FHGraham | BA Hons. Architecture, Newcastle University | Stage 2 Portfolio

B.A. ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES FLORENCE H GRAHAM STAGE II PORTFOLIO

120270411 2013-­‐2014

YEAR DESIGN REPORT

NONDSIGN MODULES

DESIGN MODULES

CONTENTS

CHARETTE

ARC2023 PLACE OF HOUSE

PLACED, DISPLACED

ARC2010 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN & SERVICES

LIVING ON THE EDGE

ARC2009 ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY

CIVIC CENTRED

ARC2009 ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY

CROSSOVER

CcHhAaRrEeTtTtEe WwIiLlDd?

POP-­‐UP STRUCTURE DISPLAY

PpRr

OoJj

EeCc Tt

2

PpLlAa CcEeDd DdIiSs PpLlAaCcEeDd

DEVELOPMENT SCULPTURAL DISPLACED STAGGERED ILLUDING SLIDEABLE STEPPED LIGHT LIGH STRIPS EFFECT FEATURE CONTOURS LINEAR SHADOW SCALE JUNCTIONS CHIAROSCURO CROSSOVER THRESHOLD REFLECTIVE PARALLEL JUXTAPOSE JUX

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

TRANSITIONAL SPACE

LIGHT STUDY SECTION

YARD SECTION

STREET ELEVATION

SHORT SECTION

LONG SECTION

STREET ELEVATION IN TERRACE

LlIiVvIiNnGg OoNn TtHhEe EeDdGgEe

MAPPING BOOKLET -­‐ SITE ANALYSIS HISTORY

LIGHT STUDY

LIGHT STUDY

GREEN SPACES

ROUTE A

ROUTE B

ROUTE C

ART/SCULPTURE

2-­‐DIMENSIONAL & 3-­‐DIMENSIONAL DIAGRAMS OF FORM DEVELOPMENT

PRECEDENTS

DEVELOPTING THE FORM THRIUGH MODEL MAKING

PLANS -­‐ BEFORE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

+ STREET LEVEL

STREET LEVEL

IMPROVED PLANS

IMPROVED PLANS

+ SLIPWAY LEVEL

SLIPWAY LEVEL

LONG SECTION

1:50 MODEL

ORIGINAL ELEVATION

RIVER ELEVATION

ORIGINAL

SHORT SECTION

SHORT SECTION SET INTO WIDER SITE

LIME STREET ELEVATION

ORIGINAL ELEVATION

MODELS BEFORE DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS

IMPROVED MODEL -­‐ 1:100

PRIVATE SECTOR

OBSCURING THE VIEW CIRCULATION VIEWS FROM THE EXTERIOR

PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE VS PUBLIC DIVIDE VERTICAL DIVIDE

ANGLING FOR VIEWS DIAGRAMS

EAST ELEVATION ANGLED FOR VIEWS DOWN THE RIVER WEST ELEVATION ANGLED FOR VIEWS UP LIME STREET

EXTERNAL ACCESS ROUTES FROM LIME STREET

CIRCULATION THROUGH THE SITE + SHOWING HOW ROUTES INTERACT WITH SLIPWAY ON DIFFERENT LEVELS

CcIiVvIiCc CcEeNnTtRrEeDd

VIEWS FROM THE SITE

VIEWS OF THE SITE FROM THE SURROUNDING AREAS

JOURNEY TO THE SITE

From the Station, down Front Street to the sea, and then down towards Site A. Showing the contrast as the street widens and opens up to the sea, and then drops down.

Through conceptual sketches I came up with a design intention of stacked tube elements, which would allow for large glazed areas to be incorporated at the end. To further develop this I began to twist and manipulate these forms to look out towards key views.

Further development of model making, and site analysis allowed me to come up with a more layered concept. Through looking at the surrounding seaside town, I noticed the “Tynemouth Effect” occurring throughout the town, where the streets link into each other through a T-­‐junction

CONCEPTUAL DRAWING

CONCEPTUAL DRAWING

CONCRETE WALL SECTION

CONCEPT BOARD

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

N

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

N

SHORT SECTION B-­‐B

LONG SECTION A-­‐A

SOUTH FACING ELEVATION

An experimental photomontage, to learn photoshop techniques.

ROUTES/CIRCULATION DIAGRAMS

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

EXTERNAL CIRCULATION

LONG SECTION

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

INTERNAL CIRCULATION

INTERIOR SPACE ZONING DIAGRAMS

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

CORE ACCOMODATION

LONG SECTION

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

EXHIBITION/GALLERY

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

GOVERNMENT

CULTURE?LIBRARY

FRAMING/ANGLING FOR VIEWS DIAGRAMS GROUND FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

ROOF PLAN -­‐ VERTICAL CIRCULATION VIEW POINTS

CcRrOoSsSsOoVvEeRr VvEeLlOo-­CcIiTtYy

MAP OF SATELLITES AROUND SHEFFIELD

ROUTES TO THE SITE

ROUTES THROUGHOUT THE SITE

VIEWS OUT FROM THE SITE

LOAD PATHS WITHIN STRUCTURE

Xx-­Xx:

Yy-­Yy:

PROPOSED REUSING/RENOVATING ROUTES

CONSTRUCTION WALL DIAGRAM

1:2 MODEL OF RHOMBIC DODECAHEDRON

MODULE DIAGRAMS OF CONSTRUCTION/USE

Environmental Design + Services Energy Strategy In my design the tutor’s flat is situated on the ground, and first floor of my foyer. It is partially buried into the site, and above is a floor for the residents. The U-values for the flat which need to be considered, are the external walls and the ground floor.

Construction – Exposed exterior The construction of the walls can be broken down into sections; one being the two external walls creating the façade of the flat, while the other is the wall creating the back wall of the space that is buried under the ground. The fourth wall is an interior wall, between the flat and the rest of the foyer. The general construction of the entire design is a (box) timber-framing structure, as it is a sustainable, renewable source.

The walls creating the façade, consists of alternate strips of glazing and exterior timber cladding. These walls compromise of a timber frame construction, where the insulation is placed between the wall studs behind the cladded sections. To improve the performance, and U value of an insulated timber frame construction various options are available. One option is Kingspan’s Thermawall TW55 or Kooltherm K12, which have a thermal conductivity of 0.02-0.023W/mK depending on thickness. Alternately, Rockwool can be used to fill the voids, in general it has a conductivity of 0.034-0.038W/mK depending on the particular mineral wool product. Cellotex is another option, which has a thermal conductivity of 0.021-0.022W/mK. Steico provides a less common, but more environmentally sustainable product, Steicoflex, a wood fibre flexible insulation board that has a thermal conductivity of 0.038W/mK. Despite this not being the least thermally conductive and so not the best overall performance, it is the most sustainable and environmentally friendly, non-toxic, recyclable product in its use of a renewable source. Due to this I would use this insulation, especially as its performance isn’t poor; it’s as efficient as certain other types of non-sustainable insulation. Overall, the natural thermal properties of timber help maximise the efficiency of the insulation, as wood is a poor conductor so helps contain heat; therefore will help increase the performance of the carbon-neutral insulation.

The timber framing generally is made up of soft wood vertical studs and horizontal rails. The thermal conductivity of these elements are 0.083-11W/mK if Cedar, and 0.12W/mK if Douglas Fir is used. Engineered wood is another option; such as glulam, LVL (laminated veneer lumber), and I-beams. The benefit of using these products is

that they are stronger than natural wood. However glulam, for an example, has a thermal conductivity of 0.13W/mK parallel to the gluelines and 0.15W/mK perpendicular to the glue lines. This is not as low the natural wood so not the most viable option. In the case of my design, I will use a lightweight timber structure, which is a better insulator, as thermal conductivity increases with density. The material I would use is Douglas Fir, as it can sourced locally, in the Newcastle area, and has a reasonable thermal conductivity so would be the most sustainable option. Douglas fir would also be used for the external cladding, which is a non-loadbearing structure, and is made up of timber panels.

Throughout the interior of the structure, plasterboard will be used to line the walls.

Standardly gypsum plasterboard is used, which has a thermal conductivity of 0.19W/ mK. However, an alternate option would be Kingspan Kooltherm K17, which is an insulated plasterboard with a thermal conductivity of 0.021W/mK and also has a class 0 fire rating.

Table showing R-Values (m2 K/W) : (thickness/conductivity) Building Element

Internal Boundary

-

Thermal Conductivity W/mK -

Plasterboard

Kingspan Kooltherm K17

0.021

0.025

1.19

Services Void OSB (for racking, vapour control, and airtightness) Insulation

SmartPly OSB3

0.13

0.015

0.17 0.12

Steico Steicoflex (flexible/between Studs) Steico Fibre Sheathing Permafol Fire-Proof Membrane Douglas Fir -

0.038

0.2

5.26

0.046 0.033 0.12 -

0.06 0.01 0.2 -

1.30 0.30 0.17 1.67 0.04

Breather Membrane Ventilated Cavity Cladding External Boundary

Product

Thickness

R-Values

m

m2 K/W

-

0.13

R tot = 10.35 U value =0.0966 This U-value is close to 0.1 m2 K/W, so therefore meets the Association for Environment Conscious Building’s Gold Standard.

Environmental Design + Services Energy Strategy Construction – sheltered/Buried Wall The back wall is buried in the site, therefore requiring a buried wall. Due to ‘earth-bunding’, heat loss on this side of the building should be reduced, as it is against a thermally significant mass. However, issues can arise from being in contact with the ground, such as damp, but if appropriate waterproofing is installed along with sufficient insulation it can be a beneficial element to the construction.

The majority of this structural section is made of concrete, where alternate options are available; one being dense with the thermal conductivity of 1-1.8W/mK and the other lightweight with 0.1-0.3W/mK. Therefore a lightweight concrete is the more efficient choice, however due to an endothermic reaction large levels of carbon dioxide are released so therefore this material is not environmentally friendly. A more sustainable approach would be to use Masterblock, which involves a block work construction containing 20% of recycled materials, and have a thermal conductivity of 0.25 W/mK. An alternative option is Enviroblock, which is produced from 73% minimum of secondary, and recycled materials, which is compliant with ISO 14001, and has achieved BES 6001:2008 Responsible Sourcing Certificate from BRE Global, and was the first to do so. The dense block has a thermal conductivity of 1.074W/mk and the light block is 0.049W/mK. The light blocks have a much lower conductivity to the lightweight concrete; therefore is a reasonable choice, as it is more sustainable.

To insulate this wall, the construction of it includes placing the insulation on the exterior, followed by a waterproof layer, and then the blockwork. Non-porous insulation should be used, if not a waterproof membrane should be used. For the insulation a closed-celled extruded polystyrene sheet should be used, as it is more efficient as it uses less building elements due to it not being porous. Foamular XPS is used as a water vapour barrier for foundations and the perimeters of structures, so is appropriate, it also has a conductivity of 0.029W/mK. Alternatively Kingspan’s Styrozone can be used, which has a thermal conductivity of 0.029W/mK at the needed thickness of ≤ 120mm. However, it is not considered to be as strong for this sort of use, so the Foamular XPS insulation will be used.

While the best waterproofing system to use would be Bentonite clay sheets, which uses natural materials and has a conductivity of 1.14W/mK. This is not the most common method but the most sustainable, and is self-healing. A more standard approach is a combination of layers; including a ‘emulsion waterproof membrane’(Paraphalt = 0.43

W/mk), a ‘heavy grade’ waterproof membrane (EPDM, petrochemicals = 0.2W/mK), and a liquid water sealant (EasiPour=0.15). These all involve chemicals, which are harmful to the environment so a more natural approach of Bentonite clay sheets will be used.

Table showing R-Values (m2 K/W) : (thickness/conductivity) Building Element

External Boundary Insulation Waterproof Layer Block work Insulation Plasterboard Internal Boundary

Product

Foamular XPS Bentonite clay EnviroBlock Steico Steicoflex Kingspan Kooltherm K17 -

Thermal Conductivity W/mK 0.029 0.2 0.049 0.038 0.021 -

Thickness m 0.08 0.015 0.215 0.2 0.025 -

R-Value m²K/W 0.04 2.76 0.075 4.39 5.26 1.19 0.13

R tot = 13.845 U value =0.072 2 This U-value is lower than 0.1 m K/W, so therefore meets the Association for Environment Conscious Building’s Gold Standard.

Construction – Ground Floor For the ground floor, there will be a concrete solid floor, with a timber floor installed above. In general, the thermal conductivity of foundation blocks should allow for their moisture content – thermal conductivity of 0.25 W/m·K is the recommended level for foundation blocks of autoclaved aerated concrete.

The Sub Base is made of ‘crushed recycled aggregate, which has a thermal conductivity of 1.1W/mK, and is a sustainable product as it is made up of 30% crushed glass that enriches the silica. Additionally, as a replacement to Hard Core, Jabcore will be used as its thermal conductivity is 0.036W/mK, whereas the standard material is 1.04W/mK at an appropriate thickness; therefore Jabcore is a much more efficient product. The DPM, within the structure is negligible in the consideration of the U-Value due to its minimal thickness. For the insulation, Steico will be used as to keep continuality with the rest of the construction, and for its environmentally friendly nature. Douglas Fir will also be used, as to stay in keeping with the rest of the structure.

Environmental Design + Services Energy Strategy

Using daylight Dialux

Table showing R-Values (m2 K/W) : (thickness/conductivity) Building Element

External Boundary Sub Base Hard Core Damp Proof Membrane Concrete Insulation Floor Screed Timber Joist Floor Cladding Internal Boundary

Product

Recycled Aggregate Jabcore Classic 100 EnviroBlock Steico Sand Cement Screed Douglas Fir Douglas Fir

Thermal Conductivity W/mK 1.1 0.036 0.049 0.038 1.1 0.12 0.12 -

Thickness m 0.3 0.15 0.00025 0.215 0.2 0.075 0.2 0.06 -

R-Value m²K/W 0.04 0.27 4.2 4.39 5.26 0.07 1.6 0.5 0.13

Through creating a Dialux model, the exact daylight levels my interior would receive could be visualised and tested. Throughout doing so in Figure 1, I found that there was too much light entering the space, which would therefore make it an unpleasant room to occupy. To tackle this I removed the glazing from the doors in Figure 2, which was the largest area of light creating an issue, and also filling a circulation space, which does not require as much natural lighting as people just pass through and do not spend a great majority of time.

R tot = 16.46 U value =0.0607 This U-value is lower than 0.1 m2 K/W, so therefore meets the Association for Environment Conscious Building’s Gold Standard.

Construction – Glazing Within my design the glazing takes up the open space between the alternate cladded, and insulated wall studs; therefore there is a large amount of glazing. The living area in particular, there are two external walls with a large proportion of glazing. Due to this, a more insulated window construction needs to be installed, to reduce heat loss through these areas. The most efficient at doing so would be to use triple glazing, with two argon fills and two low emissivity coatings to further efficiency. Through doing so the U-value would be 0.8W/m2K, which is half of what Building Regulations request (1.6W/m2K). InsulGlaze, fits within these requirements and has a high performance low emissivity coating to stop heat from escaping, an argon gas fill, and a wider cavity. This method is also commonly used for sustainable designs.

Figure 2 Figure 1

Through doing this the space became a more efficiently lit space, as the working tops and dining have sufficient lux levels of above 100. This therefore means that throughout the day, little electrical light will be needed, especially as the distribution of glazing gives an even amount of light across the area (with the exception of the front door). This is also the case with the rest of the flat so excess light will not be an issue.

This results in the overall design being much more sustainable as electrical lighting accounts for up to 15% of overall electrical consumption in homes, and so reducing its use results in a more electrically efficient space. This is furthered by the amount of solar gain received as the windows are orientated towards the South, South-East, which is 267.049W. If shading is wanted, shutters could be installed.

Environmental Design + Services Energy sources to meet demand Energy

Electrical

Through completing the spreadsheet and a series of tables, I have been able to calculate and improve the U-values of the walls, flooring, and glazing, which has reduced the requirement for heating, as through structural efficiency the heat is retained. This has been done through using materials with a low thermal conductivity, and therefore resulting in a lower U-value and a higher efficiency through doing so. This has resulted in the SAP value of 85.5, and the improvement of DER over TER 26%; therefore achieving credit 6.

Additionally, there are other measurements of the flat’s sustainability performance that the above does not cover. These include my use of sustainable, natural, and recycled materials, which where possible can be locally sourced.

To improve the flat’s energy strategy, supplementary to the structural elements, sustainable methods of energy provision can be used.

Table showing values for energy requirements + resultant C02 emissions:

Despite my tutor’s flat being situated on the ground floor, and 1st floor of my foyer; there are opportunities for photovoltaic solar panels to be put on the roof one storey above. This would also be a sustainable and environmental opportunity, as the more electricity generated, the lower the cost. However the overhead cost of instalment is high, but can be cost effective if a large system is used . Green Deal finance is also available, additionally the Feed-In Tariff scheme that based on a 4kWp solar PV system, generates a tariff of 14.9p/kWh, as what is not used gets exported to the grid (the tariff however depends on your Energy Performance Certificate). Therefore, this would work successfully as they can be easily be orientated towards the South, optimising efficiency.

This therefore means that they will be exposed to a greater amount of direct sunlight, and consequently produce more energy. Generally groups of cells are mounted together in panels, which would be possible on the roof of the foyer, especially as they come in a variety of shapes and sizes so the most appropriate PV systems can be installed. UniSolar panels, output 68W and within an area of 46m2, more than 60 panels could be installed. However, approximately 30 panels would be sufficient, if not excessive.

6 hours exposure to sunlight for 150 days per annum 1836kWhr This therefore would suffice, and if suitable for the Feed-In Tarriff would be beneficial. It could also provide electricity for the rest of the foyer.

KWhr/yr

Kg C02/Year

Cost £

Electricity for Pumprs

130

67.2

15.6

Electricity for Lighting

178.1

218.1

50.6

Total Electricity

308.1

285.3

66.2

Heating System

4034.7

798.9

125.1

Water Heating System

3730.5

738.6

115.6

Total Heating

7765.2

1537.5

240.7

Florence H. Graham Student Number:120270411 Environmental Design + Services ARC2012

Heating The additional space could be used to install a Solar Thermal Heating System, which uses panels that use the sun’s energy to heat domestic hot water, that is then stored in a hot water cylinder. The technology is simple, effective, and sustainable. To be cost effective a minimum of 3m2 is required. Baxi Solarflo’s panels have a 95% absorber efficiency, and can produce up to 60% of the energy required to heat domestic hot water.

Florence H Graham 120270411 ARC2009 Architectural Technology Living On The Edge Site A

structural diagrams overview of structure

The form of structure employed is a timber-frame construc-­‐ tion within the most occupied areas of the design. Through the use of a timber-frame for the dwelling, a thickness of 200mm of insulation can be installed in the external walls; therefore improving energy ratings for this section of the building. Additionally, timber as a constructional material advantageously is quick and easy to assemble comparative-­‐ ly. It is also a sustainable choice.

Contrastingly, where a larger proportion of wall openings can be seen, a steel portal frame will have to be used to en-­‐ sure structural stability. Additionally, where the design is submerged below street level due to the extreme change in height between the site boundaries, a retaining concrete wall will be used, as timber can’t be used in these circum-­‐ stances. However, to stay within my design concept these elements will be clad with timber.

Private Dwelling

Public Building

structural diagrams primary structure

Retaining Wall Timber Frame Construc on

Steel Frame Construc on Load Bearing Wall

Steel I-Beams

structural diagrams primary structure secondary structure

Timber Floor Joists

Steel Floor Construc on Timber Roof Joists

Steel Portal Frame Roof Support

Concrete Slab Flooring

structural diagrams tertiary structure

Timber Wall Sheathing

Timber Floor Decking

Timber Roof Decking

tectonic / constructional study tectonic intent The most significant material choice within my design was for the cladding, which consists of a thick timber element as to create a contrast between the solid areas, and wall open-­‐ ings. The use of timber within my design was to keep with my concept of a wood-work workshop, and so transferred the use of materiality throughout the design. The original choice in using timber throughout the concept was also due to it being a sustainable material due to it being of a renew-­‐ able, organic nature. This was then furthered by using Douglas Fir, which can be locally sourced from Kielder; therefore making it an environmentally-sustainable con-­‐ struction.

This extends into my choice of construction, where a timber frame structure was used in the private dwelling. Internally, this allows for a crisp finish with plaster-boarding. However, for larger areas of the building a steel portal frame will have to be used as to hold the larger proportions of glass and higher ceilings. This change is due to my design concept, where there is a clear vertical split between the two defini-­‐ tive areas. In the private areas, a tighter cladding and a more compact/standard split between floors is used to make it a more private. While for the public sectors, the cladding becomes wider spread so it is a more open space to occupy and the spaces between each floor become dou-­‐ ble height to further this effect. These areas will therefore have to just be clad with the timber previously used as to allow for aesthetic continuity throughout the design.

wall section - 1:20 1 Wall to Roof Construc on

2 Intermediate Floor Construc on

3 Window Detail

4 Wall to Ground Floor & Founda on Construc on

tectonic / constructional study wall section - 1:10 Timber Ver cal Cladding Thick due to wanted design effect

Plasterboard Ven lated Cavity Services Void For electrical wires, and hea ng pipes

Ver cal Timber Ba en Supports Cladding

Horizontal Timber Ba en Supports plasterboard

Horizontal Timber Ba en Supports Cladding. Chamfered edge to allow water to run off.

Timber Joist Breather Membrane

Part of Timber Frame Construc on (holds elements together)

OSB Board Timber Sheathing Insula on Compact Fit

tectonic / constructional study – critical junctions (1) wall to roof – 1:10

Waterproofing Steel Cap

Membrane/Insula on Deck

Protects junc ons

Timber Joists Vapour Control Layer Turned up over insula on (sealed by waterproofing above)

Vapour Control Layer (in ceiling)

Insula on Tightly packed into the voids be-­‐ tween the eaves.

Compressible Filler

Plasterboard Line Ceiling

Timber Ba en Covers plasterboard junc on

Breather Membrane Timber Studs Support junc on

Insula on Compact fit

Vapour Control Layer

tectonic / constructional study – critical junctions (2) window detail-1:10

window head+sill details – 1:5

Timber Lintel

Damp Proof Course - Cavity Tray Cavity barrier, provides drainage and allows Breather Membrane to fold under cladding.

Breather Membrane

Com-­‐ pressible Filler

Fire Insulate Vapour Control Layer

Folds under cladding

Folds under to window

Insula ng cavity tray

Sealant Window Head & Lintel Need to be level (stop air infiltra on)

Triple Glazing

Insula on for Window Reveal Air Tightness Tape

Argon Filled

Sealant Compressible Filler Vapour Control Layer

Breather Membrane Folds under window to in-­‐ ternal window reveal

Folds over to win-­‐ dow

Protects junc on & allows water to run off

Cill Solid to close cavity

Insula on Compact fit

Damp Proof Course (below window and under sill)

Sealant Internal Window Sill

Insula on for Window Reveal

tectonic / constructional study – critical junctions (3) wall to upper floor (intermediate floor) – 1:10

Vapour Control Layer Wraps around stud and back to lining inner wall

Gap to allow mber floor to expand and contract (due to heat)

Timber Floor Air Tightness Barrier Between VCl and Joist

Timber Stud Suppor ng Intermediate Floor

Breather Membrane

Insula on Plasterboard For Ceiling

Vapour Control Layer Insula on (Compact Fit)

Breather Membrane

tectonic / constructional study – critical junctions (4) wall to ground floor & foundations - 1:10 Vapour Control Layer Con nues down and folds under the insula on.

Breather Membrane Folds under interior wall

Gap to allow mber floor to expand and contract (due to heat)

Insula on Between two construc onal elements

External Ground Level

Vapour Control Layer Under below mber floor to allow it to slide when expanding and contrac ng

Insula on Above slab.

Sand Infill

Concrete Blocks To create strong/firm base for mber frame structure above

Concrete Slab Damp Proof Membrane Under slab and wraps up past insula on through to cavity

Sand Blinding Concrete

So Rough Sub Base can’t puncture DPM

Wall Founda on Support

Sub Base Founda ons for Ground Floor

tectonic / constructional study sustainability ratings external wall—a+ u value—0.0966 Retaining Wall—U Value—0.072

internal wall—a+

upper floor construction—a+

tectonic / constructional study sustainability ratings

ground floor construction—b roof construction—a+

windows—a+

u value — 0.0607

Mine would be be er in areas as tripled glazed.

(thicker insulation used)

Florence H Graham ARC2009 Architectural Technology Assessment Access For All & Means Of Escape

Means of escape

Access For All Disabled Parking: 1 → The disabled parking, within my design, is located by the main entrance into the library and moot hall. This means that entering the building is easily accessible, and close-by. Within this area two disabled bays can be placed. → The dimensions of these bays require ’1200mm accessibility zone between, and a 1200mm safety zone on the vehicular side’. There should also be sufficient space to enter/exit the vehicle, and circulate to the boot/rear. Within these requirements, the surfaces should be slip-resistant and smooth (changes in height under 3mm). These bays should also be clearly labelled for clarity of designated use.

Access for Wheelchair Users to Main Entrance:2 → The first requirement is for there to be access with a minimum of 1:15 gradient, which in this case the gradient is far lower than that and visually invisible. Along this route, recognisable symbol signposting will be used, as to allow for a clear, described path to be made. Additionally, from the provided bays, the main entrance is easily visible. → The entrance into the building is level with the site, and there is not a change in height, so a level landing of 1500mm x 1500mm is not required but would be if this was not the case. → The entrance will have an overhang to provide weather protection, and sensor reactive powered doors to allow for ease of use. Although will have an emergency override system to be used in the case of an emergency. Within my design the doors are glass so if assistance is needed, help can be provided, as it is visible from the reception. This also allows for collisions to not be made between occupants passing through. These doors will meet standards, as they will be visibly marked to show a solid entity is there. Door guards will also be in place to prevent visitors walking into the door swings when in use. → These doors also will be a minimum of about 2400mm as to provide a sufficient emergency exit for the occupant capacity. This width is more than sufficient, as a minimum of 1000mm is required to provide for wheelchair access.

Access for Wheelchair Users within the Building:3 → Within my design, there is ease of disabled access both horizontally, and vertically. Each storey consists of flat levels, and non-stepped levels, therefore allowing for an ease of manoeuvrability.

There is also a lift at the centre of the building to provide for vertical access within close proximity at any given point. The flooring is also slip-resistant as to provide a stable footing. → Within the interior distribution of rooms, the number of doors have been reduced to a minimum requirement, where necessary. This therefore promotes the ease of accessibility within the building. → As the reception is first point of call, it must be easily accessible and convenient to use. This is furthered by its ease of visibility when entering the building through the main doors as it is en route.

The desk gives access for both standing and seated visitors, thusly providing for any given situation.

Within the reception a disabled access toilet is provided in the waiting area, as to allow for immediate use if needed. → On each individual floor, disabled toilets are provided as to allow access without having to change floors. → Within the vertical route, the lifts are 2000mm x 2000mm, which is within the disabled access regulation. While the horizontal access, the main corridors are a minimum of 2000mm, allowing for ease of circulation and passing, along this route there are passing places if required.

Visual or Hearing Impairment Strategy: → Within my design, the principal exits are glass so if assistance is needed when entering help can be provided. Warning sensors, a distance of 800mm away, are also provided, along with visual signs. → On each step on the stairs visibility strips that are hard wearing will be installed. While in the lifts, enough time is provided to ensure the doors do not close on the occupant when entering the space. → At the reception a hearing loop will also be used, and there will be no glass screen to remove the chance of glare which can impair lip reading. → Throughout the design, a contrast between floors, ceilings, and walls as to not disorientate visitors.

1. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.20 2. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.27-28 3. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.33-38 4. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.33-38

Calculating the Occupancy Level:1 Storey Room 2nd Floor

Mayor’s Office

Floor

61.38

Library Book Stack Area

160.74

Debating Chamber

158.12

Seating/Reading Area Lobby Area

Interview Rooms

Library Reception/ Archive Crèche/Kids Library

Ground Floor

55.1

Admin Office I.T. Room

1st

Room Area (m2)

36.85 27.67 37.98 71.58 45.78 64.53

Library Book Stack Area

115.87

Classroom

62.02

Reception/Waiting Area Cafe

Art Gallery/Exhibition Space

38.74

108.55 151.81

Floor Space Factor (m2/per person)

Occupant Capacity

1.0

36

6.0

9

6.0

10

7.0

22

6.0 1.0 0.5

Sub Total

1.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0

37

316

81

71

7.0 2.3

4

6

Sub Total

28 16 38 62

474

108 30

Sub Total Grand Total

238 793

Minimum Escape Route Corridor & Door Opening Width For Each Story: Maximum occupancy level for each story is between 60 – 600 occupants, meaning 2 escape routes are required; therefore within this design 2 escape routes will have to be provided per storey. To allow for alternative escape routes, they should be 45° or more apart. If this is not possible the two routes should be separated by a fire resisting structure. The minimum escape route corridor, and door opening width per storey is: 2nd Floor = 850mm, 1st Floor = 2370mm, Ground Floor = 1190mm. 2 Minimum Stair Width For Each Stair: Stair Storey Occupants Served Floors Served Minimum Stair Width (mm) 2A 2nd Floor 81 1 850 nd 2B 2 Floor 81 1 850 st 1A 1 Floor 555 2 2775 1B 1st Floor 555 2 2775 Staircases are labelled according to storey, and lettered according to alternative route plan based on a simultaneous evacuation under the assumption that one route would be unavailable.3 Minimum Width For Each Final Exit: Formula: W = ((N/2.5) + (60S))/80 W = ((793/2.5) + (60x2775))/80 W is width of final exit in metres W = 2398.45 N is numb. of people served by ground floor exit S is stair width in metres Within my design there are two final exits at opposing ends of the building. This allows for the provision of alternative routes in the case where one becomes unavailable. Both exits will Florence H Graham have to be a minimum of about 2.4 metres wide.4 ARC2009 Civic Centred Written Strategy 1. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.135 2. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.35&37 04/05/14 3. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.37 4. Approved Document B, Vol.1&Vol.2, p.38

Site Development plan

Florence H Graham ARC2009 Civic Centred Written Sheet 04/05/14 Scale: 1:250

2

-

second floor

Florence H Graham ARC2009 Civic Centred Written Sheet 05/05/14 Scale: 1:200

1

-

first floor

Florence H Graham ARC2009 Civic Centred Written Sheet 05/05/14 Scale: 1:200

g

-

ground floor

Florence H Graham ARC2009 Civic Centred Written Sheet 05/05/14 Scale: 1:200