CONTENTS

1. Selected rooms location

2. Preliminary analysis for default and assigned building material set

3. Preliminary comparison of performance of the two (2) apartment units

3.1. Alternative 2: Split; mech vent with cooling

4. Preliminary comparison of performance of the two different cooling systems.

5. Appendix – Building performance simulation results spreadsheet.

(1) Selected Rooms Location Figure (1): Typical Floor Plan of the apartment and selected units

(2) Preliminary analysis for default and assigned building material set

HVAC: Split; mech vent with cooling Energy/Carbon simulation Default Alternative 2 230 kW/m2 214 kW/m2 119.39 kgCO2/m2 110.99 kgCO2/m2
Explanation
• Based on above-mentioned result, the design energy use in intensity of Alternative 2 was more preferable than Default.
• This is because the energy usages difference in between these two mainly depends on the different …show more content…
The orientation of the unit also plays apart in the energy consumption of the apartments. Room 4, facing towards west has more ventilation and less solar heat while Room 10 facing east has less ventilation and more solar heart gain. Although both rooms has suited with double glaze window under Alternative 2 option, Room 4 might need extra artificial lighting since it has been facing to west as well as shaded by surrounding buildings and lesser time to gain sunlight in day time. However, the electrical consumption and carbon emission of the Room 4 shows 6.32 kW, which is greater than the single bedroom, Room 10, at 4.1 kW based on respective floor area per unit as 71 m2 in Room 4 and 45 m2 in Room 10. Since Room 10 gained third quarter of the day lighting by building orientation, there shouldn’t be a problem with having smaller window area at single bedroom