Performance Oriented Studies: London Case Studies - Refurbishing the City by Ameer Mustafa Varzgani

PERFORMANCE ORIENTED STUDIES GROUP 7: SLIP HOUSE QUEENSBRIDGE

MURRAY MEWS THE BARBICAN ESTATE

LONDON CASE STUDIES

ADELAIDE WHARF BARKING

REFURBISHING THE CITY

SUMMARY Group 7 Case Studies incorporate schemes of new constructions following the latest regulations, along with unrefurbished old buildings. The Barbican Estate is the main focus of this report. The scheme is a post-war 1960â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unrefurbished mixed-use complex, with a variety of open spaces, residential blocks, educational and cultural facilities. The poor building envelope of the residential blocks, along with the daylighting issues are apparent at first glance. The improvement of such a project showed that the increase of energy savings and of the overall environmental performance is possible. Old, but properly refurbished buildings can decently stand among newly constructed ones.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION FORM Term 1 Project : London Case Studies

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ORIENTED STUDIES | GROUP 7: Slip House, Murray Mews, Adelaide Wharf, Queensbridge, The Barbican Estate, Barking

NUMBER OF WORDS: 12299 STUDENT NAME(S): Tsagkalidou Olga Uzunhasanoglu Tolga Varzgani Ameer Mustafa Zepeda Daniel DECLARATION: “I certify that the contents of this document are entirely my own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”

Signature(s):

Date: 12 January 2015

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our group would like to thank all the AA SED teaching staff and visiting lecturers (Simos Yannas, Paula Cadima, Gustavo Brunelli, Jorge Rodriquez, Nick Baker and Joana GonĂ§alves), who were very supportive and encouraging throughout the term. Without their guidance and persisent help this project would not have been possible. We would like to offer our special thanks to our tutor, Paula Cadima who was always there and worked with us on the project week by week. We are also deeply grateful to Byron Mardas and Herman Calleja who were always available to answer all of our questions. In addition, we would like to thank the Barbican Estate Office for providing us with useful information about the Barbican management nowadays and giving us guidelines on how to find all the digital material we wanted for the project. Last but not least, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to the wonderful residents of the three flats we visited in the Barbican Estate - Paul and Deborah from the Thomas More House and Emma from the Defoe House - for being very kindhearted to trust us and open their homes to us. Their co-operation, their time and the information and tips they provided were very essential to carry out this study.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................06 2. OVERVIEW................................................................................................08 2.1. Lessons Learnt...........................................................................08 2.2. Site Location...............................................................................10 2.3. Climate Analysis & Weather Data...............................................11 2.4. Historical Information..................................................................12 2.5. Housing Typologies.....................................................................13 3. OUTDOOR STUDIES.................................................................................14 3.1. Context........................................................................................14 3.2. Fieldwork.....................................................................................15 3.3. PET Analysis...............................................................................16 3.4. Solar Studies..............................................................................18 3.5. Wind Studies...............................................................................19 3.6. Proposals....................................................................................20 3.7. Conclusions................................................................................21 4. INDOOR STUDIES.....................................................................................22 4.1. Survey.........................................................................................22 4.1.1. Occupantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Interview...................................................22 4.1.2. Internal Gains.............................................................23 4.2. Daylighting..................................................................................24 4.2.1. Fieldwork.....................................................................24 4.2.2. Base Case Simulations...............................................25 4.2.3. Proposals....................................................................26 4.2.4. Conclusions................................................................28 4.3. Thermal Analysis........................................................................30 4.3.1. Fieldwork....................................................................30 4.3.2. Soft Computations.......................................................32 4.3.3. TAS Simulations..........................................................34 4.3.4. Conclusions................................................................37 5. ECONOMIC & ENERGY EFFICIENCY......................................................38 5.1. Introduction.................................................................................38 5.2. Energy Efficient Refurbishment .................................................39 6. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................40 6.1. General Conclusions..................................................................40 6.2. Personal Outcomes....................................................................41 7. REFERENCES...........................................................................................42 8. APPENDIX.................................................................................................44

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

01 introduction

01 | INTRODUCTION

Among Group 7 schemes, the Barbican Estate was the one that immediately caught the team’s attention. Being a project of historical and architectural relevance for the city of London was only the first reason of choice. The opportunity of gaining access to a post-war 1960’s building, study it in depth so as to evaluate its performance was also very important. In addition, the Barbican Estate provide a variety of outdoors space with unique microclimatic conditions that open an extensive field of observation and analysis. Our broader area of interest, consisting of the Shakespeare Tower Square, the Defoe House residential block, the Thomas More private garden and the Thomas More residential block, lies along a strong North-South axe inside the whole Barbican complex. The two open spaces were studied and three apartments were accessed through the team’s personal contact with Barbican’s residents. The occupants of all three apartments (1 in Defoe House and 2 in Thomas More House) were interviewed and the two from the Thomas More House was also measured and decided to be studied in greater depth. Our research agenda consists of the following: Outdoors • How the two differently-contextualized open spaces perform and be used in relation to each other? • To what extent should outdoor comfort perception vary from the indoor comfort standards? • How can the high wind velocities in the Shakespeare Tower Square can be mitigated in order to make it a more lively place?

Figure 1.1.: Group 7 Schemes Energy Index (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994)

Indoors • What are the refurbishment strategies that should be made in order to improve the old building envelope and consequently the apartments’ energy performance? • To what extent is it possible to mitigate deep-plan daylighting problems? After addressing these questions, the team managed to improve the performance of both apartments. Taking a step further a cost-analysis and energy savings comparison between refurbishment projects and new constructions is also presented.

Figure 1.2.: Thomas More Garden | Photo taken on 5 Nov 2014 06

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

01 introduction Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

02 overview

02 | OVERVIEW 2.1. LESSONS LEARNT Slip House The Slip House (Fig. 2.1.1.) is a live/work unit, newly constructed, that manages through design strategies to achieve thermal comfort and reduce its reliance on mechanical heating. Regarding daylighting, its materiality and built form causes glare problems. Adaptive opportunities such as shading devices can decrease the problem. Questions are raised concerning the contemporary materiality and to what extent the use of these materials is practical and serves the initial sustainability and energy saving goals. The Barbican Estate The Barbican (Fig. 2.1.2.) is a post-war 1960’s building. Regarding the thermal performance the old building envelope has a very poor performance with high heat losses. Improvements can help make the situation better but not perfect. It’s almost impossible for such buildings to run in a free running mode. What is achievable is to shorten the period during when the heating system is need and works. Adaptive opportunities available to the occupants are really significant in these kind of schemes. As for the daylighting issue, the deep-plan layout causes lack of sufficient daylighting inside the apartments. What might be more important is also the poor daylight distribution from space to space.

Figure 2.1.1.: Slip House | Photo taken during a site visit on 12 Oct 2014

Murray Mews What we learn from Murray Mews (Fig 2.1.3.) is that extreme design decisions, such as the big rooflight window in this case, may cause problems. Due to the high heat losses, the building strongly depends on mechanical heating system during winter months, whereas it also has overheating problems during summers. Daylight problems are also observed, since the daylight levels are by far above the British standards and cause overheating.

Figure 2.1.2.: The Barbican Estate | Photo taken during a site visit on 16 Dec 2014

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 2.1.3.: Murray Mews | Photo taken during a site visit on 12 Oct 2014

Figure 2.1.4.: Barking | Photo taken during a site visit on 18 Oct 2014

02 overview

2.1. LESSONS LEARNT Barking The outdoor analysis of Barking (Fig 2.1.4.) shows that geometry of outdoor spaces and their surroundings are very important in terms of solar access and wind studies. The vegetated courtyard performs differently that the non-one. Tall buildings located onto the pravailing wind direction cause air turbulences at the ground level. Regarding the indoor studies, we can conclude that topfloor apartments have high heat-losses due to high exposure. The high insulation levels provides air-tightness, but also causes overheating problems and may increase the cooling loads during summers, if appropriate passive cooling opportunities are not provided. Adelaide Wharf Adelaide Wharf (Fig 2.1.5.) is a newly constructed building following the latest building regulations.The building performs really well even during the winter period in a free running mode. This is due to high insulation levels and low exposure of the apartments. However, this fact gives indications of possible overheating especially during the summer months. The addition of thermal mass and a natural ventilation cooling strategy could help avoid that. Regarding daylighting, the scheme has deep-plan problems, mainly caused by the overshadowing of the built form and the internal distribution of spaces. The fact that occupants are aware and informed about the energy saving goals is also notable. Consequently, the way they use the apartment supports these goals. Queensbridge As a Term 2 design project, Queensbridge (Fig 2.1.6.) is a very good example of how to use the outcomes from London case studies and translate them into space and design decisions. The project managed to make good use of Adelaide Wharfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efficient elements and also propose strategies of cross-ventilation through transitional spaces and improve the deep-plan issue by finding solution of ligh penetration through the built form. Figure 2.1.5.: Adelaide Wharf | Photo taken during a site visit on 12 Oct 2014

Figure 2.1.6.: Queensbridge | AA SED project (Source: tranSPATIALiving, AA SED 2010 - 2011)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

02 overview

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga UzunhasanoÄ&#x;lu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

Barbican Tube Station | Metropolitan Cicle - Hammersmith & City Lines

2.2. SITE LOCATION The Barbican Estate site is located in Central East London on the north side of river Thames. The area is known as the City of London (Fig 2.2.3.). The site is certainly affected by its surrounding area of a high urban density character. Tall buildings, tight urban blocks, tube and rail stations and a complex road network is located around it. Being in a central area, Barbican has a great public transport connectivity. The nearest tube stations are Barbican (Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) and Moorgate (Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City and Northern lines). Around the estate are also plenty of bus stations, making Barbican approachable from every direction (Fig. 2.2.1.).

Moorgate Tube Station | Northern - Metropolitan - Cicle - Hammersmith & City Lines Figure 2.2.1.: Public Transport and Road Infrastructure (Source: after Barbican Estate Office)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 2.2.3.: Project Location (Source: Google Maps)

Figure 2.2.2.: Birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eye View of the Barbican Estate (Source: Google Earth)

2.3. CLIMATE ANALYSIS & WEATHER DATA Weather Station Meteonorm was used to obtain historical weather data. We chose the London Central weather station due to its proximity to our site and the fact that it is located in the city center and consequently takes into account the urban setting. Recent weather data were obtained from the Wunderground website (http:// www.wunderground.com). Bloomsbury weather station was selected, being the one nearest our site that has the kind of data we wanted for processing and analyzing our spot measurements and data-logger values (Fig 2.3.1.).

01 Figure 2.3.2.: London Weather Data | Comfort band (Source: Course Tools)

02 overview

Weather Data The Climate Spreadsheet, provided as a course tool, was used to assess the obtained weather file. Historical data from Meteonorm shows that London’s average temperature is 12.3 °C ranging from -2 °C to 31.2 °C (Fig 2.3.2.). Comfort Band Auliciems/Szokolay’s comfort band was selected for the analytic work. According to them, comfort is achieved at neutrality temperature, which has a relation with the monthly mean temperatures. The formula is the one below: Tn = 17.6 + 0.31 * Toav This selection supports the adaptive approach the team has towards comfort standards.

Figure 2.3.3.: London Weather Data | Sky Frequency (%) (Source: Satel-Light) 01 PROJECT LOCATION: 51°31’12’’N, 0°05’42’’W 02 LONDON CENTRAL WEATHER STATION: 51°31’48’’N, 0°06’00’’W

03 BLOOMSBURY WEATHER STATION: 51°31’21’’N, 0°08’05’’W Figure 2.3.1.: Location of the project and the selected Weather Stations (Source: Google Maps)

Figure 2.3.4.: London Weather Data | Prevailing Winds (Source: Ecotect’s Weather Tool)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

02 overview

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

2.4. HISTORICAL INFORMATION One of the damaged sites of bombings was the Barbican area on 29th December 1940 during the WWII. For nearly two decades after the war, Barbican site was just a playground for children. “In 1944, Corporation of London made some proposals for the post-war refurbishment of the city of London”. However, the Common Council’s approach was not at the residential accommodation those times. In 1947, Holford and Holden, who works for a planning consultant company, had presented a reconstruction plan for the Barbican area which is entirely commercial area with American style office blocks. Again these drawings have just stayed on the papers like first attempt. In 1954, Common Council relaxed with their planning process and at the same year Corporation of London prepared their scheme. Also, the City asked Chamberlin. Powell & Bon to design Barbican site. They have developed a plan for whole Barbican with residential and office blocks. Also, the project included the City of London School, Guildhall School of Music. After some changes in the reports and plans for Barbican made by Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, In 1959 Common Council has approved the project on 11th November. The construction continued between 1964 and 1982. In 1963, the project faced with some technical problems due to the kitchen ventilation systems and building regulations. The only solution found the fix this problem was the rename the kitchen as cooking area and making it a part of living area. With this method, they have been approved by the London County Council again.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 2.4.1.: The Barbican Estate (Source: http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/embattled-london)

Figure 2.4.3.: The construction site (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8694277.stm)

Figure 2.4.2.: The site before Barbican’s construction (Source: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/13/ brutalist-buildings-barbican-estate-chamberlin-powell-bon/)

Figure 2.4.4.: Site plan of the Barbican Estate (Source: www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_ Services/Housing/Private_housing/estate_map.htm)

02 overview

2.5. HOUSING TYPOLOGIES In Barbican Estate, there are over 100 different housing typologies, ranging from modest studios to spacious triplex penthouses, as well as a small number of terraced houses. There are more one bedroom flats than any other kinds on the Estate. And also there are two types of one-bedroom apartments. Those are with two (bedroom and living room) and three rooms (bedroom, living room and dining or study room). Kitchens and bathrooms are not counting as rooms. Figure 2.5.3.: Schematic view of Barbican (Source: www.barbicanliving.co.uk)

On the other hand, Barbican Estate has studio flats, two bedroom flats, three bedroom flats, Towers, Maisonettes, Penthouses and Gardens (or sub-podium) flats. All of these types are also separating due to their location, orientation and usage of the spaces. In most of the blocks, balconies are also used for fire exit. They have been subdivided by glazed fire screens. In an emergency, they can be opened and reached the fire door. Our analytic work will focus on two apartments (Type 16H - 1 Bedroom and Type 21 - 2 Bedroom) of the Thomas More House. Residents from Types 16H - 21 - 20 were interviewed (Fig 2.5.2.).

Figure 2.5.1.: Housing Typologies of the Barbican Estate

Figure 2.5.4.: Defoe House Apartments (Source: www. barbicanliving.co.uk)

Figure 2.5.2.: Type 16H - 21 - 20 Apartments of our interest (Source: http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk)

Figure 2.5.5.: Thomas More House Apartments (Source: www.barbicanliving.co.uk)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

3.1. CONTEXT The Barbican Estate is a mixed-used complex, which was planned to provide a continuous mix of public and private spaces. It combines residential, educational and cultural facilities, as well as a diversity of open spaces, which immediately caught our attention as a chance to study and observe the urban life and the differences between outdoor spaces, in terms of usage, materiality, comfort and atmosphere (Fig 3.1.1.). At first glance, for a first-time user of the site, the Estate’s organisation is not very clear, but after spending time there it is understandable that the circulation networks are designed in a way to respect the privacy of the residents.

Figure 3.1.3.: Shakespeare Tower Square

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

VEGETATION

PUBLIC SPACES

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

WATER BODY

PRIVATE SPACES

CULTURAL FACILITIES

BUILT SPACES

NOVEMBER 2014

03 outdoor studies

03 | OUTDOOR STUDIES

Figure 3.1.1.: Urban Studies diagrams (Source: after Barbican Estate Office) Figure 3.1.4.: Thomas More Garden

The spaces, which are accessible to the public, are the educational facilities (the City of London School for Girls and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), the most of the Podium Level areas leading to the residential blocks’ entrances and the two main pupblic squares of the Estate, the Barbican Centre Square (lower-ground level) and the Shakespeare Tower Square (podium level). The Shakespeare Tower Square is the main site entrance nearest to the ‘Barbican’ tube station and the main passage for the public towards the Barbican Centre (cultural facilities). During our first visit to there we felt that it was also the most windy place of the Estate, These reasons drove us to pay more attention to this Square and study it in greater depth.

SHAKESPEARE TOWER SQUARE USAGE Figure 3.1.5.: Barbican Centre’s Square

We visited multiple times throughout the term the site in order to do observations along time and different periods of the year (Fig 3.1.3 - Fig 3.1.8.). Even from our earlier site visits we understood that people were avoiding to pass along the Shakespeare Tower (probably because of the strong wind) and they were either crossing it or they were walking along the Defoe’s House’s passages, which feel more protected. The Barbican Centre Square during our visits in November was thriving of life, whereas later in the year in December it was empty. This might also be because of the different time visit within the day (the photo of Fig. 3.1.5. was taken during a lunch break). Thomas More Garden is a private gated space, where only the residents of Barbican have access. We were told by the three residents we interviewed that during summer, spring and autumn the garden is full of life, residents (especially the ones with children) use it a lot to relax and socialize. During winter they use it mainly as passage in order to avoid the public areas and because they find it more comfortable.

THOMAS MORE GARDEN USAGE

DECEMBER 2014

Figure 3.1.6.: Barbican Centre’s Square

Figure 3.1.7.: Defoe House Passage

Benches Spots Walking Route

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 3.1.2.: Outdoor Spaces Usage diagram

Figure 3.1.8.: Shakespeare Tower Square

11:00 AM

RELATIVE HUMIDITY RANGE: 42% - 79%

AIR TEMPERATURE FROM W-UNDERGROUND: 9 °C Bloomsbury Weather Station

Based on the observations we made during our first visits we decided to focus on the Shakespeare Tower Square, as we identified problems regarding the usage and the wind, and the Thomas More Garden, which is a large vegetated space.

B MATERIAL_01 Average S. Temparature: 3.5 °C

3.2. FIELDWORK

A’

03 outdoor studies

SHAKESPEARE TOWER SQUARE

5 Nov

Spot measurements were taken in these two open spaces (Fig 3.2.2.) during early November. This was done in order to have a clearer view and understand how the spaces perform in relation to each other and how they might develop a different microclimate in relation to the general city’s surroundings (selected weather station, Bloomsbury). Temperatures The Garden presents higher temperatures than the Square with average difference of 2.9 °K. In general, in the southern part of the Garden, which have less access to direct solar radiation due to built form obstruction, the temperatures are lower.

MATERIAL_02 Average S. Temparature: 5.0 °C

SHAKESPEARE TOWER SQUARE

Regarding the Square, the south Defoe House’s passage shows the higher temperatures because it is the only part that is not obstructed and has access to direct solar radiation. Comparing the two spaces with the data we acquired from the Bloomsbury weather station we can see that the Square performs quite similar, whereas tha Garden’s temperature values are higher. During the fieldwork visit we also took surface temperature measurements (Fig 3.2.1.) so as to compare the difference between various materials and textures.

MATERIAL_03 Average S. Temparature: 7.3 °C

PRIVATE GARDEN

Air Velocity Confirming our first impression, the measurements showed the great difference regarding the air velocity values between the Garden and the Square. The air velocities of the Garden are in general low and stable. The measurements we took at the Square tend to reach very high values (maximum measured 7.3 m/s). Here are presented the average values which are still high. The presence of the Shakespeare Tower also intesifies the wind effect, causing air turbulences. MATERIAL_04 Average S. Temparature: 7.2 °C

PET The Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) was calculated based on the spot measurements taken and on further weather data we acquired from the Bloomsbury weather station for the specific day. RayMan Pro tool was used to do the calculations. For more specific values regarding the spot measurements and the PET see the attached tables and figures in the Appendix.

MATERIAL_05 Average S. Temparature: 9.0 °C Figure 3.2.1.: Surface Temperatures taken on 5 Nov 2014

B’ Figure 3.2.2.: Spot Measurements and PET taken on 5 Nov 2014

THOMAS MORE GARDEN

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

03 outdoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

3.3. PET ANALYSIS

5 Nov

11:00 AM

RELATIVE HUMIDITY RANGE: 42% - 79%

AIR TEMPERATURE FROM W-UNDERGROUND: 9 °C Bloomsbury Weather Station

The Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) is used in order to take into account more of the external factors that affect the comfort perception outdoors. PET values in the Shakespeare Tower Square are notably lower than the actual air temperature values with differences reaching around 10 °K. It is assumed that the wind becomes a very significant factor for assessing the outdoor comfort feeling. As it is shown in Fig 3.3.1. in Section B-B’, the Thomas More Garden presents a more stable performance overall, compared to the Shakespeare Tower Square. Section A-A’ also presents the turbulence effect the Shakespeare Tower causes. It is clear that the air velocities near the Tower are higher, varying from 4.2 m/s up to 6.1 m/s average values.

SECTION A - A’

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 3.3.1.: Spot Measurements and PET taken on 5 Nov 2014

SECTION B- B’

In an attempt to assess to what extent the wind affects the way people feel outdoors we made hypothetical scenarios in order to run PET calculations.

SQUARE_BASE CASE

Base Case scenario’s RayMan inputs are based on the values of the spot measurements. Scenario 01 varies concerning the air velocity. The input here is assumed to be very near a minimum value of 0.4 m/s. Having identify the wind as a major problem, especially in the Shakespeare Tower Square, we wanted to see what the effects would be towards an attempt to mitigate it. Scenario 02 is an ideal scenario which apart from a low air velocity takes into account a hypothesis of a sunny day. The global solar radiation input was 325 W/m2, which was the highest value occured during fielwork.

03 outdoor studies

3.3. PET ANALYSIS

The results for the two open spaces are shown in Fig 3.3.2. and Fig 3.3.3. The adaptive indoors comfort band is also presented just because PET is used. None of the cases reaches the comfort band, but this is something expected. The analysis is made for a winter period and is understandable that comfort in an outdoors space is not something we must look for. Our intention is just to observe, makes hypotheses and have conclusions. SQUARE_SCENARIO 01 Figure 3.3.2: PET Scenarios Chart | Shakespeare Tower Square

Taking a step further, CBE Thermal Comfort Tool provided by the University of Berkeley is used so as to take into account the metabolic rate and the clothing insulation factors (RayMan does not work with them). What is found out is that is normal to have broader and more tolerant expectations regarding the ‘comfort standards’ outdoors.

SQUARE_SCENARIO 02

GARDEN_BASE CASE Figure 3.3.3.: PET Scenarios Chart | Thomas More Garden

Figure 3.3.4.: Psychometric Comfort Charts (Source: CBE Thermal Comfort Tool)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

The sun-patch analysis is used to assess any possible overshadowing effect and to identify areas which receive direct solar radiation. The analysis takes into consideration the diferrent seasons and times during the a day (Fig 3.4.1.). During the winter the overshadowing effect due to the built form is very intense and has a major impact on both the open spaces. Neither the Thomas More Garden nor the Shakespeare Tower Square have access to direct solar radiation. During spring, summer and fall months, the Garden appears to receive sufficient daylight. Even during the equinoxes at 15:00 pm most of its northern part is well lit. Its southern part is overshadowed from the Thomas More residential block. Daylighting in the Garden is to some extent blocked from the vegetation but mainly during spring, summer and early autumn. Deciduous trees are used throught Barbican so as to allow the solar access during winter months when it is needed the most. On the other hand, the Shakespeare Tower Square in general does not have access to direct solar radiation throughout the year. Only during summer months between 09:00 am and 12:00 pm the Square is not overshadowed from the Defoe House residential block.

WINTER SOLSTICE 21 DECEMBER

3.4. SOLAR STUDIES

SPRING EQUINOX 21 MARCH

03 outdoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga UzunhasanoÄ&#x;lu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

09:00 AM

12:00 PM

15:00 PM

09:00 AM

12:00 PM

15:00 PM

09:00 AM

12:00 PM

15:00 PM

The solar studies also helps to make first hypotheses regarding the solar access of the indoor spaces. It understood that the north facades of both the Thomas More and Defoe House do not receive sufficient daylight throught the year and especially the overshadowing effect for the lower-ground apartments will be huge.

SUMMER SOLSTICE 21 JUNE

The direct solar radiation analysis (Fig 3.4.2.) also confirms the above conclusions.

Figure 3.4.1.: Sun-patch diagram (Source: Ecotect)

WINTER 18

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 3.4.2.: Direct Solar Radiation | Winter and Summer (Source: Ecotect)

SUMMER

In order to get a better indication of how the wind speeds affects the outdoors we used WinAir to simulate the performance of the Thomas More Garden and the Shakespeare Tower Square (Fig 3.5.1.). For the all the wind simulations we used the prevailing wind direction (see part 2.4. Climate Analysis and Weather Data).

03 outdoor studies

3.5. WIND STUDIES

Especially the results shown in the two sections (Fig 3.5.2. and Fig 3.5.3.) explain the conclusions we reached after the fieldwork analysis. Simulations also confirm the spot measurement values. They clearly indicate that the Garden develop lower air velocities and a more stable performance, compared to the Square. Trees work like wind barriers and help to mitigate the wind speeds. The analysis part, both the fieldwork measurements as well as the WinAir simulations support our first impression during the early site visits that ‘Shakespeare Tower Square is too windy’.

Figure 3.5.1.: Wind Simulation | Base Case (Source: WinΑir)

Consequently, our intention regarding interventions on how to improve the outdoors environment will focus on ways to decrease the wind speeds in the Square and try to make it a more livable place.

Figure 3.5.2.: Wind Simulation | Base Case (Source: WinAir)

Figure 3.5.3.: Wind Simulation | Base Case (Source: WinAir)

SHAKESPEARE TOWER SQUARE

THOMAS MORE GARDEN Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

03 outdoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

3.6. PROPOSALS After identifying the wind speeds in the Shakespeare Tower Square as a significant problem that affects the urban life inside Barbican’s outdoor spaces we ran three different alternative scenarios simulations (Fig 3.6.1.) Scenario 01 is dealing with the built form and proposes a change for the Tower’s height. Our first hypothesis was that the turbulence caused by the Tower is the main reason for the very high air velocities. As it shown in Fig. 3.6.1. this intervention does not affect much the ground level. The turbulence affects mainly higher level and consequently the apartments of the Defoe House residential block. Scenario 02 simulation, which also deals with the built form and proposes a ‘bare’ Tower (opening the lower levels as an arcade) gave us similar results and no improvement. We can understand that the geometry of the Square makes it act like a wind tunnel and a different approach of intervention must be proposed.

SCENARIO 01

SCENARIO 02

SCENARIO 03

Figure 3.6.1.: Wind Improvement Scenarios (Source: WinAir)

The intervention that had the desired results was Scenario 03, which proposes a vegetated Square and managed to bring down air velocities to an average value of 1.8 m/s. Vegetation is something to be designed carefully and must be perceived as a completely different landscape project. A ‘3d-ground’ concept might be useful as the raised ground itself can act as a wind barrier (Fig 3.6.3.). In any case, a collaboration with landscape architect is essential. Apart from trees, exhibition panels can also be used as wind barriers, as an attempt to connect the usage of the Square with the Barbican Centre’s cultural activities. As we can see from the above, the best results for decreasing the wind velocities at the ground level happen when smaller and scattered interventions take place throughout the Square area. Regarding the solar radiation the Square receives before and after the proposed intervention, Fig 3.6.2. shows the performance of the space. Deciduous trees will also be planted here to match the rest of the Barbican’s vegetation. After all, even before the intervention the Square does not receive a lot of direct solar radiation for the largest period of the year.

BASE CASE Figure 3.6.2.: Annual Average Solar Radiation (Source: Ecotect)

The materiality of the proposed design, concerning the textures, the radiant temperatures, the reflectance etc is something that also has to be considered and can be really important regarding the comfort levels.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 3.6.3.: Landscape Vegetation

SCENARIO 03

The previous study of the two outdoor spaces of the Barbican Estate, the Thomas More Garden and the Shakespeare Tower Square could lead us to some more general outcomes regarding ‘the life in outdoors’.

03 outdoor studies

3.7. CONCLUSIONS

Microclimatic conditions are really complex and it is impossible towards the road of fixing one not to affect another. Comfort standards as they perceived indoors should not be applied to the outdoors with the same limitations. People do have broader expectations and are more tolerant with their environment when they are in open spaces. Observations, studies, measurements and simulations should be made in order to assess the performance of the spaces and propose improements. But always one should take into consideration the various psychological factors, which in such cases are more intense. If we provide a lively place with activities, opportunities and small areas where one can feel protected, people will adapt more easily to the exterior environment. What we seek is the creation of a good and acceptable atmosphere, a symbiosis between the different factors that forms the outdoor spaces.

Figure 3.7.1.: Proposal perspective: ‘Atmosphere’ - Summer | Shakespeare Tower Square

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

04 indoor studies

04 | INDOOR STUDIES 4.1. SURVEY 4.1.1. Occupants’ Interview After considering the differences between Outdoor Conditions, it has been decided to make a questionnaire with occupants who has direct relation with these different conditions. We talked with people from three different flats. Emma’s is located at the 5th floor of the Defoe House. It is a 1-bedroom flat with 2 occupants and has a S-N orientation. Her husband works from home. Paul’s 1 bedroom flat has direct interaction with the courtyard in front of his flat which is below the podium level and he lives alone. Deborah’s flat with double bedroom is located at the same horizontal axe with Paul’s but her flat is at 5th storey. Her flat is able to see St. Paul in the south side and courtyard at the north side. Deborah’s flat has 4 occupants, 2 adults and 2 children. All of the residents live in London more than 15 years, so they have adapted to the city’s climate conditions.

Figure 4.1.1.1.: Surveyed houses

Heating and Cooling All the flats in Barbican Estate have underfloor heating system which is uncontrollable by the occupants. It can be just controllable by Estate Management Office and it is on from 1st October until 31st March. Main source of cooling is natural ventilation through windows. No one has ACs. Emma`s and Doborah`s flats have balconies so they are using those openings in a warm summer day. Paul is opening the bedroom window every night while sleeping, aprx. 7 hours. He said that this is much more meaningful in terms of air quality than air temperature. Deborah is also opening the bedroom window a little bit during the day time to exchange the air and improve the quality for the bedrooms. Thermal Comfort In general all of the occupants are happy with their underfloor heating system although it cannot controlled by themselves. Emma is the only one that during cold days uses a portable heater despite the 24/7 heating system. On the other hand she says that the flat never gets too hot due to the opportunity of cross-ventilation. Paul’s flat was the coldest one measured but he is satisfied with the overall feeling. Infact he was complaining much more about the overheating during night time. Deborah also mentioned the temperature difference between north faced bedrooms and south faced living room, but she is really comfortable with it. When we asked the question “How would you like to feel during a day time ?” we received interesting and valuable answers. Except night time non of the occupants were asking for any difference. However at nights, Emma would prefer a warmer bedroom which is north faced and looking to Shakespear Tower. Deborah did not want any changes, and Paul would prefer a colder bedroom. Acoustics Emma and Paul was informing that they are much more disturbed by the outdoor noises. Deborah mentioned about the internal noises coming from the children. All of the occupants has complained about the noises coming from the pipes due to an old subsystem in the building. Daylighting Emma has blinds in her living room and curtains in the bedroom. Because her living room is south oriented and window is not obstructed solar gains and radiation is quite high. Paul has curtains in the living room but just for privacy be22

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

WEEKDAYS

WEEKENDS

Figure 4.1.1.2.: Occupancy Pattern

THERMAL COMFORT

DAYLIGHTING

VISUAL COMFORT

ACOUSTICS

FLAT VENTILATION

KITCHEN VENTILATION

Figure 4.1.1.3.: General opinion of the house environment

cause he is really close to the garden. His flat lacks direct sunlight even during daytime and therefore he is using artifical lighting always and everywhere. Deborah doesn’t have any curtains or blinds in her living room which looks to south. Thats why the solar gain and radiation is high and it explains the higher temperature peaks at noon. Each flat has a deep-plan layout and consequently the kitchen, corridor and bathroom areas which are located in the middle and don’t have any windows, have daylighting problems.

04 indoor studies

4.1. SURVEY

Visual Comfort While Deborah and Emma are really happy with their views, Paul is just happy with his living room which which has a direct view towards the garden. His bedroom looks towards a car-park. For Paul the fact that he has direct relationship with the garden and being at the same level with the trees is desirable. Emma also enjoys her view towards the garden, despite being at the 5th floor. Deborah is perfectly happy with the views both from the bedrooms towards the garden as well as from the living room. Being as well at the 5th floor helps not to have obstructions and look directly towards St. Paul Cathedral.

W/h 2500 2400 2300 2200

4.1.2. Internal Gains

2100

Part of our interview with the occupants was to identify the electric devices they use throughout the day and for how long. Appliances release a certain amount of heat into each apartment, contributing to the overall heat gains. The amount depends on their individual power, rating and usage. They are also significant contributors to the CO2 emissions since they use electricity.

2000 1900 1800 1700 1600

Fig 4.1.2.1. and 4.1.2.2. show that hobs and fridges are the most inefficient ones. The amount of heat gains coming from the occupants themselves is also notable.

1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600

400

Internal Heat Gains (Daily)

300

1 Bedroom Apartment

500

200 100 0

Figure 4.1.2.2.: Daily Internal Heat Gains | Paul’s Apartment

Occupant

DVD

Vacuum Clearner

Radio

Wireless Router

Laptop

Fridge

Toaster

Coffee Maker Electric Kettle

Hob

Oven

Figure 4.1.2.1..: Daily Internal Heat Gains | Deborah’s Apartment

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

04 indoor studies

31 Oct

15:00 PM

AIR TEMPERATURE FROM W-UNDERGROUND: 25 °C Bloomsbury Weather Station

4.2. DAYLIGHTING 4.2.1. Fieldwork As part of the field work the indoor illuminance of the flats was measured the 31 of October between 4:00 and 5:00pm under a sunny clear sky. The analytical work results (Fig 4.2.1. and Fig 4.2.3.) show how the intensity of daylight illuminance deteriorates as it reaches the centre of the plan of the flats. Daylight reaches the interior of the flats through the ends of them on the 1 bedroom flat on the level -02, the bedroom is facing south with a 34.4 ° obstruction angle and the living room facing north. On The 2 bedroom flat on the level 05 the living room is facing south with a 12.60° obstruction angle and the bedroom is facing north. There are not any other sources of daylight.

Figure 4.2.1.1.: Spot Measurements and Interior Aspect | Deborah’s Apartment

Most of the walls and ceilings are painted white reflecting the outdoor illumination. Due to the dark colour of the furniture and different objects covering the walls the reflectance is inefficient and even in the best case scenario the deep plan of the flats it is still too dark; under the visual comfort range.

LIVING ROOM CORRIDOR Figure 4.2.1.2.: Interior Photos | Deborah’s Apartment

KITCHEN

CHILDREN’S BEDROOM - STUDY

BEDROOM

CORRIDOR

KITCHEN

BEDROOM

Figure 4.2.1.3.: Spot Measurements and Interior Aspect | Paul’s Apartment

LIVING ROOM 24

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

DINING ROOM

Figure 4.2.1.4.: Interior Photos | Paul’s Apartment

Average Daylight duration (hrs) 18.00 16.00 12.00 10.00

4.2. DAYLIGHTING

8.00

6.00

04 indoor studies

Hour per day

14.00

4.00 2.00 0.00

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dic

Figure 7.2.2.1 Global Illuminance VERTICAL kLX - Year 1996-200 - From sunrise to sunset(Source: Satel-light)

Figure 4.2.2.1.: Global Illuminance VERTICAL kLX | Year 1996 - 2000 | From sunset to sunrise (Source: Satel-light)

4.2.2. Base Case Simulations In order to start the analysis daylight simulations were run on radiance through Diva under Rhinoceros. Satel-light was consulted in order to get the mean yearly global illumination values (Fig 4.2.2.1) the values for daylight hours per day, month and year were gathered and used as a start point.

Figure 4.2.2.2.: Mean Useful Daylight Illumination Base case Simulation | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

The Daylight factor simulations (Figs 4.2.2.4 and 4.2.2.5) on both cases showed as well the same findings than in the fieldwork. While the mean value of the flats and the areas on the ends of the apartments where the bedrooms and living rooms are located gave mean values on the acceptable levels the areas on the deep plan showed values of zero or near to zero way below the acceptable values recommended for those areas, in order to comprehend the affectation of this values Useful Daylight illumination simulations were done (Figs 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3) and on both cases the results showed the same trend regarding deep plan. After obtaining the values from the simulation the information for each area of each flat was cross referenced with the yearly average daylight hours.

Figure 4.2.2.3.: Mean Useful Daylight Illumination Base case Simulation | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

After this the values were computed it was possible to make a yearly comparison between the mean useful daylight illumination and the number of daylight hours during the day that the occupants would need artificial light even though its daytime (Figs 4.2.2.6 and 4.2.2.7).

Figure 4.2.2.6.: Mean Useful Daylight Illumination Base case Simulation | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.2.4.: Daylight factor Base case Simulation | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.2.5.: Daylight factor Base case Simulation | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.2.7.: Mean Useful Daylight Illumination Base case Simulation | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

04 indoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga UzunhasanoÄ&#x;lu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

4.2. DAYLIGHTING 4.2.3. Proposals In order to improve the visual comfort of the occupants the problem taken in consideration was how to bring light to the deep plan area of the flat?

Stage 02

Roof opening area 205% bigger

The current proposal (Figure 4.2.3.1) takes advantage of the architectonical distribution of the building bringing light trough the vertical circulation centre of the building. The proposal was stepped and simulated in 03 stages. The first stage or step is to change the main entrance door and wooden wall panels to crystal. By doing this we brought a new source of light in the middle of the flats. The first step also considered painting white all the indoor walls of the vertical circulation area. The second stage is opening the skylight of the space from 1.70x4.70 to 2.44x6.72 enlarging the opening to a 205% of the base case area changing the material of the dome from white tinted glass to a crystal translucent sky-dome. Also as part of the Second stage openings were done on the sides of the walls at the podium level to bring daylight to the lower floors. The third stage of the proposal is to redesign the current concrete staircase to glass as well as the slabs on each floor outside of each apartment.

Stage 01

Crystal Door and wall on entrance

Stage 01

All interior walls white

Stage 03

Slap of glass at the lobby in each ďŹ&#x201A;oor

Stage 02

Side windows at poduium level

Figure 4.2.3.1.: Section cut with schematic proposal stages and elements changing per stage 26

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 7.2.3.1 Section cut with schematic proposal stages and elements changing per stage

Stage 03

Staircase fabricated in glass

4.2.3. Proposals Simulations for Daylight factor and useful daylight illuminance were run for each stage and the results of each flat (Figures 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4) showed an improvement through the stages mostly on the critical areas (corridor and kitchen) even though the mean values for each flat are not affected significantly in most cases, the only affectation they get is the from the values of the areas where light is more needed.

04 indoor studies

4.2. DAYLIGHTING

The information from the mean Useful daylight illuminance simulations was computed and cross referenced with the global daylight illumination values from sate-light and we created a chart where the affectation can be appreciated as hours during the year on each space where despite of the daylight, artificial light would be needed. Due to the location of the flats the 2 bedroom flat on the level 05 gets more benefit from the changes elaborated than the 1 bedroom flat on the level -02. (Figures 4.2.3.5 and 4.2.3.6). Figure 4.2.3.2.: Section cut with schematic proposal changes applied

Figure 4.2.3.3.: UDI and DLF | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.3.4.: UDI and DLF | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.3.5.: Useful Daylight Illumination Improvement simulation results by proposal stage | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Figure 4.2.3.6.: Useful Daylight Illumination Improvement simulation results by proposal stage | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Radiance)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

04 indoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga UzunhasanoÄ&#x;lu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

4.2. DAYLIGHTING 4.2.4. Conclusions In order to stablish an affectation from the proposals a mean daylight factor simulation was done for each level. (Figure 4.2.4.2.) in which the pattern is determined by the geometry and layout of the building where the upper floors gather more light than the ones on lower levels. (Figure 4.2.4.1) As we make the valuation of the conditions found on this flats and the relation between the solution and the economic implications of the proposals another easier solution to improve light comfort might be to provide supplementary artificial light to fix the psychological perception of the space. The technical aspect of the conditions found its framed and highly limited by the architectonical physical aspects of the building in which inside the architectonical layout of both flats the illuminance quality of some areas such as living room and bedroom are more useful than others such as corridors and bathrooms, thus spaces such as the kitchen are scarified in order to bring some other advantages to the building and to the flat.

Figure 4.2.4.1.: Simulated Mean Daylight Factor improvement per level (Source: Radiance)

Base Case: as it is with no furniture Proposal Stage 01: Crystal door and wall on entrance + All walls painted white Proposal Stage 02: Proposal Stage 01 + Central opening on roof from 1.70x7.40m to 2.44x6.72m Proposal Stage 03: Proposal Stage 02 + Crystal staircase and crystal slab on lobby

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 4.2.4.2.: Simulated Mean Daylight Factor base case and proposals by stage comparison chart (Source: Radiance)

04 indoor studies Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

04 indoor studies

31 Oct

15:00 PM

AIR TEMPERATURE FROM W-UNDERGROUND: 25 °C Bloomsbury Weather Station

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.1. Fieldwork Spot Measurements The thermal analysis of the performance of the two apartments which we chose to study in depth started with fieldwork spot measurements in order to have a first indication of how each space behave and make a decision about where it would be more useful to install the data-loggers and take long-term measurement. The spot measurements were taken on the 31 October 2014, which apparently was quite a hot day for London in the mid-autumn period. The sky condition was sunny and the average outside air temperature was 25 °C. The two apartments, as it shown in Fig 4.3.1.1., performs completely differently and this is due to the different storey height, Paul’s is located in the lower-ground (below the Podium level), whereas Deborah’s is at the 5th floor. Another difference that can explain the spot measurements is the fact that althought the flats have the same S-N orientation, their internal distribution is different. Paul’s living room is N-oriented, whereas Deborah’s is S-oriented. What is also notable, is the fact that Paul’s apartment seems to be more stable regarding the interior temperature variations. The living room and the bedroom are slightly hotter than the kitchen area, which is located in the middle and completely lacks solar radiation. On the other hand, Deborah’s apartment presents important interior temperature variations. The S-oriented living room, which directly receives solar radiation, reached 27.7 °C when we were there. N-oriented bedrooms were around 3 °K lower that this. An important fact to point out is that this day Barbican’s background heating system was already working (starts on 1st October every year).

PAUL’S APARTMENT | LOWER GROUND 30

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 4.3.1.1.: Spot Measurements taken on 31 Oct 2014

DEBORAH’S APARTMENT | 5TH FLOOR

4.3.1. Fieldwork Data-logger Long-term measurements confirms our first indications from the spot measurements. The different storey of the apartments is the main factor that affects solar gain, solar radiation, natural ventilation, effect of heating system and also vegetation at courtyard side. As a general approach its not difficult to examine that temperature graph of Paul’s living room looking to north/courtyard. It is more stable than Deborah’s living room looking to south. This can be explained by lack of direct sun light and consequences about it. Although solar radiation level was high and clearly effecting Deborah’s living room looking to south, it had no effect to Paul’s living room due to the orientation of whole building in general. The side looking to courtyard of Thomas More House is taking direct sun light just at the early mornings for a few amount of time. At this point the difference between Deborah’s bedroom looking to north and Paul’s living room again looking to north can also be observed. Around 1.5°K temperature difference between these two spaces can be explained by the storey number of the flats.

04 indoor studies

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS

Another conclusion at Part C is the difference of Deborah’s living room temperature from Part A and B. While the solar radiation and outdoor temperature was increasing, Deborah’s living room reacting simultaneously as understandable from the peaks. However at Part C, this is slightly difficult to understand. Because of it was certain that nothing has changed with the data loggers, the only thing that can be different is the occupant behaviour. Data loggers were protected from direct sun light in order to receive healthy and valuable results. That’s why at Part C its been assumed that balcony door has been opened to reduce the temperature or avoid the high peak. At Part A and Part B. the quick responses to solar radiation can be explained by direct sun light and lack of adaptive opportunites like blinds or curtains. Another conclusion from the Deborah’s graph is about the 2nd and 3rd days that is weekend. Deborah had informed that her family is nnot at house during weekends. Its quite interesting that it can be understood also from the graph. The time they were not at home, graph has not any small changes or movements. With realizing this topic, it could be also assumed that they have returned home around 2pm on Sunday. After this time, the graph is again showing similarities with the Paul’s in terms of occupancy has been mentioned. Paul’s graph is showing that he is not at the comfortable band. However with the questionnaire has been made, he was always informing that he was comfortable. This can be explained by adaptive behaviours. Paul is living at that flat for 10 years and his body got used to those conditions. And also the small peaks at temperature during night times is confirming the questionnaire, that he was quite uncomfortable when temperature is increasing during night times.

Figure 4.3.1.2.: Measurements of the data-logger | 31 October 2014 - 07 November 2014

As shown in the graph the aim of the underfloor heating system is 15°C. It is working as a background heating tries to keep the flat at min 15°C. With this knowledge the difference can be explained by internal heat gains, solar gains and absorbed heat from the heating system. At this point the difference between Paul’s flat and Deborah’s flat can be mean with the number of occupants, direct sun light and solar gain, building dynamics in terms of movement of air according the temperature. Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

04 indoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.2. Soft Computations Introduction In order to analyze the annual space-heating energy requirements, Fuel Cost and CO2 emissions and an indication of summer overheating, Energy Index (EI) was calculated for each of the cases. The Energy Index Calculation Sheet (Yannas, 1994) was used as a tool to calculate and understand the energy performance for the apartments in each case that are stated below. Before going into any dynamic thermal simulations, Mean Indoor Temperature Calculator (MinT) (Yannas, AA SED 2013) was used as a tool to compare and measure the effect of design variable. The following types of cases that were used are: • Base Case: The default apartment with the existing design and details, which are: Single Glazed Doors and Windows with no Insulation on walls and floors. • Case I: Base Case with minimum changes such as increase in ventilation rate (ach). • Case II: Adding Double Glazed Windows and Doors with increase in ventilation rate (ach) and using Night Shutters at night to minimize heat loss in winters. In some cases even the Floor-Window ratio was increased; to check the impact over the efficiency, not only in terms of heat loss and gains but also considering daylight.

Table 4.3.2.1.: Energy Index Calculations | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994)

Figure 4.3.2.3.: Energy Index Calculations | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994)

Table 4.3.2.2.: Energy Index Calculations | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994)

Figure 4.3.2.4.: Energy Index Calculations | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994)

General Data that were being used in the calculators are: • Heat gains from appliances and occupants were calculated. The heat loss for each appliance was taken from CIBSE guide. • For EI, outdoor temperature for London being used is: 12.4°C. • For MinT calculations, outdoor temperatures for London being used are: Summers: 17.5°C, Winters: 7.5°C. All the average annual temperatures are taken from Meteonorm Weather File for London. • As the Barbican Estate is an old construction, the infiltration rate of 0.7 ac/h is used throughout the MinT calculations. Deborah’s Apartment | 2 Bedroom According to the spot measurements and results from data-loggers, the 2 Bedroom Apartment gets overheated during the clear sunny days due to an unobstructed solar radiation which increases the internal heat gain. Due to single glazed windows of the apartment, there is high rate of heat gain and loss leaving the apartment hot in summers and even sometimes in winters. Base Case is the current situation with following factors, as shown in the Table 4.3.2.1. Heat loss Coefficient (HLC) which is the sum of heat loos rates of exposed building elements with addition of the heat loss rate by air changes is 2.73 W/Km2. With the poor U-values and high infiltration rate of the building, Average Energy Index value of 94kWh/m². In order to lower down the Energy Index, some basic minor changes were made into the Base Case, which are shown in the Table 4.3.2.1. This helped lowering down the EI to 25% making it more efficient. In Case I, due to Single 32

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.2. Soft Computations Glazed Windows and poor U-values, there was still a high HLC of 2.53 W/Km2, therefore, the Single Glazed Windows were changed to Double Glazed. Case II gave much appropriate result which we are proposing from the results of the EI. The comparison is shown in the Figure 4.3.2.3. As the cost factor was being considered throughout our proposals, minimum changes were made to be more economical, which are later discussed in the Chapter 5. In order to explore the design strategies further, MinT calculator was used to identify the parameters that play as key factors on heat gains, heat loss rate and indoor temperature. The same cases as stated above for the EI were used. The results are showing in Figure 4.3.2.5.

Figure 4.3.2.5.: EI and MinT Comparisons | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994 & Worksheet-MinT Calculator S.Yannas)

The Base Case is the current state of the apartments, which are Single Glazed Windows and Doors, no thermal insulation, no extra ventilation. As it was obvious that the apartment would be over heated during the clear sunny days, it was further supported by the MinT calculator. During the summers the temperature reaches to maximum of 29.1°C and as low as 11.9°C during the winters. Both the values are far away from the comfort zone, therefore, to bring the temperatures within the comfort range, simple measures were taken. In Case I, the major aim was to lower down the temperature in summers by extra ventilation of 8ac/h for 4hrs per day. This helped to bring the temperature to 25.3°C. For winters, night shutters were inserted to minimize the heat loss. It helped the temperature to rise to 15.6°C. Due to the single glazing of the windows, heat gains and loss were rapid, preventing the temperature to be stable enough. In Case II, double glazed windows are installed, which helped us to bring the temperature within the comfort range of 23.3°C and it also helped the performance of the night shutters by minimizing the heat exchange. Timber shutters with blinds provides increased energy performance of 58%. Paul’s Apartment | 2 Bedroom The same steps were followed to achieve the EI of 1Bedrooom Apartment which are stated in the Table 4.3.2.2. With the minimum changes, trying to achieve the best possible results within a reasonable cost range, the average EI was managed to drop from 38.5kWh/m² to 29kWh/m². The comparison is shown in the Figure 4.3.2.4. With the same basic methods used for 2 Bedroom Apartments, 1 Bedroom Apartment’s performance was calculated. The results are shown in Figure 4.3.2.6. In the Base Case, the apartment performs well in summers at maximum temperature of 21.5°C. This is due to the no direct solar gain and the number of occupants. The internal heat gains are at minimum. This has a major drawback for winters, as it gets as low as 10.5°C. In Case I, to increase the efficiency and temperature, timber night shutters are used, which helps to maintain and increase the temperature to 12.6°C. As it was still far from the comfort range, in Case II, double glazed windows were installed to trap in the heat more effectively. This helped the temperature in winters to reach to 18°C, enhancing the performance of the night shutters in the free running mode.

Figure 4.3.2.7.: Building Envelope Improvements after EI and MinT calculations | Construction Technical Details

Figure 4.3.2.6.: EI and MinT Comparisons | Paul’s Apartment (Source: Energy Index S.Yannas 1994 & Worksheet-MinT Calculator S.Yannas))

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

04 indoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.3. TAS Simulations Calibration Like all the simulations, it’s critical to start with calibrating the model that is going to used for all proposals. While preparing the Base Case scenario which will be compared with the data logger results, the answers received from the questionnaire have a significant importance. All of the occupancy schedule, equipment usage and difference between weekends to weekdays comes from this survey and will be used in this simulation. In Figure 4.3.3.01 and Figure 4.3.3.02 with also considering the heating system adjustments, the calibration is acceptable. The difference between data loggers and TAS Base Case scenario can be explained by the reality and the answers in the questionnaire or the difference between the weather data file. Due to weather data especially for Deborah’s flat Solar Radiation is the primary factor for the peaks in general as shown in the Figure 4.3.3.01. For Figure 4.3.3.02 the important factors are occupancy and heating efficiency.

Figure 4.3.3.01.: Calibration | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.04.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Internal Gains | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.02.: Calibration | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.05.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Infiltration | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.03.: Annual Internal Load Comparison (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.06.: 20.01-27.01 Basic Proposals | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Annual Internal Loads As stated the importance of questionnaire in the Calibration part, internal gains for the flats have been calculated with considering these results. With just looking at Figure 4.3.3.03, it will be easy to decide which apartment is receiving more sun and daylight. Because of Paul’s flat is receiving less due to location, he is using artificial lighting much more than Deborah, who is living nearly to the top floor. The occupancy loads are clear to understand and conclude in terms of the number of residents in the flats. However, although Deborah’s family is four people, and Paul is living alone, the difference is not high. This can be explained by the amount of time they are all spending at home. In the questionnaire, it has been learned that Deborah’s family is not at home during the day for working and school time except Deborah. She is working at home. Also, as stated in the questionnaire, they are not at home during weekends. On the other hand, Paul is always at home. Effect of Internal Gains and Infiltration With a well-calibrated model, TAS can provide the performance on a free running flat without any heating system. Using these free running charts the effect of internal gains and infiltration to flats thermal performance can be observed. And, as a result, it can be added that they have a significant impact on flats temperature. On Figure 4.3.3.04 for the values of Deborah’s living room, occupancy pattern and usage of equipment with lightings are affecting the room temperature nearly 1K. Because of Deborah is leaving alone during the daytime and mostly she is working in Children’s bedroom, the usage of the living room is limited. That’s why except the afternoons the graph for free running base case and free running without internal gains are not showing big differences. However, during the afternoons when all the family comes together in the living room, watching TV, etc. the peaks can be clearly observed and the difference mentioned before. Also due to Building Regulations on 1960’s with a source of CIBSE, the infiltration level has set to 0.7 ac/h for the base case which is reasonable with the calibration model. In Figure 4.3.3.05 how much temperature difference can affected by decreasing the infiltration level has been showed. Reducing the infiltration value of 0.7 ac/h to 0.2 ac/h is changing the temperature nearly 0.5K 34

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.3. TAS Simulations which can be critical for the occupants.

Figure 4.3.3.07.: 20.01-27.01 Basic Proposals | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.10.: Free Running Annual: Base Case | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Proposals In order to see the effect of each proposal one by one, all the simulations have run without heating system. Also, the substitute materials have been chosen with the economic factor. Although for the transparent layer, different and expensive materials has been used, the difference between them was not convincible when compared with performance and amount of cost. That’s why it has decided to be simple with graphics as seen in Figure 4.3.3.06 and Figure 4.3.3.07. It was evident that to use low-e triple glazing with argon instead of double glazing, will perform better in winter. However, the relation between economic factor and performance is the most important approach of this report. As stated in previous chapters, Deborah’s living room is not occupied due to occupancy schedule. That’s why except little peaks during afternoon times, the chart is affected mostly by external temperature and solar radiation. On the other hand, with Paul’s occupancy schedule and the design of the flat he supposed to be all the time in the living room. And because of the illuminance values are low, he is using artificial lighting in those times. It is clear to state that double glazing with exterior wall insulation can increase the temperature in a significant way. Although the results are not reaching the comfort band area, it is important to reduce the annual heating loads. However, this increase in the temperature is happening in the summertime too as shown in Figure 4.3.3.08 and Figure 4.3.3.09. Also with these materials temperatures are getting far away from the comfort band in the summer time which is undesirable.

Figure 4.3.3.08.: 07.07-14.07 Basic Proposals | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.11.: Free Running Annual: Base Case | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

The idea of decreasing the annual heating loads by using better and modern materials is not enough as can be concluded from the summer charts. That’s why to balance the relation between temperature and annual heating loads; more proposals have been thought. These are naturally ventilated aperture on the top part of windows and shading devices for summer performance. Also, to decrease the heat loss during the night times, especially for winter, night shutters have been proposed. Annual Free Running Charts To have a clear and more understandable results annual free running graphs has been determined separately. With the base, case scenario, while Deborah’s flat as shown in the Figure 4.3.3.10 exceeds the comfort band more than 4K, Paul’s was just 2K as illustrated in Figure 4.3.3.11. During the summer time, Paul’s flat was performing better due to reasons like vegetation effect directly in front of his living room and limited solar radiation. However, during the winter time, Deborah’s flat is performing better. The average temperature difference in cold weather between two flat is around 2K. After proposing to change the single glazing to double glazing and applying insulated external walls, the first aim was to decrease the heat loss. As informed in the previous chapter too, while winter performance was increasing, summer performance was dropping with these proposals. During cold weather, espe-

Figure 4.3.3.09.: 07.07-14.07 Basic Proposals | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.12.: Free Running Annual: Double Glazing & Wall Insulation | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

04 indoor studies

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.3. TAS Simulations cially, Deborah’s flat came close to comfort band shown in Figure 4.3.3.12. Also for Paul’s flat October and November temperatures are at an average of 18°C that is an acceptable temperature for Paul due to results received from data logger and questionnaire. However, for summer performance both of them performed really low, and the temperatures reached 32°C, which is completely in an unacceptable comfort band. That’s why for Deborah’s, for an additional proposal, aperture and shading device has been installed to her flat due to increasing the summer performance. Because of Paul’s flat is receiving limited solar radiation a shading device was not necessary to see a big difference. His living room is facing north and also garden with big trees. Also on the south side there is a car parking block directly next to his flat. For summer performance proposed, aperture installation has decreased the temperatures around 2K. As shown in the detail drawings, recommended opening was small. If it would be bigger, apparently the temperatures would drop more. Also for Deborah’s living room average summer temperature has dropped around 3K, again, which is also as a result of small aperture. Night shutters have been proposed to increase the winter performance, and we can see the rise of temperatures on both flats as shown in the the Figure 4.3.3.14 and Figure 4.3.3.15.

Figure 4.3.3.13.: Free Running Annual: Double Glazing & Wall Insulation | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.16.: Annual Heating and Solar Load Comparison | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.14.: Free Running Annual: Figure 4.3.3.12 + Night Shutters & Aperture & Shading Device | Deborah’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Figure 4.3.3.17.: Annual Heating and Solar Load Comparison | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

Night Shutters and aperture are being used due to a schedule. For both flats schedule for the night shutters are between 10pm to 6am that also the external temperatures are lowest during the day time. On the other hand, aperture has a schedule of 6am to 10pm to let the occupant control. For the aperture usage flats are showing differences with concerning their willing’s that has been concluded by questionnaire. Paul’s aperture has set to start opening at 23.5°C and at 25°C it will be fully open. For Deborah’s aperture, when internal temperature exceeds 25°C it’s starting opening and fully opening at 27°C.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 4.3.3.15.: Free Running Annual: Figure 4.3.3.13 + Night Shutters & Aperture & Shading Device | Paul’s Apartment (Source: TAS)

4.3. THERMAL ANALYSIS 4.3.4. Conclusions With the spot measurements, it was clear to state the difference between local points of the flats and also the differences of two flats in terms of temperature. The temperature difference has approved with data logger results too in an architectural view which can be the location and orientation of the apartments. First of all it has been observed that while Deborah was completely in comfort band and Paul was just next to comfort band, with the questionnaire they both confirmed that they were comfortable. Therefore, in this case the problem was much more different than temperatures. It was mostly about annual heating loads, heat loss ratios or energy index values. Therefore, after having soft computations to calculate the energy index, the results were high. Averagely 94 kWh/m² for Deborah’s, 38.5 kWh/m² for Paul’s flat. In order to lower these values, few proposals have been made by considering economic factor and the values have decreased to 55.5 kWh/m² and 29 kWh/m² respectively. With taking these values as a reference for TAS simulation, the first goal was to decrease these values more and lower the necessity to a heating system annually in a London weather. It is obvious that when a research is going on into a building that has constructed with 1960’s building regulations, flats were going to use heating system in a part of the year. The most important aim is to decrease this duration as much as possible. For TAS base case, heating loads were 64 kWh/m² for Deborah’s, 59.18 kWh/m² for Paul’s. According the best scenario which is considering the balance between comfort band and heating loads at the same time, these values has decreased to 25.52 kWh/m² and 19.57 kWh/m² respectively as shown in the Figure 4.3.1.1. These results are a success and can be an example for the similar post-modern residential buildings which are holding 1.5% of all UK building stock.

Figure 4.3.4.1.: Annual Heating Loads per m2 (Source: TAS)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

05 economic & energy efficiency

05 | ECONOMIC & ENERGY EFFICIENCY 5.1. INTRODUCTION As shown in the Soft Computations part the this report (see 4.3.2. Soft Computations), the base cases shows that the Barbican Estates apartment are performing the worst in terms of Heat Loss Coefficient. This is mainly because of the age of the building with single glazing and no insulation. The large glazing area is also one of the factor for such performance. It is not just the glazing area, which contributes to the heat loss only because if Barbican is compared to Murray Mews, the graph shows that the Murray Mews has lower HLC but higher Energy Index. It helped in understanding the large glazing in Murray Mews create a greenhouse effect and traps in the heat inside, leaving the air static. As far as newly built constructions are concerned; Barking, Adelaide Wharf and Slip House, Murray Mews and Barbican lack insulation which shows the reason behind the deviation from them. Although Adelaide Wharf and Barking seems to perform very well from the figure, they do get over-heated during the summers and sometimes in winters too. This is because of the high airtightness. If we compare the newly built constructions, we can achieve simply by refurbishing the apartments rather than demolishing and rebuilding it. With simple interventions, the soft computation values got as close to Barking, where the building has ventilation problem. In case of the Barbican, natural ventilation takes place as soon as windows are open. By having North and South exposure, wind movement is very helpful to lower down the temperature. As shown in the Fig 5.1.2., the Barbican is closer to the trend line and even the new constructed buildings. By the end of the research the apartmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s measured performance was considerably improved, with heat losses reduced by slightly more than half. The additions to the Barbican Apartments can perform better than the newly built housing and dwellings.

Figure 5.1.1.: Energy Index Master Table (Source: Course Tools)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Figure 5.1.2.: Team 8 | Group 7 Building Case Studies (Source: Course Tools)

05 economic & energy efficiency

5.2. ENERGY EFFICIENT REFURBISHMENT Nowadays, the energy efficiency initiatives have reduced the energy consumption of the buildings. In the meanwhile, the energy consumption for construction materials has been relatively slower. This degrades the environment, one way or the other, therefore, identification of the key elements for the energy usage is necessary. First, the energy used by the occupants to run the building during its lifespan (operational energy) is a key factor in the annual load and then it is the energy used by during the manufacturing of the materials and their maintenance (embodied energy). As the Barbican is an old building, the operational energy has major impact; therefore, to meet the energy efficiency standard of the modern buildings some refurbishments were suggested. As the operational energy is totally dependent on the selection of materials and products, the Table (1Bedroom) and Table (2Bedroom) were created. To maximize the environmental and economic benefits, some minor refurbishment proposals were carried out.

Figure 5.2.1.: Annual Savings | 1 Bedroom - Paul’s Apartment

2 Bedroom Apartment Location: Barbican Estate, London Area= 93.98 m2 Windows area= 23.79 m2 Apartment Market Value= £1,150,000

S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cases Base Case Double Glazing Wall Insulation Double Glazing + Wall Insulation (A) A + Shading A + Aperture A + Night Shutters A + Shading and Aperture A + Shading, Aperture and Night Shutters

S.No. Additions 1 Double Glazing 2 Night Shutters 3 Double Glazing + Night Shutters S.No. 1 2

Proposed Additions Double Glazing Double Glazing + Night Shutters

Figure 5.2.2.: Annual Savings | 2 Bedroom - Deborah’s Apartment

Heating (kWh)

Solar (kWh)

Annual Loads 2 (kWh/m )

*Estimated Annual Electricity Bill (£)

CO2 Emission (metric tons)

6015.2 3480.5 4922.5 2356.2 2486.3 2364.6 2215.8 2490.9 2398.3

4360.0 2752.7 4308.1 2752.7 2431.8 2752.7 2739.6 2431.8 2209.2

64.01 37.03 52.38 25.07 26.46 25.16 23.58 26.50 25.52

1119.21 696.04 936.79 508.34 530.06 509.74 484.90 530.83 515.37

0.81 0.47 0.66 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.30

Estimated Price (£) 5044 8877 13921 Annual Savings (£) 423.17 634.31

Sources http://www.doubleglazingontheweb.co.uk/quote http://www.simplyshutters.co.uk/shop/town-country-shutters-carbrooke-town-country-p-48.html

*Sub-charges Electricty Cost/Kwh Daily Standing Charge VAT

Values 15.9p/kwh 30p 5%

Note: No Gas Bill Charges are added because there is no Gas lines in the Barbican Estate.

1 Bedroom - Paul’s Apartment Before refurbishment, the 1 Bedroom Apartment was having an annual load of 59.18kWh/m2. This made up the estimated annual bill of £820.57 with a CO2 emission of 0.57 metric tons. Just by adding simple double glazed windows, the annual load was brought to almost 30%, which is 41.50kWh/m2. Simultaneously, the annual bills dropped to £609.8, and CO2 emission to 0.40 metric tons. This became the benchmark, that double glazing should be implemented on all the apartments in the Barbican or any other kind of similar buildings. Further to enhance the performance, night-shutters were installed which helped to drop the annual load to 19.47kWh/m2. This reduction helped lowering the annual bill to £347.12 and CO2 emission to 0.19 metric tons. The efficiency was increase to 67% with an annual saving of £473.45. 2 Bedroom - Deborah’s Apartment Before refurbishment, the 2 Bedroom Apartment was having an annual load of 64.01kWh/m2. This made up the estimated annual bill of £1119.21 with a CO2 emission of 0.8 metric tons. Just by adding simple double glazed windows, the annual load was brought to almost half, which is 64.01kWh/m2. Simultaneously, the annual bills dropped to £696.04, and CO2 emission to 0.47 metric tons. This became the benchmark, that double glazing should be implemented on all the apartments in the Barbican or any other kind of similar buildings. With an initial capital cost of £5044, one can make the apartment twice the efficient it was before. Further to enhance the performance, night-shutters were installed which helped to drop the annual load to 23.58kWh/m2. This reduction helped lowering the annual bill to £484.90 and CO2 emission to 0.32 metric tons. The efficiency was increase to 60% with an annual saving of £634.31. Sources: http://www.doubleglazingontheweb.co.uk/quote http://www.simplyshutters.co.uk/shop/town-country-shutters-carbrooke-town-country-p-48.html http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx http://www.electricityprices.org.uk/average-electricity-bill/

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

06 conclusions

06 | CONCLUSIONS 6.1. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The outdoor spaces of Barbican gave us an extensive field for observations, experiments, measurements and analytic work. Microclimatic conditions change continuously making the outdoors comfort perception a very complec issue. Improving environmental factors such as wind velocities does not always reassuring a sustainable environment. A PET analysis is useful in terms of bringing most of the complex environmental factors together. Psychological factors and adaptive opportunities that people have are things to be considered further. Outdoor spaces should also be studied from different points of view, taking into account psychological and social factors. Providing the best possible environmental conditions along with lively and ‘active’ spacecs could encourage people to adapt to the external conditions and mitigate their expectations from the environment. In terms of indoor studies, as thermal comfort is defined operationally as the range of climatic conditions considered comfortable and acceptable inside the buildings (Givoni, 1998), the given buildings were analyzed by some fieldworks, soft computations and simulations. The overall analysis defined the boundaries of acceptable indoor comfort conditions which have a significant implication towards building design and further highlighting the economic consequences. Thermal comfort for the building in colder climates involves various aspects which can play a key role in the energy performance. Therefore, to provide a comfortable temperature range in winters one has to prevent directional radiative cooling which takes place from the large glazing areas. To reduce the building heat loss, the minimum requirement is to have double glazed windows. The next aspect is to provide a comfortable indoor air movement and mean radiant temperature from the exterior surfaces. Wind have a tendency to convert the comfort into discomfort, therefore, one has to prevent the cold drafts of air from the context. Here airtightness of the building should be enhanced to reduce the infiltration from cracks and sashes/joints. Clothing has a significant factor to achieve a comfort range. When the indoor climate is in a steady-state, the skin temperature is elevated above the upper comfort level. A reasonable amount of air change can play an important role in reaching the comfort zone. This is the results that were concluded from the soft computations such as MinT and EIs. Flexibility/Adaptability can influence future energy efficiency. It can be achieved by considerations for the future adaptation of the services and planning contingency strategies, rather than creating all-purpose spaces and systems. For example, one might allow space in plant rooms for upgrades, space for cooling coils in the air handling units and provision for additional cooling capacity in spaces where occupancy and equipment densities may increase (CIBSE TM 27). As the energy consumption in of residential spaces are responsible for over the quarter of the UK CO2 emissions, some major measures were taken to qualify the Barbican Estate apartments for the energy efficient buildings. Thus, some refurbishments were done to the apartments to meet the UK’s long term emission reduction targets. 40

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

In terms of economic factors, the investment in energy efficiency and refurbishment should be treated on the same bases as of any other financial decisions. A variety of financial appraisal methods will be helpful to assess the viability of energy saving measures. The criteria for refurbishment should be to achieve and take in account the wider benefits such as improvement in comfort and environment. Through this cycle, a healthy environment can be created for present situation and the future. Energy efficient of refurbishment cost less than the rebuilding, therefore, by a couple of additions and integrating the existing fabric enhances the performances would minimize the capital cost. In addition to savings, the building will help to decrease the CO2 emission, thus a better environment.

OLGA TSAGKALIDOU

TOLGA UZUNHASANOGLU

AMEER MUSTAFA VARZGANI

DANIEL ZEPEDA

Term 1 project gave me the opportunity for the first time to carry out a complete energy performance analysis. Although some of the information introduced was not new tome, the approach of the programme along with the knowledge I gained from lectures, tutorials and readings was vast. The simulations part was also an exciting challenge. Weekby-week work on the project teached me that step by step analysis gives the best possible results and lessons. Dealing with Barbican was really interesting and essential in terms of personal development. The range of studying from larger scaled outdoors spaces to the very last technical detail provided an holistic approach. Understanding the complexity that the outdoor spaces incorporate was intriguing. An open space might include a variety of microclimatic conditions that affects its users and also the performance of the adjacent built forms. The idea of outdoor comfort should be more conceptual and broader. The indoor comfort standards, even adapted, should only exist as a way of comparison and not as a rule of thumb. Apart from the environmental and physiological factors, psychological and social ones are as well essential and should be considered. This mixture makes the outdoor studies an extensive field for observations and experiments. Regarding the indoor studies, the fact that we dealt with an old building envelope was really challenging. Restrictions and limitations applied by the Barbican as being a historical listed building, in the end make me understood that even with simple, small-scaled interventions it is possible to improve the performance of such buildings. The condition of the building fabric is significant because it is the part that deals and manages the interchanges between internal and external conditions. The personal contact with the residents was also very important and I was amazed by the amount of useful and valuable information one can get from such kind of procedures. The daylighting issue was apparent from the beginning of the project. What I concluded is that the performance of a space in terms of sufficient daylight depends on first design steps and decisions and any afterwards improvement strategies are limited and sometimes cost a lot. In conclusion, I found out through this project that refurbishment strategies can significantly improve the overall energy performance of old buildings as well as their economic efficiency. Having in my mind the enormous old building stock our cities have, I could only be optimistic about our field of study.

Since the beginning of the project, it was critical to ask the question of “Why we are doing this?”, “Which results can be expected?”, and “What are we going to do with the results?” Even though a result can be wrong too but I always believe that there are lots to learn from them. With considering these approaches, to study about Barbican Estate was an advantage for me. Because of we were starting from the fundamental problem, which is “lack” of environmental performance, there were lots of things to learn. As a group, when we calculated the energy index values for the other projects we have studied, Barbican houses were the highest, also with the heat loss rates. The post-modern building stock of UK which is at 1.5% in this equation, the conclusions and results received from this research paper could make a difference in terms of refurbishing instead of complete demolishing and reconstructing again. As I have mentioned before, for me it was better to research on places where the problems are high. Another factor affects this approach is the environment itself. While making fieldwork studies with data loggers and questionnaires, although the temperature was affecting me, and I was not happy about it, both of the occupants were thermally comfortable with their flats. When I was hot in Deborah’s flat, she was fine, when I was cold in Paul’s flat, he was complete fine too. And as useful information both of them were living in those apartments for minimum Ten years. Those results were pointing the adaptation skill of humankind. Probably if I would spend some time there, I would feel comfortable too. That’s why I believe that to protect the environment as itself has a significant importance in our case. During the past years, unfortunately, because of economic reasons humankind has tried to adapt the environment to themselves, instead of adapting to the environment. However, it shouldn’t be forgotten that we are not the only living organisms in this planet. All of the changes we are doing to it, it will affect others. In order to follow and respect this approach, lowering the heating loads were one of the most important topics for me. We have to refurbish these buildings not to heat the atmosphere like giant radiators. From an architectural view, this project has also improved my ideas about having deep plan. Barbican Estate has constructed for the young employees on 1960’s in the centre of the city with concerning outdoor facilities too. However because of the working time for them, daylighting factor was not an important topic at that time, and this was actually showing the poor performance of sustainability. Even if they would construct a deep plan, they should have focus on the open plan without using massive interior walls which are just reducing the daylighting in a significant way. As a conclusion, I would like to inform that all of the results we received from these problems should used in a design process. Each by each, all of the issues were critical to developing ourselves about this topic. To solve, we were asking questions, after asking a question we wanted to ask more. And with this aim the relation between architectural and sustainable environmental design can be combined and leave better examples to the world.

Lesson learnt from the research project are that there are some basic design features that plays a key role in overall efficiency of the buildings. The followings are: • The building layout. • Orientation, Type, and shading of the windows (both in terms of ventilation and light source). • Orientation and colors of the surfaces (exposed and unexposed). • The effect of the ventilation on its indoor temperature. • The effect of the building materials on the building’s heat gain and loss and indoor temperature. Being familiar with the aforementioned features of design, I was never too sure about the results that they would contribute to; but by doing surveys, using tools to investigate (both on the field and off the field) and readings I concretized my basic understandings and knowledge to implement them in practice. Understanding was developed regarding flexibility in design, which further can influence future energy efficiency and may allow users for more adaptive opportunities. In addition to flexibility, the design must provide a building to have the ability to exchange heat with the environment in response to the cyclic variations of climate. Heat exchange through conduction, convection and radiation from a human body’s metabolism to mass of construction materials to air density plays a major role in developing the micro-climate in a region. Therefore, it is not just the building and its components that contributes to change in the indoor temperature. As each individual has his or her own way to interpret the different levels of thermal sensations, therefore, we have a comfort range. To bring the temperature within the desired range, soft computations and computer aided simulations were utilized. This gave an idea of the measures that has to be taken in account. Comparing newly built projects with old constructed buildings highlighted the difference in the performance and how can we achieve that benchmarks. Refurbishment proposals and calculating the savings provided a clear vision of how simple measures can be beneficial for energy performance and the user. Thus, investment in energy efficiency can bring benefits to comfort and the environment. I believe that all the above mentioned lessons will lead to design a performance oriented and energy efficient proposals for the future taking in consideration the climate change.

At the beginning of the term I was amused and overwhelm by the amount of information to cover and understand. As the term went by more information appeared but the complexity became easier after some time but mainly after some lectures, readings, some work and sometimes even after some personal thinking. Even though some of the information was not new for me, the most fascinating and amusing thing that I found it’s the relationship and affectation between each of everything we are supposed to take in consideration in order to improve the sustainability and comfort of the projects we worked on. Nothing happens without affecting anything. One of the most transcendental ideas after looking all the information that I learned during this term is that every decision made during the design process of every architectonical project has consequences, a bright side and down side. As it was said many times during some lectures: our job as designers it is to harmonize. Now I feel that I know better which information to consider, where to look in order to bring balance to an unbalance concept or idea and what will be the affectations of certain decisions and what we are sacrificing and why. As a consequence of all these a new concept of balance has been created in the back of my mind. All this these new ideas have brought a growing concern for the environment and before that, awareness of the real need of them and a bit of frustration regarding the current situation of the environment. Now for me, the energetic and environmental approach of a building is one the two most important criteria of a project. The other one its comfort. Now in my opinion is where form, function and the human sensorial perception can be included in one concept. As a personal conclusion right now I would say that in order to harmonize better a good personal criteria has to be develop and now that I look at all this new learnings, what they all share and have in common is that the same base criteria that it is supposed to be follow as a thumb rule in architecture which is human comfort is the same base concept of all the new concepts regarding environmental sustainability but now I would add : with respect and conservation sense towards the environment.

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

06 conclusions

6.2. PERSONAL OUTCOMES

07 references

07 | REFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

Auliciems, Szokolay. (1997), Thermal Comfort. PLEA Note3. PLEA International/University of Queensland Baker N., (2007). Adaptive Thermal Comfort Controls for Building Refurbishment, Revival Technical Monograph 2, www.revival-eu.net Behar, Carrie. (2014) Utilising Resident Feedback to Inform Energy-saving Interventions at the Barbican Local Environment 19.5: 53959. Web. Campell Georgina, Gonzalez E, Laurie R, Zakiah M, (2014), Slip House, AA SED Erell, E., D. Pearlmutter and T.J Williamson (2010), Urban Microclimate: Designing the spaces between buildings. Earthscan Frantzi-Gounari Danai, Gaspart L, John R, Katsaouni G, (2011), The Barbican Estate, AA SED Garg Rohit, Mogali P, Nath S, Vagianou K, (2011), Adelaide Wharf, AA SED Garg Rohit, Mogali P, Nath S, Vagianou K, (2011), Transpatial Living, AA SED Gehl Jan, Svarre. (2013), How to study public life. Island Press Givoni B.,(1998), Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Malaktou Eleana, (2013), Murray Mews, AA SED Szokolay, S. V., and Christopher Brisbin. Introduction to Architectural Science: The Basis of Sustainable Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Architectural, 2004. Print. Yannas S. (1994), Solar Energy and Housing Design (Volume 1). Architectural Association Publication Yannas S. (1996), Energy Indices and Performance Targets for Housing Design: Energy and Buildings. Elsevier Science Yannas S., Dobrin M., (1994) Energy Index Worksheet

Barking, AA SED http://smap.cbe.berkeley.edu/comforttool/ http://www.wunderground.com http://www.satel-light.com http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/housing-and-council-tax/barbican-estate/Pages/default.aspx

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

07 references Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix

08 | APPENDIX BARBICAN ESTATE | OUTDOOR STUDIES | SPOT MEASUREMENTS | PET ANALYSIS

DATE: 05.11.2014 SKY CONDITIONS: partly sunny with clouds G.S.R.: Global Solar Radiation (source: W-Underground Bloomsbuty Weather Station)

Podium Level Spots A-01 A-02 A-03 A-04 A-05 A-06 A-07 A-08 A-09 A-10 A-11 A-12

Time 10:31 10:32 10:32 10:35 10:36 10:37 10:39 10:40 10:41 10:42 10:43 10:44

G.S.R (w/m2) 116 116 116 95 95 95 95 151 151 151 151 151

Temperature (ºC) 11.0 10.9 10.4 9.7 8.4 9.7 7.8 7.4 10.0 10.0 5.9 9.0

Shakespeare Tower Square Humidity (%) Illumination (lux) 67.7 1250 67.6 712 71.0 198 70.6 729 72.7 677 72.2 1260 73.4 1055 73.3 680 73.6 350 72.3 645 74.5 510 75.0 660

Spots F-01 F-02 F-03

Time 11:13 11:14 11:16

G.S.R (w/m2) 113 113 100

Temperature (ºC) 12.9 12.1 10.5

Bridge Humidity (%) 62.4 65.7 69.5

Illumination (lux) 180 78 79

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 1.60 1.60 2.90

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 0.60 0.60 1.90

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 1.10 1.10 2.40

Spots D-01 D-02 D-03 D-04 D-05 D-06

Time 11:28 11:30 11:32 11:37 11:35 11:33

G.S.R (w/m2) 285 139 139 190 190 139

Temperature (ºC) 15.7 15.1 16.8 13.1 11.5 14.2

Thomas More Humidity (%) Illumination (lux) 56.6 1134 58.3 1173 51.6 678 60.7 240 63.6 312 55.3 340

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.90 1.90 1.30

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 0.50 0.40 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.50

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.40 1.30 0.90

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 4.80 2.60 2.30 2.60 4.70 4.60 7.30 7.30 0.50 1.80 5.80 5.80

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 0.00 2.50 1.70 0.90 3.70 2.00 6.40 4.90 0.40 0.80 4.30 2.10

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 2.40 2.55 2.00 1.75 4.20 3.30 6.85 6.10 0.45 1.30 5.05 3.95

Monthly PET graph 50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

Lower Ground Spots B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05 B-06 B-07 B-08 B-09 B-10 B-11

Time 10:26 10:29 10:33 10:36 10:40 10:44 10:48 10:51 10:54 10:58 11:02

G.S.R (w/m2) 325 325 116 95 151 151 216 163 163 76 105

Temperature (ºC) 13.5 13.5 13.8 12.6 12.5 11.6 13.0 11.6 12.3 12.0 12.9

Garden Humidity (%) Illumination (lux) 41.4 10800 52.6 6150 54.2 3090 60.2 4300 61.7 4700 61.0 16200 65.5 3400 62.0 6050 64.0 4100 63.5 5600 64.5 1800

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 1.10 1.00 1.50 1.60 1.30 0.60 1.40 1.40 1.90 1.20 0.40

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.00

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 0.80 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.30 0.90 1.00 1.20 0.85 0.20

Spots C-01 C-02 C-03

Time 11:11 11:14 11:16

G.S.R (w/m2) 113 113 100

Temperature (ºC) 11.0 10.3 9.0

Under Bridge Humidity (%) Illumination (lux) 74.6 1400 76.5 1060 79.1 800

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 5.40 3.50 5.70

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 2.20 2.50 3.00

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 3.80 3.00 4.35

Spots E-01 E-02 E-03

Time 11:26 11:29 11:31

G.S.R (w/m2) 285 285 139

Temperature (ºC) 11.0 10.7 10.7

Car-park Humidity (%) Illumination (lux) 70.0 4200 68.7 6280 68.9 2900

Air Velocity 'max' (m/s) 1.10 0.80 0.80

Air Velocity 'min' (m/s) 0.60 0.40 0.00

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 0.85 0.60 0.40

Figure8.1.: Table 8.1.:Complete CompleteOutdoor OutdoorSpot SpotMeasurements MeasurementsTable Table

0.0

-10.0

-20.0 Comfort

Average

Maximum

Minimum

Mean_Max

Mean_Min

Figure 8.2.: Monthly PET Chart for London (Source: Course Tools)

Shakespeare Tower Square Spots Time A-01 10:31 A-02 10:32 A-03 10:32 A-04 10:35 A-05 10:36 A-06 10:37 A-07 10:39 A-08 10:40 A-09 10:41 A-10 10:42 A-11 10:43 A-12 10:44

G.S.R. (W/m²) 116 116 116 95 95 95 95 151 151 151 151 151

Air Temperature (ºC) 11.0 10.9 10.4 9.7 8.4 9.7 7.8 7.4 10.0 10.0 5.9 9.0

PET (ºC) : base case 3.8 3.5 3.7 2.6 -2.1 0.6 -4.1 -3.7 8.9 5.3 -5 -0.1

PET (ºC) : Va = 0.4 m/s 8.8 8.7 8.2 6.7 5.2 6.7 4.5 5.8 8.9 8.9 4.1 7.7

PET (ºC) : Va = 2 m/s 6 3.9 3.3 1.9 0.2 2 -0.6 0 3.5 3.5 -2 2.2

PET (ºC) : Va = 0.4 m/s & G.S.R. = 325 W/m2 15.4 15.3 14.9 14.1 12.7 14.1 12.1 11.6 14.5 14.4 10 13.4

Average Nov PET 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

Humidity (%) 67.7 67.6 71.0 70.6 72.7 72.2 73.4 73.3 73.6 72.3 74.5 75.0

Illumination (lux) 1250 712 198 729 677 1260 1055 680 350 645 510 660

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 2.4 2.6 2.0 1.8 4.2 3.3 6.9 6.1 0.5 1.3 5.1 4.0

Garden Spots B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05 B-06 B-07 B-08 B-09 B-10 B-11

G.S.R. (W/m²) 325 325 116 95 151 151 216 163 163 76 105

Air Temperature (ºC) 13.5 13.5 13.8 12.6 12.5 11.6 13.0 11.6 12.3 12.0 12.9

PET (ºC) : base case 15 15.9 9.6 7.7 10.5 11.1 11.8 8.3 8.6 6.8 11.8

PET (ºC) : Va = 0.4 m/s 17.4 17.9 11.7 9.8 11.5 11.1 14.3 10.8 11.7 8.6 11.8

PET (ºC) : Va = 2 m/s 10.8 11.1 7.4 5.6 6.5 5.4 8.6 5.6 6.5 4.5 6.2

PET (ºC) : Va = 0.4 m/s & G.S.R. = 325 W/m2 17.3 17.7 18.1 17 16.9 15.9 17.5 15.9 16.7 16.4 17.4

Average Nov PET 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

Humidity (%) 41.4 52.6 54.2 60.2 61.7 61.0 65.5 62.0 64.0 63.5 64.5

Illumination (lux) 10800 6150 3090 4300 4700 16200 3400 6050 4100 5600 1800

Air Velocity 'Average' (m/s) 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.2

Time 10:26 10:29 10:33 10:36 10:40 10:44 10:48 10:51 10:54 10:58 11:02

Figure 8.3.: PET Analysis Data Table 44

10.0

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix Figure 8.4.: MinT Calculations for Deborahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Source: Course Tools) Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

08 appendix

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

Figure 8.5.: EI Calculations for Deborah’s (Source: Course Tools) 46

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix Figure 8.6.: MinT and EI Calculations for Deborahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Source: Course Tools) Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

08 appendix

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

Figure 8.7.: MinT Calculations for Paul’s (Source: Course Tools) 48

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix Figure 8.8.: MinT Calculations Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (Source: Course Tools) Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

08 appendix

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

Figure 8.9.: 07.07-14.07 Effect of Natural Ventilated Aperture Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.11.: 07.07-14.07 Effect of Shading Device Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.10.: 07.07-14.07 Effect of Natural Ventilated Aperture Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.12.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Infiltration Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix Figure 8.13.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Internal Gains Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.15.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Night Shutters Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.14.: 20.01-27.01 Effect of Night Shutters Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.16.: 20.01-27.01 Heating On Comparison Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS) Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

TEAM 8 | GROUP 7 | THE BARBICAN ESTATE

08 appendix

Olga Tsagkalidou | Tolga Uzunhasanoğlu | Ameer Mustafa Varzgani | Daniel Zepeda

Figure 8.17.: 20.01-27.01 Heating On Comparison Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.19.: Free Running Annual Proposal with Aperture Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.18.: Free Running Annual Proposal with Aperture and Shading Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.20.: Free Running Annual Proposal with Aperture Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

08 appendix Figure 8.21.: Free Running Annual Proposal with Night Shutters Paul’s Flat (Source: TAS)

Figure 8.22.: Free Running Annual Proposal with Shading Deborah’s Flat (Source: TAS) Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 1 Project 2014 - 2015 | MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design

Architectural Association School of Architecture | Graduate School AA SED MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2014 - 2015