PHYSICS BUILDING The Physics Building is part of Syracuse University. It is located on the main quad next to Steele Hall and Hendricks Chapel. Designed by King & King Architects of Syracuse, NY, It has four stories above ground and two stories below. The the first floor contains a 307-seat Stolkin Auditorium. Construction began in 1965 and was completed in 1967, with a total cost of $4 million. The building materials include red brick, concrete, and limestone, The main program components include an auditorium, classrooms, laboratories, and teachers offices.
LOCATION:
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, USA ARCHITECT: KING & KING ARCHITECTS LLP CONSTRUCTION: 1965 - 1967 PROJECT 1 | PROFESSOR DAVID SHANKS PROTIK CHOUDHURI, ANDREA HOE, WINNIE TAM
SUBMITTAL 1
YEARLY SUN PATH ON SITE PLAN
YEARLY SHADOW STUDY ON SITE PLAN
Mar 21 9am
Mar 21 12pm
Mar 21 3pm
Jun 21 9am
Jun 21 12pm
Jun 21 3pm
Sep 21 9am
Sep 21 12pm
Sep 21 3pm
Dec 21 9am
Dec 21 12pm
Dec 21 3pm
YEARLY SUN PATH ON SITE AXON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A
B C D
E F
G
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: GROUND PLAN
SCALE: 1/20” = 1’-0”
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: TYPICAL UPPER FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/20” = 1’-0”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NORTH ELEVATION
1
SOUTH ELEVATION
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/20” = 1’-0”
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
E
D
C
B
A
EAST ELEVATION
G
F
WEST ELEVATION BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
B C D
E F
G
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: TYPICAL FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
Typical Ornamented Strcutural Column
Reinforced Concrete
Typical Interior Structural Framing
Reinforced Concrete
Second Floor First Floor Ground Level Basement Level Sub-basement Level
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: STRUCTURAL AXONOMETRIC
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
ATTIC
THIRD FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
GROUND FLOOR
PARTIAL ELEVATION
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL AXON
SCALE: N.T.S.
THIRD FLOOR
CLEAR GLAZING
INTERIOR WALL
TYPICAL CEILING
SOFT INSULATION
CONCRETE COLUMN
CONCRETE COLUMN
SHEATHING AIR SPACE
INTERIOR WALL RIGID INSULATION RUBBER BASE FLOOR
CLEAR GLAZING
EXTERIOR BRICK WALL
CLEAR GLAZING
CONCRETE SLAB
SECOND FLOOR
PARTIAL SECTION
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
BRICK
4.16
11.72
10.90
BRICK 11.64
CONCRETE
GLASS
4.97
11.64
CONCRETE
GLASS
5.00
10.00
20.00 23.50
23.50
41.14 / 273.48 = 0.1504
109.39 / 273.48 = 0.4
WINDOW WALL RATIO : 15%
WINDOW WALL RATIO : 40%
WINDOW TO WALL RATIO
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Annual sDA graph
50%
100%
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Annual ASE graph
250 Hours
>
0
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Annual Lux graph
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
0 EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Point-in-Time Illuminance analysis
500 Lux
1000 Lux
Cold Hours (Outdoor Temp < 15 C)
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
Warm Hours (Outdoor Temp > 25 C)
0 kWh/m^2
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Seasonal Solar Irradiation analysis
EXISTING BUILDING SOLAR PERFORMANCE I. Annual Blinds Open/Closed Graph
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual sDA graph
50%
100%
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual ASE graph
250 Hours
>
0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual Lux graph
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
0 ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Point-in-Time Illuminance analysis
500 Lux
1000 Lux
Cold Hours (Outdoor Temp < 15 C)
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
Warm Hours (Outdoor Temp > 25 C)
0 kWh/m^2
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Seasonal Solar Irradiation analysis
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual Blinds Open/Closed Graph
OBSERVATIONS The building’s straightforward orientation quickly allows us to understand the issues of daylighting Physics Building’s south facade receives extreme direct sunlight, and suffers from extreme solar irradiation throughout the year. The north facade receives mostly diffused indirect light. The central area completely relies on artificial lighting and has little to no natural light. The ceiling heights in the offices are hallways are dropped quite low, making the sunlight reach less deep into the building, stopping mostly at the interior walls of the offices and also making the space feel cramped. CONCLUSION From the data, we can infer that the center portion of rooms and the surrounding corridor of the building is ill-lit during all months and times. Although having artificial lighting is important in labs and classrooms, the lack of natural illuminance at these spaces create nearly uninhabitable conditions for study. The corridor and office suites next to the south glass facade are over lit during all months and times. The extreme solar irradiation in the south facade makes the office spaces extremely difficult to work in for long periods of time, considering how the space is in-extended use by teachers. The east façade suffers from too much sunlight in the mornings around 9am while the west side suffers from too much sunlight in the evening hours, around 3pm. The illuminance levels at these times are excessive and are unsuitable for offices. GOAL Our goal is for the building’s interior to be more naturally lit without compromising privacy. We will begin by experimenting with adding light shelves and larger windows (as tested with ASHRAE 90.1 Baseline model), which will allow the sunlight to reflect and bounce further into the interior. We will also reconfigure the materials of the interior walls with more translucent materials (particularly the offices and classrooms), which will allow light from the offices to penetrate into the classrooms. The extreme solar irradiation in the south facade means that we have to include a system of solar shading that is flexible enough to be incorporated onto all four facades. This shading device will protect against direct sunlight and will act as reflectors that bring light into the hollow ceiling to the hallway. These components will make spaces across the building better inhabited and more comfortable.
SUBMITTAL 2
REFLECTIVE PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING
TO ALLOW LIGHT TO REFLECT INTO THE HALLWAY
LIGHT SHELF
TO BRING LIGHT DEEPER INTO THE SPACE
GLASS CLERESTORY WALL CLERESTORY
TO CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT IN THE SPACE
PARTIAL ELEVATION PROPOSED FACADE SYSTEM: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL AXON
THIRD FLOOR HALLWAY
REFLECTIVE CEILING GLASS CLERESTORY REFLECTIVE PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING WALL CLERESTORY
REFLECTIVE PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING INTERIOR WALL
LIGHT SHELF
SOFT INSULATION SHEATHING
TRANSLUSCENT OFFICE WALL
CONCRETE COLUMN
TRANSPARENT CLASSROOM WALL INTERIOR WALL
AIR SPACE
HALLWAY
RIGID INSULATION RUBBER BASE FLOOR
EXTERIOR BRICK WALL
CONCRETE SLAB
LIGHT SHELF
SECOND FLOOR
CLERESTORY GLASS CLERESTORY WALL
PARTIAL SECTION
PROPOSED FACADE SYSTEM: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS A.
A.
B.
B.
C.
C.
D.
D.
MINIMUN CONDITION
TYPICAL CONDITION
SMALLER SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
NOT USED
NOT USED
USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
USED ON NORTH FACADE
MOST AMOUNT OF GLASS AND SHADING
LEAST AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND LEAST AMOUNT OF SHADING
MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING
MINIMUM PROTECTION OF LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL
MAXIMUM CONDITION
INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND DECREASED OFFICE
PROPOSED FACADE SYSTEM: PARAMETRIC SCOPE
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL
E.
E.
EXTENDED SHELF, PRONOUNCED CURVED ROOF USED ON SOUTH FACADE MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE WEST BAY
SOUTH BAY
NORTH BAY
EAST BAY
EXISTING WINDOWS
OFFICES
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL LOUNGE SPACE
PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL
HALLWAY
CLASSROOMS CLASSROOMS PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL HALLWAY PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
KEY EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA TEST BAYS I. BAY SELECTION
OFFICES
EXISTING WINDOWS
CLASSROOMS
EXISTING WINDOWS
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
EXISTING WINDOWS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS In TEST BAYS LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS In TEST BAYS I. LEED v4.1 Option 1 Summary
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual sDA graph
50%
100%
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual ASE graph
250 Hours
>
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
0
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Annual Lux graph
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
0 ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Point-in-Time Illuminance analysis
500 Lux
1000 Lux
Cold Hours (Outdoor Temp < 15 C)
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
Warm Hours (Outdoor Temp > 25 C)
40 kWh/m^2
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
0 kWh/m^2
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Seasonal Solar Irradiation analysis
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE SOLAR ANALYSIS I. Average Annual Blinds Open/Closed Graph
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE WEST BAY
SOUTH BAY
NORTH BAY
EAST BAY
EXISTING WINDOWS
OFFICES
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL LOUNGE SPACE
PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL
HALLWAY
CLASSROOMS CLASSROOMS PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL HALLWAY PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
KEY EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA TEST BAYS I. BAY SELECTION
OFFICES
EXISTING WINDOWS
CLASSROOMS
EXISTING WINDOWS
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
EXISTING WINDOWS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
South DL SUMMARY
0 credits
10.0%
SOUTH FACADE
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
PARAMETRIC ROOF SHAPE E. E.
E. E.
50%
sDA 100%
KEY
DAYLIGHT AUTONOMY
EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA
2.0% ASE
SOUTH BAY 197 avg lux
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
250 Hours >
93.8% blinds open
ANNUAL SOLAR EXPOSURE
CLASSROOMS
OF
EXTENDED SHELF, PRONOUNCED CURVED ROOF EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF USED ON SOUTH FACADE
PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL HALLWAY PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
USED ON SOUTH FACADE
AND
OWS L
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE INCREASES IN THETHE HALLS AND TOLIGHTING OFFICES NEAR WINDOW OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. South Facade Bay
OFFICES 0
500 Lux
1000 Lux
EXISTING WINDOWS MEAN ILLUMINATION
ANNUAL BLINDS OPEN/CLOSED
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
SOLAR IRRADIATION : WARM HOURS
DECEMBER 21 9AM
Daylight Autonomy (300 lux) 12PM
0
50%
3PM
South DL · LEED v4.1 Daylight Option 1 · 1
SOLAR IRRADIATION : COLD HOURS
POINT IN TIME ILLUMINANCE 0
500 Lux
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. South Facade Bay Cont.
1000 Lux
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
North DL SUMMARY NORTH FACADE
0 credits
27.1%
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
D ROOF OPTIONS B.
PARAMETRIC ROOF SHAPE D. C. D.
E.
50%
KEY
DAYLIGHT AUTONOMY
EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA
E.
D.
sDA 100%
0.0% ASE
E.
E.
NORTH BAY 255 EXISTING WINDOWS
avg lux
OFFICES
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
250 Hours >
100.0% blinds open
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL
SMALLER SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
F, DEEP CURVED ROOF
ANNUAL SOLAR EXPOSURE
HALLWAY
CLASSROOMS EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
USED ON NORTH FACADE
USED ON SOUTH FACADE
NORTH FACADE USED ON SOUTH FACADE D IN MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND AND MOST SHADING MEDIUM SHADING LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN UM SHADING AND MOST SHADING OWS INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND LL OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS LIGHTING TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW AND INCREASES INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL IN THE HALLS AND ME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE ES LIGHT IN THE HALL TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. North Facade Bay
0
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MEAN ILLUMINATION
ANNUAL BLINDS OPEN/CLOSED
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
SOLAR IRRADIATION : WARM HOURS
DECEMBER 21 9AM
Daylight Autonomy (300 lux) 12PM
0
50%
3PM
North DL · LEED v4.1 Daylight Option 1 · 1
SOLAR IRRADIATION : COLD HOURS
POINT IN TIME ILLUMINANCE 0
500 Lux
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. North Facade Bay Cont.
1000 Lux
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
G
D
A.
B.
B.
D.
C.
EAST FACADE
C.
East DL SUMMARY
E.
D.
E.
0 credits
15.9 %
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
PARAMETRIC A. ROOF SHAPE D.
C.
KEY C.
B.
D.
EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA
E.
D.
50%
sDA 100%
E.
DAYLIGHT AUTONOMY 1.0 % ASE
D.
C.
E.
E.
178 MINIMUN CONDITION
TYPICAL CONDITION
SMALLER SHELF, DEEP CURVED ROOF
EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
NOT USED
USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
USED ON NORTH FACADE
USED ON SOUTH FACADE
LEAST AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND LEAST AMOUNT OF SHADING
MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND 0 MEDIUM SHADING
avg lux
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 250 Hours
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN > AND MOST SHADING
94.7 % blinds open
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL
MINIMUM PROTECTION OF LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL
INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND ANNUAL OFFICE WHILESOLAR PROVIDINGEXPOSURE MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
EAST BAY TYPICAL CONDITION USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
USED ON NORTH FACADE MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL
CLASSROOMS
EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF
USED ON NORTH FACADE
USED ON SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING WINDOWS
SMALLER SHELF, DEEP CURVED ROOF
SMALLER SHELF, DEEP CURVED ROOF
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
ND
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS INCREASES AND LIGHTING IN THELIGHT HALLSINAND INCREASES THE HALL OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. East Facade Bay
EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF USED ON SOUTH FACADE MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING INCREASES LIGHTING IN 0THE HALLS AND 500 Lux OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
1000 Lux
MEAN ILLUMINATION
ANNUAL BLINDS OPEN/CLOSED
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
SOLAR IRRADIATION : WARM HOURS
DECEMBER 21 9AM
12PM
Daylight Autonomy (300 lux)
0
50%
3PM
East DL · LEED v4.1 Daylight Option 1 · 1
SOLAR IRRADIATION : COLD HOURS
POINT IN TIME ILLUMINANCE 0
500 Lux
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. East Facade Bay Cont.
1000 Lux
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
West DL SUMMARY
0
WEST FACADE
credits
37.3%
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
PARAMETRIC A. ROOF SHAPE D.
C.
C. KEY
B.
D.
EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA
E.
D.
C. D.
50%
sDA 100%
E.
DAYLIGHT AUTONOMY 1.5% ASE
E.
E.
WEST BAY 353 avg lux
EXISTING WINDOWS
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
250 Hours >
93.4% blinds open
ANNUAL SOLAR EXPOSURE LOUNGE SPACE
TYPICAL CONDITION SMALLER SHELF, DEEP CURVED ROOF
USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
USED ON NORTH FACADE MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL
SMALLER SHELF, DEEP CURVED ROOF EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF USED ON NORTH FACADE
EXTENDED SHELF, SOFT CURVED ROOF USED ON SOUTH FACADE
USED ON SOUTH FACADE MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. West Facade Bay
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE 0 HALLS AND OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MEAN ILLUMINATION
ANNUAL BLINDS OPEN/CLOSED
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
SOLAR IRRADIATION : WARM HOURS
DECEMBER 21 9AM
Daylight Autonomy (300 lux) 12PM
0
50%
3PM
West DL · LEED v4.1 Daylight Option 1 · 1
SOLAR IRRADIATION : COLD HOURS
POINT IN TIME ILLUMINANCE 0
500 Lux
PROPOSED SOLAR PERFORMACE ANALYSIS I. West Facade Bay Cont.
1000 Lux
0 kWh/m^2
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
SUBMITTAL 3
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE WEST BAY
SOUTH BAY
NORTH BAY
EAST BAY
EXISTING WINDOWS
OFFICES
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL LOUNGE SPACE
PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL
HALLWAY
CLASSROOMS
KEY EXISTING PROPOSED TEST AREA
CLASSROOMS PROPOSED TRANSPARENT WALL HALLWAY PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
OFFICES
Optimization Scope I. BAY SELECTION
EXISTING WINDOWS
CLASSROOMS
EXISTING WINDOWS
PROPOSED TRANLUCENT WALL
EXISTING WINDOWS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS A.
A.
B.
B.
C.
A.
D.
D.
C.
E.
CLERESTORY Glass Height: 0.0’ - 3.5’
B.
E.
CEILING Height Range: 0.0’-3.0’ Pt 5
Pt 4 Pt 3 Pt 2
Pt 1
LIGHT SHELF/SHADE Depth Range: 0.0’ - 4.0’
OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA: Maximize Daylight Autonomy and Minimize Over-Exposure
MAXIMUM CONDITION
MINIMUN CONDITION
NOT USED
NOT USED
MOST AMOUNT OF GLASS AND SHADING
LEAST AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND LEAST AMOUNT OF SHADING
INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND DECREASED OFFICE
MINIMUM PROTECTION OF LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS
Our goal is to to improve lighting conditions in the corridors and classrooms during the day and reduce over-exposure in the offices. This will reduce the overall necessity for artificial lighting during day time and increase the environmental confort the building significantlySHELF, more access CI SHELF, ]I(din CURVED ROOFby provided EXTENDED V CURVED ROOF TYPICAL CONDITION to daylight in parts of the building that otherwise receives none. USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
1. PARAMETRIC CEILING
MAXIMUM CONDITION
A. USED ON NORTH FACADE
A. USED ON B. SOUTH FACADE
MINIM
NOT USED
MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN extruding a MORE AMOUNT OFfrom LIGHT5ALLOWED IN change AND MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND Formed from spline created points that in height. These 5 points AND MEDIUM SHADING MEDIUM SHADING MOST determine the form of the roof, which was optimized in each facade to allow the greatest SHADING
amount of light to penetrate deep into the floorplates without increasing solar over-expoMOST AMOUNT OF GLASS AND SHADING sure directly at the facade.
LEAST AMOUNT
INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS ANDA LEAST OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS 2. LIGHT SHELF/SHADE AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL IN THE HALLS Light Shelves allowed additional lightINCREASES to penetrateLIGHTING into the ceiling “tunnels” andAND reduced DECREASED OFFICE solar over-exposure at the window openings. Additional depth reduced over-exposure and
MINIMUM PRO
increased daylight and illumination in the corridors and classrooms and was optimized based on this principal.
3. CLERESTORY PROPOSED FACADE SYSTEM: PARAMETRIC SCOPE
Optimization Scope 2. Defining Optimization Criteria and Parametric Values
Clerestories are created by exposing the existing dropped ceiling to sunlight. These clerestory allow light to enter the “light tunnels” above the proposed dropped ceiling. The optimization involved determing the ratio of glass to solid in eachMAXIMUM of the facades. CONDITION MINIMUN CONDITION NOT USED
NOT USED
MAXIMUM CO
NOT US
MOST AMOUNT OF GLA
OPTIMIZATION 4. WEST FACADE
Daylight Autonomy
Solar Exposure
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct)
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
50%
100%
0
250 Hours
For the West facade, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window and a 1 ft-long light shelf. As a result, light is able to penetrate successfully into the lounge area, and solar exposure is reduced at the window edges.
OPTIMIZATION 4. WEST FACADE 2
>
OPTIMIZATION 2. NORTH FACADE
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct)
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
50%
100%
0
250 Hours
For the North facade, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and zero annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window with clerestory, and no lightshelf. As a result, not only is light is able to penetrate successfully into the offices, but a significant amount reaches the corridor as well.
OPTIMIZATION 2. NORTH FACADE 2
>
OPTIMIZATION 1. SOUTH FACADE
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct)
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
50%
100%
0
250 Hours
>
For the South facade, we chose the optimized facade that gave one of the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window with clerestory and a 4 ft-long light shelf. As a result, light is able to penetrate successfully into the hallway area and will light up the classroom. Solar exposure is reduced at the offices window edges.
OPTIMIZATION 1. SOUTH FACADE 2
OPTIMIZATION 3. EAST FACADE
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
50%
100%
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct) 0
250 Hours
>
For the East facade, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window with clerestory and has a 1ft-long light shelf. As a result, light is able to successfully reach further into the classroom.
OPTIMIZATION 3. EAST FACADE 2
A.
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
C.
B.
A.
D. A.
C.
D.
PARAMETRIC ROOF SHAPE
B. E.
TYPICAL CONDITION C.
B.
LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND OUNT OF SHADING
ECTION OF LIGHT NEAR INDOWS
C.
D.
E.
MEDIUM AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND ALLOWS MORE LIGHT INTO HALL
D.
A.
B.
C.
E.
C.
D.
D.
USED ON NORTH FACADE
PARAMETRIC ROOF SHAPE E.
EXTENDED SHELF, V CURVED ROOF E.
USED ON SOUTH FACADE
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MEDIUM SHADING
MORE AMOUNT OF LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND MOST SHADING
REDUCES EXTREME LIGHT NEAR WINDOWS AND INCREASES LIGHT IN THE HALL
INCREASES LIGHTING IN THE HALLS AND OFFICE WHILE PROVIDING MORE SHADE TO OFFICES NEAR THE WINDOW
USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
USED ON NORTH FACADE
AND MEDIUM SHADING
MEDIUM SHADING
MINIMUN CONDITION TYPICAL CONDITION Optimization Scope USED ON NORTH FACADE USED ON SOUTH FACADE 2. Summary of Optimization Results USEDOF ONLIGHT EASTALLOWED AND WEST USEDALLOWED IN USED MEDIUM AMOUNT NOT OF LIGHT MORE AMOUNT IN FACADE AND LEAST AMOUNT OFNOT LIGHT ALLOWED IN AND ND SHADING LEAST AMOUNT OF SHADING
E.
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
CI SHELF, ]I(d CURVED ROOF
CI SHELF, ]I(d CURVED ROOF MINIMUN CONDITION TYPICAL CONDITION CI SHELF, ]I(d CURVED ROOF EXTENDED SHELF, V CURVED ROOF TYPICAL CONDITION NOT USED MAXIMUM CONDITION USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
E.
CURVED ROOF OPTIONS
USED ON EAST AND WEST FACADE
OT USED
SOUTH FACADE
D.
PARAMETRIC ROOF SHAPE B.
E.
NORTH FACADE
C.
A.
D.
C.
EAST and WEST FACADES
N CONDITION
ON
B.
EXTENDED SHELF, V CURVED ROOF USED ONSHELF, SOUTH FACADE CI ]I(d CURVED ROOF
NORTH IN FACADE MORE AMOUNT OFUSED LIGHTON ALLOWED AND MOST SHADING
EXTENDED SHELF, V CURVED ROOF USED ON SOUTH FACADE
PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING
TO ALLOW LIGHT TO REFLECT INTO THE HALLWAY
LIGHT SHELF
TO BRING LIGHT DEEPER INTO THE SPACE
GLASS CLESTORY SOLID CLESTORY
TO CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT IN THE SPACE
PARTIAL ELEVATION SOUTH FACADE SYSTEM: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL AXON
THIRD FLOOR HALLWAY
REFLECTIVE CEILING GLASS CLERESTORY REFLECTIVE PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING WALL CLERESTORY
REFLECTIVE PARAMETRIC DROP CEILING INTERIOR WALL
LIGHT SHELF
SOFT INSULATION SHEATHING
TRANSLUSCENT OFFICE WALL
CONCRETE COLUMN
TRANSPARENT CLASSROOM WALL INTERIOR WALL
AIR SPACE
HALLWAY
RIGID INSULATION RUBBER BASE FLOOR
EXTERIOR BRICK WALL
CONCRETE SLAB
LIGHT SHELF
SECOND FLOOR
CLERESTORY GLASS CLERESTORY WALL
PARTIAL SECTION
SOUTH FACADE SYSTEM: TYPICAL BAY
PARTIAL PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NORTH ELEVATION
1
SOUTH ELEVATION
BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/20” = 1’-0”
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
E
D
C
B
A
EAST ELEVATION
G
F
WEST ELEVATION BASIC BUILDING DOCUMENTATION: ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
4.3%
98.1%
96.4%
EXISTING
Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Summary
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION
Autonomous (> 300 Lux) 0
Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Daylight Autonomy
50%
100%
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
Overlit (> 1000 Lux Direct)
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION 0 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Solar Exposure
250 Hours
>
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION 0 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Illuminance
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
EXISTING 0 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Point in Time Illuminance - Existing
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
ASHRAE 90.1 0 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Point in Time Illuminance - ASHRAE 90.1
500 Lux
1000 Lux
MARCH 21 9AM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
12PM
3PM
JUNE 21 9AM
DECEMBER 21 9AM
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION 0 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Point in Time Illuminance - Proposed
500 Lux
1000 Lux
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION 0 kWh/m^2 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Irradiation - Warm Hours
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
EXISTING NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE NORTH FACADE
EAST FACADE
WEST FACADE
SOUTH FACADE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION 0 kWh/m^2 Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Irradiation - Cold Hours
20 kWh/m^2
40 kWh/m^2
98.1%
96.4%
EXISTING
Existing, ASHRAE, and Proposed Comparative Analysis I. Blinds Charts
ASHRAE 90.1 BASELINE
PROPOSED | POST-OPTIMIZATION
Comparative Performance Analysis Summary of improvements from existing facade design
Summary of improvements from ASHRAE 90.1 baseline
SOUTH FACADE The south facade had extreme solar irradiation in the office space and not enough light reached into the hallway or classrooms in the center. For the design of the south, we chose the optimized facade that gave one of the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window with clerestory and a 4 ft-long light shelf. As a result, light is able to penetrate successfully into the hallway area and will light up the classroom. Solar exposure is reduced at the office's window edges.
The simulations completed with the ASHRAE 90.1’s baseline conditions of 40% window to wall ratio revealed significantly increased daylight autonomy relative to our proposed design scheme. However, this model also significantly increased solar exposure at the south, west, and east facades, making the office and lounges spaces inhospitable for long durations. This is reinforced by the average illumination and point in time illumination simulations, which illustrate the extreme lux values on the spaces adjacent to these facades throughout the year. This is particularly pertinent to the office spaces, as such extreme values would make it difficult to work there for long periods of time. In our proposal, daylight autonomy and solar exposure are negotiated to make the office spaces comfortable for long-term use, as illustrated by the point in time illuminance and irradiance diagrams. In addition, the illuminance diagrams reveal that we were able to successfully penetrate light into the corridor and classrooms, which was our main goal.
NORTH FACADE The north facade needed more light into the corridor. For the north facade design, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and zero annual solar exposure. The north facade receives mostly diffused indirect light so our design is a glass window with clerestory, and no light shelf. As a result, not only is light able to penetrate successfully into the offices, but a significant amount reaches the corridor as well. EAST FACADE The east facade suffered from too much sunlight in the mornings around 9am and did not have enough sunlight to reach into the classrooms. For the east facade design, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window with clerestory and with a 1 ft light shelf. As a result, light is able to successfully reach further into the classroom while solar exposure is reduced at the window edge. WEST FACADE The west side suffered from too much sunlight in the evening hours, around 3pm and did not have enough sunlight to reach into the classrooms. For the west facade design, we chose the optimized facade that gave the highest daylight autonomy and the lowest annual solar exposure. Our design is a glass window and a 1 ft-long light shelf. As a result, light is able to penetrate successfully into the lounge area, and solar exposure is reduced at the window edge.
To conclude, our proposal improves the daylighting in the existing building in nearly every situation. While it fails to match the daylight autonomy illustrated by the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline model, it resolves the daylight needs of the building in a more methodical and attentive manner.