Building Performance Analysis –
The Sustainable Future

During the last four years we have witnessed an accelerated replenishment of existing software platforms throughout AEC offices in the name of BIM compliant project delivery. Firms and individuals throughout the country have invested a significant amount of time and money in acquiring different software products that all have promised a relatively easy transition into the world of BIM, without properly defining what BIM is, or furthermore without giving an interchangeable and standardized platform for that kind of comprehensive process implementation.

Over the past few years it became evident that what those software platforms were able to deliver was a parametric object model builder with automated and coordinated drafting capacity, and powerful but not very intelligent database querying via scheduling. Yes, some visualization capability and enhanced interoperability are present with all of those packages, but what software manufacturers fail to convey is that BIM is not so much about software as it is about actual business strategy and process methodology.

Consequently, it is always easy to blame the ‘desks and ‘softs of today and particularly those of yesterday, but how often does the capacity of any given tool remain underutilized as the users do not see the possibilities beyond their time established, or inertia entrenched, practice.

When BIM supporting platforms were introduced, the direct benefit of three dimensional visualization, coordination and document production was evident as many firms crossed the inflection point of new profitability and productivity, but then business became "as usual" again.

When a company seeks to align itself with a new and progressive business model, it should always regard BIM as a method that defines the relationship within the multidisciplinary domain of design and construction. This method should ultimately free itself from technology imposed limitations, which would allow for it to be governed by the environmental and social laws defining the role of architecture in today’s world. Having stated that, the big question that remains to be answered is whether BIM methodology when properly implemented can deliver beyond its promise of a more efficient process, and lead onto the path of designing a built environment of better quality and performance (read better buildings).

Green, already the next buzz word redefining the digital domain, is becoming an overarching mainstream philosophy / business model that is rapidly changing the way we live and understand our environment, for which we bear a great deal of responsibility due to the way our physical mark in time performs and contributes to defining our own existence. This man made mark, in order to be fully understood requires a monetary metrics that triggers an intuitive reaction entrenched in one of life’s major nuisances, paying bills. So in the next few paragraphs I will attempt to briefly describe this relationship formed between the ever growing societal need for energy and a software application that can translate the abstraction of SI units into a comparative cost analysis of one’s design performance.

I am certain that most AEC professionals are familiar, to a varied extent, with the energy demands the built environment contributes to our overall energy consumption, and as a reminder here is the chart of residential and commercial building energy use in the USA starting in 1980 and projected to the year 2030.

As seen here, based on the data released this September by DOE, it is evident that the "Buildings" share of US Primary Energy Consumption is at 40%, with no projected decline in next 25 years.

What is interesting is that the use of renewable energy sources has dropped since ’80. This is mostly due to the sharp decline in the use of wood and its substitution with electricity, but nevertheless this trend in itself speaks volumes about the underutilization of renewable energy resources that is predicted in the twenty years to come.

One should ask a question: What does this have to do with the way BIM compliant software is used? This is where the analogy with the past 25 years of CAD steps in. Not everyone was using their software in the same way, or to the best of that software’s capacity. The underutilization of software features in itself could be the topic for a lengthy discussion, but in this article I would like to shed light on the potential that Revit^® Architecture by itself, and in conjunction with Green Building Studio, has in validating its use during the preliminary design stages.

Beyond Revit’s use as a great scheduling tool, whose potential can be explored via customized LEED Credits reports within a BIM compliant model that can account for up to 20 LEED points; I would really like to emphasize its model applicability for Whole Building Energy Analysis within Green Building Studio.

While trying to justify the training time and the production time necessary to properly evaluate one’s schematic design, before the design development phase, and well before most of the firms bring their MEP consultants onboard, it is worth looking at the opportunities that are at architects’ disposal when using applications such as Revit^® and Green Building Studio for Building Performance Analysis.

The multifaceted benefits of the analytical results will reflect themselves in the site location, building typology, its construction, the ability to tap into the locally available renewable energy resources and the operational cost during the buildings life cycle.

This last value, the operational cost, is the real eye catcher as it gives to a perspective occupant insight in the validity of design decisions as well as orientation metrics when discussing the capacity of the mechanical systems that can sometimes exceed the requirements imposed by code.

Needless to say this opens an avenue for designers to articulate and reevaluate their own ideas very early in the design process, as well as to engage in a meaningful exchange of possible MEP solutions that is based on relative metrics provided by Green Building Studio as the result of the BIM compliant model.

Two recent examples about the usefulness of this kind of dialog are a small gymnasium project, and a larger institutional project where in the first instance the model was used at the beginning of the schematic design process and in the second after the project was completed in order to verify and compare analytical results to the real operational data.

In the first case because this dialogue existed from the very beginning, the owner and the architect were able to engage in an informed conversation with the design build MEP contractor and managed to find an appropriate mechanical solution through a set of comparative analysis exercises. The outcome of this process was a 20% savings from the initial mechanical contract proposal.

In the second example the 55,000 SF facility was designed and built while never attempting to perform Whole Building Energy Analysis, at the expense of saving 4% of the architects fee or 0.20% of a total project cost.

Unlike most success stores with whose outcome you might be familiar; this second example is an illustration of the underutilization of the existing tools and inertia in regard to medium size project delivery practice.

Well before bringing the consultant on board the architect had a perfect opportunity to evaluate the proposed design scheme as this was an existing building with numerous opportunities to explore sustainable design strategies and the client was intrigued with an array of tax and cost saving incentives.

Here is an example of values that represent one of many simulation scenarios and you draw your own conclusions about the value that Revit^® - Green Building Studio combination presents.

According to these numbers this project would have justified the analysis cost and the increase in construction cost over a period of 2 years, and during its lifecycle would reduce its CO2 footprint by 6.000 Tons of CO2, or what is equivalent to 545 Hummers.

What should be particularly interesting to architects is the relatively low cost of this analytical exercise compared to the average cost when this analysis is performed by an MEP consultant at an average price of $12000. The meaning of this comparison is not to take upon the role of an MEP consultant, but to emphasize the importance of understanding your design at an early stage and being able to eloquently communicate the design intent at a level that directly translates into a comparative operational cost factor during the lifecycle of the building.

Once this series of schematic exercises is completed the sense of accomplishment due to the quality of service and comprehensive exchange of ideas is rewarding in itself, and the financial incentive from the perspective of offered service does not necessarily have to be the driving factor. Having said this, the ability to offer this as a part of one's services scope can yield to a different business model where compensation can be tied to both construction and projected operation savings.

The bottom line is that everyone within the AEC market place has the obligation to deliver a product that transcends the financial bottom line and through its design has the ability to change the future of the society and the environment of which we are just a small part (with a relatively large carbon footprint). It is a time for change, and everyone that possesses the required knowledge and plain good old common sense can and should be part of it.