Design Software Applications

D19S0
Coursework 3
Date – 6/12/2022
HW ID – H00384699

Submitted by Fadila Wangde

Submitted to Dr. Hassam Chaudhry

1
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Description of the model ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Zones ................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Glazing ................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Construction Materials ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 External shadings ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.5 Variation Profile.................................................................................................................................. 8
2.6 Thermal Templates ............................................................................................................................. 9
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Energy consumption data .................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Carbon emissions .............................................................................................................................. 11
4. Results analysis .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 14
5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 14
6. Reference list ..................................................................................................................................... 16
7. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2
 1. Introduction
The main aim of the report is to remodel Heriot Watt's Postgraduate Centre, a mixed-use facility
in Edinburgh, UK, with an analysis of energy and carbon emissions disaggregated by electricity
and gas.
The area of the building is 2500 m2. It includes both cooling and heating systems, and the reason
for redeveloping it is that it is incomplete, and it must have all of the attributes and operations
provided with specifications that are evident in the building in order to apprehend energy
consumption and carbon emissions of the building and compare them to existing annual energy
performance data based on a monitoring study. It is also required to examine, with justifications,
if the real building executes better or worse than the simulated building, and to analyze the
discrepancies in modelled and actual energy usage using graphs and tables from the IES-VE
software. Ultimately, actual building energy data is compared to non-domestic UK buildings.

Figure 1:Real Heriot Watt's Post Graduate Centre, Edinburgh, UK (Hypostyle Architects, n.d.)

3
 2. Description of the model
2.1 Zones
The benchmark IES-VE model is examined for the missing inputs. It has 63 zones in total. The
geometry is subtle, yet it is missing certain key elements. Two zones, a lecture room, and
unheated spaces, for example, were absent and had to be created to complete the final layout.
The lecture room was easily added by just duplicating the office zone below it, which has a
height of 3 m, however for heating spaces, the polygon tool was used to create the zone because
it was not a rectangle shaped zone with a height of 1.5 m, slope of 6 m, and a plane of 9 m.

Figure 2 : Missing zones of the model

2.2 Glazing
After adding the zones, the glazing process begins. This is accomplished utilizing photographs of
the real Postgraduate Centre as well as Google Maps. Some windows are completely glazed,
while others need estimations based on the images. Because 17 windows are absent, they are
produced by selecting the option to make windows by rectangle or polygon. Each window is
projected to be 1m x 1m in size. Because a few windows are not visible in the photographs,
Google Maps is utilized to navigate the building in 3D.
• The east façade incorporates three new identical windows as the rest of the part is glazed,
while the west façade has ten new identical windows with a glazing strip from the ground
floor to the top floor with an area of 12.6 m2.
• The south façade is substantially glazed
• The north façade has 100% glazing on the top floor along with crush area as well as four
windows are added of the same size (1 m2). Two of the windows are in lecture room 1
whereas rest 2 are in lecture room 2. The entrance lobby of the ground floor has a glazed
window of the size 12 m2

4
 Figure 3 : East Façade

Figure 4 : West Façade Figure 5 : West Façade 2

Figure 6 : South Façade Figure 7 : North Façade

2.3 Construction Materials

Default Construction Template is used based on 2002 regulations. No additional changes are
made.

5
2.4 External shadings
Shadings are added to the building's south, east, and west sides using grids and grid alignment
based on the real model. In the South facade, 8 vertical louvers and 13 horizontal louvers are
generated, and to create the horizontal ones, 1 horizontal louver present in the benchmark model
is replicated to the rest. The distance between each horizonal louver is about 2m whereas for
vertical louvers it is approximately 3m. Under the shape settings toolbar, building space is
changed to local shade on prism. However, the length of 13 horizontal shadings differed in east
and west facades (approx. 2.4 m) compared to the south facade which is 21.6 m. But the 4
vertical louvers in the east façade have different lengths and the distance between each of them is
about 2.5 m. Two vertical louvers are added in the west façade as well. Meshing is introduced,
and it is quite intricate, utilizing the same process as shading. The width of each mesh is 0.1m
and the distance between them is 1 m.

Figure 8 : Shading in the East facade

6
 Figure 9 : Shading in the West facade

Figure 10 : Shading in the South facade

7
 Figure 11 : Mesh created in the East facade

2.5 Variation Profile

Before assigning templates, the final requirement is to create a variation profile for the lecture
room and crush areas. It is created for 6 days (Monday to Saturday), leaving Sunday and a public
holiday as non-working days. The 9 am to 5 pm weekday profile is formed following the
instructions. One variation profile is employed for lecture rooms located in three zones on the
building's second floor, as well as crush areas.

Figure 12 : Weekly Profile graph (9am - 5pm)

8
2.6 Thermal Templates
Thermal templates are assigned to all zones except lecture rooms and crush areas. Some zones
have incorrect templates assigned so those modifications and cross checks are done according to
the specifications as IES-VE assigns templates automatically. Thermal templates are created for
lecture rooms and crush areas. The lecture room template is made by adding a replicate of lecture
auditorium and similarly, for crush areas, a copy of office room is created where the original
internal heat gains of computers are 25W/m2, but in crush areas the internal gains are reduced to
5W/m2 .
I. For Lecture Auditorium thermal template is already assigned.
II. For Office, thermal template exists and is assigned correctly, using ‘office’ from the
templates.
III. Toilets are assigned correctly with the ‘toilets’ template.
IV. Café is assigned to café thermal template.
V. Miscellaneous/corridors/lobbies/Space are assigned to circulation thermal template.
VI. Stores/Plant Rooms/Servers/Lifts/Stairs/Unheated Space/Crush Area roof are assigned to
“Voids” thermal template.
VII. Lecture room and crush areas are assigned correctly with the new templates created for
them.

9
 3. Results
The default location is set to Edinburgh before performing the simulations. When Apache
simulations are run and completed, the results can be reviewed, which are needed to find energy
data as well as the building's carbon emissions. The total energy, electricity, and natural gas
values are attained from VistaPro. The internal heat gains are added for computers which are
5W/m2 which could increase electricity usage and that has an impact on the heating loads. It
might as well also affect natural gas by being replaced with electricity, giving higher value
compared to actual results. Values and graphs can be seen below for reference.
3.1 Energy consumption data

Table 1 : Annual energy consumptions of the modelled building

The values shown in the above table are yearly and in MWh, but they have been converted to
kWh/m2 to be able to make comparisons with the real energy data in the analysis section.

Figure 13 :Annual energy consumption graph

10
 Figure 13 illustrates that the months where natural gas consumption is the least are June to
August, but the electricity consumption is comparatively more as this is due to a reduction in
thermal loads and increase in cooling loads.

Figure 14 : Peak (kW) graph for total energy

The graph above depicts the total energy consumed in a 24-hour period, which begins at 6:30
AM and ends around 10 PM. As shown, there are swings, with energy usage peaking primarily
around 10 a.m.
3.2 Carbon emissions

Figure 15 : Annual carbon emissions of the modelled building

11
 Figure 16 : Annual carbon emissions over a year

Since natural gas energy usage is the least from the months June to August, accordingly
emissions are also less.
4. Results analysis
The energy data of the modelled building is different from the real building and the general
benchmark guidelines. Econ 19 was the benchmark guide used to make a comparison analysis.
Actual Energy
data
Natural Gas 40593 kWh/yr 16.2 kWh/m2
117.72
Electricity 294317 kWh/yr kWh/m2
Table 2 : Total annual energy data in kWh/m2 for comparisons

Apache
Simulated results
Natural Gas 75736.6 kWh/yr 30.2 kWh/m2
Electricity 171520.4 kWh/yr 68.6 kWh/m2
Table 3 : Predicted annual total energy data in kWh/m2 for comparisons

Econ 19 benchmark (Annual)

Natural Gas = 97 kWh/m2
Electricity = 128 kWh/m2
Table 4 : Nondomestic energy consumption benchmark values (Stevenson, 2017)

Table 5 shows energy consumption values delivered by overall gas and electricity of a standard
air-conditioned building. For the model, these good practice values are considered as they are
suitable for area sizes ranging typically from 2000 m2 to 8000 m2 and the area of the model is

12
2500 m2 which fits in the range (Stevenson, 2017). If the modelled building is further compared
with these nondomestic benchmarks, it can be found that the modelled building does better in
terms of performance. When compared to nondomestic standards, the simulated outcomes are
significantly better than the legitimate ones but at the same time they seem unrealistic as energy
prediction is not completely accurate as seen in table 2 and table 3. Whereas comparing the
actual energy data with industrial benchmark, it can be noticed that the natural gas value is
extremely lower than the benchmark value, but electricity value almost meets the standard
number which states that the real Post Graduate Centre is a low energy building.
According to several Carbon Buzz investigations, observed electricity requirements in general
workplaces are roughly 60% to 70% more than projected, and academic institutions are over
85% higher than anticipated (de Menezes et al., 2012). There are several reasons for
inconsistencies in expected and actual energy performance in buildings. There is a design
presumption that could have some unclear characteristics of the building's operations in terms of
desired effectiveness. Because the data supplied for energy analysis will necessitate assumptions,
modeling approaches can potentially lead to basic flaws, resulting in inadequacies in predictions.
When it comes to actual performance, it is entirely dependent on handling and supervision,
which can evolve in effective building service operations, whereas unsuitable schemes can lead
to superfluous energy losses, and it also links to occupancy behavior, which has control over the
energy consuming devices and appliances. The aforementioned causal reasons apply to both
predicted and in performance, suggesting that current projections are typically unreasonably low,
while actual energy performance is pragmatic.
Performance in usage can sometimes be impacted by the quality and design, gaps, and other
factors but are infrequently contemplated. However, the general issue could be taken as the
inability of existing modeling tools to reflect realistic building use and administration. This, in
turn, might be connected to a paucity of feedback about real building use and operation, as well
as the resulting energy usage (de Menezes et al., 2012).
Simulated carbon emissions data (kgC/m2)
Natural gas 1.6
Electricity 9.67
Table 5 : Predicted annual carbon emissions of the modelled building

Econ 19 carbon emissions data (kgC/m2)

Natural gas 5
Electricity 16.3
Table 6 : Benchmark annual carbon emissions (Stevenson, 2017)

The above table shows the emissions for the air-conditioned office which are higher than the
simulated results but nevertheless those values are more accurate than the predicted values as
they are set as a benchmark. According to the UK Climate Change Committee, cutting carbon

13
emissions from commercial buildings is the most difficult of all sectors. Emissions from
buildings accounted for 34% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2014. On a sector basis,
commercial and public sector emissions account for 27% and 10% of building emissions
respectively. Building emissions have declined by 21% since 2007 due to a combination of high
energy prices, improved energy efficiency and the recession (Committee on Climate Change,
2015).
Evaluation of the overall results of the building signifies that the performance of the real building
seems poor compared to the model. The primary cause of the rise in electricity consumption of
the real building might be higher internal heat gains and decline in heating loads, which could
pertain to minimal gas consumption and making comparisons with the benchmark values, there
can be a distinction made in variation profiles, as the particular characteristics of the real-life
Postgraduate Centre are uncertain; for example, the weekday 9am to 5pm profile is utilized for
the model, but the actual variation profile, such as events and sessions held after 5pm or on
weekends, is unconfirmed. Hence, it can be concluded that the actual building is a low energy
building.
4.1 Limitations
Because of the necessary generalizations, the process of converting a physical building to a
computer simulation adds ambiguity into the modeling results. As a result, the model cannot be
an accurate portrayal of the actual building, with the levels of detail in the model impacting the
level of variability in the eventual outcome. Electricity consumption may also be higher than
expected as a result of additional minor utility grid, as well as operating appliances and
machinery for longer periods of time than customary which may give the impression that the
predicted values are much better in terms of efficiency, but this is not the reality.
Multiple analyses have found that energy consumption is higher than anticipated due to tenant
control over building systems. As a result, there are several errors associated with authentic
performance and predictions. (Demanuele, Tweddell and Davies, 2010).

5. Conclusion
Concluding with studies and research that show predicted energy values cannot be accurate
enough to the real data. It’s obvious that the energy data can’t be analyzed without individuals
utilizing the building. There is potential for more exploration of how facilities are effectively
used, with an emphasis on tenancy and organizational conduct, as well as their implications on
unrestrained energy usage. This can be accomplished through the use of Post-Occupancy
Evaluation which can take a combination of techniques, ranging from high tech strategies
incorporating actual statistics to socio-psychological motivations in which more intuitive metrics
are employed to assess a building's efficacy. The inability to access the actual Post Graduate
Centre to acquire evidence to progress with the modeling software was an obstacle. Basic and
systematic monitoring practices enable outcomes to be integrated into energy models for a more
comprehensive assessment of a building's ultimate performance. Predictions for power
consumption for lighting and equipment can also be optimized by including estimates for
internal loads, which may augment cooling and heating demands in the building.

14
Additionally, dynamic modeling is better than steady-state modeling. It’s a powerful tool to
assess the sustainable performance of a building. It allows a more valid analysis rather than using
energy evaluation strategies such as SAP and iSBEM. This is due, in part, to a stronger
attention on ecological variables like solar gain and the role of glass and convective heat,
but it is also attributable to more reliable occupancy, cognitive, and energy usage profiles.
It becomes more challenging to comprehend how facilities, spaces, and divisions alter in
load and require energy throughout the year. Using dynamic simulation modeling permits
users to cope with this intricate dilemma, which a standard steady-state approach could
never undertake.

15
 6. Reference list

Committee on Climate Change. (2015). [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/08/Fact-sheet-buildings-updated-July-2015.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2022].

de Menezes, A.C.K., Cripps, A., Bouchlaghem, D. and Buswell, R. (2012). Predicted vs. actual
energy performance of non-domestic buildings: using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce
the performance gap. repository.lboro.ac.uk. [online] doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.075’]
[Accessed 29 Nov. 2022].

Demanuele, C., Tweddell, T. and Davies, M. (2010). Bridging the gap between predicted and
actual energy performance in schools. [online] World Renewable Energy Congress XI.
https://www.maxfordham.com/. Available at:
https://www.maxfordham.com/assets/media/images/publications/Bridging%20the%20gap/WRE
C_paper_bridging_the_gap.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2022].

Hypostyle Architects (n.d.). Heriot Watt University Building, Riccarton University Campus.
[online] www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk. Available at:
https://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/heriot-watt-edinburgh [Accessed 28 Nov. 2022].

Stevenson, E. (2017). [PDF] Energy use in offices - Free Download PDF. [online] silo.tips.
Available at: https://silo.tips/download/energy-use-in-offices [Accessed 1 Dec. 2022].

16
 7. Appendix
Different views of the model in 2D

Figure 17 : East view

Figure 18 : West view

17
Figure 19 : South view

Figure 20 : North view

18
Figure 21 : Plan view

19