A leaky building would permit greater levels of sound to travel between apartments, and is to be avoided.

PAGE 21

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE FLOORS STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Floors

Floor Finish

Carpet

Tiles

Flooring was changed from carpet to tiles to better prevent the collection of particulate contaminates within the building. This reduces the ability for contaminants to affect the indoor air quality and reduces instances of sick building syndrome that may otherwise result from an increased buildup of contaminates within the air. Sick building syndrome

is a condition that affects the health of occupants due to poor air quality. In addition to this, products, materials and paints should be selected with low levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Attempts should also be made to reduce Formaldehyde, therefore MDF should be minimised in joinery, and ply should be used.

ROOFS STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Roofs

Roof Type

Concrete

Wood Deck

Roof U-Factor

0.36 W/m2.K

0.10 W/m2.K

As a means of improving residential amenity, increasing opportunities for interaction between occupants and increasing biodiversity, a roof top garden is provided to lower roof terraces and the rooftop (see diagram below, green roofs denotes in green). This sees the roof type altered from concrete to wood deck and the U-Factor of the roof decreased. This decrease in U value represents an extremely well insulated the roof. However, it is in a social capacity that the greatest benefits of a roof garden are realised.

Proposed locations of green spaces on roof and roof terraces

PAGE 22

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - HVAC OVERVIEW OF HVAC Strategies contained within the heating, ventilation and air conditioning category allow for the greatest level of control over ones thermal comfort levels within the building. Passive ventilation is modelled within this category which allows for a high level of occupant engagement and control over their internal temperatures, particularly during summer. It is noted that the baseline model allowed for the provision of a split system air conditioning unit within the air distribution system strategy. This allows for a high level of user control over the active means of thermal comfort regulation, and was not changed within this category.

The strategy altered within this category responds primarily to thermal comfort, indoor air quality and engagement with ones immediate environment. The strategy altered within this category is; •

NATURAL VENTILATION

NATURAL VENTILATION STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING

Natural Ventilation

Natural Ventilation Strategy

None

Cross Ventilation

-43%

+13%

Openable Glazing Percentage

None

75%

Site Terrain Type

None

City

Cross ventilation is a highly efficient passive means of supplying fresh air to internal areas. It also influences thermal comfort by regulating air temperature, air movement & humidity. The required fresh air changes of 0.1 L/m2-s can be encouraged through participatory interaction with architectural elements that promote cross ventilation.

Cross ventilation is best fostered through apartments with dual aspect, via which air can enter and exit the building with relatively low obstruction. This has been successfully designed into the Forte Living building (see case studies). Where this is not possible, architectural elements such as wing walls or other such projections can draw breezes through openings on the same facade (Givoni; 1994).

It is important that air flow not be directed too strongly inside a building. An air speed of 0.5 m/s allows for a pleasant breeze which results in a perceived drop of 3 degrees Celsius (Szokolay; 2008).

Sefaira shows a decrease of 43% in annual space cooling, suggesting cross ventilation is an effective means of cooling internal space during the hotter months. It also notes an increase of 13% in annual space cooling however; the software assumes that cross ventilation will also be utilised during the colder months, which is not the case.

Interactive architectural elements such as openable windows also heighten user engagement with the provision of their life support systems.

PAGE 23

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - WATER FIXTURES OVERVIEW OF WATER FIXTURES

Those strategies altered within this category are;

Strategies contained within this category provide an opportunity to heighten peoples connection to nature and deliver some control over the provision of their services (water).

•

LANDSCAPING

•

SHOWER

LANDSCAPING STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Landscaping

Landscape Area

10%

100%

Increasing landscaping to exist across the entirety of site provides greater opportunities for occupants to engage with nature, and subsequently foster their innate connection to nature. Incorporating 100% landscaped area accommodates

the provision of gardens and lower terraces and the rooftop.

Landscaping at ground and rooftop level heighten potential for both natural and social relationships to bloom.

SHOWER RATE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Shower Rate

Shower Flow Rate

9.0 L/min

10.0 L/min

The ability of the building to perform in a social capacity extends to the level of comfort (not simply thermal comfort) enjoyed by its occupants. In terms of water fixtures, it is

considered that people respond more positively to higher shower flow rates, rather than lower, notwithstanding a greater rate of water consumption.

PAGE 24

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - SOCIAL SUMMARY OF CHANGES The following table illustrates the final changes that have been incorporated into this concept and those which provide the overall modelling simulations for comparison against the baseline concept.

The final outcome represents what we consider the most effective means of increasing the social capital of the building, by improving levels of thermal comfort, indoor air quality, connection to nature and direct control over ones immediate environment. It is noted that the provision of internal blinds was omitted from the final simulations, but is an included feature.

STRATEGIES STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Override Facade Glazing

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

99%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

99%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

99%

Glazing U-Factor

5.0 W/m2.K

3.0 W/m2.K

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.4

Horzintal Projections

0.00m

1.5m

Core Structure

Medium

Heavy

Leakage

9.7 m3/m2.h

1.0 m3/m2.h

Floors

Floor Finish

Carpet

Tiles

Roofs

Roof Type

Concrete

Roof U-Factor

0.36 W/m .k

0.10 W/m2.k

Natural Ventilation Strategy

None

Cross Ventilation

Openable Glazing Percentage

None

75%

Site Terrain Type

None

City

Landscaping

Landscaped Area

10%

100%

Shower Rate

Shower Floor Rate

9.0 L/min

10.0 L/min

Facade Glazing

Structure

Natural Ventilation

Wood Deck 2

PAGE 25

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - SOCIAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS PEAK HEATING DEMAND

SOCIAL CONCEPT

BASELINE CONCEPT

PEAK COOLING DEMAND

SOCIAL CONCEPT

BASELINE CONCEPT

Both graphs above illustrate a decrease in the kilowatts required for peak heating and cooling. This implies an increase in the capacity of the building to maintain internal temperatures, and subsequently thermal comfort, via passive rather than active means. This use of passive systems better

connects occupants to their natural life support systems, such as using cross ventilation to promote natural breezes. Less variability in internal temperatures ensures a more constant level of thermal comfort.

PAGE 26

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - SOCIAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AIRFLOW RATE

SOCIAL CONCEPT

BASELINE CONCEPT

Similarly, the graphs above illustrate a greater provision of natural airflow maintaining the thermal comfort and indoor air quality of the building. Higher levels of natural airflow result

from the implementation of cross ventilation, and suggest a greater level of interaction between occupants and their built environment in controlling their surrounds.

PAGE 27

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[03] SOCIAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - SOCIAL MEASURES OF SUCCESS - SEFAIRA ANNUAL SPACE COOLING

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING

ENERGY USE PER GIA

BASELINE

783,636 kWh

1,338,949 kWh

190 kWh/m2

SOCIAL

278,934 kWh

1,219,585 kWh

154 kWh/m2

-64%

-9%

-20%

ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF SUCCESS THERMAL COMFORT

INDOOR AIR QUALIT Y

PROXIMIT Y TO NATURE

CONTROL OVER ENVIRONMENT

BASELINE

Thermal comfort reliant on high use of active systems. Strong variation in internal thermal comfort due to fluctuation in temperatures

Relies on mechanical equipment for the provision of fresh air changes and supply

Generous amount of glazing provided for daylight. Limited landscaped areas, no balconies

Active mechanisms of control only. No interaction with architectural elements to allow for engagement with natural systems

SOCIAL

More consistent level of thermal comfort without reliance on active systems. Also an increase in noise reduction

Cross ventilation allows for greater capacity to regulate air temperature, air movement & humidity.

Tiled floors lower ability for particulate contaminants to accumulate

Increased glazing enhances daylight.

Balconies provide private access to outdoors. Rooftop gardens and 100% landscaped area allows for increased nature and opportunities for social interaction

Operable windows allowing for cross ventilation provide opportunity for occupants to engage with built environment and control of ecosystem services. Blinds act in a similar manner

It is difficult to determine the social success of the building using the modelling tools provided by Sefaira. Subsequently, additional criteria were developed against which this success was measured. These criteria looked at the physiological and psychological needs of humans within the built environment and adjusted the strategies accordingly. As a partial measure of thermal comfort, heating space cooling & heating

requirements suggest a more consistent thermal comfort is achieved within this concept, without the need for mechanical intervention. Various other strategies as noted above enhance the relationship between occupant & nature, improve indoor air quality and provide a greater level of control over their built environment, to promote the integration of natural systems.

PAGE 28

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

OVERVIEW The environmental impact of the building is determined primarily through its reliance on natural resources during operation to meet the service & energy needs of its occupants.

Sustainable buildings generate, where practicable, their own resources to satisfy these needs on-site, such as water & power.

This decreases reliance on non-renewable energy sources (such as those provided via the grid) and complex & inefficient transfer & waste treatment systems. It also reduces the carbon footprint of the building by reducing CO2 emissions and minimising other forms of waste. Reducing the environmental impact of the building ensures that the needs of the present are met without compromising the needs of future generations (Bruntland: 1987).

The building’s success in respect of on-site energy generation is measured against the following primary indicators; •

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (GRID)

•

ANNUAL GRID ELECTRICITY USED

•

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCTION

•

ANNUAL WATER USE

•

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

CATEGORIES The categories within Sefaira of greatest relevance to the factors influencing the environmental impact of the building are;

INDICATORS Rating tools within Sefaira provide the necessary indicators to determine the building’s reliance on non-renewable energy sources. For the purpose of the environmental evaluation, the building was assessed primarily on its capacity to meet energy & water needs through their provision on-site.

Although the energy efficiency of buildings is a significant factor in determining the amount of energy required to meet the service needs of occupants, it was considered paramount for this evaluation that services be delivered in a more sustainable manner, from the source. Energy performance has been incorporated into the economic category as a means of reducing utility costs, and synthesised with the results of this category for overall positive gain.

•

RENEWABLES

•

WATER FIXTURES

•

ENVELOPE

PRECEDENTS Built precedents were also consulted as an indicator of effective methods and technologies allowing for the provision of energy generation, such as K2 Apartments, and water storage & treatment on site such as BedZed Development.

PAGE 29

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - RENEWABLES OVERVIEW OF RENEWABLES

Those strategies altered within this category are;

The strategies contained within renewables allow for energy to be generated on site, subsequently reducing the building’s reliance on energy provided via the grid. Ideally, power provided via the grid would be generated through renewable technologies however; this is not currently the case and is not yet a feasible proposition. Technological interventions are therefore required on site to allow for this to occur.

Sefaira suggests numerous technologies that contribute to energy generation on-site. In order to gauge those most feasible for implementation in a multi-residential application, existing precedents were consulted. BedZED, K2 Apartments & Monash University demonstrated significant reductions in energy consumption through the implementation of solar PV technologies, their success in these examples assisted in anticipating the outcomes of integrating those technologies within this building.

•

FACADE INTEGRATED PV

•

ROOF INTEGRATED PV

•

SOLAR THERMAL HOT WATER

•

SOLAR PV

•

WIND TURBINE

•

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP

Due to the predominate siting of these technologies on the roof of the building (competing for space), each was run independently in Sefaira to determine their maximum possible output. These outputs were then compared against one another to determine those of greatest effectiveness. Possible combinations could then be identified.

The extent of technologies sited on the roof, within each strategy (i.e. percentage of roof area for solar HW) allows for the provision of mechanical plant & equipment and access to roof areas. Subsequently, these are not designated at 100% of roof area.

FACADE INTEGRATED PV STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Facade Integrated PV

Facade Solar PV Area

None

85%

-5%

-9%

-8%

Facade Solar PV Efficiency

None

15%

The percentage of facade allocated to the provision of solar integrated PV cells resulted from a reduction in glazing (see envelope). Current maximum efficiency of available facade integrated PV technology is approximately 15% (YourHome).

Sefaira demonstrated marginal decreases across all key indicators, the most significant representing a reduction of 9% in annual grid electricity used.

PAGE 30

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - RENEWABLES ROOF INTEGRATED PV STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Roof Integrated PV

Roof Solar PV Area

None

80%

-7%

-12%

-11%

Roof Solar PV Efficiency

None

16%

80% roof coverage was designated for the implementation of roof integrated PV technology. This anticipated a 20% provision of mechanical plant & equipment and access. Current maximum efficiency of available roof integrated PV technology is approximately 16%.

Roof integrated PV technologies require a pitched roof to operate most effectively. QV3 has a marginal roof pitch however; it orientates north-east and is not conducive to

maximising the solar efficiency of integrated PV. Integrated PV also requires a significant amount of labour during installation, and maintenance of/replacement of integrated technologies can be complex (YourHome).

Notwithstanding, Sefaira shows reductions across all key indicators. These are comparatively greater than those achieved through the implementation of facade integrated PV cells.

SOLAR THERMAL HW STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Solar Thermal HW

Area

None

275 sqm

-1%

-12%

-1%

Collector Type

None

Evacuated

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

Evacuated solar hot water collectors are deemed the most efficient form of solar HW. Solar radiation heats water in coils located on the roof. 275 sqm at rooftop and terrace level are provided for this technology. Sefaira shows reductions across

all key indicators. In this case, due to the base model containing gas hot water, the annual grid fuel has reduced, rather than grid electricity.

PAGE 31

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - RENEWABLES SOLAR PV STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Solar PV

Area

None

275 sqm

-4%

-6%

-6%

Efficiency

None

30%

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

275 sqm of Solar PV collectors were allocated. This is based on the placement of 100sqm of panels at lower terrace level, and another 175sqm of panels on the rooftop. An efficiency of 30% corresponds to the best available technology on the market; highly specialised concentrating PV collectors with solar tracking.

Sefaira shows reductions across all key indicators. When compared to the implementation of integrated solar PV technology, despite a doubling of efficiency for solar PV, there is significantly less renewable energy produced. However; the orientation of the roof pitch will unlikely yield the production rates Sefaira has suggested for roof integrated PV. Factors such as cost and complexity of installation must also be considered.

WIND STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Wind

Blade Dia.

None

5.00m

-2%

-4%

-3%

Turbine Orientation

None

North

Number of Turbines

None

10

The environmental benefits stemming from the provision of wind turbines were negligible by comparison to other renewable technologies. Sefaira showed marginal decreases across all key indicators.

In any case, it is impractical to install wind turbines within an urban environment in a residential context. Little was found by way of built precedents supporting their installation or confirming the effectiveness of small scale wind generation as source of renewable energy.

PAGE 32

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - RENEWABLES GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC.

ANNUAL GRID FUEL

ANNUAL CO2

Ground Source Heat Pump

Capacity

None

800 kW

-18%

+16%

-67%

+6%

Seasonal COP

None

3

A ground source heat pump was investigated due to its effectiveness in exploiting stable ground temperatures for the generation of heating and cooling. The capacity of the system was determined through a response curve generated in Sefaira. Final modelling shows that performance against the key indicators for environmental impact is varied.

The heat pump demonstrates an overall reduction in energy use, and a significant reduction in annual grid fuel use (natural gas). However; due to the necessary provision of electrical power to distribute heat from the system, annual grid electricity use has increased by 16% and subsequently, integration of a ground source heat pump represents an overall increase in annual CO2 production.

It is noted that Sefaira can not measure the cooling capacity of the ground source heat pump, representing a failure to assess the full benefits of this system.

To fully realise the benefit of this system, it should be considered in relation to all other factors, including proportion of renewable energy generation and insulative capacity of the building.

PAGE 33

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - WATER FIXTURES OVERVIEW OF WATER FIXTURES

Those strategies altered within this category are as follows;

Strong built precedents exist which showcase the successful implementation of water harvesting and greywater treatment facilities in multi-residential contexts. Water harvesting for use in irrigation and toilet flushing was integrated into BedZED, K2 Apartments & Monash University.

Strategies contained within this category provide opportunities not simply for water harvesting and recycling, but also for an overall reduction in water use through the provision of highly efficient water fixtures that reduce flow rates and water usage.

•

LAVATORY

•

SHOWER

•

KITCHEN

•

CLOTHES WASHER

•

DISHWASHER

•

WATER CLOSET

•

WATER REUSE

•

LANDSCAPING

WATER FIXTURES STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL WATER USE (M 3 )

Lavatory

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

3.5 L/min

-334

Shower

Shower Flow Rate

9.0 L/min

5.5 L/min

-5,621

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Kitchen

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

4.0 L/min

-401

Clothes Washer

Water Use

90 L

64 L

-870

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Dishwasher

Water Use

66 L

3.5 L

-1,873

Water Closet

WC Flow Rate

6.0 L

3.5 L

-1,506

Water Use Quality

Potable

Grey

All fixtures have been selected from the WELS (water efficiency labelling and standards scheme) registration & product search website. Each fixture represents the highest attainable level of water efficiency. All excluding the water closet must maintain a potable water source for use. Sefaira shows an overall reduction in annual potable water use of 42%, or 10,605 m3.

Connecting the water closet to a greywater storage tank (collecting water from showers and washing machines) allows the toilet system to use no potable water during operation.

This system has been successfully integrated into the K2 Apartments (see case studies).

PAGE 34

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - WATER FIXTURES WATER REUSE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL WATER USE (M 3 )

Water Reuse

Rainwater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

N/A

Roof Capture Area

None

100%

Greywater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

Grey water treatment systems have been integrated into all three precedent projects analysed within the case studies section of this report. The successful integration of these systems has reduced the use of potable water where it is not vital. The size of systems used within the case studies informed

that proposed within this building, coupled with the results of a response curve within Sefaira. Greywater is provided from washing machines and showers and is used to flush toilets.

Rainwater storage irrigates landscaped areas of the site.

LANDSCAPING STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL WATER USE (M 3 )

Landscaping

Landscape Area

10%

76%

-141

Irrigation Efficiency

90%

95%

Species

Mixed Species

Native Species

Landscaping the entire site apart from the roof of the proposed building (as it is utilized for energy generation technologies) increases biodiversity and microclimate regulation of the immediate surrounds. The use of native species increases their tolerance to environmental conditions and reduces their reliance on water. A drip irrigation systems

sustains landscaping. Sefaira notes a reduction of 141 m3 of water use annually, for irrigation. This is with a 64% increase in the landscaped area and is due to the introduction of native species. It is noted rainwater will account for a large proportion of irrigation, which is likely in reduce this figure further, but it not recognised within Sefaira.

PAGE 35

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE OVERVIEW OF ENVELOPE

The strategy altered within this category are was;

Strategies altered within the envelope were done so to allow for the provision of facade integrated solar PV. The primary objective of this category was to maximise the provision of onsite renewable energy sources, rather than increase envelope efficiency to improve thermal performance of the building.

•

FACADE GLAZING

OVERRIDE FACADE GLAZING STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMED

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL CO2 PRODUCED

Override Facade Glazing

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

15%

-7%

-18%

-15%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

15%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

15%

Responding to the provision of facade integrated PV panels, the percentage of facade glazing was reduced. Glazing was reduced to conform to the minimum area recommended for thermal mass benefits; 13.5% of the floor area.

Subsequent to this alteration, Sefaira shows significant reductions across all key indicators relating to environmental impact. Coupled with facade integrated PV, this could significantly reduce annual energy consumption and reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

PAGE 36

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF CHANGES The following table illustrates the final changes that have been incorporated into this concept. Some of the variables altered during the investigative process were omitted due to poor performance or impracticality. This includes the removal of roof integrated PV, due to its likely failure because of the roof pitch.

Solar PV cells have been coupled with solar thermal HW to concurrently reduce grid electricity and fuel use. The ground source heat pump system provided significant reductions in annual energy consumption.

The final outcome represents what we consider the most effective means of limiting the environmental impact of the building, by way of increasing the provision of energy production on site and reducing potable water usage.

STRATEGIES STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Solar PV

Area

None

175 sqm

Efficiency

None

30%

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

Area

None

100 sqm

Collector Type

None

Evacuated

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

Facade Solar PV Area

None

85%

Facade Solar PV Efficiency

None

15%

Capacity

None

800 kW

COP

None

3

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

15%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

15%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

15%

Solar Thermal HW

Facade Integrated PV

Ground Source Heat Pump

Override Facade Glazing

PAGE 37

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES CONTINUED STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Lavatory Faucet

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

3.5 L/min

Shower

Shower Flow Rate

9.0 L/min

5.5 L/min

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Kitchen Faucet

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

4.0 L/min

Clothes Washer

Clotheswasher Water Use

90 L

64 L

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Dishwasher

Dishwasher Water Use

66 L

10 L

Water Closet

Water Closet Flow Rate

6.0 L

3.5 L

Water Use Quality

Potable

Grey

Rainwater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

Roof Capture Area

None

100%

Greywater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

Landscape Area

10%

76%

Irrigation Efficiency

90%

95%

Species

Mixed Species

Native Species

Water Reuse

Landscaping

PAGE 38

Assignment 2_QV3 : Building on site Assignment 2 Concept Comparison Tariff

[04] E

Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh Heat 0.100 $/kWh N V I R O N M E N1.50 T A$/mL3 Water FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh

Manage Team

Space Uses

Resource Mix

90.0% Residential 10.0% Retail

Electricity

QV3

X Weather

ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES Top 2

100 % Melbourne, VIC 0 % Report Print 19km from Site

Natural Gas Fuel Oil

100 % 0%

Heating

E VALUATION

Add Massing 'FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 2' from

Current Weath

Coal Natural Gas

Top 2

Baseline Concept

'ENVIRONMENTAL' Sefaira Concept

Actions ▼

Massing 1

Energy Used

Water Used

Carbon Emitted

Last Modified

Tamara I

Massing: Massing 1 Baseline Concept

CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL ▶ Assignment 2_QV3 ▼ Ingram Owner Tamara

Concept Projects

Assignment 2_QV3 : Building on site Assignment 2 ECONOMIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Concept Comparison

Massing: Massing 1 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

4,865,523kWh

ENERGYTariff FOOTPRINT GRAPH

Space Uses

Resource Mix

Electricity Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh 90.0% Residential Coal 3 Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh 10.0% Retail 4,865,523kWh ENVIRONMENTAL 25,435m Natural Gas Heat 0.100 $/kWh Owner Tamara Ingram Energy Footprint (kWh) Energy Footprint (kWh) Heating Water 1.50 $/m3 Natural Gas FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh Fuel Oil 'FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 2' from Terms of Service - PrivacyBaseline Concept out Sefaira - Careers - News - Knowledgebase Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 'ENVIRONMENTAL' 400000 EXPERIMENT 1

Owner Tamara Ingram

Massing 1

kWh

300000

200000 Actions Massing: Massing 1 ▼ 100000 0

400000 4,865,523kWh Electric Heating Gas Heating 300000 Equipment Hot Water Cooling 200000 Lighting EnergyMassing: Used kWh

Add Massing

25,435m3

Water1 Used Massing

100000

SOCIAL

25,435m3

4,865,523kWh

Owner Tamara Ingram

Baseline Concept

4,865,523kWh0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Owner Tamara Ingram Month

25,435m3

Print Top 2 Report Current Weather

100 % 2 Melbourne, VIC A 3,103,866kgCO 25 days ago 0% 19km from Site Top 2

100 % 0%

Cooling

Lighting Carbon Emitted

3,103,866kgCO2 3,103,866kgCO2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

BASELINE CONCEPT 3,946,819kWh 28,311m3

By Tamara Ingram

3,103,866kgCO 15 days ago 2 Electric Heating Gas Heating

By Tamara Equipment Ingram Hot Water

Month

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT 'SOCIAL FINAL' from 'SOCIAL'

Manage Team X25 days ago

By Tamara Ingram Weather

Owner Tamara Ingram

Add Concept

1 month ago

By Tamara Ingram

Last Modified 15 days ago

By Tamara 1 month ago Ingram

By Tamara Ingram

3 days ago By Tamara 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 25 days ago ECONOMIC 2 The graphs above illustrate a significant overall decrease in the An increase in the generation of3,103,866kgCO on site electricity has Owner Tamara Ingram

By Tamara //apps.sefaira.com/concept/project/9827/concepts/?id=9827# energy footprint of the proposed environmental concept. This also reduced the electricity requirements in other aspects, Ingram is particularly evident during summer months, when electric corresponding to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. As Add Concept powered appliances are heavily utilized. The inclusion little of alteration to the insulative properties of the building were Uses cooling of Energy (kWh) Uses Energy (kWh) of a heat pump systems shows an almost complete reduction made within this concept, increase in demand 3 there is little 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 25for days ago ENVIRONMENTAL 2 of gas heating however showsIngram a subsequent increase in gas heating. However, overall there exists a significant decline Owner Tamara By Tamara Appliances 384875 Appliances 384875 electrical heating. in the kilowatt hours needed to service the building Ingram Owner Tamara Ingram

Cooling

260507

t Sefaira - Careers - NewsLighting - Knowledgebase Space Heating EXPERIMENT 1 ENERGY SOURCES Hot Water

< Back

Owner Tamara Ingram

Cooling

Grid Electricity Grid Natural Gas

SOCIAL Owner Tamara Ingram

783636

1042192 Lighting Terms of Service - Privacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 5058264,865,523kWh Space Heating 25,435m3 Hot Water

372965

Sources of Energy (kWh)

2,284,942kgCO2

Close

1042192 1338949 3,103,866kgCO 15 days ago 2 670071

By Tamara Ingram

Sources of Energy (kWh)

4,865,523kWh

2210726

Grid Electricity

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

15 days ago

By Tamara 2009021 Ingram 2856502

248773

Grid Natural Gas

Grid Renewable

0

Grid Renewable

0

Onsite Photvoltaic

628473

Onsite Photvoltaic

0

Onsite Wind

'SOCIAL FINAL' from 'SOCIAL' 0

3,946,819kWh Onsite Wind

Owner Tamara Ingram

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT

28,311m3

BASELINE CONCEPT

2,284,942kgCO 2 0

3 days ago

By Tamara

pps.sefaira.com/concept/project/9827/concepts/?id=9827#

A significant increase the provision of electrical energy from on-site photovoltaic is illustrated above. The provision of a

ground source heat pump also shows a significant reduction in the use of natural gas as a source for heating.

PAGE 39

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805 Sefaira Concept

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

Concept Projects

▶

Assignment 2_QV3

Tamara Ingra

▼

Assignment 2_QV3 : Building on site Assignment 2 Concept Comparison Tariff

Manage Team

Space Uses

CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh 90.0% Residential Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh Heat 0.100 $/kWh Water 1.50 $/m3 FIT Elec 0.000 $/kWh RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUC TION

Actions ▼

Energy Used CHP Electric

Massing: Massing 1

6000

Wind Electric

Baseline Concept

4000

Natural Gas Fuel Oil

100 % 0%

Top 2

Water Used

Carbon Emitted

25,435m3

4,865,523kWh

Solar PV Electric

3,103,866kgCO2

2000 0

Jan

Feb Mar

Jul Aug ECONOMIC

Apr May Jun

Sep

Oct

4,865,523kWh

Nov Dec

Jan

Apr 3 May 25,435m

Feb Mar

Month Owner Tamara Ingram

EXPERIMENT 1 WATER USES & SOURCES Shower/Wash/Drinking Toilet

Owner Tamara Ingram

2476 Appliances Terms of Service - Privacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 0 Irrigation 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 10104 Shower/Wash/Drinking 2108

Toilet

Sources of Water (m3) Owner Tamara Ingram

3,103,866kgCO2

25 days ago

By Tamara Ingram

5219 141

3,103,866kgCO2

16462

3614

4,865,523kWh 2108

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

Greywater

0

730

Rainwater

0

11832

Utility Water

25435

3,946,819kWh 28,311m3 BASELINE CONCEPT < Back

Implementation of highly efficient waters fixtures and effective use of water harvesting & recycling systems has reduced the impact of the building on mains water supply. The graph above illustrates a significant reduction in the need for mains water,

efaira.com/concept/project/9827/concepts/?id=9827#

Solar PV Electric

25 days ago

By Tamara Ingram

Rainwater

Owner Tamara Ingram

1 month ago

By Tamara Ingram

Solar Hot Water

Oct Nov Dec 2 3,103,866kgCO

Aug Sep

Utility Water

'SOCIAL FINAL' from 'SOCIAL' ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT

Wind Electric

15 days ago

By Tamara Ingram

Sources of Water (m3)

SOCIAL Greywater

Jul

BASELINE CONCEPT

The graphs above ENVIRONMENTAL affirm a substantial increase in the 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 Uses of (m3) energy. This reduces the buildings Uses of Water (m3) production ofWater renewable Owner Tamara Ingram reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

Appliances aira - Careers - News - Knowledgebase Irrigation

Jun

Month

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT Add Concept

Last Modified CHP Electric

Massing: Massing 1

Solar Hot Water

Owner Tamara Ingram

Current Weather:

100 % Melbourne, VIC AU (2 Print Report 0% 19km from Site

Baseline Concept Net Renewable Production (kWh)

kWh

kWh

8000

Top 2

Coal Natural Gas

Heating

Net Renewable Production (kWh) 'ENVIRONMENTAL'

10000

Weather

Electricity

10.0% Retail

Add Massing 'FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 2' from

Massing 1

X

Resource Mix

Close

2,284,942kgCO2

15 days ago

By Tamara Ingram 3 days ago

By Tamara

and also shows an increase in the capacity of the building to reuse water. An increase in the use of rainwater is due to its designation for landscaping.

PAGE 40

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[04] ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES OF SUCCESS ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL

ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS

ANNUAL WATER USE

ENERGY USE PER GIA

BASELINE

4,865,523 kWh

2,856,502 kWh

2,009,021 kWh

3,103,866 kgCO2

25,435 L

190 kWh/m2

PROPOSED

2,459,500 kWh

2,210,726 kWh

248,773 kWh

2,167,076 kgCO2

11,832 L

41 kWh/m2

-49%

-23%

-88%

-30%

-53%

-78%

The table above illustrates the indicators being used as measures of success for the environmental concept.

Through the generation of energy on-site and efficient use of water including its capture & recycling, the proposed environmental concept has performed well. Reductions across all key performance indicators were realised. Annual water use reduced by 53% and annual grid electricity consumption reduced by 23%. These reductions suggest a high level of success with the concept, which has effectively negotiated the implementation of highly feasible renewable energy technologies.

Further improvements across these performance indicators could be seen through increasing the insulative properties of the building however; as noted, the primary objective within the concept has been to illustrate the possibility of generating energy on-site and increasing water efficiency.

LOCATING RENEWABLES SOLAR PV CELLS - 175 SQM

SOLAR THERMAL HW - 100 SQM

Proposed locations of Solar cells on roof and roof terraces

PAGE 41

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC EVALUATION

OVERVIEW The economic evaluation of the development can be understood in two ways. Firstly, there is the capital expenditure (Capex) related to implementing ESD technologies. This is the initial cost associated with investing in products or equipment, which may be more costly to purchase and implement, but will deliver considerable savings in the long term by reducing running costs in the future. The second evaluation tool is the operational cost (Opex) of the development. This includes the ongoing cost associated with maintaining a building’s services and equipment, and also includes the day to day running of individual units, such a the cost of electricity, gas and water utilities. Therefore, the economic section of the report will aim to balance both the Capex and Opex to determine the most viable ESD considerations to be incorporated into the development.

This economic evaluation will be assessed using the predominant energy sources used today, electricity and gas. Whilst renewable have the potential to decrease the operational cost of a building, they similarly have a significant up front cost. Their use will not be examined in this section.

Sefaira is unable to assist the understanding of the Capex implications, and as such, additional information has been provided to allow for adequate evaluation purposes where required, to assess the economic viability of implementing sustainable technologies.

CATEGORIES The categories within Sefaira of greatest relevance to the factors influencing the economic viability of the building are;

INDICATORS Rating tools within Sefaira provide the necessary indicators to understand which design principles yield the greatest result in reducing the operational costs of the building. The building’s ability to reduce the day to day running costs for occupants will be primarily measured using the following tools; •

ANNUAL UTILITY COST

•

ANNUAL GRID ELECTRICITY USED

•

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

•

ENVELOPE

•

HVAC

It is within these categories that alterations to the strategies had greatest bearing on the indicators measuring the operational costs of the building.

PAGE 42

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE OVERVIEW OF ENVELOPE

The strategies altered within this category are as follows;

The strategies evaluated within the envelope category primarily discuss the impact of glazing, by evaluating the scope on the glazing, percentage that is operable, as well as discussing the glazing type. The structure is similarly explored, as the type of construction material is examined for its cost implications, and how the materials effects operational costs after completion through the provision of thermal mass.

â&#x20AC;˘

FACADE GLAZING

â&#x20AC;˘

STRUCTURE

FACADE GLAZING PERCENTAGE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Override Facade Glazing

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

80%

-2% ($13,275)

-2%

-1%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

40%

-2% ($19,713)

-3%

-1%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

0%

-5% ($42,557)

-7%

-1%

TOTAL

-9% ($75,545) Saving of $151.09 per occupant

The above combination of facade glazing was found to have the highest reduction in utility costs, equating to a 9% annual saving for occupants. Overall it was found that decreasing the glazing directly decreased utility cost. From the table it can be seen that the electricity use, which is powering the cooling system in the baseline model, was significantly reduced. This is attributed to the reduction of heat gained, which in turn reduces the amount of cooling that is that required. Annual grid fuel, or gas in this case which is powering the heating system, is not reduced at the same rate, as previously, heat gained through the windows would have reduced the heating needs of the building. Gas is a cheaper resource to buy from the grid than electricity, and therefore, priority was given to reducing the heat load, and therefore reducing the electricity used by the cooling system.

The north facade was kept at a relatively high number, as potential buyers, investors and renters prefer bright interiors, with abundant natural light and views, therefore, the marketability is maintained, whilst also reducing heating energy for potential occupiers. The easterly facade contains a moderate level of glazing whilst the west facade has been kept free of windows. This was to reduce the solar heat gain from the hot afternoon sun, whilst also maximising development potential on this large site, by maintaining a blank facade for a potential adjoining development. Glazing also represents a significant costs, therefore by minimising it, capital expenditure can be reduced.

PAGE 43

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE FACADE GLAZING STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Facade Glazing

Glazing U-Factor

5 w/m2.k

3 w/m2.k

-7% ($58,635) saving of $117.27 per occupant

-8%

-7%

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.4

The current building model has used clear single glazing, however this has been changed to standard, clear, double glazing, with the above properties. An glass type with these values is the Viridian V-Float Clear. The inner city location means that outside noise could be a potential deterrent, therefore double glazing has been used, as this glazing type is able to significantly reduce noise transmission, compared to single glazing.

Clear, Low-E double glazing was also investigated. Whilst the low-e double glazing outperformed the standard variety, with an additional saving of $9, 287 in utility costs per year, this was only a 1% saving per annum, and therefore, the significant difference in capital expenditure between these glazing types makes it difficult to justify the additional cost of implementing the low-E glazing, when more significant savings can be achieved through passive design principles.

The glazing with a U factor of 3 has been used to give the greatest equal reduction in both electricity and gas use. If the U facor is too low, this significantly reduces heat entry, and therefore increases the demand on heating. Similarly if too high, cooling is increased as high levels of heat enter the building. Clear glazing was used with a SHGC of 0.6, as the addition of a reflective coating did little to justify the costs associated with specifying such a film to all windows.

Similarly, such films have a limited life span, and may therefore be financially burdensome in the future. Blind are a far more cost effective solution, as previously mentioned in the social evaluation section.

PAGE 44

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE STRUC TURE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Structure

Core Structure

Medium

Heavy

-7% ($53,299) saving of $106.60 per occupant

-3%

-19%

Walls

Walls Thermal Resistance U-value

1.0

0.2

Wall Type

Curtain

Precast Concrete

The structure of the building is currently modelled with a medium construction however, it would be strongly advisable to increase this to heavy construction. There are several benefits to this increase, the first being the creation of thermal mass.

Given the Melbourne climate, with a high diurnal temperature range, thermal mass can create a time lag, which slows the passage of heat from outside to inside, due to the high heat capacity of the material used such as pre-cast panels, which has been modelled. The interior will remain cool during the day, then the chilled evening air is able to purge the material of heat at night.

Additional benefits of increasing thermal mass and raising the structure from medium to heavy is the reduction in additional cladding and insulation costs. If a steel or timber frame was used, the required insulation, and layers of cladding would be significant. However, by increasing the mass of the structure, there is potential for the building to provide structure, insulation, mass and cladding the same time, reducing the amount of additional materials required.

Given that consecutive periods of very high heat last only a few days in this climate, thermal mass is an appropriate design strategy. Whilst there may be some initial cost involved, by increasing the mass of the structure, there could be a saving of 7% in utility costs. The insulative properties of the walls were also increased, changing the U-value from 1, which is poorly insulated to 0.2, or well insulated, which would similarly decrease the transmission of heat into the building.

PAGE 45

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - ENVELOPE STRUC TURE STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Structure

Leakage

9.7 m3/m2.h

1.0 m3/m2.h

- 1%($5,154)

-1%

-4%

Surface Reflectance North Facade

0.6

0.4

Surface Reflectance West Facade

0.6

0.8

Surface Reflectance East Facade

0.6

0.4

The leakage of the building has also been revised down from the original 9.7 m3/m2.h, which is in the upper range of normal and represents a potentially leaky building which will lose and gain heat very quickly. Instead, the best practice value of 1 has been suggested, which would require sufficient construction skill on site, and the addition of sealing measures at openings, such as door and window seals, pelmets above windows, and adequate insulation around any service penetrations.

The reflectance of the building has also been changed from light coloured, reflective walls, to darker walls with low reflectivity on the north facade. This is particularly important on the northern facade when coupled with shading measures, to allow the winter sun to hit the facade and warm the thermal mass, whilst being shielded in summer. Both the west and east facade should be light in colour and reflective, to reduce the heat gain in summer on these two facades. Such considerations should be included when selecting facade cladding types, paint colours, or concrete pigment which will have impact on the operational costs of the building, whilst having no impact on capital expenditure.

PAGE 46

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - HVAC OVERVIEW OF HVAC The heating and cooling of the spaces will constitute a large percentage of operational costs after completion, and the HVAC services will also amount to substantial costs up front.

Some of the passive design strategies below can be included in the sketch design phase of the project, to not only reduce the operational costs for occupants, but also the capital expenditure.

The strategies altered within this category are as follows; •

NATURAL VENTILATION

•

COMFORT VENTILATION

•

HEATING EQUIPMENT

•

COOLING EQUIPMENT

VENTILATION STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Natural Ventilation

Strategy

none

Cross Ventilation

-13% ($104,357) saving of $208.71 per occupant

-21%

+9%

Openable Glazing Percentage

none

50%

Ventilation Rate

1.0 L.m2.s

0.30 L.m2.s

-20% ($164,769) saving of $329.53 per occupant

-11%

-51%

Comfort

Natural ventilation can be included in the design to allow occupants to passively cool their spaces, requiring little to no operational cost, and with limited capital expenditure.

As previously mentioned in the social analysis, architectural elements, such as wing walls, can be included at the design stage to encourage cross ventilation, even if openings are not available of both sides of the building. In addition to this, opening at the top and bottom of a window should be made available to encourage air movement in and out of the space.

As such, the model has been altered to reflect 50% operable windows, and cross ventilation has been included. This saw a large reduction in utility costs of 13%, saving the building $104,357. This was achieved with no other capital expenditure

other than design costs, with no operational costs. The annual grid fuel has increased, as the software assumes year round use of the cross ventilation, when in reality, more occupants would not open their apartment to ventilate every day during winter, and as such, this should be overlooked.

The original model called for a ventilation rate of 1, however such volumes of air changes are only required in large scale public building. Therefore, the rate has been modelled to a more appropriate 0.3 L.m2.s, which reflects the requirements of a residential unit, and the large savings are attributed to this reality. All openings should be able to be fully sealed when closed to achieve this.

PAGE 47

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CATEGORY - HVAC HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEM STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED

Heating Equipment

Heating COP

0.85

2.4

-5% ($39,053) saving of $78.12 per occupant

+17%

-67%

Cooling Equipment

Cooling COP

3

2.4

-10% ($77,063) saving of $154.13 per occupant

-13%

0%

Air Distribution System

Design Fan Power

3.0kw.s/m3

0.5kw.s/m3

HVAC System

SplitSystem Air Conditioner

SplitSystem Air Conditioner

It is proposed that heating and cooling should be delivered to each unit via individual electric, split-system air conditioners.

This will allow for individual metering of energy use associated with heating and cooling, whilst providing each occupant with control over temperature settings, fan speeds and patterns of use. Combining heating and cooling in the same unit reduces capital expenditure, and maintenance costs, as each unit will have individual responsibility for the running of the units, making it an appropriate choice for a residential development.

Whilst this increased electricity use, overall, there is a reduction of 5% in annual utility costs, as there is no longer an additional gas fired heating system originally proposed in the baseline model.

Other methods of heating were investigated, such as a combined heat and power unit (CHP), however these significantly increased gas use, increasing utility costs. There are also issues with metering individual unitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heat use, and therefore gas use. Whilst the electricity created by the system could have been used by occupants, the significant capital expenditure associated with the installation, maintenance and running of the could not be justified by the reduction in electricity needed to be purchased from the grid. This was supported by the case study of BedZed residential complex which originally installed a CHP, however, do to excessive costs associated with the system, it was decommissioned in favour of a heating system more suitable to residential units. As such, this equipment is not recommended.

PAGE 48

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

Sefaira Concept Tamara Ingram

Sefaira Concept Sefaira Concept

nment 2

Tamara Ingram Tamara Ingram

Tamara Ingram

CATEGORY - LIGHTING

ConceptComparison Comparison Concept OVERVIEW Concept Comparison Space Uses

Manage Team

View Files X X

Resource Mix

ment 2 The electricity used for lighting in the development has also Electricity Top 2 90.0%2Residential ment Manage Team Files been revised.

By selectingView energy efficient lamp types, energy

Weather X Manage Team

X

View Files

Designing living spaces around the north facade with its Manage CurrentTeam Weather: View Files abundant glazing and natural light, will reduce the reliance Print Report Print Report Coal 100 % 10.0% Retail Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) on artificial lighting, and therefore energy use will be reduced. use can be reduced. The project was currently modelled NaturalMix Gas 0% Print Report 19km from Site Tariff Resource Print Report Weather By selecting dimmable lights, residents can easily reduce with a lighting efficiency appropriate Top 2 Heating for a luxury residence Tariff Resource Mix Weather their energy use if they are comfortable with lower lighting or office, uniform lighting and therefore this has been Natural Gas 100 Electricity Top 2% Electricity Peak Weather 0.200with $/kWh Current Weather: levels.

Zoning lights can(2011) also assist in reducing energy costs, Fuel Oil 0 % reduced to levels of an energy efficient residence.

To achieve Coal 100 % Melbourne, VIC AU Electricity Peak Off Peak 0.200 0.200$/kWh $/kWh Electricity Top 2 Electricity Current Weather: Top 2 Current Weather: Natural Gas 0 % ensuring that lighting is only these levels of lighting efficiency that have been proposed, 'ECONOMIC' from 'ECONOMIC' Baseline Concept 19km from Site Heat 100 % 0.100$/kWh $/kWh Coal 100 % Melbourne, VIC AU (2011)used where it is actually required Electricity Off Peak 0.200 'ECONOMIC' from 'ECONOMIC' Baseline Concept Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) Top 2 Heating at the time.

Providing considered locations of power points the lamp type in conjunction with the lighting and power Natural Gas 0 % 3 Water 0 % 1.50$/kWh $/m 19km from Site Heat 0.100 'ECONOMIC' from 'ECONOMIC' Baseline Concept 19km from Site Natural Gas 100 2% Baseline Concept Top Heating will allow occupants to install task lighting, to increase light design must be altered, as outlined in this section.

The FIT Elec 0.000 $/kWh 3 Top 2 Water 1.50 $/m Fuel OilGas 0% % Natural 100 levels for specific tasks in that location, rather than the entire lighting used by the retail component of the development 100 % FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh Fuel Oil ceiling mounted, energy 0% room.

In additional to this, 0 % Energy has also been reduced, to standard Massing: Massing Massing: Massing Massing: Massing 11 Massing 1 1Forte Living also implemented a Used Water Used Carbon Emitted Massing: Last Modified master turn off switch, to make energy reduction easier for efficient fluorescent lighting, at a uniform lux level across the Massing: Massing 11 Massing: Massing 1 Massing: Massing occupants, which would be advised. space, increasing the efficiency to 25 w/m2.

3 4,865,523kWh 25,435mLED 3,103,866kgCO 1 month ago 2 To achieve efficiency, used in the Energy Used lighting Water Used fittings were Carbon Emitted Last Modified

By Tamara Forte Living development in Docklands to great success, USES OF ENERGY (KWH) Used Carbon Emitted Last Modified on EmittedEnergy Last Modified Water Used Ingram which could be replicated in this development. However,

an alternative economic option of 3 is the implementation 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 2 dimmable energy efficient, compact fluorescent lamp types.

3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 2 3,866kgCO2 4,865,523kWh 1 month ago 3 25,435m Whilst LEDs and Fluorescent lamps cost more 3,103,866kgCO than traditional 2 By Tamara incandescent bulbs, they have the potential to save five times Ingram the energy, and also have a lower heat output, potentially

The baseline model demonstrates the significant 1 month ago consumption of energy that lighting uses. Due to the Tamara 1By month ago 25 days modelling of ago the baseline, and the inefficient systems Ingram By Tamara

By Tamara proposed in the baseline, lighting is the second highest Ingram energy user in the building, and therefore careful design Ingram needs to be applied to reduce energy consumption.

saving money on cooling electricity.

3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m Usesofof Energy (kWh) Uses Energy (kWh) 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m Uses Energy 3,866kgCO2 4,865,523kWh 25 of days ago(kWh) 25,435m3 Uses of Energy (kWh) By Tamara Appliances Appliances Ingram Appliances

3,103,866kgCO2 25Uses days ago Energy (kWh) Uses of of Energy (kWh) By Tamara 3,103,866kgCO2 25 days ago Uses of Energy (kWh) 3,103,866kgCO2 25 days ago Ingram By Tamara

By Tamara 267935 Appliances 384875 Appliances Ingram Ingram 384875 Appliances 314940 Cooling 169301 Cooling

25,435m3 Cooling Lighting Lighting 314940 4,865,523kWh Cooling 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 Lighting Space Heating Space Heating 3,866kgCO 25 days ago 1042192 2 4,865,523kWh Lighting 25,435m3 Space Heating Hot Hot Water ByWater Tamara 80765 Space Heating Hot Water Ingram ECONOMIC 670071 Hot Water CONCEPT

3,103,866kgCO 25Lighting days ago 314940 Cooling 2 1042192 Lighting 288368 783636 By Tamara 3,103,866kgCO 25Space days ago 1042192 Lighting 80765 Space Heating 77125 2 Heating 1042192 3,103,866kgCO 15 days ago 2 Ingram ByHot Tamara 80765 Space Heating 670071 Hot Water 670071 Water 1338949

By Tamara Ingram 670071 Hot WaterCONCEPT BASELINE Ingram 670071

4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 Sources ofof Energy (kWh) Sources Energy (kWh) 3 4,865,523kWh acy Policy Š 2013 Sefaira Ltd.ago - v2.5.7 25,435m VARIABLE 3,866kgCO 15STRATEGY days 2 4,865,523kWh 3 25,435m Grid Electricity Grid Electricity

By Tamara Grid Electricity Grid Natural Gas Grid Natural Gas 1830428 Grid Electricity Ingram

3,103,866kgCO2 15 days ago Sources of Energy (kWh) By Tamara 3,103,866kgCO2 BASELINE 15 days ago 3,103,866kgCO 15 days ago PROPOSED Electricity 1830428 814827 2 Grid Grid Electricity Ingram By Tamara By Tamara 1830428 Grid Electricity Grid Natural Gas 670071 Ingram 670071 Grid Natural Gas 2856502 Ingram

384875

Cooling Cooling Appliances

Sources Energy (kWh) Sourcesofof Energy (kWh)

670071

Grid Natural Gas Grid Renewable Grid Renewable Grid Natural Gas

384875 384875 384875 783636 783636

384875

783636 1042192 1042192 1042192 1338949 1338949 1338949 670071 670071 670071

Sources of of Energy (kWh) Sources Energy (kWh)

670071 0 2009021 0

Grid Natural Gas Grid Renewable Grid 2 Renewable

Space Uses Installed density w/m 2.0 w/m 3 lighting power 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 15 days ago 2 6.0 Grid Grid Renewable 00 00 Renewable Onsite Photvoltaic Onsite Photvoltaic Onsite Photvoltaic Onsite Photvoltaic 0 Grid Renewable 3 Bydays Tamara 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO2 15 ago RESIDENTIAL 3,866kgCO 15 days ago 2 3,946,819kWh Onsite Photvoltaic 00 00 Photvoltaic Onsite Wind Onsite Wind 3 Onsite Wind Onsite Wind OCIAL' 28,311m 2,284,942kgCO 3Tamara days ago 2 Onsite 0 Photvoltaic Ingram By

By Tamara Onsite Wind 0 Onsite Wind By Tamara 0 Onsite Wind 0 Installed lighting power density 50.0Ingram w/m2 25 w/m2 Ingram Ingram

CIAL' 3,946,819kWh < Back Close CIAL' 3,946,819kWh 4,942kgCO 2 days ago 2 AL' 2,163,611kWh By Tamara L' Ingram

RETAIL 3 28,311m 28,311m3 11,832m3

< Back < Back

Close Close

2,284,942kgCO 2 days ago < Back 2 Close Tamara 2,284,942kgCO2PAGE 49 2Bydays ago 1,901,610kgCO2 2Tamara days ago Ingram By

By Tamara Ingram Ingram

2

ANNUAL ELEC TRICIT2856502 Y 2856502 2856502 2009021 2009021 COST 2009021 0 0

-72% ($150,764) 00 0 saving of $301.53 per occupant00 0 0

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF CHANGES The following table illustrates the final changes that have been incorporated into this concept and subsequently those which will be taken into considered for the overall modelling simulations in the recommendations section.

The final outcome represents what we consider the most effective means of increasing the economic success whilst balancing the capital expenditure and the operational costs of the building by:

•

Reducing glazing, except the norther facade, installing double glazing

•

Increase the structure to a heavy construction and use pre-cast concrete for the walls for thermal mass, and provide provisions to reduce leakage

•

Use dark coloured cladding on the northern facade, and lighter cladding on the east and west

•

Encourage cross ventilation with architectural elements, window design, and operable windows

•

Install split-system air conditioners to provide both heating and cooling.

STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Override Facade Glazing

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

80%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

40%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

0%

Glazing U-Factor

5.0 W/m2.K

3.0 W/m2.K

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.4

Core Structure

Medium

Heavy

Leakage

9.7 m3/m2.h

1.0 m3/m2.h

Surface Reflectance North Facade

0.6

0.4

Walls Thermal Resistance U-Value

1.0

0.2

Wall Type

Curtain

Precast Concrete

Natural Ventilation Strategy

None

Cross Ventilation

Openable Glazing Percentage

None

Comfort Ventilation

Ventilation Rate

1.0 L.m .s

0.30 L.m2.s

Heating Equipment

Heating COP

0.85

2.4

Cooling Equipment

Cooling COP

3

2.4

Air Distribution System

Design Fan Power

3.0kw.s/m3

0.5kw.s/m3

Space Uses

Installed lighting power density - Residential

6.0 w/m2

2.0 w/m2

Installed lighting power density - Retail

50.0 w/m2

25.0 w/m2

Facade Glazing

Structure

Walls

Natural Ventilation

50% 2

PAGE 50

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION 'ECONOMIC' from 'ECONOMIC'

Baseline Concept

'ECONOMIC' from 'ECONOMIC'

Baseline Concept

Massing: Massing 1

Massing: Massing 1

Massing: Massing 1

Massing: Massing 1

CONCLUSIONS - ECONOMIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS PEAK HEATING DEMAND Peak Space Heating Demand (kW) 800

Peak Space Heating Demand (kW)

Peak Space Heating Demand (kW)

800 700

600 800

Peak Demand

400 600

Peak Demand

300 500

kW

500 700

kW

kW

kW

700

200 400 100 300 200

Peak Demand

400 600

Peak Demand

500 700 300 500 200 400 200

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ECONOMIC CONCEPT

600 800

100 300

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

100

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW)

Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW)

2000

Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW)

1500 2000

Peak Demand Peak Demand

kW

kW

500 1000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

1000 1500

kW

kW

1000 1500

Month

JanCONCEPT Feb Mar Apr May Jun BASELINE

Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW) PEAK COOLING DEMAND

1500 2000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

100

Month

2000

Peak Space Heating Demand (kW)

500 1000

500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Peak Demand Peak Demand

500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Month

ECONOMIC CONCEPT

BASELINE CONCEPT

Both graphs above illustrate a decrease in the kilowatts required for peak heating and cooling. This decrease was achieved predominantly through passive systems, which require little capital expenditure. By increasing the energy

efficiency of the glazing, thermal mass and wall structure, significant reductions in energy consumption can be achieved, and therefore save occupants a great deal on utility costs.

PAGE 51

X

Concept Comparison

ace Uses

Resource Mix

Weather

Sefaira Concept Electricity 0% Residential TAMARA INGRAM 298 185Coal 0% Retail

Current Weather: Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) Tamara Ingram 19km from Site

Top 2

ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805 Gas Natural

100 % 0%

Natural Gas Fuel Oil

100 % 0%

Heating

Top 2

[ 0 5 ] E C Ofrom N O 'ECONOMIC' MIC E VALUATION 'ECONOMIC'

Baseline Concept

ent 2

Manage Team

Concept Comparison Massing: 1 Energy UsedMassing Water Used

ace Uses

Carbon Emitted

Resource Mix

.0% Residential 4,865,523kWh 0% Retail

Electricity 3 25,435m Coal

Natural Gas

Top 2

3,103,866kgCO 100 % 2 0%

CONCLUSIONS - ECONOMIC Natural Gas Heating

Top 2

Fuel Oil

100 % 0%

3 'ECONOMIC' from25,435m 'ECONOMIC' 4,865,523kWh

Appliances

4,865,523kWh Cooling

25,435m3

Lighting Space Heating 4,865,523kWh

267935

3,103,866kgCO 169301 2 288368

4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 Sources of Energy (kWh) ECONOMIC CONCEPT

3,103,866kgCO2

670071

the graphs the use Gridabove Natural Gas demonstrate the impact this has on670071 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO of energy for heating and cooling.

Space heating has been2 Grid Renewable 0 Appliances reduced to a greater extent than cooling, which is in 267935 line with Onsite Photvoltaic 0 Cooling the Melbourne climate requirements. There are more169301 heating 3 Onsite Wind 0 3,946,819kWh 28,311m 2,284,942kgCO degree days in Melbourne, so therefore, reducing heating Lighting 288368 2

Sources of Energy (kWh) 2,163,611kWh 11,832m3

olicy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 4,865,523kWh Grid Electricity

AL'

25,435m3

SOURCES Hot Water OF ENERGY

25,435m3

Grid Natural Gas

77125 3,103,866kgCO 2 < Back 670071

1,901,610kgCO2 3,103,866kgCO 814827 2 670071

Grid Renewable

0

Onsite Photvoltaic

0

Onsite Wind 3,946,819kWh

28,311m3

ECONOMIC CONCEPT

Print Report

Uses of Energy (kWh)1 Massing: Massing Last Modified 25 days ago By Tamara Appliances 384875 1Cooling month ago Ingram 783636

By Tamara Lighting 1042192 Ingram Space Heating 1338949 15 days ago Hot Water 670071

By Tamara 25 days ago Ingram Sources of Energy (kWh)

By Tamara BASELINE CONCEPT Ingram 15 days costs is a ago higher priority. Cooling can now be provided by Grid Electricity 2856502 Uses of Energy (kWh)

By Tamara passive systems, and therefore this is similarly reduced.

The Grid Natural Gas 2009021 25 days ago change is the reduction in energy use from Ingram other significant Grid Renewable 0 Byrevisions Tamarato the lighting design efficiency.

Appliances 384875 the Onsite Photvoltaic 0 Ingram Cooling 783636 Onsite Wind 0 3 days ago Lighting 1042192

By Tamara Space Heating 1338949 15 days ago Ingram Close Hot Water 670071

By Tamara Ingram Sources Energy (kWh) 2 days of ago

By Tamara 15 days ago Ingram Grid Electricity 2856502

By Tamara Grid Natural Gas 2009021 Ingram

77125 3,103,866kgCO 2

Space Heating 4,865,523kWh

Current Weather: 1 month ago Melbourne, VIC AU (2011)

By Tamara 19km from Site Ingram

Carbon Emitted 3,103,866kgCO2

olicy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO Due to the space heating and cooling demand being 814827 reduced,2 Grid UsesElectricity of Energy (kWh)

L'

X

Massing: Massing 1 Last Modified Weather

Baseline 25 days Concept ago

By Tamara Ingram

25,435m3

Hot Water

View Files

3,103,866kgCO2

USES OF ENERGY (KWH) Uses of Energy (kWh)1 Massing: Energy UsedMassing Water Used 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3

Print Report

0 2,284,942kgCO 2

Grid Renewable

0

Onsite Photvoltaic

0

Onsite 3 daysWind ago

0

1/2

By Tamara Ingram Close BASELINE CONCEPT

< Back

2,163,611kWh 11,832m3 1,901,610kgCO2 Both electricity and gas use have been reduced by the proposed changes to the baseline model. Whilst electricity is a more expensive resource to purchase from the grid than gas, the overall reduction in both utilities means that there is a net reduction in utility costs.

2 days ago

By Tamara Ingram

1/2

PAGE 52

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[05] ECONOMIC E VALUATION

CONCLUSIONS - ECONOMIC MEASURES OF SUCCESS - SEFAIRA

ANNUAL ESTIMATED UTILIT Y BILL

ANNUAL ENERGY PER GROSS INTERNAL FLOOR AREA

BASELINE

$32/m2

190 kWh/m2

PROPOSED

$10/m2

58 kWh/m2

The economic evaluation of the development has primarily be measured on the reduction in utility costs per annum. Through implementing the changes recommended in this section, it could be seen that it is possible to reduce these by 68%. For a typical two bedroom unit, this represents a potential saving

of $1,540 per annum. These changes have also been weighed up against the cost of initially implementing these changes or systems, to reach a well rounded economic proposal for both developer and occupants.

PAGE 53

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

[06] RECOMMENDATIONS

OVERVIEW The concepts of social capacity, environmental impact and economic feasibility each sought to maximise building operation. This demanded that the variables in each category were manipulated without regard for concepts outside of their own. The final concept seeks to consolidate the results of each and negotiate between the strategies implemented to produce a building outcome that sufficiently responds to the triple bottom line for sustainable development.

In this section, the recommendations have been modelled to produce a best case scenario model, and the results discussed in this section.

KEY INDICATORS Due to variability across the key performance indicators applied within each category, it is difficult to assign any one to this concept as a means of establishing an ideal scenario.

The key performance indicators used to guide the best case scenario include; •

ENERGY USE

•

SPACE COOLING

•

ENERGY USE PER GROSS INTERNAL AREA

•

SPACE HEATING

•

UTILITY COST

•

GRID ELECTRICITY USED

•

CO2 PRODUCTION

•

GRID FUEL USED

•

WATER USE

PAGE 54

4,865,523

1,050,966

-78%

BASELINE

PROPOSED

% CHANGE

ANNUAL ENERGY USE (kWh)

COMPARISON TABLE

-78%0

41

190

ANNUAL ENERGY USE PER GROSS INTERNAL AREA (kWh/m 2)

[06] RECOMMENDATIONS

-75%

204,186

810,356

ANNUAL UTILIT Y COST ($)

-73%

814,884

3,103,866

-51%

12,580

25,435

ANNUAL WATER USE (m 3 )

PAGE 55

ANNUAL CO 2 PRODUC TION (kgCO 2 )

-83%

131,396

783,636

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING (kWh)

-92%

105,291

1,338,949

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING (kWh)

-72%

802,193

2,856,502

ANNUAL GRID ELEC TRICIT Y (kWh)

-88%

248,773

2,009,021

ANNUAL GRID FUEL USED (kWh)

Manage Team

View Files

X

Massing: Massing 1 Energy Used Weather

Water Used

Top 2

G'

100 % 0%

Carbon Emitted

ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

La

Print Report

[ 0 6 ]2 R E C O Current M M E N D A TWeather: IONS Top

100 % 0%

QV3

Ma

4,865,523kWh Melbourne, VIC AU25,435m (2011) 3 19km from Site

3,103,866kgCO2

1m By Ing

3,103,866kgCO2

26 By Ing Ene

Baseline Concept

RECOMMENDATIONS

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

Massing: Massing(kWh) 1 Energy Footprint

By implementing the following recommendations, the energy consumption of the building significantly decreases. Overall, this reduces the building’s reliance on active systems, reduces the environmental impact of the building, and reduces utility costs.

Carbon Emitted Last Modified ENERGY FOOTPRINT (kWh) 25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

400000

Electric Heating Gas Heating Equipment Hot Water Cooling Lighting

1 month ago 300000 By Tamara Privacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 Ingram kWh

3,103,866kgCO2

4,865,523kWh

3,103,866kgCO2

3,103,866kgCO2

26 days ago 0

By Tamara Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec IngramFootprint (kWh) Month Energy

BEST CASE CONCEPT

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

26 days ago By400000 Tamara Ingram 300000

3,946,819kWh kWh

Electric Heating Gas Heating Equipment Hot Water 'SOCIAL' Cooling Lighting

25,435m3

100000

3,103,866kgCO2

m

200000

3,103,866kgCO2

3,103,866kgCO2 < Back

28,311m3

200000

17 days ago By100000 Tamara Ingram 0

Electric Heating Gas Heating Equipment Hot Water 2,284,942kgCO 2 Cooling Lighting

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul3Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO2

ec

BASELINE CONCEPT

3,103,866kgCO2 < Back

17 days ago

By Tamara Ingram Close

Month

PAGE 56

26 By4 Ing

3

kWh

4,865,523kWh

2

17 By1 Ing

17 By Ing Clos

4d By Ing

3d By Ing

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[06] RECOMMENDATIONS

Tamara Ingram

Concept Comparison

X

RECOMMENDATIONS Print Report

STRUC TURE •

Manage Team

UPGRADE STRUCTURE TO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION

• BEST BUILDING PRACTICE TO REDUCE LEAKAGE 'EVERYTHING' from 'FINAL MODELLING' Resource Mix • UPGRADE WALLS TO PRE-CAST PANELS AND INCREASE Electricity Top 2 Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh INSULATION Coal 100 % Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh Natural Gas 0% Heat 0.100 $/kWh Massing: Massing 1 Heating Top 2 Water 1.50 $/m3 Natural Gas 100 % FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh Fuel Oil 0%

Tariff

View Files

The thermal mass of the building has been increased through the use of precast walls, a concrete structure, and high performing insulation. This reduces heating and cooling energy Baseline Concept Weather demands. The operational cost savings, and energy reductions, Current Weather: associated with thermal mass justified the use of concrete, Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) despite the energy and cost intensity of its production. By 19km fromMassing Site Massing: ensuring best practice1reduction of leakage noise transmission is reduced, and energy performance is increased.

HEATING & COOLING

•

INSTALL GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP FOR HEATING & COOLING

• PROVIDE CROSS VENTILATION Energy Used Water Used Carbon Emitted • IMPLEMENT RESIDENTIAL VENTILATION RATE

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

Peak Space Heating Demand (kW)

800 4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

600

26 800 days ago By 700 Tamara Ingram

Peak Demand

kW

kW

The aim of these recommendations is to reduce the building’s reliance on active systems which require energy and increase cost. The ground source heat pump used least amount of energy of those tested, significantly reducing gas use, justifying Last Modified its initial cost. Cross ventilation through openable windows uses no energy, and provides a highly effective means of passive cooling, 1 month ago this was assisted by correcting the ventilation rate.

By Tamara Peak Space Heating Demand (kW) Ingram

400

Peak Demand

600 500

200 4,865,523kWh 0

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

26 400 days ago

By Tamara 300 Ingram Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

17 days ago

By Tamara Ingram Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW)

3,103,866kgCO2

17 days ago 2000

By Tamara Ingram 1500

Peak Space Cooling Demand (kW) 4,865,523kWh 2000

25,435m3

kW

1500

Peak Demand

1000

3,946,819kWh 'SOCIAL' rivacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7

28,311m3

2,284,942kgCO2

BEST CASE CONCEPT Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

Peak Demand

1000

4 days ago By 500 Tamara Ingram BASELINE CONCEPT

500

Month

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

kW

gnment 2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

PAGE 57

3,103,866kgCO2 < Back

3 days ago

By Tamara Ingram Close

Month

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[06] RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS Tamara Ingram

FACADE •

nment 2

ALTER FACADE GLAZING PERCENTAGES

NORTH FACADE (95%)

EAST FACADE (75%)

WEST FACADE (20%)

Concept • Comparison UPGRADE FACADE GLAZING FROM SINGLE TO DOUBLE GLAZING

Tariff

Resource Mix

Electricity Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh Coal Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh Natural Gas Heat 0.100 $/kWh CONNEC TION TO NATURE Heating Water 1.50 $/m3 Natural Gas FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh TO NORTHERN FACADE • BALCONIES

SOCIAL'

Current Weather: Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) 19km from Site

Top 2

100 % 0% Top 2

100 % Fuel Oil 0% • ROOFTOP GARDENS TO LOWER & UPPER TERRACES 'EVERYTHING' from 'FINAL MODELLING'

•

INCREASE LANDSCAPING & INTRODUCE NATIVE SPECIES

•

RAINWATER HARVESTING

Massing: 1 Energy UsedMassing Water Used

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

These glazing percentages mediated between the social requirement of natural light and amenity, the environmental preference for reduced heat loss and gain and the economic necessity to minimise cost of construction. This have be Manage Team View Files moderated through by providing double glazing, and increasing the mass of the walls and structure. Overall amenity and access to natural light was found to be the most important Weather factor.

Carbon Emitted

The provision of outdoor amenity and green space give occupants a connection to nature, increase biodiversity and Baselinemarketability.

Concept Roof gardens also increase the thermal increases resistance of the roof. Northern thermal mass and glazing require shading in the summer months to prevent heat gain; this is provided by balconies. The water use associated with Massing: Massing 1 Last Modified landscaping is offset by the using native species which require little water, and is supplemented by the collection of rainwater.

3,103,866kgCO2

ENERGY EFFICIENT FIXTURES & FIT TINGS •

INCREASE LIGHTING EFFICIENCIES

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

Print Report

1 month ago

By Tamara Ingram

Lighting and appliances should be energy efficient to reduce energy consumption. Lighting should be designed efficiently, by zoning lights, installing master turn of switches and 26 days ago providing lighting at lux levels required for tasks in that area.

By Tamara Ingram

Uses of Energy (kWh)

4,865,523kWh

25,435m3

Uses of Energy (kWh)

3,103,866kgCO2

26 days ago

Appliances

267935

By Tamara Appliances

384875

Cooling

131396

Ingram Cooling

783636

Lighting

404156

Lighting

1042192

Space Heating

105291

Space Heating

1338949

372965

Hot

By Water Tamara

670071

4,865,523kWh Hot Water

25,435m3

3,103,866kgCO2

Ingram

Sources of Energy (kWh)

Sources of Energy (kWh)

BEST CASE CONCEPT

4,865,523kWh Grid Electricity

25,435m3

BASELINE CONCEPT

3,103,866kgCO 820679 2

Grid Natural Gas

283357

Grid Renewable

0

Onsite Photvoltaic

107790

Onsite Wind 3,946,819kWh

28,311m3

17 days ago

PAGE 58

0 2,284,942kgCO 2

17 days ago Grid Electricity

2856502

Grid Natural Gas

2009021

By Tamara Ingram

Grid Renewable

0

Onsite Photvoltaic

0

Onsite 4 daysWind ago

0

X

nment 2 Tariff Tariff

Concept Comparison Concept Comparison

X X

Resource Mix Resource Mix Electricity Electricity Coal

0.200 $/kWh 0.200 0.200 $/kWh $/kWh Coal 0.200 Natural Gas 0.100 $/kWh $/kWh Natural Gas Heating 0.100 $/kWh 1.50 $/m3 Heating Natural Gas 3 1.50 $/m 0.000 $/kWh Natural 60.000 ] R$/kWh E C O M M E Fuel N DOil A TGas IONS FuelMODELLING' Oil 'EVERYTHING' from 'FINAL

Electricity Peak Electricity Electricity Peak Off Peak Electricity Off Peak Heat Heat Water Water FIT Elec [0 FIT Elec

Top 2

Top % 2 100 100 % 0% 0% Top 2 Top % 2 100 100 % 0% 0%

'EVERYTHING' from 'FINAL MODELLING'

Massing: 1 Energy UsedMassing Water Used Massing: 1 Energy UsedMassing Water Used 4,865,523kWh 4,865,523kWh

25,435m3 25,435m3

25,435m3 25,435m3

ON-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY

•

Massing: Massing 1 Last Modified Massing: Massing 1 Last Modified

3,103,866kgCO2 3,103,866kgCO2

1 month ago 1 month ago By Tamara By Tamara Ingram Tamara Ingram Ingram

3,103,866kgCO2 3,103,866kgCO2

INSTALL FACADE INTEGRATED PV

nment 2Concept UsesComparison of Energy (kWh) Uses of Energy NORTH(kWh) FACADE (5% AREA, 15% EFFICIENCY) nment 2Concept Comparison 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO2

EAST FACADE (25% AREA, 5% EFFICIENCY) nment 2Concept Comparison 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO2 Appliances

Baseline Concept Baseline Concept

Carbon Emitted Carbon Emitted

RECOMMENDATIONS 4,865,523kWh 4,865,523kWh

Weather Weather Current Weather: Print Report Current Weather: Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) PrintQV3 Report Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) 19km from Site ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES 19km from Site

267935

Tariff Resource Mix Appliances WEST FACADE (20% AREA, 5% EFFICIENCY)267935 Cooling 131396 Tariff Resource Mix Cooling 131396 • Lighting SOLAR ROOF MOUNTED PV SYSTEM Electricity Top 2 Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh 404156 Tariff Resource Mix Lighting 404156 Coal 100 • SOLAR THERMAL HOTElectricity WATER SYSTEM Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh Top % 2 Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh Space Heating 105291 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO Natural Gas 02% Electricity Top 2 Space Heating 105291 Electricity Peak 0.200 $/kWh Heat 0.100 Coal 100 % Electricity Off4,865,523kWh Peak 0.200 $/kWh 3 Hot Water 372965 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 22 Top Heating Coal 100 Electricity Off Peak 0.200 $/kWh 3 Natural Gas 0 % Water 1.50 $/m Hot Water 372965 Heat 0.100 $/kWh Natural Gas 100 0% Top 2 Heating Heat 0.100 $/kWh 'EVERYTHING' MODELLING' FIT Elec 0.000 Water 1.50 $/m3 from 'FINAL Fuel Oil 0 % Sources of Energy (kWh) Heating Top 2 Natural Gas 100 % 3 Water 1.50 $/m 'EVERYTHING' MODELLING' FIT Elec 0.000 $/kWh from Sources of Energy (kWh)'FINAL Natural Gas 100 Fuel Oil 0 % 'EVERYTHING' FIT Elec 0.000$/kWh from 'FINAL MODELLING' Fuel 0% 3 Oil 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO Grid Electricity 820679 2 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO 2 Grid Electricity 820679 Massing: 1 Grid Natural Massing Gas 283357 Grid Natural Massing Gas 283357 Massing: 1 Grid Renewable 0 Energy UsedMassing Water Used Carbon Massing: 1 Grid Renewable 0 Emitted Onsite Photvoltaic 107790 Energy Carbon Emitted Onsite Used Photvoltaic Water Used 107790 3 Onsite Wind 0 OCIAL' 3,946,819kWh 28,311m 2,284,942kgCO 2 Energy Used Water Used Carbon Emitted Onsite Wind 0 3,946,819kWh 28,311m3 2,284,942kgCO OCIAL' 2 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO2 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO2 WATER CONSERVATION 3 4,865,523kWh 3,103,866kgCO2 Uses of Water (m3) 25,435m

Tamara Ingram Tamara Ingram

26 days ago 26 Tamara days ago By By Tamara Ingram Sefaira showed comparatively high electricity generation was Ingram

Manage Team Files X Uses offrom Energy gained the(kWh) use of bothView facade and roof mounted solar Uses of Energy (kWh) Manage Team relianceView Files X PV This reduces on renewable grid electricity and 26cells. days ago Manage Team View Files X 26 days ago attempts to generate a proportion of electricity on site, saving

By Tamara Appliances 384875 Weather By Tamara on utility costs. This is coupled with a gas boosted solar384875 thermal Appliances Ingram Print Report Cooling 783636 Ingram hot water system, which achieves the same for grid fuel.

This Weather Cooling 783636 Print Report Current Lighting 1042192 WeatherWeather: combination of renewable than other alternatives such as wind Print Report Lighting 1042192 Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) Current Weather: Space Heating 1338949 turbines and roof integrated PV cells. These technologies are 1719km days ago Space Heating 1338949 Current Weather: from Site Melbourne, VIC AU (2011) Hot Water 670071 17 days ago also more readily available, meaning that the cost is reducing By Tamara VIC AU (2011) Melbourne, Hot Water 670071 19km from Site is shortening. The selected percentage By Tamara and payback period of Ingram 19km from Site Baseline Concept Ingram Sources of Energy (kWh)for a suitable amount of glazing. face integrated PV allows

Baseline Concept Sources of Energy (kWh) Baseline Concept

17 days ago Grid Electricity 17 days ago Grid Electricity ByMassing: Tamara Massing 1 Grid Natural Gas By Tamara Ingram Grid Natural Gas Massing: Massing 1 Grid Renewable Ingram Last Modified Massing: Massing 1 Grid Renewable Onsite Photvoltaic Last Modified Onsite Photvoltaic Onsite 4 days ago LastWind Modified Onsite 4 daysWind ago

2856502 2856502 2009021 2009021 0 0 0 0 0 0

By1 Tamara month ago By Tamara Ingram By Tamara 1 month ago Ingram 1By month Ingram Uses ofTamara Waterago (m3) Efficient water fixtures of WaterHIGH (m3) EFFICIENCY WATER FIXTURES Uses ofTamara Water (m3) have been implemented to save water • UsesINSTALL By Ingram use and reduce grid fuel consumption (hot water reduction).

4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO2 3 days ago Ingram • IMPLEMENT GREY WATER3 REUSE STRATEGIES 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO 3 days ago 2 Although there is cost outlay, the environmental 5219 benefits Appliances 2476 Appliances By Tamara 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO 26 days ago 2 Appliances Appliances 2476 By Tamara are considered justified. Grey water reuse for toilet5219 flushing Irrigation 0 Irrigation 141 Ingram By acy Policy © 20134,865,523kWh Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO 26 Tamara days ago 2 maximises Ingram Irrigation 141use of Irrigation 0 the use of this resources, and reduces the acy Policy © 20134,865,523kWh Sefaira Ltd. v2.5.7 Shower/Wash/Drinking 10104 16462 3,103,866kgCO 26 Tamara days ago (m3) 2 Shower/Wash/Drinking Uses of Water (m3) 25,435m3 Uses of Water Ingram By Shower/Wash/Drinking Shower/Wash/Drinking 10104 potable water supply. This also decreases the volume16462 of water By Tamara Uses of Water (m3) Uses of Water plants (m3) as black water.

Ingram sent to treatment Uses of Water (m3) Uses of Water (m3) Ingram Appliances 2476 Appliances 5219 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO2 26 days ago Irrigation 0 Irrigation 141 Appliances 2476 Appliances 5219 By 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO 26 Tamara days ago 2 Appliances 2476 Appliances 5219 Shower/Wash/Drinking 10104 Shower/Wash/Drinking 16462 Irrigation 0 Irrigation 141 4,865,523kWh 25,435m3 3,103,866kgCO 26 Tamara days ago 2 Ingram By Irrigation 0 Irrigation 141 By Tamara Toilet 2108 Toilet 3614 Shower/Wash/Drinking 10104 Shower/Wash/Drinking 16462 Ingram Shower/Wash/Drinking 10104 Shower/Wash/Drinking 16462 vacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 Ingram Toilet 2108 Toilet 3614 Toilet 2108 Toilet 3614 vacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. v2.5.7 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3 3,103,866kgCO 17 daysof ago 2 Sources of Water (m ) Sources Water (m3) vacy Policy © 2013 Sefaira Ltd. - v2.5.7 By Tamara 3 4,865,523kWh 3) 3,103,866kgCO2 17 days ago Sources of Water (m25,435m Sources of Water (m3) 3 4,865,523kWh 3) 3,103,866kgCO2 17 days ago Sources of Water (m25,435m Sources of Water (m3) Ingram By Tamara Greywater 2108 Greywater 0 By Tamara Ingram Rainwater 0 Rainwater 0 Greywater 2108 Greywater Ingram Greywater 2108 Greywater 0 Utility Water 12580 Utility Water 25435 Rainwater 0 Rainwater 0 3 4,865,523kWh 25,435m 3,103,866kgCO2 17 days ago Rainwater 0 Rainwater 0 Utility Water 12580 2 Utility Water 25435 By Tamara 4,865,523kWh 3,103,866kgCO 25,435m3 17 days ago Utility Water 12580 2 Utility Water 25435 BEST CASE CONCEPT 25,435m3 BASELINE CONCEPT 4,865,523kWh 3,103,866kgCO 17 days ago Ingram By Tamara < Back Close By Tamara Ingram < Back Close Ingram PAGE 59 < Back Close 3,946,819kWh 28,311m3 2,284,942kgCO2 4 days ago OCIAL' By Tamara 3,946,819kWh 28,311m3 OCIAL' 2,284,942kgCO2 4 days ago 3,946,819kWh 28,311m3 2,284,942kgCO2 4 days ago OCIAL' Ingram By Tamara

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[06] RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY STRONGLY RECOMMENDED

STRATEGY Alter Facade Glazing Percentages •

North Facade (95%)

•

East Facade (75%)

•

West Facade (20%)

Upgrade Facade Glazing from single to double glazing •

U-Value (3.00 W/m2K)

•

Glazing SHGC (0.4)

Upgrade Structure to concrete construction •

Core Structure (Heavy)

•

Leakage (1.0 m3/m2.h)

Upgrade Walls to Pre-cast panels and increase insulation •

U-Value (3.00 W/m2K)

Balconies to Northern Facade (1.5m horizontal projection) Rooftop Gardens to Lower & Upper Terraces Provide Cross Ventilation (75% openable glazing) Implement Residential Ventilation Rate (0.30 L/m2.s) Install High Efficiency Water Fixtures Increase Landscaping & Introduce Native Species Increase Lighting Efficiency Install Facade Integrated PV •

North Facade (5% area, 15% efficiency)

•

East Facade (25% area, 5% efficiency)

•

West Facade (20% area, 5% efficiency)

Provide Solar Thermal Hotwater System (100m2, evacuated) Provide Solar PV System (150m2, 30% efficiency) Implement Water Reuse Strategies •

Greywater tank (20,000L)

•

Rainwater tank (20,000L)

Install Ground Source Heat Pump for Heating & Cooling (800 kW, COP 3)

PAGE 60

RECOMMENDED

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

RANKED RECOMMENDATIONS It is acknowledged that creating an energy efficient building can increase capital expenditure. Therefore, the strategies that were in the identified in the previous table as being only recommended, not strongly recommended have been ranked in order of their necessity to be included in the project.

The final assessment was achieved by ranking each strategy against each other, according the percentage of change seen

in the best case, if they were not included. This change was examined across all the key indicator and their rankings were added together.

This ranking may assist the client in their decision making process if expenditure needs to be reviewed, with 1 being the strategy that could be excluded first from the project, and 5 being the last strategy that should be considered.

RANKING 1

4

FACADE INTEGRATED (PV)

SOLAR THERMAL HOT WATER SYSTEM

These could be removed to save initial cost, however this would be the detriment of on-site energy production, which would now only be generated by solar roof PV.

This would significantly increase gas consumption, however would save marginal installation costs and maintenance.

2

5

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP

ROOF SOLAR PV SYSTEM

This could be eliminated and split systems used, which would increase electricity use, however be much more cost effective to install and allow greater levels of occupant control. The cost savings associated with its removal would be significant.

This should be the last strategy to be considered as it has the potential to produce high amounts of electricity for the building, saving utility costs and reducing environmental degradation.

3 WATER REUSE STRATEGIES â&#x20AC;˘

Greywater tank (20,000L)

The removal of the grey water system would save initial costs associated with install, but may drive up water utility cost, and use more water from the mains supply.

PAGE 61

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

[06] RECOMMENDATIONS

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE The following table provides a brief summary of the three concepts within this report which are combined to achieve a sustainable development. An explanation of the methodology guiding each concept is given and a list of the of strategies most successful in maximising performance.

CONCEPT

METHODOLOGY

SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES

SOCIAL

The social capacity of the building was guided by its ability to provide thermal comfort, achieve a high level of indoor air quality, allow for a connection to natural systems and foster an engagement between occupant and the built environment. This was measured in part by the Sefaira indicators of annual space cooling and annual space heating, which gave an indication of the consistency of thermal comfort levels.

Otherwise, the social capacity was directed by existing precedents and research into the impact of the build environment on the physiological and psychological condition of occupants.

•

Maximise the percentage of facade glazing

•

Providing double glazed windows and operable blinds (decrease U-Value & SHCG )

•

Providing balconies (horizontal projection)

•

Upgrading core structure and decreasing leakage

•

Providing tiled flooring

•

Providing a green roof

•

Allowing for cross ventilation

•

Maximising landscaping on site

The environmental impact of the building was determined by its ability to provide for the water and energy needs of occupants on-site.

This would subsequently reduce reliance on resources provided via the grid, the source of which are currently non-renewable. This subsequently lead to a reduction in the CO2 emission s of the building. Energy consumption, grid electricity & fuel use, CO2 production and water use provided the key performances indicators for this category.

•

Providing solar PV

•

Providing solar thermal hot water

•

Implementing facade integrated PV

•

Reducing the percentage of facade glazing

•

Using high efficiency water fixtures

•

Providing a grey water recycling system

•

Providing a rainwater collection tank

•

Using native species in landscaping

•

Install ground source heat pump

The economic success of the building was based on its ability to reduce the operational costs of the building, whilst considering capital expenditure. Improvements in thermal performance and lighting lead to a reduction in the reliance of grid sourced utilities, and decreased utility costs. The key performance indicators were annual utility costs, grid fuel & electricity use.

•

Maximising glazing efficiency percentage, U-Value & SHCG)

•

Altering the percentage of facade glazing

•

Upgrading core structure, wall materials, insulation & decrease leakage

•

Increase lighting efficiencies

•

Split-system cooling & heating equipment

•

Allowing for cross ventilation and comfort ventilation

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

PAGE 62

(glazing

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

Australian Institute of Architects, Environmental Design Guide, accessed 2 October 2013, http://www.environmentdesignguide. com.au BioRegional Development BedZed seven years on The impact of the UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best known eco-village and its residents, accessed 2 October 2013, www.oneplanetcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BedZED-seven-years-on-low-res-final.pdf Bruntland Report, Our Common Futures, Oxford University Press, 1987 Commonwealth of Australia, Your Home Technical Manual, accessed 2 October 2013, http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/ index.html Givoni, Baruch, Passive and low energy cooling of buildings, New York 1994.

Keller, Bruno & Stephan Rutz, Pinpoint : key facts + figures for sustainable buildings, Basel 2010.

Kellert, Stephen, Biophilic design : the theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life, Hoboken [New Jersey] 2008.

Szokolay, Steven, Environmental science handbook for architects and builders, London 1980.

Szokolay, Steven, Introduction to architectural science: the basis of sustainable design, London 2008.

PAGE 63

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF FINAL CHANGES BEST CASE

PAGE 64

TAMARA INGRAM 298 185 ALISTAIR NANCARROW 299 805

ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

BEST CASE CHANGES

STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Override Facade Glazing

Facade Glazing - North

94.2%

95%

Facade Glazing - East

95.2%

75%

Facade Glazing - West

90.2%

20%

Core Structure

Medium

Heavy

Leakage

9.7 m3/m2.h

1.0 m3/m2.h

Glazing U-Factor

5.0 W/m2.K

3.0 W/m2.K

Glazing SHGC

0.6

0.4

Vertical Projection - North Facade

0.00m

Comfort

Ventilation Rate

1.00 L/m .s

0.30 L/m2.s

Natural Ventilation

Natural Ventilation Strategy

None

Cross Ventilation

Openable Glazing Percentage

None

75%

Site Terrain Type

None

City

Lavatory

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

3.5 L/min

Shower

Shower Flow Rate

9.0 L/min

5.5 L/min

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Kitchen

Faucet Flow Rate

6.0 L/min

4.0 L/min

Clothes Washer

Water Use

90 L

64 L

Water Discharge Quality

Black

Grey

Dishwasher

Water Use

66 L

3.5 L

Water Closet

WC Flow Rate

6.0 L

3.5 L

Water Use Quality

Potable

Grey

Rainwater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

Roof Capture Area

None

100%

Greywater Tank Size

None

20,000 L

Structure

Facade Glazing

Water Reuse

1.50m 2

PAGE 65

QV3 ESD OPTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES

ENVIR ONMENTAL E VALUATION

BEST CASE CHANGES

STRATEGY

VARIABLE

BASELINE

PROPOSED

Landscaping

Landscape Area

10%

76%

Irrigation Efficiency

90%

95%

Species

Mixed Species

Native Species

Facade Solar PV Area - North Facade

None

5%

Facade Solar PV Efficiency - North Facade

None

15%

Facade Solar PV Area - East Facade

None

25%

Facade Solar PV Efficiency - East Facade

None

5%

Facade Solar PV Area - West Facade

None

80%

Facade Solar PV Efficiency - West Facade

None

5%

Area

None

100 sqm

Collector Type

None

Evacuated

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

Area

None

150 sqm

Efficiency

None

30%

Orientation

None

North

Tilt

None

37O

Capacity

None

800 kW

Seasonal COP

None

3

Cooling COP

3

2.2

Design Fan Power

3.0 kW.s/m3

0.80 kW.s/m3

Facade Integrated PV

Solar Thermal HW

Solar PV

Ground Source Heat Pump

Cooling System

PAGE 66