Energy Performance Analysis

Detailed building energy modeling using OpenStudio and EnergyPlus

About OpenStudio & EnergyPlus

OpenStudio is an open-source, cross-platform software development kit (SDK) for building energy modeling (BEM). Developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), OpenStudio provides a comprehensive platform for creating and analysing whole-building energy models.

EnergyPlus is DOE's state-of-the-art whole-building energy simulation engine that powers OpenStudio. It calculates heating, cooling, lighting, ventilation, and other energy flows in buildings, providing detailed insights into building performance.

Our Simplicity projects use these industry-leading tools to optimise building design for energy efficiency while maintaining comfort and functionality.

Energy Performance Comparison

We benchmark a typical Simplicity build against traditional methodologies in terms of energy consumption and cost. Lake Road, Northcote is used as the example Simplicity Building, compared against a code-minimum baseline, an enhanced standard (better insulation and windows), and a CLT building.

Methodology Comparison — Energy Consumption

Methodology Comparison — Cost vs Performance

Key Finding: The Simplicity build system demonstrates the most cost-effective and energy-efficient balance when considering both initial construction and operational performance. Our in-situ concrete approach provides superior thermal mass benefits while minimising construction complexity.

Simplicity Projects Compared

The same comparison repeated across our four projects — Reiputa, Waiatarua, Lake Road and Morningside Drive — showing how each successive design improves on the last. Results come from the OpenStudio energy simulations of the actual projects (entered via the Admin page).

Project Comparison — Energy Consumption

Project Comparison — Cost vs Performance

3D Building Model

Interactive 3D visualisation of the building model geometry, thermal zones, and surface properties.

Apartment Energy Breakdown & Thermal Analysis

A single Northcote N12 apartment (~65 m²) as the unit of analysis — showing where electricity is consumed, what that means in operational carbon, and how the choice of building fabric (in-situ concrete vs CLT) changes the heating and cooling load over the building’s life.

Typical Apartment Layout — Energy Hotspots

Living / Dining 6.5 × 4.0 m  •  ~26 m² Kitchen 3.5 × 4.0 m Bedroom 1 4.0 × 2.8 m Bedroom 2 3.2 × 2.8 m Bath WC / Laundry 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 N↑ 4 m
1
Hot Water Cylinder
3,400 kWh/yr • 334 kg CO₂e
2
Space Heating — Heat Pump
1,200 kWh/yr • 118 kg CO₂e
3
Cooking & Oven
620 kWh/yr • 61 kg CO₂e
4
Refrigerator / Freezer
480 kWh/yr • 47 kg CO₂e
5
Washing Machine & Dryer
420 kWh/yr • 41 kg CO₂e
6
Lighting (all rooms)
380 kWh/yr • 37 kg CO₂e

Electricity Use by Appliance (kWh / year)

Operational Carbon by Appliance (kg CO₂e / year)

OpenStudio Energy Model Categories

Individual appliances roll up into four end-use categories used across all OpenStudio simulations — consistent across projects and comparable against NZ benchmarks.

1,200
kWh • 118 kg CO₂e / apt / yr
Heating
Heat pump heating mode. Low in Auckland’s mild climate.
200
kWh • 20 kg CO₂e / apt / yr
Cooling
Heat pump cooling mode. Concrete thermal mass reduces peak demand.
380
kWh • 37 kg CO₂e / apt / yr
Lighting
All interior and common area lighting. LED assumed throughout.
5,460
kWh • 535 kg CO₂e / apt / yr
Equipment
HWC + cooking + appliances + electronics. Dominant end-use category.

Thermal Performance & Construction Fabric

To complement the whole-building energy model, we are developing Therm thermal-bridge analysis for each key junction detail — wall corners, slab edges, window reveals. These isothermal simulations quantify how heat migrates through the fabric beyond what simplified R-value calculations capture. The corrected U-values and linear thermal-bridge psi (ψ) values feed directly into the EnergyPlus construction definitions.

The two diagrams below illustrate the concept: temperature isotherms flowing from the warm interior through the wall construction to the cold exterior, and why in-situ concrete mass with a well-placed insulation layer changes the gradient — and therefore the annual heating/cooling load — so significantly compared to a CLT or timber-frame alternative.

Wall Construction Cross-Section — Isotherm Comparison

In-situ Concrete Simplicity System INTERIOR 22°C 200mm CONCRETE 60mm PIR EXTERIOR 5°C R-value ~3.4 m²K/W  ·  Thermal mass: HIGH CLT Timber Comparison Case INTERIOR 22°C 140mm CLT 90mm BATTS EXTERIOR 5°C R-value ~2.9 m²K/W  ·  Thermal mass: LOW

Corner Junction — Thermal Bridge Effect

INTERIOR 22°C EXTERIOR 5°C Thermal bridge corner zone

At a wall corner two exterior surfaces converge, creating a zone of higher heat flux than mid-wall. Therm quantifies this as a linear thermal bridge (ψ value) applied as a correction to the EnergyPlus whole-building model.

The Lifecycle Carbon Argument: Embodied vs Operational

In-situ concrete is embodied-carbon intensive at construction — but it pays back through reduced operational carbon across the 50⁠+ year building life. Higher thermal mass means the building absorbs heat during the day and releases it overnight, cutting the hours the heat pump runs and lowering annual electricity demand and associated grid emissions.

1 — Construction
High A1–A3 embodied C
in concrete & reinforcing
2 — Thermal Mass
Concrete stabilises indoor temps, reduces peak HVAC demand
3 — Lower Energy
~21% less heating & cooling kWh/yr vs code minimum
4 — Lower Lifecycle C
Operational savings outweigh embodied premium by year ~20

Detailed Energy Simulation Report

Complete Nezo OpenStudio energy analysis reports for each project, including annual energy consumption breakdown, monthly profiles, and HVAC system performance metrics. Select a project to view its report.

Performance Summary