Home  /  Work  /  Case study

 /  Energy and daylight

How far can early design cut a Florida home’s energy use?

A two-storey residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Passive and active strategies tested one by one in a hot-humid climate, then combined, with a full annual daylight study.

42% lower energy use intensity,
from 20.78 to 12.05 kBtu/ft²
Axonometric drawing of the classical French-style two-storey residence on its walled lot, with pergolas, dormers and a paved forecourt
The residence on its 190′ × 135′ lot
Building type
Single-family residence, 2 storeys
Location
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA
Site
190′ × 135′ lot, 35′ height limit
Climate
Hot-humid, Köppen Aw
Standard
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 baseline
Tools
Ladybug, Honeybee (EnergyPlus, Radiance), Octopus

Overview

This study set out to consider building performance as early in the design as possible for a classical French-style urban residence. A baseline energy model was built from the architectural model to ASHRAE 90.1-2019, then orientation, window-to-wall ratio, insulation, HVAC system and rooftop PV were each tested against it. The daylight performance of the design was assessed alongside.

The challenge

Fort Lauderdale has long, hot and very humid summers, mild winters and more than 3,000 hours of sunshine a year. Cooling and dehumidification dominate, heating is close to zero, and strong sun is both a load to control and a resource for daylight and solar power. The question was which design moves actually change the energy use of a large home in this climate.

Honeybee energy model of the residence with walls, roofs, windows and surrounding trees in model colours
Honeybee energy model with context shading

Where the energy goes

Baseline end-use breakdown, kBtu/ft². Plug loads and cooling account for nearly four fifths of the total; heating is negligible.

  • Electric equipment10.571
  • Cooling6.007
  • Interior lighting3.978
  • Fans0.178
  • Heating0.044

Passive strategies

Each parameter varied on its own, with everything else held at the baseline.

Orientation

Rotation from the current layout, EUI kBtu/ft²

The current orientation is already the best of those tested, so no rotation is needed.

Window-to-wall ratio

WWR, EUI kBtu/ft²

10% WWR gives a 2.8% reduction. Smaller windows cut cooling but also daylight, so this has to be read with the daylight results below.

Insulation

EUI kBtu/ft² by wall insulation (columns) and roof insulation (rows)

Roof \ Wall0″2″3″4″5″
0″20.77720.51020.43020.39420.366
4″20.71020.46120.38520.34720.316
6″20.71220.46220.38520.34720.317
8″20.70320.45420.37820.33920.310

5″ wall and 8″ roof insulation gives the lowest EUI, a 2.2% reduction. Beyond this point the extra savings are too small to justify the cost and space.

Active strategies

Alternative HVAC systems and a rooftop PV array, each compared with the baseline.

HVAC system

EUI kBtu/ft², baseline system marked

Residential AC with baseboard electric
19.596
Residential heat pump (baseline)
20.777
VRF
21.436
Water-source with ground-source heat pumps
23.013
Fan coil, air-cooled chiller, baseboard electric
25.401
Window AC with baseboard electric
25.674

The best system is 5.7% below the baseline heat pump.

Rooftop PV

Tilt and azimuth optimised in Grasshopper with the Octopus solver, for maximum annual irradiance per square metre

Panels
23
Azimuth
182°
Tilt
58°
Annual generation
37,898 kBtu
EUI on its own
15.608 kBtu/ft²
Reduction
24.9%

PV gives by far the largest single reduction of the measures tested.

Combined effect

The measures applied in sequence, each step keeping the ones before it.

  1. Baseline20.777
  2. Orientation kept at 0°20.777
  3. + WWR 10%20.158
  4. + Insulation, 5″ wall and 8″ roof19.612
  5. + Residential AC with baseboard electric17.425
  6. + Rooftop PV12.051

EUI in kBtu/ft². Envelope measures give modest gains on their own; the efficient system and on-site generation do most of the work. Together they reduce EUI by 42%.

Daylight

Annual climate-based daylight metrics for the regularly occupied spaces, simulated in Radiance through Honeybee.

Spatial daylight autonomy
72%
sDA 300/50. Above the 55% LEED v4 threshold.
Daylight autonomy
62.3%
Share of occupied hours at 300 lux or more, averaged across spaces.
Useful daylight illuminance
61.4%
Share of time between 100 and 2,000 lux.
Annual sunlight exposure
25.9%
ASE 1000/250. Above the 10% LEED v4 limit.
Average daylight factor
2.3%
CIE overcast sky. 57% of floor area below 2%, 31% between 2 and 5%, 12% above 5%.

Most of the home is well daylit, but a quarter of the occupied area gets too much direct sun. Because ASE exceeds the LEED limit, the daylight credit is not met on these results alone. Fixed shading, deep window reveals and overhangs, and glazing with an SHGC below 0.25 were considered to bring sunlight exposure down while keeping the useful daylight.

Conclusion

In this climate, orientation and envelope changes alone move the numbers only slightly. The largest gains came from the HVAC choice and rooftop PV, and the combined package cut energy use intensity by 42%. The daylight study adds an important check: the same generous glazing that delivers good daylight autonomy also lets in too much direct sun, so shading and glazing selection need to be settled together with the window ratio.

Not sure which format fits?

Tell me about your team, your project or your course, and I'll point you to the right one.