ÞÊ/À ÌÞÊ*À >ÀÞÊ-V Ê
ià } Ê> `Ê VViÃÃÊ-Ì>Ìi i Ì > `ÊÃÕ«« ÀÌ }Ê v À >Ì Êv ÀÊ« > }Ê>«« V>Ì >ÀV ÊÓää
HOLY TRINITY PRIMARY SCHOOL RICHMOND, LONDON
by Varunya Jarunyaroj (Yoon) Wan Fang Wu (Fong) Sustainable Environmental Design Programme Architectural Aassociation School of Architecture MArch 2015-2017 Team 1 Case Study October - December 2015 Diocese of Southwark Board of Education
3D Rendered View (by Architype)
AA School of Architecture Sustainable Environmental Design Progamme
Authorship Declaration Form Term 1 Project London Case Studies TITLE
Holy Trinity Primary School NUMBER OF WORDS
STUDENT NAMES
Varunya Jarunyaroj Wan Fang Wu
DECLARATION “It is important to note that this case study started out as a group of four, but after a period of time, the group decided to split and work on two separate booklets instead due to team members having very different agendas, priorities, and schedules. Within this booklet, only the field data collected from the first site visit on November 9th, 2015 was done as a group of four, comprised of Drin Chulakasyena, Varunya Jarunyaroj, Xiaxi Qiu, and Wan Fang Wu. All the graphics and text within this booklet, along with all fieldwork summaries, analyses, outdoor and indoor studies, conclusions and proposals were done solely by Varunya Jarunyaroj and Wan Fang Wu.” “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that the contents of this document are entirely my own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”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 the Head Teacher, Penny Cox, at the Holy Trinity Primary School for giving us the opportunity to study such interesting project of melding the old with the new. We would like to thank the various staffs at the school for their time and patience with our field work: April Owen for providing us invaluable energy consumption bills; Suzannah Durrant for taking the time to talk to us about the school’s eco-agenda and providing us with the 2014 Energy Audit Report; Trevor Bell for clarifying building management questions; Teachers Paul Hambling, Mark Collett, and Alex Auton, for answering survey questions and allowing us to take measurements. We would like to thank the Architects at Architype for all their help: Christian Dimbleby at Architype for meeting and discussing the project with us; Iona Campbell for coordinating our visits with the school; Meital Ben Dayan for sending us invaluable building information and drawings. We are also indebted to Meital Ben Dayan and Ayelet Lanel, for generously sharing their previous studies of the building along with raw field data. All the information provided from these generous Architects were instrumental to our studies, enriching our understanding to a degree, which would not have been possible otherwise. We would also like to acknowledge our gratitude to our tutors Simos Yannas, Paula Cadima, Jorge Rodriguez, Mariam Kapsali, Gustavo Brunelli, and Byron Mardas for their guidance and feedback throughout the project. We are especially grateful for Mariam Kapsali’s weekly tutorials and continuous guidance. Lastly, Wan Fang Wu would like to acknowledge the Architectural Association, School of Architecture for awarding her a scholarship/bursary to attend the AA SED MArch Course 2015-2017.
Summary This report was done within two and a half months, from October to mid-December, on the Holy Trinity Primary School expansion project located in the Borough of Richmond, approximately 10.5 miles (17 km) southwest of London city center. It was a first term case study conducted as part of the Sustainable Environmental Design Master’s Program at the Architectural Association, School of Architecture. The outdoor and indoor studies comprised of analyzing previous studies on the building, interviewing the architect, visiting the site to make observations and measurements, informally interviewing the teachers and staffs, followed by analytical work and simulations. The goal was to analyze and understand the building performance, usability, and occupant comfort in order to draw conclusions and provide suggestions for improvements if deemed appropriate. Architype was responsible for the design of the Holy Trinity Primary School expansion project. It was a fast pace design-build project with construction started in 2010 and finished in 2011. The project achieved BREEAM Excellent with its use of local sustainable materials and 20% reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emission, etc. After studying all published literature and previous studies on the project, some key questions arose, which guided the team’s research methodology, concluding in general propositions for school designs and refurbishments within the London climate after detailed analysis and simulations.
Contents Introduction 9
1. Overview //
10
1.1 Site Overview 1.2 Building Overview 1.3 Local Climate 2. Outdoor Studies //
18
2.1 Field Observations 2.2 Thermal Comfort Analysis 2.3 Wind Analysis 2.4 Solar Analysis
3. Indoor Studies //
36
3.1 Field Observations 3.2 Solar Analysis 3.3 Lighting Analysis 3.1 Thermal & Ventilation Analysis 3.2 Energy Consumption 3.3 Refurbishment Summary Conclusions 61 Epilogue 63 References 65 Appendices 66
1. INTRODUCTION This case study project was one of the two school projects amongst a total of eight case studies within this term, varying from office buildings to housing, throughout London. The goal for this term was to focus on understanding environmental aspects of a building and its surrounding outdoor spaces, occupant comfort and behavior, as well as the differences between design intentions versus real life environmental performance. In the case of an education building, the project team believes that it is important to get a good understanding of the users and identify key differences between adults’ and kids’ needs and preferences in terms of environmental comfort. With this understanding, the team analyzed the main qualities of the building and adjacent outdoor spaces to identify any problems relating to air quality, thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort and extract lessons (good and bad) from this project that can be applied in future projects. The team also analyzed the school’s energy consumption and looked at strategies for improvements. Weekly lectures, tutorials, and technical workshops on environmental principles, research methodologies, and computational simulation studies were provided to give a foundation and to support development of the case study. References to various published literature, benchmarks, and energy consumption data were made to help support the project analyses. The report has been divided into five main parts. The first part is an overview of the local weather conditions, project site and history. The second part is an overview of the building features and design strategies. The third part focuses on outdoor environmental studies of three key areas adjacent to the selected indoor study areas. The fourth part concentrates on the building performance and indoor comfort of two classrooms and a joint shared teaching space within the Key Stage 2 Classroom Wing. The final part highlights general conclusions and individual experiences and observations throughout the case study.
9
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Site Context LOCATION | SURROUNDING CONTEXT | SITE ACCESS The Holy Trinity Primary School site is surrounded by single-story to two-story residential buildings, with a large area of allotment gardens to the north and a church directly southeast. The aerial map (Fig. 002) shows the site in relation to the local Kew Garden Weather Station which is located 1.8 miles / 2.9 km northwest of Holy Trinity Primary School.
Site 51° 27’ 49”N 0° 17’ 4”W Carrington Rd, Richmond TW10 5AA 57b flight noise level
Kew Garden Weather Station
The map below (Fig. 003) is the Heathrow Noise Exposure Contours showing the site’s location within the 57 decibel Zone. This level is high enough to make people feel irritated and may have negative effects on learning with long term exposure. Acoustic analysis is important to see if the implemented acoustic system is doing a good job. Furthermore, the school is accessible by car and foot from Carrington Road on the west and from a footpath on the south adjacent to the Church. (Fig. 001) Fig. 004 shows a bird's eye view of the allotment gardens directly north of the site, which providing a good sense of openness. Figs. 005 gives an idea of the look and feel of the existing buildings on site and Fig. 006 shows a the general site programs.
Holy Trinity Primary School
FIG. 002 Aerial image showing location of Holy Trinity Primary School and Kew Garden Weather Station (after Google Earth)
57dB Air traffic Contour Zone
FIG. 001 Site Boundary and Acess (after DigiMap Ordiance Map) 10
FIG.003 Heathrow 2014 Noise Exposure Contours - Day Standard Modal Split (77% W / 23% E) Leq Contours (after ERCD Report 1501 by the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department Civil Aviation Authority)
Property Area 10,475 m2 31% building (3,255 m2 w/ 360 m2 greenroof) + 31% paving (3,300 m2) + 27% landscaped area (2,845 m2) + 10% artificial grass (1,075 m2)
FIG. 004
Site Overview
1 1
13
3 1
5
4 1
1
2
1 Key Stage 2 Play Area
2
6
2 Courtyards 3 MUGA
10
4 Sensory Garden
2
5 Playing Field
9
6 Key Stage 1 Play Area 8
7 Reception Play Area 8 Amphitheatre
7
11
9 Main Entrance Area 10 Car Park
12
11 Caretakers House (existing) 14
12 Nursery Play Area (existing) 13 Habitat Area
N
14 New lighting and resurfacing
to pedestrian access route
FIG. 005 Existing Building (photos from Architype)
FIG. 006 Site Plan (after Architype)
11
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Building Overview The existing building was built in 1970 and about five years ago there was a need to expand due to increasing number of students. The construction started in 2010 and finished in 2011. It was a designbuild project and the construction schedule was tight due to the fact that the school remained occupied during construction. Currently, the building footprint occupies 30% of the total property. The expansion added 12 new classrooms, almost doubling the Gross Internal Floor Area, which is now a total of 2,223 m2. The project targeted to reduce energy consumption and C02 emission by 20% using various sustainable strategies to achieve BREEAM Excellent. These sustainable strategies aimed to achieve a building envelop airtightness of 1.94 m3/h.m2 @ 50Pa, which is quite impressive. The team’s general goals are to analyze the main qualities of the building, find out if there are any problems relating to air quality as well as thermal, visual, and acoustic comfort. Another important goal is to see how the building can be improved in both comfort and energy consumption.
FIG. 007.
New classroom wings (photos from Architype)
FIG. 008
New classroom wings (photos from Architype)
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE DATA from Architype Estimated Annual CO2 emissions EXLUDING small power equipment – 14.0 kgCO2/m2/yr INCLUDING small power equipment – 18.5 kgCO2/m2/yr Heating & hot water load – 33.28 kWh/m2/yr Electrical base load – 23.21 kWh/m2/yr IT and small power – 9.90 kWh/m2/yr Renewables & LZCs – 20.4% On site energy generation – 2.87% Overall area-weighted U-values – 0.25 W/m2K Average for walls – 0.15 W/m2K Average for windows & external doors – 1.02 W/m2K Average for roof – 0.15 W/m2K Average for ground floor – 0.15 W/m2K Airtightness – 1.94 m3/h.m2 @50Pa
The new classroom phase has been designed to respond to both winter and summer periods. The new buildings are heavily insulated with triple glazing and green roofs (Fig. 007-008), which would lead the buildings to be decoupled with the outdoors. The selection of materials and systems were chosen to achieve maximum sustainable performance, while meeting the requirements of a densely occupied school environment as well as the local climatic conditions.
12
Since one of the design goals was to achieve a highly airtight building envelope due to flight noise issues, a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery ventilation was installed. The MVHR coupled with the Earth Tube system uses the less fluctuated temperature underground to cool or heat up the outdoor air before letting it into the building, which would help improve air quality while simultaneously improve the indoor temperature as well (Figs. 009-010). Interestingly, Architect Christian Dimbleby revealed in retrospect during an interview that it was not wise to put the Earth Tube System under the building foundation. He noted that it would be better to put the system next to or around the perimeter of the building. This would simplify the construction process and lower cost as well as providing the ability to access the system for maintenance later.
5 1
3
2
6 4
A multifaceted approach was taken to meet these requirements: 9
1 Green Roof retain water / biodiversity / CO2 absorption 2 Timber Modular Structure less waste / CO2 locked building fabric 3 Natural Insulation (Rockwool / Wood Fibre) effective insulants / less negative effect in production
FIG. 009. Summer Environmental Strategies Section (Holy Trinity Primary School D&A statement by Architype)
4 Natural Finished Material reduce usage of volatile organic compound in paint 5 Daylighting diffuse north light / no glare
7
6 Solar Shading block direct sun in summer / allow sun in winter
6
7 High Insulation minimize cooling & heating load 8 Efficient Heating monitoring to archive the highest performance 9 Earth Tubes System less energy building thermal control
11
9
10 Heat Recover recycle heat from extract air 10
11 Intelligent Control monitoring lighting and CO2 level / less energy consume 12 Airtightness reduce air traffic noise
FIG. 010. Winter Environmental Strategies Section (Holy Trinity Primary School D&A statement by Architype)
13
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Local Climate
Sunshine (Hours/Day) 7
Local monthly climate data from Kew Garden Weather Station found on the Met Office site provided quick references for this case study, which are represented in Fig. 011. The graph above concludes that there are only about 2 to 3 hours of sunlight in the winter months. Which suggests potential daylighting issues for indoors. The middle graph shows that local temperatures throughout the year are mostly outside of the comfort band. So except for summer, heating would be required in order to move into the comfort band. The graph below shows that the yearly average wind velocity is about 5.4 knots, which is when a person can feel the wind on his/her face according to Beaufort Scales.
Hours per day
6 4 3 2 1 0
Detailed hourly weather data used in all the analytical work and computational simulations were generated by Meteonorm 6.0 with data from Kew Garden Weather Station (Fig. 013). In addition, Weather Underground provided recorded weather data for the days of field measurements. Data from Satel-light showing the frequency of Sunny, Intermediate and Cloudy Skies and irradiation, were referenced to assist in daylight studies. Fig. 012. confirms that the climate in Richmond is predominantly cloudy for most of the year, with a maximum 35% and minimum 22% sunny days.
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Oct
25
Dec
Comfort Band
15 10 5t
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Max. Temp (°C)
10 kt
Nov
Dec
Min. Temp (°C)
1981-2010 Wind at 10m
8
wind speed (kt)
Nov
20
0 12 kt
Yearly average: 5.4 kt
6 4 2 0
14
Sep
1981-2010 Average Temperature
30
Temperature (°C)
The Thermal Comfort Band used for this case study is based on the EN 15251: 2007 standard for category II, which has a 6 K range. This category is recommended for “normal level of expectation” and “new buildings and renovations”, which matches best the situation at Holy Trinity.
5
FIG. 011.
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
80% Average 20%
Local climate data showing hours of sunshine per day, average temperature, and wind velocity (data from Met Office)
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
51°27'49"N Sunrise
0.0
0.0
0.0
0°17'4"W
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26 m
Sunset Clock Time 2000 Frequency of Night, Sunny, Intermediate and Cloudy skies (%) 51°27'49"N 0°17'4"W 26 m
Sunrise
Sunset
Clock Time
2000
Frequency of Sunny, Intermediate and Cloudy Skies (%) Frequency of Night, Sunny, Intermediate and Cloudy skies (%) Sunrise - Sunset // Clock Time
FIG. 012.
Sky conditions chart (Satel-Light)
51°27'49"N SPRING TERM Sunrise Sunset
30
0°17'4"W
26 m
Clock Time 2000 Monthly Frequency of Sunshine in 13 zones (%). 51°27'49"N 0°17'4"W 26 m
25 20
Sunrise Sunset Clock Time 2000 January February Monthly Frequency of Sunshine in 13 zones (%).
15 10
SUMMER TERM
AUTUMN TERM
March
January
February
March
April
May
June
5 0 90 80 70 60
400 350
April
May
300
June
250 200 150 100
http://www.satellight.com/pub/Wu10152015191158/soutdoor.htm
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
http://www.satellight.com/pub/Wu10152015191158/soutdoor.htm
/ FIG. 013.
50
13/15
MAY
JUN
JULY
Thermal Comfort Band (per EN 15251)
Wind Velocity
Diffuse / Global Horizontal Radiation
Outdoor Air Temperature
Monthly diurnal averages for Kew Gardens . (Source: Meteonorm)
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
0
13/15
Outdoor Humidity 15
OUTDOOR STUDIES Field Observations 18-25 Thermal Comfort Analysis 26-29 Wind Analysis 30-31 Solar Analysis 32-33
17
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Field Observations The first site visit on November 09, 2015 was a cold, mostly overcast / cloudy day with a few brief moments of sun (Fig. 014 shows the thick cloud-covered sky). After the first site visit, the team chose three key areas for detailed our outdoor studies: The Play Area The Kitchen Courtyard The MUGA Within these areas, there are also two small transitional spaces under the overhang (Fig. 015).
Research Questions: How are the adjacent outdoor spaces affected by the classroom and shared learning building in terms of spatial quality, thermal and visual comfort. How is the outdoor area immediately north of the classrooms being used and why? How is the courtyard being used and why? Are there a variety of spaces such as sunny spots, filtered light areas, and shaded/shelter spaces to choose from for different activities and different weather conditions? How do the different outdoor elements facilitate or limit the different spatial qualities?
FIG. 014.
18
Photo of plane passing overhead
N
Areas of Study & Pedestrian Circulation
1
Key Stage 2 Play Area Transitional Space under overhang
2
Kitchen Courtyard Transitional Space under overhang
3
MUGA
FIG. 015. Site Plan (after Architype)
19
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Field Observations
Key Stage 2 Play Area
THE PLAY AREA has various different spatial qualities, ranging from transitional space under overhang or a seating area for outdoor classroom activities, to play structures and ping pong tables under a big Willow Tree (Fig. 017-018). Fig. 019 show spot measurements we took on site and PET/mPET calculations done afterward to test our general feelings on site, which was heavily affected by the wind.
1
Key Stage 2 Play Area 885 m2 total area 140 m2 hard surface 250 m2 play surface 460 m2 grass 35 m2 planted area 1 large willow tree 3 small trees 2 play structures 3 ping pong tables 2 picnic tables 16 lm seating 8 fluorescent lights under overhang
20
FIG. 018.
Photo of Play Area looking from west access corridor
FIG. 017.
Photo of willow tree and ping-pong tables
Overcast very windy
N
parameters: Age 28 / Female / Height 1.63m / Weight 53kg
13-14 oc 14-15 oc 16-17 oc 18-19 oc 20-21 oc
clo 2.0 / metabolic rate 120W
10:20 // To 15.0 oc PET 9.2 oc mPET 14.7 oc
To 14.0 oc // 10:15 PET 6.3 oc mPET 11 oc
RH 63 % Wind 4.5 m/s
RH 66 % Wind 13.5 m/s
less cold calmer
very cold elevated 0.75 m
10:25 // To 15.3 oc PET 13.3 oc mPET 19.2 oc
To 16.2 oc // 9:55 PET 9.7 oc mPET 14.6 oc
RH 63 % Wind 2.8 m/s
RH 58 % Wind 11.5 m/s
less cold wetter soil
very cold exposed
To 15.0 oc // 10:00 PET 10.9 oc mPET 16.9 oc
9:40 // To 19.5 oc PET 16.5 oc mPET 21.2 oc RH 61 % Wind 5.5 m/s cold exposed
9:45 // To 17.4 oc PET 12.3 oc mPET 17.4 oc RH 57 % Wind 8.5 m/s
cold semi-sheltered
FIG. 019 Site Plan (after Architype)
RH 63 % Wind 5.0 m/s cold, exposed elevated 0.50 m
To 15.7 oc // 9:50 PET 16.5 oc mPET 21.2 oc RH 60 % Wind 5.7 m/s cold semi-sheltered
21
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Field Observations
Kitchen Courtyard
Overcast very windy
The KITCHEN COURTYARD which was intended for kitchen gardening. Since it was close to winter when we visited, we didn’t see any vegetable planted (Fig. 020-024). But it may be well planted in the spring/summer. The Head Teacher mentioned that they would like to turn this space into a glassed art studio in the future, which the team thought it would be interesting and appropriate.
2
Kitchen Courtyard 120 m2 total area 26 m2 planted area 4
small trees fenced space
FIG. 020.
FIG. 022.
22
Photo of Kitchen Courtyard looking east
Photo of Kitchen Courtyard looking west
FIG. 021.
Photo of Parking Lot looking from Courtyard gate
N
parameters: Age 28 / Female / Height 1.63m / Weight 53kg
13-14 oc 14-15 oc 16-17 oc 18-19 oc 20-21 oc
clo 2.0 / metabolic rate 120W
10:05 // To 15.7 oc PET 22.9 oc mPET 24.7 oc
To 19.3 oc // 9:52 PET 20.5 oc mPET 24.6 oc
RH 60 % Wind 0.1 m/s
RH 51.2 % Wind 1 m/s
comfortable / sheltered
comfortable / sheltered
10:00 // To 15.4 oc PET 14.1 oc mPET 19.9 oc
To 15.7 oc // 9:50 PET 15.5 oc mPET 20.9 oc
RH 61 % Wind 2 m/s
RH 58 % Wind 1.3 m/s
comfortable / sheltered
comfortable / sheltered FIG. 023. Site Plan (after Architype)
FIG. 024.
Photo of Kitchen Courtyard looking from interior corridor
23
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Field Observations
MUGA - Multi-use Game Area
The MUGA The MUGA is the most exposed to wind, but it does have the most sun access (Figs. 025-028). Sections on wind analysis and solar access studies that follow will illustrate these conditions.
3
MUGA 465 m2 total area most exposed place to wind and sun compared to the other outdoor environments
FIG. 025.
FIG. 026.
24
Photo of MUGA looking at Key Stage 2 Classroom Wing and Play Area
Photo of MUGA looking at Play Field
Overcast very windy
N
parameters: Age 28 / Female / Height 1.63m / Weight 53kg
13-14 oc 14-15 oc 16-17 oc 18-19 oc 20-21 oc
clo 2.0 / metabolic rate 120W
10:25 // To 15.5 oc PET 11.1 oc mPET 16.8 oc
To 17.5 oc // 10:35 PET 12.9 oc mPET 18.9 oc
RH 61 % Wind 6 m/s
RH 61 % Wind 2.8 m/s
very cold / exposed
very cold / exposed
10:20 // To 16.3 oc PET 18.1 oc mPET 22.8 oc RH 61 % Wind 0.8 m/s comfortable / exposed
FIG. 028.
To 15.1 oc // 9:55 PET 12.0 oc mPET 17.9 oc FIGURE 027. Site Plan (after Architype)
RH 62 % Wind 4 m/s very cold exposed
Photo of MUGA looking at Play Field
25
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Comfort Analysis
mPET Annual Comfort Analysis
After our site observations, we chose 6 locations from the different spaces and did annual comfort analysis with mPET. We used an average size kid as analysis subject and assigned different metabolic rates for the different activities that would take place at each spot. We modified the wind speed from the weather data for each location based on our wind flow analysis and site observations. For example, under the willow tree, we predicted that the wind would be 50% of recorded wind data from the weather station since it is sem-protected by the low canopy and at the Kitchen Courtyard it would be 40% of the recorded wind data. Figs. 035-036 describe this, showing the sky view factor of each location.
26
FIG. 029.
Photo looking at ping-pong tables underneath willow tree
FIG. 032.
Photo from top of play structure looking west.
FIG. 030.
Photo of bench area looking west
FIG. 033.
Photo of MUGA looking east
FIG. 031.
Photo of space underneath overhang
FIG. 034.
Photo of kitchen courtyard looking east
solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity, and octas from Kew Garden Weather Station;
parameters: average size kid Age 11 / Female / Height 1.49m / Weight 39kg N 330
N
30
300
330
60
W
E
240
120
210
Under Willow Tree
Top of Play Structure
Wind ~50 % Met ~450W
Wind ~100 % Met ~300W
playing ping pong // running back and forth
climbing up and down the play structure // 0.75m to 3.5m above ground level = exposed
150
S
300
60
W
E
240
120
210
N
30
300
330
Sitting on Wood Bench
60
W
E
240
120
210
150
300
Wind ~100 % Met ~600W
Wind ~85 % Met ~100W
60
intense sports W activities on concrete surface // exposed to the elements 240
slightly sheltered by the building // tree next to bench is to small to have an impact
E
120
210
N 330
30
300
60
W
E
240
120
150
Under Overhang
Kitchen Courtyard
Wind ~50% Met ~120W
Wind ~40 % Met ~120W
semi-sheltered from wind by building // protected from rain by overhang
S FIG. 035.
150
S
N
210
30
MUGA
S
330
150
S
N 330
30
Sky view factor diagrams for each of the 6 locations
N
intense sports activities on concrete surface // exposed to the elements
30
300
60
W
E
240
120
210
FIG. 036. Site Plan (after Architype)
150
S
27
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Comfort Analysis
mPET Annual Comfort Analysis parameters: average size kid
The team also researched metabolic rates between an adult and a kid to understand the thermal comfort difference. Typically, a kid’s metabolic rate is 70% of an adult’s metabolic rate due to differences in body mass and surface area. So for the same activity, at the same spot, at the same time, an adult would feel warmer than a kid. Fig. 037 shows the temperature difference between an adult and a kid performing the same activity.
Age 11 / Female / Height 1.49m / Weight 39kg
parameters: average size adult Age 28 / Female / Height 1.63m / Weight 53kg
Fig. 038 summarizes the analysis, showing an annual weekly chart summarizing the thermal comfort at the 6 locations with different activities. The team concluded that playing ping-pong under the willow and playing sports at the MUGA would be comfortable during the cold periods. Playing at the Play Structure, standing in the Courtyard, and standing under the Overhang would be good during the warm periods. Lastly sitting on the benches would generally be cold except for a couple weeks in July, since this area is mostly shaded by the building throughout the year. The solar hour access analysis (Fig. 048) and outdoor sun patch analysis (Fig. 049) confirm these the conclusions on thermal comfort of the 6 different locations that the team analyzed using mPET calculations. The wind and solar radiation have a big impact on thermal comfort in the outdoor environment. As illustrated by the differences between the mPETs of Spot under overhang and in the kitchen courtyard, which have the same metabolic rate but different wind and solar access.
mPET Comparison between adult and kid 50.0 °C 45.0 °C 40.0 °C 35.0 °C 30.0 °C 25.0 °C 20.0 °C 15.0 °C
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
mPET Adult at Willow Tree
Thermal Comfort Band (per EN 15251)
mPET Kid at Willow Tree
28
31/12/2011 - 01/01/2012
17/12/2011 - 23/12/2011
24/12/2011 - 30/12/2011
10/12/2011 - 16/12/2011
26/11/2011 - 02/12/2011
03/12/2011 - 09/12/2011
12/11/2011 - 18/11/2011
19/11/2011 - 25/11/2011
05/11/2011 - 11/11/2011
29/10/2011 - 04/11/2011
15/10/2011 - 21/10/2011
22/10/2011 - 28/10/2011
01/10/2011 - 07/10/2011
08/10/2011 - 14/10/2011
24/09/2011 - 30/09/2011
17/09/2011 - 23/09/2011
10/09/2011 - 16/09/2011
27/08/2011 - 02/09/2011
03/09/2011 - 09/09/2011
13/08/2011 - 19/08/2011
20/08/2011 - 26/08/2011
06/08/2011 - 12/08/2011
30/07/2011 - 05/08/2011
16/07/2011 - 22/07/2011
23/07/2011 - 29/07/2011
09/07/2011 - 15/07/2011
02/07/2011 - 08/07/2011
25/06/2011 - 01/07/2011
11/06/2011 - 17/06/2011
18/06/2011 - 24/06/2011
04/06/2011 - 10/06/2011
21/05/2011 - 27/05/2011
28/05/2011 - 03/06/2011
07/05/2011 - 13/05/2011
14/05/2011 - 20/05/2011
30/04/2011 - 06/05/2011
16/04/2011 - 22/04/2011
23/04/2011 - 29/04/2011
09/04/2011 - 15/04/2011
26/03/2011 - 01/04/2011
02/04/2011 - 08/04/2011
12/03/2011 - 18/03/2011
19/03/2011 - 25/03/2011
05/03/2011 - 11/03/2011
26/02/2011 - 04/03/2011
12/02/2011 - 18/02/2011
19/02/2011 - 25/02/2011
05/02/2011 - 11/02/2011
29/01/2011 - 04/02/2011
15/01/2011 - 21/01/2011
22/01/2011 - 28/01/2011
01/01/2011 - 07/01/2011
mPET comparison between an adult and a kid 08/01/2011 - 14/01/2011
FIG. 037.
Outdoor Comfort Studies (mPET) solar radiation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind(mPET) velocity, and octas from Kew Garden Weather Station; Outdoor Comfort Studies
parameters: average size kid Age 11 / Female / Height 1.49m / Weight 39kg
50.000 °C 50.000 °C 40.000 °C 40.000 °C
JAN - MAR
mid OCT - DEC
ping pong under Willow playing at MUGA
ping pong under Willow playing at MUGA
30.000 °C 30.000 °C 20.000 °C 20.000 °C 10.000 °C 10.000 °C
/ / FIG. 038.
Thermal Comfort Band (per EN 15251) Thermal Comfort Band (per EN 15251) Diffuse / Global Horizontal Radiation Diffuse / Global Horizontal Radiation
annual weekly graph mPET comfort analysis
Wind Velocity Wind Velocity Outdoor Air Temperature Outdoor Air Temperature
mPET mPET mPET mPET
MUGA MUGA Willow Tree Willow Tree
mPET mPET mPET mPET
Play Area Play Area Courtyard Courtyard
mPET mPET mPET mPET
DEC DEC week week 52 52
DEC DEC week week 51 51
DECDEC week week 50 50
DECDEC week week 49 49
NOV NOV week week 48 48
NOV NOV week week 47 47
NOV NOV week week 46 46
NOV NOV week week 45 45
NOV NOV week week 44 44
OCT OCT week week 43 43
OCT OCT week week 42 42
7.0 m/s 7.0 m/s 6.0 m/s 6.0 m/s 5.0 m/s 5.0 m/s 4.0 m/s 4.0 m/s 3.0 m/s 3.0 m/s 2.0 m/s 2.0 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.0 m/s OCT OCT week week 41 41
OCT OCT week week 40 40
SEPSEPweek week 39 39
SEPSEPweek week 38 38
SEPSEPweek week 37 37
SEPSEPweek week 36 36
AUG AUG week week 35 35
AUG AUG week week 34 34
JULJUL week week 29 29
JULJUL week week 28 28
JULJUL week week 27 27
JUNJUN week week 26 26
JUN JUN week week 25 25
JUNJUN week week 24 24
JUNJUN week week 23 23
JUNJUN week week 22 22
MAY MAY week week 21 21
MAY MAY week week 20 20
MAY MAY week week 19 19
MAY MAY week week 18 18
APRAPR week week 17 17
APRAPR week week 16 16
APRAPR week week 15 15
APRAPR week week 14 14
MAR MAR week week 13 13
MAR MAR week week 12 12
MAR MAR week week 11 11
MAR MAR week week 10 10
MAR MAR week week 9 9
FEBFEBweek week 8 8
FEBFEBweek week 7 7
FEBFEBweek week 6 6
FEBFEBweek week 5 5
JANJAN week week 4 4
JANJAN week week 3 3
JANJAN week week 2 2
500 Wh/m2 500 Wh/m2 300 Wh/m2 300 Wh/m2 100 Wh/m2 1000 Wh/m2 0 Wh/m2
JANJAN week week 1 1
0.000 °C 0.000 °C
AUG AUG week week 33 33
playing at Play Structure standing at Courtyard standing under Overhang
AUG AUG week week 32 32
sitting on the bench
AUG AUG week week 31 31
MAY - AUG
JULJUL week week 30 30
0.000 °C 0.000 °C
two weeks in JUL
Overhang Overhang Bench Bench
29
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Wind Analysis The school is situated in an open landscape with little obstruction, especially from the north side. The team performed wind studies using annual average and maximum wind velocities to see how the prevailing West and Southwest wind would impact the outdoor environments. As illustrated in Fig. 041 and Fig. 043, the southwest wind does not impact the site heavily, but the west wind was observed to be a key environmental factor. During the first site visit on November 9th, the wind was at 8 to 15 m/s and it was uncomfortably cold to be outside for more than 15 minutes. So the team looked at using trees as wind barriers along the north and west edges and ran simulations at max wind speed (15m/s) to see if these barriers would help shelter the spaces from the wind. We concluded that the North barrier (Fig. 044) shelters the MUGA from the west wind and the West barrier (Fig. 045) shelters the Play Area from the west wind as well. Implementing both north and west barriers would contribute shelter as well as increase habitat diversity (Fig. 046).
14
43
10
31
N
FIG. 040.
FIG. 042.
West Direction Wind at 15 m/s (maximum)
m/s
45
3 350
West Direction Wnd at 5.4 m/s (annual average)
15.00 13.50 12.00
14
34
10
34
10.50
W
E
9.00 7.50 6.00 4.50 3.00
225
135
1.50 <=0.00
N
FIG. 039.
30
Wind Rose Diagram
FIG. 041.
South West Direction Wind at 5.4 m/s (annual average)
FIG. 043.
South West Direction Wind at 15 m/s (maximum)
43
47
21
33
FIG. 044.
West Direction Wind at 15 m/s (maximum) with North Barrier
34 29
FIG. 045.
West Direction Wind at 15 m/s (maximum) with West Barrier
FIG. 046.
West Direction Wind at 15 m/s (maximum) with North & West Barriers
31
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Solar Analysis
Solar Hour Access Analysis 24 HOUR ANALYSIS PERIOD
Fig. 047 Sun path diagram and solar hour access analysis (Fig. 048), along with outdoor sun patch studies (Fig. 049) confirm the team's hypotheses raised from the mPET comfort studies. The MUGA gets the most number of solar hour access and the seating area at the Play Area is mostly shaded throughout the year.
MARCH 21
PLAN VIEW MARCH 21
BIRD'S EYE VIEW
N 330
30 10° 20°
300
20:00
4:00
30°
60
40° 19:00
5:00
50° 60°
18:00
80°
7:00
14:00
13:00 12:00 11:00
DECEMBER 21
DECEMBER 21
E
8:00
16:00 15:00
JUNE 21
6:00
70°
17:00
W
JUNE 21
10:00
9:00
240
120
210
32 FIG. 047.
Sunpath Diagram
150
S
N
N
FIG. 048.
Solar access diagrams
N
Sun Patch Analysis
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. 049.
Sun patch diagrams showing how the outdoor environments are affected by the school building and surrounding houses
33
INDOOR STUDIES Field Observations 36-37 Solar Analysis 38-41 Lighting Analysis 42-49 Thermal Analysis 50-57 Refurbishment Summary 58 Energy Consumption 60-61
35
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Field Observations
User Behavior // Vent Blockage
The team looked closely at the field studies that were done by two other previous SED Students, Meital and Ayelet, and learned from occupant questionnaires that the building gets overheated in the summer. The high temperature may have been due to user errors such as blocking the vents, as well as causing artificial lights to be on all the time with posters blocking daylight from entering the room. These hypotheses were confirmed on site as illustrated in Fig. 050-059. The high temperatures may also be the lack of manual overrides on the ventilation system, which is operated by automatic temperature sensors. Referencing these studies, we applied a similar methodology when making measurements, which included collecting spot measurements in a grid system and placing dataloggers in similar locations. This has allowed the team to analyze our field data in reference to the previous studies, draw our own conclusions, and compare the differences.
Initial questions that guided the studies:
FIG. 050.
Corner Classroom vent blockage 1
FIG. 053.
Middle Classroom vent blockage 1
FIG. 051.
Corner Classroom vent blockage 2
FIG. 054.
Middle Classroom vent blockage 2
FIG. 052.
Corner Classroom vent blockage 3
FIG. 055.
Middle Classroom vent blockage 2
How is the classroom interior laid out? Are the occupants taking full advantage of the natural light conditions, the natural ventilation, etc.? Is the space used in practice affecting the heating, ventilation and lighting in ways that may not have been predicted at the design stage? For example, partial covering of windows, different surface materials covering walls, blocking or diverting the flow of heating or ventilation sources? Based on teacher interviews, thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a disparity between thermal comforts from one classroom to another (with the Corner Classroom colder); what are ways to resolve this issue? Airtightness coupled with good ventilation system and adaptive opportunities would be ideal; however, if there are limitations to the ventilation system, should airtightness be lower to compensation the inflexibleness of ventilation system, i.e. no window opening due to noise pollution; mechanical failure of the ventilation system; user errors like blocking vent openings, etc. Are there ways to incorporate more adaptive opportunities for ventilation (i.e. making the clerestory windows openable)?
36
Middle 24 kids Classroom 4 adults
Corner 26 kids Classroom 4 adults shared by 4 classes
FIG. 056.
Diagram showing classroom location and occupancy
~ 50% of the vents in corner classroom are blocked by furnishing
FIG. 057.
Shared Teaching Space
Vent Blockage Diagram
FIG. 058.
Student arts covering Shared Teaching Space glazing
FIG. 059.
Posters covering Middle Classroom glazing
37
Solar Analysis
N
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Sun Patch Analysis // Base Case - Current Conditions
The indoor sun patch studies (Fig. 060) confirm that the classrooms do not get much if any direct sun light, while the Shared Teaching Space does get some direct sunlight due to its south facing glazed faรงade.
38
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. 060.
Site Patch Analysis // Base Case - Existing Condition
N
Sun Patch Analysis // Proposed Refurbishment Case Fig. 061. illustrates a proposed refurbishment scenario, which will follow in the Thermal Section of this booklet. These sun patch diagrams show that even after flipping the orientation of the clerestory to face southeast, the amount of direct sun-light that falls in the classrooms are minimal and can be controlled easily with one or two blinds down for a short amount of time in the morning and early afternoon.
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. 061.
Site Patch Analysis // Base Case - Existing Condition
39
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
N
Solar Analysis
Incident Solar Radiation on Courtyard Glazing BASE // with Overhang
COURT YARD GLAZING The team wanted to test how the existing overhang is performing by looking at Incident Solar Radiation on the glazing, specifically at the south facing faรงade at the courtyard. We can see that the overhang is performing quite well here, with 50% of solar radiation compared to having no overhang in June and slightly more solar radiation in the winter, which would reduce heating load in winter slightly (Fig 062).
No Overhang
PLAY AREA GLAZING The overhang at the Northwest faรงade has a lesser effect. We can see that there is little difference between the three different scenarios (Fig. 063) However, the analysis does show that the zigzag overhang is slightly more effective than the straight overhang. It equalizes solar radiation for each classrooms, compared with the straight overhang where the inner two classrooms would get less solar gain, which could cause problems since we know from the Care Taker that this Classroom Wing has the same thermostat zone. But looking at the small kWh/ m2 differences, the cost and benefit might not be convincing, but the zigzag overhang does add to the overall aesthetic of the building.
MARCH 1 - 31
36.76 kWh/m2
41.30 kWh/m2
JUNE 1 - 30
25.57 kWh/m2
52.27 kWh/m2
DECEMBER 1 - 30
15.31 kWh/m2
13.88 kWh/m2
377.50 kWh/m2
487.50 kWh/m2
ANNUAL TOTAL: 40
FIG 062.
Incident solar radiation on Kitchen Courtyard glazing
N
Incident Solar Radiation on Play Area Glazing BASE // Zigzag Overhang
Straight Overhang
No Overhang
MARCH 1 - 31
22.85 kWh/m2
22.38 kWh/m2
25.60 kWh/m2
JUNE 1 - 30
56.65 kWh/m2
55.45 kWh/m2
60.08 kWh/m2
4.30 kWh/m2
4.22 kWh/m2
4.55 kWh/m2
345.90 kWh/m2
338.60 kWh/m2
366.37 kWh/m2
DECEMBER 1 - 30
ANNUAL TOTAL: FIG. 063.
Incident solar radiation on Play Area glazing
41
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Daylighting Analysis
N
On-site Recordings // Current Peformance Recorded on 09/11/2015 @ 8:30AM
Based on occupant interviews and site observations, the lights in the Classrooms and Shared Teaching Space are monitored by motion sensors. The teachers noted that it is possible to manually switch off the lights in the classrooms for playing videos and lessons that require the projector. However, the team observed that there were no switches for the main ceiling lights at the Shared Teaching Space. The teachers also mentioned that they would normally leave the lights on throughout the day, except when using the projectors. At a glance, the classrooms and shared teaching space are relatively dark in surface colors, with lots of primary colored arts and posters up on the walls of the rooms. The light-medium brown wooden walls and ceiling add a sense of warmth to the spaces, but at the same time detracts from the brightness of the atmosphere. When the team switched off the lights to take daylight lux spot measurements, it was evident that the classrooms would not be functional within a meter away from the windows at the NW elevation on an overcast day in late fall/early winter. The areas directly under the clerestory show a slightly higher lux level, however, the dark blue cabinets along that wall do not help with distributing the incoming daylight due to its low reflectivity (~6%). The other thing to note is that while the space under the clerestory has higher daylighting potential, the positioning of the cabinets prohibits this space from being used as the main learning/ teaching area, due to the need for a circulator path between cabinets and desks. This suggests that relocating the cabinets to another wall and turning the space directly below the clerestory into learning and teaching space would be ideal to effectively take advantage of the available natural light.
Overcast
200 Lux 180 Lux 160 Lux 140 Lux 120 Lux 100 Lux 80 Lux 60 Lux 40 Lux 20 Lux
FIG. 064.
Illuminance, Lux
How much would increasing the window height to an additional 0.5 meter help the daylighting of the classrooms? Is it worth it considering the potential heat loss (not a significant heat gain since it is NW facing) from such modification? The Shared Teaching Space on the other hand is relatively brighter than the classrooms due to its southeast glazing faรงade as well as the lighter (beige) flooring material. It would benefit from addressing the issue of having no on/off light switches for this space, especially when this space is fully occupied throughout the day. To reduce electricity consumption, it would be ideal to have the ceiling lights on different switches to correspond to the density and schedule of occupants. Solar control is also crucial for this space since it does get direct sunlight from the SE glazed faรงade, with April to September in the (morning/afternoon) being the strongest as illustrated by sunpatch diagrams and solar radiation diagrams on Fig. 062-063, respectively.
42
Illuminance lux spot measurements for Middle Classroom and Corner Classroom
Point-in-time illuminance // Current Peformance
Another question comes to mind is how much would changing the navy blue carpet help with the lighting level of the classrooms?
The two skylights next to the bathrooms also contribute to the overall distribution of lighting in this space, preventing this area to be in a darker contrast to the rest of the space. The team speculates that the skylights would further enhance the daylighting potential of this room if they were splayed instead of straight down.
Corner Classroom Middle Classroom
<100
03/21 12:00 Overcast >2,000
03/21 12:00 Clear Sky
FIG. 065. Point-in-time daylight analysis diagrams showing current building daylight performance during different months and sky conditions
FIG. 066.
Middle Classroom // View from from the doorway
06/21 12:00 Overcast
FIG. 067.
Middle Classroom clerestory
06/21 12:00 Clear Sky
FIG. 068.
Shared Teaching Space
12/21 12:00 Overcast
12/21 12:00 Clear Sky 43
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Daylighting Analysis Materials were chosen carefully to match the existing conditions as closely as possible in order to yield more accurate simulations for analysis. Below is a list of the material reflectance used in the daylight model for base case as well as material alteration for the proposed refurbishment case. Simulations were ran to test the performance of the existing daylight conditions and find ways to improve it. Fig. 069 compares the Base Case to Case 1, which is increasing the window to floor ration by raising the glazing by 0,5 meter. We can see that this does have a positive impact on the daylighting potential of the classrooms, with a 6% daylight autonomy increase.
N
Base Case = Current Performance sDA300 lux [50%] 23%
Daylight Availability
Mean DF 1.2% Glare 0.0%
Corner: 15.0% Middle: 13.6% Shared: 11.1%
Corner: 15.5% Middle: 13.6% Shared: 34.4%
Daylight Simulation Material Reflectance: Base Case Interior Surfaces Total Reflectance: Glazing: Clerestory ceiling: 81.5% Wood under overhang: 33% Navy blue carpet: 5.3% Linotium flooring: 40% Wooden walls & ceilings: 33% Light panels: 22.8% Acoustic panels: 33.7% Navy blue cabinet: 27% Yellow cabinet surfaces: 49% Wooden furniture: 38% White board 82.6% Projector screen: 82.6% Green pinup boards: 12.8% Blue pinup boards: 6.3% Purple pinup boards: 19.7% Posters on glazing: 84% Table tops: 38% Chairs: 6.3% Tables & chairs metal legs: 34.8%
Case 1 = Increase NW glazing by 0.5m height sDA300 lux [50%] 29%
Daylight Availability
Mean DF 1.2% Glare 0.0%
Corner: 27.0% Middle: 20.7% Shared: 10.8%
Corner: 27.4% Middle: 20.7% Shared: 34.4%
Case 3 Material Reflectance Changed Total Reflectance: Gray carpet: Lighter wall finish:
44
19% 50%
FIGURE 069.
Annual climate-based daylight analysis diagrams showing current building daylight performance
Overlit Area (Potential for glare)
% of Occupied Hours
UDI<100 lux Corner: 54.0% Middle: 67.6% Shared: 39.7%
UDI<100 lux Corner: 40.5% Middle: 53.4% Shared: 39.7%
UDI<100-2000 lux Corner: 45.8%
51%
Corner: 0.25% Middle: 0.02% Shared: 7.07%
Middle: 32.4% Shared: 53.2%
UDI<100-2000 lux Corner: 59.1% Middle: 46.5% Shared: 53.2%
UDI>2000 lux
63%
UDI>2000 lux Corner: 0.48% Middle: 0.13% Shared: 7.07%
45
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Daylighting Analysis Occupied Hours = 2232 hours School Period: September 5th to July 21st School Time: 8:00 – 16:00 (with full occupant density from 9:00 – 15:00 and partial an hour before and after) As shown in Fig. 070. the proposed solution (Case 3) achieved the recommended target of: 53% of space meeting the criteria for 50% of time (DA300, 50%/UDI100-2000, 50%).
N
Case 2 = Case 1 + Re-orient clerestory to SE sDA300 lux [50%] 48%
Daylight Availability
Mean DF 1.8% Glare 0.0%
Corner: 46.2% Middle: 52.7% Shared: 11.1%
Corner: 46.7% Middle: 55.6% Shared: 34.2%
This means, 53% of the space is well daylit for half of the occupied hours, with a Mean Daylight Factor of 1.9% and Glare of 0.0% of the occupied hours
Case 3 = Case 2 + lighter carpet & walls sDA300 lux [50%] 53%
Daylight Availability
Mean DF 1.9% Glare 0.0%
Corner: 52.2% Middle: 53.8% Shared: 11.8%
Corner: 52.7% Middle: 56.7% Shared: 35.0%
46
FIGURE 070.
Annual climate-based daylight analysis diagrams showing current building daylight performance
Overlit Area (Potential for glare)
% of Occupied Hours
UDI<100 lux Corner: 29.1% Middle: 24.8% Shared: 38.7%
UDI<100 lux Corner: 25.9% Middle: 23.1% Shared: 37.4%
UDI<100-2000 lux Corner: 69.6%
83%
Corner: 1.32% Middle: 2.47% Shared: 7.07%
Middle: 72.7% Shared: 54.2%
UDI<100-2000 lux Corner: 72.7% Middle: 74.2% Shared: 55.5%
UDI>2000 lux
84%
UDI>2000 lux Corner: 1.5% Middle: 2.6% Shared: 7.08%
47
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
N
Daylighting Analysis
Illuminuance Visualizations // Corner Classroom // Case 3 scenes CIE Overcast Sky //
This means, 53% of the space is well daylit for half of the occupied hours, with a Mean Daylight Factor of 1.9% and Glare of 0.0% of the occupied hours
Mar 21 / 12:00
CIE Clear Sky with Sun //
Mar 21 / 12:00
Fig. 071-074 are comparing the rendered daylit Corner Classroom and Middle Classroom with false color renderings as well as referencing their current scenario photographs.
48
FIG. 071.
Corner Classroom // Illuminance Visualizations for different sky conditions and months showing the proposed lighting strategy scene (Case 3).
FIG. 072.
View of Corner Classroom from doorway // Compare against proposed daylighting strategy scenario above
Illuminuance Visualizations // Middle Classroom // Case 3 scenes CIE Overcast Sky //
Jun 21 / 12:00
CIE Clear Sky with Sun //
Jun 21 / 12:00
FIG. 073.
Middle Classroom // Illuminance Visualizations for different sky conditions and months showing the proposed lighting strategy scene (Case 3).
FIG. 074.
View of Middle Classroom from doorway // compare against proposed daylighting strategy scenario above
49
09/11/2015 13:00 09/11/2015 17:00 09/11/2015 21:00 10/11/2015 01:00 10/11/2015 05:00 10/11/2015 09:00 10/11/2015 13:00 10/11/2015 17:00 10/11/2015 21:00 11/11/2015 01:00 11/11/2015 05:00 11/11/2015 09:00 11/11/2015 13:00 11/11/2015 17:00 11/11/2015 21:00 12/11/2015 01:00 12/11/2015 05:00 12/11/2015 09:00 12/11/2015 13:00 12/11/2015 17:00 12/11/2015 21:00 13/11/2015 01:00 13/11/2015 05:00 13/11/2015 09:00 13/11/2015 13:00 13/11/2015 17:00 13/11/2015 21:00 14/11/2015 01:00 14/11/2015 05:00 14/11/2015 09:00 14/11/2015 13:00 14/11/2015 17:00 14/11/2015 21:00 15/11/2015 01:00 15/11/2015 05:00 15/11/2015 09:00 15/11/2015 13:00 15/11/2015 17:00 15/11/2015 21:00 16/11/2015 01:00 16/11/2015 05:00 16/11/2015 09:00 16/11/2015 13:00 16/11/2015 17:00 16/11/2015 21:00 17/11/2015 01:00 17/11/2015 05:00 17/11/2015 09:00 17/11/2015 13:00 17/11/2015 17:00 17/11/2015 21:00 18/11/2015 01:00 18/11/2015 05:00 18/11/2015 09:00 18/11/2015 13:00 18/11/2015 17:00 18/11/2015 21:00 19/11/2015 01:00 19/11/2015 05:00 19/11/2015 09:00 19/11/2015 13:00 19/11/2015 17:00 19/11/2015 21:00 20/11/2015 01:00 20/11/2015 05:00 20/11/2015 09:00 20/11/2015 13:00 20/11/2015 17:00 20/11/2015 21:00 21/11/2015 01:00 21/11/2015 05:00 21/11/2015 09:00 21/11/2015 13:00 21/11/2015 17:00 21/11/2015 21:00 22/11/2015 01:00 22/11/2015 05:00 22/11/2015 09:00 22/11/2015 13:00 22/11/2015 17:00 22/11/2015 21:00 23/11/2015 01:00 23/11/2015 05:00 23/11/2015 09:00 23/11/2015 13:00 23/11/2015 17:00 23/11/2015 21:00 24/11/2015 01:00 24/11/2015 05:00 24/11/2015 09:00 24/11/2015 13:00 24/11/2015 17:00 24/11/2015 21:00 25/11/2015 01:00 25/11/2015 05:00 25/11/2015 09:00 25/11/2015 13:00 25/11/2015 17:00 25/11/2015 21:00 26/11/2015 01:00 26/11/2015 05:00 26/11/2015 09:00 26/11/2015 13:00 26/11/2015 17:00 26/11/2015 21:00 27/11/2015 01:00 27/11/2015 05:00 27/11/2015 09:00
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Analysis
MONDAY
50 FIG. 075.
Data Logger Key Stage Wing // 09/11/2015 13:00 - 27/11/2015 08:00
As shown by spot measurements (in the Appendix) and furthermore by datalogger information on Figs. 075-076, the indoor temperatures for all three rooms seem to be stable. The figure shows that week 3 was below comfort, which may be due to the thermostat being set at the same temperature compared to the previous two weeks, even though the outdoor temperatures were lower than the previous weeks’ temperatures. MVHR would bring in colder air for fresh air requirement, therefore, causing the indoor temperatures to be below comfort band.
TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
15.00 °C
Comfort band
The outdoor temperatures seem to not have a big impact on the indoor temperatures. Here we can observe up to an 18.5K difference, which means the building envelope’s airtightness is performing well and it is decoupled from the outdoor environment.
HOLY TRINITY SCHOOL KEYSTAGE WING a NOV 9 2015 13:00- NOV 27 2015 08:00
FRIDAY SATURDAY
Outdoor Temperature
SUNDAY MONDAY
Data Logger recordings for all three spaces from Nov. 09 to Nov. 11, 2015
TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
10.00 °C
Middle Classroom Temperature
FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
Corner Classroom Temperature
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY
25.00 °C
20.00 °C
5K 18.5K 12K
5.00 °C
0.00 °C
-5.00 °C
Shared Teaching Temperature
Data Logger // Key Stage Wing // Monday 16/11 - Wednesday 18/11 Zooming into three days, we can see that the corner classroom is almost always colder than the other rooms. One, because it more exposed and two, as mentioned by the corner classroom teacher that he likes to open the windows often, which can be confirmed from these spikes (highlighted in red circles) in relative humidity in the corner classroom compared to the other two rooms. We can further infer that the corner classroom teacher likes to open the windows more often because of the vents in his room are almost 50% blocked by furnishing. HOLY TRINITY SCHOOL KEYSTAGE WING a
NOVto16 - Thursday 2015 So as an exercise, the team was interested in looking at Tuesday different strategies turn this building NOV toward18 free-running.
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
100.0 %RH
90.0 %RH
25.000 °C
80.0 %RH
20.000 °C
70.0 %RH
15.000 °C
60.0 %RH
10.000 °C
50.0 %RH
5.000 °C
40.0 %RH
0.000 °C
30.0 %RH
16/11/2015 00:00 16/11/2015 01:00 16/11/2015 02:00 16/11/2015 03:00 16/11/2015 04:00 16/11/2015 05:00 16/11/2015 06:00 16/11/2015 07:00 16/11/2015 08:00 16/11/2015 09:00 16/11/2015 10:00 16/11/2015 11:00 16/11/2015 12:00 16/11/2015 13:00 16/11/2015 14:00 16/11/2015 15:00 16/11/2015 16:00 16/11/2015 17:00 16/11/2015 18:00 16/11/2015 19:00 16/11/2015 20:00 16/11/2015 21:00 16/11/2015 22:00 16/11/2015 23:00 17/11/2015 00:00 17/11/2015 01:00 17/11/2015 02:00 17/11/2015 03:00 17/11/2015 04:00 17/11/2015 05:00 17/11/2015 06:00 17/11/2015 07:00 17/11/2015 08:00 17/11/2015 09:00 17/11/2015 10:00 17/11/2015 11:00 17/11/2015 12:00 17/11/2015 13:00 17/11/2015 14:00 17/11/2015 15:00 17/11/2015 16:00 17/11/2015 17:00 17/11/2015 18:00 17/11/2015 19:00 17/11/2015 20:00 17/11/2015 21:00 17/11/2015 22:00 17/11/2015 23:00 18/11/2015 00:00 18/11/2015 01:00 18/11/2015 02:00 18/11/2015 03:00 18/11/2015 04:00 18/11/2015 05:00 18/11/2015 06:00 18/11/2015 07:00 18/11/2015 08:00 18/11/2015 09:00 18/11/2015 10:00 18/11/2015 11:00 18/11/2015 12:00 18/11/2015 13:00 18/11/2015 14:00 18/11/2015 15:00 18/11/2015 16:00 18/11/2015 17:00 18/11/2015 18:00 18/11/2015 19:00 18/11/2015 20:00 18/11/2015 21:00 18/11/2015 22:00 18/11/2015 23:00
30.000 °C
Comfort band Humidity Benchmark FIG. 076.
Outdoor Temp. Outdoor Humidity
Middle Classroom Temp. Middle Classroom Humidity
Zoom in Data Logger recordings for all three spaces for three days
Corner Classroom Temp. Corner Classroom Humidity
Shared Teaching Temp. Shared Teaching Humidity
51
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Analysis
Base Case = Design Intent
As mentioned earlier, upon field observations, the team concluded that the occupants might not be using the building per design intent, i.e. posters on glazing and furnishing blocking the vents. So it was crucial to analyze and compare the Design Intent Base Case against the Actual Situation Base Case and observe the effects of occupant behaviors on both visual and thermal performance of the spaces. Table in the Appendix page 76 explains these impacts. The results show up to 2-degree difference. Hence, the team would like to advise the occupants to refrain from blocking vents and windows as much as possible. One suggestion that comes to mind would be to re-organize the classroom so that the perimeters become circulation routes free of furniture. Another suggestion is to utilize the overhead space between the ceiling lights to hang art (with white backing to help reflect and distribute light) in a clothesline exhibition format, which one of the classroom has already started to do (Fig. 072).
Fig. 078. Table 01.
Thermal Analysis BASE CASE Proposed Intervention Strategies
Thermal Analysis BASE CASE Parameters
BASE CASE CASE :: DESIGN INTENT BASE DESIGN INTENT Month Month
Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec
To To
5.42 5.42 C C 5.43 C C 5.43 8.11 C 8.11 C 10.03 10.03 C C 14.35 C 14.35 C 16.75 C C 16.75 19.87 19.87 C C 19.41 C 19.41 C 16.09 16.09 C C 12.19 C C 12.19 8.17 8.17 C C 6.62 6.62 C C
Comfort Comfort Band Band
26.00 26.00 C C 26.00 C C 26.00 26.00 26.00 C C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.20 26.20 C C 26.83 C C 26.83 27.67 27.67 C C 27.78 27.78 C C 26.91 26.91 C C 26.11 C C 26.11 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 26.00 C C
Occupancy (person) (person) Occupancy Floor Area Floor Area Glazing Glazing Area Area Window Window to to Floor Floor Area Area Window Orientation Orientation Window Envelope Envelope Heat Heat Loss Loss Infiltration Infiltration Heat Heat Loss Loss Coefficiency Coefficiency Ventilation & & Infiltration Infiltration Heat Heat Loss Loss Ventilation Total Heat Loss (Daily) Total Heat Loss (Daily) Extra Extra Ventilation Ventilation (Natural (Natural Ventilation) Ventilation)
52
20.00 20.00 C C 20.00 C C 20.00 20.00 20.00 C C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.20 20.20 C C 20.83 C C 20.83 21.67 21.67 C C 21.78 C 21.78 C 20.91 20.91 C C 20.11 C C 20.11 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 20.00 C C
Corner Corner Classroom Classroom Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
16.70 875.10 16.70 C C 875.10 W W 17.20 C C 913.06 W W 17.20 913.06 20.70 C 977.87 20.70 C 977.87 W W 23.50 C 1048.27 W 23.50 C 1048.27 W 28.50 C 1098.27 28.50 C 1098.27 W W 31.40 C C 1139.55 W W 31.40 1139.55 34.30 1122.60 34.30 C C 1122.60 W W 33.40 C 1086.65 W 33.40 C 1086.65 W 29.30 C 1028.01 29.30 C 1028.01 W W 24.20 C C 935.92 W W 24.20 935.92 19.60 890.25 19.60 C C 890.25 W W 17.10 C 861.82 W 17.10 C 861.82 W Analysis Parameters Analysis Parameters 30 30 57.44 57.44 m2 m2 14.40 m2 14.40 m2 25.07% 25.07% NW/SE NW/SE 34.94 34.94 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 1.35 1.35 W/K W/K m2 m2 42.69 W/K W/K 42.69 77.63 77.63 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Middle Middle Classroom Classroom Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
17.50 17.50 C C 18.20 C C 18.20 22.00 C 22.00 C 25.20 25.20 C C 30.50 30.50 C C 33.80 C C 33.80 36.60 36.60 C C 35.30 C 35.30 C 30.90 30.90 C C 25.30 C C 25.30 20.50 20.50 C C 18.50 18.50 C C
880.33 880.33 W W 926.55 W W 926.55 1007.40 1007.40 W W 1103.65 W 1103.65 W 1176.87 1176.87 W W 1238.50 W W 1238.50 1212.72 1212.72 W W 1155.06 W 1155.06 W 1072.99 1072.99 W W 950.96 W W 950.96 899.55 W 899.55 W 866.75 866.75 W W
30 30 57.44 57.44 m2 m2 17.29 17.29 m2 m2 30.10% 30.10% NW NW 29.83 29.83 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 1.27 1.27 W/K W/K m2 m2 42.84 W/K W/K 42.84 72.67 72.67 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Shared Shared Teaching Teaching Space Space Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
13.80 13.80 C C 15.10 C C 15.10 19.60 19.60 C C 22.00 C 22.00 C 25.80 25.80 C C 27.50 C C 27.50 31.10 31.10 C C 29.40 29.40 C C 28.30 C 28.30 C 23.20 C C 23.20 17.00 17.00 C C 14.50 14.50 C C
699.16 699.16 W W 802.12 W W 802.12 956.23 956.23 W W 1000.26 1000.26 W W 955.91 955.91 W W 897.11 W W 897.11 935.40 935.40 W W 1031.06 1031.06 W W 1014.35 W 1014.35 W 918.46 W W 918.46 731.76 W 731.76 W 639.54 639.54 W W
15 15 112.59 112.59 m2 m2 24.84 m2 24.84 m2 22.06% 22.06% S/SKY S/SKY 54.27 54.27 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 0.74 0.74 W/K W/K m2 m2 29.05 W/K W/K 29.05 83.32 83.32 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Case 1 = Base case with +0.5m Window Height Then, three other cases were formulated per our research questions, site observations and occupant surveys in a step-by-step sequence to move the building toward free-running:
Base Case: Design Intent
(with MVHR, analyzed with no heating on nor extra vent)
Hypothesis 1: needs heating during Cold Periods and cooling during Warm Period. Table 01 confirms this hypothesis. Case 1: Design Intent + 0.5 meter NW glazing height increase
Fig. 079. Table 02.
Thermal Analysis CASE 1 Proposed Intervention Strategies
Thermal Analysis CASE 1 Parameters
CASE CASE 11 :: DESIGN DESIGN INTENT INTENT & &+ + 0.5 0.5 WINDOWS WINDOWS H H Month Month
Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov Dec Dec
To To
5.42 5.42 C C 5.43 5.43 C C 8.11 8.11 C C 10.03 10.03 C C 14.35 C 14.35 C 16.75 16.75 C C 19.87 19.87 C C 19.41 C 19.41 C 16.09 16.09 C C 12.19 C 12.19 C 8.17 8.17 C C 6.62 6.62 C C
Comfort Comfort Band Band
26.00 26.00 C C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 26.00 C C 26.00 26.00 C C 26.20 26.20 C C 26.83 C 26.83 C 27.67 27.67 C C 27.78 27.78 C C 26.91 26.91 C C 26.11 26.11 C C 26.00 26.00 C C 26.00 26.00 C C
Occupancy Occupancy (person) (person) Floor Floor Area Area Glazing Glazing Area Area Window Window to to Floor Floor Area Area Window Orientation Window Orientation Envelope Envelope Heat Heat Loss Loss Infiltration Infiltration Ventilation Ventilation & & Infiltration Infiltration Heat Heat Loss Loss Total Total Heat Heat Loss Loss Extra Extra Ventilation Ventilation (Natural (Natural Ventilation) Ventilation)
20.00 20.00 C C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 20.00 C C 20.00 20.00 C C 20.20 C 20.20 C 20.83 20.83 C C 21.67 21.67 C C 21.78 C 21.78 C 20.91 20.91 C C 20.11 20.11 C C 20.00 20.00 C C 20.00 20.00 C C
Corner Corner Classroom Classroom Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
16.40 883.22 16.40 C C 883.22 W W 17.00 C 927.90 17.00 C 927.90 W W 20.60 1003.98 20.60 C C 1003.98 W W 23.50 C 1085.96 W 23.50 C 1085.96 W 28.60 C 1143.79 28.60 C 1143.79 W W 31.60 C 1191.55 31.60 C 1191.55 W W 34.40 1171.90 34.40 C C 1171.90 W W 33.50 1130.82 33.50 C C 1130.82 W W 29.30 C 1062.77 29.30 C 1062.77 W W 24.10 C 955.09 24.10 C 955.09 W W 19.40 900.94 19.40 C C 900.94 W W 17.40 867.35 17.40 C C 867.35 W W Analysis Parameters Analysis Parameters 30 30 57.44 57.44 m2 m2 17.16 m2 17.16 m2 29.87% 29.87% NW/SE NW/SE 37.76 37.76 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 1.40 1.40 W/K W/K m2 m2 42.69 W/K 42.69 W/K 80.45 80.45 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Middle Middle Classroom Classroom Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
17.30 17.30 C C 18.00 18.00 C C 21.90 21.90 C C 25.20 C 25.20 C 30.60 30.60 C C 34.00 34.00 C C 36.70 36.70 C C 35.40 C 35.40 C 30.80 30.80 C C 25.10 25.10 C C 20.30 20.30 C C 18.20 18.20 C C
885.85 885.85 W W 937.58 W 937.58 W 1027.98 1027.98 W W 1135.62 W 1135.62 W 1217.66 1217.66 W W 1286.64 W 1286.64 W 1257.55 1257.55 W W 1193.28 W 1193.28 W 1101.66 1101.66 W W 964.92 W 964.92 W 907.27 907.27 W W 869.82 W 869.82 W
30 30 57.44 57.44 m2 m2 19.74 19.74 m2 m2 34.37% 34.37% NW NW 31.96 31.96 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 1.30 1.30 W/K W/K m2 m2 42.84 W/K 42.84 W/K 74.80 74.80 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Shared Shared Teaching Teaching Space Space Ti Heat Ti Heat Gain Gain
13.90 13.90 C C 15.30 15.30 C C 20.10 20.10 C C 22.60 22.60 C C 26.20 C 26.20 C 27.70 27.70 C C 31.40 31.40 C C 32.40 32.40 C C 28.90 28.90 C C 23.70 23.70 C C 17.10 17.10 C C 14.20 14.20 C C
751.83 751.83 W W 879.24 W 879.24 W 1068.89 1068.89 W W 1115.94 W 1115.94 W 1052.94 1052.94 W W 975.17 W 975.17 W 1035.69 1035.69 W W 1151.44 1151.44 W W 1137.56 1137.56 W W 1023.80 1023.80 W W 791.79 791.79 W W 677.16 677.16 W W
15 15 112.59 112.59 m2 m2 31.11 m2 31.11 m2 27.63% 27.63% S/SKY S/SKY 59.73 59.73 W/K W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 0.79 0.79 W/K W/K m2 m2 29.05 W/K 29.05 W/K 88.78 88.78 W/K W/K 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h
Hypothesis 2: The increased area of glazing has a negligible impact on heat loss and heat gain from glazing. Table 02 confirms this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: The additional area of glazing would improve daylighting potential. Fig. 069 from the Daylight Studies confirms this Hypothesis.
Case 2:
Design Intent + 0.5 meter NW glazing height increase + Openable NW Clerestory windows (existing orientation) for Warm Period natural ventilation
Hypothesis 4: Making the clerestory windows openable would provide cross ventilation, which would reduce the cooling load during the Warm Period. The ventilation studies (see page 54 and appendix pages 78-79) will test and confirm this hypothesis.
Case 3: Design Intent + 0.5 meter NW glazing height increase + Openable Clerestory windows for Warm Period natural ventilation + Re-orienting Clerestory window to SE for extra solar heat gain for Cold Periods + Solar control for SE Clerestory to prevent overheating in the Warm Period and glare from direct sun.
Hypothesis 5: Re-orienting the Clerestory window would allow for more solar heat gain, which would reduce the heating load during the Cold Period but may cause overheating in the Warm Period and glare from the low angled sun from the east and in winter. Adding an overhang for solar control would help alleviate some of the issues but may not provide enough solar heat gain for the Cold Period. A small amount of heating may still be needed in the winter.
53
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Analysis
Case 2 = Case 1 + Natural Vent. (summer)
Ventilation Studies: As calculated using soft computation, the Middle Classroom needs about 4.5 ac/h in order to get the level of natural ventilation required to reduce the warm period predicted mean indoor temperatures to be within the thermal comfort band. The Corner Classroom would need roughly 4.0 ac/h and the Shared Teaching Space would need 1.5 ac/h. After analyzing each room using OptiVent (see pages 78-79 in the Appendix), the team concluded that the Middle Classroom could achieve a maximum 4.84 ac/h (buoyancy and wind driven) with cross ventilation by changing the Clerestory to openable, with a 30-50 % Clerestory window aperture. The Corner Classroom could achieve a maximum 4.09 ac/h (buoyancy and wind driven) with a similar strategy as well as making the southeast window facing the courtyard openable (with 50 % window aperture). The Shared Teaching Space could achieve up to 3.51 ac/h (buoyancy and wind driven) with the existing condition of single sided ventilation.
Fig. 078. Table 03.
Thermal Analysis CASE 2 Proposed Intervention Strategies
Thermal Analysis CASE 2 Parameters
CASE 2 : DESIGN INTENT & + 0.5 WINDOWS H + NATURAL VENTILATION(SUMMER) Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
To
5.42 C 5.43 C 8.11 C 10.03 C 14.35 C 16.75 C 19.87 C 19.41 C 16.09 C 12.19 C 8.17 C 6.62 C
Comfort Band
26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.20 C 26.83 C 27.67 C 27.78 C 26.91 C 26.11 C 26.00 C 26.00 C
20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.20 C 20.83 C 21.67 C 21.78 C 20.91 C 20.11 C 20.00 C 20.00 C
Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss Total Heat Loss Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation)
54
Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss Total Heat Loss Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation)
Apr Apr to to Sep Sep Nov Nov to to Mar Mar
Occupancy (person) Floor Area Glazing Area Window to Floor Area Window Orientation Envelope Heat Loss Infiltration
Corner Classroom Ti Heat Gain
16.40 C 883.22 W 17.00 C 927.90 W 20.60 C 1003.98 W 23.50 C 1085.96 W 21.70 C 1143.78 W 24.50 C 1195.55 W 27.50 C 1171.90 W 26.70 C 1130.82 W 23.00 C 1062.77 W 24.10 C 955.09 W 19.40 C 900.94 W 17.40 C 867.35 W Analysis Parameters
Middle Classroom Ti Heat Gain
17.30 C 18.00 C 21.90 C 25.20 C 21.90 C 24.80 C 27.70 C 26.80 C 23.00 C 25.10 C 20.30 C 18.20 C
885.85 W 937.58 W 1027.98 W 1135.62 W 1217.66 W 1286.64 W 1257.55 W 1193.28 W 1101.66 W 964.92 W 907.27 W 869.82 W
Shared Teaching Space Ti Heat Gain
13.90 C 15.30 C 20.10 C 22.60 C 21.80 C 23.70 C 27.10 C 27.60 C 24.10 C 23.70 C 17.10 C 14.20 C
751.83 W 879.24 W 1068.89 W 1115.94 W 1052.78 W 975.17 W 1025.69 W 1151.44 W 1137.56 W 1023.80 W 791.79 W 677.16 W
30 57.44 m2 17.16 m2 29.87% NW/SE 37.76 W/K 0.1 ac/h 1.40 W/K m2 42.69 W/K 80.45 W/K 0.0 ac/h 2.69 W/K m2
30 57.44 m2 19.74 m2 34.37% NW 31.96 W/K 0.1 ac/h 1.30 W/K m2 42.84 W/K 74.80 W/K 0.0 ac/h 2.79 W/K m2
15 112.59 m2 31.11 m2 27.63% S/SKY 59.73 W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.79 W/K m2 29.05 W/K 88.78 W/K 0.0 ac/h 1.25 W/K m2
116.84 W/K 154.60 W/K
128.55 W/K 160.51 W/K
81.50 W/K 141.23 W/K
4.0 ac/h
4.0 ac/h
4.0 ac/h
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
5.42 C 5.43 C 8.11 C 10.03 C 14.35 C 16.75 C 19.87 C 19.41 C 16.09 C 12.19 C 8.17 C 6.62 C
26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.00 C 26.20 C 26.83 C 27.67 C 27.78 C 26.91 C 26.11 C 26.00 C 26.00 C
20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.00 C 20.20 C 20.83 C 21.67 C 21.78 C 20.91 C 20.11 C 20.00 C 20.00 C
16.70 C 904.18 W 17.10 C 942.08 W 20.70 C 1015.08 W 23.40 C 1078.56 W 21.60 C 1115.42 W 24.10 C 1140.38 W 27.20 C 1131.83 W 26.60 C 1117.88 W 23.00 C 1067.08 W 24.40 C 979.75 W 19.70 C 929.30 W 17.70 C 895.13 W Analysis Parameters
17.80 C 18.30 C 22.10 C 25.00 C 21.60 C 24.10 C 27.20 C 26.70 C 23.00 C 25.70 C 21.00 C 19.00 C
927.31 W 965.63 W 1049.93 W 1120.99 W 1161.57 W 1185.42 W 1178.28 W 1167.67 W 1110.19 W 1013.70 W 963.37 W 924.70 W
13.90 C 15.30 C 20.10 C 22.60 C 21.80 C 23.70 C 27.10 C 27.60 C 24.10 C 23.70 C 17.10 C 14.20 C
751.83 W 879.24 W 1068.89 W 1115.94 W 1052.78 W 975.17 W 1025.69 W 1151.44 W 1137.56 W 1023.80 W 791.79 W 677.16 W
Case 3 = Case 2 + SE Clerestory (with adaptable shading device)
30 30 15 57.44 m2 57.44 m2 112.59 m2 17.16 m2 19.74 m2 31.11 m2 29.87% 34.37% 27.63% NW/SE NW/SE S/SKY 37.76 W/K 31.96 W/K 59.73 W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 0.1 ac/h 1.40 W/K m2 1.30 W/K m2 0.79 W/K m2 Fig. 079. Thermal Analysis CASE 3 Proposed Intervention Strategies Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss 42.69 W/K 42.84 W/K 29.05 W/K Table 04. HeatThermal Total Loss Analysis CASE 3 Parameters 80.45 W/K 74.80 W/K 88.78 W/K Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation) 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h 0.0 ac/h CASE 3 : DESIGN INTENT & + 0.5 WINDOWS H + NATURAL VENTILATION + SE CLERESTORY (SHADED APR-OCT) 2.69 W/K m2 2.79 W/K m2 1.25 W/K m2 Corner Classroom Middle Classroom Shared Teaching Space Month To Comfort Band Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss 116.84 W/K 128.55 W/K 81.50 W/K Ti Heat Gain Ti Heat Gain Ti Heat Gain Total Heat Loss 154.60 W/K 160.51 W/K 141.23 W/K Jan 5.42 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 16.70 C 904.18 W 17.80 C 927.31 W 13.90 C 751.83 W Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation) 4.0 ac/h 4.0 ac/h 4.0 ac/h Feb 5.43 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 17.10 C 942.08 W 18.30 C 965.63 W 15.30 C 879.24 W Mar 8.11 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 20.70 C 1015.08 W 22.10 C 1049.93 W 20.10 C 1068.89 W Apr 10.03 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 23.40 C 1078.56 W 25.00 C 1120.99 W 22.60 C 1115.94 W May 14.35 C 26.20 C 20.20 C 21.60 C 1115.42 W 21.60 C 1161.57 W 21.80 C 1052.78 W Jun 16.75 C 26.83 C 20.83 C 24.10 C 1140.38 W 24.10 C 1185.42 W 23.70 C 975.17 W Jul 19.87 C 27.67 C 21.67 C 27.20 C 1131.83 W 27.20 C 1178.28 W 27.10 C 1025.69 W Aug 19.41 C 27.78 C 21.78 C 26.60 C 1117.88 W 26.70 C 1167.67 W 27.60 C 1151.44 W Sep 16.09 C 26.91 C 20.91 C 23.00 C 1067.08 W 23.00 C 1110.19 W 24.10 C 1137.56 W Oct 12.19 C 26.11 C 20.11 C 24.40 C 979.75 W 25.70 C 1013.70 W 23.70 C 1023.80 W Nov 8.17 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 19.70 C 929.30 W 21.00 C 963.37 W 17.10 C 791.79 W Dec 6.62 C 26.00 C 20.00 C 17.70 C 895.13 W 19.00 C 924.70 W 14.20 C 677.16 W Analysis Parameters Apr to Sep
Nov to Mar
Occupancy (person) Floor Area Glazing Area Window to Floor Area Window Orientation Envelope Heat Loss Infiltration
Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss Total Heat Loss Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation)
Apr to Sep
Vent & Infiltration Heat Loss Total Heat Loss Extra Vent (Natural Ventilation)
Nov to Mar
Occupancy (person) Floor Area Glazing Area Window to Floor Area Window Orientation Envelope Heat Loss Infiltration
30 57.44 m2 17.16 m2 29.87% NW/SE 37.76 W/K 0.1 ac/h 1.40 W/K m2 42.69 W/K 80.45 W/K 0.0 ac/h 2.69 W/K m2 116.84 W/K 154.60 W/K 4.0 ac/h
30 57.44 m2 19.74 m2 34.37% NW/SE 31.96 W/K 0.1 ac/h 1.30 W/K m2 42.84 W/K 74.80 W/K 0.0 ac/h 2.79 W/K m2 128.55 W/K 160.51 W/K 4.0 ac/h
15 112.59 m2 31.11 m2 27.63% S/SKY 59.73 W/K 0.1 ac/h 0.79 W/K m2 29.05 W/K 88.78 W/K 0.0 ac/h 1.25 W/K m2 81.50 W/K 141.23 W/K 4.0 ac/h
Sun patch diagrams from Fig. 061. from the Solar Analysis section and shading study conclusion from Table 05 cofirm that even after reorienting the clerestory to face southeast, the amount of direct sunlight that falls in the classrooms remains minimal and can be controlled easily with one or two blinds down for a short amount of time in the morning and early afternoon.
Table 05.
Shading Study for CASE 3 Shading Study for CASE 3 Room
Location
Middle Classroom Corner Classroom Clerestory Corner Classroom Clerestory
Clerestory Clerestory SE Windows
Morning APR to AUG APR to AUG SEP to FEB
Time Noon MAR to SEP MAY to JULY
3PM
Shading Study for CASE 3 Room Middle Classroom Corner Classroom Clerestory Corner Classroom Clerestory
Location Clerestory Clerestory SE Windows
Morning APR to AUG APR to AUG SEP to FEB
Time Noon MAR to SEP MAY to JULY
3PM
55
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Thermal Analysis
35.00 C
Comfort Band
30.00 C
In sum, the BASE CASE shown on page 52, Table 01 does not include extra ventilation, such as openning windows, which would not be true in reality, but this way the team can compare the changes from one case to the next, while confirming that the proposed interventions from the daylighting section do not negatively impact the thermal performance. The results from CASE 1 (Table 02) show that the classrooms did not loose much heat from the increased 0.5m NW glazing. As for CASE 2 (Table 03), with openable NW clerestory windows, cross ventilation can be achieved, providing up to 4 to 5 ac/h for the two classrooms, which is sufficient to naturally ventilate the spaces during the warm period, bringing most of the months into the comfort band as highlighted in yellow on the table. Then, the team wanted to see how re-orienting the clerestory windos to face southeast, as proposed in the daylighting section, would affect the thermal performance. The data on Table 04 shows that adding an overhang for solar control keeps the temperatures within the comfort band, ut this way it only allowed for a small increase of up to 0.3K for the cold months. So a small amount of heating may still be needed in the winter. Figure 080 summarizes and compares the three classrooms from BASE CASE to CASE 3. We can see that overall, CASE 3 performs the best. Figure 081 summarizes the proposed intervention CASE 3, comparing the three classrooms.
Outdoor T o
25.00 C
Corner Classroom
20.00 C 15.00 C
Base Case
10.00 C
Case 1
5.00 C
Case 2
0.00 C
Case 3
35.00 C 30.00 C 25.00 C Middle Classroom
20.00 C 15.00 C
Base Case
10.00 C
Case 1
5.00 C
Case 2
0.00 C
Case 3
30.00 C 25.00 C Shared Teaching Space
20.00 C 15.00 C
Base Case 10.00 C
Case 1
5.00 C
Case 2
0.00 C
Case 3 JAN
56
FEB SPRING TERM
MAR
APR
MAY JUN SUMMER TERM
JULY
AUG
SEP
OCT NOV AUTUMN TERM
DEC
CASE 1
Increase W/F Ratio
CASE 2
Increase W/F Ratio Summer Natural Vent.
CASE 3
Increase W/F Ratio Summer Natural Vent SE Clerestory Clerestory Shading
FIG. 080.
Thermal Analysis comparing Base Case to 3 other cases // Comparative analysis between the three classrooms
SPRING TERM
SUMMER TERM
AUTUMN TERM
30.00 C
25.00 C
20.00 C
15.00 C
10.00 C
5.00 C
0.00 C
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
WINTER STRATEGIES Increase W/F Ratio SE Clerestory SUMMER STRATEGIES Natural Ventilation Shaded Clerestory
Thermal Comfort Band (per EN 15251) Corner Classroom
FIG. 081.
Middle Classroom
Outdoor Temperature Shared Teaching Space
Proposed Intervention CASE 3 // Comparative analysis between the three classrooms
57
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Energy Consumption
Lastly, the team did some energy consumption and CO2 emission research and found that Holy Trinity’s gas usage falls within the Good Practice CIBSE benchmark, but its electricity usage is four times the Good Practice and three times the Typical. (Fig. 082) (But the heating energy consumption has decreased significantly compared to before expansion.) Also, looking at CO2 emission (Fig. 083), Holy Trinity has not been within the CIBSE TM46 benchmark over the years, but it’s important to point out that compared to before expansion, CO2 emission has been reduced. But there’s still work to be done to get within the benchmark and catch up to the other schools.
Holy Triniy Total Energy Consumption in 2014 (kWh / m2 / year) 164
Typical
32
113
Good Practice
HOLY TRINITY (2014)
22
118
Gas
97
Electricity 0
50
100
150
250
200
Holy Trinity Annual Heating vs. Electricity Energy Consumption (kWh / m2 / year) AFTER EXPANSION
BEFORE EXPANSION
250
47
200
46
50
85
150
84 79
100
182
158
155
50
126 94
107
0 2009
2010
Heating Energy Consumption FIG. 082.
58
2011
2012
Electricity Energy Consumption
Energy consumption graphs comparing to benchmark and previous years
2013
2014
Annual CO2 Emission Comparison (Kg CO2 / m2 / year) CIBSE TM46 BENCHMARK
51
29
HOLY TRINITY:
70
2010
75
43
56
2012
33 60
2013
20 20
71
2014
AFTER EXPANSION
2011
39 BEFORE EXPANSION
2009
65
24
OTHER SCHOOLS:
48
Oakfield (2013)
2
28
Wilkindson (2013) 0
20
40
CO2 Emission from Electricity FIG. 083.
60
80
100
120
140
CO2 Emission from Heating
CO2 emission graphs comparing to benchmark and previous years as well as two other school projects
59
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
Refurbishment Summary
Increase glazing height by 0.5m for daylighting
relocate trees and add another row of bleacher benches to make both sides sittable 60
Fig. 084.
re-orient clerestory for better daylight access and increase solar gain in winter
add a sittable edge to vegetable planters for outdoor reading and quiet play
Section Perspective view showing proposed interventions and the relationship between adjacent outdoor spaces, classroom, shared teaching space, and the kitchen courtyard.
Conclusions OUTDOOR Summary & Proposed Improvements
INDOOR Summary & Proposed Improvements
At the Play Area seating area, thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a loss of opportunity for flexible seating with the trees planted directly behind the benches. Relocating the tree planters would make these benches sitable on both sides making them more flexible and allowing for people / activity watching from all directions while being seated. This would especially be good for parents that are waiting and watching their kids play after school hours.
The Holy Trinity Primary School is a great example of refurbishment with a tight schedule and budget. The Architects and Engineers have achieved a great amount, while balancing function and aesthetic.
The grass lawn is mostly wet and muddy, which is a common issue in cold/wet climates. To minimize the wet and muddy conditions and increase play value and safety, it would be ideal to replace the existing grass lawn with a high performance natural grass lawn that has additional layers of drainage below. Often times, it may be tempting to replace these natural grass lawn with artificial turf; however, such action would reduce childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to natural elements, which as more and more research have shown that it is crucial for children to interact and connect with nature as much as possible. The Kitchen Courtyard Garden is one of the most sheltered spaces from the wind. The building overhang and adjacent building offer some shade, and a fence screens it from the parking lot. Currently, it looks more like a storage area and not being used to its full potential. It could be a great spot, especially in the summer, for multiple quiet activities such as reading or drawing outside. To facilitate such activities, the team suggests adding low ledges along the existing vegetable planters for reading as well as gardening purposes. With the added amenity, students can form a gardening group and learn about food growing and establish stewardship for the space and plants. To further enhance this space, adding a row of low (0.5m) evergreen shrubs (that provide seasonal flowers) along the fence would help further distinguish it from the parking lot, add more colors and seasonal changes to the space, and maintain solar and daylight access.
After in-depth analysis, we discovered several things that can be improved if given a more relaxed schedule and budget. For example: the glazing on the northwest façade can increase another 0.5 meter to allow for more daylighting; the clerestory can be re-oriented to the southeast to allow for more solar heat gain in the winter and further improve daylighting availability, while adding a lightshelf to help distribute the daylight and block direct sunlight to prevent glare issues; the team also discovered that allowing the clerestory to be openable would be beneficial and sufficient for natural ventilation during the warm period. These strategies would bring the high indoor temperatures during the warm period into the comfort band and increase the indoor temperature during the cold period by 1-2K. The building would still need some heating during the cold periods, but the heating load would be reduced. The indoor temperatures would only be 2-3K below the comfort band, which can be supplemented by encouraging occupants to wear an extra layer of clothing. By implementing these refurbishment proposals, the Key Stage 2 Classroom Wing would reduce energy consumption by about 50% from artificial lighting (with a doubling of the daylight autonomy) and close to free-running for heating and cooling. This would significantly save operational cost over time and reduce CO2 emissions, while providing students a more adaptive and natural learning environment. Figs. 080 - 081 shows the comparative analysis of these different Cases, which concludes on Case 3 as the proposed refurbishment strategies.
61
Epilogue Varunya Jarunyaroj (Yoon)
Wan Fang Wu (Fong)
The Holy Trinity CE Primary School has evidently been an interesting case study. The building itself was designed to fit the school activities and to archive high performances of sustainability. Unfortunately, the short period of the study only allowed us to focus on the extension wings which is the one of the most important parts. The materials used in this project were obviously chosen carefully. Consequently, the high building performance makes the building very well insulated and the data logger measurement indicated the impact of the outdoor temperature on the indoor condition was considerably low. The building seems to decoupled from the outdoor which make it easier to archive the thermal comfort and would use less energy for heating. The materials were not only high in performance but also environmental friendly and renewable. The outdoor area also, even though limited, but the areas were used at the full potential.
Sustainable environmental design is such an encompassing field where a broad field of knowledge and experience is necessary in order to make educated sustainable decisions while promoting architectural integrity. This term project provided a good glimpse of all that thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s still to learn! With my background in landscape architecture, I was particularly happy to learn how landscape architectural principles and environmental building performance coincide. The ability to analyze environmental performance and user experience with newly gained lenses will enable me to design with clearer objectives and more consciously.
Studying this case study along side lectures and software workshops has equipped me with a completely new notion. The school is an excellent example; however, it was found that the users errors might be the cause for the school to not actually perform as it should do. Hence to educate the user how to use the building correctly is also important.
Throughout this case study project, it was interesting to see the difference between the project design intents and real life situation. It was clear that design needs to allow room for the dynamic influences users have on the environments. Arguably, architects and engineers should anticipate and estimate the degree of impact user behavior would have on a project at the beginning of the design process in order to build the most suitable scenario. Maximal thermal comfort cannot be achieved with the expense of undermining visual comfort, vice versa. While at the same time the look and feel of a space influence usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perception of comfort. The designer must stay patient to juggle this balancing act of achieving architectural aesthetic, visual and thermal comforts, while simultaneously reducing energy consumption. With all this in mind, the Term 2 design project will undoubtedly be more interesting and fruitful.
63
References Publications:
Websites:
REFERENCES
WEBSITE
Baker, N. and Steemers, K. (2000) Energy and environment in architecture: a technical design guide. London: E & FN School.
Architype (2015) Available at: http://www.architype.co.uk (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Display Energy Certificates (2015) Available at: h http://www.richmond.gov.uk/gogreen/gg_home/ gg_what_is_richmond_council_doing/display_energy_certificates.htm (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
CarbonBuzz :: RIBA CIBSE Platform : Oakfield Primary School (2015) Available at: http:// www.carbonbuzz.org/publishedproject.jsp? chartType=1&chartUnits=1&chartPerM2=1&pid=204306&btnSubmit=update (Accessed: 17 December 2015). CarbonBuzz :: RIBA CIBSE Platform : Wilkinson Primary School (2015) Available at: http:// www.carbonbuzz.org/publishedproject.jsp?pid=214814 (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Holy Trinity CE Primary School (2015) Available at: http://www.holytrinityschool.org.uk (Accessed: 17 December 2015). Met Office (2015) Available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk (Accessed: 17 December 2015). Meteotest (2015) Meteonorm (7.0) [Computer program]. Available at: http://meteonorm.com/en/support/changelog (Accessed: 30 Novemeber 2015).
Department for Education and Employment (1999) BUILDING BULLETIN 90 : Lighting Design for Schools Architects and Building Branch.London: Stationary Office.
Natural Cooling (2013) Optivent (2.0) [Computer program]. Available at: http://naturalcooling.co.uk/ membership-login/membership-levels/ (10 December 2015).
Education Funding Agency (2014) Building Bulletin 101 Ventilation of School Buildings. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-bulletin-101-ventilation-for-school-buildings (Accessed: 17 December 2015). Education Funding Agency (2015) Acoustic design of schools: performance standards Building bulletin 93. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/400784/BB93_February_2015.pdf (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Satel-Light (2015) Available at: http://www.satellight.com/indexrG.htm (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Education Funding Agency (2015) Building Bulletin 99: Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects. Available at: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/b/building%20bulletin%2099%20%20briefing%20framework%20for%20primary%20school%20projects.pdf (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Weather Underground (2015) Available at: http://www.wunderground.com (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Lanel, A. (2015) Primary School in Tel Aviv. MArch. Unpublished MArch thesis. Architectural Association School of Architecture.
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorder. (2015) Common Sound. Available at: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/staticresources/health/education/teachers/CommonSounds.pdf (Accessed: 17 December 2015). Pelsmakers S.(2015) The Environmental Design Pocketbook. London.
Dayan, M.B. (2012) Environmentally Resesponsive Primary School Buildings in the UK. MArch. Unpublished MSc Dissertation. Architectural Association School of Architecture.
Race, G.L. (2006) CIBSE Knowledge Series. Vol. KS6, Comfort. Available at: http://app.knovel.com/ web/toc.v/cid:kpccibsek2/viewerType:toc/root_slug:comfort-cibse-knowledge (Accessed: 17 December 2015).
Arboleda, S., DominGuez, J.G., Natanian, J. and Pradeep, S. (2013) 'Evelyn Grace Academy,London. Architectural Association School of Architecture. Unpublished Report. Wu, W.F. (2015) Conversation with Christian Dimbleby & Mariam Kapsali. 19 October.
Warlow, C. and Rolfe, A. (2014) South West London Environment Network Energy Audit: Holy Trinity School 18th Nov 2014. Unpublished. Keller, B. and Rutz, S.(2007) Pinpoint Keyfact + Figures for sustainable buildings. Germany.
Yannas, S.(1994) Solar Energy and Housing Design Volumn 1: Principles, Objectives, Guideline. Architectural Association.
65
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX
66
BLIND DOWN - LIGHT ON BLIND UP - LIGHT ON
BLIND DOWN - LIGHT OFF
FIELD STUDY DATA : INDOOR
APPENDIX FIELD STUDY DATA : INDOOR
67
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX FIELD STUDY DATA : OUTDOOR
68
APPENDIX FIELD STUDY DATA : OUTDOOR
69
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX
FIELD STUDY DATA : OBSERVATION NOTE & INTERVIEW
Observations
Interview Summary // Susie Durrant -- Ecological Coordinator
There are 12 windows (two different sizes) with 12 blinds on the west edge. 3 of the blinds are broken (counting from the hallway, #4 (100% opened), #6 (80% opened), #7 (100% closed). Windows #3, #4, #5 are 40% covered by student artwork and 40% blocked by table and foosball table. Window #9 is 60% blocked by bookshelf.
•
April noted that all the meter readings are recorded automatically, except for PVs surplus energy generation
•
Susie thinks that the kids don't need to wear jackets if they are only going outside to play for the short 15-minute breaks.
•
April confirmed that gas is only used for cooking in the kitchen, and heating in the nursery and caretaker's house. She mentioned that from April to November, the school spent about £4,000 on gas.
•
She confirms that the kids are let out to play outside even when it rains, as long as it is only drizzling.
•
•
In general the blinds are hard to close/open and obstructed by furniture.
•
Susie mentioned that they came up with the "Turn off the lights" activity for the students in attempts to teach them about energy preservation.
•
There are four long, fluorescent lights on the main ceiling. These are controlled by motion sensors, with manual switch unreachable (on the ceiling). The 2 long, fluorescent lights above the pantry are controlled by switches on the wall. manual switch on the wall, lights above the pantry, and 3 artificial lights in-between two skylights near the bathroom area.
•
Susie likes the free flow outside-inside spatial quality of the classrooms. She likes the view to the outside and the natural lights that come. She also likes the creative things that the teacher and the kids do with the different paving patterns at the Play Areas.
•
•
•
70
Interview Summary // April Owens -- Energy Administrator
When the younger kids were having lunch, observed from 12:00-12:30, the noise from the cafeteria gets relatively loud. Students were coming out of different classrooms and chatting while passing through. Two groups of five from the Emerald Classroom were reading at the tables near the windows. The door at the east side was opened. Both Jade and Emerald classrooms doors were opened as well. An incident acoustic measurement of 58-67 dB was taken at around 12:00. This space is very flexible, accommodating circulatory needs as well as dynamic group activities and quiet individual reading.
April pointed out that there are 16 PV panels on the south roof of the main building and 4 PV on the west roof. These were installed at the end of the expansion construction in 2011. They have not been needing any maintenance since installation. The only task is to manually read the meters and send the readings for reimbursement. Last year, the school got about £1,500 back from the surplus energy the PVs generated.
•
April thinks the Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) uses too much electricity. She pointed out that it cost about £3,000 a year to service the system, i.e. replacing filters. She thinks it is too expensive and troublesome.
•
April noted that in an attempt to save energy, the school turned off the GSHP completely from this May to mid September, which has significantly reduced the electricity consumption compared to 2014.
APPENDIX FIELD STUDY DATA : OBSERVATION NOTE & INTERVIEW
Interview Summary
•
According to Paul, it takes about an hour to warm the classroom up in the morning.
Teachers Paul and Mark C. both think that this classroom gets too warm both in hot and cold climates. Even when the windows are opened, there's hardly any drought of air.
•
Paul noted that the air traffic noise is not really a problem indoor, since they probably have gotten used it. However, the said that it does get annoying during PE outside.
•
They reported that the room gets stuff all over the year, hence they need to open the windows for a few minutes every hour.
•
•
Mark noted that the vents near the glazing only let out warm air throughout the year.
•
Paul likes the indoor-outdoor relationship of the classroom. He likes that the students can easily enter the classroom from the north west play area instead of having to go through the school corridor.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paul thinks this Key Stage 2 building is very flexible. The teachers can move in and out to the Shared Teaching Space as well as the Play Area. Coordination amongst the other classrooms is easy and students can have different group activities in these various linked spaces. For example, the teachers like to take the students out to the Play Area for drama group and creatively use the different paving patterns outside to form different games. The classroom setup is also very flexible. Paul adjust the furniture on a daily basis to accommodate different class activities.
The only thing that Paul doesn't like about this classroom is that it gets warm and stuffy and that the lights are temperamental due to motion sensors.
Interview Summary •
They can open the windows but cannot adjust the thermostat; Thermostats are controlled by Grounds Keeper Trevor.
•
The main teacher thinks that the temperature in this classroom is lower than the others. He reported that when the room is at a comfortable temperature, the other rooms are too hot.
•
"It doesn't matter that much to me, but sometimes this classroom is too cold in the morning, so I would ask the caretaker to turn the heat up a bit, but sometimes that can make other classrooms become too hot. So, I usually don't ask the caretaker to turn up the heating that often." -- Alex Auton, 09/11/2015.
•
"In the morning, this room is a little bit cooler than the other classroom, but after all the kids are in the room, then it's okay. And for the summer, I think it's fine. If it gets too hot, we just open the sliding windows and open the door on the opposite side [near the kitchen garden]" -- Alex Auton, 09/11/2015
•
Alex mentioned that the teachers can open the windows and doors in the hot season, which would provide enough ventilation. He also said the windows and blinds are easy to operate.
•
Alex would prefer to have manual override for the thermostat.
•
Alex suggested that they are probably used to the air traffic noise so they are not bothered by it, even when the windows are opened.
•
Alex likes the motion sensor lighting system coupled with the manually switch off.
Observations •
Manual controller for the clerestory blinds.
•
Vents are blocked by furniture
•
(Light broken / why? / because of the shelf?)????
•
(Summer: turning off fans (save bill)????
Observations
In terms of the color and texture of the materials in the classroom, Paul acknowledged that he didn't think much about it, but suggested that it might be nicer to be a little bit more vibrant.
•
Manual controller for the clerestory blinds.
•
Carpet blocking one of the vent
•
Paper and pictures are covering most of the wall space.
Paul reported that the artificial lights are usually on and these are controlled by motion sensors. The teachers can turn the lights on and off using the switch on the wall if they need to show a video or use the projector for lessons. He confirmed that the projector would be left on throughout the day.
•
Some windows are partially covered by posters
•
(Summer: turning off fans (save bill)????
•
•
The lights above the sink area are not controlled by motion sensors.
Alex is happy with the amount of storage spaces. He pointed out that there is more storage above the sink.
•
He mentioned that there is not enough light around the sink area.
•
Space under overhang gets used a lot especially on rainy days.
•
There's a leakage from the roof but they don't know where it is coming from.
Paul thinks the lighting is sufficient, but there's glare problem especially at his desk, while using the laptop, near the window. (We observed that the blind next to his desk is down during most of the day)
•
Paul confirmed that they would only pull all the blinds down for videos. But he does keep the blind at his desk down when he is working on his laptop at his desk.
•
Paul noted when he arrives in the morning, the classroom is generally cold, but he likes it that way. The teachers also would open some of the windows to ventilate the rooms before students arrive.
71
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX DIVA SIMULATION : CORNER ROOM - CLEAR SKY (SOUTH)
MARCH
72
JUNE
DECEMBER
APPENDIX DIVA SIMULATION : CORNER ROOM -OVERCAST (SOUTH)
MARCH
JUNE
DECEMBER
73
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX DIVA SIMULATION : MIDDLE ROOM -CLEAR SKY (SOUTH)
MARCH
74
JUNE
DECEMBER
APPENDIX DIVA SIMULATION : MIDDLE ROOM -OVERCAST (SOUTH)
MARCH
JUNE
75
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX MINT STUDY CHART & TABLE
Chart Title 35.00 C
30.00 C
25.00 C
20.00 C
15.00 C
10.00 C
5.00 C
0.00 C Jan
76
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Ta
Comfort Band Max
Comfort Band Min
Design Intent SH Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Actual SH Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR SH Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR + Solar Gain SH Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Base + 1.5 Ach SH Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Dec
APPENDIX MINSTUDY CHART
Chart Title 40.00 C
35.00 C
30.00 C
25.00 C
20.00 C
15.00 C
10.00 C
5.00 C
0.00 C Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Ta
Comfort Band Max
Comfort Band Min
Design Intent Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Actual Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR + Solar Gain Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Base + 1.5 Ach Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Base + 4 Ach Alex Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Nov
Dec
Nov
Dec
Chart Title 40.00 C
35.00 C
30.00 C
25.00 C
20.00 C
15.00 C
10.00 C
5.00 C
0.00 C Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Ta
Comfort Band Max
Comfort Band Min
Design Intent Paul Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Actual Paul Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR Paul Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
no MVHR + Solar Gain Paul Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
Bse + 4.5 Ach Paul Predicted Mean Indoor Temp
77
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX NATURAL VENTILATION STUDY : OPTIVENT COMPUTATION
OPTIVENT 2.0
OPTIVENT 2.0
A Natural Ventilation Steady-State Calculation Tool for the Early Design Stage of Buildings. Project Data: Project Name: Version: Date: Consultant:
Natural ventilation strategy: Paul Classroom July 2015-12-14 VJ
Location Data:
Latitude (decimal degrees): 52 Month: July Hour: 12 Prevailing mean outdoor temperature (°C): 19.9 Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 3.7 2 Terrain data: N Inlet (surface) Azimuth:
Cross ventilation
Building Data: Cell - Floor area (m²): Cell - Volume (m³): Outdoor temperature (°C): Indoor temperature (°C) To - Ti (°C):
Construction Data:
Cell - Heat Gains:
Glazing:
Number of people: occupant gains (W/m²): Equipment gains (W/m²): Lighting gains (W/m²): Total internal gains (W/m²): Total Solar Gains (W/m²) Cell 1: Total heat generated (kW) Cell 1:
Solar Transmittance Factor (0-1): Shading Proportion (%):
0.6 20
Wall Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K):
0.6 0.2 4.0
Roof Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K)
25.89
Natural ventilation strategy: Alex Teaching Space July 2015-12-14 VJ
Location Data:
Latitude (decimal degrees): 52 Month: July Hour: 12 Prevailing mean outdoor temperature (°C): 19.9 Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 3.7 2 Terrain data: N Inlet (surface) Azimuth:
Apertures Data: 30 45.18 27 10 82.18
Project Data: Project Name: Version: Date: Consultant:
56.44 214.47 19.9 27 7.1
Inlet 1: Outlet 1:
6.1
0.6 0.2 4.0
Buoyancy driven
Buoyancy + Wind driven
Source: Optivent (http://www.naturalcooling.co.uk/optivent-software/)
78
A Natural Ventilation Steady-State Calculation Tool for the Early Design Stage of Buildings.
Effective Area (m²)
Height Zn (m)
4.75 2.8
1.3 2
Airflow Rate (m³/s) B B+W 1.36 4.84 1.36 4.84
Cross ventilation
Building Data: Cell - Floor area (m²): Cell - Volume (m³): Outdoor temperature (°C): Indoor temperature (°C) To - Ti (°C):
Construction Data:
Cell - Heat Gains:
Glazing:
Number of people: occupant gains (W/m²): Equipment gains (W/m²): Lighting gains (W/m²): Total internal gains (W/m²): Total Solar Gains (W/m²) Cell 1: Total heat generated (kW) Cell 1:
Solar Transmittance Factor (0-1): Shading Proportion (%):
0.6 20
Wall Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K):
0.6 0.2 4.0
Roof Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K)
56.44 214.47 19.9 27 7.1
Apertures Data: 30 45.18 27 10 82.18 35.47
Inlet 1: Outlet 1:
6.64
0.6 0.2 4.0
Buoyancy driven
Buoyancy + Wind driven
Source: Optivent (http://www.naturalcooling.co.uk/optivent-software/)
Effective Area (m²)
Height Zn (m)
4.75 2.26
1.3 2
Airflow Rate (m³/s) B B+W 1.15 4.09 1.15 4.09
APPENDIX NATURAL VENTILATION STUDY : OPTIVENT COMPUTATION
OPTIVENT 2.0
A Natural Ventilation Steady-State Calculation Tool for the Early Design Stage of Buildings. Project Data:
Natural ventilation strategy:
Project Name: Shared Teaching Space Version: July Date: 2015-12-14 Consultant: VJ
Single sided ventilation
Location Data:
Latitude (decimal degrees): 52 Month: July Hour: 12 Prevailing mean outdoor temperature (°C): 19.9 Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 3.7 2 Terrain data: N Inlet (surface) Azimuth:
Building Data: Cell - Floor area (m²): Cell - Volume (m³): Outdoor temperature (°C): Indoor temperature (°C) To - Ti (°C):
Construction Data:
Cell - Heat Gains:
Glazing:
Number of people: occupant gains (W/m²): Equipment gains (W/m²): Lighting gains (W/m²): Total internal gains (W/m²): Total Solar Gains (W/m²) Cell 1: Total heat generated (kW) Cell 1:
Solar Transmittance Factor (0-1): Shading Proportion (%):
0.6 20
Wall Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K):
0.6 0.2 4.0
Roof Surface Absorptance (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K): Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K)
84.64 321.63 19.9 27 7.1
Apertures Data: 15 15.06 27 10 52.06 24.93
Inlet 1: Outlet 1:
Effective Area (m²)
Height Zn (m)
11.75 8.23
1.3 2
Airflow Rate (m³/s) B B+W 1.56 3.51 1.56 3.51
6.52
0.6 0.2 4.0
Buoyancy driven
Buoyancy + Wind driven
Source: Optivent (http://www.naturalcooling.co.uk/optivent-software/)
79
-5.000 C
80 09/11/2015 13:00 09/11/2015 17:00 09/11/2015 21:00 10/11/2015 01:00 10/11/2015 05:00 10/11/2015 09:00 10/11/2015 13:00 10/11/2015 17:00 10/11/2015 21:00 11/11/2015 01:00 11/11/2015 05:00 11/11/2015 09:00 11/11/2015 13:00 11/11/2015 17:00 11/11/2015 21:00 12/11/2015 01:00 12/11/2015 05:00 12/11/2015 09:00 12/11/2015 13:00 12/11/2015 17:00 12/11/2015 21:00 13/11/2015 01:00 13/11/2015 05:00 13/11/2015 09:00 13/11/2015 13:00 13/11/2015 17:00 13/11/2015 21:00 14/11/2015 01:00 14/11/2015 05:00 14/11/2015 09:00 14/11/2015 13:00 14/11/2015 17:00 14/11/2015 21:00 15/11/2015 01:00 15/11/2015 05:00 15/11/2015 09:00 15/11/2015 13:00 15/11/2015 17:00 15/11/2015 21:00 16/11/2015 01:00 16/11/2015 05:00 16/11/2015 09:00 16/11/2015 13:00 16/11/2015 17:00 16/11/2015 21:00 17/11/2015 01:00 17/11/2015 05:00 17/11/2015 09:00 17/11/2015 13:00 17/11/2015 17:00 17/11/2015 21:00 18/11/2015 01:00 18/11/2015 05:00 18/11/2015 09:00 18/11/2015 13:00 18/11/2015 17:00 18/11/2015 21:00 19/11/2015 01:00 19/11/2015 05:00 19/11/2015 09:00 19/11/2015 13:00 19/11/2015 17:00 19/11/2015 21:00 20/11/2015 01:00 20/11/2015 05:00 20/11/2015 09:00 20/11/2015 13:00 20/11/2015 17:00 20/11/2015 21:00 21/11/2015 01:00 21/11/2015 05:00 21/11/2015 09:00 21/11/2015 13:00 21/11/2015 17:00 21/11/2015 21:00 22/11/2015 01:00 22/11/2015 05:00 22/11/2015 09:00 22/11/2015 13:00 22/11/2015 17:00 22/11/2015 21:00 23/11/2015 01:00 23/11/2015 05:00 23/11/2015 09:00 23/11/2015 13:00 23/11/2015 17:00 23/11/2015 21:00 24/11/2015 01:00 24/11/2015 05:00 24/11/2015 09:00 24/11/2015 13:00 24/11/2015 17:00 24/11/2015 21:00 25/11/2015 01:00 25/11/2015 05:00 25/11/2015 09:00 25/11/2015 13:00 25/11/2015 17:00 25/11/2015 21:00 26/11/2015 01:00 26/11/2015 05:00 26/11/2015 09:00 26/11/2015 13:00 26/11/2015 17:00 26/11/2015 21:00 27/11/2015 01:00 27/11/2015 05:00 27/11/2015 09:00
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX
OPEN STUDIO MODEL CALIBRATION
25.000 C
Corner Classroom OpenStudio Model Calibration
20.000 C 15.000 C
10.000 C 5.000 C
0.000 C
5.000 C
Global Radiation
Comfortband Outdoor Temperature
1000
900 800
700 600 500
400
300 200 100
0 1000
20.000 C 900 800
15.000 C 700 600
10.000 C 500
400
5.000 C 300
0.000 C 200 100
Middle Classroom OpenStudio Model Calibration
Corner Classroom Simulation Middle Classroom Simulation
Corner Classroom Data Logger Middle Classroom Data Logger
0
01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00 01:00:00 13:00:00
-10
01/01 01/04 01/08 01/11 01/15 01/18 01/22 01/25 01/29 02/01 02/05 02/08 02/12 02/15 02/19 02/22 02/26 03/01 03/05 03/08 03/12 03/15 03/19 03/22 03/26 03/29 04/02 04/05 04/09 04/12 04/16 04/19 04/23 04/26 04/30 05/03 05/07 05/10 05/14 05/17 05/21 05/24 05/28 05/31 06/04 06/07 06/11 06/14 06/18 06/21 06/25 06/28 07/02 07/05 07/09 07/12 07/16 07/19 07/23 07/26 07/30 08/02 08/06 08/09 08/13 08/16 08/20 08/23 08/27 08/30 09/03 09/06 09/10 09/13 09/17 09/20 09/24 09/27 10/01 10/04 10/08 10/11 10/15 10/18 10/22 10/25 10/29 11/01 11/05 11/08 11/12 11/15 11/19 11/22 11/26 11/29 12/03 12/06 12/10 12/13 12/17 12/20 12/24 12/27
APPENDIX
OPEN STUDIO MODEL SIMULATION : PROPOSED CASE
Proposed Case Simulation
40 1.2
35
30 1
25 0.8
20
15 0.6
10
5 0.4
0 0.2
-5
Comfort Band Corner Classroom Simulation
0
Outdoor Temperature
81
HOLY TRINITY CE PRIMARY & NURSERY SCHOOL
APPENDIX ACOUSTIC STUDY : OUTDOOR
1.
Outdoor Noise Measurement
70 dB 70 dB
2.
90.0
Hearing Damage (@8.hrs)
80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0
Comfortable hearing level
40.0 30.0 MUGA
Courtyard
Chart XX : Field Study : Holy Trinity School Outdoor Noise measurement 3.
35 dB
74 dB 4.
70 dB
33.8 dB
3.
4. 36 dB
2.
55 dB
82
1.
According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s common sound chart(2015) indicates that the sound level at 70 db although might cause annoyance but is not harmful. Hence, There is no further suggestion to improve the outdoor acoustic performance.
APPENDIX ACOUSTIC STUDY : INDOOR
The information gained from field study indicate that, according to the building bulletin 93, the background noise level at Holy Trity C of E primary school are generally above the benchmark. However, according to the NIDCDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commonsound chart the indoor noise level is still in the range of comfortable hearing level.
of the occupants had become familiar with the airplane noise and did not find it 72 dB, the indoor noise level was 54 dB. Additionally, it was found that between the junior levelâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s lunch break, the door that connect the two spaces were left open. The noise from the school cafeteria was detectable from the classroom area. Between this event, the noise level went up to 67 dB. In conclusion, although the indoor background noise level at Holy Trinity C of E Primary school is not considered harmful, it is still higher than recommended level and should be improved. Considering, the school has already installed wall acoustic insulation, Installing acoustic absorption materials where the noise level is high could be a worthwhile solution. times could be one easy way to resolve the issue.
Door open
Field Work Data 9 Nov 2015 12.00 58dB N o occupant 12.15 6 7dB 10 people/conversation noise from cafeteria
Table XX : Building Bullentin 93 : noise activity and sensitivity levels and upper limits for indoor ambient noise level (page 19)
27 Nov 2015 7.50
54dB F light/No Occupants ( 72dB outdoor) 8.00 48dB N o Ocupants 8.30 5 0dB 3 Occupants
Indoor 90.0
Hearing Damage (@8.hrs)
80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0
Comfortable hearing level
40.0 30.0 9 Nov 2015
27 Nov 2015
Building Bulletin Benchmark
Table XX : NIDCD Common sound chart (http://www.nidcd.nih.gov) 83