Assignment – 04

ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION

LMCP Building – Envelope Optimization and cost analysis
MONSOON Semester 2023 Course code: BE4003
Submitted By: Arsh Arora(PBE22059)
Location – Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh (23.26°, 77.41)
CLIMATE
` ZONE: COMPOSITE
BUILDING TYPE: EDUCATIONAL
MODE: MIXED MODE

10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 1

MODEL VERIFICATION – BUILDING ENVELOPE
VERIFICATION EVIDENCE-01
6
METHODOLOGY – MAPPING OF DELTA T (SURFACE) AND HEAT FLUX (envelope) WITH OUTDOOR TEMP.

EDELTA T (EXT. SURFACE TEMP - INT.

SIMULATION DONE FOR SUMMER AND WINTER (classified as occupied and unoccupied hours) 4
At zone level. AREA- FACULTY AREA CABINS (FF) ORIENTATION - SOUTH
30 2

SURFACE TEMP)
0
25
-2

20 -4

-6
FACADE HEAT FLUX (W/m²)

15
-8
10 5 15 25 35 45
WINTER SUMMER OUTDOOR DBT (°C)

5 • With the indoor set temperature at 24c the operative

temperature will also follow the same trend as a result
0 the inside surface temperature will always be closer to
24°c
-5
• There are constant heat gains on the external facade
with an increase in outside DBT. Hence delta T increases
with the rise in outdoor temperatures.
-10 • when inside surface temperatures ( mostly in winters )
are greater than outside DBT it means that heat
-15 transfer is from inside to outside
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8• Hence we can say that the model is behaving correctly.
EDELTA T (EXT. SURFACE TEMP - INT. SURFACE TEMP)
OCCUPIED HOURS UN OCCUPIED HOURS
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 2
MODEL VERIFICATION – SHADING DEVICE VERIFICATION
VERIFICATION EVIDENCE-02

SENSIBLE COOLING LOAD (kW)

1.25
METHODOLOGY – MAPPING OF SOLAR GAINS ON EXTERIOR WINDOWS WITH GLOBAL HORIZONTAL 1.2
RADIATION SIMULATION DONE ANNUAL. WITH AND WITHOUT SHADING COMPONENT BLOCKS 1.15
At zone level. AREA- FACULTY AREA CABINS (FF) ORIENTATION - SOUTH 1.1
1.6 1.05
1
0.95
1.4 0.9
34% 0.85
SOLAR GAINS EXTERIOR WINDOWS (W/m²)

0.8
1.2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
HOURS

1 With shading device without shading device

• The solar gains on the exterior windows clearly increased

0.8 by 34% which states that the component block input in
the base case model is working as per expectation.
0.6 • Sensible cooling loads mapped during operational hours
are higher in buildings without a shading device however
showing the effect on the thermal mass of the envelope
0.4 as while not having the shading device cooling loads
decrease as the outside DBT gets lower than the inside air
0.2 temperature as cooling loads remain constantly high even
after 17 00 hrs with the shading device. Hence the model
is working correctly.
0 • we cannot see a great difference in the reduction of solar
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
heat gains hence there is a need for an optimized shading
DIRECT NORMAL RADIATION (W/m²) device that provides better protection from the solar
SHADING NO SHADING gains while keeping the blinds open.
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 3
MODEL VERIFICATION – SEASONAL COOLING LOADS
VERIFICATION EVIDENCE-03
80
METHODOLOGY – MAPPING OF SOLAR INCIDENT GAINS WITH DIRECT AND DIFFUSED RADIATION
SIMULATED ANNUALLY At zone level. AREA- FACULTY AREA CABINS (FF) ORIENTATION - SOUTH 70
120
60

TOTAL COOLING LOAD(W/m²)

50
100
40
SENSIBLE AND LATENT COOLING LOAD(W/m²)

30
80
20

10
60 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ENTHALPY(J/G) WINTER SUMMER MONSOON

• While mapping total cooling loads with outdoor air

enthalpy we can clearly see that cooling loads during
40
winters are lower as the enthalpy is less during that time.
• Monsoon experiences the highest cooling loads as along
with higher temperatures there is a considerable increase
20 in RH%.
• An increase in Rh and DBT results in higher enthalpy
which directly corresponds to the cooling loads required.
• The set point here is constant at 24°C during occupied
0 hours which we can clearly see that the system is able to
20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
ENTHALPY(J/G) maintain the set point temperature during those hours.
WINTER SENSIBLE WINTER LATENT SUMMER SENSIBLE SUMMER LATENT MONSOON SENSIBLE MONSOON LATENT Hence, The schedule and model are working correctly.
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 4
MODEL VERIFICATION – LATENT LOADS
VERIFICATION EVIDENCE-04 LATENT LOAD VS RH (UN CODITIONED AREA )
METHODOLOGY – MAPPING OF Total latent loads vs relative humidity 17
SIMULATED ANNUALLY At the ZONE LEVEL – FF FACULTY AREA CABINS ORIENTATION SOUTH
15

LATENT LOAD (W/m²)

25 13
11
9

20 7
5
3
LATENT LOAD (W/m²)

1
15 25 35 45 55 65
RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)
OTHER OCCCUPIED HOURS 8:00 TO 9:00 HOURS

• While mapping latent loads with rh we can clearly

10 see a direct relation as rh increases latent loads in
the building also increase hence we can say that
the HVAC system is correctly catering to the latent
loads.
5
• There is a sudden increase in latent loads (black
dots ) when the occupancy enters as there is a
sudden increase in latent loads simultaneously
when the HVAC system starts.
0
• This further proves that the HVAC schedule and
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
occupancy schedule inputs are working in unison,
RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)
hence, we can say that the model is working
MORNING HOURS OCCUPIED HOURS correctly .
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 5
BASE CASE REPORT
HEAT GAINS IN THE
• BUILDING GEOMETRY: L.M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, • TOTAL BUILDING AREA 3256.26 SQM BUILDING
• NET CONDITIONED BUILDING AREA 1692.66 43.5
LOCATION: BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH SQM
• CO-ORDINATES: 23.26⁰ N I 77.41 ⁰ E • ENERGY PER TOTAL BUILDING AREA 82.9 kWh/m2
• CLIMATE ZONE: COMPOSITE • HVAC SYSTEM VRF + PTAC 43

• BUILDING TYPE: EDUCATIONAL • TOTAL COOLING LOAD (KW) 221.65 KW

• MODE: MIXED MODE • TOTAL DESIGN CAPACITY (KW) 254.94 KW 42.5

KW
• VRF SYSTEM REQ (KW) 125.45 KW
42

EPI 130.46 • VRF CHILLER COP

• PTAC SYSTEM REQ (KW)
3.3
129.49 KW 41.5
• UDI 90% 26.07%
• SDA 40% 23.67% 41
ENVELOPE INTERNAL

MONTHLY HEAT GAINS - BUILDING LEVEL

3.5 3.5
Thousands

Thousands

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION (KW/m²)

3.25 3
3
2.5
0.5 0.5
2.75
0.4 2
W/m²

0.4 0.5 0.4

2.5 0.4
0.3 0.4
0.4 0.3 0.5 1.5
2.25 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.3 0.2 0.3
0.3 1
2 0.2 0.2
0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
1.75 0.2 0.5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1.5 0
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
INTERNAL ROOF WALLS GLAZING ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 6
ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – WALLS
ECM-01_WALLS
METHODOLOGY –MAPPING OF HEAT FLUX THROUGH WALLS WITH BASE CASE AND PROPOSED CASE WITH OUTDOOR DBT TO CHECK FEASABLITY OF ECM
AREA- FACULTY AREA CABINS (FF) ORIENTATION - SOUTH
25 8

20

HEAT GAINS THROUGH WALLS (W/m²)

HEAT GAINS THROUGH WALLS (W/m²)

6
15
4
10

5 2

0 0
-5
-2
-10
-4
-15

-20 -6
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C) OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
PROPOSED CASE OCCUPIED BASE CASE OCCUPIED BASE CASE UN-OCCUPIED PROPOSED CASE UNOCCUPIED
35 320
140

Thousands
• By reducing the u value of the WALLS there is NO
Thousands

Thousands
HEAT GAINS (KWH)

COOLING LOAD KW
30 120 300
ELECTRICITY(KWH)

25 100
considerable change in overall heat gains inside the
280
building
COOLNG

20 80
15 60
260 • DURING UNOCCUPIED HOURS THE HEAT LOSS IS
10 40
240 SIMILAR WHEN THE AC IS OFF.
5 20 220 • DURING OCCUPIED HOURS HEAT GAINS REDUCE
0 0 200
SLIGHTLY BUT NOT ENOUGH TO REDUCE COOLING
BASE CASE WALL BASE CASE WALL LOADS AT THE ZONE LEVEL.
BASE CASE WALL
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 7
ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – WALLS – SEASONAL HEATFLUX VARIATION (OCCUPIED (ac on) HOURS)

25 30

25
20
20

15
HEAT FLUX WALLS (W/m²)

HEAT FLUX WALLS (W/m²)

15

10
10

5
5
0

0 -5

-10
-5
-15

-10 -20
20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C) OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
BASE SUMMER PROPOSED SUMMER CAPITAL COST INCREASE BASE WINTER PROPOSED WINTER
93150
(RS) (insulation)
₹ 500 135 • During both summers and winters the heat flux remains similar to
Thousands

COOLING ELECTRICITY the base case as a result there is no considerable difference in

₹ 400 133 215
REDUCTION (KWH) cooling loads.
CAPITAL COST

EPI(KWH/m²)

130.46 130.34
₹ 300 131 • As the area of insulation is above 2000sqm the cost increase is
COST OF ELECTRICITY / high with no change in epi hence optimizing the u value of walls
₹ 200 129 8.6
KWH (RS)
is not suggested as the cost increase is far greater than the epi
₹ 100 127 YEARLY COST SAVINGS
1849
reduction as cooling loads remain similar.
₹0 125
(RS) • Negligible difference in heat loss during unoccupied hours means
BASE CASE WALLS RETURN OF AC has to work more in the morning hours. Resulting in
INVESTMENT(YEARS) 25.04 comparatively higher heat gains.
COST OF XPS INSULATION EPI
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 8
 ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – ROOF
ECM-01_ROOF
METHODOLOGY –MAPPING OF HEAT FLUX THROUGH THE ROOF WITH BASE CASE AND PROPOSED CASE WITH OUTDOOR DBT TO CHECK THE FEASIBILITY OF
INCREASING XPS INSULATION (70 MM INCREASE) ON THE ROOF. BASE CASE ROOF U VALUE = 0.39 W/M²k PROPOSED CASE U VALUE = 0.20 W/M²k
AREA-
30
SECOND FLOOR LABS CORE ZONE ROOF (SF) (BIGGEST CONDITIONED ROOF AREA
30
SAMPLE SIZE)

25 25
HEAT GAINS THROUGH ROOF (W/m²)

HEAT GAINS THROUGH ROOF (W/m²)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C) OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
PROPOSED CASE OCCUPIED BASE CASE OCCUPIED BASE CASE UN-OCCUPIED PROPOSED CASE UNOCCUPIED
132
31 310 • By reducing the u value of the roof there is a
Thousands
COOLING ELECTRICITY

Thousands
Thousands
TOTAL HEAT GAINS

TOTAL COOLING LOAD

131
30 308 considerable change in overall heat gains inside the
29 130 306 building as this is a 3-floor building and the roof area
(KWH)

KWH

(KWH)
28 129 304 is 1260 sqm which has a considerable effect on the
27 128 302
overall heat balance of the building
26 127
• During unoccupied hours we can clearly see that
300
25 there are fewer gains and more heat loss in the
126 298
BASE CASE ROOF
BASE CASE ROOF
proposed case during unoccupied hours.
BASE CASE ROOF
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 9
ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – ROOF – SEASONAL HEATFLUX VARIATION (OCCUPIED (ac on) HOURS)
30 30

25 25
HEAT GAINS THROUGH ROOF (W/m²)

HEAT GAINS THROUGH ROOF (W/m²)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C) OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
BASE SUMMER PROPOSED SUMMER CAPITAL COST INCREASE BASE WINTER PROPOSED WINTER
56700
₹ 30.00 135 (RS) (insulation)
• During summers occupied there are clearly fewer heat gains and
x 10000

134
₹ 25.00 133 COOLING ELECTRICITY heat loss is similar to the base case.
INSULATION COST

1201
132
•
EPI (KWH/m²)

₹ 20.00 REDUCTION (KWH) Clearly insulation increase is helping in bringing the overall
130.46 131
₹ 15.00 128.98 130 cooling loads down during summer occupied hours. Hence
129 COST OF ELECTRICITY / reducing epi by 1.5 kwh/sqm.
₹ 10.00 8.6
KWH (RS)
128
127
• There is considerable heat loss during winter-occupied hours
₹ 5.00 YEARLY COST SAVINGS
126 10328.6 which helps the VRF system maintain a set point temperature for
₹ 0.00 125 (RS) winter hence reducing heating loads as well.
BASE CASE ROOF
RETURN OF • Hence optimizing the building envelope by insulating roofs will
COST OF ROOF XPS INSULATION EPI INVESTMENT(YEARS) 5.49 help reduce the electricity consumption of the building.
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 10
 ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – GLAZING
METHODOLOGY –MAPPING OF HEAT FLUX THROUGH THE WINDOWS WITH BASE CASE AND PROPOSED CASE WITH OUTDOOR DBT TO CHECK THE FEASIBILITY OF
REDUCING U VALUE OF AND SHGC OF GLASS ACC. TO ECBC SUPER PRISCRIPTION . BASE CASE U VALUE = 3.0 W/M²k PROPOSED CASE U VALUE = 2.20 W/M²k
AREA- FACULTY AREA CABINS (FF) ORIENTATION - SOUTH
30
30

25
25

20
20
HEAT FLUX GLAZING (W/m²)

HEAT FLUX GLAZING (W/m²)

15
15

10
10

5
5

0
0

-5
-5

-10
-10

-15
-15
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
BASE CASE UN-OCCUPIED PROPOSED CASE UNOCCUPIED
PROPOSED CASE OCCUPIED BASE CASE OCCUPIED

30.5 131.5 309 • By reducing the u value of the GLAZING there is a

TOTAL HEAT GAINS (KWH)

Thousands

Thousands
TOTAL COOLING LOAD (KWH)
Thousands
COOLING ELECTRICITY KWH

30 308
131 considerable change in overall heat gains inside the
29.5 307
130.5 building as this is a 3-floor building and the area is
29 306
28.5
130 738 sqm which has a considerable effect on the
305
28 129.5
304
overall heat balance of the building
27.5 129
303 • During unoccupied hours we can clearly see that
27 128.5 302 there are fewer gains and more heat loss in the
BASE CASE GLAZING 128 proposed case.
301
BASE CASE GLAZING BASE CASE GLAZING
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 11
ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – GLAZING – SEASONAL HEATFLUX VARIATION (OCCUPIED (ac on) HOURS)
25 25

20 20
HEAT GAINS THROUGH WALLS (W/m²)

HEAT GAINS THROUGH WALLS (W/m²)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
20 25 30 35 40 45 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OUTDOOR DBT (°C) OUTDOOR DBT (°C)
BASE SUMMER PROPOSED SUMMER CAPITAL COST INCREASE BASE WINTER PROPOSED WINTER
255060
₹ 170 135 (RS) (insulation) • During summers occupied there are clearly fewer heat gains BUT
x 10000

₹ 165 134
heat loss is similar to the base case.
CAPITAL COST INCREASE

₹ 160 133
COOLING ELECTRICITY • Clearly insulation increase is helping in bringing the overall
132 1953
EPI (KWH/m²)

₹ 155 130.46 REDUCTION (KWH)

129.81 131 cooling loads down during summer occupied hours. Hence
₹ 150
130
₹ 145 COST OF ELECTRICITY / reducing epi by 1 kwh/sqm.
129 8.6
₹ 140 128 KWH (RS) • There is considerable heat loss during winter-occupied hours
₹ 135 127 which helps the VRF system maintain set point temperature for
₹ 130 YEARLY COST SAVINGS
126 16795.8 winter hence reducing heating loads as well.
₹ 125 125
(RS)
BASE CASE GLAZING
• Hence optimizing the building envelope by APPLYING GLAZING
RETURN OF
COST OF GLAZING EPI INVESTMENT(YEARS) 15.9 WITH LOWER U VALUE will help reduce the electricity
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04
consumption of the building. 12
ECM-01 BUILDING ENVELOPE OPTIMIZATION – ECONOMICS
36 130 131 ₹ 800
130.46

Thousands
Thousands

Thousands
130.34
34 ₹ 700

COOLING ELECTRICITY (KWH)

130 129.81
TOTAL HEAT GAINS (KWH)

32 ₹ 600

CAPITAL COST
129 128.98
129 ₹ 500
30

EPI
128.12 ₹ 400
28
128 ₹ 300
26
128 ₹ 200
24 127
₹ 100
22
126 ₹0
20 127 BASE CASE WALL GLAZING ROOF PROPOSED CASE
BASE CASE WALL GLAZING ROOF PROPOSED CASE (ROOF+GLAZING)
(ROOF+GLAZING)
EPI CAPITAL COST INCREASE
TOTAL HEAT GAINS KWH COOLING ELECTRICITY KWH

30 ₹ 30 • After heat flux and cost analysis trade-off it is suggested that roof and glazing
RETURN OF INVESTMENT (YEARS)

Thousands
25.9 be optimized keeping in mind the annual savings of electricity moreover after

ANNUAL SAVINGS ON COOLING

25 ₹ 25 HVAC sizing, capital cost will also be reduced .
20 ₹ 20 • There is reduction of epi by 2.34 KWH/m²
17
•

ELECTRICITY
15.4 The return on investment for the proposed case after ECM 01 will be in 17
15 ₹ 15 years approx. Due to the high cost of glass. This high cost shall be
10 ₹ 10 compensated in ECM-02 HVAC System optimization as both costs per ton and
5.4 annual cooling electricity are expected to reduce.
5 ₹5 • Although walls have the most surface area, increasing insulation and
0 ₹0 reducing u value is not helping in the reduction of cooling loads as
WALL GLAZING ROOF PROPOSED CASE proportionately as roof and glazing with very little reduction in annual
(ROOF+GLAZING) cooling electricity hence not recommended
RETURN OF INVESTMENT ANNUAL SAVINGS ON COOLING ELECTRICITY

10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 13

MOVING FORWARD

THANK YOU
10/6/2023 WBD assignment-04 14