GREEN DORM Multidisciplinary Analysis Nthando Thandiwe Songya Kesler Mikal Brewer SangWoo Cho

1. GREEN DORM Multidisciplinary Analysis Nthando Thandiwe Songya Kesler Mikal Brewer SangWoo Cho Ato Ulzenap

2. Project Background Through multidisciplinary analysis: Steel or Wood? • Steel + Prefab. steel framing • On-site standard wood construction + platform framing, 24” on-center Once selected, one-step further with “Real-time 4D-based Progress Management for Schedule Reliability Analysis”

3. Weighted Preference (Steel vs. Wood)

4. Metrics (Steel vs. Wood)

5. Structural Comparison Steel or Wood? • Steel + Prefab. steel framing • On-site standard wood construction + platform framing, 24” on-center

6. Steel Modeling • In Revit Structure • Based on Preliminary Steel Framing Drawings

7. Wood Modeling: Updated

8. Steel vs. Wood Structure Analysis • For Structural Framing, • Steel needs 25 different types (total 172 pieces, 4,351’ in length) • Wood needs 6 different types (total 5,540’ in length) • 8 x 6 timber, 9 x 7 timber, 12 x 5 gluelam, etc • For Structural Column, • Steel needs 7 different types (total 27 pieces, 987’ in length) • Wood needs 7 different types (total 3270’ in length)

9. Wood Structure Analysis Platform Framing: Light-Framing Construction: Small Apartment

10. Wood Structure Analysis Roof and Floor Format Components -2x10 joists -5/8” T&G plywood Und. -3/8” Plywood Figure M16.1-10: One-Hour Fire-Resistive Wood Floor/Ceiling Assembly 2x10 Wood Joists 16” o.c. – Gypsum Directly Applied or on Optional Resilient Channels

11. Wood Structure Analysis: Quantity Takeoffs

12. Wood Structure Analysis: Calculations

13. Energy Analysis: Consumption Analysis in eQuest Energy Assumptions • Required Specifications • Building Size (Basic Building Envelope) • Location • Material Quantities (Steel and Wood) • Building is used primarily during the school year • Major changes limited to framing

14. Environmental Performance: Analysis Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10) • Created baseline Steel models in Athena, eQuest, and BEES • Embodied Energy from steel ~9.05MJ/kg • Embodied Energy from wood ~11.85MJ/kg • *Values Included Feedstock Energy Created baseline models of yearly energy consumption for wood and steel as well

15. Environmental Performance Based on steel embodied energy and Carbon Dioxide emissions, computed quantities for wood frame building Baseline Models Steel Model Embodied Energy ~ 3.6 TJ Wood Model Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ Optimized Models Steel Embodied Energy ~ 2.8 TJ Wood Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ

16. Environmental Performance: Analysis Low Embodied Energy (Wt = 10) Optimized Model Steel Embodied Energy ~ 2.8 TJ Wood Embodied Energy ~ 0.246 TJ Steel Score = 1 Wood Score = 0

17. Environmental Performance Low/No Carbon (Wt = 15) Baseline Models Steel CO2 Emissions ~ 190 Tonnes Wood CO2 Emissions ~ 14 Tonnes Optimized Models Steel CO2 Emissions ~150 Tonnes Wood CO2 Emissions ~14 Tonnes %21 CO2 Reduction in Steel

18. Environmental Performance Low/No Carbon (Wt = 15) Optimized Model Steel CO2 Emissions ~150 Tonnes Wood CO2 Emissions ~14 Tonnes Steel Score = 1 Wood Score = 0

19. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) • Let’s Go “GREEN” • Until we can get this 10 point by passing LEED NC2.2 Credit 8.1, • Let’s improve our architectural design. • We can reduce the lighting power density & energy consumptions

20. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) • Assumptions • For daylight analysis in IES, there is no difference between steel and wood structure.  Same score on steel and wood options • Information inputs: • Room boundary, ceiling heights, window sizes, & glazing type • If we enlarge window size, there should be an increase in HVAC loads, which will, in turn, result in increase of energy consumption. • Process • Let’s do daylight analysis for original design. • Then, let’s improve design for better daylight.

21. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) 1. Original Design • Define specifications • Bldg Type: Dormitory • Bldg System: VAV Single Duct • Location: Mountain View, CA • Window: Slider with Trim 6’x8’ • Glazing: Large Single Glazing (U=0.9795) • Room Boundary (at wall center) • Ceiling Height: 12ft

22. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) Building Specification Settings (Original)

23. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) Window/Glazing Specification Settings (Original)

24. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) Analysis Settings (Original)

25. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) Daylight Analysis of Original Design Score “0”Let’s Improve the Design for Better Daylighting!

26. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) 2. Improved Design • Define specifications • Bldg Type: Dormitory • Bldg System: VAV Single Duct • Location: Mountain View, CA • Window: Slider with Trim 7’x9’ • Glazing: Large Single Glazing (U=0.9795) • Room Boundary (at wall center) • Ceiling Height: 11ft

27. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) Daylight Analysis of Improved Design Now, Score “3”We Improved the Design for Better Daylighting! Less lighting power density & energy consumptions!

28. Environmental Performance Daylighting (Wt = 10) What I Learned in IES…? Pros • Friendly interface • Layers, Groups, Templates • More control on parameters, Detailed • Powerful • First principle calculations • Allows for accurate simulation of custom thermal systems Cons • Not fully compliant with Revit, our primary modeling tool • gbXML export not foolproof • dxf does not transfer model information • Temporary Solution: Model in IES, better approach for complex models • Does not communicate with other modeling software (Tekla, SketchUp, etc) Future Direction • Calibrate the model using detailed operations data • Advanced training with IES

29. Economic Sustainability First Cost (Wt = 10) Score -2 for Steel Score -1 for Wood

30. Economic Sustainability Lifecycle Cost (Wt = 15) Score 0 for Wood Score 1 for Steel

31. First Cost – Structure (Steel)

32. First Cost – Uniformat (Steel)

33. First Cost - MasterFormat

34. Life Cycle Cost - Steel

35. Cost – Steel vs Wood • First Cost • Wood has lower first cost • Steel had a metric of -1 for First Cost, etc • Wood had a metric of 0 for First Cost, etc • Life Cycle Cost • Wood has lower life cycle cost • Results/Reports

36. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) • Accuracy: To Be Field-Verified • Schedule modeled after existing schedules • Steel more accurate than wood • 4-D & Real-time Progress Management helps validate the schedules

37. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) More Steel vs. Wood Schedule Assumptions • Both steel and wood model roughly the same pre-construction schedule except that steel takes a little longer due to the 7-month prefabrication process • Steel frame is prefabricated while wood frame is constructed on-site • The 4-D focuses on the construction process, ignoring the pre-construction

38. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) Steel Schedule • Although the project begins on 4/28/08, construction does not begin until 1/14/09 • This results in a total construction period of 1.25 yrs. • This corresponds with a metric value of 2 (1.0-1.5 yr constr.).

39. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) Steel 4-D

40. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) Wood Schedule • Although the project begins on 4/28/08, construction does not begin until 1/05/09 (earlier than steel) • Total construction period of 1.75 yrs. • This corresponds with a metric value of 1 (1.5-2.0 yr constr.).

41. Economic Sustainability Completion Date (Wt = 15) Wood 4-D

42. Economic Sustainability Reduced Earthquake Losses (Wt = 10) Score -3 for Wood Score 2 for Steel

43. Living Laboratory Research On Structural Performance Technology (Wt = 15) • Accuracy: Very Accurate • Conducted interviews with the professors who have been/will be conducting the research • Interview with Prof. Dierelein & Prof. Miranda

44. Living Laboratory Research On Structural Performance Technology (Wt = 15) • Areas of Research • Explores likelihood of an earthquake in X-yrs • Predict the structural performance of different systems • Investigate the benefits of performance-based seismic design in green building design • Estimate earthquake losses • Utilize sensor for on-going structural monitoring

45. Living Laboratory Research On Structural Performance Technology (Wt = 15) • Steel = 3 • Focus specifically on potential benefits of steel-frame alternatives to conventional wood shear wall construction • Wood = 0 • Much has already been explored, leaving little room for cutting-edge research Score 0 for Wood Score 3 for Steel

46. Money Slide (weighted)

47. Stakeholders Background • Stakeholder Groups: • Students • CEE Faculty • Designers • Campus Planning • Campus Housing • Data taken from “Questionnaire for Stakeholders” under previous Green Dorm Structural Decision MACDADI analysis

48. Stakeholders Combined MACDADI

49. Stakeholders Combined MACDADI

50. Final Decision . . . • Steel!! • Next step: “Real-time 4D-based Progress Management for Schedule Reliability Analysis”