Hello folks. In the advent of climate change there will be need for increasingly energy efficient buildings. I am currently working as an energy advisor (Canada specific role, we do energy modelling and compliance on smaller residential buildings) but I have the option to go do a arch masters (I did a design undergrad) and follow the path to registration.
For those more experienced industry practitioners, do you believe there is an added value in employing an architect who also understand and utilizes building energy modelling/simulation tools? I understand it is typically performed in schematic design or later by engineering consultants, but I think there is value in using it during early design to vet decisions regarding massing, program, envelope, orientation, glazing, etc.
On a related note, anyone here has gotten Passive House certified as an architect in North America? Any additional benefits?
I'm a US-based designer, not an architect, but I do similar work and have comparable experience, all residential. I'm a PH consultant certified through PHI, and I'm considering getting BPI certified as well. I studied for the LEED exam but never took the exam. I see a huge need for consultants and practitioners who understand the energy (more accurately, embodied and operating carbon emissions, but energy use matters too) along with health and comfort concerns. Many of the high-end architects in my small state have asked me to help them train their employees to be more sustainable and I did that on a few projects but found it not a good fit for me; sustainability is something that needs to be considered from the beginning, not a layer overlaid at the end of the design process.
Thanks Wood Guy. That's the kind of insight I was hoping to hear.
Here in BC, operating carbon emissions in new construction are being considered through the Step Code system, certain thermal energy use targets must be met for energy code compliance. I don't believe there is really any regulations with embodied carbon, but I believe that is the next step, and the embodied carbon calculations tools are out there.
I am very much interested in tools such as eQuest, IES VE & Energy Plus to perform simulations on larger buildings (we use dinky hot2000). I understand that with larger buildings, the envelope becomes a much smaller factor compared with the mechanical system in operating energy use, however the overall architectural design plays a huge role. I can see it being a very impactful conversation to attribute certain design decisions to saving money on heating and electric bills; clients would love to hear that.
My biggest pet peeve is shading; just add overhang to your buildings! It will save tons of money in reduced air condition bills and make the space a lot more comfortable.
This is a topic I am highly interested myself in as I am currently in graduate school studying architecture and building physics. In my view the importance of an integrated approach is becoming more apparent in the last years, especially in buildings of medium to high complexity. To answer your question in regards to software, there are various platforms suited to different phases. For early design, I prefer to use Grasshopper with Ladybug / Honeybee given also its latest integration with Revit via Rhino Inside. In the upcoming months, I will also take a Building Performance course with Design Builder which I also understand that is a popular choice and possibly for later phases (testing assemblies).
An important point that our lecturers always stress is that it is necessary to be knowledgeable about both Building Physics and simulation software to have a successful input as a professional. Lack of one of the two will place you in an undesirable position for building performance related roles. Finally, here is a great resource I recently found for training into simulation software: https://www.performance.networ...
Thanks for your input robhaw! The performance network website looks very interesting.
Your comment about being knowledgeable about Building Physics and simulation is on point, I think a lot of employers would want to see background in building physics/building science. I also understand that this type of role is often suited with those in mechanical engineering background. Unfortunately I have no formal academic background in such.
Could you elaborate on your graduate program? Is it a accredited architecture program with a focus on building physics, or something different?
Aug 14, 21 3:51 pm ·
·
robhaw
You are welcome. I am not familiar with the US markets, but in Europe where I am these roles are not restricted to those with Mechanical Engineering. In regards to educational programmes, there are several Technical Universities in Netherlands, Austria, Germany that teach building physics. Except for these there are smaller technical colleges which offer training in Building Physics for professionals in a part time - online mode. I think there is one in Stutgart,which is taught however in German. ( https://www.uni-stuttgart.de/en/study/study-programs/Building-Physics-M.BP-00001.-MasterOnline-study-while-working/)
Myself, I am studying at a TU Eindhoven, which is a school with a multidisciplinary model, therefore there is are several chairs like B. Physics, B. Performance, Services, Acoustics, Lighting, Materials etc within the faculty of the Built Environment. I think that if you are after this education you should either look for a full time MSc from a faculty of Civil/Building Engineering or a part-time programme at a smaller college (perhaps online?) I think TU Dublin also offers a short programme which is online and part-time.
Also, if you are considering further education European schools might be more cost effective than US, especially for part-time online, the cost for which can be spread out in 3-4 years.
Toast... canadian arch here. There is value in having staff capable of doing energy modelling however... in my experience (mostly commercial/industrial/institutional), it's easier and cheaper (for the client) to farm this out to consultants. There are liabilities issues that our provincial association lawyers balk too, so we just get others to do it for us. Solid building science and construction knowledge is really what the market needs in its fresh arch grads. Everyone has design, few know how to turn design into buildings.
Hello, NS. Could you please elaborate on the liability issues you mentioned? In which project phases do these usually occur?
Aug 14, 21 4:52 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Rob, insurance varies depending on which Canadian province you practice in. For me, in Ontario, we (all architects) own our own insurance firm and there are areas where we are not covered. I don’t know if energy modelling falls in that category, but depending on what deliverables are tied/promised/guaranteed, I can certainly see a claim go sour if ever we were to come up short. Acoustics is such an area, for example. Does that help? I’m drinking beer in the sun ATM so maybe it’s all blurry.
Aug 14, 21 5:33 pm ·
·
robhaw
No worries, I am drinking beer in a cool evening terrace atm. I would tend to think that in early design phases, energy modelling iterations supporting design decisions (e.g. Radiance calc of massing A vs massing B) would be more efficiently done in house for related to communication, design intent and service repetition. Also, I think that even if you don't do the simulations in house (which sounds like the right business practice if you are not a multidisciplinary firm) it would be beneficial to have in house architects who understand this service so that they can effectively liaise with the consultants to guarantee the optimum outcome for the project. Acoustics is a rather broad field, so could you please be more specific as to the claims arising? Also, a bit off topic, but do you have any experience with claims arising to the architect regarding envelope design?
Aug 14, 21 6:11 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Obvious things first, props for the drinking part. Second, double, have many claims on envelop specific lawsuits. Can’t give details on those tho. My point above is mostly when there is a client performance requirement that is somehow tied to the architect. Say you need to design to X but once complete, it barely meets Y. Well, errors and omissions insurance might not cover it because the arch agreed and stated X. I used to get weekly emails from my association about dangerous RFP language like that. No issues and n the design phase tho since it’s typically internal but to beat the horse further in my acoustic example, we can’t claim stc ratings and be protected by our insurance if what we “design” to is not the same when measured in the field. It’s not an expertise expected by the average arch. Make sense? My 8.8% ipa makes a sense.
We've been doing a lot more early on in the last few years. Not only have we been getting consultants involved earlier, but a lot of our preliminary design gets built around specific sustainability evaluations that we are performing with newer and better developed tools.
Several of our most recent designs have started out with evaluation of site, orientation, and formal efficiency for shading and solar power generation at the very beginning, which is likely something that will become the standard going forward.
We've had some interesting testing/simulations done in recent years on projects later in design by consultants to help evaluate design decisions, such as a wind tunnel test for a project I worked on to look at exhaust/intake issues, computational fluid dynamics used to evaluate passive cooling/ventilation, but these tend to be a little later on, still very clearly impacting design decisions though.
We have been pushing more and more into carbon analysis . Which we are starting to use really early on in the design process to evaluate savings options. Had one recently where we made some decisions where that was a value proposition, but we didn't actually evaluate it though the tools because we didn't have them. Went back later and it was a pretty profound positive impact that would have been a really nice thing to put numbers on earlier. Still pretty cool.
1) Yes, I believe your energy modeling background would definitely increase your value as an architect, although as Non Sequitur mentioned, maybe not as much as one might imagine.
2) With your background, the way you could probably add the most value would be to focus in on high-performance enclosure design. Enclosure design and detailing are traditionally part of the architect's responsibilities, but architects who really grok high-performance enclosure design aren't really all that common and will be in increasingly high demand as high-performance building regulations become more and more stringent.
Thanks everyone for your insight. I will be starting the process of producing some work for a masters portfolio. Based in the feedback, I may explore more in the direction of high performance envelope design, passive house design, embodied carbon, and construction details in general, rather than just energy, although I am still keen to learn the energy tools as a matter of interest.
I hope grad programs are fond of more technical portfolios and avenue of interest, because this likely the direction I would want to explore more in school and gravitate towards afterwards.
Also it seems like Canada will not stop needing new buildings anytime soon, and there seems to be quite a bit of movement in incentivizing more sustainable construction here and across the workd, so I feel optimistic about this path.
Current energy modeling methodologies hinder innovation and growth in the facade business by under-representing the influence of the facade system on energy efficiency and providing unrealistically high investment return for facade system enhancements. A preliminary model is one that is developed throughout the design process and is used to aid in design decision-making. After the design is completed, the necessary energy modeling is a final version of the project as intended. There is no need to create a preparatory model for the precondition. To receive points under the Optimize Energy Performance Credit, you must first run a preliminary model.
Jan 31, 22 12:37 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Building Energy Modelling + Architecture?
Hello folks. In the advent of climate change there will be need for increasingly energy efficient buildings. I am currently working as an energy advisor (Canada specific role, we do energy modelling and compliance on smaller residential buildings) but I have the option to go do a arch masters (I did a design undergrad) and follow the path to registration.
For those more experienced industry practitioners, do you believe there is an added value in employing an architect who also understand and utilizes building energy modelling/simulation tools? I understand it is typically performed in schematic design or later by engineering consultants, but I think there is value in using it during early design to vet decisions regarding massing, program, envelope, orientation, glazing, etc.
On a related note, anyone here has gotten Passive House certified as an architect in North America? Any additional benefits?
I'm a US-based designer, not an architect, but I do similar work and have comparable experience, all residential. I'm a PH consultant certified through PHI, and I'm considering getting BPI certified as well. I studied for the LEED exam but never took the exam. I see a huge need for consultants and practitioners who understand the energy (more accurately, embodied and operating carbon emissions, but energy use matters too) along with health and comfort concerns. Many of the high-end architects in my small state have asked me to help them train their employees to be more sustainable and I did that on a few projects but found it not a good fit for me; sustainability is something that needs to be considered from the beginning, not a layer overlaid at the end of the design process.
Thanks Wood Guy. That's the kind of insight I was hoping to hear.
Here in BC, operating carbon emissions in new construction are being considered through the Step Code system, certain thermal energy use targets must be met for energy code compliance. I don't believe there is really any regulations with embodied carbon, but I believe that is the next step, and the embodied carbon calculations tools are out there.
I am very much interested in tools such as eQuest, IES VE & Energy Plus to perform simulations on larger buildings (we use dinky hot2000). I understand that with larger buildings, the envelope becomes a much smaller factor compared with the mechanical system in operating energy use, however the overall architectural design plays a huge role. I can see it being a very impactful conversation to attribute certain design decisions to saving money on heating and electric bills; clients would love to hear that.
My biggest pet peeve is shading; just add overhang to your buildings! It will save tons of money in reduced air condition bills and make the space a lot more comfortable.
This is a topic I am highly interested myself in as I am currently in graduate school studying architecture and building physics. In my view the importance of an integrated approach is becoming more apparent in the last years, especially in buildings of medium to high complexity. To answer your question in regards to software, there are various platforms suited to different phases. For early design, I prefer to use Grasshopper with Ladybug / Honeybee given also its latest integration with Revit via Rhino Inside. In the upcoming months, I will also take a Building Performance course with Design Builder which I also understand that is a popular choice and possibly for later phases (testing assemblies).
An important point that our lecturers always stress is that it is necessary to be knowledgeable about both Building Physics and simulation software to have a successful input as a professional. Lack of one of the two will place you in an undesirable position for building performance related roles. Finally, here is a great resource I recently found for training into simulation software: https://www.performance.networ...
Thanks for your input robhaw! The performance network website looks very interesting. Your comment about being knowledgeable about Building Physics and simulation is on point, I think a lot of employers would want to see background in building physics/building science. I also understand that this type of role is often suited with those in mechanical engineering background. Unfortunately I have no formal academic background in such.
Could you elaborate on your graduate program? Is it a accredited architecture program with a focus on building physics, or something different?
You are welcome. I am not familiar with the US markets, but in Europe where I am these roles are not restricted to those with Mechanical Engineering. In regards to educational programmes, there are several Technical Universities in Netherlands, Austria, Germany that teach building physics. Except for these there are smaller technical colleges which offer training in Building Physics for professionals in a part time - online mode. I think there is one in Stutgart,which is taught however in German. ( https://www.uni-stuttgart.de/en/study/study-programs/Building-Physics-M.BP-00001.-MasterOnline-study-while-working/)
Myself, I am studying at a TU Eindhoven, which is a school with a multidisciplinary model, therefore there is are several chairs like B. Physics, B. Performance, Services, Acoustics, Lighting, Materials etc within the faculty of the Built Environment. I think that if you are after this education you should either look for a full time MSc from a faculty of Civil/Building Engineering or a part-time programme at a smaller college (perhaps online?) I think TU Dublin also offers a short programme which is online and part-time.
https://www.tudublin.ie/study/postgraduate/courses/building-performance-energy-eff-in-design3/
Also, if you are considering further education European schools might be more cost effective than US, especially for part-time online, the cost for which can be spread out in 3-4 years.
Toast... canadian arch here. There is value in having staff capable of doing energy modelling however... in my experience (mostly commercial/industrial/institutional), it's easier and cheaper (for the client) to farm this out to consultants. There are liabilities issues that our provincial association lawyers balk too, so we just get others to do it for us. Solid building science and construction knowledge is really what the market needs in its fresh arch grads. Everyone has design, few know how to turn design into buildings.
My 2 canadian pennie's worth.
Hello, NS. Could you please elaborate on the liability issues you mentioned? In which project phases do these usually occur?
Rob, insurance varies depending on which Canadian province you practice in. For me, in Ontario, we (all architects) own our own insurance firm and there are areas where we are not covered. I don’t know if energy modelling falls in that category, but depending on what deliverables are tied/promised/guaranteed, I can certainly see a claim go sour if ever we were to come up short. Acoustics is such an area, for example. Does that help? I’m drinking beer in the sun ATM so maybe it’s all blurry.
No worries, I am drinking beer in a cool evening terrace atm. I would tend to think that in early design phases, energy modelling iterations supporting design decisions (e.g. Radiance calc of massing A vs massing B) would be more efficiently done in house for related to communication, design intent and service repetition. Also, I think that even if you don't do the simulations in house (which sounds like the right business practice if you are not a multidisciplinary firm) it would be beneficial to have in house architects who understand this service so that they can effectively liaise with the consultants to guarantee the optimum outcome for the project. Acoustics is a rather broad field, so could you please be more specific as to the claims arising? Also, a bit off topic, but do you have any experience with claims arising to the architect regarding envelope design?
Obvious things first, props for the drinking part. Second, double, have many claims on envelop specific lawsuits. Can’t give details on those tho. My point above is mostly when there is a client performance requirement that is somehow tied to the architect. Say you need to design to X but once complete, it barely meets Y. Well, errors and omissions insurance might not cover it because the arch agreed and stated X. I used to get weekly emails from my association about dangerous RFP language like that. No issues and n the design phase tho since it’s typically internal but to beat the horse further in my acoustic example, we can’t claim stc ratings and be protected by our insurance if what we “design” to is not the same when measured in the field. It’s not an expertise expected by the average arch. Make sense? My 8.8% ipa makes a sense.
For those practicing in the US, AIA has published a guide on integrating energy modelling within the design process.
https://www.aia.org/resources/...
Hope that's helpful.
We've been doing a lot more early on in the last few years. Not only have we been getting consultants involved earlier, but a lot of our preliminary design gets built around specific sustainability evaluations that we are performing with newer and better developed tools.
Several of our most recent designs have started out with evaluation of site, orientation, and formal efficiency for shading and solar power generation at the very beginning, which is likely something that will become the standard going forward.
We've had some interesting testing/simulations done in recent years on projects later in design by consultants to help evaluate design decisions, such as a wind tunnel test for a project I worked on to look at exhaust/intake issues, computational fluid dynamics used to evaluate passive cooling/ventilation, but these tend to be a little later on, still very clearly impacting design decisions though.
We have been pushing more and more into carbon analysis . Which we are starting to use really early on in the design process to evaluate savings options. Had one recently where we made some decisions where that was a value proposition, but we didn't actually evaluate it though the tools because we didn't have them. Went back later and it was a pretty profound positive impact that would have been a really nice thing to put numbers on earlier. Still pretty cool.
1) Yes, I believe your energy modeling background would definitely increase your value as an architect, although as Non Sequitur mentioned, maybe not as much as one might imagine.
2) With your background, the way you could probably add the most value would be to focus in on high-performance enclosure design. Enclosure design and detailing are traditionally part of the architect's responsibilities, but architects who really grok high-performance enclosure design aren't really all that common and will be in increasingly high demand as high-performance building regulations become more and more stringent.
Thanks everyone for your insight. I will be starting the process of producing some work for a masters portfolio. Based in the feedback, I may explore more in the direction of high performance envelope design, passive house design, embodied carbon, and construction details in general, rather than just energy, although I am still keen to learn the energy tools as a matter of interest.
I hope grad programs are fond of more technical portfolios and avenue of interest, because this likely the direction I would want to explore more in school and gravitate towards afterwards.
Also it seems like Canada will not stop needing new buildings anytime soon, and there seems to be quite a bit of movement in incentivizing more sustainable construction here and across the workd, so I feel optimistic about this path.
Current energy modeling methodologies hinder innovation and growth in the facade business by under-representing the influence of the facade system on energy efficiency and providing unrealistically high investment return for facade system enhancements. A preliminary model is one that is developed throughout the design process and is used to aid in design decision-making. After the design is completed, the necessary energy modeling is a final version of the project as intended. There is no need to create a preparatory model for the precondition. To receive points under the Optimize Energy Performance Credit, you must first run a preliminary model.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.