Ecole des Mines de Nantes KTH La Chantrerie …433382/FULLTEXT01.pdf · SEE Master Thesis report Sustainable building design with Autodesk Ecotect Abstract In 2002, an environmental

Ecole des Mines de Nantes

La Chantrerie

4, rue Alfred Kastler

B.P. 20722 - F-44307 NANTES Cedex 3

KTH

Valhallavägen 79, Stockholm

Kungl Tekniska Högskolan, SE-100 44

STOCKHOLM

Master Thesis Report

Sustainable Building Design

with Autodesk Ecotect

Le Sommer Environment

5 bis rue des Haudriettes

75003 PARIS

Date: 11/12/10 Raphaël BARRY

SEE Master Thesis report

Sustainable building design with Autodesk Ecotect

Summary

Abstract.............................................................................................................................4

Introduction.......................................................................................................................5

Context....................................................................................................................................5

Climate change....................................................................................................................................5

The HQE Scheme...............................................................................................................................5

Le SOMMER Environment.............................................................................................7

The company........................................................................................................................................7

Internship Objectives...........................................................................................................................7

Typical day.............................................................................................................................................7

Case Study......................................................................................................................8

Description.............................................................................................................................8

Visualization Conventions..............................................................................................10

Relationship between the building and its environment..............................11

Climatic interactions.........................................................................................................11

Heliodon..................................................................................................................................................11

Solar potential.....................................................................................................................................15

Impact of nearby buildings............................................................................................................18

Solar protection..................................................................................................................................21

Visual conditions................................................................................................................................24

Energy Management................................................................................................26

Dynamic Thermal Simulation......................................................................................26

Thermal Response...........................................................................................................................26

Hygrothermal comfort...............................................................................................31

Summer overheating .....................................................................................................31

Direct Beam Radiation....................................................................................................................31

Raphaël BARRY Page 2/40



Visual comfort..............................................................................................................34

Natural light .......................................................................................................................34

Daylight access.................................................................................................................................34

Daylight factor....................................................................................................................................36

Discussion and Conclusions.................................................................................39

Capabilities..........................................................................................................................39

Limitations............................................................................................................................40

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................40




Abstract

In 2002, an environmental assessment scheme was released in France in order to

measure and improve the environmental performances of new and existing buildings: the

High Environmental Quality Scheme (HQE).

Similar to the LEED or BREEAM assessment methods, the HQE Scheme focuses on 14

different environmental themes, such as energy consumption, daylight availability, acoustic

comfort, etc. with objectives such as limitation in energy consumption, minimum daylight

levels, adequate reverberation time, etc.

Due to the complexity of the many scientific phenomena involved, advanced calculation

procedures are required to measure most environmental performances. For instance, the

study of heat transfer through building fabric to determine internal temperature variations

and heating/cooling loads or the computation of daylight levels in a room when a building

is overshadowed by surrounding obstructions is a complicated task that necessitates the

use of computer simulation.

However, if various analysis software are today available, they rarely often the possibility

to study all these effects at once. As a consequence, the most time consuming process

of drawing the geometry of the building and making the right assignments, often needs to

be repeated. This not only leads to a waste of time. It also favors local optimization by

considering sequentially each environmental quantity in spite of strong interactions

between them.

Thus, it was highly desirable to develop a user-friendly and comprehensive software that

could optimize a building's environmental performances at once.

Within the frame of a six months internship at Le SOMMER Environment - a small

Parisian consultancy specialized in building environmental certification - a presentation of

the possibilities offered by one such software: Autodesk Ecotect is given through a simple

housing project case study.




Introduction

Context

Climate change

In order to tackle the worldwide issue of climate change, the European Union committed

to reduce greenhouse gases emissions through the signature of the Kyoto protocol and

the adoption in December 2008 of a “climate energy package» aiming at setting a

common energy policy and fight climate change. It should enable to reach by the year

2020 the goal of the « three 20’s » : a reduction by 20% of greenhouse gases emissions,

an improvement of 20% in energy efficiency and a share of 20% renewable energy

sources in the European energy consumption.

For France, the objectives are in agreement with the Kyoto protocol and the climate

energy package aims at dividing by a factor of 4 its greenhouse gases by the end of

2050.

The HQE Scheme

In line with the principles of sustainable development, the French building sector agreed

upon a High Environmental Quality Scheme (HQE).

Born in 1996, the HQE Association entrusted in 2002 to the « Centre Scientifique et

Technique du Bâtiment »1 the mission of establishing a reference guide for the HQE

Scheme certification of tertiary buildings. According to this guide, environmental

performances are assessed via fourteen different environmental themes, grouped in four

families presented page 6.

For each theme is assigned a level of performance among three possibilities:

Base

Performing

Very Performing.

1 The French Building Scientific Centre




The 14 environmental themes of the HQE Scheme:

Site and Construction

Theme n°1: Relationship between the building and its environment

Theme n°2: Materials environmental impacts

Theme n°3: Construction site management

Eco managmement

Theme n°4: Energy management

Theme n°5: Water management

Theme n°6: Wastes management

Theme n°7: Maintenance of environmental performances

Comfort

Theme n°8: Hygrothermal comfort

Theme n°9: Acoustic comfort

Theme n°10: Visual comfort

Theme n°11 : Odour comfort

Health

Theme n°12: Spaces health watch

Theme n°13: Air quality

Theme n°14: Water quality




Le SOMMER Environment

The company

Founded in 2002 by Michel Le SOMMER, Le SOMMER Environment is a small Parisian

consultancy whose main activity deals with building environmental certification (HQE

Scheme, BREEAM and LEED).

Since its creation the turnover steadily increases by more than 50% each year (700 000

euros in 2008). The company has 9 employees comprising 8 engineers and a secretary.

Internship Objectives

The objective that I was assigned consisted in assessing the software Autodesk Ecotect

on a simple case study while focusing on a certain number of environmental themes of

the HQE Scheme.

Four themes among the 14 presented page 6 were studied:

Theme n°1: Relationship between the building and its environment

Theme n°4: Energy Management

Theme n°8: Hygrothermal comfort

Theme n°10: Visual comfort

Typical day

During my internship, my work mainly consisted in learning how to use properly the

software. Apart from the case study presented in the report, many other simple

examples were thus designed and tested during the first four months to understand

clearly the functionning of Autodesk Ecotect.

The typical work hours were from 9am to 6pm with a 1 hour lunch break, from Monday

till Friday. I was most of the time working in an open space on a desktop computer in

coordination with a team of engineers, except when I had the opportunity to visit

construction sites.




Case Study

Description

The following case study serves as an example for the illustration of the environmental

objectives addressed by the High Environmental Scheme (llustration 1) and was

specifically developed to test the possibilities of Autodesk Ecotect (Illustration 2).

The project itself is a three people family housing oriented south, composed of a

bedroom, living, kitchen, bathroom, toilets, storage room and a balcony, located in Paris

(48.7°N,2.4°E).

llustration 1: Top View of the project


Balcony

LivingKitchen

Corridor

BedoomWCBathroom

Storage

Master Thesis report


Illustration 2: 3D Modeling of the project (Autodesk Ecotect)



Visualization Conventions

In the remainder of this text, the apartment studied is located on the 3rd floor of a fictitious

building (it is colored in blue in Illustration 5 and 6).

For simplicity, it is assumed that the 1st, 2nd and 4th floor apartments are exactly the

same, ie they have exactly the same shape and dimensions (as can be seen in

Illustration 3 and 5).

Illustration 3: Apartments arrangement

For better visualisation purposes, the 3rd floor apartement is sometimes visually isolated

from the other apartments so that it might appear as not having a balcony over itself (as

in the upper picture in Illustration 4 below) though in reality it is always overshadowed by

4 th floor apartment balcony.

Illustration 4: Though not alwoays drawn (as in the upper picture), the balcony of the 4th floor apartement is always active and taken into consideration in any calculation.




Relationship between the building and its environment

Climatic interactions

Heliodon

By inserting the project within a building (Illustration 5), and inserting that building in an

urban environment (Illustration 6), exterior climatic conditions relatively to the Sun can be

studied via the help of a heliodon.

A heliodon is a set of pictures taken at certain key dates of the year enabling one to

measure the overshadowing mpacts of nearby buildings. It thus enables one to assess

qualitatively the solar potential of the site.


Illustration 6: 3D Modeling of the urban environment (Autodesk Ecotect)

Illustration 5: 3D Modeling of the building within which the project fits in (Autodesk Ecotect)



Illustration 7: Heliodon on summer solstice (21 june) for 10h00, 14h00 and 17h00 legal time.



Illustration 8: Same as Illustration 7.



Results Interpretation:

On summer solstice, the heliodon reveals that the building inside which is integrated the

project is impacted by nearby buildings at 10h00. However, it is not impacted nor at

14h00 neither at 17h00.

At 10h00, the ground floor to 3rd floor housings are totally overshadowed by nearby

buildings. Only the 4th floor housing benefits from direct beam solar radiation, in spite of

the overshadowing of a small part of the balcony.

At 14h00 and 17h00, housings from ground floor to 3rd floor appear shaded, but that is

due to overshadowing by the building itself due to the balconies. The nearby buildings

play no role in this effect.

Reciprocally, the nearby buildings are impacted by the project and the building inside

which it integrates at 10h00 and 17h00. The impact is however negligible as only a part

of the ground floor of these is affected.




Solar potential

Whereas a heliodon is a precious tool to determine the impacts of shadows of nearby

buildings or obstructions on the project, it does not yield a quantitative result about the

site solar potential.

That is why, in addition to the visualisation of shadows, it is possible with Autodesk

Ecotect to quantify sunlight hours and exposure of the project surfaces and those of

nearby obstructions

By mapping the results directly on the digital model (Illustration 9 and 10), the site solar

potential can be clearly seen.


Illustration 9: Site solar potential: percentage solar exposure on summer solstice cumulated from 10h00 to 20h00 legal time.



Illustration 10: Same as Illustration 9. Project close - up.




The results reveal non uniform solare exposure for the different façades.

The western façade is much more exposed than the eastern façade. It is thus beneficial

to place the living and the bedroom along the western side and keep the kitchen and

sevice rooms on the eastern side.

It can also be noticed that the southern façade is well protected from direct beam solar

radiation, at least on summer solstice, but that the balcony still receives direct solar

radiation and is thus not completely overshadowed to offer a pleasant place to enjoy in

summer.




Impact of nearby buildings

Urban environment can have a detrimental effect on the development of a project.

Nearby buildings may overshadow surfaces, prevents windows from receiving sunlight,

diminishing solar loads in winter when needed.

Autodesk Ecotect is able to measure the overshadowing effect by calculating the solar

exposure with and without nearby buildings. The difference between the two, expressed

as a percentage reveals the overshadowing effect (Illustration 11 and 12).


Illustration 11: Impacts due to nearby buildings on summer solstice cumulated from 10h00 to 20h00 legal

time.



Illustration 12: Same as Illustration 11. Project close - up




The overshadowing caused by nearby buildings from 10h00 to 20h00 on summer

solstice is different for each façade of the project.

For the eastern façade, the kitchen and the bathroom are impacted relatively similarly

with a 11% to 22% cut in cumulated solar exposure which represents a loss of 1 to 2

hours of sunlight.

For the western façade, the corridor and the bedroom are impacted with a cut between

8% and 17% in cumulated solar exposure which represents a loss of 1 to 2 hours of

sulight

For the northern façade, a cut between 14% and 29% in cumulated solar exposure can

be noticed which represents a loss of 1 to 2 hours of sunlight.

Lastly, for the southern façade, solare exposure is lowered for the kitchen due to nearby

buildings. The decrease in solar exposure is comprised between 14% and 25%, which

represents a loss of 1 to 2 hours of sunlight.

It can be noted that the overshadowing effect due to nearby buildings is beneficial in

summer since it lowers direct beam solar radiation and mitigates overheating.




Solar protection

The problem of overheating due to direct beam solar radiation through windows can be

avoided by means of either fixed or moveable solar shading devices.

In the case of fixed solar shadings, Autodesk Ecotect offers different analysis tools to

determine the optimal shape to intercept direct beam solar radiation over the requested

period of the year.

The profile shown in Illustration 13 et 14 was obtained by means of ray-tracing

techniques.


Illustration 13: Solar shading profile of the southern façade.



Illustration 14: Ray tracing techniques for the determination of the optimal solar shading profile.




Colours reflects the importance of direct beam solar radiation on summer solstice.

The yellow dots represent the spots exposed the longest time during the day while the

blue dots represent spots that are less exposed.




Visual conditions

The location of windows being defined, Autodesk Ecotect offers the possibility to map the

spots of the site that can be seen through them (Illustration 15).

The result, expressed as the total visible window area illustrates the spots on which

landscaping is important. Indeed, these spots are those that have the greatest chance to

be seen when the users will look through the windows.


Illustration 15: Mapping of the visible spots from the windows of the project




The main spots seen from the housing project are represented by means of a volumetric

mapping. Spots in blue colour are less seen than those in red colour.

The main spots of the site to be landscaped are the southern and western part of the

building (this was to be expected as the main openings of the projected are on the

southern façade with the kitchen and the living and on the western façade with the living

and the bedroom).




Energy Management

Dynamic Thermal Simulation

Thermal Response

In order to analyse the thermal response of the project, a dynamic thermal simulation is

performed by means of the Energy Plus software simulation platform. Indeed, Autodesk

Ecotect can export the geometry of a project and other information into an .idf file that

can be read by Energy Plus1.

The idf file can be further refined in the EnergyPlus Editor if necessary and is finally run

by the EnergyPlus Engine to produce information about the variations of temperature,

heat load, etc within the different rooms of the projects.

The results can then be more easily visualized through Sketchup via the Open Studio

plugin which offers the possibility to load an .idf file and visualize by different colours the

zones temperature variations along the year and other such output variables ()

To run a simulation, several input parameters have to be defined. These refer primarily to

the:

Site and location:

This information determine solar position calculation, and hence incidence angles, but also

outdoor temperatures, solar radiation, wind speed (used for the external convection

coefficient calculation), and other important environmental conditions.

The reference weather data file is taken from the Energy Plus weather file ParisOrly.epw

available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data.cfm.

The weather values (outdoor dry bulb, beam and diffuse solar radiation, etc) are

considered to reflect that of a typical meteorological year. The outdoor drybulb

temperature recordings are obtained in such conditions that the effect of Sunlight is

substracted (temperature sensors are placed in a vented shelter at the meteorological

1 Ecotect can also export .gbm files that can be read by the software IES Virtual Environment. However,

Energy Plus was prefered to IES for the reason that it is a free software.




station site). In addition, the given temperature curves exhibit the daily average

temperature, not the hourly average, which is why the values appearing in the simulation

results graph may seem lower than expected.

The site location is 48.73° North and 2.40° East. This location refers to a suburb of Paris

where the outdoor temperatures are usually lower than that which would be observed in

the city centre of Paris.

Nearby overshadowing objects

Nearby buildings primarily affect solar loads on the various façades of a project and

hence contribute to the thermal response of a project.

In the simulation which is run, the effect of nearby buildings is studied. Hence two different

temperature curves family are derived, the first one corresponding to a reference case

without nearby buildings and the second one including them. Solar absorptivity of nearby

buildings is assumed to be 40%.

Constructing Materials

Constructing materials determine the thermal response of a project. Their thermophysical

properties indicate their ability to conduct heat and store it. Materials with a low

conductivity such as wood will poorly transfer heat while material with a low volumetric

heat capacity will get warm more quickly than those having a high volumetric heat

capacity and hence will not serve as good thermal storage materials.

Constructing materials also influence thermal comfort. Their inner surface temperature, in

conjunction with the indoor air temperature, determine the mean radiant temperature. For

a same sensation of 20°C, a decrease in the indoor air temperature can be

conterbalanced by an increase of the walls inner surface temperature.

In the following simulation, external walls are assumed to be made of brick (20cm width)

with external insulation (10cm width) and siding (2cm) of following thermophysical

properties:

Brick: Thermal conductivity of 0,72 W/(m.K), Specific heat of 835 J/(kg.K), Density 1920

kg/m³. Emissivity of 0,93 (assumed equal to thermal absorptivity), Solar absorptivity of

0,6.




Insulation: Thermal conductivity of 0,042 W/(m.K), Specific heat of 1670 J/(kg.K), Density

120 kg/m³.

Siding: Same thermophysical properties as that of brick.

Windows are assumed to be made of 4-16-4 air filled double pane glazing of following

properties: g value of 58% and U value of 1,4 W/(mK). Internal walls are assumed to be

made of brick only (10cm width).

Building activity (occupants, etc).

Occupants, lighting and electric equipments release heat to the zone to which they

belong. For instance, light energy is partly absorbed and partly reflected by surrounding

surfaces which has the effect of increasing their surface temperature.

No internal gain is taken into account in the simulation. In addition, heat gains/losses due

to infiltration of outdoor air is set to zero, ie the apartment is perfectly air tight.

Solar shading devices

As with nearby buildings, solar shading devices influence solar loads on the façades of

the projet. They are usally used in front of windows to prevent solar overheating in

summer.

In the simulation which is run, the effect of solar shading devices is studied. Hence two

different temperature curves family are derived, the first one corresponding to a reference

case without shading devices and the second one including shading devices. Solar

absorptivity of the shading devices is assumed to be 40%.

The following results of the simulation present the temperature variations in three different

rooms (bedroom, living and kitchen) for a full year.




Illustration 16: Thermal Response – Shading devices off and nearby buildings on

01/01 02/01

03/01 04/01

05/01 06/01

07/01 08/01

09/01 10/01

11/01 12/01

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Temperature Variations

Effect of Nearby Buildings

Outdoor Drybulb Bedroom w. Buildings Kitchen w. Buildings Living w. BuildingsBedroom Unshaded Kitchen Unshaded Living Unshaded

Time

Tem

per

atu

re (in °

C)




Nearby buildings slightly influence the thermal response of the building.

The peak temperature observed in the unshaded situation (solar shading devices off,

nearby buildings off) occurs on the 24th of August in the living (42,2°C) for an outdoor

temperature of 20°C.

The temperature observed the same day in the same zone but with nearby buildings on

is reduced to 39,5°C, which represents a 2,7°C decrease.

The temperature difference between the unshaded situation and the situation where

nearby buildings are present is more pronounced in summer than in winter. For the living,

on the 24th of August, it is 2,7°C, while on the 15th of November, it is only 0,5°C.

The average temperature difference for the bedroom, kitchen and living are all equal to

about 1,5°C.




Hygrothermal comfort

Summer overheating

Direct Beam Radiation

The temperatures observed within the three different zones analysed show that very high

temperatures are achieved in summer, even though the outdoor temperature is not

significantly high.

This result is essentially due to the penetration of direct beam solar radiation into these

zones. Since the apartment is assumed perfectly air tight, no air exchange is possible

between the indoor and the outdoor air which is why temperatures as high as 42,2°C on

the 24th of August can occur.

The use of solar shading devices is thus essential in summer to block direct beam solar

radiation. The inclusion of such devices, as modeled in the Solar protection paragraph,

page 21, combined with the effect of nearby buildings would produce the results given

next page (Illustration 17).




Illustration 17: Thermal Response – Shading devices on and nearby buildings on

01/01 02/01

03/01 04/01

05/01 06/01

07/01 08/01

09/01 10/01

11/01 12/01

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Temperature Variations

Cumulated effect: solar shading devices and nearby buildings

Outdoor Drybulb Bedroom Shaded Kitchen Shaded Living ShadedBedroom Unshaded Kitchen Unshaded Living Unshaded

Time

Tem

per

atu

re (in °

C)




The combined effect of solar shading devices and nearby buildings significantly reduce

solar gains and therefore decrease the indoor temperature of the three different zones

analysed.

As previously observed, the peak temperature observed without any protection occurs

on the 24th of August in the living (42,2°C) for an outdoor temperature of 20°C while the

temperature observed the same day in the same zone but with shading devices on and

nearby buildings on is reduced to 26,5°C, which represents a 15,7°C decrease.

The temperature difference between the unshaded situation and the situation with

shading devices on and nearby buildings on is again more pronounced in summer than in

winter. For the living, on the 24th of August, it is 15,7°C, while on the 15th of November, it

is only 3,2°C, which reflects the fact that solar shading devices were designed to block

direct beam solar radiation in summer.

The average temperature difference for the bedroom, kitchen an living are equal

respectively to 6,2°C, 7,1°C and 7,4°C.

These theoretical results would not however reflect the « real world » thermal behaviour of

the apartment, given the air-tightness assumption.

In reality, the appartment would exchange air with the outdoors through both infiltration

and ventilation (opening of windows) and such important temperature differences would

therefore probably not be recorded.




Visual comfort

Natural light

Daylight access

The fraction of spaces having access to daylight can be easily computed via Autodesk

Ecotect.

In addition, it is possible to determine which spaces have a better access to views on the

outside by mapping the area of visible windows (Illustration 18).


Illustration 18: Access to views on the outside, 1m² - isolines




As expected, one can observe that the living benefits from a satisfying access to exterior

views. It has an average view on 8.5m² of openings, while the bedroom has only 3,5m²

and the kitchen 3m².




Daylight factor

The daylight factor (Illustration 19 and 20) represents the nondimensional ratio between

the quantity of natural light transmitted in a space and the quantity of exterior available

light under overcast sky conditions. It gives a measure of the worst case natural lighting

levels in a space, and enables one to assess the visual comfort performances of a

project.

The computation of the daylight factor is executed in the Radiance module1 based on

ray- tracing techniques. It requires material visible reflexion factors (floor/wall/ceiling) as

well as windows visible transmissivity2.

1 http://radsite.lbl.gov/deskrad

2 Standard hypothesis for these factors are 15%, 60% and 80% for visible reflexivities of floor, wall and ceiling

and 80% visible transmissivity for windows.


Illustration 19: Computation of the daylight factor



Illustration 20: Computation of the daylight factor with (left) and without (right) shading devices




The average daylight factor without shading devices is 3.33%. Hence, under overcast

sky conditions, assuming a design sky illuminance of 5000 lux, the average natural light

level in the housing is 167 lux which is quite satisfying. Of course, the natural light level is

not uniform in space, and some rooms, such as the living, have higher lighting levels than

others.

With shading devices on, the average daylight factor diminishes to 1.69%. This represents

a significant decrease of about 50% from the previous state and clearly highlights the

problem of optimizing daylight levels in summer while preventing overheating. Average

daylighting levels are worth 85 lux, which corresponds to a dark atmosphere.




Discussion and Conclusions

Capabilities

Throughout a housing case study, three of the 14 environmental themes from the High

Environmental Scheme were illustrated through Autodesk Ecotect.

Concerning the relationship between the building and its environment, the software offers

various possibilities to study solar interactions. It can indeed produce heliodons and map

the sunlight hours over any surface directly onto a 3D digital model thus making it

possible to study solar potential and overshadowing effects due to nearby buildings.

In addition, tools are available to define the optimal shading profile to block direct beam

solar radiation for specific periods so as to prevent overheatings in summer. These results

can be mapped once again directly onto the model for clarity.

Autodesk also offers possibilities to analyse thermal interactions between a building and

its environment via the Energy Plus platform. The efficiency of previously designed solar

shadings can be assessed through the calculation of transmitted radiation and internal

temperature variations.

Lastly, the software can analyse access to views to the outside and produce daylight

illuminance results by computing the daylight factor through the Radiance module. The

daylight factor is of critical importance since it represents the worst case natural light

levels scenario giving an indication on the ability of a room to be naturally lit throughout

the year.

The process of optimizing environmental performances thus become greatly facilitated

since only one single digital model of the project needs to be drawn. By mapping

calculation results onto it, it becomes very easy to visualise any type of effect, saving a

lot of time.

In order to optimize simultaneaously environmental performances, sensitivity analysis can

be performed by modifying hypothesis and testing different scenarios. In this way, to

prevent overheating in summer while keeping sufficient natural light levels, the optical

properties of windows and shadings such as visible and solar transmissivities can be




modified to reach satisfying trade-offs.

Limitations

In spite of its many capabilities, Autodesk Ecotect also has limitations.

The first limitation is probably due to the conditions under which results are obtained.

Indeed, model geometry quickly becomes very complex - thousands of vertices is not

uncommon – so that tradeoffs have to be made between speed and accuracy. Though

Autodesk Ecotect offers the possibility to favor one to the detriment of the other, results

should always be carefully analysed before doing any interpretation and one should

clearly understand the assumptions used before doing any calculation. Otherwise,

Autodesk Ecotect may give totally erroneous results.

Secondly, like most software of its kind, Autodesk Ecotect still suffers from unstability

which frequently leads to unwanted program termination. The visualisation panel relying

on the Open GL interface may become corrupted from time to time, though the issue

was adressed many times to the developpers.

Other limitations include the absence of tools to assess water management

performances. Though the HQE Scheme adresses issues such as rainwater collection or

watertightness, Autodesk Ecotect has today no capability in this field.

Conclusion

In spite of such limitations, Autodesk Ecotect is certainly a very powerful tool that can

help assess at least three of the HQE Scheme environmental themes.

Due to lack of time, themes such as Acoustic comfort or Energy Management could not

be treated. However, Autodesk Ecotect also offers adapted analysis tools to treat these

issues.

In my opinion, the many capabilities of the software associated with its user-friendliness

make it an essential tool in sustainaible building design. Though it is hoped that the next

versions will integrate new capabilities, and improve stability, it is already a very complete

software.


Documents

Ecole des Mines de Nantes KTH La Chantrerie …433382/FULLTEXT01.pdf · SEE Master Thesis report Sustainable building design with Autodesk Ecotect Abstract In 2002, an environmental