Cost Analysis

It's taken a while to get this up, but I've finally finished doing the cost analysis for the various models that were explored in the previous assignments.

In order to accomplish this I created a database of assembly costs from a current RS Means catalogue, and then used Revit to calculate the amount of each assembly in each model.   Once the basic system was set up it was rather quick to generate the data for the various iterations.

For the real estate data I did a sampling of property for sale as listed on the online MLA database, and then calculated an average for each of the basic categories of land that I identified.

One thing that this analysis is missing is a calculation of the mechanical systems for each option.  This is especially important because in the last analysis it seemed that the system selection had the greatest effect on energetic performance.  Another thing that is currently missing is a synthesis of the analysis from the two assignments:  energy vs. cost.

The Graphs

The first set of graphs illustrates the relative assembly costs of the various building forms.  Of note is that in the stacked model the lifts and extra floors become a sizable percentage of the cost.

The second set of graphs represent the cost to upgrade each building type with 4" of eps insulation over all exterior walls and ceilings, as proposed in the "super insulation" option.  It also shows the costs of the options relative to each other.  The stacked option is higher than the others, but not exorbitantly so.  The Second graph in this series shows the cost of each assembly in relation to each of the other options.

The third set of graphs looks at the cost of construction in relation to land.  Considering only the land needed to build the store (as parking would be consistent across the models)  the stacked option begins to look much more attractive in all cases except where land is dirt cheap.

Timelines

So it looks like I am running about two weeks behind in the timeline that I outlined earlier.  This is not really that bad, though, considering that the timeline was really quite ambitious to start with.

So, I think that what I will do is eliminate the optimisation exercise from the course.  That will give me two weeks to do the economic simulation (which seems feasible) and have me finished the reporting work by Nov. 25.  That would then give me 3 weeks to work on the final essay and reflection.

The optimisation can be done graphically and somewhat informally using the graphs I have prepared, so it won't really need to disappear.  It will just be simpler.

Energy analysis

I've used a combination of Revit and Green Building Studio to quickly mock up some energy studies for four massing strategies for the fictitious big box store.

One thing that this involved was rebuilding slightly simpler versions of the models.  After some initial efforts with Ecotect, I found that the studies weren't really concerned with where structure, curtain wall doors or furniture might be so I removed that.  This made it easier to manipulate the models, and also gave the degree of resolution that the GBS seemed to be operating at:  rough, overall initial calculations.

I also resized the building to be 5000m2, to bring it in line with average sizes for North American big box stores.

GBS lets you do different "design options" for each model to aid in quick comparison.  I played around with different wall insulation systems, better HVAC systems and rotated the building on the site in the various options to get an idea of where the savings might lie.  It seems that the stacked, two floor layout with a much higher wall insulation level and a high-efficiency heating and cooling system could provide annual energy savings in the order of $30,000 versus the usual flat and wide building type.  With a 50 year life-cycle that would translate into a $1.5 million dollar savings.

My use of the tools are rather clumsy at this point, so I don't really know much about the particular heating system that I specified other than that it has high efficiency, but they have some rather detailed specifications.     It would also be possible to add in site massing of the surrounding buildings, to see how that would impact shading.

GBS works on a cloud system that compiles weather and local utility data to input into the model analysis.  It is a simple process where you basically just upload your model and then their systems handle the computation and storage of the data, which you can then view and download in various forms.  It is a subscription based service.  I downloaded a spreadsheet of key performance data for my various options, cleaned it up in excel, and then used that data to generate the graphs above in illustrator.

Interestingly, the new cloud paradigm seems a double edged sword for users.  On the one hand it stores and manipulates your data off-site, so your system does not get bogged down in the processing.  It is also a means for data to be constantly updated.  On the downside, one needs constant network connectivity, there is an ongoing cost, and it is harder to "hack" (ie. get a free version of the program) than the current standard of on-board software.

As for a BIM feature, it could be nice to have analysis done as a pay per use service, so that one does not need to invest several thousand dollars in a piece of software that might be used for only a couple projects a year.  There also seems to be alot of effort that has gone into making the process relatively seamless and quick, so that analysis can be done on the fly during a project and does not necessarily have to be a central concern / team capability.

GBS Energy Analysis, First Run

I managed to get GBS set up today.  Here are the results of the first run of the project through the program:

  As easy to use as the system is, my skills with the modelling are still relatively rudimentary at this point, so take these results with a grain of salt.  

There is a sizable cost for energy use throughout the year, which seems to be an area where more efficient design could bring cost benefits.  As well most of these costs are for heating and ventilation.  The construction of the project was modeled as concrete with rather minimal insulation.  Some changes to these assemblies might produce better results.  

Energy Analysis: Choosing a Platform

Today I have started on the energy analysis portion of the reporting project.  The first step has been selecting an appropriate software / means to do so.  What I have discovered in the Autodesk lineup (which seems a logical choice for ease of interoperability) are the conceptual analysis tools in Revit, Ecotect, and the Green Building Studio.

Ecotect is the software that I chose, given that it is considerably more powerful and will produce the most detailed reports in the end.    It also offers a way to interface with the green building studio, so it's a sort of two for one deal.

Both the tools built in to Revit and the Green Building Studio are network based services running as a "cloud" process.  Basically this means that the necessary number crunching and updated databases of local energy costs, weather etc. are done off of the computer used to design the project.  The services are both subscription based, meaning that they will be an ongoing cost for the architectural operator, but also that the databases of relevant information will be continually updated.

The GBS will take the project at various stages of design and return graphic analysis of various energy related performance parameters-  estimated energy use, cost of that in relation to local rates, potential for energy generation, water use and cost.

The Autodesk Files

I found a rather interesting bit of Autodesk history that is not entirely BIM related, but presents a rather interesting historical snapshot of Autodesk as a start-up company:  the Autodesk Files.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/

Besides annotated company memorandums, business plans and transcriptions of speeches at internal meetings, there's some images of trade show booths in the mid 80s and even images of their migrating headquarters as they grew.

Big Box Progress

Things are starting to move on the big box store.  Today I got the space planning done and the basics of the model together.  I had some fun getting things parametrically constrained so that as I moved walls and grid lines around, decisions that I had made regarding positioning would be retained.  I haven't figured all the best ways to do things, but its starting.

My next step will be to assign the rooms and finishes, take a look at assemblies and structure and then I should be able to start extracting performance data.

Right now I have 12m x 10 m structural bays, a receiving / storage area in the bottom left surrounded by offices and bathrooms, and an entrance at the top with checkouts to one side.  I still need to add a big garage door in the receiving area, probably some lights in the sales floor, and some signage / canopy at the front.