Optimizing Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency in Block 4 KITSW Using Insulation Materials and Solar Radiation Analysis: A Case Study

This research investigates the potential for enhancing thermal comfort and energy efficiency in Block IV, the Administrative Building at KITSW, Warangal. In light of the increasing prominence of sustainable building practices, evaluating strategies for optimization is imperative. Leveraging Building Information Modelling (BIM) software and advanced sustainability analysis tools, a data-driven approach is employed. The methodology unfolds through a multi-phased process. Initially, a comprehensive 3D model of the building is crafted within Revit software, incorporating data from 2D CAD drawings and detailing materials, dimensions, and layout. Subsequently, employing a cloud-based tool, an exhaustive solar radiation analysis ensues, juxtaposing scenarios with existing and optimal insulation materials. This analysis discerns potential thermal vulnerabilities and scrutinizes solar exposure variations across the year. Further, within the BIM environment, a digital energy model is synthesized to scrutinize the building's energy consumption and daylighting conditions meticulously. This model integrates intricate details of the building's geometry, materials, and operational dynamics. Simulations are executed to pinpoint areas ripe for enhancing energy efficiency. Through systematic analysis of data gleaned from each phase, this research endeavors to uncover strategies for optimizing thermal comfort and energy efficiency in Block IV. The insights garnered are poised to inform tangible improvements in sustainability not only for this particular building but also for analogous educational facilities, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on sustainable building practices.


Introduction
The environment is greatly impacted by the construction sector.The usage of resources, energy use, and the general balance of ecosystems are all impacted by buildings (1).This study investigates the relationship between building practices and their effects on the environment.Our research examines the connection between a building's environmental impact and sustainable design principles with a particular focus on Block-4, the administrative building at KITSW (35).Our goal is to demonstrate how carefully considering important factors like solar radiation absorption/insulation, energy efficiency, and GRIHA certification requirements may reduce the environmental impact of construction (1,4).In today's energy-conscious • Email: editor@ijfmr.com

IJFMR240219397
Volume 6, Issue 2, March-April 2024 2 world, optimizing a building's sensitivity to solar radiation is essential (35).This study simulates solar radiation absorption within Block-4's envelope using Revit's Insight 360 plugin (36).We can pinpoint places where insulation techniques need to be improved by comparing the average insulation values obtained by the study following the completion of this simulation (28).This will assist us in creating strategies to reduce heat gain, which will ultimately increase occupant comfort and energy efficiency (11,16).An additional crucial component of sustainable building is energy efficiency (35).We will examine stateof-the-art instruments and techniques to lower Block-4's energy use (28).We will investigate tactics such as enhanced insulation, better lighting controls, and the use of renewable energy sources (23).Our ultimate goal is to create a plan for a greener building that uses less energy and has a smaller carbon footprint (8).
The goal of this study is to determine how to apply for GRIHA green certification for an existing building (35).A building's performance is assessed on a range of environmental factors, such as energy efficiency and solar radiation response, for GRIHA certification (31).We can determine what has to be done to improve Block-4's existing performance in order to fulfill or approach qualifying for this esteemed green building certification by comparing it to the GRIHA requirements (33).This strategy will highlight the possibility of sustainable building retrofits for already-existing structures.Thermal comfort and energy efficiency are hampered by the high levels of solar radiation absorption/insulation and energy consumption caused by the building materials used in Block-4, the KITSW administrative building (35).The building finds it challenging to meet the esteemed GRIHA certification requirements because of its inefficiency (32).The objective of this study is to determine the best insulating materials (OIM) and tactical material selection techniques to enhance Block-4's energy efficiency and thermal performance (28).The building can save running costs and its environmental effect while improving occupant comfort by accomplishing these objectives (29).The project is driven by the growing demand for sustainable buildings, especially in the field of education (35).Buildings at universities and colleges can make a big difference in accomplishing this goal of encouraging environmental responsibility (35).One of the best examples of an existing construction that could be made significantly more sustainable is Block-4, the administrative building at KITSW (35).The building materials used in Block-4 currently contribute to high levels of solar heat gain and energy consumption, which causes discomfort for residents and increases the building's environmental impact (29).The goal of this project is to use the widely accepted green building standard, GRIHA certification, as a baseline for the sustainable transformation of Block-4 (31).Obtaining GRIHA accreditation would show KITSW's dedication to sustainability in the academic community while also improving the building's environmental efficiency (32).Through smart material selection and optimization of solar radiation absorption, this research seeks to find solutions that increase Block-4's energy efficiency and thermal comfort (28).In addition to helping KITSW, the effective application of these solutions will support a larger trend in the educational sector toward the use of sustainable building techniques (35).The following goals were pursued by this case study on KITSW's administrative building, Block-4 (35): Improve Energy Efficient and Thermal Comfort: Examine how well the building is currently absorbing solar radiation and using energy.Determine where improvements can be made to make the living space more comfortable for the occupants while lowering the total energy consumption.Selecting Strategic Materials to Ensure GRIHA Compliance: To assess how various materials affect solar radiation absorption and energy efficiency, use comparative material analysis, or CM Analysis.The objective of this investigation was to determine the best insulating materials (OIM) for current structures that meet GRIHA certification requirements.Optimize GRIHA Certification ability: Determine whether Block-4 has the ability to achieve GRIHA's solar radiation and energy efficiency requirements by comparing the Study Average Insolation Value (SAIV) of OIM alternatives versus conventional materials (CM).Lower Building Energy Consumption and Costs: Assess how carefully chosen materials will affect the building's overall Energy Use Intensity (EUI) and energy costs.The aim was to exhibit a discernible decrease in energy usage and related expenses by means of sustainable material enhancements.
An essential component of this initiative was the data-driven analysis of energy (28).We started by gathering data regarding the building plans and materials currently in use in Block-4.Afterwards, simulations using Revit's Insight 360 plugin helped to comprehend how the building will react to solar heat gain all year long (28).An energy consumption baseline was created by this data.We then performed Comparative Material Analysis (CM Analysis) to evaluate the effects of various materials on energy efficiency and solar radiation absorption/insulation (28).The performance of the conventional materials (CM) now in use in Block-4 and the optimal insulating materials (OIM) was compared in this investigation (29).Throughout the analysis, the Study Average Insolation Value (SAIV) was a crucial statistic (28).To compare SAIV attained with various material combinations, simulations were run (28).We were able to identify important construction elements that had the most effects on the amount of solar radiation absorbed by analyzing SAIV (28).The elements with the biggest potential for energy savings-windows, walls, and floors-became the focal points for planned material upgrades.Based on the outcomes of the CM Analysis, the project then assessed Block-4's likelihood of meeting GRIHA's energy efficiency requirements (28).Creating a sustainable material replacement plan that gave priority to parts that would have the biggest effects on lowering energy usage and obtaining GRIHA compliance was one aspect of this (28).Lastly, an analysis was conducted to determine how these material replacements affected the building's Energy Use Intensity (EUI) (28).EUI was a key indicator used to show how well the suggested material changes worked to lower overall energy consumption (28).

2.Experimental program 2.1 General information
This research endeavors to delve into the complexities of enhancing the energy efficiency and thermal comfort levels of Block-IV, the Administrative Building at KITSW in Warangal.Leveraging state-of-theart sustainability methodologies and Building Information Modeling (BIM) software, the study embarks on a multi-faceted journey aimed at significant improvements in the building's environmental performance.The initial phase involves an exhaustive data collection process, meticulously gathering crucial information regarding Block-IV from various sources [28,31].This includes detailed blueprints, dimensions, and structural compositions of the building, drawing upon insights gleaned from prior studies.Subsequently, armed with this comprehensive dataset, the research team undertakes the task of constructing a highly accurate 3D model of Block-IV within a BIM environment [28].This phase is critical as it lays the foundation for the subsequent analytical stages by providing a detailed representation of the building's physical attributes.
Moving forward, the study embarks on a thorough investigation into the building's solar radiation exposure patterns throughout the year, a process informed by the findings of previous research endeavors [32,33].This analysis aims to shed light on how varying levels of sunlight impact the internal temperature dynamics of Block-IV.Moreover, insights from past studies on innovative insulation materials are incorporated, offering valuable guidance on potential solutions [2,35].In parallel, the research team initiates an intricate energy usage simulation exercise for Block-IV, drawing upon the insights gleaned from prior energy modeling research endeavors [3,39,41].By meticulously examining a myriad of factors such as building design elements and material compositions, the objective is to identify actionable strategies aimed at curbing energy consumption while simultaneously enhancing occupant comfort levels.
By integrating these diverse approaches, the overarching aim of this research endeavor is to formulate pragmatic solutions geared towards bolstering the energy efficiency and thermal comfort attributes of Block-IV.Through a systematic and data-driven approach, the study seeks to unlock tangible opportunities for enhancing the overall environmental performance of the administrative building at KITSW.

Research plan
This project aims to implement a data-driven approach to improve the thermal comfort and energy efficiency of Block-4 at KITSW, Warangal.By leveraging advanced sustainability research tools and Building Information Modeling (BIM) software, the study endeavors to identify key design alterations that can significantly reduce energy consumption while enhancing occupant comfort.The research methodology consists of several integral stages, each contributing to a comprehensive analysis of Block-4's environmental performance.Firstly, detailed information regarding Block-4, including blueprints, size, composition, and arrangement, will be gathered to create an accurate 3D model using BIM software.Additionally, data on the building's location, surroundings, and existing materials will be collected to inform subsequent analyses.Next, a thorough solar radiation analysis will be conducted to understand how sunlight affects Block-4's heat intake and potential solar energy utilization.This analysis will consider factors such as the building's orientation and geometry to evaluate the year-round effects of solar exposure and identify thermal weaknesses.Simulations will be run in two scenarios: one using current building materials and another with optimized insulation choices.Furthermore, an assessment of Block-4's daylighting and energy usage will be carried out using a digital energy model created in the BIM program.This model will accurately represent the building's shape, materials, and operational features, enabling simulations to evaluate energy efficiency and identify areas for improvement.The project's scope includes several key components.Firstly, a detailed solar radiation analysis will be conducted to understand its impact on Block-4's energy performance.Secondly, an assessment of the thermal characteristics of the building envelope materials will be conducted to identify optimal substitutes with higher insulation values.Thirdly, simulations in the Revit environment will simulate the effects of swapping out envelope materials to assess their impact on energy efficiency and thermal comfort.Additionally, the project will explore the possibility of obtaining GRIHA certification for pre-existing structures like Block-4, indicating KITSW's commitment to environmental responsibility.This certification could enhance the institution's reputation and attract environmentally conscious stakeholders.Overall, this study offers a comprehensive strategy for improving Block-4's thermal comfort and energy efficiency, with potential benefits including decreased energy usage, improved thermal comfort for occupants, and the possibility of GRIHA accreditation.The insights gained from this research will inform future decisions regarding Block-4's management and contribute to KITSW's sustainability efforts.
Table 1 provides a concise compilation of abbreviations used throughout the case study, aiding in clarity and consistency of terminology.2 and 3).These tables delineate between optimal insulating materials recommended for enhanced thermal performance (OIM Analysis) and the current conventional materials employed in construction (CM Analysis).Table 2 outlines the characteristics of each material, including type, behavior (isotropic), density, emissivity, permeability, thermal conductivity, and specific heat.Thermal conductivity indicates how efficiently a material conducts heat, with lower values denoting better insulation.Specific heat represents the energy required to raise the temperature of a unit mass by a specific amount, while density reflects mass per unit volume.Permeability measures the ease of gas or liquid movement through a substance, and emissivity indicates the surface's heat radiation emission efficacy.Distinguishing between ordinary and ideal insulating materials for the same building component (e.g., Wall) reveals disparities.For instance, Fly Ash bricks (OIM Analysis) demonstrate considerably lower thermal conductivity for walls compared to Common bricks (CM Analysis), indicating superior insulation potential.Similarly, Double Glazed windows (OIM Analysis) exhibit lower thermal conductivity than Clear Glazed windows (CM Analysis).The comprehension of building envelope heat transfer characteristics and assessment of potential impacts from optimal insulating materials usage on thermal performance hinge on this solar radiation analysis.In this study, the analysis of the building design's daylighting and thermal performance is conducted using the dynamic visualization capabilities of Insight 360, as elaborated by Wang et al. (2023) [27].This advanced software tool enables a comprehensive evaluation of how daylighting and thermal aspects interact within the building environment, as highlighted in previous research [27].Two main mechanisms are utilized to achieve this analysis.First, colour schemes are assigned to building surfaces, with dynamic changes reflecting projected surface temperatures, as proposed by Wang et al. (2023) [27].These colour schemes serve as a visual representation of thermal conditions within the building, providing valuable insights into areas of potential thermal discomfort and highlighting regions prone to overheating.This approach facilitates strategic design decisions aimed at enhancing thermal comfort within the building, as emphasized by Wang et al. ( 2023) [27].By providing an intuitive representation of thermal conditions, designers can quickly identify areas requiring adjustments and optimize the building's design accordingly.The dynamic colour representation allows for easy interpretation of thermal performance, guiding the design process towards solutions that promote occupant comfort and energy efficiency, in line with the objectives outlined in previous studies [27].The colours used to represent different energy quantities are illustrated in Figure 2, which depicts the Surface Colour Representation of Study Average Insulation Values in the Revit Simulation.This figure serves as a visual aid, demonstrating how different colours correspond to varying levels of thermal insulation across building surfaces.This visualization tool enables researchers and designers to gain a comprehensive understanding of thermal performance and make informed decisions to optimize building design for enhanced comfort and energy efficiency.Furthermore, it's important to note that the simulation described above was conducted within the Insight 360 plugin of Revit software, as detailed by Wang et al. (2023) [27].Insight 360 provides a powerful platform for performing detailed analyses of building performance, including daylighting and thermal characteristics, as highlighted in previous studies [27].By leveraging the capabilities of Insight 360, researchers can accurately simulate various aspects of building behavior and assess the impact of design choices on energy efficiency and occupant comfort.The integration of Insight 360 within the Revit environment streamlines the analysis process and enables seamless collaboration between architects, engineers, and other stakeholders involved in the building design process.This simulation environment offers advanced visualization tools and intuitive interfaces, allowing users to explore complex data sets and evaluate design alternatives effectively.The utilization of Insight 360 within Revit enhances the efficiency and accuracy of building performance analysis, facilitating informed decision-making and enabling the creation of sustainable, high-performance buildings.

Methodology
Getting 2D CAD drawings of the structure from the project office is the first stage.All four stories, including the ground floor, should have their layout and measurements accurately depicted in these drawings.It is needed to carefully go over the plans once we obtain them in order to extract important characteristics like the building's footprint, overall dimensions, sizes and positions of windows and doors, wall configurations with thicknesses, and roof specifics like pitch and orientation.Using Revit software, this gathered data will serve as the basis for producing an accurate 3D model of the building.Revit software is used to generate a 3D model of the KITSW Administrative Block using the data that was retrieved from the 2D CAD drawings.The geometry of the building, including all of the walls, floors, roof, windows, and doors, will be accurately portrayed in this model.The finished Revit model in .rvtformat will be used as the main starting point for additional CM Analysis related to sustainability.To guarantee the correctness of the findings, more information must be gathered before performing a thorough CM Analysis using Autodesk Insight.Three primary categories apply to this data: materialistic conditions, thermal properties, and geographical data.Geographical data contains the latitude and longitude of the construction site as well as local meteorological data, including annual patterns of solar radiation.The density, specific heat capacity, and thermal conductivity of the materials that make up the building envelope (windows, roof, and walls) are all considered thermal characteristics.Building codes or material specifications may include references to these characteristics.Last but not least, physical circumstances include information on the building envelope's current insulation levels and any nearby shade structures, including trees or overhangs.
Important details about the materials used in the building envelope can be found in the Revit model itself.
From the model, we may extract tables with these materials' distinctive features.In the CM Analysis stage, this data-which is usually based on a pre-defined library of standard materials in Revit-will be essential for accurately assigning thermal values to the building elements as shown in the Table 2 and 3 above.In order to conduct an analysis of sustainability factors, including solar radiation, energy saved and received, and energy consumed by the four-story KITSW Administrative Building, also known as Block IV.The Figure model, which needs to be examined closely, depicts the area of the structure.The study's objectives are to evaluate KITSW's administrative block's potential for solar radiation and energy efficiency.We can carry out a thorough CM Analysis after finishing the modelling of the structure in the .rvtformat as illustrated in Figure 1 and using an internal program called Insight, a component of the Autodesk 360 suite.This study employs Insight 360's dynamic visualization capabilities to conduct a thorough analysis of the building's Energy efficiency and solar radiation absorption or insulation will be two main mechanisms used.Colour schemes for building surfaces will be assigned, and they will change dynamically in response to projected surface temperatures.Strategic design decisions are guided towards greater thermal comfort by this easy-to-understand representation, which quickly reveals potential thermal hotspots and susceptible areas that could overheat.The colours that are being used for different energy quantities are shown in Figure 4.The Post Solar Radiation CM Analysis and the Overall 2 Analyses come first.The first analyzes the structure using the current, conventional materials utilized in Warangal, Telangana, and the second CM Analysis is carried out by substituting the materials with those listed in Table 2.The cumulative indicator for insulation values for the envelope components that were the subject of the CM Analysis is displayed in Figure 4. Similar to this, Figure 2, except the csv file that is extracted after the solar research is completed, depict the Post CM Analysis Interface and the colour scheme that is used to visually display the insulating values.Figures 2 depicts the Post Analysis Insulation Interface from every angle, demonstrating the same thing except for OIM Analysis, which is carried out following the ideal kind of material modification.The Export window, which appears after entering the necessary data set and allows the SAIV (Study Average Insulation Value) to be compared with individual cases, is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. SAIV Export Interface
This case study constitutes one of eleven cases considered, aiming to identify optimal materials and components for enhancing the heat gain or insulation of Block IV's envelope components.Each case undergoes similar methodology, utilizing data-driven insights to evaluate and optimize the building's thermal performance.Through comparative analysis and visualization tools, the study aims to provide actionable recommendations for enhancing the sustainability and energy efficiency of the KITSW Administrative Block.Assessing a building model's energy performance is a necessary step in studying the energy CM Analysis in Revit.Making well-informed design choices to increase energy efficiency can benefit from this.KITSW Block IV's physical model was built to scale using the architectural drawings that the College Project Office supplied.Strict attention to the blueprints guaranteed an accurate depiction of the building's dimensions.Using Autodesk Revit software, a digital energy model was created to examine KITSW Block IV's energy performance.This model was created by taking advantage of the built-in features of the software to extract precise geometric data from the architectural plans of the building.To ensure a realistic portrayal of the physical structure, this comprises specifications for the roof assemblies, walls, and windows.Additionally, based on the project documents, pertinent material attributes and building details were assigned.This thorough model provides the required input data for specialized software tools and acts as the basis for later energy CM Analysis simulations.These resources make it easier to assess KITSW Block IV's daylighting and energy use in-depth, which helps to provide a comprehensive picture of the building's energy efficiency.The energy model of the block IV can be observed in fig (7) in which it is generated by Revit before starting analysis.Setting boundaries for energy One crucial step in making sure the simulated performance faithfully depicts the real building and its surroundings in Autodesk Revit is CM Analysis.Ts close to the current Block IV of KITSW, which is Hasanparthy, Hanamkonda as observed in fig (6) , by providing important information regarding building location.In order to ensure that the CM Analysis is roughly accurate, the materials listed in the table are assigned to the building as precisely as possible based on the actual construction materials at the time.The materials for the panels and frames around the windows are chosen separately; the walls throughout the structure are made of mud bricks or roughly earth bricks; the flooring on the first, second, and roof floor is distinct, as shown in table 4. Executing energy CM Examining a college building in Autodesk Revit requires careful setup of several parameters to ensure a simulation that faithfully replicates the actual architecture.The project phase and building type must be specified during this process.The project phase selected for this research is "Existing Building," denoting a CM Analysis of a structure that has already been built.Moreover, the building type is designated as "School or University."Next, choose the energy settings and set the infiltration class to medium, meaning that air can enter the building through medium air openings.

Table 4 (Area of Envelope
Next, choose the year-round school building operation schedule, which is appropriate for the building that is currently being analysed , allowing Revit to use pertinent default settings and parameters specific to educational facilities.Upon optimizing the subsequent building selection process for CM Analysis, the software proceeds to automatically navigate to the Autodesk Insight module.Comprehensive information about the building's energy performance, including annual cost evaluations and Energy Use Intensity statistics, is provided by this integrated dashboard.Normally Energy use intensity is calculated by multiplying No.of units with cost per unit in the region.

Solar Radiation Analysis
After considering the modifications as indicated and conducting the simulation.The effect of using optimal insulating materials (OIM) over conventional materials (CM) on the building's thermal performance, as measured by the Study Average Insolation Value (SAIV), is summarized in this table.The acronym SAIV stands for the total building's average projected solar heat gain value.Better thermal performance is indicated by lower SAIV values, which may also result in less energy being used for cooling by lowering heat uptake from solar radiation.The SAIV for different building components built with CM or OIM is displayed in the table.The following are some important conclusions from each component's CM Analysis: Walls (Cases 2-5): SAIV can be greatly decreased by upgrading the walls on the stilt floor (S'F), ground floor (GF), first floor (FF), and second floor (SF) using the best insulation materials.Buildings with big sections of wall exposed to direct sunshine will especially benefit from this.Slabs (Case 6): A reduced total SAIV can be achieved by using appropriate insulation in slabs (floors) on all floors.This is particularly crucial for hot climates or structures where the ground floor slab allows heat to enter the building.Windows (Cases 7-10): A significant decrease in SAIV can be achieved by substituting better insulated options (OIM) for conventional windows on the stilt floor (S'F), ground floor (GF), first floor (FF), and second floor (SF).The amount of solar heat gain from windows can be substantial, and replacing them can greatly increase thermal comfort.Case 11: Flooring By lowering the amount of heat transmission into the building from the ground or lower floors, using the best insulating materials for flooring on all floors can improve thermal efficiency.This is especially important for structures in warm regions.Even if other components haven't been updated yet, our CM Analysis helps decide whether concentrating on wall insulation on the ground floor is a beneficial move for increasing thermal comfort and maybe lowering cooling energy use.Particularly in warm areas, ground floors may be vulnerable to heat accumulation from the surrounding earth.In addition to lowering solar heat input via the walls themselves, wall insulation can assist attenuate this heat gain.) may be constructed with standard or ideal materials.OIM (Optimal Insulating Materials): This bar shows the predicted SAIV for the second level assuming that, while other components may stay the same, the walls were built using the best insulating materials.Due to possible shadowing from the first level, the effect of solar heat gain may be less severe on the second story than on lower floors, but it's still something to think about.Improving the insulation in the walls of the second level can help lower the building's overall heat gain.When the windows on the second story are built using conventional materials, this value indicates the expected SAIV.According to the chart, typical materials are used for other building envelope components, such as the walls, flooring, windows on other floors, and so on.OIM (Optimal Insulating Materials): This figure shows the predicted SAIV for the second story in the event that all other components stay the same and windows are replaced with optimal insulating materials, like double-glazed windows.Due to possible shadowing from the first level, the effect of solar heat gain may be less severe on the second story than on lower floors, but it's still something to think about.When windows are single-glazed or improperly insulated, they can be a major source of solar heat gain.If a building has a lot of windows on the upper floors, replacing the windows on the second story can help lower the building's overall heat gain.

Fig.20.Comparitive analysis graph of Energy use intensity of all cases in BLOCK IV KITSW
The fig( 20) is a visual representation of the maximum, average, and minimum energy use intensity (EUI) for various cases within block IV of KITSW.EUI is measured in kilowatt-hours per square meter per year (kWh/m²/year) and serves as a metric for evaluating energy efficiency in buildings.This graph facilitates comparison of energy performance across different scenarios within block IV, enabling identification of the most energy-efficient case.

Conclusions
This case study concentrated on using solar radiation CM Analysis and strategic material selection to maximize thermal comfort and energy efficiency in Block 4 KITSW for GRIHA certification.Through a comparison of the Study Average Insolation Value (SAIV) between optimal insulating materials (OIM) and conventional materials (CM) in different building components, as displayed in the table, the CM potentially receive GRIHA certification by putting the aforementioned recommendations into practice and attending to additional GRIHA criteria pertinent to the project scope.This would result in considerable improvements in thermal comfort and energy efficiency.In addition to lowering operating expenses, this will support the creation of a more sustainable built environment and help GRIHA accomplish its overall goals for green building.In order to improve Block 4 KITSW's thermal comfort and energy efficiency for GRIHA certification, this case study offered insightful information.Nonetheless, the information provided here can serve as a basis for additional research in a number of areas: Although the simulations yielded useful information, real-world validation and the possibility to pinpoint areas for more optimization could only be achieved by putting the suggested upgrades into practice and keeping a close eye on the building's energy usage and thermal performance over time.A thorough cost-benefit analysis A more comprehensive understanding of the project's financial feasibility and return on investment could be obtained through analysis that takes into account material costs, installation costs, operating savings, and potential GRIHA certification incentives.A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which would be added to the research, would assess the project's overall environmental impact, taking into account resource extraction, transportation, building, operation, and end-of-life concerns.Pre-and post-upgrade occupant surveys could yield important information on the true effects of the modifications on user happiness, thermal comfort, and possible behavioral changes linked to energy use.To attain even greater energy independence and sustainability, future study could examine the viability of incorporating renewable energy sources other than solar panels, such as wind turbines or micro-hydro systems.More efficiency improvements may result from looking into how to best optimize the building management system to incorporate occupancy sensors, real-time weather data, and energy consumption patterns.This case study can be a useful starting point for future research in these areas, which will help advance sustainable construction practices both locally and globally.This will help Block 4 KITSW achieve GRIHA certification.

Case 1 :
CM vs OIM-All Floors (All Components) CM (Conventional Materials): When all of the building's components-such as the walls, windows, floors, and other elements-are made of conventional materials, the average solar heat gain for the entire structure is represented by this value (567.79 kWh/m²).OIM (Optimal Insulating Materials): If all building components were constructed with optimal insulating materials, the average solar heat gain for the same building would be represented by this value (545.95kWh/m²).The comparison of the aforementioned aspects is shown in Figure.We can understand the possible advantage of choosing the best insulation materials by comparing these numbers.The 21.84 kWh/m² discrepancy between CM (567.79 kWh/m²) and OIM (545.95 kWh/m²) indicates that utilizing the best insulating materials for every building component might considerably lower the overall solar heat gain.This decrease in heat gain may result in better occupant thermal comfort and possibly less energy use for building cooling.

Fig. 21 .
Fig.21.Comparitive analysis graph of Energy costs of all cases in BLOCK IV KITSW

by 4 .
4% to 8694 INR/m² per year as The average EUI decreased by 5.6%, to 340 kWh/m² annually , The average energy cost reduced by 3.3% to 2642 INR/m² per year.The minimum EUI went up to 80 kWh/m² annually , the annual minimum energy cost of 667 INR/m² stayed mostly unchanged.In case-8 where wall materials were changed to flyash walls only in 1 st floor the the maximum EUI dropped by 6.0% to 1220 kWh/m² annually.the maximum energy cost decreased by 5.5% to 8595 INR/m² annually.The average EUI decreased by 7.0%, coming in at 335 kWh/m² annually.the average energy cost decreased by 5.2% to 2592 INR/m² annually.The minimal EUI, which dropped by 3.8% to 75 kWh/m² annually.The annual minimum energy cost stayed fixed at 667 INR/m².In case-9 where wall materials were changed to flyash walls only in 2 nd floor the maximum EUI dropped by 5.6% to 1225 kWh/m², the maximum energy cost decreased by 5.0% to 8645 INR/m² per year.The average EUI decreased by 7.0%, coming in at 335 kWh/m² annually , the average energy cost declined by 5.2% to 2592 INR/m² per year.The minimum EUI changed more significantly, falling by 3.8% to 75 kWh/m² annually.The annual minimum energy cost stayed fixed at 667 INR/m².In case-10 where window materials were changed to double glazed windows only in ground floor The maximum EUI reduction, which dropped by 3.6% to 1252 kWh/m² annually, The highest energy cost dropped by 3.3%, to 8796 INR/m² annually.The average EUI experienced a positive influence, declining by 4.0% year to 335 kWh/m².the average annual energy cost decreased by 0.5% to 2718 INR/m²The minimum EUI increased to 87 kWh/m² annually , The annual minimum energy cost of 667 INR/m² stayed the same.In case-11 where window materials were changed to double glazed windows only in 1 st floor the maximum EUI dropped to 1282 kWh/m² annually, a 1.2% decrease , the maximum energy cost decreased by 3.3% to 8796 INR/m² per year.The average EUI decreased by a small 1.4% to 355 kWh/m² annually , the average energy cost declined by 0.5% to 2718 INR/m²year ,the minimal EUI rising to 87 kWh/m² year , The annual minimum energy cost stayed fixed at 667 INR/m².In case-12 where window materials were changed to double glazed windows only in 2 nd floor the maximum EUI dropped by 4.4% to 1240 kWh/m² annually , the maximum energy cost decreased by 3.3% to 8796 INR/m² per year.The average EUI also experienced a decrease of 2.8%, reaching 350 kWh/m² annually.The average energy cost decreased by 0.5% to 2718 INR/m² per year.thelowest EUI showed a increase to 87 kWh/m² per year, The annual minimum energy cost stayed fixed at 667 INR/m².In case-13 where flooring materials were changed to ceramic tiles only in ground floor the maximum EUI was negligible, declining by just 1.4% annually to 1280 kWh/m².the maximum energy cost decreased by 0.7% to 9039 INR/m² per year.There was a 1.4% annual decline in the average EUI, bringing it down to 355 kWh/m².the average energy cost was constant at 2718 INR/m² annually.The minimal EUI showed a increase to 87 kWh/m² annually.the minimal energy cost per year stayed at 667 INR/m².In case-14 where flooring materials were changed to ceramic tiles only in 1 st floor the maximum EUI, which came down to 1282 kWh/m² annually ,The highest annual energy cost showed a little decline of 0.6% to 9047 INR/m².The average EUI in had declined by 1.4% year to 355 kWh/m².the annual average energy cost stayed steady at 2718 INR/m².The minimal EUI showed a increase to 87 kWh/m² annually , the minimum energy cost remained constant at 667 INR/m² annually.In case-15 where flooring materials were changed to ceramic tiles only in 2 nd floor the maximum EUI dropped by 1.1% to 1284 kWh/m² annually , the maximum energy cost decreased by 0.6% to 9047 INR/m² annually.The average EUI dropped by 1.4% to 355 kWh/m² annually , the average energy cost decreased by 0.3% to 2726 INR/m² per year.The minimum EUI increased to 87 kWh/m² annually, The annual minimum energy cost stayed fixed at 667 INR/m².

Table 7 Average energy use intensity (EUI) and Energy cost in all cases of Block IV KITSW Case Energy use intensity (KWh/m^2/year) Energy cost (INR/m^2/year) Percentage decrease EUI compared to conventional materials Percentage decrease Energy cost compared to conventional materials
In case-2 where all the building materials are changed the maximum EUI was drastically reduced , It went from 1298 kWh/m² annually to 746 kWh/m² annually.This indicates a drop of 42.5%.The maximum energy cost decreased significantly as well, from 9099 INR/m² per year to 4761 INR/m² per year.The average EUI, which decreased by 34.7% from 360 kWh/m² year to 235 kWh/m² annually.The average energy cost also saw a significant improvement, falling from 2733 INR/m² per year to 1526 INR/m² per year, reflecting a 44.2% decrease.The minimal EUI saw the most reduction, falling from 78 kWh/m² annually to a meager 37 kWh/m² annually.This is an astounding 52.6% reduction.The minimum energy cost showed the most significant improvement, falling from 667 INR/m² per year to 227 INR/m² per year.This translates to a 47.5% decrease.In case-3 where only walls were changed into flyash walls in the whole building the maximum EUI decreased from 1298 kWh/m² per year to 958 kWh/m² per year, representing a 26.3% reduction , the highest energy cost decreased by 20.4%, from 9099 INR/m² annually to 7227 INR/m² annually.The average EUI improved slightly, from 360 kWh/m² per year to 296 kWh/m² per year, indicating an 18.1% decrease , the average energy cost improved slightly as well, falling from 2733 INR/m² per year to 2501 INR/m² per year, or an 8.5% decrease.The minimum EUI, which went from 78 kWh/m² year to 89 kWh/m² annually.This indicates a slight incline of 14.1%.The minimal energy cost stayed nearly the same at 667 INR/m² per year.In case-4 where only windows were changed into double glazed windows in the whole building the maximum EUI dropped by 26.
1%, from 1298 kWh/m³ annually to 962 kWh/m² annually.There was a notable 20.4% drop in the maximum energy cost, from 9099 INR/m³/year to 7225 INR/m²/year.The average EUI also experienced a slight improvement, moving from 360 kWh/m² per year to 295 kWh/m² per year, reflecting an 18.1% decrease.The average annual energy cost decreased by 8.5%, from 2734 INR/m² to 2500 INR/m².The minimum EUI saw a little increase, rising from 78 kWh/m² per year to 88 kWh/m² per year, representing a modest 12.8% gain.A small decrease in the minimum energy cost was attained, going from 667 INR/m²/year to 666 INR/m²/year.In case-5 where only flooring was changed into ceramic tiles in the whole building the maximum EUI dropped from 1298 kWh/m³/year to 958 kWh/m²/year, a 26.3% decrease , a notable 21.1% drop in the maximum energy cost, from 9099 INR/m³/year to 7186 INR/m²/year.The annual average EUI decreased by 18.1%, from 360 kWh/m³ to 295 kWh/m² , The mean annual energy expense decreased by 8.5%, rising from 2734 INR/m² to 2484 INR/m².There was an increase in the minimum EUI (going from 78 kWh/m²/year to 89 kWh/m²/year.A notable 1.3% decrease in the minimum energy cost was attained (going from 665 INR/m²/year to 658 INR/m²/year).In case-6 where only roof was changed into cool roofs in the whole building the highest EUI shown a notable decline, falling from 1298 kWh/m² annually to 958 kWh/m² annually, or a decrease of 26.3%. the highest energy cost decreased by 20.7%, from 9099 INR/m² per year to 7203 INR/m² per year.There was a minor improvement in the average EUI, which decreased by 18.1% from 360 kWh/m² per year to 295 kWh/m² per year , the average energy cost, which decreased by 8.8% from 2733 INR/m² per year to 2484 INR/m² per year.The minimum EUI only slightly changed, increasing from 78 kWh/m² year to 89 kWh/m² annually, or an 14.1% increase , the minimum energy cost decreased by a mere 1.3%, from 667 INR/m² per year to 658 INR/m² per year.In case-7 where wall materials were changed to flyash walls only in ground floor the maximum EUI dropped by 6.6% to 1230 kWh/m² annually.the maximum energy cost declined