Strategies For Maximum Comfortability
STRATEGIES DESCRIPTION
PERKINS + WILL HAVE REALIZED A GOOD STRATEGY AS TO HOW TO TACKLE THESE WEAKNESSES BY APPLYING HUMIDIFICATION, COOLING AND HEATING FOR MAXIMUM COMFORTBAILITY. THEY HAVE PUT TOGETHER A SYSTEM IN SUCH A WAY THAT STUDENTS AND RENTERS BENEFIT IN AND OUT OF THE BUILIDNG.
HEATING WAS THE PRIMARY FOCUS IN THE BEGINNING AS THIS IS ESSENTIAL FOR LABORATORY CLASSES IN RYERSON. AS THE DESIGNERS CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE IDEA, THEY IMPLEMENTED REUSING WASTE ENERGY BY COLLECTING USED
HEAT BY STUDENTS AND DIRECTING HEAT TO THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WITHIN THE BUILDING. THIS WAY
USED HEATINGUSED HEATING
BECAUSE TORONTO’S TEMPERATURE OFTEN DROPS BELOW 68 F, HEATING IS ESSENTIAL WHICH IS WHY 85% COMES FROM THIS CATEGORY. COOLING COMES DURING THE SUMMER AS THE TEMPERATURE DRASTICALLY RAISES. THE REST IS THE DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM THAT CLEARS MOISTURE INSIDE THE BUILDING WHICH COMES FROM THE HEAT.
HEAT IS REUSED AND LESSENS ENERGY CONSUMPTION OVERALL. THIS GOES THE SAME WITH COOLING OVER THE SUMMER
10 SECTION E | PSYCHROMETRIC CHART DESIGN STRATEGIES
ON RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COMPLEX
INTRODUCTION
RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COMPLEX IS A HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY PIECE AND AN ONGOING MACHINE AND ACTIVE BUILDING. IT IS PUT TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF WELLNESS, COMMUNITY, ENERGY AND RESOURCES. IT IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS COMBINED OF ALL THESE FACTORS TO PROVIDE TO THE CITY AN ENERGY EFFCIIENT AND CIRCULATING SYSTEM THAT MAKES USE OF ITS WASTES.
Austin, TX
COTE
TOP TEN SPREADSHEET
Explanation Step 2: Review your benchmarks. This is what your project will be compared against Project Name Ryerson University DCC 0 Project Address288 Church Street. 0 apt., suite, etc. 40 CityToronto 1,159,468 State 0 Zip Code M5B 1Z5 130 Climate Zone5A (Link) 3,757,000 Total Building Area28,900Gross sf 2 Site Area(?) 28,234 sf 32 Regularly occupied space(?) sf 920,568 Avg. daily occupancy(?) 2500000People 0 Peak occupancy(?) People 1.13 FTEs(?) People Project completion year2015 Review these numbers for single family residential projects Annual days of operation(?) 365Days Single Family Residential Projects: Cell Types Avg. daily hours of operation(?) 8760hoursWater Benchmark Gallons/Household/ Input dataTotal Construction Cost$105,000,000USDEnergy Benchmark kBtu/Household/yea Carbon Benchmark Lbs. of CO2/Househo Input non-numeric data Building Program Calculated Value Program Breakdown Building Primary Program Education - College / University 70% ExplanationBuilding Secondary Residential - Multifamily 20% Building Primary Use Food - Restaurant 10% Reasonable values and sources Total must equal 100% 100% Development team Additional Building Information Project TypeRenovation Site EnvironmentUrban Previously Developed SiteYes Is the firm an AIA 2030 SignatoryYes Reported in the AIA DDxYes Third party rating systemLEED FAR1.02 Cost/sf3,633.22 $ sf/occupant - Avg.0 sf/occupant - Peak #DIV/0! Annual hours of operation3,197,400 Transportation Carbon Emissions Transportation - Total Carbon Transportation - Total Carbon Water Consumption WUI - Water Use Intensity Total Annual Water Use Water Use per Occupant Total Annual Energy Use Energy Use per Occupant Carbon Use Intensity Carbon Use Intensity This first page will assign a series of benchmarks based on building specific, national data for the project to be comp benchmarks are referenced from CBECS 2003. For more details on benchmarking and sourcing, visit the "Ref Step 1: Fill out the below basic information of your project Welcome to the COTE Top Ten Super Spreadsheet! Ligthing Power Density (LPD) Total annual Carbon Emissions EUI - Energy Use Intensity Operational Carbon Emissions This tool has been created by COTE members to help architects calculate project performance metrics. After entering information on each measure tab, the "Results" tab will graphically display the holistic project's performance across all 10 COTE measures of sustainable design. Whether it's used to better understand a design's performance or to streamline the process of submitting for the COTE Top Ten award, this tool will allow easy, consistent calculation and evaluation of project performance metrics and bechmarking. Note: This version is not compatible with Excel2016 or older. For questions email cote@aia.org we are looking to improve the tool, and appreciate your feedback! Z Smith, FAIA EDR, New Orleans, LA Tate Walker, AIA OPN, Madison, WI Helena Zambrano, AIA (Project Lead) Overland Partners, San Antonio, TX Corey Squire, AIA Positive Energy,
Basic Project Information Electric Ligthing Benchmarks Energy Consumption OPTIONAL user-defined Benchmarks CO2 lbs./occupant/yr CO2 lbs./yr Water ConsumptionBenchmark Source Gal/sf/year 49 Gal/sf/year Gal/yr Gal/occupant/yrEnergy ConsumptionBenchmark Source kBtu/sf/year 130 kBtu/sf/year kBtu/yr kBtu/occupant/yrOperational Carbon EmissionsBenchmark Source CO2 lbs./sf/year 32 CO2 lbs./sf/year CO2 lbs./yr CO2 lbs./occupant/yr LPDBenchmark Source W/sf 1.13 W/sf /year ar old/year pared against. Energy ference" tab. Optional user-defined benchmarks can be entered above as a way of tracking any specific benchmarking research that the team conducted. All calculations in the spreadsheet will be based on the auto generated benchmarks, which are consistent with the COTE Top Ten awards program. *ALL INFO FROM AIA SPREADSHEET* 11 SECTION F | COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET SUMMARY COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET| STANLEY ALDAY
COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET
ON RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COMPLEX
DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION
Measure 1 - Design for Integration
Explanations
Inputs: Describe your project's big idea on integrating design and sustainability in the green cell below. Look at chart below for inspiration. HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY 1 - What is the big idea?
Sustainability strategies can affect and involve multiple COTE measures. As an example: think how many measures are influenced by carbon metrics? The chart below represents the interconnectivity of the COTE measures.
COMMUNITY
Place based. ECOLOGY
Aquifer/watershed, shared resource.
Climate appropriate landscape. Rainwater harvesting. WATER
Financial resilience. Economic benefits of biophilic design. Low maintenance design. Water savings, water independence.
District systems. Bioclimatic and passive design.
COMMUNITYENERGYWELLNESSRESOURCES
ECONOMY
Energy savings from transportation and treatment of water. ENERGY
Carbon emissions from transportation. Air quality. Connection to nature.Water quality.
Locally sourced materials. Environmentally conscious material extraction, mfg., transp. and disposal.
Social equity is a major component of resilience.
Climate change: fires, earthquakes, floods, ocean rise.
Aquifer conservation, surface water quality and enjoyment, watershed protection.
Water resilience. Flooding, precipitation changes, drought.
User groups, profiles, heat maps. Biodiversity.Mindful presence of water.
Life cycle cost, Life cycle analysis.
Operational costs and costs from productivity of building occupants.
Durability and maintenance of materials.
Right sizing, flexibility for growth and change.
Replicable, cost effective strategies.
Daylighting as energy conversation measure. WELLNESS
Embodied carbon of materials. Safer material selection, material transparency. RESOURCES
Carbon's role in climate change. Passive survivability. Embodied energy savings from adaptive reuse. CHANGE
Measurement and verification. Tracking health impacts.Future adaptability. Post-occupancy evaluations. DISCOVERY
SECTION F | COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET INTEGRATION
*ALL INFO FROM AIA SPREADSHEET* 12COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET | STANLEY ALDAY
ON RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COMPLEX COMMUNITY
FURTHERMORE, IT IS DESIGNED FOR COMMUNITY. IN MY EXPERIENCE OF MY VISIT IN THE SITE OF THE UNIVERSITY, MY WALK FELT COMFORTABLE AND IT FELT COOL BEING AROUND THE BUILDING MAYBE PERHAPS OF ITS LIGHT MATERIALS. DURING MY STUDY OF THE INTEGRATION AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, I REALIZED THAT IT WAS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF ITS MATERIALS (IT IS ONLY ONE PART) BUT THE PEOPLE LIVING IN IT, THE STUDENTS, AND VISITORS IN SITE ALSO CONTRIBUTES IN HINDSIGHT THAT MAKES THE BUILDING FEEL COOL. THOUGH VEHICLES MAY STILL BE PRESENT, THERE IS MORE PEOPLE BEING ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN ENERGY CONSUMING.
COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET
SECTION F | COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET COMMUNITY ExplanationsCalculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells Reasonable RangesSources 1 Walk Score 0% 25%Car DependentWalk Score Methodology 25% 50%Mostly Car Dependent www.walkscore.com 50% -70%Somewhat Walkable 70% 90%Very Walkable 90% 100%Walker's Paradise 2 Community Engagement PoorManipulation, TherapyArnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation BaselineInforming, Consultation Community Engagement LevelBetter Partnership, Delegation Best!Citizen Control 3 Percentage of occupants Commuting by Alternative Transportation Below average0% 23%2016 Census: Community Survey National average ~24%Tri-State Transportation Campaign Occupancy typeAvg. daily occupancyAbove average 25% - 100% Number of occupants commuting by alternative transportation (avg.)2,500,000ex. New York City74% Percent Alternative Commuters100%ex. Manhattan 94% 4 Simple Transportation Carbon Calculator Lbs. of CO2/Occupant Reference Values UnitSource Average car fuel economy21.6mpg EIA 2017 Report ProposedBaseline > 4000Baseline Average CO2 emitted per gallon 19.6 Lbs. CO /gallon EPA Vehicle Emissions Percent of occupants commuting by single occupancy vehicle0%76%Weekly Avg.3000 4000Getting thereAverage one way commute 13Miles2016 Census Average daily commute (round trip distance)2026Miles2000 - 3000BetterShare of single occupancy commutes76%2016 Census Days Commuting per week55Days1000 - 2000High PerformingAverage commuting days250days/year 5 days * 50 weeks Weeks commuting per year5050weeks0 1000Very High Performing Average Car mpg2021.6mpg *Please use reference values, not regional values Average CO / Gallon of Gasoline 19.6 19.6 Lbs. CO2/Gal lbs. of carbon dioxide emitted/occupant/year - 4,483 % reduction over the baseline 100.0% 5 Parking space reduction <0% ReductionPoor 0% ReductionBaseline Required On-site parking spaces40025% ReductionGetting there Provided on-site parking spaces32050% ReductionBetter Parking Space Reduction 20%75% ReductionHigh Performing 100% ReductionVery High Performing 6 Bicycle Infrastructure Bike RacksCommuter Showers Occupancy type Number of Bike Racks10% Good1% Good Number of Showers25% Better2.5% - Better Bike Racks installed for #N/A 0 50% Best!5% Best! Showers installed for #N/A 0 Measure 2 - Design for Community This simple calculator compares your project's commuting patterns to published national averages. Use a survey (or an educated guess) to determine average commuting distance and average mpg of the building's occupants. If no information is available, use the baseline (US national average). Though its designed for office projects, the calculator can produce good results for all buidlings that people travel to and from. Record the number of bike racks and commuter showers provided for building occupants. Based on "Arnstein's Ladder of Social Engagement", how much say did the community have during the design and construction process? The number of occupants commuting by any means other than single occupancy vehicle on any given day. Includes walking, cycling, public transit, etc. Walkscore.com generates a score for walkability and community resources for any address in the US. The higher the score, the more pedestrian friendly the site. Determine the number of parking spaces that are required on site by local zoning code. This number is compared to the actual number of spaces provided. *ALL INFO FROM AIA SPREADSHEET* 13COTE TOP TEN SPRAEDSHEET | STANLEY ALDAY
ON RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COXWELL
DESIGN FOR ENERGY
LASTLY, NOT ONLY IS THE BUILDING COOL, IT IS ALSO BRILLIANT. BECAUSE IT IS A SCHOOL, PARTLY RESIDENTIAL THEN SOME COMMERCIAL, IT GREATLY MAKES USE OF HEATING AND COOLING DURING SUMMER AND WINTER. THE UNIVERSITY IS BRILLIANTLY INTEGRATED. WITH ITS INTEGRATION, DESIGNERS USED THAT ADVANTAGE TO MAKE USE OF COOLING AND HEATING WORK WELL BEING ENERGY EFFICIENT AND LESS CONSUMING.
March 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
April 18 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
May 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
June 18 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a 18 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
July 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
August 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
September 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
October 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a
November 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a December 18 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a18 385,493 385,493 10,751,250 n/a Total1904,625,9164,625,916129,015,00002074,625,9164,625,916129,015,0000
COTE
TOP TEN SPREADSHEET
SECTION F | COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET ENERGY
Measure 6 - Design for Energy Explanations Reasonable Ranges Sources 1 Predicted and Measured energy use See The benchmarking page Step 1: Benchmark Benchmark Site EUI 130kBtu/sf/yr Benchmark Site Annual Energy 3,757,000kBtu/yr Benchmark Site CO Emissions 32 lbs. of CO2/sf/yr Benchmark Site annual CO2 Emissions 920,568 lbs. of CO /yr Step 2: Record Monthly Energy Use EPA - Energy Conversions EIA - Electricty Costs Grid ElectricityNatural GasChilled WaterDistrict Steam Onsite GenerationGrid ElectricityNatural GasChilled WaterDistrict Steam Onsite Generation Month kBtu kBtu kBtu kBtu kWh kBtu kBtu kBtu Lbs kWh EIA - Natural Gas Costs
n/a 17 385,493 385,493
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
January 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
10,751,250
February 17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
17 385,493 385,493 10,751,250
18
Cost of Energy (per selected
CO2 emissions (Lbs.) per kBtu0.360.120.360.12-0.360.360.120.360.12-0.36 Total CO2 Emissions 68 555,1101,655,02015,481,800074555,1101,655,02018,485,2690 Step 2: Review Outputs PredictedMeasured Total Gross Energy (kBtu/yr) 138,267,0229,252,039 Total Net Energy (kBtu/yr) 138,267,0229,252,039 Percent from Renewable Energy 0%0% Gross EUI (kBtu/sf/yr) 4784320 Net EUI (kBtu/sf/yr)
Net Energy percent reduction from Benchmark -3580%-146% Total Net CO2 Emissions (Lbs./yr) 17,691,99820,695,473 Net CO Emissions (Lbs./sf/yr)
CO2 Percent reduction from Benchmark
Net operating cost ($)
2 Lighting Power Density Use IECC 2015 as the benchmarkLPD Tables by Space Installed Lighting Power Density n/aW/sf Benchmark Lighting power Density 1.1W/sf Lighting Power density reduction #VALUE! 3 Window Wall Ratio Window Wall Ratio (WWR) N/A Benchmarks are from CBECS 2003, EUI measured in kBtu/sf/yr used on site, CO2 Emissions measured in lbs. CO2/kBtu. CO2 baseline from CBECS Table 1.Total energy consumption by energy source, 2012 Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non-numerical data into the green cells See the Benchmarking page for reasonable ranges. Step 1: Calculate the total installed lighting power density for your building. Step 2: Determine an appropriate benchmark for the space type from IECC 2015. Step 1: Fill out the predicted energy uses, per fuel type, from an energy model. Step 2: Fill out the measured energy uses per fuel type. If an energy model was not completed for the project, just fill out the measured energy use. If fuel type was not used, leave the monthly inputs as Zero. If a fuel type was used, but recorded in different units (such as Therms rather than CCF), use the conversion factors link to the right. Enter the local energy cost for each fuel type if available. Enter the cost of renewables as negative. Predicted Measured See the benchmarking page for reasonable ranges. 30% to 40% is ideal. A higher WWR will significantly increase energy use without improving daylighting. Best practice is to achieve at least a 20% reduction from the benchmark CBECS Table C4. Sum of major fuel consumption and expenditure gross energy intensities 2012 Benchmarks will auto fill from the benchmarking page. Record your building's window wall ratio. *ALL INFO FROM AIA SPREADSHEET* 14COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET | STANLEY ALDAY
Conversion Factor11113.411111.1943.41 Total (kBtu)19046259164,625,916129,015,00002074,625,9164,625,916154,043,9100
unit)$0.12$0.94$0.18$9.39 -0.02
4784320
612.18716.11
-1822%-2148%
$1,216,631,899$1,216,631,901
ATTACHED SHOWN HERE IS THE SUMMARY AND RESULTS.
COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET
COTE Top Ten Toolkit Super Spreadsheet COTE_Super_Spreadsheet_Version_1.6.xlsx Measure 1 Design for Integration Measure 2 Design for Community Walk Score #N/A Walk Score Community Engagement Score #VALUE! Level of community Engagement (1=low, 7=high) Alternative Transportation Percentage100%Alternative Commuters Transportation carbon - Annual Carbon / Occupant0Lbs. of Carbon Dioxide Transportation carbon - Total Annual Carbon0Lbs. of Carbon Dioxide Transportation carbon - Percent Reduction 100%Reduction of Transportation Carbon Parking Space Reduction20%Reduction of Parking Spaces Bicycle Infrastructure - Bike Racks #N/A of occupants get a bike Rack Bicycle Infrastructure - Showers #N/A of occupants can shower simultaneously Measure 3 Design for Ecology Vegetated site area Post Development #VALUE! Of site vegetated (Post-development) Vegetated site area Pre Development0%Of site vegetated (Pre-development) Vegetated area increase #VALUE! Change in vegetated area (Post-development) Native plantings Percent of total0%Of total site dedicated to native plantings Native plantings Percent of vegetation #VALUE! Of vegetated area dedicated to native plantings Measure 4 Design for Water Water use per occupant Predicted Annual #N/A Gallons of potable water used occupant / year Water use per occupant Predicted Daily #N/A Gallons of potable water used occupant / day Water Use Intensity Predicted #N/A Gallons of potable water used sqft / day Percent rainwater use Predicted #N/A Of total water use is from collected rainwater Percent grey/black water use - Predicted #N/A Of total water use is from grey or blackwater Potable water reduction #N/A Water use per occupant Measured Annual0Gallons of potable water used / occupant / year Water use per occupant Measured Daily0.0Gallons of potable water used / occupant / day Water use intensity- Measured0.0Gallons of potable water used / sf day Percent rainwater use Measured #DIV/0! Of total water use is from collected rainwater Percent grey/black water use - Measured #DIV/0! Of total water use is from grey or blackwater Potable water reductionN/A Potable water used for Irrigation?0 Is potable water used for irrigation? Rainwater managed onsite #VALUE! Of stormwater managed onsite Estimated runoff quality #N/A Water quality score (1=low, 5=high) Measure 5 Design for Economy Actual construction cost$3,633Dollar (USD) sf Benchmark Construction cost$3,633Dollar (USD) sf Construction cost reduction from the benchmark0%Dollar (USD) sf Efficiency ratio achieved0%Net to Gross Efficiency ratio percent improvement #DIV/0! Measure 6 Design for Energy Net site EUI Predicted4784kBtu/sf/yr Gross site EUI - Predicted4784kBtu/sf/yr Net energy reduction from Benchmark-3580%Net Energy Reduction Carbon emissions / sf - Predicted612.2 Lbs. of CO /sf/yr Percent from Renewable Energy0% CO Percent reduction from Benchmark -1822% Net site EUI Measured320kBtu/sf/yr Gross site EUI - Measured320kBtu/sf/yr Net energy reduction from Benchmark-146%Net Energy Reduction Carbon emissions / sf - Measured716.1 Lbs. of CO /sf/yr Percent from Renewable Energy0% CO Percent reduction from Benchmark -2148% Lighting Power Density n/aW/sf Lighting Power Density % Reduction #VALUE! Measure 7 - Design for Wellness Quality views #DIV/0! Occupied area with quality views Operable windows #DIV/0! Occupied area with operable windows Daylight autonomy #DIV/0! Occupied area served primarily by daylight Individual thermal control #DIV/0! Occupants per thermostat Individual lighting control0%Occupants who control their own lighting Peak measured CO 0ppm Peak measured VOC0ppb Materials with health certifications #N/A Materials Checmicals of concern avoided #N/A Chemicals Measure 8 - Design for Resources Embodied energy - CO /sf 0.00Lbs. of Carbon Dioxide / sf Embodied energy - Total CO2 0Lbs. of Carbon Dioxide total Embodied energy reduction from benchmark100% Life cycle analysis conducted - Y/N0 Number of EPDs Collected #N/A Materials % of construction waste diverted #N/A % of recycled content of building materials #DIV/0! % of regional materials #DIV/0! % of installed wood that is FSC Certified #N/A Measure 9 Design for Change % of reused floor area0% Functionality without power (relative score) #N/A 1=low, 4=high Percent onsite generation0% Carbon emissions saved from adaptive reuse0 Total Lbs. of CO Building design lifespan #N/A Years Measure 10 - Design for Discovery Level of post occupancy evaluation #N/A Level of Knowledge distribution transparency #N/A Level of Feedback (Ongoing discovery) #N/A Feedback Score (0=low, 5=high) Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Baseline Very High Performance This page compares metrics against their benchmark along a scale from "Baseline" to "Very High Performance" Measure 2: Design For Community Walk Score0100 Community Engagement Score18 Alternative Transportation Percentage0%100% Transportation carbon Percent Reduction0%100% THE BIG IDEA: Parking Space Reduction-100%100% Bicycle Infrastructure Bike Racks0%50% COMMUNITY Bicycle Infrastructure Showers0%5% Vegetated site area Post Development0%100% Native plantings Percent of vegetation0%100% PredictedMeasured Potable water reduction0% #N/AN/A 100% Potable water used for Irrigation?Yes (0)No (1) Rainwater managed onsite 0%100% CARBON OVER TIME: Estimated runoff quality15 \ Construction cost reduction from the benchmark-100%50% Efficiency ratio percent improvement -50%50% PredictedMeasured Net energy reduction from Benchmark0% -3580%-146% 105% Percent from renewable energy 0% 0%0% 100% CO Percent reduction from Benchmark 0% -1822%-2148% 100% Lighting Power Density % Reduction075% Quality views0%100% Operable windows0%100% Daylight autonomy0%100% Is CO2 Measured? No (0)Yes (1) Is VOC measured?No (0)Yes (1) Carbon Calculations Materials with health certifications010+ Total Lbs. of Carbon Dioxide from: Checmicals of concern avoided010+ Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding Materials Total 1 Year020,695,473020,695,473 Embodied energy reduction from benchmark0%100% 20 years0413,909,4600413,909,460 Life cycle analysis conducted Y/NNo (0)Yes (1) 100 years02,069,547,29802,069,547,298 Number of EPDs Collected 010+ 200 years04,139,094,59604,139,094,596 % of construction waste diverted0%100% Design 00000 % of recycled content of building materials % of regional materials0%100% % of installed wood that is FSC Certified0%100% Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding Materials Total 1 Year0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0% % of reused floor area0%100% 20 years0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0% Functionality without power (relative score)04 100 years0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0% Percent onsite generation0%100% 200 years0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0% Building design lifespan 30200 Design 0 #DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0!#DIV/0! Level of post occupancy evaluation0%100% Level of Knowledge distribution transparency0%100% Level of Feedback (Ongoing discovery)05 Measure 6: Design For Energy Measure 7: Design For Wellness #N/A FALSE #DIV/0! Measure 8: Design For Resources #DIV/0! 100% FALSE #N/A #N/A FALSE #VALUE! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Measure 4: Design For Water FALSE #VALUE! Measure 3: Design For Ecology Measure 5: Design For Economy #VALUE! #VALUE! Measure 9: Design For Change Measure 10: Design For Discovery 0% #N/A #N/A 0% #N/A Response #DIV/0! 0% #N/A #VALUE! 100% 100% 20% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Commute/year 0% Energy/year 100% Building Materials 0% Cumulative carbon after 1 year occupancy Commute/year 0% Energy/year 0% Building Materials 0% Cumulative carbon over building life *ALL INFO FROM AIA SPREADSHEET* 15COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET SUMMARY | STANLEY ALDAY SECTION F | COTE TOP TEN SPREADSHEET SUMMARY
SUMMARY
ON RYERSON DAPHNE COXWELL COXWELL
In-Class Exercise #06: Calcuate Energy Use for a Building
Part I - Office Building Example
1.You design a 20,000 sf office building. How much energy does a baseline building of this type consume annually?
Using your studio or past studio project - nd the total SF of your building. How much energy does a baseline building of this type consume annually?
Source: Site:
Source: 116.4 KBTU/sf2
Site: 52.9 KBTU/sf2
Source EUI = 116.4 KBTU/sf2 * 5,000 sf2 = 582,000 KBTU
Site EUI = 52.9 KBTU/sf2 * 5,000 sf2 = 264,500 KBTU
2.You complete an energy model and determine that by maximizing passive strategies for solar heat gain in the winter, shading in the summer, and natural ventilation for a significant part of the year, you can reduce the amount of energy your office building (from #1) consumes by 30%. How much energy is your building predicted to consume annually?
Source: 582,000 KBTU * 0.3 = 174,600 KBTU
Part II - Museum/Restaurant Example
3.You design a 20,000 sf building that contains a 15,000 sf museum and a 5,000 sf restaurant. How much energy does a baseline building of this type consume annually?
Source: MUSEUM - 112 KBTU/sf2 * 15,000 sf2 = 1680000 KBTU
Source: RESTAURANT - 573.7KBTU/sf2 * 5,000 sf2 = 2868500 KBTU
Source: 1680000 KBTU + 2868500 KBTU = 4548500 KBTU
4.In addition to applying passive strategies to this museum/restaurant building (from #3), you lower the lighting power density, you take advantage of daylighting and sensors to dim lights when there is enough sunlight to illuminate the space, and you employ heat recovery systems to capture and reuse waste heat. Via these strategies, your energy model predicts that you can reduce the amount of energy your building consumes by 70%. How much energy is your building predicted to consume annually?
Source: 4548500 KBTU * 0.7 = 3183950 KBTU
5.For your building in #4, you install a small PV array that can provide power for 25% of the demand on an annual basis. How many kBTUs of energy do you need from the grid (which will be powered by a mix of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources)? Assume this is an all-electric building.
Source: 3183950 * 0.25 = 3183950 KBTU * .25 = 795987.5 KBTU - 3183950 = 2387962.5 KBTU
ENERGY CALCULATION IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT
24ENERGY CALCULATION | STANLEY ALDAY SECTION J | ENERGY CALCULATION
EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATION
EMBODIED CALCULATION SHOWN ON BRICK WALL SHOWN BELOW.
Complete Tasks A, B, and C:
Task A
Find the embodied carbon in this wall.
Steps
1 - Establish the building materials that make up the wall.
2 - Calculate the weight of each material in your wall.
3 - Apply the embodied carbon factor to each material.
4 - Add all of the embodied carbon together.
Task B
4,500 kWh of electricity was used to power site lighting during construction. Construction site lighting is powered by fossil fuels. How much embodied carbon is in the site lighting?
Task C
1,400 m2 of carpet tiles are installed in an office on day #1. 25% of the carpet tiles are replaced every other year for the lifetime of the office space. The lifetime of the office space is 20 years. What is the total embodied carbon for the carpet flooring for the lifetime of the office space?
ver y other year for the d carbon for the carpet
25EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATION | STANLEY ALDAY SECTION K | EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATION
