Varunya Jarunyaroj_AA SED Team Project 2016 [Term2] by Varunya Yoon Jarunyaroj

Urban-Patch

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place Sustainable Environmental Design Programme Architectural Association School of Architecture MArch 2015-2017 Team 2 Design Research by Kristina Alvarez Timothy De Los Santos Varunya Jarunyaroj Wan Fang Wu

March 2016

AA School of Architecture Sustainable Environmental Design Progamme

Authorship Declaration Form Term 2 Project Refurbishing the City Part II TITLE

Urban Patch - Sustainable Living at Diespeker Place NUMBER OF WORDS 8762

STUDENT NAMES

Kristina Alvarez Timothy De Los Santos Varunya Jarunyaroj Wan Fang Wu

DECLARATION “I certify that the contents of this document are entirely my own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”

SIGNATURES

DATE

Acknowledgments First, we would like to thank Tim Metcalfe at Pollard Thomas Edwards for welcoming us to the site to do fieldwork and providing us drawings on the Diespeker Wharf renovation project. We would also like to thank our tutors Simos Yannas, Paula Cadima, Jorge Rodriguez, Mariam Kapsali, Gustavo Brunelli, Byron Mardas, Herman Calleja for their guidance and feedback throughout the project. We are especially grateful for Paulaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weekly tutorials and continuous guidance. Lastly, Wan Fang Wu would like to acknowledge the Architectural Association, School of Architecture for awarding her a bursary to attend the AA SED MArch Course 2015-2017.

Summary This term project offered lots of rooms to test our learnings from the Term 1 Case Study project. The team started the pre-design phase studying previous Term 2 projects, picking the Islington neighborhood (N1 and EC1) to perform social analysis and determining housing typology needs. The research helped the team predict a future lifestyle scenario for testing the design proposal. Lessons learned from previous term's studies and built precedents provided guidelines and rules of thumb as starting points. The team is particularly interested in identifying underused, left-over vacant lots or single storey garages as potential sites for small-scaled housing developments. The team aims to patch the urban fabric through incremental design strategies and contribute solutions to the London housing struggle. In doing so, the proposal hopes to provide affordable housing to young, lower income professionals through a business strategy of co-investment by firms to provide subsidized rent for young employees as a company benefit. In order to achieve this in a cost effective way, the team devised a replicable timber construction system with prefabricated strawball panel walls along with low embodied carbon materials. In sum, the team focused on looking at the building design in terms of its life cycle with low embodied carbon, high quality materials, and low operating cost while aiming to provide intelligent living environments through adaptive measures and giving the residents full control to arrive at thermal and visual comfort.

Contents Introduction 9 1. Project Overview Climate Analysis Social Analysis Design Brief Design Guidelines Precedent Studies

12-19 20-21 22-23 24-29 30-31

2. Site Overview // Site Location Site History Site Analysis

34 35 36-39

3. Design Proposal // Construction System 42 Materiality 43 Layout Studies 44-47 Facade and Window Design 48-49 Adaptive Details & Ventilation 50-51 Atmosphere Renderings 52-53 4. Indoor Studies // Exterior Solar Analysis Daylight Analysis Thermal Analysis

56-57 58-69 70-93

5. Outdoor Studies // Design Proposal mPET analysis

96-97 98-101

Carbon Life Cycle

102

Conclusions 103 Epilogue 104 References 105 Appendices 106-109

INTRODUCTION The project started with lessons learned from the Copper Lane Co-Housing project and inspirational ideas proposals from the New Ideas for Housing by New London Architecture. In sum, the team would like to: •

Patch the urban fabric

•

Contribute solutions to the housing struggle

•

Provide affordable housing to young, lower income professionals through a business strategy of co-investment by firms to provide affordable housing for employees.

•

Devise a replicable timber construction system with prefabricated straw bale wall panels, and low carbon materiality

•

Looking at the building in terms of its life cycle with low embodied carbon, high quality materials, and low operating cost.

•

Providing intelligent living environments through adaptive measures and giving the residents full control to arrive at thermal and visual comfort.

The proposed building provides various forms of adaptive measures for thermal, visual, as well as flexible spatial functions for occupants to live and work from home comfortably.

Project Overview Climate Analysis 12-19 Social Analysis 20-21 Design Brief 22-23 Design Guidelines 24-29 Precedent Studies 30-31

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Climate Analysis Present Climate Analysis Present Scenario: Figure 002. Monthly Diurnal Averages for the project site shows that air temperature in the summer can reach 31.2o C maximum and 10.8o C minimum; whereas during the winter, the maximum is roughly 15o C and minimum is around -2o C. In comparision, Figure 003. shows the predicted Monthly Diurnal Averages for 2050 Analysis 2010 Climate Figure 001. shows that the present prevailing winds are mostly from southwest. Figure 004. shows the 2050 prediction wind rose diagram, which demonstrates that the wind in 2050 would not have a big difference compared to the present scenario.

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

30.0 °C

25.0 °C

20.0 °C

Winter Solstice has a maximum solar altitude of 15 o and the sun rises at 8:03 AM and sets at 3:53 PM, providing 7.50 hours of daylight.

15.0 °C

Summer Solstice has a maximum solar altitude of 61.90 and the sun rises at 04:43 AM and sets at 21:21 PM, providing 16.38 hours of daylight.

10.0 °C

5.0 °C

10 m/s 0.0 °C

5 m/s 100.0%

-5.0 °C

0 m/s 80.0%

60.0% 400.00

200.00

0.00 Jan

FIG. 001

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Present wind rose Diagram

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Global Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Wind Speed [m/s] 12

FIG. 002

Present climate chart

Humidity [%]

Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

2050 Climate Analysis Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

30.0 °C

25.0 °C

20.0 °C

15.0 °C

10.0 °C

5.0 °C

10 m/s 0.0 °C

5 m/s 100.0%

-5.0 °C

0 m/s 80.0%

60.0% 400.00

200.00

0.00 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

FIG. 004

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

2050 Wind rose diagram

Global Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Wind Speed [m/s] FIG. 003

2050 climate chart

Humidity [%]

Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] 13

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Climate Analysis Climate Comparison (Present : 2050)

Climate Analysis - 2050

Since the 2050 climate analysis shows slightly lower (1 K) temperatures during the cold period, compared to the present, and approximately 1 K warmer during the warm period, the team concluded that it would be appropriate to use the 2050 predicted weather data for all the simulations and analysis. The assumption is that, if the design proposal performs well in 2050, it should perform well now.

600

Figure 005. shows the outdoor temperature difference between now and 2050, as well as wind velocity, and solar radiation.

500

Figure 006. shows the proposed site solar hour access. Figure 007. shows the sun-shade studies on the proposed site.

Figures 008-016. show detail wind analysis for different seasons, which the team took into account when performing outdoor mPET comfort studies.

Temperature (Â°C)

The solar hour access diagrams and sun-shade analysis informed the team's building massing decision, building location, and designs for shading devices.

Comfort Band

400

300

200

100

0 Jan

FIG. 005

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Present Average Monthy Mean Outdoor Temperature

Present Average Wind Speed [m/s]

Present Average Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

2050 Average Monthy Mean Outdoor Temperature

2050 Average Wind Speed [m/s]

2050 Average Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Climate comparisons between present scenario and 2050

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Climate Analysis Solar Hour Access Analysis 24 HOUR ANALYSIS PERIOD

MARCH 21

PLAN VIEW

MARCH 21

JUNE 21

DECEMBER 21

FIG. 006

Solar access diagrams

BIRD'S EYE VIEW

Sun Patch

MARCH 21

9:00

12:00

15:00

JUNE 21

9:00

12:00

15:00

DECEMBER 21

9:00

12:00

15:00

FIG. 007

Sunpatch diagrams

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Climate Analysis Spring Prevailing Wind

FIG. 008

Spring Prevailing Wine

BIRD'S EYE VIEW

FIG. 009

Spring wind flow diagrams

Summer Prevailing Wind

BIRD'S EYE VIEW

FIG. 010

FIG. 011

Summer Prevailing Wine

PLAN VIEW

Summer wind flow diagrams

PLAN VIEW

Autumn Prevailing Wind

FIG. 012

Autumn prevailing wind

Winter Prevailing Wind

FIG. 014

Winter prevailling wind

BIRD'S EYE VIEW

FIG. 013

Autumn wind flow diagrams

BIRD'S EYE VIEW

FIG. 015

PLAN VIEW

Winter wind flow diagrams

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Social Analysis LIFE NOW AND IN 2050 The Greater London Authority Intelligent Unit (2013) predicted that population is likely to boom to 11.3 millions by 2050 in London. This would add an additional 3 million people from a current total of 8.3 millions. Jobs are projected to increase to 6.3 million in 2050, from 4.9 million in 2011.

Housing types 0.7% Detached

5.8%

What kind of living spaces would be able to accommodate current lifestyle and adaptable to future lifestyle?

•

With population growth, scarcity of land, London Housing Design Guidelines space standards requirements, and future lifestyle changes in mind, what is the sufficient space size for each of the different typologies?

•

34.4% Block Flats 9.7% Bedsit 2.5% Others

FIG. 017 Housing types N1 and EC1 postcode 1.1% Semi-Detached (source: Postcode area ONS 2011) 0.7% Detached

How can we increase and enhance public open spaces while implementing affordable housing projects? OR in other words, how can we avoid taking over good open spaces?

•

How can we make spaces more multi-functional? How can we make efficient use of limited site areas?

This term project will aim to address above questions through design research.

17.3% 3 - Bedroom 5.7% 4 - Bedroom 2%

5 or more Bedrooms

Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling

FIG. 018 Number of bedrooms N1 and EC1 postcode 0.6% None (source: Postcode area ONS 2011)

36.2% 1 - Bedroom Terraced

36.2% 1 - Bedroom

45.8% Flats

38.2% 2 - Bedroom

34.4% Block Flats

17.3% 34.4% Block Flats3 - Bedroom

17.3% 3 - Bedroom

9.7% Bedsit

5.7% 4 - Bedroom 9.7% Bedsit

5.7% 4 - Bedroom

2.5% Others

2% 2.5% Others

5 or more Bedrooms

62% Single Female

Male

6.98% Divorced

49.57 % 50.43 %

3.19% Separated 3.47% Widowed

8.25%

13.65%

1.03% Same Sex

23.9%

19.92 %

39%

62% Single

FIG. 019 Households UK N1 and EC1 postcode (source: Postcode area ONS 2011)

FIG. 020 Relationship23.3 status N1 and EC1 postcode % Married 8.8 % (source: Streetcheck 2016) 6.98% Divorced

54.2%

13.65%

23.9%

VICTORIA PARK REGENT’S PARK

EC1 CLERKENWELL

54.2%

FITZROVIA

SOHO

36.2% 1 - Bedroom 38.2% 2 - Bedroom

Separated Widowed 1.03% Same Sex 3.19%

3.47%

32.26%

8.25%

CAMDEN TOWN

HYDE PARK

0.6% None

23.3% Married

CHALK FARM

MAYFAIR

0.7% 0.6% None 1.1% Semi-Detached

5.8%

Terraced

Shown in Figures 016-026 are social analysis done by the team, which was useful and imperative for us to fully understand the population in our chose site and proposal an appropriate future lifestyle scenario. The N1 and EC1 postcode was selected for the demographic study due to the site's location. The site is situated at the edge of the N1 postcode with EC1 postcode adjacent to it.

Housing types Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling Detached

38.2% 2 - Bedroom 45.8% Flats

5.8%

How can we provide affordable and quality homes within wellconnected urban areas?

•

Terraced

45.8% Flats

Housing types

Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling

0.7% Detached 0.6% None 1.1% Semi-Detached 36.2% 1 - Bedroom 5.8% Terraced 38.2% 2 - Bedroom 45.8% Flats 17.3% 3 - Bedroom 34.4% Block Flats 5.7% 4 - Bedroom 9.7% Bedsit 2% 5 or more Bedrooms 2.5% Others

1.1% Semi-Detached

As we think about designing for the future, we asked ourselves: What will life be like in 2050? •

Number of Bedrooms Housing types per Dwelling

CITY OF LONDON

COVENT GARDEN

Full Time 49+ hrs Full Time 31-48 hrs Part Time 16-30 hrs Part Time 15 hrs or less

19.92 %

AB 39%

8.8 % C1

32.26%

WHITE CHAPEL

THAMES

FIG. 016 Prototype site location in relation to N1 and EC1 postcode (Postcode area ONS 2011)

Full Time FIG. 021 Hours worked N149+ andhrsEC1 postcode Full Time 31-48 hrs (source: Part Postcode areahrsONS 2011) Time 16-30 Part Time 15 hrs or less

A - Upper Middle Class FIG. 022 Social Status N1 and EC1 postcode B - Middle Class (source: Postcode area ONS 2011) C1 - Lower Middle Class C2 - Skilled Working Class D - Working Class E - Non-Working

A - Upper Middle Class B - Middle Class C1 - Lower Middle Class C2 - Skilled Working Class D - Working Class E - Non-Working

Average Property Price £921,930 £836,749

EC1 N1 £1m

London’s housing struggle is a real issue. There’s an ongoing concern that the young creatives are being forced to move out of London due to their inabilities to afford to live and work in London. A panel discussion at the AA titled Housing Young London: are we facing an exodus? in February 2015 clearly summarized such issues. It was mentioned that even some young companies are being forced to move out of London to be closer to their employees. One of the presenter, Claire Bennie listed these 10 options for accommodation for people in their 20s living in London:

£ 500k

£0 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Average Architect Income Value By Experience

FIG. 023 Property price N1 and EC1 (source: Foxtons 2016)

N1 EC1

Less than 2 years (18%)

Average Rental Prices

Average Architect Income Value By Experience £ 2,000 pw

£ 1,000 pw £ 500 pw

2 to345 3 years (18.5%)

£ 0 pw

studio

4 to 6 years (21.7%) 7 to 11 years (21.8%) 12 years or more (19.9%)

£30,122 644 736

407 519

763 768

877

2 beds

3 beds

4 beds

£38,689 Rental Price Range EC1 N1

5 beds

12 years or more (19.9%)

£44,343

*Prices and Room types currently in the market

30,000 40,000

10000

£53,280

15000

10,000 2 20,000 - Bedroom30,000 40,000

20000

25000

50,000

60,000

3 - Bedroom 4 or more bedrooms

£53,280

FIG. 024 Rental price N1 and EC1 (source: Foxtons 2016) 0 10,000 20,000

5000

1 - Bedroom

N1 EC1

£44,343

£395 - £1,600 pw £300 - £1,950 pw

£38,689

7 to 11 years (21.8%) Social Rent

£34,422

1 bed

£34,422

4 to 6 years Intermediate (21.7%)

1450

Less than 2 years (18%)

Market

2 to 3 years (18.5%)

by Room Type

£ 1,500 pw

£30,122

50,000

FIG. 025

60,000

Annual housing requirement 2015-2035 by tenure and size (source: New Ideas for Housing 2015)

Average Architect Income Value By Experience Less than 2 years (18%) 2 to 3 years (18.5%)

£31,242

£34,422

4 to 6 years (21.7%)

or £601 per week 50% of people make less than £31,242

£38,689

Median Total Salary:

7 to 11 years (21.8%)

12 years oror more (19.9%)

£31,242

£44,343

£601 per week

£0

23K

27K

25%

£53,280

50% of people make less than £31,242 0

10,000

20,000

30,000 40,000

£0

FIG. 026 Average architect's salary UK (source: Payscale 2015)

50,000

Median: £31,242

60,000

23K

27K

25%

31K

50%

36K

75%

43K

100%

Your mum Dodgy warehouse Shortlife property Dodge four bed house Student living plus Tiny properties John Lewis homes Zone 1 Springboard Care-in-Kind Start up city

The team found the John Lewis Homes strategy particularly intriguing. It is a housing strategy where big companies like John Lewis would go to developers and ask them to build affordable housing for their lower income employees. This strategy inspired the idea of having local creative firms that would co-invest on developing small-scaled housing projects close to the work place, providing affordable rents as part of the employee’s benefit package. As we’ve observed, the work force has been undergoing a paradigm shift, where workers are encouraged to work from anywhere and companies are starting to implement working from home part of the days or one to two full days working from home per week. This is in-part due to the increasing number of jobs and lack of affordable office space that can accommodate the increasing number of workers, and also due to the technological advancement of communication methods.

Median Total Salary:

£30,122

• • • • • • • • • •

Median: £31,242 In addition, households are becoming more dynamic, where unit sharing is becoming the norm due to housing shortage, along with 31K 43K high rents. 36K Figures 023-024 show the average property prices and rental prices in N1 and EC1. Figure 025. shows a prediction of annual housing requirement from 2015-2035 by tenure and size in London. Figure 025. confirms the high demand in affordable housing, especially 50% 75% 100% one-bedroom units. With this in mind, we focused on developing an affordable housing scheme suitable for young, lower-income, creative professionals. Figure 026. shows the average annual income of a young architect (less than 2 year experience) (the proposed occupant type). Based on the Mayor of London's affordable housing criteria of 35% of income, the rent for our proposed building shall be below 200 pound per week.

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Brief The project started with the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desire to explore solutions to address Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing shortage crisis. With the help from lessons learnt from Copper Lane and SED 2014-2015 Term 2Project, Millennium Chill, the team began initial analytical studies to identify the optimal parameters and adaptive strategies to create a package of simple site selection criteria and general design guidelines. The main goal for our term project is to design well-tailored and welllit homes that are affordable, flexible, with high quality atmospheres, and situated within well-connected neighborhoods with easy access to public transportation and amenities. We do not define affordable housing in the traditional sense, where the building would be the cheapest to build. It is affordable in the sense that investors, which will be the residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; employers, will subsidize the rent. We are particularly interested in re-using and re-positioning the soon-to-be obsolete single storey small garages/storage units that are scattered throughout London OR small vacant lots that are undesirable by developers due to size and shape of the lot, identified on Figures 027-028. This term project aims to increase the density of the built environment while not drastically altering the character of the neighborhood. The goal is to densify carefully and softly, taking into consideration the surrounding needs and using existing neighborhood patterns as a guide. In sum, we would like to design using contextual approaches. The question is, how do we achieve all of the above sustainably? We proposed to look into a simple construction system that requires a low-tech system that would satisfy all the requirements of thermal insulation, cold bridging, noise protection, fire protection, security, space dimension standards, etc. In addition, various passive adaptive measures will be implemented to provide flexible control to the occupants.

FIG.027 Aerial context map showing an extent of a 15-min. walking radius from project site at Diespeker Wharf and other potential sites within the neighborhood (after Google Earth)

Potential Sites

White Lion Street

Micawber Street

Windsor Terrace

vacant lot ~ 10x19 = 190 m2

garage ~ 10x10 = 100 m2

garage ~ 5x17 = 85 m2

FIG.028 Aerial context map and diagram photos showing the size and characteristics of a few potential sites (after Google Earth)

We chose to focus our design research on Islington due to its vibrancy and abundance of social amenities such as theaters, art galleries, restaurants, cafes and shops. It’s also becoming a popular area for young creatives to come and hangout. However, the area is becoming increasingly more gentrified. We identified a shortage of affordable housing within the area and would like to implement this type of project in this neighborhood. The team took three site walks to identify potential sites for the types of infill housing projects that we would like to research and design. We discovered many single-storey, small garages scattered throughout the area as well as some small vacant lots. Figures XX-XX show the locations and characteristics of these potential sites. These sites suit the team’s interest in re-using and revitalizing residual spaces. As a result, the following site selection criteria was developed: • • • • •

Small (80m2 - 300m2) Leftover space OR above small single-story garages Not suitable for functional open green space Located within a desirable neighborhood Close to public transportation

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Guidelines After some site layout analysis, the team arrived at a module configuration for one, two, and three bedroom units using typical car parking slot as a measuring guide. (Figures 029-030) Due to smallsized sites, one to two units with a single access core should be considered. More than two units would require an additional core, and since the potential sites are likely to have multiple constraints, layouts that do not follow the modular configuration would be more difficult to construct cost effectively. In addition, two cores for 3-4 units are cost prohibiting. The following list notes the general development guidelines:

N W

W W

E S

5.5

Typical parking space at garages: 3m width by 5.5m length with 2 meters in front

N N S S

W W

E E

N N S S

5.5

7.5

7.5 2.0

2.0

9.0 80m2 - 300m2 with 1 - 2 units per floor per core For 1 unit developments, site conditions must allow at least 6 floors without negatively impacting surrounding environments. (6 units - 12 to 18 occupants) For 2 unit developments, site conditions must allow at least 4 floors without negatively impacting surrounding environments. (8 units - 32 to 48 occupants)

E E

21.0

3.0

12.0

FIG. 029

24.0

Minimum Site Size

FIG. 030

Double Unit Building Layout Example

N N Rules of thumb for Shading devices design W E W E S

Access Core: 1 parking space 1-bedroom unit: 2.5 parking spaces 2-bedroom unit: 4 parking spaces 3-bedroom unit: 5 parking spaces Possible configurations based on number of parking spaces available at the specific site: 1b+1core= 3.5 parking spaces = 4 parking spaces required 2b+1core= 5 parking spaces required 3b+1core= 6 parking spaces required 1b+1b+1core= 2.5+2.5+1=6 parking spaces required 1b+2b+1core=2.5+4+1=7.5 parking spaces = 8 parking spaces required 1b+3b+1core=2.5+5+1=8.5 parking spaces = 9 parking spaces required 2b+2b+1core=4+4+1= 9 parking spaces required 2b+3b+1core=4+5+1=10 parking spaces required 3b+3b+1core=5+5+1=11 parking spaces required

No shading device Installation : North Faรงade

Overhang Installation : South Faรงade

Shortened-Vertical-Slanted Fins Installation : North East / North West

Overhang + Vertical-Slanted Fins Installation : South East / South West

If building on a garage site or small parking strip then 1b+2b and 1b+3b combinations are neither as cost nor space efficient.

Orientation requirement: core should not be located on the south side For 1 unit development: if south facade is completely obstructed, then core shall be located on the south to allow for solar exposure on the west / east and diffused daylight from the north.

FIG. 031

Rules of thumb for Shading devices design

Vertical-Slanted Fins Installation : West/East Faรงade

E W

N W N NW E S NW E

-60% -80%

75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Degree Rotated

SW SE

N E SW N E

N E SE

E N

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10%

75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Degree Rotated

District Cooling Saving

District Heating Saving

N E

Shading design rules of thumb application 2 SE

FIG. 033

Shading design rules of thumb application 1

50%

FIG. 032

-40%

N W

SE SW

N E

-20%

E N

NNE W

W N

75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Degree Rotated

Single Unit with East Core Orientation Study

-100%

S N

20%

N E

W W

E N

W N SW

W N

E N

SW SE

5 5

W 4

S E

S N N

NE S N

N E SW N E

SE SW

S S

E S

E WE

N S E E

NNE S WW

4E W

E S E

Single Unit with West Core Orientation Study

N W WS E S S

S NS

W S

W W

10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% -90%

W N NW E N E

W W

E W

SN W2 N

S E

W N NW E S NW E

S N

3N W

E 3

% Compare to Base Case

E N E

S E

S N

W SW

Double Unit Orientation Study

W W E NS S E

W N N 2 W W E SE W W 1 N S S S S W E N N N

W W

SW SE

W W

N 3

W W

W W 1

N W N NW E N E

% Compare to Base Case

W W

% Compare to Base Case

SW SE SE

Orientation & Rules of Thumb Application

FIG. 034

Cooling & heating load for diffrent building orientation

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Guidelines

4,500.00

D01

*Base = No obstruction

N E SE

E S

N E N

S SWE

N E SE

N E

S SWE

N E SE

N E SW

The surrounding context of the potential sites could become obstructions. Nearby buildings might sheltered the site from the solar gain which would affect the building performance. In case of obstruction on single unit type building, the core should be put on next to the obstruction in order to minimize the impact to the residential and commercial unit. The graph and diagrams (Figures 031-038 ) show how different location and orientation of the obstructions would affect the performance of the building by comparing the heating and cooling load. 5,000.00

S SWE

Solar obstruction on Double Unit Type

E S

D02

D03

4,000.00

E SENE N SE

SW S W

N SE E SE

S SWE

N SWE

W N

W E S W

N SW

E SE

N SEN

NNE W

W N

S N N SWE SW E W

E SW N SW

N SW

E N SE

NNE W

W SW W N

E E

D04

N SE N E

2,000.00

N SW N E S SWE

N SW

2,500.00

N SW

N SE

W N SW

3,000.00

3,500.00

NNE W

D05

D06

1,500.00

D07 FIG. 035 Heating & cooling load for different obstruction scenarios (Double Unit Type)

FIG. 036

D08 Different obstruction scenarios (Double Unit Type)

E N SE

N SE

W N SW

E N SE

W SW

N SW

N SE

E N

D09

Cooling Load [kW/year]

N SE

W N

Heating Load [kW/year]

N SE

W N SW

E N SE

W SW

E N N SE

N SW

N SE

W N SW

N SE

N SW

E N SE

W N SE

W N SW

E N SE

N W N

Base D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 D08 D09

N SE

W N

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

Solar obstruction on Single Unit Type

N E S

W S

S01

S02

*Base = No obstruction

4,500.00

4,000.00

3,500.00

3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

1,500.00

1,000.00

5,000.00

S03

E E

E SE

N NE E SE SE

SW SW

N SE

N NE E S SEE SW

SW SW

N SE

SE SE

SW SW

N NE E

N E

N SE

W N SW

E N SE N E

500.00

0.00

W S SEE SW

SW SW

N N NE E SW

S E W N SE

N NE E N W W N

N SE N SE

W SW

SE SE

S NE NE E SW

SW SW

N SW

SW SW SW

N NW W

E E

N NE E N W

N SE

N NW W W N SW

E N S NE E SE

W SW

SE SE

SE N NE E SW

S06

E SW SW

N SW

SW SW

N SE

N NE E N W

N NW W ES SW W

S05

Base S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09

Heating Load [kW/year]

S08

Cooling Load [kW/year]

E N

W N

E N

W N

E N

W N

E N

W N

E N

FIG. 038 Heating & cooling load for different obstruction scenarios (Single Unit Type) N

E N

W N

Different obstruction scenarios (Single Unit Type)

E N

FIG. 037

S09

S07

S04

Consumption of typical appliances

Appliance Information

Annual Consumption (kWh) Annual

1800Consumption

1400

1000

1250

158 105

105

ro w av

T W D umMac ashi ry b h ng er leine W M as ac hi hi ng ne

e ro w T o av a e ste r To T as u Dt m rey b rer le

158

ra er at tor or

ig Re

pt opL

le vi Te

Appliance Information based on occupancy schedule

Dwelling Space Standards: Minimum Dwellings and Room Sizes

Dwelling Space Standards per London Housing Design Guide

Minimum recommended dwelling areas: bedrooms and person occupancy Minimum dwelling areas dwelling size - ﬂat

1B 2P 48-50 m

2B 3P 2

61 m

2B 4P

3B 5P

86 m

70 m

Proposed typology Minimum dwelling areas

dwelling size - ﬂat

Minimum room areas living/dining kitchen room

23 m

25 m

27 m

2.8 m

Double bedroom

29 m

3.2 m

11.5-12 m

2B 3P 63 m

1.5 m

minimum living room width

Single bedroom

2.15-2.3 m

minimum double room width

34 m

minimum double room width

7.5-8 m

Single bedroom

living/dining kitchen room

Double bedroom

2.75 m

minimum double room width

storage internal

1B 2P

2B 4P

3B 5P 74 m

Minimum room areas

minimum living room width

FIG. 039 Table. 1

126

82126

5482

ob Hob

200 54 0

i rg le er

371 371

400

200

600

400

850

C M oﬀ C ac Mee oﬀ hi ac ee ne hi ne

600

1000

si o M T n e o Ch b le ar ile visi ge M on Cr ob

Figures 039. illustrates our proposed lifestyle projection. Figures 040 clarify the electrical appliance loads and wattage we are using for this design proposal.

1600

1250

850

1752

to p

1400

1800

1600

Table 1. compares the London Housing Design Guide unit space standards to the proposed 1-3 bedrooms unit typologies. While we understand that housing demand keeps increasing and there’s a scarcity of developable land within London, we chose to follow (more/ less) the Design Guide space standards partly because we believe it would provide a higher quality of life and allows for different household dynamics. Additionally, with the future lifestyle that we are projecting where people would work from home half of the time, it is imperative to provide sufficient living and working spaces.

1752

(kWh)

Design Guidelines

Consumption of typical appliances

et tle Ke Mt ticle

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

minimum single room width 2

2-2.5 m

2.5-3 m

storage internal

37 m

3.2 m 10.60 m

2.75 m 7.60 m

2.75 m 3.50 m

3.30 m

Future Scenario 23

18 7 0

23 22

COMMUNITY

Occupancy Schedule (Weekends) COMMUNITY

Weekend Occupancy Schedule Weekday Occupancy Schedule 2015 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays) 2050 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays) Occupancy Schedule (Weekends) Present Present

Moderate/Low Heat Gains 18

COMMUNITY High 23 Heat0Gains

Moderate/Low Heat Gains

Moderate/Low Heat Gains Moderate/Low Heat Gains

Mod

High Heat Gains

High Heat Gains High Heat Gains

High

Home

Work

Home

Work

19 18

Occupancy Schedule (Weekends)

Moderate/Low Heat Gains

High Heat Gains

Home

Work

upancy Schedule (Weekends)

Weekday Occupancy Schedule 2050

2015 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays) 2050 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays)

FIG. 040 Heat Gains Proposed Future Scenario and Occupancy Schedule Heat Gains Moderate/Low Moderate/Low

Hom

2015 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays) 2050 Occupancy Schedule (Weekdays)

Home

2015 Occ

Weekend Occupancy Schedule Occupancy Schedule 2050 (Weekends)

Moderate/Low Heat Gains

High Heat Gains

Home

2015 Occ

Mod 29

High

Hom

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Precedent Studies Copper Lane Co-Housing Copper Lane Co-housing was the starting point of investigation into strategies for new small-scaled housing projects in London. Two team members studied Copper Lane for their Term 1 case study project and were able to provide insights into strategies for a high performance timber framed building. This precedent inspired further research into recycled materials and alternative timber frame construction methodologies. The team has focused on designing a residential scheme with a low carbon footprint and high quality atmosphere. This design inspiration, paired with adaptive opportunities, encourages a more sustainable way of living with climate change and its rising temperatures. Figures 052-054 shows the design of Copper Lane. Findings from the Copper Lane case study confirmed that heavily concentrated windows (40% W/F area ratio) on the southern orientation created overheating problems in the summer. Due to the absence of overhangs, the team proposed adding canopies as a key retrofitting strategy to reduce the solar heat gains. We took this into consideration and elaborated on each of the different schemes of solar control according to the facade and orientation. The case study also provided insight into how to balance public and private areas shared by a household of more than five occupants. The public and private areas were arranged with public areas in the middle of the building, allowing all occupants equal access to the space. The surrounding setbacks served as both semi public gardens and separate entrances. We incorporated these strategies into our planning and design by having a similar layout; locating the core in the middle in order to allow equal access from each room. We also provided each household with their own garden on the rooftop terrace. This case study also stresses the importance of ventilation in an airtight timber framed building, in order to prevent overheating during the warm period. This led the architects to the use of an MVHR system, which was a balanced and efficient way of ventilating each of the two and three storey houses.

FIG. 052

Copper Lane building shape and layout plan

FIG. 053

Copper Lane outdoor deck

Understanding the implication of the 40% W/F ratio on a southern faรงade with no overshadowing, the team began evaluating our typology site using the following: a starting 27% W/F ratio for double bedroom and 20% W/F ratio for the single bedroom on the southwest faรงade; a 28% W/F ratio for the northeast faรงade (due to desires to maximize views of canal). These were used as starting points after considering the site's constrained orientation of 24.58 degrees due south due to site geometry, view access, and partial overshadowing from an apartment building across the street.

FIG. 054

Copper Lane outdoor deck

Precedent Studies Millennium Chill Design: AA SED 2014-2015 Term2 Project Type of Building: Mixed Uses (Residenital + Commecial)

The Millennium chill Project is a very interesting project. The team who had produced this pieces of work were obviously work hard and the result was very admireable. Millenium Chill strategies were (Figure 055.) 1.) Shallow Plan 2) Parametric Shading Device 3) Well insulated 4.) Instead of useing triple glazing their choice of fanestration material were Double Glazing with Argon filles which have U-Value 1.80 W/m2 K 5.) Using elevated space to generate community activityx

Well insulated building = improve winter performance

Shallow Plan with Parametric Shading Device allow the control of daylight distribution on the designated spot.

FIG. 055

Double Glazing with Argon filled = Better Performance

Elevated Floor = Ground Floor Commercial/mixed use space which help create activities and relationships within the community

Millenium Chill Design and positive strategy diagrams

Site Overview Site Location 34 Site History 35 Site Analysis 36-39

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Site Overview

51° 31’ 48” N 0° 5’ 56” W

Site Location After identifying 11 potential sites for small infill housing projects within and around the Islington Borough, we picked a small wedge plot next to the Regent Canal close to the City Road Basin as a prototype design study (Figure 041 & Figure 043). In the 18th century, this area used to house resort like estates for the wealthy and then the Railway Yard came in the 19th century, along with the working class. The Regent Canal was also built to ship coal and iron up and down. Slowly, the Middle and Upper class moved out of this area and the area became poor and lots of housing were built. After WWII, the area became more of a slum, needing much cleaning and rebuilding. In 2004, a masterplan for the City Road Basin was developed to revitalize the area. (Figure 042.) However, mainly only luxury flats or condos have been built so far (Figures XX-XX). The zoning diagram (Figure 048.) shows that the site has been zoned for mixed-use, surrounded primarily by residential. Majority of the residential buildings are Georgina / Victorian style with some scattered post-war buildings such as the Jessop Court across the street from the site. Figure XX shows modern buildings are rapidly encroaching from the southeast. Figures 049-050 provide an idea of the neighborhood characteristic with some newly constructed buildings near the chosen project site, which are mostly luxury apartments.

Angel Station

The site is approximately 600m from the Angel Tube Station and 1,250m from Old Street Tube Station. There are 19 bus routes connecting through Angel that are easily reachable from the site. This neighborhood is fairly bike-friendly due to its relatively flat topography and includes direct routes to the City and the West End. Numerous bike-shared amenities (10 within Angel) are within walking distance from the site. Currently, there’s even a bike-share right in front of the site along the sidewalk. One aspect of sustainable living entails commuting less to and from work via cars or trains, etc. Providing housing within walking or biking distance to the work place is one of our key goals. Since the site we chose to test our design proposal is located in an area with over 60 architectural practices within a 15 minute radius walking distance (Figure 052), we chose young architects as potential occupants as a prototype study. As stated in the Design Brief section, the idea is that companies or firms in the creative industry would coinvest in this type of small housing projects. In turn, they can use this as part of their employee benefit package to draw and maintain new talents. Proposed Occupant Type: Young architects of 20-something to early 30s; singles, couples, and young families

Old Street Station FIG. 041 Aerial context map showing an extent of a 15-minute walking radius from project site at Diespeker Wharf (after Google Earth)

Site History Railway Yard Working Class Moved in Loss Middle -Upper Class

Resort - City Escape Site for the upper class Residential turned into Shop & Inn

Poor Municipal Housing

Slum Clearance Housing Replacement

Lacking of Open Spaces

Rehabitation by Well-to-do

1930s

City Road Basin

1960s Canal Trade Collasped

The Building of Regents Canal to ship coal & Iron from Industrial area up north

City Road was built

Closed to Public

Islington 1500

600

1300

500

1100

400

900

300

700

200

500

100

300 (No. of Houses)

18 th FIG. 042

2004 -2009 Master Plan

19 th

(Person/Hectare)

20 th

WW II

21 st

2050

Site History Diagram

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Site Overview Site Analysis The chosen site is a private piece of land that’s part of the Diespeker Wharf. Figure 049. (top left image) shows that it is currently closed off by a 2.5m tall brick wall. This tall wall makes walking along the sidewalk unwelcoming and tight. An initial idea is to remove the brick wall and create an open space that invites pedestrians to sit, socialize, and enjoy the canal view. The bricks can be salvaged for cladding part of the proposed building facades. Reusing the bricks would reduce the project’s embodied carbon emissions as well as cost. It would also create an aesthetic that ties to the Diespeker Wharf brick facades. The Diespeker Wharf (Figure 045.) is a listed Victorian timber mill acquired by Pollard Thomas Edwards in 1994 and was restored and transformed into PET’s headquarter office. The building has three mezzanine levels suspended from existing trusses. The original pyramidal foundations were excavated in order to double the floor space on the lower ground floor.

FIG. 044 Historical photo of Diespeker Wharf. Viewed from Graham Street (source: http://www.diespeker.co.uk/about/)

Expansive frameless glass windows have been added to the west facade, nicely framing the views out to the canal. A recent addition of a modern glass building was built directly north of the Wharf. The Wharf’s gabled roof shape inspired the proposed roof geometry, which is also ideal for PV installation, 30-degree angle facing southeast. The Wharf’s tall chimney and crane suggest a vertical language to be carried onto the proposed building façade.

FIG. 043 Site plan showing location of proposed building (after OpenStreetMap and after site plan by PTE)

Local Landmark

FIG. 045 View of the restored Diespeker Wharf (source: http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/project/diespeker-wharf/)

Zoning Residential Retail Commercial Mixed-use Industrial School Park Brownfield

FIG. 046 Zoning map (after OpenStreetMap)

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Site Overview Site Analysis

FIG.049 38

Surrounding building typologies // (top left) looking at the Diespeker Cottage and brick wall // (top right) looking west of Graham Road // (middle left) looking at Diespeker Wharf and modern glass building (middle right) looking at Diespeker Wharf from the bridge // (bottom left) looking at a glass luxury apartment building // (bottom right) view from City Road Basin

= = =

georgian / victorian buildings modern / contemporary buildings

= 60 = 9

architecture firms

daycare centers

in-construction

FIG.050 Diagram showing context building typologies (after OpenStreetMap and Google Earth)

FIG.051 Diagram showing architectural firms within a 15-min. walking radius from project site (after OpenStreetMap and Google Earth)

Design Proposal Construction System 42 Materiality 43 Layout Studies 44-47 Facade and Window Design 48-49 Adaptive Details & Ventilation 50-51 Atmosphere renderings 52-53

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Prefabricated Structures Prefabricated construction methods are widely used nowadays because of their cost effectiveness, as well as faster and simpler on-site assembly. The prefabricated panels will be constructed locally at a FlySky factory within 10mile radius of the project site using local labor, and will be shipped to the project site for final fitting and finishes. As most of the potential sites would be small and close to residential and office areas, the dried construction method would allow construction work to be done during the daytime without disturbing the neighborhood and reducing the required space for working. Lightweight materials such as timber and straw bale were chosen so that large equipment such as a big crane would not be needed; often such big equipment would not be possible on constrained small sites. The 70% GGBS concrete foundation & vertical core are used because of the flexibility for any site conditions and its ability to bear more loads and fire resistance.

70% GGBS Concrete 70% GGBS Concrete Glulam Glulam Laminated Timber CrossCross Laminated Timber Finishing Finishing Double Glazing Double Glazing E & Argon-Filled Low ELow & Argon-Filled

The unit layout was made simple by using a module system of 2-bale wide panels (3m by 2.1m) and 3-bale wide panels (3mX3.2m). The repetition of material size and form would make the construction work run smoothly, minimizing waste, and reducing the manufacturing cost. Figure 056. illustrates the simplicity and efficiency of the proposed construction system. After the wet work of casting in-situ 70% GGBS concrete for core and foundation have been done, the prefabricated components can be assembled on top of the foundation with a small crane in the following order; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Glulam column on top of the concrete ground slab or column base Composited glulam floor beams Cross laminated timber floor slab Exterior Wall frame system & Straw bale panels Windows & Doors Interior walls with insulation Interior Floor & Ceiling and Wall Finishing

Further detail material analysis will be explored in the Sustainability section to follow.

FIG. 056

Prefabrication construction system diagram

Materiality The team primarily focused on researching low embodied carbon materials for the structure and climate control shown in Figure 057. The cladding on the proposed building facades will mainly be reclaimed small-dimensioned wood of alike colors that can be prefabricated in the same “Flysky” factory for the straw bale wall panels. Figure 058 illustrates the composition of such rainscreen cladding, showing two different types of wood with small bolder color wood pieces distributed throughout. This composition provides a subtle rhythm where upon closer examination the dynamic playfulness comes cross, adding more interest. The team proposed to salvage the bricks from the demolition of the existing 2.5 meter tall site wall and reuse as cladding on the side facades. As mentioned in the Site Analysis section, reusing the bricks would help link the proposed building with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly the Diespeker Wharf brick building.

Straw Bale wall panels

Glulam support

Cross Laminated

] CO2

70% GGBS Concrete

] CO2

Newspaper Insulation

Double Glazing LowE - Argon

] CO2

Straw Bale Timber Frame Panels

PROS: • affordable • renewable • utilize an agricultural waste product and eliminate disposal problem for farmers • excellent insulation (insulation values of R-30 to R-35 • with thick straw bale walls, all windows can have a window seat or shelf -- space saving feature • low-embodied energy and carbon • Straw bales are 100% biodegradable when the building is at its end of life • properly constructed walls made from straw bales (densely bound) have proven to be more flame retardant than conventional woodframe construction due to their denseness • • • •

Load Bearing Wall Panel

Timber Frame Structure/ Internal Wall Stud

Timber Floor Slab

Foundation & Footing

Internal Wall Insulation

1400 CO2 kg per panel

0.87 CO2 kg per kg

250 CO2 kg per m2

0.101 CO2 kg per kg

GWP -1.9

U-Value = 0.19 W/m²K

U-Value = 0.13 W/m²K

U-Value = 0.14 W/m²K

U-Value = 0.3-0.09 W/m²K

U-Value =1.5 W/m²K.

Waster Product Economical Renewable

Renewable Aesthetic

Waste Product Lower Carbon than Conventional Concrete Economical

Waste Product Economical

Economical

FIG. 057

Materiality Study Chart

FIG. 058

Recycled wood rainscreen cladding on proposed building design

Fenestration

fast construction lightweight sequest carbon closed panel system (pipes and cables are incorporated) = ensure an even standard of quality control

CONS: • keeping the bales dry is crucial // tricky/problems with water vapour at the junctions with other materials • the thick walls would reduce overall usable square footage • need to find local sources or else shipping cost would be high and transportation carbon would increase • long lead time (12-16 weeks) compared to masonry systems • not suitable for hanging heavy objects on the inside walls (not appropriate for picture galleries), but can solve the problem by using fibre reinforced plasterboard

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Room Type Layout Massing and Orientation Generally, standards such as the Passivhaus recommend designing the building to be north/south facing, allowing solar gains to be shaded and controlled easier. However, due to site constraints, the proposed building faces 24.58 degree off of south (Figure 062-64).

Residential Unit Layout: First, our cost-effective criteria lead to the modular typology which aims to limit the variations on the wall panel sizes. Secondly, access to the canal view was a key driver of the floor plan layout. The team decided that it would be best to locate the living areas on the northern edge of the site so these spaces with the longest daytime occupied hours would get access to the views. Window to floor ratios will be higher than typical northern faรงade due to the desire to frame and maximize views. The bedrooms are located on the southern faรงade with lower window to floor ratios and adjustable solar shadings. Figures (059-061) shows the typical floor plan layout

Core Design and Rationale: Natural light and ventilation are provided for the access core with the opening at the southern faรงade. An overhang with a depth of 0.8m prevents rain from entering the core and provides summer solar shading to decrease an overheated access core, since it acts as a transitional space to the residential units. A wheel chair accessible lift has been built into the scheme for different unit configurations for projects on other sites as well. The London Housing Design Guide requires a lift to be provided for any dwellings that entered on or above the 4th floor (5th storey). Technically, the prototype building, which is 4 floors, would not be required to have a lift. However, the team believes that it is important to provide easy access to residents and visitors that need accessibility assistance. Additionally, it is a convenience that supports high quality of life. For example, parents with trolleys and heavy groceries would benefit from having a lift. However, the design also encourages residents to utilize the stairs on regular basis by increasing the width of the staircase, making it more inviting. This exercise would foster a healthier lifestyle and minimize electrical load from choosing to use the lift regularly. While we understand that installing an elevator in a small-scaled project is not as cost effective, we believe the value of flexibility and accessibility would offset its cost. In addition, buildings on other potential sites may go higher than 4 floors and require a lift. Having it embedded as part of the construction method guideline makes the design process more coherent.

FIG. 059

FIG. 060

1 Bedroom unit - Floor Plan

FIG. 061

2 Bedrooms unit - Floor Plan

3 Bedroom unit - Floor Plan

1st Floor - 4th Floor Plan

䐀愀礀挀愀爀攀倀氀愀礀䄀爀攀愀䐀愀礀挀愀爀攀

䌀愀昀攀

FIG. 062

1st - 5th Floor Plan

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Site Design

Regent Canal

Gr ah

re e

Fin

tag

Pollard Thomas Edwards Crystal Wharf Residential

FIG. 063

Site plan

Ground Floor Plan

䐀愀礀挀愀爀攀倀氀愀礀䄀爀攀愀䐀愀礀挀愀爀攀

䌀愀昀攀

FIG. 064

Ground floor plan

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Wood rainscreen cladding Lime Render

600

600 600

1000

2370

Photovoltaic panels Roof terrace and garden Trellis

1000

Rooftop communal garden +16900

Facade and Window Design:

Daylight simulations done by previous team for the New Oxford Street project prove that the part of a window below desk height would not contribute much to daylighting. In addition, that extra glazed surface below desk height can increase heating / cooling load. With the thick straw bale panel walls, raising the windows to seat height can create seat ledges, making the walls more functional and versatile, while creating more usable spaces. With this in mind, the team raised the windows to start at a height of 0.6 to 0.9meter and extend them to the ceiling. We raised the windows to 0.6m in the living rooms to provide a reading seat ledge and 0.9m for other windows to use the ledge for potted plants and other household decorative items. Daylight visualizations for different times and periods confirm the good distribution of daylight with the above-mentioned strategies (see Lighting Analysis Section).

3200 3200 2600

Second floor (Residential) +7300 3200

Naturally ventilated stair access

Glulam timber column Daycare Main entrance to core

3500

First floor (Residential) +4100 4100

Splayed window reveals are possible with the thick strawbale walls which help distribute daylight within the bedrooms, helping to reduce the need for larger windows to provide adequate daylight for occupants that like to work in the bedrooms during their afternoon work-from-home sessions. In addition, light-coloured window reveals were chosen to reduce glare issues and increase daylight potential.

Third floor (Residential) +10500

FIG. 065

1000

Photovoltaic panels Roof terrace and garden Trellis

Wood rainscreen cladding

3114

600

3114

600

Roof Apex +19270 Rooftop communal garden +16900

Lime Render

Fourth floor (Residential) +13700 3200

Double glazed windows

Ground (Daycare + Cafe) +0000

Site South Elevation

2370

It is possible to add openable panels above the doors of the rooms to enhance cross-ventilation in the future if air temperature gets even warmer than the 2050 predictions.

Double glazed windows Adaptive overhang/ night shutter

Fourth floor (Residential) +13700

3200

Window design considerations focus on delivering effective natural ventilation for each unit, as well as, maximizing views to the canal while minimizing excessive heat lose through glazing in the winter. Dual aspect units have been proposed and tested to provide cross-ventilation. Top and bottom hopper windows were also tested in the thermal model to see how much is needed in order to increase the stack effect potential.

Roof Apex +19270

3200

Design Proposal

1000 1000

Green wall 1600

3200

Third floor (Residential) +10500

2600

3200

Second floor (Residential) +7300

3500

Glulam timber column Co-working Cafe

4100

First floor (Residential) +4100

FIG. 066

Site North Elevation

Ground (Daycare + Cafe) +0000

Roof terrace and garden Trellis

2370

Wood rainscreen cladding Salvaged brick facade or lime render

3200

600

Roof Apex +19270 Rooftop communal garden +16900

Adaptive overhang / night shutter Green wall

3200

Fourth floor (Residential) +13700

1600

Double glazed windows

3200

Third floor (Residential) +10500

3500

First floor (Residential) +4100 4100

Glulam timber column Daycare Main entrance to Co-working Cafe

2600

3200

Second floor (Residential) +7300

FIG. 067

Site East Elevation

Ground (Daycare + Cafe) +0000

Rooftop terrace and garden Photovoltaic panels

2370

Wood rainscreen cladding Salvaged brick facade or lime render

3200

Roof Apex +19270

Elevations: The northeast and southwest facades are configured differently due to difference in solar access. Figures 084-85 shows the number of solar access on the southeast facade and Figure 086-087 compare the different amount of solar incident radiation on all four different facades. These solar analysis diagrams helped the team decide the placement and size of windows, which were finalized after thermal simulations. Heat gain from occupants and appliances is much lower in the southeast rooms. Thus, the glazing on the southwest side of building needed to be smaller to prevent excessive heat loss in the cold period. Since the rooms are much smaller on this side of the building, smaller windows and adaptive shading were implemented to prevent overheating during the summer. On the northeast facade, large windows were provided in order to receive more diffused daylight for working-from-home periods in the afternoons to evenings and to maximize the view of the waterfront. A green wall was also added to the northeast facade in order to screen the blank elevator core and to create a more natural presence to those who take strolls down the canal area. On the southwest side of the roof terrace, Photovoltaic panels were installed to harvest renewable energy to offset the building's residual energy load. Figures 065-068 illustrate the different facade design, materiality, and dimensions.

Rooftop communal garden +16900

Adaptive overhang / night shutter Naturally ventilated stair access

3200

Fourth floor (Residential) +13700

1600

Double glazed windows

3200

Third floor (Residential) +10500

3500

First floor (Residential) +4100 4100

Glulam timber column Co-working Cafe Main entrance to daycare Outdoor seating area

2600

3200

Second floor (Residential) +7300

FIG. 068

Site West Elevation

Ground (Daycare + Cafe) +0000

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Solar Control & Night Shutter: We identified two reasonable (smallest depth for maximum daylighting) options from a list of parametric solar shading analysis and perform thermal simulations to arrive at an optimal choice. The final parameters for the shading devices aim to not significantly compromise winter solar gain while reducing enough summer solar heat gain to prevent overheating and still allow for sufficient daylight admittance.

Furthermore, thermal simulations suggest an overhang of 0.4m depth over the 0.2m depth per parametric solar shading analysis on other three facades. As a result, more detailed studies have been conducted and the team arrived at an adjustable shading device that has a dual functionality (Figure 069). It is adjustable to allow the occupant to control how much shading is needed to achieve thermal comfort while still allowing for daylight admittance. Figure 087-2 illustrates solar incident radiation on glazing with no shading compared to Figure 087-3 showing solar incident radiation on glazing with adjustable overhang shading of 0.4m depth at 90 degree directly above the main window frames and below the hopper windows.

Ti 26o C

To 16o C Overhang (open)

Thermal simulations confirmed that the vertical fins on the northeast façade would not be needed since without the fins, the living areas and kitchen would still be in the comfort band. In additional, admitting the morning sun into the living spaces improves the atmospheres; waking people up and helping them start their day more attentively. Psychologically, the sunlight can help occupants feel more present and ready for the day.

Ti 25o C

TYPICAL SUMMER DAY Overhang folded down 30% Hopper opened (30%) Main windows opened 50% *Bedroom doors can be opened for extra air flow and cross ventilation

FIG. 070

Sectional diagram showing the adaptive opportunities and conditions on a typical summer day

During cold winter nights, the occupant can pull down the overhang folds, lift the horizontal sill panel, and then fasten the two pieces together to form an insulated night shutter. A thermal simulation (Figure 110) shows up to 1 K temperature improvement during the cold period, helping to bring the bedrooms into the comfort band for majority of the time during the winter.

Overhang (closed)

Solar access simulations show that by pulling the folding overhang panel down by 0.3m on June 21st, an average of 4% solar incident radiation falling on the glazing can be reduced on the southwest façade, 10% reduction on the northwest façade, and 4.5% reduction on the southeast façade (Figure 087-1). This level of adaptability can significantly decrease the risk of overheating within the bedrooms. This adaptive measure is crucial, especially if the occupants choose to work in the bedrooms during the afternoon per the team’s occupant lifestyle projection.

Ti 22o C To 12o C

In sum, the adaptable overhang is a convenient strategy of combining both night shutters and overhang while being able to adjust them to a certain degree. This allows the users to filter the amount of daylight and solar gains that enter the space as well as improve privacy. This paired with the passive stack ventilation allows for natural ventilation during the winter without opening the windows and reducing heat loss with the night shutters. Extra ventilation is also achieved during the summer while maximizing performance of the solar shading. 50 Figures 071-073 illustrate the adaptive strategies for winter and summer.

Ti 25o C

TYPICAL SUMMER NIGHT Overhang folded up 100% Hopper windows opened (30%) Main windows closed

FIG. 069

Isometric diagrams and sections of overhang / night shutter in operation

FIG. 071

Sectional diagram showing the adaptive opportunities on a typical summer night

Ventilation Studies Research Question: Can controlled natural ventilation be a viable option?

Ti 20o C

Ti 21o C

Options: A simple Passive Stack Ventilation (PSV) (Figure 074) system would be good for bathrooms and kitchens. Combined with openable windows. Uses a combination of cross-flow and stack / buoyancy (warm air rising) and the venture (wind passing over the terminals causing suction) effect.

T o 9o C

PVHR (Passive Ventilation with Heat Recovery) Figure 075. shows the ventilation system designed by Ventive company is completely passive; the system does not need electricity to run. Using a stack effect, the wind cowl which could be easily replaced old unused chimneys would provide sufficient fresh air requirement.

TYPICAL WINTER DAY Overhang folded up 100% Hopper windows closed Main windows closed

FIG. 074 FIG. 072

Diagram showing the Passive Stack Ventilation System (source: http://www.passivent.com/system-design)

Operation

Sectional diagram showing the adaptive opportunities and conditions on a typical winter day

Wind-assistance helps drive fresh air into system

Omni-directional Cowl dissipates stale air to atmosphere

A small heat exchange readily installed within the wind cowl would allow heat from exhaust air to be recovered back with the intake fresh air. The Ventive C model for non-residential space could provide averagely 100 litres per second @ 4.0 m/s wind speed (per 1 wind cowl) which would be suitable for educational space. With the average wind speed @ 3.3 m/s per second at the site the system should be able provide enough fresh prewarm air for the cafe and daycare with 2 wind cowls installed (1 per space).

Passive trickle side vents - grate with wooden door for ventilation (night time ventilation) 2

Up to 95% heat is recovered in dual-flow heat exchanger

Ti 19.5o C

Ti 19o C 1

To 6 C o

TYPICAL WINTER NIGHT Overhang folded down 100% Hopper windows closed Main windows closed

FIG. 073

Sectional diagram showing the adaptive opportunities and conditions on a typical winter night

Natural Air Buoyancy drives the process

Fresh, pre-warmed air enters the room, pulled by the escaping stale air and assisted by the wind

FIG. 075 Diagram showing the PVHR system (source: http://www.ventive.co.uk/passive-ventilation-heat-recovery/)

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Atmosphere: Figures 076-077 provide a sense of the exterior atmospheres generated by the proposed building. Figures 078-081 illustrate the overall atmospheres of the different interior spaces.

FIG. 076

Exterior view of the southern facade rendered with vray

52 (rendered in Rhino V-ray)

FIG. 077 Exterior rendering from across the canal showing the facade facing north during the summer period of September 21 12:00 PM (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

LIVING ROOM

adjustable room separator screen and movie screen

DOUBLE ROOM

adjustable overhang / night shutter

FIG. 078 Main living area and kitchen showing different activities in an open floor plan (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

FIG. 079 Double bedroom (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

CO-WORKING CAFE

DAYCARE PLAY AREA

FIG. 080 Co-working cafe scene (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

FIG. 081 Daycare play area scene (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

INDOOR STUDIES Exterior Solar Analysis 56-57 Daylight Analysis 58-69 Thermal Analysis 70-93

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Solar Analysis Summer June 21 at 12:00 PM

Research question: Would it be possible to achieve predominantly day lit spaces throughout the year with a building orientation 24.58 degree off of south and a shallow plan?

Winter December 21 at 12:00 PM

In general, would it be possible to maximize the use of daylight, provide good views and a good source of ventilation, while achieving thermal comfort? The objective is to provide controlled daylight and replace up to 80% of lighting energy consumption during the daytime hours. Minimum daylight factor is 1.5-2% in habitable rooms in housing, however, it is recommended that a daylight factor of 5% would achieve good daylighting and reduces the need for electrical lighting in overcast conditions.

FIG. 082 Top view of Solar Access during the summer period simulated using Honeybee

FIG. 084

South-west view of Solar Access during the summer period simulated using Honeybee

FIG. 083 Top view of Solar Access during the winter period simulated using Honeybee

FIG. 085

South-west view of Solar Access during the winter period simulated using Honeybee

As a rule of thumb, a ratio of 1:2 from the top of glazing height and the depth of the floor will allow for good illumination by daylight. The proposed layout for the bedrooms have a 2:3 ratio and the living areas have a 5:6 ratio, which should provide adequate illumination by daylight. However, since the southern façade is partially overshadowed by the apartment building, Jessop Court, across the street, detailed daylighting simulations were carried out to confirm the hypothesis on the passive zones, as well as, studying the effects the proposed shading devices have on daylight potential. Looking at the Base Case thermal performance and identifying solar radiation thresholds where the indoor temperature is within comfort band for both winter and summer, parametric analysis was carried out in order to derive an optimal depth and angle of shading that would reduce heat gain from solar radiation in the summer, while not undermining solar gain in the winter. Two different options for both the northeast and southwest facades were chosen to test in the thermal model to finalize on a solution. Northeast façade: Vertical Fins A: 0.3m depth, 30 degree off from perpendicular to facade. Vertical Fins B: 0.3m depth, 10 degree off from perpendicular to façade. Southwest façade: Overhang A: 0.2m depth Overhang B: 0.4m depth While performing climate-based annual daylighting simulations, the team decided to use the generic occupancy schedule from 8AM to 6PM (3650 hours) instead of complicating the process by creating custom schedules for each space. Although it would be more accurate to test the daylighting in each space using custom occupancy schedules, a study comparing different schedules done by LMN Architects has proven that the difference is small, about 4-5%. We decided that it is acceptable to generalize and use the 8AM to 6PM schedule to perform daylight analysis for this prototype project. Additionally, 8AM to 6PM is closely aligned with sunset and sunrise time in London. Since people’s perception of visual comfort is very dependent on context and adaptive opportunities, the proposed scheme prioritizes developing as many of these adaptive opportunities for both thermal and visual comfort as appropriate. As discussed in the Window Design section, the overhang/adjustable shading device on the southern facade would help reduce lighting contrast so the perceived lighting level is not diminished due to high contrast. Figures 088-089 are climate-based simulations comparing the daylight autonomy and UDIs for a scenario with shading and one without for the residential unit as well as the ground level facilities.

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Incident Solar Radiation on glazing N

Solar Analysis Solar access simulations show that by pulling the folding overhang panel down by 0.3m on June 21st, an average of 4% solar incident radiation falling on the glazing can be reduced on the southwest façade, 10% reduction on the northwest façade, and 4.5% reduction on the southeast façade. This level of adaptability can significantly decrease the risk of overheating within the bedrooms. This adaptive measure is crucial, especially if the occupants choose to work in the bedrooms during the afternoon per the team’s occupant lifestyle projection.

Southwest facades With Shading Device +0.3 pulled down

During cold winter nights, the occupant can pull down the overhang folds, lift the horizontal sill panel, and then fasten the two pieces together to form an insulated night shutter. A thermal simulation (Figure. XX) shows up to 1 K temperature improvement during the cold period, helping to bring the bedrooms into the comfort band for majority of the time during the winter.

JUNE 1 - 30 N

Northeast facade no shading / East facade typical o.4m depth overhang shading

MARCH 1 - 31 58

FIG. 086.

east 29.56 kWh/m2 north 14.78 kWh/m2

Incident solar radiation on Northeast Facades

JUNE 1 - 30

east 45.82 kWh/m2 north 41.11 kWh/m2

FIG. 087-1.

west 40.28 kWh/m2 south 29.98 kWh/m2

Incident solar radiation on Southwest Facades with shading device pulled down 0.3m

DECEMBER 1 - 31

east 7.84 kWh/m2 north 3.60 kWh/m2

MARCH 1 - 31 FIG. 087-2.

Southwest facades With Shading Device

west 16.68 kWh/m2 south 32.53 kWh/m2

JUNE 1 - 30

west 44.52 kWh/m2 south 31.18 kWh/m2

JUNE 1 - 30

west 51.93 kWh/m2 south 46.46 kWh/m2

DECEMBER 1 - 31

west 2.94 kWh/m2 south 12.02 kWh/m2

DECEMBER 1 - 31

west 3.39 kWh/m2 south 13.59 kWh/m2

Incident solar radiation on Southwest Facades with shading device

Southwest facades With NO Shading Device

MARCH 1 - 31 FIG. 087-3.

west 18.96 kWh/m2 south 41.91 kWh/m2

Incident solar radiation on Southwest Facades without shading device

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Daylight Analysis

Daylight // Typical Residential Unit // No Shading

Materials were chosen carefully to provide light and calm living spaces. Below is a list of the material reflectance used in the daylight model for base case. The team decided that the units are well-lit with the initial material choice, therefore, it is not necessary to test other materials. We also would like to use recyle low carbon materials as much as possible, therefore, the case was strong to keep the base case materials for all the simulations. Fig. 088 compares a typical residiental unit with no shading and with the 0.4m adjustable overhang. Adding the adjustable overhang on the southwest facade improves the Daylight Autonomy and UDI by about 1% and lower the potential for glare slightly. This percentage seems low but with the adjustabiliy of the overhang, occupants have full control on adjusting the light level they need. Additionally, the overhang does help reduce the risk of overheating in the summer. As a result, the team decided to implement the 0.4m adjustable overhang on the southwest facade.

sDA300 lux [50%] 59% Mean DF

2.8%

Living: 61.23% D.bed: 51.37% S.bed: 47.74%

Daylight Availability Living: 58.28% D.bed: 33.65% S. bed: 23.91%

Daylight Simulation Material Reflectance: Interior Surfaces Total Reflectance: Glazing: : 65% Wooden window frame: 38% flooring: 40% Wooden cabinet 38% White walls: 70% Light panels: 22.8% Yellow cabinet surfaces: 49% Wooden furniture: 38% Projector screen: 75% Table tops: 50% Chairs: 33% Tables & chairs metal legs: 34.8%

Daylight // Typical Residential Unit // 0.4m adjustable overhang (none on NE facade) sDA300 lux [50%] 60% Mean DF

2.8%

Living: 61.47% D.bed: 50.40% S.bed: 48.07%

FIGURE 088.

Annual climate-based daylight analysis diagrams showing typical residential floor daylight performance

Daylight Availability Living: 58.52% D.bed: 33.45% S. bed: 25.44%

Overlit Area (Potential for glare)

% of Occupied Hours

UDI<100 lux Living: 18.94% D.bed: 26.34% S. bed: 26.66%

UDI<100 lux Living: 18.61% D.bed: 26.35% S. bed: 26.42%

UDI<100-2000 lux 93% Living: 78.08% D.bed: 67.42% S. bed: 65.25%

UDI<100-2000 lux 94% Living: 78.39% D.bed: 67.64% S. bed: 65.71%

UDI>2000 lux Living: 2.99% D.bed: 6.18% S. bed: 7.99%

UDI>2000 lux Living: 3.01% D.bed: 6.01% S. bed: 7.95%

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Daylight Analysis

Daylight // Ground Floor Co-Working Cafe and Day Care // No shading

Figure 089 compares a base case with no shading device and the proposed case with adjustable 1m depth overhang on the Southwest facade. These spaces are designed to maximize views to the outdoor as well as enhancing the visitors' social experiences with the open and inviting envelope. The team chose to implement the ajustable overhang due to its multifunctionality. Even though it only improved sthe UDI by about 3%, it does provide a protected semi-outdoor space for people to move outside to take a break and get a change of scenery and be protected from direct solar radiation in the summer as well as keeping dry from the rain.

sDA300 lux [50%] 84% Mean DF

11.7%

Day Care: 68.46% Entrance: 62.84% Cafe: 79.66%

Daylight Availability Day Care: 58.28% Entrance: 33.65% Cafe: 23.91%

Daylight // Ground Floor Co-Working Cafe and Day Care // Yes adjustable 1m. overhang on SW. sDA300 lux [50%] 81% Mean DF

11.1%

Day Care: 52.21% Entrance: 31.41% Cafe: 62.34%

FIGURE 089.

Annual climate-based daylight analysis diagrams showing ground floor daylight performance

Daylight Availability Day Care: 39.03% Entrance: 20.51% Cafe: 34.68%

Overlit Area (Potential for glare)

% of Occupied Hours

UDI<100 lux Day Care: 27.94% Entrance: 30.55% Cafe: 16.27%

UDI<100 lux Day Care: 29.95% Entrance: 38.75% Cafe: 18.86%

UDI<100-2000 lux 51% Day Care: 62.46% Entrance: 61.51% Cafe: 66.92%

UDI<100-2000 lux 54% Day Care: 29.95% Entrance: 38.75% Cafe: 18.86%

UDI>2000 lux Day Care: 9.59% Entrance: 7.99% Cafe: 16.83%

UDI>2000 lux Day Care: 5.42% Entrance: 4.65% Cafe: 9.75%

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Daylight Analysis Figures 090-091 show show a well-lit living room at different period of the year under different sky conditions. This a desirable outcome, since it is the space that occupants will use the most during the day. This good quality atomosphere would perform well as a working space from 2:00 to 5:00pm. The well distributed daylight would improve occupants' focus and thus enhance productivitiy.

Illuminuance Visualizations // Living Room CIE Overcast Sky //

Mar 21 / 15:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Jun 21 / 15:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Dec 21 / 15:00

FIG. 090.

Living Room // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with overcast sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Mar 21 / 15:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Jun 21 / 15:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Dec 21 / 15:00

FIG. 091.

Living Room // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with clear sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

Daylight Analysis Figures 092-093 are comparing the rendered daylit double bedroom with false color renderings. These images show the working plane (desk) have the potential to get 300-400lux from March and June with both overcast and clear sky. This is a positive outcome, which suggest that occupants would have enough daylight to work in the work if they chose to during their half day work from home session. The adjustable overhang would provide the flexibility of reducing the daylight level if it does get too bright.

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Illuminuance Visualizations // Double Bedroom CIE Overcast Sky //

Mar 21 / 09:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Jun 21 / 09:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Dec 21 / 09:00

FIG. 092.

Double Bedroom // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with overcast sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Mar 21 / 09:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Jun 21 / 09:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Dec 21 / 09:00

FIG. 093.

Double Bedroom // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with clear sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Daylight Analysis Figures 094-095 shows how the lighting quality changes at during different period of the year. As expected, the daylight potential within this Day Care is high due to the team's desire to keep this space open, providing a nice indoor-outdoor experience for the kids. The March and June Clear Sky Day Visualization and Flase Color Image suggest that during these sunny periods, the space may be overlit. However, this may not cause discomfort as the visualization still shows an evenly distributed lighting quality. In addition, with the close tie to the semi-outdoor space, people have a higher tolerance and would be able to adjust to the changing conditions of the sky.

Illuminuance Visualizations // Day Care CIE Overcast Sky //

Mar 21 / 15:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Jun 21 / 15:00

CIE Overcast Sky //

Dec 21 / 15:00

FIG. 094.

Daycare // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with overcast sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Mar 21 / 15:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Jun 21 / 15:00

CIE Clear Sky with Sun //

Dec 21 / 15:00

FIG. 095.

Daycare // Illuminance Visualizations for different months with clear sky conditions showing the proposed lighting strategy scene

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Living Room Base Case In regards to the infiltration rate for the proposed timber frame construction system, the manufacturer claims that it is possible to achieve Passivhaus standard with its prefabricated strawbale wall panels along with triple glazing. The company claims that a BaleHaus is able to achieve an airtightness rate that’s 10 times better compared to the UK Building Regulation standard of 0.5 ac/h maximum infiltration for new building projects. As a result, 0.2 ac/h for a timber frame construction system with prefabricated strawbale wall panels and double-glazing is a reasonable estimate to use for the prototype building thermal simulations. For thermal simulations, a typical 3-bedroom residential floor plan and the Co-working Café were modeled. The residential unit was separated into different zones where the team performed analyses on the open plan of living area with kitchen (facing northeast) and the double bedrooms (facing southwest). The Co-working Café was simulated as a single zone.

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device none

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter 1400

Figure 096 shows the occupancy schedule and the appliance load used for the Living Room themal simulastions.

1200

Winter

FIG. 096

Summer

Autumn

Winter

6pm

Spring

Loads TV 115 W Hob 1500 W Microwave 900 W W 6am Fridge 200 Kettle 600 W Coffee Maker 600 W 4x Laptop 110 W(ea) 8x LED Light 15 W(ea) Global/Diffuse Horizontal 12 Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Living room occupant hours & Electricity Load

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

1000 1400

40 25

800 1200

35 20

600 1000

30 15 25

400 800

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 10 Base Case Indoor Temperature Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

20 200 600

5 15 0 [°C] [ac/h] 10

FIG. 097 5

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0 400 [Wh/m2]

Living room annual thermal analysis graph : Base case 200

Tested Parameters Parameter 1

Parameter 2

Parameter 3

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 30% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 4

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device Wool Curtain (Winter unoccupied time) Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 5

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device Vertical Fins 30° Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 6

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device Vertical Fins 10° Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Summer Natural Ventialtion Occupied time

FIG. 098

Living room: Tested parameters diagram

Based on built precedents and previous case studies, a window to floor (W/F) ratio of below 30% was recommended for the northern façade within the London climate. Thus, the team formed a Base Case for the Living Area with a W/F ratio of 28% as a starting point and no shading devices for an initial simulation. As shown in Figure 097, during the winter the living is generally within the comfort band except the few extreme cold days. This is in part due to the higher internal heat gain from occupants, appliances used in the kitchen, and occupants working on their laptops in the afternoons to evenings. Another factor is that the building envelope is heavily insulated with thick strawbale walls that have high thermal capacity. However, we can see that the Living Area would be overheated during the summer, but we hypothesized that the temperatures can be reduced significantly through natural ventilation by opening the main windows as well as the hopper windows. Cross-flow ventilation as well as stack effect ventilation should provide enough airflow to cool down the space in the summer.

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Base Case

Thermal Analysis // Living Room

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] 25 Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Parameters Test Result : Typical Winter Week

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 20

Natural ventilation was also tested on the two different window to floor ratios with the hopper windows having 30% aperture and main windows 50%. The results show that while the higher W/F ratio does reduces the summer temperatures X K more than the 28% W/F ratio, however, natural ventilation from the 28% W/F can already bring the indoor temperatures within the comfort band. The team decided to stick with the initial W/F ratio of 28% for the final case. A wool curtain was also tested to see how much it would help improve the days when the Base Case was not in comfort band. Even though the results show a slight improvement of up X K, the team decided to keep it for the final case. A separator screen that can be pulled down from the ceiling, located between the kitchen and the dining table, has been proposed as an adaptable devices to screen from the kitchen activities when some occupants are working at the dinning table area. This separator screen can also act as a movie screen. Installing a wool curtain that can help winter performance while acting as a blind to create a dark space when needed for movie viewing.

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

30% W/F Ratio 15 Wool Curtain

Monday

Shading Device: 30° Fins Shading Device: 10° Fins 40

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Shading Device: 10° Fins

30% W/F Ratio WoolSunday Curtain

1030° Fins Shading Device:

Base Case Indoor Temperature

Tuesday

Wednesday 0 [°C] [ac/h]

Thursday

Friday

Saturday 1400

We then tested selective parameters that were believed to have positive impacts on the performance of the Living Area (Figures 098-102). For example, increasing the W/F ratio to 30% by adding bottom hopper windows below the main window frames to increase airflow potential by enhancing the stack effect using top and bottom hopper windows. Since this façade faces northeast, vertical fin shading devices based on parametric studies were also tested. However, the team concluded that shading devices would not be needed due to the limited hours of solar radiation on the façade and people would generally like to have the sun coming into the rooms during the morning to wake them up and get ready for the day.

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

1200

1000

800

20 600

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Typical Winter Solar RadiationWeek [kWh/m2] 1

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

0.8

400

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

0.6

10 Base Case Indoor Temperature

0.4 0.2

30% W/F Ratio Wool Curtain

-0.4 W/F Ratio

Shading Device: 30° Fins Wool Curtain Night Shutter

30 Degree Fin

10 Degree Fin

Average Shading Max Device: 10° FinsMin

FIG. 099

Living room typical winter week : Parameter comparison summary

0 [°C] [ac/h]

0 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

-0.2

200

FIG. 100

Living room typical winter week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison

[Wh/m2]

0 [°C] [ac/h] 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Solar 25Radiation [kWh/m2]

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

Sunday

30% W/F Ratio

FIG. 101 Monday

Natural Ventilation A

Natural Ventilation B

Tuesday Wednesday Natural Ventilation B 5

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Thursday

Living room typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison

Base Case Indoor Temperature 30%15 W/F Ratio

Thermal 20 Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature 30%15 W/F Ratio Natural Ventilation A

Natural Ventilation B 5

Natural Ventilation A

Friday

Shading Device: 30° Fins

5 0 [°C] [ac/h]

20 600

15 400

200

W/F Ratio

Parameters Test Result : Typical Summer Week Global/Diffuse Horizontal

0 [°C] [ac/h] Saturday 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

35 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar 25Radiation [kWh/m2]

1200

30 20 Comfort Band [°C] Thermal 1000

800

Shading Device: 30° Fins

Shading 10 Device: 10° Fins 600

Shading Device: 30° Fins 400

Shading 10 Device: 10° Fins

200

1400

Shading Device: 10° Fins

1200

30 Degree Fin

Max

10 Degree Fin

Average

[Wh/m2]

1000

800

Typical Summer Week

-2 -4 -6

-8

-10 -12 -14 NatVent A NatVent B

Min

[Wh/m2]

FIG. 102 Living room typical summer week : Parameter comparison summary

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Living Room Final Case Figure 103. shows the annual performance of the Final Case for the Living Area. It performs quite well with a few exceptions during extreme outdoor temperatures. Figure 104. shows the performance during a typical winter week, where the indoor temperature stays within the comfort band. Figure 106. shows good performance during a typical summer week, with annual overheating analysis below the 1% maximum per CISBE TM 52 benchmark (Figure 105).

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device Night Shut (Close @ unoccupied time when below 21°C) Winter Spring 45 45

Winter

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Summer

Winter

Autumn

Winter

1400

1400 40

1200

1000 30

1000

800

20 20

600 600

15 15

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Global/Diffuse Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Base Case Base Case Indoor Temperature Indoor Temperature Final Case Case 1

400 400

0 [°C] [ac/h]

[°C] Jan

[ac/h]

FIG. 103

200 200

JanFeb

FebMar

Mar Apr

AprMay May Jun Jun July July Aug Aug

Living room annual thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

Sep Sep

OctOct

Nov Nov

Dec Dec [Wh/m2] [Wh/m2]

Final Case Result : Typical Winter Week Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device Wool Curtain (Close @ unoccupied time when below 21째C)

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

Friday

Saturday 1400

1200

1000

800

20 600

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [째C]

15 400

Thermal Comfort Band [째C] Base Case Indoor Temperature

Final Case 200

0 [째C] [ac/h]

FIG. 104

Living room typical winter week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

[Wh/m2]

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Living Room Final Case Result : Typical Summer Week Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

40 25

0.9%

Oct-Nov35

Sunday

25 All Year

0.0% +0.1K

-5

FIG. 105

+1K

0.0%

+2K

+3K

Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit

Living room overheating analysis : Final proposed case

Saturday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

-5

All Year

0.1%

+0.1K

+1K

0.0%

+2K

+3K

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Solar Radiation 0.4%[kWh/m2]

June-July 5

Base CaseOutdoor Temperature [°C] Indoor Temperature

Final CaseThermal Comfort Band [°C]

0 -5

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Aug -Sep

Base Case Indoor Temperature +0.1K +1K Final Case

800

1000

600

800

400

600

200

400

200

Apr-May

0.1%

All Year 0 [°C] [ac/h] 0.0%

+2K

+3K

Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit

0 [°C] [ac/h]

[Wh/m2]

Oct-Nov 10

Number of hours

1200

Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit

25 Global/Diffuse Horizontal 0.7% Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

1000

Apr-May

5 0

1400

June-July

1200 Oct-Nov

0.4%

Aug -Sep

5 0

Friday

1400

Apr-May

Monday

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% Wednesday Thursday WIndows opening factor 50%

Number of hours

Number of hours Hour(s)

30 June-July

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Sunday Monday Tuesday Shading Device Wool Curtain (Close @ unoccupied time when below 21°C)

Aug -Sep 15

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

FIG. 106

Living room typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

[Wh/m2]

Living Room rendered view howing final case atmosphere adjustable room separator screen and movie screen

FIG. 078 Main living area and kitchen showing different activities in an open floor plan (repeated from page 47) (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Double Bedroom Base Case Using the similar parameters, a Base Case for the Double Bedroom with a W/F of 27% was formed. Figure 108, shows that about 30% of the time the indoor temperatures in the winter are below the comfort band and 50% in the summer. With this in mind, different parameters (Figures 109113) were tested to arrive at an optimized Final Case that has a reduced W/F ratio of 22.5%, natural ventilation, 0.4m adjustable shading device that also acts as night shutters in the winter, the room achieves thermal comfort 100% of the time in the summer and roughly 90% in the winter (Figures 114-117). The team proposed to implement a passive ventilation system that provides heat recovery to make up the remaining 10%. This Passive Ventilation with Heat Recovery system was discussed in the Ventilation Strategies section (Figures 074-75). Figure 107 shows the occupancy schedule and the appliance load used for the Double Bedroom thermal simulastions.

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 28% Shading Device None

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter 1400

1200

Winter

Summer

Autumn

Winter

6pm

Spring

Loads TV 115 W 2 x Laptop 110 W(ea) 2 xLED Lighting 15 W(ea) 6am

1000 1400

40 25

800 1200

35 20

FIG. 107

12 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Double bedroom occupant hours & Electricity Load

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

600 1000

30 15 25

400 800

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 10 Base Case Indoor Temperature Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

20 200 600

5 15 0 [°C] [ac/h] 10

FIG. 108 5

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Double bedroom annual thermal analysis graph : Base case

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0 400 [Wh/m2]

200

Tested Parameters Base Case Parameter 1

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 27% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 5

Parameter 2

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device Wool Curtain (When Below 21°) Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 6

Parameter 3

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device Night Shutter (When Below 21°) Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Parameter 7

Parameter 4

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device 0.2 m Overhange Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour

FIG. 109

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device 0.4 m Overhange Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour

Double bedroom: Tested parameters diagram

Building Envelope Wall U-Value 0.19 W/m2 Floor U- Value 0.16 W/m2 Ceiling U-Value 0.17 W/m2 Glazing U-Value 1.80 W/m2 Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device none Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Summer Natural Ventialtion Occupied time

Outdoor Temperature [°C] 30

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 20

Thermal Analysis // Double Bedroom

Base Case Indoor Temperature

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] 25 Outdoor Temperature [°C]

30% W/F Ratio 15

Wool Curtain

Parameter Test Result : Typical Winter Week

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 20

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Night Shutter 10

Base Case Indoor Temperature

0 [° [ac

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang Shading Device: 0.4m Overhang 5

30% W/F Ratio15

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Night Shutter

Base Case Indoor Temperature

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang

30% W/F Ratio

Shading Device: 0.4m Overhang 5

WoolSunday Curtain

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Thursday

Friday

Wool Curtain

Saturday

Night Shutter

Shading Device: 0.4m Overhang

0 [°C] [ac/h]

1400

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang

1200

1000

800

20 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation Typical[kWh/m2] Winter Week Outdoor Temperature [°C]

1.5

600 15 400

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

0.5 0

30% W/F Ratio

-0.5

200

Wool Curtain

-1

Night Shutter W/F Ratio

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang Wool Curtain Night Shutter 0.2 m Overhang 0.4 m Overhang Average Min Shading Max Device: 0.4m Overhang

FIG. 110 Double bedroom typical winter week : Parameter comparison summary 80

0 [°C] [ac/h]

-1.5

FIG. 111

Double bedroom typical winter week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison

[Wh/m2]

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] 25

Parameter Test Result : Typical Summer Week Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Thermal 20 Comfort Band [°C]

0 [°C] [ac/h] Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Base Case Indoor Temperature

Outdoor Temperature [°C] 15 Ratio 30% W/F

Base Case Indoor Temperature

30% W/F Ratio

Sunday

Natural Ventilation A

Natural Ventilation B

FIG. 112 Natural Ventilation A

Monday Tuesday Natural Ventilation B 5Wednesday

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Thursday

Double bedroom typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison

Thermal Comfort Band [°C] 20 Base Case Indoor Temperature

30% W/F Ratio 15

Shading Device: 0.4 m Overhang 10 Natural Ventilation A

Natural Ventilation B

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Friday

Shading Device: 0.4 m Overhang

5 0 [°C] [ac/h]

400

200

[Wh/m2]

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

10 1000

5 800

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang

W/F Ratio

600

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang

5 400

Shading 10Device: 0.4 m Overhang

Saturday

200

Shading Device: 0.2 m Overhang

1400 0

Wool Curtain Max

Night Shutter Average

[Wh/m2]

1200

1000

800

20 600

Typical Winter Week

0.8 0.6

0.4

0.2 0

-0.2 -0.4 30 Degree Fin 10 Degree Fin

Min

FIG. 113 Double bedroom typical summer week : Parameter comparison summary

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Double Bedroom Final Case Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio Winter 22.5% 45 Shading Device Night Shutter (Winter: Close @ unoccupied time & night time when below 21°C) 40

Winter

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent Summer Natural Ventilation Spring Summer Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

Autumn

Winter 1400

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter 1400

1200

40 30

1200

35 25 30

1000

800

20 25

600

800 15

20 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Comfort Band [°C] Global/DiffuseThermal Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Base Case Indoor Temperature Outdoor Temperature [°C] Final Case Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

400

600 10 15 5

400

0 [°C] [ac/h]

200

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Base Case Indoor Temperature Final Case

0 [°C] [ac/h]

FIG. 114

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Double bedroom annual thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

[Wh/m2]

[Wh/m2

Final Case Result : Typical Winter Week Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 18.7 m3/person/hour Provide by Trickle Vent Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 22.5% Shading Device Night Shutter (Winter: Close @ unoccupied time & night time when below 21째C)

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday 1400

1200

1000

800

20 600

Outdoor Temperature [째C]

15 400

Thermal Comfort Band [째C] Base Case Indoor Temperature

200

Final Case

0 [째C] [ac/h]

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

FIG. 115

Double bedroom typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

[Wh/m2]

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Double Bedroom 25

0.9%

Oct-Nov

Apr-May All Year

5 0.0% 0

+0.1K

-5

+1K

0.0%

+2K

+3K

Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit

Aug -Sep Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.19 W/m2 0.2 ac/h June-July 0.16 W/m2 Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 0.17 W/m2 Apr-May 18.7 m3/person/hour 1.80 W/m2 Provide by Trickle Vent Window to Floor Ratio All YearVentilation Summer Natural 0.1% 22.5% 5 Clerestories opening factor 30% Shading Device WIndows opening factor 50% Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Night Shutter (Winter: Close @ unoccupied time 0.0% 0.0% & night0time when below 21°C) +0.1K +1K +2K +3K Building Envelope Wall U-Value 15 Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing10U-Value

June-July

Oct-Nov

0.4%

Number of hours

20 Final Case Result : Typical Summer Week 20 Aug -Sep

45 -5

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Friday

1400

Saturday

Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit

1400 Oct-Nov

0.7% 20

1200

Number of hours Hour(s)

Aug -Sep 15

June-July 30

0.4%

All Year

0 -5

FIG. 116

1000

Apr-May

10 5

1200

1000 800

0.1% 0.0% +0.1K

+1K

+2K

+3K

800 600

Temperature exceedence over adaptive upper limit Double bedroom overheating analysis :comfort Final proposed case 15

20 600

Final Case

400 5

0 [°C] [ac/h]

200

0 [°C] [ac/h]

FIG. 117

[Wh/m2]

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Outdoor Temperature [°C] Base Case Indoor Temperature Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Final Case Base Case Indoor Temperature

400 15

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Double bedroom typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

[Wh/m2]

Double Bedroom rendered view showing final case atmosphere adjustable overhang / night shutter

FIG. 079 Double Bedroom (repeated from page 47) (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Co-working Cafe Base Case The team also tested the thermal comfort of one of the ground floor spaces (Figures 118-128). We chose to test the Co-Working café due to its longer occupancy hours and closer link to the lifestyle projection where people can work from anywhere. The Base Case W/F ratio was set at 83% (due to prioritizing access to views) with a 1 meter awning on the southern façade to prevent glare and protect occupants from the rain when accessing the café or smoking outside. Figure 119. shows that more than half the time the café would be out of the comfort band, partly due it its long occupancy hours extending until 2AM. Different parameters were tested to identify strategies on bringing the winter indoor temperature up and reducing the summer temperature through natural ventilation.

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Provide by Mechanical System Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 83% Shading Device 1m Awning on South Windows

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter 1400

1200

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

1000 1400

40 0

6pm

Load Plug Load Lighting Load

Max. Global/Diffuse Horizontal 6am Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] 22 persons

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

25 27 15

W/m2 W/m2

800 1200

35 20

600 1000

30 15

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

FIG. 118

Base CafeCase occupant hours & Electricity Load Indoor Temperature Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

400 800

25 10 20

200 600

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Base Case Indoor Temperature

15 0 [°C] [ac/h]

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

0 Dec 400 [Wh/m2]

FIG. 119 5

Cafe annual thermal analysis graph : Base case 200

Tested Parameters Base Case

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 83% Shading Device 1m Awning Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour

Parameter 1

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 83% Shading Device Shutter on South windows (closing time) Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 74% Shading Device 1m Awning Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour

Parameter 3

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Parameter 2

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 83% Shading Device 1m Awning Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Summer Natural Ventialtion Occupied time

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 57% Shading Device 1m Awning Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour

Parameter 5

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Parameter 6

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 83% Shading Device 1m Awning Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Summer Natural Ventialtion Occupied time

FIG. 120

Cafe: Tested parameters diagram

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Typical Summer Week Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

-1

-2

-3

-4

Night Shutter

-5

-6 73 W/F 55 W/F Night Shutter

Max Average NatVent A

Min

FIG. 121 Cafe typical winter week : Parameter comparison summary 88 NatVent B

Thermal Analysis // Co-working Cafe

45 57% W/F Ratio

Sunday

Night Shutter

FIG. 122

Global/Diffuse30Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Parameters Test Result : Typical Winter Week Outdoor Temperature [°C] 25 Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

Monday

Base Case 20 Indoor Temperature

57% W/F Ratio 15 Night Shutter 10

74% W/F Ratio

Tuesday Wednesday

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Cafe typical winter week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison

Thursday 0 [°C] [ac/h] Friday 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

35 25

74% W/F Ratio 5

MVHR MVHR/PVHR

Saturday

MVHR

1400

57% W/F Ratio

1200

1000

800

20 600

15 400

74% W/F Ratio

200

MVHR 0

[Wh/m2]

30 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

Parameters Test Result : Typical Summer Week Outdoor Temperature [°C] 25

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Outdoor Temperature [°C]

Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

Base Case Indoor Temperature

45 74% W/F Ratio Sunday

Natural Ventilarion A

FIG. 123 Monday

Base Case 20 Indoor Temperature

57% W/F Ratio 15 Natural Ventilarion A

Tuesday Wednesday

57% W/F Ratio

0 [°C] [ac/h]

Cafe typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Parameters test comparison Thursday 0 [°C] Friday [ac/h]

5 200

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

1200

20 1000

15 800

74% W/F Ratio 600

Natural Ventilarion B 400

Saturday 1400

Natural Ventilarion B 0

5 1200

15 400

200

[Wh/m2] 73 W/F 55 W/F Max Average

[Wh/m2]

1000

800

20 600

Typical Winter Week

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 Night Shutter Night Shutter

FIG. 124 Cafe typical summer week : Parameter comparison summary

MVHR

Min

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Co-working Cafe Final Case Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Provide by MVHR / PVHR Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% Summer WIndows opening factor 50%

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 54% Shading Device Winter Spring 451m awning on South windows Shutter on South windows @ closing time

Autumn

Winter 1400

Winter

40 45

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter 1400 1200

35 40

1200 1000

30 35

25 30

800

20 25 600

1000

800

15 20 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [°C]

400 10

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Thermal Band [°C] SolarComfort Radiation [kWh/m2] Temperature [°C] BaseOutdoor Case Indoor Temperature

200

5 10

Comfort Band [°C] FinalThermal Case Base Case Indoor Temperature

600

0 5 [°C] Jan [ac/h]

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

400

200

[Wh/m2]

Final Case 0 [°C] [ac/h]

FIG. 125

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Cafe annual thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

[Wh/m2]

Final Case Result : Typical Winter Week Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 54% Shading Device 1m awning on South windows Shutter on South windows @ closing time

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Provide by MVHR / PVHR Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

40 1400 35

1200

1000

800 15

20 600

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Outdoor Temperature [째C]

15 400

Thermal Comfort Band [째C] Base Case Indoor Temperature

0 [째C] [ac/h]

12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM

Final Case 200

FIG. 126

Cafe typical winter week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed case

[Wh/m2]

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis // Co-working Cafe Final Case Result : Typical Summer Week The results suggest that a 54% W/F ratio provides the optimal thermal performance while still allows for a sufficiently day lit space (illustrated in the Daylighting Analysis section). The awning has been redesigned so that it can be pulled down similar to the shading devices at the bedrooms. This change improves the thermal slightly, but the adjustability does help prevent glare as well as reducing solar gain during the hot summer days. The PVHR system is also recommended to bring the winter low temperature up. With these new parameters, the Coworking Café is able to achieve thermal comfort 95% of the time during occupied hours, along with being free-running (Figures 125-128). 45

Building Envelope Wall U-Value Floor U- Value Ceiling U-Value Glazing U-Value

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

Window to Floor Ratio 54% Shading Device 1m awning on South windows Shutter on South windows @ closing time

Sunday 45

Overheating Analysis 25

0.19 0.16 0.17 1.80

Monday

Sunday

Tuesday

Monday

Airflow Rate Infiltration 0.2 ac/h Fresh Air Requirement (ASHARE) 15.3 m3/person/hour Provide by MVHR / PVHR Summer Natural Ventilation Clerestories opening factor 30% WIndows opening factor 50%

Wednesday Tuesday

Thursday

Wednesday

Friday Thursday

Saturday Friday

Saturday 1400

40 Oct-Nov

0.4%

1400 40 1200

Aug -Sep 35 Number of hours Hour(s)

June-July

1200

Apr-May 30

All Year

0.1%

1000 30

1000

25 0

+0.1K

+1K

0.0%

+2K

+3K

800 25

20 Temperature exceedence over adaptive comfort upper limit FIG. 127 Cafe overheating analysis : Final proposed case

800

-5

600

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Base Case Thermal Comfort Band [°C] Indoor Temperature Base Case Final Case Indoor Temperature Final Case

400 10 200

200

5 0 [°C] [ac/h]

0 0 [°C] [ac/h]

FIG. 128

400

Cafe typical summer week thermal analysis graph : Final proposed cas

[Wh/m2] 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

12:00 AM 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM 10:00 AM12:00 AM 12:00 PM2:00 AM 2:00 PM4:00 AM 4:00 PM6:00 AM 6:00 PM8:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM12:00 PM 12:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:00 AM 4:00 PM 4:00 AM 6:00 PM 6:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 AM10:00 PM

Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2] Global/Diffuse Horizontal Outdoor Temperature [°C] [kWh/m2] Solar Radiation

0 [Wh/m2]

Co-working Cafe rendered view howing final case atmosphere

FIG. 080 Co-working Cafe (repeated from page 47) (rendered in Rhino V-ray and post production in photoshop)

OUTDOOR STUDIES Design Proposal 96-97 Thermal Analysis 98-101

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Design Proposal Outdoor Site Conditions: Figure 129. shows the existing outdoor site conditions where the team proposed to take down the brick wall and provide outdoor gardens for the pedestrians and residents to enjoy. Two existing willow trees are shown in the site photos, which the team proposed to keep and protect during construction. The team observed that there were not many green open spaces that are south of the canal. Openning up this outdoor space and provide access to the canal view to the neighbors would help foster a closer community.

Rooftop: The roof design aims to minimise overheating risk by reducing exposure to full solar radiation on the top floor. The gable shape ties well to the context. The staggering of the roofline adds a playful touch to the architectural form while helping to break and redistribute the wind. The space below the PV panels can be used as storage for rooftop gardening or bikes. This communal roof terrace can be enjoyed by the residents on both sunny and rainy days, as there are several sheltered areas for weather protection.

FIG. 129

Site Conditions Photos // (top left) corner near bridge, looking northwest // (top right) view from corner near bridge, looking southwest (bottom left) brick wall next to sidewalk, looking northwest // (bottom right) view from glass building north of Diespeker Wharf looking west

Figure 130. illustrates the rooftop spatial configuration and planting vs. PV distribution.

Raised planter beds Vertical farm Trellis

FIG. 130

Diagram showing Rooftop Communal Garden and PV panels

Photovoltaic panels

Bridge

Design Proposal (2) Existing Willow trees to remain

Site Design: As discussed in the beginning of the report, the team proposed to take down the existing 2.5 meter tall brick wall and open up the outdoor space to the pedestrian realm.

Stadium Seat Steps

gra

vel

pav

raingarden with seat edge, harvesting rooftop runoff through pipes

ing

slo

Reg

ent

Demolishing the current wall does create a problem where strategic grading will be needed in order to solve the 1.5 meter drop from the sidewalk to the garden below on the west edge of the property. The sidewalk does slope down to the east toward the Diespeker Wharf . To mitigate this sloping site, the team proposed stadium style seat steps on the west edge to connect the sidewalk level to the canal level.

Can

A lookout with a wooden deck is proposed east of the stadium seat steps, where two silver birch puncture through providing summer solar protection and creating a semi-sheltered gathering space for visitors to linger and socialize. As stated in the Environmental Design Pocket Guide, these birch trees can reduce solar gain by about 75-85% in the summer, making it a desirable spot during hot periods; however, they do block about 12-52% of sunlight in the winter, so this spot may not be as thermally comfortable in the winter (Pelsmakers, 2015). Further mPET analysis will provide confirmation on this hypothesis.

slop

Following the outlook deck, the site meets level with the proposed building ground floor where a front porch is designed with steps and seating blocks, both to frame the entrance and to meet the sloping sidewalk. Two rain gardens are provided to collect storm-water runoff from the street as well as rooftop. The rain gardens provide a seasonal color change while filtering the gray water and sending it to a storage tank below the building for toilet flushing.

Wooden Lookout Deck with Silver Birch Trees

Str

1.5

Figure 132. shows the recorded site temperature and wind speed on an overcast day, along with PET and mPET analysis.

slop

slo

Figure 131 is a site plan of the proposed site design.

raingarden collecting stormwater runoff from street and pathway

FIG. 131

Site plan

Ex Sto isting ne Co Pla bb za le Wh to arf rem Fin ain ge rC ott ag e

Figures 133. shows the selected spots for mPET comfort analysis on the proposed design, along with the types of activities occupants will be perfoming. Figure 134. shows the skyview factor at each location and occupants' metabolic rates.

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis Exisiting mPET comfort analysis Average Adult Male (Young Professionals) Age: Height: Weight: Clo: Met:

27 1.75 metres 80 kilograms 1.2 100 W

11:20 am // No occupant Close to water Willow Tree Grass & Wet soil surface

0-14 oc 14-15 oc 16-17 oc 18-19 oc 20-21 oc Overcast Calm Wind

RH 63 % Wind 0.6 m/s

Ta 13.6 oc // 11:31 am PET 10.6 oc No occupant mPET 14.0 oc Bicycle Rack Shrubs RH 77 % Grass & Wet soil surface Wind 1.9 m/s

Sunken 1.5m

Sunken 0.6m

Ta 14.4 oc PET 13.4oc mPET 16.8 oc

11:22 am // Ta No occupant PET Shurbs mPET Grass & Wet soil surface RH Wind

14.0 oc 12.3 oc 15.8 oc 65 % 1.0 m/s

Sunken 1.0m

11:30 am // 1 occupants talking on the phone Shurbs Grass & Wet soil surface

Sunken 0.4m

Ta 14.5 oc PET 11.3 oc mPET 11.1 oc RH 75 % Wind 5.6 m/s Sunken 0.8m

FIG. 132

Ta 14.2 oc // 11.50 am PET 12.8 oc No Occupant mPET 16.2 oc Stone Pavement Surface RH 74.2 % Wind 1.9 m/s

Existing Condition mPET analysis on the selected spots

Ta 13.9 oc // 11.35 am PET 8.3 oc No Occupant Stone Pavement mPET 7.0 oc Surface RH 75 % Wind 9.0 m/s Sunken 0.6m

mPET Comfort Analysis : Analysis Spots Rooftop Picnic Area Sitting/Resting Socializing

Under the Trellis Gardening

Average Adult Male (Young Professionals) Age: Height: Weight:

27 1.75 metres 80 kilograms

Average Kid Female (Daycare users) Age: Height: Weight:

7 1.39 metres 25 kilograms

5 1

2 4

Under Willow Tree Sitting / Resting FIG. 133

Proposed design mPET analysis on the selected spots

Outlook Deck Sitting/Resting/Waiting

Daycare Play Area Playing (kids)

Front Porch Waiting Smoke

Smoking Area Waiting Smoke

Cafe SemiOutdoor Seating Sitting/ Resting Socializing/ Working 99

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Thermal Analysis mPET Comfort Analysis : Analysis Spots Under Willow Tree

Cafe Semi-Outdoor Seating

Adult Male Met ~75 W

Sitting / Resting

100

solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity, and octas from London Weather Center Station using Rayman obstruction model & Sky vview factor to simulate wind and solar reduction

Sitting / Resting / Light Working

Outlook Deck

Smoking Area

Adult Male Met ~75 W

Adult Male Met ~100 W

Sitting / Resting

Standing / Smoking

Daycare Play Area

Rooftop Picnic Area

Kid Female Met ~300 W

Adult Male Met ~75 W

Playing

Sitting / Resting

Front Porch Seating

Rooftop under the Trellis

Adult Male Met ~100 W

Adult Male Met ~220 W

Standing/ Waiting / Smoking

Standing / Gardening

FIG. 134

Skyview factor & perspective image of each mPET analysis spots

Annual mPET comfort analysis Outdoor Comfort Summary: Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

1400 50 1200

40 JAN - FEB Day Care Play Area

DEC Daycare Play Area

SEP Rooftop Garden

1000

30 800

Figure 135. summarizes the annual mPET analysis showing which spots would be thermally comfortable during periods throughout the year. The Daycare Play Area , a semi-outdoor space, would mostly be in the thermal comfort band during the winter, mainly due to the high metabolic rate from play activities. This suggests that the space would be comfortable with calmer activities, similar to the conditions under the overhang at the cafe outdoor sitting area. Furthermore, the rooftop garden area would be in comfort throughout the mid-seasons, due to sheltering from the PV panels and the metabolic rate from gardening. The rooftop picnic area would only be in comfort during two warm weeks in the summer mainly due to the higher exposure to wind, making the space feel colder. However, as climate change suggests, the comfort percentage of this picnic area may increase. 50 Global/Diffuse Horizontal Solar Radiation [kWh/m2]

20 600

r JUN -AUG Most areas are in comfot except Rooftop Picnic Area

Outdoor Temperature [°C] Thermal Comfort Band [°C]

1 Week in JUN 1 Week in AUG Rooftop Picnic Area Area

Wind Speed [m/s]

400

Trellis

Spot 1 : seating under the willow tree

Spot 2 : Overlook Deck Spot 3 : Playground

200 Spot 4 : Front Porch

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Spot 6 : Smoking Area

[Wh/m2]

[°C] [m/s]

-10

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Week 16 Week 17 Week 18 Week 19 Week 20 Week 21 Week 22 Week 23 Week 24 Week 25 Week 26 Week 27 Week 28 Week 29 Week 30 Week 31 Week 32 Week 33 Week 34 Week 35 Week 36 Week 37 Week 38 Week 39 Week 40 Week 41 Week 42 Week 43 Week 44 Week 45 Week 46 Week 47 Week 48 Week 49 Week 50 Week 51 Week 52 Week 53

Spot 5 : Cafe Semi-Outdoor Seating

Spot 7 : Picnic Area on the Rooftop

Spot 8 : Garden under the Trellis on the Rooftop

0 FIG. 135

Annual weekly graph mPET comfort analysis

101

Building Carbon Footprint Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Table 2 Demand Building Energy Demand Calcuations and Building Operation CO2 Footprint Energy Calculation

Total interior building area (TA) = 908 sqm

Roof area (RA) = 185 sqm Residential ďŹ&#x201A;oor (RF) = 137 sqm + 20 sqm access core = 157 sqm 157 x 4 ďŹ&#x201A;oors = 628 sqm Ground Floor Spaces (GF) = 95 sqm

CARBON LIFE CYCLE: A carbon footprint and life cycle assessment (LCA) is used to methodically record and analyze the impact on the environment throughout the entire life cycle of a product or service. This involves an end-to-end analysis of the product or service. The life cycle considers all raw materials, transports, production processes, usage and disposal of the product. A carbon footprint at product level is a special application of the LCA methodology that specifically focuses on greenhouse gas emissions. In computing for the LCA, the variables focused on was the type of construction material, the density (kg/m3), the embodied CO2e per tonne of material, the quantity of the materials (tonnes), the distance between the source of supply and the site, and the mode of transport. The data required on specific materials was very limited, therefore, we were only able to find the footprint (tonnes CO2e) of general building materials. The materials with data needed were: General soil, glue laminated timber, plywood, glass and cements. The general soil was needed for the planter boxes provided for the roof vegetable garden. The glue laminated timber is the composition of the structure, the plywood houses the Warmcel insulation which is made up of recycled newspaper. Apart from the material specifications, we also took into account the factories supplying the materials and the mode of transport. We opted to transport by road and to stay within a 50 kilometer radius from the site. A carbon calculator from the Environment Agency was used as a tool to aid the calculation (please see Tables 1-3 in the Appendix). Based on the data inputted, a value of 118 tonnes co2e for the construction carbon was obtained. The total carbon footprint of 118.1 was obtained.

regulated energy

Benchmark

Proposed building estimates

Benchmark

Proposed building estimates

kWh/m 2 per year

kWh per year (total building area x Column A estimates)

kWh/m per year space heating (RF, GF)

2.18

43,380

1,576.14

hot water (RF, GF)

39,765

regulated electricity (cooling, ventilation, lighting) (TA)

4.15

9,080

3,000.45

total regulated

125

61.33

92,225

44,341.59

unregulated energy

kWh/m per year

kWh per year

electrical appliances and equipment (RF, GF)

40.04

18,075

25,145.12

cooking/catering (RF, GF)

10,845

total unregulated

104

55.04

28,920

35,990.12

total energy demand (regulated + unregulated)

229

116.37

121,145

80,331.71

CO2 footprint regulated emissions

Benchmark

Proposed building estimates

kgCO2 per year UK CO2 fuel intensity (Result of calculation in gas: 0.216 kgCO2/kWh electricity: 0.519 kgCO2/kWh Column C)

UK CO fuel intensity kgCO per year gas: 0.216 kgCO /kWh (Result of calculation in electricity: 0.519 kgCO /kWh Column C)

space heating

43,380 x 0.216

9,370

1,576.14 x 0.216

340.45

The carbon calculator showed the emission and tips to reduction.

hot water

39,765 x 0.216

8,589.24

39,765 x 0.216

8,589.24

On-site

Renewable Energy Sources:

regulated electricity (cooling, ventilation, lighting)

9,080 x 0.519

4,712.52

3,000.45 x 0.519

1,552.23

Option 1: from on-

Part of the design brief was to offset any residual load in the proposal. This load would the a sum of all the energy required for electrical appliances, artificial lighting needs, and hot water for domestic purposes. The Photovoltaic/Thermal Panels on the rooftop can provide sufficient amount of energy to offset the residual load. Table 4 in the appendix shows the PV energy generation calculation. The proposed building design is 30% below the Good Practice total consumption down.

total regulated

22,671.84

total regulated

kgCO2 per year

unregulated emissions

10,481.92 kgCO2 per year

electrical appliances and equipment

18,075 x 0.519

9,380.925

25,145.12 x 0.519

13,050.32

cooking/catering (gas)

10,845 x 0.216

2,342.52

10,845 x 0.216

2,342.52

total unregulated

102

kWh per year

total CO emissions (regulated + unregulated emissions)

11,723.445 kgCO2 per year

total unregulated total CO emissions (regulated + unregulated emissions)

15,392.84 kgCO per year

energy re

Option 2 reductio renewab

CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to tackling a big site and building a mega housing project that may not fit into the surrounding finer scale building typologies, we are challenging ourselves with something small, something leftover and perhaps oddly shaped. These are plots that developers may not find interesting or worth investing due to the small scale or site constraints. We believe that these sites have great potential to stitch together the urban context and densifying neighborhoods in the least intrusive manner. In addition, scattering affordable housing projects throughout, what may be gentrified neighborhoods, would increase diversity, providing lower income people a share of the nice neighborhoods. As Christian Dimbleby from Architype affirmed during a lecture, lightweight buildings perform better in variable climates and have lower embodied carbon.

Performance: The proposed building is quite coupled with the outdoor temperatures. Passive measures and adaptive strategies bring the indoor temperature into the comfort band at least 90% of the occupied time. Table 2. illustrates that the proposed typology building has a low heating demand of 2.18 kWh/m2a. As a result, small radiators can be used in the building to supplement the 30 days where indoor air temperature falls below comfort band. The proposed building design is 30% below the Good Practice total energy consumption benchmark per CIBSE Guide F. The estimated annual Co2 emission from electricity is 30% above Good Practice benchmark per CIBSE TM46. However, we must keep in mind that the higher electricity load is due to people working from home half of the time. A suggestion would be to use higher energy efficiency appliances than the typical ones the team used for simulations and calculations. The good news is that, the Co2 emissions from heating is 96% below the Good Practice standard. Daylight simulations show that the different spaces within the residential units are able to obtain higher daylight factors than the minimum recommendations, which would reduce the need for electrical lighting in overcast conditions. This helps to keep the electrical energy consumption down. The strawbale prefab wall panels have a high potential in cutting down noise levels. The manufacturer has claimed that this wall system can produce a reduction of approximately 50db. The recycled newspaper insulation for the internal walls and floors also provides good sound insulation of 40 db.

Atmosphere: Flexible spaces have been provided for occupants to perform different activities through out the day, both for work, rest, and entertain. Ample amount of outdoor spaces have been incorporated into the project, providing opportunities to meet friends, or even strangers in the privately-ownedpublicly-accessible garden and seating decks. The rooftop offers a communal vegetable garden space with trellis and raised beds for each unit. Picnic tables and chairs have been provided for summer time BBQ parties. Covered areas next to the access core as well as under the PV panels offer protections from the rain and hot summer sun. The team believes that the key to encourage a sustainable and healthy lifestyle is to provide numerous spatial/atmospheric choices and adaptive opportunities.

* Please reference attachment "Task List" for individual tasks and responsibilities.

103

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

Individual Conclusions Lessons Learned/Outcomes/Reflections: Maria Kristina Alvarez I found this term 2 project: Refurbishing the City, to be immensely challenging. The time to produce such work was scarce and had to be managed effectively. Our site selection was quick and unanimous but our design decisions were quite the opposite. I did, however, find it interesting to see the different ways our minds work and our different approaches towards things. For the most part, our different perspectives on the outcome of the project halted our progress and caused constructive debates. Some, if not, most would place our building design as uninteresting and ‘boring’ but I think we make up for the supposition by our critical thinking and ambition to take on such a challenge of designing housing in odd-shaped, developer undesirable sites. The challenge was both a blessing and a curse, a curse being the pain we felt from scratching our heads, analyzing every detail as best we could. The blessing was the learning experience the task brought about. I have discovered in my reflection that the general lessons I learned from term 1 have deepened and make so much more sense to me with design application. I have to admit, achieving a free-running low carbon footprint building is like a dream.

Timothy De Los Santos This term’s refurbishment project was a challenge for everyone. Actually applying the lessons learned from term 1 was harder than I expected. It was interesting to work with people who think differently an approach the problem from different angles even though we did have trouble meeting halfway. I was appalled by how much work we had to do and how much we needed to consider. I didn’t realize how many softwares and tools we already learned in term 1 until I started using them in the design application. I have mixed feelings about this term, quite frankly I think it was too short and fast paced. I had trouble keeping up but was lucky that my groupmates are patient enough and willing to help. Our Diespeker Wharf project I think was successful in a way that we were able to stay within the comfort band, we gave importance to the spaces, the users (young architects) and their schedules and developed that empty space in such a nice area.

Wan Fang Wu (Fong) Residual spaces have always been a particular interest of mine. This term was a great design exploration on the potentials of these left-over spaces. We felt that these spaces have the potential to achieve so much more than their current functions (or the lack of) and can add values to neighborhoods while acting as linkages. The team explored the potential of infill-housing on these sites and discovered many challenges and constraints along the way. There were many social, economical, and constructibility issues to consider. It was very challenging to make everything work given all the variables. With the various site constraints and limited space to work with, we were not able explore much on ‘interesting’ forms. However, at the end I think we've arrived at an appropriate design proposal for the potential sites that we've discussed and analyzed throughout the report. I'm particular happy with the interior atmosphere we've created along with the various adaptive measures. I can see myself living in one of these units, sharing with colleagues, working, entertaining, watching movies on the room separator screen, gardening on the rooftop, and meeting people in the ground level park. Lastly, many of the lectures from this term were very inspiring and helpful. However, the order at which they came seemed a bit disorganized. The project would've benefit from these lectures more if they have been presented earlier on in the term.

Varunya Jarunyaroj (Yoon) The Urban Patch Project has become a tough but fun challenge for the team and myself. We started this project aiming to create a replicable system which would provide affordable & sustainable housing for young professionals. The guideline were generated by using information collecting along working on the prototype site on in Islington; however, one lesson learnt from this process is that working with climate and context is a very delicate procedure. Although we could provide a basic guideline and site criteria but without recalculation and simulation by taking the unique surrounding context into account, the project might at the end cause more than solve problems. The team had been working on two ends; studying the prototype and research in order to create the criterions. Importantly, the knowledge achieve from this project is exactly how to combine the research and analysis with aesthetic of architectural design.

References Population and Demographics:

Appliances and Energy:

Cityam (2015) UK becoming the biggest country in the European Union by 2050. Available at http://www.cityam.com/221125/population-growthuk-become-biggest-country-european-union-2050 [Accesssed February 4, 2016] Foxtons (2016) N1 Rentals. Available at http://www.foxtons.co.uk/livingin/n1/rentals/ [Accessed January 16, 2016] Foxtons (2016) Living in EC1. Available at http://www.foxtons.co.uk/livingin/ec1/ [Accessed January 18, 2016] Be a Londoner (2016) Islington. Available at http://www.bealondoner. com/en/areas/islington [Accessed January 15, 2016] Mayor of London (2016) London Rents Map. Available at https://www. london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/renting/london-rents-map [Accessed January 16, 2016] Vai Org (2011) Islington Census. Available at http://www.vai.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/2012-Census-Islington-Summary.pdf [Accessed Januray 15, 2016] Streetcheck (2016) Postcode N18JX. Available at https://www.streetcheck. co.uk/postcode/n18jx [Accessed January 15, 2016] Streetcheck (2016) Postcode N1. Available at https://www.streetcheck. co.uk/postcodedistrict/n1 [Accessed January 21, 2016] Postcode Area (2016) EC1 Demographics. Available at http://www.postcodearea.co.uk/postaltowns/london/ec1/demographics/ [Accessed January 22, 2016] Postcode Area (2016) N1 Demographics. Available at http://www. postcodearea.co.uk/postaltowns/london/n1/demographics/ [Accessed January 22, 2016] GLA (2011) Census. Available at http://data.london.gov.uk/census/data/ [Accessed January 23, 2016] Streetcheck (2016) Postcode EC1. Available at https://www.streetcheck. co.uk/postcodedistrict/ec1a [Accessed January 21, 2016] Zoopla (2016) Islington Market. Available at http://www.zoopla.co.uk/ market/london/islington/ [Accessed January 16, 2016]

[Online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/275484/electricity_survey_2_tuning_in_to_energy_ saving.pdf [Accessed February 3, 2016] [Online] https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/advice-and-support/how-muchelectricity-am-i-using [Accessed February 6, 2016] [Online] http://www.energuide.be/en/questions-answers/how-muchenergy-do-my-household-appliances-use/71/ [Accessed February 3, 2016] [Online] https://www.cse.org.uk/advice/advice-and-support/how-muchelectricity-am-i-using [Accessed February 5, 2016] [Online] https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/average-energy-bill [Accessed February 8, 2016] OVO Energy . https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/theaverage-gas-bill-average-electricity-bill-compared.html [Accessed February 8, 2016]

Housing and employment:

ESRU (2014) Low Energy Building Design. Available at http://www.esru. strath.ac.uk/EnvEng/Web_sites/13-14/LEBD_Website_GroupE/design_mat. html [Accessed February 24, 2016] Pilkington (n.d.) Table of Default U-values. Available at https://www. pilkington.com/~/media/Pilkington/Site%20Content/UK/Reference/ TableofDefaultUValues.ashx [Accessed February 12, 2016] Modern Windows and Doors (n.d) What is low-e glass. Available at http:// www.mwandd.co.uk/what-is-low-e-glass [Accessed February 10, 2016] Carbon Life Cycle: Pelsmakers, Sofie (2015) The Environmental Design Pocketbook. 2Nd, Rev. Ed. London: RIBA Publishing, 2016. Print. GLA (2013) Carbon Calculations. Available at https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259613/ Volume5_Climate_Summary_carbon_calculation_outputs_CL-002-000. pdf [Accessed March 3, 2016]

Easy Roommate (2015) Rooms to rent: Flatsharing in 2015 and beyond. Available at http://blog.easyroommate.com/rooms-to-rent-flat-sharingin-2015-and-beyond/ [Accessed February 22, 2016] New Ideas for Housing. (2015). London: New London Architecture, pp.12, 44-45, 74-75, 126. UKCES (2014) The Future of Work and Job skill 2030. Available at https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/303334/er84-the-future-of-work-evidence-report.pdf [Accessed February 4, 2016] [Online] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_422175.pdf [Accessed February 4, 2016] [Online] http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/suburbancommandos-transport-london-2050/ [Accessed February 23, 2016] The Guardian (2015) Flatsharing in the 40s. Available at http://www. theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/25/flatsharing-40s-housing-crisislack-homes-renting-london [February 23, 2016]

UK guidelines: CIBSE (2006). CIBSE Guide A, Chartered Institution of BuildingServices Engineers. London. CIBSE (2005b). Lighting Guide 7: Office Lighting. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London CIBSE (2010) Applications Manual AM10, Natual Ventilation in Nondomestic Buildings CIBSE (1999) Lighting Guide LG 10. Daylighting and Window Design. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London GLA. (2015) Housing Standards. Available at https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230251/2_-_ Housing_Standards_Review_-_Technical_Standards_Document.pdf [Accessed February 10, 2016]

Materials:

105

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

APPENDIX Appliance Wattage and schedules Table 1

Appliance Wattage and Schedules

Appliance TV (living) TV (bedroom) Microwave

Quantity

115 115 900

Time used in a day (min) 8 60 20 60 8 4

Time used in a day (h)

Weekend Schedule

Weekday Schedule

1 1 0.06

20:00-21:00 22:00-23:00 10:00-10:04 18:00-18:04

19:00-20:00

Coffee Machine Hob

600 1500

8 8

4 15

0.06 0.25

10:00-10:04 8:45-9:00 18:00-18:15

Washing Machine Electric Kettle

1000 1200

8 8

60 4

1 0.06

20:00-21:00 10:00-10:04

Refrigerator Toaster Tumble Dryer Laptop

200 700 2000 110

8 8 8 28

1440 4 45 300

24 0.06 0.75 5

10:00-10:04 21:00-21:45 23:00-24:00

540

24:00-8:00

Mobile Charger (Apple)

106

Power Rate (W)

6:45-7:00 13:00-13:04 19:00-19:04 7:00-7:04 6:45-7:00 13:00-13:15 19:00-19:15 6:56-7:00 15:00-15:04 6:56-7:00 23:00-24:00 14:00-18:00 22:00-6:00 TOTAL

Annual Consumption (kWh) per unit 41.975 12.075 98.55

Annual Consumption (kWh) per unit x quantity 335.8 241.5 788.4

13.14 371.25

105.12 2970

105 45

840 360

1752 15.33 157.5 200.75

14016 122.64 1260 5621

81.76 2716.57

2289.28 28949.74

Carbon footprint research Table 2

Carbon Footprint Material Data

Materials

Exterior Walls Mortar lime: sand 10 mm 1:3 Brick, general clay 102 mm (outer brickwork) mortar lime: sand 1:3 accoya wood cladding/decking brick Structural Reinforced Concrete 1% Steel 250 mm Cross Laminated Timber (Spruce) Glue Laminated Timber

Density kg/m3

1830 1870

2300 480-500 480-570

window Double glazing w/ argon air-fill: Argon polycarbonate overhang Insulation straw bale

Approx. embodied carbon: kgCO2 per m2 of surface area

0.066 0.222

510 1873

Interior Finishes Reclaimed Wood Flooring deluxtrade white gloss paint deluxtrade weathershield quick dry exterior white plywood interior walls softwood 25mm plywood ceiling 18mm Flooring Roof Aggregate (gravel or crushed rock) 100 mm warcel insulation solid timber flooring 25mm depth ceramic tiles bathrooms Site Design Concrete rain garden planters PV (polycrystaline)1kwpeak=10m2 Timber (general) trellis soil 300mm

Approx. emodied carbon: kgCO2/kg35

Specific heat capacity J/kgK

Effective heat capacity Wh/m2k

k-value (thermal conductivity) W/mK

1.2 42.5

950 800

4.8 41.5

43.3

800

42.4

116.1

840 1600

43.1

0.12 483kgco/m3(.55/brick) 0.35 0.13 353.8kgco2/m3

700 610 700

0.544 0.462 1.07 0.58 1.07

13.4 8.8 13.4

1420 1420 1420

4.9 5 4.9

0.15 0.13 0.15

2240

0.0048

920

57.2

1.3

14.6 11.2

1200 800

5.4 4.2

650 1900

0.023

0.01

0.6

derrive

14.6-8.8m2

208 480-720 1460

recycled

0.63-0.72 0.50-0.84

60.56m3

0.202

carbon reduction sequested

519 1600 880

0.13 1.28

107

1.7836 at 0Â°C

130

0.055-0.065

145.833/m2

lime concrete

107

Sustainable Living @ Diespeker Place

APPENDIX Carbon Calculator Chart Table 3

Carbon Calcultaor Chart

Breakdown of Construction and Operational Carbon Emissions Sub-totals

tonnes CO2e

Quarried Material

0.3

Timber

40.5

34%

Concrete, Mortars & Cement

41.0

35%

Metals

0.0

Plastics

0.0

Glass

34.6

29%

Miscellaneous

0.0

Finishings, coatings & adhesives

0.0

0% 0%

Plant and equipment emissions

0.0

Waste Removal

0.0

Portable site accommodation

0.0

Material transport

1.7

Personnel travel

0.0

Operational

0.0

Significant materials (figures include transport to site) 41.815 tonnes CO2e

Primary glass

34.796 tonnes CO2e

Glue laminated timber

21.385 tonnes CO2e

Plywood

19.738 tonnes CO2e

Soil - general / rammed soil

0.354 tonnes CO2e

Strawbale

0.002 tonnes CO2e

Construction Carbon: Lifetime Operational Carbon:

tonnes CO2e

118.1

tonnes CO2e

Mode of transport

tonnes CO2e

0.0

Ensure timber is from certified legal and sustainable sources. Look for opportunities for site won material / reuse of arisings on-site.

Distance between source of supply and site (km)

118.1

Ensure timber is from certified legal and sustainable sources.

Quantity (tonnes)

Total Carbon Footprint:

Soil - general / rammed soil

1.7 tonnes/m3

0.024

Road

0.3

0.1

0.4

Glue laminated timber

0.5 tonnes/m3

0.420

Road

21.076

0.309

21.385

Construction material

108

Emission reduction tips (see also: User Guide)

66-80% GGBS (CEM III/B)

Unit Conversion or Density

Embodied tCO2e per tonne of material

Footprint (tonnes CO2e) Embodied

Transport

Sum

Plywood

11 kg/m2*20mm

0.450

Road

19.472

0.267

19.738

Primary glass

2.5 tonnes/m3

0.91

Road

66-80% GGBS (CEM III/B)

1.5 tonnes/m3

0.32

128

Road

34.562 41.024

0.234 0.791

34.796 41.815

PV Energy production Table and CO2 reduction Calculations 1 Table 4

PV Energy Production and CO2 Reduction Table 1Calculations Table 1

Annual Electricity Produced by PV Panel (kWh) (4kWh *18 Panel)

Annual Electricity Produced by PV (kWh) (4kWh *18 *18 Panel) Annual Electricity Produced by Panel PV Panel (kWh) (4kWh Panel) North South East West North North

0 Degree

South South 2,608

EastEast

West West

0 0 Degree 30Degree Degree

2,017

2,608 2,608 2,919

2,485

30 30 Degree 45 Degree

2,017 2,017 1,670

2,919 2,919 2,870

2,485 2,485 2,331

45 45 Degree 90 Degree

1,670 1,670 1,004

2,870 2,870 2,019

2,331 2,331 1,606

90 Degree 90 Degree

1,004 1,004

2,019 2,019

1,606 1,606

Table 1-1

1-11-1 Table Annual Electricity Table Produced by PV per Panel (kWh) (4kWh Capacity) Annual Electricity Produced by PV Panel (kWh) (4kWh Capacity) Annual Electricity Produced by per PV per Panel (kWh) (4kWh Capacity) North South East West North North

0 Degree

South South 144.89

EastEast

Info Location InfoInfo : N1 8JX, London, UK Period : 15 Jan - 31 March Location : N1 8JX, London, UK UK Location : N1 8JX, London, Shading : 20%-60% Clear (Moderate) Period : 15 - 31- March Period : Jan 15 Jan 31 March Reference Shading : 20%-60% Clear (Moderate) Shading : 20%-60% Clear (Moderate) http:// Reference Reference www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust. http:// http:// org.uk www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust. www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust. org.uk org.uk PV Panel Roof Size : 31m2 (max Calc) PV PV Panel Panel Capacity :: 431m2 kWh per(max panel Roof SizeSize (max Calc) Roof : 31m2 Calc) Number : 18 Panels Capacity : 4 kWh perper panel Capacity : 4 kWh panel Panel Size : :1.6 per panel Number : 18 Panels Number 18 m2 Panels Actual Area :panel 28.8 m2 Panel Size : on 1.6 m2 m2 perper panel Panel Size : Installation 1.6

Actual Area on Installation : 28.8 m2 m2 Actual Area on Installation : 28.8

West West

0 Degree 0 Degree 30 Degree

112.06

144.89 144.89 162.17

138.06

30 Degree 30 Degree 45

112.06 112.06 92.78

162.17 162.17 159.44

138.06 138.06 129.50

45 Degree 45 Degree 90

92.78 92.78 55.78

159.44 159.44 112.17

129.50 129.50 89.22

90 Degree 90 Degree

55.78 55.78

112.17 112.17

89.22 89.22

Table 1-2

Table 1-2 Table 1-2 by PV Panel (tonnes) Annual CO2 Saved Annual CO2CO2 Saved by PV (tonnes) Annual Saved by Panel PVEast Panel (tonnes) South

North North North

0 Degree

South South

EastEast

West West West

by PV 29 Panel (tonnes) 22 Annual CO2 Saved 3229 27

0 0 Degree 30Degree Degree 30 Degree 30 Degree

North

22 22

South

32 32

East

27 27

45 Degree

90 Degree

Table 1-2-1 22

18 3

West

27 27 26 18

Annual CO2 Saved by PV per Panel (tonnes) North

South

0 Degree

East

West

1.61

30 Degree

1.22

1.78

1.50

45 Degree

1.00

1.78

1.44

90 Degree

0.61

1.22

1.00

109 North

South

East

West