Ujwal_Dhakal_Project

1
For
A LEED Building Performance
Photo Credit: Daily Commercial News
Reported by: Ujwal Dhakal
(500658828)
Ryerson University
(July 06, 2015)

2
Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................5
2.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................7
2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT....................................................................................................7
2.2 LEED BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................................8
2.3 BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (BPE) .............................................................................8
2.3.1 OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................8
2.3.2 PROCESSES ..................................................................................................................................9
2.3.3 DEGREE AND EXTEND .................................................................................................................9
2.3.4 ORDERS OF PRIORITY...............................................................................................................10
2.3.5 POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION (POE)..................................................................................11
2.4 BUILDING DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................11
3.0 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................14
3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................14
3.2 PROTOCOLS FOR ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................15
3.2.1 ENERGY .......................................................................................................................................15
3.2.2 WATER..........................................................................................................................................15
3.2.3 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ)..............................................................................16
3.2.3.1 THERMAL COMFORT...............................................................................................................16
3.2.3.2 INDOOR AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................16
3.2.3.3 LIGHTING QUALITY..................................................................................................................17
3.2.3.4 ACOUSTICS...............................................................................................................................17
3.3 CHECKLISTS .....................................................................................................................................18
3.4 OCCUPANT SURVEY........................................................................................................................18
4.0 STUDY APPROACH.............................................................................................................................19
4.1 REFERENCE BUILDING....................................................................................................................19
4.2 DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS...................................................................20
4.2.1 ACTUAL ENERGY AND WATER USAGE....................................................................................21
4.2.2 BASELINE ENERGY USAGE.......................................................................................................22
4.2.3 ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION .....................................................................................22
4.2.4 HDD AND CDD (TEMPERATURE SENSITIVE ENERGY USAGE).............................................22
4.2.5 NORMALIZATION.........................................................................................................................22
4.2.6 SHAVING ESTIMATES.................................................................................................................23
5.0 ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESULTS.......................................................................................................23
5.1 ELECTRICITY ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................23

3
5.1.1 COLLECT ACTUAL ELECTRICITY USAGE DATA......................................................................23
5.1.2 COLLECT AND PROCESS WEATHER DATA FOR HDD AND CDD..........................................24
5.1.3 NORMALIZED ELECTRICITY USAGE.........................................................................................25
5.1.4 ELECTRICITY SAVINGS (ACTUAL COMPARED TO BASELINE)..............................................27
5.1.5 YEARLY ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION....................................................................................28
5.2 GAS ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................29
5.2.1 COLLECT ACTUAL GAS USAGE DATA......................................................................................29
5.2.2 COLLECT AND PROCESS WEATHER DATA TO GET HDD AND CDD....................................29
5.2.3 NORMALIZED GAS USAGE.........................................................................................................29
5.2.4 GAS SAVINGS (ACTUAL COMPARED TO BASELINE) .............................................................31
5.2.5 YEARLY GAS CONSUMPTION....................................................................................................32
5.3 TOTAL ENERGY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................33
5.3.1 NORMALIZED TOTAL ENERGY USAGE ....................................................................................33
5.3.2 SAVINGS (ACTUAL COMPARED TO BASELINE) ......................................................................34
5.3.3 YEARLY TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION ...............................................................................35
5.4 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EUI COMPARISONS WITH BASELINES .....................................36
5.5 EUI COMPARISON WITH BOMA BEST............................................................................................37
5.6 EUI COMPARISONS- BASELINE+ BOMA BEST..............................................................................38
5.7 CONDITIONAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................38
5.7.1 EXCLUDING MONTH OF SEPTEMBER......................................................................................38
5.7.2 FOR THE PERIOD OF 08 JANUARY 2013 TO 01 JUNE 2015(28 MONTHS) ............................40
5.8 END - USES OF ELECTRICITY.........................................................................................................41
6.0 RENEWABLE ENERGY (PV) ANALYSIS ............................................................................................42
7.0 CO2 ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................43
8.0 WATER ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................45
8.1 YEARLY WATER CONSUMPTION ...................................................................................................45
8.2 WUI COMPARISON WITH BOMA BEST...........................................................................................46
8.3 SYSTEMS CONSUMPTION...............................................................................................................46
9.0 OCCUPANCY .......................................................................................................................................47
10.0 OCCUPANT SURVEY RESULT.........................................................................................................47
10.1 OPERATION MANAGER AND BUILDING MANAGER ...................................................................47
10.2 OCCUPANTS ...................................................................................................................................48
11.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULT...............................................................................................50
12.0 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) ...................................................................................51
12.1 THERMAL COMFORT .....................................................................................................................51

4
12.2 INDOOR AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................................55
12.3 LIGHTING QUALITY (VISUAL COMFORT).....................................................................................56
12.4 ACOUSTIC QUALITY.......................................................................................................................57
13.0 AUDIT OF WASTE..............................................................................................................................58
14.0 SITE ....................................................................................................................................................58
15.0 MATERIALS........................................................................................................................................58
16.0 LESSONS ...........................................................................................................................................59
16.1 FROM ENERGY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................59
16.2 FROM WATER ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................59
16.3 FROM WASTE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................59
16.4 FROM IEQ ........................................................................................................................................59
16.5 FROM OCCUPANCY .......................................................................................................................59
16.6 FROM SITE ......................................................................................................................................60
16.7 FROM MATERIALS..........................................................................................................................60
17.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................60
18.0 LIST OF DEFINATIONS .....................................................................................................................61
19.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES USED.........................................................................................63
20.0 APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................................66
A: ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................................66
B: BUILDING INFORMATION/DRAWINGS/IMAGES ................................................................................86
C: POST OCCUPANCY SURVEY............................................................................................................105

5
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The TRCA Office in Vaughan, Ontario is the first building in Eastern Canada to be certified
LEED Platinum (LEED® Canada-NC 1.0) with 56 LEED points. According to TRCA, the
incremental cost to construct this environmental friendly building was just 9.3 per cent more
than a non-environmental building. It exhibits how with careful design and management, a small
office building can achieve high levels of energy/water performance and indoor environmental
quality. The building has a well-insulated, compact, relatively narrow footprint, with North and
South facing windows - enabling good daylighting and access to views from all work spaces,
robust HVAC systems controlled by Building Automation System (BAS), renewable energy
generation from PV panels and extremely low water-use fittings and appliances and efficient
rainwater harvesting.
The building uses 170 kWh/m2/yr of energy (2014), which is far below (50%) the typical
consumption for a building of this type (BOMA BESt- 2009 is about 339 kWh/m2/yr), which is
also 5% less than predicted in 2013. This figure does not include the output of a photovoltaic
array of 44.6 kW (TRCA), energy generated from which is sold to the grid. Actual gross water
use in 2014 is 0.11/m3/m2/yr (16L/ day/occupant) which is 90% below to BOMA BESt-2009
average building consumption (1.1 m3/m2/yr). Two sources of water were used in the building –
Potable (City) water from city supply and non potable water from pond. Pond water used was
47% whereas city water used was 53% (from the status of Jan 2013 to June 2015). GHG
emissions of building in 2014 were little high, 23 kg eco2/m2/yr; due to use of natural gas for
garage heating and hot water supply.
Indoor air quality (IAQ) measurements reveal satisfactory conditions, despite some common
challenges. Thermal comfort, ventilation, air quality, visual comfort, cleanliness and CO2 level
were within the occupant’s satisfactory range. However, acoustics was below satisfaction of
occupants. Big open plan workstations and weathering/aging of acoustical performance
materials were the main culprits of this. In maping thermal comfort within the building, it was
found that 90% of spaces were in the acceptable range for summer temperature, with the
remaining being too cool- in mezzanine floor (in relation to ASHRAE 55). Raising the set point in
summer in mezzanine floor, and giving more local control, may increase satisfaction and further
reduce cooling energy consumption.
Physical condition of the building was also in sound condition. Except some minor deficiencies
such as crack formations on timber columns and beam, caulking deterioration, fading of exterior
paint, cracks on joint of ceiling and walls and window weep holes blockage (which was
observed during walk through investigation), there was no any alarming issues to be addressed
immediately. Overall, the building had no any problem in serviceability and durability aspects.
Regarding waste management, facility didn’t generate any waste: office waste is streamed
through pickup service; project waste is collected and sent for recycling/disposal separately.
Electronics collected for recycling; hazardous waste (oil/antifreeze, etc) are sent for proper
disposal under generator number along with required Hazardous Waste Information Network
(HWIN) documentation. Oil bottles/filters are sent for waste oil recovery and recycling.
Occupancy pattern was almost consistent (45 staffs) as in design, due to which there was no
need to do normalization for water to achieve baselines. Roof areas had been covered by a

6
high-reflectivity, white membrane, an important strategy in combating urban heat island effect.
The building used a large quantity of recycled materials including reclaimed brick, recycled
crushed concrete and materials with a high recycled content, addressed the CO2 emissions
significantly.
Primary lessons from the study were:
 It is possible to design a LEED Certified small office building to achieve significantly
lower than typical energy use building at low additional cost.
 By excluding shoulder season if energy analysis is done, EUI comes lower than full
year’s EUI (to compare the result of full year energy analysis, a separate analysis was
made by excluding month of September where consumption was always very high and
found almost 10% lower EUI than Full year’s EUI)
 It may not be rational to energy analyze for more than a year by assuming it a single
period, because it may not cover all the seasons evenly ( a separate analysis was done
for a single period of 28 months- Jan 2013 to May 2015, EUI in that case was about 7%
higher than a single year’s EUI)
 Use of combination of composting toilets and waterless urinals and low-flow plumbing
fixtures use very less water.
 Dealing with efficient storm water runoff and using low water use landscaping reduce the
impact on surrounding site.
 Roof areas covered by a high-reflective will be an important strategy in combating urban
heat island effect.
 In consistent occupancy building, it is simple to calculate per occupant values.
 It is a challenging task to maintain acceptable level of acoustical performance in the
green open design small office buildings.
In summary, this building was performing much better than a typical office building of this type. It
was providing a high quality indoor environment that allowed natural ventilation and daylighting
for much of the occupied period. Acoustic performance was the problem of the building. Overall,
the occupants showed a reasonable level of satisfaction with the building. In addition, CO2
emissions were always maintained in the acceptable level through automatic sensors.
Finally, performance evaluation of this building was relatively simple because of the fact that the
building manager of the building was sympathetic, and also the building had been evaluated
previously by Enermodal in 2008 and complete sub-metered energy/water use data was made
available. Overall, this building was perceived as a good entrant for this sort of evaluation.

7
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT
Although Green building rating systems such as LEED has conventionally focused on predicted
performance at the design stage, but there are many lessons to be learned from understanding
how buildings actually perform once occupied. Significant performance gaps between predicted
performance and the measured performance in areas such as energy use, water use, carbon
emissions, indoor environment and occupant comfort are often witnessed; which ultimately
leads to added costs to owners, reduced productivity of occupants and overall value of the
building. Inaccuracies in modelling, problems with envelope and systems integration,
construction quality issues, changes in occupancy load, inappropriate commissioning and
handover processes, operational issues, motivation of occupants, and occupant comfort issues
are the major culprits behind these discrepancies. A detail investigation of these variations and
discrepancies through the process of POE; on one hand can help building owners to optimize
the building performance and prioritize upgrades and on the other hand, can help designers to
implement lessons learned from existing building into future projects.
Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of the “Energy performance gap”
Source: Carbon Buzz graphic
This project was initiated by the professor Vera Straka, Ryerson University in order to fulfill the
requirements of the course- Building Performance Assessment (BL8207). The main objective of
the project was to investigate the “performance gap” by documenting the differences between
predicted and measured performance; compare with benchmarks for “typical” performance of
similar buildings; and recognize lessons for its owners, design teams, and the industry in
general.
Even though the study was for an academic purpose, author hopes that this research will give
better understanding of how to build, operate, and maintain high performance green buildings,
and will benefit the whole sector.

8
2.2 LEED BUILDINGS
LEED is an acronym which stands for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design and is a
Green building rating system that serves multiple functions: define the attributes of green
buildings, provide tools for environmental assessment and include specific interventions
intended to promote market transformation (Todd et. al, 2013). All LEED rating systems are
composed of prerequisites and credits, namely Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and
Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Innovation in Design.
Prerequisites are mandatory elements required for certification. Besides, projects must obtain
additional points through achievement of elective credits. As per respective number of credits
achieved, the project gets certification level as Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum - the highest
level (USGBC, 2007).
Number of points required for Certification levels for LEED-NC 2.2 and LEED 2009:
Figure 2: LEED Certification Score System
Source: Green Building Certification Institute (2012)
LEED nowadays is considered the most reputable rating protocol for green buildings in North
America.
2.3 BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (BPE)
2.3.1 Overview
Performance Evaluation of the building deals with present building performances in Durability
and Serviceability. Environmental Quality, Thermal Comfort, Indoor Air Quality, Day
lighting/Lighting, Acoustics and Life Safety are the main parameters that are assessed during
performance assessment (Preiser et al, 2005).
The benefits of building performance evaluation include: Identification of good and bad
performance aspects of the building; which results to better building utilization, and feedback on
improvement of similar type of buildings in the future (Preiser & Vischer, 2005).
“Perhaps the most important benefit of BPE is the creation of humane and appropriate
environments for building occupants” (NCARB, 2003).
Primary focus areas and different datasets for BPE are highlighted below:

9
2.3.2 Processes
As highlighted in figure 3 below, POE has 7 linear processes and each process has its unique
implications. As far as possible, research team tried to implement all the processes during POE.
Figure 3: Process of POE
(University of Westminster, 2006)
2.3.3 Degree and Extend
The degree and extend of POE depends on the necessity and purpose of the POE to meet
either the short, medium or long term benefits plus the availability of fund. As shown in the
figure 4 below, Indicative, Investigative and Diagnostic aspects of POE deals with short term,
medium term and long term benefits respectively. Our team target was to implement
investigative approach to achieve medium term benefit.
Figure 4: POE Approaches
Source: Mastor and Ibrahim (2010)
BPE may be classified in three levels:
Indicative (1-2 days)

10
•Points out major failures and successes in the building; highlights those that require further
investigation
Short-term benefits
•Identification of and solutions to problems in facilities
•Improved attitude of building occupants through active involvement in the evaluation process
Investigative (10-20 days)
•More detailed than the indicative approach
Medium-term benefits
•Significant cost savings in the building process and throughout the life cycle of a building
•Accountability for building performance by design professionals and owners
Diagnostic (3-12 months)
•Extremely detailed and focused study
Long-term benefits
•Improvement of design databases, standards, criteria, and guidance literature
(ASHRAE = Basic, diagnostic, advanced)
2.3.4 Orders of Priority
Priorities adopted in the POE study were in the following 9 orders (Figure 5)
 Health, safety and security performance - Priority 1
 Functional, efficiency and work flow performance- Priority 2
 Psychological, social, cultural and aesthetic performance- Priority 3
Figure 5: Levels of priority
Source: Preiser & Nasar (2008)

11
2.3.5 Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
Post occupancy evaluation (POE), conducted on occupied buildings denotes to a systematic
building performance feedback procedure. It ensures that completed buildings operate
efficiently throughout its expected life span, and serves as a crucial lessons learned feedback
cycle for future buildings, therefore is priceless for existing as well as future projects. Processes,
participants, and documentation and dissemination instruments and technology are the key
procedural components of POE, which ultimately governs the effectiveness of feedback cycle.
Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) basically is conducted for:
 To find out how the buildings actually performs
 To learn about the effectiveness of various strategies implemented in the design
 To learn about occupant’s comfort
 To learn about operations of the building
 To design better building in the future
2.4 BUILDING DESCRIPTION
Objective: To serve as a showcase of sustainable design and a centre for the organization’s
habitat regeneration and restoration projects.
Occupant: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Restoration Services Centre
Location: Vaughan, Ontario
Building Use: Office and Workshop
Gross Floor Area: 1037 m2 (Enermodal)
Budget: $2,800,000
Completion: May 2007
Climate: Humid Continental, warm summers, (4,111HDD, 347CDD as per 2014 Weather data)
LEED Platinum rating- The first building in Eastern Canada to be certified LEED Platinum
(LEED® Canada-NC 1.0) with 56 LEED points. According to TRCA, the incremental cost to
construct this environmental friendly building was just 9.3 per cent more than a non-
environmental building.
Architect: Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc.
LEED Consultant, M/E Design, Commissioning: Enermodal Engineering Ltd.
Structural Engineer: Read Jones Christofferson Ltd.
Construction Management: Percon Construction Inc.
Specification Consultant: archiTEXT Consulting
The two-storey building comprises spaces for up to 60 occupants/visitors per day and a works
garage. The main construction is engineered wood framing with brick and wood siding. Use of
recycled materials including reclaimed brick, recycled crushed concrete and materials with a

12
high recycled content are the sustainability approaches of the building. The east/west
orientation of the building delivers the maximum benefits of north and south exposures. The
deep, south facing porch shields the windows from hot summer sun; however, allows the winter
sun into the building. Workshop and Garage, low occupancy areas, located at the west end of
the building shelter the office space from extreme heat gain. In addition, north facing windows
provide abundant natural light, substantially lowering reliance on artificial lighting and cooling.
By the use of a ground source heat pump, occupancy and photocell sensors and heat recovery
units, a high level of energy efficiency is achieved. Composting toilets, waterless urinals and
ultra low flow faucets and shower heads reduce potable water consumption in the building.
Moreover, it is understood from the Building Manager that non portable water used per day in
the building is just about 300L and source of non potable water is pond.
Heating is provided by a slinky ground source loop heat pump system, which is less costly and
covers less land area. Heat is delivered to the offices through tubing in concrete flooring.
Cooling is supplied largely through chilled water fan coils. Supplementary cooling is provided
from slightly cooled floor, using the same tubing as the radiant heating system. Regarding
ventilation air, a concrete “earth tube” delivers outdoor air to the basement mechanical
equipment. Two heat-recovery (ERV and HRV) ventilators deliver 100 per cent outside air to the
offices via displacement (low velocity) ventilation. Radiant heating coil is provided to additionally
heat the incoming air. Most ductwork is hidden under the slab, integrated with the slab-on-grade
floor and insulation, and most ventilation diffusers are inconspicuous. For garage, a separate
HRV is provided and natural gas is used for heating. Natural gas in the building is used for
garage heating and hot water supply.
A photovoltaic system on roof and truck port envelope provides the facility with a portion of its
electricity. This generates yearly 124kWh of electricity with the arrays of 44.6kW and average
income generated from renewable energy is estimated as CAD 30,000 per year (as per the
information interpreted by Building Manager). A building automation system (BAS) integrates
the control of heating, cooling and ventilation. This system also measures and records building
performance, including building temperatures and humidity, ventilation rates, indoor air quality,
CO2 emissions and electricity and water use. Heat produced by the composting toilets process
is also recovered.
Rainwater is harvested from the roof and surface drainage and is sent to the pond, so no cistern
is required for rainwater storage. The landscaping is designed in the way that half of the surface
water flows from east side and other half from west side. In addition, garage has gratings and
manholes on floor for surface water flow and due to which water from flooding too cannot enter
in to the main building. There is no gradient in the landscape/building (plinth level is at the same
level of ground), so that the ramp is not required for disable. Completely pervious site (crushed
recycled concrete is used as finish surface for the yard) minimizes storm water runoff.

13
Provision of good-quality indoor air, adequate ventilation and abundant natural light are the
features that considered in the design to maintain IEQ of the building. Building occupants in
perimeter spaces have windows and lighting controls. Building occupants in non-perimeter
spaces have individual control over airflow, temperature (1-20
C) and lighting. Over 95 per cent
of regularly occupied spaces have an abundance of daylighting and 90 per cent of these spaces
have a view to the outdoors. Acoustic aspects of the building also has reasonably addressed,
rain water pipes inside the building are used of Cast iron in order to lower the sound of water
flow. Carpet flooring, gypsum wall and ceiling boards further reduces the background sound in
the building. “Low off-gassing” furniture and indoor plants in the offices helps protect indoor air
from contaminants (Montgomery Sisam).
50%
Measured
Reduction in
Energy Use
(2014)
BOMA BESt EUI=338.94 ekWh/m2
(2009)
Building’s EUI (Actual) =170 ekWh/m2
(2014)
90%
Measured
Reduction in
Water Use
(2014)
BOMA BESt WUI =1.1 m3/m2
(2009)
Building’s WUI (Actual) =0.11 m3/m2
(2014)
Figure 7: Reduction in Energy/Water Use – 2014, based on BOMA BESt 2009
Sources: BOMA BESt and TRCA
In 2014, building has energy saving of about 50% and water saving of about 90% in comparison
to BOMA BESt- 2009 average buildings consumptions (Figure 7).
Products and Materials used in the building:
Engineered Wood + Glulam: RONA
Wood Siding: Maibec Solid Wood Siding
Brick Cladding: Salvaged Brick from Timeless Material Co.
Corrugated Metal: Vic West
Insulation: Owens-Corning, Dow Chemical, Roxul
Air Barrier: DuPont Canada (Tyvek)
Curtainwall: Series 7500 Series by Kawneer Co.
TPO Roofing: Lexcan
Paint: PARA Paints
Flooring:
Carpet: Collins & Aikman
Epoxy Flooring: NeoGuard High Performance Coating
Rubber Sheet Flooring: Johnsonite
Porcelain Tile: Centura
Office Furniture Systems: Teknion
Mechanical:
Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) : Water Furnace International (Geothermax Inc)

14
Fan Coil Units: Mcquay -Models TSS and TSH
Energy Recovery Ventilators (ERV) : Venmar ERV-5001
Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) : Venmar HRV 600i
Photo Voltaic (PV) Panels: Generation PV
Radiant Slab Piping: Klimatrol Environmental Systems Ltd.
Green Power Supplier: Bullfrog Power
Building Automation System: TAC Controls
Lighting Controls: Watt Stopper
Composting Toilets & Waterless Urinals: Clivus Multrum
CO2 Sensors: Critical Environment Technologies Canada Inc.
(Source: 2030 Challenge)
3.0 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Condition assessments are technical inspections to evaluate the physical state of building
elements and services and to assess the maintenance needs of the facility. Rational behind
performing condition assessment is to get reliable and objective knowledge of the physical state
of the building and the impacts on service delivery that will enable owners to develop
appropriate strategies and actions for maintenance, major replacements, refurbishments and
investment in the building (NRC, Canada).
Condition assessment normally comprises:
 Physical inspection of a building to assess the actual condition of the building
and its individual elements and services, in comparison to the specified
standards.
 Identification of maintenance works required to get the condition of the building
and its services up to, or maintain it at, the specified condition standard.
 Prioritize of maintenance works.
 Determination of actions to mitigate any immediate risk until remedial works (or
other actions) can be taken to address problems. (Dept of Housing, Queensland,
Australia).
In order to fulfill the requirements of BPE, a visual inspection comprising interviews with
occupants were conducted on June 02, 2015 for the TRCA building.The weather at the
time of the inspection was sunny with an approximate outdoor temperature of about
20o
C.
The primary purpose of the inspection was to assess
 Likelihood of workplace health and safety risks to occupants and residents
 Nature of the building and its associated engineering services
 Aging of the building and its essential components
 Actual state and rate of deterioration of the building and the associated risks

15
 Operating environment and its impact on the rate of deterioration
In order to identify deficiencies on above parameters, the existing conditions of the building
were assessed in following components:
 Building Structure
 Building Envelope
 Mechanical System
 Electrical System
 Interior Finishes
 Life Safety
 Barrier Free Access
 Acoustical Performance
 Lighting Performance
A set of checklists were prepared based on NRC, ASHRAE and ASTM 2018-01 standards to
measure the performance of building elements and systems. Based on pre-designed checklist
and questionnaires, site measurements and information provided by property manager, building
condition assessment was conducted.
Note: Condition Assessment Report and Checklists were compiled in another report (Group).
3.2 PROTOCOLS FOR ASSESSMENT
Following objectives, metrics and Benchmarks were set for POE.
3.2.1 Energy
Objectives
•Characterizing annual, whole-building energy use.
•Establishing the energy performance ranking of the building relative to its peers.
•Estimating the building’s energy use savings potential.
Metrics
•Cataloging basic building characteristics from building plans and specifications, as well as a
walk-through audit.
• Performing building energy performance (ASHRAE Standard 105-2007.3).
•Compiling annual, whole-building energy use.
•Calculating annual energy use (per unit of gross floor area), by site, normalized for weather and
occupancy.
Benchmarks
•The annual energy use is compared to appropriate benchmarks for peer buildings or self-
reference against past use.
3.2.2 Water
Objectives
•Characterizing and rating whole-building water use.
•Aggregating total building/site water uses.
•Identifying water-savings potentials.

16
Metrics
•The basic level water use is measured as the volume of water metered by the utility, typically
monthly or otherwise metered on site.
•Monthly and annual water use indices, normalized by the building floor area and/or number of
occupants.
Benchmarks
•The annual water use and cost are compared to appropriate benchmarks for peer buildings or
self-reference against past use.
3.2.3 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
All of the indoor environmental quality protocols begin with observations of the building, its
environment and the occupants’ responses to that environment. This is followed by
recommended occupant surveys to determine occupant satisfaction with environmental
conditions.
3.2.3.1 Thermal Comfort
Objectives
• Thermal-comfort-related building characteristics, including complaint logs.
• Determine and rate occupant satisfaction against benchmarks of previous data and/or a
database of previously measured performance of peer buildings.
• Identify thermal comfort problems using spot measurements of the thermal environment.
Metrics
• Evaluate complaint logs.
• Conduct occupant and operator surveys of satisfaction with overall thermal comfort and the
impact on self-reported job performance.
• Spot measure temperature, relative humidity, mean radiant temperature (MRT), and airspeed
(optional) to determine causes of problems.
Benchmarks
•The thermal comfort survey results are compared to appropriate benchmarks for peer buildings
and/ or of identical or similar questions from past surveys.
3.2.3.2 Indoor Air Quality
Objectives
• Determine whether the building is in an EPA nonattainment zone for outdoor contaminants.
•Observe condition of building and HVAC system from complaint logs and operational
documentation.
• Determine occupant satisfaction with IAQ.
• Evaluate compliance with the Ventilation Rate Procedure in ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007.
• If combustion sources are present, determine if there are elevated levels of CO2.
Metrics
•If site is in a nonattainment zone, proper filters for ozone and particulates should be installed
(ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007).
• Interviews of the facility manager or O&M contractor and evaluation of occupant complaints;
the HVAC system should be inspected for potential moisture problems.
• Occupant surveys to rate IAQ satisfaction levels against benchmark databases.
• Evaluation of compliance with the Ventilation Rate Procedure of Standard 62.1-2007, including
measurement of ventilation rates at the OA intake of each HVAC fan system.

17
• If combustion sources are present, take spot measurements of CO2 levels in the vicinity of
equipment.
Benchmarks
• If local OA quality is unacceptable, additional filtering may be required to meet standard
(ASHRAE 62.1-2007).
• Resolve building and HVAC system problems to verify compliance with Standard 62.1-2007.
•Occupant IAQ survey results should be compared to the CBE database of peer buildings
and/or self-referenced to past surveys.
• Measured OA flows should meet the minimums specified in Standard 62.1-2007.
•CO measurements should not exceed a threshold of 9 ppm over eight hours or 30 ppm over
one hour. However, if more than 4 to 5 ppm are measured this indicates a potentially
problematic source.
3.2.3.3 Lighting Quality
Objectives
•Determination of occupants’ satisfaction with the lighting and rating performance against
previously measured buildings.
• Identification of problems and how they might be corrected.
• Spot measurements of basic photometric parameters.
Metrics
• Lighting satisfaction surveys to identify the problems.
• Work on the standard lighting checklist.
• Spot measurements of illuminance at representative work surfaces.
•Measured illuminance levels may be compared to the recommended levels with IESNA and
EN 12464 illuminance levels by space type.
Benchmarks
• CBE survey database of previously surveyed peer buildings and/or self-referenced to past
surveys.
• Measured illuminance levels may be compared to the recommended levels.
3.2.3.4 Acoustics
Objectives
• Use of an occupant survey to identify acoustical problems.
• Evaluation of background noise by measuring the A-weighted sound pressure level.
Metrics
•Occupant acoustic satisfaction survey to identify conditions that may produce annoying sounds.
•Spot measurement of A-weighted sound pressure levels in representative spaces.
Measurements should be made with an integrating sound level meter and an omnidirectional
condenser microphone under full HVAC system operation and other operating conditions.
Benchmarks
•The results of the sound level pressure measurements are benchmarked by space type against
the noise criteria of the PMP. The occupancy survey results are compared with the peer
buildings and/or self-referenced to past surveys.

18
These standardized and consistent set of protocols provide a range of accuracy, to facilitate the
appropriate comparison of measured energy, water, and indoor environmental quality (thermal
comfort, indoor air quality [IAQ], lighting, and acoustics) performance of commercial buildings,
while maintaining acceptable levels of building service for the occupants. Benchmarks are
included in the protocols to facilitate comparison to peer buildings or for self-reference over time
(often after use of 2 years) (Hunn et al , 2012).
3.3 CHECKLISTS
For the purpose of building condition assessment, sets of checklists that can reasonably be
collected during site inspection were developed in order to acquire information on building
elements.
Based on the key requirements of effective checklist, comprehensiveness (in depth), convenient
(well organized), legible (understandable to people) and balanced (neither too much nor too little
emphasized) checklists were developed in order to conduct Building Condition Assessment,
which is based on NRC-CNRC, OSHA, ASHRAE, ASTM and BRE protocols and guidelines plus
author’s real life experiences, views and speculations. Both close-ended and open-ended
questionnaires were included in the checklist. For close- ended response, Yes/ No columns
were used and for open-ended and subjective issues, “Remarks” section was used. For
auditing; document verifications, non destructive testing, spot site measurements wherever
possible, photographs and interviews with property manager/ operation manager were
conducted. Moreover, basic tools namely measuring tape, camera, calculator, thermometer and
flash light were used during inspection. Due to availability of barrier-free access, each of the
rooms, storage areas, basement etc. key places and major equipment were inspected in detail.
Research team also tried to identify internal working environment of the building during
inspection.
Note: Checklists for all the above mentioned building elements were included in Appendix section
of Building Condition Assessment Report.
3.4 OCCUPANT SURVEY
A standard web-based survey of occupants was carried out to investigate the occupants’
experiences and their levels of satisfaction with the building in general and the indoor
environment in particular. Occupants provided scores of 1 to 7 for their perception of a range of
building characteristics, including lighting, thermal, acoustic and air quality issues.
As much as possible, reasonable, practical, short, sharp and attainable in short time
questionnaire were designed based on the following guidelines
 Used by advanced design practices and research organizations for obtaining
detailed diagnostics on human needs in buildings
 Passes examination by Ethical Standards Committees (Universities often require
internal assessment)
 Statistically rigorous, to satisfy high standards of data reporting and analysis

19
 Interesting and easy to understand for non-specialists
 Incorporating benchmarks which are empirically sound (that is, based on results
from real buildings, not simulations, theories or guesswork)
 Cross- disciplinary, so that findings are equally useful for designers, managers,
researchers, developers and occupiers
Likert Scale: 1-7, which was used in occupant survey.
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Remarks Very
Satisfied
Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Neutral Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Note: For our preliminary survey questionnaire design, we used the survey edited by Wolfgang
F.E. Preiser and Jacqueline C. Vischer and forwarded by Francis Duffy. The survey was used
for University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Furthermore, some questionnaires from Jeisel, J. also
included wherever appropriate. This survey was for diagnostic (long term) level of assessment.
4.0 STUDY APPROACH
In order to investigate and analyze operating of a building, compare it to benchmarks and
baselines, and identify problems or concerns that need to be addressed, this research involved
developing a standardized BPE protocol based on NRC and ASHRAE and applying it to the
TRCA building in this study.
The protocol paid attention on assessing performance of the following categories: occupancy
issues, energy use, water use, indoor environment, site issues, and materials issues regarding
structure, envelope, mechanical/electrical, finishes, function and life safety elements.
To identify the difference between actual and predicted performance, Key performance
indicators (KPIs) were determined and collected for:
 Actual building performance over a minimum of five years of operation;
 Predicted performance at the design stage (based on design stage modeling);
 Reference values for typical buildings of similar use in the national region.
4.1 REFERENCE BUILDING
BOMA BESt
For the purpose of study, base EUI and WUI were referred from BOMA BESt 2014 report.
BOMA BESt is Canada’s leading environmental certification program for existing buildings. It is
used by all sectors of the commercial real estate industry (private and public) to raise
performance levels through the adoption of BESt management practices and facilitation of
continuous improvement; leading to the reduction of the environmental impact of existing
buildings. As in December 31, 2013: Over 4,400 buildings, representing millions of square meter
of Canadian commercial buildings, have applied for certification and/or recertification; among

20
which, 3,562 buildings have achieved BOMA BESt certification and/or Recertification across
Canada since 2005.
According to BOMA BESt report 2014; it had examined the energy, water and waste
performance of 281 buildings from across the province, including 147 BOMA BESt certified
buildings and 134 non-certified buildings. With the study of those buildings, it was discovered
the following development in office building performance regarding energy use and water use.
Figure 8: Average EUI by year - Office Building Figure 9: Average WUI by year Certified–Office
Buildings
Source: BOMA BESt Energy and Environment Report, 2014
For our research; to compare current performances of TRCA in energy and water, base values
adopted were BOMA BESt 2009 average EUI (338.94 ekWh/m2/yr) and WUI (1.01m3/m2/yr).
Rationale behind choosing these as reference values were, since the building was occupied
from mid of 2007 and had been used for about 2 years in 2009. In BOMA BESt assessed high
performing buildings, following water saving appliances were installed:
 Low-flow faucets (< 2 LPM)
 Low-flow toilets (<4.8 LPF)
 Low-flow urinals (<1.9 LPF)
4.2 DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY OF ANALYSIS
In all the events, major sources of data were obtained from building manager, on-line sources,
or from as built drawings and specifications with the authorization of the owners. No additional
or confirming site measurements were made. Followings were the primary qualitative and
quantitative data sources for study

21
•Metered data for energy (electricity and gas) and water use was collected for the building from
utility bills or sub-meters. Energy use intensity (EUI) in kWh/m2/yr was calculated and weather
normalised using heating degree days (HDD). Water use intensity (WUI) was calculated in
m3/m2/yr and, in L/occupant/Day. This was compared to predicted energy and water use of
“typical” BOMA BESt certified office buildings-2009, from the reference published by BOMA
BESt in 2014, Canada. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using provincial
carbon intensity factors 3.
•Spot measurements for indoor environment conditions such as temperature range, relative
humidity and CO2 levels were supplied by building manager for typical work stations in the
occupied building.
•A standard survey of occupants was carried out to investigate the occupants’ experiences and
their levels of satisfaction with the building in general and the indoor environment in particular.
Occupants provided scores of 1 to 7 for their perception of a range of building characteristics,
including lighting, thermal, acoustic and air quality issues. They were also able to provide
comments on specific concerns.
•Interviews was carried out with the building manager, and, where possible, occupants.
•Physical condition of building were assessed in NRC specified all 8 parameters through walk-
through method. Supporting information from observation was recorded through photographs
and movies.
•Design documents including drawings and specifications, green building rating (LEED) and
energy models were used to identify predicted performance at the design stage.
•Enermodal’s previous POE report was referred to get simulation/estimated values.
Standardized calculation methodologies were used for weather normalization of energy data,
conversion of energy into carbon emissions using the Common Carbon Metrics process with
provincial greenhouse gas conversion factors. This diverse data enabled the researcher to
document the achieved performance of the building and identify problems. Qualitative and
subjective data from interviews, observation and spot measurements were used to support the
metered data and occupant survey.
4.2.1 Actual Energy and Water Usage
It came from the past years (2009-2015) of utility billing records. Some estimation was
occasionally required to determine consumption values, and is further described in the reports.
In order to determine Total energy consumption, the gas billing data was converted from m3
to
KWh (1m3
= 10.556 KWh)
Energy and water usage throughout this report are expressed per KWH and m3 respectively.

22
4.2.2 Baseline Energy Usage
Baseline energy usage was carried from projection of the previous year normalized energy
usage to predict what the upcoming years usage would have been based on the weather data
pattern.
4.2.3 Estimated Energy Consumption
Estimated total energy usage came up from the Enermodal Engineering Limited estimated
simulation result (2008) for TRCA Building. This data was used as a forecasted baseline for
electricity, gas and water usage to estimate its future monthly utility consumption.
4.2.4 HDD and CDD (Temperature Sensitive Energy Usage)
HDD (Heating degree days) and CDD (Cooling degree days) are used to estimate energy
requirements and as an indication of fuel consumption for heating and air conditioning
respectively. One HDD represents one degree drop in temperature below 18° Celsius; No of
HDD/day = (18°C- Mean day temperature). One CDD represents one degree increase in
temperature above 18°C; No of CDD/day = (Mean day temperature - 18°C).
Actual energy usage was temperature-adjusted to make it consistent with modeling, which
assumes average weather conditions. Temperature-adjusted energy usage equals actual
energy usage increased or decreased to reflect the difference between historic averages and
the actual monthly heating/cooling degree days during the study period. The adjustment factors
were taken from linear regression of monthly natural gas use versus heating degree days and of
electricity versus heating and/or cooling degree days, depending on how electricity was used in
the building (Turner, 2006).
4.2.5 Normalization
To determine savings from a retrofit, the utility bills for weather should be normalize, so that
changes in weather conditions will not compromise the savings numbers. Since, there was no
change in occupancy; normalization was not done for water. Rather than compare last year’s
usage to this year’s usage, when we use weather normalization, we compare how much energy
we would have used this year to how much energy we did use this year. Savings = How much
energy we would have used this year – This year’s usage. The next question is, how do we
figure out how much energy we would have used this year? That is where weather
normalization comes in. (http://www.energyvortex.com/files/altenergynormalization.pdf).
First, we select a year of utility bills to which we want to compare future usage, called base year.
Then we calculate degree days for the Base Year billing periods, we assumed base year as
2014. Base Year bills and HDD are then normalized by number of days.
To establish the relationship between usage and weather, we find the line that comes closest to
all the bills. This line, the Best Fit Line, is found using statistical regression analysis available in
spreadsheets.
Further step is to ensure that the Best Fit Line is good enough to use. The quality of the best fit
line is represented by statistical indicators, the most common of which, is the R2
value. The R2
value represents the decency of fit, and in energy engineering circles, an R2
> 0.75 is

23
considered an acceptable fit (Avina, 2006). This Best Fit Line has an equation, which we call the
Fit Line Equation. Figure 8 below shows utility bills in blue dots and best fit line in red line.
Figure 10: Best Fit Line
Source: Avina, 2006
4.2.6 Shaving Estimates
They were made by comparing actual results to baseline (predicted) usage levels, without
further calibration or adjustment. Thus, this study’s simple calculation of efficiency savings as
the difference between actual usage and the modeled Baseline is at best very approximate.
More precise conclusions would require further analysis of changes between design and as-built
systems as well as non-conservation-related differences, such as actual occupant numbers,
building usage patterns, and building management practices (Avina, 2006)
5.0 ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESULTS
5.1 ELECTRICITY ANALYSIS
5.1.1 Collect actual Electricity usage data
The data collected from the bill was divided by the number of days in each billing period to get
energy/water consumption per day.

24
Figure 11: Electricity consumption
Source: TRCA
Note: This was only for the year 2014. Other year’s (2013-2009) utilities charts were affixed in
appendix section.
5.1.2 Collect and process weather data for HDD and CDD
For HDD and CDD, we referred the weather from environment Canada for TORONTO LESTER
B. PEARSON INT'L Airport.
Reference: ON- Toronto, Lester B. Pearson International Airport
Station ID: CYYZ
Latitude = 43.68 N
Longitude= -79.63 W
ASHRAE Climate Zone: 6A
Elevation above sea level= 173m
Figure 12: Simulation Weather Data
Source: Design Builder

25
Figure 13: 2014 HDD per Day
Source: Climate (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/)
Monthly HDD/CDDs were calculated by summation of the daily HDD/CDD for period of each bill.
Figure 14: Total HDD and CDD for the year 2009-2014
Source: Climate (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/)
This data were collected to conduct the normalization. In comparison to HDD, CDD were
negligible. If we look for 2014, CDD was just about 8% of HDD.
5.1.3 Normalized Electricity Usage
As mentioned earlier, since there was no change in occupancy load, normalization for water
was not in need.
Following processes were followed to normalize energy:
1. We normalized Base Year utility bills and weather data for number of days in the bill.
2. We graphed normalized Base Year utility data versus normalized weather data.

26
3. We found a Best Fit Line through the data. The Best Fit Line then represents the utility bills
for the Base Year.
4. The Best Fit Line Equation represents the Best Fit Line, which in turn represents the Base
Year of utility data.
Normalize the data by dividing HDD (CDD) by number of days in the cycle or use monthly data.
Plot these points and draw the best fit line.
This is the weather normalize energy consumption which can be used to compare with the
actual bill.
Figure 15: Baseline Normalization for electricity
Source: TRCA
Figure 16: Regression Equation for Electricity for 2014
Source: Excel Sheet

27
Figure 17: Regression Equation for Electricity for 2013
Source: Excel Sheet
Figure 17 reveals that to get the baseline electricity usage for 2014, baseline equation
(Y=10.32X + 220.1) of 2013 was used. Where, Y is the baseline kWh/Day and X is the
HDD/Day for 2014. Equation of Figure 16 (2014) will be used to determine baseline usage for
the succeeding year.
R2
values in each year are above 0.75, so that the regression lines have a good correlation with
the energy consumption data.
Note: Regression Analysis for other 4 years (2011 to 2009 Estimate) are included in appendix
section.
5.1.4 Electricity Savings (Actual compared to Baseline)
Savings = Baseline Energy Usage – Actual Energy Usage
Figure 18: Savings for Electricity
Source: Excel Sheet

28
Figure 19: 2014 Actual to 2013 Baseline Electricity Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet
During analysis, it is noticed that in the month of September of each year, there was always
high consumption than predicted. But in the month of May there was always considerable
saving.
Note: Saving Analysis (Actual 2014 to baseline of other 4 years -2011 to 2009 Estimate) are
included in appendix section.
5.1.5 Yearly Electricity Consumption
Figure 20: Yearly Electricity Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet

29
From the above Figure (19), it can be depicted that in all the years (2009-2014), electricity
consumption in the months of May to September was low; it is due to shoulder seasons. In the
month of January 2009 (18780kWh) consumption was significantly higher than other years
5.2 GAS ANALYSIS
5.2.1 Collect actual Gas usage data
The data collected from the bill was divided by the number of days in each billing period to get
energy/water consumption per day.
Figure 21: Gas Consumption
Reference: Excel Sheet
Note: These were only for the year 2014. Other year’s utilities charts were affixed in appendix
section.
5.2.2 Collect and process weather data to get HDD and CDD
Refer to Electrical Analysis.
5.2.3 Normalized Gas usage
Process for normalization was same as mentioned in electricity.

30
Figure 22: Baseline Normalization for Gas
Source: Excel Sheet
Figure 23: Regression Equation for Gas for 2014
Source: Excel Sheet

31
Figure 24: Baseline Normalization for Gas for 2013
Reference: Excel Sheet
Figure 24 reveals that to get the baseline gas usage for 2014, baseline equation (Y=1.331X +
0.671) of 2013 was used. Where, Y is the baseline kWh/Day and X is the HDD/Day for 2014.
Equation of Figure 23 (2014) will be used to determine baseline usage for the succeeding year.
R2
values in each year are above 0.75, except the years 2011 and 2009; in those two years gas
consumption was quite high.
section.
5.2.4 Gas Savings (Actual compared to Baseline)
Figure 25: Savings for Gas
Source: Excel Sheet

32
Figure 26: 2014 Actual to 2013 Baseline Gas Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet
During analysis, it is noticed that as in the electricity, in the month of September of each year,
there was always high consumption than predicted. But in the winter season there was always
considerable saving.
Note: Saving Analysis (Actual 2014 to baseline for other 4 years -2011 to 2009 Estimate) are
5.2.5 Yearly Gas Consumption
Figure 27: Yearly Gas Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet
From the above graph, it can be depicted that in all the years (2009-2014), gas consumption in
the months of April to September was low; it is due to shoulder seasons. In the month of
January 2011 (2143 m3) and February 2009 (2246 m3), consumption was significantly higher
than other years.

33
5.3 TOTAL ENERGY ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Normalized Total Energy usage
Process for normalization was same as mentioned in electricity.
Figure 28: Baseline Normalization for Total Energy
Source: Excel Sheet
Figure 29: Regression Equation for Total Energy for 2014
Source: Excel Sheet

34
Figure 30: Regression Equation for Total Energy for 2013
Source: Excel Sheet
Figure 30 addresses that to get the baseline energy usage for 2014, baseline equation
(Y=24.37X + 227.2) of 2013 was used. Where, Y is the baseline kWh/Day and X is the
HDD/Day for 2014. Equation of Figure 29 (2014) will be used to determine baseline usage for
the succeeding year.
R2
values in each year are above 0.75, so that the regression lines have a good correlation with
the energy consumption data.
.
section.
5.3.2 Savings (Actual compared to Baseline)
Figure 31: Savings for Total Energy
Source: Excel Sheet

35
Figure 32: 2014 Actual to 2013 Baseline Energy Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet
During analysis, it is noticed that in the month of September of each year, there was always
high consumption of energy than predicted. But in the winter season (May to August) there was
always considerable saving.
5.3.3 Yearly Total Energy Consumption
Figure 33: Energy Consumption (Month wise)
Source: Excel Sheet
As shown in above Figure 33, in the shoulder season (May to August), consumption was very
low (in the average of 8000 kWh). But in the winter months it was growing higher. January 2011
and February 2012 had exceptionally high (above 35,000.00 kWh) consumption.

36
Figure 34: Energy Consumption (Year wise)
Source: Excel Sheet
As demonstrated in Figure 34, Energy consumption in the building is dominated by electricity,
which is almost 2 times more to gas consumption. Gas consumption is in the range of about
60,000 kWh, whereas electricity consumption is in the average of 115,000kWh. Year 2010 is the
least energy consumption (165650 kWh) year and 2011 is the highest consumption year
(185,690 kWh). In 2014, actual consumption was 175, 816 kWh.
5.4 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EUI COMPARISONS WITH BASELINES
Figure 35: Baseline Energy Comparison
Source: Excel Sheet
After normalizing and regression analysis for corresponding preceding years, baseline
(prediction) consumption had been determined (Figure 35) for the corresponding successive
years 2009- 2014.When baselines were compared to actual consumption of the respective
years, following findings were drawn:
 Year 2009 had about 20% higher consumption than predicted based on 2009 estimate.
 Similarly year 2011 had about 7% higher consumption than predicted based on
normalization of 2010 consumption.

37
 However, years 2010, 2013 and 2014 had savings of about 18%, 7% and 5%
respectively. In these cases, actual consumptions were less than predicted.
Total EUI comparison with baseline EUI (Figure 36, below) also demonstrate the same results.
Figure 36: Baseline EUI Comparison
Source: Excel Sheet
5.5 EUI COMPARISON WITH BOMA BEST
Figure 37: BOMA BESt EUI Comparison
Source: BOMA BESt and Excel Sheet
When compared to overall actual EUI for years 2009- 2014 with BOMA BESt assessed average
building EUI of 2009; following results were found:
 In 2009, BOMA BESt assessed average building EUI was quite high (338.94 ekWh/m2)
 Our actual EUI for all the years (in the range of about 170 to 180 ekWh/m2) were almost
50% lower than BOMA BESt.
 The highest saving was in 2010 (60%).
 In 2014, saving was 50%.
 Actual EUI in the building is decreasing yearwise.

38
5.6 EUI COMPARISONS- BASELINE+ BOMA BEST
While all EUIs were compiled, following images were seen in one snapshot.
Figure 38: EUI Comparisons
EUI comparisons for both the Baselines and BOMA BESt had already been described in above
sections. However, if we see the graph (Figure 38), there is a marginal difference in baseline
and actual EUIs, but EUI differences for both (Actual and Baseline) with BOMA BESt is way
high.
5.7 CONDITIONAL ANALYSIS
To caliber the result of above analysis, two other analysis- one excluding the month of
September and one for the period of 08 Jan 2013 to 01 June 2015 (28months) were done.
5.7.1 Excluding Month of September
Figure 39: Savings for Total Energy
Source: Excel Sheet

39
Figure 40 - 41: 2014 Actual to 2013 Baseline and 2013 Actual to 2011 Baseline Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet
From the figure above (Figure 40-41), it is noticed that after excluding month of September of
each year, there was low consumption of energy than predicted. In the winter season and
month of May, savings were high. However, still there were only little more savings in
comparison to previous analysis (including September), which demonstrates by the EUI
comparison chart below (Figure 42).
While comparing to previous analysis (including September), there were about 2% -5% savings
by excluding month of September. Actual EUIs for all the years were less (10 ekWh/m2, in
average) than previous case. In 2014, it had EUI of 155.23 ekWh/m2 in compare to original
(including September) case EUI 169.54 ekWh/m2. From this, it can be concluded that there was
more than monthly average energy consumption in shoulder season in each year.

40
5.7.2 For the period of 08 January 2013 to 01 June 2015(28 months)
Analysis for this period was done according to exact date of utility meter readings; no
manipulation in readings was made to convert it in monthly basis. The period was considered as
a single period, in order to avoid errors in readings.
Figure 43: Regression Equation for Total Energy
Source: Excel Sheet
In regression analysis, R2
value is about 0.98, so that the regression line has an excellent
correlation with the energy consumption data.
Note: Regression Analysis for other years is included in appendix section.
Figure 44: Actual to 2011 Baseline Energy Consumption
Source: Excel Sheet

41
From Figure 44, it can be depicted that there is always saving in each period.
In this period, there were savings in energy both in Baseline (8%) and BOMA BESt-2009 (46%).
However, actual EUI for this period (183.22 ekWh/m2) was little higher than original case
(169.54 ekWh/m2). It can be presumed that during this 28 months period, we included 3 winter
season (where energy is always consumed more), but only 2 summer seasons, so that actual
EUI came high.
5.8 END - USES OF ELECTRICITY
Figure 35: Energy Consumption (End)
Source: TRCA
Electricity end-uses in the building were for:
 Interior Lighting including: hallways, washrooms and offices,
 HVAC Pumps & fans including: exhaust fans and the energy recovery ventilators,
 Space cooling
 Space heating
 Emergency panel including: telephone equipment, BAS computer, pumps, and
composters

42
According to sub-meter readings (for the duration 08 January 2013 to 01 June 2015), 18.55%
electricity was used for Mechanical system, 4.63% for Plug loads, 13,67% for lightings and
major portion(63.15%) used was not defined. However, it is speculated that this was used in
shoulder season to maintain IEQ, cooling, BAS, domestic hot water and humidification
purposes. The breakdowns of end-use (actual) are shown in Figure 33.
6.0 RENEWABLE ENERGY (PV) ANALYSIS
The building intends to generate the equivalent of all its electrical energy use from onsite
renewable energy system. They are from the Solar panels installed on the roof, and the
south façade of truck port. Roof photovoltaic (PV) system was installed recently (in mid of
2014). Before that only on truck port façade was installed. The energy generated from PV was
sent to grid. Building had PV arrays of 44.6kW and average income generated from renewable
energy is estimated as CAD 30,000 per year (as per the information provided by Building
Manager).
Figure 36: PV Energy Generation
Source: TRCA

43
While plotting data for renewable energy generation from the PV panels (from 08 Jan 2013-01
June 2015); from the above figure, it was concluded that PV on roof was installed from
September 2014, so that since then it was generating high energy (23800 kWh for 9 months; in
average 2644 kWh/month). Before this period, only truck port envelope was generating PV
energy, which was very low (4890 kWh for 19 months; in average 257.4kWh monthly). As per
the information of Building Manager, arrays for PV panels available for the building were 44.6
kW. While estimating yearly energy generation with this array in PVWatts online calculator tool,
PV generation (in Vaughan area) from the building was found as 53,124 kWh per year (Figure
37).
Figure 37: Yearly PV Energy Generation
Source: PVWatts Online Calculator
7.0 CO2 ANALYSIS
In order to map GHG (CO2) emissions due to use of natural gas and electricity in the building,
following references were considered to refer CO2 emission factors in Ontario.
 Environment Canada, National Inventory Report - Part 3 for Electricity and
 Natural Resources Canada, Archived- Appendix B- CO2 Emission Factors
According to these, the emission factors in Ontario are found as:

44
Figure 38: CO2 Emissions and Intensity
Source: TRCA, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada
Figure 39: CO2 Emission Chart
Source: TRCA, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada
From the above Figures (38 and 39), it can be concluded that CO2 emissions from electricity is
little higher than gas. Although, gas consumption is quite low in comparison to electricity,
because of high emission factor of gas, it is producing high CO2.In the year 2014, total CO2
emission from the building is 24,600 kg (24.6 Ton) with intensity of 23.72 eCO2/m2. While
comparing emissions from 2009 to 2014, it is continuously diminishing year by year. GHG
emissions in the building can be reduced substantially subjected if renewable energy generated
from the building is used in the building itself without sending it to grid.

45
8.0 WATER ANALYSIS
As mentioned earlier, building has combination of composting toilets and waterless urinals, low-
flow plumbing fixtures throughout the building and low water used landscaping, so that it uses
very less water. Building has two sources of water; potable water sourced from city supply line
are mainly used for drinking, wash basins and shower and non potable (pond) water used for
fire hydrant, vehicle washing, building cleaning, mechanical system and irrigation. Rainwater
harvested from roof of the building and surface drainage is sent to the pond. Pond water is
treated through treatment plant.
Since there was no change in occupancy, normalization was not need for water.
8.1 YEARLY WATER CONSUMPTION
Figure 40: Yearly Water Consumption
Source: TRCA
From the above graph, it can be drawn that water use in the years 2010 and 2011 were very
high (above 200 m3), but in other years it was considerably low (+100m3). In the months of
March (54m3), August(87m3) and September (48m3) of the year 2010 and July 2011 (57m3),
consumption were significantly higher than other months/years. From 2011 to 2014 water
consumption rate is decreasing consistently. In 2014 total consumption was 9.88 m3 with WUI
0.11 m3/m2.

46
8.2 WUI COMPARISON WITH BOMA BEST
Figure 41: BOMA BESt WUI Comparison
When compared to overall actual WUI for years 2009- 2014 with BOMA BESt assessed
average building WUI of 2009; following results were found:
 In 2009, BOMA BESt assessed average building EUI was quite high (1.01m3/m2)
 Our actual WUI for all the years (in the range of about 0.11 m3/m2 to 0.28 m3/m2) were
almost 80% lower than BOMA BESt.
 The highest saving was in 2014 (90%).
 The least saving year was 2010 (73%)
 Saving is constantly increasing throughout the years.
8.3 SYSTEMS CONSUMPTION
Figure 42: Water Consumption (Systems)
Source: TRCA

47
Figure 43: Total Water Consumption
Source: TRCA
While analyzing water used in the building for the period of 08 Jan, 2013 to 01 June, 2015 (875
days), potable and pond water were almost evenly used: Potable water (53%) and Non potable
water (47%).Furthermore,
Potable (City) water used= 324m3 (324,000L); 0.37m3(370L)/Day
Pond water used= 287m3(287,000L); 0.33m3(330L)/Day
Total water used= 611m3(611,000L); 0.70m3(700L)/Day; if 45 occupancies/ day is assumed, 1
occupant use 700/45= about 16 L (0.016m3) of water per day= 5.8m3(580L)/occupant/yr
9.0 OCCUPANCY
The building is being used at approximately the same occupancy (about 45 people) for which it
was originally designed. Therefore there is no significant change in occupancy load.
10.0 OCCUPANT SURVEY RESULT
10.1 OPERATION MANAGER AND BUILDING MANAGER
Following information were gathered from the Building/ Operation Manager during survey
 No dissatisfaction complaints reported by the occupants
 Building is rated as satisfied
 Each area of the building is performing well
 Office area cooling /heating is the most intensive for energy consumption in the building
 In shoulder season, building is hard to perform as standard
 Quality of finished product, design meeting with original intents and service provided by
consultancies/ contractors were in satisfactory level (Scale 1)

48
 Office Schedule: BAS programmed for occupied set points – 7:00am to 6:00pm – Mon-
Sun
 Office electrical equipment are always plugged in- computers are in power
down/standby/ sleep mode
 Facility doesn’t generate any waste:
Office waste is streamed – paper/cardboard, recyclable containers/plastics and landfill
for all non-divertible/non-recyclable waste –pay for pickup service. Project waste (items
brought back to RSC from project sites –Wood/metal/garbage) is collected and sent for
recycling/disposal separately and charged to the generating project budget.
Electronics collected for recycling; hazardous waste (oil/antifreeze, etc) are sent for
proper disposal under generator number along with required Hazardous Waste
Information Network (HWIN) documentation. Oil bottles/filters are sent for waste oil
recovery and recycling.
 Facility has CO2 monitor: not monitored by BAS but linked with ERV operation (low to
high speed) when CO2 exceeds 800ppm. It also has a CO/NOx monitor in garage area.
 Mechanical ventilation run and increase of air flow rate according to occupancy:
HVAC – HRV’s and ERV run during programmed occupied hours – ERV runs at low
unless called to high by CO2 level as noted. HRV-2 runs continuously on low during
unoccupied hrs and high during occupied. HRV1 (garage/2nd flr storage) runs
continuously on low speed – manual selection to high is enabled.
 Model and Capacity of ERV: Model: Venmar ERV500i – rated airflow 620CFM
@0.50”w.g.
 Air quality test was performed during commissioning.
 Besides “due diligence maintenance”, no specific maintenance needed in the moment.
 Available operating manuals for building systems: As-built drawings and mechanical and
electrical system manuals
 Daily occupancy: It is rare and unlikely that the number of staff in the building proper at
any one time exceeds 45 (According to design- 45 staffs).
 Garage uses: For storage of tools and equipment in delivery of various environmental
restoration and construction projects. To perform minor repairs to equipment
(Tractors/implements/etc). To clean and service small equipment to maintain
performance. For larger meeting space for field staff team sessions (1-2hrs). For
temporary vehicle parking when loading/unloading trucks.
10.2 OCCUPANTS
Occupants were asked to fill out an online survey. Twenty four (54%) responses were received;
it was presumed that all the 45 responses (as per total staffs) will be available. Questions used
a 7 point scale, with 1 indicating very satisfied and 7 indicating very dissatisfied.
Results:
Nine occupants (37.5%) were working more than 5 years. 50% occupants spend more than 30
hours/week in workspace in a typical week. Average hours of working by majority (46%) people
at the computer were 5-6 hours. 83% (20) occupants were near to exterior wall and 87% (21)
were near a window (within 5 m). People responded with mean scale 2.38 for supply of fresh
air. Similarly respondents were neutral (mean scale 4.04) for dry or humid air.

49
Amount of Space:
Figure 44: Amount of Space
Source: Occupant Survey
For satisfaction with amount of space available for individual work, highest responses (25%)
were for scale 5 and for the issue; total mean scale was 3.79; almost neutral.
Office Layout:
Figure 45: Office Layout
The responses for office layout were mixed.30% (maximum) of respondents scaled 6 and mean
value came to 4, neutral.

50
Cleanliness:
Figure 46: Cleanliness
There were three questions asked to the occupants for cleanliness and maintenance of building.
In general cleanliness of the overall building, they perceived with mean scale of 2.33; satisfied.
Majority of the responses (54%) were for satisfactory level, which is scale 2. Almost similar
response (mean scale 2.54) was there for their specific workspace cleanliness. Building
cleanliness whether enhances or interferes with your ability to get your job done? Two third of
occupants responded as neutral, creating mean scale of 3.42, also neutral.
Note: Survey response of occupants regarding Thermal Comfort, Ventilation, Visual Comfort and
Acoustic Performance were included in respective section of Indoor Environmental Quality (EIQ)
Section 12.
11.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULT
There were some weathering and aging issues basically regarding timber structure and
envelope, which were affecting the building performances in different parameters. Formation of
cracks in timber beams and columns were leading the building for refurbishment in near future.
Cracks in caulking in window sills, loose exterior wood panel siding, blocked window weep holes
and faded paints were the repairs/refurbished to be needed in finishing part. There were no
alarming issues in barrier free access, each requirements of code (NBC) was fulfilled. But, in the
building elevator was not available, due to which mezzanine floor was inaccessible to disabled.
Nevertheless, all the facilities in the building were available in the ground floor.
Acoustical performance was somewhat below the standard due to big open plan work stations,
gaps developed in the junction of ceiling and wall and sound generation from the joint of the
beams. The building had robust mechanical system controlled by Building Automation System
and there was no any problem with the system. However, building had no sprinkler system and
thus, the fire fighting mechanism was fully dependent with fire department and portable
extinguishers. Envelopes and structure of the building were also in sound states and had no any
predicament. In the building, most used electrical lightings were CFL and HPS, which were

51
consuming high energy and therefore was suggested to replace with LED lightings. Moreover,
there were insufficient receptacles in the building, which to be added.
Sustainability issues too were addressed perfectly in the building. Carbon monoxide and
Nitrogen were controlled with the assistance of automatic sensors. Building was consuming
considerably low energy and water. Low emitting finishes and furniture, indoor planting and use
of recycled materials were some of the examples of sustainable aspects of the building and on
the basis of which, the building could achieve LEED® Canada-NC 1.0 Platinum rating.
Finally, in our findings, except some minor repairs, building was not in immediate need of major
repair or refurbishments. For building condition assessment section, a separate report by
addressing all the repairs and refurbishments with priority was submitted in group.
12.0 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ)
IEQ is related with human comfort, productivity and health. It basically deals with thermal
comfort, ventilation, visual comfort, acoustic quality and indoor air quality.
12.1 THERMAL COMFORT
A person wearing a normal amount of clothing feels neither too cold nor too warm, considers as
thermal comfort. Thermal comfort is an important parameter for productivity. It can be achieved
only when the air temperature, humidity and air movement are within the specified range often
referred to as the "comfort zone". Maintaining constant thermal conditions in the offices is
imperative.
Standards on office temperatures
The CSA Standard CAN/CSA Z412-00 (R2011) - "Office Ergonomics" gives acceptable ranges
of temperature and relative humidity for offices in Canada. These values are the same as
recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 55 - 2010 "Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy". The recommended temperature ranges have been found to meet the needs of at
least 80% of individuals. Some people may feel uncomfortable even if these values are met.
Additional measures may be required.
Source: Adapted from ASHRAE 55-2010.
(http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/thermal_comfort.html)

52
Temperature range in a typical occupancy
For our study, we determined the mean values for temperature and relative humidity (RH) each
day (for the readings between 6:00 AM to 7:00PM in 10 minutes interval), for 22 days (June 03
2015 to June 22, 2015). We tried to mapped RH and Temperature readings in 2 ways, one
considering buildings target as Temperature 230
C-260
C, RH 30%-60% for summer (as informed
by building manger) and another by plotting in ASHRAE 55 comfort zone in Psychrometric
chart. Other references were: Met 1.1 –Typing; and Clothing value 0.5.
According to analysis (shown below), in both the spaces (Dave’s Office and Mezzanine Floor),
over 90% of time, RH was complied (in between 30%- 60% ranges). In regard to Indoor
Temperature; in Dave’s Office, over 94% of time and in Mezzanine Floor, over 77% of time,
targeted temperature was complied (230
C to 260
C). From this, it can be concluded that
temperature and relative humidity are satisfied for more than 80% spaces based on targeted
standards.
Temperature and RH Analysis:
Temperature RH

53
Figure 47: Temperature and RH
Source: TRCA
Thermal comfort in a typical occupancy
ASHRAE 55 requires that 80% of occupants are thermally comfortable and sets out typical
comfort within which this is most likely to occur. The comfort zones described by ASHRAE 55
are demonstrated as the green (summer) and blue (winter) quadrilaterals in Figure 48 below.
Figure 48: ASHRAE 55 Thermal Comfort Zones
Source: Brown,C.; Turcato, M. & Gorgolewski, M., 2015

54
When the mean temperatures and RH readings mapped to this chart, all the RH and mean
temperatures of Dave’s Office lied within ASHRAE compliance zone; however, 5 mean
temperatures (dated June 6, 7, 13, 14, 20) of mezzanine floor (22%) were out of the acceptable
range for summer, being too cool. As shown in figure above, 5 temperature dots (black) are
mezzanine temperatures beyond the summer comfort zone. However, overall ASHRAE 55
compliance was about 90%.
Occupant Survey Results for temperature and thermal comfort:
Temperature
Figure 49: Temperature
For winter, majority of responses (25% each) was for scale 3 and 4. For fall and spring, highest
response with 25% was for scale 3. For summer season, 33.33% occupants were satisfied with
space temperature, with scale 2. In overall, occupant’s had mix responses; mean score for all
seasons was 3.22 (in between somewhat satisfied to neutral range). The mean value for
stability of temperature for past 12 months was 3.21; somewhat satisfied.

55
Overall Comfort
Figure 50: Thermal Comfort
In this case too, occupants had mix responses; mean score was 3.58 that are in between
somewhat satisfied to neutral range. Maximum percentage (41.67%) of responses was in the
favor of scale 4.
Conclusion: Overall, thermal comfort conditions are satisfactory, with possibly a tendency for
overcooling to some degree in mezzanine floor. Temperature and humidity measurements
support this, with over 80% of spaces in the compliant range as required by ASHRAE 55.
12.2 INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Air quality test was performed during commissioning. Facility has CO2 monitor: not monitored
by BAS but linked with ERV operation (low to high speed) when CO2 exceeds 800ppm,
controlled with the assistance of automatic sensors. It also has a CO2/NOx monitor in garage
area. Low emitting finishes and “low-off-gassing” furniture, indoor planting etc. also controls
CO2 in the building. This building does not have any major sources of particulates (cigarette
smoke, cooking, malfunctioning or unvented combustion appliances).The building has a high
thermal quality standard and therefore is at low risk of any significant mould problems too.
Minimum Air flow needed in the building
For maintaining proper indoor environment, according to ASHRAE 62.1 “Ventilation for
acceptable indoor quality”, Supply air and Total Air flow required in the building are
Area of Building= 1037m2 , Height of Building= 6.25m (average)
Number of People= 60 (maximum)
Volume of building= 1037m2 X 6.25m = 6481.25 m3
Office comfort standards, ASHRAE Standard 62.1:
People outdoor air rate= 2.5 l/s/person
Area outdoor air rate= 0.3 l/s/m2
Minimum outdoor air flow rate required (Vbz= Rp Pz + Ra Az) =
2.5 l/s/person x 60 people +0.3 l/s/m2 x 1037m2 = 461.10 l/s = 0.46m3/s=977 cfm
Total air flow rate required for the space (Air Change/Hour (ACH) x Volume) =
0.35 ACH x 6481.25 m3 = 2268.43m3/3600s = 0.63 m3/s= 1335 cfm, continuous. TRCA has

56
ERV of rated airflow 620CFM @0.50”w.g. (Source: Building Manager) and HRV (Venmar 600i-
Airflow upto750 cfm, http://www.venmarces.com/products/light-commercial-erv-hrv/hrv-up-to-2-
800-cfm), which therefore can satisfies the air flow requirement of the building.
Occupant Survey Result
Figure 51: Air Quality
About the satisfaction of air quality, highest response (29%) was for satisfied (scale2) and the
mean value achieved was scale 2.5, which is in between satisfied to somewhat satisfied.
Subjective impressions of indoor air quality have been shown in other studies to be highly
correlated with their ratings of temperature and ventilation (e.g., Newsham et al., 2012). Thus, if
we merge participants’ ratings of air quality and temperature quality into one factor in the
occupant survey results, we get survey scores for this factor as 3.22+2.5/2= 2.86, indicating in
between satisfied to somewhat satisfied state.
Conclusion: In summary, levels of CO2 were maintaining within an acceptable range and
indicate good air quality in the building. This suggests that the ventilation system functioning on
the building is able to maintain a satisfactory indoor environment.
12.3 LIGHTING QUALITY (VISUAL COMFORT)
Windows at North provide abundant natural light, substantially lowering reliance on artificial
lighting in the building.

57
Figure 52: Visual Comfort
Lighting satisfaction scores determined from the surveys show that lighting is the environmental
variable with which employees expressed the greatest satisfaction. Responses were only for
very satisfied (83%) and satisfied (17%), having overall mean scale as 1.17. Respondents were
very satisfied with the amount of light in their workstations and mean value achieved for that
was 1.08.
Conclusion: The occupants were experiencing a high quality visual comfort in the building;
therefore there is no issue in lighting part.
12.4 ACOUSTIC QUALITY
Acoustic of the building is related with functionality of building. To measure satisfaction level of
acoustic quality of building, number of questions regarding adjacent noise and outside noise
were asked to occupants.
Figure 53: Acoustic Performance

58
In the response of how satisfied are you with the noise level of your workplace? Occupants had
very low satisfactory level. Majority of responses were for 5 (25%0, 6 (20%) and 7 (20%) scales,
indicating overall mean score of 4.88 scale, somewhat dissatisfied. Their mean responses on
sound privacy were 5.67, dissatisfied. Similarly, they perceived acoustic quality of building
interfere to their quality of work done (mean score 5.13, dissatisfied). However, they were not
distracted from outdoor sound and 58.33% responses were for scale1, no significant distraction
with mean value of 2.42.
Conclusion: Acoustics appears to pose some problems for occupants in this building. In
particular, speech privacy is a concern for occupants due to big open plan workstations.
Productivity of occupants was somewhat diminished by acoustic performance. However, there
was no concern of penetration of outdoor noise. Research reveals that acoustical problems on
green building performance are common one (Newsham, 2012).
13.0 AUDIT OF WASTE
According to survey response of Building Manager, Facility doesn’t generate any waste: Office
waste is streamed – paper/cardboard, recyclable containers/plastics and landfill for all non-
divertible/non-recyclable waste –pay for pickup service. Project waste (items brought back to
Regional Service Commission from project sites –Wood/metal/garbage) is collected and sent for
recycling/disposal separately and charged to the generating project budget.
Electronics collected for recycling; hazardous waste (oil/antifreeze, etc) are sent for proper
disposal under generator number along with required Hazardous Waste Information Network
(HWIN) documentation. Oil bottles/filters are sent for waste oil recovery and recycling.
It is also understood that construction waste also managed (recycled) properly. From this, it can
be concluded that project waste is managed properly; waste is disposed or recycled through
appropriate channels and documentations, hence CO2 and particulates generation for GHG
emissions from waste is very negligible.
14.0 SITE
The design team of the project had gone to great lengths to minimize its impact on the
surrounding site. All the roof areas have been covered by a high-reflectivity, white membrane,
an important strategy in combating urban heat island effect. Rainwater is harvested from the
roof and surface drainage and is sent directly to the nearby pond, so no cistern is required for
rainwater storage. The landscaping is designed in the way that half of the surface water flows
from east side and other half from west side and runoff to pond. Landscaping of the site is
designed to consume very less water.
15.0 MATERIALS
The building used a large quantity of recycled materials including reclaimed brick, recycled
crushed concrete and materials with a high recycled content. This reduced the impact of the
construction materials, by replacing new materials. Construction waste was also effectively
minimized being recycled.

59
16.0 LESSONS
16.1 FROM ENERGY ANALYSIS
The primary lesson that was learned from this analysis is that it is possible to design a LEED
Certified small office building to achieve significantly lower than typical energy use building at
low additional cost. The incremental cost to construct this environmental friendly building was
just 9.3 per cent more than a non-environmental building (Enermodal). This building therefore
can be expected to set a useful model for small office building design in the future days.
Furthermore, by excluding shoulder season if energy analysis is done, EUI comes lower than
full year’s EUI. Finally, it may not be rational to energy analyze for more than a year period,
because it may not cover all the seasons evenly.
16.2 FROM WATER ANALYSIS
Because of saving 90% water use in comparison to BOMA BESt assessed office buildings; this
building can set a valuable example for small office building design in the future days. Use of
combination of composting toilets and waterless urinals, low-flow plumbing fixtures and low
water used landscaping uses very less water. Building has used two sources of water; potable
water sourced from city supply line and non potable water sourced from pond. Rainwater
harvested from roof of the building and surface drainage is sent to the pond, all these will be the
lessons for designing water economic office buildings.
16.3 FROM WASTE ANALYSIS
Proper waste management seems primary concern of building to address GHG emissions (CO2
and other particulars) and occupants’ health. Facility waste is streamed through pickup service.
Project waste (wood/metal) is sent to RSC for recycling/disposal. Electronics, hazardous waste
is sent to disposal with HWIN documentation.
16.4 FROM IEQ
IEQ in this type of LEED certified small office building was not a problem, because to maintain
all the features (thermal comfort, ventilation, visual comfort etc.) within the required standards;
natural ventilation, robust mechanical system, shading, sufficient windows for daylighting,
automatic sensors etc. were duly considered. However, acoustic performance in this type of
open plan designed green office building was a challenge, which was witnessed in this building
too, where occupants’ were not satisfied with building’s acoustic performance. In addition,
overall tendency of cooling was also found little high in mezzanine floor.
16.5 FROM OCCUPANCY
Occupancy loads are consistent (45 staffs) with relatively stable work forces. Therefore in
regards to judging the building performance on a per occupant basis, this type of small office
building is more likely the simplest type of building for which to calculate per occupant values.

60
16.6 FROM SITE
The building has successfully incorporated a variety of strategies to reduce the impact on the
surrounding site including dealing with efficient storm water runoff and using low water use
landscaping.
16.7 FROM MATERIALS
There is no such reference value for materials with which to compare, but it is presumed that
there should have given due importance to use sustainable materials in order to LEED platinum
certified.
17.0 CONCLUSIONS
This project demonstrates considerable success in achieving a high quality LEED office building
which sets elevated standards for environmental performance, at a reasonable low cost. It
would be an informative example for others looking for similar performance targets. The
success behind this was an integrated design that included careful consideration of the
selection of an appropriate site, the building’s narrow footprint and orientation, a well-insulated
envelope with north/south facing windows and reflective roof, robust HVAC systems, low water
consuming sanitary fixtures, and rainwater harvesting.
High performance envelope and windows, GSHP, robust HVAC system, zoned ventilation,
exterior shades in the south, low consumption sanitary fixtures etc. all had contributed to this
building achieving a very impressive EUI of 170 kWh/m2/year, with GHG emissions of 23 kg
eCO2/m2/year. Similarly, WUI was limited to 0.11 m3/m2/year, way low.
The design strategies aimed to deliver high standards of indoor environmental quality have
generally been considered successful. The narrow footprint allowed daylight into the building
without making problems of glare and lowered the use of electric lights. Acoustic was not
performing to the standard in the building, because of open plan office design. However,
according to Newsham, 2013, green offices have this as a common problem. But it is highly
recommended to retrofit the building in acoustic aspect.
The process of collecting and analyzing the data involved in this project was facilitated by
building manager, Enermodal’s previous POE report plus the availability of comprehensive
submetered data. A participation rate of about 53% for the occupant survey was valuable
contribution from occupants in order to study this project.
Lesson learned from the project:
1. Energy
 It is possible to design a LEED Certified small office building to achieve significantly
lower than typical energy use building at low additional cost.
 By excluding shoulder season if energy analysis is done, EUI comes lower than full
year’s EUI (to compare the result of full year energy analysis, a separate analysis was
made by excluding month of September where consumption was always very high and
found almost 10% lower EUI than Full year’s EUI)

61
 It may not be rational to energy analyze for more than a year by assuming it a single
period, because it may not cover all the seasons evenly ( a separate analysis was done
for a single period of 20 months- Jan 2013 to May 2015, EUI in that case was about 7%
higher than a single year’s EUI)
2. Water
 Use of combination of composting toilets and waterless urinals and low-flow plumbing
fixtures use very less water. Rain water harvesting was very effective.
3. Waste
 Waste is disposed or recycled with proper channel and documentation, hence
generation of CO2 and particulars for GHG emissions from waste is very negligible.
4. IEQ
 Acoustic issue was the problem with building.
 Some overcooling in mezzanine floor has been noticed while analyzing temperature
data. Addressing these would improve occupant comfort, and further lower energy use.
 High degree of satisfaction was with daylighting.
 Overall IEQ was in satisfaction of occupants.
5. Site
 Dealing with efficient storm water runoff and using low water use landscaping was
reducing the impact on surrounding site.
 Roof areas covered by a high-reflective was an important strategy in combating urban
heat island effect
6. Occupancy
 The building was a consistent occupancy building, so that it became simple to calculate
per occupant values.
18.0 LIST OF DEFINATIONS
Actual: Actual building energy use, obtained from building utility bills and building energy
meters.
Baseline: It represents how much energy we would have used this month, based upon Base
Year energy usage patterns, and current month conditions (i.e. weather and number of days in
the bill).
Base Year is a time period, from which bills were used to determine the building’s energy usage
patterns with respect to weather data.
BPE - Building Performance Evaluation is a type of building assessment that focuses on
evaluating the performance of a building after it is occupied. This evaluation includes

Ujwal_Dhakal_Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Ujwal_Dhakal_Project

Similar to Ujwal_Dhakal_Project (20)

Ujwal_Dhakal_Project