Roof geometry as a passive strategy

The roof geometry as a passive strategy for thermal control in Mexico City

University of Liverpool School of Architecture MSc Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Author: Rodriguez Medrano Carlos Enrique 201046554 Supervisor: Professor Stephen Sharples

September 2015

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

The roof geometry as a passive strategy for thermal control in Mexico City Abstract The solar gain in buildings is the main cause of overheating in spaces with a consequent need of mechanical devices to reach comfort, incrementing this need with climate change. Because the roof is the most exposed element to solar radiation is considered its potential to control temperature therefore the energy required to reach thermal comfort. In this research is questioned if the typical roof in Mexico City has an efficient shape in response to its climate conditions. If the geometry configuration of the envelope can provide a significant temperature difference.

The aim is to optimize energy consumption by temperature control, harnessing inherent characteristics of the constructed envelope. To give a clear overview of interaction between the sun and built geometries the phenomena is explained by the concepts involved.

The previous case studies are divided in two parts. Previous similar researches are reviewed to identify the method implemented and the factors evaluated in a geometry performance analysis.

The analyses are taken from other countries with similar or with extreme heat conditions. The second part is the transitive description from vernacular architecture to the use of new technologies for passive responsive design.

This information leads to model by BIM, 14 different prototypes for their further test in Ecotect.

With this quantitative analysis is measured if is a pattern among the data gathered by comparison.

This set of relationships will conclude in the identification of variables which showed a balanced performance between solar incidence and energy consumption.

Keywords:         

Solar Passive design Geometry Roof Envelope Vernacular Parametric Thermal comfort Renewable energy

3

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Professor Stephen Sharples for his guidance and support throughout the completion of my dissertation. Similarly to my PhD friends who advised me along this year.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my friend and professor Ezequiel Colmenero BĂşzali whom introduced me into bioclimatic design, for his invaluable advices and constant push to give the best of me.

My family, especially my mother who always has supported me to chase and reach my dreams. My father and grandfather for being my inspiration to be better every day. My friends whom I call brothers for never letting me down this year.

Finally I want to acknowledge my Mexican sponsor CONACyT for giving me the opportunity to open my horizons and grow in different ways. Hoping what I have learned during this experience will be beneficial for my country.

4

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Index 1

Introduction 1.1 Research Topic 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Research Question 1.4 Scope and Limitations 1.5 Research Method

8 8 9 9 9 10

2

Background 2.1 The typical morphology 2.2 Population and city growth 2.3 Global Warming 2.4 Sustainability 2.4.1 Sustainability in Mexico 2.5 Energy 2.5.1 Solar energy

11 11 12 14 15 16 17 18

3

Harness the environment 3.1 Climate 3.2 Passive Methods 3.3 Solar potential of the architecture

19 19 19 20

4

Solar Geometry 4.1 Solar Incidence 4.1.1 Orientation 4.1.2 Heliotectonics 4.2 Shading 4.3 Solar Radiation

21 22 23 24 25 26

5

Temperature Exchange 5.1 Heat transfer 5.2 Surface characteristics respect radiant heat exchange 5.2.1 Long wave heat loss 5.3 Thermal conductivity 5.4 Thermal inertia (P) 5.5 Thermal comfort

27 27 28 28 29 29 29

6

The Envelope 6.1 Roofs 6.2 Openings 6.3 Ceiling height

31 31 32 32

5

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 7

Geometric Shape 7.1 Aspect ratio 7.2 Volume-Surface 7.3 Solar incidence in relation to constructive shape

33 33 33 34

8

Previous analysis of geometric performance 8.1 Reduced solar incidence for high buildings in Malaysia 8.2 Insolation of vaults and domes in Middle East 8.3 Domed houses in Turkey

35 35 35 36

9

9 Vernacular 2.0Vernacular 2.0 37 9.1 Vernacular Architecture 9.2 Form finding 9.3 Computer assisted design 9.4 Parametricism

37 37 38 38

10 Case Studies 10.1 Optimum pitch roof angle in Malaysia 10.2 Vernacular architecture in Nepal 10.3 Hanwha research centre faรงade in Seoul

41 41 43 45

11 Mexico Climate Conditions 11.1 Temperature 11.2 Relative humidity and precipitation

47 48 48

12 Analysis 12.1 12.2 12.3

51 51 51 56 56 57 58 62 66 69

12.4 12.5 12.6 13 14 15 16 17 18

Methodology Prototypes General Overview 12.3.1 Geometry and solar incidence 12.3.2 Shading 12.3.3 Temperature Solar incidence Temperature Energy consumption

Conclusions Further work References List of images List of Tables Appendix

73 73 74 78 79 80

6

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

7

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

1 Introduction 1.1 Research Topic While we spend energy and imagination on new ways of cleaning the floors of our houses, the Japanese solve the problem by not dirtying them in the first place.(Rudofsky 1965)

Architecture is an expression of climate, cultural and economic conditions but as the development rises the buildings have become more dependent on technology, ignoring how the construction can be responsive to its climate. This posture becomes the daily practice in construction incompatible with the actual considerations towards climate change and overheating concerns. Sustainable solutions can reduce the environmental impact on the continuous growing cities.

Simos Yannas explained that the buildings are giant heating devices for the city, becoming the more direct way of climate change of the urban spaces around them. “Climate change brings more climate change, the warmer it gets the more you need of that heat that you are taking out�. So the built form of our buildings is one of the key factors of these changes (Yannas 2014).

The improvement of environmental and comfort conditions in architecture are continually sought.

Automated control, more efficient conditioning devices and PV cells oriented to reduce the footprint but ultimately consuming energy. The life span of these elements is short or produces highly polluting waste. The advancement of technology is not limited to adapt ourselves by machinery but to take advantage of the information previously gathered of our surroundings and apply in design to prevent uncomfortable conditions. Therefore unnecessary expenses will be reduced in favour of buildings oriented to the minimum environmental footprint. To do the most with the less effort as a basic principle; climate oriented design.

To address this problem the first step is to question what has been done and how it has been done.

Identify the patterns in the shape related to solar gain to find out its weak points in thermal efficiency to transform them into improvement opportunities. This will aid to propose solutions oriented to manage the solar incidence over roofs.

Considering the built space a bridge that regulates the conditions between environment and inhabitants is mainly affected by sun exposition. Therefore heat gain is transmitted by 3 different elements windows, walls and roofs. While the first two can be both oriented and shaped to reduce the heat gain, the roofs are the elements most commonly exposed to the sun (Yannas, Eremeev, and Molina 2006).

The roof as a passive, enduring and necessary element in habitat construction should respond to the local climate conditions to reduce energy and resource consumption during the lifetime of the buildings. According to Yeang the sustainable objective to be pursued between the built and natural environment is integration by design (Yeang 2008).

Different conditions require different solutions. The location plays a major role on the climate mainly over solar behaviour. This study is based in the relationship between the insolation and the geometry envelope, the way its shape absorb the solar radiation in favour to reduce the heat gain at the interior of spaces.

8

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

1.2 Objectives The objective of this dissertation is to study the roof geometry qualities to cool the interior of spaces passively, analysing the relation between geometry and heat gain by solar incidence in roof envelopes due the slope, shape and orientation.

Prototypes with different roof shapes will be tested, comparing the advantages and disadvantages among them, measuring their efficiency in numerical experiments by software simulation and expressed in graphical visualisations. Additionally, it is sought to find the geometry which has the most significant performance compared to other methods in order to reduce the heat loads.

The results obtained as part of this research are proposed to establish a guideline to maximize the efficiency of design towards sustainability. The methodology is aimed to be a replicable tool for more disfavoured climate conditions.

1.3 Research Question The relation between the shape and its environment has raised the following research questions:    

Does the roof geometry make a significant difference as a passive solution to reduce the temperature indoors?

Is a significant reduction of the direct isolation to the roof surface due its shape?

Can the same shape have the best response to different seasons of the year or different day hours?

If an optimised roof shape is designed to take advantage of the solar geometry on the site location, would it have a significant better performance in comparison to a regular geometry of traditional construction?

1.4 Scope and limitations This research approach is based on the use of 3D modelled prototypes as part of the design process to aid the identification of key elements in the envelope shape that determine temperature variations. The physical factors involved in heat gain from solar geometry to heat transfer through materials will set the base of understanding of the importance of geometry as a passive cooling solution.

The different case studies attempt to show the transition from traditional architecture and how by analysing its characteristics, these information can be useful to set parameters to develop new projects which take advantage of the latest technologies in order to improve the energy performance of buildings with the least use of technology for its operation.

This study is related to physical and climate performance. Despite is not being aimed for a specific building typology or usage, because the size of the models and their configuration, the analysis results are directly suggested for low rise and compact buildings as residential and social dwelling.

Otherwise is attempted to provide an additional criteria of the relationship between the envelope shapes and its surrounding. Underlining the significance in heat reduction to control the solar incidence and the management of heat loss due geometry.

9

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

1.5 Research Method The first approach will be the explanation of concepts to aim the research from general to particular.

Information gathered from Mexican institutions reports will provide the context data in terms of the overall conditions and strategies oriented to sustainability. The consult to specialized books will provide orientation in the main concepts related to solar geometry as the properties in relation with the sun heat. Different specialized journals were consulted to orient the way an analysis of this kind is developed and provide similar case studies related to geometry performance. Consult on web was useful to provide a wider horizon of the latest advances in design. Was emphasized the use of new technologies to manipulate shape by the use of climate data in parametric design.

The precedent case studies will be approached in two ways. The first approach will study previous researches on the subject geometry and thermal performance to set a methodological guideline and establish a background on how the geometries behave in relation with heat gain performance.

The second explains the transition, from vernacular architecture to the use of new technologies, to harness passive methods for low consuming buildings.

Analysing vernacular architecture in different parts of the world with similar climate conditions as Mexico City will provide an overview of how the shape is adapted to the environment by other cultures. The transition leads to the geometry performance evaluation to identify the advantages of certain shape patterns. Finally, to explain a project where the gathered climate data played a major role for the shape optimization, by the use of software in a responsive way related to the location.

A qualitative analysis will allow to compare the flat roof performance with other different typologies like vaults, domes and slope roofs as seen in Figure 1, to measure the differences in solar exposure and surface temperature in order to know if the shape has a significant impact in the internal temperature meaning a reduction of energy required to reach thermal comfort. A further analysis will compare the best performing shape with the standard roof modifying different variables to measure the significance of geometry to reduce heat loads compared to other solutions.

The room control will be shaped with the standard flat roof and the variables will be designed with the same material, base area and thickness.(Tang, Meir, and Etzion1 2003, 273-286). The prototype will be a standard dimension for living spaces measured 5 x 5 x 2.5 meters with an opening 20% of the floor area for illumination to the south in order to simulate a standard heat gain condition in an inhabitable space.

The prototypes to run the simulation will be virtually modelled by Revit, analysed through Ecotect and finally the results gathered and graphed in Excel. The data to be analysed will consider different aspects: Geometry relationship, Shading, Solar radiation on the surface, internal temperature and the energy required to reach thermal performance.

Figure 1 : Roof morphologies.

10

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2 Background 2.1 The typical morphology Unlike other cities or towns in Mexico, where the architecture responds to a vernacular character due tradition or natural adaptation, in Mexico City and adjacent areas the concrete flat roofs are a common morphology in construction. Despite the actual growing concern about climate change people have been building that way as a habit, probably because the cultural share during the transition to modernity becoming a common constructive typology. Disregard if the shape can be modified to improve its adaptation to the environment.

This basic shape is affected by its inherent physical conditions like regular solar radiation along the day therefore its temperature transmitted to the interior. As the heat can be incremented by natural ways by the orientation of openings, the priority is to reduce the cooling need by mechanical devices. This represents an opportunity to look for a strategy that saves energy in a passive way. The gap between air temperature and comfort levels gets reduced due diminishment of radiation over the roof envelope, therefore reducing the need of electromechanical devices increasing the comfort hours in a natural way.

Mexico City counts with a strong sunlight potential which can be beneficial in terms of solar energy production or a thermal load problem increasing the need of cooling. In order to achieve comfortable interior spaces preventing heat. A sustainable strategy is to take advantage of design driven by climate conditions building in a smarter way.

Figure 2: Mexico City Rooftops. Photo by Lucia Nieto.

11

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2.2 Population and city growth According to INEGI Mexico occupies the 13th place as one of the most extensive countries with 1,964,375 Sq.km. With a population of 117,053,750 inhabitants in 2012. With 1,485km2 Mexico City counted with 8,851,080 inhabitants in 2010. The latest years the city showed a continuous increase with a decreasing growth rate for the last years due the lower cost housing offered in the peripheries. Despite this deceleration, the floating population from the periphery mean for the City an important demand increment of services and infrastructure (INEGI 2014; Distrito Federal 2003).

Mexico City

Population Growth 8235744

8605239

8720916

8851080

1990

2000

2005

2010

6874165

3050442

1950

1970

Figure 3 Mexico City population growth.

Population Growth Rates Mexico City

Mexico

125.3% 87%

68% 19.8%

1950-1970

1970-1990

4.5%

20%

1990-2000

1.3%

6%

2000-2005

1.5%

9%

2005-2010

Figure 4 Population growth rates comparison, Mexico City shows a lower rate than the average.

As the city grows there are three factors which increase trigger a relevant impact in energy consumption in a massive way:  Population  Buildings  Consumption per capita The population increase is a variable that does not depend on the efficiency of the building, as it grows every inhabitant will have their own supply requirements. What can be enhanced is the housing energy performance. By the improvement of efficiency in buildings, the energy consumption per capita will be shortened. Although the following elements like the reuse of heat, water consumption management, waste disposal and eco-technologies are not subject of this study these contribute as parts of an integral design conception.

12

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Urban Distribution 26% 50% 24%

Housing

Mixed Use

Other

Figure 5 Urban Distribution

According to the Delegation Program of Urban Development in Mexico City (PGDU in Spanish) 50% of the urban area is intended for housing and 24% for mixed use. The metropolitan area of the valley of Mexico is the result of the physic and demographic growth of the city and neighbouring municipalities which urban structure has been expanded to the periphery and less urbanized areas for the last 2 decades. This urban sprawl has been deeply related with the dimension of the city which in order to compensate the housing supply for an increasing population it expands horizontally demanding more territory. With a decreasing density until the last years the government has set re-densification policies to reutilize the central areas. However these last years from the total housing construction in the metropolitan area only 22% of the low income neighbourhoods while the 80% of medium and high residential developments were constructed in the city (Distrito Federal 2003).

Urban sprawl in Mexico City (Ha)

61000

22000

1950

1995

Figure 6 Mexico City urban sprawl. Information gathered from PGDU.

Is well known as higher is the income degree, the inhabitants become more dependent on energy to fulfil their comfort expectancies in their spaces.

13

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2.3 Global Warming

Figure 7: Global warming cycle.

With urbanisation the population raises as prosperity does the second affect the lifestyle standards and comfort expectations driving to increased resource consumption. In the world 45% of greenhouse gases are derived from burning fossil fuels in support of the use of buildings, expecting a double of energy demand by the year 2050. In UK the CO2 emissions derived from construction are 5% compared to 50% by building occupancy, addressing the source of the problem. This sustained increase of consumption, waste and pollution per capita produces more CO2 leading to global warming in a vicious cycle between energy demand and comfort (Edwards 2010).

Energy Consumption Rates Industry, Agriculture 20%

Building construction 5% Heating, Lighting, Ventilating 50%

Transportation 25%

Figure 8 : Energy consumption rates.

“A higher air temperature tends to increase cooling needs resulting in higher power demand and energy use” (Xu et al. 2012).

Is expected the temperature will rise between 1.5 to 4 °C over the next 100 years. The environmental damage will be first noticed in cities with problems such as rising temperatures, energy scarcity and air pollution. With more than 8 million inhabitants Mexico City is considered a mega city as a reference for other developing cities along the country (Edwards 2010). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Mexico concentrates 46.3% of its population in urban regions (OECD 2015b).

Since the increasing effect of climate change, the concern about pollution and the reduction of nonrenewable energy supplies new strategies have been set in order to reduce the amount of energy used by the buildings.

14

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2.4 Sustainability Sustainability is to avoid the collapse, thinking in long term time with a wide geographic awareness of the impact of our actions to prevent the consequences of our activities. The actions must be complementary to enhance the positive qualities and make them work together in a more complex system. Sustainability is the balance between three mutually supportive aspects that provide the guideline for action:   

Environment Economy Society

(Thiele 2013; Edwards 2010).

The environmental approach is to provide comfort with the least amount of material and energy resources possible. Taking advantage of the site information requires an investment of time applying the knowledge to find an optimal pathway through design as a preventive measure instead spending capital and energy in corrective solutions.

The way sustainability influences the architecture in relation to the environment is divided in to three stages: 1. Design 2. Construction 3. Management or operation The advances through these stages increase its complexity as cost with cumulative values in every step. An inefficient design can impact into a higher construction cost, but the operation costs could also increase its value over years (Edwards 2010; Madhumathi and Sundarraja 2014). “Decisions made early in the design process have considerable influence over the environmental performance of the completed building” (Watts 2013).

Innovative architects such as Bjarke Ingels points up the vernacular architecture use of climate constraints in favour to an adaptive design, with the homogenization of style the buildings responded less and became more dependent on machines. His argument is not to return to ancient styles but to harness the technology of virtual models that allow the simulation and calculation to improve the performance previous the construction allowing the permanent physical design play an active role instead the mechanical devices to create more hospitable conditions for people. In words of Ingels “The more sophisticated technology we deploy in the design process the less dependent our designs will be on corrective technology in their afterlives” (Ingels 2015).

15

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2.4.1 Sustainability in Mexico The Mexican government (2013) have taken into account for the actual National Development Plan (NDP) the sustainable development. Actually is part in more than 90 agreements in terms of sustainability. However, the economic growth of the country is dependent on the emission of greenhouse compounds, between others. The economic cost of environment depletion represented 6.9% of the GDP according to the National institute of statistics and Geography (INEGI).

According to the OECD GHG emissions like Co2 have increased by 7% in Mexico the last years, compared to the tendency of the countries in the OECD which have reduced their emissions by 14% (OECD 2015a).

Air and GHG emissions carbon dioxide (CO2), Tonnes/capita 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Mexico

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3,460 3430 3450 3470 3480 3600 3640 3740 3630 3540 3660 3740 3720

OECD- Europe 7,590 7640 7570 7730 7700 7630 7640 7540 7340 6790 6990 6730 6670 Figure 9 Air and GHG emissions, CO2

At national level, housing provides 7% of the Green House Gases (GHG), the extended lifetime in housing buildings contributes to the high mitigation potential of the GHG emissions. Nowadays developers and financial institutions count with the opportunity to incentive the householders to promote the implementation of efficient technologies in terms of energy including passive characteristics to the design to reduce the total energy consumption in construction (CONAVI 2013).

The Nama provides additional funding to enhance the energy efficiency and diminish the fossil fuels consumption as laid in Mexico climate change programme. Which is achieved by architectonic design improvements, eco-technologies implementation and the use of efficient constructive systems. In 2013 the CO2 emissions were estimated in 5 Million Tons and is predicted by 2020 that 5 million of dwellings are going to be built providing up to 25 M ton of Co2 emissions. Implementing NAMA is expected 2 M ton of emissions will be avoided every year. This program has been planned in two development phases:  

1st phase. Targeted to new buildings primarily for low income families.

2nd phase. Still in planning but tends to extend the program to the existing housing stock.

(NAMA 2014)

16

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

2.5 Energy The 1970 energy crisis did take into account the dependence on fossil fuels to produce energy, turning the attention to production efficiency and alternative sources, and then this mind set became the concern about carbon dioxide production and its polluting effects (Laughton 1990).

These priorities changed from 1970 where the energy scarcity was the trigger for innovation; in 2010 the priority became adaptation to climate change. Reducing the CO2 produced by buildings with the use of alternative energy sources as the consumption optimization (Edwards 2010).

The British Petroleum (2015) in their world review calculated the CO2 emissions only grew by 0.5% in 2014, the slowest rate since 1998. Global energy consumption increased 0.9% in 2014, below the 2.1% average growth for the last 10 years. Renewables provided around 3% of the world’s energy needs.

According to the Energy Ministry (SENER in Spanish) Mexico confront challenges where the health and environmental costs related to energy management are important. A study revealed that 50% of the energy is used to supply buildings. Mexico considers necessary to reduce the risks associated to climate change requiring a change in energy production and consumption reducing the emissions by 30% up to 2020 (SENER 2015).

According to the NDP Mexico (2013) is facing a balance problem which production show an annual reduction of 0.3% while the consumption increased every year an average of 2.1% between 2000 and 2011.However the primary energy consumption by fossil fuels was reduced by 0.1% in 2014 over 2013. Meanwhile renewables consumption grew 39% for the hydroelectric as the major renewable source, and 9.2% the rest of them where the solar energy is included (British Petroleum 2015).

2014 Energy consumption growth (%) 39

9.2

-0.1 Primary Energy

Hydroelectric

Rest of Renewables

Figure 10 Energy consumption growth percentage over 2013 in Mexico

17

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture The energy consumption therefore its pollutant emissions are deeply related to the buildings performance. Two pathways are symbiotic for the correction and improvement of energy use, the efficiency enhancement of energy production and the reduction of energy consumption where the second is the concern of this study. The aim is first to reduce the energy requirements then to enhance the way the energy is supplied in order to achieve self-sufficiency if possible.

2.5.1 Solar energy Mexico has a big potential to harness solar radiation due its convenient geographical position set it among the top 5 most attractive countries to produce renewable energy despite the technology has not still developed widely (Alemรกn-Nava et al. 2014).

The average potential solar radiation is 5kWh/m2/day in Mexico, higher than Germany which is the third worldwide in installed PV capacity with an average of 3.2kWh/m2/day (Mundo-Hernรกndez et al. 2014, 639-649).

To optimize the Building Integrated Photovoltaic System (BIPV) Hachem consider two critical days: The Summer Design Day (SDD) which represents an extreme hot sunny day. The Winter Design Day (WDD) represents the extreme cold sunny day, its weather is ideal for passive solar design and to maximize the solar gain. Both are used to check the performance of the BIPV (Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011, 1864-1877).

Figure 11 Solar Radiation in Mexico

18

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

3 Harness the environment 3.1 Climate The climate in the interior of buildings is determined by the combination of a variety of elements such as: Solar radiation, air temperature, humidity, wind and long wave radiation. “To consider how climate affects the building design, one needs to first consider solar radiation. The solar position plays the main factor in the amount of radiation a region receives and is a big impact on climate. The solar radiation plays an important role in deciding the optimum orientation of a building. With proper orientation the building receives minimum solar radiation in summer for comfort conditions” (Praharaj 2014)

3.2 Passive Methods “Passive methods use building design parameters, such as the shape of the building and orientation, which reduce energy consumption of air conditioning systems” (Orosa García and Oliveira 2012).

The passive use of solar radiation harnesses the building elements properties as parts of a system to interact with the sun without the need of mechanical systems. Taking advantage of the knowledge from the surrounding environment a design can be adapted to utilize its energy potential efficiently, becoming in a simple and effective form of solar architecture (Schittich 2012).

Minimizing the environmental impact is only a step to sustainability; in one hand is the use of high efficiency devices for cooling or solar energy sources, apparently free and clean but with a higher economic cost compared to fossil fuels discouraging its use. On the other hand the passive methods allow living in accordance to the environment taking in count the location and climate conditions with null energy consumption or at least reduce the technology needed to reach comfort.

(Anupama, Dhote, and and Tiwari 2003; Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011) Almusaed (2011) explains the passive bioclimatic architecture is the combination of sustainability, environmental consciousness and natural approaches among others to design accordingly the social, artificial and natural context.

Madhumathi and Sundarraja addressed the passive cooling of buildings according to the heat flow from the source to its return back to the environment in three categories; Heat prevention, thermal moderation and heat dissipation (Madhumathi and Sundarraja 2014). Orosa classifies these passive methods in two groups: reception and control, the first is related to solar radiation prevention, while control involves heat moderation and dissipation consisting in thermal inertia of building envelopes that is going to be explained further (Orosa García and Oliveira 2012).

In order to prevent thermal loads Anupama addressed two heat sources; the internal by the use of equipment or the activity of people and the external loads due climate conditions such as the incident solar radiation directly or transferred as heat by conduction through the walls and roofs (Anupama, Dhote, and and Tiwari 2003, 17-26).

The passive cooling reduces the gap to reach thermal comfort minimizing the energy consumption.

19

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

3.3 Solar potential of the architecture Matias, Marcos (2009) suggests the common definition of solar architecture is generally related to the use of Photovoltaic cells or solar water heating which not truly integrates the designed element with its environment. Is important to consider the difference between the design results of a responsive optimization to the climate conditions from the simple use of technologies added to the building.

In one hand the high latent energy capacity in Mexico by the use of BIPV provides an alternative to avoid the burn of fossil fuels to supply the buildings by energy. On the other hand this high solar capacity is radiation that the envelope receives along the day, increasing the heat gain to the interior of buildings.

The less energy requirements the active systems need to supply aided by passive strategies the less energy conditioning devices will demand to reach the comfort needed, minimizing the living expenses in terms of energy and CO2 pollution.

Another issue to take in consideration is the further dispose of highly pollutant waste at the end of the PV cells lifetime. According to Edwards (2010) the services as could be any source of renewable supply energy or electromechanical devices such as air conditioning have less life expectancy with the consequent maintenance compared to the bigger lifetime span of the building shape, considering also the temperatures will continue rising for the next years displacing the temperatures from the comfort levels that we achieve nowadays.

Years 60 40 20 0 Services

Buildings

Figure 12: Building elements life expectancy

“Engineering without engines� with the new technologies we can design and engineer a building with the least reliance on machinery to make it inhabitable (Ingels 2015).

20

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

4 Solar Geometry To control the solar incidence is important to know sun’s behaviour in relation to the buildings and its effects. The sun position is determined by 2 angles:  

Altitude (ALT) upwards from the horizon, at 90° is the zenith.

Azimuth (AZI) the North (0°) is the starting point moving clockwise (Szokolay 2014).

Figure 13 Solar position

According to Yannas (1994)during clear and average days, radiation is strongly related to orientation and the sun’s position.

21

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

4.1 Solar incidence Direct radiation angle of incidence falling on a horizontal surface like a roof can be measured by the complement of the altitude angle as shown in the following formula (Θ = 90° - A).

Figure 14 Incidence angle

The solar absorption shows an angular dependence, decreasing inversely proportional to the incidence angle increase. The solar incidence holds up to 45°, beyond this angle the energy absorbed decreases with the increase of incidence angle as the incoming insolation becomes more parallel to the wall (Tang, Meir, and Etzion1 2003, 273-286; Givoni 1976).

Figure 15: Dependence of absorptance on incidence angle. (Tang, Meir and Etzion, 2003)

22

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture The roof surface can be optimized to maximize the solar incidence. A useful principle used for PV in order to maximize the solar energy absorptance can be directly or inversely applied for the envelope in this research. The objective is to handle the orientation and tilt in an angle equivalent to the latitude of the building location providing a direct insolation affecting the heat gain of the envelope.

To maximize the insolation in winter the tilt angle can be increased 10-15° while in summer is to reduce the inclination 10-15° less than the latitude angle (Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011).

Figure 16: Maximized solar incidence by optimal angles

4.1.1 Orientation The amount of solar radiation depends on the orientation of the building by three main reasons: direct beam sunlight, conduction of heat through roof or walls, outside air infiltration. While the roof receives the highest amount for the longest period of time, it is followed by the east and west walls with direct incidence at the morning and evening. The south façade receives less radiation due the reduced angle of the sun in relation to the walls with the north as the orientation with less solar absorption. These conditions favour to orient the widest surfaces between north and south for vertical elements. The elements oriented on an east-west axis receive 50% more sunshine than the north-south oriented (Anupama, Dhote, and and Tiwari 2003, 17-26).

Figure 17 Sun orientation radiation variations

23

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

4.2.2 Heliotectonics Heliotectonics are performance definitions based in optimize the building form to increase energy generation by BIPV. A Heliotectonics definition can receive significantly greater incident solar radiation over some traditional geometries due its primary purpose is the capture of solar radiation.

A way to optimize the performance of the building self-production energy is the properly placement of the BIPV. If the goal is a high sustainability level is necessary to ensure the materials are used in an optimal configuration.

The effectiveness of the design can be explained by the projection effect, which states direct solar radiation falling on a surface in an angle less than 90° will distribute the same amount of radiation over a greater area, reducing the concentration of energy (Stirling 2012).

The maximum harnessing of BIPV performance depends on orientation and slope, an inverse pathway use of this is to reduce the direct sun exposition by natural ways.

Figure 18: Projection effect

24

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

4.2 Shading The results of an analysis done by Hachem (2011, 1864-1877) indicated the use of self-shading geometries is the major parameter affecting solar incidence and transmitted radiation. “One particular characteristic of dome and vault type roof is the auto shading effect which occurs most of the day except at noon�. For flat roofs the temperature distribution is nearly uniform, but for vaulted roofs the temperature distribution is noticeable because the effect of shading. For a vaulted roof with 180° rim angle while the east side is exposed the west is shaded and vice versa.

The shading part of the vault increases according to the increase of the rim angle of the vault, hence the temperature difference between orientations depending on the hour (Hadavand, Yaghoubi, and Emdad 2008, 265-275).

Anupama suggests surface shading can be integral with the design using highly textured surfaces in that case walls, because they have portions of the surface in shade. With less area absorbing than emitting radiation it can be cooler than a flat surface. The increased area can also provide a higher amount of heat loss during night (Anupama, Dhote, and and Tiwari 2003, 17-26).

Yannas suggests the roof shading as an additional strategy for regions with high levels of solar radiation, with the use of vegetation or layering the roof (Yannas, Eremeev, and Molina 2006).

Figure 19 Self-shading geometry

25

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

4.3 Solar Radiation Watts (2013) defines the solar gain as the temperature increase due the sun’s energy by the building envelope.

Szokolay (2014) argues the solar radiation is measured in two ways:  

Irradiance Irradiation

w/m2 wh/m2

Referred as “intensity” A quantity of energy over a specific period of time

The average solar radiation that the outer atmosphere receives is 1353 kw/m2, known as solar constant (Tang, Meir, and Wu 2006, 268-276).

Givoni explains the solar energy incident in a region depends on the duration and intensity of sun irradiation as the sky clearance. The intensity depends on the air thickness to reach a point on the earth by two variables: the height above the sea level and the sun altitude. The sun altitude is the angle of the sun above the horizon which depends on the geographical latitude with the maximum value in the tropics, decreasing to the poles. The sunlight duration increases as the latitude angle does with short winter days and long summer days partially compensated by the low angle of the sun. The solar radiation can be divided in 3 components:   

Direct radiation Diffused radiation Reflected radiation from ground

According to Yannas (1994) during clear days the radiation is strongly related to orientation and the sun’s position. Direct radiation depends on the beam of the sun on the surface. Diffused radiation is reflected everywhere by scattered particles in the air. On overcast days the diffused radiation increases as the direct radiation is reduced, providing light even in the absence of direct sunlight.

The radiation is perfectly diffused or reflected in every direction.

The heat transfer from the ground is emitted by long wave radiation to the air, depending on the difference of temperatures. The energy absorbed during day due sunlight is released at night (Givoni 1976).

26

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

5 Temperature exchange 5.1 Heat transfer Givoni (1976) explains the time the envelope is exposed to direct solar incidence affects the exterior temperature, but once it reaches the surface the transfer to the interior take place by four different factors:    

Conduction Convection Radiation Evaporation

According to Yannas (1994) the conduction occurs through the contact of adjacent solid materials, from warmer to colder elements affecting materials sequentially in time.

Convection is due air movement and ventilation, transporting the heat from one surface to another by a fluid, the coefficient increases as the flow increases due velocity.

By evaporation the latent heat contained in water particles is transferred to the air, the lower the vapour pressure and the higher the air velocity the higher it potential.

Through radiation the temperature is transferred by electromagnetic wavelengths between surfaces and air being the most related way of heat transfer to this subject of study.

Although the geometry directly affects the solar incidence over the envelope surface, exist other physical properties in the materials which affect how the heat is absorbed and transferred to the interior of spaces.

Fathy (1976) suggests the best materials for construction in areas with a wide temperature difference between day and night are those with low heat conduction. This delay in conductivity mitigates the heat by direct solar radiation during day while limits the heat loss during night in order to reach thermal comfort. He exposed the difference between different types of blocks, which can be used for walls as for traditional vaults or domes except the hollow concrete blocks which are used only for walls.

Table 1 Conductivity between different types of blocks

Material

Value

20 % fine sand sun dried earth brick 80% coarse sand sun dried earth brick Baked Brick Hollow concrete block

0.22 0.32 0.48 0.80

Unit

Cal/min/cm2/thickness

27

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

5.2 Surface characteristics respect radiant heat exchange Despite the amount of time a surface is exposed to the solar radiation Givoni (1976)explains there are 3 characteristics inherent to the surface that determine the radiant heat exchange   

Absorptivity (α) Reflectivity (ρ) Emissivity (ε)

The most effective way to control the amount of heat reaching the interior is to consider the way radiation is absorbed or reflected. With the same amount of solar exposure the first two properties determine the radiation absorbed by the surface, therefore the temperature at the interior. The absorptivity ranges vary from the fully black body with the highest absorption value (α =1) to the perfect reflector with the lowest value (α =0), being inversely proportional in case of reflectivity and complementary as shown in the following formula (ρ +α =1) (Szokolay 2014).

Along with these the emissivity is the condition that allows the material to emit radiant energy ‘with a spectral distribution and intensity dependent on its temperature’. The surface always absorbs and emits radiation with the lowest emissivity rates for highly polished metals but in the case of different colour coatings despite the white and black have different absorption rates the emissivity is equal therefore cooling at the same rate at night.

An easy way to control the radiation reflected by surfaces is to change the physical properties of the objects like colour, texture and orientation (Givoni 1976)

5.2.1 Long wave heat loss The heat exchange from surfaces with ambient air due temperature difference is known as the long wave heat loss. Most long wave radiation is absorbed in the air, where water vapour is the major long wave absorber. The highest heat loss is when the sky is clear, and it decreases as the amount of particles increase such as clouds, dust or water vapour (Givoni 1976).

Figure 20: Short wave gain / Long wave Loss

28

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

5.3 Thermal Conductivity According to Givoni (1976) the heat flow across a wall or roof depends on its thermal conductivity and the thickness of the elements, the greater the thickness the lower will be the heat flow rate.

Thermal conductivity (C) is a material property which determines the heat flow in unit time by conduction (λ) through its thickness (d) obtained by the following formula C= λ/d.

5.4 Thermal Inertia (P) Thermal inertia is a measure of heat transfer rate between two materials. It depends on the structure, accumulating heat excess during day and releasing when the air temperature reaches colder temperatures than the surface. The higher thermal inertia, the higher time lag between indoor and outdoor temperatures. This is a valuable parameter for indoor environments directly affecting the temperature. Materials with higher P show less temperature fluctuation along the day and favour the thermal comfort (Orosa García and Oliveira 2012; Short 2015)

5.5 Thermal comfort Thermal comfort is the balance between the human body and its environment to live in healthy conditions, keeping the temperature within a range regardless of the relative wide variations in the external environment preferably by natural sources (Edwards 2010).

To measure the thermal comfort is important to take in count the heat exchange which takes place through convection and radiation between the body and environment determined by the combined effect of environmental and individual factors such as air temperature, radiation, air motion, activity, clothing and metabolic rate (Givoni 1976).

Praharaj(2014) consider the temperature range from 20 to 30 °C and the relative humidity (RH) between 30-60% as rough values providing a partial description for comfort levels.

The human comfort depends on external and internal variables to be achieved. The most important external variable is the solar exposure determined by longitude, latitude and altitude. The gather of this information is the first step to propose suitable strategies according to the existing conditions.

“The climate responsive design is a mechanism where the form and structure are designed to regulate the effect of external climatic conditions for the internal occupants” (Aaditya and Mani 2013, 271-281).

29

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

30

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

6 The envelope The envelope as the intermediate between the natural outdoors and the built indoors is divided in three different elements: roofs, walls and windows or openings.

The wall receives less radiation than the roof because orientation respect to the sun, by geometry can be studied in the same way in terms of radiant transmittance and conductivity as the roofs. But for the opening, the way it increase the heat at the interior of the spaces is different.

Figure 21: Thermal loads by heat transfer and direct radiation on Roofs, walls and windows.

6.1 Roofs According to Givoni (1976) the roof is the most exposed element to climate conditions. In hot climates is believed to be the main heating element of a house, considering the main factors for heat gain are the external colour, thermal resistance and heat capacity with a smaller influence of colour as the thermal resistance increases.

Praharaj argues (2014) “The temperature of the structure is increased by absorption and radiation of heat by walling and roofing materials�. The roof shape is commonly horizontal. A standard that ignores the orientation of the building and does not respond to the geographic location receiving the same amount of solar radiation during the day leaving an open gap to consider that it can be improved harnessing the sun position to find a better responsive geometry.

According to Olgyay (1963) the advantage of curved roofs was the dilution of radiation over the surface which resulted in lower temperatures.

An example of how the geometry affects the temperature is provided by Fathy (1976) who argues that in hot dry climates in spaces with curved roofs the temperature is maintained fresher and the surface reflect more radiation than their flat counterparts. His practice has leaded him to construct in extreme hot climates and provide solutions for the people in conditions of poverty.

31

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture According to Yannas the roof protect the spaces from the elements with the quality to exploit the climate conditions as energy sources or sinks in order to contribute to the heat or cooling of spaces.

Yannas enlist as the heat gain factors: sunshine and occupancy. For the heat sink is: ambient air, ground, water masses and lower temperature at the exterior than the interior. He suggests “The design of a roof should seek to control the absorption of solar radiation and its effects indoors” (Yannas, Eremeev, and Molina 2006).

6.2 Openings Hachem explains an optimal equatorial facing-glazing range is between 7% and 12% of total floor area (Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011).

The openings provide the greatest opportunities as the greatest risks for passive solar heating. The dimensions, arrangement and orientation are critical for the energy supply and comfort in spaces. Is suggested the windows rate to wall area do not exceed 45% of the building surface when standard glazing (Schittich 2012).

For this study the fenestration orientation is directed to the south providing a constant direct solar gain to the interior as it would be in a standard inhabited room. The differences will be shown between the prototype control model and the further modifications by the radiant transmittance of their geometries by walls and the roof envelope.

6.3 Ceiling height Givoni (1976) discusses the effect of reduced ceiling heights in relation with indoor comfort, firstly considering the economic advantages as follows:   

Reducing ceiling heights permits a reduction con construction cost Reduction of costs on prefabricated components Increase of storey levels reducing lowering their ceiling heights

To know the thermal effects in hot regions systematic studies were done in Australia, England, India, South Africa, USA and Israel comparing different ceiling heights in order to study its correlation with the thermal performance.

These studies concluded that in hot regions lowering the ceiling height from 3.30 m to 2.50 m did not provide a significant difference at the thermal conditions physiologically perceived, vanishing this slight difference with the natural ventilation through the windows (Givoni 1976).

What the height directly affects is the volume dimension that is directly related to the air changes required to cool a space by natural or artificial ways, being noticeable in the amount of energy required to cool down the space in case an artificial device is used.

32

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

7 Geometric shape “Different geometric shapes have different capacity to receive solar energy under the same conditions due to its geometric characteristics” (Ling, Ahmad, and Ossen 2007, 27) The geometry shape determines the solar access on the buildings surface, to identify these values over it different parameters are taken in consideration.

7.1 Aspect ratio Aspect Ratio (W/L) is defined as the ratio between the equatorial-facing façade width (W) to its Lateral side (L).In cold climate the ideal aspect ratio varies from 1.3 to 1.5 (Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011, 1864-1877). According to Ling (2007, 27) the geometric aspect ratio of 1:1 contains the lowest value in the relation volume-surface.

7.2 Volume-Surface “The relation surface-volume is the basis to formulate a generalization of relative benefits on different configurations”. When a volume is modified the ratios vary increasing or decreasing the possible heat transmittance between interior and exterior (Matías 2009).

A value to determine an optimized building form is the A/V ratio is the relationship between the outer exposed surface (A) of an element and its volume (V). The compact forms show low value A/V ratios saving energy. This is because the reduced surface decreases the contact between the interior and exterior, therefore the heat transmittance. The reduced surface minimizes the solar radiation during day time and decreases the long wave heat loss during night (Schittich 2012; Hachem, Athienitis, and Fazio 2011).

Figure 22 Volume/Surface increasing scale ratio.

33

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

7.3 Solar incidence in relation to constructive shape Matias (2009) referred the Regional Centre for Scholar Constructions in Latin America (CONESCAL) schemes. This graphs explain in a brief and general approach how the most common typologies receive the solar incidence on a perpendicular angle in a single period of time, to explain the phenomena between geometry and solar incidence.

Flat Roof Sun rays are perpendicular to the whole surface

Slope Roof Half of the roof envelope receive perpendicular radiation

4 Sided Slope Roof Quarter of the surface is affected

Vaulted Roof Only one line of the tangent receives perpendicular radiation at a time

Domed Roof Only one point of the tangent receives perpendicular radiation at a time

Figure 23: Solar incidence depending on roof geometry

34

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

8 Previous analysis of geometric Performance 8.1 Reduced solar incidence for high buildings in Malaysia Ling analysed the effect of geometric shape and building orientation to minimise solar incidence pointing; as the building raises in height the incidence over the wall become more critical for the annual total insolation receiving up to 86.6% of the total solar incidence.

In this research the circular shape with a 1:1 aspect ratio (W/L) received the lowest amount of annual total solar incidence (9,296 mWh/year) followed by the square shape with the same ratio.

From all the simulations the rectangular shape with a 1:3 aspect ratio received the highest amount of solar radiation which is 33% more than the circular shape. In conclusion an optimized envelope geometry can reduce the impact of solar radiation, hence the energy consumption for cooling in a high-rise building can be minimised (Ling, Ahmad, and Ossen 2007, 27).

8.2 Insolation of vaults and domes in Middle East Tang et al (2003, 539-548) compared the difference of absorbed radiation between domed and vaulted roofs with flat roofs. He concluded the roof with rim angle of 180° absorbed 20% more daily beam radiation and 30% more total radiation during summer than the flat roof although the domed roof absorbed less radiation than flat roof during noon. In response to hot summer days the dome angle should be less than 120°. In the case of vaulted roofs the south-north orientation performed better than the east-west vault in reducing solar gains during summer and increasing solar heat gain during winter. In order to reduce heat gains in the east-west vault orientation the rim angle should be less than 100°.

Figure 24: Absorbed beam radiation by roofs during a typical day of June. (Tang et al 2003)

35

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

8.3 Domed houses in Turkey In Turkey can be found Harran, a town located at the southeast where the shape of conical domed houses is well known. Yildirim compared the solar incidence between the flat roof and the conic roof identifying different characteristics between them.

In comparison with the research by Tang, Yildirim argues the increased amount of incident radiation is because in every conical surface slope angle the area is greater than the base area, allowing the conical roof absorbs more radiation than its flat counterpart. On the other hand flat roof receives solar radiation in every moment of the day but for the conical dome the incidence shows different values that changes with the azimuth angle of its shape.

In July the conical roof absorbs 55.7% of total solar radiation compared to the 61% of the flat roof but concludes: “When the daily sum of hourly beam and diffuse radiation averages are compared, the flat roof receives - 100% more beam radiation and 33% more diffuse radiation than conical roofs received per unit area in July� (Yildirim, Firatoglu, and Yesilata 2014, 123-128).

Figure 25: Harran typical domed house. Photo by Ulrike Passe.

36

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

9 Vernacular 2.0 9.1 Vernacular Architecture Traditional building types developed over years are proven building forms indicating the gradual adaptation to the economy, availability of resources and climate conditions being this last factor the predominant for its adaptation (Schittich 2012).

Vernacular houses are mainly designed to harness natural resources such as the wind and sun to achieve comfort using available materials and known construction technologies. “Learning from the past” is the principle to harness sustainable design strategies that consider climate in order to improve the actual building comfort conditions (Bodach, Lang, and Hamhaber 2014, 227-242).

According to vernacular architecture Ingels concludes: “These examples show us ways to achieve an ultimate symbiosis between architecture and its surroundings” (Ingels 2015).

9.2 Form Finding Form finding in architecture looks at processes the nature follows to achieve an optimized shape in accordance with its environment. This balance is achieved by a dynamic adaptability between the object and its surroundings in terms of energy and resources. Major characteristic patterns are identified and the data obtained becomes a helpful tool to innovate in construction (Goldsmith 2014).

Natural objects are formed by processes that can be recognized from the form of the objects. These forms are defined by adaptation to nature through self-formation and self-optimization processes.

To solve today’s problems architects and researchers must see things as a whole. Learn from nature in order to adapt to larger social and environmental systems with the less footprint possible (Otto and Rasch 2006).

Architects such as Buckminster Fuller and Frei Otto did their practice in lightweight structures, harnessing the geometry to enhance the structure behaviour. Otto considered the construction the basis of architecture. He identified the geometry implies a better performance in the structure load bearing capacity with less effort, reducing the stress and the material required. Otto’s research was driven through a reverse pathway recognizing the patterns of self-formation process and shape of natural elements to identify the mathematical values in the structure to propose more efficient models (Otto and Nerdinger 2005).

With this logical approach the environment adaptation plays an important role to optimize the building features. As the structure performance is directly enhanced by the shape geometry as a vector force to counter the loading weight. In the same way the solar incidence is a vector system between the sun and the building envelope, with the highest solar gain as direct insolation. This understanding of solar geometry will allow identifying the most convenient incidence angles and the shading over the envelope surface.

37

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

9.3 Computer assisted design Design is making explicit proposals from a concept, where prototyping is a way to identify values of the object beyond the flat drawings and its imaginary conception of shape.

In this case the virtual prototyping allows testing and measuring the model features while still on design to refine its performance in a dynamic way. Knowing the parameters that affect a building and obtaining its quantifiable information, future case scenarios can be prevented. By simulation, model conditions can be tested before construction on how their future usage will reduce fossil fuels consumption therefore its environmental impact.

Computer aided appraisal techniques consist in an iterative process between design hypotheses and software predictions output, providing graphical or numerical results to be analysed and took in consideration to solve future problems. Compared to traditional drawing by hand or computer the new models for simulations are predictive rather than descriptive, the iterative process merges with the dynamic possibilities to propose, evaluate and modify with relative ease. This interaction between input and output of information assess the architect during the design phase in terms of cost and performance.

The computer aided design application show different advantages as follows:  



Widening the search of solutions o Allow to compare different tentative solutions in terms of cost and performance Greater integration in decision making o By easy adaptation to different appraisal techniques a model can be analysed through a wider variety of quantifiable features. o Increased speed on information sharing and easier communication.

Improving design insights o Particular decisions can be noticed in terms of cost and performance with the use of simulation modifying certain variables to notice its further effects.

(Watt Maver 2004, 153-168)

9.4 Parametricism Related with the continuous advance in design technologies; systematization, adaptive variation, dynamism and continuous differentiation are features of parametric design, applied in different scales from minimal objects up to urbanism.

Objects are constructed by multiple elements unified by associative relations; unique parts set the standard for an easier mass production while the joints harness the quantifiable variables for an optimized shape. The overall component might sensibly adapt to various local conditions. Similar to natural systems the Parametricism shape is the result to the overall interactive law forces.

Organized complexity, Cumulative record of usage patterns result in continuous shape transformations. Deformation is no longer a breakdown of order, is an ordered structure of information interpreted in a responsive shape. The registration of patterns produces the parameters that drive the form shape (Schumacher 2008).

38

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Figure 26: Typical vernacular house in Nepal adapted to its environment. (Bodach, Lang, and Hamhaber 2014, 227-242).

Based on taking advantage of vernacular principles Ingels argue: “Clearly we are not proposing that we return to old vernacular styles, but that we make use of our new tools� (Ingels 2015).

Figure 27: Shenzhen energy mansion designed by BIG. Shading envelope aided by parametric design to optimize views while reducing direct insulation. Under construction

39

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

40

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

10 Case studies 10.1 Optimum pitch roof angle in Malaysia For low rise buildings in tropical climates the roofs are the most exposed elements, becoming the major source of external heat during day and the main source of heat loss during night. In Malaysia was done a research to identify the optimum roof pitch angle for thermal performance and energy saving.

Located in tropical climate zone close to equator at Latitude 3° 12’N, Longitude 101°55’E. With high levels of solar radiation the major problems are heat and humidity. Daily average temperature exceeds the 25°C most of the time, while reaching a mean annual humidity of 83% overpassing the comfort levels band. Solar radiation is conducted through the roof elevating the internal temperature by radiation, increasing the cooling and energy requirements. In Malaysia the buildings demand account 47.5% of electricity consumption, 55-65% of that demand is for air conditioning.

Figure 28 Image of test cell. (Irwan et al. 2010, 476-479)

The research objective was the thermal performance comparison between two models insulated and non-insulated at different roof angles of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°, simulated in the month of August which represents the typical year weather in Malaysia.

The simulation measured the models in two ways; by thermal and energy performance, the first compared the attic and indoor temperatures, while the second the total energy consumption in a month by the air conditioned operating 24 hours during 31 days.

41

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture This research have shown disfavoured values for the 60° roof angle with higher temperatures during day time, even the insulated roof exceeded the maximum outdoor temperature by 2 degrees. During night the insulated model retained more heat than its 0° angle counterpart. The 60° sloped roof showed the lowest energy savings with 0.8%, while the 0° roof had the highest with 3.9%. This research identified the optimal angle was the 0° roof, but due the climate conditions is not practical to use that shape, recommending the 15° angle as its closest (Irwan et al. 2010, 476-479).

Figure 29 Temperature profile at 0° of roof angle.

Figure 30 Temperature profile at 60° of roof angle.

Figure 31 Energy performance between Insulated and uninsulated prototypes.

42

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

10.2 Vernacular Architecture in Nepal In Nepal a research was done to identify characteristic patterns between passive strategies used in different regions depending on climate. With the lack of mechanical resources the inhabitants needed to adapt their buildings by constructive technologies optimized by experience along hundreds of year.

This research was a qualitative analysis taking in count the settlement pattern, building form, orientation and the roofs among other construction elements. According to Köppen-Geiger climate classification, Kathmandu one of the sites of study has the same climate zone of Mexico City, warm climate with dry winters and warm summers (Cwb). Despite the different cultural background, valuable information can be obtained from the relationship between shape and environment.

Kathmandu (27°42’ N, 85°22’ E) has warm temperate climate according to Shrestha classification, a more specific classification for Nepal conditions. The average temperatures vary between 20° to 24°C in summer. In winter the mean temperatures drops down to 10°C, reaching 2°C during night in January as its minimum value.

Table 2 Climate data in Kathmandu

Climatic Zone

Altitude

Warm Temperate

1200-2100 m

Mean Temperature Winter Summer 10°C 15°C

Precipitation

Location

100 – 200 mm

Kathmandu

Previous the research in site, design recommendations were given based in Olgyay’s bioclimatic chart, Givoni’s Psychrometric chart and Mahoney table. It is recommended orienting the longest façade to the south as its windows. Enhance the solar gain during winter and use shading devices during summer. Based in Givoni’s chart the use of thermal mass is only favourable during the hot and dry season in April and May. According to Mahoney the air movement is essential during summer months.

Figure 32 Psychrometric chart for warm temperate climate

43

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture The denser settlements have interconnected courtyards between the buildings to favour the solar penetration indoors. Most of the houses have rectangular shapes with the longest faรงade and its windows oriented to the south.

The walls mostly take advantage of high thermal mass using locally available stones or different kind of bricks like burnt or sundried. The finish detail inside and outside is commonly plaster white, ochre or red mud.

The common roof type is the slope roof, covered by hatch, stone slates or tiles. It harnesses the overhangs of the roof with a minimum dimension of 50 cm to protect the walls from heavy monsoon rains and solar penetration to the faรงade during summer.

Figure 33 House with shaded terrace and balcony

It was observed the houses in this area share similar building features, considering the solar gain during winter and solar protection in summer the most important conditions for these vernacular houses. To enhance solar gain during winter is common to use rectangular floor plans orienting the longer facades and windows to the south. The roof overhangs are helpful to shade the facades and windows during summer in order to mitigate heat gain. The houses take advantage of local materials achieving high thermal mass in order to store heat during day time and releasing it during cool nights (Bodach, Lang, and Hamhaber 2014, 227-242).

44

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

10.3 Hanwha research centre façade in Seoul The company Hanwha made call for a contest to design the new research centre for PV technology located in Seoul, Korea where BIG participated with this project. The use of information was valuable to understand the building behaviour in specific climate conditions to define the envelope design pattern, in this case a façade.

A new understanding of solar impact aided by software was critical for the early design decisions, simulating the sun pattern over the envelope to bring an enhanced responsive solution. This building uses vernacular shading principles in a modern and adaptive way to minimize the use of machinery in buildings, ‘Modern vernacular’ as said by Bjarke Ingels.

According to Köppen-Geiger classification Seoul has a Humid Continental/Subtropical climate with an average temperature of 13°C. As an office building required the maximum amount of daylight while controlling the direct insolation and glare. The aim was to reduce the operational energy requirements by passive cooling using fixed elements shading the building despite the sun motion along the day with its different incidence angles and position.

The design consisted in tracing the solar incidence to enhance the louver orientation providing maximum shading. The louvers flip from horizontal to vertical with the horizontal as the best performance for south orientation. Each façade had different requirements while the north with less solar exposure is followed by east and west, they need vertical louvers due the glare produced by a low angle incidence and sun movement over the horizon. The south facade receives more solar radiation with the highest sun angles needed to be blocked using horizontal elements.

W

S

E

N

Figure 34 Solar incidence on the building

45

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Based on the yearly average sun angles due movement the solar arch was defined. Projected onto a cylinder therefore the optimized pattern was extended in elevation to identify the faรงade.

Figure 35 Louver adaptation of the facade

Figure 36 Length rationalization

The concrete louvers mass production was optimized using BIM. The lengths and shapes were rationalized in modules to reduce the amount of moulds necessary to cast in concrete.

For this project the preventive strategies are enhanced taking advantage of the technology in a passive way, harnessing the geometry features of the envelope with the use of parametric precast concrete elements reducing the energy consumption (Ingels 2015; BIG 2015).

Figure 37 Model street view

46

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

11 Mexico City climate conditions Obtained by the US Department of Energy, the following climate data source is from the International Weather for Energy Calculations (IWEC) developed by ASHRAE. Suitable for building energy simulation these files are derived from up to 18 years of weather data archived by the US climatic data centre (US Energy 2015). This file has been converted to EPW for its Ecotect compatibility for simulation.

Located in the central region of the Mexico, Mexico City is the second most populated area in the country, according to IWEC data the weather station coordinates are 19.43° north, Longitude 99.08° west.

Based on Köppen-Geiger climate classification Mexico City has a temperate highland tropical climate with dry winters and Warm Summers (Cwb).

Figure 38: Köppen-Geiger climate classification for Mexico City (Peel, Finlayson, and McMahon 2007, 1633-1644.)

47

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

11.1 Temperature Temperature in the city is mild with an annual average between 14 to 19°C. The lowest temperature months are December and January with a minimal average of 8 and 6°C. The Maximum Average is in April and May reaching the maximum average of 26°C as seen in the graphic with the values obtained through Climate Consultant (EERE 2013). Although the temperature annual variation in Mexico City is small (+- 5°C) the diurnal range is large at around 15°C. The maximum temperatures can reach peaks of 32° during summer days and a tendency to increase the temperature by 2.1 to 2.9°C in the gap between 1980 and 2050 (Jauregui and Tejeda 2001, 125-138).

Temperature

22

15 8

24

16 7

25

18 9

26

26

25

19

19

19

12

12

14

24

24

18

17

14

13

24

17

12

23

16 11

22

16 10

22

14 6

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

22

24

25

26

26

25

24

24

24

23

22

22

Dry Bulb Mean (°C) 15

16

18

19

19

19

18

17

17

16

16

14

7

9

12

12

14

14

13

12

11

10

6

Dry Bulb High (°C) Dry Bulb Low (°C)

8

Figure 39 Temperature

11.2 Relative Humidity and Precipitation The relative humidity percentages move between the 46% as its minimum during March and its maximum occurs during July and August with 71%. Although the sun moves at its highest point over the sky at Summer solstice, during this period the amount of particles in the air is bigger affecting the indirect radiation to the objects. Precipitation levels in the city are deeply related with relative humidity with its highest levels during August reaching a maximum average of 158mm.

Relative Humidity

77 52

29

82 52 26

77

76

74

85

92 71

91 71

60 46 25

48

49

45

44

34 23

90

90

66

68

39

38

24

81

87

54

57

31

28

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

29

26

25

23

24

34

45

44

39

38

31

28

Avg Daily Mean (%) 52

52

46

48

49

60

71

71

66

68

54

57

Avg Daily High (%)

82

77

76

74

85

92

91

90

90

81

87

Avg Daily Low (%)

77

Figure 40 Relative Humidity

48

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Precipitation

155 158 132 109

56

43 8 Jan Average (mm)

8

11

11

22

13

Feb Mar

Apr May Jun

11

22

11

43

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

109 155 158 132

56

3

Nov Dec 13

3

Figure 41 Precipitation

Wind

Figure 42 Prevailing Winds

The prevailing winds from the northeast shows its highest frequency at a speed of 10 km / h.

49

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

50

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12 Analysis 12.1 Methodology For this study were developed 14 different prototypes included the control model. Modelled in Revit 2012 due its compatibility with Ecotect the geometric surfaces and element properties are easily recognized. Harnessing the BIM properties during design allowed to provide a wide variety of prototypes. The use of digital models was helpful managing changes in an iterative process controlling the numerical parameters of geometry for their further simulation in Ecotect allowing to gather a wide variety of data to compare. The roof envelope was the unique variable modifying its shape, tilt and orientation to identify the patterns which are more significant for thermal gain and heat loss To aim the analysis between the relationship performance and solar incidence were considered fixed times and dates. Two critical dates were addressed for this simulation, when the sun is at its highest and lowest height. On the 21st of June for summer solstice and 21st of December for winter solstice.

For measurements occurring in a single day the hour considered was 12 P.M. However this data will be compared with average yearly calculations to make more noticeable the differences accumulated during that period.

To carry out this analysis were considered 5 different properties of the envelope to compare thermal performance due different qualities: Table 3 Analysis factors and description

Factor Geometric Aspect Ratio Shading Solar Incidence Temperature Energy Consumption

Description Monthly average percentages Daily and yearly solar averages Distribution of temperature along the day Yearly Co2 consumption loads

12.2 Prototypes The control model is a plan square floor of 25m2, 5m by 5m with a flat roof. With 2.5 m height is a common area module for living spaces in housing. The window opening is the 20% of the floor oriented to the south for natural heat gain by direct radiation. Among the different prototypes the only modifiable element is the roof envelope affecting its shape, tilt and orientation. The aim is to quantify the performance differences among these models due their geometric modifications.

Table 4 Material values

Element

Material

U-Value (W/m2K)

Thickness (mm)

Thermal Lag (hrs)

Emissivity

Walls Roof Window

Brick Concrete Single glazed

2.62 0.90 6.00

150 100 3.00

3 7

0.90 0.87 0.10

51

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Based on the previous case studies and theoretical background. The following prototypes were modelled aiming to enhance solar incidence or heat loss. Depending on its surface, orientation, tilt, volume and self-shading.

Table 5 Roof type abbreviations and description

#

Code

Roof type

Description

01 FR

Flat

Control model for analysis. Simple shape, lack of solar incidence control.

02 SR4

4 sided slope

4 sided orientation with a slope of 20° for optimal heat gain.

03 SR4 35

4 sided slope 35°

4 sided orientation with a slope of 35° for improved heat gain during winter.

04 NSR

North slope

20° slope in opposite direction to the sun to reduce the incidence angle.

05 SSR

South slope

20° slope to maximize solar exposure.

06 SESR

South East slope

20° slope to maximize solar exposure during morning.

07 SWSR

South West slope

20° slope to maximize solar exposure during evening.

08 EWSR

East West slope

Less recommended orientation for pitched roofs due overheating.

09 NSSR

North South slope

Most recommended orientation for pitched roofs.

10 NSSR 35

North South slope 35° *Dome

Most recommended orientation with an increased tilt for improved incidence during winter.

11 D

Due its height (2.5 meters for the half-sphere) is not a typical constructive method but shows optimal geometric values for analysis.

1:1 base proportion and 180° rim angle. Most recommended shape containing the maximum volume with minimum surface. Self-shaded geometry.

Most recommended orientation, the height is 20% of the distance from side to side.

12 NSV

North South Vault

13 M

Mixed

Oriented to south with a 20° slope but with increased area to the north to favour self –shading and increased longwave heat loss.

14 MV

Multi Vault

3 vaults with a 180° rim angle oriented south. Self-shaded geometry.

Increased surface area.

*Eccentric shape to do a critical comparison.

52

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Prototypes Table 6 Prototypes

01 Surface 100

Flat Volume 62.5

03 Surface 106.7

4 Sided Slope 35° Volume S/V 77.1 1.38

04 Surface 119.8

North Slope Volume S/V 85.2 1.41

05 Surface 119.8

South Slope Volume S/V 85.2 1.41

06 Surface 110.7

South East Slope Volume S/V 77.7 1.42

07 Surface 110.7

South West Slope Volume S/V 77.7 1.42

S/V 1.6

02 Surface 101.6

4 Sided Slope Volume S/V 70.1 1.45

53

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Prototypes Table 7 Prototypes

08

East-West Slope

09

Surface 106.2

Volume 73.9

S/V 1.44

Surface 106.2

11 Surface 158.3

Dome Volume 94.4

13 Surface 108.1

Mixed Volume 76.4

North-South Slope Volume S/V 73.9 1.44

10

North-South 35°

Surface 114

Volume 84.1

S/V 1.68

12 Surface 108.1

North-south Vault Volume S/V 77.6 1.39

S/V 1.41

14 Surface 119.3

Multi Vault Volume S/V 77.9 1.53

S/V 1.36

54

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

55

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12.3 General Overview 12.3.1 Geometry and Solar incidence The following overview describes the prototypes which have the highest and lowest values in terms of geometry and their relationship with solar incidence, identifying the most critical values. The S/V ratio showed a difference of 0.32 among the different roofs. The total surface area and volume which difference between the lowest and highest values is 58.3m2 and 31.9 m3 respectively. The shading percentage gap enclose its values between the totally exposed areas to the 26% as the maximum amount for a roof model.

The flat roof (01-FR) model showed to be the minimal surface for the entire envelope taking in count walls and roof. It has the smallest volume (62.5m3) as the minimal total (75m2) and roof (25m2) exposed area among the prototypes. However the flat roof showed the minimal geometrical values its volume-surface relation is the second highest ratio (1.6) just after the dome (11-dome). The 01FR has one of the highest amounts of solar incidence (45kWh) over the roof along the year despite its reduced surface areas. It received almost 3 times the amount of solar incidence of the minimum obtained by the (13-M) Mixed vault (16 kWh).

The dome has the highest V/S ratio with a value of 1.68, also counting with the largest surface and volume. The dome has the largest percentage of area exposed with 83% of total surface area. The highest percentage of roof exposed area compared with the total envelope surface with 53%. At the same time it has the highest degree of average shaded area over the year with 26%. Despite the total exposed area of the dome is 177% larger and the roof exposed area is 333% bigger than the flat roof it shows 15% less radiation on the roof than the 01-FR model.

Opposite to the dome prototype, the North-South sloped roof by 35° (10 NSSR 35) has the smallest S/V ratio (1.36). It has 14% more total surface and 34% more volume than the 01-FR and similar shading percentage (1%). Despite its roof exposed area is 12% larger than the 13-Mixed, the roof with the lowest solar incidence it is 274% smaller than the 11-dome. However ithe 10-NSSR35 is among the average of size, it has the highest incidence over all the prototypes (53 kWh) The 13-M prototype has the lowest amount of solar incidence over its surface (16 kWh). It has one of the smallest S/V ratios (1.41). Although it reduced solar gain is not directly proportional to its geometry. The roof exposed area is 10% bigger than the flat roof and has minimal average shading along the year (2%).

Comparing the 13-M with the North south vault (12-NSV). The second one has similar properties with minimal differences in terms of surface area, S/V ratios and shading. However it shows an increased solar incidence (45 kWh) almost three times bigger than the 13-M. Is shown despite the flat roof has the smallest dimensions among the different prototypes its solar incidence over the surface is higher than other models which are directly oriented to the south or count with a larger surface area. The difference of solar gain is not directly proportional to the surface exposed.

56

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

1.8 1.6

1.4 1.2

1

S/V

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 01 FR

10 NSSR 35

11 D

12 NSV

13 M

Figure 43 S/V ratio 90 80 70

01 FR

60 50

10 NSSR 35

40

11 D

30

12 NSV

20

13 M

10 0 Roof exposed area (m2) Figure 44 Roof exposed area comparison

12.3.2 Shading Although the common average had a low percentage around 2%. Four prototypes count with an average yearly shading over 10% with self-shading capabilities. The 11-D model with the highest shading percentage has one of the lowest amounts of solar incidence. However the 14-MV model with the second highest shading percentage counts with the second highest solar incidence.

14 MV 11 D Incidence (MWh)

08 EWSR

Shading % 3 4SSR35 01 FR 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 45 Relationship between solar incidence and shading percentage

57

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12.3.3 Temperature The average temperature gap between the highest and lowest values is 1.01°C in June while the difference reduces to 0.80°C in December. The highest temperature difference between interior and exterior is by 2.01°C in June and 1.33°C in December. The temperature difference between maximum and minimum averages is 5.4°C in June and 7.4°C in December.

The flat roof showed to count with the second highest temperature in June and December.

Maximum and minimum temperature averages are among the highest for both periods.

The 11-dome showed the lowest average temperatures in June and December (18.29 and 15.28°C), at the same time counts with the smallest difference compared to the outside temperature.

Comparing average temperatures the 01-FR has hotter temperatures than the 11-D in June by 0.92°C and 0.75°C in December. The minimum average temperatures show a significant gap of 1 and 1.2°C for each respective period. Meanwhile the maximum average is the same in June and 0.2°C hotter for the dome in December.

The 12--NSV show the highest average temperature with the biggest difference compared to the exterior in both seasons. It is only 0.09°C hotter in June and 0.05°C in December than the flat roof.

14 MV 11 D Temp. Dec (°C)

08 EWSR

Temp. June (°C)

3 4SSR35 01 FR

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 46 Temperature comparison

58

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Table 8 General overview. Geometry and solar gain

Geometry Code

Roof Type

S/V

1

Flat

2

Solar Exposition

1.6

Total Surface (m2) 100

Volume (m3) 62.5

4 Sided Slope

1.45

101.64

3

4 Sided Slope 35°

1.38

4

North Slope

5

% 75%

Total Exposed (m2) 75

70.1

75%

106.7

77.1

1.41

119.8

South Slope

1.41

6

South East Slope

7

%

Avg. Shade

25%

Roof Exposed (m2) 25

76.6

26%

26.6

3%

77%

81.7

30%

31.7

14%

85.2

79%

94.8

22%

26.6

2%

119.8

85.2

79%

94.8

22%

26.6

0%

1.42

110.7

77.7

77%

85.7

24%

26.6

2%

South West Slope

1.42

110.7

77.7

77%

85.7

24%

26.6

6%

8

East West Slope

1.44

106.2

73.9

76%

81.2

25%

26.6

11%

9

North South Slope

1.44

106.2

73.9

76%

81.2

25%

26.6

1%

10

North South Slope 35°

1.36

114

84.1

78%

89

27%

30.4

1%

11

Dome

1.68

158.3

94.4

84%

133.3

53%

83.3

26%

12

NS Vault

1.39

108.1

77.6

77%

83.1

25%

27.1

2%

13

Mixed

1.41

108.1

76.4

77%

83.1

25%

27.5

2%

14

Multi Vault

1.53

119.3

77.9

79%

94.3

32%

38.2

17%

0%

Tot Wh. (Wh) 45,729,836 20,123,186 47,392,776 43,596,928 45,549,092 21,671,514 21,019,218 39,002,240 46,231,992 53,125,204 39,646,464 45,657,616 16,540,105 48,699,524

59

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Table 9 General Overview. Temperature

Temperature June Code

Roof Type

Avg. Temp

Diff.

Temperature December Max

Min

Avg. Temp

Diff.

Max

Min

1 Flat

19.21

1.92

21.70

17.40

16.03

1.28

18.80

13.20

2 4 sided slope

19.19

1.90

21.60

17.40

16.01

1.26

18.70

13.20

3 4 sided slope 35°

19.18

1.88

21.60

17.40

15.97

1.21

18.60

13.30

4 North slope

19.10

1.80

21.80

17.10

15.92

1.16

19.00

12.90

5 South slope

19.10

1.80

21.80

17.10

15.91

1.16

19.00

12.90

6 South East slope

19.15

1.85

21.70

17.20

15.96

1.21

18.90

13.10

7 South West slope

19.15

1.85

21.70

17.20

15.97

1.22

18.90

13.10

8 East West Slope

19.16

1.87

21.70

17.30

15.98

1.23

18.80

13.10

9 North South Slope

19.17

1.88

21.70

17.30

15.98

1.22

18.80

13.10

10 North South Slope 35°

19.12

1.83

21.70

17.20

15.94

1.18

18.80

13.10

11 Dome

18.29

1.00

21.70

16.40

15.28

0.53

19.00

11.60

12 NS Vault

19.30

2.01

21.80

17.40

16.08

1.33

18.80

13.40

13 Mixed

19.15

1.86

21.70

17.30

15.96

1.21

18.80

13.10

14 Multi Vault

19.07

1.78

21.50

17.30

15.89

1.14

18.60

13.20

60

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

61

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12.4 Solar incidence

TOTA L SO LA R I NCI DE NCE (W H) 6000000 01 Flat Roof 02 Sloped Roof 4 5000000

03 Sloped Roof 4 35° 04 North Sloped Roof

4000000

05 South Sloped Roof 06 SE Sloped Roof 07 SW Sloped Roof

3000000

08 EW Sloped Roof 09 NS Sloped Roof

2000000

10 NS Sloped Roof 35° 11 Dome

1000000

12 Vault 13 Mixed

0

14 Multi Vault JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Figure 47 Monthly solar incidence

The standard tendency where is the Flat roof follows an increased incidence from March to May with a reduction in June reaching a peak in august for its further decrease for the next periods up to December with its lowest values. The 10-NSSR35 has the same tendency with higher amounts of incidence.

Lower values but with the same pattern are shown by 02-SR4, 06-SESR and 07-SWSR. Different patterns like the 08-EWSR shows a progressive increase of solar incidence up to August with the same decrease behaviour as the other models.

The 11-Dome shows an inconsistent behaviour with a pronounced increase from February to march with a following decrease until July, the decrease from august to December is not lineal. Finally the 13-Mixed has a continuous growing pattern up to August with a standard decrease to December.

62

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Table 10 Hourly solar incidence in June

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 600

700

01 FR

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

Flat Roof Sloped Roof 4 Sloped Roof 4 35° North Sloped Roof South Sloped Roof SE Sloped Roof SW Sloped Roof EW Sloped Roof NS Sloped Roof NS Sloped Roof 35° Dome Vault Mixed Multi Vault

02 SR4 03 SR4 35 04 NSR 05 SSR 06 SESR 7 SWSR 08 EWSR 09 NSSR 10 NSSR 35 11 D 12 NSV 13 M 14 MV 14 14 89 100 99 99 99 99 99 91 58 98 74 6 187 213 212 212 207 212 212 192 121 208 6 155 10 277 312 311 311 307 312 312 283 179 306 10 230 24 348 393 392 392 386 392 392 356 225 386 23 289 39 395 446 445 445 439 443 443 404 256 438 38 328

600 700 800 900 1000 1100

7 10 25 42

1200

45

42

415

468

465

465

464

463

463

424

271

460

40

344

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

44 30 19 10 2

42 29 17 9 2

405 366 301 213 114 27

457 413 339 240 129 30

452 408 334 236 127 30

452 408 334 236 127 30

454 411 338 240 128 30

450 406 334 237 127 30

450 406 334 237 127 30

413 374 307 217 117 27

263 237 194 137 74 17

449 405 333 236 126 29

40 27 17 8 2

335 303 249 176 95 22

The standard pattern follows a curvature reaching its highest point at noon. For the 01-FR, 02-SR4 and 13-M this pattern is significantly reduced. At noon the 04-NSR model showed the highest average solar incidence.

63

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Table 11 Hourly solar incidence in December

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 600

800 900 1000 1100

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

Flat Roof Sloped Roof 4 Sloped Roof 4 35° North Sloped Roof South Sloped Roof SE Sloped Roof SW Sloped Roof EW Sloped Roof NS Sloped Roof NS Sloped Roof 35° Dome Vault Mixed Multi Vault

01 FR 02 SR4 03 SR4 35 04 NSR 05 SSR 06 SESR 7 SWSR 08 EWSR 09 NSSR 10 NSSR 35 11 D 12 NSV 13 M 14 MV 7 7 95 103 118 118 103 104 107 95 63 106 9 80 13 13 178 198 212 212 203 200 205 181 118 202 13 151 27 27 251 272 292 292 282 274 281 256 161 280 27 206 34 34 298 325 344 344 338 320 334 305 191 330 34 243

1200

14

14

319

354

359

359

358

349

357

326

206

352

14

263

1300 1400 1500 1600

39 14 19 6

39 14 19 6

307 266 200 112

333 294 218 126

349 298 225 128

349 298 225 128

351 301 232 132

326 289 209

345 297 224 129

314 272 205 117

195 170 127 73

340 294 222 126

38 13 19 6

250 219 164 95

In December the curvature follows the same pattern but with a reduced margin of hours. For December the 06-SESR has the highest values among the prototypes. This pattern is different for the 01-FR, 02-SR4 and 13M with an irregular growth along the day, decreasing its value at noon.

64

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

65

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12.5 Temperature To calculate these internal temperatures the settings for analysis in Ecotect were to simulate without any kind of ventilation. This was to focus the analysis exclusively on heat gained by the sun and heat loss through longwave emission.

Variation of average temperature between outside and inside reaches its lowest value at 6 and its highest value at 15 hours. For this case the 21st of June has a gap of 9°C while the 21st of December doubles up its value to 18.6°C. Although overheating is a problem to control during daytime specifically in hot months, the wide daily variation is a problem during winter.

Compared to outside temperature the prototypes showed a common pattern. The only different pattern with significant temperature differences from the average is the 11-D model due its eccentric shape. To reach the maximum temperature at the interior at 15 hours the delay vary in prototypes from 0 to 2 hours.

The 11-D prototype reach its highest and lowest peaks at the same time than outside. Between 11 and 14 hours it shows a significant increased temperature compared to the standard. It shows an increased heat lose rate by longwave radiation due its extensive surface. This model has a quicker reaction to temperature variation than the average.

The 01-FR model minimum temperature at 6 hours has a difference compared to outside levels by 3°C in June and 8.6°C in December. For 11-D this difference is reduced to 2°C and 6.6°C respectively.

In the annex can be noticed the temperatures out of the comfort band between 18 to 24°C. The Flat roof shows a margin of 16 hours in June but is dramatically reduced for winter with 6 hours. The dome has the lowest comfort hours due it out of ordinary dimensions. Apart from that model the 4NSR and 05-SSR showed 14 hours in Jun and 6 in winter as the lowest comfort hours.

12-NSV has the most comfort hours with 17 in June and 6 in December.

66

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

TEMP (°C) JUNE

1 Flat June

30

2 Sloped 4 June 3 Sloped 4 35° June

25

4 North Sloped June 5 South Sloped June

20

6 SE Sloped June 7 SW Sloped June 8 EW Sloped June

15

9 NS Sloped June 10 NS PR 35° June

10

11 Dome June 12 Vault June

5

13 Mixed June 14 Multi Vault June OUTSIDE

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Figure 48 Temperature in June

TEMP (°C) DEC

30

1 Flat Dec 2 Sloped 4 Dec 3 Sloped 4 35° Dec

25

4 North Sloped Dec 5 South Sloped Dec 20

6 SE Sloped Dec 7 SW Sloped Dec

15

8 EW Sloped Dec 9 NS Sloped Dec 10 NS PR 35° Dec

10

11 Dome Dec 12 Vault Dec 5

13 Mixed Dec 14 Multi Vault Dec OUTSIDE

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Figure 49 Temperature in December

67

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE ( °C) JUNE 7

1 Flat June 2 Sloped 4 June

6

3 Sloped 4 35° June

5

4 North Sloped June

4

5 South Sloped June

3

6 SE Sloped June 7 SW Sloped June

2

8 EW Sloped June

1

9 NS Sloped June 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

-1

10 NS PR 35° June 11 Dome June

-2

12 Vault June

-3

13 Mixed June

-4

14 Multi Vault June

Figure 50 Temperature difference in June

TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE ( °C) DECEMBER 10

Flat 1 Dec 2 Sloped 4 Dec 3 Sloped 4 35° Dec

8

4 North Sloped Dec 6

5 South Sloped Dec 6 SE Sloped Dec

4

7 SW Sloped Dec 2 8 EW Sloped Dec 0

9 NS Sloped Dec 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

-2

10 NS PR 35° Dec 11 Dome Dec

-4 -6

12 Vault Dec 13 Mixed Dec 14 Multi Vault Dec

-8 Figure 51 Temperature difference in December

68

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

12.5 Energy consumption Table 12 Energy performance and percentage difference

Heating 01 FR 02 SR4 03 SR4 35 04 NSR 05 SSR 06 SESR 07 SWSR 08 EWSR 09 NSSR 10 NSSR 35 11 D 12 NSV 12 M 14 MV

1,317,040 1,410,760 1,473,848 1,822,984 1,794,264 1,557,340 1,547,868 1,448,747 1,435,506 1,591,510 1,492,893 1,491,837 1,462,693 1,547,290

Cooling 311,131 162,268 294,532 351,715 405,945 363,321 357,873 312,689 338,925 355,896 421,851 343,231 411,252 297,750

Total 1,628,171 1,573,027 1,768,381 2,174,699 2,200,210 1,920,660 1,905,741 1,761,436 1,774,431 1,947,406 1,914,744 1,835,068 1,873,945 1,845,040

Difference 0.00 -3.39% 8.61% 33.57% 35.13% 17.96% 17.05% 8.18% 8.98% 19.61% 17.60% 12.71% 15.10% 13.32%

These values are cumulative over a year measured in Wh. To make more noticeable the energy required to reach thermal comfort. This data was obtained by simulation in Ecotect modifying the previous settings turning on the ventilation requirements. The air conditioning was activated at its 95% of capacity to provide comfort between 18 to 24 °C. The heating requirements showed to be bigger than the cooling. The difference for heating between the highest and lowest value reached is of 505,944 Wh. For cooling reached a difference of 259,583 Wh. For an easier identification of energy consumption compared to the flat roof the comparison is expressed in percentages reaching up to 35.13% in the most disadvantage prototype.

The 02-SR4 had the lowest energy consumption overall followed by the flat roof with a difference of 3.39%. For heating the 01-FR showed to have the lowest requirements. For cooling the 02-PR4 prototype showed the lowest value.

The 04 NSR and 05-SSR had the highest total requirements, this can be caused by different factors like solar incidence and the volume required for the air cycle. However the 14-MV has a similar volume with an average requirement. This leads to measure the ratio between the energy consumption over the volume of each prototype (E/V ratio).

Despite the flat roof (01-FR) had the minimum energy consumption for heating and the second lowest overall, its E/V ratio is the highest among all the prototypes. Followed by the single pitched roofs oriented south and north (04, 05). After the eccentric 11-D the 02-SR4 reached the lowest ratio followed by the 03-SR4-35 and 10-NSSR-35 showing a balanced behaviour between efficiency per m3 to finally show a high solar incidence over its surface which is beneficial for energy generation by PV cells.

69

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Energy Consumption (Wh.) 14 MV

12 M

12 NSV

11 D

10 NSPR 35

09 NSPR

08 EWPR

07 SWPR

06 SEPR

05 SPR

04 NPR

03 PR4 35

02 PR4

01 FR -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Figure 52 Energy consumption

70

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Energy consumed / Volume Ratio 14 MV

12 M

12 NSV

11 D

10 NSSR 35

09 NSSR

08 EWSR

07 SWSR

06 SESR

05 SSR

04 NSR

03 SR4 35

02 SR4

01 FR

-

5,000.00

10,000.00

15,000.00

20,000.00

25,000.00

30,000.00

10 03 SR4 06 07 08 09 04 NSR 05 SSR NSSR 11 D 12 NSV 12 M 14 MV 35 SESR SWSR EWSR NSSR 35 E/V Ratio 26,05 22,43 22,93 25,52 25,82 24,71 24,52 23,83 24,01 23,15 20,28 23,64 24,52 23,68 01 FR 02 SR4

Figure 53 Relationship between energy consumption and volume acclimatized

71

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

72

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

13 Conclusions Different values and properties were taken into account to demonstrate the geometric efficiency in relation to their ability to absorb and distribute solar radiation. It is discovered that not a single factor determines the efficiency in direct proportion. But the relationship of various factors inherent in the geometry of the envelope.

Characteristics which caused the strengths of a geometry in one aspect were disadvantages in another. But linking the final values could be found a relationship of efficiency in terms of energy.

Which not only helped to determine the most balanced geometric shape about its characteristics.

But gives the opportunity to take advantage of other utilities.

Although pitched roofs showed no significant variation in temperature compared to the rest of prototypes. By the energy performance analysis over a year did the differences more easily identifiable.

Added to this performance, the harness of geometry for energy generation by PV cells is noticeable on building sloped roofs. And thus enhance the shape qualities beyond the reduction of energy consumption for an improved capacity to obtain energy by renewable means.

14 Further work To notice what is beyond an esthetical shape. This research is proposed to be the guideline for better design decisions. To take in count the shape efficiency can significantly improve the living conditions of people with the less energy requirements.

What is intended is the ability to take advantage of climate numerical information to develop a specifically responsive design for a specific location. Using the latest technologies as parametric design the passive methods can go beyond to reach a better integration with our environment.

73

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

15 References Printed Aaditya, Gayathri and Monto Mani. 2013. "Climate-Responsive Integrability of Building-Integrated Photovoltaics." International Journal of Low Carbon Technologies 8 (4): 271-281.

Alemán-Nava, Gibrán S., Victor Casiano-Flores, Diana L. Cárdenas-Chávez, Rocío Díaz-Chavez, Nicolae Scarlat, Jürgen Mahlknecht, Jean-Francois Dallemand, and Roberto Parra. 2014. "Renewable Energy Research Progress in Mexico: A Review." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 32: 140-153.

Almusaed, Amjad. 2011. Biophilic and Bioclimatic Architecture. [Electronic Book] : Analytical Therapy for the Next Generation of Passive Sustainable Architecture London ; Springer, c2011.

Anupama, Sharma, K. K. Dhote, and R. and Tiwari. 2003. "“Climatic Responsive Energy Efficient Passive Techniques in Buildings”." IE (I) Journal-AR 84: 17-26.

Bodach, Susanne, Werner Lang, and Johannes Hamhaber. 2014. "Climate Responsive Building Design Strategies of Vernacular Architecture in Nepal." Energy & Buildings 81: 227-242.

Nama for Sustainable Housing in Mexico, (2013): .

Programa General De Desarrollo Urbano Del Distrito Federal, (2003): .

Edwards, Brian. 2010. Rough Guide to Sustainability. 4th ed. London: RIBA Publishing.

Fathy, Hassan. 1976. Architecture for the Poor. [Electronic Book] : An Experiment in Rural Egypt.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Givoni, Baruch. 1976. Man, Climate and Architecture. Architectural Science Series. 2nd ed.

Hachem, Caroline, Andreas Athienitis, and Paul Fazio. 2011. "Parametric Investigation of Geometric Form Effects on Solar Potential of Housing Units." Solar Energy 85 (9): 1864-1877.

Hadavand, M., M. Yaghoubi, and H. Emdad. 2008. Thermal Analysis of Vaulted Roofs. Vol. 40.

INEGI. 2014. Statistical and Geographical Yearbook of the United States of Mexico.

Ingels, Bjarke. 2015. Hot to Cold: An Odyssey of Architectural Adaptation. Koln: Taschen.

Irwan, Suhandi Syiful, Azni Zain Ahmed, Nor Zaini Zakaria, and Norhati Ibrahim. 2010. "Thermal and Energy Performance of Conditioned Building due to Insulated Sloped Roof." AIP Conference Proceedings 1250 (1): 476-479.

Jauregui, Ernesto and Adalberto Tejeda. 2001. "A Scenario of Human Thermal Comfort in Mexico City for 2CO2 Conditions." Atmósfera 14 (3): 125-138.

Laughton, M. A. 1990. Renewable Energy Sources. [Electronic Book] London ; Published on behalf of the Watt Committee on Energy by Elsevier Applied Science ; 1990.

74

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Ling, Chia Sok, Mohd Hamdan Ahmad, and Dilshan Remaz Ossen. 2007. "The Effect of Geometric Shape and Building Orientation on Minimising Solar Insolation on High-Rise Buildings in Hot Humid Climate." Journal of Construction in Developing Countries (1): 27.

Madhumathi, A. and M. C. Sundarraja. 2014. "Energy Efficiency in Buildings in Hot Humid Climatic Regions using Phase Change Materials as Thermal Mass in Building Envelope." Energy & Environment 25 (8): 1405-1422.

Matias, Marcos. 2009. "Morfologia Geometrica De La Envolvente Arquitectonica Como Elemento De Control Termico<br />(Geometric Morphology of the Architectonic Envelope as a Thermal Control Element)."Instituto Politecnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Ingenieria y Arquitectura.

Matías, Marcos. 2009. "Morfología Geométrica De La Envolvente Arquitectónica Como Elemento De Control Térmico."Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Arquitectura, SEPI. Plan Nacional De Desarrollo <br />2013-2018, (2013): .

Mundo-Hernández, Julia, Celis Alonso de, Julia Hernández-Álvarez, and Benito de Celis-Carrillo. 2014.

An Overview of Solar Photovoltaic Energy in Mexico and Germany. Vol. 31 Elsevier Ltd. OLGYAY, Victor and Aladar OLGYAY. 1963. Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press, 1963.

Orosa García, José A. and Armando C. Oliveira. 2012. Passive Methods as a Solution for Improving Indoor Environments. [Electronic Book] London ; Springer, c2012.

Otto, Frei and Bodo Rasch. 2006. Frei Otto, Bodo Rasch: Finding Form, edited by Axel Menges. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Menges.

Otto, Frei and Winfried Nerdinger. 2005. Frei Otto : Complete Works ; Lightweight Construction, Natural Design Basel : Birkhäuser, 2005.

Peel, MC, BL Finlayson, and TA McMahon. 2007. "Updated World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification," Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. (11): 1633-1644.

Praharaj, Mayarani. 2014. "Effect of Building Form for Low Energy Architecture: Evaluation of Bioclimatic Design, Bhubaneswar." Elixir International Journal 68: 22492-22495.

Rudofsky, Bernard. 1965. The Kimono Mind: An Informal Guide to Japan and the Japanese Doubleday.

Runsheng, Tang, I. A. Meir, and Y. Etzion. 2003. "An Analysis of Absorbed Radiation by Domed and Vaulted Roofs as Compared with Flat Roofs." Energy and Buildings 35 (6): 539-548.

Schittich, Christian. 2012. Solar Architecture: Strategies, Visions, Concepts Birkhäuser.

SENER. 2015. Statistical Handbook of Energy Sector.

Stirling, Edward. 2012. "Heliotectonics: Maximizing Solar Radiation Capture through Building Form Optimization."University of Florida.

75

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Szokolay, Steven V. 2014. Introduction to Architectural Science. [Electronic Book] : The Basis of Sustainable Design Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge, 2014; 3rd ed.

Tang, Runsheng, I. A. Meir, and Y. Etzion1. 2003. Thermal Behavior of Buildings with Curved Roofs as Compared with Flat Roofs. Vol. 74 Elsevier Ltd. Tang, Runsheng, I. A. Meir, and Tong Wu. 2006. "Thermal Performance of Non Air-Conditioned Buildings with Vaulted Roofs in Comparison with Flat Roofs." Building and Environment 41 (3): 268-276.

Thiele, Leslie Paul. 2013. Sustainability. [Electronic Book] Hoboken : Wiley, 2013.

Watt Maver, Thomas. 2004. "Design in the Computer Age." In Intelligent Buildings. [Electronic Book] : Design Management and Operation, edited by Derek Clements-Croome, 153-168. London: Thomas Telford.

Watts, Andrew. 2013. Modern Construction Handbook Wien : AMBRA/V, 2013; 3rd ed.

Xu, Tengfang, Jayant Sathaye, Hashem Akbari, Vishal Garg, and Surekha Tetali. 2012. "Quantifying the Direct Benefits of Cool Roofs in an Urban Setting: Reduced Cooling Energy use and Lowered Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Building and Environment 48: 1-6.

Yannas, Simos. 1994. Solar Energy and Housing Design.

Yannas, Simos, Valerii Nikolaevich Eremeev, and Jose Luis Molina. 2006. Roof Cooling Techniques : A Design Handbook London : Earthscan, 2006.

Yeang, Ken. 2008. Ecodesign : A Manual for Ecological Design Hoboken, N.J. ; Wiley, 2008.

Yildirim, Erdal, Zeynel Abidin Firatoglu, and BĂźlent Yesilata. 2014. "Comparison of the Solar Insolation on the Roof of Conic Domed Harran House and the Flat Roof." Isi Bilimi Ve Teknigi Dergisi / Journal of Thermal Science & Technology 34 (2): 123-128.

Web BIG. "Hanwha Research Centre and Offices.", accessed 08/26, 2015, http://m.big.dk/getslideshow/241/1.

British Petroleum. "Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.", accessed Sepember/ 04, 2015, http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bpstatistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-full-report.pdf.

EERE. 2013. Climate Consultant. Mexico City Weather Data. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/weather_data3.cfm/region=4_north_a nd_central_america_wmo_region_4/country=MEX/cname=Mexico ed. Vol. 5.5.

Goldsmith, Nicholas. , accessed 14/08, 2015, https://www.academia.edu/8601138/Form_Finding_vs_Shape_Finding.

NAMA. "Nama for Sustainable Housing in Mexico.", accessed 09/06, 2015, http://www.namadatabase.org/index.php/NAMA_for_sustainable_housing_in_Mexico.

76

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture OECD. "Air and GHG Emissions.", accessed 09/05, 2015, https://data.oecd.org/air/air-and-ghgemissions.htm.

———. "National Population Distribution (Indicator): Mexico.", accessed 04/25, 2015, https://data.oecd.org/mexico.htm.

Schumacher, Patrick. "Parametricism as Style - Parametricist Manifesto.", accessed 08/27, 2015, http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm.

Short, Nicholas. "FAS (Federation of American Sceintists).", accessed 08/18, 2015, http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect9/Sect9_3.html.

US Energy. "United States Department of Energy: Weather Data Sources.", accessed 06/08, 2015, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_sources.cfm.

Yannas, Simos. "AA Graduate School Introductions: Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15.", accessed 08/06, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ngJFwPUCfw.

77

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

16 List of images Figure 1 : Roof Morphologies. Made by the author 10 Figure 2: Mexico City Rooftops. Photo By Lucia Nieto. Https://www.flickr.com/photos/lucynieto/5127984119 (accessed 19 june 2015) 11 Figure 3 Mexico City Population Growth. Made by the author 12 Figure 4 Population Growth Rates Comparison, Mexico City Shows A Lower Rate Than The Average. Made by the author 12 Figure 5 Urban Distribution. Made by the author 13 Figure 6 Mexico City Urban Sprawl. Information Gathered From PGDU. Made by the author 13 Figure 7: Global Warming Cycle. Made by the author 14 Figure 8 : Energy Consumption Rates. Made by the author 14 Figure 9 Air And Ghg Emissions, Co2 Made by the author 16 Figure 10 Energy Consumption Growth Percentage Over 2013 In Mexico. Made by the author 17 Figure 11 solar radiation in mexico. Http://sener.gob.mx/websener/res/1803/solar.pdf (accessed: 2015-05-18) 18 Figure 12: Building Elements Life Expectancy. Made by the author 20 Figure 13 Solar Position. Made by the author 21 Figure 14 Incidence Angle. Made by the author 22 Figure 15: Dependence Of Absorptance On Incidence Angle. (Tang, Meir And Etzion, 2003) 22 Figure 16: Maximized Solar Incidence By Optimal Angles. Made by the author 23 Figure 17 Sun Orientation Radiation Variations. Made by the author 23 Figure 18: Projection Effect Made by the author 24 Figure 19 Self-Shading Geometry Made by the author 25 Figure 20: Short Wave Gain / Long Wave Loss. Made by the author 28 Figure 21: Thermal Loads By Heat Transfer And Direct Radiation On Roofs, Walls And Windows.

31 Figure 22 volume/surface increasing scale ratio. Http://hilem001.wikispaces.com/surface+area+and+volume.

(15/05/2015) 33 Figure 23: Solar Incidence Depending On Roof Geometry. Made by the author 34 Figure 24: Absorbed Beam Radiation By Roofs During A Typical Day Of June. (Tang Et Al 2003) 35 Figure 25: harran typical domed house. Photo by ulrike passe.

Http://www.design.iastate.edu/news/6/9/2015/passe_book (accessed: 2015/09/02) 36 Figure 26: Typical Vernacular House In Nepal Adapted To Its Environment. (Bodach, Lang, And Hamhaber 2014, 227-242).

39 Figure 27: Shenzhen Energy Mansion Designed By Big. Shading Envelope Aided By Parametric Design To Optimize Views While Reducing Direct Insulation. Under Construction. Made by the author 39 Figure 28 Image Of Test Cell. (Irwan Et Al. 2010, 476-479) 41 Figure 29 Temperature Profile At 0° Of Roof Angle. Idem 42 Figure 30 Temperature Profile At 60° Of Roof Angle. Idem 42 Figure 31 Energy Performance Between Insulated And Uninsulated Prototypes.Idem 42 Figure 32 Psychrometric Chart For Warm Temperate Climate (bodach, lang, and hamhaber 2014, 227-242) 43 Figure 33 House With Shaded Terrace And Balcony. Idem 44 Figure 34 Solar Incidence On The Building. Idem 45 Figure 35 louver adaptation of the façade. Http://m.big.dk/getslideshow/241/19 (Accesed 2015/08/15) 46 Figure 36 Length Rationalization. Idem 46 Figure 37 Model Street View. Idem 46 Figure 38: Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification For Mexico City (Peel, Finlayson, And Mcmahon 2007, 16331644.)

47 Figure 39 Temperature. Made by the author 48

78

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Figure 40 Relative Humidity. Made by the author Figure 41 Precipitation. Made by the author Figure 42 Prevailing Winds. Made by the author Figure 43 S/V Ratio. Made by the author Figure 44 Roof Exposed Area Comparison. Made by the author Figure 45 Relationship Between Solar Incidence And Shading Percentage. Made by the author Figure 46 Temperature Comparison. Made by the author Figure 47 Monthly Solar Incidence. Made by the author Figure 48 Temperature In June. Made by the author Figure 49 Temperature In December. Made by the author Figure 50 Temperature Difference In June. Made by the author Figure 51 Temperature Difference In December. Made by the author Figure 52 Energy Consumption. Made by the author Figure 53 Relationship Between Energy Consumption And Volume Acclimatized. Made by the author

48 49 49 57 57 57 58 62 67 67 68 68 70 71

17 List of Tables Table 1 Conductivity Between Different Types Of Blocks. Made by the author .................................................. 27 Table 2 Climate Data In Kathmandu. Made by the author ................................................................................... 43 Table 3 Analysis Factors And Description. Made by the author ........................................................................... 51 Table 4 Material Values. Made by the author ...................................................................................................... 51 Table 5 Roof Type Abbreviations And Description. Made by the author ............................................................. 52 Table 6 Prototypes. Made by the author.............................................................................................................. 53 Table 7 Prototypes. Made by the author.............................................................................................................. 54 Table 8 General Overview. Geometry And Solar Gain. Made by the author....................................................... 59 Table 9 General Overview. Temperature. Made by the author ........................................................................... 60 Table 10 Hourly Solar Incidence In June. Made by the author ............................................................................. 63 Table 11 Hourly Solar Incidence In December. Made by the author.................................................................... 64 Table 12 Energy Performance And Percentage Difference. Made by the author ................................................ 69 Table 13 Temperature. Made by the author ...................................................................................................... 111 Table 14 Temperature. Made by the author ...................................................................................................... 112

79

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Appendix

80

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Shading December

Roof Exposed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AVG SHADE

June

01 Flat Average Shading %

25 m2

0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

02 4 Sided Slope 20° 26.6 m2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

3%

8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

7%

3%

3%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

3%

5%

4%

81

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

03 4 Sided Slope 35° 31.7 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

14%

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 18%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13%

14%

11%

12%

13%

13%

13%

11%

15%

17%

20%

Roof Exposed

26.6 M2

04 North Slope Average Shading %

2%

12%

10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 10%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

10%

2%

82

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

05 South Slope 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

06 South east Slope 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% AVG SHADE

0%

2%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

4%

2%

0%

0%

2%

4%

4%

2%

0%

4%

0%

1%

83

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

07 South West Slope 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

6%

12% 10% 8%

6% 4% 2% 0% AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5%

5%

9%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

7%

10%

6%

08 East West Slope 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 15%

11%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13%

12%

10%

7%

6%

6%

8%

11%

14%

17%

16%

84

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

09 North South Slope 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

1%

6% 5% 4%

3% 2% 1% 0% AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

1%

10 North South 35° 26.6 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

1%

6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%

AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

5%

1%

85

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

11 Dome 83.3 M2

Roof Exposed

Average Shading %

26%

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 32%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

29%

27%

23%

21%

21%

21%

21%

24%

28%

31%

32%

12 North South Vault 27.1 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

2%

6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%

AVG SHADE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5%

1%

1%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

5%

5%

86

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Shading December

June

13 Mixed Vault 27.5 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

8%

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 25%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

15%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7%

22%

27%

14 Multi Vault 38.2 M2 Average Shading %

Roof Exposed

17%

35% 30% 25%

20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

1

AVG SHADE 33%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

25%

15%

6%

7%

11%

10%

7%

9%

21%

31%

33%

87

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Solar Incidence

88

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 01 Flat

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

02 4 Sided Slope 20°

December

June

2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

89

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 03 4 Sided Slope 35°

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

04 North Slope

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

90

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 05 South Slope

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

06 South east Slope

December

June

2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 54

91

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 07 South West Slope

December

June

2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

08 East West Slope

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

92

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 09 North South Slope

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

10 North South 35°

December

June

6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

93

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 11 Dome

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

12 North South Vault

December

June

5000000

4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

94

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Solar Incidence 13 Mixed Vault

December

June

2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

10

11

12

14 Multi Vault

December

June

5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

95

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

96

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Temperature 01 Flat Max. Temp. December

18.8°C

Max. Temp. June

21.7°C

December30 25 20 15

10 5 0

1

INSIDE

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

OUTSIDE 12 10 9

8

7 5.4 6

6

9 13 18 21 22 23 24 23 22 21 19 18 16 14 14 14

30

June 25 20 15 10 5 0 June

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Outside 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 23 24 22 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

97

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 02 4 Sided Slope 20° 18.7°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.6°C

June 25 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

98

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 03 4 Sided Slope 35° 18.6°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.6°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0 June

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 21 21 21 20 19 19 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Dec

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

16 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 18 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

Control 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

99

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 04 North Slope Max. Temp. December

19°C

Max. Temp. June

21.8°C

25

June 20 15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December

18 16 14 12 10 8 6

4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

100

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 05 South Slope 19°C

Max. Temp. December

Max. Temp. June

21.8°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18 20

December

18 16 14 12 10

8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

101

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 06 South east Slope 18.9°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.7°C

25

June

20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

18

December 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

102

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 07 South West Slope 18.9°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

103

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 08 East West Slope 18.8°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18 20 18 December 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 18 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

104

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 09 North South Slope 18.8°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

105

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 10 North South 35° 18.8°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 21 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

December18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

106

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 11 Dome 19°C

Max. Temp. December

Max. Temp. June

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 17

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20 18 December 16 14 12 10 8 6

4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 13 14 16 17 17 19 19 19 18 18 18 17 16 16 15 15 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

107

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 12 North South Vault 18.8°C Max. Temp. June

Max. Temp. December

21.8°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 22 21 21 20 19 19 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20 18

December

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

108

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 13 Mixed Vault 18.8°C

Max. Temp. December

Max. Temp. June

21.7°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

20

18 December 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

109

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature 14 Multi Vault 21.5°C

Max. Temp. December

Max. Temp. June

21.8°C

25

June 20

15

10

5

0

1

June

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18

Control 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 18 20

December18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

December 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 18 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 Control

15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 16

110

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature Table 13 Temperature

HOUR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

1 Flat 2 Slope 4 3 Slope 4 35° 4 North Slope 5 South Slope 6 SE Slope 7 SW Slope June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec 17.7 15.4 17.7 15.4 17.7 15.5 17.5 15.3 17.5 15.3 17.6 15.4 17.6 15.4 17.4 15.1 17.4 15.1 17.4 15.1 17.1 15 17.1 15 17.2 15 17.2 15 17.9 14.7 17.9 14.7 17.8 14.8 17.7 14.6 17.7 14.6 17.8 14.7 17.8 14.7 17.8 14.4 17.8 14.4 17.8 14.4 17.7 14.2 17.7 14.2 17.8 14.3 17.8 14.3 17.8 14.1 17.8 14.1 17.8 14.1 17.7 13.9 17.7 13.9 17.7 14 17.7 14 17.8 13.5 17.7 13.5 17.7 13.6 17.6 13.3 17.6 13.3 17.7 13.4 17.7 13.4 17.8 13.4 17.8 13.4 17.8 13.4 17.6 13.1 17.6 13.1 17.7 13.2 17.7 13.2 18.2 13.2 18.2 13.2 18.2 13.3 18 12.9 18 12.9 18.1 13.1 18.1 13.1 18.7 13.7 18.7 13.7 18.7 13.6 18.5 13.3 18.5 13.3 18.6 13.5 18.6 13.5 19.2 14.2 19.1 14.2 19.1 14.1 18.8 13.6 18.8 13.6 19 13.9 19 13.9 19.5 15.1 19.5 15.1 19.4 14.9 19.1 14.5 19.1 14.5 19.3 14.8 19.3 14.8 20 15.6 20 15.5 19.9 15.3 19.7 14.9 19.7 14.9 19.8 15.2 19.8 15.2 20.7 16.3 20.7 16.2 20.6 16.1 20.5 15.8 20.5 15.8 20.6 16 20.6 16 21.1 17.3 21.1 17.3 21 17 21 17.1 21 17 21 17.1 21 17.2 21.5 18.3 21.5 18.2 21.4 18 21.5 18.3 21.5 18.3 21.5 18.2 21.5 18.3 21.7 18.7 21.6 18.7 21.6 18.4 21.8 18.9 21.8 18.9 21.7 18.8 21.7 18.8 21.2 18.8 21.2 18.7 21.1 18.6 21.4 19 21.4 19 21.3 18.9 21.3 18.9 20.7 18.7 20.7 18.6 20.7 18.6 21 19 21 19 20.9 18.8 20.9 18.8 20.7 18.6 20.6 18.6 20.6 18.6 21 19 21 19 20.8 18.8 20.8 18.8 20.1 18.2 20.1 18.2 20.1 18.2 20.3 18.5 20.3 18.5 20.2 18.4 20.2 18.4 19 17.6 19 17.6 19.1 17.6 18.9 17.8 18.9 17.8 19 17.7 19 17.7 18.4 17.1 18.4 17.1 18.5 17.1 18.2 17.2 18.2 17.2 18.3 17.1 18.3 17.1 18.2 16.6 18.2 16.6 18.3 16.6 18 16.6 18 16.6 18.1 16.6 18.1 16.6 17.9 16.2 17.9 16.2 17.9 16.3 17.7 16.2 17.7 16.2 17.8 16.2 17.8 16.2

111

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture Temperature Table 14 Temperature

HOUR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

8 EW Slope 9 NS Slope 10 NS PR 35° 11 Dome 12 Vault 13 Mixed 14 Multi Vault June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec 17.6 15.4 17.6 15.4 17.6 15.4 16.8 14.1 17.8 15.6 17.6 15.4 17.6 15.4 17.3 15 17.3 15 17.2 15 16.4 13.5 17.4 15.3 17.3 15 17.3 15.1 17.8 14.7 17.8 14.7 17.8 14.7 16.7 13.1 18 14.9 17.8 14.7 17.7 14.7 17.8 14.3 17.8 14.3 17.7 14.3 16.7 12.7 18 14.6 17.8 14.3 17.7 14.3 17.7 14 17.8 14 17.7 14 16.7 12.3 17.9 14.3 17.8 14 17.7 14.1 17.7 13.5 17.7 13.5 17.6 13.4 16.7 11.6 17.8 13.8 17.7 13.4 17.7 13.5 17.7 13.3 17.7 13.3 17.7 13.2 16.7 11.7 17.9 13.6 17.7 13.3 17.7 13.3 18.1 13.1 18.1 13.1 18.1 13.1 17.1 11.6 18.3 13.4 18.1 13.1 18.1 13.2 18.6 13.6 18.6 13.6 18.6 13.5 18.1 12.7 18.7 13.8 18.6 13.6 18.5 13.5 19.1 14.1 19.1 14 19 13.9 18.7 14 19.1 14.1 19 14 18.9 13.9 19.4 15 19.4 14.9 19.3 14.8 19.5 16 19.4 14.8 19.4 14.9 19.2 14.8 20 15.5 19.9 15.4 19.8 15.2 20.7 17.1 19.9 15.2 19.9 15.3 19.7 15.2 20.7 16.1 20.6 16.1 20.5 15.9 21.4 17.2 20.6 15.9 20.6 16 20.4 15.8 21.1 17.3 21.1 17.2 21 17.1 21.6 18.7 21.1 17 21 17.2 20.8 16.9 21.5 18.3 21.5 18.2 21.4 18.1 21.7 18.8 21.5 18.1 21.5 18.2 21.2 17.9 21.7 18.8 21.7 18.7 21.7 18.7 21.1 19 21.8 18.6 21.7 18.7 21.5 18.4 21.2 18.4 21.2 18.8 21.2 18.8 19.5 18.4 21.5 18.8 21.2 18.8 21 18.5 20.8 18.7 20.8 18.7 20.8 18.8 18.5 17.9 21.1 18.7 20.8 18.7 20.7 18.6 20.7 18.7 20.7 18.7 20.8 18.7 18.4 17.5 21 18.8 20.7 18.7 20.7 18.6 20.1 18.3 20.2 18.3 20.2 18.3 18 17 20.4 18.4 20.2 18.3 20.1 18.2 19 17.5 19 17.6 19 17.7 17.4 16.2 19.2 17.8 19 17.6 19 17.6 18.3 17.1 18.4 17.1 18.3 17.1 17 15.5 18.5 17.3 18.3 17.1 18.4 17.1 18.1 16.6 18.2 16.6 18.1 16.6 16.9 15.2 18.3 16.8 18.2 16.6 18.2 16.6 17.8 16.2 17.9 16.2 17.8 16.2 16.7 14.9 18 16.4 17.8 16.2 17.8 16.2

112

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

113

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

Energy Performance

114

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture

01 FR 350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 HEATING COOLING

150,000

100,000

50,000

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

212,101 195,307 100,850 38,299 21,348 16,230 24,905 47,214 63,245 126,573 160,700 310,268

17,869 55,569 65,461 101,067 66,312 4,853 -

212,101 213,175 156,419 103,761 122,415 82,542 24,905 47,214 68,098 126,573 160,700 310,268

1,317,040

311,131

1,628,171

52,682

12,445

65,127

115

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 02 SR4 350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 HEATING COOLING

150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

219,671 203,890 109,081 48,591 31,082 17,863 34,550 55,158 69,972 134,115 165,251 321,534

8,008 29,242 29,596 71,808 23,614 -

219,671 211,898 138,323 78,187 102,890 41,477 34,550 55,158 69,972 134,115 165,251 321,534

1,410,760

162,268

1,573,027

56,430

6,491

62,921

116

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 03 SR435 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

254,014 223,236 110,494 37,478 20,978 13,130 23,004 44,393 63,748 138,427 185,841 359,106

47,543 62,251 118,652 64,949 1,137 -

254,014 223,236 158,038 99,729 139,629 78,079 23,004 44,393 64,885 138,427 185,841 359,106

1,473,848

294,532

1,768,381

58,954

11,781

70,735

117

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 04 NSR 450,000 400,000

350,000 300,000 250,000 HEATING COOLING

200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 -

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

287,005 264,009 144,409 60,917 39,239 22,728 42,938 70,697 91,282 173,063 214,366 412,330

8,827 58,843 74,218 131,694 78,132 -

287,005 272,836 203,252 135,135 170,934 100,859 42,938 70,697 91,282 173,063 214,366 412,330

1,822,984

351,715

2,174,699

72,919

14,069

86,988

118

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 05 SSR 450,000 400,000

350,000 300,000 250,000 HEATING COOLING

200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 -

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

283,543 261,042 142,789 59,522 35,875 21,855 39,594 69,866 88,728 170,512 213,246 407,692

12,247 69,734 84,104 143,050 92,689 4,121 -

283,543 273,290 212,522 143,626 178,925 114,544 39,594 69,866 92,849 170,512 213,246 407,692

1,794,264

405,945

2,200,210

71,771

16,238

88,008

119

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 06 SESR 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

250,032 229,787 123,452 48,097 28,509 16,660 29,177 56,547 76,042 149,409 187,688 361,938

10,443 61,987 74,742 130,950 82,630 2,570 -

250,032 240,229 185,439 122,838 159,459 99,290 29,177 56,547 78,612 149,409 187,688 361,938

1,557,340

363,321

1,920,660

62,294

14,533

76,826

120

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 07 SWSR 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

COOLING (Wh)

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

247,830 228,460 122,935 47,909 27,437 16,646 29,154 56,163 75,784 148,754 186,972 359,825

10,439 57,636 78,183 128,823 82,791 -

247,830 238,900 180,571 126,092 156,260 99,437 29,154 56,163 75,784 148,754 186,972 359,825

1,547,868

357,873

1,905,741

61,915

14,315

76,230

121

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 08 EWSR 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

232,696 214,839 114,528 43,860 25,902 15,472 26,727 51,579 69,957 139,288 174,923 338,976

9,985 51,161 63,274 116,939 71,332 -

232,696 224,823 165,689 107,134 142,840 86,804 26,727 51,579 69,957 139,288 174,923 338,976

1,448,747

312,689

1,761,436

57,950

12,508

70,457

122

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 09 NSSR 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

232,240 213,930 112,714 42,869 23,372 14,272 25,178 49,826 69,805 138,398 174,634 338,268

10,185 55,494 70,876 122,713 79,657 -

232,240 224,115 168,208 113,745 146,085 93,930 25,178 49,826 69,805 138,398 174,634 338,268

1,435,506

338,925

1,774,431

57,420

13,557

70,977

123

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 10 NSSR35 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

255,545 234,573 126,011 49,222 28,640 17,641 29,895 57,224 77,800 153,014 192,033 369,911

8,743 61,047 73,987 128,555 82,304 1,260 -

255,545 243,316 187,058 123,209 157,195 99,946 29,895 57,224 79,060 153,014 192,033 369,911

1,591,510

355,896

1,947,406

63,660

14,236

77,896

124

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 11 D 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

256,126 230,572 108,139 32,371 12,206 14,115 16,387 43,091 66,986 143,090 193,475 376,335

8,261 70,772 91,509 143,992 96,234 1,863 3,648 5,571 -

256,126 238,833 178,911 123,880 156,198 110,349 18,250 46,740 72,557 143,090 193,475 376,335

1,492,893

421,851

1,914,744

59,716

16,874

76,590

125

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 12 NSV 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

240,193 221,353 117,944 45,247 26,162 15,977 27,150 52,118 72,327 143,714 180,610 349,043

10,283 56,381 71,936 123,787 80,844 -

240,193 231,636 174,325 117,183 149,949 96,821 27,150 52,118 72,327 143,714 180,610 349,043

1,491,837

343,231

1,835,068

59,673

13,729

73,403

126

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 13 M 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

239,126 218,169 115,717 41,846 22,827 13,717 24,205 50,003 70,082 140,520 179,966 346,515

19,291 67,662 89,129 139,005 89,328 6,835 -

239,126 237,460 183,379 130,976 161,833 103,046 24,205 50,003 76,917 140,520 179,966 346,515

1,462,693

411,252

1,873,945

58,508

16,450

74,958

127

Msc. Sustainable Environmental Design in Architecture 14 MV 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

HEATING

200,000

COOLING 150,000

100,000

50,000

-

Jan

MONTH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL PER M²

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

HEATING (Wh)

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

COOLING (Wh)

Oct

Nov

Dec

TOTAL (Wh)

248,417 228,916 121,842 45,771 27,327 17,662 28,960 55,445 75,737 148,871 186,919 361,422

6,876 51,744 63,614 118,585 56,930 -

248,417 235,792 173,586 109,386 145,912 74,592 28,960 55,445 75,737 148,871 186,919 361,422

1,547,290

297,750

1,845,040

61,892

11,910

73,802

128