EARLY ENERGY ANALYSIS

GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE (BIM T-412)

BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) ENERGY ANALYSIS

ASSIGNMENT -01

GROUP - 05
AMIYA KATTIPARAMBIL SHAJI - 101437300
FATHIMATHUSANA IRFAN - 101515459
HEMISH SODVADIYA - 101500961
KRUPALI PANCHAL - 101413577
MONISHA BHASKAR - 101523797
SHALINI DEVI UMACHANDRAN - 101492256
XINZHANG LU - 101519923

1
 INDEX

SITE MAP 3
A. EARLY ENERGY ANALYSIS 4
1. Assignment Objective 4
2. Model & Parameters Used 4
2.1 Advanced Energy Settings 5
B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 6
1. Scenario 1 6
2. Scenario 2 14
3. Scenario 3 21
Scenario Comparison - Conclusion 27

2
 SITE MAP

Site location - 328 Dupont Street, Toronto

Site area - 3400 sqm.

Selected site is situated in the Commercial-Residential Zone and has direct access from
Dupont Street towards the South of site. At the North of the site, railway tracks run adjacent to
the site edge while, the East and West boundaries are surrounded by the low rise commercial
buildings, and a residential zone is located at the southern direction of site.

3
A. EARLY ENERGY ANALYSIS

1. Assignment Objective
Using the building provided in class, we will conduct a comprehensive energy analysis
and explore different design scenarios. By adjusting the building's model elements and
window configurations, we will measure how these design changes and energy-saving
strategies affect the building's overall energy efficiency.

2. Model & Parameters Used

BUILDING INFORMATION VALUE

Building Type Office

Massing Details (H) 36’ 0”

Massing Details (L) 104’ 7”

Massing Details (W) 111’ 10”

Massing Details (GFA 1st Floor) 7170 sq.ft.

Massing Details (GFA 2nd Floor) 6813 sq.ft

Location and Weather Settings 328 Dupont St, Toronto, ON M5R 1V9

4
2.1 Advanced Energy Settings
Key Parameters set for the energy analysis on the exterior solar study office building.

KEY PARAMETRES DESCRIPTION

Mode Use building elements

Project Phase New Construction

Hvac System Central VAV, HW Heat, Chiller 5.96 COP,

Boilers 84.5 eff

Export Category Spaces

Outdoor Air Per Person 8.00 L/s

Mass Exterior Wall Lightweight Construction - Typical Cold

Climate Insulation

Mass Interior Wall Lightweight Construction - No Insulation

Mass Roof High Insulation - Cool Roof

Mass Floor Lightweight Construction - High Insulation

Mass Slab High Mass Construction - Cold Climate Slab

Insulation

Mass Glazing Double Pane Clear

Mass Skylight Double Pane Clear

Mass Shade Basic Shade

Mass Opening Air

5
 B. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
1. Scenario 1
Comparison between Baseline 1 and Improved Scenario 1

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

0.94 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Findings: R-60 wood frame roof with a U-value of 0.0857 W/(m²·K) is highly suitable for
office buildings in Toronto due to its superior insulation properties. Considering factors like
Climate Suitability, Energy Efficiency, Cost and Comfort Benefits, and Regulatory
Compliance, an R-60 wood frame roof is an excellent choice for optimizing energy performance
and comfort in a Toronto office building.

6
 Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.08 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Findings: R-38 wood frame wall with a U-value of 0.1545 W/(m²·K) is suitable for office
buildings in Toronto. Considering Climate Adaptation, Energy Efficiency, Regulatory
Compliance, R-38 wood frame walls are a strong choice for enhancing the energy performance
and comfort of office buildings in Toronto, ensuring cost savings on energy and compliance with
energy conservation standards.

7
 WWR Ratio Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

South / West / East 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

North 0.89 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Here, The potential energy savings from adjusting the WWR might be marginal compared to the
overall energy consumption of the building. In such cases, the changes in energy costs are too
small to affect the overall cost significantly.

Findings:
Specific Considerations for Each Orientation

● Southern Walls:
○ Often benefit from larger windows to maximize solar heat gain in winter.
○ Need shading devices (e.g., overhangs, blinds) to prevent overheating in
summer.
○ Recommended WWR can be higher due to the potential for passive solar
heating.
● Northern Walls:
○ Typically have smaller windows to minimize heat loss.
○ Large windows are not recommended because they receive minimal direct
sunlight, which can lead to higher heating demands in winter.
○ Lower WWR is preferred to enhance energy efficiency.
● Eastern and Western Walls:
○ Windows on these walls can cause significant heat gain in the morning
(east) and afternoon (west).
○ Often have moderate to low WWR to balance natural light with thermal
comfort.

8
 ○ Use of low-emissivity (low-e) glass and shading devices is common to
reduce heat gain.

Practical WWR Guidelines

Southern Walls: 20-40% ;
Northern Walls: 10-20%;
Eastern Walls: 15-25%;
Western Walls: 15-25% .

Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.17 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

The typical range for plug load power density as per ASHRAE standards, the Toronto
Green Standardin efficient office buildings is around 0.5 to 1.0 W/ft² (5.4 to 10.8 W/m²).
This includes the energy used by office equipment such as computers, monitors,
printers, and other devices.

9
Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

0.91 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

10
 Window glass Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

South / North / West/ East 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Reason for Consideration:

1. North-Facing Windows generally receive the least direct sunlight, so the primary focus is on
minimizing heat loss.
● Recommended Glass Type: Triple Low-E (trp loe)
● Reason: It provides superior insulation, significantly reducing heat loss during the long
winter months, which is essential for energy efficiency and maintaining indoor comfort.

2. South-Facing Windows receive abundant sunlight, especially in winter, which can be

beneficial for passive solar heating. However, they need to manage solar heat gain in summer.
● Recommended Glass Type: Double Low-E (dbl loe)
● Reason: Double Low-E glass allows for beneficial solar heat gain in winter while
minimizing excessive heat gain in summer. It also reduces the need for artificial lighting
by allowing ample natural light.

3. East-Facing Windows get direct morning sunlight, which can lead to significant heat gain.
● Recommended Glass Type: Double Low-E (dbl loe)
● Reason: Double Low-E glass helps reduce unwanted heat gain from the morning sun
while maintaining good thermal insulation properties.

4. West-Facing Windows receive intense afternoon sunlight, which can cause overheating and
glare.
● Recommended Glass Type: Double Low-E (dbl loe)
● Reason: Double Low-E glass effectively controls solar heat gain and glare from the
intense afternoon sun, improving comfort and reducing cooling loads.

11
Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.09 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.22 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

12
Fig: Comparison between Baseline 1 and Improved Scenario 1

COST:
1. Baseline Scenario - 2.99$ CAD
2. Improved Scenario 1 - 0.9$ CAD

13
 2. Scenario 2
Comparison between Baseline 1 and Improved Scenario 2

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

0.87 CAD /sqft/yr 0.83CAD /sqft/yr

14
Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.09 CAD /sqft/yr 0.83CAD /sqft/yr

15
 WWR Ratio Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

South 0.84 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

North/ West / East 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.09 CAD /sqft/yr 0.83CAD /sqft/yr

16
 Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

0.85 CAD/sqft/yr 0.38 CAD/sqft/yr

17
 Window glass Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

North 0.84 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

South/East/ West 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.02 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

18
Findings:

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.11 CAD/sqft/yr 0.83 CAD/sqft/yr

Fig: Comparison between Baseline 2 and Improved Scenario 2

COST:
1. Baseline Scenario 2 - 2.83 $ CAD
2. Improved Scenario 2 - 0.83 $ CAD

19
 3. Scenario 3
Comparison between Baseline 3 and Improved Scenario 3

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.13 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

20
 Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.12 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

WWR Ratio Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

South / West / East 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

21
North 0.89 CAD/sqft/yr 0.90 CAD/sqft/yr

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.41 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.41 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

22
 Window glass Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

South / North / West/ East 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

23
 Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.33 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

Baseline Scenario Improved scenario

1.51 CAD/sqft/yr 1.12 CAD/sqft/yr

24
Fig: Comparison between Baseline 3 and Improved Scenario 3

COST:
1. Baseline Scenario - 3.35 $ CAD
2. Improved Scenario 1 - 1.12 $ CAD

25
Scenario Comparison - Conclusion

26
 A. Overall Energy, Cost, and Carbon Savings

Energy Savings:
Across the various scenarios analyzed, improvements such as upgrading to an R-60 wood
frame roof and R-38 wood frame walls, as well as optimizing window configurations, have
demonstrated notable energy savings. For instance, improving the insulation properties of the
roof and walls showed a reduction in energy consumption.

Cost Savings:
The financial analysis highlighted the cost-effectiveness of implementing these energy-saving
measures. These cost savings, while individually modest, cumulatively contribute to a significant
reduction in the building’s annual energy expenses, thus making a strong case for the
investment in energy-efficient upgrades.

Carbon Savings:
The reduction in energy consumption directly correlates to a decrease in carbon emissions. By
adopting measures such as high insulation and appropriate glazing types, the building's carbon
footprint is significantly reduced. For example, using double and triple Low-E glass on various
facades ensures optimal insulation and minimal heat loss, which is crucial for reducing the
building's overall carbon emissions. The detailed carbon savings calculations, derived from the
reduced energy usage, align with the objective of enhancing sustainability and meeting
regulatory compliance for energy conservation standards.

27
 B. Summary of differences we found with 3 scenarios

Scenario 1:

● Transitioning from the baseline to improved Scenario 1 resulted in decreased energy

consumption primarily due to optimized roofing and wall structures.
● Utilization of an R-60 wood frame roof with superior insulation properties significantly
contributed to enhanced energy performance and comfort.
● Implementation of R-38 wood frame walls further bolstered energy efficiency
Adjustments to WWR had minimal impact on energy costs, highlighting the importance
of other design elements.
● Recommendations for different window types based on orientation emphasized
thoughtful design choices for maximizing energy savings.

Scenario 2:

● Compared to the baseline, Scenario 2 showcased further reductions in energy

consumption, attributed to targeted modifications in roofing, walls, and window
configurations.
● Similar enhancements in roofing and wall structures were observed, contributing to
improved energy efficiency.
● Modest adjustments in WWR showcased considerations for energy efficiency, though
their impact on overall costs was limited.
● Continued recommendations for optimal window types reinforced the importance of
tailored design strategies for energy optimization.

Scenario 3:

● Scenario 3 represented the most extensive adjustments, resulting in marginal

differences in energy consumption compared to Scenario 1.
● Utilization of R-60 wood frame roofs and R-38 wood frame walls remained consistent
with previous scenarios, underscoring their effectiveness in energy savings.
● Despite adjustments, WWR had minimal impact on overall energy costs, aligning with
findings from previous scenarios.
● Consistent recommendations for optimal window types emphasized the importance of
tailored design strategies for energy efficiency.

Conclusion:

● Overall, the achieved values in energy consumption and costs across all scenarios were
satisfactory.

28
 ● Scenario 1's outcomes were optimal, serving as a benchmark for subsequent
modifications.
● Scenarios 2 and 3 demonstrated good improvements, validating the effectiveness of
iterative optimization strategies.
● The cost values for insight parameters in scenario 3 remained almost same, since
we optimized the model for maximum efficiency already.

C. Energy Conservation Methods Used

Based on the provided information and the goal of achieving high energy efficiency for an office
building in Toronto, here are the recommended energy conservation methods:

1. High-Performance Glazing
Double Glazing: Utilized Low-E double glazing with a U-value of 1.5330 W/(m²·K) and
SHGC of 0.36 for exterior windows and skylights. This will provide excellent insulation and
moderate solar heat gain control.
Selective Placement and Shading: Different types of glazing to be applied based on building
orientation. For instance, use higher SHGC glazing on north-facing windows for passive solar
heating and lower SHGC glazing on south, east, and west-facing windows to reduce cooling
loads. Integrate external shading devices such as overhangs and louvers to manage direct
sunlight.

2. Insulation
Roof Insulation: Implemented an R-60 wood frame roof (U=0.0857 W/(m²·K)) to minimize
heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer.
Wall Insulation: Used R-38 wood frame walls (U=0.1545 W/(m²·K)) for effective thermal
insulation, reducing energy consumption for heating and cooling.

3. Lighting
LED Lighting: Use energy-efficient LED lighting throughout the building. LEDs consume less
power and have a longer lifespan compared to traditional lighting.
Daylighting: Maximize the use of natural light through skylights and strategically placed
windows. Use daylight sensors to adjust artificial lighting based on the availability of natural
light.

4. HVAC System Optimization

High-Efficiency HVAC Systems: Install high-efficiency HVAC systems with advanced controls to
optimize energy use.
Zoning and Controls: Implement zoning controls to regulate heating and cooling in different
areas based on occupancy and usage patterns.
Regular Maintenance: Schedule regular maintenance of HVAC systems to ensure they operate
at peak efficiency.

29
Conclusion
By integrating these energy conservation methods, the office building in Toronto can achieve
significant energy savings, enhance occupant comfort, and contribute to environmental
sustainability. These strategies collectively address thermal performance, efficient equipment
use, and renewable energy integration to create a highly efficient and sustainable office
environment.

D. Most Significant Factors Contributing to Energy Savings

● Wall Construction
● Roof Construction
● HVAC
● Plug load efficiency

E. Factors Preventing Achievement of ASHRAE or Net-Zero Energy

Targets
We did not physically change the WWR for the third scenario in the model, so that's why we
were not able to achieve net zero. But we achieved Ashrae, through careful selection of
construction materials suitable for canadian climate context.
Why: From insight parameters, we did not find there is much difference

F. Areas for further improvements

● Window Glass & Skylight - Used double glazing instead of triple glazing, and
● Could have included a Photovoltaic (PV) system for this project.

References/Resources
1. National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB), 2017
2. Ontario Building Code (OBC)
3. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality
4. Lecture Notes

30